## 5 Simulation Results and Discussion
### THD Performance of Suggested Minimization Methods  
Equation (10) depicts the total harmonic distortion of the PCC voltage. The THD compares the harmonic currents to a basic element of the voltage or current signal [44], in which V1 is the fundamental voltage, while V2, V3,..., \(V_{n}\) represent cognitive harmonic parts of the PCC voltage [4]:  
\[THDu=\frac{\sqrt{\left(V_{2}^{2}+V_{2}^{2}+V_{2}^{2}+\ldots+V_{2}^{2}\right)}}{V _{1}}\times 100\% \tag{10}\]  
Table 7 shows the THD values for both temporary and permanent 3 LG faults with 900, 700, 500, 300, and 100 ms delays for the predictor latency reduction approach with the type-2 fuzzy delay reduction method for power system sites A, B, and C. According to the THDu results, the fuzzy-regulated technique and the prediction method both efficiently minimized the delay effects and increased the system power reliability. In contrast, the enhanced predictor strategy outperformed the fuzzy logic steady electric approach. Furthermore, the oscillations presented a positive way to decrease harmonic currents in the voltage, at which the THDu in the PCC with had no control system with the modified predictor controller, although with type-2 fuzzy controller was proposed in the case of a 3 LG temporary fault at location A for the 900 ms delay. The harmonics were shown to be reduced in the settings  
Figure 17: Inter-area voltage for 3 LG temporary fault at location B.  
Figure 18: Output active and reactive power for 3 LG permanent fault at location B with constant time delays of 900 ms (**a**) and 100 ms (**b**). of the recommended controllers. Furthermore, the enhanced prediction approach was outperformed by the fuzzy-regulated strategy. Each of these methods was useful in assessing the impact of antitraumatic activities caused by errors occurring in three different locations. Thus, Table 8 outlines the pros and cons of each, indicating the advantages and disadvantages of certain approaches. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Delay** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fault Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fault**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Voltage Indices at PCC**} \\ \cline{4-5}  & & & & **No Compensation** & **Predictor** & **Fuzzy Method** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{900 ms} & & A & 1.5086 & 1.2950 & 1.2587 \\  & 3 LG & B & 1.6314 & 1.6116 & 1.5076 \\  & Temp & C & 1.5012 & 1.2954 & 1.2591 \\  & & A & 3.0263 & 2.1098 & 1.8618 \\  & 3 LG & B & 1.6136 & 1.0170 & 1.0043 \\  & Perm & C & 3.0570 & 2.3504 & 2.1024 \\  & & A & 1.5991 & 1.3768 & 1.3405 \\  & 3 LG & B & 1.5934 & 1.2957 & 1.2594 \\  & Temp & C & 1.5856 & 1.2186 & 1.1823 \\  & & A & 5.9040 & 4.3510 & 3.6399 \\  & 3 LG & B & 4.8460 & 1.6722 & 1.5682 \\  & Perm & C & 5.9040 & 1.4579 & 1.3559 \\  & & A & 0.7082 & 0.2515 & 0.3256 \\  & 3 LG & B & 1.4309 & 0.2999 & 0.3412 \\
500 ms & Temp & C & 1.2684 & 0.2515 & 0.3256 \\  & & A & 8.4230 & 5.8590 & 5.3300 \\  & 3 LG & B & 3.3157 & 2.1337 & 1.8857 \\  & Perm & C & 8.7550 & 5.9864 & 5.4574 \\  & & A & 1.1173 & 0.2832 & 0.3489 \\  & 3 LG & B & 1.2487 & 0.6805 & 0.7429 \\
300 ms & Temp & C & 1.2663 & 0.2145 & 0.3045 \\  & & A & 6.3820 & 4.5632 & 4.3752 \\  & 3 LG & B & 3.9496 & 2.1593 & 1.9713 \\  & Perm & C & 5.5660 & 3.8029 & 3.1509 \\  & & A & 1.0109 & 0.3693 & 0.3861 \\  & 3 LG & B & 1.2750 & 0.3627 & 0.3854 \\  & Temp & C & 1.2105 & 0.2981 & 0.3124 \\
100 ms & & A & 5.3580 & 4.6171 & 4.1621 \\  & 3 LG & B & 3.5670 & 3.1431 & 2.4911 \\  & Perm & C & 3.3347 & 3.0456 & 2.9016 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Total harmonic distortion at PCC.