Table 2 Comparison of classical methods
From: Shifting of research trends in islanding detection method - a comprehensive survey
Classical IDM | Main method | Reference | Detection time | DG system considered | Multiple DG considered | Strength | Shortcoming |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Passive | PJD | 22 | 0.1Â s | Inverter based | No | Low detection time | High NDZ |
Harmonic parameters | 24 | Less than 2Â s | Inverter based | Yes | |||
ROCOF | 27 | 0.5 | Synchronous | Yes | |||
ROCOP | 26 | 26Â ms | Not specified | No | |||
Impedance variation | 29 | – | Synchronous | No | |||
Active | SMS | 37 | 0.37Â s | VSC | No | Low NDZ | Degrades power quality |
AFD | 38 | 928Â ms | Inverter based | No | |||
SFS | 36 | 0.10s | VSC | No | |||
SVS | 43 | 0.231Â s | Inverter based | No | |||
Negative sequence current injection | 45 | 60Â ms | VSC | No | |||
Hybrid | PF and VU | 52 | 0.15Â s | Synchronous | Yes | Small NDZ and detection time | Slightly Degrades power quality |
Voltage and reactive power shift | 54 | – | Inverter based | No | |||
Hybrid SFS and Q-f | 55 | – | Inverter based | No | |||
RPS | 56 | – | Wind | Yes | |||
Local | Transfer trip | 58 | – | PV | Yes | Zero NDZ | High cost |
PLCC | 60 | – | PV | Yes |