 Original research
 Open access
 Published:
A new protection scheme for PVwind based DCring microgrid by using modified multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis
Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems volumeÂ 7, ArticleÂ number:Â 8 (2022)
Abstract
This paper presents fault detection, classification, and location for a PVWindbased DC ring microgrid in the MATLAB/SIMULINK platform. Initially, DC fault signals are collected from local measurements to examine the outcomes of the proposed system. Accurate detection is carried out for all faults, (i.e., cable and arc faults) under two cases of fault resistance and distance variation, with the assistance of primary and secondary detection techniques, i.e. secondorder differential current derivative \(\left( {\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}} \right)\) and sliding mode windowbased Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient. For fault classification a novel approach using modified multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis (MMFDFA) is presented. The advantage of this method is its ability to estimate the local trends of any order polynomial function with the help of polynomial and trigonometric functions. It also doesnâ€™t require any signal processing algorithm for decomposition resulting and this results in a reduction of computational burden. The detected fault signals are directly passed through the MMFDFA classifier for fault type classification. To enhance the performance of the proposed classifier, statistical data is obtained from the MMFDFA feature vectors, and the obtained data is plotted in 2D and 3D scatter plots for better visualization. Accurate fault distance estimation is carried out for all types of faults in the DC ring bus microgrid with the assistance of recursive least squares with a forgetting factor (FFRLS). To verify the performance and superiority of the proposed classifier, it is compared with existing classifiers in terms of features, classification accuracy (CA), and relative computational time (RCT).
1 Introduction
In recent years, there have been many studies on the integration of renewable energy sources (RESs), such as photovoltaic systems (PV), wind turbines (WT), tidal, hydro, etc. Among these RESs, PV and WT are the most preferred because of their abundant availability in nature [1, 2]. Many developed and developing countries in the world are increasing their power generation with the RESs. In power distribution networks, modern technologies in power electronic devices make the integration of RESs with microgrids more flexible. Based on the connection of equipment types, networks in the microgrid can be AC, DC, or both [3]. In the present era, DC microgrids have attracted significant attention because of their advantages compared to AC microgrids in terms of low transmission losses, active and reactive power control, reliability, economical operation, power transfer capacity, ecofriendliness, and simpler monitoring [1,2,3,4].
The major challenges in the DC microgrid are fault protection (i.e., detection and isolation) and location. Different possibilities of faults in the DC distribution network are PolePole (PP), Positive PoleGround (PPG), Negative PoleGround (NPG), Series arc and Shunt arc faults [1]. Generally, DC cables offer low impedance in the fault scenario and as a result the rate of rise of the fault current is very high [3,4,5]. To protect the DC microgrid from these currents, different protection schemes have been introduced. Reference [6] discusses a differential protection scheme where a high bandwidth communication channel to transmit the signals is required together with a backup protection scheme. In this scenario the cost and complexity of the grid is increased. Other issues with the differential protection schemes are the effect of distributed capacitance, especially in high voltage DC microgrids, and change in the penetration level of RESs changing the threshold values and as a result making it unable to synchronize with the utility grid [2, 4]. To compensate for these issues, references [7,8,9] propose an improved thresholdbased, modified and discrete time frame for the differential protection scheme, which is timeâ€“frequency based with the assistance of variational mode (VMD) and HHT combination. An overcurrent protection scheme can easily detect the pole to ground fault at high resistance but itis unable to classify different fault types that occur in the DC microgrid. It also requires highspeed sensing devices [10, 11].
Line current derivative protection schemes have been discussed for different faulty sections of bus voltages, wind speed variations and fault clearing time etc., but this method is unable to distinguish different kinds of faults and also needs communication devices [12]. In [13, 14], various faults in the DC microgrid are classified with the help of relay coordination. However, it requires adjacent relays for coordination of signals. References [15,16,17] discuss fault detection with oscillation frequency using inversetime transient power, reliability index, and a poverty severity index method. The main issues with these indices are that they need a communication channel, it is diffcult to process the signals with low disturbance index [15], and they are unable to detect overcurrent and high resistance faults [16, 17]. In reference [18], a pseudovoltagebased method is introduced to distinguish the different faults in the DC ring microgrid and this method purely depends on the local measurements. A fast selective protection scheme can detect faults quickly and accurately using local measurements but it requires a backup protection scheme [19]. The parameters are estimated using the leastsquares method and the classification of internal and external faults is proposed in [20]. However, it requires a communication channel and backup protection because of its instant deenergization in the adjacent cables under fault conditions. Traveling wave and reflected wavebased protection schemes provide fast fault detection but they require highspeed measuring devices and are also limited to shortdistance cables [21]. Renewable energybased DC microgrids sometimes face a faultridethrough problem during a fault scenario. In particular, a short duration PP fault collapses the voltage and thus fault current limiters may be required to reduce the fault current [22]. According to National Electrical Codes (NEC) and Under Laboratory (UL: 1699B), the detection and isolation of PV side arc faults are essential to protect from fire hazards [23].
In [24,25,26,27,28], the signal processing algorithms, i.e., Modified Wavelet Transform (MWT) [24], Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD) [25], STransform (ST) [26], and Empirical Wavelet Transform with Support Vector Machine (EWTSVM) [27] require more features to analyze the faults. As a result, information will be lost due to mode mixing, reduction of dimensionality, and deterioration of classification accuracy. Fuzzybased, artificial neural networks (ANN), and random vector function neural networks (RVFLN) have short comings such as needing data training, robustness and weight calculation [28]. In reference [29], an iterative technique is presented for the estimation of fault location estimation in a DC microgrid. Another popular and widely used method for the nonstationary signals is fractal analysis, which is used to extract fractal characteristics from the hidden signals using Monofractal or detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) [30]. DFA is the transform tool to compress large data into fluctuation curves of low intensity, and it is widely used in scientific research because of its longrange detection, and ability to remove the fluctuation trends from the signal. In reference [31], the electrical activity of the brain and movements of the right arm are diagnosed using DFA analysis. The shortcomings of DFA are mono fractal components having variable characteristics and not having any information about its local fractal components. References [32, 33] introduce the compensation for DFA problems using multifractal analysis with the help of multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis (MFDFA). It is a powerful and popular method. However, one of the concerns of MFDFA is that it is applicable only to fixed polynomial order but not for higherorder polynomials in the detrending process. This problem is solved by using MMFDFA in the application of daily precipitation time series [34].
To address the abovementioned problems, this paper focuses on fault detection, classification, and distance estimation for the proposed model. For accurate fault detection, two protection schemes, i.e., primary and secondary, are proposed. The primary detection technique is based on the secondorder derivative of the fault current. The secondary detection technique is sliding mode windowbased Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient (SMWPCC). The detected faults are input to the proposed MMFDFA classifier. This classifier can compute the level of multifractality of the faulty signal for finding a discriminative set of features of any order polynomials with the help of polynomial and trigonometric functions. From MMFDFA, multifractal features are extracted in terms of a kurtosis index (KI) to enhance the performance of the proposed classifier, and it is represented in2D (two dimensional) and 3D (three dimensional) scatter plots for better visualization. This paper also addresses the unknown parameters and fault distance estimation recursive least squares with forgetting factor (FFRLS) algorithm.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 illustrates the modeling and possibilities of faults in the proposed DC ring microgrid, while Sect. 3 describes the DC cable and arc fault detection using the secondorder derivative of fault current and SMWPCC. Brief details of MMFDFA and its classification are illustrated in Sect. 4, while unknown parameter estimation is described in Sect. 5. Results and discussions are illustrated in Sect. 6, to validate the superiority of the proposed PVWind based DC ring microgrid protection scheme compared to existing methods. Finally, Sect. 7 concludes the paper.
2 Fault analysis in PVwindbased DC ring microgrid
The complete architecture of this paper for fault analysis of the DC ring microgrid is shown in Fig. 1.
A PVWindbased DC ring network is formed by six nodes, i.e., A, B, C, D, E, and F, and each node is connected with its adjacent nodes to form the ring network shown in Fig. 2. In this model node A is connected to the utility grid through a VSC converter and voltage is steppeddown through a transformer from 11 kV to 500 V. The VSC converter allows bidirectional power flow, so the utility grid is always ready to send or receive power to/from the DC microgrid [1, 18,19,20]. At node B, a 400 kW PV farm, which is obtained by parallelling four PVs with each PV panel rated at 100 kW, is connected through a DCDC converter. To obtain the maximum power from the PV array, a maximum power point tracker (MPPT) with a â€˜perturb &observeâ€™ (P&O) algorithm is used. In addition to the MPPT for the PV array, two more controllers, i.e., the voltage and current controllers are used to regulate and synchronize with the utility grid through the DCDC converter. At node C, a DClamp load1of 250 kW is connected, while at node D, 90 kW of wind power is obtained with three permanent magnet synchronous generators (PMSGs) each rated at 30 kW, and is connected through another VSC. Similar to the PV farm, the MPPT is used to obtain the maximum power from the PMSG, while a space vector PWM technique and proportionalintegral (PI) controller is used in PMSG to control the rotor speed. Although wind energy fluctuates in nature, in this paper, wind speed is considered to be constant at 12 m/s. At node E, a150 kW battery is connected through a bidirectional DCDC buckboost converter, where the voltage is boosted from 96 to 550 V to synchronize with the microgrid DC voltage. The battery is used to maintain a stable power flow under uncertain load conditions. Whenever the load is less than the generation, the battery is operated in the buck mode and is charged by consuming power from the DC bus. In contrast, the battery delivers power back to the DC bus in boost mode when the load is greater than the generation [15]. At node F, the 250 kW DC lamp load2 is connected. The detailed parameters of the DC ring network and faults classes are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
2.1 Fault analysis in the proposed model
The main issue in the DC ring microgrid is fault current due to its rapid changes of magnitude and direction under fault conditions. The commonly occurring faults in the DC ring microgrid are cable faults and arc faults. Analyzing these faults, especially in the DC ring microgrid, is very difficult because of its bidirectional current flow. In this paper differential current is used to analyze the faults, because of its naturally being zero under normal operation and becoming nonzero under fault conditions. The representation of various faults in the cable, i.e., PP fault and PPG is shown in Fig. 3a, b, respectively. From Fig. 3b, it is clear that under normal conditions the differential current (I_{1} I_{2}) flows through R_{f}, where as under fault conditions their additional current (I_{1}â€‰+â€‰I_{2}) flows through R_{f} because the current direction changes towards the fault, as shown in Fig. 4. Similarly, there may be scope to analyze using the average current, though it has a higher magnitude under normal conditions compared to fault conditions as shown in Fig. 5a. Thus, it is difficult to analyze high resistive faults in the microgrid, where average current versus differential current is shown in Fig. 5b.
Whenever a fault occurs in the network there is a voltage drop, and at the same time the rate of current increases, as shown in Fig. 5c. Cable faults include PP, PPG, and NPG types. A PP fault may occur because of a lightning strike or fallen trees on the cables, while PPG and NPG faults occur because of physical contact between the cable and the ground. This may happen because of heavy storms or aging of the cables. Arc faults may be of series or shunt type, and they occur because of insulation failure or improperly installed cables. Cable faults are created in the microgrid cables, i.e., between nodes A and B in the model. The representation of cable faults is shown in Fig. 3, and the variation of fault resistance (R_{f}) and distance (F_{d}) in the cable for different faults is shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
Arc faults are created in the PV arrays, i.e., series and shunt arcs are formed by connecting resistance in series and parallel between the PV arrays as shown in Fig. 8. By considering the variation of R_{f} and F_{d}, the corresponding fault currents are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The fault duration time for all faults is considered to be from 1.3 to 1.55 s.
By observing all cable faults from Figs. 6 and 7, it is clear that if the fault and cable resistances are low, the fault current magnitude is high. Differential currentbased fault analysis has key advantages such as less detection time and easy detection in the cable with the help of its secondorder derivative, as will be described in Sect. 3.
3 Fault detection techniques
3.1 Fault detection using secondorder differential derivative current
The proposed novel approach for fault detection using the secondorder derivative of the differential current does not require a communicational channel to detect or clear the fault, while it only depends on the localbased network parameters, and smoothing of the signal and the processing time to detect the fault is very short. The modified circuit for the fault detection using the proposed method is shown in Fig. 11, where the source voltages of the cable V_{dc1} and V_{dc2}appearacross the capacitor as V_{c} and are assumed to be constant.
Applying the KVL to Fig. 2b yields:
where I_{dc1} and I_{dc2} are the measured currents at buses A and B, respectively, as depicted in Fig. 3b. I_{1} and I_{2} are the fault currents, which are different to I_{dc2} and I_{dc2} as described in [18, 35,36,37]. During the fault, the sum of these currents flows through the fault resistance, because of the changing current direction towards the fault.
The equations for the fault currents obtained from Fig. 11 are:
whereR_{1eq} and R_{2eq} are the equivalent resistances, and L_{1eq} and L_{2eq} are the equivalent inductances up to the fault which are obtained from [35, 36]. The attenuation constants Î±_{1} and Î±_{2}, and the damping frequencies Ï‰_{d1} and Ï‰_{d2} are given as:
where Ï‰_{n1} and Ï‰_{n2} are the natural frequencies which are obtained from:
The differential current is obtained from (2) and (3) as:
Under normal conditions, \(L_{1eq} = L_{2eq} {\text{ and }}R_{1eq} = R_{2eq}\). However, under fault conditions, \(L_{1eq} \ne { }L_{2eq} {\text{ and }}R_{1eq} \ne { }R_{2eq}\), and there are:

\(I_{3} > 0\) indicates positive fault current magnitude

\(I_{3} < 0\) indicates negative fault current magnitude.
Based on the above conditions, different faults in various case studies under fault resistance variation and fault distance variation in the faulty cable are identified with the maximum and minimum peak amplitudes of each fault current as observed from Figs. 6, 7, 9 and 10. These fault current magnitudes are reported in Table 3.
Applying the derivative with respect to time for the differential current in (4) yields:
After the occurrence of the fault at tâ€‰=â€‰0^{+}, the differential current derivative magnitude is:
Applying the derivative to (5) to obtain the double derivative equation for the differential current, which is used to detect the fault, yields:
After the occurrence of the fault at tâ€‰=â€‰0^{+}, the double derivative of differential current magnitude is:
Substituting \(\alpha_{1}\) and \(\alpha_{2}\) values to (8) leads to:
From (6) and (9), it is seen that the secondorder derivative of differential current magnitude in (9) depends on the fault and equivalent resistances of the faulty cable. However, in the case of differential current, the derivative magnitude in (6) is independent of the fault and equivalent resistances of the faulty cable. In the firstorder derivative, during a fault scenario, the magnitude of fault current is very high due to the independence of R_{f} and cable resistance and it is also sensitive to external noise, where as the secondorder derivative differential current depends on the fault and cable resistances during the fault scenario as seen from (9). Thus it is easy to protect and isolate the DC microgrid quickly once fault and cable resistances are known. From the above discussion, it is clear that the firstorder derivative has higher magnitude than the secondorder differential current derivative [37]. For this reason, the secondorder derivative current is used in this paper for fault detection with the variety of case studies.
3.1.1 Case 1: Under fault resistance variation
In the proposed model, the fault resistance variation from 0.1 to 2 Î© is considered based on the nominal voltage and short circuit current [38, 39] in the gridconnected mode to analyze behavior of different faults with the fault switching time varying from 1.3 to 1.55 s. It is seen from Figs. 6 and 9 where different fault resistance variations are considered, while keeping the fault distance constant at 20%, that the magnitude of the fault current decreases with the increase of fault resistance while its shape remains the same. Among these variations, 0.5 Î© fault resistance is considered in this paper to analyze the fault detection with a first peak magnitude of \(\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}\) technique for DC short circuit and arc faults, as depicted in Fig. 12. In this method, the fault is detected in the case of nonzero differential current. The fault detection times for the fault resistance variations for different types of faults using the proposed method are listed in Table 4.
3.1.2 Case 2: under fault distance variation
Analyzing different types of faults with the fault distance variation is very difficult because the local measurements are unable to detect the fault if it happens far from the measurement bus. Here the proposed model is simulated by varying the fault distance from 20 to 100% for different faults while keeping the fault resistance constant at 1Î©, and the simulation results are shown in Table 3, and Figs. 7 and 10. Among these variations, 40% of the fault distances for different types of faults are considered, and the fault is detected with the first peak magnitude of the secondorder derivative of differential current for all types of faults, as depicted in Fig. 13. The detection times are illustrated in Table 4.
From the above discussions and results, it is clear that the proposed \(\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}\) method is more accurate and faster in terms of fault detection than others. However, this method has low accuracy and a delayed fault detection time when the system is subjected to high impedance loads and in the presence of noise. Because of this, a secondary protection scheme, i.e., sliding mode windowbased Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient, is proposed in this paper.
3.2 Sliding mode windowbased Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient
Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient (PCC) is widely used to estimate the behavior of a nonlinear signal [40]. However, with PCC it is impossible to achieve a fast and accurate fault detection time especially when there is large number of samples in the nonlinear signal [41]. The performance can be improved by the proposed method using sliding mode windowbased PCC (SMWPCC). In this paper, SMWPCC can be obtained by the correlation coefficient (CC) of the current window to the previous window of the differential fault signal, expressed as:
where k is the sampling instant, n is the number of samples in the window, which is always nâ€‰â‰¥â€‰k, and in this paper, n is considered to be 10 samples for accurate detection. If n is very large it diminishes the sensitivity and accuracy. \({\overline{\text{x}}}_{{{\text{k}}  1 + {\text{n}}}}\) and \({\overline{\text{x}}}_{{{\text{k}} + {\text{n}}}}\) are the mean values of the previous and current windows, respectively. m is the length of the fault signal and \(R \left( {X_{prev} ,{\text{ X}}_{current} } \right)\) is the Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient of previous and current windows of the differential fault signal. The range of R varies between 1 andâ€‰+â€‰1. If \(R\left( {X_{prev} ,{\text{ X}}_{current} } \right) = 0{ }\) it indicates that there is no correlation between the previous window and the current window of a fault signal, whereas \(R\left( {X_{prev} ,{\text{ X}}_{current} } \right) = + 1{\text{ and}}  1\) indicate a strong positive and strong negative correlation between the previous window and current window of a fault signal, respectively.
SMWPCC can be obtained for every instant using (10). If the current and previous samples have the same magnitude the resultant CC is large because the correlation between the same signals is obviously high [40]. In this method, windows are moving by correlating the current window with its previous one until the length of the signal m is covered. During this moving process, if any window samples contain abrupt changes in their magnitude correlation, the coefficient will be immediately changed. Based on the sudden change in the correlation coefficient magnitude it is easy to detect the fault instant in the signal. Therefore, this method is proposed in the paper for fault detection, even if the system is subjected to large load, high fault resistance, and presence of noise.
3.2.1 Case 1: under fault resistance variation
In this scenario, the fault resistance is varied from 0.1 to 2 Î© while the fault distance is kept constant. The differential fault currents of both cable and arc faults under these variations can be seen in Figs. 6 and 9, respectively. Among these variations, R_{f}â€‰=â€‰2.0 Î© is considered to identify the fault detection for all the DC faults using the SMWPCC method.
From Fig. 14 it is clear that if the system is healthy, i.e., previous and current window magnitudes are the same, the correlation coefficient is the highest. When an abrupt change occurs in either current or previous windows, the correlation coefficient value is changed immediately. This effect can be observed from 1.3 to 1.5 s in Fig. 14, where the threshold is considered at 0.98. If the correlation coefficient of any signal is less than the threshold it indicates a fault in the signal. In this paper, the first low peak magnitude is considered as the fault instant to trip and isolate the microgrid from the fault zone. The low peak magnitudes of all the faults are reported in Table 4.
3.2.2 Case 2: under fault distance variation
In this scenario, the fault distance is varied from 20 to 100% of the cable length while keeping the fault resistance R_{f} constant at 1 Î©. The differential fault currents for all the faults under these variations are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 10. Among these variations, the fault distance (F_{d}) is fixed at 40% of the cable length to consider the fault detection in the DC fault signals using the SMWPCC method.
From Fig. 15 it is seen that the system is in healthy condition when there is no change in the magnitude of the current and previous windows, while the correlation coefficient is at a maximum. Whenever the system is unhealthy there are, abrupt changes in the signal correlation coefficient and it is decreased from maximum to minimum, as can be seen in Fig. 15 during 1.3â€“1.55 s. The threshold is 0.98 and below the threshold it is considered as a faulty section. In this paper, the first low peak magnitude is considered as the fault instant to trip the relay for microgrid protection, and the magnitudes of different faults are reported in Table 4.
4 DC fault classification using MMFDFA
4.1 Basic MFDFA
Using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), monofractal components can be analyzed for longrange but not forlocal fractal components. MFDFA is the extension of DFA which can successfully rectify the drawbacks of DFA [42]. Originally, MFDFA was proposed to analyze the nonstationary time series signals which can also significantly eliminate the characteristics data [32]. In this paper, the proposed algorithm is used to classify the different nonstationary fault signals collected from bus B, and five steps are taken to illustrate the classification of different fault signals.
Step 1. Initially the differential current (i.e., I_{3}â€‰=â€‰I_{1}â€“I_{2}) signal is passed through MFDFA, which contains the vanished components of the nonlinear time series. Such components can be eliminated by subtracting the mean from the input signal and expressed as:
where Y (m) is the obtained signal that represents the profile of MFDFA, \({\text{I}}\left( {\text{m}} \right)\) is the input signal, and \({\overline{\text{I}}}\left( {\text{m}} \right)\) is the mean of \({\text{I}}\left( {\text{m}} \right)\). n is the length of the input signal and varies from 1 to N.
Step 2. Divide the profile Y (m) into N_{s}, where \(N_{s} = \frac{N}{s}\) is the nonoverlapping uninterrupted segment (v) with an equal length of scales. The symbol âŒŠâŒ‹ \(\left\lfloor a \right\rfloor\) refers to only considering the integer part because sometimes the length of the differential current signal is not multiples of the time scale (s). Given this, there may be a small part of the truncated data leftover from the end of the signal and not used. In order to use this data the same process is repeated from the opposite end of Y(m), and as a result of such process, 2N_{s} components are obtained.
Step 3. Local trends of each 2N_{s} segment can be calculated using the least squares fitting approach, and then the variance of each segment can be calculated as:
Here \(y_{v}^{n} \left( {\text{m}} \right)\) indicates the polynomial trend function by sections familiar inevery segment v. In the least squares fitting procedure, if nâ€‰=â€‰1, it is linear, if nâ€‰=â€‰2 quadratic and if nâ€‰=â€‰3cubic polynomials are used.
Step 4. Average overall segments to achieve the fluctuation function (F_{q}) or average fluctuation of the qth order, defined as:
From (14) it is clear that for qâ€‰=â€‰2, F_{q}(s) belongs to DFA analysis. To discover how F_{q}(s) relies on the scales s for other values of q, it is necessary to repeat the steps from 2 to 4 for unlike time scales (s). In this paper, q is restricted within the intervalâ€‰âˆ’â€‰5â€‰â‰¤â€‰qâ€‰â‰¤â€‰5.
Step 5. Finally the scalar behavior of F_{q}(s) employing logâ€“log graphs against s for each value of q is observed and the range of time series scales is \({\text{m}} + 2 = {\text{ s}}_{{{\text{min}}}} \le {\text{ s }} \le {\text{ s}}_{{{\text{max}}}} = \frac{N}{4}\) in a given order qâ€‰â‰ â€‰0, for which the following relation can be established:
If qâ€‰=â€‰0, the above equation becomes:
where H (q) is the Hurst exponent. If both q and H(q) are independent of each other, H(q) has stable values and the resultant of variance \(F^{2} \left( {v,{ }s} \right)\) is the same for all the local fractal segments.
4.1.1 Multifractal spectrum analysis
The relation can be established between the generalized Hurst exponent H(q) and mass exponent E(q) as:
The relation between E(q) and q is linear when q and E(q) are independent of each other and is monofractal data. Otherwise, it is a multifractal series data due to the nonlinear nature, and has a strong nonlinear relation. By using the Legendre transform [32], the relation between the singularity spectrum (Mq) and mass exponent (Eq) can be established as:
where Î» represents the singularity exponent or Holder exponent, and Mq represents the fractal dimension of the time series with distinct values of Î». The graph plot between Mq and Î»q is termed a multifractal or singularity spectrum, and Mq reaches the maximum value when qâ€‰=â€‰0. The obtained graph is an inverted parabola, where the width indicates the measure of the multifractal spectrum, with a larger value signifying a higher degree of multifractality. In the case that it shows zerodegree then it is a monofractal time series data because Hq is independent of q.
4.2 Modified MFDFA algorithm (MMFDFA)
In the basic MFDFA method, local fractal trends are considered to take the fixed polynomial order which was discussed in step 3, (12) and (13). It is not the best way for estimating the local trends, because n will not be stable throughout the time series data, but varies for different time intervals. Basic MFDFA is difficult to apply for measuring the trends in realtime series data with the unknown trend and unknown functional form because it is very difficult to find the best polynomial for eliminating the local trends [34]. To avoid these shortcomings in the basic MFDFA, this paper proposes the MMFDFA method, where a set of polynomials and trigonometric functions of possible linear combinations are considered as depicted in Table 5.
Set of polynomials and trigonometric functions \(U = \left\{ {A_{1} , A_{2} , \ldots . A_{12} } \right\}\) to estimate the local trends are:
where a, b, c, K_{1}, K_{2}, K_{3,} and K_{4} are real constants, which come from the DFA analysis for local trends.
The proposed MMFDFA method only changes step 3 of the basic MFDFA without affecting the other steps. Thus the modified step 3 is as follows:
Step 3. Local fractal trends are calculated for each of the 2N_{s} segments with the help of the trigonometric functions set \(f_{i}\) for \(i = 1, 2, \ldots . 12\) that belong to the set U. According to the method kurtosis of each of the segments will take only one function from the function set U and is then subtracted from the profile. This optimal mode is obtained to estimate the local trend by the selection of one which has the lowest kurtosis, and variance of each segment can then be calculated as:
Compared with (12) and (13), using the modified (20) and (21) makes it easier to minimize the local trends of any order of polynomial function f set belonging to U. This method is also suitable for cases whoseresponse is curvilinear.
4.3 Analysis of MMFDFA multifractal features
From MMFDFA various feature vectors are produced. These can be usedto classify the different fault types. Proper selection of features plays a vital role in classifying the faults distinctively, while the selection of features can be done by trial and error or prior knowledge of various literature surveys on classification.

Hurst exponent (Hq)

Mass exponent or scaling exponent (Eq)

Multifractality spectrum or singularity spectrum (Mq)

Extreme right of the multifractal spectrum (Î»_{qmax})

The peak value of the multifractal spectrum (Î»_{peak})

Width of the singularity spectrum (Î”Î»_{q})
From the aforementioned features, the three main vectors, i.e., Hurst exponent, Mass exponent, and Singularity spectrum, that effect the nonlinear characteristics of signals are identified from the various kinds of literature [32]. The impact of these vectors in the proposed model is discussed in Sect. 6.
4.4 Statistical analysis for the selected feature vectors
From the above discussion, the chosen feature vectors are used for fault classification. For accurate classification of DC faults, 2Dimensional (2D) and 3Dimensional (3D)scatter plots are used. Since the extracted features are in vector form it is compulsory to convert them into statistical measurement data, and then it is simple to visualize the distinctly classified faults in 2D and 3D plots. The statistical measurements are numericallybased representations, which give important information for ease of interpretation. Among the various statistical measurements, kurtosis is found to be more sensitive for nonlinear characteristics, and thus the kurtosis index is used in this paper [32, 43]. From the statistics, kurtosis can be defined as the combination of a weight distributionâ€™s tail relative to the center of the distribution represented as:
where Y is the fault signal and \({\overline{\text{Y}}}\) is its mean value, N is the length of the signal, and Ïƒ is the standard deviation. The KI data set is obtained from the feature vectors, i.e., Eq, Mq, and Hq of each DC fault under fault resistance and distance variation. The obtained data set is used to enhance the performance of the proposed classifier in terms of classification accuracy. For better visualization, the data is represented in 2D and 3D scatter plots in the form of clusters and its results are discussed in Sect. 6.
5 Parameter estimation
The estimation of cable parameters plays a key role in determining the fault instant during a fault in the proposed microgrid model. Thus, in the current section, DC cable parameters are estimated to modify the cable network (i.e., Ï€section network) as shown in Fig. 3b, to an equivalent fault network. If the fault happens in the cable at a particular point, the part from that point to the rest of the section is disconnected in the modified circuit, which is shown in Fig. 16. To obtain the unknown parameters, the â€˜forgetting factorbased recursive least squaresâ€™ (FFRLS)method is used.
From (1), there is:
5.1 Recursive least squares with forgetting factor
In this paper, a novel approach of recursive least squares method with variable forgetting factor [43] is used to locate the fault distance by estimating the unknown parameters of the DC ring microgrid cable. The FFRLS method is used in various applications such as estimation ofO_{2} gasâ€“liquid masstransfer in the chemical industry, in financial studies, biomedical applications for estimating the ECG signals, predicting the torque and speed parameters in mechanical studies as well as recent application of RLS to estimate unknown parameters such as resistance, inductance, and capacitance in electrical circuits. The proposed method is more accurate and stable than others, with low computational time and high robustness which is proven in [43,44,45,46].
Equation (23) can be modified as:
From the above equations, the known parameters are the current and voltage matrices which are represented for n samples as \({\text{I}}_{dc} \in R^{n \times 3} = [{\text{I}}_{1} \left( n \right);{ }\frac{{\Delta I_{1} \left( n \right)}}{{\Delta t}};I_{3} \left( n \right)]_{n \times 3}\) and \(V_{dc} \in R^{n \times 1} = [V_{c} \left( {\text{n}} \right)]_{n \times 1}\), respectively, and the unknown parameters are \({\text{Z}}_{dc} \in R^{3 \times 1} = \left[ {R_{1} ;{ }L_{1} ;{ }R_{f} } \right]\).
The above equation is illustrated during the period of \({\text{t}}_{{\text{m}}} and {\text{t}}_{{{\text{m}} + 1}}\) as:
where m represents each iteration cycle.
Assuming:
where \(A_{c} ,{ }B_{c}\), and \(C_{c}\) are the cable resistance, inductance and fault resistance respectively. By using (25), (26) can be modified as follows:
where \({{\upvarphi }}\left( {\text{m}} \right)\) is the regression vector and contains the data of the DC cable current, and E(m) represents the prediction error. \({\hat{\theta }}\left( {\text{m}} \right)\) is the estimated state vectorand is updated using FFRLS to find the unknown parameters, and can be obtained by:
State vector update estimation is developed by:
where G(m) is the Kalman gain matrix, given as:
where P is the error covariance matrix and it is obtained as:
Equations (26) to (31) are performed recursively with the initial values of the invertible matrix P(0) and an initial state vector Î¸(0). The forgetting factor for the RLS is Î», and its range is 0â€‰<â€‰Î»â€‰<â€‰â€‰=â€‰1. In this paper, Î» is varied from 0.78 to 0.997. In the steadystate, the computation speed of the proposed algorithm can be estimated by:
where \(T_{s}\) is the sampling period, and \(\alpha_{R}\) is the bandwidth of the estimator and must be greater than zero.
From (32) it is clear that a lower value of Î» increases the computation speed, reduces the noise rejection and selectivity, where as a higher \({\uplambda }\) value reduces the estimation speed but increases selectivity and stability. Thus, a low value is used in the transient state value. Location of fault distance is estimated using estimated parameters and is briefly discussed in Sect. 6. The overall summary of the FFRLS algorithm is illustrated in Table 6.
6 Results and discussion
Initially, various faults are simulated in the MATLAB/ SIMULINK platform for the proposed PVWindbased DC ring microgrid model under different fault resistances and distances. Signals are collected from bus B, and the fault range of the differential current signals is shown in Table 3. For every fault, it is necessary to identify the fault occurring time, and for that purpose two protection schemes are proposed. The primary protection scheme is a secondorder derivative of the differential fault current and SMWPCC is the secondary protection technique. The primary protection technique is more suitable for low impedance and fault resistance conditions. However, in noisy and high impedance fault conditions, \(\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}\) leads to false detection. Therefore, the secondary protection technique (i.e. SMWPCC) is introduced in this paper to protect the grid from all aspects. This detection technique works on the basis of the correlation coefficient between the current and the previous windows, and the correlation coefficient threshold is selected as 0.98. By using these techniques all the faults are detected in less than 11 ms, where as the detection time is less than 2 ms in the case of fault resistance variation (R_{f}â€‰=â€‰0.5 Î©) and less than 10 ms in the case of fault distance variation (F_{d}â€‰=â€‰40%) with the \(\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}\) technique. By using the SMWPCC technique the detection time is less than 9 ms in the case of fault resistance variation (R_{f}â€‰=â€‰2.0 Î©) and less than 11 ms in the case of fault distance variation (F_{d}â€‰=â€‰40%). Compared to the arc faults (i.e., series arc and shunt arc), cable faults are detected very quickly by these approaches, as can be clearly seen from Table 4.
After fault detection, it is necessary to classify the different types of DC faults. In this paper a novel MMFDFA approach is used to classify the different faults, where a total of five different types of fault signals (i.e., differential current signals) are directly passed through the MMFDFA classifier. This classifier initially calculates the profile by subtracting the mean from the input, and it then calculates the 2N_{s} components of each fault segment. The time scale parameters (s) considered from 16 to 1024 have a logarithmic scale of 19 between them and are equally divided by N (i.e., length of the signal) segments.
Thus variance of these segments is calculated for any order of polynomial functions. Under two scenarios, i.e., fault resistance and distance variations, the fluctuation component F_{q} with the order q is evaluated. Among the three vectors (i.e., Hq, Eq, and Mq), the Hurst exponent (Hq) is identified as the best feature vector to analyze the dynamic characteristics of the nonlinear signal based on the literature. Whenever the Hurst exponent Hq shows longterm correlation, the loglinear fluctuation function shows the powerlaw correlations in that time, and the Hurst exponent Hq and q values are varied from 5 to 5 for the differential fault current signals.
When qâ€‰=â€‰2, all the considered DC faults of Hq show the discriminative characteristics, while when qâ€‰=â€‰0.4, Hq shows the undiscriminating noncorrelated and overlapping characteristics. If q and Hq are positive, the fluctuation of segments scaling properties are large, whilethey are small when Hq and q are negative, as shown in Figs. 17a and 18a. The plot between the scaling exponent (Eq) andq shows the clear relation between Eq and q. Itis nonlinear and similar to a convex shaped curve observed in both Figs. 17b and 18b. From the results, the degree of nonlinearity is observed, and is more significant for the PPfault signal than the fluctuations of other faults. Figures 17c and 18c show the multifractal spectrum and the shapes look like an inverted parabola. These results show the truncated right tail characteristics for both arc and cable faults, and their properties indicate high magnitude and insensitivity to local fluctuations. In this spectrum, all the faults are seen to be different from one another. For better classification and to enhance the performance of the proposed classifier, the chosen multifractal feature vectors are converted into statistical measurement data using the kurtosis index, as shown in Table 7. The data is represented in 2D and 3D scatter plots in Fig. 19 to give the proper DC fault classification in the form of clusters. From Fig. 19 it is clear that all the faults are distinctly classified.
6.1 Performance evaluation
The performance of the proposed method can be verified with the assistance of classification accuracy (CA), relative computational time (RCT), and percentage of relative error. CA and RCT of MMFDFA are given as:
For classification, five kinds of DC faults are taken under two cases of fault resistance (R_{f}) variation and fault distance (F_{d}) variation for the PVWindbased DC ring network. In the case of fault resistance variation, R_{f} is varied from 0.2 to 2 Î©, with total 20 variations considered for each fault. For fault distance variation, F_{d} is varied from 10 to 100% in the cable, also resulting in 20 variations for each fault. From these two cases, the total variations are 40 and from each variation of DC faults, KI values are extracted from the chosen multifractal feature vectors. Three variations of KI values for each fault are represented in Table 7. From all the considered faults a total of 200 sample data is obtained, while 180 samples are randomly chosen to perform the classification of different faults. Among the 180 samples, 179 are exactly classified, while misclassification happens between NPG fault (F_{3}) and Shunt arc fault (F_{4}) as can be seen in Fig. 19. The classification accuracy of the proposed method can be obtained using (33).
The proposed classifier is compared with existing classifiers, i.e., EEMD, ST, WT, EWTSVD, and MFDFA in terms of extracted features and classification accuracy for both without and with noise (30 dB noise is intentionally added to the signal), and with the assistance of (34). The relative computational time is calculated for each method and listed in Table 8. From Table 8, it is clear that the proposed MMFDFA classifier shows dominance in terms of extracted features, classification accuracy, and RCT when compared to the existing classifiers which are shown in bar graphs in Fig. 20. Even though the extracted features are the same in MFDFA and MMFDFA, MMFDFA shows superiority in terms of CA, CT, and RCT. Hence it is clear that the proposed classifier is validated for the PVWindbased DC ring network.
After classification, it is necessary to estimate fault location. Thus, FFRLS is used to estimate the unknown parameters using (29), while among the different unknown parameters this paper focuses on the cable resistance. Fault distance can be obtained by the ratio of estimated to the actual resistance, and using the estimated fault distance relative error can be obtained as:
The proposed FFRLS algorithm estimates all the locations of all faults accurately using (35) which are listed in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Unknown parameters can be obtained for the concerned fault by updating the fault data along with the variation of the forgetting factor (Î») in the proposed algorithm. After the recursive performance from (31) unknown parameters are obtained.
To represent fault location effectively, random data has been taken from the PPG fault among all the faults at R_{f}â€‰=â€‰1 Î©, and its corresponding plot is represented in Fig. 21. As seen, it is evident that the proposed FFRLS algorithm can successfully estimate the fault distance at R_{f}â€‰=â€‰1 Î©.
7 Conclusion
In this paper a novel approach is presented for fault detection, classification, and distance estimation to obtain reliable operation of a PVWindbased DCring microgrid. Initially, five kinds of faults are collected from local measurements for two cases, i.e., fault resistance variation (R_{f}) and fault distance variation (F_{d}). Differential current is estimated from the collected signals and its fault data is obtained with the help of the maximum and minimum values under different variations of R_{f} and F_{d}. The secondorder derivative and SMWPCC are applied to the differential fault current (i.e., the current passing through R_{f}) for DC fault detection. The fault detection is carried out using \(\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}\) with the first peak magnitude. Below the threshold (0.98 in this paper) is a fault zone where an especially low peak is considered for detection using SMWPCC. Detected fault signals are passed through the MMFDFA classifier for classification. The MMFDFA multifractal features (i.e., Hq, Mq, and Eq) are in vector form, and are converted to statistical measurement data with the assistance of KI and plotted in 2Dimensional and 3D dimensional scatter plots for effective visualization. Scatter plots reveal that all the faults are accurately classified. Finally, fault distance estimation is achieved through the unknown parameters using the FFRLS method. The novelties of this paper are:

Modeling of the ring microgrid with the combination of PV array, wind turbine, battery, utility grid, and loads;

The combination of primary and secondary detection techniques, i.e., \(\frac{{d^{2} I_{3} }}{{dt^{2} }}\) and sliding mode windowbased Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient (SMWPCC), is used to protect the microgrid in uncertain conditions.
MMFDFA has been proposed for fault classification and its main advantages are that it can estimate the local trends of any order polynomial function and it does not t require any signal processing algorithm to decompose the signals. MMFDFA reduces the computational burden, RCT, extracted features, and increases the robustness of the system.

MMFDFA exhibits higher classification accuracy (99.44%) as compared to the existing techniques of EEMD, ST, MWT, EWTSVM, and MFDFA, etc.

Accurate fault location and very low relative errors are achieved by varying the forgetting factor from 0.78 to 0.997 in FFRLS.
It is concluded that the proposed method is suitable for the fault diagnosis of the PVWindbased DC ring microgrid.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
 PV:

Photovoltaic
 MPPT:

Maximum power point tracker
 WT:

Wind turbine
 PMSG:

Permanent magnet synchronous generator
 RESs:

Renewable energy sources
 PP:

Polepole
 PPG:

Positive poleground
 NPG:

Negative poleground
 CC:

Correlation coefficient
 SMWPCC:

Sliding mode window based Pearsonâ€™s correlation coefficient
 DFA:

Detrended fluctuation analysis
 MFDFA:

Multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis
 MMFDFA:

Modified multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis
 FFRLS:

Recursive least squares with forgetting factor
 MWT:

Modified wavelet transforms
 ST:

Stockwell transform
 EEMD:

Ensemble empirical mode decomposition
 EWTSVM:

Empirical Wavelet Transform with Support Vector Machine
 ANN:

Artificial neural networks
 RVFNL:

Random vector functional neural network
 KI:

Kurtosis index
 CA:

Classification accuracy
 RCT:

Relative computational time
References
Augustine, S., Quiroz, J. E., Reno, M. J., & Brahma, S. (2018). DC microgrid protection: Review and challenges (No. SAND20188853). Sandia National Lab. (SNLNM).
Zhang, Y., Jiang, T., & Jiao, J. (2020). Modelfree predictive current control of a dfig using an ultralocal model for grid synchronization and power regulation. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 35(4), 2269â€“2280.
Meghwani, A., Srivastava, S. C., & Chakrabarti, S. (2018). Local measurementbased technique for estimating fault location in multisource DC microgrids. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 12(13), 3305â€“3313.
He, J., Chen, K., Li, M., Luo, Y., Liang, C., & Xu, Y. (2020). Review of protection and fault handling for a flexible DC grid. Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems, 5(1), 1â€“15.
Mirsaeidi, S., Dong, X., Shi, S., & Tzelepis, D. (2017). Challenges, advances and future directions in protection of hybrid AC/DC microgrids. IET Renewable Power Generation, 11(12), 1495â€“1502.
Aghdam, T. S., Karegar, H. K., & Zeineldin, H. H. (2019). Variable tripping time differential protection for microgrids considering DG stability. IEEE Transations on Smart Grid, 10(3), 2407â€“2415.
Chaitanya, B. K., Yadav, A., & Pazoki, M. (2019). An improved differential protection scheme for microgrid using timefrequency transform. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 111, 132â€“143.
Gururani, A., Mohanty, S. R., & Mohanta, J. C. (2016). Microgrid protection using HilbertHuangtransform basedifferential scheme. IET Generation, Transmission and Distribution, 10(15), 3707â€“3716.
Sarangi, S., Sahu, B. K., & Rout, P. K. (2020). Distributed generation hybrid AC/DC microgrid protection: A critical review on issues, strategies, and future directions. International Journal of Energy Research, 44(5), 3347â€“3364.
Shabani, A., & Mazlumi, K. (2019). Evaluation of a communicationassisted overcurrent protection scheme for photovoltaicbased DC microgrid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 11(1), 429â€“439.
Beheshtaein, S., Cuzner, R. M., Forouzesh, M., Savaghebi, M., & Guerrero, J. M. (2019). DC microgrid protection: A comprehensive review. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2904588
Duan, J., Li, Z., Wei, Z., & Lu, W. (2020). A line accelerated protection scheme of flexible MVDC distribution system based on transient current derivative. Electric Power Systems Research, 183, 106269.
Meghwani, A., Srivastava, S. C., & Chakrabarti, S. (2015). A new protection scheme for DC microgrid using line current derivative. In 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1â€“5). IEEE.
Kar and S. R. Samantaray. (2014). Timefrequency transformbased differentialscheme for microgridprotection. IET Generation, Transmission and Distribution, 8(2), 310â€“320.
Mohanty, R., & Pradhan, A. K. (2018). DC ring bus microgrid protection using the oscillation frequency and transient power. IEEE Systems Journal, 13(1), 875â€“884.
Hedel, J., & Abuelrub, A. (2020). Reliability assessment of protection system for DC Ring microgrid using fault tree method. In 2020 7th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICEEE) (pp. 106â€“110). IEEE.
Salehi, M., Taher, S. A., Sadeghkhani, I., & Shahidehpour, M. (2019). A poverty severity indexbased protection strategy for ringbus lowvoltage DC microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(6), 6860â€“6869.
Yang, Y., Huang, C., Zhou, D., & Li, Y. (2021). Fault detection and location in multiterminal DC microgrid based on local measurement. Electric Power Systems Research, 194, 107047.
Emhemed, A. A., Fong, K., Fletcher, S., & Burt, G. M. (2016). Validation of fast and selective protection scheme for an LVDC distribution network. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 32(3), 1432â€“1440.
Mohanty, R., & Pradhan, A. K. (2017). Protection of smart DC microgrid with ring configuration using parameter estimation approach. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(6), 6328â€“6337.
Akmaz, D., MamiÅŸ, M. S., Arkan, M., & TaÄŸluk, M. E. (2018). Transmission line fault location using traveling wave frequencies and extreme learning machine. Electric Power Systems Research, 155, 1â€“7.
Vishnupriya, S., & Kanakasabapathy, P. (2016). Fault ride through for a DC ring bus microgrid. In 2016 International Conference on Energy Efficient Technologies for Sustainability (ICEETS) (pp. 11â€“16). IEEE.
Saleh, S. A., Aljankawey, A. S., Errouissi, R., & Rahman, M. A. (2015). Experimental performance of the phasebased digital protection against arc flash faults. In 2015 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting (pp. 1â€“10). IEEE.
Ray, P. K., Mohanty, A., Panigrahi, B. K., & Rout, P. K. (2018). Modified wavelet transform based fault analysis in a solar photovoltaic system. Optik, 168, 754â€“763.
Wang, X., Song, G., Gao, J., Wei, X., Wei, Y., Mostafa, K., Hu, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2019). High impedance fault detection method based on improved complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition for DC distribution network. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 107, 538â€“556.
Mishra, M., Routray, P., & kumar Rout, P. (2016). A universal high impedance fault detection technique for distribution system using Stransform and pattern recognition. Technology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy, 1(1), 9.
Thirumala, K., Pal, S., Jain, T., & Umarikar, A. C. (2019). A classification method for multiple power quality disturbances using EWT based adaptive filtering and multiclass SVM. Neurocomputing, 334, 265â€“274.
Xiang, W., Yang, S., & Wen, J. (2019). ANNbased robust DC fault protection algorithm for MMC highvoltage direct current grids. IET Renewable Power Generation, 14(2), 199â€“210.
Mohanty, R., SriMukhaBalaji, U., & Pradhan, A. K. (2016). An accurate noniterative fault location technique for lowvoltage DC microgrid. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 31(2), 475â€“481.
Das, S., Pradhan, A. K., Kedia, A., Dalai, S., Chatterjee, B., & Chakravorti, S. (2018). Diagnosis of power quality events based on detrended fluctuation analysis. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 65(9), 7322â€“7331.
Pavlov, A. N., Runnova, A. E., Maksimenko, V. A., Pavlova, O. N., Grishina, D. S., & Hramov, A. E. (2018). Detrended fluctuation analysis of EEG patterns associated with real and imaginary arm movements. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 509, 777â€“782.
Du, W., Kang, M., & Pecht, M. (2020). Fault diagnosis using adaptive multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 67(3), 2272â€“2282.
Chatterjee, S., Roy, S. S., Bose, R., & Pratiher, S. (2020). Feature extraction from multifractal spectrum of electromyograms for diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders. IET Science, Measurement & Technology, 14, 817â€“824.
MartÃnez, J. L. M., SegoviaDomÃnguez, I., RodrÃguez, I. Q., HortaRangel, F. A., & SosaGÃ³mez, G. (2021). A modified Multifractal Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (MFDFA) approach for multifractal analysis of precipitation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 565, 12561.
Bhargav, R., Bhalja, B. R., & Gupta, C. P. (2019). Algorithm for fault detection and localisation in a meshtype bipolar DC microgrid network. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 13(15), 3311â€“3322.
Fletcher, S. D. A., Norman, P. J., Galloway, S. J., & Burt, G. M. (2011). Determination of protection system requirements for DC unmanned aerial vehicle electrical power networks for enhanced capability and survivability. IET Electrical Systems in Transportation, 1(4), 137â€“147.
Meghwani, A., Srivastava, S. C., & Chakrabarti, S. (2016). A nonunit protection scheme for DC microgrid based on local measurements. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 32(1), 172â€“181.
Javed, W., Chen, D., Farrag, M. E., & Xu, Y. (2019). System configuration, fault detection, location, isolation and restoration: A review on LVDC microgrid protections. Energies, 12(6), 1001.
De Andrade, V., & Sorrentino, E. (2010). Typical expected values of the fault resistance in power systems. In 2010 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition: Latin America (T&DLA) (pp. 602â€“609). IEEE.
Liu, J., Tai, N., Fan, C., Chen, S., & Wu, P. (2016). A fault detection method for DC lines in VSCHVDC system based on current correlation. In 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM) (pp. 1â€“5). IEEE.
Musa, M. H., He, Z., Fu, L., & Deng, Y. (2018). A correlation coefficientbased algorithm for fault detection and classification in a power transmission line. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 13(10), 1394â€“1403.
Guo, J., Li, A., & Zhang, R. (2020). Tool condition monitoring in milling process using multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis and support vector machine. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 110(5), 1445â€“1456.
Deng, L., & Zhao, R. (2014). Fault feature extraction of a rotor system based on local mean decomposition and Teager energy kurtosis. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 28(4), 1161â€“1169.
Chu, Z., & Hu, J. (2016). An improved recursive least squarebased adaptive input shaping for zero residual vibration control of flexible system. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 8(4), 1687814016646504.
Gush, T., Bukhari, S. B. A., Haider, R., Admasie, S., Oh, Y. S., Cho, G. J., & Kim, C. H. (2018). Fault detection and location in a microgrid using mathematical morphology and recursive least square methods. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 102, 324â€“331.
Jarraya, I., Hmad, J., Trabelsi, H., Houari, A., & Machmoum, M. (2019). An online grid impedance estimation using recursive least square for islanding detection. In 2019 16th International MultiConference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD) (pp. 193â€“200). IEEE.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KA contributed to the detailed simulation in this paper. PKD conceptualized the problem. MS edited the paper and suggested changes. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Anjaiah, K., Dash, P.K. & Sahani, M. A new protection scheme for PVwind based DCring microgrid by using modified multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis. Prot Control Mod Power Syst 7, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601022002323
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601022002323