IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 14, No.

3, July 1999
Cable Crossings - Derating Considerations
Part II - Example ofTnerivation of Derating Curves
715
3%
George Anders
Ontario Hydro Technologies
Toronto, Canada
Abstract. Cables crossing other heat sources either
perpendicularly or at oblique angles will experience a rise in
conductor temperature which should result in ampacity
derating. In the first part of the paper a mathematical model
f or calculation of derating factors was presented. In this
paper, a practical numerical example is considered with a
pipe-type cable crossing a 10 kV distribution circuit. The
numerical analysis presented here confirms experimental
findings reported in the literature that the cable crossing may
elevate conductor temperature by as much as 2OOC.
1. Description of the system
We will consider a crossing of a 10 kV XLPE cable
circuit and a 138 kV high-pressure, oil-filled, pipe-type cable
illustrated in Figure 1. The cables and the their characteristics
are described in [l] (cable model 1 and 3) and the summary of
the parameters are given in Table 1. Some parameters of the
first cables had to be recomputed because of the laying
conditions are different than those used in [l]. Computed
parameters correspond to the isolated cables.
Cable No. 1 is a single conductor construction. The
conductor resistance at 20C is taken from IEC 228 (1978).
The cable has copper screen wires with a given electrical
resistance (at 20C) and a PVC jacket (see Table 1). All
thermal and electrical parameters are as specified in IEC 287.
The laying conditions for cable 1 are assumed as
follows: cables are located 1.2 m below the ground in a flat
configuration. Uniform soil properties are assumed
throughout. Spacing between cables is equal to one cable
diameter (spacing between centers equal to two cable
diameters). Ambient soil temperature is 25C. The thermal
resistivity of the soil is equal to 0.8 Km/W. The cables are
solidly bonded and are regularly transposed.
PE-240-PWRD-0-09-1998 A paper recommended and approved by
the IEEE Insulated Conductors Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery. Manuscript submitted May 12, 1998; made available for
printing October 7, 1998.
Heinrich Brakelmann
Gerhard-Mercator-Universitat
Duisburg, Germany
't /
pipe-type cable I / cable 2
y=O.91 m 6
Y r )
A
b
21
/ I
y = 1. 2m
22
/ J / x 2
Figure I Cable configuration for the numerical example
Cable No. 2 is a 138 kV high-pressure liquid-filled
(HPLF) cable. All parameters are the same as in the
NeherNcGrath (1957) paper (see Table 1). The cable shield
consists of an intercalated 7/8(0.003) inches bronze tape--one
inch lay, and a single 0.1 (0.2)-inch D-shaped bronze skid
wire--1.5 inch lay. The cables lie in a cradle configuration and
operate at 85% load-loss factor. Several parameters are
different than those used in IEC 287 (1982). The ones which
are different are given as follows:
thermal resistivity of the insulation:
thermal resistivity of pipe coating:
dielectric constant 3.5
tan 6 0.005
5.5 Km/w
1.0 Km/w
The laying conditions are assumed as follows. The
cables are located in a steel pipe 8.625 inches outside
diameter. The pipe is covered with an asphalt mastic covering
0.5 inch thick. The center of the pipe is located three feet
(0.91 m) below the ground.
0885-8977/99/$10.00 0 1998 IEEE
716
Table 1. Values for numerical example
conductor cross-section
conductor diameter
diameter over conductor screen
spacing between conductor centers
diameter over insulation
diameter over insulation screen
Insulation
Screedsheath
diameter over shield I D,(mm)
Jacket
thickness of the jacket
external diameter of the cable or pipe
covering
pipe inside diameter
pipe outside diameter
Duct or pipe
maximum allowable conductor
temperature
frequency
dielectric constant
dielectric loss factor
conductor resistance at 2OoC
concentric wire resistance at 20C
cable ampacity
conductor resistance at 8-
concentric/skid wires loss factor
pipe loss factor
thermal resistance of insulation
thermal resistance of oil
thermal resistance of jackedpipe covering
external thermal resistance with non-
unity load factor
external thermal resistance 100% LF
losses in the conductor
dielectric losses per core
total joule losses per cable
total losses per cable
10 kV cable pipe-type
cable
c u
stranded
300
20.5
21.7
71.6
XLPE
28.5
30.1
Cu wires
31.4
PVC
2.2
35.8
c u
segmental
1010
41.45
41.45
67.59
PAPER
67.11
67.26
tape and
1 skid wire
67.59
somastic pipe
coating
244.48
steel
206.38
219.08
Given cable parameters
8, ("C) 90 70
60 60
E -0 3.5
tan6 -0 0,005
4 (oh-) 0.0601
0.759
Computed p
I (A)
rmeters (hottest cable)
61 1 902
0.0786 0.0245
0.233 0.010
0.31 1
. 0.214 0.422
0.082
0.104 0.017
0.289
1.517 0.343
29.38 19.93
0 4.83
36.22 26.33
36.22 31.16
The equation numbers r e f e d tg below are those
assigned in Part I of the paper [Z].
2 Perpendicular crossing
We will consider a 90" crossing; fhat is, (/3
will assume & =0.1 m and zmax =6 m, which results in
N =z,, I& =60.
The pipe-type cable can be modeled as a 3-condu
cable and its effect on the center (the hottest) cable of the
kV circuit will beinvestigated. The effect of the 10 kV c
on the pipe-type cable has to include the effect of all three
cables. The coordinates are as shown in Figure 1 with the y-
axis passing through the center cable. Three values of q2
will be required from the three cables of the 10 kV circuit as
described below.
We observe that since cable 2 operates at nonunity loss
factor and the distance between the circuits is greater than the
characteristic diameter of 0.211 m {see eq. (9.68) in [l]}, only
pWTj part of its joule losses is seen by circuit 1, where f i is
its load loss factor.
its total losses are:
Taking into account a nonunity load factor for cable 2,
W2 =3 426.33.0.85 +4.83) =8 1.63 W I m
whereas W, =36.22 W I m .
The joule losses per conductor at 2OoC are computed
next.
- - 29.38 =23.04 W I m
I ~ R
1 +aT . (emx - 20)
w =
1 +0.00393.70
=16.66 W I m
19.93
wgo2 =1+0.00393.50
Thus, from equations (1 8)
W,, =23.04(1- 0.00393.20) =2 1.23 Wlrn,
W, , =16.66(1-0.00393.20) =15.35 Wlrn
Awl =0.00393.23.04 =0.0905 Wlm,
AW2 =0.00393.16.66 =0.0655 W/m
717
T,, =0.214+0.104+1.517=1.835 Wlrn
Tr2 =0.4221 3 +0.082 +0.017 +0.289 =0.529 W/m
=0.214+1.233~(0.104+1.517)=2.213WIm,
T2 =0.422/3+1.01.0.082+1.321(0.017 +0.289) =0.628 Wlrn
The longitudinal thermal resistances of the conductors
are
0.0026 0 0026
0.0003
T,, =- =8.67 W(m - W), TL2 =0.00101 =2.57 W(m- W)
We will consider the longitudinal thermal resistance of
the conductor only. There is no published account of
longitudinal heat transfer in air in ducts or oil in pipes [3].
However, wecan assume that the relation between conductive
and convective components of the longitudinal thermal
resistance is similar to that for the radial heat flow. For a
typical pipe-type geometry, conductive thermal resistance is
about 5 times higher than the convective one (see Example 9.8
in [l]). For the cable examined in this paper, the conductive
longitudinal thermal resistance of the oil is obtained from
=417 K N - m
4.7.15
-
-
a(0.206382 - 0.1453*)
Thus, the convective thermal resistance is in the range
of 80 K N- m and the combined thermal resistance of the oil is
in the range of 70 WW-m. This is about 20 time larger than
the thermal resistance of the conductor and, since the two
resistances are in parallel, the former can besafely neglected.
The characteristic constants a are computed from
equation (20)
8.67. (1- 0.0905.2.213) =1.94 llm
= i 7
We can now compute the mutual thermal resistances
from equation (30)
(0.91 +1 .2)2 +( 0. 1~) ~
(0.91 - 1 .2)2 +( 0. 1~) ~
In
0.8 . (e2'16.0.~- 1) 2 e +2.16.0.1
The total thermal resistances are obtained from
T12=
equations (8) and (2)
4n v=l
=0.180 K.m/W
718
In addition, werequire the mutual thermal resistance of
the outer cables of the 10 kV circuit on the pipe-type cable at z
=0. This resistance is obtained from equation (31) as
0.8 . (e2.16.0.1 - 1)
T 2 x =
4a
In
V= l
=0.169 K.m/W
Also,
(0.91 +1.2)2 +( 0. 1~) ~
5 e-v.1.94~0.1 In
=0.174 K.m/W
v=l
(0.91 - 1.2) +(0.1~)
We also need to compute the temperature rise in cable
2 due to dielectric losses. This temperature is obtained from
AOd2 =W, (TI 12n +T2 +T3 +T4)
=3 * 4.83(0.422 I 6 +0.082 +0.017 +0.343) =7.42 K
The derated currents can now be computed from equation (4).
81.63.0.174 =540 A
Zlr=611 1-
J 90 - 25
=639 A
70 - 7.42 - 25
The derating factors are equal to 0.88 and 0.71 for the
first and the second cable respectively. The computations are
repeated with the above currents used to compute the joule
losses. The process converges after 10 iterations with the
following results:
Zlr =566 A and dl =0.93
Zrz ~6 8 2 A and 4 =0.76
These factors can be compared with the pessimistic
values obtained from equation (32). The most pessimistic
results are obtained when no iterations are performed and the
losses corresponding to the isolated cables are used. In this
case, the temperature influences are computed from equation
(5).
computed in two stages.
The influence of circuit 1 on the pipe-type cable is
For the center cable
0.8.36.22 (0.91+1.2)2
*(3,12 = 4a (0.91-1.2).
and for the outer cables
-=9.15 K In
0.8.2.36.22 (0.91+1.2) +0.072 =18.03
The remaining influence temperature is given by
In
A@,, = 4a (0.91-1.2)2 +0.072
0.8.8 1.63 (0.9 1 +1.2) =20.62
4~ (0.91 - 1.2)
*8,21 =
Hence,
90 - 25
ZZr,,,in =902 /-=475 1- 70 - 7.42 - 25
A
and the derating factors are: 0.83 and 0.53, respectively.
We mentioned in the paragraph following equation (32)
that the above values do not depend on the crossing angle,
hence are also applicable to the parallel crossings.
3 The influence of the crossing angle
and the distance between circuits
The derating factors will, of course be affected by the
value of the crossing angle. Figure 2 shows this relation for
both cables. We recall that p=90 represents the parallel
route of both circuits.
0 . 5 5 0 ~ 0.5 30 60
Crossing Angle(deg.)
I
Figure 2. Derating factors as afwtction of the crossing angle
719
From Fig. 2, we can observe that the decrease of the
derating factor is more pronounced for the pipe-type cable as
the circuits become more parallel. This higher sensitivity is
partially caused by much smaller permissible temperature rise
due to joule losses for the pipe-type cable than for the
distribution circuit and can also be explained by the fact that,
in this example, the distribution circuit has about 25% higher
losses than the pipe-type cable. Thus, for the 138 kV cable,
the derating factor decreases from 0.76 for perpendicular
crossing to 0.62 when the circuits are parallel. A conservative
practice, used by many utilities in cases like this, would be to
assume that the cables are parallel. For parallel laying, the
ampacity of the pipe type cable is 562 A. Thus, when this
conservative assumption is used, conventional approach would
unnecessarily decrease the ampacity of the pipe-type cable by
120 A or 17.6%.
The temperature influence of the external heat source
on the rated cable will depend on both the crossing angle and
the distance between the circuits. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate
this dependence.
From Figures 3 and 4, it is apparent that the influence
of the distribution circuit (cable 1) on the pipe-type cable
(cable 2) disappears at a distance exceeding 6 m for crossings
with angles smaller than 60". On the other hand, for the 10 kV
cable, this influence extends to about 5 m.
25
t
Distance from the Intersection (m)
Figure3. Temperature influence on the rated cable as a
function of the crossing angle and the distance from the crossing.
Referring to Figure 3, we note that, as expected, the
more parallel the cables are, the higher the influence
temperature. This influence is much greater for the pipe-type
cable, and hence a lower derating factor is required. The
influence temperature can be quite high at the point of
intersection even for a perpendicular crossing and reaches
17C in our example (this can be compared with the 23C
influence when the circuits are parallel).
18
16
14
h
y 12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from the Intersection (m)
Figure4. Temperature influence on the rated cable as a
function of the vertical distance between the circuits and the distance
from the crossing. The pipe-type cable is in thefied position and the
10 kV circuit is shifted downwards. Perpendicular crossing is
represented.
The vertical distance between the circuits plays a
smaller role on the variation in the influence temperature.
However, this temperature, is quite significant for both circuits
and for the 10 kV cables is almost the same in the range of 20
to 60 cm separation between the circuits considered in this
example. It is interesting to note that the influence
temperature is almost identical for all separations at a distance
greater than about 1 m from the intersection.
5. Conclusions
From the information presented above, it is quite clear
that the presence of external heat sources may have a
significant effect on the rating of power cables. In particular,
the derating of 3 to 5% used by some utilities may be
insufficient, especially for cables with smaller conductors.
Hence, the need for either derating curves or computational
procedures, or both, seems to be quite evident.
Using equation (4) or (5) together with (33-34),
derating curves similar to Figure 2, where the derating will be
a function of the crossing angle and the size of the conductor,
can be developed. In order to derive such curves, some
standard installation conditions would have to be assumed. A
set of derating graphs could be developed depending on the
distance between the cable and the heat source, the crossing
angle and also on the depth of burial. The amount of work
involved would depend on the number of cases to be
standardized.
In addition, diagrams similar to Figures 3 and 4,
showing the influence temperature as a function of the
distance from the crossing point could be developed to give
guidance on the length of the area in which isolating boards,
720
heat pipes or special backfills should be applied to reduce the
mutual heating effect.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. J ay Williams of
Power Delivery Consultants (PDC) for bringing to their
attention the importance of the subject.
References
[l ] G.J . Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables -
Ampacity Calculations for Transmission, Distribution and
Industrial Applications, McGraw-Hill, IEEE Press, 1998.
[2] G.J . Anders, H. Brakelmann, Cable Crossings-Derating
Considerations, Part I: Development of Derating
Equations - companion paper
[3] T. Hollands, Literature on longitudinal heat transfer for
oil or air in pipes, University of Waterloo, private
communication.
Biographies
George J. Anders (M74, SM84) received a M.Sc.
degree in EE from Technical University of Lodz in Poland in
1973, and an M.Sc. degree in Mathematics and Ph.D. degree
in Power System Reliability from the Univ. of Toronto in
1977 and 1980, respectively. Since 1975, he has been
employed by Ontario Hydro first as a System Design Engineer
in Transmission System Design Dept. of System Planning
Division and currently as a Principal Engineer in Ontario
Hydro Technologies. Dr. Anders is the author of two books
Probability Concepts in Electric Power Systems, published
by J ohn Wiley & Sons, NY, 1990, and Rating of Electric
Power Cables, published by IEEE Press, New York, 1997
and McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario.
Heinrich Brakelmann received a M.Sc. degree in EE
(Dip1.-Ing.) from the Technical University of Aachen, where
he was promoted to Dr.-Ing. in the field of circuit-breakers in
1973. Between 1973 and 1977, he was employed by the cable-
company FeltenLkGuilleaume, Cologne, as a Principal
Engineer for power cable systems. Since 1977 he is a member
of the faculty of the Gerhard-Mercator-University of Duisburg
and since 1992 he is professor of electrical power
transmission. Dr. Brakelmann has published 75 papers on
electrical power transmission, many of them about cable
problems. He is an author of three books: Physical principles
and calculation methods of moisture and heat transfer in cable
trenches, Belastbarkeiten der Energiekabel and
Energietechnik programmiert, all published by VDE-Verlag,
Offenburg.