TF Database Analysis Luiz Cheim and Lan Lin ABB Inc. Luiz Cheim, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IEEE C57.104 Revision (Nov 2011) TF Database Analysis Luiz Cheim and Lan Lin ABB Inc. Luiz Cheim, Lan Lin - IEEE Fall Meeting - Milwaukee 10/23/2012

Building the Database + HQ = 521,700 records

Transformers Age Groups

Transformers Power Ratings

Transformers Voltage Classes

Transformers Oil Preservation Type

Reason for DGA

Percentiles of Hydrocarbons (all data) ppm %

Percentiles of CO,CO2 and TDCG (all data) ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Age Groups ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Voltage Class ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Power Ratings ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Source of Data ppm %

Percentiles of All Gases (Suspicious Units) ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Power Ratings (Suspicious Units) ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Voltage Class (Suspicious Units) ppm %

Percentiles of H2, C2H2 and CO vs. Oil Preservation ppm %

Annual Rate of Gas Formation (ppm/year) Percentiles of All Gases ppm %

After that… 1. HQ Data incorporated 2. Discussed unknown oil preservation system 3. Question of Rate of Gas Formation vs Levels

Montreal Meeting (May 2o12) Revisited Percentiles with Following Condition: O2/ (N2 + O2) < 5% and N2 > 70,000 => N2 Blanket 5 – 15% Membrane/Rubber Bag > 15% Open Breather

Legend (next slides) IEEE Condition 1 Limit Cigre Typical Value (Brochure SCD1.32, 2010) AFMo Arc Furnace, 90th Percentile (mineral oil) AFSi Arc Furnace, 90th Percentile (Silicon oil)

H2 – All Data AFSi Cigre IEEE AFMo

CH4 – All Data IEEE AFSi Cigre AFMo

C2H2 – All Data Cigre AFMo IEEE AFSi

C2H4 – All Data Cigre AFMo IEEE AFSi

C2H6 – All Data IEEE Cigre AFMo AFSi

AFSi = 1936 CO – All Data  Cigre AFMo IEEE

AFSi = 25,387 CO2 – All Data  Cigre AFMo IEEE

TDCG – All Data AFSi = 2,160  Cigre AFMo IEEE

Further Breakdown… Given a type of oil preservation (say, N2 Blanket) What happens to Gas Levels vs Voltage Class, MVA, Age?

H2 , 90th Percentile – Per Voltage Class AFSi Cigre IEEE AFMo

H2 , 90 th Percentile – Per MVA Rating AFSi Cigre IEEE AFMo

H2 , 90 th Percentile – Per Age Group AFSi Cigre IEEE AFMo

C2H6, 90th Percentile – Per Voltage Class Cigre

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rate Subject 1. Should we calculate rates percentiles for all gases? 2. Should we associate rates to levels? How? 3. Cigre recent experience

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Cigre Levels vs Sampling Intervals Cigre SCD1.32 Brochure, December 2010

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Cigre Rates vs Sampling Intervals Cigre SCD1.32 Brochure, December 2010

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Cigre SCD1.32 Brochure December 2010

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Proposal Under Discussion – Level vs Rate Frequency of DGA

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Proposal Under Discussion – Level vs Rate Severity of Fault (?)

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates (IEEE Database)  ppm  t

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates (IEEE Database)

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rate Issues   ppm 115 72   0 . 323 ppm / day  t 133 115 72 133 days

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rate Issues   ppm 115 72   118 ppm / year  t 133 115 72 133 days

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rate Issues  ± 15% Cigre Typical Lab Accuracy   ppm 98 83   41 ppm / year  t 133 133 days

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rate Issues   ppm 68 115    50 ppm / year  t 343 ? 115 72 68 343 days

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rate Issues  ppm  13 . 5 ppm / year  t

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Another Example

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Another Example 27 ppm/year 500 ppm/year

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Inherent Uncertainty in Trend Calculation 1. Multiple Laboratories 2. Lab Variations (repeatability, reproducibility, accuracy) 3. Seasonal variations (temperature, etc) 4. Sampling errors (humans, sample contamination, etc) 5. Type of Transformer (N2, etc…) 6. Sampling interval??

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Distribution of DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Distribution of DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Distribution of DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Gas Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval 38%

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Rates Distribution vs DGA Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis 204 53

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Food for Thought!

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Proposal for Discussion – Level vs Rate Severity of Fault (N2 Blanket, etc) 90 th |  t 95 th |  t … Table conditioned to  t = Sampling Interval

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Rate of Gas Increase vs Sampling Interval???

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Rate of Gas Increase vs Sampling Interval???

Revision C57.104 – TF on Data Analysis Rate of Gas Increase vs Sampling Interval??? Food for Thought…