Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Power Losses and Thermal Analysis of Power

Rectifiers
Adrian T. Plesca*
Department of Power Engineering, Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania;
matrix_total2000@yahoo.com

Abstract
In the case of using fast fuses to protect power semiconductors like power rectifiers, a special attention has to be paid to the
relation between the average and RMS values of the currents that flow through a given power converter. This paper presents the
expressions to calculate the average and RMS current value in the case of a resistive-load series circuit. Also it is calculated the
shape coefficient. It results that from fuses loading in the case of small firing angles, the power semiconductors can not be loaded
at their average current. In this situation, the load has to be limited at the RMS fuse current value.

Keywords: Power Loss, Temperature, Fuses, Power Semiconductors.

1.  Introduction perform functions of overcurrent and ground fault protec-

Due to significant developments in power electronics since
the 1980’s, [1–4], a row of new components are being used
for both utility and traction power substations, leading to
new concepts in their design and construction. It was rea-
lised from the outset that power electronic devices had very
limited overload capacities and, as they were expensive, the
fuse manufacturers attempted to produce fuses which were
more sensitive to overloads and which would operate more
quickly than their conventional designs. As a result, the
first application was filed in 1955 for patents on fuses spe-
cifically designed to protect semiconductor rectifiers.
Other innovations, as incorporation of microprocessor-
based multi-function protective relays and programmable
logic controllers, are changing traditional power equipment
layout and inter-connections. A significant reduction in the
amount of protective and control devices (and associated
wiring) has been achieved by introduction of multi-func-
tion relays (MFR) or multi-purpose relay (MPR), capable of
replacing a whole group of relays used for equipment pro-
tection and automated control: for example, one MFR may
tion, over- and undervoltage protection, fault sensing and
reclosing, [5]. More, it may be used for data logging and
data recording purposes. The invention of the thyristor and
the subsequent rapid expansion of the power electronics
industry which it initiated, [6, 7] made the need for semi-
conductor fuses even more apparent. Thyristor rectifiers
are offering very important benefit of regulated DC voltage:
at the substation’s bus output, the voltage may be constant
from 0 to a 100% or even 150% load, which means improved
train performance in terms of speed and reliability, [8, 9].
Today, semiconductor devices are being manufactured
with maximum continuous current ratings up to 4kA and
peak inverse voltages of 6kV, [10, 11]. Unfortunately, these
devices still have poor overload capacities and continue to
need sensitive and fast-acting protection, [12–16]. Telecom
systems have been powered by means of DC UPS systems for
years. The emergence of digital exchange systems changed the
nature of the load from a resistive one to a constant-power
type. The basic active building block of a DC UPS system is
a rectifier operating normally in parallel with several similar
units as well as with a storage battery. The rectifier must be

*Corresponding author:
Adrian T. Plesca (matrix_total2000@yahoo.com)
 Adrian T. Plesca 4977

protected from overloading. All the overloading protection where:

schemes are based on output current limiting, [17, 18].
To protect the power rectifiers against overcurrents a well
known solution is to use the fast fuses. These devices incor-
porate one or more current-carrying elements, depending on
their current ratings, and melting of these, followed by arc-
ing, occurs when excessive overcurrents flow through them.
They can be designed to safely interrupt the very highest fault
currents that may be encountered in service, and, because of
the rapidity of their operation in these circumstances, they
limit the energy dissipated during fault periods. This enables
the fuses to be of relatively small overall dimensions and
may also lead to economies in the cost and size of the pro-
tected equipment. Approaches to analyze the fuse thermal
processes have already been made in earlier work. In [19, 20]
the fuse link is represented by an equivalent R-C network.
Numerical methods for studying the prearcing times of high
breaking capacity fuses and including solid - liquid - vapour
phase changes of the fuse element, are reported in [21–23].
Thermal behaviour of fast fuses used to protect power semi-
conductors such as power diodes and thyristors, using 3-D
Finite Element Method (FEM), is presented in [24]. Other
FEM work has been reported in [25–30].
2.  The RMS and Average Current
Expressions
In is very important to make a good correlation between
the average and the RMS current values. This is necessary
because the rated thermal phenomena from power semi-
conductors are influenced by the average current value and
in the case of fuses the thermal aspects are given by the
RMS current value. Taking into account the initial voltage
drop on the semiconductor and assuming a linear varia-
ITAV means the current average value;
IRMS – the root mean square value of the current.
If it makes the notation of the ratio IRMS/ITAV with kf,
which means the shape coefficient, then the average power
value depending on the RMS current value has the follow-
ing expression:
I
2
P = VT 0 RMS + rT I RMS (3)
k f 
Let consider a thyristor type T200N 1000 with the follow-
ing datasheet values:
VRRM = 1000V, the repetitive reverse voltage peak;
IRMS = 400A, the RMS current during conduction;
ITAV = 200A, the average current during conduction;
VT0 = 1.25V, the voltage drop during conduction;
rT = 0.8mΩ, the dynamic resistance during conduc-
tion.
In this case, taking into account the relation (2), the
rated power because of the voltage drop is 250W and the
one because of the dynamic resistance is about 128W. At
2000A value of the average current, the power because of
rT, is 3200W and the one because of VT0 is about 2500W.
So, the rated thermal phenomena depend on mainly by the
average current and at the shortcircuit conditions the ther-
mal aspects are influenced by the RMS current value.
Taking into account the general expressions for the
average and RMS currents, these values can be calculated
in the case of loads type RL and in particular, for the resis-
tive load, because in general, these kind of loads we can
find at different power rectifiers. So, in the case of electric
circuit type RL, the current has the expression,
−
wt − a

tion of the voltage drop, the power loss at direct conduction i (t ) = I m sin (wt − j ) − I m sin (a − j ) e wL / R
 (4)
through the semiconductor, has the relation below: where:
p (t ) = VT 0i (t ) + rT i 2 (t ) (1) Im means the maximum current value;
where: φ – the phase difference between the current and voltage;
p(t) means the power loss; α – the firing angle in the case of controlled semicon-
ductors;
VT0 – the initial voltage drop;
ωL/R – the electric time constant.
rT – the dynamic resistance;
Hence, the RMS current is:
i(t) – the current through semiconductor.
It results the average power loss expression: 1 ab 2
I RMS = ∫ i (t ) d ( wt ) =
2p a
1T 1T rT T 2 (5)
P= ∫ p (t ) dt = ∫ VT 0i (t ) dt + ∫ i (t ) dt 1 ab  wt − a

2
T0 T0 T0 −
(2) Im ∫ sin (wt − j ) − sin (a − j ) e wL / R  d ( wt )

2
= VT 0 ITAV + rT I RMS  2p a   

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (7) | July 2013 Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645
4978 Power Losses and Thermal Analysis of Power Rectifiers

where ab means the locking angle. 1 1

Solving the above integral expression, the RMS current k fR = p ( a b − a ) − (sin 2a b − sin 2a )
cos a − cos a b  2 
value can be calculated with the next relation:  (11)
1
 a − a 1
  b − sin (a b − a ) cos (a b + a − 2j ) +
 2

Considering the case when αb = π, it has been plotted the
  2

2  graphics kfRL = kfRL(φ, α) for different values of phase differ-
 wL  wL
ab − a
 − wL / R  
  2 sin (a − j )
1   sin (a b − j ) + R cos (a b − j ) e −  
 ence, φ = 0, π/18(100 el.), π/6(300 el.), π/4(450 el.), π/3(600 el.),
I RMS = Im  + R   − 
 2p
  1 + 
wL  2  wL   7π/18(700 el.), 17π/36(850 el.), which means the characteris-
 R    − sin (a − j ) − R cos (a − j )  
   tics 1...7, from Figure 1.
  wL  −2 wabL−/ aR 

 − 
  2R sin (a − j )  e It can be noticed an increasing variation of the shape
2
− 1 
  
 (6) coefficient in the case of resistive load, the characteristic #1,
then, when the load changes into inductive, the maximum
The average current given by relation (4), has the expres- values of the shape coefficient decrease. Their variation
sion below, corresponds with the firing angle decreasing, the character-
sin wt − j ) −  istics #2...7. The maximum values of the shape coefficient
1 ab I m ab  ( are reported in the next table.
ITAV = ∫ i (t ) d ( wt ) = ∫ wt − a 
2p a 2p a sin (a − j ) e − wL / R  It can be noticed that at resistive loads and to high firing
  (7)
cos a − cos a b angles, the RMS current is about 7 times the average cur-
d ( wt ) = I m rent which flows through power semiconductor. So, in the
2p cos j 
case of high firing angles from fuse loading point of view
wL the power semiconductors should not be loaded at its rated
In the case of resistive load, when, → 0 ; tgj → 0 the
R average current. The load has to be limited at the rated RMS
above expressions become for the RMS current,
fuse current. When the load becomes an inductive one, the
Im 1 1 shape coefficient has smaller and smaller values and at a
I RMS =
2 p
( a b − a ) − (sin 2a b − sin 2a )
2p (8) firing angle equal with zero, the RMS current is about 0.2

from the average current. The explication is that at induc-
and for the average current value, tive loads the current is approximately a constant value.
cos a − cos a b (9)
ITAV = I m
2p 
3.  Power Losses of Power
Hence, the expressions for the shape coefficient, kf, like the
Semiconductor and Fuse
ratio between the RMS current and the average current, can
be computed. In the case of load type RL, the shape coeffi- In the case of a power rectifier type RUT from the National
cient has the expression (10), and for the resistive load, the Company of Electricity, it has been calculated the power
expression becomes (11). loss in semiconductors and fuses, too. The main compo-
It can be observed that the shape coefficient in the nents have the following rated parameters:
general case, the resistive-inductive circuit, kfRL, depends
I.  The fast fuse type URD 250 with:
on the firing angle, α, the locking angle αb, and the load
type because of the ratio ωL/R. Also, in the case of resistive In = 250A, the rated current;
load, the shape coefficient, kfR, depends on the on the firing Pn = 48W, the rated power loss.
angle, α, and the locking angle αb. II.  The thyristor type SKT 250 with:
  
1
2 ITAV = 250A, the average current;
a −a 1
  b − sin ( a b − a ) cos ( a b + a − 2j ) + 
  2 2  VT0 = 1V, the steady-state voltage drop;
   sin ( a b − j )  ab −a  
  wL    e wL / R −   
−  rT = 0.7mΩ, the steady-state dynamic resistance;
  2 sin (a − j )  wL 
cos j  R  + cos ( a b − j )  Rthjc = 0.123 0C/W, junction-case thermal resistance;
k fRL =  2p  + 2  R   − 
cos a − cos a b  
1 +  wL    
   R   − sin (a − j ) − w L  Rthca = 0.55 0C/W, case-environment thermal resis-
  cos (a − j ) 
 R  
   tance.
  wL 2  −2 wabL−/aR  
  2R − sin ( a − j )  e − 1 
   Further on, it presents the graphics with semiconduc-
 (10) tor power loss, Figure 2, and fuses power loss, Figure 3.

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (7) | July 2013 Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645
 Adrian T. Plesca 4979

7 140

6 120

1 6
5 100

2 5
4 80

P[W]
k fRL

3 4
60
3
4
7 6 5
40
2

20
1
1 2 3
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
α [ ° el.]
α [° el.]

Figure 2.  The variation of semiconductor power loss against

Figure 1.  The variation of shape coefficient against firing
firing angle and different values of current-voltage phase
angle and different values of current-voltage phase shift.
shift.

Table 1.  Shape coefficient variation with firing angle contacts. These contacts provide the local thermal loads,
Maximum values of Firing angle α [ el.] o Figure 4.
the shape coefficient The power loss for every this type of contact is P0x, and
6.9247 170 the axial thermal flux which flows in both directions in
3.1068 160 the small fuse links, is considered as Px = P0x/2. With this
hypothesis, the maximum temperature for the fuse can be
1.7111 130
computed with the relation:
1.2838 90
0.9406 50 qmax
P0 x  
Kp Kp Kp Kp
0.6994 10 − x0 −2 x0 −3 x0 −4 x0
=  1 + 2e
lS
+ 2e lS
+ 2e lS
+ 2e lS

0.2176 0 2 KplS  
I2r
+ + qa
The characteristics have been plotted with the phase dif- KpS
ference between current and voltage like parameter. So, for  (12)
the thyristor, the characteristics #1...6, Figure 2, have the
where:
parameter values cosφ = 1, 0.866, 0.707, 0.5, 0.342, 0.087,
and in the fuse case, the characteristics #1...7, Figure 3, K means the average global thermal transmissivity;
have been plotted for cosφ = 1, 0.984, 0.866, 0.707, 0.5, λ – thermal conductivity;
0.342, 0.087. It can notice in both cases, an increasing of ρ – electric resistivity of the fuse link;
power loss when the load becomes an inductive one. Also, p – the perimeter of the fuse link cross section;
the power loss decreases when the firing angle is getting
S – cross section of the fuse link;
high values.
I – the current through the fuse link;
In the case of fast fuses, the cross section on the
notches has a very small value which means high temper- θa – ambient temperature.
ature values in comparison with the rest of the fuse link Therefore, the temperatures of the semiconductor
area. Actually, the notches are local heat sources and are junction, case semiconductor and fuse link, have been com-
distributed along the length of the fuse link. These ther- puted. The parameter used in the graphics has been the same
mal loads lead to specific power losses on the fuse link. current-voltage phase shift. In the case of junction temper-
Hence, the entire fuse link can be divided into a system ature, Figure 5, and the case temperature of the thyristor,
made from series of small fuse links mounted as frontal Figure 6, the characteristics 1…6, are in correspondence

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (7) | July 2013 Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645
4980 Power Losses and Thermal Analysis of Power Rectifiers

80 700

70 600
7
7
60
500
6
6
50
400
5 5

Tf [ °C]
P[W]

40
4 300
1
30

1 200
20 2 3 4
2 3
100
10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
α [° el.] α [° el.]

Figure 3.  The variation of fuse power loss against firing Figure 6.  The variation of the case semiconductor
angle and different values of current-voltage phase shift. temperature against firing angle and different values of
current-voltage phase shift.

110

100
6
Figure 4.  Explanatory about maximum temperature 90
calculation for a fuse link.
80
5
Tc [°C]

120 70

4
110 60
6
100 50

90
40
5 1 2 3
80
30
Tj[°C]

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

70 α [° el.]
4
60
Figure 7.  The variation of the maximum temperature of the
50 fuse link against firing angle and different values of current-
voltage phase shift.
40
1 2 3

30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
α [° el.] It can be noticed both in the case of junction and case
semiconductor temperatures and fuse temperatures, a
Figure 5.  The variation of semiconductor junction similarity between the shape of the temperatures’ curves
temperature against firing angle and different values of and the shape of the power losses’ curves. This is because
current-voltage phase shift.
of direct proportionality between relations of the power
losses and the temperatures. It can be observed also that
with cosφ = 1, 0.866, 0.707, 0.5, 0.342, 0.087, and the char- the maximum junction temperature is under 1200C. This
acteristics 1…7, of the maximum fuse link temperature, is in concordance of the data sheet recommendations of
Fig.7, are in correspondence with cosφ = 1, 0.984, 0.866, the Semikron Company where the junction temperature
0.707, 0.5, 0.342, 0.087. should not exceed 130°C.

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (7) | July 2013 Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645
 Adrian T. Plesca 4981

Table 2.  Comparison between computed values and experimental data for temperature of the case semiconductor
cosφ Case Firing angle α [0 el.]
temperature [°C]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1 Computed values 45.97 45.78 45.03 43.59 41.59 39.38 37.38 35.94 35.19
Experimental data 47.3 46 45 44.5 43.2 41.2 39 37.7 36
0.984 Computed values 46.05 45.82 44.95 43.37 41.28 39.06 37.13 35.81 35.15
Experimental data 47.9 46.5 45 44.2 43.8 42 40.1 38.2 36.4
0.866 Computed values 46.95 46.6 45.43 43.49 41.11 38.78 36.91 35.73 35.15
Experimental data 48.2 47 46.2 45 43.2 39.6 38.3 37 36.2
0.707 Computed values 48.83 48.34 46.81 44.42 41.65 39.05 37.07 35.82 35.19
Experimental data 51 49.7 48.2 46 43 41.2 38.8 37 36.4
0.5 Computed values 53.01 52.27 50.09 46.87 43.3 40.09 37.66 36.1 35.26
Experimental data 55 53.2 51 48.3 44 41.3 39.1 38 36.4
0.342 Computed values 58.97 57.93 54.93 50.63 45.98 41.83 38.67 36.57 35.38
Experimental data 61 59.8 57 52.1 47.3 43 40.1 38 37
0.087 Computed values 101.89 99.16 91.59 80.82 68.9 57.6 48.08 40.95 36.51
Experimental data 103.8 101 93.2 81.3 71 58.5 50 43.1 38

In order to validate the theoretical results, a series of
experimental measurements have been done. The compari-
son between computed and experimental date in the case of
temperature of the case thyristor, is shown in the below table.
It can be observed a good correlation between com-
puted and experimental data. The differences are because
of measurement errors and average values for electric resis-
tivity and global thermal transmissivity.
4.  Conclusions
The study that has been done about the average and RMS
current values in the case of power rectifiers outlines the
following conclusions:
• the shape coefficient that depends on the firing angle
has an increasing variation in the case of resistive load,
and when the load becomes an inductive one the maxi-
mum values of the shape coefficient decrease;
• the power loss both for semiconductors and fuses has
an increasing variation depending on the firing angle
when the load has more and more an inductive aspect;
• from fuses’ loading point of view, at small firing angles,
the power semiconductors should not be loaded at their
rated average current;
• there is a similarity between the shape of the tempera-
tures’ curves and the shape of the power losses’ curves
because of direct proportionality between relations of
the power losses and the temperatures;
• there is a good correlation between computed results
and experimental data.
5.  Acknowledgements
This work was supported by CNCSIS – UEFISCDI, project
number 610 PNII – CAPACITATI, 2013.
6.  References
  1. Bose B K (1992). Recent advances in power electronics, IEEE
transactions on power electronics, vol 7, No. 1, 2–6.
  2. Bose B K (1992). Evaluation of modern power semiconductor
devices and future trends of converters. IEEE Transactions
on Industry Applications, vol 28(2), 403–413.
  3. Mohan N, Undeland T M et al. (1995). Power electronics.
Converters, applications, and design, 2nd Edn., Chapter 2,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 35–40.
  4. Rashid M H (1993). Power electronics. circuits, devices and
applications, 2nd Edn., Chapter 3, New York: Prentice Hall
International Editions.

www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (7) | July 2013 Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645
4982 Power Losses and Thermal Analysis of Power Rectifiers
  5. Liu S, Kang Q et al. (2011). Design of self-powered digi-
tal over-current protector, International Conference on
Electrical and Control Engineering, 1047–1050.
  6. Castino G (1991). Protecting IGBT’s against shortcircuit,
Journal of Electronic Power Engineering, vol 1(2), 125–132.
  7. Eriksson LO, Piccone D E et al. (1994). Power semiconduc-
tor devices-examination of subcycle surge current ratings
as needed for fuse selection, IEEE Transactions on Electron
Devices, vol 2, 1329–1335.
  8. Sagareli S, and Gelman V (2004). Implementation of new
technologies in traction power systems, Proceedings of the
ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, 141–146.
  9. Skok S, Tesnjak S et al. (2004). Transient analysis of auxiliary
DC installations in power plants and substations, IEEE/PES
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition:
Latin America, 277–280.
10. Al-Hajri M T (2008). Power losses due to pipeline cathodic
protection (CP) 6-pulse rectifier, Conference Record of the
IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation,
514–517.
11. Robless D B, and King R J (1992). A 1 kW unity-power-factor
rectifier with isolation and fault protection, Seventh Annual
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 541–
548.
12. Salomonsson D, Soder L et al. (2009). Protection of low-volt-
age DC microgrids, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol 24(3), 1045–1053.
13. Eui-Cheol N, In-Dong, K et al. (2001). An improved output
short-circuit protection for multilevel PWM rectifier, The
27th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, vol 2, 909–914.
14. Galloway J H, and Buddingh P (2010). Protection of large
power conversion equipment, 57th Annual Petroleum and
Chemical Industry Conference, Industry Applications
Society, 1–7.
15. Livint G, Chiriac G et al. (2005). Aspects regarding the hybrid
electric vehicles architecture and the management strategy
for the energy flow, The 4th Management of Technological
Changes Conference (Chania), 275–280.
16. Albu M, Lucache D et al. (2005). Flexible power MOSFET
topology for the automotive DC-DC converters study,
Buletinul Institutului Politehnic Iaşi, vol LI(LV), 217–224.
17. Suntio T, Glad A et al. (1996). Constant-current vs. constant-
power protected rectifier as a DC UPS system’s building
block, 18th International Telecommunications Energy
Conference, 227–233.
18. Huber L, and Jovanovic M M (2012). Performance evaluation
of synchronous rectification in front-end full-bridge recti-
fiers, Twenty-Seventh Annual Applied Power Electronics
Conference and Exposition, IEEE, 310–316.
www.indjst.org | Vol 6 (7) | July 2013 Indian Journal of Science and Technology | Print ISSN: 0974-6846 | Online ISSN: 0974-5645
19. Gelet J, Tournier D et al. (1999). Evaluation of thermal and
electrical behaviour of fuses in case of paralleling and/or high
frequencies, Proceedings of the 6th International Conferences
on Electric Fuses and their Applications (Torino), 49–53.
20. Hoffmann G, and Kaltenborn U (2003). Thermal modelling
of high voltage H.R.C. fuses and simulation of tripping char-
acteristic, Proceedings of the 7th International Conferences
on Electric Fuses and their Applications (Gdansk), 174–
180.
21. Rochette D, Touzani R et al. (2007). Numerical study of the
short pre-arcing time in high breaking capacity fuses via an
enthalpy formulation, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics,
vol 40, 4544–4451.
22. Memiaghe S, Bussière W et al. (2007). Numerical method for
pre-arcing times : application in HBC fuses with heavy fault-
currents, Proceedings of the 8th International Conferences on
Electric Fuses and their Applications (Clermont-Ferrand),
127–132.
23. Rochette D, Bussiere W et al. (2007). Modelling of the
pre-arcing period in HBC fuses including solid - liquid -
vapour phase changes of the fuse element, Proceedings of
the 8th International Conferences on Electric Fuses and their
Applications (Clermont-Ferrand), 87–93.
24. Kawase Y, Miyatake T et al. (2000). Heat analysis of a fuse
for semiconductor devices protection using 3-D finite ele-
ment method, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol 36(4),
1377–1380.
25. Cañas C, Fernández L et al. (1999). Minimum breaking cur-
rent obtaining in fuses, Proceedings of the 6th International
Conferences on Electric Fuses and their Applications
(Torino), 69–74.
26. Jakubiuk K, and Aftyka W (2003). Heating of fuse-ele-
ments in transient and steady-state, Proceedings of the
7th International Conferences on Electric Fuses and their
Applications (Gdansk), 181–187.
27. Farahani H F, Asadi M et al. (2010). Analysis of thermal
behavior of power system fuse using finite element method,
4th International Power Engineering and Optimization
Conference, 189–195.
28. Hamler A, Gril S et al. (2011). Thermal analysis and tem-
perature calculation for the NV melting fuse, Proceeding of
the 9th International Conference on Electric Fuses and their
Applications (Maribor), 219–224.
29. Chiriac G (2012). Thermal analysis of fuses with variable
cross-section fuselinks, Electric Power Systems Research, vol
92, 73–80.
30. Niţucă C (2013). Thermal analysis of electrical contacts
from pantograph–catenary system for power supply of
electric vehicles, Electric Power Systems Research, vol 96,
211–217.