See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323518234

Particle Swarm Optimization of Power Cable Performance in Complex

Surroundings

Article  in  IET Generation Transmission & Distribution · March 2018

DOI: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.1814

CITATIONS READS

5 93

1 author:

Mamdooh Al-Saud
King Saud University
28 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mamdooh Al-Saud on 15 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

PSO of power cable performance in complex ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 24th November 2017
Revised 13th January 2018
surroundings Accepted on 21st February 2018
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.1814
www.ietdl.org

Mamdooh S. Al-Saud1,2
1College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2SaudiElectricity Company Chair in Power System Reliability and Security, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
E-mail: mamdooh@ksu.edu.sa

Abstract: Underground cable performance indices such as maximum cable temperature and ampacity are non-continuous
functions of the configuration parameters such as depth and width of various trench layers. In this respect, existing traditional
gradient-type methods cannot be used to optimise such performance indices. This study presents an efficient methodology for
optimising power cable thermal performance with respect to configuration parameters involving cable spacing, depth of burial
and size of backfill. The new methodology integrates the powerful features of the finite elements (FEs) technique coupled with
the flexibility and effectiveness of the particle swarm optimisation (PSO) algorithm in order to handle various geometrical
parameters in the complex surrounding operating environment. The introduced methodology is tested using a commercial FE
simulation package used in conjunction with developed PSO code. The integrated methodology can be employed to minimise
the maximum cable temperature, minimise installation cost or maximise cable ampacity. Practical applications are presented for
15 kV cables, which demonstrate the usefulness and versatility of the presented methodology. Notable improvements have
been achieved by optimising the cable trench configuration parameters. For example, the cable ampacity was maximised,
optimising the cable spacing, barrier depth and backfill thermal conductivity, which resulted in an appreciable increase of 4.5%.

 Nomenclature Considerable research efforts have been expended during the

Cins backfill installation cost (cost unit)
D thickness of the backfill layer (m)
f(U) function of controlled parameters
g(T,U)≤0 inequality constraints
h(T,U) = 0 equality constraints
k thermal conductivity (W/°C m)
kbf thermal conductivity of the backfill soil (W/°C m)
pi(t) PSO position of particle i at iteration t
Q heat generation per unit of surface area (W/m2)
S spacing distance between the centres of cables in the
trench (m)
T temperature at any point (°C)
Ti temperature at conductor of cable (i)
t time (s)
U controlled parameters (u1, u2, u3, …)
Wx FE mesh length in X dimension (m)
Wy FE mesh length in Y dimension (m)
Y cable buried depth (m)
1 Introduction
The capital investment in underground transmission systems is
often very high as compared with overhead transmission lines of
similar capacity. The greater cost of underground installations
reflects the high cost of equipment, labour and time necessary to
manufacture the cable, to excavate and backfill the trench and
install the cable. Owing to the extra expense, most underground
installations are constructed in congested urban areas, as leads
from generating plants and as leads into and from substations. The
large capital cost associated with cable installations also makes it
necessary that particular care is applied in optimising cable and
surrounding medium for better in-service maximum utilisation in
order to accommodate different load requirements for the projected
life of the installation. However, given the high cost of such
installations, it would be useful to make better use of them so that
the maximum possible current can circulate without exceeding the
temperature limit for insulation deterioration.
past two decades in developing techniques and criteria for thermal
analysis and ampacity evaluation of power cable systems including
direct-buried and pipe-type cables as well as cable in duct banks
for normal, transient and emergency conditions. In urban congested
areas, the vicinity of the cable trench may adjoin other carry utility
lines such as steam, water and sewer pipes. However, the IEC
standard-based approaches [1–4] are not capable to deal with such
irregular configuration due to the unrealistic assumptions and the
complexity of the problem. The numerical approach seems to be
more appropriate to be implemented in such circumstances [5–8].
Numerical methods were applied to overcome limitations inherent
in the analytical approaches. In this context, the finite elements
(FEs) method is predominant, where it has been considerably
implemented due to its superiority to handle complicated
configuration and irregular boundaries [9–15].
The question of how the power cables are optimised for best
performance has become of utmost importance, especially under
conditions which encourage cost saving and high service quality
[16–19]. Significant design and operating cost reductions could be
achieved via optimising cable performance under various loading,
soil parameters and ambient conditions.
Some publications used the traditional IEC-based method in an
attempt to optimise cable ampacity [20, 21] while few publications
introduced the gradient optimisation method based on sensitivity
derived coefficient to optimise non-geometrical parameters of the
thermal circuit described by a given continuous objective function
[22–25]. A stochastic optimisation algorithm based on radial basis
function interpolating scattered multi-quadric ampacity
approximations has been reported in [26]. Methods based on
probability distribution investigated the influence of statistical
variations of various soil, boundary and loading conditions on the
cable temperature have been described in [27, 28].The work on
refining cable ampacity computation is being continued via
experimental studies to fine-tune some of the computational
formulas and thermal parameters and overcome the approximation
inherent by the assumption of fixed values of temperature-
dependent parameters [29–33].
This paper presents an efficient optimisation routine
incorporated with advanced thermal analysis techniques which

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 1

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
allows selection of the best possible values for the thermal circuit
parameters, taking into account the cost of criteria of different
alternatives as well as other thermal constraints. To preserve the
accuracy of the design without scarifying the model representation,
the developed FEs model was integrated into the optimisation
routine to find exact thermal field solutions. On the other hand, the
powerful features of particle swarm optimisation (PSO)-based
optimisation technique [34–36] provide flexibility to handle non-
continuous functions and/or discrete variables, and therefore,
allowing for geometrical parameters to be handled in the
optimisation. In addition, the PSO technique ensures effective
search criteria, which consequently results in fast convergence rate
and least computational cost [37, 38].
Owing to the added computation efforts, the task of optimising
cable performance under varying soil and environmental conditions
would be extremely difficult and challenging. One effective way of
offsetting the effect of over-conservativeness in the cable designs,
and therefore achieving better cable utilisation, is to improve the
accuracy of the ampacity calculations via better modelling and
solution methodologies which result in a remarkable reduction of
cable cost of installation. In this regard, the optimisation model
introduced in this paper was based on a comprehensive FE
technique which is able to accommodate configuration irregularity
encounter in real life application, avoiding simplification of the
thermal heat model. On the other hand, the PSO was carefully
tuned and efficiently engaged with the thermal model to reduce the
number of the required iterations during its journey to find the
optimal solution.
Purpose of the work: The work of this paper included the
development of an efficient methodology for optimising power
cable thermal performance with respect to configuration
parameters involving cable spacing, depth of burial and size of
backfill. The new methodology integrates the powerful features of
the FEs technique coupled with the flexibility and effectiveness of
the PSO algorithm in order to handle various geometrical
parameters in the complex surrounding operating environment. The
proposed technique determines the optimal geometrical parameters
of a cable system in relation to either the maximum ampacity
achieved with acceptable initial investment cost, or the minimal
initial investment cost by which the required ampacity is reached.
2 Problem formulation
2.1 Differential equations governing the physical problem
The thermal field in the cable medium is governed by the
differential equation of the heat conduction [23]
∂T
∇ ⋅ k∇T = − Q + c
∂t
where T denotes the temperature at any point, k and c represent,
respectively, the thermal conductivity and capacity, Q is the heat
generation per unit of area and t denotes the time.
In steady-state thermal analysis of two-dimensional media, (4.1)
reduces to
∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T
k + k +Q=0
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
On the basis of the formulation of the FE method, the temperature
at any point in the region subjected to specified boundary
conditions can be found by minimising the function
∫∫ ∫ ∫ QTdx dy
2 2
1 ∂T ∂T
I= kx + ky dx dy −
2 ∂x ∂y
2.2 Cable optimisation model
The power cable thermal circuit includes various regions of
different thermal specifications and heat generations with various
dimensional scenarios. The cable temperature depends on the
thermal properties of the surrounding soil, the ambient
2 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
temperature, heat convection losses, circuit configuration
(dimensions) etc.
T = f (U) = f (u1, u2, …, um) (4)
where m is the total number of the controlled parameters. The
mentioned thermal parameters can be considered in the cable
system design by appropriate designs of the objective function in
order to achieve the desired optimal performance. The temperature
which is already a function of these parameters can be
implemented in the objective function and/or constraints to give a
more flexible design. The optimisation problem can be written in
the following form:
minimise f (T, U)
U
subject to h(T, U) = 0 (5)
g(T, U) ≤ 0
where f: ℜm→ℜ, h: ℜm→ℜv, g: ℜm→ℜl, m is the number of
variables (parameters), v is number of equality constraints and l is
number of inequality constraints.
2.3 Particle swarm optimisation
The PSO technique has three main components, particles, social
and cognitive components of the particles, and the velocity of the
particles [34]. The learning of the particles emanates from the
particle's own experience called cognitive learning and the
combined learning of the entire swarm called social learning.
Cognitive learning is represented by personal best (pBest) and
social learning is represented by global best (gBest) value. The
pBest solution is the best solution the particle has ever achieved in
its history. The gBest value is the best position the swarm has ever
achieved. Together cognitive and social learning are used to
calculate the velocity of particles to the next position. PSO
algorithm starts with the initialisation of a number of parameters.
One of the important initialisations is selecting the initial swarm.
The number of particles in the swarm depends on the complexity of
the problem. The particles start moving from one position to
another in search of a better solution based on the social and
cognitive components. The particles are an iterative set of the
optimised parameters
pi = u1, u2, …, um (6)
The cognitive component pBest is calculated as
(1)
pBesti t if f pi t + 1 ≥ f pBesti t
pBesti t + 1 = (7)
pi t + 1 if f pi t + 1 < f pBesti t
where pi(t + 1) is the particle's new position, pBesti(t) is the current
personal best, and pBesti(t + 1) is the new personal best position of
the particle. The value of gBest represents the best fit that any
particle of the swarm has ever achieved as shown in equation
below:
(2)
gBest t = argMinin= 1 f (pBesti t (8)
where n is the total number of particles. Both pBest and gBest are
utilised to define the velocity of the particle which guides the
particle toward a better solution. The velocity of a particle is thus
calculated as
(3)
V i t + 1 = ω V i t + q1 c1 pBesti t − pi t
(9)
+ q2 c2 gBesti t − pi t
where Vi(t) represents the current velocity of the particle i, Vi(t + 1)
represents the new velocity the particle in order to move from the
current position to the new position. The parameters q1 and q2 are
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
constants which weigh the social and cognitive components, c1 and
c2 are two random numbers ranging from 0 to 1 and ω is the inertia
of the particle. Velocity is used to provide the new position of the
particle as follows:
pi t + 1 = pi t + V i t + 1 (10)
2.4 Algorithm development
The model was based on the proposed combined PSO-FE
algorithm to precisely analyse the thermal performance of
underground cable systems and optimally design associated
thermal parameters govern the thermal behaviour of the system.
This includes solving the thermal field, optimising the cable
performance under various circumstances and preserving
generality and computation efficiency without sacrificing the
model accuracy. Using the proposed methodology, irregular
boundary conditions and complicated configurations can be
adopted easily. The numerical technique used incorporates a
general algorithm, which simulates the real cable installation
configuration. The programme structure is divided into two main
incorporated modules to construct a comprehensive thermal field
model for optimising underground power cable performance. The
objective function, intended to be optimised and/or constrains can
be constructed to include all thermal parameters of interest directly
or implicitly in terms of cable temperature. The optimisation, based
on the search strategy, will generate a set of the controlled
parameter values at each iteration in which the thermal field is
calculated by using FE. Consequently, the objective function
and/or constrains will be updated accordingly.
It is important to note that the key parameters of FE mesh
generation are performed only once in the combined PSO-FE
algorithm and subsequent optimisation procedure is conducted
utilising the prior-iteration mesh as parameter values are
sequentially modified toward the optimal settings. This provides a
significant advantage in the use of PSO since mesh generation
usually consumes considerable computational time.
It is to be noted that the work of this paper is confined to
steady-state calculations with standard modelling assumptions as in
most practical cable optimisation applications. Therefore, transient
and emergency loading, as well as detailed solar radiation and wind
speed effects, are considered outside the present domain of
investigation.
The following block diagram (Fig. 1) describes the main
structure of the developed PSO-FE algorithm:
2.5 Objective functions for cable performance optimisation
The design problem of selecting the optimal parameter values of
the thermal circuit is formulated using a PSO method. The cable
parameters are optimised to enhance cable performance by
maximising cable carrying capability or reducing the associated
installation cost. Three objective functions can be formulated as
follows.
2.5.1 Objective 1 (10a): Reduce cables operating temperature,
which would result in increasing the cable current carrying
capacity and enhancing the overall cable performance
minimise Max T i
st Smin ≤ S ≤ Smax
(10a)
Y min ≤ Y ≤ Y max
kbf_min ≤ kbf ≤ kbf_max
where Ti is the individual conductor's temperature inside each cable
(i); S is the spacing distance between the centres of adjoining
cables, varying within the range specified by the minimum (Smin)
and maximum (Smax) values of 0.1 and 0.5 m, respectively; and Y
is the cable buried depth, varying within the range specified by the
minimum (Ymin) and maximum (Ymax) values of 0.75 and 1.75 m,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
respectively; the thickness of upper backfill is changed within the
optimisation accordingly.
kbf is the thermal conductivity of the backfill soil, varying
within the range specified by the minimum (Kbf_min) and maximum
(Kbf_max) values of 0.67 and 2.5 W/°C m, respectively.
2.5.2 Objective 2 (10b): Reduce the cost of installation by which
the permissible cable temperature will not be violated
minimise Cins
e(kbf − kbf_min) − 1
Cins = μD (kbf_max − kbf_min)
e −1
s.t. Smin ≤ S ≤ Smax (10b)
Dmin ≤ D ≤ Dmax
kbf_min ≤ kbf ≤ kbf_max
Ti ≤ T max
where Cins is the backfill installation cost in Saudi Riyals (SR) per
metre length of the cable. D is the thickness of the backfill layer,
varying within the range specified by the minimum (Dmin) and
maximum (Dmax) values of 0.45 and 1.2 m, respectively. The cable
buried depth is changed within the optimisation accordingly. µ is a
user-defined cost scale factor (taken in the present application as
83.33 SR/m length (for a standard 1.1 m trench width). Tmax is the
maximum allowable value for the conductor's temperature. Ti, S,
kbf are as defined before.
Justification of cost components: In real practise, the size of the
cable trench is fixed (for a given voltage class) by the civil-works
regulations. Therefore, the excavation costs, which typically range
– in the local market – from 800 to 1000 SR/m3 (120–270 USD/
m3), are considered fixed in the present formulation. In addition,
the internal design parameters of the cable (conductor size,
insulation thickness etc.) are also fixed by the factory standards and
utility design specifications for a given voltage class of the cable.
Therefore, the cable purchase cost, which typically ranges – in the
local Saudi market – from 150 SR/m (40 USD/m) for the 15 kV
cables to 500 SR/m (135 USD/m) for the 132 kV cables, are also
considered fixed in the present formulation.
The cost of backfill, however, is variable and is determined by
the specific material used. It ranges from the theoretically zero cost
for native soil (use of already available soil as a backfill material)
to 91.67 SR/m3 (24.44 USD/m3) for the highest thermal
conductivity backfill (2.5 W/°C m) available in the local market.
Therefore, for a fixed standard trench width of 1.1 m (for 15 kV
cables), the cost scale factor in (10b) is calculated as 91.67/1.1 = 
83.33 SR/m length of the cable.
2.5.3 Objective 3 (10c): Maximise cable ampacity
maximise min Ii
s.t. Smin ≤ S ≤ Smax
(10c)
kbf_min ≤ kbf ≤ kbf_max
Ti ≤ T max
where Ii is the individual conductor's current of each cable (i). S,
kbf, Ti, Tmax are as defined before.
3 Practical applications
In this section, applications are presented for a 15 kV power cable
used by the Saudi Electricity Company (SEC) in most of its vast
distribution sector. The applications pertain to some sections of the
cable route which encounter complex surrounding media with the
presence of a drain pipe in close proximity of the cable thermal
circuit. The applications are intended to demonstrate the usefulness
and versatility of the presented methodology by which a notable
3
Fig. 1  Software-program general structure
margin for improvement is attained in comparison of the existing
(nominal) configuration design.
3.1 System description
A cross-section of 15 kV, 3 × 300 mm2 CU/XLPE/SWA/PVC
underground cable representing a three-phase system is shown in
Fig. 2a. Both configurations of two parallel circuits (two cables)
and three parallel circuits (three cables) directly laid out in the
trench are being used by SEC in practise. The layout of the thermal
4 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
circuit is shown in Fig. 2b, which depicts three parallel circuits
directly buried in the soil and spaced out within a backfill layer.
The nominal values of the cable parameters, as well as the soil
thermal specification, are described in Table 1. A drain pipe (hot
water) of a diameter of 0.5 m is positioned at the proximity of the
cable trench.
In the applications presented in this section, the cable
performance is optimised for the existing practical complex
scenario involving the influence of pipes carrying fluids (or steam)
within the vicinity of the cable. As outlined earlier, the integrated
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 2  15 kV cable system
(a) Cable system configuration, (b) Trench configuration
Table 1 Technical data for 15 kV cable system
rated voltage
number of cores
nominal cross-section area of the conductor
diameter over conductor
nominal thickness of insulation
diameter over insulation
diameter over insulation shield
diameter over copper tape screen
diameter over assembled cores
nominal thickness of PVC separation sheath
diameter over steel wire armour
ambient temperature (Tam)
heat convection loss (h)
actual conductor current (I)
mother soil thermal conductivity (kms)
upper backfill thermal conductivity
lower backfill thermal conductivity (kbf)
conductor thermal conductivity
jacket thermal conductivity
XLPE insulation thermal conductivity
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
PSO-FE scheme has been employed to ensure both precise thermal
modelling and efficient convergence to the optimal solution.
15 kV As indicated earlier, the size of the cable trench is fixed in
3 practise (for a given voltage class) by the civil-works regulations
and SEC specifications. Therefore, only the geometrical thermal
300 mm2
parameters representing cable spacing and buried depth as well as
20.4 mm the soil characteristic parameter representing the backfill thermal
4.5 mm conductivity were chosen to be the controlled parameters in the
31 mm present application. These parameters are constrained by practical
33.4 mm upper and lower limits. The cable temperature is essentially a
33.8 mm function of all thermal circuit parameters to be evaluated within the
73 mm
PSO module which repeatedly calls FE in optimisation iterations.
Inequality constrains are also coded in PSO to prevent violation of
2 mm
maximum allowable cable temperature.
83.8 mm
35°C 3.2 Simulation results for nominal design
4 W/(°C m2)
The thermal field solution of the cable system at nominal (non-
281 A optimised) parameters was carried out using FEs in order to
0.67 W/(°C m) determine the maximum temperature associated with the base cable
1 W/(°C m) loading. This design represents the existing non-optimised design
1.25W/(°C m) of the currently used specifications. The thermal field for the
described cable system was evaluated for a convection boundary
385 W/(°C m)
condition at the earth surface, with the previously mentioned
0.17 W/(°C m) nominal values. The outer surface of the drain was modelled as an
0.29 W/(°C m) isothermal boundary condition at a given set temperature (80 or
90°C).
5
Table 2 Cable performance at the nominal case
Case# System configuration Drain temperature, °C Conductor current, A Calculated conductor Calculated backfill cost,
temperature, °C SR/m3
A1 two cables, no drain − 403.4 74.0 21.20
A2 three cables, no drain − 83.5
A3 two cables, with drain 80°C 86.6
A4 90°C 90.0
A5 three cables, with drain 80°C 92.7
A6 90°C 96.2

Fig. 4  Temperature distribution at nominal parameters

(a) Two parallel circuit, (b) Three parallel circuit

drain temperature) for both two and three parallel circuits are
shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

3.3 Simulation model verification

Fig. 3  FEs mesh The FE simulation model was checked and verified by performing
(a) Two parallel circuit, (b) Three parallel circuit the following two tasks:

Table 2 summarises for both two and three parallel circuits, the
associated performance indices at the nominal case including
maximum cable attained temperature, backfill installation cost and
cable maximum current capability. The sequential ‘Case-#’ in the
first column is shown to provide convenient comparisons in
subsequent discussion.
The conductor current is fixed at the nominal value of 403.4 A.
Also, the backfill cost in SR per cubic metre (last column of the
table) was shown for later comparisons. It is clear that the presence
of the hot-water drain has a significant impact on the cable
temperature. For the two-cable system, the 90°C drain has caused
the temperature to increase by almost 16°C (from 74 to 90.0°C)
while the increase was 12.7°C for the three-cable system (from
83.5 to 96.2°C). The FEs grid and the temperature profile (at 90°C
(i) Conduct mesh sensitivity analysis by enlarging the FE mesh
dimensions Wx and Wy and ensuring that the obtained cable
temperature value is stable (does not change significantly). In
addition, the normal temperature gradient (°C/m) at the far X, Y
ends of the FE mesh is calculated to ensure that its value is
sufficiently small.
(ii) Compare the obtained cable temperature value from FE
simulation model with the results of the well known ANSYS
commercial package [39] for the same cable data.
Table 3 summarises the FE simulation model verification
results for the case of three cables with a drain at 90°C.
The PSO optimisation model, on the other hand, was easily
verified by perturbing the optimal parameter values from PSO and
re-calculating the objective function at the perturbed parameter

6 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Table 3 Cable performance at the nominal case
Mesh sensitivity parameters Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated
conductor conductor temperature normal temperature normal
temperature (°C) by temperature (°C) by gradient at X edge, gradient at Y edge,
FE model ANSYS package °C/m °C/m

mesh size: Wx = 8.0 m, Wy = 6.0 m (nominal 96.22 100.57 0.0145 0.000862

case)
mesh size: Wx = 10 m, Wy = 8 m 95.31 99.62 0.0064 0.000411
mesh size: Wx = 12 m, Wy = 10 m 94.81 99.10 0.0032 0.000220

Table 4 Optimisation performance for cable temperature objective given in (10a)

Case# System configuration Optimal controlled parameters Cable temperature, Backfill cost, Cable
°C SR/m3 current, A
B1 three cablesno drain S = 0.5 mY = 0.75 m 82.9 (optimal) 8.13 403.4
B2 three cableswith a drain S = 0.43 mY = 0.75 m 94.1 (optimal) 8.13 403.4
B3 three cables with a drain, kms = 1.25, kbf =  S = 0.5 mY = 0.75 m 96.1 (optimal) 0 403.4
0.67 W/(°C  m)
B4 three cableswith a drain, Tam = 55°C S = 0.5 mY = 0.75 m 105.9 (optimal) 8.13 403.4
B5 three cables with a drain, Y = 0.8 S = 0.45 m 95.0 (optimal) 8.13 403.4
B6 three cables with a drain, Y = 0.6 S = 0.43 m 90.8 (optimal) 8.13 403.4
B7 three cables with a drain S = 0.39 mY = 0.75 mkbf = 2.5W/(°C  m) 88.7 (optimal) 54.17 403.4
kms = 0.67 W/(°C m), kbf = 1.25 W/(°C m), D = 0.65, Tdrain = 80°C, and Tam = 35°C.

values, which – as is expected – was degraded from its optimal
value (cable maximum temperature increased and ampacity
decreased from the PSO optimal values).
3.4 Minimisation of maximum cable temperature
Using the developed integrated PSO-FE approach, the cable system
is optimised to attain a minimum value of the maximum cable
temperature using the previously defined objective function and
constraint formulas (10a). The optimised parameters associated
with each configuration are summarised in Table 4. These optimal
values satisfy the defined constraints while minimising the
maximum cable temperature. Again, the conductor current is fixed
at the nominal value of 403.4 A.
The results of Table 4 reveal the following points of interest:
(i) Comparing case #B1 with case #B2, it is noted that the presence
of hot-water pipe (in case #B2) as compared with case #B1 when
minimising maximum cable temperature for the three-cable system
with respect to cable spacing and cable depth, has caused the
maximum cable temperature to increase significantly from 82.9 (in
case #B1) to 94.1°C (in case #B2). The optimal value of cable
spacing has also changed slightly from 0.50 (in case #B1) and 0.43
(in case #B2).
(ii) Comparing case #B2 with case #B3, it is noted that when the
thermal conductivities of 0.67 W/(°C m) for the mother soil and
1.25 W/(°C m) for the lower backfill (in case #B2) are exchanged
to 1.25 W/(°C m) for the mother soil and 0.67 W/(°C m) for the
lower backfill (in case #B3) while minimising maximum cable
temperature for the three-cable system with respect to cable
spacing and cable depth, the maximum cable temperature has
increased from 94.1 (in case #B2) to 96.1°C (in case #B3). This
indicates that the conductivity of the medium immediately
surrounding the cable has more effect on the cable temperature for
the thermal circuit configuration considered.
(iii) Considering cases #B2 and #B4, it is of interest to note that
when the ambient temperature has increased from 35 (in case #B2)
to 55°C (in case #B4) while minimising maximum cable
temperature for the three-cable system with respect to cable
spacing and cable depth, the maximum cable temperature has
dropped from 105.9 (in case #B4) to 94.1°C (in case #B2). The
difference is about 11.8°C, which is less than the difference in the
ambient temperature. This is due to the presence of the hot-water
pipe in the vicinity of the cable coupled with different values of
optimal cable spacing, namely 0.5 (in case #B4) and 0.431 (in case
#B2).
(iv) Comparing case #B5 with case #B6, it is noted that the impact
of varying the cable depth when minimising maximum cable
temperature for the three-cable system with respect to cable
spacing is observed from the results of cases #B5 and #B6. The
maximum cable temperature has dropped from 95 (in case #B5) to
90.8°C (in case #B6) as the cable depth has decreased from 0.8 to
0.6 m. The optimal value of cable spacing has changed slightly
from 0.45 to 0.43 m.
(v) Considering the results of case #B7, it is noted that when the
cost is of no concern, minimising the maximum cable temperature
with respect to cable spacing, cable depth and the thermal
conductivity of lower backfill for the three-cable system would
cause the cable temperature to drop further to 88.7°C. In this case,
both cable depth and thermal conductivity of lower backfill have
been pushed to their minimum and maximum allowable values,
respectively. In this regard, since the thermal conductivity is driven
to its maximum value, it allows more heat dissipation away from
the lower backfill to the surrounding layers, and therefore reduces
the effect of the mutual heating between the three cables, while on
the other hand, increases the heating effect of the drain and,
consequently, drives the cables to be in more close proximity in
order to avoid the drain effect.
It is to be noted that when ANSYS was used to calculate the
optimal maximum temperature evaluated from the PSO-FE scheme
(case #B7), it yielded the value of 89.4°C. In this context, the
following observations are to be made.
(a) The difference between the maximum temperatures obtained for
the two configurations (nominal and optimal) using MATLAB and
ANSYS is in the range of 1–4%. This is considered a strong proof
of the validity of the results generated separately and independently
by the two codes.
(b) The very slight difference can be attributed to the different
mesh densities used in each code. The computed domain has been
meshed with about 48,500 elements in ANSYS while only 14,000
elements have been used to discretise the same domain in
MATLAB. The models have been built and meshed independently
for validation reasons. The lower number of elements used in
MATLAB programme is driven by the need of time efficiency
during PSO optimisation.
(c) It is to be mentioned that in the nominal case (case #A6), the
drain temperature was 90°C and the distance between the cables
was of 0.3 m. This created high-temperature gradients and

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 7

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Table 5 Optimisation performance for backfill cost objective given in (10b)
Case# System configuration Optimal controlled parameters Cable temperature
S, m D, m kbfW/(°C m)
C1 two cables with a drain 0.43 0.45 1.265
C2 three cables with a drain 0.45 0.45 0.799
C3 two cables with a drain 0.50 0.45 0.762
C4 three cables with a drain 0.41 0.45 1.352
kms = 0.67 W/(°C m), Tdrain = 90°C and Tam = 35°C.
Table 6 Optimisation performance for cable ampacity objective given in (10c)
Case# System configuration Optimal controlled Cable temperature
parameters
S, m kbf, W/(°C m)
D1 two cables with a drain 0.40 2.5
D2 three cables with a drain 0.38 2.5
D3 two cables with a drain 0.35 2.398
D4 three cables with a drain 0.35 2.5
kms = 0.67 W/(°C m), Tdrain = 90°C, D = 0.8 m and Tam = 35°C.
interaction of the field of temperature surrounding the two cables
located in the proximity of the drain. The temperature field at this
location had also interacted with the induction by the drain. In
these circumstances and considering the difference in element
numbers used in each code the 4% difference on the maximum
temperature captured is justified.
(d) In the optimal case, the drain temperature is only 80°C and the
distance between cables is close to 0.4 m which reduced the
temperature field interaction between the different cables and with
the drain. For this lower gradients, the two models have given
closer matching (1%) validating the modelling of the physics by
either software.
(e) Although commercial software such as ANSYS have different
optimisation techniques most of which are based on differential
evolution algorithms, the PSO algorithm is not yet implemented
directly in ANSYS though it has its advantages in solving complex
problems with increased reliability when used alone or coupled
with the differential evolution techniques available in commercial
software such as ANSYS. For this reason, different authors [40–
42] have demonstrated the importance of using the PSO technique
in combination with FEA through MATLAB or using the FEA
software design language such as APDL for ANSYS. In the
presented paper and for simplicity, ANSYS has been used
separately to validate the results of the FE model built in
MATLAB. Once this is done, the latter has been used for both
optimisation and FE computation for simplicity and efficiency as
the two methods are integrated into the same software preventing
data transfer and communication. In the future, both codes can be
involved in different combinations of optimisation techniques.
3.5 Minimisation of backfill cost
Here, the cost of the backfill (size and material) is minimised using
the developed integrated PSO-FE approach with the previously
defined objective function and constraint formulas (10b). The
optimised parameters associated with each configuration are
summarised in Table 5. These optimal values satisfy the defined
constraints while minimising the cost of backfill. Again, the
conductor current is fixed at the nominal value of 403.4 A.
From the results of Table 5, we note the following:
i. Comparing cases #C1 and #C3 for the two-cable system, it is
noted that relaxing the maximum temperature constraint from
90 (in case #C1) to 95°C (in case #C3) has caused the thermal
conductivity of the lower backfill to decrease to 0.762 W/(°C  cost was of no concern in this case) while – at the same time –
m) (in case #C3) from 1.265 W/(°C m) (in case #C1) with
corresponding reduction in cost from 5.83 to only 0.69 SR/m3.
ii. Comparing case #C2 with case #C4, it is noted that, the effect
of relaxing the maximum temperature constraint from 95 (in
8 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
Backfill cost, SR/m3 Cable current, A
90.0 (constraint maximum 90°C) 5.83 (optimal) 403.4
100.0 (constraint maximum 100°C) 0.98 (optimal) 403.4
95.0 (constraint maximum 95°C) 0.69 (optimal) 403.4
95.0 (constraint maximum 95°C) 7.01 (optimal) 403.4
Backfill cost, SR/m3 Cable current
90.0 (constraint maximum 90°C) 66.67 423.2 A (ampacity)
100.0 (constraint maximum 100°C) 66.67 443.1 A (ampacity)
95.0 (constraint maximum 95°C) 58.93 450.3 A (ampacity)
95.0 (constraint maximum 95°C) 66.67 417.7 A (ampacity)
case #C4) to 100°C (in case #C2) has caused the thermal
conductivity of the lower backfill to decrease from 1.352 (in
case #C4) to 0.799 W/(°C m) with the corresponding reduction
in cost from 7.01 to only 0.98 SR/m3. However, with the
reduction in thermal conductivity (in case #C2), the cable
spacing had to increase slightly to 0.45 m (in case #C2) from
0.41 (in case #C4) in order to allow for better heat
dissemination around the cable.
iii. Comparing case #C3 with case #C4, it is noted that for the
two-cable system, there was less need to increase the thermal
conductivity of the lower backfill to meet the maximum
temperature constraint than in the three-cable system. In this
regard, the thermal conductivity of the lower backfill for the
two-cable system was 0.762 W/(°C m) as compared with
1.352 W/(°C m) for the three-cable system.
3.6 Maximisation of cable ampacity
In this case, the cable ampacity is maximised using the developed
integrated PSO-FE approach with the previously defined objective
function and constraint formulas (10c). The optimised parameters
associated with each configuration are summarised in Table 6.
These optimal values satisfy the defined constraints while
maximising the cable ampacity.
It is to be noted that the cable ampacity is a very complex
function of the thermal circuit variables and is related to the
geometrical parameters via the differential equations governing the
thermal behaviour of the cable system. However, the use of the
combined PSO-FE scheme will have no difficulty in dealing with
such complexity when conducting function evaluations (whether an
objective function or a non-linear constraint) from within the PSO
calls to the FE simulation module.
From the results of Table 6, we observe the following:
i. Comparing case #D3 with case #C3 (of Table 5), it is noted
that the objective of minimising cost [in case #C3 (of Table 5)]
has focused mostly on reducing the backfill conductivity (the
most costly item) producing a value of 0.762 W/(°C m) for the
backfill conductivity which was barely sufficient to keep the
maximum cable temperature within the constraint value of
95°C, while at the same time forced the thickness of the
backfill to its minimum limit. On the other hand, the objective
of maximising ampacity (in case #D3) has allowed the backfill
conductivity to reach the value of 2.398 W/(°C m) (since the
meeting the maximum cable temperature constraint value of
95°C. The optimal cable spacing value has also changed from
0.50 in case #C3 (of Table 5) to 0.35 m in case #D3.
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018

Fig. 5  Convergence rate of the cable ampacity
(a) Backfill cost, (b) Cable ampacity
ii. A similar observation can be made when comparing cases #C1
(of Table 5) and #D3 for the two-cable system and, also, when
comparing cases #C4 (of Table 5) and #D2 as well as cases
#C2 (of Table 5) and #D4 for the three-cable system.
3.7 Performance of integrated PSO-FE algorithm
The convergence rate for optimising the backfill cost (cases #C1–
#C4 of Table 5) and cables’ ampacity (cases #D1–#D4 of Table 6)
are shown in Fig. 5, respectively. In all cases, the maximum
number of iterations was set to 80 with 25 particles in each. The
inertia coefficient was set to 1, whereas both the personal
acceleration coefficient and the social acceleration coefficient were
chosen to be 2.
In most of the cases, a dramatic reaching of the optimal goal
within the leading iterations can be noted. In such presented
complicated system configuration, where the large intensive grid is
implemented, the computation cost per iteration is high due to the
need of thermal field solution. However, as was stated before, most
of the convergence is attained within the first few leading
iterations. In addition, for such design-based problem, the
computational time can be tolerated in exchange for the PSO
remarkable ability to model and handle the configuration parameter
which is a key contribution of this paper. Nonetheless, the results
have shown the effectiveness of the proposed PSO-FE
methodology to optimise the cable performance for both medium
and geometrical parameters.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
4 Conclusion
The work of this paper has made it possible to optimise – with the
outstanding accuracy of the FE method – various cable
performance indices such as maximum temperature, ampacity and
trench cost, which are non-continuous functions of the geometrical
parameters of the thermal circuit. Such discontinuity of the
objective function prevents the use of traditional gradient-type
optimisation methods. The PSO technique, which does not require
gradient information, offers a suitable solution and – when
integrated with the powerful FE method – provides an effective and
accurate means to conduct power cable optimisation. It is
important to note that the key parameters of FE mesh generation
are performed only once in the combined PSO-FE algorithm and
subsequent optimisation procedure is conducted utilising the prior-
iteration mesh as parameter values are sequentially modified
toward the optimal settings. This provides a significant advantage
in the use of PSO since mesh generation usually consumes
considerable computational time.
The results of the practical case scenarios presented in this
paper revealed some interesting observations. For example, the
optimisation of the two-cable system with respect to cable spacing
(S) and backfill thermal conductivity (kbf) and with 95°C as
maximum conductor temperature constraint has yielded the optimal
(maximum) ampacity value of 450.3 A with, however, a backfill
cost of 58.93 units (Table 6). When the backfill cost was minimised
for the same system (Table 5), the optimal (minimum) cost attained
was only 0.69 SR/m3 with, however, a sizable reduction in cable
ampacity to just 403.4 A. This result demonstrates the typical
trade-off between ampacity and cost in cable design problems. A
similar observation can be made for the three-cable system.
The results of this paper for the practical 15 kV power cable in
the SEC system have shown significant improvements by
optimising the cable trench configuration parameters. For example,
in the case of three cables with drain at 80°C, the maximum cable
temperature was reduced by 4.3% (from 92.7 to 88.7°C) by
optimising the cable spacing, buried depth and backfill thermal
conductivity for the same cable loading of 403.4 A and keeping all
other parameters and constraints at nominal values. When the
backfill cost was minimised, optimising the cable spacing, buried
depth and backfill thermal conductivity, this has resulted in a
dramatic reduction in cost from 21.2 (for the base non-optimised
settings) to 7.01 SR/m3. Finally, when the cable ampacity was
maximised, optimising the cable spacing, buried depth and backfill
thermal conductivity has resulted in an appreciable increase of
4.5% (from 403.4 to 417.7 A). As a general observation in all cases
analysed, it is shown that the optimal cable depth is always at a
minimum. In other words, the cable tends to be as close to the
ground surface as possible regardless of the presence of the hot-
water pipe in the vicinity of the thermal circuit.
5 Acknowledgments
The author acknowledge the support provided by the National
Science and Technology Program (NSTP) during the work of this
paper.
6 References
[1] Neher, J.H., McGrath, M.H.: ‘The calculation of the temperature rise and load
capability of cable systems’, AIEE Trans. (Power Appar. Syst.), 1957, 76, pp.
752–772
[2] Garrido, C., Otero, A.F., Cidras, J.: ‘Theoretical model to calculate steady-
state and transient ampacity and temperature in buried cables’, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., 2003, 18, pp. 667–678
[3] Simmons, D.M.: ‘Cable geometry and the calculation of current-carrying
capacity’, AIEE Trans., 1923, 42, pp. 600–615
[4] IEC 287.: ‘Calculation of the continuous current rating of cables (100% load
factor)’ (International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 1982, 2nd edn.)
[5] Baazzim, M.S., Al-Saud, M.S., El-Kady, M.A.: ‘Comparison of finite-element
and IEC methods for cable thermal analysis under various operating
environments’, Int. J. Electr., Electron. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8, (3), pp. 470–475
[6] Brakelmann, H., Anders, G.: ‘Ampacity reduction factors for cables crossing
thermally unfavorable regions’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2001, 16, pp. 444–
448
9
[7] Vaucheret, P., Hartlein, R.A., Black, W.Z.: ‘Ampacity derating factors for
cables buried in short segments of conduit’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2005,
20, pp. 560–565
[8] Foty, M.S., Anders, G.J., Croall, S.C.: ‘Cable environment analysis and the
probabilistic approach to cable rating’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1990, 5,
(3), pp. 1628–1633
[9] Flatabo, N.: ‘Transient heat conduction problem in power cables solved by the
finite element method’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1973, PAS-92, pp.
56–63
[10] Hwang, C., Yi-Hsuan, J.: ‘Extensions to the finite element method for thermal
analysis of underground cable systems’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2003, 64,
(2), pp. 159–164
[11] Nahman, J., Tanaskovic, M.: ‘Determination of the current carrying capacity
of cables using the finite element method’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2002, 61,
(2), pp. 109–117
[12] Kim, S.W., Kim, H.H., Hahn, S.C, et al.: ‘Coupled finite-element-analytic
technique for prediction of temperature rise in power apparatus’, IEEE Trans.
Magn., 2002, 38, pp. 921–924
[13] Liang, Y.: ‘Steady-state thermal analysis of power cable systems in ducts
using streamline upwind/Petrov–Galerkin finite element method’, IEEE
Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., 2012, 19, (1), pp. 283–290
[14] Nahman, J., Tanaskovic, M.: ‘Evaluation of the loading capacity of a pair of
three-phase high voltage cable systems using the finite-element method’,
Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2011, 81, pp. 1550–1555
[15] Al-Saud, M.S., El-Kady, M.A., Findlay, R.D.: ‘A new approach to
underground cable performance assessment’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2007,
78, pp. 907–918
[16] El-Kady, M.A.: ‘Optimization of power cable and thermal backfill
configurations’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1982, PAS-101, pp. 4681–
4688
[17] Hoerauf, R.: ‘Ampacity application considerations for underground cables’,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2016, 52, (6), pp. 4638–4645
[18] Mitchell, J.K., Abdel-hadi, O.N.: ‘Temperature distribution around buried
cables’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1979, PAS-98, pp. 1158–1166
[19] Rasoulpoor, M., Mirzaie, M., Mirimani, S.: ‘Electrical and thermal analysis of
single conductor power cable considering the lead sheath effect based on
finite element method’, Iran. J. Electr. Electron. Eng., 2016, 12, (1), pp. 73–
81
[20] Zarchi, D., Vahidi, B., Moghimi Haji, M.: ‘Optimal configuration of
underground cables to maximize total ampacity considering current
harmonics’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, 8, (6), pp. 1090–1097
[21] Moutassem, W., Anders, G.J.: ‘Configuration optimization of underground
cable for best ampacity’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2010, 25, (4), pp. 2037–
2045
[22] Li, H.J.: ‘Estimation of thermal parameters and prediction of temperature rise
in crane power cables’, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2004, 151, pp.
355–360
[23] Al-Saud, M.S., El-Kady, M.A., Findlay, R.D.: ‘A novel finite-element
optimization algorithm with applications to power cable thermal circuit
design’. IEEE Power Engineering Society 2007 General Meeting, Tampa, FL,
USA, June 2007, pp. 1–8
[24] Al-Saud, M.S.: ‘Assessment of thermal performance of underground current
carrying conductors’, IET Proc. Gener., Transm. Distrib., 2011, 5, (6), pp.
630–639
10
View publication stats
[25] Al-Saud, M.S., El-Kady, M.A., Findlay, R.D.: ‘Optimization of power cable
thermal performance using finite-element generated gradient’. Proc. Ninth
IASTED Int. Conf. Power and Energy Systems, Clearwater, FL, USA,
January 2007, pp. 63–68
[26] Kovac, N., Sarajcev, I., Poljak, D.: ‘A numerical-stochastic technique for
underground cable system design’, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016,
153, (2), pp. 181–186
[27] Al-Saud, M.S.: ‘Improved assessment of power cable thermal capability in
presence of uncertainties’. Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conf.
(APPEEC 2012), Shanghai, China, March 2012, pp. 1–4
[28] El-Kady, M.A., Chu, F.Y., Radkrishna, H.S., et al.: ‘A probabilistic approach
to power cable thermal analysis and ampacity evaluation’, IEEE Trans. Power
Appar. Syst., 1984, PAS-103, pp. 2735–2740
[29] Al-Saud, M.S., El-Kady, M.A., Findlay, R.D.: ‘Combined simulation-
experimental approach to power cable thermal loading assessment’, IET Proc.
Gener., Transm. Distrib., 2008, 2, pp. 13–21
[30] Malmedal, K., Bates, C., Cain, D.: ‘On the use of the law of times in
calculating soil thermal stability and underground cable ampacity’, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., 2016, 52, (2), pp. 1215–1220
[31] Tarasiewicz, E., Kuffel, E., Grzybowski, S.: ‘Calculation of temperature
distribution within cable trench backfill and the surrounding soil’, IEEE
Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1985, PAS-104, pp. 1973–1978
[32] Hwang, C.C.: ‘Calculation of thermal fields of underground cable systems
with consideration of structural steels constructed in a duct bank’, IEE Proc.
Gener. Transm. Distrib., 1977, 144, pp. 541–545
[33] Rerak, M., Ocłoń, P.: ‘Thermal analysis of underground power cable system’,
J. Therm. Sci., 2017, 26, (5), pp. 465–471
[34] Alam, S., Dobbie, G., Koh, Y., et al.: ‘Research on particle swarm
optimization based clustering: a systematic review of literature and
techniques’, Swarm Evol. Comput., 2014, 17, pp. 1–13
[35] Abrol, S., Kaur, M.: ‘A review on particle swarm optimization technique’, Int.
J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol., 2016, 3, (7), pp. 2397–2399
[36] Sharma, S.: ‘Particle swarm optimization evaluation, use and applications
with electrical power system: review’, Int. J. Electr. Eng. (IIJEE), 2017, 5,
(3), pp. 28–30
[37] Yi, L.: ‘Study on an improved PSO algorithm and its application for solving
function problem’, Int. J. Smart Home, 2016, 10, (3), pp. 51–62
[38] Kareem1, M.H., Jassim, J.M., Al-Hareeb, N.K.: ‘Mathematical modelling of
particle swarm optimization algorithm’, Int. J. Adv. Multidiscip. Res.
(IJAMR), 2016, 3, (4), pp. 54–59
[39] ANSYS 17.2 Simulation Package, ANSYS, Inc., Southpointe 2600 ANSYS
Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA (ansysinfo@ansys.com), 2016
[40] Zhipeng, J., Wen, X., Yuan, X.: ‘Applying particle swarm optimization and
differential evolution combined with finite element method to optimize
cable’. Proc. Second Int. Conf. Computer Science and Electronics
Engineering, 2013, pp. 174–177
[41] Amrita, M., Jajimoggala, S.: ‘Design optimization by using particle swarm
optimization in MATLAB and APDL in ANSYS’, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol.,
2012, 4, (5), pp. 1876–1885
[42] Assadi, M.K., Zahraee, S.M., Taghdisi, J.: ‘Integration of computer
simulation, design of experiments and particle swarm optimization to
optimize the production line efficiency’, Int. J. Swarm Intell. Evol. Comput.,
2016, 5, (2), p. 4
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018