Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research Paper

Significance of fault-current-limiters and parameters optimization in

HVDC circuit breakers for increased capacity of VSC-HVDC
transmission networks application
∗
Muhammad Ahmad a , Zhixin Wang a , , Muhammad Shafique b ,
Muhammad Haroon Nadeem c
a
School of Electronics Information and Electrical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
b
Department of Electronic Engineering, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan
c
EnergyVille/Electa Research Group, Electrical Engineering Department ESAT, KU Leuven, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The voltage and current ratings of the voltage source converter (VSC) based high voltage direct current
Received 5 October 2021 (HVDC) transmission line projects have increased over the years. It testifies the increasing popularity
Received in revised form 1 December 2021 of VSC-HVDC technology. Since the long-distance, VSC-HVDC transmission lines are more exposed
Accepted 7 December 2021
to commonly appearing short circuit faults; thus, protection equipment with increased fault-current
Available online xxxx
handling capability is required. The DC circuit breakers (DCCBs), with or without fault current limiters
Keywords: (FCLs), can effectively handle the fault-current. The variations in VSC-HVDC projects’ ratings and their
Fault current limiters impact for DCCB with FCL and without FCL are thoroughly analysed in this paper. The paper further
DC circuit breakers includes an in-depth discussion on DCCBs with FCL and without FCL. An equivalent circuit modelling
VSC-HVDC approach is used for simulation analysis of three case studies under the influence of these breakers
LCC-HVDC
to analyse current behaviour; the case studies include the Zhoushan HVDC Project, Xiamen HVDC
PSCAD
Project, and Zhangbei-I HVDC Project. All these projects have different capacities in terms of their
power, voltage, and current ratings. For DCCBs, this paper includes a detailed analytical model to
understand the fluctuations in the size of fault-current limiting components (in DCCBs) for increased
fault-current handling requirements. The simulation results using PSCAD/EMTDC and MATLAB are
presented to verify different aspects of this study. A small scale laboratory prototype is also developed
to validate the performance of DCCB with and without FCL. Based on theoretical, simulation, and
experimental validations, it is substantiated that for increased VSC-HVDC projects’ ratings, DCCB with
FCL can perform better compared to conventional DCCB without FCL.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction demand justify the said argument. The contribution of carbon

The increasing demand and supply of electrical energy is a
global phenomenon. The report by British Petroleum (BP) on key
energy statistics (british petroleum, 2020) and report by the In-
ternational Energy Agency (IEA) (IEA, 2020) on increasing power
Abbreviations: DCCB, direct current circuit breaker; HVAC, high voltage
alternating current; HVDC, high voltage direct current; HCB, hybrid circuit
breaker; NSCFCL, non-super conducting fault-current limiter; UFD, ultra-fast
disconnector; KVL, Kirchhoff voltage law; LCC, line-commutated converters;
VSC, voltage-source converter; FCLC, fault-current limiting circuit; FCL,
fault-current limiter; SCFCL, super conducting fault-current limiter; MOA,
metal oxide arrester; MJ, mega joule; s, seconds; ms, milliseconds; IGBT,
insulated-gate bipolar transistor; RT1, reference terminal-I; RT2, reference
terminal-II; PDR, power dissipating resistor.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangzxin@sjtu.edu.cn (Z. Wang).
dioxide emission using hydrocarbon fuel by BRICS countries is
explained (Azevedo et al., 2018). The carbon dioxide emissions by
various energy resources are described in Peters et al. (2020). A
research work (Piaggio and Padilla, 2012) highlights the relation-
ship between economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions.
Similarly, another work (Kahia et al., 2019) for Middle Eastern and
North African countries explains the relationship between renew-
able energy consumption and economic growth. A study explains
the relationship between economic growth and carbon dioxide
emissions (Saint Akadiri et al., 2020). Renewable energy produc-
tion has widely attracted governments and policymakers because
of its environment-friendly nature. The use of renewable energy,
to some extent, indeed reduces the emission of harmful gases
into the atmosphere; this argument is debated in Adams and
Nsiah (2019). Furthermore, apart from the studies highlighting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.024
2352-4847/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
the various aspects of global and regional renewable energy-
related matters, renewable energy statistics report (International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2020), and renewable energy
capacity report (International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),
2021) by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
explicitly explain the global renewable energy generation and
capacity in recent years. From these studies, two aspects are
evident; the increasing power production from renewable energy
resources and the vast difference between capacity and power
production.
Tesla versus Edison tussle is historically known and have been
explained in various web articles. For example, the article (En-
desa’s Blog, 2019) describes the nature of various currents and
the beginning of the Edison–Tesla rivalry. Some negative tactics to
undermine the inventions of rivals are highlighted in Nix (2019).
The article (Lantero, 2014) explains some early achievements by
Edison in terms of the DC-based system, which were considered
essential building blocks for future energy grids. Usually, the
areas rich in green energy potential are situated far away from the
load centres; therefore, efficient and cheap transmission lines are
becoming crucial. High voltage direct current (HVDC) technology
has undergone a rigorous evaluation process, has gained enough
technical advancement, and has become immensely popular. The
general overview for HVDC technology is provided in Bahrman
(2008). As compared to high voltage alternating current (HVAC)
transmission, HVDC transmission is technically more viable and
cheap as well (Halder, 2013). The HVDC transmission lines are
also becoming popular in the renewable energy sector to harvest
the existing potential of green energy in remote locations (Li
et al., 2018).
The HVDC converters have gone through a consistent evo-
lutionary process. Earlier on, only line-commutated converters
(LCC) converter based HVDC transmission was feasible. The Got-
land HVDC project was the first modern commercial HVDC project
established in 1954. The LCC based technology was used in this
particular project. This project was used to connect Gotland to
mainland Sweden. The details of this project are provided in ABB
Review (2018), A. by N.E.S. Writer (1998). Since then, the HVDC
converter’s technology had made tremendous advancement. A
brief history explaining the progression of HVDC technologies
is presented in Peake (2010), Long and Nilsson (2007). Some
technological advancements in HVDC converter’s topologies have
been addressed in Barnes and Beddard (2012), Agelidis et al.
(2006). After making gigantic leaps in technology spread over the
years, in 1997 Hällsjön HVDC project in Sweden uses voltage-
source converter (VSC) based converter technology for the very
first time (ABB Review, 2018).
The studies (Oni et al., 2016; Flourentzou et al., 2009) point
out the superiority of LCC-HVDC transmission over VSC-HVDC
transmission; the VSC-HVDC technology owns the independent
control of active and reactive power, reduced harmonics, and the
ability to operate in a weak AC network. Furthermore, (Jovcic,
2019) presents a comprehensive analysis of LCC and VSC tech-
nologies. The VSC based HVDC projects have better operational
features and economic viability; however, such projects are more
exposed to frequently appearing short circuit faults. The studies
(Zhao et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2012) highlight an in-depth analysis
of short circuit faults occurring in VSC-HVDC networks.
For effective handling of fault current courtesy to short cir-
cuits, the direct current circuit breakers (DCCBs) of different types
are considered the best option. Based on the reviews (Barnes
et al., 2020; Franck, 2011), it can be identified that The DCCBs are
divided into three different categories; mechanical circuit break-
ers (MCBs), solid state circuit breakers (SSCBs), hybrid circuit
breaker (HCBs). The HVDC breaker industry witnessed a ground-
breaking breakthrough of HCB by ABB in 2012 (Hassanpoor et al.,
879
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
2015). After that, this new domain of research and development
was opened for researchers and other corporate sector compa-
nies. For example, in 2014, ALSTOM also introduced a HCB design.
The Nguyen et al. (2016) reports the difference between two
state-of-the-art breaker technologies.
The DCCB, in particular, HCBs, are well capable of handling the
fault current effectively. However, from the listed HVDC projects
in Sood (2011) and Krontiris (2018), it is evident that the ca-
pacity of HVDC projects have increased to fulfil the customers’
demand with each passing year. To neutralize such a situation,
fault current limiters (FCLs) are used with DCCB to enhance
the performance of DCCBs. There are two types of FCLs; (a)
the superconducting fault current limiter (SCFCL) and (b) non-
superconducting fault current limiter (NSFCL). FCL can be used as
an independent circuit to suppress the fault current. The studies
(Liu et al., 2017; Ahmad et al., 2020b) explain this approach.
Fault-current limiting features can also be incorporated in breaker
design to achieve fault-current limiting characteristics. The re-
views (Ahmad and Wang, 2019; Li et al., 2019) comprehensively
elucidate the design of HCB with fault-current limiting features.
Apart from these approaches, some controller-based schemes are
also used to suppress the fault current. The Zhang et al. (2020)
highlights an improved proportional resonance-based control to
suppress the circulating current. A review (Muniappan, 2021) ex-
plains the wide ranging approaches to suppress and interpret the
fault current; out of these approaches, breaker based approaches
are considered as the most reliable option.
The fundamental objective of this paper is to understand the
significance of FCL in DCCBs, to effectively handle the fault cur-
rent with an increased rating of HVDC projects. Three case studies
of VSC-HVDC projects with varied capacities are taken into ac-
count. Those three projects include; Zhoushan HVDC Project,
Xiamen HVDC Project, and Zhangbei-I HVDC Project. Various
simulation models are developed to thoroughly analyse the fault
conditions in these systems.
Two different topologies of HCBs (Hassanpoor et al., 2015; Li
et al., 2019) are simulated and compared with the topology of
the HCB proposed by authors. From results it can be verified that
HCB with FCL can perform better if the capacity of the HVDC
project increases. If the results of HCBs with FCL are compared,
then the author’s proposed HCB shows better characteristics than
others. Moreover, it has superior fault clearing time and almost
zero loss in the non-operational stage. In the proposed HCB
with FCL, no fault-current limiting component is used in the
non-operational stage. Experimental results under the influence
of conventional HCB without FCL and HCB with FCL are also
provided to strengthen the effectiveness of FCLs in HCBs.
The remaining paper is structured as follows. Section 2 of the
paper reports a brief overview of various project/case studies.
Section 3 contains the fundamentals of HCB with FCL and without
FCL. Section 4 highlights the analytical analysis for fault-current.
Further, it includes a debate on the selection of the appropriate
size of inductors in breakers. Lastly, it also discusses the influence
of fault-current limiting inductances over the current in various
stages. Section 5 demonstrates the simulation and experimental
results, whereas Section 6 outlines the conclusions of the paper.
2. The details of VSC-HVDC projects
For developing the understanding of the wide-ranging capac-
ity of VSC-HVDC projects, three projects are taken as an example.
Brief details about these projects are provided in this section. So
that in subsequent sections of this article, an equivalent circuit
technique can be adopted for simulation purposes, to acquire
some key results.
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 1. Details of Zhoushan HVDC project; (a) Map indicating the location of islands and their connections and (b) Structure of HVDC valves.
2.1. Zhoushan HVDC project (case study I)
The Chinese eastern coastal region contains more than thou-
sands of islands; the Zhoushan archipelago also situates in that
region. In the islands of Zhoushan archipelago, the large and more
power-consuming island is the central Zhoushan Island, followed
by the islands of Daishan, Yangshan, Qushan, and Sijiao. The
annual consumption of electricity in the Zhoushan archipelago
was increasing rapidly. Therefore to meet the load requirement
of the Zhoushan archipelago, the State Grid Corporation of China
(SGCC) initiates the Zhoushan project of HVDC grid, the paper
(Pipelzadeh et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2015) briefly outline the
details of this project. The paper (Chen et al., 2020) contains some
renovation details about this project. Fig. 1(a) represents the map
indicating location of islands and their connections.
Zhoushan HVDC is a multiterminal project. It contains five
terminals, and the converters use the very advance MMC based
technology, with a symmetrical monopole circuit configuration,
the generalized topology for this circuit configuration is shown
in Fig. 1(b). In the figure, the SM represents the submodules,
whereas the Ua , Ub , and Uc represent the phase voltage. The rating
of DC voltage form the converters valves is ±200 kV, and power
rating for Zhoushan terminal is 500 MW, for Daishan terminal
and the capacity for Yangshan, Qushan, and Sijiao terminal is 100
MW. Moreover, the total cable length for this project is 141.5 km.
2.2. Xiamen HVDC project (case study II)
Xiamen city is located on China’s southeast coast, which is
part of Chinese Fujian province. The requirement for high power
quality and reliability for the island of Xian has increased over
the years. Before implementing the HVDC project to meet this
region’s load requirements, a 220 kV transmission line with AC
nature was used. For fulfilling the increasing demand for load
with increased reliability and power quality, SGCC awarded this
HVDC project to China Electric Power Research Institute (CEPRI).
The CEPRI proposed to transmit via back-to-back VSC-HVDC link
using MMC technology and capacity of ±320 kV/1000 MW. The
two converter stations are linked via a 10.7 km subsea cable.
The map in Fig. 2(a) shows the link between two terminals, the
details about this project is reported in Gu et al. (2018) and C-EPRI
(2014). This project utilizes bipolar MMC circuit configuration,
the generalized topology for this circuit configuration is shown
in Fig. 2(b). In the figure, the SM represents the submodules,
whereas the Ua1 , Ub1 , and Uc1 represent the phase voltage of the
upper arm. Likewise, Ua2 , Ub2 , and Uc2 represent the phase voltage
of the lower arm.
880
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
2.3. Zhangbei-I HVDC projects (case study III)
Zhangbei County situates in northwestern Hebei province, in
China. To effectively utilize the availability of large-scale renew-
able energy resources in the Zhangbei region, SGCC proposed the
HVDC grid, with four terminals having an overall capacity of 9000
MW and a voltage level of ±500 kV. This particular project uti-
lizes VSC-based HVDC technology, and it was the first of its nature
in the world. The overall length of this project is 648 km. The
reference paper (Pang and Wei, 2018) presents comprehensive
details regarding this project. The map in Fig. 3(a) demonstrates
the positioning of the four-terminal in different regions and their
interconnection. Like the Xiamen HVDC project, the Zhangbei
HVDC project also utilizes bipolar MMC circuit configuration.
The generalized topology for this circuit configuration is shown
in Fig. 3(b). In the figure, the SM represents the submodules,
whereas the Ua1 , Ub1 , and Uc1 represent the phase voltage of the
upper arm. Likewise, Ua2 , Ub2 , and Uc2 represent the phase voltage
of the lower arm.
3. The fundamentals of DCCB
The studies (Barnes et al., 2020; Franck, 2011) underscore
the extensive details of DCCBs, including the types and working
principles. In this segment of the paper, it is imperative to explain
the details of two different HCBs; the conventional HCB without
FCL discussed in Reference Paper (Hassanpoor et al., 2015) and
the HCB with FCL discussed in Reference Paper (Ahmad and
Wang, 2019). For simulation-based analysis, these breakers are
used; therefore, the details of these breakers are included here.
3.1. Conventional HCB
The structure of this breaker is quite simple. It composes
of three branches, the main branch, the energy transfer branch
(or auxiliary branch), and fault isolation (or energy absorption)
branch. The main branch contains breaker impedance, a me-
chanical disconnector, and IGBT switches. The energy transfer
branch and energy absorption branch include IGBT switches and
metal oxide arrestor (MOA), respectively. In normal operating
condition, the normal current (i.e., rated current) flows through
the main branch. Once the fault is confirmed, the fault-current
from the main branch is shifted to energy transfer branch. At the
final stage, the fault-current is diverted from the energy transfer
branch to energy absorption branch, and fault-current is isolated
completely. The schematic layout of this breaker is shown in
Fig. 4.
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892

Fig. 2. Details of Xian HVDC project; (a) Map indicating converter’s location, (b) Structure of HVDC valves.

Fig. 3. Details of Zhangbei HVDC project; (a) Map indicating converter’s location, (b) Structure of HVDC valves.

3.2. The HCB with FCLC

The earlier design of HCB with series and parallel operation of

CLIs is explained in (Li et al., 2019), and is pronounced as FCL1
in this paper. The FCL2 is the authors’ proposed FCL circuit used
with HCB, and named as fault current limiting circuit (FCLC) in
this study. Like conventional HCB, HCB with FCLC also includes
three branches, the main branch, the fault-current limitation
branch (or auxiliary branch), and the fault isolation (or energy
absorption) branch. Fig. 5(a) explains the design of FCLC and the
complete breaker’s layout with inclusion of FCLC is reported in
Fig. 5(b). The switching pattern to operate the IGBT switches in
various branches of the breaker and anticipated current under the
influence of HCB with FCLC is elucidated in Fig. 6.
Fig. 4. Schematic layout of conventional HCB.
In Fig. 5(a), S1 , S 2 , S 3 . . . Sn represents the bidirectional switches,
and L1 , L2 , L3 . . . Ln represents the fault-current limiting inductors
respectively. The overall structure of the breaker with FCLC in the
auxiliary branch of the breaker is given in Fig. 5(b). In the normal
881
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 5. Breaker with FCLC; (a) The FCLC design and (b) The complete layout of breaker with placement of FCLC.
Fig. 6. The control signals for breaker branches and anticipated cumulative
current.
working stage, the current flow through the main branch of the
breaker, which is a low resistive and inductive path. When short
circuit fault in a system occurs, then fault-current is transferred
from the main branch of the breaker to FCLC in the auxiliary
branch. This branch is then used to lower the magnitude of
the fault current. When fault-current is reduced significantly,
then the residual of the current is shifted to MOA for complete
isolation.
Two control signals are presented in Fig. 6; the control signal-I
is used to control the IGBT switches for the main branch, whereas
control signal-II is used to control the IGBT switches for the
auxiliary branch. From the anticipated current, it can be observed
that from time zero to t1 the system carries a normal current
defined as I1 . The fault at the instant t2 is suspected, and the
current increase at a rapid pace. Till it reaches t2 the current
attains the value of I2(max) . At t2 current in the system consid-
ered as confirmed; the fault-current limitation process began by
activating FCLC in the auxiliary branch, and till t3 the quantum
of fault-current reduced significantly to the level of I3 . After t3
the residual current is shifted to MOA for complete isolation; the
current during this final stage is defined as I4 . Moreover, Tfc and
Idc represents the total fault clearing time and total response of
DC current respectively.
882
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
Fig. 7. The equivalent circuit for various stages. (a) Normal working stage, (b)
Transient working stage and (c) Fault-current limiting stage.
4. Estimation of current and current limiting inductors
For the appropriate selection of inductance in the main branch
of the breaker (breaker inductance, Lb ) and current limiting in-
ductors (CLIs) in the auxiliary branch (L1 , L2 , L3 ), the current
in various stages is required to be calculated. For this purpose,
the equivalent circuit for various stages is developed to access
the current in three different operational stages; the equivalent
circuit for the normal working stage, the equivalent circuit for
the transient working stage, and the equivalent circuit for fault-
current limiting stage. Fig. 7 represents three equivalent circuits
for three different operational stages. Moreover, the selection
criteria for the sizing of CLI in the main branch depends on
several factors; Ahmad et al. (2020a) represents the details in this
context.
It is important to note that the design of breaker with FCLC
is modular in nature, it means the number of inductors can be
increased or decreased as per the requirement; for this particular
study, three CLIs are used in FCLC, and these are defined as L1 , L2 ,
and L3 . The current during normal operating stages can be viewed
as rated current. Fig. 7(a) represents the equivalent circuit for this
stage, and the current during this stage is defined by Eq. (1).
I1 (t ) = Irated (1)
When the system is subjected to line-to-line or line-to-ground
fault, the current starts to increase from its rated value. However,
a few milliseconds is required to confirm the existence of the
fault. For this brief time, the fault-current passes through the
main branch. After the application of KVL and Laplace trans-
formation, voltage and current equations can be obtained when
system is subjected to short circuit fault condition. Eqs. (2) and (3)
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892

represent the voltage and current respectively (Yang et al., 2012;

Liu et al., 2015).
V1 ω0
u (t ) = e−Υ (t −t1 ) sin (ωn (t − t1 ) + ξ )
ωn
I0 ω0
− e−Υ (t −t1 ) sin (ωn (t − t1 )) (2)
C ωn
I1 ω0
I2 (t ) = − e−Υ (t −t1 ) sin (ωn (t − t1 ) − ξ )
ωn
V1 ω0
+ e−Υ (t −t1 ) sin (ωn (t − t1 )) (3)
ωn (Lb + LLine )
In Eqs. (2) and (3) various coefficients are used, and the details
are given as follows:
u (t1 ) = V1 ; I (t1 ) = I1 ; ξ = RLine /2 (Lb + LLine ) ;
√
ω0 = ξ 2 + ωn2 ; Υ = atan(ωn /ξ )
and
√
ωn = 1/ (Lb + LLine ) C − (RLine /2(Lb + LLine ))2
Estimating the value of CLI (Lb ) for the main branch of the breaker
using Eqs. (2) and (3) is complicated. The voltage variations due to
DC-link capacitors are minimal; therefore, DC-link capacitors can
be viewed as a DC source to ease the mathematical manipulation.
Based on this assumption, KVL and Laplace transformation is
applied again for the circuit in Fig. 7(b). The final result is depicted
by Eq. (4) for the brief period of interval t1 ≤ t ≤ t2 .
( )
V1 V1
I2 (t ) = − − I1 (t ) e−α1 (t −t1 ) (4)
RLine RLine
The coefficient attached with Eq. (4) is defined as α1 =
RLine /(Lb +LLine ). The current I2 is the fault-current that increases
once fault occurs, and I2(max) as highlighted in Fig. 6 is the max-
imum amount of fault-current that the breaker can withstand.
Two important points are considered while selecting an appro-
priate CLI range for the main branch of the breaker; the peak
value I2(max) and time to reach that particular value. Moreover,
in Eq. (4), V1 represents the terminal DC voltage, LLine defines
the line inductance, and RLine represents the line resistance. I1 (t)
indicates the initial value of system current, and Eq. (1) illustrates
this value.

4.1. The impact of varying inductances Lb over I2

The initial analytical analysis culminates at Eq. (4). By applica-

tion of this Eq. (4), a suitable range of inductor Lb can be estimated
using a MATLAB based algorithm. The two necessary conditions
are taken into consideration while selecting the size for Lb ; the
permissible peak value of fault-current I2(max) and time to reach
that value. Fig. 8 represents the influence of varying inductances
Lb over I2 for three different case studies.
For implementing the algorithm to achieve the results (de-
picted in Fig. 8) for different case studies, the DC parameters
for a single terminal are taken into account. For the case I, the
Fig. 8. The impact of varying inductances Lb over I2 ; (a) For case study-I, (b)
±200 kV voltage level and a rated current of 0.5 kA is considered,
For case study-II, (c) For case study-III.
Fig. 8(a) represents the result of an algorithm for this case. For
the case II, the ±320 kV voltage level and the rated current of
1.6 kA is considered, Fig. 8(b) signifies the results of an algorithm
for this case. For the case III, the ±500 kV voltage level and furthermore, it is also clear from the assessment of all the results
the rated current of 3.0 kA is considered, Fig. 8(c) denotes the that if larger breaker inductance (Lb ) is used in the main branch,
result of an algorithm for this case. Moreover, it is essential to the rate of increase fault current and the peak value of (I2(max) )
note that in the MATLAB-based algorithm, 2 ms time is set for will also decrease.
this operating region from t1 to t2 . From the results depicted in Based on the above analysis, and by opting the rate of increase
Fig. 8, few aspects are quite clear; if the short circuit fault is of fault-current as 3.5 kA/ms as suggested in Hassanpoor et al.
closer to the reference terminal, it will have severe consequences; (2015); while considering the fault at a distance of 100 km from
883
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 9. The impact of varying inductances L1 , L2 , and L3 over I3 ; (a) For case study-I, (b) For case study-II, (c) For case study-III.
the reference terminal, the value for breaker inductors (Lb ) are
selected as 37 mH, 70 mH, and 115 mH for case studies I, II, and III
repetitively. Moreover, it is important to note that for simulation-
based analysis, only the voltage and current rating for projects
discussed in three case studies are used; however, the length
of line and its parameters are considered as uniform values for
all cases, and so is the distance of fault from reference termi-
nal. These considerations are important for a fair analysis while
comparing the results for different case studies. Because for these
commercial projects, enough technical data is not shared publicly,
and also, it varies from project to project. Thereby, for comparison
purposes, uniformity in certain parameters is important.
4.2. The impact of varying fault-current limiting inductor over I3
After appropriate estimation of breaker inductor size for dif-
ferent case studies by considering the restraints elaborated in
studies (Hassanpoor et al., 2015; Ahmad and Wang, 2019), the
next step is to estimate the values for fault-current limiting
inductors in FCLC by analytical analysis. The equivalent circuit
for fault-current limitation stage is highlighted in Fig. 7(c). By
application of KVL and Laplace transformation for this particular
stage produces the results following mathematical equation.
V1
(
V1
) the current in the fault-current limitation stage is calculated and
I3 (t ) = − − I2 (t ) e−α2 (t −t2 )
RLine RLine
In Eq. (5), the coefficient α2 is used, which is defined as;
α2 = RLine /(Lb +LLine +L1 +L2 +L3 ). Other variables and coefficients at-
tached with Eq. (5) are defined as follows; V1 represents the
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
terminal voltage, I2 (t) is current determined in the previous stage
(the fault-current confirmation stage), RLine and LLine are used to
defined line resistance and inductance per km.
Based on the analytical relationship concluded in Eq. (5), an
algorithm in MATLAB is developed to analyse the impact of cur-
rent with varying values of inductance. The results in Fig. 9
depicts the results of the MATLAB algorithm. Following are the
key considerations during the algorithm’s implementation: (1)
the distance of fault from the reference terminal for all cases
is considered 100 km, (2) fault confirmation time is regarded
as 2 ms, and (3) peak values of fault-current (i.e., I2(max) ) for all
causes is predetermined with 3.5 kA/ms rate of increase of fault
current.
Moreover, it is also important to note that the design of FCLC
is modular; however, for all case studies, three CLIs are used
for simulation purpose to have a better comparative analysis.
The values of all CLIs are also kept as equal (i.e., L1 = L2 =
L3 ). Fig. 9(a), represents the algorithm results for a case study
I, Fig. 9(b) indicates the results for case study II, and Fig. 9(c)
shows the results for case study III. For all these results, the range
of values of CLIs are considered as 10, 20, 30. . . 100 mH. Since
three CLIs are used in series in FCLC, the equivalent inductances
for FCLC will become 30, 60, 90. . . 300 mH. Against these values,
(5) plotted. The time for the fault-current limitation stage is 2 ms,
3 ms, 4 ms, and 5 ms. From all three results, it is clear that
if a more considerable value for CLIs is used, the intensity of
fault-current will reduce more significantly. This fact testifies the
significance of using CLIs in FCLC.
884
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
4.3. The summarized details regarding selection of inductances
The procedure of determining the size of inductances in the
main branch and FCLC branch is summarized as follows:
• First, the analytical relationship of current and inductance
in various operating stages is developed using equivalent
circuit analysis. The results in Eqs. (4) and (5) explain this
relationship.
• Once these equations are established, some predetermined
conditions are employed to calculate the value of induc-
tances. For example, to determine Lb Eq. (4) is used. The
peak value I2 (t) needs to be determined first. According to
the paper (Hassanpoor et al., 2015), the rate of increase of
fault current can be considered as 3.5 kA/s. If 2 ms time is
considered to assure the existence of the fault, it means that
the peak value of I2 (t) after 2 ms will be 7 kA plus the rated
current I1 . All other parameters for Eq. (4) are known. Based
on all thorough calculations, the value of Lb is approximated
as 37 mH, for the Zhoushan HVDC case, with voltage ratings
of 200 kV and current ratings of 0.5 kA. A similar approach
can be used for other case studies to determine Lb .
• Similarly, to determine inductances in FCLC Eq. (5) can be
used. All the parameters of Eq. (5) are known, except the
I3 (t). This current indicates to what extent the peak fault
current is to be reduced. Once I3 (t) is defined, the inductance
for FCLC can be calculated using Eq. (5). Since in this study, a
comparison of results is required to be reported; therefore,
3 CLIs of 100 mH for each case study are used.
• Furthermore, using the relationship of current and induc-
tances based on Eqs. (4) and (5), a MATLAB based algorithm
can also be developed to foresee the impact on current in
different operating stages by varying inductances, location
of fault from the reference terminal, and time to use these
inductances.
5. Results and discussions
The PSCAD/EMTDC simulations are developed to analyse the
significance of breaker with FCL and without FCL. In this regard,
the block diagram is shown in Fig. 10. The diagram shows the
placement of breakers between two VSC-HVDC terminals, namely
reference terminal (RT) I and RT-II. The fault is indicated at the
positive side of the line at a certain distance from the RT-I. For
simulation-based analysis, the line parameters for all cases are
kept similar, given in Table-A1 in the appendix. The simulation
results are divided into two types/categories for all the cases. The
first category of results represents the influence of conventional
HCB without FCLC when the system is subjected to a short-circuit
fault. While the second category of results showcase the impact
of HCB with FCLC when the system is subjected to a short-circuit
fault. Both these results are compared simultaneously for all case
studies. Three significant results for all case studies are reported
in to highlight the significance of breakers with FCL. The results
include; direct current, voltage, and power absorbed by MOA in
the breaker. The DC grid parameters for all cases are given in
Table-A1 in the appendix.
5.1. Results concerning different case studies
The significant results concerning the case study I, II, and
III, under the influence of conventional HCB, breaker with FCL1,
and breaker with FCL2, are highlighted in Figs. 11, 12, and 13
respectively. Fig. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a) represent the overall
response of current, under the influence of conventional HCB,
a breaker with FCL1 and FCL2 for case studies I, II, and III,
respectively. Likewise, Figs. 11(b), 12(b), and 13(b) illustrate the
885
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
Fig. 10. A block diagram representing the simulation structure for different case
studies.
power absorbed by MOA under the influence of different breakers
for different case studies. It is essential to note that breaker
inductance (Lb ) is considered the same for all simulation models.
This arrangement will provide a uniform increase in the current
change rate when the system is subjected to a short circuit fault of
any nature. As mentioned earlier and reaffirm here, the design of
FCL2 is modular in spirit and for simulation purposes, three CLIs
of identical value in FCL2 are used; details are given in Table-A2
in the appendix.
The details of various observable events in the depicted results
are as follows. For the response of current in Figs. 11(a), 12(a),
and 13(a), it can be observed that from 0 to 0.2 s the system
takes the standard/normal current, which 0.5 kA for case study
I (see Fig. 11(a)), 1.6 kA for case study II (see Fig. 12(a)), and
3.0 kA for case study III (see Fig. 13(a)). At 0.2 s the system is
subjected to short-circuit fault, at a distance of 100 km from RT-
1. The current starts to increase from its rated value at the pace
of 3.5 kA/ms. After 2 ms the current reaches the value of about
7.5 kA for first case, 7.6 kA for second case, and 10 kA for third
case (see Figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a) respectively).
At the end of this transient period (at 0.202 s) the fault in
the system is considered as confirmed. For conventional breaker
with no FCL, since no current-limiting component is used in the
auxiliary branch of the breaker, therefore the current will keep
on increasing, and at 0.204 s it reaches the value of about 14 kA
for case I, 14.6 kA case II, and 17 kA for case III , these number
are massive indeed. Conversely, if FCL1 is used, the fault-current
drops to 4 kA for case 1; for case 2, this value is around 5 kA,
and for case 3, this value is around 6 kA. Similarly, if the authors
proposed FCL2 is used, the fault-current drops to 3 kA for case 1;
for case 2, this value is less than 5 kA, and for case 3, this value
is less than 6 kA. Figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a) for case studies I, II,
and III, respectively, can be referred to validate these values. After
0.204 s, the residual current is transferred to MOA for all case
studies under different breaker types to isolate the fault current
completely.
From Figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a), it can be observed that end
of fault current limitation period (0.204 s), the residual current
for HCB with FCL1 and FCL2 is less, as compared to HCB without
FCL. Therefore, it is evident that the MOA in the conventional HCB
without FCL requires more energy to absorb/dissipate than the
other two breakers. This fact can be observed from power dissi-
pation results. The power dissipation results by MOA under three
different breakers are given in Fig. 11(b) for cause I, Fig. 12(b) for
case II, and Fig. 13(b) for case III.
Fig. 14(a), 14(b), and 14(c) contains the response of breaker
voltage for case study I, II, and III respectively. Three responses
(one without FCL, with FCL1, and with FCL2) are highlighted
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 11. Results for case study I under influence of conventional HCB, HCB with
FCL1, and HCB with FCL 2; (a) Current, (b) Power dissipated by MOA.
in these results. The behaviour of voltage across the breaker
elements (without FCL) for different case studies is explained as
follows. Since no fault current limiting components is used in the
auxiliary branch, therefore, transient voltage spike is only visible
at the final stage, when current is transferred to MOA. Contrary
to this, the voltage across the breaker elements (with FCL1 and
FCL2) is explained as follows; from 0 to 0.2 s, breaker operates
under normal working condition, and thus no voltage droop is
observable during this stage across breaker components.
At 0.2 s the fault is introduced in the system, however, the
path of current flow during this time remain as of previous stage,
thus no voltage drop till 0.202 s. After 0.202 s a transient voltage
spike is observed for all case studies (with FCL1 and FCL2), which
is obvious, because of switching and use of CLIs. The second
voltage spike is observed, when the residual current is shifted
to MOA. From the result it is clear that once the current is
shifted to MOA, the voltage across the MOA becomes equivalent
to the rated DC terminal voltage, in case of FCL2. As far as FCL1
is concerned, it is essential to note that some current limiting
components remain in the circuit for both operational and non-
operation stages; therefore, a small voltage drop at the final stage
is noticed. The performance of voltage transients for breaker with
FCL can be improved, by increasing the voltage ratings of MOA. It
can also be improved by using the concept of parallel arresters as
discussed in studies (Ahmad and Wang, 2019; Magnusson et al.,
2014).
The losses in the normal operating stage for HCB with FCL
can be a challenging factor. Because when current is transferred
from main branch to current limiting branch, the main branch
886
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
Fig. 12. Results for case study II under influence of conventional HCB, HCB with
FCL1, and HCB with FCL 2; (a) Current, (b) Power dissipated by MOA.
needs to withstand high voltage. As far as losses in the normal
operating stage are concerned, it depends on several factors, and
the number of IGBTs in the main branch of the breaker is an
important one. The number of IBGTs should be numbered enough
to sustain the voltage and current during normal operating con-
ditions and fault conditions. To compare the losses in normal
operating conditions for both breakers, i.e., HCB without FCL and
HCB with FCL, first we need to observe how many IBGTs are
required to compose the main branch of both breakers.
Let us take 500 kV as an example to understand IGBTs num-
bers in the main branch of the breaker. For 500 kV voltage ratings,
a study (Li et al., 2019) reports that the IGBT model 5SNA 2000
K450300 can be used (for composing the main branch of the
breaker) having a 4.5 kV voltage rating and 2 kA current rating per
IGBT. Considering security margin voltage rating is considered as
3 kV. Based on all these considerations and bidirectional current
flow configuration, 540 IGBTs are used in the main branch. These
540 IGBTs are used when no FCL is used in HCB. These IBGTs are
more than enough to sustain voltage and current burden in both
fault and normal operating conditions for HCB with FCL2.
If the voltage profile of both breakers (HCB with FCL and HCB
with FCL2) for 500 kV case is observed carefully (see Fig. 14(c)), it
can clearly noticed that apart from some switching instants, the
voltage across the breakers remain within the permissible range,
and 540 IGBTs are enough for both breakers considering security
margins and losses in the normal operating period. However, the
problem of transient voltage overshoot remains in FCL based HCB.
This problem can be mitigated without changing the number of
IGBTs in the main branch of the breaker. The problem of transient
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 13. Results for case study III under influence of conventional HCB, HCB with
FCL1, and HCB with FCL 2; (a) Current, (b) Power dissipated by MOA.
voltage overshoot can be solved by using the concept of parallel
arresters, the theoretical details are reported in Magnusson et al.
(2014), and implantation is reported in Ahmad and Wang (2019).
Furthermore, this problem can also be handled if the fault current
is reduced gradually; the concept is reported in Ahmad et al.
(2020a).
5.2. Experimental validation
The configuration of breaker without FCL and with FCL is prac-
tically validated by developing small scale laboratory prototype.
The structure of circuits for the experimental bench is shown in
Fig. 15.
Fig. 15(a) represents the circuit configuration for a conven-
tional breaker without FCL, whereas, Fig. 15(b) illustrates the
structure of the circuit used for lab experiments with FCL2. For
avoiding the complexity in the lab experiment, line resistance and
inductance are ignored. The details of the components used for
experiment purpose is as follows. In both circuits VDC represents
the supply voltage, Lb represents the breaker inductance, S1 and S2
represents the solid-state switches (for these experiment MOSFET
module IRF520 is used), Rf indicates the fault resistance, and RL
denotes the load resistance. In Fig. 15(b), the auxiliary branch
of the breaker contains FCLC. The inductance Leqv represents
the equivalent inductance used in FCLC. Since MOA at a low
voltage level is not available, power dissipating resistor (PDR)
is used at the final stage to replace MOA. For controlling the
MOSFET module, an Arduino controller (Arduino Uno R3 ) is used.
Especially built experimental purpose inductances are used for
887
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
these experiments. The snapshots of critical components used
for testing purposes are given in Fig. 16. Fig. 16 (a) displays the
snapshots of Arduino Uno R3, Fig. 16 (b) shows the MOSFET
module IRF520, and Fig. 16 (c) contains the images of the spe-
cially built lab inductanes used for the experiment. The values of
these components used for experiment purpose are provided in
Table-A3 in the appendix.
This experimental setup is built with lower current and volt-
age ratings, considering the personal safety, the safety of labora-
tory equipment, and handling capacity of different components.
The operation voltage and current is defined as 0.005 kV and
50 mA respectively. Furthermore, it is imperative to report that in
Figs. 15(a) and 15(b), shunt resistance (Rshunt ) is deployed, which
is used to display the current waveform on the oscilloscope.
Fig. 17(a) reports the overall response of circuit current for dif-
ferent operating regions. Region one (R1) is the normal operating
region; in this region, the system carries the standard current of
50 mA. Once the system is subjected to a fault condition, it enters
into the second region (R2); it is observable that current starts to
increase from its rated value at a very high pace and reaches twice
the rated value within milliseconds. This value could have been
more considerable if fault resistance (Rf ) has not been considered
for safety purposes. This current is shifted to PDR at the final
stage, and the system enters into the third operating region (R3).
By the introduction of PDR, the value of fault-current is dropped
under 50 mA. Ideally, the current should be reached zero; for that
purpose, the PDR size can be increased.
Fig. 17(b) reports the experimental results of voltage across
the breaker. In this case, it is observable that the voltage across
the breaker is zero for two-stage, i.e., the normal working stage
and transient operating stage. When the fault current is shifted to
PDR at the terminal stage, the voltage across the breaker appears.
Ideally, the supply voltage should appear across the PDR, which
in this case is 0.005 kV. However, from the result in Fig. 17(b),
the value of voltage in the last stage is above 0.003 kV, which is
less than the supply voltage. This extra voltage drop is across the
breaker is occurred due to the losses of the wiring to build the
experimental bench. The experimental results for HCB with FCLC
are reported in Fig. 18.
Fig. 15(b) depicts the circuit for the second experimental case,
i.e., a breaker with FCL2. Fig. 15(b) contains the modified struc-
ture of the auxiliary branch, which possesses Leq (representing
CLIs as mentioned in Fig. 5(a). Fig. 18(a) highlights an overall
response of system current. This result is obtained when the
system is subjected to fault condition, and breaker with FCL2 is
deployed. Fig. 18(a) shows that in region one (R1) system carries a
standard current of about 50 mA. When the system is subjected to
a short circuit fault condition, the current starts to increase from
its rated value and crossed the value of 100 mA in region two
(R2). After that fault-current limitation process began, and value
of fault-current in region 3 (R3), is reduced considerably. At the
final stage, the residual current is shifted to PDR, and the current
is dropped down and reaches its lowest value. Ideally, it should
be forced to zero (as mentioned in the previous case). For that
purpose, the value of PDR can be increased, and the current can
reach closer to zero.
Fig. 18(b) highlights the experimental results of voltage across
the breaker. In this case, two voltage spikes across the breaker
are observed, the first one when the fault current is shifted from
the main branch to the current limiting branch of the breaker and
the second one when the fault current is shifted to PDR. From the
results, it is observable that as long as the current passes through
the main branch of the breaker, the voltage across the breaker is
zero. A steep spike is noticed when the current is shifted from
the main branch to the current limiting branch due to switching
and inductance (which reduces the current sharply). After the
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892

Fig. 14. The response of voltage under influence of conventional HCB, HCB with FCL1, and HCB with FCL2; (a) case study I, (b) case study II, (c) case study III.

Fig. 15. The configuration of circuit for experimental bench (a) Without FCL, (b) With FCL2.

transient period, the small voltage drop due to CLIs is also noticed,
which is less than the supply voltage. Finally, when the current is
shifted to PDR, the 0.003 V is observed across the breaker closer
to the supply voltage.
888
It is important to note that there were two differences in the
experimental and simulation circuits. Firstly, in the experimen-
tal circuit, a fault resistance is used to protect the equipment
and also for personal safety. Secondly, for low voltage instead
of MOA, PDR is used. The impact of these changes is observ-
able in experimental results. For example, in fault conformation
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 16. The snapshots of key components used for experimental purposes (a) Aurdino Uno R3, (b) MOSFET module IRF520, and (c) Inductances with different values.
stage, the fault-current keeps in increasing before entering in the
fault-current limitation stage (see Figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a)).
Whereas, in experimental results, once the fault is injected, fault-
current increases and maintains a constant value (see R2 in
Fig. 17(a) and Fig. 18(a)) courtesy to the fault resistance. For the
fault-current clearing stage, in simulation results, fault-current
is forced to zero (as observed in Figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a))
because MOA is used. However, in experimental results, MOA was
replaced by PDR. Therefore, the residual current was dropped to
least possible value but not zero (see R3 in Figs. 17(a) and 18(a)).
The experimental and simulation results for the normal operating
stage and fault limitation stage are identical with different system
ratings. The changes in the experimental circuits were essential
for practical reasons to conduct the experiment successfully. The
experimental results verified the correctness of the theoretical
concepts for the breakers discussed in this paper.
5.3. Scalability challenges
The HCB with FCLC is easily scalable for high voltage and
fault current handling capability in the simulation environment.
Indeed, the design of the breaker with FCL is modular in its
structure, which means the number of current limiting induc-
tances in the auxiliary branch of the breaker can be increased or
decreased depending upon the voltage and current rating of the
projects. So, the design can easily be extended for the high rating
requirements of the projects.
In terms of practical implementation, the proposed breaker
scheme is also scalable. The experiment results at the lab scale
verify this aspect. However, for high voltage and current ratings,
the implementation can pose some technical and economic chal-
lenges. The overall cost of the circuit breaker will increase if fault
current limiting components are used, so the increased cost of the
breaker can be perceived as a disadvantage. But if the proposed
889
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
topology of the FCL breaker is compared with other existing
topologies with the same features, then its cost is not too high. In
technical challenges, high voltage and current scalability can be
challenging (yet possible). Due to increased inductances between
one branch of the breaker to another can be subjected to current
commutation failure, which means the current might not be
transferred from the main to the auxiliary branch. Consequently,
the breaker might fail. Another aspect is the voltage overshoot;
it happens when the current is sharply increased or decreased.
These voltage spikes have certain disadvantages for the overall
system.
6. Conclusion
This paper investigates the significance of FCLs in DCCBs, with
increased ratings of voltage and current for VSC-HVDC projects.
In this context, brief working principles for conventional HCB
without FCL and recently developed HCB with FCL are reported.
Simulation results based on the equivalent circuit modelling ap-
proach are reported to validate the significance of FCL in HCB,
using voltage and current rating as reference values from dif-
ferent VSC-HVDC projects. A scale laboratory prototype is also
developed to validate the theoretical aspects of this study ex-
perimentally. Based on a thorough analytical, simulation, and
practical analysis, some key points are concluded. For increased
current ratings for any particular VSC-HVDC transmission line
project, the conventional HCB will have more power losses due
to MOA at the terminal stage. Thus larger MOA will be required
to maintain the operations. If the breaker inductance in the main
branch increases, it will reduce the rate of increase of fault cur-
rent; simultaneously, it can cause voltage drop at the receiving
end and increased power losses in the normal operating period.
Conversely, it is also clear from the simulations that if CLIs in
HCB are used, then fault-current can be reduced. Furthermore, the
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892

Fig. 17. The experimental results under influence of HCB without FCL. (a)
Current, (b) Voltage.

Fig. 18. The experimental results under influence of HCB with FCL2. (a) Current,
residual current at the terminal stage is also decreased, and less and (b) Voltage.
energy is required for dissipation in the final stage. The exper-
imental results validated all the theoretical aspects, inclusive of
switching patterns and fault-current limitations. From the details
Declaration of competing interest
of experimental results, it can be established that if HCB with
FCL is used, a small residual current at the terminal stage will be
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
required for dissipation. Besides, there will be no need to increase
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
an inductor’s size in the breaker’s main branch. In conclusion, it is
to influence the work reported in this paper.
clear that for the increased capacities of VSC-HVDC transmission
line projects, HCBs with FCL can perform better than conventional
Acknowledgements
HCB.

The authors would like to acknowledge the following agen-

CRediT authorship contribution statement
Muhammad Ahmad: Idea, Analytical analysis, Simulations,
Experimental work, Original manuscript write-up. Zhixin
Wang: Supervision, Manuscript revision, Resources. Muham-
mad Shafique: Experiment, Arrangement of lab facility,
Manuscript revision. Muhammad Haroon Nadeem: Analytical
analysis, Simulations, Manuscript revision.
890
cies for their support: Project supported by the National Key
R&D Program of China (2018YFB1503000, 2018YFB1503001), the
Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
China (20dz1206100), Industrial Strong Foundation Program of
Shanghai Economic and Information Commission China (2021).
Special thanks to the management of the Swedish College of
Engineering and Technology, 64200 Rahim yar khan, Pakistan, for
grating the permission to use their lab facility to perform the
experiments.
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892

Table A.1
The considered equivalent circuit parameters for different case studies.
Parameters Case Study I Case Study II Case Study III
Zhoushan Xiamen Zhangbei I
HVDC project HVDC project HVDC project
Considered terminal voltage ±200 kV ±320 kV ±500 kV
Considered current 0.5 kA 1.6 kA 3.0 kA
Considered line length 200 km 200 km 200 km
Fault location 100 km from RT1 100 km from RT1 100 km from RT1
Considered resistance/km 0.035 /km 0.035 /km 0.035 /km
Considered inductance/km 0.156 mH/km 0.156 mH/km 0.156 mH/km

Abbreviation: RT1, Reference Terminal 1.

Table A.2
Parameters of breaker with FCLC and without FCLC.
Parameters Case Study I Case Study II Case Study III
Zhoushan Xiamen Zhangbei I
HVDC project HVDC project HVDC project
Breaker inductance (Lb ) 37 mH 70 mH 115 mH
CLIs in FCLC (L1 = L2 = L3 ) 100 mH 100 mH 100 mH
Equivalent inductance for FCL1 300 mH 300 mH 300 mH
Equivalent inductance for FCL2 300 mH 300 mH 300 mH

Abbreviations: CLIs, current limiting inductors; FCLC, fault-current limiting circuit.

Table A.3 Barnes, M., Vilchis-Rodriguez, D.S., Pei, X., Shuttleworth, R., Cwikowski, O.,
Parameters used for experimental setup. Smith, A.C., 2020. HVDC circuit breakers–A review. IEEE Access 8,
Parameters Values 211829–211848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3039921.
british petroleum, 2020. Statistical review of world energy, UK. https://rb.gy/
Rated current 50 mA
0j90do (accessed Nov. 30, 2020).
Shunt resistance (Rshunt ) 10 
C-EPRI, 2014. Xiamen island VSC-HVDC demonstration project, China. http:
Load resistance (RL ) 75 
//www.cepri.com.cn/products/details_39_679.html (accessed Dec. 06, 2020).
Fault resistance (Rf ) 60 
Chen, Q., Qiu, P., Lu, Y., Huang, X., Wu, J., 2020. The principle and application
PDR 150 
effect of DC breaker and arm damping system. Energy Rep. 6, 220–227.
Breaker inductance (Lb ) 0.3 mH
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.257.
Equivalent inductance for HCB with FCLC 33 mH
Endesa’s Blog, 2019. Tesla versus Edison: the conflict that gave us alternat-
Abbreviations: FCLC, fault-current limiting circuit; PDR, power dissipating ing current. https://www.endesa.com/en/discover-energy/blogs/tesla-edison-
resistance. war.
Flourentzou, N., Agelidis, V.G., Demetriades, G.D., 2009. VSC-based HVDC power
transmission systems: An overview. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24 (3),
592–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2008.2008441.
Appendix Franck, C.M., 2011. HVDC circuit breakers: A review identifying future research
needs. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 26 (2), 998–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TPWRD.2010.2095889.
See Tables A.1–A.3.
Gu, H.Z.X., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Yan, Y., Cong, Y., Xie, S., 2018. Development and
qualification of the extruded cable system for xiamen ± 320 kV VSC-HVDC
project.
References Halder, T., 2013. Comparative study of HVDC and HVAC for a bulk power
transmission. In: 2013 International Conference on Power, Energy and
Control. ICPEC, pp. 139–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICPEC.2013.6527639.
A. by N.E.S. Writer, 1998. Making light of HVDC transmission in gotland. https:
Hassanpoor, A., Häfner, J., Jacobson, B., 2015. Technical assessment of load
//rb.gy/b2j9ic.
commutation switch in hybrid HVDC breaker. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
ABB Review, 2018. Evolution of HVDC light. https://new.abb.com/news/detail/ 30 (10), 5393–5400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2014.2372815.
4224/evolution-of-hvdc-lightr. IEA, 2020. World Energy Outlook 2020. IEA, Paris, https://rb.gy/zfzygt (accessed
Adams, S., Nsiah, C., 2019. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions; Does renewable Nov. 30, 2020).
energy matter? Sci. Total Environ. 693, 133288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2020. Renewable energy
scitotenv.2019.07.094. statistic 2020, abu dhabi.
Agelidis, V.G., Demetriades, G.D., Flourentzou, N., 2006. Recent advances in International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2021. Renewable capac-
high-voltage direct-current power transmission systems. In: 2006 IEEE In- ity statistics 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/
ternational Conference on Industrial Technology. pp. 206–213. http://dx.doi. IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Apr/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2021.pdf.
org/10.1109/ICIT.2006.372391. Jovcic, Dragan, 2019. VSC HVDC applications and topologies, performance
Ahmad, M., Wang, Z., 2019. A hybrid DC circuit breaker with fault-current- and cost comparison with LCC HVDC. In: High Voltage Direct Current
limiting capability for VSC-HVDC transmission system. Energies 12 (12), Transmission. Wiley, pp. 137–163.
2388. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en12122388. Kahia, M., Ben Jebli, M., Belloumi, M., 2019. Analysis of the impact of renewable
Ahmad, M., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., 2020a. High-voltage DC circuit breaker with energy consumption and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions
gradual fault-current limitation mechanism for VSC-HVDC applications. Int. in 12 MENA countries. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 21 (4), 871–885.
Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 30 (8), http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.12468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01676-2.
Ahmad, M., Zhixin, W., Yong, Z., 2020b. An improved fault current limiting circuit Krontiris, Athanasios, 2018. High-voltage direct current transmission enabling
for VSC-HVDC transmission system. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 118, single EU energy market. In: 15th International Conference on the European
105836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.105836. Energy Market, 27-29 JUNE 2018, Lodz, Poland. http://www.eem18.eu/gfx/
Azevedo, V.G., Sartori, S., Campos, L.M.S., 2018. CO2 emissions: A quantitative eem-network/userfiles/_public/eem18_lodz_krontiris.pdf (accessed Dec. 04,
analysis among the BRICS nations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 107–115. 2020).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.027. Lantero, Allison, 2014. The war of the currents: AC vs. DC power. https://www.
Bahrman, M.P., 2008. HVDC transmission overview. In: 2008 IEEE/PES Transmis- energy.gov/articles/war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power.
sion and Distribution Conference and Exposition. pp. 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/ Li, X.-P.Z. Zhou, Zhan, Ruopei, Li, Yazhou, He, Yan, Hou, Jinming, Zhao, Xiaol-
10.1109/TDC.2008.4517304. ing, 2018. Recent developments in HVDC transmission systems to support
Barnes, M., Beddard, A., 2012. Voltage source converter HVDC links–the state of renewable energy integration. Glob. Energy Interconnect. 1 (5), 595–607.
the art and issues going forward. Energy Procedia 24, 108–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.14171/j.2096-5117.gei.2018.05.009.

891
M. Ahmad, Z. Wang, M. Shafique et al.
Li, S., Zhang, J., Xu, J., Zhao, C., 2019. A new topology for current limiting
HVDC circuit breaker. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 104, 933–942. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2018.07.042.
Liu, J., Tai, N., Fan, C., Chen, S., 2017. A hybrid current-limiting circuit for DC
line fault in multiterminal VSC-HVDC system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 64
(7), 5595–5607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2017.2677311.
Liu, D., Wei, T., Huo, Q., Wu, L., 2015. DC side line-to-line fault analysis of VSC-
HVDC and DC-fault-clearing methods. In: 2015 5th International Conference
on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies.
DRPT, pp. 2395–2399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DRPT.2015.7432647.
Long, W., Nilsson, S., 2007. HVDC transmission: yesterday and today. IEEE Power
Energy Mag. 5 (2), 22–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPAE.2007.329175.
Magnusson, J., Saers, R., Liljestrand, L., Engdahl, G., 2014. Separation of the
energy absorption and overvoltage protection in solid-state breakers by the
use of parallel varistors. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 29 (6), 2715–2722.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2013.2272857.
Muniappan, M., 2021. A comprehensive review of DC fault protection methods
in HVDC transmission systems. Prot. Control Mod. Power Syst. 6 (1), 1.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41601-020-00173-9.
Nguyen, A.-D., Nguyen, T.-T., Kim, H.-M., 2016. A comparison of different hybrid
direct current circuit breakers for application in HVDC system. Int. J. Control
Autom. 9 (4), 381–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijca.2016.9.4.37.
Nix, Elizabeth, 2019. How Edison, Tesla and Westinghouse battled to
electrify America. https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-war-of-
the-currents.
Oni, O.E., Davidson, I.E., Mbangula, K.N.I., 2016. A review of LCC-HVDC and VSC-
HVDC technologies and applications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC.2016.
7555677.
Pang, H., Wei, X., 2018. Research on key technology and equipment for Zhangbei
500kV DC grid. In: 2018 International Power Electronics Conference (IPEC-
Niigata 2018 -ECCE Asia). pp. 2343–2351. http://dx.doi.org/10.23919/IPEC.
2018.8507575.
Peake, O., 2010. The history of high voltage direct current transmission. Aust.
J. Multi-Disciplinary Eng. 8 (1), 47–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14488388.
2010.11464824.
892
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 878–892
Peters, G.P., et al., 2020. Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst
slowly emerging climate policies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10 (1), 3–6. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0659-6.
Piaggio, M., Padilla, E., 2012. CO2 emissions and economic activity: Heterogeneity
across countries and non-stationary series. Energy Policy 46, 370–381. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.074.
Pipelzadeh, J.C. Yousef, Chaudhuri, Balarko, Green, Tim C., Wu, Yanan, Pang, Hui,
2015. Modelling and dynamic operation of the zhoushan DC grid: Worlds
first five-terminal VSC-HVDC project. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3449.
3202.
Saint Akadiri, S., Adewale Alola, A., Olasehinde-Williams, G., Udom Etokak-
pan, M., 2020. The role of electricity consumption, globalization and
economic growth in carbon dioxide emissions and its implications for
environmental sustainability targets. Sci. Total Environ. 708, 134653. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134653.
Sood, V.K., 2011. HVDC transmission. In: Power Electronics Handbook. Elsevier,
pp. 823–849.
Tang, G., He, Z., Pang, H., Huang, X., Zhang, X., 2015. Basic topology and key
devices of the five-terminal DC grid. CSEE J. Power Energy Syst. 1 (2), 22–35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17775/CSEEJPES.2015.00016.
Yang, J., Fletcher, J.E., O’Reilly, J., 2012. Short-circuit and ground fault analyses
and location in VSC-based DC network cables. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 59
(10), 3827–3837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2011.2162712.
Zhang, M., Shen, Y., Sun, H., Guo, R., 2020. MMC-HVDC circulating current
suppression method based on improved proportional resonance control.
Energy Rep. 6, 863–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.120.
Zhao, P., Chen, Q., Xing, L., 2015. DC fault analysis of VSC-HVDC and DC
cable protection principle. In: 2015 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy
Engineering Conference. APPEEC, pp. 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC.
2015.7380928.