Benefits Assessment of Fault Current Limiters in a Refinery Power Plant:
a Case Study.
A. Cali S . Conti
DipartimentoElettrico, Elettronico e Sistemistico
UniversitA degli Studi di Catania
Viale A. Dona, 6 1-95 125 Catania, Italy
E-Mail: gtina@dees.unict.it
Abstract: Growth of industrial power plants and load increasing
typically result in increased available short circuit currents that
can easily exceed the interrupting capacity of the installed circuit
breakers, whose capacity is also limited by aging. Complete
replacement of the existing breakers, whose characteristicsare no
longer suitable to that application, may not be economical and
can require customized breakers, as in the case of the actual
industrial plant studied in this paper.
m e r describing the refinery power system the results of accurate
short circuit calculation in compliance with both IEC and
ANSI7IEEE Standards are reported; considerations on selection
of appropriate breakers for the analysed installation and issues of
short circuit current limitation are highlighted; a cost effective
solution in then proposed based on the use of CLiPs (Current
Limiting Protectors), along with criteria for the correct choice
trigger level and peak let-thru values. Economical evaluation of
the proposed solution supplement the work.
Keywords: Circuit breaker, Electronically Triggered Current
Limiter, Distribution System, Short Circuit.
I. THE REFINERY POWER PLANT
AGIP Petroli oil refinery was built during the 70s and
covers an area of 5km2. The thermoelectric power plant
(TPP) provides steam and electric energy to the whole
industrial plant and to the Electric Utility (ENEL) as well.
The TPP consists of four turboaltemators connected in
parallel, by means of A, B, C and D 14.4kV busbars and
R1, R2, R3 limiting reactors (Fig. l), with the primary
distribution system (14.4kV); the neutral wire is
ungrounded.
In normal operating conditions the TPP is connected in
parallel with two ENEL lines (“ENEL Gela” and “ENEL
San Cono”) through two 87.5MVA transformers (referred
to as TRl and TR2 in Fig. 1) sited at a 150kV substation.
This connection with the grid is exploited to provide
energy to the Utility, during normal operation, and as
back-up source in case of partial or total TPP outage.
In the industrial plant the electric distributions is realised
by a secondary selective system. At present, the TPP
configuration involves G1 and G2 generators connected in
parallel through a reactance (Rl) (eastern section of the
plant) and G3 and G4 generators parallel by R3 (western
section). These two sections are connected in parallel with
the 150kV stage and with the Utility lines by means of
TRl and TR2, respectively.
The described industrial plant has been subject to various
studies during the least years (the last one dates back to
1995 [l]) in order to identify technical solutions able to
avoid, or at least, to limit, the periodical heavy outages
mainly due to overvoltages at the 14.4kV stage following
intermittent arcs (due to ungrounded neutral wire).
The problem has been overcome thanks to the adoption
0-7803-6338-8/00/$10.00(~)2000IEEE
F. Santonoceto G. Tina
of grounding transformers. However, another heavy
problem remains unsolved that is the high short circuit
current present in the plant.
In [l] the need for replacement of the 14.4kV breakers
has been highlighted and claims attention not only due to
the higher and higher values of the prospective short circuit
currents; in fact, the difficulty in finding proper spare parts
(by now out of production) and the high maintenance
charges would suggest a similar solution.
On the other hand, the replacement of about fifty MV
breakers, unless through a preliminary effective solution to
the short circuit current limitation problem, would be
unfeasible, because proper breakers could not be mass
products but only customized items (due to the high value
of the required percentage d.c. component).
In [ 13 the conducted study proposes to install between the
generators and the 14.4kV busses some insulation
transformers. This would allow the neutral grounding,
insulating at the same time the generators fiom the network
and impro.ing the system stability as well as generators
life eqectation. The proposed solution, however, is not
economically attractive because, besides the high
purchasing and installation costs of the new transformers,
the reduction in the three-phase short circuit currents (with
Vcc=22%, for the insulation transformers) is not great
enough to significantly reduce the expenses due to the
unavoidable replacement of the 14.4kV breakers.
Thus, the present work aims at performing a technical
and economical analysis concerning the use of
electronically triggered hses in order to limit the short
circuit currents; this solution, in turn, would lead to the use
of mass production breakers with limited costs.
11. LOADFLOW
Load flow calculations for the considered power plant
have been performed by ETAP (Electromagnetic Transient
Analyser Program) on the simplified single-line diagram
described in Fig. 1. In the plant operation considered for
the load flow calculation, the power system’is divided into
two sub-systems (referred to as eastern and western
section). The analysed configuration, characterised by the
connection of TRI and TR2 with A and D busses,
respectively, is the typical configuration in normal
operating conditions. The power supplied by the generators
and drawn by the loads are reported in Tab.1
Tab. 1 Power supplied by the generatorsand draw by the loads.
G1 6 2 63 64 L1 L2 LJ L4
ActivePowerIMWj 60 60 67 40 57.9 59.3 26 12.2
ReactivePowerlMVARl 39 39 53 35 39.7 51.3 26 5.4
1505
 111. SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENTS CALCULATION
The considered plant configuration is characterised by
the connection of TRl and TR2 with A and C busses,
respectively; this configuration is of interest in our study
as it involves the maximum short circuit currents due to
the paralleling of G3 generator, which has the highest rated
power, with TR2 transformer, without the interposition of
R3 reactor.
As said before, the short circuit currents calculation has
been carried out by ETAP, according to both IEC and
ANSVIEEE standards; then, a comparison has been made
between the results obtained following the two different
guidelines. In the following some observations have been
reported:
Comparing the,Yalues of the initial qmmetrical short
circuit current, I , , (IEC) and the first-cycle duty. &,
(ANSI). the differences are quite small. in the order of a
few percentage points, whichever point in the circuit our
calculation is referred to;
These differences are due to the approximations that are
intrinsic to the empirical calculation followed by both IEC
and ANSVIEEE methods; in particular, the results
obtained through the European Norm are higher than those
obtained through the American Standard. Similar results
can be observed in [2], where a compared analysis
IEC/ANSI is carried out;
Comparing peak short circuit current, ip, e first-cycle
peak fault current, the values calculated by IEC are always
higher, in accordance to [2].
As for a comparison in terms of the ratio X/Rbetween
IEC and ANSYZEEE there is no reference in .[2]. On the
other hand, this comparison could be meaningless as the
two standards *perform the calculation of X/R in rather
different ways: in the IEC method an equivalent
impedanceis worked out and a correction factor is used; in
the ANSVIEEE method, separate networks are employed
to calculate the equivalent resistance and reactance and
each circuit is derived by applying empirical correction
factors indicated by the Standard.
Enel Gela
252-El
I 1
150 kV
Fig. 1 Single-line diagram ofthe power plant ( n o d operation); the darkened squares represent closed breakers.
1506
IV. CIRCUIT BREAKERS SELECTION
The breakers that are more liable to stress are those
installed at the 14.4 kV A and C buses to protect the
feeders.
If a short circuit occurred downstream the terminals,
these breakers would have to interrupt the highest fault
current, due to the contribution of both a generator and a
HVMV transformer, and of the adjacent bus through the
tie-reactor as well, supplied by a further generator.
The stress assessment (according to IEC 909) the
breakers must withstand during a three-phase short circuit
has been made assuming a minimum breakers delay, t,,,,*, of
100 ms. The characteristics of the existing breakers are
derived by ETAP according to IEC 56, based on the data
included in Tab. 2.
Tab. 2 Characteristics of the breakers presently installed and short circuit
current values.
&vice Capacity (U) Short Circuit Current (kA)
Making I I~ I I& ~ ’ r I i, I I b I bc
155 I 62.00 I 9.67 72.44 I
204 I 57 I 41
In [l] it is suggested to replace the 14.4 kV breakers with
others whose characteristics are reported in Tab. 3 (where
the characteristics of the presently installed breakers and
those prospected in the present work are also indicated).
Based on the performed calculations (Tab. 2), proper
ratings for required breakers without any limitation on fault
currents are indicated in Tab. 3.
In particular, the proposed percentage d.c. component
(calculated on the proposed breaking capacity of 63kA) is
46.7% for tmi,=lOOms.The realization of a suitable breaker
could only be possible subject to a specific agreement with
the manufacturer to guarantee the breaker ability to
interrupt the calculated I b together with the percentage dc
component of 46.7%. In some network points, our results
related to the peak short circuit current (ip) calculation are
higher then 160 kA, calculated by [11.
Enel S. Con0
252-E2
224-E ‘0
 The results relative to ip calculation show that the strict reliability requirements and easier to be achieved.
making capacity of the breakers suggested by [11 would
not be sufficient to ensure effective protection.

Tab. 3: Comparison among different breakers characteristics.

a) b) c)
Presently Breakers Breakers
installed breakers proposed proposed in our
in PI
Rated Voltage 17.5 kV 17.5 kV 17.5 kV
Symmetrical 53-62kA 63kA 63 kA
breaking capacity
Making Capacity 155 kA 160 kA >205kA
Percentage d.c. ... > 81% 46.7% U 0 05 01 0 15
component TD(s) = looms t [ins]
Fig. 2 Short circuit current at G3 terminals.

On the other hand, these limiting devices are

intrinsically unable to reduce the current peak value.
To accomplish this function the current limiter has to act
in a shorter time, that is less than a quarter of a period.
Let us consider, for instance, a symmetrical short circuit
current with rms value of the prospective current of
27.8kA. Aiming at limiting the peak short circuit current to
16kA (i.e. Let-Thru = 16 kA peak), let us assume a sensing
value of 10 kA [4]. Then:
1
to = -arcsin(=) =8 5 0 ~
0

and
- t o = 1387 - 850 = 5 3 7 p (2)
0

V. SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT LIMITATION
The current limiting devices can be classified into two
main categories according to weather the short circuit
current has to be limited and/or interrupted before the first
peak is reached or after the first zero-crossing.
In this two different cases issues and benefits related to
the use of a current limiting device are quite different.
Those devices that act after the first zero-crossing of the
fault current, can be used to improve service quality; for
example, it is possible to limit amplitude and duration of a
voltage sag following a fault beneath the levels required by
sen sible appliances .
This type of limiter is quite easy to realize and the
longer time available to detect the fault generally allows to
avoid nuisance tripping.
Limitation of the current after the first zero-crossing
allow to divert the current in the limiting device with very
low current values (nearly zero) causing very small
overvoltages; it is to be noted that such devices concerned
more with service quality than with security will have less
Where:
to, is defined as the first period (0 to to) from the instant
of fault to the time when the trigger level is reached;
0 At,,, is the analysing time required by the electronic
circuitry before a triggering pulse is generated;
0 Atrim,is the limitation time given by the sum of cutting
time of the main conductor, commutation time, fuse
melting time, arcing time.
Then, the limiting device has 537 ps to its disposal, from
the instant of fault, to analyse the current (to avoid
nuisance tripping) and in case to limit it. Limiters have to
perform with the maximum degree of reliability since a
non-operation on a short circuit condition can result in
widespread damage of the breaker as it is continuously
subjected to much higher short circuit currents, above its
rating. The main advantages coming from the use of such
limiting devices are:
0 The reduction of the cost of breaker replacement due to
lower short circuit current rating requirements;
Reduced safety hazards to personnel;
0 Reduced electrical and mechanical stresses.
As for the case of the considered refinery plant, the short
circuit analysis indicates the installation of limiting devices
(acting before the first current peak is reached) as an
effective solution especially for the problems related to the
high peak value of the fault currents.
VI. FAULT DETECTION METHODS
The fault must be detected quickly so as to limit the

1507
 current during the first half-cycle. The main parameters
involved in fault detection are:
i(t), instantaneous current value;
0 di/dt, rate of current rise [8].
Fault detection methods are generally based on the
combined examination of the aforesaid parameters and on
their persistence above a certain threshold value (trigger
level) for a minimum time, A s e n [5].
A. “Instantaneous crest current” sensing method
The threshold sensing method is based on the
measurement of the instantaneous current value. A trigger
signal is sent to the current limiter only after the fault
current has exceeded a given value, the so called “trigger
level”, keeping above it for a given time interval, A,,,
(“trip initiation delay”).
In order for the detection method to be effective, the
trigger level and A,,,have to be selected carehlly to avoid
nuisance tripping due to both current spikes (lightening
and capacitive switching, whose duration seldom exceeds
100 p) and slower transient currents (motor and
transformer inrush currents) [SI. The selection of a higher
trigger level, though favourable to the avoidance of a
nuisance tripping, on the other side imposes the reduction
of the trip initiation delay A,,,.
Considering that symmetrical short circuit current’ can
be assumed linear with time in the first instants following a
fault, the trigger level can be considered proportional to to;
under the hypothesis that the increase in the trigger level
does not cause an increase in At,i,, A,,, reduces as much
as to increases (under the same let-thru current).
In any case, the selection of the triggering value is on a
‘’trail and error” basis [6].
B. “Rate of current rise” sensing method.
This method is based on the measurement of the
quantity di/di. A trigger signal is sent to the current limiter
only after di/di has exceeded the “differential trigger
level”, keeping above it during a time interval Asen of
about 100 ps.
The advantage of di/dt sensing method is due to the
reduction of to that slightly depends on the d.c. offset but is
deeply influenced by the initial phase of the voltage (for
instance, to is equal to zero in case of symmetrical fault
current). However, the first derivative peak occurs about a
quarter of a cycle before the first current peak.
The differential trigger level must be determined as a
function of the peak value of the limited fault current.
Some uncertainties affect the choice of the proper
trigger level due to the influence of the d.c. offset and X/R
ratio.
Let us consider the two currents, ilo) and i2(t), the first
symmetrical and the second asymmetrical (DC offset
I~deZo),having the same peak (I,), but different rms values.
The r m s of iZ(t) during the first cycle is:
12, =d;- (3)
I In case of maximum ’cal c u m 4 the value reached by the
short circuit current is greater,but the current rise rate is slower.
the peak value is:
(4)
I2peak f i . I 2 m s , s y m +‘2dc 7
whereas the rms of il(t) e:
Under the same peak value, the rms value of
symmetrical current is greater than asymmetrical.
Then we can consider the derivatives of il(t) and iz(t).
di,(t)/dt = mI, = ~ f i I l ~ ~ ~ (6)
di2(t)/dt= @ I p =wfi12rms,sym(
l + e -ctg4:++) sin 4 ) (7)
where I, is the maximum value of i2(t)for a given X/R.
where: f ( 4 ) = w( 1 + e
Since the ratio X R ranges between 9 and 80 in most of
the industrial plants [6,7], then df(&ranges between 1.71
and 1.96. For a given I, ,the differential trigger level has to
be selected taking into account to the fault current with the
maximum DC offset to guarantee effective protection, even
if the possibility for nuisance tripping to occur can not be
excluded; this is more likely to happen in those plants
where the ratio X/R is higher.
However, as in the case of the “Instantaneous crest
current” sensing method, the accurate selection of the
triggering value is on a “trail and error” basis.
C. Dual sensing method: i and di/dt.
This dual sensing method is based on the magnitude of
the fault current and on di(t)/dt, and both these must exceed
the set value for operation. This method may prevent
nuisance tripping due to high frequency transients without
using Atsen, required, instead, by the instantaneous crest
current sensing method.
The main issue with this method is the correlation
between the two trigger levels for i and di/dt . Such a
correlation can be achieved based on (6B) where I, must be
replaced by the selected trigger level.
Taking into account the current lagging with respect to
its derivative (slightly influenced by the d.c. offset) the
following triggering method can be adopted:
When the differential trigger level is exceeded then the
current sensor is activated for a fixed time interval (>5ms).
If the magnitude trigger level is also exceeded during this
period, a triggering pulse is sent out to the limiting device.
VII. SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT LIMITATION IN
THE AGIP PETROL1 REFINERY
Consider the eastern section of the power plant (Fig. 1).
Due to the relatively high number of 14.4kV feeders, it is
economically not feasible to install a Clip for each feeder;
moreover, this solution would not be appropriate since it
would not assure coordination in the protection scheme.
Let consider, then, the possibility to install a CLiP at the
bus-tie between A and B busses (Fig. 3 a).

1508
 Enel Gela 150 kV Enel S.COM) 150 kV VIII. TRIGGER LEVEL AND PEAK LET-THRU
252-EI 252-E2
Z2+E
The use of Clip allows to install breakers that are
available in mass production. In the studied case, for
example, it has been possible to choose a breaker with the
maximum interrupting rating for a nominal voltage of 17.5

14241 8 14243
kV, SFs type, made by Nuova Magrini Galileo, whose
characteristics are reported in Tab. 5 .
Tab. 5 Breaker ratings in compliance with CEI 17-1 and IEC 56.
Circuit breaker type 17 GL 40
Rated Voltage (50 and 60 Hz) r7.5 kV
Insulating level at power firequency 38 kV
Impulse insulating level I 95kV
Rated current I 1250+4000A
Fig. 3 U) A CLiP is installed at the bus-tie between A and B busses. I Short time Current (3 sec) I 40kA I
Symmtrical breaking capacity (1,J
40 kA
(Operating sequence: 0-0.3sC0-3mC0)
Making Capacity (Im) 100 kA peak
Enel Gela 150 kV End S. Con0 150 kV Opening Time 70 ms
1 I
252-El 252-E2
Then, the breaking current, I b , has to be limited to 40 kA,
while the peak current, ip, to 100 kA.
224-t1 If the short circuit intensity is such to cause CLiPs
tripping, the value of the current, I,, that the breaker will
have to interrupt is equal to the current due to TR-I;
however, the current value will be less then 40 kA, as
indicated by Tab. 5. In fact, the CLiP acts so quickly that
G1 and G2 sources do not contribute to Ib. The same
situation occurs wherever the fault is located (e.g., next to
G1 or G2).
Based on the characteristics of the chosen breaker (Tab.
5 ) it is necessary to determine the appropriate trigger level
Fig. 3 b) Two CLPs are installed between A1 and A2,A2 and B busses and the let-thru current of the two adopted CLiPs (that we
respectively. can assume the same).
The trigger level must be determined when each source
Considered the unequal contribution to the short circuit provides the maximum contribution to the fault current, In
current of each source (Gl, G2 and TRl), the application the considered study this situation is represented by a fault
of a CLiP in the considered position could reduce the at the F point in Fig. 3, where the maximum contribution
prospective short circuit current below the making current by G1 and G2 is limited by the CLiPs trigger level. In this
of both the installed breakers and those proposed in [l], case the following relation holds:
but this would not lead to any substantial economical 2.triglev.
benefit in case of replacement of the installed breakers. In Ik.TR1 5 3 ’ triglev. (9)
fact, the CLiP would limit the short circuit current to about Ji
50 kA due to the solely limitation of G1 contribution to the since 1 ” is~ lower
~ than
~ I”L;,G~ and I ” ~ G * .
fault. This leads to the following relation between l b and I,,
The more appropriate configuration seems, then, to be (rated short circuit current):
the one proposed in Fig. 3 b), where the A bus has been J?i
I 3 .triglev./ IlSc (10)
divided into two parts (A1 ed A2) in such a way to allow fiom (10) it is, finally, possible to define an upper limit
the insertion of a second limiter. In Tab. 4 the short circuit for the trigger level given by:
currents are reported; they are worked out according to
IEC 909, in case of a short circuit occurring at the F point triglev.5 (J?i/3).40z 18.9kApeak (1 1)
(Fig. 3 b), when the bus-tie breakers between Al, A2 and Similarly to the above line of reasoning, we have to find
B busses are closed (for seek of simplicity the contribution the CLiP let-thru current in such a way that the value of I,
of the motors has been neglected). is be lower than the breaker making current (I,,,) (Tab. 5 ) ;
the heaGer case happens when the fault occurs in F and the
Tab. 4 Contribution ofGl and G2 generatorsand TRl transformer to the
CLiPs have opened the circuit.
fault current value at F point, In this case:
i, Iip,Trl+ 2 - peak -let - thru (12)
GI, G2 TRI
r’; 26.8 k ~ m23.2 k ~ m From the above observations it is then possible to obtain
i. 67.5kApeak 63.3 kApeak an upper limit for the peak let-thru value:
L(IO0 ms) 18.3 kAm 23.2 k A m
24.2 kA 15.2kA
peak - let -thru 5 (100 - 63.3)/2 E 18AkApeak (13)
iDC
The adopted triggering criteria is the threshold sensing
method described in Section VI, A.

1509
 Considering the maximum transformer and motor inrush
currents, which the current limiter may be subjected to a
trigger level of lOkA, according to [6], is high enough to
avoid nuisance trip and at the same time, respects Eq. (1 1);
as proposed in Section VI, At,,, is set to loop. Then, it is
necessary to check that the peak-let-th of the chosen
current limiting fuse verifies Eq. (13). This can be
accomplished referring to the diagram “let-thru current vs.
prospective symmetrical short circuit current” available in
[9]: according to this, an initial short circuit current of
26.8A and a sensing level of lOkA lead to a 16kA
(instantaneous) let-thru current, that satisfies Eq. (13).
However, the choice of the aforesaid trigger level
(1OkA) has a drawback: if a fault were to occur on bus A2,
both CLiPs would need to operate; if a fault were to occur
on bus A1 or B, one would want to trip only on CLiP, not
both sets. To avoid this, the trigger level should be 18kA,
but the upper limit for the peak let-thru would be
exceeded; so, in this case a trial and error method should
be applied to check the correct application of the CLiP.
IX. COST ASSESSMENT AND FINAL REMARKS
In 1999, two 1516 kV sub-stations have been installed
in the refinery in order to cope with load increasing; thus
the purchase of two breakers with relative boards, whose
characteristics are indicated by [5], has been necessary.
From this the assessment of the involved costs has been
derived:
0 #2 breakers: 85.000 €
#2 boards: 80.000 €
The cost assessment due to replacement of the whole set
of 14.4kV breakers (50 units) provides an amount of
4.000.000 €, not including installation cost.
On the other hand, the adoption of the solution proposed
in the present study, that allows to replace the existing
breakers with others whose characteristics are summarised
in Tab. 5 , would have a cost of 1S00.000 € (a breaker plus
relative board costs 30.000 e).
The cost of a CLiP, including fault detection devices,
control circuits and the containing board, is about 75.000
€. To apply the proposed modifications to the refinery
plant, four CLiPs would be necessary (two for the western
section of the plant and two for eastern one). The overall
cost would be 300.000 €. Since it would also be necessary
to perform some structural changes on the bus system (A
and C busses would be divided into two separate systems
(A1 and A2, C1 and C2), some meagre additional costs
have to be taken into account.
The assessment of the required investment to implement
the proposed solution has, obviously, to be concluded by
the evaluation of the benefits in terms of short circuit
currents reduction. Firstly, it is to be noted that the peak
S.C. current value is halved as it passes fiom more than 200
kA to less than 100 kA. This implies that the stress that all
the devices connected in series to the faulted circuit would
undergo would be enormously reduced. This would result,
in turn, in reduced equipment aging and in increased
security for personnel. Secondly, the possibility of buying
mass production breakers, besides reducing purchasing
costs, allows to reduce maintenance charges. Finally,
thanks to the suppression of the reactors presently installed
1510
at the tie-locations in order to limit short circuit current
value, power losses could be limited and the system
stability would also be improved.
Due to the fact that continuity is crucial to industrial
facilities with critical processes, like in the studied case,
other cost-effective technical solutions based on CLiP, with
higher reliability, should be accounted for to solve the short
current limitation problem. A valid solution should avoid
the possibility that after the CLiP operation part of the load
is de-energized or that some generators are overloaded. For
instance, for the studied case, we could keep using reactors
(with a high enough vcc) bypassed with CLiPs. This
combination maintains the benefits of the reactors without
the operation drawbacks (high energy losses and voltage
drops). A further study will be performed on this latter
solution to allow a technical and economical comparison
with the one presented by this paper.
X. REFERENCES
I11 CESI REPORT: ELC 95/021240 (1995).
I21 AJ. Rodolakis, “A Comparison of North American (ANSI) and
European (IEC) Fault Calculation Guidelines”, IEEE Transaction
on Industry Application, Vol. 29, No. 3, May/June 1993.
131 R.E. C o d , T.G. Hazel, G. Thomasset, “IEC mediumvoltage
circuit-breaker interrupting ratings - unstated short circuit
considerations”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol.
36, No. 3, May/June 2000, pp. 884-892.
141 H. M. Pflanz: T. F. Clark, O.J. Albani, ”The Development of the
Current Limiting Protector (CLP)”, IEEE Trunsaclion on Power
Apparatus andSystems, Vol. 100, No. 7, July 1981.
151 E. F. King, A Y.Chikhani, R. Hackam, M. M. A Salama, “A
MicroprocessorControlled Variable Impedance Adaptive Fault
Current Limiter”, IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery, Vol. 5 ,
No. 4, November 1990.
[61 A Y.Wu, Y. Yin, “Fault Current Limiter Applications in Medium
and High Voltage Power Distribution Systems”, IEEE Trunsacrions
on Industry Applicutions, Vol. 34, No. 1, January/February 1998.
171 R. M. Rifiat, “Considerations for Applying IEC Standards in Short
Circuit Calculations and Breaker Selections in Cogeneration
Plants”, Proc. of the 1998 IEEE Industry Applications Conkrewe,
pp.205-222.
PI T. Chao, ‘‘Electronically Controlled Current Limiting Fuses”, Proc.
of the 1995 IEEE-IAS Pulp and Paper Industry Tech. Cod., Vol. 3,
pp. 2299-2304.
191 G&W, “CLiP - Current Limiting Protector for system rated 2.8kV
through 38kV, currents up to 3000A”, catalogue SG4-31G, March,
1993.
XI. BIOGRAPHIES
Alfred0 Cali was born in Catania (Italy) in 1931. He received a degree
in Electrical Engineering h m the University of Pisa in 1963. In 1973 he
joined the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the
university of Catania, where he is an assistant professor. He is in charge of
CNR (Centro Nazionale delle Ricerche) Power System Research Group of
Catania and he is a member of CEI Standard coordinating committee on
Electrical Sa&y in LV Distribution (SC64D).
Stefanie Conti (IEEE Student Member) was bom in Catania (Italy) in
1971. In 1997 she received a degree in Electrical EngiOeering with
honours h m the University of Catania, where she is currently working
towards PhD in Electrical Engineering. Her present research interests
include optimisation techniques and power system operation.
Giuseppe Tina (IEEE Member) was bom in Siracusa (Italy), on
January 6, 1964. He received the degree in Electrical Engineering h m
the University of Catania in 1988 and the W.D degree in 1992. He
worked as an electrical engineer in facilities of Agip re6nery in Gela
(Italy) and in ST Microelectronics in Catania h m 1992 to 1996.
Currently, he is power plant researcher at the Electrical, Electronic and
SistemiStic Deparbnent of the University of Catania. His main research
interests are Wind-Electric Conversion Systems, hybrid plants
optimisation and Fault Current Limiters.