Calculation of thermal fields of underground cable systems with consideration of structural steels constructed in a duct bank

C.C. Hwang

Indexing terms: Underground a b l e system, Structural steels, Thermal fields

Abstract: Structural steels are used in underground cable systems to provide a high degree of mechanical protection for electrical cables. An accurate prediction of the temperature distribution of the system needs to include not only the effect of the total cable electrical losses but the eddy current losses induced in the steel. A finite element method is proposed to evaluate the losses generated in the conductors and in the steels, these are then used as the heat sources for thermal analysis. Several steel arrangements of a cable system are solved and compared. The results are useful for the design of a cable duct bank which uses structural steels.

Introduction

The capital investment on underground transmission systems is high. Hence, evaluation of underground cable ampacity is the most important need in power cable engineering and operation. The ampacity is determined by the maximum temperature at which the insulation of the cable can be operated, and by the method of heat dissipation through the cable and its surroundings. Analytical solutions for the problem are available but these have only been derived through several considerable simplifying assumptions, often in combination with empirical relationships [ 1, 21. Recently, with the advances in digital computers, more reliable methods based on numerical techniques such as finite difference and finite element methods have been applied to the calculation of the thermal fields [3-81. In conjunction with the improved computational techniques, cable engineers are able to study the thermal fields of underground cables in the duct bank of any configuration [9, IO]. In practical situations, in power plants, structural steels are used in the duct bank to provide a high degree of mechanical protection for the cable route. The steels are magnetic and are reasonably good conductors. The three-phase cables, if run parallel to the steels, produce a transverse magnetic
0 IEE, I997
TEE ProceeuingA online 110. 19971265

field which induces eddy current losses inside the steels. The resulting induced losses generate heat in the steel, may cause the weakening of its mechanical strength and also influence the ampacities of the cables. To determine cable ampacities when cables are installed in such an arrangement, a combined analysis to determine electromagnetic and thermal effects is required. Hwang et al. [ l l ] have described a finite element method to investigate the effect of steel arrangements on eddy current losses induced in the steel when a nearby three-phase current exists. In real situations, usually more than one steel is used in a duct bank. An accurate analysis of the heat dissipated from the cable system needs to include the heat generated from the eddy current losses in the steels. This paper presents a combined electromagnetic and thermal field analysis using finite element formulations. Due to fast magnetic transients and comparatively slow thermal transients, only sinusoidal currents are considered and the resulting average power losses along with dielectric and shield losses of the cables are used as heat sources for a thermal model and the temperature distribution of the cable system is determined. Moreover, to discuss the effects of the steel arrangement on the eddy current loss induced in the steel and on the cable temperature distribution, two different sizes of structural steel constructed in the duct bank are used for illustration; one with six no.5 (5/8 diameter) and the other with eight no.4 (112 diameter) steels. Although the cable spacing effects the heat dissipation from its surroundings [9, 101, it has no obvious effect on the eddy current loss induced in the steel [l 11. For simplicity, only one cable spacing is considered and the effects of soil properties, geometrical factors, and ambient temperatures are not included. Further details are given in [3, 41.
2 Theoretical development

2.1 Electromagnetic field equations

The underground cable system consists of the flat arrangement of a three-phase cable surrounded by six steels in a duct bank as shown in Fig. 1. The analysis presented in this paper is based on the following assumptions: (1) The cables and the steels are infinitely long, so that the problem becomes two-dimensional (2) Charges and displacement currents are neglected (3) The phase currents are sinusoidal and balanced (4) All field quantities vary sinusoidally with time
54 1

Paper first received 28th June 1996 and in revised form 30th January 1997 The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Feng Chia University, 100 Wenhwa Road, Seatwen, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China
IEE Proc-Genrr T r a n m . Distrih.. Vol 144, No. 6. Noveniber 1997

( 5 ) All materials have constant electrical properties ( 6 ) The electrical conductivities of the concrete and

air /////// ////

ground surface

/,'/////N//////// mother soil +a4 &

steel

0 8m

2' TkFa
2O0C
4

ondly, the effect of radiation at the ground surface is neglected. Thirdly, the cross-section of the cable is approximated by an octagon. Fourthly, all materials have constant thermal properties; and finally, the shield and insulation losses are introduced as a heat source at the cable boundary. The shield thickness and its thermal properties are ignored. The associated steady-state heat conduction equation for two-dimensional the underground cable system can be described as [8, 141
-

c cable (--y
(d,O)
0

( K z E )+

&

(Ky$)

-4
(5)

cx

h -'I(-d,OI(O,OI

< '
I
20C
12m

2ooc 6m

dX

concrete

\\

Fig. 1

Thermal modeljov cable system with six no. 5 steels

The heat sources q generated by cables or steels are given by eqn. 4 T i s the temperature and K,, Ky are the thermal conductivities of the materials in x-direction and y-direction, respectively. On the boundary of the solution domain Q we have the following boundary conditions: T = T(z,y) on rl

Based on the above assumptions, if the system crosssection lies on the X-JI plane, the two-dimensional eddy current diffusion problem for sinusoidal time dependence can be described by the following equations [12, 131.
d

ax

(1dA) -c1.

ax

f -

dg

(mi) p ag
--

=jwaa

Js (la)

-jwoa Js = d (1b) where A and 1 ,are the z-directed components of the complex magnetic vector potential and the excitation source current density, respectively. p, cr and w are the Permeability, electrical conductivity and angular frequency, respectively. In eqn. l b the z-directed total current density J in the conductor is defined by the integral

where r = rl U Tz, k is the thermal conductivity of air, and a(T - T,) is the heat loss at the boundary due to convection to ambient temperature T, with convective heat transfer coefficient a. dT/dn is the temperature gradient normal to the surface of the ground. The finite element modelling of eqns. 5 and 6 is obtained by using the weak Galerkin procedure, and performs over all the elements which give [14] (see the Section 7).

dT k- =a(T-T,) dn

on

r2

(7) where the coefficient matrix [HI comprises element conductances and relates to conduction and convection, respectively. The vector {Q} is the heat load vector arising from specified nodal temperatures, internal heat generation, and surface convection, respectively.
Table 1: Cable ratings

ss
R

J d s = I,,

I, = A ,B , C

(2)

Cable size (mm?

XLPE insulation (mm)

400
18

where the phase current I, is a measured value flowing in a conductor of cross-section Q. Applying the Galerkin procedure to eqns. 1 and 2, and assembling in the usual way over all the element contributions, leads to the following matrix equation

Rated voltage (kV) Rated frequency (Hz) Operating current (A) Conductor losses (W/m) Dielectric losses (W/m) Shield losses (W/m)

161 60

650
26.246 (25.1934)" 0.424 1.968

-jwaQT = where the elemental matrices S and P are listed in [12], and Q and W are obtained in [13] and given in Section 7. Furthermore, the steel permeability is assumed to be constant in this formulation. From the solution of this system of equations, the values of A" at each node as well as the values Js in each conductor are calculated. Then the eddy current losses per unit length in the conductor, or in the steel, can be calculated as follows:
4= J J F d O
R

VS-jwaP

-jwaQ jwaW

] [ t] [ :]

(3)

* calculated by finite element method

////

//I/
Im

.....................
mother saii

( 4 )

Eqn. 4 is used as the heat input for the thermal problem.

2.2

Steady heat conduction equation

Fig. 2 Underground cable system with eight no. 4 steels
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Disrrib., Vol. 144, No. 6, November 1997

To facilitate the present analysis, the following assumptions are made: first, the temperature gradient in the soil at a large distance from the cables is zero. sec542

Analysis models

Two configurations chosen for analysis are shown in

Figs. 1 and 2. The cable ratings, given in Table 1, are

extracted from [15]. The three cables are placed horizontally at 1.0 m depth separated 0.2m between the centres in both figures. The middle cable is located at the origin of the x-y plane. To reduce the number of independent variables, the geometric parameters are displayed in normalised form. The steel vertical heights (fh) and horizontal positions (?a) are normalised by dividing all dimensions by the cable spacing (d) for each case. Thus hid indicates the degree of closeness of the steel to the cables, while a/d indicates the location of the steel away from the cables for a given height. When aid = -1, 0, and +1, then the steel is located right above phase A, B and C conductors, respectively. The required properties for each different element material are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Material properties for cable system
Components Concrete Mother soil Thermal conductivity (W/m"C) 1.214 0.67 0.024 0.00285 386.0 19.0 Electrical conductivity (S/m) 0 0 0

be noted that the outer cable temperatures are lower than the middle one, due to the mutual heating effect, and the difference is about 2.6"C. To compute the temperature rise when the steels are installed, numerical results for the cable system without steel were also obtained. In the absence of steel the results of cable temperature for phase A, B and C are 67.2203"C, 69.9756"C and 67.3503"C, respectively, as shown in Tables 3-6. By comparing the four tables it is practically possible to choose the better arrangement of a duct bank if the mechanical strength reasons are taken into account.

Air (20C)
Insulation Conductor Steel

0
5.8 x 107

1.03x

io7

Fig.3 Teniperature contoursfor dd = i1.25 and Wd = i0.55

In this analysis, the electromagnetic field is considered up to infinity [16], while the thermal processes are confined to a limited region (12m wide by 6m deep) with appropriate boundary conditions [3]. The solution domain and boundary conditions for the thermal analysis are shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen in the Figure, the temperature of a constant value of 20C is specified at the boundaries. Furthermore, to include the effect of the forced convection on the ground surface owing to wind, the heat transfer coefficient CI is calculated from the relationship [ 3 , 8, 171

a = 7.371 + 6 . 4 3 ~ '7 5 (8) where v is the wind velocity in mis. The wind velocity is assumed to be 2.22mis which results in a heat transfer coefficient of 19.4253wim2"C. Fig. 3 shows an example of the temperature distributions for the cable system of six no. 5 steels case with aid = f1.25, hid = k 0.55.
4

Results and discussion

Four sets of results are classified and are compared. Each set has the same size of steel and the same aid. As one would expect, the lower the normalised height (hl d ) , the higher the losses induced. Fig. 4 compares the effect of normalised height (hid) on the total eddy current losses induced for four sets of results. As noted in the Figure, the total eddy losses induced in the steels increase from set 4 to set 1. A comparison of the conductor losses obtained in this paper with those obtained from [lS] is also given in Table 1 and there is close agreement between them. Tables 3-6 show the results of cable temperatures for four sets of results. As one would anticipate, the lower the normalised height (hid), the higher the cable temperature. It should also
IEE Proc -Gener Trcmsm Dntrrh , Vol 144, No 6, November 1997

-*--A5

-.Fig. 4
-0-

I I I 0.5 0.6 0.7 normalised height, h/d Ejfiect of normalised height (Wd) on total eddy current losses
I

0. I

set 1, no. 5 set 2. no. 5 set 3, no. 4 set 4, no. 4

steel six with uld = 1.25 steel - six with ald = I .SO steel eight with u/d = 1.25 steel eight with a/d = 1.50
~ ~ ~

Conclusions

This paper has described a combined magnetothermal analysis for calculating the thermal fields of an underground cable system, taking into account the effect of structural steels constructed in it. The method is quite general, being capable of modelling any configuration of cable duct bank. The results, are useful for designoffice use, or as part of a strategy for detailed magnetothermal fields analysis of an underground cable system using finite elements.
543

Table 3: Cable temperature for six no. 5 steels with ald

Normalised
height (hd)

f 1.25

Cable temperature (C)

Temperature rise (C)

A phase
68.9579 69.1443 69.4842 69.7014 70.0300 70.4600 70.9805

B phase

C phase

A phase
1.7376 1.9240 2.2639 2.481 1 2.8097 3.2397 3.7602

B phase

C phase
1.7111 1.8652 2.1445 2.5420 2.8697 3.3146 3.7621

f0.70 f0.65 i0.60 f0.55 f0.50 k0.45 k0.40

71.7085 71.9463 72.1816 72.4730 72.8192 73.2403 73.7264

69.0614 69.2155 69.4948 69.8923 70.2200 70.6649 71.1 124

1.7329 1.9707 2.2060 2.4974 2.8436 3.2647 3.7508

Table 4: Cable temperature for six no. 5 steels with ald = f 1.50
Normalised height (hid) Cable temperature ( C )
~

Temperature rise (C)

~ ~ ~

A phase
68.7089 68.8678 69.0631 68.9494 69.3754 69.6133 69.9852

B phase

C phase
68.8382 69.0236 39.1800 69.2597 69.6427 70.0122 70.2171

A phase
1.4886 1.6475 1.8428 1.7291 2.1551 2.3930 2.7649

B phase

C phase

k0.70 i0.65 k0.60 rt0.55 f0.50 k0.45 k0.40

71.4344 71.6337 71.7927 71.9265 72.1690 72.4353 72.9202

1.4588 1.6581 1.8171 1.9509 2.1934 2.4597 2.9446

1.4879 1.6733 1.8297 1.9094 2.2924 2.6619 2.8668

Table 5: Cable temperature for eight no. 4 steels with a / d = f 1.25

Normalised height (hid) Cable temperature (C) Temperature rise (C)

A phase
68.7427 68.8263 69.0677 69.1350 69.4610 69.6406 70.0290

B phase

C phase
68.7434 68.87 12 69.0986 69.2243 69.5341 69.6354 70.0975

A phase
1.52240 1.60600 1.84740 1.91470 2.24070 2.42030 2.80870

B phase

C phase

f0.70 f0.65 k0.60 k0.55 k0.50 k0.45 f0.40

71.4288 71.5754 71.8075 71.8965 72.2092 72.4790 72.7562

1.45320 1.59980 1.83190 1.92090 2.23360 2.50340 2.78060

1.39310 1.52090 1.74830 1.87399 2.18380 2.28510 2.74720

Table 6: Cable temperature for eight no. 4 steels with a / d = f 1.50

Normalised height (hid) Cable temperature (C) Temperature rise (C) C phase

A phase
68.5374 68.6346 68.7160 68.9252 69.1997 69.2363 69.4908

B phase

A phase
1.31710 1.41430 1.49571 1.70490 1.97940 2.01600 2.27050

B phase

C phase

i0.70 i0.65 rt0.60 k0.55 k0.50 k0.45 i0.40

71.2686 71.4252 71.5671 7 1.6973 71.9212 72.0589 72.2781

68.5613 68.6114 68.7046 69.0449 69.2012 69.2449 69.6139

6

1.29300 1.44960 1.59150 1.72170 1.94560 2.08330 2.30250

1.21100 1.26109 1.35429 1.69460 1.85090 1.89460 2.26360

References

I NEHER, J.H.: The temperature rise of buried cables and pipes, AIEE Trans.,1949, 68, pp. 9-21 2 NEHER, J.H., and MCGRATH, M.H.: The calculation of the temperature rise and load capacity of cable systems, AZEE Tuans.,Part 3, pp. 752-772 3 MITCHELL, J.K., and ABDEL-HADI, O.N.: Temperature distributions around buried cables, ZEEE Trans., 1979, PAS-98, (4), DD. 1158-1166 4 KELLOW, M.A.: A numerical procedure for the calculation of the temperature rise and ampacity of underground cables, ZEEE Trans., 1981. PAS-100. (7). DV. 3322-3330 5 EL-ICADY, M.A., and HORROCKS, D.J.: Extended values for geometric factor of external thermal resistance of cables in duck banks, ZEEE Trans., 1985, PAS-104, pp. 1958-1962
I
~

EL-KADY, M.A., MOTLIS, J., ANDERS, G.A., and HORROCKS, D.J.: Modified values for geometric factor of external thermal resistance of cables in duct banks, IEEE Trans., 1988, PWRD-3, pp. 1303-1309 7 GELA, G., and DAI, J.J.: Calculation of thermal field of underground cables using the boundary element method, IEEE Tuans., 1988, PWRD-3, pp. 1341-1347 8 HANNA, M.A., CHIKHANI, A.Y., and SALAMA, M.M.A.: Thermal analysis of power cables in multi-layered soil, part 2: practical considerations, IEEE Trans., 1993, PWRD-8, pp. 7727711

,I

__

9 MYTCHELL, J.K., and ABDEL-HADI, O.N.: Temperature distributions around buried cables, ZEEE Trans., 1979, PAS-98, (4), nn r r . 11SR-166 ---_ --10 SALEEBY, K.E., BLACK, W.Z., and HARTLEY, J.G.: Effective thermal resistance for power cables buried in thermal backfill, ZEEE Trans., 1979, PAS-98, (6), pp. 2201-2208
IEE Proc.-Geneu. Transm. Distuib., Vol. 144, No. 6, November 1997

544

11 HWANG, C.C., JIANG, Y.H., and BOR, S.S.: 'Computation of eddy currents induced in structural steel due to three-phase currents by finite element method'. 7th Biennial IEEE Conference on Electromagneticfield computation, Okayama, Japan, March 1996 12 SALON, S.J.: 'Finite element analysis of electrical machines' (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995) 13 LABRIDIS, D., and DOKOPOULOS, P.: 'Finite element computation of field, losses and forces in a three-phase gas cable with non-symmetrical conductor arrangement', i E E E Trans., 1988, PWRD-3, pp. 1326-1333 14 HUEBNER, K.H., THORNTON, E.A., and BYROM, T.G.: 'The finite element method for engineers' (John Wiley, 1995) 15 'Total losses of 161 KV XLPE insulated power cable'. Technical data, Fujikura Ltd., 1993 16 IMHOFF, J.F., MEUNIER, G., and SABONNADIERE, J.C.: 'Finite element modeling of open boundary problems', IEEE Trans., 1990, MAG-26, (2), pp. 588-591 17 LUNARDINI, V.J.: 'Heat transfer in cold climate' (Van Nostrand Reinhold company, 1981)

G=-J,

1 (14)

7.2 Steady thermal field formulation To derive finite element equations for eqns. 5 and 6 by Galerkin's method the solution domain C2 is first divided into polygonal elements and the distribution of T within each element is assumed to be

i=l where r is the number of nodes assigned to element (e), the Tiare the discrete nodal temperatures, and the Ni(x, y ) are the shape functions. Then, we may write

Appendix

7. I Time-harmonic electromagnetic field form ula tion

Consider a typical three-node triangular element with nodal numbers i, j and k. The nodal potential in the element can be expressed as
a ( e ) (2, y)

a(")

=o,

i = 1 , 2 ) . . . )7"

Integrating the first two terms on the left by parts, gives

= [Nit.), N:"),N!")]

(9) are called shape functions. where N@) Suppose that the element (e) lies on the conductor (i), at which the source current density is Js,. Since J,, is constant over the cross-section of the conductor, the phasor source current density in the element (e) is

a(6) r2 Substituting eqn. 6b and noting that 7(e ) = L N I {T}("), we may write eqn. 1 as

p = J,,
bles

(10)

If the problem has N conductors and the solution domain is divided into A 4 nodes, the unknown varia-

A and J,yare approximated as

&,

y) = N ~ A

J,(x,y) = NTJ,

(Ila) (Ilb)

where

AT=[A1

A 2

AM]
(124
(12b)

J, = [5,1 .?,,a . . . j , ~ ] NT = [ N I N 2 ..' N M ]

NT= [l 1 1 1 Referring to eqn. 3 , it can be seen that
e ' .

where
(13a)

Q T = [41

q2

where

qr =

//
n,

. . . 'IN]
NdR IN] JdR
(13b)

0%

IT = [I1 1,
where

* . *

I, =

SJ'

W=diag[wl
where
Qj

w2

...
= 0,

WN]

w, = / / d .

is the area of the cross-sectional surface of conductor (i) and

IEE Pvoc.-Gener. Transm Distrib., Vol 144, No. 6, November 1997

545