Optimal Directional Overcurrent Relays
Coordination using Directional Bat Algorithm
Felipe C. Sampaio, Lucas M. Belmino Ruth P. S. Leão, Raimundo F. Sampaio, Giovanni C. Barroso
Department of Electrical Engineering
Federal University of Ceará
Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
felipecsamp@dee.ufc.br, lucas.belmino@hotmail.com
Abstract—Coordination of directional overcurrent relays is
most often made based on manual procedures. However, due to
its complexity and time-consuming, these procedures have been
formulated as an optimization problem. The aim of this paper is
to present a directional Bat Algorithm (dBA) as a potential algo-
rithm for optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays.
The dBA performance was compared to others metaheuristic
algorithms such as Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) and Bat Algorithm (BA) when applied to
a nine-bus benchmark test system. The obtained results showed
that dBA overcame GA, PSO and BA with less total operating
time and faster convergence with similar computational effort.
Index Terms—Power systems protection, directional overcur-
rent relays, optimization, directional bat algorithm.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Power systems protection and coordination are accountable
for limit the extent and duration of service interruption when-
ever adverse events occur on any portion of the system. The
protection system must be reliable, stable, sensitive, selective
and timely. Overcurrent is the most basic form of protection
and is used at all voltage levels. Overcurrent relays with
directional feature improves its selectivity. The directional
overcurrent relay (DOCR) recognizes the direction in which
fault occurs, relative to the location of the relay. Normally,
the conventional overcurrent relay (non-direction) will act for
fault current in any direction [1].
To ensure reliability to the power system, the protection
system is divided into zones protected by primary and backup
protection relays. In case of faults inside its zone, the primary
relay must extinct the fault current. However, if the primary
relay fails, the backup relay must interrupt the fault current
supply after a pre-specified delay. This delay is defined to keep
the protection system coordinated, otherwise healthy loads
would be disconnected.
Over the years, the coordination of DOCR has been made
manually by protection experts. However, due to its complex-
The authors of this paper thank the National Council for Scientific and
Technological Development (CNPq) for allowing this work
978-1-5386-8218-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Lucas S. Melo Department of Physics
Department of Electrical Engineering Federal University of Ceará
Federal University of Ceará Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
Fortaleza, CE, Brazil gcb@fisica.ufc.br
rleao@dee.ufc.br, rfurtado@dee.ufc.br,
lucassmelo@dee.ufc.br
ity and time consuming, the DOCR coordination has been for-
mulated as an optimization problem. The optimal DOCR co-
ordination problem aims to minimize the primary and backup
relays operating time, while maintaining coordination and
reliability. Several optimization techniques have been proposed
for optimal DOCR coordination, such as: linear programming
(LP) [2]–[5], mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP)
[6], sequential quadratic programming (SQP) [7], quadratic
constraint quadratic programming (QCQP) [8], genetic al-
gorithms (GA) [9]–[11], particle swarm optimization (PSO)
[12], [13], differential evolution (DE) [14]–[16], ant colony
optimization (ACO) [17] and gravitational search algorithm
(GSA) [18], [19].
These techniques can be classified as deterministics [2]–[8]
or metaheuristics [9]–[19]. In general, deterministic techniques
present fast convergence, but also present problems with
getting stuck in local optima and high dependency with initial
solution. In the other hand, metaheuristic algorithms present
slower convergence, but are less susceptible to being stuck in
local optima and has less dependency with initial solutions.
Directional Bat Algorithm (dBA) is a metaheuristic opti-
mization technique inspired by the echolocation process of
bats. It was recently proposed by [20] to overcome some
deficiencies of Bat Algorithm (BA), which is known for its
characteristic of providing good solutions, but with premature
convergence problem [21].
The purpose of this paper is to present dBA as a potential
algorithm for optimal DOCR coordination. The optimization
algorithm was tested on a nine-bus benchmark test system and
its performance was compared to other three metaheuristic
algorithms such as Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) and Bat Algorithm (BA). The results
showed that the proposed algorithm overcomes GA, PSO and
BA in terms of total operating time and speed of convergence
with similar computational effort.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: section II
introduces the DOCR coordination as an optimization prob-
lem, section III discusses the differences between standard bat
algorithm and directional bat algorithm, section IV presents the
simulation results and the conclusions are presented in section
V.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
A. The directional overcurrent relay coordination
Overcurrent relays can be classified into three groups: defi-
nite current (or instantaneous), definite time and inverse time.
The majority of modern digital relays allows to combine these
three types of curves in only one operating curve. However,
to keep the the modelling of the problem simple and to cover
all kind of DOCR, this work focus only on inverse time
overcurrent relays, which has the operating curve represented
by Eq. 1.
β difference between CT I and CT Imin .
top (I) = T DS I α

(1)
PS −1
Where top is the relay operating time in seconds, I is the
fault current at current transformer (CT) secondary, T DS is
the time dial setting, P S is the plug setting and α and β are
constants that define the curve characteristics. In this work,
the relays curves were assumed as Normally Inverse [22], so
α = 0.14 and β = 0.02.
B. Primary and backup relay constraints
To guarantee the protection system coordination, there must
be a time difference between each primary/backup relay pairs.
This time difference is denominated coordination time interval
(CT I). Hence, in case of primary relay operation fail, backup
relay trips after a pre-specified delay (CTI). The coordination
constraint is mathematically expressed in Eq. 3.
CT I = tjk − tik (2)
∆tijk = CT I − CT Imin ≥ 0 (3)
Where tik is the operating time of primary relay i for a
fault k and tjk is the operating time of backup relay j for the
same fault k.
There are also limits to choose relay settings (P S and
T DS). These settings constraints are expressed in Eq. 4 and
5.
P Smin ≤ P Si ≤ P Smax (4)
L
In the tests, P Smin = max(0.1, 1.25Imax i
) and P Smax =
2 F L
min(2.5, 3 Imini ), where Imaxi is the maximum load current
F
sensed by relay i and Imin i
is the minimum fault current
sensed by relay i.
C. Objective function
The optimal DOCR coordination aims to obtain the settings
(P S and T DS) of each relay which minimize the relays op-
erating time, taking into account the coordination and settings
constraints. Hence, the adopted objective function is expressed
by Eq. 6.
F X Mi
N X
X 2
F OB = (α(t2ik + t2jk ) + β(∆tijk − |∆tijk |) )
k=1 i=1 j=1
(6)
Where F is the number of faults, N is the number of relays,
and Mi is the number of backup relays of relay i. Hence, tik is
the operating time of relay i for a fault k, tjk is the operating
time of backup relay j for the same fault k and ∆tijk is the
The first part of F OB is the sum of all relays (primary and
backup) operating time. It express the objective of minimize
the protection system total operating time. The second part of
F OB is a penalty function and has the objective of incorporate
the coordination constraint (Eq. 3) in the objective function.
If ∆tijk is negative (discoordination) the first part of F OB
will be summed to 4β(∆tijk )2 , a penalty. In the other hand, if
∆tijk is positive, the second part of F OB is equal to zero. α
and β are weights given to the parts of the objective function.
In this work, the weights were adopted as α = 1 and β = 100.
III. BAT A LGORITHM AND D IRECTIONAL BAT
A LGORITHM
Bat Algorithm (BA) is a metaheuristic algorithm inspired
by the bat’s echolocation process. In [23], BA is proposed
following three premises:
(i) All bats use echolocation to sense distance and the
location of a bat (xi ) is encoded as a solution vector
to an optimization problem under consideration [23];
(ii) Bats fly randomly with velocity vi at position xi with
varying frequency (from a minimum fmin to a maxi-
mum frequency fmax ) and loudness (Ai ) to search for
prey. They can automatically adjust the frequencies of
their emitted pulses and the rate of pulse emission (ri )
depending on the proximity of the target [23];
(iii) Loudness varies from a large positive value to a minimum
constant value, while rate of pulse emission varies from
a lower constant value to a higher value [23].
As stated in Section 2, the optimization problem variables
are the plug setting (P S) and the time dial setting (T DS)
of each relay. The set of all variables forms a solution vector,
which in BA is encoded as the position of each bat on solution
space. In this problem, the population of bats was encoded as
the matrix expressed in Eq. 7

P S1,1 T DS1,1 ··· P S1,n T DS1,n


P = .. .. .. .. ..
 (7)
 
. . . . .
T DSmin ≤ T DSi ≤ T DSmax (5)
P Sm,1 T DSm,1 ··· P Sm,n T DSm,n
In the tests, T DSmin and T DSmax were adopted as 0.025 Where m is the number of bats and n is the number of
and 1.2. relays. Hence, the population matrix has m lines and 2n
columns. Each line i of P forms a vector which defines a Algorithm 1 Bat Algorithm
bat position (xi ) in the solution space. Define the objective function
During the search process, the position (xi ), the velocity (vi ) Initialize the population xi
and the frequency are expressed by the following equations Evaluate fitness Fi (xi )
[23]: Initialize the initial frequencies fi
Initialize rate of pulse emission ri0 and initial loudness A0i
fi = fmin + (fmax − fmin )rand (8) while t ≤ tmax do
Calculate frequency Eq. (8)
vit+1 = vit + (x∗ − xti )fi (9)
Update velocity Eq. (9)
xt+1
i = xti + vit+1 (10) Update positions Eq. (10)
if rand > ri then
Where fmin and fmax are, respectively, the maximum and Generate a local solution around the current solution
minimum frequencies, rand ∈ [0, 1] is a random vector drawn Eq. (11)
from a uniform distribution and x∗ is the current best position. end if
As the iterative process proceeds, ri tends to increase and if rand < Ai & F (xi ) < F (x∗ ) then
the bats tends to change the movement from global search to Accept the new solutions
local search. The movement by local search is given by the Update the best position x∗
following random walk equation: Increase ri Eq. (13)
Decrease Ai Eq. (12)
xt+1
i = xti +  < At > (11) end if
Where  ∈ [−1, 1] is a random number drawn from a end while
uniform distribution and < At > is the average loudness of all
bats in the current iteration. Along the iterations, the average
loudness tends to decrease, consequently the random walk Fig. 1 illustrates the difference in bat movement in standard
movement tends to be higher at initial iterations (exploration) BA and dBA.
and lower at final iterations (exploitation).
BA has a mechanism of rejecting new solutions to prevent
premature convergence. As the loudness decreases, also de-
creases the probability of accepting new solutions. So, at initial
iterations (higher loudness) more solutions are accepted and
at final iterations (lower loudness) less solutions are accepted.
The loudness and the rate of pulse emission are updated
accord to the Equations 12 and 13.

At+1
i = αAti (12)
Fig. 1. Bat movement in standard BA and dBA
rit+1 = ri∞ [1 − exp(−γt)] (13)
For each bat, a different bat is randomly chosen. If the
Where 0 < α < 1 e γ < 1 are constants that will define how
random chosen bat has better fitness than the current bat, its
fast the loudness will decrease and the rate of pulse emission
new position will be given by Eq. 14.
will increase, respectively. The initial loudness A0i and the
final rate of pulse emission ri∞ are typically adopted as values xt+1 = xti + (x∗ − xti )f1 + (xtk − xti )f2 (14)
i
between 0 and 1. The pseudo-code of BA is presented in Alg.
1. Where xti is the position of bat i in iteration t, x∗ is the best
One of the issues in BA is the premature convergence due bat position and xtk is the position of the random chosen bat.
to the low exploration ability of the algorithm under some f1 and f2 are random numbers calculated as Eq. 15 and 16.
conditions. To overcome this deficiency, the directional Bat They represent the signal frequencies emitted toward the best
Algorithm (dBA) was proposed in [20]. bat and the random chosen bat, respectively.
dBA follows the same echolocation premises and has a
similar flowchart as BA, but it presents four modifications that f1 = fmin + (fmax − fmin )rand1 (15)
aims to improve the exploration and exploitation abilities of
BA.
f2 = fmin + (fmax − fmin )rand2 (16)
The first change is related to search space exploration. In
BA, the bat flies randomly toward the best bat. In dBA, the bat Where fmin and fmax are the maximum and minimum
movement is a random composition of the movement toward frequencies the signal frequency can assume. In the tests, the
the best bat and the movement toward a random chosen bat. frequencies were adopted as fmin = 0 and fmax = 2. If the
random chosen bat does not has better fitness than the current
bat, the current bat will move only toward the best bat (Eq.
17), as in standard BA.
xt+1
i = xti + (x∗ − xti )f1 (17)
The dBA’s movement equation has the ability of diversify
the movement direction, improving its exploration capacity.
It is important on initial iterations to avoid the algorithm to
being stuck in local minimums [20].
The second change is related to BA’s random walk. In dBA,
the random walk equation is expressed by Eq. 18.
xt+1
i = xti +  < At > wit (18)
Where < At > is the average loudness of all bats in iteration
t,  ∈ [−1, 1] is a random vector and wit is a vector that
regulates the scales of search as the iterative process proceeds.
The evolution of wit along the iterations is given by Eq. 19.
wi0 − wi∞
wit = (t − tmax ) + wi∞ (19)
1 − tmax
Where wi0 and wi∞ are the initial and final vectors, respec-
tively. In this work’s tests, wi0 and wi∞ were adopted as:
wi0 = (U B − LB)/12 (20)
wi∞ = wi0 /100 (21)
Where U B and LB are the vectors which contains the
variables’ upper and lower bounds, respectively. So wi linearly
decrease from wi0 to wi∞ along iterations. It aims to expand
the bats search space in initial solutions and reduce it in final
solutions.
The third change is related to the update equations of A
and r. In standard BA, A and r have a fast evolution along the
iterations, reducing the auto-switch from global search to local
search and from accepting to rejecting new solutions [20]. In
dBA, A and r, at each iteration, are given by Eq. 22 and
23, which allows a slower evolution along the iterations and
becomes easier to set.
A0 − A∞
Ati = (t − tmax ) + A∞ (22)
1 − tmax
r0 − r∞
rit = (t − tmax ) + r∞ (23)
1 − tmax
Where the index 0 and ∞ indicates initial and final values,
respectively. In this works the constants A0 , A∞ , r0 and r∞
were adopted as 0.9, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.6, respectively.
The last modification is related to the moment which the
parameters are updated and the accepting of new solutions.
In standard BA, new solutions are allowed and A and r are
updated only if the new solution (xi ) is better than the global
best solution (x∗ ) and a generated random number is lower
than A.
In dBA, new solutions are accepted and parameters are
updated if the new generated solution (xi ) is better than the
current bat best solution (x∗i ) and a generated random number
is lower than A.
Also, in standard BA, it is possible that the new solution
has a better fitness than the best solution and it be rejected,
because the generated random number is greater than A. To
correct this, in dBA, even if the new solution was rejected,
if it is better than the best solution, the best solution will be
updated. The pseudo-code of dBA is presented in Alg 2.
Algorithm 2 Directional Bat Algorithm
Define the objective function
Initialize the population xi
Evaluate fitness Fi (xi )
Initialize rate of pulse emission r0 , initial loudness A0 , w0
and w∞
while t ≤ tmax do
Select a random bat
Generate frequencies Eq. (15) e (16)
Update location/solution Eq. (14)
if rand > ri then
Update wi
Generate a local solution around the current solution
Eq. (18)
end if
if rand < Ai & F (xi ) < F (x∗i ) then
Accept the new solutions
Increase ri Eq. (23)
Decrease Ai Eq. (22)
end if
if F (xi ) < F (x∗ ) then
Update the best solution x∗
end if
end while
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
The proposed algorithm is tested and analyzed in this
section. For this, dBA is used to minimize the operating time
of a protection system of a 9-bus benchmark test system,
presented in Fig. 2. The protection system consists of 24
directional overcurrent relays with normally inverse curve.
The CT ratio for each relay is 500:1. The fault points (A-
L) were considered to obtain the short circuit contributions
for each relay. Although the points are represented at the
middle of the lines, the middle line and the close-in faults
were considered to calculate the maximum and minimum
fault current through each relay. The systems receives power
from a source (connected at bus 1) of 100 MVA, 33 kV
and impedance of 0.1j p.u. The maximum load currents,
the minimum and the maximum fault currents through each
primary-backup relays pair are presented in [10].
To evaluate the performance of dBA, it was compared with
the performance of GA, PSO and BA. Each algorithm was ex-
ecuted with the same 240 particles in the initial population for

Fig. 2. Single-line diagram of the nine-bus test system.
300 iterations. The following parameters were considered for
each algorithm: For GA, the crossover rate and the mutation
rate were considered as 1.0 and 0.02, respectively; For PSO,
the two acceleration factors (c1 and c2 ) were considered as 2.0
and the inertia factor was considered as linearly decreasing
from 0.7 to 0.2; For BA, the loudness (A) was adopted
with initial value 1.0 and decreasing factor 0.992, while the
rate of pulse emission (r) was adopted with final value 1.0
and increasing factor 0.006; For dBA, A was considered as
decreasing linearly from 0.9 to 0.5 and r was considered as
increasing linearly from 0.3 to 0.6. The tests results were
obtained using a personal computer with Intel ® Core ™ i5-
3210M CPU @2.5 GHz x64 based processor with 6 GB RAM.
In Fig. 3 is presented the algorithms’ convergence com-
parison. PSO prematurely converged to a local minimum and
obtained the worst fitness. GA had a slightly faster conver-
gence than BA, however both converged to a local minimum.
In the other hand, dBA had the fastest convergence and the
lowest fitness.
Fig. 3. Convergence comparison of GA, PSO, BA and dBA
In Fig. 4 is presented the primary protection operating time
(tp ), the backup protection operating time (tb ) and the CTI of
each Primary/Backup relay pair for the settings obtained by
dBA. The dotted line depicts the minimum CTI considered
(0.2 s).
Fig. 4. Primary and backup operating time difference
There were 16 coordination time violations (CT I <
CT Imin ). However, the lowest CTI was 0.189 s, which rep-
resents a violation of 5.13 %. Moreover, the CT Imin adopted
can be considered conservative, since CT I can be adopted
between 0.2 and 0.5 s [24]. So, the constraint violations are
acceptable, considering the total operating time minimization
provided.
To evaluate the algorithms’ dependency of initial solutions,
each algorithm was also executed 1000 times with random ini-
tial population but with the same parameters already specified.
The obtained results are presented in Table I.
TABLE I
M EAN FITNESS , S TANDARD DEVIATION OF FITNESS AND AVERAGED
EXECUTION TIME OF GA, PSO, BA AND D BA.
GA PSO BA dBA
Mean 23.6113 108.3300 43.1469 9.0684
Standard deviation 3.2746 73.4881 10.9503 1.3855
Averaged Exec. Time 6.1918 s 6.3718 s 6.8859 s 7.4644 s
PSO had the worst performance with the highest mean and
the highest standard deviation. GA overcame BA with lower
mean and lower standard deviation. On the other hand, the
modifications in dBA allowed it to overcome not only BA
but also GA and PSO performances. It presented the lowest
mean (65.59 % lower than GA mean fitness) and the lowest
standard deviation. Due to its higher complexity, dBA had a
slightly higher averaged execution time than GA (17.04 %).
V. C ONCLUSION
This work presents the application of the directional Bat
Algorithm (dBA) for optimal directional overcurrent relays
coordination. The performance comparison of dBA against its
counterparts GA, PSO and BA has shown the superiority of
dBA in terms of total operating time, convergence time and
computational effort. dBA had also a good performance when
dealing with the coordination constraint, the worst violation
was 4.52 %. Thus, dBA has proved to be well suited for [18] M. Jevtić and J. Radosavljević, “Hybrid GSA-SQP algorithm
optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays with for optimal coordination of directional overcurrent relays,”
IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 10,
distinguished performance. no. 8, pp. 1928–1937, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://digital-
library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1223
[19] A. Shrivastava, J. M. Tripathi, R. Krishan, and S. K. Parida, “Optimal
R EFERENCES Coordination of Overcurrent Relays using Gravitational Search Algo-
rithm with DG Penetration,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica-
[1] J. M. Gers and E. J. Holmes, Protection of Electricity Distribution tions, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1155–1165, 2018.
Networks, 3rd ed. Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2011. [20] A. Chakri, R. Khelif, M. Benouaret, and X.-S. Yang, “New directional
[2] A. Urdaneta, R. Nadira, and L. Perez Jimenez, “Optimal coordination bat algorithm for continuous optimization problems,” Expert Systems
of directional overcurrent relays in interconnected power systems,” with Applications, vol. 69, pp. 159–175, 2017. [Online]. Available:
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 903–911, jul http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957417416305905
1988. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/193867/ [21] X. Yang, “Bat algorithm: Literature review and applications,” CoRR,
[3] A. Urdaneta, H. Restrepo, S. Marquez, and J. Sanchez, “Coordination vol. abs/1308.3900, 2013.
of directional overcurrent relay timing using linear programming,” [22] IEC, “Measuring relays and protection equipment - Part 151: Functional
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 122–129, requirements for over/under current protection,” Iec 60255-151:2009,
1996. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/484008/ vol. 1, p. 63, 2009.
[4] M. S. Sachdev and C. S. N. Ow, “An on -line relay coordination [23] X.-S. Yang, “A New Metaheuristic Bat-Inspired Algorithm,” apr 2010.
algorithm for adaptive protection using linear programming technique,” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4170
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 165–173, 1996. [24] P. Anderson, Power System Protection, ser. IEEE Press power engineer-
ing series. McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[5] A. S. Noghabi, H. R. Mashhadi, and J. Sadeh, “Optimal Coordination of
Directional Overcurrent Relays Considering Different Network Topolo-
gies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1348–
1354, 2010.
[6] H. Zeienldin, E. El-Saadany, and M. Salama, “A novel problem formu-
lation for directional overcurrent relay coordination,” pp. 48–52, 2004.
[7] D. Birla, R. P. Maheshwari, and H. O. Gupta, “A new nonlinear
directional overcurrent relay coordination technique, and banes and
boons of near-end faults based approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1176–1182, 2006.
[8] V. A. Papaspiliotopoulos, G. N. Korres, and N. G. Maratos, “A Novel
Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming Method for Optimal
Coordination of Directional Overcurrent Relays,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 2017.
[9] F. B. Bottura, W. M. S. Bernardes, M. Oleskovicz, and E. N. Asada,
“Setting directional overcurrent protection parameters using hybrid GA
optimizer,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 143, pp. 400–408,
2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.09.017
[10] P. P. Bedekar and S. R. Bhide, “Optimum coordination of directional
overcurrent relays using the hybrid GA-NLP approach,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Power Delivery, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 109–119, 2011.
[11] A. S. Noghabi, J. Sadeh, and H. R. Mashhadi, “Considering different
network topologies in optimal overcurrent relay coordination using a
hybrid GA,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 24, no. 4, pp.
1857–1863, 2009.
[12] M. M. Mansour, S. F. Mekhamer, and N. E. S. El-Kharbawe, “A
modified particle swarm optimizer for the coordination of directional
overcurrent relays,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 3,
pp. 1400–1410, 2007.
[13] M. H. Hussain, I. Musirin, A. F. Abidin, and S. R. A. Rahim, “Modified
Swarm Firefly Algorithm Method for Directional Overcurrent Relay
Coordination Problem,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
Technology, vol. 31, no. 663, 2014. [Online]. Available: www.jatit.org
[14] S. S. Dash, J. Moirangthem, R. Ramaswami, and K. K.R.,
“Adaptive differential evolution algorithm for solving non-linear
coordination problem of directional overcurrent relays,” IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 329–336, 2013. [Online].
Available: http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-
gtd.2012.0110
[15] T. R. Chelliah, R. Thangaraj, S. Allamsetty, and M. Pant, “Coordination
of directional overcurrent relays using opposition based chaotic
differential evolution algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical
Power and Energy Systems, vol. 55, pp. 341–350, 2014. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.09.032
[16] M. Y. Shih, A. Conde Enrı́quez, T. Y. Hsiao, and L. M. Torres
Treviño, “Enhanced differential evolution algorithm for coordination of
directional overcurrent relays,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol.
143, pp. 365–375, 2017.
[17] “Adaptive directional overcurrent relay coordination using ant colony
optimisation,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 9,
no. 14, pp. 2040–2049, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://digital-
library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0394