This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL
Data-Mining Model Based Intelligent Differential
Microgrid Protection Scheme
Susmita Kar, Student Member, IEEE, S. R. Samantaray, Senior Member, IEEE, and M. Dadash Zadeh
Abstract—This paper presents a data-mining-based intelligent
differential protection scheme for the microgrid. The proposed
scheme preprocesses the faulted current and voltage signals us-
ing discrete Fourier transform and estimates the most affected
sensitive features at both ends of the respective feeder. Further-
more, differential features are computed from the corresponding
features at both ends of the feeder and are used to build the
decision tree-based data-mining model for registering the final
relaying decision. The proposed scheme is extensively validated for
fault situations in the standard IEC microgrid model with wide
variations in operating parameters for radial and mesh topology
in grid-connected and islanded modes of operation. The exten-
sive test results indicate that the proposed intelligent differential
relaying scheme can be highly reliable in providing an effective
protection measure for safe and secured microgrid operation.
Index Terms—Decision tree (DT), discrete Fourier transform
(DFT) preprocessor, distributed generations (DGs), fault detec-
tion, microgrid protection.
I. I NTRODUCTION
P ENETRATION of distributed generations (DGs) through
microgrid has gained momentum due to its ability in
offering on-site power generation at the consumption point
with improved reliability and reduced distribution losses. On
the other hand, the use of renewable energy sources such as
wind energy, photovoltaic cells, and fuel cells in microgrid
provides a solution to the problems of greenhouse gas, growing
energy demand, and the depletion of conventional fossil fuel-
based energy sources [1], [2]. Despite numerous benefits of the
microgrid with DG integration, including the ability to operate
in islanded mode, the protection challenges become a serious
concern, where the performance of the conventional relays [3]
degrade and cease to operate.
The protection relay faces serious challenges as the mi-
crogrid operates with different types of DGs, including syn-
chronous, induction and inverter-based DGs. The fault current
magnitude varies significantly depending upon the type of DG
Manuscript received July 24, 2014; revised September 29, 2014; ac-
cepted December 7, 2014. This work was supported by the Central Power
Research Institute, Bangalore, Government of India, through the Project RSOP-
IITB-028.
S. Kar and S. R. Samantaray are with the School of Electrical Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar 751013, India (e-mail: susmita.
bit@gmail.com; sbh_samant@yahoo.co.in).
M. D. Zadeh is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada (e-mail:
mdadash@uwo.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSYST.2014.2380432
1932-8184 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
contributing to the fault. It is observed that inverter-based
DGs contributes twice the rated current of the inverter to the
fault, whereas synchronous and doubly fed induction generator
(DFIG) DGs can contribute 4 to 10 times greater than the
inverter-based DGs [4] to fault. This happens due to the current
limiting property of the inverter-based DGs. Furthermore, the
operating conditions and network topology of the microgrid
may change regularly to provide a quality and reliable power to
the consumers. Under such varying operating conditions, there
will be wide variations in the fault current seen by the relay for a
fault occurring at a specific location in the microgrid. The relays
placed at both ends of the lines must be selective and reliable
as there is bidirectional power flow due to the presence of DGs
in the microgrid. Thus, the conventional overcurrent relays with
fixed setting, normally employed for microgrid protection, does
not provide an accurate and reliable protection measure for the
microgrid considering both radial and mesh topology for grid-
connected and islanded modes of operation [4]–[7].
Several microgrid protection techniques have been proposed
previously. The authors in [8] proposed an adaptive relay-
ing strategy for microgrid protection with high penetration of
DGs, which does not consider islanded mode of operation.
Communication-based protection schemes for grid-connected
microgrids with an assumption of a large amount of fault
current contributed from the utility grid is proposed in [9]
and [10]. In [11], an effective microprocessor-based protection
scheme is proposed; however, it does not consider standard mi-
crogrid structure for the study. It is observed that the aforemen-
tioned referenced works have not developed a comprehensive
protection measure considering wide variations in operating
conditions, including modes of operation (grid-connected and
islanded) and topology of the microgrid (radial and mesh).
In another work [12], the authors derived sequence com-
ponents to design the protection relay. Multiple settings are
applied on the derived sequence components for relay co-
ordination, making the relaying scheme more complex. The
voltage-based protection scheme is proposed in [13], which
uses synchronous reference frame to compare the reference
of the phase voltage at the DG source. The voltage deviation
against the reference initiates the tripping of switching device.
In [14], authors proposed overcurrent-differential protection on
each line with back-up voltage and frequency protection at
each DG. A current-differential scheme [15] has been proposed
for microgrid protection, including grid-connected and islanded
modes with different topologies. However, the scheme has not
been extensively tested considering wide variations in fault con-
ditions. Recently, a differential energy-based protection scheme
has been proposed by the presenting authors [16], which works
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL
Fig. 1. IEC microgrid structure with multiple DGs interface [17].
for the microgrid in grid-connected and islanded modes. How-
ever, the same scheme suffers from the high computational
burden of the S-transform in computing differential energy,
leading to a slower response time of 4 cycles from the fault
inception. Looking at the aforementioned protection issues,
there is a strong motivation in building an intelligent protection
relay that can provide a comprehensive protection measure for
the microgrid.
II. P ROTECTION C HALLENGES
The possible protection challenges stated in Section I are
observed as follows while studying the test system (IEC mi-
crogrid) [17] shown in Fig. 1, for different fault scenarios.
Considering the conventional protection strategy, the relays
R1, R3, R5, R7, and R9 are employed for the protection of
DL1, DL2, DL3, DL4, and DL5, respectively, for the microgrid
with synchronous, inverter, and induction-based DGs, as shown
Fig. 1 (the details are given in Appendix). Fig. 2 shows the fault
currents (per unit) seen by the relays (at R1, R3, R5, R7, and
R9) in the faulted distribution lines at different operating modes
for line–line–line faults (LLL) on the respective feeders.
It is observed that the fault current in grid-connected mode
is higher compared with the islanded mode as the fault current
is contributed from utility and the local DGs. The fault current
contribution from utility is higher due to its high short circuit
megavolt ampere compared with that of the local DGs in the
microgrid. It is also observed that the fault current decreases for
the faults occurring on the feeders away from the utility (DL-3,
DL-4, and DL-5). The fault current in islanded mode becomes
Fig. 2. Fault current in the distribution lines at grid-connected and islanded
modes (radial topology).
Fig. 3. Fault current in the distribution lines for radial and mesh structure
(islanded mode).
smaller due to limited current contribution from the local DGs
only. Overall, there is a significant difference in fault currents
between grid-connected and islanded modes of operation, as
observed in Fig. 2.
Similar observations are made for radial and mesh topology
(connected through CB_LOOP1 and CB_LOOP2), as shown in
Fig. 3. It is observed that the fault current contribution becomes
higher in mesh topology compared with the radial topology for
the same fault situation [18]. The fault current level also goes
high for grid-connected mode compared with islanded mode
for mesh topology. For observing the impact of DG penetration
level, if one or some DGs are lost or disconnected due to some
other reason, the fault current contribution is reduced compared
with the situation when those were existing. Fig. 4 shows the
fault currents seen at R1, R3, R5, R7, and R9 for the faults
simulated at different distribution feeders when all the DGs are
present and DG1 out in case of islanded mode of operation.
Table I depicts the fault current seen by the relays placed
at both ends of distribution lines for the LLL fault at different
operating conditions. For the fault in grid-connected mode, the
fault current seen by the relays placed at End1 are greater than
End2. But for the islanded mode, the fault current seen by relays
placed at End1 (R1, R3, R9) are smaller than End2 (R2, R4,
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
KAR et al.: DATA-MINING MODEL BASED INTELLIGENT DIFFERENTIAL MICROGRID PROTECTION SCHEME
Fig. 4. Fault current in the distribution lines when all DGs are present and
DG1 is disconnected (Islanded mode, radial topology).
TABLE I
FAULT C URRENT M EASURED AT D IFFERENT D ISTRIBUTION L INES
R10) and the fault current seen by relays placed at End1 (R5,
R7) are greater than End2 (R6, R8). This happens due the DGs
penetration level for the respective fault situation [18]. Looking
at the aforementioned issues, it can be concluded that most
commercially used overcurrent relay with a preset threshold to
operate in grid-connected mode may fail or may take a longer
time to operate in islanded mode. Furthermore, the performance
is significantly affected in case of radial and mesh topology, and
the case when DG is lost due to some other reason.
The microgrid protection scheme must guarantee safe and
secured operation of the microgrid with radial or mesh distri-
bution network against faults in islanded and grid-connected
modes. Considering the aforementioned challenges, there is a
strong motivation to design an effective protection scheme that
can provide a reliable protection measure for safe and secure
microgrid operation. The proposed scheme develops a data-
mining-based intelligent differential protection relaying scheme
for microgrid protection. The scheme considered shunt faults
(L–G, L-L, LL-G, and LLL) at various locations of distribution
lines with grid-connected and islanded modes of microgrid
operation with radial and mesh topology. The no-fault cases,
which could be close to that of the fault transient such as sudden
load change at PCC and load bus, capacitors switching, etc., at
different operating conditions, are considered.
The proposed scheme retrieves the fault currents and voltages
at both ends of the respective feeders and preprocesses through
DFT-preprocessor [19] to extract sensitive features such as the
rate-of-change of frequency (ROCOF Hz/s), the rate-of-change
of voltage (ROCOV pu/s), the active power change with time
3
Fig. 5. Proposed Data-mining model based intelligent differential protection
scheme.
(pu/s), the reactive power change with time (pu/s), the rate-
of-change of power angle difference (ROCPAD), the rate of
change negative sequence voltage, and the rate of change nega-
tive sequence current at both ends of the feeder. The differential
features are computed from the respective features at both ends
of the feeder. These differential features are used to build the
DT-based data-mining model for registering the fault status and
to issue the tripping command. Fig. 5 shows the schematic dia-
gram of the proposed data-mining based intelligent differential
microgrid protection scheme.
III. I MPLEMENTATION OF THE P ROPOSED
D IFFERENTIAL P ROTECTION R ELAY
A. Feature Extraction
The DFT based preprocessor [19] is used to estimate funda-
mental phasor such as amplitude, phase angle, and frequency
of the voltage and current signals retrieved at the ends of the
faulted feeder. The fundamental phasors estimated are used to
compute the most sensitive features during the fault process at
both ends of the feeder. The differential features between the
feeder ends are computed to build the data-mining model.
In the proposed study, seven differential features are derived,
which could be mostly affected during the fault condition and
are measured locally as follows: Xi = Xi,S − Xi,T , where Xi
is the differential feature, i = 0, 1, 2 . . . , 7 and (no. of features),
Xi,S is the ith feature estimated at bus-S, and Xi,T is the ith
feature estimated at bus-T. S and T are the buses at both ends
of the target feeder, on which the fault occurs. The complete
feature extraction block is shown in Fig. 6.
X1 = Δ(df /dt), the differential ROCOF (Hz/s).
X2 = Δ(dV /dt), the differential ROCOV (pu/s).
X3 = Δ(dP hi/dt), the differential ROCPAD.
X4 = Δ(dP/dt), the differential active power change
with time (pu/s).
X5 = Δ(dQ/dt), the differential reactive power change
with time (pu/s).
X6 = Δ(dVneg /dt), the differential rate of change negative
sequence Voltage.
X7 = Δ(dIneg /dt), the differential rate of change negative
sequence current.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL

Fig. 6. Complete Feature extraction block.

Some of the differential features derived for single-line–

ground (L–G) fault situation are presented in Fig. 7. It is clearly
visible that the features are highly sensitive to the occurrence
of the fault event. While looking at the some pairs of features
for the fault detection task, as shown in Fig. 8, it is observed
that the features are highly overlapping and thus resulting much
below classification accuracy. Thus, the proposed approach
considers multiple features-based data-mining decision making
for effective and reliable microgrid protection relay.

B. Building a Data-Mining Model for Microgrid Protection

The proposed data-mining-based differential protection
scheme is shown in Fig. 5. The instantaneous current and
voltage signals are retrieved using CT/PT at ends of the target
feeder and then preprocessed through the DFT preprocessor.
The DFT preprocessor estimates the fundamental amplitude,
phase and frequency and subsequently related differential fea-
tures. These features are used to train the data-mining models
for final decision making. This study includes DT and support
vector machine (SVM) as data-mining models for developing
the fault protection relays. The studied microgrid system for the
proposed protection scheme is shown in Fig. 1, which includes
synchronous (DG-1, DG-2), inverter (DG-3) and induction
(DG-4)-based DGs. and the details of the studied system are
given in the Appendix. The proposed study simulated different
faults and no-fault cases with wide variations in operating
conditions, as shown in Table II.
DT [20], being the most transparent data-mining model,
attracts wide spread attention for most engineering applications,
including power engineering [21]–[23] for classification and
decision making. DT, being rule based, is more transparent
and human friendly. The proposed method uses the powerful
open-source data-mining software package “R” for generating
the DTs [24]. On other hand, SVM [25], a machine learn-
ing technique, where the input space is mapped into a high-
dimensional dot product space called a feature space; and
Fig. 7. Sample differential features affected during Single-Line to Ground
fault at grid-connected mode with radial structure, between feeder B1 and B2
(a) Feature X2 . (b) Feature X3 . (c) Feature X5 . (d) Feature X7 .
in the feature space, the optimal hyperplane is found out to
maximize the generalization ability of the classifier. SVM has
attracted widespread attention due to its higher classification
accuracy and has been successfully applied to many power
system applications [26], [27] and thus, selected for extensive
performance comparison.
Building the data-mining models starts at retrieving one
cycle postfault current signal and voltage signal samples at
both the ends of the respective feeders and processed through
DFT-preprocessor to estimate the differential features for the
particular jth instance. While building the data-mining model,
all the seven differential features are set as input against one
target output of 1 (for fault) and 0 (for no-fault situation) for
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

KAR et al.: DATA-MINING MODEL BASED INTELLIGENT DIFFERENTIAL MICROGRID PROTECTION SCHEME 5

Fig. 9. DT generated for fault detection.

Fig. 8. Feature plots. (a) Feature X1 against feature X3. (b) Feature X2 against
feature X5.

TABLE II
S AMPLE O PERATING C ONDITIONS FOR FAULT AND N O -FAULT S ITUATION

Fig. 10. Degree of correlation between candidate features.

a particular jth instant. The feature set at jth instant is passed
through the data-mining models and the process continues until
convergence. During the building of data-mining models (DT
and SVM), it is observed that the data-mining models converge
well within the 80% of the total data samples. Once the model
is built (trained), then testing is carried out using the remain-
ing 20% unseen data sets and subsequently the performance
assessed. The feature set for the proposed study includes the
total number of 1435 cases, which includes both fault and
no-fault situations. The total of fault cases is 1020, which is
derived from the different operating conditions, as mentioned
in Table II. Similarly, the total number of no-fault cases is 415,
considering all operating conditions, as mentioned in Table II.
Out of this complete data set, 80% of the total data (1148) are
used to train the DT and rest 20% (287) are used for testing.
The DT generated for fault detection is shown in Fig. 9.
A correlation analysis provides insights into the indepen-
dence of the candidate features participating in the decision-
making process. Dendrogram is used to provide a visual clue
to the degree of closeness between the features or variables.
The hierarchical correlation dendrogram [24] shown in Fig. 10
presents a view of the degree of correlation between candidate
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL
Fig. 11. Performance comparison between DT and SVM for dependability,
security, and accuracy (grid-connected and islanded modes).
features and those take part in the decision-making process.
It can be seen that X2 and X4 are highly correlated, whereas
X5 and X3 has a similar relationship. Furthermore, X6 and X7
are with a similar correlation. Thus, one feature from each pair
participates in the DT building along with X1 .
It is observed that X1 (Δ(df /dt)), X2 (Δ(dV /dt)),
X3 (Δ(dP hi/dt)), and X5 (Δ(dQ/dt)) are taking part in the
final decision-making process. Thus, these are the most impor-
tant features impacting the decision-making process providing
fault and no-fault classification. While testing the trained DT
using the rest of the 20% unseen data (287 cases), it provides
classification accuracy of 99.11%. Out of the testing data set of
287 cases, 74 no-fault cases are classified as no-fault and one
no-fault case is classified as fault, whereas 221 fault cases are
classified as fault and 1 fault event is misclassified as no fault.
IV. R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
The following statistical metrics are used to assess the per-
formance of the proposed fault protection relay.
1) Dependability: Total number of fault cases predicted/
Total number of actual fault cases.
2) Security: Total number of no-fault cases predicted/Total
number of actual no-fault cases.
3) Accuracy: Total number of correctly predicted (fault +
no fault) cases/Total numbers of actual (fault + no fault)
cases.
For the fault protection relay, dependability is the important
index to be assessed, which directly provides the fault cases
predicted against the actual numbers of fault cases (shows
misdetection). This shows the reliability of the scheme in
detecting faults. Security shows the false alarm, which indicates
the number cases that actually do not belong to fault events and
predicted as fault. Thus, misdetection is more critical compared
with the false alarm. Finally, accuracy is measured, which
shows the predicted cases against the actual cases considering
both fault and no-fault cases together.
The performance comparison between DT and SVM is
depicted in Fig. 11 (for the 20% testing dataset-287 cases).
While building the data-mining models (DT and SVM), the
mixed data set is used, including faults in grid-connected and
Fig. 12. Performance of DT for fault detection in grid-connected and islanded
modes (radial and mesh topology).
Fig. 13. Performance of SVM for fault detection in grid-connected and
islanded modes (radial and mesh topology).
islanded modes with radial and mesh network topologies. The
data-mining models (DT and SVM) are developed using the
most widely used open-source software R [24]. It is found that
the performance indexes are very close to each other, except
security, which is 4% apart. The most important performance
index is dependability and both data-mining models provide
highly improved performance for fault detection.
The performance comparison at different operating modes
(grid-connected or islanded) of operation are shown in Figs. 12
and 13, respectively. This includes 510 fault cases and 170 no-
fault cases in grid-connected mode, whereas 510 fault cases and
155 no-fault cases at islanded mode. It is observed that the DT
has accuracy of 99.02% (with 99.8% dependability and 98.24%
security) for fault detection in grid-connected mode compared
with an accuracy of 99.475% (with 99.6% dependability and
99.35% security) in islanded mode. For the same situations,
SVM provides accuracy of 98.33% (with 99.6% dependability
and 97.06% security) for fault detection in grid-connected
mode and accuracy of 99.03% (with 100% dependability and
98.06% security) in islanded mode. It is observed that even
if security and accuracy are marginally affected in islanded
mode, the dependability stays almost the same in both oper-
ating conditions. Thus, both the data-mining models provide a
similar performance with grid-connected and islanded modes
of operation.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

KAR et al.: DATA-MINING MODEL BASED INTELLIGENT DIFFERENTIAL MICROGRID PROTECTION SCHEME 7

TABLE III
P ERFORMANCE (D EPENDABILITY ) C OMPARISON B ETWEEN P ROPOSED
AND E XISTING R ELAYS IN G RID -C ONNECTED AND I SLANDED M ODES

TABLE IV
P ERFORMANCE (D EPENDABILITY ) C OMPARISON B ETWEEN P ROPOSED
AND E XISTING R ELAYS IN R ADIAL AND M ESH T OPOLOGY

Fig. 14. Performance of DT for fault detection in radial distribution network

and mesh network (grid-connected and islanded modes).

TABLE V
P ERFORMANCE A SSESSMENT OF THE P ROPOSED DT-BASED R ELAY W ITH
THE E XISTING OVERCURRENT AND C URRENT-D IFFERENTIAL R ELAY

Fig. 15. Performance of SVM for fault detection in radial distribution network
and mesh network (grid-connected and islanded modes).

Figs. 14 and 15 show the performance comparisons for fault

detection in different network topologies (radial and mesh net-
work topology). This includes 450 fault cases and 140 no-fault
cases in the radial distribution network, whereas 450 fault cases
and 125 no-fault cases in the mesh network. It is observed
from Fig. 14 that DT has an accuracy of 99.08% (with 99.67%
dependability and 98.49% security) for fault detection in radial
topology and has accuracy of 99.045% (with 98.89% depend-
ability and 99.2% security) in mesh topology. While assessing
the performance of SVM, as shown in Fig. 15, it is observed that
SVM has an accuracy of 98.38% (with 99.78% dependability
and 96.98% security) for fault detection in radial topology and
accuracy of 99.26% (with 98.52% dependability and 100% 23.89% in grid-connected and islanded modes of operation,
security) in the mesh topology. The performance of both models respectively, as depicted in Table III. Although the current-
is almost same except security where SVM falls close 2% differential relay performance improves over overcurrent relay,
behind the DT. but stays at far below the performance level of the proposed
The proposed data-mining-based differential relaying data-mining-based differential relays. Similar observations are
scheme is found to be highly effective for microgrid protection made for radial and mesh topology, as depicted in Table IV.
considering wide variations in operating conditions. The A qualitative performance comparison of the proposed relay
performance indexes such as dependability are close to 99% is made with the existing overcurrent and current-differential
considering radial and mesh topology with grid-connected and relays for specific fault situations, as depicted in Table V. It
islanded modes of operation, as depicted in Tables III and IV. can be seen that in certain critical cases where overcurrent and
While comparing the performance with existing overcurrent current-differential relays fail, the proposed data-mining-based
relay, it is found that the relay dependability is 79.63% and differential scheme succeeds in providing protection measure.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL
The proposed scheme considers one cycle postfault data for
preprocessing through DFT-processor and less than 1/2 a cycle
for deriving differential features plus data-mining processing
for each specific fault case (takes more time for training and
testing while considering the complete data sets). Thus, the
response time of the scheme is close to 1 and 1/2 cycles, which
is well accepted for relaying applications.
Although SVM provides similar performance compared with
DT, the model complexity makes the implementation difficult
on the digital signal processor/field-programmable gate array
board. At the same time, DT, being the transparent tool, can
be implemented based on the set thresholds of the decision
variables and thus attracts widespread attention as one of the
emerging data-mining tools for engineering applications and
their commercial implementations.
V. C ONCLUSION
A data-mining model-based differential intelligent protection
scheme for microgrid protection has been proposed. The pro-
posed scheme develops protection function for the microgrid
operating at different modes and topology. The differential
features derived at respective feeders are used to build the data-
mining models, which are used for a final relaying decision.
The proposed data-mining model is extensively tested on the
standard IEC microgrid model, including synchronous, induc-
tion and inverter-based DGs with wide variations in operating
conditions and provide performance accuracy (dependability)
of 99% with a relaying speed of less than 1 and 1/2 cycle. The
performance comparison with existing relays indicates that the
proposed scheme can provide a highly reliable and effective
protection measure for the microgrid.
A PPENDIX
The base power has been chosen as 10 MVA. The details of
the studied IEC microgrid [24] are given as follows:
1) Utility: rated short-circuit MVA = 1000, f = 60 Hz,
rated kV = 120, Vbase = 120 kV.
2) DGs:
1) DG1, DG2: synchronous generator with rated MVA =
9, f = 60 Hz, rated kV = 2.4, Inertia constant H =
1.07 s., friction factor F = 0.1 pu, Rs = 0.0036 pu,
Xd = 1.56 pu, Xd = 0.296 pu, Xd = 0.177 pu,
Xq = 1.06 pu, Xq  = 0.177 pu, Xl = 0.052 pu, T d =
3.7 s, T d = 0.05 s, T qo = 0.05 s.
2) DG3: (inverter base DG) Wind farm consisting of
three 2 MVA wind turbines (6 MVA, pf = 0.9),
f = 60 Hz, rated kV = 575 V, inertia constant H =
0.62 s, friction factor F = 0.1 pu, Rs = 0.006 pu,
Xd = 1.305 pu, Xd = 0.296 pu, Xd = 0.252 pu,
Xq = 0.474 pu, Xq  = 0.243 pu, Xl = 0.18 pu, T do=
4.49 s, T do = 0.0681 s, T q = 0.0513 s. 575 V, 60 Hz.
The synchronous generator with inverter interface to
main grid has been considered for the proposed study
(Type-4 detailed model in MATLAB/SIMULINK).
3) DG4: DFIG-based wind farm consisting of six
1.5-MVA wind turbines (9 MVA, pf = 0.9), f =
60 Hz, rated kV = 575 V, Inertia constant H =
0.685 s, friction factor F = 0.01 pu, Rs = 0.023 pu,
Lls = 0.18 pu, Rr = 0.016 pu, Llr = 0.16 pu,
Lm = 2.9 pu.
3) Transformer (TRs):
1) TR1: rated MVA = 15, f = 60 Hz, rated kV =
120/25, Vbase = 25 kV, R1 = 0.00375 pu, X1 =
0.1 pu, Rm = 500 pu, Xm = 500 pu.
2) TR2, TR3: rated MVA = 12, f = 60 Hz, rated kV =
2.4 kV/25 kV, Vbase = 25 kV, R1 = 0.00375 pu,
X1 = 0.1 pu, Rm = 500 pu, Xm = 500 pu.
3) TR4: 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.
4) Distribution lines (DL): DL1, DL2, DL3, DL4,
and DL5: PI-Section, 30 km each, Vbase = 25 kV,
R0 = 0.1153 Ω/km, R1 = 0.413 Ω/km, L0 = 1.05 e −
3 H/km, L1 = 3.32 e − 3 H/km, C0 = 11.33 e −
9 F/km, X1 = 5.01 e − 9 F/km.
5) Total loading (sum of L1 to L6) considered: 22 MW,
10 MVAR.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Stadler, A. Siddiqui, C. Marnay, H. Aki, and J. Lai, “Control of
greenhouse gas emissions by optimal DER technology investment and
energy management in zero-net-energy buildings,” Eur. Trans. Electr.
Power, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1291–1309, Mar. 2011.
[2] G. Venkataramanan and C. Marnay, “A larger role for microgrids,” IEEE
Power Energy Mag., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 78–82, May/Jun. 2008.
[3] A. Girgis and S. M. Brahma, “Effect of distributed generation on protec-
tive device coordination in distribution system, system,” in Proc. Large
Eng. Syst. Conf. Power Eng., Jul. 2001, pp. 115–119.
[4] E. Casagrande and L. N. Woon, “A differential sequence component pro-
tection scheme for micro-grids with inverter based distributed generators,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 29–37, Jan. 2014.
[5] H. Al-Nasseri, M. Redfern, and F. Li, “A voltage based protection for
micro-grids containing power electronic converters,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Eng. Soc. Gen. Meet., Jun. 2006, pp. 1–7.
[6] T. Loix, T. Wijnhoven, and G. Deconinck, “Protection of micro-grids with
a high penetration of Inverter-coupled energy sources,” in Proc. IEEE
Power Energy Soc./CIGRE Symp., Jul. 2009, pp. 1–6.
[7] P. Mahat, Z. Chen, B. Bak-Jensen, and C. L. Bak, “A simple adaptive over
current protection of distributed systems with distributed generations,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 428–437, Sep. 2011.
[8] S. M. Brahma and A. Girgis, “Development of adaptive protection scheme
for distribution systems with high penetration of distributed deneration,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 56–63, Jan. 2004.
[9] H. Wan, K. K. Li, and K. P. Wong, “An adaptive multiagent approach
to protection relay coordination with distributed generators in indus-
trial power distribution system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 5,
pp. 2118–2124, Sep./Oct. 2010.
[10] B. Hadzi-Kostova and Z. Styczynski, “Network protection in distribu-
tion systems with dispersed Generation,” in Proc. IEEE PES Transmiss.
Distrib. Conf. Exhib., May 2006, pp. 321–326.
[11] M. A. Zamani, T. S. Sidhu, and A. Yazdani, “A protection strategy and
microprocessor-based relay for low-voltage micro-grids,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1873–1883, Jul. 2011.
[12] H. Nikkhajoei and R. Lasseter, “Micro-grid protection,” in Proc. IEEE
Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meet., Jun. 2007, pp. 1–6.
[13] M. A. Redfern and H. Al-Nasseri, “Protection of micro-grids dominated
by distributed generation using solid state converters,” in Proc. IET 9th
Int. Conf. Develop. Power Syst. Protection, 2008, pp. 670–674.
[14] H. H. Zeineldin, E. F. El-Saadany, and M. M. A. Salama, “Distributed
generations micro-grid operation: Control and protection,” in Proc.
Power Syst. Conf., Adv. Metering, Protection, Control, Commun. Distrib.
Resources, Mar. 2006, pp. 105–111.
[15] E. Sortomme, S. S. Venkata, and J. Mitra, “Microgrid protection using
communication-assisted digital relays,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25,
no. 4, pp. 2789–2796, Oct. 2012.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
KAR et al.: DATA-MINING MODEL BASED INTELLIGENT DIFFERENTIAL MICROGRID PROTECTION SCHEME
[16] S. Kar and S. R. Samantaray, “Time-frequency transform-based differ-
ential scheme for micro-grid protection,” IET Generation Transmiss.
Distrib., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 310–320, Feb. 2013.
[17] T. S. Ustun, C. Ozansoy, and A. Zayegh, “Modeling of a centralized
micro-grid protection system and distributed energy resources according
to IEC 61850-7-420,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1560–
1567, Aug. 2012.
[18] T. S. Ustun, C. Ozansoy, and A. Zayegh, “Fault current coefficient and
time delay assignment for microgrid protection system with central pro-
tection unit,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 598–606,
May 2013.
[19] A. Samui and S. R. Samantaray, “Assessment of ROCPAD relay for
islanding detection in distributed generation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 391–398, Jun. 2011.
[20] J. Abonyi and B. Feil, Cluster Analysis for Data Mining and System
Identification. London, U.K.: Birkhauser, 2007, p. 319.
[21] S. Kar and S. R. Samantaray, “Data-mining-based intelligent anti-
islanding protection relay for distributed generations,” IET Generation
Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 629–639, Apr. 2014.
[22] K. El-Arroudi, G. Joós, I. Kamwa, and D. T. McGillis, “Intelligent-based
approach to islanding detection in distributed generation,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 828–835, Apr. 2007.
[23] K. Mei and S. M. Rovnyak, “Response-based decision trees to trigger one-
shot stabilizing control,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 531–
537, Feb. 2004.
[24] D. Williams, Rattle (the R Analytical Tool to Learn Easily), Dec. 2010.
[Online]. Available: http://rattle.togaware.com/
[25] T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical
Learning: Data Mining, Inference, Prediction, 2nd ed. New York, NY,
USA: Springer-Verlag, 2009, p. 745.
[26] P. K. Dash, S. R. Samantaray, and G. Panda, “Fault classification and
section identification of an advanced series-compensated transmission
line using support vector machine,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22,
no. 1, pp. 67–73, Jan. 2007.
[27] F. R. Gomez, A. D. Rajapakse, U. D. Annakkage, and I. T. Fernando,
“Support vector machine based algorithm for post-fault transient stability
status prediction using synchronized measurements,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1474–1483, Aug. 2011.
Susmita Kar (S’14) received the M.Tech degree
from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India.
She is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in
the School of Electrical Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India.
Her research interests include microgrid protec-
tion, including islanding detection and fault protec-
tion, signal processing, and data-mining applications
to microgrid protection.
9
S. R. Samantaray (M’08–SM’10) received the
B.Tech. degree in electrical engineering from the
University College of Engineering Burla, Burla,
India, in 1999 and the Ph.D. degree in power system
engineering from the Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Rourkela, India, in 2007.
He holds the position of Assistant Professor with
the School of Electrical Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India. He
is a Visiting Professor with the Department of Elec-
trical and Computer Engineering, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
His major research interests include intelligent protection for transmission
systems [including Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTs)] and microgrid
protection with distributed generation and dynamic security assessment in large
power networks.
Dr. Samantaray is the recipient of the 2007 Orissa Bigyan Academy Young
Scientists Award, the 2008 Indian National Academy of Engineering Best
Ph.D. Thesis Award, the 2009 Institute of Engineers (India) Young Engineers
Award, the 2010 Samanta Chandra Sekhar Award, and the 2012 IEEE PES
Technical Committee Prize Paper Award. He serves as an Editor of IET,
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEEE C ANADIAN J OURNAL OF
E LECTRICAL E LECTRONICS AND C OMPUTER E NGINEERING , E LECTRIC
P OWER C OMPONENTS AND S YSTEMS.
M. Dadash Zadeh received the B.S. and M.Sc.
degrees from the University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran,
in 2002 and 2005, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree
from the University of Western Ontario, London,
ON, Canada, in 2009, all in electrical engineering.
From 2002 to 2005, he was with Moshanir Power
Engineering Consultants and served as a System
Study Engineer. From 2009 to 2010, he worked as
a Postdoctoral Fellow with the University of West-
ern Ontario, London, ON, Canada. From 2010 to
2011, he was with GE Multilin active in design and
production in the areas of microgrid automation and control, synchrophasor
measurement system and protective relays.