HVDC Grids Workshop Cable Line Technologies

11th December 2012 Bizkaia Aretoa, Bilbao, Spain

Robert Donaghy Senior Consultant Engineer, ESB International

Overview
Requirements of HVDC Cables HVDC Cable Types Testing Route Selection & Survey Installation Reliability

Requirements of HVDC Submarine Cables

Power transmission requirements Long continuous lengths Good abrasion and corrosion resistance Mechanical strength to withstand all laying and embedment stresses Low environmental impact High reliability with low fault probability..but must be capable of being repaired!

HVDC Cable Types

3 Main Types:
Mass Impregnated Self Contained Fluid Filled Extruded

Mass Impregnated DC Cable

Conductor Insulation - lapped paper insulation impregnated with high viscosity dielectric fluid Metallic sheath Polymeric oversheath Armour (for submarine cables) Polypropylene yarn serving Long and proven service history Max conductor temp 55oC, but being developed to operate at higher temperatures

Self Contained Fluid Filled Cable

Conductor with central oil duct fluid expands and contracts under load variations Insulation - lapped paper impregnated with a low viscosity dielectric fluid under pressure Metallic sheath - corrugated or smooth aluminium or lead reinforced with metal tapes Polymeric oversheath Used mainly for short lengths. SCFF cables largely superseded by extruded dielectric cables

Mass Impregnated & Integrated Return Conductor

Extruded DC Cable
Conductor Insulation cross linked polyethylene (XLPE) Metallic sheath Extruded polymeric oversheath Armour (for submarine cables) Polypropylene yarn serving
Historical problem of space charge accumulation. Now developed up to 320 kV. Limited service history up to now, but developments up to 500kV likely in future.

DC Cables Selection Guideline

3500 MW 600
D.C. Fluid Filled Cable Systems

> 2400

525

1400

SYSTEM VOLTAGE [kV]

A.C. / D.C. Fluid Filled Cable Systems

400

1200

320

1000

200

A.C. Extruded of Fluid Filled Cable Systems Extruded D.C. Cable Systems (or Traditional MI)
600

100 50 10

400

A.C. Extruded Insulation Cable Systems

40 60 80 100 120 140

No theoretical limit for D.C. D.C. one bipole

ROUTE LENGTH [km]

A.C. one 3-phase system

SYSTEM POWER [MW]

Mass Impregnated (MI) Traditional or PPL insulated D.C. Cable Systems

Accessories
Factory Joints Repair Joints Field Joints (land & submarine) Terminations - Outdoor Sea Land Transition Joints

Testing
Range of Tests
Prequalification / Development Tests Type Tests Routine Tests Sample Tests After-Installation Tests

CIGRE Test Recommendations

Non-Extruded Cables
CIGRE Electra 189 Recommendations for Tests of Power Transmission DC Cables for a rated Voltage of up to 800kV

Extruded Cables (XLPE)

CIGRE Brochure 496 - Recommendations for Testing DC Extruded Cable Systems for Power Transmission at a Rated Voltage up to 500 kV

Cable Installation

Survey & Route Selection Cable Laying Post lay mechanical protection

Survey & Route Selection

Hydrographic / geophysical survey Sea bed bathymetry / water depth Tidal data, met ocean data Existing cables & obstacles Corridor width Burial depth/protection Environmental assessment Consents

Survey tools
Multi-beam echo sounder Side scan sonar Sub-bottom profiling Core Sampling Example of Route Profile

Shore Landing

Near shore civil works Directional drill, pulling through pipes Mechanical protection of cables Space for Sea/land transition joint Environmental considerations
Sand dune movements Erosion concern

Cable Laying Vessels

In the old days

Cable Laying Vessels

Cable Laying Vessels

Cable Laying

Protection
Anchoring

Fishing

Dropped objects

Penetration of smaller anchors & fishing gear vs. soil hardness

1 T anchor

500 kg anchor 3/4 400 kg anchor 200 kg anchor 1/2 Otter trawl Beam trawl 1/4

Hard

Soft

m 5

Penetration of anchor vs. soil hardness

Hard

Soft

Embedment
Cable buried in hard to soft sediments to 0.5 3.0m

2.5 m

Water Jetting

Plough

Post Lay Protection

Embedment

Installation on Land

Reliability
CIGRE Brochure 398: Third-Party Damage to Underground and Submarine Cables (2009)

Underground cables: 70% of failures caused by mechanical work. 40% of all third-party damage due to insufficient information exchange between cable operators and construction companies. The probability of failure by external mechanical damage is > 10 times higher for direct-buried cable systems than for ducts or tunnels. Submarine cables: Due to small number of failures and limited data, no reliable conclusion on relation between installation method and failure probability. Average failure rate lower for submarine cables than for U/G cables. External damage most common reason for failures.

Eskerrik asko zure arretagatik Gracias por su atencin Thank you for your attention