A multi-vendor protection strategy for HVDC grids based on
low-speed DC circuit breakers
D S Loume*, A Bertinato*, B Raison*†, B Luscan*
*SuperGrid Institute, France, dieynaba.loume@supergrid-institute.com , †Grenoble Electrical Engineering laboratory
(G2Elab), France, bertrand.raison@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Keywords: HVDC grid, MMC, Protection, mechanical DC
Breaker.
Abstract
A protection strategy for Multi-terminal HVDC (MTDC)
grids based on AC/DC converters without fault handling
capability such as half-bridge MMC converters is presented in
this paper. The key components of the proposed strategy
consist of DC breakers located at each converter station DC
side and at each transmission line (overhead line or cable)
end, all of them based on low-speed mechanical DC breaker
technology with no fault current limiting devices. The
primary protection sequence includes steps of fault detection,
AC sources contribution suppression, faulty transmission line
discrimination and isolation, and power flow restoration. A
back-up sequence is also proposed in case of breaker
operation failure which is able to be performed in the same
time duration than the primary protection sequence. The
design requirements of the DC breakers have been verified
and are consistent with both the primary and back-up
sequences. The concept of the proposed strategy and its
associated key components are described in the paper and
validated by off-line simulations performed in EMTP-RV®.
1 Introduction
A main challenge related to the development of future Multi-
terminal HVDC grids concerns their protection which is more
difficult than in AC systems because of the rapids
propagation and increase to high values of fault currents.
Advances in HVDC breaker technologies have demonstrated
possibilities to clear DC fault currents up to 16kA using either
ultra-fast hybrid DC breakers or mechanical DC breakers with
breaking times of respectively 2-3 ms [1] and 5-10 ms [2] [3].
When considering hybrid DC breakers, new ultra-fast
algorithms are required to rapidly detect and identify the
faulty part of the grid. Consequently, algorithms based on
signals exchanged between relays located at opposite sides of
a long transmission line would not be acceptable because of
the communication delays. In addition, limiting devices such
as inductances may be necessary for both hybrid and
mechanical DC breakers. Several protection strategies are
available in the literature and an initial classification has been
proposed according to the objectives of the strategy and its
impact on the system [4]. The strategies can also be classified
according to protection philosophies based on priorities. In
the selective protection philosophy, priority is given to the
1
selective tripping of the breakers associated to the faulty
transmission line. In [5], [6] and [7], protection strategies
using hybrid DC breakers combined with limiting inductances
located at each transmission line end are proposed. In [8] the
strategy presented is based on mechanical DC breakers
associated to even higher values of inductances at each
transmission line end because of the longer opening time of
these breakers compared to hybrid DC breakers. [9]
introduces a selective strategy based on fault-tolerant
capabilities of the LCL-VSC converter for fault current
reduction allowing a selective isolation of the faulty
transmission line by slow mechanical DC breakers.
In the non-selective protection philosophy, priority is given to
the suppression of the fault current. Once the fault current has
been suppressed the faulty transmission line is selectively
isolated. In this protection philosophy, because the entire DC
grid is impacted, grid voltage and power flow restoration are
necessary. In the so called open-grid protection strategy
proposed in [10], all line hybrid DC breakers of the system
are first opened. Thereafter only breakers associated to
healthy transmission lines are reclosed to resume power flow.
A non-selective strategy based on current blocking capability
of the full-bridge MMC converters is presented in [11]. In
[12], the total fault current suppression is performed by
opening AC breakers located at converter AC sides and in
[13] by IGBT breakers located at converter DC sides; in both
the faulty line is thereafter isolated by opening Fast DC
switches according to the handshaking method [13].Moreover
in the latter, the opening of all IGBT breakers is necessary for
a total fault current suppression because the Fast DC switches
at transmission line ends have no current breaking capability.
Consequently, in case one IGBT breaker fails, the suppression
of the fault current could only be achieved by opening the AC
breaker which would considerably extend the total fault
clearing time.
This paper presents a non-selective protection strategy using
low-speed mechanical DC breakers placed at each converter
DC output and at each line end without current limiting
devices. The MTDC test grid used to illustrate the proposed
concept is first briefly presented. Then, the location, the
arrangement and the composition of the so-called breaking
modules are explained. Afterwards, a focus on the main steps
of the primary protection sequence as well as a back-up
protection sequence are made. Finally, the results obtained
from off-line simulation studies performed in EMTP-RV® are
shown and analyzed to validate the proposed concept and DC
breakers requirements.
2 MTDC Test Grid  a DC breaker (DCCB),
 an isolation Fast-Switch (FS),
The test grid is a three-terminal MTDC grid in bipolar  a protective relay,
configuration based on Half-Bridge MMC AC/DC converters  Voltage and current sensors.
interconnected through underground DC cables. In Figure 1,
only the positive pole of the test grid is depicted for simplicity
reasons. Half-Bridge MMC converter stations are connected Relay
on their AC side to AC sources modelled by ideal voltage
sources in series with a short circuit impedance. Each MMC i
station is solidly grounded at the neutral point of the bipole. A
Metallic return conductors are not considered. Main DCCB FS
V V
parameters of the MTDC test grid are listed on Table 1. Local data
Communication
N1 CBM : Converter Breaking Module
i 13 LBM : Line Breaking Module Breaking Module
MMC1 CBM-1 i LBM-13
1
C 13
Figure 2: Illustration of a breaking module arrangement.
vMMC1
v1
i 12
N3
LBM-12 i 31 Due to the relaxed fault current breaking time required by
F LBM-31 i 3 CBM-3 MMC3 the strategy, a technology based on mechanical DC circuit
C 12 v3 vMMC3
breakers can be used. In the simulations, the DCCB model
N2 i 32
consists of a mechanical breaker with forced current injection
i 21
LBM-32 method whose operation principle has been presented in [2].
MMC2 CBM-2 i LBM-21
2
C 23 The DC breakers will not require series inductances and in the
v2
vMMC2 i 23 simulation an opening time of 15ms has been used.
Isolation Fast-Switches are located in series to each
LBM-23
DCCB. Their role is to isolate the element associated to the
Figure 1: Positive pole representation of the 3 terminal breaking module in case of DC breaker failure. Isolation Fast-
MTDC test grid in bipolar configuration. switches could be based on standard AC breaker technology.
In order to avoid inrush current during the DC grid
Symbol Description Value Units voltage restoration process, pre-insertion resistances have to
VAC Rated voltage 400 kV be used in series with the DC breakers.
AC Side

f Frequency 50 Hz
X/R AC grid ratio 10 3.1 Converter Breaking Modules
SSC Short-circuit power 30 GVA
SAC Transformer rated power 500 MVA Converter breaking Modules (CBMs) are located at DC sides of
each MMC station. Each CBM aims, in case of DC short-
MMC converter

xT Transformer reactance 0.18 pu

VDC Rated voltage
IDC Rated current
SMMC Rated power (per pole)
LARM Arm inductance
/ Model[14] Switching function arm
/ Number of sub-modules/arm 400
l13 Length of cable C13
DC grid
circuit fault, at suppressing the contribution to the DC fault
±320 kV
current of the AC source connected to the associated MMC
1500 A
station. The breaking capability of Converter Breakers CDCCBs
500 MVA
is thus limited to the maximum short-circuit current
16 mH contribution of one MMC converter which is assumed to be
20kA. A Protective relays CRelay at each CBM will proceed to
DC fault detection and open-close operations management of
150 km enclosed CDCCB and CFS. No communication is required with

l12 Length of cable C12 120 km others protection modules of the grid thus, the inputs of
side

l23 Length of cable C23 100 km algorithms are exclusively local data (measurements, status,
/ Cable model[15] Wideband tripping orders …). In case of operation dysfunction during
/ Fault type Core-screen-ground the process, CBMs could exchange fault status with the
Table 1: MTDC test grid parameters adjacent Busbar Relay.

3 Breaking Modules presentation 3.2 Line Breaking Modules

In order to protect the MTDC grid against DC short-circuit
faults, two types of breaking modules (BMs) are considered:
the Converter Breaking Module CBM and the Line Breaking
Module LBM. Their locations on the MTDC grid are
illustrated on Figure 1 and their composition and role will be
developed in this chapter. Each breaking module, as depicted
on Figure 2, includes:
Each DC transmission line of the system is associated to two
Line Breaking Modules (LBMs), located at each end as
depicted on Figure 1. The role of the LBMs is to isolate the
faulty transmission line in case of DC short-circuit fault. The
current breaking capability of the breaker LDCCB is required to
be equivalent to the highest maximum short-circuit current
contribution of the MMC converters of the grid, which is here
equal to 20kA. This characteristic will be later explained and

2
justified. At each LBM, protective relays (LRelay) will manage openings of CDCCB-1, CDCCB-2 and CDCCB-3 between t2 and t4. In
open-close operations of LDCCB after detecting a fault and case all CDCCB operate with no failure, AC sources
discriminating the faulty transmission line. The fault detection contributions are suppressed within 15-20 ms.
START
algorithm is based on local data in the same manner as
CBMs LBMs
algorithms on CRelays. However, in order to discriminate the
faulty line, communication between LRelays of the opposite
1. FAULT DETECTION
side of the line could be necessary. In case of operation
Measure ii and vi Measure ijk and vjk
dysfunction during the process, LBMs could exchange fault
status with the adjacent Busbar Relay.
Detection Detection
algorithm algorithm

4 Primary protection sequence Fault detected?

Fault detected? No
No
Yes
The primary protection sequence of the proposed strategy Yes

includes the following main steps of: Start reclosing 3.- 4. FAULTY LINE
timer Discrimination
1. Fault detection algorithm
DISCRIMINATION
AND ISOLATION
2. AC sources contributions suppression 2. AC SOURCES
CONTRIBUTION Open CDCCB-i No
Fault on the
3. Faulty transmission line discrimination SUPPRESSION
associated line?
4. Faulty transmission line isolation CDCCB-i Yes
opening verification
5. Grid voltage and power flow restoration algorithm
Line current level
reduction verification
The overall flowchart and the timeline of the proposed
No No
primary protection sequence are depicted on Figure 3 and CDCCB-i opened?
Current below
breaking
Figure 4. In this section, the proposed strategy is presented Yes
capability?
and time sequences are illustrated in case a fault F occurs on Reclosing timer
checking Yes
the end of cable C13 connected to node N3 (see Figure 1). Open LDCCB-jk

Reclosing timer
out?
4.1 Fault detection No

Yes
When a DC short-circuit fault occurs in the MTDC grid at
t=t0, the fault starts propagating along the transmission lines CDCCB failure Close CDCCB-i 5. GRID VOLTAGE AND POWER
before arriving to MMC stations. Once the fault is locally back-up FLOW RESTORATION

detected on each MMC station, the MMC converters are Fault isolation
verification algorithm
autonomously blocked by their internal protection system and
start behaving like an uncontrolled diode Rectifier Bridges No
Fault cleared?
[16]. At each Converter or Line breaking module, the
Yes
detection of the fault is locally carried out by protective relays
Voltage and power
between t1 and t2 of the timeline on Figure 4. The detection Fault isolation
failure back-up
flow restoration

algorithm is assumed to be based on local current and voltage N-1

measurements in order to ensure rapid fault detection. It could operation

be performed by applying overcurrent, undervoltage or Figure 3: Overall flowchart of the proposed protection
current/voltage derivatives principles or a combination of strategy.
them. Once the fault is detected at a breaking module at t2, Fault propagation [0 – 2 ms] Converter Breaking modules
Fault detection [0.2 – 2 ms] Line breaking modules
each CBM will participate to the AC sources contributions Fault detection and discrimination [1 – 10 ms]
suppression and each LBM will initiate faulty line Line current reduction verification [0 – 15 ms]
AC sources contributions supression [15 – 20 ms]
discrimination. Depending on the locations of the BMs, the Faulty line isolation [15 – 20 ms]
Delay before reclosing [60 ms]
fault could be detected within 2ms. Grid voltage restoration [10 – 20 ms]
Power flow restoration [50 – 100 ms]
t0 t1 t2 t3 t3’ t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 time
4.2 AC sources contributions suppression Total duration [120-180 ms]

Figure 4: Timeline and expected time duration of the primary

When the fault is detected at LBMs level, line currents flowing
through LDCCBs could significantly exceed the current
breaking capability of the line breakers because of the
superimposition of current contributions (current from
adjacent cable discharge and AC sources contributions). At
each CBM, once the fault is detected at t=t2, the protective
relay sends tripping signal to the Converter breaker CDCCB in
order to disconnect the connected AC/DC converter station
from the DC grid and thus suppressing the contribution to the
fault current of the corresponding AC source. Therefore,
considering the study case, the AC sources contributions
suppression is performed by independent and asynchronous
protection sequence.
4.3 Faulty transmission line discrimination
The faulty transmission line discrimination starts at t=t2 by
protectives relays at each LBM once the presence of a fault is
detected. The discrimination process on LBMs is thus
performed between t2 and t3 during the AC sources
contributions suppression by CBMs as depicted on the timeline
on Figure 4. The fault discrimination algorithm will enable to
discriminate whether the LBM is connected or not to the faulty

3
line. Depending on the method implemented on protective
relays, decisions are based on local current and voltage
measurements and/or data provided by the opposite LBM. For
example, the fault discrimination algorithm could be based on
current direction comparison principle. When the two current
directions are both positive, the fault is inside the line,
otherwise, the line is not faulty. The discrimination process
could last between 1 to 10 ms, thus algorithms implemented
on LRelays could be based on data exchanged through fiber
optic links.
4.4 Faulty transmission line isolation
Assuming the fault discrimination process has well identified
the faulty cable C13 at t=t3, the protective relays Lrelay-13 and
Lrelay-31 verify that the line currents i13 and i31 have been
reduced below the current breaking capability of the LDCCBs
before sending tripping signals. Thereby, the faulty line can
be isolated even if the fault current is not totally suppressed.
In other words, in the proposed protection strategy, the dc
fault current only need to be reduced up to the fault breaking
capability of the LDCCB. Once LDCCB-13 and LDCCB-31 are
opened at t5 the faulty cable C13 is isolated and grid voltage
and power flow restoration process can start.
4.5 Grid voltage and power flow restorations
After each MMC station has been isolated by associated C BM,
MMC converter control is resumed. The converter DC
voltage is controlled to 1pu of the nominal voltage and power
references are set to Pref=0. During this time, the MMC
converter could act as a STATCOM in order to supply
reactive power to the AC system.
After the fault detection, because CDCCBs are not
communicating, a reclosing timer is started and lasts a fixed
time duration taking into account the time necessary for AC
sources contribution suppression and faulty line isolation
even in case of breaker failure. The chosen delay before
reclosing is 60ms. Once the delay before reclosing at CBMs
has elapsed at t=t6 at each CBM, the CDCCB is reclosed. Pre-
insertion resistances mentioned in chapter 3 will aim to limit
inrush currents during cable capacitance charging. During the
first instance of the reclosing process, the effective isolation
of the faulty line is verified to detect eventual fault isolation
failure. The back-up sequence to face this latter failure will be
treated in further works. Once the grid voltage has been
resumed, at t=t7, the power flow can finally be restored by the
coordinated control of the MMC stations. The grid voltage
restoration could be performed in 10 to 20 ms.
The total protection sequence is thus assumed to last 120 to
180 ms.
5 A breaker failure back-up sequence
The proposed protection strategy and its back-up have been
designed to withstand a contingency that could happen during
the protection sequence, i.e. a breaker failure or a faulty line
isolation failure. This chapter explains the back-up sequence
in case of a CDCCB failure. Assuming that after tripping signal
is sent CDCCB-3 fails to open, even if AC source1 and AC
4
source2 have been isolated by CDCCB-1 and CDCCB-2, the AC
source3 associated to the MMC station3 will still feed the
fault. Nevertheless, because of disconnection of N-1 MMC
stations, where N is the number of MMC stations on the
MTDC grid, the line currents flowing through LDCCB-13 and
LDCCB-31 will fall below the current breaking capability of the
Line breakers allowing their tripping and thus the isolation of
the faulty line C13. This will result in the interruption of the
fault current flowing from converter station3. That station can
therefore be isolated aided by the isolation switch CFS-3
included in CBM-3. After the reclosing time has been elapsed,
the CDCCB-1 and CDCCB-2 will reclose to proceed to grid voltage
and power flow restoration described on 4.5. As shown in
Figure 4 the proposed back-up is able to act without any delay
in addition to the expected duration of primary protection
sequence.
Converter Breaking modules
Fault propagation [0 – 2 ms] Line breaking modules
Fault detection [0.2 – 2 ms] Back-up actions
Fault detection and discrimination [1 – 10 ms]
Line current reduction verification [0 – 15 ms]
CDCCB opening checking [20 ms]
AC sources contributions supression [20 – 35 ms]
Faulty line isolation [15 – 20 ms]
CFS opening [30 ms]
Delay before reclosing [60 ms]
Grid voltage restoration [10 – 20 ms]
Power flow restoration [50 – 100 ms]
t0 t1 t2 t3 t2’ t3’ t4=t5 t4’ t6 t7 t8 time
Total duration [120-180 ms]
Figure 5: Timeline and expected time duration of back-up
protection sequence.
6 Off-line simulation results
Off-line simulation studies of the proposed protection strategy
were performed in EMTP-RV® based on the MTDC test grid
presented on Figure 1. The simulation time step considered is
10µs. The simulation results of the primary and the back-up
protection sequences are respectively shown in Figure 7 and
Figure 9. For better understanding of the results, grid voltages
and currents are measured following the convention given in
Figure 1.
6.1 Primary protection sequence simulation results
At t=0, a fault F occurs and propagates along the DC grid
according to a cable propagation velocity of around
200km/ms. The fault arrives at CBMs and LBMs at different t=t1
depending on their location. At t=t2, the fault is detected, thus
tripping signals are sent to CDCCB-1, CDCCB-2 and CDCCB-3
respectively at t2=0.04ms, t2=0.57ms and t2=0.85ms. At each
LBM, line current directions are determined after a fixed time
of 8ms from t2. Note that this fixed time could be optimized.
In Figure 6, line current directions are compared for each
cable. Assuming a communication between two LBMs
performed through fiber optic links with a propagation speed
of 200km/ms, LBM-31 and LBM-13 discriminate the faulty cable
C13 at t3=9.58ms and t3=8.86ms. After fault discrimination at
LBM, a line current verification algorithm will check if the
current is already below the current breaking capability of the
LDCCB. In this case, tripping signal is sent to LDCCB-13 at
t3’=8.86ms. However, at LBM-31, the line current exceeds the
breaking capability (see Figure 7.b), thus tripping signal is
sent to LDCCB-31 at t3’=12.79ms when line current is reduced
during AC sources contribution suppression as illustrated on
Figure 7.a and Figure 7.b. Finally, 30ms after the fault
occurrence, all MMC stations are disconnected and the faulty
cable C13 is isolated. In Figure 7.c, after the delay before
reclosing has elapsed at t=t6, CBMs proceed to grid voltage
restoration by CDCCB-1, CDCCB-2 and CDCCB-3 reclosing through
pre-insertion resistances PIRs. As shown in Figure 7.a, PIR
has limited the inrush current below the fault detection
threshold as expected. At t7=75ms the grid voltage is restored
and the power flow can be resumed. Note that the power flow
restoration has not been simulated.
t3- LBM-13 t3- LBM-31
Cable C12 Cable C23
failure is tracked after the expected breaker opening time
when breaker current and voltage waveforms differs from
expected waveforms associated to DC breakers operation as
illustrated in Figure 8. At LBM-31, the faulty cable C13 is
discriminated and line current reduction is being verified.
Figure 9.b shows that, at t3’ of LDCCB-31, even with a failure on
CDCCB-3 opening, because CDCCB-1 and CDCCB-2 have been
effectively opened, the line current i31 has been reduced
below the breaking capability. Once the faulty line is isolated,
MMC station 3 is still connected to the DC grid and charges
the capacitors of the remaining DC grid to the diode rectifier
bridge voltage, which corresponds to around 0.8pu of the
nominal grid voltage as shown in Figure 9.c. In the same way
as in primary sequence, at t6=60ms, CDCCBs are reclosed and
grid voltage restored at t7=75ms.

Cable C13

VDCCB-3 i3
Figure 6: Current direction comparisons for each cable of the
grid.
t3’-LBM-13 t3’-LBM-31
t5 t6 t7 - without failure - with failure
Figure 8: CDCCB-3 current and voltage waveforms in case of
- i1 opening failure.
Current threshold
for fault detection - i2 t3’-LBM-13 t3’-LBM-31
- i3 a t4=t5 t6 t7

- i1
- i2
- i3 a
LCB Breaking
capability

Prospective - i13
line currents
- i31 b
LCB Breaking
capability

- i13 b
- i31

- v1
- v2
- v3 c

- v1 c
- v2
Figure 7: Current and Voltage waveforms during primary
protection sequence. - v3

6.2 Back-up protection sequence simulation results

In case CDCCB-3 opening fails, AC source3 will continue to Figure 9: Current and Voltage waveforms during CDCCB-3
feed the fault as shown on i3 waveform in Figure 9.a. CDCCB opening failure back-up sequence.

5
7 Conclusion
A protection strategy for Multi-terminal HVDC grids based
on low-speed mechanical DC Breakers has been proposed.
Main advantages and features of the proposed strategy are
discussed hereunder.
 The breaking capability requirement of the low-speed
mechanical converter DC breakers is limited to the
maximum fault current contribution of its associated
MMC stations.
 Line DC breakers are based on the same technology as
the converter DC breakers but with breaking capability
equal to the highest maximum fault current of MMC
stations.
 No limiting inductances are required to perform fault
clearing operation thus their impact is reduced on cost,
footprint and DC grid control dynamics.
 Discrimination algorithms are not required to be ultra-
fast and could be based on data exchanged between
relays located at line ends.
 In the framework of a multi-vendor DC grid combining
converters with and without fault handling capability,
the proposed strategy is still suitable.
 This non-selective strategy is claimed to be effective for
cable systems due to the low probability of short-circuit
occurrence.
 In extended MTDC grids divided into protection zones,
this strategy can also be implemented in one zone of the
grid.
 Line DC breakers could also be used for interrupting
nominal line current during normal operations.
The study results show that the total protection sequence
including back-up can be performed in 120-180ms, which is
the time from the fault inception to power flow recovered.
This temporary stop of less than 200ms could be acceptable
depending on the characteristic of the interconnected AC grid.
In future work, AC grid stability requirement during this
period will be analyzed. Further studies are being held on line
breaker failure and fault discrimination back-up sequences.
Protection algorithms including primary and back-up
protection will be developed. Thereafter, the complete
protection strategy including algorithms will be applied and
tested on RTS platform. The management of MMC stations
during the fault clearance and the grid reclosing process are
key parts of the process and will be described in further
studies.
Acknowledgements
This research work was held at the SuperGrid Institute funded
by the French National Research Agency.
References
[1] B. Jacobson and J. Hafner, “Proactive hybrid hvdc
breakers - a key innovation for reliable hvdc grids,” CIGRE
Bologna symposium, 2011.
[2] T. Eriksson, M. Backman, and S. Halen, “A low loss
mechanical hvdc breaker for hvdc grid applications,” Cigré
2014, 2014.
[3] K. Tahata, S. E. Oukaili, K. Kamei, D. Yoshida,
Y. Kono, R. Yamamoto, and H. Ito, “HVDC circuit breakers
for HVDC grid applications,” in AC and DC Power
Transmission, 11th IET International Conference on, Feb
2015, pp. 1–9.
[4] W. Leterme and D. V. Hertem, “Classification of
fault clearing strategies for HVDC grids,” Across borders-
HVDC systems and markets integration: CIGRE Lund, 2015.
[5] J. Descloux, “Protection contre les courts-circuits
des réseaux à courant continu de forte puissance,” PhD Thesis
from Université de Grenoble, pp. 99 – 139, September 2013.
[6] J. Sneath and A. D. Rajapakse, “Fault detection and
interruption in an earthed hvdc grid using rocov and hybrid dc
breakers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31,
no. 3, pp. 973–981, 2016.
[7] W. Leterme, J. Beerten, and D. V. Hertem, “Nonunit
protection of HVDC grids with inductive DC cable
termination,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31,
no. 2, pp. 820–828, April 2016.
[8] R. Li, L. Xu, D. Holliday, F. Page, S. J. Finney, and
B. W. Williams, “Continuous operation of radial
multiterminal HVDC systems under DC fault,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 351–361,
Feb 2016.
[9] M. Hajian, L. Zhang, and D. Jovcic, “Dc
transmission grid with low-speed protection using mechanical
dc circuit breakers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1383–1391, 2015.
[10] C. D. Barker and R. S. Whitehouse, “An alternative
approach to HVDC grid protection,” in AC and DC Power
Transmission (ACDC 2012), 10th IET International
Conference on, Dec 2012, pp. 1–6.
[11] C. Karawita, D. Suriyaarachchi, and M. Mohaddes,
“A controlled dc fault clearance mechanism for full-bridge
mmc vsc converters,” Cigré symposium, Lund., 2015.
[12] L. Tang and B.-T. Ooi, “Locating and isolating dc
faults in multi-terminal dc systems,” Power Delivery, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1877–1884, July 2007.
[13] L. Tang, “Control and protection of multi-terminal
dc transmission systems based on voltage-source converters,”
Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University,Montreal,Canada, 2003.
[14] H. Saad, S. Dennetière, J. Mahseredjian, P. Delarue,
X. Guillaud, J. Peralta, and S. Nguefeu, “Modular multilevel
converter models for electromagnetic transients,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1481–
1489, June 2014.
[15] A. Morched, B. Gustavsen, and M. Tartibi, “A
universal model for accurate calculation of electromagnetic
transients on overhead lines and underground cables,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1032–
1038, Jul 1999.
[16] M. K. Bucher and C. M. Franck, “Analytic
approximation of fault current contribution from AC
networks to MTDC networks during pole-to-ground faults,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 20–
27, Feb 2016.