Interpretacion de la Norma IEEE C57 104 2019

[@josesanmiguel776]

Excelente ingeniero, muchas gracias por compartir, muy claro y facil de entender 👍

[@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875]

Muchas gracias por el comentario, estare en los proximos dias haciendo un video de OLTC que es mi especialidad, compartan el video 😀

[@josesanmiguel776]

@@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875 perfecto inge, quedo pendiente

[@davidcampos7998]

Por fa, sigue con tus videos. Nos compartes información muy importante para quienes trabajamos en esta área. Un abrazo y saludos desde Chile.

[@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875]

Muchisimas gracias por este comentario, muy motivador para seguir realizando esta iniciativa, actualmente estoy trabajando en una presentacion de conmutadores bajo carga que es mi especialidad :)😀

[@davidcampos7998]

@@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875 genial! Pondré la campanita

[@mauri2berbeo142]

Excelente explicacion, gracias profe

[@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875]

Gracias Amigo espero que te haya gustado el contenido :)

[@sergiodavidhernandezmasaya6254]

Un análisis excelente, comprendí mejor la norma

[@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875]

Gracias por el comentario Sergio 👍😀

[@thaolam1581]

Excuse me, The figures in table 4 have a mistake. To be specific, I saw that y=0.1422x-6283.6 was not correct when I compared it with the figure in table (110, 80,20). Could you explain it to me?

[@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875]

Thanks a lot for your comment is a mistake, the correct values are 110, 98 aproximatly and the 80 I will correct

[@thaolam1581]

@@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875 thanks

[@thaolam1581]

Hi @@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875, My results at 3 points, 6 points or 8 points are approximately. However, the standard shows the different maximum values. What I mean, CO within 4-9 months (3 points) is 200ppm, while CO within 10-24 months (>6 points) is only 100ppm. Did you help me understand why the values within 10-24 months are smaller than those within 4-9 months in table 4?

[@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875]

@@thaolam1581 Hi, how are you? I have just been able to take some time to respond, I hope it is still useful, I would like to give you some comments: 1.- The standard to evaluate the annual increments requests minimum 3 and maximum 6 samples, this criterion applies to both ranges of 4-9 or 10-24. In my experience we normally start evaluating with the range of 10 to 24 because a transformer has an annual frequency of DGA and if it is a critical transformer it is done every 6 months, when an anomaly is detected immediately a new sample is done and we could use table 4. 3.-Then when we already have follow-up we use the other range of 4 to 9 months. 4.-The objective of making a linear adjustment for the calculation of annual ppm is to eliminate the uncertainty between sample and sample or minimize the impact of a possible outliner. 5.-With respect to the limits why they vary according to the ranges, it must be taken into account that this standard is based on statistics and as it indicates they are working in the 95th percentile of the data set, so the behavior of the ranges obeys to the results collected in the elaboration of the standard. I hope it has helped you and don't forget to share the videos and like it.

[@thaolam1581]

​@@hectorgonzalesyamashiro1875 It was incredible!... You have a profound knowledge about this major. Your advice brings me insight into this standard which helps my job a lot. I’m so glad you answered. Thank you so much. Our transformers have been operating for more than 10 years. During normal operation, we normally start the purification of the oil when oil has any one gas level that is above the applicable section of Table 1. As a result, I was wondering if the purification of the oil will clean-up the gasses and then the gas levels in the subsequent DGAs will not truly reflect the condition and age of the transformer. In other words, what should be done when we still continue to apply this standard after the purification to evaluate the condition of the transformer. I hope to receive your advice.