MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002105260 · doi:10.1109/epec.2012.6474933

Towards cost-effective maintenance of power transformer by accurately predicting its insulation condition

2012· article· en· W2002105260 on OpenAlexaff
Refat Atef Ghunem, Khaled Shaban, Ayman El‐Hag, Khaled Assaleh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformerDissolved gas analysisTransformer oilPartial dischargeVoltageArtificial neural networkElectrical engineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insulation resistance (IR) or Megger test has been commonly performed in both preventive and corrective maintenance activities to verify power transformers' insulation condition. Other insulation diagnosis tests such as oil breakdown voltage (BDV), water content and dissolved-gas-in-oil analysis have been conducted along with the IR test. In this paper, a prediction model is developed to correlate IR measurements of the power transformer with its oil quality parameters, the concentration of its total dissolved combustible gases (TDCG), and its carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide concentration (CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> /CO) ratio. Four models, based on feed-forward artificial neural networks with back-propagation, are trained on collected data of real measurements. Accuracy levels of 96%, 84%, 88%, and 91% are obtained for BDV, water content, TDCG, and CO <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> /CO ratio respectively. Utilizing the proposed model can reduce maintenance costs by preventing and shortening transformers' outage times using inexpensive test, i.e. using IR test only.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Transformer Diagnostics and InsulationFrench-language works237,207