Panel Session on Data for Modeling System Transients
Insulated Cables
bjorn.
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.
recommendations in this paper are supported by field test results.
Keywords: Electromagnetic Transients, Insulated
Modeling, EMTP.
1. 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.
0-7803-6674-3/00/$10.00
0-7803-6672-7/01/$10.00
(C)(C)
2000
2001
IEEE
IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sintef. Downloaded on March 9, 2009 at 03:07 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Bjm-n Gustavsen
SINTEFEnergyResearch
N-7465Trondheim,Norway
gustavsen@energy. si-ntef .no
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 fkom the
manufacturer can be inaccurate fkom 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
The
also shown. The paper firther discusses the shortcoming of CC
in taking into account possible attenuation effects caused by the
Cables, semiconducting screens.
Il. CABLE PARAMETERS
The basic parameters used by transmission line/cable models
are the following:
z(o) = R(o)+ jai(o) (1)
Y(o) = G(aJ) + jti(a)) (2)
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 (o reflects that these quantities are calculated as
fimction of frequency. Z and Y are calculated using CC based
on the geometry and material properties of the system [1],[2].
Ill. 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
speci~ 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 homogeneous pipes, separated by
insulating layers, Figure 1 shows the representation which
would be used for a SC cable without armour.
718
 r
The CC-routine takes into account the fi-equency dependent
x skin effect in the conductors, but neglects the proximity effect
between parallel cables. This means that CC assumes a
Y
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

For situations with straight sheaths (i.e. no crossbondings), high

ffequency 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).
Fig. 1 CC representation of system of 3 SC cables
Figure 2 shows an actual XLPE single core coaxial cable. V. CONVERSION PROCEDURES
Clearly, this cable design is different fi-om the simple A. Core
configuration assumed in Figure 1. In particular, the user needs
to decide how to represent The CC-routine requires the core data to be given by the
● The core stranding resistivity p. and the radius rl. However, the core conductor is
. The inner semiconducting screen often of the stranded design (Figure 2), whereas CC assumes a
● The outer semiconducting screen homogeneous (solid) conductor. This makes it necessary to
. The wire screen (sheath) increase the resistivity p; of the core material to take into
account the space between strands:
.
Inner semiconductor 727’,1
pc=p:— (5)
rr Outer semiconductor
Wire screen
Ac
where ACis the efficient (nominal) cross sectional area of the
core. The resistivity p:, for to be used for annealed copper and
hard drawn aluminum at 20°C is according to IEC 28 and
IEC 889:
Copper: 1.7241-E-8L?m
Aluminum 2.8264E-8 Qm
If the manufacturer provides the DC resistance for the core,
the sought resistivity can alternatively. be calculated as

pc = RDC+ (6)

B, Insulation and semiconducting screens

El. Material properties
The user must specitj the following material constants:
. The soil resistivity and relative permeability Pg, Vg
. The core resistivity and relative permeability p., p,
. The sheath resistivity and relative permeability p,, p,,
● The insulation relative permittivity
(In non-magnetic materials the relative permeability&;quals 1.0.)
The CC-routine assumes the relative permittivity S, of each
insulating layer to be real (J’= O) and frequency independent,
thereby neglecting any relaxation phenomena in the insulation.
This implies :
z(o) = l?(o)+ jd(fo) (3)
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 PI plus the sum of the thickness of the
semiconducting screens and the main insulation.
2) Calculate the relative permittivity 6,1as
(7)

Y(o) = jcoC (4) where C’is the cable capacitance stated by the manufacturer and
so= 8.854E- 12. If C is unknown, S,l can instead be calculated
C. Eddy current effects

0-7803-6674-3/00/$10.00
0-7803-6672-7/01/$10.00
(C)(C)
2000
2001
IEEE
IEEE 719

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sintef. Downloaded on March 9, 2009 at 03:07 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 based on the relative permittivity Etin, of the main insulation: In Section VB it was justified that the insulation screens can be
ln(r2 / rl ) represented by short circuit when calculating the shunt
Erl = &tin~ (8) admittance. This is equivalent to a capacitance between two
ln(b I a)
cylindrical shells with radius :
where a and b are the insulation inner and outer radius, a = (19.5 +0.8)mm = 20.3mm
respectively. For XLPE EA.,equals 2.3. b=a+14mm=34.3mm
Justification 2?r&~&,
The inner and outer semiconducting screens have a relative c=— (10)
ln(b I a)
permittivity of the order of 1000, due to the high carbon content
used in the semiconducting screens. This implies that the With a relative permittivity of 2.3 for XLPE, this defines a
capacitance of the screens is much higher than that of the capacitance of 0.244 nF/m which is in agreement with the
insulation and will tend to act as a short circuit when calculating capacitance of 0.24 nF/m stated by the manufacturer.
the shunt admittance between core and sheath. A similar effect C. Data conversion
is caused by the ohmic conductivity of the semiconducting
screens, which is required by norm to be higher than lE-3 S/m, &
At the same time the conductivity of the semiconducting From the manufacturer:
screens is much lower than that of the core and the sheath rl =19.5rnm
conductors, implying that the semiconducting screens do not The resistivity is calculated by (6):
contribute to the longitudinal current conduction.
This implies that when entering the geometrical data in CC, pc = 3.4643 .10-8 Q/m
the user should let the XPLE insulation extend to the surface of Insulation and insulation screens
the core conductor and the sheath conductor, and increase the
relative perrnittivity to leave the capacitance unaltered. Note r2 =rl +(0.8 +14+0 .4)=34.7mm
that this modeling neglects the possible attenuation caused by S,l = 2.486 (by (7))
the semiconducting screens. The attenuation could have a Wire screen
strong impact on very high frequency transients. This is
The outer radius is calculated using (9):
discussed in Section X.
7-3= 34.93mm
C. Wire screen
p. = 1.718E -8 Q/m (copper)
When the sheath conductor consists of a wire screen, the most
practical procedure is to replace the screen with a tubular V1l. INACCURACY IN DATA FROM MANUFACTURIER
conductor having a cross sectional area equal to the total wire
area A,. With an inner sheath radius of rz, the outer radius rs The relevant cable norms (e.g. IEC 840, IEC 60502) puts
becomes limitations on the minimum thickness of each cable layer (in
relation to the nominal thickness), but not on the maximum
(9) thickness. Therefore, the manufacturer is ffee to use thicker
layers than the nominal ones, e.g. to account for dispersiiy in
production and ageig effects. This situation is prevalent for both
V1. APPLICATION TO 66 kV CABLE the main insulation, the oversheath, and the semiconducting
A. Manufacturer’s data screens.
By measurement on a specimen of the 66 kV cable it was
The procedures outlined in the previous sections will be found that the insulation and in particular the semiconducting
demonstrated for a 66 kV cable similar to the one shown in screens were thicker than stated in the data sheets :
Figure 3. For this cable (manufactured in the 1980’s), the Thickness of inner insulation screen: 1.5 mm
following data were provided by the manufacturer:
Thickness of insulation: 14.7 mm
Ac =looon3m2
Thickness of outer insulation screen: 1.1 mm
C = 0.24 nF/m
Separation between outer insulation screen and centre of
RDC= 2.9E–5 Q/m each conductor in wire screen: 1 mm
r, =19.5mrn
This gives a modified model :
Thickness of inner insulation screen: 0.8 mm r, =19.5mm
Thickness of insulation: 14mm r2 = 37.8mm
Thickness of outer insulation screen: 0.4 mm
8,2 = 2.856 (by (7))
Wire screen: A, =50 mm2
B, Data consistency

0-7803-6674-3/00/$10.00
0-7803-6672-7/01/$10.00
(C)(C)
2000
2001
IEEE
IEEE 720

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sintef. Downloaded on March 9, 2009 at 03:07 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 VIII. SENSITIVITY the core conductor in p,u, of the DC-voltage, The initial current
corresponds to the surge admittance of the cable core-sheath
At high tlequencies, the asymptotic (lossless) propagation
loop, which is the inverse of the surge impedance.
velocity and surge impedance are given as
The inrush current was also simulated using EMTDC V3
v=ll~ (11) with a phase domain cable model [5],[6]. The CC routine was
applied for the three different cases defined in Section VIII. It is
Zc=~Lol C (12)
seen that using the cable representation in case #3 gives a
where calculated response which is in fairly close agreement with the
LO= & ln(rz /r, ) (13) measured response. The two other representations have a much
larger discrepancy. (The spike occurring at about 50 us resulted
with pO=4n E–7 because of long leads connecting the two cable sections).
We will now compare the asymptotic propagation
characteristics as calculated by the following procedures: II

Case #1:

-k
Neglecting the semiconducting screens. Capacitance and 4K11 Mw%!!red

inductance calculated using (10) and (13) with a=rl= 19.5 mm, 1
b=rz=33.5 mm, and 5,1=2.3. 2
3
Case #2:
Taking the semiconducting screens into account. Capacitance 1
1/213
and geometrical data from the manufacturer: PI=19.5 mm, 2
1/21!31
rz=34,7 mm, and 8,,=2,486.
/i / )3 Im.w
Case #3: -mti h /
Taking the semiconducting screens into account. Capacitance -1
fi-om the manufacturer, geometrical data from cable specimen:
r1=19.5 mm, r2=37.8mm, and 8,1=2.856.
II a W m m Im
Using the inductance calculated from (12), the velocity and TtrIewq
characteristic impedance are calculated as: Fig. 4 Measured and simulated inrush current
Table 1. Sensitivity of cable mo~azation characteristics
X, IMPROVED MODELING OF SEMICONDUCTING
case #1 case #2 case #3 SCREENS

v [In/ps] 197,7 190.1 (-3,8’XO) 177.4 (-10,3%))
z= [Q] 21.39 21.91 (+2,4?40)
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).
Reference [3] suggests to model the admittance between. the
core and the sheath using the circuit in Figure 5, in which each
23.49 (+9.8’?40)
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 MHz–125 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
2.2 km

1
3.85km
G1 Inner semiconducting screen
core c1
HQ [8-
Y
-L Main insulation
= CT }

q
{
Negative
stepvoltage

=
Fig. 3 Cable test setup
:!
=
[43}
sheath
G2

Fig. 5 Improved model of insulation screens [3]

Outer semiconducting screen

Fi~ure 4 shows the measured initial inrush current flowiruz into The conductivity
–. and ~ermittivitv of the semiconducting
L .

0-7803-6674-3/00/$10.00
0-7803-6672-7/01/$10.00
(C)(C)
2000
2001
IEEE
IEEE 721

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sintef. Downloaded on March 9, 2009 at 03:07 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 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. 35VO).IEC 840 requires the
resistivity to be lower than 1000 film for the inner screen, and
below 500 !Qm for the outer screen. One manufacturer stated
that they use a much lower resistivity, typically 0.1 Qm–1 OK2m.
The relative permittivity is very high, typically of the order of
1000. The permittivity and conductivity can be strongly
fi-equencydependent.
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 conductance and capacitances. The component
values were calculated as follows:
C = 0.24 nF / m (from manufacturer)
Cl = AZoEr / h(r2 f b)
Cz = 2Z~OSr/ ln(a/ rl )
GI = 27rQ/ ln(r2 /b)
G~ = 2K0 I ln(a / i-l )
where
a: Outer radius of inner semiconducting screen
b: Inner radius of outer semiconducting screen
%: Relative permittivity of semiconducting screens
0: Conductivity of semiconducting screens
Figure 6 shows the attenuation per km, for a few
combinations of D and E,, 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 (1O, 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.
Xl. 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 dependert 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 Constants-type rotrtines
(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. Arnetani, “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 F)artial Discharge

w:’
; tkgkcthg semkakd+tihg wreei Pulses in Shielded Power Cable”, Proceedings of Conference on
0s$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.. rnml.&.,. $-in . ;. . . . . . . . . Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, IEEE
82CH1773-1, October 1982, pp. 275-280,
. dmish,;-lm: [4] W,L, Weeks and Yi Min Diao, “Wave Propagation in
: ~oml~,~-lrml Underground Power Cable”, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 103, No. 10,
... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
: O+nlS@, $”lm: October 1984, pp. 2816-2826.
4
L
[5] A. Morched, B. Gustavsen, and M. Tartibi, “A Universal Line
Model for Accurate Calculation of Electromagnetic Transients on
025 . . ... . . . . Overhead Lines and Cables”, IEEE trans. PWRD, vol. 14, no. 3,
July 1999, pp. 1032-1038.
[6] B.Gustavsen, G. Irwin, R, Mangelrad, D. Brandt, and K. Kent,
“Transmission Line Models for the Simulation of Interaction
II 1 2 3 4 5
Phenomena between Parallel AC and DC Overhead Lines”,
IPST’99 International Conference on Power System Transients,
FreqwrmjfMHfl
Budapest, 1999, pp. 61-67,
Fig. 6 Effect of semiconducting screens on attenuation

0-7803-6674-3/00/$10.00
0-7803-6672-7/01/$10.00
(C)(C)
2000
2001
IEEE
IEEE 722

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sintef. Downloaded on March 9, 2009 at 03:07 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 XIV. BIOGRAPHY

Bjmn 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
Vmting 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; %capacitance stated by manufacturer [F/m]

Acore =1000e-6; %core nominal cross sectional area
Asheath=50e-6; %sheath nominal cros sectional area
tins =14e-3; %thickness: main insulation
tinsl =0.8e-3; %thickness: inner insulation screen
tins2 =0.4e-3; %thickness: outer insulation screen
rl =19. 5e-3; %core radius
RDC =2.9e-5; %core DC resistance [ohm/m]
eps O =8.854e-12; %vacuum permittivity

OUTPUT :

rhoc=RDC*pi*rlA2 %core resistivity

r2=rl+tinsl+tins+tins2; %sheath inner radius
r3=sqrt(Asheath/pi+r2A2 ); %sheath outer radius
epsrl=C*log(r2/rl) /(2*pi*epsO) ; %effective rel. permittivity
%of core sheath layer

0-7803-6674-3/00/$10.00
0-7803-6672-7/01/$10.00
(C)(C)
2000
2001
IEEE
IEEE 723

Authorized licensed use limited to: Sintef. Downloaded on March 9, 2009 at 03:07 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.