| Literature DB >> 30781700 |
Huanyu Dong1, Xiaohui Yang2, Anyi Li3, Zihao Xie4, Yuanlong Zuo5.
Abstract
Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) is an emerging technique which can improve the availability and efficiency of equipment. A series of related optimization of the PHM system has been achieved due to the growing need for lowering the cost of maintenance. The PHM system highly relies on data collected from its components. Based on the theory of machine learning, this paper proposes a bio-inspired PHM model based on a dissolved gas-in-oil dataset (DGA) to diagnose faults of transformes in power grids. Specifically, this model applies Bat algorithm (BA), a metaheuristic population-based algorithm, to optimize the structure of the Back-propagation neural network (BPNN). Furthermore, this paper proposes a modified Bat algorithm (MBA); here the chaos strategy is utilized to improve the random initialization process of BA in order to avoid falling into local optima. To prove that the proposed PHM model has better fault diagnostic performance than others, fitness and mean squared error (MSE) of Bat-BPNN are set as reference amounts to compare with other power grid PHM approaches including BPNN, Particle swarm optimization (PSO)-BPNN, as well as Genetic algorithm (GA)-BPNN. The experimental results show that the BA-BPNN model has increased the fault diagnosis accuracy from 77.14% to 97.14%, which is higher than other power transformer PHM models.Entities:
Keywords: BP neural network; bat algorithm; fault diagnosis; power transformer PHM
Year: 2019 PMID: 30781700 PMCID: PMC6413228 DOI: 10.3390/s19040845
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Back-Propagation neural network model structure.
Figure 2Flowchart of MBA-BPNN model.
Figure 3MBA-BPNN PHM model for power transformer fault diagnosis.
Output code of various fault types.
| No. | Fault Type | Fault Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | HT | 00001 |
| 2 | LT | 00010 |
| 3 | HD | 00100 |
| 4 | LD | 01000 |
| 5 | PD | 10000 |
Figure 4The error of MBA-BPNN PHM model as the number of Hidden-layer neurons increasing.
Fault Diagnosis Accuracy of MBA-BPNN and other PHM models [31].
| Fault Type | MBA-BPNN | BA-BPNN | PSO-BPNN | GA-BPNN | BPNN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 2 | 85.71% | 100% | 85.71% | 57.14% | 100% |
| 3 | 100% | 100% | 85.71% | 100% | 85.71% |
| 4 | 100% | 66.67% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 5 | 100% | 100% | 85.71% | 85.71% | 0% |
| Average accuracy | 97.14% | 93.33% | 91.43% | 88.57% | 77.14% |
Figure 5The fitness curve of MBA-BPNN PHM model.
Comparison of MSE of MBA-BPNN and other PHM models.
| Fault Type | MBA-BPNN | BA-BPNN | BPNN | GA-BPNN | PSO-BPNN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSE_Train Sample | 0.0054 | 0.0092 | 0.0330 | 0.0196 | 0.0124 |
| MSE_Test Sample | 0.0190 | 0.0287 | 0.1571 | 0.0378 | 0.0484 |
Figure 6Classification results of several PHM models. (a,c,e,g) are the classification results of train sample for different methods, respectively. (b,d,f,h) represent the classification results of test sample for different methods, respectively.