ReView by River Valley This

Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

Optimal Feature Selection for Islanding Detection in Distributed Generation

Sheetal Chandak1*, Manohar Mishra2, Subrat Nayak3, Pravat Kumar Rout2

1
Electrical Engineering Department, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University, India-751030.
2
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University, India-751030
3
Computer Science Engineering Department, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University, India-751030.
*
sheetalchandak1691@gmail.com

Abstract: The integration of the distributed power generation into a distribution system comes with several system
problems. One of the teething problems related to system protection is islanding detection. Various anti-islanding
techniques based on feature evaluation were proposed in the recent past. However, they overlook the need of justifying
the selection of a particular detection feature among all the possible measures. In this article, a wrapper feature selection
approach is proposed where a modified multi-objective differential evolution algorithm (MMODEA) is coupled with a
kernel-based extreme learning machine classifier (K-ELM). To select the optimum features, five standard objective
functions have been considered, such as dependability, security, accuracy, F-measure, and the number of features. About
1864 cases have been generated from the designed IEEE 13 bus system to extract the sensitive features. IEEE 1547
standards have been considered while designing and testing IEEE 13 bus system against islanding. The selected optimal
features detect the islanded condition decisively for both synchronous and inverter-based DGs. The features also validate
their performance under noisy environment accurately with lesser computational time.
Passive schemes are mostly preferred because of
1. Introduction their reduced design complexity, cost, and PQ issues. In this
Incorporation of distributed generators (DGs) using method of detection, the system parameter plays a
the microgrid concept at the distribution level has gained significant role. In literature, several parameters have been
momentum due to the exponential increase in demand and adopted in the passive anti-islanding schemes. They can be
environmental factors. Energy generation from distributed stated as voltage, frequency, current, power, harmonics, and
energy resources (DERs) has registered a growth of 23.7% their derivatives [6]-[10]. Apart from that, vector surge [11],
of a global generation of eco-friendly energy in the year phase shift [12], and change of harmonic impedance [13] are
2015 [1]. However, the deployment of DGs with the utility also suggested as detecting parameters. As the techniques
raises many technical issues concerned with the protection correspond to a single feature, they exhibit a large non-
and control strategies. One of the most critical protection detection zone (NDZ) with lower accuracy. Further, a
issues is Islanding. It is a scenario in which DGs are combination of two or more features is analyzed together to
disconnected from the main grid but continue to power the reduce the NDZ and attain higher accuracy. For example,
local loads connected to it. This may lead to various the rate of change of voltage and real power shift [14],
undesirable issues like reduction of power quality (PQ) Sandia frequency shift and rate of change of frequency [15].
restoration problems, and voltage and frequency instability. In literature, several detection techniques proposed
As per the IEEE 1547 standard, islanding condition should till date focus on minimizing the NDZ, which are deployed
be detected within 2 seconds from its inception [2]. So, all and tested for a particular type of DG [16,17]. However, a
the DGs should be accompanied by an anti-islanding relay, challenging task arises while designing a passive anti-
operating as an islanding detection device. islanding scheme protecting both the type of DGs
Islanding can be broadly classified into two types as simultaneously [4].
intentional and unintentional islanding. Unintentional Generally, passive techniques deal with three basic
islanding is a major concern and should be detected properly steps, such as feature extraction, feature selection (FS), and
in order to safeguard the utility personnel, DGs and end-user classification. In a practical scenario, the extraction of
equipment from out-of-phase reclosing [3]. Thus, the anti- numerous features intensifies the computational burden.
islanding schemes implemented for the detection are Thus, the selection of appropriate features with a minimum
generally categorized as remote, active, and passive schemes. number turns out to be a significant point of concern.
Remote scheme implements a communication path to detect Furthermore, the selection of optimum features reduces the
the islanding event. This process of detection is highly time taken for training and testing of a dataset for
expensive because of the equipment cost. Passive technique classification. In the process of feature selection task, the
practices the concept of measuring the system parameters redundant features are eliminated which helps to improve
and equating these values with the set of limiting values to the output performance of the classifier. Hence, it becomes
detect the islanding instant. Whereas, the active technique essential to design an algorithm to select an appropriate
implements the idea of continuous disturbance injection into feature set, to attain an efficient islanding detection and an
the system under study [4]. These added up small ensured protection to the DGs incorporated with the utility.
disturbances to the system, enhance the instability in the Some of the FS approaches implemented previously for the
system parameters for faster detection of islanding instance islanding detection problem are cited in [4],[18]-[20].
[5]. This article concentrates on the selection of sensitive
features to support faster as well as precise detection of the

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 2

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

islanding instances. Most of the papers present different
detection techniques directly with selected features without
mentioning the basis of selection. Therefore, the FS strategy
has been focused on and detailed in the manuscript. FS
technique is broadly categorized into the wrapper and filter
approaches. Wrapper FS methods use a classifier learning
process to optimize the objective function, conversely filter
FS methods do not. Thus, wrapper FS methods are more
accurate and robust, compared to the filter FS methods
which are considered to be faster. A comparative study on
the wrapper and the filter FS method is presented in [21]. In
this literature, the wrapper FS method has been considered
to select the most sensitive features for islanding detection.
Selection of optimum feature is a tricky job because
the features hold a complicated relationship among
themselves. Moreover, the wide-ranging search space
intensifies the difficulty in the selection and the increasing
number of features increases the search space exponentially
[22]. Taking into account the above-specified problem, a
proficient search technique is essential. Thus in 1997, Storn
and Price proposed differential evolution (DE) which is a
population-based global optimization approach. Being an
efficient global search technique, it also possesses the
advantages like execution simplicity, reliability, and high
robustness. Therefore, DE has been extensively used by the
researchers in many diverse fields for feature selection. A
detailed review of DE for FS task was presented by Ali et al.
[23].
In order to handle an optimization problem, several
aspects of a dataset are required to be taken care of. A single
objective function, solely could not tackle several attributes
of a problem adequately. Therefore, a multi-objective
optimization is preferred over a single objective
optimization approach and is immensely used in many fields
for FS. Taking into account the wrapper FS approach,
various classification methods have been implemented in the
last decade by several researchers. Extreme learning
machine (ELM) is a latest classifier which follows a single
feedforward network [24]. As the ELM tends to be a recent
approach, it is yet to be explored in the field of FS.
Moreover, the ELM possesses an attractive advantage of
non-iterative linear solutions which tends to speed up the
magnitude to 5 and 6 times in comparison with the multi-
layer perceptron (MLP) and support vector machine (SVM)
respectively [25]. A kernel function based ELM (K-ELM) is
an enhancement to the ELM by improving the algorithm's
stability and by providing a robust unified solution.
Furthermore, the K-ELM does not require parameter tuning
and possesses a minimum of computational complication.
Thus, the article proposes an MMODEA coupled K-ELM
classifier as an anti-islanding scheme, addressing the
protection against both the synchronous based DGs and
inverter based DGs. Further for feature selection, three
objective functions such as dependability, security, and F-
measure have been considered along with the two basic
objective functions such as a maximum of accuracy and
minimum of feature number. A dataset of 1864 instances
has been generated and applied to the proposed algorithm.
The outcomes of the selected feature set reveal the
effectiveness of the proposed algorithm by resulting an
accurate detection of the islanding events.
The major contributions of the present study are as
follows:
1. Offline selection of optimal features for islanding
detection, using modified multi-objective differential
evolution and kernel-based extreme learning machine.
2. Computation of sensitive feature vectors through five
standard objectives such as dependability, security,
accuracy, F-measure, and the number of features.
3. Kernel-based extreme learning machine has been used to
cross-validate the performance of selected feature vector
in the noisy environment.
4. 45 features are extracted through simulation of modified
IEEE 13 bus system integrated with synchronous and
inverter-based distributed generators for feature selection
algorithm.
5. The method is numerically simple and operationally faster
with minimum NDZ.
The manuscript is organized as follows: Section 2
focuses on the design of the system under study.
Subsequently Sections 3 and 4 discuss the cases and features
considered in this study, respectively. Further, the idea of
feature selection using a multi-objective differential
evolutionary algorithm and proposed methodology
respectively are highlighted in Section 5 and 6. Section 7
analyses and discusses the effectiveness of the results
obtained for clear discrimination of the islanding and non-
islanding situations. At last the final summary concludes in
Section 8.
2. System under Study
The distribution system designed to analyze the
proposed scheme follows the standards of IEEE-13 bus test
system [26]. The considered radial distribution feeder is
integrated with three different types of DG. Fig.1.a.
represents the schematic layout of the system untaken for
the study.
The 115(Δ)/4.16(Y-grounded) kV substation
transformer serves the 13 bus test feeder. The feeder covers
a distance of about 8200ft and is uniformly loaded with light
loads. Following the layout of the IEEE 13 bus system, the
shunt capacitors are placed at feeder ends. A 200kVAR
shunt capacitor is connected to the three phases at node 6
and another of 100kVAR is placed at the C phases of node
13. The system specifications and the operating parameters
are presented in Table.1.
Table 1 System specification & ratings
Parameters Values
Q.F 1
Frequency 60 Hz
Transformer T1 4.16kV/575V
T2 4.16kV/1300V
T3 4.16kV/575V
T4 115kV/4.16kV
Loads L1 1.5MW, 0.9657MVar
L2 2.25MW, 1.0875MVar
L3 2MW, 0.9657MVar
Shunt C1 200kVar
Capacitor C2 100kVar
2

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 3

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
a the total load consumption within the formed island is
b
Fig.1. System taken for the study and its response.
(a) Schematic presentation of the test system. (b)
Fluctuation at DG1 due to the occurrence of an islanding
event.
The integration of three different types of DG
expands the test feeder. Table.2 represents the system
specifications and ratings of the DGs integrated. The DG1
being a wind turbine driven doubly fed induction generator
(DFIG) is integrated at node-4 of the test feeder. The DFIG
is designed using an induction generator along with an
IGBT based PWM converter. The rotor windings are
coupled via an AC-DC-AC PWM and on the other hand, the
stator windings are directly integrated with the utility [27].
Node 10 of the test feeder incorporates a hydro turbine
governing system with a synchronous generator, which is
named as DG2 [28]. A type-4 wind turbine known as DG3
is coupled at node 8. DG3 includes a synchronous generator
with a diode rectifier, an IGBT based DC-DC boost
converter and a DC-AC PWM [29]. The system undertaken
in this study uses the podium of MATLAB 2014/Simulink.
The operating standards of the designed model are
maintained according to the standards of IEEE 1547.
Table 2 DG Ratings
Rating
DG1 1.66MVA (1.5/0.9 MVA)
DG2 2.5 MVA
DG3 2.22MVA (2/0.9MVA)
2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only
3. Cases and Parameter for Data Generation
With an intention to discriminate the islanded and
non-islanded instances, an ample number of cases were
implemented with a range of variations, such that a well-
defined dataset is produced towards the application of the
MMODEA-KELM approach. The numbers of assorted cases
formulated in this study are presented in Table.3.
3.1. Islanding Scenarios
The variation in a system at the occurrence of an
islanding instant is shown in Fig.1.b. The voltage and
current variations at time 0.5 second can be analyzed. The
power mismatch between the total DG power generation and
simulated to study the islanding instances. The islanding test
scenarios vary between zero, small and large power
mismatch on the basis of testing standards. The variations
extended for the active power mismatch is considered
between 0 to ±80%, on the other hand, the reactive power
mismatch ranges from 0 to ±50%. This large range of
mismatch is considered such that the proposed MMODEA-
KELM approach obtains the feature set which overcomes
the difficulty of NDZ. Numerous mismatch cases were
deliberately formulated in three different levels of the island
formed and they are stated as:
Case1: Small Island: The small island is formed close to the
DGs, comprising of DGs and their local loads. These small
islands can be created at Bus 4, 8 and 10 separately.
Case2: Medium Island: The medium island is formed while
getting disconnected at bus 3. The isolated island
encompasses the DG1 and DG2 along with the certain local
loads.
Case 3: Large Island: The case formulates a large inland
when disconnected from the substation at Bus 1. The
islanded system covers all the DGs and loads present in the
test feeder [19].
3.2. Non-Islanding Scenarios
In order to generate a dataset for non-islanded
scenarios while connected to the grid, different power
system scenarios were generated. Capacitor switching, load
switching, fault events, power quality instance and DG
tripping were the simulated five instances. The variations
made to generate the dataset are illustrated in Table.3.
4. Features Studied
In order to attain a secure islanding detection,
multiple features are generally taken into account. The most
significant motive of implementing multiple features is to
propose an anti-islanding scheme, which should include the
following characteristics:
a) A minimum of NDZ (i.e., zero power mismatch).
b) Applicable for a multi-DG system with multiple types
of DG.
c) Easily discriminating the various operating conditions
and islanding events.
d) Faster detection speed.
The system under study considers both the synchronous and
inverter based DGs.
4
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
Table 3 Cases stimulated.
Cases
Variations in Active Power
Variations in Reactive Power
Variations both in Active and Reactive Power
Fault Scenarios
Capacitor Switching
Voltage Swell
Voltage Sag
Load Switching
DG Tripping
I: Islanding; NI: Non-Islanding
The study evaluates every possible combination of
system parameters being affected due to the disturbance in
the system. In total about 45 features are extracted in the
study. Every potential parameter of the system are
considered and moreover, their corresponding sequence
components and rate of change are also measured. The
features extracted are stated in Table.4 (Appendix).
5. Feature Selection
In the pattern recognition task, the input vector
contains a number of distinctive features. However, each
feature has a unique characteristic and also maintains a
complex relationship with the other features. Sometimes an
individual feature may show a decent performance, but
when operated simultaneously in the group may behave
redundantly (or vice-versa). Thus, the selection of the most
essential features having diversified properties becomes
important.
In this approach, the feature selection task has been
performed by the application of MMODEA algorithm.
Subsequently, the selected features are applied to a K-ELM
classifier to classify islanding and non-islanding scenarios.
5.1. Basic Differential Evolution and its Variant
DE proposed by Rainer Storn and Kenneth Price
(1997) is a population-based global optimization technique.
This technique is well recognized because of its advantages
like simplicity, competency, swiftness, real coding along
with trouble-free use and local searching property [30].
Being an optimization process, DE helps in optimising the
problem with respect to the fitness function 𝑓(𝑥), such as
Minimization𝑓(𝑥)/Maximization𝑓(𝑥).
DE arbitrarily initializes a target vector of population
size ′𝑃′ having a parameter vector of ′𝐷′ dimension. The
target vector (𝑋𝑖,𝐺 ) formed can be presented as 𝑋𝑖,𝐺 =
{𝑋𝑖,𝐺,1 , 𝑋𝑖,𝐺,2 … 𝑋𝑖,𝐺,𝐷 } , here 𝑖 ranges from 1 to 𝑃 and
𝐺 indicates the current generation. The parameters of the
target vector are arbitrarily initialised, limiting to the
specified search space. Here the initialisation of each
parameter is bounded within its lower and upper limit, stated
1 2 𝐷 1 2 𝐷
as 𝑋𝐿𝐵 = {𝑥𝐿𝐵 , 𝑥𝐿𝐵 … , 𝑥𝐿𝐵 } and 𝑋𝑈𝐵 = {𝑥𝑈𝐵 , 𝑥𝑈𝐵 … , 𝑥𝑈𝐵 }
respectively.
Subsequently, a mutant vector ′𝑉𝑖,𝐺 ′ of 𝐷dimension
is generated by means of a mutation strategy as presented in
(1).
2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only
Type Variations
I 0 to ±80%
I 0 to ±50%
I 0 to ±80% & 0 to ±50%
NI All symmetrical and asymmetrical faults at varying
resistance from 0-100Ω
NI 0.5MVar to 10MVar
NI 1.1p.u. to 1.8p.u.
NI 0.1p.u. to 0.9p.u.
NI Up to 20% overloading
NI Single or multiple DG tripping at varying loads
𝑉𝑖,𝐺 = 𝑋𝑟 𝑖 ,𝐺 + 𝑆𝐹(𝑋𝑟 𝑖 ,𝐺 − 𝑋𝑟 𝑖 ,𝐺 ) , 𝑟1 ≠ 𝑟2 ≠ 𝑟3 ≠ 𝑖 (1)
1 2 3
where, 𝑟1𝑖 , 𝑟2𝑖 , 𝑟3𝑖 are the arbitrary solutions obtained from Gth
generation and the scaling factor ranging from [0,1] is
termed as 𝑆𝐹.
A crossover is performed on every individual
solution of target and mutant vector by using (2). This
crossover generates a new vector termed as trial vector
′(𝑈𝑖,𝐺 )′. This obtained vector can be presented as 𝑈𝑖,𝐺 =
{𝑢1𝑖,𝐺 , 𝑢𝑖,𝐺
2 𝐷
… . . 𝑢𝑖,𝐺 }
𝑗
𝑗 𝑣 𝑖,𝐺 , 𝑖𝑓(𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑗 [0,1) ≤ 𝐶𝑟)𝑜𝑟𝑗 = 𝑗𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑢𝑖,𝐺 = { 𝑗 (2)
𝑥𝑖,𝐺 , 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where𝑗 = 1,2, . . 𝐷 , 𝐶𝑟 signifies the crossover rate varying
within [0,1]. 𝑗𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 represents an arbitrary integer ranging
between [1,D].
Using one-to-one greedy selection scheme the next
generation population is created. The fitness values of the
target vector and the corresponding trial vectors are assessed
and equated using (3). As a result, the better solution is
selected for the next generation.
𝑈𝑖,𝐺 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑓(𝑈𝑖,𝐺 ) ≤ 𝑓(𝑋𝑖,𝐺 )
𝑋𝑖,𝐺+1 = { (3)
𝑋𝑖,𝐺 , 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
where, 𝑖 range from [1, P].
DE is an iterative process. Thus the mutation,
crossover and selection steps continue until the stopping
criteria is achieved.
5.2. Multi-Objective
Multi-criterion decision making can be termed as a
multi-objective optimization. The technique includes the
optimization of more than one objective function
simultaneously. It operates as minimization or maximization
of many conflicting objective functions at the same time.
Selection of optimum features is a multi-objective
optimization issue, here the major objective can be stated as
minimization of feature numbers along with the
maximization of the classification performance parameters.
Thus, it helps in generating a Pareto front of non-dominated
feature subsets to fulfill the requirement of the objective
functions [31].
The optimization of multi-objective function can be
presented in a mathematical form as in (4).
𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒, 𝐹(𝑓𝑠) = 𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 {𝑓1 (𝑓𝑠), 𝑓2 (𝑓𝑠), … 𝑓𝑛 (𝑓𝑠)} (4)
where, ′𝑓𝑠′ signifies every feasible feature set of a dataset,
the term ′𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚′ indicates either minimize or maximize
according to the specified objective functions, and ′𝑛′
4
5
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

represent the number of objective functions opted for the The 𝛽 matrix is the only parameter to be computed in ELM.
optimization. A continuous minimization of n number of The least squares estimation is implemented to calculate the
objective functions leads to Pareto optimal solutions. The set matrix.
of non-dominated Pareto optimal solutions form a Pareto 𝛽 = 𝐻∗𝑇 (7)
front. This Pareto-front helps in selecting the best solutions here, 𝐻 ∗ = (𝐻𝑇 𝐻)−1 𝐻 𝑇 called as Moore-Penrose
according to the user's requirement. generalized pseudo-inverse of the matrix H. The ELM
follows simple procedures of three steps as:
5.3. Modified Multi-Objective Differential Evolution 1. Arbitrary selection of hidden parameter.
2. Evaluate the hidden layer matrix ′𝐻′.
A brief discussion of the proposed MMODEA is 3. Evaluate the output weight by means of (7).
provided in this section. MMODEA follows the same steps ELM performs significantly faster, as the entire
of classical DE except for certain changes, as we are dealing process of evaluation is completed within a single iteration.
with multiple objectives. On closely analyzing the selection
step of the DE algorithm, it can be realized that this step
Start
may pass over certain good solutions. Thus, the selection
step is modified according to an elitism based non-
dominating sorting from NSGA-II [32]. Specify control parameters
The modified selection step merges the target and
trial vectors, resulting in a population size of 2𝑃. The non-
domination principle is implied to assign a rank and sort the
solutions of the 2𝑃 population. Hence the non-domination Iteration
Stop
< NIter
rank and crowding distance helps in obtaining the top-best No
solutions of 𝑃 size [32].
The proposed MMODE algorithm executes for 'NIter' Yes
number of iterations to acquire the most excellent feature
Generate ‘P’ population
subset according to the objective functions. The flowchart of
the proposed algorithm for FS is presented in Fig.2.
No Store the best feature
5.4. ELM Generation
subset as per the
<G
objective function
ELM characterizes to be a feedforward artificial
neural network with a hidden layer. An introductory layout Yes
of the ELM is presented in Fig.3. ELM has acquired Generate mutant vector Mutation
enormous consideration amongst the researchers due to its
simplification, reliability, and faster learning speed in
Generate trial vector by performing
comparison with the other techniques, such as support crossover mechanism on target and
vector machine, back propagation, etc. [33]. ELM possesses mutant vector Crossover
a significant characteristics of selecting the input weight and
bias arbitrarily. Moreover, the algorithm also assists the
analytical determination of the output weights via Moore Merge trial and target vector
resulting ‘2P’ population
Penrose generalized pseudo-inverse [34]. ELM aims to
achieve the least training error along with a minimum norm
of output weights. Therefore, it presents an optimal solution Evaluate each instances w.r.t each
after excelling over the conventional issues such as local objective function for fitness
minima, learning rate, training period and stopping criterion. calculation
The output ′𝑦′ obtained from the ELM, having ′𝐿′ number
of hidden layers can be stated as in (5): Assign rank based on non-dominated
sorting as per the fitness value of Selection
𝑦 = ∑𝐿𝑖=1 𝛽𝑖 𝑔𝑖 (𝑥) = ∑𝐿𝑖=1 𝛽𝑖 𝐺(𝜔𝑖 , 𝑏𝑖 , 𝑥) = 𝐻𝛽 (5)
‘2P’ population
here, 𝑔𝑖 (𝑥) = 𝐺(𝜔𝑖 , 𝑏𝑖 , 𝑥) relates to the output for the ith
hidden layer. Where ′𝑥′ signifies the input samples, ′𝜔𝑖 ′ and
′𝑏𝑖 ′ presents the arbitrarily initiated weight and bias Sort the 2P population as per rank
respectively, ′𝐻′ and ′𝛽′ signifies the hidden layer matrix
and the output weights respectively [35]. For N individual New population created by selecting
sample, the matrices can be represented as: top-most ‘P’ population based on
𝐻𝛽 = 𝑇 (6) non-dominated sorting and crowding
where, distance
ℎ(𝑥1 ) 𝐺(𝜔1 , 𝑏1 , 𝑥1 ) ⋯ 𝐺(𝜔𝐿 , 𝑏𝐿 , 𝑥𝑁 ) Fig.2. Flowchart for proposed MMODE algorithm
𝐻=[ ⋮ ]=[ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ] ,
ℎ(𝑥𝑁 ) 𝐺(𝜔1 , 𝑏1 , 𝑥𝑁 ) ⋯ 𝐺(𝜔𝐿 , 𝑏𝐿 , 𝑥𝑁 ) 𝑁×𝐿
𝛽1 𝑇1
𝛽 = [ ⋮ ] , 𝑇 = [ ⋮ ] and T is the target matrix.
𝛽𝑁 𝐿×1 𝑇𝑁 𝑁×1
5

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 6

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

where precision (P) is a ratio between the number of

Fig.3. Preliminary ELM structure
5.5. Kernel-Based ELM
Intending to enhance the performance of a classifier,
based on computational speed and efficiency, the K-ELM
learning algorithm is considered in this study. The K-ELM
approach provides a benefit of adjusting two parameters (the
penalty parameter '𝜆' and the kernel parameter '𝑎') whereas
ELM, requires the adjustment of weights and biases for
enhancing the generalized performance. In other terms,
computation becomes simpler and faster as the hidden layer
feature mapping and hidden neurons need not be known and
chosen respectively. Additionally, training of K-ELM is
considered to be very fast as general ELM along with the
advantage of good generalization performance and stability
[36]. For N distinct sample kernel matrix for ELM is defined
in(8) as:
Ω𝐸𝐿𝑀 = 𝐻𝐻𝑇 (8)
where, Ω𝐸𝐿𝑀𝑖,𝑗 = ℎ(𝑥𝑖 ). ℎ(𝑥𝑗 ) = 𝐾(𝑥𝑖 , 𝑥𝑗 )
According to the above kernel matrix formulation, the
output function of the ELM classifier can be reformed as in
(9).
here, 𝐾 𝑇 (𝑥, 𝑥𝑖 )is the kernel function of the hidden neuron
and 𝐼 represent an identity matrix of N×N size. In this work,
the gaussian kernel function is considered.
Gaussian kernel function:
𝐾 𝑇 (𝑥, 𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑎‖𝑥 − 𝑥𝑖 ‖) (10)
5.6. Objective Function Formulation
The optimum features are obtained on the basis of
maximization of objective functions. The four objective
functions considered in this study are dependability, security,
accuracy, and F-measure. A minimum number of features is
considered as a major objective function while selecting the
feature subset. The objective functions are evaluated as:
a) Dependability:
𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑇𝑃
𝐷= = (11)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑇𝑃 + 𝐹𝑃
b) Security:
𝑁𝑜𝑛−𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑇𝑁
𝑆= = (12)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑇𝑁+𝐹𝑁
c) Accuracy: (see: (13))
d) F-Measure:
2×(𝐷×𝑃)
𝐹 − 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 = (14)
(𝐷+𝑃)
islanding instances rightly predicted (TP) to the total
number of instances predicted as islanding ( i.e., TP+FN).
Here TP: True Positive, TN: True Negative, FP:
False Positive, FN: False Negative. The rightly predicted
islanding and non-islanding instances are termed as TP and
TN respectively. Whereas, when the islanding instances are
wrongly predicted as non-islanding instances and vice-versa
they are termed as FN and FP respectively.
The objective function: dependability decreases the
false identification rate and is stated in (11) which is the
ratio between rightly predicted islanding instance to the total
number of islanding instances. Moreover, security as an
objective function with higher values avoids the false
tripping of circuit breakers. Security presented in (12) can
be explained as a ratio between the rightly predicted non-
islanding events to the total number of non-islanding events.
Accuracy is a significant function as it deals with the
accurately predicted events for both islanding and non-
islanding events as stated in (13). But in real time
environment, islanding cases occur rarely as compared to
the non-islanding cases. As a result, there is a large
difference between the size of islanding and non-islanding
dataset where the accuracy may not be an appropriate
measure of performance. For these types of scenario, the
objective function F-Measure is calculated using (14).
6. Proposed Methodology
In this manuscript, the proposed methodology
comprises of two main stages: 1) algorithm for optimal
feature selection, 2) implementation of a selected feature set
for islanding detection and classification. The complete
procedure is presented in seven steps as follows:
Step 1: Generate cases considering all possible islanding
and non-islanding events using MATLAB/Simulink.
Step 2: Extract voltage and current signals from the PCC of
the targeted island for each case.
Step 3: Compute 45 features presented in Table.4 {F-1, F-2,
F-3, .... , F-45}, for every event.
Step 4: Obtain 'n' number of optimum feature sets {S-1, S-
2, ...., S-n}, using proposed MMODE-KELM based on 5
objective functions { Dependability, Security, Accuracy,
F-measure, and the number of features}, according to the
steps presented in Fig.2.
Step 5: Cross-validate the obtained feature set using K-
ELM classifier at 30db and 20db noise, to obtain a
highly sensitive feature set based on dependability,
security, accuracy, f-measure, and the number of features.
Step 6: Train the K-ELM classifier to distinguish islanding
and non-islanding event using training subset of the
selected feature set.
Step 7: Analyse the required results using K-ELM
classifier by the testing subset of the selected feature set.
Following the above procedure of the proposed
approach, all the cases as presented in Table.3 are applied to
the modified IEEE 13 bus test feeder and the simulated
results are analyzed in the subsequent section.

𝐼 𝐼
𝑦(𝑥) = ℎ(𝑥). 𝐻𝑇 ( + 𝐻𝐻 𝑇 )−1 𝑇 = [𝐾 𝑇 (𝑥, 𝑥1 ), 𝐾 𝑇 (𝑥, 𝑥2 ), . . . 𝐾 𝑇 (𝑥, 𝑥𝑁 )]. ( + Ω𝐸𝐿𝑀 )−1 𝑇 (9)
𝜆 𝜆
𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑇𝑃+𝑇𝑁
𝐴= = (13)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑇𝑃+𝐹𝑃+𝑇𝑁+𝐹𝑁

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 7

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

7. Result Analysis
The proposed islanding detection approach has been
tested considering almost every scenario of very often
occurring disturbances in the distribution network. A dataset
comprising of 784 islanding instances and 1080 non-
islanding instances is obtained. The dataset of 1864
instances is examined by the proposed feature selection
algorithm (MMODEA-KELM) to obtain the best possible
feature subset on the basis of specified four objective
functions. The obtained feature subsets classifying the
islanding and non-islanding instances efficiently are
presented in Table.5 (Appendix). Amongst all the best-
performing feature subsets, optimal feature vector selection
becomes a major concern.
a
It can be evidently pointed out that the obtained
feature vector comprises two or more features to validate the
specified objective functions. Thus, in order to reduce the
computational burden during feature extraction, the feature
vector with the reduced number of features and best
performance should be selected. Furthermore, before
selecting the feature vector, it must ensure an efficient
performance in a noisy environment.
Thus, the feature vectors are cross-examined under
noisy environment through the K-ELM classifier. The
performance of the feature vectors corresponding to 20db
and 30db noise can be analyzed from Table.6 (Appendix).
Results indicate that the performance of the obtained
vectors in 30db noisy environment has a performance above b
90%. But a significant reduction in the performance can be
observed under 20db noisy environment.
Feature subsets at the 20db noise, are analyzed and
evaluated on the basis of performance of objective functions
and number of features in the subset. The most efficient
feature subset is concluded to be [F10 F11 F39], retaining
the dependability, security, accuracy, and F-measure as
94.77%, 97.12%, 96.13% and 95.37% respectively.
In order to validate the obtained feature subset, each
feature from the feature vector is further analyzed. The
visual representation of the selected individual feature is
shown in a comparative form on the basis of islanding and
non-islanding event. The feature F-10 i.e. the ratio between
negative sequence voltages to that of positive sequence c
voltage measured at DG1 is shown in Fig.4 for both
islanding and non-islanding events. The islanding event with
the active power mismatch of ±10% is shown in Fig.4.a.
Varying only the reactive power by ±5% is represented in
Fig.4.b. Further, the variation in Fig.4.c represents the
mismatch made on both active and reactive power by ±20%
and ±1% respectively. In islanding cases, small variations of
power mismatch are represented so as to clearly signify the
evidence for the negligible NDZ. A comparison of non-
islanding cases like capacitor switching, load switching and
faults are presented in Fig.4.d while all the cases experience
the disturbance at 0.5 seconds.
Likewise, various islanding cases and non-islanding
cases for feature F-11 and F-39 is presented in Fig.5 and d
Fig.6 respectively. The similar observation has been Fig.4. Islanding and Non-Islanding case study for feature F-
obtained at another target DG location (DG2 and DG3), 10;
however, due to space limitation, the results are not (a) Islanding Case: only P variations (b) Islanding Case:
presented in this article. only Q variations (c) Islanding Case: P and Q variations (d)
Non-Islanding Comparisons.
7

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 8

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

a a

b b

c c

d d
Fig.5. Islanding and Non-Islanding case study for feature F- Fig.6. Islanding and Non-Islanding case study for feature F-
11 39
(a) Islanding Case: only P variations (b) Islanding Case: (a) Islanding Case: only P variations (b) Islanding Case:
only Q variations (c) Islanding Case: P and Q variations (d) only Q variations (c) Islanding Case: P and Q variations (d)
Non-Islanding Comparisons Non-Islanding Comparisons

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 9

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

Fig.7 illustrates the performance comparison of all

selected features (F-10, F-11, and F-39) with respect to
islanding at zero active and reactive power mismatch and
non-islanding scenarios. It can be analyzed that all the three
features are highly sensitive to the disturbances occurring at
time 0.5 seconds. Moreover, features show a vast disparity
between islanding and non-islanding scenarios.

c
Fig.8. Features plot
(a) F-10 verses F-11 (b) F-11 verses F-39 (c) F-10 verses F-
39.

Furthermore, the efficiency of the proposed

c basis of DG types, feature selection approach (if applied),
Fig.7. Feature compared on the basis of Islanding and Non-
Islanding Scenarios
(a) F-10 (b) F-11 (c) F-39.
An assessment of islanding and a non-islanding event
corresponding to the pair of features is shown in Fig.8. The
plotting of feature F-10 against F-11, F-10 against F-39 and
F-11 against F-39 are demonstrated in Fig.8.a-c respectively.
It can be clearly observed that the features possess
negligible overlapping, resulting in better classification
accuracy.
technique with respect to the existing techniques is well
assessed in Table.7. The approaches are compared on the
extracted number of features, number of features considered
for detection, detection speed, and the four performance
indices. Moreover, to prove the effectiveness of the
proposed approach, a comparative analysis has been done
with the existing methods (as cited in Table.7) in Table.8,
considering a similar test model of IEEE 13 bus system
along with a similar number of test cases.
It can be clearly observed that with a minimum
number of features, the proposed method achieves a higher
reliability in terms of performance indices and detection
time for both synchronous and inverter based DGs.

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 10

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

Table 7 Comparative analysis of the proposed technique with the existing techniques.
Ref Type of DG If feature Extracted Features Detection Performance-based on the
implemented selection used no. of considered speed objective function.
features for (milliseconds) A D S FM
islanding
detection
[16] MS No 11 11 - 91.6% 100% 83.3% 92.2%
[17] MI No 21 21 - 95.0% 100% 90.0% 95.7%
[18] MS Yes 11 3 - 100% 100% 100% 100%
[19] MS & MI Yes 21 4 180 100% - - -
[20] MS & MI Yes 27 11 30 97.5% 98.0% 97.1% -
[4] MS & MI Yes 16 4 125 100% - - -
Proposed MS & MI Yes 45 3 75 100% 100% 100% 100%
Approach
*MS: Multiple Synchronous DG; MI: Multiple Inverter-based DG; A: Accuracy; D: Dependability; S:Security; FM: F-Measure.

Table 8 Analysis of the proposed technique with the existing techniques based on similar test model and test cases.
Ref Features Detection Performance-based on the objective Performance-based on the objective
for speed function. function at the 20db noise
islanding (millisecond) A D S FM A D S FM
detection
[16] 11 80 89.69% 99.9% 82.22% 90.25% 82.83% 88.26% 78.88% 75.21%
[17] 21 55 96.19% 100% 93.42% 93.66% 93.61% 92.47% 94.44% 92.40%
[18] 3 125 100% 100% 100% 100% 94.08% 93.75% 95.37% 92.50%
[19] 4 180 98.64 100% 97.22% 98.43% 95.22% 94.38% 95.83% 92.82%
[20] 11 30 96.62% 98.08% 95.55% 96.12% 94.25% 91.83% 96.01% 92.48%
Proposed 3 75 100% 100% 100% 100% 96.13% 94.77% 97.12% 95.37%
Approach
[3] Llaria, A., Curea, O., Jiménez, J., et al.,: 'Survey on
8. Conclusion microgrids: unplanned islanding and related inverter control
With an intention to obtain precise performance of techniques', Renewable energy, 2011, 36, (8), pp 2052-2061.
the detection technique for both synchronous and inverter-
based DG, the offline selection of sensitive features for the [4] Chandak, S., Mishra, M., & Rout, P. K.,: 'Hybrid
system is focused on and discussed in details. In this study, islanding detection with optimum feature selection and
forty-five features are extracted from the system designed. minimum NDZ', International Transactions on Electrical
The dataset extracted is optimized according to the five Energy Systems, 2018, e2602.
objective functions using MMODEA, to find the set of the
best features so as to minimize the NDZ and operate [5] Li, C., Cao, C., Cao, Y., et al.,: 'A review of islanding
accurately in diversified operating conditions. To study the detection methods for microgrid', Renewable and
robustness of the selected feature for islanding detection, Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 35, pp 211-220.
different islanding and non-islanding scenarios are
examined through K-ELM classifier in both ideal and noisy [6] Zeineldin, H. H., and James L. Kirtley.: 'A simple
environments. Evaluating the feature vectors on the basis of technique for islanding detection with negligible
minimizing the number of features and maximizing the nondetection zone', IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
performance parameters in noisy environments, the most 2009, 24, (2), pp 779-786.
efficient feature subset is concluded as [F-10 F-11 F-39]. It
is also verified that the time taken to detect islanding based [7] Zeineldin, H. H., and James L. Kirtley Jr.: 'Performance
on K-ELM using selected feature vector is approximately 75 of the OVP/UVP and OFP/UFP method with voltage and
milliseconds after the occurrence of an islanding event. This frequency dependent loads', IEEE Transactions on Power
represents the swiftness in detecting of an islanding scenario. Delivery, 2009, 24,(2), pp 772-778.

References [8] De Mango, F., Liserre, M., Dell'Aquila, A., et al.,:

[1] Adib, R., 'Renewables 2015 Global Status Report',2015.
[2] IEEE Application Guide for IEEE Std 1547™: 'IEEE
Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems', 2009.
'Overview of anti-islanding algorithms for PV systems. Part
I: Passive methods', IEEE 12thPower Electronics and
Motion Control Conf., 2006, EPE-PEMC '06, August 2006,
pp 1878-1883.
[9] Samet, H., Hashemi, F. and Ghanbari, T.,: 'Islanding
detection method for inverter-based distributed generation
with negligible non-detection zone using energy of rate of
10

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 11

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
change of voltage phase angle', IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, 2015, 9, (15), pp 2337-2350.
[10] Massoud, A.M., Ahmed, K.H., Finney, S.J., et al.,:
'Harmonic distortion-based island detection technique for
inverter-based distributed generation', IET Renewable
Power Generation, 2009, 3, (4), pp 493-507.
[11] Freitas, W., Huang, Z. and Xu, W.,: 'A practical method
for assessing the effectiveness of vector surge relays for
distributed generation applications', IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 2005, 20, (1), pp 57-63.
[12] Hung, G.K., Chang, C.C. and Chen, C.L.,: 'Automatic
phase-shift method for islanding detection of grid-connected
photovoltaic inverters', IEEE Transactions on energy
conversion, 2003, 18, (1), pp 169-173.
[13] Merino, J., Mendoza-Araya, P., Venkataramanan, G., et
al.,: 'Islanding detection in microgrids using harmonic
signatures', IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2015, 30,
(5), pp 2102-2109.
[14] Mahat, P., Chen, Z. and Bak-Jensen, B.,: 'A hybrid
islanding detection technique using average rate of voltage
change and real power shift', IEEE Transactions on Power
delivery, 2009, 24, (2), pp 764-771.
[15] Khodaparastan, M., Vahedi, H., Khazaeli, F., et al.,: 'A
novel hybrid islanding detection method for inverter-based
DGs using SFS and ROCOF', IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 2015.
[16] El-Arroudi, K., Joos, G., Kamwa, I., et al.,: 'Intelligent-
based approach to islanding detection in distributed
generation', IEEE transactions on power delivery,
2007, 22,(2), pp 828-835.
[17] Faqhruldin, O.N., El-Saadany, E.F. and Zeineldin,
H.H.,: 'Islanding detection for multi DG system using
inverter based DGs', IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting, July 2013, pp 1-5.
[18] Samantaray, S.R., El-Arroudi, K., Joos, G., et al.,: 'A
fuzzy rule-based approach for islanding detection in
distributed generation', IEEE transactions on power delivery,
2010, 25, (3), pp 1427-1433.
[19] Faqhruldin, O.N., El-Saadany, E.F. and Zeineldin,
H.H.,: 'A universal islanding detection technique for
distributed generation using pattern recognition', IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 2014, 5, (4), pp 1985-1992.
[20] Kar, S. and Samantaray, S.R.,: 'Data-mining-based
intelligent anti-islanding protection relay for distributed
generations', IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, 2014, 8, (4), pp 629-639.
[21] Xue, B., Zhang, M., Browne, W.N., et al.,: 'A survey on
evolutionary computation approaches to feature
selection', IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation,
2016, 20, (4), pp 606-626.
2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only
[22] Guyon, I. and Elisseeff, A.,:'An introduction to variable
and feature selection', Journal of machine learning
research, 2003, 3, pp 1157-1182.
[23] Ali, M., Siarry, P. and Pant, M.,: 'An efficient
differential evolution based algorithm for solving multi-
objective optimization problems', European journal of
operational research, 2012, 217, (2), pp 404-416.
[24] Tang, J., Deng, C. and Huang, G.B.,: 'Extreme learning
machine for multilayer perceptron', IEEE transactions on
neural networks and learning systems, 2016, 27, (4), pp
809-821.
[25] Akusok, A., Björk, K.M., Miche, Y., et al.,: 'High-
performance extreme learning machines: a complete toolbox
for big data applications', IEEE Access, 2015, 3, pp 1011-
1025.
[26] Kersting, W.H.,: 'Radial distribution test feeders', IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 1991, 6, (3), pp 975-985.
[27] Gagnon R.,: 'Detailed model of a doubly-fed induction
generator (DFIG) driven by a wind turbine', The MathWork,
January, 2006.
[28] Turbine, H.,: 'Turbine Control Models for System
Dynamic Studies, Working Group on Prime Mover and
Energy Supply Models for System Dynamic Performance
Studies', Transactions on Power Systems, 1992. 7, (1), p 9.
[29] Gagnon R.,: 'Wind Farm - Synchronous Generator and
Full Scale Converter (Type 4) Detailed Model', The
MathWork, January, 2006
[30] Storn, R. and Price, K.,: 'Differential evolution–a
simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over
continuous spaces', Journal of global optimization, 1997, 11,
(4), pp 341-359.
[31] Xue, B., Zhang, M. and Browne, W.N., :'Particle
swarm optimization for feature selection in classification: a
multi-objective approach', IEEE transactions on cybernetics,
2013, 43, (6), pp 1656-1671.
[32] Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S.,et al.,: 'A fast and
elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II', IEEE
transactions on evolutionary computation, 2002, 6, (2), pp
182-197.
[33] Mishra, M., M. Sahani, and P. K. Rout. "An islanding
detection algorithm for distributed generation based on
Hilbert–Huang transform and extreme learning
machine." Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 2017, 9,
pp 13-26.
[34] Zhai, M.Y., Yu, R.H., Zhang, S.F., et al.,: 'Feature
selection based on extreme learning machine', IEEE Conf.
on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, July 2012 , Vol. 1,
pp 157-162.
[35] Huang, G.B., Zhou, H., Ding, X. et al.,: ' Extreme
learning machine for regression and multiclass
11
12
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

classification', IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and [36] Wong, C.M., Vong, C.M., Wong, P.K. et al.,: 'Kernel-
Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 2012, 42,(2), pp 513-529. Based Multilayer Extreme Learning Machines for
Representation Learning', IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks and Learning Systems, 2016.
Appendix
Table 4 Features Extracted
Notation Features (in p.u.) Symbolization of Feature
F-1 Root Mean Square of Voltage Vrms
F-2 D-Axis Voltage Vd
F-3 Q-Axis Voltage Vq
F-4 Root Mean Square of Current Irms
F-5 D-Axis Current Id
F-6 Q-Axis Current Iq
F-7 Negative Sequence Voltage Vneg
F-8 Positive Sequence Voltage Vpos
F-9 Zero Sequence Voltage Vzero
F-10 Negative Sequence Voltage / Positive Sequence Voltage Vneg/ Vpos
F-11 Zero Sequence Voltage / Positive Sequence Voltage Vzero/ Vpos
F-12 Negative Sequence Current Ineq
F-13 Positive Sequence Current Ipos
F-14 Zero Sequence Current Izero
F-15 The rate of change of Negative Sequence Voltage dVneg/ dt
F-16 The rate of change of Negative Sequence Current dIneg/ dt
F-17 Frequency F
F-18 The rate of change of frequency df/dt
F-19 Active Power P
F-20 The rate of change of Active Power dP/dt
F-21 Reactive Power Q
F-22 Negative Sequence Active Power Pneg
F-23 Negative Sequence Reactive Power Qneg
F-24 The rate of change of Negative Sequence Active Power dPneg/dt
F-25 The rate of change of Negative Sequence Reactive Power dQneg/dt
F-26 Zero Sequence Active Power Pzero
F-27 Zero Sequence Reactive Power Qzero
F-28 The rate of change of Zero Sequence Active Power dPzero/dt
F-29 The rate of change of Zero Sequence Reactive Power dQzero/dt
F-30 The rate of change of Frequency over Active Power df/dP
F-31 The rate of change of Voltage over Reactive Power dV/dQ
F-32 Inverse-Hyperbolic Secant of Negative Sequence Voltage 2 )⁄𝑉 2 )
ln ((1 + √1 − 𝑉𝑛𝑒𝑔 𝑛𝑒𝑔

F-33 Phi (phase angle) Φ

F-34 The rate of change of Phi d Φ/ dt
F-35 Change in Frequency ΔF
F-36 Change in Voltage ΔV
F-37 Inverse-Hyperbolic Secant of Phi ln ((1 + √1 − 𝛷 2 )⁄𝛷 2 )
F-38 THD Of Voltage VTHD
F-39 THD Of Current ITHD
F-40 The rate of change of THD of Voltage dVTHD/dt
F-41 The rate of change of THD of Current dITHD/dt
F-42 Power factor Cos(Φ)
F-43 The rate of change of power factor dCos(Φ) /dt
F-44 Phase Voltage Vp
F-45 Phase Current Ip

12

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 13

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.IET Smart Grid
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

Table 5 Obtained feature subsets through the proposed MMODE coupled K-ELM algorithm.
Feature Without Noise
Dependability Security Accuracy F-Measure
[F10 F11] 100% 100% 100% 100%
[F11 F30] 100% 98.88% 99.35% 99.24%
[F10 F11 F39] 100% 100% 100% 100%
[F11 F30 F39] 100% 99.53% 99.73% 99.68%
[F11 F30 F39 F43] 100% 100% 100% 100%
[F11 F30 F31 F39 F43] 100% 99.62% 99.78% 99.74%
[F10 F11 F18 F31 F39 F43] 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 6 Performance of the feature subsets under 30db and 20db noise, to select the optimum feature vector.
Feature At 30 dB Noise
Dependability Security Accuracy F-Measure
[F10 F11] 98.72% 98.61% 98.65% 98.41%
[F11 F30] 96.04% 98.59% 97.51% 97.03%
[F10 F11 F39] 99.87% 99.62% 99.73% 99.68%
[F11 F30 F39] 95.28% 98.33% 97.04% 96.44%
[F11 F30 F39 F43] 95.91% 98.14% 97.21% 96.65%
[F11 F30 F31 F39 F43] 97.44% 98.33% 97.96% 97.57%
[F10 F11 F18 F31 F39 F43] 98.72% 98.88% 98.81% 98.59%
Feature At 20 dB Noise
Dependability Security Accuracy F-Measure
[F10 F11] 92.72% 96.11% 94.68% 93.62%
[F11 F30] 90.68% 95.46% 93.45% 92.09%
[F10 F11 F39] 94.77% 97.12% 96.13% 95.37%
[F11 F30 F39] 91.45% 95.46% 93.77% 92.51%
[F11 F30 F39 F43] 92.21% 95.37% 94.04% 92.87%
[F11 F30 F31 F39 F43] 90.68% 93.70% 92.43% 90.97%
[F10 F11 F18 F31 F39 F43] 94.13% 94.13% 95.60% 94.73%

13

2018/08/21 12:45:32 IET Review Copy Only 14