2020 7th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Comparison between Two Methods to Analyze Multiple Faults in IEEE 14-Bus

Ali Abbawi Ibrahim Ismael

Department of Electrical Engineering, Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Mosul / Iraq University of Mosul / Iraq
e-mail: ali.abbawi@gmail.com e-mail: Ibrahim_85353@yahoo.com

Omar Sh. Alyozbaky

Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Mosul / Iraq
e-mail: O.SH.Alyozbaky@gmail.com

Abstract—Kinds of faults that happened at the same time in probabilities. The probability of a single fault is quite remote
different areas of the network, called simultaneous faults. Both in a well-designed circuit, even in stormy weather, and it can
parallel and open types of faults can be occurring. There are happen once per 5-10 years per 100 mi of line [3].
often simultaneous faults of interest in a power system that is There are often simultaneous faults of interest in a power
combined with all types of faults. Two different types of fault system that is combined with all types of faults. Two
can consist of simultaneous faults at the same location or at different types of fault can consist of simultaneous faults at
different locations. Numerous investigations have studied the the same location or at different locations. Several
power transmission line fault detection and classification. In investigations have examined the power transmission line
this paper, we have presents simultaneous faults when it is
fault detection and classification. It is explained in [4] how
happening in the power system networks. Two methods have
been used to compare the results. The two-port method
the conventional method can be used at different locations to
showed it is more than accuracy from the traditional method. calculate simultaneous unsymmetrical faults. In [5] an
The IEEE 14-bus has been chosen to do this comparator. The adaptive statistical estimator is used to identify and classify
values of the voltage buses, angles, and power consumed were power system failures. A method for the identification of
present respectively. defects, classification, and position of errors was
implemented in [6] by the author.
Keywords-Load flow; simultaneous fault; power system In [7] a study was carried out on the detection and
analysis; IEEE system; Two- port network classification of faults using ANNs. In addition, a scheme of
the fault diagnosis designed based on a suitable model
I. INTRODUCTION working in real-time [8]. This model was to detect the fault
Kinds of faults that happened at the same time in in an unsymmetrical case for two parts of the power system,
different areas of network, called simultaneous faults. Both transmission, and distribution parts. The systematic fuzzy
parallel and open types of faults can be occurring. The most rule proposed as a new approach used for the classification
popular type of high-voltage network failure is short circuits. method for the faults issues that occur in the transmission
Short circuits may be robust or impeded in an arc. One-phase system [9]. The K-Nearest Neighbors method for detection,
earth faults, the most common type of defect, are typically classification, and location of power system faults was
50-80 percent of all transmission line defects. The number of considered in [10] [11].
faults depends on the climate, e.g. lightning intensities and The use of electrical energy is rising day by day.
other variables that differ from region to region. The rising Technological developments worldwide, especially in
amount of electrical load, brings about a voltage drop and developing countries, account for the use of electrical energy.
power losses rise along the power line[1]. The problem of It results in the annual construction of various more power
two or more errors that occur concurrently represents a plants, substations and transmission lines. This situation rises
difficult problem in the management of the broken networks. the current level of power failure. Therefore, fault studies by
Such an event may be the result of a lightning hit or an utility engineers must be regularly carried out [12].
accident caused by a man, which forces more than one fault A failure that interferes with normal current flow [13] is
at a single location [2]. known as a failure. The power system in Fig 1 shows
On the other hand, the occurrence of defect conditions at different types of defects. Short circuit failure occurs when
two or more remote points may result in a simultaneous the current flow bypasses the usual charge, and when a
failure. Typically, only two faults are considered circuit is disrupted by a fault, an open circuit failure occurs.
simultaneously which is a functional restriction. Thus, two Classification of errors can usually be categorized as
simultaneous defects are unlikely joint probabilities as they symmetric and non-symmetric errors. After a simultaneous
are measured as the sum of both individual event short circuit through all three stages, a balanced three-phase

978-1-7281-6788-6/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 188

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 08:54:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
fault occurs. Sometimes this kind of fault is named a 2. The definitions of two methods used in this work were
Symmetrical fault. explained and the formulation with data of the system is
provided in section 3. The data and results of the simulation
are presented in section 4 and in section 5 respectively.
II. SIMULTANEOUS FAULT CALCULATIONS
The model of three-phase power system can be presented
as three single phase symmetrical components defined as
follow:

𝑉𝑜 = −[𝑍𝑜] ∗ 𝐼𝑜 (1)
𝑉1 = 𝐸1 − [𝑍1] ∗ 𝐼1 (2)
Figure 1. Numerous Kinds of Faults which occurs in Power System [14] 𝑉2 = −[𝑍2] ∗ 𝐼2 (3)

The result is an Unsymmetrical fault [12], [15] if only Vo, V1 and V2 considered to be voltage vector with
some phases are affected. Most power system failures are dimension of (n x 1) sequence. Io, I1 and I2 are (n x 1)
unsymmetrical but the MVA breakout capability is phasor current vectors sequence. E1 is positive pre fault
dependent on three phases of symmetric failure. This is sequence voltage vector (n x 1). [Zo], [Z1] and [Z2] are
because a three-phase defect results in the biggest current sequence impedance matrices dimensions of (n x n) defined
defect and it must be stopped by the Circuit Breaker [16]. as Z bus and n is number of busses of the system. The
There are numerous causes of defects, including variables above are in per unit. Here the proposed
lightning, isolating aging, heavy winds, crossing trees, birds, consideration is to make a fault bus I and second fault at bus
pole-covered vehicles, kites, etc. The consequences of power j. Building of Z equation depends of equation (1) where the
system failures are as follows: symmetrical components impedance written as follows [27].
(i) Electrical equipment such as generators, bus-bars and The flowchart for description the simultaneous fault
transformers can be affected by overheating and mechanical (multiple faults) shown in Figure 2.
forces produced by faults.
(ii) The system's voltage profile may be decreased as a
result of fault to unreasonable limits. A fall in frequency
could lead to [14], [17].
For power system studies, the fault analysis assessment
is very useful because they provide information on the
various types of faults required for the development of the
protection systems of the power systems such as; the
voltages and currents. Short circuit and safety studies are
critical issues for the electrical system engineers. The main
task is to measure the failure conditions and to supply
protection equipment to isolate the failed area from the rest
of the system in due time. It is often planned carefully to
monitor the system network subject to high current damage
during failures [18]–[20].
A fault check under various types of short circuits is
called the method of calculating device voltages and currents.
Fault analysis is essential to advance customer service
security and quality. From time to time, the short-circuit
currents can be change. The new defensive element settings
(recloses, sectionalizing switches, fuses, etc.) are therefore
measured by an appropriate fault analysis technique. Short
circuit calculations are also essential to determine the short
circuit rates of the substation devices and the new switchgear
which are to be connected in the system. Fault analyses s
may also help to determine if additional reactors or failure Figure 2. Flowchart of simultaneous fault
currents are required in the network so that short circuit
currents can be set to a safe level under the capacity of The described the flowchart above as follows:
installed circuit breakers. The effect of the load is usually Step1: All the lines data of the power transmission
ignored for short circuit research [4], [21]–[25]. system, location of two bus bar fault i and j, G&T data, bus
The current paper is organized as follows: the IEEE 14 data and input number of buses.
bus system model of the power system is outlined in Section

189

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 08:54:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Step2: Calculation of the initial values of voltages and III. CONNECTION OF SEQUENCE NETWORKS OF
currents by run the load flow program and store the voltage SIMULTANEOUS FAULT
and current before fault accrue.
A parallel faults define as an unbalance within phases or
Step 3: Building (Z-Bus) programs which are needed (Z
between phases with ground while an open fault is unbalance
0, Z 1, Z 2)
cases in impedances of line. The two port network shown in
Step 4: Find the current buses before fault and save the
Figure 3 consist of a port i (fault location) and port j (fault
data in matrix Q (n, m).
location) so that types of simultaneous fault can be occur at
Step 5: Run the program analysis (method) to simulation
ports i and j and will lead to three cases: [18]
of faults in power system.
1. A parallel fault at Port i and a parallel fault at Port j.
Step 6: Find the faults current in bus bar and save the
2. A parallel fault at Port i and an open fault at Port j.
data in matrix W (n, m).
3. An open fault at Port i and an open fault at Port j.
Step 7: compare the current bus bar before faults Q and
Furthermore, the relationships of Z, Y and H parameters
current bus bar after faults W if there are difference between
with the type faults in two bus bar in power system is
current for any bus bar the detection faults happened (W (n,
presents in Table II. While in Appendix (B) described the
m) > Q (n, m)).
Two port network fault type method.
A. The Conventional Method
TABLE II. RELATIONSHIPS OF Z, Y AND H PARAMETERS WITH THE
Conventional fault analysis programs usually limit to TYPE FAULTS IN TWO BUS BAR IN POWER SYSTEM. [18]
analyst a single fault applied at one specific location in a Fault location ( port j)
power system. Moreover, the fault typically must be "phase Fault Fault
SLG 2LG L-L 3LG
a symmetric", i.e. line-to-ground faults; line-to-line faults. one type
location
Be circumvented of both these restrictions can by exploiting ( port i) SL-G Z Type H Type H Type Z Type
certain properties of the sequence [Z] matrices and solving
the problem in phase coordinates. 2L-G Y Type Y Type Y Type Y Type

The system is demonstrated with its sequence (012) [Z] L-L Y Type Y Type Y Type Y Type
matrices, the [Z] is compact to an equivalent n-bus system,
3L-G Z Type Y Type Y Type Z Type
preserving only the faulted busses. The fault conditions are
applied after transformation to phase (abc) coordinates.
Furthermore, after calculating phase voltages and currents, IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
these are transformed back to sequence values. All order of The results of this work present by using two methods
the voltages might be subsequently calculated. Appendix (A) when the simultaneous faults happened at the same time.
described the conventional method. The standard system of the IEEE 14 –bus with 20 lines
B. The Two Port Network Theory as shown in Figure 4 was used to obtain the results. At the
first, the load flow was analyzed using the Newton Raphson
Some of the most difficult problems in the solution of method in order to know the voltage bus, the generated
faulted networks are those which include two or more power, and the power consumed in this system before the
simultaneous faults. Nevertheless, when they happen, they faults happen as appeared in Table III, where the maximum
can cause relay disoperation. A two terminals pairs as shown power mismatch is 1.39758e-08 and the number of iterations
in Figure 3 represented the two port network. is 10.

TABLE III. POWER FLOW ANALYSIS FOR IEEE-14 BUS BAR. NEWTON-
RAPHSON METHOD
Bus Volt Angle Load Load Generation Generation Injected
No. Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Mvar
1 1.060 0 0 0 221.265 -285.910 0
2 1.065 -0.572 21.700 12.700 40.000 -46.325 0
3 1.060 -1.242 94.200 19.000 0.000 -74.373 0
4 1.065 -1.091 47.800 -3.900 0 0 0
Figure 3. The two port network structure
5 1.064 -0.950 7.600 1.600 0 0 0
6 1.120 -1.597 11.200 7.500 0 -1.096 0
Several types of parameters can be described in two port 7 1.094 -1.289 0 0 0 0 0
network and that depends on the voltage and current 8 1.090 -1.289 0 0 0 -22.378 0
relationship as shown in Table I: 9 1.098 -1.393 29.500 16.600 0 0 0
10 1.102 -1.445 9.000 5.800 0 0 0
TABLE I. VOLTAGES AND CURRENTS RELATIONSHIPS OF Z, Y AND H 11 1.110 -1.522 3.500 1.800 0 0 0
PARAMETERS [18] 12 1.117 -1.666 6.100 1.600 0 0 0
Impedance Parameters Z 𝑉1 𝑍11 𝑍12 𝐼1 13 1.115 -1.636 13.500 5.800 0 0 0
[ ]=[ ][ ]
𝑉2 𝑍21 𝑍22 𝐼2 14 1.104 -1.585 14.900 5.000 0 0 0
Admittance Parameters Y 𝐼1 𝑌11 𝑌12 𝑉1
[ ]=[ ][ ] Total 259.000 73.500 261.265 -430.083 0
𝐼2 𝑌21 𝑌22 𝑉2
Hybrid parameters H 𝑉1 𝐻11 𝐻12 𝐼1
[ ]=[ ][ ]
𝐼2 𝐻21 𝐻22 𝑉2

190

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 08:54:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Then, the simulate synchronize simultaneous faults on TABLE V. MAGNITUDES CURRENTS OF BUSES BEFORE AND AFTER THE
the buses (bus=10 and bus 12) and all the voltage and FAULTS IN THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD
After fault at bus 10(A-G) and bus 12(A-
currents buses were measured as appeared in Table IV. Before fault at bus 10 and bus 12
G)
A B C A B C
Current Current Current Current Current
No. Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U)
Current Mag.(P.U)

10 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 3.8566 0.1840 0.1840

12 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 2.6829 0.1400 0.1400

We can see from the results in Table IV that the voltages

on the bus (10) and bus (12) did not reach zero and that the
simultaneous fault occurred. Furthermore, the phases
currents for B and C also did not reach the zero value as
shown in Table V.
Simultaneous faults were represented in the conventional
method of analysis using matrices on buses (10) three line to
Figure 4. Standard 20-line IEEE-14 bus bar power system [26] ground and three line to ground in (12). Table VI showing
the values and angles of bus voltages before and after the
Simultaneous were represented in the conventional faults. While Table VII shown the currents of buses before
method of analysis using matrices on buses (10) single line and after the faults. It is appeared the current in phases A B
to ground and single line to ground in (12). Table IV and C is higher.
showing the values and angles of bus voltages before and
after the faults. TABLE VI. MAGNITUDES AND ANGLES OF BUS VOLTAGES BEFORE AND
AFTER THE FAULTS IN THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD
before fault when fault at two bus bar 10 (ABC-G),12 (ABC-G)
TABLE IV. MAGNITUDES AND ANGLES OF BUS VOLTAGES BEFORE AND bus
no.
Voltage Angle
Mag. Degree A B C
AFTER THE FAULTS IN THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD 1.0533 - 1.0533
1 1.06 0 1.0533 -120.0443
0.0443 119.9557
when fault at two bus bar 10 (A-G) ,12 (A-G) 1.0450 1.0450
Before fault 2 1.0650 0.5722 1.0450 -119.5203
bus 0.4797 120.4797
Voltage Angle
no. 0.9964 0.9964
Mag. Degree 3 1.0600 1.2419 0.9964 -119.1574
A B C 0.8426 120.8426
0.8732 0.8732
4 1.0648 1.0905 0.8732 -118.1176
1.06 0 1.8824 121.8824
1 1.0553 -0.0307 1.0596 -119.9618 1.0596 119.9611 0.8859 0.8859
5 1.0636 0.9504 0.8859 -118.7604
1.2396 121.2396
0.6450 - 0.6450
2 1.0650 0.5722 1.0507 0.5060 1.0641 -119.3299 1.0639 120.4800 6 1.1200 1.5967 0.6450 -127.6004
7.6004 112.3996
0.6843 - 0.6843
7 1.0936 1.2891 0.6843 -120.8902
0.8902 119.1098
3 1.0600 1.2419 1.0124 0.9037 1.0589 -118.5250 1.0568 121.0727 0.9464 0.9464
8 1.0900 1.2891 0.9464 -119.2034
0.7966 120.7966
0.4114 - 0.4114
9 1.0984 1.3926 0.4114 -126.4777
4 1.0648 1.0905 0.8910 1.6939 1.0765 -119.6584 1.0713 122.0060 6.4777 113.5223
0.1049 0.1049
10 1.1015 1.4448 0.1049 -104.6506
15.3494 135.3494
5 1.0636 0.9504 0.9086 1.0331 1.0725 -119.3718 1.0645 121.5261 0.3646 - 0.3646
11 1.1103 1.5216 0.3646 -123.4250
3.4250 116.5750
0.1211 0.1211
12 1.1171 1.6662 0.1211 -104.4391
6 1.1200 1.5967 0.7397 -5.9834 1.1281 -117.3000 1.0973 121.3854 15.5609 135.5609
0.4611 - 0.4611
13 1.1153 1.6355 0.4611 -130.3309
10.3309 109.6691
7 1.0936 1.2891 0.7009 -1.3296 1.1403 -120.9601 1.1112 124.4910 0.4310 - 0.4310
14 1.1041 1.5849 0.4310 -128.0655
8.0655 111.9345

8 1.0900 1.2891 0.9741 0.8446 1.0926 -118.6115 1.0871 121.3577

TABLE VII. MAGNITUDES CURRENTS OF BUSES BEFORE AND AFTER THE

9 1.0984 1.3926 0.4216 -7.9127 1.1925 -122.9437 1.1379 127.6289
FAULTS IN THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD
After fault at bus 10(ABC-G) and bus
10 1.1015 1.4448 0.0950 7.0237 1.2372 -126.0533 1.1939 130.5547 Before fault at bus 10 and bus 12
12(ABC-G)
A B C A B C
11 1.1103 1.5216 0.4078 -3.5158 1.1786 -122.0602 1.1449 126.2298

Current Current Current Current Current Current

No.
12 1.1171 1.6662 0.1087 11.7006 1.2233 -124.7865 1.1969 129.0556 Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U)

13 1.1153 1.6355 0.5176 -9.8964 1.1698 -119.9149 1.1174 124.8533 10 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 4.7728 4.7728 4.7728
12 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 3.0482 3.0482 3.0482
14 1.1041 1.5849 0.4615 -8.6707 1.1803 -121.5724 1.1274 126.5161

In the TWO-Port Method, the results of the 10 and 12

While Table V shown the currents of buses before and buses when the simultaneous faults were happed at the same
after the faults. It is appeared the current in phase A is higher time shown in Table VIII. Simultaneous faults were
than others phases currents. represented in the two port network method of analysis using
matrices on buses (10) single line to ground and single line
to ground in (12).

191

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 08:54:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Table VIII showing the values and angles of bus voltages before and after the faults. It is appeared the current in
before and after the faults. While Table IX shown the phases A B and C is higher.
currents of buses before and after the faults. It is appeared
the current in phase A is higher than others phases currents. V. CONCLUTION

TABLE VIII. MAGNITUDES AND ANGLES OF BUS VOLTAGES BEFORE AND

In this paper, simultaneous -faults presents when it is
AFTER THE FAULTS IN THE TWO PORT NETWORK METHOD
happening in the power system networks. Two methods have
before fault when fault at two bus bar 10 (A-G) ,12 (A-G) been used to compare between the results. Two port method
bus no. Voltage Angle
Mag. Degree
A B C shown it is more than accuracy from the traditional current.
1
2
1.06 0
1.0650 0.5722
1.0548
1.0492
-0.0469
0.4622
1.0593 -119.9615
1.0633 -119.3299
1.0597
1.0643
119.9484
120.4426
The IEEE 14-bus has been chosen to do this comparator.
3 1.0600 1.2419 1.0075 0.7563 1.0564 -118.5413 1.0584 120.9632 The values of the voltage buses, angles and power consumed
4 1.0648 1.0905 0.8734 1.5183 1.0679 -119.7805 1.0774 121.6590
5 1.0636 0.9504 0.8925 0.7826 1.0648 -119.4574 1.0696 121.2069
were present respectively. A two port network is a clear
6 1.1200 1.5967 0.7034 -8.4284 1.1083 -117.5290 1.1114 120.6347 mathematical model to represent the open faults and short
7 1.0936 1.2891 0.6639 -2.2446 1.1232 -121.4866 1.1278 123.9135
8 1.0900 1.2891 0.9625 0.5794 1.0868 -118.6808 1.0911 121.1281 circuit to ground faults. While, in the traditional way, cannot
9
10
1.0984 1.3926
1.1015 1.4448
0.3615
0.0000
-11.8794
-12.9074
1.1645 -123.9728
1.1953 -127.5101
1.1672
1.2337
126.6650
128.9733
calculate the mathematical model for open faults. Whereas
11 1.1103 1.5216 0.3421 -7.2297 1.1463 -122.8970 1.1726 125.0645 two port network, it has a wider range to represent faults in
12 1.1171 1.6662 0.0000 -61.9275 1.1773 -125.5816 1.2261 127.1982
13 1.1153 1.6355 0.4633 -14.6714 1.1416 -120.4692 1.1396 123.8044
the power system. Form the simulation result of the two-port
14 1.1041 1.5849 0.4038 -13.0484 1.1520 -122.3973 1.1536 125.5149 network method, the fault current (single line to a ground
TABLE IX. MAGNITUDES CURRENTS OF BUSES BEFORE AND AFTER THE
fault) as shown in Tables VIII to XI occurred. In phase A
FAULTS IN THE TWO PORT NETWORK METHOD reached to zero but the phases B and C did not reach zero
Before fault at bus 10 and bus 12
After fault at bus 10(A-G) and bus value when used the traditional method. While in the two-
12(A-G)
A B C A B C
port network the currents for phases B and C became zero
No.
Current Current Current Current Current Current value when the fault current occurred in phase A.
Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U)
10 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 4.2396 0 0
12 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 3.0077 0 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to thank Mosul University, College
TABLE X. Magnitudes and Angles of Bus Voltages before and after the
Faults in the Two Port Network Method of Engineering, Electrical Department, for the support given
bus
before fault when fault at two bus bar 10 (ABC-G),12 (ABC-G) during this work.
Voltage Angle
no. A B C
Mag. Degree
1 1.06 0 1.0526 -0.0599 1.0526 -120.0599 1.0526 119.9401 REFERENCES
2 1.0650 0.5722 1.0430 0.4370 1.0430 -119.5630 1.0430 120.4370
3 1.0600 1.2419 0.9899 0.6890 0.9899 -119.3110 0.9899 120.6890
[1] H. Suyono, R. N. Hasanah, and E. P. Widyananda, “Power system
4 1.0648 1.0905 0.8527 1.6056 0.8527 -118.3944 0.8527 121.6056 optimization of static VAR compensator using novel global harmony
5 1.0636 0.9504 0.8669 0.9242 0.8669 -119.0758 0.8669 120.9242 search method,” Int. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. Telecommun., vol. 8, no.
6 1.1200 1.5967 0.6006 -10.8739 0.6006 -130.8739 0.6006 109.1261 1, pp. 26–32, 2019.
7 1.0936 1.2891 0.6438 -2.3036 0.6438 -122.3036 0.6438 117.6964
8 1.0900 1.2891 0.9319 0.4865 0.9319 -119.5135 0.9319 120.4865 [2] Ahmed Nasser Alsammak; Ibrahim Ismael Abdulhameed,
9 1.0984 1.3926 0.3482 -12.1688 0.3482 -132.1688 0.3482 107.8312 “PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT FOR DISTANCE RELAY
10 1.1015 1.4448 0.0000 -17.6501 0.0000 -137.6501 0.0000 102.3499 BASED FUZZY,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 05, no. 08, pp.
11 1.1103 1.5216 0.2921 -9.6822 0.2921 -129.6822 0.2921 110.3178 1489–1495, 2018.
12 1.1171 1.6662 0.0000 26.5651 0.0000 -93.4349 0.0000 146.5651
13 1.1153 1.6355 0.4005 -16.9312 0.4005 -136.9312 0.4005 103.0688 [3] P. M. Anderson and S. Member, “ANALYSIS OF
14 1.1041 1.5849 0.3688 -14.2058 0.3688 -134.2058 0.3688 105.7942 SIMULTANEOUS FAULTS BY TWO-PORT NETWORK
THEORY P. M. Anderson, Senior Member Department of Electrical
We can see from the results in Table VIII that the Engineering and Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State
University, Ames,” IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., vol. 5, pp.
voltages on the bus (10) and bus (12) reach to the zero which 2199–2205, 1971.
the simultaneous fault occurred. Additionally, the phases [4] C. A. Gross, “Fault calculations in power systems subject to multiple
currents for B and C also reach to the zero value as shown in faults,” Proc. Annu. Southeast. Symp. Syst. Theory, no. 3, pp. 598–
Table IX. 601, 1990.
[5] D. M. Gilbert and I. F. Morrison, “A statistical method for the
TABLE XI. MAGNITUDES CURRENTS OF BUSES BEFORE AND AFTER THE
detection of power system faults,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
FAULTS IN THE TWO PORT NETWORK METHOD vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 269–275, 1997.
Before fault at bus 10 and bus 12 After fault at bus 10(ABC-G) and bus
12(ABC-G) [6] A. A. Girgis and M. B. Johns, “Inadvertent Energizing Protection of
A B C A B cC Synchronous Generators,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., no. April, pp. 56–
Current Current Current
No. Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U)
Current Current Current 57, 1989.
Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U) Mag.(P.U)
[7] M. Kezunovic and I. Rikalo, “Detect and classify faults using neural
10 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 5.2436 5.2436 5.2436 nets,” IEEE Computer Applications in Power, vol. 9, no. 4. pp. 42–47,
0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 3.4216 3.4216 3.4216
12 1996.
[8] S. Saha, M. Aldeen, and C. P. Tan, “Unsymmetrical fault diagnosis in
Simultaneous faults were represented in the two port transmission/distribution networks,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 252–263, 2013.
network method of analysis using matrices on buses (10)
[9] S. R. Samantaray, “A systematic fuzzy rule based approach for fault
three line to ground and three line to ground in (12). Table X classification in transmission lines,” Appl. Soft Comput. J., vol. 13, no.
showing the values and angles of bus voltages before and 2, pp. 928–938, 2013.
after the faults. While Table XI shown the currents of buses

192

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 08:54:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[10] A. Recioui, B. Benseghier, and H. Khalfallah, “Power system fault [20] J. Talaq, “Fault calculations using three terminal Thevenin’s
detection, classification and location using the K-Nearest Neighbors,” equivalent circuit,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 33, no. 8,
2015 4th Int. Conf. Electr. Eng. ICEE 2015, 2016. pp. 1462–1469, 2011.
[11] R. A. Abttan and A. Anwar, “Multiple Fault Detection and [21] A. Mathur, V. Pant, and B. Das, “Unsymmetrical short-circuit
Classification In Power System,” Adv. Nat. Appl. Sci., vol. 12, no. 5, analysis for distribution system considering loads,” Int. J. Electr.
pp. 7–14, 2018. Power Energy Syst., vol. 70, pp. 27–38, 2015.
[12] A. Kakilli, “System Analysis with the MVA Method for Symmetrical [22] A. Kalantari and S. M. Kouhsari, “An exact piecewise method for
Three-Phase Faults,” vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 51–56, 2013. fault studies in interconnected networks,” Int. J. Electr. Power
[13] Muhammad, “Simulation of Different Types of Faults on Northern Energy Syst., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 216–225, 2008.
Iraq Power System,” IGEC, vol. 4, no. 28, 2011. [23] F. M. Abouelenin, “A complete algorithm to fault calculation due to
[14] D. Kaur, D. S. . Bath, and D. S. Sidhu, “Short Circuit Fault Analysis simultaneous faults ‘combination of short circuits and open lines,’”
of Electrical Power System using MATLAB,” IOSR J. Electr. Proc. Mediterr. Electrotech. Conf. - MELECON, vol. 1, pp. 522–526,
Electron. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 89–100, 2014. 2002.
[15] M. O. Okelolal, A. A. Yusufft, and C. O. A, “FAULT ANALYSIS : [24] Y. Liao, “Fault location for single-circuit line based on bus-
AN APPLICATION OF THE VENIN , S NIETHOD TO 33OKV impedance matrix utilizing voltage measurements,” IEEE Trans.
TRANSMISSION GRID SYSTEM IN NIGERIA,” LAUTECH Power Deliv., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 609–617, 2008.
JAURNAL OF ENGTNEERING, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 30–43, 2005. [25] S. K and M. V. Rao, “Evaluation of Fault Voltage and Current in a
[16] I. J. Nagrath, D. P. Kothari, and R. C. Desai, Modern Power System Symmetric Power System Network,” Int. J. Innov. Res. Electr.
Analysis, vol. 12, no. 1. Taylor & Francis Group, 2008. Electron. Instrum. Control Eng., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 26–35, 2015.
[17] V. K. Mehta and R. Mehta, Principles Of Power Systems. S. Chand, [26] S. Mahapatra and M. Singh, “Analysis of Symmetrical Fault in IEEE
New Delhi, 2009. 14 Bus System for Enhancing Over Current Protection Scheme,” Int.
J. Futur. Gener. Commun. Netw., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 51–62, 2016.
[18] Z. X. Han, “GENERALIZED METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF
SIMULTANEOUS FAULTS IN ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM,”
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., vol. 101, no. 10, pp. 3933–3942,
1982.
[19] I. Dzafic and P. Mohapatra, “Impedance based fault location for
weakly meshed distribution networks,” IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid
Technol. Conf. Eur. ISGT Eur., pp. 1–6, 2011.

193

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 08:54:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.