4.6 Article

Active Fault Current Limitation for Low-Voltage Ride-Through of Networked Microgrids

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 980-992

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2021.3074992

关键词

Fault currents; Impedance; Power quality; Circuit faults; Inverters; Power system stability; Low voltage; Networked microgrids; back-to-back converter; low-voltage ride-through; fault current limitation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51722701, 51907066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an active fault current limitation (AFCL) method to reduce system fault currents during low-voltage ride-through (LVRT) by adjusting phase angles and injecting currents. The method also takes into account network impedance characteristics to enhance voltage support ability. Extensive tests have shown that the proposed AFCL method improves LVRT performance without increasing system fault currents.
With the continuously increasing penetration of networked microgrids (MGs) on the local utility grid (UG), MGs face the challenge to avoid increasing system fault currents during low-voltage ride-through (LVRT). To solve this challenge, an active fault current limitation (AFCL) method is proposed with three parts: 1) a novel phase angle adjustment (PAA) strategy is conducted to relieve the impact of MGs output fault current on system fault current; 2) the current injection (CI) strategy for LVRT is formulated to fit the function of PAA; 3) a novel converter current generation (CCG) strategy is developed to achieve a better voltage support ability by considering network impedance characteristics. The proposed AFCL method is applied to the back-to-back converter, as a connection interface between MGs and UG. Extensive tests and pertinent results have verified the improvements of proposed AFCL method with better LVRT performance, while the networked MGs output fault current does not increase the amplitude of system fault current.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据