This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

JESTPE-2016-05-0205.R1 1

Design of Solid State Circuit Breaker Based

Protection for DC Shipboard Power Systems
L. Qi, Senior, IEEE, A. Antoniazzi, and L. Raciti, D. Leoni

Abstract—Fast increasing DC fault currents in DC shipboard

distribution systems requires fast DC protective devices and
protection methods. Solid State Circuit Breakers (SSCBs)
inherently have fast protection speed and thus proper for DC
shipboard distribution protection. Based on the analysis of the
fault current features in DC shipboard distribution systems, the
design of the system protection employing SSCBs is discussed
from the perspectives of SSCB technologies, design requirements,
and protection methods. Fast speed, low cost, low loss, and
optimized design are major challenges of SSCB based DC
shipboard distribution protection.

Index Terms—Solid State Circuit Breaker, DC, shipboard,

distribution, fault protection.
Fig. 1. A commercial LVDC electrical distribution system [3][5].

I. INTRODUCTION

W ITH the development of distributed energy resources

and high voltage and current semiconductor devices,
DC distribution has become a competitive alternative to
conventional AC distribution in some applications. Low
voltage DC (LVDC) has been applied to commercial marine
electrical systems [2]-[3] and is promising to naval shipboard
power systems [6][7]. Potentially, Medium Voltage DC
(MVDC) can be implemented for both commercial and naval
shipboard systems.
Fig. 1 shows a commercial LVDC electrical distribution
system [4][5]. Fig. 2 is a naval DC shipboard power system
architecture described in IEEE Std 1709 [6]. Converters are Fig. 2. A notional design of naval DC shipboard power systems [6].
used system wide to convert AC power to DC power, DC to
AC, and transform DC voltage from one level to another level. Fault protection is necessary for DC shipboard distribution
The naval system includes interconnected MVDC and LVDC systems. Overviews of DC shipboard system protection can be
subsystems. High requirements on reliability and survivability found in [8]-[13]. Depending on key protection devices, DC
are the main motivation of the ring configuration and zonal protection can be categorized into circuit breaker based
distribution for naval systems. Some common features of protection and converter based protection. Each face different
commercial and naval DC shipboard distribution systems are: challenges and issues. Not all DC faults can be controlled by
· the low inductances of the short connection lines between converters since some parasitic paths could be present in
equipment due to the limited space on vessels; converters and systems. Converter based protection requires
· multiple capacitors connected to the DC link; controllable switches on fault paths for fault handling and
system restoration [14]-[18]. Only certain types of converters
· prone to system instability since the generation capacity is
have fault current control capability without device or
comparable to the load demand.
topology changes [19]. Also, event switching has different
design requirements on semiconductor devices from converter
switching. This normally results in higher cost in event
switching. In converter based DC protection, the converter
L. Qi is with Corporate Research Center, ABB Inc., Raleigh, NC, 27518, design and the coordination between protective devices and
USA (e-mail: lisa.qi@us.abb.com). converter controllers are critical design concerns, which are
A. Antoniazzi, L. Raciti, and D. Leoni are with Low Voltage Products,
different from those for circuit breaker based DC protection.
ABB S.p.A, Bergamo, Italy, email: {antonello.antoniazzi, luca.raciti,
davide.leoni}@it.abb.com. Circuit breaker based DC protection can be further

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
JESTPE-2016-05-0205.R1
subcategorized by different circuit breaker technologies. In
conventional circuit breaker based DC protection, converter
protection needs to be considered because of the slow turning-
off of the mechanical circuit breakers and the low fault
withstanding of the converters. Solid State Circuit Breaker
(SSCB) based DC protection can achieve full protection of
components and systems by the low limits and the ultrafast
speeds of SSCBs together with the proper coordination
between upstream and downstream SSCBs. This paper only
addresses the challenges and issues the design of SSCB based
DC protection. Some aspects that will be addressed include
several SSCBs experimentally validated for DC protection,
protection design requirements, and applicable fault
identification and protection coordination methods.
Due to fast increasing DC fault currents caused by low
inductance in DC shipboard distribution systems, fast
protection is required to prevent damages to equipment and
devices. However, fast DC protection is challenging to
achieve with conventional circuit breakers. SSCBs inherently
have ultrafast turning-off speed and are capable to achieve the
desirable fast protection speed. Different SSCBs use different
semiconductor technologies according to different voltage and
current ratings of different applications [20]-[34]. Several
SSCB laboratory prototypes and products [23]-[34] have been
tested for DC protection. Due to high cost and immature
semiconductor technologies in medium voltage, these SSCBs
are for low voltage applications (from a few hundreds to one
thousand volts) and will be further analyzed in Section II.
Fast DC shipboard distribution protection also requires fast
fault identification and protection coordination. Various fault
detection, location, and protection coordination methods can
be applied for DC protection [35]-[46]. Traditional
overcurrent and current derivative protection methods for
HVDC and DC traction can also be used for DC shipboard
distribution systems [35]-[38]. Distance protection, differential
protection, and direction protection were proposed as
alternative methods by different researchers [38]-[46]. These
protection methods will be further examined in Section IV.
This section gives an introduction to DC shipboard
distribution systems and their protection. SSCB technologies
are the basis of SSCB based DC protection and discussed in
Section II. Design requirements of SSCB based DC protection
are analyzed from system perspectives in Section III. Theories
and implementation issues of different DC fault protection
methods are studied in Section IV. Finally, some conclusions
and future work are given in Section V.
II. SSCB TECHNOLOGIES FOR DC APPLICATIONS
A conceptual diagram of a typical SSCB is illustrated in
Fig. 3. Bidirectional power flow is allowed with appropriate
semiconductor devices and topologies. Low loss
semiconductor switches and their associated cooling systems
ensure high efficiency at conducting condition. A MOV
(Metal Oxyde Varistor) is used to limit the temporary
overvoltage after the switches are turned off. Due to safety
requirement, a mechanical disconnector ensures galvanic
isolation by interrupting MOV leakage currents. The auxiliary
2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
system has functions of sensing and measurement, control,
and communication. The protection control executes fault
identification and protection coordination programs and issues
open/close command.
Fig. 3. Conceptual diagram of a typical SSCB
A. Experimentally Validated SSCBs
High level overview of different semiconductor technologies
for SSCBs can be found in [20]-[22]. Some aspects of SSCBs,
such as topologies, have been discussed by many researchers.
To be implemented for DC protection, SSCBs should be tested
since much higher current derivatives exist in DC distribution
systems than AC. This section analyzes some lab prototypes
and products [23]-[34] already tested for DC fault
identification and protection response. The analysis is based
on the performance comparison, including losses, interruption
capabilities, and protection speeds (from fault occurrence until
fault extinction), of different protection SSCBs.
IGBTs and IGCTs are used for SSCBs [23]-[29] because of
their wide commercial availabilities, high current ratings, and
low power requirements to run gate drives. Some SSCBs using
IGBTs and IGCTs have been studied for DC shipboard
distribution protection [23]-[26]. The interruption of a 10kA
DC fault current with two parallel IGBT based SSCBs within
about 160µs was illustrated in [23][24]. Unfortunately, no
device specifications are given and thus no efficiency data are
known. Reverse Blocking IGCT (RB-IGCT) was implemented
in a 1kV 1kA DC SSCB prototype [25]-[27]. The on-state
losses of RB-IGCTs is much lower than conventional IGBTs
and IGCTs, which significantly improves the overall SSCB
efficiency and makes them suitable for DC protection. SSCBs
using IGBTs for up to 50kV and 5kA DC systems are claimed
commercially available [28][29], but only the test results at
low voltages are disclosed.
In recent, normally on SiC JFET/SIT SSCBs were utilized
by different researchers for DC systems [30]-[34]. These SiC
SSCBs are featured with low conducting losses and extreme
fast protection speeds (10-20µs). With SiC SITs, the
overvoltage at DC fault interruption can be suppressed by their
gate voltage controls without extra suppressing circuits [30].
Self-powered SiC JFET SSCBs were developed for reliable
operation at loss of auxiliary power [31][32]. Higher voltage
up to 1200V SiC JFETs were reported and their device
characteristics were studied for SSCB applications [33][34].
SiC SSCBs are low current ratings and therefore difficult in
being implemented for megawatt level DC shipboard
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

JESTPE-2016-05-0205.R1 3

distribution systems. · fast protection and control due to ultrafast turning-off

A comparison of losses, nominal ratings, fault interruption speed and low fault tolerance;
currents, and protection speeds of different SSCBs used for · compatible to control and easiness for intelligent control;
DC protection is given in Table II. The comparison is a rough · no arcing and thus reduced fire hazards on ships;
comparison and the exactly same test setup and conditions are · almost infinite number of switching operations but limited
required for a rigorous comparison. All listed SSCBs can by MOV wear and mechanical isolators;
achieve DC protection within less than one millisecond. Since Main disadvantages include
faster protection speed can be achieved with smaller · high cost of semiconductor devices;
inductance, the inductance used in each test setup is also · on state resistance and thus increased losses;
listed. The protection speed of the SSCB in [23][24] is much
· isolator required for galvanic isolation due to leakage;
slower than that in [28][29] and [30] with even larger
· measuring units or sensors required.
inductances. This is because a complex protection
coordination algorithm was applied in [23][24]. The protection
103
speed of the SSCB in [25][26] is the slowest due to the large
Thermomagnetic CB
inductance in its test setup. Since the tripping command was 102 Solid state CB
sent directly from a logic pulse in [28], its claimed speed of 10
3.6 µs does not include the time delays required by the gate Slow
1
driver, fault identification, and protection coordination.

Time(s)
10-1
TABLE I SC protection
10ms 10-2
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF D IFFERENT SSCBS
Fast
SSCB and On V0 I0 Interrupt Example 1ms 10-3
device state R (kV) (kA) current protection
technology (mΩ) rating (kA) speed (µs) 10-4
SC protection Ultrafast
[23][24] N/A 1 1.8 10 (5/each) 160 (L = 8 20µs
IGBT / /1 µH)
0.1*I0 I0 Ith 10*I0 100*I0
IGCT
Current (A)
[25][26] <1 1 1 3~5 425 (L = 400
[27] RB- µH) Fig. 4. TCCs of a typical SSCB and thermal-magnetic CB
IGCT
[28] [29] N/A 1-50 <5 1 [28] 3.6 (L = 23 Either SSCBs or conventional thermal-magnetic circuit
IGBT µH) [28]
breakers can be used for circuit breaker based DC protection.
[30] SiC 28 0.4 0.06 0.115 15-20 (L =
SIT 100 µH) With fast increasing fault currents in DC distribution systems,
[31][32] 45 0.4 0.01 0.180 10 (L = ~0 the slower turning-off speeds of thermal-magnetic circuit
SiC JFET 25 µH) breakers cause issues in protection selectivity [36]-[38],
B. SSCBs and Conventional Thermal-magnetic CBs which, however, can be resolved by SSCBs. Further analysis
can be found in Section IV. The advantages of SSCBs also
Differences in the protection performance between SSCBs
contribute to reduced fault withstanding, less switching
and conventional thermal-magnetic circuit breakers are transients, few stability issues, and increased intelligence,
illustrated by comparing their typical Time Current Curves
safety, and operation time of DC protection systems. The
(TCCs) in Fig. 4. SSCBs have much lower overcurrent and
disadvantages are increased cost, reduced efficiency, and more
thermal limits than thermal-magnetic circuit breakers and thus hardware of SSCBs. With more hardware, SSCBs can be
need fast interruption for short circuit faults and overload
larger than traditional circuit breakers for DC protections.
faults. SSCBs realize fast fault interruption by the fast turning-
However, the installation distances could be lower because of
off speed. Therefore, thermal-magnetic circuit breakers
no arc flash during opening operation.
normally have protection speeds of tens of milliseconds while
SSCBs have ultrafast protection speeds ranging from several C. Sensing, Control, and Communication
microseconds to less than one millisecond. One distinguished feature of DC shipboard distribution
Thermal-magnetic circuit breakers are normally designed faults is high derivatives of fault currents. Impacts of the high
for AC protection and requires certain voltage and current current derivatives should be considered in the SSCB design.
deratings if used for DC protection [47]-[48]. The rated DC Fast speed is an essential requirement for DC distribution
voltage can be half of the rated AC voltage in order to clear protection. High sampling rate and fast speed are thus required
arcs at nonzero crossing DC fault currents. The overload for the sensing, control, and communication units of SSCBs.
protection stays the same for both AC and DC, but higher The current flowing through a SSCB can be sensed by
currents are required for the instantaneous short circuit different means (e.g. extra shunt resistor and Hall effect
protection in DC since less electro-magnetic force is generated sensor), followed by an analog amplifier and filter stage, and
by DC than AC. SSCBs can be used for both AC and DC finally feeding the built-in ADC of the microcontroller for the
systems without any derating. protection control. In order to minimize protection time,
In summary, significant advantages of applying SSCBs for measurements with high sampling rates pass through analog
DC shipboard distribution systems are circuits. The operation of the SSCB is supervised by a

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

JESTPE-2016-05-0205.R1 4

microcontroller equipped trip unit. Essentially, this Lf +

1
microcontroller unit handles, with two different algorithms, Eq 0 ' = - EM 1/ Lad + 1/ Lds + 1/ LD
I "g =- , Im , t "d » ,
both overload and short circuit protection, as well as all wLd
" wL' rf
diagnostic routines.
æ ö
Different fault identification and protection coordination ç 1 ÷
ç ÷
methods to be presented in Section IV can be implemented in ç 0.5æ1/ L" + 1 / L" ö ÷
ç ç d q÷÷ L'
è øø
ta » è
the protection control. Even for the methods using local L L
, L' = Ls + m r , L = Ls + Lm , t r » ,
measurements, communication may be required between rs Lm + Lr R r
neighboring SSCBs. At special conditions, it is important to L
ts » . In above expressions, V0 is capacitor initial voltage,
prevent a SSCB (typically the upstream one) from tripping. Rs
Therefore, one SSCB includes a link (shielded cable, fiber VDC is DC source voltage, Eq0 is generator internal voltage, and
optics, etc.) to perform this function; priority in tripping order EM is motor internal voltage. R is resistance. L is inductance. C
is hard-wired and given by the way the link is routed (typically is capacitance. Lad, Lδs and LD are generator inductances. Ld”
in a daisy-chain fashion). and Lq” are generator subtransient inductances. rf and rs are
generator resistances. Ls, Lm and Lr are motor inductances. Rr
III. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ON SSCB BASED DC and Rs are motor resistances. τ1 and τ2 are DC rising and
PROTECTION decaying time constants.
The system features described in Section I attribute to the The most distinguished feature of DC shipboard distribution
fault features of DC shipboard distribution systems. The DC fault currents is high derivatives due to low inductances of DC
fault features determine DC protection design requirements on cables and busducts. Different fault currents have different
components, methods, and systems, including SSCBs, fault time constants and thus different current rising speeds.
identification and protection coordination methods, and DC Normally, capacitors have the rising speeds from a few
systems. microseconds to hundreds of microseconds; AC sources have
the rising speeds determined by their own frequencies; and DC
A. DC Fault Currents sources have the rising speeds ranging from a few
In DC shipboard distribution systems, the fault sources milliseconds to several milliseconds depending on circuit
include capacitors, DC sources, AC synchronous machines, parameters. Therefore, the current derivatives of DC
and AC induction motors. Their fault currents are calculated distribution faults vary from a few to a few hundreds of mega
from (1)-(5). The subscripts C, DC, G, and M denote the ampere per second.
variables related to Capacitors, DC voltage sources, Considering the ultrafast protection speeds by SSCBs, the
Generators, and Motors, respectively. The AC fault currents in initial fault currents, the times to fault peak, and the initial
(4) and (5) can be converted into DC fault currents using (6) current derivatives of different fault sources need to be used
and (7) according to IEC standard 61660 [49]. tpeak is the time by the DC fault protection methods to be described in Section
instant when first fault peak Ipeak is reached. Detailed IV. These variables are derived from (1)-(5) and summarized
explanations of (1)-(7) can be found in [12]. The final DC in Table II. Within the short time frame by SSCBs from fault
fault current is a weighted summation of all contributions from occurrence to fault interruption, the initial fault currents are
all fault sources. The system topology is reflected by different considered approximately linearly increasing with time and
weighting factors associated with different fault sources. the initial current derivatives are thus constants.
B. Fast speed protection
1 V0 æ p1t p tö L
iC = ç e - e 2 ÷, if R > 2 (1) For each SSCB, the complete protection time tprot from fault
L p1 - p2 è ø C
occurrence until extinction is a summation of the fault
interruption time tint from fault occurrence until interruption
iC = 0 e-dt sin (wt ),
V L
if R £ 2 (2)
wL C and the energy dissipation time tdis from fault interruption until
extinction as (8). In (9), the fault interruption time tint consists
iDC = DC æç1 - e-t /t ö÷
V
(3) of the fault detection time tdet from fault occurrence until
R è ø
detection, the protection coordination time tcod from fault
iG = - I "g e-t / t cos(wst ) + I "g e-t / t a
"
d
(4) detection until a tripping signal is sent, the communication
' e -t / t r cos (w t ) + I ' e -t / t s
iM = - I m (5) time tcom including all extra time delays, and the device
s m
turning-off time toff from the tripping signal is received until
1 - e-t / t1 fault interruption.
i1(t ) = i peak , 0 £ t £ t peak (6)
-t / t
1 - e peak 1
t prot = tint + tdis (8)
æ i -(t -t peak ) / t 2 i ö
i2 (t ) = i peak ç (1 - k )e + k ÷, t £t (7)
ç i peak i peak ÷ peak tint = tdet + tcod + tcom + toff
è ø (9)

R 1 1 L In conventional AC protection, the maximum allowable

where d = ,w = -d2 , p1,2 = -d ± d 2 - , t= , fault duration or the critical clearing time is normally several
2L LC LC R
cycles and determined by system stability constraints. Since a

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

JESTPE-2016-05-0205.R1 5

DC fault current can increase to a high fault magnitude i f max = å i fk (t f max)

quickly, it becomes vital to interrupt DC fault currents fast
enough to avoid any damages to equipment and devices. As in
(10), the maximum allowable fault duration tfmax is decided by
the maximum allowable DC fault interruption current Ifmax. ifk
represents the fault current from the kth source. In order for
protection, the limits of a SSCB are lower than those of
downstream equipment and devices. Ifmax is thus decided by
the overcurrent and thermal limits of the SSCB. With the high
DC fault current derivatives, the maximum allowable fault
duration tfmax should be small and can be derived from (10).
SSCBs have ultrafast turning-off speeds and potentially can
satisfy this fast DC protection requirement. As in (11), tint of a
selected SCCB should be be less than tfmax. The protection
speed required by SSCBs can be determined by (10) and (11).
(10)
t f max ³ tint
(11)
The speed requirements on the fault identification,
protection coordination, and communication of SSCB based
DC protection can be obtained from (9) once tfmax and toff are
known. With the ultrafast turning-off speeds of SSCBs, the
bottleneck to achieve the desirable fast DC protection
becomes fast fault identification, protection coordination, and
communication. In other words, one design challenge of
SSCB based DC protection is to quickly achieve protection
selectivity before SSCBs reaching their low overcurrent and
thermal thresholds. Communication free protection are thus
preferred. How different DC protection methods meet the fast
protection speed requirement will be studied in Section IV.

TABLE II
INITIAL FAULT CURRENT, TIME TO FAULT PEAK, AND CURRENT DERIVATIVES FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES

Capacitor Capacitor DC source AC synchronous generator AC induction motor

L L
(R>2 ) (R£2 )
C C

i at tà0
V0
t
V0
(1 - dt )t VDC
t I g" I "g I' I'
L L L ( - )t ( m - m )t
t d" t a tr ts

ln( p2 / p1) T L T T
tpeak ~3 ~ s ~ s
p1 - p2 4 R 2 2

' w e -t / t r sin (w t )
I "g w se -t / t d sin (ws t )
1 V0 V0 -dt VDC -t / t "
Im
di/dt if e e s s
L p1 - p2 wL L ' e -t / t s
I ' e -t / t r cos (w st ) I m
t≤tpeak (w cos(wt ) - d sin (wt )) I "g e -t / t d cos(wst ) I "g e -t / t a
"

æ p e p1t - p e p2t ö + m -
ç 1 2 ÷ + - tr ts
è ø ta
t d"

di/dt at V0 V0 VDC I "g I g" '

Im I'
L L L - - m
t=0 t "d t a tr t s

as (12) as described earlier. With this system equivalent

C. System equivalent inductance
inductance, the mutual impacts between a system design and a
According to the initial derivatives of the fault currents SSCB design can be analyzed.
from capacitors and DC sources in Table II, the voltage over In a complex shipboard power system, since the final fault
the initial current derivative is the inductance from a source to current is a summation of all fault contributions from multiple
a fault. The same concept is also applicable to AC sources sources through multiple paths, the derived system equivalent
after the AC voltages are converted into the DC voltages. The inductance is only a mathematical equivalence and no physical
derived inductance from an AC source to a fault is a complex meaning. If VDC in (12) is defined as the voltage seen by the
combination of frequency, inductance, and resistance. The SSCB, then the equivalent inductance is L2, which always
inductance from a source to a fault decides the inductive reflects the distance between the SSCB to the fault location. L2
energy required by the MOV of the SSCB to protect the fault. has been used by some researchers for DC fault location [38]-
Not only the energy dissipation, it also impacts the fault [42].
detection speed and the true fault interruption level.
An equivalent system is given in Fig. 5 to facilitate a SSCB
based DC protection design. In the figure, a system equivalent
inductance Leq is defined as the total inductance from a DC
voltage source VDC to a fault location. Leq is the summation of
the inductance L1 from the source to the SSCB and the
inductance L2 from the SSCB to the fault location. In a real Fig. 5. Illustration of the concept of the system equivalent inductance
DC shipboard distribution system, L1 and L2 may be
comparable. The system equivalent inductance can be derived

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
JESTPE-2016-05-0205 6

VDC
Leq = (12)
di Equations (15)-(18) reveals the relationships between
dt t = 0 SSCBs and the system where the SSCBs are applied since
they define the design requirements of the components and the
D. Mutual impacts between SSCB and system design system from the perspective of DC protection. An exhaustive
With the system equivalent resistance Req and inductance search at different operating conditions can identify the lowest
Leq, the equivalent circuits during a complete SSCB based DC and highest inductances, which determines the performance
protection process are illustrated as Fig. 6. The fault current and design of SSCBs according to (15)-(18). Reversely, in an
flows through the semiconductor switch and the MOV during engineering design, the selections of SSCBs may be limited
the fault interruption and the energy dissipation, respectively. due to budget. With the selected SSCBs, the constraints on the
During the fault interruption, the switch’s on state resistance is system equivalent inductances are derived from (15)-(18) and
combined into Req. During the energy dissipation, the MOV is should not be violated when these SSCBs are applied in DC
approximated as a voltage source and a resistor with its shipboard distribution systems.
operation linearized around its interruption current.
IV. DC PROTECTION METHODS
Different fault identification and protection coordination
methods can be applied for DC protection [35]-[46]. In this
section, selected methods are considered for SSCB based DC
protection. Among these methods, overcurrent protection,
current derivative protection, and distance protection are based
on local measurements; while differential protection and
Fig. 6. Equivalent circuits at fault interruption and energy dissipation
direction protection are based on communication.
In rest of this section, different methods are evaluated on
Equations (13) and (14) describe the two equivalent circuits the following evaluation criteria:
in Fig. 6. Since the initial fault current is linearly increasing at · speed, especially tdet and tcod;
the rate of VDC/Leq, the fault interruption time tint and the fault · selectivity, especially at special conditions;
interruption current Iint can be derived from (13) as (15) and · reliability, especially impacted by measurement noises;
(16). The voltage drop on Req is much smaller than that on Leq · implementation complexity, including
due to the high fault current derivative. I0 is the pre-fault o communication requirements;
current and Ith is the SSCB’s threshold current. The energy o threshold definition;
o measurement requirements (sampling and filtering);
dissipation time tdis and the energy dissipated by MOV Edis are
o computation requirements (accuracy, speed, and etc).
deduced from (14) as (17) and (18).
Main benefits and issues of each protection method are
discussed. Differences of these methods in implementations
diint
VDC = Req iint + Leq (13) for both AC and DC protections are also described.
dt
didis A. Overcurrent protection
VDC = Reqidis + Leq + Vmov + Rmovidis (14)
dt An RMS/instantaneous current is compared with a fixed
Ith - I 0 current threshold for AC/DC short circuit protection. The
tint » + tdet + tcod + toff (15)
VDC integration of the RMS/instantaneous current is compared with
Leq the thermal thresholds defined by the Time Current Curves
V V (TCCs) in AC/DC overload protection. The selectivity of the
I int » I th + DC (tdet + tcod ) + DC toff (16) DC overcurrent protection cannot be achieved using the
Leq Leq
conventional circuit breakers [36]-[38]. This is because the
Leq æ VDC - Vmov ö upstream breakers are also tripped during the slow turning-off
tdis = - lnç - ÷ (17)
Req + Rmov çè ( Req + Rmov ) I int - VDC + Vmov ) ÷ø process of the downstream breakers since the DC fault
currents increase rapidly. TCCs were suggested being revised
æ - Vmov - Vmov 2 ö÷ in order to allow sufficient turning-off time for the
Edis = çVmov DC
V V
+ Rmov ( DC ) tdis
ç R + R R eq Rmov ÷ø
+ downstream breakers [36][38]. With SSCBs as the
è eq mov
2 æ R +R ö downstream breakers, the ultra-fast turning-off speed of the
æ - Vmov ö÷ æ 1 öç - 2 eq mov t dis ÷ SSCBs can reduce and even eliminate the mistrippings of the
+ Rmov ç I int - DC ç- ÷ç e
V L L - 1÷
ç R + Rmov ÷ø ç 2 Req + Rmov ÷ç ÷ upstream breakers.
è eq è øç ÷
è ø (18) In [37], the protection issues of converter based DC
æ V - Vmov öæç L ö
÷ distribution systems are studied. The low fault withstanding
+ çç I int - DC ÷ -
÷
è R + Rmov øè Req + Rmov ÷ø
ç capability of converters and the slow turning-off of the
æ Req + Rmov ö conventional circuit breakers attributes to the damages to the
æ
çV VDC - Vmov ö÷ç - tdis ÷ upstream converters. In addition, converter fault current
mov + 2Rmov çe L - 1÷
ç Req + Rmov ÷ç ÷ limiting creates difficulties in fault discrimination due to
è øç ÷
è ø similar current magnitudes. An intelligent protection was

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
JESTPE-2016-05-0205
proposed to solve the issues by sending the tripping command
to the closest breakers or converters [37]. With SSCBs as the
downstream breakers, the thresholds of the downstream
SSCBs can be set to protect the upstream converters. Because
of earlier tripping and ultra-fast turning-off of the downstream
SSCBs, DC faults can be isolated before the upstream
converters fail or limits fault currents to almost equal values.
As analyzed in Section III.B, the most challenging issue of
using SSCB based DC protection is accurate fault
identification and correct protection coordination before
SSCBs reaching their low overcurrent and thermal thresholds.
During the short time frame from fault occurrence until
interruption by SSCBs, the fault currents are linearly
increasing with time. Fig. 7 illustrates how the fault
identification and protection coordination is achieve by the
overcurrent protection using SSCBs. An overcurrent is
detected once the current is larger than a threshold, for
example, twice of its nominal value. A tripping command is
then sent after the duration of the overcurrent is above certain
time. Different thresholds are set for the upstream SSCB CB1
and the downstream SSCB CB2 according to different current
ratings. Highest fault currents flow through CB2 considering
all contributions from all fault sources. The coordination
between CB1 and CB2 is achieved by different current
thresholds, i.e. ith1 and ith2, and different fault currents, i.e. iCB1
and iCB2.
Fig. 7. Overcurrent protection coordination using SSCBs
From Fig. 7, the tripping time difference between CB1 and
CB2 is t1-t2, where t1 and t2 are the tripping time instants of
CB1 and CB2, respectively. CB2 receives its tripping signal
and opens after its turnoff delay toff2. If CB1 receives its
tripping signal before CB2 actually opens, CB1 also trips and
the protection coordination fails. As in (19), t1-t2 should be
larger than toff2 for proper selectivity. If not, the tripping signal
of CB2 can be sent as an interlocking signal to CB1 to prevent
it from false tripping. From (19), the false tripping can also be
prevented by increasing the time difference by either
increasing the upstream threshold or reducing the downstream
threshold. Equation (19) also explains the reason why the slow
turning-off of the conventional circuit breakers cannot satisfy
the protection selectivity of DC distribution protection.
i -i i -i
toff 2 < th1 01 - th2 02
di1 di2
dt dt
In SSCB based DC protection, t1-t2 resulting from different
thresholds and fault currents is normally larger than toff2.
However, false trippings still occur at special conditions. In
[23][24], a constraint signal is unavoidable since both the
tripping thresholds and the currents are the same. Fig. 8
2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7
illustrates a special condition occurring more often, where the
currents are the same but the thresholds are different. At this
condition, t1-t2 is reduced to t1’-t2’ if the current derivative
increases. Protection selectivity is lost if the fault current
derivative is increase to a value high enough.
Fig. 8. A special conditions where the interlocking may be needed
B. Current derivative protection
The current derivatives are changed from zeros at prefault
to high values at faults. The significant change of a current
derivative is used to clearly indicate the occurrence of a fault.
As found in Table II, the increases in the current derivatives
are abrupt while the increases in the fault currents are gradual.
Thus, the fault identification by the current derivative method
is potentially faster than the overcurrent method. The current
derivative method is rarely used for AC protection because of
long allowable fault durations, except for certain fast fault
current limiting devices at specific locations in utility grids.
From Table II, the initial DC fault current derivatives can be
considered as constants. The current derivative is the highest
at the SSCB closest to the fault location since it is the
summation of all current derivatives from all fault resources.
Alternatively, the equivalent inductance associated with the
closet SSSCB is the smallest. Traditionally, current derivatives
have been used for DC traction protection, where long lines
provides sufficient filtering and discriminative current
derivatives among different protection zones. Due to short
lines in DC shipboard distribution systems, although having
faster fault identification speed, the current derivative
protection has more issues in practical implementation than
the overcurrent protection.
The fast changing of the current derivatives in DC
shipboard distribution systems requires high sampling rates for
fast fault identification. However, measurement noises can be
amplified greatly by the high sampling rates, which may cause
false trippings. Carefully designed analog or digital filters
should be used to derive accurate enough current derivatives
with little time delays to ensure the required fast DC
protection. Since the current derivatives may be significantly
different at different operation conditions, it becomes difficult
to define one universal threshold suitable for all operating
conditions. A compromise of reliability, speed, selectivity,
sensitivity should be reached in the filter design and the
(19) threshold definition of the current derivative protection.
C. Distance protection
Instead of the impedances at steady state faults used in the
conventional distance protection for AC systems, the
inductances at fault transients should be used in the DC
distance protection to achieve the fast protection speed
required by SSCB based DC protection. The DC resistance
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
JESTPE-2016-05-0205
from a protective device to a fault location in [39][40] is
difficult in practical applications since the fault resistance
between a fault location and ground normally is unknown. The
waveforms of the discharging currents from an offline
capacitor are captured to estimate the fault distance [41]. The
voltages and the current derivatives at a local circuit breaker
measured at initial fault transients are used to estimate the
inductances from the circuit breaker to a fault location [42]. A
more accurate inductance estimation method was proposed in
[43] to derive the inductance using linear regression. In the
above distance protection methods using inductances, the
voltage drops on the resistances from the fault locations to
ground are considered small enough to be neglected compared
to those on the inductances. Otherwise, the measurements
from neighboring branches should be used for the inductance
estimation.
Compared to the overcurrent protection and the current
derivative protection, the threshold definition of the distance
protection is straightforward since the inductance remains
unchanged at all conditions. But the complex computation to
estimate the inductance may result in longer fault
identification time and thus slower protection speed. Similar to
the current derivative method, good filtering is required for
high fidelity measurements in order for accurate inductance
estimation. In practical implementation, some margins should
be allowed for the threshold definitions in order to
accommodate the errors induced from the sensing,
measurements, and filtering.
D. Differential and current direction protection
The same connection schemes and algorithms can be used
for both AC and DC differential protection and current
direction protection [44]-[46]. Thus, most issues in the AC
differential and current direction protection also exist in the
DC protection but are more serious because of fast increasing
DC fault currents. For example, more stringent signal
synchronization is required in order to prevent false trippings
caused by data mismatchings. A good discussion on these
issues can be found in [44]-[46].
Communication reliability and speed are major concerns for
the differential and current direction protections. A typical
delay of 100µs is required to transmit a trip event over
industrial protocols such as CANopen. In AC systems,
because of long allowable AC fault durations, timely fault
location can still be achieved with the differential and current
direction protections even after communication delays.
However, the fast speed required by SSCB based DC
protection cannot be satisfied since SSCBs reach their low
limits after long communication delays. However, in DC
shipboard distribution systems, the differential and current
direction protections can be used with converters capable of
fault current limiting since the DC fault currents can be
limited to low magnitudes by the converters. The low fault
currents allow enough communication delays for the DC
differential and current direction protection.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Protection is one important aspect of DC shipboard
distribution system design and should be considered from
2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8
initial design stage in order for reliable, low cost, and efficient
system operation. Fast speed is essentially required for DC
shipboard distribution protection. SSCB based DC protection
offers ultrafast protection speed and reduces requirements on
equipment fault withstanding and fire hazards but has high
cost and loss due to semiconductor switching devices. The
equations to design the SSCBs and the protected DC
distribution systems are given. Different DC protection
methods are evaluated by speed and other criteria. An
optimized SSCB based DC protection design is a compromise
of sufficient reliability, fast enough speed, reasonably low
cost, and good system efficiency in overall.
DC shipboard power systems is one type of DC distribution
systems. Similar DC fault features exist in other DC
applications, such as collection systems of renewables, off-
shore oil exploration platforms, industrial plants, data centers,
DC microgrids, and utility distribution systems. The studies of
SSCB based DC protection in this paper can also be applicable
to other DC distribution systems.
REFERENCES
[1] G. O. Young, “Synthetic structure of industrial plastics,” in Plastics,
2nd ed., vol. 3, J. Peters, Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964,
pp. 15–64.
[2] ABB, ABB delivers first Onboard DC Grid system, (2013).
[Online]. Available:
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/7199db5e8cd3924e85257b3
b00491f07.aspx
[3] ABB, Test confirm up to 27% fuel savings on ships from
Onboard DC Grid, 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/6f0d5472c16d3fc4c1257cf9
002661ed.aspx
[4] J. F. Hansen, J. O. Lindtjorn, K. Vanska, “Onboard DC Grid for
enhanced DP operation in ships”, in Proc. Of Dynamic
Positioning Conference, Oct 2011.
[5] J. F. Hansen, J. O. Lindtjorn, U. Odegaard, T. A. Myklebust,
“Increased operational performance of OSVs by Onboard DC
Grid”, in Proc. Of 2011 Offshore Support Vessel, August 2011.
[6] IEEE, IEEE Std 1709 recommended Practice for 1 kV to 35 kV
Medium-Voltage DC Power Systems on Ship, Nov 2010.
[7] US Navy, Naval power systems technology development
roadmap, 2013.
[8] R. Cuzer, G. Venkataramanan, “The status of DC micro-grid
protection”, in Proc. Of 2008 IEEE Industry Application Society
Annual Meeting, pp. 1-8, 2008.
[9] D. Ritchie, C. Booth, J. Devlin, “Protection of future marine
electrical systems”, in Proc. Of 46th International Universities’
Power Engineering Conference, Soest, Germany, 2011, pp. 1-6.
[10] J. P. Brozek, “DC overcurrent protection – where we stand”,
IEEE Trans. Industry Applications, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 1029-
1032, 1993.
[11] S.D.A. Fletcher, P.J. Norman, S.J. Galloway, G.M. Burt,
“Determination of protection system requirements for DC
unmanned aerial vehicle electrical power networks for enhanced
capability and survivability”, IET Electrical Systems in
Transportation, Vol. 1, pp. 137-147, 2011.
[12] L. Qi, J. Liang, “Design issues and practical application
challenges of DC shipboard distribution system protection”, in
Proc. Of 2015 IEEE Electrical Ship Technologies Symposium,
Alexandria, VA, 2015, pp. 403-408.
[13] A. Maqsood, K. Corzine, “DC microgrid protection”, in IEEE
Electrification, June 2016, pp. 59-65.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
JESTPE-2016-05-0205
[14] L. Tang, B. Ooi, “Locating and isolating DC faults in multi-
terminal DC systems”, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 22,
pp. 1877-1884, 2007.
[15] P. Cairoli, I. Kondratiev, R. A. Dougal, “Coordinated control of
the bus tie switches and power supply converters for fault
protection in DC microgrids”, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics,
Vol. 28, pp. 2037-2047, 2013.
[16] M. N. Parker, P. S. Parvin, “UK marine system development
office – future surface ship integrated power system: a vision of
the future?” in Proc. Of 2008 Electric Machines Technologies,
Philadelphia, PA, 2008.
[17] P. Salonen, P. Nuutinen, P. Peltoniemi, J. Partanen, “LVDC
distribution system protection – solutions, implementation and
measurements”, in Proc. Of 2009 13th European Conference on
Power Electronics and Applications, 2009, pp. 1-7.
[18] P. Salonen, P. Nuutinen, J. Partanen, “Protection scheme for an
LVDC distribution system”, in Proc. Of 20th International
Conference on Electricity Distribution, 2009, pp. 1-4.
[19] ABB, Faults in LVDC microgrids with front-end converters,
2015. [Online]. Available:
https://library.e.abb.com/public/a4760216a7d24bbabe5946f9d19
3ff40/1SDC007113G0201.pdf
[20] C. Meyer, M. Kowal, R. W. DeDoncker, “Circuit breaker
concepts for future high power DC applications”, in Proc. Of
2005 IEEE Industry Application Society Annual Meeting, 2005,
pp. 860-866.
[21] C. Meyer, S. Schroder, R. W. De Doncker, “Solid-State circuit
breakers and current limiters for medium-voltage systems
having distributed power systems”, IEEE Trans. Power
Electronics, Vol. 19, pp. 1333-1340, 2004.
[22] S. Fletcher, P. Norman, S. Galloway, G. Burt, “Solid state
circuit breakers enabling optimized protection of DC aircraft
power systems”, in Proc. Of 14th European Conference on
Power Electronics and Applications, 2011, pp. 1-10.
[23] R. Schmerda, R. Cuzer, R. Clark, D. Nowak, S. Bunzel,
“Shipboard solid-state protection overview and applications”,
IEEE Electrification, pp. 32-39, 2013.
[24] R. Schmerda, R. Cuzer, R. Clark, D. Nowak, S. Bunzel,
“Applications and issues associated with shipboard solid-state
protection”, Presented at Intelligent Ships Symposium X, 2013.
[25] U. R. Vemulapati, M. Arnold, M. Rahimo, A. Antoniazzi, D.
Pessina, “2.5kV RB-IGCT optimized for solid state circuit
breaker applications”, in Proc. Of 2014 International Seminar
on Power Semiconductors, 2014, pp. 287-292.
[26] F. Agostini, U. Vemulapati, D. Torresin, M. Arnold, M.
Rahimo, A. Antoniazzi, L. Raciti, D. Pessina, “1MW bi-
directional DC solid state circuit breaker based on air cooled
reverse blocking-IGCT”, in Proc. Of 2015 IEEE Electric Ship
Technologies Symposium, 2015.
[27] L. Qi, A. Antoniazzi, L. Raciti, D. Leoni, H. Kim, “Solid State
Circuit Breaker Based DC Shipboard Distribution Protection”,
in Proc. Of 2016 IET Development in Power System Protection,
March 2016.
[28] M. Kempkes, I. Roth, M. Gaudreau, “Solid-state circuit breakers
for medium voltage DC power”, in Proc. Of 2011 IEEE Electric
Ship Technologies Symposium, 2011, pp. 254-257.
[29] Diversified Technologies Inc., PowerMod Solid-state DC
Circuit Breakers, [Online]. Available:
http://www.divtecs.com/data/File/papers/Data%20Sheets%2020
16/Circuit%20Breaker%20Data%20Sheet%20Web%202016.pdf
[30] Y. Sato, Y. Tanaka, A. Fukui, M. Yamasaki, H. Ohashi, “SiC-
SIT circuit breakers with controllable interruption voltage for
400-V DC distribution systems”, IEEE Trans. Power
Electronics, Vol. 29, pp. 2597-2605, 2014.
[31] Z. Miao, G. Sabui, A. Chen, Y. Li, Z. Shen, J. Wang, Z. Shuai,
A. Luo, X. Yin, M. Jiang, “A self-powered ultra-fast DC solid
2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
9
state circuit breaker using a normally on SiC JFET”, in Proc. Of
2015 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and
Exposition, 2015, pp. 767-773.
[32] Z. Shen, A. Roshandeh, Z. Miao, G. Sabui, “Ultrafast
autonomous solid state circuit breakers for shipboard DC power
distribution”, in Proc. Of 2015 IEEE Electric Ship Technologies
Symposium, 2015, pp. 299-305.
[33] D. Urciuoli, V. Veliadis, “Demonstration of a 600V 60A
bidirectional silicon carbide solid-state circuit breaker”, in Proc.
Of 2011 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference, 2011, pp.
354-358.
[34] V. Veliadis, B. Steiner, K. Lawson, S. B. Bayne, D. Urciuoli, H.
C. Ha, “Suitability of N-ON recessed implanted gate vertical-
channel SiC JFETs for optically triggered 1200 V solid-state
circuit breakers”, in Proc. of 2015 3rd workshop on wide
bandgap power devices and applications, 2015, pp. 162-165.
[35] M. Baran, N. Mahajan, “Overcurrent protection on voltage-
source-converter-based multiterminal DC distribution systems”,
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 22, pp. 406-412, 2007.
[36] F. Yang, X. Zhang, J. Zhuang, C. Dai, “Shipping distribution
networks short circuit selective protection method based on fast
recovery power breaker”, in Proc. Of 2011 Asia-Pacific Power
and Energy Engineering Conference, 2011, pp. 1-5.
[37] R. Cuzner, D. MacFarlin, D. Clinger, M. Rmmey, G. Castles,
“Circuit breaker protection considerations in power converter-
fed DC systems”, in Proc. Of 2009 IEEE ESTS, 2009,
Washington D.C., pp. 360-367.
[38] S.D.A. Fletcher, P.J. Norman, S.J. Galloway, G.M. Burt,
“Optimizing the roles of unit and no-unit protection methods
within DC microgrids”, IEEE Trans Smart Grid, Vol. 3, pp.
2079-2087, 2012.
[39] P. Cairoli, R. A. Dougal, “New horizons in DC shipboard power
systems”, IEEE Electrification, pp. 38-45, 2014.
[40] J. Yang, J. E. Fletcher, J. O’Reily, “Short-circuit and ground
fault analyses and location in VSC-based DC network cables”,
IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics, Vol. 59, pp. 3827-3837,
2012.
[41] J. Park, J. Candelaria, L. Ma, K. Dunn, “DC ring-bus microgrid
fault protection and identification of fault location”, IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery, Vol. 28, pp. 2574-2587, 2013.
[42] J. E. Hill, S. D. A. Fletcher, P. J. Norman, S. J. Galloway,
“Protection system for an electrical power network”, US patent
US8842401B2, Jan 26, 2012.
[43] X. Feng, L. Qi, J. Pan, “Fault inductance based DC protection
for DC distribution protection”, in Proc. Of 2016 IET
Development in Power System Protection, March 2016.
[44] P. Karlsson, J. Svensson, “Fault detection and clearance in DC
distributed power systems”, in Proc. Of 2002 Nordic Workshop
on Power and Industrial Electronics, 2002.
[45] S. D. A. Fletcher, P. J. Norman, K. Fong, S. J. Galloway, G. M.
Burt, “High-Speed differential protection for smart DC
distribution systems”, IEEE Trans. Smart Grids, Vol. 5, No. 5,
pp. 2610-2617, September 2014.
[46] G. Wawrzola, “Challenges of DC data center power distribution
protection”, in Proc. Of 2016 IET Development in Power System
Protection, March 2016.
[47] ABB, ABB circuit breakers for direction current applications,
2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www04.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/6b16aa3f349
83211c125761f004fd7f9/$file/vol.5.pdf
[48] G. Gregory, “Applying low-voltage circuit breakers in direct
current systems”, IEEE Trans. Industry Applications, Vol. 31,
No. 4, pp. 650-657, July /August 1995.
[49] Short-Circuit Currents in d.c. Auxiliary Installations in Power
Plants and Substations, Part 1: Calculation of Short-Circuit
Currents, IEC 61660-1, 1997.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2633223, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
JESTPE-2016-05-0205 10

Li “Lisa” Qi (M’1998, SM’2007) received

her Bachelor, Master, and Ph. D. degree
from Xi’an Jiaotong University, Zhejiang
University, and Texas A&M University,
respectively. All are in Electrical
Engineering. She previously was with
Florida State University from 2004 until
2009. She joined ABB in Jan 2009 and now
is a Lead Principal Scientist at ABB US
Corporate Research Center.

Antonello Antoniazzi was born in 1963.

He graduated in Physics at University of
Milan, Italy, in 1988. He joined ABB in
1996 in Corporate Research. He is
currently Corporate Executive Engineer at
ABB – Business Unit Protection &
Control, in the Bergamo R&D Center,
working on materials and application of
Power Electronics to Low-Voltage Circuit
Breakers.

Luca Raciti received his Master degree

from Politecnico of Milan (Italy), in
Electronic Engineering. He joined ABB in
1998. He currently is Design Leader for
Solid State Circuit Breakers at ABB EP-
PC, based in Bergamo, Italy.

Davide Leoni was born in 1981. He

received the B.Sc. and M. Sc. degree in
Electronic Engineering from Polytechnic of
Milan, Italy, in 2003 and 2006
respectively. He previously was with GSI
Darmstadt, Germany and joined ABB
Bergamo, Italy in 2008, where is currently
working as Electronic Hardware Designer.

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.