Partial Discharge Localization in Gas-Insulated
Switchgear using Various Learning Algorithms
Omar Abu-Rub1 , Ahmad Darwish1
1
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
omar.abu-rub@qatar.tamu.edu; a.darwish1993@tamu.edu
Abstract— Gas-insulated switchgears have become essential
parts of the electric power systems utilities because of their
reliability, compactness, and effectiveness. Different techniques
have been developed to protect these devices from partial
discharge. The Ultra-High Frequency techniques, which detects
electromagnetic waves emitted during the event of partial
discharge, showed great performance on the localization of such
phenomenon. In this paper, three different machine learning
classification models have been built to localize partial discharge
in a modeled gas-insulated switchgear using COMSOL multi-
physics. Results for five different sensors are obtained and
processed to establish concrete attributes for machine learning
purposes. Various learning algorithms have been evaluated and
compared, such as artificial neural networks, support vector
machine (SVM), and a subspace discriminant ensemble model
yielding a range of accuracies. An accuracy of 94.8% was obtained
through the subspace discriminant ensemble model.
Keywords—Gas-Insulated Switchgear, Neural Networks,
Subspace Discriminant Ensemble, Support Vector Machine.
I. INTRODUCTION
as-Insulated Switchgears (GIS) have recently been widely
integrated with the electric power system utilities because of the
associated high reliability, small size, and ease of maintenance
[1]. Partial Discharge (PD) is one of the most common factors
that contributes to the failure of the electrical insulation of such
devices. Thus, monitoring GIS against PD phenomenon has
become of paramount importance to improve power systems
reliability. Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF_6) is one of the most
common gasses used as the insulating medium in GIS. SF_6 has
a very high dielectric strength of around 89kV/cm which is 3
times higher than that of air [2], [3].
A large number of techniques have been developed to detect
and identify PD phenomenon. Such techniques include
chemical, acoustic, optical and electrical techniques [4].
Chemical techniques rely on the collection of released samples
of gasses and oil during the PD activities. Chemical techniques
can provide an accurate indication about the condition of the
insulation material. Nonetheless, these techniques acquire long
time as they rely on the decomposition of materials due to PD
[4], [5]. Acoustic methods measure the mechanical (acoustic)
waves caused by the release of energy during PD activities. This
technique is capable of locating PD sources using the time of
arrival and the phase delay of waves [4]. Acoustics techniques
might give some false information about the conditoiions of
insulations because of the different noise sources [4], [5].
Optical techniques rely on the emission of light associated with
the PD pulse and is an extremely sensitive method due to the
very high immunity to noise. Optical fiber sensors are
commonly used in the detection of PD using optical techniques
[4], [5]. Optical techniques are prone to fringe fading because of
the random polarization. Electrical techniques rely on the
measurement of voltages and currents using an electric circuit
(conventional method), or the detection of Electromagnetic
(EM) waves generated because of the acceleration and
deceleration of currents during PD activities [6].
Machine learning is concerned with the study of statistical
models for prediction and decision making based on training
data. A machine learning model uses specific statistical and
mathematical techniques on training data to predict the output of
future input data with similar attributes. Within machine
learning exists three classes: supervised learning, unsupervised
learning, and reinforcement learning. Supervised learning, the
primary focus of this study, trains input data with an identified
field indicating the output. When new input data is given, the
model assigns an output for this data based on previously trained
data. On the other hand, unsupervised learning trains data
without knowledge of the output of each data instance and
partitions the data into different groups with similar attributes
when using cluster analysis. When new input data is supplied,
the output will be based on the previous data and the model
determines within which group of data it lies (for cluster
analysis). Finally, reinforcement learning differs from
supervised learning such that the input/output pair do not need
to be labelled. The reinforcement environment is usually
formulated as a Markov decision process. In essence, in the
absence of training dataset, it is bound to learn from its
experience [7].
It is important to note that for supervised learning, there
exists further classes namely regression and classification.
Classification models contain discrete valued outputs or
categorical outputs. On the other hand, regression models have
continuous valued outputs. For both classification and
regression models, the input variables can be either discrete or
continuous valued [7].
The main contribution of the paper is concerned with void
localization inside an L-structured GIS using machine learning
classification models. A short dipole is modelled to represent the
defect inside the GIS enclosure. The voltage amplitude and
power received by each sensor are used to localize defects using
different machine learning techniques. In essence, this paper is 700 mm
organized as follows: Section 2 shows the simulation model Sensor 3 ( = 0)
500 mm
used to inject the pulses. Section 3 discusses the machine
learning models used for void localization. It also presents,
Steel Cover Steel Cover
discusses, and analyses the obtained the results. Finally,
Sensor 3 ( = 90)
concluding remarks are given in the section 4.
1000 mm
300 mm Switch

II. SIMULATION MODEL

A detailed model of L-type structured GIS with a void defect
in the insulator has been built and validated the proposed Sensor 2 400 mm
Sensor 2 ( = 0)
methodology to localize pf PD source in the GIS. Fig. 1 shows ( = 90)
the modeled L-structured GIS with its dimensions. The inner 1000 mm
conductor radius is 80 mm whereas the outer conductor is 200
mm. The spacers’ thickness is 30 mm. The implemented model
is used for the detection and localization of PD sources inside
Spacer
the GIS. If the void size is small enough, the Streamer channel
280 mm
created during PD event can be modeled using a dipole antenna Sensor 1
500 mm
[8]. Thus, a defect is modelled by a short dipole antenna. In fact,
when the size of voids is small, the streamer channel can be
approximated by a small dipole antenna the length of which Steel Cover
cannot exceed 5mm whereas the diameter is in the order of
0.3mm [8]. The modelled defect has been placed at different Fig. 1. A 2-Dimensional View of the Proposed GIS Model
locations inside the GIS enclosure. The Wanninger pulse
represented by Eq. (1) is used as the input to the dipole model

= (1)
Where is the voltage amplitude applied to the dipole, and
is the rise-time of the pulse. The localization of defect is
obtained based on the time of flight as well as intensity of the
voltage and power received by each of the sensors shown in Fig.
1.
As a result of the limited number of void simulations and
locations due to the large computational and memory
requirements of the finite element model, the GIS is subdivided
into four different sections, seen in Fig. 2. Among each section
exists 3-4 voids with their respective raw data. Machine learning
supervised classification models will be used to act as a meta-
model to classify in which section of the GIS the void exists.
The raw data includes recorded data from 5 different sensors
along the GIS with each sensor measuring both the voltage and
the power. The domain of the measured signal exists in a
timeframe from 0ns (the instance the pulse is created) up to 175
ns after the pulse is initialized. In total, the raw signal includes
Fig. 2. A 2-D Diagram of the Categorized GIS Model
11 variables: time, 5 different voltage measurements, and 5
different power measurements from the respective 5 sensors.
A defect is placed close to sensor 2 ( = 90°) in the GIS III. PD LOCALIZATION USING MACHINE LEARNING
structure (refer to Fig. 1). The obtained results, which include The main objective in ensuring high accuracy for machine
the voltage amplitude and the total received power by each learning models is to extract meaningful information that
sensor, are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. Since the defect is placed directly influences the output prediction. Training the raw data
close to sensor 2, the voltage and power amplitude received by yielded a maximum of 50% accuracy. This is attributed to the
sensor 2 is higher than that received by sensors 1 and 3. This is fact that since each data point of a signal was trained, some of
mainly attributed to the fact that the longer the distance between which are insignificant and further caused overfitting of the data.
the PD source and sensors, the higher the attenuation
Due to the randomness of the voltage signal, it is rational that
experienced by the EM waves [9, 10].
training each point of the signal would be inefficient causing a
low accuracy prediction. Thus, the original signal was broken
down into 12 segments, where each segment includes a
timeframe of 120 ns of the original signal. Furthermore,
 a a

b b

c c
Fig. 3. Voltage Amplitude Received by a) Sensor 1, b) Sensor 2, c) Fig. 4. _Total Power Received by a) Sensor 1, b) Sensor 2, c) Sensor 3
Sensor 3

statistical time-domain features were obtained for each segment
including the variance, standard deviation, mean, absolute sum,
skewness, and kurtosis. Breaking the signal into 12 segment
insures the extraction of the important information by inspecting
the characteristics of the signal. Also, partitioning the original
signal into segments reduces the dataset improving the model
training latency. In essence, the classification models aim to
establish a strong relationship between the signals’ statistical
time-domain features to accurately predict the localization of the
void. The full process of classifying the data through specific
machine learning models is shown in the flow chart in Fig. 5.
The total data set contains 14 voids and 12 instances per
void, thus a total of 168 instances. The training data was
obtained from the dataset through a 5-fold cross validation.
According to various experimental studies, this value generally
results in a model prediction with low and modest variance,
particularly for small quantity samples [11].

Fig. 5. Flowchart Illustrating the Adapted Machine Learning
Process
A. Neural Network
The first classification algorithm tested was the neural
networks, primarily back propagation neural networks.
Artificial neural networks are computing systems that learn to
perform certain tasks by taking into consideration examples and
training data. An ANN is composed of a collection of connected
nodes also known as artificial neurons where each node can
transmit a signal. Typically, an artificial neuron receives a signal
then processes it and can further transmit the processed signal to
further neurons connected to it [12].
An ANN can be partitioned in layers where artificial neurons
are aggregated into the layers where the signal can travel.
Generally speaking, artificial neural networks contain 3 primary
layers, the input layer, hidden layer(s), and the output layer. In
ANN, the signal is real numbered value where the output at each
neuron is the weighted sum of the inputs of the neuron computed
by a non-linear function. In other terms, each input signal to a
specific neuron is multiplied by a weight with an added bias
before being transformed by an activation function. The weights
and biases of the network are initially randomized and varied by
a training algorithm such that each weight is adjusted based on
the cost function or the error of the training data and its
corresponding output. For this particular study, the back-
propagation algorithm was used to train the ANN system which
uses a gradient descent approach that exploits the chain rule.
Training the neural An ANN can be partitioned in layers where
artificial neurons are aggregated into the layers where the signal
can travel. Generally speaking, artificial neural networks contain
3 primary layers, the input layer, hidden layer(s), and the output
layer. In ANN, the signal is real numbered value where the
output at each neuron is the weighted sum of the inputs of the
neuron computed by a non-linear function. In other terms, each
input signal to a specific neuron is multiplied by a weight with
an added bias before being transformed by an activation
function. The weights and biases of the network are initially
randomized and varied by a training algorithm such that each
weight is adjusted based on the cost function or the error of the
training data and its corresponding output. For this particular
study, the back-propagation algorithm was used to train the
ANN system which uses a gradient descent approach that
exploits the chain rule. Training the neural network by updating
the weights holds a recursive nature although not practically
efficient; especially regarding overall training latency can
typically yield high accuracies [22]. Among the different
machine learning models tested throughout this study, neural
networks yielded the lowest accuracy, with a maximum
accuracy of 51%. The ANN models tested included up to 3
hidden layers with varied number of nodes/neurons at each
layer.
B. Support Vector Machine (SVM)
The support vector machine (SVM) is a supervised learning
model [13]. It is a representation of the data as points in space
separated by a clear gap that is as wide as possible. The
boundary that classifies different classes is known as a
hyperplane, and the points closest to the hyperplane are known
as support vectors. Support vector machine was first proposed
by Vladimir Vapnik in 1995. SVM provides a great advantage
in small sample quantity training data, nonlinear, and high
dimensionality pattern recognition problems. Due to the size and
high dimensionality of the training data proposed earlier, SVM
is proposed to be most appropriate for this application.
Successful applications have demonstrated that SVM can
perform as well or better than neural networks in a wide variety
of fields, including engineering, information retrieval, and
bioinformatics [13].
A linear SVM models the data and divides them into
different regions separated by a linear hyperplane (linear
boundary). A linear SVM algorithm finds a linear boundary that
separates regions with the least error by maximizing the distance
between the boundary and the support vectors. Linear SVM is
restricted as they are ideal for linearly separable data and may
fail to achieve high accuracy when dealing with non- linear data
set.
As seen in Fig. 6, the linear support vector machine model
yielded an accuracy of around 80%, with a maximum achieved
accuracy of 83.1%. Although this is a significant improvement
from the neural network model, this is a considerably low
accuracy given that the GIS is only categorized into 4 sections.
According to the confusion matrix seen in Fig. 5, the localization
of voids in section I were accurately localized. However,
sections II and III obtained relatively large classification
inaccuracies due to their similarities and the model’s limitation
in distinguishing the differences. Similarly, the primary
inaccuracies in the model for section IV were caused due to the
similarity with voids in section III.
Fig. 7 shows the ROC curves for the classification of each
section. Although noticeable inaccuracies exist within the linear
 Fig. 6. Linear SVM model confusion matrix
SVM model, the primary inaccuracies are caused by the
incorrect prediction of adjacent sections. Fig. 7 shows the area
under curve (AUC) is above 0.93 with section I and IV more
accurately classified. This shows that despite the minor
inaccuracies, this model has the potential to be implemented for
more void classification in the GIS.
Although the linear SVM supports the notion of using
machine learning as a method to accurately localize voids in the
GIS, a more improved feature selection and larger dataset is
required to acquire higher predictive accuracies and precise
localizations. Thus, to improve the accuracy of the SVM model,
further feature analysis and improved feature extraction is
essential.
Fig. 7. Linear SVM (a)Section I (b)Section II (c)Section III (d)Section
IV ROC curves
Fig. 8. Initial Subspace Discriminant Model Confusion Matrix
C. Subspace Discriminant Ensemble
The final machine learning algorithm to be used for void
classification and localization in this study is the subspace
discriminant ensemble algorithm that is based on the random
subspace model. Ensemble models are a powerful algorithm
commonly used in machine learning. Ensembles implement
multiple algorithms to achieve better predictive performance
and accuracy as compared to any of the constituent algorithms
alone [14]. Among the various ensemble algorithms, decision
trees, such as random forests, are fast and commonly used
ensemble methods. A prominent issue with decision tree
algorithms for classification is avoiding overfitting the training
data whilst achieving high accuracy. In 1998 Tin Kam Ho
proposed a method to construct a decision tree-based classifier
that maintains high accuracy on training data and aims to
improve on generalization accuracy as it grows in complexity.
The proposed classifier consists of multiple trees constructed
systematically by pseudo randomly selecting subsets of
Fig. 9. Subspace discriminant model confusion matrix

Fig. 10. Subspace discriminant (a) Section I (b) Section II
(c) Section III (d) Section IV ROC curves
components of the feature vector, in other words, trees
constructed in randomly chosen subsets [14].
As seen in Fig. 8, the subspace discriminant ensemble model
initially yielded an accuracy of 86.7%. The primary inaccuracies
in the model was caused by the incorrect prediction of section
IV and misidentifying it as section II. In addition, more
inaccuracies exist between adjacent sections, as seen previously
in the linear SVM model. However, with further signal
processing and removing unnecessary data detrimental to the
total accuracy; specifically, removing the last section of the
signal from training data yielded a total accuracy of 94.8%. This
is a major improvement from previous models as seen in Fig. 9.
The confusion matrix in Fig. 10 shows the highly accurate
classification of voids using the subspace discriminant model.
The figure shows the flawless prediction of voids in section IV.
The model accurately classified and localized voids in sections
I and III with only a single false prediction each attributed to
their adjacent sections. The greatest inaccuracies and false
classifications exists within section II, where 6 instances in
section II were falsely classified as voids existing in section I.
Furthermore, the ROC curves in Fig. 10 show the ideal
classification of voids in section 4 with an ideal AUC of 1.0 and
the inaccuracies existing in section II as seen from Fig. 10(b).
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, an L-structured GIS model has been built
using the Multiphysics package of COMSOL. Different
machine learning classification models were trained to localize
voids in the GIS system. A maximum accuracy of 94.8% was
obtained by training the subspace discriminant ensemble. The
results support the potential of using machine learning for void
localization in systems such as the GIS with conventionally used
sensors. The limitation lies within the limited cases due to the
large demand processing and memory resources that causes each
instance and void simulation to take an average of a day and a
half. Furthermore, with the addition of more void instances and
improved feature extraction methods, the localization of voids
within the GIS can be more precisely accomplished based on the
results of this study.
REFERENCES
[1] Guo, H., Lu, F., Ren, K.F.: “Simulation and measurement of PD-induced
electromagnetic wave leakage in GIS with metal belt” IEEE Transactions
on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 2014, 21, (4), pp. 1942–1949.
[2] Prabakaran T, John Powl S and Uppili B, "PD test in gas insulated
substation using UHF method," 2015 International Conference on
Condition Assessment Techniques in Electrical Systems (CATCON),
Bangalore, 2015, pp. 57-60.
[3] Fan, X., Li, L., Zhou, Y., et al.: “Online detection technology for SF6
decomposition products in electrical equipment: a review” IET Science,
Measurement & Technology, 2018, 12, (6), pp. 707–711.
[4] M. Yaacob, M. Alsaedi, J. Rashed, A. Dakhil, and S. Atyah, “Review on
Partial Discharge Detection Techniques Related to High Voltage Power
Equipment Using Different Sensors,” Photonic Sensors, 2014, 4(4): 325–
337.
[5] R. Rahmani, R. Yusof, M.S. Mahmodian, and A. A. Shojaei, “Review on
PD detection and Measurement in Electrical Power Equipment,” in
International Review on Modelling and Simulations, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 426-
433, February 2012.
[6] M. D. Judd, Li Yang and I. B. B. Hunter, "Partial discharge monitoring of
power transformers using UHF sensors. Part I: sensors and signal
interpretation," in IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
5-14, March-April 2005.
[7] Hastie, Trevor, R. Tibshirani, J. Friedman, and J. Franklin, "The elements
of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction," In The
Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 83-85, 2005.
[8] Y. Qi, Y. Fan, B. Gao, Y. Mengzhuo, A. Jadoon, Y. Peng, and T. Jie,
‘‘Study on the propagation characteristics of partial discharge in
switchgear based on near-field to far-field transformation,’’ Energies, vol.
11, no. 7, p. 1619, 2018.
[9] M. Hikita, S. Ohtsuka, G. Ueta, S. Okabe, T. Hoshino and S. Maruyama,
"Influence of insulating spacer type on propagation properties of PD-
induced electromagnetic wave in GIS," in IEEE Transactions on
Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1642-1648,
October 2010.
[10] G. Behrmann, K. Wyss, J. Weiss, M. Schraudolph, S. Neuhold and J.
Smajic, "Signal delay effects of solid dielectrics on time-of-flight
measurements in GIS," in IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and
Electrical Insulation, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1275-1284, June 2016.
[11] James, Gareth, D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, "An introduction
to statistical learning," Vol. 112. New York: springer, 2013.
[12] S. Haykin, Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation, Prentice Hall
PTR, 1994.
[13] B. Scholkopf and A.J. Smola, Learning with Kernels: Support Vector
Machines, Regularization, Optimization and Beyond, the MIT Press,
2002.
[14] Ho, T. Kam. "The random subspace method for constructing decision
forests, " IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence, 20(8), pp.832-844, 1998.