ELEK Cable HV™ Software 1

Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

Emergency and Cyclic Ratings of HV Cables

Edstan Fernandez and Jayson Patrick, Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

Abstract— This technical paper presents and explains the results II. TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF A CABLE
of professional design software for calculating emergency and The complete transient temperature response 𝜃(𝑡) of a
cyclic ratings of high voltage (HV) electric power cables. The
emergency and cyclic ratings are based on time-varying loading cable is given in Eq.1 where 𝜃𝑐(𝑡) is the partial temperature
and are useful because they allow higher peak load currents than response of the cable itself, 𝜃𝑒(𝑡) is the cable environment
for steady-state (continuous) values. The calculations apply to temperature response and 𝛼(𝑡) is an attainment factor.
situations where the properties of the time-varying load and the
thermal properties of the cable system, including the thermal 𝜃(𝑡) = 𝜃𝑐(𝑡) + 𝛼(𝑡) 𝜃𝑒(𝑡) (1)
environment, are factored in.
To calculate the partial temperature response of the cable
Index Terms: Cable HV™ Software, high voltage power cables,
transient response, emergency rating, cyclic rating. (including any ducts) one develops an equivalent thermal
ladder network (refer to Fig. 1); a model for short and another
I. INTRODUCTION for long duration transients. This ladder network is reduceable
to a two-part thermal equivalent circuit consisting of lumped
The definition of emergency rating is the permissible thermal resistances and thermal capacitances. The solution to
short-term rating of a cable already loaded and at a steady- the two-part network gives the partial temperature response of
state, considering the thermal capacitances and the thermal the cable.
resistances of an installed cable system. The definition of The cable environment temperature response depends on
cyclic rating is the maximum current of a cable when the load the cable surroundings. For buried cables the important
is varied in a sequence of steps that are repeated cyclically. The influencing factors are the soil thermal resistivity and the
cyclic rating differs for different sequences and different cycle electrical losses resulting in mutual heating between adjacent
periods. Both emergency and cyclic ratings deal with time- cables. It is not necessary to calculate the cable environment
varying loads. temperature response for cables in air.
The attainment factor is calculated to account for the heat
The methods of calculating emergency and cyclic ratings accumulation in the cable during the initial hours of the
of cables used in the software are based on the IEC Standards transient (refer to Section IV, E).
[1],[2]. These methods effectively deal with time varying The complete transient temperature response is corrected
loading by representing the physical cable system and its for the variation in conductor losses with temperature and
surroundings using a thermal ladder network of thermal reduces conductor temperature overall (refer to Section IV, D).
resistances in series and capacitances in parallel where heat Note responses for durations of transients less than 10
flow within the cable emanates radially to the outside of the minutes are not recommended in the IEC Standards.
cable and onto the environment. Fig.1 shows the thermal
ladder network for a multicore HV cable. III. EMERGENCY RATINGS

The fundamental part of the calculations is to determine The emergency rating of a cable is the current that can be
the transient temperature response of the cable. The transient applied to the cable without exceeding the maximum
temperature response is the response to a step of sustained permissible temperature rise for a particular time duration
rated load current. The transient calculations along with values (usually in hours). The emergency temperature limit is
from steady state rating calculations, are both used as inputs to typically permitted to exceed the steady-state temperature limit
the emergency and cyclic rating calculations. for the cable.
The emergency rating calculations result in a scaling
According to the IEC Standard emergency ratings are factor (greater than one) which is multiplied by the steady-state
applicable both for cables installed in air and buried cables rated current. The IEC Standards state the calculated scaling
(direct, in backfill and/or in ducts) whereas cyclic ratings only factor shall not be greater than 2.5.
apply for buried cables. To calculate the scaling factor for a time-varying load
cycle the load factor for the particular load cycle is required.

Revision 1. Dated 11th January 2019.

ELEK Cable HV™ Software 2
Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

Conductor
Conductor Shield
Insulation
T1 T2 T3 T4' T4"
Insulation Shield
Concentric Neutral
Sheath

Filler Qc* Qi1* Qi2* Qsc+Qsh Qf Qab1* Qab2* Qa Qj1* Qj2* Qdf Qd
Armour Bedding
Armour
Jacket

(b)

(a)

Fig. 1 – (a) Cable cross-section (b) Equivalent thermal ladder network comprising thermal resistances (T’s) and thermal capacitances (Q’s) of cable components

IV. CYCLIC RATINGS V. RESULTS

The actual load on a cable will vary with time and often This section presents two case studies where emergency
could be significantly less than the rated current; which gives and cyclic ratings were calculated, one case study is for single
rise to the cyclic rating. The cyclic rating depends on the shape core and another for a multicore HV cables. The results were
of the daily load cycle. calculated using Cable HV™ software. The steady-state rating
The cyclic rating calculations result in a scaling factor calculation results are presented as they are a prerequisite to
(greater than one) which is multiplied by the steady-state rated the transient rating calculations.
current which gives the permissible peak value of the cyclic Also, in this section there are three comparative studies
load current for the load cycle. which presents some important parameters and discusses their
To calculate this scaling factor the loss-load factor and the effects on the transient calculations.
stepped curve for the load cycle are required. The cable model data used for the case studies are given
in Appendix. The load profile used was presented in Fig. 2.
The times considered are up to 24 hours. The resolution of the
Calculation of load factor and loss-load factor
calculations is to each second and the starting time of 10
minutes is governed by IEC 60853 [1].
From a typical real-world load cycle, we calculate a load
factor for the emergency rating calculations and loss-load
factor for the cyclic rating calculations. A. CASE STUDY 1 - Single core cables
The user input is an hourly ratio of the cyclic load current The first case study uses cable model 1, buried 1 m below
to the maximum load current over a period of 24 hours. The the ground in a backfill with thermal resistivity 0.6 K.m/W as
average value of the load cycle current is the load factor. The shown in Fig. 3. The cable is rated at 132 kV with a 1200mm2
loss-load factor is the average value of the square of the user single core copper conductor utilised in a three-phase system.
input current (also used for plotting the stepped curve below). The complete cable data is in the Appendix. The steady state
Fig. 2 shows a load cycle and the generated step curve. current rating for this cable is 762 A. The thermal resistances
The calculated daily load factor is 0.6544 and the loss-load for the cable is T1 = 0.43 K.m/W, T3 = 0.0937 K.m/W and T4 =
factor, μ is 0.504. 1.557 K.m/W. The conductor loss is 13.44 W/m and the total
cable losses are 35.88 W/m.

Fig. 2 – Load cycle and generated step curve

Fig. 3 – Case Study 1 - Cable model 1 buried in backfill

Revision 1. Dated 11th January 2019.

ELEK Cable HV™ Software 3
Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

Fig. 4 shows the transient temperature response for the

cable with and without the conductor losses correction factor
being applied (uncorrected is shown as a reference only as
emergency rating always uses the corrected temperature
values). The emergency rating is shown as a function of time
and reduces with increasing temperature.

Fig. 5 – Case Study 2 - Cable model 3 (right) and 4 (left) directly buried

Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 shows the transient temperature response

of two circuits (including mutual heating), each consisting of
one multi-core cable when the conductor losses correction
Fig. 4 – Case Study 1 - Transient temperature response and emergency rating factor has been applied. The emergency rating is shown as a
of cable model 1 buried in backfill
function of time which reduces with increasing temperature.
Table I also shows the emergency rating of the cable is
significantly greater than the steady-state rating.

Table I – Case Study 1 – Emergency ratings for cable model 1

Emergency time (hours) Rating (A)
1 2662
2 2179
4 1885
8 1728
12 1671 Fig. 6 – Case Study 2 - Transient temperature response and emergency rating
24 1594 for cable model 3
Steady-state 762

The cyclic rating factor was calculated to be 1.33143.

Hence since the steady-state rating is 762 A then the
permissible peak of the cyclic load current for a 24-hour period
is 1015 A.

B. CASE STUDY 2 - Multi-core cables

The second case study considers two multicore cables, Fig. 7 – Case Study 2 - Transient temperature response and emergency rating
cable model 3 and cable model 4, buried at 1 m below the for cable model 4
ground and separated by 0.5 m as shown in Fig. 5. The cable
data are given in Appendix. The steady state current rating for The emergency ratings are given in Table II.
cable model 3 (500 mm2 conductors) is 523 A and that of cable
model 4 (240 mm2 conductors) is 367 A including a reduction Table II – Case Study 2 – Emergency ratings for cable model 3 and 4
in both ratings caused by the mutual heating between cables. Rating (A) Rating (A)
Emergency time (hours)
The thermal resistances for cable model 3 are T1 = 0.240 Cable model 3 Cable model 4
1 1413 918
K.m/W, T2 = 0.149 K.m/W, T3 = 0.067 K.m/W and T4 = 1.168
2 1275 848
K.m/W. The conductor loss for cable model 3 is 14.02 W/m
4 1177 795
and the total cable losses are 42.93 W/m. 8 1106 756
The thermal resistances for cable model 4 are T1 = 0.312 12 1073 738
K.m/W, T2 = 0.161 K.m/W, T3 = 0.7 K.m/W and T4 = 1.26 24 1025 709
K.m/W. The conductor losses for this cable model is 13.25 Steady-state 523 367
W/m and the total cable losses are 40.13 W/m.
The cyclic ratings were not calculated since the IEC
supports multiple equally loaded circuits (same cable types)
and does not support multiple circuits with different losses.

Revision 1. Dated 11th January 2019.

ELEK Cable HV™ Software 4
Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

C. Variation of emergency ratings with and without backfill The emergency ratings are given in Table III.
The emergency ratings of a cable depend on the transient
Table III – Emergency ratings for cable model 1 both with and without
conductor temperature plus the initial steady state current. Fig. backfill
8 below shows two separate laying conditions for cable model Rating (A)
5; one being in native soil another in backfill. The height of the Emergency time (hours)
In Native Soil With Backfill
backfill is 0.5 m and its width is 1 m. The thermal resistivity of 1 3127 3358
the backfill is 0.6 K.m/W and that of the native soil is 1.5 2 2405 2696
K.m/W. The steady state rating for directly in native soil is 746 4 1966 2283
A and that in backfill is 889 A. 8 1718 2057
The steady state results for the cable in both installations 12 1632 1980
are: T1 = 0.388 K.m/W, T3 = 0.092 K.m/W 24 1521 1882
Without backfill, T4 = 1.867 K.m/W. The conductor loss Steady-state 746 889
is 10.587 W/m and the total cable loss is 31.07 W/m.
With backfill, T4 = 1.244 K.m/W. The conductor losses for
D. Correction for variation of conductor losses with
cable model 1 is 15.03 W/m and the total cable losses are 44.25
temperature
W/m.
During the operation of a cable the conductor temperature
is regularly changing with time and conductor losses are
variable. Consider cable model 2, (400 mm2, 11 kV) directly
buried 1 m below the ground as shown in Fig. 10 carrying
steady-state rated current (load factor is unity) of 522 A.
The steady state results for the cable is: T1 = 0.197 K.m/W,
T2 = 0.16, T3 = 0.069 K.m/W and T4 = 1.891 K.m/W. The
conductor loss is 17.47 W/m and the total cable losses are
53.31 W/m.

Fig. 8 – Cable model 1 directly buried with and without backfill

Fig. 9 compares the emergency ratings for both with and

without backfill. The plots show that the emergency ratings are
higher for the cable in backfill case since the thermal resistivity
of the backfill is lower than that of the native soil. Initially the
emergency ratings for both cases are similar, but as emergency
time is increased the ratings vary to a greater degree. This time-
dependent variation is due to the effects of the backfill on
emergency ratings also being incorporated into the transient
calculations.
Fig. 10 – Cable model 3 directly buried

Fig. 11 compares the transient temperature of the cable

and Fig. 12 compares the emergency currents over 24 hours
with and without applying the correction factor.

Fig. 9 – Variation of emergency current with and without backfill for cable Fig. 11 – Variation of conductor temperature above ambient with and
model 1 without correction factor

Revision 1. Dated 11th January 2019.

ELEK Cable HV™ Software 5
Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

When the cable is installed in ducts the steady-state rating of

the cable is 554 A and T4 = 1.035 K.m/W. The conductor loss
is 15.42 W/m and the total cable losses are 47.22 W/m.
Fig. 14 shows the attainment factor for the directly buried
case reaches unity after 2 hours while that of the cable in ducts
case reaches unity after a much longer time of 12 hours.
Fig. 15 shows that the initial temperature for the direct
buried case is higher than for the case in ducts due to the initial
higher (being nearer to unity) attainment factor.
Fig. 12 – Variation of emergency current with and without correction factor

The emergency ratings and the transient temperature

response of the cable with and without the correction factor are
shown in Table IV.

Table IV – Transient temperature change and emergency rating with and

without correction for variation of conductor losses with temperature
Transient Temperature
Emergency Rating (A)
(K)
time
With Without With Without
(hours) Fig. 14 - Variation of attainment factor with cables installed directly in native
Correction Correction Correction Correction
1 33.5 35.3 831 784 soil (red) and cables enclosed in ducts (blue)
2 36.5 38.8 759 724
4 40 42.7 709 682
8 43.8 46.9 673 652
12 46.1 49.4 657 639
24 50.2 53.7 635 621

E. Variation of attainment factor with and without ducts

The attainment factor (a factor ≤ 1) is the correction
(reduction in temperature) that is applied to the environmental
partial temperature response of the cable to compensate for the Fig. 15 - Variation of transient temperature with cables installed directly in
initial temperature absorption by the cable components native soil (red) and cables enclosed in ducts (blue)
including any ducts (refer to Eq.1).
This section examines the variation of the attainment
factor cable model 3 installed as directly buried and when in The emergency ratings are shown in Table V.
ducts as shown in Fig. 13. The duct outer diameter is 0.125 m.
The steady state thermal resistances are T1 = 0.24 K.m/W, Table V – Transient temperature change and emergency rating with and
without correction for variation of conductor losses with temperature
T2 = 0.150 K.m/W and T3 = 0.067 K.m/W for both cases.
Emergency time Rating (A)
When the cable is directly buried the steady-state rating of
(hours) Direct Buried In Ducts
the cable is 596 A and T4 = 0.852 K.m/W. The conductor loss 1 969 959
is 17.9 W/m and the total cable losses is 54.81 W/m. 2 881 815
4 820 742
8 776 707
12 756 693
24 729 673
Steady-state 554 596

VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a comprehensive study on the
calculation of emergency and cyclic ratings using professional
design software according to IEC Standard methods for
different types of cables installed under different conditions.

Fig. 13 - Cable Model 3 in ducts (left) and directly buried (right)

Revision 1. Dated 11th January 2019.

ELEK Cable HV™ Software 6
Electrotechnik Pty Ltd www.elek.com.au

VII. APPENDIX – CABLE PARAMETERS REFERENCES

Cable Cable Cable Cable Cable [1] "IEC Standard 60853-1", Calculation of the Cyclic
Cable
Model Model Model Model Model
Parameters and Emergency Current Ratings of Cables. Part 1:
1 2 3 4 5
Cable Data Cyclic Rating Factor of Cables up to and including
Voltage (kV) 132 11 22 22 132 18/30 (36) kV 1985.
Cores Single Multi Multi Multi Single [2] "IEC Standard 60853-2", Calculation of the Cyclic
Conductor and Emergency Current Ratings of Cables. Part 2:
1200 400 500 240 1600
Area (mm2)
Conductor
Cyclic Rating Factor of Cables Greater than 18/30
Diameter 43 23.6 26.5 18.5 49.8 (36) kV and Emergency Ratings for Cables of All
(mm) Voltages, 1989
Conductor [3] Cable HVTM Software. Website: www.elek.com.au
Screen
49 25 28 19.8 55.8
Diameter
(mm)
Conductor
Screen
3 0.7 0.75 0.65 3
Thickness
(mm)
Insulation
Diameter 89 31.8 39 30.8 95.8
(mm)
Insulation
20 3.4 5.5 5.5 20
Thickness
Insulation
Screen
93.2 33.6 40.8 32.4 100
Diameter
(mm)
Insulation
Screen
2.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 2.1
Thickness
(mm)
Sheath
Diameter 98.2 - - - 105
(mm)
Sheath
Thickness 2.5 - - - 2.5
(mm)
Concentric
neutral
99.9 35.3 42.5 34.1 106.7
Diameter
(mm)
Concentric
neutral
0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Thickness
(mm)
Armour
bedding
- 81.2 97.1 78.5 -
Diameter
(mm)
Armour
bedding
- 2.56 2.76 2.51 -
Thickness
(mm)
Armour
Diameter - 87.5 103.4 84.8 -
(mm)
Armour
Thickness - 3.15 3.15 3.15 -
(mm)
Jacket
Diameter 110.2 95.5 112.5 92.6 117.5
(mm)
Jacket
Thickness 5.15 4 4.55 3.9 5.4
(mm)

Revision 1. Dated 11th January 2019.