IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation

Vol. 19, No. 3; June 2012

1007

A New Approach to Identify Power Transformer Criticality and Asset Management Decision Based on Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Analysis
A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam
Curtin University, Perth WA6102, Australia

ABSTRACT
Dissolved gas analysis (DGA) of transformer oil is one of the most effective power transformer condition monitoring tools. There are many interpretation techniques for DGA results. However, all of these techniques rely on personnel experience more than standard mathematical formulation and significant number of DGA results fall outside the proposed codes of the current methods and cannot be diagnosed by these methods. To overcome these limitations, this paper introduces a novel approach using Gene Expression Programming (GEP) to help in standardizing DGA interpretation techniques, identify transformer critical ranking based on DGA results and propose a proper maintenance action. DGA has been performed on 338 oil samples that have been collected from different transformers of different rating and different life span. Traditional DGA interpretation techniques are used in analyzing the results to measure its consistency. These data are then used to develop the new GEP model. Results show that all current traditional techniques do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion for the same oil sample. The new approach using GEP is easy to implement and it does not call for any expert personnel to interpret the DGA results and to provide a proper asset management decision on the transformer based on DGA analysis.

Index Terms Transformer Diagnosis, Condition monitoring, DGA, GEP.

1 INTRODUCTION
POWER transformers are a vital link in a power system. Monitoring and diagnostic techniques are essential to decrease maintenance and to improve reliability of the equipment. Currently there are several of chemical and electrical diagnostic techniques applied for power transformers [1]. The electrical windings in a power transformer consist of paper insulation immersed in insulating oil, hence transformer oil and paper insulation are essential sources to detect incipient faults, fast developing faults, insulation trending and generally reflects the health condition of the transformer. During faults and due to electrical and thermal stresses, oil and paper decomposition occurs. As a result of this decomposition some gases that decrease the heat dissipation capability and the dielectric strength of the transformer oil are evolved [2]. Gases produced due to oil decompositions are hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), acetylene (C2H2), ethylene (C2H4) and ethane (C2H6). On the other hand paper decomposition produces carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) [2]. Transformer internal faults are divided into thermal and electrical categories. Each fault category evolves particular characteristic gases. However, the analysis is not always straight forward as there may be more than one fault present at the same time. From the type and amount of gas, the fault nature can be determined. Various faults produce energy from low level to very high level sustained arcing. The low level
Manuscript received on 18 April Month 2011, in final form 5 March 2012.

energy is a partial discharge which produces H2 and CH4. Arcing is capable of generating all gases including C2H2 [2]. Presence of C2H2 in the oil is an indication of high energy arcing. Figure 1 shows the various types of faults and the corresponding significant gases produced by each fault.

Figure 1. Types of faults and generated gases

Except for CO and CO2, all other gases are formed due to the decomposition of oil. CO and CO2 represent a good source of paper monitoring and the ratio CO/CO2 is considered as the major factor in cellulose degradation. Transformer oil dissolved gas analysis (DGA) is widely used to detect incipient faults. DGA can be used to determine the transformer failure rank as it has significant impact on the aging mechanism [3]. There are many DGA interpretation techniques such as key gas method [4], Rogers ratio method [5, 6] and Duval triangle method [7] that have been reported in the literatures. However, all of these methods rely on personnel experience more than mathematical formulation and they do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion for the same oil sample. Precise DGA interpretation is yet a challenge in the power transformer condition monitoring research area.

1070-9878/12/$25.00 2012 IEEE

1008

A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam: A New Approach to Identify Power Transformer Criticality and Asset Management Decision

Rogers ratio method, using four-key gas ratios, is based on earlier work by Doerenburg [8], who used five-key gas ratios. Ratio methods are only valid if a significant amount of the gas used in the ratio is present otherwise the method will not be able to identify the type of fault and will lead to invalid code. On the other hand, the IEC ratio method uses three-key gas ratios. Table 1 shows the 3 ratios used in this method, their codes and associated fault type [8].
C2H2/ C2 H4 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1-2 1 0 0 0 0 CH4/ H2 1 0 2 2
C2 H4/ C2H6

Range of gas ratio < 0.1 0.1-1 1-3 >3

Duval and De Pablo mentioned that good number of DGA results fall outside Roger ratio method and cannot be diagnosed. Duval proposed a triangle shown in Figure 2 for transformer fault diagnosis based on DGA results [10]. According to Duval, high rates of paper degradation are indicated when ethylene concentration significantly increases and CO2/CO ratio decreases below 6. However, this ratio is not a reliable indicator for paper health condition and other tests such as furan analysis or degree of polymerisation should be conducted to further investigate the paper condition.

0 0 1 2

2 DGA CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

DGA analysis was performed on 338 oil samples collected from different transformers of different ratings and different operating life span (2 years to 40 years). Diagnostic methods were grouped according to the faults type as shown in Table 3 [11]. All the 338 DGA data were analysed using the 5 methods (Roger, IEC, Doernberg, Duval and key gas) against the fault types shown in Table 3 and consistency of each method was calculated based on its successful prediction with respect to the pre-known fault type for each sample.
Table 3. Fault types. F1 F2 F3 F4 Method

Characteristic Fault 0 0 Normal ageing 1 0 Partial discharge of low energy density 1 0 Partial discharge of high energy density 0 1-2 Continuous sparking 0 2 Discharge of high energy 0 1 Thermal fault of low temp <150 Deg. C Thermal fault of low temp between 1502 0 300 Deg. C Thermal fault of medium temp between 2 1 300-700 Deg. C 2 2 Thermal fault of high temp >700 Deg. C Table 1. Fault classification with IEC ratio method.

The key gas method is set forth in IEEE standard (C57.1041991) that was revised in 2008[8, 9] for transformer oil DGA interpretation. This method uses combination of individual gases and total combustible gas concentration (TCGC) to classify risks within a transformer as shown in Table 2. However, this guide is not widely acknowledged as an effective tool to evaluate the health condition of in-oil immersed transformers [2].
Status Table 2. Dissolved key gas concentration limit (ppm). H2 CH4 C2H 2 C2H4 C2H6 CO CO2 35 3650 5180 >80 50 65 350 2500 51663512500100 100 570 4000 1011015714001200 150 1400 10000 >200 >150 >1400 >10000 TDCG

Normal 100 120 modest 101121Concern 700 400 Major 701401Concern 1800 1000 Imminent >1800 >1000 Risk

720 7211920 19214630 >4630

Thermal Fault <150C Thermal Fault between 150300C Thermal Fault between 300700C Thermal Fault >700C Thermal Fault <150C. Thermal Fault between 150300C. Thermal Fault between 300700C Thermal Fault >700C Thermal Decomposition

Partial Discharge of low energy Partial Discharge of High energy Continues Sparking Discharge of high energy Partial Discharge of low energy Partial Discharge of High energy Continues Sparking Discharge of high energy Arcing/Corona

Out of code

Normal

Roger IEC Doerneburg Duval Key gas

Out of code Out of code Out of code Out of code

Normal Normal

Hot spot Hot spot <200C Hot spot between 200-700C Hot spot >400C Over heated oil Over heated cellulosic

Corona discharge High Energy Arcing Low Energy Arcing Arcing in oil Corona in oil

Figure 2. Duvals Triangle.

Table 4 shows the success rate of each method in identifying different types of faults. It can be concluded from Table 4 that faults F1 and F2 are successfully predicted by Duval followed by Doerneburg then IEC and Roger methods. The successful prediction of normal condition (F3) is very high in all aforementioned methods however IEC and Roger have higher success prediction rate than Doerneburg. In all cases, Key gas method has the lowest success rate in identifying all types of faults. The overall consistency for each method is calculated as the average of the successful prediction rates of the four fault types. As shown in Figure 3, Duval triangle method is the most

Normal Normal

IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation

Vol. 19, No. 3; June 2012

1009

consistent method (72%). On the other hand, Key gas method which depends on each fault gas limit is the least consistent method (37.6%). IEC and Rogers ratio methods have close consistency percentage (60 and 58.9%, respectively).
Table 4. Consistency analysis of Various DGA interpretation methods Method Fault Prediction Successful Successful Consistency code number prediction %age F1 63 43 68% F2 111 77 69.4% 58.9% F3 48 47 98% F4 116 0 0 F1 62 43 68% F2 127 89 71% 60% F3 48 48 100% F4 101 0 0 F1 65 62 80% F2 142 138 97% 67.5% F3 110 103 93% F4 21 0 0% F1 117 105 90% F2 201 197 98% 72% F3 20 20 100% F4 0 0 0% F1 95 51 53% F2 63 23 36.5% 37.6% F3 180 110 61% F4 0 0 0% Roger Key gas IEC Doerneburg Duval

consistent decision on the oil quality and to propose a proper asset management decision based on the DGA results.

3 Proposed Approach
The overall procedure is based on the integration of different DGA techniques in one prototype software model. Figure 4 shows the flow chart of the proposed approach which uses the results of routine DGA analysis. Rogers ratio method and the IEEE key gas method along with the ratio CO/CO2 that checks the health condition of cellulose are used to analyze the DGA results. The final decision of the approach is based on the combination of the outputs of these 3 techniques. When Roger method provides a ratio that does not fit into the diagnostic codes, final decision will be based on the key gas method and the CO/CO2 ratio. The output specifies the critical ranking of the transformer based on DGA in the scale of 0 to 10 and suggests an appropriate maintenance. Implementation of this approach using Gene Expression Programming (GEP) is explained in the following sections.

Figure 4. Flow chart of the proposed approach. Figure 3. Consistency comparison of all methods

The results above prove that DGA is not an exact science and there is no 100% consistency among the existing DGA interpretation techniques. Availability of DGA data history has recently motivated researchers to develop a standard approaches for DGA interpretation based on mathematical and artificial intelligent (AI) techniques [12-15]. The application of AI in the interpretation of DGA results have been based on IEC or Roger ratio tables and they have been limited to keeping the interpretation along the line of the ratio tables. The approach proposed in this paper is much more broad based and proposes an asset maintenance suggestion based on the output in the scale of 0 to 10 using Gene Expression Programming (GEP). The proposed model incorporates the key features of several well established methods such as Roger ratio, key gas method and Duval triangle and their interpretations and then combines the results through a knowledge based GEP technique to provide a reliable and

4 GENE EXPRESSION PROGRAMMING Gene Expression Programming (GEP) is a new technique for data analysis was first invented by Candida Ferreira in 1999 [1619]. GEP is a learning algorithm that can find relationships between variables in sets of data and builds models to explain these relationships. GEP is similar to genetic algorithm (GA) and genetic programming (GP) as it uses populations of individuals, selects them according to fitness, and introduces genetic variation using one or more genetic operators. The nature of individuals is the fundamental difference between the three algorithms. In GA the individuals are linear strings of fixed length (chromosomes); in GP the individuals are nonlinear entities of different sizes and shapes (parse tree); and in GEP the individuals are encoded as linear strings of fixed length expressed as nonlinear entities of different sizes and shapes so that GEP combines the advantage of both GA and GP while overcomes their some shortcomings [20]. One important application of GEP is symbolic regression or function finding,

1010

A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam: A New Approach to Identify Power Transformer Criticality and Asset Management Decision

where the goal is to find expression that performs well for all fitness cases within a certain error of the correct value. In GEP individuals are selected according to its fitness by roulettewheel sampling with elitism and the best individual is preserved. Mathematically, the fitness

f i of an individual
(1)

program i is expressed by the following equation [21]:

f i ( M Ci , j T j )
j 1

Ct

Where M is the range of selection, Ci,j is the value returned by the individual chromosome i for fitness case j (out of Ct fitness cases), and Tj is the target value for fitness case j. Figure 5 shows the flowchart of the typical GEP algorithm [22].

method) of 250 oil samples that are covering all health conditions of insulation oil starting from brand new oil to scrapped oil were provided as the input (independent) parameters to the GEP for the learning stage to build the model while the rest of the collected data (88 samples) were reserved to validate the model in the testing stage. The outputs (targets) of these samples are divided into 4 conditions based on the health condition of the oil sample as shown in Table 5. It worth to mention that the various fault diagnosis for all oil samples were obtained not only using DGA results but other measurements such as partial discharge (PD), Furan contents, dielectric dissipation factor (DDF), moisture contents in oil using the polarisation and depolarisation current (PDC) were performed on the oil samples to assure certain fault decision. The GEP model is designed such that all test samples are tested against the three methods shown in the flow chart of Figure 4. Should there any confliction between the three diagnostic methods, the model considers the worst scenario.
Table 5. Dissolved key gas analysis concentration limit (ppm). Status Condition1 Condition2 Modest criticality Condition3 High criticality Model output (D) 0D<3 3D<5 5D<8 Fault diagnosis No fault Low energy discharge. Cellulose insulation degradation. High energy discharge. Low to medium temperature thermal fault. Cellulose insulation degradation. Asset management decision Continue normal operation. Exercise caution. Check generation rate monthly. Exercise extreme caution. Check generation rate weekly. Reduce operation (loading below 70%). Oil should be degassed / filtered. Plan outage. Exercise extreme caution. Check generation rate daily. Reduce operation (loading below 50%). Oil must be degassed. Consider removal from service.

Figure 5. The flowchart of GEP algorithm.

As shown in Figure 5, the process starts with random generation of the chromosomes to create the initial population then the chromosomes are expressed and the fitness of each individual is evaluated. The chromosomes are modified by means of genetic operations such as mutation, transposition and gene recombination to create new generation. The process is repeated till one of the termination criterions (either a certain number of generations or a maximum fitness) has been met. GEP genes are composed of head and tail. The head consists of symbols that represent both functions (elements from the set function F) and terminals (elements from the terminal set T), whereas the tail contains only terminals. Therefore two different alphabets occur at different regions within a gene. For each problem, the length of the head h is chosen, whereas the length of the tail T is a function of h and the number of arguments of the function n, and is evaluated by [23]: T=h(n-1)+1 (2) The structural and functional organisation of GEP genes and their interplay with expression trees always guarantee the production of valid programs.

Condition4 Significant criticality

D8

High energy discharge. High temperature Thermal fault. Winding circulating current. Significant cellulose degradation. Excessive oil decomposition.

5 IMPLEMENTATION OF GEP MODEL

To implement the flow chart shown in Figure 4 using GEP; the DGA results (H2, CH4, C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, CO, CO2, CO/CO2 and TCGC along with the three ratios of Rogers
Figure 6. GEP model Decision and Target Decision (learning stage).

IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation

Vol. 19, No. 3; June 2012

1011

Some other parameters such as number of Genes, number of chromosomes, length of head and the set functions should be specified to build the GEP model. These parameters have a significant impact on the model accuracy and on its execution time. In the proposed model, the following parameters were used: number of chromosomes=30, number of genes=3, head size=8 and the addition was used as a linking function. Figure 6 shows the output of the GEP model, the corresponding target and the absolute error for each oil sample during the learning stage. The maximum absolute error between the GEP model output and the pre-defined target was found to be 0.393. As can be seen in Figure 6 the GEP model is accurate and efficient in providing the target decision. The mean square error between the model and target is only 0.029 and the correlation coefficient is 0.9983. Unlike other AI based techniques such as artificial neural network (ANN), fuzzy logic, genetic algorithm etc, GEP technique is able to come up with a mathematical expression relating the dependent and target variables which could be very useful for field operators in the absence of expert knowledge in programming [23]. To validate the GEP model, the reserved DGA results data (88 samples) covering all health conditions of insulation oil were provided to the GEP model as input data to estimate the corresponding output. Figure 7 shows the correlation between the model output and the pre-defined output for the testing stage. The correlation factor between the model output and the target is 0.97 and the mean square error is 0.165.

DGA results for samples 3 and 9 are within the normal limits and the models output is less than 3 (condition 1) for these samples and no oil treatment is required. The GEP model shows high criticality (6.9; condition 3) for sample 4 which is attributed to the high level of CH4, CO, CO2 and C2H6. The high CO/CO2 (13.8%) indicates cellulose degradation. Oil treatment is required and regular oil/paper monitoring is suggested. All DGA results for sample 5 are within the normal limit. However, high concentration of CO2 indicates high degradation of cellulose paper, the GEP model result (4.5) indicates modest criticality (condition 2) and treatment of oil and paper monitoring are recommended. Other test such as furan analysis should be conducted to check the cellulose condition.
Table 6. Some DGA samples (ppm) and the corresponding GEP model output. GEP Output (D) Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2

CO2

CH4 49.2 325 19.3 303 46.3 18.8 8778 73.4 37 388

CO

53 12 0 18.9 0 0 12 0 65 384

Figure 7. GEP model Decision and Target Decision (testing stage).

Some samples results are given in Table 6 along with the corresponding GEP model output. The model output for sample 1 is 7.2 (condition 3 in Table 5) on the scale from 0 to 10 which is high criticality. This result agrees with the conventional DGA interpretation result as can be indicated by the high level of CH4, C2H4, CO and CO2. According to the asset management decision in Table 5, Oil must be treated (degassed and filtered) then tested again. The models output for sample 2 is 5.2 (condition 3) which indicates high criticality. This is attributed to the very high level of C2H2 and CH4. Oil of the bushing should be preferably replaced and electrical connection should be checked for short circuit. Also, Oil in the main transformer must be treated. All

DGA results for sample 6 are all within the normal limits except a slight increase in CO2 limit which should be controlled and monitored. The model output (3.5) indicates modest criticality (condition 2). GEP model indicates significant criticality (9.1; condition 4) for sample 7 which can be attributed to the high concentration of CH4 and C2H4. Transformer should be taken out of service immediately to save it from explosion and catastrophic failure. The very high concentration of CO2 in sample 8 indicates serious degradation of cellulose which should be checked through furan analysis or degree of polymerisation measurement. The GEP model output is 4.9 and transformer oil should be treated. The model indicates significant criticality (9.3; condition 4) for sample 10. The CO/CO2 ratio is 18.5% which indicates significant cellulose degradation. The high levels of C2H4,, CH4 and H2 indicate major concern. Transformer should be taken out of service immediately and oil should be degassed and retested.

The paper introduces a novel approach to identify the transformer critical ranking based on Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) of transformer oil. A comparative consistency study using experimental results of 338 transformer oil samples based on traditional DGA interpretation techniques is provided. Results show that the current traditional methods are not completely consistent and they do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion. Moreover, significant number of DGA

H2

748 6021 2824 11.8 787 0 140 1879 0 432 3114 0 219.2 9909 6.02 159 3303 47 317 2959 11990 124 66260 0 50 546 42 173 932 110

514 2.9 57.2 157 16.4 60 4834 88.2 39 55

31 109 0 0.8 0 0 18.7 0 3 33

7.2 5.8 1.3 6.9 4.5 3.5 9.1 4.9 0.9 9.3

6 CONCLUSION

1012

A. Abu-Siada and S. Islam: A New Approach to Identify Power Transformer Criticality and Asset Management Decision
[16] W. Chuan-Sheng, H. Li, and K. Li-Shan, "The automatic modeling of complex functions based on gene expression programming", Intl. Conf. Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Vol. 5, pp. 2870-2873, 2005. [17] G. Zhaohui, L. Gaobin, Y. Zhenkun, and J. Min, "Automatic Modeling of Complex Functions with Clonal Selection-Based Gene Expression Programming", 3rd Intl. Conf. Natural Computation (ICNC), pp. 228232, 2007. [18] C. Ferreira, "Gene Expression Programming: a New Adaptive Algorithm for solving Problems", Complex Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 87129, 2001. [19] C. Ferreira, Gene Expression Programming: Mathematical Modelling by an Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2006. [20] W. Chuan-Sheng, H. Li, and K. Li-Shan, "The automatic modeling of complex functions based on gene expression programming", Intl. Conf. Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Vol. 5, pp. 2870-2873, 2005. [21] G. Zhaohui, L. Gaobin, Y. Zhenkun, and J. Min, "Automatic Modeling of Complex Functions with Clonal Selection-Based Gene Expression Programming", 3rd Intl. Conf. Natural Computation (ICNC), pp. 228232, 2007. [22] C. Ferreira, "Gene Expression Programming: a New Adaptive Algorithm for solving Problems", Complex Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 87129, 2001. [23] C. Ferreira, Gene Expression Programming: Mathematical Modeling by an Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2006.

results fall outside the proposed codes and cannot be diagnosed by these methods. The paper introduces a new approach to automate the DGA interpretation technique using Gene Expression Programming (GEP). The approach combines Rogers ratio method and the IEEE key gas method along with the CO/CO2 ratio for test results interpretation and asset management decision. Implementation of this approach is performed using GEP that provides the transformer criticality ranking based on DGA results. The model also provides a suitable asset management decision based on the calculated criticality ranking. The model is easy to implement and does not call for an expert to interpret the DGA results. Rankings may need to be modified after the IEEE Guide on which they are based (C57.104-2008) has been revised (in 2012/2013). For example, many experienced DGA users may find that cases 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10 in this paper are not as critical as indicated by the present GEP approach.

REFERENCES
[1] T. K. Saha, "Review of modern diagnostic techniques for assessing insulation condition in aged transformers", IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 10, pp. 903-917, 2003. [2] M. Arshad, Remnant Life Estimation Model Using Fuzzy Logic for Power Transformer Asset Management, Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Australia, 2005. [3] X. Liu, F. Zhou, and F. Huang, "Research on on-line DGA using FTIR [power transformer insulation testing]", Power System Technology Proc., Power Con, Vol.3, pp. 1875-1880 2002. [4] "IEEE guide for the interpretation of gases generated in oil-immersed transformers", IEEE Std C57.104-2008 (Revision of IEEE Std C57.1041991), pp. C1-27, 2009. [5] V. G. Arakelian, "Effective diagnostics for oil-filled equipment", IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 26-38, 2002. [6] R. R. Rogers, "IEEE and IEC Codes to Interpret Incipient Faults in Transformers, Using Gas in Oil Analysis", IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul., Vol. 13, pp. 349-354, 1978. [7] M. Duval, "New techniques for dissolved gas-in-oil analysis", IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 6-15, 2003. [8] "IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed Transformers", IEEE Std C57.104 -2008 (Revision of IEEE Std C57.1041991) - Redline, pp. 1-45, 2009. [9] http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e8323f50ad02de80d4d8407c.html [10] M. Duval, "The duval triangle for load tap changers, non-mineral oils and low temperature faults in transformers", IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 22-29, 2008. [11] N. A. Muhamad, B. T. Phung, and T. R. Blackburn, "Comparative study and analysis of DGA methods for mineral oil using fuzzy logic", Intl. Conf. Power Engineering (IPEC), pp. 1301-1306, 2007. [12] M. Hongzhong, L. Zheng, P. Ju, H. Jingdong, and Z. Limin, "Diagnosis of power transformer faults on fuzzy three-ratio method", 7th Intl. Conf. Power Engineering (IPEC), pp. 1-4, 2005. [13] W. Zhenyuan, L. Yilu, and P. J. Griffin, "Neural net and expert system diagnose transformer faults", IEEE Computer Applications in Power, Vol. 13, pp. 50-55, 2000. [14] S. M. Islam, T. Wu, and G. Ledwich, "A novel fuzzy logic approach to transformer fault diagnosis", IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 7, pp. 177-186, 2000. [15] A. Singh and P. Verma, "A review of intelligent diagnostic methods for condition assessment of insulation system in power transformers", Intl. Conf. Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis, (CMD), pp. 1354-1357, 2008.

A. Abu-Siada (M07) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from Ain Shams University, Egypt and the Ph.D. degree from Curtin University of Technology, Australia, All in electrical engineering. Currently, he is a lecturer in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Curtin University. His research interests include power system stability, Condition monitoring, Power Electronics, Power Quality, Energy Technology and System Simulation. He is a regular reviewer for many IEEE Transactions. He is the vice chair of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, WA Chapter.

Syed Islam (S81-M-83-SM93) received the B.Sc. degree from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, the M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia, all in electrical power engineering in 1979, 1983, and 1988, respectively. He is currently the Chair Professor in Electrical Power Engineering and Head of Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. He received the IEEE T Burke Hayes Faculty Recognition award in 2000. He has published over 140 technical papers in his area of expertise. His research interests are in Condition Monitoring of Transformers, Wind Energy Conversion, and Power Systems. He has been a keynote speaker and invited speaker at many international workshops and conferences. He is the currently the Vice-Chair of the Australasian Committee for Power Engineering (ACPE) and a member of the steering committee of the Australian Power Institute. He is a Fellow of the Engineers Australia, a member of IEEE IAS, PES and DEIS, a Fellow of the IET and a chartered engineer in the United Kingdom. He is a regular reviewer for the IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, Power Systems and Power Delivery. Prof. Islam is an editor of the IEEE Transaction on Sustainable Energy.