| Literature DB >> 30340354 |
Gaoyang Li1, Xiaohua Wang2, Xi Li3, Aijun Yang4, Mingzhe Rong5.
Abstract
Partial discharge (PD) is not only an important symptom for monitoring the imperfections in the insulation system of a gas-insulated switchgear (GIS), but also the factor that accelerates the degradation. At present, monitoring ultra-high-frequency (UHF) signals induced by PDs is regarded as one of the most effective approaches for assessing the insulation severity and classifying the PDs. Therefore, in this paper, a deep learning-based PD classification algorithm is proposed and realized with a multi-column convolutional neural network (CNN) that incorporates UHF spectra of multiple resolutions. First, three subnetworks, as characterized by their specified designed temporal filters, frequency filters, and texture filters, are organized and then intergraded by a fully-connected neural network. Then, a long short-term memory (LSTM) network is utilized for fusing the embedded multi-sensor information. Furthermore, to alleviate the risk of overfitting, a transfer learning approach inspired by manifold learning is also present for model training. To demonstrate, 13 modes of defects considering both the defect types and their relative positions were well designed for a simulated GIS tank. A detailed analysis of the performance reveals the clear superiority of the proposed method, compared to18 typical baselines. Several advanced visualization techniques are also implemented to explore the possible qualitative interpretations of the learned features. Finally, a unified framework based on matrix projection is discussed to provide a possible explanation for the effectiveness of the architecture.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural network; multi-resolution analysis; partial discharge; ultra-high-frequency signals
Year: 2018 PMID: 30340354 PMCID: PMC6210742 DOI: 10.3390/s18103512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Summary of the relevant features and classifiers that have been used for partial discharge (PD) recognition.
| Reference | PD Types | Feature Extraction | Classifier | Recognition Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Umamaheswari and Sarathi [ | Four types of artificial insulation defects | Partial power analysis | SVM | Average of 95.25% |
| Darabad et al. [ | Ten types of PD sources | Texture features + PCA | SOM | Grouped data visualization |
| Mas’ud et al. [ | Six PD fault geometries in oil, air, and poly-ethylene-terephthalate | Statistical parameters from the PRPD patterns | ENN | Average 95% |
| Evagorou et al. [ | Four types of artificial PDs in oil and air. | Wavelet packet transform + statistical parameters | PNN | 97.49%, 91.9%, 100%, and 99.8% |
| Wang et al. [ | Four types of artificial defect models in the oil and air. | S-transform | Affinity propagation clustering | 99.67% |
| Li et al. [ | Four kinds of typical defects in a 252 kV GIS | Cumulative energy in time and frequency domain + mathematical morphological gradient | Fuzzy maximum-likelihood algorithm | 98% |
| Li et al. [ | Four kinds of defects in GIS | Statistical parameters of both the TRPD and PRPD patterns | Dempster–Shafer evidence theory + Neural network | 97.25% |
| Albarracín et al. [ | Separation of PDs with electromagnetic noises | Power ratios and the signal times | Grouped data visualization | The separation criteria was given |
| Li et al. [ | Six types of artificial insulation defect models in the oil, air, and paper-fiber interface. | Wavelet packages + fractal features + Linear discriminant analysis | Finding the closest centroid | 99.4, 94.5, 99.4, 91.9, 87.5, and 97.7%, respectively. |
| Wang et al. [ | Three typical PD defect patterns in a 252 kV GIS | Fourier transform + Chromatic methodology | SVM | 86.67% |
| Gu et al. [ | Three common defect types of 25 kV cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) power cable | HHT + Fractal parameters | NN | 100%, when 5% random white noise |
| Dai et al. [ | Four kinds of artificial defects in GIS | S-transform + Singular value decomposition (SVD) | SVM | 98.33% |
| Majidi et al. [ | Air voids with dimensions of 1, 1.5, and 2 mm | 1-norm, 2-norm, and infinity-norm of the statistical features | Sparse representation vector | 99.7%, 92.9%, 94.0%, and 81.6% for four different scenarios |
| Khan et al. [ | Parallel-plane stainless steel electrodes in SF6 with 10 different particle lengths and positions | Statistical features + PCA | NN | 88% |
Figure 1Gabor representations of different time and frequency resolutions: (a) windows of different lengths; (b) spectrogram of higher time resolution; (c) spectrogram of higher frequency resolution; (d) spectrum of medium resolution.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the time range and frequency range before reaching the threshold.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of the different convolutional filters and their corresponding outputs: (a) temporal filter; (b) frequency filter; (c) texture filter.
Figure 4Structure of the multi-resolution CNN and the LSTM fusion.
Figure 5Architectures of LSTM and a general RNN.
Figure 6Three stages of the knowledge transfer process.
Figure 7Siamese network for embedding the feature maps into a constant vector.
Figure 8Schematic diagram of the GIS tank, PESA sensors, and the experimental circuit.
Figure 9GIS experimental platform: (a) GIS tank and the positions of the UHF sensors; (b) the installation of the UHF sensors inside the tank.
Figure 10Typical PD defect patterns: (a) floating electrode; (b) metal protrusion on the conductor; (c) metal protrusion on the tank; (d) surface contamination; (e) free metal particles.
Figure 11Typical UHF waveforms: (a) UHF signals of five different defect types; (b) UHF signals acquired from the four channels; (c) UHF signals of the three relative angles.
Figure 12Percentages of the time and frequency decline ranges along the window lengths.
Detailed network structure.
| Index | Window | Input Shape | CNN Structures | MLP | LSTM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Column 1 | 6 | 30 × 50 | (Conv2 × 50−MaxPooling2 × 1−Dropout)−(Conv2 × 1−MaxPooling2 × 1−Dropout)−(Dense100−Dense50) | Flatten–Concatenation–Dense100–Dense50 | LSTM with 16 inner nodes–Flatten–Dense50–Output |
| Column 2 | 100 | 150 × 36 | (Conv150 × 4−MaxPooling1 × 2−Dropout)–(Conv1 × 3–MaxPooling1 × 2−Dropout)–(Dense100−Dense50) | ||
| Column 3 | 30 | 100 × 64 | (Conv50 × 4−MaxPooling2 × 2−Dropout)−(Conv2 × 2−MaxPooling2 × 2−Dropout)−(Dense100−Dense50) |
Diagnostic accuracies and the intermediate outputs for classifying both the positions and defect types.
| Index | Structure | Single Sensor Diagnosis (%) | Multi-Sensor (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor1 | Sensor2 | Sensor3 | Sensor4 | |||
| 1 | Temporal column | 85.72 | 86.94 | 66.62 | 71.94 | 87.91 |
| 2 | Frequency column | 94.57 | 93.56 | 85.43 | 83.78 | 95.35 |
| 3 | Texture column | 94.42 | 93.05 | 84.78 | 86.30 | 93.70 |
| 4 | Multi-resolution | 96.08 | 95.07 | 91.01 | 90.18 | 97.51 |
Diagnostic accuracies and the intermediate outputs for classifying the defect types only.
| Index | Structure | Single sensor Diagnosis (%) | Multi-Sensor (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor1 | Sensor2 | Sensor3 | Sensor4 | |||
| 1 | Temporal column | 89.53 | 90.86 | 81.22 | 81.04 | 94.53 |
| 2 | Frequency column | 95.58 | 96.29 | 90.14 | 87.81 | 96.51 |
| 3 | Texture column | 96.15 | 95.07 | 89.53 | 87.48 | 95.79 |
| 4 | Multi-resolution | 97.37 | 97.09 | 91.29 | 90.79 | 98.20 |
Figure 13Loss curves of the three stages of the transfer learning: (a) The defect types and positions; (b) the defect types only.
Figure 14Time consumptions of the three stages of the transfer learning: (a) The defect types and positions; (b) the defect types only.
Figure 15Visualization of the convolutional filters: (a) temporal filters; (b) frequency filters; (c) texture filters.
Figure 16The outputs of the first layer of convolutional filters. (a) The output of the temporal filter; (b) the output of the frequency filter; (c) the output of the texture filter.
Figure 17Visualization of the learned features for both the defects and positions: (a) Temporal channel; (b) frequency channel; (c) texture channel.
Figure 18Visualization of the learned features for the defect types only: (a) Temporal channel; (b) frequency channel; (c) texture channel.
Typical diagnosis models for comparisons.
| Index | Summary | Two-Dimensionalization Analysis | Feature Extraction | Feature Selection | Classifier | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-Dimensionalization | Matrix Compression | Decomposition | Features | ||||
| 1 | Map + CNN | HHT Map | - | - | - | - | CNN |
| 2 | Wavelet Map | - | - | - | - | CNN | |
| 3 | Raw input | - | - | - | - | Yes | SVM |
| 4 | - | - | - | - | Yes | DNN | |
| 5 | T&F features | - | - | - | T&F | Yes | SVM |
| 6 | - | - | - | T&F | Yes | DNN | |
| 7 | Wavelet + T&F | - | - | wavelet | T&F | Yes | SVM |
| 8 | - | - | wavelet | T&F | Yes | DNN | |
| 9 | HHT + T&F | - | - | HHT | T&F | Yes | SVM |
| 10 | - | - | HHT | T&F | Yes | DNN | |
| 11 | STFT + NMF | STFT | NMF | - | Yes | SVM | |
| 12 | STFT | NMF | - | Yes | DNN | ||
| 13 | SFTF + NMF + T&F | STFT | NMF | T&F | Yes | SVM | |
| 14 | STFT | NMF | T&F | Yes | DNN | ||
| 15 | SFTF + 2DPCA | STFT | 2DPCA | Yes | SVM | ||
| 16 | STFT | 2DPCA | Yes | DNN | |||
| 17 | SFTF + 2DPCA + T&F | STFT | 2DPCA | T&F | Yes | SVM | |
| 18 | STFT | 2DPCA | T&F | Yes | DNN | ||
Diagnostic accuracies of the baseline methods for classifying both defect types and positions.
| Index | Summary | Single Sensor (%) | Multi-Sensor (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor1 | Sensor2 | Sensor3 | Sensor4 | |||
| 1 | HHT spectrum + CNN | 65.58 | 61.73 | 45.94 | 48.49 | 60.79 |
| 2 | Wavelet spectrum + CNN | 90.72 | 91.83 | 84.82 | 84.46 | 90.61 |
| 3 | FS + SVM | 89.20 | 87.41 | 67.27 | 66.18 | 66.18 |
| 4 | FS + DNN | 89.17 | 86.58 | 67.66 | 62.99 | 78.77 |
| 5 | T&F + FS + SVM | 55.04 | 55.04 | 41.73 | 49.64 | 72.30 |
| 6 | T&F + FS + DNN | 55.58 | 56.73 | 43.20 | 46.37 | 74.31 |
| 7 | Wavelet + T&F + FS + SVM | 61.87 | 55.76 | 47.48 | 49.64 | 76.61 |
| 8 | Wavelet + T&F + FS + DNN | 65.07 | 58.02 | 46.62 | 50.58 | 76.87 |
| 9 | HHT + T&F + FS + SVM | 37.33 | 32.73 | 22.66 | 32.01 | 45.68 |
| 10 | HHT + T&F + FS + DNN | 38.41 | 36.76 | 30.14 | 33.45 | 42.58 |
| 11 | STFT + NMF + FS + SVM | 90.29 | 88.85 | 72.66 | 68.70 | 92.09 |
| 12 | STFT + NMF + FS + DNN | 90.93 | 90.58 | 76.12 | 71.04 | 91.55 |
| 13 | STFT + NMF + T&F + FS + SVM | 77.70 | 71.58 | 56.83 | 57.91 | 85.97 |
| 14 | STFT + NMF + T&F + FS + DNN | 80.14 | 72.91 | 59.57 | 58.09 | 84.86 |
| 15 | STFT + 2DPCA + FS + SVM | 87.41 | 84.53 | 57.19 | 55.39 | 87.05 |
| 16 | STFT + 2DPCA + FS + DNN | 87.62 | 84.10 | 60.28 | 55.36 | 85.89 |
| 17 | STFT + 2DPCA + T&F + FS + SVM | 84.53 | 76.25 | 49.28 | 49.64 | 82.37 |
| 18 | STFT + 2DPCA + T&F + FS + DNN | 84.06 | 76.47 | 54.60 | 49.78 | 81.72 |
Diagnostic accuracies of the baseline methods for classifying the defect types only.
| Index | Summary | Single Sensor (%) | Multi-Sensor (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensor1 | Sensor2 | Sensor3 | Sensor4 | |||
| 1 | HHT Spectrum + CNN | 73.02 | 74.1 | 60.68 | 60.86 | 76.47 |
| 2 | Wavelet Spectrum + CNN | 92.41 | 93.81 | 90.32 | 89.82 | 91.94 |
| 3 | FS + SVM | 92.45 | 90.29 | 73.37 | 71.94 | 81.29 |
| 4 | FS + DNN | 90.72 | 89.28 | 76.80 | 76.16 | 77.48 |
| 5 | T&F + FS + SVM | 64.39 | 60.07 | 52.52 | 62.95 | 81.29 |
| 6 | T&F + FS + DNN | 67.63 | 68.71 | 56.87 | 66.22 | 82.01 |
| 7 | Wavelet + T&F + FS + SVM | 68.35 | 66.91 | 57.55 | 61.51 | 82.73 |
| 8 | Wavelet + T&F + FS + DNN | 72.60 | 67.63 | 60.07 | 65.00 | 81.85 |
| 9 | HHT + T&F + FS + SVM | 48.92 | 50.00 | 42.81 | 48.56 | 56.83 |
| 10 | HHT + T&F + FS + DNN | 54.93 | 54.14 | 44.82 | 53.53 | 60.07 |
| 11 | STFT + NMF + FS + SVM | 91.01 | 90.65 | 82.37 | 77.70 | 93.88 |
| 12 | STFT + NMF + FS + DNN | 92.59 | 90.72 | 83.67 | 76.73 | 93.48 |
| 13 | STFT + NMF + T&F + FS + SVM | 79.50 | 74.82 | 68.35 | 69.78 | 88.49 |
| 14 | STFT + NMF + T&F + FS + DNN | 84.03 | 78.13 | 70.36 | 68.71 | 89.28 |
| 15 | STFT + 2DPCA + FS + SVM | 87.76 | 87.76 | 66.19 | 67.63 | 87.41 |
| 16 | STFT + 2DPCA + FS + DNN | 89.71 | 86.01 | 70.14 | 71.94 | 86.47 |
| 17 | STFT + 2DPCA + T&F + FS + SVM | 86.69 | 80.58 | 64.03 | 63.31 | 87.05 |
| 18 | STFT + 2DPCA + T&F + FS + DNN | 85.79 | 82.41 | 61.83 | 65.32 | 84.38 |
Figure 19Visualization of the compressed results of the 2DPCA.