2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT)

Effects of Depth Burial on Current Carrying Capacity

of XLPE 86/150 (170) kV Underground Cable

Ayudha Nandi Pradipta Chairul Hudaya*

Electric Power and Energy Materials (EMAT) Research Electric Power and Energy Materials (EMAT) Research
Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Group, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia
Depok, Indonesia Depok, Indonesia
[email protected] ; [email protected] *Corresponding author : [email protected]

Abstract— Indonesia Jabodetabek region tends to have high- This paper discusses the ampacity characteristics of XLPE
density of population. This phenomenon contributes to the lack Cu 86/150 (170) kV UGC related to the depth of laying/burial
of land availability for 150 kV over-head line (OHL) in 1000 mm2 and 2000 mm2 cross-sectional sizes by using
transmission and to the development of new OHL circuit due to 3 (three) samples of each size which was commonly applied
limitation issues by the local government regulation. To in UGC transmission line of Jabodetabek region at 1 to 10
overcome this problem, the underground cables (UGC) meter-depth referring to the ampacity value at the land surface
transmission could be a solution. However, because there are laying (0 meter-depth) using statistical methods and
existing installations laid on the ground, the newly developed econometric parameters such as net present value (NPV),
UGC should be adjusted on the safe burial depth to avoid
internal rate return (IRR) and payback period (PBP) analyses.
collision with the existing installations. This paper discusses on
relation of current carrying capacity of single core 150 kV high- II. THE SCOPE OF STUDY
voltage UGC transmission at different common cable cross-
section sizes applied in Jabodetabek region on its laying varied This study focuses on the investigation of CCC of 150
at 1 to 10 meter-depth referring to the ampacity value at the kV UGC with the main concerns of the following aspects: (1)
land surface laying (0 meter-depth) using statistical and The technical analysis of cable dimension properties,
econometric analysis. The results may represent as a general ampacities, and depth of burial are calculated with identical
characteristics of UGC in its region. laying condition. The comparison of ampacity trends is
analyzed through one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Keywords- Ampacity; Current Carrying Capacity; High- technique using significance level of Į = 5%. (2) The
Voltage Underground Cable; XLPE; Jabodetabek power economic analysis of cash flow of potential revenue and losses
transmission region; is based on time value of money (TVM) for 40 years [5],
resulting in the parameters of NPV, IRR, and PBP. (3) The
I. INTRODUCTION
UGC samples are obtained from the random UGC project
Jabodetabek region is one of the highest population constructions in Jabodetabek with three different samples,
density in Indonesia and is also the largest growth of each for cross-section area of Cu-1000 mm2 and Cu-2000
electricity consumption annually [1]. This issue leads to the mm2. (4) The UGC properties is determined from the
lack of land availability for 150 kV over-head line (OHL) manufacturer datasheet and IEC-60287 standard approaches.
transmission, even there is unavailability to erect OHL circuit (5) The configuration of laying method is 1 circuit (cct)-trefoil
in Jakarta due to the limitations by local government configuration, with the length of cct is 5.022 kmc. (6) The
regulation. To overcome this matter, underground cable depth of burial is limited to 10 m to align with IEC-60287
(UGC) transmission could be a prospective solution [2]. accuracy. (7) We assume that any electromagnetic
However, there are existing installations laid underground, interferences among the UGCs are included in IEC 60287
which consequently the UGC installation should be adjusted equations used in this study.
on the safe burial depth and avoiding collision with the
existing installations. Meanwhile, depth of burial affects to the
current carrying capacity (CCC) or ampacity of cable [3] and
III. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL ASPECTS
investment cost will be increased as the depth of burial deeper
[4]. The comprehensive underground installations map is A. Configuration of UGC Laying
unfortunately not presented in Jabodetabek region so far. This The configuration of cable laying is 1-cct, trefoil covered
will make high probability to the maneuver of cable laying by High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and bentonite
deeper than the minimum depth of burial regulated by local filler is illustrated in Figure 1.
government regulation and potentially decreasing UGC
ampacity, and in the same manner, increasing higher
installation cost and affecting longer capital returns.

978-1-5386-0954-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 506

 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT)

The parameters of equation (1) are based on the quality of

Soil: cable manufacture, but the parameter T4 is not only affected
ʌT = 1,0 K.m/W by manufacturing, but also affected by the environment (such
Depth from the Temp: 20-25 oC soil thermal resistivity) where the cable placed or buried. For
this reason, T4 will be a parameter which dominantly
surface to the influences value of permissible current [8]. To calculate T4, it
axial trefoil form can be determined by the following equations:
• For a buried UGC with metallic sheath buried in trefoil
Bentonite formation:
ʌT = 1,2 K.m/W ͳǡͷ
XLPE 150 kV ܶସ ൌ  ߩ ሾŽሺʹ‫ݑ‬ሻ െ Ͳǡ͸͵Ͳሿሺʹሻ
Cable ߨ ்
HDPE 6 in or
• For a cable with metallic sheath laid in free air, protected
8 in from direct solar radiation in trefoil formation:
ͳ
6 or 8 in ܶସ ൌ  ଵ ሺ͵ሻ
ߨ‫ܦ‬௘ ݄ሺοߠ௦ ሻସ
Figure 1. Trefoil configuration of cable laying for 1-cct
where:
The diameter of HDPE pipe is 6 inches for 1000 mm2 ଶ௅
cable and 8 inches for 2000 mm2 cable. The bentonite is ‫ݑ‬ൌ ;
஽೐
presumed has the similar thermal resistivity value (not too T4 : the thermal resistance per unit length between
significant between 1000 mm2 and 2000 mm2 cable the cable surface and the surrounding medium
installations). This method is also inline with study conducted (K.m/W);
by Zarim et al. [6]. ȡT : the thermal resistivity of the soil (K.m/W)
L : the distance from the surface of the ground to
B. Ampacity Calculation Approach the cable axis (mm)
De : external diameter of cable (mm)
Based on IEC 60287 [7], permissible current of buried AC h : heat dissipation coefficient (W/m2 .K5/4);
భ
cable where drying out of the soil does not occur or AC cable
ሺοߠ௦ ሻర : the excess of cable surface temperature above
in air can be calculated by using equation (1):
ambient temperature (K);
οߠ െ ܹௗ ሾͲǡͷܶଵ ൅ ݊ሺܶଶ ൅ ܶଷ ൅ ܶସሻ ሿ
‫ܫ‬ൌඨ ሺͳሻ
ܴܶଵ ൅ ܴ݊ሺͳ ൅ ߣଵ ሻܶଶ ൅ ܴ݊ሺͳ ൅ ߣଵ ൅ ߣଶ ሻሺܶଷ ൅ ܶସ ሻ This permissible current calculation above is then used to find
the ampacity of UGC from the depth 1 to 10 meters. Equation
(3) is used for calculating ampacity value when the cable laid
where: down in free air with the presumption that in surface of land,
the ampacity is not dissipated yet (100% current carrying
I : the current flowing in one conductor (A); capacity of cable performance). In this condition, the value is
ǻș : the conductor temperature rise above the ambient then used as the reference for ampacity at the buried cable in
temperature (K); 1-10 meter depth of burial. The group values of ampacity at
R : the alternating current resistance per unit length of the 1-10 meters of each sample in same dimension were analyzed
conductor at maximum operating temperature (ȍ/m); by one-way ANOVA [9] to show the significance difference
Wd : the dielectric loss per unit length for the insulation of their average ampacity trends.
surrounding the conductor (W/m);
T1 : the thermal resistance per unit length between one C. Economical Calculation Approach
conductor and the sheath (K.m/W); The economic parameters conducted to the cable
T2 : the thermal resistance per unit length of the bedding construction are NPV, IRR, and PBP analysis of installation
between sheath and armour (K.m/W); of 1 cct; 5022 kmc length within 40-year period of study with
T3 : the thermal resistance per unit length of the external Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return (MARR) of 5.27%.
serving of the cable (K.m/W);
• NPV value is calculated [10] using equation (4):
T4 : the thermal resistance per unit length between the
cable surface and the surrounding medium (K.m/W); ே ே
n : the number of load-carrying conductors in the cable ܸܰܲ ൌ  ෍ ܴ௞ ሺܲȀ‫ܨ‬ǡ ݅Ψǡ ݇ሻ െ  ෍ ‫ܧ‬௞ ሺܲȀ‫ܨ‬ǡ ݅Ψǡ ݇ሻ ሺͶሻ
(conductors of equal size and carrying the same ௞ୀ଴ ௞ୀ଴
load);
Ȝ1 : the ratio of losses in the metal sheath to total losses in
all conductors in that cable;
Ȝ2 : the ratio of losses in the armouring to total losses in
all conductors in that cable.

978-1-5090-4508-2/17/$31. 2

507
 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT)

where: TABLE 2. Current Carrying Capacity (Ampacity Rating) Calculation of

2000 mm2-Cable samples
Rk : net revenue at year-k
i : discount rate (MARR is used in this parameter) Samples Cable-D Cable-E Cable-F
Ek : net expenses (including investment) at year-k On-surface Ampacity (A) 1850 1903 1865
N : period of study On-buried Ampacity:
Cable-D Cable-E Cable-F
Depth (m)
Amp. (A) Amp. (A) Amp. (A)
• IRR value is calculated using equation (5):
1 1459 1479 1483
௡
‫ܥ‬௡ 2 1342 1365 1367
ܸܰܲሺ‫ݎ‬ሻ ൌ ෍ ൌ Ͳ ሺͷሻ 3 1285 1309 1310
ሺͳ ൅ ‫ݎ‬ሻ௡
௡ୀ଴ 4 1248 1273 1273
where: 5 1222 1247 1247
th
Cn : cash flow at n - period (period usually in year unit) 6 1201 1227 1227
n : period of study 7 1185 1211 1210
r : IRR value 8 1171 1197 1196
• PBP is determined by pointing the first positive 9 1159 1186 1185
accumulative cash flow in which year, during period of 10 1149 1176 1174
study. PBP does not concern with time value of money
concept.
Table 2 shows that the on-surface ampacity difference is
53 A from the highest to the lowest value of cable sample, and
on-burial ampacity varies from 1483 A (at 1 m-depth) to 1149
IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS A (at 10 m-depth) of the cable samples.
A. Ampacity among cable samples From Table 1 and Table 2, it can be inferred that group of
Ampacity calculation is obtained from the equation (1), by 2000 mm2 cables tends to be robust in decreasing ampacity
substituting value of equation (2) in each burial depth. The along with the burial depth, rather than that in 1000 mm2
results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. cables. The difference values and its percentages between
buried ampacity compared to on-surface ampacity are shown
in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
TABLE 1. Current Carrying Capacity (Ampacity Rating) Calculation of
1000 mm2-Cable samples 850

Samples Cable-A Cable-B Cable-C

On-surface Ampacity (A) 1500 1456 1375 750
On-buried Ampacity:
Ampacity Difference (A)

Cable-A Cable-B Cable-B 650 Cable-A

Depth (m)
Amp. (A) Amp. (A) Amp. (A)
1 1108 1091 1088 Cable-B
550
2 1028 1011 1010 Cable-C
3 988 972 971
450 Cable-D
4 963 947 945
5 944 928 927 Cable-E
6 930 914 913 350 Cable-F
7 918 902 901
8 908 893 892 250
9 900 884 884 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 893 877 876 Depth (m)

Table 1 shows that the on-surface ampacity difference is

125 A from the highest to the lowest value of cable sample, Figure 2. Ampacity difference between on-surface and on-buried cable
and on-burial ampacity are ranging from 1108 A (at 1 m- samples at absolute value
depth) to 876 A (at 10 m-depth) of the cable samples.
Figure 2 shows that ampacity difference is higher in group of
2000 mm2 cables (about 350 A to 750 A) than that is in group
of 1000 mm2 cables (about 300 A to 600 A).

978-1-5090-4508-2/17/$31. 3

508
 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT)

84% • There is a difference of ampacity average values related

to reference on buried depths for 1000mm2 cables with
p-value = 0,37%. It means statistically, by 10,000 times
Percentage of Ampacity (%)

79%
Cable-A of experiments, it will find about 37 failures to meet the
result (or about 99,63% probability).
74% Cable-B
B. Economical Analysis
Cable-C
69% For economic analysis we applied 2 main scenarios based
Cable-D on the cable laying down as shown in Figure 4. The first
64% Cable-E scenario (Sc-1) is designed based on minimum obstacle when
the circuit is only one time in a span maneuvered to the deeper
Cable-F
59% depth to avoid collision with the existing installations between
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the span joint segment from start point of boring to a
Depth (m) destination substation (S/S). Meanwhile, the second scenario
(Sc-2) is designed with maximum obstacle, when the circuit
will be maneuvered to the single depth level along its laying.
Figure 3. Percentage of Ampacity of on-buried related to on-surface cable
samples
It assumes that along the route there is an extreme condition
that whole of span of joint has obstacle by existing
installations. For both of scenarios, boring angle is assumed
16o relative to the soil surface[11].
Figure 3 shows that ampacity is decreased higher in group of
1000 mm2 cables (reach lowest value of about 59% ampacity
left in 10m-depth) than that is in group of 2000 mm2 cables Boring Pipe
Soil surface
(reach lowest value of about 63% ampacity left in 10m-depth). Boring
This findings is inline with the study conducted by Meng Gao Machine+controller h
Joint-pit (JP)1
h JP2 JP11 S/S

et al. [3]. Boring Line

Span Sections &
Existing Installations JP3 to JP10
Then, by one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using
Legend:
depth level as number of element (n=10), number of samples : Scenario-1 Cable laying h : Depth of burial
is based on the sample used in each dimension (k=3 for each : Scenario-2 Cable laying S/S : Next Substation
sample dimension, and k=6 for whole dimension analysis) and Scale: Not To Scale (NTS)
significance level Į =5% as the summary in Table 3.
Figure 4. Scenarios of cable laying illustration
TABLE 3. Summary of one-way ANOVA
Figure 4 shows the illustration of minimum obstacle of cable
Aspects F
0 Ftable Analysis laying (boring line shown in green line) and maximum
obstacle of cable laying (boring line shown in blue line)
1000 mm2 cable samples conditions.
Ampacity 0,193 3,47 No significant avg. difference From those scenarios, then cable schedule, procurement
and installation cost are allocated, then using MARR = 5,27%
Ampacity difference to
the reference
0,228 3,47 No significant avg. difference along 40 years study period, NPV and IRR can be calculated
and trends are shown in Fig.6 and Fig.7 consecutively.
Ampacity percentage Significant avg. difference
7,056 3,47
relative to reference occurs (with p-value 0.37%) 800
(in billion)

2 Cable-A Sc-1
2000 mm cable samples 750
Cable-A Sc-2
Ampacity 0,42 3,47 No significant avg. difference 700
Ampacity difference to Cable-B Sc-1
2,796 3,47 No significant avg. difference 650
the reference
NPV (Rp)

Cable-B Sc-2
Ampacity percentage 600
0,178 3,47 No significant avg. difference Cable-C Sc-1
relative to reference
550
Whole of cable samples Cable-C Sc-2
Ampacity percentage 500
1,381 2.37<F<2.45 No significant avg. difference Cable-D Sc-1
relative to reference 450
Cable-D Sc-2
400 Cable-E Sc-1
From Table 3, we can derive the followings findings: 1 3 5 7 9
Depth (m) Cable-E Sc-2
• There is no significant difference of average of ampacity
values, and its percentages related to reference on buried
depths for 1000mm2 and 2000mm2 UGC.
Figure 5. NPV of whole cable samples on 2 different laying scenarios

978-1-5090-4508-2/17/$31. 4

509
 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT)

Fig.5 shows that the 2000 mm2 UGC have NPV higher than determined MARR 5.27%). In the same manner, the PBP is
that its counterpart, 1000 mm2 UGC. In addition, the gradient also similar, which is 5 years for 1 to 3 meter depth of burial
of NPV-graph of 2000 mm2-cables is much more steeper than and 6 years for 4 to 10 meter depth. This study may be used
that of 1000 mm2-cables, indicating that depth of burial affects as general technical and economical parameters for 1000 mm2
more significant to the 2000 mm2 UGC NPV than that of 1000 and 2000mm2 UGC installations in Indonesia, especially at
mm2 ones. Jabodetabek region in order to plan and/or to enhance the
related policies regarding its long-term installation planning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
24%
Cable-A Sc-1 The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of
23% Cable-A Sc-2 PT. PLN (Persero) UIPJBB and financial support provided by
Universitas Indonesia through the 2018 PITTA funding
Cable-B Sc-1
22% scheme managed by the Directorate for Research and
Cable-B Sc-2 Community Engagement (DRPM) Universitas Indonesia.
21% Cable-C Sc-1
IRR

Cable-C Sc-2
20%
REFERENCES
Cable-D Sc-1
19% Cable-D Sc-2
[1] PT PLN (Persero). “General Plans of Electricity Provision 2016-2025”
Cable-E Sc-1 (Transl. “Rencana Umum Penyedaan Tenaga Listrik (RUPTL)”)
18%
2016-2025. online from: http://www.pln.co.id (accessed on 20
Cable-E Sc-2 Jun.2017)
17% [2] Al-Khalidi, H. and A. Kalam. The Impact of Underground Cables on
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cable-F Sc-1
Power Transmission and Distribution Networks. in 2006 IEEE
Depth (m) Cable-F Sc-2 International Power and Energy Conference. 2006.
[3] Gao, M., et al. “Calculation of ampacity of underground cables under
humidity migration conditions”. in 2015 IEEE 11th International
Figure 6. IRR of whole cable samples on 2 different laying scenarios Conference on the Properties and Applications of Dielectric Materials
(ICPADM). 2015.
Fig.6 shows that IRR for 1000mm2 UGC tend to be [4] Shokooh, F. and H.M. Knutson. Ampacity derating for underground
decreased along with depth, by the highest value (1m-depth) cables. in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical
23% to the lowest value (10m-depth) of 18%. This is quite Conference, 1988. Conference Record, Papers Presented at the 1988
similar characteristics both in scenario-1 and scenario-2, as Annual Meeting. 1988.
well as among all UGS samples. IRR for 2000mm2 UGC tend [5] Ramachandran, S., R. Hartlein, and P. Chandak. “A Comparative
Economic Analysis for Underground Distribution Cables Insulated
to decrease along with depth, by the highest value (1m-depth) with TR-XLPE and EPR”. in 1999 IEEE Transmission and
24% to the lowest (10m-depth) 18%. This is quite similar Distribution Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36333). 1999.
characteristics both in scenario-1 and scenario-2. In 1m-depth, [6] Zarim, Z.A.A. Ampacity simulation of various underground cable
there are vary of value, Cable D has IRR 24%, cable E 23%, installation systems. in Power Engineering and Optimization
and Cable F 22%. Conference (PEOCO), 2011 5th International. 2011.
[7] International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60287-1-1:2006. in
For PBP, there are similar trends for whole of cable samples Part 1-1: Current rating Equations (100% Load Factor) and Calculation
which are: of Losses-General. 2006.
[8] Malmedal, K., C. Bates, and D. Cain. The Effect of Underground Cable
• PBP = 5 years, for 1 to 3 meters depth of burial; Diameter on Soil Drying, Soil Thermal Resistivity and Thermal
Stability. in 2016 IEEE Green Technologies Conference (GreenTech).
• PBP = 6 years, for 4 to 10 meters depth of burial. 2016.
CONCLUSION [9] Supranto, J., “Statistics, Theory and Application 7th Ed.” (Transl.
“Statistik Teori dan Aplikasi, Edisi Ketujuh”). 2009, Jakarta: Penerbit
In this study, the effect of depth of burial in the XLPE Cu Erlangga.
86/150 (170) kV UGC has been investigated. Using ANOVA [10] Sullivan, W. G., and cs., Engineering Economy 16th Edition. 2015.
technique, we found that there is no significant effect of depth USA: Pearson.
of burial to the current carrying capacity of 3 UGC samples of [11] Technology, T., A Comprehensive Look at The North American HDD
each dimension. Nevertheless, we observed the different of Industry, T. Technology, Editor. 2011: OH, USA.
absolute Ampere value among 1000 mm2-cable samples, dalam pembahasan dibawah masing masing gambar atau dalam bagian
although the percentage of CCC was not similar with CCC on-
surface. The economic analysis shows that the NPV values are
ranged from Rp. 768 billion to Rp. 534 billion for 2000 mm2
UGC and from Rp. 574 billion to Rp. 410 billion for 1000
mm2 ones. From those ranges, it shows that depth of burial
affects more significant to the 2000 mm2 cable than that of
1000 mm2 ones. The IRR tends to be typical for whole of the
UGC samples which is ranged from 23% to 18% (above

978-1-5090-4508-2/17/$31. 5

510