A.7.

3 8
th
International Conference on Insulated Power Cables A.7.3
Jicable11 19 23 June 2011, Versailles - France
ARMOUR LOSS IN THREE-CORE SUBMARINE XLPE CABLES
Danijela PALMGREN, Sweden, danijela.palmgren@se.abb.com
Johan KARLSTRAND, Sweden, johan.p.karlstrand@se.abb.com,
Gunnar HENNING, Sweden, gunnar.henning@se.abb.com



ABSTRACT
Measurements have been performed on three-core steel
wire armoured cables, to investigate if any discrepancy
exist with the standard calculation methods prescribed by
IEC60287.
Measurements and calculations of armour loss factor
2

described in IEC60287 have been performed on two types
of three-core armoured cables. One cable has a single
wire armour with steel and plastic wires for reduction of
armour loss. The other cable has a double layer armour
with opposite laying directions. The measurements verify
that the armour loss is not negligible but lower than
prescribed by IEC60287 and the standard may therefore
need to be revised.
KEYWORDS
EHV, XLPE, submarine cable, type test, routine test
INTRODUCTION
Three types of losses are induced in magnetic wire
armouring for ac applications:

1. Resistive losses caused by circulating currents
2. Eddy currents losses induced by magnetic flux
3. Hysteresis losses in magnetic steel wires

Circulating currents are only induced in single core
armoured cables with both ends bonded systems. Single
core cables with wires of magnetic steel materials are
rarely used and the current rating for such cables is
limited to around 400 A due to the rapid increase of the
power loss at higher currents.







Eddy currents are induced in armour wires by the
magnetic flux B generated by conductor currents.
If the flux density B
y
in figure 1 is constant inside a wire
with diameter d the eddy current loss P
a
in the wire is
according to equation (1).



The equation shows how the power loss depends on the
wire diameter d, wire conductivity , flux density B
y
and
angular frequency . The eddy current has its maximum
value at the outer and inner part of the wire. The equation
gives the maximum power loss in an armoured single-
core cable. Practically, the eddy current loss is lower than
shown in equation (1), since the skin effect will reduce the
power loss inside the wire.
The magnitude of the magnetic flux density depends on
the conductor current and the relative permeability
r
of
the magnetic steel material. IEC 60287 recommends
r
=
=400 (IEC 60287 uses the symbol
e
) for magnetic steel
materials. The wires are supposed to have no metallic
contact, since the relative permeability will be decrease in
the -direction through the armouring wires and the wire
gaps. The wire gap reduces the total permeability,
t

according to equation (2).

IEC 60287 recommends
t
= 10 which determines the
wire gap to be around 0.4 mm for d=5 mm. The
permeability is then reduced about 40 times, compared to
having the wires in direct metallic contact with each other.
Instead of reducing the permeability of the magnetic steel
material itself, the magnetic field intensity H is then
reduced indirectly by the existing wire gaps in the cable.
For example, a magnetic field intensity H = 4000 A/m
originated from a conductor current I = 1500 A, is reduced
to about 100 A/m (40 times). It is obvious from B(H)
curves for magnetic steel materials that the hysteresis
loss is negligible for magnetic field intensities within this
range .












Figure 1

Figure 2
Close and Return
A.7.3 8
th
International Conference on Insulated Power Cables A.7.3
Jicable11 19 23 June 2011, Versailles - France
The eddy in figure 1 circulates along all the wire applied
on a single core cable because the flux density is constant
along the cable axis. Only one long eddy exists in each
wire.
A three-core cable has a common armour for the three
phases. Cable cores and armour wires are laid in the -
direction along the cable axis but with different laying
pitches. Thus, there is a relative rotation between the
cores and wires along their axes. The relative rotation
implies that the size of the magnetic field vector H in one
armour wire is not constant along its axis. Figure 2 shows
the relative variation of the vector field H of one armour
wire in a polar plot.
The size of the vector is about half the size obtained for a
single core cable with the same magnitude of the
conductor current because all three phases are housed
inside a common armour. The phase angle of the
magnetic field vector H varies along the armour wire. This
implies a variation of the eddy current along the wire but
the variation is different from a single core cable. Thus,
the different shape of the vector field H in a three-phase
cable compared to single core cable implies reduced eddy
current loss.
The magnetic field along the armour diameter depends on
the distance between the phases i.e. an equation
describing the armour loss should also contain this
distance. Equation (1) can therefore not be used.
For both single- and three-core cables there is a
longitudinal voltage induced in each wire, but the voltage
integrated along one lay is zero in three-core cables.
There is no circulating current in the wires. The voltage
vector has a shape similar to figure 2. A negligible voltage
difference exists between adjacent wires.
DATA OF CABLES
Armour losses were measured on two types of armoured
three-core cables. All types have lead sheaths and
magnetic steel armour wires.
Cable 1 is a 145 kV cable that has an aluminium
conductor with a cross-sectional area of 815 mm
2
. The
number of steel wires in the single armour is reduced for
reasons of lower weight and power loss. Every second
wire is replaced by a PE string of the same diameter as
the steel wire.
Cable 2 is a 123 kV cable that has a solid copper
conductor with a cross-sectional area of 240 mm
2
. The
double wire armour will balance the torque in the cable
during laying at large depths.
Symbols used in table and texts:
DWL Double Wire Layer
SWL Single Wire Layer
1/K temperature coefficient
C temperature
A mm
2
cross-sectional area
d mm diameter
I A rated current
N pc number of units
R ohm/km resistance
t mm thickness
W W/m losses

Indices used in tables:
a armour
c conductor
e external
m measured value
p cable core
s sheath

The length of the cable samples used for the
measurements is adjusted to the transformer used in the
test.
The current rating shown in Table 3 depends on burial
conditions, which are different for the two types of cables.
Table 1 Cable designs
U kV 145 (SWL) 123 (DWL)
A
c
815 Al 240 Cu
d
c
35 17,5
t
s
2,1 2,0
d
s
76,8 56,1
d
p
80,8 60,1
Nt
a1
644 785
d
a1
183,3 141,3
Nt
a2
845
d
a2
151,3
d
e
191,3 159,3
length m 75 59

Table 2 Electrical data
U kV 145 (SWL) 123 DWL)
R
0
0,0360 0,0754

c
90 90
R 0,0496 0,0982

s
80 75
R
s
0,538 0,768

a
73 67
R
a
0,286 0,703

Table 3 IEC Rating data
U kV 145 (SWL) 123 (DWL)

1
0,132 0,0503

2
0,2638 0,1498
I 722 507
W
c
25,9 25,2
W
s
3,4 1,3
W
a
6,8 3,7

MEASUREMENT SETUP
Figure 3 below shows the setup of the cable sample and
the cable connection to the power supply. The transformer
has the following rated data:
Group Dyn11
Ratio 400/6 8 12 16 V
I
N2
800 A
The ratio is changed on the primary side of the
transformer. However, the rated data above is given for
the secondary side for practical reasons. The transformer
can be loaded excessively higher during short durations.
Close and Return
A.7.3 8
th
International Conference on Insulated Power Cables A.7.3
Jicable11 19 23 June 2011, Versailles - France


The measurement instrument is computerised and
measures voltage, current, power, apparent power,
reactive power and temperature. The instrument has best
measuring accuracy at a power factor of cos() = 0,4.
The lengths of the cable samples in the setup vary
between 59 and 75 m and the cable ends with removed
armour layers are kept as short as possible to increase
the measuring accuracy. Connection leads to the
transformer have equal lengths and were bundled to avoid
asymmetric currents and voltages.
The cable is laid on wooden trestles to avoid vagabonding
currents in the armour. The connection of cable and
transformer does not allow zero sequence current in the
circuit which should give rise to extra losses in the
armour.
PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT
Measurements are performed for four settings of the
transformer ratio. Cable lengths are adapted to give
conductor currents in the range well below and above the
rated current. The reason is to measure the armour loss
dependency of the conductor current. It is essential that
conductor currents have a magnitude at least equal to the
rated current of the cable.
The largest currents for the measurement are in the order
of 850 A for the single layer armour design and 790 A for
the double layer armour design. The currents are larger
than the rated currents of the cables and are also typical
values for three-core submarine cables.
The measurement may be performed either during steady
state condition or during transient conditions.
In a steady state measurement the final conductor
temperature is not necessarily 90 C at the final reading,
since the conductor current is depending of the
transformer ratio. The method presumes constant room
temperature.
In a transient measurement the reading is performed
quickly to limit the temperature rise of the cable during the
measurement. The temperature rise of the conductor is
only some degrees and negligible at the outer layer of the
cable due to the cable time constant. The measurement is
in this case performed at room temperature.
The later method was chosen to make the measurements
during a reasonable time. In both cases, the measured
value of the armour loss must be adjusted to a conductor
temperature of 90 C.
As the measurement is performed at room temperature
the measured armour loss factor is transformed to 90 C
through division by the factor k
f
.

ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENT
The armour losses W
a1
of single layer armour design are
calculated according to equation (4) where:
W
m1
Measured cable losses
I
c1
Measured conductor current
I
s1
Measured sheath current
R
c1
Measured conductor resistance
R
s1
Measured sheath resistance
Index 1 of variables means single layer armoured cable.

The term W
m1
is the sum of all errors of the measured
values and hence the error of the calculated loss W
a1
. The
loss W
a1
is in the order of 10% of the total measured loss.
The relative error of the armour loss is:

If the accuracy is 2% of the measurement the error is
about 20% of the calculated armour loss. If the conductor
size is large, the failure may be larger than 20%.
To improve the accuracy, a difference measurement
method was chosen. The measurement compared the
results between one cable with armour and the same
cable but with the armour removed. Index 0 of variables
shown in equations below means no armour. Index 1
means a cable including armour.


Figure 3
Close and Return
A.7.3 8
th
International Conference on Insulated Power Cables A.7.3
Jicable11 19 23 June 2011, Versailles - France
If resistances and currents are equal in the equations the
armour losses are simply the difference between the
equations. This is not the case since the size of the
current is different depending on whether the cable has
armour or not. The 1:st equation is transformed to current
I
c1
conditions through:

The difference between equations gives the armour
losses if R
c0
= R
c1
:

The equation describes the difference between cables
with no screens but one of the cables has magnetic steel
wire armour.
From equation (8) it is obvious that the error of the
calculated armour loss is minimized through the difference
calculation method.
MEASUREMENT 145 KV CABLE (SWL)
The variables in the following tables are designated in
accordance with IEC symbols. A second index 0 or 1 is
introduced to indicate the number of armour layers.
Two measurements are performed on the same cable:
1. Cable with 1 armour layer
2. Cable with no armour layer
Tables with data are given in reversed order.
Table 4 Cable data no armour layer
R
00
0,0360 0,0360 0,0360 0,0360

c0
18,5 18,2 17,9 16,2
1+y
s
+y
p
1,1064 1,1066 1,1068 1,1081
R
c0
0,0396 0,0395 0,0395 0,0393

s0
12,6 12,6 12,6 12,6
R
s0
0,3756 0,3756 0,3756 0,3756
W
m0
5,61 9,91 22,07 38,65
I
c0
345,3 459,7 687,7 913,0
W
c0
4,72 8,36 18,68 32,74
I
s0
39,41 52,79 78,65 104,90
W
s0
0,57 1,02 2,25 4,01

Table 5 Cable data 1 armour layer
R
01
0,0360 0,0360 0,0360 0,0360

c1
16,8 17,0 17,9 15,1
1+y
s
+y
p
1,1077 1,1075 1,1068 1,1090
R
c1
0,0394 0,0394 0,0395 0,0391

s1
11,8 11,8 11,8 11,8
R
s1
0,3633 0,3633 0,3633 0,3633
W
m1
5,66 10,07 22,61 40,05
I
c1
326,1 431,9 640,7 846,7
W
c1
4,18 7,35 16,21 28,05
I
s1
43,57 58,20 87,96 117,66
W
s1
0,69 1,23 2,81 5,03


The armour loss factor is calculated and transformed to
90 C as described in previous text.
The sheath loss factor is the ratio between the calculated
sheath and conductor losses. The accuracy of the value is
limited. In the following tables he sheath loss factor is not
transformed to 90 C.
Table 6 Loss factors 1 armour layer

c1
16,8 17,0 17,9 15,1
I
c1
326,1 431,9 640,7 846,7

1
0,1648 0,1675 0,1733 0,1793

2
0,1129 0,1351 0,1604 0,1864
Correction to 90 C conductor temperature

c1
90 90 90 90

2
0,0823 0,0985 0,1174 0,1349
MEASUREMENT 123 KV CABLE (DWL)
The variables in the following tables are designated in
accordance with IEC symbols. A second index 0, 1 or 2 is
introduced to indicate the number of armour layers.
Three measurements are performed on the same cable:
1. Cable with 2 armour layers
2. Cable with 1 armour layer
3. Cable with no armour layer
Tables with data are given in reversed order.
The armour loss factor is calculated and transformed to
90 C as described in previous text.
The sheath loss factor is the ratio between the calculated
sheath and conductor losses. The accuracy of the value is
limited. In the following tables he sheath loss factor is not
transformed to 90 C.

Table 7 Cable data no armour layer
R
00
0,0755 0,0755 0,0755 0,0755

c0
15,4 14,9 15,6 13,7
1+y
s
+y
p
1,0199 1,0200 1,0199 1,0201
R
c0
0,0756 0,0755 0,0757 0,0752

s0
12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0
R
s0
0,5913 0,5913 0,5913 0,5913
W
m0
8,62 15,31 34,01 59,89
I
c0
330,4 440,2 655,7 877,3
W
c0
8,26 14,63 32,55 57,86
I
s0
28,18 37,44 55,41 75,03
W
s0
0,47 0,83 1,82 3,33

Table 8 Cable data 1 armour layer
R
01
0,0755 0,0755 0,0755 0,0755

c1
14,1 13,2 14,7 10,7
1+y
s
+y
p
1,0201 1,0202 1,0200 1,0206
R
c1
0,0753 0,0750 0,0755 0,0743

s1
8,5 8,5 8,5 8,5
R
s1
0,5828 0,5828 0,5828 0,5828
W
m1
8,03 14,25 31,96 55,93
I
c1
304,9 404,3 600,4 799,0
W
c1
7,00 12,27 27,20 47,43
I
s1
34,07 45,52 68,57 92,13
W
s1
0,68 1,21 2,74 4,95
Close and Return
A.7.3 8
th
International Conference on Insulated Power Cables A.7.3
Jicable11 19 23 June 2011, Versailles - France
Table 9 Loss factors 1 armour layer

c1
14,1 13,2 14,7 10,7
I
c1
304,9 404,3 600,4 799,0

1
0,0966 0,0985 0,1007 0,1043

2
0,0597 0,0675 0,0816 0,0859
Correction to 90 C conductor temperature

c1
90 90 90 90

2
0,0430 0,0485 0,0590 0,0610

Table 10 Cable data 2 armour layers
R
02
0,0755 0,0755 0,0755 0,0755

c2
13,3 13,3 16,7 10,6
1+y
s
+y
p
1,0202 1,0202 1,0197 1,0206
R
c2
0,0750 0,0750 0,0760 0,0743

s2
9,0 9,0 9,0 9,0
R
s2
0,6109 0,6109 0,6109 0,6109
W
m2
8,01 14,18 31,84 54,01
I
c2
303,5 402,6 600,1 789,0
W
c2
6,91 12,17 27,38 46,23
I
s2
34,3 45,7 68,4 92,3
W
s2
0,69 1,22 2,73 4,98

Table 11 Loss factors 2 armour layers

c2
13,3 13,3 16,7 10,6
I
c2
303,5 402,6 600,1 789,0

1
0,0966 0,0985 0,1007 0,1043

2
0,0655 0,0700 0,0779 0,0712
Correction to 90 C conductor temperature

c2
90 90 90 90

2
0,0470 0,0503 0,0567 0,0506

ARMOUR LOSS FACTOR ANALYSES
Figure 4 shows the measured armour loss factor for the
145 kV single layer armoured cable as a function of the
conductor current. The loss factor is current dependent
and essentially smaller than the IEC value.
Figure 5 shows the measured armour loss factor for the
123 kV double layer armoured cable as a function of the
conductor current. The loss factors are given for one and
two armour layers. The loss factors are current dependent
and essentially smaller than the IEC values.
The loss factor for both the cable with one and two layers
of armour are in the same order. The reason for that is
that the inner armour layer acts as a magnetic shielding
since all three phases are inside the magnetic steel
armour.
The last point on 2 armour layer curve in figure 5 is
probably too small. At small currents the measured loss
factor is also small but at overload the loss factor is higher
than at rated current.
The shape of the armour loss factor curves probably
depends on the shape of the first part of the
magnetisation curve where the increase of the relative
permeability is significant.
CONCLUSION
Measurement of the armour loss factor must be
performed on long three-core cables in order to assure
acceptable accuracy. To enable the difference analysis of
data the armour must be removed and the measurement
repeated on cable without armour. The measurement
must be performed at rated current as the loss factor is
current dependent.
The measurement indicates no difference between single
and double layer armoured cables.
The IEC 60287 method for three-core cables results in too
large values of the armour loss factor and gives no
guidelines on how to calculate the armour loss factor for
double layer armoured cables.
REFERENCES
[1] International Standard IEC 60287
Calculation of the continuous current rating of cables
(100% load factor)
Figure 4
Figure 5
Close and Return