Survey of Fault Current Limiter (FCL) Technologies

1010760

Survey of Fault Current Limiter (FCL) Technologies

1010760 Technical Update, August 2005

EPRI Project Manager S. Eckroad

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT Center for Advanced Power Systems Karlsruhe Research Center

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379; voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This document was prepared by Center of Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) 2000 Levy Ave Tallahassee, FL 32304 Principal Investigator M. Steurer Karlsruhe Research Center Institute for Technical Physics Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany Principal Investigator M. Noe This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Survey of Fault Current Limiter (FCL) Technologies. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1010760.

iii

ABSTRACT
As power systems grow and become more interconnected, fault levels can increase beyond the capabilities of the existing equipment. Currently available solutions are very expensive and often come with significant operational disadvantages, such as increased impedance or outage time for fuse replacements. Power system operators have long wanted to have a means of reducing fault current levels while retaining the stiffness and continuous operability of the system. Therefore, over many decades, R&D projects have tried to develop technically feasible and economically viable new technologies to build fault current limiters (FCLs). This report compiles a comprehensive collection of currently pursued FCL technologies and compares them against each other to the best extent possible with data available through open literature. Keywords Current limiters Electrical fault currents Circuit Breakers Superconductors Substations

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1 2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................2-1 3 UTILITYS NEEDS SURVEY..................................................................................................3-1 Summary of Conclusions from Utility Survey .......................................................................3-1 Additional Analysis of Survey Data ......................................................................................3-2 Cross-question analysis: Q3 (Yes/No) and Q4 (Part A) .................................................3-2 4 FAULT CURRENT LIMITING TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................4-1 Special measure: sequential tripping ...................................................................................4-2 Topological measures ..........................................................................................................4-2 Introducing a higher voltage level ..................................................................................4-2 Splitting into sub-grids....................................................................................................4-3 Splitting of bus-bars .......................................................................................................4-3 Apparatus measures with permanent impedance increase .................................................4-3 Fuse based devices .............................................................................................................4-3 Stand alone HV fuses ....................................................................................................4-4 Commutation fuse-based limiters...................................................................................4-4 Novel concepts based on superconductors (SCFCLs) ........................................................4-5 Two fundamental principles and common issues...........................................................4-5 Shielded core .................................................................................................................4-6 Resistive type.................................................................................................................4-7 Saturable magnetic core ..............................................................................................4-12 Novel concepts based on semiconductors.........................................................................4-14 Solid-state fault current limiting circuit breaker.............................................................4-14 Power electronic arrangements with DC coils..............................................................4-16 Controlled LC resonance circuits .................................................................................4-17 Inverter based FACTS devices ....................................................................................4-19 Other novel concepts .........................................................................................................4-20 Room temperature PTC Resistor ..............................................................................4-20 Hybrid switching systems .............................................................................................4-20 Liquid metal (LM) FCL..................................................................................................4-21 5 COMPARISON OF FCL TECHNOLOGIES ...........................................................................5-1 Ideal and real FCL characteristics........................................................................................5-1 Desirable attributes of the ideal FCL ...........................................................................5-2 Comparison of novel FCL technologies ...............................................................................5-3 Discussion and comparisons with traditional measures...............................................5-11 6 FCL APPLICATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES .....................................................6-1
vii

Application examples for distribution level FCLs..................................................................6-1 Bus bar coupling in substations .....................................................................................6-2 Coupling of dispersed generation and new generators..................................................6-2 Application examples for transmission level FCLs...............................................................6-4 Coupling of sub grids .....................................................................................................6-4 Coupling of transmission level substations ....................................................................6-5 Possible FCL applications at voltage levels larger than 300 kV.....................................6-5 Implementation issues .........................................................................................................6-6 Testing procedures and specifications ...........................................................................6-6 Impact on system protection ..........................................................................................6-7 7 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................7-1 8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................8-1

viii

1
INTRODUCTION
In electric power transmission and distribution systems a significant effort is necessary to manage fault situations. Since the system is voltage driven, impedances between sources and loads have to be kept small (typically 5%-15% on a per unit base). While this ensures a large degree of independency between the voltage profile in a system and its loads, currents due to short circuit (fault) situations become very large (5-20 or even more times the rated current). The fundamental problems with high fault currents are: High mechanical dynamic stress due to electromagnetic forces throughout the system and in any apparatus carrying the fault current. Adequate mechanical reinforcement must ensure that equipment can withstand these stresses. High thermal stress, especially at the fault location where arcing takes place. The physical difficulties of high current interruption lead to the need for sophisticated mechanical contact systems (circuit breakers).

While the measures to cope with high fault currents are expensive, the technology exists and is used every day very satisfactorily in practice. However, it is evident that with the growth of the electricity demand utilities have been upgrading their systems continuously for higher power transfer capability and, consequently, for higher fault current handling capability. In addition, the increasingly stronger interconnection of the power system pushes the fault current level beyond the level expected from the load and supply growth. A more closely coupled system not only exhibits reduced source impedance values from parallel paths but also an increased number of sources possibly contributing to a fault. Especially the increased number of fault current sources can cause significant challenges for utilities since circuit breakers of adequately high fault current interruption capability become more expensive, require more space to install, may only be available from one or two vendors, or may not even available at all (e.g. high voltage breakers beyond 80 kA). Since all commercially available measures for reducing the fault current level come with significant operational disadvantages (i.e. increased impedance or outage time for fuse replacements) it is a long lasting desire of power system operators to have a means of reducing fault current levels while retaining the stiffness and continuous operability of the system. Therefore, over many decades R&D projects have tried to develop technically feasible and economically viable new technologies to build so-called fault current limiters (FCLs). The discovery of high temperature superconducting (HTS) materials some 20 years ago triggered a new wave of effort in this direction. While the efforts to develop superconducting FCLs (SCFCLs) for distribution voltage levels have produced several successful demonstration projects, only recently have SCFCL prototypes demonstrated real potential for commercialization in utility applications. These developments promise a good chance to yield economically viable FCL devices that can satisfy the ever-growing demand for transmissionvoltage-level applications.
1-1

For utility personnel tasked with the long-term planning of future infrastructure improvements in order to cope with increasingly higher fault currents one major challenge is to follow, and to compare, the various ongoing FCL technology R&D efforts. Existing literature is either already over ten years old [1], [2] or does not provide a comparison between technologies [3]. Therefore, this report compiles a comprehensive collection of currently pursued FCL technologies and compares them against each other to the best extent possible with data available through open literature. The initial hope of this project was to provide, if possible, economic comparisons among technology and operations options. However, the available data were simply insufficient for an adequate analysis. In particular, cost information for many of the novel or prototype FCL devices discussed herein could not be obtained from the open literature. In the two years since this project began there has been a phenomenal increase in development activity for FCLs. Even as this report was being completed to meet pre-established publishing deadlines, the project team was learning of new devices and approaches. Thus, not all currently existing FCL projects could be included into the technology comparison of this report. While there is a chance that we have not been aware of a specific project, the following projects have been identified as requiring closer investigations in the future (although they might be very briefly listed in the report but not compared with other technologies): Smart wires by Georgia Tech NEETRAC [4] Liquid metal FCL by ABB Switzerland kA [5] Multi-Mode Static Series Compensator by Mitsubishi Electric Saturated core type SCFCL by SC Power Systems [6], [7] SCCL a new FACTS-based fault current limiter by SIEMENS [8]

1-2

2
METHODOLOGY
The first phase of this project conducted a survey of utility needs and perspectives with respect to FCLs [9]. After review of these results by industry advisors it was suggested to carry out additional analyses of the survey results. This was done and additional insights into the growing need by utilities for better fault current limiting methods in the near future are reported (Chapter 3). A major component of the second phase of this project was a systematic survey of the various different methods for reducing fault currents in electric distribution and transmission systems. A wide range of approaches to limiting fault current were identified and described in detail with an emphasis on novel methods such as power electronic (solid-state) and superconducting FCLs. Data and information presented are almost exclusively obtained from literature. Nevertheless, part of the data is also from the project teams knowledge supported with known references. The results are provided in Chapter 4. Next, a comparison of features relevant to the applications in utility networks of the novel FCL methods currently under development or with recent results was undertaken. The results of the comparison are given in Chapter 5. Finally, examples for possible distribution and transmission level applications and implementation issues of novel FCL technologies are discussed in Chapter 6.

2-1

3
UTILITYS NEEDS SURVEY
As preparation for the present study of FCL technologies, a survey amongst utilities regarding their needs and concerns with respect to FCLs was conducted and reported in EPRI reports 1008696 and 1008694 [9]. The initial observations and conclusions from that report are given below.

Summary of Conclusions from Utility Survey

In summary, the following main conclusions are drawn from the results of the utility needs survey: Utilities are seriously re-assessing fault current mitigation methods. They consider emerging novel FCL technologies as vital alternatives to existing methods, provided these technologies prove to be the most cost effective means of fault current management. A number of comprehensive cost-benefit studies may be needed to better understand the full implications of massive FCL penetration. It appears that novel FCL solutions may expect a modest market for circuit breaker replacement in the next decade. (Survey results indicate that up to 20% of utilities expecting to replace 5 to 10% of their circuit breakers in the next 10 years would use a FCL device priced at 1 to 5 times a circuit breaker. Utilities having a greater expectation for circuit breaker replacement are even more likely to use an FCL the percentage increases to 30% of utilities when the range of circuit breaker replacement need expands to 5 to 30%.) It is assumed that the FCL is equivalent to the circuit breaker in all other respects (e.g., reliability, compatibility with protection, ease of installation, operation and maintenance, etc.). Particularly in cases where breakers with the required ratings are not available, or where excessive fault current levels carry more than only cost of a breaker upgrade alone, 50% of the utilities value a FCL at 2-5 times the cost of a breaker. The true impact of FCLs on protection system is not well understood. Responses have indicated a rather ambivalent opinion amongst utilities about this topic. Ongoing research in this area is very limited (only CIGRE WG.A3-16 is actively investigating this issue and there is no equivalent activity in the US at this time) and should be pursued more intensively in the future. The use of superconducting cables may increase the need for FCLs, particularly in transmission applications, where mitigation of cryogenic system recovery time after a fault is a serious issue in post-fault scenarios. Thus, the combination of superconducting cables and FCLs should be investigated more thoroughly as 60% of the responders have indicated they would consider superconducting cables as a vital alternative to increase transmission capacity and mitigate transmission bottlenecks.

3-1

In order to increase acceptance amongst utilities for novel FCL technologies any (technical) evaluation of these technologies should focus mainly on applications and the impact on the grid. It may be beneficial to initiate representative case studies for different types of FCL applications.

Additional Analysis of Survey Data

After the survey of these utility needs was completed (in late 2004) the question arose if possibly the number of future FCL applications (estimated approximately 500 1000 over the next 10 years) could have been underestimated due to the limited perspectives of those surveyed. One strong reason for expecting a larger demand for FCLs than estimated by the survey, is that the increasing number of independent power providers (IPPs) and/or distributed generators (DGs) who will connect to the grid may have not been reflected adequately in survey responses from utility planners. Utility respondents probably did not consider fault current mitigation needs arising from these sources as part of their own planning projections, as these requirements would likely have been considered the responsibility of the independent generators. Therefore, additional analysis was performed on the original data to help clarify this question. Cross-question analysis: Q3 (Yes/No) and Q4 (Part A) Q3 asked Are changes in your system or your regulatory environment causing you to reassess future measures of limiting fault currents? (Yes or No). Q4 asked On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the likelihood of the following reasons to cause short circuit levels in your network to exceed the ratings of existing circuit breakers. Answers to Q3 (Part A) showed 18 out of the 28 responders (64%) reassess future measures of limiting fault currents due to changes in their regulatory environment. When combined with answers to Q4 as shown in Table 3-1, the new results indicate that these utilities will have their fault handling measures impacted the most due to new generation and to interconnection of networks. Furthermore, 40% of utilities in this category (i.e., those who answered yes to Q3) have a high concern with the impact of new generation and the interconnection of networks on short circuit levels in their network. From these additional results it can be concluded that among those who have been inclined to reassess their fault current mitigation methods because of changes in their regulatory environment there is a high concern for new generation. However, this analysis does not shed light on who respondents perceived to be responsible to implement the fault current mitigation methods the utility or the new generation supplier. In other words, the analysis does not show whether the high concern expressed by respondents for the impact of new generation translated into correspondingly higher estimates of the number of needed circuit breaker upgrades and the likelihood of the installing FCLs in those scenarios. Thus, it is recommended that this issue should be addressed more specifically in a follow-up survey.

3-2

Table 3-1 Cross-question analysis of Q3 (Yes or No) and Q4 (Part A)

Likelihood of reason to cause fualt current levels to exceed CB ratings Need for Reassement Yes Low Reason Interconnection of networks Deregulation Load growth New generation New transmission capacity No Interconnection of networks Deregulation Load growth New generation New transmission capacity 4 6 4 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 4 5 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 3 3 4 2 1 0 4 4 3 0 1 2 1 5 2 9 Low- Med Med Med High 2 4 5 8 4 High

7 5 3 7 4

3-3

4
FAULT CURRENT LIMITING TECHNOLOGIES
This chapter describes the various fault current limiting measures employed by utility companies today. As shown in Figure 4-1 these measures or can be classified into two sets of categories: Permanent and condition based impedance increase, or Topological and apparatus measures.

As opposed to classifications found in the literature we use the terms Permanent impedance increase and Condition based impedance increase instead of passive and active. This is because passive and active should be used for classifying the operating principle of any of the apparatus measures. For example, a stand-alone HV fuse is a passive device, whereas a thyristor controlled FCL breaker is an active device. However, both introduce condition based impedance upon fault occurrence. The former does not require external triggering and will naturally insert its impedance if overstressed whereas the latter requires active triggering and may even fail shorted which, consequently, does not yield current limiting.
Permanent impedance increase during nominal and fault conditions Condition based impedance increase Small impedance at nominal loa d fast increase of impe dance at fault

Splitting into sub grids High impedance transformers Introducing a higher voltage ra nge Splitting of bus bars Current limiting (air core) reactors

Fuse based devices (< 36 kV)

Stand alone HV fuse (< 1 kA) Commutating Current Limiters (< 5 kA)

novel concepts Superconductors Se miconductors Hy brid systems

Topologica l measures Sequential tripping

Figure 4-1 Systematic of fault current limiting methods

Apparatus measures (active or passive)

4-1

Special measure: sequential tripping

Sequential tripping of circuit breakers is a special measure occasionally used in substations to manage high fault currents without replacing all circuit breakers. Figure 4-2 illustrates the method. In a substation with two busses the two feeders (C and D) are connected to two sources (A and B). All the breakers (A1 through D2) can handle the maximum fault current, for example in case of a fault at feeder C with both sources contributing. When a new source (N) shall be added, the total fault current may exceed the ratings of the existing breakers. If only those interrupting ratings are of concern while all the equipment can carry the increased fault current a sequential tripping scheme may be applied to avoid upgrading of breakers A1 through D2. In that case, the new breaker (N1 or N2) is tripped first while the tripping signals for the existing breakers are delayed until source N is disconnected. This measure may be considered a fault current limiting measure since it reduces the fault current duty of the interrupting device (circuit breaker) by changing the system topology during the fault. From that viewpoint it is a mix between a topological and an apparatus measure. However, sequential tripping does not reduce the overall fault level on the system. Furthermore, it poses an increased reliability risk and may overstress equipment over a longer period of time.

N1

A1

B1

C1

D1

N2

A2

B2

C2

D2

Source N (New)

Source A

Source B

Feeder C

Feeder D

Figure 4-2 Illustrating the sequential tripping scheme

Topological measures
Topological measures for fault current limitation are summarized below. Any measure that reduces the degree of meshing (e.g. splitting into sub-grids or bus-bar splitting) naturally reduces the stiffness of the system. Introducing a higher voltage level The choice of a particular voltage level for (new) transmission and distribution systems is governed primarily by the desired power ratings. The objective is to keep rated current levels within the standard brackets of commercially available equipment, especially circuit breakers (e.g. IEEE C37). These brackets typically provide enough margin with respect to short circuit power at any given voltage level. Nevertheless, depending on the constraint of the applications
4-2

(e.g. grid density, nearby generation) the short circuit power may exceed the ratings of the available equipment. This may require choosing a higher voltage level based on the short circuit capability of the equipment. All these considerations will play a role when designing new systems. In case of existing systems, increasing the voltage level is more likely a viable option for medium voltage levels where the increase in system voltage can be accommodated more easily within the same or similar geometrical constraints by simply installing more modern equipment. In high voltage systems, increasing the voltage level often is associated with major investments and thus not a preferred option in many cases. Finally, the introduction of another (new) superimposed transmission system with higher voltage level is also an option. It allows the splitting of the subordinate systems in order to reduce fault current levels there. However, such measures are of very large scale and typically part of a comprehensive upgrade program as opposed to a local fault current mitigation measure. Splitting into sub-grids This term refers to a measure whereby a grid (with one common voltage level) is divided into smaller portions which are then fed separately from the next higher voltage level. The splitting reduces the fault current level in each of the sub grids to the allowable level. Splitting of bus-bars The most common practice of fault current limitation by means of topological measures is the splitting of bus-bars within a substation. In many cases up rating of a substation at one point in time required that existing bus-tie breakers have to be left open in order to not exceed existing breaker ratings.

Apparatus measures with permanent impedance increase

The two options are similar as they both introduce additional reactive impedance into the system permanently. Current limiting reactors are typically installed as an upgrade measure, i.e. when the fault level in a system has increased over time. Since exchanging transformers is much more costly, installing transformers with a higher impedance (typically 10% to 25%) will more likely be a measure on new systems or part of a system upgrade.

Fuse based devices

Fuses are the most common device based fault current management measures used in power systems. Not all fuse types are necessarily current limiting since this feature requires for the fuse to develop high enough arcing voltage after trigger to effectively limit the current. Fuse based devices cover voltages up to 72.5 kV. Two major categories of current limiting fuse based devices can be distinguished as described below.

4-3

Stand alone HV fuses A stand-alone HV fuse is a device which carries the load current directly through the active (melting) element. The design is somewhat more complex than any low voltage fuse in order to develop high enough arcing voltage for the high voltage application. Otherwise, the basic principle is the same. Resistive heating of the fuse element due to over currents of fault currents causes it to melt within a certain time interval. This pre-arcing time is a function of the fault current with a characteristic determined by the design (e.g. the voltage level). Therefore, the tripping characteristic of a specific HV fuse cannot be changed in the field. Some HV current limiting fuses are fitted with a so-called striker mechanism. This not only provides a visual indication that the fuse has operated, but can also be used to operate other switchgear. In this way, a fuse on a single-phase system can cut off all three phases if a fault occurs. Due to the fact that the load current is carried directly by the active (melting) element, the thermodynamic design requirements only allow for rated currents of typically less than several hundred amps. For currents in excess of that stand-alone HV fuses are not available. Interrupting ratings typically range up to 63 kA. Stand-alone HV fuses are widely used to protect feeders and apparatus such as transformers in medium voltage distribution systems and motors in industrial systems. Commutation fuse-based limiters In order to overcome the rated current restrictions of HV fuses a special fuse-based device has been developed. Figure 4-3 shows the active parts of the so-called Is-limiter from ABB Calor Emag (Germany) [10] (a similar device is available from G&W Electric in the USA). The load current does not flow through the fuse but through a parallel path (9) which is opened by means of an explosive charge (10) when a fault is detected by the trigger unit. Therefore, thermodynamic requirements of the stand-alone fuse do no longer govern the design of the fuse element in the Is-limiter. Consequently, this allows for significantly higher rated currents. For example, the Is-limiter is available up to 4 kA rated current (at 17.5 kV) and up to 2.5 kA (at 40.5 kV). For higher load currents, two or more Is-limiters can be installed and operated in parallel provided equal current sharing is guaranteed by proper special arrangements. Interrupting ratings range from 140 kA (at 40.5 kV) to 210 kA (at 17.5 kV). The external trigger circuitry allows for a more flexible setting of the tripping characteristic. Tripping can be blocked or the tripping level can be changed if system conditions require a new setting. Because of their higher current ratings commutation fuse-based limiters are often used in substation bus ties and to protect generators which are tied directly into the medium voltage network.

4-4

Load current path

Figure 4-3 Is-limiter

Commutation fuse-based limiters can also be installed in parallel to a current limiting reactor (bypass). In such an application the impedance of the reactor is inserted only during a fault (when the fuse-based limiter has triggered). This improves voltage regulation and stability during normal operation (reactor bypassed) while maintaining the supply after the fault has been cleared elsewhere in the system.

Novel concepts based on superconductors (SCFCLs)

A FCL employing superconductors is commonly referred to as a superconducting fault current limiter (SCFCL). Ever since the discovery of superconductors and the highly non-linear characteristics of their quench, i.e. the transition between the superconducting and the normal conducting regime, many different designs of FCLs based on SC have been proposed, developed, and demonstrated. Except for designs employing magnetic coupling between windings all SCFCL designs are, in principle, also applicable for DC. However, because the scope of this work is AC utility systems DC devices will not be discussed here. Two fundamental principles and common issues Superconductors are employed for designing FCLs in two fundamentally different ways: Utilizing the quench as the primary mechanism to switch from low impedance to high impedance. The low resistive losses in the superconducting domain are also utilized to reduce normal operating losses.

4-5

The superconductor is used as conductor of a DC magnet system and remains superconducting even during the current limiting event. In principle, the mechanism for limiting the fault current does not require a superconductor. The latter is only required to reduce normal operating losses to an acceptable level.

A number of fundamental issues govern the research and development of SCFCLs: AC losses in superconductors are a problem the SCFCL shares with other superconducting AC power applications such as transformers and cables. Particular to SCFCLs is the fact that the superconductor geometry cannot always be optimized for smallest AC losses due to other design constraints (e.g. high resistivity in the normal conducting regime). Non-uniform quench behavior or hot spots are problem for all SCFCLs which utilize the quench as the transition mechanism for the impedance increase. Cryogenic dielectrics is of particular concern for SCFCLs for two main reasons: the design often requires geometries which are sub-optimal with respect to electric field uniformity (e.g. as opposed to a superconducting cable) and, in gas bubbles during the quench significantly reduce the dielectric strength o the insulation in case liquid Nitrogen is used as coolant. In addition, all the common cryogenic dielectric design issues apply to SCFCLs in the same way as to other power applications of superconductors.

The following sections provide an overview on the different types of SCFCL designs and a brief description of specific projects currently pursued by R&D groups worldwide. Shielded core The very first SCFCL ever installed in the field in 1996 was manufactured by ABB [11]. It was of the shielded core type, where the superconducting element is not physically connected into the power circuit but coupled into it by means of a series transformer. The principle is depicted in Figure 4-4. In particular, the secondary side of the coupling transformer is a single turn of SC material. Its advantage is two fold: 1) No current leads are required into the cryogenic environment which substantially reduces the refrigeration requirements, and 2) with the additionally free parameter of the turns ratio between the line side winding and the SC side single-turn the SC material is better utilized as a high-current device which reduces the hot-spot problem. Although the ABB device worked very well during a one-year endurance test in a Swiss power plant the concept was finally abandoned since it requires approximately four times the size and weight compared to the pure resistive type SCFCL [12]. There are still a few small, mostly university based academic projects active that utilize the shielded core type, but the prospect of this type of SC limiter to be economically competitive is very low. Therefore, this type will not be discussed further in this report.

4-6

Scheme
LN2 Iron core Superconductor Copper winding (L1) Cryostat
Figure 4-4 Principle of the shielded core type SCFCL
ip

Equivalent circuit
R1
L1 L2 A i2 Crygenic environme nt B

RSC

Resistive type The most compact SCFCL design up to date can be achieved by the so-called resistive type design. It employs the superconducting material as the main (load) current carrying conductor under normal operation. In AC applications, the superconductor is therefore subject to AC losses which, together with the losses in the current leads, are the major loss components in normal operation (plus the no load heat losses through the cryostat). When the fault occurs, the superconductor quenches which increases its resistance by several orders of magnitudes. This highly non-linear increase in resistance requires an impedance element to be provided in parallel to the superconductor in order to avoid its thermal destruction. This element also avoids excessive over voltages from the power network (line inductance) since the superconductor alone would, like an ideal switch, effectively turn-off the fault current within the first half cycle. The principle of a resistive type SCFCL is depicted in Figure 4-5. The superconductor is represented by RSC in parallel with the resistive and/or inductive shunt element RP/LP. During normal operation the line current flows entirely through the superconductor, i.e. iSC = iLINE, while RSC is still extremely small1. When a fault occurs and the current rises above the critical current RSC increases rapidly and the fault current commutates nearly completely into the parallel impedance. During that transition the voltage across the device may be somewhat higher than the voltage after the quench depending on the loop inductance of the parallel circuit.
Crygenic environment

iP iLINE
A iSC

Rp / LP

CB R SC
B

Figure 4-5 Resistive type SCFCL principle with shunt element completely in the cold environment Typical values for the voltage per unit length in the superconducting stage ( 1 Vcm-1) versus the fully quenched state (0.115 Vcm-1) together with an estimate of the voltage drop across the SCFCL required for limiting the current (0.21 times the line voltage) yields a very small value of (410-810-5) pu for RSC during normal operation (in the superconducting stage).
1

4-7

It shall be noted that the impedance characteristic of the resistive type SCFCL after a quench is essentially governed by the shunt element. Therefore, it is possible that a resistive type SCFCL may introduce significant inductance into the power system during a fault if the shunt element is highly inductive. Various resistive type SCFCL projects and some of their specifics are discussed below. The intend is to introduce the project and proved a broad overview with references to the appropriate literature. A comprehensive comparison between technologies and project is given later in chapter 5. CURL10 Initiated as a reasonable step towards the development of a 110 kV class SCFCL the German CURL10 project developed, built, and tested a 10 kV class 10 MVA SCFCL based on BSCCO 2212 bulk material. After a 4 year duration the project was completed in March 2004 with the successful installation of the demonstrator device in the grid of RWE. The field test was stopped after one year of Rreliable operation and successful test (but no short circuit during that time) in March 2005. Up to date the CURL10 device has been the most powerful SCFCL ever tested in the field. Figure 4-6 depicts the device and the cold mass.

Cryocooler

10 kV bushings

(a)

(b)

Cryostat

HTS elements

Figure 4-6 CURL10 device (a), with cold mass removed from the cryostat (b)

Amongst the partners involved where [13]: ACCEL as the project coordinator was responsible for cryostat, cooling and system integration. Nexans SuperConductors developed and manufactured the superconducting components used in the test device (ATZ Adelwitz developed components based on an alternative material option YBCO).

4-8

The two largest German utilities, RWE and E.ON defined a set of specifications, organized the laboratory tests at FGH Mannheim, and RWE installed the demonstrator in the grid. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe supported the component development by testing and characterizing material and single components and contributed to the important electrical insulation. In addition there was ATZ (YBCO development), EUS (power system simulation) and ACCESS (FEM simulation) as project partners. This project was funded by BMBF, the German ministry of education and research.

As shown in Figure 4-7 the superconducting elements employed in the CURL10 device exhibit the following distinct features: The current flows in a bi-filar coil structure which is machined from the raw BSCCO 2212 tubes. This guarantees long conductor length for voltage guild-up within a highly compact geometry. It also ensures a low-inductive design of the device required to minimize the voltage drop during normal operation. Along the entire length of the superconducting material it is bonded directly to a sheet-like shunt resistor made of a Cu/Ni-alloy in order avoid hot-spots during the current limitation phase. The loop inductance between the HTS element and the shunt is negligible and does not cause any measurable transient over voltage during the fast transition of the current from the HTS material to the shunt. However, the metallic shunt material limits the maximum electric field strength during the quench to approximately 0.6 V/cm.

Supersolder shunt conductor

Photo: Nexans SuperConductors

stabilisation insulation

Figure 4-7 CURL10 HTS elements

Despite the very successful tests of the CURL10 device the developers conclude that the challenge remains to develop a limiting system for the transmission level (100 kV) where alternative technologies are completely missing and an economically viable application is very likely. Although technically probably feasible, a system based on the presently developed components (bifilar coil) will not be viable from the economic point of view (3000 components for a 110 kV/350 MVA system and high voltage issues). [13].

4-9

ABBs resistive SCFCL For over 10 years ABB Switzerland has pursued R&D on superconducting FCL devices based on their own BSCCO 2212 material development. After the successful test of a shielded iron core type SCFCL in 1996 (see project description above) the R&D focused on the development of a resistive type FCL. Finally, in 2001 ABB tested its 6.4 MVA single-phase resistive SCFCL device at 8 kV in the ABB Power lab in Baden, Switzerland [14]. Instead of tubes (as in the CURL10 device) this design used BSCCO 2212 HTS elements cast into plates and machined into a meander form. Stainless steel is used as the shunt material bonded to the HTS material for hot-spot prevention. Figure 4-8 depicts one of many single BSCCO 2212 meander plates (a) which compose a complete SCFCL module (b). Since 2001 no major development on SCFCL has been reported by ABB.

(a)

Photos : ABB

(b)

Figure 4-8 ABBs BSCCO 2212 meander plates (a) are stacked to compact modules (b)

SIEMENS resistive SCFCL A 3-phase superconducting fault current limiter with 1.25 MVA protected power at a rated voltage of 7.2 kV and a rated current of 0.1 kA was built and tested by Siemens in 2003. Figure 4-9 depicts the device and its HTS components [15]. This device is based on YBCO thin film technology [16], [17]. Although this technology has proven to be very effective for FCL applications Siemens has discontinued this project and does no longer pursue YBCO thin film technology for FCL applications. Apparently, the high cost for the YBCO thin film HTS elements make this technology economically unattractive [15].

4-10

Figure 4-9 Siemens 1.25 MVA SCFCL

Matrix Fault Current Limiter (MFCL) The MFCL project led by SuperPower Inc. in Schenectady, NY, USA, was started in mid 2002 with the goal to demonstrate the feasibility of the MFCL concept (see explanations below) at transmission level voltages of 138 kV. Additional partners in the project are [18]: Nexans SuperConductors developed and manufactured the superconducting elements. DOE National Labs (e.g. ORNL on high voltage development) DOE and EPRI as additional funding sponsors

The name matrix FCL (MFCL) stems form the matrix-like arrangement of the HTS elements to achieve high voltage and current ratings as depicted in Figure 4-10. The resistive HTS elements are protected against overheating by shunt elements which, in contrasts to other resistive SCFCL designs, are not bonded with the surface of the HTS elements. This additional degree of freedom allows for this shunt to be designed as a mostly inductive element thus reducing the overall energy dissipation into the cryogenic environment during a fault current limiting event significantly. As a consequence, the MFCL introduces a highly inductive impedance into the system during a fault. Not shown in Figure 4-10 is the proprietary arrangement of trigger elements which are required to provide additional magnetic field for quench initiation and quench assistance. It is the effect of the additional magnetic field acting on the HTS elements which allows for the utilization of the much simpler HTS tubes in the MFCL concept compared to the bi-filar coils in the CURL10 device. Furthermore, the magnetic field effect results in an increase of the maximum electric field strength during the quench to approximately 6 V/cm, a 10-fold increase compared to the bi-

4-11

filar coils. This reduces the required length of HTS material for a given voltage level by a factor of 10 which in turn reduces AC losses and HTS material by that same factor. A more comprehensive comparison between the MFCL tubes and the CURL10 bi-filar coils is given in [19] where also results from pre-prototype tests at medium voltage are presented.
columns - current limiting impedance required
Current-limiting Module-1

Current-limiting Module-2

Current-limiting Module-m

R11

R21

Rm1

HTS element

rows - peak normal operating current

Current-limiting matrix element -1

L 11

L 21 R22

L m1

R12
Current-limiting matrix el ement -2

Rm2

Shunt element

iLINE A

L 12

L 22

L m2

CB

B
R1n

R2n

Rmn

Current-limiting matrix element -n

L 1n

L 2n

L mn

Figure 4-10 MFCL current limiting matrix

Saturable magnetic core The saturable magnetic core FCL concept does not utilize the quench of a superconductor for changing the FCL impedance during a fault but rather the non-linear magnetic characteristic of an iron core as illustrated in Figure 4-11. The AC line (or load) current iLine flows through two series connected inductors (L1 and L2) formed by windings placed each on an iron core. A second winding on each core provides a DC bias magnetization H(iDC) such that the operating point of the AC winding falls into the saturated region of the non-linear magnetic characteristic of the iron core. While the AC current remains small (e.g. rated current) the change of flux density B remains small according to the saturated region of the B(H) curve. Therefore, the voltage drop on each inductor is small, too. Hence, the FCL represents a small impedance in the network. However, if the current becomes large (e.g. during a fault) L1 is driven out of saturation during the negative half cycle of the current and L2 during the positive half cycle. Therefore, the total voltage v1+v2 across the two inductors becomes large which in turn limits the fault current effectively. Note that the voltage waveforms shown in Figure 4-11 are for illustration of voltage magnitudes only. Due to the non-linearity of the magnetic characteristic a sinusoidal fault current will inadvertently produce non-sinusoidal voltages. The degree of distortion will depend on the magnetic characteristic and the interaction with the power system circuit and can only be determined either by measurement or detailed computer simulation.

4-12

Although the very principle does not require superconductivity it is highly desirable to make the DC bias coils superconducting in order to keep the losses acceptably small. These losses will be very small since no AC losses occur at all. The major disadvantage of this type of SCFCL is that it requires, in principle, twice the amount of material (and hence size and weight) of an equivalent FCL iron core reactor. That is because the reactance during a fault (in the non-saturated region of the magnetic characteristic) must be large enough to effectively limit the current just like with conventional reactors. The advantage of course is that during normal operation (small AC currents) the impedance becomes negligible. Furthermore, the impedance can be adjusted (within a limited range) by adjusting the DC bias current. Hence, this type of SCFCL sometimes is referred to as a fault current controller (FCC).
v 1(dB 1/dt) B1

v1 + v2 t
H(i DC )

H1

iLINE
v1

L1 i LINE
iDC

t
v2

H2

L2 v 2(dB 2/dt)
Figure 4-11 Saturable iron core operating principle

B2

The concept of the saturated iron core type SCFCL has been pursued for a long time but no commercially viable design ahs been produced because of the above named economical reason of large size and weight. Most recently, a new SCFCL project based on the saturated iron core type concept has emerged and is heavily promoted by SC Power Systems [7], the company who is marketing the device. However, the publicly available information on this project is insufficient to seriously comment on any of the technical and/or economical advantages stated in the references.

4-13

Novel concepts based on semiconductors

Semiconductor (or solid state) switches such as diodes, thyristors, IGBTs and the like offer another means to build fault current limiting devices. The various types of solid-state (SSFCL) are described briefly below. Solid-state fault current limiting circuit breaker The most straightforward SSFCL is the solid-state fault current limiting circuit breaker (SSFCL-CB). Figure 4-12 depicts the basic phase module of such a device built by SIEMENS using turn-off devices such as IGBTs or IGCTs. These devices are placed in the DC branch of a full-bridge diode rectifier circuit. Therefore, only one unipolar turn-off device is required for AC line current operation (iLINE). The second device shown in Figure 4-12 is for increased voltage withstand capability and adequate reliability to meet the N-1 failure mode criteria2. In addition to the turn-off device there must exist an over voltage protection element such as a metal oxide varistor (MOV) in order to limit the voltage build-up caused by the AC line inductance (or upstream transformer) during the hard turn-off by the IGBT. Typically, such a SSFCL-CB is designed to develop 2-3 times the rated system voltage during turn-off which forces the fault current very rapidly (within 1 ms or less) down to zero. One module may typically develop up to 6 kV and turn-off up to 5.6 kA [20]. A medium voltage SSFCL-CB may consist of several modules connected in series. Similar systems have also been developed by other companies but no economically viable solution could be made available for the commercial market.
i LINE

Snubber circuit

Balancing resistors

Turn-off devices

Over-voltage protection (MOV)

Figure 4-12 Principle of a solid-state fault current limiting circuit breaker based on turn-off devices

An alternative circuitry for a SSFCL-CB based on SCR thyristors with commutation circuitry rather than turn-off devices is currently under development for EPRI by Powell Electronics Inc. [21]. The use of SCR thyristors promises better economics due to the smaller on-state losses and the lower cost for the devices. The initial goal is to develop a 15 kV class device for 1200 A

Since semiconductor devices may fail in short circuit mode the entire system has to allow for one device in the string to fail and still provide sufficient voltage capability to turn-off the current.
4-14

continuous current and prospective fault current levels of 80 kA. Subsequently, a 138 kV class device would be developed. Figure 4-13 illustrates the power circuit of one module of the EPRI device. During normal operation the current flows either through the main thyristors TH1 and TH3 or TH2 and TH4, depending on the current half cycle polarity. The commutating capacitors C4 and C5 are charged with the polarity shown. To switch the current off while flowing through TH1 and TH3 the commutating thyristors TH5, TH7, TH9 and TH10 are fired. The current shifts quickly into the commutating circuit and the capacitors are discharged for approximately 200 s in order to provide enough recovery time for the main thyristors to gain blocking capability in forward direction. Subsequently, the polarity across the capacitors reverses and the diodes D1 and D2 start conducting, inserting the power resistors R1 and R2 into the circuit (in parallel to C4 and C5). The power resistors actually perform the current limiting function and have to absorb a substantial energy of several MJ per module. The limited current is eventually turned off by the commutating thyristors at the next natural current zero. During faults, a limited follow current may be provided by means of phase angle control of the main thyristors. Meanwhile, the capacitors are recharged to their initial polarity. The varistor RV1 protects against transient over voltages for example caused by lightning strikes.
Main thyristors
TH5 TH7 L1 C4 TH6 TH3 TH4
D1 R1

i LINE
TH2
D2 L2

Over-voltage protection (MOV)

R2

TH1

TH8 TH10 RV1

C5 TH9

Co mmutating circuit

Co mmutating circuit

Figure 4-13 Principle of a solid-state fault current limiting circuit breaker based on turn-off devices

The operation of such a SSFCL-CB during a fault is therefore comparable with that of a triggered (current limiting) fuse. However, the SSFCL-CB of course has several advantages: Immediate recovery after the fault has been cleared (without maintenance) Possibility of phase angel control to generate a follow current of limited magnitude for downstream coordination. However, this may produce severely distorted current waveforms. The ability to probe into a line for possible fault condition (again by means of phase angle control) before energizing the line or the feeder In addition to the above advantages, SSFCLs such as those described above have a unique capability to limit the inrush current (via their soft-start capability), even for capacitive loads, by gradually phasing in the switching device. This might be of future benefit as distributed generators (DGs) are deployed at various voltage levels and locations across utility grids in

4-15

preserving the well-known reliability benefits of multi-shot reclosure without increasing jeopardy to generator shafts (i.e., shaft torsional stress caused by repeated, brief circuit closing into faulted lines). Current practice in some areas is to forego multi-shot reclosure on feeders serving large generating stations to protect the generators. Without this type of FCL, proliferation of DGs in the future could lead to similar reliability problems spreading across the grid either through damage to the DGs themselves or line outages on the feeders connected to them. Power electronic arrangements with DC coils As semiconductor devices with only one pn junction diodes exhibit the smallest on-state voltage drop of all semiconductor switches (amongst devices of the same semiconductor base material such as silicon, of course). However, a diode cannot be turned off in forward direction. This limitation can be overcome when the diode is biased with a constant (DC) current flow in forward direction in the circuit depicted in Figure 4-14 and described in [22]. The DC voltage source VB keeps all four diodes biased in forward direction by I0/2. Therefore, the AC line current (iLINE) can pass through the parallel diode path formed by D1-D3 and D4-D2 for both AC half cycles. However, if the instantaneous value of iLINE exceeds I0 then D3 and D4 will block during the positive half cycle and D1 and D2 during the negative half cycle. Therefore, the AC current has to flow through D1-L-D2 during the positive half cycle and through D3-L-D4 during the negative half cycle which effectively inserts the impedance of the inductor L in to the AC circuit. In order to minimize losses in the inductor L it is desirable to make it a superconducting coil. In addition, the fact that the inductor only exhibits DC current (plus some small AC ripple, probably) makes superconductivity the ideal choice for the coil technology since no AC losses occur like in any of the resistive type SCFCLs.

iLINE

D1

I0

D3

L
D4 VB D2

Figure 4-14 Principle of the diode-bridge FCL with DC biased coil and external DC voltage source

The disadvantage of the circuit shown in Figure 4-15 is that the AC (fault) current cannot be interrupted by the power electronic devices, thus requiring a circuit breaker in series. This limitation can be overcome by using thyristors instead of diodes in the circuit. Since the fault current can be adjusted by means of thyristor phase angle control such an arrangement is called a fault current controller (FCC). A 15 kV/1.2 kA class three phase device utilizing HTS superconducting DC bias coils was built and tested successfully at Los Alamos National Laboratory [23] (only at single phase operation after repair of dielectric failures that occurred during initial three phase tests). While this device still used a DC power supply to provide the bias current through the inductor several modified versions of the circuit have been, and are currently, investigated which utilize thyristor phase angle control for maintaining the DC bias

4-16

current. A 15 kV class single-phase experimental setup utilizing this method and using a nonsuperconducting inductor was also successfully tested at Los Alamos National Laboratory [24]. In Japan, TOSHIBA has successfully tested a 66 kV class superconducting DC coil. Although no FCL or FCC project is directly associated with the coil development it is clearly aimed for a power electronic based FCL system [25]. In South Korea, the Yonsei University has developed an experimental FCL device which uses only one DC biased HTS coil for the three-phase system. The circuitry is depicted in Figure 4-15. This method does not utilize the DC current to forward biasing of the power electronic switches (thyristors) but rather as a large, limiting impedance for the AC circuit. The 6.6 kV/200 A class arrangement was tested in the lab with prospective fault currents up to 4 kA [26].
Magnetic Core Reactor

DC Reactor

Dual Mode Power Converters

Figure 4-15 FCL system using only one HTS DC coil in a power converter arrangement with a series connected coupling transformer

Controlled LC resonance circuits In all of power electronic based FCL systems described above the semiconductor switches had to be turned off in order to initiate the fault current limiting sequence. This requires that the switches carry the continuous load current which causes continuous operating losses. Alternatively, in LC resonance link circuits the power electronic switches may be off during normal operation and only turned on in order to limit the fault current. In the FCL series resonance link circuit shown in Figure 4-16 the limiting inductor LL and the compensating

4-17

capacitor CC are forming a series resonance circuit at the power frequency (e.g. 60 Hz). Therefore, the total impedance of LL and CC is negligible during normal operation. If a fault occurs, the thyristor switch bypasses the capacitor and therefore detunes the resonance circuit which leaves the impedance of LL to limit the fault current. A theoretical analysis of LC resonance circuits for current limitation can be found in [27]. Several systems based on this principle have been built with rated voltages up to 145 kV and rated currents up to 1.3 kA for demonstration purposes [3], [8]. However, using the series resonance link solely for the purpose of fault current limitation is not economically attractive, especially because of the large size and weight of the passive components.
Thyristor switch

i LINE Line reactance

Limiting inductor LL

CC Compensating capacitor

Figure 4-16 Principle of the FCL series resonance link (principle)

Alternatively, if a series capacitor has to be installed anyway in order to compensate for large line impedances, the concept of the so called thyristor controlled series compensator (or TCSC) as shown in Figure 4-17 can be extended to achieve FCL functionalities. During normal operation, the degree of line compensation is controlled by means of phase angle control of the thyristor switch. It determines the degree by which the inductive impedance of LL-C offsets the capacitive impedance of CC. Therefore, the impedance of the TCSC can be varied continuously between -j/CC and jLL-C. If a fault occurs, the TCSC impedance is immediately changed to jLL-C which limits the fault current [28]. For example, a TCSC system has been built by SIEMENS and installed at the Kayenta Substation of the Western Area Power in Arizona, USA [29]. It shall be noted that TCSC systems perform FCL functionalities only as a by-product of their original purpose. Similar to the resonance link above the FCL function alone would not justify the substantial costs and size/weight of such an installation.

4-18

Thyristor switch

Limiting and compe nsating inductor

L L-C
i LINE

Line reactance

CL

Line compensating capacitor

Figure 4-17 Thyristor protected series compensator with added FCL functionality (principle)

Inverter based FACTS devices Due to the advances in turn-off power electronic switches voltage source inverter (VCS) based FACTS devices such as the Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC), the Dynamic Voltage Restorer (DVR), AC-AC link converters (either with short link or even HV-DC transmission systems) and others have emerged and are increasingly deployed to solve bulk power control as well as power quality problems in the grid. As long as the converter system is connected in series with the line (i.e. no shunt connected device such as a STATCOM) it allows for a series voltage to be injected. Figure 4-18 illustrates this principle. Most commonly, the DC link will have only very little energy storage capacity which only allows for the voltage phasor vCOMP to be in quadrature with the line current phasor iLINE. Hence, such a converter can only inject reactive power into the system [30]. Nevertheless, it effectively inserts reactive impedance (either inductive or capacitive) into the power system and thus is also capable of limiting fault currents to some degree in the system. However, in practice, both the voltage and current ratings strongly govern the ability of these systems to serve as effective FCL. For faults close to its terminals (and relatively stiff systems 1 and or 2), the converter either has to be able to withstand high fault currents (several times the rated currents) or it has to be able to develop a compensating voltage on the order of the system voltage. So while technically feasible, utilizing these VSC systems for FCL application will most likely not be economical in most cases. Therefore, in case of a fault in the power system these series connected converter systems are typically bypassed quickly by thyristor crowbar switches. So while the concept exists on paper to the best of this authors knowledge no field or lab test of a VCS based FCL of significant power rating has been reported so far.

4-19

Series connected voltage source v COMP converter with DC link i LINE System 1 System 2, sensitive load, or IPP
v S1 v S2

Added v S2 impe da nce v COMP v S1 capacitive

i LINE
v COMP inductive v S2

Figure 4-18 Concept of series connected voltage source converter

Other novel concepts

Room temperature PTC Resistor A wide range of materials, mostly ceramics, exhibit a highly non-linear positive temperature coefficient (PTC) of the resistivity above room temperature. A sharp increase in resistance can be used for fault current limitation. In fact, PTC resistors are commonly used for fault current limitation in (low power) electronic circuits. To extend this functionality into the medium voltage range for possible applications in power systems was the goal of a project by ABB about 10 years ago [31]. The project concluded with the successful testing of a 12 kV class stack of PTC elements (at very low rated current of only 10 A, however). No further developments have been reported in the literature on this technology. Hybrid switching systems Since a closed mechanical contact still exhibits the least amount of conduction losses amongst all switching elements it is most desirable to utilize mechanical contacts in FCLs for carrying the continuous operating current. However, mechanical contact systems alone will not develop enough arcing voltage drop to limit fault currents in medium or high voltage systems. One possible solution to archive sufficiently high arcing voltage at least for a medium voltage (distribution) class FCL is the method of a driven arc described in [32]. Similar to the technique used in low voltage current limiting circuit breakers the switching arc magnetically
4-20

driven into a special chamber where it is divided into a large number of sub-arcs. Subsequently, these sub-arcs are driven along metallic rails of high resistivity in order to produce a voltage drop across the switch large enough to commutate the fault current into a parallel resistor. The device, rated 7.2 kV/400 A has been tested successfully in the field for over 2 years in Japan. No information is available on any further developments of this technique, especially not with respect to higher voltage applications. Another approach to utilize mechanical contact systems as the main current carrying path in FCL devices has been developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and patented by ABB Switzerland [33]. The system depicted in Figure 4-19 consists of hybrid arrangement of very fast opening mechanical contact systems, power electronic turn-off switches (IGCT) and a metallic resistor with PTC characteristic. The goal was to integrate the high turn-off capability of the IGCT with the near zero loss characteristics of the mechanical contact system. A 10 kV/1 kA class single-phase prototype device was successfully tested in the high power lab of ABB in Baden, Switzerland. Since those test have been conducted, further development of the mechanical contact systems could eliminate the need for the power electronic switch. Due to the technical challenges to extend this technology into the high voltage regime no further development has been conducted.
FTS

iL INE

iFTS
D
1

u SEM
SEM
GTO MOV
2

A
u FDS
D

B
iSEM FDS
D
3

iPTC
Figure 4-19 Hybrid arrangement of fast acting mechanical switches forming a novel FCL circuit breaker

D
4

PTC

LS

Liquid metal (LM) FCL In the past, liquid metal (LM) fault current limiter concepts have made use of the so-called pinch-effect to break the circuit. The pinch-effect is caused by high current densities in a current constriction formed by the liquid metal (typically a non-toxic liquid metal alloy of Gallium, Indium, and Tin with a melting temperature around 10 degrees Celsius). The high magnetic field in the constriction causes it to constrict further and eventually rapture and evaporate. The subsequent arc is finally used to build up voltage and limit the current [34]. Similar to the driven arc method many sub-arcs are required in series to develop enough voltage drop for medium or even high voltage applications.

4-21

Most recently, ABB Corporate Research Center in Switzerland developed a new type of with liquid metal capillaries that do not utilize the pinch effect and do not develop an arc [35]. When a fault occurs, the liquid metal is magnetically driven into the capillary which consists of walls made of high resistive material as shown in Figure 4-20. After the fault is cleared (typically by a up- or downstream circuit breaker) the liquid metal returns quickly back between the high conductive contacts, thus resets the FCL automatically. The ABB researchers demonstrated successful voltage build up of almost 100 V per capillary at currents of up to 2.7 kA [5]. A large number of series and parallel-connected capillary could potentially be used to build FCL devices for medium and high voltage applications. However, currently, not enough information is publicly available to assess the potential of this technology for HV applications appropriately.

a)
Resistive capillary walls Conductor material (e.g. copper) Liquid metal

b)
Resistive material

Fmag
Liquid metal

R LM Conductor material (e.g. copper) RR RR

I
RCu R LM RCu

I
RCu

B
RCu

Nominal current

Over-current

Figure 4-20 Principle of the arc-less liquid metal FCL a) normal operation, b) limiting

4-22

5
COMPARISON OF FCL TECHNOLOGIES
Ideal and real FCL characteristics
The behavior of a FCL in the power grid can be characterized by a set of parameters such as those defined in [3]. Figure 5-1 depicts principal waveforms such as the prospective, or unlimited, current during a fault (without a FCL) and the limited current (with FCL). The figure also indicates the three basic operating regimes: I. II. III. Normal operation where no limiting action takes place Fault condition during which the FCL is active Recovery period while the FCL resets and regains normal operating condition.
I Normal operation
Fault Inception current p n m in time ta td td rated system voltage (Un) ( n ):rated current (peak) m in : minimum initiating current m ax : maximum limited current p : peak (prospective) short circuit current fol : peak value of the follow current ta : action time: from t = 0 until m ax td: fault duration time recovery time tr time between current interruption and return of the FCL to its (initial) low impedance state tr m ax W ithout FCL fol W ith FCL

II Fault condition

III Recovery
Fault Clearing

Figure 5-1 Generalized fault current trace with FCL activated

The parameters and fault current characteristic shown in Figure 5-1 may vary significantly between different FCL designs as well as their application in the grid. In order to provide a better

5-1

metric the next section tries to establish a better sense for what can be considered an ideal FCL. Desirable attributes of the ideal FCL The attributes of an ideal FCL in the power system may be established as follows: 1) Exhibit zero impedance during normal operation (i.e. no losses, no reactive voltage drop). This requirement is straightforward. It cannot be met completely by real FCL systems but they may come close to the ideal value. 2) Provide immediate and perfect discrimination between a (temporary) overcurrent situation and a true fault event. This is in fact a request for ideal protection relay functionality. Real FCL systems may come close to this ideal only if they are externally triggered. The corresponding quantity in Figure 5-1 is the minimum initiating current (min). 3) In case of a fault, decrease the rate-of-rise of the current quickly within the first quarter cycle in order to reduce the fist current peak to an acceptable level. In any voltage driven circuit the only possible way to achieve this is to build up voltage across the FCL such that the remaining voltage across the system impedance is reduced or completely brought to zero. Since fault current and voltage build-up across the FCL are present at the same time the FCL effectively increases its impedance. The corresponding quantity in Figure 5-1 is the maximum limited current (max). 4) Perform the voltage build-up across the FCL such that the associated voltages do not exceed the dielectric insulation capability of the existing system. 5) Allow a follow current to flow to enable downstream protection coordination to clear and isolate the fault. However, the limited follow current must be less than the prospective (or unlimited) fault current. The corresponding quantity in Figure 5-1 is the peak value of the follow current (fol). 6) Immediate and automatic recover under full load current, or even under overcurrent conditions in case the system responds with such, after fault clearing. The corresponding quantity in Figure 5-1 is the recovery time tr. 7) Fail safe limiting operation. This indicates whether the FCL will still limit the fault current even if its primary mechanism fails. While items 1), 2), 6) and 7) are attributes with application independent and very objective measures, items 3), 4), and 5) are not. What is considered ideal for the latter may vary significantly between applications. For example, if the objective is only to reduce the fault current level just enough to meet existing breaker requirements there may not even be a need or desire to reduce max significantly below the peak unlimited (prospective) short circuit current (p). In other cases it may not desired to strongly reduce the follow current in order to keep the existing downstream protection coordination.

5-2

Other, softer attributes are: 8) No or minimum impact on existing protection. Finding answers to whether and how certain FCL technologies impact the protection environment is not well understood and is the subject of an ongoing investigation at this time. To the best of the authors knowledge, CIGRE WGA3-16 is currently the only international body which investigates this subject [36]. 9) Reliable operation (i.e. no false limiting action) which implies no degradation or agingof active elements (e.g. HTS elements in SCFCLs). None of the new technologies provide enough field experience on this attribute. 10) Low maintenance. None of the new technologies provide enough field experience on this attribute. 11) Low weight and small size. 12) No or only few auxiliaries. 13) Low total cost of ownership. Although his is a very important attribute for the utility, not enough data is available on the new technologies to allow for a sensible comparison of that attribute. From the above it can be concluded that any comparative evaluation of fault current limiting technologies and/or methods has to significantly take the application specific attributes into account. However, novel FCL technologies are still in the development phase with only one prototype built and tested at best. Important device scaling laws and application specific design criteria are almost never available through the open literature. Therefore, the next section provides a comparison of novel FCL technologies only based on the data available in literature. Furthermore, only technologies/projects which showed significant test results (at least medium voltage tests) have been included.

Comparison of novel FCL technologies

The most intensive developments can be observed currently with superconducting FCL technologies. Table 5-1 through Table 5-3 provides a comparison of parameters of nine different SCFCL projects employing four different SC material technologies (data not available for fields left blank). Note that the projects listed under BSCCO 2223 tape for DC bias coil are essentially power electronic FCLs which utilize a SC inductor as limiting element. Subsequently, Table 5-4 and Table 5-5 compare non-SC technologies. Columns shown in Table 5-1 through Table 5-3 where no data was available or which where not applicable for all of the non-SC projects have been omitted entirely. Controlled LC resonance circuits (e.g. series compensators) and converter based FACTS devices may provide fault current limiting as a byproduct of their primary functionality. Therefore, and because of a lack of publicly available and adequate information, they have not been included in this comparison.

5-3

Table 5-1 Comparison of SCFCL technologies (part 1)

Project Project Lead No BSCCO 2212 bulk 1 ABB Switzerland none no major activity since 01 8.0
(1)

Country

Partners

Comments

Tested rated voltage level LN [kV]

Tested rated current level [A] 800

Emax [V/cm]

Tested phases

Year tested

0.5

(8)

2001

ACCEL

Germany

ACCESS, ATZ, EUS, first field test 2004 RW E, E.ON, Nexans 2005 SuperConductors, FZK Nexans SC next step 138 kV project in progress => tests show target data discontinued thin films high voltage type discontinued thin films large current type

6.9
(2)

600

0.7
(9)

2003

SuperPower

US

8.7
(3)

800

3 to 4

2004

KEPRI

Korea

LS Ind. Sys.

13.2

630

5.0

2007

YBCO thin film

(7) (10)

5 6 7

KEPRI Toshiba Siemens

Korea Japan Germany

LS Ind. Sys. part of Super ACE none part of Super ACE

3.8 12.0 (4)

(5)

199 70 100 1000

8.5 18.7 (11)

(12)

3 1 3 1

2004 2004 2000 2004

4.2 0.2

11.3 14.1

8 Mitsubishi Japan YBCO coated conductor 9 Alcatel EU

Alstom, ZfW, U Tampere

discontinued

0.1

1400

1.0

2001

BSCCO 2223 tape for DC bias coil General 10 US Atomics 11 12 Toshiba Yonsei University Japan Korea

IGC, LANL, SCE TEPCO

discontinued 66 kV coil developed, no complete FCL yet discontinued

7.2
(6)

1200 750 200

N/A(13)
(13)

1 1 3

2002 2004 2004

38.1 3.8

N/A N/A
(13)

5-4

Table 5-2 Comparison of SCFCL technologies (part 2,Table 5-1 continued)

Project No Recovery time [s]
(35)

Impedance

Losses [W/kVA] at room temp ~ 0.2

(37) (38)

Over current allowance

Weight

Size

Cooling medium

Cooling machine

BSCCO 2212 bulk 1 few s

(31)

~ 2,6 ~3

130%
(44)

< 1m
(46)

LN 2

LN 2 dewar

(32)

~30

~ 2.2

5 tons

W : 1.6 m L: 3.5 m H: 3 m
(47)

LN 2

Stirling LPC2

3
(39)

120%

~ 3 tons

D: ~ 1m H: ~3m

LN 2

2xCryomech AL300

4 YBCO thin film

(33)

>5

0.20.4

LN 2

GM or stirling

5 6 7

2 few s (34) ~2

~ 20 4,3
(36)

(40)

~0

D: 0.83 m H: 1.6 m
(42)

(48)

LN 2 LN 2

LN 2 dewar

(41)

(48)

62

~0

110%

D: 0.42 m H: 0.83 m

LN 2 LN 2

LN 2 dewar

8 YBCO coated conductor

(43) (49)

~ 60 m

< 120%
(45)

L: 2m D: 0.055 m 36 tons

LN 2

LN 2 dewar

BSCCO 2223 tape for DC bias coil 10 11 12 immediate immediate immediate 4,3 mH 30 mH 84 mH N/A N/A N/A
(50) (50) (50)

3xCryomech AL125 2xCryomech AL200 LN 2 LN 2 GM cryocooler Cryocooler

5-5

Table 5-3 Comparison of SCFCL technologies (part 3, continued)

Project No HTS configuration Device characteristic (shunt) HTS thermally coupled to shunt yes Operating Temperature Current Limitation first peak (I/IN) 10.0 Current Limitation follow (I/IN) Fault clearing time [ms] Tested IP/IN (symm.) Transient Over Voltage
(27)

BSCCO 2212 bulk 1 meander plates resistive 77.0 2.7

(20)

100

25

< 1,5
(28)

bifilar coil

resistive

yes

66.0

8.8

3.6

60

12

1.13

tubes

inductive/ resistive inductive/ resistive

no

74-77

18.9

9.7
(21)

50

12.5

0.6

4 YBCO thin film

coil

no

65.0

3.1

110

(16)

5 6 7

bi-spiral film spiral

resistive resistive resistive resistive

yes yes yes yes

77.0

3.0 ~ 3.3 (17)

1.1

(22)

(25)

(29)

120 up to 300

3 to 50

~1,1

(30)

77.0

3.0

0.7

40

111

2.3

8 film YBCO coated conductor 9 tape

(18)

(26)

resistive

yes

77.0

2.1

1.56

50 to 100

25

BSCCO 2223 tape for DC bias coil 10 11 12 coil coil coil inductive inductive inductive 35.0 64.0 65.0
(15) (19) (14)

2.5

~ 1,1

(23)

> 100 10

(24)

<9

<9

(19)

84

20

5-6

Table 5-4 Comparison of non-SCFCL technologies (part 1)

Project No Tested rated voltage level L-N [kV] Tested rated current level [A]

Project Lead Country FCL Solid State Circuit Breaker 13 Powell USA

Partners

Comments

Tested phases

Year tested

Active devices

FCL device characteristic interrupt in 1/4 cycle, dominant resistive voltage hard turn-off with MOV limiting peak voltage

EPRI, DOE

Target is 138kV

8.0

1200

2004

Si thyristor

14

Siemens

Germany

none

no major development

(1)

(4)

4.8

1500

2001

Si IGCT

PTC resistor 15 ABB Switzerland ABB Norway Tokyo Electric Power ABB Swiss discontinued 6.9 ~ 10
(2)

1996

Polym er composite

hard turn-off with MOV limiting peak voltage

Driven arc; hybrid switching 16 CRIEPI Japan field test over more than 2 years 3.8 400 3 1998 multiple arcs arcing contact, Si IGCT, and m etallic PTC resistor resitive (due to shunt)

(3)

17

ETH Zurich Switzerland

discontinued

10.0

1000

2000

sm ooth turn-off within 1 cycle

5-7

Table 5-5 Comparison of non-SCFCL technologies (part 2, continued)

Transient Current Over Limitation Current Fault Voltage Immediate first peak Limitation - clearing Project [kV] recovery (I/IN) follow (I/IN) time [ms] No FCL Solid State Circuit Breaker
(5) (7)

Losses [W/kVA]

Size
(12)

Auxilaries

13

13

<1

< 1/4 cycle

2.5

yes

1.7

W : 1.4 m L: 2.4 m H: 3 m
(13)

air cooling (integrated) water cooling (external)

(5)

(8)

(10)

14 PTC resistor 15

<1

< 2ms

12.7

yes

~2

W : 5.5 m L: 2.4 m H: 3.3 m

none

< 1/4 cycle depends on external breaker 1/2 cycle

20.5

no

none

Driven arc; hybrid switching

(6) (11)

16

yes

~0

(14)

D: ~1 m L: ~ 2m

none

(9)

(11)

17

none

10.5

yes

~0

D: ~0.5 m L: ~ 1.5 m

none

5-8

Many of the data entries provided in Table 5-1 through Table 5-5 require additional comments for better understanding and clarifications which are given below. Comments (footnotes) in Table 5-1 through Table 5-3: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) Line-line rated voltage and tested voltage was 12 kV Line-line voltage was 15 kV Line-line voltage was 22.9 kV Tested by capacitor discharge Line-line voltage was 7.2 kV Presumably 66 kV is line-line 6 wafers in parallel Ic = 47 A of one wafer Data from private communication (unpublished) Single elements tested with Emax 3 V/cm, test data showed approx 4 V/cm 8.5 V/cm to reach 250 K after fault clearing time Curve shows a maximum of 900 V across SCFCL. 4 elements with 12 cm each gives 48 cm 600V rms per element of 75 cm length, up to 14 V/cm can be reached No quench, hence no electrical field at superconductor Cooling by He gas Cooling by LN2 From Ipeak = 816 A and Ic = 282 A Curve shows a maximum of 330 A (i.e. divided by 702 kA) Curve shows a maximum of 4.13 kA (i.e. divided by 1.42 kA) Depends on fault detection and gate signal control Value given at maximum clearing time From the assumption that limited current has to be < 2 kA after 3 cycles From Imax-lim = 300 A and Ic = 282 A Approximation from limitation curve End of fault clearing time not given in limitation curve Lowest current was 900 A, highest was 10 kA From 50 kA peak divided by 1.42 kA Value taken out of limitation curve. Vmax cannot clearly seen but is definitely less than 1.5 times Vlim Maximum transient overvoltage was 16 kV and well within limits Taken from limitation curve Given by Siemens (private communication) 3 seconds for Emax=0.4 V/cm and short-circuit time of 90 ms Recovery time tested only at single coils not for the 10 MVA limiter

5-9

(33) 2 s to recover from 250K. Tests with single elements showed that recovery time can be less than 0.8 s, which is typical reclosing time in the Korean grid. Typical values for recovery are between 1-3 seconds. (34) Shows 6 s for 200ms short circuit time and 10 A load current (35) Taken from limitation curve by dividing V/I (36) Data at RT; shortly after quench: about half this value (37) Data given in presentation by M. Abplanalp at EPRI meeting August 10 2004 in Nashville, TN. (38) Cooling power total 22 kW at RT divided by 10 MVA (39) Rough estimation (40) AC loss of the material is negligible small. They were not even measured in this project. (41) AC loss of the material is negligible small. Only well known current lead loss of approx. 45W/kA (42) Material quenches at a continuous DC current of 10% above Ic (43) Quench current is 2400 A peak, nominal current 2000 A peak (44) Includes cooling system (45) Complete trailer (3-phase FCL) (46) Complete SCFCL fits in a box with this size, considerable size reduction is possible with improved design. Cryostat alone is approximately D: 1 m, H: 3 m, i.e. V: (47) Cryostat only, values not given but estimated from figure of test cryostat with human (figure 5-6 in [19]), considerable size reduction is possible with improved design (48) Cryostat only (49) Element size 2mx55mm, used simple open cryostat (50) Losses at HTS DC bias coil are negligible. However, the bulk of the losses will appear at the power electronic circuit (e.g. 200 kW heat exchanger for project no 10 yields 200 kW/31 MVA = 6.4 W/kVA) Comments (footnotes) in Table 5-4 and Table 5-5: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Estimated from [20]: 2 modules tested in series where 3 make a 7.2 kV device Rated current not given in [31], but one PTC is rated 6.5A Design target of mechanical contact system was 2000 A, tests where performed with only one IGCT yielding half the rated current value Assumed because of the 2003 publication date Possibly up to rated value with phase angle control Governed by parallel shunt resistor On thyristor For 2 modules during test Requires multiple PTC resistors if an immediate recovery of the fault limiting capability is required No values give but assumed to be slightly higher than thyristor switch

5-10

(11) (12) (13) (14)

Closed mechanical contact New design is 54" (1.4m) wide, data is for 15 kV/1.2 kA 3-phase system Size of container according to Siemens internal report, includes water-cooling system. Data is for 12 kV/1.5 kA 3-phase device Estimated from photo in

References with data provided in Table 5-1 through Table 5-5 are given in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6 References to projects in Table 5-1 through Table 5-5

Project No References 1 [14], [12] 2 [13], [45] 3 [18], [19] 4 Private communication 5 [46] 6 [47] 7 [15] 8 [48] 9 [49] 10 [23], [50] 11 [25], [51] 12 [26] 13 [21] 14 [20], Private communication 15 [31] 16 [32] 17 [33] Discussion and comparisons with traditional measures From the data compiled in Table 5-1 through Table 5-5 the following observations can be made. Losses AC specific3 losses in BSCCO 2212 bulk material based SCFCLs have been demonstrated as low as 0.2 W/kVA (at room temperature). YBCO thin film SCFCLs show negligible AC losses and thus only require enough cooling power to cover the losses by the cryostat and the current leads (current lead losses are typically 40-50 W/kA at cryogenic temperatures) which also have
3

The base power for normalization is the throughput power (i.e. from system voltage and rated current). 5-11

to be covered in devices based on BSCCO 2212 bulk material. Therefore, YBCO thin film SCFCLs will potentially require substantially less cooling power. Solid-state systems currently show around 2 W/kVA, which is substantially more than the losses possible with SCFCLs. With expected advances in solid-state materials such as silicon carbide (SiC) losses will decrease somewhat. Losses of FCLs based on mechanical contact systems, of course, show negligible losses. Finally, losses of FCL systems based on DC biased (superconducting) coils will be similar to those of other solid-state systems. Compared to typical losses in current limiting reactors of 0.1 to 0.3 W/kVA the losses of solidstate FCLs still remain significantly higher while SCFCLs may become more efficient. Losses introduced by other traditional measures are mostly negligible (i.e. bus splitting, sequential tripping, fuses). Size Although, information given about size of prototype and/or test equipment is difficult to use for comparisons it appears that superconducting devices based on BSCCO 2212 bulk material yield a similar size per MVA as solid-state devices. YBCO thin film SCFCLs seem to be somewhat more compact. However, FCLs based on mechanical contact systems clearly are smaller in size. This is due to the negligible losses in mechanical contact systems which require substantially less cooling than solid-state breakers. Since FCL systems based on DC biased (superconducting) coils will also utilize power electronic devices their size is likely to be similar if not larger than any of the other devices. Recovery A fundamental problem with superconducting FCLs is the recovery back to the low impedance state after a fault in order to continue service immediately after the fault has been cleared. While immediate recovery has not been demonstrated in any of the major demonstration projects so far it is, in principle, possible to design an SCFCL for such a duty with the penalties being potentially increased size (HTS material) and cooling power. In [3] it has been reported that around 50% of the possible applications for FCLs would be in the bus tie location which does not require immediate recovery. Solid-state systems can be built easily with immediate recovery capability. Some additional cooling may be required for the semiconductor devices to allow for another fault limitation duty very shortly after the first fault has been limited. If resistors or MOVs are used to absorb the bulk of the limitation energy those devices must be appropriately overrated in order to cope with multiple, subsequent fault events, a measure solid-state systems that use a superconducting DC bias coil may not require.

5-12

A fundamental advantage of any solid-state FCL is their potential ability of soft switching by means of phase angle control which allows for a probing for persisting fault conditions into the network. In contrast, SCFCLs always rely on external (mechanical) circuit breakers for reclosing in a rather uncontrolled manner. Except for the fuse based devices none of the traditional measures have to cope with recovery after fault event. FCL characteristic in the network Any of the novel technologies present only a negligible, (dominantly resistive) impedance in series to the line during normal operation (i.e. even with losses on the order of 2 W/kVA a 15 kV/1200 A solid-state FCL only causes approximately 0.1% voltage drop). In case of a FCL actuation, SCFCLs will result in undistorted fault currents (follow current) except for the first half cycle where the current will be somewhat distorted from the sine waveform. After limitation the SCFCL appears as a linear impedance in the network (the quench itself is highly non linear). Whether this impedance is predominantly resistive or inductive depends primarily on the shunt impedance characteristic and therefore is a free design parameter. The magnitude of that impedance is inverse proportional to the follow-current limitation ratio (i.e. column 7 in Table 5-2). Solid-state FCLs however can only rely upon phase angle control for the follow current which will cause substantial current distortion. This may have an impact on the protection relay coordination as pointed out in [38]. All the traditional means of reducing fault current levels essentially introduce an additional reactance into the system permanently. Exceptions are fuse-based devices which, if not shunted by a current limiting reactor, appear as an open circuit after trigger (no follow current) and sequential tripping which does not affect the system impedance at all.

5-13

6
FCL APPLICATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
This chapter discusses potential FCL applications and issues that may arise from implementing of FCL in the grid. A generic overview over potential applications for FCLs is depicted in Figure 6-1. Requirements for the FCL device may vary significantly depending on the actual application. For example, in a typical bus bar coupling application in a substation with alternate feeds the requirements for recovery (for re-energizing) may be far less stringent than for a coupling of local generation units.

FCL FCL

Transmission network
SC-Cable
FCL

FCL

Distribution network

3
FCL

Distribution network

Distribution network

1 Generator feeder 2 Power station auxiliaries 3 Network coupling 4,5 Busbar coupling 6 Shunting current limiting reactor 7 Transformer feeder 8 Busbar connection / feeder 9 Combination with other SC devices, especially SC cables 10 Coupling local generating units 11 Closing ring circuits

4
FCL FCL

5 6
FCL FCL

FCL

10 7
FCL

11
FCL

Figure 6-1 Applications of fault current limiters at distribution voltage levels

Application examples for distribution level FCLs

The future of distribution level networks is characterized by an increasing number of power electronics applications and dispersed generation facilities. This requires a sufficient short-circuit power and a dispersed power generation management. A higher short-circuit power would enable the coupling of higher loads directly to the medium voltage level and would improve the

6-1

power quality by reducing system perturbations. This chapter describes several real FCL distribution level applications. Bus bar coupling in substations A distribution level grid at the RWE (Rheinish-Westfaehlische Energiewerke in Germany) is normally fed by two 110 kV transformers with a rating of 30 MVA and a short-circuit capability of 250 MVA [39]. The admissible short-circuit capability of the station is 350 MVA but different ring main units with 250 MVA require a limitation and prevent the two transformers from parallel operation. This situation is illustrated in Figure 6-2.
Upper distribution voltage level e.g. 110 kV

T1: Sr1 uk1 SSC1

FCL

T2: Sr2 uk2 SSC2

FCL

FCL

Ssc max substation

Medium voltage level e.g. 10 kV

Perturbing consumers High loads

Figure 6-2 Bus bar coupling in medium voltage substations

By introducing an FCL in the bus bar coupling the parallel transformer operation is possible without exceeding the short-circuit capability of the main ring units. This results in lower voltage drops, improved power quality and hence the possibility to connect larger loadings and more perturbing (e.g. power electronic) consumers. An additional increase in short-circuit capacity can be achieved by connecting FCLs in series to the feeding transformers. It turns out that the most economical impedance of these transformers is 10% which corresponds a short-circuit capacity of 400 MVA. This means that the short-circuit capacity of the configuration in Figure 6-2 with FCLs in the feeder location is nearly three times higher than that of the substation without FCLs. This enables the connection of much larger loadings and perturbing consumers and saves the connection to a higher voltage level. In comparison to the coupling location the transformer feeder location requires a very short recovery time to secure power supply to the customers. Coupling of dispersed generation and new generators The connection of distributed generation, e.g. wind turbines and combined cycle-type thermal power stations leads to an increase of the short-circuit currents. In many grids it becomes more
6-2

and more difficult to connect such generators without short-circuit limiting devices. In some substations of the RWE grid for example the admissible short-circuit current has been reached and no additional increase in short-circuit current can be allowed. In these cases, the generators have to be connected with a transformer to the upper distribution voltage (e.g. 110 kV) grid. FCLs would enable that those generators could be connected directly to the medium voltage grid as depicted in Figure 6-3 and avoid the much more costly 110 kV transformer and the switchgear to connect it. In distributed generation (DG) applications there is a particular concern with the use of fuse-like devices (e.g., explosive fuses and Is-limiters) for limiting fault current contribution. In the event of some external fault scenarios these devices would isolate the DG resource pending subsequent disconnection and replacement of the fuse device. This would, in the interim, preclude the use of the DG resource as an immediate post-contingency peak load service asset.
HV Transmission or upper distribution Existing network transformer

Generator transformer

FCL

G
Several 10 MVA
Figure 6-3 Coupling of dispersed generation

MV Grid

A similar situation may arise when the connection of new generating capacity as outlined in Figure 6-4 will increase the fault current level which results in exceeding the maximum rating of several breakers in the local generator substation [19]. The utilities are then faced with the expense of upgrade all the affected beakers. By using a FCLs in the generator feeder the fault current can be kept within permissible values without introducing an impedance during normal condition and the upgrade of several breakers can be avoided. A real case investigated in 1996 in Hannover (Germany) showed that by introducing two SCFCLs in a generator feeder would result in a major delay of investment (approx. 30 million ) for upgrading old substations [40].

6-3

Substation A

New generator G
CB

LS CB

LS CB

FCL

Substation B

CB LS

LS CB

Substation C
Figure 6-4 Coupling of new generation

Another good example for potential applications of FCLs, and to illustrate the problem utilities are faced today of managing the unavoidably increased fault current levels due to the request for connecting new generation capacity. Novel, FCL technologies available for immediate deployment such as HVDC systems have been considered by but have traditionally been found to be too costly (at that time). However, should other, novel FCL technologies become available in the near future they may well be utilized to mitigate the problem of additional fault currents immediately at their origin, i.e. the connecting point of the additional generation. Of course, these FCLs at the generators must provide: The ability to significantly limit the fault current contribution of that generator (e.g. to less than 3 to 4 times the rated current), in order to not add significant fault current to the system Very fast or immediate recovery to guarantee the continuation of service from that generator unit Adequately low costs in order to be economically attractive for the system solution.

Application examples for transmission level FCLs

Although at the present time no economically attractive FCL exists4 for upper-distribution and transmission level voltage several potential applications have already been identified in the past. Coupling of sub grids The 110 kV system in Germany is subdivided into different sub-grids. By introducing FCLs into the bus coupling of the 110 kV stations, the surplus of transformer capacity, required to meet the N-1 contingency criteria, can be considerably reduced. In case of a transformer outage in one sub-grid the other sub-grid is able to deliver the reserve power and in case of short-circuits the
4

With the exemption of traditional, passive methods (e.g. current limiting reactors) and FACTS devices with added FCL functionalities (e.g. TCSC). 6-4

FCL limits the short-circuit current to admissible values. It is shown in [43]that one 380/110 kV transformer and two feeders, one for 380 kV and one for 110 kV, can be saved in this installation. This is equal to several million Euros and therefore one of the most promising FCL applications from the economical point of view. Coupling of transmission level substations The investigated system in Korea [42] has two buses in a substation S1 currently connected by a bus-tie circuit breaker CB7. The electrical scheme of this substation is shown in Figure 6-5. In case CB7 is closed the most severe fault may take place at the transmission lines to S2 and S3. Therefore, CB 3,4 and 8, 9 are potentially subjected to a maximum fault current that would exceed the interruption rating of the CBs. In future, closing of CB7 must be made possible to cope with the increasing power demand in this area. This means that CB3,4 and 8,9 need to be replaced by breakers with higher breaking capability. For this case one FCL can save the replacement of four CBs, which is equivalent to 1.2 million . In addition the FCL operation offers technical advantages as better reliability, more flexibility in power transmission and higher power quality.
Power Flow

G1
CB1 CB2

S2
CB3

CB4

CB5

CB6

FCL
CB7
CB8

S1

CB9

CB10

CB11

CB12
CB14

CB15

G2
CB13

S3
Figure 6-5 Coupling of transmission level substations

Possible FCL applications at voltage levels larger than 300 kV The power system in Korea is characterized by a high load area in the north of the country (Seoul) and major generation facilities relatively far away from this load area. To transport the energy, a major backbone of the Korean grid is a 354 kV transmission line system across the

6-5

country [44]. Currently, KEPCO has started an investigation to adapt the 345 kV system to the increasing short-circuit capacities. In order to handle the increased fault currents three different possibilities are under investigation. These measures are: replace the existing circuit breakers with a short-circuit capacity of 40 kA by new breakers with 63 kA install additional air core reactors introduce bus splitting.

A FCL operating at 345 kV could be very attractive for the Korean grid because it provides a much higher stability in comparison to air core reactors, a higher reliability and better load flow conditions than bus splitting and it avoids the high cost of upgrading several circuit breakers.

However, the needs for and the benefits of FCLs operating at the high voltage level larger than 300 kV have not been investigated in great detail. The present state-of-the-art does not allow to forecast the ability to design and fabricate SCFCLs at these levels. Especially, the electrical insulation needs to be developed.

Implementation issues
With the advent of the introduction of new devices such as FCLs into the existing power system a number of implementation issues need to be addressed. Currently, every installation of a novel FCL device in the system was essentially a one-of-a-kind field test. The developer of the FCL typically negotiated very specific technical requirements with the host utility for the prototype device. However, in order to allow a more widespread introduction of novel FCLs the following items need to be addressed by guidelines or standards: Testing procedures and specifications Currently, no standard specifications are available which determine test procedures specifically for FCLs. In the past, requirements and testing procedures for FCL prototypes have been deducted from standard circuit breaker testing procedures [3]. However, several distinct differences appear between circuit breakers and FCLs which must be addressed properly in future standard testing procedures. Testing procedure for mechanical circuit breakers require testing of the voltage withstand capability between terminals in the open position. While such testing is fully applicable to commercially available explosive-fuse FCLs and solid-state FCLs they are not necessarily to superconducting FCLs where no open position exists in the first place. The latter can only be achieved by connecting a load switch in series with the superconducting FCL. However, the question remains weather the test shall be performed on the combination of the two or on the load switch alone.

6-6

Standard current making and breaking test procedures for circuit breakers may again be fully applicable to solid-state FCLs but only in part to superconducting FCLs. The latter do not produce a current making capability due to the lack of any open position in the first place. Current breaking test should be more properly called current limiting tests since their purpose is to reveal limiting parameters of the device in question. Furthermore, no standard test procedure is available for testing the FCLs capability to withstand a superimposed high-voltage surge stemming from a lightning strike during a current limiting event. Impact on system protection Novel FCL technologies will have an impact on system protection. How much this impact will be will depend on the FCL response characteristic and the application. Since 2003 a new CIGRE working group (WGa3-16) is investigating this subject [36]. Some of the issues of concern are discussed below (see also [38]). Slowing of fault clearing governed by inverse-time characteristics of conventional protection schemes: Since a FCL reduces the first peak of a fault current as well as the subsequent letthrough current magnitude, trip times of conventional over current protection devices may increase. False readings of impedance relays upstream of the FCL location: The FCL action may significantly change the network impedance observed by such relays. Distant protection schemes commonly used in transmission systems will be negatively affected by such readings. Effects of non-sinusoidal fault currents: Most novel FCL methods will introduce non-linear impedances into the short circuit path. Therefore, voltage and current waveforms may be severely distorted during the limiting events, particularly with solid-state systems utilizing phase angle control methods. Some sensors such as conventional current and voltage transformers may not transfer such waveforms properly. Moreover, protection equipment operating on the assumption of quasi-sinusoidal waveforms may malfunction under such conditions (e.g. electromechanical relays based on RMS values).

6-7

7
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This report provides an overview of existing FCL technologies with a focus on novel devices based on superconducting materials (SCFCLs). Successful demonstration projects have proven the technical feasibility of these devices into the 15 kV voltage class with three-phase power ratings up to 12 MVA. Possibilities for deployment (applications) of FCLs in this voltage class exist in utility systems today. However, novel FCL devices are still not economically attractive for utilities today. From a technical point of view the major next step for SCFCL development is to extend the voltage range into the 110 kV class (and above) in order to be applicable for utilities to solve fault current problems. Most attractive for utilities are applications where either no adequate solution is available (e.g. no breaker of required rating exists) or where FCLs can substantially enhance system operation due to the near zero normal impedance. An attempt was made to establish ideal (most desirable) attributes or requirements for FCLs against which different technologies could be measured in order to compare them. However, it was concluded that many of these requirements are highly application specific and thus not universally applicable. Furthermore, the key performance data for the novel FCL technologies are only available for one specific spot design (the prototype or test device) with the lack of any scalability (as such information is almost exclusively proprietary to the manufacturer). From the qualitative comparison of FCL technologies given in this report it is concluded that losses in SCFCLs based on bulk BSCOO bulk material are significantly less than those of solidstate breakers today. While SCFCLs based on YBCO thin film technology significantly reduce the losses and somewhat the size of the FCL (due to higher possible strength of the electrical field on the HTS components) the manufacturing process is economically far less attractive than of that of BSCOO bulk material SCFCLs. Therefore, the latter may have the higher potential for an economically attractive SCFCL solution for utility applications. While the application of FCLs initially will be more surgical at some of the most critical locations in the network it is expected that FCLs will be used more widespread in the mid-term future. A potential issue with this could be changes to system dynamics during large disturbances when simultaneous or subsequent actions of multiple FCLs introduce significant additional impedances into the system. No research has been published so far on that topic. The lack of standard testing procedures for FCLs is reflected in the lack of standard specification. FCLs can cover a wide range of response characteristics which are currently very difficult to specify by the end user (the utilities). In order for utilities to feel more comfortable with applying novel FCL devices in the future it will be important to establish working groups for developing FCL specification guidelines.

7-1

8
REFERENCES
[1] Superconducting Fault Current Limiter Concepts, GE Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady, NY, Final Report 1994 R. F. Giese, Fault Current Limiters A Second Look, Argonne National Laboratory, IL, Report 1995 CIGRE WG A3.10: Fault Current Limiters in Electrical Medium and High Voltage Systems, CIGRE Technical Brochure, No. 239, 2003. Divan, D., Improving power line utilization and performance with D-FACTS devices, Proc. of the IEEE PES General Meeting, June 12-16 2005, San Francisco, USA Page(s):1275 1280 S. Schoft, J. Tepper, K. Niayesh, Short Circuit Current Limitation by means of Liquid Metal Technology, Proc. of the Conference on Switching Arc Phenomena, Lodz, Poland, 19-22 Sept 2005 Hawley, C. J.; Darmann, F.; Beales, T. P., Peformance of a 1 MVA High Temperature Superconductors-Enabled Saturable Magnetic Core-Type Fault Current Limiter, Superconducting Science And Technology, Vol. 18 (2005) Page(s): 255 259 SC Power to Install 2 HTS Fault Current Controllers, Superconductor Week, Vol. 19, No.11, pp. 1, 6-8, June 27, 2005 V. Gor, D. Povh, L. Yichuan, E. Lerch, D. Retzmann, K. Sadek, G. Thumm, SCCL - A New Type of FACTS based Short-Circuit Current Limiter for Application in High-Voltage Systems, Proc. of the CIGRE Session, Paris, 2004, Paper No B4-209 Fault Current Limiters - Utility Needs and Perspectives, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008696, 1008694 [2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] ABB Calor Emag GmbH (Germany), Is-limiter, the worlds fastest switching device, ABB product leaflet, 2003 [11] Chen, M.; Baumann, T.; Unternahrer, P.; Paul, W., Fabrication and Characterisation of Superconducting Rings for Fault Current Limiter Application, Physica C, Vol.: 282 - 287, Page(s): 2639 2640, 1997

8-1

[12] Paul, W.; Chen, M.; Lakner, M.; Rhyner, J.; Braun, D.; Lanz, W.; Kleimaier, M., Superconducting Fault Current Limiter Application, Technical and Economical Benefits, Simulations and Test Results, Cigre Session, Paris 2000, Page(s): 13 201 [13] Bock, J.; Breuer, F.; Walter, H.; Elschner, S.; Kleimaier, M.; Kreutz, R.; Noe, M., CURL 10: Development and Field-Test of a 10 kV/10 MVA Resistive Current Limiter Based on Bulk MCP-BSCCO 2212, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2005 Page(s):1955 1960 [14] Chen, M.; Paul, W.; Lakner, M.; Donzel, L.; Hoidis, M.; Unternaehrer, P.; Weder, R.; Mendik, M., 6.4 MVA Resistive Fault Current Limiter Based on Bi - 2212 Superconductor, Physica C, Vol.: 372 - 376, Page(s): 1657 1633, 2002 [15] H. W. Neumueller, Fault Current Limiter in Thin Film Technology, presented at the SCENET Workshop on Superconducting Fault Current Limiters (FCL) in Siegen, Germany, June 29 2004 [16] Kraemer, H.-P. et al: Switching behavior of YBCO thin film conductors in resistive fault current limiters, in: IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume: 13, Issue: 2, June 2003, Pages: 2044 2047 [17] R. Witzmann, W. Schmidt, R.-R. Volkmar, Resistive HTSL-Strombegrenzer, Internationaler ETG-Kongress, 23.-24. Oct. 2001, Nuremberg, Germany (in German) [18] Yuan, X.; Tekletsadik, K.; Kovalsky, L.; Bock, J.; Breuer, F.; Elschner, S.; Proof-ofConcept Prototype Test Results of a Superconducting Fault Current Limiter for Transmission-Level Applications, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2005 Page(s): 1982 1985 [19] High Temperature Superconducting Matrix Fault Current Limiter: Proof-of-Concept Test Results, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, SuperPower, Inc., Schenectady, NY, and Nexans SuperConductors, Huerth, Germany: 2004. 1008697 [20] Kunde, K.; Kleimaier, M.; Klingbeil, L., Integration of Fast Acting Electronic Fault Current Limiters (EFCL) in Medium - Voltage Systems, 17th International Conference on Electricity Distribution CIRED, Barcelona, May 2003 [21] Technical and Economical Evaluation of a Solid State Current Limiter, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, New York, NY, Allegheny Power, Greensburgh, PA, and ISO New England, Holyoke, MA: 2002.1001816 [22] Boenig, H.; Paice, D., Fault current limiter using a superconducting coil, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page(s):1051 - 1053

8-2

[23] Waynert, J.A.; Boenig, H.J.; Mielke, C.H.; Willis, J.O.; Burley, B.L., Restoration and testing of an HTS fault current controller, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 13, Issue 2, June 2003 Page(s):1984 1987 [24] Boenig, H. J.; Mielke, C. H.; Burley, B. L.; Chen, H.; Waynert, J. A.; Willis, J. O., The Bridge-Type Fault Current Controller - a new FACTS Controller, Proceedings of the IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting 2002, Vol.: 1, Page(s): 455 460 [25] Yazawa, T.; Ootani, Y.; Sakai, M.; Kuriyama, T.; Nomura, S.; Ohkuma, T.; Hobara, N.; Takahashi, Y.; Inoue, K.; Development of a 66 kV / 750 A High - Tc Superconducting Fault Current Limiter Magnet, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Vol.: 14, No.: 2, Page(s): 786 790 [26] Min Cheol Ahn; Kang, H.; Duck Kweon Bae; Dong Keun Park; Yong Soo Yoon; Sang Jin Lee; Tae Kuk Ko, The short-circuit characteristics of a DC reactor type superconducting fault current limiter with fault detection and signal control of the power converter, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 15, Issue 2, Part 2, June 2005 Page(s):2102 - 2105 [27] Karady, G.G., Principles of fault current limitation by a resonant LC circuit, IEE Proceedings C, Volume 139, Issue 1, Page(s):1 6, 1992 [28] Karady, G.G., Concept of a combined short circuit limiter and series compensator, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Volume 6, Issue 3, July 1991 Page(s):1031 - 1037 [29] Hedin, R.; Jalali, S.; Weiss, S.; Cope, L.; Johnson, B.; Mah, D.; Torgerson, D.; Vossler, B., Improving System Stability Using An Advanced Series Compensation Scheme To Damp Power Swings, Proc. of the Sixth Intl. Conf. on AC and DC Power Transmission, 29 Apr3 May 1996, Page(s):311 314 [30] H. Stemmler, A. Beer, H. Okayama, Transformerless Reactive Series Compensators with Voltage Source Inverters, IEE Japan Trans. on Industry Appl., Vol 118-D, No 10, Oct. 1998 [31] Strumpler, R.; Skindhoj, J.; Glatz-Reichenbach, J.; Kuhlefelt, J.H.W.; Perdoncin, F., Novel medium voltage fault current limiter based on polymer PTC resistors, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Volume 14, Issue 2, April 1999 Page(s):425 - 430 [32] Fukagawa, H.; Matsumura, T.; Ohkuma, T.; Sugimoto; S.; Genji, T.; Uezono, H.: Current State and Future Plans of Fault Current Limiting Technology in Japan, CIGRE 2000 Session, Report 13-208, Paris, 2000 [33] M. Steurer, K. Frhlich, W. Holaus, and K. Kaltenegger, A Novel Hybrid CurrentLimiting Circuit Breaker for Medium Voltage: Principle and Test Results, IEEE Trans. PD, Vol 18, No. 2, April 2003, pp. 460-467

8-3

[34] Krtschmer, A., Berger, F., Terhoeven, P., Rolle, S., Liquid metal current limiters, Proc. 20th International Conference on Electrical Contacts, 2000, pp. 167 172 [35] K. Niayesh, J. Tepper, F. Knig, On the Arcless Commutation of Currents Higher than 1 kA, 22nd Intl. Conf. on Electrical Contacts, Seattle, USA, pp. 388-394 [36] H. Schmitt*, J. Amon, D. Braun, G. Damstra, K.-H. Hartung, J. Jger, J. Kida, K. Kunde, Q. Le, L. Martini, M. Steurer, Ch. Umbricht, X. Waymel and C. Neumann, Fault Current Limiters Applications, Principles, and Experiences, to be presented at the CIGRE colloquium of CIGRE A3&B3, Sept 26 - Oct 1, 2005, Japan [37] J. Amon F., P. C. Fernandez, E. H. Rose, A. DAjuz, A. Castanheira, Brazilian Successful Experience in the Usage of Current Limiting Reactors for Short-Circuit Limitation, Proceedings of the IPST05 [38] Analysis of Protection Relaying Requirements for Solid State Current Limiter Applications, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001.1001969 [39] C. Neumann, J. Bock, Three phase resistive fault current limiter impact on system design, presented at Applied Superconductivity Conf. 2004, Oct 2004, Jacksonville, USA [40] M. Noe, B. R. Oswald, Technical and economical benefits of superconducting fault current limiters in power systems, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 1999, Volume 9, Issue 2, Part 1, June 1999 Page(s):1347 1350 [41] Fault current management plan, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., internal report, June 2001 [42] M. Noe, O.-B. Hyun, Y.-B. Yoon, H. Jagels, Investigation of the feasibility of superconducting fault current limiters in Seoul and Berlin Proceedings of the EUCAS 2003, Sorrento, Italy, pp. 682-689 [43] C. Neumann, J. Bock, Three phase resistive fault current limiter impact on system design presented at ASC2004, Jacksonville, USA [44] KEPCO Annual report 2004 (www.kepco.co.kr) [45] Kreutz, R.; Bock, J.; Breuer, F.; Juengst, K.-P.; Kleimaier, M.; Klein, H.-U.; Krischel, D.; Noe, M.; Steingass, R.; Weck, K.-H.; System technology and test of CURL 10, a 10 kV, 10 MVA resistive high-Tc superconducting fault current limiter IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 15, Issue 2, Part 2, June 2005 Page(s):1961 1964 [46] Ok-Bae Hyun; Hye-Rim Kim; Jungwook Sim; Young-Ho Jung; Kwon-Bae Park; JongSung Kang; Lee, B.W.; Il-Sung Oh, 6.6 kV resistive superconducting fault current limiter based on YBCO film, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 15, Issue 2, Part 2, June 2005 Page(s):2027 2030
8-4

[47] Torii, S.; Kameda, H.; Kumano, T.; Sakaki, H.; Kubota, H.; Yasuda, K.; Operation tests for SN transition superconducting fault current limiter in the power system simulator, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Volume 15, Issue 2, Part 2, June 2005 Page(s):2134 2137 [48] Shimohata, K.; Yokoyama, S.; Inaguchi, T.; Nakamura, S.; Ozawa, Y., Design of a Large Current-Type Fault Current Limiter with YBCO Films, Physica C, Vol.: 372 - 376, Page(s): 1643 1648 [49] Usoskin, A.; Freyhardt, H. C.; Issaev, A.; Knoke, J.; Dzick, J.; Collet, M.; Kirchesch, P.; Lehtonen, J., Superpoli Fault - Current Limiters Based on YBCO - Coated Stainless Steel Tapes, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Vol.: 13, Issue: 2, Page(s): 1972 1975 [50] Leung, E.; Burley, B.; Chitwood, N., et al, Design & Development of a 15 kV, 20 kA HTS Fault Current Limiter, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2000, Page(s): 832 835 [51] Yazawa, T.; Yoneda, E.; Matsuzaki, J.; Shimada, M.; Kuriyama, T.; Nomura, S.; Ohkuma, T.; Sato, Y.; Takahashi, Y., Design and Test Results of a 6.6 kV High - Tc Superconducting Fault Current Limiter, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Vol.: 11, No.: 1, March 2001, Page(s): 2511 2514

8-5

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major locations in Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina, was established in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy and environmental research. EPRI brings together members, participants, the Institutes scientists and engineers, and other leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric power. These solutions span nearly every area of electricity generation, delivery, and use, including health, safety, and environment. EPRIs members represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the United States. International participation represents nearly 15% of EPRIs total research, development, and demonstration program. TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity

2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1010760

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com