Table 23 Comparison of the proposed scheme with other research studies in different aspects.
Schemes | Accuracy and Error (%) | Analysis of different Parameters’ Impact | Data Transfer Type | Studied Network | The ML Methods Used | The Investigated Fault Types | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fault Detection | FTP Identification (Average of FP and FT) | Fault Location Error | ||||||
Proposed Scheme | 99.895 | 99.79 | 1.575 | MN, LN, DNNS, DCT, DTT, etc. Analyses | Local, Com | ACMG | H-DNNs | All Types |
Superimposed voltage energy-based28 (2023) | 96.60 (Monitor 3) | 96.60 (Monitor 3) | 6.5 (GRNN3) | Load Change Analysis | Local | DN | GRNNs | SPG Faults and Capacitor Switching |
Feature extraction-based29 (2023) | 99.022 | 99.20 | - | F-IAL, LCS, and FT Analysis | Local | ACMG | - | All Types |
Customized ANN-based30 (2024) | 96.08 | 96.08 | 4.92 | No | Com | DN | Customized ANNs | All Types |
Multi-layer perceptron-based31 (2024) | 93.89 | - | - | OS, PT, and RO Analysis | N/A | Fault-recording curve files | MLP | Single-Phase Earth Faults |
DNN-based multi-agent protection scheme32 (2024) | 99.25 | 99.78 | 3.20 | No | Local | ACMG | DNNs | All Types |
DT and RNN-based scheme42 (2023) | 99.11 | - | 1.69 (Average of 5 test data) | - | Com | DCMG | DT and RNNs | DC faults |
SVM and RBFNN-based scheme43 (2023) | 96.18 | - | 2.85 (Average of 6 test data) | - | Com | DCMG | SVM and RBFNNs | DC faults |
Two DTs and FFNN-based scheme44 (2023) | 96.62 (Output of two DTs classifiers) | - | 4.01 (Average of 8 test data) | - | Com | DCMG | Two DTs and FFNNs | DC faults |