IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO.

5, SEPTEMBER 1998 623

A Modular Methodology for Fast Fault Detection

and Classification in Power Systems
Fahmida N. Chowdhury, Member, IEEE, and Jorge L. Aravena, Member, IEEE

Abstract— This paper presents a modular yet integrated ap-

proach to the problem of fast fault detection and classification.
Although the specific application example studied here is a power
system, the method would be applicable to arbitrary dynamic
systems. The approach is quite flexible in the sense that it
can be model-based or model-free. In the model-free case, we
emphasize the use of concepts from signal processing and wavelet
theory to create fast and sensitive fault indicators. If a model Fig. 1. Overall scheme.
is available then conventionally generated residuals can serve as
fault indicators. The indicators can then be analyzed by standard
statistical hypothesis testing or by artificial neural networks
to create intelligent decision rules. After a detection, the fault
indicator is processed by a Kohonen network to classify the
fault. The approach described here is expected to be of wide
applicability. Results of computer experiments with simulated
faulty transmission lines are included.
Index Terms— Fault classification, fault detection, Kohonen
networks, neural networks, power systems, real-time, wavelet
transformation.

Fig. 2. Residual generating with existing model.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Overview of the Modular Methodology • An accurate mathematical or input–output

(I/O) model of the nominal (fault-free) system

T HE task of fast fault detection includes two major parts:

1) creation of a measure to serve as the indicator of
normal–abnormal behavior and 2) design of a decision rule,
based on that measure, to detect the fault. After detection, an
additional phase of classification may be required. These three
modules are described below. Our main focus is to develop
a methodology that does not necessarily rely on the use of
mathematical models. If models are available they can be used
to advantage, but the technique can be implemented without an
explicit model. The three-module scheme is shown in Fig. 1.
1) Generation of fault indicators (Module I): This can be
done in two major ways.
a) Model-based: This is the most widely used method.
In this, a residual is generated, which is typically
the difference between the actual system’s output
and the output predicted by a model. This we shall
call the model-based method, which is fully compat-
ible with our modular methodology. There are two
possibilities here.
Manuscript received September 27, 1996. Recommended by Associate
Editor, G. J. Rogers. The work of F. Chowdhury was supported in part by
NSF Grant ECS-9 526 341.
F. N. Chowdhury is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni-
versity of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504-3890 USA.
J. L. Aravena is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1063-6536(98)06251-4.
1063–6536/98$10.00  1998 IEEE
is available and we can use the residual
directly in the second module of our scheme.
This is the best possible case; however, in
many practical situations this does not hold.
• A mathematical model is not available, but an
I/O model (such as the ARMA model if the
system is linear, or a neural-network model if
the system is nonlinear) can be built on-line.
This can lead to the generation of a residual
which can be used in Module II. However,
I/O model building can be a very hard task if
the system in question is nonlinear. Moreover,
currently available I/O modeling techniques,
including neural network methods, suffer from
many restrictions. For example, the order of
the system must be known or must be discov-
ered by trial and error; one must assume that
the system will operate fault-free for a long
enough time so that a nominal I/O model can
be developed, etc.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the residual-generating tech-
niques.
b) Model-Free: There are many situations when an
accurate mathematical model is either unavailable
624 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998
Fig. 3. Residual generating with I/O model.
or is too complex, and the task of building an I/O
model is not practical. For such cases we propose a
model-free method of generating the fault indicator.
The principle behind this approach is: if the fault is
detectable it must produce changes in the monitored
variables, which may be small but can be enhanced
with signal processing techniques. Here we describe
the creation of an orthogonal decomposition based
on multirate filter banks. Incoming data (for example
measured voltages and currents) are processed with
the multirate filter bank to generate a set of sensitive
fault indicators, without requiring a model of the
system from which the data are coming. Generation
of fault indicators without a mathematical model of
the system is one of the main contributions of this
paper, and is described in detail in later sections.
2) Fault detection (Module II): The fault indicators (regard-
less of how they have been generated) can be tested
by conventional hypothesis testing methods, but since in
general the indicators are vectors, the design of multiple
hypothesis testing becomes very complicated. In this
paper we describe an alternate technique where the fault
indicators are processed by a three-layer feedforward
neural network. This neural net works as a hypothesis
tester to answer the question: does a fault exist, or
is this a normal situation? The details of this neural
network depends upon whether its inputs are residuals or
model-free indicators. The neural network for use with
residual-based methods is described briefly in the paper.
The necessary changes for adapting this network to the
wavelet-based fault-indicators are also developed and
presented.
3) Fault classification (Module III): Only if a fault is
detected, the indicators are entered into the classification
network. The classification network is a self-organizing
neural net that works as a pattern classifier and produces
information on fault type and location. The actual oper-
ation of this module is dependent on whether or not a
system model is available.
a) In the absence of a model, this module can be
incorporated with an expert system which is based
on historical data of typical faults for the particular
system. If such a knowledge-base is available, then
the classification net would obtain exemplars for
specific fault classes from Module I, and there would
be no need to train Module III. In this case, Module
I would provide exemplars by processing the actual
fault data with the filter bank and thus generating
fault-indicators for known types of faults.
b) If an accurate and convenient model is available,
then we can introduce simulated faults into the
model and generate specific types of residuals for
specific types of faults, and use them as exemplars in
the neural net of Module III. In this case, Module I is
operating as a residual-based technique. Alternately,
system or model responses during specific simulated
faults can be processed with the filter-bank and used
as exemplars for Module III, in which case Module
I would remain model free.
B. Current Research in the Field
In the context of fault detection in general, the dynamical
systems community is actively researching various approaches
to fast detection and isolation. Most visible efforts are residual-
based. Figs. 2 and 3 show two variations of the residual-
based method of generating the fault indicator. For a good
discussion of general-purpose failure-detection methods (see
[1]). In [1] the authors summarize the available approaches
and develop a general methology for the task. However,
they do not mention any method which can be model-free,
and can be implemented only using measured system out-
puts. Our survey of fault-detection methods in the specific
context of power systems also shows that model/residual
based techniques dominate the field. A recent report1 available
on the World Wide Web [2] indicates that the problem of
detecting high-impedance faults is far from solved. In general,
fault-detection has remained an active area of research, and
many different methods are proposed. For example, fixed-
gain filters [3], Kalman filters [4]–[7], fuzzy logic [8] and
travelling waves [9] based approaches have been explored.
The common technique in the residual-based methods is to
generate estimated outputs (either from a “known” nominal
model or by using system identification methods), and take
the error (difference between estimated and actual values)
as the indicator of normal/abnormal behavior. Whenever this
indicator deviates from its theoretical value, one can assume
that a fault has happened. The differences between the various
fault-detection methods mainly lie in two major areas: how to
generate the residuals, and how to test them. However, all these
methods rely on the availability (or estimation) of accurate
mathematical models, and are therefore subject to all the
limitations of modeling uncertainties, unknown nonlinearities
in the actual system etc.
Neural nets have been well studied for power system
applications. One can easily compile dozens of references on
the subject [10]–[16]. However, the use of wavelets is very
recent, and interest in this tool is now growing. An indication
of such interest is the work by Robertson et al. [17]. A novel
feature of our paper is the integration of the two tools (wavelets
and neural networks) for the development of fast detectors
which are not dependent on the availability of accurate models.
Despite the large number of neural nets applications to power
1 This report is from the IEEE Power Systems Relaying Committee Working
Group.
CHOWDHURY AND ARAVENA: MODULAR METHODOLOGY FOR FAST FAULT DETECTION
systems, we believe that our use of them as hypothesis testers
is unique. Their usefulness in this mode has been verified by
one of the authors in conjunction with a Kalman filter based
estimation process. The application was power system state
estimation and fault detection [7]. Also, available literature
suggests that the main focus in power systems neural net
applications has been on supervised learning. We believe
that unsupervised learning, with its recognized capability for
extracting relationships present in the data, is a better method
for the classification task. The feasibility of unsupervised
learning for power system fault classification was studied by
Lubkeman et al. [15]. Our method differs from the Lubkeman
approach in the following.
• Model-free option: While our overall methodology is
flexible enough to include the use of system models, we
describe a model-free option. Techniques from signal-
processing provide a set of enhanced, sensitive, and
definitive fault-indicator patterns, without requiring a sys-
tem model, (while in [15], the data need to be processed
with a Kalman filter, which presupposes that a system
model is available).
• On-line: Our method is intended for on-line application,
while clearly in [15] the application would have to be off-
line because the construction of the input patterns requires
the availability of optimal estimates of pre- and postfault
magnitudes and angles of voltage and current phasors. etc.
For the development of indicators, it is desirable to use tech-
niques which are, as much as possible, based only on general
cause/effect phenomena and not dependent on the availability
of an explicit mathematical model. Then the technique will
be applicable to a large class of situations. Although it is
possible to use neural nets to generate fault indicators, at the
present stage of development it appears that the feasibility
of most of the approaches is based on simulation studies.
Lacking a theoretical guarantee of workability, these methods
usually cannot be generalized. Hence our decision to try a
fresh approach based on a theoretically well-establised tool
from the field of applied mathematics and signal processing.
However, the demonstrated success of neural nets as decision-
makers and pattern classifiers either equals or surpasses that
of the commonly used statistical methods. Our wavelet-based
approach is meant to be used together with neural networks
for decision-making and classification.
We have performed simulation tests on a transmission line
model to verify the workability of our approach. The working
assumption is that a detectable fault must affect the available
instrumentation/data acquisition system. The effect may be
very small in conventional instruments but can be enhanced
with appropiate signal processing tools. The approach does
not presume any a priori knowledge about the system being
analyzed.
II. FILTER BANK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MODEL-FREE FAULT INDICATORS
Any detectable fault must introduce transients in the ob-
served data. These “irregularities” carry important information
about the fault. It is generally accepted that a description
625
in a time-frequency space is well suited to the study of
nonstationary phenomena. We quote from [18]:
Until recently, the Fourier transform was the main math-
ematical tool for analyzing singularities. The Fourier
transform is global and provides a description of the
overall regularity of signals, but it is not well adapted
for finding the location and the spatial [temporal] dis-
tribution of singularities. This was a major motivation
for studying the wavelet transform in mathematics and
applied domains.
It is reasonable to apply a similar argument to fault-induced
transients.
If we assume that the signals are monitored continuously,
the continuous wavelet transform yields a very useful time-
scale (frequency) representation of a signal. Its determination,
however, can be very time consuming. A more realistic ap-
proach is to assume a computer-based data acquisition system
producing discrete time signals which can be decomposed in
wavelet packets [19]. In this case, one uses multirate filter
banks to create representations of the discrete time signal over
different regions of the time/frequency domain. By a suitable
selection of the of the filter banks, one can create very general
time-frequency representations.
In the conventional applications of multirate filter banks,
one has an analysis bank which uses downsampling to reduce
redundancy and to increase efficiency (e.g., by reducing the
number of samples that must be sent over a communication
channel) and a synthesis bank which in the case of perfect
reconstruction, uses the output of the analysis bank to recreate
the original signal. In the application described here, we use
the outputs of the synthesis bank to decompose the signal into
orthogonal components which have essentially no overlap in
the frequency domain (zero overlap is theoretically impossible
for real signals and filters). This last characteristic can be used
to increase selectivity and sensitivity in the detection process.
Selectivity is increased because one can differentiate transients
whose frequency characteristics are very similar. Moreover,
if one has information about the system, or a model, one
can define a specialized bank to define frequency bands that
one should monitor; reducing (ideally, eliminating) frequency
overlap would concentrate the energy of the fault induced
transient in a small number of bands thereby increasing
sensitivity of the detector.
Given our purpose of using minimal information about the
system, we chose a filter bank which approximately partitions
the discrete frequency range in bands of equal width. In order
to create efficient indicators we require that the signals created
by the filter bank should be mutually orthogonal in the time
domain. In the approach presented here, we use outputs from
the filter bank to create instantaneous information vectors,
which are not necessarily orthogonal but show very quickly
the effect of a fault. Here we expect a distinct advantage
in using these signal processing tools. Since the monitored
variables change in a continuous manner, the onset of a fault
is very difficult to detect and introduces a delay in the detection
process. If one can enhance the detection of the fault induced
transient then one can start taking corrective actions faster
626 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998
Fig. 4. Filter bank. Analysis filters create the compressed components. Synthesis filters create the orthogonal components.
than conventional detectors would allow; it is not difficult
to conceive a scenario where early (or ealier) warning is
advantageous.
The filter bank described below is derived from Daubechies’
orthogonal wavelets with compact support. However, it has
been enhanced by the introduction of a bilateral decomposition
to create a uniform wavelet packet. Fig. 4 illustrates the
principle of the bilateral decomposition. The filters
are both FIR; the down arrow denotes a downsampling by
two (taking every other sample) and the up arrow denotes
upsampling by two (inserting a zero in between two values).
For the example described in the case study, both have 20 taps
and have been taken from Daubechies’ multiresolution work.
The symbol , is used to denote the paraconjugate, .2
A formal proof of the properties of the decomposition is
beyond the scope of this paper. However, we emphasize the
fact that the actual implementation of the process is well
established in the signal processing field and produces efficient
numerical schemes.
H
2 If the filter, ; is causal then its paraconjugate becomes anticausal. For
real time use, all filters must be causal. This is a common problem in DSP and
it is solved by introducing a time delay. Thus, instead of perfect, instantaneous
reconstruction, the filter bank is designed to be a perfect delay line
In Fig. 4, we show a scheme to generate four orthogo-
nal components. Each additional level doubles the number
of components generated and (approximately) reduces their
bandwidth by a factor of two. This uniform distribution of
the bands appears as the best choice in the absence of any
information about the process. If additional information, or a
model is available, one can design nonuniform bands retaining
the orthogonality of the signals. As opposed to a conventional
Fourier analysis, the orthogonal components retain the time
information of the original signal. Hence one can use them
to localize the fault. On the other hand, the compressed
components have undergone levels of decimation. This fact
is important for the generation of compact signatures of the
various faults.
A. The Fault Indicator: Instantaneous Information Vector
As mentioned before, our goal is to generate a fault indicator
that does not depend on the availability of a model of the
dynamic system. Here, we use the instantaneous values of the
resolved components to construct instantaneous vectors. Let us
call them instantaneous information vectors (IIV’s). Basically,
we can treat this similar to the residual vector generated in
the model-dependent cases. During the course of an on-line
operation, we can realistically assume that most of the time
CHOWDHURY AND ARAVENA: MODULAR METHODOLOGY FOR FAST FAULT DETECTION
the situation would be fault-free. Thus the IIV’s will have
components with small values resulting from the numerical
steps involved in the orthogonal decomposition process. These
values we will call “noise”; they are not random noise in the
sense that they do not come from the measured data. Rather,
they are an artifact of the wavelet-decomposition. As such,
our detection net must be taught to ignore them. However,
when a set of faulty data is processed by the filter bank, the
resulting IIV will contain one or more component with large
nonzero values. Each different type of fault will produce a
different transient “signature,” which will be reflected in that
particular IIV. The idea is for the detection net to produce a
“yes” output as soon as it encounters an IIV that represents
a faulty situation.
III. DECISION MAKING
The second part of the task of fault detection involves
decision-making, which is usually done by statistical tests.
The two basic hypotheses are: : the null hypothesis, which
means a fault does not exist, and : the alternate hypothesis,
which means a fault exists. If a satisfactory and efficient
hypothesis tester is available, it can be used as Module II. If
a fault indicator has only one component (as in the residual-
based method applied to a single-output system), a complicated
Module II (such as the neural-net-based decision-maker) will
be unnecessary; in such cases Module II should contain a
simple hypothesis tester.
In this paper we develop a general methodology which can
be used for multioutput systems as well as single output ones.
Even for single output systems, if Module I is a multirate
filter-bank (that is, when a system model is not being used
to generate residuals), its output will be a vector, thereby
requiring a multiple hypothesis tester as Module II. Hence the
development of the neural-net-based decision-maker. These
are the reasons for using neural networks (instead of the
conventional statistical hypothesis testing) to carry out the
decision-making task:
• For a multioutput system, multiple hypothesis testing
becomes difficult to design.
• The usual approach of using the joint probability density
function (to decide whether a random vactor has deviated
from its expected mean value) may mask deviations of
the individual components, which may actually carry
important information.
• Biological neurons are natural hypothesis-testers, in fact
that IS their basic function: thus a neural network should
be ideally suitable for the task of multiple hypothesis
testing.
• Biological neurons carry out hypothesis testing without
explicit knowledge of the statistical distributions and
mathematical models involved: they store implicit models
by way of synaptic weights, which depend on the past
experience of the neurons. Artificial neural networks
function on the same principle.
Preliminary successful tests of a neural network as decision
maker were reported by one of the present authors in [7].
In [7], a three-layer neural network was designed to work as
627
Fig. 5. The detection network.
a robust decision-maker in conjunction with a Kalman filter
(which gave fast, on-line estimates of a three-phase power
system quantities). However, in the present paper the idea is
to replace the Kalman filter (which requires a system model
and generates a residual vector as the fault indicator) by a
multiresolution filter-bank (which does not require a system
model, but can generate fault indicator vectors) as described
in the previous section. The detection net described in [7] can
be utilized for our purpose by replacing its inputs (modified
residuals from a Kalman filter) by the IIV’s. For the sake
of completeness, we first outline the basic operation of the
Kalman-filter-based detection network. Then we will introduce
a modification to use the IIV’s as the inputs to this network.
Actually, since each of the three modules of our proposed
methodology is self-contained, the detection module can be
used successfully with conventional residuals, or with IIV’s as
defined by us, or with any other suitable fault indicators. Fig. 5
is a conceptual representation of the scheme. This network can
be used for both model-free and model-dependent versions, as
shown in the next two sections. The model-dependent case is
illustrated through an example of a three-phase power system.
A. Model-Dependent Case
Here, the three-phase voltage measurements are modeled
as sinusoids with a known frequency (which is assumed to
be the fundamental power frequency), but with unknown
amplitude and unknown phase angle. Gaussian observation
noise is assumed to be present, and the amplitude and phase
angle are assumed to be constants with small random walk
components. The three-phase voltage system is modeled as
a multioutput system, with a state vector consisting of six
components. Suppose each phase voltage has the form
which can be rewritten for each time-step
in the standard system-theoretic format
(1)
628 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998
where the observation matrix3 is time-varying. During
unfaulted operation, the amplitude and phase angle
remain constant, except for small fluctuations due to random
disturbances, therefore, we have the state equation as
(2)
Both and are zero-mean, uncorrelated Gaussian noise
processes. While generating the simulated data sequence, the
amplitude is taken to be 1 p.u., and the angle is zero,
and , respectively, for phases and assuming a
balanced system under nominal operating conditions.
A Kalman filter is designed for estimating the states of
the above system. The filter uses the state model and the
observation model, but does not have any knowledge of the
actual values of the amplitude and phase angle. The Kalman
filter equations are standard; they are not repeated here, except
the equation for the residual, which is known to be a Gaussian
random variable with mean zero and a known (actually,
computed in the Kalman filter algorithm) covariance matrix.
The residual is defined as
(3)
where is the Kalman estimate of the state vector
at step , given measurements. The residual is
normalized to yield a zero-mean, unit-variance random vector.
The elements of this normalized residual vector are then
squared , and used as inputs to the fault-
detecting neural network. Under normal operating conditions
(since the normalized residual has unit variance), the expected
value of each input to the neural network is unity
. This property is utilized (through a convenient constraint
on the weights) in the design of the firing thresholds [see
(4) and (5)]. Each consultant neuron (these are the hidden-
layer neurons) receives the full set of squared normalized
residuals. Squaring is important because 1) we are concerned
with the magnitudes of these random numbers and 2) if the
weights associated with each input are equal, then the sum of
these squared Gaussian random variables would have the Chi-
squared distribution, which would provide us with a baseline
for comparing this technique with the conventional techniques.
Each consultant neuron is a hybrid between a linear combiner
and a hardlimiter. Their firing thresholds vary according to the
“strictness” assigned to each one. The idea is to implement this
network as a team of experts making decision based on prior
experience with a given system.
In our simulations, the training was done using the batch-
mode delta rule, in the MATLAB environment. The training
of this network is subject to the following constraints:
(4)
3 For details of the observation matrix see [7].
for each consultant neuron , where is the dimension of the
input vector, and
for all (5)
With the above constraints, the expected value of the internal
potential of each consultant neuron , under no-fault condition,
can be found
(6)
This allows us to normalize the firing thresholds of the
neurons so that they have a lower limit of unity. The con-
straints are implemented at each step of iteration during
training. After the training converges, the weights are kept
fixed. From then onwards, the decision-making network is
ready to be used. It should be noted that we trained the network
online, assuming that during the beginning of the process
(training phase), the system would run without fault for a
long enough time to permit the training to be completed. This
detection network was tested extensively for various amounts
of jumps in the voltage amplitudes. The detailed results can be
found in [7]; it is noted here that even though the successful
detection rate was high, for small faults 15% of prefault
value) successful detection rate of about 50%. The response
of the output neuron, when a fault (sudden drop in voltage
amplitude) occurs, is shown in Fig. 6. This is an example of
immediate detection, when the voltage amplitude of phase
was suddenly dropped to 0.8.
B. Model-Free Case
The development of the model-free fault indicators (the
IIV’s) requires us to modify the hypothesis testing scheme
so that we replace the residuals by IIV’s. Since the IIV’s are
not, strictly speaking, Gaussian random variables, we cannot
use the squared values and arrive at a weighted Chi-squared
distribution to assist us in the design of the firing thresholds for
the neurons, as we did in the model-based case. However, like
many other neural-net applications, we can use an experience-
based method to decide what threshold ranges we need to
use for distinguishing between faulted and unfaulted IIV’s. It
is known that during a transient in the original system, the
IIV will contain some large components. These components
are oscillatory in nature, therefore we choose to concentrate
on their magnitude only. The following steps are needed to
prepare the detection net for operation.
• Use the absolute values of the IIV’s as inputs.
• By experimentation with normal (no-fault) data records,
choose the firing thresholds of the neurons so that they
do not fire during normal operation.
• Train the network with two classes of examples: IIV’s
generated by no-fault cases, and IIV’s generated by faulty
cases. Any type of fault should result in the on response
of the final decision-making neuron.
CHOWDHURY AND ARAVENA: MODULAR METHODOLOGY FOR FAST FAULT DETECTION
Fig. 6. Output of the final decision-making neuron.
Fig. 7. Load voltage: no fault case.
IV. CLASSIFICATION OF FAULTS
The task of the classification network is to cluster detected
faults into seperate classes. As such, it is a pattern recognition
problem. Self-organizing neural networks have been success-
fully used as pattern classifiers [20], [21] in various contexts.
Self-organization refers to the specific learning method without
external examples. This is also called unsupervised learning.
Given a set of input patterns, neighboring processing units
629
(neurons or cells) in a self-organizing neural network develop
into detectors of specific categories of patterns. In that sense,
each local cell-group acts like a decoder for the inputs.
For using a self-organizing neural net, it is necessary to
collect information about various types of power system faults.
Since each type of fault would have its own unique signature
on the wavelet-transformed coefficients, it should be possible
to cluster the cases emerging from same types of faults,
630 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998
Fig. 8. Load voltage: fault in segment three.
Fig. 9. Load voltage: fault in segment two.
and thus differentiate between different cases. Obviously, the
classification net could be given a “no-fault” class, thereby
eliminating the need for the detection net. However, for
an on-line methodology, it is better to keep the detection
net in the loop. The vast majority of data are expected to
be of the no-fault type, and it would be inefficient (and
computationally costly) to process all the data through the
classification net, which is expected to be slower than the
detection net. Only in those instances when we already know
there is a fault, it would be cost-effective to switch on the
classification net.
Two types of self-organizing nets are commonly used, the
Kohonen map [21] and the ART (adaptive resonance theory)
network [20]. Because of the computational burden of the
ART net, we use the Kohonen net, with a few modifications,
as the chosen classifier. In the following section we describe
CHOWDHURY AND ARAVENA: MODULAR METHODOLOGY FOR FAST FAULT DETECTION
Fig. 10. Generator current: fault in segment two.
how we build the Kohonen network for the model-free case.
However, the discussion is also valid (in principle) for cases
when residuals (or any other suitable indicators that contain
signatures of the fault type) are being used.
A. The Kohonen Network: Some Choices and Modifications
The neurons in a Kohonen network initially have a collec-
tion of random weights. The training vectors, one by one, are
presented to the neurons. In the original form of the Kohonen
net, the “winning” neuron , for the th input sample ,
is selected by the process of similarity matching, i.e.,
(7)
where is the number of neurons, and is the
distance between the vectors and . Common practice is
to use the Euclidean distance (that is, the Euclidean norm of
the difference vector . Once the winning neuron is
found, it, and a selected neighborhood of it, is updated using
the following rule:
if
otherwise
(8)
where is the learning rate at time step , and is the
chosen topological neighborhood around the winning neuron
, at time step . The learning process is stopped when the
shift of position of any of the output neurons measured by
the change in the weight vector associated with it falls below
a preset value. It is important to note that the neighborhood
function is assumed to be time-varying in the above
description, even though in the original form of self-organizing
feature maps it was considered to be fixed.
631
It has been found in many studies [22] that for best
results, the topological neighborhood should be large in the
beginning of the training process (the “ordering phase), and
then shrink with time so that toward the end of the process (the
“convergence phase”), should include only the closest
neighbors of the winning neuron . The usual practice is to
let the radius of the neighborhood shrink linearly with each
update. Besides this time-shrinking nature, the neighborhood
can also have lateral shrinkage. It has been demonstrated that
[22] in biological neurons, there is lateral interaction: this
means that when a neuron is firing, it excites other neurons
in its closest neighborhood more than those farther away from
it. To incorporate this feature in the algorithm, usually the
neighborhood around the winning neuron is made to decay
gradually [23], [24]. One of the typical choices is to let the
amplitude of the topological neighborhood (centered on the
winning neuron) decay according to a unimodal Gaussian rule.
This means that the weight-update is the strongest for the
winning neuron, and becomes weaker with increasing lateral
distance.
1) Choice of the Distance Measure and Some Other Imple-
mentation Issues: The idea of similarity matching between
vectors can be quite complex. While it is common practice to
use the Euclidean distance (that is, norm of the difference of
two vectors) as a measure of closeness, it can be argued that
it is really a measure of magnitudinal similarity of vectors.
Another measure of similarity, that of directional similarity,
is the inner-product of two vectors. Take, for example, three
vectors: and . According to
magnitudinal similarity, the pair is closer to each other
than the pair , but according to directional similarity
the pair is the winner. In the context of using wavelet-
generated IIV’s (as defined in the previous section) as power
632 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998
system fault indicators, the magnitude of the vector is not as
important a feature as the information “which component of
the vector shows the large nonzero value”; it is the allignment
of the vectors that is more important. Thus, in our specific
application we use the inner-product as a measure of closeness
between vectors.
We have introduced some other modifications to the Koho-
nen net for the specific application that we are interested in.
These are described below.
• Use of prior knowledge: The training of the Kohonen
net results in the construction of a knowledge base
derived from hisorical information regarding the system
in question. In many practical situations, even though
the system may be difficult to model, real information is
available (voltage and/or current records of faulty cases)
where the fault type and location were known, or were
later found out. If we can construct fault classes by
processing these data by the multiresolution filter bank
and produce IIV’s corresponding to each known fault
class, we will have some exemples of each fault type for
the Kohonen net. Then the Kohonen net will be trained
to cluster similar faults and produce exemplars for each
type. Once trained, the net can be used as a ready-made
classifier.
• Experience-based learning rate: The common practice in
Kohonen nets is to slowly reduce the learning rate for the
updating of the exemplar vectors. This means that with
each epoch of input-pattern presentation, the learning rate
becomes smaller. In the so-called “conscience learn-
ing,” there is an added feature so that the more times a
neuron wins, the less capable it becomes to capture future
inputs. In our modification, is a decreasing function of
the number of patterns captured by the particular neuron.
In simple terms, this means that while the neurons are
not penalized for winning, the more patterns they win,
the slower they adjust their existing exemplar. If we
assume that capturing a new pattern is like gaining a new
experience, then our conjecture is that a new experience
should make less of an impact on an already-experienced
neuron than on an inexperienced one. This particular
modification is a novel feature of this work.
• Normalizing the exemplar vectors: Usually, when the
inner-product is used as the measure of closeness between
vectors, the input vectors are normalized by their own
lengths. However, instead of normalizing the input pattern
lengths, we choose to normalize the exemplars for the
clusters. The reason behind this shift is that in our specific
context, the magnitudes of the oscillations in the IIV’s
actually contain useful information regarding the fault-
type, so these magnitudes cannot be ignored. However,
the clusters should not be able to win a new pattern due
to their own large magnitude: we are concerned with
“directional” similarity between vectors. Therefore, after
each update, the length of the exemplar is readjusted to
unity. We have not encountered this modification in the
literature.
2) Training of the Kohonen Net: Training of the Kohonen
net would consist of processeing a large number of IIV’s which
are generated by the filter bank in Module 1. The filter bank,
of course, would need real (or simulated) data records.4 From
these records, we gather a set of examples of different types
of faults. It is known that each fault class can be associated
with a known fault type. Once these IIV’s are classified, the
Kohonen net in effect functions as a knowledge base. During
the subsequent on-line operation of the net, any new fault that
cannot be identified by the existing classes, could be stored
and later added to the knowledge base.
V. SUMMARY OF SIMULATION STUDIES
The goal of the computer experiments was to investigate
and illustrate the model-free method of generation of fault
indicators. (We assume that the model-based methods are well-
established, although they are less widely applicable than the
proposed model-free technique.) Simulation experiments were
performed on a transmission line modeled using SIMULINK.
The following experiment is a representative case among many
runs of the experiments. Note that the system model is used
solely to generate the simulated system response: the operation
of Module I (generation of fault indicators) requires only the
response, not the model.
The system in our study is a three segment model of
a transmission line. Each segment is represented by a line
impedance (resistence plus inductance) and a line-to-ground
admittance (conductance and capacitance). In the experiment
described here, all three segments have identical parameters.
The faults considered are partial short circuit to ground,
emulated by increasing the line-to-ground admittance from
a prefault value of 0.001 to a post fault value of 0.1. For
comparison, the load has a resistance of 0.5. Hence, the fault
is relatively minor in magnitude, but it is a sustained fault.
Four cases are considered: the normal unfaulted perfor-
mance and three faulty lines. The same type of fault was
applied one by one to each of the three segments. In all cases,
the variables monitored were the current at the generation point
and the voltage at the load. The data was processed using a
bilateral filter bank based on Daubechies’ wavelet of order
ten. The results included here have separated the signal into
eight components. This eight component vector is identified
as the IIV and is displayed in the next figures. For brevity,
we present only decompositions for the following cases: 1)
no fault; 2) load voltage for fault in segment three; 3) load
voltage for fault in segment two; and 4) generator current for
fault in segment two. Also, for more clarity, only the behavior
in the neighborhood of the fault time is shown.
With this case study, we want to highlight the following
points:
1) The decomposition did not use any knowledge about the
system and was based entirely on processing the data
with a fixed digital filter bank based on Daubechie’s
compact support wavelets. Hence, it supports the va-
lidity of the model-free aproach to fault detection. It is
4 This does not mean that one would need to introduce faults deliberately
into the real system. Recorded fault data from real faults that periodically
occur in the system would be sufficient.
CHOWDHURY AND ARAVENA: MODULAR METHODOLOGY FOR FAST FAULT DETECTION
expected that an optimized design will yield significantly
better performance.
2) Fig. 7 shows that, for the unfaulted case, only one
component of the IIV is nonzero. This is the low-
est frequency component. It confirms our observation
about smooth signals yielding components in the low-
frequency range. From the point of view of detection, it
is a very convenient situation since only one band reacts
to the unfaulted data. We do not expect that situation
to occur with uniform frequency partitioning in a more
general case. However, we expect that one can design a
sufficiently fine filter bank in such a way that the effect
of the fault will appear in only a few selected bands
which would not be significantly affected by the normal
signals. This separation would favor the detection of
faults.
3) Fig. 8 shows strong variations in the IIV components.
Each component has a distinctive bahavior according to
its localization in the frequency domain. One can make
use of this distinctive bahavior to classify faults.
4) Using a common dimensionless scale for the high fre-
quency components, Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate the fact
that some variables are more sensitive to a given fault.
In this case it is apparent that the variations in the load
voltage IIV is more significant than the variation in the
generator current. They also show that some bands may
be insensitive to some types of faults.
5) All figures show that the IIV created by the filter bank
show a clearly different performance according to the
location of the fault. Hence they should be able to create
indicators sensitive to the type of the fault, and provide
indication about their spatial location.
6) The fault simulated in this example is minor but sus-
tained, which means it is an important detection prob-
lem. Large faults are easier to detect with high accuracy
with the help of residual-based methods. The probability
of correct detection falls drastically as the fault size
gets smaller. In [7] it was reported that the neural-
network based detector which operates on the magnitude
of residuals (generated by a Kalman filter) becomes
inaccurate when the change in the amplitude of the
voltage waveform is less than about 15%. By compari-
son, the wavelet-based detector is much more sensitive.
Besides, this method does not require the availability of
an explicit mathematical model of the system.
VI. OPEN RESEARCH QUESTIONS
One of the hypotheses still to be researched is that with a
better choice of decomposition one can increase the detection
sentivity and make the system robust to measurement noise.
The other issue is on-line implementation. More research needs
to be done in the following categories:
1) The use of continuous wavelet transforms and trans-
forms with possible hardware implementation for max-
imal speed.
2) The selectivity of the wavelet-based sensors. This issue
is application dependent with a strong experimental
component. Our ongoing research is to investigate var-
633
ious types of faults in the system under study and
determine the components that would allow us to dis-
tinguish among the faults.
3) The effect of measurement noise. In the preliminary
experiments, the orthogonal components that carry in-
formation about the fault are very small and could
easily be masked by larger measurement noise. We plan
to investigate the use of signal enhancing techniques
to improve the quality of the detectors. In particular,
the use of wavelet-based enhancing techniques is being
researched [25].
4) Developing the entire methodology as an on-line system.
Currently Module I operates off-line, so that the filters
are noncausal. A major goal of future work would be to
implement a “moving window” type filter bank, where
old data points are discarded as new data points become
available. Modules II and III are ready for on-line use.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A modular scheme for fault detection and classification is
developed in this paper. Each module can be designed in two
different ways, model-based and model-free, depending on the
intended application and available information. We present
the model-free method for the generation of fault indicators
in detail. The method utilizes multirate filter banks based on
wavelet decomposition of actual data. Extensive simulation
studies illustrate the use of the proposed method. The testing of
these indicators is done by a decision-making neural network,
which can also be adapted to both the model-based and model-
free situations. A modified Kohonen-type neural network is
proposed for the classification task. It is anticipated that the
integrated and modular approach presented in this paper can
eventually be developed into a widely appliacable tool in
detection and classification of faults in dynamic systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful for many helpful questions and
suggestions from the anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES
[1] M. M. Polycarpou and A. T. Vemuri, “Learning methodology for failure
detection and accomodation,” IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag., June 1995, pp.
16–24.
[2] J. Tengdin, R. Westfall, and K. Stephan, “High Impedance Fault
Detection Technology,” Rep. of PSRC Working Group D15, Mar. 1997.

Available http://www.rt66.com/ w5sr/psrc.html
[3] E. O. Schweitzer and Daquing Hou, “Filtering requirements for distance
relays,” in Proc. Amer. Power Conf., vol. 55-I, 1993, pp. 296–301.
[4] A. Girgis and E. B. Makram, “Application of adaptive Kalman filtering
in fault classification, distance protection, and fault location using
microprocessors,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, pp. 301–309, Feb.
1988.
[5] F. N. Chowdhury, J. P. Christensen, and J. L. Aravena, “Power system
fault detection and state estimation using Kalman filter with hypothesis
testing,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 6, pp. 1025–1029, July 1991.
[6] J. L. Pinto de Sa and L. Pedro, “Modal Kalman filter-based impedance
relaying,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 6, pp. 78–84, Jan. 1991.
[7] F. Chowdhury, “On-line fault detection in multioutput systems using
Kalman filter and neural network,” in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., vol. 2,
June 1994, pp. 1729–1731.
[8] A. Ferrero, S. Sangiovanni, and E. Zappitelli, “A fuzzy-set approach
to fault-type identification in digital relaying,” in Proc. IEEE Conf.
Transmission and Distribution, Apr. 1994, pp. 269–275.
634 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998
[9] P. A. Crossley and P. G. McLaren, “Distance protection based on
travelling waves,” IEEE Trans. PAS, vol. PAS-102, no. 9, pp. 2971–2983,
Sept. 1983.
[10] A. Sharaf, “ANN-based pattern classification of synchronous generator
stability and loss of excitation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 9, no.
4, pp. 753–759, Dec. 1994.
[11] A. Mazroua, “Neural-network system using the multilayer perceptron
technique for the recognition of PD pulse shapes due to cavities and
electrical trees,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 10, pp. 92–96, Jan.
1995.
[12] H. Yang, W. Chang, and C. Huang, “Online fault diagnosis of power
substation using connectionist expert system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 10, pp. 323–331, Feb. 1995.
[13] S. Eborn, D. L. Lubkeman, and M. White, “A neural-network approach
to the detection of incipient faults on power distribution feeders,” IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 5, pp. 905–912, Apr. 1990.
[14] K. Nishimura and M. Arai, “Power system state evaluation by structured
neural network,” in Proc. IJCNN’90, vol. 1, pp. 271–277, June 1990.
[15] D. Lubkeman, C. Fallon, and A. Girgis, “Unsupervised learning strate-
gies for detection and classification of transient phenomena on electric
power distribution systems,” in Proc. 1st Int. Forum Applicat. Neural
Netowrks to Power Syst., Seattle, WA, June 1991, pp. 107–111.
[16] K. S. Swarup and H. S. Chandrasekharaiah, “Fault detection and
diagnosis of power system using artificial neural networks,” in Proc.
1st Int. Forum on Applicat. Neural Netowrks to Power Syst., Seattle,
WA, June 1991, pp. 102–106.
[17] D. Robertson, O. I. Camps, and J. S. Mayer, “Wavelets and power
system transients: Feature detection and classification,” in SPIE Int.
Symp. Opt. Eng. Aerospace Sensing, vol. 2242, pp. 474–87, Apr. 1994.
[18] S. Mallat and W. L. Hwang, “Singularity detection and processing with
wavelets,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 38, pp. 617–643, Mar. 1992.
[19] A. K. Soman and P. P. Vaidyanathan, “On orthonormal wavelets and
paraunitary filter banks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 41, pp.
1170–1183, Mar. 1993.
[20] G. Carpenter and S. Grossberg, “A massively parallel architecture for a
self-organizing neural pattern recognition machine,” in Neural Networks,
Theoretical Foundation and Analysis, C. Lau, Ed. Piscataway, NJ:
IEEE Press, 1992.
[21] T. Kohonen, “The self-organizing map,” in Neural Networks, Theoretical
Foundation and Analysis, C. Lau, Ed. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press,
1992.
[22] S. Haykin, Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. New
York: Macmillan, 1994.
[23] H. Ritter, Neural Computation and Self-Organizing Maps: An Introduc-
tion. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
[24] Z. Lo, M. Fujita, and B. Bavarian, “Analysis of neighborhood interaction
in Kohonen neural networks,” in 6th Int. Parallel Processing Symp.
Proc., Los Alamitos, CA, 1991, pp. 247–249.
[25] W. K. Awadzi, Feature Enhancement via the Wavelet Transform and
Quadrature Mirror Filters, M.S. thesis, Louisiana State Univ., Baton
Rouge, 1994.
Fahmida N. Chowdhury (S’86–M’87) received the
combined B.Sc. and M.Sc. degree in electromechan-
ical engineering from Moscow Power Engineering
Institute, Moscow, Russia, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from Louisiana State Univer-
sity, Baton Rouge.
She is currently an Assistant Professor of Elec-
trical and Computer Engineering at the University
of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Her research
interests include neural networks, modeling, estima-
tion, and detection problems in stochastic systems,
applications of systems theory approaches to power systems, and probabilistic
interpretations of robustness issues. Her educational interests focus on devel-
oping interdisciplinary courses.
Dr. Chowdhury is a reviewer for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL
PROCESSING and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, and a
member of the Conference Editorial Board of the IEEE Control Systems
Society. She also reviews proposals for the National Science Foundation.
Jorge L. Aravena (M’89) received the degree of
Civil Electrical Engineer from the University of
Chile at Santiago, and the Ph.D. degree in computer,
information, and control engineering from the Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Currently he is the Graduate Studies Coordinator
for the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering at Louisiana State University. He has
published more than 30 refereed journal papers and
100 conference papers. His current areas of research
include digital signal and image processing, m-D
system theory, computer-based control, and parallel algorithms and computing
structure. His research in nonplanar computing structures and fast parallel
representation of filtering algorithms has been supported by the State of
Louisiana.
Dr. Aravena is frequent reviewer for IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS
AND SYSTEMS, Signal Processing, and Parallel and Distributed Processing.
He also reviews proposals for the National Science Foundation and has been
invited as national panel member to review Research Initiation Awards in
Microelectronics Information Processing.