THE EFFECT OF EARTHING OF CABLE SHEATHS ON FAULT CURRENT

DISTRIBUTION

Neil McDonagh
ESB International, Ireland
ABSTRACT

In urban areas, high voltage underground cables are commonly used for the transmission and distribution of electricity.
Many such high voltage cables have metallic sheaths or screens surrounding the conductors, and/or armour and metallic
pipes surrounding the cables. During earth faults applied to directly earthed systems, these metallic paths are expected to
carry a substantial proportion of the total fault current, which would otherwise flow through the general mass of earth, while
returning to system neutrals. These alternative return paths must be considered when determining the extent of the grid
potential rise at an electrical plant due to earth faults. This paper examines fault current distribution following a single phase
to earth fault at a high voltage urban substation. Sub A 110kV substation is fed by two 110kV connections to Sub B and Sub
C substations. Both feeders are pipe type cables. A network model incorporating the substation earth grid and cable sheaths
is built using proprietary software and the results presented. Current injection tests are carried out to verify modelled results.
Finally the implications of alternative return paths provided by cables are discussed and conclusions are drawn.

Keywords: Earthing, Grounding, cable sheaths, Substation, Fault current distribution, Cable sheaths, current injection
test, computer modelling.

INTRODUCTION To reduce the earth grid resistance a number of methods

may be used. The substation earth grid in question may
During a phase to earth fault on a directly earthed
be extended or reinforced, perhaps through the use of
system, fault current will return to source transformer
vertical earth rods, satellite earth grids, etc.
neutrals by whatever means are available, primarily
through the general mass of earth and via metallic
connections. These metallic connections may be
provided by shield wire or counterpoise in the case of
overhead lines and by cable sheath, armour, pipes and
counterpoise in the case of underground cables. Fault
currents may also return along unintentional paths such
as gas pipelines, railway lines, or any metallic
connection.
Fault current that returns via the earth must pass through
the substation earth grid to the earthed transformer
neutral. This will produce a grid potential rise with
respect to remote earth (GPR). It is desirable to reduce
the GPR at substations during earth faults for a number
of reasons; principally to reduce touch and step voltage
hazards that may exist at the substation, but also to
minimise transfer voltage hazards along other utilities
such as telecommunications circuits, railway lines, gas
pipe lines, etc. Fig 1 Grid Potential Rise Plot
GPR (volts) = Ig * EGR (Equation 1) If = Im + Ig (Equation 2)
GPR = potential rise with respect to remote earth (volts) If = Total fault current
Ig = earth fault current in amperes Im = current travelling along metallic return paths
EGR = earth grid resistance in ohms Any continuous metallic connections away from the
It is clear to see from Eq 1 that the only two ways to substation that are connected to earth at the substation
decrease the GPR are to decrease the earth fault current and at some other remote location will provide an
Ig or to decrease the earth grid resistance EGR. alternative path for fault current thus, reducing the
amount of current flowing through the earth at the site of
interest (Eq 2).
However it must be noted that voltages transferred along
these metallic connections may be hazardous if a
sufficient earthing system is not present where these
connections are earthed.
During a phase to earth fault the faulted phase will carry
fault current. This fault current induces a current in
parallel metallic return paths, such as cable sheaths, so
that some of the current which could have travelled
through the mass of earth instead travels along these
return paths, thereby reducing the current component
contributing to GPR (Eq2). [1]
Faulted phase If Fault
Metallic return paths Im
Secondly sheaths in the vicinity of the faulted phase
carry induced current away from the fault location. A
large proportion of current will therefore circulate in the
core of that faulted phase and the metallic return paths.
This paper examines this phenomenon using industry
standard software CDEGS [2]. Modelled results are also
backed up current injection test results
CABLE MODEL
Fig. 3 shows the diagram on which the cable model was
based. Each phase and sheath were modelled, the pipe is
also modelled. Due to software constraints, it was not
possible to accurately model the armouring that covers
all three cables as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore three
models were constructed in an attempt to accurately
model self impedances and mutual impedances between
cores, sheaths and pipes.

Current path through earth Ig

Substation earth grids

Fig.2 Phase to Earth Fault

This principle is illustrated in Fig 2 where a typical phase
to earth fault is displayed. (It must be noted that this
diagram is merely illustrative and the direction of
current flow indicated by the arrows is a simplistic
illustration.).

If the earth fault current is reduced then the GPR is also

reduced Eq 1. Therefore it can be seen that a continuous
metallic connection, such as cable sheath, armour, pipe,
counterpoise or shield wire, along a faulted phase can Fig. 3 City Type Cable
reduce the GPR at substations at both its ends by virtue
of these two mechanisms, namely conductive and 1. copper core 6. aluminium sheath (APL) sheath
inductive paths. 2. conductor screen 7. bedding
3. XLPE insulation 8. armouring
4. Insulation screen 9. steel pipe with insulation
Case study 5. semi-conducting tape
Sub A is located in a large urban centre and fed by two Model A: the cable was modelled as shown in Fig. 3 but
110kV connections to Sub B and Sub C. Each of the without armouring.
110kV feeders is a 110kV pipe type cable. Cable sheaths
surround each of the cores, armour surrounds the three Model B. The cable was modelled as in model A but with
cables. The pipe, armour and sheaths all provide a return individual armouring around each cable. The three
path for fault current to various earthed neutrals on the individual armours have the same cross-sectional area as
system. The mechanism by which these metallic return the actual armour shown in Fig 3.
paths carry fault current is two-fold. Firstly they provide
Model C. The pipe was modelled as having the same
a series impedance connection to Sub A thus reducing
cross section as the pipe and armour combined and was
the proportion of current that is forced to flow through
modelled as close as possible to the cable cores to
the impedance to remote earth of the earth grid at Sub A
account for the mutual impedance path provided by the
thus reducing the overall grid potential rise or GPR.
armour
Cable model analysis CALCULATIONS
A number of different scenarios were created in order to
analysis the difference in performance of each cable
model. All calculations are based on the description of
the network provided in the introduction. For all
calculations it is assumed that Sub B and Sub C have 1
earth grid resistances. The earth grid resistance at Sub A
and the distance between Sub A and Subs B and C are
altered to analyse the effect on earth fault current and
therefore GPR. The distance between Sub A and Sub B is
equal to the distance between Sub A and Sub C for all
calculations. During all calculations current is injected
along the feeder to Sub C. Fig. 4 Fault Circuit Diagram
Zsc= Series impedance of metallic return path to Sub C
For calculations 4, 5 and 6 the feeder to Sub B will be Zsb= Series impedance of metallic return path to Sub B
disconnected. All six calculations are carried out for 3 Zmc= Mutual impedance between faulted phase and
cable lengths: 2km, 5km and 10km. The following metallic return paths on feeder to Sub C
EGR’s are used at Sub A: for calculations 1 and 4: 1 , Zmb= Mutual impedance between faulted phase and
for calculations 2 and 5: 5 and for calculations 3 and 6: metallic return paths on feeder to Sub B
20 . It can be seen from these results (Table 1) that for
each calculation the earth fault current calculated using Fault current will take all available paths back to the
Model B cable is between those calculated for Model A source, but the majority of current will flow along the
and Model C. This is understandable for the following lowest impedance path. For a fault at Sub A fed from Sub
reasons: Model A under-estimates the series impedance C current will return along the following paths to return
of the cable by neglecting the armour. Model C over- to the source at Sub C: through the earth at Sub A and
estimates the mutual coupling between the faulted phase returning through the earth at Sub C, through the metallic
and the pipe. Model B may slightly over-estimate the return paths (both Zsc and Zmc) from Sub A to Sub C and
mutual coupling between the faulted conductor and the through the metallic return paths to Sub B (Zsb) then
armour but Model B is seen as the most accurate and will through the earth at Sub B and returning through the
be used in all further analysis. earth at Sub C
Table 1 Earth Fault Current and GPR per kA of The proportion of current that flows through each path
Injected Current will depend on the relative impedances of each path. If
2km 5km 10km the system was completely isolated from all other
calc Ig GPR Ig GPR Ig GPR electrical and metallic systems there would be only three
A 27.9 27.9 48.4 48.4 59.5 59.5 return paths. In reality the situation may be quite
1 B 21.7 21.7 37.5 37.5 46.2 46.2 different as all three substations may have metallic
C 17.4 17.4 29.4 29.4 35.7 35.7 connections to medium voltage substations or Sub A and
Sub C may be indirectly connected via other 110kV
A 8.8 44.2 20.4 102.2 34.8 174.0
cable sheaths, shield wires or a combination of both.
2 B 6.9 34.4 15.9 79.4 27.0 135.2
C 5.6 28.0 12.8 64.1 21.5 107.5 On each feeder there are 10 metallic components that
A 2.4 48.9 6.0 120.2 11.7 233.2 must be considered (Fig. 5); three cores, three sheaths,
3 B 1.9 38.0 4.7 93.6 9.1 181.7 three armours and the pipe. There is a mutual impedance
C 1.6 31.2 3.8 76.6 7.4 147.9 between each of these components and the faulted phase.
A 37.0 37.0 55.7 55.7 63.3 63.3 Each of these paths will also have a series impedance
4 B 28.7 28.7 43.2 43.2 49.1 49.1 between the two substation earth grids, although the two
C 22.8 22.8 33.5 33.5 37.9 37.9
non-faulted phases will not act as return paths. Therefore
A 15.6 77.8 32.8 164.2 48.5 242.4
there are ten series impedance paths to be considered and
5 B forty-five mutual impedance paths that must be
12.1 60.5 25.5 127.6 37.6 188.1
considered to created an accurate mathematical model of
C 9.8 49.1 20.3 101.7 29.5 147.3
the cable.
A 4.7 94.5 11.4 228.9 21.4 427.6
6 B 3.7 73.5 8.9 178.2 16.6 332.6 Imputing accurate positional and material property
C 3.0 60.4 7.3 145.2 13.4 268.8
information CDEGS will calculate self impedance of
each component and the mutual impedance of each
component to every other component. These results are
used in conjunction with line lengths and earth grid connection between the substations was 5km in length.
resistances in order simulate complete circuit model. The injected current was 1000 + 0j A. The resultant
current matrices can be seen in Fig 6 (a). Each metallic
Armour Cable return path is labelled with a number: 1, 2 and 3 are cable
Steel pipe
core sheath, -1 is the sheath on the faulted phase. 5, 6 and 7
Cable are armouring surrounding each phase, -5 is the
sheath armouring around the faulted phase. 4 is the steel pipe.

It can be seen in both Fig 6 (a) and (b) that the metallic
return path carrying the most current is number 4, the
steel pipe, followed by number 1, the sheath on the
faulted phase. The differences between (a) and (b) may
be due to a number of factors. Primarily equation 3
ignores the effect of the two non faulted phases and
current leakage along the length of the feeder while
CDEGS takes this into account

The earth fault current calculated from equation 4 is 50.1

A @ 230o. The earth fault current calculated by CDEGS
is 43.2 A @ 237o.

Fig.5 Cable Model B Variation in GPR at Sub A

A number of different circuits, similar to those examined
In order to verify this model results shall be compared to
in section 2.2, were created in order to analyse a phase to
formulas [3].
earth fault. The cable lengths to Subs B and C were
Equation 3
altered. The EGR at Subs B and C was 1 for all tests
(RA + lzc1 + RB) - - - - - - - (RA + lzm1, n + RB) I1 (RA + lzmp,1 + RB)
and while the EGR at Sub A was varied. The earth fault
(RA + lzm1,2 + RB) - - - - - - - - - - - - | I2 (RA + lzmp,2 + RB)
= If current and GPR was calculated in each case. These
| |
results are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 7.
(RA + lzm1, n + RB) - - - - - (RA + lzcn + RB) In (RA + lzmp,3 + RB
Table 2 Earth Fault Current per kA of injected
Ig = -If - I1 - I2 - .............-In (Equation 4) current
RA = Earth grid resistance at Sub A lengths (km) 2 5 10 20
RB = Earth grid resistance at Sub B EGR
l = length of feeder 1 21.66 37.54 46.17 50.57
Zc1 = series impedance along return path 1 2 14.23 28.72 40.29 47.76
Zm1,2 = Mutual impedance between path 1 and 2
5 6.87 15.89 27.03 38.97
Zmp,1 = mutual impedance between faulted phase and
return path 1 10 3.67 8.87 16.53 27.92
I1 = Current flowing along return path 1 20 1.9 4.68 9.08 16.91
Variation in GPR due to change in cable length
(a) Fig. 6 (b)
400
410.134 @ - 104.93o 300.13@ - 129.093o 350
1
GPR (volts) per kA of

114.48 @ 160.147 o 98.734@168.035 o

injected current

300
2
o o 250 20 ohm
3 114.48 @160.147 98.734@168.035 10 ohm
200
4 570.16 @ 143.87 o 491.7@151.735 o 150
5 ohm
2 ohm
5 147.87 @ - 144.84 o 127.51@ - 136.974 o 100 1 ohm
6 66.63 @ 167.27 o
57.461@175.127 o 50

7 0
o
66.63 @ 167.27 57.461@175.127 o 2 5 10 20
Cable lengths (km)
Fig 6 (a) resultant current matrix from equation 3.
Fig 6 (b) resultant current matrix give by CDEGS. Fig. 7 Plot of results from Table 2

A circuit with 2 substations was created to compare It can be clearly seen from Table 2 and Fig. 7 that an
results. Both earth grid resistances are 1 . The increase in Cable length or EGR causes a rise in the GPR
at Sub A.
 MEASURED RESULTS ** Error due largely to interference on feeder C
Table 6 Earth Fault Current and GPR per 100A of
A current injection test was carried out at an urban
injected current
substation in the spring of 2005. The circuit used for the
Ig GPR (V)
current injection was similar to the description of the Measured **56.7 ***
network provided in the introduction. The faulted phase Equation 3 3.13 11.16
was on the feeder to Sub C. The lengths of the feeders to CDEGS 2.79 12.55
Sub B and Sub C were 4.7km and 7.2km respectively. ***GPR cannot be estimated from fault current as
The EGR at Sub A was modelled as 40 , while the medium voltage circuits were connected to the substation
EGRs at Subs B and C were assumed to be 1 . The earth grid. Also it was not possible to disconnect a the
results shown are averages of measurements taken for a feeders in order to record a voltage measurement and
number of different injected currents. The magnitudes thus calculate the GPR and resistance to remote earth of
displayed are percentages of the fault current. substation earth grid
It must be noted that a number of issues were noted Calculated results are also displayed from CDEGS (table
during measurement. At times there were current surges 4) and an alteration was made to equation 3 (Table 5) in
of up to 10A being measured on the pipe of feeder C order to incorporate a second substation into the model.
when no current was being injected. Injected currents
varied between 10A and 137A; therefore a 10A surge Variations in results (Table 6) may be due to a number of
could have a serious effect on measurements. When the factors. Sections of the pipes are very old and insulation
current on this pipe was measured, erratic variations were may not still be intact. In reality the cables, armours and
noted. It must also be noted that medium voltage pipes are bonded at every cable joint, this is not
connections were not considered and it is expected that a considered in either of the calculated models. Medium
proportion of current may have taken this path. It was not voltage connections were not considered at Sub A which
possible to measure the currents on the armour. In reality may lower the effective EGR seen by the fault at Sub A.
the cable sheaths, armours and pipe are bonded at every This would raise Ig but lower the GPR significantly.
joint. CONCLUSIONS
Table 3 Measured Results
Sub B Sub C It can been seen from measured and computed results
Injected current mag angle mag angle that metallic return paths provided by cable sheaths,
R phase 0 0 100 0 armours and pipe have a very positive effect in reducing
R sheath 2.42 180 26.69 -141.4 the GPR, and consequently the hazards caused by large
S sheath 2.58 180 11.29 -162.8 GPRs, by carrying large proportions of the fault current
T sheath 2.48 180 11.23 -164 away from substations through metallic return paths as
Pipe 8 180 *85.5 -170 opposed to through the earth. Current flows due to
conductive and inductive effects through these return
Table 4 Results Calculated by CDEGS paths. Replacing non-shield wire overhead lines with
Sub B Sub C shield wire overhead lines or underground cables can
Injected current mag angle mag angle significantly reduce hazards associated with high voltage
R phase 0 0 100 0 earth faults. While this may not always be economically
R sheath 0.139 -30.1 30 -129 desirable or possible, the presence of metallic return
S sheath 0.131 -33.8 9.81 168
paths should always be considered when calculating
T sheath 0.131 -33.8 9.81 168
earth fault currents.
R Armour 0.081 -23.0 12.7 -137
S Armour 0.077 -28.5 5.71 175 REFERENCES
T Armour 0.077 -28.5 5.71 175
Pipe 2.81 53.7 50 150 1. Electricity Association Technical Specification 41-24
Issue 1, page 23, 1992.
Table 5 Results Calculated from Equation 3 2. CDEGS version 11.3.107. SES Technology Ltd, 2004
Sub B Sub C 3. Electricity Networks Association, Engineering
Injected current mag angle mag angle Recommendation S34, page 25 1986.
R phase 0 0 100 0 AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
R sheath 0.21 180 40.9 -104.9 The author may be contacted at
S sheath 0.175 120 11.36 159.9
Power Systems Studies
T sheath 0.175 120 11.36 159.9
ESB International
R Armour 0.125 134 14.72 -144.8
S Armour 0.102 127 6.613 167
Stephen Court
T Armour 0.102 127 6.614 167 18-21 St Stephen’s Green
Pipe 3.46 -146 58.63 142.7 Dublin 2. neil.mcdonagh@esbi.ie