Data Stream

Study of Dissolved Gas Analysis under Electrical
and Thermal Stresses for Natural Esters used in

Power Transformers
A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of MPhil in the Faculty of
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Sitao Li
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Contents
Contents..................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 7
List of Tables........................................................................................................................... 11
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 13
Declaration .............................................................................................................................. 15
Copyright Statement .............................................................................................................. 17
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 21
1.1
Background Study ............................................................................................. 21
1.2
Research Objectives .......................................................................................... 22
1.3
Outline of Thesis ................................................................................................ 22
Chapter 2 Literature Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis on Natural Ester ...................... 25

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Introduction of Transformer Liquid ............................................................... 25

2.1.1
Mineral Oil Nytro Gemini X .................................................................. 25
2.1.2
Natural Ester FR3 ................................................................................... 26
2.1.3
Sample Processing Methodology............................................................... 27
Transformer Faults ........................................................................................... 28

2.2.1
Partial Discharge Fault .............................................................................. 28
2.2.2
Electrical Sparking Fault........................................................................... 29
2.2.3
Thermal Fault ............................................................................................. 29
Dissolved Gas Analysis ...................................................................................... 29

2.3.1
Gas Formation ............................................................................................ 31
2.3.2
Headspace Method ..................................................................................... 33
2.3.3
Gas Chromatograph................................................................................... 34
2.3.4
Duval Triangle Interpretation Method ..................................................... 34
2.3.5
Online DGA and Laboratory DGA Comparison ..................................... 35
Serveron Online Transformer Monitor TM8.................................................. 36

2.4.1
Working Principle ...................................................................................... 36
2.4.2
Dual-Column GC Analysis ........................................................................ 37

3
2.4.3
2.5
2.6
PC Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 38
Previous Work Review ...................................................................................... 39

2.5.1
Electrical Sparking ..................................................................................... 39
2.5.2
Electrical PD Test ........................................................................................ 40
2.5.3
Thermal Test ................................................................................................ 43
Tests Comparison and Summary ..................................................................... 48
Chapter 3 Experimental Study on DGA under Sparking Faults ....................................... 51

3.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 51
3.2
Experiment Setup .............................................................................................. 51
3.3
3.4
3.2.1
Test Circuit Design ...................................................................................... 51
3.2.2
Test Vessel Design ........................................................................................ 53
Test Procedure .................................................................................................... 56

3.3.1
Drain Oil out of System .............................................................................. 57
3.3.2
Clean Test System and Fill Processed Oil into the System ...................... 58
3.3.3
Measuring Background DGA level............................................................ 59
3.3.4
Generating Sparking Faults ....................................................................... 59
Data Measurement and Analysis ...................................................................... 60

3.4.1
GIG and GIT ............................................................................................... 60
3.4.2
Dissolved Gas Generation Calculation ..................................................... 61
3.4.3
Sparking Energy Calculation .................................................................... 63
3.5
Test Condition and Observation ....................................................................... 69
3.6
Test Result and Analysis .................................................................................... 70
3.7
3.6.1
Gas Generation of Sparking Faults ........................................................... 70
3.6.2
Energy of Sparking Faults ......................................................................... 71
3.6.3
Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................................ 72
3.6.4
Absolute Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................ 74
3.6.5
Gemini X and FR3 Comparison ................................................................ 74
3.6.6
Duval Triangle Analysis .............................................................................. 75
3.6.7
Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison ................................ 77
Summary............................................................................................................. 78
Chapter 4 Experimental Study on DGA under PD Faults .................................................. 79

4
4.1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 79
4.2
Experiment Setup .............................................................................................. 79
4.3
Test Procedure ................................................................................................... 80
4.4
4.3.1
Calibrate the PD Detector ......................................................................... 81
4.3.2
Measuring Background PD Noise ............................................................. 82
4.3.3
Generating PD Faults................................................................................. 82
Data Measurement and Process Method ......................................................... 83

4.4.1
Total Gas Generation Calculation ............................................................ 83
4.4.2
PD Energy Calculation .............................................................................. 84
4.5
Test Condition and Observation ...................................................................... 88
4.6
Test Result and Analysis ................................................................................... 89
4.7
4.6.1
PD Fault Gas Generation .......................................................................... 89
4.6.2
PD Fault Energy ......................................................................................... 91
4.6.3
Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................................ 93
4.6.4
Absolute Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................ 95
4.6.5
Duval Triangle Analysis ............................................................................. 96
4.6.6
Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison ............................... 98
Summary ............................................................................................................ 99
Chapter 5 Experimental Study on DGA under Thermal Fault ....................................... 101

5.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 101
5.2
Experiment Setup ............................................................................................ 101
5.3
5.2.1
Test Circuit Design ................................................................................... 101
5.2.2
Test Vessel Design ..................................................................................... 102
Test Procedure ................................................................................................. 103

5.3.1
5.4
Generate Thermal Faults ......................................................................... 104
Measurement Methods.................................................................................... 104

5.4.1
Temperature Measurement Method ....................................................... 104
5.4.2
Heating & Cooling Method ..................................................................... 105
5.5
Test Conditions and Observations ................................................................. 107
5.6
Test Result and Analysis ................................................................................. 107

5.6.1
Thermal Fault Gas Generation ............................................................... 108

5
5.7
5.6.2
Gas Generation Rate Comparison under Different Temperatures ...... 109
5.6.3
Duval Triangle Analysis ............................................................................ 111
5.6.4
Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison .............................. 113
Summary........................................................................................................... 113
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Future Work .......................................................................... 115

6.1
6.2
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 115

6.1.1
Research Areas .......................................................................................... 115
6.1.2
Main Findings ........................................................................................... 116
Future Work ..................................................................................................... 117
Reference ............................................................................................................................... 119

Appendix I. Matlab Code Used In the Thesis .................................................................... 123
I.1 Sparking Energy Calculation ..................................................................................... 123
I.1.1 High Frequency Energy Calculation .......................................................... 123
I.1.2 Low Frequency Energy Calculation ........................................................... 125
I.2 PD Energy Calculation ............................................................................................... 128
Appendix II. The Results Used in the Thesis...................................................................... 131
Words count: 34975
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Basic Hydrocarbon Structures in Mineral Oil [20] ................................. 25
Figure 2. 2 Molecular Structure of FR3 [23] .............................................................. 27
Figure 2. 3 Diagram of Indicator Gases and Faulty Type and Severity in
Transformers Filled By Mineral Oil [38] ............................................................ 32
Figure 2. 4 Headspace Sampling Method [39] ............................................................ 33
Figure 2. 5 Gas Chromatograph Concept Diagram [41] ........................................... 34
Figure 2. 6 Duval Triangle Diagrams .......................................................................... 35
Figure 2. 7 TM8 Online Transformer Monitor .......................................................... 36
Figure 2. 8 The Working Principle Diagram of TM8 ................................................ 37
Figure 2. 9 Dual- Column GC Analysis Diagram ....................................................... 38
Figure 2. 10 Example of Analysis Diagram of TM8 Viewer [17] .............................. 38
Figure 2. 11 Photo of Lighting Impulse Sparking Test Vessel [12] .......................... 39
Figure 2. 12 Comparision of Fault Gas-in-Oil Generation between Lyra X and FR3
[12] .......................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 2. 13 Electrical PD Test Diagram [10] ............................................................ 40
Figure 2. 14 Test Vessel Diagram of PD Test [10] ...................................................... 41
Figure 2. 15 Thermal Test 1(Heating Element) [11] .................................................. 44
Figure 2. 16 Thermal Test 2 (Heating Element) [12] ................................................. 45
Figure 2. 17 Thermal Test 3 ......................................................................................... 47
Figure 2. 18 Gas-in-Oil Generations in Different Oils under Various
Temperatures ......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 3.1 Schematic View of Electrical Sparking Test Circuit ............................... 52

Figure 3.2 Test Vessel Design Diagram ....................................................................... 54
Figure 3.3 Photo of Sealing Test 1 ............................................................................... 55
Figure 3.4 Pressure Versus. Time of Sealing Test 1 ................................................... 56
Figure 3.5 Partial Coefficients for FR3 and Gemini X .............................................. 61
Figure 3.6 Example of High Frequency Component of Sparking Current ............. 65
Figure 3.7 Example of Power Frequency Component of Sparking Current ........... 66
7
Figure 3.8 Example Filtered Waveform of Power Frequency Sparking Current ... 66
Figure 3.9 Different Types of Sparking ....................................................................... 67
Figure 3.10 Total Gas Generation in Gemini X /FR3 Tests ....................................... 70
Figure 3.11 GIT Generation rate (per) J in Gemini X and FR3 Sparking Tests ..... 73
Figure 3.12 GIT Generation rate (per J) Comparison between Gemini X and FR3
................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 3.13 Duval Triangle Evaluation (GIO) of Sparking Fault in Gemini X and
FR3 .......................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 4.1 Schematic Diagram of Electrical PD Test Circuit .................................... 80

Figure 4.2 PD Calibration Panel of PD Measuring System Software ....................... 81
Figure 4.3 PD Noise in FR3 under 60 kV .................................................................... 82
Figure 4.4 Example of PD Test DGA Peak Value ....................................................... 84
Figure 4.5 PD Noise Filter ............................................................................................. 85
Figure 4.6 Gas Generation in Gemini X and FR3 PD Test ........................................ 90
Figure 4.7 PD Patterns of Gemini X (60 Minutes PD signals from the 3000 pC Test)
and FR3 (1 Minute PD signals from 3000 pC Test 1) ......................................... 91
Figure 4.8 GIT Generation rate (per J) Comparison between 2000 pC Tests of
Gemini X and FR3 ................................................................................................. 93
Figure 4.9 GIT Generation rate (per J) Comparison between 3000 pC Tests of
Gemini X and FR3 ................................................................................................. 94
Figure 4.10 GIT gas Generation rate (per J) Comparison between 4000 pC Tests of
Gemini X and FR3 ................................................................................................. 95
Figure 4.11 Duval Triangle Evaluations for Gemini X and FR3 PD Tests .............. 98
Figure 5.1 CIrcuit Diagram of Hot-Spot Thermal Test Circuit .................... 102
Figure 5.2 Test Vessel Design...................................................................................... 103
Figure 5.3 Thermocouples and Heating Element Configuration ............................ 105
Figure 5.4 Heating and Cooling Procedure ............................................................... 106
Figure 5.5 GIT Generation Rate of Fault Gases in Gemini X and FR3 ................. 109
Figure 5.6 GIT Generation Rate Comparisons between Gemini X and FR3 ........ 110
8
Figure 5.7 Duval Triangle Evaluation of Gemini X and FR3 Thermal Fault ....... 112
10
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Key Properties of Nytro Gemini X [18] ...................................................... 26
Table 2.2 Key Properties of FR3 [24] .......................................................................... 27
Table 2.3 Water Content and Relative Humidity of Processed Liquid Samples at
Room Temperature [25] ....................................................................................... 28
Table 2.4 Bond Dissociation Energy [33] .................................................................... 31
Table 2.5 GIO DGA Results under PD Fault of Various Amplitudes [10] .............. 42
Table 2.6 GIO DGA Results under PD Fault of Various Energy [10] ..................... 43
Table 2.7 GIO DGA Result of Thermal Test 1 (Heating Element)........................... 45
Table 2.8 GIO DGA Results in both Liquids .............................................................. 46
Table 2.9 Tests Features Comparison ......................................................................... 49
Table 3.1 Example GIO Concentration in Gemini X ................................................. 62

Table 3.3 Sparking Types ............................................................................................. 67
Table 3.4 Example of Group Sparking Energy Calculation ..................................... 68
Table 3.6 Sparking Energy for Each Test Group inside Gemini X/ FR3 ................ 71
Table 3.7 Absolute GIT Generation Rate (t/J) of Sparking Tests .......................... 74
Table 3.8 GIO Generation Rate (ppm/J) .................................................................... 76
Table 3.9 Comparison of GIO Results between TM8 and Laboratory Analysis .... 78
Table 4.1 Example of PD Test Energy Calculation .................................................... 88

Table 4.2 List of PD Tests ............................................................................................. 89
Table 4.3 PD Energy and Distribution for each Test inside Gemini X/ FR3 ........... 92
Table 4.4 Absolute GIT Generation Rate (a/J) ........................................................ 96
Table 4.5 GIO Generation Rate (ppm/J) .................................................................... 97
Table 4.6 Comparison of GIO DGA Results between TM8 and Laboratory .......... 98
Table 5.1 Thermal Test Conditions and Observations ............................................ 107

Table 5.2 GIO Generation Rate (ppm/J) .................................................................. 111
11
Table 5.3 Comparison of GIO DGA Results between TM8 and Laboratory
Analysis ................................................................................................................. 113
12
Abstract
Mineral oil has been traditionally used as an insulating liquid in power transformers for over a
century, and Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) technique has been used for decades as one of the most useful
diagnosis tools to assess the conditions of mineral oil filled transformers. However, due to increasing
awareness of environmental protection and fire safety, there is a trend of replacing mineral oil with
environmentally friendly natural esters; DGA data interpretation method should then be studied, if necessary
revised, in order to be applicable for natural ester filled transformers.
This thesis covers experimental studies on performances of a mineral oil (Gemini X) and a natural
ester (FR3) in terms of fault gas generation. Laboratory simulated faults include electrical sparks, electrical
partial discharges (PD) and high temperature thermal hotspot types.
The electrical sparking fault was generated by using a sharp needle electrode with a tip radius of
curvature of 5 micrometers, a 2.57 L sealed test vessel was designed and built with the TM8 online DGA
monitoring system, and two CTs were used to measure the high frequency and power frequency components
of the sparking current, respectively. The electrical PD fault was simulated using the same test system but
under lower voltages, and a traditional PD detector was used to record the characteristics of PD signals,
including the repetition rate and amplitude. The hotspot thermal fault was generated by heating up a copper
element locally in a 2.73 L sealed test vessel, and three thermocouples were used to measure the temperatures
of the heating element.
Furthermore, the dissolved fault gases in oil were measured by both the online DGA monitoring
system and the oil analysis laboratory, and the DGA results were also compared.
The main findings of this thesis are outlined below:
FR3 generates similar amounts of fault gases to Gemini X under sparking faults. Under the same
sparking energy (per J), FR3 generates fault gases 25% higher than Gemini X.
FR3 generates higher amounts of fault gases than Gemini X under PD faults. Under the same PD
amplitude, the gas generation in FR3 is much higher than that in Gemini X due to a higher PD repetition
rate in FR3.
FR3 generates less amount of fault gases than Gemini X under high temperature thermal faults (>300
C). This indicates that FR3 is more thermally stable than Gemini X.
DGA results obtained by the TM8 online monitor are comparable to those from laboratory analysis,
within a deviation of 30% under all the faults.
13
14
Declaration
I declare that no part of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institutes
of learning.
15
16
Copyright Statement
I. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns
certain copyright or related rights in it (the Copyright) and he has given The University of
Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.
II. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy,
may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as
amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with
licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of
any such copies made.
III.
The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other
intellectual property (the Intellectual Property) and any reproductions of copyright

works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (Reproductions), which may be
described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties.
Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for
use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property
and/or Reproductions.
IV.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see
http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/policies/intellectual-property.pdf), in any
relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University
Librarys regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in
The Universitys policy on Presentation of Theses.
17
18
Acknowledgement
Firstly I would like to express my sincerely gratitude to my supervisor Professor Zhondong
Wang for her support and guidance during my MPhil research study at the University of
Manchester. My MPhil research project would not succeed without her hard work and patient
guidance.
I am also truly grateful to all the sponsoring companies, i,e. Serveron and TJH2B who provided
continuous support to this project at the University of Manchester. In particular, John Hinshaw
from Severon and John Noakhes from TJ2HB are extremity helpful. I would also like to thank
Cooper Power System for providing natural ester over the years.
To all my colleagues in the transformer research group , I appreciate for your company
and thank you for offering me an enjoyable working environment. Special thanks to Dr.
Xin Wang who taught me so much on test cell design, experimental setup and thesis writing
through all the project and Dr. Xiao Yi who offered many patient and wise suggestions.
Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parents for their continuous
support and understanding, to my girlfriend Miss Jinping Huang for her support and selfless
love. They encouraged me to go through all the hard work all the time.
19
20
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background Study
Mineral oil has been used as a traditional insulating liquid for power transformers for over a
century. However, in face of the increasing awareness of environmental protection recently,
applying environmental friendly transformer liquids such as natural esters or synthetic esters
in transformers of distribution or transmission level is getting more and more popular [1, 2, 3].
Up to now, ester based transformer liquids have been widely used in distribution transformers
and there are more and more development work in the aim of used by esters in power
transformers [4, 5].
DGA, short for dissolved gas analysis, is one of the most useful diagnosis tools for incipient
fault indication of oil-filled transformers [6]. When either thermal or electrical faults are
occurred, transformer oil will decompose and recombine into many kinds of fault gases. In the
past several decades, experience of DGA based fault interpretation of mineral oil-filled
transformers has been accumulated after a wide range of lab research and on-site operation
practices. Many standards were established for assessing conditions of mineral oil-filled
transformers, such as IEC 60599 and IEEE C57.104 [7, 8]. Among all kinds of DGA
interpretation methods listed in the above guide, the most comprehensive one is Duval triangle
which was established by Michal Duval offering graphical interpretation [9].
Due to the increased use of environmental friendly transformer liquids, mineral oil based
diagnosis methods need to be revised for the use of fault indication for nature ester-filled
transformers. Researchers have already carried out some experiments on studying the gas
generation characteristics of nature ester FR3 under thermal or electrical transformer faults
[10-15]. Based on the results of large amount of experiments, the Duval triangle interpretation
method was revised for FR3 in 2008 [16].
Traditionally, laboratory DGA technique, which required taking oil samples from transformers
periodically and then sending them to the analytical laboratory, becomes mature for fault
indication. Recently, affordable online transformer monitoring products, which are able to
provide results based on up to hourly oil sampling, are installed at power level transformers for
predicting faults and avoiding failures [17]. However, due to the lack of experience, there are
21
still many concerns about the measurement accuracies of online transformer monitoring
equipment. In this aspect, this thesis will compare DGA results from the analytical laboratory
and the online transformer monitor TM8 to verify if the monitors results are reliable or not.
1.2 Research Objectives

This MPhil thesis aims at comparing the fault gas generations, under electrical and thermal
fault of conventional mineral oil Gemini X and new alternative natural ester FR3 under thermal
and electrical faults. Furthermore, it is hoped that the test results could contribute to the revision
of the DGA interpretation methods for mineral oil when used for vegetable oil based
transformer liquids.
The objectives of this MPhil thesis are:
Study the gas generation performances of FR3 under hotspot thermal faults, electrical
sparking faults and partial discharge (PD) faults, using Gemini X as a benchmark.
Compare the DGA results obtained from online and laboratory methods for the same fault.
Evaluate the simulated fault using the original and revised Duval triangle methods,
providing suggestions for natural ester DGA interpretation method.
1.3 Outline of Thesis

The chapters presented in this thesis are listed below:
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter includes a brief description of the research background, the objectives of the
project and the outline of the thesis.
Chapter 2 Literature Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis on Natural Ester

This chapter gives a brief description of transformer liquids used in the experiments, Gemini
X as a mineral oil and FR3 as a natural ester, the dissolved gas analysis (DGA) technique, the
22
development of TM8 online DGA monitor, the three main types of transformer fault and a
recent experimental study of natural ester DGA.
Chapter 3 Experimental Study on DGA under Sparking Fault

This chapter shows the method to generate the sparking fault and also the method to measure
the sparking current. By using a needle to plate electrode configuration, a test cell is designed.
It has achieved a good sealing state and complete oil circulation. The sealing state of the
electrical test cell is verified by a pressure gauge based sealing test. A proper test procedure is
carefully followed to use the test cell TM8 close loop measuring system in order to obtain
reliable test results. The experiment in this chapter shows the gas generation characteristics of
Gemini X and FR3 under the sparking faults. The simulated faults for both liquids are also
evaluated by using the original and revised Duval triangle. Furthermore, oil samples are
collected after the electrical sparking test and sent out for laboratory DGA analysis.
Chapter 4 Experimental Study on DGA under PD Fault

This chapter describes the method to generate the PD fault using similar configuration to
previous sparking test under lower voltage/ electrical fields and also the method to calculate
the PD energy. The same electrical test cell as Chapter 3 is used and the proper test procedure
is carefully followed to reduce gas leakage. The experiments in this chapter study the gas
generation of Gemini X and FR3 under the controlled PD faults up to 2 days.
Chapter 5 Experimental Study on DGA under Thermal Fault

This chapter shows the method used to simulate the thermal fault inside the transformer via the
W shaped copper heating element, the method to measure the temperature of the heating
element is also given. A thermal test cell is designed to achieve a good sealing state, complete
oil circulation and oil expansion protection. A proper test procedure is made for using the test
cell TM8 measureming system. The experiments in this chapter study the gas generations of
Gemini X and FR3 under the simulated thermal faults. The simulated faults inside both liquids
are evaluated by using the original and revised Duval triangle. Oil samples are collected after
the thermal tests and sent out for laboratory DGA analysis.
23
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Further Work

This chapter summarizes the main conclusions of the thesis and also gives some suggestions
for future studies.
24
Chapter 2 Literature Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis on

Natural Ester
2.1 Introduction of Transformer Liquid
This MPhil thesis explores the differences of fault gas generation characteristics between
conventional mineral oil which is widely used in large power transformers, and natural ester
which is expected to be an alternative for mineral oil. From now on, Gemini X will stand for
the mineral oil and FR3 will represent natural ester.
2.1.1 Mineral Oil Nytro Gemini X

Nytro Gemini X, a type of inhibited insulating transformer oil, which is produced by Nynas
Oil Company to replace the previous uninhibited Nytro 10GBN, consists of saturated
hydrocarbon molecules, like paraffins and naphthenes and unsaturated aromatics and
polyaromates as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Basic Hydrocarbon Structures in Mineral Oil [20]
The main advantages of Gemini X are good heat transfer, excellent oxidation stability, good
low temperature properties and high dielectrically strength [18]. Gemini X is chemically stable
25
with a high anti-oxidation ability. The dielectric strength of Gemini X is higher than 70 kV
(measurement based on IEC 60156 with a 2.5 mm gap distance) when the liquid is preserved.
However, once it has been contaminated by water or particles, the dielectric strength will
reduce accordingly [19]. The major drawbacks of Gemini X are fire hazards and less
biodegradability. The water saturation level of Gemini X is 55 Parts per Million (ppm) at room
temperature. Table 2.1 shows the key properties of Gemini X.
Table 2.1 Key Properties of Nytro Gemini X [18]
Property
Density,20 C
Viscosity,40 C
Flash point
Pour point
Acidity
Aromatic content
Water content
Breakdown voltage
before treatment
after treatment
Unit
Test Method
Physical
kg/dm3
ISO12185
2
mm /s
ISO3104
C
ISO2719
C
ISO3016
Chemical
mg KOH/g
IEC62021
%
IEC60590
mg/Kg
IEC60814
Electrical
kV
IEC60156
Typical Data
0.882
8.7
144
-60
<0.01
3
<20
40-60
>70
2.1.2 Natural Ester FR3

FR3, a type of natural ester based transformer oil, which has been used for decades in over
450,000 transformers. [21] It is manufactured by Cargill Company from edible vegetable oils,
mainly consists of triglycerides, a special structure made of double carbon bonds or even triple
carbon bonds [10]. The molecular structure is shown in Figure 2.2.
26
Figure 2.2 Molecular Structure of FR3 [23]
FR3 is highly biodegradable but can also oxidize easily due to the structure of triglycerides.
The dielectric strength of FR3 is above 56 kV (measured by ASTM D1816 using a 2 mm gap
distance). FR3 is now mainly applied in distribution transformers in North and South America
[22]. The water saturation level of FR3 is 1100 ppm at room temperature which is 20 times
higher than that of Gemini X. Table 2.2 shows the key properties of FR3.
Table 2.2 Key Properties of FR3 [24]
Property
Density,20 C
Viscosity,40 C
Flash point
Pour point
Acidity
Water content
Breakdown voltage
Unit
Test Method
Physical
kg/dm3
ASTM D1298
2
mm /s
ASTM D445
C
ASTM D92
C
ASTM D97
Chemical
mg KOH/g
ASTM D974
mg/Kg
ASTM D1533
Electrical
kV
ASTM D1816
Typical Data
0.92
32
330
-20
0.02
30
56 (2 mm)
2.1.3 Sample Processing Methodology

Although the quality of transformer liquid is controlled during manufacture, its quality could
deteriorate in transportation or long-term storage mainly due to contamination. To maximally
limit the influence of dissolved gas and water content on the test, all oil samples used in this
thesis were well dehydrated and degassed. The liquid is put into the vacuum oven for 48 hours
27
under 5 mbar inner pressure and 85 C, a further 24 hours cooling down is also required
afterwards. The qualities of both Gemini X and FR3 are trusted to be the same. The water
content was measured according to the Karl Fisher titration analysis, using Metrohm 684
coulometer and 832 Termoprep ovens [25]. The dissolved gas is measured by the TM8 online
transformer monitor. The result of relative humidity (water content versus saturation level) and
dissolved gas for the processed liquid sample are below 5% and very close to 0 ppm
respectively [10]. Table 2.3 shows the water content and relative humidity of processed
samples.
Table 2.3 Water Content and Relative Humidity of Processed Liquid Samples at Room
Temperature [25]
2.2 Transformer Faults

The IEC standard 60599 [7] classifies the DGA detectable transformer faults into 2 categories:
the electrical fault and the thermal fault. These two main categories can be further sorted into
6 types of transformer fault, according to the magnitudes of the fault energy: the electrical fault:
partial discharge (PD ), D1 (discharge of low energy) and D2 (discharge of high energy); the
thermal fault: T1 (Thermal fault of low temperature range, T < 300 C), T2 (Thermal fault of
medium temperature range, 300 C < T < 700 C) and T3 (Thermal fault of high temperature
range, T >700 C) [6, 7].
2.2.1 Partial Discharge Fault

Partial discharge stands for the kind of discharge that only partially bridges the insulation gap
between conductors/electrodes. The discharge may happen totally inside the transformer
insulation or adjacent to the conductors. The PD around an electrode in gases is called corona,
28
while the others such as the one which occurs in a transformer liquid is commonly named as
streamer [7, 8].
Partial discharges, known as one of the most influencing reasons for insulator degradation,
could lead to electric breakdown when they accumulate and propagate fully between two
conductors. To avoid costly transformer failures, it is critically important to monitor the PD
activities for early detection of the incipient of transformer fault. Dissolved gas analysis (DGA)
is now the most widely used method to determine the condition of transformer insulation liquid
as it is a non-destructive technique [26-30].
2.2.2 Electrical Sparking Fault

After decades of study, it is now generally accepted that the breakdown occurs after the
streamers fully propagate through the gap of the electrodes. When the energy of dielectric
breakdown is limited, it will act as small arcs which are named as sparking faults [7]. In
comparison with PD faults, sparking fault generate much more amount of fault gases under the
same fault time and could be critical for transformer operation.
2.2.3 Thermal Fault

Sometimes bad connections when exclusive currents keep circulating in the conductor parts of
the transformer, or leakage flux will lead to localized overheating. Thermal fault will change
the transformer liquid performance by increasing the liquid temperature. In comparison with
electrical type of transformer fault, thermal faults generate much more amount of fault gases
under the same fault duration. Different types of fault gases will be formed under different
temperature range; therefore, the fault gases could be used to diagnose the transformer fault
temperature.
2.3 Dissolved Gas Analysis
29
Dissolved gas analysis (DGA) is known as one of the most widely used diagnosis tools of oilfilled transformers, it is noted as the non-interrupt test method which has already functioned
for decades. Furthermore, DGA is also famous for the reliable fault forecast tool that is
developed based on a vast amount of faulty oil-filled equipment in service and laboratory
experiment results worldwide [7, 8].
In general, DGA can be divided into 4 steps: collect oil sample, extract dissolved gas, gas
chromatograph measurement and data interpretation. The oil sample collection is based on the
international standard IEC 60567 which gives the recommended procedure for taking an oil
sample from oil filled equipment. The oil sample collection is considered to be the first primary
factor of a good DGA result; therefore, the recommended procedure needs to be followed
carefully.
The extraction of dissolved gas from the oil sample is the second step. The traditional vacuum
method or the alternative vacuum pump method such as headspace and stripper methods are
also available in IEC60567 [31]. The headspace method is used in the TM8 and will be
explained in Section 2.3.2.
The third step is the gas chromatograph (GC) which could separate and analyze different gas
components. Detail of the GC will be described in Section 2.3.3.
The last step will use the DGA results to interpret the transformer conditions. The international
standards IEC 60599 and IEEE C57.104 provide many diagnosis tools for DGA results, such
as the key gas method, the Roger ratio method and the Duval triangle method. Among all the
diagnosis methods, the Duval triangle method seems to be the most popular one in fault
prediction [32]. However, because the interpretation methods are all developed based on the
known transformer fault data, it may not be correct for some other cases, such as application
of new ester liquids. The range and typical values of those interpretation methods might need
to be changed as the database is updated. The Duval triangle is used as the interpretation
method in this thesis of which the detail will be shown in Section 2.3.4.
30
2.3.1 Gas Formation

The transformer liquid consists of different hydrocarbon atomic groups like CH3, CH2 and CH.
The molecular bond which is used to link the molecular group together, such as C-H and C-C
bonds, will be broken when electrical or thermal energy is applied. Newly formed unstable
radical or ionic fragments will recombine swiftly into gas molecules like hydrogen (H-H),
methane (CH3-H), ethane (CH3-CH3), ethylene (CH2=CH2), acetylene (CHCH), CO (CO)
and CO2 (O=C=O). Different energy levels are required to break different kind of molecular
bonds, as a result, different types and amounts of fault gases will be formed according to the
severity and category of the transformer fault. The energy which is mandatory to crack the
typical molecular bond inside the transformer oil is shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Bond Dissociation Energy [33]
Bond
Dissociation
energy
(kJ/mol)
C-C (CH3-
C-H
C=C
CC
CH3)
(average)
(H2C=CH2)
(HCCH)
356
410
632
837
Arcing, low energy sparking, PD and overheating are some of the common faults that could
happen in the oil-filled transformers. Once any of these faults occurs, the insulation liquid will
be decomposed and then a certain amount of combustible and non-combustible faulty gases
will be formed. Generally speaking, there are 7 types of fault gases that could be generated
after the transformer faults; they are hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), ethylene
(C2H4), acetylene (C2H2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) [7, 8, 34].
Due to the different amounts of energy required to break different kinds of molecular bonds,
the type and amount of fault gas generation vary and depend upon the magnitude of the fault
energy. As a result, there exists a relationship between the fault type and fault gas generation
which can be used to interpret the DGA results.
Figure 2.3 shows the diagram of the indicator gases related to each fault type.
31
Figure 2.3 Diagram of Indicator Gases and Faulty Type and Severity in Transformers Filled By Mineral
Oil [38]
For example, C2H2 and C2H4 which have CC bond and C=C bond require a higher energy to
be formed than CH4 and C2H6. In other words, the generation of C2H2 and C2H4 stands for the
significant faults for oil-filled transformers like an electrical arcing and some hotspot of very
high temperatures. As a result, these two types of fault gases have higher weighing factors in
the industry scoring system of transformer operation condition assessment [35-37]. Even a
small amount of C2H2 would raise concerns of utility companies who own and operate the
transformers.
32
2.3.2 Headspace Method

Headspace method is a calculation method used to compute gas-in-total or gas-in-oil
concentration using gas-in-gas (GIG) concentration. The case shown in Figure 2.4 is an oilfilled vial with VL volume of oil and left a VG volume of headspace.
Figure 2.4 Headspace Sampling Method [39]
Some of the dissolved gas will spread to the headspace from the oil until the equilibrium
condition of a certain temperature, agitation and pressure is reached. Afterwards, the headspace
gas will be passed to the gas chromatograph (GC) columns. Then the obtained gas
concentration in headspace, GIG, will be used to calculate gas-in-oil (GIO) or gas-in-total (GIT)
according to Henrys law.
GIT = GIG (K (T, gas) + ) P/P0 T0/T
(2.1)
Equation (2.1) shows the calculation method to convert GIG value into gas-in-total [34]. The
parameters in the Equation are described below:
GIT, represented as GIT is the concentration of total gas generation including the gas in both
oil and headspace.
GIG, represented as GIG is the concentration of gas that acquired from GC system directly,
which stands for the gas concentration in headspace.
33
K, partition coefficient, is a ratio of concentrations of gas compound between the two solutions,
such as transformer liquid and air.
, phase ratio, is a ratio of gas volume over liquid volume.
P and T are the atmospheric pressure and temperature when the oil sample was measured.
Po and To are the standard pressure and temperature. (Po is the 14.7 psi while To is 273.2 K)
2.3.3 Gas Chromatograph

Gas chromatograph is a type of chromatograph that is widely used in chemical analysis in order
to separate and measure evaporable gas substances [40]. Figure 2.5 shows the diagram of gas
chromatograph concept. As shown in Figure 2.5, the mobile phase flow, such as fault gases, is
carried through the stationary phase which is used to retain the gas components. In the
stationary phase, the weak retain substance will move faster while the strong retain substance
will move more slowly. Consequently, different gas components will pass the stationary phase
and reach the gas detector in different time ranges. Finally, the gas detector will give out the
individual amounts of each gas according to the analysis time range [41].
Figure 2.5 Gas Chromatograph Concept Diagram [41]
2.3.4 Duval Triangle Interpretation Method

The Duval triangle graphic method was established firstly by Michel Duval in the 1960s. It is
widely used all around the world for its comprehensive user-friendly graphic interface. The
Duval triangle method is updated several times as the database range gets wider. Recently, the
original Duval triangle method was developed into 8 triangles including the ones for non34
mineral oil filled transformers, load tap changers (LTCs) of the oil type and the low temperature
fault. The triangle coordinates value can be computed by the DGA results in ppm as below:
% C2H2
100 * C2H2 / (C2H2 + C2H4 + CH4);
% C2H4
100 * C2H4 / (C2H2 + C2H4 + CH4);
% CH4
100 * CH4 / (C2H2 + C2H4 + CH4);
In this thesis, the original mineral oil Duval triangle and the revised FR3 Duval triangle will
be used to interpret the simulated transformer faults [16].
(a) Traditional Duval Triangle
(b) Revised FR3 Duval Triangle
Figure 2.6 Duval Triangle Diagrams
2.3.5 Online DGA and Laboratory DGA Comparison

The online transformer monitor that can ensure a fully sealed system and also provide timely
DGA curves is gaining popularity all around the world. Online DGA measurement equipment
shortens the infrequent sampling period to an hourly measurement which shows the dynamic
behavior of gas generation during the transformer operation. Online DGA monitors are now
available to provide up to 8 types of gases, when we consider the previous online DGA device
developed in early days such as HYDRAN, can only tell the equivalent H2 value in ppm for a
35
fault. With the help of software, those monitors will be able to calculate and display some of
the interpretation results like the Duval triangle [42].
2.4 Serveron Online Transformer Monitor TM8

The Online DGA monitor used in this thesis is Serveron TM8 (shown in Figure 2.7). It is able
to provide useful and timely information for oil-filled transformer condition assessment. With
the help of the built-in sensors and special chromatographic columns, TM8 can provide up to
hourly DGA sampling covering all 8 types of transformer fault gases with 5% accuracy [17].
Figure 2.7 TM8 Online Transformer Monitor
2.4.1 Working Principle

The working principle diagram of TM8 is shown in Figure 2.8. In general, the whole TM8
measurement system can be divided into 4 parts: the oil loop part, the gas loop part, the gas
chromatograph (GC) part and the PC analysis part. The oil loop part includes all the oil flow
pointers (blue arrows); The gas loop is made up of all the gas flow indicators (green arrows);
The GC part is the analysis section for all gases and the PC analysis part receives the raw data
from GC part (black arrows) for the graphically presentation of dissolved gas concentration.
36
Test cell/
transformer
Liquid
blockage
membrane
Carrier gases
PC based
TM8
system
Extractor
Transformer oil
Oil flow
Transformer
gas
Gas flow
Selective
columns
Helium
flow
Dual-column
GC analysis
Data flow
Figure 2.8 The Working Principle Diagram of TM8
In the closed loop system, transformer oil keeps circulating between the test vessel/ transformer
and the oil chamber of the TM8 extractor. The gases dissolved inside the transformer oil will
go through the liquid blockage membrane into the gas chamber of the TM8 extractor. The
carrier gas helium flow (red arrows) will carry the dissolved gases into the extractor gas
chamber and will go to the selective columns. These will separate all 8 kinds of gases and let
them reach the GC analysis part at different times. Lastly, in the GC analysis part, the fault
gases are analyzed by the sequence as shown in next Section.
2.4.2 Dual-Column GC Analysis

Figure 2.9 shows an example of the Dual-column GC analysis diagram of TM8. TM8 actually
consists of two GC selective columns: column A and column B. Column A keeps those gases
with large molecules and passes them to the GC analyzer in a fixed sequence first; afterwards,
Column B passes the gases with small molecules like Hydrogen and methane to the GC
analyzer one by one. Both selective columns will let special types of fault gases pass in a fixed
response time range. The GC analyzer measures the area of each gas peak and gives out the
result according to the individual response time of each type of fault gases.
37
Figure 2.9 Dual- Column GC Analysis Diagram
2.4.3 PC Data Analysis

The raw result from the GC analyzer will be further computed based on the built-in partition
coefficient K, the measured oil temperature and the equilibrium pressure in the extractor. The
result plots out timely DGA curves (Figure 2.10 (a)) and can also provide an automatic
diagnosis like the Duval triangle interpretation (Figure 2.10 (b)).
(a) Timely DGA Curves
(b) Duval Triangle
Figure 2.10 Example of Analysis Diagram of TM8 Viewer [17]
38
2.5 Previous Work Review

Many researchers made great efforts to understand the FR3 performance under electrical and
thermal fault conditions such as [10-15]. Their research is studied and described below.
2.5.1 Electrical Sparking

Figure 2.11 shows the lighting impulse sparking experiment carried out by Mark. Jovalekic to
investigate the fault gas generation under the lighting impulse sparking fault in mineral oil,
Lyra X and natural ester FR3.
Figure 2.11 Photo of Lighting Impulse Sparking Test Vessel [12]
A 4-stage impulse generator is used as the voltage supply. The test configuration is with a 4
mm gap distance and a 134 kV impulse voltage which results in a 4096 J fault energy. Most of
the fault energy is converted into heat and less than 1% of it is consumed to generate fault
gases.
The test result after 90 lighting impulse sparking is shown in Figure 2.12. It can be seen from
this figure that, C2H2 and H2 are the key indicator for the impulse sparking fault inside both
oils, as much as 50.0% and 41.8% in Lyra X and 46.7% and 29.7% in FR3. The total gas
generation of Lyra X is twice that of FR3. The CO is only significant in FR3 which makes up
to 7.6% of total gas generation.
39
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
L/L
FR3
182
CO2
Lyra X 219
C2H4 C2H2 C2H6

214 2100
0
229
953
H2
1775
CH4
155
CO
0
TDCG
4244
605
99
155
2041
Figure 2.12 Comparision of Fault GIO Generation between Lyra X and FR3 [12]
2.5.2 Electrical PD Test

Figure 2.13 shows the electrical PD test that was designed by X. Wang [10]. As we can see
from the circuit diagram, the 50 Hz power transformer is used to provide up to 70 kV test
voltage. A 500 pF discharge free capacitor is connected in parallel with the test vessel. The
measuring impedance of the LDS-6 PD detector is connected in series with the capacitor. The
PD detector is calibrated and used to measure the PD signal with less than 5 pC noise (70 kV
test voltage).
Figure 2.13 Electrical PD Test Diagram [10]
40
The test vessel diagram is shown in Figure 2.14. It can be seen from the diagram that the 100
ml glass vial sealed by an aluminum crimp cap is fully filled with test oil. The needle electrode
is penetrated into the rubber sealing whose tip radius of curvature is 6-7 m from front view
and 2-3 m from lateral view.
Figure 2.14 Test Vessel Diagram of PD Test [10]
The assemble of the test vessel and the needle electrode is immersed inside an insulating oil
filled container. A copper base of 100 mm diameter is placed under the bottom of the test vessel
as a plate electrode. The gap distance between the needle and plate electrode is kept as 50 mm
for all tests. A new needle electrode will be replaced after each test. The oil sample is
immediately sealed by the Acrylic-based sealing compound from RS Ltd [43] and is then sent
to the TJH2B analytical laboratory for DGA measurement.
The test results of FR3 and Gemini X are compared by the PD amplitude and PD energy. As
can be seen from Table 2.5, FR3 generates around twice the amounts of total combustible gases
(TCG) of Gemini X under large PD amplitudes (when the PD amplitudes is over 500 pC). The
fault gas generation increases as the PD amplitude rises.
41
Table 2.5 GIO DGA Results under PD Fault of Various Amplitudes [10]
Oil
Test
DGA(ppm)
PD amplitude (pC)
C2H4 C2H2 C2H6
Gemini X
H2
CH4 CO TCG
G.Test1
200
0.2
0.2
0.4
12.4
0.9
G.Test2
300
0.2
0.1
0.2
G.Test3
500
0.2
0.3
0.3
7
62.4
G.Test4
1000
1.5
3.5
0.9
F.Test1
200
0.2
F.Test2
300
2.7
F.Test3
500
F.Test4
1000
FR3
35.8
0.5
21.7
12.4
0.4
13.9
77.5
163
2.9
185.4
44.7
29.9
1.2
13.6
20.1
83.4
63.7
3.9
36.2
194.9
5.5
11.5
46
69.1
5.8
30
167.9
9.1
22.4
63.4
140
11.4
49.9
296.2
20.4
96.1
Note: Those unexpected results listed in bold and italic style may be caused by leakage.
The difference is mainly contributed by C2H6 which makes up to 46.5% (200 pC), 42.8% (300
pC), 80.5% (500 pC), and 21.4% (1000 pC) of the total gas generation for FR3. H2 is the most
significant hydrocarbon gases except C2H6. H2 is making up to 34.6% (200 pC), 34.3% (300
pC), 27.4% (500 pC), and 87.9% (1000 pC) of the total gas generation in Gemini X tests while
that is only 31.1% (200 pC), 32.7% (300 pC), 41.2% (500 pC), and 47.3% (1000 pC) in FR3.
The concentration of CO in FR3 is around twice of that in Gemini X. C2H2 starts to generate
under the 1000 pC PD fault inside Gemini X while the trace of it could be found inside FR3
under 300 pC PD fault.
Another 8 groups of tests of both the FR3 and Gemini X under the 500 pC PD fault and different
time durations are carried out; the test results are calculated into l/J for comparison as shown
in Table 2.6.
42
Table 2.6 GIO DGA Results under PD Fault of Various Energy [10]
Oil
Gemi
ni X
FR3
Test
Times
(mins)
1
2
3
4
1
15
30
45
60
15
2
3
4
PD
ener
gy
(mJ)
7.7
8.1
9.2
15.7
DGA(ppm)
l/J
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
TCG
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
12.7
31.3
62.4
70.9
110.0
46.7
1.7
0.4
0.9
1.8
0.7
10.9
13.9
12.5
40.5
10.1
45.0
77.5
85.3
153.9
71.2
584.4
148.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
30
161.4
1.5
3.1
18.2
88.4
1.9
17.9
131.0
81.2
45
60
486.6
3.3
6.0
7.0
13.6
28.0
63.5
74.7
138.0
3.9
6.6
29.7
39.6
146.6
267.3
30.1
26.2
1020
956.7
927.2
980.3
48.0
Note: The unexpected result in bold and italic style may be caused by leakage.
It can be seen from Table 2.6 that the PD fault in Gemini X generates around half of total fault
gases than FR3 under the same test conditions. However, when the PD energy is taken into
consideration, the amount of gas generation rate (per J) in Gemini X is 10 times higher than
that in FR3. The reason is that PD repetition rate in FR3 is much higher than that Gemini X.
For the same type of liquid, the gas generation is increased as the voltage applying time
becomes longer. However, the amount of gas generation rate (per J) in FR3 test is not linear
for different voltage applying times because the needle electrode changed as the test carried on.
The energy calculation method used in this test is also applied in this thesis. The energy is
calculated by using the sum of PD discharge magnitude times the instantaneous voltage when
each PD discharge occurs. As stated before, there is some leakage during sample transportation;
the new design therefore uses a sealed online DGA system to avoid such an influence. The oil
volume is also increased from 100 ml to 2.57 L in this thesis in order to obtain a more stable
result even when accident occurred.
2.5.3 Thermal Test

2.5.3.1 Thermal Test 1
Imad designed his heating element thermal test as shown in Figure 2.15 [11].
43
Figure 2.15 Thermal Test 1(Heating Element) [11]
In this design, the copper heating element which is made of 7 strands of copper wires (each
strand is 7cm long and 0.5mm in diameter) is used to simulate the hotspot thermal fault. A
single phase, 50 Hz loading transformer with 240/3.5V and 45-90/3000A rating is chosen as
the current supply of the heating element. The thermocouple sensor was twisted into the copper
strands for temperature measurement. The Perspex test vessel was kept open during the tests
for safety reasons; as a result, the generated gas will partially leak out. The transformer liquid
is heated up to 700C and the total heating duration is up to 50 minutes. Huge bubbles are
generated in the mineral oil during the test while fewer fumes are formed in the FR3 test [11].
Table 2.7 shows the DGA result of heating element thermal test. It could be noticed that all
GIO fault gas concentration in FR3 is much higher than that of the mineral oil. However, the
dissolved gas cannot represent the total generated gas because the test vessel was kept open
44
during the test. The test is then redesigned so that it can be carried out inside a sealed closed
loop system in this thesis.
Table 2.7 GIO DGA Result of Thermal Test 1 (Heating Element)
Oil
Times
(mins)
C2H4
C2H2
Gemini X
FR3
35
50
0.1
20.9
0.0
0.0
DGA(ppm/min)
C2H6
H2
CH4
0.3
16.9
1.2
1.7
4.7
6.7
CO
TCG
13.8
14.4
20.1
60.7

Mark designed a localized heating element test using a special material which linearly changed
the resistor in a wide range of temperatures up to 550C [12]. Figure 2.16 shows Marks test
design. As shown in the figure below, the special material Resistherm is used as the heating
element and put inside the oil-filled sealed test vessel. A funnel is set upside down to collect
the generated fault gases; the fault gases will finally go into the top syringe and held there.
Another syringe is used to release the pressure that is caused by the oil expansion during the
test. The voltage across the heating element and the current that passes through it are recorded
for temperature calculation.
Figure 2.16 Thermal Test 2 (Heating Element) [12]
45
The heating element is maintained at 300C to 600C for 1 to 6 hours. Higher temperatures
cannot be achieved due to the melting of the Resistherm. The DGA results for all tests in both
liquids are shown below in Table 2.8.
Table 2.8 GIO DGA Results in both Liquids

(a) GIO DGA Results in FR3
Temperature
Duration(h)
(C)
300
400
500
600
6
6
2
1
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
1353
2973
3698
3923
27
209
631
1061
0
0
0
0
DGA(l/J)
C2H6 H2
489
934
1005
1307
92
278
472
382
CH4
CO
TCG
33
214
351
453
932
4219
3095
5148
1573
5854
5554
8351
CH4
CO
TCG
20
149
510
687
551
1149
(b) GIO DGA Results in Lyra X
Temperature
Duration(h)
(C)
300
400
1.5
1
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
57
169
8
198
0
38
DGA(l/J)
C2H6 H2
2
7
11
70
It can be seen from the table that the total generated fault gases in Lyra X is around 5 times
higher than that in FR3 under 400C thermal stress. CO and CO2 are the main generated fault
gases under the thermal fault for both oils. C2H4, CH4 and C2H6 are also significant in FR3
tests while the C2H4 and CH4 are significant in Lyra X. C2H2 was already generated in Lyra
X 400C thermal test which indicates that the fault temperature in some areas is already much
higher than the calculated average temperature. The temperature distribution of the heating
element is therefore not even.

Dave designed the following experiment to heat up different transformer liquids under various
temperatures. The test equipment shown in the Figure 2.17 includes:
46
1. An expansion chamber which is maintained at atmospheric pressure. An insolation valve is

installed between the connection of equipment 1 and 3.
2. A pressure gauge.
3. A gas chamber that can be sealed by the isolation valve.
4. A liquid reservoir.
5. A pump that circulates liquid between 4 and 6. .
6. An oven.
Figure 2.17 Thermal Test 3
The natural ester (the soybean oil, the high oleic sunflower oil) and the mineral oil are all heated
for 8 hours. The test results are shown below in Figure 2.18. It can be seen from Figure 2.18
there is a 50C temperature difference for main fault gases yielding between the soybean oil
and the high oleic sunflower oil; a 50C difference between the high oleic sunflower oil and
the mineral oil and a 100C difference between the soybean oil and the mineral oil.
47
(a) Gas Generation in Soybean Oil under Various Temperatures
(b) Gas Generation in Oleic Sunflower Oil under various Temperatures
(c) Gas Generation in Mineral Oil under Various Temperatures

Figure 2.18 GIO Generations in Different Oils under Various Temperatures [14]
2.6 Tests Comparison and Summary

Table 2.9 summaries main features of the tests reviewed in this chapter. Laboratory DGA
analysis method and GIO computation method were applied for all the tests.
48
Table 2.9 Tests Features Comparison
Test
type
Test
No.
Sparki
ng test
PD
test
Test
1
Test
1
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Therm
al test
Features
Long
Energy
term
calculation
test
On-line or
Lab DGA
GIT
or
GIO
Sea
ling
Temperature
measurement
Heating
element or
oven
Lab DGA
GIO
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lab DGA
GIO
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
Lab DGA
GIO
No
No
N/A
Thermal
couple
GIO
Yes
No
N/A
Resisthermal
Heating
element
Heating
element
Lab DGA
Lab DGA
GIO
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
Oven
In comparison, On-line DGA which can ensure a fully sealed system and provide hourly DGA
sample for more reliable fault indication is getting more and more popular all around the world.
On the other hand, GIT fault gas concentration reflects real fault gas generation which is better
than GIO, since the GIG compound is also taken into consideration in GIT calculation. To
achieve better test result, the GIO calculation and on-line DGA method are used in this thesis.
Thermal test 1 is an open test in case the oil expansion will damage the test vessel. However,
the generated gas leaked out during the test, making the result unreliable. The test system in
this thesis is designed as fully sealed for reliable result.
Resisthermal is used in thermal test 2 for temperature measurement. This measurement method
obtained the average temperature by using voltage and current going through the heating
element. The thermal couple which could be used to measure the hot spot temperature is used
to get the hot spot temperature in this thesis.
Thermal oven which can offer relatively balanced heating up process for whole oil is used in
thermal test 3. Thermal fault in real transformers occurs more like a hot spot instead of oven;
therefore, the heating element are chosen as the heating method in this thesis.
49
50
Chapter 3 Experimental Study on DGA under Sparking Faults

3.1 Introduction
With the purpose of applying the standard diagnosis method for traditional mineral oil to
alternative natural esters, the gas performances of a mineral oil, Gemini X, and a natural ester,
FR3, are studied in this chapter under electrical sparking faults. A specially designed test vessel
with a good sealing capability was tested and used in this study, and the needle to plate
electrode configuration was used to produce electrical sparking faults. It was found that the
amount of fault gases is closely related with the fault energy; therefore the gas generation rate
(per J) was considered as a good parameter to compare the gas performance between FR3 and
Gemini X. The TM8 DGA monitor was used to measure the DGA results. Additionally, some
oil samples were also sent to TJH2B for laboratory analysis in order to compare with online
DGA methods. The results indicated that the two methods agree with each other with an
acceptable deviation.
3.2 Experiment Setup
3.2.1 Test Circuit Design

As the circuit design shown in Figure 3.1, a variac controller offering variable turns ratio was
used to control the voltage output of the 240 V/80 kV transformer (the voltage source in the
test).
51
The cage
600 k Water resistor
Over Current
Protection
relay
5A
Test vessel
240V/80kV
Voltage
divider
Ratio R1
10000:1
Variac
0-240 V
500 pF
R2
Power
frequency
CT
Output
V/A=1/100
Output
CT
V/A =
1/10
High frequency CT
CT
Oil
inlet
TM8
Oil
outlet
PC based TM8
control software
100 MHz
oscilloscope 1
100 MHz
oscilloscope 2
Figure 3.1 Schematic View of Electrical Sparking Test Circuit
Due to the limitation of the voltage divider, the maximum voltage used in the test was 70 kV.
The over current protection relay was set to 5 A to trigger the sparking faults. A 600 k water
resistor was connected between the HV output and the test vessel to reduce the sparking current
in case any damage is made to the gas tight system. The cylinder shaped gas tight test vessel,
which was made of transparent Perspex contains a needle - plate electrode system. The needle
electrode was connected to the high voltage output and the bottom plate electrode was
connected to earth. A TM8 on-line DGA monitor was connected to the test vessel to measure
the fault gases generated in the sparking tests.
During the test, the HV voltage was measured by the 10 k: 1 voltage divider which was
connected in parallel with the test vessel. Two current transformers were used to measure the
sparking current, in which a power frequency current transformer (CHAUVIN ARNOUX MN
52
60 current clamp, bandwidth from 40 Hz to 40 kHz) with a 1/100 output ratio was used to
measure the power frequency component of the sparking current, and another high frequency
current transformer (Stangenes pulse current transformer, model No. 0.5-0.1, Square Pulse
Rise Time = 20 ns) with a 1/10 ratio was used to measure the high frequency component of the
sparking current. The results of the two current transformers were combined together to get the
total result of current.
3.2.2 Test Vessel Design

To generate a proper amount of fault gases, the gap distance between the needle-to-plate
electrodes is chosen as 35 mm. The plate electrode was made of brass and has a diameter of 20
mm. The needle electrode was a medical needle with a tip radius of curvature in the range from
6-7 m from front view.
3.2.2.1 Main Design Advantages
To obtain a reliable result, the test vessel should be kept in a good sealing state and a complete
oil circulation should be maintained in the test. As the photo of the test vessel that is shown in
Figure 3.2, two design factors were tried in this thesis to keep the test working in sealed
condition, they are: inner cap and o-rings. The inner cap is a cap that placed right close to the
inner wall of the test cell which can block the oil and gas from leaking out. To keep the fault
gases staying in the circulation system, the test vessel is sealed by using rubber O ring (gasket)
at each joint. The main body of the test vessel is sealed with 8 groups of screws and an inner
cap system, providing two layers of protections from leakage. The screws can press the O ring
tightly and the inner cap can also stop the oil and gas from leaking. Once sealed, the main body
of the test vessel should never be unraveled to maintain a well-sealing state.
53
(a) Design Diagram
(b) Photo of Electrical Test Cell

Figure 3.2 Test Vessel Design Diagram
In order to obtain a complete oil circulation, several methods were applied as follows. Firstly,
the headspace was completely removed before test. Secondly, the 20 degree slope at the vessel
top is designed to remove the headspace and collect the fault gases. Thirdly, the oil inlet pipe
54
and outlet pipe are installed at the top/bottom of the test vessel to make sure that all oil is in
the circulation loop. Finally, the tube between the inlet pipe of TM8 and the syringe adaptor
was as short as possible to reduce the dead volume, since oil in this area is barely circulated
and it represents dead volume.
The syringe of 50 ml connecting to the top of the test cell is also used to remove the gas bubbles
during test setup and also balance the inner system pressure with outside atmosphere pressure
during test operation.
3.2.2.2 Sealing Tests

Two sealing tests are carried out to check whether the sealing state is qualified for both the
electrical sparking and electrical partial discharge (PD) tests.
Sealing test 1 is designed to check how much pressure difference between the inner and outside
of the test vessel is reduced in a period of 23 hours. The setup of sealing test 1 is shown in
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 Photo of Sealing Test 1
The empty test vessel is sealed and connected to the pressure gauge with a maximum 100 mbar
measurement range. A syringe pressurized the test vessel until the pressure difference between
the inside and the outside of the test vessel reached 100 mbar. Then, the syringe was removed
55
and the test vessel was kept for a further 23 hours. Figure 3.4 plots the pressure difference with
time (the pressure data is not recorded at night).
Sealing test
Pressure(mbar)
100
80
60
Pressure(mbar)
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time(h)
Figure 3.4 Pressure Versus. Time of Sealing Test 1
Sealing test 1 showed that the test vessel was in a good sealing state, and the pressure difference
between the inside and the outside of the test vessel fell from 98 mbar to 89 mbar after 23 hours.
This means only 10% gas leaked out within 23 hours and equivalent 0.4% in the first hour.
Sealing test 2 aimed at finding out the relationship between pressure, gas volume and sparking
numbers. A test circuit was built up according to Figure 3.1 (the TM8 was not connected in the
circuit) with the same electrode configuration. The test vessel was fully filled with FR3. After
50 sparking tests, a 51.5 mbar pressure difference was detected by the pressure gauge and the
pressure difference is maintained the same half hour after the test.
Sealing test 1 and 2 indicate the test vessel can be used for the sparking test which only has 15
sparking tests for each case, and for the PD test which could last for 2 days. Only 20% will
leak during the test maximally.
3.3 Test Procedure

With the purpose to compare the gas performances of two transformer liquids under electrical
sparking faults, the test procedure described below was strictly followed.
56
Process transformer oil as described in Section 2.1.3.
Drain oil out of the system.
Clean test system, fill processed oil into the system (eliminate the headspace).
Measure background gases.
Generate sparking faults.
Use syringe to push fault gases to be dissolved back into the oil circulation, and measure
the amount of fault gases.
Process and analyze test data.
3.3.1 Drain Oil out of System

After fresh oil is well processed, it needs to be filled into the TM8 test vessel system. To do
this, transformer oil from the previous test should be drained out first by TM8 which can pump
oil forwards and backwards for several times (normally 2 times). Some of the oil trapped in
TM8 would not be drained out easily if only forward pumping is applied; accordingly, pumping
oil in both directions is helpful to remove the residual oil efficiently. Detail of the steps is
described below.
First of all, the oil inlet pipe of TM8 needs to be disconnected and put into a waste oil barrel.
Secondly, the xtr suspend command needs to be used to suspend the extractor of TM8. The
extractor of TM8 needs to be suspended before the pump starts to rotate backwards because
the TM8 does not allow oil pump to rotate backwards when the extractor is in operation
otherwise the TM8 extractor would be damaged. Thirdly, the pump f oil rev 35 command
will be used to pump the oil backwards at the maximum speed (875 rpm) for 5 minutes. The
reason that the oil inlet pipe of TM8 needs to be disconnected instead of the oil outlet pipe is
because the oil outlet pipe is at the bottom of the test vessel. This kind of setup allows all the
oil inside test vessel to be drained out.
Afterwards, the oil pump must be pumped forwards in order to get rid of some oil residue.
Firstly, the pump oil off command needs to be used to stop the oil pump; then the oil outlet
57
pipe of TM8 needs to be disconnected and put into the waste oil barrel while the oil inlet pipe
needs to be taken out from the waste oil barrel and then put on to an empty oil beaker. Next,
the pump oil 35 command needs to be used, making the oil pump rotate forwards at the
maximum pumping speed. Wait around 10 minutes and repeat the pump oil backward and
forward procedures again to make sure most of the oil is drained out from TM8. According to
the test experiment, the previous dissolved gas residue can be reduced to less than 10% after
this procedure.
Sometimes the needle electrode needs to be changed before the processed oil is filled into the
system. In the sparking test, the needle electrode needs to be changed only when the oil is
changed from Gemini X to FR3. To change the needle electrode, the top brass cap nut needs
to be screwed out first and then the needle fixer has to be released to remove the medical needle.
A new medical needle is put into the needle fixer. The needle is carefully measured by ruler,
making sure the gap distance is 35 mm.
3.3.2 Clean Test System and Fill Processed Oil into the System
Processed oil can be filled into the system after the previous oil residue was cleaned. The oil
outlet pipe of TM8 needs to be connected back to the bottom of the test vessel while the inlet
pipe of TM8 needs to be put into the processed oil test vessel. The oil outlet valve of the test
vessel needs to be set in a closed state, the oil inlet valve should be kept in an open state and
the syringe valve of the test vessel needs to be set as open, letting the air go out. The pump
oil 35 command needs to be used to make TM8 pump the oil from the oil beaker to the test
vessel, oil will then go through the TM8 extractor and be filled into the test vessel from bottom
to top. The pump oil off command is used to stop the oil pump when the oil is close to the
top of the test vessel. The oil inlet pipe of TM8 needs to be connected with the oil outlet valve
of test vessel; the valve should be set to the open state afterwards. The oil filled 50 ml syringe
needs to be connected with the syringe valve to replace the headspace gas with processed oil.
Lastly, the syringe will be used to apply some negative pressure to the sealed system, checking
whether the sealing state of the system is reliable or not. If any gas bubbles come into the
58
system when the pressure is applied, the leakage place of the vessel or the connection must be
checked and sealed.
Normally the GIO concentration of previous test will reduce to nil after procedure 3.3.1,
therefore the test system didnt require a formal clean procedure. However, the test system
needs to be washed and cleaned by processed oil under two certain circumstances: (1) the GIO
concentration is too high, i.e. several thousand ppm, (2) the next test oil type is different with
previous one.
In this two cases, the Procedure 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 needs to be repeated for a totally clean
background.
3.3.3 Measuring Background DGA level

Before measuring the background dissolved gas value of test oil, the gas extractor chamber
needs to be cleaned. Gas residue inside the gas chamber could be pumped out by using the xtr
resume command and xtr gas.purge command in sequence, resuming TM8 extractor to
normal operation state and then making the oil pump rotate forwards at the maximum speed.
The pre command could be used to print out the gas chamber pressure; the gas chamber
pressure will reduce down to 3 psi and then rise back up to around 15 psi (1 atmosphere) within
a couple of hours. The oil filled syringe needs to be connected to the top syringe valve to
balance the system pressure to the atmosphere pressure in case the pressure difference damages
the system sealing state.
Lastly, the ts s dateTtime command will be used to control TM8 for starting hourly oil
sampling after the gas purge procedure is finished. The background DGA GIG reading, relative
equilibrium pressure and oil temperature are noted for further calculation.
3.3.4 Generating Sparking Faults
59
During the sparking test, the output voltage was increased at a rate of 2 kV/s until a sparking
(an interrupted breakdown) occurred. The reason 5 kV/s is applied is to avoid any sparking
will be formed due to the fast increasing voltage. The sparking voltage and current (high
frequency and power frequency) were recorded for further analysis. This procedure was
repeated 15 times for each liquid sample.
3.4 Data Measurement and Analysis

3.4.1 GIG and GIT
As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, the TM8 on-line DGA monitor measures the amount of gases
using the headspace method. The headspace method actually measures the amount of fault
gases in the gas phase at equilibrium states and then calculates the amount of dissolved fault
gases or the total amount of fault gases. The total amount of fault gases can be calculated by
the Equation (2.1), in which GIT and GIG are the concentrations of total fault gases and fault
gases in gas phase respectively. K, partition coefficient, is a ratio of GIO over GIG at
equilibrium.
The K under different temperatures and pressures can be derived from TM8 monitor. Figure
3.5 plots the partition coefficient K for FR3 and Gemini X at different temperatures.
60
10
H2
10
H2
N2
1
C
0
40
80
120
160
N2
CO
O2
1
0
40
80
120
CH4
CO2
0.1
C2H4
C2H6
O2
CH4
CO2
0.1
C2H4
C2H2
0.01
160
CO
C2H2
C2H6
0.01
FR3
Gemini X
Figure 3.5 Partial Coefficients for FR3 and Gemini X
In Equation (2.1), is the ratio of gas volume and oil volume inside the oil circulation system.
In the sparking test and PD test, =Vgas/Voil= 77 ml/ 2570 ml = 0.02996. P0 is the equilibrium
pressure given by the unit of psi and P is the pressure of one atmosphere that is equal to 14.67
psi. T0 is the oil temperature and T is the standard temperature that is equal to 25 C which is
298.2 K.
When the test data were plotted in Duval triangle, the GIG value should be converted into GIO
value first. The way to calculate GIO is shown in Equation (3.1) [39].
GIO = GIG K (T, gas) P/P0 T0/T
(3.1)
The parameter used in Equation (3.1) is the same as that in Equation (2.1).
3.4.2 Dissolved Gas Generation Calculation

Based on the test observation, the amount of dissolved gas reached a peak within 3 hours after
the sparking tests were finished. An example is shown in Table 3.1 for Gemini X. GIG0 is the
background GIG value measured before the sparking test, GIG1, GIG2, GIG3 are the GIG
values measured at 1, 2 and 3 hours after the test. P and T represent the equilibrium pressure
and the oil temperature. Table 3.1 shows that the GIG value of H2 reached a peak at the 2nd
61
hour after the sparking test, and then it started to fluctuate and fell due to leakage, consumption
and temperature change. On the other hand, the GIG values of C2H4, C2H2, CH4 and CO
reached their peaks at the 3rd hour after the sparking test. Since all the GIG values will reach
their peaks within 3 hours, the average values around 3rd hour (result from 2nd 3rd and 4th hours)
after the test were reported as the final results in order to minimize the error. The GIT amount
can be obtained as the difference between the background and the final results using the
equation below:
GIT = GIT average - GIT0.
Taking H2 value as an example, the background GIT value can be calculated as GIT = GIG
(K + ) P/P0 T0/T = 48.4 ppm (K+0.02996) 14.3 psi/14.7 psi 298.2 K / 295.5 K.
According to Figure 3.5, K = 0.044 when T is 22.3 C. Substitute K = 0.044 into the above
Equation, we have GIT = 3.5 ppm.
Following the same calculation step, the GIT1, GIT2 and GIT3 can be obtained as 135.3 ppm,
152.1 ppm, 151.0 ppm. The average GIT is GIT
average
= (GIT1 + GIT2 + GIT3)/ 3 = (135.3
ppm + 152.1 ppm + 151.0 ppm) / 3 = 146.1 ppm. Therefore, the total amount of H2 generated
during the test is GIT = GIT average - GIT0 = 146.1 ppm 3.5 ppm = 142.6 ppm.
Table 3.1 Example GIO Concentration in Gemini X
Mineral oil test 1

No.
GIG0
GIG1
GIG2
GIG3
GIO (ppm)
C2H4
C2H2 C2H6
H2
O2
CH4 CO
2.8
0.3
48.4
138031.8
42.9 14.3 22.3
8.2
70.1
1835
136751.1
28.8
39.7 14.5 22.6
10.4
85.8
2047.5 135906.6
36.4
40.7 14.6 22.6
11.2
86.7
2032.6 135336.6
36.8
51.4 14.6 22.7
Table 3.2 shows the calculation results of all gases in the example. The Total Dissolved
Combustible Gas (TDCG) is also listed as the sum of hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. For gases with a generation amount less than 0, such as C2H6 -0.7, the GIT is
regarded as 0.
62
Table 3.2 Example GIT Concentration in Gemini X
Mineral oil test 1
GIT (ppm)
No.
C2H4 C2H2 C2H6
GIT0
0
3
-0.7
GIT1
11.9
76
0
GIT2
15.2 93.7
0
GIT3
16.4 94.5
0
14.5 88.1
0
Average GIT
0
Generation GIT 14.5 85.1
TDCG
H2
3.5
135.3
152.1
151
146.1
142.6
O2
21037.1
21111.9
21126.3
21030.5
21089.6
52.5
CH4 CO
0
6.2
11.3 5.8
14.4 6
14.5 7.5
13.4 6.4
9.8 0.3
252.2
3.4.3 Sparking Energy Calculation

The sparking energy for each test could be quite different even when the test condition was
well controlled. As shown in Figure 3.1, the fault current was measured by using two current
transformers with one in the power frequency (50 Hz) range and the other in the high frequency
range (5 MHz). The voltage was measured using a voltage divider. Two 100 MHz oscilloscopes
made by Lecroy were used to record low frequency signal and high frequency signal separately.
High frequency sparking current and voltage signals were recorded with 500 k sample points
at a 1 GHz sampling rate while power frequency sparking signals were recorded with a 500 k
sample points at a 5 MHz sampling rate. The sparking energy can be calculated following
Equation (3.2), in which 0 - tn is recorded duration.
W = 0 V (t) I (t) dt
(3.2)
It should be noted that the time scale set by the oscilloscopes for the high frequency and low
frequency currents are different. For the high frequency current, the time scale is usually 160
ns (one high frequency current pulse) and for low frequency current, the time scale is usually
40 ms. Consequently, Equation (3.2) can be written into Equation (3.3), in which n is the
number of sample points and t is the time step between sample points.
W = 0(() () )
(3.3)
63
In Section 3.5, it could be found that the oscilloscopes were set to compensate the CT output
ratio and as a result, thus the CT ratios have been taken in account in the recorded readings and
therefore will not affect the calculation equation. On the other hand, as stated in section 3.1,
the voltage divider is used to reduce the voltage to 1/10 k and the probe of the oscilloscope is
also set to 10:1 in compensation, Equation (3.3) needs to be rewritten into Equation (3.4).
W = 0(() () ) 10000/10
W = 0(() () ) 1000
(3.4)
3.4.3.1 High Frequency Component of Sparking Signal

For the calculation of high frequency energy, the V (n) and I (n) were converted into absolute
value since sparking in both the negative and positive direction will produce fault gases.
Consequently, Equation (3.4) can be rewritten into Equation (3.5).
W h = 0(|()| |()| ) 1000
(3.5)
Figure 3.6 shows an example of a high frequency component. Channel 1 records the sparking
voltage while channel 3 records the high frequency sparking current. Figure 3.6(a) shows a full
time scale of high frequency sparking signals which includes 2 pulses in a 200 s time range.
Figure 3.6(b) is the zoom-in view of Figure 3.6(a), focusing on the first pulse in a 2 s time
range.
It should be noted that noises exist in the recordings and should be filtered. In this example,
the noise is about 5 A while the maximum pulse signal is 250 A (channel 3 voltage to current
ratio is 1: 1, therefore 250 V noise signal from oscilloscope stands for 250 A). Matlab was used
to calculate the energy for the high frequency component. 200 k points are recorded for each
test and therefore n in Equation (3.5) is 200,000. V[n] and I[n] are stored in two arrays and
time step t is set to 1 ns.
64
(a) 200 s time range
(b) 2 s time range
Figure 3.6 Example of High Frequency Component of Sparking Current
3.4.3.2 Power Frequency Component of Sparking Signal

For the calculation of power frequency energy, the power frequency current was measured in
the primary winding side of the voltage supply transformer because the current is too small to
be measured in the secondary winding side. Therefore, the measured current should be
converted to the value at the secondary winding side by a factor of 240/ 80k. Equation (3.4)
can be rewritten into Equation (3.6) to compute power frequency power.
W p = n0(V(n) I(n) t) 1000 240/ 80000
W p = n0(V(n) I(n) t) 1000 3 / 1000
W p = n0(V(n) I(n) t) 3
(3.6)
Figure 3.7 shows an example of power frequency energy calculation for the same sparking test
shown in Figure 3.6. Channel 1 (yellow) shows the sparking voltage and channel 2 (pink)
shwos the power frequency current. Theoretically the background relative power before
sparking should be 0, however, there is a slight phase difference between the current from the
primary and the secondary winding, making the reactive power not equal to zero. Therefore,
the background energy should be eliminated in the energy calculation. Since the background
energy within any period before the sparking faults is a constant W0, the actual sparking energy
65
can be obtained by using the sparking energy W1 (as shown in Figure 3.7) minus the
corresponding background energy W0.
Figure 3.7 Example of Power Frequency Component of Sparking Current
It should be noted that the power frequency current transformer (made by Chauvin Arnoux)
has a frequency range from 40 to 10 kHz. Therefore, the high frequency noises should be
filtered. A Matlab ellipse filter is applied to filter the current signals for two times. As shown
in Figure 3.8, the high frequency noises contained in the original power frequency current (blue
curve) were removed, leaving only the filtered power frequency current (red curve).
Figure 3.8 Example Filtered Waveform of Power Frequency Sparking Current
66
Similar to the high frequency energy, Matlab is used to calculate the power frequency energy.
500 k points are recorded for each sparking test and therefore n in Equation (3.6) is 500,000.
The V[n] and I[n] are stored in two arrays and time step t = 1 ns.
3.4.3.3 Sparking Types

Since sparking (interrupted breakdown) is of the random nature, three different types of
sparking were observed during the tests even under the similar test conditions. The sparking
could be classified as normal sparking, slight sparking and continuous sparking as shown in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Sparking Types
Sparking type
Normal sparking
Slight sparking
Continuous sparking
cut off or not

Yes
No
Yes
dips before cut off

1
1
2 or more
A normal sparking is followed by the interruption of the current relay, after which the applied
voltage is cut off. A slight sparking is not followed by the interruption of the current relay, and
the voltage is continuously applied on the sample liquid after having a slight voltage dip.
Therefore, the energy of the slight sparking was not calculated since the amount of fault gases
is small and the sparking energy is also small. A continuous sparking contains two or more
sparking faults before the current relay cuts off the voltage. Therefore, the energy of all
sparking faults contained in a continuous sparking was calculated. The waveforms of different
types of spankings are shown in Figure 3.9.
(a) Normal sparking
(b) Slight sparking
(c) Continuous sparking
Figure 3.9 Different Types of Sparking
67
3.4.3.4 Example of Sparking Energy Calculation

To calculate the energy for each sparking test, firstly, the number of sparking faults should be
determined. Secondly, the average high frequency power and power frequency power need to
be used for group sparking energy estimation.
For example, Table 3.4 shows the energy of Gemini X sparking test group 2. This group
contains 13 normal sparking and 1 continuous sparking (including two consecutive sparking)
which in total form 15 sparking in this group. When the double sparking occurred, the power
frequency signal is completely recorded as shown in Figure 3.9 (c) while the high frequency
pulse of the second consecutive sparking (Sparking 10 b) is missed for the sampling period of
the oscilloscope is too short (200 s) to catch the second pulse.
Table 3.4 Example of Group Sparking Energy Calculation
Sparking 1
PF
Energy(J
)
1.77
HF
Energy(J
)
2.02
Sparking 10 a
Sparking 2
1.37
1.07
Sparking 10 b
Sparking 3
1.64
1.42
Sparking 11
1.75
1.73
Sparking 4
1.63
1.79
Sparking 12
1.81
1.89
Sparking 5
1.51
1.42
Sparking 13
2.04
2.3
Sparking 6
4.01
2.24
Sparking 14
1.92
2.07
Sparking 7
1.77
1.64
average
1.96
1.75
Sparking 8
1.92
2.25
29.37
26.2
Sparking 9
1.3
1.04
total
Group
energy (J)
Test 2
Test 2
PF Energy(J)
HF Energy(J)
1.55
4.93
Missed
55.57
As shown in Table 3.4, the power frequency energy of sparking 10 (4.93 J), the double sparking,
is roughly the double of the power frequency energy of other sparking in this group (average
1.96 J). In this case the average power frequency energy is equal to 1/15 of the sum of all
sparking which is (1.77 J + 1.37 J + 4.93 J+ 1.75 J+ 1.92 J)/ 15 = 1.96 J, the total power
frequency energy is then 15 1.96 J = 29.37 J.
68
On the other hand, the high frequency energy of sparking 10 only stands for the first
consecutive sparking (Sparking 10 a) whose energy (1.55 J) is close to the average value (1.75
J). The sum of high frequency power is 15 average energy of high frequency energy (1.75 J)
and such the total energy is 1.75 J 15 = 26.20 J. Group energy is the summary of total power
frequency energy and high frequency energy which is 29.37 J +26.20 J = 55.57 J.
3.5 Test Condition and Observation

Detail of the oscilloscope setting is listed below in Table 3.5. All 13 groups of test including
13 15 normal sparking are controlled in the same conditions for a better comparison. In this
setting, the oil volume of the whole TM8 test vessel system contains 2.57 L oil and 77 ml
headspace.
Table 3.5 Oscilloscope Settings
Oscilloscope Setting
Power frequency current
Channel 1
Voltage div
probe
Voltage divider ratio
Channel 2
Current div
probe
CT ratio
Trigger
Coupling
Time
Delay
Point number
div
50 V
10/1
1/10 k
1V
10/1
1/10
HF reject
0
500 k
10 ms
High frequency current

Channel 1
Voltage div
probe
Voltage divider ratio
Channel 3
Current div
probe
CT ratio
Trigger
Coupling
Time
Delay
Point number
div
50 V
10/1
1/10 k
100 V
100/1
1/100
DC
-80 s
200 k
20 s
The average sparking voltage for FR3 is 51 kV with a 3 kV fluctuation and is 54 kV for
Gemini X with a 3 kV fluctuation. Compared with FR3, under the same test conditions,
69
Gemini X requires higher energy for the incipient of sparking and will also generate a higher
amount of gas bubbles after each sparking.
3.6 Test Result and Analysis

3.6.1 Gas Generation of Sparking Faults
The amount of total fault gases is summarized in Figure 3.10 for both Gemini X and FR3.
250.0
ppm
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Test group 1
C2H4
14.5
C2H2
85.1
C2H6
0.0
H2
142.6
CH4
9.8
CO
0.3
Test group 2
17.7
100.6
1.4
207.1
14.4
0.9
Test group 3
18.0
103.3
1.8
211.6
14.3
2.0
Test group 4
17.8
101.3
0.0
228.3
14.9
0.7
Test group 5
15.6
90.4
0.5
156.4
12.9
1.2
(a) GIT of Gemini X Tests

250.0
ppm
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Test group 1
C2H4
14.5
C2H2
92.5
C2H6
0.6
H2
194.1
CH4
6.2
CO
42.0
Test group 2
11.6
84.5
0.1
194.3
6.2
38.2
Test group 3
13.0
84.6
0.0
170.4
7.5
31.2
Test group 4
13.8
100.7
0.6
212.2
6.7
49.9
Test group 5
13.0
86.0
1.1
179.3
5.9
45.0
Test group 6
11.4
92.5
0.0
218.6
6.1
47.9
(b) GIT of FR3 Tests
Figure 3.10 Total Gas Generation in Gemini X /FR3 Tests
70
It can be seen that the total amount of fault gases of Gemini X and FR3 are similar at about
200 ppm. However, the fault gases generation of FR3 is relatively stable compared with Gemini
X, and the fault gas amount varies in each group probably due to different energies even when
the test condition was well controlled. Therefore, the sparking energy should be taken into
account to compare the gas performance of different oils. Generally speaking, fault gas
generation is relatively similar when the same numbers of sparking faults are applied. However,
when the sparking energy is taken into consideration, the conclusion is varied slightly.
3.6.2 Energy of Sparking Faults

The calculated energy of each test is listed below in Table 3.6, using the energy calculation
method described in Section 3.4.3.
Table 3.6 Sparking Energy for Each Test Group inside Gemini X/ FR3
Gemini X test group

Average(J) Total(J) PF average(J) HF average(J)
1
2.96
44.47
1.71
1.25
2
3.7
55.57
1.96
1.75
3
3.52
52.74
1.77
1.75
4
3.65
54.79
1.76
1.89
5
3.6
54.05
1.73
1.87
Average of Gemini X
3.49
52.32
1.79
1.70
FR3 test group
Average(J) Total(J) PF average(J) HF average(J)
1
3.20
48.04
1.97
1.23
2
2.89
43.32
1.63
1.26
3
2.78
41.76
1.53
1.25*
4
2.77
41.51
1.63
1.14
5
2.89
43.28
1.65
1.24
6
2.19
32.82
1.38
0.81
Average of FR3
2.79
41.79
1.63
1.15
Note: * The original test data are damaged, 1.25 J is estimated data
71
The sparking energy for each test group is different with the maximum deviation of 20%. FR3
has a 20% lower energy compared with Gemini X. The difference of the energy is mainly
attributed to the high frequency component of the sparking faults, since the difference of high
frequency component energy for Gemini X and FR3 is 48% while that of power frequency
component energy is only 9%.
3.6.3 Gas generation rate (per J)

Figure 3.11 shows the amount of gas generation rate (per J) for Gemini X and FR3. It can be
noticed that the gas generation rate (per J) was different from the total gas amount as shown in
Figure 3.10. Taking H2 generation of Gemini X test as an example, the H2 generation of test
group 5 (156.4 ppm) is larger than that of test group 1 (142.6 ppm) in Figure 3.10; however,
the H2 generation (per J) of test group 5 (3.0 ppm / J) is less than that of test group 1 (3.2 ppm
/ J) in Figure 3.11.
72
8.0
ppm/ J
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Test group 1
C2H4
0.3
C2H2
1.9
C2H6
0.0
H2
3.2
CH4
0.2
CO
0.0
TDCG
5.6
Test group 2
0.3
1.9
0.0
3.9
0.3
0.0
6.5
Test group 3
0.4
2.0
0.0
4.2
0.3
0.0
7.0
Test group 4
0.3
1.9
0.0
4.4
0.3
0.0
6.9
Test group 5
0.3
1.8
0.0
3.0
0.2
0.0
5.4
Average of groups
0.3
1.9
0.0
3.7
0.3
0.0
6.3
(a) Gas generation rate (per J) in Gemini X tests

12.00
ppm/ J
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Test group 1
C2H4
0.36
C2H2
2.29
C2H6
0.01
H2
4.80
CH4
0.15
CO
1.04
TDCG
8.66
Test group 2
0.26
1.88
0.00
4.32
0.14
0.85
7.45
Test group 3
0.30
1.97
0.00
3.97
0.17
0.73
7.15
Test group 4
0.28
2.07
0.01
4.37
0.14
1.03
7.90
Test group 5
0.30
1.99
0.02
4.15
0.14
1.04
7.65
Test group 6
0.35
2.81
0.00
6.65
0.18
1.46
11.45
Average of groups
0.3
2.2
0.0
4.7
0.2
1.0
8.4
(b) Gas generation rate (per J) in FR3 tests

Figure 3.11 GIT Generation rate (per) J in Gemini X and FR3 Sparking Tests
73
It can also be seen from Figure 3.11 that the gas generation rate (per J) is repeatable for all
groups. For both liquids, H2 is the main fault indicator which takes up to 60% of the total fault
gases, followed by C2H2 which takes up to 25% of the total fault gases. However, CO is only
significant in FR3 which always takes up to 12% of total fault gases, which probably due to
the ester part in the FR3 molecular structure.
3.6.4 Absolute Gas generation rate (per J)

When considering the oil volume of the test system (2.57 L), the gas generation rate in the unit
of ppm/J can be calculated into the absolute gas generation rate in the unit of l/J, as listed in
Table 3.7. It can be seen from Table 3.7 that the gas generation rates of the sparking fault reach
21 l/J for FR3 and 16 l/J for Gemini X, which is comparable with that of Dr. X. Wangs test
conclusion. [10]
Table 3.7 Absolute GIT Generation Rate (t/J) of Sparking Tests
Oil
Gemini
X
FR3
Test
1
2
3
4
5
Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
J/BD
ppm/BD
ul/BD
ppm/J
ul/J
ml/test
3.0
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.4
2.69
3.00
2.86
3.24
2.88
2.19
2.8
16.8
22.8
23.4
24.2
18.5
21.1
23.32
22.33
20.44
25.59
22.02
25.10
23.1
43.2
58.6
60.1
62.2
47.5
54.3
59.94
57.40
52.52
65.77
56.58
64.49
59.5
5.59
6.46
6.96
6.94
5.37
6.3
8.66
7.45
7.15
7.90
7.65
11.45
8.4
14.4
16.6
17.9
17.8
13.8
16.1
22.25
19.15
18.38
20.30
19.67
29.41
21.5
0.65
0.88
0.90
0.93
0.71
0.8
0.90
0.86
0.79
0.99
0.85
0.97
0.9
3.6.5 Gemini X and FR3 Comparison

As stated in Section 3.5, sparking test conditions were well controlled and therefore results
from all test groups can be used in an average value calculation. The average value of all test
groups in FR3 and Gemini X was calculated and compared in Figure 3.12.
74
ppm/ J
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Gemini X
C2H4
0.3
C2H2
1.9
C2H6
0.0
H2
3.7
CH4
0.3
CO
0.0
TDCG
6.3
0.3
2.2
0.0
4.7
0.2
1.0
8.4
FR3
Figure 3.12 GIT Generation rate (per J) Comparison between Gemini X and FR3
It can be seen that the sparking faults in FR3 generates 33% higher amount of total fault gases
than that in Gemini X. The amount of H2 in FR3 is 27% higher than that in Gemini X, while
the amount of C2H2 in FR3 is 16% higher. Furthermore, CO takes up to 12% in FR3 while it
is almost 0 for Gemini X.
3.6.6 Duval Triangle Analysis

All the DGA data from sparking tests need to be calculated into GIO value before the Duval
triangle method applied. The GIO concentration are calculated based on Equation (3.1) and
shown in table 3.8.
75
Table 3.8 GIO Generation Rate (ppm/J)
GIO DGA(ppm)
Mineral oil
C 2H 4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
TDCG
Test group 1
14.2
82.7
84.9
0.2
191.1
Duval ratio
13.40%
78.10%
Test group 2
17.4
97.8
0.7
254.1
Duval ratio
13.50%
76.10%
Test group 3
17.6
100.4
1.6
260.6
Duval ratio
13.40%
76.50%
Test group 4
17.8
101.3
0.7
363.1
Duval ratio
13.30%
75.60%
Test group 5
15.2
87.9
210.1
Duval ratio
13.20%
76.40%
8.50%
1.4
123.4
13.3
10.40%
1.8
125.9
13.2
10.10%
228.3
14.9
11.10%
0.5
93.7
1191.20%
10.40%
GIO DGA(ppm)
FR3
C 2H 4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
TDCG
Test group 1
14.2
91.3
0.6
123.1
5.8
33.2
268.1
Duval ratio
12.80%
82.10%
Test group 2
11.4
83.5
30.2
254.3
Duval ratio
11.40%
83.00%
Test group 3
12.8
83.5
24.6
236
Duval ratio
12.40%
81.00%
Test group 4
13.5
99.5
39.4
293.7
Duval ratio
11.30%
83.50%
Test group 5
12.8
84.9
35.6
254.7
Duval ratio
12.40%
82.30%
Test group 6
11.2
91.4
37.7
282.3
Duval ratio
10.30%
84.50%
5.20%
0.1
123.4
5.7
5.70%
108.2
6.9
6.70%
0.6
134.5
6.2
5.20%
114.9
5.5
5.30%
136.4
5.6
5.20%
The Duval triangle method can then be applied as shown in Figure 3.13. The FR3 Duval
Triangle used here is obtained from the latest publications by M. Duval [16]. It should be noted
76
that the Duval triangle plots for different tests of the same oil are quite close to one another,
indicating that the test repeatability is good. It can be seen that the sparking faults in Gemini X
and FR3 were all plotted in D1 area (low energy discharge), indicating that the energy of
sparking faults was not very high because the sparking current was interrupted by the current
protection relay immediately after the fault occurred. Therefore, a continuous arcing path could
not be formed in the oil.
Figure 3.13 Duval Triangle Evaluation (GIO) of Sparking Fault in Gemini X and FR3
3.6.7 Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison

To make sure that the results from TM8 are reliable, some of the oil samples are sent to TJH2B
analytical laboratory for DGA analysis as a reference. Table 3.9 shows an example of the DGA
comparison between the TM8 and the analytical laboratory. The DGA results using the online
TM8 monitor was obtained 3 hours after 15 sparking tests for FR3. The laboratory DGA
analysis was carried out 16 hours later than that. Table 3.6 shows that the laboratory result and
online monitor results agree with each other within a deviation of 30%. However, the amount
of O2 using laboratory analysis is 3 times higher than that using TM8, indicating a leakage
might occur during the sample transportation.
77
Table 3.9 Comparison of GIO Results between TM8 and Laboratory Analysis
Oil type
FR3
TM8 sample
Laboratory sample
Laboratory / TM8
GIO (ppm)
C2H4
24
19
C2H2
197.3
151
C2H6
3
3
H2
80.4
59
O2
14190.4
59060
CH4
12.1
8
CO
53.5
34
79.08%
76.52%
99.84%
73.43%
416.20%
65.91%
63.60%
3.7 Summary
In this chapter, the amount of total fault gases in FR3 and Gemini X are measured using a
sealed online DGA test system.
The main summaries are listed as follows:
1. FR3 generates a similar amount of fault gases to Gemini X under sparking faults.
2. Considering the sparking energy, FR3 generates fault gases (per J) 25% higher than
Gemini X.
3. The fault gas generation (per J) might be a more reasonable parameter to evaluate the
gas performances of different liquids.
4. The Duval triangle method can recognize these sparking faults as low energy
discharges for both liquids.
5. TM8 online monitor result is comparable with laboratory DGA analysis method with a
deviation of 30%.
78
Chapter 4 Experimental Study on DGA under PD Faults

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the electrical partial discharge (PD) faults is studied using the needle to plate
electrodes and the online DGA monitor and oil circulation system which is similar to the one
described in last chapter. Although in previous publications the PD faults was usually presented
by the PD amplitude [11], it is found in this chapter that the PD energy can be correlated with
the amount of s gases much better. As a result, the gas generation rate (versus energy) is proved
to be a useful parameter to show the gas performances of Gemini X and FR3. In order to
compare the DGA results between online and laboratory methods, some oil samples were also
sent to TJH2B for laboratory analysis.

The experimental setup of PD test is similar to the sparking test, as shown in Figure 4.1. The
same test container was connected with the TM8 online monitor using the same method,
providing a good sealing capability of the oil circulation system. However, the distance
between the needle and plate electrodes was increased to 50 mm. Furthermore, the PD signals
produced in the test were monitored by a LDS-6 PD detector, with the measuring impedance
connected in series with the 500 pF capacitor, providing a traditional PD test circuit. The LDS6 PD detector can record the magnitude of each PD signal, as well as the appearance time and
the instantaneous voltage.
79
The cage
600 k Water resistor
Over Current
Protection relay
6.5 A
Voltage
divider
Test vessel
Ratio R1
10000:1
240 V/80 kV
500 pF
Variac
0-240 V
R2
Zm
Oil
inlet
TM8
PC based TM8
control software
Oil
outlet
Measuring
impedence
500 kHz PC
based PD
detector
100 MHz
oscilloscope
Figure 4.1 Schematic Diagram of Electrical PD Test Circuit
4.3 Test Procedure

Since the fault gases in PD tests were generated in quite small amount, special care should be
taken to avoid the gas leakage. The test procedure of PD test is listed as follows. It should be
noted that the oil circulation was always suspended during the PD test until measuring the fault
gases, in order to reduce the gas leakage from the circulation.
80
Process transformer oil (Chapter 2).
Clean test system, fill processed oil into the system (eliminate the headspace). (Chapter
3.3)
Calibrate PD detector.
Measure the background gases.
Generate PD faults.
Measure the amounts of fault gases.
Data processing and analysis.
4.3.1 Calibrate the PD Detector

A PD experiment system is required to be calibrated and PD background noise needs to be
measured before the start of test.
To calibrate the LEMKE LDS-6 PC based PD detector, both the PD amplitude and voltage
readings need to be calibrated. The PD calibrator was connected in parallel to the test vessel in
order to apply a 50 pC PD signal to the test vessel. The PD detector will then be used to check
and calibrate the measured signal to see if it is 50 pC. The PD calibrator needs to be removed
and a 30 kV voltage will be applied to the test vessel. The measured voltage from the PD
detector was checked and adjusted until the voltage reading matches that of the oscilloscope.
Figure 4.2 shows the screen shot of the software.
Figure 4.2 PD Calibration Panel of PD Measuring System Software
81
4.3.2 Measuring Background PD Noise

Before the PD test, the maximum background PD noise signal in air should be determined. The
needle electrode was firstly removed, and the test circuit was set up as shown in Figure 4.1.
Then, the maximum applied voltage of 60 kV was applied to the test vessel. The PD signal was
recorded for 1 minute and the result are shown in Figure 4.3.
As we can see from Figure 4.3, the maximum PD noise in FR3 under 60 kV is only 30 pC
which is extremely low in comparison with 4000 pC PD amplitude when the needle electrode
is installed. For this case, the background PD noise could be ignored since the noise is much
lower than the noise cutoff level when the needle electrode is in use. The noise cutoff level was
used to remove the background noise in the PD test, and the detail is described in Section
4.4.2.1.
Figure 4.3 PD Noise in FR3 under 60 kV
4.3.3 Generating PD Faults

Before the PD faults are generated, TM8 needs to be suspended and the oil inlet and outlet
valve should be turned off to keep a better sealing state of the test system. Unlike the sparking
test which only lasts for 10 minutes, the PD test lasted up to 2 days. Therefore, the sealing state
82
is of vital importance for a reliable test result. For this reason, anything could reduce the
dissolved gas concentration such as (1) leakage caused by oil flow or (2) gas consumption
caused by TM8 sampling must be prevented.
To generate a PD fault, the applied voltage is raised at the rate of 2 kV/s until the target voltage
is reached. The voltage is then kept for a certain period of time according to the fault gas
generation rate of each liquid. In FR3 test, because the PD repetition rate is high, the PD signal
was recorded for 1 minute in every 15 minutes; On the other hand, the PD signal in Gemini X
test was recorded from the beginning to the end due to a much lower repetition rate. The test
voltage was reduced to zero after the test is finished. Then the oil valves were re-opened and
the oil circulation was resumed before the measurement of fault gases by TM8.
4.4 Data Measurement and Process Method

4.4.1 Total Gas Generation Calculation
The calculation method of total fault gases is almost the same as that described in Section 3.4.
The only difference between the total gas generation calculation of the sparking test and the
PD test is that the GIT and GIO are calculated by the peak value instead of the average value.
In the sparking test, dissolved gas reached a peak within 3 hours, thus the average of the amount
of fault gases within 3 hours was used as the final result (the average value is similar to the
peak value). However, in the PD test, because the oil circulation is suspended during the test,
the dissolved gas reading will reach a peak within 6-7 hours after the test. The average value
within this duration is quite difference from the peak value, and therefore, the peak value (based
on H2) is used as the final result. TM8 viewer software could be used to observe the peak of
fault gases as shown in Figure 4.4.
83
Figure 4.4 Example of PD Test DGA Peak Value
The H2 is the most significant and easy-leaking gas among all generated fault gases. The H2
peak is therefore chosen as the sign for peak value to obtain a maximum H2 reading. As we
can see from Figure 4.4, the H2 (dark blue curve) reaches a peak in 4 hours after the test.
Therefore, the readings of fault gases at the 4th hour after the test should be used as the results.
4.4.2 PD Energy Calculation

It was observed that the PD power during the long-period PD test might vary a lot due to the
electrical erosion of the needle electrode by the discharge. In order to calculate the PD power
and PD energy, the PD signals were recorded periodically for short durations due to storage
limitation of the software, i.e. one minute in every 15 minutes. As a result, each PD test was
recorded into several short-duration PD files. During the recording, there are several time
periods cannot be recorded due to operation, the energy of this period is estimated according
to recorded PD files. Consequently, the PD energy for each PD test was obtained by linearly
extending those PD energy of each short-duration PD files to the full test duration. It should be
84
noted that the noise of the PD signal should be filtered out via LDS-6 PD measurement software
before the calculation.
4.4.2.1 Instrument Noise Filtering

During the PD recording, the PD detector was able to remove the small PD noises. This was
achieved by applying a cut-off level manually provided by the operator, and any PDs or noises
with magnitude less than the threshold level was removed. The cut-off level was determined
as a level slightly higher than the PD noise, i.e. a cut-off level of 50 pC based on the noise
result in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.5 shows the effect of noise filtering of a 44 kV test of FR3. As
shown in Figure 4.5, the filtered PD signal (Figure 4.5 (b)) was obtained by removing the noises
less than 130 pC in the recording of all signals (Figure 4.5 (a)).
(a) Orginal PD signal
(b) Filtered PD signal
Figure 4.5 PD Noise Filter
4.4.2.2 PD Energy Calculation Method

As it stated before that several PD files were used to record a PD test, as a result, the energy
for each test PD test can be linearly extrapolated
The PC-based PD detector recorded 4 parameters of each PD signal: the PD sequence number,
the PD occurrence phase when a PD was detected, the PD apparent charge (Q in the unit of pC)
and the instantaneous voltage (in the unit of kV). The PD charge and PD voltage can be used
to calculate the PD energy using Equation (4.1).
85
W=
(4.1)
where the unit of Q is pC and the unit of V is kV. If we convert the pC to C, kV to V, Equation
(4.1) can be rewritten into Equation (4.2) to get the energy in J.
W=
(4.2)
In order to judge the PD energy distribution to each band of PD amplitude, the PD energy is
calculated according to 6 PD amplitude bands: 0-1000 pC, 1000-2000 pC, 2000-3000 pC,
3000-4000 pC, 4000-5000 pC, and 5000-6000 pC (barely used). The Find function of Matlab
will be used here to pick out these PD that are within the proper amplitude band. Equation (4.2)
is still capable for PD energy computation after the qualified PDs are picked out by the Find
function.
In order to calculate the overall PD energy, the PD power should be obtained by following
Equation (4.3) and linearly extrapolated to the overall period.
P = W/ t
(4.3)
Substitute Equation (4.2) into Equation (4.3), we have:
P=
(4.4)
Equation (4.4) could be used to calculate energy for each PD record file. In Equation (4.4), t is
the sampling period of the PD record file. The unit of P is W, in order to convert the unit of
power into standard unit mW, Equation (4.4) then needs to be rewritten into Equation (4.5):
P=
P=
86
(4.5)
As stated at the beginning of Chapter 4.4, the PD signal is recorded into several individual PD
files, after the power of each individual file is calculated by Equation (4.5); the average power
needs to be acquired by Equation (4.6):
(4.6)
Lastly, the PD energy can now be computed by Equation (4.7):
(4.7)
Where ttotal is the full time duration for each PD test. Equation (4.7) is used to compute the total
PD faults energy by Excel, example shown in next Section.
4.4.2.3 Example of PD Energy Calculation

Table 4.1 presents the detail of PD files of the 2000 pC Gemini X PD test which lasts for 1380
minutes. This continuous PD test is separated into 5 PD files. The PD detector recorded 5 PD
files for this continuous PD test with a 60 minutes interval. In this case, according to Equation
(4.6), the average power Paverage of all PD files is equal to (0.02mW*60minutes +
0.08mW*60minutes +0.12mW*60minutes +0.12mW*120minutes +0.06mW*1020 minutes)/
(60 minutes +60 minutes +60 minutes +120 minutes +1020 minutes) = 0.07mW. Because there
are 60 minutes of the PD tests was not recorded by the PD detector due to operation during the
test; the recorded total test duration is then 1320 minutes instead of the full test period of 1380
minutes. The total PD energy of the PD test needs to be linearly extended, the result could be
achieved based on Equation (4.7): 0.07mW * 1380 minutes = 5.61 J.
87
Table 4.1 Example of PD Test Energy Calculation
1
2
3
4
5
Recording
duration
(minutes)
60
60
60
120
1020
6(not recorded)
60
Total
1380
PD file of Gemini X test

3
PD
power(mW)
Energy(J)
0.02
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.06
0.07(not
recorded)
0.07
0.08
0.30
0.44
0.86
3.63
0.3(not
recorded)
5.61
4.5 Test Condition and Observation

Table 4.2 shows the list of PD tests. It can be seen that 4 PD tests were carried out in Gemini
X with the PD amplitude of 1500 pC, 2000 pC, 3000 pC and 4000 pC. On the other hand, 8
PD tests were carried out in FR3 with the PD amplitude from 1000 pC to 4000 pC. The PD
faults were applied for different test durations (from 62 minutes to 2880 minutes) until a proper
amount of fault gases was generated. Details of the test conditions are listed in Table 4.2.
88
Table 4.2 List of PD Tests
Oil
Gemini X
FR3
PD
Test
Test duration
Voltage(kV)
(minutes)
50
2880
1500
New
50
2580
3000
After test 1
58
1380
2000
New
58
1290
4000
After test 3
34
390
1000
New
34
360
1000
New
44
180
2000
New
44
235
2000
After test1
57
70
3000
After test 3
57
150
3000
After test 5
57
70
3000
New
61
62
4000
After test 7
Test
amplitude
Needle
(pC)
All headspace is eliminated from the test vessel before the test started. The oil and headspace
volume of the whole TM8-test vessel system are 2.57 L oil and 77 ml which is the same as the
sparking test.
Compared with Gemini X, under the same test condition, FR3 generated much higher amounts
of fault gases.

4.6.1 PD Fault Gas Generation
89
Figure 4.6 shows the gas generation rate per hour for Gemini X (Figure 4.6 (a)) and FR3
(Figure 4.6 (b)). The result of FR3 shows in Figure 4.6(b) is the average of two tests with the
same PD magnitude.
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
ppm/h
1500pC
C2H4
0.0
C2H2
0.1
C2H6
0.0
H2
0.1
CH4
0.0
CO
0.1
TDCG
0.4
2000pC
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.2
1.5
3000pC
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
1.2
4000pC
0.3
1.2
0.2
3.2
0.6
0.2
5.6
(a) Gas generation per hour in Gemini X
ppm/h
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
1000 pC
C2H4
0.0
C2H2
0.0
C2H6
0.1
H2
1.3
CH4
0.0
CO
0.6
TDCG
2.1
2000 pC
0.8
5.3
0.7
10.6
0.7
2.9
20.9
3000 pC
6.9
24.8
1.9
107.6
6.2
18.8
166.2
4000 pC
13.4
36.5
6.0
185.4
9.8
33.8
285.0
(b) Gas generation per hour in FR3

Figure 4.6 Gas Generation in Gemini X and FR3 PD Test
It can be seen that the generation rate increases as the PD amplitude increases for both liquids.
An exception is that, in Gemini X, the gas generation rate under 2000 pC PD fault is slightly
higher than that under a 3000 pC PD fault. This might be caused by different needle states,
90
since the repetition rate of 2000 pC test is higher than that of 3000 pC test. Among all PD tests
of Gemini X, the amount of H2 takes up to 50% of the total gas generation while C2H2 takes
up to around 25% of total gas generation. Similarly, H2 and C2H2 are also the key indicators
for the PD test in the FR3 test whose contributions to the total gas generation are 60% and 15%
respectively.
However, the CO generation is only significant in FR3, which might be attributed to the ester
part in the FR3 structure. It is also observed that the gas generation rate of FR3 is much higher
(5 -150 times higher) than that of Gemini X for the same magnitude. Considering the difference
between the PD characteristics of Gemini X and FR3 [10], a larger fault gases concentration
in FR3 does not necessarily indicate a higher PD magnitude in FR3. Therefore, the gas
generation rate per hour may not be a good parameter to compare the gas performance between
different oils, and the PD energy should be taken into consideration.
4.6.2 PD Fault Energy

Therefore, the PD pattern of both transformer liquids need to be studied first.
Figure 4.7 (a) is the PD pattern of Gemini X under 3000 pC PD fault lasting for 60 minutes
while Figure 4.7 (b) shows the PD pattern of the FR3 with a maximum 3000 pC PD amplitude
lasting for only 1 minute. It can be seen that PD activities in Gemini X are all distributed at a
positive half cycle and that in FR3 are distributed in both positive and negative half cycles.
(a) Gemini X PD pattern
(b) FR3 PD pattern
Figure 4.7 PD Patterns of Gemini X (60 Minutes PD signals from the 3000 pC Test) and FR3 (1
Minute PD signals from 3000 pC Test 1)
91
The difference of PD patterns between both oils leads to the different energy distribution as
shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 PD Energy and Distribution for each Test inside Gemini X/ FR3
Oil
Gemin
ix
Test
Power(mW)
Duration
(mins)
1500 pC
0.02
2880
2000 pC
0.07
1380
3000 pC
0.03
2580
4000 pC
0.13
1290
0.32
390
0.16
360
0.65
180
0.83
235
6.13
70
3.35
150
5.82
70
7.34
62
1000 pC1
1000 pC2
2000 pC1
2000 pC2
FR3
3000 pC1
3000 pC2
3000 pC3
4000 pC
below
Energy(J) 1000
pC
77.95
3.21
%
26.69
5.61
%
10.85
5.05
%
12.41
10.44
%
85.54
7.41
%
88.59
3.53
%
46.93
7.04
%
51.58
11.76
%
70.31
25.74
%
74.88
30.14
%
65.89
24.43
%
64.74
27.29
%
10002000
pC
22.05
%
73.22
%
86.09
%
46.99
%
14.46
%
11.41
%
52.65
%
48.03
%
19.00
%
14.57
%
25.70
%
21.35
%
2000- 3000- 4000- 50003000 4000 5000 6000

pC
pC
pC
pC
0.09%
3.03% 0.02%
40.01
0.59% 0.05%
%
0.42%
0.39%
10.34
0.35%
%
9.83% 0.71%
8.11% 0.30%
9.21% 4.57% 0.11% 0.02%
Table 4.3 shows that the PD power is not only related to the PD amplitude but also linked to
the PD repetition rate. For example, the Gemini X 2000 pC test had a 0.07mW power while
the Gemini X 3000 pC only had a 0.03mW power for the reason that the PD repetition rate in
Gemini X 2000 pC test was much higher than that of the Gemini X 3000 pC test. It can also be
seen that PD energy distribution in Gemini X is mainly concentrated in the middle range of the
PD activities while that of the FR3 is mainly contributed by the low energy PDs located in the
negative half cycle. The different energy distributions for both liquids require PD power to be
the characteristic parameter to be corresponding to the total gas generation rather than PD
amplitude or the PD number.
92
4.6.3 Gas generation rate (per J)

After the PD energy considered, the gas generation rates (per J) of Gemini X and FR3 are
compared in Figure 4.8 (2000 pC tests), Figure 4.9 (3000 pC tests) and Figure 4.10 (4000 pC
tests).
Figure 4.8 shows the gas generation rate (per J) plot under 2000 pC PD tests. It can be seen
that the total gas generation rate (per J) of FR3 test is 7.7 ppm/J and is only 10% higher than
that of Gemini X, which is 6.6 ppm/J. H2 (4 ppm/J) and CO (1 ppm/J) in FR3 are 30% higher
than that of Gemini X which are 3.1 ppm/J and 0.7 ppm/J respectively. The gas generation
rates of C2H2 in both liquids are almost the same which is 1.9 ppm/ J. Other hydrocarbons in
both liquids are all below 10% of the total gas generation which are not significant.
Consequently, the H2 and C2H2 are the key indicators for the 2000 pC PD test of both Gemini
X and FR3.
8.0
ppm/ J
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
C2H4
Mineral oil 0.0
FR3
0.3
C2H2
1.9
C2H6
0.0
H2
3.1
CH4
0.5
CO
0.7
TDCG
6.6
1.9
0.3
4.0
0.3
1.0
7.7
Figure 4.8 GIT Generation rate (per J) Comparison between 2000 pC Tests of Gemini X and
FR3
Figure 4.9 shows the gas generation rate (per J) plot under 3000 pC PD tests. It can be seen
that total gas generation rate (per J) of the FR3 test is 9 ppm/J and is about 10% lower than that
of Gemini X which is 10.5 ppm/J. As in the 2000 pC PD tests, H2 (5.9 ppm/J) and CO (1
93
ppm/J) in FR3 are slightly higher than that of Gemini X which are 5 ppm/J and 0.7 ppm/J
respectively. The gas generation rate of C2H2 in Gemini X is 2.5 ppm/J and is twice that in
FR3 which is 1.3ppm/J. Other hydrocarbons in both liquids are still all below 10% of total gas
generation. Consequently, the H2 and C2H2 are the key indicators for the 3000 pC PD test of
both Gemini X and FR3.
12.0
ppm/ J
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Mineral oil
FR3
C2H4
0.5
C2H2
2.5
C2H6
0.7
H2
5.0
CH4
1.1
CO
0.7
TDCG
10.5
0.4
1.3
0.1
5.9
0.3
1.0
9.0
Figure 4.9 GIT Generation rate (per J) Comparison between 3000 pC Tests of Gemini X and
FR3
Figure 4.10 shows the amount of gas generation rate (per J) for both Gemini X and FR3 under
4000 pC PD tests. It can be seen that the total gas generation rate (per J) of the FR3 test is 10.8
ppm/J and is about 7% lower than that of Gemini X which is 11.6 ppm/J. Similar as that in the
2000 pC PD tests and the 3000 pC PD tests, H2 (7 ppm/J) in FR3 are 8% higher than that of
Gemini X (6.6 ppm/J). GIT of CO in FR3 (1.3 ppm/J) is 3 times as that in Gemini X (0.4
ppm/J). respectively. The gas generation rate of C2H2 in Gemini X is 2.5 ppm/J and is about
twice as that of FR3 which is 1.4 ppm/J. Other hydrocarbons in both liquids are all below 10%
of total gas generation.
94
Figure 4.10 GIT gas Generation rate (per J) Comparison between 4000 pC Tests of Gemini X
and FR3
Accordingly, for all PD tests under different PD amplitudes, the amounts of gas generation rate
(per J) of both oils are comparable. The gas generation rates increase slightly from around 7
ppm/J to around 11 ppm/J as the PD amplitude increases from 2000 pC to 4000 pC. This
phenomenon shows that those PD with large amplitudes actually contribute more to the total
gas generation. The gas generation rates of H2 and CO in FR3 are always slightly higher than
that in Gemini X. On the other hand, the gas generation rates of C2H2 in Gemini X tests are
always higher than those in FR3. H2 and C2H2 are the key indicators for PD fault in both
Gemini X and FR3. H2 is significant in FR3 when PD amplitude is high enough (4000 pC).
4.6.4 Absolute Gas generation rate (per J)

The gas generation rate in Section 4.6.3 is quite low in the unit of ppm/J because the oil volume
of the test system is 2.57 L. The absolute gas generation rate in the unit of l/J can be seen in
Table 4.4. It can be seen from Table 4.4 that the gas generation rate of the high energy PD test
can reach 20 l/J (when PD amplitudes > 1500 pC). These results are quite comparable with
those of the sparking tests in Chapter 3.
95
Table 4.4 Absolute GIT Generation Rate (l/J)
Test
FR3
1000 pC
2000 pC
3000 pC
4000 pC
Test
Mineral oil
1500 pC
2000 pC
3000 pC
4000 pC
C2H4
0.00
0.74
0.98
1.30
C2H2
0.00
4.93
3.39
3.55
C2H4
0.00
0.00
1.26
1.63
C2H2
5.08
4.79
6.53
6.31
GIT (l/J)
C2H6
H2
0.38
4.10
0.65
10.22
0.25
15.15
0.59
18.04
GIT(l/J)
C2H6
H2
1.33
4.06
0.00
7.88
1.76
12.93
1.16
16.85
CH4
0.00
0.66
0.86
0.95
CO
1.68
2.70
2.61
3.29
TDCG
6.17
19.89
23.24
27.73
CH4
0.00
1.18
2.93
3.00
CO
3.12
1.84
1.83
0.90
TDCG
13.59
15.69
27.24
29.84

All the DGA data from PD tests need to be calculated into GIO value before the Duval triangle
method applied. The GIO concentration are calculated based on Equation (3.1) and shown in
table 4.5.
96
Test
GIO (ppm/J)
Mineral oil
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
TDCG
1500 pC
0
0.00%
0.1
11.70%
0.5
12.00%
0.6
15.20%
1.9
100.00%
0.3
77.90%
2.5
61.70%
2.4
58.40%
0.5
0.9
4.3
0.7
0.2
1.4
0.7
0.6
8.2
0.4
3.9
0
0.00%
0
10.40%
1.1
26.30%
1.1
26.40%
0.3
8.7
Duval ratio
2000 pC
Duval ratio
3000 pC
Duval ratio
4000 pC
Duval ratio
Test
GIO (ppm/J)
FR3
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
TDCG
1000 pC
Duval ratio
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0.1
1.6
0
0.00%
0.7
2.4
2000 pC
0.3
1.9
0.3
0.3
7.7
Duval ratio
11.70%
77.90%
3000 pC
0.4
1.3
Duval ratio
18.70%
64.90%
4000 pC
0.5
1.4
1.3
10.8
Duval ratio
22.50%
61.20%
10.40%
0.1
5.9
0.3
16.40%
0.2
0.4
16.40%
The Duval triangle method can then be applied as shown in Figure 4.11. It can be seen that PD
faults in Gemini X and FR3 all move from D1 towards D2 area as PD amplitudes increase from
2000 pC to 4000 pC which indicate the fault severity increases as the PD amplitude grows.
Meanwhile, the FR3 plots are all located in the revised D1 area (low energy discharge area),
which conform to the Duvals new triangle quite well. It should be noted that the 1000 pC FR3
test results is not plotted due to low gases levels.
97
(a) Gemini X tests

(b) FR3 tests
Figure 4.11 Duval Triangle Evaluations for Gemini X and FR3 PD Tests
It could be seen from Table 4.5 that C2H4 and CH4 are 0 ppm/J in 1000 pC PD test inside FR3
and 1500 pC PD test inside Gemini X. The low GIO concentration does not allow the
application of Duval triangle.

After the test, some of the oil samples were sent to TJH2B analytical laboratory for DGA
analysis as a comparison to the result of TM8 online monitor. Table 4.6 shows an example of
the DGA comparison between TM8 and the analytical laboratory.
Table 4.6 Comparison of GIO DGA Results between TM8 and Laboratory
Oil type
GIO(ppm)
Mineral oil
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
TM8 sample
12
41
12
46
18118
23
10
58
20819
24
10
57
20206
19
58
20513
22
10
91.55%
105.69%
Laboratory
17
44
sample 1
Laboratory
13
27
sample2
Laboratory
15
36
average
Laboratory / TM8 125.35% 86.98%
98
71.07% 124.14% 113.22%
The Gemini X oil sample was taken after 23 hours 2000 pC PD fault and 21.5 hours 4000 pC
PD fault. The oil sample is analyzed by TM8 with the headspace method before the sample
collection. The laboratory result was obtained 7 days later. Table 4.6 indicates that for most
fault gases, the laboratory results and monitor results agree with each other within a deviation
of 30%.
4.7 Summary
In this chapter, the amount of fault gases in FR3 and Gemini X tests were measured using a
sealed test system with an online DGA monitor. The main summaries are drawn as follows:
1. At the same PD amplitude, the higher PD repetition rate in FR3 than that in Gemini X
leads to a much higher PD energy in FR3 for a given period of time.
2. The gas generation rate (per J) in FR3 is slightly higher than that in Gemini X.
3. For each liquid, the gas generation rates (per J) are similar to each other, and increase
slightly for increased PD amplitudes. This indicates that: The total gas generations under
PD faults are determined by energy instead of PD amplitude or PD numbers only; a PD
with higher energy contributes more to the total gas generation.
4. The PD faults in FR3 can be recognized correctly as low energy discharge from the
adjusted Duval triangle method.
5. The TM8 online monitor result using the headspace method is comparable with the
laboratory DGA analysis result by the Toepler pump method with a maximum of 30%
deviation.
99
100
Chapter 5 Experimental Study on DGA under Thermal Fault

5.1 Introduction
In order to apply the standard method for mineral oil to alternative natural esters, the gas
performances of a mineral oil, Gemini X, and a natural ester, FR3, are studied in this chapter
under thermal faults, simulating the hot-spot thermal faults in power transformers. A special
designed test vessel with a good sealing capability was used in this study, and W shaped
copper wires were used as the heating elements to produce high temperatures. To achieve more
confident DGA results, the fault gases were measured by an online TM8 DGA monitor as well
as the laboratory DGA method by sending some oil samples to TJH2B for laboratory analysis.

5.2.1 Test Circuit Design
The experimental circuit is shown in Figure 5.1. A variable voltage controller (Variac) was
used to control the voltage applied to a 45A/ 3000A load transformer, which was used as the
current source in the test. The high current was fed into the test vessel by a 700A cable, and a
W shaped copper bar is used as the heating element in the test vessel. The inlet and outlet of
the test vessel connected with an on-line TM8 DGA monitor, providing a sealing path for the
oil circulation. During the test, the high current went through the heating element was measured
by a clamp-type current meter (measurement range up to 1200 A), and the temperature of the
copper heating element was measured by three K type thermocouples.
101
Figure 5.1 CIrcuit Diagram of Hot-Spot Thermal Test Circuit
5.2.2 Test Vessel Design

Figure 5.2 shows the schematic design of the test vessel used in the experiment. The cylinder
shaped vessel is made of transparent Perspex, and the heating element is made of a W shaped
copper wire. When fault gases are generated, the gases are collected by the 20-degree-slope
cavity at the top of the test vessel. Then, the gases are carried by the oil circulation in a 1
meter-long silicon pipe, connecting the test vessel with a 3-phase outlet adapter. One outlet of
the adapter is connected with a 50 ml syringe, and the other outlet is connected with a TM8
monitor. When the test vessel is fully filled, the overall volume of oil in the circulation system
is about 2.73 L.
102
(a) Schematic design
(b) Photo
Figure 5.2 Test Vessel Design
Compared with the previous studies [11], such a design provides several advantages. Firstly,
by carefully using rubber gaskets in each joint, the vessel has an excellent sealing capability.
Secondly, by using the 20-degree-slope cavity at the top, the test vessel provides a complete
oil circulation and ensures the collection of all the fault gases generated in the tests. Finally, by
using the syringe assists the removal of headspace before the tests and the collection of large
gas bubbles during the tests and push-back fault gases into oil circulation after the tests.
Furthermore, the pressure inside and outside the test vessel could also be balanced by the
syringe.
5.3 Test Procedure

In order to better compare the gas performances of Gemini X and FR3 under thermal faults,
the test procedure is strictly followed for both oils, as shown below.
Process transformer oil, as described in Chapter 2.

103
Clean test system, fill processed oil into the system (eliminate the headspace). (Chapter
3.3)
Measure the background gases.
Generate thermal faults.
Push fault gases back into the oil circulation, and measure the amounts of fault gases.
Data processing and analysis.
5.3.1 Generate Thermal Faults

During the test, the fault current is increased as follows. Firstly, the current needs to be raised
at the rate of 30 A/s when the current is below 300 A. After the current reaches 300 A, the
temperature rising rate will be reduced even when the same voltage raising speed is applied
because the resistor of the thermocouple increased significantly. As a result, the voltage rising
speed must be slowed down in case the heating element melts down.
In high temperature thermal tests (thermocouple displayed fault temperature > 300 C), the
difference between the thermocouple displayed temperature and the hotspot temperature gets
larger as the resistor of the hotspot gets much higher than the other part of the copper heating
element. Consequently, the thermal fault heating period needs to be counted after the
thermocouple display temperature reaches 80% of the aimed temperature. The voltage, the
current and the heating period need to be recorded for further calculation. The GIG data needs
to be measured by the TM8 online monitor immediately after the test is finished.
5.4 Measurement Methods

5.4.1 Temperature Measurement Method
During the tests, the temperature of the heating element is measured by thermocouples, and the
so-called insertion method is used to provide a more reliable measurement result. Figure 5.3
shows the configuration of such method, using three thermocouples and a copper wire (heating
element).
104
Figure 5.3 Thermocouples and Heating Element Configuration
The heating element was bent into a W shape, and 3 holes were drilled at each corner of the
heating element, with 10 mm in depth and 0.5 mm in diameter. The thermocouples with 0.5
mm in diameter were inserted into these holes.
Such a design ensures that the thermocouples are in good contact with the heating element,
thus the measurement result is close to the actual hot spot temperature. This is evidenced by a
verification test in air, that the measured temperature reached 900 C when the heating element
melted (1100 C), which indicated a measurement error of only 22%. In this chapter, the
average of the three thermocouple recordings is reported as the final measured temperature.
5.4.2 Heating & Cooling Method

When the fault temperature is above 300 C, a significant amount of fault gases is produced in
a short duration. Thus no special method needs to be performed to control the fault temperature.
105
However for a thermal fault with temperature less than 300 C, the gas generation rate is so
slow that it may take several hours to generate a measurable amount of fault gases. During this
period, the temperature of the bulk oil will be gradually increased. Since the oil temperature
limitation of the TM8 monitor is 50 C, the maximum temperature of the bulk oil should be
controlled. Therefore, a special heating and cooling procedure was applied as shown in Figure
5.4.
Figure 5.4 Heating and Cooling Procedure
The procedure includes the following three steps: the temperature raising period, the heating
period and the cooling period. In the temperature raising period, the current gradually increases
until the fault temperature reaches the aimed temperature. During the heating period, the
current is kept the same until the bulk oil temperature reaches 50 C or the oil expands by a
volume of 50 ml. In the cooling period, the current is quickly reduced to zero and the
temperature gradually cools down to the environmental temperature. The three steps are
repeated until enough fault gases are produced.
Taking 300 C thermal fault for FR3 as an example, the fault temperature increased from room
temperature to 300 C in about 30 seconds in the temperature raising period. Afterwards in the
heating period, the current was kept stable and lasted for 30 minutes, during which time the
fault temperature stayed 300 C and the oil temperature increased to 50 C. Finally, the current
supply was stopped and the oil was cooled down for 20 minutes until the temperature was
106
reduced to room temperature. The procedure was repeated six times until enough gases were
detected.
5.5 Test Conditions and Observations

Table 5.1 lists the thermal test conditions and observations for all thermal tests. For each liquid,
4 tests with different fault temperatures were carried out. For FR3, the test temperatures were
measured between 300 C and 600 C; but for Gemini X, the maximum measured temperature
was 400C. In test 3 and 4 for Gemini X, the temperature measured by thermocouple was even
less than 400C when the heating element melted down, which indicated that the fault
temperatures were 1100 C, Therefore, the test 3 and 4 for Gemini X are named as apparent
400C A and apparent 400C B, indicating the fault temperatures were much higher than 400C.
Table 5.1 Thermal Test Conditions and Observations
Total
Free
Input
temperature heating Voltage Current
gas
power
Test
(C)
time
evolved
(min)
(ml)
(V)
(A)
(W)
1
300
60
0.4
261
104
5.5
2
400
5
1.3
600
780
10
Gemini
apparent
3
16(s)
2
510
1020
0
X
400 A
apparent
4
50(s)
1.3
600
780
30
400 B
1
300
270
0.4
260
104
0
2
400
270
0.6
310
186
2
FR3
3
500
50
1.7
424
721
27
4
600
3
2.9
554
1607
17
Diameter
of
Heating
heating element
element melted?
(mm)
1.9
N
1.9
N
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.5
N
N
N
N
* Apparent 400 A and 400 B: during the test, the displayed temperature is 400 C; however the
real temperature should be higher than 400 C, due to a melting element (A) or a high
generation rate of fault gases (B).
107
5.6.1 Thermal Fault Gas Generation

The generation rate of fault gases under thermal faults for Gemini X and FR3 tests are
summarized in Figure 5.5 (a) and 5.5 (b) respectively. It was observed that the generation rate
of fault gases for Gemini X is much higher than FR3 under thermal faults. Therefore, the
generation rate of FR3 is plotted in the unit of ppm per hour while that of Gemini X is plotted
in the unit of ppm per minute.
In Figure 5.5 (a), it can be seen that the fault gas generation rate is increased with the increase
of the fault temperature for Gemini X. It also shows that the CH4 and C2H4 take up the most
part of the total fault gases. Under 300 C thermal faults, CH4 takes up 43% of the total fault
gases. Under 400 C thermal fault, CH4 and C2H4 take up 66% of the total fault gases. When
the temperature is further increased, the percentage of CH4 and C2H4 increased to 77% for both
400 C A and apparent 400 C B tests. This indicates that CH4 and C2H4 are the key gases of
high-temperature thermal faults in Gemini X.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Figure 5.5 (b) for FR3, that the fault gas generation
rate is increased with the increase of the fault temperature. However, different with the result
in Gemini X, CO and C2H6 play the most important role in FR3, taking up to 29.3% and 28.0%
of total gas generation separately, followed by CH4 and C2H4, which only contribute less
important part in total gas generation which varies from 40.5% to 45.6%. It should be noted
that CO and C2H6 always takes up more than 25% of total fault gases for all temperatures in
FR3, which indicates that the key gases of high-temperature thermal faults in FR3 are CO and
C2H6 followed by CH4 and C2H4. The reason that carbon monoxide produced in FR3 in such
a larger amount than that in Gemini X might be attributed to the oxygen atoms contained in the
ester part of FR3 molecules.
108
100000.0
ppm/ min
10000.0
1000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
300C-104W
C2H4
0.0
C2H2
0.0
C2H6
0.0
H2
0.0
CH4
0.6
CO
0.8
TDCG
1.4
400C-780W
apparent 400C A
109.4
0.4
23.1
68.2
114.2
23.6
338.8
179.9
14.2
26.7
48.8
135.7
6.1
apparent 400C B
411.6
8295.3
89.3
1324.7
2952.2
6064.0
37.2
18762.6
(a) Fault gases generation rate in Gemini X

100000.0
ppm/h
10000.0
1000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
300 C-104W
C2H4
1.6
C2H2
0.3
C2H6
54.8
H2
7.3
CH4
17.3
CO
95.7
TDCG
176.9
400 C-186W
15.7
0.7
213.0
75.3
47.1
294.5
646.4
500 C-721W
312.7
0.5
1598.2
148.0
311.0
1577.6
3947.9
600 C -1607W
6470.6
27.6
7327.8
994.3
3711.2
7671.7
26203.2
(b) Fault gases generation rate in FR3

Figure 5.5 GIT Generation Rate of Fault Gases in Gemini X and FR3
5.6.2 Gas Generation Rate Comparison under Different Temperatures

The comparison between the generation rate of Gemini X and FR3 is shown in Figure 5.6(a),
Figure 5.6(b) and Figure 5.6(c) for different temperatures.
In Figure 5.6 (a), the gas generation rate of FR3 is twice that of Gemini X under the 300 C
thermal fault. However in Figure 5.6 (b), the gas generation rate of Gemini X under 400 C is
20 times higher than that of FR3. Even when the results of Gemini X under 400 C fault and
that of FR3 under 500 C fault are compared, the gas generation rate of Gemini X is still 5
times higher. This further proves that the gas generation rate of FR3 is much lower than Gemini
X, and FR3 is more thermally stable than Gemini X under the high temperature thermal fault.
109
(a) GIT generation rate comparisons between Gemini X and FR3 under 300 C thermal fault
(b) GIT generation rate comparisons between Gemini X and FR3 under 400 C thermal fault
(c) Comparison of GIT generation rate between Gemini X under 400 C faults and FR3 under 500
C thermal faults
Figure 5.6 GIT Generation Rate Comparisons between Gemini X and FR3
110

Since the Duval Triangle method recognizes the fault type by GIO concentration. The GIG
concentration is calculated to GIO concentration by Equation (3.1). The calculated GIO results
are listed in Table 5.2.
GIO (ppm)
Mineral oil
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
300 C
0.6
0.7
Duval ratio
0.40%
1.40%
400 C
532.7
1.7
Duval ratio
50.50%
0.20%
400 C A
47
3.7
Duval ratio
55.80%
4.40%
400 C B
6716.6
71.6
Duval ratio
59.30%
0.60%
98.20%
113.6
210.4
521.5
90.6
49.40%
33.6
1.3
39.80%
1085.3
1292.8
4539.5
5.2
40.10%
GIO (ppm)
FR3
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
CH4
CO
81
7.2
24.1
115.3
300 C
Duval ratio
2.4
0.4
8.80%
1.40%
400 C
23.8
0.8
Duval ratio
26.20%
0.90%
500 C
Duval ratio
52.00%
0.00%
600 C
107
0.5
Duval ratio
64.10%
0.30%
89.70%
328.8
75.5
66.4
361.5
73.00%
25.3
1.5
4.6
19.5
48.00%
121.5
13.5
59.5
116.4
35.60%
The test results of Gemini X and FR3 could then be plotted in the Duval triangles as shown in
Figure 5.7 (a) and (b).
111
(a) Duval triangle evaluation of Gemini X tests
(b) Duval triangle evaluation of FR3 tests

Figure 5.7 Duval Triangle Evaluation of Gemini X and FR3 Thermal Fault
For Gemini X, the thermal faults at different temperatures are recognized correctly by the
Duval triangle method in Figure 5.7 (a). The results also verify the assumption that the actual
temperature of the apparent 400 C A and apparent 400 C B tests are higher than the 400 C
test. For FR3, most thermal faults (300 C, 500 C and 600 C) are recognized correctly by the
revised Duval Triangle method. However, the 400 C thermal fault is recognized as a thermal
fault below 300 C. This might be caused by the excellent sealing state of the oil circulation
system, which leads to a higher CH4 percentage among the three indicated gases.
112

To make sure the results from TM8 are reliable, some of the oil samples are also sent to TJH2B
analytical laboratory for DGA analysis as a comparison. Table 5.3 shows an example of the
DGA comparison between TM8 and analytical laboratory. After the apparent 400 C test for
FR3, which lasts for 5 minutes, the oil sample is collected and sent to TJH2b. The oil sample
is analyzed immediately after the test is finished by TM8 with the headspace method and 8
hours later in the laboratory by the Toepler pump method. Table 5.3 indicates that the
laboratory results and online monitor results agree with each other with a 30% deviation. On
the other hand, the O2 result from the laboratory is 70% higher than that from TM8 which
indicates a leakage could have occurred during the sample transportation.
Table 5.3 Comparison of GIO DGA Results between TM8 and Laboratory Analysis
Oil type
GIO (ppm)
Mineral oil
TM8 sample
C2H4
6149.45
C2H2
58.56
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
1060.74 945.86 14751.58 2956.23 186.84
Laboratory sample 1
6798
67
961
928
29506
4033
99
Laboratory sample2
5889
55
836
924
20823
3614
77
Laboratory average
6343.5
61
898.5
926
25164.5
3823.5
88
Laboratory / TM8
103.16%
104.17%
84.70%
97.90%
170.59%
129.34% 47.10%
5.7 Summary
In this chapter, the total gas generation in FR3 and mineral oil are measured with a proper
sealed with an online DGA monitor test system.
The main summaries that can be drawn are:
1. The generation rates of fault gases are mainly determined by the hotspot temperature rather
than the average temperature.
113
2. FR3 generates less amount of fault gases than Gemini X at higher temperatures (>300 C).
This indicates that FR3 is more thermally stable than Gemini X.
3. The key indicator gases for thermal faults in Gemini X are CH4 and C2H4; while those for
FR3 also include CO and C2H6.
4. The Duval triangle method can recognize all thermals fault in Gemini X while a little
revision should be made for the Duval triangle method in order to recognize the thermal
faults in FR3 (most of the FR3 results fit the revised Duval triangle method).
5. TM8 online monitor result is comparable with laboratory analysis by the Toepler pump
method.
114
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Future Work

6.1 Conclusions
6.1.1 Research Areas
This thesis focuses on the differences of gas performance between traditional mineral oil,
Gemini X and vegetable oil based insulating liquid, FR3 under fault conditions, including the
electrical sparking fault, the electrical PD fault and the hotspot thermal fault. Through
experimental studies and data analysis, the objectives of this research have been fulfilled.
In this thesis, the main areas of research covered are:
DGA under sparking faults

Test cell design for electrical tests
Test procedure for DGA measurements under the sparking fault
Sparking energy measurement and calculation method
Differences of gas performance between the mineral oil and the natural ester under
the sparking fault
DGA under PD faults

Test procedure for DGA measurement under the PD fault
the PD fault
DGA under thermal faults

Test cell design for thermal tests
Test procedure for DGA measurement under the hotspot thermal fault
Fault temperature measurement method
the thermal fault
115
6.1.2 Main Findings

Through experimental studies, this thesis obtained useful results on the DGA fingerprints of
FR3 under the electrical sparking faults, the PD faults and the thermal faults. The main findings
are summarized below:
Under electrical sparking faults:

FR3 generates the amount of fault gases similar to Gemini X.
Considering the sparking energy, FR3 generates fault gases (per J) 25% higher than
Gemini X.
The fault gas generation rate (per J) might be a more reasonable parameter to evaluate
the gas performances of different liquids.
The Duval triangle method can recognize these sparking faults as low energy
discharges for both liquids.
Under electrical PD faults:

At the same amplitude, the higher PD repetition rate of FR3 leads to a much higher
PD energy in FR3 than that in Gemini X for a given period of time.
The gas generation rate (per J) in FR3 is slightly higher than that in Gemini X.
For each liquid, the gas generation rate (per J) increases for PDs with higher
amplitudes.
The PD faults in FR3 can be recognized correctly as low energy discharge from the
adjusted Duval triangle method.
Total gas generation under PD faults is determined by the overall PD energy instead
of either PD amplitude or PD number, and PDs with higher energy contribute more to
the total gas generation.
Under hotspot thermal faults:

The generation rates of fault gases are mainly determined by the hotspot temperature.
FR3 generates less fault gases than Gemini X at higher temperatures (>300 C). This
indicates that FR3 is more thermally stable than Gemini X.
116
The key gases for thermal faults in Gemini X are CH4 and C2H4; while those for FR3
also include CO and C2H6.
The Duval triangle method can recognize correctly all thermals fault in Gemini X,
while slight revision should be made for the Duval triangle method in order to
recognize the thermal faults in FR3.
The DGA result obtained using TM8 online monitor is comparable with the laboratory
analysis within a deviation of 30% under the electrical sparking faults, the PD faults and
the thermal faults.
6.2 Future Work

This thesis conducts studies concerning the gas performances of two transformer liquids
under both the electrical and the thermal faults. The results show that the gas performances
of a traditional mineral oil (Gemini X) and an alternative natural ester (FR3) are different.
During the studies, some new questions were found and therefore further studies are
required.
For the electrical PD test, further work can be carried out according to the following
suggestion:
The low amplitude PD fault (PD amplitude <1000 pC) was not studied in this thesis
because the gas generation rate is too small. In order to obtain measurable fault
gases, the test duration needs to be extended to more than 4 days. Consequently,
the sealing state of the system needs to be further improved to provide no or less
gas leakage for the PD test.
For the hotspot thermal test, further work can be carried out according to the following
suggestions:
A more accurate temperature measurement method is needed to help the
investigation.
The Resistherm used in [12] might be a good alternative to the copper heating
element, in order to evaluate the thermal fault using average temperature.
117
A thermal camera could be used to film and measure the thermal distribution
along the heating element. However, the way to deal with the blockage of test
vessel need to be further studied.
Some insulation paper could be wrapped on the heating element to simulate
the paper wrapped windings in power transformers.
118
Reference
[1] I. U. Khan, Z.D. Wang, I. Cotton, and S. Northcote, "Dissolved gas analysis of alternative
fluids for power transformers, Electrical Insulation Magazine, IEEE, vol. 23, pp. 5-14,
2007.
[2] C. Perrier and A. Beroual, Experimental investigations on insulating liquids for power
transformers: mineral, ester, and silicone oils, Electrical Insulation Magazine, IEEE, Vol.
25, 2009.
[3] EPRI, EPRI Report 1000438: Environmentally acceptable transformer fluids; Phase 1
state of the art review; Phase 2 Laboratory testing of fluids, Palo Alto, CA, Nov. 2000.
[4] K. Rapp, and P. Stenborg, Cooper Power Systems field analysis of Envirotemp FR3 fluid
in sealed versus free-breathing transformers, CP0414, Cooper Power Systems, Waukesha,
WI, 2004.
[5] D. Martin, I. U. Khan, J. Dai, and Z.D. Wang, An overview of the suitability of vegetable
oil dielectrics for use in large power transformers, in Proc. 5th Annual Euro TechCon,
Chester, United Kingdom, November 2830, 2006.
[6] M. Duval, "A review of faults detectable by gas-in-oil analysis in transformers, Electrical
Insulation Magazine, IEEE, vol. 18, pp. 8-17, 2002.
[7] IEC, "IEC60599: Mineral oil-impregnated electrical equipment in service-guide to the
interpretation of dissolved and free gases analysis, 1999.
[8] IEEE, "IEEE Std C57.104-IEEE guide for the interpretation of gases generated in oilimmersed transformers, 2008.
[9] M. Duval and A. de Pablo, Interpretation of gas-in-oil analysis using new IEC Publication
60599 and IEC TC10 databases, IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 3141, 2001.
[10] X. Wang, Partial discharge behaviors and breakdown mechanisms of ester transformer
liquids under AC stress, in Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
University of Manchester, 2011.
[11] U. K. Imad, Assessment of the performance of ester based oils in transformers under the
application of thermal and electrical stress, in Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, University of Manchester, 2009.
119
[12] M. Jovalekic, D. Vukovic and S. Tenbohlen, Dissolved gas analysis of alternative

dielectric fluids under thermal and electrical stress, in 2011 IEEE International
Conference on Dielectric Liquids, 2011.
[13] D. Hanson, J. Luksich, K. Li, A. Lemm and J. Plascencia, Understanding dissolved gas
analysis of ester fluids Part 1: stray gas production under normal operating conditions,
Siemens Transformer Conference, 2010.
[14] C.C. Claiborne, D. Hanson, D.B. Cherry and G.K. Frimpong, Understanding dissolved
gas analysis Part 2: Thermal decomposition of ester fluids, in 2011 Euro TechCon,
Warwick, UK, 2011.
[15] M. Jovalekic, D. Vukovic and S. Tenbohlen, Dissolved gas analysis of natural ester fluids
under electrical and thermal stress, in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Dielectric
Liquids, 2011.
[16] M. Duval, The Duval Triangle for load tap changers, non-Mineral oils and low
temperature faults in transformers, IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 24, pp. 2229, 2008.
[17] Severon, Serveron TM8 online transformer monitor, Retrieved 1st July 2011, from
http://www.bplglobal.net/eng/knowledge-center/download.aspx?id=398.
[18] www.nynas.com, Product data sheet Nytro Gemini X, 2008.
[19] X. Wang and Z.D. Wang, Particle Effect on Breakdown Voltage of Mineral and Ester
Based Transformer Oils, in 2008 Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric
Phenomena, Quebec, Canada, 2008, pp. 598-602.
[20] www.nynas.com, Base oil handbook, Sweden, 2001,
[21] Cooper power system, Envirotemp FR3 dielectric fluid, retrieved 1st July 2011,
from http://www.cargill.com/products/industrial/dielectric-fluid/index.jsp.
[22] Cooper Power Systems, "Medium and large power transformer users list Envirotemp
FR3
fluid",
Retrieved
17th
August
2011,
from
http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/power_systems/products/dielectric_f
luid/envirotemp_fr3_fluid.resources.html, 2011.
[23] D. Martin, "Evaluation of the dielectric capability of ester based oils for power
transformers", in Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of
Manchester, 2007, p. 225.
120
[24] Cooper power system, "Envirotemp FR3 Fluid - Testing Guide, Retrieved 1st July 2011,
from:http://www.spxtransformersolutions.com/assets/documents/R900-20-12
FR3testingGuideApril2008 .pdf.
[25] Q. Liu, Electrical performance of ester liquids under impulse voltage for application in
power transformer, in Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University
of Manchester, 2011.
[26] G.P. Cleary and M.D. Judd, "UHF and current pulse measurements of partial discharge
activity in mineral oil, Science, Measurement and Technology, IEE Proceedings -, vol.
153, pp. 47-54, 2006.
[27] R. Patsch, J. Menzel, and D. Benzerouk, "The use of the pulse sequence analysis to monitor
the condition of oil, in IEEE Conference on electrical insulation and dielectric phenomena,
2006, 2006, pp. 660 - 663.
[28] M. Elborki, N. Jenkins, P. A.Crossley, and Z.D. Wang, "Power transformer PD sources
determination using current signals waveshape and pattern distributions, in The 15th
International Symposium on Electrical Insulation (ISEI 2004) Indianapolis, Indiana, USA,
September, 2004, pp. 178-181.
[29] Z.D. Wang, S.N. Hettiwatte, and P.A. Crossley, "A measurements-based discharge
location algorithm for plain disc winding power transformers, IEEE Transactions on
Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 12, pp. 416-422, June, 2005.
[30] Y. P. Nerkar, R. N. Narayanachar, and R. S. Nema, "Characterisation of partial discharges
in oil impregnated pressboard insulation systems, in 11th International Symposium on
High Voltage Engineering, 1999. vol. 3, 1999, pp. 364 - 367.
[31] ASTM D3612, Standard test method for analysis of gases dissolved in electrical
insulating oil by gas chromatography, ASTM standard, 2009.
[32] N.A. Muhamad, B.T. Phung, T.R. Blackburn, and K.X. Lai, "Comparative study and
analysis of DGA methods for transformer mineral oil, in Power Tech, 2007 IEEE
Lausanne, 2007, pp. 45-50.
[33] S.J. Blanksby, G.B. Ellison, Bond Dissociation Energies of Organic Molecules , Acc.
Chem. Res. vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 255-263, 2003.
[34] IEC, IEC 60567: Oil-filled electrical equipment Sampling of gases and of oil for
analysis of free and dissolved gases Guidance, IEC standard, 2005.
121
[35] J. Lapworth, "A novel approach (scoring system) for integrating dissolved gas analysis
results into a life management system, in Electrical Insulation, 2002. Conference Record
of the 2002 IEEE International Symposium on, 2002, pp. 137-144.
[36] A. Naderian, S. Cress, R. Piercy, F. Wang, and J. Service, "An Approach to Determine the
Health Index of Power Transformers, in Electrical Insulation, 2008. ISEI 2008.
Conference Record of the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on, 2008, pp. 192-196.
[37] A. Jahromi, R. Piercy, S. Cress, J. Service, and W. Fan, "An approach to power transformer
asset management using health index, Electrical Insulation Magazine, IEEE, vol. 25, pp.
20-34, 2009.
[38] S. Singh and M. N. Bandyopadhyay, "Dissolved gas analysis technique for incipient fault
diagnosis in power transformers: A bibliographic survey", Electrical Insulation Magazine,
IEEE, vol. 26, pp. 41-46, 2010.
[39] Severon, Theory of headspace sampling (for internal use).
[40] Linde AG, Gas chromatograph, retrieved 1st July 2011, from http://hiq.lindegas.com/international/web/lg/spg/like35lgspg.nsf/docbyalias/anal_gaschrom.
[41] Severon, TMX training tutorial for users (for internal use).
[42] Severon, Serveron White Paper: DGA Diagnostic Methods, retrieved 1st July 2011, from
http://www.bplglobal.net/eng/knowledge-center/download.aspx?id=217.
[43] RS Components, RS Arcrylic Based Sealing Compound retrieved 1st July 2011, from
www.rswww.co.uk.
122
Appendix I. Matlab Code Used In the Thesis

I.1 Sparking Energy Calculation
I.1.1 High Frequency Energy Calculation
clear all;clc;
startnumber=781;
endnumber=865;
k=1;
header='J:\test data\10-7BD.F\hf\XIAO0'
% FID=fopen(strcat(header,num2str(startnumber),'_',num2str(endnumber)));
%
xlswrite(strcat(header,num2str(startnumber),'_',num2str(endnumber)),{'filen
ame','energy'});
for seq=startnumber:endnumber
timedelta=csvread(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.csv'),5,1,[5 1 5 1]);
voltagediv=csvread(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.csv'),12,1,[12 1 12
1]);
currentdiv=csvread(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.csv'),14,1,[14 1 14
1]);
alllecroy=csvread(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.csv'),30,0);
delay=csvread(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.csv'),4,1,[4 1 4 1]);
voltage=alllecroy(:,1);
current=alllecroy(:,3);
tt=size(current,1);
time=(1:tt)*timedelta;
%fcutoff=15000;
% [B,A]=ellip(4,0.5,20,fcutoff*2*timedelta);
%[H,w] = freqz(B,A,512);
%f = w/(2*pi)/timedelta;
%lfcurrent = filter(B,A,current);
%subplot(3,1,1);
%plot(f,abs(H));hold on;
%subplot(3,1,2);
bar(abs(fft(current)));
%ff=fftshift(fft(current));
% ww=linspace(-0.5/timedelta,0.5/timedelta,tt);
% plot(ww,abs(ff));
%subplot(3,1,3);
%plot(time,current,'b');hold on;plot(time,lfcurrent,'r');
123
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%add you energy calculation segment here, give the final energy value
%to the variable 'energy'%
if currentdiv==500
noise = 25;
end
if currentdiv==200
noise =15;
end
if currentdiv==100
noise =5;
end
M=current;
N=voltage;
SIZE=size(M);
SIZ=SIZE(1);
for i=1:SIZ
if abs (M(i,1)) <noise
M(i,1)=0;
end
end
k=k+1;
SIZ=SIZ*1;
g=fix(0.1*SIZ);
f=fix(0.2*SIZ);
HIGH = 0;
for i=g:SIZ
HIGH = HIGH + M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*1000;
end
energy=HIGH
b=[char(66),num2str(k)];
c=[char(65),num2str(k)];
title(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'fig')); % add title to the figure,
and display the title in the figure
saveas(gcf, strcat(header,num2str(seq))); % save the figure with a new
name
close all; % close this figure, especially when you are using the 'for'
loop
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',{'BD number','energy'},'HF');
%xlswrite(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.xls'),lfcurrent,strcat('A2:A',nu
%m2str(tt+1)));
%xlswrite(strcat(energy_cal,'.xls'),energy,'LF',a);
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',energy,'HF',b);
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',cellstr(strcat('XIAO0',num2str(seq))),'HF',c);
%xlswrite(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.xls'),energy,'LF');
end
124
I.1.2 Low Frequency Energy Calculation
I.1.2.1 Normal type sparking energy

clear all;clc;
startnumber=100;
endnumber=;
k=1;
header='J:\test data\10-7BD.F\lf\WASC0'
%
ame','energy'});
1]);
1]);
tt=size(current,1);
fcutoff=15000;
[B,A]=ellip(4,0.5,20,fcutoff*2*timedelta);
[H,w] = freqz(B,A,512);
f = w/(2*pi)/timedelta;
lfcurrent = filter(B,A,current);
llfcurrent = filter(B,A,lfcurrent);
plot(time,current,'b');hold on;plot(time,llfcurrent,'r');
M=llfcurrent;
N=voltage;
SIZE=size(M);
SIZ=SIZE(1);
k=k+1;
125
SIZ=SIZ;
g=fix(0.45*SIZ);ffff=fix(0.65*SIZ);
gb=1; ffffb=fix(0.2*SIZ);
LOW = 0;
BASE= 0;
BASE2 = 0;
for i=g:ffff
LOW = LOW + M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*3;
end
for i=gb:ffffb
BASE=BASE+ M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*3;
end
for i=300000:400000
BASE2=BASE2+ M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*3;
end
energy=LOW-BASE
name
loop
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',{'after_lowpass_filter','energy'},'LF');
%m2str(tt+1)));
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',energy,'LF',b);
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',cellstr(strcat('WASCO0',num2str(seq))),'LF',c);
end
I.1.2.2 Double type sparking energy

clear all;clc;
startnumber=187;
endnumber=187;
k=1;
header='J:\test data\10-15BD.M\lf\WASC0'
126
%
ame','energy'});
1]);
1]);
tt=size(current,1);
fcutoff=15000;
[B,A]=ellip(4,0.5,20,fcutoff*2*timedelta);
[H,w] = freqz(B,A,512);
f = w/(2*pi)/timedelta;
lfcurrent = filter(B,A,current);
llfcurrent = filter(B,A,lfcurrent);
subplot(2,1,1);
plot(f,abs(H));hold on;
plot(time,current,'b');hold on;plot(time,llfcurrent,'r');
subplot(2,1,2);
%
bar(abs(fft(current)));
%ff=fftshift(fft(current));
%ww=linspace(-0.5/timedelta,0.5/timedelta,tt);
% plot(ww,abs(ff));
% subplot(3,1,3);
plot(time,current,'b');hold on;plot(time,lfcurrent,'r');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%add you energy calculation segment here, give the final energy value
%to the variable 'energy'%
M=lfcurrent;
N=voltage;
SIZE=size(M);
SIZ=SIZE(1);
k=k+1;
SIZ=SIZ;
127
g=fix(0.3*SIZ);ffff=fix(0.7*SIZ);
gb=1; ffffb=fix(0.2*SIZ);
LOW = 0;
BASE= 0;
for i=g:ffff
LOW = LOW + M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*3;
end
for i=gb:ffffb
BASE=BASE+ M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*3;
end
for i=170000:370000
BASE2=BASE+ M(i,1) *N(i,1)*timedelta*3;
end
energy= LOW-2*BASE
name
loop
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',{'after_lowpass_filter','energy'},'LF');
%m2str(tt+1)));
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',energy,'LF',b);
xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',cellstr(strcat('WASCO0',num2str(seq))),'LF',c);
end
I.2 PD Energy Calculation

clear all;clc;
x='F:\Users\sitao li\Desktop\6-12-2011\filter\58kV-186-1146.txt';
[a b c d]=textread(x,' %f %f %f %f','headerlines',14);
% a: period number
% b: phase
% c: charge
% d: voltage
P_number=size(find(b<180));
128
P_number=P_number(1);
P_max=max(abs(c(find(b<180))));
N_number=size(find(b>180));
N_number=N_number(1);
if N_number>0
N_max=max(abs(c(find(b>180))));
N_phi_min=min(b(find(b>180)));
else
N_max=0;
N_phi_min=360;
end
Alltime=(max(a)-min(a))*0.02;% unit s
P_power=sum(abs(c(find(b<180)).*d(find(b<180))))*1e-12*1000/Alltime*1000;%
kv* pc*1000=mW
N_power=sum(abs(c(find(b>180)).*d(find(b>180))))*1e-12*1000/Alltime*1000;
current=sum(abs(c))*1e-12/Alltime*1000;
P_phi_min=min(b(find(b<180)));
Energy= (P_power+N_power)*Alltime/1000;
c_1000=c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<1000));
d_1000=d(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<1000));
%d_1000=find(abs(d(find(b<180))<=1000);
P_Energy_1000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<1000)).*d(find(abs(c(find(
b<180)))<1000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
N_Energy_1000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b>180)))<1000)).*d(find(abs(c(find(
b>180)))<1000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
Energy_1000=P_Energy_1000+N_Energy_1000;
b<180)))<2000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b>180)))<2000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b<180)))<3000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b>180)))<3000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b<180)))<4000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b>180)))<4000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b<180)))<5000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b>180)))<5000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b<180)))<6000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
b>180)))<6000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ
Number_1000=size(find(abs(c)<1000));
Number_1000=Number_1000(1);
129
fprintf('
fprintf('
fprintf('
fprintf('
fprintf('
%s\n\n',x);
Allamplitude\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',max(P_max,N_max));
Allnumber\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',P_number+N_number);
Allpower\t\t=%f\t\tmW\t\n',P_power+N_power);
Allcurrent\t\t=%f\t\tmA\t\n\n',current);
fprintf(' P_max\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',P_max);
fprintf(' P_number\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',P_number);
fprintf(' P_phi_min\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n\n',P_phi_min);
fprintf(' N_max\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',N_max);
fprintf(' N_number\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',N_number);
fprintf(' N_phi_min\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n\n',N_phi_min);
%fprintf(' Energy \t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy);
fprintf(' Energy \t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_6000);
fprintf(' Energy below 1000\t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_1000);
fprintf(' Energy from 1000 to 2000\t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_2000Energy_1000);
fprintf(' PD number
fprintf(' PD number
Number_1000);
fprintf(' PD number
Number_2000);
fprintf(' PD number
Number_3000);
fprintf(' PD number
Number_4000);
fprintf(' PD number
Number_5000);
130
below 1000\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',Number_1000);
from 1000 to 2000\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',Number_2000from 2000 to 3000\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',Number_3000from 3000 to 4000\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',Number_4000from 4000 to 5000\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',Number_5000from 5000 to 6000\t\t=%f\t\t\t\n',Number_6000-
Appendix II. The Results Used in the Thesis

AII.1 Gemini X Sparking test 1- DGA data
Test 1
Gas Type
Time
Gas-in-gas_TM8Background
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
Gas-in-total calculated
11/10/12:0
0
11/10/13:1
7
11/10/14:1
7
11/10/15:1
7
11/10/12:0
0
11/10/13:1
7
11/10/14:1
7
11/10/15:1
7
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
Mineral
Oil
11/10/201
1
2570.00
0.00
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
4008
318.8
0.0
2.8
0.3
48.4
4009
316.9
8.2
70.1
0.0
4010
317.3
10.4
85.8
0.0
4011
317.5
11.2
86.7
0.0
0.00
3.00
0.74
11.94
76.01
0.00
15.25
93.68
0.00
16.40
94.55
0.00
14.53
88.08
0.00
14.53
85.07
(0.74)
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
Mineral
Oil
11/10/201
1
2570.00
0.00
4008
4009
4010
4011
Average GIT
364.6
9
366.2
9
369.2
8
369.0
8
368.2
2
3.53
Generation GIT
1835.
0
2047.
5
2032.
6
3.52
135.3
5
152.0
6
150.9
7
146.1
3
142.6
1
O2
138031.
8
136751.
1
135906.
6
135336.
6
21037.0
6
21111.9
3
21126.2
6
21030.5
4
21089.5
8
52.52
CH4
0.0
28.8
36.4
36.8
0.00
11.2
8
14.3
5
14.5
0
13.3
8
9.76
CO
42.
9
39.
7
40.
7
51.
4
P
14.
3
14.
5
14.
6
14.
6
T
22.
3
22.
6
22.
6
22.
7
6.1
6
5.7
8
5.9
6
7.5
3
6.4
2
0.2
6

Test 2
131
Gas Type
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
Time
11/10/15:1
7
11/10/17:1
7
11/10/18:1
7
11/10/19:1
7
11/10/15:1
7
11/10/17:1
7
11/10/18:1
7
11/10/19:1
7
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
4011
317.5
11.2
86.7
0.0
4013
316.9
23.1
178.0
0.0
4014
317.3
23.4
177.7
0.8
4015
23.0
177.4
0.9
16.40
94.55
0.00
33.97
194.99
0.00
34.36
194.44
2.01
34.09
195.88
2.28
34.14
195.10
1.43
17.74
100.55
1.43
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
Mineral
Oil
12/10/201
1
2570.00
0.00
4011
4013
4014
4015
Average GIT
315.6
369.0
8
370.0
4
370.0
7
371.4
6
370.5
2
1.44
Generation GIT
H2
2032.
6
4826.
3
4766.
9
4734.
5
O2
135336.
6
133433.
3
132604.
2
131960.
5
CH4
150.9
7
361.0
2
356.6
2
356.5
2
358.0
5
207.0
8
21030.5
4
20862.7
0
20726.0
7
20779.8
0
20789.5
2
14.5
0
33.6
4
34.6
5
34.5
7
34.2
8
14.4
4
7.5
3
8.9
2
8.4
0
8.0
9
8.4
7
0.9
4
(241.02)
36.8
84.9
87.5
86.6
CO
51.
4
60.
5
57.
0
54.
5
P
14.
6
14.
7
14.
7
14.
8
T
22.
7
22.
9
23
22.
8

Test 3
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
12/10/09:1
7
4029
312.
9
21.5
164.4
0.7
3940.
1
124208.
8
79.8
60.
4
15.
2
22.
1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
12/10/10:4
2
4030
313.
5
31.2
243.2
1.6
6625.
2
123849.
0
124.
7
72.
1
15.
2
22.
2
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
12/10/11:4
2
4031
313.
7
34.0
258.4
1.0
6680.
8
123064.
9
128.
8
71.
3
15.
3
22.
2
132
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
12/10/12:4
2
4032
314.
5
34.2
260.4
1.6
6639.
0
122858.
7
127.
3
76.
0
12/10/09:1
7
4029
381.
4
33.0
188.0
1.8
304.5
20135.4
32.9
9.2
12/10/10:4
2
4030
381.
6
47.9
277.7
4.2
512.0
20070.3
51.3
11.
0
12/10/11:4
2
4031
384.
4
52.5
297.0
2.6
519.7
20074.4
53.3
11.
0
12/10/12:4
2
4032
384.
9
52.7
299.0
4.2
516.5
20034.0
52.7
11.
7
Average GIT
383.
7
51.0
291.2
3.7
516.1
20059.5
52.5
11.
2
Generation GIT
2.3
18.0
103.3
1.8
211.6
(75.8)
14.3
2.0
15.
3
22.
3

Test 4
Gas Type
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
Mineral Oil
40828.0
2570.0
0.0
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
Gas-in-gas_TM8-Background
12/10/12:42
4032
314.5
34.2
260.4
1.6
6639.0
122858.7
127.3
76.0
15.3
22.3
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
12/10/13:42
4033
313.4
44.2
338.4
1.5
9645.4
121926.4
176.5
84.3
15.3
22.3
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
12/10/14:42
4034
313.8
46.1
353.1
1.7
9536.6
121347.0
176.1
80.1
15.3
22.4
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
12/10/15:42
4035
314.5
46.7
352.5
1.4
9474.8
120980.6
176.5
77.2
15.4
22.3
133
12/10/12:42
4032
384.9
52.7
299.0
4.2
516.5
20034.0
52.7
11.7
12/10/13:42
4033
383.6
68.2
388.5
4.0
750.4
19882.0
73.1
13.0
12/10/14:42
4034
383.6
71.0
404.9
4.5
742.0
19780.8
72.8
12.3
12/10/15:42
4035
387.4
72.5
407.4
3.7
742.0
19856.7
73.5
11.9
Average GIT
384.9
70.6
400.3
4.0
744.8
19839.8
73.1
12.4
Generation GIT
(0.0)
17.8
101.3
(0.2)
228.3
(194.2)
14.9
0.7

Test 5
Gas Type
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
134
Time
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
Mineral Oil
40829.0
2570.0
0.0
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
4053
313.2
43.9
333.3
2.0
7807.6
113151.5
166.4
83.8
15.7
21.9
4054
315.3
52.6
404.9
1.9
9841.8
113234.0
205.7
88.9
15.7
22.2
4055
317.0
54.8
416.2
2.5
9801.2
112841.4
209.5
99.5
15.6
22.4
4056
319.7
55.4
420.5
2.2
9769.1
112704.1
213.2
87.9
15.6
22.6
13/10/09:40
13/10/11:18
13/10/12:18
13/10/13:18
13/10/09:40
4053
395.2
69.8
394.5
5.4
623.0
18959.1
70.9
13.2
13/10/11:18
4054
396.5
83.4
477.6
5.1
785.6
18953.7
87.4
14.0
13/10/12:18
4055
395.1
86.1
486.7
6.7
777.6
18755.0
88.4
15.6
13/10/13:18
4056
397.6
86.8
490.6
5.9
775.2
18719.5
89.8
13.8
396.4
85.4
484.9
5.9
779.5
18809.4
88.5
14.5
1.2
15.6
90.4
0.5
156.4
(149.8)
12.9
1.2
Average GIT
Generation GIT
AII.6 FR3 Sparking test 1- DGA data

Test 1
Gas Type
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
FR3
09/23/2011
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
23/9/10:00
3660
379.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
155.4
143204.8
0.0
44.7
11.9
24.6
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
23/9/12:20
3662
379.8
9.8
41.2
0.0
2960.3
139280.7
27.2
379.9
12.2
25.4
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
23/9/13:20
3663
381.1
10.4
45.1
0.4
3002.0
138406.2
27.3
404.5
12.4
25.7
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
23/9/14:20
3664
381.5
10.9
46.3
0.6
2947.4
136897.9
26.6
394.9
12.5
25.9
23/9/10:00
3660
471.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
20198.7
0.0
5.1
135
23/9/12:20
3662
479.7
13.5
85.3
0.0
200.5
20281.2
8.5
44.9
23/9/13:20
3663
487.9
14.6
94.5
0.7
207.1
20537.7
8.7
48.6
23/9/14:20
3664
491.4
15.4
97.6
1.1
205.3
20513.2
8.5
47.9
Average GIT
486.3
14.5
92.5
0.6
204.3
20444.0
8.6
47.1
Generation GIT
15.4
14.5
92.5
0.6
194.1
245.3
6.2
42.0

Test 2
Gas Type
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volumn
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
FR3
09/23/201
1
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
23/9/15:2
0
3665
379.8
10.4
47.5
0.6
2903.
7
135679.
5
25.4
391.
7
12.
6
26.
1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
23/9/16:2
0
3666
380.4
17.6
81.1
0.5
5802.
5
134164.
4
50.7
686.
8
12.
7
26.
1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
23/9/17:2
0
3667
378.6
18.7
88.2
1.1
5541.
9
132916.
2
52.4
708.
1
12.
8
26.
1
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
23/9/18:2
0
3668
373.9
18.6
88.4
0.4
5403.
6
132023.
3
49.7
686.
1
12.
9
25.
9
23/9/15:2
0
3665
492.2
8
14.75
100.69
1.08
204.1
5
20528.8
4
8.19
47.8
7
23/9/16:2
0
3666
496.9
7
25.16
173.27
0.90
411.1
9
20460.7
1
16.4
9
84.6
0
136
23/9/17:2
0
3667
498.5
1
26.94
189.93
2.01
395.8
1
20429.9
6
17.1
7
87.9
1
23/9/18:2
0
3668
497.0
7
27.05
192.30
0.74
388.4
1
20415.8
4
16.4
2
85.8
0
Average GIT
497.5
2
26.38
185.16
1.22
20435.5
0
16.6
9
Generation GIT
5.24
11.63
84.48
0.14
398.4
7
194.3
2
(93.34)
6.20
86.1
0
38.2
4

Test 3
Gas Type
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
FR3
26/09/2011
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
26/9/15:07
3690
389.2
16.3
77.3
0.6
3191.1
120188.8
37.7
545.1
15.4
25.2
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
23/9/16:07
3691
388.4
23.1
107.3
0.3
5323.6
118951.4
63.0
686.8
15.5
25.5
Gas-in-gas_TM8 2
23/9/17:07
3692
388.2
24.1
109.4
0.0
5094.4
118121.0
63.0
783.8
15.5
25.5
Gas-in-gas_TM8 3
23/9/18:07
3693
387.1
23.6
110.4
0.6
4977.1
117724.1
63.2
770.6
15.6
25.5
26/9/15:07
3690
621.6
28.4
202.4
1.3
272.5
22053.2
14.9
81.3
23/9/16:07
3691
622.7
40.5
281.8
0.7
458.5
22025.3
25.0
103.1
23/9/17:07
3692
622.4
42.2
287.3
0.0
438.8
21871.5
25.0
117.7
137
3693
624.6
41.6
291.8
1.3
431.4
21938.6
25.3
116.4
623.2
41.4
287.0
0.7
442.9
21945.1
25.1
112.4
1.6
13.0
84.6
0.0
170.4
(108.1)
7.5
31.2
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volumn (ml)
Headspace (ml)
V (V)
I (A)
FR3
09/29/2011
2570.00
0.00
23/9/18:07
Average GIT
Generation GIT
Test 4
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
29/9/10:07
3751
389.6
0.9
4.6
9.4
143.1
117650.6
0.0
116.7
11.9
24.6
Gas-in-gas_TM8 1
29/9/12:15
3753
380.5
10.3
48.7
9.1
3234.8
116967.1
28.3
528.8
12.2
25.4
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
29/9/13:15
3754
379.1
10.6
53.1
9.8
3289.1
115455.9
29.6
543.6
12.4
25.7
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
29/9/14:15
3755
377.7
11.3
56.1
9.5
3141.3
115121.8
29.1
511.9
12.5
25.9
29/9/10:07
3751
483.5
1.2
9.4
16.1
9.4
16594.3
0.0
13.4
29/9/12:15
3753
480.6
14.2
100.8
15.9
219.1
17032.0
8.8
62.5
29/9/13:15
3754
485.3
14.8
111.3
17.4
226.9
17132.1
9.4
65.3
29/9/14:15
3755
486.6
15.9
118.3
16.9
218.8
17250.2
9.3
62.0
484.2
15.0
110.1
16.7
221.6
17138.1
9.2
63.3
0.7
13.8
100.7
0.6
212.2
543.8
6.7
49.9
Average GIT
Generation GIT

Test 5
138
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
V (V)
I (A)
FR3
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
10/03/2011
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
Gas in Gas_TM8-Background
03/10/12:40
3846
295.3
0.8
5.1
3.2
91
116021.7
82.3
11.3
27.1
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
03/10/13:40
3847
298.4
10.4
45.8
4.2
2892.9
114510.2
30.8
478.3
11.5
27.3
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
03/10/14:40
3848
296.8
11
50.2
3.9
2847.3
114280.1
25.5
484.2
11.7
27.5
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
03/10/15:40
3849
291.9
10.7
51.1
3.1
2640.6
113944.7
24.9
454.3
12.1
27.7
03/10/12:40
3846
340.2
1.0
9.6
5.1
5.8
15880.0
0.0
9.0
03/10/13:40
3847
349.2
13.3
87.4
6.8
187.2
15978.0
9.1
53.5
03/10/14:40
3848
352.7
14.3
97.2
6.4
187.7
16251.2
7.6
55.1
03/10/15:40
3849
358.1
14.4
102.1
5.3
180.3
16786.3
7.7
53.5
Average GIT
353.3
14.0
95.5
6.2
185.1
16338.5
8.1
54.0
Generation GIT
13.2
13.0
86.0
1.1
179.3
458.5
5.9
45.0
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
FR3
10/07/201
1
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH
4
CO

Test 6
Gas Type
Time
Gas in Gas_TM8Background
07/10/12:1
7
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
05/10/14:1
7
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
05/10/15:1
7
No.
CO2
3930
384.4
9.5
48
282.7
133534
11.8
154.
9
13.
9
22.
4
3932
389.3
9
16.2
83.1
2.1
3222.
2
131768.
7
33.9
511.
1
13.
9
22.
9
3933
393
16.9
86.9
1.7
3158.
4
131315.
4
35.9
516.
3
13.
9
23.
1
139
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
05/10/16:1
7
3934
393.6
16.9
89.6
1.9
3098.
2
130596.
6
35.5
510.
7
07/10/12:1
7
3930
568.6
15.3
117.3
4.1
21.4
21580.0
4.2
20.7
07/10/14:1
7
3932
573.3
26.0
201.9
4.3
244.4
21388.6
12.1
68.4
07/10/15:1
7
3933
577.6
27.0
210.6
3.5
239.9
21352.5
12.8
69.1
07/10/16:1
7
3934
577.9
27.0
216.9
3.9
235.5
21254.3
12.7
68.4
576.3
26.7
209.8
3.9
239.9
21331.8
12.5
68.6
7.7
11.4
92.5
0.0
218.6
(248.2)
6.1
47.9
V (V)
I (A)
H2
O2
Average GIT
Generation GIT
13.
9
23.
2
AII.12 Gemini X PD test 1- DGA data

PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
1500pC
Mineral
04/12/2011
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
Gas Type
Time
01/12/14:58
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
140
No.
CO2
CH4
CO
4640
336.9
128541.3
18
15.5
21.6
4657
348
5.3
0.6
65.4
122568.1
43.3
15.3
19.1
4657
348
5.3
0.6
65.4
122568.1
43.3
15.4
18.8
4657
348
5.3
0.6
65.4
122568.1
43.3
15.2
18.7
04/12/06:50
04/12/10:50
04/12/15:50
01/12/14:58
4640
421.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21285.0
0.0
2.8
04/12/06:50
4657
442.3
0.0
6.3
1.7
5.1
20205.4
0.0
6.7
04/12/10:50
4657
446.8
0.0
6.4
1.7
5.1
20358.4
0.0
6.7
04/12/15:50
4657
441.5
0.0
6.3
1.7
5.0
20100.8
0.0
6.7
Average GIT
443.6
0.0
6.3
1.7
5.1
20221.5
0.0
6.7
Generation GIT
22.4
0.0
6.3
1.7
5.1
(1063.5)
0.0
3.9

PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
2000pC
Mineral
29/11/2011
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
25/11/13:13
4624
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
119372.6
0.0
35.9
12.6
22
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
29/11/10:45
4625
403.5
0.0
8.8
0.0
217.0
140225.6
8.3
54.6
15.5
20.6
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
29/11/11:45
4625
403.5
0.0
8.8
0.0
217.0
140225.6
8.3
54.6
15.6
21.2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
29/11/12:45
4625
403.5
0.0
8.8
0.0
217.0
140225.6
8.3
54.6
15.6
21.5
141
25/11/13:13
4624
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16046.7
0.0
4.5
29/11/10:45
4625
510.4
0.0
10.4
0.0
17.1
23298.9
3.5
8.5
29/11/11:45
4625
510.1
0.0
10.4
0.0
17.2
23401.4
3.5
8.6
29/11/12:45
4625
508.3
0.0
10.4
0.0
17.2
23377.6
3.5
8.6
Average GIT
509.6
0.0
10.4
0.0
17.2
23359.3
3.5
8.6
Generation GIT
509.6
0.0
10.4
0.0
17.2
7312.5
2.6
4.0

PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
1500pC-2
Mineral
06/12/2011
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
Gas Type
Time
04/12/16:50
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
142
No.
CO2
V (V)
I (A)
H2
O2
CH4
CO
4658
350.6
6.6
60.4
123193
37.2
15.1
18.8
4661
368.2
1.6
17.9
1.3
393.6
121610
22.2
61.2
15
20.1
4661
368.2
1.6
17.9
1.3
393.6
121610
22.2
61.2
15
20.5
4661
368.2
1.6
17.9
1.3
393.6
121610
22.2
61.2
15.1
20.8
4.6
20063.5
1.3
5.7
06/12/13:50
06/12/14:50
06/12/15:50
04/12/16:50
4658
441.4
0.0
7.8
0.0
06/12/13:50
4661
453.4
2.5
20.7
3.5
29.9
19587.4
9.1
9.3
06/12/14:50
4661
451.3
2.5
20.6
3.5
30.0
19560.7
9.1
9.2
06/12/15:50
4661
452.7
2.5
20.6
3.5
30.2
19671.0
9.2
9.3
Average GIT
452.5
2.5
20.6
3.5
30.0
19606.3
9.1
9.3
Generation GIT
11.1
2.5
12.8
3.5
25.4
(457.2)
5.8
3.6
V (V)
I (A)
H2
O2

PD attitude
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
4000pC
Mineral
30/11/201
1
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
Gas Type
Time
29/11/13:4
5
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
30/11/11:3
5
30/11/12:3
5
30/11/13:3
5
No.
CO2
CH4
CO
4628
403.3
1.6
10.5
1.1
183.1
137518.
3
9.9
49.8
15.
7
21.
7
4629
401.5
5.7
31.9
2.8
1041.
7
135301
48.9
73
15.
6
20.
6
4629
401.5
5.7
31.9
2.8
1041.
7
135301
48.9
73
15.
7
21.
3
4629
401.5
5.7
31.9
2.8
1041.
7
135301
48.9
73
15.
8
21.
6
29/11/13:4
5
4628
510.1
1
2.55
12.46
3.00
14.61
23057.5
3
4.22
7.86
30/11/11:3
5
4629
511.1
9
9.16
38.09
7.72
82.47
22625.6
6
20.8
6
11.4
7
143
30/11/12:3
5
4629
510.2
3
9.14
38.03
7.69
83.07
22716.5
7
20.9
0
11.5
3
30/11/13:3
5
4629
511.6
7
9.16
38.13
7.70
83.63
22838.0
0
20.9
9
11.6
0
Average GIT
511.0
3
9.15
38.08
7.70
83.06
22726.7
4
11.5
3
Generation GIT
0.92
6.60
25.63
4.70
68.45
(330.79)
20.9
2
12.1
8
3.67
AII.16 FR3 PD test 1- DGA data

PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
1000pC-1
FR3
21/11/2011
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
Time
Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 1
21/11/07:25
4556
268.8
5.3
16.2
21/11/08:25
4556
268.8
5.3
21/11/09:25
4556
268.8
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
22/11/05:45
4570
269.7
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
22/11/06:45
4570
269.7
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
22/11/07:45
4570
269.7
21/11/09:25
4556.0
407.7
0.0
0.0
22/11/05:45
4570.0
427.2
0.0
22/11/06:45
4570.0
427.2
22/11/07:45
4570.0
144
CO2
I (A)
B
0.03
Gas Type
CH4
CO
130932.7
41.2
14.2
22
16.2
130932.7
41.2
14.2
22
5.3
16.2
130932.7
41.2
14.2
22
4.1
148.5
119709.3
87.1
14.9
22.5
4.1
148.5
119709.3
87.1
14.9
22.5
4.1
148.5
119709.3
87.1
14.9
22.5
11.1
1.2
21540.3
0.0
5.6
0.0
9.0
12.0
20755.9
0.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
9.0
12.0
20755.9
0.0
12.5
427.2
0.0
0.0
9.0
12.0
20755.9
0.0
12.5
Average GIT
427.2
0.0
0.0
9.0
12.0
20755.9
0.0
12.5
Generation GIT
19.5
0.0
0.0
(2.1)
10.8
(784.3)
0.0
6.9
No.
V (V)
H2
O2
PD attitude
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
1000pC-2
FR3
23/11/201
1
2570.00
0.00
Gas Type
Time
1
2
3
22/11/07:4
5
22/11/08:4
5
22/11/09:4
5
23/11/01:1
3
23/11/02:1
3
23/11/03:1
3
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
22/11/09:4
5
23/11/01:1
3
23/11/02:1
3
23/11/03:1
3
Average GIT
Generation GIT
V
(V)
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
4573
269.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
132.6
4573
269.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
132.6
4573
269.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
132.6
4581
269.1
0.0
0.0
3.8
203.4
4581
269.1
0.0
0.0
3.8
203.4
4581
269.1
0.0
0.0
3.8
203.4
0.00
0.00
7.49
10.84
0.00
0.00
8.53
16.97
0.00
0.00
8.53
16.97
0.00
0.00
8.53
16.97
0.00
0.00
8.53
16.97
0.00
0.00
1.04
6.13
4581
4581
4581
428.6
8
436.5
3
436.5
3
436.5
3
436.5
3
7.85
B
0.03
No.
4573
I (A)
O2
117429.
9
117429.
9
117429.
9
112475.
5
112475.
5
112475.
5
20533.4
6
20078.1
4
20078.1
4
20078.1
4
20078.1
4
(455.32)
CH
4
CO
0.0
85.2
15
0.0
85.2
15
0.0
85.2
15
0.0
92.7
0.0
92.7
0.0
92.7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.
3
15.
3
15.
3
T
22.
7
22.
7
22.
7
22.
8
22.
8
22.
8
12.3
0
13.6
5
13.6
5
13.6
5
13.6
5
1.35
145
PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
2000pC-1
FR3
14/11/2011
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
14/11/11:00
4407
384.9
2.8
6.7
1.6
301.7
90419.7
8.0
154.9
15.1
22.7
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
14/11/21:40
4419
390.3
4.1
10.1
2.1
646.6
88132.9
14.4
189.3
15.3
23.5
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
14/11/21:40
4419
390.3
4.1
10.1
2.1
646.6
88132.9
14.4
189.3
15.3
23.5
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
14/11/21:40
4419
390.3
4.1
10.1
2.1
646.6
88132.9
14.4
189.3
15.3
23.5
14/11/11:00
4407
616.79
4.88
17.72
3.55
24.83
15915.94
3.10
22.51
Gas in total calculated
14/11/21:40
4419
629.06
7.20
26.81
4.68
54.21
15829.67
5.65
27.93
14/11/21:40
4419
629.06
7.20
26.81
4.68
54.21
15829.67
5.65
27.93
14/11/21:40
4419
629.06
7.20
26.81
4.68
54.21
15829.67
5.65
27.93
Average GIT
629.06
7.20
26.81
4.68
54.21
15829.67
5.65
27.93
Generation GIT
12.28
2.32
9.09
1.14
29.39
(86.27)
1.86
5.41

146
PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
2000pC-2
FR3
23/11/2011
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
23/11/10:13
4589
261.0
0.2
0.0
3.5
169.1
109181.8
1.8
86.7
10.8
21.6
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
23/11/20:30
4596
268.8
1.7
10.7
4.1
615.9
105468.6
10.8
158.5
16.1
23.4
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
23/11/22:30
4596
268.8
1.7
10.7
4.1
615.9
105468.6
10.8
158.5
16.1
23.4
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
24/11/00:30
4596
268.8
1.7
10.7
4.1
615.9
105468.6
10.8
158.5
16.1
23.4
23/11/10:13
4589
302.21
0.25
0.00
5.60
9.88
13613.02
0.50
8.99
23/11/20:30
4596
456.31
3.14
29.93
9.63
54.30
19916.39
4.46
24.60
23/11/22:30
4596
456.31
3.14
29.93
9.63
54.30
19916.39
4.46
24.60
24/11/00:30
4596
456.31
3.14
29.93
9.63
54.30
19916.39
4.46
24.60
Average GIT
456.31
3.14
29.93
9.63
54.30
19916.39
4.46
24.60
Generation GIT
154.10
2.89
29.93
4.03
44.42
6303.37
2.89
15.61

PD attitude
Oil Type
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
3000pC-1
FR3
15/11/2011
2570.00
0.00
V (V)
I (A)
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
15/11/11:50
4424
387.5
4.6
10.2
1.5
620.6
89578.7
15.2
204.5
15
21.5
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
15/11/19:50
4431
405.2
11.0
21.4
2.9
2387.7
86963.4
43.4
376.4
15.2
24
147
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
15/11/19:50
4431
405.2
11.0
21.4
2.9
2387.7
86963.4
43.4
376.4
15.2
24
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
15/11/19:50
4431
405.2
11.0
21.4
2.9
2387.7
86963.4
43.4
376.4
15.2
24
15/11/11:50
4424
623.75
8.04
27.19
3.34
50.31
15498.61
5.86
29.44
15/11/19:50
4431
645.83
19.12
56.10
6.40
199.57
15585.59
16.92
55.23
15/11/19:50
4431
645.83
19.12
56.10
6.40
199.57
15585.59
16.92
55.23
15/11/19:50
4431
645.83
19.12
56.10
6.40
199.57
15585.59
16.92
55.23
Average GIT
645.83
19.12
56.10
6.40
199.57
15585.59
16.92
55.23
Generation GIT
22.09
11.08
28.91
3.06
149.26
86.98
8.07
25.79

PD attitude
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
3000pC-2
FR3
15/11/201
1
2570.00
0.00
57.00
H2
2336.
4
4545.
8
4545.
8
4545.
8
Gas Type
Time
15/11/20:5
0
16/11/06:5
5
16/11/06:5
5
16/11/06:5
5
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
148
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
4432
405.1
11.3
21.1
2.8
4439
401.9
18.2
33.0
3.6
4439
401.9
18.2
33.0
3.6
4439
401.9
18.2
33.0
3.6
I (A)
O2
CH4
86675.5
43.2
84276.0
73.7
84276.0
73.7
84276.0
73.7
CO
376.
5
575.
2
575.
2
575.
2
P
15.
2
15.
3
15.
3
15.
3
T
23.
9
22.
7
22.
7
22.
7

15/11/20:5
0
16/11/06:5
5
16/11/06:5
5
16/11/06:5
5
4432
4439
4439
4439
Average GIT
646.2
7
652.5
6
652.5
6
652.5
6
652.5
6
6.29
Generation GIT
19.65
55.38
6.18
32.15
88.45
8.09
32.15
88.45
8.09
32.15
88.45
8.09
32.15
88.45
8.09
12.50
33.07
1.90
195.1
4
379.0
0
379.0
0
379.0
0
379.0
0
183.8
6
15520.4
1
15030.9
9
15030.9
9
15030.9
9
15030.9
9
16.8
4
28.9
4
28.9
4
28.9
4
28.9
4
(489.42)
8.83
55.2
3
84.7
0
84.7
0
84.7
0
84.7
0
29.4
7

PD attitude
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
3000pC-3
FR3
17/11/201
1
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
Gas Type
Time
17/11/11:5
3
17/11/16:4
0
17/11/18:4
0
17/11/20:4
0
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3

17/11/11:5
3
17/11/16:4
0
17/11/18:4
0
No.
CO2
4464
676.5
5.3
4470
591.4
7.2
28
6.6
4470
591.4
7.2
28
6.6
4470
591.4
7.2
28
6.6
4464
4470
4470
515.4
7
543.7
2
543.7
2
0.00
0.00
5.59
7.22
42.30
8.40
7.22
42.30
8.40
V (V)
I (A)
H2
O2
118981.
3
109328.
5
109328.
5
109328.
5
43.3
2950.
1
2950.
1
2950.
1
1.70
143.1
5
143.1
5
10012.6
4
11383.5
2
11383.5
2
CH4
0
58.4
58.4
58.4
0.00
13.1
7
13.1
7
CO
161.
5
439.
3
439.
3
439.
3
7.2
23
24.
4
24.
4
24.
4
8.8
8.8
8.8
11.2
0
37.3
5
37.3
5
149
17/11/20:4
0
4470
Average GIT
543.7
2
543.7
2
28.25
Generation GIT
7.22
42.30
8.40
7.22
42.30
8.40
7.22
42.30
2.81
143.1
5
143.1
5
141.4
5
11383.5
2
11383.5
2
13.1
7
13.1
7
1370.89
9.61
37.3
5
37.3
5
26.1
5

PD attitude
Oil
Type
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
4000pC
FR3
18/11/201
1
2570.00
0.00
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
Gas Type
Time
18/11/14:4
0
18/11/16:2
5
18/11/18:2
5
18/11/20:2
5
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Average GIT
Generation GIT
18/11/14:4
0
18/11/16:2
5
18/11/18:2
5
18/11/20:2
5
No.
CO2
4490
441.7
21.3
4.6
4496
443.3
15.7
38.7
4496
443.3
15.7
38.7
4496
443.3
15.7
38.7
4490
4496
4496
4496
565.0
6
575.3
5
575.3
5
575.3
5
575.3
5
10.29
AII.24 Gemini X 300C thermal test -1 DGA data

150
8.37
44.82
8.14
22.23
82.57
14.37
22.23
82.57
14.37
22.23
82.57
14.37
22.23
82.57
14.37
13.86
37.75
6.23
V (V)
I (A)
H2
1771.
6
4546.
6
4546.
6
4546.
6
O2
CH4
CO
95293.9
38.9
90867.1
81.8
90867.1
81.8
90867.1
81.8
330
616.
4
616.
4
616.
4
13707.8
1
13308.5
4
13308.5
4
13308.5
4
13308.5
4
12.1
7
26.0
1
26.0
1
26.0
1
26.0
1
10.1
0
38.8
6
73.8
1
73.8
1
73.8
1
73.8
1
34.9
5
118.8
5
310.4
4
310.4
4
310.4
4
310.4
4
191.5
9
(399.26)
P
12.
2
12.
4
12.
4
12.
4
T
24
24.
2
24.
2
24.
2
Test Temperature
Heating
Mineral
20 mins
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
7/25/11:44
3200
440.80
0.00
7/25/12:44
7/25/13:44
7/25/14:44
3201
3202
3203
556.30
521.00
514.30
7/25/11:44
7/25/12:44
7/25/13:44
7/25/14:44
3200
3201
3202
3203
408.20
477.53
484.40
487.16
483.03
470.30
300.00
Gas Type
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
Average GIT
Average GIO
Oil
Headspace
Volume
(ml)
(ml)
25/07/2011 2748.00
3.50
Oil
Type
Test 1
Time
V
(V)
I (A)
0.40
261.00
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
0.00
0.00
0.00
155118.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
151366.10 33.50 12.00 31.90

151752.00 36.50 12.10 26.40
152405.00 33.30 12.20 24.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19187.01
18669.02
19377.88
19565.75
19204.22
19204.22
V
(V)
I (A)
0.40
261.00
O2
Date
11.80 23.80
0.00
10.23
11.72
10.80
10.92
10.92
Test 2
Oil
Headspace
Heating
Date
Volume
(ml)
(ml)
Mineral 20 mins 25/07/2011 2778.00
3.50
Test
Temperature
Oil
Type
300.00
Gas Type
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
7/25/14:44
3203
514.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/25/15:44
3204
679.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CH4
152405.00 33.30
12.20
24.80
148664.20 97.40
12.50
36.20
151
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
7/25/16:44
3205

Average GIT
Average GIO
619.40
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
147760.70 99.40
486.68
578.61
581.06
579.83
562.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.22
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19425.05
18795.70
19209.20
19002.45
19002.45
Oil
Headspace
Volume
(ml)
(ml)
V
(V)
I (A)
12.50
27.70
10.77
30.17
32.43
31.30
31.30
AII.26 Gemini X 300C thermal test 2-2 DGA data

Test
2_2
Test
Temperature
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
300.00
Mineral
20 mins
25/07/2011
2748.00
3.50
0.40
261.00
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
7/25/14:44
3203
514.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
152405.00 33.30
12.20
24.80
7/25/18:44
7/25/19:44
7/25/20:44
3207
3208
3209
589.30
581.40
576.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
146967.30 89.80
145649.00 87.90
145468.80 84.90
12.90
13.00
13.10
24.80
24.30
24.20
486.68
590.23
594.81
590.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
1.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19425.05
19950.23
20111.56
20093.43
Gas Type
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3

152
CH4
10.77
30.80
30.72
29.69
Test Temperature
Test 3
300.00
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Mineral
40 mins
26/07/2011
Oil
Volume
(ml)
2742.00
No.
CO2
C2H4
Time
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
2.00
0.40
265.00
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
Gas Type
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
7/26/12:44
3225
547.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
139369.50
68.20
13.80
24.30
7/26/15:42
3227
729.10
0.60
0.60
0.00
0.00
138672.70
173.20
13.90
28.00
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
7/26/16:42
3228
708.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
138120.10
169.40
13.90
26.10
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
7/26/17:42
3229
696.40
0.00
0.80
0.40
0.00
137220.30
160.40
14.00
25.30
7/26/12:44
3225
589.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20127.01
25.03
7/26/15:42
3227
757.82
0.78
0.59
0.00
0.00
20005.21
62.69
7/26/16:42
3228
757.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20113.96
62.38
7/26/17:42
3229
752.25
0.00
0.81
0.92
0.00
20036.48
59.36

Test Temperature
Test 1
400.00
Gas Type
Time
2/8/14:1
4
2/8/15:1
4
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Oil
Type
Heatin
g
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
Mineral
5min
08/02/201
1
2732.00
10.00
1.30
600.00
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
3368
985.0
1.2
0.0
2.7
15.1
132161.8
271.8
3369
1534.5
480.3
2.0
64.6
4350.
7
127410.0
2471.
1
CO
1285.
9
2093.
0
P
14.
6
14.
7
T
28.
3
43
153

Generation GIT
2/8/14:1
4
2/8/15:1
4
3368
1071.03
1.63
0.00
6.22
3369
1428.76
548.74
1.75
121.68
357.73
547.11
1.75
115.46
5min
1.10
19924.66
341.9
8
340.8
8
18881.38
(1043.28
)
102.9
7
871.1
5
560.5
6
184.3
2
302.2
0
117.8
7

Test Temperature
Test 2
Oil Type
Heating
Date
Oil Volume (ml)
Headspace (ml)
V (V)
I (A)
Mineral
50s
08/02/2011
2732.00
30.00
1.30
600.00
400.00
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
2/8/15:14
3369
1534.5
480.3
2.0
64.6
4350.7
127410.0
2471.1
2093.0
14.7
43
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
2/8/17:04
3371
1332.1
5332.6
73.2
511.8
33835.6
123776.0
19656.0
2132.9
14.7
28.1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
2/8/18:04
3372
1318.7
5329.5
72.5
520.9
32886.9
123722.6
19345.8
2082.3
14.7
27.8
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
2/8/19:04
3373
1292.5
5395.4
72.4
529.3
31917.5
123417.2
19177.1
2052.8
14.9
27.9
2/8/15:14
3369
1423.5
547.1
1.7
121.5
326.9
18440.7
862.6
295.0
2/8/17:04
3371
1476.2
7382.6
76.2
1196.1
2855.9
20148.4
7720.7
331.2
2/8/18:04
3372
1466.4
7406.5
75.7
1222.7
2775.1
20159.8
7612.8
323.5
2/8/19:04
3373
1455.2
7590.4
76.6
1257.5
2730.2
20376.9
7644.4
323.2
Average GIT
1466.0
7459.8
76.2
1225.4
2787.1
20228.4
7659.3
325.9
Average GIO
1414.7
7250.9
73.3
1205.1
1503.8
15402.4
6902.4
244.4
42.5
6912.7
74.4
1104.0
2460.1
1787.6
4959.7
31.0
Generation GIT
50s

Test Temperature
154
Test 3
Oil
Type
Heatin
g
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V
(V)
I (A)
400.00
Mineral
16s
08/11/201
1
2732.00
0.00
470-510
O2
142989.
8
143270.
0
142977.
5
142535.
5
CH4
CO
0.0
49.6
15.2
24.6
63.5
15.0
25.9
59.1
15.0
25.7
61.7
15.0
25.6
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
11/8/9:00
3447
528.8
0.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
3449
550.0
33.7
3.5
3.9
162.2
3450
549.7
34.5
3.8
3.8
182.7
3451
551.8
33.9
3.2
4.1
177.7
3447
624.9
1.2
0.0
2.5
0.0
22721.8
0.0
7.4
3449
631.8
48.6
3.8
9.6
12.1
22369.2
50.7
9.4
3450
632.9
49.9
4.1
9.3
13.7
22338.4
47.8
8.7
3451
636.0
49.1
3.5
10.1
13.3
22276.8
47.6
9.1
Average GIT
633.6
49.2
3.8
9.7
13.0
22328.1
48.7
9.1
Average GIO
617.7
48.2
3.7
9.6
8.0
18220.0
45.1
7.3
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3

11/8/12:3
0
11/8/13:3
0
11/8/14:3
0
11/8/9:00
11/8/12:3
0
11/8/13:3
0
11/8/14:3
0
128.
3
120.
8
120.
2
Generation GIT
16s
8.7
48.0
3.8
7.1
13.0
(393.7)
48.7
1.6
Generation GIO
16s
8.3
47.0
3.7
7.0
8.0
(321.3)
45.1
1.3
AII.29 FR3 300C thermal test -1 DGA data

Test Temperature
Test 1
300.00
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
FR3
90 mins
27/07/2011
Oil
Volume
(ml)
2732.00
Headspace
(ml)
V
(V)
I (A)
0.00
0.40
260
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
7/27/13:45
3245
634.5
0.6
0.0
35.0
67.8
101867.9
46.7
595.6
15
28.6
155
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
7/27/17:40
3247
930.5
1.8
0.5
78.4
212.2
101656.7
145.5
1647.5
14.7
30
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
7/27/18:40
3248
905.8
2.2
0.0
75.0
193.0
101852.0
138.3
1618.7
14.7
28.4
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
7/27/19:40
3249
892.7
2.3
0.0
74.4
201.3
102321.6
139.8
1595.3
14.7
27.8
7/27/13:45
3245
956.10
0.99
0.00
73.13
5.65
18565.29
17.82
86.07
7/27/17:40
3247
1357.03
2.89
1.18
158.62
17.51
18377.44
54.35
234.05
7/27/18:40
3248
1340.01
3.58
0.00
153.84
15.75
18159.59
51.72
229.13
7/27/19:40
3249
1327.77
3.75
0.00
153.41
16.35
18148.34
52.30
225.50
Average GIT
1341.60
3.41
0.39
155.29
16.54
18228.46
52.79
229.56
Average GIO
1316.24
3.35
0.39
153.17
10.90
15385.39
48.85
184.37
Generation GIT
90 mins
385.50
2.41
0.39
82.16
10.89
(336.84)
25.52
143.49
Generation GIO
90 mins
378.20
2.37
0.39
81.04
7.18
(279.73)
32.36
115.26
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Headspace
(ml)
V
(V)
I (A)
FR3
3h
28/07/2011
Oil
Volume
(ml)
2732.00
0.00
0.40
253.00

Test Temperature
Test 2
300.00
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
7/28/08:40
3262
810.8
1.4
0.0
65.6
97.4
106522.6
115.8
1281.1
15.1
26.6
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
7/28/16:00
3264
1274.3
3.5
0.4
118.3
347.7
93579.0
201.1
2653.0
14.7
36.1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
7/28/17:00
3265
1181.9
3.5
0.4
109.6
304.8
93789.1
196.0
2631.3
14.6
30.9
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
7/28/18:00
3266
1134.8
3.1
0.3
106.7
318.4
93898.3
181.2
2559.1
14.7
29.1
7/28/08:40
3262
1252.26
2.37
0.00
140.40
8.06
19205.16
44.54
185.51
156
7/28/16:00
3264
1761.89
5.38
0.88
227.36
29.98
17816.48
74.77
381.98
7/28/17:00
3265
1698.33
5.55
0.93
218.55
25.15
16970.65
72.67
372.02
7/28/18:00
3266
1668.30
5.01
0.72
217.55
26.11
16843.42
67.73
362.82
Average GIT
1709.51
5.31
0.84
221.15
27.08
17210.19
71.72
372.27
Average GIO
1676.57
5.22
0.83
218.08
18.17
14629.39
66.42
300.31
Generation GIT
3h
457.25
2.95
0.84
80.75
19.02
(1994.98)
19.83
186.77
Generation GIO
3h
447.71
2.89
0.83
79.58
12.93
(1502.49)
25.22
151.77
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Headspace
(ml)
V
(V)
I (A)
FR3
3h
29/07/2011
Oil
Volume
(ml)
2732.00
0.00
0.40
250.00

Test Temperature
Test 3
300.00
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
7/29/09:00
3281
984.1
2.7
0.0
90.7
156.0
101624.1
144.3
1989.7
15
27.1
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
7/29/14:38
3282
1250.1
3.9
0.6
118.2
364.9
94373.1
196.9
3100.8
14.6
31
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
7/29/15:38
3283
1195.8
3.4
0.0
113.1
366.0
94607.8
190.1
3078.8
14.5
28.1
7/27/13:45
3281
1503.04
4.52
0.00
191.99
12.87
18280.48
55.12
286.53
7/27/17:40
3282
1794.75
6.18
1.39
235.50
30.13
17090.98
72.99
438.50
7/27/18:40
3283
1749.67
5.46
0.00
229.43
29.39
16595.16
70.14
429.58
Average GIT
1772.21
5.82
0.70
232.46
29.76
16843.07
71.57
434.04
Average GIO
1738.54
5.72
0.69
229.28
19.70
14241.80
66.24
348.98
Generation GIT
3h
269.17
1.30
0.70
40.47
16.89
(1437.41)
12.00
147.50
Generation GIO
3h
263.66
1.28
0.69
39.88
11.30
(1130.99)
15.25
119.37
157

Oil Type
Heating
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspac
e (ml)
V (V)
I (A)
FR3
1.5h
29/07/201
1
2732.00
1.00
0.54
298.00
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
3283
1195.8
3.4
0.0
113.1
366.0
94607.8
190.1
3078.8
14.5
28.1
3285
1983.8
18.5
0.6
276.0
1898.7
72424.4
463.4
6298.5
14
38.8
3286
1863.0
17.4
0.3
264.2
1769.5
73437.4
446.1
6180.5
14.1
30.3
3287
1818.8
17.5
0.6
261.1
1640.1
74465.0
438.1
6039.3
14.2
27.3
3283
1749.67
5.46
0.00
229.43
29.39
16595.16
70.14
429.58
3285
2553.37
26.59
1.22
494.16
159.60
13454.25
163.91
870.73
3286
2599.79
26.76
0.68
511.49
141.00
12792.42
159.95
844.89
3287
2625.64
27.70
1.41
522.40
128.82
12728.96
158.54
825.83
Average GIT
2592.93
27.02
1.10
509.35
143.14
12991.88
160.80
847.15
Average GIO
2542.35
26.54
1.09
502.20
95.77
11022.81
148.77
681.75
Test Temperature
Test 1
400.00
Gas Type
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time
7/29/15:3
8
7/29/19:1
5
7/29/20:0
0
7/29/21:0
0
7/29/15:3
8
7/29/19:1
5
7/29/20:0
0
7/29/21:0
0
Generation GIT
1.5h
843.26
21.55
1.10
279.92
113.75
(3603.28)
66.16
417.57
Generation GIO
1.5h
825.65
21.17
1.09
275.88
76.47
(2964.33)
83.87
337.04
Test Temperature
158
Test 2
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Oil
Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
400.00
FR3
3h
08/01/2011
2732.00
1.00
0.60
310.00
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
01/08/9:00
3346
1161.2
10.7
0.0
170.6
130.5
114811.6
187.9
2469.7
14.9
27
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
01/08/17:36
3348
3005.8
47.8
0.0
596.6
3224.1
58617.9
799.6
9825.8
13.7
33.2
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
01/08/19:07
3350
2790.0
45.5
0.8
563.1
2999.3
61838.6
764.7
9543.2
13.9
30
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
01/08/20:07
3351
2726.9
44.5
0.9
554.1
2811.1
63327.8
742.5
9290.6
13.9
29.3
01/08/9:00
3346
1763.3
17.8
0.0
359.0
10.7
20497.1
71.3
353.2
01/08/17:36
3348
3972.8
69.9
0.0
1095.0
254.8
10169.5
278.0
1313.5
01/08/19:07
3350
3848.4
69.1
1.8
1077.5
235.1
10591.8
270.4
1285.2
01/08/20:07
3351
3784.9
67.9
2.0
1066.6
219.2
10781.7
262.6
1249.2
3848.4
69.5
0.9
1086.2
245.0
10380.7
274.2
1299.4
Heating
3793.7
67.8
1.3
1064.6
156.9
8896.3
250.0
1030.5
3h
2085.1
51.3
1.8
718.4
224.4
(9905.2)
145.3
932.0
1.5h
2063.5
50.3
1.3
710.4
150.0
(8336.6)
184.1
747.5
Average GIT
Average GIO
Generation GIT
Generation GIO

Test Temperature
Test 1
500.00
Gas Type
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
Time
4/8/09:4
0
4/8/14:2
0
4/8/15:2
0
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Oil Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
FR3
20mins
08/04/201
1
2732.00
11.00
1.6
393
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
3392
352.9
16.9
0.0
18.2
270.2
143295.7
27.2
133.7
10.7
28.6
3396
1292.2
115.0
0.0
434.3
1189.5
99915.7
588.3
5819.8
11
31.6
3397
1242.8
111.3
0.6
419.2
1118.0
100357.5
564.2
5661.5
11.2
30.2
159
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
4/8/16:2
0
3398
1214.0
109.9
0.0
412.5
1064.1
100984.0
556.6
5491.1
3392
379.3
20.0
0.0
27.1
16.1
18629.0
7.4
13.8
3396
1394.2
137.0
0.0
649.9
77.8
13998.3
166.0
638.1
3397
1382.2
136.4
1.1
646.4
73.8
14149.9
162.3
630.2
3398
1369.5
136.4
0.0
645.0
70.6
14293.4
161.6
615.9
Average GIT
1382.0
136.6
0.4
647.1
74.1
14147.2
163.3
628.0
Average GIO
1351.9
1
133.89
0.35
636.92
47.02
11729.59
149.56
491.89

4/8/09:4
0
4/8/14:2
0
4/8/15:2
0
4/8/16:2
0
Generation GIT
20mins
1002.7
116.6
0.4
620.0
58.0
(4481.8)
113.7
614.3
Generation GIO
20mins
979.75
114.27
0.35
610.17
36.44
(3989.31
)
142.71
480.83
11.3
29.6
Test Temperature
Test 2
500.00
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Oil
Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
FR3
30mins
08/05/2011
2732.00
16.00
1.70
424.00
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
05/08/9:30
3401
1029.7
89.2
0.7
334.6
519.6
119299.5
411.3
4089.8
12
28.2
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
05/08/16:00
3403
2053.2
175.4
0.3
664.0
1229.5
84681.5
899.9
8398.9
13.6
31
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
05/08/17:00
3404
1894.2
162.8
0.7
621.1
1144.1
86843.8
846.4
7944.3
14.2
28.7
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
05/08/18:00
3405
1791.0
154.7
0.0
591.9
1019.0
89805.0
800.7
7491.9
14.7
28
160
05/08/9:30
3401
1245.75
118.51
1.38
561.25
34.56
17333.41
125.58
472.36
05/08/16:00
3403
2756.77
259.71
0.65
1235.84
101.10
14736.05
315.55
1151.07
05/08/17:00
3404
2710.25
255.92
1.62
1230.98
96.77
15482.25
310.43
1131.48
05/08/18:00
3405
2669.49
253.04
0.00
1221.77
88.82
16477.77
304.18
1103.03
2712.17
256.22
0.76
1229.53
95.56
15565.36
310.05
1128.53
2650.29
250.91
0.75
1209.28
59.01
12739.52
282.58
871.44
30mins
1466.42
137.72
(0.62)
668.28
61.01
(1768.05)
134.61
656.16
30mins
1428.03
134.43
(0.61)
655.67
36.30
(1873.13)
166.38
492.35
Average GIT
Average GIO
Generation GIT
Generation GIO

Test Temperature
Test 1
600.00
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
FR3
1.5min
08/08/2011
Oil
Volume
(ml)
2732.00
Headspace
(ml)
V (V)
I (A)
7.00
2.9
550
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
8/8/13:26
3407
770.1
3.8
0.0
27.4
0.0
114493.1
7.1
383.2
10.2
27.1
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
8/8/16:09
3411
1044.3
150.1
0.0
152.5
447.4
108238.4
492.3
2231.0
10.7
27
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
8/8/17:09
3412
1021.7
144.7
0.8
148.1
423.8
108680.6
463.7
2167.2
10.8
26.8
Gas in Gas_TM8 3
8/8/18:09
3413
1007.2
140.7
0.6
145.0
408.4
109239.2
459.3
2081.2
11
26.7
8/8/13:26
3407
799.81
4.33
0.00
39.44
0.00
14004.87
1.84
37.53
8/8/16:09
3411
1140.72
179.67
0.00
230.76
27.13
14077.56
135.06
233.27
8/8/17:09
3412
1128.50
175.08
1.44
226.59
25.91
14242.72
128.42
228.62
8/8/18:09
3413
1134.11
173.52
1.10
226.15
25.41
14568.53
129.57
223.56
Average GIT
1134.45
176.09
0.85
227.83
26.15
14296.27
131.01
228.48
Average GIO
1111.34
172.82
0.84
224.48
16.53
11843.12
120.37
179.77
334.64
171.77
0.85
188.39
26.15
291.40
94.26
190.96
Generation GIT
90s
161
Generation GIO
326.51
90s
168.57
0.84
185.57
16.53
65.86
118.67
149.70
Test Temperature
Test 2
600.00
Oil
Type
Heating
Date
Oil
Volume
(ml)
Headspace
(ml)
V
(V)
I (A)
FR3
1.5min
08/09/2011
2732.00
10.00
2.90
554.00
Gas Type
Time
No.
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
09/08/12:10
3415
636.1
31.9
0.7
38.8
15.0
138702.4
45.8
267.7
13.8
34.3
Gas in Gas_TM8 1
09/08/14:15
3417
880.9
137.5
1.0
137.2
294.1
132446.7
392.2
1700.3
13.8
34.7
Gas in Gas_TM8 2
09/08/15:15
3418
859.2
132.9
0.9
134.0
297.5
132014.7
378.4
1600.6
13.9
34.5
05/08/9:30
3415
838.59
46.64
1.48
71.06
1.20
24418.68
16.01
36.04
05/08/16:00
3417
1160.23
200.92
2.10
250.89
24.55
23837.73
138.36
234.80
05/08/17:00
3418
1141.83
195.89
1.91
247.23
24.98
23892.89
134.48
222.54
1151.03
198.40
2.01
249.06
24.77
23865.31
136.42
228.67
1151.03
198.40
2.01
249.06
24.77
23865.31
136.42
228.67
90s
312.44
151.76
0.53
178.00
23.57
(553.38)
87.86
192.63
90s
328.79
152.58
0.55
179.00
23.95
3012.22
121.59
199.51
Average GIT
Average GIO
Generation GIT
Generation GIO
AII.38 Gemini X sparking tests energy
test 1
162
BD
number
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
lf number
Energy(J)
hf number
WASCO0144
1.68 Xiao0866
WASCO0145
1.85
WASCO0146
1.36
Energy(J)
0.00
test 2
test 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
BD 16
BD 17
BD 18
BD 19
BD 20
BD 21
BD 22
BD 23
BD 24
BD 25
BD 26
BD 27
BD 28
BD 29
BD 30
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
WASCO0147
WASCO0148
WASCO0149
WASCO0150
WASCO0151
WASCO0152
WASCO0153
WASCO0154
WASCO0155
WASCO0156
1.81
1.40
1.69
1.76
3.22
3.04
1.34
1.24
1.78
3.55
XIAO0869
XIAO0870
XIAO0871
XIAO0872
XIAO0873
XIAO0874
1.10
0.79
0.25
0.40
1.60
2.09
WASCO0157
WASCO0158
WASCO0159
WASCO0160
WASCO0161
WASCO0162
WASCO0163
WASCO0164
WASCO0165
WASCO0166
WASCO0167
WASCO0168
WASCO0169
WASCO0170
1.77
1.37
1.64
1.63
1.51
4.01
1.77
1.92
1.30
4.93
1.75
1.81
2.04
1.92
XIAO0875
XIAO0876
XIAO0877
XIAO0878
XIAO0879
XIAO0880
XIAO0881
XIAO0882
XIAO0883
XIAO0884
XIAO0885
XIAO0886
XIAO0887
XIAO0888
2.02
1.07
1.42
1.79
1.42
2.24
1.64
2.25
1.04
1.55
1.73
1.89
2.30
2.07
WASCO0171
WASCO0172
WASCO0173
WASCO0174
WASCO0175
WASCO0176
1.17
1.76
1.75
1.78
1.47
1.69
XIAO0889
XIAO0890
XIAO0891
XIAO0892
XIAO0893
XIAO0894
0.95
1.82
1.81
1.89
1.55
1.90
163
test 4
test 5
164
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
WASCO0177
WASCO0178
WASCO0179
WASCO0180
WASCO0181
WASCO0183
WASCO0184
WASCO0185
1.76
5.13
1.71
1.45
1.54
1.80
1.72
1.82
XIAO0895
XIAO0896
XIAO0897
XIAO0898
XIAO0899
XIAO0900
XIAO0901
XIAO0902
1.89
1.94
1.91
1.45
1.60
1.87
1.75
2.11
WASCO0186
WASCO0187
WASCO0188
WASCO0189
WASCO0190
WASCO0191
WASCO0192
WASCO0193
WASCO0194
WASCO0195
WASCO0196
WASCO0197
WASCO0198
WASCO0199
WASCO0200
WASCO0201
WASCO0202
WASCO0203
WASCO0204
WASCO0205
WASCO0206
WASCO0207
WASCO0208
WASCO0209
1.83
1.71
1.78
1.69
1.93
1.80
0.00
0.00
1.82
1.62
1.65
1.86
1.70
1.80
1.73
1.77
1.80
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.87
1.47
1.80
1.38
XIAO0903
XIAO0904
XIAO0905
XIAO0906
XIAO0907
XIAO0908
XIAO0909
XIAO0910
XIAO0911
XIAO0912
XIAO0913
XIAO0914
XIAO0915
XIAO0916
XIAO0917
XIAO0918
XIAO0919
XIAO0920
XIAO0921
XIAO0922
XIAO0923
XIAO0924
XIAO0925
XIAO0926
1.96
2.08
1.97
1.69
2.04
2.01
2.29
1.52
2.00
1.89
1.74
1.81
1.73
1.93
1.66
2.04
2.21
2.12
2.12
2.00
1.32
1.77
1.32
1.97
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
WASCO0210
WASCO0211
WASCO0212
WASCO0213
WASCO0214
WASCO0215
AII.39 FR3 sparking tests energy

BD
Test
number
lf number
BD 1
wasc0016
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
wasc0017
BD 6
wasc0018
BD 7
BD 8
wasc0019
1
BD 9
wasc0020
BD 10
wasc0021
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
wasc0022
BD 16
wasc0023
BD 17
wasc0024
BD 18
wasc0025
BD 19
wasc0026
2
BD 20
wasc0027
BD 21
wasc0028
BD 22
wasc0029
1.74
1.70
1.70
1.81
1.66
1.74
XIAO0927
XIAO0928
XIAO0929
XIAO0930
XIAO0931
XIAO0932
Energy(J)
hf number
1.78
XIAO0742
XIAO0743
XIAO0744
1.63 XIAO0745
1.47 XIAO0746
1.85
1.80
2.03
1.70
1.94
1.90
Energy(J)
1.22
1.27
1.22
1.30
1.16
1.74 XIAO0747
1.67 XIAO0748
1.48 XIAO0749
1.34
1.29
1.13
4.04
1.59
1.59
1.75
1.61
1.70
1.63
1.62
1.14
1.26
1.29
1.28
1.22
1.34
1.26
1.34
XIAO0750
XIAO0751
XIAO0752
XIAO0753
XIAO0754
XIAO0755
XIAO0756
XIAO0757
165
166
BD 23
BD 24
BD 25
BD 26
BD 27
BD 28
BD 29
BD 30
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
wasc0030
wasc0031
wasc0032
wasc0033
wasc0034
wasc0035
wasc0036
wasc0037
wasc0038
wasc0039
wasc0040
wasc0041
wasc0042
wasc0043
wasc0044
wasc0045
wasc0046
wasc0047
wasc0048
wasc0049
wasc0050
wasc0051
wasc0052
wasc0054
wasc0055
wasc0057
wasc0058
wasc0059
wasc0061
wasc0062
wasc0063
wasc0064
1.61
1.77
1.59
1.63
1.69
1.60
1.69
1.43
1.56
1.57
1.45
1.67
1.55
1.50
1.44
1.60
1.56
1.36
1.54
1.59
1.42
1.65
1.57
1.62
1.46
1.54
1.62
1.49
1.46
1.76
1.58
1.66
XIAO0758
XIAO0759
XIAO0760
XIAO0761
XIAO0762
XIAO0763
XIAO0764
XIAO0765
xaio0766
xaio0767
xaio0768
xaio0769
xaio0770
xaio0771
xaio0772
xaio0773
xaio0774
xaio0775
xaio0776
xaio0777
xaio0778
xaio0779
xaio0780
XIAO0781
XIAO0782
XIAO0783
XIAO0784
XIAO0785
XIAO0786
XIAO0787
XIAO0788
XIAO0789
1.26
1.37
1.29
1.08
1.32
1.22
1.17
1.11
1.00
1.18
1.05
1.13
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
BD 10
BD 11
BD 12
BD 13
BD 14
BD 15
BD 1
BD 2
BD 3
BD 4
BD 5
BD 6
BD 7
BD 8
BD 9
BD 10
BD 11
wasc0065
wasc0066
wasc0067
wasc0068
wasc0069
wasc0070
wasc0101
wasc0102
wasc0103
wasc0104
wasc0105
wasc0106
wasc0107
wasc0108
wasc0109
wasc0110
wasc0111
wasc0112
wasc0113
wasc0114
wasc0115
wasc0129
wasc0130
wasc0131
wasc0132
wasc0133
wasc0134
wasc0135
wasc0136
wasc0137
wasc0138
wasc0139
1.75
1.69
1.63
1.70
1.72
1.72
1.47
1.57
1.64
1.79
1.68
1.70
1.51
1.58
1.60
1.57
1.60
1.72
1.83
1.82
1.40
1.38
1.45
1.41
1.38
1.34
1.35
1.22
1.40
1.51
1.46
XIAO0790
XIAO0791
XIAO0792
XIAO0793
XIAO0794
XIAO0795
XIAO0822
XIAO0823
XIAO0824
XIAO0825
XIAO0826
XIAO0827
XIAO0828
XIAO0829
XIAO0830
XIAO0831
XIAO0832
XIAO0833
XIAO0834
XIAO0835
XIAO0836
XIAO0851
XIAO0852
XIAO0853
XIAO0854
XIAO0855
XIAO0856
XIAO0857
XIAO0858
XIAO0859
XIAO0860
XIAO0861
1.07
1.21
1.23
1.22
1.16
1.14
1.21
1.24
1.12
1.21
1.13
1.29
1.08
1.24
1.09
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.29
1.51
1.34
0.81
0.99
0.69
1.01
0.62
0.58
0.63
0.91
1.08
1.04
1.02
167
BD 12
wasc0140
BD 13
wasc0141
BD 14
wasc0142
BD 15
wasc0143
AII.40 Gemini X PD test -1 energy
1500pC
1.22
1.51
1.42
1.29
XIAO0862
XIAO0863
XIAO0864
XIAO0865
0.39
0.82
0.96
0.55
50kV
93691449174925902890369min
969min
1749min
2349min
2890min
3190min
1407
1486.9
1466.1
1528.49
1438.37
1466.1
7970
14044
6113
9778
4477
4350
0.032752
0.02018
0.017539
0.014433
0.013045
0.01302
0.000001
0
0
0
0
0
0.403727 0.727004
0.315035
0.511059
0.23461
0.234253
0.348365 0.564099
0.244025
0.384345
0.180944
0.178995
0.055363 0.162905
0.071009
0.126714
0.053666
0.055258
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy
Energy below 1000
Energy from 1000 to 2000
2000pc
58kV
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy
1241853372-62min
63-123min
184min
305min
1358min
1860.4
2208.01 2149.26 2286.34
2139.47
1421
3978
5686
10976
48040
0.02377
0.083638 0.123514 0.12023 0.059723
0
0.000001 0.000002 0.000002 0.000001
0.07564
0.300275 0.444146 0.86466 3.655812
168
Energy below 1000

0.043686
0.031954
0.131333 0.169526 0.325465

0.168418 0.274273 0.53815
0.001045
0.957189
2.695214
0.003409

3000pC
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy
Energy below
1000
Energy from
1000 to 2000
Energy from
2000 to 3000
Energy from
3000 to 4000
Energy from
4000 to 5000
Energy from
5000 to 6000
50kV
321032153218322132253285334540474287435753573215min 3218min 3221min 3224min 3285min 3345min 4045min 4287min 4357min 5357min 5362min
2531.13
2100.3 2256.96 2403.84 3074.56 2413.63 3099.04 2922.79 2462.59
3148 2007.28
206
80
149
164
2204
1919
17440
5816
1532
19800
89
0.06484 0.04101 0.07387 0.08375 0.05598 0.04760 0.03725 0.03565 0.03197 0.02917 0.02555
2
7
2
2
1
9
4
1
4
5
1
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0.01926 0.00697 0.01315 0.01468 0.20142 0.17073 1.56448
0.13419 1.74960 0.00751
7
6
1
3
4
9
9 0.51348
6
2
9
0.00089
0.00076 0.00080 0.00952
0.14508 0.04569 0.01599 0.20944 0.00053
8 0.00076
5
9
1 0.01995
7
6
6
1
4
0.01668 0.00564 0.01211 0.01313 0.18150 0.14588 1.36821 0.45193 0.11499 1.48906 0.00685
6
6
2
2
5
5
8
1
3
3
7
0.00168
0.00027 0.00074 0.01018 0.00490
0.01585 0.00320 0.05061 0.00012
3 0.00057
5
2
8
4 0.05097
3
7
6
9
0.00021
0.00048
0.00021
4
2

169
4000pc
58kV
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy
Energy below 1000
PD number below 1000
PD number from 1000 to 2000
941251561861-31min
32-62min 63-93min 124min
155min
186min
1146min
3545.68
3545.68
3545.68
3545.68
3545.68
3545.68
4440.49
2496
1935
2388
2910
2533
2758
61255
0.166666 0.137344 0.165138 0.165928 0.145456 0.158171
0.130842
0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002
0.000002
0.300003 0.246909 0.297593 0.298259 0.261372 0.283743
7.528894
0.024767 0.007095 0.031721
0.06056 0.065623 0.087698
0.931736
0.174608 0.129074 0.154227 0.146039 0.116079 0.113735
3.534853
0.099446 0.108266 0.109014 0.090555 0.077525
0.08092
3.014477
0.001181 0.002475 0.002631 0.001106 0.002145
0.00139
0.044091
0.003736
287
1413
787
9
122
1146
657
10
279
1241
849
19
855
1276
769
10
751
1075
690
17
877
1096
771
14
9678
27831
23387
333
26
AII.44 FR3 PD test -1 energy

1000pc-1
34kV
Time
5min
12min
25min
50min
61min
95min
116min
125min
141min
156min
176min
PD Attitude
1071.79
1127.38
1235.08
1266.34
1339.3
1200.33
1231.6
1266.34
1224.65
1224.65
1318.46
PD number
1702
2177
1386
0.636786
0.534047
889
0.39141
5
826
0.36325
6
722
0.33288
1
757
0.457662
959
0.41160
7
666
0.32201
6
511
0.25007
5
546
0.27449
8
Power(mW)
170
0.35101
PD current
0.000011
0.000015
0.000012
Energy(J)
0.027267
0.038067
0.031893
Energy below 1000

Energy from 1000 to
2000
0.027168
0.037525
0.030285
0.0001
0.000543
0.001608
1000pc-1
34kV
Time
191min
210min
261min
0.00000
9
0.02453
2
0.02163
0.00290
1
281min
0.00000
9
0.02339
1
0.02040
4
0.00298
7
296min
0.00000
8
0.02174
4
0.01911
6
0.00262
8
310min
0.00000
7
0.01986
6
0.01649
9
0.00336
8
341min
0.00000
8
0.02088
5
0.01813
0.00275
6
357min
0.00000
7
0.01931
4
0.01552
5
0.00378
9
372min
0.00000
6
0.01501
0.01261
6
0.00239
4
390min
PD Attitude
1308.03
1228.13
1255.92
1255.92
1297.61
1269.82
1276.77
1314.98
1262.87
1321.93
PD number
500
570
438
Power(mW)
0.248928
0.285772
0.229005
PD current
0.000006
0.000006
0.000005
Energy(J)
0.014796
0.017003
0.01363
0.011737
0.013617
0.010587
0.00306
0.003387
0.003043
441
0.22833
4
0.00000
5
0.01364
5
0.01035
8
0.00328
7
488
0.25201
6
0.00000
6
0.01507
6
0.01186
8
0.00320
8
448
0.23712
4
0.00000
5
0.01418
9
0.01097
5
0.00321
4
476
0.23345
5
0.00000
5
0.01373
6
Energy below 1000

Energy from 1000 to
2000
498
0.24823
1
0.00000
6
0.01480
4
0.01212
1
0.00268
3
485
0.24800
6
0.00000
6
0.01477
1
0.01177
8
0.00299
3
474
0.26017
1
0.00000
6
0.01450
2
0.01071
6
0.00378
6
0.01139
0.00234
7
0.00000
6
0.01639
3
0.01238
8
0.00400
5

1000pc-2
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy(J)
34kV
1min
16min
31min
46min
61min
76min
91min
106min
121min
136min
1030.1 1210.76 1259.39 1224.65 1148.22 1134.32 1189.91 1176.01 1165.59
1217.7
332
354
357
416
343
390
359
384
314
353
0.14161 0.16367
0.19253 0.16419 0.18161 0.16478 0.17307 0.14610 0.16528
6
9 0.16394
8
8
5
3
1
7
9
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
0.00847 0.00968 0.00981 0.01151 0.00980 0.01078 0.00984 0.01032 0.00873 0.00978
7
3
7
4
3
8
7
9
7
5
171
0.00838 0.00869 0.00861 0.01018 0.00858 0.00979 0.00904 0.00955 0.00789

3
4
9
3
4
3
7
7
8 0.00887
0.00009 0.00098 0.00119 0.00133 0.00121 0.00099
0.00077 0.00083 0.00091
4
9
8
1
8
5
0.0008
2
9
5
34kV
151min
166min
181min
226min
241min
301min
316min
331min
346min
361min
1155.17 1266.34 1224.65 1221.18 1280.24 1214.23
1231.6 1221.18 1210.76 1207.28
336
311
292
335
342
406
358
370
320
331
0.14869 0.13575 0.16023 0.16284 0.19350 0.18053 0.18401 0.15551 0.16411
0.14575
8
9
5
3
1
5
8
6
8
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.00873 0.00884 0.00806 0.00959 0.00972 0.01157 0.01083
0.00924 0.00978
8
8
7
2
5
1
9 0.01096
4
5
0.00828 0.00804
0.00818 0.00814 0.01015 0.00887 0.00953 0.00778 0.00810
8
6 0.00712
7
2
8
4
6
6
6
0.00080 0.00094 0.00140 0.00158 0.00141 0.00196 0.00142 0.00145 0.00167
0.00045
2
6
5
3
3
5
4
8
9
Energy below 1000

Energy from 1000 to
2000
1000pc-2
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy(J)
Energy below 1000
Energy from 1000 to
2000

2000pc-1
44kV
Time
1min
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy(J)
Energy below 1000
172
16min
31min
46min
61min
76min
91min
106mi
n
121mi
n
136mi
n
151mi
n
166mi
n
181mi
n
2193.9
5
2076.1
1
2089.9
8
2270.2
1
2089.9
8
2166.2
3
2076.1
1
2270.2
1
2103.8
4
1992.9
3
2058.7
8
2311.8
2166.2
3
846
0.7896
97
0.0000
14
760
0.7045
29
0.0000
13
674
0.6288
6
0.0000
11
680
0.6144
38
0.0000
11
698
0.6392
45
0.0000
12
562
0.5227
78
0.0000
1
694
0.6175
14
0.0000
11
776
0.6894
08
0.0000
12
638
0.5721
35
0.0000
1
651
0.5664
72
0.0000
1
791
0.6830
62
0.0000
12
802
0.6927
68
0.0000
12
912
0.7589
6
0.0000
14
0.0475
13
0.0207
33
0.0417
34
0.0179
32
0.0381
24
0.0163
89
0.0362
26
0.0171
29
0.0382
92
0.0163
31
0.0308
86
0.0141
95
0.0374
08
0.0167
79
0.0415
14
0.0199
47
0.0340
95
0.0155
79
0.0338
03
0.0167
19
0.0408
86
0.0208
5
0.0415
3
0.0212
02
0.0458
76
0.0246
59
Energy from 1000

to 2000
Energy from 2000
to 3000
0.0264
1
0.0003
7
0.0237
73
0.0000
28
0.0215
28
0.0002
06
0.0189
2
0.0001
77
0.0218
33
0.0001
27
0.0165
07
0.0001
84
0.0205
4
0.0000
9
0.0214
61
0.0001
05
0.0183
14
0.0002
02
0.0170
83
0.0198
6
0.0001
76
0.0202
68
0.0000
6
0.0209
8
0.0002
37

2000pc-2
44kV
Time
1min
2207.8
2
16min
2242.4
8
31min
2166.2
3
Energy(J)
949
0.9262
83
0.0000
17
0.0550
26
Energy below 1000

Energy from 1000 to
2000
Energy from 2000 to
3000
0.0217
0.0329
63
0.0003
62
949
0.8613
69
0.0000
16
0.0516
15
0.0254
78
0.0259
9
0.0001
47
889
0.8235
89
0.0000
15
0.0492
24
0.0225
26
0.0263
32
0.0003
66
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current

3000pc-1
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy(J)
Energy below 1000
57kV
1min
3028.99
6388
6.542552
0.000099
0.390106
0.271986
0.081202
46min
2291
884
0.8132
85
0.0000
15
0.0484
4
0.0229
89
0.0252
15
0.0002
36
61min
2089.9
8
76min
2079.5
8
91min
2145.4
3
106min
2270.2
1
121min
2055.3
2
151min
2187.0
2
165min
2367.2
5
181min
2270.2
1
196min
2138.5
235min
2155.8
3
825
983
0.8152
38
0.0000
15
0.0497
04
0.0272
13
0.0222
52
0.0002
4
969
0.8332
14
0.0000
15
0.0493
85
0.0266
64
0.0224
22
0.0002
98
911
0.8140
92
0.0000
14
0.0482
39
0.0237
37
0.0243
07
0.0001
95
856
0.7778
19
0.0000
14
0.0461
7
0.0217
3
0.0243
37
0.0001
04
1009
0.8459
42
0.0000
15
0.0514
5
0.0274
05
0.0239
19
0.0001
26
1027
0.8646
91
0.0000
15
0.0520
64
0.0289
59
0.0227
33
0.0003
73
1040
0.8623
73
0.0000
15
0.0508
91
0.0286
05
0.0221
24
0.0001
61
1019
0.8361
48
0.0000
15
0.0500
61
0.0289
97
0.0208
56
0.0002
08
994
0.8372
86
0.0000
15
0.0507
09
0.0276
31
0.0229
68
0.0001
1
0.7627
0.0000
14
0.0453
28
0.0208
81
0.0244
19
0.0000
29
2min
3194.96
6574
6.85363
0.000104
0.407393
0.286327
0.078602
17min
3216.54
5913
6.170048
0.000091
0.369871
0.265127
0.064186
32min
3524.98
5231
5.637501
0.000082
0.339017
0.239425
0.062601
47min
3559.25
4839
5.442414
0.000078
0.326013
0.225482
0.06157
173

0.03686 0.041724 0.039785 0.03551 0.03552

0.000058 0.00074 0.000773 0.001481 0.003442

3000pc-2
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy(J)
Energy below 1000
57kV
1min
3500.5
3284
3.133418
0.000044
0.186918
0.147386
0.020772
0.018033
0.000727
3min
3451.54
2978
2.944347
0.000042
0.180206
0.138484
0.020565
0.020801
0.000357
16min
3412.37
3495
3.725295
0.000053
0.223178
0.167518
0.031543
0.022418
0.001698
31min
3387.89
3289
3.377506
0.000048
0.20066
0.153773
0.026743
0.018876
0.001268
46min
76min
91min
105min
120min
3559.25
3441.75
3368.31
3451.54
3451.54
3320
3194
3009
3119
3135
3.534698 3.492992
3.134563 3.344037 3.448978
0.00005
0.00005
0.000045 0.000047 0.000049
0.212876 0.210771
0.190181 0.199089 0.206235
0.157311 0.151758
0.140483 0.148291 0.150484
0.031572 0.034984
0.029602
0.03264 0.035384
0.022068 0.021818
0.018991 0.016888 0.018123
0.001924 0.002211
0.001106
0.00127 0.002244

3000pc-3
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy(J)
Energy below 1000
174
57kV
1min
2min
16min
31min
46min
61min
2584.98
2707.38
2922.79
3241.02
3304.67
3544.56
4137
4921
5588
6245
6134
5892
4.87019 5.395667 5.960676 6.380814
6.25298 6.036548
0.000074 0.000081
0.00009 0.000094
0.00009 0.000087
0.281478 0.326109 0.356629 0.381429 0.376218 0.360791
0.131544 0.194031 0.231971 0.271918 0.276471 0.268962
0.14074 0.118595
0.09642 0.070709 0.057117 0.052708
0.009194 0.013483 0.028237 0.038641 0.042239
0.0374
0.00039 0.001721

4000pc-2
Time
PD Attitude
PD number
Power(mW)
PD current
Energy
Energy below 1000
61kV
1min
2min
17min
32min
47min
62min
4315.27
3755.1
3962.58
6085.64
7067.64
5380.26
5270
5620
6186
6157
5444
5047
6.702896 7.037141 7.564214 8.226669 7.524878 6.964843
0.000092 0.000098 0.000104 0.000112 0.000102 0.000094
0.40607 0.421873 0.450036 0.493855 0.450005
0.41623
0.263138 0.282599 0.304134 0.316951 0.277161 0.264822
0.080348 0.077805 0.090108 0.110259 0.108734
0.09615
0.049075 0.049464 0.037758 0.039962 0.037224 0.029606
0.013252 0.012006 0.018036 0.026262 0.026375 0.024789
0.000257
0.000421 0.000486 0.000696
0.000025 0.000168
AII.52 Sparking test laboratory comparison

Oil type
FR3
TM8 sample
Laboratory sample
Laboratory / TM8
CO2
513.4
592
115.31%
C2H4
24.0
19
79.08%
C2H2
197.3
151
76.52%
Gas-in-oil (ppm)
C2H6
H2
3.0
80.4
3
59
99.84%
73.43%
O2
14190.4
59060
416.20%
CH4
12.1
8
65.91%
CO
53.5
34
63.60%
AII.53 PD test laboratory comparison

Oil type
Mineral
Gas-in-oil(ppm)
CO2
C2H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
175
TM8 sample
498
12
41
12
46
18118
23
Laboratory sample 1
1035
17
44
10
58
20819
24
10
Laboratory sample2
820
13
27
57
20206
19
Laboratory average
928
15
36
58
20513
22
10
186.31%
125.35%
86.98%
71.07%
124.14%
113.22%
91.55%
105.69%
Laboratory / TM8
AII.54 Thermal test laboratory comparison

Oil type
Gas-in-oil(ppm)
Mineral
CO2
C 2 H4
C2H2
C2H6
H2
O2
CH4
CO
TM8 sample
1163.82
6149.45
58.56
1060.74
945.86
14751.58
2956.23
186.84
1058
6798
67
961
928
29506
4033
99
933
5889
55
836
924
20823
3614
77
995.5
6343.5
61
898.5
926
25164.5
3823.5
88
85.54%
103.16%
104.17%
84.70%
97.90%
170.59%
129.34%
47.10%
Laboratory
sample 1
Laboratory
sample2
Laboratory
average
Laboratory /
TM8
176

Data Stream

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Data Stream

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Study of Dissolved Gas Analysis under Electrical

and Thermal Stresses for Natural Esters used in

School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Background Study ............................................................................................. 21

Research Objectives .......................................................................................... 22

Outline of Thesis ................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 2 Literature Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis on Natural Ester ...................... 25

Introduction of Transformer Liquid ............................................................... 25

Mineral Oil Nytro Gemini X .................................................................. 25

Natural Ester FR3 ................................................................................... 26

Sample Processing Methodology............................................................... 27

Transformer Faults ........................................................................................... 28

Partial Discharge Fault .............................................................................. 28

Electrical Sparking Fault........................................................................... 29

Thermal Fault ............................................................................................. 29

Dissolved Gas Analysis ...................................................................................... 29

Gas Formation ............................................................................................ 31

Headspace Method ..................................................................................... 33

Duval Triangle Interpretation Method ..................................................... 34

Online DGA and Laboratory DGA Comparison ..................................... 35

Serveron Online Transformer Monitor TM8.................................................. 36

Working Principle ...................................................................................... 36

Dual-Column GC Analysis ........................................................................ 37

PC Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 38

Previous Work Review ...................................................................................... 39

Electrical Sparking ..................................................................................... 39

Electrical PD Test ........................................................................................ 40

Thermal Test ................................................................................................ 43

Tests Comparison and Summary ..................................................................... 48

Chapter 3 Experimental Study on DGA under Sparking Faults ....................................... 51

Experiment Setup .............................................................................................. 51

Test Circuit Design ...................................................................................... 51

Test Vessel Design ........................................................................................ 53

Test Procedure .................................................................................................... 56

Drain Oil out of System .............................................................................. 57

Measuring Background DGA level............................................................ 59

Generating Sparking Faults ....................................................................... 59

Data Measurement and Analysis ...................................................................... 60

GIG and GIT ............................................................................................... 60

Dissolved Gas Generation Calculation ..................................................... 61

Sparking Energy Calculation .................................................................... 63

Test Condition and Observation ....................................................................... 69

Test Result and Analysis .................................................................................... 70

Gas Generation of Sparking Faults ........................................................... 70

Energy of Sparking Faults ......................................................................... 71

Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................................ 72

Absolute Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................ 74

Gemini X and FR3 Comparison ................................................................ 74

Duval Triangle Analysis .............................................................................. 75

Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison ................................ 77

Chapter 4 Experimental Study on DGA under PD Faults .................................................. 79

Experiment Setup .............................................................................................. 79

Test Procedure ................................................................................................... 80

Calibrate the PD Detector ......................................................................... 81

Measuring Background PD Noise ............................................................. 82

Data Measurement and Process Method ......................................................... 83

Total Gas Generation Calculation ............................................................ 83

PD Energy Calculation .............................................................................. 84

Test Condition and Observation ...................................................................... 88

Test Result and Analysis ................................................................................... 89

PD Fault Gas Generation .......................................................................... 89

PD Fault Energy ......................................................................................... 91

Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................................ 93

Absolute Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................ 95