| Literature DB >> 29986438 |
Yang Sing Leong1, Pin Jern Ker2, M Z Jamaludin3, Saifuddin M Nomanbhay4, Aiman Ismail5, Fairuz Abdullah6, Hui Mun Looe7, Chin Kim Lo8.
Abstract
Monitoring the condition of transformer oil is considered to be one of the preventive maintenance measures and it is very critical in ensuring the safety as well as optimal performance of the equipment. Various oil properties and contents in oil can be monitored such as acidity, furanic compounds and color. The current method is used to determine the color index (CI) of transformer oil produces an error of 0.5 in measurement, has high risk of human handling error, additional expense such as sampling and transportations, and limited samples can be measured per day due to safety and health reasons. Therefore, this work proposes the determination of CI of transformer oil using ultraviolet-to-visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy. Results show a good correlation between the CI of transformer oil and the absorbance spectral responses of oils from 300 nm to 700 nm. Modeled equations were developed to relate the CI of the oil with the cutoff wavelength and absorbance, and with the area under the curve from 360 nm to 600 nm. These equations were verified with another set of oil samples. The equation that describes the relationship between cutoff wavelength, absorbance and CI of the oil shows higher accuracy with root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.1961.Entities:
Keywords: color; oil insulation; power transformers; ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy
Year: 2018 PMID: 29986438 PMCID: PMC6069396 DOI: 10.3390/s18072175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Initial optical absorbance spectrums of four oil samples with different color indices (CI) based on ASTM D 1500.
Figure 2Optical absorbance spectrums of four oil samples with different CI based on ASTM D 1500 after applying ND filter.
Figure 3Optical absorbance spectrum of transformer oils with increasing CI based on ASTM D 1500.
Figure 4(a) CW verses CI of transformer oil samples at Abs = 0.5; 1.0 and 1.5, (b) Area verses CI of transformer oil samples.
Guideline for interpretation of strength of relationship for absolute values of correlation.
| Absolute Value of | Strength of Relationship |
|---|---|
| 0–0.19 | Very Weak |
| 0.20–0.39 | Weak |
| 0.40–0.59 | Moderate |
| 0.60–0.79 | Strong |
| 0.80–1.00 | Very Strong |
Regression analysis results for linear, paraboloid and Gaussian.
| Regression Method |
| Adjusted |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | 0.9563 | 0.9553 | 0.3670 |
| Paraboloid | 0.9651 | 0.9635 | 0.3317 |
| Gaussian | 0.9802 | 0.9793 | 0.2499 |
Figure 5Graph of CW vs. CI of transformer oil samples vs. Abs (Red Circles with black borders) with Gaussian regression (White plane).
Figure 6Area vs. CI of transformer oil samples with linear regression line (dotted line).
Verification data for 42 oil samples (S1–S42) at Abs = 0.75 using Equation (2).
| Sample | Measured | Measured Cutoff Wavelength (nm) | Calculated | Difference in | Standard Deviation | Standard Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 0.5 | 352 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.0733 | 0.033 |
| S2 | 0.5 | 357 | 0.8 | 0.3 | ||
| S3 | 0.5 | 346 | 0.6 | 0.1 | ||
| S4 | 0.5 | 361 | 0.8 | 0.3 | ||
| S5 | 0.5 | 345 | 0.6 | 0.1 | ||
| S6 | 1.0 | 371 | 0.9 | −0.1 | 0.1174 | 0.053 |
| S7 | 1.0 | 370 | 0.9 | −0.1 | ||
| S8 | 1.0 | 379 | 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| S9 | 1.0 | 385 | 1.1 | 0.1 | ||
| S10 | 1.0 | 389 | 1.2 | 0.2 | ||
| S11 | 1.5 | 427 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2238 | 0.100 |
| S12 | 1.5 | 409 | 1.5 | 0.0 | ||
| S13 | 1.5 | 402 | 1.4 | −0.1 | ||
| S14 | 1.5 | 425 | 1.9 | 0.4 | ||
| S15 | 1.5 | 425 | 1.9 | 0.4 | ||
| S16 | 2.0 | 447 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.1839 | 0.082 |
| S17 | 2.0 | 447 | 2.4 | 0.4 | ||
| S18 | 2.0 | 440 | 2.2 | 0.2 | ||
| S19 | 2.0 | 440 | 2.2 | 0.2 | ||
| S20 | 2.0 | 428 | 1.9 | −0.1 | ||
| S21 | 2.5 | 451 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0777 | 0.035 |
| S22 | 2.5 | 458 | 2.7 | 0.2 | ||
| S23 | 2.5 | 456 | 2.6 | 0.1 | ||
| S24 | 2.5 | 453 | 2.5 | 0.0 | ||
| S25 | 2.5 | 452 | 2.5 | 0.0 | ||
| S26 | 3.0 | 467 | 2.9 | −0.1 | 0.1723 | 0.077 |
| S27 | 3.0 | 477 | 3.2 | 0.2 | ||
| S28 | 3.0 | 477 | 3.2 | 0.2 | ||
| S29 | 3.0 | 471 | 3.0 | 0.0 | ||
| S30 | 3.0 | 464 | 2.8 | −0.2 | ||
| S31 | 3.5 | 487 | 3.5 | 0.0 | - | - |
| S32 | 3.5 | 495 | 3.8 | 0.3 | - | - |
| S33 | 4.0 | 504 | 4.1 | 0.1 | - | - |
| S34 | 4.0 | 495 | 3.8 | −0.2 | - | - |
| S35 | 4.5 | 511 | 4.3 | −0.2 | - | - |
| S36 | 4.5 | 513 | 4.4 | −0.1 | - | - |
| S37 | 5.0 | 523 | 4.8 | −0.2 | - | - |
| S38 | 5.5 | 538 | 5.3 | −0.2 | - | - |
| S39 | 5.5 | 536 | 5.2 | −0.3 | - | - |
| S40 | 6.5 | 568 | 6.4 | −0.1 | - | - |
| S41 | 7.0 | 582 | 7.0 | 0.0 | - | - |
| S42 | 7.5 | 592 | 7.3 | −0.2 | - | - |
1 Color index based on measurement in accordance of ASTM D 1500, 2 Color index calculated based on Equation (2), 3 Difference in CI = Calculated CI – Measured CI.
Figure 7Plot of average absolute difference and maximum absolute difference at different Abs value.
Verification data for 42 oil samples (S1–S42) using Equation (3).
| Sample | Measured |
| Calculated | Difference in | Standard Deviation | Standard Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 0.5 | 11.7707 | 0.1 | −0.4 | 0.0480 | 0.021 |
| S2 | 0.5 | 11.3844 | 0.1 | −0.4 | ||
| S3 | 0.5 | 4.0164 | 0.0 | −0.5 | ||
| S4 | 0.5 | 16.6769 | 0.2 | −0.3 | ||
| S5 | 0.5 | 4.6769 | 0.0 | −0.5 | ||
| S6 | 1.0 | 48.885 | 0.4 | −0.6 | 0.0872 | 0.039 |
| S7 | 1.0 | 37.4572 | 0.3 | −0.7 | ||
| S8 | 1.0 | 46.276 | 0.4 | −0.6 | ||
| S9 | 1.0 | 56.0387 | 0.5 | −0.5 | ||
| S10 | 1.0 | 62.8738 | 0.6 | −0.4 | ||
| S11 | 1.5 | 148.5237 | 1.3 | −0.2 | 0.2465 | 0.110 |
| S12 | 1.5 | 103.449 | 0.9 | −0.6 | ||
| S13 | 1.5 | 83.9942 | 0.8 | −0.7 | ||
| S14 | 1.5 | 138.809 | 1.3 | −0.2 | ||
| S15 | 1.5 | 136.7029 | 1.2 | −0.3 | ||
| S16 | 2.0 | 236.6137 | 2.1 | 0.1 | 0.3090 | 0.138 |
| S17 | 2.0 | 236.3961 | 2.1 | 0.1 | ||
| S18 | 2.0 | 198.7913 | 1.8 | −0.2 | ||
| S19 | 2.0 | 209.3838 | 1.9 | −0.1 | ||
| S20 | 2.0 | 153.3042 | 1.4 | −0.6 | ||
| S21 | 2.5 | 246.3 | 2.2 | −0.3 | 0.1903 | 0.085 |
| S22 | 2.5 | 296.6479 | 2.7 | 0.2 | ||
| S23 | 2.5 | 274.906 | 2.5 | 0.0 | ||
| S24 | 2.5 | 264.5622 | 2.4 | −0.1 | ||
| S25 | 2.5 | 246.69 | 2.2 | −0.3 | ||
| S26 | 3.0 | 503.8327 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0.6625 | 0.296 |
| S27 | 3.0 | 355.9228 | 3.2 | 0.2 | ||
| S28 | 3.0 | 374.7372 | 3.4 | 0.4 | ||
| S29 | 3.0 | 343.9266 | 3.1 | 0.1 | ||
| S30 | 3.0 | 313.9438 | 2.8 | −0.2 | ||
| S31 | 3.5 | 435.9306 | 3.9 | 0.4 | - | - |
| S32 | 3.5 | 580.9014 | 5.2 | 1.7 | - | - |
| S33 | 4.0 | 538.9002 | 4.9 | 0.9 | - | - |
| S34 | 4.0 | 430.8067 | 3.9 | −0.1 | - | - |
| S35 | 4.5 | 547.1639 | 4.9 | 0.4 | - | - |
| S36 | 4.5 | 345.1915 | 3.1 | −1.4 | - | - |
| S37 | 5.0 | 572.1769 | 5.2 | 0.2 | - | - |
| S38 | 5.5 | 805.9143 | 7.3 | 1.8 | - | - |
| S39 | 5.5 | 624.9499 | 5.6 | 0.1 | - | - |
| S40 | 6.5 | 743.9695 | 6.7 | 0.2 | - | - |
| S41 | 7.0 | 821.1863 | 7.4 | 0.4 | - | - |
| S42 | 7.5 | 901.6618 | 8.1 | 0.6 | - | - |
1 Color index based on measurement in accordance of ASTM D 1500, 2 Integration of area under the graph from 360 nm to 600 nm, 3 Color index calculated based on Equation (3), 4 Difference in CI = Calculated CI – Measured CI.
Maximum absolute difference, average absolute difference, and RMSE value for verification data.
|
| Maximum Absolute Difference | Average Absolute Difference |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.25 | 0.8 | 0.3413 | 0.3972 |
| 0.50 | 0.6 | 0.1752 | 0.2235 | |
| 0.75 | 0.4 | 0.1632 | 0.1961 | |
| 1.00 | 0.4 | 0.1798 | 0.2144 | |
| 1.25 | 0.6 | 0.2247 | 0.2747 | |
| 1.50 | 0.8 | 0.2350 | 0.2981 | |
| 1.75 | 0.9 | 0.2493 | 0.3163 | |
| 2.00 | 0.9 | 0.2574 | 0.3249 | |
|
| - | 1.8 | 0.4647 | 0.6274 |
Figure 8Simple block diagram of potential portable measuring prototype.