energies
Article
Modelling of Resistive Type Superconducting Fault Current
Limiter for HVDC Grids
Guillermo García 1 , D. Marene Larruskain 2, *
Citation: García, G.; Larruskain,
D.M.; Etxegarai, A. Modelling of
Resistive Type Superconducting
Fault Current Limiter for HVDC
Grids. Energies 2022, 15, 4605.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134605
Academic Editor: Zheng Xu
Received: 27 May 2022
Accepted: 22 June 2022
Published: 23 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 4605. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134605
and Agurtzane Etxegarai 2
1 Ingeteam Power Technology, 48170 Zamudio, Spain; guillermopla.95@gmail.com
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering of Bilbao, University of the Basque Country
UPV/EHU, 48013 Bilbao, Spain; agurtzane.etxegarai@ehu.eus
* Correspondence: marene.larruskain@ehu.eus
Abstract: The protection of high voltage direct current (HVDC) grids is a challenge considering that
the protection system must detect, locate, and interrupt large fault currents in a few milliseconds.
Resistive type superconducting fault current limiters (R-SFCL) can help solve that difficult task,
reducing the extremely demanding ratings of HVDC circuit breakers. This paper presents different
approaches to model R-SFCLs in order to analyze their suitability for assessing the performance of
HVDC grid protection, including the step model, the exponential model, the RQ model, and the
magneto-thermal model. In the first instance, the R-SFCL models are evaluated in a test grid to
analyze their parameterisation and select the most adequate model for the study of HVDC grids. The
RQ model is finally chosen for its simplicity but closer behavior to the magneto thermal model in
terms of fault resistance dependency and resistance evolution curve. Then, the performance of an RQ
type R-SFCL model in conjunction with a mechanical circuit breaker is evaluated in a multiterminal
HVDC grid with different fault cases. This way, fault currents are greatly decreased as well as circuit
breaker requirements. Hence, the R-SFCL under study enables a reliable protection of the HVDC grid.
Keywords: HVDC grid; fault current limiter; model; resistive type; superconductivity
1. Introduction
High voltage direct current (HVDC) grids are considered a key solution for the rein-
forcement of the power system, to integrate large scale renewable energies and to cope with
the increase in electrical energy demand. Nevertheless, HVDC technology is not mature
enough to enable the wide existence of these grids, and most of the HVDC transmissions
installed currently are two-point systems. One of the most demanding features is fault
clearance, since DC currents have no natural zero crossing, which makes it difficult for
HVDC circuit breakers (DCCB) to operate. Furthermore, converters are highly sensitive
to large fault currents that arise shortly after fault inception [1]. Therefore, protection of
HVDC grids against DC faults is a major challenge for the development of future HVDC
grids in order to ensure safe and stable operation.
Traditionally, point-to-point HVDC systems have been protected by tripping breakers
on the AC side. However, this can lead to the full de-energisation of the grid, which
makes this alternative unreliable for HVDC grids [2], especially when it comes to overhead
lines [3]. Consequently, the requirements for DCCBs are highly demanding, since they must
interrupt large fault currents within a few milliseconds, while in AC systems they operate
in several AC cycles [2]. Therefore, DCCBs are still under development and commercial
models have emerged very recently at huge expenses.
With this in mind, fault current limiters (FCLs), which both limit rise rate and peak
value of fault currents, are of concern for the protection of HVDC grids. FCLs are de-
vices with virtually zero impedance during normal system operation, but when a fault
occurs, the impedance of the devices increases to the set value [4]. The resistance of the
superconducting materials modulates as a function of current and temperature.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 2 of 20

FCLs are applicable in any segment of the power system, including generation, trans-
mission, and distribution [5,6]. Nevertheless, higher voltage levels constitute a hurdle that
limits the employment of FCLs on account of the required voltage insulation. Occasion-
ally, there are a few projects for 220 kV applications. Within this context, the 220 kV and
1200 A rated resistive superconducting fault current limiter (R-SFCL) which is installed in
a substation in Moscow stands out [7].
FCL applications in power systems include the assistance with the penetration of
distributed generation. This way, distributed generators can be connected to the power grid
without increasing short circuit levels. Besides FCLs can facilitate the meshed operation,
given that in the event of a fault they can control the fault currents in the faulty parts
of the feeder and isolate the affected segments. Other applications include bus splitting,
compliance with N-1 criteria by ruling out costly elements, neutral connection without
permanent impedance drawbacks, subgrid coupling avoiding sequential tripping, busbar
coupling and transformer feeder, power plant auxiliaries, and ship propulsion systems [5,6].
Lastly, SFCLs can be practical for protecting HVDC systems. The increase in impedance
results in a reduction in fault current, which makes it easier to operate DCCBs. Conse-
quently, the highly demanding requirements of DCCBs are reduced and lower-rated DCCBs
are feasible.
Among the different types of FCLs, various researchers have claimed that the R-SFCL
is a promising solution for the protection of HVDC grids [8–14]. The main advantages of
R-SFCL are their applicability to high voltage and currents, high reliability, low harmonics,
very small losses, and low voltage drops. These characteristics make them appropriate for
high voltage power systems, such as HVDC and more specifically, for modular multilevel
converter (MMC)-based HVDC systems.
Several types of R-SFCL simulation models can be found in the literature with different
transient responses compared to the empirical performance of superconductors [15].
Zero-dimensional approaches employ time-dependent resistances without thermal
estimates. These simplified methods include binary models that operate at an specific
time [16] or in function of the current magnitude [17]. Therefore, they are able to reduce
fault currents but they do not exhibit the required period of time for heating and devel-
oping resistance. Non-linear look-up tables adjust this limitation and gradually state the
resistance [18]. Some models represent the recovery time [19].
One-dimensional models consider heat diffusion in one dimension (length or thick-
ness) and uniform temperature across other dimensions. Likewise, nonhomogenous critical
currents are taken into account. These models can be fairly accurate in cases of large fault
currents with homogeneus heating. The authors of [20] studied the transference of heat to
the coolant and the abrupt temperature variations that decrease the thermal transfer effi-
ciency. In [21], the non-uniformity of temperature and the so-called hot spots are analyzed,
as well as the effect of the current on the temperature distribution. The effect of the tape
length in hot spots is analyzed in [22].
Classical magneto-thermal analysis involves complex calculations that require long
simulation times to produce accurate models. Therefore, some authors use simplified magneto-
thermal models, based on empirical results [23–25]. Simplified and magneto-thermal models
have been developed by simulation tools including ATP/EMTP, PSCAD/EMTDC, and
MATLAB/Simulink.
Finite element methods (FEM) deal with two- and three-dimensional symmetries that
consider heat diffusion along two or three dimensions of the tape, respectively [26–28].
FEMs develop top accuracy models at the expense of very long simulation times, which
are difficult to combine with HVDC grids analysis. On account of the time consuming
methodology, FEM models are regularly used for the validation of other models [29].
For the evaluation of HVDC systems, simplified or magneto-thermal models with
different levels of complexity and, therefore, accuracy, are regularly used. For greater
thermal or electromagnetic accuracy, FEM models are applied. Therefore, a consensus must
be reached between the model accuracy and the required simulation time.
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 3 of 20

Most papers analyze the design of R-SFCLs from the equipment perspective [8];
nonetheless, this paper focuses on the system performance perspective. In this way, the
paper presents different approaches to model R-SFCLs, with the application of HVDC grid
protection. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 3, the models under
study are applied in a test grid and their respective performances are discussed. Based on
the previous discussion, Section 4 analyzes the performance of an R-SFCL with the most
adequate model in a HVDC grid under different fault case scenarios. Finally, the main
conclusions are outlined.

2. Modelling of R-SFCL
An R-SFCL consists of a layered superconducting tape structure and a shunt resis-
tance that decreases over-voltages during quenching and diverts part of the fault current
after the quench, with the purpose of avoiding overheating [30]. That resistance can
be external and/or bonded to the superconductor. However, it is frequently omitted to
simplify the analysis [29,30]. For electrical power system simulations purposes, the R-
SFCL can be modeled as a zero dimensional variable resistor with constant critical current
density distribution.
The operation of the R-SFCL can be differentiated into three states. In the supercon-
ducting state, the temperature (T) and current (I) are below their respective critical values
(TC and IC ), as shown in Equation (1). In this state, the R-SFCL exhibits no resistance.

T < Tc I < IC (1)

In the typically denominated flux-flow state, the critical current, related to the critical
current density JC , is surpassed as shown in Equation (2). The device develops resistance
on account of the temperature increase.

T < Tc I > IC (2)

The R-SFCL operates in the normal conducting state when the temperature and current
are over their critical values, Equation (3). At this state, the device shows resistance. The
change from superconducting to normal state is called quench.

T > TC I > IC (3)

After this state, the R-SFCLs might require a restoration period for cooling and return-
ing to the superconducting state.
The thermal behavior of the R-SFCL is modeled as in [31], where the model assumes a
constant thermal coefficient to cooling reservoir. These assumptions have a small impact
in electrical behavior as stated in [32]. The constant critical current density distribution
ensures uniform temperature evolution along the tape. This way, the generated heat is
calculated in Equation (4)
.
Q gen = RSFCL · I 2 (4)
On the other hand, the removed heat by the cooling system is shown in Equation (5).

T − Ta
Q Removed = (5)
RthSC

where T and Ta are the instantaneous temperatures of device and ambient, respectively, and
RthSC is the thermal resistance of the superconductor. This thermal resistance can generally
be calculated as in Equation (6).

1
RthSC = (6)
k· L· D ·π
where k is the thermal conductivity.
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 4 of 20

The temperature gradient can be calculated as in Equation (7).

dT Q RSFCL − Qremoved
= (7)
dt Csc

where Csc is the superconductor thermal capacity, which is calculated as in Equation (8).

Csc = L· D ·π ·Cv (8)

where Cv is the superconductor volumetric specific heat.

Several R-SFCL models have been developed in the literature [15]. The choice of
the model mainly depends on the desired accuracy, which must be in compromize with
computational cost.
Generally, the R-SFCL models that are used for the analysis of HVDC grids can be
distinguished into four groups: step model, exponential model, RQ model, and magneto-
thermal model. There are also more accurate models with high computational costs which
are usually not feasible for such studies.

2.1. Step Model

The step model is the simplest one, which is based on a binary model that takes the su-
perconducting and normal conducting states into consideration, as shown in Equation (9),

| RSFCL (t) = 0 |i (t)|< iC RSFCL (t) = R MAX |i (t)| >iC | (9)

where R MAX is the developed maximum resistance and iC is the critical current.
As soon as the circulating current surpasses the critical current, the model instanta-
neously develops the maximum resistance value, resulting in a square curve. Thus, no
peak current analysis can be performed. This model is far away from the real behavior of
an R-SFCL, but it is still used for its simplicity and adequacy for steady state analysis.

2.2. Exponential Model

The exponential model is a widely recognized model based on a binary model with a
transition time for emulating the flux-flow state is given by Equation (10).
to −t
 
RSFCL = 0 |i (t)|< iC RSFCL = R MAX · 1 − e τ |i (t)| >iC (10)

where to is the fault inception time.

The delay of the transition enables peak current analysis whilst it maintains simplicity.
Normal conducting state to superconducting state transition can be modeled with a slope.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the step model and exponential model curves with
and without recovery [15].

2.3. RQ Model
The RQ model is based on the empirically observed dependence between the generated
heat (Q) and the developed resistance of the SFCL (R) independently of the current value.
In [29,33], empirical RQ curves are obtained for a YBCO tape. These types of curves can be
implemented in look-up-tables for emulating the quenching phenomena of the SFCL, as
shown in Figure 2.

2.4. Magneto-Thermal Model

The magneto-thermal model is the most complex and accurate model used in the
analysis of HVDC grids. The model is based on the relation between the electric field and
current density (E-J characteristic) of high temperature superconducting (HTS) materials
(Figure 3), which shows a non-linear relation between current density and electric field [34].
It considers the dependence of the temperature in the electrical variables.
 where 𝑡 is the fault inception time.
The delay of the transition enables peak current analysis whilst it maintains simplic-
ity. Normal conducting state to superconducting state transition can be modeled with a
slope.
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 5 of 20
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the step model and exponential model curves with
and without recovery [15].

Energies 2022, 15, 4605 5 of 20

Figure 1. Step and exponential model comparison.

2.3. RQ Model
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 The RQ model is based on the empirically observed dependence between the gener-6 of 20
ated heat (Q) and the developed resistance of the SFCL (R) independently of the current
value. In [29] and [33], empirical RQ curves are obtained for a YBCO tape. These types of
𝑇
curves can be implemented in look-up-tables for emulating the quenching phenomena of
Figure 1. Step
the SFCL, asand exponential
shown model
in Figure 𝜌(𝑇) = 𝜌(𝑇 )
2. comparison. (16)
𝑇
where 𝜌 is the resistivity of the material in normal conducting state.
Normal state resistance is calculated in Equation (17).
𝐿
𝑅 = 𝜌(𝑇) (17)
𝐷𝜋
where 𝐿 and 𝐷 are the superconductor length and diameter.
The three stages of the magneto-thermal model are shown in Figure 3 and imple-
Figure
Figure
mented2.2.Block
Block diagramof
with diagram ofRQ
algorithmsRQ Model.
in Model.
the flow chart depicted in Figure 4.

2.4. Magneto-Thermal Model

The magneto-thermal model is the most complex and accurate model used in the
analysis of HVDC grids. The model is based on the relation between the electric field and
current density (E-J characteristic) of high temperature superconducting (HTS) materials
(Figure 3), which shows a non-linear relation between current density and electric field
[34]. It considers the dependence of the temperature in the electrical variables.
This model distinguishes with reasonable accuracy the three states of the supercon-
ductor.
1. Superconducting state: when current density (J) is low enough, the electric field (E)
and resistive value are negligible as shown in Equations (11) and (12).

𝐽
𝐸(𝐽, 𝑇) = 𝐸 (11)
Figure3.3.E-J
Figure E-Jcharacteristic
characteristicofofHTS
HTSmaterial.
material. 𝐽 (𝑇)
(𝑇 − 𝑇)
This model distinguishes with 𝐽 (𝑇) = 𝐽 (77𝐾)
reasonable accuracy the three (12)
states of the superconductor.
(𝑇 − 77) .
1. Superconducting state: when current density (J) is low enough, the electric field (E)
whereand𝛼 resistive
is a quenching constant.
value are negligible as shown in Equations (11) and (12).
2. Flux-flow state: the device starts developing  someαelectric field and resistive value
Equation (13). J
E( J, T ) = EC (11)
JC ( T )
𝐸 𝐽 "(77𝐾) 𝐽 # (13)
𝐸(𝐽, 𝑇) = 𝐸 ( TC −𝐽 T(77𝐾)
)
𝐸
JC ( T ) = JC (77K ) 𝐽 (𝑇) (12)
( TC − 77)1.8
where 𝛽, 𝐸 and 𝐸 are the second quenching constant, critical electric field, and electric
fieldwhere α isrespectively.
constant, a quenching constant.
2. Flux-flow state: the device
For superconducting starts developing
and flux-flow some electric
states, instantaneous field and(𝜌)
resistivity resistive
can be value
calcu-
latedEquation (13). (14).
as in Equation
 ( β )  β
EC α 𝐽(𝑡) JC (77K ) J
E( J, T ) = Eo (13)
Eo 𝜌 = 𝐸(𝑡) JC ( T ) JC (77K ) (14)

3. Normal conducting state: the device behaves as a resistor and the relation between
electric field and current density is linear, Equations (15) and (16).
𝑇
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 6 of 20
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 6 of 20

𝑇
𝜌(𝑇) = 𝜌(𝑇 ) (16)
where β, Eo and EC are the second quenching 𝑇 constant, critical electric field, and
electric field constant, respectively.
where 𝜌 is the resistivity of the material in normal conducting state.
For superconducting
Normal and
state resistance flux-flow states,
is calculated instantaneous
in Equation (17). resistivity (ρ) can be calcu-
lated as in Equation (14).
𝑅ρ = J (t) 𝐿
= 𝜌(𝑇) 𝐷𝜋 (17)
(14)
E(t)
where 𝐿 and 𝐷 are the superconductor length and diameter.
3. Normal conducting state: the device behaves as a resistor and the relation between
The three stages of the magneto-thermal model are shown in Figure 3 and imple-
electric field and current density is linear, Equations (15) and (16).
mented with algorithms in the flow chart depicted in Figure 4.
T
E( J, T ) = ρ( T c ) J (15)
TC

T
ρ( T ) = ρ( T c ) (16)
TC
where ρ is the resistivity of the material in normal conducting state.
Normal state resistance is calculated in Equation (17).

L
R = ρ( T ) (17)
Dπ
where L and D are the superconductor length and diameter.
The three stages of the magneto-thermal model are shown in Figure 3 and implemented
Figurealgorithms
with in the flow
3. E-J characteristic chart
of HTS depicted in Figure 4.
material.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Magneto-Thermal
Magneto-Thermal model
model flow
flow chart.
chart.

3. Test
3. Test Grid
Grid and
and Model
Model Analysis
Analysis
In this
In thissection the four
section the R-SFCL models under
four R-SFCL modelsstudy are implemented
under study are in MATLAB/Simulink
implemented in
and tested in the simplified DC test bed depicted in Figure 5.
MATLAB/Simulink and tested in the simplified DC test bed depicted in Figure 5.
 Energies 2022, 15, 4605 7 of 20
Energies
Energies 2022,
2022, 15,
15, 4605
4605 77of
of20
20

Figure 5. Simplified DC test bed.

Figure 5. Simplified DC test bed.
Figure 5. Simplified DC test bed.
The parameters of the test grid are shown in Table 1.
The parameters of the test grid are shown in Table 1.
The parameters of the test grid are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Test grid parameters.
Table 1. Test grid parameters.
Table 1. Test grid parameters.
Variable
Variable Value
Value Unit
Unit
Variable Value Unit
U𝑈dc 100
100 [kV]
[kV]
𝑈
L𝐿line 100
50 [kV]
[mH]
50 [mH]
𝐿Rline 505 [ΩΩ]
[mH]
𝑅 5
𝑅Rload 5
500 [ΩΩΩ]
𝑅 500
𝑅R f ault 5005 [ΩΩ]
𝑅 5 Ω
𝑅t f ault 0.05
5 Ω
[s]
𝑡 0.05 [s]
𝑡
I prospective 10
0.05 [kA]
[s]
𝐼 10 [kA]
𝐼 10 [kA]
One
Oneofofthe advantages
the advantages of the implementation
of the implementation of a SFCL in a HVDC
of a SFCL grid is grid
in a HVDC that aisslower
that a
and One
less of theDCCB
costly advantages
can be of the implementation
employed as a higher of a interruption
fault SFCL in a HVDC time gridnot
does is that a
imply
slower and less costly DCCB can be employed as a higher fault interruption time does not
slower
higher and less costly DCCB can be employed as a higher fault interruption time does not
imply fault current
higher fault values
current[12]. Thus,
values in Thus,
[12]. the paper,
in thethepaper,
mechanical active current
the mechanical activeinjection
current
imply
DCCB higher
(M-DCCB)fault shown
currentinvalues
Figure [12].
6 is Thus, in the paper,
implemented to thethe
clear mechanical
fault. The active current
parameters of
injection DCCB (M-DCCB) shown in Figure 6 is implemented to clear the fault. The pa-
injection
the M-DCCBDCCB (M-DCCB)
areM-DCCB
shown inareshown
Table in Figure
2. in Table 2. 6 is implemented to clear the fault. The pa-
rameters of the shown
rameters of the M-DCCB are shown in Table 2.

Figure6.6.Implemented
Figure ImplementedActive
ActiveInjection
InjectionM-DCCB.
M-DCCB.
Figure 6. Implemented Active Injection M-DCCB.
Table2.2.Implemented
Table ImplementedM-DCCB
M-DCCBparameters.
parameters.
Table 2. Implemented M-DCCB parameters.
Variable
Variable Value
Value Unit
Unit
Variable Value Unit
𝐿 290 [uH]
𝐿Ldc 290
290 [uH]
[uH]
𝐶 17.7 [uF]
𝐶Cdc 17.7
17.7 [uF]
[uF]
L 𝐿 1 [mH]
𝐿 CLR 11 [mH]
[mH]
𝑉 1.5 pu
𝑉VSurgeArrester 1.5
1.5 pu
pu
I 𝐼 44 [kA]
[kA]
𝐼 c 4 [kA]
M𝑀− −DCCB
𝐷𝐶𝐶𝐵 Operation delay 1717 [ms]
[ms]
𝑀 − 𝐷𝐶𝐶𝐵 17 [ms]
 Energies2022,
Energies 2022,15,
15,4605
4605 88of
of20
20

Furthermore, the
Furthermore, the response
responseofofthe
themodels
modelsdefined in in
defined Section 2 are
Section analyzed
2 are for diverse
analyzed for di-
model settings values and different fault resistance scenarios, which are common
verse model settings values and different fault resistance scenarios, which are common in the
in
literature.
the literature.

3.1.
3.1. Step
Step Model
Model
The
The step
step model
model isissimulated
simulated with
with aa3030ΩΩfinal
finalresistance
resistancevalue.
value. Figure
Figure 77depicts
depictsthe
the
fault
faultcurrent
currentand
andR-SFCL
R-SFCL resistance. It can
resistance. be appreciated
It can howhow
be appreciated this model is notisappropriate
this model not appro-
for the analysis
priate of peak of
for the analysis currents since thesince
peak currents current
thevalue fluctuates
current straight away
value fluctuates between
straight away
steady
betweenstate and fault
steady state case values.
and fault case values.

Figure7.7.Step
Figure StepModel
Modeland
andExponential
ExponentialModel
Modelanalysis
analysisfor
fordifferent
differenttransition
transitiontime
timevalues.
values.

3.2.
3.2. Exponential
Exponential Model
Model
The
The exponentialmodel
exponential modelisisimplemented
implementedin inthe
thetest
testbed
bedfor 30Ω
for30 Ω final
finalresistance
resistancevalue
value
and
and two transition times, 𝜏, i.e., 1.5 and 2 ms. Figure 7 shows fault currentR-SFCL
two transition times, τ, i.e., 1.5 and 2 ms. Figure 7 shows fault current and resis-
and R-SFCL
tance for the different time constants. Large time constant results in higger
resistance for the different time constants. Large time constant results in higger peak cur-peak currents.
rents.An adequate R-SFCL design should limit both peak and steady state fault currents.
Thus,An it can be concluded
adequate R-SFCLthat it is important
design to have
should limit both apeak
fast transition
and steady time compared
state to the
fault currents.
system response (electrical time constant of the faulted circuit). Therefore,
Thus, it can be concluded that it is important to have a fast transition time compared to the transition
time of the R-SFCL should be fixed considering the possible circuit time constants.
the system response (electrical time constant of the faulted circuit). Therefore, the transi-
Finally, in step and exponential models, fault resistance variations have no impact on
tion time of the R-SFCL should be fixed considering the possible circuit time constants.
transition time, as is justified in Section 2.2.
Finally, in step and exponential models, fault resistance variations have no impact on
transition
3.3. RQ Model time, as is justified in Section 2.2.
In this section, the model diagram of Figure 2 is implemented in the test bed together
3.3. RQ Model
with the look-up table that contains the R-Q relation of [31]. The superconducting tape
In this
consists of asection,
YBCO the model
layer, diagramwith
combined of Figure
copper,2 issilver,
implemented
stainlessinsteel,
the test
andbed together
Hastelloy
with the look-up table that contains the R-Q relation of [31]. The superconducting
substrate layers. The final R-SFCL resistance is 30 Ω and three tape lengths, 400, 600, and tape
consists of a YBCO layer,
800 m, have been considered. combined with copper, silver, stainless steel, and Hastelloy sub-
strate layers.
Figure The final
8 shows R-SFCL
fault resistance
current is 30 Ω evolution
and resistance and three tape
of RQlengths,
model 400, 600,different
for the and 800
m, have been considered.
tape lengths. For larger lengths, the final resistive value is developed faster. Thus, the
Figure 8ofshows
modification fault current
tape length anddesired
adjusts the resistance evolution
transition timeofthat
RQdefines
modeltheforpeak
the different
current.
tapeBesides,
lengths.Figure
For larger lengths, the final resistive value is developed faster.
9 shows the influence of fault resistance in the transition time Thus, the
of the
modification of tape length adjusts the desired transition time that defines
RQ model for 5, 10, and 15 Ω fault cases. An interesting characteristic of this model is the peak cur-
rent.quenching phenomenon slows down for higger fault resistances. This makes sense
that
since the increase in fault resistances reduces the current across the R-SFCL. Hence, the
heat-resistance development slows down. This behavior is not to be seen with the previous
two models.
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 99 of
of 20
20

Figure 8. RQ model analysis for different tape length values.

Besides, Figure 9 shows the influence of fault resistance in the transition time of the
RQ model for 5, 10, and 15 Ω fault cases. An interesting characteristic of this model is that
quenching phenomenon slows down for higger fault resistances. This makes sense since
the increase in fault resistances reduces the current across the R-SFCL. Hence, the heat-
resistance development slows down. This behavior is not to be seen with the previous two
models.
Figure
Figure 8.
8. RQ
RQ model
model analysis
analysis for
for different
different tape length values.

Besides, Figure 9 shows the influence of fault resistance in the transition time of the
RQ model for 5, 10, and 15 Ω fault cases. An interesting characteristic of this model is that
quenching phenomenon slows down for higger fault resistances. This makes sense since
the increase in fault resistances reduces the current across the R-SFCL. Hence, the heat-
resistance development slows down. This behavior is not to be seen with the previous two
models.

Figure9.9.Influence
Figure Influenceof
offault
faultresistance
resistancein
intransition
transitiontime
timeof
ofRQ
RQmodel.
model.

3.4.
3.4. Magneto-Thermal
Magneto-ThermalModel Model
The
The magneto-thermalmodel
magneto-thermal model depicted
depictedin Figure 4 is implemented
in Figure in thein
4 is implemented test
thegrid
testalong
grid
with the thermal model of Section 2, Equations (13)–(17).
along with the thermal model of Section 2, Equations (13)–(17).
In
Inthis
thismodel,
model,several
severalparameters
parameters can
canbebe
modulated.
modulated. However,
However, for for
thethe
sakesake
of simplic-
of sim-
ity, the parameters have been set in order to show a similar current-limiting response
plicity, the parameters have been set in order to show a similar current-limiting response to the
previous
Figure three models.
to the9.previous
Influencethree
of fault resistance in transition time of RQ model.
models.
Figure 10 shows fault current, resistance evolution, voltage across the R-SFCL and
Figure 10 shows fault current, resistance evolution, voltage across the R-SFCL and
M-DCCB
3.4. along with Model
Magneto-Thermal temperature of the tape.
M-DCCB along with temperature of the tape.
The magneto-thermal model shows the most realistic behavior of all presented models,
The magneto-thermal model depicted in Figure 4 is implemented in the test grid
where the nonlinear evolution of the resistance is precisely modeled. It is important to
along with the thermal model of Section 2, Equations (13)–(17).
emphasize that this model is the only one where electrical variables have dependence with
In this model, several parameters can be modulated. However, for the sake of sim-
temperature. Once the fault is cleared, the R-SFCL device must cool down to come back to
plicity, the parameters have been set in order to show a similar current-limiting response
a superconducting state before the faulted line is reconnected.
to the previous three models.
Besides, the model has been evaluated for 5, 10, and 15 Ω fault resistances, as depicted
Figure 10 shows fault current, resistance evolution, voltage across the R-SFCL and
in Figure 11. For larger fault resistances, the quenching is slowed down. It is impor-
M-DCCB along with temperature of the tape.
tant to remark that this behavior occurs with the RQ model but not with the first two
simplified models.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,4605
4605 10
10ofof20
20

Figure 10. Magneto-thermal model response.

The magneto-thermal model shows the most realistic behavior of all presented mod-
els, where the nonlinear evolution of the resistance is precisely modeled. It is important
to emphasize that this model is the only one where electrical variables have dependence
with temperature. Once the fault is cleared, the R-SFCL device must cool down to come
back to a superconducting state before the faulted line is reconnected.
Besides, the model has been evaluated for 5, 10, and 15 Ω fault resistances, as depicted
in Figure 11. For larger fault resistances, the quenching is slowed down. It is important to
remark that this behavior occurs with the RQ model but not with the first two simplified
Figure10.
models.
Figure 10.Magneto-thermal
Magneto-thermalmodel
modelresponse.
response.

The magneto-thermal model shows the most realistic behavior of all presented mod-
els, where the nonlinear evolution of the resistance is precisely modeled. It is important
to emphasize that this model is the only one where electrical variables have dependence
with temperature. Once the fault is cleared, the R-SFCL device must cool down to come
back to a superconducting state before the faulted line is reconnected.
Besides, the model has been evaluated for 5, 10, and 15 Ω fault resistances, as depicted
in Figure 11. For larger fault resistances, the quenching is slowed down. It is important to
remark that this behavior occurs with the RQ model but not with the first two simplified
models.

Figure 11. Influence of fault resistance in transition time

time of
of magneto-thermal
magneto-thermal model.
model.

The
The magneto-thermal model is
magneto-thermal model is the
the most
most accurate
accurate model,
model, but
but it
it is
is also
also the
the most
most com-
com-
plex,
plex, computational cost demanding, and variable demanding model. However, if the
computational cost demanding, and variable demanding model. However, if the
configuration
configurationofofthe
thevariables and
variables their
and physical
their performance
physical is well
performance is understood, the model
well understood, the
can help
model with
can the
help design
with of the limiter.
the design of the limiter.
3.5. Discussion
3.5. Discussion
Along the previous subsections, the performance of four different types of R-SFCL
Along the previous subsections, the performance of four different types of R-SFCL
models have been analyzed in the same system. Depending on the model settings and
models have been analyzed in the same system. Depending on the model settings and the
the model
Figure itself, theofbehavior
11. Influence of each
fault resistance in model differs.
transition Inmagneto-thermal
time of this section the model.
performance of all
models are encompassed in the same figure and their distinct response to critical current
and fault
The resistance variations
magneto-thermal is emphasized.
model is the most accurate model, but it is also the most com-
Figure 12 shows fault current
plex, computational cost demanding, andandresistance
variableevolution
demanding of all models
model. for a critical
However, if the
current value of 300 A (1.5 pu) and fault resistance value of 5 Ω.
configuration of the variables and their physical performance is well understood,The main differencethe
among
model the
can models
help withis observed
the designinofthetheflux-flow
limiter. state. It is appreciated that the RQ model
shows a more realistic resistance shape evolution compared to the step and exponential
model. Therefore, for this fault resistance and critical current values, the current evolution
3.5. Discussion
is equalized to the magneto-thermal model.
Along the previous subsections, the performance of four different types of R-SFCL
models have been analyzed in the same system. Depending on the model settings and the
 fault resistance variations is emphasized.
the models
Figure 12 is shows
observed in current
fault the flux-flow state. It isevolution
and resistance appreciated that
of all the RQ
models formodel shows
a critical cur-a
more
rent realistic
value of 300 resistance
A (1.5 pu)shape evolution
and fault compared
resistance to 5the
value of Ω.step and exponential
The main model.
difference among
Therefore,
the models isfor this fault
observed resistance
in the and
flux-flow critical
state. It is current values,
appreciated thatthe
thecurrent
RQ modelevolution
shows ais
equalized
more to the
realistic magneto-thermal
resistance model.compared to the step and exponential model.
shape evolution
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 11 of 20
Therefore, for this fault resistance and critical current values, the current evolution is
equalized to the magneto-thermal model.

Figure 12. Model comparison for 300 A critical current and 5 Ω fault resistance.

FigureDistinct
12. Modelbehaviors forfor
comparison different fault current
300 A critical resistances
and 5have
Ω been
Ω fault observed in the previous
resistance.
subsection. In consequence, Figure 13 shows all model responses for 300 A critical current
15 Ω fault
andDistinct resistance
behaviors for values.
differentIt can
faultberesistances
observed that
havefault
beenresistance
observedhas an impact
in the previouson
the transition
subsection.
subsection. In time for RQ and
In consequence,
consequence, Figure
Figuremagneto-thermal
13 shows
13 shows all models,
all model
model whilstfor
responses
responses it does
for Anot
300 A
300 for step
critical
critical and
current
current
and
and 15 Ω
exponential
15 Ω faultmodels.
fault resistance
resistance values.
values. It
It can
can be
be observed
observed that
that fault
fault resistance
resistance has
has an impact on
an impact on
the This way,
transition even
time though
for RQ the
and final resistive
magneto-thermal value and
models, steady
whilst state
it fault
does
the transition time for RQ and magneto-thermal models, whilst it does not for step and notcurrent
for are
step the
and
exponential
same, the models.
peak
exponential models. value will differ for distinct fault resistances, as appreciated in Figure 14.
This way, even though the final resistive value and steady state fault current are the
same, the peak value will differ for distinct fault resistances, as appreciated in Figure 14.

Figure13.
Figure 13.Model
Modelcomparison
comparisonfor
for300
300AAcritical
criticalcurrent and1515ΩΩfault
currentand faultresistance.
resistance.

This way, even though the final resistive value and steady state fault current are the
Figure 13. Model comparison for 300 A critical current and 15 Ω fault resistance.
same, the peak value will differ for distinct fault resistances, as appreciated in Figure 14.
Finally, critical current influence is evaluated. Figure 15 shows all model responses for
400 A (2 pu) critical current and 5 Ω fault resistance values. In the step, exponential and
RQ models, large variations in the critical current have a small impact (similar peak current
to the one depicted in Figure 12), whilst magneto-thermal model response shows a great
dependence on the critical current.
 Energies 2022, 15, 4605 12 of 20

Energies 2022, 15, 4605 12 of 20

Figure 14. Peak current comparison for different fault resistance values and 300 A critical current.

Finally, critical current influence is evaluated. Figure 15 shows all model responses
for 400 A (2 pu) critical current and 5 Ω fault resistance values. In the step, exponential
and RQ models, large variations in the critical current have a small impact (similar peak
current to the one depicted in Figure 12), whilst magneto-thermal model response shows
Figure
a great14.
Figure Peak
Peak current
dependence
14. comparison
on the
current for different
different fault
critical current.
comparison for fault resistance
resistance values
values and
and 300
300 A
A critical
critical current.
current.

Finally, critical current influence is evaluated. Figure 15 shows all model responses
for 400 A (2 pu) critical current and 5 Ω fault resistance values. In the step, exponential
and RQ models, large variations in the critical current have a small impact (similar peak
current to the one depicted in Figure 12), whilst magneto-thermal model response shows
a great dependence on the critical current.

Figure 15.
Figure 15.Model
Modelcomparison
comparisonforfor
400400
A critical current
A critical and 5and
current 5 Ωresistance.
Ω fault fault resistance.

Once
Onceagain,
again,even
even though
thoughthethe
finalfinal
R-SFCL
R-SFCLresistance and steady
resistance state fault
and steady current
state fault current
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 value are the same, the peak value will differ for distinct critical current values,
value are the same, the peak value will differ for distinct critical current values, as shown
13 of 20as shown
in Figure
in Figure 16.
16.

Figure 15. Model comparison for 400 A critical current and 5 Ω fault resistance.

Once again, even though the final R-SFCL resistance and steady state fault current
value are the same, the peak value will differ for distinct critical current values, as shown
in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Peak current comparison for different critical current values and 5 Ω fault resistance.
Figure 16. Peak current comparison for different critical current values and 5 Ω fault resistance.
To summarize, the complexity of the presented models increases in the order of ap-
pearance. The step model is extremely simple. However, it presents no flux-flow state.
The exponential model presents a generally correct transition. The RQ model is not a com-
plex model, though it shows a more precise response than the previous models due to its
sensitivity to fault resistance. Finally, the thermo-electrical model is the most complex,
most demanding in computational cost, and most accurate. In this model, electric param-
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 13 of 20
Figure 16. Peak current comparison for different critical current values and 5 Ω fault resistance.

To
To summarize,
summarize, the thecomplexity
complexityofofthe presented
the presented models
models increases in the
increases order
in the of ap-
order of
pearance. The step model is extremely simple. However, it presents
appearance. The step model is extremely simple. However, it presents no flux-flow no flux-flow state.
The exponential
state. model presents
The exponential a generally
model presents correct transition.
a generally The RQ model
correct transition. The RQis not a com-
model is
plex model, though it shows a more precise response than the previous models
not a complex model, though it shows a more precise response than the previous models due to its
sensitivity to fault resistance.
due to its sensitivity Finally, theFinally,
to fault resistance. thermo-electrical model is the
the thermo-electrical modelmostis complex,
the most
most demanding
complex, in computational
most demanding cost, andcost,
in computational mostand
accurate. In this model,
most accurate. In thiselectric
model,param-
electric
eters change with temperature, which differs from the remaining models
parameters change with temperature, which differs from the remaining models where where electric
and thermal
electric parameters
and thermal are decoupled.
parameters are decoupled.

R-SFCL in
4. R-SFCL in aa HVDC
HVDC Grid
Grid
After evaluating the four models in a basic testbed with MATLAB/Simulink, the RQ
model has been implemented in PSCAD/EMTDC
PSCAD/EMTDC and and tested
tested in
in the
the HVDC
HVDC grid
grid shown in
Figure 17. The
The RQ RQ model
model has been chosen for its simplicity but with more approximated
behavior to
behavior to the
themagneto-thermal
magneto-thermalmodel
modelininterms
termsof of fault
fault resistance
resistance dependency
dependency andand
re-
resistance
sistance evolution
evolution curve.
curve.

Figure
Figure 17.
17. HVDC
HVDC grid.
grid.

The HVDC
HVDC gridgridisiscomposed
composedofof four
four modular
modular multilevel
multilevel converters.
converters. Converters
Converters 1
1 and
and
2 are2connected
are connected to offshore
to offshore windfarms
windfarms (PQ control)
(PQ control) whilstwhilst converters
converters 3 and34and 4 are con-
are connected
nected to mainland
to mainland grid (voltage
grid (voltage control).
control). FurtherFurther information
information about
about the testthe test
grid grid is de-
is developed
veloped in [35]. Table 3 shows HVDC grid and converter
in [35]. Table 3 shows HVDC grid and converter parameters. parameters.

Table 3. HVDC
Table 3. HVDC grid
grid parameters.
parameters.

Converter1,1,2,2,3 3
Converter Converter4 4
Converter Unit
Unit
Rated Power 900 1200 [MVA]
Rated Power 900 1200 [MVA]
Rated DC voltage ±320 ±320 [kV]
Rated DC voltage ±320 ±320 [kV]
Rated DC Current 1.406 1.875 [kA]
IGBT Blocking Current 2.1 (1.5 pu) 2.1 (1.12 pu) [kA]
AC Grid Voltage 400 400 [kV]

Five cables interconnect the converters, their lengths being 200 km (links 13 and 14),
150 km (link 24), and 100 km (link 12 and 34). At both terminals of each link, there is a
100 mH limiting inductor in series with the R-SFCL and an M-DCCB. The parameters of the
M-DCCB (Figure 6) are shown in Table 2. The model settings of the implemented R-SFCL
RQ model are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. RQ model settings for HVDC grid.

Variable Value Unit

Length 4 [km]
Resistance 80 [Ω]
Critical current 2 [kA]
 Table 4. RQ model settings for HVDC grid.

Variable Value Unit

Length 4 [km]
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 Resistance 80 [Ω] 14 of 20
Critical current 2 [kA]

Next,
Next, pole-to-pole and pole-to-ground
pole-to-pole and pole-to-ground faults
faults at
at Link
Link 12
12 just
just beside
beside Bus
Bus 11 are
are analyzed
analyzed
to discuss the influence of the integration of the R-SFCL.
to discuss the influence of the integration of the R-SFCL.

4.1. Pole-to-Pole Faults

In this section the performance of the RQ modelled R-SFCL is assured with highly
demanding pole-to-pole
pole-to-polefaults
faultsininthetheHVDC
HVDC grid.
grid. Pole-to-pole
Pole-to-pole faults
faults in HVDC
in HVDC systems
systems are
are characterized by a large rise rate and final current value, as well as
characterized by a large rise rate and final current value, as well as a severe voltage drop in a severe voltage
drop
the DC in link,
the DC link,theoretically
which which theoretically
drops todrops
zero intocase
zeroofinsolid
case faults.
of solid faults.
Figure 18 shows the fault behavior of Converter 1 with and without R-SFCL when a
pole-to-pole fault
solid pole-to-pole fault occurs
occursin inLink
Link12 12beside
besideBusBus1 1atatthe
theinstant
instant t =t 0.51
= 0.51 s. In
s. In thethe
no no
R-
R-SFCL
SFCL scenario,
scenario, Converter
Converter 11 feedsthe
feeds thefault
faultwith
withaalarge
largecurrent
current value
value andand DC voltage
drops close to zero. However, when R-SFCL is integrated, it can be appreciated that the
converter’s current
converter’s currentgets
getssubstantially
substantiallylimited
limitedandandthethevoltage
voltage level
level is maintained
is maintained as the
as the R-
R-SFCL
SFCL quenches
quenches fast
fast with
with a largeenough
a large enoughvalue.
value.Finally,
Finally,the
thefault
faultneutralization
neutralization time time of the
M-DCCB isisapproximately
approximatelyatat t =t 0.514 s, and
= 0.514 instants
s, and laterlater
instants the fault
the is cleared.
fault Subsequently,
is cleared. Subse-
the power
quently, theflow andflow
power pre-fault variablesvariables
and pre-fault reset afterreset
an oscillating transient transient
after an oscillating period, enabling
period,
the continuity
enabling of the system.
the continuity of the system.

Figure 18. Converter 1 behavior with and without current limiter under pole-to-pole fault in Link
12 near Bus1.
12 near Bus1.

19shows
Figure 19 showsthe
theresponse
response of of
all all converters’
converters’ DC DC currents
currents withwith and without
and without R-SFCL R-
SFCL under
under solid pole-to-pole
solid pole-to-pole fault scenario.
fault scenario. Converters
Converters connectedconnected to thelink
to the faulted faulted link
immedi-
immediately
ately withstandwithstand a high gradient
a high gradient current current fault, whereas
fault, whereas the travelling
the travelling wave the
wave delays delays
re-
the response
sponse of most
of most distant
distant converters.
converters. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, these
these convertersare
converters areconnected
connectedto to AC
grids. Therefore, their contribution to the fault current is large. Besides, with the R-SFCL
a reduction of the fault current of is appreciated. Table 5 sums up the maximum current
values of all converters and limiting factors, which is defined in Equation (18).

IProspective
LF = (18)
ILimited

Table 5. Peak current and limiting factor comparison for pole-to-pole fault.

Peak Current [kA] Limited Peak Current [kA] LF [-]

Converter 1 11.09 3.98 2.78
Converter 2 9.55 4.05 2.35
Converter 3 8 1.58 5.05
Converter 4 9.83 1.50 6.51
 grids. Therefore, their contribution to the fault current is large. Besides, with the R-SFCL
a reduction of the fault current of is appreciated. Table 5 sums up the maximum current
values of all converters and limiting factors, which is defined in Equation (18).

Energies 2022, 15, 4605 𝐼 15 of 20

𝐿𝐹 = (18)
𝐼

Figure 19. Converter’s fault currents with and without current limiter under pole-to-pole fault con-
dition.

Table 5. Peak current and limiting factor comparison for pole-to-pole fault.

Peak Current [kA] Limited Peak Current [kA] LF [-]

Converter 1 11.09 3.98 2.78
Converter 2 9.55 4.05 2.35
Figure19.
Converter
Figure 19.3Converter’s
Converter’sfault currents
fault 8 withwith
currents and without currentcurrent
and without limiter under pole-to-pole
1.58 limiter fault
5.05con-
under pole-to-pole
dition. 4
Converter 9.83 1.50 6.51
fault condition.

Table 5. Peak
With
With thecurrent
the and limiting
integration
integration of factor comparison
of R-SFCLs,
R-SFCLs, the peak
the for pole-to-pole
peak currents,
currents, fault.
related
related to mechanical
to mechanical induced
induced
forces, and
forces, and the
the final
final converter
converter current,
current,
Peak Current relatedto
[kA]related tothermal
thermalPeak
Limited stress,
stress, aredrastically
are
Current drastically
[kA] reduced.
reduced.
LF [-]
According
Converter 1 to the
the M-DCCB
M-DCCB 11.09breaking
breaking capability
capability reduction,
3.98 Figure 20 showsshows current
current
2.78
through
through
Converterthe2 positive
the positivepole
poleofofLink
9.551212
Link with
witha comparison
a comparison between
betweenthree
4.05 scenarios:
three prospective
scenarios: prospec-
2.35
fault
tive current,
fault
Converter 3 faultfault
current, current with
current M-DCCB,
8with M-DCCB, andand
the the
same scenario
same scenario
1.58 with thethe
with integration
5.05of
integration
R-SFCL.
of R-SFCL.
Converter With thethe
4With R-SFCL,
R-SFCL, the current
the
9.83 currentbreaking
breakingrequirement
requirement ofofthe
1.50 theM-DCCB
M-DCCBdrops from
drops6.51
from
a peak
peak fault
fault current
current ofof 9.24
9.24 kA
kA toto 3.59
3.59 kA.
kA. InIn consequence,
consequence, thethe rating
rating of
of the
the M-DCCB
M-DCCB is is
remarkably
remarkably
With thereduced.
reduced. Therefore,
Therefore,
integration it can be concluded
it can bethe
of R-SFCLs, concluded that no fast trigger
that no related
peak currents, fast trigger is needed to avoid
to mechanical induced
high breaking
breaking
forces, and thecapabilities.
capabilities.
final converter current, related to thermal stress, are drastically reduced.
According to the M-DCCB breaking capability reduction, Figure 20 shows current
through the positive pole of Link 12 with a comparison between three scenarios: prospec-
tive fault current, fault current with M-DCCB, and the same scenario with the integration
of R-SFCL. With the R-SFCL, the current breaking requirement of the M-DCCB drops from
a peak fault current of 9.24 kA to 3.59 kA. In consequence, the rating of the M-DCCB is
remarkably reduced. Therefore, it can be concluded that no fast trigger is needed to avoid
high breaking capabilities.

Figure 20. Link 12 positive pole fault currents for pole-to-pole fault, prospective, with M-DCCB, with
M-DCCB and R-SFCL.

Finally, to further analyze the fault case scenario, Figure 21 shows peak currents for
all converters with and without R-SFCL with a range of fault resistances from 0 Ω to 50 Ω.
Higher fault resistances entail lower peak currents. Additionally, the considerable reduction
in peak currents for all fault cases is remarkable.
 Figure 20. Link 12 positive pole fault currents for pole-to-pole fault, prospective, with M-DCCB,
with M-DCCB and R-SFCL.

Finally, to further analyze the fault case scenario, Figure 21 shows peak currents for
all converters with and without R-SFCL with a range of fault resistances from 0 Ω to 50 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 16 of 20
Higher fault resistances entail lower peak currents. Additionally, the considerable reduc-
tion in peak currents for all fault cases is remarkable.

Figure 21.
Figure 21. Prospective
Prospective and
and limited
limited converter
converter fault
fault peak
peak currents
currents for
for fault
fault resistance
resistance swept
swept between
between
0 and 50 Ω.
0 and 50 Ω.

4.2. Pole-to-Ground Faults

Pole-to-ground faults
faults differ
differ radically
radicallyfrom frompole-to-pole
pole-to-polefaults
faults
in in HVDC
HVDC systems.
systems. In
In pole-to-ground
pole-to-ground faults
faults there
there is aishigh
a high initial
initial peakpeak current
current but there
but there is noissteady
no steady
state state
fault
fault current
current and theandDC thevoltage
DC voltage
at busesat is
buses is maintained
maintained as pole-to-ground
as pole-to-ground voltagesvoltages get
get perma-
nently unbalanced.
permanently unbalanced.
Figure 22
Figure 22 shows
showsthe thebehavior
behaviorofofconverter
converter1 1with
withand
and without
without R-SFCL
R-SFCL under
under a pole-
a pole-to-
ground
to-groundfault in the
fault in same location
the same as pole-to-pole
location fault scenario.
as pole-to-pole The initial
fault scenario. Thetransient current
initial transient
is limited
current is and afterand
limited theafter
M-DCCB triggering,
the M-DCCB system variables
triggering, convertconvert
system variables to pre-fault values
to pre-fault
after
valuesanafter
oscillating period, period,
an oscillating enabling continuity
enabling of the system
continuity operation.
of the system operation.

Figure 22.
Figure 22. Converter
Converter 11 behavior
behavior with
with and
and without
without current
current limiter
limiter under
under pole-to-ground fault in
pole-to-ground fault in Link
Link
12 near Bus 1.
12 near Bus 1.

Prospective and
Prospective and peak
peak currents
currents for
for all
all converters
converters with
with and without R-SFCL are shown
in Figure
Figure 23. Converters 1 and 2, which are connected to the faulted link, provide the
23. Converters
higher
higher contribution
contributiontotothe fault
the currents.
fault Limiting
currents. factors
Limiting (Table
factors 6) shows
(Table that current
6) shows stress
that current
is limited.
stress is limited.
According to the M-DCCB breaking capability reduction, the positive pole current
of Link 12 is evaluated in a pole-to-ground fault encompassing the performance of the
prospective current, the same case with the M-DCCB and finally, incorporating the R-SFCL
and M-DCCB (Figure 24). In this last case, current requirement drops from 7.339 kA to
2.994 kA.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,4605
4605 17
17ofof20
20

Figure 23. Converter fault currents with and without current limiter under pole-t- ground fault con-
dition.

Table 6. Peak current and limiting factor comparison for pole-to-ground fault.

Peak Current [kA] Limited Peak Current [kA] LF [-]

Figure 23. Converter fault currents with and without current limiter under pole-t- ground
Figure 23. Converter fault currents with and without current limiter under pole-t-1.70
Converter 1 4.25 2.49 fault con-
ground
dition. 2
Converter 4.57 2.94 1.55
fault condition.
Converter 3 1.49 1.23 1.20
Table 6.
Converter Peak
4 current and limiting
1.72 factor comparison for pole-to-ground
1.07 fault.
Table 6. Peak current and limiting factor comparison for pole-to-ground fault. 1.60
Peak Current [kA] Limited Peak Current [kA] LF [-]
According Peak Current
to the M-DCCB [kA] Limited Peak Current [kA] LF [-] of
Converter 1 4.25breaking capability reduction,2.49 the positive pole current
1.70
Link 12 is evaluated
Converter
Converter 2 1 in a pole-to-ground
4.574.25 fault encompassing 2.49the performance of1.70
2.94 the
1.55pro-
Converter
spective
Converter 3 2
current, the same case
1.494.57
with the M-DCCB and 2.94
finally,
1.23 incorporating the1.55
R-SFCL
1.20
and Converter(Figure
M-DCCB 3 24). In1.721.49last case, current requirement
this 1.23 drops from 7.3391.20kA to
Converter 4 1.07 1.60
Converter 4 1.72 1.07 1.60
2.994 kA.
According to the M-DCCB breaking capability reduction, the positive pole current of
Link 12 is evaluated in a pole-to-ground fault encompassing the performance of the pro-
spective current, the same case with the M-DCCB and finally, incorporating the R-SFCL
and M-DCCB (Figure 24). In this last case, current requirement drops from 7.339 kA to
2.994 kA.

Figure 24.
Figure 24. Link
Link 12
12 positive
positive pole
pole fault
fault current
current for
for pole-to-ground
pole-to-ground fault,
fault, prospective,
prospective, with
with M-DCCB,
M-DCCB,
with M-DCCB and R-SFCL.
with M-DCCB and R-SFCL.

4.3. Comparison
In this section, the results of the current study case (SC) are compared with those
existing
existing
Figure 24.inLink
in theliterature.
the literature. Table
12 positiveTable
pole 7 comprizes
7fault
comprizes thethe
current for main
main features
features
pole-to-ground ofprospective,
of the
fault, the considered
considered papers.
papers.
with This
M-DCCB,
way,
This the
with way, characteristics
M-DCCB the and of theof
characteristics
R-SFCL. HVDC grid as
the HVDC well
grid asaswell
the as
fault
thecase
faultscenario are included.
case scenario are in-
Herein,
cluded. PtP stands
Herein, PtPfor pole-to-pole
stands faults, andfaults,
for pole-to-pole PtG for
and pole-to-ground faults. Thefaults.
PtG for pole-to-ground employedThe
4.3. Comparison
DCCBs
employed areDCCBs
hybrid areDCCBs (Hyb)
hybrid in most
DCCBs cases,
(Hyb) whilecases,
in most some while
authors employ
some mechanical
authors employ
DCCBs In(Mec).
mechanical thisDCCBsThe latters
section, (Mec). show larger
of thefault
The latters
the results show clearing
larger
current times.
fault
study The
(SC)models
clearing
case times.
are of
Thethemodels
compared R–SFCLs are
withofthose
the
two level, exponential (Exp), look-up tables or magneto-thermal (MgTh)
existing in the literature. Table 7 comprizes the main features of the considered papers. model. Some of
the most
This way, relevant parameters of
the characteristics of the
the models
HVDC are gridincluded,
as well as i.e.,
thethe critical
fault casecurrent
scenario(Ic) and
are in-
the R-SFCL resistance. Finally, the current reduction as well as fault
cluded. Herein, PtP stands for pole-to-pole faults, and PtG for pole-to-ground faults. The neutralisation time
are depicted.DCCBs are hybrid DCCBs (Hyb) in most cases, while some authors employ
employed
mechanical DCCBs (Mec). The latters show larger fault clearing times. The models of the
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 18 of 20

Table 7. Comparison with the existing literature.

HVDC System Ic Fault Neutr.

Ref. DC CB R-SFCL Model I Red. (kA)
(Fault Case) Rsfcl Time (ms)
4 terminal 60 kV 2 state Exp 1.8 kA
[4] Hyb From 8 to 4.5 6.5
1.5 kA (PtP) MgTh 30 Ω
3 terminal +160 kV 0.18 kA
[8] Hyb 2 state 1.8 5
157 A 30 Ω
2 terminal 10 kV
[9] - MgTh 0.5 to 4 Ω From 12.9 to 7.5 10
10 MVA (PtP)
4 terminal 320 kV
[10] Hyb Look up table 20 Ω From 7.34 to 4.65 4
1.4/1.8 kA (PtP)
3 terminal 400 kV 500
[11] Mec MgTh 3 kA 1.85 <30
MVA (PtG)
VSC 10 Ω
[13] - Exp 7 and 5 5
320 kV 1 kA 20 Ω
2 terminal ±100 kV
[14] Hyb Exp 13 Ω From 6.93 to 4.58 -
(PtP)
320 kV
[16] Hyb Exp 20 Ω From 13.01 to 9.56 8.6
1.6 kA (PtG)
4-terminal 320 kV 2 kA
SC Mec Look up table From 11.09 to 3.98 25
1.4/1.8 kA (PtP) 80 Ω

5. Conclusions
This paper deals with the modelling of R-SFCLs in order to improve the performance
of the protection system in HVDC grids. This way, the R-SFCL is connected in series with
the DCCB, substantially reducing fault currents and, thus, the challenging rating of DCCBs.
In the paper, four different models of R-SFCLs combined with an M-DCCB are analyzed
and evaluated in a test grid. A representative variable range analysis has been performed
and the different performances of each model have been discussed. Accordingly, the main
conclusions are set out hereafter.
• The step model does not consider the dynamic performance in the transient period.
Thus, it can be used for steady state analysis only.
• The exponential model is a simple model that emulates the transition phenomenon.
However, it does not respond to changes in certain parameters, such as fault resistance
and critical current.
• The RQ model is not complex, but still it characterizes the flux-flow state. The electric
and thermal variables are decoupled, as in the preceding models. Besides, it is sensitive
to fault resistance, which differentiates this model from the previous ones.
• The magneto-thermal model is the most complex, most demanding in computational
cost, and most accurate model. The response shows the best resemblance to the
phenomenon of all the considered models, given that electric parameters change with
temperature and the realistic impact of critical current and fault resistance variations.
• The analysis of the RQ model with a M-DCCB in a HVDC grid shows an adequate
performance in case of demanding faults. This way, fault currents decrease to a
great extent which results in a large reduction of the converter stress and M-DCCB
requirements. The power flow is restored faster and the transient stability of the system
is upgraded. Therefore, the R-SFCL enables a reliable protection of the HVDC grid.
The results of the paper are restricted by the considered assumptions (homogeneous
current density distribution). Further works are being carried out on the impact in the
performance of HVDC grids protection of the design parameters and different internal
device level phenomena (such as hot spots) using the magneto-thermal model.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, and writing—review and editing: G.G.,

D.M.L. and A.E.; Software, validation, formal analysis, investigation and data curation: G.G.; Writing—
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 19 of 20

original draft preparation: G.G. and D.M.L.; Supervision: D.M.L. and A.E. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the support from GISEL research group IT1191-19, as
well as from the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (research group funding 181/18).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bucher, M.K.; Franck, C.M. Fault Current Interruption in Multiterminal HVDC Networks. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2016, 31, 87–95.
[CrossRef]
2. Jovcic, D.; Tang, G.; Pang, H. Adopting Circuit Breakers for High-Voltage dc Networks: Appropriating the Vast Advantages of dc
Transmission Grids. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2019, 17, 82–93. [CrossRef]
3. CIGRÉ WG B4.52. In HVDC Grid Feasibility Study; Cigré: Paris, France, 2013.
4. Chang, B.; Cwikowski, O.; Pei, X.; Barnes, M.; Shuttleworth, R.; Smith, A.C. Impact of fault current limiter on VSC-HVDC DC
protection. In Proceedings of the 12th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC 2016), Beijing,
China, 28–29 May 2016; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
5. Noe, M.; Steurer, M. High-temperature superconductor fault current limiters: Concepts, applications, and development status.
Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2007, 20, R15–R29. [CrossRef]
6. Tixador, P. Superconducting Fault Current Limiter. Innovation for the Electric Grids; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2019.
7. Moyzykh, M.; Gorbunova, D.; Ustyuzhanin, P.; Sotnikov, D.; Baburin, K.; Maklakov, A.; Magommedov, E.; Shumkov, A.; Telnova,
A.; Shcherbakov, V.; et al. First Russian 220 kV Superconducting Fault Current Limiter (SFCL) For Application in City Grid. IEEE
Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2021, 31, 1–7. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, Z.; Wang, Y.; Qiu, F.; Wang, S.; Zeng, R.; Wang, X. Comparative Analysis and Design of Inductive and Resistive SFCL for
HB-MMC-HVDC Under DC Faults. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration,
Taiyuan, China, 22–24 October 2021. [CrossRef]
9. Li, B.; He, J. Studies on the Application of R-SFCL in the VSC-Based DC Distribution System. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016,
26, 1–5. [CrossRef]
10. Mokhberdoran, A.; Carvalho, A.; Silva, N.; Leite, H.; Carrapatoso, A. Application study of superconducting fault current limiters
in meshed HVDC grids protected by fast protection relays. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 143, 292–302. [CrossRef]
11. Garcia WR, L.; Bertinato, A.; Tixador, P.; Raison, B.; Luscan, B. Protection strategy for multi-terminal high-voltage direct current
grids using SFCLs at converter station output. J. Eng. 2018, 15, 1369–1374. [CrossRef]
12. Larruskain, D.M.; Iturregi, A.; Saldaña, G.; Apiñaniz, S. Performance of a superconducting breaker for the protection of HVDC
grids. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2020, 14, 997–1004.
13. Lin, Z.; Jin, J.; Yin, Q.; Liu, Y.; Xu, J.; Zeng, X. Study on Coordination of Resistive-Type Superconducting Fault Current Limiter and
DC Circuit Breaker in HVDC system. In Proceedings of the 5th Asia Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering (ACPEE),
Chengdu, China, 4–7 June 2020. [CrossRef]
14. Lee, H.; Asif, M.; Park, K.; Lee, B. Feasible Application Study of Several Types of Superconducting Fault Current Limiters in
HVDC Grids. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2018, 28, 1–5. [CrossRef]
15. Etxegarai, A.; Zamora, I.; Buigues, G.; Valverde, V.; Torres, E.; Eguia, P. Models for fault current limiters based on superconductor
materials. Renew. Energy Power Qual. J. 2016, 1, 284–289. [CrossRef]
16. Singh, N.K.; Burt, G.M. Improved Model of Superconducting Fault Current Limiter for Power System Dynamic Studies; Technical Report;
University of Strathclyde: Glasgow, UK, 2008.
17. Blair, S.M.; Booth, C.D.; Burt, G.M. Current–Time Characteristics of Resistive Superconducting Fault Current Limiters. IEEE Trans.
Appl. 2012, 22, 5600205. [CrossRef]
18. Li, B.; Wang, C.; Ye, S.; Yang, S.; Xin, Y.; Wen, W.; Hong, W.; Sheng, C.; Zhong, L.; Duan, X.; et al. R-Q curve based evaluation
method for current-limiting performance of DC R-SFCL in high voltage DC system. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2020, 33, 084001.
[CrossRef]
19. Seo, H.C.; Ko, Y.T.; Rhee, S.B.; Kim, C.H.; Aggarwal, R.K. A Novel Reclosing Algorithm Considering the Recovery Time of
a Superconducting Fault Current Limiter in a Distribution System with Distributed Generation. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Developments in Power System Protection, Manchester, UK, 29 March–1 April 2010.
20. Dul’kin, I.N.; Yevsin, D.V.; Fisher, L.M.; Ivanov, V.P.; Kalinov, A.V.; Sidorov, V.A. Modeling Thermal Process in a Resistive Element
of a Fault Current Limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2008, 18, 7–13. [CrossRef]
21. Choi, Y.; Kim, D.; Yang, H.; Lee, B.; Jung, W. Cryocooled Cooling System for Superconducting Magnet. In Proceedings of the
Proceedings of the 15th International Cryocooler Conference, Long Beach, CA, USA, 9–12 June 2009.
22. Zampa, A.; Tixador, P.; Badel, A. Effect of the Conductor Length on the Hot-Spot Regime for Resistive-Type Superconducting
Fault Current Limiter Applications. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2021, 31, 1–11. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 4605 20 of 20

23. Sutherland, P.E. Analytical model of superconducting to normal transition of bulk high Tc superconductor BSCCO-2212. IEEE
Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2006, 16, 43–48. [CrossRef]
24. Roy, F.; Dutoit, B.; Grilli, F.; Sirois, F. Magneto-Thermal Modeling of Second-Generation HTS for Resistive Fault Current Limiter
Design Purposes. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2008, 18, 29–35. [CrossRef]
25. Branco, P.J.C.; Almeida, M.E.; Dente, J.A. Proposal for an RMS thermoelectric model for a resistive-type superconducting fault
current limiter (SFCL). Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2010, 80, 1229–1239. [CrossRef]
26. Shen, B.; Chen, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, S.; Chen, X. Superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL): Experiment and the simulation from
finite-element method (FEM) to power/energy system software. Energy 2021, 234, 121251. [CrossRef]
27. Riva, N.; Sirois, F.; Lacroix, C.; De Sousa WT, B.; Dutoit, B.; Grilli, F. Resistivity of REBCO tapes in overcritical current regime:
Impact on superconducting fault current limiter modeling. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2020, 33, 114008. [CrossRef]
28. Shen, B.; Grilli, F.; Coombs, T. Overview of H-Formulation: A Versatile Tool for Modeling Electromagnetics in High-Temperature
Superconductor Applications. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 100403–100414. [CrossRef]
29. Tan, X.; Ren, L.; Liang, S.; Tang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Shi, J.; Li, Z. Analysis of R-SFCL with Shunt Resistor in MMC-HVDC System Using
Novel R-Q Method. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2020, 30, 1–5. [CrossRef]
30. Langston, J.; Steurer, M.; Woodruff, S.; Baldwin, T.; Tang, J. A generic real-time computer Simulation model for Superconducting
fault current limiters and its application in system protection studies. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2005, 15, 2090–2093. [CrossRef]
31. Blair, S.M. The Analysis and Application of Resistive Superconducting Fault Current Limiters in Present and Future Power
Systems. Master’s Thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2013.
32. Duron, J.; Grilli, F.; Antognazza, L.; Decroux, M.; Dutoit, B.; Fischer. Finite-element modelling of YBCO fault current limiter with
temperature dependent parameters. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2007, 20, 338–344. [CrossRef]
33. Liang, S.; Tang, Y.; Ren, L.; Xu, Y.; Wang, W.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, B.; Jiao, F. A novel simplified modeling method based on R–Q curve
of resistive type SFCL in power systems. Phys. C Supercond. Its Appl. 2019, 563, 82–87. [CrossRef]
34. Kumar, M.A.; Babu, S.S.; Srikanth, N.V.; Chandrasekhar, Y. Performance of superconducting fault current limiter in offshore wind
farm connected VSC based MTDC transmission system. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois
(PECI), Champaign, IL, USA, 20–21 February 2015. [CrossRef]
35. Leterme, W.; Ahmed, N.; Beerten, J.; Ängquist, L.; Hertem, D.V.; Norrga, S. A new HVDC grid test system for HVDC grid
dynamics and protection studies in EMT-type software. In Proceedings of the 11th IET International Conference on AC and DC
Power Transmission, Birmingham, UK, 10–12 February 2015.