2020 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020)
Enhancement of FRT Capability of DFIG Based
Wind Farm by a Hybrid Superconducting Fault
Current Limiter With Bias Magnetic Field
Md. Rashidul Islam1*, Dhrubo Das Abir1, Md. Rabiul Islam2, Jakir Hasan1, Md. Najmul Huda1, Kashem M Muttaqi2, Danny Sutanto2
1Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology, Rajshahi-6204, Bangladesh
2
School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
*
rashidul@eee.ruet.ac.bd
Abstract—Doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs) have
some enthralling features which made them one of the most
popular choices in power system. However, any kind of system
abnormalities will directly affect the DFIGs as their stator
windings are directly linked to the grid. To comply with the grid
code, every DFIG based wind farms are required to ride
through the fault keeping the healthy part of the system
undisturbed. So, fault ride through (FRT) capability
improvement is a mandatory requirement for every DFIG based
wind farms. Superconducting fault current limiters (SFCLs)
have been popular for decades in this regard. In this paper, a
new hybrid superconducting fault current limiter (HSFCL)
with bias magnetic field is put forth. The HSFCL is designed by
combining a double split reactor with a high temperature
superconducting (HTS) magnet which is non-inductive. For the
validation, its performance has been compared with that of
bridge-type fault current limiter (BFCL) and series dynamic
braking resistor (SDBR). MATLAB/Simulink environment is
used to perform the simulations. It has been found that, the
proposed HSFCL outperforms both BFCL and SDBR.
Keywords—Doubly fed induction generator (DFIG), fault ride
through (FRT), high temperature superconducting (HTS) magnet,
hybrid superconducting fault current limiter (HSFCL).
I. INTRODUCTION
Wind energy is considered to be the fastest growing and
most promising solution to the world's energy crisis because
of its easy availability, no carbon emission and most
importantly its renewable nature [1]. For the conversion of
wind energy into electrical energy, doubly fed induction
generator (DFIG) is preferred since it offers some exciting
features like operating capability at variable wind speed, lower
switching loss, providing improved output power, lower
maintenance etc. [2].
Though DFIGs provide some additional benefits, one of
the major drawbacks of them is that they are severely affected
by the grid faults as the stator windings of a DFIG are
interfaced to the grid directly. The stator windings of the DFIG
are linked with the grid by the grid side converter (GSC). The
GSC is then connected to the rotor side converter (RSC) via a
DC link capacitor.
Whenever any fault occurs into the system, the DFIG
terminal voltage becomes very low. As a result, high amount
of current passes through the stator and rotor winding [3]. This
may cause severe damage to the machines. Previously, in such
cases the wind turbines were disconnected from the grid which
was certainly not a wise decision. The DFIG must remain in
contact with the grid as per the grid codes. Hence, improving
the fault ride through (FRT) capability is the best solution to
overcome this problem.
So far, several proposals have been propounded to
improve the FRT capability of a wind farm. Among various
978-1-7281-4251-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
techniques, superconducting fault current limiters (SFCLs)
are one of the most popular and effective solutions in this
regard [4]. There are several types of SFCL proposed till now
such as transformer type, saturated iron-core type, resistive
type, flux lock type etc. [5]. But considering only the
impedance, two types of SFCLs can be stated i.e. resistive
type and inductive type [6].
In early 2019, a new type of SFCL has been proposed
which is known as hybrid SFCL [7]. Basically, a hybrid SFCL
is combined with a resistive type and an inductive type SFCL.
A combination of a reactor and a high temperature
superconducting (HTS) magnet is used to make up this fault
current limiter (FCL). The reactor has double split copper
windings and the HTS magnet is non-inductive in nature. This
hybrid superconducting fault current limiter (HSFCL) is
recently proposed FCL which is not been yet implemented in
renewable energy sources, not even in power systems. In this
study, this HSFCL is implemented in a grid connected DFIG
based wind farm and the performance is investigated. The
performance of the proposed HSFCL is compared with two
very renowned fault current limiters i.e. series dynamic
braking resistor (SDBR) [8] and bridge-type fault current
limiter (BFCL) [9] and results are presented.
II. WIND TURBINE MODELING
The power that is extracted from the wind imposed on the
turbine is the mechanical power and it can be expressed as
[10]:
1
πρ R Vw C p ( λ , β )
2 3 (1)
Pw =
2
where Pw is the mechanical power of the turbine,  is the
density of air, R is the radius of rotor blade, Vw denotes the
velocity of wind, Cp represents the coefficient of power,  is
the ratio of the tip speed and  is the blade pitch angle. Here
Cp is a function of  and . Cp can be further written as:
C5
§C · −λ
C p ( λ , β ) = C1 ¨ 2 − C3β − C4 ¸ e i + C6λ (2)
© λi ¹
1 1 0.035
= − (3)
λi λ + 0.08β β 3 + 1
here C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 are different constants that
define the turbine characteristics.
III. SYSTEM MODEL
In this work, a system consisting of a wind turbine and a
DFIG of 9 MVA has been considered as shown in Fig. 1. The
output achieved from the DFIG is stepped up by a step-up
transformer (0.69/66 KV) for efficient transmission. Finally,
1
 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020)

1.0
Rotor Side DC-link Stator Side Vpcc PI
+
PWM PWM Kp=10 Iqr
Inverter - 1
π Converter Ti=0.01
PI
θs =θPLL − E dc +
PI
- + 1+ 0.05s
6 Iabc Iabc Kp=1.9 0.01( ) Kp=0.9 Vdr* θ =θ − 2π fdt
PLL ³
6-pulses QDFIG
- 1+ 0.0009s r
Ti=0.03 Ti=0.007
Ia abc/dq PWM PWM abc/dq
Idg * -1
Ib abc Idq V
abc Idq Rotor Side Converter Control Block
Ia
PI dq/abc dq/abc PI Pref Idr 1 abc Idr
Ic dq0 Iqg Vdq Vdq Edc PDFIG +
PI
- 1+ 0.05s PI
*
Ib
Vpcc PDFIG Kp=1.9 + 0.01( ) Kp=0.9 V
- T i=0.03
1+ 0.0009s
Ti=0.007
qr Ic dq0 Iqr
Iqg
1 -1
Qgsc DFIG CB R+ jX CB
+ PI - 1+ 0.03s PI 0.69/66 KV
*
Qref =0 -
K p=2.1 + 0.06(
1+ 0.002s
) Kp=0.3 Vdg* Gear RSC GSC 0.0282 H
T i=0.05 Ti=0.009 Box 0.0292 
-1 Edc

Idg 1
Edc (pu) CB R+ jX CB
- PI PI  Bus
+ 1+ 0.03s HSFCL
Edc* = 1.0 Kp=2.1
- 0.06(
1+ 0.002s
) Kp=0.3 -1 Vqg* 0.0282 H
0.0292 
+ T i=0.05 Ti=0.009 VPCC
F
Grid Side Converter Control Block -1
Vdq,  > Vth : 1 Normal condition
Vdq,  < Vth : 0 Fault condition

Fig. 1. Diagram of the system model

the output is supplied to the parallel transmission lines which current i1 = i2. The flux of the two inductors counteract each
helps to provide reliable transmission of power. The parallel other due to their reverse dot position. Hence, the voltage drop
transmission lines are modeled with line impedances and across the reactor is nearly zero. Therefore, the HSFCL
circuit breakers. An auxiliary device (HSFCL) is inserted into behaves as a short circuit during the entire normal period. The
the transmission line for the purpose of protection of power coefficient of coupling k and the reactor leakage inductance L0
devices from external faults. can be denoted as:
The RSC is linked with the GSC through a DC link L0 = (1− k ) L / 2 (4)
capacitor. Both the RSC and the GSC are IGBT based full
During fault condition, the value of Rsc reaches in a state
bridge, six pulse, two level power converter. The RSC
of quench i.e. the value of impedance sharply increases. After
controls the output active and reactive powers by taking the
the first peak of fault current, circuit breaker SW is opened as
terminal/point of common coupling (PCC) voltage Vpcc, the
a result the branch L2 gets detached. Then, the fault current is
active power PDFIG and the reactive power QDFIG as inputs.
limited by the copper branch L1.
On the other hand, the GSC maintains the balance of energy
Double-split reactor
on each side of DC link by ensuring constant DC link voltage.
In this process, it takes DC link voltage Edc and reactive i1
power of the GSC QGSC as inputs. The DFIG parameters are L1
i
listed in Table I.
TABLE I. DFIG PARAMETERS L2
i2 Rsc SW
Rated power 9 MW Rated voltage 0.69 kV
Fig. 2. Architecture of HSFCL
Frequency 50 Hz Stator resistance 0.005 pu
Magnetizing 0.09321 C. HSFCL Design Considerations
3.95279 pu Stator leakage inductance
inductance pu The detailed design considerations of the proposed
Wound rotor leakage 0.09955 HSFCL is given below as derived from [7].
Inertia 0.80
inductance pu
1) Designing Double Split Reactor: The capacity of reactor
Wound rotor S can be represented as:
0.0055 pu Friction factor 0.01
resistance
S = UI = EI = ωW φ m I / 2 (5)
IV. HYBRID SUPERCONDUCTING FAULT CURRENT LIMITER
φm / 2 = BAc (6)
The detailed explanation of the proposed HSFCL is
provided in the following sub-sections. where U is the voltage, I denotes the reactor coil current, E is
A. Architecture of HSFCL the potential voltage of self-inductance, W stands for the
number of winding turns,  represents the angular frequency
Fig. 2 shows the architecture of the HSFCL with bias (rad/s), m denotes the maximum flux (Wb), B is the magnetic
magnetic field. The HSFCL mainly consists of two parts. First flux densities effective value (Wb/m2) and Ac is the equivalent
one is the double split reactor having two branches i.e. L1 and air gap area (m2).
L2. Here L1 = L2 = L. The two branches are reversely
connected at their same ends. Second one is the HTS magnet According to the law of whole current we can write,
Rsc which is non-inductive. The HTS magnet is connected in
series with branch L2 and circuit breaker SW. L2 is parallel with WI = H δ (7)
¦

( )
branch L1.
S = ω BH Acδ (8)
B. Operating Principle of HSFCL ¦
During normal condition, the circuit breaker SW is closed where H is the strength of the magnetic field (A/m),  is the
and the impedance of Rsc is zero. As a result, the branch total air gap length (m).

978-1-7281-4251-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 2

 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020)

2) Designing Non-Inductive HTS Magnet: The HTS
magnet which is non-inductive in nature is considered to be a
resistive type HTS element as shown in Fig. 3.
J 1(J) 2(J)
sat
Fig. 3. HTS element equivalent resistance model
where I denotes the operating current, d is the superconducting
tape density, C represents the thermal capacity, Top is
the operating temperature considered as 70 K, Tc is the critical
temperature considered as 92 K, T is the instantaneous
temperature and Jc (Top) is the density of critical current at Top.
The self-inductance L is considered to be 250 mH and the
value of the coupling coefficient k is considered to be 0.9 for
this work. So, the mutual inductance M can be calculated as:
2
M = k L1L2 = k L = kL (15)

The nonlinear function of piecewise resistivity has been Hence, after calculation the value of mutual inductance M
applied to achieve the V-I characteristics in accordance with is found to be 225 mH. Rsc is considered to be a variable
the different critical current multiples of the superconducting resistor for simulation purpose according to [7]. The
layer which satisfies the conditions (a) 0 < I < Ic, (b) Ic I < parameters of the HSFCL are listed in Table II.
Ic and (c) Ic I given in (9) and (10). sat represents the metal
stabilizer layer resistivity of HTS element. The HTS elements TABLE II. HSFCL PARAMETERS
equivalent resistivity  in HSFCL can be computed by (11). L k M Rsc
As a result, the HTS elements resistance Rsc can be computed
250 mH 0.9 225 mH 1.8 
by (12).

­ 0 J < Jc V. BRIDGE-TYPE FAULT CURRENT LIMITER

° n (9)
ρ1 = ® E § J ·1 The performance of BFCL to augment the FRT capability
0 J ≥ Jc
° J ¨ J − 1¸ of DFIG based wind farm is compared with that of proposed
¯ © c ¹ HSFCL to show the efficacy of the latter. The architecture of
BFCL and SDBR are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively.
­ 0 J < γ Jc In BFCL, an inductor and a resistor are connected in series
° n2 which is alternatively known as the shunt path. When there is
ρ 2 = ® E0 § J · (10)
°J J ¨ − γ ¸ J ≥ γ Jc no fault, the IGBT is ON and the shunt path is not in use.
¯ © c ¹ During fault, the IGBT is turned OFF as a result the bridge
circuit becomes open and the fault current gets diverted to the

ρ=
( ρ1 + ρ2 ) ⋅ ρsat (11)
shunt path. The high resistance and inductance of the shunt
path cease the fault current and the system is then stabilized.
ρ1 + ρ2 + ρ sat The whole process of BFCL’s IGBT gate control is illustrated
in Fig. 6. The detailed description and design consideration of

( ρ1 + ρ2 ) ⋅ ρsat ⋅ lsc
the BFCL are given in [9] which is followed in this paper. The
ρ lsc values of different components of a BFCL are shown in Table
Rsc = = (12) III. For making the comparison compatible, the value of Lsh is
A ρ1 + ρ 2 + ρ sat A kept same as the self-inductance L of HSFCL and the value of
Rsh is considered according to [9].
From (9) to (12), E0 represents the electric field which Lsh Rsh
corresponds with the critical current Ic, E0 = 1 uV/cm, n1 = 2.8,
n2 = 30, = 2 in accordance with the critical current Control
characteristics of HTS tape. The copper layer has a resistivity D1
Ldc
D2 IGBT
of sat = 3.95 ×10-9 /m. lsc is the length and A is the cross D5
sectional area of the superconducting tape. Rdc
Rsh
An adiabatic model has been considered for the calculation D3 Control IGBT D4
of the temperature distribution where the time of fault current
is too small and heat transfer tends to be almost negligible. Fig. 4. Architecture of BFCL Fig. 5. Architecture of SDBR
The temperature rise T and the critical current density Jc can
be expressed as: 1
To IGBT
Vd, Vdq, Gate
Vabc abc
Vdq,>Vth 1
1

A2+B2 Vth Vdq,<Vth

 2 dq
0 0 Vgi
I Rsc t  Vq,
ΔT =
0
(13)
d ⋅ A ⋅ lsc ⋅ c Fig. 6. BFCL and SDBR control with direct and quadrature axes voltage

­ (Tc − T )
( )
° J c Top Top < T < Tc
TABLE III. BFCL PARAMETERS
J c (T ) = ® (
Tc − Top ) (14) Rsh Lsh Rdc Ldc
° 18  250 mH 0.003  1 mH
¯ 0 T > Tc

978-1-7281-4251-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 3

 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020)

VI. SERIES DYNAMIC BRAKING RESISTOR 5

No controller
SDBRs are one of the popular FCLs in wind farm 4 SDBR [8]
technology. A comparison of the performances of the SDBR 3 BFCL [9]
and the proposed HSFCL is also carried out in this work. The HSFCL [Proposed]
2

Active power (pu)

structure of a SDBR is simple. It has a resistor and an IGBT
connected in parallel as shown in Fig. 5. The IGBT stays ON 1
during the whole normal time and turned OFF when there is 0
2
a fault in the system. The whole process works as shown in
Fig. 6. The detailed description of SDBR is given in [8]. To -1 1

make a compatible comparison, the value of shunt resistor is -2

0
considered 18  for both BFCL and SDBR.
-3
VII. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS -1
-4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Simulation results are demonstrated in the following -5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
subsections. The results are compared and apposite arguments
are provided. Time (s)
Fig. 8. Active power response for triple line to ground fault
A. Simulation Considerations
All the simulations were carried out in Matlab/Simulink 1.35
No controller
environment. The wind speed is kept at a constant speed of 14 SDBR [8]
1.3 BFCL [9]
m/s considering that the fault time is too small for the wind HSFCL [Proposed]
speed to have a noticeable change. Both symmetrical and

DFIG speed (pu )

unsymmetrical faults were implemented at point F in Fig. 1 to 1.25
examine the system response. Temporary faults were applied
at 0.1 s and lasted for 0.1 s. The opening of the circuit breakers 1.2
(CBs) was done at 0.2 s and reclosing at 1.2 s. The convention
of CB opening and closing is adopted from [9]. To compare 1.15
the system responses, four different conditions were
considered: 1.1
Case A: Using no auxiliary controller
Case B: Using SDBR [8] 1.05
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Case C: Using BFCL [9] Time (s)
Case D: Using HSFCL [Proposed] Fig. 9. Speed response for triple line to ground fault
B. Considering Symmetrical Fault
1.02
The responses of the system for triple line to ground (3LG) No controller
fault are shown in Figs. 7-11. Fig. 7 illustrates the terminal SDBR [8]
1.01 BFCL [9]
voltage of DFIG for a temporary symmetrical (3LG) fault. For HSFCL [Proposed]
DC link voltage (pu )

no controller, the voltage goes to zero and does not improve

until the faulty line’s CBs open. When SDBR and BFCL are 1
used, minimum voltage is improved to 0.85 pu and to 0.88 pu 1.003
respectively. But by implementing the proposed HSFCL, the 0.99
1.002
voltage further improved and it is found that the minimum
voltage is improved to 0.90 pu. Moreover, HSFCL shows 0.98 1.001
faster response to faults. This indicates that HSFCL is more 1
sensitive and provides better voltage stabilization than the
0.97
SDBR and BFCL. 0.999
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1.2
0.96
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1 Time (s)
No controller
Terminal voltage (pu)

SDBR [8] Fig. 10. DC link voltage response for triple line to ground fault
0.8 BFCL [9]
HSFCL [Proposed] Fig. 8 displays the active power response of DFIG during
1.05 3LG fault. For no controller, the response reaches very close
0.6 to zero and when the fault is cleared, the response has
1
0.95 overshoots and does not reach steady state. For SDBR, the
0.4 0.9 output power experiences severe fluctuations which is very
0.85 much harmful for the DFIG. By using BFCL and HSFCL, the
0.8
0.2 output power demand is the highest with least amount of
0.75
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 fluctuations. But the output power stabilizes faster when
0 HSFCL is used.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s) Fig. 9 displays the DFIG speed response for 3LG fault.
Fig. 7. Terminal voltage response for triple line to ground fault During faults, the speed of the DFIG goes very high and it

978-1-7281-4251-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 4

 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020)

5 5
No controller No controller
SDBR [8] 4 SDBR [8]
4 BFCL [9] BFCL [9]
HSFCL [Proposed] 3
HSFCL [Proposed]
2

Active power (pu)

DFIG current (pu)

3
1
2.5
2 0
2
-1 1.5
1 -2
1
0.5
-3 0
0 -0.5
-4 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

-1 -5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 11. DFIG current response for triple line to ground fault Fig. 13. Active power response for single line to ground fault
returns to the nominal value (1.2 pu) when fault is cleared. 1.35
No controller
SDBR, BFCL and HSFCL limit the rate of rise of DFIG SDBR [8]
speed but HSFCL shows better stability. HSFCL gives less 1.3 BFCL [9]
HSFCL [Proposed]
oscillations and returns to the nominal value much faster than

DFIG speed (pu)

SDBR and BFCL. 1.25
Fig. 10 illustrates the DC link voltage response for 3LG
fault. It is observed that, with the HSFCL, the DC link voltage 1.2
remains more constant compared to that for both SDBR and
BFCL. Fig. 11 represents the DFIG current response for 3LG 1.15
fault. The proposed HSFCL shows better performance here
too in suppressing DFIG current during fault condition than 1.1
the SDBR and BFCL.
1.05
C. Considering Unsymmetrical Fault 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s)
The responses of the system for single line to ground
(1LG) fault are shown in Figs. 12-16. The terminal voltage Fig. 14. Speed response for single line to ground fault
response for 1LG fault has been shown in Fig. 12. With no 1.02
controller, the terminal voltage drops to 0.6 pu. By using No controller
SDBR [8]
SDBR and BFCL, the voltage dip can be reduced. But for the 1.01 BFCL [9]
HSFCL, the voltage response is improved better than the HSFCL [Proposed]
DC link voltage (pu )

BFCL and SDBR. 1

1.2 1.003
0.99
1.002
1
0.98
No controller 1.001
Terminal voltage (pu)

SDBR [8]
0.8 BFCL [9] 0.97 1
HSFCL [Proposed]
1.05 0.96 0.999
0.6 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1

0.95 0.95
0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.9
Time (s)
0.85
0.2
0.8 Fig. 15. DC link voltage response for single line to ground fault
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

0 certainly shows better response than SDBR and BFCL. Also,

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Time (s)
Fig. 12. Terminal voltage response for single line to ground fault
Fig. 13 displays the active power response during 1LG
fault. For no controller, the response shows some
unacceptable spikes. For SDBR, the response experiences
some fluctuations. By using BFCL and HSFCL the response
can be improved. But HSFCL shows smoother and faster
response than BFCL.
Fig. 14 shows the speed response of the DFIG for 1LG
fault. It can be seen that, the speed response using HSFCL
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 the DC link voltage as shown in Fig. 15 is more constant for
HSFCL than that for the SDBR and BFCL during 1LG fault.
And for the DFIG current response, the HSFCL can limit more
fault current than SDBR and BFCL, which is clearly depicted
in Fig. 16.
D. Index-Based Comparisons
For the numerical verification, an index-based
comparison was performed in this work. The indices are
titled as vlt(pu.s), pow(pu.s), spd(pu.s), dclink(pu.s) and
cur(pu.s). The indices are calculated by using equations (16) 
(20).

978-1-7281-4251-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 5

 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Smart Grid and Renewable Energy (PESGRE2020)

5 From Tables IV and V it can be seen that the performance

No controller
SDBR [8]
4 BFCL [9]
HSFCL [Proposed]
DFIG current (pu)
indices are maximum for no controller. The values reduced a
lot when SDBR and BFCL are used. But when HSFCL is
used, the values of the indices are the least. This is true for

3
both symmetrical and unsymmetrical faults. Since the
performance of the FCLs are inversely related to their
percentage indices, it can be said that the HSFCL performs the
2 best to improve the system stability.

1 VIII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a HSFCL has been proposed to improve the
0
FRT capability of DFIG based wind farm. The performance
of the proposed HSFCL has been compared with SDBR and
-1 BFCL. Absence of any auxiliary controller is also taken into
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s) account while simulating. The comparison leads to the
following conclusions:
Fig. 16. DFIG current response for single line to ground fault 1) The HSFCL performs better than SDBR and BFCL
for the FRT capability improvement of DFIG based
T wind farms.
vlt ( pu.s) = ³ ΔV dt (16) 2) The response of the HSFCL is faster and much more
0
T efficient.
pow( pu.s ) = ³ ΔP dt (17) In our future work, a larger power system will be
0
T
considered where a wind farm of variable speed of high
spd ( pu.s ) = ³ Δω dt (18) capacity will be connected to it. Also, the HSFCL will be
0 optimally designed where the values of the self-inductances
T will be varied by latest nonlinear controllers. The proposed
dclink ( pu.s ) = ³ ΔVdc dt (19) HSFCL is intended to be used in other grid connected
0
T renewable energy system i.e. solar PV system, ocean energy
cur ( pu.s) = ³ ΔI dt (20) system etc.
0

REFERENCES
here V, P, , Vdc and I are the deviations of terminal [1] M. Lu, C. Chang, W. Lee, and L. Wang, “Combining the wind power
voltage, active power, DFIG speed, DC link voltage and DFIG generation system with energy storage equipment,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
current respectively. The indices are measured considering a Appl., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 2109  2115, Nov. 2009.
time interval of T from 0 to 1 s. Since the equations consist of [2] W. Qiao, G. K. Venayagamoorthy, and R. G. Harley, “Real-time
implementation of a STATCOM on a wind farm equipped with doubly
deviation terms, small value of indices resembles better FRT fed induction generators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 1, pp.
performance of the wind generator. The performance indices 98–107, Jan./Feb. 2009.
for symmetrical (3LG) and unsymmetrical (1LG) faults are [3] M. E. Elshiekh, D. A. Mansour, and A. M. Azmy, “Improving fault
shown in Table IV and V respectively. ride through capability of DFIG-based wind turbine using
superconducting fault current limiter,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.,
vol. 23, no. 3, p. 5601204, Jun. 2013.
TABLE IV. PERFORMANCE INDICES FOR SYMMETRICAL (3LG) FAULT [4] L. Ye and L. Z. Lin, “Study of superconducting fault current limiters
for system integration of wind farms,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.,
Indices
Index vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1233–1237, Jun. 2010.
Parameters (%) No [5] L. Chen, Y. Tang, Z. Li, L. Ren, J. Shi, and S. Cheng, “Current limiting
SDBR BFCL HSFCL
controller characteristics of a novel flux-coupling type superconducting fault
vlt (pu.s) 10.145 1.613 1.24 1.052 current limiter,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 20, no. 3, pp.
pow (pu.s) 27.327 12.281 7.151 6.243 1143–1146, Jun. 2010.
[6] Z. C. Zou, X. Y. Chen, C. S. Li, X. Y. Xiao, and Y. Zhang, “Conceptual
spd (pu.s) 0.869 0.441 0.101 0.071 design and evaluation of a resistive-type SFCL for efficient fault ride
dclink (pu.s) 0.112 0.037 0.034 0.032 through in a DFIG,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 26, no. 1, Jan.
2016, Art. ID. 5600209.
cur (pu.s) 21.706 18.976 2.654 2.548 [7] J. Zhu, Y. Zhao, P. Chen, S. Jiang, S. Wang, J. Fang, X. Zhao, and H.
Wang, “Magneto-thermal coupling design and performance
investigation of a novel hybrid superconducting fault current limiter
TABLE V. PERFORMANCE INDICES FOR UNSYMMETRICAL (1LG) FAULT (SFCL) with bias magnetic field based on Matlab/Simulink,” IEEE
Indices Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 29, no. 2, Mar. 2019.
Index [8] A. Causebrook, D. Atkinson, and A. Jack, “Fault ride-through of large
Parameters (%) No
SDBR BFCL HSFCL wind farms using series dynamic braking resistors (march 2007),”
controller
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 966–975, Aug. 2007.
vlt (pu.s) 3.982 1.355 0.669 0.347 [9] G. Rashid and M. H. Ali, “Transient stability enhancement of doubly
pow (pu.s) 11.808 8.234 4.386 3.284 fed induction machine-based wind generator by bridge-type fault
current limiter,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 939–
spd (pu.s) 0.291 0.064 0.058 0.047 947, Sept. 2015.
dclink (pu.s) 0.101 0.033 0.024 0.021 [10] M. R. Islam and M. R. I. Sheikh, “Transient stability enhancement of
DFIG based wind generator by switching frequency control strategy
cur (pu.s) 18.462 6.904 2.287 2.154 with parallel resonance fault current limiter,” Global J. Res. Eng., vol.
18, no. 1, pp. 39–48, Mar. 2018.

978-1-7281-4251-7/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 6