F E A T U R E A R T
Calculation of DGA Limit Values
and Sampling Intervals in Transformers
in Service
Key Words: Transformer, dissolved gas analysis, gas limits, sampling intervals
Introduction
D issolved gas analysis (DGA) is widely used to detect
incipient faults in oil-filled electrical equipment. IEC
Standard 60599–1999 [1] and IEEE Standard C57.104–1991 [2]
provide guidance for the interpretation of DGA results in service.
Several diagnosis methods, such as the Rogers and Duval Triangle
methods [3], are available to identify the type of fault involved
(e.g., arcing, partial discharges, or hot spots), while the level of
gas formation is used to evaluate the severity of the fault.
For that latter purpose, CIGRE [4] and the IEC [1] recommend
the use of 90% typical values of gas concentration and rate of gas
increase. An amendment to the IEC Standard published in 2007
[5] provides the ranges of typical values observed worldwide.
However, individual networks are encouraged to calculate their
own typical values, because these may vary depending on operat-
ing conditions (e.g., vs. load, climate, types of transformers used,
etc.). Above typical values, CIGRE and the IEC recommend that
gas limit values are based on the probability of failure of the
equipment in service.
The IEEE Standard [2] recommends 4 levels of individual
gas concentrations (“Conditions 1-4”) and 3 levels of rates of
increase for the total combustible gases. Recommendations for
oil sampling intervals and operating procedures are given based
on total combustible gas values and rates of increase. The IEEE
Transformer Committee is revising this standard with the inten-
tion of providing the user a methodology to calculate individual
gas concentrations and rates of increase levels for subsets of a
transformer population based on transformer type and operating
conditions.
The present paper proposes methods for calculating these
individual gas limits and sampling intervals, based on the recom-
mendations and observations published by CIGRE and the IEC.
Typical Values
CIGRE and the IEC recommend the use of 90% typical values
as a starting point above which the frequency of sampling for DGA
should be increased and more attention should be given to DGA
September/October 2008 — Vol. 24, No. 5 0883-7554/07/$25/©2008IEEE
I C L E
Michel Duval
IREQ, Varennes, QC, Canada
Methods presented in this paper allow
individual networks or transformer
users to calculate their own specific
DGA gas limits and required
sampling intervals as a function of
gas concentrations and rates of gas
increase in service.
results. 90% typical values are cumulative percentile values, i.e.
90% of DGA values observed in service in a given transformer
population are below the typical values, and 10% are above.
Below 90% typical values, where little or no gas formation
is observed, it is considered that transformers are operating nor-
mally. Actually, there is always a small probability that a fault
may occur without warning but it would be too costly to suspect
all transformers at these relatively low gas levels. Also, below
typical values, DGA results are less accurate and reliable, so it
has been found reasonable to concentrate maintenance efforts on
the 10% of transformer populations with the highest gas levels
and presumably most at risk.
Below typical values, the sampling intervals recommended by
the IEC are those used for regular maintenance of the equipment
(e.g., every year for transmission transformers or every 6 months
for nuclear transformers).
The ranges of typical values (gas concentrations and rates
of gas increase) observed by CIGRE [4] and the IEC [5] are
indicated in Tables 1 and 2. “Communicating OLTC” in Tables
1 and 2 means that in these transformers, some oil and/or gas
communication is possible between the OLTC compartment and
7
 Table 1. 90% Typical Gas Concentration Values Observed by CIGRE and IEC for Power Transformers,
in ppm.
C2H2 H2
All transformers 50–150
No OLTC 2–20
Communicating
60–280
OLTC
the main tank, or between the respective conservators. Values
from a large number of networks worldwide are included in these
tables. They mean, for example, that hydrogen concentrations in
90% of the transformers surveyed were below 150 ppm or 50
ppm depending on the network considered. Values on other indi-
vidual networks may differ. Values in Table 2 should not be used
to re-calculate values in Table 1, because the cumulative curves
used to calculate typical gas concentrations and typical rates of
gas increase are very different (for example, rates of gas increase
may be negative at times).
Relatively large ranges of values are observed in some cases,
reflecting the differences in operating practices and transformer
populations of different networks. It has been shown by CIGRE
[4] that typical values and gas levels in service are:
• lower in younger equipment, suggesting that there are some
weak chemical bonds in new oil and paper which are broken
in the first years of operation and then stabilize. They are
a bit higher in very old equipment.
• higher in shell-type power transformers and shunt reac-
tors than in core-type power transformers, and lower in
instrument transformers, probably because these types
of equipment operate at higher and lower temperatures,
respectively.
• not affected significantly by oil volume, suggesting that
larger faults are formed in larger equipment.
• relatively similar in air-breathing and in sealed or nitrogen-
blanketed equipment.
Because of these differences, typical values should preferably
be calculated by each individual network, on its whole population
of transformers or on more specific segments of it if desired (e.g.,
with or without a communicating OLTC, sealed or air-breathing,
core- or shell-type, GSU or transmission, geographic location or
transformer manufacturer, with fault involving paper or not, etc.).
The only limitation of such a segmentation is the number of DGA
analyses available in each segment, which should be large enough
to be representative (e.g., > 100).
Table 2. 90% Typical Rates of Gas Increase Observed by CIGRE and IEC for Power Transformers, in ppm/year.
C2H2 H2
All transformers 35–132
No OLTC 0–4
Communicating OLTC 21–37
8 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
CH4 C2H4 C2H6 CO CO2
30–130 60–280 20–90 400–600 3800–14000
Calculating Your Own 90% Typical Values
Use your whole DGA data bank to evaluate your entire trans-
former population, or separate from the data bank the analyses
related to the segment of your transformer population that you
want to evaluate (e.g., power transformers without a communicat-
ing OLTC). Transfer all DGA analyses related to the population
chosen into a calculation program sheet (e.g., Excel).
A. Calculation of 90% Typical Gas
Concentration Values
Copy the concentrations of one gas into a separate column and
rank them by increasing order of values. Note the total number of
lines (n) in the calculation program (e.g., Excel) column. Multiply
n by 90% (= 0.9n). The gas concentration corresponding to line
0.9n in the Excel column is the 90% typical concentration for this
gas. Repeat the same procedure for all the other gases.
B. Calculation of 90% Rates of Gas Increase
Time intervals between 2 dates of analysis indicated as YY/
MM/DD in the data bank can be expressed in days with the cal-
culation program (e.g., Excel). Divide these time intervals by 365
to get them in fractions of years. For each individual transformer
and each gas, calculate the difference between 2 successive DGA
analyses, in terms of gas concentrations (in ppm) and time inter-
vals (in fractions of year). The ratio of these 2 terms gives the rate
of gas increase (RGI) in ppm/year. Extend this calculation of RGI
values to all gases, DGA analyses, and transformers.
Copy the RGI values of each gas into a separate calculation
program (e.g., Excel) column and rank them by increasing order of
values. Note: using this method, the first analysis performed on a
transformer, and the transformers for which only one analysis was
performed, provide values divided by zero which are rejected at
the end of the calculation program (e.g Excel) column and should
CH4 C2H4 C2H6 CO CO2
10–120 32–146 5–90 260–1060 1700–10,000

Figure 1. Probability of having a failure-related event in
service (PFS) in %, vs. the concentration of acetylene in ppm. T
= 90% typical value; P = pre-failure value.
be deleted. Negative values should NOT be deleted.
Note the total number of remaining lines (n) in the Excel col-
umn. Multiply n by 90% (= 0.9n). The value corresponding to line
0.9 n in the Excel column is the 90% typical rate of gas increase
for this gas. Repeat the same procedure for the other gases.
Pre-Failure Values
Calculating the probability of having a failure-related event
in service (PFS), such as fault gas alarm, tripping, failure, fire
or explosion, has been recommended by CIGRE [4] and the
IEC [1] to determine how much at risk a transformer is above
Figure 2. Probability of having a failure-related event in service (PFS) in %, vs. the concentration of all gases in ppm. T = 90%
typical value; P = pre-failure value.
September/October 2008 — Vol. 24, No. 5 9
typical values. For DGA data banks where such information on
failure-related events is available, the PFS for each gas can be
obtained by calculating the number of DGA analyses followed by
a failure-related event, in a given concentration range, then divid-
ing this number by the total number of DGA analyses in the data
bank in the same concentration range [6]. An example of such a
calculation is shown in Figure 1, where the PFS is expressed as a
function of the concentration of acetylene in power transformers
of Hydro Quebec. On the upper horizontal axis are indicated the
corresponding 90% and 99% typical values.
It can be seen that the PFS remains constant at ~10% as con-
centration increases above the 90% typical value (~3 ppm in this
example), until an inflexion point is reached on the curve, which
has been called the pre-failure value (~350 ppm in this example),
above which the PFS increases dramatically.
The PFS vs. gas concentration of the other gases is indicated
in Figure 2, and vs. the rate of gas increase in Figure 3, as well
as the corresponding pre-failure values. Pre-failure concentration
values were found by CIGRE [4] to be surprisingly similar on
different networks, suggesting that failure occurs when a criti-
cal amount of insulation is destroyed. CIGRE pre-failure values
can therefore be used as a reasonable estimate of the levels of
gas formation observed just before failure. They are indicated
in Table 3 for gas concentrations (in ppm) and for rates of gas
increase (in ppm/day).
It may be noted from Figures 2 and 3 that the PFS does not
significantly increase even at the highest concentrations of CO2
 Table 3: Average Pre-Failure Values Observed at CIGRE.

H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 CO CO2

Gas concentrations ppm 725 400 800 900 450 2100 N/R

Rates of gas increase ppm/ day 3 5 5 11 0.5 N/R N/R

N/R = Pre-failure value never reached in service.

and at the highest rates of increase of CO and CO2 observed in
service. This means that the corresponding pre-failure values are
never reached in practice and that very high levels of formation
of these two gases can generally be tolerated in service without
increasing the risks to the equipment. Because CO and CO2 are
related to solid insulation or oil oxidation aging, this could also
mean that insulation aging may contribute much less to failure
events than electrical or thermal faults.
Calculating Your Own Sampling Intervals
for DGA
Typical sampling intervals are those used for regular main-
tenance of the transformers (e.g., every year for transmission
transformers and every 6 months for nuclear transformers in the
US, or your own intervals).
For the purpose of calculations in this paper, the sampling in-
terval corresponding to pre-failure values has been chosen as one
hour. This is the shortest interval that is feasible in service when
using on-line gas monitors, in the event that the equipment has
not been removed from service yet (for instance, in cases where
heavy gassing is occurring without prior warning).
The sampling intervals required between typical and pre-failure
values can easily be calculated as illustrated in Figure 4, using
as an example the average typical concentration values observed
in the US by Weidmann in California (reported in [4]) and GE-
Energy [7], the pre-failure concentration values of Table 3, and a
sampling interval of 1 year for regular maintenance.
Gas concentrations in ppm are indicated on the logarithmic
vertical axis of Figure 4 (pre-failure values P and typical values T
for each gas are indicated on the left and right axis, respectively).
Sampling intervals in hours are indicated on the logarithmic hori-
zontal axis (1 hour for pre-failure values, 1 year or 8760 hours
for typical values, and in-between values expressed in day, week
and month at 24, 168, and 720 hours, respectively).
Concentrations requiring monthly, weekly, and daily sampling
intervals can be obtained from the curves drawn between typical
and pre-failure concentrations values for each gas in Figure 4. For

Figure 3. Probability of having a failure-related event in service (PFS) in %, vs. the rate of increase of all gases in ppm/ year. T =
90% typical value; P = pre-failure value.

10 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine


Figure 4. Determination of sampling intervals as a function
of gas concentration in service for an average US power
transformer.
example for C2H2, typical and pre-failure concentration values
are 2.5 and 450 ppm, and concentrations requiring monthly,
weekly and daily sampling intervals are 11, 29, and 97 ppm,
respectively.
The numerical concentration values for the other gases are
indicated in Table 4. Also indicated in Table 4 are the concentra-
tion values obtained when using a regular sampling interval of 6
months (instead of 1 year) for transformers in nuclear plants.
In Table 4, gas concentrations requiring monthly, weekly and
daily sampling intervals have been called levels 2, 3, 4. They had
been called conditions 2, 3, 4 in the IEEE Standard of 1991 [2],
and caution, warning, and alarm levels in its Draft of revision
D11d-2004 (dropped). The curve and pre-failure value for CO2
in Figure 4 have been extrapolated from the typical value of CO2
and the curve for CO.
The values obtained when using the average typical concentra-
tions observed by CIGRE/ IEC in Table 1 are indicated in Table 5
(the average of actual values observed has been used rather than
the average of the range).
Curves similar to those shown in Figure 4 can be obtained
by using rates of gas increase rather than concentrations on the
vertical axis. The values obtained when using the average rates
of gas increase observed by CIGRE/ IEC in Table 2 are indicated
in Table 6 (the average of actual values observed has been used
rather than the average of the range).
An example of calculation on a segmented transformer popula-
tion of Hydro Quebec is illustrated in Table 7. Only the ~10% of
all DGA results where paper was involved in the fault (as indicated
by CO2/CO ratios <3 [1]) were kept in this example. It appears
that pre-failure and other limit values are lower when paper is
involved, particularly for C2H4 and CO2.
For more precision, values in Tables 4–7 have been calculated
using the following equation, which mathematically represents the
curves shown for each gas in Figure 4 and in similar figures:
log G = –a log t + log b, (1)
where G = the gas concentration or rate of gas increase of a
given gas in service, and t = the corresponding sampling interval
required (expressed in hours).
The values of constants a and b for each gas in equation (1)
can be obtained by using numerical values of G and t correspond-
ing to the transformer population (or segment of population)
considered:
GT = the typical value T for this transformer population
and this gas (typical concentration or typical rate of
increase), and tT = the sampling interval for regular
maintenance (e.g., 1 year or 6 months, expressed in
hours).
GP = the pre-failure value P for this gas (concentration or
rate of gas increase) indicated in Table 3, and tP = 1
hour.

Table 4: Examples of Sampling Intervals and Gas Concentration Limits in ppm Calculated for an Average US Power Transformer.

Sampling intervals

Concentration H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 CO CO2 TDCG Nuclear Transmission

Typical 88 69 65 53 2.5 780 5990 1058 6 months Yearly

Level 2 143 104 117 102 8 983 9829 1546 Monthly

164 116 137 123 11 1048 11274 1717 Monthly

Level 3 214 145 188 175 22 1186 14695 2104 Weekly

237 158 212 201 29 1245 16294 2277 Weekly

Level 4 366 226 355 360 84 1524 25161 3178 Daily

388 237 380 388 97 1566 26661 3322 Daily

Pre-failure 725 400 800 900 450 2100 50000 5380 Hourly Hourly

September/October 2008 — Vol. 24, No. 5 11

 Table 5: Examples of Sampling Intervals and Gas Concentration Limits in ppm Calculated for an Average CIGRE/ IEC Power Transformer.

Sampling intervals

Concentration H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 CO CO2 TDCG Nuclear Transmission

Typical 100 80 170 55 3 500 8900 908 6 months Yearly

Level 2 158 116 244 105 10 699 13314 1375 Monthly

180 129 270 126 13 766 14885 1542 Monthly

Level 3 231 158 327 179 25 917 18466 1926 Weekly

254 170 352 205 32 983 20084 2101 Weekly

Level 4 381 237 484 364 89 1319 28600 3024 Daily

403 248 505 393 102 1372 29980 3175 Daily

Pre-failure 725 400 800 900 450 2100 50000 5380 Hourly Hourly

The gas concentration or rate of gas increase (Gx) in service
requiring a given sampling interval tX (e.g., monthly, weekly, or
daily, expressed in hours), can then be calculated using equation
(1).
The sampling intervals indicated in Tables 4–7 are required if
at least one (not necessarily all) of the corresponding gas concen-
trations or rates of gas increase have been reached.
If the sampling intervals required by gas concentrations and
rates of gas increase are different (e.g., weekly for concentrations
and yearly for rates), an intermediate interval (e.g., monthly) may
be chosen as a compromise. Rates of gas increase are generally
considered as more important than gas concentrations, because
they indicate that the fault is active. However, high backgrounds
of gas concentrations, even if the fault has become inactive, may
indicate permanent damage done to the insulation.
Tables 4–7 may be used by default. However, typical values
and, therefore, gas levels 2, 3, 4 and corresponding sampling
intervals may be different for individual networks; so it is recom-
mended that individual networks and transformer users calculate
their own sampling intervals in service, using the 90% typical
values GT of their own transformer population or segment of
population (as calculated in this paper), their regular sampling
intervals tT, the pre-failure values of Table 3, and equation (1). Free
software is available for that purpose from duvalm@ireq.ca.
Gas levels and sampling intervals thus calculated for a given
transformer population apply to most transformers in this popula-
tion. However, the values may be different for some segments of
the population (e.g., families of transformers of a specific type
or design built by some manufacturers during a period of years).
Engineering judgment should be exercised to detect such excep-
tions, and more specific sampling intervals calculated, if possible,
for those segments of the population.
In Eq. (1), typical values based on a different percentile value
(e.g., 85% or 95% rather than 90%) may be chosen if considered
more appropriate for regular maintenance (depending on the
maintenance budget available and on the strategic importance
of transformers). The 90% value, however, is the most widely
used worldwide. Typical or “normal” values based on statistical
methods other than percentile values may also be used.

Table 6: Examples of Sampling Intervals and Rate of Gas Increase Limits in ppm/year Calculated for an Average CIGRE/ IEC Power Transformer.

Sampling intervals
Gassing
rate H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 CO CO2 TDCG Nuclear Transmission

Typical 83 65 89 47 2 660 5850 946 6 months Yearly

Level 2 151 141 180 132 6 1408 12472 2049 Monthly

179 175 218 176 7 1737 15382 2539 Monthly

Level 3 247 266 319 308 13 2607 23067 3841 Weekly

280 313 369 382 17 3054 27012 4513 Weekly

Level 4 475 620 686 951 42 5940 52492 8896 Daily

509 679 745 1074 47 6491 57351 9738 Daily

Pre-failure 1095 1825 1825 4015 182 17000 150000 26000 Hourly Hourly

12 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

 Table 7: Examples of Sampling Intervals and Gas Concentration Limits in ppm Calculated for Power Transformers where Paper is Involved in the Fault.

Sampling intervals

Concentration H2 CH4 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 CO CO2 TDCG Nuclear Transmission

Typical 70 50 60 40 5 950 3000 1175 6 months Yearly

Level 2 115 69 74 68 12 1003 3208 1432 Monthly

132 75 79 79 15 1018 3268 1513 Monthly

Level 3 173 89 88 105 24 1049 3388 1683 Weekly

193 96 92 118 28 1060 3435 1754 Weekly

Level 4 299 128 111 190 60 1112 3644 2088 Daily

317 132 114 202 67 1120 3673 2137 Daily

Pre-failure 600 200 150 400 200 1200 4000 2750 Hourly Hourly

Conclusions [3] M. Duval, “A review of faults detectable by gas-in-oil analysis in

Methods are presented in this paper allowing individual net-
works or transformer users to calculate their own specific DGA
gas limits and required sampling intervals as a function of gas
concentrations and rates of gas increase in service. This calcula-
tion can be done on the entire transformer population or on more
specific segments of it.
The purpose of this paper is only to provide a tool for calcu-
lating gas levels requiring more frequent sampling intervals for
DGA. The actions to be taken on the equipment at any of these gas
levels and sampling intervals (e.g., removal or not from service,
additional testing, installation of on-line gas monitors) are outside
the scope of this paper. These actions depend on a large number
of other parameters (e.g., experience and maintenance practices
of individual users, strategic importance and type of equipment
used, type and location of the fault, fault active or not).
The actual sampling intervals to be used also remain the deci-
sion of maintenance personnel, based on their best operational
practices.
Acknowledgments
The contribution of B. Noirhomme (IREQ) to the calculations
made in this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Mineral oil-impregnated electrical equipment in service - guide to the
interpretation of dissolved and free gases analysis, IEC Publication
60599 (1999–03), March 1999.
[2] Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed
Transformers, IEEE Std C57.104–1991, Institute for Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, 1991.
transformers,” IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 8–17,
2002.
[4] M. Duval et al., Joint Task Force D1.01/ A2.11 of CIGRE, “Recent
developments in DGA interpretation,” CIGRE Brochure # 296,
2006, available from publications@cigre.org. Summary in Electra,
no. 226, pp. 56–60, June 2006.
[5] Mineral oil-impregnated electrical equipment in service - guide to the
interpretation of dissolved and free gases analysis, IEC Publication
60599-Amendment 1 (2007–04), April 2007.
[6] M. Duval et al., “Dissolved gas analysis: it can save your transformer,”
IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 22–27, 1989.
[7] C. Beauchemin, “Evaluation of proposed gas-in-oil limits of Table
1 and section 7.3 of C57.104 Draft D11d”, presented to the IEEE
Transformer Committee, 2006.
Michel Duval graduated from the
University of Toulouse in 1966 with a
B.Sc. degree in chemical engineering,
and received a Ph.D. degree in polymer
chemistry from the University of Paris in
1970. Since then, he has worked for Hydro
Quebec’s Institute of Research (IREQ)
on electrical insulating oils, dissolved gas
analysis, and lithium polymer batteries. A
Fellow member of IEEE and the Chemical Institute of Canada,
he holds 15 patents; has authored over 70 scientific papers, book
chapters, or international standards; and is very active in several
CIGRE, IEC, and IEEE working groups. He may be reached at
IREQ, 1800 boul. Lionel Boulet, Varennes, J3X 1S1, Canada, or
at duvalm@ireq.ca.

September/October 2008 — Vol. 24, No. 5 13