| Literature DB >> 25136653 |
Peng Li1, Na Zhao2, Donghua Zhou3, Min Cao4, Jingjie Li2, Xinling Shi2.
Abstract
The design of monitoring and predictive alarm systems is necessary for successful overhead power transmission line icing. Given the characteristics of complexity, nonlinearity, and fitfulness in the line icing process, a model based on a multivariable time series is presented here to predict the icing load of a transmission line. In this model, the time effects of micrometeorology parameters for the icing process have been analyzed. The phase-space reconstruction theory and machine learning method were then applied to establish the prediction model, which fully utilized the history of multivariable time series data in local monitoring systems to represent the mapping relationship between icing load and micrometeorology factors. Relevant to the characteristic of fitfulness in line icing, the simulations were carried out during the same icing process or different process to test the model's prediction precision and robustness. According to the simulation results for the Tao-Luo-Xiong Transmission Line, this model demonstrates a good accuracy of prediction in different process, if the prediction length is less than two hours, and would be helpful for power grid departments when deciding to take action in advance to address potential icing disasters.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25136653 PMCID: PMC4127214 DOI: 10.1155/2014/256815
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Maintenance based on safety status prediction.
Figure 2Meteorology data and icing load curves I (2009.12.14–2010.1.25).
Delay time τ and embedding dimension d .
| Various |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Figure 3The process of modeling and prediction.
Figure 4Filter results of q , W , W , and S .
Figure 5Results of prediction in the same icing process (k = 1) for the first serious icing process (2009.12.17–2009.12.20).
The error variances of icing load prediction in same icing process for the first serious icing process from (12/17/2009~12/20/2009).
| Prediction length | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard deviation (multivariable prediction based on BPNN) | 108.6 | 134.5 | 142.8 | 181.7 | 255.6 | 297.5 |
|
| ||||||
| Standard deviation (single variable prediction based on ARIMA) | 151.9 | 194.7 | 263.5 | 289.3 | 320.1 | 386.2 |
Figure 6Results of prediction in same icing process (k = 1) for the second serious icing process (1/10/2010~1/12/2010).
The error variances of icing load prediction in same icing process for the second serious icing process (1/10/2010~1/12/2010).
| Prediction length | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard deviation (multivariable prediction based on BPNN) | 136.1 | 149.4 | 172.5 | 210.6 | 282.1 | 313.6 |
|
| ||||||
| Standard deviation (single variable prediction based on ARIMA) | 145.2 | 204.9 | 288.7 | 293.6 | 368.4 | 407.4 |
Figure 7Results of prediction in different icing process (k = 1).
The error variances of icing load prediction in different icing process.
| Prediction length | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard deviation (multivariable prediction based on BPNN) | 71.2 | 93.5 | 135.8 | 178.9 | 266.6 | 324.7 |
|
| ||||||
| Standard deviation (single variable prediction based on ARIMA) | 126.3 | 133.3 | 171.1 | 229.9 | 317.2 | 356.8 |