Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
A Comparison between Piezoelectric Sensors Applied to Multiple Partial Discharge Detection by Advanced Signal Processing Analysis †

dc.contributor.authorBinotto, Amanda [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorCastro, Bruno Albuquerque de [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Vitor Vecina dos [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorRey, Jorge Alfredo Ardila
dc.contributor.authorAndreoli, André Luiz [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa María
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-29T12:24:50Z
dc.date.available2023-07-29T12:24:50Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01
dc.description.abstractThe development of sensors applied to failure detection systems for power transformers is a critical concern since this device stands out as a strategic component of the electric power system. Among the most common issues is the presence of partial discharges (PDs) in the insulation system of the transformer, which can lead the device to total failure. Aiming to prevent unexpected damages, several PD monitoring approaches have been developed. One of the most promising is the Acoustic Emission (AE) technique, which captures the acoustic signals generated by PDs using piezoelectric sensors. Although many studies have proved the effectiveness of AE, most signal processing approaches are strictly related to the frequency analysis of PD signals, which can hide important information such as the repetition rate of the failure. This article presents a comparison between two types of piezoelectric transducers: the microfiber composite (MFC) and the lead zirconate titanate (PZT). To ensure the detection of multiple PDs, time–frequency analysis was carried out by short-time Fourier transform (STFT). Intending to compare the sensibility of the transducers, the AE signals were windowed, and the root mean square (RMS) value was extracted for each part of the signal. The results indicate that spectrogram and RMS analysis have great potential to detect multiple PD activity. Although MFC was two times more sensitive to PD detection than the PZT sensor, PZT presents a higher frequency response band (0–100 kHz) than MFC (80 kHz).en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Electrical Engineering School of Engineering São Paulo State University (UNESP)
dc.description.affiliationIEEE Women in Engineering São Paulo State University (UNESP)
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Electrical Engineering Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 3939
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Electrical Engineering School of Engineering São Paulo State University (UNESP)
dc.description.affiliationUnespIEEE Women in Engineering São Paulo State University (UNESP)
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ecsa-7-08243
dc.identifier.citationEngineering Proceedings, v. 2, n. 1, 2020.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ecsa-7-08243
dc.identifier.issn2673-4591
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85098491435
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/245847
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEngineering Proceedings
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectacoutic emission
dc.subjectpartial discharges
dc.subjectpiezoelectric sensors
dc.subjecttime-frequency analysis
dc.subjecttransformers diagnosis
dc.titleA Comparison between Piezoelectric Sensors Applied to Multiple Partial Discharge Detection by Advanced Signal Processing Analysis †en
dc.typeArtigo
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-4916-8691[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-4581-1459[2]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-1577-7886[3]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-8811-2274[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-7271-397X[5]

Arquivos

Coleções