Accepted Manuscript

Modified water cycle algorithm for optimal direction overcurrent relays

coordination

Ahmed Korashy, Salah Kamel, Abdel-Raheem Youssef,

Francisco Jurado

PII: S1568-4946(18)30577-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.10.020
Reference: ASOC 5138

To appear in: Applied Soft Computing Journal

Received date : 12 April 2018

Revised date : 20 September 2018
Accepted date : 10 October 2018

Please cite this article as: A. Korashy, et al., Modified water cycle algorithm for optimal direction
overcurrent relays coordination, Applied Soft Computing Journal (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.10.020

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
*Highlights (for review)

Highlights

Optimization model of directional over current relays coordination.

Modified version for Water Cycle Algorithm.

The main objective is to minimize the operating times of all relays.

Time dial setting and pickup current setting or plug setting.

Balance between explorative and exploitative phases.

Graphical abstract (for review)

Graphical abstract

Network data such as Time dial

(fault currents, current setting
transformer ratio,
relay pairs)

DigSILENT
Goal function (Min. Σ Direction over PowerFactory is used
Modified Water Cycle
operating time of primary current relays for verifying the
Algorithm
relays) proposed algorithm

Decision Variables
(time dial setting & Pickup
pick up current) current

Graphical abstract for solving DOCRs coordination problem using modified water cycle
algorithm
*Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

Modified Water Cycle Algorithm for Optimal Direction

Overcurrent Relays Coordination
Ahmed Korashy1,2, Salah Kamel1,3, Abdel-Raheem Youssef4, Francisco Jurado2,
1
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, 81542 Aswan, Egypt
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Jaén, 23700 EPS Linares, Jaén, Spain
3
State Key Laboratory of Power Transmission Equipment and System Security and New Technology, Chongqing
University, Chongqing, China
4
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt

Abstract:

The optimization model of Directional Over Current Relays (DOCRs) coordination is considered
non-linear optimization problem with a large number of operating constraints. This paper
proposes a modified version for Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA), referred to as MWCA to
effectively solve the optimal coordination problem of DOCRs. The main goal is to minimize the
summation of operating times of all relays when they act as primary protective devices. The
operating time of a relay depends on time dial setting and pickupcurrent setting or plug setting,
which they are considered as decision variables. In the proposed technique, the search space has
been reduced by increasing the C-value of traditional WCA, which effects on the balance
between explorative and exploitative phases, gradually during the iterative process in order to
find the global minimum. The performance of proposed algorithm is assessed using standard test
systems; 8-bus, 9-bus, 15-bus, and 30-bus. The obtained results by the proposed algorithm are
compared with those obtained by other well-known optimization techniques. In addition, the
proposed algorithm has been validated using benchmark DIgSILENT PowerFactory. The results
show the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed algorithm to solve DOCRs coordination
problem, compared with traditional WCA and other optimization techniques.

Keywords: Direction overcurrent relays; Coordination time interval; Optimal coordination;

Modified Water cycle algorithm.


Corresponding author: Tel.: +34 953 648518; Fax: +34 953 648586.
E-mail addresses: fjurado@ujaen.es (F. Jurado), skamel@aswu.edu.eg(S. Kamel),abou_radwan@hotmail.com
(A. Youssef),ahmed.korashy2010@yahoo.com(A. Korashy)

1
 1. Introduction

The complexity of power system operation is continually increased due to its extension

with years. Protection relaying plays an important role in power systems. It is mainly

intended to detect and identify the faulted parts as fast as possible for keeping safe the system

and people [1]. Basically, Over Current Relay (OCR) is a type of protective relays that operates

when the current exceeds a predetermined value. The combination of the directional unit with

each OCR is called DOCRs [2]. DOCRs may compare the phase angle of a current with a

voltage, or the phase angle of a current with another current to determine the direction to a

fault [3]. DOCRs operate only when the current magnitude exceeds a present value and flows

in the same direction as DOCR [4]. The DOCRs have two settings, Time dial setting (TDS)

and Pickup current setting (Ip) or Plug Setting (PS). The operating time of a relay depends on

these settings. Appropriate coordination between the protection relays is a very important

issue to maintain the reliability of the overall protection system. The optimal coordination of

DOCRs aims to find suitable relay settings and keep a coordination time margin between

primary and backup relays [5]. In other words, the backup relay should operate in case of the

primary relay fails to take the appropriate action [6].

In literature, many algorithms have been proposed to solve the coordination problem and find

the optimal relay settings. At the first, before the involvement of computers, the calculation

of relay settings was done manually. This calculation was inappropriate practically and very

time consuming [7]. In the year 1960s, the trial-and-error approach was initiated using

computers to find the optimal relay setting [8]. This approach has a slow rate of convergence

and the obtained TDS values of the relays are relatively high. In the late eighties, the

coordination problem of DOCRs was solved by the Linear Programming (LP) method [9]. In

this approach, TDS is calculated via LP for a fixed value of . In contrast, LP is a simple and

fast approach, but it is needed an expert for setting the initial value of and may get stuck

2
in local minima. Nonlinear programming (NLP) has been used in order to optimize both relay

settings and solve the relay coordination problem [10]. Although NLP gives better results, it

very complex and may be trapped in local minima with wrong initial values of and TDS

[8].

Recently, meta-heuristic optimization algorithms became suitable tools to solve the nonlinear

coordination problem. Different algorithms have been proposed to solve the coordination

problem of DOCRs such as:

-Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) that was inspired by the social and cooperative behavior

of birds in navigating and hunting to fill their needs in the search space [11-14].

-Genetic algorithm (GA) that simulates Darwinian evolution concepts [13-15]. GA starts with

a random population called chromosomes. After evaluating the candidate solution by the

objective function, it modifies the variables of solutions based on their fitness value and the

new population is formed. The entire process is repeated and endeavours to reach the optimal

solution by cross over, mutation, and reproduction operations [14-16]. Initialization with a

random population is the main similarity between GA and PSO. PSO has the ability to keep

track of the position, but unlike PSO, GA can only keep information regarding the position of

the members of the population [15]. Also, PSO doesn’t survival of the fittest but it mainly

depends on “constructive co-operation” among the individuals (agents) [15].

- Ant colony optimization (ACO) that simulates ant’s behaviour in finding the shortest path

between their home colony and a source of food [16, 17].

-Harmony search algorithm (HS) that based on the creative process of music composition of

searching for a perfect state of harmony [7, 12].

- Seeker algorithm that based on the behaviour of human memory uncertainty reasoning,

consideration, experience gained, and social learning [6].

3
Other optimization algorithms have been proposed to solve the coordination problems of

DOCRs such as; Firefly algorithm (FFA) [1], Black Hole (BH) [18], Electromagnetic Field

Optimization (EFO) [19], Modified Electromagnetic Field Optimization (MEFO) [20],

Biogeography-based optimization (BBO) [8], and Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA)

[21].

Recently, hybrid methods have been proposed to solve the coordination of DPCRs problem,

which collects the features of classical and nature inspired methods such as; Cuckoo Search

Algorithm (CSA)-FFA [22], GA-NLP [23], BBO-Differential Evaluation (DE) [24], and

BBO-LP [4].

WCA is a metaheuristic algorithm that inspired by the hydrological cycle in nature. MCA

starts with an initial population of candidate solution called raindrops, which given for each

test case. The design variables (TDS and Ip) are represented by raindrops. The ranges of TDS

and Ip are given for each test case. Each raindrop is evaluated according to the main objective

function, then it is classified as stream, river, or sea. This process is repeated until the

convergence criteria is met and the optimal relay setting subject to the operating constraints

(TDS, Ip, CTI) is obtained.

The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:

- An effective optimization algorithm, called modified Water Cycle Algorithm (MWCA) has

been proposed to solve the optimal coordination problem of DOCRs;

-MWCA optimization algorithm has been proposed to improve the performance of the

original WCA;

- In the proposed algorithm, the search space has been reduced by increasing the C-value of

traditional WCA, which effects on the balance between explorative and exploitative phases,

gradually during the iterative process in order to find the global minimum;

4
- The performance of the proposed algorithm has been assessed using different standard test

systems (8-bus,9-bus, 15-bus, and 30-bus);

- The results obtained by the proposed algorithm has been validated using benchmark

DIgSILENT PowerFactory;

- Using the proposed algorithm, remarkable minimization in total operating time of all

primary relays subject to the sequential operation between relay pairs has been achieved;

- The proposed algorithm has been compared with different well-known optimization

algorithms;

- The obtained results prove the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed MWCA to

solve the DOCRs coordination problem, compared with traditional WCA and other

optimization techniques;

- The proposed optimization algorithm can be used to effectively solve other optimization

problems.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the problem formulation of

DOCRs coordination. Section 3 presents the traditional WCA and the proposed MWCA. In

Section 4, the simulations carried out and the most relevant results obtained are reported.

Finally, the main conclusions are duly drawn in Section 5.

2. Problem Formulation

2.1 Objective function

The study of optimal DOCRs coordination aims to find the optimal relay settings in order to

protect the system, where, the primary relays are operated in the first to clear the faults, then

the corresponding backup relays should be operated in case of failing the primary relays. This

process is achieved according to coordinated time and satisfying the other operating

constraints. The DOCRs coordination can be formulated as a constrained optimization

5
problem. The objective function is to minimize the sum of operating times for all primary

relays. The objective function can be described as follows:

(1)

The operating time for each protective relay is defined as:

(2)

(3)

where α, β and γ are constant values given by 0.14, 0.02 and 1.0 respectively. is the

operating time of relay. N is the number of primary relays in the system. If is the fault current

(A), and CT is the current transformer ratio [5, 25].

2.2 Operating constraints

The object function is subjected to the following operating constraints:

2.2.1 Relay characteristics constrain

Limits of relay settings can be expressed as:

(4)

(5)

(6)

and are the lower and upper pickup current, respectively. and are

the lower and upper plug setting, respectively. and are the minimum and the

maximum value of TDS, respectively. The range of is based on the minimum fault current

and the maximum load current seen by the relay. The range of TDSis based on the relay

manufacturer [8].

2.2.2 Coordination constraints

6
The second type of operating constraints is the coordination constraints. The coordination

time interval (CTI) between primary and backup relays can be written as:

(7)

where, and are the operating times of backup and primary relays,

respectively. The value of CTI varies from 0.30 to 0.40 seconds for electromechanical relays

while it varies from 0.10 to 0.20 (s) for numerical relays [5,22].

The penalty function is used to handle the coordination constraints. A penalty term is added

to the objective function in order to penalize the unfeasible solutions. A comprehensive

survey of the most popular penalty functions is given in [26].

3. Water Cycle Algorithm

WCA is inspired from nature and based on the observation of the water cycle process. In

the water cycle, evaporated water is carried into the atmosphere and back to the earth in the

form of rain [27].

3.1. Mathematical Modeling

WCA can be mathematically modelled as follows:

3.1.1 Initialization of Raindrops

WCA begins with initial raindrops, which is randomly initiated between lower and upper
boundaries as given (4), (5), and (6). The best raindrop that has the minimum objective
function is chosen as a sea and the good raindrops are chosen as a river [27]. Then, the rest of
the raindrops are chosen as streams. The population is generated randomly over the search
space as:

(8)

7
 (9)

where, Nvars is number of decision variables, and Npop is number of raindrops. Depending on the

value of the object function, the cost of a raindrop is evaluated as:

(10)

The raindrops which have the minimum values are chosen as sea and rivers. The summation

of a number of rivers and the single sea is given in (11). The rest of the raindrops form the

streams can be calculated using (12).

(11)

(12)

In order to compute the raindrops that designated to the rivers and sea depending on the flow

intensity as:

(13)

3.1.2 A stream flow to the rivers or sea

Streams flow to rivers or directly flow to the sea. Also, rivers flow to the sea. The new

position for streams and rivers may be given as:

(14)

(15)

8
where C is a value between 1 and 2, X stream is position of streams, and X river is position of

river, and X sea is position of sea [27]. The value of rand is random number between 0 and 1.

The position of a stream should be exchanged with river position if a stream explores a better

solution compared to the river. Same exchange can happen for rivers and the sea [27].

3.1.3 Evaporation condition

The evaporation process is a very important stage that can prevent the algorithm from trapped

in local minima. The evaporation condition is applied to both rivers and streams that flow

into the sea [27]. Following pseudocode is used to check the evaporation condition [28]:

Pseudocode1: Start raining process

End

where, is a small value.

The evaporation process is applied when the distance between a river and sea is less

than , which indicate that the river has reached the sea, then, the raining process will be

applied.

Also, the evaporation condition is used to check the streams belong to the sea. Following

pseudocode explains that [27]:

Pseudocode2: Start raining process

End

The value of is decreased as follows:

(16)

3.1.4 Raining process

9
The raining process is started after satisfying the evaporation condition. The new raindrops

form streams in the different locations. The new locations of the newly formed streamscan be

calculated as follows:

(17)

where, LB and UB are lower and upper ranges of decision variables, respectively.

In the case of a constrained problem, the new locations of the newly formed streams which

directly flow to the sea can be calculated as follows:

(18)

where is a small value that leads the algorithm to search in the smaller region near the sea.

The best value for may be chosen as 0.1 [28].

3.2. Modified Water Cycle Algorithm

It is well known that the performance of all population-based algorithms can be enhanced by

balancing the capability of exploitation and exploration in order to find the global optimal

solution and reduce the search space [29]. Exploration and exploitation phases are two

conflicting milestones and both are necessary for population-based algorithms. A proper

balance between exploration and exploitation can guarantee the global minima. The

exploitation phase aims for searching locally around the promising solutions, while

exploration phase has the ability for search into the solutions space [30-31]. In WCA

algorithm [28], the balance among exploration and exploitation phases can be achieved

according to the value of parameter C. The C-value enables the streams to flow in different

directions towards the rivers when it is being greater than one [28]. The C-value is chosen as

2 in the traditional WCA algorithm [28, 32]. In the proposed MWCA, we suggest to increase

the C-value gradually from 1 to 2 according to (19). This modification improves the

balancing between exploration and exploitation phases to search for the global optimal

solution by increasing the C-value exponential over the course of iterations instead of being

10
chosen as a constant value. Consequently, the computation time of the proposed MWCA is

reduced compared with the original WCA. The new position of streams and rivers can be

calculated as follows:

(19)

(20)

(21)

The raining process for all newly formed streams can be calculated using (18) to improve

searching for the global minimum in the whole space. In traditional WCA, Eq. (18) used

only for streams which flow directly to the sea [26]. The following pseudocode is used to

check the evaporation condition for rivers flows to sea:

Pseudocode 3: Start raining process using (18)

End

The pseudocode that used to check the evaporation condition for streams flow directly to the

sea:

Pseudocode 4: Start raining process using (18)

End

The overall solution process of DOCRs coordination problem using the proposed MWCA can

be summarized in the following flowchart shown in Fig. 1:

11
 Start

Fault currents, primary and backup

pairs, lower and upper limits of decision Read the netwok input data
variables, CT ratio
Input population size, number of
decision variables, Max. Iteration, Input MWCA algorithm data
dmax& Nsr

Raindrop = x1 , x2 , x3 , , xNvar
Initialize population and form the initial streams,
Nsr = Number of Rivers + 1
rivers, and sea using (8), (11), and (12), respectively
NRaindrops = Npop Nsr

N
Evaluate the object function for each raindrops
OF = Ti
using (1)
i=1

Set current iteration i=1

Cost n
NSn = round N sr × NRaindrops , Calculate the intensity of flow for sea and river
i=1Cost i
using (13)
= 1,2, . Nsr

𝟐
i𝐢 2
Calculate the C- value using (19)
𝐂 𝐢 C=
i
𝟐2
= 𝟏1 Max. ilteration
𝐌𝐚𝐱. 𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

i+1 i
X Stream = X Stream + rand × C i
Streams flow to the river using (20)
× X iRiver X iStream

i+1 i
X River = X River + rand × C i
i i
River flow to sea using (21)
× X Sea X River

NO Is the solution given by stream better than the

solution given by river ?

Yes

i  i 1
Exchange the positions of the stream with this
river

NO
Is the solution given by river better than the
solution given by sea ?

Yes

Exchange the positions of the river with this sea

NO Check the evaporation condition using

Pseudo-code 3and Pseudo-code 4

Yes
dimax
Start raining process using (18) di+1 i
max = dmax
Max. Ilteration.

new
Calculate the value of dmax using (16) XStream = Xsea + µ×randn 1,Nvar

Maximum number of Iteration = 500 Check the convergence criteria NO

Yes

Relay Setings (TDS& Ip) for each Relay Print the optimal values

End

Fig. 1. Solution process of DOCRs coordination problem using the proposed MWCA

12
 4. Results and Discussions

The proposed algorithm has been tested using four standard test systems (8-bus, 9-bus, 15-

bus, and IEEE-30 bus) and compared with traditional WCA and other well-known

optimization algorithms (FFA [1], SOA [6], HS [7], BBO [8], GA [15], BH [18], EFO [19],

MEFO [20], GSA [21], GA-NLP [23], BSA [33] and GSA-SQP [34]). The control

parameters of the MWCA algorithm such as dmax is equal to10 e-5, and Nsr is equal to 10,

and the number of raindrops is equal to 50 for all test cases. The proposed algorithm is

carried out in MATLAB environment using a 2.3 GHz PC with 4 GB RAM under Windows

7 operating systems.

4.1. Case1: 8-bus test system

In this case, the proposed MWCA is validated using 8-bus test system. The single line

diagram of this system is shown in Fig. 2. This system consists of 7 lines and 14 relays, 2

transformers and 2 generators. The and limits are 0.05 and 1.1, respectively.

The CTI is set to 0.3 s. The details of this system such as; Ip ranges, fault currents, the

primary and backup relationship of relay pairs can be found in [5, 35].

The optimal values of TDS and using MWCA is presented in Table 1. The operating time

of primary and backup relays and CTI values are tabulated in Table 2 and represented

graphically in Fig. 3. From Table 1 and Table 2, it can be observed that the MWCA satisfies

all the operating constraints of relay settings and minimize the total operating time of the

relays.

13
 G1

Bus 7

T1

Bus 1 Bus 3 Bus 4

8 14 2 9 3 10 4

1 13 6 7 12 5 11
Bus 2 Bus 6 Bus 5

T2

Bus 8

G2

Fig. 2. Single line diagram of 8-bus test system

Table 1 Optimal relay setting of the 8-bus test system

Relay No. Ip TDS

1 480 0.074154
2 396.2657 0.26745
3 315.4322 0.19345
4 314.713 0.108356
5 273.8567 0.05
6 120 0.273101
7 319.9939 0.227087
8 217.695 0.216191
9 272.6356 0.05
10 479.9938 0.079703
11 292.7829 0.195723
12 480 0.242363
13 480 0.073249
14 320 0.224022
𝐢 𝟏 𝐢 (s) 6.4

14
 1.2 Primary Relay Backup Relay

0.8
Operting Time (s)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Primary - Backup Relay Pair
Fig. 3 Operating times of primary and backup relaysof 8-bus system

Table 2 Primary and backup operating time of relays and CTI values of the 8-bus system

Relay pairs 𝐫𝐢 𝐚𝐫 (s) 𝐚 (s) 𝐂

1 6 0.29757 0.59757 0.3
2 1 0.69945 0.99945 0.3
3 2 0.69945 0.99945 0.3
4 3 0.561462 0.861462 0.3
5 4 0.380977 0.680977 0.3
6 5 0.21754 0.51754 0.3
6 5 0.494373 0.898987 0.404614
7 5 0.494373 0.985352 0.49098
7 13 0.59898 0.89898 0.3
8 7 0.598985 0.985352 0.386367
8 9 0.468715 0.999458 0.530743
9 10 0.468715 0.890971 0.422256
10 11 0.208525 0.508525 0.3
11 12 0.349194 0.649194 0.3
12 13 0.540261 0.840261 0.3
12 14 0.685352 0.985352 0.3
13 8 0.685352 0.985352 0.3
14 1 0.307456 0.607458 0.300002
14 9 0.59097 0.999458 0.408488

The convergence characteristics of MWCA and traditional WCA are shown in Fig.4. This

figure shows that the proposed MWCA algorithm reaches to the final solution faster than the

traditional WCA. The best operating time of all primary relays obtained by MWCA is 6.4 s

compared with those obtained by WCA, BBO, BH, PSO, DE, EFO, LP, and NLP which

equal 8.714 s, 7.54 s, 11.4 s, 10.42 s, 6.65 s, 7.61 s,11.06 s, 6.41s, respectively. The MWCA

reaches to the minimum objective function (6.4 s) after computation time about 20 s and 170

15
iterations while the WCA reaches to the minimum objective function (8.714 s) after

computation time about 132 s and 2550 iterations.

The statistical evaluation of results obtained by different optimization algorithms is presented

in Table 3. This table gives the best, the worst, and the mean values of the objective function

with its standard deviation obtained by MWCA, EFO, MEFO, BH, BBO, and HS.

40 MWCA WCA

35
Objective Function (s)

30

25

20

15

10

0
1145
1057

1233
1321
1409
1497
1585
1673
1761
1849
1937
2025
2113
2201
2289
2377
2465
2553
2641
2729
2817
2905
2993
177
265
353
441
529
617
705
793
881
969
89
1

Iteration
Fig. 4. Convergence characteristics of MWCA and WCA (8-bus system)

From this table, it can be observed that the worst value (6.939 s) of the objective function

obtained by MWCA are close to the best value (6.4 s), which indicate the robustness of the

MWCA. The standard deviation for the MWCA is lower than EFO, MEFO, and BH, that

indicates the high quality of MWCA compared with these algorithms.

The objective function for 30 individual runs of the proposed algorithm are calculated and

graphically presented in Fig. 5. This figure proves the robustness the proposed algorithm for

different runs.

Table 3 Statistical analysis of 8-bus system

Parameters MWCA EFO BH BBO HS
Mean 6.939 9.887 12.817 8.606 12.525
Standard Deviation 0.333 0.767 0.844 0.584 0.397
Worst 7.55 10.867 16.091 10.304 13.301
Best 6.4 7.611 11.401 10.304 13.301
Number of Runs 30 30 30 30 30
Violation 0 0 0 0 0

16
 14

Objective Function (s)

12

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Run Number
Fig. 5. The objective function obtained by MWCA for 30 different runs (8-bus system)

4.2. Case2: 9-bus test system

The second test system considered in this section is the 9-bus system. The single line diagram

of this system is shown in Fig. 6. This system consists of 12 lines, 24 relays, 48 of primary

and backup relay pairs, and 76 optimization variables. The initial ranges for and

are 0.025 and 1.2, respectively. The Ipmin and Ipmax limits are in [5]. The CT ratio for

each relay is 500:1 and the CTI are set to 0.2 s as [5]. More details of this system such as;

fault currents and primary, the backup relationship between relay pairs, and load currents can

be found in [5].

Bus 7 Bus 6 Bus 5

1 18 16 15 20 14 13 22 12

2 17 19 21 11
Bus 8 Bus 1 Bus 4
3 23 10

G1

4 5 6 24 7 7 9
Bus 2 Bus 6 Bus 3

Fig. 6. Single line diagram of 9-bus test system.

17
The optimal values of TDS and Ip obtained by MWCA are listed in Table 4. The operating

time of the primary and backup relays and CTI value are tabulated in Table 5. From Table 4

and Table 5, it can be observed that the MWCA satisfies all the constraints of relay setting

and minimize the total operating time of the relays.

Table 4 Optimal relay settings of the 9-bus system

Relay No. Ip TDS

1 655.7957 0.041019
2 362.908 0.032934
3 469.6697 0.049491
4 444.3489 0.043197
5 300.6691 0.049984
6 501.8982 0.047344
7 520.3822 0.049146
8 315.0738 0.047245
9 322.5312 0.060409
10 499.8417 0.045283
11 330.1319 0.036161
12 305.3046 0.051961
13 355.1842 0.057504
14 477.5441 0.046453
15 410.416 0.058828
16 406.7104 0.047536
17 750.2414 0.027226
18 909.8112 0.025004
19 731.3053 0.029361
20 854.0383 0.025
21 726.0842 0.030557
22 766.8651 0.025
23 819.5328 0.025502
24 708.2386 0.025
𝐢 𝟏 𝐢 (s) 3.7074

Table 5 Primary and backup operating time of relays and CTI of 9-bus system

Relay pairs 𝐫𝐢 𝐚𝐫 (s) 𝐚 (s) 𝐂

1 15 0.140449 0.389535 0.249086
1 17 0.140449 0.347772 0.207322
2 4 0.150898 0.350898 0.2
3 1 0.190161 0.390161 0.2
4 6 0.167765 0.367765 0.2
5 3 0.193393 0.393393 0.2
6 8 0.14971 0.402911 0.253201
6 23 0.14971 0.358285 0.208575
7 5 0.158106 0.40291 0.244804
7 23 0.158106 0.358285 0.200179
8 10 0.187828 0.387828 0.200001
9 7 0.198022 0.398022 0.2
10 12 0.180377 0.380391 0.200014
11 9 0.155732 0.355732 0.2
12 14 0.160222 0.360222 0.2

18
 12 21 0.160222 0.368087 0.207865
13 11 0.168083 0.368083 0.2
13 21 0.168083 0.368087 0.200004
14 16 0.146786 0.354151 0.207365
14 19 0.146786 0.373482 0.226696
15 13 0.173482 0.373482 0.2
15 19 0.173482 0.373482 0.2
16 2 0.147688 0.389535 0.241847
16 17 0.147688 0.347772 0.200083
17 - 0.080362 - -
18 2 0.189535 0.389535 0.2
18 15 0.189535 0.389535 0.2
19 - 0.086578 - -
20 13 0.154151 0.373482 0.219331
20 16 0.154151 0.354151 0.2
21 - 0.088908 - -
22 11 0.159402 0.368083 0.208681
22 14 0.159402 0.360222 0.20082
23 - 0.076948 - -
24 5 0.20291 0.40291 0.2
24 8 0.20291 0.40291 0.2

The convergence characteristics of MWCA and WCA algorithm are shown in Fig. 7. From

this figure, it can be observed that the MWCA algorithm gives better convergence compared

to WCA algorithm. The best operating time of all primary relays obtained by MWCA is

3.707 s, while the solution obtained with WCA, GA, PSO, GA-NLP, FFA, MEFO, HAS, and

CSA are 7.989 s, 7.494 s, 6.895 s, 4.8015 s, 6.3442 s, 5.225 s, 4.9046 s, and 5.1836 s,

respectively. The MWCA reaches to the minimum objective function (3.707 s) after

computation time about 70.5 s and 1405 iterations while the WCA reaches to the minimum

objective function (7.989 s) after computation time about 79.46 s and 1020 iterations.

19
 40
MWCA WCA
Objective Function (s) 35

30

25

20

15

10

1233

2817
793

1057
1145

1321
1409
1497
1585
1673
1761
1849
1937
2025
2113
2201
2289
2377
2465
2553
2641
2729

2905
2993
177
265
353
441
529
617
705

881
969
89
1

Iterations
Fig. 7. Convergence characteristics of MWCA and WCA (9-bus system)
The statistical evaluation of the results obtained by different optimization techniques is

presented in Table 6. This table gives the best, the worst, and the mean values of the objective

function along with its standard deviation obtained by MWCA, MEFO, BBO, GA, GA-NLP,

FFA, CSA, and HAS. From this table, it can be observed that the best value (3.707 s), the

worst value (3.857 s), and the mean value (3.811 s) obtained by MWCA which are the least

values compared to the other techniques. This means that the MWCA gives the lowest

standard deviation (0.045).

The objective function for 30 individual runs of the proposed algorithm are calculated and

graphically presented in Fig. 8. This figure proves the robustness the proposed algorithm for

different runs.

Table 6 Statistical analysis of 9-bus system

Parameters MWCA MEFO BBO GA GA-NLP FFA CSA HAS

Mean 3.811 6.088 5.634 9.4254 5.8383 7.3282 5.4530 4.9668
Standard Deviation 0.045 1.223 0.215 1.2643 0.9048 0.6689 0.1964 0.0319
Worst 3.857 12.101 6.035 10.9015 6.9982 8.1122 5.8715 5.0223
Best 3.707 5.225 5.243 7.4947 4.8015 6.3442 5.1836 4.9046
Number of Runs 30 30 30 50 50 50 50 50
Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20
 8

7
Objective Function (s)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Run Number

Fig. 8. The objective function obtained by MWCA for 30 different runs (9-bus system)

4.3. Case 3: 15-bus test system

The 15-bus system is taken as the third test system to validate the proposed algorithm. The

single line diagram of this system is shown in Fig. 9. This system consists of 21 lines, 42

relays, 82 coordination constraints, and 84 optimization variables. The and

limits are 0.1 and 1.1, respectively. The CTI is set to 0.2 s as in [5, 7]. Primary and

the backup relationship of relay pairs, Ip ranges, and the fault currents of this system are

given in [5,6].

21
 DG1 DG2

Bus 1 Bus 2 Bus 14 Bus 3

1 5 6 7 9 10 13

2 3 4 8 11 12 14
`

Bus 4 Bus 5 Bus 6

15 19 23
DG3 DG4

16 17 18 20 21 22 24
Bus 9
`

Bus 7 Bus 8
25 29 33
EG

26 27 28 30 31 32 34
`

Bus 10 Bus 11 Bus 12

35 41

36 37 38 39 40 42
`

Bus 13 Bus 14 Bus 15

DG5 DG6

Fig. 9. Single line diagram of 15-bustest system.

The optimal values of TDS and obtained by MWCA is listed in Table 7. The operating

time of primary and backup relays and CTI values are tabulated in Table 8. From Table 7 and

Table 8, it can be observed that the MWCA satisfies all the constraints of relay setting and

minimize the total operating time of the relays.

22
 Table 7 Optimal relay settings of the 15-bus system
Relay No. Ip TDS
1 280.2922 0.1
2 413.7723 0.100001
3 245.8919 0.125528
4 332.5621 0.104592
5 202.2677 0.152178
6 175.0363 0.132714
7 157.756 0.138179
8 391.6253 0.106075
9 173.8936 0.135802
10 235.8908 0.120768
11 337.095 0.102297
12 323.8432 0.107519
13 251.0755 0.12659
14 394.8639 0.1
15 369.5838 0.100072
16 195.8039 0.100001
17 101.5643 0.118703
18 550.73 0.100012
19 224.9802 0.120982
20 444.2697 0.1
21 505.1008 0.1
22 135.4993 0.103831
23 393.7941 0.1
24 166.8112 0.106319
25 195.3116 0.126644
26 189.5616 0.109419
27 207.2712 0.118916
28 238.9244 0.133041
29 526.0362 0.10555
30 117.366 0.114982
31 213.2933 0.117387
32 159.3708 0.125322
33 167.2435 0.171734
34 93.33603 0.163136
35 200.7562 0.126973
36 245.0295 0.122209
37 301.0705 0.132817
38 142.6343 0.138298
39 115.7605 0.142472
40 246.5046 0.155183
41 104.2332 0.176561
42 273.7499 0.101101
𝐢 𝟏 𝐢 (s) 13.308

Table 8 Primary and backup operating time of relays and CTI of 15-bus system
Relay pairs 𝐫𝐢 𝐚𝐫 (s) 𝐚 (s) 𝐂
1 6 0.266639 0.466639 0.2
2 4 0.283776 0.483776 0.2
2 16 0.283776 0.517938 0.234162
3 1 0.306788 0.621998 0.31521
3 16 0.306788 0.517938 0.21115
4 7 0.27669 0.485918 0.209227

23
4 12 0.27669 0.49161 0.21492
4 20 0.27669 0.491772 0.215082
5 2 0.370187 0.866687 0.4965
6 8 0.332816 0.532859 0.200043
6 10 0.332816 0.540645 0.207828
7 5 0.340642 0.540645 0.200002
7 10 0.340642 0.540645 0.200002
8 3 0.291566 0.491566 0.2
8 12 0.291566 0.49161 0.200044
8 20 0.291566 0.491772 0.200206
9 5 0.326639 0.540645 0.214006
9 8 0.326639 0.532859 0.20622
10 14 0.302836 0.634943 0.332107
11 3 0.273087 0.491566 0.218479
11 7 0.273087 0.485918 0.21283
11 20 0.273087 0.491772 0.218685
12 13 0.286376 0.486383 0.200007
12 24 0.286376 0.486378 0.200002
13 9 0.331202 0.531202 0.200001
14 11 0.278007 0.478009 0.200002
14 24 0.278007 0.486378 0.208371
15 1 0.268249 0.621998 0.353749
15 4 0.268249 0.483776 0.215527
16 18 0.281078 0.793898 0.51282
16 26 0.281078 0.482351 0.201273
17 15 0.276756 0.719768 0.443012
17 26 0.276756 0.482351 0.205595
18 19 0.249707 0.459983 0.210276
18 22 0.249707 0.45999 0.210284
18 30 0.249707 0.449766 0.200059
19 3 0.285918 0.491566 0.205649
19 7 0.285918 0.485918 0.2
19 12 0.285918 0.49161 0.205693
20 17 0.238889 0.459978 0.221089
20 22 0.238889 0.45999 0.221102
20 30 0.238889 0.449766 0.210877
21 17 0.242236 0.459978 0.217742
21 19 0.242236 0.459983 0.217747
21 30 0.242236 0.449766 0.20753
22 23 0.265359 0.761661 0.496303
22 34 0.265359 0.476457 0.211098
23 11 0.270485 0.478009 0.207523
23 13 0.270485 0.486383 0.215897
24 21 0.276457 0.718288 0.441831
24 34 0.276457 0.476457 0.2
25 15 0.351391 0.719768 0.368377
25 18 0.351391 0.793898 0.442507
26 28 0.299274 0.570171 0.270897
26 36 0.299274 0.558082 0.258808
27 25 0.358061 0.570172 0.212112
27 36 0.358061 0.558082 0.200022
28 29 0.385735 0.585809 0.200074
28 32 0.385735 0.585796 0.200061
29 17 0.259976 0.459978 0.200001
29 19 0.259976 0.459983 0.200007
29 22 0.259976 0.45999 0.200014
30 27 0.290785 0.508112 0.217326
30 32 0.290785 0.53628 0.245495

24
 31 27 0.308096 0.508112 0.200015
31 29 0.308096 0.585809 0.277712
32 33 0.3335 0.608211 0.274711
32 42 0.3335 0.583725 0.250225
33 21 0.446322 0.718288 0.271965
33 23 0.446322 0.761661 0.315339
34 31 0.380986 0.608195 0.227209
34 42 0.380986 0.583725 0.202739
35 25 0.370171 0.570172 0.200001
35 28 0.370171 0.570171 0.2
36 38 0.321161 0.521736 0.200575
37 35 0.379027 0.579248 0.200221
38 40 0.413861 0.613861 0.2
39 37 0.386384 0.586388 0.200005
40 41 0.416125 0.616131 0.200006
41 31 0.408193 0.608195 0.200002
41 33 0.408193 0.608211 0.200018
42 39 0.277435 0.477435 0.2

The convergence characteristics of MWCA and WCA algorithms are shown in Fig. 10. From

this figure, it can be observed that the MWCA algorithm gives better convergence compared

with WCA algorithm. The optimal solution with MWCA is 13.308 s, while the solution

obtained with WCA, BBO, BH, PSO, DE, EFO, MEFO, CSA, GA, FFA, and BSA are 18 s,

16.58 s, 35.44 s, 41.46 s, 17.2 s, 17.9 s, 13.953 s, 19.552 s, 26.07 s, 22.71 s, and 16.293 s,

respectively. The MWCA reaches to the minimum objective function (13.308 s) after

computation time about 390.3s and 2853 iterations while the WCA reaches to the minimum

objective function (18 s) after computation time about 495.8 s and 2975 iterations.

25
 MWCA WCA
65

55
Objective Function (s)

45

35

25

15

1761

2201

2641
1057
1145
1233
1321
1409
1497
1585
1673

1849
1937
2025
2113

2289
2377
2465
2553

2729
2817
2905
2993
177
265
353
441
529
617
705
793
881
969
89
1

Iterations
Fig. 10. Convergence characteristics of MWCA and WCA (15-bus system)

The statistical evaluation of the results obtained by different optimization techniques is

presented in Table 9. This table gives the best, the worst, and the mean values of the objective

function with its standard deviation obtained by MWCA, EFO, MEFO, BH, BBO, GA, GA-

NLP, FFA, and HS. From this table, it can be observed that the worst value obtained by the

proposed algorithm (13.618 s) of the objective function are close to the best value (13.308 s),

which indicate the robustness of the MWCA. The standard deviation for the MWCA is lower

than EFO, MEFO, BH, BBO, GA, and GA-NLP which indicates the high robustness of

MWCA compared with these algorithms.

The objective function for 30 individual runs of the proposed algorithm are calculated and

graphically presented in Fig. 11. This figure proves the robustness the proposed algorithm for

different runs.

26
 Table 9 Statistical analysis of 15-bus system

Parameters MWCA EFO MEFO BH BBO GA GA-NLP FFA HS

Mean 13.546 20.475 16.573 38.41 17.984 28.69 20.129 22.829 19.62
Standard 0.069 0.880 1.576 1.310 0.765 1.888 0.3853 0.1045 0.0103
Deviation
Worst 13.618 21.691 20.203 40.56 19.453 32.715 20.984 22.991 19.69
Best 13.308 17.906 13.953 35.44 16.58 26.073 19.584 22.717 19.62
Number of 30 30 30 30 30 50 50 50 50
Runs
Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19
Objective Function (s)

17

15

13

11

5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Run Number

Fig. 11.The objective function obtained by MWCA during 30 different runs (15-bus system)

4.4. Case 4: IEEE 30-bus test system

The last test system considered in this section is the IEEE 30-bus system. The single line

diagram of this system is shown in Fig. 12. This system consists of 38 relays, 62 of primary

and backup relay pairs, and 76 optimization variables. The initial ranges for and

are 0.1 and 1.1, respectively. The PSmin and PSmax limits are 1.5 and 6, respectively,

and the CT ratio for each relay is 1000:5. The CTI is set to 0.3 s. More details of this system

such as; fault currents and primary and the backup relationship of relay pairs can be found in

[36].

27
 7
R26 R27 M M

L8 R8
R7 33kV
L7 R25

L6
5
16
R6
R39
R24
L5

DG

15 R5
4

L19 R18 R23

L18

14 R19

R36 R34
R35
11

R15 R32
M M L15

R4 3
L4
L17 DG R22
L13 L3

10
R13 R21
R30
R3
L16
2 R20
L11

12
L1 L2
R14 R31
9
R29

L14 L10
L12
R16 R1 R2
R33 L9 R10 R9
R17 R12 R28
13 8 1
33kV 33kV

Fig. 12. Single line diagram of IEEE 30-bus test system.

Table 10 Optimal relay settings of IEEE 30-bus system

Relay No. PS TDS

1 4.367038 0.197309
2 3.570571 0.130813
3 4.121582 0.155554
4 4.784506 0.128203
5 3.272633 0.127392
6 3.26221 0.100053
7 2.73716 0.1
8 2.30285 0.100001
9 4.804753 0.190083
10 4.155365 0.183643
11 3.74141 0.157674
12 4.254808 0.131211
13 3.790042 0.136254
14 3.878774 0.117261
15 2.737265 0.120383
16 3.665026 0.2045
17 2.955374 0.100004
18 3.875187 0.121026
19 4.36711 0.137226

28
 20 2.77291 0.1
21 2.571723 0.1
22 4.15129 0.139932
23 3.5206 0.135727
24 3.277607 0.112622
25 2.805266 0.164138
26 1.5 0.100095
27 1.500263 0.100027
28 3.350611 0.125475
29 3.542625 0.1
30 3.306794 0.130416
31 3.858165 0.107665
32 3.664886 0.122285
33 3.471069 0.157693
34 2.844028 0.180215
35 3.464648 0.133096
36 1.854361 0.1
37 3.256917 0.128931
38 3.828449 0.126545
𝐢 𝟏 𝐢 (s) 18.69

Table 11 Primary and backup operating time of relays and CTI of IEEE 30-bus system

Relay pairs 𝐫𝐢 𝐚𝐫 (s) 𝐚 (s) 𝐂

1 21 0.737062 2.277072 1.54001
1 28 0.737062 1.037067 0.300005
1 29 0.737062 1.042352 0.305291
2 20 0.488662 1.083293 0.594631
2 28 0.488662 1.042075 0.553413
2 29 0.488662 1.048553 0.559891
3 1 0.581081 0.881323 0.300242
4 2 0.478911 0.825634 0.346723
4 3 0.478911 0.778914 0.300003
5 4 0.47588 0.776137 0.300257
5 37 0.47588 0.809906 0.334026
6 5 0.373753 0.673948 0.300194
7 6 0.373557 0.686625 0.313068
8 6 0.373559 0.692884 0.319325
9 20 0.710068 1.010418 0.300349
9 21 0.710068 2.063872 1.353804
9 29 0.710068 1.044179 0.334111
10 20 0.686009 1.020878 0.334869
10 21 0.686009 2.108282 1.422273
10 28 0.686009 1.048474 0.362465
11 10 0.589003 0.889014 0.300011
12 9 0.490147 0.79015 0.300003
13 11 0.508985 0.808996 0.300011
14 12 0.438035 0.738591 0.300556
15 13 0.449697 0.750135 0.300438
16 14 0.763922 1.063939 0.300018
16 36 0.763922 2.48959 1.725669
17 14 0.373573 1.087288 0.713715
17 35 0.373573 0.921487 0.547914
18 4 0.452102 0.775954 0.323851
18 24 0.452102 0.810518 0.358416
19 15 0.512618 0.812942 0.300324

29
 19 16 0.512618 0.97225 0.459632
19 17 0.512618 2.293523 1.780905
20 22 0.373557 0.673569 0.300012
21 3 0.373557 0.784028 0.410471
21 23 0.373557 0.826654 0.453097
22 2 0.522725 0.822732 0.300008
22 23 0.522725 0.822956 0.300231
23 24 0.507015 0.807322 0.300307
23 37 0.507015 0.80708 0.300064
24 25 0.420705 0.720705 0.3
26 8 0.37391 0.866127 0.492217
27 7 0.373657 0.700564 0.326906
28 31 0.468721 0.768949 0.300228
29 30 0.373557 0.673575 0.300018
30 32 0.487178 0.787268 0.30009
31 33 0.402189 0.702189 0.3
32 34 0.456803 0.756967 0.300163
33 35 0.589072 0.88918 0.300107
33 36 0.589072 2.326729 1.737656
34 16 0.673205 0.973208 0.300003
34 17 0.673205 2.30491 1.631705
34 38 0.673205 0.973373 0.300168
35 15 0.497189 0.809867 0.312678
35 17 0.497189 2.364859 1.86767
35 38 0.497189 0.967707 0.470518
36 15 0.373557 0.822326 0.448769
36 16 0.373557 0.989234 0.615678
36 38 0.373557 0.984581 0.611024
37 19 0.48163 0.781655 0.300025
38 18 0.472715 0.772839 0.300123

The convergence characteristics of MWCA and WCA algorithms are shown in Fig. 13. From

this figure, it can be observed that the MWCA algorithm gives better convergence compared

to WCA. The optimal solution obtained by MWCA is 18.69 s, while the solution obtained

with WCA, GA, PSO, HS, SOA, GSA, and GSA-SQP are 31.415 s, 28.019 s, 19.213 s,

33.773 s, 51.774 s, and 26.825 s, respectively. The MWCA reaches to the minimum objective

function (18.69 s) after computation time about 316.7 s and 2890 iterations while the WCA

reaches to the minimum objective function (31.415 s) after computation time about 457.8 s

and 2860 iterations.

30
 MWCA WCA

210
Objective Function (s)

160

110

60

10

2113

2465
1057
1145
1233
1321
1409
1497
1585
1673
1761
1849
1937
2025

2201
2289
2377

2553
2641
2729
2817
2905
2993
177
265
353
441
529
617
705
793
881
969
89
1

Iteration
Fig. 13. Convergence characteristics of the MWCA and WCA (IEEE 30-bus system)

The statistical evaluation of the results obtained by different optimization techniques is

presented in Table 12. This table gives the best, the worst, and the mean values of the

objective function along with its standard deviation obtained by MWCA, GA, PSO, HS,

SOA, GSA, and GSA-SQP. Among all these techniques, it is observed that the MWCA gives

the least standard deviation (0.337).

The objective function for 100 individual runs of the proposed algorithm are calculated and

graphically presented in Fig. 14. This figure proves the robustness the proposed algorithm for

different runs.

Table 12 Statistical analysis of IEEE 30-bus system

Parameters MWCA GA PSO HS SOA GSA GSA-SQP

Mean 19.753 29.223 46.085 19.711 35.8641 - -
Standard Deviation 0.337 0.671 6.168 0.362 2.077 4.921 0.98
Worst 20.173 30.37 58.569 20.2305 40.781 66.956 29.689
Best 18.69 28.019 39.183 19.213 33.773 51.774 26.825
Number of Runs 100 100 100 100 100 10 10
Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31
 40

35

Objective Function (s) 30

25

20

15

10

100
37
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34

40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
1
4
7

Run Number
Fig. 14. The objective function obtained by MWCA for 100 different runs (IEEE 30-bus system)

4.5. Verification of MWCA using DIgSILENT PowerFactory

Three phase faults at both ends of transmission line 2 in 15-bus test system are applied and

implemented DIgSILENT PowerFactory 14 [37], to verify the results obtained by the

proposed MWCA.

Three phase fault currents are applied near relay 9 (see Fig. 9). The operating time for

primary and backup relays using DIgSILENT PowerFactory is shown in Fig. 15. From this

figure, it can be observed that primary relay (relay 9) operates at 0.33 s and backup relays

(relay 5 and relay 8) operate at 0.54 s and 0.53 s, respectively. Also, it can be observed that

there is sufficient time margin for backup relays to operate more than 0.2 s.

Three phase fault currents are also applied near relay 10 (see Fig. 9). The operating time for

primary and backup relays using DIgSILENT PowerFactory is shown in Fig. 16. From this

figure, it can be observed that primary relay (relay 10) operates at 0.31 s and backup relay

(relay 14) operates at 0.65 s. Also, it can be observed that there is sufficient time margin for

backup relay to operate more than 0.2 s as show in Fig. 16. The operating times obtained

using DIgSILENT PowerFactory are similar with those obtained by the proposed MWCA.

32
 Fig. 15. Operating time for relays 5, 8, and 9 (15-bus system)
Operating Time (s)

Fault Current (A)

Fig. 16. Operating time for relays 10 and 14 (15-bus system).

5. Conclusion

In this paper, a modified version of the Water Cycle Algorithm, called MWCA has been

proposed to solve the coordination problem of DOCRs. The proposed technique based on

33
updating the C-value according to iteration number instead of constant value. The

performance of the proposed algorithm has been validated using four test systems. The results

obtained by the proposed algorithm has been validated using benchmark DIgSILENT

PowerFactory. Based on the results obtained by MWCA, WCA and other well-known

optimization techniques (EFO, MEFO, GA, BBO FFA, BH, GA-NLP, HS, SOA, GSA, and

GSA-SQP), the proposed MWCA is able to find the best relay setting, satisfy coordination

margin, and minimize the total operating time of all primary relays. In addition, the proposed

algorithm converges to the global minimum faster than the traditional WCA. The proposed

optimization technique can be extended to other applications including optimal power flow

and optimal allocation of compensation devices to achieve multi-objective functions.

References
[1] A. Tjahjono, D. O. Anggriawan, A. K. Faizin, A. Priyadi, M. Pujiantara, T. Taufik, et al.,

‘Adaptive modified firefly algorithm for optimal coordination of overcurrent relays’, IET

Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2017, 11, pp. 2575-2585.

[2] M. Hussain, S. Rahim, and I. Musirin, ‘Optimal overcurrent relay coordination: a review’,

Procedia Engineering, 2013, 53, pp. 332-336.

[3] A. G. Phadke and J. S. Thorp, ‘Computer relaying for power systems’, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

[4] A. R. Al-Roomi and M. E. El-Hawary, ‘Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays

using hybrid BBO-LP algorithm with the best extracted time-current characteristic curve’,

Electrical and Computer Engineering, IEEE 30th Canadian Conference on, 2017, pp.1-6.

[5] H. Bouchekara, M. Zellagui, and M. A. Abido, ‘Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent

relays using a modified electromagnetic field optimization algorithm’, Applied Soft Computing,

2017, 54, pp. 267-283,

[6] T. Amraee, ‘Coordination of directional overcurrent relays using seeker algorithm’, IEEE

Transactions on Power Delivery, 2012, 27, pp. 1415-1422.

34
[7] V. N. Rajput and K. S. Pandya, ‘Coordination of directional overcurrent relays in the

interconnected power systems using effective tuning of harmony search algorithm’, Sustainable

Computing: Informatics and Systems, 2017, 15, pp. 1-15.

[8] F. A. Albasri, A. R. Alroomi, and J. H. Talaq, ‘Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent

relays using biogeography-based optimization algorithms’, IEEE Transactions on Power

Delivery, 2015, 30, pp. 1810-1820.

[9] A. J. Urdaneta, R. Nadira, and L. P. Jimenez, ‘Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent

relays in interconnected power systems’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1988, 3, pp.

903-911.

[10] D. Birla, R. P. Maheshwari, and H. O. Gupta, ‘Time-overcurrent relay coordination: A review’,

International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, 2005, 2.

[11] H.Zeineldin, E. El-Saadany, and M. Salama, ‘Optimal coordination of overcurrent relays using a

modified particle swarm optimization’, Electric Power Systems Research, 2006, 76, pp. 988-

995.

[12] M. N. Alam, B. Das, and V. Pant, ‘A comparative study of metaheuristic optimization

approaches for directional overcurrent relays coordination’, Electric Power Systems Research,

2015, vol. 128, pp. 39-52.

[13] S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, "Grey wolf optimizer," Advances in engineering

software, vol. 69, pp. 46-61, 2014.

[14] S. Mirjalili, A. H. Gandomi, S. Z. Mirjalili, S. Saremi, H. Faris, and S. M. Mirjalili, "Salp swarm

algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems," Advances in Engineering

Software, 2017, vol. 114, pp. 163-191.

[15] D. K. Singh and S. Gupta, ‘Use of genetic algorithms (GA) for optimal coordination of

directional over current relays’, in Engineering and Systems (SCES), 2012 Students Conference

on, 2012, pp. 1-5.

[16] Shih, M. Y., et al. (2014). "On-line coordination of directional overcurrent relays: Performance

evaluation among optimization algorithms." Electric Power Systems Research 110: 122-132

35
[17] A. E. L. Rivas and L. A. G. Pareja, ‘Coordination of directional overcurrent relays that uses an

ant colony optimization algorithm for mixed-variable optimization problems’, Environment and

Electrical Engineering Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS

Europe), IEEE International Conference, 2017, pp. 1-6.

[18] A. Hatamlou, "Black hole: A new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering,"

Information sciences, vol. 222, pp. 175-184, 2013.

[19] H. Abedinpourshotorban, S. M. Shamsuddin, Z. Beheshti, and D. N. Jawawi, "Electromagnetic

field optimization: A physics-inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithm," Swarm and

Evolutionary Computation, vol. 26, pp. 8-22, 2016.

[20] M. Zellagui and A. Y. Abdelaziz, ‘Optimal Coordination of Directional Overcurrent Relays

using Hybrid PSO-DE Algorithm’, International Electrical Engineering Journal (IEEJ), 2015, 6,

pp. 1841-1849.

[21] E. Rashedi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, and S. Saryazdi, "GSA: a gravitational search algorithm,"

Information sciences, vol. 179, pp. 2232-2248, 2009.

[22] V. Rajput, K. Pandya, and K. Joshi, ‘Optimal coordination of Directional Overcurrent Relays

using hybrid CSA-FFA method’, Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,

Telecommunications and Information Technology, 12th International Conference, 2015, pp. 1-6.

[23] P. P. Bedekar and S. R. Bhide, ‘Optimum coordination of directional overcurrent relays using the

hybrid GA-NLP approach’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2011, 26, pp. 109-119.

[24] A. R. Al-Roomi and M. E. El-Hawary, ‘Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays

using hybrid BBO/DE algorithm and considering double primary relays strategy’, Electrical

Power and Energy Conference (EPEC), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1-7.

[25] A. A. El-Fergany and H. M. Hasanien, ‘Optimized settings of directional overcurrent relays in

meshed power networks using stochastic fractal search algorithm’, International Transactions on

Electrical Energy Systems, 2017, 27.

[26] C. A. C. Coello, ‘Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with

evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art’, Computer methods in applied

mechanics and engineering, 2002, 191, pp. 1245-1287.

36
[27] A. Sadollah, H. Eskandar, A. Bahreininejad, and J. H. Kim, ‘Water cycle algorithm with

evaporation rate for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems, Applied Soft

Computing, 2015, 30, pp. 58-71.

[28] H. Eskandar, A. Sadollah, A. Bahreininejad, and M. Hamdi, ‘Water cycle algorithm–A novel

metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems’,

Computers & Structures, 2012, 110, pp. 151-166.

[29] Long, W., et al. (2018). "Inspired grey wolf optimizer for solving large-scale function

optimization problems." Applied Mathematical Modelling 60: 112-126.

[30] W. Long and S. Xu, "A novel grey wolf optimizer for global optimization problems," in

Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control

Conference (IMCEC), 2016 IEEE, 2016, pp. 1266-1270.

[31] N. Mittal, U. Singh, and B. S. Sohi, "Modified grey wolf optimizer for global engineering

optimization," Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, 2016, p. 8

[32] A. A. Heidari, R. A. Abbaspour, and A. R. Jordehi, ‘An efficient chaotic water cycle algorithm

for optimization tasks’, Neural Computing and Applications, 2017, 28, pp. 57-85.

[33] H. R. Bouchekara, M. Zellagui, and M. A. Abido, ‘Coordination of Directional Overcurret

Relays Using the Backtracking Search Algorithm’, Journal of Electrical Systems, 2016, 12.

[34] J. Radosavljević and M. Jevtić, ‘Hybrid GSA-SQP algorithm for optimal coordination of

directional overcurrent relays’, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2016, vol. 10, pp.

1928-1937.

[35] T. R. Chelliah, R. Thangaraj, S. Allamsetty, and M. Pant, ‘Coordination of directional

overcurrent relays using opposition based chaotic differential evolution algorithm’, International

Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 2014, 55, pp. 341-350.

[36] R. Mohammadi, H. A. Abyaneh, H. M. Rudsari, ‘S. H. Fathi, and H. Rastegar, "Overcurrent

relays coordination considering the priority of constraints’, IEEE Transactions on Power

Delivery, 2011, 26, pp. 1927-1938.

[37] M. Schmieg, DIgsilent power factory V14, 1985. [online]. Available: http://www.digsilent.de

37