Figure 1.
Sketch of thermal faults simulation system.
Figure 1.
Sketch of thermal faults simulation system.
Figure 2.
Temperature distribution of oil sample after heating different times when the oven temperature is 800 °C. (a) After heating 0.5 min; (b) After heating 1 min; (c) After heating 1.5 min; and (d) After heating 2 min.
Figure 2.
Temperature distribution of oil sample after heating different times when the oven temperature is 800 °C. (a) After heating 0.5 min; (b) After heating 1 min; (c) After heating 1.5 min; and (d) After heating 2 min.
Figure 3.
Temperature rising rate curve of mineral and vegetable oil samples: (a) Mineral oil; (b) Vegetable oil.
Figure 3.
Temperature rising rate curve of mineral and vegetable oil samples: (a) Mineral oil; (b) Vegetable oil.
Figure 4.
The sketch of electrical faults simulation setup. 1–AC power; 2–transformer; 3–protection resistance; 4–coupling capacitor; 5–high-voltage bushing; 6–tank; 7–ground wire; 8–ground bushing; 9–sample; 10–current sensor; and 11–oscilloscope.
Figure 4.
The sketch of electrical faults simulation setup. 1–AC power; 2–transformer; 3–protection resistance; 4–coupling capacitor; 5–high-voltage bushing; 6–tank; 7–ground wire; 8–ground bushing; 9–sample; 10–current sensor; and 11–oscilloscope.
Figure 5.
Sketch of breakdown models: (a) Sphere-disc electrode; (b) Column-disc electrode; (c) Needle-disc electrode; (d) Sphere-disc electrode (with paper); (e) Column-disc electrode (with paper); and (f) Needle-disc electrode (with paper).
Figure 5.
Sketch of breakdown models: (a) Sphere-disc electrode; (b) Column-disc electrode; (c) Needle-disc electrode; (d) Sphere-disc electrode (with paper); (e) Column-disc electrode (with paper); and (f) Needle-disc electrode (with paper).
Figure 6.
Sketch of typical insulation defect model: (a) Air gap discharge; (b) Surface discharge; (c) Floating discharge; and (d) Corona in oil.
Figure 6.
Sketch of typical insulation defect model: (a) Air gap discharge; (b) Surface discharge; (c) Floating discharge; and (d) Corona in oil.
Figure 7.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil as a function of oven temperature (from 90 °C to 250 °C).
Figure 7.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil as a function of oven temperature (from 90 °C to 250 °C).
Figure 8.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil-paper insulation as a function of oven temperature (from 90 °C to 250 °C).
Figure 8.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil-paper insulation as a function of oven temperature (from 90 °C to 250 °C).
Figure 9.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil as a function of oven temperature (from 300 °C to 800 °C).
Figure 9.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil as a function of oven temperature (from 300 °C to 800 °C).
Figure 10.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil-paper insulation as a function of oven temperature (from 300 °C to 800 °C).
Figure 10.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil-paper insulation as a function of oven temperature (from 300 °C to 800 °C).
Figure 11.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil under breakdown.
Figure 11.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil under breakdown.
Figure 12.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil-paper under breakdown.
Figure 12.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil-paper under breakdown.
Figure 13.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil under partial discharge.
Figure 13.
Relative percentages of fault gases in oil under partial discharge.
Figure 14.
Diagnostic results of simulated thermal faults using graph representation method (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature): (a) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and C2H4/C2H6; (b) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and CH4/H2.
Figure 14.
Diagnostic results of simulated thermal faults using graph representation method (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature): (a) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and C2H4/C2H6; (b) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and CH4/H2.
Figure 15.
Diagnostic results of simulated electrical faults using graph representation method: (a) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and C2H4/C2H6; (b) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and CH4/H2.
Figure 15.
Diagnostic results of simulated electrical faults using graph representation method: (a) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and C2H4/C2H6; (b) According to the ratio of C2H2/C2H4 and CH4/H2.
Figure 16.
Diagnostic results of simulated thermal faults using Duval Triangle 1 (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 16.
Diagnostic results of simulated thermal faults using Duval Triangle 1 (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 17.
Diagnostic results of simulated electrical faults using Duval Triangle 1.
Figure 17.
Diagnostic results of simulated electrical faults using Duval Triangle 1.
Figure 18.
Diagnostic results of simulated thermal faults using the Duval Pentagon (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 18.
Diagnostic results of simulated thermal faults using the Duval Pentagon (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 19.
Diagnostic results of simulated electrical faults using the Duval Pentagon.
Figure 19.
Diagnostic results of simulated electrical faults using the Duval Pentagon.
Figure 20.
Diagnostic results of thermal and electrical faults of FR3 oil using Duval Triangle 3 (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 20.
Diagnostic results of thermal and electrical faults of FR3 oil using Duval Triangle 3 (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 21.
Diagnostic results of thermal and electrical faults of camellia oil based on the modified Duval Triangle 3 (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 21.
Diagnostic results of thermal and electrical faults of camellia oil based on the modified Duval Triangle 3 (data in the figure are expressed as a function of oven temperature).
Figure 22.
The principal decomposition pathways of oleic-type triglyceride and their standard enthalpies of reactions calculated using M06-2x method.
Figure 22.
The principal decomposition pathways of oleic-type triglyceride and their standard enthalpies of reactions calculated using M06-2x method.
Figure 23.
The principal decomposition pathways of linoleic-type triglyceride and their standard enthalpies of reactions calculated using M06-2x method.
Figure 23.
The principal decomposition pathways of linoleic-type triglyceride and their standard enthalpies of reactions calculated using M06-2x method.
Table 1.
Basic physical, chemical, and electrical properties of the three types of insulation oils.
Table 1.
Basic physical, chemical, and electrical properties of the three types of insulation oils.
Parameter | Camellia Oil | FR3 Oil [23] | Mineral Oil |
---|
Appearance | Light Yellow | Light Green | Transparent |
---|
Density (20 °C)/kg·m−3 | 0.90 | 0.92 | <0.895 |
Viscosity (40 °C)/mm2·s−1 | 39.9 | 34.1 | ≤13.0 |
Pour point/°C | −28 | −21 | <−22 |
Flash point/°C | 322 | 316 | ≥135 |
Acid value/mgKOH·g−1 | 0.03 | 0.04 | ≤0.03 |
Interfacial tension/mN·m | 25 | 24 | ≥40 |
AC breakdown voltage/kV | 70 | 56 | ≥35 |
Dissipation factor(90 °C)/% | 0.88 | 0.89 | ≤0.1 |
Volume resistivity/Ω·m | 1 × 1010/90 °C | 2 × 1011/25 °C | 7 × 1011/25 °C |
Relative permittivity | 2.9/90 °C | 3.2/25 °C | 2.2/90 °C |
Table 2.
Duration of mineral and vegetable oil samples before reaching required temperatures.
Table 2.
Duration of mineral and vegetable oil samples before reaching required temperatures.
Temperature (°C) | 300 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 700 | 800 |
---|
Duration (min) | Mineral oil | 2.54 | 2.36 | 2.83 | 2.57 | 2.84 | 2.37 |
Vegetable oil | 3.64 | 3.34 | 3.40 | 3.15 | 2.82 | 2.56 |
Table 3.
The temperature and duration of simulated thermal tests.
Table 3.
The temperature and duration of simulated thermal tests.
Temperature (°C) | T1 | T2 | T3 |
---|
90 | 120 | 150 | 200 | 250 | 300 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 700 | 800 |
---|
Duration (h) | 168 | 168 | 168 | 2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/12 | 1/12 | 1/15 | 1/20 | 1/24 |
Table 4.
CO and CO2 content in oil under thermal faults below 300 °C.
Table 4.
CO and CO2 content in oil under thermal faults below 300 °C.
Insulation Structure | Oil Type | Temperature/°C | CO/ppm | CO2/ppm |
---|
Oil | Camellia oil | 90 | 49.3 | 1111.2 |
200 | 68.8 | 1149.6 |
FR3 oil | 90 | 24.2 | 918.9 |
200 | 29.5 | 542.7 |
Mineral oil | 90 | 15.89 | 800.5 |
200 | 85.4 | 781.4 |
Oil-Paper | Camellia oil | 90 | 65.3 | 1837.0 |
200 | 1157.2 | 17,883.4 |
FR3 oil | 90 | 29.2 | 1379.3 |
200 | 468.5 | 11,568.4 |
Mineral oil | 90 | 190.3 | 2638.6 |
200 | 327.9 | 8192.8 |
Table 5.
CO and CO2 content in oil under thermal faults above 300 °C.
Table 5.
CO and CO2 content in oil under thermal faults above 300 °C.
Insulation Structure | Oil Type | Temperature/°C | CO/ppm | CO2/ppm |
---|
Oil | Camellia oil | 400 | 74.64 | 2664.4 |
700 | 1854.3 | 10,517.3 |
FR3 oil | 400 | 434.6 | 2430.7 |
700 | 1553.3 | 8945.1 |
Mineral oil | 400 | 250.8 | 2038.8 |
700 | 1797.9 | 9845.1 |
Oil-Paper | Camellia oil | 400 | 160.2 | 3628.4 |
700 | 1792.4 | 12,481.1 |
FR3 oil | 400 | 171.5 | 3536.2 |
700 | 1487.3 | 21,527.1 |
Mineral oil | 400 | 190.3 | 3160.1 |
700 | 327.9 | 43,957.3 |
Table 6.
CO and CO2 content (in ppm) in oil under needle-disc breakdown.
Table 6.
CO and CO2 content (in ppm) in oil under needle-disc breakdown.
Insulation Structure | Gas Type | Camellia Oil | FR3 Oil | Mineral Oil |
---|
Oil | CO | 15.52 | 9.11 | 15.52 |
CO2 | 1259.49 | 690.16 | 1295.49 |
Oil-Paper | CO | 442.31 | 563.85 | 86.88 |
CO2 | 1704.2 | 1012.31 | 912.74 |
Table 7.
Fault gas contents (in ppm) in oil under partial discharge.
Table 7.
Fault gas contents (in ppm) in oil under partial discharge.
Model | Gas Type | Camellia Oil | FR3 Oil | Mineral Oil |
---|
Air gap | H2 | 6.2 | 25.64 | 13.54 |
THGC * | 7.7 | 23.66 | 3.39 |
CO | 37.4 | 22.47 | 4.39 |
CO2 | 357.63 | 349.63 | 202.5 |
Table 8.
Consistencies of diagnosis results and simulated fault types.
Table 8.
Consistencies of diagnosis results and simulated fault types.
Temperature/°C | Mineral Oil | FR3 | Camellia Oil |
---|
90 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
120 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
150 | Conformity | Conformity | Inconformity |
200 | Conformity | Conformity | Inconformity |
250 | Conformity | Inconformity | Conformity |
300 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
400 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
500 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
600 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
700 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
800 | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
Table 9.
Consistencies of diagnosis results and simulated fault types.
Table 9.
Consistencies of diagnosis results and simulated fault types.
Model | Mineral Oil | FR3 | Camellia Oil |
---|
Sphere-disc (oil) | Conformity | Conformity | Conformity |
Needle-disc (oil) | Conformity | Conformity | Conformity |
Column-disc (oil) | Conformity | Conformity | Conformity |
Sphere-disc (oil-paper) | Conformity | Conformity | Conformity |
Needle-disc (oil-paper) | Conformity | Conformity | Conformity |
Column-disc (oil-paper) | Conformity | Conformity | Conformity |
Air gap | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
Surface discharge | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
Floating discharge | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
Corona in oil | Conformity | Inconformity | Inconformity |
Table 10.
Fatty acid content of soybean oil and camellia oil (%).
Table 10.
Fatty acid content of soybean oil and camellia oil (%).
Vegetable Oil | Saturated Fatty Acid | Unsaturated Fatty Acids |
---|
Mono-Unsaturated | Double-Unsaturated | Poly-Unsaturated |
---|
Soybean Oil | 14.2 | 22.5 | 51.0 | 12.3 |
Camellia Oil | 10.2 | 78.3 | 7.0 | 4.5 |