IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

Optimal coordination of directional ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 14th June 2017
Revised 27th September 2017
overcurrent relays using improved Accepted on 26th January 2018
E-First on 12th March 2018
mathematical formulation doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.0945
www.ietdl.org

Vipul N. Rajput1 , Farhad Adelnia2, Kartik S. Pandya1

1Department of Electrical Engineering, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Changa, Gujarat, India
2Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan 3519645399, Iran
E-mail: vipulrajput16986@gmail.com

Abstract: Achieving optimum coordination of directional overcurrent relays is a very complicated task in the large
interconnected system including huge numbers of relays. In the literature, various objective functions (OFs) are reported to
obtain minimum operating time of relays and minimum prescribed discrimination time between the operations of primary and
backup (P/B) relays. In this paper, the performance of five well-established OFs is examined, and in addition, a new OF is
proposed to improve the previously proposed OFs. The proposed OF (POF) minimises operating time of P/B relays together
with discrimination time between their operations. Also, the coordination problem is formulated considering near and far-end
faults and solved by using a genetic algorithm. In order to evaluate the effectiveness, the POF is implemented over the IEEE 14-
bus and IEEE 30-bus distribution networks, and obtained results are compared with those obtained by using previously
proposed OFs presented in the literature.

1 Introduction algorithm [14], ant colony algorithm [5], teaching learning-based

Directional overcurrent relays (DOCRs) are widely used as a
primary protection in sub-transmission and distribution networks,
as well as a backup protection of distance relays in transmission
networks [1]. The DOCRs can be required to obtain the fault zone
discrimination in multi-looped, parallel feeder, double-end fed, and
ring main systems. The coordination of DOCRs is the process of
selecting the suitable relay settings, namely plug setting (PS) and
time multiplier setting (TMS), in such a way that the primary relay
responds faster than any other relays of the system. In case of the
failure of primary relay or associated circuit breaker, backup relays
have to operate after a prescribed time interval, ensuring the correct
sequential operation of P/B relay pairs [2]. The perfect relay
coordination can reduce the chances of equipment damage and
improve the electrical power service to the consumers by isolating
the least possible part of the system [3]. On the other hand, the
overall relay coordination is a very complicated task, because a
relay works as the primary relay for its primary protection zone and
the same relay may serve as a backup of some other primary relays
in the system. Even though the safeguards are taken for designing
and setting of DOCRs-based protection scheme, mis-coordination
may occur in the operation of P/B relay pairs. Therefore, the use of
efficient approaches is essential for the accurate coordination of
relays.
One of the most popular approaches in the literature is to find
the optimal relay settings by using optimisation methods. Over the
past decades, several optimisation methods have been used to solve
the coordination problem. For the first time in 1988, the
coordination of DOCRs is presented in the frame of the
optimisation problem and solved by the linear programming (LP)
method [4]. Afterwards, LP methods have gained good recognition
to solve this problem due to their simplicity [5]. Owing to fixed
value assumed for PS in LP techniques, the obtained solution may
float away from optimal state. To optimise both PS and TMS
simultaneously, the coordination problem is formulated as a non-
linear programming (NLP) problem, and is solved by using the
sequential quadratic programming method [6]. Subsequently,
heuristic methods have become a tool to solve the relay
coordination problem in the last few years. These methods include
genetic algorithm (GA) [7–11], particle swarm optimisation (PSO)
[12], seeker algorithm [13], enhanced backtracking search
optimisation [15], harmony search algorithm [3] etc. To improve
the computational efficiency, the hybrid methods are also utilised
to solve the coordination problem of DOCRs, including GA-LP
[1], GA-NLP [2], biogeography-based optimisation algorithm-LP
[16], and PSO-gravitational search algorithm [17].
Now, owing to the availability of numerous entrenched
optimisation methods, it is a natural curiosity to step ahead for
finding some other approaches for effective solution of optimal
coordination of DOCRs. In this regard, some authors point towards
the modification in the problem formulation of relay coordination.
The most commonly utilised OF is the minimisation of weighted
sum of the operating time of primary relays [1, 2]. However, in a
larger interconnected system with huge numbers of relays and
coordination constraints, the aforesaid method sometime leads to
the larger discrimination time between P/B relay pairs. This is
because the coordination constraints are not incorporated directly
in the OF. To reduce the discrimination time, the coordination
constraints are integrated as a part of the OF [7]. However, this
method endures the problem of mis-coordination of P/B relay
pairs. In [8, 9], the problem of mis-coordination associated with the
previous method has been improved by adding a new term in the
OF. Nevertheless, these methods have problems of large operating
time of primary and backup (P/B) relays. To overcome the
mentioned problem, a new OF is developed in [10, 11], which
integrates operating times of both P/B relays with coordination
constraints. By adding this new term, the improved solutions have
been obtained, but still the problem of mis-coordination is
subsisted.
In this paper, in order to obtain the optimal relay coordination, a
novel OF based on GA is proposed to improve the earlier presented
OFs. The main contribution of the proposed method is to reduce
operating time of relays with preserving the discrimination time at
a minimum prescribed value. In other words, the proposed method
minimises the operating time of primary relays and maximises the
operating time of backup relays in case of mis-coordination. In
addition, the proposed method minimises operating time of backup
relays in case of larger discrimination time between P/B relay
pairs. In this way, the proposed method eliminates the problem of
mis-coordination, and simultaneously reduces the operating time of
relays by achieving the prescribed coordination between P/B relay
pairs. Furthermore, if the relay coordination problem is solved by

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094 2086
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018

Fig. 1  Illustrative diagram of P/B relays for near and far-end faults (F1
and F2)
considering only near-end faults, there will be chances of violation
in the coordination constraints based on far-end faults [6]. To avoid
this problem, the effects of both near and far-end faults are
considered in the coordination problem.
2 Problem formulation
For the optimum coordination of DOCRs, the most common OF
utilised in the literature is the minimisation of the total operating
time of the primary relays [1, 2]. It is expressed as follows:
m
OF1 = ∑ witi
i=1
where ti indicates operating time of relay Ri for fault in its primary
protection zone, m is the number of primary relays, and wi is the
weight coefficient representing the operating time of relay Ri. The
value of wi is generally set to one [2]. Moreover, the non-linear and
well-known standard inverse definite minimum time characteristic
curve based on IEC-60255-3 standard [2] has been considered in
this paper. It is defined as
0.14 × TMSi
ti = 0.02
Ic, i /PSi −1
where TMSi and PSi are the TMS and PS of relay Ri, respectively,
and Ic,i is the fault current passing through the operating coil of
relay Ri.
The constraints subjected to the feasible solution of relay
coordination can be defined as follows.
2.1 Coordination constraints
In overcurrent protection scheme, the primary relay must have
sufficient chance to protect its zone. In case of failure of primary
relays, corresponding backup relay(s) have to trip after the
operating time of primary relay plus coordination time interval
(CTI) [16]. These sequential operations of P/B relay pair should
satisfy the coordination criteria for preventing the mis-coordination
of relays.
As seen in Fig. 1, the coordination constraints between primary
relay Ri and corresponding backup relay(s) Rj can be written for
near and far-end faults as follows:
t j(F1) − ti(F1) ≥ CTI
t j(F2) − ti(F2) ≥ CTI
where tj(F1) and ti(F1) are the operating time of backup relay Rj
and primary relay Ri, respectively, for near-end faults, whereas
tj(F2) and ti(F2) are the operating time of backup relay Rj and
primary relay Ri, respectively, for far-end faults. The CTI depends
upon the types of relays, operating time of circuit breaker, relay
error and safety margin. Typically, the CTI is selected between 0.3
and 0.5 s for electromechanical relays, whereas it is considered
between 0.1 and 0.2 s in microprocessor-based relays [12, 18].
The coordination constraints can be rewritten in terms of
discrimination time as
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Δti, j(F1) = t j(F1) − ti(F1) − CTI (5)
Δti, j(F2) = t j(F2) − ti(F2) − CTI (6)
where Δti,j(F1) and Δti,j(F2) are discrimination time which present
the time difference with CTI between the operations of P/B relays
for near and far-end faults, respectively. It can be clearly seen from
(3) to (6) that the negative value of Δt shows the mis-coordination
which results in the infeasible solution. Similarly, the solution of
relay coordination can be said feasible for the positive value of Δt,
and optimal solution can be achieved under zero value of Δt.
2.2 Bounds on TMS
The TMS regulates the time delay before the relay operates when
the current attains a value equal to or more than pickup current
setting [3]. The boundary constraints on TMS can be stated as
TMSi, min ≤ TMSi ≤ TMSi, max (7)
where TMSi,min and TMSi,max are the minimum and maximum
value of TMS of relay Ri, which are provided by relay
manufacturer.
(1)
2.3 Bounds on PS
The bounds on PS of the relay can be stated as
PSi, min ≤ PSi ≤ PSi, max (8)
where PSi,min and PSi,max are the minimum and maximum values
of PS of relay Ri.
To make sure that the relay does not malfunction under normal
load or small amount of overload condition, the minimum pickup
current setting should be equal to or more than 1.25 times of the
maximum load current. Similarly, maximum pickup setting should
(2)
be less than or equal to 2/3 times of the minimum fault current, to
make sure that the relay is sensitive to the smallest fault current [1–
3].
2.4 Bounds on operating time of relay
Any relay in the system needs certain minimum amount of
operating time, also it cannot be allowed to take more time for the
operation [2]. The constraints related to the boundaries on
operating time of relay can be stated as
ti, min ≤ ti ≤ ti, max (9)
where ti,min and ti,max are the minimum and maximum operating
time of Ri.
In the coordination problem of DOCRs, objective function
(OF), coordination constraints and operating time constraints
become non-linear due to the non-linear characteristic of relay.
Therefore, the coordination problem is referred as complex and
non-linear optimisation problem and solved by considering large
numbers of linear and non-linear constraints. To find the feasible
(3) solution for satisfying these constraints, evolution for the OF
should be well designed.
(4)
3 Problem statement
In this section, various well-established OFs presented in literature
are described. The most common OF expressed by (1) minimises
the operating time of only primary relays. Since the coordination
constraints are not directly incorporated in this OF, possibility of
the larger discrimination time, and hence the larger operating time
of backup relays are increased. To minimise the operating time of
relays along with the discrimination time, different OFs are
developed in the literature.
2087

Fig. 2  Sample network
3.1 OF2
In [7], OF1 is modified to reduce the discrimination time between
the P/B relay pairs along with operating time of primary relay. It is
defined as
m n
OF2 = α1 ∑ ti2 + α2 ∑ Δtpbk
2
(10)
i=1 k=1
Δtpbk = tbk − tpk − CTI (11)
where Δtpbk is the discrimination time between kth P/B relay pairs,
n is number of P/B relay pairs, and k represents each P/B relay
pairs which varies from 1 to n. tpk and tbk are the operating time of
P/B relays, respectively. α1 and α2 are the positive weight factors to
control the first and second terms of OF2.
The problem associated with the OF2 is explained using the
part of an interconnected system having the primary relay Rp and
backup relay Rb as shown in Fig. 2. The following two cases are
assumed to describe the difficulty with OF2. In all the cases, the
value of α1 and α2 is considered to be 1, whereas the value of CTI
is taken 0.2 s.
Case 1: Δtpb = − 0.15, tp = 0.15, tb = 0.20, OF2 = 0.045.
Case 2: Δtpb = 0.20, tp = 0.15, tb = 0.55, OF2 = 0.0625.
As explained by (5) and (6), because of the negative value of
Δtpb, case 1 presents mis-coordination, whereas case 2 is a feasible
case. However, the value of OF2 is lower in case 1 than case 2, and
thus, the algorithm selects case 1 as a more optimum solution. On
the other hand, by accurate considerations, case 2 must be chosen.
3.2 OF3
To overcome the mentioned difficulty with OF2, Razavi et al.
proposed new formulation for the OF [8]. It can be stated as
m n
OF3 = α1 ∑ ti2 + α2 ∑ Δtpbk − β2 Δtpbk − Δtpbk
2
(12)
i=1 k=1
where β2 is used to consider mis-coordination. As can be seen from
(12), for positive value of Δtpbk, second term of OF3 becomes
(Δtpbk)2. For the negative value of Δtpbk, it is (Δtpbk(2β2 − 1))2.
Clearly for the positive value of β2, value of the OF3 will be
greater in the case of negative Δt. Therefore, the chromosome
related to mis-coordination which produces the large value of the
OF3 will not be selected. Also, based on evaluation and selection
process of GA, the chromosomes with less value of Δt must have
more chances to survive.
Although the problem of mis-coordination is resolved by OF3,
the higher operating time of P/B relays are still existing. To clarify
this problem, following two cases, among many other, of
chromosomes being processed, are considered:
α1 = 1, α2 = 2, β2 = 100, CTI = 0.2.
Case 1: Δtpb = 0.5, tp = 0.4, tb = 1.1, OF3 = 0.66.
Case 2: Δtpb = 0.6, tp = 0.2, tb = 1.0, OF3 = 0.76.
Owing to the lower value of OF3 in case 1, algorithm selects
case 1 as more optimum solution than case 2. By observing
2088
precisely, it should be cleared that the operating time of P/B relays
is lower in case 2, and therefore, case 2 has to be selected.
3.3 OF4
The more simplified version of OF3 is proposed in [9]. It is
expressed as
m n
OF4 = α1 ∑ ti2 + β3 ∑ Δtpbk − Δtpbk
2
(13)
i=1 k=1
where β3 is considered equal to α2β22 of OF3, because only part of
second term of OF3 is removed.
For the positive value of Δt, OF4 functions same as OF1 and
the similar difficulties of higher discrimination time and higher
operating time of backup relays are existing as explained in
following two cases:
α1 = 1, β3 = 2, CTI = 0.2.
Case 1: Δtpb = 1.0, tp = 0.2, tb = 1.4, OF4 = 0.04.
Case 2: Δtpb = 0.6, tp = 0.2, tb = 1.0, OF4 = 0.04.
In both cases, the same value for OF4 is found by using (13).
As it is obvious from the results of case 1 and case 2, the
discrimination time and operating time of backup relay are lower in
case 2. Therefore, case 2 must be selected by the algorithm. From
the results of above cases, it can be said that the OF4 does not have
any sensitivity to positive Δt.
3.4 OF5
Although the mis-coordination problem has been overcome in OF3
and OF4, the difficulties of larger operating time of backup relays
and higher discrimination time are still existing. To overcome this
dilemma associated with OF3 and OF4, the authors in [10, 11]
presented a new OF by adding the new terms. It is expressed as
m n
OF5 = α1 ∑ ti2 + α2 ∑ |Δtpbk − | Δtpbk | | ⋅ tpk
2
+ Δtpbk
i=1 k=1 (14)
2
+ | Δtpbk| ⋅ tbk .
In (14), if Δtpbk is supposed to be a positive value, the second term
of OF5 will be (2Δtpbk·tbk2). Similarly, for the negative value of
Δtpbk, second term of OF5 will be (2Δtpbk·tpk2). According to (5)
and (6), the higher positive value of Δtpbk shows larger value of
operating time of backup relay (tbk), and OF5 tries to minimise the
operating time of tbk. Same way, the negative value of Δtpbk shows
larger value of operating time of primary relay (tpk), and OF5 tries
to minimise the operating time of tpk. Thus, OF5 minimises the
operating time of P/B relays according to Δtpbk.
In the OF5, the negative effect of larger operating time of
backup relays and larger discrimination time have been resolved.
However, the mentioned problem in OF2 is still existing. It is
explained by the same cases considered in OF2.
α1 = 1, α2 = 10, CTI = 0.2.
Case 1: Δtpb = −0.15, tp = 0.15, tb = 0.2, OF5 = 0.09.
Case 2: Δtpb = 0.20, tp = 0.15, tb = 0.55, OF5 = 1.2325.
As previously discussed in OF2, case 2 is better than case 1.
However, in the OF5, algorithm selects case 1 as a better solution.
4 New method
As obvious from previous discussion, each OF suffered from mis-
coordination or larger operating time of relays. In this paper, the
POF is developed to overcome these difficulties. The POF is
expressed as
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018

Fig. 3  Flow diagram of the proposed method
Fig. 4  Structure of chromosome in GA for n relays
m n 2
tpk
POF = α1 ∑ ti2 + α2 ∑ |Δtpbk − | Δtpbk | | ⋅ 2
i=1 k=1 tbk (15)
2
+ Δtpbk+|Δtpbk| ⋅ tbk .
As can be seen from (15), second term of OF5 will be
(2Δtpbk·tpk2/tbk2) for the negative value of Δtpbk. On the other hand,
POF works similar to OF5 for the positive value of Δtpbk.
As clearly seen in (14), the OF5 minimises the operating time
of primary relays in case of mis-coordination (Δtpbk < 0). It is noted
that the negative value of Δtpbk shows greater operating time of
primary relays and lesser operating time of backup relays. As OF5
only minimises the operating time of primary relays, the mis-
coordination problem may not be resolved. On the other hand, POF
minimises the operating time of primary relays, and at the same
time, maximises the operating time of backup relays in case of mis-
coordination. Hence, the POF completely resolves the problem of
mis-coordination between the operations of P/B relays. Similar to
OF5, the POF minimises the operating time of backup relays for
larger positive value of Δtpbk. This characteristic of POF minimises
the operating time of relays along with maintaining the
discrimination time at prescribed level.
The flow diagram of this GA-based new method is shown in
Fig. 3. After entering the data, the P/B relay matrix is computed. In
the next step, P/B relay fault currents for near and far-end faults are
calculated. As previously mentioned, if the relay coordination
problem is solved by considering only near-end faults, some
coordination constraints based on far-end faults are not satisfied.
Therefore, the coordination problem is formulated by considering
both near and far-end faults in this method. After the input of the
data and GA parameters, the chromosome is defined in the form of
the genetic string which includes decision variables, namely, TMS
and PS for each relay. Fig. 4 shows the structure of chromosomes
when the network consists n overcurrent relays. In the GA, group
of chromosomes known as population are randomly selected,
including two sections for each chromosome [1, 11]. Also, each
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 5  Single-line diagram of IEEE 14-bus modified distribution network
variable is generated randomly which obeys the normal
distribution. G represents the generation counter and is initially set
to 1. Afterwards, the procedure of the remaining sections of the
program is performed. Then, the value of G is increased by one and
procedure is repeated. When the value of G reaches to the
generation size, the process will be terminated. In the next step, the
evaluation of the POF is carried out for each chromosome in the
current generation. The chromosome with higher value of POF is
automatically ignored in the next generation. After sorting of
chromosome according to their fitness value, the best ones are
granted for the new population in the next generation. In the next
step, basic operations of natural genetic operators (i.e. crossover
and mutation) are implemented to the pairs of chromosomes. I is
the population counter and is counted until the population size. The
process will be terminated after the fixed numbers of generations,
and the best results of PS and TMS at the last part of the
programme will be displayed.
5 Test results
The proposed method described in Section 4 is evaluated by using
the IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 30-bus modified distribution networks.
For better realisation of the solution, the effects of both near and
far-end faults are considered in the problem formulation of relay
coordination. To investigate the performance of proposed method,
obtained results are compared with the previous methods expressed
by OF1 to OF5.
5.1 IEEE 14-bus modified distribution network
The single-line diagram of a modified distribution network of IEEE
14-bus system is shown in Fig. 5. This meshed distribution
network is supplied through two distribution transformers with
10% transient reactance connected at buses B1 and B2. The system
has a total of 16 DOCRs installed at each end of the line. The
system data are given in [19, 20]. Based on the system, DGs are
assumed to be connected at buses B5 and B7. The selected DGs are
synchronous type with a rating of 5 MVA, operating nominally at
0.9 lagging power factor [20]. The ratio of current transformers of
relays (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10), (11, 12, 15, 16) and (4, 6, 13, 14) is
assumed to be 120:1, 80:1 and 40:1, respectively. The information
of P/B relay pairs and fault current passing through them for near
and far-end faults are given in Table 1. It should be noted that, for
far-end fault to primary relays 3, 5 and 6, the fault current passing
through corresponding backup relays 6, 4 and 13 is lower than their
pickup current, so these P/B relay pairs are ignored for far-end
faults. The OF1 to OF5 are earlier OFs presented in the literature,
whereas POF is the proposed new method of the paper. The values
of weight factors corresponding to each OF are tabulated in
Table 2, which are considered as given in the respective literature.
All OFs are applied to solve the coordination problem using GA on
IEEE 14-bus distribution system. The GA parameters are
considered as the number of generation = 4000, population size = 
100, crossover rate = 0.95 and mutation rate = 0.01. All the relays
2089
Table 1 3-Φ short circuit results of near and far-end faults for IEEE 14-bus network
Primary relay (PR) Backup relay (BR) Near-end fault Far-end fault
PR BR PR BR
1 4 4952 404 2804 173
1 6 4952 928 2804 221
2 11 2318 2318 1426 1426
3 2 5968 1420 2280 822
3 6 5968 928 — —
4 14 2140 1777 407 66
5 2 5444 1420 2989 823
5 4 5444 404 — —
6 13 2294 924 — —
6 16 2294 1370 924 994
7 10 4770 1150 3689 729
8 12 1820 1820 1454 1454
9 8 5070 1470 2463 393
10 15 2147 1784 1151 857
11 7 3689 3689 2318 2318
12 1 2804 2804 1740 1740
13 3 2683 2320 924 614
14 5 4370 2989 1799 902
14 16 4370 1370 1799 897
15 5 3913 2989 1784 1340
15 13 3913 924 1784 444
16 9 2826 2463 1365 1107

Table 2 Weight factors for different OFs

Weight factor OF2 [7] OF3 [8] OF4 [9] OF5 [10, 11] POF
α1 1 1 1 1 1
α2 1 2 — 10 1
β2 — 100 — — —
β3 — — 20,000 — —

Table 3 Minimum and maximum limits of PS for IEEE 14-bus network

Relay no. PSmin PSmax Relay no. PSmin PSmax
1 0.70 2.50 9 0.90 2.50
2 0.50 2.50 10 0.80 2.50
3 0.50 2.50 11 0.62 2.50
4 0.57 2.50 12 0.60 2.50
5 0.98 2.50 13 0.57 2.50
6 0.50 2.50 14 0.50 1.10
7 0.65 2.50 15 0.60 2.50
8 0.50 2.18 16 0.75 2.50

are considered as digital DOCRs. The CTI is assumed to be 0.2 s The PS and TMS selected by GA for different OFs are tabulated
for each P/B relay pair. in Table 4. By executing these relay settings, operating time of
The range of TMS is considered continuously from 0.1 to 1.1 relays and discrimination time of each relay pair are calculated. By
[1, 13]. The minimum and maximum bounds on PS are calculated implementing all OFs, the obtained total operating times of
as [1] primary relays and corresponding backup relays for both near and
far-end faults are given in Table 5. Also, the calculated
OLF × ILi discrimination time (Δt) of each P/B relay pair, for both near and
PSi, min = max , min tap setting (16)
CTi far-end faults, is presented in Table 6.
From the second column of Table 5, it can be seen that the OF1
2 × I f i, min gives minimum total operating time of primary relays for near-end
PSi, max = min , max tap setting (17) faults compared to OF2 and OF3, and almost similar to OF4. On
3 × CTi
the other hand, OF1 leads larger discrimination time between P/B
where OLF is the overload factor and it is considered as 1.25. ILi, relay pairs for both near and far-end faults as shown in third and
fourth column of Table 6. It is because the coordination constraints
Ifi,min and CTi represent the maximum load current, minimum fault are not directly incorporated in the OF formulation. With
current and CT ratio of relay Ri, respectively. The minimum and increasing the discrimination times, the total operating time of
maximum available tap settings of relays are considered in order of backup relays is also increased in OF1 especially for far-end fault
0.5 and 2.5. By using (16) and (17), calculated limits of PS for each which is shown in the fifth line of the second column of Table 5.
relay are presented in Table 3. To overcome the difficulty with OF1, the OF2 integrates the

2090 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Table 4 Relay settings obtained by different OFs for IEEE 14-bus network
Relay no. OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5 POF
PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS PS TMS
1 1.329 0.508 1.733 0.456 0.703 0.749 2.184 0.436 2.035 0.360 2.500 0.349
2 1.996 0.281 1.858 0.303 0.894 0.474 1.159 0.367 1.300 0.326 2.500 0.204
3 2.428 0.292 1.277 0.420 0.796 0.569 1.971 0.318 0.849 0.444 0.500 0.484
4 1.817 0.299 0.979 0.406 0.572 0.606 1.336 0.357 1.101 0.328 1.869 0.257
5 1.912 0.413 1.040 0.518 1.417 0.539 1.010 0.497 1.847 0.383 1.722 0.339
6 2.069 0.425 1.148 0.520 0.864 0.697 1.851 0.448 1.547 0.393 0.533 0.586
7 1.267 0.519 1.027 0.577 0.716 0.735 0.677 0.638 1.599 0.493 2.500 0.345
8 1.673 0.320 0.547 0.467 0.552 0.599 0.587 0.479 0.501 0.421 0.500 0.425
9 1.173 0.480 1.275 0.424 0.927 0.630 1.230 0.455 0.943 0.471 2.500 0.291
10 1.357 0.347 1.099 0.400 0.885 0.499 1.962 0.288 0.877 0.434 2.500 0.204
11 1.712 0.439 1.637 0.460 0.660 0.707 1.981 0.428 0.622 0.600 2.500 0.317
12 2.204 0.408 1.854 0.423 1.023 0.651 0.810 0.590 2.428 0.339 2.500 0.336
13 1.801 0.410 1.137 0.517 0.588 0.716 1.873 0.398 2.183 0.386 2.497 0.337
14 0.570 0.520 0.500 0.591 0.519 0.727 0.755 0.524 0.500 0.458 0.500 0.481
15 0.827 0.544 1.554 0.461 0.620 0.704 1.323 0.454 1.195 0.506 2.500 0.291
16 1.400 0.447 1.537 0.387 0.758 0.673 1.854 0.391 0.935 0.451 2.500 0.290

Table 5 Total operating time of P/B relays for near and far-end faults for IEEE 14-bus network
Total operating time, s OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5 POF
∑tp,near 13.854 14.178 17.484 13.970 13.051 11.698
∑tb,near 17.810 17.878 21.374 17.836 16.410 15.286
∑tp,far 17.842 17.904 21.401 17.858 16.436 15.309
∑tb,far 34.095 28.231 32.548 30.662 25.587 25.078

Table 6 Discrimination time (s) between P/B relays for near and far-end faults for IEEE 14-bus network
PR BR OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5 POF
Δtnear Δtfar Δtnear Δtfar Δtnear Δtfar Δtnear Δtfar Δtnear Δtfar Δtnear Δtfar
1 4 0.001 0.991 0.013 0.488 0.000 0.411 0.001 0.643 0.000 0.446 0.000 0.854
1 6 0.001 1.594 0.000 0.886 0.000 0.938 0.000 1.377 −0.024 0.926 0.000 0.445
2 11 0.011 0.001 0.003 −0.006 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.057 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.007
3 2 0.227 0.400 0.150 0.344 0.128 0.181 0.213 0.261 0.078 0.182 0.000 0.303
3 6 0.344 — 0.201 — 0.312 — 0.341 — 0.056 — 0.144 —
4 14 0.001 1.993 0.000 2.042 0.000 2.713 0.012 3.249 −0.084 1.448 0.000 1.546
5 2 0.000 0.275 0.000 0.297 0.000 0.116 0.001 0.169 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.333
5 4 0.117 — 0.064 — 0.184 — 0.130 — 0.001 — 0.144 —
6 13 0.031 — 0.072 — 0.000 — 0.000 — 0.186 — 0.000 —
6 16 0.154 0.001 0.001 −0.109 0.149 0.000 0.121 0.000 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000
7 10 0.000 0.293 0.001 0.262 0.001 0.260 0.001 0.440 0.000 0.205 0.000 0.457
8 12 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.059
9 8 0.001 4.567 0.001 0.914 0.000 1.198 0.000 1.017 −0.141 0.595 0.000 0.698
10 15 0.001 0.031 0.003 0.175 0.000 0.050 0.001 0.037 −0.001 0.141 0.000 0.133
11 7 0.001 0.042 0.017 0.050 0.001 0.051 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.075
12 1 0.001 0.033 0.016 0.097 0.000 0.035 0.001 0.166 −0.058 0.000 0.000 0.100
13 3 0.000 1.427 0.000 0.722 0.000 0.585 0.001 1.028 0.000 0.379 0.000 0.186
14 5 0.240 1.084 0.177 0.717 0.179 0.935 0.149 0.637 0.240 1.002 0.074 0.673
14 16 0.363 0.477 0.168 0.256 0.363 0.412 0.302 0.431 0.291 0.358 0.244 0.419
15 5 0.000 0.289 0.001 0.110 0.000 0.264 0.001 0.118 −0.115 0.088 0.000 0.135
15 13 0.000 0.231 0.062 0.173 0.036 0.130 0.032 0.244 0.000 0.261 0.170 0.445
16 9 0.001 0.173 0.002 0.173 0.000 0.209 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.158 0.000 0.302
∑ Δt (s) 1.495 13.92 0.956 7.635 1.365 8.511 1.311 10.03 0.576 6.492 0.775 7.169

coordination constraints in the OF formulation. As a result, the
obtained total discrimination time in the OF2 is significantly
minimised compared to OF1, OF3 and OF4. By reducing the
discrimination time of P/B relay, the operating time of backup
relays is also minimised specially for far-end fault which is shown
in the fifth line of the third column of Table 5. However, two mis-
coordinations are observed in OF2 which are highlighted by bold
digits in the sixth column of Table 6. In contrast, no mis-
coordination is observed in the results of OF3 which can be seen
from the seventh and eighth column of Table 6. Thus, the problem
of mis-coordination is completely solved by using the OF3, but the
obtained total operating time of P/B relays is higher for both the
near and far-end faults as shown in the fourth column of Table 5.
By using the OF4, the operating times of primary relay are
minimised mainly for the near-end fault, as can be clearly seen in
the first line of the fifth column of Table 5. Owing to the

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094 2091
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018

Fig. 6  Average value of
(a) Operating time of primary relays, (b) Operating time of backup relays, (c)
Discrimination time between P/B relays for IEEE 14-bus network
insensitivity to discrimination time (Δt) for positive Δt, OF4 leads
larger discrimination time mainly for far-end fault as seen in the
tenth column in Table 6. As discussed in Section 3, OF5 is
developed to reduce the larger operating time of relays along with
the reduction of discrimination time. The obtained total operating
time of P/B relays is minimum in case of OF5 compared to OF1 to
OF4, whereas the total discrimination time is lesser as compared to
all the remaining OFs. On the other hand, six cases of mis-
coordination are observed in the results of the OF5 which are
highlighted in eleventh column of Table 6. Although OF5 gets a
success in overcoming the problem of larger operating time of
relays, the problem of mis-coordination still remained.
The results of OF1 to OF5 are scrutinised as follows:
• OF1 and OF4 give the minimum operating time of primary
relays, whereas the obtained discrimination time and operating
time of the backup relays are larger.
• OF2 and OF5 significantly reduce the discrimination time
between P/B relay pairs and operating time of backup relays, but
the problem of mis-coordination still remains. Therefore, the
solution obtained by OF2 and OF5 can be considered infeasible.
• In the OF3, the mis-coordination problem is totally overcome,
but the total operating time of P/B relays is higher.
2092
Table 7 Required iterations and time for convergence for
IEEE 14-bus network
OF Numbers of iteration CPU time, s
OF1 292 13.861
OF2 240 12.871
OF3 138 7.938
OF4 186 9.643
OF5 104 4.9669
POF 90 4.0267
Fig. 7  Convergence of GA-based different methods for IEEE 14-bus
network
From above discussion, it should be inferred that the pervious
OFs experienced the negative effects of either larger operating time
of relays or mis-coordination. On the other hand, as can be clearly
seen from Tables 5 and 6, the superior results are obtained using
the POF. The POF significantly minimises the operating time of the
P/B relays compared to OF1 to OF5, whereas the total
discrimination time is faintly larger than OF5 and lesser than OF1
to OF4. It is also noted that mis-coordinations remained in the
results of OF5, while POF gives best solution with no violation.
For both near and far-end faults, the average value of the
operating time of the primary relays, backup relays and
discrimination time obtained by all the OFs is illustrated in
Figs. 6a–c. As seen in Fig. 6a, the obtained average operating time
of primary relays for near and far-end faults is, respectively, 0.731
and 0.957 s in the case of POF, which is lesser than all other OFs.
Again, the average operating time of backup relays for near and
far-end faults is in order of 0.955 and 1.567 s in POF as shown in
Fig. 6b, which is also lesser than OF1 to OF5. On the other hand,
the average discrimination time between P/B relay pairs obtained
by POF is in order of 0.035 and 0.377 s for near and far-end faults
respectively, which are higher than the OF5 and less as compared
to OF1 to OF4. Although the discrimination time is lesser in case
of OF5 compared to POF, the obtained solution by using POF is
feasible.
The convergence performance of GA-based different methods
is illustrated in Table 7 and Fig. 7. As clearly seen from Table 7
and Fig. 7, with improving the mathematical terms in the OFs, the
convergence performance of GA is also improved. The GA
converges in 4.0267 s and 90 iterations in case of POF which is
less as compared to all other methods.
5.2 IEEE 30-bus modified distribution network
The performance of all the OFs is further evaluated on IEEE 30-
bus distribution network as shown in Fig. 8. This network is fed
from three primary distribution transformers connected to buses
B1, B6 and B13 and three DGs connected to buses B3, B10 and
B15. The system has a total of 38 DOCRs installed at each end of
the lines. The detail information about the system is given in [19,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 8  Single-line diagram of IEEE 30-bus modified distribution network

Table 8 Total operating time of P/B relays for near and far-end faults for IEEE 30-bus network
Particular OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5 POF
∑tp,near, s 28.484 29.369 33.278 28.611 25.746 22.307
∑tb,near, s 36.771 37.246 41.632 37.568 32.660 29.789
∑tp,far, s 37.376 37.374 42.214 36.992 32.688 29.495
∑tb,far, s 65.207 59.518 65.701 64.689 51.963 51.548
∑Δtnear, s 7.221 4.958 6.206 7.322 3.062 3.104
∑Δtfar, s 28.812 20.795 22.945 27.907 16.359 19.572
violated cases 0 14 0 0 24 0
numbers of iteration 484 445 258 387 155 129
CPU time, s 62.553 58.457 34.615 44.700 26.197 18.323

21]. The weight factors corresponding to each OF, value of GA
parameters, available range of tap settings and CTI are considered
same as the previous system.
By implementing GA using different OFs, the obtained results
for IEEE 30-bus network are summarised in Table 8. As previously
discussed, OF1 minimises the operating time of primary relays and
it is insensitive to Δt. As a result, the total operating time of
primary relays, especially for near-end faults obtained by using
OF1 is minimum compared to OF2 and OF3 and nearly to OF4. On
the other hand, a larger value of total discrimination times for near-
end (Δtnear) and far-end faults (Δtfar) have been observed in the
results of OF1. Since the coordination constraints are included in
the formulation of the OF2, the minimum discrimination time and
hence minimum operating time of backup relays are obtained using
the OF2 as seen in the third column of Table 8. However, total
numbers of 14 coordination constraints are violated as seen in the
eighth line of the third column of Table 8. On the other hand, no
mis-coordination case is observed in the results of OF3 as seen in
the fourth column of Table 8. However, the obtained total operating
times of relays for both near and far-end faults are increased.
Further, the OF5 works same as OF1 for positive values of Δt.
Hence, it tends to increase the discrimination time and also the
operating time of backup relays as shown in the fifth column of
Table 8. On the other hand, the OF5 gives superior results
compared to OF1 to OF4 in terms of both operating times of relays
and discrimination times. However, a total number of 24 mis-
coordination cases are observed in the results of OF5 as shown in
the eighth line of sixth column of Table 8. It is also observed that
the violation in coordination constraints in the results of OF2 and
OF5 is increased with increasing the complexity of the system. On
the other hand, the POF significantly minimises the operating times
of P/B relays for both near and far-end faults as compared to OF1
to OF5. Also, the obtained total discrimination time is lesser than
OF1 to OF4, whereas it is slightly higher than the OF5. It is also
noted that the mis-coordination cases are observed in the results of
OF5, whereas POF gives the solution without any mis-coordination
case. Furthermore, it can be seen from Table 8 that the GA requires
18.323 s and 129 iterations to converge at near optimum solution in
case of POF which is better than OF1 to OF5.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, the new method based on GA has been proposed for
the coordination of DOCRs. In the proposed method, a new OF has
been developed which concurrently minimises the operating time
of primary relays and maximises the operating time of the backup
relays in case of mis-coordination. Similarly, it minimises the
operating time of the backup relays for larger positive value of the
discrimination time. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed method, it is tested on the IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 30-bus
distribution networks, and obtained results have been compared
with earlier well-established OFs. The comparative analysis reveals
that the proposed OF significantly minimises the operating time of
the P/B relays for both near and far-end faults, and also maintains
the discrimination time between P/B relay pairs at the prescribed
level. Moreover, the GA converges to the best solution in lesser
numbers of iteration and lesser time in case of POF compared to
previously proposed methods. As the POF considerably minimises
operating time of the relays without involving any mis-
coordination and with the improved convergence rate, it is verified
to be a more efficient and successful for optimum relay
coordination compared to earlier methods.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094 2093
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
7 References
[1] Noghabi, A.S., Sadeh, J., Mashhadi, H.R.: ‘Considering different network
topologies in optimal overcurrent relay coordination using a hybrid GA’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2009, 24, (4), pp. 1857–1863
[2] Bedekar, P.P., Bhide, S.R.: ‘Optimum coordination of directional overcurrent
relays using the hybrid GA-NLP approach’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2011,
26, (1), pp. 109–119
[3] Rajput, V.N., Pandya, K.S.: ‘Coordination of directional overcurrent relays in
the interconnected power systems using effective tuning of harmony search
algorithm’, Sust. Comput., Inform. Syst., 2017, 15, pp. 1–15
[4] Urdaneta, A.J., Nadira, R., Perez Jimenez, L.: ‘Optimal coordination of
directional overcurrent relays in interconnected power systems’, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., 1988, 3, (3), pp. 903–911
[5] Shih, M.Y., Salazar, C.A.C., Enríquez, A.C.: ‘Adaptive directional
overcurrent relay coordination using ant colony optimisation’, IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., 2015, 9, (14), pp. 2040–2049
[6] Birla, D., Maheshwari, R.P., Gupta, H.: ‘A new nonlinear directional
overcurrent relay coordination technique, and banes and boons of near-end
faults based approach’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2006, 21, (3), pp. 1176–
1182
[7] So, C.W., Li, K.K., Lai, K.T., et al.: ‘Application of genetic algorithm for
overcurrent relay coordination’. Developments in Power System Protection,
Sixth Int. Conf. (Conf. Publ. No. 434), 1997
[8] Razavi, F., Abyaneh, H.A., Al-Dabbagh, M., et al.: ‘A new comprehensive
genetic algorithm method for optimal overcurrent relays coordination’, Electr.
Power Syst. Res., 2008, 78, (4), pp. 713–720
[9] Mohammadi, R., Abyaneh, H., Razavi, F., et al.: ‘Optimal relays coordination
efficient method in interconnected power systems’, J. Elect. Eng., 2010, 61,
(2), pp. 75–83
[10] Adelnia, F., Moravej, Z., Farzinfar, M.: ‘A new formulation for coordination
of directional overcurrent relays in interconnected networks’, Int. Trans.
Electr. Energy Syst., 2015, 25, (1), pp. 120–137
2094
[11] Moravej, Z., Adelnia, F., Abbasi, F.: ‘Optimal coordination of directional
overcurrent relays using NSGA-II’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2015, 119, pp.
228–236
[12] Mansour, M.M., Mekhamer, S.F., El-Kharbawe, N.-S.: ‘A modified particle
swarm optimizer for the coordination of directional overcurrent relays’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2007, 22, (3), pp. 1400–1410
[13] Amraee, T.: ‘Coordination of directional overcurrent relays using seeker
algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2012, 27, (3), pp. 1415–1422
[14] Othman, A.M., Abdelaziz, A.Y.: ‘Enhanced backtracking search algorithm for
optimal coordination of directional over-current relays including distributed
generation’, Electr. Power Compon. Syst., 2016, 44, (3), pp. 278–290
[15] Kalage, A.A., Ghawghawe, N.D.: ‘Optimum coordination of directional
overcurrent relays using modified adaptive teaching learning based
optimization algorithm’, Intell. Ind. Syst., 2016, 2, (1), pp. 55–71
[16] Albasri, F.A., Alroomi, A.R., Talaq, J.H.: ‘Optimal coordination of directional
overcurrent relays using biogeography-based optimization algorithms’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2015, 30, (4), pp. 1810–1820
[17] Srivastava, A., Tripathi, J.M., Mohanty, S.R., et al.: ‘Optimal over-current
relay coordination with distributed generation using hybrid particle swarm
optimization–gravitational search algorithm’, Electr. Power Compon. Syst.,
2016, 44, (5), pp. 506–517
[18] Ravindranath, B., Chander, M.: ‘Power system protection and switchgear’
(New Age International Press, New Delhi, India, 1977), pp. 57–58
[19] Christie, R.: ‘Power systems test case archive’. Available at http://
www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/
[20] Saleh, K.A., Zeineldin, H.H., Al-Hinai, A., et al.: ‘Optimal coordination of
directional overcurrent relays using a new time-current-voltage
characteristic’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2015, 30, (2), pp. 537–544
[21] Chabanloo, R., Abyaneh, H.A., Agheli, A., et al.: ‘Overcurrent relays
coordination considering transient behaviour of fault current limiter and
distributed generation in distribution power network’, IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib., 2011, 5, (9), pp. 903–911
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 9, pp. 2086-2094
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018