THE EFFECT OF EARTHING OF CABLE SHEATHS ON FAULT CURRENT

DISTRIBUTION
Neil McDonagh
ESB International, Ireland
ABSTRACT
In urban areas, high voltage underground cables are commonly used for the transmission and distribution of electricity.
Many such high voltage cables have metallic sheaths or screens surrounding the conductors, and/or armour and metallic
pipes surrounding the cables. During earth faults applied to directly earthed systems, these metallic paths are expected to
carry a substantial proportion of the total fault current, which would otherwise flow through the general mass of earth, while
returning to system neutrals. These alternative return paths must be considered when determining the extent of the grid
potential rise at an electrical plant due to earth faults. This paper examines fault current distribution following a single phase
to earth fault at a high voltage urban substation. Sub A 110kV substation is fed by two 110kV connections to Sub B and Sub
C substations. Both feeders are pipe type cables. A network model incorporating the substation earth grid and cable sheaths
is built using proprietary software and the results presented. Current injection tests are carried out to verify modelled results.
Finally the implications of alternative return paths provided by cables are discussed and conclusions are drawn.
Keywords:

Earthing, Grounding, cable sheaths, Substation, Fault current distribution, Cable sheaths, current injection
test, computer modelling.
INTRODUCTION

During a phase to earth fault on a directly earthed

system, fault current will return to source transformer
neutrals by whatever means are available, primarily
through the general mass of earth and via metallic
connections. These metallic connections may be
provided by shield wire or counterpoise in the case of
overhead lines and by cable sheath, armour, pipes and
counterpoise in the case of underground cables. Fault
currents may also return along unintentional paths such
as gas pipelines, railway lines, or any metallic
connection.
Fault current that returns via the earth must pass through
the substation earth grid to the earthed transformer
neutral. This will produce a grid potential rise with
respect to remote earth (GPR). It is desirable to reduce
the GPR at substations during earth faults for a number
of reasons; principally to reduce touch and step voltage
hazards that may exist at the substation, but also to
minimise transfer voltage hazards along other utilities
such as telecommunications circuits, railway lines, gas
pipe lines, etc.
GPR (volts) = Ig * EGR

(Equation 1)

GPR = potential rise with respect to remote earth (volts)

Ig = earth fault current in amperes
EGR = earth grid resistance in ohms
It is clear to see from Eq 1 that the only two ways to
decrease the GPR are to decrease the earth fault current
Ig or to decrease the earth grid resistance EGR.

To reduce the earth grid resistance a number of methods

may be used. The substation earth grid in question may
be extended or reinforced, perhaps through the use of
vertical earth rods, satellite earth grids, etc.

Fig 1 Grid Potential Rise Plot

(Equation 2)
If = Im + Ig
If = Total fault current
Im = current travelling along metallic return paths
Any continuous metallic connections away from the
substation that are connected to earth at the substation
and at some other remote location will provide an
alternative path for fault current thus, reducing the
amount of current flowing through the earth at the site of
interest (Eq 2).

However it must be noted that voltages transferred along

these metallic connections may be hazardous if a
sufficient earthing system is not present where these
connections are earthed.
During a phase to earth fault the faulted phase will carry
fault current. This fault current induces a current in
parallel metallic return paths, such as cable sheaths, so
that some of the current which could have travelled
through the mass of earth instead travels along these
return paths, thereby reducing the current component
contributing to GPR (Eq2). [1]
Faulted phase If

Fault

Metallic return paths Im

Secondly sheaths in the vicinity of the faulted phase

carry induced current away from the fault location. A
large proportion of current will therefore circulate in the
core of that faulted phase and the metallic return paths.
This paper examines this phenomenon using industry
standard software CDEGS [2]. Modelled results are also
backed up current injection test results
CABLE MODEL
Fig. 3 shows the diagram on which the cable model was
based. Each phase and sheath were modelled, the pipe is
also modelled. Due to software constraints, it was not
possible to accurately model the armouring that covers
all three cables as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore three
models were constructed in an attempt to accurately
model self impedances and mutual impedances between
cores, sheaths and pipes.

Current path through earth Ig

Substation earth grids

Fig.2 Phase to Earth Fault
This principle is illustrated in Fig 2 where a typical phase
to earth fault is displayed. (It must be noted that this
diagram is merely illustrative and the direction of
current flow indicated by the arrows is a simplistic
illustration.).
If the earth fault current is reduced then the GPR is also
reduced Eq 1. Therefore it can be seen that a continuous
metallic connection, such as cable sheath, armour, pipe,
counterpoise or shield wire, along a faulted phase can
reduce the GPR at substations at both its ends by virtue
of these two mechanisms, namely conductive and
inductive paths.
Case study
Sub A is located in a large urban centre and fed by two
110kV connections to Sub B and Sub C. Each of the
110kV feeders is a 110kV pipe type cable. Cable sheaths
surround each of the cores, armour surrounds the three
cables. The pipe, armour and sheaths all provide a return
path for fault current to various earthed neutrals on the
system. The mechanism by which these metallic return
paths carry fault current is two-fold. Firstly they provide
a series impedance connection to Sub A thus reducing
the proportion of current that is forced to flow through
the impedance to remote earth of the earth grid at Sub A
thus reducing the overall grid potential rise or GPR.

Fig. 3 City Type Cable

1. copper core
2. conductor screen
3. XLPE insulation
4. Insulation screen
5. semi-conducting tape

6. aluminium sheath (APL) sheath

7. bedding
8. armouring
9. steel pipe with insulation

Model A: the cable was modelled as shown in Fig. 3 but

without armouring.
Model B. The cable was modelled as in model A but with
individual armouring around each cable. The three
individual armours have the same cross-sectional area as
the actual armour shown in Fig 3.
Model C. The pipe was modelled as having the same
cross section as the pipe and armour combined and was
modelled as close as possible to the cable cores to
account for the mutual impedance path provided by the
armour

Cable model analysis

A number of different scenarios were created in order to
analysis the difference in performance of each cable
model. All calculations are based on the description of
the network provided in the introduction. For all
calculations it is assumed that Sub B and Sub C have 1
earth grid resistances. The earth grid resistance at Sub A
and the distance between Sub A and Subs B and C are
altered to analyse the effect on earth fault current and
therefore GPR. The distance between Sub A and Sub B is
equal to the distance between Sub A and Sub C for all
calculations. During all calculations current is injected
along the feeder to Sub C.
For calculations 4, 5 and 6 the feeder to Sub B will be
disconnected. All six calculations are carried out for 3
cable lengths: 2km, 5km and 10km. The following
EGRs are used at Sub A: for calculations 1 and 4: 1 ,
for calculations 2 and 5: 5 and for calculations 3 and 6:
20 . It can be seen from these results (Table 1) that for
each calculation the earth fault current calculated using
Model B cable is between those calculated for Model A
and Model C. This is understandable for the following
reasons: Model A under-estimates the series impedance
of the cable by neglecting the armour. Model C overestimates the mutual coupling between the faulted phase
and the pipe. Model B may slightly over-estimate the
mutual coupling between the faulted conductor and the
armour but Model B is seen as the most accurate and will
be used in all further analysis.
Table 1 Earth Fault Current and GPR per kA of
Injected Current
2km
5km
10km
Ig
Ig
Ig
calc
GPR
GPR
GPR
A
27.9
48.4
59.5
27.9
48.4
59.5
1
B
21.7
37.5
46.2
21.7
37.5
46.2
C
17.4
29.4
35.7
17.4
29.4
35.7
A
44.2
102.2
174.0
8.8
20.4
34.8
2
B
34.4
79.4
135.2
6.9
15.9
27.0
C
107.5
28.0
64.1
5.6
12.8
21.5
A
233.2
48.9
120.2
2.4
6.0
11.7
3
B
181.7
38.0
93.6
1.9
4.7
9.1
C
147.9
31.2
76.6
1.6
3.8
7.4
A
37.0
55.7
63.3
37.0
55.7
63.3
4
B
49.1
28.7
43.2
28.7
43.2
49.1
C
37.9
22.8
33.5
22.8
33.5
37.9
A
77.8
164.2
242.4
15.6
32.8
48.5
5
B
188.1
60.5
127.6
12.1
25.5
37.6
C
49.1
101.7
147.3
9.8
20.3
29.5
A
427.6
94.5
228.9
4.7
11.4
21.4
6
B
332.6
73.5
178.2
3.7
8.9
16.6
C
268.8
60.4
145.2
3.0
7.3
13.4

CALCULATIONS

Fig. 4 Fault Circuit Diagram

Zsc= Series impedance of metallic return path to Sub C
Zsb= Series impedance of metallic return path to Sub B
Zmc= Mutual impedance between faulted phase and
metallic return paths on feeder to Sub C
Zmb= Mutual impedance between faulted phase and
metallic return paths on feeder to Sub B
Fault current will take all available paths back to the
source, but the majority of current will flow along the
lowest impedance path. For a fault at Sub A fed from Sub
C current will return along the following paths to return
to the source at Sub C: through the earth at Sub A and
returning through the earth at Sub C, through the metallic
return paths (both Zsc and Zmc) from Sub A to Sub C and
through the metallic return paths to Sub B (Zsb) then
through the earth at Sub B and returning through the
earth at Sub C
The proportion of current that flows through each path
will depend on the relative impedances of each path. If
the system was completely isolated from all other
electrical and metallic systems there would be only three
return paths. In reality the situation may be quite
different as all three substations may have metallic
connections to medium voltage substations or Sub A and
Sub C may be indirectly connected via other 110kV
cable sheaths, shield wires or a combination of both.
On each feeder there are 10 metallic components that
must be considered (Fig. 5); three cores, three sheaths,
three armours and the pipe. There is a mutual impedance
between each of these components and the faulted phase.
Each of these paths will also have a series impedance
between the two substation earth grids, although the two
non-faulted phases will not act as return paths. Therefore
there are ten series impedance paths to be considered and
forty-five mutual impedance paths that must be
considered to created an accurate mathematical model of
the cable.
Imputing accurate positional and material property
information CDEGS will calculate self impedance of
each component and the mutual impedance of each
component to every other component. These results are

used in conjunction with line lengths and earth grid

resistances in order simulate complete circuit model.
Armour
Cable
sheath

Cable
core

Steel pipe

connection between the substations was 5km in length.

The injected current was 1000 + 0j A. The resultant
current matrices can be seen in Fig 6 (a). Each metallic
return path is labelled with a number: 1, 2 and 3 are cable
sheath, -1 is the sheath on the faulted phase. 5, 6 and 7
are armouring surrounding each phase, -5 is the
armouring around the faulted phase. 4 is the steel pipe.
It can be seen in both Fig 6 (a) and (b) that the metallic
return path carrying the most current is number 4, the
steel pipe, followed by number 1, the sheath on the
faulted phase. The differences between (a) and (b) may
be due to a number of factors. Primarily equation 3
ignores the effect of the two non faulted phases and
current leakage along the length of the feeder while
CDEGS takes this into account
The earth fault current calculated from equation 4 is 50.1
A @ 230o. The earth fault current calculated by CDEGS
is 43.2 A @ 237o.

Fig.5 Cable Model B

Variation in GPR at Sub A

In order to verify this model results shall be compared to

formulas [3].
Equation 3
(RA + lzmp,1 + RB)
(RA + lzc1 + RB) - - - - - - - (RA + lzm1, n + RB) I1

(R
I
A + lzm1,2 + RB) - - - - - - - - - - - - |
2

= -If (RA + lzmp,2 + RB)

|
|

(RA + lzm1, n + RB) - - - - - (RA + lzcn + RB) In

(RA + lzmp,3 + RB

Ig = -If - I1 - I2 - .............-In
(Equation 4)
= Earth grid resistance at Sub A
RA
= Earth grid resistance at Sub B
RB
l
= length of feeder
Zc1 = series impedance along return path 1
Zm1,2 = Mutual impedance between path 1 and 2
Zmp,1 = mutual impedance between faulted phase and
return path 1
= Current flowing along return path 1
I1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Fig. 6

410.134 @ - 104.93o

114.48 @ 160.147 o

o
114.48 @160.147

o
570.16 @ 143.87
147.87 @ - 144.84 o

66.63 @ 167.27 o

o
66.63 @ 167.27

Table 2 Earth Fault Current per kA of injected

current
2
5
10
20
lengths (km)
EGR
1
21.66
37.54
46.17 50.57
2
14.23
28.72
40.29 47.76
5
6.87
15.89
27.03 38.97
10
3.67
8.87
16.53 27.92
20
1.9
4.68
9.08 16.91
Variation in GPR due to change in cable length

(b)
300.13@ - 129.093o

98.734@168.035 o

o
98.734@168.035

491.7@151.735
127.51@ - 136.974 o

57.461@175.127 o

o
57.461@175.127

Fig 6 (a) resultant current matrix from equation 3.

Fig 6 (b) resultant current matrix give by CDEGS.
A circuit with 2 substations was created to compare
results. Both earth grid resistances are 1 . The

400
GPR (volts) per kA of
injected current

(a)

A number of different circuits, similar to those examined

in section 2.2, were created in order to analyse a phase to
earth fault. The cable lengths to Subs B and C were
altered. The EGR at Subs B and C was 1 for all tests
and while the EGR at Sub A was varied. The earth fault
current and GPR was calculated in each case. These
results are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 7.

350
300
250

20 ohm
10 ohm

200

5 ohm

150

2 ohm

100

1 ohm

50
0
2

5
10
Cable lengths (km)

20

Fig. 7 Plot of results from Table 2

It can be clearly seen from Table 2 and Fig. 7 that an
increase in Cable length or EGR causes a rise in the GPR
at Sub A.

MEASURED RESULTS
A current injection test was carried out at an urban
substation in the spring of 2005. The circuit used for the
current injection was similar to the description of the
network provided in the introduction. The faulted phase
was on the feeder to Sub C. The lengths of the feeders to
Sub B and Sub C were 4.7km and 7.2km respectively.
The EGR at Sub A was modelled as 40 , while the
EGRs at Subs B and C were assumed to be 1 . The
results shown are averages of measurements taken for a
number of different injected currents. The magnitudes
displayed are percentages of the fault current.
It must be noted that a number of issues were noted
during measurement. At times there were current surges
of up to 10A being measured on the pipe of feeder C
when no current was being injected. Injected currents
varied between 10A and 137A; therefore a 10A surge
could have a serious effect on measurements. When the
current on this pipe was measured, erratic variations were
noted. It must also be noted that medium voltage
connections were not considered and it is expected that a
proportion of current may have taken this path. It was not
possible to measure the currents on the armour. In reality
the cable sheaths, armours and pipe are bonded at every
joint.
Table 3 Measured Results
Sub B
Sub C
Injected current
R phase
R sheath
S sheath
T sheath
Pipe

mag
0
2.42
2.58
2.48
8

angle
0
180
180
180
180

mag
100
26.69
11.29
11.23
*85.5

angle
0
-141.4
-162.8
-164
-170

Table 4 Results Calculated by CDEGS

Injected current
R phase
R sheath
S sheath
T sheath
R Armour
S Armour
T Armour
Pipe

Sub B
mag
angle
0
0
0.139 -30.1
0.131 -33.8
0.131 -33.8
0.081 -23.0
0.077 -28.5
0.077 -28.5
2.81
53.7

Sub C
mag
angle
100
0
30
-129
9.81
168
9.81
168
12.7
-137
5.71
175
5.71
175
50
150

mag
0
0.21
0.175
0.175
0.125
0.102
0.102
3.46

angle
0
180
120
120
134
127
127
-146

mag
100
40.9
11.36
11.36
14.72
6.613
6.614
58.63

Ig
Measured
Equation 3
CDEGS

**56.7
3.13
2.79

GPR (V)
***
11.16
12.55

***GPR cannot be estimated from fault current as

medium voltage circuits were connected to the substation
earth grid. Also it was not possible to disconnect a the
feeders in order to record a voltage measurement and
thus calculate the GPR and resistance to remote earth of
substation earth grid
Calculated results are also displayed from CDEGS (table
4) and an alteration was made to equation 3 (Table 5) in
order to incorporate a second substation into the model.
Variations in results (Table 6) may be due to a number of
factors. Sections of the pipes are very old and insulation
may not still be intact. In reality the cables, armours and
pipes are bonded at every cable joint, this is not
considered in either of the calculated models. Medium
voltage connections were not considered at Sub A which
may lower the effective EGR seen by the fault at Sub A.
This would raise Ig but lower the GPR significantly.
CONCLUSIONS
It can been seen from measured and computed results
that metallic return paths provided by cable sheaths,
armours and pipe have a very positive effect in reducing
the GPR, and consequently the hazards caused by large
GPRs, by carrying large proportions of the fault current
away from substations through metallic return paths as
opposed to through the earth. Current flows due to
conductive and inductive effects through these return
paths. Replacing non-shield wire overhead lines with
shield wire overhead lines or underground cables can
significantly reduce hazards associated with high voltage
earth faults. While this may not always be economically
desirable or possible, the presence of metallic return
paths should always be considered when calculating
earth fault currents.
REFERENCES

angle

1. Electricity Association Technical Specification 41-24

Issue 1, page 23, 1992.
2. CDEGS version 11.3.107. SES Technology Ltd, 2004
3. Electricity Networks Association, Engineering
Recommendation S34, page 25 1986.

0
-104.9
159.9
159.9
-144.8
167
167
142.7

AUTHORS ADDRESS
The author may be contacted at
Power Systems Studies
ESB International
Stephen Court
18-21 St Stephens Green
Dublin 2.
neil.mcdonagh@esbi.ie

Table 5 Results Calculated from Equation 3

Sub B
Sub C
Injected current
R phase
R sheath
S sheath
T sheath
R Armour
S Armour
T Armour
Pipe

** Error due largely to interference on feeder C

Table 6 Earth Fault Current and GPR per 100A of
injected current