1
Selection of a Suitable Mother Wavelet for
Analyzing Power System Fault Transients
A.I. Megahed, Member, IEEE, A. Monem Moussa, H. B. Elrefaie and Y.M. Marghany
Abstract--In the literature, wavelet techniques are proposed for
the analysis of power system transients. Many mother wavelets
have been used for this analysis such as Haar, Daubechies (db),
Symlets, and Coiflets. This paper describes a strategy to choose a
suitable mother wavelet for this analysis. It also shows the
deviation between Matlab and theoretical (mathematically
calculated) db-wavelets when they are used for the analysis of
power system transient. The simulation study is carried out using
PSCAD simulation program and Matlab wavelet toolbox. The
simulation results show that the theoretical db wavelet is more
suitable for analyzing power system fault transients than the
Matlab db wavelet.
Index Terms-- Daubechies wavelet, Matlab wavelets toolbox,
Power system fault transient.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE key point of wavelet transform is the ability to extract
the transient components from the sampled waveforms
and then process these to detect quickly the occurrence of a
power system transient. It is a misunderstanding that any
wavelet is suitable for any signal and any application.
Choosing the right wavelet is crucial for a successful wavelet
transform application, but choosing the right wavelet for a
specific application has been an open question.
A survey of literature reveals that there are different choices
of wavelets in power system applications. In power quality
assessment, db4 is used in [1] and Morlet in [2]. In power
system protection wavelet transform has been used extensively
in several protection areas. The voltage and current transient
waveforms are analyzed using db4 in [3] to find out the fault
location. Reference [4] presents a high-speed protection
scheme, transient positional protection (TPP), for power
transmission lines using Morlet wavelet. For the purpose of
fault detection and classification, db4 is proposed in [5] and
db8 is implemented in [6]. A scheme for fault identification
during power swings employing db5 is developed in [7]. In [8]
a comparison is done between the performance of different
mother wavelets, db4, bior3.1, coiflets 4 (coif4) and symlets 5
(sym5), when used for the purpose of high impedance fault
detection. The comparison results show that, db4 and sym5
are appropriate for detection of HIF (High Impedance Fault)
in transmission line. Wavelet transform has also been applied
for the protection of series compensated line in [9,10]. The
A.I. Megahed, A. Monem Moussa and H. B. Elrefaie are with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Alexandria, Alexandria,
Egypt(e-mail: megahed@ieee.org; aymousa1@yahoo.com).
Y.M. Marghany is protection engineer in Amreya Petroleum Refining
Company (e-mail: yass1_aprco@yahoo.com)
©2008 IEEE.
first one employs Meyer. The second one presents a method
for the boundary protection of series-compensated lines and
fault classification using db4 and db1.
As reported in [1-10], researchers agreed on the object
which is using wavelet transform in electrical power system
transients analysis. However, they differed in the type of
wavelet used. Reference [1] shows that for short and fast
transient disturbances, db4 and db6 wavelets are the best,
while for slow transient disturbances; db8 and db10 are
particularly good. The db4 wavelet is then chosen in [1] for
fast transient because it is the most localized in time. On the
other hand, it is shown in [6] that db8 is more suitable in
comparison with db4 wavelet in representing the transient
signals because it is smoother and more oscillatory in nature.
Although, there have been a great effort in these references
to prove that one wavelet is more suitable than another, there
have not been a comprehensive analysis involving a number of
wavelets to prove the point of view suggested. Also, the
method of comparison among them is not unified, such that a
general conclusion is reached.
In this paper an algorithm is presented to choose a suitable
mother wavelet for power system fault transients. The method
is based on the root mean square difference (error) between
the original signal and the reconstructed signal. The paper also
shows the deviation between the coefficients of Matlab db-
wavelet and theoretical db-wavelet. It also shows the effect of
this deviation on power system transient analysis.
II. CRITERION FOR CHOOSING A SUITABLE WAVELET
FOR POWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS
A. Wavelet Transform
The term wavelet means a small wave. The smallness refers
to the condition that this (window) function is of finite length
(compactly supported). The wave refers to the condition that
this function is oscillatory. The wavelet transform is a
powerful mathematical tool to analyze a non-stationary signal
(e.g. power system transient signals) as it gives a good
localization in time at high frequencies and good localization
in frequency at low frequencies.
The wavelet transform has a digitally implemental
counterpart called the Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT).
The DWT involves two fundamental equations, scaling and
wavelet functions as shown in (1,2). The scaling function is
associated with FIR-LPF (Finite Impulse Response Low Pass
Filter) with filter coefficients {h(n), n € Z}. The wavelet
function is associated with FIR-HPF (Finite Impulse Response
High Pass Filter) with filter coefficients {g (n), n € Z} as
shown in Fig. 1. [11,12].

d1[n]
g[n] 2
co[n]
g[n] 2 d2[n]
h[n] 2 c1[n]
h[n] 2 c2[n]
Fig. 1. Two signal decomposition levels of co[n].
φ (t ) = 2 ∑ h(n ) φ (2t − n ) (1)
n the wavelet must be localized in time and oscillate rapidly
ψ (t ) = 2 ∑ g (n ) φ (2t − n )
(2)
n LPF and HPF filters. However, a very short filter length leads
In Fig.1 co[n] denotes the samples of a continues signal x(t),
the output c1[n] is a smoothed version of co[n] and d1[n] is a
detailed version of co[n]. The next higher scale of
decomposition is now based on the signal c1[n] and the
decompositions are performed in the same way.
B. Choice of a Suitable Wavelet
The choice of a suitable wavelet for power system transient
study depends on the waveform shape of the signal. The
chosen wavelet must be close to the analyzed signal. Hence, it
gives a prefect reconstruction with few decomposition levels.
The chosen wavelet must be orthonormal with FIR filter. The
orthonormality is important because:
1- It implies that the energy content of a signal is
preserved through the wavelet transform; therefore
the transient signals are not missing any information
through the transformation.
2- It allows for multiresolution analysis (MRA),
therefore, the WT have different analysis in different
scales to extract high and low frequency details of the
transient signals.
3- The inner product of the signal with the orthonormal
basis obtains the wavelet coefficients.
The necessary and sufficient conditions for orthonormality
are:
⎧1 if n = 0
∑ h(m ) h(m − 2n ) = δ (n ) = ⎨ (3)
⎩0 otherwise
∑ g (m ) h (m − 2 n ) = 0 ( 4)
where m, n ∈ Z , and Z is a positive integer number.
To ensure the orthogonality and perfect reconstruction
(PR), h(n) and g(n) must satisfy the following condition :
g [n ] = ±(− 1) h[N − n ]
n
( 5)
where N-odd and N ∈ Z .
FIR filter is used to provide a compact support which means
that φ(t) and ψ(t) must be zero outside the interval [0 , N-1]
[12]. The compact support propriety provides a window
technique which is very useful for transient signal analysis
(nonstationary signal).
FIR filters must have number of zeros at ω = π (Z = -1) to
provide a measure of smoothness (regularity condition). The
regularity condition propriety provides a smoothness of the
wavelet function. The smooth wavelet gives a good
representation of transients in the signal.
2
FIR filter is a causal filter, which uses only the present and
past of the input [13]. The causality property is used for fast
detection of transients in power system using sample by
sample technique.
The order of wavelet corresponds to the filter length. As the
filter length increases, better approximation is obtained.
However, higher number of coefficients smoothes the output
decomposition which leads to indistinguishable transient.
For short and fast transient disturbances in power systems,
within a very short period of time. This means short length of
to a blockness problem [11].
For dyadic MRA, the minimum filter order is equal to two
coefficients. However, for more freedom and to eliminate the
blockness problem, the filter length must be greater than or
equal to 4 coefficients [11].
From the above discussion, the wavelet must be
orthonormal with FIR filter. The filter length is not suppose to
be less than four coefficients and not much longer. The
chosen wavelet must give a prefect reconstruction. It means
that, the reconstructed signal estimated from the chosen
wavelet must be close to the analyzed one.
III. FORMULATION OF PROBLEM
Consider a three-phase transmission line, Clark
transformation matrix is used to transfer the phase signals into
their modal components in order to uncouple the mutual
coupling between phases as follows [3]:
S mod e = T S phase (6)
where T is the Clark transformation matrix, S mod e
and S phase are the modal and phase signals vectors (voltage
and current).
The first mode (mode 0) is usually referred to as the ground
mode, and its magnitude is significant only during faults
having a path to ground. The second mode (mode 1 and mode
2) is known as the aerial mode. It is present for any kind of
fault. In this paper mode 1 is used for signal analysis as signal
reconstruction error was the least when using mode 1. Hence,
it has been decided to use mode 1 rather than using the phase
quantities or the other modes.
In this paper, the choice of a suitable wavelet is based on
the prefect reconstruction of the power system signal. The
error between the original signal (x) and reconstructed
signal ( x̂ ) should be the smallest for prefect reconstruction.
The reconstruction criterion is evaluated using the most
common method, which is the root mean square difference
method given in (7).
N −1 2
ε error = x − xˆ = ∑ x ( n) − xˆ ( n) (7)
n= 0
The chosen filter length is not less than four coefficients
and not longer than sixteen coefficients. In this paper a
comparison is done between
 3

Phase signals coif2 1.07E-07

sym3 6.62E-08
db3 6.62E-08
Modal transformation db8 2.24E-08
Modal signal (x) db5 1.86E-08
db7 1.52E-08

WAVELET NAME
Wavelet decomposition and db4 1.20E-08
reconstruction by using db6 1.15E-08
db2-db8, sym2-sym8, coif1 and coif 2 coif1 1.01E-08

Reconstructed signals ( x̂ )
sym6 8.58E-09
sym7 8.12E-09
sym2 6.65E-09
Calculation of error between x
db2 6.65E-09
and x̂ according to (7) sym4 5.23E-09
sym8 1.95E-09
sym5 1.80E-09
Check for minimum error to 0.00E+00 2.00E-08 4.00E-08 6.00E-08 8.00E-08 1.00E-07 1.20E-07
find the most suitable wavelet ERROR

Proper wavelet -a-

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the proposed wavelet choice algorithm.
coif2 8.42E-07

db2 – db8, sym2 – sym8, coif1 and coif2 (these wavelets sym3 4.98E-07
db3 4.98E-07
satisfy the conditions indicated in Section II). Fig. 2 shows the db8 2.59E-07
flowchart of the proposed algorithm for choosing the most db5 1.74E-07

suitable wavelet according to the above explained criterion. WAVELET NAME

db7 1.20E-07
db6 1.02E-07
The program is written in Matlab and the wavelets used are db4 9.90E-08
those implemented in Matlab. coif1 7.41E-08
sym6 6.63E-08
sym7 6.18E-08
IV. SIMULATION sym2 5.14E-08
db2 5.14E-08

The PSCAD program is used to simulate the transient sym4

sym5
4.09E-08
1.37E-08
signals resulting from faults in the power system. Fig. 3 shows sym8 7.28E-09
the system configuration used in the simulation. The relay is 0.00E+00 2.00E-07 4.00E-07 6.00E-07 8.00E-07 1.00E-06
located at bus bar A. The transmission line model used is the ERROR

frequency dependent model, which is useful whenever the

transient behavior of the line is important.
Several types of faults are simulated, such as phase-to-
ground, phase-to-phase and three phases-to-ground faults. The
ground fault resistance is varied from 10 ohm to 300 ohm.
Two fault locations are considered at 50 and 350 Km from A.
A. Case1
In case 1 a sampling frequency of 3.2 KHz (64 sample /
cycle) is used in the simulation studies. The algorithm shown
in Fig. 2 is applied for all simulated faults. A comparison
between different wavelets (in terms of the least reconstructed
signal error) is shown in Fig. 4 for phase A to ground fault at
50 Km from bus A with a ground fault resistance 10 ohm. It
can be noticed that sym5 has the least error in case of
analyzing the voltage signals while sym8 has the least error in
case of analyzing the current signals.
400 Km
A B
~ ~
4 GVA 10 GVA
500 KV
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the simulated system
-b-
Fig. 4. Comparison between wavelets in terms of reconstruction error for phase
A to ground fault. (a) Voltage signal. (b) Current signal.
B. Case2
In this case, 200 KHz (4000samples/cycle) sampling
frequency is used, for the proposed algorithm and different
fault signals are considered. It is found that, sym5 wavelet is
more adequate for voltage and current signals. Fig. 5
illustrates the comparison between several types of wavelets in
terms of the reconstructed signal error for phase B to ground
fault with 300 ohm fault resistance at 50 km from bus A.
Case1 and case2 are applied to different fault types (i.e.
phase-to-phase, phase to ground and three phase to ground) in
four conditions 10 and 300 ohm fault resistance at 50 and 350
km from bus A. This is in order to find out which wavelet has
given the smallest error at every run. It has been found that
sym5 wavelet is the most convenient wavelet for power
system transient analysis when considering Matlab wavelets.
The total number of faults used is thirty eight of which
89.47% indicated the suitability of sym5 for voltage signals
and 71.03% for current signals as shown in Fig. 6.
 4

coif2 2.25E-08
sym3 2.19E-08
80.00%
71.05%
db3 2.19E-08
70.00%
db8 5.19E-09

VERIFYING PERCENTAG
db5 4.76E-09
60.00%
db7 3.11E-09
WAVELET NAME

db4 3.02E-09 50.00%

db6 2.78E-09
coif1 2.34E-09 40.00%
sym2 2.19E-09 28.95%
db2 2.19E-09 30.00%
sym6 1.24E-09
sym7 1.00E-09 20.00%
sym4 7.79E-10
sym8 2.89E-10
10.00%
sym5 2.58E-10
0.00%
0.00E+00 5.00E-09 1.00E-08 1.50E-08 2.00E-08 2.50E-08
sym5 sym8
ERROR
WAVELET NAME
-a-
sym3 5.02E-08 -b-
db3 5.02E-08 Fig. 6. The percentage of the most suitable wavelet as obtained from the
coif2 2.07E-08 proposed algorithm. (a)Voltage signal (b) Current signal.
db4 9.12E-09
db5 9.08E-09
V. DAUBECHIES WAVELET
sym2 5.11E-09
WAVELET NAME

db2 5.11E-09
db8 4.64E-09 Daubechies Wavelets are regular orthogonal and compact
db6 4.56E-09 support with minimum size for any given number of P-
db7 3.91E-09 vanishing moments. Daubechies used the flowing relationships
coif1 2.05E-09
to satisfy wavelets conditions [14,15,16].
sym4 1.08E-09
p
⎛ 1 + e −iω ⎞
( )
sym6 7.60E-10
sym7 7.15E-10 H (ω ) = 2 ⎜ ⎟ Q e −iω (8)
sym8 2.13E-10 ⎜ 2 ⎟
sym5 1.76E-10
⎝ ⎠
p
0.00E+00 1.00E-08 2.00E-08 3.00E-08 4.00E-08 5.00E-08 6.00E-08 ⎛ 1 + e −iω ⎞
ERROR The part ⎜ ⎟ to provide for regularity
⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
-b-
Fig. 5. Comparison between wavelets in terms of reconstruction error for phase (zeros at ω = π ) and Q(e-iω) to provide for orthogonality.
B to ground fault.(a) Voltage signal.(b) Current signal. H(ω) must satisfy the quadrature condition to provide the
orthogonality condition:
2 2
H (ω ) + H (ω + π ) = 2
100.00%
89.47% (9 )
90.00%
80.00% The quadrature condition can be written as a poly- nomial
VERIFYING PERCENTAG

70.00%
in y as follows:
60.00% (1 − y ) p p( y ) + y p p(1 − y ) = 1 (10)
50.00% where |H(ω)| is an even function. The polynomial in y
2

40.00% can be defined as sin2(ω/2). The polynomial is expressed

30.00%
as:
p ⎛1
P ( y ) = P1 ( y ) + y R⎜ − y ⎟
20.00% ⎞
7.90% (11)
10.00% 2.63% 2 ⎝ ⎠
0.00% where
db2 sym5 sym8 p −1 ⎛ p − 1 + k ⎞ k
WAVELET NAME P1 ( y ) = ∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ y (12)
k =0 ⎝ k ⎠
-a- For minimum degree R(y) =0, then

p −1 ⎛ p − 1 + k ⎞ k
P (y) = ∑⎜ ⎟⎟ y (13)
k =0 ⎜⎝ k ⎠
 5

−1 ⎞
2 ω ⎛⎜ 2 − Z − Z ⎟
coif2 8.75E-08
y = sin = (14)
2 ⎜⎝ ⎟ sym3 5.62E-08
4 ⎠ db3 5.62E-08
Then t hdb8 1.88E-08

⎛ 2 − Z − Z −1 ⎞
( )
db8 1.88E-08

P⎜
⎜ ⎟
( )
⎟ = Q Z Q Z −1 (15) db5 1.55E-08

⎝ 4 ⎠ db7 1.20E-08

where Q (Z ) : Zeros inside the unit circle

db4 1.01E-08
and db6

( )
8.55E-09
−1 coif1 7.92E-09

WAVELET NAME
QZ : Zeros outside the unit circle
sym6 6.45E-09
For minimum phase choose Q (Z ) . sym2 5.81E-09

p p db2 5.81E-09
⎛ 1 − Z −1 ⎞ p−1 ⎛ p − 1 + k ⎞⎛ 2 − Z − Z −1 ⎞
h (Z ) = 2 ⎜
sym7
⎟ ∑ ⎜
5.78E-09
⎟⎟⎜ ⎟ (16)
⎜ 2 ⎟ k =0 ⎜ k ⎜ 4 ⎟ sym4 3.94E-09
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ sym8 1.48E-09
The above explained algorithm has been implemented in sym5 1.34E-09
this paper to calculate the coefficients of the theoretical db- t hdb7 5.25E-10

wavelet. The obtained coefficients are then compared with t hdb6 4.99E-10

those of Matlab db-wavelet as shown in Table I. It can be seen t hdb5 1.54E-11

that there is a difference between the coefficients in the last t hdb3 5.83E-12

three digits. Even though the difference in coefficients is very t hdb2 5.76E-12

small, the usage of the coefficients obtained from the t hdb4 3.05E-12

algorithm presented above (theoretical db-wavelet) gave better 0. 00E+00 2.00E-08 4.00E-08 6.00E-08 8.00E-08 1.00E-07

ERROR
results in terms of error as will be shown later.

TABLE I -a-
MATLAB AND THEORETICAL DAUBECHIES WAVELET
coif2 3.54E-07
sym3 2.05E-07
P db-Matlab db-Theoretical
db3 2.05E-07
0.48296291314469 0.48296291314453 t hdb8 1.02E-07
0.83651630373746 0.83651630373781
2 db8 1.02E-07
0.22414386804186 0.22414386804201 db5 7.18E-08
-0.12940952255092 -0.12940952255126 db7 4.95E-08
0.33267055295096 0.33267055295008 db6 4.20E-08
0.80689150931334 0.80689150931109 db4 4.14E-08

0.45987750211933 0.45987750211849 coif1 3.20E-08

WAVELET NAME

3
-0.13501102001039 -0.13501102001025 sym6 2.89E-08

-0.08544127388225 -0.08544127388203 sym7 2.74E-08

sym2 2.20E-08
0.03522629188210 0.03522629188571
db2 2.20E-08
0.23037781330885 0.23037781330890
sym4 1.76E-08
0.71484657055254 0.71484657055292 sym5 6.01E-09
4 . . sym8 2.25E-09
. . t hdb6 2.14E-09
-0.01059740178499 -0.01059740178507 t hdb7 2.11E-09
. . . t hdb5 6.92E-11

. . . t hdb3 2.52E-11
t hdb2 2.14E-11
. . .
t hdb4 1.23E-11
0.05441584224308 0.05441584224314
0.31287159091446 0.31287159091448 0.00E+00 1.00E-07 2.00E-07 3.00E-07 4.00E-07
ERROR
. .
8 . .
-b-
. . Fig. 7. Case 1 comparison between wavelets and reconstructed error for a three
0.00067544940600 0.00067544940645 phase to ground fault with 300 ohm and 350 Km from bus A. (a) Voltage
-0.00011747678400 -0.00011747678412 signal.(b) Current signal.
 6

sym3 1.4398E-08 60.00%

db3 1.4398E-08 52.63%
coif2 1.3618E-08
50.00% 44.74%

VERIFYING PERCENTAG
t hdb8 1.3618E-09
db8 3.0501E-09
40.00%
db5 3.0501E-09
db4 2.9749E-09
30.00%
db6 1.8445E-09
sym2 1.7045E-09
20.00%
db2 1.4993E-09
WAVELET NAME

coif1 1.443E-09
10.00%
db7 1.2178E-09 2.36%
sym6 8.14E-10
0.00%
sym4 5.1439E-10
thdb2 thdb4 thdb5
sym7 4.1801E-10
WAVELET NAME
sym8 1.8555E-10
sym5 1.7646E-10
t hdb7 7.7375E-11 -a-
t hdb6 7.5488E-11
t hdb3
90
3.5526E-11
78.95
t hdb2 1.8421E-11 80
t hdb5 1.2569E-11

VERIFYING PERCENTAG
70
t hdb4 1.2234E-11
60
0.00E+00 5.00E-09 1.00E-08 1.50E-08 2.00E-08
ERROR 50

40
-a-
30
sym3 6.59E-08
20 15.79
db3 6.59E-08
10 5.26
coif2 2.62E-08
t hdb8 1.52E-08 0
db8 1.52E-08 thdb4 thdb5 thdb6
db4 1.24E-08 WAVELET NAME
db5 1.07E-08
sym2 6.67E-09
-b-
db2 6.67E-09
Fig. 9. The percentage of the most suitable wavelet as obtained from the
db6 5.35E-09
WAVELET NAME

proposed algorithm. (a)Voltage signal (b) Current signal.

db7 4.84E-09
coif1 2.44E-09
wavelet for power system fault transient analysis. Figures 7, 8
sym4 1.26E-09
show a comparison between wavelets (including the
sym7 7.58E-10
theoretical ones) for case1 and case2, respectively.
sym6 7.42E-10
sym8
The simulation cases indicate the suitability of the
6.61E-10
t hdb7 3.78E-10
theoretical db4 (thdb4) wavelet for voltage signal analysis by
t hdb3 2.77E-10
a percentage of 52.63% and the theoretical db5 (thdb5)
sym5 2.46E-10 wavelet for current signal analysis by 78.95% as shown in
t hdb2 1.40E-10 Fig.9. As case1 and case2 have different sampling rates, it can
t hdb6 1.37E-10 be concluded that the obtained results will remain the same at
t hdb4 1.21E-10 different sampling rates. However, further tests should be
t hdb5 9.73E-11 made to confirm this assumption.
0.0E+00 2.0E-08 4.0E-08 6.0E-08 8.0E-08
ERROR VI. CONCLUSION

-b- Choosing or designing the right wavelet is crucial for a

Fig. 8. Case2 comparison between wavelets in terms of reconstructed error for
phase A to ground fault with 10 ohm and at 350 Km from bus A. (a) Voltage
signal. (b) Current signal.
The theoretical db-wavelet (thdb) is used in the simulation
cases shown in section IV (case1 and case2) to obtain the right
successful wavelet transform application but choosing the
right wavelet for a specific application has been an
unanswered question.
This paper present an algorithm to determine a suitable
wavelet for power system fault transient analysis based on the
 7

minimum root mean square difference between the original

and reconstructed signal.
There is a deviation between the coefficients of Matlab
Daubechies and theoretical Daubechies wavelets. Theoretical
Daubechies wavelet is more adequate for power system fault
transient analysis as it gives the least error. The results show
that thdb4 is more suitable for voltage signals while thdb5 for
current signals.
Professor Emeritus at Alexandria University, Egypt. His research interests are
digital protection and power system analysis.
Hesham B. Elrefaie was born in Mansora, Egypt in 1962. He received the
B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Alexandria
University, Alexandria, Egypt in 1984, 1988 and 1994. He is currently an
Assistant Professor at Alexandria University, Egypt. His research interest is
digital protection.

Yasser M. Marghany was born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1973. He received the

VII. REFERENCES B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from Alexandria University,
Alexandria, Egypt in 1998 and 2003. He is currently working towards his Ph.D.
[1] S. Santoso, E.J. Powers, W.M. Crady, and P. Hofman, “Power quality degree at Alexandria University
assessment via wavelet transform analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
Vol.11, no.2,pp. 924-930, Apr.1996.
[2] G.T. Heydt, and A. W. Galli, “Transient power quality problems analyzed
using wavelets,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 908-915,
Apr. 1997.
[3] F. H. Magnago and A. Abur, “Fault location using wavelets,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., Vol. 13, no.4, pp. 1475-1480, Oct.1998.
[4] D. J. Zhang, Q. H. Wu, and Z.Q. Bo, “Transient positional protection of
transmission lines using complex wavelets analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 705-710, July 2003.
[5] P. M. Silveira, R. Seara, and H. H. Zorn, “An approach using wavelet
transform for fault type identification in digital relaying,” in Proc. IEEE
Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, Vol. 2, pp. 937-942, July 18-22,
1999.
[6] D. Chanda, N. K. Kishore, and A. K. Sinha, “Application of wavelet
multiresolution analysis for classification of faults on transmission lines,”
in Proc. TENCON2003 Conference on Convergent Technologies for
Asia–Pacific Region, Vol. 4, pp. 1464 – 1469, Oct 15-17,2003.
[7] X. Lin, P. Liu, and S. Cheng, “Effective transmission line fault detection
during power swing with wavelet transform,” in Proc, IEEE Power Eng.
Soc. Winder Meeting , Vol. 3, pp. 1950-1955,Jan. 23-27, 2002.
[8] C. H. Kim, H. Kim, Y- H. Ko, S. H. Byun, R.K. Aggarwal, and A.T.
Johns, “ A novel fault–detection technique of high–impedance arcing
faults in transmission lines using the wavelet transform,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 921-928, Oct. 2002.
[9] A.K. Pradhan, A. Routary, S. Pati, and D.K. Pradhan, “Wavelet fuzzy
combined approach for fault classification of a series–compensated
transmission line,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1612-
1618, Oct. 2004.
[10] A. I. Megahed, A. M. Moussa, and A. E. Bayoumy, “Usage of wavelet
transform in the protection of series–compensated transmission lines,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1213-1221, Jul. 2006.
[11] A. N. Akansu and R. A. Haddad, Multiresolution Signal Decomposition.
London: Harcourt Place, 2001.
[12] S. g. Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing. London: Chestnut
Hill, 1998.
[13] S. K. Mitra, Digital Signal Processing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
[14] C.S. Burrus, R. A. Gopinath, and H. Guo, Introduction to Wavelets and
Wavelet Transform. New Jersey: Prentic-Hall, 1998.
[15] J. C. Goswami and N. K. Chan, Fundamentals of Wavelets Canada:
Wiley, 1999.
[16] MATLAB User’s Guide Version 6.5, Math Works, Inc June 2002.

Ashraf I. Megahed (S’95-M’98) was born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1969. He

received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from Alexandria
University, Alexandria, Egypt in 1991 and 1994 and the Ph.D. degree from the
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada in 1998. He is currently an Assistant
Professor at Alexandria University, Egypt. His research interests are digital
protection, application of neural networks and wavelet transform in protection.

A. Monem Moussa was born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1944. He received the

B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Alexandria
University, Alexandria, Egypt in 1965, 1968 and 1973. He is currently a