Common mode propagation in cable trays

S. Bazzoli(1), A. Charoy(2)
(1) Commissariat lnergie atomique et aux nergies alternatives Centre DAM le de France Bruyres-le-Chtel 91297 ARPAJON Cedex sebastien.bazzoli@cea.fr (2) Socit AEMC 86, rue de la Libert 38180 SEYSSINS a.charoy@aemc.fr

Abstract: Most electromagnetic disturbances induce common mode currents on cables. Flowing along cables, these disturbances can be propagated to distant equipments. This paper presents measurements of the common mode current transmission along cables routed inside a standard metallic cable tray, with or without a cover. The phenomenon analysis shows that the waveguide effect inside the cable tray can propagate the disturbances over a long distance. Some solutions are proposed to minimize this propagation.

The third part presents the results and explains some unpredicted phenomena, as resonances and waveguide effect. The fourth part proposes several solutions to minimize the waveguide phenomenon.

II Propagation modes
Common mode current flows in the same direction on all the wires and shielding of a cable. In opposition, differential currents flow on two wire of a link in opposites directions (cf. Figure 1). Common mode voltage is measured between wires of the cables and the common mechanical structure of the system. Differential mode voltage is measure between the two wires of a pair.
0.5ICM 0.5ICM ICM IDM IDM

Introduction

In industrial building or scientific facilities, some equipment generate severe electromagnetic environment for sensitive systems, like control or monitoring equipments. To minimize electromagnetic compatibility concerns, a solution consist in located the sensitive equipments far away from the electromagnetic sources. Whereas, electric links remain that can propagate disturbances from the disturbed zone to a quiet zone. This paper deals with the propagation of common mode disturbances along cables routed in metallic cable trays. The first part is a call back about the propagation modes properties. The second part present an experimental setup used to measure the propagation attenuation of common mode current along cables inside a metallic cable tray.

Figure 1 : Common and differential mode

In this paper, we only consider common mode disturbances coupled onto the cables. Differential disturbances are superposed to be the useful signal and are propagated with predicable conditions.

III Experimental setup

The experimental setup consists in injecting a current at one end of a shielded cable and measuring the propagated current at the other end. The current is

injected and measured with two MDS (Meyer De Stadelhofen) current probes (cf. Figure 2 and Figure 3). The tracking generator output of a spectrum analyzer is connected to the injection probe; its input is connected to the measurement probe. To avoid common mode coupling via power supply or measurement cables, the connection between the measurement probe and the spectrum analyzer is realized with an optical fibre and electro-optic transceivers powered with batteries.
Spectrum analyzer

In the nominal configuration, each cable is routed, one at a time, in a metallic cable tray with cover.

IV Results and analysis

The figures 4a to 4c show the measured transmission coefficient from 30 MHz to 2 GHz for the 3 different cables diameters. (a)
Transmission coefficient (dB) 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

Electro-optic transceivers

Cable under test

Optical fiber Cable tray

Injection probe

Measurement probe

Figure 2 : Test setup

(b)
Transmission coefficient (dB)

The first step of the experience consists in a measurement with the two probes in contact (cf. Figure 3). This measure is then use as 0 dB reference (transmission coefficient = 1) for the measurement.

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

(c)
Transmission coefficient (dB) 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

Figure 3 : MDS current probes in contact a for reference measurement

During measurements, the distance between emission and reception probes is about 10 m. To show the influence of the cable diameter on the transmission coefficient, three shielded cables with diameters of 5.5, 11 and 17.5 mm are used.

Figure 4: transmission coefficient of 10 m long shielded cables with =5.5mm (a), 11mm (b) and 17.5mm (c).

IV.2 Waveguide effect

The main contributor is a per-unit length loss, proportional to
1 F

up to 1 GHz.

Other phenomenon appears: resonances and waveguide effects.

IV.1 Resonances
Below 100 MHz, for the 3 cables, resonances appear with a period of about 12 MHz. This frequency is consistent with the half wave resonance of 10 m long cables with a velocity of 2.4108 m/s. For cables with diameters of 11 and 17.5 mm, other resonance appears around 630 MHz. This resonance frequency doesnt depend on the distance between the current probes, but on the cable type only. The main cause is a reflection loss due to periodic twisting defaults. No visual defect was observed, but analysis of the cables shows that there are twisted with a 20 cm turn step. This length is consistent with a half wave filtering frequency of 600 MHz. To verify this hypothesis, the number of cables twist was reduced by 10%. Figure 5 show the resonance frequency is now about 580 MHz; it is reduced by 10%. If the number of twists is increased by 10%, the resonance frequency increases by about 10%. This demonstrates that the internal conductor twisting - inside the shield modifies the propagation of common mode currents at specific frequencies.

Above 1 GHz, for the 3 cables, transmission coefficient increases while the loss increasing in frequency should induce a diminution of the transmission coefficient. Due to its metallic structure, a cable tray works as a waveguide over its cut-off frequency over 1 GHz for a transversal dimension of 15 cm = /2). The propagation is thus more efficient over 1 GHz. To verify this hypothesis, the cable was cut in the middle of the cable tray. The transmission coefficient measure in this configuration is plotted on Figure 6. It shows that the transmission increases up to -5 dB over 1 GHz (without any connection between the two parts of the cable).

Transmission coefficient (dB)

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

Figure 6: Transmission coefficient of the 17.5 mm cable cut inside the cable tray.

Transmission coefficient (dB)

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

Figure 5: transmission coefficient of a 10 m long 17.5 mm cable with a 10 % lower twisting rate.

This result shows that the geometry of the cable trays modifies the propagation of common mode disturbances at very high frequency. To complete this observation, cable tray geometry and its filling rate are modified to measure their influence on the transmission coefficient. The cables under test remain continuous. If the cover of the cable tray is removed (cf. Figure 7), the transmission coefficient is lower at low frequencies due to radiation loss. Over 1 GHz the waveguide effect doesnt appears any more; the transmission coefficient decrease due to radiation and dielectric losses.

V.1 Loss increase

Transmission coefficient (dB) 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

An effective method to increase the loss pet unit length is to route several cables in the cable tray (cf. Figure 9): the dielectric loss increase significantly, reducing the transmission coefficient at high frequency (cf. Figure 10).

Figure 7: transmission coefficient of the 17.5 mm cable in the cable tray without a cover plate.

If the cable is routed over the floor, outside a cable tray, the loss over 100 MHz is very much higher (cf. Figure 8). Losses are due to concrete loss (proximity coupling) plus antenna effect (radiation loss).

Figure 9: cable tray 20% filled with cables

Transmission coefficient (dB)

Transmission coefficient (dB)

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 0.03 0.1 0.3 Frequency (GHz) 1 2

Figure 8: transmission coefficient of the 17.5 mm cable routed on the floor (outside a cable tray).

Figure 10: transmission coefficient of the 17.5 mm cable in cable tray with numerous cables.

So, the use of cable tray increases the propagation of high frequency common mode disturbances. However, cables trays are useful to perform electromagnetic shielding and internal lightning protection. So, mitigation techniques have to be used to reduce the waveguide effect.

If the number of cables is not large enough, it is also possible to fill a small length of the cable tray with absorbing material.

V.2 Reduction of propagation

By filling a small part of the cable tray with conductive material, electromagnetic energy will be reflected or absorbed and not propagated. This method is an easy and low cost solution. It can be done with a metallic foil or with conductive gasket. Propagation can also be reduced where the cable tray direction is modified. Efficiency of this method depends on the cable tray geometry, position of cables, frequency

V Mitigation of waveguide effect

To reduce the waveguide effect, several methods can be used: increasing the propagation loss per unit length, or reflecting electromagnetic energy inside the cable tray.

Figure 11: Reduction of the waveguide effect of a cable tray by right angle turns.

VI Conclusion
The transmission coefficient of common mode current is strongly modified by the cable trays. Due to its metallic structure, the cable tray can act as a waveguide at very high frequency and propagate common mode disturbances over a long distance. Nevertheless, metallic cable trays are quite useful to perform electromagnetic shielding up to 100 MHz and to present an effective internal lightning protection. So, the waveguide effect has to be minimized by losses or reflections in the cable tray. It may also be cancelled by removing the cable tray cover (but this reduces the shielding effectiveness over 100 MHz by about 6 dB). As a worst-case rule of wet thumb, the common mode attenuation loss in dB per metre, AdB/m, inside a metal cable tray filled with several other cables - may be evaluated in envelope (with a possible small margin), by the simple relationships: - AdB/m = F0.5 up 1 GHz (with F in GHz). - AdB/m = F over 1 GHz. Those empirical relationships do not depend on the cable diameter, cable nature, cable length, or on the cable tray shape.