Circulating current and hysteresis losses in screens,

sheaths and armour of electric power cablesmathematical models and comparison with IEC
Standard 287
J.S. Barrett
G.J.Anders

Indexing terms: Current losses, Electric power cables

Abstract: Computation of the current carrying

capacity of a cable involves evaluation of
electrical and thermal parameters of the circuit.
Formulas for the calculation of these parameters
are summarised in Standard No. 287 published
by the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC). The first edition of this Standard was
issued in 1969 and the latest revision in 199415.
The formulas for the computation of the electrical
parameters of the cable date to the late 1920s and
early 1930s. The computation of the loss factor
for cables with magnetic armour wires is based on
work performed in the 1960s and is applicable to
cables spaced at least 10m apart. IEC Standard
287 provides loss formulas for simple symmetric
cable configurations such as those in flat or
trefoil arrangements. Many practical applications
deal with more complicated configurations such
as less symmetry, multiple circuits in close
proximity, and multiple cables per phase within a
circuit. The paper introduces accurate equations
for the computation of the sheath and armour
losses, treating these two components separately.
The formula for the sheath skin effect is
expanded and the inductance of hollow
conductors is derived. The expressions for the
sheath and armour loss factors derived in the
paper are compared with those given in IEC 287
and the simplifications required to develop
standard equations are explained. A numerical
example shows the effect of these simplifications
on the rating of a typical cable circuit.

Introduction

Computations of the current carrying capacity, often

referred to as ampacity, of electric power cables
requires estimation of dielectric losses in the insulation
0IEE, 1997
IEE Proceedings online no. 19971162
Paper first received 19th April 1996 and in revised form 27th January
1997
The authors are with Ontario Hydro Technologies, KR151, 800 Kipling
Avenue, Toronto, M8Z 5S4, Canada
IEE Proc.-Sei. Meas. Technol., Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

and joule losses from conductors, metallic cable screens

and coverings such as sheaths and armouring. The
losses in screens, sheaths, tapes and armour are
generated by currents induced in these components by
the current flowing in the conductors.
Sheath losses are current dependent and can be
divided into two categories according to the type of
bonding. These are losses due to circulating currents
which flow in the sheaths of single-core cables if the
sheaths are bonded together at two points, and losses
due to eddy currents, which circulate radially (skin
effect) and azimuthally (proximity effect). Eddy current
losses occur in both 3-core and single-core cables,
irrespective of the method of bonding. Eddy current
losses in the sheaths of single-core cables that are
solidly bonded are considerably smaller than
circulating current losses and are often ignored except
for cables with large segmental conductors. Also, skineffect eddy current losses are usually ignored for thin
sheaths.
Losses in protective armouring also fall into several
categories depending on the cable type, the material of
the armour, and installation methods. Armoured single-core cables without a metallic sheath generally have
a nonmagnetic armour because the losses in steel-wire
or tape armour would be unacceptably high. In IEC
Standard 287 [l], for cables with nonmagnetic armour,
the armour loss is calculated as if it were a cable sheath
and the calculation method depends on whether the
armour is single-point bonded or solidly bonded. For
cables having a metallic sheath and nonmagnetic
armour, the losses are calculated as for sheath losses
but using the combined resistance of the sheath and
armour in parallel and a mean diameter equal to the
RMS value of the armour and sheath diameters. IEC
Standard 287 applied the same procedure to 2- and 3core cables having a metallic sheath and nonmagnetic
armour. For 2- and 3-core cables having metallic
sheath and magnetic wire armour, eddy current losses
in the armour are considered in the standard. For 2and 3-core cables having steel tape armour both eddy
current losses and hysteresis losses in the tape are considered together with the effect of armour on sheath
losses.
IEC Standard 287 provides loss formulas for simple
symmetric cable configurations such as those in flat or
trefoil arrangements. Many practical applications deal
with more complicated configurations such as less
101

symmetry, multiple circuits in close proximity, and

multiple cables per phase within a circuit. In this paper,
we introduce more accurate equations for the
computation of the sheath and armour losses, treating
these two components separately.
In the developments presented below, we consider
circulating currents in sheath and armour. The firstorder computation of proximity eddy currents can be
made by subdividing each sheath, one at a time, into
filaments while the sheaths of other cables are treated
as cylinders. This technique is explained in [2] and
applied in the Cable Ampacity Program [3] developed
by Ontario Hydro, but is not presented here.
When the circuits are either single or multiple point
bonded and grounded, the ground resistance is
assumed to be very large, so that no circulating currents in the ground are considered. The developments
are applicable to either single- or 3-core cables. In the
latter case, the three sheaths or screens can be placed
around each core separately or one sheath can circumscribe all three cores. The armouring can be made
either of wires or tapes and can be either magnetic or
nonmagnetic.
For clarity of presentation, the impedances for a
symmetric trefoil configuration only will be developed
below, but the general principles are applicable to other
arrangements as well.
The paper is organised as follows. We start with a
brief historical review of the power cable loss
computations followed by a section defining sheath and
armour loss factors and dealing with the derivation of
the formulas for all inductances required for the
computation of these factors. The expressions for the
armour and sheath loss factors are derived next. To
make comparison with the formulas used in IEC
Standard 287, equations used in this standard are
derived. These equations are then compared with the
formulas developed in this paper. The presentation
ends with a numerical example comparing the loss
factor computations in the IEC Standard with those
developed in this paper.
2

Historical perspective

The basic equations for calculating circulating current

losses were developed by a number of authors in the
1920s, [4-71. In some cases, the effects of eddy currents
were included in the equations developed; others concluded that the effects of eddy currents were insignificant compared with circulating current losses and
hence could be ignored. The equations presented in
IEC Publication 287 [l] and by Neher and McGrath [8]
are taken from the work by Arnold [5].
As for the eddy current calculations, early investigations by Carter [6], Dwight [9] and Arnold [5, 101 form
the basis of the formulas used in todays standards.
Accurate calculation of eddy current losses or singlecore cable sheaths is very complicated, and analytical
simplifications leading to semiempirical equations have
been developed by a number of workers. The most
notable of these are Carter, Miller, Goldenberg and
Morello [6, 11-13]. The methods developed by these
authors were accurate enough for the lead sheathed
cables in general use at the time. The equations developed by Miller were included in the first edition of IEC
287, in 1969 [14].
The increasing use of aluminum sheaths, whose
102

electrical resistance is an order of magnitude lower

than the equivalent lead sheath, has led to
reconsideration of the equations for eddy current loss.
Work by Heyda, Kitchie and Taylor [15] provided a
good general approach to the problem, yet the
solutions could only be expressed as complicated
mathematical series unsuitable for general use. The
work by Heyda et al. was examined by Parr [16] to
derive semiempirical equations for general use. These
equations are included in the second edition of IEC 287
[1, 171. They contain correction factors for eddy current
losses in thick sheaths where additional losses due to
currents in other conductors and sheath losses due the
conductor current of the cable itself are included.
The original formulas developed by Carter, Dwight
and Arnold were made amenable to hand calculations
by considering series approximations. Even though
their application may result in an error reaching about
20% in sheath loss factor computations [18], the convenience of the formulas and the small effect of eddy
current losses on cable rating could justify their continued use, provided that the range of application is
clearly defined.
Calculation of armour losses can also be quite
involved when helically wound steel wires or tapes are
used. Armoured single-core cables for general use in
AC systems usually have nonmagnetic armour. This is
because of the very high losses that would occur in
closely spaced single-core cables with magnetic armour.
On the other hand, when magnetic armour is used,
losses due to eddy currents and to hysteresis in the steel
must be considered. A method of calculating these
losses is given by Bosone [19], and results agree with
those obtained in the limited experimental work
reported by Whitehead and Hutchings [20]. The latter
work demonstrated that the losses in the sheath and
armour combination could be several times the conductor losses, depending on the bonding arrangements of
the sheaths and armour. The armour losses are lowest
when the armour and sheath are bonded and grounded
together at both ends of a run; thus, this condition is
selected for the calculations below. The method,
derived by Bosone [19], gives combined sheath and
armour losses for cables that are very widely spaced
(> 10m). It has been applied to submarine cables where
the cable spacing may be very wide and there is a need
for the mechanical protection provided by the steel
wire armour.
Several other authors addressed the subject of
armour losses. A comprehensive account of this subject
is given by Carter (1954), Schurig et al. [21], and
Schelkunoff [22]. More recent publications include the
works by Bianchi and Luoni [23], Kawasaki et al. [24],
and Weedy [25].
Only the work of Bosone [19], and Bianchi and
Luoni [23] considered the effect of the helical lay of
armour wires and tapes. However, the effect of the
circular fields were assumed to have 100% flux linkage
in the armour, and axial fields in the armour were not
considered at all in these publications. In the
developments presented below, both the axial and
circular fields are considered. Our aim was not only to
develop the more accurate equations for the calculation
of circulating current losses in the sheath and armour,
but also to make a presentation in such a way that the
results could be easily incorporated in the existing
standards without restriction on cable spacing.
IEE Proc.-Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

Loss factors for sheath and armour

Consider a 3-phase cable circuit. The complex currents

flowing in the conductor, sheath and armour are
denoted by I,, Z, and I,, respectively. Then, the sheath
and armour loss factors due to circulating currents are
defined as:

lower conductor's flux with its own current. The

mutual inductance is the linkage of the lower conductor's flux with the current in the other conductors.
(Flux linkage, generally, is the spatial integral of flux
due to a unit current times the proportion of current
that it links.)

t
where R (Wm) denotes the AC resistance at operating
temperature and the subscripts c, s and a represent
conductor, sheath and armour, respectively.
Eqn. 1 does not include the sheath skin-effect loss
factor and eqn. 2 does not include the effect of hysteresis losses in the magnetic armour. Both these effects
will be considered later in the paper.
As can be seen from the above equations, to compute
the loss factors, the sheath and armour currents have
to be expressed as functions of the conductor current.
To compute Is and I,, we observe that ignoring proximity effects in the conductor and sheath, the voltages
along the conductor, sheath and armour are related to
the currents by

:]

[ [2
=

Zac

zcs

2,s

2,s

Zc,

[;]

zsa]
z,,

(3)

where Zii is an impedance between element i and j . Calculation of these impedances is discussed in the following subsections. The approach to deriving inductances
will be to compute 'flux linkages', except for the
inductances resulting from magnetic fluxes within the
thickness of the armour. In that case, an energy
approach turns out to be more suitable.

Fig. 1

Three cables in trefoil configuration

3. I Conductor-conductor inductance
Fig. 1 illustrates three cables in trefoil configuration,
where each cable is composed of a conductor, sheath
and magnetic armour. Also illustrated is magnetic flux
due to current in the bottom conductor. The first
impedance to be evaluated is the conductor-conductor
impedance Z,, which will be evaluated for the bottom
conductor in Fig. 2. This impedance consists of the
conductor resistance, the conductor's self-reactance @J
times the self-inductance) and the conductor's mutual
reactance with the other two conductors.
The conductor's self-inductance is the linkage of the
IEE Pvoc.-Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

..............................

Im

Fig.2

0.5m

I0.5m 4
Three submarine cables in triangularformation

The evaluation of conductor-conductor inductance,

including both the self- and mutual inductances, consists of integrating all of the conductor flux linkage
from the centre of the conductor to the dashed line
passing through the centres of the other two conductors in Fig. 2. The reason that this integration ends
half-way through the upper two conductors is that flux
entering the upper two conductors near their bottom
edges, as illustrated by the inner dashed line, links only
a small proportion of the current in those conductors.
On the other hand, flux at the upper edge, as illustrated
by the outer dashed line, links nearly all of the current.
The total flux linkage from the lower surface of the two
conductors to the upper surface (linking, on average,
half the current) is approximately the same as the integral of flux to the half-way point, linking all of the
conductor current.
Integration of the flux linkage from the centre of the
conductor to its outer surface yields the internal
inductance Lcc-int,as obtained in the Appendix (Section
8.1). It may be assumed that the permeability of the
sheath is and so the presence of the sheath makes no
difference to the amount of conductor flux within the
thickness of the sheath walls. The presence of the
sheath does, however, make a difference to the total
flux because the conductor flux induces currents in the
sheath, which are taken into account by conductorsheath inductance. If the presence of the armour is
temporarily ignored, the external conductor-conductor
inductance is given by the integral of conductor flux
(linking all of the conductor current) from the
conductor surface rc to distance s, yielding

where p0 is the magnetic permeability of free space (4x

x 10-7H/m), re is the outer radius of the conductor (m),
and s is the axial distance between conductors (m).
Magnetic armour makes a difference to the conductor-conductor inductance because of its high magnetic
103

permeability. The inductance from conductor flux

within the thickness of the armour has been derived in
the Appendix (Section 8.1). However, before adding it
to Le,, above, it is necessary to subtract the contribution that has been included in eqn. 4 for the space that
the armour occupies, which is given by
r n+t, / 2

3.3 Sheath-sheath inductance

ra--ta/2

The total conductor-conductor inductance is given

bY
Po

Po

L,,~--f+-ln
27r
27r

(:c)

Po

tu

+ - - [ P ~ C O S ~ ( ~ ) - ~ ]

27rr,

where

f=

1/4 - u2 a4(3/4 - l n a )
(1 - u2)2

The sheath-sheath inductance is the linkage of the flux

from the bottom sheath in Fig. 2 with the currents in
all three sheaths. The internal sheath-sheath inductance
Lss-inl,derived in the Appendix (Section S.l), is
absorbed into the first term.
The external sheath-sheath flux linkage is obtained
by integrating from the outer sheath radius to distance
s and then taking into account the presence of the
armour as before:

(7)

and a is the ratio of inner to outer radius of a hollow

condyctor.
Also, /3 is the helical lay angle with respect to the
cable axis (see Fig. 4), 1, is the helical lay length of the
armour (m), r, is the mean radius of the armour (m), t,
is the armour thickness (m) and ,ueis the complex relative longitudinal magnetic permeability. The imaginary
part o f it describes tbe hysteresis loss of the magnetic
material. ,ut is the complex relative transverse magnetic
ability and A, is the sum o f the wire or tape
cross-sectional areas (m2). ,ue and ,ut are treated as constants as the field strength and temperature change.
The first two terms may be combined into one by
defining qn effective conductor radius arc, where a =
exp(-J>. For a solid conductor, cz = exp(-1/4) = 0.7788.
The total condwtor-cooductor inductance then
redums to
Po

sheath, the conductor flux links approximately half the

sheath current. The internal and external logarithm
terms can thus be combined, to a good approximation,
as the integral o f flux from the mean radius o f the
sheath to distance s.
For nonmagnetic armour, the last two terms are
ignored. For nontouching magnetic armour wires, the
second term is ignored.

t,

2~ r ,
(8)
For nonmagnetic armour, the last two terms are
ouching magnetic armour wires, the

r-sheath inductance
derivation of cancjuctor-sheath inductance is simieopdqGtor-coaductor inductance. The
lptwee~1the flux from the bottom con. 2 and all three sheath currents. The
derived in
ctar-sheath inductance L,,,,,
ion X.l), is absorbed in the first
conductor-sheath flux linkage is
ing from the outer sheath radius to
aking into account the presence of
&mour a8 before. The total conductor-sheath
wtance is given by

It can be seen that, within the thickness of the

sheath, the sheaths own flux links approximately onethird o f the sheath current. The internal and external
logarithm terms can thus be combined, to a good
approximation, as the integral of flux from r, + ts16 of
the sheath to distance s. For manual computations the
tJ6 may be ignored with little loss of accuracy.
For nonmagnetic armour, the last two terms are
ignored. For nontouching magnetic armour wires, the
second term is ignored.

3.4 Armour inductances

The conductor-armour, sheath-armour and armourarmour internal inductances have been derived in the
Appendix (Section 8.1). The external portion of the
armour inductances is obtained by integrating from the
outer surface o f the armour ra + t,/2 to distance s,
yielding

The following armour-related inductances are given

as the sum o f the external inductance and the internal
inductances for both parallel and perpendicular power
(power associated with flux parallel and perpendicular
to the armour tapes or wires), derived in the Appendix
(Section 8.1).
The conductor-armour and sheath-armour inductances are given by
PO

L,, = L,, = - In

sinp
+-PoPeAa
27~r,!~
For nonmagnetic armour, the second term becomes
, ~ ~ t ~ / ( 4and
7 6 ~can
~ )be absorbed into the first term, to a

(9)
where rs is the mean radius of the sheath (m) and t, is
the sheath thickness (m).
It can be seen that, within the thickness of the
104

good approximation, by dropping the +t,/2 in the

denominator in the logarithm term. The last term is
ignored for nonmagnetic armour.
For nontouching magnetic armour wires, ,ut is
assumed to be 1. If the sin2@term is ignored, the first
and second terms may be combined (by ignoring the
IEE Proc.-Sei. Meus. Technol., Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

+ta/2 in the denominator in the logarithm term), as

before. The last term remains unchanged.
The armour-armour inductance is given by

L,, = -ln
PO

2n

r, +t,/2

)+

[-

1 -sin2@]
2n ra 3cos2p

-PoPt t a

sin
+-PoPeAa
27rra4?,

For nonmagnetic armour, the second term becomes

p&/(6mnr,) and can be absorbed into the first term, to a
good approximation, by changing the Y, + tJ2 to Y , +
ta/6 in the denominator in the logarithm term, since
ta/(3ra) = ln[(ra + ta/2)/(r, + ta/6)]. The last term is
ignored for nonmagnetic armour.
For nontouching magnetic armour wires, ,ut is
assumed to be 1. If the sin2B term is ignored, the first
and second terms may the combined (by changing the
ra + ta12 to ra + tal@in the denominator in the
logarithm term as before. The last term remains
unchanged.
4

Computing sheath and armour currents

To compute the loss factors, the impedances will be

separated into real and imaginary components. As in
the present Standard, loss equations will be derived in
terms of real arithmetic, suitable for evaluation with a
simple calculator. Real variables, such as B1 and B2 in
the present Standard, will retain the same names as
much as possible to facilitate comparisons.

4.1

where R, is the conductor resistance (Wm), s is the

distance between cables (m) and arc is the effective
radius of the conductor ( a = 0.7788 for a solid
conductor).
From eqn. 9, the conductor-sheath irhpedance is
given by

2,s = Zs,= Bz

+ 3 B1

(19)

where

The conductor-armour and s&e&i-arfwur

ances, obtained from eqn. 12, are given by
Zca

= Z a c = Z,q, = 2,s = B2

+ jB3

hnpd(21)

where

The sheath-sheath impedance is obtained from

eqn. 10. Without significant loss of accuracy, we can
ignore the term tJ6 in the equation, yielding Zss= (R,
+ B2) + j B l . From eqn. 13, the armour-armour impedance is given by Z,, = (R,+ B2) + jB4, where

Impedances

Every cable inductance includes the longitudinal internal armour term, given by

where w is the angular frequency and pe is the complex

relative longitudinal magnetic permeability. The imaginary part of it describes the hysteresis loss of the magnetic material.
Eqn. 14 may be split into the imaginary and real
parts, as shown below.
The complex longitudinal magnetic permeability pe
of the wire may be written as
Pe = IP~,~(COSY
- j sin Y)
(15)
where y is the angular time delay of the magnetic flux
density B w.r.t. the field H .
Real and imaginary components of eqn. 14 are

and

These formulas are in agreement with the Standard. (Bo

here corresponds to wHl in IEC 287.)
From eqn. 8 , the conductor-conductor impedance is
given by
zc,

=(Rc

+ B2) + ___
2T

IEE Pro,.-Sci. Meas. Technol.,Vol. 144, No. 3, M a y 1997

and R, is the armour resistance, including the stranding

increment l/cos p (Qlm). Zaais the only impedance that
would differ for round wires as compared to tapes. For
a solid cylinder without helical lay, the internal flux
linkage contains the factor 1/3 (the square bracket of
B4 when /3 = 0). For round wires without helical lay,
this factor becomes 0.356.

4.1. I Losses: The voltages V, and V, in eqn. 3 are

zero when both ends of the sheath and armour are
grounded, and so the sheath and armour voltages are
described by the following matrix equation:

The solutions for Is and I, in terms of I, are given by

Collecting the real and imaginary parts of eqns. 24 and

25 together, the solutions become:

Define Y = ( Y , + Y J 2+ ( Y2 + YJ2.Then:

The circulating loss factors for the sheath and

armour are thus given by:

The hysteresis loss factor for the armour is given by

(30)
The armour loss factor is the sum of the loss factors
given by eqn. 30 and the second equation in eqn. 29.

4.2 Comparison with IEC Standard 287

(1994)
In the present Standard, the sheath and armour are
treated as a single element with voltage drop V,, = 0,
effective resistance Re = R,R,I(R, + R,) and current I,,
1 I, + I,,
where the current split between sheath and
armour is determined by resistance alone.
In the equations derived here, B3 and B4 are new
variables that do not occur in the Standard. If they are
both replaced by B1,the matrix equation reduces to:
v
s

= ISR,

+ ( I c+ I , + I,)(B2 + jB1) = 0

or, equivalently, V,, = I,,R, + (I, + I,,>(B2 + j B J = 0.

The armour loss equations in the present Standard
are derived from this equation in the Appendix (Section 8.2). Replacing B, and B4 by B1 assumes that
sheath and armour have the same inductances, which is
approximately correct because the Bo term of B3, B4
and B, completely dominates the other terms. The last
terms of B, and B4 must be replaced, incorrectly, with
the last term of B I . The reason that these terms do not
converge towards the present Standard is that circular
fields were assumed to have 100% flux linkage in the
armour and axial fields in the armour were not considered at all in the original paper by Bosone [19]. Both
the axial and circular fields are considered here. There
is also an error in the definition of H3 in the Standard
in that the cos2/3factor is incorrectly applied to both but
and '-1'. These errors are fairly minor because of the
dominance of the Bo and B2 terms resulting from the
large longitudinal flux in the steel tapes or wires.
5

Numerical example

Consider a submarine cable with the following dimensions (the variables t , D,w and 4 denote the thickness,
external diameter, width and the length of lay, respectively): (i) lead sheath: t,y = 3.2mm, D, = 75.4";
(ii)
three copper tapes: DT = 78mm, tT = 0.13mm, wT =
106

(iii) steel armour: t, = 5.189, 4, = 121.8mm,

0.13";

DA = 98.4mm, IZ,
= 51. The circuit is partially located
under water and partially underground. In its land portion, the cables are placed in a triangular configuration
as shown in Fig. 2. We compute the rating of this circuit using first the IEC 287 approach and then the
equations developed above. Even though the equations
given in the Standard are, strictly speaking, valid only
for cables spaced at least 10m apart, they are used in
practice for smaller spacings because of a lack of alternative formulas. These equations, given in the Appendix (Section 8.2), are also applied here.
We begin by computing the resistances of the
metallic parts assuming the frequency of the system =
50Hz. The resistances of the conductors, sheaths and
reinforcing copper tapes are slightly different in the
upper cable since it operates at slightly lower
temperature. However, the differences are very small,
and we can assume that the values of the lower cables
apply to all cables. The conductor AC resistance at the
operating temperatures of 85C is equal to R, = 0.356
x 104QZ/m.
The resistance of the lead sheath at 19, = 70C is
obtained from
21.4 x IO-*
[I + 0.004(70 - 20)]
~ ( 0 . 0 7 5 4- 0.0032) x 0.0032
= 0.000354 fl/m
The resistance of the copper reinforcing tape is computed as an equivalent tube resistance. The mean diameter, d2, of the tape = 0.0741m and the cross-sectional
area of the tapes, AT = 0.975 x 10-4m2.The equivalent
and a20 =
tube resistance with p20 = 0.1724 x
0.00393 is obtained taking into account the length of
lay 4 , of the tapes:

R -

Id(
r

RT

--- p20
AT

$)2

+ 11 [l+ a2o(Qs

20)]

= 0.477 x
fl/m
The resistance of the parallel combination of the
sheath and the reinforcing tape at 70C will continue to
be denoted by R, and = 0.203 x 10-3Q/m.
The RMS diameter of the equivalent sheath =
0.0767m and the cross-sectional area of the armour
wires = 0.00108m2. The mean diameter of the armour
is 0.0932m and the resistance of armour is obtained
taking into account that the length of lay of the wires =
0.405 x 10-3Qlm. Since this is a relatively large cable,
the AC resistance of the armour wires is 1.4 times
greater than the DC resistance computed above, and =
0.567 x 10-3Qlm.
To compute cable impedances, we need to calculate
the angle between the axis of each armour wire and the
axis of the cable. This angle is obtained from a knowledge of the diameter of the armour and the length of
lay of the wires (see Fig. 4):
TD
p = tan-' 2
= 68'
!a

The longitudinal relative permeability of steel wires =

400 and y = 45". From eqns. 16 and 17, we have Bo =
0.00313Qlm and B, = 0.00313Qlm. The value of B1 is
obtained from eqn. 20 with ,L+ = 10, and thus B, =
0.00329Qlm.
The resistance Re of the parallel combination of
IEE Proc -Sei Meas Technol, Vol 144, No 3, May 1997

sheath, reinforcing tape and armour = 0.149 x 10-3Q/m.

Using the IEC approach, the required loss factors are
obtained from eqn. 44, and are equal to X I = h2 -2.05. The rating of the hottest (bottom) cable = 556A.
To compare this value with the rating obtained using
the formulas in this paper, we need to evaluate constants B3 and B4 from eqns. 22 and 23, respectively.
The values are B3 = 0.00326Qlm and B4 = 0.00338Qlm.
Constants Yare obtained from eqn. 26:

Yi = 1.28 x lo-
Y2

= 2.33 x l o p 6

Y4 0.686 x
Ys = 0.635 x
Y = 0.662 x

lo-

Y3 = 0.750 x l o p 6
Y = 13.2 x
The loss factors are now computed from eqns. 29
and 30, and are equal to X I = 3.05, X 2 = 1.02 and A,
= 0.08. The sheath loss factor = 3.05 since the eddy
current losses are neglected and the armour loss factor
= 1.1. The rating of the cable = 549A.
6

Conclusions

An improved computational algorithm for the evaluation of the loss factors for cables with metallic sheath
and armour has been presented. The procedure for the
calculation of these factors could be implemented in
IEC Publication 287, removing the restrictions currently included in the Standard. The expressions for the
sheath and armour loss factors derived in this paper
have been compared with those given in the IEC 287
and the simplifications required to develop standard
equations have been explained. A numerical example
shows the effect of these simplifications on the rating
of a typical cable circuit.
The ampacities computed in the numerical example
using both approaches are in a very good agreement.
Even the individual loss factors are in good agreement
if the combined loss factor is divided according the
equations given in the Appendix (Section 8.2). In
numerous studies performed by the authors, the difference in the cable ratings obtained using the equations
developed in this paper and those presented in the IEC
Standard did not exceed 10%.
7

11 MILLER, K.W.: Sheath currents, sheath losses, induced sheath

voltages and apparent conductor impedances of metal sheathed
cables carrying alternating currents. Thesis in Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA, 1929
12 GOLDENBERG, H.: The calculation of continuous current ratings and rating factors for transmission and distribution cables.
ERA report FiT187, 1958
13 MORELLO, A.: Calculation of the current ratings for power
cables, lElettrotecnica,1959, 46, pp, 2-17
14 IEC 287: Calculation of the continuous current rating of cables
(100% load factor), 1st edn. IEC Publication 287, 1969
15 HEYDA, P.G., KITCHIE, G.E., and TAYLOR, J.E.: Computation of eddy current losses in cable sheaths and bus enclosures,
Proc. IEE, 1973, 120, (4), pp. 447452
16 PARR, R.G.: Formulae for eddy current loss factors in singlepoint or cross-bonded cable sheaths. ERA Report 79-97, 1979
17 IEC 287: Calculation of the continuous current ratingv of cables
(100Y0 load factor), 2 ed. IEC Publication 287, 1982
18 JACKSON, R.L.: Eddy-current losses in unbonded tubes, Proc.
ZEE, 1975, 122, (5), pp. 551-557
19 BOSONE, L.: Contributo allo studio delle zlerdite e dellautoinduzione dei cavi unipolari armati con fili di ferro, IElettrotecnicu, 1931, 18, pp. 2-8
20 WHITEHEAD, S. and HUTCHINGS, E.E.: Current rating of
cables for transmission and distribution. ERA Report FIT131,
1939
21 SCHURIG, O.R., KUEHNI, H.P., and BULLER, F.H.: Losses
in armored single-conductor lead-covered A.C. cables, AIEE
Trans., 1929, 48, pp. 417435
22 SCHELKUNOFF, S.A.: The electromagnetic theory of coaxial
transmission lines and cylindrical shields, Bell Syst. Tech. J.,
1934, pp. 532-575
23 BIANCHI, G., and LUONI, G.: Induced currents and losses in
single-core submarine cables, ZEEE Truns., 1976, PAS-95, (I),
pp. 49-58
24 KAWASAKI, K., INAMI, M., and ISHIKAWA, T.: Theoretical considerations of eddy current losses in non-magnetic and
magnetic pipes for power transmission systems, IEEE Trans.,
1981, PAS-100, ( 2 ) , pp. 474-484
25 WEEDY, B.M.: Prediction of return currents and losses in
underwater single-core armoured AC cables with large spacings,
Electv. Power Syst. Res., 1986, 10, pp. 77-85
26 JACKSON, W.D.: Classical electrodynamics (John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1962)

Appendixes

8. I Internal inductance calculations

The inductances due to flux within the conductor and
within the thicknesses of the sheath and armour walls
are derived in the following subsections.

References

I IEC 287-1-1: Electric cables--calculation of the current rating,

part 1: current rating equations (100% load factor) and calculation of losses, section 1: general. IEC publication 287, 1994
2 ANDERS, G.J.: Rating of electric power cables. Ampacity computations of transmission, distribution and industrial cables
(IEEE Press), to be published
3 ANDERS. G.J.. MOSHREF. A.. and ROIZ. J.: Advanced computer programs for power cable ampacity calculations, ZEEE
Comput. Appl. Power, 1990, 3, (3), pp. 4 2 4 5 (1995 revision)
4 MORGAN, P.D., WEDMORE, S., and WHITEHEAD, E.B.: 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. ERA report
FiT22, 1927
5 ARNOLD, A.H.M.: Theory of sheath losses in single-conductor
lead-covered cables, J. ZEE, 1929, 67, pp. 69-89
6 CARTER, F.W.: Eddy currents in thin cylinders of uniform conductivity due to periodically changing magnetic fields, in two
dimensions. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,
1927, Vol. 23, pp. 901-906
7 CARTER, F.W.: Note on losses in cable sheaths. Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1928, Vol. 24, pp. 65-73
8 NEHER, J.H., and MCGRATH, M.H.: The calculation of the
temperature rise and load capability of cable systems, AZEE
Trans., 1957, 76, Pt. 111, pp. 752~L772
9 DWIGHT, H.B.: Proximity effect in wires and thin tubes, AIEE
Trans., 1923, 42, pp. 850-859
10 ARNOLD, A.H.M.: Eddy current losses in multi-core paperinsulated lead-covered cables, armoured and unarmoured, carrying balanced 3-phase current, J. IEE, 1941, 88, Pt. 11, pp. 52-63
IEE Proc.-Sei. Meas. Technol., Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

Fig.3

Hollow core conductor with unity radius

8. I. I Hollow conductor internal inductance:

The self-inductance of a hollow conductor is computed
in the following manner. For unit total current, unit
outer radius and an inner radius of a (see Fig. 3), the
fraction of conductor current within radius r is given
by I,, = (r2 - a2)/(1 - a2) and the flux within dr is given
by d@= , L . L ~ I < ~ / ~ J C V ~ V .
The internal inductance of a hollow conductor is
thus given by
1
Lcc-znt

=-

27r
/Lo

=-[
/LO

27r

?I

1/4 - u2 u4(3/4 - l n a )
(1 - u 2 ) 2

(32)
107

where a is the ratio of inner to outer radius.

For a solid conductor (a = 0) this reduces to (p0/2.n)
x (114). For a thin shell (a 4 l), it converges to (p0/2.n)
x (1/3)(1 a) = (p0/2x) x (1/3)(ts/r,), in agreement with
eqn. 34
~

8. '1.2 Conductor-sheath internal inductance:

For mean sheath radius rs and thickness t,, the conductor flux density for unit conductor current is B, = po/
(2nrJ. The proportion of sheath current at radius < Y is
I<r = (Y Y , + t,/2)/t,.
The internal inductance is then given by the flux linkage,
~

(33)

8.1.3 Sheath-sheath internal inductance: For

mean sheath radius v, and thickness t,, and unit total
current in the sheath, the fraction of sheath current
within a distance x of the inner radius is I<, = xlt,. The
flux dq5 within dx encircling this current is given by dq5
= p&,dx/2xrs.
The radius has been approximated by Y, at all values
of x.The inductance is given by the integral of the flux
times the proportion of current that it surrounds, so
that the internal self-inductance is

from the flux in the armour tapes or wire are fairly

complicated. The armour may be treated as a coil
surrounded by circular flux as a result of conductor
and sheath currents and the armour's own current. In
addition, the armour surrounds axial flux as a result of
its own current. This axial flux was not considered by
Bosone [19] and is therefore not included in the present
Standard. The magnetic fields within the thickness of
the armour are a superposition of the axial and circular
fields. The circular fields from the conductor and
sheath are nearly uniform between the inner and outer
surfaces of thin armour and are treated as uniform.
The fields from the armour's own current, however, are
nonuniform. The axial field is maximum at the inner
surface of the armour and decreases to zero at the
outer surface because the axial field at a given radius is
caused by current at larger radii. Conversely, the
circular field is maximum at the outer surface of the
armour and decreases to zero at the inner surface
because the circular field at a given radius is caused by
current at smaller radii. The situation is complicated by
the fact that the magnetic permeability of the wires is
different, parallel and perpendicular to the wires. The
circular and axial fields in the armour wall must
therefore be resolved into directions parallel and
perpendicular to the wires (see Fig. 4). In deriving
inductance formulas, the helical geometry of the
currents and fluxes leads to flux linkages that are
sometimes difficult to visualise. Therefore, to avoid
errors, the derivations are based on the integral of
complex power over the volume of the armour
material. These integrals are identical to those
encountered in flux-linkage calculations. The total
electromagnetic power is given by Poynting's Theorem
1261
7

(34)

P + j Q = dt
d [///(.I-F+B.H)dV

(35)

where J is the current density (A/m2), E is the electric

field (Vim), B is the magnetic flux density (T), H is the
magnetic field (A-turnslm), and the integral is over all
space. The J.E term results in the 12R power loss. The
second term, integrated only over the volume of the
armour material, will be used to obtain internal armour
inductances, as well as the contribution that internal
armour flux makes to all the other cable inductances.
The complex power (real is dissipated; imaginary is
stored) is also given by

I
s
Li

where Zif are the mutual (or self- for i = j ) impedances

and

I, . I? = Re(Ii)Re(Ij) + Sm(I,)Sm(I,) = (IJ;

Fig.4

Resolution of magnetic field in parallel and peupendicular compo-

nents

8.1.4 Internal armour inductances: Magnetic

flux within the thickness of the armour wall affects all
the inductances. The internal inductances resulting
108

+ItIj)/2

(37)
Equating these two expressions allows the identification of jwLq (part of 2,) in the power obtained from
the first expression.
All currents, voltages and fields are RMS values. The
subscripts may represent the conductor, sheath or
armour. The losses are due to currents in these elements but take place within the thickness of the
armour. Because the longitudinal permeability of the
wires is complex and is included in all the impedances,
there is loss corresponding to all the impedances, not
just the diagonal ones.
IEE Puoc.-Sei. Meas. Technol., Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

To simplify the computations, it will be assumed that

the armour is composed of tapes rather than wires. The
error in the resulting formulas when used for round
wires is negligible. The fields within the tape (or wire)
are obtained by resolving the axial field (1 - x)Z,Il, and
the circular field (Z, + I, + xI,)/(2m,) into components
parallel and perpendicular to the tape. The parallel and
perpendicular components of the magnetic field at
position x within the armour wall (assuming uniform
current density in the armour) are given by
cos p
sin ,B
HI1 = (1 - x)Ia(Jc
I s xIa)-ea
2nra

+ + +

and

HL = -(I

sin ,l3

%)Iu--l a

p
+ (I(:+ I s + %Iu)-cos
2ma
-

(39)
where I, is the RMS conductor current (A), I, is the
RMS sheath current (A), I, is the RMS armour current
(A), /3 is the helical lay angle with respect to the cable
axis, I, is the helical lay length of the armour (m), and
r, is the mean radius of the armour (m). x is the distance from inner surface/armour thickness (x = 0 at
inner surface; x = 1 at outer surface).
The identity 2n7tr,llfl = sin plcos p was used above and
below. The first term of Hl has -(1 x) because that
term is from the axial field of the armour, and its perpendicular component in the armour is in the opposite
direction to the perpendicular components of all the
circular fields, as shown in Fig. 4.
Considering now the second term in the right-hand
side of eqn. 35, the complex parallel power is given by
-

( P + .iQ)ll= juP0PeHIlH;
- JWILoILe

--

-e:

1, + I , + I,['

cos2p

per unit volume

where pe is the complex relative longitudinal magnetic

permeability, A , is the sum of the wire or tape crosssectional areas (m2) and /I, + I, + I,I2 = l1,l2 + lI,I2 +
/r,f + 2z,.z, + 2z,.z, + 2z,.z,.
From this expression and eqns. 36 and 37, it can be
seen that

contributes equally to all the cable inductances (L,,,

LCS Le,, L s c , L S S L,,, L,, and Lflfl).
The complex perpendicular power is given by
( p j Q ) l = jwp0putHi.H; per unit volume

+ ( I ~ I ~. I,
)

($

- sin2

3)

per unit cable length

where yt is the complex relative transverse magnetic
Permeability. The final expression was obtained by
substituting eqn. 39, multiplying by 2xrflta,which is the
volume per unit length, and by using the identity for
2xrfl/la given above. For round wires, y, in the
Standard has been adjusted so that the transverse
inductance for a cylinder may still be used. Although
the formula above permits y, to be complex, the
standard treats it as real. From this point on, we will
also treat it as real since it is small compared with the
longitudinal permeability and therefore has little
associated hysteresis loss.
From the expression for perpendicular power and
eqns. 36 and 37 it can be seen that:
[(~p,)/(2..>](t,lr,)cos2/3 contributes equally to Le,, L,,
Ls, and L,,
[(~pr)/(2~)](ta17tra)[ll(3~~~2/3)
- sin2/3]contributes to La,
[(p&/(2n)](ta/ra)[l12 - sin2/3] contributes equally to
(Le,, Lsfl, L,, and LLlJ
The total contribution of internal armour flux to
each cable inductance is given by the sum of the parallel and perpendicular power contributions.

8.2 Armour in the present Standard

IEC Standard 287 [l] provides formulas in Section
2.4.2.1 for computing losses in cables with steel wire
armour. The sheath and armour are combined and
treated as a single cable element around a conductor.
The effective resistance Re is evaluated as the sum of R,
and R, in parallel. The loss formula is based on the
work of L. Bosone [19].
The voltage V,, along the sheath-armour combination in terms of its current Z,, (RMS per phase) and
that of the conductor Z, (RMS per phase) is given by

Ka = Z a a R e ( I C I,,)(& jB1) = 0
(41)
where equating the voltage to zero means that the
sheath-armour combination is grounded at both ends
(ignoring grounding resistance). The mutual inductance
terms include the effects of all three phases, assuming a
trefoil configuration. B1 and B2 are defined in the
Standard as; B1 = w(L, + L1 + L3) and B2 = mL2,
where Ls is the usual sheath inductance for transverse
flux (log terms), combining the self and mutual terms;
L1 and L2 are the real and imaginary parts of the
inductance due to the component of circular flux that
is resolved parallel to the armour wires; L2 arises from
the imaginary part of the longitudinal permeability,
which describes hysteresis loss; and L3 is the inductance
due to the component of circular flux that is resolved
perpendicular to the armour wires. The currents are
assumed to be balanced so that there are no earthreturn currents.
From eqn. 41, the circulating loss of the sheatharmour combination is given by

- jWP0P.t
~- t u

27r

r,
and the hysteresis loss of the sheath-armour combina-

tion is given by
1
+ 11a12 (-3 cos2
p - sin2
IEE Pro,.-Sei. Meas. Technol.,Vol. 144, No. 3, May 1997

)
109

The total loss in the sheath-armour combination is

therefore given by
L ~ =SI,"R,
~

Bz B? + ReB2
(Re+ B2)2 + Bf

(44)

which is the equation given in Section 2.4.2.1 of the

Standard.
Although the Standard suggests splitting the loss factor equally between the sheath and armour, the use of
Reimplicitly assumes that I, = (RJRJISaand I, = (Re/
&)Isa. In spite of the presence of large inductances, this
assumption is approximately correct because the dominant induction terms, Bo and B2, contribute to all the
self- and mutual inductances of the sheath and armour.
These two dominant inductances are from the large
longitudinal magnetic flux in the steel armour tapes
and wires.
From eqn. 42, the circulating loss factors are given

110

(45)

R:
B; B?
R,Rc (Re B2):'

From eqn. 43, the hysteresis loss factor is given by

The sum of these three loss factors is equal to the total

given by the Standard.

IEE Proc.-Sei. Meas. Technol., Vol. 144,No.3, May 1997