energies

Review
Conventional Dissolved Gases Analysis in Power
Transformers: Review
Alcebíades Rangel Bessa, Jussara Farias Fardin , Patrick Marques Ciarelli and Lucas Frizera Encarnação *

Department of Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria 29075-910, Brazil
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +55-27-4009-2644

Abstract: Transformers insulated with mineral oil tend to form gases, which might be caused by
system faults or extended use. Based on an evaluation of the main failure analysis techniques using
combustible gases, this study reviewed the conventional techniques for Dissolved Gas Analysis
(DGA), present in the norms IEC 60599 and IEEE Std C57.104, and their failure analysis tendency.
Furthermore, to illustrate distinct technique performances and failures, the performance of the
following techniques was analyzed based on the IEC TC10 database: Dornenburg, Duval Triangle,
Duval Pentagon, IEC ratio method, Key Gas, and Rogers. The objective of this work was to present
relevant information to support students and professionals who work in failure analysis and/or
assist in the development of new tools in the DGA field.

Keywords: analysis of dissolved gases; DGA; transformer fault diagnosis; incipient faults

1. Introduction
The insulation of power transformers usually consists of solid and liquid insulation.
The solid insulation is made of Kraft paper, manila, and pressboard [1,2]. Ester liquids
are used in some types of power transformers, such as wind turbines or solar; however,
mineral oil is still by far the liquid most widely used, and their liquid insulation is achieved
using mineral oil.
Citation: Rangel Bessa, A.; Farias The mineral oil insulation used in electrical equipment is extracted from petroleum,
Fardin, J.; Marques Ciarelli, P.; which is a hydrocarbon compound. Their composition and characteristics depend on the en-
Frizera Encarnação, L. Conventional vironment where the petroleum was extracted, which might be paraffinic or naphthenic [3].
Dissolved Gases Analysis in Power Laboratory studies have shown that these elements, under normal operating condi-
Transformers: Review. Energies 2023, tions, present the formation of gaseous compounds of low molecular weight hydrocarbons,
16, 7219. https://doi.org/10.3390/ as well as CO and CO2 . This formation is continuous in low volume during the equipment
en16217219 lifetime; however, in failures or other abnormal conditions, an imbalance in the chemical
Academic Editor: Pawel Rozga
formation and an increase in the amount of these gases can be observed. Hotspots with
temperatures above 300 ◦ C predominantly result in the formation of unsaturated hydro-
Received: 30 August 2023 carbons. Furthermore, if the cellulosic system is reached, there is also the formation of
Revised: 9 October 2023 abnormal concentrations of CO and CO2 .
Accepted: 10 October 2023 The analysis of dissolved gases (DGA) in power transformers is registered as the
Published: 24 October 2023
analysis of the formation of hydrocarbon gases, and the first study regarding this topic was
published in February 1919 in “The Electric Journal” [4]. In this study, the first observations
regarding the pattern of gas formation were reported, and the gases formed were composed
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
of CO2 (1.17%), Heavy Hydrocarbons (4.86%), O2 (1.36%), CO (19.21%), H2 (59.10%), N2
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (10.10%), and CH4 (4.2%). The author highlighted the high proportion of H2 and the
This article is an open access article influence of temperature on the growth and amount of dissolved gases.
distributed under the terms and In 1928, based on knowledge of the problem, the gas formation in equipment failure,
conditions of the Creative Commons the Buchholz relay, was developed. Figure 1 illustrates the functions and actuation mecha-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// nism of the relay, the purpose of which was to protect the equipment through its action
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ with the passage of gases through the pipeline interconnected to the equipment with an
4.0/). expansion tank [4].

Energies 2023, 16, 7219. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16217219 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 7219 2 of 28

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Buchholz relay, (a) electrical schematic [5]; (b) an example of a Buchholz relay [6].

Analyses at that time were already possible in samples of gases and liquids, and in
1959, a field chromatography analyzer was developed by H.H. Wagner [4]; Figure 2 shows
a piece of equipment in the field of chromatography.

Figure 2. Portable gas chromatograph [7].

From the 1960s onwards, gas chromatography (GC) saw its first applications in identi-
fying dissolved gases in transformers from electrical faults.
Chromatographic analysis of gases dissolved in oil is carried out in three steps. First,
the oil sample is collected, which can be collected with flexible aluminum bottles or using a
tt the
syringe (Figure 3), and the collected gases can be stored in the Buchholz relay. Second,
gases are extracted from the oil sample [8,9]. Third, the gases extracted from the sample
are analyzed using the gas chromatograph [10], which consists of separating the different
gases from the mixture, and then identifying and quantifying them. tt
ff

ff
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 3 of 28

Figure 3. Oil collection with syringe.

The advances in dissolved gas analysis equipment in regard to transformers make it

possible to know the origin of the gases and understand the type of faults from the different
ffff and levels of gases formed in each fault.
types
In 1978, Rogers [11] published a graph (Figure 4) showing the formation of dissolved
combustible gases as the temperature increased. Figure 4 demonstrates the relationship
between gas formation and temperature.

Figure 4. Rate of the evolution of gases in oil as a function of temperature [12].

According to [13], the following individual gas components can be identified and
determined: hydrogen (H2 ), nitrogen (N2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2 ),
methane (CH4 ), ethane (C2 H6 ), ethylene (C2 H4 ), acetylene (C2 H2 ), propane (C3 H8 ), and
propylene (C3 H6 ). With the exception of oxygen (O2 ) and nitrogen (N2 ), the other gases are
formed from secondary chemical reactions, as a result of the breakdown of hydrocarbon
molecules due to electrical or thermal stresses.
From the observation of this behavior, several studies have been developed with
the objective of defining the type of failure in the equipment from the analysis of the
composition of the gases formed.
These techniques make it possible to predict failures before the need to shut down the
equipment, the oil draining process, and access for inspection, which can require days of
work. Figure 5 illustrates two practical uses of DGA analysis in failures.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 4 of 28

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Illustration of practical failure case [14]: (a) thermal fault; (b) thermal and electrical fault.

In Figure 5a, the monitoring of the equipment power transformer 315MVA 15.75/
400 kV identified a large formation of C2 H4 gas through analysis, showing a possible high-
intensity thermal failure. During the inspection, two flexible windings from the bushing
were found heated. Figure 5b presents another example of monitoring the equipment
power transformer 55 MVA 110/11 kV, which showed a large formation of C2 H2 . DGA
analysis indicated thermal failure coupled with the arc flash. The inspection revealed that
the winding coil of a phase was burnt out.
In this article, we present the most popular DGA analysis techniques adopted among
international standardsff and analyzed their performance in more detail. These analyses
were made with a modified confusion matrix, with the data and types of failures presented
in [15]. In addition to using an accessible failure database [15,16],
tt the current study shows
whether the techniques are determining the right hypothesis or not. This gives readers a
clear and easy-to-interpret direction when using the analysis or developing new techniques.
Therefore, the combinationtt of the interpretations of these techniques and the per-
formance detailing different types of failure, with more than just a generic indicator of
accuracy, makes this study an unprecedented review [17–24]. In addition, a table is pro-
vided with a combination of all of the responses to the pattern failure of the techniques
adopted in [15], allowing the comparison to be more organized and more specific. Other
studies have made unclear comparisons of the results of the adopted techniques that often
did not have the same pattern of failures defined in [15].
The detailed analysis of the performance techniques from Rogers [11] and the IEC
tt
method [11], with the confusion matrix for standardized failures in [15], resulted in a table
that grouping the incipient fault types codes for conventional DGA techniques showed
in Section 3. These techniques, as presented in the results of this article, presented an
overall performance superior to those seen in Rogers’ IEEE method [12] and the IEC 60599
method [25]. Therefore, this study presents a new approach to the use of these techniques
that can contribute to better failure analysis performance.
It should be noted that, in this article, the techniques will not address mineral oil-
insulated switching equipment; for example, load tap changers, circuit breakers, reclosers,
or others. The analysis of dissolved gases in switches is not easy to interpret, as the
formation of gases is very high in this equipment, normally associated with electrical arcs.
Despite this, in the specific case of load tap changers, there are scientific documents such
as [26] and standards such as [27], which serve as guidelines for interpreting failures.

2. International Standard Developed Techniques

Since the first observations of the formation of dissolved gases in transformers, some
techniques have been developed and disseminated both in the academic environment, by
equipment manufacturers, and by companies in the electrical sector responsible for the
maintenance and operation of this equipment.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 5 of 28

Conventional techniques can be defined by analysis of the concentration of gases, by

the relationship between the proportions of gases, or by the graphical method of classifying
the faults, among which we highlighted [17]:
• Incipient Fault Types, Frank M. Clark, 1933–1962;
• Dörnenburg Ratios, E. Dörnenburg, 1967, 1970;
• Potthoff’s Scheme, K. Potthoff, 1969;
• Absolute limits, various sources, early 1970;
• Shank’s Visual Curve method, 1970s;
• Trilinear Plot Method, 1970;
• Key Gas Method, David Pugh, 1974;
• Duval’s Triangle, Michel Duval, 1974;
• Rogers Ratios, R.R. Rogers, 1975;
• Method MSS, 1975;
• Glass Criterion, R.M Glass, 1977;
• Trend Analysis, various sources, early 1980s;
• Church Logarithmic Nomograph, J.O. Church, 1980;
• IEEE C57.104, Limits, rates and total dissolved combustible gas (TDCG), 1978–1991;
• IEC 60599 Ratios, Limits and gassing rates, 1999;
• CIGRE TF 15.01.01, 1999;
• Duval’s Pentagon, Michel Duval, 2014;
• CIGRE TB 771-Advances in DGA interpretation, 2019;
• IEEE EI Mag-New sub-zones for arcing in paper and in oil in Pentagons and
Triangle 1, 2022;
• IEEE EI Mag-New sub-zones for carbonization of paper C in Pentagon 2 and
Triangle 5, 2023.
In addition to the techniques previously mentioned, other methodologies have been
developed over time to meet regional definitions, specific demands, or due to the evolu-
tionary process of product companies or electric energy concessionaires, among them:
• Amount of Key Gases, California State University (CSUS);
• RD 153-34.0-46.302-00 procedural guidelines Russian;
• GATRON method Germany;
• ETRA square Japan;
• Total Combustible Gases, Doble Engineering.
The following subsections present the concepts developed by the main analysis tech-
niques [5,12,18–26,28–30] agreed on by the IEEE [12] and IEC [25] standards.

2.1. Key Gas

The key gas method, developed by Doble Engineering [4], is based on the fact that
when a fault occurs, there is the formation of gases that exceed the normal values of
insulation degradation. When the gas that characterizes the incipient failure type, called the
key gas, is predominant among other gases from typical formations in failure, the condition
is considered abnormal. In the following subsections, failures with key gas are shown.
Failure type: Arcing. The formation of faults with arcing can reach temperatures
between 2000 and 3000 ◦ C [20], and large amounts of H2 and C2 H2 and small amounts of
CH4 and C2 H4 are produced, as shown in Figure 6. CO and CO2 can be produced if the
failure involves cellulose. Key gas: C2 H2 .
Failure type: Partial discharges—Low-energy electrical discharges produce H2 and
CH4 , with a small amount of C2 H6 and C2 H4 , as shown in Figure 7. Comparable amounts
of CO and CO2 can result from discharges into the pulp. Key gas: H2 .
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 6 of 28

Figure 6. Typical relative proportion of gases in arc type fault.

Figure 7. Typical relative proportion of gases in partial discharge type fault.

Failure type: Overtemperature in oil—Overtemperatures in oil with values of at least

300 ◦ C have the characteristic formation of C2 H6 and CH4 . Decomposition products also
include CH4 . Traces of C2 H2 can also form if the fault is severe or if there are electrical
contacts, as shown in Figure 8. Key gas: C2 H4 .

Figure 8. Typical relative proportion of gases in overtemperature type fault.

tt
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 7 of 28

Failure type: Overheated Cellulose—Overheating insulation paper produces a large

amount of CO and CO2 , but the latter tt is not a combustible gas, emphasizing that the
analyses pertain to combustible gases. Gaseous hydrocarbons, such as CH4 and C2 H4 , are
also present if the fault consists of an oil-impregnated structure, as shown in Figure 9. Key
gases: CO and CO2 .

Figure 9. Typical relative proportion of gases in cellulose heating type fault.

2.2. Dornenburg
A report published as part of the CIGRE International Conference on Large High
Tension Electric Systems in 1970 [31] was one of the first failure analysis methods based
on the ratio of CH4 , C2 H2 , C2 H4 , and H2 gases. Figure 10 presents an image of the early
publication of the relationship between gases by Dornenburg [4].

Figure 10. Early Dornenburg ratio plot of the symptomatic indicator of transformers fault [4].

In this methodology, if any of the gases exceed twice the value of the reference in
Table 1 or if one of the CO or C2 H6 gases is greater than this, it will be considered a failure
and then this type of failure will be analyzed.

ff
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 8 of 28

Table 1. Reference value gas concentrations; values may differ according to criteria defined by standards.

Gas Type Concetration (ppm)

Hydrogen (H2 ) 100
Methane (CH4 ) 120
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 350
Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) 2500
Acetylene (C2 H2 ) 1
Ethylene (C2 H4 ) 50
Ethane (C2 H6 ) 65

The types of failure are evaluated in a generic diagnosis based on the proportion
between the gases, according to Table 2, which allows the identification of three types of
failure: hot spot, electrical discharge (arc), and partial discharges.

Table 2. Relationships of the Dornenburg method [12].

CH4 C2 H2 C 2 H2 C2 H 6
Suggested Fault Diagnosis
H2 C2 H4 CH4 C2 H 2
Thermal Decomposition >1 <0.75 <0.3 >0.4
Partial Discharge (Low intensity) <0.1 Not significant <0.3 >0.4
Arcing (High intensity) 0.1 to 1 >0.75 >0.3 <0.4

2.3. Rogers
Based on the Dornenburg method, the Rogers method proposed the evaluation of
failures by the relationship between the gases C2 H2 , C2 H4 , C2 H6 , CH4 , and H2 , originally
published according to Table 3.

Table 3. Rogers method relationships [11].

CH4 C2 H6 C2 H4 C 2 H2
Fault
H2 CH4 C2 H6 C 2 H4
Normal ≥0.1 and <1 <1 <1 <0.5
Partial discharge ≤0.1 <1 <1 <0.5
≥1 and <3
Overheating < 150 ◦ C <1 <1 <0.5
or ≥3
≥1 and <3
Overheating 150 ◦ C to 200 ◦ C ≥1 <1 <0.5
or ≥3
Overheating 200 ◦C
to 300 ◦C >0.1 and <1 ≥1 <1 <0.5
General conductor overheating >0.1 and <1 <1 ≥1 and <3 <0.5
Winding circulating currents ≥1 and <3 <1 ≥1 and <3 <0.5
Core and tank circulating currents ≥1 and <3 <1 ≥3 <0.5
Flashover without power follow through >0.1 and <1 <1 <1 ≥0.5 and <3
≥1 and <3 ≥0.5 and <3
Arc with power follow through >0.1 and <1 <1
or ≥3 or ≥3
Continuous sparking to floating potential >0.1 and <1 <1 ≥3 ≥3
≥0.5 and <3
Partial discharge with tracking ≤0.1 <1 <1
or ≥3

The publication of the Rogers method through the IEEE Std C57.104 standard [12] did
not consider the relationship between C2 H6 and CH4 , reducing the amount of failure types,
as shown in Table 4.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 9 of 28

Table 4. Rogers method relationships IEEE Std C57.104.

C 2 H2 CH4 C2 H4
Fault
C 2 H4 H2 C2 H6
Normal <0.1 ≥0.1 and <1 <1
Low-energy density arcing-PD <0.1 <0.1 <1
Arcing high-energy discharge ≥1 and ≤3 ≥0.1 and ≤1 >3
Low temperature thermal <0.1 ≥0.1 and ≤1 ≥1 and ≤3
Thermal < 700 ◦ C <0.1 >1 ≥1 and ≤3
Thermal > 700 ◦ C <0.1 >1 >3

2.4. IEC
This method was published in the IEEE article in 1978 [11], differentiating from the
Rogers method by removing the ratio analysis between the C2 H6 /CH4 gases. The purpose
of removing this ratio was to simplify the analysis of failures, since the contribution of this
relationship was limited to a small range in terms of the decomposition temperature and
was not useful in identifying the failure.
Table 5 presents the first version of the IEC ratio method published in the article “IEE
and IEC Codes to Interpret Incipient Faults in Transformers, using Gas in Oil Analysis” [11]
and Table 6 shows the recent codification through the IEC 60599 standard [25].

Table 5. IEC ratio method relations [11].

C 2 H2 CH4 C2 H4
Fault
C 2 H4 H2 C2 H6
No fault <0.1 ≥0.1 and <1 <1
Partial discharge of low-energy density <0.1 <0.1 ≥1 and <3
Partial discharge of high-energy density ≥0.1 and <3 <0.1 ≥1 and <3
≥0.1 and <3
Discharge of low energy ≥0.1 and <1 <1
or ≥3
Discharge of high energy ≥0.1 and <3 ≥0.1 and <1 <1
Thermal fault of temperature < 150 ◦ C <0.1 ≥0.1 and <1 <1
Thermal fault of low temperature range
<0.1 ≥1 >3
150 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C
Thermal fault of medium temperature range
<0.1 ≥1 >3
300 ◦ C to 700 ◦ C
Thermal fault of high temperature range > 700 ◦ C <0.1 ≥1 >3

Table 6. IEC 60599 [25].

C2 H2 CH4 C2 H4
Fault
C2 H4 H2 C2 H6
Partial discharges (PD) NS <0.1 <0.2
Discharge of low energy (D1) >1 ≥0.1 and ≤0.5 >1
Discharge of high energy (D2) ≥0.6 and ≤2.5 ≥0.1 and ≤1 >2
Thermal fault t < 300 ◦ C (T1) NS ≥1 but NS <1
Thermal fault 300 ◦ C < t < 700 ◦ C (T2) <0.1 >1 ≥1 and ≤4
Thermal fault t > 700 ◦ C (T3) <0.2 >1 >4
NS: Non significant whatever the value.

In order to use the IEC 60599 ratio method, at least one of the gases shown in Table 1
must be above its limit, if these limits are not exceeded, the conditions of the equipment
will be considered normal.
The use of the IEC 60599 ratios method on the Cartesian axis, as shown in Figure 11,
allows for the visualization of fault types D1 and D2 overlapping (both related to the
discharge of energy). Despite illustrating cases of lightning strikes, this intersection area
can lead to the wrong interpretation of their intensity.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 10 of 28

Figure 11. Graphic representation of method IEC 60599.

2.5. Duval Triangle

The Duval Triangle is currently one of the most widely used methods for interpreting
the types of failures in electrical equipment. Its first publication was in 1974 [26].
In the same way as the Dornenburg criteria, the Duval criteria present generic diag-
noses for identifying four types of faults: hot spots, a high-energy arc, a low-energy arc,
and internal discharges.
The Duval method can indicate defects in equipment that present normal operating
conditions. For this type of error to not occur, using Duval’s method, it is necessary that
some of the gases exceed the limits established in Table 1, if these limits are not exceeded,
the conditions of the equipment will be considered normal.
The Duval triangles are presented in seven different types, T1 to T7, with the T1 method
being the classic Duval method applied to insulated transformers with insulating mineral
oil, and the T4 and T5 methods being a refinement of this to deepen the interpretation of
the type of failure.
The other methods are applied as follows: T2 for on-load tap changer compartments
insulated with mineral oil; T3 equipment insulated with non-mineral oil, such as Bio
Temp, Silicone, Midel, and FR3; T6 is used to gain further information regarding faults
identified as low-temperature faults (PD, T1, or T2) by T3 for FR3 oils and T7 to gain
further information regarding faults identified as thermal faults (T1, T2, or T3) and by T3
for FR3 oils [28,31].
In the initial failure analysis of equipment insulated with mineral-insulating oil, T1
is used, as shown in Figure 12, to evaluate the CH4 , C2 H4 , and C2 H2 gases [29] from
Equations (1), (2), and (3).

CH4
%CH4 = (1)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H2

C 2 H4
%C2 H4 = (2)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H2
C 2 H2
%C2 H2 = (3)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H2
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 11 of 28

Figure 12. Duval Triangle T1.

When low energy or temperature faults are identified from Triangle T1 (PD, T1, and
CH
%CH =with Triangle T4, as shown in Figure 13, and gases
T2), more information can be obtained
CH
H2 , C2 H4 , and C2 H6 from Equations (4)–(6). + C H +C H

%C H = CH4
%CH4 = (4)
CH4 + C2 H6 + H2
%C H =
C 2 H6
%C2 H6 = (5)
CH4 + C2 H6 + H2

H2
%H2 = (6)
CH4 + C2 H6 + H2

Figure 13. Duval Triangle T4.

If the analysis from Triangle T1 includes highCHor extremely high temperatures (T2 and
T3), a more detailed analysis can be%CH = with Triangle T5, as shown in Figure 14, with
obtained
CH + C H + H
the analysis of CH4 , C2 H4 , and C2 H6 gases from Equations (7)–(9).
%C H =
CH4
%CH4 = (7)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6
%H =
C 2 H4
%C2 H4 = (8)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6

CH
%CH =
CH + C H + C H

%C H =
 CH
%CH =
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 CH + C H + C H 12 of 28

%C H =

C 2 H6
%C2 H6%C
= H = (9)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6

Figure 14. Duval Triangle T5.

2.6. Duval Pentagon

Graphical analysis using a pentagon shape was presented in 2012 using the Mansour
Pentagon method [30], to simultaneously analyze the gases CH4 , C2 H6 , C2 H4 , C2 H2 , and
H2 (see Figure 15).

Figure 15. Mansour Pentagon [32].

This analysis proposal aimed to overcome a failure of the Duval Triangle method
in that it does not have the gases C2 H6 and H2 in its analysis, which are relevant in the
analysis of failure due to low overtemperature and discharge.
The Duval Pentagon method was published in 2014 [33], presenting fault boundary
regions different from the proposal in [30] and divided into Duval Pentagons 1 and 2.
Figureff 16 shows the Pentagon Duval 1, which is for the general analysis of fault types.
 ff
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 13 of 28

Figure 16. Duval Pentagon 1.

Duval Pentagon 2, as shown in Figure 17, is equivalent to the refinement presented by

Duval Triangles 4 and 5 [33,34].

Figure 17. Duval Pentagon 2.

The Pentagon 2 method is complementary to the Pentagon 1 analysis, suggested for

the refinement of the analysis if failures of type T1, T2, or T3 are identified [12].
In both methods, the calculations to map the type of failure with the collected gas
data [32,33] start with one of the gases CH
%CH = with values above the limits shown in Table 1; if
CH + Cof H
these limits are not exceeded, the conditions the+equipment
C H + C willH +beHconsidered normal.
From the analysis that the equipment is faulty, the type of fault is evaluated with the
C H (10) to (14)), being:
calculation of the proportion between the gases (Equations
%C H =
CH + C H + C H + C H + H
CH4
%CH4 = (10)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6C+HC2 H2 + H2
%C H =
CH + C H + C H + C H + H

C H
%C H =
CH + C H + C H + C H + H

H
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 14 of 28

C 2 H4
%C2 H4 = (11)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6 + C2 H2 + H2

C 2 H6
%C2 H6 = (12)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6 + C2 H2 + H2

C 2 H2
%C2 H2 = (13)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6 + C2 H2 + H2

H2
%H2 = (14)
CH4 + C2 H4 + C2 H6 + C2 H2 + H2
With the percentages of gas concentration, the coordinates of each of these on the
Cartesian axis are calculated [33] with Equations (15) to (19).

Cord_%CH4 = ((%CH4 × cos 254◦ ); (%CH4 × cos −164◦ )) (15)

Cord_%C2 H6 = ((%C2 H6 × cos 162◦ ); (%C2 H6 × cos −72◦ )) (16)

Cord_%C2 H4 = ((%C2 H4 × cos 326◦ ); (%C2 H4 × cos −236◦ )) (17)

Cord_%C2 H2 = ((%C2 H2 × cos 18◦ ); (%C2 H2 × cos 72◦ )) (18)

Cord_%H2 = ((%H2 × cos 90◦ ); (%H2 × cos 0◦ )) (19)

From the coordinates of the gas concentrations, the centroid of these points is calculated
with Equations (20)–(22), the location of which will indicate the type of fault.

1 n−1
∑


Cx = i = 0
(xi + xi+1 ) xi yi+1 − xi+1 yi (20)
6A

1 n−1
6A ∑i=0 i



Cy = y + yi+1 xi yi+1 − xi+1 yi (21)

1 n−1
∑


A= i = 0
xi yi+1 − xi+1 yi (22)
2
In Equations (20)–(22), n is the number of coordinates of the gases under analysis.

2.7. Others Methods

The analysis of dissolved gases in electrical equipment, as it is not an exact science, is
undergoing constant evolution.
Ratio analysis methods, such as IEC, Dornenburg, and Rogers, fail to identify failures
in about 15 to 20% of cases, as the cases are outside the failure assessment zones. The key
gas method, when applied with the aid of computational tools, presents an error in around
50% of the analyzed cases [35].
Duval Triangle and Pentagon graphic methods do not have the limitations of not
identifying failures, since, as they are closed methods, they always present an answer for
the type of failure. Furthermore, due to the large number of failure cases on which these
methods were based, the assertiveness of these methods is very high.
The IEC method allows for the evaluation of the six basic types of faults, T1, T2, T3,
PD, D1, and D2, the Duval Triangle, and Pentagon methods. Furthermore, it permits the
identification of the types S, O, C, and T3-H, making the information more useful for actions
regarding equipment.
Currently, several ways to improve the accuracy of the analysis have been developed
using computational methods of artificial intelligence [36–38]. However, in addition to the
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 15 of 28

search for this computational improvement, conventional methods are still debated with
each new evaluation proposal.
Although the focus of this review is based on conventional methods standardized
through the standards [12,25], the following subsections will briefly present some of the
recently developed techniques for the conventional analysis of dissolved gases.

2.7.1. Three Rates Technique TRT

The TRT technique, published in 2018 [39], is a proposal that does not graphically
operate and presents a new proposal for ratios between the gases CH4 , C2 H6 , C2 H4 , C2 H2 ,
and H2 . Its goal is to correct the distortions presented through other conventional analyses.
The new ratios are shown in Equations (23)–(25):

C2 H6 + C2 H4
R1 = (23)
H2 + C2 H2

C2 H2 + CH4
R2 = (24)
C2 H4

C2 H2
R3 = (25)
C2 H4
Based on these ratios, a new fault coding is proposed, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Diagnosis coding rule of proposed TRT interpretation technique.

Fault R1 R2 R3
T3 R1 > 0.05 R2 ≤ 1 R3 < 0.5
T2 R1 > 0.05 1 ≤ R2 ≤ 3.5 R3 < 0.5
T1 R1 > 0.05 R2 > 3.5 R3 < 0.5
T0 0.05 ≤ R1 ≤ 0.9 NS. R3 < 0.05
PD1 R1 ≤ 0.05 R2 > 1 R3 < 0.5
PD2 R1 ≤ 0.05 R2 > 1 R3 ≥ 0.5
D1 R1 ≥ 0.05 R2 > 3.5 R3 ≥ 0.5
D2 R1 ≤ 0.9 R2 ≤ 3.5 R3 ≥ 0.5
DT R1 > 0.9 R2 ≤ 3.5 R3 ≥ 0.5
NS, non-significant whatever the value; (T3): Thermal faults of T > 700 ◦ C; (T2): Thermal faults of 300 < T < 700 ◦ C;
(T1): Thermal faults 150 < T < 300 ◦ C; (T0): Thermal faults T < 150 ◦ C; (D1): Low-energy discharge; (D2): High-
energy discharge; (PD1): Low-energy-corona partial discharge; (PD2): High-energy-corona partial discharge;
(DT): Mix of electrical and thermal faults.

2.7.2. Heptagon Graph

For a more detailed proposal of the analysis of the failure, the effects on the cellulosic
insulation by the formation of CO and CO2 , together with the analysis of the gases C2 H6
and H2 , the method Heptagon Graph (Figure 18) graphically assesses failures in equipment
insulated with mineral oil from CH4 , C2 H6 , C2 H4 , C2 H2 , H2 , CO, and CO2 gases. This
technique was published in 2018 [40] and included the analysis of C2 H6 and H2 due to
their crucial characteristics in certain types of failures.
For analysis using this method, from the collection and analysis of gas concentrations,
it is evaluated if at least one of them exceeds the limits of Table 1.
 ff

Energies 2023, 16, 7219 16 of 28

Figure 18. Boundaries of the Heptagon graph limits. Boundaries of the Heptagon, which is ex-
pressed from 0 to 100 in a clockwise direction. HCCD, high concentration of cellulose degrada-
tion; MCCD, medium concentration of cellulose degradation; LCCD represents low concentrations
of cellulose degradation; T1, thermal fault < 300 ◦ C; T2, thermal fault from 300 to 700 ◦ C; T3,
thermal fault > 300 ◦ C; TD, electrical and thermal faults; D1, low-energy discharges; D2, high-energy
discharges; PD, partial discharge fault.

If any of the gases present values above the limits in Table 1, the evaluation of the type of
failure will begin with the conversion of values into proportions, using Equations (26) to (32).

2.9167 × CH4 × 100

%CH4 = (26)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )

5.3846 × C2 H6 × 100
%C2 H6 = (27)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )

7 × C2 H4 × 100
%C2 H4 = (28)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )

116.6667 × C2 H2 × 100
%C2 H2 = (29)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )

3.5 × H2 × 100
%H2 = (30)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )

CO × 100
%CO = (31)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )

0.14 × CO2 × 100

%CO2 = (32)
(2.9167 × CH4 + 5.3846 × C2 H6 + 7 × C2 H4 + 116.6667 × C2 H2 + 3.5 × H2 + CO + 0.14 × CO2 )
With the relative percentages of gas concentrations, the point of failure in the heptagon
is calculated through the center of mass of the concentrations.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 17 of 28

3. Results
To analyze the performance of the main techniques presented in this study, the failure
database, with real cases, available in Appendix A, was used.
We adapted the type of failure of some techniques to the classification pattern of
failures presented in [15], enabling the analysis of technique performances. Table 8, based
on [41] and adapted according to the observations of this work, presents the summary of
the adaptations developed.

Table 8. Grouping of the incipient fault type codes for conventional DGA interpretation techniques.

Fault Types
Techinique
T1 T2 T3 PD D1 D2
Thermal Thermal fault Thermal Low-energy High-energy
Duval Triangle T1 Partial Discharge
fault < 300 ◦ C 300–700 ◦ C fault > 700 ◦ C discharge discharge
Partial Discharge
Dornenburg Thermal decomposition (T) Energy Discharge–Arcing (D)
(PD)
Thermal fault of low Core and tank Partial discharge
Continuous
temperature < 150 ◦ C circulation current with low energy
Sparking (D1_1)
(T1_1) (T3_1) (PD_1)
Thermal fault of Winding circulation Arc with power
Rogers temperature range current (T2) Insulated conductor Partial discharge follows through
Flashover (D1_2)
150–200 ◦ C (T1_2) overheating (T3_2) with tracking (D2)
Thermal fault of (PD_2)
temperature range
200–300 ◦ C (T1_3)
Low temperature Thermal < 700 ◦ C Thermal > 700 ◦ C Low-energy density
Rogers IEEE Arcing-High-energy discharge (D)
thermal (T1) (T2) (T3) arcing-(PD)
Thermal fault of
PD of low-energy
temperature < 150 ◦ C Thermal fault of Thermal fault of Discharge with Discharge with
IEC ratio method medium temperature high temperature density (PD_1) low-energy high-energy arcing
(T1_1)
Thermal fault of low range 300 ◦ C to range > 700 ◦ C (T3) density (D1) (D2)
temperature range 700 ◦ C (T2) PD of high-energy
150 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C density (PD_2)
(T1_2)
Thermal fault
IEC 60599 ratio Thermal fault Thermal fault Partial Discharge Discharge of low Discharge of high
300 ◦ C < t < 700 ◦ C
method t < 300 ◦ C (T1) t > 700 ◦ C (T3) (PD) energy (D1) energy (D2)
(T2)
Thermal fault Thermal Low-energy High-energy
Duval Pentagon 1 Termal fault < 300 ◦ C Partial Discharge
300–700 ◦ C fault > 700 ◦ C discharge discharge
Thermal degradation (TD) Partial Discharge
Key Gas Arcing (D)
Overheat cellulose (OC) (PD)
Note: For analysis of the results, information about non-failure—N and unidentified failure—Not-F will also be used.

One way to evaluate the results was by using confusion matrices. The confusion matrix
is a very popular way to evaluate classification tasks, representing counts of predicted and
actual values. For this reason, this form of analysis was selected to detail the response of
the techniques to the expected result.
The actual classes (types of failures) are vertically distributed, while the predicted
classes by the technique are horizontally distributed. The number in the intersection of
classes with the same name (actual and predicted classes) means the number of correct
identifications for that class. The numbers in the intersection of classes with different names
are misclassified failures.
Due to the adaptation of the predicted or expected results presented in Table 8, it
was necessary to modify the confusion matrix, since there will not always be predicted or
known values in all method scenarios. For example, for the key gas method, the actual
failures T1, T2, and T3 are included in the failures TD and OC. Therefore, different from the
common confusion matrix, in our analysis, the confusion matrix can be not square.
In addition to using the confusion matrix to analyze the techniques within each type
of failure, some performance measures were used and are detailed below:
• Precision: This metric measures how much we can trust a model when it predicts that
an example belongs to a certain class:

TP
Precison = (33)
TP + FP
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 18 of 28

• Recall: This metric measures the ratio of failures that were correctly identified for a
specific class:

TP
Recall = (34)
TP + FN
• F1-Score: This metric is the harmonic mean between accuracy and recall:

Precison × Recall
F1 − Score = 2 × (35)
Precison + Recall
• Accuracy: This metric is the fraction of predictions that the model got right:

TP + TN
Accuracy = (36)
TP + TN + FP + FN
• Support: This will give the information of the number of cases in analysis.
To solve Equations (33) and (34), the definitions used are:
• True Positive (TP): model correctly predicts the positive class (prediction and actual,
both are positive);
• True Negative (TN): model correctly predicts the negative class (prediction and actual,
both are negative);
• False Positive (FP): model gives the wrong prediction of the negative class (predicted-
positive, actual-negative);
• False Negative (FN): model wrongly predicts the positive class (predicted-negative,
actual-positive).

3.1. Key Gas

From the analysis of the confusion matrix, as shown in Figure 19, evaluated without
combining the response of the types of failures of this technique, a significant assertive-
ness of the failures of the T3 type is observed. It is also noteworthy that around 21%,
19 cases, were not identified (Not-F). Furthermore, PD-type failures were not identified by
this technique.

Figure 19. Confusion Matrix of the Key Gas Method.

ffi
To visualize the efficiency of this technique, the types of standard faults [15] were
adapted according to the proposed grouping in Table 8, transforming the TD and OC faults
into T, with the result of the performance analysis of this technique shown in Table 9.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 19 of 28

Table 9. Performance analysis of the Key Gas method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D 0.82 0.71 0.76 51
PD 0.00 0.00 0.00 8
T 0.88 0.73 0.80 30
Accuracy 0.66 88

The analysis of the Precision, Recall, and F1-score performances shows that the tech-
nique presents a good performance for the failures that it identifies.
It is observed that despite a high overall accuracy of 66%, the ability to discriminate
the types of faults between thermal and electrical types is lost.

3.2. Dornenburg
The analysis of the Dornenburg method by the confusion matrix, as shown in Figure 20,
illustrates a high assertiveness of the types of failure; however, a large number of incorrect
results appear in terms of not identifying the type of failure. That is, the incorrect analysis
accounts for 17% and, according to Table 10, 12.5% of the errors were due to not being able
to classify the type of failure (Not-F).

Figure 20. Confusion Matrix of the Dornenburg method.

Table 10. Performance analysis of the Dornenburg method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D 1.00 0.84 0.91 51
PD 0.83 0.71 0.77 7
T 1.00 0.80 0.89 30
Accuracy 0.82 88

However, it is important to point out that, in the same way as the Key Gas method,
the combination of the type of failure to analyze the performance of this method favors the
increase in this accuracy.
Despite the good performance of this technique’s accuracy, there is evidence of diffi-
culty in the failure analysis of the PD type, with low Precision and Recall metrics, confirm-
ing, respectively, the misclassification of two PD cases and the classification of one T1_T2
case as PD.

3.3. Rogers
The analysis of the Rogers method was divided in two ways. The first one was
based on the original methodology published in [11], as shown Figure 21, and adapted
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 20 of 28

considering Table 8. The second stage used the new boundaries defined in [12], as shown
in Figure 22, with the default failures of [15] adjusted to this model.

Figure 21. Confusion matrix of the Rogers method.

Figure 22. Confusion matrix of the Rogers IEEE method.

The general analysis between the two versions of the Rogers method highlights the
increase in the number of unidentified cases from 13 to 33 cases. Most of these cases were
D1 and D2 faults that were not identified by the Rogers IEEE version.
Through Tables 11 and 12, it is possible to see the performance of the Rogers method.
They show a decrease in the accuracy in relation to the original method, adapted in this
article, for the grouped form in the IEEE standard.
In addition, even though the failure database was adapted to the Rogers IEEE response
type, which would tend to increase accuracy, the opposite result is observed, ranging from
65% to 56%. The main reason for that is the increase in cases not classified (Not-F) and the
recall index reduction.
Table 11. Performance analysis of the Rogers method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D1 1.00 0.29 0.45 17
D2 0.72 0.85 0.78 34
PD 0.83 0.71 0.77 7
T1_T2 0.88 0.54 0.67 13
T3 0.79 0.65 0.71 17
Accuracy 0.65 88
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 21 of 28

Table 12. Performance analysis of the Rogers IEEE method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D 1.00 0.53 0.69 51
PD 0.80 0.57 0.67 7
T1_T2 0.75 0.46 0.57 13
T3 0.80 0.71 0.75 17
Accuracy 0.56 88

tt
3.4. IEC
The IEC methods were based on the methodologies published in [11,25]. The first [11]
did not show the formatting of the types of failures proposed in [15], therefore, the proposed
grouping in Table 8 was necessary.
The analysis of the confusion matrix for the IEC method, as shown in Figure 23, and
IEC 60599 method, as shown in Figure 24, presents a balance in not identifying the type of
failures from 9 to 10.

Figure 23. Confusion matrix of the IEC method.

Figure 24. Confusion matrix of the IEC 60599 method.

None of the faults were classified as a thermal fault of temperature < 150 ◦ C (T0) by
the IEC method.
For a comparative analysis of the performance of both methodologies, it was necessary
to group the IEC methods according to Table 8, observing that both methodologies present
similar accuracy, ranging from 74% to 66%.
ff
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 22 of 28

Despite the increase in Precision in identifying D1, T1_T2, and T3 failures in IEC 60599
compared to the IEC method, a general reduction in the Recall index is also observed,
which may explain the difference between the accuracies, see Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13. Performance analysis of the IEC method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D1 0.86 0.71 0.77 17
D2 0.88 0.85 0.87 34
PD 0.83 0.71 0.77 7
T1_T2 0.70 0.54 0.61 13
T3 0.80 0.71 0.75 17
Accuracy 0.74 88

Table 14. Performance analysis of the IEC 60599 method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D1 1.00 0.47 0.64 17
D2 0.87 0.79 0.83 34
PD 0.83 0.71 0.77 7
T1_T2 0.47 0.62 0.53 13
T3 0.83 0.59 0.69 17
Accuracy 0.66 88

3.5. Duval Triangle

The Duval Triangle method adopted in the analysis was T1, as it is the base analysis of
failures and refinement, as explained in Section 2.
The Duval T1 method presented the best performance with an accuracy of 83%, see
Table 15, and still preserved the characteristics of the type of failure.

Table 15. Performance analysis of the Duval triangle method.

Performance Analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D1 1.00 0.88 0.94 17
D2 0.94 1.00 0.97 34
PD 0.67 0.57 0.62 7
T1_T2 0.60 0.46 0.52 13
T3 0.82 0.82 0.82 17
accuracy 0.83 88

Through the confusion matrix, as shown in Figure 25, it is possible to identify that
among the observed failures, there was an error in the classification of two failures: T1_T2
as N, three T3 as N, two T1_T2 as PD, two T3 as T2, and three T1_T2 as T3.
With the exception of the PD and T1_T2 failures, there is a balance between the values
of the F1-score metric, reflecting the high precision and recall of these indicators.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 23 of 28

Figure 25. Confusion matrix triangle of the Duval T1 method.

3.6. Duval Pentagon

As shown in the confusion matrix, seen in Figure 26, the Duval Pentagon method 1
performed similarly to the Duval Triangle T1. The general accuracy of this method, shown
in Table 16, was 82%, which is considered adequate since it still preserves the description
between the failure types.

Figure 26. Confusion matrix of the Pentagon Duval 1 method.

Table 16. Performance analysis of the Pentagon Duval 1 method.

Performance analysis
Failure
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
D1 0.84 0.94 0.89 17
D2 1.00 0.88 0.94 34
PD 0.83 0.71 0.77 7
T1_T2 0.78 0.54 0.64 13
T3 0.78 0.82 0.80 17
accuracy 0.82 88

4. Discussion
The performance analysis between techniques was plotted for each kind of failure
accuracy and for each technique, presented in the star graph below. Figure 27 shows the
result of this comparison, based on the analysis of the response of each technique for the
type of failure standardized in [15].
A comparative performance analysis of the techniques makes it clear that the Duval
triangle T1 with Duval Pentagon 1 presents the best performance, and that all techniques
present difficulties in identifying T1_T2 and PD failures.
Regarding T1_T2 failures, the technique that presents the best performance is the
Dornenburg technique.
 tt

Energies 2023, 16, 7219 24 of 28

Figure 27. Comparison of the performances between techniques.

With regard to type D2 failures, except for the Duval Triangle T1 method, which
presented excellent performance, and Rogers and Rogers IEEE, which had the worst
performance, the others presented very similar performances.
ffi
The failures of types D1 and T3, in addition to the Duval Triangle and Pentagon
methods, highlight the good performance of the Dornenburg and Key Gas methods.
Finally, analysis of the performance of the techniques in the PD type failure highlights
the performance of the key gas method.
This kind of analysis, despite the high performance of the Duval Triangle T1 and Duval
Pentagon 1 method, emphasizes the importance of analyzing the failure by combining
more than one technique to increase the performance in correctly identifying the type of
failure. In addition, the visualization of the techniques through a star graph may be a
good tool to aid in the selection of which techniques to combine depending on the possible
failures in the analysis.

5. Conclusions
Through this article, it was possible to recognize the main steps of the process that
involves the science of gas analysis in power transformers insulated with mineral oil, from
the knowledge of sampling to the analysis of the results found.
Emphasis was placed on the evolution of the main methods adopted in interna-
tional standards with general knowledge of the evolution of research in this area. In
addition, two recently published techniques, TRT and Pentagon, were presented in an
illustrative way, presenting alternative forms of analysis and, in the case of TRT, with
great performances.
The way of presenting the results of conventional techniques with confusion and
performance matrices allows for a clearer visualization of the strengths and weaknesses of
each technique depending on the type of failure.
In addition, a comparative analysis between the star graph techniques brought a form
of comparative visualization to the performance of the techniques, helping to choose to
combine more than one technique depending on the type of failure under analysis
From the analysis of the results of conventional techniques, it is reaffirmed that the
T1 Duval Triangle technique, currently the most popular one, presents the best answers in
terms of accuracy associated with discriminating the types of failure. This is crucial when
professionals are trying to decide whether to stop the equipment in operation or not.
Finally, in order to support other researchers and other professionals in the field of
conventional gas analysis development or even artificial intelligence tools, it is expected
that this study will be a supporting document and support the comparison in the analysis
of improvements or results found by such methods.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 25 of 28

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R.B. and P.M.C.; methodology, A.R.B.; software, A.R.B.;
validation, A.R.B., P.M.C., J.F.F. and L.F.E.; formal analysis, A.R.B.; investigation, A.R.B.; resources,
L.F.E.; data curation, A.R.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.B.; writing—review and editing,
A.R.B., P.M.C., J.F.F. and L.F.E.; visualization, P.M.C.; supervision, P.M.C., J.F.F. and L.F.E.; project
administration, L.F.E.; funding acquisition, L.F.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development—CNPq (grant number 311848/2021-4) and Espírito Santo Research and Innovation
Support Foundation—FAPES (grant number 1024/2022).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are openly available in A transformer
Fault Diagnosis Model Based on Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer and LS-SVM at https://doi.org/10
.3390/en12214170, reference number [12], and Interpretation of Gas-In-Oil Analysis Using New
IEC Publication 60599 And IEC TC 10 Databases at https://doi.org/10.1109/57.917529, reference
number [15]. The data used in the analysis are available in Appendix A.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Partial Discharge fault—PD.

Dissolved Gas Concentration (ppm)

Nº
H2 CH4 C 2 H6 C2 H 4 C2 H 2 CO CO2 Equip. Ref.
1 292.58 38.39 3.87 0.84 0 161.54 523.68 P [16]
2 522.2 43.21 16.73 1.02 1.01 158.6 2251.3 P [16]
3 529.75 58.96 18.12 5.06 1.27 160.5 2263.98 P [16]
4 2525.3 130.55 14.25 1.53 0 612.17 2687.13 P [16]
5 3417.62 131.42 14.36 1.22 0 428.03 2770.29 P [16]
6 5869.58 175.21 16.45 1.45 0 624.47 3684.56 P [16]
7 4966.14 145.66 15.33 1.28 0 503.42 3397.51 P [16]
Equipment: P—Power Transformer and R—Reactor.

Table A2. Low intensity discharge fault—D1.

Dissolved Gas Concentration (ppm)

Nº
H2 CH4 C 2 H6 C2 H 4 C2 H 2 CO CO2 Equip. Ref.
1 96 20.61 5.4 15.82 38.57 367 854 P [16]
2 89 20.01 6.16 16.36 39.4 354 874 p [16]
3 78 20 11 13 28 0 784 P [15]
4 305 100 33 161 541 440 3700 P [15]
5 1230 163 27 233 692 130 115 P [15]
6 645 86 13 110 317 74 114 P [15]
7 60 10 4 4 4 780 7600 R [15]
8 95 10 0 11 39 122 467 P [15]
9 385 60 8 53 159 465 1250 R [15]
10 4230 690 5 196 1180 438 791 R [15]
11 7600 1230 318 836 1560 4970 4080 R [15]
12 595 80 9 89 244 524 2100 P [15]
13 120 25 1 8 40 500 1600 R [15]
14 6454 2313 121 2159 6432 3628 225 R [15]
15 2177 1049 207 440 705 4571 3923 R [15]
16 1790 580 321 336 619 956 4250 R [15]
17 1330 10 20 66 182 231 1820 P [15]
Equipment: P—Power Transformer and R—Reactor.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 26 of 28

Table A3. High intensity discharge fault—D2.

Dissolved Gas Concentration (ppm)

Nº
H2 CH4 C 2 H6 C2 H 4 C2 H 2 CO CO2 Equip. Ref.
1 134.78 34.7 4.5 40.54 94.1 53.1 89.76 P [16]
2 207.6 44.14 3.8 80.9 139 29.62 331.7 P [16]
3 440 89 19 304 757 299 1190 P [15]
4 545 130 16 153 239 660 2850 P [15]
5 7150 1440 97 1210 1760 608 2260 P [15]
6 120 31 0 66 94 48 271 R [15]
7 755 229 32 404 460 845 5580 P [15]
8 5100 1430 0 1140 1010 117 197 R [15]
9 1570 1110 175 1780 1830 135 602 P [15]
10 3090 5020 323 3800 2540 270 400 P [15]
11 1820 405 35 365 634 1010 8610 P [15]
12 535 160 16 305 680 172 338 R [15]
13 8200 3790 250 4620 5830 31 85 R [15]
14 260 215 35 334 277 130 416 P [15]
15 75 15 7 14 26 105 322 P [15]
16 530 345 85 266 250 3900 20,000 R [15]
17 60 5 2 21 21 188 2510 P [15]
18 90 28 8 31 32 1380 11,700 R [15]
19 220 77 22 170 240 1800 13,800 R [15]
20 5900 1500 68 1200 2300 750 335 R [15]
21 2800 2800 234 3500 3600 92 718 R [15]
22 99 170 20 200 190 140 1160 R [15]
23 1500 395 28 395 323 365 576 P [15]
24 20,000 13,000 1850 29,000 57,000 2600 2430 P [15]
25 305 85 25 197 130 813 8380 R [15]
26 1900 530 35 383 434 1890 7570 R [15]
27 110 62 90 140 250 680 6470 R [15]
28 3700 1690 128 2810 3270 22 86 P [15]
29 2770 660 54 712 763 522 1490 P [15]
30 245 120 18 131 167 829 4250 R [15]
31 1170 255 18 312 325 5 1800 P [15]
32 4419 3564 668 2861 2025 909 9082 R [15]
33 810 580 111 570 490 1100 6800 R [15]
34 5000 1200 83 1000 1100 140 265 R [15]
Equipment: P—Power Transformer and R—Reactor.

Table A4. Low and medium temperature fault T1/T2.

Dissolved Gas Concentration (ppm)

Nº
H2 CH4 C 2 H6 C2 H 4 C2 H 2 CO CO2 Equip. Ref.
1 6.82 10.13 3.81 74.85 0 662.43 5871.86 P [16]
2 14 33.3 8 20.1 0 101 654 P [16]
3 87 223.6 49.6 121.1 0 62 498 P [16]
4 78 196.3 46.1 109.3 0 51 384 P [16]
5 22.04 171.05 91.29 182.04 0 1651.57 16390.39 P [16]
6 1270 3450 520 1390 8 483 44500 P [15]
7 3420 7870 1500 6990 33 573 4640 P [15]
8 48 610 29 10 0 1900 970 P [15]
9 12 18 4 4 0 559 1710 P [15]
10 66 60 2 7 0 76 90 P [15]
11 14 44 124 7 1 128 2746 P [15]
12 2031 149 20 3 0 556 3008 R [15]
13 480 1075 298 1132 0 464 1000 R [15]
Equipment: P—Power Transformer and R—Reactor.
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 27 of 28

Table A5. High temperature fault T3.

Dissolved Gas Concentration (ppm)

Nº
H2 CH4 C 2 H6 C2 H 4 C2 H 2 CO CO2 Equip. Ref.
1 82.74 108.92 28.06 249.8 3.91 809.04 2053.72 P [16]
2 3.11 6.61 3.23 36.43 0.26 296.54 2367.99 P [16]
3 3.05 5.84 3.38 37.28 0.27 256.61 2970.88 P [16]
4 3.82 7.93 3.37 52.68 0.13 406.24 2770.54 P [16]
5 8800 64,064 72,128 95,650 0 290 90,300 P [15]
6 6709 10,500 1400 17,700 750 290 1500 P [15]
7 290 966 299 1810 57 72 756 P [15]
8 2500 10,500 4790 13,500 6 530 2310 P [15]
9 400 940 210 820 24 390 1700 P [15]
10 6 2990 29,990 26,076 67 6 26 P [15]
11 290 1260 231 820 8 228 826 P [15]
12 1550 2740 816 5450 184 1140 9360 R [15]
13 3910 4290 626 6040 1230 1800 11,500 R [15]
14 12,705 23,498 6047 34,257 5188 4004 8539 R [15]
15 1 8 8 100 6 300 5130 R [15]
16 300 700 280 1700 36 760 9250 R [15]
17 107 143 34 222 2 193 1330 P [15]
Equipment: P—Power Transformer and R—Reactor.

References
1. ASTM D1305-99; Specification for Electrical Insulating Paper and Paperboard. The American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM): Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
2. IEC 60554-3-3; Specification for Cellulosic Papers for Electrical Purposes. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC):
Geneva, Switzerland, 1984.
3. ASTM D3487-16E1; Standard Specification for Mineral Insulating Oil Used in Electrical Apparatus. The American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM): Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
4. Meyers, S.D.; Kelly, J.J.; Parrish, E.R.H. A Guide to Transformer Maintenance; VDOC.PUB: Akron, Ohio, 1981; pp. 323–388,
ISBN 0-939320-00-2.
5. Colton, R. Combustible Gas Testing on Large Oil Filled Transformers. In Proceedings of the 9th Electrical Insulation Conference,
Boston, MA, USA, 8–11 September 1969; pp. 115–118. [CrossRef]
6. Messko Msafe Relay Buchholz, Mr Industry. Available online: https://www.reinhausen.com/productdetail/buchholz-relays/
messko-msafe (accessed on 4 July 2023).
7. Kelman TRANSPORT X. Available online: https://www.gegridsolutions.com/MD/CATALOG/TRANSPORTX.HTM (accessed
on 4 July 2023).
8. CEI EN 60475; Method of Sampling Insulating Liquids. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
9. VDE 0370-9; Oil-Filled Electrical Equipment—Sampling of Gases and Analysis of Free and Dissolved Gases—Guidance. Interna-
tional Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
10. Vahidi, B.; Teymouri, A. Quality Confirmation Tests for Power Transformer Insulation Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2019; pp. 1–12.
11. Rogers, R.R. IEEE and IEC Codes to Interpret Faults in Transformers Using Gas in Oil Analysis. IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul. 1978, 75,
349–354. [CrossRef]
12. C57.104-1991; IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed Transformers. The Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1991.
13. ASTM D3612-02; Standard Test Method for Analysis of Gases Dissolved in Eletric Insulation Oil by Gas Chromatography. The
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM): Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
14. Keshavamurthy, H.C.; Ravindra, D. An attempt to investigate transformer failure by Dissolved Gas Analysis. J. CPRI 2017, 13,
607–614.
15. Duval, M.; Depablo, A. Interpretation of Gas-In-Oil Analysis Using New IEC Publication 60599 And IEC TC 10 Databases. IEEE
Electr. Insul. Mag. 2001, 17, 31–41. [CrossRef]
16. Zeng, B.; Guo, J.; Zhu, W.; Xiao, Z.; Yuan, F.; Huang, S. A transformer Fault Diagnosis Model Based on Hybrid Grey Wolf
Optmizer and LS-SVM. Energies 2019, 12, 4170. [CrossRef]
17. N’Cho, J.S.; Fofana, I.; Hadjadj, Y.; Beroual, A. Review of Physicochemical-Based Diagnostic Techniques for Assessing Insulation
Condition in Aged Transformers. Energies 2016, 9, 367. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 7219 28 of 28

18. Syafruddin, H.; Nugroho, H.P. Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) for Diagnosis of Fault in Oil-Immersed Power Transformers A Case
Study. In Proceedings of the IEEE 4th International Conference on Electrical, Telecommunication and Computer Engineering
(ELTICOM), Medan, Indonesia, 3–4 September 2020. [CrossRef]
19. Ali, M.S.; Bakar, A.H.A.; Omar, A.; Jaafar, A.S.A.; Mohamed, S.H. Conventional Methods of Dissolved Gas Analysis Using
Oil-Immersed Power Transformer for Fault Diagnosis: A Review. Eletr. Power Syst. Res. 2023, 216, 109064. [CrossRef]
20. Faiz, J.; Soleimani, M. Dissolved Gas Analysis Evaluation in Eletric Power Transformers Using Conventional Methods a Review.
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2017, 24, 1239–1248. [CrossRef]
21. Swanasri, C.; Wannapring, E.; Swanasri, T. Dissolved Gas Analysis Methods for Distribution Transformers. In Proceedings of the
13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology
(ECTI-CON), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 28 June–1 July 2016. [CrossRef]
22. Wattakapaiboon, W.; Pattanadech, N. The State of the Art for Dissolved Gas Analysis Based on Interpretation Techniques. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis (CMD), Xi’an, China, 25–28 September 2016.
[CrossRef]
23. Junior, H.F.; Costa, J.G.S.; Olivas, J.L. A Review of Monitoring Methods for Predictive Maintenance of Electric Power Transformers
Based on Dissolved Gas Analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 201–209. [CrossRef]
24. Sun, H.C.; Huang, Y.C.; Huang, C.M. A Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis in Power Transformers. Energy Procedia 2012, 14,
1220–1225. [CrossRef]
25. IEC 60599 Ed. 3.0 b:2015; Mineral Oil-Impregnated Electrical Equipment in Service—Guide to the Interpretation of Dissolved and
Free Gases Analysis. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
26. Duval, M. Fault Gases Formed in Oil-Filled Breathing EHV Power Transformers—the Interpretation of Gas Analysis Data. IEEE
PAS 1974, 1974, 1–4.
27. C57.139-2015; IEEE Guide for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Transformer Load Tap Changers. The Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
28. Duval, M. The Duval Triangle for Load Tap Changers, Non-Mineral Oils and Low Temperature Faults in Transformers. IEEE
Electr. Insul. Mag. 2008, 24, 22–29. [CrossRef]
29. Akbari, A.; Setayeshmehr, A.; Borsi, H.; Gockenbach, E. A Software Implementation of the Duval Triangle Method. In Pro-
ceedings of the Conference Record of the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
9–12 June 2008. [CrossRef]
30. Mansour, D.A. A New Graphical Technique for the Interpretation of Dissolved Gas Analysis in Power Transformers. In
Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Report Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, Montreal, QC, Canada,
14–17 October 2012; pp. 195–198. [CrossRef]
31. Gamez, C. Dissolved Gas Analysis, Measurements and Interpretations Power Transformer Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis.
In Power Transformer Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis; The Institute of Engineering and Tecnology (IET): London, UK, 2018;
pp. 1–38. [CrossRef]
32. Mansour, D.A. Development of A New Graphical Technique for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Power Transformers Based on The
Five Combustible Gases. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2015, 22, 2507–2512. [CrossRef]
33. Duval, M.; Lamarre, L. The Duval Pentagon—A New Complementary Tool for the Interpretation of Dissolved Gas Analysis in
Transformers. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2014, 30, 9–12. [CrossRef]
34. Cheim, L.; Duval, M.; Haider, S. Combined Duval Pentagons: A Simplified Approach. Energies 2020, 13, 2859. [CrossRef]
35. Duval, M.; Alzieu, E.; Banovic, M.; Bhumiwat, S.; Boman, P.; Buchacz, T.; Dale, A.M.; Djurik, B.; Grisaru, M.; Heizmann, T.; et al.
Advances in DGA Interpretation; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 978-2-85873-473-3.
36. Saha, T.K.; Purkait, P. Transformer Ageing—Monitoring and Estimation Techniques; Wiley-IEEE Press: Pondicherry, India, 2017;
pp. 211–243. [CrossRef]
37. Zhang, Y.; Tang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liang, Z. Fault Diagnosis of Transformer Using Artificial Intelligence: A Review; School of Information
Science, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics: Guangzhou, China; School of Electric Power, South China University
of Technology: Guangzhou, China, 2022. [CrossRef]
38. Li, Y. The State of the Art in Transformer Fault Diagnosis with Artificial Intelligence and Dissolved Gas Analysis: A Review of the Literature;
School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, North China Electric Power University: Beijing, China, 2023. [CrossRef]
39. Gouda, O.E.; El-Hoshy, S.H.; El-Tamaly, H.E. Proposed Three Ratios Technique for the Interpretation of Mineral Oil Transformers
Based Dissolved Gas Analysis. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2018, 12, 2650–2661. [CrossRef]
40. Gouda, O.E.; El-Hoshy, S.H.; El-Tamaly, H.H. Proposed Heptagon Graph for DGA Interpretation of Oil Transformers. IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib. 2018, 12, 490–498. [CrossRef]
41. Gouda, O.E.; El-Hoshy, S.H.; Ghoneim, S.S.M. Enhancing, the Diagnostic Accuracy of DGA Techniques Based on IEC-TC10 and
Related Databases. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 118031–118041. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.