energies

Review
Fault Current Limiters in Power Systems:
A Comprehensive Review
Md Shafiul Alam ID
, Mohammad Ali Yousef Abido * ID
and Ibrahim El-Amin
Department of Electrical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals,
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia; shafiul@kfupm.edu.sa (M.S.A.); imelamin@kfupm.edu.sa (I.E.-A)
* Correspondence: mabido@kfupm.edu.sa; Tel.: +966-508-757-838




Received: 6 March 2018; Accepted: 17 April 2018; Published: 24 April 2018


Abstract: Power systems are becoming more and more complex in nature due to the integration
of several power electronic devices. Protection of such systems and augmentation of reliability as
well as stability highly depend on limiting the fault currents. Several fault current limiters (FCLs)
have been applied in power systems as they provide rapid and efficient fault current limitation.
This paper presents a comprehensive literature review of the application of different types of FCLs in
power systems. Applications of superconducting and non-superconducting FCLs are categorized as:
(1) application in generation, transmission and distribution networks; (2) application in alternating
current (AC)/direct current (DC) systems; (3) application in renewable energy resources integration;
(4) application in distributed generation (DG); and (5) application for reliability, stability and fault ride
through capability enhancement. Modeling, impact and control strategies of several FCLs in power
systems are presented with practical implementation cases in different countries. Recommendations
are provided to improve the performance of the FCLs in power systems with modification of its
structures, optimal placement and proper control design. This review paper will be a good foundation
for researchers working in power system stability issues and for industry to implement the ongoing
research advancement in real systems.

Keywords: fault current limiter; superconducting; non-superconducting; optimal placement;

power system stability; fault ride through capability

1. Introduction
Nowadays, the transmission lines of power systems are being stressed to transfer larger amounts
of power, much closer to their thermal limit, than were considered when built. Power resources
are limited and are increasingly more uncertain and variable. The integration of several renewable
energy resources, including large-scale wind farms, into the existing grid is a great challenge for
power system researchers. It increases the complexity of the electric networks with an inherently high
short circuit rate. Generally, the electric networks are vulnerable to AC/DC faults and sophisticated
protection apparatus and procedures need to be developed to avoid costly or even irremediable
damage. Current limiting reactors are used in power systems for limiting short circuit currents and
avoiding damage to the power system due to excessive fault currents. However, current limiting
reactors have impedance during normal operation of the system [1].
The stability and security of electric power systems has become increasingly significant due to
their complex nature. The application of a fault current limiter is one of the promising solutions to
the stability and security issues of power systems. Different kinds of fault current limiters, such as
resistive, inductive, superconducting, non-superconducting, flux-lock, DC reactor and resonance
FCL, have been offered for limiting fault currents and improving the dynamic stability of power
systems [2–6]. Resistive-type and inductive-type FCLs provide nearly zero impedance under normal

Energies 2018, 11, 1025; doi:10.3390/en11051025 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 1025 2 of 24

operating conditions, whereas they provide high-impedance resistors or inductors in faulty conditions.
Recently, a number of practical superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) devices have been
effectively developed and verified by in-grid tests. The present focus on applied superconductivity
technology to build SFCL devices has been moving from the 10-kV distribution level [7,8] to the 100-kV
transmission level
Energies [8,9].
2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 25

This paper provides a broad view of the applications of several superconducting and
operating conditions, whereas they provide high-impedance resistors or inductors in faulty
non-superconducting FCLs in different branches of power networks. Structure and control techniques
conditions. Recently, a number of practical superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) devices
for several FCLs
have beenareeffectively
discussed. Several and
developed optimal parameter
verified by in-gridselection
tests. Theandpresent
optimal placement
focus on applied techniques
for FCLssuperconductivity
are provided.technology Practical implementation
to build SFCL devices has cases
beenin different
moving countries
from the with field tests
10-kV distribution
level [7,8]Lastly,
are discussed. to the 100-kV transmission
current level [8,9].
challenges for FCL application are addressed and future works
This paper provides a broad view of the applications of several superconducting and
are recommended.
non-superconducting FCLs in different branches of power networks. Structure and control
The techniques
paper is organized
for several as follows:
FCLs Section Several
are discussed. 2 provides
optimala general
parameter overview
selection of theoptimal
and application of
FCLs in several branches of power systems; the structure and working principles
placement techniques for FCLs are provided. Practical implementation cases in different countries of superconducting
with field tests are discussed.
and non-superconducting FCLs areLastly, currentin
discussed challenges
Sectionsfor3 and
FCL application are addressed
4 respectively; optimaland placement
future works are recommended.
techniques for FCLs are provided in Section 5; the practical implementation issues for FCLs in
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a general overview of the application of
different FCLs
countries and field-testing results are discussed in Section 6; stability augmentation in
in several branches of power systems; the structure and working principles of
different branches
superconductingof power systems with FCLsFCLs
and non-superconducting are presented
are discussedin Section
in Sections7; current challenges for FCLs
3 and 4 respectively;
application and some
optimal placement future works are
techniques recommended
for FCLs are provided in in
Section
Section8;5;and
the finally,
practicalSection 9 highlights the
implementation
issues for FCLs in
major conclusions of this survey. different countries and field-testing results are discussed in Section 6; stability
augmentation in different branches of power systems with FCLs are presented in Section 7; current
2. challenges for and
Superconducting FCLsNon-Superconducting
application and some futureFCLs
works are recommended in Section 8; and finally,
Section 9 highlights the major conclusions of this survey.
Fault current limiters (FCLs) are considered serious candidates to be inserted into electrical
2. Superconducting and Non-Superconducting FCLs
grids in order to prevent short-circuit damage and the inevitable upgrading of the system equipment.
Fault current
Mainly, two types of FCLslimiters (FCLs) are considered
are extensively applied serious candidates
in power systems:to be inserted into electrical [10–13]
non-superconducting
grids in order to prevent short-circuit damage and the inevitable upgrading of the system
and superconducting [14–19]. Superconducting FCLs have been applied in different parts of the
equipment. Mainly, two types of FCLs are extensively applied in power systems:
power network such as renewable
non-superconducting power
[10–13] and generation, [14–19].
superconducting distribution generation,
Superconducting transmission
FCLs have been system,
distribution network [18,20–30]. Also, non-superconducting types FCLs have been employed
applied in different parts of the power network such as renewable power generation, distribution
in several branches of power system such as generation, transmission, distributiontypes
generation, transmission system, distribution network [18,20–30]. Also, non-superconducting network for
improving FCLs have been
dynamic employed in by
performance several branches
limiting of current
fault power system such as generation,
[10,12,31–35]. The treetransmission,
diagram shown in
distribution network for improving dynamic performance by limiting fault current [10,12,31–35].
Figure 1 summarizes the different applications of superconducting and non-superconducting FCLs in
The tree diagram shown in Figure 1 summarizes the different applications of superconducting and
power systems.
non-superconducting FCLs in power systems.

FCL

Non-superconducting
Superconducting FCL FCL

Transmission Distributed Renewable Distribution Distributed Distribution

Transmission Renewable
Line Generation Energy Network Generation Network
Line [31] Energy
[20-22] [18,23,24] [25-27] [28-30] [32,33] [35]
[10,12,34]

Figure 1. Superconducting and non-superconducting fault current limiters (FCLs) in different

Figure 1. Superconducting and non-superconducting fault current limiters (FCLs) in different branches
branches of power system.
of power system.
Both superconducting FCL and non-superconducting FCL have been extensively applied in
Bothtransmission and distribution
superconducting FCL andnetworks and renewable energyFCL
non-superconducting systems for different
have purposes such
been extensively applied in
as stability enhancement, protection improvement, fault current reduction and fault ride through
transmission and distribution networks and renewable energy systems for different purposes
capability enhancement. Main advantages and disadvantages of superconducting and
such as stability enhancement,
non-superconducting FCLs areprotection
summarizedimprovement,
in Table 1. fault current reduction and fault ride
through capability enhancement. Main advantages and disadvantages of superconducting and
non-superconducting FCLs are summarized in Table 1.
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 3 of 24

Table 1. Comparisons of superconducting and non-superconducting FCLs.

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25
Items Superconducting FCL Non-Superconducting FCL References
Size and weight Big size and heavy weight. Small in size and less weight. [36,37]
Table 1. Comparisons of superconducting and non-superconducting FCLs.
As the required inductor and resistor Less cost due to
Cost Items are superconducting
Superconductingnature,
FCL it has non-superconducting
Non-Superconducting FCL nature References
of [38–41]
Size and weight high
Big implantation cost.
size and heavy weight. Smallrequired
in size andinductor and resistor. [36,37]
less weight.
As the
Most of required inductor
them have and resistor
no loss during Less cost due to
Cost normal operation; however,has
are superconducting nature, it high non-superconducting
inductive nature ofoperation of
It has loss in normal [38–41]
Loss implantation cost. required [42–45]
type SFCL has loss in normal the inductor
system.and resistor.
Most of them have
operating condition. no loss during
normal operation; however, inductive It has loss in normal operation of the
Loss Recently proposed bridge fault [42–45]
type SFCL has loss in normal operating system.
current limiter (BFCL), modified
Some of them like saturated iron core,
condition.
BFCL, transformer coupled BFCL
Implementation hybrid and resistive SFCL have beenRecently proposed bridge fault
have not been implemented in [30,46–49]
status practically implemented in power current limiter (BFCL), modified
Some of them like saturated iron core, real systems. Detailed feasibility
systems in some countries. BFCL, transformer coupled BFCL
Implementation hybrid and resistive SFCL have been analysis is needed to be done for
have not been implemented in real [30,46–49]
status practically implemented in power practical implementation.
systems. Detailed feasibility analysis
Interference with systems in some countries.
is needed to be done for practical
No interference with
neighboring It has interference with implementation.
communication line has been [30,50,51]
communication
Interference with communication line.
No reported with
interference in any research article.
communication
line neighboring It has interference with
line has been reported in any research [30,50,51]
communication Most of them does
communication line. not require Most of the non-superconducting
Fault detection and article.
line additional fault detection and control FCL needs additional fault [25–27,30]
control systems
Fault detection system.
Most of them does not require Mostdetection and control circuit.
of the non-superconducting
and control additional fault detection and control FCL needs additional fault detection
[25–27,30]
Topology Most of them has highly complex Structure is very simple for most
systems system. and control circuit. [32,52–59]
complexity circuit topology. of them.
Topology Most of them has highly complex Structure is very simple for most of
[32,52–59]
complexity circuit topology. them.
3. Superconducting FCLs
3. Superconducting FCLs
Depending on the structure and operating principle, superconducting fault current limiters
(SFCLs) canDepending on theasstructure
be categorized and
different operating
types: principle, superconducting
Non-inductive fault transformer,
reactor, inductive, current limiters
resistive,
(SFCLs) can be categorized as different types: Non-inductive reactor, inductive, transformer,
hybrid, flux-lock and magnetic-shield.
resistive, hybrid, flux-lock and magnetic-shield.

3.1. Non-Inductive Type Type

3.1. Non-Inductive SFCLSFCL
A schematic diagram
A schematic of non-inductive
diagram of non-inductivetype SFCLisisshown
type SFCL shown in Figure
in Figure 2, which
2, which is of
is made made
two of two
superconducting
superconducting coils coils
[60].[60].

SFCL

LOAD

Source

Figure 2. Basic circuit diagram of non-inductive superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) with
Figure 2. Basic circuit diagram of non-inductive superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) with
single phase circuit.
single phase circuit.

A current limiting coil and a trigger coil are connected in anti-parallel and are magnetically
coupled well. Different types of configurations like a coaxial coil arrangement and a bifilar winding
 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 25

Energies 2018, 11, 1025limiting coil and a trigger coil are connected in anti-parallel and are magnetically
A current 4 of 24
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 25
coupled well. Different types of configurations like a coaxial coil arrangement and a bifilar winding
arrangementA were compared.
current The bifilar
limiting coil winding
coil arearrangement was found and
to be superior to have a
arrangement were compared. Theand a trigger
bifilar winding connected in anti-parallel
arrangement was found to arebe magnetically
superior to have a
high impedance ratio
coupled well. [60]. types of configurations like a coaxial coil arrangement and a bifilar winding
Different
high impedance ratio [60].
arrangement were compared. The bifilar winding arrangement was found to be superior to have a
high impedance
3.2. Inductive Type SFCLratio [60].
3.2. Inductive Type SFCL
Inductive typeType
3.2. Inductive SFCL has two coaxial windings and an optional magnetic core [61]. Primary
SFCL
Inductive type SFCL has two coaxial windings and an optional magnetic core [61].
winding is made up type
Inductive of copper
SFCL (Cu),
has whereas
two coaxial secondary
windings andwinding is made
an optional up of
magnetic a high
core temperature
[61]. Primary
Primary winding is made up of copper (Cu), whereas secondary winding is made up of a high
superconductor
winding is(HTS).
made upThe SFCL(Cu),
of copper is cooled
whereasinsecondary
a liquidwinding
nitrogen bath.upThe
is made electrical
of a high connection
temperature
temperature superconductor (HTS). The SFCL is cooled in a liquid nitrogen bath. The electrical
diagramsuperconductor
of inductive SFCL
(HTS).isThe
shown
SFCLinisFigure
cooled3.in a liquid nitrogen bath. The electrical connection
connectiondiagram
diagram of inductive
of inductive SFCL isSFCL
shown isinshown in Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Circuit Breaker
Circuit Breaker

Cu HTS
Cu HTS

Cu HTS

Cu HTS

Cryostat

Cryostat
Figure 3. 3.15 kV class inductive SFCL.
Figure 3. 3.15 kV class inductive SFCL.
Figure 3. 3.15 kV class inductive SFCL.
During the steady state mode of the power system, nearly zero impedance is shown by
Duringinductive SFCL state
the steady as the mode
zero impedance of the secondary
of the power superconducting
system, nearly winding isisreflected
zero impedance shown to bythe
inductive
During theHowever,
primary. steady state
duringmodesystemofcontingencies,
the power resistance
system, nearly zero impedance
in the secondary is reflected is inshown
the by
SFCL as the zero impedance of the secondary superconducting winding is reflected to the primary.
inductive SFCLcircuits
primary as the to
zero
limitimpedance of the secondary superconducting winding is reflected to the
the fault currents.
However, during system contingencies, resistance in the secondary is reflected in the primary circuits
primary. However, during system contingencies, resistance in the secondary is reflected in the
to limit the fault
primary3.3. currents.
Transformer
circuits Type
to limit SFCL
the fault currents.
Enhancement of supply reliability and power system stability have been observed with the
3.3. Transformer Type SFCL
transformer type SFCL [52,62–68]. The primary side of the transformer type SFCL is connected in
3.3. Transformer Type SFCL
series with the load whereas the secondary side is connected in series with superconductors. The
Enhancement
Enhancement ofofsupply
supply reliability
reliability and power
and vacuum system stability
power interrupter
system stabilityhavehave beenobserved
observed with the
transformer type fault current limiter with is shown in thebeen Figure 4. In Figurewith
4, the
transformer
transformer typeL2SFCL
L1 andtype SFCL
are
[52,62–68].
[52,62–68].
the inductance
The
in The
primary
primary
primary
side of the
side
and secondary
transformer
of the transformer
respectively.
typethe
M istype
SFCL is connected
SFCL
mutual is connected
inductance
in series
in
with the load whereas
between the the
primarysecondary
and secondaryside is connected
coils of the in series
transformer. with superconductors.
series with the load whereas the secondary side is connected in series with superconductors. The The transformer
type fault current
transformer typelimiter with vacuum
fault current limiter with interrupter is shown inisthe
vacuum interrupter shownFigure 4. Figure
in the In Figure4. In4,Figure
L1 and4,L2
CT i1
areLthe inductance
1 and L2 are the in primary and
inductance secondary
in primary and respectively. L M is the mutual
secondary respectively.
1
R-Load
M is theinductance between the
mutual inductance
Switch-1 R0
primary
between and thesecondary
primary andcoils of the transformer.
secondary coils of theM transformer.
L2 Switch-2
i2 b-switch
V1 CT i1 L1 R-Load
Switch-1 R0 Solenoid Valve
M SCR
SCR
Control
Circuit
L220V,
2 60Hz Switch-2
i2 b-switch
V1
N
Solenoid Valve
Figure 4. Transformer type SFCL with load in single phase circuit.
SCR
Control SCR
Circuit
220V, 60Hz

Figure4.4.Transformer
Figure Transformertype
type SFCL
SFCL with
with load
load in
in single
singlephase
phasecircuit.
circuit.

Upon the occurrence of faults, superconductors in the secondary side of the transformer are
quenched, consequently, fault current in the secondary is limited to a lower value. Due to the current
limiting in the secondary, fault current in the primary side is limited as well.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 25

Upon the occurrence of faults, superconductors in the secondary side of the transformer are
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 25
quenched, consequently, fault current in the secondary is limited to a lower value. Due to the current
Energies
limiting 2018,
in 11,
the1025
secondary, fault 5 of 24
Upon the occurrence of current in the primary side
faults, superconductors in theissecondary
limited asside
well.of the transformer are
quenched, consequently, fault current in the secondary is limited to a lower value. Due to the current
3.4. Resistive
limiting inType SFCL
the SFCL
secondary, fault current in the primary side is limited as well.
3.4. Resistive Type
Resistive type SFCL can improve the transient stability of the power system by suppressing the
Resistive
3.4. type
Resistive TypeSFCL
SFCLcan improve the transient stability of the power system by suppressing the
level of fault currents in a quick and efficient manner [5,69–79]. A very simple structure of resistive
level of fault currents
Resistiveintype in a quick
SFCL and efficient manner [5,69–79].
of theA very system
simple by
structure of resistive
SFCL is shown Figure 5 can improve
consisting ofthe transient
nth units ofstability
stabilizing power
and suppressing
superconducting the in
resistances
SFCL is shown
level of faultin Figurein5 aconsisting
currents quick and of nth units
efficient of stabilizing
manner [5,69–79]. Aand superconducting
very resistances
simple structure of resistive in
parallel [5]. Coil inductance with nth units is connected in series with the parallel resistive branch.
parallel
SFCL [5].
is Coil
shown inductance
in Figure 5with nth units
consisting is connected
of nth in seriesand
units of stabilizing with the parallel resistive
superconducting branch.
resistances in
parallel [5]. Coil inductance with nth units is connected in series with the parallel resistive branch.
Rns(t)

Rns(t)

Rnc(t)
Rnc(t)
Figure 5. A
Figure 5. A simple
simple structure
structure of
of resistive
resistive SFCL.
SFCL.
Figure 5. A simple structure of resistive SFCL.
the normal
In the normal steady
steady state
state condition,
condition, thethe values
values of ofstabilizing
stabilizing(R (Rnsns)) and
and superconducting
superconducting (R (Rnc
nc)
In the normal steady state condition, the values of stabilizing (R ns) and superconducting (Rnc)
resistances are
resistances arezero.
zero. However,
However, during during fault conditions,
fault conditions, these resistances
these resistances become nonzero become nonzero
time-varying
resistances are zero. However, during fault conditions, these resistances become nonzero
time-varying
parameters parameters
to maintain to maintain states
superconducting superconducting
according to their states according
unique to theirTheunique
characteristics. value
time-varying parameters to maintain superconducting states according to their unique
characteristics.
of the coil The
inductance value
is of
kept the
as coil
smallinductance
as possibleis kept
in as
order small
to as
have possible
minimal inAC
characteristics. The value of the coil inductance is kept as small as possible in order to have minimal order
lossto have
during minimal
normal
AC loss
operation. during
AC loss duringnormal
Therefore, theoperation.
normal effect of the
operation. Therefore,
inductorthe
Therefore, effect
during
the of the
effectsteady
of theinductor
inductor
state during
operation
during is steady
ignored.
steady state
state operation
operation
is ignored.
A long length
is ignored. of the superconductor is needed to make a high voltage and high current system in
A long
case of length
resistive andof the superconductor
inductive type SFCLs. is needed
However, to make
this a high
required voltage
length
A long length of the superconductor is needed make a high voltage and high current system is and high current
significantly system
reduced in
in case
hybrid of resistive
SFCL,
in case whichand
of resistive inductive
makes
and type
typeSFCLs.
it commercially
inductive SFCLs. However,
applicable
However, thisrequired
[80].
this requiredlength
length is is significantly
significantly reduced
reduced
in hybrid
in hybrid SFCL,
SFCL, which
which makes
makes it itcommercially
commercially applicable
applicable [80].
[80].
3.5. Hybrid SFCL
3.5. Hybrid
3.5. Hybrid SFCL
Due toSFCLthe slight critical current differences between the several units, resistive SFCL faces
DueDue
difficulty to to the slightsimultaneously
in the
quenching critical current differences
slight critical between the
current differences between
units;the
between several units,
however,
the severalthis resistive can
problem
units, SFCLbefaces
resistive SFCLsolved
faces
with difficulty
hybrid in
SFCL quenching
[81]. simultaneously
Hybrid SFCL is between
proposed the
forunits; however,
limiting fault this problem
current and can be solved
improving with
dynamic
difficulty in quenching simultaneously between the units; however, this problem can be solved with
hybrid SFCL [81]. Hybrid SFCL is proposed for limiting fault current and improving dynamic
performance
hybrid SFCL of power
[81]. Hybrid systemSFCL [80–83].
is proposed A hybrid for type
limitingSFCL hascurrent
fault a primaryandwinding
improving anddynamic
several
performance of power system [80–83]. A hybrid type SFCL has a primary winding and several
secondary
performance windings as shown in Figure 6 [81]. Each of the secondary windings is connected in series
secondary of power assystem
windings shown [80–83].
in Figure A hybrid
6 [81]. Eachtype
of theSFCL has awindings
secondary primaryis winding
connectedand several
in series
with a
secondarysuperconducting resistive unit. In Figure 6, L is inductance in the primary winding of the
with a windings as shown
superconducting in Figure
resistive unit. 6In[81]. Each
Figure 6, of
LPP the secondaryinwindings
is inductance is connected
the primary winding ofintheseries
transformer
withtransformerandandLSAL, SA
a superconducting LSB, L,resistive
L LSCand
SB,SC andIunit.
ISA,, IISB
SA In
SB , ,IISB arethe
Figure
SBare the Linductances
6,inductances
P is inductance and
and currents of secondary
in theofprimary
currents secondary windings
winding
windings of the
A, B and
transformerC respectively.
A, B and and LSA, LSB, LSC and ISA, ISB, ISB are the inductances and currents of secondary windings
C respectively.
A, B and C respectively.
RL IP

Switch-1 R0 RL IP
ISA LN2
Switch-1 R0
Switch-2
LSA SFCLA
ISA LN2
Switch-2
LSA SFCLA
LP ISB

LSB SFCLB
LP ISB

LSB SFCLB
ISC

LSC SFCLC
ISC
Cryostat
LSC SFCLC

Figure 6. Structure of hybrid SFCL.

Figure 6. Structure of hybrid SFCL. Cryostat

Figure 6. Structure of hybrid SFCL.

During normal operation, resistance of the superconducting units connected in series with the
secondary windings is zero. Therefore, current (IP ) flows through the power system without any loss.
When fault appears on the system, superconducting unit is quenched and fault current is limited.
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 6 of 24
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 25

During normal operation, resistance of the superconducting units connected in series with the
In this way, hybrid SFCL has almost no effect on the system performance during normal operation
secondary windings is zero. Therefore, current (IP) flows through the power system without any
and limits fault
loss. When faultduring
current appearscontingencies.
on the system, superconducting unit is quenched and fault current is
limited. In this way, hybrid SFCL has almost no effect on the system performance during normal
3.6. Flux-Lock Type SFCL
operation and limits fault current during contingencies.

Among 3.6.several
Flux-Lock of
Typethe
SFCL SFCLs, the flux-lock type SFCL has less power burden of the high
temperature superconducting
Among several of the (HTSC)
SFCLs, element
the flux-lock[53].
typeShort circuit
SFCL has current
less power in power
burden system can be
of the high
limited with the flux-lock
temperature type fault
superconducting current
(HTSC) limiter
element [53]. during different
Short circuit current contingencies
in power system can[36,41,53,84–88].
be
limited with
The configuration the flux-lock
of the flux-lock type faultSFCL
type currentwith
limiterover
during different
current contingencies
relay is shown [36,41,53,84–88].
in the Figure 7 where
The configuration of the flux-lock type SFCL with over current relay is shown in the Figure 7 where
N1 , N2 , N3 and i1 , i2 , i3 represent coil-1, coil-2 and coil-3 and their currents, respectively. ORC stands
N1, N2, N3 and i1, i2, i3 represent coil-1, coil-2 and coil-3 and their currents, respectively. ORC stands
for over current
for overrelay.
current relay.

Circuit Breaker
if i1
N1

HTSC
N3 N2
R3 i3

ORC
i2 iSC
Figure 7. Configuration of the flux-lock type SFCL.
Figure 7. Configuration of the flux-lock type SFCL.
As shown in Figure 7, the flux-lock type SFCL has two main parts— the current limiting part
and the current interrupting part. The current limiting part consists of two parallel-connected coils
As shown in Figure 7, the flux-lock type SFCL has two main parts— the current limiting part
and a high temperature superconductor (HTSC) connected in series with one of the coils. The
and the current
currentinterrupting part.
interrupting part Theofcurrent
consists limiting
an over current part
relay consists
driven ofthe
by one of two parallel-connected
parallel coils and a coils
and a high circuit
temperature superconductor
breaker. During (HTSC)
normal operation, zeroconnected in series
voltage is induced with
across the one of the
coil as themagnetic
coils. The current
fluxes
interrupting partgenerated
consists in of
twoan
coils are cancelled
over currentout. In faulty
relay drivenconditions,
by onefault current
of the is limited
parallel by the
coils and a circuit
voltage generations across the coils.
breaker. During normal operation, zero voltage is induced across the coil as the magnetic fluxes
generated in
3.7.two coilsShield
Magnetic are Type
cancelled
SFCL out. In faulty conditions, fault current is limited by the voltage
generations across the shield
Magnetic coils.type SFCLs have been reported in References [50,51,89,90–94]. They consist of a
primary copper coil and secondary high temperature superconductor (HTS) tube wound around a
3.7. Magnetic Shieldiron
magnetic Type SFCL
core [93] as shown in Figure 8. In the magnetic shield SFCL, screen currents thwart
flux penetration into the iron core during standard operation as the HTS tube is fixed in between the
Magnetic shield
primary coppertype SFCLs
winding and have been core.
the magnetic reported in References [50,51,89–94]. They consist of a
primary copper coil and secondary high temperature superconductor (HTS) tube wound around a
magnetic iron core [93] as shown in Figure 8. In the magnetic shield SFCL, screen currents thwart
flux penetration into the iron core during standard operation as the HTS tube is fixed in between the
primary copper
Energies 2018, winding andREVIEW
11, x FOR PEER the magnetic core. 7 of 25

Superconductor Tube
Symmetry Axis

Primary Copper Winding

Magnetic Core

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Magnetic Shield SFCL (a) Full structural view (b) Cross sectional view.
Figure 8. Magnetic Shield SFCL (a) Full structural view (b) Cross sectional view.
During fault conditions, superconducting to a normal transition value is increased as the
current exceeds critical value of HTS elements. Therefore, the resistance of the HTS tube is replicated
in the primary circuit and magnetic flux infiltrates into the iron core augmenting impedance of the
limiter.
Table 2 summarizes superconducting FCLs in terms of cost, advantages, limitation and
applications and so forth.
 process in
Symmetry detail.
2018, by performing SWOT
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW analysis, which will help it examine its perfo 8o
The phases for implementing a N-AHP
external factors. in SWOT
Once analysis
SWOT are shown
analysis is in Figurea4.company wil
complete,
Symmetry
in order2018, 10, x FOR its
to measure PEER REVIEW
presumptive success. A company can appr
in order to measureFigure its presumptive
4. Thecapabilities.
phases success. ForA company
for implementing the evaluation can appraise
a N-AHP process,
in SWOT itself honestly and
aanalysis.
multi-criteria effectiv
decision-m
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW by performing SWOT Figureanalysis,4. The which
phases will
for help it examine
implementing a its perfo
N-AHP 8ino
by performing SWOT analysis,
Figure 4. TheIn which
in this research,
phases
order will
for
to help we it examine
implementing
measure used
itsSWOT a aN-AHPits performance
neutrosophic
presumptive in SWOT AHP.
success. byAanalyzing
Acompany
analysis. case study internal offea
canisappr
external factors. Once analysis is complete, a company wil
external
Starbucks factors.Company
Once SWOT
Figure is4. the
The analysis
phases
Symmetry
most is
for complete,
2018,
widely x FOR aPEER
implementing
10,
prolific company
a N-AHP
marketer REVIEW will
and gain
in retailer
SWOT more
analysis. itinformation
of coffee in the about
world.
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 in order to measure its presumptive
process
by performing
Starbucks
capabilities.
in detail.
success.For ASWOTtheFigure
company
Company analysis,
evaluation is4.
canthe which
Theappraise
phases
most
process, will
for help
implementing
itself
widely honestly
7prolific
aanalysis. examine
multi-criteria
of 24 and
marketer its perfo
a decision-m
N-AHP
effectiv
andinT
Starbucks
capabilities.
company has branches in 75 countries, For Company
the Figure
evaluation 4.
is The
the phases
most
process,
The factors. for
widelya implementing
with prolific
multi-criteria
phases more a
marketer
for implementing
than N-AHP and
decision-making
254,000 in SWOT
retailer
a N-AHP
employees. of coffee
technique
inTheSWOT in the
should
company world.
analysis be use
alsoare seT
by performing SWOT analysis, external
which
company
In thiswidely will has
research,help itOnce
branches
we examine
used SWOT
ina 75 analysis
itscountries,
performance
neutrosophic iswith
complete,
AHP.byA analyzing
more
Acompany a company
than
case study internal
254,000 wil
isappr
offe aT
em
Starbucks
company Company
has branches usedin is
a 75 the in order
most
countries, to
withmeasure
prolific
more its
a than presumptive
marketer 254,000 and success.
retailer
employees. of coffee
The in
companythe can
world.
also
In this research,
different
external
types
factors.
ofwecoffee
Once SWOT
and neutrosophic
tea products
Starbucks
capabilities.
analysis
different
process is
AHP.
and
types
inwith For
complete,
detail.
A case
has
Company
ofthe
study
licensed
aevaluation
coffee company
andis the is offered
trademark.
most
process,
teaandwill
productsgain
inaThe
widely this section
company
prolific
multi-criteria
more
and has
tooffers
illustrate
marketer
information
acompany decision-m
licensed andse
food,
about
tradem
t
Starbucks
company
different
process
addition superconducting in has
types
detail. Company
branches
of coffee
to coffee, and this in
andis75 the most
by performing
countries,
tea products widely and prolific
SWOT
more
has a marketer
than analysis,
licensed 254,000 which retailer
will
employees.
trademark. Theof
help coffee
The it
company in
examine the world.
its
offers perfo
also
food,seT
During fault conditions,
capabilities. For the evaluation to makes
a normal
company
In it an
this
process,
addition
attractive
transition
ahas
research,
to wevalue
branches
multi-criteria
coffee,
spot
used isinfor snacks
increased
a 75neutrosophic
decision-making
and
aas
countries, breakfast.
thewithcurrent
AHP. more
A
technique
The
than
case company
study
should254,000
isbeoffeem
use
h
company
exceeds critical valuedifferent
addition
of The phases
different
HTS
has
types
to branches
offor
coffee,
competitors,
elements. coffee
and in
and
this
implementing
such
Therefore,
75makes
countries,
tea
as external
the a
The
products
it
Caribou
resistance an
N-AHP
phases
with
factors.
and more
has
attractive
Coffeein
of
for
Once
SWOT
the aand
than
spot
Company,
Figure
HTS
this
implementing
SWOT
licensed 254,000
for
analysis
4.
tube
makes
analysis
trademark.
snacksare
Costa
Theis
itN-AHP
phasesand
an
employees.
shown is
Coffee,
replicated for
attractive
inThe
complete,
The
breakfast.
in
in
SWOT
company
Figure
Green
implementing
the
spot
company
The4. a
for
analysis
aMountain
company
offers
company
N-AHP
snacks
also are
wil
food,
Cofse
in h
In this research, we used aREVIEW different
process inAHP.
neutrosophic
different types of
competitors, coffee
detail.A case study and
such tea
is
as products
offered
Caribou and has
inbreakfast.
this
Coffeesection a licensed
tooffers
Company, tradem
illustrate
Costa th
different
addition
Symmetry
different types
to
2018, 10, of
coffee,
x
competitors, coffee
FOR andPEER and
this
such tea
makes
as products
capabilities.
it
Caribou an and For has
attractive
Coffee the a licensed
evaluation
spot
Company, for trademark.
process,
snacks and
Costaperform aThe company
multi-criteria The decision-m
company food,
8 o
Roasters and
primary circuit and magnetic
process influx
many
detail.
others.
infiltrates
Figure into 4.To the
The face competition,
iron
addition
phases
RoastersThe core
fortoaugmenting
coffee,
phases
and
afor
implementing
many
group
and
others. aofN-AHP
impedance
this
implementing experts
To makes
face ofitCoffee,
the
aSWOTan limiter.
N-AHP
incompetition,
Green
Starbucks
attractive
in SWOT
analysis.a group
Mountain
spotSWOT forexperts
analysis
of snacksCof
analys
arep
addition
different
Roasters
as shown to
and coffee,
competitors,
many and
others.
in Figure 5. Depending this
such To makes
as In
face it
this
Caribou
competition,
Starbucks
onterms
Symmetry
an
the2018,attractive
research,
Coffee
SWOT awe spot
used
Company,
Figure
group
Company
xfactors
10,cost,FORadvantages,
PEER
for
of
and a 4.
is snacks
neutrosophic
Costa
The
experts
the phases
most and
Coffee,
perform
sub-factors,
REVIEW for
widelybreakfast.
AHP. A
Green
implementing
Starbucks
prolific
a Coffee
set and The
case
of alternatives a
SWOTcompany
study
MountainN-AHP
marketer is
analys
and
strateg inh
offe
Cof
Table 2 summarizes The superconducting
phases for FCLs
implementing in
different
as a
shown N-AHP inof
competitors,
in
FigureSWOT 5. such
analysis
Depending as limitation
Caribou
are
on shown
the SWOTin Figure Company,
factors 4. and Costa
sub-fac
in order
different
Roasters
as shown toinmeasure
competitors,
and many
Figure itsDepending
others.
5. presumptive
such To as Caribou
process
face competition,
on success.
the in Coffee
detail.
SWOT A afactors
company
Company,
group of can
and expertsappraise
Costa perform
sub-factors, itself
Coffee,
awith honestly
Green
Starbucks
set of and
Mountain
SWOT effectiv
Cof
analys
applications and so forth.is developed.
Starbucks
Symmetry 2018, 10, Our
x FORaim
Company PEERwas is to
REVIEW
company
theprioritize
most
Roasters
is developed.
has
the
widelyand branches
strategies
prolific
many
Our others.
aim
in
suggested
marketer
was
75
To
to
countries,
and
face by company
retailer
competition,
prioritize the of moreaalternatives
coffee
strategies
than
indicators.
group insuggested
the strateg
of254,000
world.
experts em
8byoTp
by
as
is performing
Roasters
shown
developed. and SWOT
many
instrategies
Figure
Our analysis,
others.
5. were:
aim Depending
was To
to which
face
in on Starbucks
competition,
The
order
prioritize
different will
the to SWOT
the help
phases
measure
types ait examine
Company
group
for
factors
strategies
of its
coffee of
implementing
and is
suggested
and its
the performance
experts most
sub-factors,
presumptivetea by widely
perform
a N-AHP a set
success.
company
products andby
of
A analyzing
prolific
Starbucks
in SWOT marketer
SWOT
alternatives
company
indicators.
has a licensed internal
analysis
can and
analys
are
strateg
appr
tradem a
These
company has branches in 75 countries, as shown with
in more
Figure than
5. 254,000
Depending employees.
on the SWOT The company
factors and also
sub-fac se
external
as shown factors.
instrategies
Figure Once SWOT
5. were:
Depending analysis
company
on These the isthe
has
SWOTstrategies
complete,
branches
factors awere:
company
in
and will
75sub-factors,
countries, gain more
awith
set more
of itinformation
than for
alternatives about
254,000
strateg em
Table 2.is
in developed.
These
Comparisons
order
different to ofOur
measure
types of
aimits was
different
coffee SFCLs to in
presumptive
and tea
prioritize
by performing
addition
terms
isproducts
developed. to
success.and
strategies
SWOT
coffee,
application, Ahas
Our aand
cost,
company
aim
suggested
analysis,
this
pros
licensed
was tomakes
and
can byitcompany
which
cons.
appraise
trademark.
prioritize will
an help
itself
The
the
indicators.
attractive
honestly
company
strategies examine
spot and its
offers
suggested perfo
snacks
effectiv
food,
by
 SO
capabilities.
is developed.
These strategies strategies
ForOur theaimevaluation
was to prioritize
were: process,
different acompetitors,
the multi-criteria
types of coffeesuggested
strategies decision-making
and tea products
by company technique
and has should
a alicensed
indicators. be wil
trademuse
by performing
addition to SWOT
coffee, and analysis,
this makes external
different
which itSO
These factors.
will
an help itOnce
strategies
attractive
strategies examine
spot SWOT
were:such asanalysis
foritssnacks andis breakfast.
Caribou
performance complete,
Coffee
by analyzing The company
Company, Costa
internal
company ah

In SO
 research,
this
These strategies
Amplifying we
strategies usedglobal
were: a stores
neutrosophic
addition AHP.
to A
coffee, case
and study
this is
makesoffered
it an in this section
attractive spotto illustrate
for snacks t
SFCL Types external
different Advantages
factors.
competitors,Once SWOT
such as capabilities.
Roasters
analysis 
Caribou is and For
many
Disadvantages
Amplifying
complete,
Coffee the evaluation
others.
Company, global
a company To process,
face
storeswill
Costa a
competition,
References multi-criteria
gain analysis.
Coffee, moreGreena group
information decision-m
of experts
Mountainabout Cofp
 SO
 in
process strategies
Amplifying
Seeking
detail. higher global
Figure 4. The
growth storesphases
markets for implementing a N-AHP in SWOT
different

In thisSO
 research, competitors,
strategies such as Caribou Coffee Company, Costa

capabilities.
 SO
Roasters
WO For the
strategies
Lowand costmany
Amplifying
Seeking
strategies evaluation
others.
higher global Tostores
growth
as shown
process,
face competition,
markets
Figure
aSeeking awe
inmulti-criteria used
5.
higher
group a experts
Depending neutrosophic
growth
ofdecision-makingon the SWOT
markets
perform AHP. A
technique
Starbucks caseshould
factors study
SWOT is
and sub-facbeoffe
use
analys
The phases for implementing a
Roasters
process
is
 
developed.
WO N-AHPin
Volume
and in
many
Amplifying
detail.
Our
strategies
of
SWOT others.
aim
cryogenic
analysis
global
was To
to face
storesare shown
competition,
prioritize the in Figure
a
strategiesgroup 4. of experts
suggested by p
In
as this
 shownWO
Starbucks
Less strategies research,
Amplifying
in Figure
Seeking
recovery
Adding we used
higher
Company
time global
5. Depending
different a neutrosophic
growth stores
isforms,
the on
markets
mostnew the
widely AHP.
SWOT
categories A
prolificcase
factors
and study
marketer
diverse is
and sub-factors,offered
and in
retailer
channels this
aofset
ofofsection to
alternatives
coffee
products in the illustrate
strateg
world. t
T
as shown
The
is higher
These in Figure
Seeking
phases
strategies
Adding 5.
higher
for Depending
growth
implementing
Figure
were:
different 4.forms, on
The phases the
markets
a company
new N-AHP
forSWOT factors
inindicators.
SWOT diverse
implementing
categories and
analysis
a N-AHPsub-facare
in
Non-inductive process
is

company Lessinstrategies
WO
developed. detail.
Seeking
has
AC
Adding
Trying Our
losses higher
aim
branches
todifferent
minimize ingrowth
was 75
forms,
theis
markets
to countries,
prioritize
new
 coffee
developed.
WO
the
with strategies
categories
Higherprice more
Our
strategies
leakage and
aimthan suggested
254,000
diverse
was
inductance to
by
employees.
channels The and
of products
[60,95,96]
prioritize the strategies company
suggested alsochanse
by

differentThe
WO
These
 It canphases
strategies
withstand
Adding
types of for
strategies implementing
were:
different
coffee and forms,
tea a
new N-AHP
products Trying
categories
and inhas toand
SWOT aminimize analysis
diverse
licensed the coffee
are shown
channels
trademark. price
of
Thein Figure
products
company 4. offers food,
 ST strategies Trying to minimize the coffee
SO
These
 strategies
Starbucks and price
strategies
circulating
strategies
Adding Company current
Figure
were:
different is4.forms,
Themost
the phases
new for implementing
categories
widely prolific and a N-AHP
diverse
marketer in
chan
and
addition high voltage todifferent
Adding
Trying
to coffee, minimize
and thisforms, the
makes coffee
itST
new ancategories
price
attractive andspot diverse
for channels
snacks andpriceof productsThe company h
breakfast.

 ST SO strategies Taking
strategies precautions to company 
mitigate
 Amplifying
economic
Trying
has branches to global
crises
minimize and stores
maintain
the
in 75 countries, coffee profitability
with more crises than 254,000 em
Trying to minimize themitigateSOfor
coffee Taking
strategies
price precautions to mitigate economic and main
 ST

different WT
 strategies
strategies
competitors,
Taking
Amplifying
Figure
precautionssuch
global
4. Theas
to 
stores
phases
Caribou
different ST strategies
Starbucks implementing
Coffee
economic
Seeking
types of
Company,
crises
higher
Company
coffee
a growth
N-AHP
and and
is theCosta
tea
in
maintainSWOT
Coffee,
markets
most
productswidely analysis.
Green
profitability
and prolific
has a
Mountain
marketertradem
licensed
Cof
and
 mitigate WT strategies
Amplifying global stores
 ST
Roasters WT
 and
strategies
Takingmany
strategies
Competing
Seeking
precautions
others.
higherwithgrowth To to
other face
 competition,
company
companies
markets
addition WO
Lossto
economic
strategies
has
in bybranches
stand-by
Taking offering
coffee,
crises
aprecautions
group
andmode of
in
this
and
due
different maintain
experts
75 perform
countries,
coffee
it anand
to mitigate
makes
profitability
withStarbucks
more spot
creating
economic
attractive thanSWOT
brand
crises 254,000
and
for
analys
loyalty
main
snacks em
 shown
as Starbucks
WT Taking
strategies
in Company
Figure precautions
5. is
Depending theto most
mitigate
on widely
to
the Competing
Seekingprolific
economic
leakage
SWOT higher
reactance
factors with
marketer
crises and other
growth
and companies
and
maintain
sub-factors,retailer
markets a by
of offering
coffee
profitability
set of in
alternatives different
the world.
strateg coT
 WO Weight Competing
and devicewith
Diversifying
strategies stores
size other companies
different
around
different WT byof
Adding
types
thestrategies
world offering
competitors,anddifferent
coffee different
and
minimizing
such forms,
tea
as coffee
products
raw
Caribou and
newmaterials andcreating
categories
Coffee has and brand
diverse
a licensed
prices
Company, loyalty
chan
tradem
Costa
company

is developed. WT
can be has branches
strategies
Competing aimwith
Ourdifferent in
wasother75 
countries,
toaround companies
prioritize 
WO Diversifying
with more
strategies
Conventional
the strategies than
circuit
by offering stores
254,000
breaker
different
suggested around coffee
by the
employees. world
and The and
creating minimizing
company
brand also
loyalty raw
se
Diversifying
significantly
Adding stores forms, addition
new  the world
Trying
to coffee,
categories and
toand
andminimizing
minimize this the
makes raw itcompany
coffee materials
anprice byindicators.
attractiveaprices spot forexperts
snacks
By applying ourwere: proposed Roasters
model Competing
and
to bymany
Starbucks todiverse
with
others. other
To
Company, channels
facecompanies of
competition,
the products
offering
evaluation group different
of
process and co p
in t
Inductive different reduced types
Competingoftocoffee with and tea
other products
companies  is neededand
Adding in
hasordera
offering licensed
different switch trademark.
forms,
different new
coffee The
categories
[42–45]
and company
creating and offers
diverse
brand food,
chan
loyalty
These Diversifying
strategies
due stores around

different ST
By the world
strategies
applying
competitors,and our minimizing
Figure 4.
proposed
such The
as raw
phases
model
Caribou materials
for to prices
implementing
Starbucks
Coffee Company, a N-AHP
Company, Costa
selection 
By Trying
applying
of to
different minimize
our proposed
strategies theas
was coffee
shown
model  off price
Diversifying
in
toFigure
short circuit
Starbucks 5.
to stores
Depending
avoid Company, around onand the
the world
SWOT
evaluation and
factors minimizing
and
process sub-fac raw
and ht
addition coreless to coffee,
Diversifying and
construction this makes
stores around itanticipated
selection
Roasters  the anand attractive
Trying
world
Taking
of
toto
and
different
many
become
spot
minimize forTo
minimizing
precautions
strategies
others.
simpler
snacks
the
to raw and
coffee
mitigate
was
face
more
materials valuable.
breakfast.
price
economic
anticipated
competition, aprices
togroupThe
crises
become company
of and main
simpler
experts pt

selection ST
By
SO strategies
applying
strategies
of different our proposed
strategies is
was model
developed.
anticipated maximum to HTS
Starbucks
Our to aim
become wasCompany,
to prioritize
simpler the
and evaluation
the
more strategies
valuable. process
suggested and by
different
Step 1 competitors,
Perform SWOT such as
analysis.  Caribou ST
Starbucks
By
WT Coffee
strategies
applying
windingstrategies Company,
Company
our
temperature. is the
proposed Costa
most Coffee,
modelwidely to Green
prolific
Starbucks Mountain
marketer
Company, Cof
and
selection By applying Taking
of different our
precautionsproposed
strategies as
toStep shown
model
mitigate
was anticipated in
to Figure
Starbucks
economic 5. Depending
crises Company,
and on
maintain the SWOT
evaluation factors
profitability and
process sub-fac
andin t
Roasters
Step 1 and
Amplifying
PerformmanySWOT global
others. 4.To
Figureanalysis.
stores
The face
selection
company
phases
These
1 forof
competition, Perform
Taking
has ato
strategies
different
branches
implementing
Competing
become
SWOT
group were:
Figure
precautions
strategies
with in 75
N-AHP
simpler
4.experts
The
aofanalysis.
other to was
andfor
phases
inperform
mitigate
countries,
SWOT
companies
more valuable.
implementing
Starbucks
economic
anticipated
with bymore
analysis.
offering crises
to become
than a N-AHP
SWOT and
254,000
differentanalys
main
simpler em
co
selection
 WT
 of different
strategies
Seeking strategies
higher growth is
was developed.
anticipated
markets Our to aim
become was to prioritize
simpler and the
more strategies
valuable. suggested by
as
Stepshown in FigureSWOT
1 Perform 5. Dependinganalysis.  onSO
different WT
Starbucks
These the SWOT
strategies
types
strategies factors
of
Diversifying
strategies coffee and
and
stores
were: sub-factors,
tea products
around the a set
and
worldof hasalternatives
a licensed
and minimizing strateg
tradem raw
 It canstrategies
WO Competing
regulate faultwith otherStep companies 1 Perform byCompany
offeringFigure
SWOT is4. the
differentThe
analysis. phases
most
coffee for
widely implementing
and prolific
creating a N-AHP
marketer
brand and
loyalty in
Step
is developed. Starbucks 1 Perform Company
Our SWOT
aim was isto theprioritize
analysis. mostwidely
addition the
to prolific
strategies
Competing
coffee,
Amplifying and marketer
suggested
with thisother
global and
makes
stores byretailer
itcompany
companies of
bycoffee
an attractive indicators.
offering in the
spot forworld.
different
snacks coT
These currentDiversifying
limiting
Adding rangestores
Figure
different around
4.forms,
The company
 phases
new By
SO thefor world
has and
branches
implementing
categories
applying
strategies and
our minimizing
in
a N-AHP
diverse
proposed raw
75 countries,
inmodel
SWOT
channels materials
with
of more
analysis.
toproductsprices
Starbucks thanCompany,
254,000 em
company has
according
branches
strategies
to impedancewere:in 75 countries,
different 
Starbucks with more
Diversifying
competitors,
Seeking than
higher
Company such254,000
stores
growth
is the around
as employees.
Caribou
markets
most the world
widely CoffeeThe and
prolific company
minimizing
Company, also
marketertrademCosta
and se
raw
Trying different types of coffee and tea products and has abecome
licensed
different By
ratio types
applying
of ofto
transformer
minimize
coffee
our and tea
proposed
and
the

coffee
selection
products
model
Roasters WO price
Current
ofand
to
and different
Amplifying
has
Starbucks
many
strategies
limiting a strategies
Figureglobal
licensed
others.
time 4.To
Company, The was
storesphases
trademark.
face anticipated
the forevaluation
competition,The togroup
implementing
company
a process
of simpler
aoffers
N-AHP
experts inpt
food,
and

 SO
Starbucks
ST strategies
strategies Company is the company mostBy
addition iswidely
has
applying
to
Seeking
branches
prolific
coffee, our
and
higher
in
marketer
this 75makes
proposed
growth
countries,
and it an with
model
retailer
markets
more
toofStarbucks
coffeespot
attractive than
in the 254,000
Company,
for world.
snacks emT
addition
selection hence to coffee, and
ofapplicable
different in this makes
the
strategies was
as
Step it
anticipated
shown
different 1 an attractive
higher
in Figure
Adding
Perform
types ofto spot
become
5.
SWOT
coffee for
Depending
different snacks
simpler
forms,
analysis.
and tea on
newand
and
the
products breakfast.
more
SWOT
categories
and valuable.
hasfactors
and
a The company
and
diverse
licensed sub-fac
chan
tradem h
Transformer company casesAmplifying has
Taking
of branches
wide global
precautions
range ofin 75stores to selection
countries,
different
 mitigate Starbucks
WO Power
of
with different
economicmore
competitors,
strategies
burden Company
of
strategies
than
crises
SFCL such254,000
and
is the was
most anticipated
employees.
asmaintain
Caribou [65]
widely CoffeeThe toCompany,
profitability
prolific become
company
marketer simpler
also
Costa
and se
different competitors, such asis Caribou
developed.  to Coffee
Trying OurtoCompany,
aim
minimizewas Costa
tomakes itCoffee,
prioritize
the coffee the
anprice Green spot
strategies Mountain
suggested Cof
by
Step
different
 WT 1currentSeeking
Perform
typeslimiting
strategies higher
SWOTand
of coffee growth teaaddition
analysis. markets
products
Roasters
company These and
and
is higher
has
coffee,
Addingmany
branches aand
hasdifferent
others. thisTo
licensed
in 75 trademark.
face competition,
countries,
forms, new
attractive
The company
with
categoriesmorea group
andthan
forexperts
offers
of snacks
254,000
diverse food,
chanem p
Roasters and many others. To face Step
 competition,
different ST 1 Perform a
strategies
strategies
competitors, SWOT
group were: of
suchanalysis.
experts perform
as Caribou Starbucks
Coffeefactors SWOT
Company, analys
Costah
 WO
addition  strategies
to
Shortest coffee,
recovery
Competing and time
with thisother makesas it
shown
companies
different an attractive
in
types Figure
by
Trying offering
offactorsspot
5.
coffee
to minimize for
Depending
differentsnacks
andsub-factors,
tea on and
the
coffee
products
themitigate
coffee pricebreakfast.
SWOT
and creating
andofhas The
acrises company
and
brand
licensed sub-fac
loyalty
tradem
as shown inbeFigure 5. Depending onthe and
Roasters SWOT
Takingmany precautions
others. and To to
face aeconomic
competition, set aalternatives
group ofand strateg
expertsmain p
different couldAdding achieved
competitors,
Diversifying
with
different such
stores forms,
as 
is
around new
Caribou
developed.
addition SO the categories
Coffee
strategies
world
to Our
coffee, and and
Company,
aim
and diverse
was
minimizing
this channels
Costa
tomakes
prioritize
raw itCoffee,of
the
materials
an products
Green
strategies
attractive prices Mountain
spot suggested
for snacksCof
by
is developed. neutral lines Figure 4.
Our aim was to prioritize The 
 phases ST
WT for implementing
strategies
the strategies
strategies a N-AHP
suggested in
by SWOT
company analysis.
indicators.
Roasters  and Tryingmany to others.
minimize To the as coffee
face shown
competition, instrategies
price Figure 5. were:
aprecautions
group Depending
of experts on the SWOT
perform factorsSWOT
Starbucks and sub-fac
These
By strategies
applying our were:
proposed different
model
These
 Amplifying
competitors,
Taking
Competing
to Starbucks Figure
global
withsuch 4.
stores
other
Company, as Caribou
to mitigate
The phases
companies
the for Coffee
economic
implementing
by Company,
offering
evaluation crises andanalys
adifferent
processN-AHP Costa
main
and in
cot
 shown
as ST strategies
Starbucks in FigureCompany5. Depending is
is the Roastersdeveloped.
on
most  the
widelySWOT
SeekingOur
prolific aim
factors
higher was
and
marketergrowthto prioritize
sub-factors,
andmarkets
retailerthe
a setstrategies
ofof alternatives
coffee in suggested
the strateg
world. by T
selection of different strategies 

was anticipated WT
SO
 and many
strategies
strategies
Diversifyingto others.
become stores To face
around
simpler competition,
andthe world
more aandgroup
valuable. of
minimizingexperts raw p

is developed. SO
 strategies
Taking Our Figure
precautions
aim was 4. The
to to  phases
mitigate
prioritize These
WO Longfor
the strategies
implementing
economic
strategies
strategies
length of were:
crises a N-AHP
and
suggested in
maintain
by SWOT
company analysis.
profitability
indicators.
company has branches in 75 countries, as shown  with
Starbucks in more
Figure
Competing Company than
5. with 254,000
Dependingisother
the employees.
on the
companies
most widelySWOT by The
offering
prolific company
factors and
marketer also
sub-fac
different and se
co
Amplifying
superconductor global stores

Step These
different WT Amplifying
1 strategies
strategies
Perform
types SWOT
of coffee global
were: stores
analysis.
and tea 
isproducts
developed.
company
By
SO
 Adding
applying
andOur
strategies
Diversifying
has branches aislicensed
hasdifferent
our
aim
required
proposed
was
stores
ingrowth
75
forms, new
model
trademark.
toaround
prioritize
countries, thecategories
tostrategies
The
the
world
with Starbucks
company
more and and diverse
Company,
offers
suggested
minimizing
than
chan
food,
by
raw
Starbucks
 to Seeking
CompetingCompany
higherwith isother
growth the most markets
companies

These widely
for Seeking
high by prolific
voltage
Trying
higher
offering
to marketer
application
minimize different and
the
markets
retailer
coffee
coffee and
priceofcreating
coffee the254,000
inbrand world.
loyalty
emT
addition
 SO coffee,
strategies and this makesselection
it
different  an of different
attractive
Amplifying
strategies
types of coffee strategies
spot global
were: for
and was
snacks
stores
tea anticipated
and
products breakfast.
and hasto abecome
The simpler
company
licensed tradem h
company has branches in 75  WO
countries, By Large strategies
dissipated
with
applying more our power
than and
254,000
proposed employees.
model to The
Starbucks company Company,also se

different WO
 strategies
Diversifying
Automatic recovering
competitors,global stores
and
such stores around

as Caribou ST the world
strategies
Coffee and minimizing
Company, Costaraw materials prices
fastertypes Amplifying teaaddition
1longto Seeking
coffee,
recovery
Adding higher
aand
time
different growth
this makes
forms, itCoffee,
markets
new
Green spot
ancategories
attractive Mountain
for snacks Cof
different
Roasters  and Adding of coffee
excessive
many
current
different
others.
andforms,
To
Step

face
products
selection
new
competition,
SO
Shortest
Perform
and
strategies
of
categories
Taking has
different
a
SWOT
and licensed
precautions
group
analysis.
strategies
diverse
of
trademark.
was
tochannels
experts mitigate
perform
The
anticipated
of products
economic to and
company
Starbucks becomediverse
crises
SWOT
offers
and
chan
food,
simpler
main
analys
By applying
Seeking our proposed
higher growth 
different
model
markets WO strategies
recovery
competitors,
to Starbucks
Trying time
to minimize such could
Company, as
theCaribou the price
coffee Coffee Company,
evaluation process Costa
and ht
Resistive addition limiting to
Tryingcapability
coffee, to and
minimize this makes
the itWT
coffee anprice
attractive
Amplifying
strategies spot globalfor snacks
stores and breakfast.
[5,69–80,97] The company
as shown indifferent
Figure 5. Depending Steponanticipated  1not
the be SWOTachieved
Adding
Perform factors even
different
SWOT with
and sub-factors,
forms,
analysis. new a set of
categories alternatives
and diverse strateg
chan
selection

different WO of
strategies
Smaller strategies
competitors, such asCaribou
in size, less costly Roasters
was ST and many
strategies
Coffee
Seeking to others.
become
Company,
higher To
growth face
simpler
Costa competition,
and more
Coffee, by
markets a group
valuable.
Green of
Mountain experts Cof p

is developed. ST and strategies
very Our
simple aim was
structure to prioritize neutral the lines
Competing
strategies
Trying to with
suggested
minimize other the companies
by company
coffee price offering
indicators. different co
Roasters  and Addingmany different
others.analysis.forms,
To as
face shown
new
competition,
mitigate WO in Figure
categories
Taking
strategies
Simultaneous 5. Depending
and
aprecautions
group
quenching diverse
ofand experts
isaround on
tochannels the SWOT
mitigate
perform of products
economic factors
Starbucks crisesand
SWOT andsub-fac
main
analys
Step 1 Perform
These Taking
strategies SWOT
precautions
were: to ST economic
Diversifying crises stores maintain theprofitability
world and minimizing raw
 Trying to minimize the
is developed.
coffee
 onWT not strategies
price Our
strategies aim was to prioritize the strategies suggested by
as
 shown WT strategiesin Figure 5. Depending the possible
SWOT
Adding due
factors to critical
different andforms, sub-factors, a set of alternatives
new categories and diverse strateg
chan
ST strategies 
These
By current Taking
strategies
differenceprecautions
were:
between to mitigate economic crises and main
 developed.
is SO
 strategies Our aimwith
Competing wasother to prioritize
companies  applying Competing
the toour
strategies
Trying
by offering
withproposed
suggested
minimize other
different bymodel
thecompanies
company
coffee
coffee
to by
price Starbucks
indicators.
and creating
Company,
offering different
brand loyalty
co
These Taking precautions to  mitigate
selection WT
 severalstrategies
units
economic
of different
Diversifying crises
strategies
stores and maintain
was
around profitability
anticipated
the world to
and become
minimizing simpler raw
 Amplifying
strategies were:
Diversifying global
storesstores  SO
around ST strategies
strategies
 WT  the Competing
world and minimizing with other companies raw materials prices different co
by offering
 strategies
Seeking higher growth Stepmarkets  1 Taking
Amplifying
Perform precautions
SWOT global to
stores
analysis. mitigate economic crisesCompany,
and main
 SO strategies By applying
Diversifying our proposed
stores around modeltheand to
worldStarbucks
and minimizing
 WO By applying
Competing
strategies
Simultaneous ourwith
quenching proposed model
othercompanies  to byStarbucks
offering Company,
different the
coffee evaluation
creating process
brand andraw
loyalty t
 Amplifying global selection
stores WT strategies
Seeking
of different higher growth
strategies markets
was anticipated to become simpler
selection of
is possible different
Diversifying
which strategies
is stores
Adding different forms,not was
around anticipated
new Bythe world
categories
applying
Competing to
and become
and
our minimizing
diverse simpler raw
otherchannels
proposed and more
materials
modeloftoproducts valuable.
prices
Starbucks Company,
possibleSeeking higher growth markets WO strategies
Replenishment of with
liquid companies by offering different co
in resistive SFCL Step 1nitrogen
Perform SWOT analysis.
Step  Trying
1Lessapplying
Perform to minimize
SWOT the coffee
selection  price
of different
Diversifying
is needed strategies
stores
if outage was
around anticipated
the world to
and become
minimizing simpler raw
Hybrid  By WO strategies
superconductor isanalysis.model Adding
our proposed to Starbucks different forms, new
Company, thecategories
[80–83,98]evaluation and diverseand
process chant
 ST strategies period is relatively long.
selection  of
required different
for high strategies
voltage
Adding different forms, was
Step anticipated
new  Trying
1 categories
By Perform SWOT
applying toto minimize
become
and
our diverse analysis.
proposed the
simpler coffee
and
channels price
more
modeloftoproducts valuable.
Starbucks Company,
Takingapplications
and current precautions tomitigate ST economic crises and maintain profitability
strategies
Step  Trying
1 strategies to minimize
Perform SWOT analysis. the coffee price
selection of different strategies was anticipated to become simpler
 WT  Taking precautions to mitigate economic crises and main
 ST strategies
 Competing with other companies
Step 1 strategies
WT by offering
Perform SWOTdifferent analysis.coffee and creating brand loyalty
 Taking precautions to mitigate economic crises and maintain profitability
 Diversifying stores around the Competing world and minimizing with other companies raw materials prices different co
by offering
 WT strategies
By applying
Competing ourwith proposed model
other companies  Diversifying
to by offeringstores
Starbucks Company,
different around theand
the
coffee world
evaluation and minimizing
creating process
brand loyalty andraw t
selection  of different strategies
Diversifying stores around was anticipated the world to
and become
minimizing simpler
By applying our proposed model to Starbucks Company, raw and more
materials valuable.
prices
Step By
1 applying
Perform SWOT selection
analysis.
our proposed modeloftodifferent strategies
Starbucks was anticipated
Company, to become
the evaluation simpler
process and t
 different types of coffee and teacompany productshas andbranches
has a licensedin 75 trademark.
countries, with more thanoffers
The company 254,000 em
food,
company has
addition to coffee, and branches Figure
in
this 75
4. The
countries,
different
makes it an
phases
with
types more
of
forattractive
implementing
than
coffee
spotafor 254,000
and
N-AHP tea employees.
products
snacks and The
and breakfast.
in SWOT has company
a licensed
analysis. The company h
also se
tradem
different types of coffee and tea products
addition to and has
coffee, a
different competitors, such as Caribou Coffee Company, Costa Coffee, Green Mountain Cof licensed
and this trademark.
makes it an The company
attractive spot offers
for food,
snacks
addition
Starbucks
Roasters to coffee,
and Company
many and
others.this
isTo makes
the most
face it widely
different an competitors,
competition, attractive
prolific
a groupspot
Figure for
such
marketer
of snacks
4.experts
The phases
asand andforbreakfast.
Caribou
retailer
perform implementing
Coffee
of coffee
Starbucks The
Company, acompany
inSWOT
the N-AHPCosta
world.
analysh
inT
different
as shown competitors,
company hasFigure
in branches such
in 75 as
5. Depending Caribou
Roasters
on the and
countries, Coffee
with
SWOT many
more Company,
others.
factorsthan and To
254,000Costa
sub-factors,Coffee,
a setGreen
faceemployees.
competition, The
of Mountain
aalternatives
group
company of expertsCof
also p
se
strateg
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 Roasters and many others. To face Starbucks
competition, Company
a group ofis the
experts most widely
perform 8prolific
of 24
Starbucks marketer
SWOT and
analys
different typesOurof coffee andtotea asproducts
shownthe in Figure
and has a5. Depending
licensed on company
trademark.the SWOT factors and sub-fac
is developed. aim was prioritize strategies suggested
Figure 4. The by
phases forThe company
indicators.
implementing aoffers
N-AHP food,
in
as shown
addition instrategies
to Figure and
coffee, 5. Depending
this company
onitthe
isphases
makes developed.
an has Our
SWOT branches
factors
attractive aimspot infor
and
was 75 to countries,
sub-factors,
prioritize
snacks awith
andthe set more
of
breakfast. than
alternatives
strategies The 254,000
suggested em
strateg
company by
h
These were:
Figure 4. The for implementing a N-AHP in SWOT analysis.
is developed. Our
different competitors, such aim was to different
prioritize
These types
the of coffee
strategies
strategies and
suggested
were: tea products
by companyand has a licensed
indicators. tradem
Table as Caribou
2. Cont. Starbucks Coffee Company,
Company is the Costa
mostCoffee,
widely Green
prolificMountain
marketer and Cof
 SO These strategies
strategies were:
Figure addition fortoimplementing
coffee, and this makes it an attractive spot forworld.
snacks
Starbucks
Roasters and Company
many others. is4.ToThe
thefacephases
most widely
competition,
company prolific
a group aofN-AHP
marketer expertsandinperform
SWOT
retailer analysis.
of coffee
Starbucks
has branches in 75 countries, with more than 254,000 em in the
SWOT analysT
 Amplifying global stores  SO strategies
different competitors, such as Caribou Coffee Company, Costa
SFCL Types company
as
 SOshown has
in branches
Advantages
Figure 5. in 75
Depending countries,
on
different the with
SWOT
types more
Disadvantages
factorsthan
of coffee and 254,000
and tea employees.
References
sub-factors, a set The
of company
alternatives
products and has a licensed tradem also se
strateg
 strategies
Starbucks Seeking higher growth
Company isto the widely
markets
most
Roasters Amplifying
and prolific
many global
marketer
others. Tostores
and
face retailer of company
competition, coffee
a groupin the world.
of experts T
p
different
is developed.
 types of coffee
Our
Amplifying aimglobal
wasand tea products
prioritize
addition
stores the
to and has aand
strategies
coffee, licensed
suggested
this trademark.
makes by The
itcompany spotoffers
indicators.
an attractive food,
for snacks

companyWO strategies
Operational
has current
branches could
in 75 as 
countries,
shown Seeking
with
in more
Figure higher
than
5. growth
254,000
Depending markets
employees.
on the SWOT The company
factors and also
sub-facse
addition
These
be variedto coffee,higher
strategies
Seeking and this
were: growth makes it an competitors,
different
markets attractive spotsuch for snacks and breakfast.
aschannels
Caribou Coffee The company
Company, Costah
different Adding
types different
of coffee andforms,tea  WO
new
isproducts
developed. strategies
Bigcategories
size,
andheavy aweight
and
hasCompany,
Our aim licensed
was and
diverse totrademark.
prioritize of products
The
the company
strategies offers food,
suggested by
Flux-lock different
 WO competitors,
strategies
Lessstrategies
power burden such
on as Caribou
Roasters andCoffee
cost.many
highprice others. To Costa Coffee,
[36,41,86,99]
face competition, Green Mountain
a group of expertsCofp

additionSO
 Trying
to coffee, to minimize
and thisTomakes the 
coffee
itThese Adding
an attractive
strategiesdifferent
spot
were: forms,
forexperts new
snacksperform categories
and breakfast. and
The diverse
company chanh
Roasters and many
superconducting
Adding differentothers.
modules face
forms, as competition,
shown
new in a
Figure group
5. of
Depending on the SWOTStarbucks
factors SWOT
and analys
sub-fac
 ST strategies
different Amplifying
competitors, global
such stores
as  categories
Caribou Trying
Coffee
and
toCompany,diversethe
minimize channels
Costa coffee of products
price
Coffee, Green Mountain Cof
as shown in Figure
Trying to 5. Depending
minimize the onSO
markets
is thestrategies
developed.
coffee SWOT
price Ourfactors
aim and to
was sub-factors,
prioritize a setstrategies
the of alternatives
suggestedstrateg
by
Roasters Seeking
Taking
and many higher
precautions
others. growth
To to 
face ST strategies
mitigate
competition, economica groupcrises ofand
expertsmaintain
perform profitability
Starbucks SWOT analys
is
 developed.
ST Our
strategies aim was to prioritize

These the strategies
Amplifying
strategies suggested
global
were: storesby company indicators.

as shown WO
WT strategies
strategies
Magnetic shielding
instrategies
Figure body
5. were:
Depending onthe SWOT Takingfactors
precautions to mitigateaeconomic
and sub-factors, crises and
set of alternatives main
strateg
These Taking
is automatically precautions
heated to mitigate Seeking
WTcategories
economic higher
crises growth
and marketsprofitability
maintain

is developed. Adding
Competing different
Our aimwith wasother forms,  new
companies
to prioritize strategies
SO strategies and
by offering
the strategies diverse channels
different by
suggested coffee of products
and creating
company indicators.brand loyalty

 WT when fault occurs and
strategies  coffee
WO
Itthe strategies
experiences
Competing undesirable
with other companies by offering
SO
These strategies
Trying to minimize
Diversifying
strategies stores around
were: the  price
world and minimizing
Amplifying global storesraw materials prices different co
henceCompeting
does not requirewith other voltage
companies drop
Adding during
different
by offering forms,
different new
coffee categories
and creatingand diverse
brand chan
loyalty
 ST Amplifying
strategies
additional fault global stores  normal
Diversifying
Seeking
operationhigher stores
growth around the
markets world and minimizing raw
 SO By applying
strategies
Diversifying
detection our proposed
stores around model
 the to
Trying
worldStarbucks
to
and minimizeCompany,
minimizing the the
coffee
raw evaluation
price
materials prices process and t
 Seeking
Taking higher
circuit growth
precautions tomitigate markets
WOIt has economic
strategies
magneticour crises
field and maintain profitability
Magnetic Shield selection of different
Amplifying strategies
global stores was
 ST By applying
anticipated
strategies to become proposed
simpler model
and to
[91,93,100,101]
more Starbucks
valuable. Company,
 WO WT strategies
strategies
It has greater design interference
Adding which affects
different forms, newthecategories
By

applying
Seeking
our proposed
higher growth
model
selection
markets
 of todifferent
Taking
Starbucks
precautions
Company,
strategies was evaluation
anticipated
tochannels
mitigate economic to and
becomediverse
process
crises
chant
and
simpler
and main
Step  flexibility
1 Adding
Performdue
Competing to turn
different
SWOT with ratio forms,
analysis.
other new thecategories
companies operation
by ofand
nearby
offering diverse
different coffee of
andproducts
creating brand loyalty
selection of different strategies was anticipated  Tryingto tobecome
minimize the coffee
simpler and price
more valuable.
 WO strategies
It provides
Trying isolation
to minimize 
Step
the WT strategies
1sensitive devices
Perform SWOT analysis.
Diversifying
between SFCL and
stores around  coffeeST the price
world and
strategies minimizing raw materials prices
Step
 ST  1 Adding
Perform
strategies different
SWOT forms,
analysis. new  categories
Competing and diverse
with otherchannels
companies of products
by offering different co
power networkour proposed model  Taking precautions to mitigate economic crises andand
maint
By

applying
Trying to minimize
Taking precautions tomitigate the coffee
 to Starbucks
price
Diversifying Company,
stores around the
economic crises and maintain profitabilitythe evaluation
world process
and minimizing raw
selection of different strategies was WT
anticipatedstrategies to become simpler and more valuable.

 ST WTstrategies
strategies By applying
Competing ourwithproposed model to by
other companies Starbucks Company,
offering different co
Step Taking
1 Perform
Competing precautions
SWOT with analysis.
other to mitigate
companies economic
by crises
offering and maintain
different coffee profitability
and creating brand loyalty
4. Non-Superconducting FCLs selection of different strategies
Diversifying stores around was anticipated
the world and to become
minimizingsimplerraw
 WT  strategies
Diversifying stores around the world and minimizing raw materials prices
Generally, superconducting  Competing
fault current otherStep
withlimiters 1 been
By
companies
have Perform
applying
by SWOT
offering
extensively analysis.
our proposed
different
used in power modeland
coffee to creating
Starbucks
systems. Company,
brand loyalty
However, non-superconducting By
 applying
Diversifying our
fault current proposed
stores
limiters around model
selection
could of
theplay to
worldStarbucks
different
an and Company,
strategies
minimizing
important rolewas
inraw the evaluation
anticipated
materials
reducing faultprices process
to become and t
simpler
current and improving selection
the dynamic of different strategies
stability was anticipated
of power systems with to become
minimal simpler
cost and more valuable.
compared to
By applying our proposed Stepmodel1 Perform SWOTCompany,
to Starbucks analysis. the evaluation process and t
superconducting fault current
Step 1 limiters
Perform [10,34,97].
SWOT There are several types of non-superconducting fault
analysis.
selection of different strategies was anticipated to become simpler and more valuable.
current limiters as follows.
Step 1 Perform SWOT analysis.
4.1. Series Dynamic Braking Resistor (SDBR)
SDBR is a non-superconducting FCL that has been extensively used in power systems,
especially for the fault ride through capability enhancement of wind farms [54–59]. SDBR consists of a
resistor in parallel with a switch. The switch is turned on and off based on the occurrence of a fault in
the system.
Energies Due
2018, 11, to fast
x FOR PEERresponse,
REVIEW IGBT is used as a switch as shown in Figure 9. 9 of 25

Control

IGBT

Iline

Rsh

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Series
Series dynamic
dynamic breaking
breaking resistor (SDBR) Configuration.
resistor (SDBR) Configuration.

During normal operation, IGBT is turned on and the braking resistor is bypassed. Therefore, the
During normal operation, IGBT is turned on and the braking resistor is bypassed. Therefore, the
SDBR has no effect on the system during normal condition of the grid. At the inception of grid fault,
SDBR has no effect on the system during normal condition of the grid. At the inception of grid fault,
voltage at the point of common coupling (Vpcc) decreases and becomes lower than the predefined
voltage at the point of common coupling (Vpcc ) decreases and becomes lower than the predefined
reference voltage (Vref). IGBT is turned off at this condition and braking resistor comes in series with
reference voltage (Vref ). IGBT is turned off at this condition and braking resistor comes in series with
the line to limit the sharp increase in line current. Braking resistor continues to be in series with the
the line to limit the sharp increase in line current. Braking resistor continues to be in series with the
line until Vpcc becomes greater than Vref. When Vpcc surpasses Vref, IGBT is turned on and system
returns to its normal operation.

4.2. Bridge Type Fault Current Limiter (BFCL)

BFCL has two main parts—the bridge part and the shunt branch [102,103], as shown in Figure 10.
 Figure 9. Series dynamic breaking resistor (SDBR) Configuration.

During normal operation, IGBT is turned on and the braking resistor is bypassed. Therefore, the
SDBR has no effect on the system during normal condition of the grid. At the inception of grid fault,
voltage at the point of common coupling (Vpcc) decreases and becomes lower than the predefined
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 9 of 24
reference voltage (Vref). IGBT is turned off at this condition and braking resistor comes in series with
the line to limit the sharp increase in line current. Braking resistor continues to be in series with the
line until
line untilVVpcc becomes greater
pcc becomes greater than
thanVVref
ref.. When
When V
Vpcc ref,, IGBT
pcc surpasses Vref IGBT is turned on
on and
and system
system
returnsto
returns toits
itsnormal
normaloperation.
operation.

4.2.
4.2. Bridge
BridgeType
TypeFault
FaultCurrent
CurrentLimiter
Limiter(BFCL)
(BFCL)
BFCL
BFCLhas
hastwo
twomain
mainparts—the
parts—thebridge
bridgepart
part and
and the
the shunt
shunt branch
branch [102,103],
[102,103], as
as shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 10.
10.

Rsh Shunt Branch Lsh

D1 Bridge D2

LDC
D5
Iline
RDC

D3 D4

Figure 10. Bridge

Figure10. Bridge type
type fault
faultcurrent
currentlimiter.
limiter.

Themain
The mainfunction
functionofofBFCL BFCL is to
is to insert
insert resistance
resistance andand induction
induction at inception
at the the inception of a fault.
of a fault. It doesIt
does not require superconductive characteristics for its operation, thus it has less
not require superconductive characteristics for its operation, thus it has less application costs compared application costs
compared
to other fault tocurrent
other fault current
limiting limiting
devices. The devices.
bridge partTheisbridge
composedpart of
is composed of a diode
a diode rectifier, a veryrectifier,
small dca
very small dc limiting reactor (L DC), a small DC resistance (RDC), a commercially available
limiting reactor (LDC ), a small DC resistance (RDC ), a commercially available semiconductor (IGBT)
semiconductor
switch (IGBT) switch
(CM200HG-130H) and (CM200HG-130H)
a freewheeling diode. and The
a freewheeling
main shuntdiode.
branchThe main shunt
is connected inbranch
parallelis
connected
with in parallel
the bridge part. Itwith the bridge
consists part.of
of a series It connected
consists of resistance
a series of and
connected
reactanceresistance and reactance
(Rsh + jωL sh ).
(Rsh +During
jωLsh). normal operation, the IGBT switch is turned on and current flows through the path
D1 -LDCDuring
-RDC -D normal operation, the IGBT switch is turned on and current flows through the path D1-
4 for positive half cycle of the signal. Then, current conducts through the path
L DC- RDC-D4 for positive half cycle of the signal. Then, current conducts through the path D2- LDC- RDC
D2 -LDC -RDC -D3 for negative half cycle of the signal. As the current through the LDC has unified
-D3 for negative
direction during half cycle of operating
this normal the signal.condition
As the current
LDC isthrough
chargedtheto L DC has unified direction during
the peak of the line current and
this normal operating condition L DC is charged to the peak of the line current and essentially behaves
essentially behaves like short circuit and it has negligible voltage drop. Consequently, BFCL has no
like short
impact on thecircuit
systemandin itnormal
has negligible
operating voltage
conditions.drop. Consequently,
During BFCL
contingencies, thehas
IGBT noswitch
impact on the
is turned
system in normal operating conditions. During contingencies, the IGBT switch
off and essentially the bridge behaves like an open circuit. So, the shunt path of the BFCL comes into is turned off and
essentiallyand
operation thelimits
bridge
thebehaves like an
fault current. open
At the circuit.
same time,So,
thethe shunt path
freewheeling of the
diode BFCL acomes
provides discharge into
operation and limits the fault current. At the same time, the freewheeling diode
path for reactor (L ). It is worth mentioning that during fault initiation L the line current tends provides a discharge
DC DC
to increase drastically; however, LDC limits this current. Therefore, the IGBT switch is saved from
high di/dt.

4.3. Modified Bridge Type Fault Current Limiter (MBFCL)

The structure of the bridge of the fault current limiter is rearranged to enhance low voltage ride
through the capability of fixed speed and variable speed wind farms [49,104]. This new topology is
named a modified bridge type fault current limiter (MBFCL). In BFCL shunt path consists of a series
connected resistor and inductor. However, an inductor is omitted in MBFCL because it discharges
when the shunt path is disconnected. During normal operation, MBFCL bridge is short-circuited as
the IGBT gate signal is high, thus shunt branch resistance is bypassed. When a fault appears on the
system, the IGBT gate signal becomes low by proper control action, the bridge part of the MBFCL is
eventually open and shunt resistance is inserted in the line to limit the fault current.
named a modified bridge type fault current limiter (MBFCL). In BFCL shunt path consists of a series
connected resistor and inductor. However, an inductor is omitted in MBFCL because it discharges
when the shunt path is disconnected. During normal operation, MBFCL bridge is short-circuited as
the IGBT gate signal is high, thus shunt branch resistance is bypassed. When a fault appears on the
system, the IGBT gate signal becomes low by proper control action, the bridge part of the MBFCL
Energies 2018, 11, 1025
is
10 of 24
eventually open and shunt resistance is inserted in the line to limit the fault current.

4.4. DC Link Fault Current Limiter (DLFCL)

proposed for
The DC link fault current limiter is proposed for fault
fault ride
ride through
through capability
capability enhancement
enhancement of
based distributed
an inverter based distributed generation
generation system
system [32].
[32]. The non-superconducting
non-superconducting DTFCL module is
composed of
composed ofaadiode
diodebridge
bridgeand
andananinductive
inductivecoil
coil that
that hashas
anan inductor
inductor Ld Land
d and very
very small
small resistance
resistance Rd
Rd shown
as as shown in Figure
in Figure 11. 11.

D1 D2

Ld

Rd
D3 D4

Figure 11. Direct current (DC) link fault current limiter.

Figure 11. Direct current (DC) link fault current limiter.

During normal operation, the DC reactor has has aa negligible

negligible impact.
impact. However, the reactor can
effectively suppress severe di/dt and it can limit
suppress severe di/dt and it can limit fault current successfully over the fault duration.

4.5.
4.5. Transformer
Transformer Coupled
Coupled BFCL
BFCL
A
A transformer
transformer coupled
coupled bridge
bridge type
type fault
fault current
current limiter
limiter is
is presented
presented [105]
[105] for for low
low voltage
voltage ride
ride
through
through (LVRT) capability enhancement of a doubly fed induction generator (DFIG). The schematic
(LVRT) capability enhancement of a doubly fed induction generator (DFIG). The schematic
diagram
diagram of of the
the fault
fault current
current limiter
limiter is
is shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 12.
12. A
A bypass
bypass resistor
resistor (R
(Rbb)) is
is used
used to
to absorb
absorb the
the
majority
majority of the
Energiesof2018,
current
the 11,
current harmonics
harmonics
x FOR PEER REVIEW
during normal operation and to reduce voltage
during normal operation and to reduce voltage spikes. spikes. 11 of 25

Rb
Phase a
Rb Phase b
Rb Phase c

Thyristor Bridge

Current Limiting
Reactor and
Freewheeling
Diode

Figure
Figure 12. Transformer
12. Transformer coupled
coupled bridge
bridge faultfault current
current limiter
limiter (BFCL).
(BFCL).

In a steady state system, all the thyristors are kept turned on and limiting reactors are bypassed.
In a steady state system, all the thyristors are kept turned on and limiting reactors are bypassed.
During system disturbances, gate signals of the thyristors are removed and a limiting reactor is
During system disturbances, gate signals of the thyristors are removed and a limiting reactor is inserted
inserted to limit fault current.
to limit fault current.
Table 3 summarizes different types of non-superconducting fault current limiters.
Table 3 summarizes different types of non-superconducting fault current limiters.
Table 3. Non-superconducting fault current limiter summary.

FCL Required Number Semiconductor Controller

FCL Type Transformer
Position of Units Devices Circuit
SDBR AC side 3 units Not needed IGBT Needed
BFCL AC side 3 units Not needed IGBT plus diodes Needed
MBFCL AC side 3 units Not needed IGBT plus diodes Needed
 Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

in order to measure its presumptive success. A company ca

Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
by performing SWOT analysis, which will help it examine it
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 external factors. Once SWOT analysis 11 of 24
is complete, a compa
in order to measure its presumptive success. A company ca
capabilities. For the evaluation process, a multi-criteria dec
by performing SWOT analysis, which will help it examine it
In this research, we used a neutrosophic AHP. A case study
Table 3. Non-superconducting fault current limiter summary.
external factors. Once SWOT analysis is complete, a compa
Symmetry 2018,
process in 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
detail.
capabilities. For the evaluation process, a multi-criteria dec
The phases for implementing a N-AHP in SWOT analy
FCL Required Number In order
in this research,
Semiconductor
to measurewe used a neutrosophic
Controller
its presumptive AHP.AAcompany
success. case study
ca
FCL Type Transformer
Position of Units process Devices
in detail. Circuit
by performing SWOT analysis, which will help it examine it
SDBR AC side 3 units Not needed IGBTThe2018,
external
Symmetry
phases for
factors. Once
10, x FOR
implementing
SWOT
PEERNeeded a N-AHP
analysis
REVIEW
in SWOT
is complete, analy
a compa
BFCL AC side 3 units Not needed IGBT plus diodes Needed
capabilities. For the evaluation process, a multi-criteria dec
MBFCL AC side 3 units Not needed IGBT
In
in thisplus
order to diodes
research,
measurewe used Needed
a neutrosophic
its presumptive AHP.AAcompany
success. case study
ca
DLFCL DC side 1 unit Not needed Only
processdiodes
in detail. Not Needed
by performing SWOT analysis, which will help it examine it
Transformer The factors.
phases for implementing a N-AHP in SWOT analy
AC side 3 units Needed Thyristors
external and diode
Once Needed
SWOT analysis is complete, a compa
coupled BFCL
capabilities. For the evaluation process, a multi-criteria dec
In this research, we used a neutrosophic AHP. A case study
5. Optimal Parameters and Placement of Fault Current Limitersprocess in detail.
The phases for implementing a N-AHP in SWOT analy
The optimal location for FCLs in a power network has several potential benefits. These include
enhancing the system reliability and security, reducing fault current and voltage sag, improving fault
ride through capability and increasing the interconnection of renewable energy. Several optimal
placement techniques have been reported in the literature [14,18,23,106–113]. Number of FCLs
units, optimal parameters and optimal positions are considered for the placement of the FCLs
in power system with several objectives like fault current reduction, reliability and stability
improvement, FCL cost reduction and optimization of operating time of the over current relays.
Some of the works focused on optimal placement mainly with single objective function as either
fault current reduction [114,115] or stability enhancement [113]. Since there is the
Figure 4. Thetradeoff
phases for implementing a N-A
among several objectives, enhancing one of them might lead to the deterioration of the others.
Multiobjective optimization techniques [18,23,107,116] have beenStarbucksreportedCompanysolveis4. the
toFigure themost
abovewidely prolific market
in 75The phases for implementing a N-A
mentioned problem. However, most of the optimal placement techniques do not take into account with more than 254
company has branches countries,
different types of coffee and tea products and has a licensed
uncertainties in power systems, especially the unpredictable variationsStarbucks
in the status of a DG,
Company is thewind
mostandwidely prolific market
addition to coffee, and this makes it an attractive spot for
PV systems when determining the best location for SFCL [14]. company
New has branches
placement in 75 countries,
algorithms can
different competitors, such as Caribou be with more than 254
Coffee Company,
different
developed considering several networks uncertainties for betterRoasters types
performance. of coffee
Table and tea products
4 summarizes
Figure 4.To
The phases and has a licensed
for implementing
and many others. face competition, a group aofN-A
ex
addition to
optimal placement parameter selection techniques for different superconducting coffee, and
FCLs. this makes it an attractive spot for
as shown in Figure 5. Depending on the SWOT factors and s
different
Starbucks competitors,
Company suchthe as most
Caribou Coffee Company,
is developed. Our aim wasisto widely
prioritize prolific
the strategies market
sugge
Roasters
company and
has many others.
branches in To
75 face competition,
countries, with a
moregroup
than of254
ex
Table 4. Optimization techniques for the placement of superconducting FCLs.
These strategies were:
as shown in Figure
different types of coffee 5. Depending
and on
tea phases the
products SWOT factors and s
Figure 4. The for and has a licensed
implementing a N-A

is SO
developed.strategies
Our aim was to prioritize the
addition to coffee, and this makes it an attractive spot for strategies sugge
Objective Used Considered
FCL Types  Features
These Amplifying
strategies global
were: References
stores
Function Method/Algorithm Network different
Starbucks competitors,
Company such as most
is the CaribouwidelyCoffee Company,
prolific market

Roasters Seeking
and many higher
others. growth
To facemarkets
competition, a group of254
ex
Minimization of company
 SO strategies has branches in 75 countries, with more than
main-backup 
as WO
shown strategies
Location
in and size
Figure 5. can
Depending on the SWOT factors and s
IEEE 30-bus different types of
Amplifying
be obtained coffee and tea
global stores products and has a licensed
overcurrent relay Multi objective  Adding without
different forms, new categories and sugge
diver
meshed is developed.
addition to Our
coffee, aim
and was
this to prioritize
makes
Seeking higher growth markets
any pre-assumptions. it anthe strategies
attractive spot for
(OCR)-pairs Particle Swarm Impedance  Trying to minimize the coffee price
coordination Optimization SFCL
system and  These
different
WO strategies
competitors,
strategies
Applicable for both were:
such as[23] Caribou Coffee Company,
IEEE 33-bus  ST strategies
maintenance index (MOPSO) Roasters and
Adding different forms, competition,
radial
 strategiesandmany others. To face new categories a group of ex
and diver
radial system  SO meshed Taking precautions to mitigate economic crises an
network
and the total cost as shown
 in Figure
Trying to 5. Depending
minimize on the price
the coffee SWOT factors and s
Amplifying
 WT strategies global stores
of required FCLs. is
 developed.
ST Our
strategies
Seeking aim
higher was to prioritize
markets strategies
the sugge
 Competing withgrowth
other companies by offering diffe
 WO These
 strategies
Taking
strategies were:
precautions to mitigate economic crises an
Optimal placement stores
Diversifying of around the world and minimi

 SO WT strategies
SFCLs keeps the fault
Adding different forms, new categories and diver
 strategies
By current within ourwith
applying
Competing proposed
other modelpriceto by
Starbucks Com
Minimization of Trying
breaking
Amplifyingto minimize
global thecompanies
storescoffee offering diffe
selection of capacity strategies
different of was anticipated to become s
17-bus power   
ST Diversifying stores around the world and minimi
number of SFCLs,
Scenario
Hybrid thestrategies
Seeking higher
protective devices growth markets
fault current and resistive system with Taking inprecautions [18]
to mitigate
optimization 
Step WO 1No change
By strategies
Perform
applying SWOT
the analysis.
our proposed model economic crisesCom
to Starbucks an
optimal relay SFCL DGs  WT strategies
coordination ofdifferent
relays
operating time selection Adding
of different forms,
strategies was new categories
anticipated to and
becomediver s
are need
Tryingwhile
Competing with other
to minimize thecompanies
coffee priceby offering diffe
Step 1installing
Performnew SWOT
Diversifying
DGs in analysis.
stores around the world and minimi
 ST strategies the system
Taking precautions
By applying to mitigate
our proposed model economic crisesCom
to Starbucks an
 WT strategies
selection of different strategies was anticipated to become s
 Competing with other companies by offering diffe
Step 1 Perform SWOT
Diversifying analysis.
stores around the world and minimi
By applying our proposed model to Starbucks Com
selection of different strategies was anticipated to become s
Step 1 Perform SWOT analysis.
 company
in order tohas branches
measure in 75 countries,
its presumptive with A
success. more than 254
company ca
different
Symmetry types
2018, 10, of coffee
x FOR PEER
by performing SWOT analysis, which will help it examine and
REVIEWtea products and has a licensed it
addition
external factors. to coffee, OnceandSWOT this makes analysisit anis attractive
complete, spot a compa for
in order tocompetitors,
different measure its presumptive
such as process,
Caribousuccess.
CoffeeA company
Company, ca
capabilities. For theFigure evaluation4. Thewhich
phaseswillfora implementing
multi-criteria a dec
N-A
by performing
Roasters and SWOT
many analysis,
others. To face competition, help aitgroup
examine of it
ex
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 In this research, we used a neutrosophic 12 of 24 AHP. A case study
external
as shown factors. Once SWOT analysis is complete, a compa
process
Starbucks inin Figure 5. Depending on the SWOT factors and s
detail. Company is the most widely prolific market
capabilities.
is developed. 2018, For Ourx the
FOR evaluation process, a multi-criteria dec
foraim wasREVIEWto prioritize the strategies sugge
Symmetry 10, PEER
The phases
company has branches implementing
in 75 a N-AHP
countries, with in SWOT
more than analy
254
Table 4. Cont. In this research,
These strategies were: we used
Figure a 4.neutrosophic
The phases forAHP. A case
implementing study
a N-A
different
in orderin
process types
todetail. of coffee and tea products
measure its presumptive success. A company ca and has a licensed
 SO
addition strategies
to coffee,
Objective Used Considered by performing
Starbucks
The phases SWOTforand
Company this
analysis,
is the
implementing makes
which
most aitN-AHP
an attractive
will
widely help spot
it examine
prolific
in SWOT marketforit
analy
FCL Types different

external
companyfactors. Amplifying
competitors,
Features
has branches Once SWOTglobal
such stores
as Caribou
References
analysis iswith
in 75 countries, Coffee
complete, Company,
more thana compa 254
Function Method/Algorithm Network
Roasters
 2018, Seeking
and many Figuregrowth
higher
others. 4.ToThe phases
facemarkets for implementing
competition, a group aofN-A
ex
capabilities.
different
Symmetry types For x the
10, of evaluation
coffee
FOR PEER and
REVIEWtea process,
products aand
multi-criteria
has a licenseddec

as
In WO
shown
this
addition Penaltystrategies
in
research, Figure
factor is5. Depending on the SWOT factors and s
to coffee, weand usedthis aisneutrosophic
makes an AHP.
it widely A case
attractive spot study
for
Maximizing Starbucks Company the most prolific market
is
in introduced
developed.
order
process
different toAdding
in Our
measure
detail.
competitors,
in the
different
aim its was forms,
to
presumptive
such as new
prioritize
Caribou categories
the
success.
Coffee and
strategies
A company diver
sugge
Company, ca
reliability, IEEE 39-bus company has
optimization branches
problemin 75 countries, with more than 254
Impedance The
These Trying
strategies to minimize
were:
Figure 4.ToThethe coffee
phases price
for implementing aofN-A
Minimizing fault Pareto algorithms and 57 bus by performing
Roasters to phases
and
keep SWOT
many
fault for analysis,
implementing
others.
current which
[116]
face a will
N-AHP
competition, help
in itgroup
examine
SWOT
a analy it
ex
current and FCLs
SFCL
systems
different
 ST types of coffee and tea products and has a licensed
strategies
external
as shown
 SO 2018,
Symmetry factors.
within in maximum
Figure
strategies Once
10, x FOR 5. SWOT
Depending
PEER REVIEW analysis
on theis complete,
SWOT a
factors compa
and s
cost addition
Starbucks
allowable to coffee,
Taking Companyand
precautionsthis
isto makes
the
to most it widely
mitigate an attractive
prolificspot
economic market
crises for
an
capabilities.
is developed. For range
Our the
aim evaluation
was process,
prioritize a
the multi-criteria
strategies dec
sugge

different Amplifying
competitors, global
such stores
as Caribouwith Coffee Company,
 WT
company
In order
this strategies
has branches ina 75 countries, more than 254
in  research,
These
Roasters to
and measure
strategies
Seekingmany
we used
its
higherwere:
others.
neutrosophic
presumptive
growth
To facemarkets AHP.A
success.
competition,
Acompany
a
case
group
study
of ca
ex
different
by 
process
performing in Competing
types
detail. of
SWOT coffee with and other
analysis, tea companies
products
which will andby
help offering
hasit a diffe
licensed
examine its

as
 SO WO
shown FCLs strategies
ininstalling
Figure
strategies cost
5. is
Depending on the SWOT factors and
addition
The
external Diversifying
to coffee,
phases
factors.
minimized for
Once
while and
Figurestores
this
implementing
SWOT around
makes
4. The phases
a
analysis the
itN-AHP
an
is world
forattractiveandspot
implementing
in
complete,SWOT aminimi
afor
compa N-A
analy
is 
developed. Adding Ourdifferent
aimglobal
was forms, new categories and sugge
diver
different
capabilities.
Amplifying
competitors,
reducing For suchtostores
the the evaluation
prioritize
as Caribouthe
process,
strategies
aCoffee Company,
multi-criteria dec
By
These
faultand applying
Trying
strategies
Seeking to our
higher proposed
minimize
were: growth the model
coffee
markets to
price Starbucks Com
Roasters Starbucks currentmanyCompanyothers. isTo the most
face widely prolific
competition, a group market
of ex
In this
selection
 ST research,
of different
strategies we used a neutrosophic AHP.
strategies was anticipated to become s A case study
The IEEE 
company
as
 shown WO
SO strategies
LocationhasFigure
in branches
sensitivity
strategies in 75 countries,
5. Depending on the withSWOT more than
factors and 254s
process indexed in detail.
Takingin not precautions to mitigate economicand crises an
Minimization of 9-bus, IEEE different
Step
is developed. 1 Adding
types
Perform Our
Amplifying of different
coffee
SWOT
aim wasand forms,
tea
analysis.
to new
products
prioritize categories
theand has
strategies
global stores a N-AHP in SWOT analy a diver
licensed
sugge
total installed cost, 30-bus and a  The WT phases
strategies
required
Trying for thefor implementing
tohigher
minimize the markets
coffee
Iterative mixed addition These to coffee,
strategies
Seeking and this makes
were: it anprice
attractive spot for
including a fixed Impedance real North

proposed
ST Competing
strategies
method withgrowth
other companies by offering diffe
integer nonlinear different
 competitors, such as Caribou
[107] Coffee Company,
cost of installation
programming
SFCL American  WO Method
SO strategies
Taking
is restricted
strategies
Diversifying stores
precautions around
to mitigatethe world
economic andcrises
minimi
and incremental 395-bus Roasters and
by pre-determined
Adding many others. To
different face
forms, competition,
new categories a group
and diver ofanex
 shown WT Amplifying
strategies
locations and random global stores
cost of impedance transmission as By
 in Figure
applying
Trying 5.
our
tohigherDepending
proposed
minimize
Figure 4. The on
model
thephases the
coffeefor SWOT
to
price factors
Starbucks
implementing a N-A and
Com s
system  Seeking
searching
Competingtechniques with growth
other markets
companies by offering diffe
is developed.
selection
 of Our
different aim was
strategies to prioritize
was the
anticipated strategies
to becomesugge s
 ST WO
Starbucks
strategies
Method strategies
is
Diversifying storesthe around the world andcrises
minimi
These strategies
Company were:
Step 1 Perform Taking
Addingprecautions
straightforward and isforms,
SWOT tomost
mitigatewidely prolific
economic market an
Figureanalysis.
different new for
4. The phases categories and diver
implementing a N-A
company

 SO strategies WT
By can be has
strategiesbranches
applied
applying for
our any in 75
proposed countries,
model with
to more
Starbucks than 254
Com
Trying to minimize the coffee price
different meshtypesnetwork of coffee and tea products and has
selection
 Starbucks
 strategies
ST Competing
of different
Amplifying Company with
globalisother
strategies the companies
was
stores
most widelyby
anticipated to abecome
offering
prolific
licensed
diffe
market s
addition  to coffee,
Diversifying
Seeking and this
stores
higheringrowth makes
around it an
the
marketswith attractive
world and spot
minimi for
company
Step Taking
has
1 Perform precautions
branches
SWOT 75 to mitigate
countries,
analysis. economic
more crises
than an
254
different WO competitors,
strategies
Theapplying
optimal
such as Caribou Coffee Company,
 WT
different By strategies
types oflocation
coffee and tea products
our proposed model and has a licensed
to Starbucks Com
Roasters of and
SFCLAdding many
determined others.
different To face competition,
forms, new categories a group
and of ex
diver
Minimization of IEEE addition
selection  Competing
to
of coffee,
different and withthis
strategies
Figure other
makes
4. Thewas companies
it an
anticipated
phases by offering
attractiveto
for implementing spot
become adiffe
fors
N-A
as shown by theinmethod
Figure
Trying tois5. Depending
minimize on the price
theCaribou
coffee SWOT factors and s
angular deviations benchmarked different capable Diversifying
competitors,
of limiting stores
such around
as the world
Coffee and minimi
Company,
between the rotors
Transient stability Resistive
four-machine
is
 developed.
Step ST 1 strategies
Perform Our SWOTaim was to prioritize
analysis.[113]
the strategies sugge
index method SFCL Roasters Starbucks
faultand
currentmanyCompany the isTo
forothers. the most
face widely prolific
competition, a group market
of ex
of the synchronous two-area test By
These applying
strategies our proposed model to Starbucks Com
were:
company
as shown Taking
three-phasehasFigure
in precautions
branches
fault5.atDepending to mitigate
in 75 countries,
on the with economic
SWOT more crises
than
factors and ans
254
machines system selection of different
anystrategies
location strategies was anticipated to become s
 developed.
different
is WT
SO strategies
typesOur ofincoffee
aim was andtotea products
prioritize theand has a licensed
strategies sugge
the network
Competing with other companies by offering
Step These
addition 1 to Perform
coffee,SWOT
Amplifying
strategies and global
Figure
were: analysis.
this4. stores
makes
The it an
phases forattractive
implementing spotadiffe
for
N-A
different  Diversifying
Seeking
competitors, higher stores
growth
such around
as markets
Caribou the world
Coffeeand minimi
Company,
 SO strategies
 Starbucks
Roasters WO
By Improvestrategies
and
applying manyCompany
system others.
our
isTo
proposed
the most
face widely prolific
competition,
model a group
to Starbucks
market
of
Com ex
company  dampingAmplifying
hasFigure
branches global
in 75 stores
countries, with more than 254s
as shown
selection  Adding
in
of different different
5. Depending
strategies forms, new
on
was thecategories
SWOT and
factors
anticipated to become s diver
and
different moretypes Seeking
effectively
ofto higher
coffee growth
and tea markets
products and has a licensed
is developed.  Trying Our minimize
aim
Figurewas 4.toThethe coffeefor
prioritize
phases price
the strategies
implementing sugge
a N-A

Step WO
addition Shortstrategies
1 to circuit current
Perform
coffee, SWOT
and is analysis.
this makes it an attractive spot for
 ST
These strategies
strategies
significantly reduced were:
IEEE
different  Adding
competitors, differentsuch forms,
as new categories
Caribou Coffee and diver
Company,
benchmarked Starbucks
even Takingif faultCompany at is the
precautions
occurs tomost
mitigatewidely prolificcrises
economic market an
Minimization of Sensitivity index Resistive  SO  strategies
Trying to minimize the coffee price a group of ex
four-machine Roasters
 WT
company and many
strategies
a point hasfar from others.
branches the in 75 To countries,
face
[111]competition,
with more than 254
power loss method SFCL  ST Amplifying
strategies global stores
two-area test as shown
different optimal types location
in Figure
Competing 5. with
of coffee Depending
and other on the SWOT
companies
tea products andbyhasfactors
offering and
diffe
a licensed s
system of SFCL Seeking
Taking higher growth
precautions to marketseconomic crises an
mitigate
is developed.
addition  to Our
Diversifying aim
coffee, andstores was to
this makes prioritize
aroundit the the strategies
world andspot
an attractive sugge
minimi for
 WO WT strategies
strategies
Drawback of the
different These strategies were:
competitors, such as Caribou Coffee Company,
method
By applying
Addingis
Competingit does not
ourwith
differentproposed
forms,
other model to by
new categories
companies Starbucks
and diver
offering Com
diffe
Roasters
 SO and many
consider protection
strategies others. To face competition, a group of ex
selection of different
Trying
Diversifying strategies
to minimize
stores around was
the anticipated
coffee theprice
world and to become
minimis
as shown co-ordination
in Figure problem
5. Depending on the SWOT factors and s
 ST Amplifying
 strategies global stores
Step
is developed. 1 Perform
By applying Our SWOT
our
aim was analysis.
proposedto modelthe
prioritize tostrategies
Starbuckssugge Com
 Seekingprecautions
Taking higher growth markets
to mitigate economic crises an
selection These
WO of different
strategies
strategies
Faultstrategies
current is kept
strategies
were: was anticipated to become s
 WT
Step SO
 within
1 strategiesCB
Adding
Perform
Competing different
SWOT forms,
withanalysis.
other new categories
companies and diver
by offering diffe
interrupting ratings
Six-bus test Trying
with Amplifying
Diversifying to minimize
stores
global the coffee
around
stores theprice
world and minimi
Minimization of minimum FCLs
Impedance system and  ST strategies
units Seeking
and parameters higher growth markets
FCLs unit and Genetic algorithm By applying our proposed [110]
model to Starbucks Com
SFCL IEEE 30-bus  WO Taking
Sensitivity
strategies precautions
factor is to mitigate economic crises an
parameters selection of different strategies was anticipated to become s
system  WT strategies
introduced in the
Adding different forms, new categories and diver
proposed
Competingmethod to
withanalysis.
other
Step 1 Perform Trying toSWOT
minimize thecompanies
coffee priceby offering diffe
reduce search space
 ST Diversifying stores around the world and minimi
 strategies
Taking precautions
By applying to mitigate
our proposed model economic crisesCom
to Starbucks an
 WT strategies
selection of different strategies was anticipated to become s
 Competing with other companies by offering diffe
Step 1 Perform SWOT
Diversifying analysis.
stores around the world and minimi
By applying our proposed model to Starbucks Com
selection of different strategies was anticipated to become s
Step 1 Perform SWOT analysis.
 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

Energies 2018, 11, 1025  Dielectric test Temperatures, liquid 13 of 24

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW nitrogen level and 14 of 25
internal pressure
Energies
Some of 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWFCLs 
the non-superconducting Dielectric test
parameters design techniques Temperatures, liquid 14inof 25
remained have within been
±0.1 K,presented the
nitrogen
±0.5 level and
cm and ±0.3 bartechnique has been
literatures [104,117]. However,
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWto the best of authors’
 Dielectric test
knowledge, no optimization
Temperatures, liquid 14 of 25
internal pressure
range respectively
applied for either optimal parameter selection or optimal placement of non-superconducting
nitrogen
remained level
within and ±0.1 K, FCLs.
under all load
 Dielectric test Temperatures,
internal
±0.5 cm and pressure
±0.3 liquid
bar
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
conditions, proving 14 of 25
6. Field Tests of FCLs nitrogen
remained level and±0.1 K,
stability inwithin
range respectively cooling
internal
±0.5
under cm allpressure
andload ±0.3 bar
 Dielectric test superconducting
Temperatures, liquid
Although short circuit tests can be conducted to demonstrate current
remained
range
elements.
limiting
within
respectively
conditions, proving
Finally,
±0.1 K,
it has
capability of any
nitrogen
±0.5
under cm level
and
all load ±0.3and bar
developed SFCL, a field test is necessary to validate the performance and
stability
been statedin reliability.
that SFCL is SFCL practical
cooling
internal
range pressure
respectively
conditions, proving
installing issues and field tests have been reported [17,46–48,118–123]. superconducting
capable In of many
functioning countries FCLs have
remained
under
stability within
allinload
cooling ±0.1 K,
elements.
reliably Finally,
under it has
repeated
been practically installed and field tests have been done with resultsconditions, and recommendations
±0.5 cm and
been stated proving
superconducting ±0.3 bar
that SFCL is
for further
faults.
range respectively
study. Table 5 below shows field test results from different
Critical current test
countries. stability
elements.
capable inFinally,
of coolingit has
functioning
under
been statedall load
superconducting thatrepeated
SFCL is
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Partial discharge reliably under 14 of 25
conditions,
elements. proving
Table 5. Optimization techniques fortest, theshort-duration
placement of superconductingfaults. ofFinally,
capable functioning it has
FCLs.
stability
been stated
reliably in cooling
under thatrepeated
SFCL is
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Critical
Dielectric current
over-frequency test test Temperatures, liquid 14 of 25
superconducting
SFCL
capable behavior
faults. levelof for 24 h
functioning
Resistive-type 9 kV/3.4  withstand
Partial discharge
voltage nitrogen and
Country Italy FCL Type FCL Rating Test Names elements.
test duration
reliably Test
under Results
Finally,
in grid it has
repeated References
[121,123]
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
SFCL MVA  Critical
test current
test test
test, short-duration
Dielectric Temperatures,
internal pressure liquid 14 of 25
 Partial discharge been
shows
faults. stated
promisingthat SFCL
results is
 Basicover-frequency
impulse
Lightning impulse and remainednitrogen level and
within ±0.1 K,
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Critical current test SFCL behavior
capable for 24 h
of functioning 14 of 25
Resistive-type 9 kV/3.4 test,
AC short-duration
Dielectric
withstand
voltage
insulation test
voltage
level test Temperatures,
internal
±0.5 cm and pressure
±0.3 liquid
bar
Italy
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW  over-frequency
Partial discharge test duration
reliably under inrepeated
grid [121,123]
14 of 25
SFCL MVA test
withstanding
 Short circuit current tests nitrogen
remained
range level and
within ±0.1 K,
respectively
SFCL
shows
faults. behavior
promising forresults
24 h
Resistive-type 9 kV/3.4  withstand
 test,
Basic short-duration
Dielectric
impulse
Lightning test
voltage
partial Temperatures,
AC
internal
±0.5
under cm coil
pressure
and
all load ±0.3 liquid
deformation,bar oil
Italy Saturated
SFCL MVA  test
 Critical
Dielectric current
over-frequency
test
discharge tests test
test
testtank
duration
pressure,
Temperatures,
nitrogen
remained level
within
in gridinsulation
liquid
and ±0.1 K,
[121,123]
iron-core insulation level test range
SFCL respectively
conditions,
behavior proving
for 24 h
 Partial discharge shows promising
resistance of results
AC/DC
Resistive-type 9 kV/3.4  withstand
Basic
Partial
Short impulse voltage
temperature
circuit current nitrogen
internal
±0.5
under cmallandlevel
pressure
load ±0.3and bar
China Italy superconducting
LongSFCL 220 kV/300
term operational tests have been performed
test, in majority stability
testcoil,
of AC in
duration
the cooling
in grid
field
voltage tests to guarantee [121,123]
[46]the
fault current MVAMVA riseshort-duration
test
test tests level test
insulation internal
remained
range pressure
within
respectively
conditions,
superconducting proving ±0.1 K,
reliability and performance of the SFCL devices.
over-frequencyFor example, shows
the promising
device
withstanding results
temperature
capability test to check
limiter  BasicShort impulse
DC resistances
circuit current and remained
±0.5
under cm
stability
SFCL
elements. allandwithin
inload
behavior ±0.3for
cooling
Finally, ±0.1
bar
it24in K,
h
has
whether it is within
Resistive-type or9 above
kV/3.4 the tolerance
withstand
insulationvaluevoltage [47].
resistances were
Determination as expectedof the
operational cost by
Italy (SI-SFCL) insulation
testperformed level test ±0.5
range cm andproving
±0.3
respectively
conditions,
superconducting
test duration in gridbar is [121,123]
LongSFCL term operational tests have been
MVA is oneof test
in majority been of
test the
stated
results. field
that tests to guarantee
SFCL the
measuring power consumption of the
the
Short maincoils
circuit requirements
current during
range
under long
respectively
all load term operation tests of
reliability
Energies 2018,and11, xperformance
FOR PEER REVIEW of the SFCL  of devices.
Basic
The For example, stability
impulse
AC coil
elements.
shows
capable
the device inFinally,
of coolingresults
promising
functioning it has
temperature test to 14 check
of 25
SFCL. LongHowever, only operational cost hybrid
test SFCL [1,47] has
under been
conditions,all
superconducting determined
loadproving and compared
whether
Energies itterm
2018, 11,
operational
is x within
FOR PEER orREVIEW tests have
above been performed
the tolerance impedance
insulation value in majority
test[47].
level
beenof
reliably
test toDetermination
conditions,
stability
the
stated
under field
proving
inFinally,
cooling
tests
thatrepeated
ofSFCL isto guarantee the
operational cost
14 ofby25
with circuit
reliability and breaker replacement
performance of the cost
SFCL and other For
devices. damagesexample, the
capable
the
faults.power
elements. of
device system
functioning it has
temperature equipment due
test totestscheck to
measuring power consumption is one of Short  the main
Dielectric
circuit requirements
test current during
Temperatures,
stability in
superconducting long
cooling term
liquid operation of
high Long
faultitterm operational
currents. More above tests havetolerance
discussion beenfeasibility
and performed in
testmajority
analysis been
of of
other
reliably the
stated field tests
thatrepeated
types
under SFCL
of SFCLsisto guarantee
cost the
are required
whether
SFCL. However, is within
only or operationalthe  ofCritical
cost Dielectric
hybrid
test
current
value
SFCL[47].
test [1,47] Determination
Temperatures,
nitrogen
has been
Cryostat
superconducting
elements. level of
liquid
and
determined
suspension
operational
hashas and compared by
reliability
with rigorousand performance
filed tests. of the
Furthermore,SFCL devices. For
non-superconducting
Partial discharge example, capable
the
faults.
solid ofFinally,
device
state functioning
FCLs it grid
temperature test to
operation check
and
measuring
with circuitpower breaker consumption
replacement is cost
one of and theother
maindamages
requirements to the during
nitrogen
internal
been
power
elements.
been
long
level
pressure
experienced
stated system
Finally,
term
and
thatrepeated
operation
during
equipment
it hasis
SFCL
tests
due of
to
whether itwith
is x within or above the tolerance
Critical current
value test work
[47]. reliably
Determination under of operational cost
14 ofby
Energies
field tests
SFCL.
high Long
2018,
However,
fault
11,
term
FOR PEER
feasibility
only
operational
currents. More
REVIEW
analysis
operational should
tests have
discussion cost oftest,
been
and
be short-duration
done
hybrid
performed
feasibility
in
SFCL future
in [1,47]
analysismajority has
been
of
before
internal
remained
testbeen
of
other
capable
faults.
for
the
stated
of
real
several
field
that
types
time
determined
pressure
within ±0.1
times
tests
SFCL
of
functioning
grid
K,
SFCLsisdue
to
integration.
and compared
guarantee
are required
25
the
measuring power consumption 
is one of Partial
theother discharge
over-frequency
maindamages
requirements during
tocmblackoutslong term
and operation tests
false of
with remained
±0.5 and within
±0.3 ±0.1
bar K,
with circuit
reliability
Energies rigorous
2018, and breaker
filed
FOR PEER
replacement
11, xperformance
tests. of the cost
Furthermore,
REVIEW SFCL and
 of devices. For
non-superconducting
Critical
test,
Dielectric current
short-duration
test test to the
example, thepower
SFCL
capable
reliably
solid behavior
Temperatures,
of
device
under
state system
for
functioning
temperature
repeated
FCLsliquid
24 equipment
h
grid test todue
operation check
14 and
of
to
25
7. FCLs
SFCL.
high
Italy inResistive-type
fault Stability
However,
currents. only and
More
9Fault
kV/3.4
operational Ridecost
discussion Through
and
withstand
feasibility
voltage
Capability
hybrid SFCL Enhancement
[1,47]
analysis has
±0.5alarms.
range
of
test been
cm
other and
duration
Most
types±0.3
respectively in
of
determined
ofbar
grid
the
SFCLs andarecompared
required
[121,123]
whether
field itwith
testsSFCL is within
feasibility orMVA above the
analysis tolerance
should Partial
be done value
discharge
over-frequency in [47].
future work reliably
faults.
Determination
before
nitrogen underreal
level repeated
of
time
and operational
grid cost
integration. by
with circuit breaker replacement cost and testother damages to the problem
range
under power were
system
respectively
all load solved equipment dueand to
SFCL
shows behavior
promising forresults
24 h operation
with rigorous
Due
measuring topower filed
the
Resistive-type tests.
increased
consumption
9 kV/3.4 is one
Furthermore,
electrical ofnon-superconducting
power Critical
test,
the main
Dielectric
withstand
Basic
Long current
demand
short-duration
impulse
term test fault
the
requirements
test
voltage solid
faults.
levels
during state
Temperatures,
during
internal
under
conditions,all
in
long FCLs
tests.
pressure
load
power
proving
term
liquid gridsystems increase
operation tests of
high
Italy
field fault
tests currents.
with More
feasibility discussion
analysis should and feasibility
 ofover-frequency
Critical
Partial
be done current
discharge
in analysis
test
future workof
testother
duration
before types
Temperatures, real in of
grid
time SFCLs
liquid grid are required
[121,123]
integration.
causing
7. FCLs
SFCL. severe
inSFCL
However, damage
Stability only and to
MVA
Faultpower
operational Ride system
Through
cost equipment.
test
operational
Capability
hybrid
insulation SFCL testOne
level of nitrogen
the
Enhancement
[1,47]
test has
remained
SFCL main
been levelways and
determined
inwithin
behavior
conditions,
stability for±0.1
proving
cooling
of
24 enhancing
K, and
h power
compared
with rigorous filed tests.9 kV/3.4Furthermore,  non-superconducting
Partial
test, discharge
short-duration shows
solid promising
state
nitrogen FCLs
level results
and grid operation and
system
with Resistive-type
stability
circuit
Hybrid and replacement
breaker reliability is to cost  withstand
Basic
Fault
interconnect
Short impulse
tests
circuit
and other damages voltage
the powertosystems
current internal
±0.5
the cm
power pressure
for
and exchanging
±0.3
system bar power
equipment among
due to
Italy Due to thefeasibility
increased electrical power demand the faulttest duration
stability
levels in
superconducting in in
cooling grid
power systems [121,123]
increase
field
7. FCLs tests with
inSFCLStability 25.8
and MVA analysis
kV/630
Fault A should
Ride Through be
test,
test done in
short-duration
over-frequency
(short circuit)
Capability future work
Enhancement before
internal
remained real
within time
pressure grid integration.
Korea
each
high other
fault [124–127].and
superconducting
currents. However,
More when
discussion and insulation
test
fault occurs
feasibility level test
inanalysis
the system, range
SFCL
of other
shows respectively
fault current
behavior
types
promising
superconducting
elements.
remained Finally,
within of±0.1
for itis
24
results
±
K,
contributed
h
SFCLs
has
0.1
to the
K, are required
[47,48]
causing
fault severe
current damage
Resistive-type 9 to power
kV/3.4 system
 equipment.
over-frequency
withstand
Basic
Minimum
Short impulse
circuit voltage One
limiting
current of the
±0.5
under main
cm and
all loadways
±0.3 barof enhancing power
Italy
fault
with Duepoint
rigorous
to from
the all
filed the
increased
22.9 interconnected
tests.
kV/630Furthermore,
electrical
A Through parts
power which
demand restrict
non-superconducting the faultSFCL
test
interconnection
solid
elements.
been±
levels
0.5behavior
duration
state
stated
cminand in
to
FCLs
Finally,
that for
grid
±a
power 24
certain
0.3grid
it
SFCL h
has [121,123]
extent
is operation
systems
bar so
increasethat
and
7. FCLs
system
Italy limiter
Long inResistive-type
SFCLStability
stability
(SFCL)
term and and
operational
9MVAkV/3.4
Fault
reliability Ride
testsishave been
withstand
test
current
to interconnect
insulation
testperformed
voltage
test
Capability
the
levelpower Enhancement
test
in systems
majorityrange
test of for exchanging
respectively
conditions, the
duration proving
field
in tests
grid to power
guarantee among
[121,123] the
the fault current
field testssevere could
with feasibility be kept within
analysis shouldthe breaking
be done capability
in current
future of
work shows
been
capable
the promising
stated
of
circuit
range
before that
functioning
breakers.
respectively
real time results
SFCL is
gridAnother
under feasible
integration.
causing
each SFCL
otherand damage
[124–127]. to
MVA
However, power whensystem
 equipment.
test
Basic
Short
fault impulse
Temperature
circuit
occursFor One
test
in example,
the system,of the
under main
fault
stability all loadways
incurrent
cooling
of enhancing
is contributed power
to the
reliability
way Due
is to to performance
the
employ increased
fault of the
electrical
current SFCL
limiters devices.
power indemand
order the
to fault
enhanceshows
theall
capable
levels
reliably promising
device
loadof conditions,
functioning
in
under
reliability power results
temperature
repeated
and systems test
stability to check
increase
of the
system stability andthe reliability ishave  Basic
to interconnect the
impulse
Dielectric
insulation
test testpower
level test systemsconditions, for proving
exchanging power among
fault
whether point
Long from
term
itStability all
operational
is within interconnected
orsystemstests
above the parts
been
tolerance which
performed
value restrict
in
[47]. interconnection
majoritysuperconducting
of
proving
reliably
faults.
Determination the
under to
field
stabilitya certain
tests
repeated
of of in to
operational extent
guarantee so
cost that
the
by
causing
7. FCLs severe
in
interconnected
each other damage
power
[124–127]. and to
Fault
However, power
Ride system
Through equipment.
Capability
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
when  insulation
Short
fault circuit
occursFor level One
test
current
in example,
the system,of the
Enhancement main
Implementation
fault ways
incurrent
of enhancing
SFCLs has power
been
the fault
reliability current
and could
performance be kept of within
the SFCL the breaking capability ofstability
elements.
cooling
circuit cooling
Finally,
breakers. itishas
superconducting contributed
Another to
feasiblethe
measuring
system
reported power
stability
[145,146] consumption
and forreliability
limiting is
is one
to
fault  of devices.
Critical
the main
interconnect
current
Short
test as current
requirements
the
well
circuit power
as
current
the
faults.
testimproving
systems
device
during for long temperature
term
exchanging
stability of operation
active
test to
power
check
tests
among
distribution of
fault
way point
Long
Due toitto
isHowever,from
term
isthe
employ all the or
operational
increasedinterconnected
tests have
electrical parts
been
power which
performed
indemand restrict
in
the interconnection
majority
faultsuperconducting
been of
levels theinfield
elements.
stated to ofaSFCL
Finally,
thatpower certain
tests to
it systems
has
is extentincrease
guarantee so
of that
the
whether
SFCL.
each
network otherby onlyfault
within
[124–127].
reducing However,
impact
current
above
operationalon
the
when
limiters
circuit
tolerance
cost ofCritical
Partial
fault hybrid
testoccurs
breaker.
order
value
current
discharge
In SFCL
in
[145],
to
[47].
thetest enhance
[1,47]
system,
different has reliability
Determination
been
fault
types
been
elements. determined
current
of
stated SFCLs
Finally,that
and
is
it
stability
operationaland
contributed
have
SFCL
has is been
cost
comparedto
applied
the
by
the
the fault severe
reliability
causing current
interconnected
measuring and
power could
performance
damage
power besystems
consumption tokeptof within
the
power SFCLthe
system
one of breaking
devices.
equipment.
is [19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
the main
Partial
test, capability
For example,
One of
requirements
discharge
short-duration ofcapable
the
the main
Implementation
during of functioning
circuit
device breakers.
temperature
ways
long termofof SFCLs Another
enhancing
operationtesthas
tofeasible
check
power
been
tests of
with
fault
in circuit
point
Long
a medium breaker
from
term all thereplacement
operational
voltage interconnected
active tests cost
have
distribution and
parts
been other
which
performed
network damages
restrict
in to
in majority
order to the power
interconnection
capable
of
investigate
been
reliably the
stated
under system
torepeated
offield aSFCL
functioning
their
that tests equipment
certain isto
impact extent
guarantee due
so
on transient to
that
the
way
whether
system
reported
SFCL. is toit employ
is
stability
[145,146]
However, within
and for
only fault
or
limitingcurrent
above
reliability
operational is the
to
faultlimiters
tolerance
interconnect
costand test,in order
value
over-frequency
current as
of feasibility
hybrid the
short-duration
well
SFCL to
[47].
power
as enhance
systems
improving
[1,47] has reliability
Determination
been for of
exchanging
stability
determined and
of activestability
operational power
and of
cost
among
distribution
compared the
by
high
the Long
fault
fault current
reliability term
and operational
currents.could More
performance besystemstests
kept have
discussion
of within
the SFCL been
the performed
breaking
devices. in
analysis
capability
For example,majority
of
SFCLreliably
capable
offaults. of
other the
behavior
of
circuit
device under
field
types of
for
functioning
breakers.repeated
tests
temperature SFCLs
24 h to guarantee
are
Another
test required
tofeasiblethe
check
recovery
interconnected voltage of
power circuit breaker. This investigation
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. shows the capability of SFCLs inhas
reducing
measuring
each
network
with
Italy otherby
circuit
reliability
with rigorous
power
Resistive-type
[124–127].
andreducing
breaker consumption9 kV/3.4
However,
impact
replacement
performance
filed tests. of
is
when
onthe one
circuit
cost
Furthermore,SFCL
of
and the
fault main
over-frequency
withstand
occurs
breaker.
other
devices. InForrequirements
voltage
in thedifferent
[145],
damages
non-superconducting example, toImplementation
system, the
SFCL
test
the
during
fault
types
power
faults.
reliably
solid
long
current
of
behavior
duration
device
under
state SFCLs
systemterm
for
of
inrepeated
grid
temperature
FCLs
is
24
SFCLs
operation
contributed
have
equipment been
h stability
grid
tobeen
tests
applied
due
test[121,123]
to
operation check
and
of
the
to
way
whether
both
reported
SFCL. is
the toit employ
is
magnitude
[145,146]
However, within
Resistive-type
SFCL for
only fault
andor
limitingcurrent
above
rate
operational
9
MVAkV/3.4of the
rise
fault 
limiters
tolerance
of
current
costand in
Critical
transient
ofnetwork
hybridas
withstand
test order
value
current
recovery
well
SFCL
voltageto
[47].
astest enhance
voltage
improving
[1,47] has reliability
Determination
on circuit
stability
beentypes of
determined andoperational
breaker
of active which
and of
cost
in
distribution
compared the
by
turn
fault
in
high
Italya point
medium
fault from
currents.all
voltage the
Moreinterconnected
active distribution
discussion parts which
feasibility restrict
in order
analysis interconnection
to investigate
of
testother
shows
faults.duration
promising to
their
inof a
of
grid certain
impact
SFCLs
results extent
on
are so
transient
required
[121,123] that
whether
field
interconnected itsystem
testsSFCL is within
with feasibility
power orsystems
above
analysis the 
tolerance
should be done
Partial value
in
discharge
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. [47].
future Determination
work before real time operational
grid cost
integration. by
measuring
improves
network
with
the
recovery
with by
circuit
fault
power
currentreducing
breaker
voltage
rigorous
consumption
stability.
could
filedof beMVA
impact
replacement
circuit
tests. kept on is
Stability
breaker.
one
circuit
cost
within
Furthermore, This
of
and
the
the
enhancement
test
Basic
breaker. main
other
breaking
investigation
of
impulse
Critical requirements
microgrids,
Incurrent
[145],
damages
capability
non-superconducting
test
shows toImplementation
different
ofthe
the
during
smart
solidtypes
power
circuit
long
grids,
of
capability
state SFCLs
systemterm
breakers.
FCLs
of
multimachine
of
SFCLs
operation
have
equipment
SFCLs
grid been
Another
has duebeen
tests
systems,
applied
feasible
in reducing
operation and
of
to
measuring
reported power
[145,146] consumption
for limiting is one
fault  of Critical
test,
the
current main
as current
short-duration
well astest
requirements shows
improving during promising
long
stability termresults
of operation
active tests
distribution of
SFCL.
PVasystems,
in
high However,
medium
fault high only
voltage
voltage
currents. operational
active
More direct current
distribution
discussion and
cost of hybrid
(HVDC)
Basic
Partial
insulation
network and
impulseSFCL wind
discharge
feasibility level
in [1,47]
test
order
analysis systems
test,
to has been
has types
investigate
of other determined
been observed
their of impact
SFCLs and
with
on
arecompared
different
transient
required
way
both
field
7. FCLs is in
the
teststo employ
magnitude
with faultFault
and
feasibility
Stability and current
rate of
analysis rise
Ride limiters

of of
should
Through be inCapability
transient
done
Partial order
recovery
in
discharge
over-frequency to Enhancement
future enhance
voltage
work reliability
on
before circuit
real andgrid
breaker
time stability
which of turn
in
integration. the
SFCL.
network
with
fault However,
by
circuit
current reducing
breakeronly
limiters operational
impact
replacement
such as on
SFCL, cost
circuit
cost  and
BFCL, hybrid
short-duration
breaker.
other
insulation
Short
DC circuit
link SFCL
Indamages
[145],
level
FCL, [1,47]
different
test
current to the
super has been
types
power
capacitor
SFCL of
behavior determined
SFCLs
system
switch
for 24 h and
have
equipment
FCL and compared
been applied
dueand
standard to
recovery
with
improves voltage
rigorous
interconnected system filedof tests.
power
Resistive-type circuit
stability. systems
9 breaker.
Furthermore,
Stability
kV/3.4 This investigation
non-superconducting
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
test,
enhancement short-duration
withstand of shows
microgrids,
voltage the
solid capability
Implementation
smart state
grids, FCLs of
of SFCLs
grid
multimachineSFCLs inhas
reducing
operation been
systems,
with
in
higha circuit
medium
fault breaker
voltage
currents. replacement
active
More cost
distribution
discussion  and
and over-frequency
other
Short
test
network
feasibility damages
circuit in current
order
analysis to
to the power
SFCL
investigate
of other typessystem
behaviortheir of for equipment
24
impact
SFCLs h on
are due
transient
required to
Italy
ironResistive-type
both
field core
Due FCL
to
theinmagnitude
tests with as
the shown
increased
and
feasibility in
rateFigure
electrical
of
analysis rise13.of
should As
power clearly
transient
be demand
done visualized
recovery
in the
future test
in the
fault
voltage
work duration
Figure
levels
on
before in in
13,
realpower
circuit grid thegrid
breaker
time systems
which[121,123]
superconductingincrease
in turn
integration.
Italy 7.
PV FCLs
reported
systems, SFCLStability
[145,146]
high 9and
for
voltage Fault
limiting
MVA
kV/3.4 direct
MVARide
fault
currentThrough over-frequency
current
test Capability
as and
withstand
(HVDC) well as
voltage
wind Enhancement
improving
test
systems testhas stability
been
duration ofgrid
observed
in active distribution
with different
[121,123]
high
recovery
with fault currents.
voltage
rigorous filedof More
circuit
tests. discussion
breaker.
Furthermore, and
This test
feasibility
investigation
non-superconducting analysis
shows SFCL
oftheother
shows
solid behavior
types
promising
capability
state FCLsfor
ofof 24 h
SFCLs
results
SFCLs
grid are
in required
reducing
operation and
SFCL severe
causing damage 9tokV/3.4
power system equipment. One of the main
improves
network
fault
Italy by
current
Long
system
Resistive-type
reducing
term
stability.
limiters impact
such
operational
Stability
as on
SFCL,
tests have
enhancement
circuit  breaker.
BFCL,
been
withstand
Basic
Basic
DC Inof[145],
impulse
impulse
link
performed
microgrids,
voltage
FCL, indifferent
super
majority
smart
types
shows
capacitor
test duration
of the ofways
grids, SFCLs
promising
switch
in
field grid
ofresults
multimachine
tests
enhancing
have
FCL been
and power
systems,
applied
standard
[121,123]
tooperation
guarantee the
with
both
field
7. FCLs
system rigorous
Due
the
tests
in to
magnitude
with
SFCL
stability filed
the tests.
increased
and
feasibility
Stabilityand and MVA Furthermore,
rateelectrical
of
analysis
Fault
reliability rise
Ride
is should
to Through non-superconducting
ofpower
transient
be
test
interconnect demand
done recovery
in
Capability
insulation the the
future
power
level fault
voltage
work solid
Enhancement
test levels
systems on
beforestate
for in
circuit
realFCLs
powerbreaker
time
exchanging gridsystems
grid which increase
in
integration.
power among and
turn
PV
in
iron systems,
a medium
core FCL high
as voltage
voltage
shown active direct
in current
distribution
Figure (HVDC)
13. been insulation
network
Asdevices.
clearly and wind
level
in order
visualizedtest systems
toinshows has
investigate
the Figure been
promising
observed
their
13, theimpact
results
with different
on transient
superconducting
field
causingLong
reliability
improvestests term
and
with
severe
system operational
performance
feasibility
damage
stability. to tests
of thehave
analysis
power
Stability SFCL
should
system be
enhancement performed
done
equipment. For
in
of in majority
example,
future
One
microgrids, work
of the
the of
before
smartmainthe
device field
real
grids,ways timetests
temperatureof grid
multimachine to guarantee
test to
integration.
enhancing power
systems, the
check
each
fault other
current [124–127].
limiters However,
such as when
SFCL, 
BFCL, Basic
faultShort
Short
DC impulse
occurscircuit
circuit
linkinFCL,current
theshows
system,
super fault
capacitor current
switch isSFCLs
contributed
FCL and to the
standard
recovery
Due
reliability
whether voltage
to
and the of circuit
increased
performance breaker.
electrical
of the This
SFCL power investigation
devices.demand For the
example, fault the
the capability
levels
device in power of
temperature systems in
test reducing
increase
to check
7.
PV FCLs
system
fault initStability
systems,
point
is
stabilityhigh
from
within
and and
voltage
all the
orFaultabove
reliability
direct Ride
interconnectedis the
current tolerance
Through
to13.
interconnect
(HVDC)
insulation
test
parts which
value
Capability
current the
test
and wind
level [47].
power
restricttest Determination
Enhancement
systems
systems
interconnectionhas forbeen to
of
exchanging
observedoperational
abreaker
certain power
with
extent
cost
among
different
so turn
by
that
iron
both
causingcore
thein FCL
magnitude
severe as shown
damage and in
rateFigure
of rise ofofAs clearly
transient visualized
recovery inthe
voltage theon Figure
circuit 13, the superconducting
which in
whether
7. FCLs
measuring
each
fault other
currentitStability
islimiters
power within
[124–127]. and orto
consumption Fault
However,
such power
above
as Ride
is
when
SFCL, system
the Through
oneBFCL, equipment.
tolerance
the
Short
fault DC value
Capability
main
circuit
occurslink One
[47].
requirements
in current
the
FCL, of
system,
super main
Determination
Enhancement during
fault
capacitor ways
long
current of
switchterm of
is enhancing
operational
operation
contributed
FCL and power
cost
tests
to
standard by
of
the
the fault
Due
improves current
systemthe could
topower increasedbe kept
stability. within
electrical
Stability the
powerbreaking
enhancement demand ofcapability
the fault
microgrids, of the circuit
levels
smart in
grids, breakers.
power
multimachine Anothersystems,
systems feasible
increase
system
measuring
SFCL.
fault stability
However,
pointFCL
iron Long
core and
only reliability
consumption
fromasoperational
all operational
the interconnected
shown in tests is
Figureis to
oneinterconnect
cost of
13. beenofthe main
hybrid
test
parts the
SFCL
whichvisualized
As clearly power
requirements
restrict [1,47] systems
hasduring
interconnectionbeen
in theofFigure for exchanging
long term
determined
to
13,atests
certain
the power
operation
and among
tests
compared
extent so that
superconducting of
Due
waysystems,term
totoemploy
is severe
causing thedamage
increased electrical
faulttodirect
current
power have
power
limiters
system indemand
order
equipment. performed
the
to
One fault
thelevels
enhance
of has in majority
inways
power
reliability
main and
of systems
stability
enhancing the field
increase
of the
power to guarantee the
PV
each other
SFCL.
with high
However,
circuit voltage
[124–127].
only
breaker However,
operational
replacement current
when
cost (HVDC)
costfault occurs
of hybrid
and other and
inwind
SFCLthe
damages systems
system,
[1,47]
to the has
fault
been
powerbeen observed
current
determined
system withcompared
is equipment
contributed
and different
to the
due to
the fault
reliability
causing
Long term current
severe
operational could
and performance
damage besystems
teststokeptof within
the
power
have SFCLthe
system breaking
devices.
equipment.capability
For example,
One of the
of circuit
the of
device
main breakers.
temperature
theways Another
oftests feasible
testhas
enhancing to check
power
interconnected
system
fault stability
current power
andthe
limiters reliability
such as isbeen
SFCL, to performed
interconnect
BFCL, DC the
link in
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. majority
power
FCL, Implementation
systems for field of
exchanging SFCLs to
power guarantee
been
among
with
high
way point
circuit
Long
fault
whetheris to
it
from all
breaker
term
currents.
employ
is within
interconnected
replacement
operational
More
fault
or tests
discussion
current
above cost
have
the
parts
and
limiters
tolerance
which
andfeasibility
been other
in damages
performed
order
value in super
restrict
analysis
to
[47]. of
enhance
capacitor
interconnection
toDetermination
the
majority power
of
other the switch
to of
field
types
reliability atests
system
of and
FCL
certain
to
SFCLs and
are standard
extent
equipment so
due
guarantee
stability
operational of
cost
that
to
the
required
the
by
system
reported
each
the reliability
ironand
corestability
other [145,146]
performance
FCL asand
[124–127]. reliability
forHowever,
shown limiting
of
in the is
Figure to
fault
when
SFCL interconnect
13.current
fault
devices.
As clearly the
as well
occurs in
For power
as
the systems
improving
system,
example,
visualized in fault
thethe for exchanging
stability
current
device
Figure 13, of
is
theactivepower
contributed
temperature among
distribution
to
superconducting the
test to
the fault
high
with fault
reliabilitycurrent
rigorous could
currents.
and be kept
More
performance
filed
interconnected tests. of within
discussion
the SFCL
Furthermore,
power systemsthe
and breaking
devices. capability
feasibility
For analysis
example,
non-superconducting ofof
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. the
solid circuit
other
device
state breakers.
types gridAnother
of SFCLs
temperature
FCLs
Implementation are feasible
test required
to
operation
of check
SFCLsand has
measuring
each
network
fault other
point power
byfrom allconsumption
[124–127].
reducing theHowever,
impact on is one of
when
circuit
interconnected theoccurs
fault
breaker.
parts main requirements
in thedifferent
In [145],
which restrict system, during
types
interconnection long
fault current
of to term
SFCLs
a and operation
is have
contributed
certain been
extent tobeen
tests
applied
so of
the
way
with
whether
field is toit
rigorous
tests
reported employ
is filed
with within
[145,146] fault
tests.
feasibility
for or current
Furthermore,
above
analysis
limiting thelimiters
should
fault be
current inasorder
done in
well to
non-superconducting
tolerance value [47].
future
as enhancesolid reliability
state
Determination
work
improving before FCLs
real
stability of
time gridstability
operation
operational
grid
ofcertain
active of that
cost
integration.
distributionthe
and
by
SFCL.
fault
in
thea However,
point
medium
fault from
current only
all
voltage the operational
interconnected
active
could besystems
kept cost
distribution
within of
parts hybrid
which
network
the breaking SFCL
in [1,47]
restrict
order
capability to has been
interconnection
investigate
of the circuit determined
to a
their
breakers.impactand on
Anothercompared
extent so that
transient
feasible
interconnected
field tests
measuring
network bywith
power power
feasibility
reducing consumption
impactanalysis
on is [19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
should
one of
circuit beother
the done
breaker.main in future
requirements
Indamages
[145], Implementation
work
different before
during real
long of have
time
term SFCLs
grid
operationhas
integration.been
tests of
with
the circuit
fault
recovery
way is breaker
current
voltage
to employ could replacement
be kept
of circuit
fault breaker.
current cost
within and
the
This
limiters breaking capability
investigation
in order toshows
enhancethetypes
toofthe power
circuitof
capabilitySFCLs
system
breakers.
reliability of
and
been
equipment
Another
SFCLs
stability
applied
due
feasible
in reducing
of theto
reported
7.
in FCLs
SFCL.
a in
medium [145,146]
Stability
However, for
only
voltage and limiting
Fault
operational
active fault
Ride cost
distribution current
Through
of as well
Capability
hybrid
network SFCL
in as[1,47]
orderimproving
Enhancement
to has stability
been
investigate ofimpact
determined
their active
and distribution
oncompared
transient
high
way
both fault
is
the to currents.
employ
magnitude
interconnected power More
fault
and discussion
current
rate
systemsof rise and
limiters
of feasibility
in
transient order analysis
to
recovery
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. of
enhance
voltage other
on
Implementation types
reliability
circuit of SFCLs
and
breaker
of have are required
stability
which
SFCLs has of
in the
turn
been
7. FCLs
network
with in
by
circuit
recovery Stability
reducing
breaker
voltage of and Fault
impact
replacement
circuit onRide
breaker. Through
circuit
cost breaker.
and
This Capability
otherIndamages
investigation Enhancement
[145],shows
different
to the
the types
power ofsystem
capabilitySFCLsof been
equipment
SFCLs inhasapplied
dueand
reducing to
with Due
improves
reportedrigorous
interconnectedto the
system filed
[145,146] tests.
increased
power
stability.
for Furthermore,
electrical
systems
Stability
limiting non-superconducting
power demand
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
faultenhancement
current of microgrids,
as well as solid
theimproving
fault state
levels
Implementation
smart in FCLs
grids,power
stability ofgrid
of operation
systems
SFCLs
multimachine
active increase
been
systems,
distribution
in a
high
both medium
fault
the voltage
currents.
magnitude active
More
and rate distribution
discussion
of rise and
of network
transient in
feasibility order
analysis
recovery to investigate
of
voltage other
on their
types
circuit of impact
SFCLs
breaker on
are
which transient
required
in turn
fieldsystems,
causingtestssevere
Due
reported
PV
network with
to thefeasibility
[145,146]
by high
reducingincreased
damage
forimpact
voltage analysis
limiting should
electrical
todirect
powerfault
on current
circuit power
system be
current
(HVDC) done
breaker. asIn in
demand
equipment.
well
and future
the
One
as
wind
[145], work
fault
improving
systems
different before
of thelevels
main
has
types real
in
stability
been
of time
power
ways grid
observed
SFCLs integration.
systems
ofofactive
enhancing
have with
been increase
power
distribution
different
applied
recovery
with
improves voltage
rigorous
system filedof tests.
circuitFurthermore,
stability. breaker. This investigation
non-superconducting shows the
solid capability
state FCLs of grid
SFCLs in reducing
operation and
causing severe
system stability damage
and to Stability
power
reliability enhancement
is tosystem
interconnect of
themicrogrids,
equipment. One of
power smart
the
systems main grids,
for ways multimachinepowersystems,
of enhancing
exchanging power
among
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 14 of 24

check whether it is within or above the tolerance value [47]. Determination of operational cost by
measuring power consumption is one of the main requirements during long term operation tests of
SFCL. However, only operational cost of hybrid SFCL [1,47] has been determined and compared with
circuit breaker replacement cost and other damages to the power system equipment due to high fault
currents. More discussion and feasibility analysis of other types of SFCLs are required with rigorous
filed tests. Furthermore, non-superconducting solid state FCLs grid operation and field tests with
feasibility analysis should be done in future work before real time grid integration.

7. FCLs in Stability and Fault Ride Through Capability Enhancement

Due to the increased electrical power demand the fault levels in power systems increase causing
severe damage to power system equipment. One of the main ways of enhancing power system stability
and reliability is to interconnect the power systems for exchanging power among each other [124–127].
However, when fault occurs in the system, fault current is contributed to the fault point from all
the interconnected parts which restrict interconnection to a certain extent so that the fault current
could be kept within the breaking capability of the circuit breakers. Another feasible way is to
employ fault current limiters in order to enhance reliability and stability of the interconnected power
systems [19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. Implementation of SFCLs has been reported [145,146] for limiting
fault current as well as improving stability of active distribution network by reducing impact on
circuit breaker. In [145], different types of SFCLs have been applied in a medium voltage active
distribution network in order to investigate their impact on transient recovery voltage of circuit
breaker. This investigation shows the capability of SFCLs in reducing both the magnitude and
rate of rise of transient recovery voltage on circuit breaker which in turn improves system stability.
Stability enhancement of microgrids, smart grids, multimachine systems, PV systems, high voltage
direct current (HVDC) and wind systems has been observed with different fault current limiters such
as SFCL, BFCL, DC link FCL, super capacitor switch FCL and standard iron core FCL as shown in
Figure 13. As clearly visualized in the Figure 13, the superconducting FCLs have been examined
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25
with many branches of power system. However, non-superconducting FCL have been applied in few
branches of powerFCLs system.
have been examined with many branches of power system. However, non-superconducting
FCL have been applied in few branches of power system.

Resistive FCL
SFCL, MgB2 SFCL,
SISFCL

BFCL, PRBFCL, HTS-

FCL, SFCL, SFCL
SDBR,
r
gen erato S
Act mart BFCL,PRBFCL,DC
Micro ive Grid
D resistive FCL, Flux
Ne istrib and
tw
ork ution compensation FCL,
ne
hi
ac

Super capacitor
tim

switch FCL, MBFCL

ul
M

DF

BFCL, MBFCL
IG
Wind d
Spee
Fixed

Application of FCL for

Power system FRT
SDBR,
PMSG

capability and stability

improvement superconducting
FCL
PV
syst

SDBR,
em

DC

superconducting
HV

FCL Mic d
rog ute
rid trib ion
Dis nerat Saturated iron core
MTDC Ge
FCL, SFCL

Resistive SFCL
DC link adjustable
FCL, SFCL

Hybrid SFCL

Figure 13. Stability enhancement with fault current limiters.

Figure 13. Stability enhancement with fault current limiters.
Different types of non-superconducting FCLs like bridge type fault current limiter (BFCL),
parallel resonance bridge type fault current limiter (PRBFCL) have been examined in DFIG based
wind integration, multimachine system and fixed speed wind system. Application of these
non-superconducting FCL could be investigated in HVDC, smart grid, microgrid and multi-terminal
HVDC (MTDC). Till date, some of the SFCLs have been practically implemented in some power
systems in the world. However, non-superconducting fault current are yet to be implemented in real
power system. Diodes and IGBT switches are mainly required for non-superconducting FCLs which
can be implemented easily [104]. Moreover, required inductor and resistor for current limiting part
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 15 of 24

Different types of non-superconducting FCLs like bridge type fault current limiter (BFCL),
parallel resonance bridge type fault current limiter (PRBFCL) have been examined in DFIG based
wind integration, multimachine system and fixed speed wind system. Application of these
non-superconducting FCL could be investigated in HVDC, smart grid, microgrid and multi-terminal
HVDC (MTDC). Till date, some of the SFCLs have been practically implemented in some power
systems in the world. However, non-superconducting fault current are yet to be implemented in real
power system. Diodes and IGBT switches are mainly required for non-superconducting FCLs which
can be implemented easily [104]. Moreover, required inductor and resistor for current limiting part
are non-superconducting in nature which will reduce implementation cost excessively compared to
superconducting fault current limiter for future in power system.

8. Industry Practices/Practical Implementation

Several experiments at industry levels or laboratory are performed prior to practical
implementation of superconducting fault current limiters (SFCLs) in real system, especially for high
voltage application of SFCL. To establish the winding technique of the largest high temperature
superconductor (HTS) coil and build up the superconducting magnet system for high voltage
application, for instance, 500 kV SFCL, short sample test of HTS wire and tension test of double
pancake coil are performed in [147].
In [148], no-insulation (NI) coil is firstly applied in an inductive SFCL prototype as the secondary
winding, which is magnetically coupled with the primary winding. A two-winding structure air-core
prototype was developed with copper wire in primary winding and NI coils in secondary winding and
this developed structure was brought under different experiments like short circuit test and impedance
variation test which are needed before large-scale industrial production.
In South Korea, most of the power plants are located in the southern regions, while 40% of the
loads are in northern regions. And, due to social and environmental constraints, installing additional
power plant in southern region is difficult; as a result, more generators are added in the existing
sites which cause more fault currents and instability in the systems. To resolve this issue, in [118],
a novel hybrid type SFCL is presented. Although, in Korea, 22.9 kV hybrid SFCL was installed before,
voltage level is still not as expected and recovery time is larger. This newly developed hybrid SFCL
solves these problems.
In the framework of development of HTS based SFCL, Italian power system planners have done
significant tests. After successful demonstration of techno-economic feasibility, 9 kV/3.4 MVA SFCL
were installed. Second phase of Italian project for installation of 9 kV/15.6 MVA has been started [120]
in the distribution grid of Milano region. This phase mainly focuses thermo-fluid dynamic behavior of
cryogenic coolant flowing in forced convection through the superconducting cables.

9. Current Challenges and Future Works

Nowadays, high penetration of distributed generation in the form of PV, wind and energy storage
interfaced with power electronic converters causes several technical issues especially high level of fault
current. Moreover, power systems are becoming more complex with advances towards a smart grid
consisting of control, computers, automation and new technology and equipment working together.
It is a great challenge for power system researcher to secure stability of such system from high level of
fault current. In order to reduce the stress on circuit breaker and other protective devices, fault current
limiters are to be installed to keep fault current within permissible limit. However, their application,
control, placement, field test, optimal parameter design are important and need further research.
Although FCLs have been extensively studied and applied in AC system; their applications are quite
limited in systems with HVDC. Multiterminal HVDC (MTDC) is evolving, where several converters
are connected together to form a high voltage DC grid. Such system is more vulnerable to AC/DC
faults. Coordination of superconducting and non-superconducting FCLs can be a better solution for
MTDC. Still, a lot of challenges are there in developing and testing of non-superconducting FCLs in
 elements.
remained
superconducting
nitrogen Finally,
within
level it has
and±0.1 K,
stability
under in
alland cooling
load
been
±0.5 stated
cm
elements.
internal that
±0.3
Finally,
pressure SFCL
bar
it is
has
 Dielectric test superconducting
Temperatures,
conditions, liquid
proving
PEER REVIEW capable
range
been of functioning
respectively
stated that SFCL is 14 of 25
remained
elements.
nitrogen within and±0.1
Finally,
level K,
it has
stability
under
reliably allin cooling
load
under repeated
capable
±0.5
been cm of
and
stated functioning
±0.3SFCL
that bar is
 Dielectric test internal pressure
superconducting
Temperatures, liquid
conditions,
faults.
reliably
range under proving
respectively repeated
capable
remained of functioning
within
 Critical
Energies current
2018, 11, 1025 test
elements.
nitrogen
stability
faults. level
in and±0.1
Finally,
cooling
K,
it has
16 of 24
under
reliably
±0.5 cm alland
load
under ±0.3repeated
bar
 Partial discharge been stated
internal that
pressure
superconducting SFCL is
 Critical current test conditions,
faults. proving
range
capable
remainedrespectively
ofFinally,
functioning
within ±0.1 K,
 test, short-duration
Partial discharge elements. it has
 Critical current test stability
under
reliably
in
alland cooling
load
under repeated
power system.
over-frequency From
test, short-duration this ±0.5 cm
comprehensive
been stated ±0.3
that bar
review,
SFCL is it is recommended that further research should be
 Partial discharge superconducting
SFCL behavior
conditions,
faults. provingfor 24 h
ype 9 kV/3.4 withstand
conducted to voltage
fill up the range
capable
following respectively
of functioning
gaps for
over-frequency elements. Finally, it has application
FCLs in power systems.
MVA  test, short-duration
Critical
test current test test duration
stability
SFCL
under
reliably
inload
behavior
all
under
in for
cooling grid
24 h
repeated
[121,123]
ype 9 kV/3.4 withstand voltage
over-frequency been
shows stated
promisingthat SFCL is
results

 Partial discharge
Economic
Basic impulse
superconducting
analysis oftest duration
conditions,
SFCL
FCLs.
faults. behavior in for
proving grid
24 h [121,123]
ype 9MVA kV/3.4 test
withstand
test, voltage
short-duration
capable
elements.
shows
of functioning
Finally,
promising it has
results
 insulation
 Critical
Optimal
Basic level
current
impulse test
placement test design
and duration
stability
reliably under ofinFCLs
in cooling grid considering
[121,123]
network uncertainties.
MVA test been stated thatrepeated
SFCL is
 over-frequency
Partial
Short discharge
circuit
insulation current
level test superconducting
shows
SFCL promising
behavior forstudiesresults
24 h of non-superconducting FCLs in HVDC and MTDC
ype 9 kV/3.4  Analysis,
Basic impulse
withstand application
voltage
faults.
and
capable feasibility
ofFinally,
functioning
elements. it has
 test,
test
Short short-duration
circuit
Critical
insulation
systems incurrent
current
level test duration
test to reduce
order reliably
in grid
vulnerability
under repeated of [121,123]
system with AC/DC faults.
MVA test
over-frequency been stated that SFCL is
 Partial
test
Short discharge
circuit current shows
SFCLFCLs promising
behavior forresults
24 h and or PMSG based large scale wind integrated
ype 9 kV/3.4  Examining
Basic impulse
withstand application
voltage
faults.
capable for
of functioning DFIG
rational tests have been performed in majority of the field tests to guarantee the
 test,
test short-duration
Critical
insulation
VSC-HVDC current test
levelsystem. test duration in grid
reliably under repeated
[121,123]
ormanceMVA of the SFCL
rational tests havebeen test
devices. For
performed
over-frequency example,
in majoritythe device
of promising temperature test
the field tests to guarantee the to check
Partial
Short discharge
circuit current shows
SFCL behavior forresults 24 h and non-superconducting FCLs in terms of economic
ype  BasicComparative
impulse studies faults.
of superconducting
in or9 kV/3.4
ormance
rational above
tests the
of thehave
SFCL withstand
tolerance
devices.
been performed
test,
test
voltage
value
For
short-duration[47].
example,
in Determination
the
majority device
of the field of tests
operational
temperature cost
test[121,123]
to
to guarantee by
check
the
 Critical
insulation
aspects current test test duration
levelperformance analysis.
and in grid
in orMVA
onsumption
above is
ormance of the SFCL one
the of test
the
tolerance main requirements
value [47]. during
Determination long ofterm operation
operational tests
cost of
by
 devices. Forcurrent
over-frequency
Partialcircuit
discharge example, shows
the device
promising temperature
forresults
test to check
nly
ype operational
9 kV/3.4  ofShort
cost Development
Basic impulse
hybrid
withstand SFCL
voltage of
[1,47]
SFCL behavior
non-superconducting
has been determined
24 h FCLs and conducting their field tests for real
and compared
onsumption
in or abovetestsishave
onetolerance
the of test,
theperformed
main requirements
value [47]. during
of thelong
Determination term operation teststhe
of
rational been
test short-duration
insulation
grid
in majority
level test
integration. test duration inof
field operational
tests
grid cost
to guarantee
[121,123] by
r
nly MVA
replacement
operational
onsumption is
ormance of the SFCL cost
cost
one and
of
of test
the other
hybrid
main
devices. damages
SFCL
requirements
Forcurrent
over-frequency to
[1,47] the
has
example, shows power
been
during
the device system
determined
long term
temperatureequipment
and due
compared
operation tests
test to check to
of
 Short circuit promising
SFCL behavior forresults
24 h
r More
ype discussion
replacement
9 kV/3.4 and
cost and Coordinated
Basic impulse
feasibility
other
withstand damages
voltagecontrol
analysis to strategy
of
theother
power can
types be
systemdeveloped
of SFCLs between
are
equipment required
due flexible
to AC transmission system (FACTS)
nly operational
in or
rational above cost
the
tests have oftest
hybrid
tolerance
been SFCL[47].
value
performed in[1,47] has of
been
Determination
majority the determined
fieldof toand
operational
tests compared
cost the
guarantee by
insulation
devices levelFCLs.
and test test duration in grid [121,123]
tests.
More
ormanceMVAFurthermore,
discussion
ronsumption
replacement is cost
of the one and
SFCLofnon-superconducting
andtest
feasibility
the other
devices. analysis
damages
mainFor requirements
example,to ofsolid
theother
the state
power
during
device types
long FCLs
systemterm grid
ofresults
SFCLs
temperature operation
are
equipment
operation dueand
test required
totests
checkto
of
 Short circuit current shows promising
ibility
tests.
More analysis
Furthermore,
discussion and
should Linearized
Basic
be impulse
done in
non-superconducting
feasibility model
future
analysis can
work
of be
solid
otherdeveloped
before
state real
types FCLstime
of for the
grid
grid
SFCLs system
integration.
operation
are comprising
and
required FCLs to conduct small signal
nly operational
in or
rational above cost
the
tests have oftest
hybrid
tolerance
been SFCL[47].
value
performed in[1,47] has of
been
Determination
majority the determined
fieldof tests toand
operational compared
cost the
guarantee by
ibility analysis insulation level test
should stability
be done analysis
in future and
work design
before FCLs
real parameters.
time grid integration.
tests.
ronsumption
ormance Furthermore,
replacement is cost
of the one
SFCL and
of non-superconducting
the other
mainFordamages
requirements to the solid
during state
power FCLs
system
long term grid operation
equipment
operation due
test totests andto
of
and Fault Ride  devices.
Through ShortCapability example,
circuit current Enhancement
the device temperature check
nlyibility
More
in or
rational analysis
discussion
operational
above should
the
tests have costandof be done
feasibility
hybrid
tolerance
been in future
analysis
SFCL[47].
value
performed work
in[1,47] of before
other
has of been
Determination
majority real
types time
of
the determined
fieldof tests grid
SFCLstoand
operational integration.
are required
compared
guarantee cost theby
and Fault Ride 10.
ThroughConclusions
test
Capability Enhancement
r tests.
creased
onsumptionFurthermore,
replacement
electrical
is cost
one andnon-superconducting
power
of the other
demand
main damages the
requirements to
fault solid
the levels
during
ormance of the SFCL devices. For example, the device temperature test to check state
power in
longFCLs
system
power
term grid operation
equipment
systems
operation due and
increase
tests to
of
mage
nly and
ibility
More Fault Ride
analysis
discussion
toabove
power
operational Through
shouldand
system
cost The
be Capability
aim
done
feasibility
equipment.
of hybrid of
in this
future Enhancement
research
analysis
One
SFCL[47]. work
of of is
otherto
before
thelevels
main offer
real
types a
ways detailed
time
of of grid
SFCLs and in-depth
integration.
enhancingare required
power review of fault current limiters in power
creased
in or
rational electrical
tests the
have power
tolerance
been demand
value
performed in[1,47]
the fault has been
Determination
majority of theindetermined
power
fieldof tests toand
systems
operational compared
guaranteeincrease
cost by
the
d tests.toFurthermore,
reliability
ronsumption
mage replacement
powerisis to
costsystem.
systemand Application
non-superconducting
interconnect
other
equipment.the
damagespower of FCLs
to
One fault
of the
the in
solid
systems different
state
power
main forin FCLs branches
ofgrid
exchanging
system
ways of
power
equipment
enhancing power
operation among
due systems
and
power to like generation, transmission and
creased
ormance electrical
of the one
SFCL of
powerthe main
devices.demand requirements
For the
example, during
levels
the device long term
power
temperature operation
systems tests
increase
test to check of
and
ibility Fault Ride distribution
Through networks,
Capability AC/DC
Enhancement systems, renewable energy resources integration, distributed generation
7].
d
nly
mage More
in toanalysis
However,
discussion
reliability
operational
or power
above should
iswhen
to
thecostand
system ofbe
fault done
occurs
feasibility
interconnect
hybrid
toleranceequipment. in
theinfuture
SFCL
value the
analysis
power work
system,
[1,47]
One
[47]. of of
systems
has
the before
fault
other
been
main
Determination forreal
current
types timeis
ofof
exchanging
determined
ways of grid integration.
contributed
SFCLs power
and
enhancing
operational to the
arecompared
required
among
power
cost by
7]. the interconnected
tests. Furthermore,
However, when isparts
reviewedwhich and
non-superconducting
fault occurs documented.
restrict
in power
the interconnection
solid The
state key to
FCLsdiscussion
a certain
isgrid is divided
extent
operation so
tothat
and into several parts, such as application
d ronsumption
replacement
reliability
creased isis
electricalcost
to
one and
of
powertheother
interconnect main
demanddamages
the thesystem,
requirements tosystems
fault the fault
power
during
levels current
forin system
exchanging
long term
power contributed
equipment
power
operation
systems due
among
tests
increasethe
to
of
uld andbe Fault Ride of FCLs
Through in several
Capability branches
Enhancement of power systems, categorizing and discussing the structure of several
7].
nlyibility
magethe
More tokept
However,
operationalwithin
analysis
interconnected
discussion
power when the
should
cost
system ofbreaking
parts
and
faultbe done in
which
feasibility
occurs
hybrid
equipment. capability
infuture
restrict
SFCL analysis
the ofof
work
system,
[1,47]
One of the
interconnection
has
the circuit
before
other
beentypes
fault
main breakers.
real totime
current of
determined
ways isSFCLs
of Another
grid
a certain and
enhancing feasible
integration.
extent so
tothat
arecompared
contributed required
powerthe
fault current FCLs,
limiters pros and
indemand
order cons
to of different FCLs, real grid operation and testing of FCLs, optimal placement and
uld
d be
tests.
the
rcreased kept
replacement
reliability within
Furthermore,
interconnected
is to
electricalcost the
and breaking
non-superconducting
parts which
other
interconnect
power damages
the theenhance
capability
restrict
power toof the
solid
interconnection
the
systems
fault reliability
circuit
state
power
levels to
systema and
breakers.
FCLs grid
certain
forinexchanging
power stability
Another
operation of that
extentincrease
equipment
power
systems so
due
among the
feasible
andto
werand Fault Ride parameter
Through designto
inCapability and stability
Enhancement and fault ride through capability
the augmentation employing different
uld
7].
mage besystems
fault
ibility
More current
analysis
tokept within
discussion
However, power [19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
when limiters
should
the
and
systemfaultbe done
breaking order
feasibility
occurs
equipment. ininfuture
capability
analysis
the
One Implementation
enhance
work
ofofthe
system,
of the reliability
before
circuit
other
fault
main real ofof
and
time
breakers.
types
current
ways SFCLs
grid
isSFCLs
of Anotherarehas
stability
integration.
contributed
enhancing tobeen
of
feasible
required
powerthe
for limiting FCLs. It is realized from the literature review that the FCLs placement is important in limiting fault
dwer fault
tests.
the systems isfault
current
Furthermore,
interconnected
reliability
creased electricalto current
limiters
parts
interconnect
power
asorder
indemand
which well
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
non-superconducting
the as
to
restrict
power
the
improving
Implementation
enhance solid
interconnection
systems
fault levels
stability
reliability
state FCLs
to aof
of
and
forinexchanging
power
active
SFCLs
grid
certain distribution
stability has
operation
extent
power
systems ofbeen
so
among the
and
that
increase
gand
forimpact
Fault
limiting on circuit
Ride
fault current
breaker.
Through
current and augmenting
asInwell
[145],
Capability as different
Enhancement
improving stability
types of
of
stabilitypower
SFCLsof system.
have been However,
applied a lot of challenges still are there in
wer
uld
7].ibility
mage be systems
analysis
tokept
However, within
power [19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
should
when the
systemfaultbe done
breaking
occurs
equipment. ininfuture
capability
the
One ofImplementation
work
of the
system, thebefore
circuit
fault
main real time
breakers.
current
ways is active
of
of SFCLs
grid
Another
contributed
enhancing distribution
has
integration.tobeen
feasible
powerthe
ge active
gfault
impact distribution
onisfault
circuitapplyingnetwork
breaker. FCLs in in power
order system
to investigate such as
their minimizing
impact on interference
transient with neighboring communication
for
the
dcreasedlimiting
current
interconnected
reliability
electrical current
tolimiters
parts
interconnect
power asIn
indemand
which [145],
well
order
the as
restrictdifferent
theimproving
to
power enhance types
interconnection
systems
fault levels forof
stability
reliability SFCLs
to aof
and have
active
certain
inexchanging
power
been
extent
power
systems
applied
distribution
stability of that
so
among
increasethe
fgand
ge circuit
Fault
active breaker.
Ride line,
This
Through
distribution minimizing
investigation
Capability
network in loss
order in
shows normal
Enhancementthe operation,
capability
toImplementation ofdesigning
SFCLs optimal
inhas
reducing parameters, coordinated control design
wer
uld
7].
mage impact
besystems
tokept
However, on
power circuit
within
whensystem breaker.
fault occursIn capability
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
the breaking
equipment. [145],
in the
One ofinvestigate
different
system,
of thetypes
the circuit
fault
main
their
ofways
SFCLs of
breakers.
current impact
is
of have
SFCLs
Anotheron
been
contributed
enhancing
transient
applied
been
feasible
to
powerthe
ege and rate of fault between
rise This
of transient FCL and shows
recovery other
voltageprotective
the on devices,
circuit breaker feasibility
which analysis,
in field test and real grid operation.
ffor
circuit
the active
dcreased
breaker.
limiting
fault distribution
current
interconnected
reliability
electrical partsinvestigation
network
current
is tolimiters
interconnect
power asorder
indemand
which in
well
the order
as
to
restrict
power tosystems
theimproving
enhance
interconnection
fault
capability
investigate
reliability
levels
their
stabilityto
forinreview aof
of
and SFCLs
impact
active
certain
exchanging
power
on
stability
extent
power
systems of turn
in reducing
transient
distribution
so
among the
that
increase
Several gaps are presented in this as challenges to FCL application and control in power
fability.
ewer
uld and
gcircuit
impact Stability
rate
besystems of
breaker.
on rise enhancement
circuit of
This transient of[145],
investigation
breaker.
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. microgrids,
Inrecovery showsvoltage
different smart
the on grids,
circuit
capability
thetypes
Implementation ofways multimachine
breaker
SFCLsofisSFCLs
of have
SFCLs which systems,
inhas
been in been
turn
reducing
applied
7].
mage tokept
However, within
power when the
system breaking
fault
systems, occurs
equipment.
which capability
inare
the
One ofof the
system,
interesting circuit
fault
main
topics breakers.
current
for of
power Another
contributed
enhancing
system feasible
to the
power
researchers.
oltage
egeability.
and direct
rate ofcurrent
Stability (HVDC)
enhancement
riselimiters
of transient and wind
ofinmicrogrids,
recovery systems
voltage smarthas
on been
grids,
circuit observed
multimachine with different
systems,
dfor active
limiting
fault
the distribution
isfault
current
interconnected
reliability partsnetwork
current
to interconnect inasorder
which well
the order
as
restrict
power tosystems
to improving
enhance investigate
interconnection stability
reliability to abreaker
their of
for exchanging impact
and active
certain which
on in
of turn
transient
distribution
stability
extent
power so
among the
that
rs
oltage
f7]. such
ability.
circuit
g impact as
directSFCL,
current
Stability
breaker.
on circuitBFCL,
This(HVDC)
enhancement DC link
and
of
investigation
breaker. In FCL,
wind super
systems
microgrids,
[145], shows
different capacitor
smart
the has
types been
grids,
capability
of switch
observedFCL
multimachine
SFCLsof SFCLs
have and
within
been standard
different
systems,
reducing
applied
wer
uld be systems
kept within[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
Author
the Contributions:
breaking capability All Implementation
authors
of the contributed
circuit
However, when fault occurs in the system, fault current is contributed to the of
breakers.to SFCLs
this work
Another has
by been
collaboration.
feasible Md Shafiul Alam is the first author
hown
rs
oltage
ege such
and in asFigure
direct
rate
active SFCL,
ofcurrent
rise13.
distributionin
of As
BFCL,
this clearly
(HVDC) DCaslink
manuscript.
transient
network visualized
and FCL,
wind
recovery
in super ininvestigate
systems
All improving
order authors
voltage
to the Figure
capacitor
has
revised
on been
and
circuit 13,
switch the
observed
approved
their FCL
breaker superconducting
impact and
with
for
which
onthestandard
different
publication.
in turn
transient
for
the limiting
fault
interconnectedfault
current limiters current in order
parts which well as
to enhance
restrict interconnection stability
reliability of
to a and active
certain distribution
stability
extent so of that
the
hown
frs such
ability.
gcircuitinStability
Figure
as SFCL,
breaker. 13. As
BFCL, clearly
enhancement
This DC link visualized
Inof
investigation FCL, super
microgrids,
shows in the Figure
capacitor
smart grids, 13,
switch the FCLsuperconducting
multimachine and standard
systems,
wer
uld impact
besystems
kept on circuit
within breaker.
Acknowledgments:
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144].
the breaking [145], The
capability of the
authors
different the capability
would
types
Implementation
circuit like of
to
ofbreakers.
SFCLs SFCLs
of acknowledge
have
SFCLs inhas
been
Another reducing
the
appliedsupport provided by Deanship of Scientific
been
feasible
hown
oltage
ege and in
rate
active Figure
directofcurrent
rise
distributionResearch,
13.of As clearly
(HVDC)
transient
network King Fahd
visualized
and wind
recovery
in order University
voltage
to theof
ininvestigate
systems has
on Petroleum
Figure
been
circuit 13, &
the
observed
theirbreakerMinerals,
impact with
which
on through
superconducting
different
in turn
transient the Electrical Power and Energy Systems
for limiting fault
fault current limiters current
ResearchinGroup
as well
order as improving
to enhance
funded
stability of active
reliability and stability of the
project # RG171002.
distribution
frs
wer such
ability.
gcircuit
impact as
systems SFCL,
Stability
breaker.
on circuitBFCL,
enhancement
This DC link
investigation
breaker.
[19,33,34,54,104,128–144]. FCL,shows
Inof[145], super
microgrids,
different capacitor
smart
the of switch
grids,
capability
types
Implementation SFCLsof FCL
multimachine
of SFCLs
have
SFCLs and standard
systems,
inhas
been reducing
applied
been
hown
oltage in Figure
direct Conflicts
13. As of
clearly Interest:
visualizedThe authors
in the declare
Figure no
13,conflict
the of interest.
superconducting
ege and
for rate
active
limiting ofcurrent
rise of
distribution
fault (HVDC)
transient
network
current as and in wind
recovery
well order systems
voltage has
on
to investigate
as improving been
circuit observed
their
stability breaker
ofimpact
active with
which
on different
in turn
transient
distribution
frs such Stability
ability.
gcircuit
impact as SFCL,
breaker.
on circuitBFCL,
enhancement
This DC link
investigation
breaker. FCL,shows
Inof[145], superthe
microgrids,
different capacitor
smart
types of switch
grids,
capability FCL
haveand
multimachine
SFCLsof SFCLs in standard
been systems,
reducing
applied
hown in Figure References
13. As clearly visualized in the Figure 13, the superconducting
oltage
egeand direct
rate
active ofcurrent
rise of (HVDC)
distribution transient
network andin wind
ordersystems
recovery voltage hascircuit
on
to investigate been observed
theirbreaker with
impactwhich different
in turn
on transient
rs such
ability. as SFCL,
Stability BFCL,
1.
enhancement DC
Noe, link
M.; Hyun,
of FCL, O.;super
Jagels,
microgrids, capacitor
H.
smart
f circuit breaker. This investigation shows the capability of SFCLs in reducing switch
Investigation
grids, of FCL
the
multimachine and standard
feasibility of superconducting fault current limiters in Seoul
systems,
hown
oltage
e and rate in Figure
directofcurrent13. As
rise of (HVDC)and Berlin.
clearly
transientand In Proceedings
visualized
wind systems
recovery in
voltage onthe of the
Figure6th
hascircuit European
13, the
been observed Conference
superconducting
breaker which with different on Applied Superconductivity, Sorrento, Italy,
in turn
rs such Stability
ability. as SFCL,enhancement 14–18
BFCL, DC link September 2003; pp.
FCL, super capacitor
of microgrids, 682–689.
smart grids, switch FCL and standard
multimachine systems,
hown in Figure 2.
13. As Ito, D.;
clearly Yoneda,
visualized E.S.; Tsurunaga,
in the
oltage direct current (HVDC) and wind systems has been observed with different Figure K.; Tada,
13, the T.; Hara, T.;
superconducting Ohkuma, T.; Yamamoto, T. 6.6 kV/1.5 kA-class
superconducting fault current limiter development. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1992, 28, 438–441. [CrossRef]
rs such as SFCL, BFCL, DC link FCL, super capacitor switch FCL and standard
3. Willen, D.W.A.; Cave, J.R. Short circuit test performance of inductive high T/sub c/ superconducting fault
hown in Figure 13. As clearly visualized in the Figure 13, the superconducting
current limiters. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 1995, 5, 1047–1050. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 17 of 24

4. Lim, S.-H.; Choi, H.-S.; Chung, D.-C.; Jeong, Y.-H.; Han, Y.-H.; Sung, T.-H.; Han, B.-S. Fault Current Limiting
Characteristics of Resistive Type SFCL Using a Transformer. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2005, 15, 2055–2058.
[CrossRef]
5. Sung, B.C.; Park, D.K.; Park, J.W.; Ko, T.K. Study on a series resistive sFCL to improve power system transient
stability: Modeling, simulation, and experimental verification. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 2412–2419.
[CrossRef]
6. Sahebi, A.; Samet, H.; Ghanbari, T. Evaluation of power transformer inrush currents and internal faults
discrimination methods in presence of fault current limiter. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 102–112.
[CrossRef]
7. Noe, M.; Hobl, A.; Tixador, P.; Martini, L.; Dutoit, B. Conceptual Design of a 24 kV, 1 kA Resistive
Superconducting Fault Current Limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2012, 22, 5600304. [CrossRef]
8. Elschner, S.; Kudymow, A.; Fink, S.; Goldacker, W.; Grilli, F.; Schacherer, C.; Hobl, A.; Bock, J.; Noe, M.
ENSYSTROB—Resistive Fault Current Limiter Based on Coated Conductors for Medium Voltage Application.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2011, 21, 1209–1212. [CrossRef]
9. Lee, S.; Yoon, J.; Yang, B.; Moon, Y.; Lee, B. Analysis model development and specification proposal of 154kV
SFCL for the application to a live grid in South Korea. Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2014, 504, 148–152. [CrossRef]
10. Hasan, M.; Rashid, G. Fault ride through capability improvement of DFIG based winds farm by fuzzy logic
controlled parallel resonance fault current limiter. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2016, 146, 1–8. [CrossRef]
11. Tarafdar, M.T.; Jafari, M.; Naderi, S.B. Transient stability improvement using non-superconducting fault
current limiter. In Proceedings of the 1st Power Electronic & Drive Systems & Technologies Conference
(PEDSTC), Tehran, Iran, 17–18 February 2010; pp. 367–370.
12. Hossain, M.E. Performance analysis of diode-bridge-type non-superconducting fault current limiter in
improving transient stability of DFIG based variable speed wind generator. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 143,
782–793. [CrossRef]
13. Hagh, M.T.; Abapour, M. Nonsuperconducting fault current limiter with controlling the magnitudes of fault
currents. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2009, 24, 613–619. [CrossRef]
14. Jo, H.C.; Joo, S.K. Superconducting fault current limiter placement for power system protection using the
minimax regret criterion. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2015, 25. [CrossRef]
15. Blair, S.M.; Elders, I.M.; Booth, C.D.; Burt, G.M.; McCarthy, J.; Singh, N.K. Superconducting fault current
limiter application in a power-dense marine electrical system. IET Electr. Syst. Transp. 2011, 1, 93–102.
[CrossRef]
16. Kim, M.H.; Kim, J.S.; You, I.K.; Lim, S.H.; Kim, J.C. A study on practical impedance of superconducting fault
current limiter on bus tie in a power distribution system. J. Int. Counc. Electr. Eng. 2011, 1, 54–59. [CrossRef]
17. Lee, J.-G.; Khan, U.A.; Hwang, J.-S.; Seong, J.-K.; Shin, W.-J.; Park, B.-B.; Lee, B.-W. Assessment on the
influence of resistive superconducting fault current limiter in VSC-HVDC system. Phys. C Supercond. Appl.
2014, 504, 163–166. [CrossRef]
18. Jo, H.C.; Joo, S.K.; Lee, K. Optimal placement of superconducting fault current limiters (SFCLs) for protection
of an electric power system with distributed generations (DGs). IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23, 3–6.
[CrossRef]
19. Ye, L.Y.L.; Lin, L.L.L.; Juengst, K.-P. Application studies of superconducting fault current limiters in electric
power systems. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2002, 12, 900–903. [CrossRef]
20. Hatta, H.; Muroya, S.; Nitta, T.; Shirai, Y.; Taguchi, M. Experimental study on limiting operation
of Superconducting Fault Current Limiter in double circuit transmission line model system.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2002, 12, 812–815. [CrossRef]
21. Li, B.; Li, C.; Guo, F.; Xin, Y.; Wang, C.; Pang, X. Coordination of superconductive fault current limiters with
zero-sequence current protection of transmission lines. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2014, 24. [CrossRef]
22. Llambes, J.C.H.; Hazelton, D.W.; Weber, C.S. Recovery under load performance of 2nd generation HTS
superconducting fault current limiter for electric power transmission lines. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
2009, 19, 1968–1971. [CrossRef]
23. Elmitwally, A.; Gouda, E.; Eladawy, S. Optimal allocation of fault current limiters for sustaining overcurrent
relays coordination in a power system with distributed generation. Alexandria Eng. J. 2015, 54, 1077–1089.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 18 of 24

24. Hemmati, S.; Sadeh, J. Applying superconductive fault current limiter to minimize the impacts of Distributed
Generation on the distribution protection systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Environment and Electrical Engineering, Venice, Italy, 18–25 May 2012; pp. 808–813.
25. Mardani, M.; Fathi, S.H. Fault current limiting in a wind power plant equipped with a DFIG using
the interface converter and an optimized located FCL. In Proceedings of the 6th Power Electronics,
Drive Systems & Technologies Conference, Tehran, Iran, 3–4 February 2015; pp. 328–333.
26. Zhao, Y.; Krause, O.; Saha, T.K.; Li, Y. Stability enhancement in distribution systems with DFIG-based wind
turbine by use of SFCL. In Proceedings of the Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference,
Hobart, Australia, 29 September–3 October 2013; pp. 1–6.
27. Chen, L.; Zheng, F.; Deng, C.; Li, Z.; Guo, F. Fault Ride-Through Capability Improvement of DFIG-Based
Wind Turbine by Employing a Voltage-Compensation-Type Active SFCL. Can. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2015,
38, 132–142. [CrossRef]
28. Mordadi-Bidgoli, M.; Heydari, H. Comprehensive FEM analysis for saturable core fault current limiters in
distribution network. In Proceedings of the 22nd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering, ICEE 2014,
Tehran, Iran, 20–22 May 2014; pp. 665–670.
29. Gunawardana, S.M.; Perera, S.; Moscrop, J.W. Application of saturated core fault current limiters to
interconnected distribution networks. In Proceedings of the Australasian Universities Power Engineering
Conference: Challenges for Future Grids, Wollongong, Australia, 27–30 September 2015; pp. 1–6.
30. Xue, S.; Gao, F.; Sun, W.; Li, B. Protection principle for a DC distribution system with a resistive
superconductive fault current limiter. Energies 2015, 8, 4839–4852. [CrossRef]
31. Li, B.; Li, Q.; Liu, H.; Han, M.; Huang, Z.; Wang, J. The overvoltage of interrupting off-load transmission
line with series-resonant type fault current limiter. In Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Shenzhen, China, 17–21 May 2016; pp. 84–87.
32. Abapour, M.; Jalilian, A.; Hagh, M.T.; Muttaqi, K.M. DC-link fault current limiter-based fault ride-through
scheme for inverter-based distributed generation. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2015, 9, 690–699. [CrossRef]
33. Naderi, S.B.; Negnevitsky, M.; Jalilian, A.; Hagh, M.T. Efficient fault ride-through scheme for three phase
voltage source inverter-interfaced distributed generation using DC link adjustable resistive type fault current
limiter. Renew. Energy 2016, 92, 484–498. [CrossRef]
34. Marei, M.I.; El-Goharey, H.S.K.; Toukhy, R.M. Fault ride-through enhancement of fixed speed wind turbine
using bridge-type fault current limiter. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2016, 3, 119–126. [CrossRef]
35. Radmanesh, H. Distribution Network Protection Using Smart Dual Functional Series Resonance based Fault
Current and Ferroresonance Overvoltages Limiter. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 8, 1. [CrossRef]
36. Ko, S.; Lim, S. Analysis on magnetizing characteristics due to peak fault current limiting operation of
a modified flux-lock-type SFCL with two magnetic paths. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26, 4–8.
[CrossRef]
37. Radmanesh, H.; Fathi, S.H.; Gharehpetian, G.B. Novel high performance DC reactor type fault current limiter.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2015, 122, 198–207. [CrossRef]
38. Alam, M.S.; Abido, M.A.Y. Fault ride-through capability enhancement of voltage source converter-high
voltage direct current systems with bridge type fault current limiters. Energies 2017, 10, 1898. [CrossRef]
39. Alam, M.S.; Hussein, A.; Abido, M.A.; Al-Hamouz, Z.M. VSC-HVDC system stability augmentation with
bridge type fault current limiter. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Clean Electrical
Power, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, 27–29 June 2017; pp. 531–535.
40. Nourmohamadi, H.; Nazari-Heris, M.; Sabahi, M.; Abapour, M. A Novel Structure for Bridge-Type Fault
Current Limiter: Capacitor Based Nonsuperconducting FCL. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 33, 3044–3051.
[CrossRef]
41. Ko, S.C.; Han, T.H.; Lim, S.H. Study on peak current limiting characteristics of a flux-lock type SFCL with
two magnetically coupled circuits. Phys. Procedia 2013, 45, 305–308. [CrossRef]
42. Majka, M.; Kozak, J.; Kozak, S.; Wojtasiewicz, G.; Janowski, T. Design and numerical analysis of the 15 kV
class coreless inductive type SFCL. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2015, 25. [CrossRef]
43. Kozak, J.; Majka, M.; Kozak, S.; Janowski, T. Comparison of inductive and resistive SFCL.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23, 6–9. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 19 of 24

44. Chen, L.; Chen, H.; Shu, Z.; Zhang, G.; Xia, T.; Ren, L. Comparison of inductive and resistive
SFCL to robustness improvement of a VSC-HVDC system with wind plants against DC fault.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26. [CrossRef]
45. Naderi, S.B.; Jafari, M.; Tarafdar Hagh, M. Controllable resistive type fault current limiter (CR-FCL) with
frequency and pulse duty-cycle. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 61, 11–19. [CrossRef]
46. Xin, Y.; Gong, W.Z.; Sun, Y.W.; Cui, J.B.; Hong, H.; Niu, X.Y.; Wang, H.Z.; Wang, L.Z.; Li, Q.; Zhang, J.Y.; et al.
Factory and field tests of a 220 kV/300 MVA statured iron-core superconducting fault current limiter.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23. [CrossRef]
47. Hyun, O.B.; Yim, S.W.; Yu, S.D.; Yang, S.E.; Kim, W.S.; Kim, H.R.; Lee, G.H.; Sim, J.; Park, K.B. Long-term
operation and fault tests of a 22.9 kV hybrid SFCL in the KEPCO test grid. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2011,
21, 2131–2134. [CrossRef]
48. Kim, H.R.; Yang, S.E.; Yu, S.D.; Kim, H.; Kim, W.S.; Park, K.; Hyun, O.B.; Yang, B.M.; Sim, J.; Kim, Y.G.
Installation and testing of SFCLs. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2012, 22, 704–707. [CrossRef]
49. Rashid, G.; Ali, M.H. Nonlinear control-based modified BFCL for LVRT capacity enhancement of DFIG
based wind farm. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2017, PP, 284–295. [CrossRef]
50. Kaiho, K.; Yamaguchi, H.; Arai, K.; Umeda, M.; Yamaguchi, M.; Kataoka, T. A current limiter with
superconducting coil for magnetic field shielding. Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2001, 354, 115–119. [CrossRef]
51. Hekmati, A.; Vakilian, M.; Fardmanesh, M. Proposed flux-based optimization method for determination of
minimum superconductor material in shield-type superconducting fault current limiters. Sci. Iran. 2012, 19,
1843–1849. [CrossRef]
52. Jung, B.I.; Choi, H.W.; Choi, H.S. Reduction of the power burden of a transformer-type SFCL using a vacuum
interrupter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2015, 25, 4–7. [CrossRef]
53. Kim, J.S.; Lim, S.H.; Kim, J.C. Study on protection coordination of a flux-lock type SFCL with over-current
relay. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2010, 20, 1159–1163. [CrossRef]
54. Ji, T.; He, X.; Li, X.; Liu, K.; Zhang, M. Performance analysis and research on LVRT of PMSG wind power
systems with SDBR. In Proceedings of the 33rd Chinese Control Conference, Nanjing, China, 28–30 July 2014;
pp. 6953–6958.
55. Okedu, K.E.; Muyeen, S.M.; Takahashi, R.; Tamura, J. Wind farms fault ride through using DFIG with new
protection scheme. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2012, 3, 242–254. [CrossRef]
56. Shawon, M.H.; Al-durra, A.; Caruana, C.; Muyeen, S.M. Small signal stability analysis of doubly fed
induction generator including SDBR. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Electrical
Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Sapporo, Japan, 21–24 October 2012; pp. 31–39.
57. Okedu, K.E. Enhancing DFIG wind turbine during three-phase fault using parallel interleaved converters
and dynamic resistor. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2016, 10, 1211–1219. [CrossRef]
58. Ali, M.H.; Hossain, M.M. Transient stability improvement of doubly fed induction generator based variable
speed wind generator using DC resistive fault current limiter. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2015, 18, 803–809.
[CrossRef]
59. Hussein, A.A.; Hasan Ali, M. Comparison among series compensators for transient stability enhancement
of doubly fed induction generator based variable speed wind turbines. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2016, 10,
116–126. [CrossRef]
60. Hoshino, T.; Muta, I.; Nakamura, T.; Salim, K.M.; Yamada, M. Non-inductive variable reactor design and
computer simulation of rectifier type superconducting fault current limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
2005, 15, 2063–2066. [CrossRef]
61. Kozak, S.; Janowski, T.; Wojtasiewicz, G.; Kozak, J.; Kondratowicz-Kucewicz, B.; Majka, M. The 15 kV class
inductive SFCL. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2010, 20, 1203–1206. [CrossRef]
62. Shirai, Y.; Noda, S.; Yamabe, K.; Hattori, K.; Baba, J.; Nishihara, T.; Nitta, T.; Kobayashi, S.; Sato, K. Current
limiting performance of three-phase concentric transformer type SFCL at unbalanced fault conditions.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23, 3–7. [CrossRef]
63. Choi, S.G.; Choi, H.S.; Ha, K.H. Analysis of recovery characteristics of three-phase transformer type SFCL
per types of faults according to reclosing system. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2012, 22, 4–7. [CrossRef]
64. Cho, Y.S.; Choi, H.S.; Jung, B.I. Current limiting and recovering characteristics of three-phase
transformer-type SFCL with neutral lines according to reclosing procedure. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
2011, 21, 2205–2208. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 20 of 24

65. Choi, H.S.; Lee, J.H.; Cho, Y.S.; Park, H.M. Recovery behaviors of the transformer-type SFCL with or without
neutral lines. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2009, 19, 1793–1796. [CrossRef]
66. Yamabe, K.; Yonemura, N.; Shirai, Y.; Baba, J. Current limiting and recovery tests under load of three-phase
transformer type coaxial SFCL in a model power system. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2014, 24. [CrossRef]
67. Choi, H.S.; Cho, Y.S. Critical current equalization via neutral lines in a transformer-type SFCL.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2008, 18, 733–736. [CrossRef]
68. Fushiki, K.; Nitta, T.; Baba, J.; Suzuki, K. Design and basic test of SFCL of transformer type by use of Ag
sheathed BSCCO wire. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2007, 17, 1815–1818. [CrossRef]
69. Moghadasi, A.; Sarwat, A.; Guerrero, J.M. Multiobjective optimization in combinatorial wind farms system
integration and resistive SFCL using analytical hierarchy process. Renew. Energy 2016, 94, 366–382. [CrossRef]
70. Sung, B.C.; Park, J. Optimal parameter selection of resistive SFCL applied to a power system using eigenvalue
analysis. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2010, 20, 1147–1150. [CrossRef]
71. Ahn, M.C.; Park, D.K.; Yang, S.E.; Kim, M.J.; Chang, H.M.; Yoon, Y.S.; Seok, B.Y.; Park, J.W.; Ko, T.K.
Recovery characteristics of resistive SFCL wound with YBCO coated conductor in a power system.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2007, 17, 1859–1862. [CrossRef]
72. Zou, Z.C.; Xiao, X.Y.; Liu, Y.F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.H. Integrated protection of DFIG-based wind turbine with
a resistive-type SFCL under symmetrical and asymmetrical faults. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26.
[CrossRef]
73. Zou, Z.C.; Xiao, X.Y.; Ou, R.; Li, C.S. Low-voltage ride-through capability enhancement of DFIG-based
wind turbine with a resistive-type SFCL connected in series with rotor winding. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Applied Superconductivity and Electromagnetic Devices, Shanghai, China,
20–23 November 2015; pp. 42–43.
74. Morandi, A.; Imparato, S.; Grasso, G.; Berta, S.; Martini, L.; Bocchi, M.; Fabbri, M.; Negrini, F.; Ribani, P.L.
Design of a DC resistive SFCL for application to the 20 kV distribution system. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
2010, 20, 1122–1126. [CrossRef]
75. Kim, H.; Lee, J.Y.; Kim, H.R.; Yang, S.E.; Yu, S.D.; Kim, W.S.; Hyun, O.B.; Ko, J.; Yeom, H. An effect of HTS
wire configuration on quench recovery time in a resistive SFCL. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23, 7–10.
[CrossRef]
76. Zhu, J.; Zheng, X.; Qiu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Yuan, W. Application simulation of a resistive type
superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) in a transmission and wind power system. In Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Applied Energy, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 28–31 April 2015; pp. 716–721.
77. Didier, G.; Bonnard, C.H.; Lubin, T.; Leveque, J. Comparison between inductive and resistive SFCL in
terms of current limitation and power system transient stability. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2015, 125, 150–158.
[CrossRef]
78. Mafra, G.R.F.Q.; Sotelo, G.G.; Fortes, M.Z.; Sousa, W.T.B.D. Application of resistive superconducting fault
current limiters in offshore oil production platforms. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 144, 107–114. [CrossRef]
79. Behzad, S.; Negnevitsky, M.; Jalilian, A.; Tarafdar, M.; Muttaqi, K.M. Low voltage ride-through
enhancement of DFIG-based wind turbine using DC link switchable resistive type fault current limiter.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2017, 86, 104–119.
80. Lee, S.; Yoon, J.; Lee, B. Analysis model development and specification proposal of hybrid superconducting
fault current limiter (SFCL). Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2010, 470, 1615–1620. [CrossRef]
81. Choi, H.S.; Cho, Y.S.; Lim, S.H. Operational characteristics of hybrid-type SFCL by the number of secondary
windings with YBCO films. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2006, 16, 719–722. [CrossRef]
82. De, S.K.; Raja, P. A study on relay coordination in a distribution system with distributed generation
and hybrid SFCL. In Proceedings of the IEEE AFRICON Conference, Pointe-Aux-Piments, Mauritius,
9–12 September 2013; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
83. Kim, W.S.; Hyun, O.B.; Park, C.R.; Yim, S.W.; Yu, S.D.; Yang, S.E.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, H.R. Dynamic
characteristics of a 22.9 kV hybrid SFCL for short-circuit test considering a simple coordination of protection
system in distribution networks. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2012, 22, 3–6. [CrossRef]
84. Lim, S.H. Operational characteristics of a flux-lock-type SFCLWith an uninterruptible power supplying
function. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2014, 24, 1404–1407.
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 21 of 24

85. Lim, S.H.; Ko, S.; Han, T.H. Analysis on fault current limiting and recovery characteristics of a flux-lock type
SFCL with an isolated transformer. Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2013, 484, 263–266. [CrossRef]
86. Han, T.H.; Ko, S.C.; Lim, S.H. Current limiting characteristics of a flux-lock type SFCL using two triggered
HTSC elements. Phys. Procedia 2013, 45, 297–300. [CrossRef]
87. Lim, S.H.; Moon, J.F.; Kim, J.C. Improvement on current limiting characteristics of a flux-lock type SFCL
using E-I core. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2009, 19, 1904–1907. [CrossRef]
88. Lim, S.H. Analysis on current limiting characteristics of a transformer type SFCL with two triggering current
levels. Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2013, 484, 253–257. [CrossRef]
89. Morandi, A.; Fabbri, M.; Ribani, P.L. Coupled electromagnetic-thermal model and equivalent circuit of a
magnetic shield type SFCL. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23. [CrossRef]
90. Hekmati, A.; Hosseini, M.; Vakilian, M.; Fardmanesh, M. A novel method of flat YBCO rings development
for shield-type superconducting fault current limiters fabrication. Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2012, 472, 39–43.
[CrossRef]
91. Onishi, T.; Kawasumi, M.; Sasaki, K.I.; Akimoto, R. An experimental study on a fast self-acting magnetic
shield type superconducting fault current limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2002, 12, 868–871. [CrossRef]
92. Fabbri, M.; Morandi, A.; Negrini, F.; Ribani, P.L. Temperature dependent equivalent circuit of a
magnetic-shield type SFCL. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2005, 15, 2078–2081. [CrossRef]
93. Heydari, H.; Abrishami, A.A.; Bidgoli, M.M. Comprehensive analysis for magnetic shield superconducting
fault current limiters. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23. [CrossRef]
94. Fabbri, M.; Morandi, A.; Negrini, F.; Ribani, P.L. Magnetic-shield-type fault current limiter equivalent circuit.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2004, 14, 1966–1973. [CrossRef]
95. Liang, F.; Yuan, W.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, M.; Venuturumilli, S.; Li, J.; Patel, J.; Zhang, G. Experimental
test of two types of non-inductive solenoidal coils for superconducting fault current cimiters use.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2017, 27, 1505–1509. [CrossRef]
96. Furuse, M.; Yamasaki, H.; Manabe, T.; Sohma, M.; Kondo, W.; Yamaguchi, I.; Kumagai, T.; Kaiho, K.; Arai, K.;
Nakagawa, M. Current limiting properties of MOD-YBCO thin films stabilized with high-resistivity alloy
shunt layer. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2007, 17, 3479–3482. [CrossRef]
97. Firouzi, M.; Gharehpetian, G.B.; Mozafari, B. Improvement of power system stability by using new switching
technique in bridge-type fault current limiter. Electr. Power Components Syst. 2016, 43, 234–244. [CrossRef]
98. Kim, M.J.; Chang, H.M.; Sim, J.; Yim, S.W.; Hyun, O.B. Emergency blackout operation of cryogenic system
for hybrid SFCL. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2011, 21, 1284–1287. [CrossRef]
99. Zhao, Y.; Saha, T.K.; Krause, O.; Li, Y. Performance analysis of resistive and flux-lock type SFCL in electricity
networks with DGs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Denver, CO,
USA, 22–26 July 2015; pp. 1–5.
100. Kado, H.; Ickikawa, M. Performance of a high-Tc superconducting fault current limiter-design of a 6.6 kV
magnetic shielding type superconducting fault current limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 1997, 7, 993–996.
[CrossRef]
101. Janowski, T.; Kozak, S.; Malinowski, H.; Wojtasiewicz, G.; Kondratowicz-Kucewicz, B.; Kozak, J. Properties
comparison of superconducting fault current limiters with closed and open core. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
2003, 13, 2072–2075. [CrossRef]
102. Alam, M.S.; Abido, M.A.Y. Fault Ride Through Capability Enhancement of a Large-Scale PMSG Wind System
with Bridge Type Fault Current Limiters. Adv. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2018, 18, 43–50. [CrossRef]
103. Jafari, M.; Naderi, S.B.; Hagh, M.T.; Abapour, M.; Hosseini, S.H. Voltage sag compensation of point of
common coupling (PCC) using fault current limiter. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2011, 26, 2638–2646. [CrossRef]
104. Rashid, G.; Ali, M.H. Bridge-type fault current limiter for asymmetric fault ride-through capacity
enhancement of doubly fed induction machine based wind generator. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE
Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 14–18 September 2014; pp. 1903–1910.
[CrossRef]
105. Guo, W.; Xiao, L.; Dai, S.; Xu, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y. Evaluation of the performance of BTFCLs for enhancing
LVRT capability of DFIG. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2015, 30, 3623–3637. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 22 of 24

106. Zhang, X.; Ruiz, H.S.; Geng, J.; Coombs, T.A. Optimal location and minimum number of superconducting
fault current limiters for the protection of power grids. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2017, 87, 136–143.
[CrossRef]
107. Yu, P.; Venkatesh, B.; Member, S.; Yazdani, A.; Member, S. Optimal location and sizing of fault current
limiters in mesh networks using iterative mixed integer nonlinear programming. IEEE Trans. POWER Syst.
2016, 31, 4776–4783. [CrossRef]
108. Zare, S.; Ali, A.H.K.; Hashemi, S.M.; Katebi, F.; Khalili, R. Fault current limiter optimal placement by
harmony search algorithm. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Electricity Distribution,
Stockholm, Sweden, 10–13 June 2013; pp. 10–13.
109. Kim, S.-Y.; Kim, W.-W.; Kim, J.-O. Determining the location of superconducting fault current limiter
considering distribution reliability. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2012, 6, 240–246. [CrossRef]
110. Teng, J.-H.; Lu, C.-N. Optimum fault current limiter placement with search space reduction technique.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2010, 4, 485–494. [CrossRef]
111. Sung, B.C.; Member, S.; Park, D.K.; Park, J. Study on optimal location of a resistive SFCL applied to an
electric power grid. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2009, 19, 2048–2052. [CrossRef]
112. Chantachiratham, P.; Hongesombut, K. PSO based approach for optimum fault current limiter placement in
power system. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics,
Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Phetchaburi, Thailand, 16–18 May 2012;
pp. 1–4.
113. Didier, G.; Lévêque, J.; Rezzoug, A. A Novel approach to determine the optimal location of SFCL in electric
power grid to improve power system stability. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 978–984. [CrossRef]
114. El Moursi, M.S.; Hegazy, R. Novel technique for reducing the high fault currents and enhancing the security
of ADWEA power system. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 140–148. [CrossRef]
115. Hongesombut, K.; Mitani, Y.; Tsuji, K. Optimal location assignment and design of superconducting fault
current limiters applied to loop Power systems. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2003, 13, 1828–1831. [CrossRef]
116. Mahmoudian, A.; Niasati, M.; Khanesar, M.A. Multi objective optimal allocation of fault current limiters in
power system. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2017, 85, 1–11. [CrossRef]
117. Sadi, M.A.H.; Ali, M.H. Transient stability enhancement by bridge type fault current limiter considering
coordination with optimal reclosing of circuit breakers. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2015, 124, 160–172. [CrossRef]
118. Seo, S.; Kim, S.J.; Moon, Y.H.; Lee, B. A hybrid superconducting fault current limiter for enhancing transient
stability in Korean power systems. Phys. C 2013, 494, 331–334. [CrossRef]
119. Kim, H.; Yang, S.; Yu, S.; Kim, H.; Park, B.; Han, Y.; Park, K.; Yu, J. Development and grid operation of
superconducting fault current limiters in KEPCO. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2014, 24, 2504–2507.
120. Angeli, G.; Bocchi, M.; Ascade, M.; Rossi, V.; Valzasina, A.; Martini, L. Development of superconducting
devices for power grids in Italy: Update about the SFCL project and launching of the research activity on
HTS cables. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 27, 406–411. [CrossRef]
121. Martini, L.; Bocchi, M.; Angeli, G.; Ascade, M.; Rossi, V.; Valzasina, A.; Ravetta, C.; Fratti, S.; Martino, E.
Live grid field-testing final results of the first Italian superconducting fault current limiter and severe 3-phase
fault experience. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2015, 25. [CrossRef]
122. Hyun, O.B.; Park, K.B.; Sim, J.; Kim, H.R.; Yim, S.W.; Oh, I.S. Introduction of a hybrid SFCL in KEPCO grid
and local points at issue. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2009, 19, 1946–1949. [CrossRef]
123. Martini, L.; Bocchi, M.; Ascade, M.; Valzasina, A.; Rossi, V.; Ravetta, C.; Angeli, G. Live-grid installation and
field testing of the first Italian superconducting fault current limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2013, 23,
3–6. [CrossRef]
124. Alam, M.S.; Razzak, A.; Hasan, N.; Chowdhury, A.H. Transmission Capacity Enhancement of East-West
Interconnectors Using Series-Shunt Compensation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 20–22 December 2012; pp. 579–582.
125. Alam, M.S.; Chowdhury, A.H.; Hasan, M.N. Comparison of series and combined series-shunt compensation
on East-West Interconnectors of Bangladesh Power System. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 17–19 December 2015; pp. 280–283.
126. Hossain, M.A.; Pota, H.R.; Issa, W.; Hossain, M.J. Overview of AC microgrid controls with inverter-interfaced
generations. Energies 2017, 10, 1300. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 23 of 24

127. Rana, J.; Alam, M.S.; Islam, S. Continuous Wavelet Transform Based Analysis of Low Frequency Oscillation
in Power System. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering,
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 17–19 December 2015; pp. 320–323.
128. Hossain, M.K.; Ali, M.H. Transient stability augmentation of PV/DFIG/SG-based hybrid power system by
parallel-resonance bridge fault current limiter. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2016, 130, 89–102. [CrossRef]
129. Alaraifi, S.; El Moursi, M.S.; Zeineldin, H.H. Optimal allocation of HTS-FCL for power system security and
stability enhancement. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2013, 28, 4702–4711. [CrossRef]
130. Sjostrom, M.; Cherkaoui, R.; Dutoit, B. Enhancement of power system transient stability using
superconducting fault current limiters. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 1999, 9, 1328–1330. [CrossRef]
131. Generation, W.P.; Fereidouni, A.R.; Vahidi, B.; Member, S.; Mehr, T.H. The impact of solid state fault current
limiter on power network with wind-turbine power generation. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2013, 4, 1188–1196.
132. Emhemed, A.S.; Tumilty, R.M.; Singh, N.K.; Burt, G.M.; McDonald, J.R. Analysis of transient stability
enhancement of LV-connected induction microgenerators by using resistive-type fault current limiters.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2010, 25, 885–893. [CrossRef]
133. He, H.; Chen, L.; Yin, T.; Cao, Z.; Yang, J.; Tu, X.; Ren, L. Application of a SFCL for fault ride-through capability
enhancement of DG in a microgrid system and relay protection coordination. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
2016, 26, 608–615. [CrossRef]
134. Khan, U.A.; Seong, J.K.; Lee, S.H.; Lim, S.H.; Lee, B.W. Feasibility analysis of the positioning of
superconducting fault current limiters for the smart grid application using Simulink and SimPowerSystem.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2011, 21, 2165–2169. [CrossRef]
135. Ahmed, S.; Khaliq, A.; Uddin, S.M.; Uddin, S. Stability enhancement in smart grid by using superconducting
fault current limiter. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering (RAEE),
Islamabad, Pakistan, 19–20 October 2015; pp. 1–6.
136. Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Sheng, J.; Cai, L.; Jin, Z.; Gu, J.; An, Z.; Yang, X.; Hong, Z. Design and application of a
superconducting fault current limiter in a multiterminal HVDC systems. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2014,
24, 805–809. [CrossRef]
137. Chen, L.; Chen, H.; Yang, J.; Zhu, L.; Tang, Y.; Koh, L.H.; Xu, Y. Comparison of superconducting fault
current limiter and dynamic voltage restorer for LVRT improvement of high penetration microgrid.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2017, 27, 607–613. [CrossRef]
138. Manohar, P.; Ahmed, W. Superconducting fault current limiter to mitigate the effect of DC line fault in
VSC-HVDC system. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Power, Signals, Controls and
Computation, Thrissur, India, 3–6 January 2012; pp. 1–6.
139. Li, B.; Jing, F.; Jia, J.; Li, B. Research on Saturated Iron-Core Superconductive Fault Current Limiters Applied
in VSC-HVDC Systems. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26. [CrossRef]
140. Moghadasi, A.; Sarwat, A.I. Optimal analysis of resistive superconducting fault current limiters applied to a
variable speed wind turbine system. In Proceedings of the IEEE SoutheastCon, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA,
9–12 April 2015; pp. 1–7.
141. Ashraf, M.; Sadi, H.; Ali, M.H. Transient Stability Enhancement of Multi- Machine Power System By Parallel
Resonance Type Fault Current Limiter. In Proceedings of the North American Power Symposium (NAPS),
Charlotte, NC, USA, 4–6 October 2015; pp. 1–6.
142. Sadi, M.A.H.; Ali, M.H. Combined Operation of SFCL and Optimal Reclosing of Circuit Breakers for Power
System Transient Stability Enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE Southeastcon, Jacksonville, FL, USA,
4–7 April 2013; pp. 1–6.
143. Firouzi, M.; Gharehpetian, G.B. Improving fault ride-through capability of fixed-speed wind turbine by
using bridge-type fault current limiter. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2013, 28, 361–369. [CrossRef]
144. Hossain, M.K.; Ali, M.H. Transient Stability Augmentation of PV/DFIG/SG-Based Hybrid Power System by
Nonlinear Control-Based Variable Resistive FCL. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 1638–1649. [CrossRef]
145. Singh, N.K.; Tumilty, R.M.; Burt, G.M.; Bright, C.G.; Brozio, C.C.; Roberts, D.A.; Smith, A.C.; Husband, M.
System-Level Studies of a MgB2 Superconducting Fault-Current Limiter in an Active Distribution Network.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2010, 20, 54–60. [CrossRef]
146. Li, B.; Li, C.; Guo, F.; Xin, Y. Overcurrent Protection Coordination in a Power Distribution Network with the
Active Superconductive Fault Current Limiter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2014, 24, 3–6. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 1025 24 of 24

147. Liang, C. Winding Technology and Experimental Study on 500 kV Superconductive Fault Current Limiter.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2018, 28, 5601105–5601109. [CrossRef]
148. Qiu, D.; Li, Z.Y.; Gu, F.; Huang, Z.; Zhao, A.; Hu, D.; Wei, B.G.; Huang, H.; Hong, Z.; Ryu, K.; et al.
Experiment study on an inductive superconducting fault current limiter using no-insulation coils.
Phys. C Supercond. Appl. 2018, 546, 1–5. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).