Review of Various Sensor Technologies in Monitoring the Condition of Power Transformers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern power grids are undergoing a significant transformation with the massive integration of renewable, decentralized, and electronically interfaced energy sources, alongside new digital and wireless communication technologies. This transition necessitates the widespread adoption of robust online diagnostic and monitoring tools. Sensors, known for their intuitive and smart capabilities, play a crucial role in efficient condition monitoring, aiding in the prediction of power outages and facilitating the digital twinning of power equipment. This review comprehensively analyzes various sensor technologies used for monitoring power transformers, focusing on the critical need for reliable and efficient fault detection. The study explores the application of fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors, optical fiber sensors, wireless sensing networks, chemical sensors, ultra-high-frequency (UHF) sensors, and piezoelectric sensors in detecting parameters such as partial discharges, core condition, temperature, and dissolved gases. Through an extensive literature review, the sensitivity, accuracy, and practical implementation challenges of these sensor technologies are evaluated. Significant advances in real-time monitoring capabilities and improved diagnostic precision are highlighted in the review. It also identifies key challenges such as environmental susceptibility and the long-term stability of sensors. By synthesizing the current research and methodologies, this paper provides valuable insights into the integration and optimization of sensor technologies for enhancing transformer condition monitoring and reliability in modern power systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".