sustainability

Article
Over-Current Relays Coordination Including Practical
Constraints and DGs: Damage Curves, Inrush, and Starting
Currents
Abdelmonem Draz , Mahmoud M. Elkholy * and Attia El-Fergany

Electrical Power and Machines Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt;
aaderaz@zu.edu.eg (A.D.); el_fergany@zu.edu.eg (A.E.-F.)
* Correspondence: melkholy@zu.edu.eg or melkholy71@yahoo.com

Abstract: In this paper, an integrated optimization model based on Gradient-Based Optimizer (GBO)
for overcurrent relays coordination along with the challenging practical constraints is proposed.
The current proposed effort aims to facilitate the coordination strategy and minimize the technical
problems facing the protection/site engineers. The objective function is adapted to minimize the
total operating time of the primary relays (TOT) concurrently with satisfying a set of constraints.
The algorithm endeavors to fine-tune the relay tripping curve to avoid the false tripping in the case
of motor starting and/or transformer inrush conditions. Bear in mind that the selected optimized
settings should guarantee that the relay would operate in less time than the thermal withstand
capability time of the protected equipment. The proposed model is examined over the distribution
portion of the Qarun petroleum isolated network (located in West desert/Egypt), which presents a
practical test case including some scenarios after validating its performance with the IEEE 15-bus
network. The proposed complicated optimization problem comprises 128 discrepant inequality





 constraints for overcurrent relays coordination only having 16 relays with 14 relay pairs. Eventually,
Citation: Draz, A.; Elkholy, M.M.; GBO demonstrates that it is an efficient algorithm for solving this highly constrained optimization
El-Fergany, A. Over-Current Relays problem by comparing its performance to other robust and well-known algorithms such as particle
Coordination Including Practical swarm optimizer (PSO) and water cycle optimizer (WCA). The performance metrics confirm the
Constraints and DGs: Damage GBO’s viability over the others. For sake of quantification, (i) for scenario1 of the Qarun test case,
Curves, Inrush, and Starting the GBO achieves a TOT of 0.7381 s, which indicates 63% and 57% reductions for those obtained by
Currents. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761.
the PSO and WCA, respectively, and (ii) for the 15-bus test case, reductions in the TOT of 14.3% and
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052761
16.5% for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The proposed tool based on GBO can enhance the protection
Academic Editor: Pablo co-ordination including some practical constraints.
García Triviño
Keywords: optimal relay coordination; problem constraints; optimization approaches; gradient
Received: 5 February 2022
based optimizer
Accepted: 24 February 2022
Published: 26 February 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Directional Over-Current Relays (DOCRs) can be considered as the primary protection
in distribution and sub-transmission systems [1]. The primary relay is responsible for
clearing the fault first, and if it fails, the backup one should act after a particular value
called the Coordination Time Interval (CTI) [2]. The settings of digital OCRs are mainly the
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. pickup current (I p ), time dial (TD ), and the Time Current Characteristic (TCC) type, which
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. determines the inverse degree of the tripping curve [3]. International Electrotechnical
This article is an open access article Commission (IEC 60255-3) [4] and IEEE C37.112 [5] define the most commonly used
distributed under the terms and standardized tripping Characteristics (CCs). However, the utilization of nonstandard
conditions of the Creative Commons tripping CCs was proposed in [6] by also optimizing the tripping equation coefficients.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The main objective of the DOCR coordination problem is to minimize the total operat-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ ing time of the relays in addition to achieving the problem constraints [7]. Previously, it
4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052761 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 2 of 22

has been solved using conventional techniques such as Linear Programming (LP), Non-
Linear Programming (NLP), and Mixed-Integer LP (MILP), as presented in [8]. Moreover,
metaheuristic-based algorithms either nature-inspired, swarm-based, or evolutionary-
based have been tackled to upgrade the results and the convergence rate [9]. Afterward,
hybrid techniques have been implemented such as Cuckoo Search Algorithm and LP in [10]
for solving the optimal coordination of DOCRs in microgrids with grid-connected and
islanded modes [11]. In this sense, the optimal coordination proposed in [12] compli-
cated the problem by including energy storage systems and inverter-based Distributed
Generators (DGs) in the tested networks. The dual-setting DOCR approach was utilized
in [13–15] for automated distribution networks. The optimal sizing of fault current limiters
was investigated to preserve the coordination in the case of DG penetration, as illustrated
in [16–18].
Various methodologies and formulas of Objective Functions (OFs) have been tackled
in the literature, which can be found summarized in [19]. A new approach was discussed
in [20] taking into account the topology transient changes using a complete model of all net-
work elements. Various topologies were also discussed in [21] by optimizing the relay-type
CCs as in [22] for the microgrid’s optimal protection coordination considering N-1 contin-
gency. However, DOCR coordination was solved using the critical fault point instead of
the near-end fault point, as found in [23], which improved the results accuracy. Afterward,
active settings of digital OCRs by using the setting group concept were utilized in [24] to be
adapted with the current topology of the network. New time–current–voltage CCs in [25]
and double-inverse CCs in [26] were proposed to enhance the DOCR coordination in the
presence of DGs. Moreover, a modified depth-first search algorithm was proposed in [27],
while it was hybridized with MILP in [28] for determining the minimum breakpoint set
along with the coordination of OCRs. In this regard, a hybrid variable neighborhood search
and LP algorithm was formulated in [29] to cope with diverse DOCRs for online optimal
coordination. Furthermore, a stochastic fractal search algorithm was exploited in [30], while
the arc flash hazards were assessed along with the optimal OCRs coordination in [31].
This research aims to develop a comprehensive optimization model for OCR coordina-
tion integrated with various types of constraints [32–37]. These constraints are discrepant
in nature, which simulates the real network operating conditions. The objective of this
methodology is to minimize the operating time of the primary relays along with satisfying
as many of these constraints as possible. Minimum operating time, transient condition, and
equipment damage curve constraints represent the main contributions inserted into the
optimization model. This highly constrained optimization model is solved through a new
optimization approach called Gradient-Based Optimizer (GBO) [32]. It is selected based on
the NFL theorem that states that no particular algorithm can solve all optimization prob-
lems efficiently. GBO combines the principles of gradient and heuristic-based techniques
by enhancing both exploration and exploitation phases [32]. It is worth mentioning that the
GBO performance is validated against one of the powerful algorithms for solving power
system optimization problems: Slime Mold Algorithm (SMA). Moreover, the GBO results
are validated by a fair comparison with other robust algorithms such as Particle Swarm
Optimizer (PSO) and Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA).
The main contributions of this work may be summarized as follows: (i) a novel op-
timization model including practical constrains such as transformer inrush, and motor
starting and damage curves are considered, (ii) a novel attempt is made to test the perfor-
mance of the GBO in solving the OCR problem, and (iii) demonstrations are made on a
typical isolated distribution network.
The body of this article is organized into five sections. The formulation of the proposed
model is announced in Section 2. Section 3 gives the procedures of the GBO, and the
numerical simulations are demonstrated in Section 4 along with various validations. Finally,
the findings and concluding remarks are summarized in Section 5.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 3 of 22

2. Optimization Model Formulation

The relay operating time (tri ) can be calculated through (1) by optimizing the relay
settings, i.e., (I p , TD , and TCC type). Table 1 gives the constant values of a, b, and c for
various IEC and IEEE CCs. The objective of the OCR coordination problem is to minimize
the Total Operating Time (TOT) of the primary relays (t pri ) in addition to preserving the
problem constraints, as declared in (2). Boundary, selectivity, and operating constraints
should be met for achieving feasible results.
 
a
tri =   b + c TD (1)
 
I f
Ip −1

M M K M1 M2
OF = ∑ t pri + WFm ∑ ∆tmi + WFc ∑ ∆t j + WFt ∑ ∆tti + WFd ∑ ∆tdi (2)
i =1 i =1 j =1 i =1 i =1

Table 1. Constants for common standardized tripping curves.

Std
CCs Type a b c
IEC IEEE
SI X 5 0.1400 0.0200 0.0000
VI X 5 13.5000 1.0000 0.0000
EI X 5 80.0000 2.0000 0.0000
LI X 5 120.0000 1.0000 0.0000
MI 5 X 0.0515 0.0200 0.1140
VI 5 X 19.6100 2.0000 0.4910
EI 5 X 28.2000 2.0000 0.1217
SI: standard inverse, VI: very inverse, EI: extremely inverse, LI: long inverse, MI: moderately inverse.

2.1. Boundary Constraints

The optimized decision variables should be bounded between lower and upper limits
for feasible solution, as shown in (3) and (4).

TDmin,i ≤ TD,i ≤ TDmax,i (3)

I pmin,i ≤ I p,i ≤ I pmax,i (4)

2.2. Selectivity Constraints

The backup relay should act after a specified period called CTI if the primary relay
fails to trip, as shown in (5). The value of CTI is also bounded between the minimum
value (CTImin ) and maximum value (CTImax ) to restrict the coordination criteria inside a
practical time range.

CTImin,j ≤ ∆t j ≤ CTI max,j , ∆t j = tbri − t pri (5)

2.3. Operating Constraints

These constraints can be divided into three sets to simulate the real network operating
conditions as follows.

2.3.1. Minimum Operating Time Constraint

As the coordination optimization problem tends to minimize the relay operating time,
the results may contain an infeasible tripping time not included in any commercial relay. A
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 4 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 4 of 21

2.3.1.
2.3.1. Minimum
Minimum Operating
Operating Time Time Constraint
Constraint
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 4 of 22
As
As the coordination optimization problem
the coordination optimization problem tends
tends toto minimize
minimize thethe relay
relay operating
operating
time,
time, the
the results
results may
may contain
contain anan infeasible
infeasible tripping
tripping time
time not
not included
included inin any
any commercial
commercial
relay.
relay. A A penalty term (Δ𝑡
penalty term (Δ𝑡 )) isis inserted
inserted in in the
the OF
OF toto guarantee
guarantee that that the
the relay
relay tripping
tripping
time (𝑡
penalty
time )) is
(𝑡 term (∆tmi ) than
is greater
greater is inserted
than or
or equalin to
equal the
to aaOF
specific
specific value (𝑡
to guarantee
value (𝑡that,, ),
the
), asrelay
as tripping time
demonstrated
demonstrated in (tri ) is
in (6).
(6).
greater than or equal to a specific value (tmin,i ), as demonstrated in (6).
𝑡𝑡 −− 𝑡𝑡 ,, ≥ ≥ Δ𝑡
Δ𝑡 ≥ ≥ 00 (6)
(6)
tri − tmin,i ≥ ∆tmi ≥ 0 (6)
2.3.2.
2.3.2. Transient Conditions
Transient Conditions
Transient Constraints
Conditions Constraints
Constraints
It is worth mentioning
mentioningthat
It is worth mentioning thatinduction
that inductionmotors
induction motorshave
motors have
have aa starting
astarting
starting current
current
current range of
of (3–8)
range
range of (3–8)
(3–8) of
of
the
of motor
thethe motor
motor full load
fullfull
loadloadcurrent
current
current depending
depending
depending on
on onthe
thethestarting method
starting
starting method
method and
andand conditions.
conditions.
conditions. In this re-
In this
In this re-
gard,
gard, aa high
regard, highinrush
ahigh inrushcurrent
inrush currentdrawn
current drawnfrom
drawn fromthe
from thesupply
the supplyduring
supply duringtransformer
during transformer energizing
transformer energizing has has aa
range
range
range of of (8–12)
of (8–12)
(8–12)for for transformer
fortransformer
transformerfull full load
fullload current.
loadcurrent.
current.These These transient
Thesetransient
transient highhigh
high currents
currents
currents may
maymay lead
lead
leadto
to a false
atofalse
a false tripping
tripping
tripping of
of of the
thethe relay
relay
relay during
during
during these
these transient
thesetransient conditions.
transientconditions.
conditions.Figure Figure 1
Figure11depictsdepicts a typical
depicts aa typical
typical
motor
motor starting
starting curvecurve andand aa standardized
standardized relay
standardized relay tripping
tripping CC
tripping CC with
with thethe methodology
methodology of
the methodology of the
the
the
practical
practical coordination
practical coordination rules illustrated
coordination rules illustrated on it. To avoidon it. To avoid the
avoid the intersection
the intersection
intersection between between
between the two
the two
two
curves,
curves, aaa current
curves, current margin
current margin
marginof of (75%. 𝐼starting
(75%.
of(75%.I 𝐼 )) and
) and and a atime
a time
time margin
margin
margin (𝑡 −,, t−
(𝑡
(trt,i − 𝑡 , )) of
t,i )𝑡 of
(2–10)
(2–10) s shall
s shall
, of (2–10) s shall
be
be considered
considered and and
may may
be be extended
extended to 1 to
s, 1
as s, as
shown. shown.
The
be considered and may be extended to 1 s, as shown. The same practical coordination The
same same practical
practical coordination
coordination rules
rules
rules mentioned
mentioned
mentioned earlierearlier
should
earlier should
also be
should also be
be considered
considered
also consideredin thein the
case
in theofcase of
of aa transformer
a transformer
case transformer overcurrent
overcurrent relay
overcurrent
relay protection
protection feeder, feeder,
as as
shown shown
in
relay protection feeder, as shown in Figure 2. in
Figure Figure
2. 2.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Motor
Motor starting
starting curve
curve with
with the
the practical
practical coordination
coordination rules.
rules.

Figure
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Transformer
2. inrush
Transformer inrush
Transformer point
inrush point with
point with the
with the practical
the practical coordination
practical coordination rules.
coordinationrules.
rules.

Consequently,
Consequently,aaapenalty
Consequently, penalty term
termisis
penaltyterm added
isadded
added toto
to the
the
the OF
OFOF(∆t(Δ𝑡
(Δ𝑡 )) ensure
ti ) to
to
to ensure
ensure thatthat
the the
that relay
relay
the trip-
tripping
relay trip-
ping
ping curve is higher than the motor starting curve or the transformer inrush point, as ex-
curve curve
is is
higher higher
than than
the the
motor motor
startingstarting
curve curve
or the or the transformer
transformer inrush inrush
point, point,
as as
expressed
ex-
pressed
in
pressed in
(7). trt,i
inis the𝑡𝑡 relay
(7).
(7). , is
, is the
the relay
operating
relay operating
time
operatingat time
the at the
transient
time at the transient
current
transient current
and t
current t,i and
is the
and 𝑡𝑡motor
, is
, is the motor
starting
the motor
starting
time time
or the
starting time or
or the
the transformer
transformer inrush
inrush current
transformer current
current period.
inrushperiod. period.
𝑡𝑡 , − 𝑡, ≥ Δ𝑡 (7)
trt,i , −
− tt,i𝑡 ≥
, ≥
∆tΔ𝑡
ti (7)

2.3.3. Equipment Damage Curves Constraints

All electrical equipment in power systems has a thermal withstand capability curve
called a “damage curve”. The damage curve is an inverse relation between the current
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 5 of 21

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 2.3.3. Equipment Damage Curves Constraints 5 of 22

All electrical equipment in power systems has a thermal withstand capability curve
called a “damage curve.” The damage curve is an inverse relation between the current
passing through
passing through the the equipment
equipment and and the the withstand
withstand time. time. The
The larger
larger the
the current
current that
that flows
flows
(𝐼), the lower the equipment withstand
( I ), the lower the equipment withstand time (td,i time (𝑡 ). The equipment damage
, ). The equipment damage curve can curve can be
expressed
be expressed in (8)
in where
(8) where𝐿𝑇𝐸LTE is the LetLet
is the Through
Through Energy thatthat
Energy represents the withstand
represents elec-
the withstand
trical capability
electrical capabilitythat, in in
that, turn,
turn,is is
a constant
a constantvalue.
value.The Therelation
relationbetween
between thethe fault current
current
passing through a feeder ((𝐼I f )) in
passing in amperes
amperes and and t𝑡d,i, for
foraagiven
givenCross-Sectional
Cross-SectionalArea Area(A)
(𝐴) is
is
shown in
shown in (9)
(9) [38]. and ßß depend
[38]. k𝑘c and dependon onthe
theconductor
conductor type, type, while
while the
the initial
initial temperature
temperature
((𝑇
To )) and
andthethefinal
finaltemperature
temperature( T (𝑇d ) )depend
dependononthe theinsulation
insulationtype,
type,asas declared
declared inin Table
Table 2.
2. The
The constants
constants presented
presented in in
(9)(9)
areare lumped
lumped together
together forfor a single
a single constant
constant (k)(𝑘), as shown
, as shown in
(10) andand
in (10) depicted
depicted in Figure
in Figure 3, while
3, while A is 𝐴in is
mmin2 .𝑚𝑚The .value
The value of 𝑘 depends
of k depends on the feeder
on the
construction,
feeder construction,as declared in Tablein2,Table
as declared whose value can
2, whose valuebe can
found in [38,39]
be found with a with
in [38,39] slighta
difference. The distribution
slight difference. transformers
The distribution used inused
transformers this inresearch are classified
this research as category
are classified as cat-2,
as mentioned
egory in [40], whose
2, as mentioned in [40], whose 𝑘value
k constant equals
constant value1250 per unit.
equals 1250 per unit.
𝐼 × 𝑡 = 𝐿𝑇𝐸 (𝑘𝐴 . 𝑠)
 
I 2 × td,i =, LTE kA2 ·s (8)
(8)

If 𝐼
 2  𝑇 + ß
× × 𝑡= , = 𝑘log
log Td + ß (9)
1973.525
1973.525 × A× 𝐴
t d,i k c 10 T𝑇++ßß (9)
o
!2
k× 𝑘× A𝐴
td,i 𝑡=, = (10)
(10)
If 𝐼

td,i𝑡 − − ∆tΔ𝑡
t pri𝑡 ≥ ≥ di (11)
, (11)

Table 2. Feeder constants under various conductor and insulation materials.

Table 2. Feeder constants under various conductor and insulation materials.

Power Cables Power Cables

◦ C) ◦
Type
Type 𝒌𝒄 kc ßß Type
Type T𝑻
o ( (0C)
𝒐 𝑻𝒅T(0C)
d ( C) Transmission Lines
Transmission Lines
PVCPVC 7070 160
160
Copper
Copper(CU)
(CU) 0.02970.0297 234
234 Insulation XLPE/EPR
Conductor
Conductor Insulation XLPE/EPR 9090 250
250 Type
Type k𝑘
Rubber
Rubber 7575 200
200 AAC/ACAR 132.4235
AAC/ACAR 132.4235
Aluminum
Aluminum (AL)(AL) 0.0125
0.0125 228
228
Paper
Paper 8585 200
200 ACSR
ACSR 170.1179
170.1179

Figure 3. Cable
Figure 3. Cable damage
damage curves
curves with
with various
various constructions.
constructions.

To
To ensure
ensure aa safe
safeoperation,
operation,the the relay
relay should
should triptrip in less
in less timetime
thanthan the equipment
the equipment with-
withstand
stand timetime(𝑡 , ()td,i at the
at) the maximum
maximum fault
fault point,
point, as as shown
shown in in (11)
(11) andand Figure
Figure 4. 4. Therefore,a
Therefore,
apenalty
penaltyterm
term(Δ𝑡 (∆tdi) )isis added
added toto the
the OF
OF to
to satisfy
satisfy this
this constraint.
constraint. It It is
is worth
worth mentioning
mentioning
that
that there is a conflict of constraints in the optimization model of OCR coordination. This
there is a conflict of constraints in the optimization model of OCR coordination. This
represents
represents aa challenging
challenging task task to
to the
the algorithm
algorithm toto pick
pick the
the optimal
optimal settings
settings preserving
preserving all
all
these
these types of constraints.
types of constraints.The Theconflict
conflictappears
appears inin
thethe algorithm’s
algorithm’s attempt
attempt to minimize
to minimize the
the relay operating time besides positioning the tripping curve above the starting or the
inrush curves. Furthermore, the algorithm aims at tripping in less time than the equipment
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 6 of 21

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 6 of 22

relay operating time besides positioning the tripping curve above the starting or the in-
rush curves. Furthermore, the algorithm aims at tripping in less time than the equipment
withstand
withstand time
timealong
alongwith
withpreserving
preservingthe
theminimum
minimumoperating
operatingtime
timeconstraint. Hereinafter,
constraint. Hereinaf-
GBO and and
ter, GBO its behavior concept
its behavior are discussed
concept in brief
are discussed in the
in brief innext section.
the next section.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Equipment
Equipment damage
damage curve
curve with
with aa standard
standard relay
relay CC.
CC.

3. Gradient-Based Optimizer
3. Gradient-Based Optimizer
The optimization techniques
The optimization techniquescan canbebeclassified
classifiedinto intotwo two main
main categories
categories based
based on
on the
the optimization behavior process [33,34]. Gradient-based
optimization behavior process [33,34]. Gradient-based techniques such as Newton’stechniques such as Newton’s
method
method estimate
estimate thethe derivatives
derivatives of of the
the OFOF along
along with
with the
the constraints
constraints by by identifying
identifying an an
extreme point whose gradient equals zero. The second category is
extreme point whose gradient equals zero. The second category is the non-gradient-based the non-gradient-based
approaches
approaches suchsuchasasallallmetaheuristic
metaheuristic algorithms
algorithms that randomly
that randomly generate initial
generate populations,
initial popula-
and
tions, and the optimal solution is attained by updating these search vectors. combines
the optimal solution is attained by updating these search vectors. The GBO The GBO
the principles
combines the of the two techniques
principles by enhancing
of the two techniques byboth exploration
enhancing both and exploitation
exploration phases.
and exploi-
GBO has two main operators: Gradient Search Rule (GSR) that is responsible
tation phases. GBO has two main operators: Gradient Search Rule (GSR) that is responsi- for enhancing
the
ble exploration
for enhancing phase
the for better convergence
exploration phase for in the search
better agents.in
convergence Thetheother operator
search agents.isThe
the
Local Escaping Operator (LEO) that prevents GBO from becoming
other operator is the Local Escaping Operator (LEO) that prevents GBO from becoming trapped in local minima;
more details of the mathematical model of GBO can be found in [32,35,36].
trapped in local minima; more details of the mathematical model of GBO can be found in
[32,35,36].

Xn = Xlower + rand(0, 1) × Xupper − Xlower , n ∈ N (12)
𝑋 =𝑋 + 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(0,1) × 𝑋 −𝑋 ,𝑛 ∈ 𝑁 (12)
GBO starts with the population initialization by randomly generating the initial vectors
according
GBO to (12),with
starts where therand (0, 1) is ainitialization
population random number and 1. Xn the
between 0generating
by randomly represents the
initial vec-
solution at iteration
tors according n, while
to (12), where 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(0,1)
Xlower and Xupper are the boundaries
is a random number betweenof the decision
0 and 1. 𝑋 repre-
variable X.
sents the solution at iteration n, while 𝑋 and 𝑋 are the boundaries of the deci-
sion variable 𝑋. MOD = rand ( 0, 1 ) × ρ b × ( X best − Xn ) (13)

𝑀𝑂𝐷
ρb ==𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(0,1) × α(𝑋− α − 𝑋 )
× 1𝜌) ×
2 × rand(0, (14)
(13)
GSR is deemed as the main brain of GBO as it controls the vector’s movement and
enhances the exploration phase. 𝜌The = Movement
2 × 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(0,1) × 𝛼 − 𝛼 (MoD) of the decision vari-
of Direction (14)
ables can be estimated from (13), where ρb is a random parameter assessed from (14). The
GSR is deemed as the main brain of GBO as it controls the vector’s movement and
term Xbest − Xn expresses the convergence process by moving the current vector Xn into
enhances the exploration phase. The Movement of Direction (𝑀𝑜𝐷) of the decision varia-
the best vector obtained Xbest . The parameter α varies with the number of iterations and its
bles can be estimated from (13), where 𝜌 is a random parameter assessed from (14). The
value is changed at each iteration, as shown in a figure depicted in [32,36].
term 𝑋 − 𝑋 expresses the convergence process by moving the current vector 𝑋 into
the best vector obtained 𝑋 . The parameter2∆X 𝛼 varies
× ƒ( Xwith
n) the number of iterations and
its value is changed at each 1 = Xn −as shown in a figure depicted in [32,36].
Xn+iteration, (15)
ƒ(Yn + ∆X ) − ƒ(Yn − ∆X )
2∆𝑋 × ƒ(𝑋 )
𝑋 =𝑋 − 2∆X × Xn (15)
GSR = rand(0, 1)ƒ(𝑌
× ρ a+×∆𝑋) − ƒ(𝑌 − ∆𝑋) (16)
(Ypn − Yqn + e)
2∆𝑋 × 𝑋
As GBO inspires its procedures from Newton’s method, as expressed in (15), the GSR
𝐺𝑆𝑅 = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(0,1) × 𝜌 × (16)
(𝑌𝑝
performance is improved by calculating it from (16). − the
ρ a is 𝑌𝑞 parameter
+ 𝜖) that balances the
exploration and exploitation phases and varies with the parameter α.


Xrand = Xlower + rand(0, 1) × Xupper − Xlower (17)
 As GBO inspires its procedures from Newton’s method, as expressed in (15), the GSR
performance is improved by calculating it from (16). 𝜌 is the parameter that balances the
exploration and exploitation phases and varies with the parameter 𝛼.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 7 of 22
𝑋 =𝑋 + 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑(0,1) × 𝑋 −𝑋 (17)

𝑋 = 𝐿 × 𝑋 + (1 − 𝐿 ) × 𝑋 (18)
Xkm = L2 × X m
p + (1 − L2 ) × Xrand (18)
To promote the
To promote the efficacy
efficacy of
of the
the proposed
proposed algorithm,
algorithm, the the LEO
LEO is
is implemented
implemented in in the
the
subroutine represented briefly in (17) and (18). 𝑋 is a new solution, while
m 𝑋
subroutine represented briefly in (17) and (18). Xrand is a new solution, while X p is selected is se-
lected randomly over the population m
and 𝑋 is the newest randomly
randomly over the population and Xk is the newest randomly generated vector. L2 is generated vector.
𝐿 is a binary
a binary number
number that that takes
takes a value
a value of 0ofor
0 or 1 basedononthe
1 based therandom
randomassessing
assessing of
of other
parameters for obtaining the global optimal solution. The relations of the other variables
presented in (15)–(18) can be found in detail in [32,36]
[32,36] toto avoid
avoid making
making the
the paper
paper too
toolong.
long.
The general procedures of the GBO are are depicted
depicted in in Figure
Figure 55 [35,36].
[35,36].

Adapt the GBO’s control

parameters , OF and Limits

Initialize a population of individuals

randomly

K=1

Evaluate the fitness of the individuals

Determine the best and worst individuals

Generate integer indices randomly

K=K+1

Update the position of individuals

Determine the position according to

LEO stage

Update the best solution

No
Max. iterations is satisfied

Return the optimal solutions of

relay settings

5. General procedures of the GBO.

Figure 5.
Figure

4. Simulation Results and Discussions

4. Simulation Results and Discussions
The GBO performance is evaluated on two different test cases with various optimiza-
The GBO performance is evaluated on two different test cases with various optimi-
tion models. The first one is the IEEE 15-bus network that is considered as a test bench
zation models. The first one is the IEEE 15-bus network that is considered as a test bench
tackled by several optimization techniques in the literature. The second one is the medium-
tackled by several optimization techniques in the literature. The second one is the me-
voltage distribution portion of the Qarun petroleum company, which is considered an
dium-voltage distribution portion of the Qarun petroleum company, which is considered
isolated network. New microprocessor-based relays are implemented in both networks
an isolated network. New microprocessor-based relays are implemented in both networks
coping with continuous decision variables. The limits of I p are 100% and 150% of the full
load current, while the boundaries of TD are 0.05 s and 1 s, and CTI ranges from 0.2 s to
0.4 s. A tmin of 50 ms is selected as the minimum relay operating time in this research
to emulate most of the recent digital relays. The simulation results are executed in the
MATLAB environment and implemented using a PC with an AMD A8 processor, 6 GB
RAM, and a Windows 10 operating system.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 8 of 22

Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 11 of 2

4.1. Test Case 1: IEEE 15-Bus Test Network
To validate the efficacy of the proposed optimization model, GBO performance is
examined on the IEEE 15-bus network, which is depicted in Figure 6. This highly penetrated
34 42 0.3037 0.5037 0.2000 0.0846 0.2846 0.2000 0.0841 0.2910 0.2069
DG network consists of 6 DGs, 21 lines, 42 relays, and 82 Primary/Backup (P/B) relay
35 25
pairs that are given0.2752 0.4987
along with 0.2235
the fault 0.1130
currents 0.3191
in [41]. 0.2061 settings
The optimized 0.0500of0.3468
DOCRs 0.2968
35 the three
using 28 scenarios
0.2752 are 0.4758 0.2006
tabulated 0.1130
in Table 0.32231 achieves
3. Scenario 0.2093 a0.0500 0.3121 0.2621
fitness function
of 10.2601
36 s
38by optimizing 84 decision variables considering the
0.2508 0.4511 0.2003 0.0901 0.2904 0.2003 0.0794 0.2795 fixed SI tripping curve. 0.2001
In addition, 2.0474 s is the best fitness function obtained by extending the problem to
37 35 0.3008 0.5013 0.2005 0.1173 0.3175 0.2002 0.0521 0.2859 0.2338
optimize 126 decision variables by selecting the best curve between IEC standardized
38 curves.
tripping 40 0.3166
A 0.5168 0.2002
fair comparison between0.1099
GBO and 0.3097
SMA [42] 0.1997 0.1051
is studied and 0.3061
clarifies 0.2011
that39GBO is37an efficient
0.3168 optimizer
0.5166 for 0.1998
solving 0.0989
the DOCR0.3291 0.2302 0.0962
coordination. 0.2959a 0.1997
GBO achieves
notable
40 reduction
41 in the total operating time compared to SMA
0.2915 0.4961 0.2046 0.1067 0.3570 0.2503 0.1030 0.3030 of about 14.3% and 16.5% 0.2000
for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. In scenario 2, some relays trip in a very small time, which
41 31 0.2544 0.5038 0.2494 0.0478 0.2847 0.2369 0.0868 0.2872 0.2003
violates the real network conditions. Therefore, the minimum operating time constraints
are 41 33the optimization
added to 0.2544 0.4542 model0.1998 0.0478
in scenario 0.2479a total
3, attaining 0.2001 0.0868
time of 2.8198 s.0.2910
In this 0.2042
42 Table
context, 39 4 illustrates
0.2410 the 0.4411 0.2001
operating times0.0612 0.2615
of P/B relay pairs0.2002
and their0.0587 0.2590
associated CTI 0.2003
values using
∑ the 19.5582
three scenarios.
37.2361 Moreover,
17.6782GBO attempts
3.5536 all the
21.9888 selectivity
18.4356 constraints
5.4143 24.4764 in 19.0615
all scenarios with diverse convergence characteristics, as depicted in Figure 7.

Figure 6. IEEE 15-bus test network single-line diagram.

Figure 6. IEEE 15-bus test network single-line diagram.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 9 of 22

Table 3. DOCRs optimal settings of IEEE 15-bus test network.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Relay ID
Ip (A) TD (s) Ip (A) TD (s) TCC Ip (A) TD (s) TCC
1 245.2154 0.0769 198.8608 0.0558 EI 200.6693 0.0674 VI
2 242.1648 0.0959 230.0005 0.0512 EI 230.0000 0.0734 VI
3 446.2669 0.0722 326.1272 0.0521 EI 387.1645 0.0548 VI
4 295.0000 0.0986 318.7285 0.0542 EI 407.6785 0.0490 VI
5 345.0000 0.0976 345.1292 0.0467 EI 349.3123 0.0558 EI
6 271.5379 0.0866 263.3328 0.0645 EI 250.0000 0.0739 EI
7 291.3159 0.0881 303.9544 0.0356 EI 271.9109 0.0539 EI
8 501.6190 0.0755 402.4457 0.0434 EI 396.0000 0.0574 VI
9 340.0234 0.0647 297.1377 0.0337 EI 340.4649 0.0374 VI
10 320.6639 0.0857 278.4108 0.0460 EI 293.2507 0.0516 VI
11 402.3677 0.0793 300.0018 0.0782 EI 303.3797 0.0730 VI
12 429.9626 0.0806 336.1315 0.0643 EI 447.4937 0.0542 EI
13 349.1431 0.0704 347.6792 0.0363 VI 357.7547 0.0360 VI
14 288.0940 0.0903 298.0157 0.0405 EI 271.1177 0.0648 VI
15 328.8095 0.0731 247.5089 0.0499 EI 303.5143 0.0538 VI
16 204.1901 0.0797 170.3275 0.0538 EI 209.0682 0.0529 VI
17 134.3431 0.0893 127.1071 0.0720 EI 135.0273 0.0645 VI
18 364.5879 0.0872 330.0068 0.0603 VI 393.5179 0.0755 VI
19 393.5610 0.0720 304.8611 0.0648 EI 333.1832 0.0609 VI
20 495.9189 0.0852 415.0082 0.0614 EI 441.5143 0.0647 VI
21 426.8790 0.0795 380.7279 0.0374 EI 460.0089 0.0638 VI
22 138.4039 0.0916 166.7603 0.0571 VI 137.5225 0.0689 VI
23 300.8530 0.0829 276.7387 0.0512 VI 322.4169 0.0527 VI
24 195.8838 0.0862 174.9163 0.0571 VI 170.0000 0.0648 VI
25 299.2712 0.0796 242.0540 0.0515 EI 266.1785 0.0456 EI
26 303.5105 0.0679 205.0000 0.0664 EI 223.3536 0.0620 VI
27 306.8094 0.0806 239.6638 0.0651 VI 236.8383 0.0602 EI
28 381.8977 0.0783 303.2900 0.0582 EI 300.0001 0.0577 EI
29 620.8050 0.0755 450.4305 0.0525 EI 493.8575 0.0588 VI
30 138.8182 0.0951 137.0251 0.0691 EI 181.7429 0.0564 EI
31 263.4773 0.0816 221.5581 0.0559 VI 220.0000 0.0570 VI
32 255.4869 0.0702 190.0056 0.0426 EI 203.5645 0.0615 VI
33 354.8464 0.0779 299.0247 0.0437 EI 332.4263 0.0538 VI
34 263.2423 0.0829 200.0010 0.0767 EI 217.5601 0.0643 EI
35 323.5058 0.0748 255.6778 0.0602 VI 271.2643 0.0367 EI
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 10 of 22

Table 3. Cont.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Relay ID
Ip (A) TD (s) Ip (A) TD (s) TCC Ip (A) TD (s) TCC
36 353.9631 0.0816 355.4702 0.0550 VI 290.0001 0.0607 VI
37 438.0994 0.0886 400.0012 0.0630 VI 407.2676 0.0421 EI
38 290.5859 0.0724 229.4515 0.0500 EI 246.0091 0.0414 EI
39 264.6272 0.0778 201.6115 0.0613 EI 249.5618 0.0385 EI
40 485.1641 0.0792 489.8822 0.0428 VI 522.3651 0.0382 VI
41 261.9881 0.0748 200.0461 0.0574 EI 252.4027 0.0438 VI
42 269.6373 0.0884 252.0226 0.0548 VI 303.9431 0.0428 VI
OF (s) 10.2601 2.0474 2.8198

Table 4. Operating times of P/B relay pairs and their associated CTI values of IEEE 15-bus
test network.

P/B Relay Pair Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

P B tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s) tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s) tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s)
1 6 0.1946 0.3948 0.2002 0.0135 0.2465 0.2329 0.0534 0.2536 0.2002
2 4 0.2213 0.4217 0.2004 0.0103 0.2117 0.2014 0.0522 0.2521 0.1999
2 16 0.2213 0.4264 0.2050 0.0103 0.2386 0.2284 0.0522 0.2796 0.2275
3 1 0.2260 0.4264 0.2004 0.0281 0.2567 0.2286 0.0797 0.2799 0.2003
3 16 0.2260 0.4264 0.2004 0.0281 0.2386 0.2105 0.0797 0.2796 0.1999
4 7 0.2490 0.4548 0.2058 0.0230 0.2302 0.2072 0.0678 0.2749 0.2071
4 12 0.2490 0.4552 0.2062 0.0230 0.2867 0.2636 0.0678 0.4480 0.3801
4 20 0.2490 0.4549 0.2059 0.0230 0.2734 0.2504 0.0678 0.2823 0.2144
5 2 0.2949 0.4953 0.2004 0.0409 0.2718 0.2309 0.0500 0.3293 0.2793
6 8 0.2603 0.4634 0.2031 0.0515 0.2514 0.1999 0.0532 0.2661 0.2129
6 10 0.2603 0.4810 0.2207 0.0515 0.2517 0.2001 0.0532 0.2533 0.2000
7 10 0.2811 0.4810 0.1999 0.0428 0.2517 0.2089 0.0518 0.2533 0.2015
8 3 0.2309 0.4308 0.1999 0.0257 0.2308 0.2051 0.0713 0.2765 0.2051
8 12 0.2309 0.4552 0.2243 0.0257 0.2867 0.2610 0.0713 0.4480 0.3766
8 20 0.2309 0.4549 0.2240 0.0257 0.2734 0.2477 0.0713 0.2823 0.2109
9 5 0.2054 0.4815 0.2761 0.0278 0.2429 0.2152 0.0660 0.2974 0.2314
9 8 0.2054 0.4634 0.2580 0.0278 0.2514 0.2237 0.0660 0.2661 0.2001
10 14 0.2432 0.4431 0.1999 0.0225 0.2225 0.2000 0.0624 0.2625 0.2001
11 3 0.2277 0.4308 0.2031 0.0300 0.2308 0.2008 0.0740 0.2765 0.2024
11 7 0.2277 0.4548 0.2271 0.0300 0.2302 0.2002 0.0740 0.2749 0.2009
11 20 0.2277 0.4549 0.2272 0.0300 0.2734 0.2434 0.0740 0.2823 0.2082
12 13 0.2421 0.4418 0.1997 0.0332 0.2414 0.2082 0.0500 0.2499 0.1999
12 24 0.2421 0.4419 0.1998 0.0332 0.2331 0.1999 0.0500 0.2552 0.2053
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 11 of 22

Table 4. Cont.

P/B Relay Pair Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

P B tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s) tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s) tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s)
13 9 0.2117 0.4119 0.2002 0.0558 0.2561 0.2003 0.0571 0.2569 0.1999
14 11 0.2217 0.4216 0.1999 0.0136 0.2698 0.2562 0.0547 0.2552 0.2004
14 24 0.2217 0.4419 0.2203 0.0136 0.2331 0.2195 0.0547 0.2552 0.2005
15 1 0.1871 0.4264 0.2392 0.0111 0.2567 0.2457 0.0500 0.2799 0.2300
15 4 0.1871 0.4217 0.2346 0.0111 0.2117 0.2006 0.0500 0.2521 0.2021
16 18 0.2280 0.4685 0.2405 0.0254 0.2713 0.2460 0.0741 0.4332 0.3591
16 26 0.2280 0.4306 0.2026 0.0254 0.2874 0.2620 0.0741 0.2742 0.2001
17 15 0.2308 0.4684 0.2376 0.0266 0.2788 0.2522 0.0676 0.3310 0.2634
17 26 0.2308 0.4306 0.1998 0.0266 0.2874 0.2608 0.0676 0.2742 0.2066
18 19 0.1884 0.3983 0.2099 0.0332 0.2692 0.2361 0.0500 0.2639 0.2139
18 22 0.1884 0.4117 0.2233 0.0332 0.2704 0.2372 0.0500 0.2537 0.2037
18 30 0.1884 0.4117 0.2233 0.0332 0.2331 0.1999 0.0500 0.3458 0.2958
19 3 0.2123 0.4308 0.2186 0.0303 0.2308 0.2004 0.0748 0.2765 0.2017
19 7 0.2123 0.4548 0.2426 0.0303 0.2302 0.1999 0.0748 0.2749 0.2001
19 12 0.2123 0.4552 0.2430 0.0303 0.2867 0.2564 0.0748 0.4480 0.3732
20 17 0.2118 0.4118 0.1999 0.0145 0.2715 0.2570 0.0534 0.2534 0.2000
20 22 0.2118 0.4117 0.1999 0.0145 0.2704 0.2559 0.0534 0.2537 0.2003
20 30 0.2118 0.4117 0.1999 0.0145 0.2331 0.2187 0.0534 0.3458 0.2923
21 17 0.1815 0.4118 0.2303 0.0062 0.2715 0.2653 0.0500 0.2534 0.2034
21 19 0.1815 0.3983 0.2168 0.0062 0.2692 0.2631 0.0500 0.2639 0.2139
21 30 0.1815 0.4117 0.2302 0.0062 0.2331 0.2269 0.0500 0.3458 0.2958
22 23 0.2362 0.4860 0.2498 0.0721 0.2722 0.2001 0.0706 0.3492 0.2785
22 34 0.2362 0.4389 0.2027 0.0721 0.2723 0.2003 0.0706 0.2723 0.2016
23 11 0.2020 0.4216 0.2195 0.0413 0.2698 0.2286 0.0500 0.2552 0.2052
23 13 0.2020 0.4418 0.2398 0.0413 0.2414 0.2002 0.0500 0.2499 0.1999
24 21 0.2391 0.4858 0.2467 0.0635 0.2690 0.2054 0.0700 0.4572 0.3872
24 34 0.2391 0.4389 0.1998 0.0635 0.2723 0.2088 0.0700 0.2723 0.2023
25 15 0.2682 0.4684 0.2002 0.0466 0.2788 0.2322 0.0500 0.3310 0.2810
25 18 0.2682 0.4685 0.2003 0.0466 0.2713 0.2247 0.0500 0.4332 0.3832
26 28 0.2301 0.4758 0.2457 0.0426 0.3223 0.2797 0.0900 0.3121 0.2221
26 36 0.2301 0.4944 0.2643 0.0426 0.3501 0.3075 0.0900 0.2902 0.2002
27 25 0.2945 0.4987 0.2043 0.1189 0.3191 0.2002 0.0677 0.3468 0.2791
27 36 0.2945 0.4944 0.1999 0.1189 0.3501 0.2312 0.0677 0.2902 0.2225
28 29 0.2846 0.4844 0.1998 0.0682 0.2713 0.2032 0.0661 0.2941 0.2280
28 32 0.2846 0.4844 0.1998 0.0682 0.2737 0.2055 0.0661 0.3426 0.2765
29 17 0.1983 0.4118 0.2135 0.0123 0.2715 0.2592 0.0500 0.2534 0.2034
29 19 0.1983 0.3983 0.2000 0.0123 0.2692 0.2570 0.0500 0.2639 0.2139
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 12 of 22

Table 4. Cont.

P/B Relay Pair Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

P B tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s) tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s) tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI(s)
29 22 0.1983 0.4117 0.2134 0.0123 0.2704 0.2581 0.0500 0.2537 0.2037
30 27 0.2568 0.4569 0.2001 0.0346 0.2634 0.2288 0.0500 0.2638 0.2138
30 32 0.2568 0.4844 0.2276 0.0346 0.2737 0.2390 0.0500 0.3426 0.2926
31 27 0.2338 0.4569 0.2232 0.0632 0.2634 0.2002 0.0639 0.2638 0.1999
31 29 0.2338 0.4844 0.2507 0.0632 0.2713 0.2081 0.0639 0.2941 0.2302
32 33 0.2299 0.4542 0.2243 0.0290 0.2479 0.2189 0.0906 0.2910 0.2004
32 42 0.2299 0.5037 0.2738 0.0290 0.2846 0.2556 0.0906 0.2910 0.2004
33 21 0.2860 0.4858 0.1998 0.0598 0.2690 0.2091 0.1224 0.4572 0.3348
33 23 0.2860 0.4860 0.2000 0.0598 0.2722 0.2123 0.1224 0.3492 0.2268
34 31 0.3037 0.5038 0.2001 0.0846 0.2847 0.2002 0.0841 0.2872 0.2031
34 42 0.3037 0.5037 0.2000 0.0846 0.2846 0.2000 0.0841 0.2910 0.2069
35 25 0.2752 0.4987 0.2235 0.1130 0.3191 0.2061 0.0500 0.3468 0.2968
35 28 0.2752 0.4758 0.2006 0.1130 0.3223 0.2093 0.0500 0.3121 0.2621
36 38 0.2508 0.4511 0.2003 0.0901 0.2904 0.2003 0.0794 0.2795 0.2001
37 35 0.3008 0.5013 0.2005 0.1173 0.3175 0.2002 0.0521 0.2859 0.2338
38 40 0.3166 0.5168 0.2002 0.1099 0.3097 0.1997 0.1051 0.3061 0.2011
39 37 0.3168 0.5166 0.1998 0.0989 0.3291 0.2302 0.0962 0.2959 0.1997
40 41 0.2915 0.4961 0.2046 0.1067 0.3570 0.2503 0.1030 0.3030 0.2000
41 31 0.2544 0.5038 0.2494 0.0478 0.2847 0.2369 0.0868 0.2872 0.2003
41 33 0.2544 0.4542 0.1998 0.0478 0.2479 0.2001 0.0868 0.2910 0.2042
42 39 0.2410 0.4411 0.2001 0.0612 0.2615 0.2002 0.0587 0.2590 0.2003
∑ 19.5582 Figure
37.23616. IEEE
17.678215-bus
3.5536test21.9888
network single-line
18.4356 5.4143 diagram.
24.4764 19.0615

Figure 7. OF convergence of IEEE 15-bus test network.

Figure 7. OF convergence of IEEE 15-bus test network.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 12 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 13 of 22

4.2. Test Case 2: Qarun Test Network

4.2. Test Case 2: Qarun Test Network
The single-line diagram of this network is implemented using Electrical Transient
The single-line
Analyzer Program diagram of this network
(ETAP) software is implemented
[43], as shown in Figure using
8. ThisElectrical
network Transient
consists of
Analyzer
two 4 MW, 0.8 PF generators connected to a main 3.3 kV sectionalized network
Program (ETAP) software [43], as shown in Figure 8. This consists
busbar with a nor-
of two 4 MW, 0.8 PF generators connected to a main 3.3 kV sectionalized busbar with a
mally open bus coupler. In addition, it consists of eight Dyn11 distribution transformers
normally open bus coupler. In addition, it consists of eight Dyn11 distribution transformers
with an inrush current magnitude of 8 per unit continuing for 100 ms. The starting current
with an inrush current magnitude of 8 per unit continuing for 100 ms. The starting current
of oil-well medium-voltage motors is 5 per unit, continuing for 3 s, and they have a stalling
of oil-well medium-voltage motors is 5 per unit, continuing for 3 s, and they have a stalling
time of 33 s. All cables in this network are CU conductors with XLPE insulation. The sys-
time of 33 s. All cables in this network are CU conductors with XLPE insulation. The
tem data regarding all elements including generators, transformers, feeders, motors, and
system data regarding all elements including generators, transformers, feeders, motors,
MCCs (Motor Control Centers) are given in Appendix A (see Tables A1–A5).
and MCCs (Motor Control Centers) are given in Appendix A (see Tables A1–A5).

Figure8.8.Qarun
Figure Qaruntest
testnetwork
networksingle-line
single-linediagram.
diagram.

This network consists of 16 OCRS with 14 P/B relay pairs. The symmetrical three-
This network consists of 16 OCRS with 14 P/B relay pairs. The symmetrical three-
phase and two-phase fault currents are given in Table 5, while the initial load flow currents
phase and two-phase fault currents are given in Table 5, while the initial load flow cur-
are given in Table 6. These power system studies are performed using ETAP software
rents are given in Table 6. These power system studies are performed using ETAP soft-
considering only the worst-case faults as inputs to the optimization model, i.e., three-phase
ware considering only the worst-case faults as inputs to the optimization model, i.e., three-
fault currents. Motors’ starting and stall times are obtained through the manufacturer’s rec-
phase fault currents. Motors’ starting and stall times are obtained through the manufac-
ommendation, while the transformers’ LTE is assumed to be 1250 per unit, according to [35].
turer’s recommendation, while the transformers’ LTE is assumed to be 1250 per unit, ac-
The formulation comprises 128 discrepant inequality constraints including 48 constraints
cording
related to to [35].settings.
OCR The formulation comprises
Furthermore, 12814
there are discrepant inequality
selectivity constraints
constraints, including
16 minimum op-
48 constraints
erating related toand
time constraints, OCR24settings.
transientFurthermore, there are This
condition constraints. 14 selectivity constraints,
optimization problem16
minimum
also containsoperating time damage
26 equipment constraints,
curveand 24 transient
constraints; 14 condition constraints.
of them concern This optimi-
the power cables
zation problem also contains
that are fulfilled by default. 26 equipment damage curve constraints; 14 of them concern
the power cables that are fulfilled by default.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 14 of 22

Table 5. Fault currents passing through P/B relay pairs of Qarun test network.

P/B Relay Pair 3-Phase Fault 2-Phase Fault

P B Ifp (kA) Ifb (kA) Ifp (kA) Ifb (kA)
2 1 6.174 4.537 5.567 4.045
3 1 6.211 4.317 5.565 3.836
4 1 5.712 3.97 5.101 3.516
5 1 6.349 4.535 5.716 4.043
6 1 4.865 3.493 4.293 3.086
7 1 4.865 3.493 4.298 3.083
8 5 0.945 3.15 0.834 3.209
10 9 6.185 4.531 5.548 4.041
11 9 6.367 4.535 5.705 4.044
12 9 6.442 4.464 5.759 3.977
13 9 4.869 3.484 4.287 3.081
14 9 5.656 4.008 5.03 3.549
15 9 5.812 4.078 5.147 3.62
16 11 0.946 3.154 0.833 3.206

Table 6. OCRs optimal settings of Qarun test network.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Relay ID Ifl (A) TCC TCC
Ip (A) TD (s) Ip (A) TD (s)
Curve IEC IEEE Curve IEC IEEE
1 628.3 707.0480 0.3356 VI 5 X 779.6370 0.3040 VI 5 X
2 180.8 180.8000 0.2147 VI X 5 269.4136 0.5192 EI 5 X
3 68 91.8804 0.3239 EI X 5 91.5472 0.7414 EI 5 X
4 68 88.8047 0.3466 EI X 5 91.9678 0.5890 EI 5 X
5 106 122.5999 0.4077 VI X 5 137.8547 0.4262 VI X 5
6 103.9 142.2529 0.9076 EI X 5 144.7595 0.9375 EI X 5
7 103.9 143.2030 0.8946 EI X 5 147.0365 0.8538 EI X 5
8 31.8 31.8000 0.1000 EI X 5 41.4839 0.1000 VI X 5
9 663.9 881.5404 0.2451 VI 5 X 866.5552 0.2168 MI 5 X
10 180.9 267.8911 0.5228 EI 5 X 269.8280 0.3294 EI X 5
11 106.3 120.0446 0.4168 VI X 5 146.3529 0.3806 VI X 5
12 67.8 88.9917 0.6138 EI 5 X 73.8600 0.7654 EI 5 X
13 103.9 141.1091 0.9240 EI X 5 151.3325 0.8243 EI X 5
14 135.9 165.2193 0.4009 EI X 5 166.0149 0.7253 EI X 5
15 71.5 105.8773 0.7745 EI X 5 107.2474 0.9999 EI X 5
16 31.9 31.9000 0.1000 EI X 5 46.1682 0.2648 EI 5 X
TOT (s) 0.7381 1.0387

The proposed optimization model mentioned in Section 2 is run and solved using
GBO for this test case with two scenarios. The settings of recent digital relays are optimized
with extracting the optimal tripping curve among IEC and IEEE standardized curves, as
illustrated in Table 6. Scenario 1 achieves a TOT of 0.7381 s while Scenario 2 achieves a
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 15 of 22

TOT of 1.0387 s with zero boundary and selectivity constraints violations in both scenarios.
Table 7 clarifies the operating times of P/B relay pairs, CTI values, and their associated
operating constraints for scenario 1. It can be noted that there are six violations in the
minimum operating time constraint found in relay pairs 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, and 14. Therefore,
the optimization problem becomes more complicated by adding an extra 14 minimum
operating time constraints in Scenario 2.

Table 7. P/B relay pairs operating times and their associated constraint values of Qarun test network
for scenario 1.

P/B Relay Pair ∆tt (s)= ∆td (s)=

Relay Pair ID tpr (s) tbr (s) CTI (s) trt (s) td (s)
P B trt −tt td −tpr
1 2 1 0.0874 0.3286 0.2411 0.2002 0.1002 4.0142 3.9268
2 3 1 0.0057 0.3462 0.3405 0.1999 0.0999 0.5581 0.5525
3 4 1 0.0067 0.3804 0.3737 0.1998 0.0998 0.6600 0.6533
4 5 1 0.1084 0.3287 0.2204 0.1999 0.0999 5.9320 5.8237
5 6 1 0.0621 0.4459 0.3838 5.9974 2.9974 0.3698 0.3077
6 7 1 0.0621 0.4459 0.3839 5.9973 2.9973 0.3698 0.3077
7 8 5 0.0091 0.2229 0.2138 - - - -
8 10 9 0.0913 0.3094 0.2181 0.1999 0.0999 4.0000 3.9086
9 11 9 0.1081 0.3091 0.2010 0.1999 0.0999 5.8986 5.7905
10 12 9 0.0780 0.3154 0.2374 0.1999 0.0999 0.5188 0.4409
11 13 9 0.0621 0.4491 0.3870 6.0000 3.0000 0.3691 0.3070
12 14 9 0.0274 0.3647 0.3373 0.2000 0.1000 2.6899 2.6625
13 15 9 0.0206 0.3560 0.3354 5.9975 2.9975 0.1240 0.1035
14 16 11 0.0091 0.2226 0.2135 - - - -
∑ 0.7381 4.8249 4.0869

Scenario 2 achieves better results than Scenario 1 by canceling the violations in the
minimum operating time constraint in all pairs except for pair 13. Moreover, the transient
condition constraints are improved by expanding the time difference gap, as declared in
pairs 2, 4, 5, and 13 and clarified in Table 8. It can be observed that there are no equipment
damage curve violations in both scenarios, as declared in Tables 7 and 8. Pair 13 represents
a challenge to the algorithm in bounding the tripping time between tmin of 50 ms and td of
124 ms. It is violated in both scenarios by obtaining a very small primary relay tripping
time of 20.6 ms in scenario 1 and 27.2 ms in scenario 2. In this context, Figure 9 depicts a
TCC sample of a motor feeder with some current time indications, as shown using scenario
2 settings.
The OF values and statistical measures obtained using GBO, PSO, and WCA are
reported in Table 9, while the settings using PSO and WCA are not reported, to avoid
making the paper too long. It is clear that GBO achieves a notable reduction in the OF value
and better convergence compared to PSO and WCA, as declared in Figures 10 and 11. The
data tips shown in these figures are related to the minimum obtained OF value through
whole iterations using GBO. There is a slight difference between OF and TOT values due
to some violations in the operating constraints, which are multiplied by large factors, as
declared in Table 9.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 16 of 22

Table 8. P/B relay pairs operating times and their associated constraint values of Qarun test network
for scenario 2.

Relay Pair ID
P/B Relay Pair
tpr (s) ∆tt (s)= ∆td (s)=
tbr (s) CTI (s) trt (s) td (s)
P B trt −tt td −tpr

1 2 1 0.0911 0.3307 0.2395 0.2001 0.1001 4.0142 3.9231

2 3 1 0.0948 0.3503 0.2555 0.2504 0.1504 0.5581 0.4634
3 4 1 0.0760 0.3884 0.3124 0.2001 0.1001 0.6600 0.5840
4 5 1 0.1277 0.3308 0.2031 0.2360 0.1360 5.9320 5.8044
5 6 1 0.0665 0.4618 0.3954 6.4341 3.4341 0.3698 0.3033
6 7 1 0.0624 0.4618 0.3994 6.0619 3.0619 0.3698 0.3073
7 8 5 0.0620 0.2633 0.2013 - - - -
8 10 9 0.0502 0.3566 0.3064 0.2472 0.1472 4.0000 3.9497
9 11 9 0.1209 0.3565 0.2356 0.2243 0.1243 5.8986 5.7777
10 12 9 0.0960 0.3597 0.2637 0.2005 0.1005 0.5188 0.4229
11 13 9 0.0638 0.4204 0.3566 6.2322 3.2322 0.3691 0.3054
12 14 9 0.0500 0.3837 0.3336 0.3653 0.2653 2.6899 2.6399
Sustainability 2022,
1314, 2761 15 9 0.0272 0.3796 0.3524 7.9646 4.9646 15 of 21
0.1240 0.0968
14 16 11 0.0501 0.2500 0.2000 - - - -
∑ 1.0387 5.0936 4.0549

Figure 9. TCC sample of a motor feeder using scenario 2 settings.

Figure 9. TCC sample of a motor feeder using scenario 2 settings.

Table 8. P/B relay pairs operating times and their associated constraint values of Qarun test network
for scenario 2.
 to some violations in the operating constraints, which are multiplied
declared in Table 9.
declared in Table 9.
Table 9. Performance measures of GBO compared to PSO and WCA in Qarun
Table 9. Performance measures of GBO compared to PSO and WCA in Qarun
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 17 of 22
Scenario 1
Scenario 1
TOT Min Max9. Performance
Mean Median SD 𝑾𝑭
and WCA 𝑾𝑭
𝑾𝑭
𝒎 test 𝒄 𝑾𝑭𝒕 𝑾𝑭𝒅
TOT Min Table
Max Meanmeasures of GBO compared to PSO
Median SD in Qarun
𝒎 𝑾𝑭 network.
𝒄 𝑾𝑭𝒕 𝑾𝑭𝒅
Scenario 1
GBO 0.7381 0.7385 1.2336 1.0116 1.0396 0.1774 0 1000 1000 1000
GBO 0.7381 0.7385 Min 1.2336
TOT Max Mean1.0116
Median 1.0396
SD WFm WF0.1774
c WFt 0d
WF 1000 Time
Elapsed 1000
(s) 1000
PSO 1.1614
GBO
1.1610
0.7381
3036.6235 1126.6009 40.2700 1532.762 0 1000 1000 1000
PSO 1.1614 1.16100.73853036.6235
1.2336 1.0116 1.0396
1126.6009 0.1774
40.2700 0 1000 1000
1532.762 10000
0 185.9983
1000 1000 1000
WCA 1.0614
PSO 1.06191.1610 42.7392
1.1614 3036.6235 12.9535
1126.6009 40.2700 1.2226 0 18.3029
1532.762 1000 1000 0
10000 1000 1000
227.2286 1000
WCA 1.0614 1.0619 42.7392 12.9535 1.2226 18.3029 0 1000 1000 1000
WCA 1.0614 1.0619 42.7392 12.9535 1.2226 Scenario
18.3029 0 21000 1000 10000 400.4712
Scenario 2
GBO 1.0387 3.3137 4.3728 3.6892 Scenario3.4044
2
0.4815 100 10 10 100
GBO 1.0387
GBO 3.31373.3137
1.0387 4.3728
4.3728 3.6892
3.6892 3.4044 3.4044
0.4815 100 0.4815
10 10 100
100 10175.8350 10 100
PSO 1.3181 3.9370 35.1902 10.3495 4.2033 13.8870 100 10 10 100
PSO 1.3181
PSO 3.93703.9370 35.1902
1.3181 35.1902 10.3495
10.3495 4.2033 4.2033 100 13.8870
13.8870 10 10 100
100 10176.1993 10 100
WCA 1.1281 3.4031 4.7424 4.1908 4.2593 0.4858 100 10420.3673 10 100
WCA 1.1281
WCA 3.40313.4031 4.7424
1.1281 4.7424 4.1908
4.1908 4.2593 4.2593 100 0.4858
0.4858 10 10 100
100 10 10 100

Figure
Figure 10. 10. Scenario
Scenario 1 OF convergence
1 OF convergence of Qarun
test network.
of Qarun test network.
Figure 10. Scenario 1 OF convergence of Qarun test network.

Figure
Figure Scenario
11. 11. 2 OF convergence
Scenario of Qarun test network.
2 OF convergence of Qarun
test network.
Figure 11. Scenario 2 OF convergence of Qarun test network.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 18 of 22

5. Conclusions
This work represents a forward step in the optimization model of overcurrent relay
coordination by solving the practical technical problems facing the protection engineers.
This model aims to eliminate the false tripping actions due to energizing inductive equip-
ment such as transformers and motors. Moreover, it is ensured that the OCR will trip
before the breakdown of the protected equipment with preserving the minimum operating
time condition for each commercial relay. First, the effectiveness of the proposed GBO is
interrogated by a fair comparison with SMA for solving the IEEE 15-bus network using
various scenarios. In this regard, GBO manifests its superiority by attaining a reduction in
the total operating time of 14.3% and 16.5% for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Afterward,
the proposed optimization model is applied on the medium voltage distribution network
of the Qarun petroleum company, which is deemed as an isolated network. GBO achieves
a notable reduction in the TOT compared to PSO and WCA with better OF convergence.
Moreover, GBO employs the tradeoff technique between the problem constraints with
a very low number of violations. Consequently, GBO exhibits only one minimum time
constraint violation and zero equipment damage curve constraint violations for Scenario 2.
Although scenario 2 complicates the optimization problem, it attains better and feasible
results than Scenario 1. Eventually, this model paves the way for researchers to develop
and augment the overcurrent relay coordination problem.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, A.D., M.M.E. and

A.E.-F.; formal analysis, A.D.; investigation, data curation, A.D., M.M.E. and A.E.-F.; writing—original
draft preparation, A.D.; writing—review and editing; visualization, supervision, M.M.E. and A.E.-F.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All the data have been described in the text.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. (Qarun Test Network Data)

Table A1. Generator data.

0
ID Xd” (%) Xd (%) Xd(%)
Gen A and B 19 28 155

Table A2. Transformer data.

ID Rating (kVA) Impedance (%)

TR1, 6 2500 7
TR2, 3, 7 750 6
TR4, 5 2000 6
TR8 1500 6

Table A3. Motor data.

ID Rating (HP) Irated (A)

Shipping Pumps: (A), (B), (C) 600 103
Disposal Pump 400 71.29
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 19 of 22

Table A4. Feeder data.

ID Length (m) Area (mm2 ) Number of Parallel Conductors

F 1_A 45 240 3
F A_2 40 240 1
F A_3 180 120 1
F A_4 530 240 1
F A_5 80 240 2
F A_6 800 120 1
F A_7 800 120 1
F 9_B 45 240 3
F B_10 45 240 1
F B_11 80 240 2
F B_12 80 120 1
F B_13 800 120 1
F B_14 800 120 2
F B_15 340 120 1

Table A5. MCC data.

ID Vrated (kV) kW kVAr

MCC of Bus A 0.4 867 537.3
Industrial Area 0.4 325.5 201.8
Storage MCC 0.4 325.5 201.8
MCC of Bus B 0.4 867 537.3
Utility MCC 0.4 324.7 201.2
Camp Supply 0.4 650.3 403
Qarun OHTL 1 11 555.3 233.9
Qarun OHTL 2 11 556.5 235.4
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 20 of 22

Abbreviations

Directional Over-Current
DOCRs TOT Total Operating Time
Relays
CTI Coordination Time Interval SI Standard Inverse
TCC Time Current Characteristic VI Very Inverse
International Electrotechnical
IEC EI Extremely Inverse
Commission
CCs Characteristics LI Long Inverse
LP Linear Programming MI Moderately Inverse
NLP Non-Linear Programming LTE Let Through Energy
Mixed Integer Linear
MILP AAC All Aluminum Conductor
Programming
Aluminum Conductor Alloy
CSA Cuckoo Search Algorithm ACAR
Reinforced
Aluminum Conductor Steel
DGs Distributed Generators ACSR
Reinforced
OFs Objective Functions GSR Gradient Search Rule
GBO Gradient-Based Optimizer LEO Local Escaping Operator
SMA Slime Mold Algorithm P/B Primary/Backup
Electrical Transient Analyzer
PSO Particle Swarm Optimizer ETAP
Program
WCA Water Cycle Algorithm MCCs Motor Control Centers
Ip pickup current tbri backup relay operating time
minimum tripping time of
TD time dial tmin,i
relay i
tri relay operating time Istarting starting current
relay operating time at the
a, b, and c tripping equation constants trt,i
transient current
motor starting time or the
If fault current tt,i transformer inrush current
period
i relay identifier td,i equipment withstand time
j relay pair identifier A cross-sectional area
M total number of primary relays To initial temperature
number of relays subjected to
M1 Td final temperature
transient conditions constraints
number of relays subjected to
M2 equipment damage curve k constant
constraints
K relay pairs number Xn solution at iteration n
∆t j , ∆tmi ,
boundaries of the decision
∆tti , ∆tdi penalties added to the OF Xlower ,Xupper
variable X
WFm , WFc ,
WFt , WFd adjusting weighing factors MoD movement of direction
minimum values of I p , TD ,
I pmin,i , TDmin,i ρ a , ρb random parameters
respectively
maximum values of I p , TD ,
I pmax,i , TDmax,i Xbest best vector obtained
respectively
the newest randomly
CTImin minimum value of CTI Xkm
generated vector
CTImax maximum value of CTI L2 binary number
t pri primary relay operating time
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 21 of 22

References
1. 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, 1810–1820. [CrossRef]
2. Alkaran, D.S.; Vatani, M.R.; Sanjari, M.J.; Gharehpetian, G.B.; Naderi, M.S. Optimal overcurrent relay coordination in intercon-
nected networks by using fuzzy-based GA method. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2018, 9, 3091–3101. [CrossRef]
3. Kida, A.A.; Rivas, A.E.L.; Gallego, L.A. An improved simulated annealing–linear programming hybrid algorithm applied to the
optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 181, 106197. [CrossRef]
4. IEC 60255; Electrical Relays. Part 3: Single Input Energizing Quantity Measuring Relays with Dependent or Independent Time.
Advanced Test Equipment Corporation: San Diego, CA, USA, 1989.
5. IEEE C37.112-2018; IEEE Standard for Inverse-Time Characteristics Equations for Overcurrent Relays. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
6. Korashy, A.; Kamel, S.; Alquthami, T.; Jurado, F. Optimal Coordination of Standard and Non-Standard Direction Overcurrent
Relays Using an Improved Moth-Flame Optimization. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 87378–87392. [CrossRef]
7. Papaspiliotopoulos, V.A.; Korres, G.N.; Maratos, N.G. A Novel Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming Method for
Optimal Coordination of Directional Overcurrent Relays. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2015, 32, 3–10. [CrossRef]
8. Damchi, Y.; Dolatabadi, M.; Mashhadi, H.R.; Sadeh, J. MILP approach for optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays
in interconnected power systems. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2018, 158, 267–274. [CrossRef]
9. Shrivastava, A.; Tripathi, J.M.; Krishan, R.; Parida, S. Optimal Coordination of Overcurrent Relays using Gravitational Search
Algorithm with DG Penetration. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2018, 54, 1155–1165. [CrossRef]
10. Dehghanpour, E.; Karegar, H.K.; Kheirollahi, R.; Soleymani, T. Optimal Coordination of Directional Overcurrent Relays in
Microgrids by Using Cuckoo-Linear Optimization Algorithm and Fault Current Limiter. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 9,
1365–1375. [CrossRef]
11. Sharaf, H.M.; Zeineldin, H.H.; El-Saadany, E.F. Protection Coordination for Microgrids With Grid-Connected and Islanded
Capabilities Using Communication Assisted Dual Setting Directional Overcurrent Relays. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 9, 143–151.
[CrossRef]
12. Asl, S.A.F.; Gandomkar, M.; Nikoukar, J. Optimal protection coordination in the micro-grid including inverter-based distributed
generations and energy storage system with considering grid-connected and islanded modes. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020,
184, 106317. [CrossRef]
13. Yazdaninejadi, A.; Golshannavaz, S.; Nazarpour, D.; Teimourzadeh, S.; Aminifar, F. Dual-Setting Directional Overcurrent Relays
for Protecting Automated Distribution Networks. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 2018, 15, 730–740. [CrossRef]
14. Beder, H.; Mohandes, B.; el Moursi, M.S.; Badran, E.A.; el Saadawi, M.M. A new communication-free dual setting protection
coordination of microgrid. IEEE Trans. Power Deliver. 2021, 36, 2446–2458. [CrossRef]
15. Zeineldin, H.H.; Sharaf, H.M.; Ibrahim, D.; El-Zahab, E.E.-D.A. Optimal Protection Coordination for Meshed Distribution Systems
With DG Using Dual Setting Directional Over-Current Relays. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 6, 115–123. [CrossRef]
16. Farzinfar, M.; Jazaeri, M. A novel methodology in optimal setting of directional fault current limiter and protection of the MG. Int.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 116, 105564. [CrossRef]
17. Elmitwally, A.; Kandil, M.S.; Gouda, E.; Amer, A. Mitigation of DGs Impact on Variable-Topology Meshed Network Protection
System by Optimal Fault Current Limiters Considering Overcurrent Relay Coordination. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 186, 106417.
[CrossRef]
18. Sadeghi, M.H.; Dastfan, A.; Damchi, Y. Optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays in distribution systems with DGs
and FCLs considering voltage sag energy index. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 191, 106884. [CrossRef]
19. Draz, A.; Elkholy, M.M.; El-Fergany, A.A. Soft Computing Methods for Attaining the Protective Device Coordination Including
Renewable Energies: Review and Prospective. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021, 28, 4383–4404. [CrossRef]
20. Mahboubkhah, A.; Talavat, V.; Beiraghi, M. Considering transient state in interconnected networks during fault for coordination
of directional overcurrent relays. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 186, 106413. [CrossRef]
21. Entekhabi-Nooshabadi, A.M.; Hashemi-Dezaki, H.; Taher, S.A. Optimal microgrid’s protection coordination considering N-1
contingency and optimum relay characteristics. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 98, 106741. [CrossRef]
22. El-Fergany, A.A.; Hasanien, H. Water cycle algorithm for optimal overcurrent relays coordination in electric power systems. Soft
Comput. 2019, 23, 12761–12778. [CrossRef]
23. Alkaran, D.S.; Vatani, M.R.; Sanjari, M.J.; Gharehpetian, G.B.; Yatim, A.H. Overcurrent Relays Coordination in Interconnected
Networks Using Accurate Analytical Method and Based on Determination of Fault Critical Point. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2015,
30, 870–877. [CrossRef]
24. Ojaghi, M.; Mohammadi, V. Use of Clustering to Reduce the Number of Different Setting Groups for Adaptive Coordination of
Overcurrent Relays. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2017, 33, 1204–1212. [CrossRef]
25. Saleh, K.A.; Zeineldin, H.H.; Al-Hinai, A.; El-Saadany, E.F. Optimal Coordination of Directional Overcurrent Relays Using a New
Time–Current–Voltage Characteristic. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2014, 30, 537–544. [CrossRef]
26. Aghdam, T.S.; Karegar, H.K.; Zeineldin, H.H. Optimal Coordination of Double-Inverse Overcurrent Relays for Stable Operation
of DGs. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 2018, 15, 183–192. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2761 22 of 22

27. Dolatabadi, M.; Damchi, Y. Graph Theory Based Heuristic Approach for Minimum Break Point Set Determination in Large Scale
Power Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2019, 34, 963–970. [CrossRef]
28. Ghotbi-Maleki, M.; Chabanloo, R.M.; Ebadi, M.A.; Savaghebi, M. Determination of optimal breakpoint set of overcurrent relays
using modified depth-first search and mixed-integer linear programming. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2020, 14, 5607–5616.
[CrossRef]
29. Damchi, Y.; Dolatabadi, M. Hybrid VNS–LP algorithm for online optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays. IET
Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2020, 14, 5447–5455. [CrossRef]
30. El-Fergany, A.A.; Hasanien, H.M. Optimized settings of directional overcurrent relays in meshed power networks using stochastic
fractal search algorithm. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2017, 27, e2395. [CrossRef]
31. El-Fergany, A. Optimal directional digital overcurrent relays coordination and arc-flash hazard assessments in meshed networks.
Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2015, 26, 134–154. [CrossRef]
32. Ahmadianfar, I.; Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Chu, X. Gradient-based optimizer: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Inf. Sci.
2020, 540, 131–159. [CrossRef]
33. Mahdinia, S.; Rezaie, M.; Elveny, M.; Ghadimi, N.; Razmjooy, N. Optimization of PEMFC Model Parameters Using Meta-
Heuristics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12771. [CrossRef]
34. Dehghani, M.; Ghiasi, M.; Niknam, T.; Kavousi-Fard, A.; Shasadeghi, M.; Ghadimi, N.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Blockchain-
Based Securing of Data Exchange in a Power Transmission System Considering Congestion Management and Social Welfare.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 90. [CrossRef]
35. Rizk-Allah, R.M.; El-Fergany, A.A. Effective coordination settings for directional overcurrent relay using hybrid Gradient-based
optimizer. Appl. Soft Comput. 2021, 112, 107748. [CrossRef]
36. Eelsayed, S.K.; Agwa, A.; Elattar, E.E.E.; El-Fergany, A. Steady-State Modelling of Pem Fuel Cells Using Gradient-Based Optimizer.
DYNA—Ing. Ind. 2021, 96, 520–527. [CrossRef]
37. El-Kordy, M.; El-Fergany, A.; Gawad, A.F.A. Various Metaheuristic-Based Algorithms for Optimal Relay Coordination: Review
and Prospective. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021, 28, 3621–3629. [CrossRef]
38. IEEE Std 242-2001; IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2001.
39. IEC 60364-4-43; Low Voltage Electrical Installations Part 4-43: Protection for safety-protection against overcurrent. International
Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
40. IEEE C57.12.01-2015; IEEE Standard for General Requirements for Dry-Type Distribution and Power Transformers. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
41. Alam, M.N.; Das, B.; Pant, V. A comparative study of metaheuristic optimization approaches for directional overcurrent relays
coordination. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2015, 128, 39–52. [CrossRef]
42. Draz, A.; Elkholy, M.M.; El-Fergany, A.A. Slime mould algorithm constrained by the relay operating time for optimal coordination
of directional overcurrent relays using multiple standardized tripping curves. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 33, 11875–11887.
[CrossRef]
43. Electrical Power System Analysis & Operation Software. Available online: https://etap.com/ (accessed on 23 December 2021).