8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC-2016)

Algiers, Algeria- November 15-17, 2016

A New Formulation and Solving of Protective Relays

Setting and Coordination Problem Using Multi-
objective Optimization and Fuzzy Logic

Rabah Benabid
Electrical Engineering Department
CRNB
Djelfa, Algeria
rabah_benabid@yahoo.fr

AbstractThis paper presents a new formulation of the
overcurrent relays setting and coordination problem using the
combinatory constrained multi-objective optimization. Two
objective functions are selected to be minimized simultaneously
namely: the minimization of the primary relays operation time as
well as the minimization of the backup relays operation time.
Both real and integer decision variables are considered; where
the real variables are the time dial setting (TDS), as well as the
pickup current (Ip), and the integer variables are the relay
characteristics. To solve this constrained non linear multi-
objective problem, the original algorithm of Strength Pareto
Evolutionary Algorithm 2 (SPEA 2) is enhanced in order to
manage both real and integer decision variables as well as to
handle the constraints violation during the optimization process.
A fuzzy-based mechanism is employed to aid the decision maker
to choose the best compromise solution from the Pareto front.
The obtained results show the efficiency of the proposed SPEA2
to solve the multi-objective optimization of overcurrent relays
and capture the Pareto front. Furthermore, the proposed method
is able to find values of the real (Ip, and TDS) and integer (relays
characteristics) decision variables that ensure a good
coordination of the relays with the satisfaction of the constraints.
Keywordspower systems; electrical protection; overcurrent
relays setting and coordination; short circuit analysis; multi-
objective optimization; Pareto front; Fuzzy logic; best compromise
solution; SPEA2; decision making
I. INTRODUCTION
The safety and the reliability of electrical systems can be
affected by the performance of the electrical protection system
[1]. This last, is designed in order to detect any abnormal
situations such as overload and short circuit and isolate only
the faulted part of the system in a fast manner. The
performance of the electrical protection system can be affected
by several parameters such as: tripping time of primary relays
is long, poor coordination between the primary and the backup
protective relays, poor setting of the relays pickup and timing.
Generally, the setting of the overcurrent protective relays
consists of the definition of their pickup current, time dial, and
also the characteristic curve. The coordination of the relays
requires that the occurred fault must be cleared by the nearest
upstream relay to the fault which is called the primary relay. If
the primary relay fails to trip, a backup relay is designed to
trip after a delay time that must be superior or equal a time
limit called coordination time limit (CTI). The CTI value
depends on the type of the primary and the backup protective
devices [1]. In practice, the relay setting and coordination
must fulfill various constraints such as the electrical and
mechanical damage limits required by manufacturers limits as
well as the specific equipments operation characteristics such
as the transformers inrush currents, the motors locked rotor
ampere and so on. The relay setting and coordination problem
for the interconnected power systems is more complicated
compared with the radial power systems due the following
causes: the current path definition, the short circuit currents
calculation, the primary relay can have more than one backup
relay, and the number of constraints is relatively high. For
these reasons, the relays setting and coordination problems in
the interconnected power system have gained more attention
from the worldwide researchers and electrical protection
specialists. Various methods and formulations have been
proposed in the literature to solve this problem. The first
method used for the protective relays setting in the
interconnected power system is the trial and error method.
Unfortunately this method requires a large number of
iterations to converge and therefore its main drawback is the
time consuming. To overcome this drawback, a systematic
technique has been proposed based on the determination of the
minimum number of the starting points for relays setting,
which is called break points [2-6]. The formulation of the
overcurrent relays setting as an optimization problem was
firstly reported by Urdaneta et al. in 1988 [7]. In this paper,
the relay coordination problem was formulated as a linear
optimization problem and solved by an iterative procedure in
which the Time Dial Setting (TDS) are computed for a given
set of the picked currents, and vice versa; until convergence is
achieved. Recently, the optimal setting and coordination of
protective relays was proposed considering different problem
formulations and methods. In [8-11], the optimal relay
coordination is formulated as linear optimization problem and
solved using linear optimization methods such as linear
programming and simplex method. Furthermore, the nonlinear

978-0-9567157-6-0 IEEE 2016

138
8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC-2016)
Algiers, Algeria- November 15-17, 2016
formulation of the optimal coordination of the overcurrent
relays has been presented and solved using nonlinear
optimization methods such as: random search technique [12],
Genetic Algorithms and their variants [13-15], Differential
Evolution method [16-17], Seeker algorithm [18], Teaching
learning-based optimization [19], and Hybrid methods [20-
21]. From this previously published works, it is clear that the
overcurrent relay coordination problem is mainly modeled as a
mono-objective optimization problem, i.e. considering only,
one objective function or the aggregation of various objective
functions using the weight factors. In [22], the authors present
an overcurrent relays coordination method based on multi-
objective optimization problem and NSGA-II.
In this paper, a novel approach for overcurrent relay
coordination is presented. The problem is formulated as a true
constrained combinatorial multi-objective optimization
problem. For doing so, an improved version of Strength Pareto
Evolutionary Algorithm 2 is proposed in order manage both
real and integer decision variables. Furthermore, a penalty
function is proposed to handle the constraints violation during
the optimization process. In addition to the primary relays
operating time minimization function that has been already
proposed in several papers; a new objective function is
proposed to formulate this multi-objective optimization
problem which is the minimization of the backup relays
operating time [22]. The advantages of this new proposed
formulation is the simultaneously optimization of the two
conflicting objective functions without using any weighting
factors that always used in the aggregation optimization. In
contrary with the single optimization, the proposed method
provides several optimal solutions located in the Pareto front
at one run of the program. Furthermore, this methodology
allows the minimization of the coordination time between the
P/B pairs of relays. The decision making process is modeled
using the fuzzy logic in order to find the best compromise
solution in decision makers point of view.
II. STRENGTH PARETO EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM 2
(SPEA2)
A. SPEA2
Strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm (SPEA) is a multi-
objective optimization evolutionary algorithm developed by
Ziztler et al. [25]. An improved version of SPEA called
SPEA2 is proposed in [26]. SPEA2 proposes the flowing
improvements: fine-grained fitness assignment strategy, a
density estimation technique, a fixed size of archive, and an
enhanced archive truncation method [26]. The SPEA 2
function has three input parameters namely: population size N,
Archive sizes N , maximum number of generations T. and the
non-dominated set A as the output of the function. The SPEA2
computational procedure is presented as follows [26]:
Initialization. Generate an initial population P0 and
create the empty archive (external set) P0 . Set t=0.
Where, t is the current generation.
Fitness evaluation. Calculate fitness values of
individuals in Pt and Pt .
978-0-9567157-6-0 IEEE 2016
Environmental selection. Copy all non-dominated
individuals in P and P to P . If size of P exceeds N
t t t 1 t 1
then reduce Pt 1 by means of the truncation operator,
otherwise, If size of Pt 1 is less that N then fill Pt 1 with
dominated individuals in Pt and Pt .
Termination. If t > T then set A to the set of decision
vectors represented by the non-dominated individuals
in Pt 1 . Stop.
Mating selection. Perform binary tournament selection
with replacement on Pt 1 in order to fill the mating pool.
Variation. Apply recombination and mutation
operators to the mating pool and set Pt to the resulting
population. Increment generation counter (t=t+1) and
go to 2.
B. Proposed Enhancement of the Original SPEA2 Algorithm
Since the protective relays setting and coordination is
formulated as a combinatory constrained multi-objective
optimization problem; some improvements related to the
solution coding and to the constraints violation handling are
proposed as follows.
1) Hybrid Coding of Chromosome
Figure 1, presents the proposed principle of solution
coding for N relays. Since, each chromosome contains both
real and integer decision variables; this proposed coding is
able to manage these chromosomes. From this figure, the TDS
and the Ip are modeled as the real decision variables and the
RT is modeled as an integer variable [29].
Fig. 1. Mixed integer coding of a solution in the enhanced SPEA2.
2) Constraints Violation Handling
The constraints violation is handled using the objective
functions penalization technique as presented in (8). This
technique is based on the penalization of the solutions that
violate the constraints by the degradation of their objective
function values. Therefore, these violated solutions will not be
selected in the next generation of the optimization process
[27].
Fpenalyzed F PF (8)
where, F is the objective function presented in (1) without
penalization; and PF is the penalty function defined as follows
[27]:
NR
PF Viol (i ) (9)
i 1
The Viol parameter is computed as follows:
Set Viol [1: NR] = 0
139
8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC-2016)
Algiers, Algeria- November 15-17, 2016

For each pair of primary relay i and backup relay j NR

F1 Min ti (12)
o If, ti tj CTI
i 1
o Viol(i) = Viol (i) + constant.
where, ti represents, the operating time of the primary relay
3) Extraction of the Best Compromise Solution i, NR is the number of relays.
Figure 2, presents a general illustration of the best
compromise solution selection [23, 24, 32-34]. Each of the 2) Minimization of the operating time of the backup relays
objective function is modeled by a simple linear membership This function aim to minimize the operating time of the
function. As presented as follow [23, 24, 32-34]. backup overcurrent relays.
NRP
F2 Min tj (13)
j 1

where, tj represents, the operating time of the backup relay

j, NRP is the number of P/B relay pairs.
Mechanism of the extraction of the best compromise
solution [23, 24]. For each protective relay the operating time t is defined as
follows [27, 28].
1
Fi Fi min K1 * TDS
Fi max
Fi t s K2
(14)
i Fi max Fi Fi min (10) I
Fi max Fi min K3
Fi Fi max CTRatio * I p
0
where, t is the relay operating time in seconds, TDS is the
time dial setting, I is the fault current, Ip is the pickup current,
where, Fi min and Fi min are the minimum and the maximum CTRatio is the ratio of the current transformer, K1, K2, and K3
value of the ith objective function among all non-dominated are constant that depends of protective relay (see table 1).
solutions, respectively. The membership function is varied
between 0 and 1, where =0 indicates the incompatibility of TABLE I. OVERCURRENT RELAYS CHARACTERISTICS AND STANDARDS
the solution with the set, while =1 means full compatibility
[23, 24, 32-34]. For each non-dominated solution k, the Type of characteristic K1 K2 K3
normalized membership function is calculated as [23, 24, Short time inverse 0.05 0.04 0
Normal inverse 0.14 0.02 0
32-34]: Very inverse 13.5 1 0
N obj Extremely inverse 80 2 0
k Long time inverse 120 1 0
i
Moderately Inverse 0.0515 0.02 0.114
k i 1
M N obj
(11) Very Inverse 19.61 2 0.491
k
i Extremely inverse 28.2 2 0.1217
k 1 i 0
B. Optimization Constraints
where, M is the number of non-dominated solutions, and
Nobj is the number of objective functions. The solution having The optimization constraints present the practical limits of
the maximum membership in the fuzzy set is considered as the overcurrent relays setting parameters and their
the best compromise solution. coordination strategy. Thus, the definition of these constraints
is based on the practice and the published works in this field.
III. OPTIMAL RELAY COORDINATION PROBLEM 1) Time dial setting limits
FORMULATION AND CONSTRAINTS The Time Dial Setting (TDS) adjusts the time delay before
the relay operates when the fault current reaches a value equal
The coordination of the overcurrent relays is formulated as
to, or greater than, the relay current setting I p .
a constrained multi-objective optimization problem, where the
optimization functions and the constraints are presented as
TDSmin TDS TDSmax (15)
follows:
where, TDS min and TDSmax are the minimum and the
A. Objective functions
maximum limits of TDS, respectively.
1) Minimization of the operating time of the primary
relays 2) Pickup current
The aim of this function is to minimize the total operating The pickup current Ip represent the set point of the relay.
time of the primary overcurrent relays in the system [27, 28]. During the optimization process Ip is limited as follows:

978-0-9567157-6-0 IEEE 2016

140
8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC-2016)
Algiers, Algeria- November 15-17, 2016

I pmin I p I pmax (16) several optimal solutions located in the Pareto front. In
addition, the decision making process is modeled using the
where, I pmin and I pmax are the minimum and the maximum fuzzy logic in order to find the best compromise solution in
decision makers point of view.
limits of Ip respectively.
3) Tripping time of the primary relays IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In order to ensure a fast clearing of the fault, the tripping Two electrical power test systems; namely 3-bus 6 relays
time of the primary relays must be limited as follows: and 8-bus 14 relays are used for the test of the proposed
min
t primary t primary max
t primary (17) formulation of the overcurrent coordination problem. The
overcurrent relays optimization needs, at first, the
min
where, t primary max
and t primary are the minimum and the identification of the primary/backup (P/B) relay pairs for each
faulted bus. After that, for each P/B relays pairs, the fault
maximum limits of the tripping. currents passing through the relays are calculated for a worst
4) Type of Relay Characteristic (RT) three phase faults applied near the bus. After various offline
The eight relays characteristics presented in table 1 are test and simulation; the parameters of SPEA2 is chosen as
considered in the optimization process, and the coding of RT follows: the number of population is 300 and the number of
variable is presented in table 2. During the optimization generation is 1000.
process, the variable RT is limited as follows:
A. 3-bus, 6 relays test system
1 RT RTmax (18) The 3-bus network has three generators, three buses, and
where, RTmax is the maximum limit of RT. six overcurrent relays. In the optimization point of view, the
optimization problem of this case has eighteen control
variables represented as follows: six TDS (real), six Ip (real)
TABLE II. CODING OF RELAY CHARACTERISTIC (RT). and six RT (integer). Figure 3-a), presents the Pareto front
Type of characteristic RT provided by the SPEA2. From this figure, we can remark that
AREVA Short time inverse 1 both objective functions are conflicting. Also, it is clear that
IEC Normal inverse 2 the obtained Pareto front provides various optimal solutions
IEC Very inverse 3 that are useful for the DM. Table III, presents the best
IEC Extremely inverse 4 solutions obtained from the Pareto front. From this table, we
AREVA Long time inverse 5
ANSI/IEEE Moderately Inverse 6 can select the relays setting that ensure: the best value of F1,
ANSI/IEEE Very Inverse 7 the best value of F2, as well as the best compromise solution.
ANSI/IEEE Extremely inverse 8 Therefore, it is clear that the proposed SPEA2 can efficiently
handle both real (TDS, and Ip) and integer decision variables
C. Advantages of The Proposed Method Over The Classical (RT). Furthermore, the obtained solutions in the Pareto front
Ones are satisfying the constraints such as the primary relays
As mentioned above, the overcurrent relays setting and tripping time (see table IV) and the P/B relays coordination
coordination problem is usually formulated as a constrained time (see table V).
mono-objective optimization problem. This requires the
definition of one objective function only to be optimized.
TABLE III. SELECTED SOLUTIONS FROM THE PARETO FRONT
Unfortunately, in practice, the electrical protection engineers
could define various conflicting objective functions that must Best F1 Best F2 Best compromise
solution
be optimized simultaneously during the overcurrent setting Relay
N TDS Ip TDS Ip TDS RT TDS Ip RT
process. In this case, the mono-objective optimization method
doesnt able to solve this problem. One of the proposed 1 0.5217 1.1414 0.1044 1.5551 2 3 0.1239 1.3651 2
2 0.2663 0.5234 0.2631 1.0104 5 2 0.2659 0.9985 5
classical methods is the aggregation method. This last is based 3 0.3225 1.4473 0.3233 1.4504 8 8 0.3720 1.3321 8
on the aggregation of various objective functions into one 4 0.2529 1.5690 0.2385 1.7401 8 8 0.2955 1.5477 8
5 0.3906 0.5879 0.3891 0.6264 8 8 0.3873 0.6235 8
objective function using the weighting factors. The 6 0.2828 0.9755 0.2830 0.9765 8 8 0.2842 0.9733 8
disadvantage of this method is the weighting factors definition F1
F2
0.3003
0.6403
0.3709
0.0103
0.3559
0.0250
difficulty. However, the obtained solution depends to these
weighting factors values. Furthermore, the program must be TABLE IV. PRIMARY RELAYS TRIPPING TIME.
run several times to obtain several solutions according to these
weighting factors values. To overcome these disadvantages, Relays N Best
Best F1 Best F2 compromise
the proposed method is able to find the best overcurrent relays solution
settings that optimize two conflicting objective functions 1 0.0500 0.0722 0.0697
simultaneously at one run of the program. This allows the 2 0.0500 0.0848 0.0841
minimization of the coordination time between the primary 3 0.0500 0.0558 0.0502
and the backup relays. In addition, the proposed method is 4 0.0500 0.0578 0.0513
5 0.0503 0.0502 0.0504
able to find the relays characteristics that ensure the best 6 0.0500 0.0502 0.0501
setting and coordination of these relays. Also, it provides Violation 0 0 0

978-0-9567157-6-0 IEEE 2016

141
8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC-2016)
Algiers, Algeria- November 15-17, 2016

TABLE V. P/B RELAYS COORDINATION TIME. TABLE VII. SELECTED PRIMARY RELAYS TRIPPING TIME
P/B relays N Best F1 Best F2 Best P/B
Best Compromise
compromise relays Best F1 Best F2
Solution
solution N
1 0.2001 0.2014 0.2072 1 0.0500 0.0500 0.0500
2 0.2001 0.2003 0.2011 2 0.1429 0.1432 0.1432
3 0.4702 0.2002 0.2007 3 0.1967 0.1960 0.1965
4 0.2145 0.2068 0.2137 4 0.1393 0.1397 0.1392
5 0.2004 0.2009 0.2018 5 0.0879 0.0883 0.0854
6 0.5551 0.2006 0.2004 6 0.2413 0.2417 0.2412
Violation 0 0 0 . . . .
. . . .
B. 8-bus, 14 relays test system 14 0.0819 0.3838 0.2298
Violation 0 0 0
This test system has two generators, six buses, seventh
lines and fourth load and 14 overcurrent relays. In the TABLE VIII. SELECTED P/B RELAYS COORDINATION TIME.
optimization point of view, the optimization problem of this
case has forty two control variables represented as follows: P/B relays N Best compromise
Best F1 Best F2
solution
fourteen TDS (real), fourteen Ip (real) and fourteen RT
1 0.2007 0.2011 0.2006
(integer). Therefore, overcurrent coordination problem of this 2 0.3945 0.3943 0.3943
case is more complicate compared with the 3-bus test system. 3 0.2780 0.2788 0.2787
Figure 3-b), presents the Pareto front provided by the SPEA2. 4 0.2002 0.2017 0.2012
From this figure, it is clear that both objective functions are 5 0.2023 0.2008 0.2021
conflicting. Table IV, presents some selected solutions that 6 0.2027 0.2030 0.2048
. . . .
ensures the best value of F1, the best value of F2, as well as . . . .
the best compromise solution. Form this table; it is clear that 20 0.3762 0.2027 0.2153
the proposed SPEA2 can efficiently handle both real (TDS, Violation 0 0 0
and Ip) and integer decision variables (RT). Furthermore, the
obtained solutions in the Pareto front are satisfying the V. CONCLUSION
optimization constraints such as the primary relays tripping In this paper, a novel approach for overcurrent relay
time (see table VII) and the P/B relays coordination time (see coordination is presented. The problem is formulated as a true
table VIII). constrained multi-objective optimization problem. For doing
so, the original algorithm of Strength Pareto Evolutionary
Algorithm 2 is enhanced in order to manage both real and
integer decision variables.
Furthermore, a penalty function is proposed to handle the
constraints violation during the optimization process. In
addition to the primary relays operating time minimization
function that has been already proposed in several papers; a
new objective function is proposed to formulate this multi-
objective optimization problem which is the minimization of
the backup relays operating time. The advantages of this new
(a) (b) proposed formulation of overcurrent relays is the
Fig. 2. Pareto front obtained by SPEA2, a) 3-bus system. B) 8bus system. simultaneously optimization of two conflicting objective
functions without using any weighting factor that always used
TABLE VI. SELECTED SOLUTIONS FROM THE PARETO FRONT in the aggregation optimization. In contrary with the single
Best F1 Best F2 Best compromise solution optimization, the proposed method provides several optimal
Relay solutions located in the Pareto front. The decision making
N TDS Ip TDS Ip RT RT TDS Ip RT process is modeled using the fuzzy logic in order to find the
1 0.4595 0.5007 0.4595 0.5007 3 3 0.4595 0.5007 3 best compromise solution in decision makers point of view.
2 0.4930 1.9612 0.4941 1.9608 8 8 0.4940 1.9613 8 The proposed method is validated on two power systems
3 0.9584 0.9674 0.9568 0.9678 3 3 0.9570 0.9664 3
4 0.3523 1.5661 0.3525 1.5644 8 8 0.3530 1.5666 8 benchmarks namely 3-bus, 6 relays, and 8-bus, 14 relays. The
5
6
0.1099
0.4841
0.9991
0.5032
0.1099
0.4840
0.9852
0.5023
3
7
3
7
0.1099
0.4850
1.0013
0.5022
3
7
obtained results show that the proposed method provides a
7 0.2065 1.8718 0.2065 1.5608 2 3 0.2063 1.5625 2 well distributed Pareto front without any violation of the
8 0.5631 1.3255 0.5634 1.3261 5 5 0.5639 1.3266 5
9 0.1003 1.5791 0.1003 1.6805 2 3 0.1003 2.0534 2 constraints.
10 0.4963 1.4230 0.4955 1.4220 8 8 0.5005 1.4251 8
11 0.6085 0.9372 0.6077 0.9352 7 7 0.6068 0.9356 7 The proposed solutions present the TDS, Ip and the RT for
12 0.6072 1.7051 0.6068 1.7048 3 3 0.6068 1.7050 3
13 0.5070 0.6410 0.5071 0.6412 8 8 0.5071 0.6410 8 each relay. Furthermore, the best compromise solution that
14 0.2940 2.4049 0.4117 1.8872 7 8 0.7656 0.7408 7 fulfills the DMs point of view is well selected from the Pareto
F1 3.1225 4.0343 3.6666
F2 1.6291 0.9893 1.0424 front. We can conclude also, that the proposed method ensure
the minimization of the operating time of the primary and the
backup relays simultaneously and therefore minimize the

978-0-9567157-6-0 IEEE 2016

142
8th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC-2016)
Algiers, Algeria- November 15-17, 2016
coordination time between the pairs of the primary and the
backup relays.
REFERENCES
[1] P.M. Anderson, Power System Protection, McGraw-Hill, New York,
USA, 1999.
[2] A. H. Knable, A standardized approach to relay coordination, IEEE
Winter Power Meeting, 69CP58, 1969.
[3] M. H. Dwarakanath, L. Nowitz, An application of linear graph theory
for coordination of directional overcurrent relays, Electric Power
Problems: the Mathematical Challenge, SIAM, 1980, pp. 104-114.
[4] M.J. Damborg, R. Ramaswami, S. S. Venkata, J. M. Postforoosh,
Computer aided transmission Protection System Design, Part I:
Algorithms, IEEE Trans. on PAS, PAS-103 (84) 5159.
[5] R. Ramaswami, S. S. Venkata, M. J. Damborg, J. M. Postforoosh,
Computer Aided Transmission Protection System Design, Part II:
Implementation and Results,IEEE Trans. On PAS, PAS-103 (84)60-65.
[6] V. V. Bapsware Rao, K. Sankara Rao, Computer aided coordination of
directional relays: determination of break points, IEEE transactions on
power delivery, 3(1988) 545548.
[7] A. J. Urdaneta, R. Nadira, L. G. Prez Jimnez, Optimal coordination
of directional overcurrent relay in interconnected power systems, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 3(1988) 903911.
[8] A.J. Urdaneta, H. Restrepo, S. Marquez, J. Sanchez, Coordination of
directional overcurrent relay timing using linear programming, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 11(1996) 122129.
[9] A.S. Noghabi, H.R. Mashhadi, J. Sadeh, Optimal coordination of
directional overcurrent relays considering different network topologies
using interval linear programming, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 25(2010) 13481354.
[10] A.S. Braga, J.T. Saraiva, Coordination of directional overcurrent relays
in meshed networks using the Simplex method, IEEE Mediterranean on
Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON), 13-16 May 1996, Bari, Italy,
pp. 15351538,
[11] P.P. Bedekar, S.R. Bhide, V.S. Kale, Optimum time coordination of
overcurrent relays using two phase simplex method, Journal of World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 28(2009) 1110
1114.
[12] D. Birla, R. Prakash, H. Om, K. Deep, M. Thakur, Application of
random search technique in directional overcurrent relay coordination,
International Journal of Emerging Electrical Power Systems, 7(2006)1-
14.
[13] R.M. Chabanloo, H.A. Abyaneh, S.S.H. Kamangar, F. Razavi, Optimal
combined overcurrent and distance relays coordination incorporating
intelligent overcurrent relays characteristic selection, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 26(2011) 1381-1391.
[14] P.P. Bedekar, S.R. Bhide, Optimum coordination of overcurrent relay
timing using continuous genetic algorithm, Expert Systems with
Applications, 38 (2011) 11286-11292.
[15] A.S. Noghabi, J. Sadeh, H.R. Mashhadi, Considering different network
topologies in optimal overcurrent relay coordination using a hybrid
GA, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 24(2009) 1857-1863.
[16] R. Thangaraj, T.R. Chelliah, M. Pant, Overcurrent relay coordination
by differential evolution algorithm, IEEE International Conference on
Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES), Bengaluru -
India, December16-19, 2012.
[17] R. Thangaraj, M. Pant, K. Deep, Optimal coordination of overcurrent
relays using modified differential evolution algorithms, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 23(2010) 820-829.
[18] T. Amraee, Coordination of directional overcurrent relays using seeker
algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 27(2012) 1415-1422.
[19] M. Singh, B.K. Panigrahi, A.R. Abhyankar, Optimal coordination of
directional overcurrent relays using teaching learning-based
optimization (TLBO) algorithm, International Journal of Electrical
Power and Energy Systems, 50(2013) 33-41.
978-0-9567157-6-0 IEEE 2016
[20] P.P. Bedekar, S.R. Bhide, Optimum coordination of directional
overcurrent relays using the hybrid GA-NLP approach, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 26(2011) 109-119.
[21] J.A. Sueiro, E. Diaz-Dorado, E. Mguez, J. Cidrs, Coordination of
directional overcurrent relay using evolutionary algorithm and linear
programming, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, 42(2012)299-305.
[22] Z. Moravej, F. Adelnia, and F. Abbasi, Optimal coordination of
directional overcurrent relays using NSGA-II, Electric Power Systems
Research, 119(2015) 228-236.
[23] R. Benabid, M. Boudour, M. Abido, Optimal location and setting of
SVC and TCSC devices using non-dominated sorting particle swarm
optimization, Electric Power Systems Research Journal, 79 (2009)
1668-1677.
[24] R. Benabid, M. Boudour, M. Abido, Optimization of UPFCs using
hierarchical multi-objective optimization algorithms, Analog Integr
Circ Sig Process, 69(2011) 91102.
[25] E. Zitzler and L. Theile, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm: a
comparative case study and the strength pareto approach, IEEE Trans.
On evolutionary computation, Vol. 3, NO 4, November 1999.
[26] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns and L. Thiele, SPEA2: Improving the strength
Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimization,
Evolutionary methods for design, optimization and control with
application to industrial problems, proceedings of the
EUROGEN2001Conference, 2001.
[27] R. Benabid, M. Zellagui, A. Chaghi, and M. Boudour, Optimal
coordination of IDMT directional overcurrent relays in the presence of
series compensation using differential evolution algorithm, 3rd IEEE
International Conference on Systems and Control, 29-31October 2013;
Algiers, Algeria.
[28] R. Benabid, M. Zellagui, M. Boudour, and A. Chaghi, "Considering the
Series Compensation in Optimal Coordination of Directional
Overcurrent Protections using PSO Technique", IEEE Jordan
Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing
Technologies (AEECT), Amman - Jordan, 3-5 December 2013.
[29] R. Benabid, M. Zellagui, A. Chaghi, and M. Boudour, Intelligent
overcurrent relays setting based on mixed integer optimization and
considering series compensation, fault resistance and relays
characteristics, International Conference on Modeling and Simulation
2014 (ICMS2014),21-23 September 2014, Blida, Algeria.
[30] F. Razavi, Hossein A. Abyaneha , M. Al-Dabbagh, R. Mohammadia,
and H. Torkaman, A new comprehensive genetic algorithm method for
optimal overcurrent relays coordination, Electric Power Systems
Research 78 (2008) 713720.
[31] F. Adelnia, Z. Moravej, and M. Farzinfar, A new formulation for
coordination of directional overcurrent relays in interconnected
networks, Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. 2015; 25:120137.
[32] T. Niimura, T. Nakashima, Multiobjective tradeoff analysis of
deregulated electricity transactions, International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems 25 (2003) 179185.
[33] J.S. Dhillon, S.C. Parti, D.P. kothari, Stochastic economic emission
load dispatch, Electric Power Systems Research 26 (1993) 179186.
[34] Z. Bo, C. Yi-jia, Multiple objective particle swarm optimization
technique for economic load dispatch, Journal of Zhejiang University
Science A 6 (5) (2005) 420427.
143