F

Improving the Reliability of Transformer

Gas-in-Oil Diagnosis
Key Words: Transformer, dissolved gas analysis, diagnosis, accuracy
Introduction

Michel Duval
IREQ, Varennes, QC, Canada

issolved gas analysis (DGA) is widely used to detect incipient faults in oil-filled electrical equipment. Several
methods are available for the interpretation of laboratory results,
such as those recommended in IEC Standard 60599 [1] and IEEE
Standard C57.104-1991 [2]. Computational and graphical methods employing gas ratios and proportions have been worked out
for recognizing the characteristic patterns of dissolved gases associated with the main fault types. These diagnosis methods have
been developed and validated using large data sets for equipment
in service, where faults were identified and documented by maintenance experts inspecting the equipment.
As indicated in IEC 60599 and 60567, there is always some
degree of inaccuracy in laboratory dissolved-gas measurements,
especially at low gas concentrations. This inaccuracy affects gas
ratios and other diagnostic calculations. Therefore, the results
based on them may be correspondingly uncertain in some cases.
An early proposal for dealing with the random variability of DGA
data and the consequent ambiguity of diagnosis results, presented
by J. J. Dukarm [3] and implemented in initial versions of a DGA
software product [4], was based on the representation of fault
detection and diagnostic criteria by fuzzy sets [5].
In the present article, the measurement inaccuracy problem is
examined in more detail using recent CIGRE data, and it is shown
how proper allowance for this inaccuracy can improve transformer
condition assessment and diagnosis by DGA.

Quality of DGA Laboratory Results

A. Repeatability, Reproducibility and Accuracy of
Laboratory Results
Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy are quality parameters of laboratory DGA measurements, defined in IEC 60567
[6]. Repeatability or precision is related to the differences that
are observed when multiple samples of the same oil are analyzed
by the same laboratory over a short period of time (usually less

July/August 2005 Vol. 21, No. 4

James Dukarm
Delta-X Research, Victoria, BC, Canada

There is always some degree of

inaccuracy in laboratory dissolvedgas measurements, especially at low
gas concentrations; proper allowance
for this inaccuracy can improve
transformer condition assessment and
diagnosis by DGA.

than one day). Reproducibility is related to the differences that

are observed when multiple samples of the same oil are analyzed
by different laboratories (inter-laboratory reproducibility) or are
analyzed by the same laboratory over long periods of time, for
instance each week or each month over several months (intralaboratory reproducibility). Accuracy is related to the differences
that are observed between the values measured by a laboratory
and the nominal values contained in a gas-in-oil sample prepared
according to standard procedures [1], [2]. Standard gas-in-oil
samples manufactured according to these procedures may also
be purchased from qualified suppliers [7].
Good repeatability and intra-lab reproducibility assure laboratories that their measurement conditions are stable and not fluctuating randomly. DGA results, however, may be repeated or reproduced precisely and still be inaccurate, because of a system-

21

atic bias in the analysis that goes undetected until an evaluation

of accuracy is made. Inaccurate DGA results may in turn result
in poor fault detection (false positives and false negatives) and
wrong diagnosis. For example, an electrical fault may be mistaken for a thermal fault, which could have serious consequences
for equipment in service, or the severity of a fault may be misjudged. Poor repeatability or reproducibility makes trend analysis more difficult in addition to affecting fault detection and diagnosis.
It is reasonable to expect that poor data quality will increase
maintenance and repair costs because of unnecessary testing in
response to false positives and also because of increased repair
costs and higher risk of sudden failure attributable to increased
difficulty in recognizing incipient faults. How good should DGA
measurements be, and how bad might they potentially be?

B. Default Accuracy Values

It is well known in the industry that many laboratories provide reasonably accurate DGA results to their customers but that
many others provide quite inaccurate results. Even the best laboratories produce results with some inaccuracy, which, therefore,
needs to be known to determine the reliability and accuracy of
the diagnoses. It is strongly recommended that each laboratory
evaluate and provide its own accuracy figures. When this is not
possible, default accuracy values based on international surveys
can be used.
Surveys have been made recently [8] by CIGRE Task Force
TF 15-01-07 and IEC TC10 (MT25) concerning the repeatability, intra-lab reproducibility, and accuracy of DGA laboratories.
Twenty-five experienced laboratories from 15 different countries,
representative of current practices worldwide, participated in these
surveys. The average repeatability of the IEC laboratories at
medium concentration levels (10 to 100 ppm) and low levels (1
to 10 ppm) is indicated in Table 1, as well as the repeatability of
the best and worst labs.
The accuracy of the CIGRE laboratories was evaluated by
round-robin tests (RRTs) using gas-in-oil standards containing
known prepared concentrations of gases at medium and low concentration levels. The average deviation from prepared values
for each gas (measurement error) was used as an estimate of the
average accuracy of each individual laboratory. The average accuracy of all of the CIGRE laboratories surveyed was then calculated as the average of the individual laboratory accuracies.
The average accuracy of the CIGRE labs for all gases is indicated in Table 2, as well as the accuracy of the best and worst

Table 2. Accuracy of IEC/CIGRE laboratories, from round-robin

tests using gas-in-oil standards.
At medium gas
concentrations

At low gas
concentrations

Best lab

3%

22%

Average

15%

30%

Worst lab

65%

64%

laboratories. It should be noted that both excellent results and

poor results were obtained with all of the extraction techniques
used, so that the main determinant for the quality of results appears to be laboratory performance and not the extraction technique. It should also be noted that the worst CIGRE laboratories
are far from being the worst in the world. Figure 1 indicates the
average accuracy observed for each individual gas as a function
of dissolved gas concentration. A distinction is made between
laboratories using procedures for routine vs. factory tests, the
latter being more sensitive at low concentration levels.
The following simplified formula (1) may be used to describe
the average accuracy of CIGRE laboratories at all concentrations,
using procedures for routine tests:
Hydrocarbons:
15% or 1 ppm, whichever is greater
Hydrogen:
15% or 5 ppm, whichever is greater
Carbon monoxide: 15% or 25 ppm, whichever is greater.
The average intra-lab reproducibility of CIGRE laboratories
has been estimated as 10% at medium concentration levels (2%
for the best laboratories).

Table 1. Repeatability of IEC laboratories from IEC surveys.

At medium gas
concentrations

22

At low gas
concentrations

Best lab

1%

7%

Average

7%

27%

Worst lab

15%

65%

Figure 1. Average accuracy of CIGRE laboratories, as a

function of gas concentration level, using analytical equipment
for routine () or factory (---) tests.

IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

C. Actual Accuracy Values

As observed in the CIGRE survey, the actual accuracy of some
laboratories is better than the default accuracy, and for others it is
worse. Therefore, whenever possible, each laboratory should
determine and provide its own accuracy values, using prepared
or purchased gas-in-oil standards. If the laboratorys own accuracy and reproducibility estimates are not known, the CIGRE
averages in (1) can be taken as default values for purposes of
data interpretation.
The most accurate laboratories operate in general with highly
skilled personnel and follow strict procedures for calibration and
quality, both of which increase the cost of analyses. As indicated
previously, poor data quality can result in increased maintenance
and repair costs. The choice of a DGA laboratory should not,
therefore, be based solely on the per-sample analysis cost alone
(low or high), but should also take into account the potential economic impact or benefit of each laboratorys data accuracy and
reproducibility. When a required degree of accuracy is included
in a DGA laboratory contract, it is recommended that the claimed
accuracy of the laboratory be verified from time to time by an
independent party, by submitting a gas-in-oil standard. According to the chemists customary practice, the observed error is
acceptable if it is less than the claimed accuracy plus the certified
accuracy of the gas-in-oil standard.
Because of the economic and practical realities of laboratory
DGA, the usual practice of laboratory chemists is to base their
measurement accuracy estimates on the average error of only
one or two measurements of gas-in-oil standards. Although accuracy estimates of this nature are understood and found useful
by most laboratory chemists, it must be recognized that when
these accuracy figures are used for basic statistical inference, the
statistical significance level is unknown. This caveat applies to
the CIGRE and IEC results quoted as well as to individual lab
accuracy estimates.
In this article, only the accuracy of DGA laboratory results,
which can be reliably evaluated, is taken into account. Other
sources of errors, for instance related to oil sampling or oil handling by inexperienced operators, are not considered here, as they
cannot be predicted. They can be detected, however, by looking
at inconsistencies in successive DGA laboratory reports.

Interpretation of Gas Concentrations and

Rates of Increase
To determine whether dissolved gas concentration values in
service are normal or call for some kind of action to be taken,
they are compared in IEC 60599 to typical gas concentration
values and alarm values. For each gas, the rate of increase with
time is also compared with typical and alarm values for rates. A
similar approach is used in the IEEE Guide. A growth in the rate
of increase of a gas is often considered as an alert signal.
To calculate typical concentration values, IEC 60599 recommends using the 90th percentile concentration for each gas, if a
suitable database of DGA results is available. Similarly, performing simple rate calculations on the database, 90th percentile
rates of increase can be derived for use as typical rate values. To

July/August 2005 Vol. 21, No. 4

calculate alarm values, the probability of failure in service has to

be calculated by comparing the number of DGA analyses leading to a failure-related event to the total number of analyses, at a
given gas concentration [9]. Examples of typical gas concentrations, typical rates of increase, and alarm values are given in IEC
60599 and in the IEEE Guide; more precise values have been
surveyed by CIGRE TF 15/12-01-11 [10]. Transformer users are
recommended to calculate their own values, but if a suitable database is not available, published numbers may be used instead.
In any case, because the typical and alarm values are set by policy
and represent trigger values for maintenance action, they should
be treated as precise numbers in all calculations and comparisons involved in decision procedures that employ them.
Although typical and alarm values are fixed, precise threshold values, measured gas concentration values, and calculated
rates of increase are known only within a certain percentage of
accuracy; therefore, some uncertainty may remain as to whether
or not the typical or alarm values have been exceeded. If, for
example, the typical concentration for hydrogen is 50 ppm, and
the measured value in service is 60 ppm, the accuracy of the
measurement is 9 ppm [using the default values indicated in
(1)]; therefore, because the true hydrogen concentration in the
oil is likely to be between 51 and 69 ppm, it is reasonable to
conclude that the hydrogen concentration exceeds the typical
value. If, however, the measured value is only 55 ppm, with
default accuracy 8 ppm, there is much less confidence that the
typical level has been exceeded, since the measurement is consistent with a true concentration between about 47 and 63 ppm.
A gas generation rate may be calculated from the difference
between two consecutive concentration measurements. If the two
measurements have been made by two different laboratories, the
accuracy of the difference can be estimated using the accuracies
of the measured values. If both measurements are made by the
same laboratory, the intra-laboratory reproducibility may be used
instead of accuracy, if the measurements have been made over
more than a few days period, and the laboratory repeatability, if
they have been made over the same day or a short period of time.
A generation rate based on the difference of two concentrations
can be very uncertain. For example, suppose that the hydrogen
concentration is reported as increasing from 55 to 65 ppm over a
period of 3 days. Using the default reproducibility of 10%, the
difference of 65 6.5 and 55 5.5 is 10 8.5; therefore, the rate
of increase is 3.3 2.8 ppm/d, or somewhere between 0.5 and
6.1 ppm/d. In this case, the reported values do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude with confidence anything except that
the hydrogen appears to be increasing.
If three or more gas concentrations are available for trend evaluation, it is best to use a linear regression formula, incorporating
the respective accuracies or reproducibilities of the concentrations, to estimate the average rate of increase and its accuracy.
Even with a series of only three or four measurements, the accuracy of the estimated rate of increase will generally be much better than the accuracy of a rate calculated from a difference.
Although these calculations incorporating accuracy can be
done manually, using the CIGRE default values or, preferably,
the accuracy and reproducibility values provided by the laboratory doing the measurements, it is evident that a thorough analy-

23

sis of the DGA history of a transformer, taking all of the combustible gases into account, requires computer assistance with appropriate software such as [4].
A simple rule suggests itself for deciding that a gas concentration or rate has exceeded a particular threshold value. The
value is considered to have been exceeded if the reported concentration or rate exceeds it by more than its accuracy margin.
The effect of this decision rule is to avoid making a positive determination (in favor of a fault of more severity) unless it is very
unlikely that the reported concentration or rate exceeds the threshold value only because of random measurement error.
An active, energetic fault generates so much gas so rapidly
that the accuracy margin is not really an important factor in the
analysis. The existence of a fault and its probable nature are
abundantly clear when there are high gassing rates in the presence of newly elevated high levels of dissolved gas. In cases
where gas concentrations and gassing rates are low, taking into
account the accuracy of laboratory results becomes all the more
important for early detection of incipient faults.

Accuracy of Fault Diagnosis by DGA

A. Fault Diagnosis Methods
IEC 60599 specifies that when gas concentrations or rates
exceed their respective typical values, a tentative diagnosis can
be made by applying one of the standard DGA diagnostic methods. The IEC, Dornenburg [1] and Rogers [11] ratio methods
classify the values of three gas ratios (C2H2/C2H4, CH4/H2, and
C2H4/C2H6) to identify faults. These methods, however, lead to
a significant number of cases where no diagnosis can be given
because the ratio values fall outside the fault zones. The so-called
key gas method [2] leads to a large number of wrong diagnoses.
The Duval triangle method [1], [12] is a graphical approach, without these limitations, which plots normalized (CH4, C2H4, C2H2)
coordinates in a triangular coordinate system, so that the data
point falls into a zone corresponding to a fault type. A comparison of these diagnosis methods, as applied to the IEC TC10 data
bank of inspected cases [13], is shown in Table 3.
Faults detectable by DGA, as indicated in Figures 2 through 5
using the triangle, are corona partial discharges (PD), electrical
discharges of low energy (D1), electrical discharges of high energy (D2), thermal faults of temperatures below 300C (T1), ther-

mal faults at temperatures between 300C and 700C (T2), thermal faults at temperatures above 700C (T3), and combinations
of thermal and electrical faults (DT).
The scope of the gas ratios methods (IEC, Dornenburg, Rogers,
and the triangle) is to identify these general types of faults; therefore, they do not use CO and CO2, which are considered separately to determine paper involvement or not in the fault. H2 is
not used in the triangle method because it is a by-product of
practically all faults, and the three gases used (CH4, C2H4, and
C2H2) are sufficient to obtain a reliable diagnosis.
The coordinates of the triangle are calculated as follows: CH4
(%) = m/(m + e + a), C2H4 (%) = e/(m + e + a), and C2H2 (%) =
a/(m + e + a), where m = [CH4], e = [C2H4], and a = [C2H2] in
ppm.

B. Diagnostic Reliability
The accuracy of DGA gas ratios and reliability of diagnoses
are affected by the accuracy of DGA measurement results. This
can be appreciated by considering the results of the three CIGRE
RRTs, two performed at medium concentration levels (Figure 2)
and one performed at low concentration levels (Figure 3). The
three different gas-in-oil standards used, each corresponding to
a (CH4, C2H4, C2H2) point in the triangle, are represented by
crosses in the figures; the results reported by the participating
laboratories are represented by red dots. The laboratory results
farthest from the central prepared value are the least accurate.
Each standard value is shown with a polygonal neighborhood
illustrating the extent of measurement variability to be expected,
corresponding to the average CIGRE laboratory accuracies given
in (1). The boundaries of the polygon are calculated by applying
the CIGRE average accuracy to the CH4, C2H4, and C2H2 concentrations of the prepared RRT standard and using a standard
statistical method for determining the uncertainty of a result cal-

Table 3. Comparison of DGA diagnosis methods.

Method

No diagnosis

Wrong diagnosis

Total

(%)
Key gases

58

58

Rogers

33

38

Dornenburg

26

29

IEC

15

23

Triangle

24

Figure 2. CIGRE results for RRTs at medium concentration

levels. Results of individual laboratories () and prepared
values () are given.

IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

Figure 3. CIGRE results for RRT at low concentration levels.

Results of individual laboratories () and prepared values (x)
are given.

Figure 4. Diagnostic uncertainty for the different faults and

concentration levels of Table 4.

culated from measurement variables. Figures 2 and 3 show that

most of the laboratory measurements fall within the respective
standards uncertainty neighborhood, with only a few outliers
representing the most inaccurate measurements.
When using the triangle for diagnosis, the (CH4, C2H4, C2H2)
values from the laboratory are plotted as a point that lies within
one of the triangles fault zones, or rarely might fall on the border between two fault zones. Using the laboratorys stated measurement accuracy, or the CIGRE default accuracy values if the
laboratorys accuracy is not given, a polygonal uncertainty region can be plotted around the data point, using the statistical
calculations previously mentioned and representing the area
within which the true gas concentrations would be expected to
lie. If the relative accuracy is good, the uncertainty region is
small; if the relative accuracy is poor, the uncertainty region is
large. This is illustrated in Figure 4, using 10 cases of DGA
results, as indicated in Table 4 and representing 5 different types
of faults, each at medium-range concentrations and at low-range
(and therefore less accurate) gas concentrations. For example,
the medium-range T2 case is surrounded in Figure 4 by a small
lozenge-shaped uncertainty region (in red) lying entirely within
the T2 zone, and the low-range T2 case is surrounded by a much
larger uncertainty region (in blue) extending well into the DT
zone. Values in Table 4 have been treated as if they were coming
from gas-in-oil standards.
When the uncertainty region lies entirely within the fault zone,
as in the medium-range T2 case, the diagnosis is unambiguous.
On the other hand, when the uncertainty region overlaps two or
more fault zones, as in the low-range T2 case, the diagnosis is
somewhat ambiguous. By treating the uncertainty region as a
hill-shaped approximation to a probability distribution centered
on the data point, numerical integration can be used to assign a
reasonable confidence factor (CF) to each of the diagnostic

outcomes indicated, indicating the approximate relative likelihood of each outcome. In the low-range T2 case of Figure 4 and
Table 4, the CF for T2 is 61.5%, and for DT, it is 38.5%. In the
medium-range T2 case, the CF for T2 is 100%. Table 4 shows the
CF for all cases illustrated in Figure 4.
The volume calculation for deriving the CF is only practical
using software such as [4]. If areas are used instead of volumes
for determining CF values (e.g., in estimating CF by visual inspection of the overlap areas), in effect treating the error probability distribution as uniform, the CFs of the secondary diagnoses tend to be somewhat higher. The polygon boundary calculations can be simplified considerably using interval arithmetic,
generally producing somewhat larger uncertainty polygons.
Table 5 and Figure 5 illustrate data from three DGA samples
taken from a power transformer with a constant base load. The
first sample shows extremely low gas concentrations, which in
fact had been stable for a long time. The second sample shows
slight increases in CH4 and C2H4, which are still below the typical rates of increase reported by CIGRE [10] for power transformers in service. The third sample shows much higher gas
increases, which are above typical values and clearly are faultrelated.
The data from Table 5 are plotted as three points in Figure 5.
The first, representing the earlier background gas levels, is marked
as a blue cross. Because those levels are so low, being at or near
the laboratory detection limits, the uncertainty region (in blue) is
very large, overlapping five fault zones in this case. The second
sample is shown as a dot in the DT zone, with an uncertainty
region (in red) overlapping the DT and T2 zones. The diagnosis
for this sample is DT (85.1%) and T2 (14.9%). The third sample,
with the much larger gas levels, is a dot in the T3 zone, with a
narrow uncertainty region (in red) lying entirely within the T3
zone near the triangle boundary. The diagnosis for this final

July/August 2005 Vol. 21, No. 4

25

Table 4. Examples of confidence factors (CFs) associated with the diagnosis of faults, calculated at various gas concentration levels, using
the default accuracy values of CIGRE laboratories.
Fault 1

CH4

C2H4

C2H2

PD

D1

(ppm)
PD

99
9.9

D1

38
3.8

D2

15
1.5

T2

69
6.9

T3

20
2

0
0

1.2
50
5
30
3
75
7.5

T1

T2

T3

DT

(CF in % for a fault above)

0.1
12

D2

97.5

2.5

5.5

64.3

50

100

100

35

100

3.5

97.5

1
0.1

2.5
100

5
0.5

30.2

61.5

38.5
100

100

1 PD

= corona partial discharges, D1 = electrical discharges of low energy, D2 = electrical discharges of high energy, T1 = thermal faults at
temperatures <300C, T2 = thermal faults at temperatures between 300 and 700C, T3 = thermal faults at temperatures >700C, and DT =
combinations of thermal and electrical faults.
2X

= Cases where the calculation of gas ratios and diagnoses is prohibited by IEC 60567 because all concentrations are below typical values.

sample is T3 (100%). The reason for the gas formation was found
to be deteriorating no-load tap changer contacts.
IEC 60599 points out that background gases can bias or distort diagnostic calculations and should be subtracted before those
calculations are done, provided that gas levels are high enough.

Figure 5. Transformer DGA case history.

26

If measurement accuracy is known or can be reasonably estimated and if the accuracy is accounted for in all calculations, it is
feasible to do the diagnostic calculations (e.g., for the Duval triangle) at much lower gas levels and obtain useful results, with
any ambiguity being quantified by CF as explained previously.
Although subtraction of background gas levels, when working
with fairly low gas concentrations, can greatly increase the relative uncertainty of the results, it is nevertheless possible, in many
cases, to arrive at a useful tentative result if measurement uncertainty is included in the calculations. For example, after subtracting the background gases of the first sample from the second one (effect of subtraction not shown in Table 5 and Figure
5), the point falls within the T2 zone, with a large uncertainty
region and a diagnosis of DT (51.0%), T2 (41.1%), and T3 (7.2%).
By comparing with the diagnosis for the second sample obtained
without the subtraction, the CF has been markedly reduced for a
fault DT and increased for a fault T2/T3.
The higher the CF, the more reliable is the diagnosis. It is to
be noted that IEC 60599 prohibits the calculation of gas ratios
and diagnoses for cases indicated as X in Table 4, according to
the rule that gas ratios should not be calculated unless at least
one of the gases considered is above typical levels. In Table 4, in
the case of PD at low gas levels, CF values indeed confirm that it
is not possible to get a reliable diagnosis. In the other cases of
faults at low gas levels, however, this is possible with the help of
CFs, a significant improvement over the IEC rule.
The same kind of treatment is applicable to the Rogers/IEC
ratios, and results obtained are similar to those illustrated in Table
4 and Figure 4 for the triangle.

IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

Table 5. Transformer DGA field example. 1

Date

CH4

C2H4

C2H2

PD

D1

D2

65.0

7.2

(ppm)

T1

T2

T3

DT

(% for a fault)

Mar 2000

Aug 2000

Feb 2001

95

158

0.1

0.3

27.3

14.9

85.1
100

1 PD

= corona partial discharges, D1 = electrical discharges of low energy, D2 = electrical discharges of high energy, T1 = thermal faults at
temperatures <300C, T2 = thermal faults at temperatures between 300 and 700C, T3 = thermal faults at temperatures >700C, and DT =
combinations of thermal and electrical faults.

Conclusions
Some inaccuracy is always associated with laboratory DGA
measurements of transformer oil, which may affect the gas ratios, concentration differences, and other calculations upon which
transformer condition assessment and fault diagnosis by DGA
are based. Interval calculations or simple statistical calculations
provide a practical indication of the extent and nature of this effect and improve the accuracy and reliability of diagnoses by
associating a CF with each diagnosis provided. Thus, reliable
diagnoses may be given even at low gas concentrations for the
detection of incipient faults.
Although these calculations in principle can be performed
manually, the number and complexity of them in an analysis incorporating the results from several samples requires computer
assistance, with appropriate software such as [4]. The DGA accuracy values provided by each laboratory should preferably be
used; if they are unavailable, the average CIGRE accuracy values can be used as defaults.

References
[1] Mineral Oil-Impregnated Electrical Equipment in ServiceGuide
to the Interpretation of Dissolved and Free Gases Analysis, IEC
Publication 60599 (1999-03), Mar. 1999.
[2] Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed
Transformers, IEEE Std C57. 104-1991, 1991.
[3] J. J. Dukarm, Transformer oil diagnosis using fuzzy logic and
neural networks, in Proc. IEEE Can. Conf. Elect. Comp. Eng.,
1993, pp. 329332.
[4] Transformer Oil Analyst Software. Delta-X Research, Victoria BC
Canada, 19942004.
[5] G. J. Klir and B. Yuan, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and
Applications. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, 1995.
[6] Guide for the Sampling of Gases and of Oil from Oil-Filled Electrical Equipment and for the Analysis of Free and Dissolved Gases,
IEC Publication 60567 (1992-07), 1992. (A revised version will be
available in 2005).
[7] M. Duval, Using gas-in-oil standards to improve accuracy of dissolved gas analysis results and diagnoses, Electricity Today, vol.
14, no. 6, p.16, 2002.
[8] M. Duval, New techniques for dissolved gas in oil analysis, IEEE
Elect. Insul. Mag., vol.19, no.2, pp. 615, 2003.
[9] M. Duval, et al., Dissolved gas analysis: It can save your transformer, IEEE Elect. Insul. Mag., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2227, 1989.

July/August 2005 Vol. 21, No. 4

[10] M. Duval, et al., Recent developments in DGA interpretation,

Final report of CIGRE TF15/12-01-11, to be published as a CIGRE
Brochure and in Electra, 2005.
[11] R. R. Rogers, IEEE and IEC codes to interpret incipient faults in
transformers, using gas in oil analysis, IEEE Trans. Elect. Insul.,
vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 349354, 1978.
[12] M. Duval, A review of faults detectable by gas-in-oil analysis in
transformers, IEEE Elect. Insul. Mag., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 817,
2002.
[13] M. Duval and A. dePablo, Interpretation of gas-in-oil analysis using
new IEC Publication 60599 and IEC TC10 data bases, IEEE Elect.
Insul. Mag., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 3141, 2001.

Michel Duval graduated from the University of Toulouse in 1966 with a B.Sc. in
Chemical Engineering, and received a Ph.D.
in Polymer Chemistry from the University of
Paris in 1970. Since then, he has worked for
Hydro Quebecs Institute of Research (IREQ)
on electrical insulating oils, dissolved gas
analysis, and lithium polymer batteries. A senior member of IEEE, he holds 12 patents;
has authored over 60 scientific papers, book chapters, or international standards; and is very active in several CIGRE and IEC
working groups. He may be reached at IREQ, 1800 boul.Lionel
Boulet, Varennes, J3X 1S1, Canada or at duvalm@ireq.ca.

James J. Dukarm has been professionally involved in scientific computing, robotics, and artificial intelligence software applications for many years, starting in 1965 as a
FORTRAN programmer doing statistical
analysis of Peace Corps databases. Since
1988, he has developed widely-used software
products for electric power industry applications, including factory electrical system
monitoring, insulation power factor testing, and dissolved gas
analysis. A founder and partner in Delta-X Research, he is a
member of IEEE, the IEEE Power Engineering Society, and
CIGRE. He has an M.S. in Mathematics from St. Marys University (San Antonio TX) and a Ph.D. in Mathematical Logic
from Simon Fraser University (Burnaby BC). He can be reached
via e-mail at jim@deltaxresearch.com.

27