Frequency Response Analysis Interpretation Using Numerical Indices and Machine Learning: A Case Study Based on a Laboratory Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequency response analysis is a powerful tool for mechanical fault diagnostics in power transformers. However, interpretation schemes still today depend on expert analyses, mainly because of the complex structure of power transformers. One of the fundamental shortcomings of experimental investigations is that mechanical deformations cannot be managed on real transformers to obtain data for different scenarios because they are too destructive. To address this issue in a systematic way, the current research used a specially designed laboratory transformer model that allows mechanical defects to be introduced so its frequency response can be evaluated under different conditions. The key feature of this model is the non-destructive interchangeability of its winding sections, allowing reproducibility and repeatability of frequency response measurements. Numerical indices were compared over key performance indicators (linearity, sensitivity and monotonicity). The analysis indicated that comparative standard deviation offered promising results for evaluation of mechanical deformations on the laboratory winding model given its monotonic behaviour, sensitivity and linear increase with fault severity. Additionally, support vector machine learning, radial basis function neural network and the statistical k-nearest neighbour method were used for fault classification with different strategies and configurations. While limited data from different transformers are used in the available literature, the approach discussed here considers 371 measurements from the same transformer model. The test results are supportive and demonstrate great accuracy when machine learning is used for winding fault classification.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it