Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of signal processing methods

From: Shifting of research trends in islanding detection method - a comprehensive survey

Signal processing method

Ref.

DG type

Multiple DG considered

Analyzed signal

Run on time

Strength of the method

Shortcoming of the method

CWT

63

–

–

Target DG voltage

0.6

Coefficients for all scales and transformations is obtained

Computational burden

DWT

65

PV

No

PCC voltage

17–26 ms

Better low frequency resolutions

Computational complexity

67

PV

No

PCC frequency

2.5 power freq cycle

68

PV

No

Target DG voltage

2.5 cycle (0.05 s)

WPT

74

Wind

No

ROCOP at DG

200 ms

Equal resolution for low and high frequency

Time-frequency localization decrease with increase in decomposition levels.

ST

73

PV and wind

Yes

PCC voltage negative sequence

26 ms

Provides simplified multiresolution

Fails in localization of momentary phenomenon

77

PV, fuel cell and wind

Yes

PCC voltage negative sequence

–

HST

71

PV, fuel cell and wind

Yes

PCC voltage

–

Better time and frequency resolutions for high and low frequency

Window may not incorporate all signals

73

PV and wind

Yes

PCC voltage negative sequence

22 ms

TTT

71

PV, fuel cell and wind

Yes

PCC voltage

–

Better understanding of time-local properties of the time series

Inappropriate low-frequency Localization

73

PV and wind

Yes

PCC voltage negative sequence

25 ms

HHT

84

Inverter based

Yes

PCC voltage

Less than 2 cycles

Provides physical representation of data

Less suitable for close frequency components signals

MM

73

PV and wind

Yes

PCC voltage negative sequence

22 ms

Less computational complexity

Reconstruction of the original signal is not possible