Load modeling for fault location in distribution
systems with distributed generation.
A. Herrera-Orozco, S. Prez-Londoo and J. Mora-Flrez, Member, IEEE
Abstract-- This paper shows the influence of the load modeling
in the behavior of voltage (V), current (I) and impedance (Z)
measurements during pre-fault and fault steady states of power
distribution systems. The test system is the 24.9 kV IEEE 34
nodes power distribution system, modeled by ATP software,
considering load models as constant impedance, constant current,
constant power and hybrid load composed using the previous
three models. All loads were coded using Models of ATP. As
result of the test, a comparative analysis of the signals of V and I
measurements and also Z as seen from the power substation is
performed. The result shows that the load model affects the fault
steady state of the power distribution system, which directly will
influence the fault locator performance, since this uses the
measurements of V and I at the power substation at pre-fault and
fault steady states.
Index Terms--Distributed generation, fault location, power
distribution, static load models, ZIP load model.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE power distribution system is an important part of the
power system and is directly related to the end user, then
the requirements of high quality of power are mandatory. This
is the reason of why the research activity in areas associated to
power quality has experienced a strong progress in recent
decades, specifically in relation to the waveform, service
continuity and customer support [1]. The current importance
of these aspects is associated with the active participation of
private resources in the electricity sector which requires of the
establishment of remuneration guidelines and quality indexes
[2] [3]. Product quality means satisfying conditions of wave
quality (or power) and supply continuity [4]. The problem
discussed here is associated with supply continuity.
The faults in distribution systems affect negatively the
indices proposed to quantify the continuity of supply, and
This work was developed in ICE3 (Col) Research Group on Power
Quality and System Stability. It is was supported by the Young Researcher
Program Virginia Gutierrez de Pineda of the Colombian Institute for the
Science and Technology Development (COLCIENCIAS) and the Universidad
Tecnolgica de Pereira.
A. Herrera-Orozco is student of the Faculty of Engineering, in the
Masters program in Electrical Engineering, scholarship holder of the
Universidad Tecnolgica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia. (e-mail:
arherrera@utp.edu.co).
S. Prez-Londoo is assistant Professor in the Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Universidad Tecnolgica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia. (e-mail:
saperez@utp.edu.co).
J. Mora-Flrez is assistant Professor in the Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Universidad Tecnolgica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia. (e-mail:
jjmora@utp.edu.co).
978-1-4673-2673-5/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE
therefore this improvement has become an important target for
utilities, since this will avoid penalties and help to improving
the quality of electric supply. Currently there are several
applications that estimate both, the distance to the fault and the
faulted zone, through techniques such as methods based on the
model (MBM) and knowledge-based methods (MBC) [4].
However, an important aspect for the adequate performance of
the locators is the modeling of the power system.
When performing simulation of a power distribution
system using a specific software, it is noticed that the circuit
behavior can be appreciably different from the system
operated by the utility. These differences affect considerably
the performance of locators, since all the methods are based on
the system model. A common case and caused by the absence
of information in the distribution companies, leads to the
existence of circuit modeling parameters which are assumed,
and therefore may be different to those in the real power
system, as the value and load type, among the most important
ones. The load models used in most of the applications of fault
location are constant impedance [5], [6] and [7]. Considering
the actual behavior of the electrical power system, the set of
protections and loads, this paper is devoted to analyze their
possible influence on the fault location.
Thus, this paper proposes a comparative analysis between
different load models, using the values of the voltage (V) and
current (I) measurements, and values of the impedances (Z) as
seen from the power substation considering a power
distribution system with distributed generation (DG), and also
performing different types of shunt faults (single-phase, phase
to phase, double phase to ground and three-phase), with
different fault resistances (Rf) and varying the load type from
a programmed model using the tool Models in ATP (Constant
impedance, constant current, constant power, and hybrid
models [5], [8]), simulated at different distances from the
substation. Additionally, these models were used by fault
locators in power distribution systems with distributed
generation [9].
As contents, section two presents the basic theoretical
aspects for understanding the paper; the third section presents
the proposed methodology. Section four is devoted to present
the test and the analysis of the results. Finally, conclusions of
this research are highlighted.
II. BASIC THEORETICAL ASPECTS
In this section the basic aspects of theory required for
performing of this work are presented. More detailed
 2

explanations are out of the scope of this document, but could tool for describing the dynamic behavior of complex physical
be found in the references provided. systems. In ATP, it can be used for describing the operation of
circuit components and of control components. It can also be
A. Static Load Modeling
used for generating signals or for analyzing measurements
Static load models are those which generally can be from the circuit. Finally, it can be used as the interface
represented as polynomial functions of the applied voltage [5] between ATP and outside programs [12].
[6] [7]. In general, load could be represented as (1).
III. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
np nq
The proposed methodology is divided into three stages. The
k =0
(
S = Pn a pk V p .u . )b pk
(
+ jQn aqk V p.u .
k =0
)b qk
first is oriented to the power distribution circuit modeling
s.a (1) using ATP, which was modeled as a base case (Loads
modeled as Zcte using the elements of ATP). Additional
np nq
models were proposed, using modeling tools provided by the
a pk = aqk = 1 Models tool of ATP.
k =0 k =0

Where: The second stage is concerning to the fault simulation of

n Subscript that denotes the nominal value of the
variable.
a p aq Power participation coefficient.
n p nq Maximum number of power
coefficients, (usually 3).
b p bq Characteristic power exponent.
This model is commonly known as the ZIP load model
(constant impedance (Zcte), constant current (Icte) and constant
power (Scte)) [7].
On the other hand a special case is presented in (2), which
represents the exponential load model [5] [7].
(
S = Pn V p.u . )b p
(
+ jQn V p.u . )b
In this case bp and bq are real values. If bp = 0 , the load
consumes the same power despite fluctuations in voltage
magnitude (Scte). If bp = 1 , the load consumes the same
current despite fluctuations in voltage magnitude (Icte).
bp = 2 , the load maintains the same impedance despite
fluctuations in voltage magnitude (Zcte). The same
consideration applies for the reactive power with bq .
B. Simulation Software
The software used for modeling and simulation of the test
circuits is Alternative Transient Program (ATP) [10].
ATP clearly offers a way to adapt the load model according
to the voltage variation on the power circuit, and is therefore a
useful tool for modeling the power distribution system, where
is crucial to have this type of models.
Until now, the implemented power systems for fault
location were modeled as constant impedance load [11]. Using
ATPDraw, the values for the load parameters are introduced
as impedance and are normally estimated from the average
values and registers from customers, and also taking into
account the nominal values of the power transformers.
Models is a general technical description language
supported by a simulation solver. It is a programming
language targeted to time-domain simulation, and is used as a
the circuit nodes considering different fault resistances (RF
between 0.5 and 40), and different fault types [13]. Four
fault types were simulated: a) Single-phase to ground fault
(phase A), b) Phase to phase fault (phases A-B), c) Phase-
participation phase to ground fault (phases A-B-ground) and d) Three phase
fault (phases A-B-C).
As a result of the simulation, a database is obtained for V, I
and Z at pre-fault and fault steady states at the generating
substation (DG1 and DG2).
As a last point, the third stage involves the comparative
analysis of the load models proposed, through comparison of
the results of the simulation. Thus, a comparative analysis of
different load models through graphs for observing the
differences between the base case (Zcte) and the loads models
proposed is performed. These graphs show the distance at
q (2)
which the fault occurs, which is measured with respect to the
main power substation (DG1), the fault resistance considered
in the simulation (RF) and the difference which is presented
between the models (error).
The error considered for magnitude values comparison is
the relative error as presented in (3).
X Base X Cal (3)
ER =
X Base
Where X Base , is the value of the measured signal (V, I or
Z) of the base circuit modeled with constant impedance using
the modules of ATP. X Cal , is the value of the measured
signal (V, I or Z) considering different load models.
The comparison for angle values was made using
difference in degrees between the base case and the result
using the respective load model.
A. Load Modeling Proposal
The proposed load model was coded using Models in ATP
and allows modeling the load according to ZIP polynomial
model, or if desired also from exponential form depending on
the need. This model uses one of the predefined Models of
ATP (Type 94), Norton non-transmission version [12], [14].
The data used for configuration of the load model in ATP
tool Models are:

- Snom: Load power [VA]
- FP: Power factor of the load
- Vnom: Nominal voltage [V]
- Vopi: Initial operating voltage [V]
- Vbreak: Breakdown voltage of the load model in p.u. Its
default value is 0.6 p.u as suggested in [15].
- bp y bq: Parameters that define the type of model used, 0
for Scte, 1 for Icte and 2 for Zcte [5] [7].
- ap0, ap1, ap2: Are the values of the coefficients ZIP load
model between 0 and 1 which indicates the percentage
distribution of each type of load for the active power; i.e. that,
if one has a load placed with an active power distribution
Scte=10%, Icte=30% and Zcte=60%, these coefficients will be
ap0=0.1, ap1=0.3 and ap2=0.6. Ap0 is the coefficient for Scte,
ap1 for Icte and ap2 for Zcte.
- aq0, aq1, aq2: Are the values of the coefficients ZIP load
model between 0 and 1 which indicates the percentage
distribution of each type of load for the reactive power. Aq0 is
the coefficient for Scte, aq1 for Icte and aq2 for Zcte.
If a hybrid model is required, exponential bp and bq values
can change; on the other hand, if the hybrid model is desired
ZIP bp and bq values are equal to 1 and change the values of
the model coefficients ZIP (ap0, ap1, ap2 y aq0, aq1, aq2).
Fig. 1(a), shows the data window load model coded using
the tool Models of ATP (Type 94), and Fig. 1(b), shows the
model in ATPDraw.
Fig. 1(a). Fig. 1(b).
Fig. 1(a). Data window load model programmed using the tool Models of
ATP (Type 94) in ATPDraw. (b). Schematic model programmed into
ATPDraw.
IV. TEST AND RESULTS
A. Test System
As test system, the 24.9 kV IEEE of 34 nodes power
distribution feeder is selected [8]. It corresponds to a circuit
currently located in Arizona U.S.A. This circuit was modified
to include a distributed generation source (DG2) at node 840.
This last source has the same characteristics as the main
source (DG1), but has a lower power output.
It is also important to note that in this case, voltage
regulators are not included, and the transformer connected to a
three phase load located at node 832, was reduced together
3
with the load. The test power system was modeled using
elements and the load Zcte from the ATP (Base Case). Next,
new load models at the same circuit, but considering those
coded using the tool Models of ATP, to obtain the proposed
different load models (Zcte, Icte, Scte, 80%Icte plus 20%Zcte [5]
and the hybrid model circuit IEEE34 [8]).
Fig. 2(a) and 2(b), shows the test circuit modeled in
ATPDraw with loads modeled with elements of the ATP (base
case) and loads modeled with the tool of Models.
DG2
DG1
Fig. 2(a). Test circuit with loads modeled with elements of ATP.
DG1
DG2
Fig. 2(b). Test circuit with loads coded using Models of ATP.
B. Automatic Fault Simulation
An extensive fault simulation was performed using an
automatic fault simulation tool developed by the research
group ICE3 [16]. This tool, through the interaction between
ATP and Matlab software, can automatically simulate
different faults, with different fault resistances and at nodes of
a specific system, and thus obtain a set database of pre-fault
and fault steady state measurements of V and I in Matlab in
both power substation (DG1 and DG2). In total, 1012 faults
were simulated for power system, for a cumulative total of
6072 faults that provide rms values of V and I in DG1 and
DG2.
The simulation was performed on a HP Compaq 6000 pro
SFF computer, with a processor Intel(R) core(TM)2 Quad
CPU Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz and 4 GB RAM installed, with 32-
bit operating system. The average time simulation of the
circuit with load programmed with Models tool for obtaining
descriptors was 2.976 hours for each circuit with a time step of
0.1ms in ATP.

C. Analysis of Results
The most relevant results are shown in this analysis section.
1) Analysis of Pre-fault Steady State
The voltages (V), currents (I) and impedances (Z) have to
be equal for all types of loads considered in pre-fault steady
state. From fig. 3 to 6, show the percentage error obtained
respect to the base circuit for DG1 and DG2.
For all graphs are taking the following symbolic
convention:
Circuit with load model for Zcte.
Circuit with load model for Icte.
Circuit with load model for Scte.
Circuit with hybrid load model with 80% Icte plus 20%
Zcte [5].
Circuit with hybrid load model that was taken from the
database IEEE34 circuit [8].
Fig. 3. Comparative graph for voltage magnitude of pre-fault in DG1.
Fig. 4. Comparative graph for angle of voltage to pre-fault in DG1.
According to Fig. 3, the differences shown by the five
models have errors less than 0.7% from the base case; i.e.,
have values slightly less than the value based on the value of
the magnitude of voltage and are constant in all settings.
From to fig. 4, the differences presented in the angle are
4
lower than 0.35 degrees from the base case, presented errors
more pronounced with the load model corresponding to Scte,
followed by the Icte model, then the cases of the hybrid models
and finally with errors approximately 0% in the case Zcte
model (As was expected for this last case).
Fig. 5. Comparative graph for current magnitude of pre-fault in DG1.
Fig. 6. Comparative graph for angle of current to pre-fault in DG1.
As presented in figures, the model with the lowest error
from the base case is Zcte, because the basis circuit is also Zcte,
but considering loads modeled with elements of ATP
predefined and non-programmed by tools Models.
The comparative graphs for the pre-fault currents (Fig. 5
and 6), both in magnitude and phase angle, show a behavior
similar to the tensions, but the difference is more remarkable
from the base case for the magnitude of currents, appearing
the same order as presented previously for the models,
showing greater difference in the model of Scte.
Errors in estimation of the impedance as seen from the
power substation (Z) are a reflection of the reason for the
graphs of V and I, presenting the same or more pronounced
errors in both magnitude as phase angle, and also a similar
 5

behavior to presented at the above figures.

This behavior is presented only of a single phase (phase A),
and similar behaviors are expected at the other phases.
Voltages and currents at DG2 present a similar behavior as
in DG1. On the values of Z, the angle has an error slightly
larger, but with the same behavior. Therefore, the graphs
belonging to pre-fault DG2 are not shown.

2) Analysis of Fault Steady State

This analysis shows the most representative graphs
considering significant differences in ATP models (Models)
respect to the proposed load as Zcte, using resistors and
inductors from the ATPDraw.

a) Single phase to ground fault (Phase A):

In fig. 7 to 10, the most important results for this fault type
are shown.

Fig. 8. Comparative graph for angle of current at fault steady state in DG2.

In fig. 8, it is observed that the differences between the

angles of the current of phase C in DG2 are especially
pronounced for the model of the load Scte, followed by the case
of Icte, after the hybrid model IEEE34 and the hybrid model
0.8Icte plus 0.2Zcte. The behavior is similar to the current
magnitude. This occurs for small values of RF, at
intermediate zones from the nodes of generation center DG1.
In case of DG1 considering the angle of the phase C
current, the error is less than DG2, and in this case the model
which presented the greatest difference is Scte, having a range
of percentages from -6 degrees from to +10 degrees to the
base case. Other models have lower errors range.

Fig. 7. Comparative graph for current magnitude at fault steady state in DG2.

The comparison of the magnitude of current in phase C

measured at DG2 is shown in Fig. 7, where is a considerable
error at the Scte load model, having a percentage of 125% from
the base case, for RF small with distances of about 25
kilometers; followed by the Icte load model, then the hybrid
model as proposed for the IEEE34 power system (known as
IEEE 34 model), next the hybrid model 0.8Icte plus 0.2Zcte
and finally Zcte load model. The above behavior is also
presented for DG1, but with a difference less than 35% for the
more critical case (Scte).

Fig. 9. Comparative graph for impedance magnitude at fault steady state in

DG2.
 6

Fig. 11. Comparative graph for current magnitude at fault steady state in
DG1.
Fig. 10. Comparative graph for impedance angle at fault steady state in DG2.

Considering the magnitude of Z (Fig. 9), it is observed that

the model of the load with greater differentiation from to the
base case is Scte as noted earlier in the case of V and I. Some
models that also become relevant are those of Icte and hybrids.
The model that still has the lowest errors is Zcte.
In fig. 10, the difference in the angle of Z of phase C in
DG2 are shown, where the model Scte presents a pronounced
difference in the angle and it has a similar behavior to the
impedance magnitude.
These differences in measurements of V and I in DG1 and
DG2, due to the load model will directly influence the fault
locators, as these locators use the measurements at the power
substation (DG1 and DG2), for the fault estimation.

b) Phase to Phase Fault (Phases A-B):

In fig. 11 and 12, some of the most important results in case
of phase-phase faults are presented.
The fig. 11 shows the differences in magnitude of current
in DG1, having considerable errors in the cases of Scte, and Icte.
For DG2 was noted the same behavior with similar errors.
In fig. 12, some differences with high values of RF, short
distances, especially in Scte, Icte and hybrids models are
observed.
For values of Z were observed similar behavior to that Fig. 12. Comparative graph for angle of current at fault steady state in DG2.
already described, where the load model of Scte has the highest
differentiation. c) Phase to Phase-Ground Fault (Phase A-B-Ground):
Load models such as the Icte and the 0.8Icte plus 0.2Zcte Some of the most important results for phase to phase-
present in some cases greater deference in the magnitude and ground fault are presented in fig. 13 and 14.
angle of V that those presented by the Scte model.

Fig. 13. Comparative graph for impedance magnitude at fault steady state in
DG1.
Fig. 14. Comparative graph for impedance angle at fault steady state in DG1.
In this type of fault, the behavior is similar to past faults for
different models, where the most relevant model or greatest
difference from the base model is the Scte. This is because this
model has a linear behavior of power, while the Zcte model is a
quadratic function of power.
In some of the cases, Icte models and hybrids (0.8Icte -
0.2Zcte and IEEE34 model) show marked differences from
base case (errors greater than 20%).
d) Three-phase Fault (Phase A-B-C):
Some of the most remarkable results for this type of fault
are shown in fig. 15 and 16.
7
Fig. 15. Comparative graph for voltage magnitude at fault steady state in
DG2.
Fig. 16. Comparative graph for impedance angle at fault steady state in DG2.
The errors in V magnitude (fig. 15), is are pronounced,
when there is a low RF at a distance far from the center DG1,
but in turn nearest to DG2, since DG2 is connected to node
840 which is at a distance of 57,677 km of DG1. Models as
the Icte and hybrids show differences, though not as noticeable
in nearby nodes, and in other cases away from DG1 with high
RF.
The angle of Z shown in Fig. 16, has a similar behavior to
the value of the magnitude of V (fig. 15), but with a less

differences, also for the magnitude of Z has a similar behavior.
On the values of I, it was noted that with high RF and near
distances of DG1, Icte load models and hybrids show
differences, although they are less than 6% below the base
case.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The model coded using the tool Models in ATP, adequately
reproduces the behavior of the load for different fault types.
As demonstrates by simulations, the model that has the lowest
error from to the base case is Zcte. This is because the base
circuit is also Zcte, but modeled using predefined elements of
ATPDraw. Moreover, the proposed models reproduce
adequately the circuit behavior and have relatively small
errors in pre-fault conditions.
Additionally, for the different types of simulated faults it is
observed that the difference between the models is similar
from one fault to another. The biggest difference, in most of
the cases, occurs in the Scte model, followed by Icte model, then
the hybrid model (0.8Icte - 0.2Zcte), next the hybrid IEEE34
and finally the smallest difference that present (0%
approximately) is the model of Zcte.
The impedance errors are a reflection of the reason of
errors in V and I, and therefore have more pronounced
differences in both, magnitude and angle.
It is important to note that in DG2 is where the greatest
difference is presented, considering the measures of V and I
with different load models analyzed. It is because it is a
generator with a lower power output, and also at its location
(N840) several loads are connected.
Finally, differences in measures of V and I in DG1 and
DG2, considering the proposed load modeling, will directly
influence the fault locators, since these use the measurements
of V and I at the power substations to estimate the fault
distance. As a good estimation of the fault location is
extremely important, it must take into account the load
modeling at the power system under study.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] M. Bollen. Understanding Power Quality Problems: Voltage Sags and
Interruptions. IEEE Press. 2000.
[2] Comisin de Regulacin de Energa y Gas CREG, Resoluciones CREG
070 de 1998, CREG 096 de 2000, CREG 084 de 2002, CREG 097 de
2008.
[3] C. Gelling, Power delivery system of the future Power Engineering
Review, IEEE Volume 22, Issue 12, Dec. 2002 Page(s): 712
[4] Mora J. Localizacin de Faltas en Sistemas de Distribucin de Energa
Elctrica usando Mtodos basados en el Modelo y Mtodos de
Clasificacin Basados en el Conocimiento. Espaa. 2006. Tesis
Doctoral. Universidad de Girona. ISBN 978-84-690-4513-8
[5] J. L. Aguero, M.B. Barbieri, and M.C. Beroqui,"Voltage depending load
models. Validation by voltage step tests", IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, 2006.
[6] I. D. Serna, C. D. Ferreira, S. A. Martnez, M. F. Surez and G. Carrillo.
Impact of static load models on the power distribution fault location
problem. Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition:
Latin America. IEEE/PES 2010. Page(s): 706 711.
[7] Taskforce, "Load representation for dynamic performance analysis of
power systems", IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 8, pp. 472-
482, 1993.
8
[8] Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee. IEEE 34 Node Test
Feeder. [Online]. Available: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom
/testfeeders/index.html
[9] C. Orozco-Henao. J. Mora-Florez, and S. Prez. A robust method for
single phase fault location considering distributed generation and current
compensation. Transmission and Distribution Latin America
Conference. September, 2012 / Montevideo Uruguay.
[10] User Group. Rule Book Alternative transient program (ATP).
[Online]. Available: http://www.emtp.org
[11] J. U. Nunes. A. S. Bretas. (2010). Impedance-Based Fault Location
Formulation for Unbalanced Primary Distribution Systems with
Distributed Generation. Presented at the Int. Conf. on Power System
Technology. 2010.
[12] Laurent Dub. Users Guide to Models in ATP. April. 1996.
[13] J. Dagenhart. The 40-ohms ground-fault phenomenon. IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications. 2000; 36 (1): 30-32.
[14] N. Watson and J. Arrillaga, Power Systems Electromagnetic Transients
Simulation. IET Power and Energy Series 39. Published by Institution of
Engineering and Technology, London, United Kingdom. 2007. ISBN: 0
85296 106 5. Page(s): 68 73.
[15] Siemens Energy, Inc. Program Operation Manual PSSE 32.0.5.
October 2010. Section: 5 10.
[16] Mora-Florez, J., Bedoya, J., Melendez, J. Extensive Events Database
Development Using ATP and Matlab to Fault Location in Power
Distribution Systems. Transmission & Distribution Conference And
Exposition: LA, 2006.
VII. BIOGRAPHIES
A. Herrera-Orozco was born in Santa Rosa de
Cabal, Risaralda, Colombia in 1987. He received the
B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from the
Universidad Tecnolgica de Pereira (UTP), Pereira,
Colombia, in 2010. He is currently a M.Sc. student
in Electrical Engineering from the UTP and is
researcher at the research group Calidad de la
Energa Elctrica y Estabilidad ICE3 (Col). His
areas of interest are power quality, distribution
system modeling and efficient use of energy.
S. Perez-Londoo received the B.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from the Universidad
Tecnolgica de Pereira (UTP), Pereira, Colombia, in
2001, the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering
from UTP in 2005. Currently, she is a associated
professor of the Electrical Engineering School, at the
Universidad Tecnolgica de Pereira, Pereira,
Colombia. Her areas of interest are electric
machines, power system stability, fault analysis and
soft computing techniques. S. Perez-Londoo is a
member of Research Group Calidad de la Energa Elctrica y estabilidad
ICE3 (Col).
J. Mora-Flrez received the B.Sc. degree in
Electrical Engineering from the Universidad
Industrial de Santander (UIS), Bucaramanga,
Colombia, in 1996. The title M.Sc. in electrical
potency of the UIS in 2001, the M.Sc. degree in
information technology at the Universidad de Girona
(UdG), Girona, Spain, in 2003, and the Ph.D. degree
in Information Technology and Electrical
Engineering from the UdG in 2006.
He currently is associated professor of the Electrical
Engineering School, at the Universidad Tecnolgica
de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia. His areas of interest are power quality, transient
analysis, protection, and soft computing techniques.
J. Mora Flrez is a member of Research Group Calidad de la Energa
Elctrica y estabilidad ICE3 (Col).