Next Article in Journal
Optimal Scheduling of Weak-Grid Green Ammonia Systems Based on ALK–PEM Electrolyzer Coordination
Next Article in Special Issue
MFIA-YOLO: A Small-Object Defect Detection Model for Transmission Line Spacers
Previous Article in Journal
Partial Discharge Signal Denoising for Gas-Insulated Switchgear Using Spearman Coefficient-Optimized VMD and Combined Filtering Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simulation Study on SF6 Circuit Breaker Arc-Extinguishing Chamber Based on Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

PCA and Autoencoder-Based ANN Models for Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Dissolved Gas Analysis: Comparative Insights and Challenges

by
Mwamba S. Nkwambe
and
Bonginkosi A. Thango
*
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2026, 19(12), 2806; https://doi.org/10.3390/en19122806
Submission received: 30 April 2026 / Revised: 5 June 2026 / Accepted: 7 June 2026 / Published: 11 June 2026

Abstract

Accurate fault diagnosis of power transformers using Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) depends on effective feature extraction to reduce redundancy and improve classification performance. This study compares linear and nonlinear feature extraction methods viz. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and bottleneck Autoencoders (AE) to determine whether nonlinear representations provide diagnostic advantages for transformer fault classification. A dataset of 595 IEC 60599-labeled DGA samples covering six fault classes (PD, D1, D2, T1, T2, T3) was used. A 15-dimensional feature space was constructed from gas concentrations, total hydrocarbon content, and IEC-aligned gas ratios. PCA and AE were applied for dimensionality reduction across latent dimensions (k = 1–15), followed by an identical Artificial Neural Network (ANN) classifier. Performance was evaluated using test accuracy, cross-validation stability, and per-class F1-scores. The PCA+ANN model achieved a maximum accuracy of 68.9% at k = 11, outperforming AE+ANN, which achieved 66.4% at k = 4. PCA also demonstrated greater cross-validation stability (62 ± 3.5%) compared to AE (62 ± 6.6%). However, AE improved F1-scores for discharge faults (D1 and D2) by enhancing nonlinear separation of overlapping samples. PCA provides superior overall accuracy and stability for transformer fault diagnosis, while AE offers targeted advantages in distinguishing discharge-related faults. These findings establish a consistent benchmark for future studies and highlight the complementary roles of linear and nonlinear feature extraction in DGA-based diagnostic systems.
Keywords: power transformer; dissolved gas analysis; fault diagnosis; principal component analysis; artificial neural network; IEC 60599; autoencoders power transformer; dissolved gas analysis; fault diagnosis; principal component analysis; artificial neural network; IEC 60599; autoencoders

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nkwambe, M.S.; Thango, B.A. PCA and Autoencoder-Based ANN Models for Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Dissolved Gas Analysis: Comparative Insights and Challenges. Energies 2026, 19, 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19122806

AMA Style

Nkwambe MS, Thango BA. PCA and Autoencoder-Based ANN Models for Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Dissolved Gas Analysis: Comparative Insights and Challenges. Energies. 2026; 19(12):2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19122806

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nkwambe, Mwamba S., and Bonginkosi A. Thango. 2026. "PCA and Autoencoder-Based ANN Models for Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Dissolved Gas Analysis: Comparative Insights and Challenges" Energies 19, no. 12: 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19122806

APA Style

Nkwambe, M. S., & Thango, B. A. (2026). PCA and Autoencoder-Based ANN Models for Transformer Fault Diagnosis Using Dissolved Gas Analysis: Comparative Insights and Challenges. Energies, 19(12), 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19122806

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop