A Methodology for Progressive Physics Integration in Data-Driven Anomaly Detection: Application to Circuit Breaker Monitoring

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jul 3, 2026
Melvin FERNANDES NOVO Augustin Cathignol Diego Alberto Maya Alalam Benoit Iung Alexandre Voisin Phuc Do

Abstract

Physics-informed machine learning has emerged as a promising paradigm for industrial health monitoring, yet practical guidance on when and how to integrate domain knowledge into detection pipelines remains limited. This paper proposes a structured methodology for progressive physics integration in unsupervised anomaly detection, organised into three levels of increasing depth. Level 0 refers to purely data-driven models operating on raw signals. Level 1 injects operational covariates such as temperature or equipment subtype through stratification or conditioning. Level 2 integrates physical knowledge about the internal structure of the signal—its segmentation into electromechanical phases of differing diagnostic relevance—through phase-aware representations, scoring, or end-to-end architectural integration. The methodology is applied systematically to three method families—statistical envelopes, isolation forests and variational autoencoders—for monitoring medium-voltage circuit breaker coil currents, where the breaker’s protection-switching function makes condition monitoring critical. At the deepest level, a physics-informed conditional VAE (PicVAE) injects domain knowledge through phase-segmented inputs, FiLM-conditioned architecture, and a phase-weighted reconstruction loss. Validated on real operational data with expert-labelled anomalies, the results reveal two findings: (i) operational conditioning at Level 1 consistently improves detection across all three method families; (ii) structural physics injection at Level 2 has a method-dependent impact, yielding clear benefits for phase-aware representation learning while introducing trade-offs for simpler models. The PicVAE achieves the best overall performance (AUC-ROC =0.951, Youden J = 0.854). The proposed methodology provides a reproducible template for integrating domain knowledge into anomaly detection pipelines.

How to Cite

FERNANDES NOVO, M., Cathignol, A., Alberto, D., Alalam, M., Iung, B., Voisin, A., & Do, P. (2026). A Methodology for Progressive Physics Integration in Data-Driven Anomaly Detection: Application to Circuit Breaker Monitoring. PHM Society European Conference, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.36001/phme.2026.v9i1.4896
Abstract 0 | PDF Downloads 0

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Coil current, anomaly detection, hybridization, circuit breaker, health monitoring, physics, deep learning, prognostics and health management, predictive maintenance

References
An, J., & Cho, S. (2015). Variational autoencoder-based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability. Special Lecture on IE, 2(1), 1–18.

Deng, W., Nguyen, K. T. P., Medjaher, K., Gogu, C., & Morio, J. (2024). Physics-informed machine learning in prognostics and health management: State of the art and challenges. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 124, 325–352. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2023.07.011

El Khoury, D., Meley, J.-P., Alberto, D., Bernard, Z., Alalam, M., & Cathignol, A. (2025). Accelerated aging tests for smart MV circuit breaker predictive maintenance. In Proceedings of CIRED 2025 (Vol. 2025, pp. 3208–3212). doi: 10.1049/icp.2025.2287

Ito, H., Richter, M., le Roux, R., & Pepper, D. (2023). CIGRE fourth reliability survey on switching equipment. In CIGRE Session 2023. Paper No. 105.

Jakubowski, J., Stanisz, P., Bobek, S., & Nalepa, G. J. (2022). Anomaly detection in asset degradation process using variational autoencoder and explanations. Sensors, 22(1), 291. doi: 10.3390/s22010291

Johal, H., & Mousavi, M. J. (2008). Coil current analysis method for predictive maintenance of circuit breakers. In IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–6). doi: 10.1109/TDC.2008.4517278

Karniadakis, G. E., Kevrekidis, I. G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., & Yang, L. (2021). Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6), 422–440. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5

Nascimento, R. G., Corbetta, M., Kulkarni, C. S., & Viana, F. A. (2021). Hybrid physics-informed neural networks for lithium-ion battery modeling and prognosis. Journal of Power Sources, 513, 230526. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230526

Natti, S., & Kezunovic, M. (2011). Assessing circuit breaker performance using condition-based data and Bayesian approach. Electric Power Systems Research, 81(9), 1796–1804. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2011.04.010

Perez, E., Strub, F., de Vries, H., Dumoulin, V., & Courville, A. (2018). FiLM: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 32). doi: 10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11671

Rao, P., Huang, J., Hu, X., & Xiao, Y. (2009). Testing of circuit breakers using coil current characteristics analysis. In IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (pp. 185–189). doi: 10.1109/ICCA.2009.5410549

Razi-Kazemi, A. A., Vakilian, M., Niayesh, K., & Lehtonen, M. (2015). Data mining of online diagnosed waveforms for probabilistic condition assessment of circuit breakers. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 30(3), 1354–1362. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2015.2399454

Strachan, S. M., McArthur, S. D. J., Stephen, B., McDonald, J. R., & Campbell, A. (2007). Providing decision support for the condition-based maintenance of circuit breakers through data mining of trip coil current signatures. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 22(1), 178–186. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2006.883001

Wu, Y., Sicard, B., & Gadsden, S. A. (2024). Physics-informed machine learning: A comprehensive review on applications in anomaly detection and condition monitoring. Expert Systems with Applications, 255, 124678. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124678
Section
Technical Papers