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

net/publication/224219429

Current Distribution and Losses of Grouped Underground Cables

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · August 2011

DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2104980 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

11 4,099

2 authors, including:

Balazs Novak
Lucy Electric
23 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MV Splitter plates View project

MV Splitter plates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Balazs Novak on 25 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010
Current Distribution and Losses of Grouped
Underground Cables
Balázs Novák, Member, IEEE, László Koller
Abstract—To fulfill installation requirements, sometimes, two
or more cables have to be connected in parallel in a three-phase
power distribution system. The division of the current and power
among the adjacent cables is governed by several factors, such as
position, phase order, and the grounding method of the metal
screen. This study demonstrates this effect and compares three
solution methods of grouped single-core underground cables with
their screens bonded at both the ends. The compared methods: an
analytical one provided by international standards and two 2D
finite element approaches, one of them taking into account the
twists of the wire screens.
Index Terms—Cables, Current distribution, Finite element
methods, Losses
I. INTRODUCTION
D URING the design of cable systems, the voltage drop at
rated current along a cable section and the ampacity
(current-carrying capacity) have to be taken into account. The
calculation of these quantities is the subject of international
and national standards, and has been extensively studied in the
literature [1–3]. If the ampacity and/or voltage drop
requirements cannot be fulfilled by one cable, a group of two
or more cables can be employed for energy transfer. In this
case, all the cables of one group are connected to the same
busbars at their ends, and the current of one phase is divided
among more cable conductors. The amount of current carried
by one conductor depends on the self inductances, the mutual
inductances between the conductors, the metallic parts of the
sheaths and the earth, and on the ratio of the ac resistances of
the conductors. Besides the geometric configuration of the
cables, all these parameters are also affected by the grounding
method of the metal sheaths or screens. An ac current induces
eddy currents and electromotive force (emf) in the metallic
screens, and the emf produces potential differences between
the separate screens and the ground. The potential difference
can reach dangerous levels that can be reduced by bonding and
grounding. However, the bonding at both the ends generates
Manuscript received March 1, 2010. This work was supported in part by
the H-TEC Kft. (Hungarian Subsidiary of HYUNDAI Heavy Industries Co.
Ltd.) by providing the FE tool for the simulations.
B. Novák is with the Department of Electric Power Engineering, Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, Hungary. (phone: +36-1-463-
3241; fax: +36-1-463-3231; e-mail: nbalazs@eik.bme.hu)
L. Koller is with the Department of Electronics and Cybernetics, Kalmár
Sándor Institute of Information Technology, Kecskemét, Hungary. (e-mail:
koller.laszlo@vet.bme.hu)
1
circulating currents in the screens, which, as a side effect,
increases the power loss and modifies the current distribution
within the conductors, but as an advantage, reduces the
magnetic field outside the cables. Briefly, this elaborate
interaction of the electromagnetic field creates a difference not
just in the currents of the individual conductors, but also in the
current-density distribution within one cable. The current and,
consequently, power distribution are determined by the
distribution of the electromagnetic field outside and inside the
conductors.
Analytical methods are discussed in international standards
[4] for calculating the current and power of each of the
conductors and screens in grouped cable arrangements. The
knowledge of the power distribution can form the basis of
thermal calculations required for determining the ampacity. In
case of complex configurations, the standards [5] recommend
the finite element (FE) method for the simulation of thermal
field with Joule-heat values obtained from the analytical
formulae of IEC 60287. There are commercial FE tools that
support the coupling of thermal and electromagnetic (em)
fields, making such modeling easier and the analytical em
calculations – that still need special computer software –
unnecessary. However, it is not simple to consider the twisted
nature of the conductor strands in a 2D FE model, especially
of the wire screen where the wires are separated. Because of
the twists, the current is the same in the thin wires of the wire
screen of one cable at power frequency excitation. This
condition is not fulfilled in a simple 2D model where the wires
are parallel.
Nevertheless, this precise modeling may not be necessary.
In this study, we have compared three methods for loss
calculation of grouped, single-core cables with double-bonded
wire screens. We took the analytical approach described in the
standard IEC 60287-1-3 as the basis. One simple and one
modified 2D FE model provided the results for comparison. In
the simple model, all the conductors and wires of the screens
were parallel, whereas in the modified model the twists,
resulting in uniform currents in the wires of one screen, were
taken into account. Given that the Joule-heat generated in the
individual cables is the most important factor during ampacity
calculations, we focused our attention on the difference of total
losses, including conductor and screen, obtained by the three
different approaches. The dielectric loss in the insulation was
neglected. We have examined two cable types used at 6/10 kV
(MV) and 76/132 kV (HV) – the first with a relatively small
and the second with a much larger screen cross-section – in
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010
different laying arrangements. For the calculations, the
commercial ANSYS™ software has been used.
It is worth noting that another part of the standard [6]
describes an analytical approach to calculate the sheath loss
factors for six single-bonded cables. Those formulas are valid
only for modeling two grouped systems laid in flat
arrangement. With an appropriate set of boundary conditions
and excitations, the FE models are applicable for those
conditions as well in any arbitrary configuration. Testing of the
cables in that situation was not part of our present
investigations.
II. THE MODELS
A. The cables
We investigated two single-core cable types used today in
power-distribution installations. In these cables (see Fig. 1a), a
semiconductive (SC) layer separated the conductor and the
insulation. The screen was made of helically applied copper
wires with one or two counterhelix copper tapes. The wires
were placed over an SC paper with a binder covering the SC
screen over the surface of insulation. Above the copper wire
screen, an SC or an insulating bedding layer with the binder
was applied, which separated the screen from the plastic
oversheath or jacket. Although, strictly speaking, this was a 3D
structure, a 2D model can also provide meaningful
information.
Owing to their high resistivity, the SC layers in the cable
behave almost like insulators in a magnetic analysis – both the
induced and the exciting currents are negligible in them.
Therefore, the bedding and the binding layers appeared as a
single and solid FE domain encompassing the wire screen in
our model.
Both the MV (NA2XSY 1x300 RM/25) and HV
(A2XS(FL)2Y 1x630 RM/105) cables were made with an
aluminum conductor having a cross-section of AC = 300 mm2
and AC = 630 mm2, and a screen composed of dw = 0.8-mm-
thick and dw = 1-mm-thick copper wires, respectively.
According to the manufacturer’s catalog [7], the total screen
cross-section of MV and HV cables was 25 mm2 and 105 mm2,
indicating that 50 wires and 134 wires, respectively, are
equally distributed around the circumference of the outer SC
layer. The XLPE insulation had a thickness of ric = 3.4 mm
and 18 mm, whereas the PVC (MV) or PE (HV) jacket was ris
= 1.9-mm thick and 3.9-mm thick, respectively. The width of
the SC layer covering both sides of the insulation was rs = 0.5
mm and 1 mm.
The cables were laid at a depth of hg = 1 m underground and
having a distance dk = 70 mm between them (see Fig. 2). The
distance between the axes of the cores was dx=dk+2rk, where rk
is the total radius of one cable (18.35 mm and 39.96 mm).
B. The configurations
We tested four different grouping types (Fig. 2):
a) two three-phase systems laid in flat formation next to
2
each other,
b) two flat laid systems, one above the other,
c) three flat laid systems arranged horizontally, and
d) two systems laid in trefoil formation.
If we denote the number of three-phase systems in one
group by n, then how many different combinations have to be
tested to obtain all possible results?
Taking into account only one single system arranged in
spatial symmetry, six different phase variations might occur,
although all of them must provide similar field distributions
(considering the absolute values of the field quantities). The
phases are denoted by A, B, and C. With the same amount of
current I being carried by a phase shift of 120º, the phase
orders of ABC, BCA, and CAB are identical. Only the time of
view is shifted by one-third of the current period, which does
not modify the absolute rms values. The same can be stated for
the phase orders of CBA, ACB, and BAC. The two order
types, e.g. ABC and CBA, can be considered as the mirror
images of each other, providing equal maximums but opposite
field distributions. Consequently, the results for all possible
phase orders can be given for a single system from one
calculation.
Similar considerations can also be adapted for grouped
cables. One might think that by fixing the phase order of one
of the grouped systems, we can cover all the different cases if
the systems are arranged in spatial symmetry. This would
mean that only n − 1 of them have to be varied, each
multiplying the number of combinations by 6, i.e., the total
number is 6n−1. However, spatial symmetry does not guarantee
that all the 6n−1 combinations can be covered by fixing the
order of one system. For example, by fixing the order of the
upper three cables to ABC in arrangement b, and varying only
the lower one, we can cover all possible cases. However, it is
easy to verify that in arrangement a, the field distribution from
phase orders ABC-ACB and ABC-BAC are mirror images,
which are identical for us. Where is the missing phase order? It
is CBA-BCA or CBA-CAB. Besides, the mirror images of
ABC-CBA and CBA-ABC are themselves. In short, generally,
it is not enough to fix the order of one of the systems to find all
the different variations. The larger the n, the more complicated
it is to match the similar phase orders. Therefore, we have
computed two times 6n−1 variations, the first (left or upper)
system with the phase orders ABC and CBA.
Fig. 1. The single-core cable: a) structure and b) 2D model. 1. conductor; 2.
inner semiconductive (SC) layer; 3. insulation; 4. outer SC layer; 5. wire
screen; 6. copper tape; 7. bedding and binding layers; 8. plastic oversheath
(jacket).
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010
Fig. 2. Tested arrangements of cable groups.
C. Calculation models
We compared the results of the standard’s analytical and
two FE models. The standard IEC 60287-1-3 discusses the
analytical method in detail. The FE technique and FE model
generation have been widely discussed in the literature [8];
therefore, we describe only the unique features of modeling
parallel cables here.
To reflect real-life excitation in an FE model, the
conductors belonging to the same phase had to be coupled.
Similarly, the screens of all the cables were coupled, forming
one conducting body carrying zero net current. These
conditions provided a simple 2D model with one disadvantage:
as all the conductors and screen wires were parallel, the
proximity effect created a nonuniform current distribution
within a single wire screen. Later on, in this text, we refer to
this model as a simple FE model.
Fig. 3. Representation of wires of twisted wire screens as lumped impedances in circuit models: a) by repeating the FE domains; b) by serial connection of wires
within one cable. nk: number of cables; nw: number of wires in one screen; l: length of a single FE domain.
3
In reality, owing to their twists, the wires of the screens
carry the same current, but only within one cable. We need to
have a model that takes into account the induced currents and
the proximity effect between adjacent cables, and provides
uniform current distribution among the wires of one screen.
These are two contradicting conditions that cannot be
prescribed on one element at the same time with the software
we have used. However, the software permits the
representation of an arbitrary FE volume as impedance in an
electrical circuit. By defining the model length, an FE object
can be connected to any lumped circuit element, like another
FE object. In our second FE model, each wire of the wire
screens forms individual circuit elements. By repeating the FE
domain several times and connecting them serially in a circuit
model, it could be accomplished that each wire would take
more spatial positions along its length (see Fig. 3a). The ideal
number of repetitions would be equal to the number of screen
wires in one cable, although it would enormously increase the
model size. A simpler “fake 3D model” could be created from
a single 2D FE domain by serially connecting all the wires
within one screen (see Fig. 3b). This resulted in uniform
current within a single wire screen, with a minor drawback:
increased solution time when compared with the simple model.
We call this model as twisted FE model in the text.
A symmetrical current with a frequency of f = 50 Hz and an
rms modulus of It = 100 A provided the excitation in every
case. The resistivity of aluminum was ρAl = 3.36 × 10−8 Ωm,
and that of copper was ρCu=2 × 10−8 Ωm. The SC material was
taken into account with ρscon = 1 Ωm and the soil with ρsoil = 50
Ωm in the FE models. As the resistivity of the insulators is
very high, their exact type is not important in a magnetic
analysis. The conductivity of the air and all the insulator parts
was zero. As no ferromagnetic material was included, the
relative permeability throughout the models was 1.
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010 4

We assumed the same dc resistance of the conductors and
screens in both the FE and analytical calculations. In the
analytical models, well-defined formulas yielded the ac
resistance of the conductors, whereas – considering the twists
– the ac resistance of the wire screens was equal to the dc
resistance.
III. CURRENT DISTRIBUTION
Owing to the em skin and proximity effects, the current-
density distribution in adjoining conducting bodies carrying ac
current is not uniform. The higher their cross-sectional size,
the higher is the nonuniformity. Two or more parallel
conductors connected at their ends form a larger one, the size
of which is also determined by the distances of the individual
parts, accounting for the resulting current-density distribution.
Even if the connected conductors are of the same size and
material, the current they carry might be unevenly divided
among them. The presence of an independent conducting body
in the vicinity further modifies the distribution, if a current,
either exciting or induced, is flowing through it.
The same happens with grouped cables connected in
parallel. The parallel conductors belonging to a particular
phase form a larger conducting body, in which the current-
density distribution is determined by the distance of the
conductors and their geometric position. This distribution is
modified by the currents in the conductors of other phases and
the induced currents in all the wire screens. The magnitude and
distribution of the screen currents are also the result of the
geometric configuration as well as the currents flowing in the
conductors.
Table 1 illustrates this effect for arrangement a of the HV
cable (see Fig. 2) by displaying the currents carried by the
conductors and screens. The values also represent the rates of
currents as a percentage of It, since It was 100 A. It can be
observed that for some of the phase orders, the sum of the
conductor currents of one particular phase is slightly more than
It. As the table shows the rates of rms amplitudes, this
deviation indicates a minor phase shift between the conductor
currents belonging to the same phase. We can compare the
difference in the results of the three methods. By relating the
difference between the FE and analytical results
(∆I = IFE − IIEC) to the currents from the analytical calculations
(IIEC), we can see that ∆I/IIEC was always less than 0.3% for the
conductors, but they could reach 2.4% for the screens. Similar
tables for all the arrangements would exceed the limits of this
paper; therefore, we present only statistical results considering
all possible phase orders of the four arrangements.
Figure 4a–4d summarizes the minimum, maximum, and
average ∆I/IIEC values of the different phase configurations of
the MV cable in arrangements a–d (see Fig. 2), respectively.
Figure 5a–5d displays similar results for the HV cable. The
lowest and the highest values of the graphs represent the
minimum and maximum differences, respectively, and the
mean values are indicated by short horizontal lines. Negative
indicates lower currents and positive indicates higher currents
than that of the analytical results.

TABLE 1.
CURRENTS OBTAINED FROM THE ANALYTICAL AND THE FE CALCULATIONS FOR THE HV CABLE IN ARRANGEMENT a.
System 1 System 2
Model Phase order Conductor currents Screen currents Conductor currents Screen currents
IA [A] IB [A] IC [A] IsA [A] IsB [A] IsC [A] IA [A] IB [A] IC [A] IsA [A] IsB [A] IsC [A]
ABC-ABC 47.82 48.02 55.73 22.95 20.38 21.38 52.75 52.03 44.28 20.95 18.17 26.77
IEC 60287-1-3

ABC-BCA 53.04 47.43 46.86 25.86 20.03 25.29 47.58 53.34 53.84 28.76 17.34 20.19
ABC-CAB 48.21 55.90 48.98 22.10 22.19 29.20 52.36 44.13 51.41 20.19 27.86 27.91
ABC-CBA 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.54 19.76 31.75 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.54 19.76 31.75
ABC-ACB 50.62 51.79 51.19 22.93 21.89 19.37 51.31 48.85 48.81 24.74 22.79 20.57
CBA-ABC 50.00 50.00 50.00 27.00 18.80 31.12 50.00 50.00 50.00 27.00 18.80 31.12
CBA-BCA 57.40 50.90 43.62 18.92 19.32 26.49 43.30 49.13 56.44 26.05 20.37 20.22
ABC-ABC 47.81 48.09 55.77 22.58 19.93 20.87 52.76 51.96 44.24 20.47 17.75 26.39
ABC-BCA 53.06 47.38 46.85 25.43 19.62 24.92 47.55 53.38 53.84 28.32 16.93 19.79
FE simple

ABC-CAB 48.21 55.93 48.88 21.70 21.71 28.74 52.35 44.10 51.51 19.69 27.47 27.39
ABC-CBA 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.10 19.34 31.23 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.10 19.34 31.23
ABC-ACB 50.64 51.82 51.17 22.57 21.38 18.97 51.26 48.82 48.84 24.30 22.39 20.17
CBA-ABC 50.00 50.00 50.00 26.55 18.35 30.67 50.00 50.00 50.00 26.55 18.35 30.67
CBA-BCA 57.51 50.86 43.62 18.41 18.93 26.12 43.19 49.17 56.44 25.67 19.94 19.76
ABC-ABC 47.79 48.02 55.76 22.68 20.02 20.98 52.78 52.03 44.24 20.57 17.79 26.49
ABC-BCA 53.04 47.44 46.86 25.57 19.69 24.99 47.58 53.34 53.86 28.47 17.04 19.81
FE twisted

ABC-CAB 48.19 55.94 48.98 21.83 21.80 28.91 52.39 44.09 51.42 19.81 27.59 27.63
ABC-CBA 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.29 19.40 31.46 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.29 19.40 31.46
ABC-ACB 50.61 51.82 51.19 22.64 21.52 19.00 51.34 48.82 48.81 24.40 22.51 20.22
CBA-ABC 50.00 50.00 50.00 26.76 18.43 30.84 50.00 50.00 50.00 26.75 18.43 30.84
CBA-BCA 57.44 50.90 43.59 18.56 18.96 26.21 43.28 49.13 56.47 25.78 20.02 19.82
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010
Fig. 4. Maximum, minimum, and average differences between the results of FE simulations and the analytical method of IEC 60287-1-3. Individual conductor
and screen currents for arrangements a, b, c, and d of the MV cable.
Fig. 5. Maximum, minimum, and average differences between the results of FE simulations and the analytical method of IEC 60287-1-3. Individual conductor
and screen currents for arrangements a, b, c, and d of the HV cable.
It is clear that with flat arrangements, the conductor currents
hardly differed from those of the analytical calculations. They
fell in a range of 0.1% for the MV cable, and never exceeded
0.3% for the HV cable. However, in the trefoil configuration,
where the cables are much closer to each other, ∆I/IIEC
exceeded 0.3% with the MV and almost reached 0.9% with the
HV cable. The deviation was more remarkable for the screen
currents: it reached 1.6% for the MV and almost 3% for the
HV cable in flat formation, and almost 6% in the HV cable laid
in trefoil. The difference in screen currents was practically
always negative. This can be explained by the effect of the soil,
which was also included in the FE models, and that the three
methods approach the proximity effect differently. The
currents from the twisted FE model were always closer to the
standard’s results than those of the simple FE one, what is
generally more pronounced with the HV cable (Fig. 5),
especially in trefoil formation (Fig. 5d). The much higher
cross-section and radius of the HV screen accounts for an
increased proximity effect that could lead to a relatively high
error if not considered appropriately. The highest deviation of
5
screen current in the simple FE model, when compared with
that in the more accurate twisted one, was 3%.
The values in these diagrams clearly indicate dissimilar
results for the individual conductor and screen currents.
Nevertheless, they do not directly imply differences in heating,
as the current magnitudes and thus the Joule-heat values are
not equal in the conductors and the screens. The screens are
always less loaded than the conductors – that is especially true
for the MV cables having much smaller screen cross-sections.
Besides, the ac resistances can differ with different solution
methods, further modifying the losses.
IV. LOSSES
To investigate the heating effect and the dissimilarities of
the solutions more precisely, we had to compare the losses
generated in the individual cables. As the loss, i.e., the Joule-
heat, is proportional to the current squared, an even higher
difference in the power was more likely in those cable
components where the currents were different. However, as the
ac resistances yielded by different methods were not equal, a
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010 6

squared proportion between IFE/IIEC and PFE/PIEC was not
guaranteed. (PFE is the loss of a conductor or a screen obtained
from one of the FE models, and PIEC is the loss of the same
conductor or screen from the analytical model.)
This becomes clear by comparing the power results (Table
2) to the currents (Table 1) for the HV cable in arrangement a.
For instance, the simple FE solution resulted in a slightly
higher current but less power than the analytical one in the
conductor of phase A in system 1 with phase order ABC-BCA.
The maximum, minimum, and average values of
(PFE − PIEC)/PIEC are presented in Figs. 6a–d and 7a–d for all
the four arrangements of the MV and HV cables, respectively.
Similar to Figs. 4 and 5, these data were obtained by
considering all possible phase orders.
The difference in power – and comparing those to currents,
the difference in ac resistances – is pronounced the most in the
diagrams of the trefoil arrangements. By comparing the simple
FE and the analytical results, the currents of the HV cable
screens decreased by 3–6%, whereas their power increased
more than 10%. This implies a highly increased proximity
effect in the screens of the cables touching each other.
Nevertheless, we know that the current distribution among the
wires of the individual screens should be uniform; thus, the
simple FE model could not provide appropriate results in this
case. This dissimilarity is much less remarkable with the
twisted FE approach, where lower induced currents correspond
to lower power, as we can see in the diagrams.
However, considering heating effect, is the 10% or even
16% difference in screen power still acceptable? If we take
into account the individual screen in itself, it seems to be a lot.
However, we must not forget that by putting the cables closer
to each other, the amount of induced current in the screens
decreases [9]. That is, they contribute less to the heating, and
their change has less impact on the temperature rise of the
whole cable, which is determined mostly by the losses in the
conductors [10]. We might treat one cable – including the
conductor and the screen – as a single heat source that shapes
the temperature distribution of its surroundings. In this sense,
the total loss, i.e., the sum of the conductor and screen losses,
and the difference of this sum are the relevant quantities to be
considered. Besides, the cable producing the greatest power is
the most critical during ampacity calculations. Similar to
earlier diagrams, Fig. 8a–d displays the differences of total
losses of the most critical cables for the four arrangements.
It is obvious that for the MV cable, both the simple and
twisted FE models provided almost the same total losses as the
analytical method in both the flat and trefoil arrangements. The
difference was always less than 1%, with the flat arrangement
always being within 0.6%. The maximum deviation was higher
with the HV cable – it exceeded 2%. However, we should note
here that taking into account all the cables – not just the critical
one – it can reach 4% with a HV trefoil configuration. The
much larger screen cross-section of the HV cable explains this
difference, as more current can be induced in the screens
having lower resistance.

TABLE 2.
LOSSES OBTAINED FROM THE ANALYTICAL AND THE FE CALCULATIONS IN THE CONDUCTORS AND SCREENS OF THE HV CABLE IN ARRANGEMENT a
System 1. System 2
Model Phase order Conductor losses Screen losses Conductor losses Screen losses
PA PB PC PsA PsB PsC PA PB PC PsA PsB PsC
[W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m] [W/m]
ABC-ABC 0.1259 0.1270 0.1710 0.1003 0.0791 0.0870 0.1532 0.1490 0.1080 0.0836 0.0629 0.1365
ABC-BCA 0.1549 0.1239 0.1209 0.1274 0.0764 0.1219 0.1247 0.1566 0.1596 0.1575 0.0572 0.0777
IEC 60287-1-3

ABC-CAB 0.1280 0.1721 0.1321 0.0930 0.0938 0.1624 0.1509 0.1072 0.1455 0.0776 0.1478 0.1483
ABC-CBA 0.1377 0.1377 0.1377 0.1243 0.0744 0.1920 0.1377 0.1377 0.1377 0.1243 0.0744 0.1920
ABC-ACB 0.1411 0.1477 0.1443 0.1002 0.0913 0.0715 0.1450 0.1314 0.1312 0.1166 0.0989 0.0806
CBA-ABC 0.1377 0.1377 0.1377 0.1388 0.0673 0.1845 0.1377 0.1377 0.1377 0.1388 0.0673 0.1845
CBA-BCA 0.1814 0.1427 0.1048 0.0682 0.0711 0.1336 0.1033 0.1329 0.1754 0.1293 0.0791 0.0779
ABC-ABC 0.1255 0.1273 0.1709 0.0977 0.0774 0.0842 0.1530 0.1486 0.1075 0.0809 0.0618 0.1333
ABC-BCA 0.1547 0.1238 0.1204 0.1239 0.0757 0.1182 0.1243 0.1563 0.1595 0.1537 0.0546 0.0765
FE simple

ABC-CAB 0.1277 0.1722 0.1316 0.0902 0.0919 0.1593 0.1510 0.1069 0.1460 0.0765 0.1444 0.1446
ABC-CBA 0.1373 0.1379 0.1377 0.1205 0.0742 0.1877 0.1373 0.1379 0.1377 0.1205 0.0742 0.1877
ABC-ACB 0.1409 0.1477 0.1441 0.0977 0.0885 0.0703 0.1441 0.1309 0.1314 0.1123 0.0961 0.0795
CBA-ABC 0.1374 0.1379 0.1374 0.1354 0.0672 0.1800 0.1374 0.1379 0.1374 0.1354 0.0672 0.1800
CBA-BCA 0.1814 0.1423 0.1046 0.0645 0.0700 0.1306 0.1026 0.1330 0.1752 0.1263 0.0770 0.0760
ABC-ABC 0.1255 0.1270 0.1709 0.0978 0.0763 0.0837 0.1531 0.1490 0.1076 0.0805 0.0602 0.1334
ABC-BCA 0.1546 0.1241 0.1204 0.1244 0.0737 0.1188 0.1245 0.1561 0.1596 0.1542 0.0552 0.0746
FE twisted

ABC-CAB 0.1275 0.1723 0.1322 0.0906 0.0904 0.1589 0.1513 0.1068 0.1455 0.0746 0.1447 0.1451
ABC-CBA 0.1373 0.1379 0.1377 0.1217 0.0716 0.1883 0.1373 0.1379 0.1377 0.1217 0.0716 0.1883
ABC-ACB 0.1407 0.1477 0.1442 0.0975 0.0881 0.0687 0.1446 0.1309 0.1313 0.1132 0.0963 0.0777
CBA-ABC 0.1375 0.1380 0.1374 0.1361 0.0646 0.1809 0.1375 0.1380 0.1374 0.1361 0.0646 0.1809
CBA-BCA 0.1810 0.1426 0.1044 0.0655 0.0684 0.1307 0.1030 0.1327 0.1754 0.1264 0.0762 0.0747
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010 7

Fig. 6. Maximum, minimum, and average differences between the results of FE simulations and the analytical method of IEC 60287-1-3. Individual conductor
and screen losses for arrangements a, b, c, and d of the MV cable.

Fig. 7. Maximum, minimum, and average differences between the results of FE simulations and the analytical method of IEC 60287-1-3. Individual conductor
and screen losses for arrangements a, b, c, and d of the HV cable.

Fig. 8. Maximum, minimum, and average differences between the results of FE simulations and the analytical method of IEC 60287-1-3. Total loss of the
critical cables in arrangements a, b, c, and d of MV and HV cable groups.
SCH-TPWRD-00145-2010
The more precise twisted FE model always resulted in less
deviation from the method of the standard. The highest
difference of −1.48% in critical total loss was yielded by phase
order ABC-ACB-ACB of arrangement c (bold character
indicates the critical cable). However, 34% (based on IEC
results) more power was generated in the mostly heated cable
of arrangement ABC-CBA-ABC with a difference of −1.26%
between the standard and twisted FE method. Considering all
cables instead of just the critical ones, the difference was
always within 1.6% (not indicated in the figures).
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we compared three methods for loss
calculation of grouped, single-core cables with double-bonded
wire screens. We took the analytical approach described in the
standard IEC 60287-1-3 as the basis. A simple and a modified
2D FE model provided the results for comparison. In the
simple model, all the conductors and wires of the wire screens
were parallel, whereas the modified model took into account
the twists of the wire screens. Given that the Joule-heat
generated in the individual cables is the most important factor
during ampacity calculations, we focused our attention on the
difference of conductor and screen losses obtained by the three
different approaches.
We showed that the difference in induced screen currents
contributes the most to the difference in the losses; the power
in the conductors hardly differs with the three methods and
with the examined cable sizes. Comparing the precise FE
model considering the twists of wire screens to the IEC
method indicates that the standard method is quite accurate.
The differences in the conductor losses are negligible and the
differences in the screen losses are so small that they will have
no noticeable effect on the cable ratings.
Temperature calculations are usually accomplished by
thermal FE simulations. In this case, it might be easier for the
engineer to use the em capabilities of the FE tool and couple
the thermal and em fields together. We demonstrated that
medium voltage cables having small screen cross-sections can
be modeled by simple FE techniques with appropriate
accuracy. With cables having large-screen cross-sections, the
simple FE approach could yield more than 2% deviation in the
total losses of the critical cables. Considering all the cables of
the groups, the deviation was even higher. In trefoil
arrangement of touching cables, the maximum deviation was
up to 4%. However, it should be mentioned here that double
bonding with large-screen cross-sections is rarely used in
technical practice.
If the screen losses or the power distribution in the screens
are a matter of interest, or transient thermal simulations are
necessary, we recommend the more precise FE model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our thanks to professor György
Varjú for his advice on cable modeling.
View publication stats
8
REFERENCES
[1] G. J. Anders, Rating Of Electric Power Cables In Unfavorable Thermal
Environment. Wiley-IEEE Press, New York, May 2005.
[2] F. de Leon, G. J. Anders, “Effects of Backfilling on Cable Ampacity
Analyzed With the Finite Element Method”, IEEE Trans Power
Delivery, Vol.23, No.2, Apr 2008, pp. 537-543. DOI:
10.1109/TPWRD.2008.917648
[3] I. Sarajcev, M. Majstrovic, I. Medic, “Calculation of losses in electric
power cables as the base of cable temperature analysis” in Advanced
Computational Methods in Heat Transfer VI, B. Sunden, C.A. Brebbia
Ed. WIT Press Southampton, Boston, 2000, pp. 529-537.
[4] IEC 60287-1-3, Electric cables, Calculation of the current rating Part 1-
3: Current rating equations (100 % load factor) and calculation of
losses, Current sharing between parallel single-core cables and
calculation of circulating current losses, International Standard, 2002.
[5] IEC TR 62095 Electric cables, Calculations for current ratings, Finite
element method, Technical Report, 2003.
[6] IEC 60287-1-2, Electric cables, Calculation of the current rating Part 1:
Current rating equations (100 % load factor) and calculation of losses,
Section 2: Sheath eddy currents loss factors for two circuits in flat
formation, International Standard, 1993.
[7] Cross-linked Polyethylen Insulated Medium and High-voltage Cables
6/10 kV - 87/150 kV, Catalogue, Hungarian Cable Works Co. Ltd, 2001.
[8] ANSYS, Inc. Theory Reference, Ansys Release 10.0, ANSYS Inc. 2005.
[9] B. Novák, L. Koller, I. Berta, “Loss reduction in cable sheathing” in
Proc. ICREPQ’10, Granada, Spain, March 2010, paper 311.
[10] B. Novák, L. Koller, T. Ádám, “Heating of Cables Due to Fault
Currents,” in Proc. IEEE ISEI 2010, San Diego, CA, USA, June 2010.
Balázs Novák was born in Szeged, Hungary in
1976. He received the M.Sc. degree in Electrical
Engineering from the Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, Hungary in 1999; and
the postgraduate Engineer-Economist degree from the
University of Economic Sciences and Public
Administration, Budapest, Hungary in 2002. He is
currently an assistant lecturer and Ph.D candidate in
the Department of Electric Power Engineering,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
His research interests include high current engineering and electromagnetic
compatibility.
He is a member of the IEEE and the Hungarian Electrotechnical
Association. His publications include several conference papers and articles,
he is a co-author of an electrical installation handbook.
László Koller was born in Budapest, Hungary in
1943. He received the Dipl. Engineer. and the Ph.D.
degrees in Electrical Engineering from the Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
in 1967 and 1994, and the Candidate of Engineering
Sciences degree from the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences in 1994. His major field of research are
high current engineering (electric switchgears and
equipment, electrical heat engineering); and
electrical safety engineering. Currently, he is an
associate professor in the Department of Electronics and Cybernetics, Kalmár
Sándor Institute of Information Technology, Kecskemét, Hungary.
Dr. László Koller is a member of the following professional associations:
Public Corporation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences from 2000;
Hungarian Electrotechnical Association from 1976; Hungarian Engineering
Chamber from 1996. He received the Gold Degree of Award of the Eminent
Inventor, the Prize of Zipernowski and the Prize of Academic Patent of
Quality from the Hungarian Patent Office in 1988, 1995 and 2002
respectively. He has more than 100 in print publications. There are 14 patents
and inventions among them, as well as 48 scientific articles.