Hybrid Method to Compute the Total Series
Impedance of Submarine Power Cables
André Furlan and Marcelo L. Heldwein
Power Electronics Institute (INEP), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) , Florianópolis, BRAZIL
{furlan, heldwein}@inep.ufsc.br
Abstract—Subsea umbilical cables are complex systems that
are typically hard to electrically model. The identification of
electrical parameters of subsea umbilical are fundamental in
the analysis of the behavior of such cables when introduced
into a system-level model. This work presents an approach
for calculating the series impedance matrices of a submarine
cable using a hybrid method including finite element analysis
and analytical equations. Commercial electromagnetic transient
programs do not take into account the proximity effect, and only
coaxial cable systems are supported, excluding more complex
cable systems, like those used for off-shore oil exploration. The
application of the Finite Element Method (FEM) for internal
cable parameter determination overcomes these problems. Other-
wise, using analytical expressions to calculate external impedance
simplifies the FEM implementation, reduces the computation
efforts and allows to calculate the external impedance with full-
wave models, overcoming the limitations of low-frequency finite
elements software. The results are validated against EMTP-RV,
which is a professional software for power system transients.
More significant differences are observed with the increase in
frequency due to effects not considered by the commercial
software, which are covered in the finite element simulation.
Index Terms—finite element analysis; umbilical cable; under-
water cables; EMTP
I. I NTRODUCTION
Most of today’s submarine cable systems are complex
and hard to model. Commercial software products for power
systems are used typically to calculate electrical parameters of
subsea umbilicals. This kind of software often uses analytical
formulations. The analytical modeling of a submarine cable
system is a challenge because of the non-concentric configura-
tion of the involved components [1]. The used formulas neglect
proximity effects, which can be strong in subsea umbilical
cables because of the reduced spacing between the internal
conductors and ever more used power inverters generating
a spread spectrum in the electrical waveforms. Some works
use the Finite Element Method (FEM) [2-5] to overcome
constraints found in analytical solutions.
The finite element domain of the external media including
the boundary of the problem is fundamental to obtain an accu-
rate result of the impedance matrices. Conventional techniques
of field truncation to establish the boundary may give a vast
solution region. In [3] a method been developed to reduce
the solution region at low frequencies, where the boundary
node values are found from Pollaczek’s [6, 7] formula with
infinite integrals that can present numeric problems due to the
highly oscillatory behavior of the integrand. In [4], only the
978-1-7281-4878-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 2178
internal impedance of umbilical cables is calculated by FEM,
and additional surface impedances are included to take the
external media into account. However, the applied simplified
surface impedance only considers the seawater, and is not
useful for every cable depth.
This work presents an approach for calculating the series
impedance matrices of a three-core submarine power cable by
employing two dimensional FEM (2D-FEM). The software
used in this work is a free finite element analysis software
package for solving electromagnetic problems called Finite
Element Method Magnetics (FEMM) [8]. In the proposed
FEM approach the external media is separately evaluated,
taking advantage of symmetry to simplify the FEM analysis,
not described in previous works. The FEM outer impedance
is compared with an analytical asymptotic expansion expres-
sion used in [9]. The obtained differences are reasonable,
considering the uncertainties of the parameters related to
submarine cables, both external and cable related, allowing
the application of the analytical equation in a hybrid model.
The proposed hybrid method uses the analytical expression
presented in [9] to calculate the external impedance, elim-
inating the complexity of external modeling and reducing
computation efforts compared to an integral implementation
through FEM. FEM is used to determine the internal um-
bilical impedances, taking the effect of proximity between
inner conductors into account. Also, full-wave equations can
be used, taking into account effects not considered in low-
frequency finite elements software. This more straightforward
and more efficient computational model allows the simulation
of different scenarios for the study of different topologies and
materials of submarine cables. The results are validated against
EMTP-RV, which is a specialized software for advanced
simulation and analysis of power system transients [10].
The results presented with the proposed hybrid method are
compatible with the simulations made with the commercial
software. However, with the increase of the frequency, we see
a more significant difference between the simulation results. In
the simulation with FEM, the inclusion of the proximity effect
is present and this effect tends to increase with increasing
frequency in simulations with EMTP-RV.
II. C HARACTERISTICS OF A S UBMARINE U MBILICAL
C ABLE
Many different shapes and styles of submarine power cables
have been invented, developed, manufactured, tested, and
installed during more than a hundred years. The showrooms The matrix above has dimensions 7×7 and represents the total
of the cable manufacturers display a fascinating variety of series impedance, including the internal and external environ-
designs, all made with contemporary engineering art and ment of the cable. The considered submarine power cable has
entrepreneurship [11]. Fig. 1 and Tab. I describe the charac- three identical internal coaxial cables that are symmetrically
teristics of the three-core subsea umbilical considered in this positioned. Thus, it follows that,
work, which is a topology that has been extensively studied
and with which the modeling results can be validated. Some Zco = Zaa = Zbb = Zcc
simplifications are required due to the complexity of cable Zcoc = Zab = Zac = Zbc
geometry. Zcsi = Za1 = Zb2 = Zc3
The transversal magnetic permeability used for all materials Zcso = Za2 = Za3 = Zb1 = Zb3 = Zc1 = Zc2
is assumed as the permeability of vacuum (µ0 ), except for the (2)
Zcog = Zag = Zbg = Zcg
armor, where µarmor = 90µ0 was adopted [12]. Zs = Z11 = Z22 = Z33
Zss = Z12 = Z13 = Z23
Zsg = Z1g = Z2g = Z3g
where Zco is the core impedance, Zcoc is the mutual
impedance between cores, Zcsi is the mutual impedance
between the core and its shield, Zcso is the mutual impedance
between the core and the shield of another core, Zcog is the
mutual impedance between the core and the armor, Zs is the
shield impedance, Zss is the mutual impedance between the
shields and Zsg is the mutual impedance between the shield
and the armor.
III. A NALYTICAL F ORMULATION
The impedance of an umbilical cable is expressed in matrix
form because we have more than one conductor system. In
general, impedance matrices of a cable can be represented in
Fig. 1. FEM reduced domain (Dirichlet condition in external circumference).
the following way:
[Z] = [Zin] + [Zout] (3)
TABLE I
CABLE’S DIMENSIONS [12] where the [Zin] represents represents the internal impedances
of the umbilical, including armor outer insulator impedance,
Resistivity of with each element detailed in [1]. The [Zout] matrix, also
conductor
Layer Radius [mm] called ground return matrix impedance, which concerns the
layers
[10−8 Ωm] cable external media, that is, air space and seawater. For
Core conductor R1 = 9.6 ρc = 1.7241 simplicity, in this work, only one umbilical with no near
First insulation layer R2 = 17.054
Sheath R3 = 18.054 ρs = 22 conductors in the sea neither in the air is assumed. In our
Second insulation layer R4 = 19.50 case, the elements of the external matrix impedance are given
Armor inner radius R5 = 48 by
Armor outer radius R6 = 59 ρa = 2.86
Armor insulation R7 = 65
Zoutij = z0 (4)
The expression of z0 was first given by Pollaczek [6]
The equivalent impedance matrix (1) [1] represents the and later by Wedepohl and Wilcox [7]. The formulations of
series impedance of the three-core submarine power cable outer media impedance have infinite integrals that can present
illustrated in Fig. 1. numeric problems due to the highly oscillatory behavior of
  the integrand. Various research papers studied approximate
Zaa Za1 Zab Za2 Zac Za3 Zag expressions for the ground return impedance to avoid numeric

 Za1 Z11 Zb1 Z12 Zc1 Z13 Z1g 
 instabilities. In particular, an asymptotic expansion is used in

 Zab Zb1 Zbb Zb2 Zbc Zb3 Zbg 
 [9] and gives
[Z] = 
 Za2 Z12 Zb2 Z22 Zc2 Z23 Z2g 
 (1)
 Zac Zc1 Zbc Zc2 Zcc Zc3 Zcg  jωµ0 4h2 − R72

Za3 Z13 Zb3 Z23 Zc3 Z33 Z3g
 z0 = K0 (ηR7 ) + K2 (ηD)
  2π D2
Zag Z1g Zbg Z2g Zcg Z3g Zgg !
4h2 − R2
where the indices a , b and c represent each core, the numbers − 2 2 2 7 (1 + 2hη)e−2hη (5)
η D
1, 2, and 3 represent each sheath, and g represents the armor.

2179
with p using a symmetrical semi-circumference domain, assuming a
η= jωµ0 (σsea + jωsea ) (6) Neumann boundary condition at the dashed line and, thus,
reduce the computation efforts.
and q The reduced domain illustrated in Fig. 1 is used to evaluate
D= 4h2 + R72 (7) the internal impedances by assuming zero Dirichlet condition
where σsea and sea are the conductivity and the permittivity at the boundary of the subsea cable.
of the seawater, respectively, at a depth of h. K0 and K2 are
modified Bessel functions, ω = 2πf the angular frequency
in the above equations and f the ordinary frequency√ of the
problem. A valid simplification is to assume η = jωµ0 σsea
(σsea  jωsea ) when comparing with low-frequency finite
elements calculations. In the worst-case scenario considered
in this paper, f = 106 [Hz], σsea = 1 [S/m] and sea = 810 ,
it follows that σseq /ωsea ≈ 222.
IV. F INITE E LEMENT C ALCULATION
A finite element approach is used in [5] to calculate the
self and mutual impedances. These impedances are obtained
through the per-unit-length voltage drop (∆Vi , a result of the
finite element simulation) along the i − th conductor at each
frequency of interest due to the sinusoidal current peak Ibj in
the j − th conductor (with the current set to zero on the other
conductors), with
∆Vi
Zij = (8)
Ibj
Fig. 2. FEM full domain (ABC in external circumference) with a dashed line
The above impedance is the total impedance, including of symmetry.
external and internal cable media. To separately compute the
external impedance it is necessary to evaluate the external
B. Mesh Refinement Criteria
media resistive losses (Pex ) and the energy stored in the
external magnetic field (Eex ), It can be done with Mesh refinement is essential to increase the accuracy of
finite element calculations. In the implementations for the
z0 = Rex + jωLex (9) cable series impedance estimation, the mesh refinement must
be compatible with the skin depth (δ) of the conductor.
where [8], Usually, 1.5 to 2 elements per skin depth are required for
Pex
Rex = (10) a correct solution [13]. Reference [14] present a division of
Ia2ef f the conductors in layers of 0.5δ-thickness from the outermost
Eex layer up to a depth of 5δ. This technique is applied here to
Lex = 2 (11) determine the internal impedances.
Ia2ef f
An adequate seawater mesh refinement must be imple-
and Iaef f is the rms value of curent along the armor. Pex and mented for the calculation of the external impedance. As
Eex are directly calculated by FEMM. in the case of internal impedances calculations, the applied
mesh refinement is compatible with the skin depth of the
A. Boundary Conditions
seawater. Fig. 3 shows the refined seawater area, where Rf s =
The finite element model of the external media including the 10δseawater , with h > 10δseawater as illustrated in Fig. 3a, and
boundary of the problem is fundamental to obtain an accurate h ≤ 10δseawater described in Fig. 3b. The maximum element
result of the impedances matrices. In this work, the application size in this refined area is set at 0.25δseawater .
of an Asymptotic Boundary Conditions (ABC) is proposed, Outside of the submarine cable and the refined seawater, the
which is a way to approximate an open boundary, other than finite element mesh is automatically generated by FEMM, a
truncation, as described in [8]. sufficient level of refinement is achieved, leading to reasonable
Fig. 2, where the cable dimensions are not in scale, de- results as seen in the following.
scribes the entire calculation domain. The asymptotic bound-
ary condition is imposed by a circumference with radius Rd , C. Methodology
with Rd  h. For the finite element calculation of ground FEMM is a suite of programs for solving low-frequency
return impedance the internal conductors in the simulation electromagnetic problems on two-dimensional planar and ax-
can be eliminated, drawing only the armor with its insulation, isymmetric domains. The program currently addresses lin-

2180
 frequency and, overall, the results obtained did not differ by
more than 21% for the resistance and 12% for the inductance.
However, with a frequency range of up to 100 kHz, the
maximum difference for the real part of the external impedance
is under to 7.3%. The differences do not exceed 3.3% for
the imaginary part. Nevertheless, due to the uncertainties of
the parameters related to submarine cables, both external and
cable, the obtained differences are reasonable, suggesting the
application of the analytical equation into a hybrid model.

Fig. 3. (a) Seawater mesh refinement for h > 10δseawater and (b) for
h ≤ 10δseawater . 20.0 h=1 [m]
h=10 [m]
17.5 h= 100 [m]
h= 1000 [m]
ear/nonlinear magnetostatic problems and linear/nonlinear 15.0
time-harmonic magnetic problems [8]. The harmonic magneto-
12.5

ERex[%]
dynamic formulation is used to calculate the series impedance
in this work. Details of its formulation will not be presented 10.0
here and are found in [13]. 7.5
Firstly, with the cable submerged in the symmetrical semi-
circumference domain (see Fig. 3), assuming a Neumann 5.0
boundary condition at the dashed line, a sinusoidal current 2.5
excitation of arbitrary magnitude is applied to the armor
without the internals conductors of the umbilical. Initially, only 102 103 104 105 106
the external impedance is of interest and other conductors can f [Hz]
be eliminated since they do not change the result and this
Fig. 4. Differences in external resistances (ERex ) in function of the
reduces the computation efforts. frequency.
After calculating the external impedance, the simulation do-
main can be reduced and the internal impedance is computed.
The new calculation domain (seen in Fig. 1) includes only the
umbilical with its outer insulation, assuming a zero Dirichlet
condition at the boundary of the subsea cable. 12 h = 1 [m]
With the reduced domain, it is possible to determine the h = 10 [m]
matrix [Zin] using (8), where an arbitrary sinusoidal current 10 h = 100 [m]
is applied sequentially to each cable conductor while the
h = 1000 [m]
8
remaining conductors are forced to carry zero currents.
ELex[%]

V. C OMPARISON B ETWEEN A NALYTICAL F ORMULATION 6

AND FEM R ESULTS OF T HE G ROUND R ETURN I MPEDANCE
4
The studied cable (described in Fig. 1 and Tab. I) is
considered as surrounded by seawater with a conductivity of 2
5 [S/m][11] at a depth of h.
The analytical, Z0AN , and FEM, Z0F EM , computed exter- 0
nal impedances are compared in the following. The errors, for 102 103 104 105 106
both, the real and imaginary parts, are respectively defined as f [Hz]
Re(Z0F EM ) − Re(Z0AN ) Fig. 5. Differences in external inductances (ELex ) in function of the
ERZ0 % = 100 × (12) frequency.
Re(Z0F EM )
Imag(Z0F EM ) − Imag(Z0AN )
ELZ0 % = 100 × (13)
Imag(Z0F EM ) VI. H YBRID M ETHOD
The curves in Fig. 4 and 5 show the difference between In an analytical implementation, generally implemented
the FEMM simulations and the analytical calculations for the in routines of the type Cable/Line Constants in commercial
external resistance (12) and external inductance (13), respec- software for power system transients, the proximity effect
tively. The comparisons start at 60 Hz and go up to 1 MHz to is not taken into account and only coaxial cable systems
consider different depths. The differences clearly increase with are supported, excluding more sophisticated and complex

2181
cable systems, like those sometimes used for off-shore oil TABLE III
exploration [14]. The application of the FEM for the determi- RESISTANCE DIFFERENCES
nation of internal cable parameters overcomes these problems.
Otherwise, using analytical expressions to calculate external Freq DL% DL% DL% DL% DL% DL% DL% DL% DL%
impedance simplifies the finite element implementation, re- [Hz] Zco Zcsi Zcoc Zcso Zcog Zgg Zs Zss Zsg
duces the calculation time and allows to calculate the external 60 -0.5 -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -0.1 -0.1
1k -1.2 -1.4 -0.3 -0.3 0.4 0.4 -1.4 -0.3 0.4
impedance full-wave models [12] [15] overcoming the limita- 10k -4.4 -5.1 -2.6 -2.6 -0.1 -0.1 -5.1 -2.6 -0.1
tions of low-frequency finite elements software. 100k -6.9 -8.2 -4.3 -4.3 -0.1 -0.1 -8.2 -4.3 -0.1
1M -10 -14 -8.0 -8.0 -0.1 -0.1 -13 -8.0 -0.1
Umbilical and external
media specifications

[Zout] [Zin]
the results obtained with EMTP-RV. Overall, for the analyzed
calculations calculations cable, the results obtained with EMTP-RV and the new hybrid
Eq.(5) FEM method did not differ more than 8.2% for the imaginary
impedances and 6.4% for the frequencies up to 100 kHz. How-
Total series impedance ever, the increase differences with the frequency increase may
[Z] = [Zin]+[Zout] be significant in the simulation of electromagnetic transients.
In [16], for example, the negligence of the proximity effect was
Fig. 6. Hybrid Method.
reported as the reason for considerable perceived differences in
the investigation of transient over-voltages and high-frequency
This section proposes a hybrid method that uses analytical
common-mode currents in PWM motor drives.
expressions (5) to evaluate external impedances and the re-
duced finite element domain (Fig. 1) to calculate the internal
VII. S ENSITIVITY A NALYSIS
impedances (see flowchart in Fig. 6). The results are vali-
dated against EMTP-RV, which is a specialized software for The armor is the most prominent construction element
advanced simulation and analysis of power system transients of submarine cables, which gives both tension stability and
[10]. The relative differences between the hybrid method and mechanical protection. Usually, the armoring is made from
the ETMP-RV results are defined as follows, respectively: a magnetic material (mild steel), which concentrates the
  magnetic field around the conductor, and generates unwanted
Re(Zhybrid ) − Re(ZEM T P )
DRZ% = 100 × (14) losses and extra heat [11]. The magnetic permeability of the
Re(ZEM T P )
  armor is generally not provided by the manufacturer, although
Imag(Zhybrid ) − Imag(ZEM T P ) it is an essential parameter in the electrical modeling of
DLZ% = 100× (15) submarine cables. However, in different works, different values
Imag(ZEM T P )
are found for the magnetic permeability of the armor. In [17],
the transversal magnetic permeability used for the armor is
TABLE II considered µ0 , because it is composed of wires that are not in
RESISTANCE DIFFERENCES
direct contact. On the other hand, in [5], the relative magnetic
permeability of the armor in a metallic pipe is 500.
Freq DR% DR% DR% DR% DR% DR% DR% DR% DR% Fig. 7 shows the variation of the internal series self
[Hz] Zco Zcsi Zcoc Zcso Zcog Zgg Zs Zss Zsg
impedance using the hybrid method for phase ”a” as a function
60 1.6 2.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.5
1k 3.4 3.6 2.8 2.8 -0.1 -0.1 1.7 2.8 -0.1 of the relative magnetic permeability of the armor and normal-
10k 6.2 6.4 2.8 2.8 0.1 0.1 5.5 2.8 0.1 ized by |Ziaa (µra = 1)|. In the case studied, the sensitivity
100k 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.9 0.1 to variation of the permeability of the armor is more relevant
1M 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1
at lower frequencies. Therefore, the real permeability of the
armor needs to be investigated to correctly model this type of
Observing Tables II and III shows that it is possible to of cable.
identify that the maximum difference in absolute values is Another significant parameter to determine in the subsea
6.4% for the resistances and -14% for the inductances. cables series impedances is the conductivity of the external
The increase in resistance and the decrease of the inductance media (seabed and/or seawater). Seawater conductivity values
is typical of the proximity effect and tends to become more of 6 to 3 [S/m] have already been estimated in Brazilian seas,
accentuated with the frequency up to the limit where the which does not mean that other values, significantly different
induced currents of the shield reduce the external magnetic from these cannot be found, since this parameter depends on
flux to this one and, thus, reduce the influence of the current the salinity of the water, temperature and pressure; literature
of one phase on the others. This effect can be observed in usually adopts the value of 5 or 4 [S/m] [12], [18]. Fig. 8
Tables II and III, where the hybrid method generally gives stresses the importance of the seawater conductivity in the
higher resistances and lower inductances values compared to outer impedance calculation with the hybrid method. As the

2182
 elements software. The results are validated against EMTP-
RV, which is commonly used for power system transient
4.0 f = 60 [Hz] simulations. More significant differences are observed with
f = 1k [Hz] the increase in frequency due to effects not considered in the
3.5 f = 10k [Hz]
f = 100k [Hz] commercial software, which are covered in the finite element
ra = 1)|

3.0 f = 1M [Hz] simulations.

Finally, the hybrid approach was applied to show the
2.5
|Zaai / Zaai(

importance of the value of armor relative permeability and the

seawater conductivity (variables found with different values in
2.0 the literature) in the series impedance calculations.
1.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1.0 The authors would like to thank Powersys Solutions for
providing the license of EMTP-RV.
0 100 200 300 400 500
ra R EFERENCES
[1] A. Ametani, T. Ohno, and N. Nagaoka, Cable system transients: theory,
Fig. 7. Variation of the series impedance as a function of ra with σsea = 5 modeling and simulation. Singapore: IEEE Wiley, 2015.
[S/m]. [2] Y. Yin and H. W. Dommel, ”Calculation of frequency-dependent
impedances of underground power cables with finite element method,”
in IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 3025-3027, July
1989.
[3] S. Cristina and M. Feliziani, ”A finite element technique for mul-
1.00 ticonductor cable parameters calculation,” in IEEE Transactions on
0.95 Magnetics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2986-2988, July 1989
[4] B. Gustavsen, A. Bruaset, J. J. Bremnes and A. Hassel, ”A Finite-
0.90 Element Approach for Calculating Electrical Parameters of Umbilical
Cables,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 24, no. 4, pp.
|Zex/Zex( = 1)|

0.85 2375-2384, Oct. 2009.

0.80
0.75 f = 60 [Hz]
f = 1k [Hz]
0.70 f = 10k [Hz]
f = 100k [Hz]
0.65 f = 1M [Hz]
1 2 3 4 5 6
[S/m]
Fig. 8. Variation of the series impedance as a function of σsea with µra = 90
and h = 100 [m].
frequency increases, the external impedance is more sensitive
to the conductivity of the sea in the case studied.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, the external impedance of umbilical cables was
calculated firstly by the finite element software FEMM, where
symmetric relations and different boundaries definitions were
applied to solve the problem. The FEM solution was compared
with an analytical formulation, suggesting the application of
the analytical equation into a hybrid model. The proposed
hybrid method combines the simplicity of the analytical im-
plementation for the external impedance, reducing the compu-
tation efforts and takes into account the proximity effect and
more complex cable systems in the finite element calculations
for the internal impedances. Otherwise, using analytical ex-
pressions to calculate external impedances simplifies the finite
element implementation, reduces the computation efforts and
allows one to calculate the external impedance with full-wave
models, overcoming the limitations of low-frequency finite
[5] W. L. de Souza et. al, ”Cable Parameter Calculation for Typical
Industrial Installation Methods and High-Frequency Studies,” in IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 3919-3927,
July-Aug. 2018.
[6] F. Pollaczek, On the field produced by an infinitely long wire carrying
alternating current,Elektrische Nachrichtentechnik, vol. 3, pp. 339359,
1926. In German.
[7] L. M. Wedepohl and D. J. Wilcox, ”Transient analysis of underground
power-transmission systems. System-model and wave-propagation char-
acteristics,” in Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol.
120, no. 2, pp. 253-260, February 1973.
[8] D. Meeker, Finite element method magnetics, Version 4.2, Users Man-
ual, October 2015.
[9] A. C. S. Lima, C. Portela, ”Closed-form expressions for ground return
impedances of overhead lines and underground cables”, International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Volume 38, Issue 1,
2012, Pages 20-26.
[10] EMTPWorks 3.5. Available in: http://www.emtp-software.com. Last
access in: March 28th, 2018.
[11] T. Worzyk, Submarine power cables design, installation, repair, environ-
mental aspects. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.
[12] J. C. L. V. Silva et. al, ”Modelling seabed buried cables for elec-
tromagnetic transient analysis,” in IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1575-1582, 20 4 2017.
[13] N. Ida and J. P. A. Bastos, Electromagnetics and Calculation of Fields,
2nd ed. NewYork, NY: Springer, 1997, p. 432.
[14] A. W. Cirino et. al, ”Cable parameter variation due to skin and proximity
effects: Determination by means of Finite Element Analysis,” 2009 35th
Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics, Porto, 2009, pp.
4073-4079.
[15] A. P. C. Magalhes et. al, ”Validation Limits of Quasi-TEM Approx-
imation for Buried Bare and Insulated Cables,” in IEEE Transactions
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1690-1697, Dec.
2015.
[16] H. de Paula et. al, ”A Simple and Accurate Cable Modeling Suitable
for High-frequency Phenomena Analysis in PWM Motor Drives,” 2005
IEEE 36th PESC, Recife, 2005, pp. 680-686.
[17] A. A. Hafner, M. V. F. da Luz and W. P. Carpes Jr, ”Impedance and
admittance calculations of a three core power cable by the finite element
method,” 11th IPST, 2015.
[18] Ida, N., 2015, Engineering Electromagnetics, 3 ed., NewYork, Springer.

2183