Physics-Regularized Hybrid Learning Framework for Fault Location and Classification in Aging Underground Distribution Networks

Underground distribution networks increasingly rely on aging cable assets whose parameter drift modifies propagation velocity, attenuation, and fault-initiated transient signatures, thereby reducing the reliability of conventional traveling-wave (TW) fault location and purely data-driven diagnosis. This paper proposes a physics-regularized hybrid learning framework for joint fault-type classification, feeder-area identification, and continuous fault localization in aging underground distribution feeders. The methodology integrates (i) an aging-aware simulation pipeline driven by a normalized aging-stress index α∈[0,1] that perturbs the per-unit-length cable matrices within a controlled domain; (ii) synchronized multi-sensor time–frequency representations of three-phase voltage and current transients; (iii) an area-aware multi-task architecture with fault-type and area-classification heads and area-specific local regression heads; and (iv) a propagation-consistency loss that depends explicitly on the model-predicted fault position and therefore contributes gradients during training. A branched underground feeder is evaluated using five synchronized sensing locations and a stratified dataset of Ntot=36,000 simulated fault events covering 11 fault classes (SLG-A/B/C, LL-AB/BC/CA, DLG-ABG/BCG/CAG, LLL, and LLLG), six non-overlapping feeder areas, fault resistance Rf∈[0.1,50]Ω, measurement noise SNR∈[20,40]dB, and a 20ms transient window sampled at 200kHz. On a held-out test set of 7200 previously unseen event records drawn from the same simulation domain, the Hybrid model achieves a fault-type accuracy of 0.93, an area-identification accuracy of 0.96, a localization MAE of 0.011 p.u., and a 95th-percentile absolute error of 0.027 p.u. The proposed configuration outperforms the TW-TOA, purely data-driven Baseline, and physics-regularized PINN references across the reported diagnostic tasks within the prescribed simulator and parameter ranges. Time–frequency attribution is included only as a qualitative interpretability illustration and is not treated as quantitative evidence of explanation faithfulness. Accordingly, the results demonstrate comparative in-domain simulation performance rather than field or cross-simulator deployment readiness.