From: deqiang.gan@ieee.

org

To: dklimenta@hotmail.com, miroljub.jevtic@gmail.com, radjor73@yahoo.com, nebarsic@yahoo.com

CC:

Subject: ETEP-12-0016 - Decision on Manuscript

Body: 04-May-2012 

Dear Mr Klimenta, 

Manuscript ID ETEP-12-0016 entitled "A Thermal FEM-Design Procedure for the Determination of Continuously Permissible Loads of Double-
Circuit HV Underground Cable Lines" which you submitted to European Transactions on Electrical Power has been reviewed. The comments of
the referee(s) are included at the bottom of this letter. 

A revised version of your manuscript that takes into account the comments of the referee(s) will be reconsidered for publication. 

Please note that submitting a revision of your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your revision may be subject to
re-review by the referee(s) before a decision is rendered. 

You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Center. Log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/etep and enter
your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". 

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referee(s) in the space provided. You
can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. 

IMPORTANT: Please make sure you closely follow the instructions for acceptable files. When submitting (uploading) your revised manuscript,
please delete the file(s) that you wish to replace and then upload the revised file(s). 

Please remember that the publishers will not accept a manuscript unless accompanied by the Copyright Transfer Agreement. Please go to:
http://www.wiley.com/go/ctapsglobal 

The Copyright Transfer Form and the Permissions Form should be scanned and uploaded with your submission to Manuscript Central,
designated as "Supplemental Material not for review". If you do not have access to a scanner, further instructions will be provided upon the
acceptance of your paper. Forms should not be sent to the editorial office. 

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to European Transactions on Electrical Power and I look forward to receiving your
revision. 

Sincerely, 

Prof. Deqiang Gan 

Editor, European Transactions on Electrical Power 
deqiang.gan@ieee.org, dgan2000@yahoo.com 

Referee(s)' Comments to Author: 

Reviewer: 1 
Comments to the Author 
The paper addresses some important issues when a finite element method is used to obtain a current rating of a power cable. It goes step-
by-step through a calculation procedure, which might be useful for some readers who are just starting cable rating calculations. Otherwise,
not only there is nothing new in the paper, but its focus on a specific installation does not give the user any guidance when a different laying
conditions or cable constructions are considered and may lead to some confusion. 
Another problem with the paper is that it seems to criticize an approach taken in reference [10] for the design of the same line. Reference
[10] is an internal report of a company and is not available to the reading public, just all the references to it are useless. 
The linear dependence of the thermal resistivity of the backfill material and the native soil on temperature is suspicious. It is known that the
dependence of soil resistivity on moisture content is highly nonlinear; therefore, it is of interest whether the proposed functions were
obtained empirically for the specific soils at the considered installation. 
The optimisation of the axial spacing, even though conducted correctly is not well explained at all. The simple statement saying that “the
larger the distance between conductors, the larger circulating current losses but smaller mutual heating effect” would explain the situation
without a long elaboration. 
The discussion in Section 3.5 is a very important point in any FE analysis. However, because this section is written in such poor English, it is
very difficult to understand. 
In general, the paper is poorly written and English should be reviewed carefully throughout the entire text. As a matter of fact, the language
is so poor and sentences so convoluted that this reviewer had great difficulty in understanding some important points made by the authors.
In addition, there are some technical problems that should be corrected. These include: 
1. The losses computed according to eq. (4) are incorrect since they do not take into account the skin and proximity effect in the electrical
resistance of the cable conductor. 
2. The IEC standard 60287, which the authors often quote as a reference, gives the threshold voltage levels for different insulation types
below which the dielectric losses are negligible and can be ignored in rating calculations. For the XLPE insulated cables, this threshold level is
220 kV (phase-to-phase) but the authors examine a 110 kV cable circuit. 
3. The authors assume that the Al conductor and the Cu screen operate at the same temperature of 90C, which is not the case in practice. 
4. Modern FE program consider also temperature continuity boundary which can be used to reduce the size of the solution domain. 
5. In the case of single point bonded systems, the circulating current losses in the screen wires will be almost zero; therefore, the
optimization procedure described in Section 3.6 does not make sense in this case. 
6. The procedure for backfill size optimization was described in [14] and the authors should compare their results with the results that would
have been obtained using the method from this reference. 
7. The optimal spacing of the conductors and the circuits and the optimal sizing of a backfill are linked together and should be considered as
such and not separately as done by the authors. This, of course, increases the complexity of the problem, but with today’s tools such
problems can be solved. 
8. Since the authors recommend cross bonding of the screens, thus reducing significantly the circulating current losses, the optimization
 procedure does not make sense and the only consideration should be the cost of the installation and the required ampacity. 
9. I would take an issue with the statement that the two-circuit design in Fig. 2 is incorrect. It is often done in practice and whether it is or is
not correct depends on the specific current carrying requirements of the particular installation. The way the authors phrase the statement
suggests that one should never use the design in Fig. 2. 
In summary, even though there is nothing new in the paper, it has some educational merit but only if it is completely rewritten in a simple
and understandable English. 

Reviewer: 2 
Comments to the Author 
ETEP-12-0016 
This paper seems as a technical report rather than a research paper. 
Comments: 
(a) Most of equations appear in this paper are not derived, nor are they quoted from other authors' papers - they just 'appear'. 
(b) The statement in page 7 line 5; "Herein, the optimal/maximal value ….”. 
Actually, there is a difference between the meaning of optimal and maximal values. 
(c) It is better if the cable construction is presented in a figure. 
(d) It is not clear, how the data in Table II were obtained.

Date Sent: 04-May-2012

From: olav.fosso@ntnu.no

To: dklimenta@hotmail.com, miroljub.jevtic@gmail.com, radjor73@yahoo.com, nebarsic@yahoo.com

CC:

Subject: ETEP-12-0457 - Decision on Manuscript

Body: 26-Nov-2012 

Dear Mr Klimenta, 

Manuscript ID ETEP-12-0457 entitled "A thermal FEM-design procedure for the determination of continuously permissible loads of double-
circuit HV underground cable lines" which you submitted to European Transactions on Electrical Power has been reviewed. The comments of
the referee(s) are included at the bottom of this letter. 

A revised version of your manuscript that takes into account the comments of the referee(s) will be reconsidered for publication. 

Please note that submitting a revision of your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your revision may be subject to
re-review by the referee(s) before a decision is rendered. 

You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Center. Log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/etep and enter
your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". 

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referee(s) in the space provided. You
can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. 

IMPORTANT: Please make sure you closely follow the instructions for acceptable files. When submitting (uploading) your revised manuscript,
please delete the file(s) that you wish to replace and then upload the revised file(s). 

Please remember that the publishers will not accept a manuscript unless accompanied by the Copyright Transfer Agreement. Please go to:
http://www.wiley.com/go/ctapsglobal 

The Copyright Transfer Form and the Permissions Form should be scanned and uploaded with your submission to Manuscript Central,
designated as "Supplemental Material not for review". If you do not have access to a scanner, further instructions will be provided upon the
acceptance of your paper. Forms should not be sent to the editorial office. 

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to European Transactions on Electrical Power and I look forward to receiving your
revision. 

Sincerely, 

Prof. Olav Fosso 

Editor, European Transactions on Electrical Power 
olav.fosso@ntnu.no 

Referee(s)' Comments to Author: 

Reviewer: 1 
Comments to the Author 
The paper is a useful study of the modeling of Double-Circuit HV Underground Cable Lines with an aim to better design them. The strength of
the paper lies that it presents a comprehensive guideline on the design procedure, especially the need for non-linear thermal model, and the
proper choice of boundary conditions. Proper references are also cited most of the time. 
 However, some kind of validation of the design procedure would be useful. There is no information that would enable me to judge that the
procedure really converges to a best design. 
There are some typos/grammatical mistakes that need to be removed e.g. . "Therefore, this paper contains answers to all engineering
questions emerged during 
the discussion" in the first paragraph. 
I am a little doubtful about the anecdotal nature of the introduction; especially given the length of the paper, this is probably best avoided. 

Reviewer: 2 
Comments to the Author 
This reviewer could not find any significant contribution in this paper. 

The way the paper written is not suitable for publication in the journal. I would recommend the authors to review the guide lines of writing a
paper to this journal.

Date Sent: 26-Nov-2012

From: olav.fosso@ntnu.no

To: dklimenta@hotmail.com, miroljub.jevtic@gmail.com, radjor73@yahoo.com, nebarsic@yahoo.com

CC: olav.fosso@ntnu.no

Subject: International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems - Decision on Manuscript ID ETEP-12-0457.R1

Body: 10-Feb-2013 

Dear Mr Klimenta, 

I write you in regards to Manuscript ID ETEP-12-0457.R1 entitled "A thermal FEM-design procedure for the determination of continuously
permissible loads of double-circuit HV underground cable lines" which you submitted to International Transactions on Electrical Energy
Systems. 

In view of the criticisms of the referee(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in International
Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems. 

Thank you for considering International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome
of this specific submission will not discourage you from submitting future manuscripts. 

Sincerely, 

Prof. Olav Fosso 

Editor, International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems 

olav.fosso@ntnu.no 

Referee(s)' Comments to Author: 

Reviewer: 1 
Comments to the Author 
The paper is useful in the sense that it details the methodology for thermo -electric modelling. In this, it may be useful to practitioners.
Otherwise, it adds little new knowledge. The questions raised have been addressed. 

Reviewer: 2 
Comments to the Author 
The authors have not done much to improve the manuscript. 

Reviewer: 3 
Comments to the Author 
no further comments.

Date Sent: 10-Feb-2013