| Literature DB >> 32403303 |
Francisco Elânio Bezerra1, Fernando André Zemuner Garcia2, Silvio Ikuyo Nabeta3, Gilberto Francisco Martha de Souza3, Ivan Eduardo Chabu3, Josemir Coelho Santos3, Shigueru Nagao Junior3, Fabio Henrique Pereira1,2,3.
Abstract
Dissolved gas analysis (DGA) is one of the most important methods to analyze fault in power transformers. In general, DGA is applied in monitoring systems based upon an autoregressive model; the current value of a time series is regressed on past values of the same series, as well as present and past values of some exogenous variables. The main difficulty is to decide the order of the autoregressive model; this means determining the number of past values to be used. This study proposes a wavelet-like transform to optimize the order of the variables in a nonlinear autoregressive neural network to predict the in oil dissolved gas concentration (DGC) from sensor data. Daubechies wavelets of different lengths are used to create representations with different time delays of ten DGC, which are then subjected to a procedure based on principal components analysis (PCA) and Pearson's correlation to find out the order of an autoregressive model. The representations with optimal time delays for each DGC are applied as input in a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) network with backpropagation algorithm to predict the gas at the present and future times. This approach produces better results than choosing the same time delay for all inputs, as usual. The forecasts reached an average mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 5.763%, 1.525%, 1.831%, 2.869%, and 5.069% for C2H2, C2H6, C2H4, CH4, and H2, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: autoregressive model; dissolved gas analysis; power transformers; wavelet-like transform
Year: 2020 PMID: 32403303 PMCID: PMC7248977 DOI: 10.3390/s20092730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Fault description for gas concentration.
| Chemical Formula | Normal | Abnormal | Problem Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| H2 (hydrogen) | <150 ppm | >1000 ppm | Electric discharge (corona effect, low partial discharge) |
| CH4 (methane) | <25 ppm | >80 ppm | Secondary indicator of an arc or serious overheating |
| N2 (nitrogen) | 1%–10% | NA | - |
| O2 (oxygen) | 0.03% | >0.5% | Transformer seal fault |
| CO (carbon monoxide) | <500 ppm | >1000 ppm | Cellulose decomposition |
| CO2 (carbon dioxide) | <10,000 ppm | >15,000 ppm | Cellulose decomposition |
| C2H6 (ethane) | <10 ppm | >35 ppm | Secondary indicator of thermal fault |
| C2H4 (ethylene) | <20 ppm | >100 ppm | Thermal fault (overheating local) |
| C2H2 (acetylene) | <15 ppm | >70 ppm | Electric fault (arc, spark) |
Fault diagnosis by the Dornenburg ratio method.
| Ratio R1 (CH4/H2) | Ratio R2 (C2H2/C2H4) | Ratio R3 (C2H2/CH4) | Ratio R4 (C2H6/C2H2) | Fault Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| >1 | <0.75 | <0.3 | >0.4 | Thermal decomposition |
| <0.1 | Insignificant | <0.3 | >0.4 | Corona |
| >0.1 and <1 | >0.75 | >0.3 | <0.4 | Arcing |
Fault classification using International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) ratio codes.
| C2H2/C2H4 | CH4/H2 | C2H4/C2H6 | Fault Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Normal aging, no fault |
| Insignificant | 1 | 0 | Partial discharge of low energy density |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | partial discharge of high energy density |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | Discharges of low energy |
| 1 | 0 | 2 | Discharges of high energy |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | Thermal fault of <150 °C |
| 0 | 2 | 0 | Thermal fault of ≥150 °C and ≤300 °C |
| 0 | 2 | 1 | Thermal fault of >300 °C and ≤700 °C |
| 0 | 2 | 2 | Thermal fault of >700 °C |
Figure 1Model for selection and contribution rate of gases concentration and prediction. MLP, multi-layer perceptron; PCA, principal components analysis; KMO, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin; GE, General Electric.
Figure 2Gas concentration C2H4 decomposed by Wavelet db2 to db20.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett sphericity test.
| KMO and Bartlett Test | ||
|---|---|---|
| KMO sampling adequacy measure | 0.743 | |
| Bartlett’s sphericity test | Aprox. Square-Qui | 418.644 |
| Gl | 45 | |
| Sig. | 0 | |
Importance order and rate of each wavelet order for gas concentration.
| Importance Order | Wavelet-Like Order | Gas | Importance Rate | Importance Order | Wavelet Order | Gas | Importance Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| C2H6 | 1.000 | 11 |
| GC | 0.636 |
| 2 |
| CH4 | 0.858 | 12 |
| H2 | 0.581 |
| 3 |
| O2 | 0.848 | 13 |
| C2H6 | 0.575 |
| 4 |
| CH4 | 0.803 | 14 |
| H2 | 0.572 |
| 5 |
| O2 | 0.793 | 15 |
| C2H4 | 0.568 |
| 6 |
| CO2 | 0.791 | 16 |
| H2O | 0.539 |
| 7 |
| CO2 | 0.779 | 17 |
| GC | 0.53 |
| 8 |
| CH4 | 0.776 | 18 |
| GC | 0.529 |
| 9 |
| O2 | 0.692 | 19 |
| H2 | 0.507 |
| 10 |
| GC | 0.644 | 20 |
| CO | 0.495 |
Correlation level of time delays.
| Gas Concentration (Delayed) | C2H2 | C2H6 | C2H4 | H2 | CH4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2H2 | 0.01254 | 0.00116 |
| 0.00029 | 0.00608 |
| C2H2 | 0.00449 | 0.00116 | 0.01796 | 0.00109 |
|
| C2H2 | 0.00000 | 0.00032 | 0.01232 |
| 0.00490 |
| C2H2 |
|
| 0.00000 | 0.00137 | 0.00029 |
| C2H6 | 0.01103 | 0.01440 | 0.03349 | 0.01061 |
|
| C2H6 |
|
|
|
| 0.00281 |
| C2H4 | 0.00922 | 0.00017 | 0.00073 |
| 0.00026 |
| C2H4 | 0.00865 | 0.00003 | 0.00130 | 0.00044 | 0.00044 |
| C2H4 |
| 0.00010 |
| 0.00000 |
|
| C2H4 | 0.00706 |
| 0.00130 | 0.00036 | 0.00010 |
| H2 | 0.00410 | 0.00130 | 0.00410 |
| 0.00102 |
| H2 | 0.00068 |
| 0.00384 | 0.00026 | 0.00109 |
| H2 |
| 0.00250 | 0.00240 | 0.00048 | 0.00017 |
| H2 | 0.01300 | 0.00130 |
| 0.00176 |
|
| CH4 | 0.00005 | 0.00281 | 0.00036 |
| 0.00044 |
| CH4 |
| 0.00058 | 0.00032 | 0.00023 | 0.00144 |
| CH4 | 0.00044 | 0.00000 | 0.00006 | 0.00012 |
|
| CH4 | 0.00336 |
|
| 0.00160 | 0.00020 |
Predicted values with and without selection of best delay time. MAPE, mean absolute percentage error.
| Gas Concentration C2H6 | Gas Concentration C2H4 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Neurons | Inputs/Date | 05/01/2017 | 05/03/2017 | Average MAPE% | 05/01/2017 | 05/03/2017 | Average MAPE% |
| Real | 1 | 0.864 | - | 0.791 | 0.779 | - | |
| 8 neurons | Selection of time delay | 0.972 | 0.756 | 7.645 | 0.789 | 0.657 | 7.891 |
| t − 2 | 0.842 | 0.849 | 8.811 | 0.749 | 0.753 | 4.308 | |
| t − 4 | 0.769 | 0.889 | 13 | 0.786 | 0.847 | 4.64 | |
| 15 neurons | Selection of time delay | 0.974 | 0.86 |
| 0.817 | 0.781 |
|
| t − 2 | 0.818 | 0.919 | 12.294 | 0.794 | 0.805 | 1.909 | |
| t − 4 | 0.83 | 0.864 | 8.492 | 0.65 | 0.995 | 22.777 | |
Figure 3Real and predicted values of the gas concentration for two days.
Comparison of predicted gas concentrations.
| Average MAPE(%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Approach | C2H2 | C2H4 | C2H6 | CH4 | H2 |
| Wang et al., 2015 | Time series correlation | 38.900 | 42.100 | 22.200 | 42.100 | 11.100 |
| Lin et al., 2018 | LSTM_DBN Network | 2.450 | 1.450 | 2.100 | 0.260 | 1.890 |
| Lu et al., 2018 | ANN, SVM, LSSVM and Gaussian process regression | 6.433 | 7.375 | 5.913 | 5.500 | 6.313 |
| Zhang et al., 2018 | RBFNN | 4.310 | 5.670 | 5.520 | 3.940 | 4.640 |
| LSSVM (RBF) | 3.960 | 5.420 | 2.330 | 1.690 | 3.130 | |
| Liu et al., 2019 | Wavelet Least SVM and Imperialist Competition Algorithm | 4.168 | 0.1684 | 1.993 | 0.9675 | 1.854 |
| This approach | Wavelet-like transform/MLP neural network | 5.763 | 1.831 | 1.525 | 2.869 | 5.069 |