1

Magnetic Field Management Considerations for Underground Cable Duct Bank

2005 IEEE Transmission & Distribution Conference New Orleans, Louisiana
Earle C. Bascom III, Senior Member John H. Cooper, Fellow Power Delivery Consultants, Inc. Ballston Lake, New York 12019 Wayne Banker, Member Rick Piteo, Member Angelo M. Regan, Senior Member Orange & Rockland Utilities Spring Valley, New York 10977 Steven A. Boggs, Fellow NonLinear Systems, Inc. Ashford, Connecticut 06278

Abstract Interests in magnetic fields over the last 15 years have been a transient issue, but general utility guidelines are to practice prudent avoidance where possible. This paper discusses various design issues considered by a utility preparing to underground an existing overhead transmission line in an area that has seen significant residential growth and general encroachment near and onto the overhead lines right-of-way. The utilitys consultants evaluated various cable and magnetic shielding configurations to minimize the resulting magnetic fields from an underground cable system along the duct bank and near manholes.

II. GENERAL CABLE SYSTEM DESIGN A 138kV cross-linked polyethylene-insulated extrudeddielectric cable system installed in conduits was selected as the best alternative for the underground cable circuit in the village. No pressurization is required since the insulation is a solid plastic material, although a moisture barrier (sheath) is needed to avoid moisture ingress into the insulation. Lead is the preferred sheath material, although aluminum and copper sheaths have been used and thin aluminum, copper, or lead laminates have been provided to reduce cable weight and size. A rugged plastic jacket, typically more than an eighth of an inch of medium density polyethylene, is extruded over the sheath to provide mechanical protection and insulate the sheath from ground. The utility needed a 1000A rating (100% loss factor) on the underground cables to match the design capacity of the existing overhead lines. A 1267mm2 (2500kcmil) segmental copper conductor was selected to achieve this ampacity based on a route thermal survey that was performed as part of the design. The route thermal survey consisted of in situ testing in the field and laboratory analysis of soil samples collected along the right-of-way. The native soil thermal resistivity was found to be very good (approximately 70 C-cm/Watt). The cable sheath was designated to be single-point bonded to eliminate sheath circulating currents and maximize available ampacity for the conductor size that was selected. As a basis for the design, the utility decided to use general specifications developed earlier for a 2.5 mile 138 kV double circuit transmission line that was recently constructed in New Jersey. This design included duct bank and manhole configurations that would meet power transfer requirements, and with minor modifications, could be configured to reduce magnetic fields significantly. III. AVAILABLE MAGNETIC FIELD MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES Numerous methods have been proposed and used to reduce the magnitude of the above ground magnetic field values produced by underground transmission lines [2, 3]. All of the following methods were considered for the project: A. Optimum Placement of Cables In a balanced three phase circuit with no separate earth return, the total current (sum of all phases) is zero, and the

I. INTRODUCTION At the request of customers from a village within its service territory, Orange & Rockland Utilities, working with Power Delivery Consultants Inc. (PDC) and NonLinear Systems Inc., investigated the feasibility of undergrounding approximately 900m (3,000 feet) of double circuit 138 kV transmission lines through the center of the village, which populated the area up to the lines right of way after the line was built in 1951 on what was originally vacant farmland. If found technically and economically feasible, the village residents agreed to pay for a substantial portion of the project cost to improve esthetics of the village center and to address residents long-term health concerns that they perceive are due to magnetic fields. The collaborative effort with the village also allowed the utility to study and develop better installation standards for future underground transmission cable projects. Orange and Rockland wanted to develop a cable system design that would meet power transfer requirements and also best minimize the magnetic fields produced by the resulting cable system, thereby gaining support from the community. Cable systems generally have much lower magnetic field levels than comparable current-carrying overhead lines because the phase spacing is closer together, providing for much better attenuation (reduction as distances increase) of the magnetic field levels. However, the utility was interested in mitigating the magnetic field levels as much as practically possible and so contracted with Power Delivery Consultants, Inc., working with NonLinear Systems, Inc., to evaluate cable configurations, loading patterns and the application of steel plating for magnetic shielding purposes [1].

magnetic field at large distances must be zero. The rate at which the magnetic fields drop as a function of distance from the conductors (called attenuation) depends on the phase separation and relative position of the phases. This is also true when multiple circuits (groups of 3 phases) are installed in the same trench. Closer spacing and more symmetrical phase placement improves the attenuation with increased distance from the cables. Using triangular (e.g., trefoil) geometry with the phases as close as practical results in the best reduction of the magnetic field as a function of distance from the cables. B. Magnetic Shielding Solid dielectric cables may be shielded using steel plates that are placed around the cables, either completely (e.g., a pipe) or partially (U channel or flat steel plates). The simplest partial shielding is simply a steel plate over the cable duct bank. The lower magnetic reluctance of the steel as compared to the earth or air tends to concentrate and collect the magnetic field to which it is exposed. The magnetic field return path for the ends of the plate is through the soil and air, which can result in increased magnetic fields to the sides of the plate as compared to the case with no shield. A steel pipe [4] is extremely effective in reducing the magnetic field from a three phase cable with balanced current, both due to the typical close proximity of the cable phases and ferromagnetic properties of the steel pipe. However, eddy current and hysteresis losses in the pipe substantially increase system losses and heating that greatly reduces ampacity, perhaps requiring two circuits to meet ampacity requirements. Also, failures in these configurations tend to damage all three phases, which significantly adds to restoration time and costs. For this reason, magnetic shielding using a pipe was not considered. C. Shielding with Conducting Loops Placing loops of wire above the cables can also reduce the above ground magnetic field, particularly in situations where there is an imbalance in the phase currents (typical magnetic field calculations assume balanced currents) [5]. D. Increased Burial Depth The above ground field may be reduced by burying cables deeper in the ground. However, the excavation becomes very costly and placing cables deeper reduces their power transmission capability. IV. NUMERICAL METHODS FOR MAGNETIC FIELD CALCULATIONS A. Biot-Savart Law Methods Traditional Biot-Savart Law-based magnetic field calculations without magnetic shielding evaluate the RMS magnetic fields that typically would be measured using a Gauss meter assuming the geometry, current magnitudes and point of

measurement were the same as those used for calculations. The relative phase angles and currents are important to calculate the field levels but not the phase shift (e.g., cables with phase assignments of 0, 120 and 240 should give the same RMS magnetic fields as cables with phase assignments of 90, 210 and 330). AC magnetic field calculations are typically done by evaluating Biot-Savarts law and superposition of the magnetic fields generated by each current-carrying element; PDCs PCToolBox program assumes this methodology. For the purposes of the calculations described in this report, each phase conductor is assumed to be straight, infinitely long and carrying current with the magnitude and phase angle specified. No sheath currents are assumed for single-point bonded sheaths. The calculations described in this report did not include the effects of a separate ground continuity conductor. The magnetic field at a distance, r, from the current carrying conductor with current, I (a sinusoidal current source with a power frequency of 60 Hz), can be determined from the following equation:

B = 0 H = 4 10 7

I 2 r

[Webers/m2 or Tesla]

Magnetic fields are also sometimes expressed in Gauss or milliGauss. With 104 Gauss per Tesla, 1000mG is equal to 100 micro-Tesla. The magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the line drawn between the source and the point of observation. The horizontal (x) and vertical (y) components of the magnetic fields are defined by the following equations:

B x = 2 x10 3 I

yc + d [Gauss] 2 rc

B y = 2 x10 3 I

xc h [Gauss] 2 r c

Where the point (xc, yc) is the measurement point (point of observation), point (h,d) is the conductor location, and rc is the distance between the conductor and observation point. The magnitude of magnetic fields as calculated by BiotSavarts law is determined by evaluating the major axis of a rotating elliptical phasor using the following equation:
2 B = (Bry sin + Brx cos ) + (Biy sin + Bix cos ) 2 2

[Tesla or Gauss] Where the subscript r indicates the real component, subscript i indicates the imaginary (complex) component, subscript y indicates the vertical component, and subscript x indicates the horizontal component. These major axis values represent the maximum values that would be measured by a single-axis Gauss meter at a given location. Many times, the resultant magnetic field values are determined from the component axis values as these are consistent with measurements done by a three-axis Gauss meter. Calculations are assumed to be done with balanced 3-phase currents.

B. Finite Element Analysis Finite element modeling methods, typically used to evaluate the magnetic shielding that has non-linear permeability with respect to flux density, calculate magnetic fields at a particular moment in the power cycle. When selecting a particular set of phase angles for the currents used in the calculations, this method provides fairly good magnetic field magnitudes and very good relative comparisons of magnetic shielding configurations. However, to get the peak magnetic field magnitudes requires many calculations to adjust the phase shift until the peak field is found. Then the RMS magnetic field may be closely approximated by dividing this peak value by the square root of 2. NonLinear Systems used finite element software to evaluate the magnetic shielding configurations considered for this project [6, 7]. A transient finite element analysis would find the RMS magnetic field directly; however. each run would take a few hours to perform. For evaluating the relative performance of various shielding configurations, the approach described above provides good results with much more efficient calculation times. To quantify the phase sensitivity of the magnetic shielding calculations performed earlier, additional calculations were performed on select shielding configurations. The results of this evaluation are summarized in the next section. V. EVALUATION OF MAGNETIC FIELD MANAGEMENT METHODS FOR CABLE CIRCUIT A. Existing Overhead Line Magnetic Fields An EMF measurement survey was conducted at multiple locations along the right-of-way for comparison to calculations and as a basis for future comparison to the underground installation.

location where the underground circuit manholes will be placed. The utility found very close agreement between the calculated and measured EMF values. If the overhead lines had been operating at rated currents at the time of the measurements, the field levels would have been over four times greater than shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the existing overhead line through the center of the village.

Figure 2 Existing overhead line structure in the village

B. Underground Cable Installation Considerations The project goal was to adjust the utilitys underground installation design to reduce the magnetic fields at the edge of the easement to the lowest value reasonably achievable. Reasonably achievable was defined as maximum attenuation without resorting to extraordinary construction procedures that would raise construction costs significantly or reduce system reliability. To this end, several management methods were evaluated. First, the three cable phases in each circuit were placed in a semi-triangular geometry within the duct bank to improve attenuation. The cables were positioned (see Figure 3) in the upper right and lower left conduits with phases arranged in a manner to provide the lowest fields possible when carrying balanced currents. From the standpoint of installation and aligning cables for jointing in manholes, typical practice would be to place the cables in a vertical configuration on either side of the duct bank, but the reconfiguration of the cable positions into a semi-triangular arrangement resulted in an almost 86% reduction in the field levels.

Figure 1 Calculated versus measured magnetic fields for overhead lines.

Comparisons of actual versus calculated EMF values are shown in Figure 1. Loading on the overhead lines at the time of the measurements was a fraction of the rated circuit capacity (339A and 247A for the measurements versus 1000A on both circuits for rated load). Figure 1 shows the magnetic field profile for the measurements on the overhead line at a

Comparing the magnetic fields calculated for the duct bank with no shielding to the field levels with rated loads on the existing overhead lines, the underground duct bank has field levels that are only 25% of the overhead line at the center of the right-of-way and only about 1% of the overhead line at the edge of the 15m (50-ft) right of way. Ultimately, this was selected as the best overall alternative for the project.

and extending 122cm (4 ft.) beyond the width of the duct bank on either side. Configuration A, an inverted U, provided the best overall shielding effectiveness directly above the cables and to the edge of the right-of-way. However, the utility determined that this shielding construction type would be extremely difficult and would have required extensive welding (welding the corners of the U for the over 900m trench was impractical) to make the system continuous. The cost of the inverted U type of shielding system would have been excessive. All the shields provided some reduction directly above the duct bank. Since the U shielding configuration provided only minor reductions in the field levels at the edge of the right-of-way, it was removed from consideration. Shielding Configurations B, C, and D were conceived and researched as more cost effective management methods (no longitudinal welding required) and found to provide comparable magnetic field reductions as the inverted U shield. This consideration was factored into the magnetic field shielding layouts that were evaluated for the manholes.

Underground Duct Bank Cases

"U" Shield 76cm Plate

A
Figure 3: Duct bank configuration selected to mitigate magnetic fields.

C. Magnetic Shielding Material Considerations Other methods of further reducing the magnetic fields were also considered that utilized magnetic shielding. Highpermeability materials (e.g., mu metal or -metal) are often suggested for magnetic shielding [2, 3]. However, these materials are very expensive and require special annealing; the annealing is often disrupted in the process of handling the material for installation or when welding or otherwise electrically joining sections. As a result, these materials cannot practically be used for most underground cable installations so sheet steel is often used in its place and was evaluated for the project described by this paper. Various shielding configurations were considered for both the duct bank and manholes. All shielding configurations utilized 6.35mm (-in ) steel plating. D. Duct Bank Shielding For the duct bank, shielding configurations (see Figure 4) were evaluated with steel shielding across the top and down the sides (forming an inverted U), as well as shielding configurations across the top (only) of the duct bank with lengths even with the duct bank width (76cm or 30in.), extending 61cm (2 ft.) beyond the width of the duct bank on either side,

198cm Plate

320cm Plate

Figure 4: Magnetic shielding configurations for duct bank.

One unexpected issue developed during the finite element analysis work. Although the steel plating provided a generally good reduction in the magnetic field levels directly above the cables as compared to unshielded cases, some of the cases revealed higher magnetic fields at the edges of the right-ofway (see Figure 5), with the larger steel plates producing this effect to the greatest degree. This was attributed to the steel plate having lower magnetic reluctance than air or earth, so that the shielding plates tended to collect magnetic equi-

flux lines, which resulted in a slight concentration of the fields to the sides of the steel plate. Since the utilitys goal was to minimize the fields at the edge of the right-of-way, it turned out that the application of shielding plates countered this goal.

the best results, the phase shift should be adjusted until the maximum magnetic field levels are found. The result can then be divided by the square root of 2 to find the RMS field level from the peak. E. Ground Wire Placement The magnetic field evaluations also considered the placement of the ground continuity conductors within the duct bank to mitigate magnetic fields. Figure 7 shows the results of the calculations with 855A and 576 A on the two respective circuits in the duct bank; these currents are projected future loads on the circuit. As indicated by the top curve in Figure 7, placement of two ground wires in the bottom corners of the duct bank would significantly increase the magnetic fields above ground. Placing ground wires at the four corners of the duct bank (bottom curve of Figure 7) results in the lowest magnetic field values directly above the duct bank, but this configuration slightly increases the magnetic field at one side of the duct bank. The configuration with ground wires at the center of the duct bank was also evaluated, but this location would complicate routing of cables through manholes and could increase restoration time in the event of a cable failure. Placement of two ground wires at the top corners of the duct bank was selected as the best overall alternative.

Figure 5: Graph showing impact of shielding plates across right-of-way. In Figure 5, the HC represents the high current levels based on projected loads, and the ft (feet) are indicating evaluated depths to the top of the duct bank. The phase arrangement assumed for the calculations shown in Figure 5 is based on the duct bank shown in Figure 3.

Figure 7: Effect of ground wire placement on magnetic field levels. Figure 6: Impact of phase shift on finite element-based field calculations. Phase shifts were varied from 0 to 75, using a 198cm (78in.) steel plate with the utilitys designated high current (HC) loading.

The finite element analysis also revealed the sensitivity to phase angle selection when assigning currents to the conductors. Unlike Biot-Savart Law-based field calculations that utilize RMS currents for calculations that give RMS field results, finite element analysis determines magnetic fields at a particular moment in the power cycle. As a result of this phenomenon, it is important to consider the phase angle assignment for each conductor. For all calculations, balanced currents were assumed such that there was a 120 phase shift among phases A, B, and C. However, Figure 6 shows the impact of shifting the point in the power cycle on the calculated magnetic field levels. For

F. Splice Vault Shielding Considerations Several factors influenced the shielding geometries considered for the splice vaults (e.g., manholes). First, the utility desired to have the splices from one circuit separated from the other circuit so that work could be done on a de-energized circuit while the companion circuit remained in service. This required either a staggered manhole layout along the route with one circuit passing through a vault and the other bypassing the vault in a conventional duct bank (Figure 7) or using side-by-side manholes at each splice location (Figure 8). Another consideration was the greater phase spacing for cables placed in a vault to provide sufficient clearance for jointing. This added spacing reduces the attenuation. Also, the increased spacing between the phases inside the splice vault and the outer vault surface where shielding might be

installed, makes the shielding less effective because the field strength is lower (lower point on the steels permeability curve). The staggered manhole layout was expected to greatly complicate the application of steel plate shielding and was ultimately found to provide only moderate, if any, magnetic field reduction at the edges of the right-of-way and only a slight reduction in field magnitudes directly above the vault.

Figure 7: Splice vault configuration considered for field reduction.

1. With some consideration for cable phase placement within the duct bank, magnetic fields may be reduced without significantly increasing the installation costs for the project. 2. While the relative performance of magnetic shielding can be evaluated using any phase relationship in a finite element analysis-based study, it is important to adjust the phase shift of the currents so that the peak field levels may be found for comparison to unshielded cases or those evaluated with traditional Biot-Savart Law calculations. 3. Steel plate shielding is effective in reducing the external magnetic fields produced by underground power cables provided the steel plates are in close proximity (<25cm) to the power cables. Otherwise, the magnetic flux density is too low for the steel to provide much reduction in the fields. 4. While steel plating is effective in reducing the magnetic field levels directly above the power cables, the steel plates tend to collect and concentrate magnetic flux lines and may increase the magnetic flux density (field levels) at the edge of the right-of-way. Utilities looking to reduce field levels should consider if the criteria for field reduction should be based on the highest level anywhere present along the right-of-way or if the edge of the right-of-way should be the evaluation criterion. Corrosion of the shield plates over time may be a factor in the longevity of the shielding system. VII. REFERENCES

C B A

A B C

Figure 8: Side-by-side splice vaults.

Side-by-side splice vaults, as shown in Figure 8, looked to provide the most workable solution since it would permit the phases from both circuits to be placed more closely together, and the phasing could be mixed (A-B-C and C-B-A top to bottom) to generally reduce field levels. The burial depth was increased to 1.2m (4 ft.) to reduce magnetic fields levels above the manholes; this was considered a more workable approach than using steel plate shielding. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS Several conclusions and observations may be made as a result of the work done for this paper:

[1] CIGRE JTF 36-01/21, Magnetic field in HV Cable Systems: Systems without Ferromagnetic Components, Paper 104, June 1996 [2] C. J. Durkin, R.P. Fogarty, et. al.,Five Years of Magnetic Field Management, IEEE PWRD Transactions, 94 SM 391-1. [3] G. Bucea & H. Kent, Shielding Techniques to Reduce Magnetic Field Associated with Underground Powr Cables Case Study from Sydney Australia, CIGRE Paper 21201, 1998 Session [4] N. Zemyan, 138 kV Solid Dielectric Cable Installed in Steel Pipes and Its Effect on EMF, Minutes of the IEEE Insulated Conductors Committee Meeting, Fall 1996. [5] R.A. Walling, J.J. Paserba, and C.W. Burns, SeriesCapacitor Compensated Shielding Scheme for Enhanced Mitigation of Transmission Line Magnetic Fields, IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery, Vol. 8 No. 1. pp.461-468. January 1993. [6] CIGRE JTF 36-01/21, Magnetic Field Calculation In Underground Cable Systems With Ferromagnetic Components, ELECTRA No. 174, 1997. [7] S. Boggs, Magnetic Field Finite Element Analysis, Minutes of the IEEE Insulated Conductors Committee Meeting, Fall 2004.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES Earle C. Bascom, III (M89-SM) was born in Suffern, New York on 15 May 1967. He holds an A.S. in Engineering Science from Hudson Valley Community College, Troy, New York, which he earned in 1987, and a B.S. and M.E. in Electric Power Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, which he earned, respectively, in 1989 and 1990. He also holds an M.B.A. (1993) from the State University of New York at Albany. Mr. Bascom is a Senior Engineer with Power Delivery Consultants, Inc. where he has performed studies and engineering design involving advanced ampacity, system specifications, uprating, magnetic fields, forced cooling and rapid circulation calculations, and economic evaluations of underground and submarine cable systems. Mr. Bascom is a Senior Member of the IEEE, Power Engineering Society, a Voting Member of the Insulated Conductors Committee, and a registered professional engineer in New York and Florida. He can be contacted at r.bascom@pdc-cables.com. John H. Cooper (S66-M68-SM75-F03) was born in Fort Worth, Texas on 15 June 1945. He received a B.S.E.E. degree from Texas A&M University in 1967 and a M.S.E.E. degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1968. He worked for Westinghouse Electric Corp. from 1967 until 1988, primarily at the EPRI Waltz Mill Underground Transmission Test Facility and the EPRI Yonkers EHV Laboratory. Mr Cooper worked at Power Technologies, Inc. from 1988 to 1992 when he left to co-found Power Delivery Consultants, Inc. Mr. Cooper has actively participated in many areas regarding underground transmission cable systems including cable and installation design, laboratory and field testing, operation, maintenance and repair. Mr. Cooper is a Fellow of the IEEE, member of its Power Engineering Society and a voting member and active participant in the Insulated Conductors Committee where he chairs a discussion group on magnetic fields. Mr. Cooper is a registered professional engineer in Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Texas and may be contacted at j.cooper@pdc-cables.com. Wayne Banker (M92) received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Clarkson University in 1991, and his MBA from Iona College in 2000. Mr. Banker has been employed by Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., since 1992. As an Electrical Engineer in the Distribution Engineering Department (1992 2001) and as a Divisional Engineer in the Electrical Operations Department (2001-2004), his responsibilities include protection, underground material standards, reliability of underground and overhead distribution systems, and design, construction, and maintenance of underground and overhead mainline distribution systems as well as the underground transmission system. Presently, as Chief Distribution Engineer, he has responsibility for Distribution Engineering, Underground Transmission, and Line Technical Services de-

partments. Mr. Banker is a member of the IEEE and ICC, a member of the AEIC Cable Engineering Section, and a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York. Rick Piteo (M04) Mr. Piteo graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 1971with a B.S in Electrical Engineering. He also attended Western Connecticut State University and Pace University where he focused on Business and Computer Science courses. He is a Professional Engineer in the State of New York and has worked as a Project Engineer/Project Manager on many power and industrial related projects. His experience has included the design of power station grounding systems and the design of corrosion protection systems for both nuclear and fossil power stations. He has also participated in Nuclear Safety System Analysis projects and Safety Systems Interaction Projects. He is now working at Orange and Rockland Utilities as a Sr. Underground Transmission and Distribution Engineer, where he designs and manages the construction of underground transmission and distribution engineering projects. Angelo M. Regan (M 85, SM 99) was born in Athens, Greece on August 23, 1963. He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering in 1985, and his M.S. in Management Science in 1987, both from Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, New Jersey. Mr. Regan has been employed with Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., since 1987. As an Electrical Engineer in the Distribution Engineering Department (1988-1995), he was responsible for the standards, reliability, design and construction of high voltage underground transmission and distribution systems. Mr. Regan has recently held the positions of Manager of Retail Service Planning, Manager of Distribution Engineering, and Chief Distribution Engineer (1996 2005). Presently, as Director of Electrical Engineering, his responsibilities include overall management of the Transmission and Substation Engineering, Distribution Engineering, Performance and Operational Engineering and Line Technical Services departments at O&R. Mr. Regan is a senior member of IEEE, and a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York. Steven A. Boggs (F 92) graduated with a B.A. from Reed College in 1968 and received his Ph.D. and MBA degrees from the University of Toronto in 1972 and 1987, respectively. He spent 12 years with the Research Division of Ontario Hydro. In 1992, he was elected an IEEE Fellow for his contributions to understanding of SF6-insulated systems. From 1987 to 1993, he was Director of Research and Engineering at Underground Systems, Inc. He is presently Director of the Electrical Insulation Research Center and Research Professor of Materials Science, Electrical Engineering, and Physics at the University of Connecticut as well as an Adjunct Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Toronto.