IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 33, NO.

5, OCTOBER 2018 2315

Current Rating Considerations in Designing

HVDC Cable Installations
Heiner Brakelmann and George J. Anders , Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Ampacity calculations for high voltage direct current Tcab , T4 Internal and external thermal resistances of the
(HVDC) cables are more difficult than those for the ac cables be- cable, (K·m/W).
cause of the absence of suitable analytical formulas. The current U0 Maximum operating voltage or, alternatively, as
carrying capability of such cables is not only limited by the op-
erating temperature, but also by the electrical stress within the impulse level of the cable installation (kV).
insulation. The IEC60287 standard only considers the thermal lim- Wc Conductor losses, (W/m).
itations of the conductor current and, therefore, cannot be used for κ Electrical conductivity of the insulation material,
some HVDC applications because it fails to include the analytical (S/m).
derivations of the stress-limited rating equations. However, appli- α Field temperature dependency coefficient, (1/K).
cations of the HVDC cables are becoming more common and so
there is a need to extend the IEC standard methodology so that am- αc Conductor coefficient of electrical resistance,
pacity calculations can be performed for such installations. This (1/K).
paper considers various aspects of the HVDC cable design and how γ Field dependency coefficient, (mm/kV).
they influence cable rating. It focuses on the temperature difference ρi , ρj Thermal resistivity of the insulation and the
across the electrical insulation and the entire cable as a means of jacket, respectively, (K·m/W).
representing the maximum dielectric stress as the current limiting
factor when calculating ratings for HVDC cables. ρ1 , ρ2 Thermal resistivity of the wet and dry soil, re-
spectively, (K·m/W).
Index Terms—High-voltage power cables, direct current, Δθcab Temperature difference across the cable, (°C).
ampacity.
Δθcab,m ax Maximum temperature difference across the ca-
NOMENCLATURE ble, (°C).
dc Conductor diameter, (mm). ΔθF Temperature rise (drop) caused by the neighbour-
E(r) Electric field strength at the distance r from the ing heat (cooling) sources, (°C).
cable centre, (kV/mm). ΔθI Temperature difference across the insulation,
IT D Field limited current, (A). (°C).
IT D ,20 Field limited current corresponding to the con- ΔθI ,m ax Maximum temperature difference across the in-
ductor resistance of 20 °C, (A). sulation, (°C).
Itherm Thermally limited current, (A). Δθx Critical cable surface temperature rise at which
n Number of cable conductors. the drying out occurs, (°C).
ri , ro Inner and outer radii of the insulation, (mm). θam b Soil ambient temperature, (°C).
R DC resistance of the conductor, (Ω/m). θc. m ax Thermal temperature limit on the conductor tem-
R20 DC resistance of the conductor at 20 °C, (Ω/m). perature, (°C).
s Thickness of the insulation, (mm). θe Temperature of the cable surface, (°C).
T1 , T2j , Thermal resistances of the insulation, jacket θ0 Temperature reference value for field calcula-
T2 and T3 around each core, armour bedding and armour tions, (°C).
serving, respectively, (K·m/W).
TI Thermal resistance of the insulation (it is different I. INTRODUCTION
from T1 because the latter includes the conductor HE application of HVDC cables is increasing as the inter-
and insulation shields), (K·m/W). T connector and long submarine applications become more
common. Apart from the installation cost, DC cables have sev-
Manuscript received July 27, 2017; revised October 16, 2017 and November eral advantages over their alternating current counterparts. How-
30, 2017; accepted January 5, 2018. Date of publication February 7, 2018;
date of current version September 25, 2018. Paper no. TPWRD-00982-2017. ever, rating of such cables is more difficult due to an absence
(Corresponding author: George J. Anders.) of suitable analytical formulas. The standardized rating calcula-
H. Brakelmann is with the BCC Câble Consulting, Rheinberg 47495, tions of IEC60287 [1] are only thermally limited, meaning that
Germany (e-mail: heinrich.brakelmann@uni-due.de).
G. J. Anders is with the Department of Microelectronics and Computer Sci- the standard cannot be directly used for the rating of HVDC
ence of the Technical University of Lodz, 90-924 Poland, and Anders Consulting cable systems where the limits of the electric field stress over
Ltd., Toronto, ON, Canada (e-mail: george.anders@bell.net). the insulation might become an issue.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Construction of the HVDC cables is quite similar to that
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2018.2803279 of the HVAC counterparts. Apart from the insulation material,

0885-8977 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2316
Fig. 1. Typical construction of a single-core HVDC cable (source NKT/ABB).
the essential differences appear whenever the inductive effects
in the HVAC cables must be considered. As an example, the
conductors of HVDC cables may not be segmented, but can
simply be designed as round, stranded or solid. The sheaths or
screens will not conduct any charging or induced currents, so
that the usual application of cross- or single-point bonding of
the sheaths is omitted and replaced by a simple bonding at both
ends. Fig. 1 shows an example of a HVDC single core cable.
It illustrates an additional essential difference: a ferromagnetic
armor or casing is permitted even for single-core HVDC cables,
quite contrary to the HVAC constructions.
Quite fundamentally, the basic principles of HVDC cable de-
sign deviate from the HVAC process mainly because of a possi-
ble electric field inversion in the insulation as explained below.
The insulation thickness of DC cables is chosen by the cable
manufacturer taking into account both the capacitive electrical
stress (caused by the possible transient voltage, e.g., switching
and lightning impulse) and the resistive one (caused by the DC
voltage during normal operation). The latter strongly depends
on the temperature difference across the insulation, on the ma-
terial used and on the manufacturing process. For DC applica-
tions, specific materials have been developed and new materials
are under development. The insulation system of HVDC cables
must be tested in accordance with the relevant standards.
The electrical field in the insulation of HVAC cables are –
temperature-independently – dominated by a capacitive con-
trol, the electrical field distribution in HVDC cables is not only
dependent on the applied voltage and geometry, but also on
the distribution of the electrical conductivity, which is a non-
linear function of the local values of temperature and electrical
field strength. Fig. 2, [2], shows the distribution of the electric
stress inside the DC cable insulation for a cold isothermal and
loaded cables with a thermal gradient in the insulation. The
stress distribution in a HVDC cable insulation is controlled
by the electrical conductivity of the insulation layers. In a
cold isothermal cable, the electrical conductivity of all insu-
lation layers is almost uniform and the resulting stress is the
highest at the conductor shield. After running the cable with
load, a thermal gradient will appear in the insulation leading
to its higher conductivity close to the conductor than in the
cooler periphery. As a result, the electric stress will be higher
at the insulation shield as shown in Fig. 2 (this behaviour
is referred to as a field inversion, [2], [3], [4], [8], [10]). In
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 33, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2018
Fig. 2. Electric field as a function of temperature difference across the insula-
tion [4] [ (5) and (7) in [4] represent different forms of the electric field strength
calculations. Equation (5) in [4] correspond to (6) in the present paper].
summary, the relation between the temperature difference and
the electrical field strength can be represented as follows: tem-
perature difference → thermal gradient → electrical conductiv-
ity gradient → global space charge accumulation → modified
electrical field.
The extent of the electric field strength across the insulation
of the heated cable depends on the temperature difference across
the insulation as shown, for example, in Fig. 2, [4]. This rela-
tionship between these two quantities is used to advance the
approach proposed in the present paper.
This paper discusses several design aspects of HVDC cable
installations from the cable rating perspective and can be con-
sidered an extension of an earlier work by Huang et al. [4], [5].
These papers develop a refined rating method following a ther-
moelectric limit steady state analysis through application of the
finite element technique and analytical equations for the electric
stress calculations.
In the present paper, the emphasis is on the easy-to-use equa-
tions already contained in the IEC Standard [1]. To achieve this,
the approach is based on the permissible temperature difference
across the insulation or the whole cable as the input parameter
rather than applying the electric field equations, as is done, for
example, in [4]. It should be pointed out that this approach is
also recommended by the CIGRE WG B1.32, [6], which ad-
vocates that the maximum temperature difference across the
insulation be a design parameter for a selection of the HVDC
cable. Since all cable manufacturers measure the temperature
difference across the insulation during the type test of a HVDC
cable, this value will be specified and agreed by the manufac-
turer and by the user and is available upon request. This may not
be the case when a utility is making a general enquiry. However,
engineers familiar with the design of HVDC systems should be
able to estimate appropriate values when these are not available
from the manufacturer.
Not discussed here are the most difficult questions of geom-
etry, construction, materials and resulting field distributions of
HVDC joints and sealing ends. They are affected by the selected
cable design with the resulting insulation thickness.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II examines the cal-
culation of the electrical stress in the insulation and the formulas
BRAKELMANN AND ANDERS: CURRENT RATING CONSIDERATIONS
are illustrated with a practical numerical example. Section III ad-
dresses ampacity calculations when the temperature difference
across the insulation or the whole cable is an input parameter.
The effects of the soil dryout in the vicinity of the loaded cable
as well as the presence of artificial or natural cooling of the
cable surface is also discussed in this Section. Section IV talks
about the effect of the cable laying depth on its current rating.
It includes a real-life numerical example. The effect of other
heat sources in the vicinity of the loaded cables on the HVDC
cable rating is discussed in Section V. Section VI considers
the question whether it is reasonable to cool the HVDC cable
circuits. The next section examines the effect of the selected
value of the permissible temperature drop across the cable on
the cable rating. The final section contains the discussion and
conclusions.
II. LIMITING ELECTRICAL FIELD STRENGTHS OF HVDC
CABLES
Whenever the electrical insulation of an HVDC cable is under
a capacitive control, that is, is dependent only on the geometry,
similarly to the case of the HVAC cables, the resulting field
strength (“Laplace field strength”) E(r) is given, as a function
of the radial distance r from the cable center:
U0
E(r) = (1)
r ln (ro /ri )
with the maximum field strength at the inner border of the
insulation (r = ri ; surface of the inner conductive layer) and
where ro is the outer radius of the insulation. For a given design
limit Em ax of the field strength – either for the operating voltages
or for the impulse voltages – the minimal wall thickness sm in
of the electrical insulation is obtained from (1) as:
 
sm in = ri eU 0 /(r i E m a x ) − 1 (2)
Two values of Em ax at the conductor shield, one for the
stationary voltage U0 and another value for the impulse voltage
level will provide two minimum insulation thicknesses, where
the greater one will be selected.
The value of Em ax at U0 may, but does not have to be, the
same for the maximum field strength at the outer shield (in our
example, later in the text, it is the same).
Thereafter, this design thickness must be compared with the
limit values for the electrical field distribution, which will result
from the critical operation conditions of the warmed-up cable.
For this, let us consider an electrical insulation made of a
synthetic material, for which the electrical conductivity κ is
dependent on the field strength and temperature represented by
the coefficients γandα in the following relation [7]–[11]:
κ(E, θ) = k · eα ·(θ −θ 0 ) · eγ ·E (3)
which can be approximated by (e.g., [8]):
 ε
α ·(θ −θ 0 ) E R · (T1 + T2j + nT2 + nT3 )
κ(E, θ) = k · e · (4)
E0
where
ε = γU0 /(ro − ri ) (5)
2317
After some transformations [5], [8], [10], (4) takes the form:
 δ −1
δ · U0 r
E(r) =   (6)
ri (ro /ri )δ − 1 ri
β+ε ρi
δ= β=αWc (7)
ε+1 2π
In the field equations, α is used as a temperature coefficient
of the electrical insulation. Later, αc is used as the temperature
coefficient of the conductor material resistance (= 0.0039 1/ K
for copper).
Note, that in (7) – except for a geometric factor – the term
(β/α) describes the temperature difference across the electri-
cal insulation, through which it is directly correlated with the
maximum electrical field strength.
We will illustrate the calculations with the data given in the
following numerical example.
A. Numerical Example
Let us consider a 525-kV-HVDC cable with the XLPE
insulation, 2500 mm2 copper conductor (stranded; diameter
dc = 61.2 mm; temperature coefficient αc = 0.0039/K). The
insulation thickness is s = 26.0 mm, and the thicknesses of
the inner and outer semiconducting shields are 1.9 mm and
2.0 mm, respectively. (thermal resistivity of the insulation is
ρi = 3.5 K m/W ). Thus, the inner and outer radii of the elec-
trical insulation become ri = 32.5 mm and ro = 58.5 mm, re-
spectively. The cable jacket has an outer diameter of 135.0 mm
and a thickness of 5.0 mm (ρj = 5.0 K m/W ). The maximum
permissible conductor temperature is θc. m ax = 70 ◦ C . The con-
ductor resistance at 20 °C is R20 = 7.2 · 10−6 Ω/m (measured at
the completed cable).
To use (6), we need the material constants, which are equal
to: α = 0.115 /K; γ = 0.030 mm/kV and can be found, for ex-
ample, in [6] and [8].
Switching the operating voltage onto the still cold cables
results (by capacitive control) in the Laplace field strengths at
the inner and outer surfaces of the electrical insulation equal to:
E (ri ) = 27.5 kV/mm E (ro ) = 15.3 kV/mm
These values are lower than a limit design of 30 kV/mm,
which is chosen for this case (this is a typical value but may
differ for different cable designs).
B. Ampacity Limit
We start with a given temperature θe of the cable surface (this
may correspond, for example, to the case of a surface cooling
of the cable). Considering the thermal aspects only, the current
rating is obtained from a standard equation [1]:
 
θc,m ax − θe θc,m ax − θe
Itherm = =
R · Tcab
(8)
where R is the DC conductor resistance at the maximum operat-
ing temperature, n is the number of conductors and T1 , T2j , T2
and T3 represent thermal resistances of the insulation, jacket
2318
Fig. 3. Thermally limited current Ith e rm and the temperature difference
across the insulation ΔθI as a function of the cable surface temperature θe .
Fig. 4. Outer electrical field strengths E(ro ) and temperature difference ΔθI
across the insulation as functions of the cable surface temperature θe . a) for
the thermally limited current Ith e rm of Fig. 3 (θc =70 °C), and b) for the field
limited current from a) IT D = 2562 A (E m a x = 30 kV/mm ). Note: Fig. 4(b)
with halved scale for E(r).
around each core (if present), armor bedding and armor serving,
respectively. Calculation of these is discussed in [1].
Fig. 3 shows the thermally limited current and the temperature
difference across the insulation as a function of the selected cable
surface temperature for the cable construction discussed above.
We can observe in Fig. 3 that the thermally limited current,
as well as the temperature difference across the electrical in-
sulation, are strongly increasing with a decreasing temperature
of the cable surface. For cables directly laid in the soil, a usual
cable surface temperature is in the range of 50 to 60 °C, which
means that the permissible currents are in the range of 2000 to
2500 A.
Applying now (6) and (7), Fig. 4 shows the outer electrical
field strengths E(ro ) as well as the temperature difference across
the insulation ΔθI as functions of the temperature θe of the
cable surface.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 33, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2018
Fig. 4(a) is valid for the determination of the thermally lim-
ited current Itherm (i.e., for θc = θc,m ax = 70 ◦ C), whereas in
Fig. 4(b), the current restricting the temperature difference (TD)
IT D = 2562 A is kept constant. This value has been derived
from Fig. 4 as the limiting current for the field strength (“field
limited current”) with the assumed maximum value of the elec-
trical field strength of 30 kV/mm. In this case, the temperature
difference across the electrical insulation is ΔθI = 18.5 K .
The following conclusions can be drawn observing the results
in Fig. 4: for the maximum permissible conductor temperature
(θc = 70 ◦ C ) and with decreasing cable surface temperature
θe , the thermally limited current Itherm and, by this, the tem-
perature difference ΔθI across the electrical insulation, as well
as the outer electrical field strength E(ro ), strongly increase,
whereas the inner electrical field strength E(ri ) – which is not
critical in full load situations – is decreasing. In our example,
for the selected electrical field strength (“field limited current
IT D ”) limit of 30 kV/mm, the field limited current is equal to
IT D = 2562 A with the corresponding cable surface tempera-
ture of θe = 45.1 ◦ C. Enhancements of the current rating, for
example by forced cooling, will be limited by this parameter.
On the other hand, from the results in Fig. 4(b) we conclude
that cooling down the cable surface temperature below 45.1 °C
with a constant current equal to 2562 A results in:
r lowering of the temperature difference across the electrical
insulation, and by this
r lowering of the outer electrical field strength.
III. CIRCUIT DESIGN BASED ON THE PERMISSIBLE
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE ACROSS THE CABLE
As shown above, the temperature difference across the electri-
cal insulation plays a dominant role for the maximum electrical
field strength at the outer surface of the insulation. In practice,
a HVDC cable will be subjected to laboratory examinations
[6], where (beside other tests) it will be warmed up to opera-
tional temperatures and then electrically tested. If the test cable
is installed in air, relatively high cable losses and temperature
differences across the cable will arise. If such a prequalification
test of a certain cable type was successful, for the succeeding
application of the cable the temperature difference of the test or
a somewhat lower temperature difference across the cable will
be prescribed as a limit, by which the maximum (full load) field
strength will be limited as well.
When defining the limiting value of the temperature dif-
ference Δθcab , one must consider the fact that in addition to
the aforementioned stationary field situations, transient voltages
may appear during operation. These transient voltages with the
corresponding field distributions resulting from a momentary
charge distribution in the electrical insulation and which are
superimposed, affect momentary field peaking (see e.g., [8]).
Moreover, increasing the field strength in the cable means an
increase of the field strengths in the joints and sealing ends,
which may have a strong impact on operational reliability.
For these reasons, in the following, a design of the cable in-
stallation will be discussed with a temperature difference limit
across the cable between 10.0 K and 20.0 K. For the cable
BRAKELMANN AND ANDERS: CURRENT RATING CONSIDERATIONS 2319

Δθcab,m ax across the cable – and by this the maximum permis-

sible electrical field strength in the insulation - is reached (here
with Δθcab,m ax = 20 K, for the current of 2296 A and with a
surface temperature of the cable equal to 50.0 °C). A farther
intensified cooling with a maximum water temperature of, for
example, 20 °C will increase this field limited current only to
IT D = 2417 A, that is, only by 5.3%.

B. HVDC Cables With Natural Cooling

For a natural cooling of the HVDC cable normally installed
in soil, we have [1]:
θe = θam b + ΔθF + Wc nT4 (13)
with the conductor temperature:
Fig. 5. Thermally Ith e rm (black) and field IT D (blue) limited currents as θc = θam b + ΔθF + Δθcab,m ax (1 + nT4 /Tcab ) (14)
functions of the cables surface temperature θe for Δθc a b , m a x = 20 K; red line:
maximum permissible current. where:
θam b is the ambient temperature, ΔθF is the temperature rise
examined here, this temperature range corresponds to the max- of the cable by other heat sources and T4 is its external thermal
imum electrical field strengths Em ax (ro ) between 21.7 and resistance.
27.1 kV/mm. These values are within the range of the limits In analogy to (12), the field limited current is equal to:
discussed before. IT D =
With the maximum permissible temperature difference across
the cable, the field limited rating is obtained similarly as in (8): IT D ,20

  1 + αc [θam b + ΔθF + Δθcab,m ax (1 + nT4 /Tcab ) − 20]
Δθcab,m ax Δθcab,m ax (15)
IT D = =
R · Tcab R20 [1 + αc (θc − 20)] · Tcab
Here, the temperature rise ΔθF is caused by neighboring heat
IT D ,20 sources including other cables, steam pipes and so on. A negative
= (9) value of ΔθF represents cooling of the cable surrounding, which
1 + αc (θc − 20)
can be caused, for example, by adjacent fresh water pipes or by
This relation can also be used in the case when the maximum pipes of a cooling system.
permissible temperature difference ΔθI ,m ax across the electrical As in (8), the thermally limited current is obtained from:
insulation (instead of Δθcab,m ax across the cable) is given, since 
these values are directly related by: θc,m ax − θam b − ΔθF
  Itherm = (16)
R20 [1 + αc (θc,m ax − 20)] (Tcab + nT4 )
T2j + n (T2 + T3 )
Δθcab,m ax = ΔθI ,m ax 1 + (10)
T1
C. Consideration of a Partial Drying-Out of the Soil
A. HVDC Cable With a Given Surface Temperature We will denote by ρ1 the thermal resistivity of moist soil. If
drying out of the soil is to be expected, the above rating equa-
For a given surface cable temperature θe , e.g., for direct wa-
tions can be modified to include the expected dry soil thermal
ter cooling with a maximum water temperature specified, the
resistivity ρ2 and the critical cable surface temperature rise at
maximum permissible conductor temperature becomes:
which the drying out occurs Δθx , [1]. We introduce the follow-
θc = θe + Δθcab,m ax (11) ing notation:
Hence, from (9), the field limited permissible current is: νx = ρ2 /ρ1 (17)
IT D ,20 and
IT D =  (12)
1 + αc (θe + Δθcab,m ax − 20) θx = Δθx (νx − 1) (18)
A first interpretation of (12) is given in Fig. 5, where for a which without drying-out becomes zero because of vx = 1. The
limit of the temperature difference of Δθcab,m ax = 20 K, the rating equation (15) and (16) now become:
thermally Itherm and the field IT D limited currents are shown
as functions of the cable surface temperature θe . IT D =
The figure shows that a reduction of the cable surface temper- IT D ,20

 

ature, e.g., by a forced cooling, will, on the one hand, increase
1+αc θam b +ΔθF + Δθcab,m ax /Tcab (Tcab +νx nT4 ) − 20
the thermally limit current Itherm but that this enhancement will
be strictly limited when the permissible temperature difference (19)
2320
Fig. 6. Two 525 kV-HVDC cable systems (with lossless return conductors)
in a common trench.
Fig. 7. Thermal and field limited currents as functions of the laying depth
h for Δθc a b , m a x = 20 K, θa m b =15 °C. The continuous lines represent no
cooling and the dotted lines correspond to ΔθF = −20 °C.
and
 normally designed to minimize interference with other utili-
θc,m ax − θam b − ΔθF − θx
Itherm =
R20 [1 + αc (θc,m ax − 20)] (Tcab + νx nT4 )
(20)
IV. THERMAL BOTTLENECKS CAUSED BY LARGER LAYING
DEPTHS
It is a well-known fact that increasing the laying depth of the
cables reduces their ratings. In this section, we will examine the
effect of the laying depth on the HVDC cable ampacity.
Let us consider a system of two 525-kV-HVDC circuits ar-
ranged in flat formation at a depth h in a common trench 2.20 m
wide as shown in Fig. 6. The required ampacity of each cable is
1905 A, which results in a transmission power of 2000 MW per
circuit.
Application of the rating equations defined above results in
the current ratings shown in Fig. 7. The blue straight line in
Fig. 7 shows the thermally limited current Itherm as a function
of the laying depth h without outside thermal interferences. The
straight red line, obtained with (15), shows the corresponding
field limited current IT D for a maximum permissible tempera-
ture difference Δθcab,m ax = 20 K. The surrounding soil is as-
sumed to be homogeneous (thermal resistivity equal 1.0 K m/W)
with an ambient temperature of 15 °C.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 33, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2018
Fig. 8. Additional temperature rises of the HVDC cable caused by neighboring
heat sources (black: 110-kV-XLPE cable; red: district heating pipe).
In this example, we can observe that for all laying depths the
thermal limited ampacity remains lower than the field limited
rating. With the required rating of 1905 A, the thermal limit
remains adequate, but falling below this value for greater laying
depths. For a laying depth of, say, 5.0 m the thermally limited
current is reduced to 1729 A. But in urban areas, such laying
depths may be quite normal when the existing infrastructures
must be crossed below.
The dotted lines in Fig. 7 are valid for ΔθF = −20.0◦ K,
that is, they correspond to a cooling of the cable surrounding
by 20 K. It becomes clear, that this additional cooling would
compensate the rating reduction for depths of up 10.0 m.
V. THERMAL BOTTLENECKS CAUSED BY OTHER HEAT
SOURCES
Most HVDC projects are large scale (320 kV or above) to
justify their economic aspect, thus, a special cable corridor is
ties. However, this most likely will not be the case in the fu-
ture. For example, in Germany there are now three 320 kV or
525 kV “power highways” are planned, with 2000 MW each,
with lengths of more than 500 km. From this, we can expect a
high probability that thermal hot spots will occur. For one of
these “power highways” an initial host spot will arise with the
crossing of the river Elbe, where a duct or a small tunnel with
a length of about 2 km must be built – containing more than
one cable system (probably 2, 4 or more systems during future
upgrading or extensions). Similar groupings of cables may arise
for other crossings of rivers, highways and so on. As a result,
such situations are of interest and some examples are discussed
below.
In this section, the current rating reductions of underground
HVDC cables, caused by the adjacent heat sources, will be
discussed. The first example, frequently occurring in cities, is
a 110-kV-XLPE cable system at the same depth as the HVDC
circuits (2500 Al-conductors, 1774 A/338.0 MVA; daily load
factor equal 0.80).
We will also consider a district heat pipe in the vicinity of the
HVDC cables with the inner temperature of 140 °C.
The computed temperature rise of a HVDC cable in a hor-
izontal distance x is shown as a black line in Fig. 8 for the
110 kV cable heating and by the red line for the heat source. The
BRAKELMANN AND ANDERS: CURRENT RATING CONSIDERATIONS
Fig. 9. Possible rating upgrades by additional cooling (black arrows). Param-
eters as in Fig. 7.
rating reduction as a function of the distance x for the two cases
studied here (for two circuit case, it is the distance between two
closest cables and for the pipe heating, the distance between the
pipe and the closest cable).
It can be seen, that an additional increase of the HVDC cable
temperature by up to 30 K is possible.
VI. IS THE EXTERNAL COOLING OF HVDC CABLES
PERMISSIBLE AND REASONABLE?
A general opinion among cable system designers is that an
additional external cooling of a HVDC cable with the aim of
increasing its current rating is not reasonable because of the
electrical field strength restrictions. This is supported by the
fact that HVDC cables are normally installed for long routes
in the order of some 100 km and the installation of a cooling
system is normally not considered for such lengths.
However, as the preceding discussion shows, an application
of forced cooling may result in substantial upgrades of the cable
rating or a reduction of the conductor cross section. This is
illustrated in Fig. 9. The figure shows the thermally limited
current of the two 525-kV- circuits as a function of the laying
depth h and a decrease in cable rating as a function of ΔθF .
The top lines represent again the respective field limited current
IT D , by which possible rating upgrades by forced cooling will
be limited.
Under normal soil conditions for a small laying depth of
h = 1.5 m the above-mentioned opinion about the usefulness
of the artificial cooling is confirmed: The maximum increase of
the current rating is only 249 A (approx. 13%). But this changes
for greater laying depths. For the chosen example of a laying
depth of h = 5.0 m, a rating upgrade of 424 A (25%) is possible.
The other examples in Fig. 9 show that drastic rating reductions
by other heat sources can be compensated for by means of
area-by-area additional cooling, thus allowing increases of the
current rating from 715 A up to 900 A, that is, by approximately
50 to 85%.
Since the cooling reduces the ambient soil temperaure, its
effect is much greater on thermal rating than on the field rating.
From the graph in Fig. 9, one can estimate the ampacity increase
of about 100 A for the field rating and about 500 A for the
thermal rating with cooling. So the key observation is that if
the circuit is thermally limited, the external cooling may help;
if the circuit is stress limited, then the external cooling may not
be economical.
2321
Fig. 10. Thermally limited current Ith e rm and field limited current IT D
for different values of the permissible temperature difference Δθc a b , m a x as
functions of the cable surface temperature θe .
For directly buried long cable routes, an area-to-area external
cooling system may be the only alternative to enable the required
transmission capacity. Depending on the thermal and construc-
tion parameters of the installation, the following possibilities
may be considered:
a. direct forced cooling of the cable surface (e.g., [10]),
b. indirect forced cooling by parallel cooling pipes (e.g.,
[12]),
c. passive, self-sustained gravitational cooling, which can be
achieved with both cooling arrangements of a) and b) [12],
[13],
d. cooling by heat pipes [11], or
e. cooling by air-filled pipes (chimney effect, [14]).
VII. RELEVANCE OF THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE Δθcab,m ax
As discussed above, the specification of a maximum per-
missible temperature difference Δθcab,m ax across the cable is
derived from the limit values of the prequalification tests under
strict consideration of possible transient peaks of the electrical
field as well as of their effect on the electrical field strength in
the joints and sealing ends. To demonstrate the relevance of this
parameter, the preceding results (with Δθcab,m ax = 20.0 K )
will be repeated here for different values of the parameter.
Let us consider again the arrangement of two 525-kV-HVDC
cables in Fig. 6. The thermally limited current Itherm as well
as the field limited current IT D are shown in Fig. 10, now
for different values of the permissible temperature difference
Δθcab,m ax as functions of the cable surface temperature θe .
Obviously, for the required transmission current of 4 ×
1905 A (2 × 2000 MW), the permissible temperature difference
Δθcab,m ax must at least be between 12.5 K and 15 K, since for
lower values the field limited current IT D will fall short of the
design ampacity.
VIII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The paper shows the derivation of the current rating equa-
tions for a HVDC cable. The derivations assume that a ca-
ble construction is well-defined and the limiting values of the
maximum permissible Laplace field strengths for operational
and impulse voltages are given. At present, the engineers need
to specifically ask for this information. Today, manufacturers are
2322
in somewhat uncharted waters, and many questions are “under
consideration”. Perhaps, there should be more frank discussion
and information sharing about such parameters.
The rating equations are derived with a given maximum per-
missible temperature difference Δθcab,m ax across the cable.
This temperature difference is derived from the prequalification
tests. The current rating of the HVDC cables are derived here
taking into account different laying arrangements and thermal
parameters.
It is shown that, in addition to the thermally limited current, a
field limited rating must be considered. The field limited rating is
achieved by using the maximum permissible temperature differ-
ence Δθcab,m ax , which is translated into the maximum permissi-
ble electrical field strength for the stationary DC-operation. The
limit value for the electrical field strength for the same insulation
material may have different values specified by different man-
ufacturers. The 30 kV/mm used in this paper for the numerical
studies is only one example, but which is close to the real values
encountered in practice. With our data of the XLPE insulation,
30 kV/mm corresponds to a maximum temperature difference
across the cable of about 15 K, which, again, corresponds to
the limiting value specified by some cable manufacturers. But
the situation may be somewhat more complicated: sometimes
different limit values are defined for the inner and the outer sur-
faces of the insulation, other values again for joints and sealing
ends, and also for the radial and longitudinal field strengths, and
so on. Thus, a maximum temperature difference is a nice (man-
ageable) simplification as a result of all these research aspects
of the HVDC cables. As mentioned before, this value has to be
established by a discussion with the manufacturer and it ranges
from 10 to 15 °C for the MIND cables and can be higher, up to
20 °C for the XLPE construction.
The derived equations have the same form as the rating equa-
tions in the IEC-publication 60287 [1] and can be used in the
same way. The computational procedure can be summarized by
the following steps.
1. Calculate the thermally permissible current Itherm with (8)
using the thermally permissible conductor temperature.
2. Calculate the temperature drop across the insulation
ΔθI = Itherm RTI .
3. If ΔθI ≤ ΔθI ,m ax , the current obtained is thermally lim-
ited by the conductor temperature and go to step 5.
4. Otherwise, the rated current is limited by the ΔθI ,m ax .
This means that the rated
 current is field limited and is ob-
tained from IT D = ΔθI ,m ax /RTI with the conductor
temperature rise obtained either from (10), if the max-
imum temperature increase across the cable is given, or
from its modification taking into account the external ther-
mal resistance:
 
T2j + n (T2 + T3 + T4 )
Δθcab,m ax = ΔθI ,m ax 1+
T1
(21)
5. Stop.
Note that in the above procedure the temperature increase
across the insulation can be replaced by a similar value across
the cable as explained in the paper.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 33, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2018
It is shown in the numerical example involving two 525-kV-
HVDC cable circuits in a typical arrangement that their current
rating may easily fall below the required transmission capacity,
especially for greater laying depths and/or in the presence of
adjacent heat sources.
Contrary to the general opinion that an additional forced cool-
ing of HVDC cables will not be reasonable because of the in-
creased electrical field strengths, the paper shows that in case
of the thermal hot-spots, an area-to-area cooling of the cables
may result in an increase of the current rating and compensation
for the thermal bottlenecks. Different cooling techniques can be
considered to execute the cooling function.
When the field limited ampacity should be computed in ad-
dition to the standard thermal rating analysis is a question that
may be asked. A review of the published literature suggests that
such analysis should always be performed for the EHV (above
300 kV) cable installations. The authors believe that it might
be prudent (but perhaps not always necessary) to computed the
field limited current for all HVDC cables, especially because
the calculations are very simple as demonstrated in the paper.
At medium and low voltage levels, the insulation thickness is
much smaller than at higher voltages and, therefore, no signif-
icant temperature gradient of the electric field. Of course, this
temperature gradient will depend on the type of insulating ma-
terial and will be greater for the paper cables in comparison with
an extruded construction.
REFERENCES
[1] IEC, Calculation of the continuous current rating of cables (100% load
factor), Parts 1 and 2, IEC-Publ. 60287, 2012–2016.
[2] CIGRE WG B1.40, Offshore Generation Cable Connections, CIGRE TB
610. Paris, France, 2015.
[3] B. M. Weedy and D. Chu, “HVDC extruded cables – parameters for
determination of stress,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103,
no. 3, pp. 662–667, Mar. 1984.
[4] Z. Y. Huang et al., “Thermal-electric rating method for mass impregnated
paper insulated HVDC cable circuits,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30,
no. 1, pp. 437–444, Feb. 2015.
[5] Z. Y. Huang et al., “Current rating methodology for mass impregnated
HVDC cables,” in Proc. Elect. Insul. Conf., Ottawa, ON, Canada, Jun.
2013, pp. 513–517.
[6] CIGRE WG B1.32, “Recommendations for testing DC extruded cable
systems for power transmission at a rated voltage up to 500 kV,” in Proc.
CIGRE TB 496, Paris, France, 2012.
[7] T. Worzyk, Submarine Power Cables: Design, Installation, Repair, Envi-
ronmental Aspects. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[8] G. Mazzanti and M. Mazinotto, Extruded Cables for High-Voltage Direct-
Current Transmission. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2013.
[9] F. Buller, “Calculation of electrical stresses in dc cable insulation,” IEEE
Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-86, no. 10, pp. 1169–1178, Oct. 1967.
[10] C. Eoll, “Theory of stress distribution in insulation of high-voltage dc
cables: Part I,” IEEE Trans. Elect. Insul., vol. EI-10, no. 1, pp. 27–35,
Mar. 1975.
[11] H. Brakelmann, “Optimization of HVDC-cables with natural and with
forced cooling (in German),” El.wirtsch, 1979, pp. 1069–1074.
[12] D. Parmar et al., “Heat pipes cool hot spots,” in Transm. Distrib. World,
Feb. 1997, pp. 53–59.
[13] H. Brakelmann and G. J. Anders, “A novel cooling solution for an inter-
section of a 2 × 2 duct bank with HV cables crossed by a steam pipe,” in
Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Insul. Power Cables, 2015, paper E3.6.
[14] S. Cherukupalli, H. Brakelmann, and G. J. Anders, “BC hydro experience
to mitigate a hot spot along a 230 kV XLPE cable circuit using a novel
cooling solution, ” CIGRÉ-rep. B1-106, Paris, France, Aug. 2016.
[15] H. Brakelmann and G. J. Anders, “Increasing ampacity of cables by an
application of ventilated pipes,” in Proc. 39th IEEE Ind. Appl. Conf., 2004,
pp. 2288–2295.
BRAKELMANN AND ANDERS: CURRENT RATING CONSIDERATIONS
Heinrich Brakelmann received the Ph.D. degree
from the Technical University of Aachen, Aachen,
Germany, in 1973. For several years, he was with the
Felten & Guilleaume Energietechnik AG, Cologne,
Germany, as a leader of the R&D-unit. He became a
Professor with the University of Duisburg, in 1985.
He is the author of more than 230 technical publica-
tions and of 4 book publications in the field of cable
technique as well as high-voltage and high-current
problems. He currently leads the consulting firm BCC
Cable Consulting, Rheinberg, Germany. His research
interests include the power cable technologies. Prof. Brakelmann is a Member
of German VDE-working groups and of several CIGRE WGs.
2323
George J. Anders (F’99) authored or coauthored
more than 100 papers in IEEE Transactions and
wrote 3 books. He is the author of the computational
engine of CYMCAP, de facto industry standard in
cable rating calculations. His research interests in-
clude ampacity calculations of electric power cables.
Dr. Anders is the recipient of 2016 IEEE Herman
Halperin Award in the field of Transmission and
Distribution and the Engineering Excellence Medal
from the Association of Professional Engineers in the
Province of Ontario.