Continuous Online Oil Quality

Monitoring

By

Oleg Roizman
Collin Feely
SECOND PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 2 of 20

 CONTINUOUS ONLINE OIL QUALITY MONITORING
Oleg Roizman, IntellPower
Collin Feely, PowerCor

Abstract

The monitoring of transformer oil quality plays a vital role in overall transformer health
assessment. Apart from being an insulator and a coolant, oil is also an information carrier.
That information could be related to a condition of another critically important component -
cellulose, affecting overall transformer performance and its insulation life span.

There are some physical and chemical parameters that characterise oil quality. Among these
are dielectric loss factor, conductance, resistivity, viscosity, oil chemical composition, colour,
acidity, interfacial tension, moisture, and particle content, to name a few. When properly
measured these parameters can form the basis for an integrated diagnosis of oil condition.

Currently, it is not feasible to monitor all the above mentioned parameters online. The
authors of this paper are taking up the challenge of introducing a monitoring solution that
offers a continuous online determination of insulating liquid condition in the operating
transformer.

The method uses an advanced approach to monitoring of moisture in oil, and is based on
fundamental properties of water-in-oil solubility. It is well known that the solubility of water
in oil changes as the oil deteriorates and becomes service-aged. Thus by measuring water
solubility parameters and observing the change, one can relate this change to the oil state
and its quality characteristics.

The authors of this paper have proposed and implemented a novel method, which allows a
determination of changing water solubility characteristics, true absolute water content in
mg/kg, oil quality in the form of Oil Quality Index (OQI), and dielectric breakdown voltage, all
measured and determined by one single monitor.

Some case studies, demonstrating the practical application of the proposed methodology,
are presented along with a comparative analysis of the results.

Introduction

Both international standards, IEC 60422:20131 and IEEE C57.106-20152, offer guidance on
the acceptance, supervision and maintenance of the quality of the insulating oil in electrical
equipment. These International Standards are applicable to mineral insulating oils in
transformers, switchgear and other electrical apparatus where oil sampling is reasonably
practicable, and where the normal operating conditions listed in the equipment
specifications apply. These International Standards are intended to assist the power
equipment operator in evaluating the condition of the oil and maintaining it in a serviceable
condition. The standards include recommendations on tests and evaluation procedures, and
outline methods for reconditioning and reclaiming oil. Also included are recommended
values for the key oil quality parameters. Comparing the two standards, one can see a
number of inconsistencies, mostly outlined in a research paper3.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 3 of 20

The authors of the research3 made the following observation:

“Notwithstanding the ease of comparison to recommended values, doubts still persist

on the validity of the recommended values. There is a lack of statistical backup or
explicit information on how those values were determined. It is still an open question
as to whether the typical value ranges were formed based on substantial technical
arguments, economic reasons or international experience”. And further: “One thing
that can be certain is that wrong classification of transformer condition could induce
serious consequences regarding unnecessary maintenance expenses or severe
penalty incurred for reduced quality of electricity supply due to transformer failure.”

There is a long list of questions as to the validity and scientific evidence, or lack of it, in
relation to various oil quality parameters, but first let us take a closer look at major oil
quality indicators.

Oil Quality Characteristics

The quality of insulation oil is normally monitored offline by taking a sample and processing
it in the laboratory environments per the above mentioned standards1,2. Measured values
are then compared to the limits in Table 1 through Table 4 to interpret the results.

Table 1
IEC recommended limits for mineral insulating oil after
filling in new electrical equipment as related to oil quality

Limits for Highest Voltage for equipment (kV)

Voltage range < 72.5 72.5 – 170 > 170
Colour (on scale given in ISO 2049) Max. 2.0 Max 2.0 Max. 2.0
Breakdown voltage (kV) 2.5 mm gap >55 >60 >60
Water content (mg/kg) 20 <10 <10
Acidity (mg KOH/g) Max. 0.03 Max. 0.03 Max. 0.03
Dielectric dissipation factor at 90 °C and Max. 0.015 Max. 0.015 Max. 0.010
40 Hz to 60 Hz
Interfacial tension (mN/m) Min. 35 Min. 35 Min. 35

Table 2
IEEE recommended limits for mineral Insulating oil after
filling in new electrical equipment as related to oil quality

Limits for Highest Voltage for equipment (kV)

Voltage range < 69 69 – 230 > 230
Colour Max. 1.0 Max 1.0 Max. 0.5
Breakdown voltage (kV) 2 mm gap >45 >55 >60
Water content (mg/kg) max <20 <10 <10
Acidity (mg KOH/g) Max. 0.03 Max. 0.03 Max. 0.03
Dielectric dissipation factor at 100 °C and Max. 0.4 Max. 0.4 Max. 0.3
40 Hz to 60 Hz
Interfacial tension (mN/m) Min. 38 Min. 38 Min. 38

Table 3
IEC classification of quality for in-service mineral oil by key indicators

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 4 of 20

 Condition Classification
Oil Test Parameter Voltage Class
Good Fair Poor

Dielectric Dissipation Factor, DDF (40 – 60 > 170 kV < 0.10 0.10 – 0.20 > 0.20
Hz at 90 ° C) < 170 kV < 0.10 0.10 – 0.50 > 0.50
> 170 kV > 60 50 – 60 < 50
Breakdown Voltage, BDV (2.5 mm
72.5 – 170 kV > 50 40 – 50 < 40
electrode gap)
< 72.5 kV > 40 30 – 40 < 30
> 170 kV < 0.10 0.10 – 0.15 > 0.15
Neutralization Number (Acidity)
72.5 – 170 kV < 0.10 0.10 – 0.20 > 0.20
(mg KOH / g oil)
< 72.5 kV < 0.15 0.15 – 0.30 > 0.30
> 170 kV < 15 15 – 20 > 20
Water (mg H2O / kg oil at transformer
72.5 – 170 kV < 20 20 – 30 > 30
operating temperature)
< 72.5 kV < 30 30 – 40 > 40
All (Inhibited) > 28 22 – 28 < 22
Interfacial Tension, IFT (mN / m)
All (Uninhibited) > 25 20 – 25 < 20
Colour per ISO 2049 All <2 >2

Table 4
IEEE recommended limits for continued use of in-service mineral oil

Value for voltage class

Test and method
≤69 kV >69 – <230 kV ≥230 kV

Dielectric breakdown voltage per

ASTM D1816 kV minimum
1 mm gap 23 28 30
2 mm gap 40 47 50
Dissipation factor (power factor) 5.0 5.0 5.0
ASTM D924
100 º C, % maximum
Interfacial tension ASTM D971 25 30 32
mN/m minimum
Neutralization number (acidity)
ASTM D974 0.20 0.15 0.10
mg KOH/g maximum
Water content
ASTM D1533 35 25 20
mg/kg maximum (ppm)
Colour per ASTM D1500 1.0 1.0 0.5

The IEEE recommendations do not differentiate the limits for in service oil into three classes
as is suggested in its IEC counterpart. This implies that values beyond the limits are
considered to be unacceptable (not recommended) according to the IEEE standard, while
the same parameters could be “fair” according to IEC.

The Dielectric Dissipation Factor per IEEE is in the order of magnitude larger than it is in the
IEC standard. IEC does not differentiate IFT for different voltage classes. On the other hand,
the IEEE Guide has substantial variations (5 – 32 mN/m) depending on voltage class. There is
a large difference between the limits for oil colour.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 5 of 20

According to the IEEE Guide the limit for acidity in the low voltage of HV range equipment is
0.2 mg KOH/g while the IEC limit has a considerably more relaxed value of 0.3 mg KOH/g.

Water concentration in oil is clearly made dependent on voltage level, implying that the oil
dielectric property such as DBV is affected. It was proven and reported in various research
publications4,5,6 that water concentration (ppm) is not the right parameter to relate
moisture in oil to the dielectric integrity of the liquid insulation. Rather water relative
saturation is the appropriate parameter for that purpose, although relative water saturation
is not even considered in the main body of the documents. Notwithstanding that the IEEE
C57.106 introduces a relationship between DBV (dielectric breakdown voltage) and %rS
(relative saturation) in Annex B, it is only informative leaving WCO as the only indicator for
the limit.

It appears that there is no consensus among North American and European communities on
most of the oil quality parameters. An extensive literature search has not returned any
evidence about how these limits were obtained, or what the scientific foundation for these
limits is.

Water-in-Oil Solubility as Oil Quality Parameter

Water-in-oil solubility is not part of the oil quality characteristics specified in the standard
tests and oil maintenance guidelines. However, we are going to demonstrate that this is one
of the most sensitive indicators revealing signs of deterioration of insulating oil, from the
very early stage to its complete degradation.

Water-in-oil solubility is the maximum concentration of water that can exist in mineral oil at
thermodynamic equilibrium at specified temperature and pressure. This definition is
adopted from IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry)
recommendations7. Mathematically water-in-oil solubility can be approximated by the
frequently used formula8,9:

𝐵 𝐵
ln 𝑊 ∗ = 𝐴 − 𝑜𝑟 𝑊 ∗ = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (𝐴 − ) (1)
𝑇 𝑇

where W* is the water-in-oil solubility in mg/kg, also known as the water in oil saturation
limit, A and B are experimentally determined coefficients, and T is the thermodynamic
temperature. It is interesting to note that contrary to popular belief Eq 1 is not an Arrhenius
type equation, but a direct integration of Van’t Hoff equation ∂ ln (W*)/∂(1/T) = -∆H/ R.

As will be shown below, this Van’t Hoff equation is useful for the determination of enthalpy
change as a result of dissolution of water in oil.

It has been demonstrated by much research 10 and reported in a CIGRE technical brochure11
that water-in-oil solubility does not remain constant over the life of a transformer. Its
temperature dependent characteristic changes so that the water solubility increases as the
oil deteriorates (Figure 1). The fact that water is more soluble in service-aged oil can be
explained by the decrease in the heat energy required to dissolve water in oil.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 6 of 20

 Figure 1
Water-in-oil solubility for new and severely aged oil

Water-in-oil solubility is a critical parameter when it comes to the determination of absolute

water content as described in Eq. 2.

𝑟𝑆
𝑊= × 𝑊∗, (2)
100

where W is the absolute water content in oil in mg/kg (ppm) and rS is the relative water
content as measured by a moisture sensor and expressed in percentage.

It can be shown that Eq. (1) is a representation of the fundamental thermodynamic

equation (3)
∆𝐻 ∆𝑆
ln 𝑊 ∗ = − + , (3)
𝑅𝑇 𝑅

where ΔH and ΔS are changes in enthalpy and entropy of water dissolving in oil. R is a
universal gas constant. The enthalpy here is the heat energy required to dissolve a certain
amount of water in a certain amount of oil, and is measured in kJ/mol.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 7 of 20

Indeed, assuming that ΔH and ΔS are independent of temperature in the transformer
operating range and substituting ΔS/R and ΔH/R with A and B respectively, Eq. (3) becomes
Eq. (1).

The enthalpy of water-in-oil solution can be determined from the well-known Clausius-
Clapeyron Equation:

 a  H  1 1 
ln  w1      (4)
 w2 
a R  T2 T1 

where aw1 and aw2 are water-in-oil thermodynamic activities at respective temperatures T1
and T2.

Rearanging Eq. 4 to find ΔH yelds:

 a  T T 
H  R ln  w1  1 2  (5)
 aw2  T1  T2 

It could be seen from (5) that the four parameters have to be known to determine ΔH. The
change in enthalpy of water-in-oil solution is an important parameter as it is directly related
to the solubility coefficient B in (1). Therefore, with reference to Figure 2, by continuously
calculating the enthalpy per (5) with the assistance of the algorithm, schematically shown in
Figure 3, it is possible to trace oil quality online.

The water activity is not readily available and can only be determined when a transformer is
in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is nearly never the case. However, by
continuously estimating water content in two locations as depicted in Figure 2, it becomes
possible to determine ΔH by measuring rS and T at the bottom and top oil levels, provided
there is a temperature difference between the top and bottom oil levels.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 8 of 20

 Upper probe

rSto
Wto   exp( A  B Tto )
100

Lower probe
rSbo
Wbo   exp( A  B Tbo )
100

Figure 2
Oil Quality Monitor comprising dual probe moisture/temperature sensors

As depicted in Figure 2 concentrations at the top and bottom oil levels can be expressed as
Wto and Wbo respectively.

Assuming that water content in the lower cooler pipe is equal to water content in the upper
cooler pipe for any given moment of time, the solubility coefficient B can be determined by
equating Wto.to Wbo.as:

 rS  T T 
B  ln  to  to bo  (6)
 rSbo  Tto  Tbo 

This equation is valid for each moment of time including non-equilibrium conditions.
Comparing Eq. 6 to Eq. 5 yields:

∆𝐻 = −𝐵 × 𝑅 (7)
-1 -1
While R is a gas constant = 8.3145 J mol K , the B coefficient is not a constant and will
experience change due to a change of oil chemical composition over time.

The B coefficient can be found by solving the optimization problem of minimizing a

mismatch between two series of top and bottom water content measurements during a
prolonged period of time. As it will be shown in the next section, the B coefficient and
therefore ΔH can be different from the one obtained in a laboratory with the help of the
standard Karl Fischer method following one of the procedures given in12 or elsewhere.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 9 of 20

 Figure 3
Determination of Oil Quality using dual probe moisture monitor

It follows from Eq. 6 and Eq. 7 that the change in ΔH is not dependent on the second
solubility coefficient A, i.e. change in entropy, but it is only dependent on B. Then the Oil
Quality Index (OQI) could be calculated as a linear function of B, Bmax and Bmin, e.g.:

𝐵𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐵
𝑂𝑄𝐼 = 1 − , (8)
𝐵𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐵𝑚𝑖𝑛

or in terms of ΔH
𝛥𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝛥𝐻
𝑂𝑄𝐼 = 1 − , (9)
𝛥𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝛥𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛

where Bmax and Bmin are the highest and lowest values of the solubility coefficient B, which
varies from Bmax, representing a new clean insulating oil, to Bmin, representing very aged
(end of life) liquid. For transformer mineral oil these values are found to be 3900 and 3100
respectively13. This translates to the range of H = [~25 – ~33] kJ mol-1.

Case Studies

In the following section we are going to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
approach for oil quality determination.

Table 5 summarises the nameplate parameters of three studied transformers.

Table 5
Parameters of three studied transformers
Nameplate Trx-A Trx-B Trx-C
Power, MVA ~ 1.0 40 10
Voltage, kV 22/4.5 66/22 22/6.6
Oil preservation COPS COPS COPS
Oil cooling ONAN/ONAF/OFAF ONAN/ODAF ONAN
Age New > 45 years > 55 years

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 10 of 20

Transformer Trx-A

Trx-A is a new transformer undergoing a seven day temperature rise test. Similar to Fig. 2,
the two moisture probes, installed at the top radiator header and bottom radiator header,
were used to determine oil quality per the algorithm outlined in the previous section.

a)

b)
Figure 4 a) Top and Bottom Oil Temperature for New Oil Filled Transformer in °C; b) Top and Bottom Water
Content in ppm. A = 7.37; B= -1662.7 – default solubility coefficients

The temperature profile for top and bottom oil is shown in Figure 4a, while absolute water
content for top and bottom oil is shown in Figure 4b. As expected for new oil, a good
agreement between top and bottom water content was reached over all periods of
monitoring. Water content was calculated using default solubility coefficients provided by
the sensor manufacturer.

The heat of water dissolution in oil (enthalpy change) is calculated from the given B
solubility coefficient as ΔH = ln(10)·R·B = 31.84 kJ·mol-1, which is very close to the enthalpy
of a new, unused oil.

Then Oil Quality Index is calculated using Eq.8. OQI= 0.91.

Also Eq. 9 can be used for OQI calculation which gives the same result. Given that a brand
new oil has an OQI =1 the studied oil is classified as “new” or in “GOOD” condition, using the
terminology of the IEC Guide.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 11 of 20

Transformer Trx-B

The temperature and relative saturation profile for two weeks of monitoring of Trx-B are
shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Oil quality data are summarised in Table 6.

From the analysis of oil annual samples for the last five years, one can see that the water
content was always below the specified limits according to both IEEE and IEC guidelines (see
tables 3 and 4). However, examining the data of Figure 7 we can observe that on the 8th of
January water content was 45 ppm, well over limit according to both IEEE and IEC. This
renders annual oil sampling nearly useless as far as water-in-oil is concerned.

Table 6
Oil Quality Data for last 5 years

Sample date 8 Jan 2010 19 Jan 2011 13 Jan 2012 7 Feb 20213 4 Apr 2014
Oil Temp, C 25 16 19 38 19
Moisture bottom, ppm 17 19 17 26 23
Dielectric breakdown 2mm 56 40 56 29 60
DDF at 100 C 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Acid number, mg KOH/g 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04
IFT, 26.9 24.1 26.8 25.1 22.2
Colour 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5

Acidity is within the norm, but IFT is borderline between “fair” and “poor” according to the
IEC guide and “unacceptable” per IEEE. The DBV does not correlate with the age as well,
however the value of 29 kV registered on the 7 th of February indicates that the oil is
“unacceptable” and “poor” by both Guides. The next year it is back to a rather high 60 kV
(meaning “acceptable” and “good” by both Guides). The colour is progressively getting
worse. Having a value of 2.5 indicates that oil approaches an “unacceptable” level per both
IEEE and IEC Guides. Indication of getting close to “unacceptable” is also supported by the
IFT value approaching 22 mN / m.

A comparison of top and bottom calculated values for WCO is shown in Figure 7. These two
series theoretically must agree, having the same value of ppm for top and bottom oil. Also
shown (Fig 7) the residuals (a difference of top and bottom oil ppm at any given moment of
time). One can notice that the average residual is approximately 2.5 ppm and the max is 6
ppm.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 12 of 20

 Top oil T, °C

Bottom oil T, °C

Figure 5
Top and bottom temperature recorded for Trx –B during two week period

Bottom oil rS

Top oil rS

Figure 6
Top and bottom relative water saturation recorded for Trx –B

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 13 of 20

 Top ppm

Bottom ppm

Δ ppm

Figure 7
Top, bottom and residual water content recorded for Trx –B
A = 7.37; B= -1662.7 – built in coefficients

The calculated top and bottom ppm are also shown in Figure 8. This time the calculation is
based on a laboratory determination of solubility coefficients A and B. There is an even
larger difference between top and bottom oil ppm. This observation supports an expert
opinion that calibration of moisture sensors by KF method is not a valid approach for service
aged oils.

50

Top ppm
40

Bottom ppm
30
ppm

20

10

0
6-Jan-15 0:00 8-Jan-15 0:00 10-Jan-15 0:00 12-Jan-15 0:00 14-Jan-15 0:00 16-Jan-15 0:00 18-Jan-15 0:00 20-Jan-15 0:00 22-Jan-15 0:00

-10

PPM top! PPM bot! Delta PPM!

Figure 8
Top, bottom and residual water content recorded for Trx –B:
A = 6.6; B = -1400.00 by KF lab method

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 14 of 20

And finally, Figure 9 depicts a comparison of estimated top and bottom ppm based on the
proposed method. Here we can see that a satisfactory agreement between the two trends is
reached with a high level of accuracy.

When compared, the estimated online solubility coefficients A = 6.96; B= -1527 are different
from the default values, being A = 7.37; B= -1662.7. The B coefficient converts into ΔH =
29.2 kJ/mol.

Top and Bottom PPM determinjed online by OQM

50

40

30
ppm

20

10

0
6-Jan-15 0:00 8-Jan-15 0:00 10-Jan-15 0:00 12-Jan-15 0:00 14-Jan-15 0:00 16-Jan-15 0:00 18-Jan-15 0:00 20-Jan-15 0:00 22-Jan-15 0:00

-10

PPM top! PPM bot! Delta PPM!

Figure 9
Top, bottom and residual water content recorded for Trx –B:
A = 6.96; B= -1527.0 determined by OQM method.

The Oil Quality Index (OQI) = 0.52, representing a 50% deterioration as compared to new oil.
There is not yet an established scale for OQI, but based on the results with the studied
transformers we could offer diagnostic classes as depicted in Figure 10.

OQI = F(ΔH)
1

0.9
Good
0.8

0.7

0.6
Fair
OQI

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Poor
0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
ΔH, kJ/mol

Figure 10
OQI based oil condition diagnostic
The same classification approach was applied to another transformer, labelled Trx-C.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 15 of 20

Transformer Trx-C

This is a 10 MVA 22/6.6 kV underground transformer, 55 years in operation, ONAN, free

breathing conservator.

Its oil test data are presented in Table 7.

Table 7
Oil Quality Parameters for Trx C

No Oil Quality Parameter Top Bottom

1 Oil Sample Temperature, ºC 33.4 20.8
2 Moisture (Karl Fischer), ppm 38.6 38.4
3 Breakdown Voltage, kV 44 63
4 DDF at 25 C, % 0.209 0.210
5 Resistivity (90 C), GOhm.m 95.0 82.0
6 Acidity, mgKOH/g 0.53 0.51
7 Interfacial Tension (IFT), mN/m 17.1 16.8
8 Colour 3.0 3.0
9 Particles 5-15 µm 17,305 68,110
10 Particles 15-25 µm 590 2,670
11 Particles 25-50 µm 75 695
12 Particles 50-100 µm 0 30

Surprisingly, at a time of sampling the breakdown voltage obtained in the laboratory for the
top oil was much lower than that for the bottom oil, despite the fact that resistivity and DDF
did not support the trend (see Table 7). Given that the relative saturation of the top oil was
lower than that at the bottom, and the particle counts at the top were lower than at the
bottom, there was no explanation for the discrepancy observed between the top and
bottom oil breakdown voltages of 44 and 63 kV.

The acidity level of 0.5-0.53, and the IFT level of 17-18 indicate an extremely deteriorated oil
condition.

The top and bottom ppm series for two months are shown in Figure 11 using default water
solubility coefficients. Estimated solubility coefficients, using the proposed method, are: A =
6.54; B= -1385.0. There is a larger disagreement between traditional (using default A and B)
and the proposed estimation of top and bottom ppm than was the case with Trx-B.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 16 of 20

 35
33
31
29
27
ppm

25
23
21
19
17
15
10-Sep 20-Sep 30-Sep 10-Oct 20-Oct 30-Oct 9-Nov 19-Nov

ppm1 ppm2

Figure 11
Top, bottom and residual water content recorded for Trx –C
A = 7.37; B= -1662.7 – built in coefficients

35
33
31
29
WCO, ppm

27
25
23
21
19
17
15
10-Sep 20-Sep 30-Sep 10-Oct 20-Oct 30-Oct 9-Nov 19-Nov

ppm1! ppm2!

Figure 12
Top, bottom and residual water content recorded for Trx –C:
A = 6.54; B= -1385.0 by OQM method

The A and B coefficients are considerably different from the ones of Trx-B respectively. The
enthalpy of water solution for Trx-C is ΔH = 26.5 kJ/mol. The OQI and red”/“yellow”/”green”
diagnostic is shown in Figure 13. The estimated oil quality index (OQI = 0.1) indicates that
the Trx-C's oil is heavily deteriorated, which is also supported by IFT and NN (acidity)
diagnosis.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 17 of 20

 OQI = f(ΔH)
1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
OQI

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
ΔH, kJ/mol

Figure 13.
OQI based oil condition diagnostic

Conclusion

Mineral oil is one of the most important and critical natural protective mediums in
transformers. It serves many purposes including defending a transformer from dielectric
stresses, thermal overheating, and electrical partial discharges and arcing. It also serves as
an information carrier. Thus timely monitoring of transformer oil quality has become one of
the emerging requirements of a modern diagnostic and monitoring system.

A new method for continuous online oil quality assessment has been described and several
case studies applying this new method have been discussed.

It was demonstrated that annual oil sampling is not adequate for tracing moisture content.
The error may lead to wrong diagnosis, which in turn creates the real need for an online oil
quality assessment. It was also demonstrated that with periodic sampling it is difficult to see
any trends in the degradation of the dielectric strength and oil acidity before the oil reaches
a condition of severe deterioration.

The proposed Oil Quality Index is an integral indicator of oil deterioration, and correlates
well with both late oil life acidity and IFT. OQI has a solid physicochemical basis and is very
sensitive to change in oil conditions.

One of the benefits of a proposed method is eliminating the need for manual oil sampling,
thus saving resources on laboratory analytical services.

Another benefit of the proposed method is the simplicity of measuring oil quality with well-
regarded and time proven monitoring means such as moisture sensors.

It is believed that a new approach to electrical insulation liquid quality assessment will lay a
foundation for new analytical techniques, and instruments for more accurate and reliable
determination of water in oil parameters, and its effects on the quality of electrical
insulating liquids.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 18 of 20

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank a team of R&D scientists led by Senja Leivo of Vaisala for
significant contribution to the development of oil quality monitoring solutions and case
studies presented in the paper.

References

1. IEC 60422:2013. Mineral insulating oils in electrical equipment - Supervision and

maintenance guidance, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2013
2. IEEE C57.106:2015-Draft. Guide for Acceptance and Maintenance of Insulating
Mineral Oil in Electrical Equipment, 2015
3. S. Tee, Q. Liu and Z.D. Wang, “Prognosis of Transformer Health through Oil Data
Analysis”, TechCon Euro, 2013
4. H. Azizian, J.A. Proskurnicki and J.G. Lackey “Relative Saturation Versus Moisture
Content of Insulating Oil and Its Application in Monitoring Electrical Equipment”
Doble Client Conference, Boston, 1995.
5. Miners, K., “Particles and Moisture Effect on Dielectric Strength of Transformer Oil
Using VDE 13 Electrodes,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.
PAS-101, No. 3 March 1982, 14 pp. 751-756.
6. Vaisala, “The Effect of Moisture on the Breakdown Voltage of Transformer Oil”,
White paper, 2013
7. Glossary of Terms Related to Solubility (IUPAC Recommendations 2008), Pure Appl.
Chem., Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 233–276, 2008
8. Oommen T.V. “Moisture Equilibrium In Paper-Oil Insulation Systems”, Proceedings of
the 16th Electrical Insulation Conference, Chicago, October 3-6, 1983, pp.162-66
9. P. J. Griffin, C. M. Bruce, and J. D. Christie, “Comparison of water equilibrium in
silicone and mineral oil transformers,” Minutes of the Fifty-Fifth Annual. Int. Conf.
Doble Clients, sec. 10-9.1, 1988
10. Arakelian, V.G.; Fofana, I., "Water in Oil-Filled, High-Voltage Equipment, Part I:
States, Solubility, and Equilibrium in Insulating Materials," in Electrical Insulation
Magazine, IEEE , vol.23, no.4, pp.15-27, July-Aug. 2007
11. CIGRE Technical Brochure 349. Moisture Equilibrium And Moisture Migration Within
Transformer Insulation System, 2008
12. Du, Y.; Mamishev, A.V.; Lesieutre, B.C.; Zahn, M.; Kang, S.H., "Moisture solubility for
differently conditioned transformer oils," in Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, IEEE
Transactions on , vol.8, no.5, pp.805-811, Oct 2001
13. EPRI study on moisture assessment of power transformers. 2008.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 19 of 20

Biography

Oleg Roizman is founder and managing director of IntellPower Pty. Ltd. in Australia, an
engineering consulting and services company with an emphasis on continuous online
monitoring and diagnostics of power transformers.

Prior to forming IntellPower in 2000, Dr. Roizman was employed by Monash University in
Australia as an R&D scientist. He was involved in developing analytics in areas of power
system stability, power quality, monitoring and diagnostics of electrical plant.

Dr. Roizman is an author of many technical papers and an active member of various working
groups within IEEE PES Transformers Committee and CIGRE.

Colin Feely is an Asset Strategy Engineer with Powercor Australia Ltd, a privatised
distribution company operating in Victoria, Australia. Colin has had over 30 years of
engineering and management experience in the electrical industry in Victoria and a 12
month consulting assignment in South Sumatra.

Colin holds an Electrical Engineering Diploma from the Gippsland Institute of Advanced
Education. His preferred job description is “to have fun playing with Plant”.

PROCEEDINGS OF TECHCON® ASIA PACIFIC 2016 Page 20 of 20