Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Indexing and Abstracting

Review Process

Related Links

Journal Metrics

News

Accuracy enhancement of fault diagnosis for power transformers with a hybrid approach integrating robust and tree-based algorithms

Document Type : Reseach Article

Author

Department of Electrical Engineering, YI.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

10.57647/j.mjee.2025.1902.43

Abstract

Power transformers (PTs) are a significant component of power grids that transmit and distribute electricity generated by renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, PTs are susceptible to faults that can cause costly outages and disruptions. Over the past decades, the technique of dissolved gas analysis (DGA) has been extensively employed in oil-immersed transformer fault diagnosis. There are various methods to identify faults using DGA. Due to its superior accuracy compared to other techniques, the dual pentagon method (DPM) is utilized for fault diagnosis of PTs in this research. On the other hand, implementing DPM on large amounts of DGA data can be challenging. To address this issue, we proposed several data-driven, tree-based algorithms, including Decision Tree Classifier (DTC), Random Forest Classifier (RFC), eXtreme Gradient Boosting Classifier (XGBC), LightGBM (LGBM) Classifier, Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) Classifier, and Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) Classifier. Furthermore, four data scaling techniques have been used for
more effectiveness because the dataset contains outliers. The outcomes of the data analysis and Python simulation demonstrate that the suggested approach performs better than the previous methods. From the simulation analysis, the robust Light-GBM method has achieved an accuracy of 96.08%, and MCC of 95.41%, which is higher compared to the existing techniques. 

Keywords

References
  1. IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Mineral Oil-Immersed Transformers, IEEE Standard C57.104-2019 (Revision IEEE Std C57.104-2008), pp. 1-98, Nov. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8890040.
  2. M. Bigdeli, P. Siano, and H. H. Alhelou, “Intelligent Classifiers in Distinguishing Transformer Faults Using Frequency Response Analysis,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 13981–13991, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3052144.
  3. Duval, “Dissolved gas analysis: It can save your transformer,” IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 22–27, Nov. 1989, https://doi.org/10.1109/57.44605.
  4. H S. S. M. Ghoneim, “Intelligent prediction of transformer faults and severities based on dissolved gas analysis integrated with thermodynamics theory,” IET Science, Measurement & Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 388–394, May 2018, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-smt.2017.0450.
  5. B. M. Taha, A. Hoballah, and S. S. M. Ghoneim, “Optimal ratio limits of rogers’ four-ratios and IEC 60599 code methods using particle swarm optimization fuzzy-logic approach,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 222–230, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1109/tdei.2019.008395.
  6. R. M. Giri, I. M. Y. Negara, and D. A. Asfani, “Recent Development in DGA Diagnosis Using Graphical Analysis Method,” International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA), Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/ISITIA52817.2021.9502223.
  7. Cheng and T. Yu, “Dissolved Gas Analysis Principle-Based Intelligent Approaches to Fault Diagnosis and Decision Making for Large Oil-Immersed Power Transformers: A Survey,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 913, Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/en11040913.
  8. Nanfak, S. Eke, C. H. Kom, R. Mouangue, and I. Fofana, “Interpreting dissolved gases in transformer oil: A new method based on the analysis of labelled fault data,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 15, no. 21, pp. 3032–3047, Jun. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1049/gtd2.12239.
  9. Dukarm and F. Jakob, “Thermodynamic estimation of transformer fault severity,” May 2016, doi: 10.1109/tdc.2016.7519962, https://doi.org/10.1109/TDC.2016.7519962.
  10. Suwarno, H. Sutikno, R. A. Prasojo, and A. Abu-Siada, “Machine learning based multi-method interpretation to enhance dissolved gas analysis for power transformer fault diagnosis,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1-21, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon. 2024.e25975.
  11. Pattanadech and W. Wattakapaiboon, “Application of Duval Pentagon Compared with Other DGA Interpretation Techniques: Case Studies for Actual Transformer Inspections Including Experience from Power Plants in Thailand,” Jul. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/iceast.2019.8802523.
  12. Wattakapaiboon and N. Pattanadech, “The state of the art for dissolved gas analysis based on interpretation techniques,” Sep. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1109/cmd.2016.7757763.
  13. Abu-Siada, “Improved Consistent Interpretation Approach of Fault Type within Power Transformers Using Dissolved Gas Analysis and Gene Expression Programming,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 730, Feb. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12040730.
  14. Mo, T. Kari, H. Wang, L. Luan, and W. Gao, “Power Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Support Vector Machine and Particle Swarm Optimization,” Dec. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1109/iscid.2017.165.
  15. Kherif, Y. Benmahamed, M. Teguar, A. Boubakeur, and S. S. M. Ghoneim, “Accuracy Improvement of Power Transformer Faults Diagnostic Using KNN Classifier with Decision Tree Principle,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 81693–81701, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3086135.
  16. Rokani, S. D. Kaminaris, P. Karaisas, and D. Kaminaris, “Power Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Neural Network Optimization Techniques,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 22, p. 4693, Nov. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/math11224693.
  17. Jin, H. Wu, J. Zheng, J. Zhang, and Z. Liu, “Power Transformer Fault Diagnosis Based on Improved BP Neural Network,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 16, p. 3526, Aug. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12163526.
  18. M. Islam, G. Lee, and S. N. Hettiwatte, “A nearest neighbor clustering approach for incipient fault diagnosis of power transformers,” Electrical Engineering, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 1109–1119, Nov. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-016-0481-3.
  19. Jin, D. Kim, K. Y. Chan, and A. Abu-Siada, “Deep Machine Learning-based Asset Management Approach for Oil-Immersed Power transformers using Dissolved Gas Analysis,” IEEE Access, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3366905.
  20. Zhang, G. Sheng, H. Hou, N. Zhou, and X. Jiang, “An adaptive fault diagnosis method of power transformers based on combining oversampling and cost‐sensitive learning,” IET Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 623–635, Jun. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1049/stg2.12044.
  21. Moradi, “A Data-Driven based Robust Multilayer Perceptron Approach for Fault Diagnosis of Power Transformers,” Feb. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1109/aisp61396.2024.10475257.
  22. Li, C. Hai, Z. Feng, and G. Li, “A Transformer Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Parameters Optimization of Hybrid Kernel Extreme Learning Machine,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 126891–126902, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3112478.
  23. Kari, Z. He, A. Rouzi, Z. Zhang, X. Ma, and L. Du, “Power Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Random Forest and Optimized Kernel Extreme Learning Machine,” Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing/Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 691–705, Jan. 2023, https://doi.org/10.32604/iasc.2023.037617.
  24. Li, G. Li, C. Hai, and M. Guo, “Transformer Fault Diagnosis Based on Multi-Class AdaBoost Algorithm,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 1522–1532, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3135467.
  25. Wang, Q. Li, J. Yang, T. Xie, P. Wu, and J. Liang, “Transformer Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Incomplete Data and TPE-XGBoost,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 7539, Jun. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137539.
  26. Mahamdi, A. Boubakeur, A. Mekhaldi, and Y. Benmahamed, “Power Transformer Fault Prediction using Naive Bayes and Decision tree based on Dissolved Gas Analysis,” ENP Engineering Science Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–5, Jul. 2022, https://doi.org/10.53907/enpesj.v2i1.63.
  27. G. C. Menezes, M. M. Araujo, O. M. Almeida, F. R. Barbosa, and A. P. S. Braga, “Induction of Decision Trees to Diagnose Incipient Faults in Power Transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 279–286, Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/TDEI.2022.3148453.
  28. Bustamante, M. Manana, A. Arroyo, P. Castro, A. Laso, and R. Martinez, “Dissolved Gas Analysis Equipment for Online Monitoring of Transformer Oil: A Review,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 19, p. 4057, Sep. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/s19194057.
  29. -Z. Wang, J.-F. Chi, Y.-Q. Ding, H.-Y. Yao, Q. Guo, and H.-Q. Yang, “Transformer fault diagnosis method based on SMOTE and NGO-GBDT,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, Mar. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-023-02084-y.
  30. Martin, N. Lelekakis, J. Wijaya, M. Duval, and T. Saha, “Investigations into the Stray Gassing of Oils in the Fault Diagnosis of Transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2369–2374, Oct. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2316501.
  31. Cheim, M. Duval, and S. Haider, “Combined Duval Pentagons: A Simplified Approach,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 2859, Jun. 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13112859.
  32. S. Ali, and et al, “Conventional methods of dissolved gas analysis using oil-immersed power transformer for fault diagnosis: A review,” Electric Power Systems Research, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.109064.
  33. Duval and L. Lamarre, “The Duval pentagon-a new complementary tool for the interpretation of dissolved gas analysis in transformers,” IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 9–12, Nov. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1109/MEI.2014.6943428.
  34. Ahsan, M. Mahmud, P. Saha, K. Gupta, and Z. Siddique, “Effect of Data Scaling Methods on Machine Learning Algorithms and Model Performance,” Technologies, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 1-17, Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9030052.
  35. Santamaria-Bonfil, G. Arroyo-Figueroa, M. A. Zuniga-Garcia, C. G. A. Ramos, and A. Bassam, “Power Transformer Fault Detection: A Comparison of Standard Machine Learning and autoML Approaches,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 1-22, Dec. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/en17010077.
  36. Rokach and O. Maimon, Data Mining with Decision Trees: Theory and Applications; 2nd Edition, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1142/9097.
  37. Pirizadeh, N. Alemohammad, M. Manthouri, and M. Pirizadeh, “A new machine learning ensemble model for class imbalance problem of screening enhanced oil recovery methods,” Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, vol. 198, p. 1-22, Mar. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.108214.
  38. Biau and E. Scornet, “A random forest guided tour,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05741v1, 2015. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1511.05741.
  39. Chen and C. Guestrin, “Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system,” In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Aug. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785.
  40. Hastie, S. Rosset, J. Zhu and H. Zou, “Multi-class AdaBoost”, vol. 2, no.3, pp.349–360, 2009, https://doi.org/10.4310/SII.2009.v2.n3.a8.
  41. Tao, Z. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Power Grid Fault Diagnosis Method Based on LightGBM,” Journal of Physics. Conference Series, Apr. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2479/1/012029.
  42. Huang, L. Wu, X. Ma, W. Zhang, J. Fan, X. Yu, W. Zeng, and H. Zhou,‘‘Evaluation of CatBoost method for prediction of reference evapotranspiration in humid regions,’’ J. Hydrol., vol. 574, pp. 1029–1041, Jul. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.085.
  43. A. Yaghoubi, P. Karimi, E. Moradi, and R. Gavagsaz-Ghoachani, “Implementing Engineering Education Based on Posing a Riddle in Field of Instrumentation and Artificial Intelligence,” 9th International Conference on Control, Instrumentation and Automation (ICCIA), Dec. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIA61416.2023.10506384.
  44. Chicco, G. Jurman, “The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) should replace the ROC AUC as the standard metric for assessing binary classification”, BioData Mining, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1-23, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00322-4.
Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering
Volume 19, Issue 2
June 2025
Pages 1-12
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics