Spread Spectrum Time Domain Reflectometry (SSTDR) and Frequency Domain Reflectometry (FDR) for Detection of Cable Anomalies Using Machine Learning
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 Inc. that is designed to operate on live cables up to 1000 volts. One of the main conclusions of a previous effort was that cable reflectometry plots can be difficult for humans to analyze due to baseline noise, low or noisy anomaly response peaks, or large responses from cable ends. Detection of cable anomalies for many of these frequencies and test conditions was challenging for manual analysis. This presented an ideal opportunity for ML analysis to distinguish undamaged cable indications from anomalous cable indications. This research discusses application of machine learning (ML) to reflectometry cable test methods. The goal was to assess feasibility to distinguish undamaged cable reflectometry responses from damaged or anomalous cable reflectometry responses. The assessment considered the 3 instruments, multiple frequency bandwidths from each instrument, multiple cable anomalies and test conditions, and both supervised and unsupervised ML approaches. Although approaches and analysis methods were not identical or directly comparable, both outputs were encouraging. The unsupervised prediction weighted accuracy was assessed by instrument and by frequency. It performed better at high frequencies with the highest prediction accuracy of 0.84 for the higher frequency FDR, 0.79 for the 48-MHz LiveWire SSTDR, and 0.77 for 300-MHz PNNL SSTDR. The initial weighted accuracy average across all frequencies for using supervised ML was 0.56 to 0.68. The supervised analysis was repeated with noisier training data removed resulting in weighted accuracies of 0.69 to 0.87. These weighted accuracies are not directly comparable due to differences in the supervised and unsupervised analysis details but do indicate an encouraging trend. Even with limited and unbalanced data, strong prediction accuracies seem encouraging for further work including more data under a wider range of conditions.