SSTDR and FDR Detection of Un-Energized and Energized Cable Anomalies Including Thermal Degradation Using Machine Learning

Historically, cables are initially qualified for nuclear power plant use for 40 years. As plants extend their operating license to 60 and 80 years, continued use of these cables must shift to a performance-based approach since it is cost prohibitive to completely replace cables that are likely still capable of performing their design function. A variety of cable tests are available and are commonly applied during outages when the cables can be taken out of service. Frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) is one of these test methods that is being more broadly accepted and used because it not only detects anomalies along the cable with a low-voltage signal that does not stress the cable insulation, but the technique also locates the anomalies. This supports follow-up local inspection and local repair or partial replacement of a damaged cable segment. Currently, FDR testing is only applied to cables that are taken out of service since the test instrument would be damaged by operational voltages. A related technology that has found some acceptance in the aircraft and rail industry is spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR). This technology has been implemented with a custom commercial instrument by LiveWire Innovation that is designed to operate on live cables up to 1000 volts and with a bandwidth of 48 MHz. Initial evaluation by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) of the Live Wire system indicated that a broader bandwidth (BW) SSTDR may be better for many kinds of flaws. This led PNNL to develop an SSTDR laboratory instrument suitable for tests up to 500 MHz bandwidth. Testing on energized cables is also desirable for online monitoring systems so an inductive clamshell coupler was developed that allows energized cables to be tested up to at least 5 kV and likely higher voltage levels. Dielectric spectroscopy and tan delta testing plus various laboratory destructive tests were included in this data acquisition campaign directed to feed a machine learning (ML) study. With these kinds of developments, online energized cable tests may be possible with industrial adoption of such hardware advances but it will be completely impractical to have highly skilled data analysts continually examine these complex signals for indications of damage or compromised conditions. If online testing is to be implemented in new test hardware, it must be accompanied by software that can interpret the signals and alert plant operators of changing or degraded conditions. The thermally aged, shielded cable investigated here was separately treated for ML analysis. Visual analysis of electrical data showed generally increasing peaks where the cable entered and exited the oven. These peaks were not exactly aligned with expected locations, but these differences were attributed to velocity of propagation calibration errors. Only supervised ML was applied to the thermally aged data as this data was only available shortly before the committed publication date of this report. The supervised ML was structured to divide the 0 to 70-day responses as ‘normal’ from 0 to 35 days or ‘anomalous’ from 36 to 70 days, based on cable tensile elongation at break (EAB) insulation characterization. Using 80% of the data for training and 20% for testing, the supervised ML predicted normal versus anomalous was 70% accurate. Important conclusions include: • Accuracy to predict the presence of cable damage is improved from the 2023 effort by more training data. Weighted accuracies for comparisons among the instruments ranged from 67 to 89 % for unsupervised ML and 71 to 99% for supervised ML. • Based on the synthetic data tests, the unsupervised models are more generalizable to unseen anomalies. The Multi-Layer Perceptron classifier (MLP) model reported as high as 99.7% accuracy on the test data, but this dropped to 58.3% when tested on the synthetic data. In contrast, the unsupervised Pointwise model only achieved 89.7% accuracy on the experimental data but reported 78.3% accuracy on the synthetic data. • The best anomaly indicators are higher frequency (400 MHz BW) FDR data. Other tests may be interesting but for this study, this was the best predicter.