energies

Article
An Inspired Machine-Learning Algorithm with a Hybrid
Whale Optimization for Power Transformer PHM
Wei Zhang 1 , Xiaohui Yang 1, * , Yeheng Deng 1 and Anyi Li 2
1 School of Information Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China;
[email protected] (W.Z.); [email protected] (Y.D.)
2 College of Qianhu, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-139-7094-1450




Received: 22 May 2020; Accepted: 12 June 2020; Published: 17 June 2020


Abstract: The burgeoning prognostic and health management (PHM) engineering technology with
superior performance has lately received extensive attention in the academic circle. Nevertheless,
the various types of faults of the power transformer often lead to less accurate predictions and the
instability of the power system. To address these problems, a power transformer PHM model
with a hybrid machine learning method-approach is proposed in this paper. The model uses
intelligent sensors to obtain dissolved gas analysis (DGA) data for fault diagnosis of the power
transformer system, so as to compress the complexity of features (gas types) in the power transformer.
In particular, to enhance the robustness of the model, we adopt a modified differential evolution
whale optimization algorithm (MDE-WOA) to optimize the probabilistic neural network (PNN),
namely, the classification performance of the model is improved by updating the smoothing factor
(σ) of PNN. In addition, compared with other optimization algorithms, the MDE-WOA algorithm
has a lower complexity and more stable optimization process. Finally, we evaluate this model with
real world data from the power transformer sensor in Jiangxi province, China. The results indicated
that the proposed algorithm could achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy in the fourth iteration,
its accuracy having reached 98.86%. Therefore, the proposed PNN parameter optimization meta
heuristic algorithm could effectively enhance the accuracy and efficiency of the power transformer
fault diagnosis.

Keywords: hybrid whale optimization; probabilistic neural network; machine learning; power transformer
system; fault diagnosis

1. Introduction
As a major equipment of the power system in an era of increasing power demand [1–6], the power
transformer is indispensable to the transmission of electric energy, the connection between the main
system and each sub-system of the power grid, so it is obvious that their performance directly
affects the reliable operation of the power grid [7]. With the rapid development of high-voltage and
ultra-high-voltage transmission technologies, the capacity of the power grid is continuously increasing,
while the coverage is persistently expanding. Consequently, if the fault of the power transformer is
not timely and accurately detected, it will have a seriously negative effect on the power grid paralysis
hurting the normal development of social economy [8]. Therefore, the study on fault diagnosis of
power transformers is highly significant to the development of the power system.
At present, oil-immersed power transformers are used primarily in the power grid. Due to
the influence of environmental factors such as electricity, machinery, and chemistry, the mineral
oil and insulating cellulose paper inside the traditional power transformer will gradually undergo
qualitative change, which will produce carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2 ), and a series

Energies 2020, 13, 3143; doi:10.3390/en13123143 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 3143 2 of 17

of low molecular hydrocarbons such as hydrogen (H2 ), methane (CH4 ), ethane C2 H6 ), and other
gases. When potential faults exist in power transformers, the contents of various gases will change
significantly and gradually dissolve into oil. Therefore,the composition of dissolved gas in transformer
oil can reflect the operation state of a power transformer to a great extent [9]. Currently, dissolved
gas analysis (DGA) has been extensively used as an effective approach in power transformer fault
diagnosis [10–12]. Based on DGA data, traditional power transformer fault diagnosis methods [13],
for instance characteristic gas method, three-ratio method, and an improved three-ratio method have
been developed by the international electrotechnical commission (IEC). However, due to the complex
gas generation mechanism of the power transformer, there is no clear corresponding relationship
between gas content and ratio in oil and fault type, the traditional fault detection methods of the power
transformer often rely on the diagnosis experience of experts and are difficult to be realized through
the program. When the sample data tested is too little or there are abnormal values in the sample data
tested, the accuracy of the test cannot meet the requirements of industrial production [14].
Recently, aiming at correcting the flaws of the traditional method of fault diagnosis for the
above-mentioned power transformer, more and more scholars have tried to apply artificial intelligence
(AI) methods to the power transformer fault detection model based on DGA dataset, such as
fuzzy theory [15], support vector machine (SVM) [16], and artificial neural network (ANN) [17–20].
The power transformer fault diagnosis approach with artificial neural network has been widely applied.
It studies the sampled data of the power transformer under different working conditions, continuously
adjusting the connection weights and bias (significant parameters) of the network model, establishing
the corresponding mapping relationship between specific fault characteristics and fault types and a
fault diagnosis model. Therefore, the application of ANN improves the accuracy of fault diagnosis.
However, it has the disadvantages of a quite small convergence area and easy to fall into local optimal.
In addition, many intelligent optimization algorithms with excellent fault diagnosis effects are also
widely applied in power transformer fault diagnosis, such as particle swarm optimization algorithm
(PSO) [21], cuckoo search (CS) algorithm [22], etc.
For different studies in the fields of fault detection and prediction in power transformer,
Zhang, Y. et al. [23] presented a novel neural network with two steps. They enhanced the accuracy of
fault detection by using two artificial neural networks to detect the fault type and the condition of
cellulose respectively. Dong, M. et al. [14] proposed a power transformer fault diagnosis model using
SVM as hierarchical decision making. The experimental results indicate that this model can settle the
problem of parameter selection of support vector classifier and has strong generalization.
Based on the strong ability of deep learning, system features can be obtained from a small amount
of sample data and represent complex relationships, therefore, the research of fault diagnosis based on
deep learning has attracted many scholars’ attention. For example, Zhang, C. et al. [24] developed
a deep learning method for fault diagnosis of rotating equipment. By setting appropriate network
parameters, the extraction time of fault feature data can be saved. In addition, this method can classify
faults accurately even when the number of sample data is small. On the other hand, the method has
some defects, that is, the convergence speed is slow. Zhang, L. et al. [25] used deep belief network
for the fault classification and identification of a vehicle transmission system. Firstly they propose
calculating the spectrum of the original signal, then carrying out data fusion, and finally establishing a
pattern recognition model based on deep learning. The classification results indicate that the method
has a good recognition accuracy. The main advantages of this method are as follows: First, based
on deep learning, it can extract features from the spectrum of sample data. Second, this method
can combine the sample data of multiple sensors to extract features. Compared with the sample
data of a single sensor, its data structure is more complete, which leads the classification to become
more accurate. However, this method still has a shortcoming, that is, the model structure is complex,
which requires the model to take a long time to train the sample data. Ji, X. et al. [26] proposed
a new method for power transformer fault diagnosis utilizing deep learning and soft maximum
classification. The method utilizes the superposition of the encoder and soft maximum return to the
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 3 of 17

power transformer fault detection and prediction model, using tagged without supervision and the
training of a mass of samples, by the method of step k contrast differences, the parameters of the fault
diagnosis model are optimized, and using the supervised algorithm to adjust the parameters of the
fault diagnosis model, then the soft biggest regression method is used to determine the fault type
of power transformers. Finally, through the comparative analysis, the accuracy and adaptability of
this method for fault detection and prediction is superior to the methods of back-propagation neural
network and SVM. In a word, deep learning has been gradually applied to the field of fault diagnosis.
It can be seen from the previous paragraphs that ANN has the advantages of a high classification
accuracy and strong parallel distributed processing ability. As a branch of ANN, probabilistic neural
network (PNN) not only has the advantages of ANN, but also has the advantages of easy training,
fast convergence speed, and arbitrary nonlinear approximation. Thus based on the advantages of
PNN, our use PNN to build the basic model of power transformer fault detection and prediction.
In view of the status quo of the power transformer fault diagnosis technology mentioned above,
this paper proposes a new power transformer fault diagnosis method to improve the efficiency and
accuracy of diagnosis. In addition, the other purpose of this paper is to provide a new way of thinking
for the research of diagnosis methods combined with artificial intelligence technology. The main
contributions of this paper are as follows: First of all, one embed modified differential evolution
(MDE) operator into the whale optimization algorithm (WOA) based on life mechanism to overcome
the vulnerability of WOA to drop into local optimum. Secondly, the structure parameter of PNN is
optimized by using the combinatorial optimization algorithm, which leads the detection ratio of power
transformer fault diagnosis to a higher level. Finally, a fault diagnosis model of power transformer is
constructed, which provides a new idea for the development of fault technology.
Following introduction, Section 2 introduces the proposed method and describes the prognostic
and health management (PHM) model of the power transformer based on the method; Section 3
describes the process of the experiment; Section 4 introduces and analyses the experimental results;
Section 5 discusses our research work of this time; and Section 6 draws the conclusions.

2. Methods

2.1. Whale Optimization Algorithm

WOA is a swarm optimization algorithm following a kind of special hunting way of humpback
whales, developed by Mirjalili et al. [27]. WOA simulates the hunting behavior of humpback whales
in the natural world including the whales search, encircle attack prey, and so on the process to
achieve optimization search. Lots of studies in the past showed that WOA has advantages of simple
principle, easy implementation, and fewer parameter settings [28–30]. The algorithm consists of three
stages: Random search for prey, encircle prey, and bubble-net attack. First, whales hunt for prey at
random. In this process, groups of whale search for better prey by moving away from each other.
The mathematical model of this process is described as:

X (t + 1) = Xrand (t) − A · |C · Xrand (t) − X (t)|. (1)

Here, Xrand (t) is the position of randomly selected whale individuals in the whale population, t is
the current number of iterations, and A and C are coefficient vectors. At this stage, the algorithm sets
| A| ≥ 1 to reach the location of the search agent away from the reference whale, so as to achieve the
purpose of exploring a broader field.
The coefficient vectors A and C can be found as:

 A = 2a · r − a


C = 2r (2)

 a = 2 − 2t .

tmax
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 4 of 17

Here, r is a random vector between 0 and 1, and tmax is the maximum number of iterations.
From the above equation, it can be observed that there is a linear decrease from 2 to 0 with an increase
of the number of iterations. Then, the whales move closer to the prey after they have found it. Namely,
0
WOA s shrinkage enveloping mechanism, in which the mathematical formula of individual position
updating of whales is as follows:

X (t + 1) = Xg_best − A · |C · Xg_best − X (t)|. (3)

It is worth noting that | A| is less than 1, Xg_best is the current best search agent, if X (t + 1) has a
better positional advantage, Xg_best will automatically update the current position to surround the prey.
Finally, the whales use spiraling and narrowing enclosure to achieve prey hunting. The mathematical
model to realize this process is:

0
(
X (t + 1) = D · ebl · cos(2πl ) + Xg_best
0 (4)
D = | Xg_best − X (t)|.

0
The D is the distance between the individual whale and prey before it updates its position. b is
a constant that determines the shape of the helix, and l is a random value between 0 and 1. It is
important to note that in the WOA algorithm, in order to ensure that whales encircle prey and spiral
upward simultaneously, it is assumed that the probability of both is equal, i.e., p = 0.5.
From the above description, the WOA algorithm may be roughly described as follows:
Step 1: Set algorithm parameters, namely the total whale group size N, the maximum number of
iterations tmax , and the dimension dim;
Step 2: Generate the initial individuals randomly and record their current position;
Step 3: Calculate the fitness value f ( Xi ) of each individual and preserve the current optimal
solution with its features as position;
Step 4: Judge whether the updating process finished: If t = tmax , output the optimal solution and
end; if t < tmax , update a, A, and C according to Equation (2);
Step 5: Generate a random number p between [0,1]. If p ≥ 0.5, update the individual position
according to Equation (4), and turn into Step 3. If p < 0.5, then determine the size of | A| and 1:
If | A| ≥ 1, update the individual position via Equation (1) and turn into Step 3; if | A| < 1, update the
individual position by Equation (3) and go to Step 3.
Note: Fitness value f ( Xi ) refers to the objective function value calculated during iteration.

2.2. Hybrid Whale Optimization Algorithm with Modified Differential Evolution Operators
In WOA, the Equation (1) requires whale populations to separate from prey and randomly
move with different individuals in the beginning of the iteration. This process makes gives WOA a
good global optimization ability. However, as a general swarm intelligence optimization algorithm,
WOA also has common shortcomings. Increasingly the number of iterations, the population will
continue to move closer to an optimal individual region, thus losing the opportunity to explore other
locations in the space, which will cause a loss of diversity in the population. According to Equation (2),
a decreases linearly with the increase of the number of iterations. It is this linear reduction that leads to
| A| < 1 and the positions of all search agents in the algorithm can only be updated by the Equations (3)
and (4) in the later period of iteration, leading the algorithm to easily fall into the local optimization.
Therefore, we propose a whale optimization algorithm based on the modified differential evolution
(MDE) operator to address the problem of easily falling into local optimality (the pseudocode for
MDE-WOA is shown in Algorithm 1).
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 5 of 17

Algorithm 1: MDE-WOA
1 Initialize whales population (i=1,2, ..., NP), scaling factor F, crossover rate Cr, lifespan S;
2 Compute the fitness of each search factor (solution), Xg_best = the best search factor, s = 0;
3 while t < maximum iterations do
4 for each search factor do
5 Updating a, A, C, l, and p if p < 0.5 then
6 if (| A| < 1)&(s < S) then
7 Update the position of the current search factor by Equation (3);
8 else if ( | A| ≥ 1)&(s < S) then
9 Select a random search agent;
10 Update the position of the current search factor by Equation (1);
11 else if (s = S) then
12 Local and global neighborhood-based mutations;
13 Generate a donor vector by Equation (8);
14 Crossover;
15 Generate a trial vector by Equation (9);
16 Greedy selection;
17 Evaluate the trial vector and update the position of the current search by
Equation (10)
18 end
19 end
20 end
21 end
22 else if p ≥ 0.5 then
23 Update the position of the current search by Equation (4);
24 end
25 Check whether the solution stays within the search space ;
26 Compute the fitness of each search factor, update Xg_best if there is a better solution;
27 end
28 t = t + 1; update s by Equation (5)
29 end

In the MDE-WOA, MDE shares a population with WOA, and the improved differential evolution
operator is used as a component of WOA based on the lifetime mechanism. The use of the lifetime
mechanism determines when the improved differential evolution operator is embedded in WOA.
In this paper, S is taken as the life span of the individual and the current age of the individual is s.
Here is the formula for updating s:
(
s+1 i f (δXg_best = 0)
s= (5)
s i f (δXg_best < 0).

Here, t is the number of iterations, δXg_best = f ( Xg_best , t) − f ( Xg_best , t − 1). When s = S, it means
that Xg_best has not been updated for s times, and then Equation (3) will be optimized by the modified
differential evolution strategy.
In this paper, MDE operator is embedded into WOA by using the concept of neighborhood
mutation operator. Similar to the traditional differential evolution algorithm, MDE is mainly composed
of mutation, crossover, and selection. In the mutation operation, MDE combines the local model with
the global model and adds a weighting factor to obtain the desired donor vector. The local donor
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 6 of 17

vector is composed of the optimal solution in the neighborhood of Xi,t and two vectors randomly
selected. This model showed as:

Li,t = Xi,t + αl · ( Xl_best,t − Xi,t ) + β l · ( X p,t − Xq,t ) (6)

where Xl_best,t is the best solution in the neighborhood of Xi,t , p, q ∈ [i − k, i + k]( p 6= q 6= i ), here k is a
non-zero integer number in the codomain [1, ( NP − 1)/2] (NP is the population size). αl and β l are
disturbances selected randomly based on the fixed scaling factor F, αl = β l = λ × rand( NP, D ) + F.
The increase of the disturbance can reduce the chance of the solution dropping into the local optimum.
Similarly, the mathematical model of the global donor vector can be expressed as:

Gi,t = Xg_best,t + F · ( Xg_best,t − Xi,t ) + F · ( Xr1 ,t − Xr2 ,t ). (7)

Here, Xg_best,t is the best vector captured in the i − th iteration. r1 and r2 are random numbers on
a whole scale. The first term of the model uses the global optimal vector to replace Xi,t to enhance the
performance of convergence. Finally, the local donor vector is combined with the global donor vector
to obtain the final donor vector, which can be expressed as:

Vi,t = ω · Gi,t + (1 − ω ) · Li,t (8)

where w is the weighting factor, which ranges from 0 to 1. To reduce the parameters and control the
balance, w is set here as the middle value of its range, namely 0.5.
After the donor vector was obtained by mutation operation, crossover operation was carried out to
further boost the diversity of the population. In existing differential evolution algorithms, exponential
crossover and binomial crossover are widely used. We adopt the binomial crossing approach, which is
introduced as: (
Vi,j (rand ≤ Cr or j = jrand )
Ui,j = (9)
Xi,j other.

Here jrand ∈ [1, 2...D ] is a random dimension index, ensuring that the test vector Ui,j has at least
one element provided by the mutation vector Vi,j , and Cr controls the crossover probability.
Selection operation is to compare the experimental individuals generated by mutation and
crossover operation with the target individuals, and then the better individuals are selected to enter
the next generation of the population. The selection process can be described as:
(
Ui,t f (Ui,t ) ≤ f ( Xi,t )
Xi,t+1 = (10)
Xi,t f (Ui,t ) > f ( Xi,t ).

According to the equation, if the evaluation value of Ui,t of the test individual is less than or
equal to that of the corresponding target individual, then Ui,t of the test individual will replace
the corresponding target individual and enter the next generation of the population; otherwise,
the individual Xi,t will remain unchanged.

2.3. Overview of the Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN)

PNN, a feedforward neural network with the radial basis function (RBF), presented by Dr. Specht
in 1989 [31]. The application of the Bayesian decision theory and RBF in PNN and the consideration
of the cross effect of different pattern types give it a certain competitive strength over other neural
network models. When there is an increasing amount of enormous data, PNN is capable of converging
to the Bayesian classifier without falling into local minima. Additionally, PNN is popular in pattern
classification and fault detection and prediction.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 7 of 17

Different from the structure of the back propagation (BP) neural network, PNN is typically a
parallel 4-layer structure, indicated in Figure 1. The function of each layer and corresponding equation
are described as follows:

Φ1 Type1
•
C1
•
•
∑
Φi
•
• •
X1 Typey
•

•
•
•
• Φi+1 Cy
• •
Type(vi)
∑
•

Xi •
•
• C
•
•
•
•
•
•
Φk
•
• •

Xl •

Φk+1 Typem
Cm
•

Data set
•
•
∑
Φl

Input layer Pattern layer Summation layer Output layer

Figure 1. Probabilistic neural network (PNN) structure.

The input layer is made use of a pre-processing data set of the training sample and transmit
characteristics of the sample to the network, so the number of its neurons should be the same as the
dimension of all the sample.
For the pattern layer, the Euclidean distance between the feature vector of training sample X and
radial center xij is used to realize the matching between the input feature vector and various types of
training set. It can be expressed as follows:

( X − xij ) T ( X − xij )
1 −
Φ= d d
e 2σ2 . (11)
(2π ) 2 σ

Here, X = [ x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ] T , n = 1, 2, . . . , l. l is for all types of training, d is the dimension

of eigenvector, xij is the j − th center of the i − th training sample, and σ is a smoothing factor.
The function of summation layer is weighted to average the output of the same type of pattern layer.
It is expressed as:
∑ Lj=1 Φij
vi = . (12)
L
Here, vi is the output of class i neurons, and L is the number of class i neurons. The type
corresponding to maximum output in the summation layer is the output type of the output layer,
and its equation:
Type(vi ) = arg max(vi ). (13)
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 8 of 17

2.4. PNN Optimized by MDE-WOA Power Transformer PHM Model

For the defect of PNN, the hidden layer of calculation by the smoothing factor (σ) great influence.
If the σ incorrect value is too large or too small, the network convergence falls into local optimum too
quickly or easily. As an improved intelligent optimization algorithm, MDE-WOA has strong global
optimization and rich population diversity. It can be extracted by selecting a suitable σ number set,
to improve the performance of PNN.
In this model, the input data are as follows:
 
x11 x12 ··· x1n

 x21 x22 ··· x2n


X= .. .. .. ..  = [ x1 , x2 , · · · , x n ]. (14)
. . . .
 
 
xl1 xl2 ··· xln

The flow chart of the PNN network model optimized by MDE-WOA is shown in Figure 2, and the
specific steps can be summarized as follows:

Initialize parameters
(NP、F、Cr、S)
Set s=0; t=1

Input data
Calculate the fitness
of factor
Initialization PNN
parameters
Update
a、A、C、l、and p
Smooth factor σ
p<0.5?
Y Transform into
N
feature vector
s<S ？
N
Y Train PNN
Spiral updating Searching and
position Encircling prey N
MDE Stop?

Y
Amend search agent Output
goes beyond the classification result
search space

Update best search

factor if there is
better soluton

t=t+1 Update s

Y
t<tmax
N
Out the best solution

Figure 2. A modified differential evolution whale optimization algorithm (MDE-WOA) flow-chart.

Step 1: Randomly generate initialization sample X;

Step 2: Initialize the parameters and structures of PNN and define the random smoothing factor as:

d = ( d1 , d2 , d3 , · · · , d n ) T (15)
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 9 of 17

Step 3: Set the current life s = 0 and the current number of iterations t = 1. Initialize the size (NP),
proportional factor (F), cross control parameter (Cr), life span (S) of the whale population, and the
fitness function f ( x ). It is worth noting that the mean square error (MSE) is taken as the corresponding
value of fitness function in our study.

NP
1
f (x) =
NP ∑ (Yi − Oi )2 (16)
i =1

Here, Yi is actual results and Oi is the expected result.

Step 4: Compute the fitness value of factor and record the position of the optimal individual;
Step 5: Update algorithm parameters: a, A, C, l, and p;
Step 6: Determine the size relationship between random number p and 0.5 between [0,1]: If p ≥ 0.5,
the factor updates position by spiraling through Equation (4). If p < 0.5, the size relation between s
and S is determined: If s < S, the current search agent searches and encircles the prey, and updates the
position via Equations (1) and (3) respectively. If s = S, the MDE operator is introduced to optimize
the search strategy;
Step 7: Compute the fitness value of the factor again, and update the best search factor if there is a
better solution;
Step 8: Update the current life according to Equation (5);
Step 9: When the number of iterations t reaches the maximum number of iterations tmax and other
parameters of the algorithm reach the preset conditions, the algorithm goes to the next step; if not,
it returns to step 5;
Step 10: Optimal search agent instead of PNN in training smoothing factor σ to gain better fault
diagnosis model;
Step 11: Test samples are substituted into the network to obtain the corresponding analysis data.

3. Experimental Setup

3.1. Data Collection

In terms of the effect of transformer model capacity, the environmental humidity and temperature
on transformer performance, this paper collected sorts of gas data from real power transformer
equipment oil from power supply companies (PSC) in the Jiangxi province, China in 2019 as
experimental data samples. After screening all the data, the featured gas content data samples of 555
were obtained from the power transformer, including 65 cases of partial discharge (PD), 361 cases of low
temperature overheating (LT) (<150 ◦ C), 40 cases of low temperature overheating (LT) (150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C),
and 89 cases of arc discharge (AD). For these data samples, 400 sets of data were used as the training
set in this paper, and the remaining data sets were used as our test set.
The power transformer studied is a kind of power transformer with dissolved gas data in oil for
fault diagnosis. The corresponding diagram is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Power transformer equipment studied in our study.

Energies 2020, 13, 3143 10 of 17

The collected 555 sets of power transformer fault data were simulated by MATLAB (R2019a),
and the simulation results can be seen in Figure 4. It can be clearly seen from the three subgraphs that
each fault type has its own ratio data distribution. In addition, combined with the collected fault types
for data analysis, LT (150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C) and AD have obvious differences in the ratio data distribution
compared with other fault types, however, for LT (<150 ◦ C) and PD the distribution of three ratio data
are close, which is a challenge of power transformer fault classification technology.

2.5
feature1-value

1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
sample

20

15
feature2-value

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
sample

20

15
feature3-value

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
sample

Figure 4. The distribution features of dissolved gas analysis (DGA) dataset in our study.

According to the ratio of dissolved gas content in transformer oil, the corresponding fault type
can be obtained. Table 1 is part of the original data of the power transformer fault type judged by
China electric power research institute with the DGA method.

Table 1. Part of the original data of power transformer fault type judged by China electric power
research institute with the DGA method.

Dissolved Gas, µL/L

Sample Sources Type of Fault
C2 H6 TH CH4 C2 H2 C2 H4
Jiujiang PSC LT (<150 ◦ C ) 1.2 150.2 83 53 13
Nanchang PSC LT (150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C) 1.8 70.8 12 46 11
Fuzhou PSC LT (150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C) 1.5 122 6.5 98 16
Yichun PSC LT (150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C) 1 43.7 3.5 31 8.2
Yingtan PSC AD 6 479 61 307 105
PSC means power supply company, TH is the total hydrocarbon of transformer oil and during the judge,
the normal operational temperature is 25 ◦ C and the setting humidity is 50%.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 11 of 17

3.2. Algorithm Setting

To further assess the stability and performance of the MDE-WOA-PNN algorithm for power
transformer, we adopt different methods to compare our model with BA-BP, MCS-BP [32], GA-BP,
and so on. The setting of these algorithms can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Parameter setting in our study of various approaches.

Method Number Approach Parameters Settings

1 MDE-WOA tmax = 4, NP = 3, F = 0.8, Cr = 0.9, S = 110
2 BA-BP A = 0.5, r = 0.5, n = 20
3 CS-BP Pa = 0.25, n = 20
4 GA-BP N = 20, Pm = 0.01, Px = 0.7
5 PNN Non
BA-BP means BP optimized by Bat algorithm (BA). CS-BP means BP optimized by Cuckoo search (CS)
algorithm. GA-BP means BP optimized by Genetic algorithm (GA)

4. Experimental Results
To assess the effectiveness of our approach in the power transformer fault diagnosis, we compared
the classification accuracy of the method with four methods (BA-BP, CS-BP, GA-BP, and PNN). We used
MATLAB for simulation experiments. The classification accuracy calculated by the experiment is
shown in Table 3.
Table 3 demonstrates that the accuracy of fault detection and prediction of MDE-WOA-PNN
model was best among all of the diagnostic models, which further indicates that MDE-WOA obviously
improved optimizing PNN model. With regard to four types of fault diagnosis results, for instance
MDE-WOA-PNN, LT (<150 ◦ C) was 100% (106/106), low temperature overheating (LT) 150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C
was 100% (13/13), partial discharge (PD) was 100% (14/14), and arc discharge (AD) was 95.46%
(21/22). Therefore, compared with other diagnostic models, this model is more suitable for power
transformer fault detection and prediction.

Table 3. The comparison of different methods.

Successful LT (<150 ◦ C) LT 150 ◦ C–300 ◦ C PD AD

Ranking Method
Accuracy % Accuracy % Accuracy % Accuracy % Accuracy %
1 MDE-WOA 98.86 100 100 100 95.46
2 BA-BP 96.7 99.06 92.31 100 95.45
3 CS-BP 96.31 94.34 100 100 90.91
4 GA-BP 93.3 99.06 92.31 100 81.82
5 PNN 84.58 100 100 42.86 95.45
Among them, the BA-BP and CS-BP algorithm results refer to another piece of our team’s literature on similar
research [33].

As another important diagnosis index of the model, MSE can directly express the error between
PNN output and ideal output of the model. Therefore, to explore the superiority of our presented
method, we compare MSE with the above four methods. As can be seen from Table 4 the MSE of the
test set of MDE-WOA-PNN model was minimal. When using MDE-WOA to optimize PNN and the
test sample was used as the input of PNN, the MSE of this test set was only 0.058. The performance
was far superior to other models. Due to the existence of some noise data, the MSE performance of
training samples was not very excellent. However, combined with Table 3, we know that the model
still obtained a competitive diagnostic accuracy, which also proved that this model had a very high
robustness from the side. In addition, to know more about the impact of the number of iterations on
the MSE of the proposed model, we selected iteration times of 2, 4, 6, and 8 to conduct the exploratory
experiment. The experimental results are given in Figure 5.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 12 of 17

Table 4. A comparison mean square error (MSE) error of different algorithms.

Method Number Approach MSE (Training Set) MSE (Test Set)

1 MDE-WOA 0.125 0.058
2 BA-BP 0.025 0.131
3 CS-BP 0.0075 0.1548
4 GA-BP 0.005 0.1903
5 PNN 0.4975 0.2645

1.5

1.12
1
MSE_train

0.5

0.22
0.125
0.01
0
2 4 6 8
Iterations
1
0.88387
0.8
0.8
MSE_test

0.6

0.4

0.2 0.16129
0.058065
0
2 4 6 8
Iterations

Figure 5. MSE between training sample and test sample.

To explore the impact of the number of iterations on the diagnostic accuracy of the the presented
algorithm, we calculated the accuracy of the model’s fault diagnosis when the number of iterations was
2, 4, 6, and 8, respectively. The variation of fault diagnosis accuracy of various types of test samples in
the network model is shown in Figure 6.
The accuracy of the second type of fault
The accuracy of the first type of fault

1.2 1.2
1 1 0.99057 1 1 1 1
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
0.46154

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8

Iterations Iterations
The accuracy of the fourth type of fault
The accuracy of the third type of fault

1.2 1.2
1 1
0.95455 0.95455
1 1

0.8 0.71429 0.8

0.59091
0.6 0.6
0.45455

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
0
0 0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8

Iterations Iterations

Figure 6. Diagnostic accuracy of various faults.

Figure 7 suggests the classification results of MDE-WOA-PNN training results and test sets.
As can be seen from the figure, when the iteration was 4, the diagnostic accuracy of the test set of the
model was highest. Therefore, it can be seen from the analysis that when the number of iterations was
2, there was an under fitting phenomenon in the network model; when the number of iterations was 6
or 8, the phenomenon of over fitting existed in the network model, which proves the efficiency of the
developed approach.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 13 of 17

Comparisions of prediction of test samples for Max iteration = 2 Comparisions of prediction of test samples for Max iteration = 4
4 4
Real output Real output
Classification of test sample

Classification of test sample

Expected output Expected output
3
3

2
1

0 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Test sample Test sample

Comparisions of prediction of test samples for Max iteration = 6 Comparisions of prediction of test samples for Max iteration = 8
4
4

Real output
Classification of test sample

Classification of test sample

Expected output Real output
Expected output
3 3

2 2

1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Test sample Test sample

Figure 7. MDE-WOA-PNN training result classification and test set classification result.

The variation of the average accuracy with the number of iterations is given in Figure 8. According
to the comprehensive analysis, MDE-WOA-PNN has a very high average accuracy for the problem
studied in this paper, up to 98.86%. Therefore, MDE-WOA-PNN was quite appropriate for fault
detection and prediction of power transformer.

1.2

0.98864

1 0.91721

0.72666
0.8
Average accuracy

0.64773

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2 4 6 8
Iterations

Figure 8. The average accuracy varies with the number of iterations.

The value and variance of the optimal search agent for MDE-WOA-PNN algorithm are given in
Figure 9. Analysis together with Figure 8 indicates that the model had the highest diagnostic accuracy
when the value of the best search agent was 0.047265.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 14 of 17

0.2

The mean of Best_pos

0.17

0.15

0.1

0.047265 0.051851
0.05
0.0014013
0
2 4 6 8
Iterations
The variance of Best_pos

-3
× 10
4
0.0032425

2
0.0010538
1
0 2.4664e-06
0
2 4 6 8
Iterations

Figure 9. The value and variance of the optimal search agent for the MDE-WOA-PNN algorithm.

The fitness curve of this model shown in Figure 10 shows the convergence speed of
MDE-WOA-PNN algorithm was very fast. Meanwhile, it can be seen that the proposed method could
jump out of local optimality quickly, which shows the high efficiency of the algorithm. Besides, it is worth
noting that the initial error of the algorithm was small, indicating that the initial value of the algorithm
was close to the global optimal value.

The fitness for the Max_iteration=2 The fitness for the Max_iteration=4
1.5 0.16

0.14
1
Fitness
Fitness

0.12
0.5
0.1
0
0.08

-0.5
0.06

-1 0.04
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Iterations Iterations
The fitness for the Max_iteration=6 The fitness for the Max_iteration=8
0.14 0.12

0.12 0.115

0.1
Fitness
Fitness

0.11
0.08
0.105
0.06
0.1
0.04

0.02 0.095

0 0.09
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Iterations Iterations

Figure 10. The adaptive curve of different iteration times.

5. Discussion
In this work, a PHM model for a power transformer was established via PNN. An intelligent
optimization algorithm MDE-WOA was introduced to optimize unknown parameters, i.e., smoothing
factor (σ) in the PNN model, so as to enhance the performance of the PNN algorithm. Optimized by
the MDE-WOA algorithm, the global convergence of PNN network was significantly enhanced and
could jump out from local optimal quickly, which made the network more efficient. Compared with
other optimization algorithms, the efficiency of this model was superior. In the process of optimizing
PNN by the MDE-WOA algorithm, the optimization effect was not affected when the initial parameters
changed slightly, which could not be realized by many algorithms. Furthermore, this paper proved that
the MDE-WOA algorithm could accelerate the speed of the convergence and efficiency of the network
and then up-grading the fault prediction ratio of power transformers. Therefore, the MDE-WOA-PNN
model had an obvious superiority in fault detection and prediction of the power transformer.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 15 of 17

6. Conclusions
In the course of this study, there was no study on the influence of the number of sample data on the
model diagnosis results. In addition, MDE-WOA-PNN, as a novel power transformer fault diagnosis
method also had some defects, that is, the parameter setting had a greater impact on the performance
of the model. Compared with other methods of similar publications, such as the power transformer
fault diagnosis method combining hypersphere multiclass SVM and improved D-S evidence theory
proposed by Shang, H. et al. [34] and the traditional diagnosis method of BA-BP, the MDE-WOA-PNN
not only had a higher accuracy and faster convergence speed, but also improved the defect whereby
traditional fault diagnosis method is easy to fall into local optimum.
For future work, our team will increase the experimental sample data to further study the impact
of the number of experimental sample data on the accuracy of fault diagnosis. Meanwhile, we will
improve the intelligent optimization algorithm to adapt to a more complex fault diagnosis. It is worth
noting that the algorithm is also applicable to fault diagnosis of diesel engines and sensors.

Author Contributions: Methodology, W.Z. and A.L.; Conceptualization, W.Z.; Data curation, Y.D.; Software, W.Z.
and A.L.; Validation, X.Y.; Writing—original draft, W.Z.; Writing—review and editing, W.Z. and X.Y. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China (51765042,
61773051, 61963026).
Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflict from all authors of this paper.

Abbreviations
PHM prognostic and health management
DGA dissolved gas analysis
MDE-WOA modified differential evolution whale optimization algorithm
PNN probabilistic neural network
RBF radial basis function
σ smoothing factor
Xg_best the best search agent
f fitness function
MSE mean square error
LT low temperature and overheating
AD arc discharge
PD partial discharge
PSO particle swarm optimization
CS cuckoo search

References
1. Yang, H.T.; Liao, C.C. Adaptive fuzzy diagnosis system for dissolved gas analysis of power transformers.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 1999, 14, 1342–1350. [CrossRef]
2. Yu, S.; Zhao, D.; Chen, W.; Hou, H. Oil-immersed Power Transformer Internal Fault Diagnosis Research
Based on Probabilistic Neural Network. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 83, 1327–1331. [CrossRef]
3. Akbari, A.; Setayeshmehr, A.; Borsi, H.; Gockenbach, E.; Fofana, I. Intelligent agent-based system using
dissolved gas analysis to detect incipient faults in power transformers. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2010,
26, 27–40. [CrossRef]
4. Duval, M. A review of faults detectable by gas-in-oil analysis in transformers. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2002,
18, 8–17. [CrossRef]
5. Transformers Committee. IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed Transformers;
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1992.
6. Wei, C.; Tang, W.; Wu, Q. Dissolved gas analysis method based on novel feature prioritisation and support
vector machine. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2014, 8, 320–328. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 16 of 17

7. Yang, X.; Chen, W.; Li, A.; Yang, C.; Xie, Z.; Dong, H. BA-PNN-based methods for power transformer fault
diagnosis. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2019, 39, 178–185. [CrossRef]
8. Jian, L.; Caixin, S. Study on the Models of Fault Diagnosis about Power Transformer Based on Dissolved Gases
Analysis; Chongqing University: Chongqing, China, 2001; pp. 26–28.
9. Kari, T.; Gao, W.; Zhao, D.; Zhang, Z.; Le, L. An integrated method of ANFIS and Dempster-Shafer theory
for fault diagnosis of power transformer. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2018, 25, 360–371. [CrossRef]
10. Ghoneim, S.S.; Taha, I.B. A new approach of DGA interpretation technique for transformer fault diagnosis.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 81, 265–274. [CrossRef]
11. Kim, Y.; Lee, S.; Seo, H.; Jung, J.; Yang, H. Development of dissolved gas analysis (DGA) expert system using
new diagnostic algorithm for oil-immersed transformers. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International
Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis, Bali, Indonesia, 23–27 September 2012; pp. 365–369.
12. Sarma, D.S.; Kalyani, G. ANN approach for condition monitoring of power transformers using DGA.
In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Region 10 Conference TENCON 2004, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 24 November
2004; Volume 100, pp. 444–447.
13. Waghmare, H.; Kulkarni, P. Modeling of transformer DGA using IEC & fuzzy based three gas ratio method.
Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. IJERT 2014, 3, 1149–1152.
14. Dong, M.; Xu, D.; Li, M.; Yan, Z. Fault diagnosis model for power transformer based on statistical learning
theory and dissolved gas analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference Record of the 2004 IEEE International
Symposium on Electrical Insulation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 19–22 September 2004; pp. 85–88.
15. Ghoneim, S.S.M. Intelligent prediction of transformer faults and severities based on dissolved gas analysis
integrated with thermodynamics theory. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2018, 12, 388–394. [CrossRef]
16. Bacha, K.; Souahlia, S.; Gossa, M. Power transformer fault diagnosis based on dissolved gas analysis by
support vector machine. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2012, 83, 73–79. [CrossRef]
17. Han, X.H.; Xiong, X.; Duan, F. A new method for image segmentation based on BP neural network and
gravitational search algorithm enhanced by cat chaotic mapping. Appl. Intell. 2015, 43, 855–873. [CrossRef]
18. Castro, A.R.G.; Miranda, V. Knowledge Discovery in Neural Networks With Application to Transformer
Failure Diagnosis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2005, 20, 717–724. [CrossRef]
19. Guardado, J.L.; Naredo, J.L.; Moreno, P.; Fuerte, C.R. A Comparative Study of Neural Network Efficiency in
Power Transformers Diagnosis Using Dissolved Gas Analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2001, 21, 643–647.
[CrossRef]
20. Wang, X.; Wang, T.; Wang, B. Hybrid PSO-BP based probabilistic neural network for power transformer
fault diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 2008 Second International Symposium on Intelligent Information
Technology Application, Shanghai, China, 20–22 December 2008; Volume 1, pp. 545–549.
21. Long, Q.; Guo, S.; Li, Q.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Fan, Y. Research of converter transformer fault diagnosis based on
improved PSO-BP algorithm. IOP Conf. 2017, 231, 012015. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, Y.; Zhang, L. Transformer fault diagnosis based on back-propagation neural network optimized by
cuckoo search algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on Control Science
and Systems Engineering (ICCSSE), Beijing, China, 17–19 August 2017; pp. 383–386.
23. Zhang, Y.; Ding, X.; Liu, Y.; Griffin, P.J. An artificial neural network approach to transformer fault diagnosis.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2002, 11, 1836–1841. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, C.; Xu, L.; Li, X.; Wang, H. A method of fault diagnosis for rotary equipment based on deep learning.
In Proceedings of the 2018 Prognostics and System Health Management Conference (PHM-Chongqing),
Chongqing, China, 26–28 October 2018; pp. 958–962.
25. Zhang, L.; Gao, H.; Wen, J.; Li, S.; Liu, Q. A deep learning-based recognition method for degradation
monitoring of ball screw with multi-sensor data fusion. Microelectron. Reliab. 2017, 75, 215–222. [CrossRef]
26. Ji, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, H.; Liu, J.; Zhuang, Y.; Lei, Q. Fault diagnosis for power transformer using deep
learning and softmax regression. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2017 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC),
Jinan, China, 20–22 October 2017; pp. 2662–2667.
27. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
28. Luo, J.; Shi, B. A hybrid whale optimization algorithm based on modified differential evolution for global
optimization problems. Appl. Intell. 2019, 49, 1982–2000. [CrossRef]
29. Zhou, Y.; Ling, Y.; Luo, Q. Lévy Flight Trajectory-Based Whale Optimization Algorithm for Global
Optimization. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 6168–6186.
Energies 2020, 13, 3143 17 of 17

30. Kumar, C.; Rao, R.S. A novel global MPP tracking of photovoltaic system based on whale optimization
algorithm. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 2016, 5, 225–232. [CrossRef]
31. Specht, D.F. Probabilistic neural networks. Neural Netw. 1990, 3, 109–118. [CrossRef]
32. Li, A.; Yang, X.; Dong, H.; Xie, Z.; Yang, C. Machine Learning-Based Sensor Data Modeling Methods for
Power Transformer PHM. Sensors 2018, 18, 4430. [CrossRef]
33. Yang, X.; Chen, W.; Li, A.; Yang, C. A Hybrid machine-learning method for oil-immersed power transformer
fault diagnosis. IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2020, 15, 501–507. [CrossRef]
34. Shang, H.; Xu, J.; Zheng, Z.; Qi, B.; Zhang, L. A Novel Fault Diagnosis Method for Power Transformer
Based on Dissolved Gas Analysis Using Hypersphere Multiclass Support Vector Machine and Improved
D–S Evidence Theory. Energies 2019, 12, 4017. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).