See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284003606

Calculation of induced sheath voltage for transposed and untransposed cable

conductors

Conference Paper · November 2015

DOI: 10.1109/TENCON.2015.7372833

CITATIONS READS

0 1,948

6 authors, including:

Muhammad Shaban M. A. Salam

Loughborough University Universiti Teknologi Brunei
8 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    118 PUBLICATIONS   330 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Swee Peng Ang Fushuan Wen

Institut Teknologi Brunei Zhejiang University
29 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS    560 PUBLICATIONS   6,611 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and characterization of electrical power supplies and plasma systems View project

https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=pWSfLqwAAAAJ&hl=en View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Shaban on 17 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Calculation of Induced Sheath Voltage for
Transposed and Untransposed Cable Conductors
M. Shaban, M. A. Salam, S. P. Ang, Md. Norfauzi,
Fashuan Wen
Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Institut Teknologi Brunei
Brunei Darussalam
Abstract— In this paper, we studied the power cables used in
Berakas Power Management Company Brunei Darussalam
(BPMC), with the aim of finding the optimal values of radius of
the cables and their phase distance. The electromagnetic coupling
effect creates many problems hindering safe operation of cables
and produces induced voltages in metallic sheath or shield of
cables. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to
contribute ways for reducing coupling effect by finding the
optimal values of phase distance and radius and also by
discovering proper arrangement of the cables. This paper
presented a study of the electromagnetic coupling effect in
underground power cables by examining induced voltages with
the variation in phase distance in metal shield of cables. The
study is carried out for both the flat and trefoil formations. Both
the transposed and un-transposed conductors are also considered
for comparison. It is found that the flat formation with
transposition has less induced sheath voltage and there is no
effect of transposition on trefoil formation. In addition, we
calculated the optimal values of phase distance between cable
conductors and the proper arrangement for the cables to
minimize the induced voltage in metallic shield for the cables
used in BPMC.
Keywords— Underground power cables, Trefoil formation, Flat
formation, Electromagnetic coupling effect, Transposed
Conductors
I. INTRODUCTION
The use of underground power cables is increasing because
of several technical and industrial interests. Medium-voltage
(MV) and high-voltage (HV) power cables are mainly used in
urban areas for safety reasons and also in order to overcome
numerous environmental drawbacks. Reduction of the power
losses in metallic cable sheaths is a substantial problem in
such cable systems. Maintenance of the permissible sheath
voltage along cables during normal operation is another
considerable problem making induced voltage calculation vital
for the studies about the protection and safety.
The grounding of cable sheaths at a single point or at both
ends is normally practiced to minimize induced voltage along
the cable sheaths in short cable systems. Same practice is
followed in longer cable systems with the cross bonding of
sheaths in junction boxes at several points along the cables.
The cable sheaths are protected from overvoltage by
'978-1-4799-8641-5/15/$31.00©2015 IEEE'
William Voon
Berakas Power Station
Jalan Rimba Link
Kg. Terunjing Barus, BB1514
Brunei Darussalam
connecting a device called sheath voltage limiters (SVLs) in
the link boxes which act as surge arrester [1].
The details of various sheath bonding methods are
described explicitly in the latest IEEE guide [2] and technical
report of the CIGRE (International council for large electric
systems) [3]. Cross bonding of the sheaths produces a
returning path of the fault current and also restrains the
overvoltage in a transient state [4-6]. Tziouvaras et al. [7]
have discussed the types of underground cables, their bonding
and grounding methods and application of short circuit
protection strategies for high voltage cables.
The number of cross bonding to be used and the spatial
arrangement of the cable sheaths differ for each and every
specific project. Originally, IEEE Std. 575-1988 [8] has
recommended the use of appropriate equations to compute the
induced voltage and the current in cable sheaths. The latest
revision of the above mentioned guide IEEE Std. 575-2014 [2]
have suggested considerations for metallic shield or sheath
optimization in Clause 5. New information on current and
voltage distribution of cable sheaths in situations involving
installations with multiple cables per phase is major addition
of the latest guide.
Currently, both British and American standards are used
for installation of high voltage cables in Brunei Darussalam.
According to specific standards, induced sheath voltage
should not exceed 65–90 V throughout the whole cable length
under normal operation. According to IEEE Std. 80-2000 [9],
the maximum sheath voltage at cable terminals should not
exceed 50 V. Therefore, it is obvious that there are some
guidelines about the induced sheath voltage limits.
E. B. Wedmore et al. [10] have prepared a guide to state the
methods of selection of three separate unarmored single
conductor cables. In this guide, the investigation consists of
comparison of relative merits of cables laid in trefoil and flat
formations.
In [11], the study on sheath losses only considered the
cable spacing and number of concentric wires without
considering taking cable layouts and transposition. In [12],
study of sheath voltage inspection has considered variations in
phase current and radius. According to [12], increasing the
diameter of the cable will result in the increment of maximum
induced sheath voltage.
 This paper studies the influence of transposition and phase I C = I B ∠120D = −499.956 − 866 j (5)
distance on induced sheath voltages in the metallic sheaths of
underground single core power cables. The calculations are
carried out mainly using MATLAB simulation.
II. INDUCED SHEATH VOLTAGE IN TREFOIL FORMATION
The IEEE Standard 575 [2] have introduced two commonly
used formations i.e. the flat formation and the trefoil
formation. This section studies induced sheath voltage for
trefoil formation both with and without transposition. In a
trefoil formation, three cables are laid mutually equidistant Fig. 1. Trefoil formation.
from each other. Fig. 1 illustrates the cross sectional view of
the trefoil formation, the lines joining the cable centers form In order to reduce the losses in a three phase system, we
an equilateral triangle. adopted the following strategy.
For a single circuit, in the absence of any current carrying The cross bonding consists of basically sectionalizing the
conductor in the vicinity, three sheath voltage gradients sheaths into three minor sections and cross connecting them in
namely phase A, B and C in any formation carrying balanced order to neutralize the total induced voltage in three
three-phase conductor current can be represented as in consecutive sections [8], as shown in Fig. 2.
equations (1) to (3) respectively. With the un-transposed cables, as shown in Fig. 2, it is
⎡ 1 ⎛ 2 Sab 2 ⎞ ⎤ impossible to achieve an exact balance for the induced sheath
⎢ − log e ⎜ ⎟ +⎥ voltage except that the cables are laid in trefoil.
−7 ⎢
2 ⎝ dS ac ⎠ ⎥ (1)
Va = jω I b (2.10 ) V/m When the cable conductors are transposed at each joint
⎢ ⎥ position, the induced sheath voltage will be neutralized
⎢ j 3 log e ⎛⎜ 2 S ac ⎞⎟ ⎥
regardless of the cable formation but the three minor sections
⎣⎢ 2 ⎝ d ⎠ ⎦⎥
are required to be identical. The reason for transposition is that
⎡1 ⎛ 4 S ab Sbc ⎞ ⎤ when the sheaths of a single-conductor power cable are
⎢ 2 log e ⎜ d 2 ⎟ + ⎥ continuous and grounded at both ends of the route, they act as
⎝ ⎠ ⎥ (2)
Vb = jω I b (2.10 −7 ) ⎢ V/m screening conductors and thus reduce the voltage induction in
⎢ 3 ⎛ Sbc ⎞ ⎥
⎢j log e ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ the metallic cable shields. Fig. 3 shows the cross bonded
⎣⎢ 2 ⎝ S ab ⎠ ⎦⎥ cables with the transposition for a circuit of three minor
⎡ 1 sections only. The sheaths are grounded and bonded at both
⎛ 2 Sbc 2 ⎞ ⎤
⎢ − log e⎜ ⎟ −⎥ ends of the route and the three minor sections together are
−7 ⎢
2 ⎝ dS ac ⎠ ⎥ (3) termed as major section.
Vc = jω I b (2.10 ) V/m
⎢ ⎥ For this study, we considered three minor sections of equal
⎢j 3 ⎛ 2 S ⎞
⎟ ⎥
ac
log e ⎜ length i.e. 500 m.
⎢⎣ 2 ⎝ d ⎠ ⎥⎦ Section I =500 m
Where Section II =500 m
Va represents voltage induced in sheath of "a" phase cable, Section III =500 m
Vb represents voltage induced in sheath of "b" phase cable, Total length =1500 m
Vc represents voltage induced in sheath of "c" phase cable,
Ib is the current in conductor b,
d is the geometric mean sheath diameter of the cable,
Sab is axial spacing of phase “a” and “b”,
Sbc is axial spacing of phase “b” and “c”,
Sac is axial spacing of phase “a” and “c”.

The values of parameters used for this study are: Fig. 2. Cross bonded cables without transposition.
The national transmission voltage of Brunei Darussalam is 66
kV at 50 Hz. The diameter is d=50.00 mm.
In a trefoil formation, the spacing between all three cables is
the same as shown in Fig. 1.
Sab = Sbc= Sac =100.00 mm
The reference phase current Ib is taken 1000 A.
Three phase system with a phase shift of 120o is considered.
Hence, the remaining phasor currents can be calculated by
using equations (4) and (5).
I A = I B ∠ − 120D = −500 + 866 j (4) Fig. 3. Cross bonded cables with transposition.
A. Transposed and un-transposed cable conductors
When the cables are laid in a trefoil formation, irrespective
of whether the arrangement is transposed or not, the induced
sheath voltages are balanced. It can be seen in Fig. 4, at the
end of first and second section, the maximum value along the
route is 43.55 V/km.
In the second section, a parabolic shaped curve is
observed, it is because during calculation, real part of second
section becomes zero and the value of the first section
continues. But the imaginary part has value which tends to
increase from 0 to j43.552 (end of section 2), so taking mode
of this imaginary value results in such curve shown in Fig. 4.
B. Phasor diagram of components
As transposition has no effect on trefoil formation, so the
phasors diagram for both the trefoil with transposition and a
trefoil without transposition is the same as illustrated in Fig. 5.
It shows that the component Vb has no real part, which is the
justification of that curve in section 2 in Fig. 4. A phase shift
of 120o can be seen between three phasors (Va, Vb, and Vc).
The induced sheath voltage phasor is obtained by summing up
all the phasors together in a series sequence.
The jumpers are used to prevent subsequent deterioration
of the connection (shown as zero in Fig. 5) and these also act
as surge arresters across the connections as a part of ground
path. At service equipment, a cross bonding jumper
establishes zero potential difference. The value of the jumpers
is obtained by simply adding all the phasors.
C. Various cable spacing comparison
By considering a phase distance of 100 mm, it can be
observed in Fig. 4 that the induced sheath voltage in trefoil
formation with or without transposition was the same. Further
different phase distances are meant to verify the results
obtained in Fig. 4 either the result is the same for various
phase distances or not. Study also inspects which phase
distances should be preferred having least induced sheath
voltage.
Fig. 6 shows the results obtained by considering different
spacing between cable conductors.
Fig. 4. Trefoil transposed and un-transposed.
Fig. 5. Phasors contribution for trefoil.
The different phase distances considered are 75 mm, 100
mm, 200 mm, 300 mm and 400 mm. Radius and other
parameters remains the same. For a phase distance of 75 mm,
the maximum induced sheath voltage was 34.51 V/km, which
is less than the limit practiced in Brunei Darussalam. A Phase
distance of 100 mm also showed the same maximum value of
induced sheath voltage as calculated in previous section i.e.
43.55 V/km. For 200 mm phase distance, the maximum value
of the induced sheath voltage was 65.33 V/km which
increased a lot as compared to the value of 100 mm. The
maximum induced sheath voltage for 300 mm phase distance
was 78.07 V/km and for 400 mm it was 87.1 V/km.
Though for 75 mm phase distance, the induced voltage was
minute but the diameter taken for this study is 50 mm so the
phase spacing of 75 mm was not suitable as cables will be
almost in touching position. So a spacing between cables
conductors can be taken between 100 mm to 300 mm as the
maximum induced sheath voltage was within the limit for all
these phase distances. The choice of the spacing varies
depending upon different projects.
In [12], we already found that increasing the diameter of
the cable will result in the increment of maximum induced
sheath voltage that is the reason variation of the diameter for
this study is not considered.
Fig. 6. Various spacing comparison.
 III. INDUCED SHEATH VOLTAGE IN FLAT FORMATION
This section studies induced sheath voltage for flat
formation with and without transposition. Fig. 7 illustrates the
flat formation of cables when viewed as a cross-section of
three cables laid in a plane with equal spacing between
adjacent cables.
All the equations and parameter values are the same as
considered for trefoil formation except for the spacing
between cable conductors as Sac=2S. So the spacing for flat
formation will be Sab = Sbc= 100.00 mm
Sac =200.00 mm.
It is impossible to get the exact balance of induced sheath
voltages in the flat formation. Hence, the flat formation must
be transposed.
A. Flat transposed and un-transposed cable conductors
When the cables laid in a flat formation were transposed,
the maximum induced sheath voltage was found 57.61 V/km Fig. 8. Flat transposed and un-transposed.
which is more than that of the trefoil formation. Fig. 8
demonstrates that without transposition, the total induced C. Different cable spacing comparison
sheath voltage is not balanced. A value of 21.78 V/km was When the phase distance was set to 100 mm (Fig. 8), it
found for the un-transposed conductors as overall induced was observed that flat formation with transposition had a
sheath voltage and the maximum induced sheath voltage was maximum induced sheath voltage of 57.61 V/km and without
forced to increase up to 65.33 V/km. transposition the maximum value of the induced sheath
The voltage induced in cables resulting from balanced voltage increased to 65.33 V/km and the total induced sheath
loads can be reduced or eliminated by transposition, and this is voltage was not balanced. In this study, different phase
particularly desirable for cables laid in the flat formation. distances were considered to find the optimal phase distance
point where the maximum induced sheath voltage was within
B. Phasor diagram of components the limits.
As transposition has effects on flat formation, so the Fig. 11 shows the results obtained by considering different
phasor diagram for both flat formation with transposition and spacing between cable conductors.
flat formation without transposition will be separate as shown The distances between cables conductors considered here
in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. Fig. 9 shows that Vb phasor is are 75 mm, 100 mm, 200 mm, 300 mm and 400 mm. The
different from the trefoil because of the magnetizing effect of radius and other parameters will remain the same.
phasor A and C. As in flat, it appears between two cables From Fig. 11, it can be seen that the section 1 for both the
demonstrated in Fig. 7. Induced sheath voltage phasor value cases i.e. flat formation with transposition and without
has increased and jumper value here is zero because of transposition remained unchanged. For the phase distance of
transposition. 75 mm, the maximum induced sheath voltage was 49.16 V/km
Fig. 10 displays phasor diagram for the flat formation with transposition and 56.29 V/km without transposition. The
without transposition. An unbalance and increased value of phase distance of 100 mm showed the same values of the
induced sheath voltage can be observed for this configuration. induced sheath voltage for both flat formation with and
When all the phasors were added, the jumper value was without transposition as shown in Fig. 8.
generated which was 21.77 V/km. This jumper value appears
at the end of section 3 when flat formation is not transposed as
shown in Fig. 8. In this study, the length of each of three
minor sections is equal i.e. 500 m. If the length of any section
is different from other sections, then this jumper value will be
higher and the maximum induced sheath voltage phasor will
also increase.

Fig. 7. Flat formation.

Fig. 9. Phasors diagram flat transposed.
 Fig. 10. Phasors diagram flat un-transposed.

For 200 mm phase distance, the maximum value of
induced sheath voltage was 78.51 V/km with transposition and
87.1 V/km without transposition which shows a dramatic
increment as compared to the induced voltage for 100 mm
phase distance. The maximum induced sheath voltage for
phase distance of 300 mm was 90.93 V/km and 99.79 V/km
for flat formation with transposition and without transposition
respectively. For 400 mm phase distance, 99.79 V/km was the
maximum induced sheath voltage for flat formation with
transposition and 108.9 V/km for without transposition.
Fig. 11 explains that the total induced sheath voltage was
always 21.78 V/km, no matter what spacing was considered. It
shows that the spacing does not have any effect on the total
induced sheath voltage but the maximum induced sheath
voltage increased as the spacing increases.
For the phase distances of 300 mm and 400 mm, the
maximum induced sheath voltages are beyond the safety
limits. That is why it is not recommended to use phase spacing
more than 200 mm while using the flat formation. But, it can
vary depending on the requirements of different projects.
Observing from the results presented for the flat formation,
one can see that it is necessary to use transposition while using
the flat formation because of the unbalanced induced sheath
voltage. Moreover, the phase distance should be optimized
between 100 mm and 300 mm. A phase distance of 75 mm has
less value of induced sheath voltage but it is not significant as
compared to the diameter of 100 mm and 200 mm.
TABLE I. COMPARISON OF TREFOIL AND FLAT FORMATIONS FOR DIFFERENT PHASE DISTANCES
Fig. 11. Various spacing Comparison.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After getting the maximum induced sheath voltage for
various spacing, the results are written in Table I for
comparison. Table I shows the induced sheath voltages for
both the trefoil and the flat formations.
It can be observed from the Table I that the maximum
induced sheath voltage is more for each and every spacing
used for flat formation as compared with the trefoil formation
while both are transposed.
Since transposition has no effect on trefoil formation,
whether it is transposed or not, the maximum induced sheath
voltages for all the spacing will be the same. While for the flat
formation, there is no total induced sheath voltage when it is
transposed but it was 21.77 V/km and remained same for all
the values of spacing when transposition was not used. The
maximum induced sheath voltage was also higher as
compared to the trefoil formation with same spacing ranging
between 75 mm to 400 mm.
From Table I, for flat formation with transposition, it can be
seen that the phase distance 100 mm and 200 mm have
maximum induced sheath voltage within the limits. So,
depending upon different projects, optimized value of the
phase distance can be selected.

Phase Flat Formation (V/km) Trefoil Formation (V/km)

Distance Maximum Without Maximum Without
(mm) Induced Transposition Induced Transposition
Sheath Maximum Total Sheath Maximum Total
Voltage with Induced Induced Voltage with Induced Induced
Transposition Sheath Sheath Transposition Sheath Sheath
Voltage Voltage Voltage Voltage
75 49.16 56.29 21.77 34.51 34.51 0
100 57.61 65.33 21.77 43.55 43.55 0
200 78.51 87.1 21.77 65.33 65.33 0
300 90.93 99.79 21.77 78.07 78.07 0
400 99.79 108.9 21.77 87.1 87.1 0
 V. CONCLUSION
This paper studied the problem of sheath induced voltage
usually occurring in MV and HV power cables in Brunei.
Finally, as the application of transposition techniques to
long distribution circuits is not adequately discussed in the
literature studied so far, the results of this paper can be of
significant interest, especially in cases of MV power systems.
The research tested various separation distance between cables
and the findings were as follows:
• Transposition has no effect on trefoil formation and
has more losses as compared to non-transposed
conductors that is why it is not recommended to use
transposition in trefoil.
• It is recommended to use transposition in flat
formation, otherwise maximum sheath induced
voltage in metallic sheaths of cables will be more and
system will not be balanced.
• For Berakas Power Management Company, trefoil
formation is suggested with 200-300 mm phase
distance depending on project requirements. Flat
formation can also be used if required but only with
transposition which will increase losses.
• Study shows that for the flat formation without
transposition, the overall sheath induced voltage
remains the same for any phase distance. Thus, phase
distance of 200 mm or less is recommended for this
type of formation.
• The number and location of the sheath cross bonding
points depend on the cable length and configuration
and must be calculated for each case individually.
Therefore, it is concluded that significant voltage can be
induced at the metallic cable sheaths if specific safety
arrangements are not taken. It has been observed that the
maximum induced sheath voltage without transposition is
always larger than that of cables with transposed conductors.
A phase distance of 200 mm to 300 mm is suggested for
BPMC depending on specific projects.
View publication stats
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Berakas Power
Management Company (BPMC) for providing all necessary
data and very helpful discussions with technical staff.
REFERENCES
[1] IEC Std. 60071-2, “Insulation co-ordination – part 2: application guide”,
pp. 10-18, 1996.
[2] IEEE, “IEEE Guide for Bonding Shields and Sheaths of Single-
Conductor Power Cables Rated 5KV through 500KV”, pp. 18-29,
ANSI/IEEE Std. 575-2014.
[3] Working Group 07 of Study Committer 21, “Guide to the Protection of
Specially Bonded Cable Systems against Sheath Overvoltage”, Electra,
No. 128, pp. 27-39, 1990.
[4] B. Gustavsen, J. Sletbak, T. Henrikson, “Simulation of Transient Sheath
Overvoltage in the Presence of Proximity Effects”, IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1066-1075, April 1995.
[5] B. Gustavsen, J. Sletbak, “Transient Sheath Overvoltage in Armoured
Power Cables”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
1594-1600, July 1996.
[6] Y. Itoh, N. Nagaoka, A. Ametani, “Transient Analysis of a Crossbonded
Cable System Underneath a Bridge”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 527-532, April 1990.
[7] Tziouvaras, Demetrios A, “Protection of high-voltage AC cables”, IEEE
Power Systems Conference: Advanced Metering, Protection, Control,
Communication, and Distributed Resources, pp. 316-328, 2006.
[8] IEEE, “Guide for the Application of Sheath-Bonding Methods for
Single-Conductor Cables and the Calculation of Induced Voltages and
Currents in Cable Sheaths”, ANSI/IEEE Std. 575-1988, pp. 10-36,
1988.
[9] IEEE, “Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding”, IEEE 80-2000,
pp. 16-36, 2000.
[10] Wedmore, E. B., P. D. Morgan, and S. Whitehead., “A critical study of a
three-phase system of unarmoured single-conductor cables, from the
standpoint of the power losses, line constants and interference with
communication circuits”, IET Journal of the Institution of Electrical
Engineers Vol. 67, No. 387, pp. 359-434 , 1929.
[11] Moghe, Prajakta, and Francisco de León., “Parametric Study of Losses
in Cross bonded Cables: Conductors Transposed Versus Conductors
Nontransposed”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.
2273-2281, 2013.
[12] M. Shaban, M.A Salam, SP Ang and William Voon, “Calculation of
Sheath Voltage Of Underground Cables Using Various Configurations”,
IET Brunei International Conference of Engineering and Technology,
Brunei Darussalam, pp. 1-6, 1-3 Nov. 2014.