Fault-Section Estimation in Power Systems Based on Improved Optimization Model and Binary Particle Swarm Optimization

Zhengyou He, Hsiao-Dong Chiang, Fellow,IEEE, Chaowen Li and Qingfeng Zeng

Abstract--This paper proposes an improved model which takes the failure of protetive relays (PRs) or circuit breakers (CBs) into account, and classifies different information per its importance. A weighted contribution factor is introduced in objective function, which aims to solve two problems: the influence of PRs and CBs failure, and information important factor. Binary Particle Swarm Optimization (BPSO) is employed to solve the fault-section estimation (FSE) optimization problems. In order to measure the efficiency of BPSO and make comparisons, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is also employed. The software codes have been developed to implement the algorithms. Numerical studies reveal that BPSO is superior to GA for the convergence speed and estimation results. The proposed method based on the new
model and BPSO is rational and practical and the diagnosis results are more accurate.

Index Terms--fault optimization model, algorithm.

section particle

estimation, power systems, swarm optimization, genetic

I. INTRODUCTION Fault-section estimation (FSE) identifies faulty components in power systems by using information on the operation of protective relays (PRs) and circuit breakers (CBs). Based on the fault section identified, a rapid and accurate restoration action can be taken immediately to minimize service interruption and limit the damages to the equipments. However, this task is difficult when multiple faults, failure of PRs and CBs, or false datum are involved. When all mix up, a large number of scenarios can be hypothesized and the possibility of each scenario needs to be examined, so complexity of FSE increases significantly. Presently, the main methods of FSE can be classified into three classes, Analytic Calculation-Based Method (ACBM), Reasoning-Based Method (RBM), and Optimization-Based Method (OBM). ACBM identifies fault location and fault device through analytic calculating using information of current and voltage values from Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Fault Recorder. RBM reasons the fault section by using logical rules or connotative illation, including some techniques, such as, Expert System (ES) [1]-[11], Fuzzy Logic (FL) [12] [13], Rough Set Theory (RST) [14], Petri-Net (PN) [15][17],

This work was supported by Chinese National Science Fund: No.50877068 Zhengyou He, now a visiting scholar at Cornell Uiversity, is a professor at College of Electrical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031,China. ( e-mail: hezy@swjtu.cn ). Hsiao-Dong Chiang is a professor of Cornell University, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ithaca, NY 14850,USA. (e-mail: Chiang@ece.cornell.edu).

Neural Networks (ANN) [18][19] and Bayesian Network (BN) [20]. ES-based techniques mimic the behaviors of experts to perform fact-rule comparisons and consequent search steps. But they burden some procedures of knowledge acquisition and knowledge maintenance, and they may suffer from slow response time due to conventional knowledge representation and inference mechanisms. The application of ANN to FSE is an active research area. However, some problems still remain unsolved in practical application, such as slow convergence in the training process, the difficulty to obtain sufficient useful training samples, and determination of the network parameters. In addition, the ANN approach has poor transparency; one can not determine how results are achieved, or how the diagnosis is reached from the output. FL, RST, PN and BN all aim to settle the incomplete and uncertain information problem with different degree of success. These methods are satisfactory and efficient, and some have been used in practical systems. However, there are also some obvious shortcomings, which are weak in solving the problems of fault diagnosis in large-scale power grids, and the need to establish the reason model explicitly. The third technique is OBM, which formulates the FSE problem as a 01 integer optimization problem. It can then be solved by using a global optimization method such as Boltzmann machine [21], genetic algorithm (GA) [22][25] or tabu search (TS) [26]. Although the works presented in [21][26] are still considered to be preliminary, numerical studies have shown these kind of methods may have great potential for large-scale power systems. However, for the optimization-based methods, most objective functions proposed do not consider the non-operation and the mal-operation of CBs or PRs. Also, they do not take into account the fact that different information has different weightiness and reliability. For example, the open/close information of CBs is more important than PRs event information, the probability of main protection is larger than the probability of primary and secondary backup protection operation. This kind of domain knowledge has to be included into the model designed for fault-section estimation. Thus, this paper proposes an improved optimization model to solve the above problems. The proposed model is applicable to a wide variety of fault types. However, one key issue is how to obtain the optimal result in time to ensure fault sections estimation. We propose to apply the binary Particle Swarm Optimization (BPSO) method to the improved model for fault estimation. Numerical studies reveal that the proposed model and the BPSO method lead to accurate results for the FSE problems.

978-1-4244-4241-6/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS The FSE problem has been formulated as a combinatorial optimization problem [22,23]:
Min : E ( S ) E(S ) =
NC

i =1

j =1

The meanings of all parameters in formula (1) are explained in [23] detailedly. We next reason that the above optimization model can be improved and then we propose a new model. The above model has several shortcomings when failure of PRs or CBs, multiple faults and lost or false information occur. A simple example, shown in Figure 1, is used to illustrate the shortcomings of the primary FSE modeling in (1). The simple power network contains five sections (three buses and two lines), fifteen PRs and six CBs. The five sections are busbars A, B, and C and transmission lines L1, L2, whose states are represented by S1~S5 respectively. The six circuit breakers are CB1, CB2, CB3, CB4, CB5, and CB6. The fifteen PRs include seven Main Relays (MRs), Am, Bm, Cm, L1Am, L1Bm, L2Bm and L2Cm, with states of R1~R7 respectively; four Primary Backup Realys (PBRs, local backup), L1Ap, L1Bp, L2Bp and L2Cp, with states of R8~R11 respectively; four Secondary Backup Protective Realys (SBRs remote backup), L1As, L1Bs, L2Bs and L2Cs, with states of R12~R15 respectively. We investigate the following two cases.

Figure 1. A simple power network

CASE 1: We consider the following scenario: bus B is in fault, Bm operated, CB4 opened, CB3 failed to open, the secondary backup protective relay L1As operated, then CB2 opened. At the same time L2 is in fault, L2Cm failed to be operated, and the primary backup protective relay L2Cp operated and CB5 opened. According to the optimization model (1), the cost function can be calculated as follows: (2) E ( S ) = 4 1 S 2 + 4 S 4 + 3 S5 + S 2 + 2 1 S 5 Obviously, if and only if S2=1, S4=0, S5=0 in (2), the E(S) gets the minimal value 3. And S2=1 means only bus B is in fault, and we cannot estimate the other actual fault section L2. The reason for this inability to estimate the fault section is that when the L2 (S5) is faulted, the main protective relay is not operated, because it relies on the primary backup protective relay operating. The expected value of the corresponding main protection is 1 rather than 0. Therefore, this results in the increase of the cost function due to main protective relay failing to be operated. CASE 2: Transmission line L1 is in fault, the main protection L1Am,

k =1

| Ci Ci ( S , R) | +
*

NR

| R j R j (S ) | +
*

N RC

RCk

(1)

L1Bm failed to operate, and L1Ap, L1Bp operated, causing CB2, CB3 opened, but the open information of CB3 was missing due to communication error. According to the optimization model (1), the objective function can be calculated as follows: (3) E (S ) = 3 1 S4 + 3 S4 Obviously, there are multiple solutions. For example, either S4=1 or S4=0 in (3) leads to the minimal value 3. This means that the optimization model has no result (or multiple results) and one can not estimate the fault section. If one examines the reasons for this error, it can be found that the information about state of CB3 which is opened is important. The lost information gives an opposite contribution to the objective function E(S) value. In this case, if we endow different weight factors to the CBs information, main protection, primary backup protection, secondary backup protection relay operation information and so on, this problem can be effectively solved. From the above analysis of two typical scenarios, we have observed the following: 1. In practical systems, protective relays may fail to operate, the information obtained may be erroneous or distorted, or the state of PRs and CBs may be unobserved. These facts all increase the value of the objective function; so that the actual fault section can not be estimated correctly. The original optimization model cannot handle these situations in a proper way. 2. In the original optimization model, all the information has the same degree of contributions. This may not be suitable for the FSE problem and should be imporved. In practical applications, the state of CBs coming from SCADA is more reliable than those other state information, and the main protection operation probability is greater than that of backup protection. We should incorporate different contributing factors into different types of information in the objective function of the optimization model. To resolve these problems, we will develop a new optimization model which takes into account CBs reclosure, CBs failure protection, and include a factor for eliminating the contribution to cost function due to protective relays fail to operate and CB fail to open. In addition, different information, such as CBs state, MRs operation state information, PBRs operation state information, and SBRs operation state information, have different level of importance in the objective function. This fact will be reflected in our new optimization model. III. IMPROVED MODEL The new model uses the dissimilitude degree among the actual state information and expected state information under a hypothesized fault scenario as the objective function. Based on this, the FSE problem is to find the hypothesis or hypotheses which can satisfy the minimal dissimilitude degree. In other words, when the faults identified by a correct hypothesis or hypotheses occur in a given power system, the expected states of protective relays and circuit breakers should be consistent with the reported information from SCADA. Hence, the improved optimization model is described as:

Min : E ( S )
N

i =1

j =1

l =1

The expected state function thus can be expressed in (5).

Here m = 1, 2, . NC, the expression ( MR , PBR , SBR ) = 1 denotes that there are at least one acted protective relay in

reclosure action occurs, FRm denotes that CB does not fail to act. weight factor of CB= (IDF of CB) (EECF to eliminate the CBs failure to act), it can be expressed in (6) * (6) = 0.9 | 1 FR FR |
1 m m

Here IDF = 0.9, this indicates that we are more trustful of the CBs state information. | 1 FRm FRm | is the EECF used to eliminate the CBs failure to act. In the case that the CB refused to act and the CBs failure protective relay operated, increases the objective function value E(S), product this influence factor would eliminate this influence.

| Cm Cm | = 1 will
* *

2) The expected state of MR and the weighting factor are determined as follows:

Expected state of MR (the hypothesis state of fault section) The expected state function thus can be expressed in (7)

weight factor of MR = (IDF of MR) (EECF to eliminate the MRs failure to operate), can be expressed in (8).

The constant 0.9 is the IDF, it indicates that we are more trustful the MRs state information.

MRss failure to act. For example, when the main protective relay refused to act,
| MRij MRij | = 1
*

is a CONTINUE XOR operator, it means that if the

( A, B , C ) =

1, or if

( A, B , C ) =

1,

( A, B , C ) =

( A, B , C ) is

the REVERSE operator, if

( A, B , C ) =

0,

0.

objective function value E(S), product this influence factor would eliminate this influence. It means that main protective relay fail to act and backup protective relay act, this contribution to objective function is 0.

| 1 PBRik PBRik

SBRil SBRil | is

* 2 = 0.9 | 1 PBRik PBRik

SBRil SBRil |
*

In this study, IDF is a subjective setup factor according to the importance of information. We assume the state of CBs and MRs information have the same importance degree (IDF as 0.9). The others information is less important or less likely to occur than the state of CBs and MRs information, so those IDF are chosen as 0.1. In this new optimization model, each expected state is determined in the following 1)~6). For convenience of presentation, we define several symbols first: is an AND operator, if A and B all are equal to 1, A B = 1, otherwise A B = 0. ( A, B , C ) is an OR operator, if A, B and C both are equal to 0, the result is 0, otherwise the result is 1.

MRij ( S ) = S i , i = 1, 2,
*

, N , j = 1, 2,

, Nm

the EECF to eliminate the will increase the

the mth CBs, the expression

RCRm

ATRm

Cm ( S ) = [
*

( MR, PBR, SBR )] [ RCRm

Where, E(S) is the objective function, and S is a N-dimension vector, and its ith element Si, represents the ith section and its state, and Si =0 or 1 corresponds to its normal or faulty state. S is a vector that needs to be determined. N is the total number of sections in a given power system. Nc is the total number of circuit breakers. Nm is the number of the main protective relays of the ith section. Np is the number of the primary backup protective relays of the ith section. Ns is the number of the secondary backup protective relays of the ith section. Cm, Cm* are the actual and expected state of the mth circuit breakers. (* is present expected state). MRij, MRij* are the actual and expected state of the jth Main protectiion Relay about i th section. PBRik, PBRik* are the actual and expected state of the kth Primary Backup protective Relay about ith section. SBRil, SBRil* are the actual and expected state of the lth Secondary Backup protective Relay about ith section. RCRm, RCRm* are the actual and expected state of the instantaneous fault ReClosure Relay about the mth circuit breakers. ATRm, ATRm* are the actual and expected state of the second time Auto Time Reclosure about the mth circuit breakers. FRm, FRm* are the actual and expected state of the CBs Failure protective Relay about the mth circuit breakers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are positive weighting coefficients to eliminate the error contribution and to reflect the different importance of these six information. To this end, every ( 1through 6) is equal to the product of Importance Degree Factor (IDF) and to Eliminating the Error Contribution Factor(EECF).

Expected state of CB (one of the PRs actions) AND (reclosure action) AND (no FRs action), (5)

ATRm ] FRm

indicates that no

| ATRm ATRm |) + 6 | FRm FRm | + 1 | Cm Cm |}

* * *

m =1

+ 4

Ns

Nc *

| SBRil SBRil |} +

{5 (| RCRm RCRm | +
*

k =1

E(S ) =

{2

Nm

| M Rij MRij | + 3
*

Np

| PBRik PBRik |
*

(4)

variables of are not all zero, the operation result is 1, otherwise the result is 0. We next explain each term of the objective function and determine the weighting factor associated with it.
1) The expected state of CB and the weighting factor are determined as follows:
1

(7)

(8)

The expected state function thus can be expressed in (9).

Here 0.1 is the IDF of PBR, it indicates that we are less trustful of the backup protective relay state information.

to act, when it refused to act, | PBRik PBRik |= 1 will increase the cost function value E(S), products of this influence factor would eliminate this influence.

weight factor of the CB failure protective relay = (IDF of FR), it can be expressed in (17). (17) 6 = 0.1 IV. BINARY PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION Paiticle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is inspired by particles moving around in the search space. The individuals in a PSO have their own positions and velocities. These individuals are denoted as particles. PSO refines its search by attracting the particles to positions with good solutions. Each particle remembers its own best position found so far in the exploration. This position is called personal best and is denoted by pbest in formula (18). Additionally, among these pbests, there is only one particle that has the best fitness, called the global best and is denoted by gbest in (18). The velocity of the ith dimension of each particle is defined as: k +1 k k Vi = Vi + 1 rand ()( gbest X i ) (18) k + 2 rand ()( pbest X i ) As is shown in (18) above, is known as the inertia weight, which is initialized typically in the range of [0.7, 1.2]. A larger inertia weight facilitates global exploration and a smaller inertia weight tends to facilitate local exploration to fine tune the current search area. Thus, an appropriate inertia weight seems to be of utmost importance for the speed and efficiency of the algorithm. The parameters 1 and 2, called acceleration factors, are usually set to be constant values. Additionally, rand() is a randomly generated value between 0 and 1. As mentioned, the subscript i denotes the ith dimension of a particle and the superscript k means the kth iteration in the course of optimization. The position of each particle is updated in every generation. This is done by adding the velocity vector to the position vector, as described in (19): k +1 k k (19) X = X +V
i i i

4) The expected state of SBR and the weighting factor are determined as follows:

Expected state of SBR (the hypothesis state of fault section) (1 the actual state of MRs) (1 the actual state of PBRs) The expected state function thus can be expressed in (11).

j =1

5) The expected state of the CB reclosure relay and the weighting factor 5 are determined as follows:

The expected state function thus can be expressed in (13). * (13) RCR = H (C ) ( MR , FBR , SBR )
m m

For permanent fault, Expected state of CB reclosure {(CB closed by hand) or (instantaneous fault recluse)} (any relay action for the second time)

Here, if

H (C m )

1, CB is closed.

It has been noticed that members of the group seem to share information amongst themselves, a fact that leads to increased

For the instantaneous fault, The Expected state CB reclosure (CB is closed state) (any relay action for the first time)

weight factor of SBRs= (IDF of SBR), it can be expressed in (12). (12) 4 = 0.1 Here 0.1 is the IDF of SBR, it indicates that we are less trustful of the backup protective relay state information.

SBRil ( S ) = Si
*

Nm

Np

MRij ( S )

PBRik ( S )

(11)

j =1

|1

SBRil SBRil | is

the EECF to eliminate the PBRs failure

The expected state function thus can be expressed in (16) * (16) FR = S ( MR, FBR, SBR) (1 C )
m

3 = 0.1 | 1

SBRil SBRil |
*

(10)

Expected state of the CB failure protective relay (one of the protective relay actions) (1 state of CB action)

(weight factor of PBR) = (IDF of PBR) (EECF to eliminate the PBRs failure to operate), it can be expressed in (10).

PBRik ( S ) = Si
*

Nm

MRij ( S )

(9)

j =1

weight factor of CB reclosure = (IDF of the CB reclosure), it can be expressed in (15). (15) 5 = 0.1
6) The Expected state of the CB failure protective relay and the weighting factor 6 are determined as follows:

Expected state of PBR (the hypothesis state of fault section) (1 the actual state of MRs)

and if ( MR , FBR , SBR ) 2 = 1 , it means that there is at least one protective relay acted at the second time.

Here, if

HH (C m )

1, it means that the CB is closed by hand,

3) The expected state of PBR and the weighting factor are determined as follows:

The expected state function thus can be expressed in (14). * (14) ATRm = ( RCRm HH (Cm )) ( MR, FBR, SBR )
2

cohesion or efficiency (e.g., the search of food in bird flocking) of the group. Particle swarms have not only individual but also a collective intelligence, simply by virtue of their social interactions. The original version of PSO [27] operates on real values. However, there are situations that deal with binary value problems. Therefore, the binary PSO (BPSO) [28] is made possible with a simple modification to the PSO. This BPSO solves binary problems similar to those traditionally optimized by GA. It has been observed that the PSO found global optima faster than any of the three kinds of GAs in all conditions except for problems featuring low dimensionality [29][30]. In our numerical studies for solving the new FSE problem, we have similar observations that BPSO exhibits better convergence. In BPSO, position and best position can take on values of 0 or 1 only. The velocity will determine a probability threshold. If Vi is higher, the individual is more likely to choose 1. Lower values favor the 0 choice. Such a threshold needs to stay in the range [0.0, 1.0]. One straightforward function for accomplishing this is common in neural networks. The function is called the sigmoid function and is defined as follows:
sigmoid (Vi ) = 1 1 + exp( Vi )

(20)

A random number (drawn from a uniform distribution between 0.0 and 1.0) is then generated, whereby Xi is set to 1 if the random number is less than the value from the sigmoid function, or else Xi is set to 0 as illustrated in the following:
Xi = 1 Xi = 0 rand () < sigmoid (Vi ) rand () sigmoid (Vi )

Furthermore, in order to ensure that there is always some chance of a bit flipping, a constant Vmax can be set at the start of a trial to limit the range of Vi. A large Vmax value for Vmax results in a low frequency of changing state of particle position, whereas a small value increases the frequency of changing state of binary particle position. In our study, Vmax is set at 4.0, so that there is always at least a good chance that a bit will change state. This is to limit Vi so that sigmoid(Vi) does not approach too close to 0.0 or 1.0. This binary model functions is similar to the function of mutation rate in GA. In the FSE problem here, Xi = Si, represents the state of the ith equipment (faulty or normal) of given power networks. The detailed flowchart for solving FSE problem based on BPSO is shown in Figure 2. According to a large number of emluators, it can get better effect when using the following setting for the parameters of BPSO. Swarm Size M = 50~100; Maximum Iterations K = 200; Dimensions D = Number of elements of the given power networks; Inertia Weight = 1.0; Acceleration Factors = 2.1; Maximum Velocity Vmax = 4.0.

(21)
Figure 2. The implementation flowchart of BPSO based FSE

V. CASE STUDIES To evaluate the performance of the improved optimization model and the efficiency of BPSO, software codes have been developed and applied to several test examples. A sample power system Figure 3 is used to illustrate the effectiveness of the improved optimization model and the efficiency of the BPSO-based algorithm. A. Test System

Figure 3. A sample power networks

B. Case Studies Several cases are summarized in Tab 1. A number of PRs are operated and CBs are opened, but the fault section is to be estimated. Based on the improved optimization model, the testing results are displayed in Tab 1, it can be seen that the improved model is superior to the original model in identifying fault sections, as shown in several cases to be explained in the following. In addition, the performance of BPSO and GA in solving FSE problem is presented in Tab 2 . These tables also include the probability of optimum (statistical probability of optimal result based on simulations ), maximum iteration number of convergence, average iteration number and average running time at populations 50 and 100. The presented graphs (Figure 4 Figure 9) show the variations of the minimum fitness during the convergent process and these variations can also be used to compare the convergence behavior of BPSO and the GA. For Case 1, a possible explanation is as follows: there could be a fault on B1, so B1m actuates, and CB4, CB5, CB9 are opened. However, the signal of CB9 has not been received by the control center. Meanwhile, another fault may occur on L1, but L1Sm fails to initiate, so CB7 is opened by L1Sp or the operation of B1m. CB7 is opened by the operation of L1Rm. The analyses of other cases are similar to Case 1. There could be multiple faults occurring but some relays and circuit
-

CB33 CB34 CB39 CB7 CB8 CB11 5 CB12 CB29 CB30 CB39 CB40 6 CB2 CB4 CB5 CB7 CB11 CB12 CB28

L7Rm L8Ss L1Sm L1Rp L2Sp L2Rp L7Sp L7Rm L8Sm L8Rm T1p T2s L1Sp L1Rp L2Rs L3Rs

T1 B1 L1

Tab 2. The efficiency of BPSO for solving FSE (Swarm size=50) BPSO Swarm Maximum Average Average Case Probability size iteration iteration running of optimum number number time 1 100% 15 9.77 0.1156s 2 100% 14 9.73 0.1178s 3 100% 14 9.81 0.1197s 50 4 99.8% 18 10.20 0.1246s 5 99.5% 20 9.97 0.1360s 6 99.7% 19 10.02 0.1220s Tab 3. The efficiency of GA for solving FSE (Swarm size=50) GA Swarm Maximum Average Average Case Probability size iteration iteration running of optimum number number time 1 81% 194 77.62 1.2258s 2 73% 194 92.82 1.4790s 3 94% 180 52.91 0.7217s 50 4 78% 199 104.42 1.3191s 5 81% 199 106.18 1.3529s

L1 L2 L7 L8

CB30 CB32 CB33 CB35 CB36 CB37

T7m T8p B7m B8m L5Sm L5Rp L6Ss

L5 L7 B7 B8 T7 T8

Figure 3 is a sample power network which consists of 28 sections, 40 circuit breakers and 84 relays. 28 sections are A1,,A4, T1,,T8, B1,,B8, L1,,L8, A and B denote busbar, T is transformer and L represents transmission line. 40 circuit breakers are CB1,CB2 CB40. The configuration of the protective relays is as follows: Each busbar has one MR. It is used to initiate the circuit breakers to disconnect the fault in the busbar. Each transformer has three relays, MR, PBR and SBR. The MR is used to initiate the two circuit breakers at its ends when there is a fault on the transformer. The PBR is to initiate the circuit breakers when a fault has occurred while the main relay fails to operate. The purpose of the SBR is to protect the transformer in case of a fault occurring on one of its neighboring elements and the main protective relay of the faulted element fails to operate. Each transmission line has two sets of MRs, PBRs and SBRs, one for the sending end and the other for the receiving end. The MR of each end is to actuate the circuit breaker of that end when there is fault on the line. The PBR in each end is used to protect the line in case a fault has occurred while the main relay fails to operate. The SBR is used to protect the transmission line in case a fault occurs on one of its neighboring elements but the main protective relay fails to operate. In 84 PRs, 36 PRs are main relays, 24 PRs are primary backup relays and others are secondary backup relays. They are A1m,,A4m, T1m,,T8m, B1m,,B4m, L1Sm,L1Rm,, L8Sm,L8Rm, T1p,,T8p, T1s,,T8s, L1Sp,L1Rp,, L8Sp,L8Rp, L1Ss,L1Rs,, L8Ss,L8R respectively. The subscript m denotes main relay, p means primary backup relay and s is secondary backup relay. Additionally, the sending end is signed to S and the receiving end is signed to R.

breakers refuse to operate, or else some information is not received by the control center. In these instances, the obtained results from solving the optimization models could be error or uncertain when using the original model, whereas the improved model can give much more accurate results. This can also be concluded from Tab 1. Case 6 is another example. A possible scenario for Case 6 is that several nearly simultaneous faults occurred on T1, B1 and L1, however, the main relays T1m, B1m, L1Sm and L1Rm refuse to actuate. Consequently, CB2 and CB4 are opened by the action of T1p, CB7 and CB11 are opened depend on operation of L1Sp and L1Rp. To eliminate the fault on B1, secondary backup relays L2Rs and L3Rs initiate, then CB12 and CB28 are opened. This may be the most appropriate explanation for Case 6, but the simulation applied to the original model can not give a reasonable result. This is because the original model does not consider the influence of relay failure to the fitness function whereas the improved model adds a weighted contribution factor to the fitness function, which can give perfect results.
Tab 1. Status of relays, circuit breakers and results of simulations
Case Reported actuated relays CB4 CB5 CB6 CB7 CB11 CB4 CB5 CB6 2 CB7 CB8 CB9 CB10 CB11 CB12 3 CB14 CB16 CB29 CB39 CB19 CB20 CB29 Reported actuated circuit breakers B1m L1Sp L1Rm B1m L1Sm L1Rp B2m L2Sp L2Rm T3p L7Sp L7Rm Results of diagnosis Improved model B1 L1 Original model B1 L1 B1 B2 L1 L2 T3 L7 L5 L7 B7 L5 B7

B1 B2 L1 L2

T3 L7

B8 T7 T8 B8 T7 T8 L1 L2 L7 L8 L1 L7 L8

T1 B1

5 baT

71%

187

95.26

1.3762s
minimum fitness

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 16 31 46 61 76 91

Tab 4. The efficiency of BPSO for solving FSE (Swarm size=100) BPSO Swarm Maximum Average Average Case Probability of size iteration iteration running optimum number number time 1 100% 10 8.15 0.1914s 2 100% 11 8.08 0.1894s 3 100% 12 8.41 0.1966s 100 4 100% 13 8.59 0.2066s 5 100% 16 8.46 0.1973s 6 100% 14 8.69 0.1921s Tab 5. The efficiency of GA for solving FSE (Swarm size=100) GA Swarm Maximum Average Average Case Probability size iteration iteration running of optimum number number time 1 100% 136 25.96 0.3399s 2 100% 196 70.59 0.8515s 3 100% 130 19.91 0.2392s 100 4 99% 189 94.76 1.1416s 5 99% 193 70.14 0.8508s 6 98% 191 75.36 0.8726s
12 BPSO GA

BPSO GA

106 121 136 150

generations

Figure 7. Minimum fitness against number of generations between BPSO and GA, Case 4 (Swarm size = 100)
12 BPSO GA

minimum fitness

10 8 6 4 2 0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

91 100

generations

Figure 8. Minimum fitness against number of generations between BPSO and GA, Case 5 (Swarm size = 100)
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 100 BPSO GA

minimum fitness

10 8 6 4 2 0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41

46 50

generations

Figure 4. Minimum fitness against number of generations between BPSO and GA, Case 1 (Swarm size = 100)
12 BPSO GA

minimum fitness

generations

minimum fitness

10 8 6 4 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 9. Minimum fitness against number of generations between BPSO and GA, Case 6 (Swarm size = 100)

C. Performance of

BPSO

90

100

generations

Figure 5. Minimum fitness against number of generations between BPSO and GA, Case 2 (Swarm size = 100)
12 BPSO GA

minimum fitness

10 8 6 4 2 0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41

46

50

generations

Figure 6. Minimum fitness against number of generations between BPSO and GA, Case 3 (Swarm size = 100)

Considering both BPSO and GA, it can be concluded that the BPSO requires less computational time than the GA. The difference in computational speed can be related to the characteristics of each algorithm. Compared to the GA, BPSO has neither crossover between individuals nor mutations, and particles are never substituted by other individuals during the run. Therefore, execution of these operators takes a shorter time in comparison to the GA operator, especially when the dimension is high or population size is large. According to Tab 2 Tab 5 and Figure 4 Figure 9, one can clearly observe that BPSO-based algorithms on average give an optimum result within approximately 10 generations, so the running time for searching the optima for BPSO is much faster than for GA. Two different population sizes are simulated at 50 and 100. BPSO is again more efficient for smaller population size and needs less generations compared to the GA. In addition, BPSO has better convergence than GA at the same population. VI. CONCLUSIONS Fault-section estimation in a control centre can be difficult if the information from the energy management system is corrupted or missing and if there is a malfunction or failure to operate of the protective relays. The existing optimization models have difficulty in resolving these issues. This paper

proposed an improved optimization model which takes into account the influence of relay failure and different degree of importance for each different information. Our numerical studies have shown that the improved optimization model is superior to the original model. Also, comparisons between BPSO and GA are made when applied to solve the FSE problem. In general, BPSO is shown to have a faster speed than GA. In addition, BPSO has better convergence results than GA in the same population. The convergence speed (the required number of generations for an optimum result) and convergence results are very important factors for practical on-line applications. Hence, the combination of the improved optimization model proposed and the BPSO presented to solve the FSE problem appears to be a good alternative to solve the FSE problem for practical power networks.. VII. REFERENCES
[1] C. Fukui and J. Kawakami, An expert system for fault section estimation using information from protective relays and circuit breakers, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PD-1, pp. 8390, Oct. 1986. E. Cardozo and S. N. Talukdar, A distribution expert system for fault diagnosis, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 3, pp. 641646, May 1988. A. A. Girgis and M. B. Johns, A hybrid expert system for faulted section identification, fault type classification and selection of fault location algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 978985, Apr. 1989. S. Kumano, H. Ito, T. Goda, Y. Uekubo, S. Kyomoto, H. Kourogi, and Y. Ariura, Development of expert system for operation at substation, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 8, pp. 5665, Jan. 1993. K. Tomsovic, C. C. Liu, P. Ackerman, and S. Pope, An expert system as a dispatchers aid for the isolation of line section faults, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 2, pp. 736743, July 1987. C. A. Protopapas, K. P. Psaltiras, and A. V. Machias, An expert system for substation fault diagnosis and alarm processing, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.6, pp. 648655, Apr. 1991. Y. L. Zhu, Y. H. Yang, B. W. Hogg, W. Q. Zhang, and S. Gao, An expert system for power systems fault analysis, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 503509, Feb. 1994. E. M. Vazquez, O. L. M. Chacon, and H. J. F. Altuve, An on-line expert system for fault section diagnosis in power systems, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 357362, Feb. 1997. C. C. Liu, M. Sforna, and H. Miao, On-line fault diagnosis using sequence-of-events recorder information, in Proc. Intell. Syst. Applicat. Power System, 1996, pp. 339344. Y. M. Park, G. W. Kim, and J. M. Sohn, A logic based expert system (LBES) for fault diagnosis of power system, IEEE Trans. Power System., vol. 12, pp. 363369, Feb. 1997. Y. C. Huang, Fault section estimation in power systems using a novel decision support system, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 439444, May 2002 H. J. Cho and J. K. Park, An expert system for fault section diagnosis of power systems using fuzzy relations, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 342348, Feb. 1997. W. H. Chen, C. W. Liu, and M. S. Tsai, On-line fault diagnosis of distribution substations using hybrid cause-effect network and fuzzy rule-based method, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 710717, Apr. 2000. Ching-Lai Hor, Peter A. Crossley, and Simon J. Watson,Building knowledge for substation-based decision support using rough sets IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 13721379, July. 2007 K. L. Lo et al., Power systems fault diagnosis using Petri nets, in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 144, May 1997, pp. 231236. Jing Sun, Shi-Yin Qin, and Yong-Hua Song, Fault diagnosis of electric power systems based on fuzzy petri nets, IEEE Trans. Power System, vol. 19, pp. pp.2053-2059, Nov.2004 Xu Luo, and Mladen Kezunovic, Implementing fuzzy reasoning petri-nets for fault section estimation IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 23, pp. 676685, April. 2008

[2] [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[18] Z. E. Aygen, S. Seker, and M. Bagriyanik, Fault section estimation in electrical power systems using artificial neural network approach, in Proc. IEEE Trans. Dist. Conf., vol. 2, pp. 466469,1999. [19] Ghendy Cardoso, Jr., Jacqueline Gisle Rolim, and Hans Helmut Zrn. Application of Neural-Network modules to electric power system fault section estimation. IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 19, pp. 10341038, Oct. 2004. [20] Zhu Yongli, Huo Limin, and Lu Jinling, Bayesian Networks-based approach for power systems fault diagnosis IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 21, pp. 634638, April. 2006 [21] Oyama T. Fault section estimation in power system using Boltzmann machine. Proceedings of the Second International Forum on Application of Neural Networks to Power Systems (ANNPS'93), 1993. p. 38. [22] F.S. Wen and Z. X. Han, Fault section estimation in power systems using a genetic algorithm, Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 165172, 1995. [23] ------ and Z.X. Han. A refined genetic algorithm for fault section estimation in power systems using the time sequence information of circuit breakers. Electric Mach Power Syst ,24 (1996), pp. 801815. [24] L.L. Lai, A.G. Sichanie and B.J. Gwyn, Comparison between evolutionary programming and a genetic algorithm for fault-section estimation. IEE Proc: Generation, Transmission Distrib vol.145 no.5 pp. 616620,1998. [25] C.S. Chang, L. Tian and F.S. Wen, A new approach to fault section estimation in power systems using ant system. Electric Power Syst Res. Vol.41, pp. 6370,1999 [26] F.S. Wen and C.S. Chang, Possibilistic-diagnosis theory for fault-section estimation and state identification of unobserved protective relays using Tabu-search method. IEE Proc Generation, Transmissions Distrib vol.145 no.6, pp. 722730,1998. [27] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle Swarm Optimization[C]. IEEE World Intel Conf on Neural Networks, Perth, Australia, 1995: 1942-1948. [28] J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm, in Proc. Int. Conf. Systems, Man, Cybernetics. Piscataway, NJ, 1997, pp. 41044109. [29] K. A. De Jong, An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, 1975. [30] J.Kennedy andW. M. Spears, Matching algorithms to problems: An experimental test of the particle swarm and some genetic algorithms on the multimodal problem generator, in Proc. Int. Conf. Evolutionary Computation. Piscataway, NJ, 1998, pp. 7883.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Zhengyou He, received the PH.D. degree in electrical engineering at Southwest Jiaotong University, in Mar. 2001. B.S degree in computation engineering from Chongqing University, P.R.China, in 1992. He received M.S. degree in the same department from Chongqing University in ju ne 1995. His research interests are in the area of Signal Process and Information Theory and its application in electrical power system, power system fault diagnosis. Currently, he is a Professor at the Department of Electrical Engineering at Southwest Jiaotong University , China. Hsiao-Dong Chiang (F97) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering and computer sciences from the University of California at Berkeley in 1986. He is currently a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. His research interests include nonlinear system theory, computation, and application to electrical circuits such as power systems, signals, and systems. He has developed tailored solution methods such as BCU methods for direct analysis of power system transient stability and Trust-Tech methodology for global optimization of nonlinear programming problems. He holds 9 U.S. patents. He was Associate Editor for Express Letters of IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems: Part I; 1993 1995. He was Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems; 1990 - 1991. Chao Li and Qingfeng Zeng are graduate students, who are pursuing for M.S. degree in college of electrical engineering Southwest Jiaotong University. Their research interests are in electrical power system and its automation.

[14] [15] [16] [17]