MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improvement of a Hydrogenerator Prognostic Model by using Partial Discharge Measurement Analysis

2017· article· en· W3155345140 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mélanie Lévesque, N. Amyot, C. Hudon, M. Bélec, Olivier Blancke

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Conference of the PHM Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringReliability engineeringPartial dischargeMaintenance engineeringCondition monitoringKey (lock)Computer scienceVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Availability and performance of hydrogenerators are key features that have driven electrical utilities to implement monitoring and diagnostic methods in order to evolve to condition based maintenance (CBM). Ten years ago, Hydro-Quebec has implemented a home-built web-basedapplication, called MIDA, to cover most of its power plants. MIDA centralizes diagnostic data from several tools, aggregates all diagnostic results and calculates a health index for each hydrogenerators. Data from MIDA used in conjunction with PHM techniques can feed a prognostic model that will provide useful equipment information and lead to the implementation of predictive maintenance. The prognostic framework used for hydrogenerators is based on a failure mechanism and symptom analysis (FMSA) approach. For the stator, a major component of hydrogenerators, more than 100 failure mechanisms have been consigned in the form of causal trees or graphs. A large number of these failure mechanisms involve the presence of partial discharges (PD) before failure occurs. At Hydro-Quebec, PD measurements on hydrogenerators have been carried out over the past 30 years and a significant PD database is integrated in MIDA. The analysis of this huge amount of data is of paramount importance to understand the behavior and evolution of the discharge activity in order to build a robust prognostic approach using physics based as well as data driven models. To that end, this paper presents case studies that shed some light on key features related to the evolution of PD activity in hydrogenerators. The paper discusses how to use this data in the prognostic model to assess warning signs before failure occurs.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Conference of the PHM SocietySame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207