Panel Session on Data for Modeling System Transients Insulated Cables

Bjrn Gustavsen
SINTEF Energy Research N-7465 Trondheim, Norway bjorn.gustavsen@energy.sintef.no

Abstract: The available EMTP-type programs have dedicated support routines (Cable Constants) for calculating an electric representation of cable systems in terms of a series impedance matrix Z and a shunt admittance matrix Y, based on cable data defined by geometry and material properties. Z and Y are then used as the basic input for the various cable models applied in time domain transient simulations. This paper describes necessary procedures for converting the available cable data into a new set of data which can be used as input for Cable Constants. In particular, the paper shows how to handle the semiconducting screens of single core coaxial type cables. In situations where the cable plays an important role in the transient simulation, the user should also consider obtaining a specimen of the cable in order to verify the geometrical data provided by the manufacturer. The recommendations in this paper are supported by field test results.

The situation is made further complicated by the fact that the nominal thickness of the various layers (insulation, semiconducting screens) as stated by manufacturers can be smaller than the actual (design) thickness of the layers. Therefore, the information on geometrical data from the manufacturer can be inaccurate from the viewpoint of cable parameter calculations. This paper demonstrates the needed conversions for one real case of a single core coaxial cable system, and proposes how to best use the available data to produce a reliable cable model. The effect of inaccurate data on a time domain simulation is also shown. The paper further discusses the shortcoming of CC in taking into account possible attenuation effects caused by the semiconducting screens. II. CABLE PARAMETERS The basic parameters used by transmission line/cable models are the following: Z () = R() + j L () Y () = G () + jC() (1) (2)

Keywords: Electromagnetic Modeling, EMTP.

Transients,

Insulated

Cables,

I. INTRODUCTION The modeling of insulated cables for the simulation of electromagnetic transients requires 1) Calculation of cable parameters from geometrical data and material properties [1],[2]. 2) Conversion of the cable parameters into a new set of parameters for usage by the transmission line/cable model. This paper deals with the first step in the procedure, namely the calculation of cable parameters. All the commonly used programs for simulation of electromagnetic transients (EMTP/ATP/EMTDC) have dedicated support routines for this task. The routine(s) have very similar features and will in this presentation be given the common generic name Cable Constants (CC). Data conversion is often needed by the user in order to bring the available cable data into a form which can be used as input by CC. This conversion is needed because 1) The data can have alternative representations with CC only supporting one of the representations. 2) The CC routine does not consider certain cable features, such as semiconducting screens and wire screens.

where R,L,G,C are the series resistance, series inductance, shunt conductance and shunt capacitance per unit length of the cable system. These quantities are n by n matrices where n is the number of (parallel) conductors of the cable system. The variable reflects that these quantities are calculated as function of frequency. Z and Y are calculated using CC based on the geometry and material properties of the system [1],[2]. III. ACTUAL CABLE VS. CABLE CONSTANTS REPRESENTATION A. Geometry In the following we consider CC applied to systems of parallel single core coaxial type cables (SC cables). The user must specify the following input data: The location of each cable (x-y coordinates). The geometry of each SC cable. In general, CC represents each SC cable by a set of concentrically located homogenous pipes, separated by insulating layers. Figure 1 shows the representation which would be used for a SC cable without armour.

air soil

x y

g , g

cables. This means that CC assumes a cylindrically symmetrical current distribution in all conductors. The assumed cylindrical distribution also means that the helical winding effect of the wire screen is not taken into account. IV. MODELING REQUIREMENTS VS. PHENOMENON

Insulation

r4 r3
core sheath

c, c

r1 1

r2

For situations with straight sheaths (i.e. no crossbondings), high frequency transients propagate mainly as uncoupled coaxial waves within each SC cable. The earth characteristics have in this situation only a mild effect on the resulting phase voltages and phase currents. In the following we shall therefore focus on the representation of the cable within the protective jacket (oversheath). V. CONVERSION PROCEDURES A. Core The CC-routine requires the core data to be given by the resistivity c and the radius r1. However, the core conductor is often of the stranded design (Figure 2), whereas CC assumes a homogenous (solid) conductor. This makes it necessary to increase the resistivity c of the core material to take into account the space between strands: c = c r12 Ac (5)

s , s

Fig. 1 CC representation of system of 3 SC cables Figure 2 shows an actual XLPE single core coaxial cable. Clearly, this cable design is different from the simple configuration assumed in Figure 1. In particular, the user needs to decide how to represent The core stranding The inner semiconducting screen The outer semiconducting screen The wire screen (sheath)
Inner semiconductor Outer semiconductor Wire screen

where Ac is the efficient (nominal) cross sectional area of the core. The resistivity c for to be used for annealed copper and hard drawn aluminum at 20C is according to IEC 28 and IEC 889: Copper: 1.7241E-8 m Aluminum 2.8264E-8 m If the manufacturer provides the DC resistance for the core, the sought resistivity can alternatively be calculated as r 2 c = R DC 1 (6) l B. Insulation and semiconducting screens

Core Insulation

Fig. 2 SC XLPE cable B. Material properties The user must specify the following material constants: The soil resistivity and relative permeability g , g The core resistivity and relative permeability c , c The sheath resistivity and relative permeability s , s The insulation relative permittivity r (In non-magnetic materials the relative permeability equals 1.0.) The CC-routine assumes the relative permittivity r of each insulating layer to be real ( = 0 ) and frequency independent, thereby neglecting any relaxation phenomena in the insulation. This implies : Z () = R() + j L () (3) Y () = j C C. Eddy current effects The CC-routine takes into account the frequency dependent skin effect in the conductors, but neglects the proximity effect between parallel 2 (4)

Procedure The semiconducting screens can have a substantial effect on the propagation characteristics of a cable in terms of velocity, surge impedance and possibly the attenuation [3],[4]. Unfortunately, CC does not allow explicit representation of the semiconducting screens, so an approximate data conversion procedure must be applied : 1) Calculate r2 as r1 plus the sum of the thickness of the semiconducting screens and the main insulation. 2) Calculate the relative permittivity r1 as r1 = C ln(r2 / r1 ) 2 0 (7)

where C is the cable capacitance stated by the manufacturer and 0 = 8.854E-12. If C is unknown, r1 can instead be calculated based on the relative permittivity rins of the main insulation: r1 = r ins ln(r2 / r1 ) ln(b / a ) (8)

where a and b are the insulation inner and outer radius, respectively. For XLPE rins equals 2.3.

Justification The inner and outer semiconducting screens have a relative permittivity of the order of 1000, due to the high carbon content used in the semiconducting screens. This implies that the capacitance of the screens is much higher than that of the insulation and will tend to act as a short circuit when calculating the shunt admittance between core and sheath. A similar effect is caused by the ohmic conductivity of the semiconducting screens, which is required by norm to be higher than 1E-3 S/m. At the same time the conductivity of the semiconducting screens is much lower than that of the core and the sheath conductors, implying that the semiconducting screens do not contribute to the longitudinal current conduction. This implies that when entering the geometrical data in CC, the user should let the XPLE insulation extend to the surface of the core conductor and the sheath conductor, and increase the relative permittivity to leave the capacitance unaltered. Note that this modeling neglects the possible attenuation caused by the semiconducting screens. The attenuation could have a strong impact on very high frequency transients. This is discussed in Section X. C. Wire screen When the sheath conductor consists of a wire screen, the most practical procedure is to replace the screen with a tubular conductor having a cross sectional area equal to the total wire area As. With an inner sheath radius of r2, the outer radius r3 becomes r3 = As + r22 (9)

With a relative permittivity of 2.3 for XLPE, this defines a capacitance of 0.244 nF/m which is in agreement with the capacitance of 0.24 nF/m stated by the manufacturer. C. Data conversion Core From the manufacturer: r1 = 19 .5 mm The resistivity is calculated by (6) :

c = 3. 4643 10 8 /m
Insulation and insulation screens r2 = r1 + (0 .8 + 14 + 0. 4) = 34 .7 mm r 1 = 2 .486 (by (7)) Wire screen The outer radius is calculated using (9): r3 = 34 . 93 mm s = 1 .718 E 8 /m (copper) VII. INACCURACY IN DATA FROM MANUFACTURER The relevant cable norms (e.g. IEC 840, IEC 60502) puts limitations on the minimum thickness of each cable layer (in relation to the nominal thickness), but not on the maximum thickness. Therefore, the manufacturer is free to use thicker layers than the nominal ones, e.g. to account for dispersity in production and ageig effects. This situation is prevalent for both the main insulation, the oversheath, and the semiconducting screens. By measurement on a specimen of the 66 kV cable it was found that the insulation and in particular the semiconducting screens were thicker than stated in the data sheets : Thickness of inner insulation screen: 1.5 mm Thickness of insulation: 14.7 mm Thickness of outer insulation screen: 1.1 mm Separation between outer insulation screen and centre of each conductor in wire screen: 1 mm This gives a modified model : r1 = 19 .5 mm r2 = 37 .8 mm r 2 = 2. 856 (by (7))

VI. APPLICATION TO 66 kV CABLE A. Manufacturers data The procedures outlined in the previous sections will be demonstrated for a 66 kV cable similar to the one shown in Figure 3. For this cable (manufactured in the 1980s), the following data were provided by the manufacturer:

Ac = 1000 mm2
C = 0 .24 nF/m R DC = 2 .9 E 5 /m r1 = 19 .5 mm Thickness of inner insulation screen: 0.8 mm Thickness of insulation: 14 mm Thickness of outer insulation screen: 0.4 mm Wire screen: As = 50 mm2 B. Data consistency In Section VB it was justified that the insulation screens can be represented by short circuit when calculating the shunt admittance. This is equivalent to a capacitance between two cylindrical shells with radius : a = (19 .5 + 0 .8 ) mm = 20 .3 mm b = a + 14 mm = 34 .3 mm C= 2 0 r ln(b / a ) (10) 3

VIII. SENSITIVITY At high frequencies, the asymptotic ( lossless) propagation velocity and surge impedance are given as v = 1 / L 0C Zc = where L0 = 0 2 L0 / C ln(r2 / r1 ) (11) (12)

(13)

with 0 = 4 E 7 We will now compare the asymptotic propagation characteristics as calculated by the following procedures: Case #1: Neglecting the semiconducting screens. Capacitance and inductance calculated using (10) and (13) with a=r1=19.5 mm, b=r2=33.5 mm, and r1=2.3. Case #2: Taking the semiconducting screens into account. Capacitance and geometrical data from the manufacturer: r1=19.5 mm, r2=34.7 mm, and r1=2.486. Case #3: Taking the semiconducting screens into account. Capacitance from the manufacturer, geometrical data from cable specimen: r1=19.5 mm, r2=37.8 mm, and r1=2.856. Using the inductance calculated from (12), the velocity and characteristic impedance are calculated as: Table 1. Sensitivity of cable propagation characteristics case #1 v [m/s] Zc [ ] 197.7 21.39 case #2 190.1 (-3.8%) 21.91 (+2.4%) case #3 177.4 (-10.3%)) 23.49 (+9.8%)

the surge admittance of the cable core-sheath loop, which is the inverse of the surge impedance. The inrush current was also simulated using EMTDC v3 with a phase domain cable model [5],[6]. The CC routine was applied for the three different cases defined in Section VIII. It is seen that using the cable representation in case #3 gives a calculated response which is in fairly close agreement with the measured response. The two other representations have a much larger discrepancy. (The spike occurring at about 50 s resulted because of long leads connecting the two cable sections).

Fig. 4 Measured and simulated inrush current X. IMPROVED MODELING OF SEMICONDUCTING SCREENS Reference [3] suggests to model the admittance between the core and the sheath using the circuit in Figure 5, in which each semiconducting screen is modeled by a conductance in parallel with a capacitor. With component values obtained from measurements, they obtained a good agreement between measured attenuation and calculated attenuation in the range 1 MHz125 MHz. The attenuation effect of the semiconducting screens was strong. Reference [4] gives a systematic investigation of the effects of semiconducting screens on propagation characteristics.
core

Thus, the cable propagation characteristics are highly sensitive to the representation of the core-sheath layers. IX. FIELD TEST AND TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION A field test was carried out on a 6.05 km length of the cable. One core conductor was charged up to a 5 kV DC voltage and then shorted to ground. Thus, a negative step voltage was in effect applied to the cable end (see Figure 3).
3.85 km
core sheath

2.2 km 15 m Y

G1

C1

Inner semiconducting screen

C G2
sheath

Main insulation

Negative step voltage

C2

Outer semiconducting screen

Fig. 5 Improved model of insulation screens [3] Fig. 3 Cable test setup Figure 4 shows the measured initial inrush current flowing into the core conductor in p.u. of the DC-voltage. The initial current corresponds to 4 The conductivity and permittivity of the semiconducting screens depends very much on the amount of carbon added, the structure of

the carbon, and the type of base polymer. Very high carbon concentrations are used (e.g. 35%). IEC 840 requires the resistivity to be lower than 1000 m for the inner screen, and below 500 m for the outer screen. One manufacturer stated that they use a much lower resistivity, typically 0.1 m10 m. The relative permittivity is very high, typically of the order of 1000. The permittivity and conductivity can be strongly frequency dependent. In order to investigate the possible attenuation effects of the insulation screens of the cable considered in this paper, a representation as in Figure 5 was employed assuming frequency independent conductances and capacitances. The component values were calculated as follows: C = 0. 24 nF / m (from manufacturer) C1 = 20 r / ln(r2 / b) C 2 = 2 0 r / ln(a / r1 ) G1 = 2 / ln(r2 / b ) G 2 = 2 / ln(a / r1 ) where a: b: r : : Outer radius of inner semiconducting screen Inner radius of outer semiconducting screen Relative permittivity of semiconducting screens Conductivity of semiconducting screens

XI. DISCUSSION This paper has focused on the importance of correctly modeling the semiconducting screens of single core coaxial type cables. It is shown that a careless modeling tends to produce a model with a too low surge impedance and a too high propagation velocity. The importance of accurate modeling is strongly dependent on the type of transient study. If the cable is part of a resonant overvoltage phenomenon, the accurate representation of the cable the surge impedance and propagation velocity is crucial. XII. CONCLUSIONS This paper describes necessary conversion procedures for the available cable data for usage by Cable Constantstype routines (CC), with focus on single core (SC) coaxial type cables. The main conclusions are the following: CC does not directly apply to SC cables with semiconducting screens, so a conversion procedure is needed before entering the cable data into CC. This paper describes the needed conversions and also describes the conversions needed for handling the core stranding and wire screens. The nominal thickness of the various insulation and semiconducting cable screens as stated by manufacturers can be smaller than those found in actual cables. This can result in a significant error for the propagation characteristics of the cable model. CC has no means for taking into account any additional attenuation at very high frequencies resulting from the semiconducting screens. XIII. REFERENCES
[1] L.M. Wedepohl and D.J. Wilcox, Transient Analysis of Underground Power Transmission System ; System-Model and Wave Propagation Characteristics, Proc. IEE, vol. 120, No. 2, February 1973, pp. 252-259. [2] A. Ametani, A General Formulation of Impedance and Admittance of Cables, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 99, No. 3, May/June 1980, pp. 902-909. [3] G.C. Stone and S.A. Boggs, "Propagation of Partial Discharge Pulses in Shielded Power Cable, Proceedings of Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, IEEE 82CH17731, October 1982, pp. 275-280. [4] W.L. Weeks and Yi Min Diao, Wave Propagation in Underground Power Cable, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 103, No. 10, October 1984, pp. 2816-2826. [5] A. Morched, B. Gustavsen, and M. Tartibi, A Universal Line Model for Accurate Calculation of Electromagnetic Transients on Overhead Lines and Cables, IEEE trans. PWRD, vol. 14, no. 3, July 1999, pp. 1032-1038. [6] B.Gustavsen, G. Irwin, R. Mangelrd, D. Brandt, and K. Kent, "Transmission Line Models for the Simulation of Interaction Phenomena between Parallel AC and DC Overhead Lines", IPST'99 International Conference on Power System Transients, Budapest, 1999, pp. 61-67.

Figure 6 shows the attenuation per km, for a few combinations of and r . The curves define to which peak value a sinusoidal voltage of 1 p.u. peak value decays to over a distance of 1 km. (The signal decays exponentially as function of length). The model predicts a significant contribution from the semiconducting screens for a low value of both the relative permittivity (10, 100) and the conductivity (0.001). With the high permittivity (1000), the capacitance tends to short out the conductance, and no appreciable increase of the attenuation is seen. The lowest value for the permittivity (10) is probably unrealistic.

Fig. 6 Effect of semiconducting screens on attenuation

XIV. BIOGRAPHY 5

Bjrn Gustavsen was born in Norway in 1965. He received the M.Sc. degree in 1989 and the Dr.-Ing. degree in 1993, both from the

Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim. Since 1994 he has been working at SINTEF Energy Research (former EFI). His interests include simulation of electromagnetic transients and modeling of frequency dependent effects. He spent 1996 as a Visiting Researcher at the University of Toronto, and the summer of 1998 at the Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, Winnipeg, Canada.

APPENDIX DATA CONVERSION The following Matlab code does the recommended data conversion for the case described in Section VI. All geometrical quantities are in meters.

INPUT: C =0.24e-9; Acore =1000e-6; Asheath=50e-6; tins =14e-3; tins1 =0.8e-3; tins2 =0.4e-3; r1 =19.5e-3; RDC =2.9e-5; eps0 =8.854e-12; OUTPUT: rhoc=RDC*pi*r1^2 r2=r1+tins1+tins+tins2; r3=sqrt(Asheath/pi+r2^2); epsr1=C*log(r2/r1)/(2*pi*eps0); %core resistivity %sheath inner radius %sheath outer radius %effective rel. permittivity %of core sheath layer %capacitance stated by manufacturer [F/m] %core nominal cross sectional area %sheath nominal cros sectional area %thickness: main insulation %thickness: inner insulation screen %thickness: outer insulation screen %core radius %core DC resistance [ohm/m] %vacuum permittivity