International Journal of Green Energy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ljge20

Optimal user-defined directional overcurrent relay

coordination considering different operating modes of
microgrid

Raghvendra Tiwari , Roshan Chitranshi, Devesh Jaiswal & Parul Dubey

To cite this article: Raghvendra Tiwari , Roshan Chitranshi, Devesh Jaiswal & Parul Dubey
(27 Mar 2025): Optimal user-defined directional overcurrent relay coordination considering
different operating modes of microgrid, International Journal of Green Energy, DOI:
10.1080/15435075.2025.2482760

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2025.2482760

Published online: 27 Mar 2025.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2025.2482760

Optimal user-defined directional overcurrent relay coordination considering

different operating modes of microgrid
Raghvendra Tiwaria, Roshan Chitranshib, Devesh Jaiswalc, and Parul Dubeyd
a
Electrical Engineering Department, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, India; bDepartment of Electrical Engineering, United College of
Engineering & Research, Prayagraj, India; cDepartment of Electrical Engineering, United Institute of Technology, Prayagraj, India; dSymbiosis Institute
of Technology, Nagpur Campus, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
A microgrid’s fault current magnitude depends on its operational mode, specifically whether it is grid- Genetic algorithm; gray wolf
connected or islanded. Typically, we deploy distinct protection schemes based on the fault current optimization; grid-connected
magnitude in a given mode. Adapting the protection scheme becomes imperative when there is a mode; islanded mode; user-
change in the microgrid’s operating mode. This process can be both challenging and time-consuming. defined relay characteristics
This study introduces a common optimal protection scheme for user-defined directional overcurrent
relays (UD-DOCRs) to address this challenge. The proposed protection scheme incorporates UD-DOCRs
enhanced with two additional optimization variables: relay characteristic coefficients (λ, η). Along with
the time multiplier setting (TMS) and plug setting (PS), these coefficients are crucial for choosing the best
relay characteristics that meet the IEC-60255 standard. This article expresses the relay coordination
problem as a non-linear programming (NLP) problem. It utilizes the genetic algorithm (GA) and the
gray wolf optimization (GWO) algorithm to obtain the optimal relay settings. To showcase the effective­
ness of the proposed protection scheme in comparison to existing techniques, this study considers the 7-
bus mesh and 9-bus radial benchmark systems. The findings reveal that, in contrast to GA, the GWO-
based approach significantly mitigates the issue of relay miscoordination.

Introduction
characteristic coefficients (λ, η) (Tiwari, Singh, and
Relay coordination refers to the coordination and adjustment of Choudhary 2022). These parameters are continuous variables
protective relays within an electrical power system to ensure that capable of assuming values within their designated range.
only the faulty section of the system is isolated during a fault Furthermore, DOCRs may feature diverse characteristic
condition while keeping the rest of the system operational. A curves, including normal inverse (NI), very inverse (VI), or
coordinated protection mechanism is an essential prerequisite extremely inverse (EI), introducing complexity to the determi­
for the efficient operation of a modern power system. An effec­ nation of suitable TMS and PS (Alaee and Amraee 2021).
tive protection mechanism is employed to ensure a continuous In the existing literature, the focus has predominantly been on
supply of power to the operational portion of the power grid by employing a single fixed characteristic curve for all DOCRs
isolating precisely the faulty segment of the feeder. Primary and according to the IEC-60255 or IEEE standard to achieve optimal
backup protections are two layers of defense that shield all relay coordination (Tiwari, Singh, and Kumar Choudhary 2020).
equipment employed in the power system network (Mehigan The magnitude of relay characteristic coefficients (λ, η) as per the
et al. 2018). The primary protection scheme must promptly IEC standard is shown in Table 1. Nevertheless, it should be
react to any faults occurring within its designated area. If the emphasized that incorporating relay characteristic coefficients
primary protection fails, the backup protection must detect and along with the conventional relay settings, i.e., TMS and PS, can
isolate the faulty part of the network promptly. The backup enhance protection coordination by offering greater flexibility in
protection eliminates a significant portion of the network, adhering to coordination constraints within microgrids.
including faulty and healthy components. Hence, establishing A microgrid can operate either in the GCM or IM. The
efficient coordination among directional overcurrent relays operating modes of a microgrid can have a significant impact
(DOCRs) is crucial to guarantee the disconnection of only the on relay coordination. The effect of the operating modes on
faulty section, preventing any unwarranted outages in the the relay coordination can be described as follows (Tiwari,
healthy segment (Godwal et al. 2020). Singh, and Kumar Choudhary 2020):
It is common practice to employ DOCRs as a protective
device in the distribution network because of their effective­
Grid-connected mode (GCM)
ness and the fact that they are economically viable. The DOCR
operation is controlled by a few parameters, namely the time In GCM, the microgrid is connected to the utility grid. The
multiplier setting (TMS), the plug setting (PS), and relay protective relays in the microgrid are coordinated with the

CONTACT Raghvendra Tiwari [email protected] Electrical Engineering Department, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, India.
© 2025 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 R. TIWARI

Table 1. Relay characteristic coefficients according to the IEC-60255 standard. tioning between relay settings based on the microgrid’s opera­
Relay characteristic curve λ η tional mode. To overcome the complexity caused by different
Normal Inverse (NI) 0.14 0.02 operating modes of microgrids, in (Najy, Zeineldin, and Woon
Very Inverse (VI) 13.5 1 2013), an external series connected device known as fault
Extremely Inverse (EI) 80 2 current limiters (FCLs) was employed to achieve optimal
DOCR settings suitable for protecting microgrids in both IM
and GCM. Other studies have proposed similar methods, with
or without using FCLs (Huchel, Zeineldin, and El-Saadany
relays of the utility grid to ensure fault isolation and system
2017; Sharma and Panigrahi 2018; Srivastava et al. 2016).
stability. The relay coordination in this mode is focused on Such a scheme offers cost-effectiveness as it does not require
fault detection, fault localization, and prompt isolation of the additional equipment as required for any adaptive protection
faulty section while maintaining seamless operation with the
scheme. However, it may suffer from inaccuracies, potential
utility grid (Tiwari, Singh, and Choudhary 2021). miscoordination, and longer operating times for backup relays,
and in some cases, the backup relays may not operate.
Islanded mode (IM) Therefore, it is crucial to carefully select and configure the
When the microgrid operates in IM, it is disconnected from protective relays to adapt to the different operating modes
the utility grid and operates autonomously. In this mode, the and ensure the reliable and efficient operations of the micro­
protective relays within the microgrid must coordinate to grid under various scenarios.
detect and isolate faults within the microgrid-defined bound­ Non-adaptive overcurrent protection for microgrids aims
aries. The coordination settings are determined based on the to determine optimal settings for DOCRs that enable proper
microgrid’s local generation and load characteristics. The relay coordination in both IM and GCM. Deriving motivation from
coordination in this mode emphasizes fast fault detection, the above statement, a common optimal relay setting must be
rapid isolation, and restoration of power supply within the determined to be used in both operating modes. To achieve a
microgrid to maintain system stability and reliability. common optimal relay setting, it is crucial to maintain a nearly
The magnitude of fault current in GCM is higher than that equal fault current magnitude in each operational mode. This
of IM due to the presence of the utility grid. This change in objective is pursued through a series-connected FCL to attain
fault current magnitude may cause the mal-operation of the optimal relay settings (Khademi 2017). However, the introduc­
overcurrent relay pairs in IM due to the low fault current tion of an additional device in the form of FCL increases both
magnitude, as shown in Figure 1 (Srivastava et al. 2018). the cost and complexity of the protection scheme (Najy,
Nevertheless, when multiple highly penetrated inverter-based Zeineldin, and Woon 2013). To address this challenge, a
distributed generation (IBDG) coexists with synchronous- cost-effective and simplified approach is presented in Alam
based distributed generation (SBDG), the cumulative contri­ (2019), proposing a unified protection scheme using conven­
bution of fault current is significant, and the implementation tional DOCRs for both operating modes of the microgrid while
of overcurrent protection schemes may be an economical and adhering to standard relay characteristics.
efficient solution for the protection in both operating modes. It should be emphasized that microgrids’ fault currents are
SBDGs introduce fault currents ranging from four to five times generally lower than the main utility grid, which typically
their rated current, whereas IBDGs, constrained by thermal employs NI relay characteristic curves for DOCRs (Usama et
overload considerations, typically generate fault currents lim­ al. 2021). However, using the NI characteristic curves for
ited to approximately 1.2 to 2 times their rated current microgrid protection would result in a longer relay operating
(Nimpitiwan et al. 2007). The variation in fault current time (Najy, Zeineldin, and Woon 2013, Sharma and Panigrahi
between GCM and IM in the microgrid necessitates assigning 2018). This prolonged operating time during faults could sub­
distinct relay settings, adding complexity to seamlessly transi­ ject microgrids to increased stress, potentially leading to

Primary Backup
Relay Relay

Original required
coordination time
Time

Reduced
coordination time
Malfunction of
primary relay

Increase of fault
current
I1 I2
Fault Current
Figure 1. CTI variation due to change in fault current in different operating modes of microgrid (Srivastava et al. 2018).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 3

system damage. Therefore, a more flexible protection scheme TMSi, CTRi, λ,i and ηi are plug setting (PS), time multiplier
is proposed for microgrids using user-defined DOCRs (UD- setting (TMS), current transformation ratio (CTR), and relay
DOCRS) (Hong et al. 2021). In the proposed protection characteristic coefficients of the ith primary UD-DOCR,
scheme, all the DOCRs are equipped with user-defined (UD) respectively. The corresponding backup UD-DOCR’s operat­
relay characteristics, and the magnitude of the relay character­ ing time is shown in Eq. (3). In Eqs. (2) and (3), the fault
istic coefficient is optimally selected based on the operating current seen by the relay is represented by If. By optimizing the
modes of the microgrid. The novelty of this study resides in overall operating time of UD-DOCRs, several inequality con­
identifying common optimal configurations for UD-DOCRs straints must be simultaneously fulfilled, as elaborated below.
in both operational modes, achieved without the reliance on
external elements or communication systems.
To assess the efficacy of the suggested protection approach Selectivity constraints
employing UD-DOCR, this paper employs gray wolf optimiza­ P
If top;ik B
and top;jk are the primary and corresponding backup
tion (GWO) and genetic algorithm (GA). The optimization tech­ UD-DOCR operating times for the kth fault locations, then to
niques are applied independently to the GCM and IM, addressing maintain an optimum relay coordination, all UD-DOCRs
the mid-point fault in both scenarios. This study demonstrates the must maintain the following selectivity constraint as shown
adaptability of the optimization method on both the 7-bus mesh in Eq. (4) (Sadoughi, Hojjat, and Hosseini 2022).
and 9-bus radial test systems. Moreover, the robustness of the
proposed GWO method is examined across various microgrid
operation modes in the presence of a mid-point fault in meshed
and radial systems. The article is structured as follows: Section 2.1 The CTI, or coordination time interval, signifies the necessary
presents the formulation of the relay coordination problem, while time delay to coordinate primary and backup UD-DOCRs
Section 2.2 explains the optimization algorithm used in this work. effectively. This interval represents the intentional delay in
Section 2.3 evaluates the proposed method using the 7-bus the operation of backup relays relative to their corresponding
meshed and 9-bus radial distribution system. The study concludes primary relays in a power system. This intentional time gap
with a discussion in Section 5. ensures that protective relays operate in a coordinated and
sequential manner, specifically during faults or abnormal con­
ditions. In the proposed protection scheme, the magnitude of
CTI is assumed to be 0.2 s (Alam 2019).
Relay coordination problem formulation
The response time of an overcurrent relay is contingent upon
its time-current characteristics, which are classified as NI, VI, Boundary condition for decision variables
and EI according to the IEC-60255 standard, as indicated in The obtained values of TMS, PS, λ, and η must lie within the
Table 1. The challenge of relay coordination is conceptualized maximum and minimum values provided by the relay manu­
as an optimization problem. This optimization problem aims facturers like ABB and Siemens, as shown in Eqs. (5)–(8).
to identify optimal relay settings that minimize the overall Some industrial overcurrent relays are RET-541, REJ-523,
response time of both primary and backup UD-DOCRs in and RED-521, manufactured by ABB, and SIPROTEC 7SJ80
both operating modes of the microgrid (Tiwari, Singh, and and SIPROTEC 7SJ85, manufactured by SIEMENS. The lower
Choudhary 2023). The proposed optimization problem and upper bounds of TMS are taken as 0.025 and 1.2, respec­
addresses this by formulating an effective approach that con­ tively (Tripathi and Mallik 2023). Similarly, the lower and
siders the impact of primary and backup relays on GCM and upper bounds of PS are taken as 0.5 and 2.5, respectively
IM during fault occurrence. Consequently, the objective func­ (Tripathi and Mallik 2023). Further, the lower and upper limits
tion of this optimization problem is expressed, as depicted in on λ and η are considered as [13.5–80] and [1.0–2.0],
Eq. (1), and the constraints essential for achieving the relay respectively.
coordination objective are detailed in Eqs. (4) to (7).

Where,

Boundary condition on primary relay operating time

The primary UD-DOCR must operate between the pre-
defined minimum and maximum limits of the relay operating
The operating time of ith primary UD-DOCR for the kth fault time as given by Eq. (9). The maximum relay operating time
i
location is expressed as top;ik as shown in Eq. (2). In Eq. (2), PSi, depends on a particular fault’s critical clearing time (CCT) to
4 R. TIWARI

ensure the power system’s stability. Whenever a fault occurs, randomly. The performance of each chromosome in the pro­
the protection relay must operate before CCT. CCT is the blem domain is evaluated through a fitness function.
maximum time to clear the fault and restore the system stabi­ Chromosomes with superior fitness scores are more likely to
lity before the generators lose synchronism. In this paper, the be chosen for reproduction. GA comprises two main factors,
lower and upper limits on the primary relay operating time are namely crossover and mutation.
taken as (0.1-4s) (Alam 2019). Crossover involves amalgamating genetic information from
two parent chromosomes to generate new offspring, mirroring
the genetic recombination process observed in biological evolu­
tion. Meanwhile, mutation introduces random alterations in the
Optimization algorithm offspring’s genes to preserve genetic diversity and forestall pre­
mature convergence toward a suboptimal solution. In this algo­
This article employs two highly effective metaheuristic algo­ rithm, the old population is substituted with the new offspring
rithms, namely, GA and GWO algorithms, to achieve the population. The selection sequence, crossover, mutation, and
optimal solution for the relay coordination problem. Both replacement are reiterated for a fixed number of generations or
approaches initiate from an initial solution and strive to until a termination condition is satisfied. A notable advantage of
reach the optimum point within the search space. The popula­ GAs is their independence from derivatives of the objective func­
tion size is denoted as “N,” and the dimension of each element tion, making them suitable for problems with non-differentiable
in the population is represented as “D,” where “D” corre­ or discontinuous objectives. However, GAs might exhibit slower
sponds to the total number of variables. Consequently, the convergence, particularly in scenarios with many variables. This
initial solution is defined as X=[X1, X2, X3, … XN]T, where manuscript considers the crossover and mutation factors as 0.8
“T” indicates the transpose operator. Each individual Xi (i = 1, and 0.01, respectively.
2, 3, …N) is represented as Xi=[Xi,1, Xi,2, Xi,3, … Xi,D].

Grey wolf optimization

Genetic algorithm
A contemporary and effective optimization method known as
GA is a metaheuristic optimization technique inspired by GWO was introduced by Seyedali Mirjalili and Andrew Lewis in
nature, providing a versatile solution to relay coordination 2014. GWO is a population-based algorithm designed to replicate
problems regardless of the specific objective function the social interactions and hunting dynamics observed in a pack of
(Katoch, Chauhan, and Kumar 2020). In GA, potential solu­ wolves, aiming to discover optimal solutions for diverse optimiza­
tions to a given problem are expressed as chromosomes, tion problems. The gray wolves within this algorithm are classified
represented by encoded strings of genes. Each gene corre­ into four subdivisions: alpha (“α”), beta (“β”), delta (“δ”), and
sponds to a parameter or variable within the problem domain. omega (“ω”), as illustrated in Figure 2 (Mirjalili, Mirjalili, and
A population comprises various chromosomes, each repre­ Lewis 2014). The “α” wolf is known as the best, which can make
senting a distinct potential solution, and is initially generated the most crucial decision of the pack related to hunting. The “α”

α
α
Cα β
β Aα
δ Estimated position of
Cβ
ω prey Aβ
Social hierarchy of grey R
wolf

δ
Dβ
Dα Update α
β

Cδ δ
Dδ
ω
Aδ ω Prey

Figure 2. Social hierarchy and process of GWO (Mirjalili, Mirjalili, and Lewis 2014).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 5

wolves are experienced and can manage the whole group effi­ arbitrary vectors “r1” and “r2” lie in the range of [0, 1] and
ciently. The second-ranked wolves, known as the “β,” play a vectors “a” and “C” represent the coefficient vectors.
supportive role to the “α” wolf in decision-making and exert
influence over the other lower-level wolves. The third best are
the “δ” wolves, which give the assistance to “α” and “β” but
overrides “ω.” All other candidates are assumed to be “ω” wolves,
who follow all the decisions taken by the other dominant wolves.
The hunting phenomenon is guided by “α,” “β,” and “δ.”
The main steps of the GWO technique are (i) chasing the
prey, (ii) surrounding the prey in the form of a circle, and (iii)
attacking the prey. Mathematically, encircling prey is repre­ Each search agent denoted by “ω” follows the paths of “α,”
sented by Eqs. (10) and (11). “β,” and “δ” and subsequently adjusts its position based on
the best agent’s position by modifying the “A” and “C”
vectors. To emulate the hunting behavior of a wolf pack
mathematically, the positions of the top three best solu­
tions (“α,” “β,” and “δ”) are established, and other search
agents “ω” adapt their positions accordingly. The coeffi­
In Eqs. (10) and (11), “t” represents the current running itera­ cient vector “A” lies randomly in the range [−2a, 2a]. To
tion, X(t) and X(t + 1) represent the current and updated search for prey, we require |A| >1, and for attacking prey,
positions of the “ω” gray wolf, Xp (t) refers to the estimated we require |A| <1. Some parameters related to the GWO
position of prey, “D” is the distance between gray wolf and technique used in this study are that the number of search
prey, “R” is the radius of hyper-sphere that defines prey’s agents is 50 and the number of maximum iterations is
estimated position. In Eq. (12), the “a” component decreases 1000. The methodology of the proposed protection scheme
linearly from 2 to 0 over the iteration. In Eqs. (13) and (14), is shown in Figure 3.

Start

Identify the operating mode of test system

Grid-Connected
or Islanded?

IM GCM
Calculate the load current flowing through Calculate the load current flowing through
each branch using load flow analysis and Near- each branch using load flow analysis and
end fault current using short circuit analysis for Near-end fault current using short circuit
each fault locations analysis for each fault locations

Identifying the P/B relay pairs for UD- Identifying the P/B relay pairs for UD-
DOCR DOCR

Combine P/B relay pairs for GCM & IM

Formulation of objective function & constraints

for UD-DOCR with different fault locations
using NI, VI, EI and UD characteristic

Define GA/GWO parameters and set an

initial solution

Apply GA/GWO to obtain optimum

setting using UD-DOCR

All the Constraints

NO are validated?

YES
Obtain the optimum relay setting with least
total relay operating time

End

Figure 3. Methodology of the proposed protection scheme.

6 R. TIWARI

Result and discussions the CT ratio (CTR) for each relay, crucial for ensuring high
accuracy in microgrid protection under faulty conditions. All
Metaheuristic optimization algorithms are employed to
the remaining test system information can be found in Alam
address relay coordination challenges in both 7-bus mesh
(2019) and Tripathi and Mallik (2023).
and 9-bus radial distribution systems, utilizing UD-DOCRs
The optimized settings for DOCRs achieved through GA in
featuring inverse definite minimum time (IDMT) relay char­
the GCM, utilizing NI, VI, EI, and UD relay features, are
acteristics. The MATLAB 2018a environment is utilized to
shown in Table 3. The total operating time of UD-DOCRs
implement the various optimization techniques outlined in
equipped with NI, VI, EI, and UD characteristics are 22.2059 s,
the preceding section. A comprehensive comparative analysis
11.6704 s, 19.1879 s, and 10.9870 s, respectively. Among these,
of these algorithms is conducted on a 7-bus mesh distribution
DOCRs with UD characteristics exhibit the shortest total
system and a 9-bus radial test system.
operational time. Furthermore, employing the UD character­
istics leads to a 42.73% reduction in the overall relay opera­
tional time compared to the EI characteristics. Additionally, it
(a) 7-bus meshed distribution system
is noted that utilizing UD characteristics results in a 50.52%
This study employed the 7-bus test system (Alam 2019) to and 5.85% decrease in relay operational time compared to NI
validate the proposed relay coordination scheme and identify and VI characteristics, respectively. Notably, employing VI
the most effective optimization method for addressing the and EI relay characteristics reduces the overall relay opera­
protection coordination problem. The distribution section of tional time by up to 47.44% and 13.59%, respectively, com­
the IEEE-14 bus system, specifically the 7-bus microgrid sys­ pared to NI characteristics. Figure 5 illustrates the primary and
tem integrated with UD-DOCRs, is illustrated in Figure 4. The corresponding backup relay operational times for relay pairs in
test system contains two IBDGs, each rated at 20 MVA con­ the GCM. Based on these findings, it can be inferred that, for
nected to buses B2 and B7. Additionally, there is one SBDG each relay characteristic, the measured coordination time
with a rating of 50 MVA located at bus B1. Additionally, during interval (MCTI) exceeds the desired CTI.
GCM, the system is powered by two specific buses, B3 and B6, Similarly, the optimal configurations of the DOCRs acquired
each with a generation capacity of 60 MVA. The maximum through GWO in the GCM, employing NI, VI, EI, and UD relay
short circuit capacities for buses B1, B2, B3, and B6 are 250 features, are presented in Table 4. It can be observed that all the
MVA, 80 MVA, 300 MVA, and 300 MVA, respectively. The relay settings are found to be within the desired range. The total
microgrid test system consists of a 7-bus configuration with relay operating time in GCM using GWO is obtained as 20.2983 s,
eight lines, each protected by 16 UD-DOCRs strategically 11.4406 s, and 19.4481 s with NI, VI, and EI relay characteristics,
positioned at the terminals of the lines (L1-L8). Table 2 pre­ respectively. It is observed that the lowest total relay operating
sents the fault current values across the relay coils for different time is obtained using UD relay characteristics, i.e., 10.6620 s. It
fault positions in both operational modes of the microgrid. can be concluded that the GWO performed better than GA in
Additionally, Table 2 specifies the 22 relay pairs (RP1-RP22) terms of total relay operating time in GCM. The relay operating
associated with primary and corresponding backup relays and times in GCM using these settings are shown in Figure 5. From

IBDG SBDG IBDG

B7 B1 B2

R16 R6 R5 R1 R2 R7
L3 F3 L1 F1
R3
L2
L8
F2
F8 F4

L4
F7 L7 F6 L6 F5 L5
R4
R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8

B6 B5 B4 B3

Figure 4. 7-bus meshed distribution system.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 7

Table 2. Three-phase mid-point fault current analysis of 7-bus meshed distribution system.

Fault Current Through Relay Coil (A)

GCM IM
Fault Point Relay Pairs (RP) Primary DOCR CT Ratio (CTR) Backup DOCR CT Ratio (CTR) Primary Backup Primary Backup
F1 RP1 R1 400 R4 400 12.67 5.34 9.15 1.72
RP2 R1 400 R6 200 12.67 5.15 9.15 3.77
RP3 R2 200 R8 320 17.84 6.70 11.78 3.07
F2 RP4 R3 600 R2 200 9.98 9.07 8.27 5.27
RP5 R3 600 R6 200 9.98 4.21 8.27 3.35
RP6 R4 400 R13 160 16.63 10.76 5.71 6.89
RP7 R4 400 R16 320 16.63 2.45 5.71 3.90
F3 RP8 R5 320 R2 200 17.89 7.34 12.99 5.26
RP9 R5 320 R4 400 17.89 4.36 12.99 1.71
RP10 R6 200 R15 320 17.94 6.54 12.32 3.51
F4 RP11 R7 500 R1 400 7.51 5.37 6.25 4.08
RP12 R8 320 R10 240 17.33 5.63 6.77 6.53
F5 RP13 R9 500 R7 500 16.25 4.33 5.77 4.47
RP14 R10 240 R12 500 12.13 5.45 9.37 4.03
F6 RP15 R11 240 R9 500 20.64 9.46 9.82 4.26
RP16 R12 500 R14 600 7.50 6.14 5.12 4.15
F7 RP17 R13 160 R11 240 20.29 12.70 10.77 6.36
RP18 R14 600 R3 600 11.55 4.12 6.77 4.56
RP19 R14 600 R16 320 11.55 3.52 6.77 3.93
F8 RP20 R15 320 R3 600 18.41 2.31 10.12 3.93
RP21 R15 320 R13 160 18.41 8.91 10.12 6.43
RP22 R16 320 R5 320 10.14 6.51 9.05 4.39

Figure 6, it can be observed that the magnitude of MCTI is found Moreover, using VI and EI characteristics reduces operating
to be greater than the CTI (0.2 s) for each relay pair. time by 37.43% and 26.92%, respectively, compared to NI
For IM, Table 5 shows the optimal relay settings obtained characteristics. Furthermore, it can also be observed that the
using GA. The total relay operating times vary using different total relay operating time in IM is higher than the GCM due to
relay characteristics. For instance, the total relay operating variations in fault current magnitude in both operating modes.
time using GA is obtained as 26.9660 s, 16.8719 s, 19.7053 s, The relay operating times using these optimal relay settings are
and 11.1020 s with NI, VI, EI, and UD relay characteristics, shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 shows that for each relay pair, the
respectively. Using UD characteristics reduces the total oper­ backup relay operates after an intentional time delay, which is
ating time of the relays by 43.65% compared to EI character­ greater than the desired CTI.
istics. Moreover, using UD characteristics reduces operating Similarly, the optimal relay settings obtained by GWO in
time by 58.82% compared to NI and 43.65% compared to VI. IM are given in Table 6. It can be observed that all the relay
Table 3. Optimal relay settings for 7-bus test system in GCM using GA.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.1213 1.7944 0.1435 0.9167 0.3085 0.8010 0.3070 0.5250 12.0499 1.0542
R2 0.1075 2.4620 0.4473 0.5043 0.6501 0.7777 1.1961 0.5700 11.0014 1.3489
R3 0.1063 1.3945 0.2072 0.5283 0.4918 0.5000 0.0604 1.0014 11.6798 0.8283
R4 0.0709 2.4326 0.2511 0.5000 0.7118 0.6928 0.1672 0.5078 12.0941 0.8317
R5 0.0850 1.8864 0.2847 0.5122 0.4628 0.9238 0.1887 0.6185 11.1254 0.8852
R6 0.1990 0.5825 0.2558 0.5000 0.6013 0.8130 0.2064 0.5036 11.4689 0.8996
R7 0.1900 0.7525 0.0589 1.5069 0.1741 0.6324 0.2870 1.4256 11.0000 1.8697
R8 0.2180 0.5000 0.3117 0.5481 0.1048 1.8718 0.8427 1.5000 11.9688 1.8935
R9 0.2510 0.7181 0.2430 1.0448 0.3359 1.0119 0.0914 1.9831 12.5001 0.8123
R10 0.2181 0.5000 0.1719 0.7133 0.6784 0.5176 0.0253 2.4609 11.2500 0.8102
R11 0.1807 1.4069 0.2344 1.2733 0.2861 1.4399 0.2983 0.7344 11.2519 0.8029
R12 0.2327 0.5008 0.2090 0.5928 0.3636 0.5488 0.8010 0.5186 11.0006 1.4419
R13 0.1452 1.3339 0.1878 1.1534 0.6840 0.8622 0.2194 0.7569 11.1743 0.8170
R14 0.1136 2.2588 0.1469 1.1179 0.3366 0.7010 0.4261 1.4374 12.0666 1.8248
R15 0.1090 1.8665 0.1318 0.9711 0.2261 1.3582 0.1329 0.7650 12.0627 0.8625
R16 0.0715 1.6932 0.1837 0.5014 0.2052 0.7851 0.2514 0.5000 11.0000 1.1180
OF 22.2059s 11.6704s 19.1879s 10.9870s
8 R. TIWARI

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 5. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in GCM using GA with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD.

settings are within the desired range of decision variables. The The common optimal relay settings for both operating
total relay operating times in IM using GWO are 21.7691 s, modes, considering the simultaneous effect of GCM and IM,
16.0673 s, 20.1666 s, and 10.7910 s with NI, VI, EI, and UD are shown in Table 7.It can be seen from the obtained results
relay characteristics, respectively. The results show that the that all the optimal relay settings are within the desired range.
reduction in total relay operating times using UD relay char­ In the context of a common optimal relay setting, the total
acteristics is 50.43%, 32.84%, and 46.49% compared to NI, VI, relay operating times are 14.9825 s and 15.3388 s using GWO
and EI relay characteristics, respectively. Using these optimal and GA, respectively. The obtained results reveal that GWO
relay settings, the primary backup relay operating times for performs better as compared to GA. The primary backup relay
each relay pair are shown in Figure 8. It can also be observed by operating times using the common optimal relay settings are
using UD relay characteristics that the primary and corre­ shown in Figure 9. The results show that the primary relay and
sponding backup relay operating times are reduced and lie in the corresponding backup relay operate faster in GWO than in
a feasible range. GA. In the context of common optimal relay settings using

Table 4. Optimal relay settings for 7-bus test system in GCM using GWO.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.0762 2.2725 0.0604 1.7937 0.0846 1.5298 0.144 1.166 48.256 1.782
R2 0.1257 2.2354 0.4236 0.5153 0.1408 1.6753 0.057 1.171 73.447 1.322
R3 0.1577 0.7653 0.2013 0.5033 0.4362 0.5335 0.157 0.773 13.566 1.213
R4 0.1594 0.6420 0.2368 0.5069 0.8016 0.6565 0.028 1.154 49.472 1.010
R5 0.1354 1.4630 0.3083 0.5037 0.3040 1.1481 0.696 0.518 27.477 1.483
R6 0.1588 0.7231 0.1910 0.6705 0.3681 1.0437 0.157 0.555 22.832 1.037
R7 0.0721 2.2471 0.0761 1.2616 0.1520 0.7018 0.070 1.659 13.716 1.390
R8 0.1059 2.0390 0.2825 0.5937 1.1011 0.5844 0.139 1.250 25.298 1.363
R9 0.2104 1.2729 0.1547 1.5598 0.2170 1.2859 0.719 1.278 22.667 1.974
R10 0.0691 2.3144 0.2502 0.5088 0.6607 0.5282 0.044 1.159 41.231 1.232
R11 0.2106 1.2980 0.6098 0.5173 0.4224 1.1959 0.772 1.870 17.628 1.998
R12 0.1127 1.1079 0.1113 1.0256 0.3076 0.5994 0.035 1.799 52.417 1.739
R13 0.2181 0.6620 0.1166 1.7325 0.9003 0.7560 0.442 1.648 18.633 1.762
R14 0.1575 1.0244 0.0490 2.4487 0.3304 0.7515 0.136 1.284 58.485 1.997
R15 0.1836 0.6348 0.2772 0.5283 0.5909 0.8500 1.090 0.505 18.645 1.479
R16 0.1839 0.5004 0.1664 0.5081 0.5119 0.5005 0.126 0.551 14.777 1.021
OF 20.2983s 11.4406s 19.4481s 10.662s
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 9

Table 5. Optimal relay settings for 7-bus test system in IM using GA.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.3465 0.5000 0.1506 1.5219 0.6054 0.6500 0.438 0.500 13.500 1.311
R2 0.2071 0.9721 0.2856 0.5015 0.4429 0.6218 0.206 0.758 13.500 1.109
R3 0.2638 0.5003 0.0558 1.7794 0.3399 0.5443 0.325 0.519 13.500 1.191
R4 0.0263 1.4340 0.1035 0.5198 0.1578 0.5038 0.122 0.500 13.500 1.180
R5 0.1598 1.0678 0.2161 0.5010 0.5682 0.6056 0.340 0.500 13.500 1.185
R6 0.0692 2.3403 0.2934 0.5000 0.7501 0.5000 0.248 0.507 13.500 1.113
R7 0.2938 0.5063 0.1696 1.3066 0.5242 0.6924 0.260 1.423 13.503 1.964
R8 0.2025 0.5000 0.1408 0.5013 0.2257 0.5000 0.115 0.585 14.494 1.074
R9 0.2644 0.5000 0.2140 1.2383 0.9020 0.6410 0.210 1.067 13.500 1.571
R10 0.2584 0.5018 0.2246 0.5884 0.1088 1.0244 0.913 0.514 13.503 1.436
R11 0.1785 0.5172 0.0845 1.6830 0.4958 0.5694 0.357 0.863 43.670 1.875
R12 0.1376 1.6637 0.2776 0.5284 0.0534 1.4057 0.864 0.669 13.500 1.908
R13 0.0701 1.9963 0.3208 0.5000 0.4860 0.6009 0.060 0.757 46.227 1.057
R14 0.1076 2.0309 0.0488 2.0314 0.0710 1.2300 0.279 1.314 14.357 2.000
R15 0.0602 1.4845 0.1324 0.5975 0.5041 0.5008 0.524 0.500 13.500 1.424
R16 0.2460 0.5001 0.1085 0.9726 0.3324 0.5512 0.275 0.572 13.796 1.274
OF 26.9660s 16.8719s 19.7053s 11.102s

GWO, the percentage reduction in the total relay operating protection of the system is ensured by 21 UD-DOCRs placed
time is 2.32% compared to GA. at the two ends of the lines (Tripathi and Mallik 2023). Eight
three-phase mid-line faults (F1 to F8) are introduced into this
test system, and a corresponding primary backup relay pair for
(b) 9-bus radial distribution system each fault location is listed in Table 8. It is important to note that
To authenticate the proposed protection coordination scheme the 22 relay pairs (RP1-RP22) are shown along with the primary
and identify the optimal optimization technique, a larger 9-bus and corresponding backup relays. The current transformer
radial distribution system is examined, as depicted in Figure 10. ratios (CTRs) considered in this test system are employed for
In this test system, a microgrid is formed by incorporating four microgrid protection to achieve high accuracy and sensitivity
Distributed Generators (DGs) at buses B4, B5, B6, and B9, each during fault conditions, and these are detailed in Table 8. All the
with a capacity of 3MVA (480 V). Bus B1 externally feeds the remaining test system information can be found in Tripathi and
system with a capacity of 500 MVA (115kV). The complete Mallik (2023) and Dehghanpour et al. (2018).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 6. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in GCM using GWO with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD.
10 R. TIWARI

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in IM using GA with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD.

The optimized relay settings achieved through GWO in achieved by GA using NI, VI, EI, and UD characteristics in
GCM, incorporating NI, VI, EI, and UD relay attributes, are the GCM. Furthermore, it is observed that the measured coor­
displayed in Table 9. The operational durations of relays dination time interval (MCTI) between primary and corre­
determined by GA with NI, VI, and EI characteristics are sponding backup DOCRs in the GCM exceeds the desired
14.3201 s, 9.4369 s, and 16.3133 s, respectively. Furthermore, CTI when utilizing GA.
the total operational time of UD-DOCRs obtained via GA Similarly, the optimal relay settings in GCM using GWO
using UD characteristics is 9.2099s. Adopting UD character­ are shown in Table 10. All the obtained relay settings are
istics reduces the total relay operational time by 35.68%, 2.40%, within the desired range. The total relay operating times
and 43.54% compared to NI, VI, and EI, respectively. using GWO are 12.5071 s, 9.2149 s, 11.3089 s, and 9.1497 s
Additionally, with VI characteristics, the relay operational with NI, VI, EI, and UD relay characteristics, respectively. The
time is decreased by 34.10% compared to NI. Figure 11 illus­ percentage reduction in the total relay operating time was
trates the primary and backup DOCRs’ operational time 26.84%, 0.70%, and 19.09%, respectively, compared to the NI,
Table 6. Optimal relay settings for 7-bus test system in IM using GWO.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.1632 1.2270 0.3642 0.6352 0.6938 0.6002 0.425 0.846 16.362 1.783
R2 0.1144 1.6967 0.1167 1.1891 0.1930 0.9451 0.300 0.751 35.292 1.697
R3 0.1214 1.5199 0.1953 0.7301 0.0531 1.3313 0.077 1.522 34.210 1.957
R4 0.0331 1.2674 0.0558 0.7391 0.1563 0.5088 0.093 0.502 14.011 1.086
R5 0.0877 1.7311 0.3227 0.5010 0.8465 0.5031 0.103 0.611 19.906 1.003
R6 0.1114 1.3654 0.2669 0.5131 0.4018 0.6863 0.025 0.787 60.654 1.012
R7 0.0812 2.2907 0.0559 2.3559 0.0989 1.5184 0.058 1.872 18.285 1.559
R8 0.0342 2.0849 0.0960 0.6969 0.0359 1.2436 0.192 0.789 14.115 1.551
R9 0.2446 0.5053 0.4516 0.5946 0.4882 0.8690 0.090 1.791 17.100 1.998
R10 0.1372 0.5513 0.0335 2.4752 0.0355 1.7679 0.406 0.814 14.112 1.440
R11 0.0760 2.3537 0.0462 2.4646 0.0903 1.3155 0.126 2.020 21.768 1.956
R12 0.1634 0.6584 0.1845 0.6948 0.4523 0.5033 0.254 0.735 15.597 1.437
R13 0.0992 1.3470 0.2510 0.5817 0.6458 0.5244 0.771 0.821 24.296 1.949
R14 0.1668 0.8925 0.0820 1.4480 0.0375 1.6495 0.042 2.245 25.310 1.939
R15 0.0595 1.6627 0.0814 0.9682 0.0479 1.6245 0.039 1.531 32.277 1.380
R16 0.1232 1.2975 0.2592 0.5012 0.1537 0.8141 0.242 0.575 21.870 1.446
OF 21.7691s 16.0673s 20.1666s 10.791s
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 11

Table 7. Common optimal relay settings for 7-bus test system for both modes using GWO and GA.

GWO GA
Relay TMS PS λ η TMS PS λ η
R1 0.7288 0.9054 26.9109 1.9995 0.6253 1.4142 13.5010 2.0000
R2 0.4700 0.9282 73.7240 1.9791 0.6691 1.8575 13.5005 2.0000
R3 0.1521 0.6281 49.6630 1.3826 0.7231 0.5332 13.5001 1.3803
R4 0.1555 0.8221 13.8895 1.0364 0.0923 1.1816 14.3342 1.0078
R5 0.0853 0.9989 60.4433 1.3715 0.9688 1.2374 14.3548 1.8539
R6 0.0570 1.1293 54.3984 1.2523 0.1688 0.9787 14.1419 1.1083
R7 0.2853 0.8794 62.2448 1.8601 0.7450 0.7651 13.5001 1.3985
R8 0.0570 1.3156 47.2545 1.2885 0.0645 1.1008 42.8308 1.2206
R9 0.1883 0.8139 48.0777 1.3410 0.3081 1.1203 13.5024 1.1591
R10 0.1954 1.5384 47.4861 1.9641 0.8364 1.2229 13.5034 1.8462
R11 0.2736 0.8219 62.9208 1.4759 0.4914 0.8504 13.5034 1.1324
R12 0.4149 0.6040 71.3287 1.9996 0.4498 1.1237 13.5793 1.8215
R13 0.0809 1.8182 63.9340 1.6217 0.2347 1.5218 13.9320 1.2692
R14 0.1190 1.4205 58.0765 1.9952 1.0292 0.8072 13.5001 1.7653
R15 0.2382 0.9624 30.5680 1.4539 0.0835 1.5014 13.5318 1.0049
R16 0.1360 0.7809 38.9450 1.4847 0.2921 1.1117 13.5007 1.6780
OF 14.9825s 15.3388s

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 8. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in IM using GWO with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in both modes employing common optimal relay settings using (a) GWO, (b) GA.
12 R. TIWARI

B2 B3 B4 B5

M M M M

B1
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8

F1 F2 F3 F4
R18 R19

Source DG1 DG2

T2 T3
R17

T1

B6 B7 B8 B9

M M M M

R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16

F5 F6 F7 F8
R20 R21

DG3 DG4

T4 T5

Figure 10. 9-bus radial test system.

VI, and EI relay characteristics. Figure 12 illustrates the pri­ relay operational time by 38.89%, 1.74%, and 42.54% com­
mary and backup DOCRs’ operational time achieved by GWO pared to NI, VI, and EI characteristics, respectively. The pri­
using NI, VI, EI, and UD characteristics in the GCM. The mary and corresponding backup relay operational times are
primary and backup relay operating times are determined computed using these optimal relay settings, as illustrated in
using these optimal relay settings, as shown in Figure 11. Figure 13. It is evident from Figure 13 that utilizing UD relay
In the context of IM, the optimized relay settings obtained characteristics results in reductions in both primary and cor­
via GA are presented in Table 11. The total operational dura­ responding backup relay operational times.
tions using GA are recorded as 15.4707 s, 9.6221 s, 16.4551 s, Similarly, the cumulative relay operational durations using
and 9.4541 s with NI, VI, EI, and UD relay attributes, respec­ GWO are determined as 14.0292 s, 9.3878 s, and 16.3823 s,
tively. Employing UD relay characteristics reduces the total corresponding to NI, VI, and EI relay characteristics,
Table 8. Three-phase mid-point fault current analysis of 9-bus radial distribution system.

Fault Current Through Relay Coil (A)

GCM IM
Fault Point Relay Pairs (RP) Primary DOCR CT Ratio (CTR) Backup DOCR CT Ratio (CTR) Primary Backup Primary Backup
F1 RP1 R1 300 R10 250 19.56 10.30 14.54 6.64
RP2 R1 300 R21 100 19.56 23.14 14.54 15.28
RP3 R2 200 R4 200 24.15 10.31 18.77 5.29
F2 RP4 R3 300 R1 300 15.46 6.87 11.96 3.61
RP5 R4 200 R6 250 21.95 8.25 17.36 5.10
F3 RP6 R5 300 R3 300 17.75 8.59 11.89 4.25
RP7 R6 250 R8 150 21.15 17.17 15.44 8.50
RP8 R6 250 R17 100 21.15 25.76 15.44 15.28
F4 RP9 R7 350 R5 300 14.43 6.87 10.24 5.09
RP10 R7 350 R17 100 14.43 20.62 10.24 15.28
RP11 R8 150 R18 100 32.62 20.62 31.59 16.59
F5 RP12 R9 300 R2 200 15.79 11.57 11.58 6.38
RP13 R9 300 R21 100 15.79 23.14 11.58 12.75
RP14 R10 250 R12 100 20.20 23.14 15.13 12.75
RP15 R10 250 R19 100 20.20 23.14 15.13 12.75
F6 RP16 R11 400 R9 300 12.16 6.87 10.52 4.98
RP17 R11 400 R19 100 12.16 20.62 10.52 19.84
RP18 R12 100 R14 150 43.81 13.75 33.76 9.19
F7 RP19 R13 350 R11 400 14.21 5.79 9.34 3.58
RP20 R14 150 R16 150 31.22 14.23 20.42 9.31
F8 RP21 R15 350 R13 350 15.34 7.27 11.22 4.67
RP22 R16 150 R20 100 35.16 24.87 27.67 18.49
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 13

Table 9. Optimal relay settings for 9-bus test system in GCM using GA.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.1245 0.5000 0.0543 1.7309 1.0453 0.5000 0.2792 0.7753 13.9541 1.1455
R2 0.1460 0.6767 0.2693 0.5000 0.5159 0.9183 1.0089 0.5866 13.5034 1.2831
R3 0.1044 0.5674 0.0513 1.4980 0.1227 1.1952 0.5405 0.6554 13.6896 1.2578
R4 0.0594 2.3074 0.1246 0.9663 0.1531 1.5544 1.1375 0.5681 13.5169 1.3478
R5 0.0407 1.9777 0.0560 1.4415 0.3713 0.6853 0.2933 0.5629 13.5011 1.0630
R6 0.0560 1.9354 0.2192 0.5000 0.6847 0.6558 0.3409 0.7483 13.9689 1.1626
R7 0.0442 0.5000 0.1429 0.5000 0.4451 0.5392 0.0462 1.9980 13.5228 1.0058
R8 0.1010 1.3941 0.4571 0.5000 1.1902 1.0181 0.9335 0.5542 13.5007 1.0965
R9 0.0620 2.0505 0.0295 2.3099 0.6626 0.5000 0.8133 1.1175 14.5047 1.7878
R10 0.1698 0.5031 0.2713 0.5000 0.7919 0.5976 1.0475 0.5449 13.5027 1.3203
R11 0.1203 0.5026 0.0497 1.3520 0.3911 0.5908 0.1910 1.4855 13.5034 1.5686
R12 0.2573 0.5000 0.5889 0.5000 0.9638 1.2090 0.7941 0.7453 13.5125 1.0310
R13 0.0851 0.6680 0.1842 0.5000 0.4307 0.5000 0.3851 0.5134 13.8952 1.1100
R14 0.2621 0.5015 0.4109 0.5000 1.0260 0.7087 0.6089 0.6557 13.5057 1.0401
R15 0.0455 0.5000 0.0479 1.4921 0.4870 0.5649 0.0743 1.5058 13.5004 1.0383
R16 0.2909 0.5005 0.4428 0.5000 0.3982 1.5402 0.5668 0.6859 13.5049 1.0325
R17 0.1944 0.5002 0.4048 0.7906 0.7934 1.0446 1.0532 0.7932 13.8023 1.1219
R18 0.1959 0.7069 0.6746 0.5262 0.4940 1.4352 0.6685 1.1315 13.5056 1.1375
R19 0.2615 0.5015 0.8205 0.5200 0.6341 1.5163 0.4529 2.3002 13.5025 1.3001
R20 0.3659 0.5192 0.5359 0.7597 0.6855 1.3594 0.3927 1.7752 13.7508 1.0784
R21 0.2054 0.6904 0.6542 0.5000 0.7262 1.0916 0.8698 0.6902 13.5032 1.0480
OF 14.3201s 9.4369s 16.3133s 9.2099s

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 11. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in GCM using GA with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD relay characteristics.
14 R. TIWARI

Table 10. Optimal relay settings for 9-bus test system in GCM using GWO.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.0261 2.3738 0.0781 1.2515 0.4340 1.0483 0.4802 0.6896 13.8440 1.2620
R2 0.1457 0.5000 0.2871 0.5000 0.1803 2.0057 0.7053 0.5000 13.7419 1.1180
R3 0.1095 0.5000 0.1712 0.5000 0.6778 0.6665 1.0748 0.8562 13.5000 1.6939
R4 0.1624 0.5000 0.2458 0.5029 0.1270 2.1690 0.9625 0.5000 13.5000 1.2243
R5 0.0384 2.0845 0.0698 1.2237 0.8473 0.6814 0.7437 0.5000 13.5027 1.2969
R6 0.0752 1.8339 0.2098 0.5215 0.6877 0.9015 0.8498 0.5000 13.5000 1.2714
R7 0.0383 0.7316 0.0934 0.7461 0.0572 2.1958 0.0638 1.5000 13.5001 1.0039
R8 0.1845 0.5014 0.4568 0.5000 0.6626 1.4161 1.1531 0.5000 13.5000 1.1240
R9 0.0565 1.5281 0.1978 0.5000 0.4880 0.7984 0.9626 1.3213 14.5851 2.0000
R10 0.0527 1.9623 0.1343 0.9385 0.5400 0.9724 0.1746 1.5784 13.5000 1.1660
R11 0.0299 2.1940 0.0773 0.9116 0.7165 0.5086 1.1998 0.5001 13.5000 1.5993
R12 0.0929 2.3325 0.6349 0.5000 0.5357 2.1276 1.1063 0.5829 59.8442 1.4446
R13 0.0975 0.5000 0.1210 0.7215 0.6162 0.6416 0.7048 0.5222 13.5000 1.3269
R14 0.1868 0.5000 0.2566 0.7947 0.3043 1.9988 0.9566 1.2817 13.5002 1.5280
R15 0.0293 1.4709 0.0383 1.8047 0.9207 0.5826 0.9502 1.3425 13.5000 2.0000
R16 0.1948 0.7908 0.1541 1.3145 0.4647 1.8236 0.5213 1.2884 13.5000 1.2937
R17 0.2165 0.5549 0.6506 0.5026 0.4561 2.3277 1.1531 0.5903 14.2186 1.0662
R18 0.2518 0.5477 0.3932 0.8837 0.4286 1.9259 0.9608 2.2412 13.5000 1.6494
R19 0.1778 0.5317 0.4980 0.8422 0.8215 1.5682 0.9175 1.4704 13.5000 1.3291
R20 0.2376 1.1037 0.4376 0.9043 1.1627 1.4320 0.7125 1.4716 13.5002 1.2397
R21 0.1822 0.5387 0.4381 0.7338 0.7127 1.6750 0.8545 1.5464 13.5000 1.3607
OF 12.5071s 9.2149s 11.3089s 9.1497s

Table 11. Optimal relay settings for 9-bus test system in IM using GA.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.0507 1.4781 0.0515 1.8130 1.0457 0.5000 0.2803 0.5001 13.5000 1.0887
R2 0.1992 0.5028 0.2441 0.5645 0.0871 2.2220 0.2949 0.6268 13.5031 1.0936
R3 0.0619 1.3513 0.0875 0.9257 0.7239 0.5000 0.0526 1.5006 13.5000 1.0123
R4 0.1829 0.6016 0.2403 0.5143 0.4730 0.8869 0.2298 0.5233 14.4691 1.0120
R5 0.0524 1.5128 0.2028 0.5000 0.4902 0.5969 0.0581 1.5008 14.2344 1.0797
R6 0.1928 0.5000 0.0792 1.3106 0.7897 0.6109 0.0686 1.4406 14.4669 1.0118
R7 0.0441 0.5000 0.0792 0.8689 0.0570 1.4951 0.1761 0.5000 13.5000 1.0650
R8 0.2425 0.5003 0.0937 2.2928 0.5156 1.5459 0.6263 0.5195 13.5006 1.0853
R9 0.1551 0.5039 0.1980 0.5003 0.0337 2.1791 0.5620 0.5001 13.5000 1.3848
R10 0.1277 0.5520 0.1724 0.7539 1.0888 0.5100 1.0448 0.5010 13.5088 1.4568
R11 0.1182 0.5000 0.0308 2.0279 0.3867 0.5943 0.0421 1.5003 14.3750 1.0071
R12 0.2124 0.5663 0.5995 0.5000 0.9782 1.2007 0.0833 1.2109 59.7064 1.1825
R13 0.0760 0.8119 0.0296 1.9995 0.2037 0.7263 0.0597 1.5118 13.5001 1.1586
R14 0.2348 0.5000 0.1780 1.0874 1.0803 0.6907 1.1609 0.5000 13.5000 1.3667
R15 0.0456 0.5001 0.1573 0.5000 0.3044 0.7185 0.6950 0.5000 13.9956 1.4760
R16 0.2696 0.5002 0.2328 0.8970 0.2613 1.8996 0.3433 1.4990 13.5000 1.3263
R17 0.2940 0.5000 0.2408 1.2842 0.3700 1.5264 0.6890 1.3101 13.5000 1.4126
R18 0.2847 0.6382 0.7120 0.5000 0.7672 1.1540 0.2770 1.5068 14.4375 1.1120
R19 0.2354 0.6356 0.5343 0.7880 0.7784 1.3702 1.1986 0.5605 13.5625 1.1264
R20 0.3503 0.5104 0.2694 1.4324 1.0232 1.1172 1.0152 1.8544 13.5000 1.6735
R21 0.2554 0.5011 0.6501 0.5020 0.8736 0.9958 0.4101 2.5000 14.5017 1.6804
OF 15.4707s 9.6221s 16.4551s 9.4541s
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 12. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in GCM using GWO with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD relay characteristics.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 13. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in IM using GA with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD relay characteristics.
16 R. TIWARI

Table 12. Optimal relay settings for 9-bus test system in IM using GWO.

NI VI EI UD
Relay TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS λ η
R1 0.0802 0.9813 0.0776 1.2668 0.3546 0.8574 0.0429 1.3183 6.4454 0.5516
R2 0.1224 0.7966 0.2992 0.5108 1.1297 0.6209 0.3699 0.6836 2.9309 0.6823
R3 0.0918 0.7435 0.1640 0.5374 0.2729 0.8036 0.4342 1.2038 2.0262 0.9919
R4 0.1547 0.5379 0.2499 0.5000 0.2721 1.1681 0.2535 1.9954 0.4611 0.3076
R5 0.0436 1.8677 0.1432 0.6852 0.2033 0.9250 0.7205 1.4696 0.5768 0.6955
R6 0.1524 0.6347 0.1730 0.6350 0.5505 0.7312 0.6707 1.2801 3.8242 1.3176
R7 0.0434 0.5433 0.0341 1.8350 0.1370 0.9688 0.2045 0.6842 0.1540 0.1002
R8 0.2152 0.5271 0.4596 0.5015 0.6835 1.3429 1.1250 0.5366 1.2769 0.6351
R9 0.0461 2.4126 0.1847 0.5367 0.6183 0.5176 0.2510 1.6927 3.4089 1.1722
R10 0.0912 1.3949 0.1796 0.7315 0.2037 1.1757 0.3387 2.0000 3.4515 1.2548
R11 0.0828 0.9473 0.0625 1.1161 0.5466 0.5000 0.2172 1.5010 0.4988 0.3523
R12 0.1117 2.4208 0.1660 1.6112 0.6036 1.5271 0.2393 2.3347 0.7278 0.2693
R13 0.0950 0.5529 0.1210 0.7413 0.0267 1.9663 0.3007 1.6350 5.1719 1.6104
R14 0.1341 1.4031 0.3272 0.6090 0.5772 0.9445 1.0720 1.2686 6.4774 1.5128
R15 0.0446 0.6212 0.1596 0.5298 0.1865 0.9111 0.3729 1.0026 0.3821 0.2801
R16 0.1843 0.9146 0.4241 0.5164 0.5069 1.3656 0.2078 1.3420 3.6191 0.6398
R17 0.2467 0.6292 0.5261 0.6268 0.2441 1.8733 0.3797 0.6584 0.9198 0.2449
R18 0.2614 0.6820 0.7758 0.5022 0.6227 1.2794 0.0391 1.0746 0.9911 0.0413
R19 0.1651 1.4955 0.7997 0.5371 0.4523 1.7931 0.2192 1.0465 0.5447 0.1100
R20 0.2685 0.8867 0.3883 1.1464 0.4007 1.7747 0.1719 0.5009 0.3480 0.0428
R21 0.1339 1.5751 0.1919 1.5863 0.9747 0.9428 0.6304 0.5142 0.2864 0.1386
OF 14.0292s 9.3878s 16.3823s 9.2033s

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 14. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in IM using GWO with (a) NI, (b) VI, (c) EI, (d) UD relay characteristics.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 17

Table 13. Common optimal relay settings for 9-bus test system for both modes using GWO and GA.

GWO GA
Relay TMS PS λ η TMS PS λ η
R1 0.1244 0.5056 35.9232 1.0051 0.7797 0.5126 13.6225 1.2832
R2 1.1187 0.8691 13.5000 1.4666 0.0533 2.2268 67.2079 1.5126
R3 0.0978 1.5015 14.5041 1.0037 0.3174 1.2968 43.3106 1.9871
R4 1.0221 0.5001 13.5000 1.2564 0.1675 1.3089 42.0057 1.5134
R5 0.0747 1.5010 14.4998 1.0039 0.0627 0.9211 39.9882 1.0895
R6 0.8655 0.5000 13.7495 1.2811 0.2100 1.7394 39.0148 1.7681
R7 0.1082 1.5000 13.5002 1.2178 0.1990 1.4180 25.4650 1.6817
R8 1.0250 1.5490 13.5000 1.6043 0.7995 0.8088 43.5702 1.5570
R9 0.0816 2.2157 13.5000 1.0870 0.1332 1.0715 71.0360 1.6447
R10 1.1995 0.5962 13.5013 1.3891 0.0811 1.9167 73.9143 1.7366
R11 0.0757 1.4990 14.5627 1.1299 0.0921 1.6147 17.1925 1.3960
R12 1.0025 0.5439 13.5016 1.0036 0.6203 2.0549 29.9320 1.7055
R13 1.1884 0.5132 13.5000 1.5106 0.0296 2.3520 52.9266 1.5628
R14 1.1912 0.5000 13.5000 1.1478 0.1457 1.4440 21.9813 1.0761
R15 0.3354 0.9798 13.5000 1.3975 0.0585 1.4864 32.3803 1.2553
R16 0.6019 1.5000 13.5000 1.4011 0.8652 1.0636 31.2733 1.6008
R17 0.6281 1.5000 13.5000 1.1897 0.2501 1.8242 20.9487 1.1006
R18 0.2750 0.5001 50.7471 1.0347 0.8534 0.8968 36.9612 1.4710
R19 1.0250 1.5000 13.5000 1.3836 0.5369 1.2421 15.6097 1.1480
R20 0.6204 1.5000 13.5000 1.2004 0.6745 0.6256 78.8211 1.4069
R21 0.4790 1.2956 13.5001 1.0331 0.9864 1.1193 51.5713 1.6806
OF 9.2468s 9.2891s

(a) (b)
Figure 15. Primary and corresponding backup relay operating times in both modes employing common optimal relay settings using (a) GWO, (b) GA.

respectively, as detailed in Table 12. All the obtained relay of relay constraints and relay pairs is doubled (RP1-RP44)
settings are within the desired range. Additionally, the total compared to individual GCM or IM. Relay pairs RP1-RP22
operational time of UD-DOCRs derived through GWO using belong to GCM, whereas RP23-RP44 belong to IM. The total
UD characteristics is 9.2033s. Leveraging UD characteristics operational time of UD-DOCRs obtained by GWO and GA is
reduces relay operational time by 34.39%, 1.39%, and 43.82% 9.2468 s and 9.2891 s, respectively. With the obtained common
compared to NI, VI, and EI characteristics, respectively. The optimal relay settings, all relay constraints in both operating
primary and backup relay operational times concerning relay modes are completely satisfied, ensuring no constraint viola­
pairs employing GWO algorithms are illustrated in Figure 14. tion occurs for either mode.
The common optimal relay configurations acquired
through GWO and GA utilizing UD relay characteristics are
presented in Table 13. Figures 15a and 15b depict the opera­ Conclusion
tional times of UD-DOCRs obtained by GWO and GA in both
modes, respectively. A notable observation is the higher relay This study explores the relay coordination challenges associated
operating time in IM compared to GCM due to variations in with changes in microgrid operation. Moreover, it introduces two
fault current magnitude. In this scenario, while the number of distinct metaheuristic optimization techniques, namely GA and
relays remains constant in both operating modes, the number GWO, to address the coordination problem of DOCRs. This
18 R. TIWARI

study compares relay coordination within a 7-bus and 9-bus Khademi, M. M. 2017. Designing a coordinated protection system for
microgrid system utilizing UD-DOCRs in both operating microgrids enabled with DERs based on unidirectional FCL. CIRED -
Open Access Proceedings Journal 2017 (1):1027–30, October. doi: 10.
modes. The key findings and conclusions are outlined as follows: 1049/oap-cired.2017.0192.
Mehigan, L., J. P. Deane, B. O. Gallachoir, and V. Bertsch. 2018. A review
● The fault detection time is lower in GCM compared to the of the role of distributed generation (DG) in future electricity systems.
Energy 163:822–36, November. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.022.
IM. Mirjalili, S., S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis. 2014. Grey Wolf Optimizer.
● To bolster the protection scheme’s reliability, common Advances in Engineering Software 69:46–61, March. doi: 10.1016/j.
optimal relay settings are derived, applicable in both advengsoft.2013.12.007.
Najy, W. K. A., H. H. Zeineldin, and W. L. Woon. 2013. Optimal protec­
microgrid operating modes using UD-DOCRs, without
tion coordination for microgrids with grid-connected and islanded
coordination constraint violations. capability. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 60 (4):1668–
● In summary, UD-DOCRs offer enhanced flexibility, 77, April. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2012.2192893.
Nimpitiwan, N., G. T. Heydt, R. Ayyanar, and S. Suryanarayanan. 2007.
improved coordination, and superior fault detection cap­
Fault current contribution from synchronous machine and inverter
abilities when contrasted with conventional DOCRs. based distributed generators. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 22
(1):634–41, January. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2006.881440.
Sadoughi, M., M. Hojjat, and A. M. Hosseini. 2022. Smart overcurrent
relay for operating in islanded and grid-connected modes of a micro-
Author contributions grid without needing communication systems. Energy Systems 13
(1):31–51. doi: 10.1007/s12667-020-00381-0.
CRediT: Raghvendra Tiwari: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Sharma, A., and B. K. Panigrahi. 2018. Phase fault protection scheme for
Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – reliable operation of microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Industry
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Applications 54 (3):2646–55, May-June. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2017.
2787691.
Srivastava, A., J. M. Tripathi, R. Krishan, and S. K. Parida. 2018. Optimal
Disclosure statement coordination of overcurrent relays using gravitational search algorithm
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). with DG penetration. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 54
(2):1155–65, March-April.
Srivastava, A., J. M. Tripathi, S. R. Mohanty, and B. Panda. 2016. Optimal
References over-current relay coordination with distributed generation using
hybrid particle swarm optimization–gravitational search algorithm.
Alaee, P., and T. Amraee. 2021. Optimal coordination of directional Electric Power Components and Systems, Taylor & Francis 44 (5):506–
overcurrent relays in meshed active distribution network using imper­ 17, February. doi: 10.1080/15325008.2015.1117539.
ialistic competition algorithm. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Tiwari, R., R. K. Singh, and N. K. Choudhary. 2021. A comparative
Clean Energy 9 (2):416–22, March. doi: 10.35833/MPCE.2019.000184. analysis of optimal relay coordination for different network configura­
Alam, M. N. 2019. Overcurrent protection of AC microgrids using mixed tion. 2021 1st International Conference on Power Electronics and
characteristic curves of relays. Computers & Electrical Engineering Energy (ICPEE), 1–6, Bhubaneswar, India, January.
74:74–88. doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2019.01.003. Tiwari, R., R. K. Singh, and N. K. Choudhary. 2022. Optimal relay
Dehghanpour, E., H. K. Karegar, R. Khairollahi, and T. Soleymani. 2018. coordination for DG-Based power system using standard and user-
Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays in microgrids defined relay characteristics. International Journal of Engineering and
by using cuckoo-linear optimization algorithm and fault current lim­ Technology Innovation 12 (3):207–24, March. doi: 10.46604/ijeti.2022.
iter. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 9 (2):1365–75. doi: 10.1109/TSG. 8826.
2016.2587725. Tiwari, R., R. K. Singh, and N. K. Choudhary. 2023. Comparative analysis
Godwal, S. D., K. S. Pandya, V. N. Rajput, and S. C. Vora. 2020. A review of directional overcurrent relay coordination using linear and non­
on approaches employed for solving directional overcurrent relays’ linear protection schemes. 2023 International Conference on
coordination problem. In Advances in electric power and energy Computer, Electronics & Electrical Engineering & their Applications
infrastructure. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, ed. A. Mehta, (IC2E3), 1–6, Srinagar Garhwal, India. doi: 10.1109/IC2E357697.2023.
A. Rawat, and P. Chauhan, vol. 608. Singapore: Springer. 35–51. 10262675.
Hong, L., M. Rizwan, M. Wasif, S. Ahmad, M. Zaindin, and M. Firdausi. Tiwari, R., R. K. Singh, and N. Kumar Choudhary. 2020. Optimal coordi­
2021. User-defined dual setting directional overcurrent relays with
nation of dual setting directional over current relays in microgrid with
hybrid time current-voltage characteristics-based protection coordina­
tion for active distribution network. IEEE Access, 9, 62752–69. doi: 10. different standard relay characteristics. 2020 IEEE 9th Power India
1109/ACCESS.2021.3074426. International Conference, 1–6, PIICON), Sonepat, India.
Huchel, L., H. H. Zeineldin, and E. F. El-Saadany. 2017. Protection Tripathi, J. M., and S. K. Mallik. 2023. Protection coordination of DOCRs
coordination index enhancement considering multiple DG locations for different modes of microgrid operation. Engineering Research
using FCL. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 32 (1):344–50, Express 5 (2):025045. doi: 10.1088/2631-8695/acd61a.
February. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2016.2533565. Usama, M., M. Moghavvemi, H. Mokhlis, N. N. Mansor, H. Farooq, and
Katoch, S., S. S. Chauhan, and V. Kumar. 2020. A review on genetic A. Pourdaryaei. 2021. Optimal protection coordination scheme for
algorithm: Past, present, and future. Multimedia Tools & Applications radial distribution network considering ON/OFF-Grid. IEEE Access,
80 (5):8091–126, October. doi: 10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6. 9, 34921–37.