Unsupervised Deep Learning for Detecting Number of Partial Discharge Sources in Stator Bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular maintenance and testing of high-voltage assets are important for avoiding outages. Measurement of partial discharges (PDs) is commonly employed to monitor the health of the insulation materials of such assets, and the detection of the PD sources would help justify remedial actions such as inspection and repair. Before classifying the PD sources, the identification of the number of PD sources is necessary (clustering of the PD pulses). Different clustering techniques have been used for this purpose such as time–frequency maps, <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${K}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> -means clustering, and principal component analysis. However, there are limitations in these techniques in regard to the additional information that these algorithms need. For example, the number of clusters and the minimum distance between data points must be assumed in some algorithms. In order to overcome the mentioned limitations, a robust unsupervised deep learning model is proposed for unsupervised clustering, based on a convolutional AE and an adaptive clustering technique. In a laboratory setup, defects are introduced to a generator stator bar, simulating common PD sources, and PD-induced pulses in the ground connection of the bar are measured. The inputs to the deep learning model are the unlabelled, time-series PD pulses, and the output is the predicted number of PD sources. The proposed system showed better prediction of the number of PD sources compared to the existing techniques, which require human judgment. In addition, the proposed system demonstrated immunity to noise, where additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) is added artificially to the measured PD waveforms.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".