MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987825119 · doi:10.1109/upec.2019.8893599

An Alternative Measurement Approach to Sweep Frequency Response Analysis (SFRA) for Power Transformers Fault Diagnosis

2019· article· en· W2987825119 on OpenAlexaff
Anurag A. Devadiga, Nouredine Harid, H. Griffiths, B. Barkat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSweep frequency response analysisElectromagnetic coilTransformerCurrent transformerElectronic engineeringDistribution transformerElectrical engineeringElectrical impedanceEngineeringAmplifierFrequency responseLock-in amplifierVoltageLinear variable differential transformerCMOS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power transformer failures can lead to power outages and significant financial loss, particularly at high voltage and medium voltage levels. Frequency response analysis (FRA) is used to diagnose transformer faults and particularly so for detecting mechanical displacements in windings and core. However, such displacements or faults affect significantly the electrical impedance of the transformer windings and challenges remain in the correlation of FRA signature and fault type. Furthermore, other factors such as the adopted measurement method and practical test setup influence the FRA signature. This paper investigates FRA responses of small laboratory test transformers measured using an IEEE standard recommended method and proposes a new generic test setup having additional current measurement points and using precision lock-in amplifiers. The results show the effect of change in the magnitude of applied voltage levels on FRA signatures.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Transformer Diagnostics and InsulationFrench-language works237,207