A Negative Sequence Element for Fault Detection
in Inverter-Interfaced Microgrids
Kwasi Opoku, Subash Pokharel, and Aleksandar Dimitrovski
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida 32826
Email: opokukwasi@knights.ucf.edu, pokharelsbs@ieee.org, adimitrovski@ucf.edu
Abstract—Directional protection has been employed for many
years in transmission and distribution networks to achieve the
required secure and selective protection. It also offers great
potential for dealing with the unique problems introduced in
inverter-interfaced microgrids. The control methods used in
inverter-based distributed generation (IBDGs), introduce further
challenges that affect fault detection in microgrids. This paper
reviews the influence of inverter control on fault conditions and
proposes a directional method for detecting unbalanced faults in
a microgrid, using negative sequence admittance. This approach
provides a sensitive and selective option for the protection system.
The method is compared with the existing negative sequence-
based directional protection methods. Results from simulation
studies are used to verify its effectiveness.
Index Terms—negative sequence, inverter-interfaced micro-
grds, directional overcurrent, microgrid protection, distributed
generation, superimposed quantities
I. I NTRODUCTION
A significant area of focus in microgrid development is the
protection challenges introduced by such active distribution
networks. These, together with the new protection consider-
ations, have been well-documented in existing literature [1],
[2].
Researchers have proposed several approaches to deal with
the microgrid protection challenges, and these new solutions
are continuously evolving. Such solutions combine conven-
tional protection methods with the flexibility offered by en-
hanced communication in the distribution network. A com-
mon approach employed is adaptive protection, where the
protection configuration is adapted to make the best protection
decision based on prevailing system values and operation
mode or topology. This method may be centralized as in [3],
using a central controller, or decentralized as proposed in [4].
Differential protection schemes have also been proposed to
solve the sensitivity and selectivity problems of microgrid pro-
tection [5]–[7]. These include line current differential methods,
as extensively deployed in transmission networks, and other
novel differential protection approaches. Data transmission
bandwidth and synchronization considerations are critical for
this method. A large number of load nodes in distribution
networks also poses a challenge to the implementation of
differential protection [8]. In a similar vein, distance protection
methods have been considered to improve sensitivity issues in
microgrids [9]. It has the advantage of not being dependent
only on the limited fault current magnitudes. Communication-
assisted schemes may, in this case, be used as a backup to
eliminate the impact of infeed and outfeed currents of DGs.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under
the Solar Energy Technologies Office Award Number DE-EE0002243-2144.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S.
Department of Energy or the United States Government.
978-1-6654-0823-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
The rapid development of communication infrastructure
has indeed motivated other similar schemes such as wide-
area protection and traveling waves-based schemes [10], [11].
Generally, the outlined solutions that require extensive com-
munication infrastructure result in increased costs, rendering
them uneconomical in some cases. Directional relays, however,
provide a non-communication-assisted approach to increase
the selectivity and security of microgrid protection systems.
By comparing the voltage and current phasor magnitude and
angle, faults can be determined to be forward or backward.
The drawback of traditional directional overcurrent, however,
is the reduced sensitivity to current magnitudes in microgrids
[12]. By modifying the reference and polarizing quantities, to
include symmetrical or superimposed sequence quantities, the
sensitivity of such directional elements can be improved in
microprocessor relays [12], [13].
It is well known that the frequency of asymmetrical fault
incidents (single-phase-to-ground, phase-to-phase, and double-
phase-to-ground) constitute about 95 percent of all faults in the
power system [14]. This implies that the negative sequence
quantities present in significant levels during such unbalanced
faults offer the potential to identify and discriminate the
overwhelming majority of faults. This paper reviews the fault
response of constant-current (CC) controlled, PQ-controlled,
and Voltage-Frequency (V/F) controlled inverters in a grid-
connected microgrid and their influence on the negative se-
quence. Furthermore, it introduces an admittance-based neg-
ative sequence element that effectively detects asymmetrical
faults under these conditions. This method is compared with
the traditional torque-based negative sequence directional re-
lay, a negative sequence impedance element employed in [15]
and a superimposed negative sequence directional element
proposed in [12].
The fault responses of IBDGs are reviewed in Section
II, and the different negative sequence directional elements
are discussed in Sections III. Sections IV and V introduce
the proposed admittance approach and present simulations of
various scenarios in a test system.
II. FAULT R ESPONSE OF I NVERTER -BASED D ISTRIBUTED
G ENERATION (IBDG)
The response of IBDGs during faults is determined by the
control strategy employed, along with other factors. Control
methods may be categorized as current control or voltage
control. Current control modes are widely used in grid-
connected IBDGs, and they directly control the output current
of the inverter to track the output complex power. Voltage
control methods are modeled as ideal voltage sources and
do not directly regulate the output current of the DG. They
are applicable for grid-forming inverters. This paper considers
 Fig. 1: Test system
Fig. 2: Output voltage and current of CC controlled IBDG
three types of control modes: for current control, the Constant-
Current (CC) Control and the PQ Control, and for voltage
control, the Voltage-Frequency (V/F) control. Detailed descrip-
tions of the control types and structures are discussed in [16].
A. Constant-Current Control of IBDGs
The constant-current (CC) control method is implemented
in the natural frequency frame (abc frame) and it delivers
a constant output current iabc . A current reference i∗abc is
determined by the current control loop, and this reference
does not change in magnitude, angle, or frequency even
under variations in voltage. Hence, during an unbalanced fault,
the constant reference results in a constant balanced output.
The transfer function of a CC controlled inverter could be
generically represented as
iabc = Gi (s)i∗abc (1)
where Gi (s) represents the closed-loop gain of the control. A
proportional-integral (PI) controller can be used to achieve the
desired control action.
Fig. 2 illustrates the response of the CC controlled inverter
when the test system in Fig. 1 [16] is subjected to a double-
phase-to-ground (B-C-G) fault at F1 at t = 0.08s. It can be
observed that, while significant imbalance is realized in the
output voltage due to the imbalances in the grid-side voltage,
the output current remains constant and balanced.
B. PQ Control of IBDGs
This method determines the current reference limits by
using an outer power loop. Unlike the CC method, the current
reference is adjusted based on variations in the grid voltage.
It is implemented in the synchronous reference (dq) frame.
The current reference in dq frame (i∗d and i∗q ) are obtained
given a preset active and reactive power reference (P ∗ and
Q∗ ) as given in (2).
978-1-6654-0823-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Fig. 3: Output voltage and current of PQ controlled IBDG
 ∗  
P∗

id 1 vd vq
i∗q = v 2 + vq2 vq −vd Q∗ (2)
d
It can be observed from Fig. 3 that when the system is
subjected to an asymmetrical fault, the output current main-
tains its balance, but its amplitude increases in response to
the variations in the voltage. However, the grid-side voltage
provides a feed-forward compensation for the dq control which
also introduces imbalances in the output voltage, as seen in
Fig. 3.
C. V/F Control of IBDGs
This method is widely used in grid-forming inverters, and
it supports the voltage and frequency of the microgrid to
maintain stability. It is common in stored-energy DGs [17]. It
is also implemented in the dq frame, providing an outer voltage
control loop to regulate the voltage and also determine the
current reference. The V/F control does not directly regulate
the output current. Instead, the current reference is used in
an inner current loop to generate voltage modulation in the
PWM used for switching of the semiconductor devices to
maintain stability. The transfer function of this control can
be generically represented as
∗
Vdq = Gv (s)Vdq − Z(s)i0dq (3)
∗
where Vdq and Vdq represent the reference voltage and output
voltage (in dq frame) respectively, and Gv (s) and Z(s)
represent the closed loop gain of the outer voltage loop and
the inner current loop, respectively. Gv (s) and Z(s) depend
on the time constant, τi , of the inner current loop.
When subjected to an asymmetrical fault, the imbalance
will be realized, both in output voltage and current, due to
the control action of the V/F control described. Fig. 4 shows
the fault response to a B-C-G fault at F1 . It should be noted
that the simulation model is presented to illustrate how the
V/F control mimics the response of synchronous generators
to support voltage and frequency stability. In practical appli-
cations, a current limiter is used to reduce the fault current to
acceptable levels [18].
The responses of the different inverter control methods
described reveal differences and limitations in the negative
sequence contribution under asymmetrical faults. Nonethe-
less, these unique negative sequence characteristics can be
employed to obtain a secure, selective, and sensitive fault
detection method.

Fig. 4: Output voltage and current of V/F controlled IBDG
III. N EGATIVE S EQUENCE D IRECTIONAL E LEMENTS
A. Torque-Based Negative Sequence Directional Element
An early torque-based negative sequence directional ele-
ment is employed in [19]. A torque equation, (4), is used to
determine whether a fault is in the forward or reverse direction.
T 32Q = |V2 | · |I2 | · cos[̸ − V2 − (̸ − I2 + M T A)] (4)
T 32Q is the torque product evaluated; a positive value
represents a forward fault and a negative value represents a
reverse fault. V2 and I2 are the negative sequence voltage and
current, respectively, whereas M T A represents the maximum
torque angle based on the protected line.
One main shortcoming of this method is that strong sources
(i.e., sources with lower impedance) and high impedance
faults result in reduced negative sequence voltage and current,
respectively, reducing the torque-based element’s sensitivity.
Unlike conventional synchronous generators, IBDGs may be
current-controlled, particularly for microgrids, as seen in Sec-
tion II. Thus, the inverters regulate the negative sequence
currents besides the negative sequence fault loop impedance.
B. Negative Sequence Impedance Element
An improvement to the torque-based element is the negative
sequence impedance element which uses a ratio value of
the voltage and current to determine fault direction. It is
implemented in [15] by evaluating Z2 in (5);
 ∗
Re V2 (I2 · 1̸ Z1 ang)
Z2 = 2 (5)
|I|
Z1 ang represents the positive sequence impedance of the
protected line. By comparing the Z2 measured to predefined
thresholds for forward and reverse faults, the fault direction
is determined. This element also uses a restraint factor of
|I2 /I1 | and a |3I2 | lower limit to initiate the operation of the
element. These are employed to improve the security of the
element in the event of load unbalance. In general, determining
the appropriate forward/reverse thresholds requires careful
system analyses. Relay manufacturers have provided guidance
for default settings in standard power systems [13], but for
applications in microgrids and active distribution networks,
continuously changing topology or operating modes should
be taken into consideration.
978-1-6654-0823-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
C. Superimposed Negative Sequence Impedance Element
A superimposed method introduced in [12], takes into
consideration the unique characteristics of inverter-interfaced
microgrids. This method uses a ratio of the superimposed
negative sequence voltages and currents as shown in (6),
eliminating the impact of the fault responses of IBDGs.
V2post − V2pre
∆Z2 = (6)
I2post − I2pre
Where ∆Z2 is the superimposed impedance, and V2pre and
I2pre represent the pre-fault voltage and current, respectively.
They are memory quantities one cycle before the activation
of a fault trigger. Similarly V2post and I2post represent the
post-fault quantities.
Potential sensitivity challenge may occur in the grid-
connected mode for forward faults of relays looking down-
stream of the main grid. For instance, in Fig. 1, the main grid
provides I2 contribution for a fault at F4 . Thus a large ∆I2 is
realized that causes the |∆Z2 | seen by relays A and B to be
very small and negligible in some cases.
IV. P ROPOSED S OLUTIONS
As discussed in Section III, negative sequence directional
elements require an approach to improve the sensitivity of
the element, particularly in the presence of IBDGs. This pa-
per proposes the superimposed negative sequence admittance
value for detecting faults and identifying the fault direction.
This is determined by
I2post − I2pre
∆Y2 = . (7)
V2post − V2pre
Superimposed elements are pure fault elements and hence
eliminate the influence of load and the IBDG response. The
∆Y2 element improves on the sensitivity of the directional
element for forward faults. In such instances, the incremental
voltage evaluated, ∆V2 , will be lower, compared to the incre-
mental current, ∆I2 , due to the influence of the grid. Thus,
∆Y2 can be set to be greater than a minimum setting value
Yset determined for normal operation. This value should be
set to the maximum ∆Y2 observed during normal operation.
The phase angle of ∆Y2 is used to determine the fault
direction. Considering the test system in Fig. 1 and the
direction of I2 , it can be deduced that, ideally

∆I2 90◦ for forward fault
arg{ }= −90 ◦
for reverse fault. (8)
∆V2
Considering the influence of the protected line the criterion
for detection can be modified for forward faults as
0◦ + ϕ < arg(∆Y2 ) < 180◦ + ϕ (9)
and for reverse faults as
180◦ + ϕ < arg(∆Y2 ) < 360◦ + ϕ (10)
where ϕ is the compensation for the line angle.
As employed in [15] and [12], a ratio factor of |I2 /I1 | can
be used as a starting criterion to initiate the algorithm for fault
detection. This ensures that the relay does not trip falsely due
to load imbalance. The maximum acceptable value is set to
0.1 in this paper. However, it can be demonstrated that under
high impedance faults, the value of |I2 /I1 | becomes very small
and thus unreliable. Because |I0 | and |I2 | measured close to
the fault point will be close in value, this paper proposes
an additional ratio factor of |I0 /I2 | to improve the element’s
sensitivity during high impedance faults. A range of 0.7 - 1.3
is used for the test system. Although this value as derived by
the relay will be dependent on the source impedance behind
the relays, a value within this range provides information of
the proximity of the relay to the fault. Used as an additional
layer to |I2 /I1 |, a sufficient starting criterion will be obtained.
The algorithm for fault detection can be summarized in Fig.
5. Fig. 6: ∆Y2 for fault at F4 with CC controlled IBDG

TABLE I
Start R ESPONSE TO F1 , F2 AND F3 WITH IBDG IN CC C ONTROL M ODE
F1 F2 F3
Relay |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det
A 50.64 153.4◦ F 50.64 153.4◦ F 0.85 −13.7◦ R
No |I2/I1|>0.1 B 50.62 153.4◦ F 0.83 −13.3◦ R 0.83 −13.6◦ R
Or
0.7<|I0/I2|<1.4 C 2.3e-2 −6.6◦ R 2.3e-2 −6.4◦ R 2.3e-2 −6.6◦ R

Yes

No Yes
Calculate
Y2>Yset
arg{ Y2}

No
(180+ )<arg{!Y2} (0+!)<arg{ Y2}<
<(360+ ) (180+!)

Yes Yes
Fig. 7: ∆Y2 for fault at F4 with PQ controlled IBDG
Reverse Forward
Fault Fault TABLE II
R ESPONSE TO F1 , F2 AND F3 WITH IBDG IN PQ C ONTROL M ODE
F1 F2 F3
Stop Relay |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det
A 50.64 153.7◦ F 50.65 153.5◦ F 0.85 −13.7◦ R
B 50.66 153.5◦ F 0.82 −13.6◦ R 0.82 −13.6◦ R
Fig. 5: Proposed algorithm C 6.5e-3 −4.4◦ R 6.8e-3 −6.1◦ R 6.8e-3 −6.1◦ R

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Several simulation studies are carried out on the network in
Fig. 1 to evaluate the performance of the proposed method in
Section IV. A 10/0.4kV transformer connects the microgrid
to the main grid. A 13.2 + j3.14Ω load is connected to
the microgrid. The DG is rated at 0.01 + j0.01MVA and is
simulated under CC, PQ, and V/F control modes, and the fault
response of the DGs are as described in [16]. Relays A, B,
and C are positioned at bus B1, load feeder, and DG feeder,
respectively. Settings guide provided in [13] for determining
Z2 is applied to the system to determine admittance values
under normal condition and Yset is set at 30, which allows for
a significant margin. Also, due to the protected line, ϕ is set
at 14◦ , 26.6◦ and 27.6◦ for relay A, B and C respectively. It
must be noted that this test system is obtained from the system
used in [16] to analyse response of inverters under various
control schemes. The line angles used here fall below typical
distribution line angles of 45◦ to 60◦ . Tests conducted using
angles in this range proved even more secure performance of
the protection.
Fig. 6 shows the operating response of relays A, B and
C for B-C-G bolted faults at F4 at t = 0.08s during CC
control of the DG. The results for both relays A and C show
a significant increase in the ∆Y2 magnitude from 0 to about
51 and phase angle of about 153◦ at a steady state during
a forward fault. Relay B also correctly detects the fault as
reverse with lower magnitude of 0.82 and a phase angle of
−14◦ . The results for similar faults at F1 , F2 and F3 are
presented in Table I. A relatively smaller change is observed
for the reverse faults, but a phase angle clearly discriminates
from forward faults. It should be noted that the plots do not
show the relay response until half-cycle before the fault. This
is because the ∆Y2 computation has a zero denominator. The
pre-fault value can be considered to be zero by the relay.
With the DG in PQ control mode, similar results to the same
B-C-G faults are observed, as shown in Fig. 7. DGs in both
CC and PQ control modes have a similar negative sequence
current response. The results for the faults at F1 , F2 and F3
are presented in Table II.
Fig. 8 shows some variation in the simulation results for the
∆Y2 when the DG is in V/F control mode. The increase in
|∆Y2 | values is due to the negative sequence current support
provided in this mode during faults. Fault responses at F1 , F2
and F3 are presented in Table III.
Results for high impedance fault (HIF) simulation are
presented in Table IV. It is important to note that the |I2 /I1 |
starting criterion falls below the required 0.1 setting under
these conditions. The high impedance fault ratio factor of

978-1-6654-0823-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE

 fault and system, as observed, the magnitude tends to approach
zero.
power system faults that are unbalanced. However, these in-
verter control methods present some limitations to the existing
negative sequence directional elements. This paper presents
a superimposed negative sequence admittance method that
provides a sensitive way of discriminating between normal
operation and a faulted case under different IBDG control
methods. The superimposed quantities eliminate the effects
of the IBDG control action during unbalanced faults. More
so, the major challenge of high impedance faults is reduced
Fig. 8: ∆Y2 for fault at F4 with V/F controlled IBDG significantly with the inclusion of a |I0 /I2 | criterion that
TABLE III
improves the sensitivity and dependability of the method.
R ESPONSE TO FAULTS AT F1 ,F2 AND F3 WITH DG IN V/F C ONTROL
M ODE R EFERENCES
F1 F2 F3 [1] Y. Bansal and R. Sodhi, “Microgrid fault detection methods: Re-
Relay |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det views, issues and future trends,” in 2018 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid
A 50.6 153.3◦
F 50.6 153.4 ◦
F 34.25 −27.2◦ R
Technologies-Asia (ISGT Asia). IEEE, 2018, pp. 401–406.
B 84.153 153.0◦ F 0.83 −11.5◦ R 0.82 −11.6◦ R
[2] S. Beheshtaein, R. Cuzner, M. Savaghebi, and J. M. Guerrero, “Review
◦ ◦ ◦
on microgrids protection,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution,
C 33.44 −27.5 R 33.41 −27.6 R 33.41 −27.6 R
vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 743–759, 2019.
[3] V. A. Papaspiliotopoulos, G. N. Korres, V. A. Kleftakis, and N. D.
TABLE IV Hatziargyriou, “Hardware-in-the-loop design and optimal setting of
HIF R ELAY R ESPONSE AT F1 , F2 AND F4 WITH PQ C ONTROLLED IBDG adaptive protection schemes for distribution systems with distributed
generation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 32, no. 1, pp.
F1 Rf = 5000Ω 393–400, 2017.
Relay |I2 /I1 | |I0 /I2 | |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det [4] S. M. Brahma and A. A. Girgis, “Development of adaptive protection
scheme for distribution systems with high penetration of distributed
A 8.4e-4 0.91 51.9 151.2◦ F generation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
B 8.8e-4 1.0 52.83 153.6◦ F 56–63, 2004.
C 1.5e-3 0 3.1 17.22◦ R
[5] E. Sortomme, M. Venkata, and J. Mitra, “Microgrid protection using
communication-assisted digital relays,” in IEEE PES General Meeting,
F4 Rf = 5000Ω 2010, pp. 1–1.
Relay |I2 /I1 | |I0 /I2 | |∆Y2 | arg(∆Y2 ) Det [6] E. Casagrande, W. L. Woon, H. H. Zeineldin, and D. Svetinovic, “A
differential sequence component protection scheme for microgrids with
A 8.6e-4 0.92 52.4 152.0◦ F inverter-based distributed generators,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid,
B 1.3e-5 0.91 0.82 −17.41◦ R vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 29–37, 2014.
C 1.3e-2 0.92 53.2 151.1◦ F [7] M. Dewadasa, A. Ghosh, and G. Ledwich, “Protection of microgrids
using differential relays,” in AUPEC 2011, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[8] A. Hooshyar and R. Iravani, “Microgrid protection,” Proceedings of the
TABLE V IEEE, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 1332–1353, 2017.
R ESPONSE OF OTHER M ETHODS TO F4 WITH Rf = 5000Ω [9] A. Sinclair, D. Finney, D. Martin, and P. Sharma, “Distance protection
in distribution systems: How it assists with integrating distributed
Relay T32Q Z2 ∆Z2 resources,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 50, no. 3,
A 1.14e-4 -1.97e-2 1.96e-2 −154.0◦ pp. 2186–2196, 2014.
B -1.84e-9 3.9e-5 1.19 13.2◦ [10] F. Zhang, L. Mu, and W. Guo, “An integrated wide-area protection
C 1.15e-7 -1.93e-2 2.03e-2 −159.9◦ scheme for active distribution networks based on fault components
principle,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 392–
402, 2019.
[11] X. Li, A. Dyśko, and G. M. Burt, “Traveling wave-based protection
|I0 /I2 | allows for the detection algorithm to be still initiated scheme for inverter-dominated microgrid using mathematical morphol-
ogy,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 2211–2218,
since the factor measured is within the set range (close to 1). 2014.
To demonstrate this, results for A-phase-to-ground fault with [12] A. Hooshyar and R. Iravani, “A new directional element for microgrid
Rf of 5000Ω at F1 and F4 are presented for PQ Control mode, protection,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 6862–
6876, 2018.
in Table IV. [13] K. Zimmerman and D. Costello, “Fundamentals and improvements for
Also, Table V shows the response of the methods described directional relays,” in 2010 63rd Annual Conference for Protective Relay
in Section III for fault F4 with Rf = 5000Ω for IBDG in Engineers. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–12.
[14] J. L. Blackburn and T. J. Domin, Protective relaying: principles and
PQ control mode. It can be observed that the T32Q element applications. CRC press, 2006.
produces minimal value for the relays to decide on the forward [15] SEL-321-1 Relay - Phase and Ground Distance Relay, Directional
fault. More so, the I2 values recorded in this instance are much Overcurrent Relay, Fault Locator, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories,
Pullman WA, USA. 2021. Available at https://www.selinc.com/.
less than the typical setting values used to initiate the detection [16] Z. Shuai, C. Shen, X. Yin, X. Liu, and Z. J. Shen, “Fault analysis of
algorithm. Similarly, Z2 will not initiate detection due to the inverter-interfaced distributed generators with different control schemes,”
current level. Although the magnitude and phase angle of the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1223–1235,
2018.
∆Z2 element generally falls within the defined range for this [17] Z. Shuai, Y. Sun, Z. J. Shen, W. Tian, C. Tu, Y. Li, and X. Yin, “Micro-
VI. C ONCLUSION grid stability: Classification and a review,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 58, pp. 167–179, 2016.
The control methods of inverter-based resources in mi- [18] “Ieee standard for interconnection and interoperability of distributed
crogrids present a unique challenge in terms of their fault energy resources with associated electric power systems interfaces,”
IEEE Std 1547-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 1547-2003), pp. 1–138,
response. Of particular interest is the challenge posed to 2018.
negative sequence current in current-control modes. Negative [19] SEL-221-16 Distance Relay/Fault Locator, Schweitzer Engineering Lab-
sequence directional methods allow detecting the majority of oratories, Pullman WA, USA. 2021. Available at https://selinc.com/.

978-1-6654-0823-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE