Impedance-Based Fault Location for Overhead and

Underground Distribution Systems

Gustavo D. Ferreira
Daniel da S. Gazzana
Arturo S. Bretas
Department of Electrical Engineering
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
gustavoferreira@ece.ufrgs.br
dgazzana@ece.ufrgs.br
abretas@ece.ufrgs.br
AbstractThis paper presents an extended formulation for fault
location on electric distribution systems based on one-terminal
measurement of apparent impedance. The method is developed
using phase-components analysis to account for the inherent
unbalanced operation of distribution feeders. Since distribution
loads present a stochastic variation through time, a technique
for compensation of load variation in both magnitude and angle
is also presented. The proposed developments include two
general fault location equations that account for any fault type.
An iterative algorithm to compensate the line capacitive current
component is also provided, thus enabling the application of the
technique to long rural and underground systems, in addition to
overhead distribution systems. Test results show the accuracy
and robustness of the fault location algorithm to different fault
types, distances and resistances, considering systems load
profile variations up to 50%.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Fast and accurate fault location (FL) on electric power

distribution systems (EPDS) is a mandatory task for utilities
nowadays, since the customers demand for reliable energy
supply service is increasing. Also, the economic losses
experienced by the utilities are proportional to the duration of
service interruptions, thus minimizing the time of locating
faults on EPDS is extremely important.
Impedance-based FL techniques for EPDS are especially
attractive because of their low implementation cost
(particularly one-terminal-based ones) in relation to highfrequency techniques, such as those using travelling waves
[1]. Recently, several FL methods specifically developed for
application in EPDS have been proposed [2-12]. However,
individually they do not fully consider the characteristics of
distribution systems (unbalanced operation, presence of
intermediate loads, laterals, and time-varying load profile),
which significantly affect their performance. Except for [2]
and [3], the previously cited methods do not account for the
stochastic time-varying load profile. This intrinsic

978-1-4673-2308-6/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE

Alberto H. Ferreira(1)
Arlan L. Bettiol(2)
Antnio Carniato(2)
(1)

Cooperativa de Eletrificao de Ibina e Regio

(2)
A Vero Domino Consulting and Research
Florianpolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

characteristic of EPDS has a detrimental effect on the fault

locators accuracies, since the load data during the fault period
is a required input for any impedance-based method. The
method described in [2] takes into account this aspect, but it
requires measurements at each load point, which are hardly
available in practical EPDS. The load compensation method
presented in [3] is based only on local measurements. Yet, it
performs a single-step compensation considering only the
magnitude of the load impedances, while in practice feeder
loads may be subjected to different variations in their active
and reactive components. Thus, the resulting error on the fault
estimation tends to increase when loads vary in both
magnitude and angle.
EPDS lines are typically overhead and relatively short.
Hence, very few impedance-based FL techniques have
considered the shunt capacitance of distribution lines in
conjunction with their inherent unbalance [1]. However, in the
cases of long, lightly loaded overhead lines as well as
underground feeders, the shunt admittance should be included
[13]. This aspect was considered in [4] and [5], although the
former does not account for phase-to-phase faults and neither
have taken the effect of load variations in EPDS into account.
This paper proposes an extended impedance-based FL
formulation that considers all the previously discussed EPDS
characteristics: unbalanced operation, presence of intermediate
loads, laterals, and time-varying load profile. The technique
uses only one-terminal measurements and is developed based
on phase-components analysis. Thus, it can naturally deal with
EPDS inherently unbalanced operation. Intermediate loads
and feeder laterals are considered by determining equivalent
systems for each possible power flow path, in which loads and
laterals are represented as equivalent impedances connected
along each path. Differing from some methods that rely on the
association of series and parallel impedances [2, 6, 7], the
proposed method uses a power flow technique in order to
determine such equivalent systems. The advantage of this

approach is that it considers asymmetrical line coupling and is

more efficient for application in large EPDS [3]. To mitigate
the inaccuracies introduced due to the erroneous estimation of
the system loading, an iterative algorithm to match the prefault
and the estimated load profile is presented in this paper. The
proposed developments include two generalized FL equations,
through which an estimate of the fault distance can be
obtained for any fault type. Aiming to extend the application
of the proposed method to long, rural, light loaded lines as
well as underground and overhead distribution systems, an
iterative algorithm to compensate the line capacitive current
component is also provided. Results from 2400 test scenarios
show the accuracy and robustness of the FL algorithm for
different fault types, distances and resistances, even under
load profile variations up to 50%.

Figure 1. On-line representation of the faulted line segment model.

FAULT LOCATION FORMULATION

II.

The proposed FL location formulation is derived from the

exact line segment model [13], since it is suitable for
representing untransposed overhead and underground
distribution lines. Fig. 1 shows the on-line representation of
the resulting line segment model for a fault occurring at a
distance x from the source terminal. Although a ground fault is
represented, this model is also valid for phase faults. In
analyzing the model during the fault condition the following
notations are adopted in this paper:
VFS = [VFSa VFSb VFSc]
VF = [VFa VFb VFc]

voltage at the source node (V);

voltage at the fault point (V);

IFS = [IFSa IFSb IFSc]T

T

current at the source node (A);

IF = [IFa IFb IFc]

fault current (A);

RF

fault resistance ();

third-order line series impedance

matrix ( /m);

third-order line shunt admittance

matrix (S/m);

Ix = [Ixa Ixb Ixc]T

current at the lumped line

impedance upstream from the fault
point (A);

ID = [IDa IDb IDc]T

current downstream from the fault

point (A);

Zeq

equivalent node impedance matrix

();

line length (m).

fault distance (m).

A. Ground Faults
Through the generalized ground-fault model shown in Fig.
2(a), all types of ground faults can be represented by simply
making the currents on the unfaulted (healthy) phases equal to
zero [5]. Fault impedances considered as pure resistances are
represented by RFa, RFb, RFc and RFg in Fig. 2, the voltage at
the fault point for each faulted phase k can be expressed as

VFk = RFk I Fk + RFg I Fg ,

(2)

where IFg = IFa + IFb + IFc. Replacing (1) in (2), it is possible to

write (3) for each faulted phase k:
RFk I Fk + RFg I Fg = VFSk x M k ,

(3)

Z ac I x a

Z bc I x b .
Z cc I x c

(4)

where

M a Z aa
M = Z
b ba
M c Z ca

Z ab
Z bb
Z cb

By separating (3) into its real and imaginary parts, it can

be found that

According to Fig. 1, the relation between the voltage at the

fault point and the voltage at the source node can be written as
(1):
VF = VFS x Z I x

Figure 2. Ground faults (a) and phase faults (b) models.

(1)

r
r
r
RFk I Fk
+ RFg I Fg
= VFSk
x M kr

(5)

i
i
i
RFk I Fk
+ RFg I Fg
= VFSk
x M ki

(6)

where the superscripts r and i denote the real and imaginary

parts of the variables, respectively. By isolating RFk in (5),
replacing in (6) and rearranging its terms it is possible to
obtain (7):

i
r
x ( M kr I Fk
M ki I Fk
) + VFSki I Fkr VFSkr I Fki

*
RFg { I Fg I Fk
}=0

(7)

number. Eq. (7) is written for each faulted phase k, resulting

in a number of equations equal to the number of faulted
phases. The sum of these equations can be written as a single
generalized equation, expressed as:

x=

{VFS k I

{ M k I

*
Fk

}
}

(8)

where is the set of faulted phases, given by any combination

of phases a, b and c. Note that in summing the equations for
each faulted phase the last term of (7) equals to zero, since
*
I Fg I Fg
= 0.

B. Phase Faults
Consider the phase-to-phase fault involving phases a and b
as shown in Fig. 2(b). The voltage at the fault point can be
expressed as
VFa = VFb + RF I Fa .

(9)

By using (1), (9) can be rewritten as

VFSa x M a = VFSb x M b + RF I Fa .

(10)

Hereafter the development of (10) follows similar steps to

those used to obtain (8). The resulting generalized equation for
phase faults involving any j and k phases is given by

x=

{
{( M

}.
) I }

*
(VFS k VFS j ) I Fk
k

Mj

*
Fk

(11)

C. Iterative Line Section Fault Location Algorithm

Equations (8) and (11) give the fault distance x as a
function of both the fault current (IFk) and the current flowing
through the line impedance upstream from the fault (Ixk). Since
these variables are unknown from the local terminal
measurements, they are estimated through the iterative
algorithm described by the following steps:
1) Set x = /2 as a first estimative of the fault distance.
2) Calculate current Ix considering compensation
capacitive current at the local terminal, according to
I x = I FS 0.5 x Y VFS .

of
(12)

3) Calculate VF at the estimated fault distance x using (1).

4) Calculate the current downstream from the fault point
(ID), according to (13):
I D = YD VF ,

{( A x ) Z + 0.5 ( A x ) Y + Z }

1
1 1
eq

+ 0.5 ( A x ) Y.

represents the imaginary part of a complex

where {}

*
Fk

YD =

(13)

where YD is the equivalent admittance downstream from

the fault point, given by

(14)

5) Calculate the fault current considering compensation of

capacitive current at the fault point:
I F = I x 0.5 x Y VF I D .

(15)

6) Using the calculated currents Ix and IF calculate the fault

distance x using (8) for a ground fault or (11) for a phase
fault.
7) Check the convergence criteria:

xiter 1 xiter ,

(16)

where iter is an iteration counter, and is a predefined

tolerance. If (16) is satisfied, or if x > (the fault is
outside the line section being analyzed) stop the algorithm
execution and return the current fault location x.
Otherwise, go back to Step 2.
As it can be noted, the feeder laterals and loads are not
considered in the algorithm that was just described, since the
system components downstream from the analyzed line
section are represented by an equivalent impedance Zeq
connected at the end node of the line segment. Sections III and
V generalize the proposed method by accounting for the
feeders lateral branches and loads.
III.

FEEDER LATERALS AND LOADS

In order to generalize the proposed FL method to be

applied in distribution feeders with an arbitrary number of
lateral branches and loads, the computation of equivalent
systems to each possible power flow path (PPFP) is
considered in this paper. The equivalent systems are obtained
by the transformation of lines and loads outside the path being
analyzed into constant impedances along the radial system.
Since the FL scheme analyzes the system in the first fault
cycle, this assumption can be considered as a reasonable
approximation [4].
The equivalent systems are determined by executing a
three-phase power-flow algorithm [13] considering the prefault conditions of the system. Then, for each node n the
equivalent impedance of phase k (Zeq nk) is calculated
according to

Zeq nk = Vnk / I ( m n) k ,

(17)

where Vnk is the node voltage and I(mn)k is the current flowing
from the upstream node m to node n. If node n has a lateral or
load connected to it then the equivalent load impedance for
each phase k (Zeq nk) is also calculated:

ZeqL nk = Vnk / I ( m n) k I ( n p ) k

),

(18)

where I(np)k is the current flowing from the node n to the

downstream node p.

IV.

COMPENSATION OF LOAD VARIATION

Impedance-based FL algorithms are dependent on the

system loading during the fault period, because one of the
required inputs is the load in each node of the system. Thus,
due to the stochastic behaviors of load variations it may be
very difficult to estimate the correct load data to be used in the
FL algorithm. If the system has a different load profile than
the estimated one during the algorithm execution, it will lead
to errors in estimating the FL [3].
To mitigate the problem due to the stochastic time-varying
load characteristics using only local measurements, an
iterative algorithm to match the prefault and the estimated load
profile is proposed in this paper. The algorithm consists of the
following steps:
1) From the prefault voltage (VPFk) and current (IPFk)
measured at the local node, compute the equivalent
prefault impedance for each phase k:
Z PFk = VPFk / I PFk .

(19)

2) Run a three-phase power-flow algorithm [13] considering

the prefault conditions of the system.
3) From the current (IPFk) at the local node obtained through
the power-flow, calculate the estimated prefault
impedance (ZPFk) for each phase k:
Z 'PFk = VPFk / I 'PFk .

(20)

4) Calculate two load variation factors based on the

difference between the resistive and reactive components
of the prefault and estimated impedances, accordingly to
(21) and (22), respectively:

Rk = ( {Z PFk } {Z 'PFk } ) / {Z 'PFk }

(21)

X k = ( {Z PFk } {Z 'PFk } ) / {Z 'PFk }

(22)

where Rk and Xk are the load variation factors for the

load resistance and reactance, respectively; and {}

represents the real part of a complex number.
5) Check the convergence criteria:

max ( Rk ) and max ( X k ) ,

k

(23)

where is a predefined tolerance. If (23) is satisfied, stop

executing the algorithm. Otherwise, go to Step 6.
6) Perform the compensation of load variation by
multiplying the real and imaginary parts of all the
systems load matrices by (1 + Rk) and (1+Xk),
respectively. Then go back to Step 2.
The compensation of load variation (CLV) which just
described considers independent variations on the resistive
and reactive components of the load impedances, but
compensation is performed considering uniform changes for
all loads. It must be noted that if the load variation patterns are
known for each set of loads, this information can be used to
weigh the load compensation for each set of loads. Such

information can be provided by measuring devices installed

along the feeder, which tends to improve the CLVs accuracy.
V.

GENERALIZED FAULT LOCATION ALGORITHM

This section presents the proposed generalized FL

algorithm, which incorporates the previously presented
procedures to account for feeder lateral loads, branches and
time-varying load profile. It can be explained as follows:
1) Perfom the CLV as described in Section IV.
2) Compute the equivalent systems as described in Section
III.
3) Select one PPFP. Set the node index n as the source node
of the PPFP.
4) Set VSF = Vn and IFS = In, where Vn and In are the voltage
and current at the node upstream from the line section
being analyzed. Then, run the iterative line section FL
algorithm as described on Section II-C.
5) If x < , save the current fault location x and go back to
Step 3 until all PPFP have been analyzed. Otherwise, set
the node index n = n + 1 and go to Step 6.
6) Calculate the voltage (Vn) and current (In) at node n by
using the power-flow equations [13] (24) and (25):
Vn = a Vm b I m

(24)

I n = c Vm + a I m ,

(25)

where m = n 1 is the index of the node upstream from

node n, and a, b, c are third-order matrices given by:

a = I + 0.5 A 2 Z Y

(26)

b=AZ

(27)

c = A Y + 0.25 A3 Y Z Y

(28)

and I is the third-order identity matrix. Line parameters in

(26), (27) and (28) refer to line segment between nodes m
and n.
7) If node n has a lateral and/or load connected to it, subtract
the node load current from In. The node load current is
given by (ZLeq n)-1.Vn, where ZLeq n is the matrix form of
the node equivalent load impedance given by (18).
9) Go back to Step 4.
VI.

TESTS AND RESULTS

The performance of the proposed FL method was

evaluated using data obtained from the IEEE 13 Node Test
Feeder [14] simulated with BPAs ATP-EMTP software [15].
The proposed FL formulation was implemented in MATLAB
[16]. Signal processing was performed using a modified
Fourier filter [17] to remove the DC component and estimate
the phasors representing the systems prefault and fault states.
To determine the equivalent systems as described in
Section III, six different PPFP were obtained for the studied
test feeder. For the sake of space limitations, this paper
presents the results obtained from one of the PPFP, which is
shown in Fig. 3. The system is composed by 5 nodes, 3

overhead line sections and 1 underground line section. Line

section lengths, conductors data and cables data are indicated
in Fig. 3. The equivalent node load impedances are
summarized in Table I. Hereafter in this paper this loading
condition is referred to as the systems standard load profile
(SLP).
To evaluate the robustness of the proposed FL method to
face variations in system loading, two different load profiles
were generated for the system studied. Random variations
bounded in 25% and 50% were independently applied to
the resistive and reactive components of the SLP load
impedances, aiming to impose modifications in both
magnitude and angle of the loads. The load profiles that were
obtained referred to as LP25 and LP50 are defined in Table II
as percentage variations is SLPs load impedances.
Considering the systems loading profiles which were just
defined, 2400 test conditions were generated, comprising the
following scenarios:

Load profiles: SLP, LP25 and LP50.

CLV algorithm: used and not used.

Fault types: single-phase to ground (P-g) (A-g, B-g,

C-g), two-phases to ground (PP-g) (AB-g, BC-g, CAg); phase to phase (PP) (AB, BC, CA), and threephase to ground (PPP-g) (ABC-g).

Figure 3. Test system.

TABLE I.

Fig. 4 shows the effect of the fault type on the proposed

FL method for each load profile. Considering the four
different fault types, it can be noted that the phase to ground
(P-g) and the three-phase to ground (PPP-g) are the ones that
yield the greatest and the smallest average percentage errors
for the SLP case, respectively. This pattern is maintained as
the load profile changes, but the FL estimation errors tend to
increase since the uncertainty in the load estimation also
increases. In addition, the increasing error is a consequence of
system unbalance [5], which is 20.2% in the SLP case and
increases to 26.7% in the LP50 case.
The average errors on the FL estimation considering fault
types and resistances for each systems load profile are

632

Phase B
X

24.65

17.40

Phase C
X

11.13

5.39

12.82

14.68

686

256.25

149.50

71.97

41.33

36.60

21.25

671

6.59

4.92

11.81

7.14

7.45

2.49

675

11.51

-0.08

14.04

-33.61

18.85

1.39

TABLE II.
DEFINITION OF THE LOAD PROFILES CONSIDERED IN THE
TESTS FROM THE PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS OF THE SLP LOAD IMPEDANCES.
LP

LP25

Fault distances: at 1/3 and 2/3 of the length of each

line section (8 locations).

Table III shows the averages, standard deviations and

maximum values of the percent errors in the fault location
estimation, with and without using the proposed CLV method.
It is clear that the average error on the fault estimation is less
than 0.865% even for load variations up to 50% when using
the proposed CLV method. The maximum error is of 3.835%
(52.6 meters) for a C-g fault with a resistance of 100 at the
end section of the feeder. It proved to be impractical to
estimate the fault location without using the CLV method,
because there was an average error of more than 25%.

Phase A

Node

Fault resistances: 0, 10, 20, 50 and 100 .

Test results are expressed in terms of percent errors in the

fault distance estimate, given by 100.|xest xsim| / tot, where xest
is the fault distance estimated by the proposed method, xsim is
the simulated fault distance, and tot is the total line length,
equal to 1372.6 meters for the given system.

EQUIBVALENT NODE LOAD IMPEDANCES FOR THE SYSTEMS

SLP (OHMS).

LP50

Phase B
R
X
(%)
(%)

15.74

20.29

20.67

6.62

-11.07

2.34

686

23.24

-17.12

22.86

-0.73

-17.91

-3.91

671

14.61

22.97

-23.21

17.46

8.94

12.89

675

-5.39

-16.44

10.30

-11.15

-22.69

-20.14

632

31.47

40.58

41.34

13.24

-22.15

4.69

686

46.49

-34.24

45.72

-1.46

-35.81

-7.82

671

29.22

45.95

-46.43

34.91

17.87

25.77

675

-10.78

15.55

20.60

-46.82

-45.38

-40.29

COMPARISON IN TERMS OF PERCENT ERRORS IN RELATION

TO THE USAGE OF THE PROPOSED CLV METHOD.
Using CLV

Average

Std. Dev.

SLP

0.467

0.540

LP25

0.662

LP50

0.865

Without Using CLV

Max.

Average

Std. Dev.

2.538

0.467

0.540

2.538

0.762

2.997

25.819

28.195

93.339

0.825

3.835

28.999

28.218

133.901

1,2

P-g

1,0
0,8
0,6

Phase C
R
X
(%)
(%)

632

TABLE III.

LP

Phase A
R
X
(%)
(%)

Node

PP-g

PP

PPP-g

1.03
0.81 0.83

0.81
0.64

Max.

0.57

0.65

0.63 0.60

0.45 0.44

0,4
0,2

0.07

0,0

SLP

LP25

LP50

Figure 4. Average errors on the FL estimate according to fault types for

different load profiles.

summarized in Table IV. It is interesting to note that for fault

resistances equal to zero, the load variation does not

TABLE IV.
AVERAGE PERCENT ERRORS ON THE FL ESTIMATE
ACCORDING TO FAULT TYPES, RESISTANCES AND LOAD PROFILES.
LP

SLP

LP25

LP50

Fault resistance (ohms)

0

10

20

50

100

Fault distance
(meters)

SLP

LP25

LP50

P-g

0.120

0.481

0.633

0.818

1.163

203.2

0.197

0.207

0.291

PP-g

0.091

0.240

0.364

0.649

0.892

406.4

0.295

0.338

0.420

PP

0.120

0.177

0.303

0.655

0.969

711.2

0.336

0.353

0.435

PPP-g

0.042

0.055

0.063

0.079

0.103

812.8

0.384

0.384

0.491

P-g

0.140

0.727

0.845

1.008

1.308

1016.0

0.395

0.555

0.798

PP-g

0.095

0.421

0.565

0.671

1.074

1117.6

0.415

0.636

0.946

PP

0.139

0.420

0.614

0.859

1.133

1270.0

0.799

1.171

1.578

PPP-g

0.032

0.615

0.730

0.780

0.862

1320.8

0.918

1.648

1.962

P-g

0.220

1.056

1.105

1.251

1.525

PP-g

0.087

0.838

0.908

0.936

1.257

PP

0.156

0.784

0.846

1.099

1.268

PPP-g

0.042

0.617

0.767

0.858

0.955

The effects of fault distance on the proposed FL method are

summarized in Table V. From these results it is possible to
observe that the average error in the FL estimation steadily
increases with the fault distance for the three feeder loading
conditions analyzed. This is due to the fact that, as the
analyzed line section move away from the substation, more
inaccuracies are introduced in estimating the capacitive and
load currents of the upstream nodes. Thus, it results in
erroneous estimations of the fault current.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper presented an extended impedance-based fault
location formulation for generalized EPDS. The method uses
only local measurements of fundamental quantities and takes
into account the capacitances of distribution lines. Thus, it
allows the location of all fault types in both underground and
overhead distribution systems. The main contribution of this
paper is to consider these aspects in addition to the specific
characteristics of distribution systems: unbalanced operation,
presence of intermediate loads, laterals, and time-varying load
profile. These aspects were not considered in conjunction in
previously published papers. Test results showed the
robustness of the technique in face to different fault scenarios,
including variations on the systems load profile up to 50%
in relation to the standard loading condition.
REFERENCES
[2]

Load profile

Fault
type

significantly affect the fault location estimation. In fact, for

PP-g faults, the resulting error from the case LP50 was smaller
than the error from case SLP. The same occurred for PPP-g
faults in the case of LP25. Therefore, for nonzero values of
fault resistances the error tends to increase, which is explained
mainly by the erroneous estimation of the fault current for
high resistances, which is dependent on the load current
estimation during the fault period.

[1]

TABLE V.
AVERAGE PERCENT ERRORS ON THE FL ESTIMATE
ACCORDING TO FAULT DISTANCE AND LOAD PROFILES.

M. M. Saha, J. Izykowski, and E. Rosolowski, Fault location on power

networks. London: Springer-Verlag, 2010.
M.-S. Choi, S.-J. Lee, S.-I. Lim, D.-S. Lee, and X. Yang, "A direct
three-phase circuit analysis-based fault location for line-to-line fault,"

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]
[17]

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, pp. 2541-2547, Oct

2007.
R. H. Salim, M. Resener, A. D. Filomena, K. R. Caino de Oliveira, and
A. S. Bretas, "Extended Fault-Location Formulation for Power
Distribution Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 24,
pp. 508-516, Apr 2009.
A. D. Filomena, M. Resener, R. H. Salim, and A. S. Bretas, "Fault
location for underground distribution feeders: An extended impedancebased formulation with capacitive current compensation," International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 31, pp. 489-496,
Oct 2009.
R. H. Salim, K. C. O. Salim, and A. S. Bretas, "Further improvements
on impedance-based fault location for power distribution systems," IET
Generation Transmission & Distribution, vol. 5, pp. 467-478, Apr
2011.
Zhu, D. L. Lubkeman, and A. A. Girgis, "Automated fault location and
diagnosis on electric power distribution feeders," IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, vol. 12, pp. 801-809, Apr 1997.
S. J. Lee, M. S. Choi, S. H. Kang, B. G. Jin, D. S. Lee, B. S. Ahn, N. S.
Yoon, H. Y. Kim, and S. B. Wee, "An intelligent and efficient fault
location and diagnosis scheme for radial distribution systems," IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 19, pp. 524-532, Apr 2004.
R. Das, M. S. Sachdev, and T. S. Sidhu, A technique for estimating
locations of shunt faults on distribution lines, 1995.
R. Das, M. S. Sachdev, and T. S. Sidhu, A fault locator for radial
subtransmission and distribution lines, 2000.
D. Novosel, D. Hart, Y. Hu, and J. Myllymaki, "System for locating
faults and estimating fault resistance in distribution networks with
tapped loads," 1998.
M. S. Choi, S. J. Lee, D. S. Lee, and B. G. Jin, "A new fault location
algorithm using direct circuit analysis for distribution systems," IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 19, pp. 35-41, Jan 2004.
Y. Liao, "Generalized Fault-Location Methods for Overhead Electric
Distribution Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 26,
pp. 53-64, Jan 2011.
W. H. Kersting, Distribution System Modeling and Analysis. Boca
Ratn, FL: CRC Press, 2002.
W. Kersting, "Radial distribution test feeders," in 2001 IEEE Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Conference Proceedings, Vols 13, 2001, pp. 908-912.
B. P. Administration, "Alternative transients program: ATP-EMTP,"
ed, 2007.
"Matlab 7 user's guide," ed. Natick, MA: Mathworks, Inc., 2011.
Y. H. Lin and C. W. Liu, "A new DFT-based phasor computation
algorithm for transmission line digital protection, " In: Proceedings of
the IEEE/PES transmission and distribution conference and exhibition,
Asia Pacific, v. 3, Yokohama 2002. p. 1733 7.