Traditional fault diagnosis methods for mineral oil‐immersed power transformer based on dissolved gas analysis: Past, present and future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A key factor in ensuring the efficient and safe operation of power transformers is the early and accurate diagnosis of incipient faults. Among the tools available to achieve this goal, dissolved gas analysis (DGA) is widely used by power transformers' maintenance professionals. It is a preventive maintenance tool, used for condition monitoring, fault diagnosis and unplanned outage prevention. With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), many intelligent‐based methods using AI tools have been proposed in the literature for DGA data interpretation. Although these methods achieve high diagnostic accuracies and improve DGA efficiency, they are generally complicated and the research documented in these publications is difficult to replicate. Traditional DGA‐based methods are simple, easy to understand and implement, and widely used by power transformers' maintenance professionals. Many methods proposed in recent years overcome the limitations of the pioneer methods and are increasingly effective. The authors present a detailed and comprehensive literature review of the traditional DGA‐based methods for mineral oil‐immersed power transformer faults diagnosis. This review also addresses ways to improve the efficiency of the available traditional methods. Some pitfalls that need to be taken into account to improve the efficiency of the DGA‐based diagnostic methods are also presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".