www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 15th March 2013
Revised on 14th August 2013
Accepted on 15th August 2013
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180

ISSN 1751-8687

Time-frequency transform-based differential scheme

for microgrid protection
Susmita Kar, Subhransu Rajan Samantaray
School of Electrical Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, India
E-mail: sbh_samant@yahoo.co.in

Abstract: The study presents a differential scheme for microgrid protection using time-frequency transform such as S-transform.
Initially, the current at the respective buses are retrieved and processed through S-transform to generate time-frequency contours.
Spectral energy content of the time-frequency contours of the fault current signals are calculated and differential energy is
computed to register the fault patterns in the microgrid at grid-connected and islanded mode. The proposed scheme is tested
for different shunt faults (symmetrical and unsymmetrical) and high-impedance faults in the microgrid with radial and loop
structure. It is observed that a set threshold on the differential energy can issue the tripping signal for effective protection
measure within four cycles from the fault inception. The results based on extensive study indicate that the differential energy-
based protection scheme can reliably protect the microgrid against different fault situations and thus, is a potential candidate
for wide area protection.

1 Introduction over current protection [1013] becomes in effective for

Installations of microgrids continue to proliferate as a viable
solution to the problems of greenhouse gas, energy growth
demand and the depletion of energy resources through
enabling the use of renewable and distributed generation
systems [1]. Microgrid implementations present an effective
means of distributing high-quality power more efciently to
residential, urban and rural areas and to commercial
facilities. They will enable Distributed Energy Resources
(DER) usage worldwide at various levels of power delivery
and increase the efciency with which multiple renewable
energy sources such as photovoltaic cells, fuel cells and
wind power can provide aggregate power to a group of
loads. Such a sub-network, known as microgrid [2], should
be able to operate in grid-connected mode and islanded
mode (independently), while meeting the standards of
service reliability and power quality. To meet the above
requirements of microgrid operation, an effective microgrid
protection scheme is essential, which is highly challenging.
The protection scheme of a microgrid must ensure safe
operation of microgrid against all types of faults in grid
connected as well as in islanded mode. The protection issue
becomes critical as the fault current is large in
grid-connected mode because of contribution from utility
grid and may be signicantly smaller because of limited
current contribution from the DER units [35]. This is a
standard practice to employ conventional over current relays
[69] for protection in grid-connected mode, despite the
fact that the protection may fail in some situations. In
islanded mode, the fault current magnitude may vary over a
wide range depending on the power generated by the
distributed generations (DG) units. Thus, the conventional
islanded mode of operation.
An adaptive relay strategy has been proposed [6] for
distribution systems with high DG penetration. However,
this does not include islanded mode of operation and
applicable only if the DG penetration is high. The authors
in [7, 8] proposed communication-based protection schemes
for grid-connected microgrids, based on the assumption of
large fault current contributed from utility grid. Although an
option for microgrids with no sensitive loads, this does not
include fault detection in islanded mode of operation.
Another non-communication-based protection scheme is
proposed [9], which is effective, however, does not consider
a proper microgrid structure.
In another work [14], sequence components are derived to
design the protection and relay coordination. However,
the relay coordination depends on multiple settings on the
derived sequence components, making the relaying scheme
more complex. Microgrid protection using voltage protection
[15] uses synchronous reference frame to compare with the
reference of the phase voltage at the DG resource. Another
technique uses over current differential protection [16] on
each line with back-up voltage and frequency protection at
each DG. Moreover, the above-mentioned approaches are
suitable for solid shunt (LG, LLG) faults and fail to detect
high-impedance faults (HIF).
Considering the above issues, there is a strong motivation
to develop the protection scheme including both solid and
HIF faults in grid connected as well as islanded mode of
microgrid operation. Recently, microgrid protection scheme
using communications assisted digital relays [17] has been
proposed. This scheme is based on differential current
approach where time-synchronisation is not considered.

310 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180
 www.ietdl.org
spectral analysis, where the standard deviation is an inverse
function of the frequency, thus reducing the dimension of the
transform. The expression for S-transform of a continuous
signal x(t) is given as (time domain)
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the proposed technique
1
s(t, f ) = x(t)w(t t, f )e2pift dt (1)
1
However, no time-synchronisation will have serious impact as
differential current is the key indicator for issuing tripping where f is the frequency, t is the time and t is a parameter
signal. To overcome such type of problems, differential that controls the position of the Gaussian window on the t-axis.
energy-based microgrid protection scheme is proposed, The window function can be expanded and the S-transform
which is less sensitive to synchronisation error compared (time domain) is given as follows
with time-domain data difference such as differential
1  
currents. The proposed study includes all types of shunt 1 2 2

faults (LG, LL, LLG, LLLG) and HIF faults compared s(t, f ) = x(t)  e (tt) /2sf ei2pft dt (2)
1 s(f ) 2p
with only LG and HIF faults [17] and registering the fault
patterns (types of fault) for different kinds of fault The standard deviation ( f ) of the Gaussian window is related
situations, required for autoreclosure. to frequency f as
The proposed technique develops a differential energy-based
protection scheme for the microgrid using time-frequency 1
transform such as S-transform. The scheme can be viewed as s(f ) =   (3)
f
a pattern recognition approach for microgrid protection. The
S-transform [1821] is an invertible time-frequency spectral To improve the performance of the S-transform in terms of
localisation technique that combines elements of wavelet time-frequency contours for signal detection, the standard
transforms and short-time Fourier transform. The S-transform deviation of the Gaussian window is further modied as
uses an analysis window, whose width is decreasing with
frequency providing a frequency-dependent resolution. This k
transform may be seen as a continuous wavelet transform s(f ) =   (4)
with a phase correction. It produces a constant relative a + b/ f
bandwidth analysis like wavelets while it maintains a direct
link with Fourier spectrum. The S-transform has an advantage where a and b are
small positive

 constants varying between 0
in that it provides multiresolution analysis while retaining the and 1 and k , a2 + b2 . Using the modied standard
absolute phase of each frequency. S-transform has been found deviation, the Gaussian window is modied as
  2 2  2 
better compared with another time-frequency transform
technique such as wavelet transform, as it is (wavelet a+b f a+b f t /2k
transform) highly prone to noise and provides erroneous w(t, f ) =  e (5)
results even with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 30 dB [22]. k 2p
In the proposed technique, fault currents at both ends of the
Thus, the continuous modied S-transform (Fourier domain)
respective feeders in a microgrid, are retrieved and processed
can now be represented as
through S-transform to nd out the spectral energy content.
The difference in spectral energy (differential energy) content
1   2
of time-frequency contours of both signals is the key 2p2 a2 k 2 / a+b |f |
S(t, f ) = X (a + f )e e2piat da (6)
indicator for registering the fault patterns in the microgrid. 1
Further, the tripping signal can be issued based on a set
threshold on the differential energy for different fault The discrete S-transform of the signal is given as
situations in microgrid. The proposed technique provides
highly promising results on extensive studies carried out
N 1  2 2 2   2
during testing for different fault conditions in microgrid S(j, n) = X (n + m) e 2p m k / a+b |f | ei(2pmj)/N ) (7)
(radial and loop network structures) at grid-connected and m=0
islanded mode. The schematic diagram of the proposed
differential energy-based technique is outlined in Fig. 1. The and j = 1 N 1, n = 0, 1 N 1. Here j and n indicate
following sections deal with S-transform, studied systems, the time samples and frequency steps (voice frequency),
computational results, discussion and conclusions. respectively. X(n + m) is obtained by shifting X(n) by m,
whereas X(n) is the Fourier transform of x(k) and given as

2 Generalised S-transform 1 N
1
X (n) = x(k) ei(2pnk/N ) (8)
N k=0
The S-transform [1821] is an extension to the Gabor transform
and wavelet transform, and is based on a moving and scalable
localising Gaussian window. The interesting phenomena in Now the discrete S-transform can also be represented in terms of
the S-transform are that it is fully convertible both forward amplitude and phase spectrum as
and inverse from time domain to frequency domain. This
property is due to the fact that the modulating sinusoids are S(j, n) = A(j, n) eiw(j,n) (9)
xed with respect to the time axis whereas the localising
scalable Gaussian window dilates and translates. The where A( j, n) is the amplitude spectrum and ( j, n) is the phase
S-transform falls within the broad range of multi-resolution spectrum of the original time series signal.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320 311
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
The spectral energy content E of the transformed signals is
obtained as follows
E = {abs(S(j, n))}2 (10)
where S( j, n) is the generated S-matrix for different time and
frequency steps. The various parameters selected in our
proposed study are as a = 0.5, b = 0.5 and window width
( f ) = 0.4.
In the present application, the time-domain sampled current
signals retrieved at both ends are processed through
S-transform to generate time-frequency contours. The
differential energy [23] of the time-frequency contours of
the fault current signals is computed to detect the fault
patterns in the microgrid.
3 System studied
The detailed studied system is shown in Fig. 2. The base
power has been chosen as 10 MVA. The studied system
2
consists of radial distribution system with four DG units
(wind farms), connected to the main supply system through
point of common coupling (PCC). The DG units are placed
2
at a distance of 20 km with distribution lines of pi-sections.
The details of the generator, DGs, transformers, distribution
lines and loads are mentioned in Appendix 1.
The model is simulated using SIMULINK (MATLAB)
package. The sampling frequency is 1.2 kHz at 60 Hz base
frequency (20 samples per cycle). Fault currents at sending
and receiving ends of respective feeders are retrieved and
processed through S-transform to compute the differential
energy for registering the fault patterns. Different types of
shunt faults such as lineground (LG), linelineground
(LLG), lineline (LL), linelinelineground (LLLG) contours effectively localise the fault patterns immediately
and HIF are created on the distribution line at different
locations. The faults are created in both grid-connected and
islanded mode. The CB_MAIN is activated (off) for
islanded mode and CB_LOOP is activated (on) for loop
network of microgrid.
4 Simulation results
4.1 Microgrid protection in grid-connected mode
In the proposed technique, the fault current signals retrieved at
sending and receiving end of the respective feeder (considering
the primary and back-up protection), are processed through
S-transform to produce the time-frequency contours. For
Fig. 2 Microgrid with multiple DG interface
312
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
primary protection at R 1 (for a fault on the feeder between
B-1 and B-2), the fault currents are retrieved at B-1 and B-2,
and the differential energy is calculated. For back-up
protection at R-1(for fault on feeder between B-2 and B-3),
the fault currents at B-1 and B-3 are considered for computing
the differential energy. Similarly for primary protection at R-2
(fault on feeder between B-2 and B-3), differential energy
is computed considering the currents at B-2 and B-3,
respectively. For back-up protection at R-2, differential
energy is computed considering the fault currents at B-2 and
B-4. This approach is considered for different fault conditions
in primary and back-up zone in the micogrid to compute the
differential energy for effective protection measure.
The spectral energy content of the fault currents retrieved at
bus S and T are calculated as given in (11) and (12), which
are derived from (10). The corresponding differential energy
is computed as the difference between the two and given in
(13). For primary and back-up protections, the busses are
selected as mentioned earlier
EBS = abs(SBS (j, n)) (11)
EBT = abs(SBT (j, n)) (12)
Differential energy = EBS EBT (13)
Figs. 3a and b show the fault currents and generated
time-frequency contours against samples (time) for the fault
currents at B-1 and B-2 for LG fault created on feeder
between B-1 and B-2. It is observed that the time-frequency
after the fault occurrence. The spectral energy content of
frequency contours of the fault currents at B-1 and B-2, and
the corresponding differential energy (computed by
subtracting the spectral energy content of the current signal
at B-2 from spectral energy content of the current signal at
B-1) are shown in Fig. 3c. The differential energy and the
threshold setting for LG fault on the feeder between B-1
and B-2 (primary protection at R-1 with radial network) are
shown in Fig. 3d. It is observed that with a threshold
setting of 1, the differential energy-based technique takes
3.5 cycles (70 samples) from the fault inception to issue the
tripping signal. Similar observations are made for LLG
fault on the feeder between B-3 and B-4: primary protection
at R-3 (loop network), taking 3.6 cycles after fault inception
to issue the tripping signal as shown in Fig. 4. The
threshold setting is conrmed after testing on various cases
of fault situations across different sections of the microgrid.
The proposed technique is also tested for registering fault
patterns in back-up zone. Fig. 5 shows the differential
energy and the threshold setting for LG fault on the feeder
between B-2 and B-3: back-up protection at R-1 (radial
network). In this case, the tripping signal can be issued
after 3.75 cycles from fault inception. In back-up
protection, the set threshold is 0.5 (conrmed after testing
on different fault situations in back-up zone) for issuing the
tripping signal. Fig. 6 shows the differential energy and the
set threshold for LLG fault on the feeder between B-6 and
B-7: back-up protection at R-5 (loop network), and the
tripping signal is issued after 3.7 cycles from fault
inception. The back-up zone is provided with a time delay
of 0.3 s. Thus, the relay will operate after a time delay of
0.3 s plus the response time based on the set threshold of 0.5.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180
 www.ietdl.org

Fig. 4 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LLG fault
on the feeder between B-3 and B-4: primary protection at R-3 (loop
network)

Fig. 5 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault

on the feeder between B-2 and B-3: back-up protection at R-1 (radial
network)

One of the important events in protection measure is the

fault pattern recognition. This is the process of identifying
the faulty phase (phases) involved during the shunt fault

Fig. 3 Differential energy for fault protection

a Fault current and time-frequency contours of phase-a for LG fault on the
feeder between B-1 and B-2, retrieved at B-1
b Fault current and time-frequency contours of phase-a for LG fault on the
feeder between B-1 and B-2, retrieved at B-2
c Spectral energy of the fault current at B-1, B-2 and differential energy for the
for LG fault on the feeder between B-1 and B-2: primary protection at R-1
(radial network)
Fig. 6 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LLG fault
d Differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault on the feeder on the feeder between B-6 and B-7: back-up protection at R-5 (loop
between B-1 and B-2: primary protection at R-1 (radial network) network)

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320 313
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 7 Differential energy of a, b and c-phase for LLG fault
(ab-g) on feeder between B-2 and B-3: primary protection at R-2
(fault pattern recognition: radial network)
process. The differential energy for a, b and c-phase for LLG
fault (ab-g) on feeder between B-2 and B-3 is shown in Fig. 7
and is observed that the differential energy of a, b-phase are
growing to higher value, whereas the differential energy of
c-phase does not grow. While testing for LLLG fault
(abc-g) on feeder between B-5 and B-6 (primary protection
at R-5 in loop network), the differential energy for all
phases are growing effectively to recognise the fault
patterns as shown in Fig. 8. The response time for the
above two cases are 3.55 and 3.65 cycles from fault
inception, respectively. Thus, the fault pattern recognition is
reliably achieved using the differential energy in microgrid
protection.
4.2 Microgrid protection in islanded mode
The fault currents in microgrid with grid-connected mode and
islanded mode are signicantly different and thus, protection
measures face difculty to provide a unique solution. In case
of faults in islanded mode, all loads remain in service and
the generation load balance is maintained. The fault
transients are of different order compared with grid
connected mode because of the reversal of power ow
along many of the lines at the instant the switching device
Fig. 8 Differential energy of a, b and c-phase for LLLG fault
(abc-g) on feeder between B-5 and B-6: primary protection at R-5
(fault pattern recognition: loop network)
314
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
Fig. 9 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault
on the feeder between B-1 and B-2: primary protection at R-1 (radial
network)
opens in case of islanded mode. The differential
energy-based scheme has been tested for different fault
situation in microgrid in islanded mode. Fig. 9 shows the
differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault
on the feeder between B-1 and B-2: primary protection at
R-1 (radial network). It is observed that with a threshold
setting of 0.3, the response time achieved is 3.8 cycles
(76 samples) from fault inception. Fig. 10 shows the
differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault
on the feeder between B-3 and B-4: primary protection at
R-3 (radial network), with a response time of 3.75 cycles
from fault inception. In the islanded mode, effectiveness of
the back-up protection is also taken into considerations.
Fig. 11 shows the differential energy and the threshold
setting for LLG fault on the feeder between B-2 and B-3:
back-up protection at R-1 (radial network). Similarly,
Fig. 12 shows the differential energy and the threshold
setting for LG fault on the feeder between B-6 and B-7:
back-up protection at R-5 (radial network). In case of
back-up protection, the threshold is set at 0.3 and the
tripping signal can be issued within four cycles after fault
inception.
For microgrid faults in islanded mode, the fault pattern
recognition is also achieved effectively with the proposed
differential energy-based approach. Fig. 13 shows the fault
Fig. 10 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault
on the feeder between B-3 and B-4: primary protection at R-3 (radial
network)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180

Fig. 11 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LLG
fault on the feeder between B-2 and B-3: back-up protection at
R-1 (radial network)
Fig. 12 Differential energy and the threshold setting for LG fault
on the feeder between B-6 and B-7: back-up protection at R-5 (radial
network)
pattern recognition for LG fault (a-g) on feeder between B-2
and B-3. Thus, the differential energy for a-phase grows in
negative direction, whereas of phase-b and c is steady at
base. Similar observation is made for LLG fault (ab-g) on
the feeder between B-3 and B-4 (primary protection at R-3),
Fig. 13 Differential energy of a, b and c-phase for LG fault (a-g)
on feeder between B-2 and B-3: primary protection at R-2 (fault
pattern recognition: radial network)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 14 Differential energy of a, b and c-phase for LLG fault
(ab-g) on feeder between B-3 and B-4: primary protection at R-3
(fault pattern recognition: radial network)
as shown in Fig. 14. It is observed that the differential
energy changes substantially in faulted phase compared to
unfaulted one, and thus, identifying the phase involved in
the fault process.
4.3 HIF detection in microgrid
HIFs usually occur in distribution networks and occur when a
primary conductor makes electrical contact with a road
surface, sidewalk, sod, tree limb, or with some other
surfaces or object, restricting the ow of fault current to a
level below that to be reliably detectable by conventional
overcurrent devices. The main purpose in HIF detection, in
contrary to short-circuit faults, is not to protect the system,
but to protect the human lives and prevent re hazards
because of the arcing phenomenon [24].
HIF are difcult to model as they are non-linearly
deterministic in nature. The HIF model [25] is developed
using anti-parallel diodes with nonlinear resistance and DC
source connected together for each phase as shown in
Fig. 15. Typical HIF current for the HIF created on the
feeder between B-1 and B-2, is shown in Fig. 16. The HIFs
are created on the distribution feeders and differential
energy is computed to detect the fault.
Fig. 15 HIF model
315
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
4.4 Validation on standard IEC microgrid structure
The proposed method is also validated on the standard IEC
61850-7-420 microgrid [26] structure containing both
induction (wind) and inverter (PV)-based DGs as shown in
Fig. 18. The details of the IEC microgrid are mentioned in
Table 1 and the system is operating at 25 kV. Fig. 19a)
shows the differential energy-based fault pattern recognition
with LG fault situation (fault occurs between B-3 and B-4:

Fig. 16 Typical HIF current for the HIF created on the feeder
between B-1 and B-2

The HIF current and time-frequency contours of phase-a

current for HIF on the feeder between B-1 and B-2, are
shown in Fig. 17a (retrieved at B-1). Fig. 17b shows the
differential energy and the threshold setting for HIF on the
feeder between B-1 and B-2: primary protection at R-1
(radial network). In case of HIF faults, the threshold is set
at 0.1 and the tripping signal can be issued within 3.3
cycles after fault inception.

Fig. 18 Microgrid model according to IEC 61850-7-420

Table 1 Parameters of the IEC microgrid model

Transformer Voltage Capacity

TR1 12025 kV 20 MVA

TR2 575 V25 kV 10 MVA
TR3, TR4 230 V25 kV 2 MVA
DG1 (wind) 575 V 6 MW
DG2, DG3 (PV) 230 V 1 MW
load P (MW) Q (MVAR)
L1 2.0 0.6
L2 1.5 0.3
L3 1.5 0.3
L4 1.0 0.2
L5 1.0 0.2
distribution lines line paramaters
Fig. 17 Protection against HIF fault DL1, DL2, DL3, DL4, DL5 R0 = 0.1153 /km, R1 = 0.413 /
km, L0 = 1.05e3 H/km, L1 =
a Fault current and time-frequency contours of phase-a for HIF on the feeder 3.32e3 H/km, C0 = 11.33e009
between B-1 and B-2, retrieved at B-1 F/km, X1 = 5.01e009 F/km, 20
b Differential energy and the threshold setting for HIF on the feeder between km each
B-1 and B-2: primary protection at R-1 (radial network)

316 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180
 www.ietdl.org
current-based schemes with SNR 20 dB as depicted in
Table 2. It is observed that the conventional differential
current-based scheme fails in case of faults at islanded
mode and some cases (faults with high resistance of 100 )
on grid connected mode with loop structure. Thus, even if
the magnitude of differential current is sufciently low for
some fault cases to detect the faulty pattern, however, the
differential energy derived from the spectral energy content
of the faulted signals succeeds as it includes time-frequency
information in the transformed signal. In case of islanded
mode of microgrid operation, the fault current contribution
will be low containing more frequency distortions because
of possible active and reactive power mismatch in the
microgrid. Furthermore, the proposed differential
energy-based scheme using S-transform is immune to noise
[21] and thus, found to be robust compared with
conventional differential current-based scheme. It is also
found that the proposed differential energy-based scheme
effectively detects the faulty situations on the standard IEC
microgrid with both wind (induction based) and PV
(inverter based) penetration. This establishes the potential
ability of the proposed differential scheme providing
reliable protection measure for microgrid including different
types of DGs.

Fig. 19 Differential energy based fault pattern recognition
a Differential energy of a, b and c-phase for L-G fault (a-g) on feeder between
B-3 and B-4 (on DL-3): primary protection at R-5 (fault pattern recognition:
radial network)
b Differential energy of a, b and c-phase for LLLG fault (abc-g) on feeder
between B-5 and B-6 (on DL-5): primary protection at R-9 (fault pattern
recognition: loop network)
on DL-3) in radial network at grid connected mode. The fault
pattern recognition at islanded mode for LLLG fault (fault
occurs between B-5 and B-6: on DL-5) with loop structure
(both CB_LOOP1 and CB _LOOP2 are made ON) at
islanded mode is shown in Fig. 19b. The response time is
almost same as compared with earlier cases. Further, a
qualitative comparison has been made between the
proposed differential energy and conventional differential
5 Discussion
In the proposed technique, the differential energy of the fault
currents at respective bus ends (depending on primary and
back-up protection), are used to register the fault patterns
for issuing the tripping signal for reliable microgrid
protection. It is observed that the differential energy grows
in positive direction for faults in grid-connected mode and
becomes negative in islanded mode. This occurs as the fault
currents is large in grid-connected mode largely contributed
from utility grid compared with islanded mode and thus,
the currents at both end buses are signicantly different.
This clearly distinguishes the faults in microgrid, indicating
whether the fault exists in grid-connected or islanded mode.
In case of HIF, the fault current magnitude is small and
arcing in nature. Thus, the differential energy remains at
lower value, requiring a lower threshold band compared
with shunt fault situations.
The proposed technique is also tested on similar fault
situations in radial and loop network providing reliable
protection measure. The most important issue in the

Table 2 Comparison results between proposed differential energy and conventional differential current-based schemes (IEC
microgrid) with SNR 20 dB

Fault conditions Proposed differential energy scheme Existing differential current scheme

Faults Primary protection Back-up protection Primary protection Back-up protection

Faults at grid-connected mode

a-g fault on DL-1 (radial) fault detected (R-1) not valid fault detected (R-1) not valid
a-b fault on DL-2 (radial) fault detected (R-3) not valid fault detected (R-3) not valid
bc-g fault on DL-3 (loop) fault detected (R-5) fault detected (R-3) fault detected (R-5) fails (R-3)
abc-g fault on DL-5 (loop) fault detected (R-9) fault detected (R-7) fails (R-9) fails (R-7)
HIF on DL-3 (loop) fault detected (R-5) fault detected (R-3) fails (R-5) fails (R-3)
Faults at islanded mode
a-g fault on DL-1 (radial) fault detected (R-1) not valid fails (R-1) not valid
a-b fault on DL-2 (radial) fault detected (R-3) not valid fails (R-3) not valid
bc-g fault on DL-3 (loop) fault detected (R-5) fault detected (R-3) fails (R-5) fails (R-3)
abc-g fault on DL-5 (loop) fault detected (R-9) fault detected (R-7) fails (R-9) fails (R-7)
HIF on DL-3 (loop) fault detected (R-5) fault detected (R-3) fails (R-5) fails (R-3)

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320 317
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 20 Flow chart of the proposed technique
318
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
proposed technique is that it uses time-frequency contours of
the faulted currents to derive the differential energy, thus
involving both time and frequency information instead of
either one generally used in conventional relaying for
decision making process. The ow chart of the proposed
scheme is shown in Fig. 20 with experienced thresholds for
fault detections in different modes. The thresholds
generated and the results obtained are for the adopted
microgrid in the proposed study and based on the per unit
fault current signal. It is observed over the extensive study
that the threshold bands are apart from each other and thus,
not interfering for decision making process.
Normally the response time depends on the thresholds as it
decides the numbers of cycles (which intern represents the
time) from fault inception. In our study, the response time
is about 3 and 1/2 cycles (70 samples or 58.33 ms) from
the fault inception, which is highly suitable for relaying
strategies (45 cycles for high-speed relays), meeting the
grid code requirements. The response time vary marginally
as the fault cases are considered under variations in types of
faults with fault resistance, fault location, DG penetration,
fault inception loading parameters in the microgrid. It has
been observed that the response time of the proposed
scheme is almost same for grid connected as well as
islanded mode compared with existing work [27], where the
response time differs signicantly depending on the grid
Fig. 21 Differential energy with sampling time difference
a Differential energy with sampling time difference of 5 ms between two ends
(a-phase for LG fault (a-g) on feeder between B-2 and B-3)
b Differential energy (providing delayed response) with sampling time
difference of 10 ms between two ends (b-phase for LLG fault (b-g) on
feeder between B-2 and B-3)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180

connected and islanded mode of operation. The response time
can further decrease if the threshold setting is selected at
different level. However, the selected thresholds are opted
for more secured and reliable decision making for effective
microgrid protection. Further, the thresholds can be
adaptive depending on the microgrid structure, operating
conditions, fault situations etc.
It is observed that the differential energy is less sensitive to
synchronisation error compared with time-domain data
difference such as differential currents. The differential
energy works ne with a time-sampling difference of 5 ms
(quarter cycle) as shown in Fig. 21a, with 3.7 cycle
response time as usual. As the time difference between two
end signals increases to 10 ms, and then the response time
increases to 4.5 cycles (which is delayed) from fault
inception, as shown in Fig. 21b. Thus, the differential
energy can suitably work for time difference up to 5 ms
between two end signals without affecting the performance.
This indicates that the energy variable is less sensitive to
time error: for instance, the energy of one cycle sine and
cosine is the same, even though they are time-shifted by a
quarter of cycle. Thus, the proposed S-transform-based
differential energy is highly effective in detecting faults and
fault patterns in microgrids, as the tripping signal can be
issued within four cycles from the fault inception for the set
threshold, considering different faulty situations and
operating conditions. Furthermore, the proposed differential
energy-based technique is validated for faults on the IEC
microgrid structure including both wind- and PV-based
DGs and, the performance is similar to that of the earlier
studied system with wind-based DGs only. It is observed
that even if fault current is further limited in inverter-based
DG (PV) compared with induction-based DG (wind), the
proposed differential energy detects the fault patterns
effectively, providing a reliable protection measure.
6 Conclusions
A new approach for microgrid protection using differential
energy based on time-frequency transform is presented.
Spectral energy contents of the fault current signals
retrieved at both ends of the feeders are found out using
time-frequency transform and differential energy is
computed to register the fault patterns. A threshold can be
set on the differential energy to issue the tripping signal for
different faulty situations in the microgrid (both radial and
loop structure) at grid-connected and islanded mode. The
extensive test results indicate that the proposed scheme can
reliably protect the microgrid against shunt faults and HIFs
in different topology and thus, can be extended for large
power distribution network with multiple DG interface.
7 Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the funds received from Central
Power Research Institute, Bangalore, Government of India,
through the project RSOP-IITB-028 to carry out the
research work.
8 References
1 Stadler, M., Siddiqui, A., Marnay, C., Aki, H., Lai, J.: Control of
greenhouse gas emissions by optimal DER technology investment and
energy management in zero-net-energy buildings, Eur. Trans. Electr.
Power, 2009, 2, (2), pp. 12911309
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180
www.ietdl.org
2 Lasseter, R.H.: Microgrids. Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter
Meeting, January 2002, pp. 305308
3 Girgis, A., Brahma, S.M.: Effect of distributed generation on protective
device coordination in distribution system, system. Proc. Large
Engineering System Conf. Power Engineering, July 2001, pp. 115119
4 Green, T.C., McDonald, J.D.: Modeling and analysis of fault behavior
of inverter microgrids to aid future fault detection. IEEE Int. Conf.
System of Systems Engineering, 2007, pp. 16
5 Mahat, P., Chen, Z., Bak-Jensen, B., Bak, C.L.: A simple adaptive over
current protection of distributed systems with distributed generations,
IEEE Trans. Smartgrid, 2011, 2, (3), pp. 428437
6 Brahma, S.M., Girgis, A.: Development of adaptive protection scheme
for distribution systems with high penetration of distributed generation,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2004, 19, (1), pp. 5663
7 Wan, H., Li, K.K., Wong, K.P.: A multi-agent approach to protection
relay coordination with distributed generators in industrial power
distribution system. Proc. Ind. Appl. Conf. 40th Ind. Appl. Soc.
Annual Meeting, October 2005, pp. 830836
8 Hadzi-Kostova, B., Styczynski, Z.: Network protection in distribution
systems with dispersed Generation. Proc. Transmission and
Distribution Conf. Exhibition, May 2006, pp. 16
9 Zamani, M.A., Sidhu, T.S., Yazdani, A.: A strategy for protection
coordination in radial distribution networks with distributed
generators. Proc. IEEE Power Energy Society General Meeting, July
2010, pp. 18
10 Nikkhajoei, H., Lasseter, R.: Microgrid protection. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2007, pp. 16
11 Tumilty, R.M., Brucoli, M., Green, T.C.: Approaches to network
protection for inverter dominated electrical distribution systems. Proc.
Third IET Int. Conf. Power Electronics, Machines and Drives, April
2006, pp. 622626
12 Al-Nasseri, H., Redfern, M., Li, F.: A voltage based protection for
microgrids containing power electronic converters. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2006, pp. 17
13 Loix, T., Wijnhoven, T., Deconinck, G.: Protection of microgrids with a
high penetration of Inverter-coupled energy sources. Proc. IEEE Power
Energy Soc./CIGRE Symp., June 2009, pp. 16
14 Nikkhajoei, H., Lasseter, R.H.: Microgrid protection. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2007, pp. 16
15 Redfern, M.A., Al-Nasseri, H.: Protection of microgrids dominated by
distributed generation using solid state converters. IET Ninth Int. Conf.
on Develop. Power Syst. Protection, 2008, pp. 670674
16 Zeineldin, H.H., El-Saadany, E.F., Salama, M.M.A.: Distributed
generation microgrid operation: control and protection. Proc. Power
Syst. Conf., March 2006, pp. 105112
17 Sortomme, E., Venkata, S.S., Mitra, J.: Microgrid protection using
communication-assisted digital relays, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.,
2012, 25, (4), pp. 27892796
18 Mansinha, L., Stockwell, R.G., Lowe, R.P.: Pattern analysis with two
dimensional spectral localization: application of two dimensional
S-transforms, Physica A, 1997, 239, pp. 286295
19 Pinnegar, C.R., Mansinha, L.: The S-transform with windows of
arbitrary and varying window, Geophysics, 2003, 68, pp. 381385
20 Stockwell, R.G., Mansinha, L., Lowe, R.P.: Localization of complex
spectrum: the S-transform, J. Assoc. Expl. Geophys., 1996, 17, (3),
pp. 99114
21 Dash, P.K., Samantaray, S.R., Panda, G., Panigrahi, B.K.:
Time-frequency transform approach for the protection of parallel
transmission lines, IET Gener., Transm. Distrib., 2007, 1, (1),
pp. 3038
22 Yang, H., Liao, C.: A de-noising scheme for enhancing wavelet-based
power quality monitoring system, IEEE. Trans. Power Deliv., 2001, 16,
(3), pp. 353360
23 Samantaray, S.R., Tripathy, L.N., Dash, P.K.: Differential energy based
relaying for Thyristor controlled series compensated line, Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst., Elsevier Sci., 2012, 43, (1), pp. 621629
24 High Impedance Fault Detection Technology: Report of IEEE PSRC
Working Group D15, March 1996. Available at http://grouper.ieee.org/
groups/td/dist/documents/highz.pdf
25 Samantaray, S.R., Panigrahi, B.K., Dash, P.K.: High impedance fault
detection in power distribution networks using time-frequency
transform and probabilistic neural network, IET Gener., Transm.
Distrib., 2008, 2, (2), pp. 261270
26 Ustun, T.S., Ozansoy, C., Zayegh, A.: Modeling of a centralized
microgrid protection system and distributed energy resources
according to IEC 618507-420, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2012, 27,
(3), pp. 15601567
27 Zamani, M.A., Sidhu, T.S., Yazdani, A.: A protection strategy and
microprocessor based relay for low voltage microgrid, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., 2011, 26, (3), pp. 18731883
319
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
9 Appendix
Generator: Rated short-circuit MVA = 1000, f = 60 Hz,
rated kV = 120, Vbase = 120 kV.
Distributed generations (DGs): Wind farm (9 MW)
consisting of six 1.5-MW wind turbines is connected to a
25-kV distribution system exports power to a 120-kV grid
through a 30-km, 25-kV feeder. The doubly fed induction
generator (DFIG) has been considered for the proposed study.
Transformer T1: Rated MVA = 50, f = 60 Hz, rated kV =
120/25, Vbase = 25 kV, R1 = 0.00375 pu, X1 = 0.1 pu, Rm =
500 pu, Xm = 500 pu.
Transformer T2, T3, T4, T5: Rated MVA = 10, f = 60 Hz,
rated kV = 575 V/ 25 kV, Vbase = 25 kV, R1 = 0.00375 pu,
X1 = 0.1 pu, Rm = 500 pu, Xm = 500 pu.
320
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
Distribution lines (DL): DL-1, DL-2, DL-3, DL-4, DL-5,
DL-6: PI-section, 20 km each, rated kV = 25, rated MVA =
20, Vbase = 25 kV, R0 = 0.1153 /km, R1 = 0.413 /km, L0
= 1.05e3 H/km, L1 = 3.32e3 H/km, C0 = 11.33e009 F/
km, X1 = 5.01e009 F/km.
Normal loading data:
L-1 = 10 MW, 3.5 MVAR
L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5 = 6 MW, 2.5 MVAR.
HIF model:
Diode: resitance Ron = 0.001 , forward voltage = 0.8
V, snubber resistance = 500 , snubber capacitance = 250e
9 F.
Nonlinear resistance: protection voltage 45e3 V.
DC voltage source: 15e3 V.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 310320
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0180