F E A T U R E A R T I C L E

A Review of Dissolved Gas

Analysis Measurement
and Interpretation Techniques
Key words: dissolved gas analysis, gas chromatography, hydrogen on-line monitoring,
photo-acoustic spectroscopy

Introduction Norazhar Abu Bakar

Dissolved gas analysis (DGA) is used to assess the condition Electrical and Computer Engineering
of power transformers. It uses the concentrations of various gas-
es dissolved in the transformer oil due to decomposition of the
Department, Curtin University,
oil and paper insulation. DGA has gained worldwide acceptance Western Australia; and Faculty
as a method for the detection of incipient faults in transformers. of Electrical Engineering,
Due to the thermal and electrical stresses that the insulation
of operating transformers experience, paper and oil decomposi- Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka,
tion occurs, generating gases that dissolve in the oil and reduce Malaysia
its dielectric strength [1]–[6]. Gases generated through oil de-
composition include hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), acetylene A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam
(C2H2), ethylene (C2H4), and ethane (C2H6). On the other hand, Electrical and Computer Engineering
carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are generated
as a result of paper decomposition [7], [8]. Faults such as over- Department, Curtin University,
heating, partial discharge, and sustained arcing produce a range Western Australia
of gases, the concentrations of which can be used to identify
faults and estimate their severity.
In 1978 IEEE published guidelines for the detection of gases in
oil-immersed transformers, known as ANSI/IEEEC57.104-1978 A review of several techniques for
[9]. It covers instrumentation, sampling procedures, methods for measurement of the concentrations
extracting and analyzing gases, and data interpretation. In 1992
IEEE published further guidelines (IEEE Std C57.104-1991) [8] of dissolved gases in transformer oil,
that deal mainly with interpretation of DGA data. This standard and of several interpretations of dis-
was revised in 2008 (IEEE Std C57.104-2008) [10]. In 1977 solved gas analysis (DGA) data, is
IEC published guidelines for the sampling of gases and oil in
oil-filled electrical equipment and the analysis of free and dis- presented.
solved gases. In 2009 ASTM issued ASTM Standard D3612-02
[2], which deals with analysis of gases dissolved in electrical
insulating oil using gas chromatography (GC). GC. Due to the time and costs involved, DGA using GC is usual-
GC measurements are always conducted in a laboratory en- ly performed only once a year on operating transformers. More
vironment because of the complexity of the equipment required; frequent testing is performed only if significant concentrations
oil samples are collected from operating transformers and trans- of fault gases are detected during routine tests [12].
ported to the laboratory for gas extraction and analysis. Vacuum Various techniques for interpretation of DGA data have been
extraction, stripper extraction, and headspace sampling are cur- developed, e.g., the key gas, Doernenburg ratio, Rogers ratio,
rently used to extract gases from the oil [2]; the shake test can IEC ratio, and Duval triangle methods. Each of these techniques
also be used [11]. After extraction the gases are analyzed using relies on the accumulated knowledge and experience of vari-

May/June — Vol. 30, No. 3 0883-7554/12/$31/©2014/IEEE 39


Figure 1. Extraction of dissolved gases from insulating oil using
the vacuum extraction method [2].
ous experts rather than rigorous quantitative scientific models
[1], [7], and therefore they may yield different diagnoses for the
same oil sample. These interpretation techniques are discussed
below.
On account of the limitations of the GC approach, several
new analytical techniques have been developed, e.g., hydrogen
on-line monitoring [13], [14] and photo-acoustic spectroscopy
(PAS) [12], [15]. Both require less time than GC analysis. These
three techniques are also discussed below.
DGA Methods
GC
GC has been used to analyze gases dissolved in insulating
oil for the last 60 years [16], [17]. It has been used regularly
by the UK Central Electricity Generating Board for monitoring
and routine assessment since 1968. It became more popular after
IEEE, IEC, and ASTM published relevant guidelines. Currently,
GC is accepted as the best of the three DGA techniques for mea-
suring the concentrations of gases dissolved in transformer oil,
Figure 2. Extraction of dissolved gases from insulating oil using the headspace method [2].
40 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
e.g., combustible gases (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane,
ethane, ethylene, and acetylene) and noncombustible gases (car-
bon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen). It can also be used to mea-
sure the concentrations of gases released into the space above
the oil, i.e., into the gas blanket. As stated above, GC analysis is
conducted only in the laboratory environment, following several
standards, e.g., those dealing with extraction of the oil sample
from the operating transformer, transporting it to the laboratory,
and extracting the dissolved gases [2], [9], [18]–[20].
According to ANSI/IEEEC57.104-1978 [9], oil samples can
be stored and transported to the laboratory in calibrated stainless
steel cylinders, flexible metal cans, syringes, or glass bottles.
All the containers must meet stated leak criteria. According to
ASTM D923 [20], amber or clear glass bottles may be used, fit-
ted with glass stoppers or with screw caps incorporating a pulp-
board liner faced with tin or aluminum foil, or a suitable oil-
resistant plastic such as polyethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene,
or a fluoro-elastomer. ASTM D3612 [2] states that gases in the
oil can be separated using vacuum extraction, stripper column
extraction, or headspace sampling methods. Vacuum extraction
(Figure 1) is suitable for extraction of a fraction of each of the
dissolved gases, whereas stripper column extraction will remove
nearly all of each gas. Headspace sampling (Figure 2) will also
extract a fraction of each headspace gas. Another extraction
method, known as the Shake Test, was introduced by Morgan–
Shaffer in 1993 [11]. It can extract dissolved gases quickly, even
in the field.
A basic gas chromatograph setup is shown in Figure 3. The
oil sample is volatilized in the injection port, and its gaseous
components separated in the column [17]. A gas entering the
column may remain in the gaseous state, i.e., continue to travel
with the carrier gas, or dissolve in the liquid on the surface of the
stationary phase, or condense on the stationary phase. In the lat-
ter two cases its progress through the column will be much slow-
er than if it continued to travel with the carrier gas. Argon, he-
lium, nitrogen, and hydrogen are normally used as carrier gases
to transfer the sample from the injector through the columns into
the detector [2], [17], [21]. Some of the gaseous components
that travel with the carrier gas collide and re-enter the stationary
phase, which is a thin film of thermally stable polymer coated
on the inner wall of the column. Simultaneously, the gaseous
 Figure 3. A basic gas chromatograph.
components immobilized in stationary the phase travel with the
carrier gas. This occurs thousands of times for each gaseous
component during its travel along the column. The time taken by
each gaseous component to pass through the column (the reten-
tion time) varies from component to component, and depends on
the temperature of the column and the chemical structure of the
stationary phase. The separation characteristics of the columns
and the detection sensitivity may vary with the carrier gas [21].
There are two main types of column, namely packed and
capillary. Most users prefer capillary columns with a station-
ary phase coated on the inner wall [17]. Capillary columns have
smaller diameters but are longer than packed columns and, there-
fore, have substantially higher separation capacities. Separation
capacity is defined as the number of gaseous components that
can be separated between the carrier gas and the stationary phase
within the column [17]. Smaller diameter and lengthier columns
will slow the travel rates of gaseous components and hence slow
the separation process. It is essential that the temperature of the
column be kept constant, in order to achieve known and constant
separation capacity.
The gaseous components are washed out of the column one
by one, depending on their retention time, and interact with the
heated detectors, generating electrical signals [21]. These sig-
nals are recorded by a data-collection system and plotted against
elapsed time, producing a chromatogram. Gases can be identi-
fied using the retention time, and the concentration of a given
gas is determined by the magnitude of the associated electrical
signal.
Several different types of detector are available, e.g., ther-
mal conductivity, flame ionization, nitrogen–phosphorus, flame
photometry, electron capture, atomic emission, and electrolytic
conductivity [17], [21].
Flame ionization detectors are normally used to detect hy-
drocarbon and carbon oxide gases, due to their high sensitivity,
and thermal conductivity detectors are used to detect permanent
May/June — Vol. 30, No. 3 41
gases such as H2, O2, and N2 [2]. Mass spectrometer detection
using electron ionization techniques is very sensitive and is nor-
mally used for measurements on complex gaseous mixtures.
Molecules such as methyl acetate, 2-methylfuran, phenol,
methyl formate, furan, methanol, ethanol, acetone, isopropyl al-
cohol, and methyl ethyl ketone, present in the oil as solids, can
also be detected [22]–[25].
Hydrogen On-Line Monitoring
The hydrogen on-line monitor [16], [26] is a rugged low-cost
device introduced by Syprotec and further developed by the In-
stitut de Recherche d’Hydro Quebec. It is widely accepted that
a majority of faults in oil-filled electrical equipment lead to the
generation of hydrogen [8]; the hydrogen on-line monitor there-
fore focuses on key gases such as hydrogen and carbon mon-
oxide [14]. In this way early detection of faults, especially hot
spots, partial discharges, and arcing, can be achieved. Ethylene
and acetylene can also be detected but with reduced sensitivity.
A hydrogen on-line monitor consists essentially of a sensor in
contact with the oil, and an electronic unit. The sensor is placed
in a rugged brass housing containing a fuel cell, a temperature
sensor, and a Teflon membrane (Figure 4). The sensor can be
installed on a flange or valve on the transformer pipe work be-
tween the cooling bank and the main tank [16], or on the up-
per part of the transformer [27]. Hydrogen in the oil permeates
through the Teflon membrane, along with atmospheric oxygen,
and is chemically burnt in the electrolyte cell, thus generating a
small current proportional to the hydrogen gas concentration in
the oil. (Simultaneously, water is formed as a result of the reac-
tion between hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen.) The current is
amplified and measured as a voltage drop across the load resistor
R connected between two porous electrodes, the voltage drop
yielding the hydrogen gas concentration in the oil. An alarm is
activated if the hydrogen concentration reaches a predetermined
level.

Figure 4. Schematic of a hydrogen on-line monitor [16].
The detection sensitivity of the monitor depends on the per-
centage of the individual combustible gases passing through the
membrane. The detection percentages are currently 100 for hy-
drogen, about 15 for carbon monoxide, 8 for acetylene, and 1 for
ethylene [16], [27].
Approximately 18,000 hydrogen on-line monitor systems
were in operation globally in 2003 [11]. The hydrogen concen-
tration measurement accuracy is ±10% over the temperature
range 20 to 40°C [27]. The accuracy diminishes if the monitor
temperature varies outside this range, say as a result of variation
of the oil temperature [26]. Although the monitor can detect in-
Figure 6. Schematic of a photo-acoustic spectroscopy–based dissolved-gas-analysis system [29].
42 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
Figure 5. Basic photo-acoustic spectroscopy [30].
cipient faults in a power transformer, it cannot identify the fault
types.
Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy (PAS)
In 1880 Alexander Graham Bell observed that a sound was
emitted when a thin disk was exposed to mechanically chopped
sunlight [28]; this may be the first recorded observation of the
photo-acoustic effect. Subsequently, photo-acoustic spectros-
copy has been used in various applications such as monitoring
of ambient air quality and air pollution from car exhausts. How-
ever, its use to monitor the condition of power transformers is
relatively new [12].
The basic principle is that fault gases absorb infrared light
energy and convert it into kinetic energy in the form of pressure
(sound) waves, which are detected by a microphone [12]. This
microphone converts the pressure waves into electrical signals
[29]. The photo-acoustic spectrum of the fault gases is obtained
by measuring the intensity of the sound waves produced by vari-
ous infrared wavelengths, the latter selected using optical filters.
In this way the concentrations of various fault gases, e.g., H2,
CO, CO2, CH4, C2H4, C2H2, and C2H6, can be obtained [12], [29].
 Figure 7. Characteristic absorption of fault gases [29].

Figure 5 shows the basic operating principle, and Figure 6 shows
some construction details [29].
PAS is a very stable diagnostic tool, suitable for monitoring
the condition of power transformers [12]. However, since each
fault gas absorbs infrared light at a specific wavelength, select-
ing the center wavelength for each gas is a critical process [29].
Figure 7 shows the characteristic absorption of various gases,
and water vapor. The detection sensitivity of the equipment var-
ies from gas to gas, and its detection accuracy is influenced by
the external environment, e.g., temperature and pressure, and by
vibration [31]. The advantages and disadvantages of GC, hydro-
gen on-line monitoring, and PAS are compared in Table 1.
Interpretation of DGA Data
Key Gas Method (KGM)
The generation of fault gases within transformer oil requires
sufficiently high temperatures (energy) to break chemical bonds
in the oil, which then reduces its dielectric insulation strength
[28]. The KGM uses the individual concentrations of the six

Table 1. Comparison of Gas Chromatography (GC), Hydrogen On-Line Monitor, and Photo-Acoustic Spectroscopy (PAS).

Method Advantage Disadvantage

GC • Able to detect and analyze every gas dissolved • Can be used only in the laboratory, due to the complexity
in transformer oil of the equipment

  • Provides highest accuracy and repeatability • Long time required to complete a test on a transformer

  • Results can be used to identify the fault type • Expensive

    • An expert is needed to conduct the test and interpret the data

Hydrogen on-line monitor • Rugged, low-cost, and continuous on-line monitoring • Can detect only H2, CO, C2H2, and C2H4

  • Can detect incipient faults • Best concentration accuracy only within the monitor
temperature range 20–40°C

    • Results cannot be used to identify the fault type

PAS • Continuous on-line monitoring • Results are sensitive to the wave number range of the optical
filters and their absorption characteristics

  • Can detect and measure the concentration of a wide range • Concentration accuracy influenced by the external
of fault gases temperature and pressure, and by vibration

  • Results can be used to identify the fault type • Still undergoing development

May/June — Vol. 30, No. 3 43

 Figure 8. Key gases method chart [16].

fault gases shown in Figure 8. The four common fault condi-
tions are distinguished by the quoted percentage concentrations
of the six gases. These percentages are based on the practical
experience of various experts.
These KGM charts look simple, but they are not widely ac-
cepted as reliable diagnostic tools for power transformers [32].
Studies based on an IEC data bank of inspected transformers
show that only 42% of KGM diagnoses are correct [33].
Doernenburg Ratio Method (DRM)
This method [34], [35] uses the ratio of gas concentrations
to indicate fault types. Predefined limits for the CH4/H2, C2H2/
C2H4, C2H2/CH4, and C2H6/C2H2 ratios are used to interpret the
DGA results (Table 2) [34].
DRM diagnosis cannot be applied unless the concentration of
at least one of the key gases (H2, C2H4, CH4, and C2H2) exceeds
twice the relevant L1 concentration (Table 3) and the concen-
tration of at least one of the two gases appearing in any one of
the four ratios exceeds the relevant L1 concentration [8]. The
proposed fault diagnosis is based on the ranges of the four ratios
shown in Table 2.
Rogers Ratio Method (RRM)
This method is similar to the DRM. However, whereas the
DRM requires significant concentrations of the fault gases, the
RRM can be used provided the concentrations exceed the L1
values in Table 3 [8].
The RRM originally used four concentration ratios, namely
C2H6/CH4, C2H2/C2H4, CH4/H2, and C2H4/C2H6, leading to 12
proposed diagnoses [9]. However, the condition C2H6/CH4 <1
held for 10 of the 12 suggested diagnoses, i.e., the ratio C2H6/
CH4 was of little diagnostic value [32], [35]. This ratio was
therefore omitted in the revised IEEE Standard C57.104-1991
[8], and the original 12 suggested diagnoses were replaced by
six (including the normal state), as shown in Table 4 [34]. How-
ever, inconsistencies have been reported [1], [7], the success rate
for correct fault type identification being 58.9% [7].
IEC Ratio Method (IRM)
This method uses the same three ratios as the revised RRM but
suggests different ratio ranges and interpretations, as shown in
Table 5 [36]. A new gas ratio has been introduced, namely C2H2/
H2 to detect possible contamination from on-load tap-changer
compartments [38]. Another improvement is 3-D graphical rep-
resentation of ratio ranges, which yields more reliable diagno-
ses, and diagnoses of faults associated with ratios outside the
ranges quoted in Table 5 [1].
Duval Triangle Method (DTM)
This method was developed from an existing IEC 60599 Ra-
tio method and IEC TC10 databases [36]. It interprets DGA data

Table 2. Doernenburg Ratio Method Concentration Ratios [34].

CH4/H2 C2H2/C2H4 C2H2/CH4 C2H6/C2H2

Suggested fault diagnosis Oil Gas space Oil Gas space Oil Gas space Oil Gas space

Thermal fault >1 >0.1 <0.75 <1 <0.3 <0.1 >0.4 >0.2

PD <0.1 <0.01 Not significant <0.3 <0.1 >0.4 >0.2

Arcing >0.1 to <1 >0.01 to <0.1 >0.75 >1 >0.3 >0.1 <0.4 <0.2

44 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

 Table 3. Dissolved Gas Concentrations (L1) for the Doernenburg Ratio Table 4. Revised Suggested Rogers Ratio Method Diagnoses.
Method [8].
Suggested fault
Key gas L1 concentrations (ppm) Case C2H2/C2H4 CH4/H2 C2H4/C2H6 diagnosis

Hydrogen (H2) 100 0 <0.1 >0.1 to <1 <1 Normal

Methane (CH4) 120 1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 Low energy

density PD
Carbon monoxide (CO) 350
2 0.1 to 3 0.1 to 1 >3 Arcing
Acetylene (C2H2) 35
3 <0.1 >0.1 to <1 1 to 3 Low temperature
Ethylene (C2H4) 50 thermal fault

Ethane (C2H6) 65 4 <0.1 >1 1 to 3 Thermal fault <700°C

5 <0.1 >1 >3 Thermal fault >700°C

using graphical presentation [39], [40]. It uses the concentra-
tions of CH4, C2H2, and C2H4, which are plotted along three sides
of a triangle [39], as shown in Figure 9. Within the triangle there
are seven fault zones, covering partial discharge, thermal faults
at various temperatures, and electrical arcing. According to [7],
[35], and [37], the DTM provides more accurate and consis-
tent diagnoses than the other ratio methods. However, careless
implementation leads to incorrect diagnoses [40]. Moreover,
since the triangle does not include the fault-free condition, the
method cannot be used to detect incipient faults. Duval [36] pro-
posed other versions of DTM, e.g., DTM 2 for oil-type load tap
changers, DTM 3 for equipment filled with nonmineral oils, and
DTM 4 and DTM 5 as complements of the original DTM for
low-temperature faults in transformers. H2, CH4, and C2H6 are
used in DTM 4 (Figure 10), and C2H4, CH4, and C2H6 in DTM 5
(Figure 11). DTM 4 and DTM 5 are applicable only when PD,
T1, or T2 faults have been identified by the original DTM. The
various DGA interpretation methods discussed above are sum-
marized in Table 6.
Artificial Intelligence and DGA
As stated above, fault diagnosis techniques using fault gas
concentrations or ratios thereof are based on the practical expe-
rience of various experts, rather than on quantitative evidence-
based scientific theory, and may therefore lead to different con-
clusion for the same oil sample methods [41]. Ratio methods
may also fail to diagnose multiple simultaneous fault conditions.
The availability of extensive DGA data has therefore motivat-
ed researchers to develop an alternative approach to DGA data
interpretation, based on artificial intelligence (AI) techniques
[37], [41]–[49]. Fuzzy logic [41], [44], [45] and neural network
[37], [42], [46], [48] techniques have been popular for this pur-

Figure 9. Coordinates and fault zones in the Duval triangle method [39].

May/June — Vol. 30, No. 3 45

 Figure 10. Coordinates and fault zones in the DTM 4 [36].

Figure 11. Coordinates and fault zones in the DTM 5 [36].

46 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

 Table 5. Suggested IEC Ratio Method Diagnoses [37].1 where Di (a number in the range 0–10) is the decision value de-
rived from fuzzy logic models based on the ith method (KGM,
Case Characteristic fault C2H2/C2H4 CH4/H2 C2H4/C2H6 DRM, RRM, IRM, and DTM) and Ai is the accuracy of the ith
PD Partial discharges NS <0.1 <0.2 method obtained from an analysis of 2,000 DGA samples with
preknown faults [41]. If any of the ratio methods involves a ratio
D1 Discharges of >1 0.1–0.5 >1 that is not consistent with the relevant proposed codes, the corre-
low energy
sponding Di is set to zero. D takes a numerical value in the range
D2 High energy discharges 0.6–2.5 0.1–1 >2 0 to 10, where 0 ≤ D < 2 indicates no fault, 2 ≤ D < 4 indicates
overheated cellulose, 4 ≤ D < 6 indicates overheated oil, 6 ≤ D
T1 Thermal faults <300°C NS >1 but NS <1
< 8 indicates corona in the oil, and 8 ≤ D < 10 indicates arcing
T2 Thermal faults >300°C <0.1 >1 1–4 in the oil.
and <700°C As reported in [37], [41], [49], [51], AI approaches provide
T3 Thermal faults >700°C <0.2 >1 >4 more accurate and reliable transformer diagnoses than KGM,
DRM, RRM, IRM, and DTM. However, although a majority of
1
NS = not significant whatever the value. the AI approaches diagnose faults with high accuracy, some of
them fail to distinguish between thermal faults in oil and the
same faults in cellulose, and engineering judgment is then re-
quired [41], [42].
pose, followed by support vector machine [43], [50], [51] and
particle swarm optimization [49] techniques. Abu-Siada et al.
[41] developed an AI model based on a combination of KGM, Conclusion
DRM, RRM, IRM, and DTM (Figure 12). KGM is first applied. Three methods of measuring the concentrations of fault gases
If the key gas concentrations are less than the L1 concentrations dissolved in transformer oil, namely gas chromatography, hy-
quoted in Table 3, the transformer is assumed to be fault free, drogen on-line monitoring, and photo-acoustic spectroscopy, are
and no further analysis is performed. If the key gas concentra- compared and discussed in this article. The high accuracy of gas
tions exceed the L1 concentrations quoted in Table 3, the ratio chromatography is widely acknowledged. However, gas chro-
methods and DTM are applied in order to diagnose the fault matography measurements are expensive and time consuming,
type. The fault type indicator D is calculated as and industry therefore tends to favor hydrogen on-line monitor-
ing and photo-acoustic spectroscopy. Hydrogen on-line moni-
i =5 toring can detect incipient faults but cannot provide detailed
D=
∑ i =1 Ai Di , (1) fault diagnosis. Photo-acoustic spectroscopy provides more ac-
i =5
∑ i =1 Ai curate gas concentration data than hydrogen on-line monitoring,
but its accuracy may be affected by external gas pressure and

Table 6. Comparison Among Key Gas Method (KGM), Doernenburg Ratio Method (DRM), Rogers Ratio Method (RRM), IEC Ratio Method (IRM), and Duval
Triangle Method (DTM).

Type Method Fault types Gases involved

KGM Uses individual gas concentrations, easy to implement, PD, arcing, overheated oil, overheated cellulose CO, CO2 ,H2, CH4, C2H2,
very conservative C2H4, and C2H6

DRM Uses four gas concentration ratios (CH4/H2, C2H2/C2H4, Thermal decomposition, PD, arcing H2, CH4, C2H2, C2H4, and
C2H2/CH4, and C2H6/C2H2) to indicate three fault types, C2H6
uses specified concentration limits to differentiate
between faults

RRM Uses three gas concentration ratios (C2/H2/C2/H4, CH4/H2, and PD, arcing, low temperature of thermal fault, thermal H2, CH4, C2H2, C2H4,
C2H4/C2H6) to indicate five fault types, uses specified <700°C, thermal >700°C and C2H6
concentration limits to differentiate between faults

IRM Similar to RRM but excludes the C2H6/CH4 ratio, indicates PD, low energy discharge, high energy discharge, H2, CH4, C2H2, C2H4,
six fault types, uses specified concentration limits thermal faults <300°C, between 300 and 700°C, and C2H6
to differentiate between faults and greater than 700°C

DTM Uses triangular map to indicate six faults, does not identify a PD, low energy discharge, high energy discharge, CH4, C2H2, and C2H4
normal state thermal faults <300°C, between 300 and 700°C,
and greater than 700°C

May/June — Vol. 30, No. 3 47


Figure 12. Artificial intelligence interpretation method pro-
posed in [41]. DGA = dissolved gas analysis, KGM = key gas
method, DTM = Duval triangle method.
vibration. Several methods are available for the interpretation of
DGA data, the Doernenburg, Rogers, IEC ratio, Duval triangle,
and key gas methods being widely used by utilities. Unfortu-
nately, these methods may yield conflicting diagnoses for the
same oil sample. Several artificial intelligence methods have
been developed in response to this situation. However, in some
cases a certain amount of engineering judgment may be required
to obtain a credible diagnosis.
References
[1] H.-C. Sun, Y.-C. Huang, and C.-M. Huang, “A review of dissolved gas
analysis in power transformers,” Energy Procedia, vol. 14, pp. 1220–
1225, 2012.
[2] Standard Test Method for Analysis of Gases Dissolved in Electrical Insu-
lating Oil by Gas Chromatography, ASTM D3612-02 (Reapproved 2009),
2009.
[3] T. Suwanasri, E. Chaidee, and C. Adsoongnoen, “Failure statistics
and power transformer condition evaluation by dissolved gas analysis
technique,” in International Conference on Condition Monitoring and
Diagnosis, 2008. CMD 2008, 2008, pp. 492–496.
[4] H.-T. Yang and C. C. Liao, “Adaptive fuzzy diagnosis system for dis-
solved gas analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, p. 1342, 1999.
[5] K. Spurgeon, W. H. Tang, Q. H. Wu, Z. J. Richardson, and G. Moss,
“Dissolved gas analysis using evidential reasoning,” in IEE Proceed-
ings—Science, Measurement and Technology, vol. 152, 2005, p. 110.
[6] A. Emsley and G. Stevens, “Kinetics and mechanisms of the low-temper-
ature degradation of cellulose,” Cellulose, vol. 1, pp. 26–56, 1994.
[7] A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam, “A new approach to identify power trans-
former criticality and asset management decision based on dissolved
gas-in-oil analysis,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insulation, vol. 19, pp.
1007–1012, 2012.
[8] IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed
Transformers, IEEE Std C57.104-1991, p. 0_1, 1992.
48 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
[9] IEEE Guide for the Detection and Determination of Generated Gases in
Oil-Immersed Transformers and Their Relation to the Serviceability of
the Equipment, ANSI/IEEE Std C57.104-1978, p. 0_1, 1978.
[10] IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed
Transformers, IEEE Std C57.104-2008 (Revision of IEEE Std C57.104-
1991), pp. C1–27, 2009.
[11] M. Duval, “New techniques for dissolved gas-in-oil analysis,” IEEE
Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 19, pp. 6–15, 2003.
[12] D. Skelly, “Photo-acoustic spectroscopy for dissolved gas analysis:
Benefits and experience,” in 2012 International Conference on Condition
Monitoring and Diagnosis (CMD), 2012, pp. 29–43.
[13] A. de Pablo, W. Ferguson, A. Mudryk, and D. Golovan, “On-line condi-
tion monitoring of power transformers: A case history,” in Electrical
Insulation Conference (EIC), 2011, 2011, pp. 285–288.
[14] G. L. Martin, “The Hydran(R)—A system for the detection and monitoring
of failure conditions in power transformers,” in IEE Colloquium on Moni-
tors and Condition Assessment Equipment (Digest No. 1996/186), 1996,
pp. 3/1–3/5.
[15] A. Stadler, “Analyzing UV/Vis/NIR and photo-acoustic spectra: A note to
the band gap of Tix Si1 - xO2,” IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf., vol. 26,
pp. 156–161, 2013.
[16] M. Webb, “Anticipating failures by dissolved-gas monitoring,” Power
Eng. J., vol. 1, pp. 295–298, 1987.
[17] O. D. Sparkman, Z. E. Penton, and F. G. Kitson, “Chapter 2—Gas chro-
matography,” in Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry, 2nd ed.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Academic Press, 2011, pp. 15–83.
[18] Standard Guide for Sampling, Test Methods, and Specifications for Elec-
trical Insulating Oils of Petroleum Origin, ASTM D117-10, 2010.
[19] Standard Practice for Sampling Gas from a Transformer Under Positive
Pressure, ASTM D2759-00, 2010.
[20] Standard Practices for Sampling Electrical Insulating Liquids, ASTM
D923-07, 2007.
[21] E. Forgács and T. Cserháti, “CHROMATOGRAPHY | Principles,” in En-
cyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 2nd ed., L. Trugo, P. Finglas,
B. Caballero, Ed. Oxford: Academic Press, 2003, pp. 1259–1267.
[22] S. Okabe, S. Kaneko, M. Kohtoh, and T. Amimoto, “Analysis results for
insulating oil components in field transformers,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr.
Electr. Insul., vol. 17, pp. 302–311, 2010.
[23] J. Jalbert, R. Gilbert, Y. Denos, and P. Gervais, “Methanol: A novel
approach to power transformer asset management,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 27, pp. 514–520, 2012.
[24] J. Jalbert, S. Duchesne, E. Rodriguez-Celis, P. Tetreault, and P. Collin,
“Robust and sensitive analysis of methanol and ethanol from cellulose
degradation in mineral oils,” J. Chromatogr. A, vol. 1256, pp. 240–245,
Sep. 21, 2012.
[25] A. Schaut, S. Autru, and S. Eeckhoudt, “Applicability of methanol as
new marker for paper degradation in power transformers,” IEEE Trans.
Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 18, pp. 533–540, 2011.
[26] J. L. Kirtley, W. H. Hagman, B. C. Lesieutre, M. J. Boyd, E. P. Warren,
H. P. Chou, and R. D. Tabors, “Monitoring the health of power transform-
ers,” IEEE Comp. Appl. Power, vol. 9, pp. 18–23, 1996.
[27] D. Jie, I. Khan, Z. D. Wang, and I. Cotton, “Comparison of HYDRAN
and laboratory DGA results for electric faults in ester transformer fluids,”
in Annual Report—Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric
Phenomena, 2007. CEIDP 2007, 2007, pp. 731–734.
[28] N. A. Muhamad, B. T. Phung, T. R. Blackburn, and K. X. Lai, “Compara-
tive study and analysis of DGA methods for transformer mineral oil,” in
2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, 2007, pp. 45–50.
[29] Q. Zhu, Y. Yin, Q. Wang, Z. Wang, and Z. Li, “Study on the online dis-
solved gas analysis monitor based on the photoacoustic spectroscopy,” in
2012 International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis
(CMD), 2012, pp. 433–436.
[30] C. Haisch and R. Niessner, “Light and sound-photoacoustic spectros-
copy,” Spectroscopy Eur., vol. 14/5, 2002.
[31] W. Fu, C. Weigen, P. Xiaojuan, and S. Jing, “Study on the gas pressure
characteristics of photoacoustic spectroscopy detection for dissolved
gases in transformer oil,” in 2012 International Conference on High Volt-
age Engineering and Application (ICHVE), 2012, pp. 286–289.
[32] S. A. Ward, “Evaluating transformer condition using DGA oil analysis,”
in Annual Report. Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric
Phenomena, 2003, pp. 463–468.
[33] S. Corporation, “Serveron White Paper: DGA Diagnostic Methods,” Norazhar Abu Bakar received the BEng
2007.
[34] IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed
(Hons) degree in electronics and electrical
Transformers—Redline, IEEE Std C57.104-2008 (Revision of IEEE Std from Leeds University, UK, and the MSc
C57.104-1991)—Redline, pp. 1–45, 2009. (Eng) degree in control systems from Shef-
[35] R. R. Rogers, “IEEE and IEC codes to interpret incipient faults in trans- field University, UK. He served as a lecturer
formers, using gas in oil analysis,” IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul., vol. EI-13,
pp. 349–354, 1978.
at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka,
[36] M. Duval, “The duval triangle for load tap changers, non-mineral oils and Malaysia. Currently, he is a PhD student at
low temperature faults in transformers,” IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. Curtin University. His research interests are
24, pp. 22–29, 2008. in condition monitoring and advanced con-
[37] V. Miranda and A. R. G. Castro, “Improving the IEC table for transform-
er failure diagnosis with knowledge extraction from neural networks,”
trol systems.
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, pp. 2509–2516, 2005.
[38] M. Duval and A. dePabla, “Interpretation of gas-in-oil analysis using new Ahmed Abu-Siada (M ’07, SM ’12) re-
IEC publication 60599 and IEC TC 10 databases,” IEEE Electr. Insul. ceived his BSc and MSc degrees from Ain
Mag., vol. 17, pp. 31–41, 2001.
[39] M. Duval, “A review of faults detectable by gas-in-oil analysis in trans-
Shams University, Egypt, and the PhD de-
formers,” IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 18, pp. 8–17, 2002. gree from Curtin University, Australia, all
[40] M. Duval and J. Dukarm, “Improving the reliability of transformer gas- in electrical engineering. Currently, he is a
in-oil diagnosis,” IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 21, pp. 21–27, 2005. senior lecturer in the Department of Elec-
[41] A. Abu-Siada, S. Hmood, and S. Islam, “A new fuzzy logic approach for
consistent interpretation of dissolved gas-in-oil analysis,” IEEE Trans.
trical and Computer Engineering at Curtin
Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 20, pp. 2343–2349, 2013. University. His research interests include
[42] K. F. Thang, R. K. Aggarwal, D. G. Esp, and A. J. McGrail, “Statistical power system stability, condition monitor-
and neural network analysis of dissolved gases in power transformers,” in ing, power electronics, and power quality.
Eighth International Conference on Dielectric Materials, Measurements
and Applications, 2000, IEE Conf. Publ. No. 473, 2000, pp. 324–329.
He is editor-in-chief of the international journal Electrical and
[43] A. K. Mehta, R. N. Sharma, S. Chauhan, and S. Saho, “Transformer di- Electronic Engineering and a regular reviewer for IEEE Trans-
agnostics under dissolved gas analysis using Support Vector Machine,” in actions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, IEEE Trans-
2013 International Conference on Power, Energy and Control (ICPEC), actions on Power Electronics, and IEEE Transactions on Sus-
2013, pp. 181–186.
[44] N. A. Muhamad, B. T. Phung, and T. R. Blackburn, “Comparative study
tainable Energy. He is the vice-chair of the IEEE Computation
and analysis of DGA methods for mineral oil using fuzzy logic,” in In- Intellegence Society, WA Chapter.
ternational Power Engineering Conference, 2007. IPEC 2007, 2007, pp.
1301–1306. Syed Islam (M ’83, SM ’93) received the
[45] D. R. Morais and J. G. Rolim, “A hybrid tool for detection of incipient
faults in transformers based on the dissolved gas analysis of insulating
BSc degree from Bangladesh University of
oil,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, pp. 673–680, 2006. Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh,
[46] C. Pan, W. Chen, and Y. Yun, “Fault diagnostic method of power and the MSc and PhD degrees from King
transformers based on hybrid genetic algorithm evolving wavelet neural Fahd University of Petroleum and Miner-
network,” IET Electr. Power Appl., vol. 2, pp. 71–76, 2008.
[47] A. Shintemirov, W. Tang, and Q. H. Wu, “Power transformer fault clas-
als, Saudi Arabia, all in electrical power en-
sification based on dissolved gas analysis by implementing bootstrap and gineering in 1979, 1983, and 1988 respec-
genetic programming,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Part C: Appl. tively. He is currently the chair professor of
Rev., vol. 39, pp. 69–79, 2009. Electrical Power Engineering at Curtin Uni-
[48] H.-X. Wang, Q.-P. Yang, and Q.-M. Zheng, “Artificial neural network for
transformer insulation aging diagnosis,” in Third International Confer-
versity, Australia. He received the IEEE T Burke Haye Faculty
ence on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Recognition award in 2000. His research interests are in condi-
Technologies, 2008. DRPT 2008, 2008, pp. 2233–2238. tion monitoring of transformers, wind energy conversion, and
[49] Z. J. Richardson, J. Fitch, W. H. Tang, J. Y. Goulermas, and Q. H. Wu, “A power systems. He is a regular reviewer for IEEE Transactions
probabilistic classifier for transformer dissolved gas analysis with a par-
ticle swarm optimizer,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, pp. 751–759,
on Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
2008. and IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. Islam is an editor of
[50] W. Tang, S. Almas, and Q. H. Wu, “Transformer dissolved gas analysis the IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy.
using least square support vector machine and bootstrap,” in Chinese
Control Conference, 2007. CCC 2007, 2007, pp. 482–486.
[51] K. Bacha, S. Souahlia, and M. Gossa, “Power transformer fault diagnosis
based on dissolved gas analysis by support vector machine,” Electr.
Power Syst. Res., vol. 83, pp. 73–79, 2012.

May/June — Vol. 30, No. 3 49