Close and Return

E1-1 10th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables E1-1

Capacitive and Inductive Coupling in Cable Systems – Comparative Study between

Calculation Methods

Andreas I. CHRYSOCHOS, Konstantinos ALEXANDROU, Dimitrios KOSSYVAKIS, Konstantinos PAVLOU, Konstantinos

TASTAVRIDIS, Georgios GEORGALLIS; Cablel® Hellenic Cables S.A., Greece, achrysochos@fulgor.vionet.gr, kalexan-
drou@fulgor.vionet.gr, dkossyvakis@fulgor.vionet.gr, kpavlou@fulgor.vionet.gr, ktastavridis@cablel.vionet.gr, ggeor-
gal@cablel.vionet.gr
Dimitrios CHATZIPETROS, Cablel® Hellenic Cables S.A., Greece, School of Electronics and Computer Science, Electrical
Power Engineering Group, University of Southampton, UK, dchatzipetros@fulgor.vionet.gr
George J. ANDERS, Department of Microelectronics and Computer Science, Technical University of Lodz, Poland, Anders
Consulting Ltd., Canada, george.anders@bell.net

ABSTRACT ATP/EMTP software [3], and COMSOL Multiphysics® FEM

A numerical investigation is performed between different
methods used for the calculation of sheath currents and
voltages at power frequency. A typical underground cable
system is considered, examining both capacitive and in-
ductive coupling using FEM analysis, EMTP-like software,
and CIM method. Results from all three approaches are in
very good agreement, validating the accuracy and applica-
bility of the presented methodologies.
KEYWORDS
[4]. Without loss of generality, a typical high-voltage under-
ground cable configuration is employed and all classical
bonding types are examined; that is, solid-, single-point and
cross-bonding types. In addition, both capacitive and induc-
tive couplings are considered. For the former, ATP/EMTP
is compared to COMSOL, while CIM is not used since it
cannot take into account the cable charging current. For the
latter, i.e., the inductive coupling, results derived from all
methods are presented in terms of sheath voltages and
currents.

Cable system, capacitive coupling, complex impedance
matrix (CIM), electromagnetic transient program (EMTP),
finite element method (FEM), inductive coupling.
INTRODUCTION
In the process of designing cable systems, several issues
are related to the electromagnetic interference (EMI) and
especially to the capacitive and inductive coupling between
conductors and sheaths. EMI is associated with the current
rating calculation, where the power losses on cable
sheaths during normal operation must be taken into ac-
count [1]. EMI problem is also related to the calculation of
overvoltages on cable sheaths, which should be kept under
acceptable limits satisfying health and safety standards [2].
The calculation of voltages and currents in the abovemen-
tioned scenarios can be performed using a variety of meth-
ods, mostly depending on the tradeoff between the accu-
racy and computation burden. The three most common nu-
merical approaches are: the Complex Impedance Matrix
(CIM) method, a numeric solution based on the self and
mutual impedances of the cable system taking into account
the inductive coupling; the ElectroMagnetic Transient Pro-
gram (EMTP-like) software, using distributed impedances
and admittances for the modeling of the cable system and
relevant surrounding, which also takes into account the ca-
pacitive coupling of the cable system; and the finite element
Results in all cases are in very good agreement, validating
the applicability of the abovementioned models. It is con-
cluded that CIM is the most straightforward approach, lim-
ited though for cases of inductive coupling. On the other
hand, the EMTP-like software can be used taking into ac-
count both capacitive and inductive coupling for most typi-
cal cases. In more complicated geometries and configura-
tions, FEM can be employed solving the generic electro-
magnetic formulation.
SYSTEM UNDER STUDY
An underground cable of nominal voltage 87/150 kV and
cross-section 1000 mm2 is examined. The cable follows the
design of Fig. 1, where the various layers are indicated.
Their properties, including the surrounding media, are
given in Tables A.I-A.III in the Appendix. The whole model
is assumed to be infinitely long in the cable axis direction,
neglecting any end effects so as to render the 2D analysis
sufficient. Considering sheath bonding types, the most
commonly used in transmission systems are examined.
These include: solid-bonding, single-point-bonding, and
sectionalized cross-bonding.
Air
Soil
Conductor
Inner semi-
conductive

model (FEM) which effectively replaces telegrapher’s Insulation

equations with the formulation of the generic electromag-
netic problem. Since all these methods are used in various Outer semi-
conductive
design studies performed by cable engineers, there is a
need to investigate their applicability at different stages of Oversheath
Sheath

the design process.

This paper performs a systematic numerical investigation
of different methods used for the calculation of sheath cur- Fig. 1: Indicative cable configuration.
rents and voltages at power frequency, with the purpose of
highlighting their suitability in terms of accuracy and ease CALCULATION METHODS
of use. The considered models include CIM method [2],
The sheath currents and voltages can be calculated using

Jicable'19 - Paris - Versailles 23-27 June, 2019 1/6


E1-1 10th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables
a variety of approaches. In this paper, three different meth-
ods are examined, namely FEM, EMTP-like software and
CIM method.
FEM
The computational scheme of FEM is based on Maxwell’s
equations, explicitly formulated by the electromagnetic
problem that is to be solved. Considering the capacitive
coupling, FEM computes electric field, current, and poten-
tial distributions in conducting media where inductive ef-
fects are assumed negligible [5]. Specifically, the fre-
quency-domain steady-state problem can be described
with the following equations:
 r→∞
∇ ⋅ J = − j ωρ (1)
   
J =σ E + j ω D + Je (2)

E = −∇V (3)
 2D FEM.
where J the current density, ρ the space charge density,
 
σ the material conductivity, E the electric field, D the elec-
 EMTP-like software is a category of programs capable of
tric displacement field, ω the angular frequency, Je the ex-
ternally imposed current density and V the voltage potential
which is also the dependent variable to be solved.
The boundary conditions include the electric potential at
each conductor and sheath, taking into account the
adopted bonding type of each case. Since the electric field
is confined between conductor and sheath at power fre-
quency, it is not necessary to model the remaining layers
and the surrounding media, thereby simplifying the prob-
lem.
For the inductive coupling, FEM computes magnetic field
and induced current distributions in and around conduc-
tors [5]. The corresponding equations in frequency-domain
under steady-state conditions are formulated below:
 
∇×H =J (4)
 
B = ∇× A (5)
   
J =σ E + j ω D + Je (6)
 
E = − jω A (7)
 
where H the magnetic field intensity, B the magnetic field,

and A the magnetic vector potential which is also the de-
pendent unknown variable to be determined. It is noted that
the second term in (6) is negligible at power frequency.
The imposition of boundary conditions in inductive coupling
is somewhat more challenging compared to the capacitive
coupling, since the magnetic field can be considered un-
bounded. In order to limit the extent of the FEM model to a
manageable region of interest with reasonable execution
time, a coordinate scaling is adopted to layers of virtual do-
mains surrounding the physical region of interest, i.e., to air
and soil as indicatively shown in Fig. 2 [5]. These virtual
layers can be mathematically stretched out towards infinity,
   CIM method calculates currents and voltages while ne-
where n × A = 0 is imposed with n being the normal unit
vector. As a result, the model is computationally efficient,
while the solution inside the region of interest is not affected
by the artificial geometric boundaries.
Jicable'19 - Paris - Versailles 23-27 June, 2019
Close and Return
E1-1
The bonding type is taken into account by an external elec-
trical circuit that models currents and voltages in circuits [5].
This interface has connections to the distributed field model
of (4)-(7) and is solved simultaneously based on Kirchhoff’s
conservation laws for the voltages, currents and charges
associated with the circuit elements.
Coordinate
scaling
ñ×Ā=0
Region of interest
Air
Soil
Fig. 2: Boundary conditions of inductive coupling in
EMTP-like software
analysing electromagnetic transients in power systems us-
ing a variety of sophisticated models both in time- and fre-
quency-domain. Focusing on cables under the steady-state
conditions, telegrapher’s equations in frequency-domain
can be employed:
dI
− = YV = (G + j ωC ) V (8)
dz
dV
− =ZI =( R + j ω L ) I (9)
dz
where I, V the N × 1 current and voltage vectors, while Y
and Z the per-unit-length (pul) N × N shunt admittance and
series impedance matrices, respectively, which consist of
conductance G, capacitance C, resistance R, and induct-
ance L matrices.
Eqs. (8) and (9) can be modelled by the N-element homog-
enous transmission line with the assumption of plane-wave
propagation along z direction. In this paper, the lumped PI
equivalent model is employed, since it has been proven to
be very accurate and stable under steady-state power fre-
quency conditions [3].
Since (8) and (9) are in principle mutually coupled, attention
must be paid to proper modelling of capacitive and induc-
tive coupling. For the former, ideal voltage sources are em-
ployed with the resulting charging current flowing through
the shunt admittance branch Y of the PI equivalent in (8).
For the latter, ideal current sources are used flowing
through the series impedance branch Z of (9). In both
cases, bonding types are implemented by proper circuit el-
ements and connections, while the use of multiple cas-
caded PI equivalents allows for the derivation of current
and voltage profiles with respect to cable length.
CIM method
glecting the influence of capacitive currents and assuming
that the earth return path is represented by an equivalent
conductor. The following set of equations represents the
cable system:
2/6
 Close and Return

E1-1 10th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables E1-1

∆V =
ZI (10) to be solved N times, with one conductive layer having non-
zero potential each time. From the N solutions and by su-
− ( RG,1 + RG,2 )( IS, A + IS,B + IS,C )
∆VG = (11) perimposing every two solutions, the whole matrix Y can be
found.
where ∆V the N × 1 vector of voltage drop along all con- In EMTP-like software, the admittance matrix of the exam-
ductive layers, Z part of the full pul series impedance ma- ined cable is evaluated from the internal potential coeffi-
trix Z,  the cable length, RG,1 , RG,2 the grounding re- cient matrix, ignoring any leakage current, i.e. G = 0 [7]:
sistances at both cable ends, and IS , A , IS ,B , IS ,C the cur- −1
Pi 1 0 0
rents at cable sheaths. = ω Pi −1 j ω  0 Pi 2 0 
Y j= (15)
The number of unknowns in (10) are twice the number of  0 0 Pi 3 
conductive layers. In order to get a unique solution (11) is
applied, which imposes the cable sheaths as the current Each diagonal submatrix is given by the following form:
return path, thus equalizing the longitudinal voltage drop on
 pcj + psj psj 
the sheaths to the voltage drop ∆VG on the grounding re- Pij =   (16)
sistances. For solid-bonding type, a single section is con-  psj psj 
sidered, described by its Z . For single-point-bonding type, where:
(10) and (11) are solved by imposing the three sheath cur-
rents equal to zero. Finally, for cross-bonding type, the total ln ( rsemi − out rc ) ln ( rover − s rs )
impedance matrix is calculated as the vectorial sum of the pcj = and psj = (17)
2πεins 2πε over − s
partial impedance matrices of the three minor sections.
In (17), rc, rsemi-out, rs, rover-s, are the radii of conductor, outer
PUL PARAMETERS semi-conductive layer, sheath and oversheath, respec-
tively. εins is the compensated permittivity of the insulation
A first comparison between the considered approaches can
be made by calculating the pul parameters, which are fur- triplex [8], while ε over − s is the permittivity of the oversheath.
ther employed by the EMTP-like software and the CIM
method for the calculation of sheath currents and voltages. Due to the symmetry in matrix Y, only the elements Y11, Y14
Although FEM does not rely on these parameters for the and Y44 are examined at 50 Hz, referring to one of the three
problem formulation, it is possible to calculate them for power cables. Results obtained by the different models are
comparison and validation purposes. compared in Fig. 3, where the relative difference is also
shown. Results present very small deviations with the max-
Shunt admittance matrix imum relative error being less than 0.02%.
Matrix Y is calculated only by FEM and EMTP-like soft- 5
10
-7
0.02
ware, since CIM method does not model the shunt admit- EMTP
FEM 0.018
Error

tance branch. Focusing on FEM, two equivalent methods 4

0.016
have been developed to calculate matrix Y from the electric
field solution of (1)-(3), namely the so-called surface charge
0.014
3
Admittance magnitude [S/m]

method and energy method [6]. The latter approach, which 0.012
Relative difference [%]

is adopted in this paper, is based on the electric energy WE 2 0.01

stored in the field under specific boundary conditions, given 0.008

that the potential distribution is known:

1
0.006

0.004
1  1 0

(12)
2 S∫∫ ∫∫ ε∇V ∇VdS
=
WE =
DEdS 0.002

cab
2 Scab -1 0
Y Y Y ΔY ΔY ΔY
11 14 44 11 14 44

where ε the permittivity and Scab the cable cross-section

Fig. 3: Results of admittance matrix.
area. From circuit analysis, by assuming that V=i V0 ≠ 0
j = 0 , (j
and V= 1,2,, N, j ≠ i ) , the self element Yii is re- Series impedance matrix
Similarly to shunt admittance matrix, two equivalent meth-
lated to the energy W by: ii
E
ods have been developed in FEM to calculate matrix Z from
the magnetic field solution, namely the so-called loss-en-
2WEii
Yii = (13) ergy method and JS method [6]. The latter approach, which
V02 is used in this paper, is based on the straightforward calcu-
lation of Z from the vector JS. This method is simpler, since
In addition, by assuming V=
i V=
j V0 ≠ 0 and Vk = 0 , there is no need to know all the field distribution before-
=( k 1,2,, N, k ≠ i , k ≠ j ) , the mutual element Yij is related hand. In this case, a sinusoidal current excitation of arbi-
trary magnitude Ij is applied sequentially to each conductive
to the energy WEij by: layer j, while the remaining layers i ≠ j , ( i, j = 1, 2,  , N ) ,

WEij Yii Y jj are forced to carry zero currents, i.e., to be open-circuited.

Yij = − − (14) The mutual element Zij of matrix Z between conductive lay-
V02 2 2 ers i and j is:
Since the system of (13) and (14) is linear, the field needs

Jicable'19 - Paris - Versailles 23-27 June, 2019 3/6

 Close and Return

E1-1 10th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables E1-1

Vi JSi CAPACITIVE COUPLING

where Vi the per-unit-length voltage drop, JSi the source
current density derived by the solution of (4)-(7), and σi the
conductivity of layer i. In order to find all elements of Z for
the multi-conductor system, the corresponding problem
has to be solved N times, calculating each time the j-th col-
umn of Z via (18).
The impedance matrix in EMTP-like software is given by
[7]:
where Z i the cable internal impedance and Z 0 the earth-
return impedance, respectively:
Z i 1 0
Z i =  0 Z i 2
 0 0 Z i 3 
 Z 011
Z 0 =  Z 012
Z 013
Eq. (20) is calculated by evaluating the appropriate Bessel
functions for each element [7], while (21) is derived by nu-
merically solving the well-known Pollaczek’s integral [9].
The matrix Z of CIM method is built up in the following
manner:
where Z ij , R ij and X ij the pul self or mutual impedance,
resistance and reactance, respectively, between conduc-
tive layers i and j. In the calculation of X ij , the concept of
geometric distance is used [2], where the axial distance for
parallel conductors is adopted for mutual reactance while
the sheath mean radius is used for self reactance.
Elements Z11, Z12, Z41, Z42, Z44 and Z45 are shown in Fig. 5
at 50 Hz. It is noted that CIM method does not require the
calculation of the first two elements, i.e. Z11, Z12, since ma-
Z=
ij = (18)
I j σ iI j The capacitive coupling in FEM is obtained by solving
(1)-(3) in a 2D axisymmetric configuration [10]. This geom-
etry is used in solid- and single-point-bonding types, while
the cross-bonding type is constructed by splitting the cable
length into 3 minor sections. In this case, the electric insu-
lation between sections is modeled by appropriate bound-
ary conditions, which allow only for the continuity of the
sheath along cable length. Due to the 2D axisymmetric ge-
ometry, a very high aspect ratio of length (z axis) vs. thick-
ness (r axis) is observed. In order to reduce it and avoid
any ill-posed conditions, a scaled system with respect to z
axis is applied, which is fully compensated by an appropri-
Z= Z i + Z 0 (19) ate anisotropic conductivity of the materials [10].
EMTP-like software solves (8) by imposing ideal voltage
sources at both cable ends and resulting in a cumulative
charging current with respect to cable length. A cascaded
0  connection of multiple PI equivalents is constructed in order
Zccj Zcsj  to derive the current and voltage profiles with respect to ca-
0  , where Z ij =   (20)
Zcsj Zssj  ble length. In addition, the bonding types are modelled by
proper connections between sheaths as well as the inser-
tion of grounding resistances.
Z 012 Z 013 
Z0 jk Z0 jk  In the following cases, an indicative cable length of 450 m
Z 022 Z 023  , where Z 0 jk =   (21) is considered for solid- and single-point-bonding types, as
Z 023 Z 033  Z0 jk Z0 jk 
well as for each minor section of the cross-bonding type. A
number of 18 PI-equivalents is used for the cable represen-
tation in EMTP-like software. A phase-to-phase voltage of
150 kV is assumed for the energized cable, while a value
of 5 Ω is used for grounding resistances.
Solid-bonding type
The sheath current and voltage profiles of first (left) cable
Z= R ij + jX ij (22) are shown in Fig. 5. Results from FEM and EMTP-like soft-
ij
ware are very close, while small deviations are caused by
the finite segmentation of the cable in the latter method with
the cascaded connection of several PI-equivalents. The
maximum relative difference is 3.66%, validating the accu-
racy of both methods.
It can be seen that the charging current is build up in both
directions, starting from zero in the middle of the cable,
while it reaches a maximum level at both ends. On the other
hand, the maximum sheath voltage occurs in the middle of
the cable.
(a) (b)
1.5
EMTP
100

FEM
trix Z is only part of the full Z in (19). A good agreement is
50
Current magnitude [A]

Current angle [deg]

observed between all methods with the maximum relative

0

0.5

error being less than 2% and 2.2% for EMTP-like software -50

and CIM method with FEM as reference, respectively. 0

0 75 150 225 300 375 450
-100
0 75 150 225 300 375 450
Length [m] Length [m]
-4 (c) (d)
10 0.02 90.1
2
EMTP
0.015
Resistance magnitude [Ω/m]

Voltage magnitude [V]

1.5 FEM
Voltage angle [deg]

90
CIM
0.01
1
89.9
0.005
0.5
0 89.8
0 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 75 150 225 300 375 450
R R R R R R Length [m] Length [m]
11 12 41 42 44 45

Fig. 5: Sheath current and voltage profiles for capaci-

-4
10
8

tive coupling and solid-bonding type.

Reactance magnitude [Ω/m]

Single-point-bonding type
4

0 Fig. 6 presents the results for the case of single-point-bond-

ing. A very good agreement is again is observed between
X X X X X X
11 12 41 42 44 45

FEM and EMTP-like software, with the maximum relative

Fig. 4: Results of impedance matrix.

Jicable'19 - Paris - Versailles 23-27 June, 2019 4/6

 Close and Return

E1-1 10th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables E1-1

difference being 2.76%. It is shown that the charging cur- The same cable lengths as in the capacitive coupling are
rent accumulates inside the sheath at the bonded end. At considered. A current of 1000 A (rms) is assumed for the
the other end, the current is zero and the sheath voltage energized cable, while a value of 5 Ω is used again for
reaches a maximum. grounding resistances.
Solid-bonding type
(a) (b)
3
EMTP
-90
FEM
The sheath current and voltage profiles of first (left) cable
Current magnitude [A]

Current angle [deg]

2

are shown in Fig. 8. Results from all methods present small

-90.00002

-90.00004 deviations, while the maximum relative difference is 1.54%

0
0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 and 1.51% for EMTP-like software and CIM method with
Length [m]
(c)
Length [m]
(d)
FEM as reference, respectively. Although this bonding op-
0.08
90.3 tion requires minimum maintenance, the magnitude of the
0.06
induced currents can be high, resulting in high Joule losses
Voltage magnitude [V]

90.2
Voltage angle [deg]

0.04 90.1 and, thus, significantly influencing cable current rating. In

0.02 90 addition, the induced voltages are proportional to the cable
0
0 75 150 225 300 375 450
89.9
0 75 150 225 300 375 450
length and mainly depend on the grounding resistances at
Length [m] Length [m] both ends.
(b)
Fig. 6: Sheath current and voltage profiles for capaci-
(a)
720 -147.55

tive coupling and single-point-bonding type. 719

Current magnitude [A]

Current angle [deg]

EMTP -147.6

718 FEM

Cross-bonding type 717

CIM
-147.65

Finally, results for cross-bonding type are shown in Fig. 7, 716

0 75 150 225 300 375 450
-147.7
0 75 150 225 300 375 450

with the maximum relative error being 3.41%. The charging Length [m]
(c)
Length [m]
(d)
current for the three minor sections shows a 120o phase 2
100

shift and interpolates between the three bonding points 50

Voltage magnitude [V]

Voltage angle [deg]

1.5

where the current reaches a maximum. 1

0

(b) 0.5 -50

(a)
1.6 EMTP 200 0 -100
FEM 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 0 75 150 225 300 375 450
Current magnitude [A]

1.4 100
Current angle [deg]

Length [m] Length [m]

1.2 0

1 -100 Fig. 8: Sheath current and voltage profiles for induc-

0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350
-200
0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350
tive coupling and solid-bonding type.
Length [m] Length [m]

0.06
(c)
100
(d)
Single-point-bonding type
Fig. 9 presents the results for the case of single-point-bond-
50
Voltage magnitude [V]

Voltage angle [deg]

0.04

ing. A very good agreement is again obtained, with the

0

0.02
maximum relative difference being 0.58% and 0.60% for
-50

-100
0
0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350 0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350
EMTP-like software and CIM method compared to FEM.
Length [m] Length [m] Single-point-bonding is considered less complicated for
managing losses in current rating purpose. It provides im-
Fig. 7: Sheath current and voltage profiles for capaci- proved cable current capacity by eliminating the circulating
tive coupling and cross-bonding type. current losses in the sheaths. The induced voltage on a
sheath is proportional to the cable length, thus limiting the
INDUCTIVE COUPLING applicable cable length due to the safety limits.
The inductive coupling in FEM is formulated in a 2D plane 70
EMTP
(a)
-104.9
(b)

configuration by solving (4)-(7). The injected currents as FEM

60 CIM
well as the connections between sheaths and grounding -104.95

resistances are realized with the use of current coils [10]. 50

-105
In addition, the derivation of sheath current and voltage
Voltage magnitude [V]

40
Voltage angle [deg]

profiles requires the solution of the problem for different -105.05

out-of-plane thicknesses in terms of a parametric study. 30

-105.1
For the EMTP-like software, ideal current source is con- 20

nected to cable conductors, while induced sheath voltage 10

-105.15

and currents are calculated based on (9). Similarly to the

capacitive coupling, a cascaded connection of multiple PI 0
0 75 150 225 300 375 450
-105.2
0 75 150 225 300 375 450

equivalents is constructed to derive the profiles along cable Length [m] Length [m]

sheaths, and proper connections are made to model all

bonding types. Fig. 9: Sheath current and voltage profiles for induc-
tive coupling and single-point-bonding type.
In CIM method, the symmetrical currents are injected to the
phase conductors and the voltage drops are calculated Cross-bonding type
based on (10) and (11). The cross-bonding type is mod- Finally, results for cross-bonding type are shown in Fig. 10,
elled by the total impedance matrix, which is calculated as with the maximum relative error being 1.38% and 1.42% for
the vector sum of the partial impedance matrices of the EMTP-like software and CIM against FEM. Compared to
three minor sections. the single-point-bonding scheme, the cross-bonding type

Jicable'19 - Paris - Versailles 23-27 June, 2019 5/6

 Close and Return

E1-1 10th International Conference on Insulated Power Cables E1-1

has the advantage of not limiting the length of the cable British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1990.
system. The induced voltages in sheaths present offset in [7] A. Ametani, T. Ohno, N. Nagaoka, Cable system
time by one-third of the period and are added up, thus re- transients. Singapore: IEEE Wiley, 2015.
ducing the sheath circulating current.
[8] B. Gustavsen, J. A. Martinez, D. Durbak, “Parameter
determination for modelling system transients - Part II:
(a) (b)
0.65 146

0.645 Insulated cables,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no.
Current magnitude [A]

Current angle [deg]

EMTP 145.5
0.64 FEM
CIM
3, 2005, pp. 2045-2050.
145

[9] F. Pollaczek, “Über das Feld einer unendlich langen

0.635

wechselstromdurchflossenen Einfachleitung,” Elektr.

0.63 144.5
0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350 0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350
Length [m]
(c)
Length [m]
(d) Nachrichtentech., vol. 3, no. 4, 1926, pp. 339-359.
80 200

60
[10] Modeling cables in COMSOL Multiphysics®: 6-part tu-
Voltage magnitude [V]

Voltage angle [deg]

torial series. COMSOL Multiphysics® v.5.4. COMSOL

100
40

20
0
AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 2017.
0
0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350
-100
0 225 450 675 900 1125 1350
APPENDIX
Length [m] Length [m]
In Table A.I, the outer diameter of each layer is given in
Fig. 10: Sheath current and voltage profiles for induc- mm. In Table A.II the electrical properties are presented,
tive coupling and cross-bonding type. where ρ is the electrical resistivity in Ω·m, εr is the relative
permittivity, and μr is the relative permeability. In Table A.III,
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS the properties of air and soil are given, respectively.

In this paper, a systematic numerical investigation is per- TABLE A.I

formed between different methods used for the calculation
of sheath currents and voltages at power frequency. Re- Geometric properties of cable
sults in all cases are in good agreement validating the ap- Layer Material Value
plicability of the considered models. Conductor Cu 39.5
Inner semi-conductive Semi-PE 42
CIM method is characterized by its simplicity and ease of Insulation XLPE 76
use. It can be readily programmed and configured, while its Outer semi-conductive Semi-PE 78.5
calculation scheme is simple and robust. The accuracy is Sheath Al 80.5
similar to the other methods, however, its applicability is re- Oversheath HDPE 89
stricted to inductive coupling only. In addition, due to the Axial distance between conductors equal to 267 mm
formulation of the pul parameters, the method is limited to
Burial depth equal to 1.5 m on top of cables
cable installations where the formulation of earth return im-
pedance is valid.
TABLE A.II
EMTP-like software takes into account both capacitive and
Electrical properties of cable (SI units)
inductive coupling. Its calculation scheme is fast and ro-
Layer Material Variable Value
bust. However, the use of such programs requires higher
user expertise. As in the CIM method, the formulation of the ρ 2.16·10-8
pul parameters and the validity of earth return impedance Conductor Cu εr 1
limits the use of such software. μr 1
ρ 10
FEM can be applicable to all cable configurations and in- Inner semi-
Semi-PE εr 2000
stallations, taking into account both capacitive and induc- conductive
μr 1
tive coupling. However, the setup time and the computa- ρ ∞
tional burden are significantly higher compared to other Insulation XLPE εr 2.5
methods. In addition, the user must be familiar with the μr 1
FEM analysis, mesh operations and the imposition of
ρ 10
boundary conditions. Outer semi-
Semi-PE εr 2000
conductive
REFERENCES μr 1
ρ 2.84·10-8
[1] IEC standard for electric cables - Calculation of the
Sheath Al εr 1
current rating, IEC Standard 60287-1-1, 2014.
μr 1
[2] CIGRE technical brochure for special boding of high ρ ∞
voltage power cables, CIGRE 283, 2005. Oversheath HDPE εr 2.3
[3] H. W. Dommel, EMTP theory book, Bonneville Power μr 1
Administration, Portland, OR, 1986.
[4] COMSOL Multiphysics®, v.5.4, www.comsol.com, TABLE A.III
COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Properties of surrounding media (SI units)
[5] AC/DC module user’s guide. COMSOL Multiphysics® Layer Variable Value Layer Variable Value
v.5.4. COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. ρ ∞ ρ 100
[6] Y. Yin, “Calculation of frequency-dependent parame- Air εr 1 Soil εr 1
ters of underground power cables with finite element μr 1 μr 1
method,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Univ.

Jicable'19 - Paris - Versailles 23-27 June, 2019 6/6