This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
A backup Protection Technique for Three-
Terminal Multisection Compound Transmission
Lines
Ahmed Saber, Ahmed Emam, and Hany Elghazaly
 data to obtain the fault location for three-terminal transposed
Abstract—This paper presents a backup non-iterative
protection technique for three-terminal multisection compound
untransposed double-circuit transmission lines using
synchronized phasor measurement units. The proposed
technique is based on a distributed line model taking into account
the mutual couplings between the two circuits. Synchronized
voltage and current measurements in the phase domain are
utilized for fault detection, classification, and location. The
proposed technique can discriminate internal transmissions lines
faults from other load change conditions or external faults and
identify correctly the faulty branch and fault type, as well as
determine accurately the fault location. The proposed algorithm
is tested under different fault resistances, different fault
locations, different fault inception angles, different fault types,
non-linear high impedance faults, evolving faults and
synchrophasor errors, as well as transmission line parameters
errors. Extensive simulation studies carried out using MATLAB
software show that the proposed protection technique yields
acceptable performance for all simulated cases.
Index Terms—Transmission Lines, phasor measurement units,
fault location.
I. INTRODUCTION
T RANSMISSION lines are vital components for reliable
operation of electrical power network. As transmission
lines are always exposed to various faults, fault detection and
accurate fault location are crucial requirements to repair the
faulty area, restore the normal condition, and reduce the
outage time. Generally, Distance relay is used as a primary
protection for transmission line while overreaching zones and
earth fault overcurrent of distance relay are used as a backup
protection [1], [2]. Due to the problems associated with
conventional backup protection and recent advance of
synchrophasor measurements technology, the use of
synchronized phasor measurement units (PMUs) for
transmission lines protection has been presented in open
literature [3]-[11].
Nowadays, multi-terminal transmission lines are used in
power system due to right of way restriction. The applications
of PMUs for three- and multi-terminal transmission lines have
been introduced in some research papers [12]-[17]. Reference
[12] employed three-terminal pre-fault and post-fault
synchronized voltage data to pinpoint the fault location where
the effect of current transformer saturation is avoided. Lin et
al. [13] used two-terminal synchronized voltage and current
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Power and Machines,
Cairo University, Giza, Egypt (e-mail: a_saber_86@yahoo.com).
1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
transmission lines based on symmetrical components
transformation. Brahma [14] used synchronized voltage
measurements to locate a fault on multi-terminal transmission
lines where current transformers measurements are avoided.
Brahma [15] adopted positive-sequence components of
synchronized voltage and current signals to locate a fault on a
single-circuit multi-terminal transmission lines. Izykowski et
al. [16] utilized synchronized current samples at all ends and
voltage phasor at only one end to obtain the fault location of
three-terminal transmission lines using Newton-Raphson
iterative method. Liu et al. [17] used positive-sequence
components of synchronized voltage and current
measurements at all ends to identify the faulty branch and
obtain the fault location for single- or double- circuit multi-
terminal transmission lines.
However, the above methods are not suitable for protection
of multisection compound lines such as underground cables
combined with overhead lines that have been vastly used in
some countries. Therefore, these nonhomogeneous lines have
been considered in other research papers [18]-[22]. Gilany et
al. [18] used two-terminal synchronized voltage and current
measurements to locate a fault on an underground cable
combined with an overhead line. Also, Gilany et al. [19]
employed three-terminal voltage traveling waves to determine
the faulty branch and obtain the fault location for two-section
underground cables. These two methods [18], [19] are limited
to two-section nonhomogeneous lines and the fault type
should be initially identified before locating the fault. Yang et
al. [20] applied iterative operation using Newton–Raphson
method to locate a fault on multi-section underground power
cables. This method suffers from convergence issues as the
Newton–Raphson technique is utilized. Liu et al. [21]
employed positive-sequence components of synchronized
voltage and current measurements to locate a fault on two-
terminal multi-section double-circuit compound transmission
lines. In addition, Lin et al. [22] employed positive-sequence
components of synchronized voltage and current
measurements to recognize the faulty branch and pinpoint the
fault location for three-terminal multi-section
nonhomogeneous transmission lines. The proposed techniques
in the two works [21], [22] are unaffected by source
impedance, fault resistance, and fault type. However, the
double-circuit line is treated as two independent single-circuit
lines and the potential couplings between the two circuits are
not considered. Also, the two proposed methods [21], [22] are
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2

limited by the line asymmetry as the untransposed lines cannot

be decoupled using symmetrical components transformation. [ ] [ ]
In this paper, two main contributions are presented. First, a ( ) ( )
new technique is proposed to recognize the faulty branch for [ ]
( ) ( )
three-terminal multisection compound untransposed double-
circuit transmission lines. The derivation of the proposed where VR, Vk, Ik,R and IR,S are 6x1 voltage and current phasors
technique is based on a distributed-parameter line model in the at point k and bus R, respectively. Q(L) is the transformation
phase-coordinates without any assumptions. Comparing with matrix and is the distance between bus R and point k in
the pervious method in [22], the faulty branch can be easily per unit. The G, H, M and N are 6x6 transmission line
recognized in a simple manner with a low computational parameters matrices and can be expressed in terms of infinite
complexity and high efficiency. Second, an improved fault series as [23]:
location technique is applied to untransposed parallel
transmission lines as the proposed algorithm in [22] is limited 𝑧𝑦 ( ) 𝑧𝑦 ( )
( )
by the line asymmetry. The proposed technique is robust
against different fault resistances, different fault locations, 𝑧𝑦 𝑧( )
different fault types, different fault inception angles and ( ) 𝑧
transmission line parameters errors, as well as synchrophasor 𝑧𝑦 𝑧( )
errors. Also, the proposed technique takes into account the
effect of non-linear high impedance faults and evolving faults.
The paper is divided as follows. The proposed technique is 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 ( )
( ) 𝑧 𝑧𝑦
presented in section two. The test results are discussed in
section three. Finally, section four concludes the paper. 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 ( )
II. PROPOSED BACKUP PROTECTION TECHNIQUE
The proposed technique is developed based on the following 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧( )
assumptions: ( )
• Three-terminal synchronized measurements are available. 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧( )
• Communication channels are available.
A. Review of Two-Terminal Untransposed Double-Circuit
Transmission Lines Fault Location Algorithm
k
Due to the mutual couplings between the adjacent circuits,
symmetrical components transformation cannot be used for
decoupling untransposed transmission lines. Reference [23]
has been proposed a fault location technique for two-terminal
untransposed single-circuit long transmission line. This
f
technique can be extended to untransposed double-circuit long
transmission line as explained below:
Consider the double-circuit transmission line (S-R) shown in
fig. 1 with line length L. The series impedance and shunt Fig. 1. Faulted two-terminal double-circuit transmission line.
admittance matrices per unit length can be written as [24]: Assume that a fault occurred on point f which is Df in per
𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 unit away from the sending end (S). The voltage phasor at
𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 fault point f can be obtained by applying Kirchhoff voltage
𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 law from the two ends of the line as follows:
𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧
[ ( ) ( )] [ ]
𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧
[𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 ] [ ( ) ( )] [ ]
𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦
𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 where [ ] . If the
𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 voltage and current phasors are known at both ends of the line,
𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 the fault distance will be the only unknown variable in
𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 the above equation. A and B are only expanded to three terms
[𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 ] because the simulation results assure that expansion of more
terms will not result in increasing the fault location accuracy.
where the dimensions of z and y are 6x6. The voltage and
As a result, equation (9) is rewritten and six polynomial
current phasors in the phase-coordinates at point k can be
equations for fault distance are obtained as follows:
derived as [25]:

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3

presented to replace the conventional backup protection. The

[ ][ ]
proposed scheme is used as a backup protection based on the
where the dimensions of the coefficient matrices (X1, X2, X3, speed of communication system. The delay time associated
X4, X5, and X6) are 6x1and they are obtained from the with communication links is important issue and should be
following equations: considered in power system protection. More information
𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 about delay time calculations is introduced in [26]. The delay
[ ]
time is in the range of 50-150 ms in digital microwave links
and fiber-optic cables [27], [28].
𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 The first step is to distinguish internal transmission lines
[ ]
faults inside the protected zone from different operating
𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 conditions or external faults outside the protected zone. To do
[ ] 𝑧 so, consider the three-terminal nonhomogeneous transmission
line shown in fig. 2. Three PMUs are connected to buses S, R,
𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 and T. Therefore, the synchronized voltage phasors and
[ ] current phasors of all lines connected to these buses can be
obtained utilizing the GPS technique. All data are collected in
𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 the central protection system through communication links.
[ ] [ ]
Assume that the number of line sections of line branches S-P,
R-P, and T-P are respectively u, v, and w, where P is the tee-
𝑧𝑦 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧
[ ] point. The length of each line section from terminals S, R, and
T to tee-point P are respectively ,
𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 and . Each line section
[ ] [ ] is either underground cable or overhead line. In general, the
line parameters of two successive sections are not identical.
𝑧𝑦 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 The proposed scheme for fault detection is divided into the
[ ]
three following steps:
Step 1: The instantaneous value of voltage magnitude
𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 for each phase at buses S, R, and T is obtained using full
[ ] [ ] [ ]
cycle Discrete Fourier Transform [26], where subscript i
𝑧𝑦 𝑧 𝑧𝑦 𝑧 denotes lines a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, and c2. The instantaneous value
[ ] [ ] of voltage magnitude changes continuously due to load
change conditions or fault conditions. For each periodic cycle,
As a result, the fault distance is obtained by solving assume that the absolute difference between maximum and
(10). The real part of fault distance is accepted as the minimum instantaneous value of voltage magnitude for each
correct fault location. Also, the current phasor at fault point f phase at each bus is . The value of will be equal to
can be derived as: zero, if no change in the network occurs. However, if any
change in the network occurs, the instantaneous value of
[ ( ) ( )] [ ] will change accordingly [26]. The method introduced in
[26] compares positive-sequence voltage magnitude of buses
[ ( ) ( )] [ ] to obtain the nearest bus to the faulty line. After this bus is
where [ ] identified, the faulty line is obtained by comparing the
absolute difference of positive-sequence current angles at both
B. Fault Detection Unit ends of each line connected to the identified bus. However, in
Nowadays, distance relays are widely used as a main case of high fault impedance, the reduction of positive-
protection for transmission lines, while overreaching zones sequence voltage magnitude may be very low and the absolute
and earth fault overcurrent of distance relays are used as a difference of positive-sequence current angles at both ends of
backup protection. The operation of conventional backup the faulty line may not be high enough. Consequently, the
protection depends on standalone decision according to local backup protection may not operate in such case. The threshold
measurements. In addition, the conventional backup protection value of ΔV in [26] is equal to 0.05 per unit. In this paper,
is not able to adapt with different operating conditions and it is threshold value ( of is equal to 0.01 per unit so that
affected by fault resistance. As a result, the conventional transmission lines faults with high fault impedance can be
protective relays are not able to distinguish between detected. If the value of of each phase at each bus is less
symmetrical faults and other stressed normal conditions. than , no fault is detected. While, if any value of of any
Furthermore, Cascaded outages may occur due to mal- phase at any bus is greater than , the next step is applied. It
operation of conventional backup protection. is important to note that the fault detection decision is not only
In this paper, an improved backup protection scheme is based on the value of although the value of is only
used as indication for power system change.

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

Central
In normal conditions or external faults, equations (18), (19),
Protection
System and (20) will be valid and consequently equation (21) will be
valid. Accordingly, the values of will be ideally equal to
PMU PMU zero based on Kirchhoff current law. On the other hand, in
𝑆1 𝑆2 𝑆𝑢 𝑅𝑣 𝑅2 𝑅1
𝐆𝐒 𝐆𝑹
case of internal transmission lines faults, one of the equations
𝑃𝑅
𝑆 𝑃𝑆 P 𝑅
(18), (19), and (20) will not be valid and consequently
S 𝑃𝑇 R equation (21) will not be valid. Therfore, the values of will
𝑇𝑤

be greater than zero for faulty phases. To consider the

𝐕𝑺
𝑇2
𝑇1
𝑇
PMU 𝐕𝐓
T
𝐆𝑻
Fig. 2. Three-terminal nonhomogeneous transmission lines.
Step 2: In this step, we verify if the change of is due to
bus fault or not by applying bus differential protection. All
current phasors at buses S, R, and T are measured directly by
the PMUs installed at these buses. By applying Kirchhoff
current law at each bus, the vector sum of all current phasors
∑ for each phase at each bus can be calculated. Based on
Kirchhoff current law, the absolute value of ∑ for all
phases at each bus will be equal to zero, if no bus fault occurs.
However, if bus fault occurs, the absolute value of ∑ for
faulty phases at the faulted bus will be greater than zero. To
consider the expected errors in measurement instruments and
calculations, threshold value will be set at a small value
higher than zero in real application. If the absolute value of
∑ for any phase at any bus is greater than , bus fault is
detected. On the other hand, if the absolute value of ∑ for
all phases at each bus is less than , the third step is applied.
The value of is equal to 0.05 per unit in this paper.
Step 3: By using the boundary conditions at buses S, R, and
T, the voltage and current phasors at tee-point P can be
obtained by applying a series of substitution steps from the
measured voltage and current phasors at buses S, R, and T
considering the line parameters of corresponding line section.
Therefore, three voltage phasors and three
current phasors at tee-point P are obtained as
follows:
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]
where Q(LS1), Q(LS2),…, and Q(LSu) are respectively
transformation matrices of line sections 1, 2,.., and u between
bus S and tee-point P. Consequently, Q(LR1), Q(LR2),…, and
Q(LRv) are respectively transformation matrices of line
sections 1, 2, ..., and v between bus R and tee-point P. In
addition, Q(LT1), Q(LT2),…, and Q(LTw) are respectively
transformation matrices of line sections 1, 2,..., and w between
bus T and tee-point P. Suppose that [29]:
𝐕𝑹
expected errors in measurement instruments and calculations,
threshold value will be set at a small value higher than
zero in real application. The value of is equal to 0.1 per unit
in this paper. As a result, the values of are used to
differentiate internal transmission lines faults from other
events.
C. Faulty branch Identifier unit
As stated earlier, three voltage phasors at tee-point
are calculated by applying a series of
substitution steps from the measured voltage and current
phasors at buses S, R, and T. In normal conditions or external
faults, equations (18), (19), and (20) will be valid and the three
voltage phasors are approximately equal. On
the other hand, in case of internal transmission lines faults,
one of the equations (18), (19), and (20) will not be valid and
only two voltage phasors from the three voltage phasors are
approximately equal and the third voltage phasor is
corresponding to the faulty branch. Let assume that:
𝑥
𝑥
𝑥
{ }
The maximum absolute value of difference between each
two voltage phasors is obtained from (22)–(24). The value of
F is equal to the minimum value of { }. If the
value of F is equal to , this means that the voltage phasors
and are approximately equal and the faulty branch is
T-P. Similarly, if the value of F is equal to , this means
that the voltage phasors and are approximately equal
and the faulty branch is R-P. Also, if the value of F is equal to
, this means that the faulty branch is S-P. Comparing
with the pervious method in [22], the faulty branch can be
easily identified in a simple manner with a low computational
complexity, high efficiency, and without any threshold values
to be initially determined.
D. Fault Location Unit
Once the transmission line fault is detected and the faulty
branch is identified, the next step is to estimate the fault
location. The voltage and current phasors at the two ends of
faulty branch are initially needed to be determined. Let
assume that the faulty branch is R-P. The voltage and current
phasors at bus R are measured directly because a PMU is
installed at this end. While the outgoing current phasor at tee-
point P in the direction of P-R can be calculated as follows:
In addition, the voltage phasor at tee-point P is equal

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5

to or . It is supposed that the bus R is selected as a
reference point. The algorithm for fault location estimation
can be described in the following three steps:
Step 1: It is assumed that each line section between bus R
and tee-point P is the faulty line section. For the first line
section (LR1), the voltage and current phasors at both ends of
LR1 are needed to be determined in order to calculate the
corresponding fault distance. The voltage and current phasors
at the end R are known because a PMU is installed at this end
while the voltage and current phasors at the
other end of LR1 can be obtained from:
[ ] [ ]
As a result, the fault distance corresponding to first line
section can be obtained by solving (10). Similarly, this is
repeated for each line section connected between bus R and
tee-point P and the estimated fault distance corresponding to
each line section is calculated.
Step 2: Starting from the first line section, if its
corresponding estimated fault distance is within the interval
[0, 1] and the other estimated fault distances are less than zero,
the first line section is accepted as the faulty line section and
the estimated fault distance is accepted as the estimated fault
location. While, if the estimated fault distance corresponding
to first line section is greater than 1, the next line section is
verified.
Step 3: For the second line section, if its corresponding
estimated fault distance is within the interval [0, 1] and the
next estimated fault distances are less than zero, the second
circuit transmission line consisting of three branches (S-P, R-
P, and T-P) as shown in fig. 4. The line branch (S-P) consists
of two transmission line sections with lengths LS1and LS2. The
line branch (R-P) consists of three transmission line sections
with lengths LR1, LR2, and LR3. Also, the line branch (T-P)
consists of two transmission line sections with lengths LT1and
LT2. The transmission lines (1-S), (2-R), and (3-T) have the
same line parameters and they are used for simulating external
faults. Loads are connected to buses S, R and T to simulate
various loading conditions. All lines parameters, all lines
lengths, and generator data are given in Appendix A. Three
PMUs are connected to buses S, R, and T and all
measurements are collected in the central protection system
through communication links. The obtained current and
voltage measurements are passed through a low-pass second
order Butterworth filter with cut-off frequency 400 Hz.
Consequently, the output data are sampled at 2500 Hz and a
digital mimic filter is utilized to remove the dc component
[30]. The 50 Hz fundamental component is extracted using
full cycle Discrete Fourier Transform. To evaluate the
accuracy of fault location, the percentage error in fault
location is defined as [31]:
| 𝑢 |
start
Read time data of voltage
and current phasors at
buses S, R, and T

line section is accepted as the faulty section and the estimated Calculate (∆Vi ) at buses S, R, and T
fault distance is accepted as the estimated fault location. No fault
While, if the estimated fault distance corresponding to second No
Is ∆Vi > 1?

line section is greater than 1, the next line section is verified in Yes

similar way. By repeating this step, the faulty line section and Apply vector sum of all current
the corresponding estimated fault location can be obtained. phasors at each bus (ΣӀi)

Similarly, the faulty line section and fault location can be

Yes
obtained if the faulty branch is S-P or T-P. The flow chart of Is abs(ΣӀi) At any bus > 2?

the proposed technique is shown in fig. 3. Bus fault at the bus No

Corresponding to
Calculate Ip
abs(ΣӀi) > 2
E. Fault Classification Unit
end No
After the faulty line section and fault location are Is Ip > 3?

determined, the fault type can be classified. As the voltage and Load change conditions Yes
or external fault
current phasors at both ends of the faulty line section are
obtained, the current phasor at fault point is calculated by Calculate the value of F and
identify the faulty branch
end
solving (17). Based on Kirchhoff current law, the value of
current phasor at fault point is ideally equal to zero for healthy Calculate the fault distance
of each line section
phases and is greater than zero for faulty phases. In addition,
determine the faulty section
to distinguish between line-to-line fault and double-line-to- and fault location
ground fault, the current phasors of the two faulty phases are Fig. 3. Flowchart of the proposed technique.
not equal for double-line-to-ground fault [29] while the
current magnitudes of faulty phases are equal to each other All simulations are developed by MATLAB software on a
with angle difference 180º for line-to-line fault [29]. 2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU with 2 GB of RAM. The estimated
computational time for fault detection and faulty branch
III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION identification is less than 1ms while the total computational
To assess the performance of the proposed algorithm, it is time including fault location calculations is about 19 ms.
applied to three-terminal multi-section untransposed double- Various loading conditions, Generator outages, external

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 6

transmission lines faults, bus faults, and internal transmission considering three different fault locaiton at 10%, 50%,
lines faults are simulated in the following sections considering and 90% of the line length, all fault types, 3 different fault
different fault resistances, different fault locations, resistances having 1, 50 and 100 ohm, and 90º fault
transmission line parameters errors, different fault types and inception angle . A total of 108 fault cases (3x3x4x3x1)
fault inception angles, as well as synchrophasor errors. Also, are conducted on the three lines. In all simulated cases, the
the effect of non-linear high impedance faults and evolving maximum obtained value of is equal to 0.0244 per unit. As
faults have been verified. Again, the values of , , and this value is less than 0.1 per unit, the results of the fault
are respectively equal to 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 per unit. detection unit are EF or LCC for all simulated cases. To show
Central
the performance of the proposed technique for very low and
Protection very high fault impedance, Table 2 summarizes the results for
System
different fault types and different fault location. As observed,
PMU PMU
the maximum value of is equal to 0.03164 per unit.
1 S R 2
𝑆1 𝑆2 𝑅3 𝑅2 𝑅1 Therfore, the results of the fault detection unit are EF or LCC
𝐆𝐒 𝐆𝑹
Line (1-S)
Circuit 1
Line (2-R) for all cases in Table II.
P In addition, phase a to ground fault at bus S is simulated
Load S
Circuit 2
𝑇2
with Rf =0.01 Ω and δf = 0º. The instantaneous value of at
𝐕𝑺 𝐕𝑹 Load R
bus S for different phases is shown in fig. 6. As expected, the
𝑇1
instantaneous value of voltage magnitude for phase a is
T 𝐕𝐓 decreased while the instantaneous value of voltage magnitude
PMU
for other phases is increased. The absolute value of vector
Line (3-T)
3
Load T sum of phase a at bus S ∑ is equal to 12.134 per unit so
that bus fault is detected.
𝐆𝑻

Fig. 4. Simulated three-terminal double-circuit nonhomogeneous transmission

lines.

A. Various Loading Conditions

Different cases are tested by connecting different loads at
buses S, R and T at different switching angles. Also, the
outages of all generators and sudden loss of all loads are
simulated to verify the robustness of the suggested technique.
The results are shown in Table I. the load values are selected
to be 100 and 200 MVA at each bus. The vector sum of all
current phasors at buses S, R, and T is not shown due to space
restrictions. However, these values are less than 0.05 per unit.
For example in case 1, 100 MVA load is connected to bus S at
Fig. 5. The instantaneous value of corresponding to the phases of
switching angle 180º. The maximum values of at buses S, maximum at buses S, R, and T.
R, and T are respectively equal to 0.0113, 0.0021, and 0.0021
per unit. The maximum value of is less than 0.1 per unit and
it is equal to 0.0039 per unit so that no transmission line fault
is detected inside the protected zone. Also, the last case is
generator (GT) outage. The maximum values of at buses
S, R, and T are respectively equal to 0.0067, 0.0053, and
0.0337 per unit. The maximum value of is equal to 0.00053
per unit. Therefore, the result of the fault detection unit is
external fault (EF) or load change conditions (LCC). In
addition, sudden loss of all loads at buses S, R, and T are
simulated at 90º switching angle. The instantaneous value of
corresponding to the phases of maximum at buses S, R,
and T are shown in fig. 5. The maximum value of is equal
to 0.004 per unit so that the result of the fault detection unit is
EF or LCC. As a result, it is clear that the proposed scheme Fig. 6. The instantaneous values of at bus S for different phases due to bus
can discriminate all external events correctly. fault.

B. External faults cases C. Internal faults cases

Different external faults are conducted on transmission lines To verify the performance of the proposed technique
(1-S), (2-R), and (3-T). The three lines are simulated with against very low impedance and very high fault impedance,

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
the results for various fault cases are depicted in Table III for
different line sections. The maximum values of for buses
S, R, and T are not shown in the tables. However, these values
are greater than 0.01 per unit. The last column in the table
shows the percentage fault location error (F.L error %). For
example, case 1 is phase a1 to ground fault at 15% of with
0.001 ohm fault resistance and 0º fault inception angle. All
values of are less than 0.1 per unit except the value
corresponding to phase a1. Therefore, transmission line fault is
detected. To identify the faulty branch, the value of F is equal
to 0.0030 per unit which is equal to the value of . inception angle. A total of 48 fault cases are simulated for
Therefore, the voltage phasors and are approximately
equal and the faulty branch is S-P. Accordingly, the calculated
fault distances corresponding to and are respectively
equal to 0.1457 and -0.277 per unit so that is accepted as
the faulty line section and the estimated fault location is equal
to 0.1445 per unit. The percentage error in fault location is
equal to 0.1375% in this case.
Statistical results for several fault cases conducted on each
line section are shown in fig. 7. Each line section is tested
with considering five different locations at 10%, 30%, 50%,
70%, and 90% of the line section length, all fault types and 3
different fault resistances having 1, 50 and 100 ohm, as well as
fault inception angle at 90º. A total of 60 fault cases for each
line section are simulated. In all cases, the transmission line
faults inside the protected zone are correctly detected and the
faulty line branch and the fault type are correctly identified.
As observed in fig. 7, the maximum percentage error is equal
to 0.214% and the total percentage average error is equal to
0.039%.
Fig. 7. The maximum and average percentage error in fault location for all
line sections
In addition, the results of fault classification unit are shown
in Table IV. For example, the third case in the table is line-to-
line fault (a2c2) in . As shown, the value of current phasor
at fault point is very small except the values of phase a2 and
phase c2. The fault current Ia2 is approximately equal to -Ic2.
Therefore, the result of fault classification unit is line-to-line
fault. As a result, it can be concluded that the proposed
technique yields acceptable results for all fault cases.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7
D. Influence of Line Parameters Errors
The variations of lines parameters have been considered in
the proposed algorithm. Therefore, 1%, 5%, and 10%
increasing and decreasing in impedances and admittances of
all line sections have been considered at the same time to
assess the performance of the proposed method. Each line
section is tested under various fault conditions considering
four different locations at 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of the
line section length, all fault types and 3 different fault
resistances having 1, 50 and 100 ohm, as well as 180º fault
each line section. The maximum and average estimation errors
in fault location for each line section are shown in fig. 8
considering variations of -1%, -5%, -10%, 1%, 5%, and 10%
in all lines parameters at the same time. As observed, the
maximum and average percentage error are respectively equal
to 4.267% and 1.055% for 10% decreasing in all line
parameters of all line sections at the same time. While the
maximum and average percentage error are respectively equal
to 3.696% and 0.904% for 10% increasing in all line
parameters of all line sections at the same time. In all
simulated cases, the faulty branch and faulty line section are
correctly identified.
Fig. 8. Effect of errors in line parameters on the fault location estimation.
E. Effect of Synchrophasor Errors
To meet IEEE standard accuracy requirements, a maximum
of 1% total vector error must be considered in synchronized
measurements [32]. Therefore, a maximum of ±31° time error
for a 50 Hz system and ±1% magnitude error are introduced in
voltage and current phasors measurements. A total of 48 fault
cases are simulated for each line section. The maximum and
average estimation errors in fault location for each line section
are shown in fig. 9. As observed, the maximum percentage
error is equal to 0.5154% and the total average error in all
cases is equal to 0.0997%. In all simulated cases, the faulty
branch and faulty line section are correctly recognized. The
obtained results assure that the proposed technique provides
acceptable performance even with considering the
synchrophasor errors.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 8

F. Non-Linear High Fault Impedance Effect and 𝑢 is the stationary arc voltage. The stationary arc voltage
To evaluate the effect of non-linear high impedance fault on is calculated from:
the proposed technique, the model of time-varying arc 𝑢 𝑢 | |
resistance is simulated based on the equations below [33],
[34]: where 𝑢 is the constant voltage per unit length of arc, is the
resistive component per unit length of arc, and is the arc
𝑅
length. The fault is simulated using the following data [33],
[34]; τ=1ms, 𝑢 =9.6 V/cm, r=1.6 mΩ/cm, =350 cm.
∫ The same cases in Table III are examined at the same
| | conditions. The maximum and average percentage errors in
fault location are respectively equal to 0.375% and 0.135%
𝑢
compared with 0.290% and 0.125% in table III. It can be
where 𝑅 is the time-varying arc resistance, is the time-
concluded that the time-varying arc resistance has a small
varying arc conductance, is the stationary arc
effect on the fault location accuracy.
conductance, τ is the arc time constant, is the arc current,

TABLE I
DIFFERENT TEST CASES FOR VARIOUS LOADING CONDITIONS

Load condition max (p.u.) Ip at tee-point P (p.u.) Fault detection

Bus Load (MVA) Angle S R T Line a1 Line b1 Line c1 Line a2 Line b2 Line c2 result

S 100 180º 0.0113 0.0021 0.0021 0.00007 0.00028 0.00039 0.00007 0.00028 0.00039 EF or LCC
S 200 90º 0.0356 0.0052 0.0054 0.00119 0.00058 0.00058 0.00119 0.00058 0.00058 EF or LCC
R 100 60º 0.0033 0.0189 0.0023 0.00004 0.00041 0.00051 0.00004 0.00041 0.00051 EF or LCC
R 200 150º 0.0049 0.0293 0.0033 0.00067 0.00065 0.00101 0.00067 0.00065 0.00101 EF or LCC
T 100 120º 0.0028 0.0018 0.0182 0.00034 0.00025 0.00080 0.00034 0.00025 0.00080 EF or LCC
T 200 30º 0.0059 0.0042 0.0383 0.00016 0.00003 0.00053 0.00016 0.00003 0.00053 EF or LCC
----- 90º 0.1029 0.0176 0.0150 0.00057 0.00020 0.00060 0.00057 0.00020 0.00060 EF or LCC
----- 60º 0.0990 0.0454 0.0062 0.00010 0.00032 0.00049 0.00010 0.00032 0.00049 EF or LCC
----- 150º 0.0067 0.0053 0.0337 0.00023 0.00030 0.00050 0.00023 0.00030 0.00050 EF or LCC

TABLE II
DIFFERENT TEST CASES FOR EXTERNAL FAULTS

Fault condition max (p.u.) Ip at tee-point P (p.u.) Fault detection

Line
type (p.u.) 𝑅 S R T Line a1 Line b1 Line c1 Line a2 Line b2 Line c2 result

cg1 0.15 0.001 70 0.7319 0.0511 0.0741 0.00134 0.00136 0.00129 0.00134 0.00136 0.00129 EF or LCC
1-S
acg 0.95 1000 180 0.0068 0.0014 0.0012 0.00026 0.00028 0.00055 0.00026 0.00028 0.00055 EF or LCC
bg 0.7 1000 150 0.0008 0.0040 0.0016 0.00019 0.00024 0.00062 0.00019 0.00024 0.00062 EF or LCC
2-R
abc 0.95 0.001 180 0.0716 0.4885 0.0547 0.02647 0.03164 0.02161 0.02647 0.03164 0.02161 EF or LCC
abg 0.6 0.001 50 0.1026 0.0756 0.8021 0.00922 0.00367 0.01054 0.00922 0.00367 0.01054 EF or LCC
3-T
bc 0.8 1000 170 0.0048 0.0031 0.0133 0.00254 0.00259 0.00099 0.00254 0.00259 0.00099 EF or LCC
1
a, b, and c represent respectively lines a, b, and c while g represents the ground.

TABLE III
RESULTS OF DIFFERENT TEST CASES FOR DIFFERENT FAULTY SECTIONS
Fault condition Ip at tee-point P (p.u.) (p.u.)
Faulty F.L
section 𝑅 Line Line Line Line Line Line
type (p.u.) (p.u.) (p.u.) section error%
(p.u.) a1 b1 c1 a2 b2 c2
a1g1 0.15 0.001 0 10.45 0.0318 0.0472 0.0329 0.0305 0.0446 4.0428 4.0423 0.0030 0.1445 -0.277 ------ 0.1375
a2c2 0.8 1000 90 0.0006 0.0007 0.0015 0.4212 0.0006 0.4206 0.0804 0.0804 0.0024 0.7884 -0.064 ------ 0.2900
a1b1g 0.7 0.001 135 6.9476 6.6563 0.0099 0.0113 0.0063 0.0127 1.4879 0.0019 1.4888 2.1255 0.7027 -0.185 0.0864
a1b1c1 0.8 1000 180 0.2467 0.2488 0.2506 0.0004 0.0012 0.0009 0.0507 0.0023 0.0492 2.1753 0.8053 -0.116 0.1696
b 1g 0.55 0.001 0 0.0065 3.8838 0.0066 0.0052 0.0103 0.0114 0.0047 0.0194 0.0237 1.2127 0.5500 ------ 0.0000
b1c1 0.3 1000 45 0.0008 0.4367 0.4358 0.0012 0.0009 0.0007 0.0060 0.3334 0.3314 1.1100 0.3023 ------ 0.0657
1
a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, and c2 represent respectively lines a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, and c2 while g represents the ground.

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 9

TABLE IV
OUTPUT RESULTS OF FAULT CLASSIFICATION UNIT FOR DIFFERENT TEST CASES

Faulty Fault condition Current phasor at fault point (p.u.)

section type (p.u.) 𝑅 Line a1 Line b1 Line c1 Line a2 Line b2 Line c2
c1g 0.4 45 110 0.0006-0.0024i 0.0016-0.0004i 0.1416-4.3318i -0.0002+0.0002i -0.0002+0.0036i -0.0010+0.0018i
b1c1g 0.8 30 50 -0.0018+0.0354i 4.2756+2.5136i -2.8748-5.2686i -0.0018+0.0344i 0.0248-0.0206i -0.0286-0.0036i
a2c2 0.2 150 20 -0.0008-0.0002i -0.0006-0.0006i -0.0002-0.0006i -1.6302+2.2644i -0.0002-0.0002i 1.6302-2.265i
a1b1c1 0.95 70 60 -2.8108+1.621i 2.8578+1.6956i -0.0836-3.3944i -0.0000-0.0010i -0.0008+0.0000i 0.0000-0.0002i
a2g 0.5 0.1 90 -0.0020-0.0020i -0.0034-0.0006i 0.0008-0.0010i -0.1868+3.8686i -0.0010+0.0010i 0.0038+0.0000i
a2c2g 0.7 2 45 0.0018-0.0014i -0.0012-0.0008i -0.0010+0.0052i 1.2916+5.3858i -0.0034-0.0008i -3.7484-4.4672i
b2c2 0.6 25 180 -0.0012-0.0012i 0.0032-0.0020i 0.0058+0.0054i -0.0034-0.0018i 5.7178+2.1164i -5.7216-2.1166i

IV. CONCLUSION
A backup protection scheme for three-terminal
untransposed double-circuit nonhomogeneous transmission
lines has been proposed. The voltage and current phasors are
employed for fault detection, faulty line section identification
and fault location, as well as fault classification. Simulation
studies demonstrate the robustness of the proposed technique
under different loading conditions, external faults, different
fault types and different fault inception angles, as well as
different fault resistances. Furthermore, the proposed
technique shows acceptable performance against transmission
line parameters errors, synchrophasor errors, non-linear high
impedance faults, and evolving faults. For all simulated test
cases, the proposed technique can distinguish internal faults
from other external faults or load change conditions. For all
internal faults, the faulty line branch and fault type are
correctly determined. In addition, the maximum estimation
Fig. 9. Effect of Synchrophasor errors on the fault location estimation. error of fault location does not exceed 4.267% in all simulated
test cases.
G. Testing of Evolving Faults
The evolving faults are earth faults beginning in one line APPENDIX A
and spreading to another line after some time at the same The lengths of different transmission lines are shown in the
location [35], [36]. To verify the effect of evolving faults on following table:
the proposed technique, the following case is tested. A single
Line section Line Line Line
line to ground fault in phase b 1 at 50% of in branch S-P is Line
(1-S) (2-R) (3-T)
simulated with 1 ohm fault resistance and 0º fault inception
Length (km) 40 120 50 80 120 200 80 50 50 50
angle. Another fault in phase b2 is simulated with 100 ohm
fault resistance and 180º fault inception angle at the same The transmission lines (1-S), (2-R), and (3-T) have the same
location. The values of are equal to [0.0016 4.3614 0.0041 line parameters and they are shown in the following table:
0.0025 1.0329 0.0042] per unit. As some values of are
Positive-sequence Zero-sequence
greater than 0.1 per unit, internal transmission line fault is
R L C R L C
detected. Consequently, the values of , , and (Ω/km) (mH/km) (nF/km) (Ω/km) (mH/km) (nF/km)
are repectiveluy equal to 0.6896, 0.6892, and 0.0031 per unit. 0.038 0.896 13.1 0.248 2.686 7.12
Therfore, the value of F is equal to 0.0031 per unit which is
corresponding to the value of . As a result, the faulty The generator data are shown in the following table:
branch is S-P. Accordingly, the estimated fault distances Base Voltage Power Flow Short Circuit Level X/R
Generator
corresponding to and are respectively equal to 2.5502 (kV) Angle (GVA) Ratio
and 0.5005 per unit so that is accepted as the faulty line GS 220 20º 20 15
section. The estimated fault location is equal to 0.5005 per GR 220 0º 20 15
GT 220 10º 20 15
unit and the percentage error in fault location is equal to
0.0375%. It can be concluded that the proposed technique has The series impedance and shunt admittance matrices of each
a successful performance against evolving faults. line section are as follows:

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 10

𝑧 𝑧 𝑧

[ ]

𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑆

[ ]

𝑧 𝑧 𝑧 (

[ ]

𝑦 𝑦 𝑦 𝑆

[ ]

[ ]

𝑦 𝑆

[ ]

REFERENCES
[1] A. G. Phadke and J. S. Thorp, Computer Relaying for Power
Systems, New York, USA: Wiley, 2009.
[2] P. M. Anderson, Power System Protection, New York, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[3] M. G. Adamiak, A. P. Apostolov, and M. M. Begovic, et al.,
―Wide area protection—Technology and infrastructures,‖ IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 601–609, Apr. 2006.
[4] M. Kezunovic, J. Mrkic, and B. Perunicic, et al., ―An accurate
fault location algorithm using synchronized sampling,‖ Elect.
Power Syst. Res. J., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 161–169, May 1994.
[5] C. J. Lee, J. B. Park, J. R. Shin, and Z. M. Radojevié, ―A new two-
terminal numerical algorithm for fault location, distance
protection, and arcing fault recognition,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1460–1462, Aug. 2006.
[6] Y. Liao and M. Kezunovic, ―Optimal estimate of transmission line
fault location considering measurement errors,‖ IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1335–1341, Jul. 2007.
[7] J. De La Ree, V. Centeno, J. S. Thorp, and A. G. Phadke,
―Synchronized phasor measurement applications in power
systems,‖ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20–27, Jun.
2010.
[8] J. Izykowski, E. Rosolowski, P. Balcerek, M. Fulczyk, and M.M.
Saha, ―Accurate non-iterative fault location algorithm utilizing two-
end unsynchronized measurements,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
25, no. 1, pp. 72–80, Jan. 2010.
[9] J. Ma, J. Li, J. S. Thorp, A. J. Arana, Q. Yang, and A. G. Phadke,
―fault steady state component-based wide area backup protection
algorithm,‖ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 468-475,
Sep. 2011.
[10] J. Zare, F. Aminifar, and M. Sanaye-Pasand, ―Synchrophasor-
based wide-area backup protection scheme with data requirement
analysis,‖ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1410–1419,
Mar. 2015.
[11] A. S. Dobakhshari and A. M. Ranjbar, ―A novel method for fault
location of transmission lines by wide-area voltage measurements
considering measurement errors,‖ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 874–884, Mar. 2015.
[12] J. Miñambres, I. Zamora, A. Mazon, M. Zorrozua, and R. Alvarez-
Isasi, ―New technique, based on voltages, for fault location on three-
terminal transmission lines,‖ Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 37-2, no. 2,
pp. 143–151, May 1996.
[13] Y. H. Lin, C. W. Liu, and C. S. Yu, ―A new fault locator for three-
terminal transmission lines—Using two-terminal synchronized
voltage and current phasors,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 17, no. 2,
pp. 452–459, Apr. 2002.
[14] M. Brahma, ―Fault location scheme for a multi-terminal transmission
line using synchronized voltage measurements,‖ IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1325–1331, Apr. 2005.
[15] M. Brahma, ―New fault-location method for a single multi-
terminal transmission line using synchronized phasor
measurements,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1148–
1153, Jul. 2006.
[16] J. Izykowski, E. Rosolowski, M. M. Saha, M. Fulczyk, and P.
Balcerek, ―A fault-location method for application with current

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2017.2693322, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
differential relays of three-terminal lines,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2099–2107, Oct. 2007.
[17] C. W. Liu, K. P. Lien, C. S. Chen, and J. A. Jiang, ―A universal fault
location technique for N-terminal transmission lines,‖ IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1366–1373, Jul. 2008.
[18] M. Gilany, E. S. T. Eldin, M. M. A. Aziz, and D. K. Ibrahim, ―An
accurate scheme for fault location in combined overhead line with
underground power cable,‖ in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen.
Meet., San Francisco, CA, Jun. 12–16, 2005, vol. 3, pp. 2521–2527.
[19] M. Gilany, D. K. Ibrahim, and E. S. T. Eldin, ―Traveling-wave-based
fault-location scheme for multiend-aged underground cable system,‖
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 82–89, Jan. 2007.
[20] X. Yang, M. S Choi, S. J. Lee, C.W. Ten, and S. I.Lim, ―Fault
location for underground power cable using distributed parameter
approach,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1809–1816,
Nov. 2008.
[21] C. W. Liu, T. C. Lin, C. S. Yu, and J. Z. Yang, ―A fault location
technique for two-terminal multisection compound transmission lines
using synchronized phasor measurements,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 113–121, Mar. 2012.
[22] T.C. Lin, P. Y. Lin, and C. W. Liu, ―An Algorithm for Locating
Faults in Three-Terminal Multisection Nonhomogeneous
Transmission Lines Using Synchrophasor Measurements,‖ IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 82–89, Jan. 2014.
[23] S. Azizi, M. Sanaye-Pasand, and M. Paolone, ―Locating Faults on
Untransposed, Meshed Transmission Networks Using a Limited
Number of Synchrophasor Measurements,‖ IEEE Trans. Power
Syst, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 4462–4472, 2016.
[24] S. Jiale, G. B. Song, X. U. Xu, and et al., ―Time-domain fault
location algorithm for parallel transmission lines using
unsynchronized currents,‖ Int. J. Elect. Power and Energy Syst., vol.
28, no. 4, pp. 253–260, 2006.
[25] J. C. Li and Y. P. Wu, ―A distributed circuit model for three-phase
transposed and untransposed transmission lines,‖ Elect. Power Syst.
Res., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 187–194, Oct. 1990.
[26] M. M. Eissa, M. E. Masoud, and M. M. M. Elanwar, ―A novel back
up wide area protection technique for power transmission grids
using phasor measurement unit,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 270–278, Jan. 2010.
[27] B. Naduvathuparambil, M. C. Valenti, and A. Feliachi,
―Communication delays in wide area measurement systems,‖ in
Proc. 34th Southeast. Symp. Syst. Theory, Huntsville, AL, USA,
Mar. 2002, pp. 118–122.
[28] A. G. Phadke and J. S. Thorp, Synchronized Phasor Measurements
and Their Applications, New York, USA: Springer, 2008.
[29] H. Saadat, Power System Analysis, New York, USA: Mc-Graw-Hill,
2002.
[30] G. Benmouyal, ―Removal of DC-offset in current waveforms using
digital mimic filtering,‖ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
621–630, Apr. 1995.
[31] IEEE Standard Definitions for the Measurement of Electric Power
Quantities under Sinusoidal, Non-sinusoidal, Balanced, or
Unbalanced Conditions for Synchrophasor Measurements for Power
Systems, IEEE Std 1459-2010, Feb. 2, 2010.
[32] IEEE Standard for Synchrophasor Measurements for Power
Systems, IEEE Std C37.118.1-2011, Dec. 28, 2011.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
11
[33] M. Kizilcay and T. Pniok, ―Digital simulation of fault arcs in
power systems,‖ ETEP J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 55–60, Jan. 1991.
[34] H. Livani and C. Y. Evrenosoglu, ―A Machine Learning and
Wavelet-Based Fault Location Method for Hybrid Transmission
Lines,‖ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 51–59, Jan.
2014.
[35] A. Yadav, ―Comparison of single and modular ANN based fault
detector and classifier for double circuit transmission lines,‖ Int. J.
Eng. Sci. Technol., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 122–136, 2012.
[36] A. Swetapadma, A. Yadav, ―All shunt fault location including
cross-country and evolving faults in transmission lines without
fault type classification,‖ Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 123, pp. 1–
12, 2015.
Ahmed Saber was born in Bani-Suef, Egypt, in
1986. He received a M.Sc. degree in electrical
power and machines engineering from Faculty of
engineering, Cairo University in 2013.
Currently, he is presently a Ph.D. candidate at
faculty of engineering, Cairo University and works
as a teaching assistant at electrical power and
machines department, Cairo University.
Ahmed Emam received the B.Sc., M.Sc. and the
PHD degrees in Electrical Engineering from Cairo
University, Egypt, in 1998, 2002 and 2010
respectively. Currently, he is a teacher in the
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University. His
research interests are in the area of Electric and
Magnetic Fields, Transient overvoltage and Digital
Protection
Hany Elghazaly received the Ph.D. degree in high
Voltage Engineering from the Faculty of
Engineering, The University of Western Ontario,
Canada, in 1986. He is presently a full Professor
with the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.
He has worked on High voltage, Electrostatic and
power system protection. Also, he is a Senior
Member of Industry Application Society, The
institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
IEEE, USA.