| Literature DB >> 35890976 |
Xinhua Fu1, Kejun Yang2, Min Liu3, Tianzhang Xing1, Chase Wu4.
Abstract
Power fault monitoring based on acoustic waves has gained a great deal of attention in industry. Existing methods for fault diagnosis typically collect sound signals on site and transmit them to a back-end server for analysis, which may fail to provide a real-time response due to transmission packet loss and latency. However, the limited computing power of edge devices and the existing methods for feature extraction pose a significant challenge to performing diagnosis on the edge. In this paper, we propose a fast Lightweight Fault Diagnosis method for power transformers, referred to as LightFD, which integrates several technical components. Firstly, before feature extraction, we design an asymmetric Hamming-cosine window function to reduce signal spectrum leakage and ensure data integrity. Secondly, we design a multidimensional spatio-temporal feature extraction method to extract acoustic features. Finally, we design a parallel dual-layer, dual-channel lightweight neural network to realize the classification of different fault types on edge devices with limited computing power. Extensive simulation and experimental results show that the diagnostic precision and recall of LightFD reach 94.64% and 95.33%, which represent an improvement of 4% and 1.6% over the traditional SVM method, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Mel Frequency Cepstrum Coefficient (MFCC); fault diagnosis; power transformer; sound signal; spectrogram
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890976 PMCID: PMC9322841 DOI: 10.3390/s22145296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1System overview.
Figure 2Relationship between frame shift and frame length.
Figure 3Comparison of Hamming and Hamming-cosine window.
Figure 4Fisher ratio of 36-dimensional parameters.
Figure 5The network structure.
Figure 6The general convolution.
Figure 7The schematic diagram of the transformer workshops. (A–F is the position of the sensor.)
Common transformer body sound anomaly analysis.
| Anomaly | Fault Description and Causes | Number of Collected Signals | Serial Number |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Wawa” | Large load start-up or internal short circuit | 1360 | 1 |
| Sound of water boiling | Severe internal short circuit | 1280 | 2 |
| Crackle | Internal breakdown short circuit | 1314 | 3 |
| “Chichi” | Poorly grounded iron core | 1250 | 4 |
| “Jiji” | Loose silicon steel or coil | 1370 | 5 |
| “Wengweng” | High voltage | 1154 | 6 |
Figure 8The confusion matrix of the related fault.
Figure 9System accuracy in three cases.
Figure 10MFCC of transformer acoustic with different faults. (a) Large load start or internal short circuit. (b) Severe internal short circuit. (c) Internal breakdown short circuit. (d) Poorly grounded iron core. (e) Loose silicon steel or coil. (f) High voltage.
Figure 11Comparison of different acoustic feature extraction methods.
Performance comparison with SVM.
| The Fault Serial Number | SVM | LightDD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | |
| 1 | 90.12% | 92.74% | 94.95% | 95.57% |
| 2 | 87.41% | 88.02% | 94.95% | 95.57% |
| 3 | 92.47% | 96.54% | 95.76% | 94.2% |
| 4 | 93.30% | 94.57% | 96.99% | 96.23% |
| 5 | 91.85% | 94.97% | 94.42% | 94.79% |
| 6 | 87.77% | 93.68% | 90.78% | 95.63% |
Performance comparison with different locations and numbers of sensors.
| The Location of Sensors | Internal Breakdown Short Circuit | Loose Silicon Steel or Coil | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | |
| A | 95.65% | 94.57% | 94.13% | 94.67% |
| B | 95.87% | 94.38% | 94.38% | 94.78% |
| C | 95.78% | 94.16% | 94.39% | 94.62% |
| A + B + C | 95.7% | 94.47% | 94.41% | 94.79% |