Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) and offline electrical testing are fundamental tools for diagnosing faults in power transformers. Although these two techniques differ in their approach, they complement each other by providing a comprehensive view of the equipment's operational condition, which is crucial for ensuring its reliability and extending its service life.
DGA does not require the transformer to be disconnected and is highly sensitive to early-stage thermal and electrical faults. It allows detection and quantification of gases generated in the insulating oil due to overheating, electrical arcing, or partial discharges, among other phenomena. These gases, such as hydrogen (H₂), methane (CH₄), ethane (C₂H₆), acetylene (C₂H₂), and other gases are analyzed to identify the type and severity of the fault. On the other hand, offline electrical tests provide a detailed evaluation of the transformer’s electromechanical and dielectric condition. These tests include winding resistance , transformer turns ratio (TTR) , tan delta (tan δ) , and dielectric response tests, among others. However, unlike DGA, offline electrical testing requires the transformer to be de-energized and isolated from other devices, which can present a limitation in situations where service interruption is complex or undesirable.
It is common for an unusual increase in certain gases detected by DGA to indicate an internal problem that is then confirmed with greater accuracy through offline electrical testing. For instance, if the DGA reveals an increase in gases related to partial discharges, such as hydrogen, tests that assess insulation conditions could confirm this deterioration. Similarly, an abnormal value in winding resistance measurements may correlate with hot spots detected through DGA, suggesting loose connections or thermal dissipation issues.
However, there are cases where an abnormal condition diagnosed by DGA is not confirmed by an electrical test, or vice versa. This discrepancy can occur because each technique has its own limitations and sensitivity to different types of faults. For example, a low-magnitude dielectric fault may not produce enough gases to be detected by DGA, but it could be identified through a dielectric response test.
This paper presents various case studies illustrating the correlation (or lack thereof) between DGA results and electrical tests. The combination of both techniques allows for a more comprehensive and accurate diagnosis, helping to improve decision-making in predictive maintenance. Furthermore, this correlation aids in interpreting potential discrepancies between methods, optimizing inspection intervals, and managing assets more efficiently. In conclusion, the integration of these tools enhances fault detection accuracy, resulting in more reliable transformer management.