Interpreting dissolved gases in transformer oil: A new method based on the analysis of labelled fault data
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
Abstract In this contribution, a new dissolved gas analysis (DGA) method combining key gases and ratio approaches for power transformer fault diagnostic is presented. It is based on studying subsets and uses the five main hydrocarbon gases including hydrogen (H 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), ethane (C 2 H 6 ), ethylene (C 2 H 4 ), and acetylene (C 2 H 2 ). The proposed method uses 475 samples from the dataset divided into subsets formed from the maximum and minimum(s) concentrations of the whole dataset. It has been tested on 117 DGA sample data and validated on the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) TC10 database. The performance of the proposed diagnostic method was evaluated and compared with the following diagnostic methods: IEC ratios method, Duval's triangle (DT), three ratios technique (TRT), Gouda's triangle (GT), and self‐organizing map (SOM) clusters. The results found were analysed by computer simulations using MATLAB software. The proposed method has a diagnosis accuracy of 97.42% for fault types, as compared to 93.16% of TRT, 96.58% of GT method, 97.25% of SOM clusters method and 98.29% of DT method. However, in terms of fault severity, the proposed method has a diagnostic accuracy of 90.59% as compared to 78.90% of SOM clusters method, 83.76% of TRT, 88.03% of DT method, and 89.74% of GT method.
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