Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507

A fuzzy logic based fault classification

approach using current samples only
R.N. Mahanty a, , P.B. Dutta Gupta b
a

Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur 831014, India

b Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India
Received 29 October 2005; received in revised form 14 February 2006; accepted 29 April 2006
Available online 9 June 2006

Abstract
An approach for classification of transmission line faults is presented. The approach is based on fuzzy logic and requires the consideration of
the samples of three phase currents at one end of transmission line. To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach extensive simulation
studies, using EMTP and MATLAB, have been carried out for different types of fault considering wide variations in the operating conditions.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fuzzy logic; Fault classification; Transmission line

1. Introduction
The identification of the type of fault and the faulty
phase/phases is known as fault classification, which is an important aspect of transmission line protection. Fault classification
has been a topic of interest for several years and as a result of this
a number of fault classification techniques have been developed
by different researchers from time to time. Some of the important fault classification techniques are: (i) wavelet transform
based techniques [16], (ii) neural network based techniques
[714] and (iii) fuzzy and fuzzy-neural network based techniques [1518]. These techniques are effective over wide variations in the operating conditions and hence are widely accepted
for fault classification. The techniques based on wavelet transform are computationally complicated and the techniques based
on neural network involve a tedious training process. The fuzzy
logic based fault classification approaches involve some linguistic rules only [19] and as such are simpler than the wavelet
transform based techniques or the neural network based techniques.
Ferrero et al. [15] proposed a fuzzy logic based approach for
identifying the type of fault (whether l-g or l-l-g). Wang et al.
[16] proposed an improved method based on fuzzy-neural net-

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rnmahanty2002@yahoo.co.in (R.N. Mahanty).

0378-7796/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2006.04.009

work approach to determine whether the fault is of l-g, l-l or

l-l-g type. As a further improvement, Dash et al. [17] proposed
a fuzzy-neural network based method and Das et al. [18] proposed a fuzzy logic based method for fault classification. Both
of these approaches can identify all ten types of short circuit
faults.
In this paper, an alternative fuzzy logic based fault classification approach for transmission line protection has been
proposed. Samples of three phase currents at one end of transmission line are required to be considered for fault classification
by the proposed approach.
To validate the proposed approach, extensive simulation studies have been carried out using EMTP and MATLAB for different types of fault considering wide variations in fault location,
fault inception angle, load angle and fault resistance. Fault data
generated by EMTP [20] have been used for fault classification
by a MATLAB program, which makes use of the fuzzy logic
toolbox [21].
2. The fault classication methodology
The fault classification technique has been developed on the
basis of extensive simulation studies carried out on the power
system model shown in Fig. 1 using EMTP and MATLAB. The
parameters of the power system model of Fig. 1 are as follows
[18]:

502

R.N. Mahanty, P.B.D. Gupta / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507
Table 1
Values of 1 , 2 and 3 in case of a-g fault under variable operating conditions
Fault condition: d, RF , FIA,
Fig. 1. The power system model.

line length = 300 km;

source voltages:
source 1: v1 = 400 kV; source 2: v2 = 400 kV, where is
the load angle;
source impedance (both sources):
positive sequence impedance = 1.31 + j15.0 ;
zero sequence impedance = 2.33 + j26.6 ;
frequency = 50 Hz;
transmission line impedance:
positive sequence impedance = 8.25 + j94.5 ;
zero sequence impedance = 82.5 + j308 ;
positive sequence capacitance = 13 nF/km;
zero sequence capacitance = 8.5 nF/km.
Post-fault samples of three phase currents, generated through
EMTP, are considered for fault classification. Using these fault
data the task of fault classification is carried out using MATLAB. The sampling interval is 1 ms and the number of samples
per phase is ten, starting from the 6th sample up to the 15th
sample. In order to reduce the effect of the dc offset in the fault
current waveform the first five post-fault samples have not been
considered. This means that the data window is of half cycle,
which starts from the 6th and extends up to the 15th post-fault
sample. The total time taken for obtaining the ten post-fault samples for each phase is more than half cycle but less than one cycle
after fault inception. The prerequisite of the proposed fault classification approach is that the fault should be detected. The fault
classification technique has been developed as follows:
The characteristic features of different types of fault are found
out in terms of 1 , 2 and 3 , which are calculated as described
below. First of all, from the post-fault current samples, as mentioned above, the ratios r1 , r2 and r3 are calculated as follows:
r1 =

max{abs(Ia )}
,
max{abs(Ib )}

r3 =

max{abs(Ic )}
max{abs(Ia )}

r2 =

max{abs(Ib )}
,
max{abs(Ic )}

where Ia , Ib and Ic are the post-fault samples of the three phase

currents.
Next, the normalized values of r1 , r2 and r3 are found out as
follows:
r1
r2
r1n =
,
r2n =
,
max(r1 , r2 , r3 )
max(r1 , r2 , r3 )
r3
r3n =
max(r1 , r2 , r3 )
Finally, the differences of these normalised values are found out
as follows.
1 = r1n r2n ,

2 = r2n r3n ,

3 = r3n r1n

0 ,

10

0.15, 0 ,
0.15, 0 , 0 , 30
0.15, 200 , 0 , 10
0.15, 200 , 0 , 30
0.15, 0 , 90 , 10
0.15, 0 , 90 , 30
0.15, 200 , 90 , 10
0.15, 200 , 90 , 30
0.85, 0 , 0 , 10
0.85, 0 , 0 , 30
0.85, 200 , 0 , 10
0.85, 200 , 0 , 30
0.85, 0 , 90 , 10
0.85, 0 , 90 , 30
0.85, 200 , 90 , 10
0.85, 200 , 90 , 30

0.944
0.899
0.684
0.441
0.909
0.871
0.682
0.438
0.924
0.791
0.599
0.327
0.814
0.661
0.615
0.315

0.053
0.084
0.208
0.219
0.082
0.094
0.206
0.229
0.054
0.123
0.190
0.242
0.127
0.174
0.181
0.241

0.998
0.983
0.892
0.660
0.992
0.966
0.887
0.667
0.978
0.914
0.790
0.570
0.942
0.835
0.797
0.555

d = fault location in p.u. of line length from bus 1, FIA = fault inception angle,
RF = fault point resistance and = load angle.

As already mentioned, the characteristic features of different

types of fault are determined in terms 1 , 2 and 3 . The fuzzy
rule base for fault classification is developed on the basis of the
values of 1 , 2 and 3 .
The values 1 , 2 and 3 for a-g, a-b-g, a-b and a-b-c faults
under variable operating conditions are shown in Tables 14. The
values of 1 , 2 and 3 have also been found out for other l-g,
l-l and l-l-g faults and it has been observed that the characteristic
features of the different types of fault can be determined on the
basis of the values of 1 , 2 and 3 , as illustrated below.
Ground faults (faults involving ground):

for a-g fault 1 = highg , 2 = mediumg , 3 = lowg ;

for b-g fault 1 = lowg , 2 = highg , 3 = mediumg ;
for c-g fault 1 = mediumg , 2 = lowg , 3 = highg ;
for a-b-g fault 1 = lowg , 2 = highg , 3 = lowg ;

Table 2
Values of 1 , 2 and 3 in case of a-b-g fault under variable operating
conditions
Fault condition: d, RF , FIA,

0.15, 0 , 0 , 10
0.15, 0 , 0 , 30
0.15, 200 , 0 , 10
0.15, 200 , 0 , 30
0.15, 0 , 90 , 10
0.15, 0 , 90 , 30
0.15, 200 , 90 , 10
0.15, 200 , 90 , 30
0.85, 0 , 0 , 10
0.85, 0 , 0 , 30
0.85, 200 , 0 , 10
0.85, 200 , 0 , 30
0.85, 0 , 90 , 10
0.85, 0 , 90 , 30
0.85, 200 , 90 , 10
0.85, 200 , 90 , 30

0.953
0.875
0.650
0.343
0.964
0.899
0.661
0.339
0.831
0.520
0.229
0.131
0.892
0.600
0.221
0.580

0.999
0.993
0.966
0.841
0.998
0.991
0.968
0.838
0.988
0.924
0.808
0.713
0.988
0.875
0.816
0.720

0.046
0.117
0.316
0.498
0.035
0.091
0.307
0.499
0.157
0.404
0.579
0.583
0.096
0.275
0.595
0.140

R.N. Mahanty, P.B.D. Gupta / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507
Table 3
Values of 1 , 2 and 3 in case of a-b fault under variable operating conditions
Fault condition: d, RF , FIA,
0 ,

10

0.15, 0 ,
0.15, 0 , 0 , 30
0.15, 200 , 0 , 10
0.15, 200 , 0 , 30
0.15, 0 , 90 , 10
0.15, 0 , 90 , 30
0.15, 200 , 90 , 10
0.15, 200 , 90 , 30
0.85, 0 , 0 , 10
0.85, 0 , 0 , 30
0.85, 200 , 0 , 10
0.85, 200 , 0 , 30
0.85, 0 , 90 , 10
0.85, 0 , 90 , 30
0.85, 200 , 90 , 10
0.85, 200 , 90 , 30

0.971
0.913
0.737
0.577
0.964
0.884
0.738
0.569
0.888
0.612
0.551
0.313
0.856
0.313
0.537
0.312

0.999
0.994
0.949
0.723
0.999
0.989
0.949
0.733
0.990
0.931
0.883
0.730
0.985
0.847
0.887
0.720

0.029
0.081
0.211
0.286
0.035
0.106
0.211
0.284
0.102
0.319
0.331
0.417
0.129
0.534
0.350
0.408

for b-c-g fault 1 = lowg , 2 = lowg , 3 = highg ;

for c-a-g fault 1 = highg , 2 = lowg , 3 = lowg .
where highg means a value between 0.2 and 1.0, mediumg
means a value between 0.02 and 0.3 and lowg means a value
between 1.0 and 0.005. The suffix g has been used to
represent a ground fault.
Phase faults (faults not involving ground):

for a-b fault 1 = lowph , 2 = highph , 3 = lowph ;

for b-c fault 1 = lowph , 2 = lowph , 3 = highph ;
for c-a fault 1 = highph , 2 = lowph , 3 = lowph ;
for a-b-c fault 1 = mediumph , 2 = mediumph , 3 = lowph ;
or 1 = lowph , 2 = mediumph , 3 = mediumph ;
or 1 = mediumph , 2 = lowph , 3 = mediumph ;
or 1 = lowph , 2 = lowph , 3 = mediumph ;
or 1 = mediumph , 2 = lowph , 3 = lowph ;
or 1 = lowph , 2 = mediumph , 3 = lowph .

Table 4
Values of 1 , 2 and 3 in case of a-b-c fault under variable operating
conditions
Fault condition: d, RF , FIA,

0.15, 0 , 0 , 10
0.15, 0 , 0 , 30
0.15, 200 , 0 , 10
0.15, 200 , 0 , 30
0.15, 0 , 90 , 10
0.15, 0 , 90 , 30
0.15, 200 , 90 , 10
0.15, 200 , 90 , 30
0.85, 0 , 0 , 10
0.85, 0 , 0 , 30
0.85, 200 , 0 , 10
0.85, 200 , 0 , 30
0.85, 0 , 90 , 10
0.85, 0 , 90 , 30
0.85, 200 , 90 , 10
0.85, 200 , 90 , 30

0.501
0.435
0.662
0.518
0.085
0.076
0.609
0.523
0.581
0.271
0.516
0.350
0.059
0.026
0.509
0.328

0.029
0.087
0.571
0.428
0.322
0.350
0.516
0.421
0.019
0.259
0.476
0.335
0.344
0.433
0.472
0.331

0.530
0.523
0.091
0.090
0.408
0.426
0.093
0.102
0.600
0.530
0.040
0.016
0.403
0.459
0.038
0.002

503

Table 5
Values of max(Ia + Ib + Ic ) in amps for different types of fault corresponding to
= 15
Fault condition: d, RF , FIA

0.1, 0 , 0
0.1, 200 , 0
0.1, 0 , 90
0.1, 200 , 90
0.5, 0 , 0
0.5, 200 , 0
0.5, 0 , 90
0.5, 200 , 90
0.9, 0 , 0
0.9, 200 , 0
0.9, 0 , 90
0.9, 200 , 90

Type of fault
a-g

a-b

a-b-g

a-b-c

2.37 104
1.42 103
1.61 104
1.53 103
5.50 103
7.91 102
3.60 103
8.29 102
2.42 103
2.06 102
1.91 103
2.94 102

0.057
0.010
0.080
0.006
0.040
0.008
0.010
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.007
0.005

1.35 104
1.45 103
1.36 104
1.52 103
2.96 103
8.24 102
3.24 103
8.05 102
1.53 103
2.09 102
1.74 103
2.27 102

0.100
0.010
0.080
0.010
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.010
0.006

where highph means a value between 0.5 and 1.0, mediumph

means a value between 0.01 and 0.6 and lowph means a value
between 1.0 and 0.005. The suffix ph has been used to
represent a phase fault.
From the above discussions it is evident that there should be
separate fuzzy rule bases for classification of ground faults and
phase faults. It is also evident that there should be a separate
technique to distinguish between ground faults and phase faults.
The technique which has been used in the proposed scheme to
distinguish between ground faults and phase faults is discussed
below.
2.1. Detection of ground fault
To determine the involvement of ground in fault the value of
= max(Ia + Ib + Ic ) has been considered. It has been observed
that the values of are high (greater than 100) for faults involving ground and low (less than 1) for faults not involving ground.
Table 5, which shows the values of for some representative cases of a-g, a-b, a-b-g and a-b-c faults, confirms that the
involvement of ground in a fault can be easily detected on the
basis of the value of .
3. Development of the fuzzy logic scheme
As discussed in the previous section, the characteristic fault
features for different types of fault have been determined in terms
of 1 , 2 and 3 . Fuzzy variables have been used to represent
the terms 1 , 2 and 3 and with these fuzzy variables, the
following fuzzy rule bases have been developed for classification
of ground faults and phase faults, respectively. After determining
whether the fault involves ground or not, the appropriate fuzzy
rule base is used for fault classification.
Fuzzy rule base for ground faults:
If 1 is highg and 2 is mediumg and 3 is lowg it is an a-g
fault;
If 1 is lowg and 2 is highg and 3 is mediumg it is a b-g
fault;

504

R.N. Mahanty, P.B.D. Gupta / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507
Table 6
Fuzzy variables in the antecedent parts of fuzzy rules corresponding to ground
faults
Fuzzy variable

Highg
Mediumg
Lowg

Triplets
A

0.2
0.02
1.0

0.6
0.16
0.5

1.0
0.3
0.005

Table 7
Fuzzy variables in the antecedent parts of fuzzy rules corresponding to phase
faults
Fig. 2. The triangular fuzzy membership function.

If 1 is mediumg and 2 is lowg and 3 is highg it is a c-g

fault;
If 1 is lowg and 2 is highg and 3 is lowg it is an a-b-g
fault;
If 1 is lowg and 2 is lowg and 3 is highg it is a b-c-g fault;
If 1 is highg and 2 is lowg and 3 is lowg it is a c-a-g fault.

Fuzzy variable

Highph
Mediumph
Lowph

The variables in the antecedent parts as well as the consequent

parts, in the above fuzzy rules, should be fuzzy variables. The
triangular membership function, shown in Fig. 2, has been used
to represent the various fuzzy variables in the antecedent and
consequent parts of the fuzzy rules. The triangular membership
function can be defined with reference to the points A, B and
C, referred to as triplets [19]. As shown in Fig. 2, the points A
and C have membership value of 0.00 while the point B has a
membership value of 1.00.
The selected values of triplets corresponding to fuzzy variables in the antecedent parts of the fuzzy rules for ground faults
and phase faults are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Table 8

0.5
0.01
1.0

0.75
0.3
0.5

1.0
0.6
0.005

Table 8
Fuzzy variables in the consequent parts of fuzzy rules
Fuzzy variable

Fuzzy rule base for phase faults:

If 1 is lowph and 2 is highph and 3 is lowph it is an a-b
fault;
If 1 is lowph and 2 is lowph and 3 is highph it is a b-c
fault;
If 1 is highph and 2 is lowph and 3 is lowph it is a c-a
fault;
If 1 is mediumph and 2 is mediumph and 3 is lowph it is
an a-b-c fault;
If 1 is lowph and 2 is mediumph and 3 is mediumph it is
an a-b-c fault;
If 1 is mediumph and 2 is lowph and 3 is mediumph it is
an a-b-c fault;
If 1 is mediumph and 2 is lowph and 3 is lowph it is an
a-b-c fault;
If 1 is lowph and 2 is mediumph and 3 is lowph it is an
a-b-c fault;
If 1 is lowph and 2 is lowph and 3 is mediumph it is an
a-b-c fault.

Triplets

a-g
b-g
c-g
a-b-g
b-c-g
c-a-g
a-b
b-c
c-a
a-b-c

Triplets
A

4.5
9.5
14.5
19.5
24.5
29.5
34.5
39.5
44.5
49.5

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

5.5
10.5
15.5
20.5
25.5
30.5
35.5
40.5
45.5
50.5

shows the selected values of triplets corresponding to fuzzy variables in the consequent parts of the fuzzy rules.
Fig. 3 shows the fuzzy logic scheme (FLS) for fault classification. The input quantities are 1 , 2 and 3 . As can be
seen from Fig. 3, the inputs are converted to their corresponding fuzzy variables. The fuzzified inputs are fed to the fuzzy
inference engine, which gives the output (type of fault) in the
fuzzy form in accordance with the fuzzy rule base. The appropriate fuzzy rule base is selected on the basis of whether the
fault involves ground or not. The output of the fuzzy inference
engine is defuzzified to get the output in the crisp form. MATLABs fuzzy logic toolbox has been used to implement the
FLS.
4. Results and discussions
To validate the proposed fault classification approach, simulation studies have been carried out on a 400 kV, 3 phase, 300 km

Fig. 3. The FLS for fault classification.

R.N. Mahanty, P.B.D. Gupta / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507

505

Table 9
Simulation results in case of ground faults
Fault type

Fault condition: d, RF , FIA,

30 ,

15

FLS inputs: 1 , 2 , 3

FLS output

a-g

0.1, 5 ,
0.5, 100 , 75 , 25
0.9, 50 , 5 , 10

b-g

0.2, 200 , 20 , 30
0.4, 100 , 90 , 10
0.8, 10 , 45 , 20

c-g

0.1, 50 , 45 , 15
0.5, 100 , 0 , 30
0.9, 0.1 , 90 , 10

0.168, 0.967, 0.799

0.262, 0.689, 0.427
0.108, 0.918, 0.810

15.040
15.000
15.040

a-b-g

0.1, 20 , 45 , 20
0.4, 200 , 90 , 10
0.8, 100 , 5 , 30

0.868, 0.996, 0.127

0.574, 0.948, 0.374
0.011, 0.653, 0.642

20.000
20.000
20.000

b-c-g

0.2, 75 , 30 , 15
0.5, 150 , 75 , 30
0.9, 15 , 15 , 10

0.238, 0.746, 0.984

0.541, 0.239, 0.781
0.476, 0.449, 0.925

24.960
25.000
24.960

c-a-g

0.1, 0.1 , 90 , 30
0.5, 150 , 75 , 30
0.8, 50 , 45 , 10

transmission line for variations in the values of fault resistance

(RF ), fault inception angle (), fault location (d) and load angle
() using EMTP and MATLAB. As the transmission line model
with sources on both sides is a widely accepted model for development of line relaying algorithms, it has been considered for
the development of the proposed method. The FLS outputs for
different types of fault under some representative fault situations are shown in Tables 9 and 10. From the results presented
in these tables it can be observed that the proposed method has
high accuracy.
The fault classification method proposed in this paper and
the method proposed by Das et al. [18] are similar in the sense
that both are fuzzy logic based schemes which require the consideration of the post-fault samples of three phase currents at
the relay location. Further, the same network configuration has
been considered for simulation study of both the methods.

0.889, 0.106, 0.995

0.488, 0.250, 0.739
0.663, 0.151, 0.814
0.662, 0.405, 0.257
0.921, 0.736, 0.185
0.813, 0.657, 0.156

0.997, 0.056, 0.941

0.872, 0.565, 0.306
0.951, 0.404, 0.547

5.120
5.020
5.045
10.007
10.080
10.037

29.920
29.956
29.920

The proposed method is applicable for a wider variation in

the operating conditions in comparison to the method proposed
by Das et al. Whereas the latter is valid for variation in RF up
to 50  and variation in d up to 0.8 (in p.u. of line length), the
former is valid for variation in RF up to 200  and variation in
d up to 1, the variation in being up to 30 for both the cases.
Further, the proposed method is computationally simpler as it
requires the computation of some ratios and differences of ratios
from the post-fault current samples for determining the fault features. On the other hand, a filtering algorithm (half cycle DFT)
for extracting the fundamental frequency components of currents and determination of the sequence components are required
for determining the fault features in case of the algorithm by Das
et al.
The sampling interval for the proposed method is 1 ms. Ten
post-fault samples of each phase current, starting from the 6th

Table 10
Simulation results in case of phase faults
FLS inputs: 1 , 2 , 3

FLS output

0.1, 50 ,
0.5, 150 , 0 , 20
0.9, 5 , 90 , 10

0.816, 0.972, 0.156

0.496, 0.837, 0.341
0.821, 0.979, 0.158

35.029
35.005
35.043

b-c

0.2, 0.1 , 30 , 10
0.4, 75 , 15 , 30
0.8, 200 , 80 , 20

0.049, 0.949, 0.998

0.318, 0.567, 0.885
0.439, 0.221, 0.659

40.020
40.000
39.999

c-a

0.15, 0.1 , 90 , 10
0.6, 200 , 45 , 30
0.9, 70 , 0 , 20

a-b-c

0.1, 30 , 10 , 10
0.5, 200 , 45 , 30
0.9, 80 , 75 , 20

Fault type
a-b

Fault condition: d, RF , FIA,

45 ,

30

0.999, 0.025, 0.974

0.681, 0.429, 0.252
0.713, 0.444, 0.269
0.407, 0.490, 0.083
0.567, 0.421, 0.147
0.502, 0.506, 0.004

44.980
44.996
44.998
49.885
50.000
49.890

506

R.N. Mahanty, P.B.D. Gupta / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507

sample up to the 15th sample, are considered. To reduce the

effect of dc offset the initial five samples are ignored. This means
that the sampling is completed after elapse of half cycle but
within one cycle of the post-fault signal. However, in case of the
method proposed by Das et al. the task of fault classification is
accomplished within half cycle of post-fault signal.
The performance of the proposed approach has also been
studied under variation of source impedance of both the sources.
It has been observed that the accuracy of the proposed technique
is not affected for variation of 1040 in the X/R ratios of the
source impedances.
The ranges of highg , mediumg , lowg , highph ,
mediumph and lowph values of 1 , 2 and 3 have been
found out on the basis of extensive simulation studies using
EMTP and MATLAB considering wide variations in the operating conditions. Although the ranges of highg , mediumg ,
lowg , highph , mediumph and lowph will vary from system to system, the proposed approach will be applicable for
different systems. The advantage of using fuzzy logic is that
it allows for overlapping between the ranges of high and
medium and between the ranges of medium and low. This
property of fuzzy logic makes the proposed approach suitable
not only for one particular system but for different systems.
Simulation results in case of the 400 kV, 3 phase, 300 km
horizontal formation of conductors transmission line have been
presented in Tables 9 and 10 for illustrating the validity of the
proposed approach. The validity of the proposed approach has
also been checked on simulated results in case of a 230 kV, 3
phase, 300 km transmission line. Simulation studies extended
to the second system shows identical conclusions as derived
in the first case. Also preliminary simulation studies carried
out for both the case examples with variations in transmission
line operations with simple FACTS devices in the steady state
or for faults with unbalanced line parameters indicate the correctness of conclusions that have been derived in the earlier
studies.
5. Conclusions
A fuzzy logic based technique for classification of transmission line faults has been presented. The proposed technique
requires the consideration of the three phase current samples at one end of line only. Separate fuzzy rule bases for
classifying faults involving ground and faults not involving
ground have been developed. A separate technique is used to
determine the involvement of ground in fault. The appropriate
rule base is selected for fault classification, on the basis of
whether the fault involves ground or not. Simulation studies
carried out considering wide variations in fault location, fault
inception angle, fault resistance and load angle for different types of fault have proved the validity of the proposed
approach.
The proposed fault classification method has been extensively
tested on the 400 kV, 3 phase, 300 km line. Similar results have
been obtained for second system230 kV, 3 phase, 300 km line.
Preliminary studies also indicate the validity of the proposed
method in the steady state when simple FACTS devices are

associated with the transmission line or for unbalanced line condition. The method is therefore quite robust.
References
[1] O.A.S. Youssef, A modified wavelet-based fault classification technique,
Elect. Power Syst. Res. 64 (2) (2003) 165172.
[2] D. Chanda, N.K. Kishore, A.K. Sinha, Application of wavelet multiresolution analysis for identification and classification of faults on
transmission lines, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 73 (3) (2005) 323
333.
[3] J. Liang, S. Elangovan, J.B.X. Devotta, A wavelet multiresolution analysis
approach to fault detection and classification in transmission lines, Int. J.
Elect. Power Energy Syst. 20 (5) (1998) 327332.
[4] W. Zhao, Y.H. Song, Y. Min, Wavelet analysis based scheme for fault
detection and classification in underground power cable systems, Elect.
Power Syst. Res. 53 (1) (2000) 2330.
[5] A.H. Osman, O.P. Malik, Protection of parallel transmission lines
using wavelet transform, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 19 (1) (2004) 49
55.
[6] R.N. Mahanty, P.B. Dutta Gupta, An improved method for digital relaying of transmission lines, Elect. Power Comp. Syst. 32 (10) (2004) 1013
1030.
[7] T. Dalstein, B. Kuliche, Neural network approach to fault classification for
high speed protective relaying, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 10 (2) (1995)
10021011.
[8] Y.H. Song, A.T. Johns, Q.Y. Xuan, Artificial neural network based protection scheme for controllable series compensated EHV transmission line,
IEE Proc. Gen. Trans. Dist. 143 (6) (1996) 535540.
[9] R.K. Aggarwal, Q.Y. Xuan, R.W. Dunn, A. Bennet, A novel fault classification technique for double-circuit line based on a combined unsupervised/supervised neural network, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 14 (4) (1999)
12501256.
[10] A.L.O. Fernandez, N.K.I. Ghonaim, A novel approach using a FIRANN
for fault detection and direction estimation for high voltage transmission
lines, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 17 (4) (2002) 894901.
[11] A.H. Osman, T. Abdelazim, O.P. Malik, Transmission line distance relaying
using on line trained neural networks, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 20 (2)
(2005) 12571264.
[12] W. Lin, C. Yang, J. Lin, M. Tsay, A fault classification method by RBF
neural network with OLS learning procedure, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.
16 (4) (2001) 473477.
[13] P.K. Dash, A.K. Pradhan, G. Panda, Application of minimal radial basis
function neural network to distance protection, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.
16 (1) (2001) 6874.
[14] R.N. Mahanty, P.B. Dutta Gupta, Application of RBF neural network to
fault classification and location in transmission lines, IEE Proc. Gen. Trans.
Dist. 151 (2) (2004) 201212.
[15] A. Ferrero, S. Sangiovanni, E. Zapitelli, A fuzzy set approach to fault type
identification in digital relaying, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 10 (1) (1995)
169175.
[16] H. Wang, W.W.L. Keerthipala, Fuzzy neuro approach to fault classification
for transmission line protection, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 13 (4) (1998)
10931104.
[17] P.K. Dash, A.K. Pradhan, G. Panda, A novel fuzzy neural network based
distance relaying scheme, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 15 (3) (2000) 902
907.
[18] B. Das, J.V. Reddy, Fuzzy-logic-based fault classification scheme for digital distance protection, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 20 (2) (2005) 609
616.
[19] J.M. Mendal, Fuzzy logic systems for engineering: a tutorial, Proc. IEEE
83 (3) (1995) 345377.
[20] Transients analysis program for power and power electronic circuits, in:
Microtran Reference Manual, Microtran Power System Analysis Corporation, Vancouver, Canada, 1997.
[21] Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for Use With MATLAB, The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, 1999.

R.N. Mahanty, P.B.D. Gupta / Electric Power Systems Research 77 (2007) 501507
R.N. Mahanty received B.Sc. Engg. degree from University College of Engineering, Burla, Orissa, India in 1985, M.Tech. degree from Regional Institute of
Technology, Jamshedpur, India in 1988 and Ph.D. degree from Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur, India in 2003. He is presently a Senior Lecturer in
the Department of Electrical Engineering at National Institute of Technology
(formerly Regional Institute of Technology), Jamshedpur, India. His areas of
research interest include power system protection, digital relaying and application of ANN, wavelet transform and fuzzy logic to power system protection.

507

P.B. Dutta Gupta received B.Tech. degree from Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India in 1963, M.Engg. degree from Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India in 1965 and Ph.D. degree from University of Warwick, Coventry, UK in 1980. He is a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. His areas of research interest
include power system protection, digital relaying and power system stability.
Prof. Dutta Gupta is a Fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE),
London, UK.