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 1.2 1.3 2.1 Background Study ............................................................................................. 21 Research Objectives .......................................................................................... 22 Outline of Thesis ................................................................................................ 22 Introduction of Transformer Liquid ............................................................... 25 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 Mineral Oil Nytro Gemini X .................................................................. 25 Natural Ester FR3 ................................................................................... 26 Sample Processing Methodology............................................................... 27 Partial Discharge Fault .............................................................................. 28 Electrical Sparking Fault........................................................................... 29 Thermal Fault ............................................................................................. 29 Gas Formation ............................................................................................ 31 Headspace Method ..................................................................................... 33 Gas Chromatograph................................................................................... 34 Duval Triangle Interpretation Method ..................................................... 34 Online DGA and Laboratory DGA Comparison ..................................... 35 Working Principle ...................................................................................... 36 Dual-Column GC Analysis ........................................................................ 37 3

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

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

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

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

2.4.3 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6 3.1 3.2

PC Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 38 Electrical Sparking ..................................................................................... 39 Electrical PD Test ........................................................................................ 40 Thermal Test ................................................................................................ 43

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

Tests Comparison and Summary ..................................................................... 48 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 51 Experiment Setup .............................................................................................. 51 3.2.1 3.2.2 Test Circuit Design ...................................................................................... 51 Test Vessel Design ........................................................................................ 53 Drain Oil out of System .............................................................................. 57 Clean Test System and Fill Processed Oil into the System ...................... 58 Measuring Background DGA level............................................................ 59 Generating Sparking Faults ....................................................................... 59 GIG and GIT ............................................................................................... 60 Dissolved Gas Generation Calculation ..................................................... 61 Sparking Energy Calculation .................................................................... 63

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

3.3

Test Procedure .................................................................................................... 56 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4

3.4

Data Measurement and Analysis ...................................................................... 60 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

3.5 3.6

Test Condition and Observation ....................................................................... 69 Test Result and Analysis .................................................................................... 70 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 3.6.7 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

3.7

Summary............................................................................................................. 78

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

4.1 4.2 4.3

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 79 Experiment Setup .............................................................................................. 79 Test Procedure ................................................................................................... 80 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 Calibrate the PD Detector ......................................................................... 81 Measuring Background PD Noise ............................................................. 82 Generating PD Faults................................................................................. 82 Total Gas Generation Calculation ............................................................ 83 PD Energy Calculation .............................................................................. 84

4.4

Data Measurement and Process Method ......................................................... 83 4.4.1 4.4.2

4.5 4.6

Test Condition and Observation ...................................................................... 88 Test Result and Analysis ................................................................................... 89 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.6.5 4.6.6 PD Fault Gas Generation .......................................................................... 89 PD Fault Energy ......................................................................................... 91 Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................................ 93 Absolute Gas generation rate (per J) ........................................................ 95 Duval Triangle Analysis ............................................................................. 96 Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison ............................... 98

4.7 5.1 5.2

Summary ............................................................................................................ 99 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 101 Experiment Setup ............................................................................................ 101 5.2.1 5.2.2 Test Circuit Design ................................................................................... 101 Test Vessel Design ..................................................................................... 102 Generate Thermal Faults ......................................................................... 104 Temperature Measurement Method ....................................................... 104 Heating & Cooling Method ..................................................................... 105

Chapter 5 Experimental Study on DGA under Thermal Fault ....................................... 101

5.3 5.4

Test Procedure ................................................................................................. 103 5.3.1 5.4.1 5.4.2 Measurement Methods.................................................................................... 104

5.5 5.6

Test Conditions and Observations ................................................................. 107 Test Result and Analysis ................................................................................. 107 5.6.1 Thermal Fault Gas Generation ............................................................... 108 5

5.6.2 5.6.3 5.6.4 5.7 6.1

Gas Generation Rate Comparison under Different Temperatures ...... 109 Duval Triangle Analysis ............................................................................ 111 Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison .............................. 113

Summary........................................................................................................... 113 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 115 6.1.1 6.1.2 Research Areas .......................................................................................... 115 Main Findings ........................................................................................... 116

Chapter 6 Conclusions and Future Work .......................................................................... 115

6.2

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

Typical Data 0.92 32 330 -20 0.02 30 56 (2 mm)

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

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 (CH3CH3) 356

C-H (average) 410

C=C (H2C=CH2) 632

CC (HCCH) 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 % C2H4 % CH4

= = =

100 * C2H2 / (C2H2 + C2H4 + CH4); 100 * C2H4 / (C2H2 + C2H4 + 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 Selective columns Dual-column GC analysis

Extractor Transformer gas

Transformer oil

Oil flow

Gas flow

Helium flow

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

CO2 Lyra X 219 FR3 182

C2H4 C2H2 C2H6 214 2100 0 229 953 0

H2 1775 605

CH4 155 99

CO 0 155

TDCG 4244 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 G.Test1

PD amplitude (pC) 200 300 500 1000 200 300 500 1000 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.2 2.7 5.5 9.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 3.5 0 5 11.5 22.4

DGA(ppm) C2H4 C2H2 C2H6

0.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 44.7 83.4 46 63.4

H2
12.4 7 62.4 163 29.9 63.7 69.1 140

CH4 CO TCG
0.9 0.5 0.4 2.9 1.2 3.9 5.8 11.4 21.7 12.4 13.9 13.6 20.1 36.2 30 49.9 35.8 20.4 77.5 185.4 96.1 194.9 167.9 296.2

Gemini X

G.Test2 G.Test3 G.Test4 F.Test1 F.Test2 F.Test3 F.Test4

FR3

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

Test
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Times (mins)
15 30 45 60 15 30 45 60

Gemi ni X

PD ener gy (mJ) 7.7 8.1 9.2 15.7

148.2 161.4 486.6

DGA(ppm) C2H4
0.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 1.5 3.3 6.0

C2H2
0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 3.1 7.0 13.6

C2H6
0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 12.7 18.2 28.0 63.5

H2
31.3 62.4 70.9 110.0 46.7 88.4 74.7 138.0

CH4
1.7 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.7 1.9 3.9 6.6

CO
10.9 13.9 12.5 40.5 10.1 17.9 29.7 39.6

TCG
45.0 77.5 85.3 153.9 71.2 131.0 146.6 267.3

l/J
584.4 956.7 927.2 980.3

48.0 81.2 30.1 26.2

FR3

1020

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 700 C 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 Gemini X FR3

Times (mins)
35 50

C2H4
0.1 20.9

C2H2
0.0 0.0

DGA(ppm/min) C2H6 H2 CH4

0.3 16.9 1.2 1.7 4.7 6.7

CO
13.8 14.4

TCG
20.1 60.7

2.5.3.2 Thermal Test 2 Mark designed a localized heating element test using a special material which linearly changed the resistor in a wide range of temperatures up to 550 C [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 300 C to 600 C 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
1353 2973 3698 3923

C2H4
27 209 631 1061

C2H2
0 0 0 0

DGA(l/J) C2H6 H2
489 934 1005 1307 92 278 472 382

CH4
33 214 351 453

CO
932 4219 3095 5148

TCG
1573 5854 5554 8351

(b) GIO DGA Results in Lyra X

Temperature Duration(h) ( C) 300 400 1.5 1

CO2
57 169

C2H4
8 198

C2H2
0 38

DGA(l/J) C2H6 H2
2 7 11 70

CH4
20 149

CO
510 687

TCG
551 1149

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 400 C 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 400 C 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.

2.5.3.3 Thermal Test 3 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 50 C temperature difference for main fault gases yielding between the soybean oil and the high oleic sunflower oil; a 50 C difference between the high oleic sunflower oil and the mineral oil and a 100 C 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 Sparki ng test PD test

Test No. Test 1 Test 1 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

On-line or Lab DGA Lab DGA Lab DGA Lab DGA Lab DGA Lab DGA

GIT or GIO GIO GIO GIO GIO GIO

Sea ling Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Features Long Energy term calculation test No Yes No No No N/A No N/A N/A N/A

Temperature measurement N/A N/A Thermal couple

Heating element or oven N/A N/A Heating element Heating element Oven

Therm al test

Resisthermal
N/A

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
Over Current Protection relay 5A Variac 0-240 V Output CT V/A = 1/10 High frequency CT
CT

600 k Water resistor Test vessel Voltage divider Ratio R1 10000:1

240V/80kV

500 pF

R2

Power frequency CT Output V/A=1/100

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).

Pressure(mbar)
100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10

Sealing test

Pressure(mbar)

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 N2 1 0 40 80 120

10

H2 N2

C
160

CO O2 CH4 1 0 40 80 120

C
160

CO O2 CH4

0.1

CO2 C2H4 C2H2 C2H6

0.1

CO2 C2H4 C2H2

0.01

0.01

C2H6

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 The parameter used in Equation (3.1) is the same as that in Equation (2.1).

(3.1)

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 C2H4

0 8.2 10.4 11.2 2.8 70.1 85.8 86.7

GIO (ppm) C2H2 C2H6

0.3 0 0 0

P O2
138031.8 136751.1

H2
48.4 1835

CH4 CO
0 28.8 36.4 36.8 42.9 14.3 22.3 39.7 14.5 22.6 40.7 14.6 22.6 51.4 14.6 22.7

2047.5 135906.6 2032.6 135336.6

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

252.2

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

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 = n 0 (V(n) I(n) t) 1000 240/ 80000 W p = n 3 / 1000 0 (V(n) I(n) t) 1000 W p = n 0 (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

Test 2 Sparking 1 Sparking 2 Sparking 3 Sparking 4 Sparking 5 Sparking 6 Sparking 7 Sparking 8 Sparking 9

PF Energy(J ) 1.77 1.37 1.64 1.63 1.51 4.01 1.77 1.92 1.3

HF Energy(J ) 2.02 1.07 1.42 1.79 1.42 2.24 1.64 2.25 1.04

Test 2 Sparking 10 a Sparking 10 b Sparking 11 Sparking 12 Sparking 13 Sparking 14 average total Group energy (J)

PF Energy(J) 4.93 1.75 1.81 2.04 1.92 1.96 29.37

HF Energy(J) 1.55 Missed 1.73 1.89 2.3 2.07 1.75 26.2

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.
250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Test group 1 Test group 2 Test group 3 Test group 4 Test group 5 C2H4 14.5 17.7 18.0 17.8 15.6 C2H2 85.1 100.6 103.3 101.3 90.4 C2H6 0.0 1.4 1.8 0.0 0.5 H2 142.6 207.1 211.6 228.3 156.4 CH4 9.8 14.4 14.3 14.9 12.9 CO 0.3 0.9 2.0 0.7 1.2

ppm

(a) GIT of Gemini X Tests 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Test group 1 Test group 2 Test group 3 Test group 4 Test group 5 Test group 6 C2H4 14.5 11.6 13.0 13.8 13.0 11.4 C2H2 92.5 84.5 84.6 100.7 86.0 92.5 C2H6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 H2 194.1 194.3 170.4 212.2 179.3 218.6 CH4 6.2 6.2 7.5 6.7 5.9 6.1 CO 42.0 38.2 31.2 49.9 45.0 47.9

ppm

(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 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Test group 1 Test group 2 Test group 3 Test group 4 Test group 5 Average of groups

ppm/ J

C2H4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

C2H2 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9

C2H6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

H2 3.2 3.9 4.2 4.4 3.0 3.7

CH4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3

CO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TDCG 5.6 6.5 7.0 6.9 5.4 6.3

(a) Gas generation rate (per J) in Gemini X tests 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Test group 1 Test group 2 Test group 3 Test group 4 Test group 5 Test group 6 Average of groups

ppm/ J

C2H4 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.3

C2H2 2.29 1.88 1.97 2.07 1.99 2.81 2.2

C2H6 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.0

H2 4.80 4.32 3.97 4.37 4.15 6.65 4.7

CH4 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.2

CO 1.04 0.85 0.73 1.03 1.04 1.46 1.0

TDCG 8.66 7.45 7.15 7.90 7.65 11.45 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

9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Gemini X FR3

ppm/ J

C2H4 0.3 0.3

C2H2 1.9 2.2

C2H6 0.0 0.0

H2 3.7 4.7

CH4 0.3 0.2

CO 0.0 1.0

TDCG 6.3 8.4

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 Test group 1 Duval ratio Test group 2 Duval ratio Test group 3 Duval ratio Test group 4 Duval ratio Test group 5 Duval ratio FR3 C 2H 4 Test group 1 Duval ratio Test group 2 Duval ratio Test group 3 Duval ratio Test group 4 Duval ratio Test group 5 Duval ratio Test group 6 Duval ratio 14.2 12.80% 11.4 11.40% 12.8 12.40% 13.5 11.30% 12.8 12.40% 11.2 10.30% C2H2 91.3 82.10% 83.5 83.00% 83.5 81.00% 99.5 83.50% 84.9 82.30% 91.4 84.50% 0 136.4 1 114.9 0.6 134.5 0 108.2 0.1 123.4 C2H6 0.6 H2 123.1 CH4 5.8 5.20% 5.7 5.70% 6.9 6.70% 6.2 5.20% 5.5 5.30% 5.6 5.20% 37.7 282.3 35.6 254.7 39.4 293.7 24.6 236 30.2 254.3 CO 33.2 TDCG 268.1 14.2 13.40% 17.4 13.50% 17.6 13.40% 17.8 13.30% 15.2 13.20% C2H2 82.7 78.10% 97.8 76.10% 100.4 76.50% 101.3 75.60% 87.9 76.40% 0.5 93.7 0 228.3 1.8 125.9 1.4 123.4 C2H6 0 H2 84.9 CH4 9 8.50% 13.3 10.40% 13.2 10.10% 14.9 11.10% 1191.20% 10.40% GIO DGA(ppm) 1 210.1 0.7 363.1 1.6 260.6 0.7 254.1 CO 0.2 TDCG 191.1

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 C2H4 24 19
79.08%

GIO (ppm) C2H2 197.3 151

76.52%

C2H6 3 3
99.84%

H2 80.4 59
73.43%

O2 14190.4 59060
416.20%

CH4 12.1 8
65.91%

CO 53.5 34
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.

4.2 Experiment Setup

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
Over Current Protection relay 6.5 A 600 k Water resistor Voltage divider Test vessel Ratio R1 10000:1 500 pF
R2

240 V/80 kV Variac 0-240 V

Zm

Oil inlet

TM8

Oil outlet

Measuring impedence

PC based TM8 control software 100 MHz oscilloscope

500 kHz PC based PD detector

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). Drain oil out of the system.

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 Figure 4.5 PD Noise Filter

(b) Filtered PD signal

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 Substitute Equation (4.2) into Equation (4.3), we have:

(4.3)

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=

(4.5)

86

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

PD file of Gemini X test 3 1 2 3 4 5 6(not recorded) Total

Recording duration (minutes) 60 60 60 120 1020 60 1380

PD power(mW) 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.07(not recorded) 0.07

Energy(J) 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

Test

Test Voltage(kV) 50 50 58 58 34 34 44 44 57 57 57 61

Test duration (minutes) 2880 2580 1380 1290 390 360 180 235 70 150 70 62

PD amplitude (pC) 1500 3000 2000 4000 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3000 3000 4000 New After test 1 New After test 3 New New New After test1 After test 3 After test 5 New After test 7 Needle

1 Gemini X 2 3 4 1 2 3 FR3 4 5 6 7 8

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 Test Result and Analysis

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 1500pC 2000pC 3000pC 4000pC

ppm/h

C2H4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3

C2H2 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.2

C2H6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

H2 0.1 0.7 0.6 3.2

CH4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6

CO 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

TDCG 0.4 1.5 1.2 5.6

(a) Gas generation per hour in Gemini X

300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1000 pC 2000 pC 3000 pC 4000 pC

ppm/h

C2H4 0.0 0.8 6.9 13.4

C2H2 0.0 5.3 24.8 36.5

C2H6 0.1 0.7 1.9 6.0

H2 1.3 10.6 107.6 185.4

CH4 0.0 0.7 6.2 9.8

CO 0.6 2.9 18.8 33.8

TDCG 2.1 20.9 166.2 285.0

(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

Test 1500 pC

Power(mW)

Duration (mins) 2880 1380 2580 1290 390 360 180 235 70 150 70 62

0.02 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.32 0.16 0.65 0.83 6.13 3.35 5.82 7.34

Gemin ix

2000 pC 3000 pC 4000 pC

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 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

ppm/ J

C2H4 Mineral oil 0.0 FR3 0.3

C2H2 1.9 1.9

C2H6 0.0 0.3

H2 3.1 4.0

CH4 0.5 0.3

CO 0.7 1.0

TDCG 6.6 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 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Mineral oil FR3

ppm/ J

C2H4 0.5 0.4

C2H2 2.5 1.3

C2H6 0.7 0.1

H2 5.0 5.9

CH4 1.1 0.3

CO 0.7 1.0

TDCG 10.5 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 C2H4 0.00 0.00 1.26 1.63

C2H2 0.00 4.93 3.39 3.55 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 CH4 0.00 1.18 2.93 3.00

CO 1.68 2.70 2.61 3.29 CO 3.12 1.84 1.83 0.90

TDCG 6.17 19.89 23.24 27.73 TDCG 13.59 15.69 27.24 29.84

4.6.5 Duval Triangle Analysis

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

Table 4.5 GIO Generation Rate (ppm/J)

Test Mineral oil 1500 pC Duval ratio 2000 pC Duval ratio 3000 pC Duval ratio 4000 pC Duval ratio Test FR3 1000 pC Duval ratio 2000 pC Duval ratio 3000 pC Duval ratio 4000 pC Duval ratio C2H4 C2H2 C2H6

GIO (ppm/J) H2 CH4 CO TDCG

0 0.00% 0.1 11.70% 0.5 12.00% 0.6 15.20% C2H4

0 0.00% 0.3 11.70% 0.4 18.70% 0.5 22.50%

1.9 100.00% 0.3 77.90% 2.5 61.70% 2.4 58.40% C2H2

0 0.00% 1.9 77.90% 1.3 64.90% 1.4 61.20%

0.5 0 0.7 0.4

0.9 0.7 3 3.9

GIO (ppm/J)

0 0.00% 0 10.40% 1.1 26.30% 1.1 26.40% CH4

0 0.00% 0.3 10.40% 0.3 16.40% 0.4 16.40%

1 0.2 0.6 0.3

4.3 1.4 8.2 8.7

C2H6
0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2

H2
1.6 4 5.9 7

CO
0.7 1 1 1.3

TDCG
2.4 7.7 9 10.8

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.

4.6.6 Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison

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 Mineral oil TM8 sample

GIO(ppm)

C2H4
12

C2H2
41

C2H6
12 10 7 9

H2
46 58 57 58

O2
18118 20819 20206 20513

CH4
23 24 19 22
91.55%

CO
9 10 9 10
105.69%

Laboratory 17 44 sample 1 Laboratory 13 27 sample2 Laboratory 15 36 average Laboratory / TM8 125.35% 86.98%

71.07% 124.14% 113.22%

98

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 Experiment Setup

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 Figure 5.2 Test Vessel Design

(b) Photo

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. Drain oil out of the system. 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 400 C. In test 3 and 4 for Gemini X, the temperature measured by thermocouple was even less than 400 C 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 400 C A and apparent 400 C B, indicating the fault temperatures were much higher than 400 C.

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 Y N 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).

5.6 Test Result and Analysis

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 10000.0 1000.0 100.0 10.0 1.0 300C-104W 400C-780W apparent 400C A apparent 400C B

ppm/ min

C2H4 0.0 109.4 179.9 8295.3

C2H2 0.0 0.4 14.2 89.3

C2H6 0.0 23.1 26.7 1324.7

H2 0.0 68.2 48.8 2952.2

CH4 0.6 114.2 135.7 6064.0

CO 0.8 23.6 6.1 37.2

TDCG 1.4 338.8 411.6 18762.6

(a) Fault gases generation rate in Gemini X

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

ppm/h

(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

5.6.3 Duval Triangle Analysis

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.

Table 5.2 GIO Generation Rate (ppm/J)

Mineral oil C2H4 300 C Duval ratio 400 C Duval ratio 400 CA Duval ratio 400 CB Duval ratio FR3 300 C Duval ratio 400 C Duval ratio 500 C Duval ratio 600 C Duval ratio C2H2

GIO (ppm) C2H6 H2 CH4 CO

0
0.40%

0
1.40%

0 113.6 7 1085.3

0 210.4 8 1292.8

0.6
98.20%

0.7 90.6 1.3 5.2

532.7
50.50%

1.7
0.20%

521.5
49.40%

47
55.80%

3.7
4.40%

33.6
39.80%

6716.6
59.30% C2H4

71.6
0.60%

4539.5
40.10%

GIO (ppm) C2H2 C2H6 H2 CH4 CO

2.4
8.80%

0.4
1.40%

81 328.8 25.3 121.5

7.2 75.5 1.5 13.5

24.1
89.70%

115.3 361.5 19.5 116.4

23.8
26.20%

0.8
0.90%

66.4
73.00%

5
52.00%

0
0.00%

4.6
48.00%

107
64.10%

0.5
0.30%

59.5
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

5.6.4 Laboratory DGA and Online Monitor Comparison

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 Mineral oil TM8 sample

Laboratory sample 1

GIO (ppm) C2H4 6149.45 6798 5889 6343.5

103.16%

C2H2 58.56 67 55 61
104.17%

C2H6 H2 O2 CH4 CO 1060.74 945.86 14751.58 2956.23 186.84 961 836 898.5
84.70%

928 924 926

97.90%

29506 20823 25164.5

170.59%

4033 3614 3823.5

99 77 88

Laboratory sample2 Laboratory average Laboratory / TM8

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 Differences of gas performance between the mineral oil and the natural ester under 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 Differences of gas performance between the mineral oil and the natural ester under 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' % 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'),13,1,[13 1 13 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(:,2); 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); 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 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',{'after_lowpass_filter','energy'},'LF'); %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,'LF',b); xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',cellstr(strcat('WASCO0',num2str(seq))),'LF',c); %xlswrite(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.xls'),energy,'LF');

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

% 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'),13,1,[13 1 13 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(:,2); 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); 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 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',{'after_lowpass_filter','energy'},'LF'); %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,'LF',b); xlswrite('energy_cal.xls',cellstr(strcat('WASCO0',num2str(seq))),'LF',c); %xlswrite(strcat(header,num2str(seq),'.xls'),energy,'LF');

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; P_Energy_2000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<2000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b<180)))<2000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ N_Energy_2000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b>180)))<2000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b>180)))<2000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ Energy_2000=P_Energy_2000+N_Energy_2000; P_Energy_3000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<3000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b<180)))<3000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ N_Energy_3000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b>180)))<3000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b>180)))<3000))))*1e-12*1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ Energy_3000=P_Energy_3000+N_Energy_3000; P_Energy_4000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<4000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b<180)))<4000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ N_Energy_4000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b>180)))<4000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b>180)))<4000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ Energy_4000=P_Energy_4000+N_Energy_4000; P_Energy_5000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<5000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b<180)))<5000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ N_Energy_5000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b>180)))<5000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b>180)))<5000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ Energy_5000=P_Energy_5000+N_Energy_5000; P_Energy_6000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b<180)))<6000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b<180)))<6000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ N_Energy_6000=sum(abs(c(find(abs(c(find(b>180)))<6000)).*d(find(abs(c(find( b>180)))<6000))))*1e-12*1000*1000/1000;% kv* pc*1000=mW;mW*s=mJ Energy_6000=P_Energy_6000+N_Energy_6000; Number_1000=size(find(abs(c)<1000)); Number_1000=Number_1000(1); Number_2000=size(find(abs(c)<2000));

129

Number_2000=Number_2000(1); Number_3000=size(find(abs(c)<3000)); Number_3000=Number_3000(1); Number_4000=size(find(abs(c)<4000)); Number_4000=Number_4000(1); Number_5000=size(find(abs(c)<5000)); Number_5000=Number_5000(1); Number_6000=size(find(abs(c)<6000)); Number_6000=Number_6000(1); 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(' Energy from 2000 to 3000\t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_3000Energy_2000); fprintf(' Energy from 3000 to 4000\t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_4000Energy_3000); fprintf(' Energy from 4000 to 5000\t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_5000Energy_4000); fprintf(' Energy from 5000 to 6000\t\t=%f\t\tJ\t\n',Energy_6000Energy_5000); 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); 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-

130

Appendix II. The Results Used in the Thesis

AII.1 Gemini X Sparking test 1- DGA data
Test 1 Oil Type Mineral Oil Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8Background Gas-in-gas_TM8 1 Gas-in-gas_TM8 2 Gas-in-gas_TM8 3 Time 11/10/12:0 0 11/10/13:1 7 11/10/14:1 7 11/10/15:1 7 No. 4008 4009 4010 4011 CO2 318.8 316.9 317.3 317.5 Date 11/10/201 1 C2H4 0.0 8.2 10.4 11.2 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00

C2H2 2.8 70.1 85.8 86.7

C2H6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

H2 48.4 1835. 0 2047. 5 2032. 6

O2 138031. 8 136751. 1 135906. 6 135336. 6

CH4 0.0 28.8 36.4 36.8

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

Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

11/10/12:0 0 11/10/13:1 7 11/10/14:1 7 11/10/15:1 7

4008 4009 4010 4011

364.6 9 366.2 9 369.2 8 369.0 8 368.2 2 3.53

0.00 11.94 15.25 16.40 14.53 14.53

3.00 76.01 93.68 94.55 88.08 85.07

0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.74)

3.52 135.3 5 152.0 6 150.9 7 146.1 3 142.6 1

21037.0 6 21111.9 3 21126.2 6 21030.5 4 21089.5 8 52.52

0.00 11.2 8 14.3 5 14.5 0 13.3 8 9.76

6.1 6 5.7 8 5.9 6 7.5 3 6.4 2 0.2 6

AII.2 Gemini X Sparking test 2- DGA data

Test 2 Oil Type Mineral Oil Date 11/10/201 1 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00

131

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8Background 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

No. 4011 4013 4014 4015

CO2 317.5 316.9 317.3 315.6

C2H4 11.2 23.1 23.4 23.0

C2H2 86.7 178.0 177.7 177.4

C2H6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9

H2 2032. 6 4826. 3 4766. 9 4734. 5

O2 135336. 6 133433. 3 132604. 2 131960. 5

CH4 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

Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

11/10/15:1 7 11/10/17:1 7 11/10/18:1 7 11/10/19:1 7

4011 4013 4014 4015

369.0 8 370.0 4 370.0 7 371.4 6 370.5 2 1.44

16.40 33.97 34.36 34.09 34.14 17.74

94.55 194.99 194.44 195.88 195.10 100.55

0.00 0.00 2.01 2.28 1.43 1.43

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 (241.02)

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

AII.3 Gemini X Sparking test 3- DGA data

Test 3 Oil Type Mineral Oil Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8Background Gas-in-gas_TM8 1 Time 12/10/09:1 7 12/10/10:4 2 12/10/11:4 2 No. 4029 CO2 312. 9 313. 5 313. 7 Date 12/10/201 1 C2H4 21.5 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00

C2H2 164.4

C2H6 0.7

H2 3940. 1 6625. 2 6680. 8

O2 124208. 8 123849. 0 123064. 9

CH4 79.8 124. 7 128. 8

CO 60. 4 72. 1 71. 3

P 15. 2 15. 2 15. 3

T 22. 1 22. 2 22. 2

4030

31.2

243.2

1.6

Gas-in-gas_TM8 2

4031

34.0

258.4

1.0

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

15. 3

22. 3

Gas-in-total calculated

12/10/09:1 7 12/10/10:4 2 12/10/11:4 2 12/10/12:4 2

4029

381. 4 381. 6 384. 4 384. 9 383. 7 2.3

33.0

188.0

1.8

304.5

20135.4

32.9

9.2 11. 0 11. 0 11. 7 11. 2 2.0

Gas-in-total calculated

4030

47.9

277.7

4.2

512.0

20070.3

51.3

Gas-in-total calculated

4031

52.5

297.0

2.6

519.7

20074.4

53.3

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

4032

52.7 51.0 18.0

299.0 291.2 103.3

4.2 3.7 1.8

516.5 516.1 211.6

20034.0 20059.5 (75.8)

52.7 52.5 14.3

AII.4 Gemini X Sparking test 4- DGA data

Test 4 Oil Type Mineral Oil Date 40828.0 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.0 Headspace (ml) 0.0

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8-Background

Time 12/10/12:42

No. 4032

CO2 314.5

C2H4 34.2

C2H2 260.4

C2H6 1.6

H2 6639.0

O2 122858.7

CH4 127.3

CO 76.0

P 15.3

T 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

Gas-in-total calculated

12/10/12:42

4032

384.9

52.7

299.0

4.2

516.5

20034.0

52.7

11.7

Gas-in-total calculated

12/10/13:42

4033

383.6

68.2

388.5

4.0

750.4

19882.0

73.1

13.0

Gas-in-total calculated

12/10/14:42

4034

383.6

71.0

404.9

4.5

742.0

19780.8

72.8

12.3

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

12/10/15:42

4035

387.4 384.9 (0.0)

72.5 70.6 17.8

407.4 400.3 101.3

3.7 4.0 (0.2)

742.0 744.8 228.3

19856.7 19839.8 (194.2)

73.5 73.1 14.9

11.9 12.4 0.7

AII.5 Gemini X Sparking test 5- DGA data

Test 5 Oil Type Mineral Oil Date 40829.0 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.0 Headspace (ml) 0.0

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8-Background

Time 13/10/09:40

No.

CO2

C2H4

C2H2

C2H6

H2

O2

CH4

CO

4053 Gas-in-gas_TM8 1 13/10/11:18 4054 Gas-in-gas_TM8 2 13/10/12:18 4055 Gas-in-gas_TM8 3 13/10/13:18 4056

313.2

43.9

333.3

2.0

7807.6

113151.5

166.4

83.8

15.7

21.9

315.3

52.6

404.9

1.9

9841.8

113234.0

205.7

88.9

15.7

22.2

317.0

54.8

416.2

2.5

9801.2

112841.4

209.5

99.5

15.6

22.4

319.7

55.4

420.5

2.2

9769.1

112704.1

213.2

87.9

15.6

22.6

134

Gas-in-total calculated

13/10/09:40

4053

395.2

69.8

394.5

5.4

623.0

18959.1

70.9

13.2

Gas-in-total calculated

13/10/11:18

4054

396.5

83.4

477.6

5.1

785.6

18953.7

87.4

14.0

Gas-in-total calculated

13/10/12:18

4055

395.1

86.1

486.7

6.7

777.6

18755.0

88.4

15.6

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

13/10/13:18

4056

397.6 396.4 1.2

86.8 85.4 15.6

490.6 484.9 90.4

5.9 5.9 0.5

775.2 779.5 156.4

18719.5 18809.4 (149.8)

89.8 88.5 12.9

13.8 14.5 1.2

AII.6 FR3 Sparking test 1- DGA data

Test 1 Oil Type FR3 Date 09/23/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8-Background

Time 23/9/10:00

No. 3660

CO2 379.5

C2H4 0.0

C2H2 0.0

C2H6 0.0

H2 155.4

O2 143204.8

CH4 0.0

CO 44.7

P 11.9

T 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

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/10:00

3660

471.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.2

20198.7

0.0

5.1

135

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/12:20

3662

479.7

13.5

85.3

0.0

200.5

20281.2

8.5

44.9

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/13:20

3663

487.9

14.6

94.5

0.7

207.1

20537.7

8.7

48.6

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

23/9/14:20

3664

491.4 486.3 15.4

15.4 14.5 14.5

97.6 92.5 92.5

1.1 0.6 0.6

205.3 204.3 194.1

20513.2 20444.0 245.3

8.5 8.6 6.2

47.9 47.1 42.0

AII.7 FR3 Sparking test 2- DGA data

Test 2 Oil Type FR3 Date 09/23/201 1 CO2 379.8 C2H4 10.4 Oil Volumn (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8Background Gas-in-gas_TM8 1

Time 23/9/15:2 0 23/9/16:2 0 23/9/17:2 0 23/9/18:2 0

No. 3665

C2H2 47.5

C2H6 0.6

H2 2903. 7 5802. 5 5541. 9 5403. 6

O2 135679. 5 134164. 4 132916. 2 132023. 3

CH4 25.4

CO 391. 7 686. 8 708. 1 686. 1

P 12. 6 12. 7 12. 8 12. 9

T 26. 1 26. 1 26. 1 25. 9

3666

380.4

17.6

81.1

0.5

50.7

Gas-in-gas_TM8 2

3667

378.6

18.7

88.2

1.1

52.4

Gas-in-gas_TM8 3

3668

373.9

18.6

88.4

0.4

49.7

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/15:2 0 23/9/16:2 0

3665

492.2 8 496.9 7

14.75

100.69

1.08

204.1 5 411.1 9

20528.8 4 20460.7 1

8.19 16.4 9

47.8 7 84.6 0

Gas-in-total calculated

3666

25.16

173.27

0.90

136

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/17:2 0 23/9/18:2 0

3667

498.5 1 497.0 7 497.5 2 5.24

26.94

189.93

2.01

395.8 1 388.4 1 398.4 7 194.3 2

20429.9 6 20415.8 4 20435.5 0 (93.34)

17.1 7 16.4 2 16.6 9 6.20

87.9 1 85.8 0 86.1 0 38.2 4

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

3668

27.05 26.38 11.63

192.30 185.16 84.48

0.74 1.22 0.14

AII.8 FR3 Sparking test 3- DGA data

Test 3 Oil Type FR3 Date 26/09/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8-Background

Time 26/9/15:07

No. 3690

CO2 389.2

C2H4 16.3

C2H2 77.3

C2H6 0.6

H2 3191.1

O2 120188.8

CH4 37.7

CO 545.1

P 15.4

T 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

Gas-in-total calculated

26/9/15:07

3690

621.6

28.4

202.4

1.3

272.5

22053.2

14.9

81.3

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/16:07

3691

622.7

40.5

281.8

0.7

458.5

22025.3

25.0

103.1

Gas-in-total calculated

23/9/17:07

3692

622.4

42.2

287.3

0.0

438.8

21871.5

25.0

117.7

137

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

23/9/18:07

3693

624.6 623.2 1.6

41.6 41.4 13.0

291.8 287.0 84.6

1.3 0.7 0.0

431.4 442.9 170.4

21938.6 21945.1 (108.1)

25.3 25.1 7.5

116.4 112.4 31.2

AII.9 FR3 Sparking test 4- DGA data

Test 4

Oil Type FR3

Date 09/29/2011

Oil Volumn (ml) 2570.00

Headspace (ml) 0.00

V (V)

I (A)

Gas Type Gas-in-gas_TM8-Background Gas-in-gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 29/9/10:07 29/9/12:15 29/9/13:15 29/9/14:15

No. 3751 3753 3754 3755

CO2 389.6 380.5 379.1 377.7

C2H4 0.9 10.3 10.6 11.3

C2H2 4.6 48.7 53.1 56.1

C2H6 9.4 9.1 9.8 9.5

H2 143.1 3234.8 3289.1 3141.3

O2 117650.6 116967.1 115455.9 115121.8

CH4 0.0 28.3 29.6 29.1

CO 116.7 528.8 543.6 511.9

P 11.9 12.2 12.4 12.5

T 24.6 25.4 25.7 25.9

Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

29/9/10:07 29/9/12:15 29/9/13:15 29/9/14:15

3751 3753 3754 3755

483.5 480.6 485.3 486.6 484.2 0.7

1.2 14.2 14.8 15.9 15.0 13.8

9.4 100.8 111.3 118.3 110.1 100.7

16.1 15.9 17.4 16.9 16.7 0.6

9.4 219.1 226.9 218.8 221.6 212.2

16594.3 17032.0 17132.1 17250.2 17138.1 543.8

0.0 8.8 9.4 9.3 9.2 6.7

13.4 62.5 65.3 62.0 63.3 49.9

AII.10 FR3 Sparking test 5- DGA data

Test 5 Oil Type Date Oil Volume (ml) Headspace (ml) V (V) I (A)

138

FR3

10/03/2011

2570.00

0.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 03/10/12:40 03/10/13:40 03/10/14:40 03/10/15:40

No. 3846 3847 3848 3849

CO2 295.3 298.4 296.8 291.9

C2H4 0.8 10.4 11 10.7

C2H2 5.1 45.8 50.2 51.1

C2H6 3.2 4.2 3.9 3.1

H2 91 2892.9 2847.3 2640.6

O2 116021.7 114510.2 114280.1 113944.7

CH4 0 30.8 25.5 24.9

CO 82.3 478.3 484.2 454.3

P 11.3 11.5 11.7 12.1

T 27.1 27.3 27.5 27.7

Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

03/10/12:40 03/10/13:40 03/10/14:40 03/10/15:40

3846 3847 3848 3849

340.2 349.2 352.7 358.1 353.3 13.2

1.0 13.3 14.3 14.4 14.0 13.0

9.6 87.4 97.2 102.1 95.5 86.0

5.1 6.8 6.4 5.3 6.2 1.1

5.8 187.2 187.7 180.3 185.1 179.3

15880.0 15978.0 16251.2 16786.3 16338.5 458.5

0.0 9.1 7.6 7.7 8.1 5.9

9.0 53.5 55.1 53.5 54.0 45.0

AII.11 FR3 Sparking test 6- DGA data

Test 6 Oil Type FR3 Date 10/07/201 1 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1

Time 07/10/12:1 7 05/10/14:1 7 05/10/15:1 7

No.

CO2

C2H4

C2H2

C2H6

H2

O2

CH 4

CO 154. 9 511. 1 516. 3

P 13. 9 13. 9 13. 9

T 22. 4 22. 9 23. 1

3930

384.4 389.3 9

9.5

48

282.7 3222. 2 3158. 4

133534 131768. 7 131315. 4

11.8

3932

16.2

83.1

2.1

33.9

Gas in Gas_TM8 2

3933

393

16.9

86.9

1.7

35.9

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

13. 9

23. 2

Gas-in-total calculated

07/10/12:1 7 07/10/14:1 7 07/10/15:1 7 07/10/16:1 7

3930

568.6

15.3

117.3

4.1

21.4

21580.0

4.2

20.7

Gas-in-total calculated

3932

573.3

26.0

201.9

4.3

244.4

21388.6

12.1

68.4

Gas-in-total calculated

3933

577.6

27.0

210.6

3.5

239.9

21352.5

12.8

69.1

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

3934

577.9 576.3 7.7

27.0 26.7 11.4

216.9 209.8 92.5

3.9 3.9 0.0

235.5 239.9 218.6

21254.3 21331.8 (248.2)

12.7 12.5 6.1

68.4 68.6 47.9

AII.12 Gemini X PD test 1- DGA data

PD attitude 1500pC Oil Type Mineral Date 04/12/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background

Time 01/12/14:58

No.

CO2

C2H4

C2H2

C2H6

H2

O2

CH4

CO

4640 Gas in Gas_TM8 1 04/12/06:50 4657 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 04/12/10:50 4657 Gas in Gas_TM8 3 04/12/15:50 4657

336.9

128541.3

18

15.5

21.6

348

5.3

0.6

65.4

122568.1

43.3

15.3

19.1

348

5.3

0.6

65.4

122568.1

43.3

15.4

18.8

348

5.3

0.6

65.4

122568.1

43.3

15.2

18.7

140

Gas-in-total calculated

01/12/14:58

4640

421.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

21285.0

0.0

2.8

Gas-in-total calculated

04/12/06:50

4657

442.3

0.0

6.3

1.7

5.1

20205.4

0.0

6.7

Gas-in-total calculated

04/12/10:50

4657

446.8

0.0

6.4

1.7

5.1

20358.4

0.0

6.7

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

04/12/15:50

4657

441.5 443.6 22.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

6.3 6.3 6.3

1.7 1.7 1.7

5.0 5.1 5.1

20100.8 20221.5 (1063.5)

0.0 0.0 0.0

6.7 6.7 3.9

AII.13 Gemini X PD test 2- DGA data

PD attitude 2000pC Oil Type Mineral Date 29/11/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background

Time 25/11/13:13

No. 4624

CO2 0.0

C2H4 0.0

C2H2 0.0

C2H6 0.0

H2 0.0

O2 119372.6

CH4 0.0

CO 35.9

P 12.6

T 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

Gas-in-total calculated

25/11/13:13

4624

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

16046.7

0.0

4.5

Gas-in-total calculated

29/11/10:45

4625

510.4

0.0

10.4

0.0

17.1

23298.9

3.5

8.5

Gas-in-total calculated

29/11/11:45

4625

510.1

0.0

10.4

0.0

17.2

23401.4

3.5

8.6

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

29/11/12:45

4625

508.3 509.6 509.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

10.4 10.4 10.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

17.2 17.2 17.2

23377.6 23359.3 7312.5

3.5 3.5 2.6

8.6 8.6 4.0

AII.14 Gemini X PD test 3- DGA data

PD attitude 1500pC-2 Oil Type Mineral Date 06/12/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background

Time 04/12/16:50

No.

CO2

C2H4

C2H2

C2H6

H2

O2

CH4

CO

4658 Gas in Gas_TM8 1 06/12/13:50 4661 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 06/12/14:50 4661 Gas in Gas_TM8 3 06/12/15:50 4661

350.6

6.6

60.4

123193

37.2

15.1

18.8

368.2

1.6

17.9

1.3

393.6

121610

22.2

61.2

15

20.1

368.2

1.6

17.9

1.3

393.6

121610

22.2

61.2

15

20.5

368.2

1.6

17.9

1.3

393.6

121610

22.2

61.2

15.1

20.8

Gas-in-total calculated

04/12/16:50

4658

441.4

0.0

7.8

0.0

4.6

20063.5

1.3

5.7

142

Gas-in-total calculated

06/12/13:50

4661

453.4

2.5

20.7

3.5

29.9

19587.4

9.1

9.3

Gas-in-total calculated

06/12/14:50

4661

451.3

2.5

20.6

3.5

30.0

19560.7

9.1

9.2

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

06/12/15:50

4661

452.7 452.5 11.1

2.5 2.5 2.5

20.6 20.6 12.8 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00

3.5 3.5 3.5 Headspace (ml) 0.00

30.2 30.0 25.4

19671.0 19606.3 (457.2)

9.2 9.1 5.8

9.3 9.3 3.6

AII.15 Gemini X PD test 4- DGA data

PD attitude 4000pC Oil Type Mineral Date 30/11/201 1 CO2 C2H4 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1

Time 29/11/13:4 5 30/11/11:3 5 30/11/12:3 5 30/11/13:3 5

No.

C2H2

C2H6

H2

O2 137518. 3

CH4

CO

P 15. 7 15. 6 15. 7 15. 8

T 21. 7 20. 6 21. 3 21. 6

4628

403.3

1.6

10.5

1.1

183.1 1041. 7 1041. 7 1041. 7

9.9

49.8

4629

401.5

5.7

31.9

2.8

135301

48.9

73

Gas in Gas_TM8 2

4629

401.5

5.7

31.9

2.8

135301

48.9

73

Gas in Gas_TM8 3

4629

401.5

5.7

31.9

2.8

135301

48.9

73

Gas-in-total calculated

29/11/13:4 5 30/11/11:3 5

4628

510.1 1 511.1 9

2.55

12.46

3.00

14.61

23057.5 3 22625.6 6

4.22 20.8 6

7.86 11.4 7

Gas-in-total calculated

4629

9.16

38.09

7.72

82.47

143

Gas-in-total calculated

30/11/12:3 5 30/11/13:3 5

4629

510.2 3 511.6 7 511.0 3 0.92

9.14

38.03

7.69

83.07

22716.5 7 22838.0 0 22726.7 4 (330.79)

20.9 0 20.9 9 20.9 2 12.1 8

11.5 3 11.6 0 11.5 3 3.67

Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

4629

9.16 9.15 6.60

38.13 38.08 25.63

7.70 7.70 4.70

83.63 83.06 68.45

AII.16 FR3 PD test 1- DGA data

PD attitude 1000pC-1 Oil Type FR3 Date 21/11/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A) B 0.03

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 1 Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 2 Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 3 Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 21/11/07:25 21/11/08:25 21/11/09:25 22/11/05:45 22/11/06:45 22/11/07:45

No. 4556 4556 4556 4570 4570 4570

CO2 268.8 268.8 268.8 269.7 269.7 269.7

C2H4 0 0 0 0 0 0

C2H2 0 0 0 0 0 0

C2H6 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.1 4.1 4.1

H2 16.2 16.2 16.2 148.5 148.5 148.5

O2 130932.7 130932.7 130932.7 119709.3 119709.3 119709.3

CH4 0 0 0 0 0 0

CO 41.2 41.2 41.2 87.1 87.1 87.1

P 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.9 14.9 14.9

T 22 22 22 22.5 22.5 22.5

Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

21/11/09:25 22/11/05:45 22/11/06:45 22/11/07:45

4556.0 4570.0 4570.0 4570.0

407.7 427.2 427.2 427.2 427.2 19.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 (2.1)

1.2 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.8

21540.3 20755.9 20755.9 20755.9 20755.9 (784.3)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 6.9

AII.17 FR3 PD test 2- DGA data 144

PD attitude 1000pC-2

Oil Type FR3

Date 23/11/201 1

Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00

Headspace (ml) 0.00

V (V)

I (A)

B 0.03

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 1 Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 2 Gas in Gas_TM8-Background 3 Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 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

No. 4573 4573 4573 4581 4581 4581

CO2 269.3 269.3 269.3 269.1 269.1 269.1

C2H4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C2H2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C2H6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.8

H2 132.6 132.6 132.6 203.4 203.4 203.4

O2 117429. 9 117429. 9 117429. 9 112475. 5 112475. 5 112475. 5

CH 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CO 85.2 85.2 85.2 92.7 92.7 92.7

P 15 15 15 15. 3 15. 3 15. 3

T 22. 7 22. 7 22. 7 22. 8 22. 8 22. 8

Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Gas-in-total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

22/11/09:4 5 23/11/01:1 3 23/11/02:1 3 23/11/03:1 3

4573 4581 4581 4581

428.6 8 436.5 3 436.5 3 436.5 3 436.5 3 7.85

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.49 8.53 8.53 8.53 8.53 1.04

10.84 16.97 16.97 16.97 16.97 6.13

20533.4 6 20078.1 4 20078.1 4 20078.1 4 20078.1 4 (455.32)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12.3 0 13.6 5 13.6 5 13.6 5 13.6 5 1.35

AII.18 FR3 PD test 3- DGA data

145

PD attitude

Oil Type

Date

Oil Volume (ml)

Headspace (ml)

V (V)

I (A)

2000pC-1

FR3

14/11/2011

2570.00

0.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background

Time 14/11/11:00

No. 4407

CO2 384.9

C2H4 2.8

C2H2 6.7

C2H6 1.6

H2 301.7

O2 90419.7

CH4 8.0

CO 154.9

P 15.1

T 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

Gas-in-total calculated

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

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

Gas in total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

14/11/21:40

4419

629.06 629.06 12.28

7.20 7.20 2.32

26.81 26.81 9.09

4.68 4.68 1.14

54.21 54.21 29.39

15829.67 15829.67 (86.27)

5.65 5.65 1.86

27.93 27.93 5.41

AII.19 FR3 PD test 4- DGA data 146

PD attitude 2000pC-2

Oil Type FR3

Date 23/11/2011

Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00

Headspace (ml) 0.00

V (V)

I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 23/11/10:13 23/11/20:30 23/11/22:30 24/11/00:30

No. 4589 4596 4596 4596

CO2 261.0 268.8 268.8 268.8

C2H4 0.2 1.7 1.7 1.7

C2H2 0.0 10.7 10.7 10.7

C2H6 3.5 4.1 4.1 4.1

H2 169.1 615.9 615.9 615.9

O2 109181.8 105468.6 105468.6 105468.6

CH4 1.8 10.8 10.8 10.8

CO 86.7 158.5 158.5 158.5

P 10.8 16.1 16.1 16.1

T 21.6 23.4 23.4 23.4

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

23/11/10:13 23/11/20:30 23/11/22:30 24/11/00:30

4589 4596 4596 4596

302.21 456.31 456.31 456.31 456.31 154.10

0.25 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14 2.89

0.00 29.93 29.93 29.93 29.93 29.93

5.60 9.63 9.63 9.63 9.63 4.03

9.88 54.30 54.30 54.30 54.30 44.42

13613.02 19916.39 19916.39 19916.39 19916.39 6303.37

0.50 4.46 4.46 4.46 4.46 2.89

8.99 24.60 24.60 24.60 24.60 15.61

AII.20 FR3 PD test 5- DGA data

PD attitude 3000pC-1 Oil Type FR3 Date 15/11/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background

Time 15/11/11:50

No. 4424

CO2 387.5

C2H4 4.6

C2H2 10.2

C2H6 1.5

H2 620.6

O2 89578.7

CH4 15.2

CO 204.5

P 15

T 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

Gas in total calculated

15/11/11:50

4424

623.75

8.04

27.19

3.34

50.31

15498.61

5.86

29.44

Gas in total calculated

15/11/19:50

4431

645.83

19.12

56.10

6.40

199.57

15585.59

16.92

55.23

Gas in total calculated

15/11/19:50

4431

645.83

19.12

56.10

6.40

199.57

15585.59

16.92

55.23

Gas in total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

15/11/19:50

4431

645.83 645.83 22.09

19.12 19.12 11.08

56.10 56.10 28.91

6.40 6.40 3.06

199.57 199.57 149.26

15585.59 15585.59 86.98

16.92 16.92 8.07

55.23 55.23 25.79

AII.21 FR3 PD test 6- DGA data

PD attitude 3000pC-2 Oil Type FR3 Date 15/11/201 1 CO2 405.1 401.9 401.9 401.9 C2H4 11.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) 57.00 I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 15/11/20:5 0 16/11/06:5 5 16/11/06:5 5 16/11/06:5 5

No. 4432 4439 4439 4439

C2H2 21.1 33.0 33.0 33.0

C2H6 2.8 3.6 3.6 3.6

H2 2336. 4 4545. 8 4545. 8 4545. 8

O2 86675.5 84276.0 84276.0 84276.0

CH4 43.2 73.7 73.7 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

148

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

15/11/20:5 0 16/11/06:5 5 16/11/06:5 5 16/11/06:5 5

4432 4439 4439 4439

646.2 7 652.5 6 652.5 6 652.5 6 652.5 6 6.29

19.65 32.15 32.15 32.15 32.15 12.50

55.38 88.45 88.45 88.45 88.45 33.07

6.18 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 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 (489.42)

16.8 4 28.9 4 28.9 4 28.9 4 28.9 4 8.83

55.2 3 84.7 0 84.7 0 84.7 0 84.7 0 29.4 7

AII.22 FR3 PD test 7- DGA data

PD attitude 3000pC-3 Oil Type FR3 Date 17/11/201 1 CO2 676.5 591.4 591.4 591.4 C2H4 0 7.2 7.2 7.2 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 17/11/11:5 3 17/11/16:4 0 17/11/18:4 0 17/11/20:4 0

No. 4464 4470 4470 4470

C2H2 0 28 28 28

C2H6 5.3 6.6 6.6 6.6

H2 43.3 2950. 1 2950. 1 2950. 1

O2 118981. 3 109328. 5 109328. 5 109328. 5

CH4 0 58.4 58.4 58.4

CO 161. 5 439. 3 439. 3 439. 3

P 7.2 8.8 8.8 8.8

T 23 24. 4 24. 4 24. 4

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated

17/11/11:5 3 17/11/16:4 0 17/11/18:4 0

4464 4470 4470

515.4 7 543.7 2 543.7 2

0.00 7.22 7.22

0.00 42.30 42.30

5.59 8.40 8.40

1.70 143.1 5 143.1 5

10012.6 4 11383.5 2 11383.5 2

0.00 13.1 7 13.1 7

11.2 0 37.3 5 37.3 5

149

Gas in total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

17/11/20:4 0

4470

543.7 2 543.7 2 28.25

7.22 7.22 7.22

42.30 42.30 42.30

8.40 8.40 2.81

143.1 5 143.1 5 141.4 5

11383.5 2 11383.5 2 1370.89

13.1 7 13.1 7 9.61

37.3 5 37.3 5 26.1 5

AII.23 FR3 PD test 8- DGA data

PD attitude 4000pC Oil Type FR3 Date 18/11/201 1 CO2 441.7 443.3 443.3 443.3 C2H4 6 15.7 15.7 15.7 Oil Volume (ml) 2570.00 Headspace (ml) 0.00 V (V) I (A)

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 18/11/14:4 0 18/11/16:2 5 18/11/18:2 5 18/11/20:2 5

No. 4490 4496 4496 4496

C2H2 21.3 38.7 38.7 38.7

C2H6 4.6 8 8 8

H2 1771. 6 4546. 6 4546. 6 4546. 6

O2 95293.9 90867.1 90867.1 90867.1

CH4 38.9 81.8 81.8 81.8

CO 330 616. 4 616. 4 616. 4

P 12. 2 12. 4 12. 4 12. 4

T 24 24. 2 24. 2 24. 2

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Generation GIT

18/11/14:4 0 18/11/16:2 5 18/11/18:2 5 18/11/20:2 5

4490 4496 4496 4496

565.0 6 575.3 5 575.3 5 575.3 5 575.3 5 10.29

8.37 22.23 22.23 22.23 22.23 13.86

44.82 82.57 82.57 82.57 82.57 37.75

8.14 14.37 14.37 14.37 14.37 6.23

118.8 5 310.4 4 310.4 4 310.4 4 310.4 4 191.5 9

13707.8 1 13308.5 4 13308.5 4 13308.5 4 13308.5 4 (399.26)

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

AII.24 Gemini X 300C thermal test -1 DGA data 150

Test Temperature 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3 Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO

Test 1

Oil Type Mineral

Heating 20 mins CO2 440.80 556.30 521.00 514.30 408.20 477.53 484.40 487.16 483.03 470.30

Oil Headspace Volume (ml) (ml) 25/07/2011 2748.00 3.50 Date C2H4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C2H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

V (V) 0.40 H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

I (A) 261.00 O2 155118.00 CH4 0.00 P T

Time 7/25/11:44 7/25/12:44 7/25/13:44 7/25/14:44 7/25/11:44 7/25/12:44 7/25/13:44 7/25/14:44

No. 3200 3201 3202 3203 3200 3201 3202 3203

11.80 23.80

151366.10 33.50 12.00 31.90 151752.00 36.50 12.10 26.40 152405.00 33.30 12.20 24.80 19187.01 18669.02 19377.88 19565.75 19204.22 19204.22 0.00 10.23 11.72 10.80 10.92 10.92

AII.25 Gemini X 300C thermal test -2 DGA data

Test Temperature 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Oil Headspace Heating Date Volume (ml) (ml) Mineral 20 mins 25/07/2011 2778.00 3.50 Oil Type No. 7/25/14:44 7/25/15:44 3203 3204 CO2 514.30 679.60 C2H4 0.00 0.00 C2H2 0.00 0.00 C2H6 0.00 0.00 V (V) 0.40 H2 0.00 0.00

Test 2

I (A) 261.00 O2 CH4 P 12.20 12.50 T 24.80 36.20

152405.00 33.30 148664.20 97.40

151

Gas in Gas_TM8 2

7/25/16:44

3205

619.40

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

147760.70 99.40

12.50

27.70

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO

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

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 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3 Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Oil Type Mineral No. 7/25/14:44 7/25/18:44 7/25/19:44 7/25/20:44 3203 3207 3208 3209 Oil Headspace Volume (ml) (ml) 2748.00 C2H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 3.50 C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 V (V) 0.40 H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Heating 20 mins CO2 514.30 589.30 581.40 576.90 486.68 590.23 594.81 590.90

Date 25/07/2011 C2H4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

I (A) 261.00 O2 CH4 P 12.20 12.90 13.00 13.10 T 24.80 24.80 24.30 24.20

152405.00 33.30 146967.30 89.80 145649.00 87.90 145468.80 84.90 19425.05 19950.23 20111.56 20093.43 10.77 30.80 30.72 29.69

AII.26 Gemini X 300C thermal test -3 DGA data 152

Test Temperature 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3 Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated

Test 3

Oil Type Mineral

Heating 40 mins CO2 547.20 729.10 708.10 696.40 589.16 757.82 757.80 752.25

Date 26/07/2011 C2H4 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00

Oil Volume (ml) 2742.00 C2H2 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.81

Headspace (ml) 2.00 C2H6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92

V (V) 0.40 H2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

I (A) 265.00 O2 139369.50 138672.70 138120.10 137220.30 20127.01 20005.21 20113.96 20036.48 CH4 68.20 173.20 169.40 160.40 25.03 62.69 62.38 59.36 P 13.80 13.90 13.90 14.00 T 24.30 28.00 26.10 25.30

Time 7/26/12:44 7/26/15:42 7/26/16:42 7/26/17:42 7/26/12:44 7/26/15:42 7/26/16:42 7/26/17:42

No. 3225 3227 3228 3229 3225 3227 3228 3229

AII.26 Gemini X 400C thermal test -1 DGA data

Test Temperature 400.00 Test 1 Oil Type Mineral Heatin g 5min Date 08/02/201 1 C2H4 1.2 480.3 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 Headspace (ml) 10.00 V (V) 1.30 I (A) 600.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1

Time 2/8/14:1 4 2/8/15:1 4

No. 3368 3369

CO2 985.0 1534.5

C2H2 0.0 2.0

C2H6 2.7 64.6

H2 15.1 4350. 7

O2 132161.8 127410.0

CH4 271.8 2471. 1

CO 1285. 9 2093. 0

P 14. 6 14. 7

T 28. 3 43

153

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Generation GIT

2/8/14:1 4 2/8/15:1 4 5min

3368 3369

1071.03 1428.76 357.73

1.63 548.74 547.11

0.00 1.75 1.75

6.22 121.68 115.46

1.10 341.9 8 340.8 8

19924.66 18881.38 (1043.28 )

102.9 7 871.1 5 560.5 6

184.3 2 302.2 0 117.8 7

AII.27 Gemini X 400C thermal test -2 DGA data

Test Temperature 400.00 Test 2 Oil Type Mineral Heating 50s Date 08/02/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 Headspace (ml) 30.00 V (V) 1.30 I (A) 600.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 2/8/15:14 2/8/17:04 2/8/18:04 2/8/19:04

No. 3369 3371 3372 3373

CO2 1534.5 1332.1 1318.7 1292.5

C2H4 480.3 5332.6 5329.5 5395.4

C2H2 2.0 73.2 72.5 72.4

C2H6 64.6 511.8 520.9 529.3

H2 4350.7 33835.6 32886.9 31917.5

O2 127410.0 123776.0 123722.6 123417.2

CH4 2471.1 19656.0 19345.8 19177.1

CO 2093.0 2132.9 2082.3 2052.8

P 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.9

T 43 28.1 27.8 27.9

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT

2/8/15:14 2/8/17:04 2/8/18:04 2/8/19:04

3369 3371 3372 3373

1423.5 1476.2 1466.4 1455.2 1466.0 1414.7

547.1 7382.6 7406.5 7590.4 7459.8 7250.9 6912.7

1.7 76.2 75.7 76.6 76.2 73.3 74.4

121.5 1196.1 1222.7 1257.5 1225.4 1205.1 1104.0

326.9 2855.9 2775.1 2730.2 2787.1 1503.8 2460.1

18440.7 20148.4 20159.8 20376.9 20228.4 15402.4 1787.6

862.6 7720.7 7612.8 7644.4 7659.3 6902.4 4959.7

295.0 331.2 323.5 323.2 325.9 244.4 31.0

50s

42.5

AII.28 Gemini X 400C thermal test -3 DGA data

Test Temperature Test 3 Oil Type Heatin g Date Oil Volume (ml) Headspace (ml) V (V) I (A)

154

400.00

Mineral

16s

08/11/201 1 C2H4 0.8 33.7 34.5 33.9

2732.00

0.00

470-510

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 11/8/9:00 11/8/12:3 0 11/8/13:3 0 11/8/14:3 0

No. 3447 3449 3450 3451

CO2 528.8 550.0 549.7 551.8

C2H2 0.0 3.5 3.8 3.2

C2H6 1.0 3.9 3.8 4.1

H2 0.0 162.2 182.7 177.7

O2 142989. 8 143270. 0 142977. 5 142535. 5

CH4 0.0 128. 3 120. 8 120. 2

CO 49.6 63.5 59.1 61.7

P 15.2 15.0 15.0 15.0

T 24.6 25.9 25.7 25.6

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

11/8/9:00 11/8/12:3 0 11/8/13:3 0 11/8/14:3 0

3447 3449 3450 3451

624.9 631.8 632.9 636.0 633.6 617.7

1.2 48.6 49.9 49.1 49.2 48.2 48.0 47.0

0.0 3.8 4.1 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.7

2.5 9.6 9.3 10.1 9.7 9.6 7.1 7.0

0.0 12.1 13.7 13.3 13.0 8.0 13.0 8.0

22721.8 22369.2 22338.4 22276.8 22328.1 18220.0 (393.7) (321.3)

0.0 50.7 47.8 47.6 48.7 45.1 48.7 45.1

7.4 9.4 8.7 9.1 9.1 7.3 1.6 1.3

16s 16s

8.7 8.3

AII.29 FR3 300C thermal test -1 DGA data

Test Temperature 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Time 7/27/13:45 Test 1 Oil Type FR3 No. 3245 Heating 90 mins CO2 634.5 Date 27/07/2011 C2H4 0.6 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 C2H2 0.0 Headspace (ml) 0.00 C2H6 35.0 V (V) 0.40 H2 67.8 I (A) 260 O2 101867.9 CH4 46.7 CO 595.6 P 15 T 28.6

155

Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

7/27/17:40 7/27/18:40 7/27/19:40

3247 3248 3249

930.5 905.8 892.7

1.8 2.2 2.3

0.5 0.0 0.0

78.4 75.0 74.4

212.2 193.0 201.3

101656.7 101852.0 102321.6

145.5 138.3 139.8

1647.5 1618.7 1595.3

14.7 14.7 14.7

30 28.4 27.8

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

7/27/13:45 7/27/17:40 7/27/18:40 7/27/19:40

3245 3247 3248 3249

956.10 1357.03 1340.01 1327.77 1341.60 1316.24

0.99 2.89 3.58 3.75 3.41 3.35 2.41 2.37

0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

73.13 158.62 153.84 153.41 155.29 153.17 82.16 81.04

5.65 17.51 15.75 16.35 16.54 10.90 10.89 7.18

18565.29 18377.44 18159.59 18148.34 18228.46 15385.39 (336.84) (279.73)

17.82 54.35 51.72 52.30 52.79 48.85 25.52 32.36

86.07 234.05 229.13 225.50 229.56 184.37 143.49 115.26

90 mins 90 mins

385.50 378.20

AII.30 FR3 300C thermal test -2 DGA data

Test Temperature 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3 Time 7/28/08:40 7/28/16:00 7/28/17:00 7/28/18:00 Test 2 Oil Type FR3 No. 3262 3264 3265 3266 Heating 3h CO2 810.8 1274.3 1181.9 1134.8 Date 28/07/2011 C2H4 1.4 3.5 3.5 3.1 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 C2H2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 Headspace (ml) 0.00 C2H6 65.6 118.3 109.6 106.7 V (V) 0.40 H2 97.4 347.7 304.8 318.4 I (A) 253.00 O2 106522.6 93579.0 93789.1 93898.3 CH4 115.8 201.1 196.0 181.2 CO 1281.1 2653.0 2631.3 2559.1 P 15.1 14.7 14.6 14.7 T 26.6 36.1 30.9 29.1

Gas in total calculated

7/28/08:40

3262

1252.26

2.37

0.00

140.40

8.06

19205.16

44.54

185.51

156

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

7/28/16:00 7/28/17:00 7/28/18:00

3264 3265 3266

1761.89 1698.33 1668.30 1709.51 1676.57

5.38 5.55 5.01 5.31 5.22 2.95 2.89

0.88 0.93 0.72 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83

227.36 218.55 217.55 221.15 218.08 80.75 79.58

29.98 25.15 26.11 27.08 18.17 19.02 12.93

17816.48 16970.65 16843.42 17210.19 14629.39 (1994.98) (1502.49)

74.77 72.67 67.73 71.72 66.42 19.83 25.22

381.98 372.02 362.82 372.27 300.31 186.77 151.77

3h 3h

457.25 447.71

AII.31 FR3 300C thermal test -3 DGA data

Test Temperature 300.00 Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Time 7/29/09:00 7/29/14:38 7/29/15:38 Test 3 Oil Type FR3 No. 3281 3282 3283 Heating 3h CO2 984.1 1250.1 1195.8 Date 29/07/2011 C2H4 2.7 3.9 3.4 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 C2H2 0.0 0.6 0.0 Headspace (ml) 0.00 C2H6 90.7 118.2 113.1 V (V) 0.40 H2 156.0 364.9 366.0 I (A) 250.00 O2 101624.1 94373.1 94607.8 CH4 144.3 196.9 190.1 CO 1989.7 3100.8 3078.8 P 15 14.6 14.5 T 27.1 31 28.1

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

7/27/13:45 7/27/17:40 7/27/18:40

3281 3282 3283

1503.04 1794.75 1749.67 1772.21 1738.54

4.52 6.18 5.46 5.82 5.72 1.30 1.28

0.00 1.39 0.00 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.69

191.99 235.50 229.43 232.46 229.28 40.47 39.88

12.87 30.13 29.39 29.76 19.70 16.89 11.30

18280.48 17090.98 16595.16 16843.07 14241.80 (1437.41) (1130.99)

55.12 72.99 70.14 71.57 66.24 12.00 15.25

286.53 438.50 429.58 434.04 348.98 147.50 119.37

3h 3h

269.17 263.66

157

AII.32 FR3 400C thermal test -1 DGA data

Test Temperature 400.00 Test 1 Oil Type FR3 Heating 1.5h Date 29/07/201 1 C2H4 3.4 18.5 17.4 17.5 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 Headspac e (ml) 1.00 V (V) 0.54 I (A) 298.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background 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

No. 3283 3285 3286 3287

CO2 1195.8 1983.8 1863.0 1818.8

C2H2 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.6

C2H6 113.1 276.0 264.2 261.1

H2 366.0 1898.7 1769.5 1640.1

O2 94607.8 72424.4 73437.4 74465.0

CH4 190.1 463.4 446.1 438.1

CO 3078.8 6298.5 6180.5 6039.3

P 14.5 14 14.1 14.2

T 28.1 38.8 30.3 27.3

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

7/29/15:3 8 7/29/19:1 5 7/29/20:0 0 7/29/21:0 0

3283 3285 3286 3287

1749.67 2553.37 2599.79 2625.64 2592.93 2542.35

5.46 26.59 26.76 27.70 27.02 26.54 21.55 21.17

0.00 1.22 0.68 1.41 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.09

229.43 494.16 511.49 522.40 509.35 502.20 279.92 275.88

29.39 159.60 141.00 128.82 143.14 95.77 113.75 76.47

16595.16 13454.25 12792.42 12728.96 12991.88 11022.81 (3603.28) (2964.33)

70.14 163.91 159.95 158.54 160.80 148.77 66.16 83.87

429.58 870.73 844.89 825.83 847.15 681.75 417.57 337.04

1.5h 1.5h

843.26 825.65

AII.33 FR3 400C thermal test -2 DGA data

Oil Volume (ml)

Test Temperature

Test 2

Oil Type

Heating

Date

Headspace (ml)

V (V)

I (A)

158

400.00

FR3

3h

08/01/2011

2732.00

1.00

0.60

310.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 01/08/9:00 01/08/17:36 01/08/19:07 01/08/20:07

No. 3346 3348 3350 3351

CO2 1161.2 3005.8 2790.0 2726.9

C2H4 10.7 47.8 45.5 44.5

C2H2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9

C2H6 170.6 596.6 563.1 554.1

H2 130.5 3224.1 2999.3 2811.1

O2 114811.6 58617.9 61838.6 63327.8

CH4 187.9 799.6 764.7 742.5

CO 2469.7 9825.8 9543.2 9290.6

P 14.9 13.7 13.9 13.9

T 27 33.2 30 29.3

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

01/08/9:00 01/08/17:36 01/08/19:07 01/08/20:07

3346 3348 3350 3351

1763.3 3972.8 3848.4 3784.9 3848.4

17.8 69.9 69.1 67.9 69.5 67.8 51.3 50.3

0.0 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.8 1.3

359.0 1095.0 1077.5 1066.6 1086.2 1064.6 718.4 710.4

10.7 254.8 235.1 219.2 245.0 156.9 224.4 150.0

20497.1 10169.5 10591.8 10781.7 10380.7 8896.3 (9905.2) (8336.6)

71.3 278.0 270.4 262.6 274.2 250.0 145.3 184.1

353.2 1313.5 1285.2 1249.2 1299.4 1030.5 932.0 747.5

Heating 3h 1.5h

3793.7 2085.1 2063.5

AII.34 FR3 500C thermal test -1 DGA data

Test Temperature 500.00 Test 1 Oil Type FR3 Heating 20mins Date 08/04/201 1 C2H4 16.9 115.0 111.3 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 Headspace (ml) 11.00 V (V) 1.6 I (A) 393

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8Background 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

No. 3392 3396 3397

CO2 352.9 1292.2 1242.8

C2H2 0.0 0.0 0.6

C2H6 18.2 434.3 419.2

H2 270.2 1189.5 1118.0

O2 143295.7 99915.7 100357.5

CH4 27.2 588.3 564.2

CO 133.7 5819.8 5661.5

P 10.7 11 11.2

T 28.6 31.6 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

11.3

29.6

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

4/8/09:4 0 4/8/14:2 0 4/8/15:2 0 4/8/16:2 0

3392 3396 3397 3398

379.3 1394.2 1382.2 1369.5 1382.0 1351.9 1

20.0 137.0 136.4 136.4 136.6 133.89 116.6 114.27

0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.35

27.1 649.9 646.4 645.0 647.1 636.92 620.0 610.17

16.1 77.8 73.8 70.6 74.1 47.02 58.0 36.44

18629.0 13998.3 14149.9 14293.4 14147.2 11729.59 (4481.8) (3989.31 )

7.4 166.0 162.3 161.6 163.3 149.56 113.7 142.71

13.8 638.1 630.2 615.9 628.0 491.89 614.3 480.83

20mins 20mins

1002.7 979.75

AII.35 FR3 500C thermal test -2 DGA data

Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00

Test Temperature

Test 2

Oil Type FR3

Heating

Date

Headspace (ml) 16.00

V (V)

I (A)

500.00

30mins

08/05/2011

1.70

424.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 05/08/9:30 05/08/16:00 05/08/17:00 05/08/18:00

No. 3401 3403 3404 3405

CO2 1029.7 2053.2 1894.2 1791.0

C2H4 89.2 175.4 162.8 154.7

C2H2 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.0

C2H6 334.6 664.0 621.1 591.9

H2 519.6 1229.5 1144.1 1019.0

O2 119299.5 84681.5 86843.8 89805.0

CH4 411.3 899.9 846.4 800.7

CO 4089.8 8398.9 7944.3 7491.9

P 12 13.6 14.2 14.7

T 28.2 31 28.7 28

160

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

05/08/9:30 05/08/16:00 05/08/17:00 05/08/18:00

3401 3403 3404 3405

1245.75 2756.77 2710.25 2669.49 2712.17 2650.29

118.51 259.71 255.92 253.04 256.22 250.91 137.72 134.43

1.38 0.65 1.62 0.00 0.76 0.75 (0.62) (0.61)

561.25 1235.84 1230.98 1221.77 1229.53 1209.28 668.28 655.67

34.56 101.10 96.77 88.82 95.56 59.01 61.01 36.30

17333.41 14736.05 15482.25 16477.77 15565.36 12739.52 (1768.05) (1873.13)

125.58 315.55 310.43 304.18 310.05 282.58 134.61 166.38

472.36 1151.07 1131.48 1103.03 1128.53 871.44 656.16 492.35

30mins 30mins

1466.42 1428.03

AII.36 FR3 600C thermal test -1 DGA data

Test Temperature 600.00 Test 1 Oil Type FR3 Heating 1.5min Date 08/08/2011 Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00 Headspace (ml) 7.00 V (V) 2.9 I (A) 550

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2 Gas in Gas_TM8 3

Time 8/8/13:26 8/8/16:09 8/8/17:09 8/8/18:09

No. 3407 3411 3412 3413

CO2 770.1 1044.3 1021.7 1007.2

C2H4 3.8 150.1 144.7 140.7

C2H2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.6

C2H6 27.4 152.5 148.1 145.0

H2 0.0 447.4 423.8 408.4

O2 114493.1 108238.4 108680.6 109239.2

CH4 7.1 492.3 463.7 459.3

CO 383.2 2231.0 2167.2 2081.2

P 10.2 10.7 10.8 11

T 27.1 27 26.8 26.7

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT

8/8/13:26 8/8/16:09 8/8/17:09 8/8/18:09

3407 3411 3412 3413

799.81 1140.72 1128.50 1134.11 1134.45 1111.34

4.33 179.67 175.08 173.52 176.09 172.82 171.77

0.00 0.00 1.44 1.10 0.85 0.84 0.85

39.44 230.76 226.59 226.15 227.83 224.48 188.39

0.00 27.13 25.91 25.41 26.15 16.53 26.15

14004.87 14077.56 14242.72 14568.53 14296.27 11843.12 291.40

1.84 135.06 128.42 129.57 131.01 120.37 94.26

37.53 233.27 228.62 223.56 228.48 179.77 190.96

90s

334.64

161

Generation GIO

90s

326.51

168.57

0.84

185.57

16.53

65.86

118.67

149.70

AII.37 FR3 600C thermal test -2 DGA data

Oil Volume (ml) 2732.00

Test Temperature

Test 2

Oil Type FR3

Heating

Date

Headspace (ml) 10.00

V (V) 2.90

I (A)

600.00

1.5min

08/09/2011

554.00

Gas Type Gas in Gas_TM8-Background Gas in Gas_TM8 1 Gas in Gas_TM8 2

Time 09/08/12:10 09/08/14:15 09/08/15:15

No. 3415 3417 3418

CO2 636.1 880.9 859.2

C2H4 31.9 137.5 132.9

C2H2 0.7 1.0 0.9

C2H6 38.8 137.2 134.0

H2 15.0 294.1 297.5

O2 138702.4 132446.7 132014.7

CH4 45.8 392.2 378.4

CO 267.7 1700.3 1600.6

P 13.8 13.8 13.9

T 34.3 34.7 34.5

Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Gas in total calculated Average GIT Average GIO Generation GIT Generation GIO

05/08/9:30 05/08/16:00 05/08/17:00

3415 3417 3418

838.59 1160.23 1141.83 1151.03 1151.03

46.64 200.92 195.89 198.40 198.40 151.76 152.58

1.48 2.10 1.91 2.01 2.01 0.53 0.55

71.06 250.89 247.23 249.06 249.06 178.00 179.00

1.20 24.55 24.98 24.77 24.77 23.57 23.95

24418.68 23837.73 23892.89 23865.31 23865.31 (553.38) 3012.22

16.01 138.36 134.48 136.42 136.42 87.86 121.59

36.04 234.80 222.54 228.67 228.67 192.63 199.51

90s 90s

312.44 328.79

AII.38 Gemini X sparking tests energy

BD number BD 1 BD 2 BD 3

test 1

lf number Energy(J) hf number WASCO0144 1.68 Xiao0866 WASCO0145 1.85 WASCO0146 1.36

Energy(J) 0.00

162

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 WASCO0171 WASCO0172 WASCO0173 WASCO0174 WASCO0175 WASCO0176

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 1.17 1.76 1.75 1.78 1.47 1.69

XIAO0875 XIAO0876 XIAO0877 XIAO0878 XIAO0879 XIAO0880 XIAO0881 XIAO0882 XIAO0883 XIAO0884 XIAO0885 XIAO0886 XIAO0887 XIAO0888 XIAO0889 XIAO0890 XIAO0891 XIAO0892 XIAO0893 XIAO0894

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 0.95 1.82 1.81 1.89 1.55 1.90

163

test 4

test 5

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 WASCO0186 WASCO0187 WASCO0188 WASCO0189 WASCO0190 WASCO0191 WASCO0192 WASCO0193 WASCO0194 WASCO0195 WASCO0196 WASCO0197 WASCO0198 WASCO0199 WASCO0200 WASCO0201 WASCO0202 WASCO0203 WASCO0204 WASCO0205 WASCO0206 WASCO0207 WASCO0208 WASCO0209

1.76 5.13 1.71 1.45 1.54 1.80 1.72 1.82 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

XIAO0895 XIAO0896 XIAO0897 XIAO0898 XIAO0899 XIAO0900 XIAO0901 XIAO0902 XIAO0903 XIAO0904 XIAO0905 XIAO0906 XIAO0907 XIAO0908 XIAO0909 XIAO0910 XIAO0911 XIAO0912 XIAO0913 XIAO0914 XIAO0915 XIAO0916 XIAO0917 XIAO0918 XIAO0919 XIAO0920 XIAO0921 XIAO0922 XIAO0923 XIAO0924 XIAO0925 XIAO0926

1.89 1.94 1.91 1.45 1.60 1.87 1.75 2.11 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

164

BD 10 BD 11 BD 12 BD 13 BD 14 BD 15

WASCO0210 WASCO0211 WASCO0212 WASCO0213 WASCO0214 WASCO0215

1.74 1.70 1.70 1.81 1.66 1.74

XIAO0927 XIAO0928 XIAO0929 XIAO0930 XIAO0931 XIAO0932

1.85 1.80 2.03 1.70 1.94 1.90

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

Energy(J) hf number 1.78 XIAO0742 XIAO0743 XIAO0744 1.63 XIAO0745 1.47 XIAO0746 1.74 XIAO0747 1.67 XIAO0748 1.48 XIAO0749

Energy(J) 1.22 1.27 1.22 1.30 1.16 1.34 1.29 1.13

4.04 1.59 1.59 1.75 1.61 1.70 1.63 1.62

XIAO0750 XIAO0751 XIAO0752 XIAO0753 XIAO0754 XIAO0755 XIAO0756 XIAO0757

1.14 1.26 1.29 1.28 1.22 1.34 1.26 1.34 165

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

166

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 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 AII.41 Gemini X PD test -2 energy 2000pc Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy 168 58kV

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

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

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 AII.42 Gemini X PD test -3 energy
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

0.043686 0.031954

0.131333 0.169526 0.325465 0.168418 0.274273 0.53815 0.001045

0.957189 2.695214 0.003409

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

AII.43 Gemini X PD test -4 energy 169

4000pc 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 PD number below 1000 PD number from 1000 to 2000 PD number from 2000 to 3000 PD number from 3000 to 4000 PD number from 4000 to 5000 PD number from 5000 to 6000

58kV 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 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) 34kV 5min 1071.79 1702 0.457662 12min 1127.38 2177 0.636786 25min 1235.08 1386 0.534047 50min 1266.34 959 0.41160 7 61min 1339.3 889 0.39141 5 95min 1200.33 826 0.36325 6 116min 1231.6 722 0.33288 1 125min 1266.34 757 0.35101 141min 1224.65 666 0.32201 6 156min 1224.65 511 0.25007 5 176min 1318.46 546 0.27449 8

170

PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 Energy from 1000 to 2000 1000pc-1 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 Energy from 1000 to 2000

0.000011 0.027267 0.027168 0.0001 34kV 191min 1308.03 500 0.248928 0.000006 0.014796 0.011737 0.00306

0.000015 0.038067 0.037525 0.000543 210min 1228.13 570 0.285772 0.000006 0.017003 0.013617 0.003387

0.000012 0.031893 0.030285 0.001608 261min 1255.92 438 0.229005 0.000005 0.01363 0.010587 0.003043

0.00000 9 0.02453 2 0.02163 0.00290 1 281min 1255.92 498 0.24823 1 0.00000 6 0.01480 4 0.01212 1 0.00268 3

0.00000 9 0.02339 1 0.02040 4 0.00298 7 296min 1297.61 441 0.22833 4 0.00000 5 0.01364 5 0.01035 8 0.00328 7

0.00000 8 0.02174 4 0.01911 6 0.00262 8 310min 1269.82 488 0.25201 6 0.00000 6 0.01507 6 0.01186 8 0.00320 8

0.00000 7 0.01986 6 0.01649 9 0.00336 8 341min 1276.77 448 0.23712 4 0.00000 5 0.01418 9 0.01097 5 0.00321 4

0.00000 8 0.02088 5 0.01813 0.00275 6 357min 1314.98 476 0.23345 5 0.00000 5 0.01373 6 0.01139 0.00234 7

0.00000 7 0.01931 4 0.01552 5 0.00378 9 372min 1262.87 485 0.24800 6 0.00000 6 0.01477 1 0.01177 8 0.00299 3

0.00000 6 0.01501 0.01261 6 0.00239 4 390min 1321.93 474 0.26017 1 0.00000 6 0.01450 2 0.01071 6 0.00378 6

0.00000 6 0.01639 3 0.01238 8 0.00400 5

AII.45 FR3 PD test -2 energy

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

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

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

AII.46 FR3 PD test -3 energy

2000pc-1 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 44kV 1min
2193.9 5 846 0.7896 97 0.0000 14

16min
2076.1 1 760 0.7045 29 0.0000 13

31min
2089.9 8 674 0.6288 6 0.0000 11

46min
2270.2 1 680 0.6144 38 0.0000 11

61min
2089.9 8 698 0.6392 45 0.0000 12

76min
2166.2 3 562 0.5227 78 0.0000 1

91min
2076.1 1 694 0.6175 14 0.0000 11

106mi n
2270.2 1 776 0.6894 08 0.0000 12

121mi n
2103.8 4 638 0.5721 35 0.0000 1

136mi n
1992.9 3 651 0.5664 72 0.0000 1

151mi n
2058.7 8 791 0.6830 62 0.0000 12

166mi n
2311.8 802 0.6927 68 0.0000 12

181mi n
2166.2 3 912 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

172

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

AII.47 FR3 PD test -4 energy

2000pc-2 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 Energy from 1000 to 2000 Energy from 2000 to 3000 44kV 1min 2207.8 2 949 0.9262 83 0.0000 17 0.0550 26 0.0217 0.0329 63 0.0003 62 16min 2242.4 8 949 0.8613 69 0.0000 16 0.0516 15 0.0254 78 0.0259 9 0.0001 47 31min 2166.2 3 889 0.8235 89 0.0000 15 0.0492 24 0.0225 26 0.0263 32 0.0003 66 46min 2291 884 0.8132 85 0.0000 15 0.0484 4 0.0229 89 0.0252 15 0.0002 36 61min 2089.9 8 825 0.7627 0.0000 14 0.0453 28 0.0208 81 0.0244 19 0.0000 29 76min 2079.5 8 983 0.8152 38 0.0000 15 0.0497 04 0.0272 13 0.0222 52 0.0002 4 91min 2145.4 3 969 0.8332 14 0.0000 15 0.0493 85 0.0266 64 0.0224 22 0.0002 98 106min 2270.2 1 911 0.8140 92 0.0000 14 0.0482 39 0.0237 37 0.0243 07 0.0001 95 121min 2055.3 2 856 0.7778 19 0.0000 14 0.0461 7 0.0217 3 0.0243 37 0.0001 04 151min 2187.0 2 1009 0.8459 42 0.0000 15 0.0514 5 0.0274 05 0.0239 19 0.0001 26 165min 2367.2 5 1027 0.8646 91 0.0000 15 0.0520 64 0.0289 59 0.0227 33 0.0003 73 181min 2270.2 1 1040 0.8623 73 0.0000 15 0.0508 91 0.0286 05 0.0221 24 0.0001 61 196min 2138.5 1019 0.8361 48 0.0000 15 0.0500 61 0.0289 97 0.0208 56 0.0002 08 235min 2155.8 3 994 0.8372 86 0.0000 15 0.0507 09 0.0276 31 0.0229 68 0.0001 1

AII.48 FR3 PD test -5 energy 3000pc-1 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 Energy from 1000 to 2000

57kV 1min 3028.99 6388 6.542552 0.000099 0.390106 0.271986 0.081202

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

Energy from 2000 to 3000 Energy from 3000 to 4000 AII.49 FR3 PD test -6 energy
3000pc-2 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 Energy from 1000 to 2000 Energy from 2000 to 3000 Energy from 3000 to 4000

0.03686 0.041724 0.039785 0.03551 0.03552 0.000058 0.00074 0.000773 0.001481 0.003442

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

AII.50 FR3 PD test -7 energy

3000pc-3 Time PD Attitude PD number Power(mW) PD current Energy(J) Energy below 1000 Energy from 1000 to 2000 Energy from 2000 to 3000 Energy from 3000 to 4000 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

174

AII.51 FR3 PD test -8 energy

4000pc-2 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 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 Gas-in-oil (ppm) C2H6 H2 3.0 80.4 3 59 99.84% 73.43%

CO2 513.4 592 115.31%

C2H4 24.0 19 79.08%

C2H2 197.3 151 76.52%

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 Laboratory sample 1 Laboratory sample2 Laboratory average Laboratory / TM8

498 1035 820 928 186.31%

12 17 13 15 125.35%

41 44 27 36 86.98%

12 10 7 9 71.07%

46 58 57 58 124.14%

18118 20819 20206 20513 113.22%

23 24 19 22 91.55%

9 10 9 10 105.69%

AII.54 Thermal test laboratory comparison Oil type Mineral TM8 sample Laboratory sample 1 Laboratory sample2 Laboratory average Laboratory / TM8 CO2 1163.82 1058 933 995.5 85.54% C 2 H4 6149.45 6798 5889 6343.5 103.16% C2H2 58.56 67 55 61 104.17% Gas-in-oil(ppm) C2H6 1060.74 961 836 898.5 84.70% H2 945.86 928 924 926 97.90% O2 14751.58 29506 20823 25164.5 170.59% CH4 2956.23 4033 3614 3823.5 129.34% CO 186.84 99 77 88 47.10%

176