05937248.pdf

Protection Devices for Aircraft

Electrical Power Distribution

Systems: State of the Art

D. IZQUIERDO

EADS and Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

A. BARRADO, Member, IEEE

C. RAGA, Student Member, IEEE

M. SANZ, Member, IEEE

A. LAZARO, Member, IEEE

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

The development of all electric aircraft (AEC) has provided

new opportunities in the field of electronic devices and power

electronics. One of the most interesting areas is focused on the

protection devices field and the management of the loads by

means of the solid state power controllers (SSPC). This is mainly

due to the great increase of these devices in the electrical power

distribution system architectures used in the new airplanes such

as A380 and B787. This paper presents a survey of conventional

and future trends of protection devices in onboard platforms.

Moreover a virtual test bench is developed in order to analyze

the potential problems that could appear by using SSPC in new

onboard platforms. In addition an experimental validation with

commercial SSPC and its model are presented.

Manuscript received June 6, 2008; revised December 17, 2008;

released for publication January 22, 2010.

IEEE Log No. T-AES/47/3/941746.

Refereeing of this contribution was handled by S. Mazumder.

This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of

Education and Science through the research project DIMOS

(Code: DP12006-14866-C02-02) and by a private contract

with EADS-CASA, through the research project “HVDC Load

Distribution System, phase II” (Code: 04-AEC0527-000050/2005)

financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) via

the Aerospace Sector Plan of the Community of Madrid.

Authors’ addresses: D. Izquierdo, EADS, John Lennon Avenue,

s/n, 28906 Getafe, Madrid, Spain, E-mail: ([email protected]);

A. Barrado, C. Raga, M. Sanz, and A. Lazaro, Departamento de

Tecnologia Electronica, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Grupo de

Sistemas Electronicos de Potencia, Avda. Universidad, 30: 28911,

Leganes, Madrid, Spain.

0018-9251/11/$26.00 c° 2011 IEEE

I. INTRODUCTION

Conventional aircrafts are evolving towards

airplanes with a greater amount of equipment and

electronic/electrical devices such as dc/ac inverters,

dc/dc converters, and even electronic protections. In

addition new technology developments in the fields

of power electronics and microcontrollers provide

important advantages. Both features have rekindled

the concept of all electric aircraft (AEA) [1, 2].

In the AEA, mechanics, pneumatics, and

hydraulics systems have been replaced by electrical

ones. These changes provide better performance,

lower maintenance, and higher overall efficiency

[3—6]. However it is important to highlight that power

electronic equipments have a major role in the new

power distribution systems (PDS) since the power

transferred to the load is processed almost three

times [7].

The protection devices of these new PDS are one

of the most interesting areas for power electronics

systems since they are replacing conventional

protection devices.

The objective of this paper is described as follows.

In Section II, onboard PDS trends are presented. In

Section III, the onboard protections devices for all

these PDS are reviewed and compared, like circuit

breaker (CB), arc fault circuit breaker (AFCB),

remote controlled circuit breaker (RCCB), and solid

state power controller (SSPC). Particularly SSPC

have drastically evolved over the last decade, and

their use has been extended to new onboard PDS,

since they are an attractive solution due to their

advantages compared with conventional devices.

Furthermore in Section IV the areas of interest for

research groups related to SSPC in the onboard PDS

have been presented. One of the main research fields

is the modeling of the SSPC because simulation is a

necessary tool in the analysis and design of the PDS.

Thus in Section V, an SSPC model has been proposed

and simulated in a virtual test bench. In addition in

Section VI, this SSPC model has been validated with

experimental measurement using a commercial SSPC.

II. ALL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT ARCHITECTURES

The concept of AEA is being developed by

different research groups of the European Union and

the United States as well as by private companies.

All of them are developing or have developed R&D

projects/programmes focused on the definition and

implementation of these types of architectures. In

the late 1990s, the Division of Militaries Aircrafts of

Northrop/Grumman developed the MADMEL project

related to the PDS and the power management for

building more electric aircraft [8]. A combat aircraft

joint strike fighter (JSF), which includes more electric

technology and a distribution bus of 270 Vdc, is being

developed by several American companies [9]. The

1538 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 47, NO. 3 JULY 2011

first important integration initiative in Europe was

the power optimized aircraft (POA) programme. One

of the main research lines has been the introduction

of electrical loads management, which allows us to

introducing new technologies in onboard systems, like

the power electronics [3]. This initiative derived in the

more open electrical technology (MOET) programme,

within the Sixth Framework programme, is based

on analysis and selection of electric distribution

architectures for the electrical systems defined in

the POA programme [10]. Other minor projects

performed in Europe are the TIMES and DEPMA

programmes [11, 12].

Taking into account all these aforementioned

projects, the CleanSky Joint Technology Initiative

was started in 2007 under the Seventh Framework

programme. This project will be finished in 2014 with

the first set of flights of a major efficiency aircraft

with less fuel consumed thanks to an all electric

distribution system [13].

Recently Boeing in collaboration with a European

research center located in Madrid has developed a

totally electric propeller aircraft, promoted by a hybrid

power system. This system is based on a fuel cell

in combination with an ion-lithium battery which

provides the energy for an electric engine connected

to a conventional propeller. The fuel cell is able to

supply the overall energy during the cruise-flight

stage. During the take off or landing the energy is

provided by both the fuel cell and the ion-lithium

battery [14].

As a consequence of general electrification in the

AEA, new architectures and designs are appearing

in the electrical aircraft PDS with a great number

of systems that depend on power electronics. In

these architectures it is important to emphasize a

noticeable increase of power electric demand, which

is provoking an increase in the voltage levels in direct

current (dc) and alternating current (ac) of the main

distribution systems. The main objective is to reduce

the conduction losses and therefore the wire size by

decreasing the current levels. Thus the volume and

weight of the whole aircraft can be reduced.

Hence the traditional levels of voltage 28 Vdc and

115 Vac, have been changed to 270 Vdc [7, 15, 16],

usually for military applications, and voltage levels

of 230 Vac [17, 18] for civil applications. Other

approaches are focused on applications with higher

voltage levels like 540 Vdc [20]. Whereas 270 Vdc is

obtained from rectification of the traditional 115 Vac,

230 Vac can be easily obtained by doubling the

existing voltage level provided by the generator

115 Vac. Regarding 540 Vdc voltage level is a

consequence of using the differential voltage provided

by two buses of §270 Vdc with a common referenceon ground. It is possible to prevent undesirable

physics effects (such as the corona effect) by means

of using two different dc buses [19].

Fig. 1. High voltage direct current (HVDC) distribution system.

Fig. 2. 28 Vdc CBs manufactured by KLIXON®.

In the new aircraft power architectures, high

voltage levels have to coexist with conventional

voltage levels and equipments that is powered using

these conventional voltage levels. As a consequence

there are architectures composed of a high voltage

main distribution bus and secondary distribution

buses that maintain conventional distribution levels

of 28 Vdc and 115 Vac, as shown in Fig. 1 [17, 18].

Other projects have been developed in parallel

with the AEA, trying to reduce the wire-harness

weight by introducing fiber optics or fly-by-light

technology [21, 22]. Fly-by-light technology replaces

electrical control signal wires with fiber optic. These

new systems are based on optically controlled power

electronics devices, which are electromagnetic

interference (EMI) immune, a common problem in

the onboard systems [23].

III. AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL PROTECTIONS

In all the reviewed architectures protection devices

play an important and essential part in the PDS by

preventing possible damages to the cables and the

onboard equipment [24]. Up until now the CB is the

most common wire protection device in the 28 Vdcand 115 Vac architectures of aircraft PDS.

The CB (Fig. 2) is based on a magnetothermal

component, which opens the circuit before the current

through the circuit reaches the maximum limit or

before its duration is equal to the maximum time.

Nevertheless the CB cannot detect the arc failure

due to its short time of duration. However this event

IZQUIERDO ET AL.: PROTECTION DEVICES FOR AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 1539

Fig. 3. AFCB manufactured by EATON®.

increases the temperature inside the area close to

the arc and this increased temperature can cause

catastrophic damage to the wires as well as provoke

ignition of isolating material or fuel close to the arc

fault. In some cases despite the wire was damaged, the

CB upstream remains intact [25].

It is also important to emphasize that CBs are not

suitable for protecting the new PDS because they have

a poor performance at high dc voltage [26]. Moreover

it should not be forgotten that the monitoring

of CBs is complex, and they require the use of

monitoring units when they are not located on cabin.

In consequence extra weight and equipment inside the

aircraft are added. In addition, CBs do not allow the

implementation of remote control.

The AFCB (Fig. 3) is a more recent protection

than the CB. These components provide the same type

of protection as CB, but they also protect the circuit

against the electric arc fault.

The AFCB, by means of advanced electronics,

measures the current through the load in

submillisecond intervals, and it stores the data of

all momentary isolation interruptions. This event

is a possible cause of a future arc fault. When the

number of these interruptions exceeds a fixed quantity,

the AFCB provokes an interruption of the circuit,

avoiding a critical failure [27, 28].

The fault identification is based on determining

the arc fault by means of algorithms and patterns of

common working currents. The arc faults and other

similar signals like engine transitory current during

starting or stopping or the engine pulsating current

during normal operation can be differentiated [29]

depending on the complexity of the AFCB patterns

and algorithms.

Fig. 4. RCCB manufactured by E-T-A®.

The use of this technology in aircrafts considerably

improves the security levels and reduces costs,

limiting the damages from arc faults in the electric

cables in the areas located close to the event [24].

However this kind of device has the same monitoring

and control problems as the CB. Nowadays this type

of device is only used in ac PDS.

The RCCB (Fig. 4) is a more recent protection

device applied in the onboard systems in comparison

with the use of CB and AFCB. The RCCB combines

the functionality of the relay and the CB; therefore its

behaviour is very similar to the CB. On the other hand

this device allows the remote control by means of

electronic circuits included inside the device [30, 31].

Furthermore the RCCB does not present a problem

of aging, which is very common in the CB as a

consequence of thermal cycles through the bimetal.

This is due to the substitution of the bimetal by

electronic monitoring circuits inside the RCCB. The

main advantages of RCCB are remote control, the

improvement of PDS efficiency due to new wire

distribution with the lower voltage drop across the

wires, a lower cost and also a lower weight than in

conventional distribution systems based on relays and

conventional CB. Nevertheless RCCB has the same

mechanical characteristics that limit its use in more

complex systems like in the high voltage PDS.

In order to solve the disadvantages of the

protection devices previously described, new

technologies have been introduced. One of the most

interesting devices is the SSPC. These components

(Fig. 5) are based on power semiconductors such

as metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor

(MOSFET) [32] or insulated gate bipolar transistor

(IGBT) [33].

The SSPC combines the function of connecting

loads to a main bus and the function of protecting


Fig. 5. SSPC manufactured by DDC®.

Fig. 6. Aircraft electrical protection devices comparative [25],

[30—32].

the electric installations from overloads and short

circuits. In addition, the SSPC can protect the wire

with an I2t curve equally as it is performed by aCB. Other SSPC characteristics are high reliability

(life cycles), low power dissipation, and remote

control capability by means of software. Moreover

the devices based on power semiconductors like

SSPC provide fast response (instant trip), less

weight and lower susceptibility to vibrations in

comparison to electromagnetic and electromechanic

components such as CB, RCCB, and AFCB; see

Fig. 6. All these characteristics and benefits are a

consequence of the development in power electronics

and microelectronics [32—36]. It is remarkable that the

use of SSPC technology improves the PDS control

and wire-harness protection as compared with the

previous electromechanical devices. Because of

its small size it is possible to group SSPCs inside

equipment. This equipment can be located in a certain

area of the onboard system, close to the loads, and

it can be connected to the main dc bus by means of

a big gauge and a long wire. Finally the power is

Fig. 7. Secondary distribution constituted by SSPC.

TABLE I

Aircraft Electrical Protection Devices

CB AFCB RCCB SSPC

Remote Control X Xp p

Arc Fault Protection Xp

Xp

Mechanical/Electronic

(M/E) Device

M M M E

Wiring Reduction X Xp p

28 Vdc Applicationsp

Xp p

270 Vdc Applications X X Xp

delivered to the loads through a small gauge and short

wires, see Fig. 7.

Therefore this secondary power distribution line

provides electric power to the loads with shorter wires

and a lower gauge by means of the SSPC. This allows

us to minimize the weight and volume of the wires

in comparison with other kinds of protection devices

[34—36].

In summarizing Table I provides the comparison

between different aircraft electrical protection devices,

regarding their applications and capabilities.

IV. ONBOARD SYSTEMS WITH SOLID STATE POWERCONTROLLER TECHNOLOGY

SSPCs provide a similar behaviour to conventional

electro/mechanic contactors using solid state

technology. From the first SSPC design to the current

SSPC architecture, a noticeable evolution has been

introduced by the designers. In this way the solid state

technology was initially installed as a support to the

conventional mechanical systems prolonging the life

of the components and their reliability [37]. Before

the SSPC other similar devices appeared, for example,

the remote power controller (RPC), which combines

mechanical switch and MOSFET [38]; see Fig. 8.

The first patent of SSPC appeared at the end of the

1980s. In this patent a modern SSPC architecture with

several blocks was described. The main advantage

of the aforementioned SSPC was the load remote

control operation and the protection under overload

conditions [32].


Fig. 8. RPC block diagram.

Fig. 9. Solid state dc power switch.

Furthermore in [39] is shown the new capabilities

of these devices like arc fault detection and the

reduction of bounce effect produced in the contacts

of the conventional contactors; see Fig. 9. This SSPC

was designed with thyristor technology.

In the SSPC field it is important to point out

different areas of interest inside the onboard system

from the research group’s point of view: applications,

operational problems, modeling, implementation, and

new capabilities. All these points are detailed in the

following paragraphs.

A. Applications

In 1992 the first commercial SSPC that appeared

was manufactured by DDC®, Fig. 10. These new

devices were recommended specially for applications

inside the more electric aircraft architectures as

they were able to work with voltage levels of

270 Vdc and 28 Vdc, for maximum current ranges

of 15 A and 25 A, respectively [40]. From the

introduction of these components, the application

of SSPC technology has begun to be considered

a key element to improving the PDS security as

well as the power management and distribution

inside aircrafts. Comparing with CBs the major

benefits of these devices are the switching time

(SSPC requires 3 ¹s, whereas CB needs 10 ms), thesimplicity of the control, and the state monitoring.

In addition the temperature stability, the reliability,

Fig. 10. SSPC block diagram manufactured by DDC®.

and the active control in the limitation of current are

improved [41].

In one of its different applications, the SSPC

has been evaluated with different levels of ionising

radiation or linear transference of energy. These tests

show how the SSPC is able to work with a radiation

level of 80 LET (linear energy transference), whereas

other electronic equipment (dc/dc converters) make

errors or even shut down under these conditions. This

shows the great potential of SSPC in the onboard

PDS [42].

Also modules of various SSPCs have been

included in the International Space Station (ISS).

These modules are constituted by two types of SSPC.

Each module can support loads powered by 120 Vdcand 28 Vdc because it distributes the electric power

and protects the wire [43]. These kind of modules

allow the use of a higher number of SSPCs with lower

size and weight in comparison with the conventional

protection systems and load-switching elements,

constructed by CBs and relays [36, 44]. At the same

time the evolution of the component has allowed

researchers to add new functions and capabilities to

the SSPC, which can be used to control loads with

variable frequency in ac [45, 46].

B. Operational Problems

In the short lifeline of the component some

problems have been identified. NASA has published

studies on cable security and how the activation levels

of I2t protection affect the correct working order.So high levels of the I2t curves are inefficient atdetecting arc fault, increasing the probability of wire

damage. By contrast a minimization of the level of

the I2t curves can also raise the probability of falsealarms [47].

Another problem which has been detected in the

SSPCs is related to the electronic systems/equipments

regards EMI. Function failures have been detected

due to the EMI events. These events produce

instant SSPC shutdowns, which interrupt SSPC


Fig. 11. SSPC model block diagram.

Fig. 12. SSPC with thermal memory effect.

current and affect the load downstream. However

the SSPC does not report any information about

this state to the external bus. These failures are

a consequence of a great internal dependency on

electronics [48].

C. Modeling

To validate the behaviour of the SSPCs in the PDS

and/or with other types of protection, it is necessary

to model the SSPCs together with the rest of the

conventional protection devices. This allows us to

check the whole onboard PDS and the protection

system. Therefore it is possible to see the effects of

this kind of protection upon the rest of the systems

and to predict either failures or malfunctions [38].

Through models in the ISS electrical system the

influence of the MOSFET parasitic capacitances,

which have an important influence on the stability

of the system, have been proven. These capacitors

can provoke a coupling between the current control

loop, which controls the SSPC by means of an error

amplifier, see Fig. 11, and a downstream power

converter. This coupling can cause instability of the

whole system [49].

Another advantage of the performing model

of components is the possibility of including and

combining different effects like temperature evolution

in the protected wire (thermal memory), the effect of

Fig. 13. SSPC implemented with IGBT.

environmental temperature, or thermal heat dissipation

produced in the wire. All these factors depend on the

surroundings where the wire-harness and the SSPCs

are located; see Fig. 12 [50].

D. Implementation

SSPCs are commonly implemented with FET

technology, which presents yet another unsolved

problem related to current limitations. For this reason

the use of SSPC is now limited in architectures of

270 Vdc until 25 A. Beyond these levels the use of

electromechanical contactors is necessary [7]. Other

technologies that allow higher current levels are being

investigated, for example IGBT; see Fig. 13 [33]. This

technology also provides a reduction of the voltage

drop between the device terminals, and consequently

reduces power losses. In addition it has lower cost,

compared with the CoolMOS technology, and it is

also applicable in higher voltages scenerios.

It is remarkable that the increase of the current

levels can be confronted with other types of

semiconductors, like silicon carbide (SiC), that allow

us to increase the device operating temperature range

and its efficiency [51—54].

E. New Capabilities

Among the new capabilities the development

of the components which permit them to connect

big capacitive loads is especially notable. It is

possible to connect this type of load using a digital

SSPC by limiting the current level using foldback.

With this type of load connection, the maximum

current supplied to the load is limited and controlled.

Therefore during the switching of a load, the current

can be limited by 20% above the nominal current.

In this way the SSPC control circuit makes the

current level inversely proportional to the voltage in

the downstream load during the connection of the

load [55].

The limited current avoids the generation of

high peaks of voltage/current during the connection

of the loads; it also avoids possible short circuits


Fig. 14. Current limiting SSPC.

Fig. 15. SSPC with “sleep mode.”

downstream in the SSPC. In addition this avoids

the transitions to the PDS of voltage and current

perturbations; see Fig. 14 [56]. Another new SSPC

capability is to avoid the load disconnections during

the switching of the power bus bars, a common

event in the onboard systems during the intervals of

distribution changes from one bus bar to another. This

phenomenon does not appear in the CB device as they

are connected mechanically to the bus bar, and they

do not depend upon an electronic control. However in

the SSPC, a lack of power supply in the SSPC control

area could lead to the disconnection of the load. In

Fig. 17. Voltage and current of connected capacitive load (10 −=25 ¹F) using two different SSPCs.

Fig. 16. Virtual test bench.

this way the load will not be powered even with

electric power above the SSPC after the distribution

bus bar is switched. So the new SSPC designs are able

to support lack of power periods within normative

limits by means of a “sleep mode,” see Fig. 15 [57].

Finally it is important to note that some features

of the SSPC like arc fault detection cause a great

amount of improvement. This capability is one of

the most important since arc fault is considered the

main source of damages and breakdowns in aircraft

PDS. Therefore future arc fault improved solutions

are expected to be implemented. In this way SSPC

provides higher security and reliability for the whole

system [35, 55, 58].

V. VIRTUAL TEST BENCH

According to the previous section, one of the most

important research activities is the modeling of the

SSPC. Using the SSPC model described in [50], it

is possible to test the operation of these devices in

a virtual test bench, as is shown in Fig. 16. Fig. 17

compares two different SSPCs connected to the main

distribution bus of 270 Vdc. The loads connected to

the SSPC have capacitive behaviour (10 −=25 ¹F).It is noticeable that depending on the SSPC model

used, it is possible to minimize the undesirable effects

produced by the overcurrent during the connection of

the loads to the distribution bus.


Fig. 18. Voltage and current of SSPC and voltage of high

capacitive load (125 ¹F=45 −) using SSPC1.

Using the first model (SSPC1) based on a

manufactured component, an overvoltage of 386 Vdcis obtained. This voltage level does not fulfill onboard

system limits [59]. By modifying the SSPC model

parameters (SSPC2), the overvoltage is reduced to a

329 Vdc, a normal level within the standard limits.

This SSPC model is also very useful when a

connection of higher capacitive loads (125 ¹F=45 −)is simulated. In this model it is possible to include

and propose new solutions, which will allow a

connection of this type of load without exceeding

the device current limits, in this case 45 A. Fig. 18

shows the SSPC disconnection when the SSPC is

trying to connect the load. This happens because

the overcurrent protection does not permit a current

level higher than 45 A. However Fig. 19 shows that

the modification of the model parameters allows the

SSPC to connect the load to the distribution bus,

without overvoltage in the load, as compared with

the voltage shown in Fig. 17. The modification of the

model parameters is related to the reactivation of the

connection when overcurrent protection activation is

produced. The model allows us to predict this type

of situation and helps to find solutions for an optimal

design. Therefore modeling is a fundamental topic

of the new onboard PDS in order to find solutions

Fig. 20. SSPC structural model diagram block.

Fig. 19. Voltage and current of SSPC and voltage of high

capacitive load (125 ¹F=45 −) using SSPC2

and predict future problems that can appear as a

consequence of the use of new devices like SSPC. It

also offers a great potential to design or improve new

devices.

VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

To validate the generic SSPC model described

[50], one specific SSPC model has been configured

according to the datasheet of Data Device Company

(DDC), RP21415D2-600 [60]. In this case the

proposed SSPC model is based on the main following

characteristics, see Fig. 20:

1) Nominal current IN = 15 A, IMAX = 45 A

(300%).

2) Instant trip: ISSPC > 300%.3) Rise time trise < 1000 ¹s (maximum rate

current).

4) Fall time tfall < 1000 ¹s (maximum rate

current).

The DDC-SSPC model has been tested in a real test

bench with a voltage level of 100 Vdc and with pure

resistive load. All passive test bench components

(resistance and wires) have been measured with an

impedance/phase gain analyzer. This analyzer has

provided the equivalent circuit models. The obtained


Fig. 21. Measured SSPC voltage (50 V/div) and current on

SSPC (5 A/div) during ON/OFF with resistive load.

Fig. 22. Simulated SSPC voltage and current on SSPC during

ON/OFF with resistive load.

circuit models have been introduced in the virtual test

bench, and they have been simulated together with

specific DDC-SSPC model.

The experimental results, Fig. 21, show the

real behaviour of SSPC during the connection and

disconnection of a resistive load (10 ohms) to the

100 Vdc main bus. Load voltage, SSPC voltage (upper

plot), and SSPC current (down plot) are measured.

Fig. 22 shows the simulation results for the same

circuit that has been previously tested in a real test

bench. From Figs. 21 and 22 it can be concluded that

the measurements and simulation results are almost

equivalent.

VII. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented the onboard PDS

trends. These trends show more electrical aircrafts

and PDS architectures with higher dc voltage,

270 Vdc, 540 Vdc, and 230 Vac. In addition the

electrical protection devices available have been

reviewed. The main characteristics of common

devices such as CBs, ACFBs, RCCBs, and SSPCs

have been summarized. Also the fields of interests

regarding SSPC inside the onboard system have been

introduced, such as applications, operational problems,

modeling, implementation, and new capabilities.

From this analysis it can be concluded that there

is an important trend for using SSPC instead of

traditional electromechanical devices. Finally by using

a basic virtual test bench based on an SSPC model,

the performance of these new protection devices in

the PDS with capacitive loads have been analyzed,

and some problems and design solutions have been

identified. A generic SSPC model has also been

validated by means of simulations and experimental

results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Data Device

Company (DDC) for providing EADS-CASA the

SSPCs.

REFERENCES

[1] Spitzer, C. R.

The all-electric aircraft: A system’s view and proposed

NASA research programs.

IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

AES-20, 3 (May 1984), 261—266.

[2] Howse, M.

All electric aircraft.

Power Engineer, 17 (2003), 35—37.

[3] Faleiro, L. F.

Trends towards a more electrical aircraft.

In Proceedings of the International Council of the

Aeronautical Sciences, 2006.

[4] Blanding, D.

Subsystem design and integration for the more electric

aircraft.


Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 2006.

[5] Rosero, J. A., et al.

Moving towards a more electric aircraft.

IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 22, 3

(Mar. 2007).

[6] Kankam, M. D.

A survey of power electronics applications in aerospace

technologies.

Presented at the 36th Intersociety Energy Conversion

Engineering Conference (IECEC) cosponsored by the

ASME, IEEE, AIChE, ANS, SAE, and AIAA, Savannah,

GA, July 29—Aug. 2, 2001.

[7] Weimer, J. A.

Power management and distribution for the more electric

aircraft.

In Proceedings of the 30th Intersociety Energy Conversion

Engineering Conference (IECEC), 1995, 273—277.

[8] Maldonado, M. A., et al.

Power management and distribution system for a More

electric aircraft (MADMEL)–Program status.

In Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion

Engineering Conference (IECEC), Aug. 1997, 274—279.

[9] Doyle, D. D.

F-15 secondary power systems topic area: Sub-systems.

Aging Aircraft Conference, 2000.


[10] Framework VI: Integrated projects. More open electrical

technologies (MOET).

[Reference created on October 18, 2004], web available:

http://www.aerosme.com/download/WorkshopFP6Call3/

abstracts/MOET 181004.pdf.

[11] Cutts, S. J.

A collaborative approach to the more electric aircraft

(totally integrated more electric systems (TIMES)).

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Power

Electronics, Machines and Drives, June 4—7, 2002,

223—228.

[12] Bailey, M., et al.

Distributed electrical power management architecture

(DEPMA).

In IEE Colloquium on Electrical Machines and Systems for

the More Electric Aircraft, Nov. 9, 1999, 7/1—7/4 (Ref. no.

1999/180).

[13] CleanSky

Newsletter Issue 1—20, Dec. 2007.

Web available: http://www.cleansky.eu/index.php?

arbo id=83&set language=en.

[14] Friend, M. G. and Daggett, D. L.

Fuel cell demonstrator airplane.

In AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and

Exposition, Dayton, OH, July 14—17, 2003.

[15] Lindner, D. K., et al.

Subsystem interaction analysis in power distribution

systems of next generation airlifters.

Presented at the IEEE Power Electronic Specialist

Conference (PESC), Sept. 1999.

[16] Emadi, K. and Ehsani, M.

Aircraft power systems: Technology, state of the art and

future trends.


(Jan. 2000), 28—32.

[17] Kojori, H., Konyukhova, S., and Michalko, R. G.

Electrical energy management system on a vehicle e.g. a

more electric aircraft MEA.

Honeywell International Incorporated WO 2006/024006

A1, international application published under the patent

cooperation treaty (PCT), Mar. 2, 2006.

[18] Michalko, R. G.

Electrical starting generation conversion and distribution

system architecture for a more electric vehicle.

Honeywell International Incorporated US2006/0061213

A1, U.S. patent application publication, Mar. 23, 2006,

20.

[19] Cotton, I. and Husband, M.

Higher voltage aircraft power systems.

IEEE Aerospace and Electronics Systems Magazine, (Feb.

2008).

[20] Austrin, L., Torabzadeh-Tari, M., and Engdahl, G.

A new high power density generation system.


Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 2006.

[21] Todd, J. R., Hay, J. A., and Brennan, M. E.

Integrating fly-by-light systems.

In Proceedings of IEEE/AIAA 11th Digital Avionics

Systems Conference, 1992, 411—416.

[22] Todd, J. R.

Direct optical control: A lightweight backup

consideration.

In Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and

Electronics Conference, vol. 2, 1992, 456—463.

[23] Mazumder, S. K. and Sarkar, T.

Optically-triggered power transistor (OTPT) for

fly-by-light (FBL)/EMI susceptible power electronics.

In Proceedings of the IEEE Power Electronics Specialists

Conference (PESC), 2006, 1—8.

[24] Izquierdo, D., et al.

Protection devices for aircraft electrical power distribution

systems: A survey.

Presented at the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society

Conference (IECON 2008), Orlando, FL, Nov. 11—13,

2008.

[25] SAE

AS33201, Circuit breaker-aircraft, trip-free, push pull, 1/2

thru 20 amps, type 1 ¡55 thru +121±C.SAE The engineering Society for Advancing Mobility

Land Sea Air and Space International, Rev. 31–AUG-99,

web available: http//www.sae.org.

[26] Furse, C.

Finding fault: Locating hidden hazards on aircraft wiring.

College of Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake

City, Feb. 2004.

[27] Spyker, R., Schweickart, D. L., and Horwath, J. C.

An evaluation of diagnostic techniques relevant to arcing

fault current interrupters for direct current power systems

in future aircraft.

In Proceedings Electrical Insulation Conference and

Electrical Manufacturing Expo, Oct. 2005, 146—150.

[28] SAE

AS5692, Arc fault circuit breaker (AFCB), aircraft,

trip-free single phase 115 V ac, 400 Hz–constant

frequency.

SAE The Engineering Society for Advancing Mobility

Land Sea Air and Space International.

[29] Potter, T. E.

Arc fault interruption requirements for aircraft

applications.

Texas Instruments, Nov. 2003, 21.

[30] Remote Controlled Circuit Breaker (RCCB)

Eaton, Cleveland, OH, web available:

http://www.aerospace.eaton.com/.

[31] E-T-A.

Remote Control Circuit Breaker (RCCB) 4930—01-5.

Web available: http://www.e-ta.com/.

[32] Kinoshita, R. Y.

Solid State DC Power Switch.

U.S. Patent 4709160, Rockwell International Corporation,

Nov. 24, 1987.

[33] Liu, W. and Huang, A. Q.

A novel high current solid state power controller.

Presented at the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society

Conference (IECON 2005), Nov. 2005.

[34] Potter, F. J. and Furmanski, D.

Retrofitting solid state power distribution into existing

aircraft.

Presented at the 9th Joint FAA/DoD/NASA Aging

Aircraft Conference 2006.

[35] Maxwell, J. M., Blumer, J. H., and Burden, B.

A configurable solid state power management and

distribution system.

Presented at the SAE Power Systems Conference, Oct.

2002.

[36] Secure Power with Next-Generation PDSUs

Avionics Magazine, 29, 6 (June 2005), technical

Report, ISSN-1085-9284, web available:

http://www.avionicsmagazine.com.

[37] Theisen, P., Krstic, S., and Chen, C.

270-V dc hybrid switch.

IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids, and

Manufacturing Technology, 9, 1 (Mar. 1986), 97—100.

[38] Kwa-Sur T., Lifeng Y., and Dravid, N.

Modeling the protection system components of the Space

Station electric power system.

IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

30, 3 (July 1994), 800—808.


[39] McGollum, P.

Universal Solid State Power Controller.

Rockwell International Corporation WO 88/01077,

international application published under the patent

cooperation treaty (PCT), Feb. 11, 1988, 22.

[40] Friedman, S. N.

Solid-state power controller for the next generation.


(Sept. 1992), 24—29.

[41] Simon, J. J.

State of the art in solid state power controller for

aeronautical application.

The European Power Electronics Association, Sept. 1993,

121—126.

[42] Label, K. A., et al.

Implications of single event effect characterization of

hybrid dc-dc converters and a solid state power controller.

IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 42, 6, Part 1 (Dec.

1995), 1957—1963.

[43] Hart, D. S., et al.

A solid state power controller module for the

International Space Station EXPRESS rack.

In Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion

Engineering Conference (IECEC-97), vol. 1, July

27—Aug.1, 1997, 280—285.

[44] Darty, M. A.

Modular solid state power controller with microcontroller.

U.S. Patent 5752047, McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

May 12, 1998.

[45] Nguyen, T.

System and method utilizing a solid state power controller

(SSPC) for controlling an electrical load of a variable

frequency three-phase power source.

Honeywell International Inc., Us 2005/0052808 A1, U.S.

patent application publication, Mar. 10, 2005.

[46] Henderson, E. A.

Power control interrupt management.

US2006/0044721 A1, U.S. patent application publication,

Mar. 2, 2006.

[47] Stavnes, M. W. and Hammoud, A. N.

Assessment of safety in space power wiring systems.


(Jan. 1994) 21—27.

[48] Dan, M., et al.

EO-1 anomaly resolution report for ACE anomaly of

9-14-01.

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, 2001, web

available: http://eo1.gsfc.nasa.gov/new/validationReport/

Technology/.

[49] Panov, Y. V. and Lee, F. C.

Modeling and stability analysis of a dc power system

with solid state power controllers.

In Proceedings of the Applied Power Electronics

Conference and Exposition (APEC’96), vol. 2, Mar. 3—7,

1996, 685—691.

[50] Barrado, A., et al.

SSPC model with variable reset time, environmental

temperature compensation and thermal memory effect.


Conference and Exposition (APEC ’08), Feb. 24—28, 2008,

1716—1721.

[51] Feng, X. and Radun, A.

SiC based solid state power controller.


Conference and Exposition (APEC ’08), Feb. 24—28, 2008,

1855—1860.

[52] Garuda, V. R., et al.

High temperature performance characterization of buck

converter using SiC and Si devices.

In Proceedings of IEEE Power Electronics Specialists

Conference (PESC’98), vol. 2, May 17—22, 1998,

1561—1567.

[53] Shenai, K.

Silicon carbide power converters for next generation

aerospace electronics applications.

In NAECON 2000, Oct. 10—12, 2000, 516—523.

[54] Chante, J. P., et al.

Silicon carbide power devices.

In Proceedings of International Semiconductor Conference

(CAS’98), vol. 1, Oct. 6—10, 1998, 125—134.

[55] Mussmacher, K. A. and Froeb, W. L.

SSPCs handle heavy loads with fold-back current

limiting.

National Hybrid Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, Jan. 2003.

[56] Komatsu, M., Ide, N., and Yanabu, S.

A solid-state current limiting switch for application of

large-scale space power systems.

In Proceedings of IEEE Power Electronics Specialists

Conference (PESC’07), June 17—21, 2007, 1471—1476.

[57] Beneditz, B. D. and Donald, G. K.

Power interruption system for electronic circuit breaker.

US2006/0044723 A1, U.S. patent application publication,

Mar. 2, 2006.

[58] Lazarovich, D.

Arc fault detection for SSPC based on electrical power

distribution systems.

Honeywell International Inc., WO2004/073131 A1,

international application published under the patent

cooperation treaty (PCT), Aug. 26, 2004.

[59] MIL-STD-704

Aircraft Electric Power Characteristics.

[60] DDC Data Device Corporation

Multi-channel power controller capabilities 28VDC

270VDC 115 VAC. 1 to 25 amps/channel.


Daniel Izquierdo was born in Madrid, Spain in 1975. He received the M.Sc. andPh.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Carlos III University of Madrid,

Spain in 2001 and 2011, respectively.

Since 2001 he has worked at EADS Company in the Electrical, Control, and

Monitoring System Department where he is actively involved in R&D projects.

Since 2005, he has been a part-time professor at the Carlos III University

of Madrid, Spain. His research interests include electrical power distribution

systems, electrical onboard protection devices, and more electric aircraft.

Andres Barrado was born in Badajoz, Spain in 1968. He received the M.Sc.degree in electrical engineering from the Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain

in 1994 and the Ph.D. degree from the Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain in

2000.

Since 1994 he has been an associate professor at the Carlos III University

of Madrid, and since 2004 has been Head of the Power Electronics Systems

Group (GSEP). His research interests are switching-mode power supply, inverters,

behavioural modelling of converters and systems, solar and fuel cell conditioning,

and power distribution systems for aircraft.

Carmen Raga was born in Madrid, Spain in 1976. She received the M.Sc. degree

in 2005 in electrical engineering from the Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain,

where she is a Ph.D. student.

Her research interests are switching-mode power supplies, modelling and

control of switching converters, fuel cell conditioning, and power distribution

systems for hybrid electrical vehicles and aircrafts.


Marina Sanz was born in Burgos, Spain in 1973. She received the M.Sc. andPh.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Universidad Politecnica de

Madrid, Spain in 1997 and 2004, respectively.

Since 2001 she has been an assistant professor at the Electronic Department,

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. Her main research interests include

switching-mode power supplies, modeling, and design of piezoelectric

transformers and engineering education.

Antonio Lazaro was born in Madrid, Spain in 1968. He received the M.Sc. inelectrical engineering from the Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain in 1995.

He received the Ph.D. in electronic engineering from the Universidad Carlos III

de Madrid in 2003.

He has been an assistant professor of the Universidad Carlos III de

Madrid since 1995. He has been involved in power electronics since 1994,

participating in more than 30 R&D projects for industry. His research interests

are switched-mode power supplies, power factor correction circuits, inverters (ups

and grid connected applications), modelling and control of switching converters,

and digital control techniques.

Dr. Lazaro holds three patents and he has published nearly 100 papers in

IEEE journals and conferences.


Documents

05937248.pdf