888 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 66, NO.

5, MAY 2017

Arc Fault Detection Method Based on CZT

Low-Frequency Harmonic Current Analysis
Giovanni Artale, Antonio Cataliotti, Member, IEEE, Valentina Cosentino, Dario Di Cara, Member, IEEE,
Salvatore Nuccio, and Giovanni Tinè, Member, IEEE

Abstract— This paper presents a method for the detection of
series arc faults in electrical circuits, which has been developed
starting from an experimental characterization of the arc fault
phenomenon and an arcing current study in several test con-
ditions. Starting from this, the authors have found that is it
possible to suitably detect arc faults by means of a high-resolution
low-frequency harmonic analysis of current signal, based on chirp
zeta transform, and a proper set of indicators. The proposed
method effectiveness is shown by means of experimental tests,
which were carried in both arcing and nonarcing conditions
and in the presence of different loads, chosen according to the
UL 1699 standard requirements.
Index Terms— Arc discharges, arc fault
interrupter (AFCI), arc fault detection, electrical
fault diagnosis, home protection, interrupters, power
harmonics, power system measurements, series arcs, UL
I. I NTRODUCTION
even when arcs are not occurring; in other cases, arc
fault characteristics are masked or attenuated by appliances’
current absorptions; furthermore, arcs are generally nonsta-
tionary and sporadic, and thus segments of arcing current
can coexist with segments of normal (nonarcing) current. The
issue is particularly complicated in the case of series arcs,
while the loads influence is minimal in the case of parallel
(or line-to-neutral) arc occurrence [6]–[8]. Some examples
of “masking loads” are vacuum cleaners, lamps controlled
by snap switches or dimmers, electronic variable-speed
electric hand-held shop tools, and electronic switching mode
circuit
safety, power suppliers [1], [9]. In these cases, the AFCI may not
system trip, even if an arc fault is present (trip failure) or it may trip
1699. even when arc is not present (unwanted trip). UL 1699 [1]
does not specify any methodology for arc fault detection, and
thus AFCIs can implement different operating principles.
The scientific literature in the field mainly deals with

A RC faults are unintentional and harmful conditions in

electrical circuits, which may lead to fire ignition; they
can have different origins, such as aged or damaged wires,
worn electrical insulation, and misused or damaged electrical
appliances. In order to protect homes against ac arc faults,
arc fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs) have been introduced
in U.S., and since 2011, the National Electrical Code (NEC)
has required their installation in all living areas. Furthermore,
NEC 2011 has introduced AFCI protection also for photo-
voltaic (PV) systems; in fact, arc faults can also occur in dc
electric circuits, with the same dangerous consequences for
dwelling units or commercial buildings. The AFCI require-
ments for home protection are covered by the UL standard
UL 1699 [1]–[3], while UL 1699B covers dc AFCIs for PV
applications [4], [5].
The detection of an arc fault is not a simple task [6]–[18].
For ac systems, main problems arise because in some cases
appliances currents can be very similar to arcing currents,
Manuscript received September 6, 2016; accepted October 7, 2016. Date of
publication January 11, 2017; date of current version April 5, 2017. This work
was supported by STMicroelectronics, through the framework of two research
contracts with the Department DIEETCAM (now DEIM) of the University of
Palermo (Research title: “Arc fault circuit interrupter”). The Associate Editor
coordinating the review process was Dr. John Lataire.
G. Artale, A. Cataliotti, V. Cosentino, and S. Nuccio are with the Department
of Energy, Information Engineering and Mathematic Models, University of
Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: giovanni.artale@unipa.it; acataliotti@
ieee.org; valentina.cosentino@unipa.it; salvatore.nuccio@unipa.it).
D. Di Cara and G. Tinè are with the Institute of Intelligent System
for Automation, National Research Council, 90141 Palermo, Italy (e-mail:
dicara@pa.issia.cnr.it; tine@pa.issia.cnr.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIM.2016.2627248
0018-9456 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
arc characterization approaches [9]–[18] and several patents
are related to devices and methods for arc fault detection.
However, a comprehensive and well-established solution is
still missing and research is still in course to find proper
methodologies for detecting arc faults and distinguishing them
from normal conditions (even in the presence of masking
loads). In the following, a detailed analysis of the state-of-the-
art methodologies is presented, showing that some problems
in the field are still open.
In this framework, Artale et al. [19] have carried out
an experimental characterization of arc phenomena, with a
particular focus on series arcs. This study led to the iden-
tification of a proper set of indicators that can be used for
arc fault detection; such indicators can be obtained by means
of a high-resolution low-frequency harmonic analysis of the
current [20]. Starting from such parameters, an arc fault
detection method has been patented in 2015 [21].
In this paper, the novel arc fault detection method is
presented and its effectiveness is shown in several load condi-
tions, in accordance with the UL 1699 standard requirements
for unwanted tripping tests and operation inhibition tests.
If compared with other approaches, the proposed method can
allow one to better face some problems related to signal acqui-
sition and processing, in terms of both sampling frequency and
observation window length choice. This paper is organized
as follows. Section II provides a survey of the state-of-the-
art of arc fault detection solutions. The proposed method is
described in Section III. The results of the method validation
are presented in Section IV.
ARTALE et al.: ARC FAULT DETECTION METHOD BASED ON CZT
II. S TATE - OF - THE -A RT S URVEY OF
A RC FAULT D ETECTION
As already mentioned, several patents can be found
concerning the devices and methods for the detection of arc
faults. Generally speaking, they are mostly aimed at detecting
of one or more distinguishing arc fault characteristics in the
current waveform, such as “shoulders” (i.e., nearly flat zero-
current segments around the normal zero crossing of the
waveform), high rates of rise and peaks, current amounts lower
than normal values (because of the voltage drop across the
arc), and high-frequency broadband noise (from the tens of
kilohertz to about 1 GHz). A detailed patents analysis allowed
to distinguish the various approaches, putting in evidence their
main characteristics and limitations [21]. In broad outline,
many solutions make use of the analysis of current waveform
and its first derivative (di/dt), in order to individuate peaks,
shoulders, and high rates of rise (some examples of these
approaches can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 7 068 480, U.S. Pat.
No. 5 818 237, U.S. Pat. No. 6 388 849, U.S. Pat. No. 6 031 699,
U.S. Pat. No. 6 198 611, U.S. Pat. No. 6 972 572, U.S. Pat.
No. 5 691 869, and U.S. Pat. No. 5 963 405). High-frequency
broadband noise analysis is also used, from a few kilohertz
to hundreds of kilohertz or even megahertz (some examples
of these approaches can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5 835 321,
U.S. Pat. No. 5 706 159, U.S. Pat. No. 5 729 145, U.S. Pat.
No. 6 362 628, and U.S. Pat. No. 5 805 397). In other cases,
nonperiodicity of the signal is analyzed (see, for example,
U.S. Pat. No. 6 388 849 or U.S. Pat. No. 7 003 435). Several
aforementioned solutions make use of more than one detection
methods, in order to reduce the risk of unwanted trips or
failures to trip; thus in many cases, the arc detector verifies
the simultaneous presence of different arcing characteristics
(see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 7 110 864, U.S. Pat.
No. 7 307 820, and U.S. Pat. No. 7 227 729). Some of these
solutions are based not only on the analysis of the first
derivative but also on the second derivative of the current
signal. They can combine the broadband noise information
with the analysis of current fundamental component (see,
for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6 088 205). In other cases, arcs
are detected by comparing the current waveform charac-
teristics with predetermined thresholds representing typical
arcing currents(see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 7 068 480).
In many cases, filtering techniques are used, since digital
signal processing techniques would require high sampling
frequencies to perform a correct measurement of high-
frequency components (such types of solutions can be found
in U.S. Pat. No. 5 185 684 and U.S. Pat. No. 5 452 223 and
U.S. Pat. 5 561 605, U.S. Pat. No. 5 706 159, and U.S. Pat.
No. 5 815 352). Other solutions make use of counting-based
techniques. The current signal is converted into sequences
of pulses, which are generated when an arcing characteristic
exceeds the predetermined threshold; the pulses are then
counted up to a given threshold that is meant to identify the
arcing condition. In other cases, the pulses are used to charge
a capacitor; in this case, the threshold is a predetermined
level of charge of such a capacitor. For example, counting-
based solutions can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5 682 101,
889
U.S. Pat.6 246 556, and U.S. Pat.6 259 996, or U.S. Pat.
No. 5 839 092.
Only few methods make use of low-frequency analysis,
mostly to fix some thresholds to distinguish the arc fault occur-
rence from a normal operating condition. Current harmonics
in given frequency bands are compared with some reference
values, stored in device memory, which are meant to represent
the typical harmonic content of common loads. The differences
are compared with threshold values in order to detect the
arc occurrence. As regards this, in U.S. Pat. No. 7 062 388,
a frequency harmonic identifier for series arcs detection is
described, which makes use of fast Fourier transform (FFT)
analysis. The current harmonic content is compared with
one or more reference signal bands, which are meant to
represent common loads. If harmonic current does not match
any reference signal band, it is recognized to be a series arc
signal.
The patent analysis puts in evidence the following problems
and limitations. Broadband analysis requires the employment
of analogical solutions, mainly based on filtering. In fact,
digital systems would require high sampling frequency and
wide observation window, where the signal should be station-
ary; this is in contrast with the sporadic and nonstationary
nature of the arcing phenomenon. In the cases in which a
low-frequency analysis is performed, it is applied to current
signal derivative (di/dt) or it is used to fix some thresholds
for di/dt analysis and the discrimination of arcing condi-
tions against normal situations. In other cases, low-frequency
analysis is used to compare the current harmonic content
with predetermined reference signal bands, which represent
common loads. This require a prior knowledge of the electric
circuit, in each and every working condition, in order to
determine the reference signal bands, representing all the
possible load configurations. Another problem is that hard-
ware solutions would require the employment of sophisticated
signal processing systems, with high processing speed and/or
sampling frequencies, especially when broadband measure-
ments are involved. The systems for the signal acquisition
often include current transformers, which may have a poor
frequency response and a low signal-to-noise ratio. Better
results may be obtained with shunts, which may not allow
the adequate insulation between power circuit and metering
section. Finally, solutions involving spectral analysis make
reference to traditional algorithms, such as FFT, which require
a stationary signal and a wide observation window, in order
to achieve adequate spectral resolution. These requirements
may not be fulfilled for the analysis of arcing signals, which
are typically nonstationary, especially in large observation
windows. Finally, the patent survey puts in evidence that
dedicated solutions are often proposed for the detection of
arc fault against those particular situations in which normal
appliances currents are similar to arcing currents, even when
arcs are not occurring; comprehensive solutions would be more
useful for practical application, instead.
III. P ROPOSED S OLUTION
The patent survey showed that most methods are focused
on high-frequency components or time-domain analysis.
890 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 66, NO. 5, MAY 2017
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed strategy.
On the other hand, the possibility to focus the attention on
low-frequency spectral analysis would be advantageous.
In fact, in the viewpoint of implementing digital sig-
nal processing solutions, the measurement of low-frequency
components would entail low sampling frequency require-
ments. With this in mind, Artale et al. [19] carried out an
experimental characterization of the arc phenomenon, in the
case of series arcs and in the presence of masking loads,
in accordance with the UL 1699 standard requirements for
“unwanted tripping tests” and “operation inhibition tests.”
The study was focused on low-frequency harmonic analysis
of arcing currents, in order to find some markers that can
be significant for the purpose of arc detection. To effec-
tively study of the aforementioned characteristics, a proper
spectral analysis algorithm was required, in order to ensure
a high-frequency resolution even with short observation
window (SOW). As regards this, it is known that the most
common signal processing algorithms for frequency-domain
analysis [such as those based on discrete Fourier trans-
form (DFT) or FFT] require the signal to be stationary
during the observation window [22]. On the other hand, arc
signal is typically nonstationary, and thus the observation
window should be as small as possible, in order to keep
valid the condition of stationary signal. This can cause a poor
DFT/FFT spectral resolution; in order to improve it, inter-
polation algorithms and/or zero padding techniques could be
used [23], [24], [25]–[31], but they can lead to some problems,
such as tonal interference between different spectral com-
ponents (especially low-frequency harmonics, interharmonics,
and noise) or high computational and memory requirements.
In order to face this issue, the proposed solution has
been developed by using the chirp zeta transform (CZT)
algorithm [23]. In comparison with DFT or FFT, CZT allows
one to perform spectral analysis in a smaller frequency band
f W and with a better spectral resolution,  f CZT = f W /N
(being N the number of signal samples) [23], [24]. For
example, for a current frequency of 50 Hz, and a sampling
frequency f S = 10 kHz, an observation window is of 0.08 s
(N = 800) leads to a spectral resolution of 500/800 =
0.625 Hz, in the frequency band f W = [0–500] Hz. With
the same settings, the spectral resolution of the DFT would be
 f DFT = f S = /N = 12.5 Hz.
A. Indicators
The analysis in [19] allowed one to recognize some markers
in the low-frequency spectrum, i.e., specific harmonic compo-
nents and spectral parameters, which can be useful for arc
detection. Starting from this, Artale et al. [20] have identified
the following novel indicators.
1) diff_czt: The mean value of the differences between
the N samples (Sn ) of two low-frequency spectra of
the current, measured in two subsequent observation
ARTALE et al.: ARC FAULT DETECTION METHOD BASED ON CZT 891

Fig. 2. Schematic and main features of the test bench.

Fig. 4. Dimmer (1000-W lamps and firing angle 90°). Experimental

Fig. 3. Resistive load. Experimental results of the proposed strategy. results of the proposed strategy. (a) Current signal. (b) Strategy output:
(a) Current signal. (b) Strategy output: nonarcing (0)/arcing (1). nonarcing (0)/arcing (1).

windows, T (k) and T (k − 1), is given by

diff_IVarm
    

N−1  n( f max ) n( f 4_ max ) 
diff_czt =
1
|Sn T (k) − Sn T (k−1) |. (1) max Sn T (k)|n( f4_
4_ min ) − max S n T (k−1)
| n( f 4_ min ) 
N =   ·100
n( f 4_ max )
n=0
max Sn T (k−1)|n( f4_ min )
2) diff_II_arm, diff_IV_arm, and diff_VI_arm: The differ-
(3)
ences between the maximum values of spectra sam-
ples S in specified frequency intervals [ f 2_min ; f 2_max ], diff_VIarm
    
 n( f max ) n( f 6_ max ) 
[ f 4_min ; f 4_max ], and [ f 6_min ; f 6_max ] around the second, max Sn T (k)|n( f6_ − max S n |
6_ min ) T (k−1) n( f 6_ min )
fourth and sixth harmonics, respectively, are measured in =   ·100.
n( f 6_ max )
two subsequent observation windows, T (k) and T (k−1), max Sn T (k−1) |n( f6_ min )
as follows: (4)
diff_IIarm
     3) NF: Noise floor, evaluated as the mean value of the
 n( f max ) n( f 2_ max ) 
max Sn T (k)|n( f2_
2_ min )
− max S n |
T (k−1) n( f 2_ min )  N  samples of current spectrum, which is obtained
=   ·100 without considering the samples of spectrum lobes of
n( f max )
max Sn T (k−1)|n( f 2_2_ min ) both odd and even harmonic frequencies (which can
(2) be present in both arcing and nonarcing conditions),
892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 66, NO. 5, MAY 2017
Fig. 5. Electric hand-held drill (minimum speed). Experimental results of the proposed strategy and current waveform details. (a) Current signal. (b) Strategy
output: nonarcing (0)/arcing (1). (c) Current signal details, normal. (d) Current signal details, arcing.
is given by
1 
NF =  Sn T (k) .
N  n∈N
4) diff_i: The mean value of the difference between the
N samples of current (i n ) acquired in two subsequent
observation windows, T (k) and T (k − 1), is given by
1 
N−1
diff_i = |i n_T (k) − i n T (k−1) |.
N
n=0
B. Arc Fault Detection Strategy
In [20], it was shown that the behavior of the aforemen-
tioned indicators is indicative of arcing conditions occurrence.
For example, in the transition from normal to arcing condi-
tions, noise floor increases and even harmonics arise (generally
they are absent for most loads); the current is nonstationary,
and thus its characteristics present significant variations in
subsequent observation windows; furthermore, current RMS
decreases because of the voltage drop across the arc. In the
case of a resistive load, such characteristics are clearly
visible; on the other hand, in the presence of masking
loads, they are partially hidden by particular conditions, such
as the presence of even harmonics or interharmonics in
normal (nonarcing) operation. In such cases, arcing condition
can be better detected by means of simultaneous monitoring
of more than one indicators and their comparison in some
subsequent observation windows.
Starting from the aforementioned considerations, a novel arc
fault detection strategy has been developed, which makes use
of the indicators previously mentioned [21]. In broad outline,
this strategy is based on continuous monitoring of the afore-
mentioned indicators in subsequent observation windows and
their comparison with proper thresholds (th) and related limits-
of-variation () values, evaluated as shown in the following.
In normal conditions (no-arcing), such values are updated
during the process, as a function of the actual operating
(5) conditions, which may vary during the normal operation,
depending on the load conditions (for example, in dwelling
units, when appliances are switched OFF/ ON).
A flow chart of the proposed strategy is reported in Fig. 1.
The method makes use of two observation windows for indica-
tor measurements: a short one ( SOW, for example, 2–4 current
(6) cycles) and a long one [long observation window (LOW),
integer multiple of SOW, i.e., LOW = n SOW, for example,
10–20 current cycles and n = 5]. As already mentioned,
the choice of SOWs together with the adoption of CZT
algorithm allows one to perform the spectral analysis with
a suitable frequency resolution and processing a reasonable
number of samples. In Fig. 1, the thin black and large lines
refer to LOW and SOW operations, respectively. In a given
LOW, for each indicator n measurements are made (one for
each SOW) and the mean value of the n measurements is
used to fix th and  values for the indicator; in this way,
th and  values are dynamically determined as a function of
the mean values measured for each indicator. In each LOW,
th and  values updating depends on the results of compar-
isons between the indicators and related thresholds, determined
during the previous LOW. Such comparisons also determine
the strategy response (arcing or no-arcing signaling).
More in detail, with reference to Fig. 1, let us consider
a given iteration k of the algorithm (one LOW). After the
current samples acquisition, the RMS and indicators of (1)–(6)
are measured. The RMS is evaluated in LOW, while the other
indicators are evaluated in SOWs. A first series of comparisons
is then carried out, which involves RMS, diff_i, and diff_czt.
For diff_i and diff_czt, the mean values of the measurements
in each SOW, diff_i(k,j), and diff_czt(k,j) are calculated. The
related th and  values are calculated as a function of the
aforementioned mean values and they are stored for the next
ARTALE et al.: ARC FAULT DETECTION METHOD BASED ON CZT
Fig. 6. Electric hand-held drill (minimum speed). Experimental results of the indicators (a)−(f). (a) diff_czt. (b) diff_i. (c) NF. (d) diff_IIarm. (e) diff_IVarm.
(f) diff_VIarm.
iteration (k + 1); their updating depends on the results of
the comparison between RMS, diff_i(k,j), and diff_czt(k,j) and
related thresholds. In detail, for such comparisons, the th and
 values set during the previous iteration (k − 1) are used;
if the results of comparisons are positive (i.e., within the
limits , no arcing), the th and  values are updated to
the current values (k); otherwise, if the comparison results
are negative (i.e., out of the limits ), the related th and
 values are maintained to the previous values (k − 1).
In addition, the results of RMS, diff_i(k,j), and diff_czt(k,j)
comparisons also determine the th and  values updating
for the second set of indicators (NF, diff_IIarm, diff_IVarm,
and diff_VIarm). In fact, if the comparisons results for RMS,
diff_i(k,j), and diff_czt(k,j) are positive, the th and  values
for NF, diff_IIarm, diff_IVarm, and diff_VIarm are updated;
these values, evaluated at iteration (k), are stored for the next
iteration (k + 1). Furthermore, the positive results of RMS,
diff_i(k,j), and diff_czt(k,j) comparisons determine no-arcing
signaling (i.e., no arc is detected at iteration k). Otherwise,
if comparison results for RMS, diff_i(k,j), and diff_czt(k,j) are
negative (i.e., out of the limits ), the th and  values for
NF, diff_IIarm, diff_IVarm, diff_VIarm are not updated (i.e.,
the values are kept equal to those obtained during the iteration
k − 1) and a second series of comparisons is carried out,
between NF, diff_IIarm, diff_IVarm, and diff_VIarm (mean
values) and the related th values. If also the results of these
comparisons are out of the related limits , the arcing con-
dition is signaled; otherwise, no arc is detected and a new
893
iteration begins. For the first iteration, the th and  values
are set to default values, which are chosen in accordance
with the normal operation, i.e., in the absence of arcing (for
the experimental tests presented in the paper, the default
values were those related to the resistive load of UL 1699,
in nonarcing conditions); in this case, comparisons are aimed
at verifying that the current signal is stationary (no-arcing
condition); if so, th and  values are adapted to the actual
operating condition. Thanks to this, a prior knowledge of the
load is not necessary (other approaches already proposed in
literature need such information, instead) and when load varies
during normal operation, the system is able to adapt itself to
the new load condition. On the other hand, in the case of
system commissioning during an arcing condition, the th and
 values are kept equal to the default values, which still allows
the detection of the nonstationary behavior of current (due to
the arc presence and regardless of the load condition).
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
The proposed strategy for arc fault detection was
implemented in LabVIEW environment and some experi-
mental tests were carried out in the test conditions of [20],
i.e., load conditions of “unwanted tripping tests” and the
“operation inhibition tests” reported in the UL 1699 (resistive
loads, electronic dimmers with tungsten lamps, fluorescent
alone or with additional resistive loads, personal computers,
vacuum cleaners, and variable-speed electric hand-held drills).
For each load condition, the test was carried out by
894 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 66, NO. 5, MAY 2017

Fig. 7. Results after strategy output counting: nonarcing (0)/arcing (1). The gray arrows and crosses indicate the eliminated wrong outputs [see Figs. 3(b)
and 5(b)]. (a) Resistive load. (b) Electric hand held drill (minimum speed).
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF P ROPOSED S TRATEGY R ESPONSES IN VARIOUS L OAD C ONDITIONS

alternating arcing and nonarcing conditions. The behavior of
each indicator was monitored during the test, together with
the “arcing” or “nonarcing” response. The test bench is shown
in Fig. 2. The arc generator was build according to [1] and it
was connected in series with the load, in order to reproduce
series arcs conditions. During the tests, the arc generator was
inserted or short circuited, in order to have both arcing and
nonarcing conditions. Network power supply (230 V, 50 Hz)
was used to feed the test bench. Current was sensed by
means of a current shunt (0.1 , 0.001% accuracy) and it was
acquired by means of a data acquisition board (NI USB 9239).
For the experimental tests herein presented, the sampling
frequency value was 10 ksamples/s.
The results obtained in the case of resistive load are shown
in Fig. 3. In detail, Fig. 3(a) shows the plot of current
signal, with the indications of normal (nonarcing) and arcing
intervals. Fig. (3b) shows the results of the proposed strategy,
whose outputs (arcing/nonarcing signaling) are represented
with Boolean values (1/0, respectively). These results were
obtained with the following settings: SOW = 0.08 s (four
current cycles) and LOW = five SOWs = 0.4 s. The plots of
the monitored indicators are shown in [20]. It can be observed
that the proposed strategy allowed one to identify the arc fault
occurrences; during the test, the strategy gave only two wrong
indications: a false negative (failure to trip) at about 130 s
and a false positive (unwanted trip) between 145 and 150 s
(the latter due to a temporary current interruption and the
subsequent turn-ON transient).
Comparable performances were obtained in the other test
conditions, even in the presence of masking loads.
For example, the results obtained in the case of a dim-
mer (with 1000-W lamps and firing angle 90°) and an electric
hand-held drill (minimum speed) are reported in Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively. For the dimmer, in [20], it was shown that arcing
and nonarcing current waveforms are very similar, especially
in the case of low intensity arc. However, even in this case,
the proposed strategy allowed one to identify the arc fault
occurrences without false indications. Similar considerations
can be made for the electric hand-held drill. For this load
in Fig. 5, the following are reported: the current plot with
the indications of arcing/normal intervals [see Fig. 5(a)],
the strategy outputs (1/0) [see Fig. 5(b)], and the details of
normal and arcing currents, respectively [see Fig. 5(c)–(d)].
The indicators plots are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that
in this case, the arcing and nonarcing current waveforms are
similar; in fact, both waveforms have shoulders and high rates
of rise; on the other hand, a visible arcing characteristic is the
nonstationary behavior. The indicators plots of Fig. 6 show
significant variations in the presence of arc. In this case,
the strategy gives two wrong outputs (false positive) during
the start of the appliance.
The other results of the strategy outputs are summarized
in Table I. It should be noted that the number of wrong
indications is generally low. Moreover, these false responses
are “isolated” (i.e., one wrong response during a long sequence
of correct responses).
ARTALE et al.: ARC FAULT DETECTION METHOD BASED ON CZT
The wrong strategy outputs are mostly due to the start of the
appliances (turn-ON transients). For example, time t = 146.8 s
and time t = 1.2 s and t = 65.6 s pertain to the cases
of Figs. 3 and 5, respectively. In a real implementation of
the strategy, such false trips can be avoided by including
counting of the strategy outputs, sizing observation windows,
and counting interval in order to meet the tripping times
required by [1]. As regards this, for the tests reported in
this paper, the reference tripping time can be assumed equal
to 1s, which is the “arc test clearing time” required for test
currents of 5 A [1]. Thus, in order to investigate the counting
approach feasibility, some preliminary tests were made with
the following settings: SOW = 0.04 s (two current cycles) and
LOW = 0.2 s (ten current cycles); this allows one to meet the
required tripping time, for example, by assuming a counting
interval of 0.6 s (three LOWs). With such settings, the results
after counting the strategy outputs are reported in Fig. 7 for
the test conditions of Figs. 3 and 5. By comparing the results
of Fig. 7 with those of Figs. 3 and 5, it can be observed that
in both cases, the “isolated” wrong outputs were eliminated,
showing the feasibility of the counting approach.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a novel method for the detection of series arc
faults in electrical circuits has been presented. The proposed
strategy was developed using a high-resolution low-frequency
spectral analysis of the arcing current based on CZT together
with a set of indicators developed by authors. The effectiveness
of the proposed solution has been shown by means of experi-
mental tests, which were carried in both arcing and nonarcing
conditions and in the presence of different loads, chosen in
accordance with the UL 1699 standard requirements for the
unwanted tripping tests and the operation inhibition tests.
R EFERENCES
[1] Standard for Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters, UL Standard 1699,
Apr. 2006.
[2] K. J. Lippert and T. Domitrovich, “AFCIs—From a standards per-
spective,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1478–1482,
Mar./Apr. 2014.
[3] D. A. Lee, A. M. Trotta, and W. H. King, Jr., “New technology for pre-
venting residential electrical fires: Arc-fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs),”
Fire Technol., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 145–162, Aug. 2000.
[4] Photovoltaic (PV) DC Arc-Fault Circuit Protection, UL Standard 1699B,
Apr. 2011
[5] D. A. Dini, P. W. Brazis, and K.-H. Yen, “Development of arc-fault
circuit-interrupter requirements for photovoltaic systems,” in Proc. 37th
IEEE Photovolt. Specialists Conf. (PVSC), Jun. 2011, pp. 1790–1794.
[6] G. D. Gregory, K. Wong, and R. F. Dvorak, “More about arc-fault circuit
interrupters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1006–1011,
Jul./Aug. 2004.
[7] J. A. Wafer, “The evolution of arc fault circuit interrupters,” in Proc.
51st IEEE Holm Conf. Elect. Contacts, Sep. 2005, pp. 156–161.
[8] J. C. Engel, “Combination AFCIs: What they will and will not do,”
in Proc. IEEE IAS Elect. Safety Workshop (ESW), Jan. 2012, pp. 1–18.
[9] C. E. Restrepo, “Arc fault detection and discrimination methods,”
in Proc. 53rd IEEE Conf. Elect. Contacts, Sep. 2007, pp. 115–122.
[10] W. Zheng and W. Wu, “Detecting low-voltage arc fault based on lifting
multiwavelet,” in Proc. 2nd Asia–Pacific Conf. Comput. Intell. Ind. Appl.,
Nov. 2009, pp. 254–257.
[11] Z. Ming, Y. Tian, and F. Zhang, “Design of arc fault detection sys-
tem based on CAN bus,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Appl. Supercond.
Electromagn. Devices, Sep. 2009, pp. 308–311.
895
[12] J. J. Shea, “Comparing 240 Vrms to 120 Vrms series arcing faults
in residential wire,” in Proc. 54th IEEE Holm Conf. Elect. Contacts,
Oct. 2008, pp. 218–224.
[13] J. J. Shea, “Conditions for series arcing phenomena in PVC wiring,”
IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 532–539,
Sep. 2007.
[14] N. Hadziefendic, M. Kostic, and Z. Radakovic, “Detection of series
arcing in low-voltage electrical installations,” Eur. Trans. Elect. Power,
vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 423–432, Apr. 2009.
[15] J. Lezama, P. Schweitzer, S. Weber, E. Tisserand, P. Joyeux,
and M. Rabla, “Frequency analysis to arcing detection and pro-
totyping FPGA approach,” in Proc. IEEE 59th Holm Conf. Elect.
Contacts (HOLM), Sep. 2013, pp. 1–6.
[16] H. Cheng, X. Chen, W. Xiao, and C. Wang, “Short-time Fourier
transform based analysis to characterization of series arc fault,” in Proc.
2nd Int. Conf. Power Electron. Intell. Transp. Syst. (PEITS), Dec. 2009,
pp. 185–188.
[17] E. Carvou, N. B. Jemaa, S. Tian, Z. Belhaja, and B. Jusselin, “Electrical
arc characterization for AC-arc fault applications,” in Proc. 55th IEEE
Holm Conf. Elect. Contacts, Sep. 2009, pp. 22–27.
[18] S. Wang, C. Wu, and Y. Wang, “Detection of arc fault on low voltage
power circuits in time and frequency domain approach,” Int. J. Circuits,
Syst. Signal Process., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 324–331, 2012.
[19] G. Artale, A. Cataliotti, V. Cosentino, and G. Privitera, “Experimental
characterization of series arc faults in AC and DC electrical circuits,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Instrum. Meas. Technol. Conf. (IMTC), May 2014,
pp. 1015–1020.
[20] G. Artale, A. Cataliotti, V. C. S. Nuccio, D. Di Cara, G. Tinè, and
G. Privitera, “A set of indicators for arc faults detection based on
low frequency harmonic analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Instrum. Meas.
Technol. Conf. (IMTC), May 2016, pp. 1183–1188.
[21] G. Artale, A. Cataliotti, V. Cosentino, and G. Privitera, “Arc fault
detection equipment and method using low frequency harmonic current
analysis,” U.S. Patent 9 025 287, May 5, 2015.
[22] A. V. Oppenheim and R. W. Shafer, Digital Signal Processing.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
[23] M. Aiello, A. Cataliotti, and S. Nuccio, “A chirp-z transform-based
synchronizer for power system measurements,” IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1025–1032, Jun. 2005.
[24] M. Aiello, A. Cataliotti, V. Cosentino, and S. Nuccio, “Synchronization
techniques for power quality instruments,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1511–1519, Oct. 2007.
[25] J. Schoukens, R. Pintelon, and H. Van Hamme, “The interpolated fast
Fourier transform: A comparative study,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.,
vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 358–364, Apr. 1992.
[26] G. Andria, F. Attivissimo, and A. Lanzolla, “Interpolation techniques for
non-stationary signal analysis,” Measurement, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–16,
May/Jun. 1997.
[27] M. Zivanovic and A. Carlosena, “Nonparametric spectrum interpolation
methods: A comparative study,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 50,
no. 5, pp. 1127–1132, Oct. 2001.
[28] F. Zhou, Z. Huang, C. Zhao, X. Wei, and D. Chen, “Time-domain
quasi-synchronous sampling algorithm for harmonic analysis based on
Newton’s interpolation,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 60, no. 8,
pp. 2804–2812, Aug. 2011.
[29] C. M. Orallo, I. Carugati, S. Maestri, P. G. Donato, D. Carrica, and
M. Benedetti, “Harmonics measurement with a modulated sliding dis-
crete Fourier transform algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 63,
no. 4, pp. 781–793, Apr. 2014.
[30] S. C. Douglas and J. K. Soh, “A numerically-stable sliding-window
estimator and its application to adaptive filters,” in Proc. Conf. Rec.
31st Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst. Comput., Nov. 1997, pp. 111–115.
[31] R. Diao and Q. Meng, “An interpolation algorithm for discrete
Fourier transforms of weighted damped sinusoidal signals,” IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 1505–1513, Jun. 2014.
Giovanni Artale received the M.S. degree in electronic engineering and
the Ph.D. degree in electronic and telecommunication engineering from the
University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy, in 2010 and 2014, respectively.
Currenlty, he is a Research Scholar with Department of Energy,
Information Engineering and Mathematic Models, University of Palermo. His
current research interests include low frequency harmonic analysis algorithms,
power line communications, and smart grids.
896 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 66, NO. 5, MAY 2017
Antonio Cataliotti (M’01) received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy, in 1992 and 1998,
respectively.
Since 2005, he has been an Associate Professor of Electrical and Electronic
Measurements, Department of Energy, Information Engineering and
Mathematic Models, University of Palermo. His current research interests
include power quality measurements, power line communications, and smart
grids.
Valentina Cosentino received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy, in 2001 and 2005,
respectively.
Currently, she is an Assistant Professor of Electrical and Electronic
Measurements, Department of Energy, Information Engineering and
Mathematic Models, University of Palermo. Her current research interests
include power, energy and power quality measurements, virtual
instrumentation, and smart grids.
Dario Di Cara (M’16) received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy, in 2005 and 2009,
respectively.
Currently, he is a Researcher with the Institute of Intelligent System
for Automation, National Research Council, Palermo. His current research
interests include power quality measurements, power line communications,
and smart grids.
Salvatore Nuccio received the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy, in 1974.
In 1974, he joined the Department of Energy, Information Engineering
and Mathematic Models, University of Palermo, as an Assistant Professor
of Electrical Measurements, where he has been a Full Professor of Electrical
Measurements since 2001. His current research interests include digital signal
processing, virtual instrumentation and power, and energy and power quality
measurements.
Giovanni Tinè (M’04) received the M.S. degree in electronic engineering and
the Ph.D. degree in electronics, computer science, and telecommunications
engineering from the University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy, in 1990 and 1994,
respectively.
Currently, he is a Researcher with the Institute of Intelligent System
for Automation, National Research Council, Palermo. His current research
interests include electromagnetic compatibility of power electrical drive
systems, power-line communications, and smart grids.