2019 5th International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology (ICEAST) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/iceast.2019.8802523
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of Duval Pentagon Compared with Other DGA Interpretation Techniques: Case Studies for Actual Transformer Inspections Including Experience from Power Plants in Thailand

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This stage guarantees better results in fault identification than stages 1 and 2. With the Duval method in the FDIp, a higher level of reliability in the detection of failures is obtained, guaranteeing a more effective diagnosis in terms of the detection of incipient failures [36]. Although a greater identification of the failures is achieved at this stage, it has the drawback that it does not guarantee the Identification of DGA cases free of failures.…”
Section: Ii3 3rd Stage Classification Based On the Duval Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This stage guarantees better results in fault identification than stages 1 and 2. With the Duval method in the FDIp, a higher level of reliability in the detection of failures is obtained, guaranteeing a more effective diagnosis in terms of the detection of incipient failures [36]. Although a greater identification of the failures is achieved at this stage, it has the drawback that it does not guarantee the Identification of DGA cases free of failures.…”
Section: Ii3 3rd Stage Classification Based On the Duval Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the DPM application, the FDIp system uses the vertices H2:(0, 40), C2H6: (−38, 12.4), CH4: (−23.5, −32.4), C2H4: (23.5, −32.4) y C2H2: (38, 12.4) y represents the coordinates of each fault zone below [35]: -PD: (0, 24.5); (0, 33); (−1, 24.5); (−1, 33); -D1: (0, 40); (38, 12); (32, −6); (4, 16); (0, 1.5); -D2: (4, 16); (32, −6); (24, −30); (−1, −2); -T1: (−22.5, −32); (−6, −4); (−1, −2); (0, 1.5); (−35, 3); -T2: (1, −32); (−6, −4); (−22.5, −32); -T3: (24, −30); (−1, −2); (−6, −4); (1, −32); -S: (−35, 3); (0, 1.5); (0, 24.5); (0, 33); (-1, 24.5); -(−1, 33); (0, 40).This stage guarantees better results in fault identification than stages 1 and 2. With the Duval method in the FDIp, a higher level of reliability in the detection of failures is obtained, guaranteeing a more effective diagnosis in terms of the detection of incipient failures[36]. Although a greater identification of the failures is achieved at this stage, it has the drawback that it does not guarantee the Identification of DGA cases free of failures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56] indicate that the best method for the faults identification in the transformer insulation is the Duval triangle method (DTM).The Duval pentagon method (DPM) was created to improve DTM results. Several recent studies [48,49] indicate that the DPM success rate improves those of the DTM, since the DPM allows to identify the normal aging of the transformer insulation. Although the DPM is shown as the best method of identifying faults, it should be noted that it is a fairly new method that should be studied further to improve its validity.…”
Section: Dissolved Gas-in-oil Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This complex combination is due to the following factors: − The DGA method is the most informative among the methods of early detection of defects in oil-filled transformer equipment. It allows diagnosing more than 70% of faults in the active part of the PT without disconnecting and removing the voltage [18]. − The Key Gas method provides the function of pre-filtering DGA tests for the presence/absence of signs of developing defects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%