Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. INTRODUCTION
Fault type
H2
CO
C2H2
C2H4
HYDRAN relative
sensitivity
(% of concentration)
100
18 3
82
1.5 0.5
TEST CONDITIONS
B. Oil pre-processing
New oil was dried at 85C under vacuum overnight in
laboratory under a verified scheme which ensures all the three
oils have a water content less than 10% relative humidity
(RH). It was then pumped via soft tubing through the bottom
valve to fill the test vessel. The valve on the top of the vessel
remained open during the oil filling and once the above
mentioned volume was filled the valve was then turned off. It
is understood that although dried and residual particles left
with the new oil through manufacturing and transporting
procedures will remain and could affect the breakdown
voltages.
C. Electric test setup
A 220V/40kV 8kVA 50Hz test transformer was used as the
voltage source throughout the experiment. Oil gap
breakdowns were achieved by using a point electrode
connected to the HV source leaving an oil gap distance of
10mm above the grounded plate electrode. An over-current
relay set at 3A limit at the low voltage side of the test
transformer was to control the energy during electric faults,
and it operates within a maximum time of 20ms after the
formation of an arc.
Three breakdowns of the 10mm oil gap were made in each
type of fluid with one minute standing time after each
breakdown. The voltage was manually controlled with a rising
speed of about 1 kV/s. The whole process took about 5
minutes per fluid type. The timing of the HYDRAN 201R
response was taken to be from the last breakdown.
Three different types of dielectric fluid were under
investigation in this paper: a mineral oil Nynas Nytro
10GBN, a synthetic ester - Midel 7131 and a natural ester
Envirotemp FR3. The breakdown voltages for the 10 mm
oil gap varied from 34kV to 43kV, Table II-1, and no
significant difference was found among the breakdown
voltage values of the three types of fluid.
Table II-1
BREAKDOWN VOLTAGES AND THEIR AVERAGES (KV) FOR
MINERAL OIL AND ESTERS
Breakdowns
Mineral oil
(kV)
41.2
MIDEL 7131
(kV)
35.7
FR3
(kV)
33.8
40.4
41.4
35.6
43.0
39.7
37.5
Average
42
39
36
H2
0
2
0
CH4
0
0
0
C2H6
0
0
0
C2H4
0
1
0
C2H2
0
0
0
CO
1
5
2
MIDEL
7131
FR3
SAMPLE
HS
B
P
HS
B
P
HS
B
P
H2
8
24
148
8
3
103
2152
0
139
CH4
2
4
33
9
1
7
105
1
9
C2H6
0
1
7
1
1
2
5
0
1
C2H4
0
8
69
5
1
23
179
2
38
C2H2
0
38
336
15
1
106
723
8
174
CO
4
3
5
18
8
37
533
4
28
Equation B,
Total dissolved combustible gases (ml) (TDCG) = [Bottom oil sample (ppm)*
V4 + Port oil samples (ppm)* (V2+V3+V5)] *1E-6
Table III-5
HYDRAN 201R READINGS (IN PPM) WITH RESPECT TO TIME
Time, t (min)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Table III-3
(A) TOTAL GENERATED COMBUSTIBLE GASES (ML)
H2
Mineral
oil (ml)
0.2
MIDEL
7131 (ml)
0.12
FR3
(ml)
0.9
CH4
0.04
0.012
0.05
C2H6
0.008
0.002
0.003
C2H4
0.08
0.03
0.1
C2H2
0.4
0.13
0.5
CO
0.008
0.052
0.2
TCG
0.74
0.35
1.8
Gas
H2
Mineral oil
(ml)
0.18
MIDEL 7131
(ml)
0.12
FR3
(ml)
0.16
CH4
0.04
0.008
0.01
C2H6
0.008
0.0018
0.001
C2H4
0.08
0.027
0.045
Gas
C2H2
0.4
0.12
0.2
CO
0.007
0.045
0.034
TDCG
0.72
0.33
0.46
FR3
2
15
30
52
70
78
93
110
126
140
152
161
167
176
186
200
215
226
7131
2
2
3
5
10
15
23
30
36
42
47
51
54
57
59
61
63
64
2
2
5
8
15
23
30
37
38
45
61
65
76
90
101
103
108
113
Table III-4
Sample
H2
CH4
C2H6
C2H4
C2H2
CO
148
33
69
336
Mineral oil
PMax
P24
103
52
42
21
9
3
100
32
563
121
4
11
103
23
106
37
MIDEL 7131
PMax
P24
52
29
14
8
3
2
53
23
270
151
56
49
139
38
174
28
PMax
P24
82
0
8
2
2
2
34
9
152
52
25
8
FR3
MIDEL
(The starting time, t=0, is the time immediately after the 3rd breakdown)
Mineral
Table III-6
HYDRAN 201R READINGS IN COMPARISON WITH EXPECTED VALUE
CALCULATED FROM LABORATORY BASED DGA RESULTS
Oil
Mineral
MIDEL
7131
FR3
HYDRAN,
ppm
Expected
Actual
Expected
Actual
Expected
Actual
P Max
P 24
176
15
117
5
158
23
150
236
83
71
98
103
64
69
49
41
5
12
Mineral oil
MIDEL 7131
FR3
Linear (Mineral oil)
Linear (MIDEL 7131)
Linear (FR3)
200
226
membrane port.
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors particularly appreciate the help given from Ian
James, Alan Darwin, Paul Dyer, Russell Martin, James
ONeil, Paul Jarman, Peter Docherty, Dave Walker, John
Noakes and Tony Byrne for providing invaluable expertise
and technical guidance towards the project.
VI. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
ppm
150
113
[3]
100
64
50
0
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
[4]
[5]
minutes
[6]
250
Mineral oil
[7]
MIDEL 7131
200
FR3
[8]
[9]
ppm
150
100
[10]
50
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time (min)
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A comparative study on how DGA and HYDRAN 201R
online monitoring techniques can be used with esters and
mineral oil when subjected to an electric fault has been
presented.
When compared to mineral oil, Envirotemp FR3
generates significantly higher amounts of fault gases but less
readily absorbs these gases into the fluid as dissolved gases.
MIDEL 7131 generates the lowest amount of fault gases.
The response time of HYDRAN 201R to dissolved gases
in mineral oil and esters are the same when a good oil
circulation is provided, although the amount of the reading is
different owing to the relative amounts of gas generated
during the fault.
The HYDRAN 201R reading is in agreement with the
DGA results obtained by oil sampling from HYDRAN 201R