A Power Transmission Line Fault Locator Based on
the Estimation of System Model Parameters
Ivars Zalitis
Faculty of Power and Electrical Engineering
Riga Technical University
Riga, Latvia
Zalitis@eef.rtu.lv
Jevgenijs Kozadajevs
Faculty of Power and Electrical Engineering
Riga Technical University
Riga, Latvia
kozadajevs@eef.rtu.lv
Abstract—This paper presents a method for fault location in
transmission lines, which uses measurements from one substation
during pre-fault and fault regimes to estimate unknown
parameters of a wider power system model with an optimization
algorithm. The optimization algorithm diminishes the difference
between measurements and a power system numerical model
output. This method incorporates random search within given
limits of unknown parameters with a following search space
reduction. An additional estimation of pre-fault regime model
parameters reduces the number of free dimensions in the fault
regime model thus increasing the feasibility of the fault
parameter estimation. The utilization of a topological fault model
with interconnected sequence networks allows accounting for
fault resistance and presence of the zero sequence mutual
coupling of parallel lines. Testing of the proposed method showed
that it can provide results with a good tolerance despite using a
system model with various simplifications.
Index Terms—fault location, iterative algorithms
I. INTRODUCTION
There are a variety of methodologies used for fault location
task. These can be divided in two categories: methods, which
use one terminal measurements, and methods, which use two
or multiple terminal measurements.
First category includes improved classical impedance
measurement approach [1], which has high speed performance,
but it can have error associated with the fault resistance and the
reactance effect [2]. More advanced methods use current
distribution factors [3] and quadratic equation [4], [5] to
exclude reactance effect, but solving the obtained equation may
present difficulties. There are variations of an approach based
on the line parameter estimation [6], [7], which requires
solving time-domain differential equation system. Another
method determines the most probable fault distance interval by
using the Monte Carlo method and defining unknown remote
end parameters with probability distributions [8], [9]. Recently
many solutions for fault location using artificial neural
networks have been proposed [10], [11], which however have
The work presented in this paper has been co-financed by the
National Research Program LATENERGI (2014-2017).
978-1-5386-3917-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Aleksandrs Dolgicers
Faculty of Power and Electrical Engineering
Riga Technical University
Riga, Latvia
dolgicers@eef.rtu.lv
high computation cost and need training data. The traveling
wave methods should also be mentioned [12], [13].
Unfortunately such methods are known to produce erroneous
results in some cases. The main reason being reflections from
non-uniformity of the line, for example, sparks on the surface
of dirty insulator or even anchor towers.
Second category also includes impedance based fault
locators. Applications with phasor measurement units have
gained wide recognition [14], [15] in this category. Then there
is a method, which determines fault distance and resistance
while minimizing the difference between measured bus
voltages and calculated ones [16]. This group of methods
requires a synchronized communication channel between the
line ends, which can be unavailable or fail during the fault
itself.
The statistics of transmission network faults have shown
that the phase-to-ground short-circuits is the most common
type of transmission line faults (63 and 72 percent for 110 and
330 kilovolt lines in Latvia) [17]. The accuracy of some fault
locators is known to degrade in case of such faults when the
fault resistance or zero sequence mutual coupling of parallel
lines is present.
The main contribution of this paper is a fault location
method, which is independent from the communication
between substations and provides accurate results in the
presence of the fault resistance and zero sequence mutual
coupling. This method considers more detailed system model
configurations than applied typically, but the calculation
process remains simple and easy to apply.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: part II
provides theoretical background of the proposed method, part
III presents the case study and part IV is dedicated to the
conclusions.
II. THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The proposed method solves the fault location problem as
an optimization problem consisting of two stages. First, it
performs an estimation of unknown parameters for the load
regime model of the power system by diminishing the
difference between the modeled and observed pre-fault
regime. Then, the estimated load regime model data are used
to calculate the electromotive forces (EMFs) of the system
generators at the moment of the fault occurrence. These EMFs
are introduced into the fault regime model and an estimation
of the unknown parameters of the fault regime model is
performed by diminishing the difference between the modeled
and observed fault regime. The estimated parameters of the
fault regime model yield the fault distance and resistance.
A. The Load Regime Model
The calculations of the load regime are performed based on
the nodal potential method. This method uses an equation
system in matrix form [18], [19]:
YU = I − MZ −1E + YBU B , (1)
where Y=MZ-1MT is the matrix of node conductivities, U is the
vector of node voltages, I is the vector of current sources, M is
the first incidence matrix of the network topology graph, Z is a
matrix with branch impedances as diagonal elements and
branch mutual induction impedances as remaining elements, E
is the vector of branch EMFs, YB is the base node conductivity
vector, which shows conductivities between the base node and
other nodes, UB is the base node voltage.
First, loads and generations, other than the balancing
system, are assumed to work in constant power mode, which is
the most probable one due to transformer voltage regulation.
This assumption allows replacing generator and load powers
with current sources defined by their power and line (phase-to-
phase) voltage. Assuming that the vector E=0 for the load
regime model, a following equation can be obtained:
 regime calculations are based on the same nodal potential
§ S ·  −1
YU = diag ¨¨ ¸U + Y BU B ,
¸ (2)
© 3¹
 the current source vector is removed:
where U −1 is the vector of inverse conjugated node line

voltages, S is a vector of conjugated generation or load
powers connected to all n nodes, excluding the base node.
Equation system (2) is nonlinear and can be solved by using the
modified Seidel method [20], [21]. Before turning to an
iterative solution, the convergence of the modified Seidel
method can be improved by using the inverse matrix method to
solve the left part of (2) by multiplying it with Y-1:
 Yij
§ S ·  −1
U = Y −1diag ¨¨ ¸U +U B .
¸ (3)
© 3¹
The modified Seidel method, when applied to (3), yields the
following iterative solution for node line voltages:
 
i −1 Sj n
−1 S m
U ik +1 = ¦ Yij−1  + ¦ Yim  + U B i = 1...n , (4)
j =1 3U kj +1 m =i 3U mk
where k is the step of the voltage vector U approximation.
The solution off equation (4) is obtained when the maximum
difference between the node voltage vectors of the step k and
k+1 has been reduced below the accuracy setting ε , defined by
a user:
( )
ε ≤ max U ik +1 − U ik .
i
(5)
The obtained node line voltage vector U is then used to
calculate the vector of branch currents:
(U − U B )
Ib = Z −1M T ). (6)
3
Next the vector of branch power flows can be calculated:

S b, j = 3U i I b, j i = 1...n, j = 1...m, M ij ≠ 0. (7)
The described regime calculation of the load model is repeated
until the estimation of the unknown model parameters, as
described in section C, has been accomplished. When the
estimation of unknown model parameters has been finished, the
last obtained node voltage and branch current vectors are used
to calculate the generator phase EMF angle and magnitude at
the moment of a possible fault occurrence:
UG
EG = + I G jX G , (8)
3
where UG is the generator node line voltage, IG is the generator
branch current and XG is the generator reactance. The stable
regime value of XG is used for angle and the transient value for
magnitude calculation, because at the moment of the fault
occurrence the magnitude of an EMF can change rapidly while
the angle is more restricted by the mechanical inertia of the
generator’s rotor. Then, the vector E consisting of calculated
EMFs is defined and incorporated into the fault regime model.
B. The Fault Regime Model
The fault regime model applies an analysis of symmetrical
components with interconnected sequence network topologies
chosen to correspond to particular fault types [2]. The fault
method, but it is assumed that the base node is earthed (UB=0
volts) at the neutral point of the positive sequence network and
YU = − MZ −1 E . (9)
The equation system (9) is linear and it can be solved by the
Seidel method in an iterative form:
i −1 n
U ik +1 = ¦ C ij U kj +1 + ¦ C imU mk + Di i = 1...n , (10)
j =1 m = i +1
where C ij = − , C ii = 0 i, j = 1...n is a matrix calculated
Yii
Bi
using the node conductivity matrix Y and Di = i = 1...n is
Yii
a vector calculated using matrices Y and B = − MZ −1 E .
The calculation process of equation (10) is done until accuracy
criterion (5) is reached. Following that, the vector of branch
currents is calculated as follows:
(
Ib = Z −1 E + M T U . ) (11)
The algorithm then calculates the distance relay measured
fault distance using the fault regime model output data based
on equations applied in the existing relay fault locator [1]. In
case of phase-to-ground faults, the following equation is used:
 §U f · regime. Then, model output voltages and currents are
Im¨ ¸ compared to the measurement data that are available at the
¨ I0 ¸ substation where the fault locator is installed. The difference to
© ¹
LF = , (12)
( )
§ I f + kI 0 + k M I 0p Z 01 ·
Im¨¨ ¸
¨ 0 ¸¸
© I ¹
I 0p
0 ¦¨
where I is the zero sequence current, is the parallel line
zero sequence current, U f , I f are the faulted phase voltage
and current, Z 01 is the specific line positive sequence
impedance, k is the zero sequence compensation coefficient
and k M is the parallel line zero sequence mutual coupling
compensation coefficient.
In order to exclude possible errors from fault resistance and
zero sequence mutual coupling of parallel lines they are
introduced into the fault regime model zero sequence network
as an additional branches [2] with their impedances (see Fig.
1). This also means that the matrices M, Z and E have to be
extended.
Fig. 1. Zero sequence network with fault resistance and
zero sequence mutual coupling of parallel lines introduced
C. The Estimation Algorithm of Unknown Parameters
The estimation of unknown parameters of the power system
model for both the load and fault regimes is achieved with the
same algorithm base. This algorithm incorporates random
search and a “constriction procedure”, which is similar to the
bisection method, to improve the speed of the estimation
process.
First, an unknown parameter vector X is generated within
the given limitations from a uniform distribution with a random
number generator:
X = X MIN + ( X MAX − X MIN ) R ,
where R is a randomly generated number from 0 to 1.
During the estimation of load regime model parameters the
vector X consists of load and generation active and reactive
powers, but during the estimation of fault regime model
parameters, X consists of the fault distance, resistance and
sequence impedances of simplified network link with the
balancing system, which might be uncertain and calculated
approximately.
When values of the vector X have been generated, they are
introduced into the model and the calculation of node voltages
and branch currents is performed according to the section A for
the load regime or according to the section B for the fault
measurements or the error of the model output is determined as
follows:
ξ=
( ( ) ) ( ( )
t
)
m §¨ Re ym, − Re( yt )
2
Im ym,t − Im( yt ) 2 ·¸
( ) ( ) +
¸¸, (14)
t =1¨ Re ym,t Im ym,t
© ¹
where m stands for the number of available measurements,
y m,t is a measured value and y t is the corresponding model
output value.
The equation (14) is used for branch power flows, currents
and bus voltages while estimating parameters of the load
regime model. While estimating the parameters of fault regime
model the model output branch currents and node voltages are
compared to measurements by individual symmetrical
components and the fault distance determined using (12) is
also introduced, thus making ξ more dependent on fault
distance. This process is repeated until, for a certain number of
times (NIMPR) the model error ξ of the generated vector X has
been smaller than the previous ones. Each time the smallest ξ
value and vector X is saved. When the number of
improvements (NIMPR) has been reached, the limits of vector X
are reduced:
§ K% ·
X MAX , MIN = X B ± ¨¨ ¸¸ X N , (15)
© 100 ⋅ 2 ⋅ s ¹
where X B is the vector X with the currently smallest model
output error ξ , K % is the maximum difference from the
nominal or average values of X elements in percent, X N is the
nominal or average values of X elements and s is the step
number of the parameter estimation process.
The described process of generating the unknown parameter
vector X, evaluating the model output compared to the
measurements and reducing limits on the X value generator
based on the best values of model parameters obtained leads to
a stable convergence towards the global solution. Taking into
account that for different network structures and scenarios the
absolute value of the ξ minima may differ, but the decrease in
the rate of change of the model error dξ will remain similar
during the convergence process, the end criterion for the
parameter estimation was chosen: dξ ≤ 0.001 . The general
block diagram of the proposed parameter estimation algorithm
is presented in Fig. 2. The Fig. 3 displays the surface of the
target function ξ by individual generated Į, RF values and
(13)
corresponding ξ values for a fault with distance 0.6 per unit
and resistance 99 ohms. One can see that the lowest point of
this surface correspond to the correct answer. Then the
convergence process of the proposed method is presented in
the phase plane: ξ as dependence from dξ (see Fig. 4).
 III. THE CASE STUDY
The proposed method has been tested on a 110 kilovolt
network with a ring configuration and multiple generators G
and loads L connected to an endless power balancing system S
(see Fig. 5). In order to test the adaptability of the proposed
algorithm phase-to-ground faults with different fault
resistances in one of parallel lines bounded by zero sequence
mutual coupling were considered and a simplified network
model (see Fig. 6) was applied for the proposed algorithm.
This type of faults was chosen because of their complexity and
relatively frequent occurrence. The nominal data of the
original network are presented in TABLES I-IV.

Fig. 2. The general block diagram of the parameter

estimation algorithm

Fig. 5. The original network used for simulations

Fig. 3. The surface of the target function Fig. 6. The simplified network applied to the proposed
algorithm

TABLE I. THE DATA OF GENERATOR AND LOAD POWERS

ELEMENT P, MW Q, MVAR cosij

G1 63 30.512 0.9
G2 63 30.512 0.9
G3 63 30.512 0.9
G4 50 24.216 0.9
L1 30 14.530 0.9
L2 18 8.718 0.9
L3 30 14.530 0.9
L4 18 8.718 0.9
L5 25 12.108 0.9
L6 15 7.265 0.9
Fig. 4. The convergence path of the proposed method L7 20 9.686 0.9
L8 40 19.373 0.9
TABLE II. THE REACTANCE DATA OF THE GENERATORS IN A STABLE After that currents and voltages, which would be available as
REGIME AND FOR A FAULT REGIME POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SEQUENCE
measurements (at the Bus 7 in the original network) obtained
ELEMENT Xd, p.u. X`d(1), p.u. X`d(2), p.u from original network calculations, were introduced to the
G1 2.05 0.2 0.29 proposed method. Following that the algorithm of the
G2 1.95 0.19 0.2755 proposed method performed an estimation of parameters for a
G3 1.95 0.19 0.2755 simplified network model and determined the fault distance
G4 2.1 0.2 0.29 and resistance. When performing the determination of the fault
location it was assumed that measurements used for the
TABLE III. THE DATA OF TRANSFORMERS existing relay and proposed method do not contain errors. That
ELEMENT S, MVA X, %
way total error incurred during the fault location is only from
methods applied. The simulation procedure described above
T1 80 10.5
T2 80 10.5
was performed in the MATLAB programming language. The
T3 80 10.5
histograms in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 present distribution of all
simulated cases according to their error of the fault distances
( )
T4 63 10.5
T5 125 10.5 estimation ( ξ α = α * − α ⋅100% α MAX ) for the existing
relay and the proposed method. One can see from these figures
TABLE IV. THE DATA OF TRANSMISSION LINE POSITIVE AND ZERO SEQUNCE
SPECIFIC IMPEDANCES AND LENGTHS
that errors of fault distance obtained with the proposed
algorithm were within 2 percent of the line length while the
ELEMENT Z0(1), ȍ/km Z0(0), ȍ/km L, km error of fault distance obtained by the existing fault locator
W1 0.199+0.409i 0.597+1.227i 30 could reach up to 40 percent. The errors of the fault resistance
W2 0.199+0.409i 0.597+1.227i 40 estimation were below 5 percent margin and it could be used
W3 0.157+0.401i 0.471+1.203i 40 to predict the cause of the fault (arcing fault, falling tree or
W4 0.124+0.393i 0.372+1.179i 35 other).
W5 0.306+0.403i 0.918+1.209i 22
W6 0.429+0.433i 1.287+1.299i 13
W7 0.157+0.401i 0.471+1.203i 21
W8 0.429+0.433i 1.287+1.299i 18
W9 0.306+0.403i 0.918+1.209i 23
W10 0.306+0.403i 0.918+1.209i 20
W11 0.429+0.433i 1.287+1.299i 15
W12 0.306+0.403i 0.918+1.209i 27
W13 0.429+0.433i 1.287+1.299i 19
W14 0.157+0.401i 0.471+1.203i 60
W15 0.198+0.405i 0.594+1.215i 55
W16 0.157+0.401i 0.471+1.203i 30
W17 0.07+0.2838i 0.21+0.8514i 25
W18 0.157+0.401i 0.471+1.203i 15
W19 0.306+0.403i 0.918+1.209i 32
The specific impedance of the mutual coupling inductance
bounding lines W1 and lines W2 was calculated to be Fig. 7. The distribution of fault location errors for the
Z0M(0)=0.15+1.174i ohms for 1 kilometer based on the standard existing protection device
tower geometry used in the Latvian 110 kilovolt network and
method in [22]. The capacitive shunt conductivities of lines
have not been taken into consideration to simplify the
calculations, but they can be added to the model as additional
branches if needed.
The scenarios used for simulations considers significant,
average positive and negative as well as small pre-fault power
flows (see TABLE V) with assumption that K%=±50 percent
and combinations of fault distance and resistance with values 1,
30, 60, 99 percent ( α MAX =1 per unit, R F MAX =100 ohms).

TABLE V. THE SCENARIOS LOADING AND GENERATION DATA

SL2, SL5,
SG2,
SG1, SG4, SL1, SL3, SL6, SL8,
Scenario SG3,
% % % SL4, SL7, %
% Fig. 8. The distribution of fault location errors for the
% %
1 50 150 100 100 150 50 100 proposed method
2 75 125 100 100 125 75 100
3 110 90 100 100 90 110 100 Another merit of the proposed method compared to the
4 125 75 100 100 80 120 100 existing relay is that the accuracy of the fault distance
5 150 50 100 100 60 140 100 estimation does not depend on the pre-fault power flow or the
During the test simulations exact calculations of the scenario fault distance and resistance. This can be seen in Fig. 9 and
pre-fault and fault regimes were made for original network. Fig. 10. There the coloured surface represents errors of the
Then results of these calculations were used to determine the fault distance estimation for the proposed algorithm and the
fault distance as seen by relays [1] and as described by (12).
white surface with a colored grid represents errors of the
existing relay fault locator (Fig. 9 displays the dependency of
the fault location error on the fault resistance and pre-fault
power flow in cases with a fault distance of 0.99 per unit, but
Fig. 10 displays dependency of the fault location error on the
fault distance and resistance in pre-fault scenario 1).
Fig. 9. The fault location error dependency on the pre-fault
power flow and fault resistance for the proposed method and
the existing relay
Fig. 10. The fault location error dependency on the fault
distance and resistance for the proposed method and the
existing relay
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed method provides a possibility to estimate the
fault distance using only safe and easy to synchronize
measurements from one substation, which are recorded during
the fault and pre-fault regimes. Incorporation of the pre-fault
regime model provides an opportunity to reduce the number of
free dimensions in the fault regime model thus diminishing the
possible errors and increasing the feasibility of fault parameter
estimation. The application of fault regime model and the
possible extensions of this model allow finding solution for
wide range of fault resistances and for cases where the zero
sequence mutual coupling of parallel lines is present. These
factors in combination with disregarding of the pre-fault
power flow are known to degrade the accuracy of existing
fault locators. The results obtained by simulations with
complex 110kV power system showed that the proposed
algorithm can provide results with an acceptable tolerance
despite using model with various simplifications. This
adaptability of the method is important for possible practical
applications in large power systems. The main drawback of
the proposed method is the necessity for significant amount of
computations, but with the modern generation of signal
processing microprocessors the computation time should not
exceed tolerable for ordinary operator.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Silarajs, A. Utans, L. Leite and A. Sauhats, “Multifunction relay
protection device for power transmission lines LIDA,” in Proc. 2007
The 2nd International conference on Electrical and Control
Technologies, pp.120-125.
[2] J. L. Blackburn and T. J, Domin, Protective relaying principles and
applications, 3rd ed., New York: CRC Press, 2006, p. 664.
[3] Y. J. Ahn, S. H. Kang, S. J. Lee and Y. C. Kang, “An adaptive distance
relaying algorithm immune to reactance effect for double-circuit
transmission line systems,” in Proc. 2001 Power Engineering Society
Summer Meeting conf., pp. 599-604.
[4] J. IĪykowski, Fault location on power transmission lines, Wroclaw:
Wroclaw Technical university press, 2008, pp. 112-115.
[5] M. M. Saha, K. Wikström, J. Izykowski and E. Rosolowski, “New
accurate fault location algorithm for parallel lines,” in Proc. 2001
Developments in Power System Protection conf., pp. 407-410.
[6] J. Suonan, Z. Wang and X. Kang, “An accurate fault location algorithm
based on parameter identification of linear differential equation using
one terminal data,” in Proc. 2011 Advanced Power System Automation
and Protection conf., pp. 407-412.
[7] B. Wang, J. Suonan, H. Liu and G. Song, “Long transmission lines fault
location based on parameter identification using one-terminal data,” in
Proc. 2012 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering conf., p. 4.
[8] M. Bockarjova, A. Sauhats and G. Andersson, “Statistical algorithms for
fault location on power transmission lines,” in Proc. 2005 IEEE Russia
Power Tech conf., p. 7.
[9] M. Bockarjova, A. Dolgicers and A. Sauhats, “Enhancing fault location
performance on power transmission lines” in Proc. 2007 IEEE Lausanne
Power Tech conf., pp. 1123-1128.
[10] I. Sadinezhad and V. G. Agelidis, “An adaptive precise one-end power
transmission line fault locating algorithm based on multilayer complex
adaptive artificial neural networks,” in Proc. 2009 International
Conference on Industrial Technology, p. 6.
[11] A. S. Altaie and J. Asumandu, “Fault location using a new control
technique, multiple classifier, and artificial neural network,” in Proc.
2017 IEEE Texas Power and Energy conf., p. 6.
[12] M. Abedini, A. Hasani, A. H. Hajbabaie and V. Khaligh, “A new
traveling wave fault location algorithm in series compensated
transmission line,” in Proc. 2013 21st Iranian Conference on Electrical
Engineering, p. 6.
[13] Y. Li, J. Fu, Q. Wang, H. Peng, Y. Ji, H. Zhao, J. Liu and X. Zeng,
“Study on T type transmission line fault location based on voltage
traveling wave,” in Proc. 2016 IEEE International Conference on High
Voltage Engineering and Application, p. 5.
[14] A. G. Phadke and J. S. Thorp, “History and applications of phasor
measurements,” in Proc. IEEE 2006 PES Power System Conference and
Exposition, pp. 331-335.
[15] W. Bo, Q. Jiang and Y. Cao, “Transmission network fault location using
sparse PMU measurements,” in Proc. 2009 Sustainable Power
Generation and Supply conf., pp. 1-6.
[16] C. E. M. Pereira and L. C. Zanetta, Jr., “Optimization algorithm for fault
location in transmission lines considering current transformers
saturation,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 20, pp. 603-608, Apr.
2005.
[17] H. Hillner, H. Bergquist, R. Stefánsson, J. Schaug-Pettersen and M.
Piironen (2015). ENTSOE Nordic and Baltic grid disturbance statistics
2015. Fingrid Corp., Helsinki, Finland [Online]. Available:
http://www.fingrid.fi/en/powersystem/Supply%20security%20of%20ele
ctricity/raports_nordic.
[18] A. Agarwal and J. H. Lang, Foundations of analog and electronic
circuits, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2005, p. 1008.
[19] L. Bessonov, Theoretical foundation of electrical engineering. Electrical
circuits, 9th ed., Moscow: High School, 1996, p. 638.
[20] Ⱥ. Ⱥ. Samarsky, An introduction to numerical methods, Moscow:
Nauka, 1987, p.600.
[21] S. C. Chapra and R. P. Canale, Numerical methods for engineers, 6th
ed., London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010, p. 960.
[22] S. A. Ulyanov, Electromagnetic transient processes, Moscow: Energiya,
1970, pp.293-296.