energies
Article
Remaining Useful Life Estimation for Underground Cable
Systems Based on Historical Health Index
Tanachai Somsak 1 , Thanapong Suwanasri 1, * and Cattareeya Suwanasri 2
Citation: Somsak, T.; Suwanasri, T.;
Suwanasri, C. Remaining Useful Life
Estimation for Underground Cable
Systems Based on Historical Health
Index. Energies 2022, 15, 9447.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249447
Academic Editor: Andrea Mariscotti
Received: 18 October 2022
Accepted: 10 December 2022
Published: 13 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 9447. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249447
1 Electrical and Software Systems Engineering, The Sirindhorn International Thai-German Graduate School of
Engineering (TGGS), King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of
Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
* Correspondence: thanapong.s@tggs.kmutnb.ac.th; Tel.: +66-816297055
Abstract: In this paper, a modeling method for estimating the remaining useful life (RUL) of aged
underground cable systems is proposed that uses statistical health index (HI) and operating factor
(OF) data of retired systems. The HI is an indicator which identifies the condition of an underground
cable system and its components and is calculated from testing and inspection results. The OF takes
actual operating conditions and technical data from the system into consideration. Both factors are
then combined to determine the overall health index (OHI) of each system. For RUL estimation of
underground cable systems, normal distribution and Weibull distribution analyses are first applied
to determine a health index curve and an aging line. The relationship between these two curves
gives an estimate of the system’s apparent age. The RUL of the system is then calculated in terms
of the difference between its apparent age and its actual chronological age. In this study, thirteen
retired systems and ten operating systems were evaluated and analyzed, and accurate results were
obtained. Using the methods described here, the apparent age and the RUL of underground cable
systems can be accurately estimated. Finally, a maintenance strategy for underground cable systems
is recommended, which promises more efficient maintenance and greater cost-effectiveness in the
management of underground cable systems.
Keywords: remaining useful life; apparent age; health index curve; aging curve; underground
cable assessment
1. Introduction
Underground power cables are widely and continuously used in the high- and
medium-voltage electrical systems of transmission and distribution networks, and of
industrial estates. They are used in power systems because of the reliability of supply that
they offer, as well as for aesthetic reasons. However, an increasing number of failures of
underground cables have been reported in recent years. Causes include corrosion, thermal,
electrical, and mechanical stresses, as well as environmental impacts [1–3]. Factors such
as these can lead to the degradation, electrical breakdown, and catastrophic failure of un-
derground cable systems. In addition, any damage to underground cables usually results
in long outage time, difficulty in failure localization, high repair expense, and possible
penalty costs. Prevention of such damage is not an easy task, because the cable system
consists of a large number of system components and accessories, such as the cable itself,
joints, terminations, manholes, and duct banks. Knowledge of the actual condition and
of any weak spots within underground systems is therefore vital for proper maintenance
planning, to prevent sudden system failures and unscheduled outages.
Recently, various special testing and inspection methods have been developed, which
aim to assess the condition of underground cable systems both online and offline. On-
line testing involves partial discharge measurement, infrared thermography inspection,
insulation resistance measurement, grounding resistance measurement, sheath voltage
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 2 of 15

and current measurement, and physical visual inspection [4–6]. Offline testing involves a
withstand voltage test, which uses a very low frequency (VLF) voltage source or an AC
resonance test system as external supply voltage. VLF Tan delta testing is suitable for this
purpose and is effective for investigating the degradation of MV cable systems regarding
the water treeing of insulation, but it cannot be used for HV underground cable systems
due to the limitation of the rated power of the VLF voltage source [7]. The AC resonance
test system is designed to withstand voltage testing of HV equipment and can be used
to test HV cable systems. However, it can only provide “pass” or “fail” information and
can sometimes cause the premature failure of the tested system. Therefore, it is usually
performed with HV equipment after installation, and an acceptance test is then carried
out to confirm the system condition after transportation and complete installation [8]. In
addition, during maintenance of HV cable systems, it is nearly impossible to perform offline
testing due to the requirements of a system shutdown. These include the unplugging of
cables for testing with an external voltage source, which is expensive and involves the risk
of cable damage [8]. For these reasons, to assess the condition of HV cable systems, all
testing methods are usually performed online, and provide actual, real-time information
on the cables’ operating conditions. Generally, the degradation of an electrical asset cannot
be determined by testing methods alone. Other factors must be taken into consideration,
such as the installation type, loading conditions, and environmental effects, as well as the
historical failure records for each system [2,3,6]. Using various test results and operating
information, the condition assessment of an underground cable system can be carried out
so that the system can be maintained using a condition-based strategy. There are various
techniques used for modeling the condition of underground cable systems, including the
thermal model [9] and the operation model [1,10]. Some scholars have proposed a health
index (HI) calculation [11–13], which could be used for underground cable systems. An HI
calculation, which takes both testing results and operating data into consideration, was
proposed in [14]. To improve the accuracy of the obtained results, the proposed evalua-
tion process typically determines the HI of each component, before a final percentage of
the overall health index (%OHI) is obtained for the whole underground cable system by
multiplying the HI of the cable system with the operating factor (OF).
Although the condition of underground cable systems in terms of %OHI has been
successfully obtained, the remaining useful life (RUL) of such assets should also be known
to better understand how underground cable systems age with usage, and to enable better
planning for their replacement in time. Recent studies have used various methods to esti-
mate the end-of-life (EoL) of HV equipment and underground cable systems, including HI
regression analysis [15], thermal and reliability modelling [10], Weibull survival probabil-
ity [16], and analysis of the statistical relationship between HI and aging [17,18]. Established
statistical methods, such as normal distribution and Weibull distribution, are well-suited
to modeling the failure probability and aging of power equipment in the wear-out and
random-failure periods, respectively. Normal distribution is the most basic probability
distribution function. It is typically used to estimate a failure curve of assets using data on
the average asset condition [13,19,20]. The Weibull distribution is mostly used to estimate
the aging of various kinds of power equipment by adjusting only shape and scale parame-
ters [20–22]. Finally, general replacement plans for deteriorated underground cable routes
with available budgets and human resources were reported in [3,6,23].
This paper describes a novel process of identifying a relationship between HI curves
and aging curves to estimate the RUL of 115 kV underground cable systems. The normal
distribution is applied to %OHI values derived from historical testing results and the
practical operating conditions of underground cable systems. The plotted curve shows a
relationship between probability of failure (PoF) and %OHI, known as the health index
curve (HI curve). Weibull distribution is then applied to produce an aging curve for
underground cable systems resulting in a trend plot of PoF against system age. Finally, in
accordance with the results from both the HI and aging curves, the %OHI value for each
underground cable system is used to determine the RUL of the underground cable systems.
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 3 of 15

For the purposes of this study, historical testing data were obtained for twenty-three
115 kV underground cable systems. Ten of these are now being used by an independent
power producer which supplies 4512 MW of electricity to a large industrial estate in
Thailand. For all systems, apparent ages were obtained by simply comparing HI and aging
curves. RULs were then estimated by calculating the difference between the apparent
system age and the expected lifetime given by the manufacturer, the recommendation of
international standards, the operating condition of the system, and the particular strategies
of the operator organizations. Finally, the estimated RUL of each underground cable
system was used by organizations to set up effective replacement plans for deteriorated
underground cable routes according to budgets and human resources available.

2. Health Index Monitoring System

A health index monitoring system is an effective tool for identifying the actual con-
dition of underground cable system equipment based on an evaluation of various testing
and inspection results together with degradation factors [12,13,24]. In this paper, %OHI
is generally given in terms of a percentage, so that a higher %OHI value indicate a better
asset condition. The %OHI evaluation process provides not only a measure of an asset’s
condition but also further information regarding the location, type, and severity of defects,
and also helps to identify components that need to be repaired or replaced in order to
maintain the asset condition within acceptable parameters.
The method used to estimate %OHI in this study can be differentiated from those
used in previous works, such as [14] and [24], in terms of our proposed parameters of
practical operating factor (OF), as well as our application of practical testing methods and
results to improve the trustworthiness of %OHI evaluation, so as to identify the actual
condition of underground cable systems. Our %OHI estimation method is detailed in
Figure 1, which shows an evaluation procedure that involves the actual condition and
the operating condition in order to determine the %OHI of underground cable systems.
Colors in the chart describe an asset’s condition as green, yellow, or red, indicating good,
satisfactory, or bad conditions, respectively.

2.1. Data Collection

To calculate %OHI, three significant data sets were recorded and further used in the
calculation process. These consisted of technical information, operating information, and
the results of testing and inspection, and are detailed in Table 1. The historical test records
were used to represent the trend of actual conditions and operating condition of assets in
various terms.

Table 1. Data requirement for HI calculation [14,24,25].

Main Group Detail

route name, model type, conductor size, installation date, manufacturing date,
technical information
manufacturer, installation company, system voltage, current ampacity
service age, load level, number of failures, number of repairs, network configuration,
operating information
route length, number of joints, laying environment
visual inspection, PD inspection, IRT inspection, grounding resistance measurement,
inspection and test results
sheath current measurement
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,9447
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of
of 15
15

Figure1.1.Overall
Figure Overallhealth
healthindex
indexestimation
estimationprocedure.
procedure.

2.2.
2.2.Operating
OperatingFactor
Factor
The
Theoperating
operatingfactorfactor(OF)(OF)takes
takesinto
intoconsideration
considerationsuch suchvariables
variablesas asservice
serviceage,
age,load
load
level,
level,number
numberof offailures,
failures,number
numberof ofrepairs,
repairs,network
networkconfiguration,
configuration,route routelength,
length,number
number
of
ofjoints,
joints,and
andlaying
layingenvironment,
environment,and andthetheexamples
examplesof ofpractical
practicalinstallation
installationandandoperating
operating
environments
environments are shown in Figure 2. The number of joints is counted from allindividual
are shown in Figure 2. The number of joints is counted from all individual
joints
jointsof
ofall
allphases
phasesininthe thethree-phase
three-phaseunderground
undergroundcable cablesystem,
system,which
whichcan canbebeseen
seeninin
Figure In this work, we used OF
Figure 2c. In this work, we used OF data to improve the accuracy of %OHI evaluationby
2c. data to improve the accuracy of %OHI evaluation by
incorporating
incorporatingpractical
practicaloperating
operatingconditions
conditionsinto intoourourcalculations.
calculations.For Foreach
eachunderground
underground
cable the obtained %OHI was multiplied by the OF
cable system, the obtained %OHI was multiplied by the OF to determine the systemhealth
system, to determine the system health
index,
index,asasillustrated
illustratedby bythe theclassification
classificationcriteria
criteriain inTable
Table2.2.However,
However,for forthe
thenext
nextstep
stepofof
the
the%OHI
%OHIcalculation,
calculation, we we recalled
recalledthat theOF
thatthe OFcannot
cannotaffectaffect100%
100%of ofthe
theasset’s
asset’soverall
overall
condition. A figure of one-third was previously recommended and used [6,25] because
condition. A figure of one-third was previously recommended and used [6,25] because
the %OHI should not decrease to 0% if the system is new. This OF was used to take into
the %OHI should not decrease to 0% if the system is new. This OF was used to take into
account the severe operating condition of the cable systems under consideration. The OF
account the severe operating condition of the cable systems under consideration. The OF
calculation is expressed in Equation (1), as follows:
calculation is expressed in Equation (1), as follows:
p
!
Table 2. Operating criteria for
2 1 ∑ c = 1 (Sc × Wc )
OFOF = calculation
+ ×[14,24,25]. (1)
3 3 ∑cp=1 (Smax,c × Wc )
Criteria
Considering Item
where Sc is a score of the cth operating criterion, NormalSmax,c isSatisfactory
a maximum score Risk of the cth
th
service W
operating criterion, agec is the importance weight<20
(yrs.) of the c operating 20–30criterion, c is >30
the index
of operating criterion,
load leveland (%)p is the total number<60 of operating criteria.
60–80 >80
Number of failures (times) 0 1–3 >3
Number of repairs (times) <3 3–6 >6
network configuration network loop redial
route length (km) <1 1–3 >3
number of joints <10 10–30 >30
laying environment no road, building vibration
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 5 of 15

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 2. Example
Figure 2. Example working
working environment
environment of underground cable
of underground cable systems:
systems: (a)
(a) cable laying through
cable laying through
duct bank; (b) cable laying across the road; (c) joints of cables; (d) cable laying under the building;
duct bank; (b) cable laying across the road; (c) joints of cables; (d) cable laying under the building;
(e) plug-in GIS cable terminations; (f) cracked cable jacket.
(e) plug-in GIS cable terminations; (f) cracked cable jacket.

 (S c × W c ) 

p
Table 2. Operating criteria for OF calculation
2  1[14,24,25].
c =1
OF = + × (1)
3  3  (S
c )
p

× WCriteria
Considering Item  c=1 m ax,c

NormalSmax,c is a maximum
where Sc is a score of the cth operating criterion, Satisfactoryscore of theRisk
cth operat-
service age (yrs.) <20 20–30 >30
ing criterion, Wc is the importance weight of the c operating criterion, c is the index of
th

operating criterion,
load leveland
(%) p is the total number
<60of operating criteria.
60–80 >80
Number of failures (times) 0 1–3 >3
2.3. Health Index Calculation
Number of repairs (times) <3 3–6 >6
Following [14] and [24], underground cable system components were classified into
network
five groups, i.e.,configuration
cable, joint, termination, network
manhole, or duct loop
bank, to facilitate redial
the simple
route length (km) <1 1–3
health index calculation set out in Figure 1. This condition estimation process begins >3 with
a calculation of theofpercentage
number joints health index<10of the underground
10–30cable system component
>30
(%HIC) by applying Equation
laying environment (2) to the actual
no testing and inspection
road, buildingresults given in Table
vibration
3, so that:

 (S × W ) × 100
n
2.3. Health Index Calculation
i =1
% HIC =
i i
(2)
 (S system
Following [14] and [24], underground cable × W ) components were classified into
n
i =1 max,i i
five groups, i.e., cable, joint, termination, manhole, or duct bank, to facilitate the simple
health index
where Si is a calculation set out
score obtained in Figure
from 1. This
the ith test andcondition
inspection estimation process
result, Smax,i is thebegins
maximumwith
a calculation of the percentage health index of the underground cable system
score of the i test and inspection result, Wi is the importance weight of the i test and
th component
th

(%HIC) by applying
inspection result, i isEquation
the index(2)
of to the actual
testing testing andmethods,
and inspection inspection results
and n is thegiven
totalinnumber
Table 3,
so test
of that:and inspection results.
Next, the worst %HIC of each ∑in=1 (Si group
component
× Wi ) in the system is selected as a repre-
%H IC = n × 100 (2)
sentative to calculate the percentage health ∑i=1 index
( S max,i ×
of W i ) system (%HIS), as in Equation (3),
the
as follows:
where Si is a score obtained from the ith test and inspection result, Smax,i is the maximum
score of the ith test and inspection result, Wi is the importance weight of the ith test and
inspection result, i is the index of testing and inspection methods, and n is the total number
of test and inspection results.
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 6 of 15

Table 3. Testing and inspection methods for HI calculation [4,14,24].

Criteria
Testing Method Output Value
Good Satisfactory Bad
PD pattern no PD/corona surface internal
amplitude (internal PD), (pC) <50 50–300 >300
PD inspection
amplitude (surface PD), (nC) <0.5 0.5–2 >2
trending of amplitude stable slight significant
∆T phase-ambient (◦ C) <10 10–15 >15
IRT inspection
∆T phase-phase (◦ C) <5 5–10 >10
sheath current increment of sheath current (%) <5 5–10 >10
grounding resistance grounding resistance (Ω) <10 10–25 25
cable jacket normal repaired cracked
cable supporting structure normal stained broken
cable shield grounding normal loose broken
splice condition normal - bloated
termination condition normal dirty bloated
manhole gate normal stained lost
visual inspection manhole wall normal small crack broken
manhole floor normal small crack broken
manhole cleaning clean dirty flooded
manhole ground connection normal loose broken
duct bank water ingress no water some leakage high pressure
duct bank general condition normal small crack broken
number of available ducts many a few unavailable

Next, the worst %HIC of each component group in the system is selected as a repre-
sentative to calculate the percentage health index of the system (%HIS), as in Equation (3),
as follows:
∑m


j=1 %H ICW,j × Wj
%H IS = (3)
100
where %HICW,j is the worst component health index of the jth major component in each
group, Wj is the importance weight of the jth major component of each group, j is the major
component index of each group, and m is the total number of major component groups.
Finally, the percentage overall health index (%OHI) of the underground cable system
is determined using Equation (4), as follows:

%OH I = %H IS × OF (4)

where %HIS is the system health index, and OF is the operating factor of the underground
cable system.
This represents a consideration of the actual and operating conditions of the under-
ground cable system, based not only on the test results, but also the usage level of the
system. This calculation of %OHI can be similarly applied to other physical systems if their
historical testing record and operating condition are sufficiently known.

3. Remaining Useful Life Estimation

After the annual %OHI records of each retired underground cable system were suffi-
ciently collected, statistical analyses were carried out to determine the correlation between
the %OHI records and the aging of the equipment. Normal distribution was applied to
determine the relationship between PoF and %OHI—known as the HI curve. Weibull
distribution was used to estimate the aging behavior of equipment by determining the
relationship between PoF and age—known as the aging curve. The procedure for RUL
estimation is set out in Figure 3. Two additional inputs were used in the RUL evaluation
process. These were the estimated actual %OHI and the expected EoL of the system.
 After the relationships between PoF and %OHI, and between PoF and age, were de-
termined, the apparent asset age was estimated. This apparent age differs from the chron-
ological age because it is an estimated figure based on practical testing data and actual
operating stresses. Asset RUL was then determined as in Equation (5), thus:
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 7 of 15
RUL = EoLexpected − Ageapparent (5)

%OHI Records Aging-Curve Determination

PoF vs. %OHI PoF vs. Age

using Normal Distribution using Weibull Distribution

Apparent Age Determination

Health Index Curve Aging Curve
1.2 1.2

Actual %OHI for 1

0.8
1

0.8

Age Estimation

PoF

PoF
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
%OHI Age

Apparent Age

Expected EoL ∑

Remaining Useful Life

Figure 3. Remaining useful life estimation procedure [26].

Figure 3. Remaining useful life estimation procedure [26].

3.1. Health Index Curve

After Using Normal Distribution
the relationships between PoF and %OHI, and between PoF and age, were
determined,
In Figure the apparent
3, on the left-hand side, asset
normalagedistribution
was estimated. is usedThis apparentthe
to estimate age differs from the
failure
chronological
probability of sample retired ageunderground
because it iscablean estimated
systems based figureonbased
a meanon and
practical testing data and
a standard
actual The
deviation [16,20]. operating stresses.
probability Asset RUL
of failure was then determined
of underground as in is
cable systems Equation (5), thus:
a combina-
tion of the system failure rate and %OHI, which illustrates the relationship between PoF
and %OHI. This illustration was then confirmed RUL = EoL means−ofAge
by expected apparent analysis of his-
regression (5)
torical %OHI records of retired cable systems. With respect to the normal distribution
3.1. Health Index Curve Using Normal Distribution
analysis, three functions were used to determine the PoF from the %OHI, as follows: prob-
In Figure
ability density function 3, onorthe
(PDF) left-hand
f(x); cumulativeside,distribution
normal distribution is usedortoF(x);
function (CDF) estimate
and the failure
probability
survival function of as
or S(x), sample retired
expressed inunderground
Equations (6)–(8) cable[13,18].
systems based on a mean and a standard
deviationdensity
The probability [16,20]. function
The probability of failure
(PDF) f(x) is therefore:of underground cable systems is a combination
of the system failure rate and %OHI, which illustrates the relationship between PoF and
( x − μ )2
%OHI. This illustration was then confirmed 1 − by means of regression analysis of historical
%OHI records of retired fcable ( x) = systems. e With 2σ 2
respect to the normal distribution (6) analysis,
2πσ 2
three functions were used to determine the PoF from the %OHI, as follows: probability
density
where μ is the meanfunction (PDF) or f(x);
of the population, σ iscumulative
the standard distribution
deviation, function (CDF)
and x is the or F(x); and survival
population.
function or
The cumulative S(x), as expressed
distribution functionin Equations
(CDF) F(x) in(6)–(8) normal[13,18].
distribution is an integral
part of the PDF, soThe probability density function (PDF) f(x) is therefore:
that:
x
F ( x) =  ( x −µ) 2
f ( x)dx 1 − (7)
f−∞( x ) = √ e 2σ2 (6)
2πσ2
where µ is the mean of the population, σ is the standard deviation, and x is the population.
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) F(x) in normal distribution is an integral
part of the PDF, so that: Z x
F(x) = f ( x )dx (7)
−∞
The survival function S(x) using normal distribution is the inverse of the CDF, so that:
Z x
S( x ) = 1 − f ( x )dx (8)
−∞
 Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

The survival function S(x) using normal distribution is the inverse of the CDF, so
Energies 2022, 15, 9447
that: 8 of 15
x
S( x ) = 1 −  f ( x )dx (8)
−∞

The
Theprobability
probabilitydensity
densityfunction f(x)
function is is
f(x) plotted in in
plotted Figure 4a while
Figure the the
4a while survival function
survival func-
S(x)
tionisS(x)
plotted in Figure
is plotted 4b. 4b.
in Figure

(a) (b)
Figure4.4.Normal
Figure Normaldistribution
distributionapplication
applicationon
on%OHI
%OHIanalysis:
analysis:(a)
(a)failure
failureprobability
probabilitydensity
densityversus
versus
%OHI; (b) HI curve.
%OHI; (b) HI curve.

Normaldistribution
Normal distributionanalysis
analysisshows
showsthat
thatthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenthe
the%OHI
%OHIand
andthe
the
PoF of the HI curve is an inverse variation, which means that the lower the %OHI,
PoF of the HI curve is an inverse variation, which means that the lower the %OHI, the the
higherthe
higher thePoF
PoFthat
thatcan
canbe
beexpected.
expected.

3.2.Aging
3.2. AgingCurve
CurveUsing
UsingWeibull
WeibullDistribution
Distribution
On
Onthe
theright-hand
right-handsidesideofofFigure
Figure3,3,the theWeibull
Weibulldistribution
distributionwas wasapplied
appliedto todetermine
determine
the
theaging
agingcurve
curvewhich
whichdisplays
displaysthetherelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenthe thePoF
PoFand andthetheapparent
apparentageageofof
underground cable systems by adjusting the shape (β) and scale (α)
underground cable systems by adjusting the shape (β) and scale (α) parameters according parameters according to
the degradation
to the degradation behavior, the typical
behavior, EoL,EoL,
the typical and and
the design
the design lifetime [16,27,28].
lifetime To determine
[16,27,28]. To deter-
the apparent
mine age of the
the apparent ageunderground cable system
of the underground cable from
system %OHI,fromthe agingthe
%OHI, curve was
aging usedwas
curve as
aused
representative curve for curve
as a representative the studied
for theHV cable systems,
studied HV cabletaking systems, intotaking
consideration the actual
into consideration
operating
the actualcondition,
operatingdegradation behavior, and
condition, degradation typical lifetime
behavior, and typical of underground cables. The
lifetime of underground
calculations
cables. The calculations of failure rate and probability of failure using the Weibullare
of failure rate and probability of failure using the Weibull distribution set
distri-
out in Equations (9) and (10), respectively [29], so that:
bution are set out in Equations (9) and (10), respectively [29], so that:

β βt  tβ−1β −1−(−t/α
 
ββ

f (tα) = α   e e ( )
t α)
f (t) = (9)
(9)
α α 
β
Pf (t) = 1 − e−(t/α )
−(t α )
β (10)
Pf (t ) = 1 − e (10)
where t is the time in years, α is the scale parameter, and β is the shape parameter.
whereThet is andtime
α the β parameters
in years, αwere
is theused
scaletoparameter,
define theand location and
β is the slopeparameter.
shape of the exponen-
tial rise of the aging curve. These two parameters were selected
The α and β parameters were used to define the location and slope of the exponential to closely reflect the
typical aging process of the underground cable systems. The asset
rise of the aging curve. These two parameters were selected to closely reflect the typical groups considered
in this process
aging study had various
of the EoL values
underground ranging
cable fromThe
systems. 20 asset
to 42 groups
years. considered
This findinginwasthis
mainly
study hada consequence
various EoL of the typical
values lifetime
ranging from of 20
cross-linked
to 42 years. polyethylene
This finding cables,
was which
mainlyisa
typically
consequence30–40ofyears, depending
the typical lifetime upon manufacturer
of cross-linked design andcables,
polyethylene international
which isstandard
typically
recommendations [4,9,30,31]. Using Equation (10), the
30–40 years, depending upon manufacturer design and international standard value of α and β parameters has
recommen-
been estimated as 26.2 and 2.1, respectively, resulting in a shape of
dations [4,9,30,31]. Using Equation (10), the value of α and β parameters has been esti- aging curve similar to
that of the HI curve [16,28]. The failure probability density and aging
mated as 26.2 and 2.1, respectively, resulting in a shape of aging curve similar to that of graphs for the degra-
dation
the HIcharacteristic
curve [16,28].of thefailure
The asset’sprobability
cable system are shown
density and agingin Figure
graphs 5a and b, respectively.
for the degradation
characteristic of the asset’s cable system are shown in Figure 5a and b, respectively.
5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Energies 2022, 15,

Energies 2022, 15, 9447
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of
of 15
15

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Weibull distribution approaching aging curve analysis: (a) failure probability density ver-
Figure 5.
sus age; (b) aging curve.
Figure 5. Weibull
Weibulldistribution
distributionapproaching
approachingaging
agingcurve
curveanalysis:
analysis:(a)(a) failure
failure probability
probability density
density ver-
versus
sus age; (b) aging curve.
age; (b) aging curve.
3.3. System Age Prediction
3.3. System Age Prediction
First, the apparent age of the considered underground cable system was determined
First, the apparent age of the considered underground cable system was determined
using an actual %OHI of the cable system as an input to obtain the PoF value from the HI
using an actual %OHI of the cable system as an input to obtain the PoF value from the HI
curve, as shown on the as
curve, left-hand
shown onside
thegraph of Figure
left-hand 6, which
side graph is exactly
of Figure consistent
which
6, which is exactly
is with
exactly consistent
consistent with
the PoF value shown in the aging curve on the right-hand side graph, and thus indicates
the PoF value shown in the aging curve on the right-hand side graph, and thus indicates
an estimated apparent systemapparent
an estimated age.
apparent system
system age.
age.

Figure 6. Estimation of apparent age of system [26].

Figure 6. EstimationFigure
of apparent age ofofsystem
6. Estimation apparent [26].
age of system [26].
Second, the apparent age of the considered underground cable system was calculated
usingSecond,
Second, the apparent Equations
agethe (11)–(13).
apparent
of the consideredEquation
age of the (11) is a rewritten
considered
underground underground
cable system form cable
of
wasEquation
system (6) which
was
calculated was
calculated
used to determine
using Equations
using Equations (11)–(13). the PDF
(11)–(13).
Equation according
(11) isEquation
a rewritten to the
(11) isform%OHI
a rewritten value
of Equation of
form ofeach system.
(6)Equation Equation
which was (12)
(6) which was is
rewritten from Equation (8) and used to calculate the PoF of such a system using a survival
used to determineused the to
PDFdetermine
accordingthe PDF
to the according
%OHI value to the of%OHI eachvaluesystem. of each system.(12)
Equation Equation
is (12) is
or health index
rewritten curve, such
from Equation as that
(8) and used shown on the the
to calculate left-hand
PoF ofside suchofa Figure
system 6. Finally,
using Equa-
a survival
rewritten from Equation (8) and used to calculate the PoF of such a system using a survival
tion
or (13) was
health indexused
curve,to calculate
such as that theshown
apparent ageleft-hand
on the of the system side ofunder
Figureconsideration.
6. Finally, Equation
or health index curve, such as that shown on the left-hand side of Figure
(13) was used to calculate the apparent age of the system under
6. Finally, Equa-
consideration.
(%OHI − μ )2
tion (13) was used to calculate the apparent age of the system 1 under− consideration.
f (%OHI ) = e 2σ 2
2
(11)
1 2 − (%OH I −µ)
− μ 2
2
πσ
1 I )− = 2σ√2 2πσ2 e
f (%OH (%OHI ) 2σ 2 (11)
f (%OHI ) = e (11)
2Sπσ 2 x
(%OHI ) = 1 − x f (%OHI )dx (12)
Z
S(%OH I ) = 1 − −∞ f (%OH I )dx (12)
−∞
x
S(%OHI ) = 1 −  f (%OHI )dx 11 (12)
Ageapparent = =α(−
Age−∞apparent α −lnln(
(1( 1−−SS((%
%OH
)
OHII))))β
β
) (13)
(13)

4. Results 1
Ageapparent
In this paper,
4. Results thirteen ( (
= α retired
− ln 1 underground ))
− S(%OHI ) cable systems from the same industrial
β (13)
estateInarea were evaluated and analyzed. All of them
this paper, thirteen retired underground had
cable been used
systems frominthe
thesame
system voltage
industrial
of 115 kV and laid through duct banks and manholes. They had been used in different
estate area were evaluated and analyzed. All of them had been used in the system voltage
4. Results operating conditions, as shown in Table 4. Practical testing data and actual operating
of 115 kV and laid through duct banks and manholes. They had been used in different
In this paper, thirteen retired underground cable systems from the same industrial
estate area were evaluated and analyzed. All of them had been used in the system voltage
of 115 kV and laid through duct banks and manholes. They had been used in different
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 10 of 15

data of those underground cable systems were obtained during the evaluation process
to determine %OHI values. However, the operating data for each underground cable
system were unique because of the differences in environmental and operating conditions
experienced by each individual system. The %OHI calculation method used in [14] and [24]
was adopted for our study purposes and we obtained conventional health index (%HIS),
operating factor (OF), and %OHI values for all 13 cable systems for both the starting year
and the end-of-life year. These are shown in in Table 5. The %OHI values for the 13 systems
for each year in service were then calculated. These are presented in Table 6. In all, 546 data
of %OHI were evaluated from historical records, with values varying from 44% to 100%.
Trend lines of the relationship between %OHI and serviced age were then plotted, and
these are shown in Figure 7. The trend line fell dramatically after 15 years of service. Finally,
the statistical parameters of %OHI consisting of the mean, variance, and standard deviation
were determined, and these were equal to 69.05, 263.38, and 16.23, respectively.

Table 4. Technical and operating information of 13 sample retired underground cable systems.

Conductor Length Number of Laying Load Year

System Name
Size (mm2 ) (m) Joints Environment Percentage in Service
EF01 800 2194 36 road, building 67 20
EF02 800 3712 39 road, building 49 27
EF03 800 2446 30 road, building 34 37
EF04 800 2150 30 road, building 24 42
EF05 400 2011 39 road, building 65 29
EF06 400 2057 18 vibration 32 35
EF07 400 1523 18 road, building 37 39
EF08 800 3150 27 vibration 29 39
EF09 800 7942 81 vibration 37 31
EF10 400 1439 12 vibration 63 32
EF11 800 5315 60 vibration 47 29
EF12 800 1208 9 vibration 63 35
EF13 300 1853 18 vibration 62 30
Note: The number of joints is counted from all individual joints of the three-phase cable system.

Table 5. %OHI calculation of 13 sample of the retired underground cable systems.

Start Year End-of-Life Year

System Name
%HIS OF %OHI %HIS OF %OHI
EF01 98.58 0.89 87.56 59.28 0.78 46.11
EF02 99.23 0.90 89.43 60.30 0.82 49.32
EF03 98.85 0.92 90.61 61.73 0.80 49.34
EF04 99.04 0.92 90.79 58.55 0.80 46.98
EF05 99.23 0.92 90.96 59.13 0.80 47.27
EF06 99.23 0.93 92.49 56.22 0.83 46.68
EF07 98.65 0.93 91.95 56.49 0.82 46.20
EF08 99.04 0.92 90.79 59.71 0.76 45.52
EF09 98.08 0.90 88.39 59.09 0.80 47.24
EF10 99.04 0.92 91.40 58.46 0.80 46.74
EF11 98.08 0.89 87.48 53.43 0.81 43.04
EF12 100 0.93 92.90 56.02 0.79 44.44
EF13 99.04 0.91 90.48 60.01 0.81 48.34
 Figure 7. All the %OHI records of 13 retired underground cable systems.

Energies 2022, 15, 9447 11 of 15

Table 6. Statistical %OHI records of 13 retired underground cable systems.

Recorded %OHI of Retired Underground Cable Systems

Year EF01 EF02Table EF03 EF04 %OHI
6. Statistical EF05records
EF06 of 13 EF07 EF08 EF09
retired underground cableEF10
systems.EF11 EF12 EF13
0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1
Recorded %OHI of Retired Underground
87.56 89.43 90.61 90.79 90.96 92.49 91.95 90.79 88.39 91.40 87.48 Cable Systems 92.90 90.48
Year
3 85.05 88.91
EF01 EF02 90.61
EF03 90.43
EF04 90.43
EF05 91.95
EF06 90.56 EF07 90.43
EF08 88.04
EF09 91.04EF10 87.14
EF11 92.54
EF12 90.13
EF13
50 84.25
100 86.53
100 88.89
100 88.16
100 89.95
100 90.21
100 90.39
100 90.43
100 87.35
100 91.04
100 87.14
100 92.54
100 89.31
100
71 83.11 89.43
87.56 83.69 87.12
90.61 87.82
90.79 87.82
90.96 89.49
92.49 89.3191.95 88.67
90.79 85.77
88.39 87.31
91.40 86.45
87.48 86.23
92.90 78.97
90.48
93 85.05
83.11 88.91 90.61
83.07 87.12 90.43 87.12
87.12 90.43 87.51
91.95 87.7790.56 85.14
90.43 82.15
88.04 85.48
91.04 84.62
87.14 92.54
85.42 90.13
79.76
5 84.25 86.53 88.89 88.16 89.95 90.21 90.39 90.43 87.35 91.04 87.14 92.54 89.31
11 77.85 81.22 86.30 87.12 86.25 86.81 87.72 85.14 80.44 82.15 82.15 83.01 80.78
7 83.11 83.69 87.12 87.82 87.82 89.49 89.31 88.67 85.77 87.31 86.45 86.23 78.97
139 74.87 83.07
83.11 78.11 85.14
87.12 86.25
87.12 83.69
87.12 85.13
87.51 86.6587.77 83.63
85.14 75.53
82.15 80.45
85.48 80.44
84.62 82.16
85.42 79.49
79.76
15
11 74.87 81.22
77.85 78.07 85.14
86.30 83.17
87.12 80.23
86.25 81.60
86.81 86.9487.72 82.00
85.14 72.26
80.44 78.23
82.15 77.38
82.15 79.04
83.01 78.14
80.78
13
17 74.87
63.78 78.11 85.14
76.63 82.63 86.25 79.43
83.17 83.69 79.83
85.13 83.1286.65 79.21
83.63 71.01
75.53 78.23
80.45 77.38
80.44 82.16
75.57 79.49
74.17
15 74.87 78.07 85.14 83.17 80.23 81.60 86.94 82.00 72.26 78.23 77.38 79.04 78.14
19 59.87 67.11 77.65 80.90 76.24 79.43 82.31 76.84 71.01 76.95 76.10 74.78 74.24
17 63.78 76.63 82.63 83.17 79.43 79.83 83.12 79.21 71.01 78.23 77.38 75.57 74.17
20
19 46.11 67.11
59.87 68.03 74.95
77.65 80.27
80.90 72.10
76.24 75.22
79.43 77.1982.31 73.32
76.84 66.25
71.01 71.06
76.95 68.46
76.10 72.91
74.78 70.83
74.24
27
20 46.11 49.32 70.50
68.03 74.95 77.20
80.27 53.31
72.10 64.47
75.22 70.9977.19 67.95
73.32 56.81
66.25 62.95
71.06 50.91
68.46 63.31
72.91 57.24
70.83
27
29 49.32 70.50
70.50 77.20 47.27
76.44 53.31 61.96
64.47 70.9970.99 67.95
67.95 51.48
56.81 60.06
62.95 43.04
50.91 63.31
58.59 57.24
50.69
29
30 70.50 76.44
66.49 76.44 47.27 61.96 70.99 67.95
61.96 70.99 67.11 51.48 56.17 51.48 60.06 43.04 58.59
58.59 50.69
48.34
30 66.49 76.44 61.96 70.99 67.11 51.48 56.17 58.59 48.34
31
31
64.09
64.09
72.24
72.24
55.85
55.85
64.54
64.54
63.84
63.84
47.24
47.24
51.29
51.29
52.19
52.19
32
32 61.22
61.22 72.24
72.24 55.85
55.85 64.5464.54 63.84
63.84 46.74
46.74 52.19
52.19
35
35 51.57
51.57 67.95
67.95 46.68
46.68 56.6656.66 58.23
58.23 44.44
44.44
37
37 49.34
49.34 62.41
62.41 51.43 53.06
51.43 53.06
39 55.85 46.20 45.52
39 55.85 46.20 45.52
42 46.98
42 46.98
1st yr. OF 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.91
1st yr. OF 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.91
end yr.
Energies OF15, x FOR
2022, 0.78PEER 0.82 0.80
REVIEW 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.82 0.76 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.79 0.81
11 of 15
end yr. OF 0.78 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.82 0.76 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.79 0.81
Note:
Note: End-of-life(%OHI
End-of-life (%OHI < 50).
< 50).

For the purposes of RUL estimation, we obtained the mean, variance, and standard
deviation values for the 13 systems to calculate the PDF and S(x) functions, using Equa-
tions (6) and (8), resulting in the HI curves shown in Figure 4a and b, respectively. The

Figure7.7.All
Figure Allthe
the%OHI
%OHIrecords
recordsof
of13
13retired
retiredunderground
undergroundcable
cablesystems.
systems.

Table 6. Statistical
For %OHI of
the purposes records
RULofestimation,
13 retired underground cable
we obtained thesystems.
mean, variance, and stan-
dard deviation values for the 13 systems to calculate the PDF and S(x) functions, using
Recorded %OHI of Retired Underground Cable Systems
Equations (6) and (8), resulting in the HI curves shown in Figure 4a and b, respectively. The
Year EF01 EF02 EF03 EF04 EF05 EF06 EF07 EF08 EF09 EF10 EF11 EF12 EF13
obtained HI curve was then compared with the aging curve to estimate the apparent age of
0 100 100the underground
100 100 cable
100systems,
100 as illustrated
100 100 1006. The
in Figure 100
results100 100 100
of the apparent age
1 87.56 89.43 90.61 90.79 90.96 92.49 91.95 90.79 88.39 91.40 87.48 92.90
and the percentage age difference compared with the actual age are presented in Table 7.90.48
3 85.05 88.91 90.61 90.43 90.43 91.95 90.56 90.43 88.04 91.04 87.14 92.54 90.13
5 84.25 86.53 88.89 88.16 89.95 90.21 90.39 90.43 87.35 91.04 87.14 92.54 89.31
7 83.11 83.69 87.12 87.82 87.82 89.49 89.31 88.67 85.77 87.31 86.45 86.23 78.97
9 83.11 83.07 87.12 87.12 87.12 87.51 87.77 85.14 82.15 85.48 84.62 85.42 79.76
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 12 of 15

The RUL estimation resulted in very high errors at the beginning stage of the asset life
(1st–10th years) due to the lack of recorded data for statistical estimation purposes. This
means that the RUL evaluation method described here is not suitable for cases of premature
failure or for burn-in periods; however, results for later years show that this method is
applicable for aged underground cable systems, as per the stated objective of this work.
When considering only the period between years 11 and 42, we found an average error of
3.79%, a minimum error of 0.29%, and a maximum error of 11.83%, and these figures are
within the range generally considered as acceptable, i.e., that the average error should not
exceed 5%.

Table 7. RUL estimation error of the example retired systems.

%Error %Error
Actual Age %OHIavg Apparent Age Actual Age %OHIavg Apparent Age
(Age Difference) (Age Difference)
1 90.40 8.71 770.612 22 69.61 21.59 1.872
2 90.13 8.84 341.967 23 67.98 22.81 0.838
3 89.79 9.00 200.076 24 66.30 24.08 0.335
4 89.23 9.28 131.914 25 64.93 25.14 0.552
5 88.94 9.42 88.474 26 63.38 26.35 1.363
6 87.63 10.09 68.221 27 60.85 28.37 5.079
7 86.29 10.80 54.322 28 60.31 28.81 2.877
8 86.12 10.90 36.214 29 58.03 30.67 5.767
9 85.03 11.49 27.708 30 57.18 31.38 4.591
10 83.95 12.11 21.074 31 54.26 33.82 9.097
11 83.61 12.30 11.833 (max error) 32 53.69 34.30 7.198
12 82.62 12.88 7.327 33 52.54 35.27 6.893
13 81.66 13.46 3.510 34 52.25 35.52 4.476
14 80.95 13.89 0.805 35 50.28 37.22 6.344
15 79.70 14.66 2.236 36 49.38 38.00 5.556
16 78.19 15.63 2.330 37 48.88 38.43 3.871
17 77.24 16.25 4.426 38 48.42 38.83 2.190
18 75.47 17.43 3.156 39 47.39 39.73 1.868
19 74.88 17.84 6.123 40 47.21 39.89 0.286 (min error)
20 71.26 20.38 1.918 41 47.03 40.04 2.334
21 70.51 20.93 0.346 42 46.71 40.33 3.985
average error 3.79%

After successfully applying the proposed RUL estimation method with retired cable
systems, this method was then subsequently applied with 10 in-use underground cable
systems, all installed in the same industrial area as the retired systems. By using their latest
actual %OHI figures (Table 8), we found a highest RUL value of 30.01 years for the F01
system. This is because the F01 was the youngest of the 10 systems under consideration.
Similarly, the oldest cable route—F10—had the lowest RUL value of 5.16 years. More
interestingly, the F03 system and the F04 system both had the same chronological age of
17 years, but their apparent ages were different, being 17.37 and 14.97 years old, respectively.
This difference in the apparent age can be explained by their different %OHI values, which
reflect real-world differences in their actual condition and operating condition. In simple
terms, the F03 system was in worse condition than the F04 system.
The results obtained in this study may be of great practical benefit. If the %OHI of the
underground cable systems in a network is known, the responsible organization can classify
its cable systems to facilitate the efficient planning and management of maintenance actions.
For underground cable system managers, the choice between urgent action, continuous
monitoring, or normal inspection can be determined by considering the %OHI of a given
system as representing bad, satisfactory, or good conditions, respectively [3,9,23]. Secondly,
system lifetime extension can be achieved by considering the difference between apparent
system age and actual age and adjusting operating conditions and maintenance intervals
accordingly. Ideally, apparent and actual ages should be close to each other, and reflect
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 13 of 15

the expected lifetime and the normal aging characteristics of the cable system. Finally,
managers can optimize their budget by taking actions appropriate to the asset condition,
such as the complete replacement of systems in seriously bad condition [9], the repair of
systems with minor damage, the continuous monitoring of systems whose condition is
suspect [31], or normal maintenance for systems in good condition [3] as summarized
in Table 9.

Table 8. RUL estimation of 10 in-use systems in the same estate area.

Feeder Latest %OHI Actual Age Expected EoL Apparent Age RUL
F01 87.82 8 40 9.99 30.01
F02 80.44 12 40 14.20 25.80
F03 75.57 17 40 17.37 22.63
F04 79.21 17 40 14.97 25.03
F05 71.06 21 40 20.53 19.47
F06 72.10 22 40 19.78 20.22
F07 70.96 25 40 20.60 19.40
F08 67.07 25 40 23.49 16.51
F09 60.97 33 40 28.28 11.72
F10 53.06 36 40 34.84 5.16

Table 9. Maintenance strategy recommendation for underground cable systems.

%OHI Condition Recommendation Goals

100–75 good normal maintenance minimal maintenance
defects localization,
increase maintenance period,
75–50 satisfactory maintain system condition,
repair minor defections
prolong the RUL
fully replacement if no
<50 bad (EoL) urgent action required
possibility to extend the RUL

5. Conclusions
In this work, we sought to produce an effective RUL estimation tool for underground
cable systems by considering statistical records of %OHI values from retired cable systems
which reflected the degradation behavior of system components throughout their lifetime.
The well-known HI calculation was applied to numerically determine the actual condition
of components using technical information and operating data as well as actual testing
and inspection results. Statistical methods were then applied, consisting of the normal
distribution and Weibull distribution, to determine an HI curve and an aging curve, respec-
tively, for the reference group of components. These were then used as representatives for
subsequent estimations of apparent age and RUL. The %OHI records of the retired systems
were analyzed using the normal distribution to provide a representative HI curve which
displayed the relationship between the failure probability and %OHI. In addition, Weibull
distribution was used to estimate an aging curve representing the degradation behavior of
the underground cable systems, by adjusting the appropriate value of the shape and scale
parameters. This aging curve illustrated the relationship of the PoF and the apparent age of
the sample systems. Finally, the two curves were compared to each other by adding the
latest actual %OHI of the estimating system to the HI curve to obtain the PoF value. The
obtained PoF value was then applied to the aging curve resulting in an apparent age of the
system. Finally, the RUL of the system was calculated by comparing the difference between
the expected EoL and the apparent age. Estimations of apparent age were obtained for
thirteen retired underground cable systems as well as ten in-use systems and are presented
here. Differences between actual age and apparent age due to %OHI, as well as the RUL,
are also described above. The error-percentage results demonstrate the accuracy and the
effectiveness of this technique, as well as those age groups most suitable for its application.
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 14 of 15

Results such as these can be used in system management to properly plan maintenance
duration, repair, and replacement, and determine whether a matter is urgent or routine
based on the RUL, apparent age, and %OHI data of the system. Finally, managers can
optimize their budget by selecting appropriate options such as full replacement, minor
repair, rescheduling a maintenance cycle, or continually performing routine activities, with
reference to the obtained %OHI of each underground cable system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.S. (Tanachai Somsak), C.S. and T.S. (Thanapong
Suwanasri); methodology, T.S. (Tanachai Somsak) and T.S. (Thanapong Suwanasri); formal anal-
ysis, T.S. (Tanachai Somsak) and C.S.; investigation, T.S. (Tanachai Somsak) and T.S. (Thanapong
Suwanasri); resources, C.S. and T.S. (Thanapong Suwanasri); data curation, T.S. (Tanachai Somsak);
writing—original draft preparation, T.S. (Tanachai Somsak), C.S. and T.S. (Thanapong Suwanasri);
writing—review and editing, C.S. and T.S. (Thanapong Suwanasri); supervision, C.S. and T.S.
(Thanapong Suwanasri); project administration, C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF), and
King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok with Contract No. KMUTNB-FF-66-13.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mazzanti, G. Life and Reliability Models for High Voltage DC Extruded Cables. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2017, 33, 42–52. [CrossRef]
2. Bicen, Y. Trend Adjusted Lifetime Monitoring of Underground Power Cable. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 143, 189–196. [CrossRef]
3. Gulski, E.; Jongen, R. Condition Based Maintenance of Transmission Power Cables. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2022, 37, 1588–1597.
[CrossRef]
4. IEEE Std 400-2012; Guide for Field Testing and Evaluation of the Insulation of Shielded Power Cable Systems Rated 5 kV and
Above. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, Z.; Assala, P.D.S.; Wu, L. Residual Life Assessment of 110 kV XLPE Cable. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2018, 163, 572–580.
[CrossRef]
6. CIGRE. Remaining Life Management of Existing AC Underground Lines; WG B1.09; Technical Brochure No. 358; CIGRE: Paris,
France, 2008.
7. IEEE Std 400.2-2013; Guide for Field Testing of Shielded Power Cable Systems Using Very Low Frequency (VLF)(Less than 1 Hz).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
8. IEEE Std 4-2013; Standard for High-Voltage Testing Techniques. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
9. Buhari, M.; Levi, V.; Awadallah, S.K.E. Modelling of Ageing Distribution Cable for Replacement Planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
2016, 31, 3996–4004. [CrossRef]
10. Mazzanti, G. The Effects of Seasonal Factors on Life and Reliability of High Voltage AC Cables Subjected to Load Cycles. IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv. 2020, 35, 2080–2088. [CrossRef]
11. Naranpanawe, L.; Ma, H.; Saha, T.K.; Lee, C.; Ghosal, A. A Practical Health Index for Overhead Conductors: Experience from
Australian Distribution Networks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 218863–218873. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, Y.; Xv, J.; Yuan, H.; Lv, J.; Ma, Z. Health Assessment and Prediction of Overhead Line Based on Health Index. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2019, 66, 5546–5557. [CrossRef]
13. Foros, J.; Istad, M. Health Index, Risk and Remaining Lifetime Estimation of Power Transformers. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2020,
35, 2612–2620. [CrossRef]
14. Somsak, T.; Suwanasri, T.; Suwanasri, C. Condition Assessment of Underground Cable System Using Health Index and
Conditional Multiplying Factor. In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering (ISH 2019),
Budapest, Hungary, 26–30 August 2019; pp. 763–776. [CrossRef]
15. Li, S.; Wu, G.; Dong, H.; Yang, L.; Zhen, X. Probabilistic Health Index-Based Apparent Age Estimation for Power Transformers.
IEEE Access 2020, 8, 9692–9701. [CrossRef]
16. Melchor-Hernández, C.L.; Rivas-Dávalos, F.; Maximov, S.; Coria, V.; Moreno-Goytia, E.L. An Analytical Method to Estimate
the Weibull Parameters for Assessing the Mean Life of Power Equipment. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 64, 1081–1087.
[CrossRef]
17. Tsimberg, Y.; Lotho, K.; Dimnik, C.; Wrathall, N.; Mogilevsky, A. Determining Transmission Line Conductor Condition and
Remaining Life. In Proceeding of the 2014 IEEE PES T&D Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–17 April 2014; pp. 1–5.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 9447 15 of 15

18. CIGRE. Asset Management Decision Making using different Risk Assessment Methodologies; WG C1.25; Technical Brochure No. 541;
CIGRE: Paris, France, 2013.
19. Liu, S.; Wang, Y.; Tian, F. Prognosis of Underground Cable via Online Data-Driven Method with Field Data. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2015, 62, 7786–7794. [CrossRef]
20. Li, W. Evaluating Mean Life of Power System Equipment with Limited End-of-Life Failure Data. IEEE Trans. Power 2004, 19,
236–242. [CrossRef]
21. Chimunda, S.; Nyamupangedengu, C. A Reliability Assessment Model for an Outdoor 88kV XLPE Cable Termination. Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 2019, 177, 105979. [CrossRef]
22. Montanari, G.C.; Fabiani, D.; Ciani, F. Partial Discharge and Aging of AC Cable Systems Under Repetitive Voltage Transient Supply.
In Proceeding of the 2016 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC), Montreal, QC, Canada, 19–22 June 2016; pp. 379–382.
[CrossRef]
23. CIGRE. Maintenance of HV Cable Systems; WG B1.60; Technical Brochure No. 825; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2021.
24. Somsak, T.; Suwanasri, T.; Suwanasri, C. Lifetime Estimation Based Health Index and Conditional Factor for Underground Cable
System. Energies 2021, 14, 8113. [CrossRef]
25. CIGRE. Generic Guidelines for Life Time Condition Assessment of HV Assets and Related Knowledge Rules; WG B1.17; Technical Brochure
No. 420; CIGRE: Paris, France, 2010.
26. Jahromi, A.; Piercy, R.; Cress, S.; Service, J.; Fan, W. An Approach to Power Transformer Asset Management Using Health Index.
IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 2009, 25, 20–34. [CrossRef]
27. Thind, B.S.; Reddy, G.N.; Thomas, A.J.; Reddy, C.C. Modified Damage Equalization Method for Lifetime Estimation of Dielectrics.
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2021, 28, 1118–1126. [CrossRef]
28. Shaban, A.H.; Resen, A.K.; Bassil, N. Weibull Parameters Evaluation by Different Methods for Windmills Farms. Energy Rep.
2020, 6, 188–199. [CrossRef]
29. IEC 62539; IEEE 930; Guide for the Statistical Analysis of Electrical Insulation Breakdown Data. IEC: Geneva, Switzerland; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007. [CrossRef]
30. Hamad, A.A.; Ghunem, R.A. A Techno-Economic Framework for Replacing Aged XLPE Cables in the Distribution Network.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2020, 35, 2387–2393. [CrossRef]
31. Liao, Y.; Liu, H.; Yuan, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, C. A Holistic Approach to Risk-Based Maintenance Scheduling for HV Cables.
IEEE Access 2019, 7, 118975–118985. [CrossRef]