Evaluation of Motor Power Cables for PWM AC Drives John M.

Bentley Life Senior Member IEEE Fellow Member TAPPI ABB Industrial Systems Inc. Patrick J. Link, P.E. Member IEEE Member TAPPI ABB Industrial Systems Inc

1996 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from Proceedings of the Pulp & Paper Industry Technical Conference, Birmingham , AL, June 10-14, 1996. The Conference record is IEEE Catalog Number: 96CH35892, ISBN.- 07803-3148, ISSN,- 0190-2172, and the paper is located on pages 55-69 of that record. Abstract --- Three phase power cables installed between the inverter and motor of ac drive systems have been mostly ignored in the years since ac drives have become widely accepted in industrial applications. However, cable characteristics have become quite critical with the advent of faster inverter switching times, which have decreased by a factor of perhaps 20:1 in the last ten years. This paper describes the present areas of concern with regard to the power cabling, and a test program to quantitatively evaluate cable related remedies for these problematic areas. A relative ranking of test results is developed comparing the eight cable types tested. Cable connector considerations are examined, together with interconnection of the cable shield, or sheath, and the NEC ground circuits is discussed in light of the test results, and recommendations presented. Cable voltage ratings are discussed and recommendations made. A final cable total performance comparison, including installation factors, summarizes the paper.

Nomenclature NEC UL ICEA IEC ac rms EMC RFI SCR GTO IGBT PWM TC MC PE HP R&S FLUKE National Electric Code Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Insulated Cable Engineers Association. International Electrotechnical Commission. Alternating current. Root mean square. Electromagnetic compatibility. Radio frequency interference. Thyristor - silicon controlled rectifier. Gate turn-off thyristor - turned off by (-) gate pulse Insulated gate bipolar transistor. Pulse width modulation. Tray cable - defined in NEC Article 340-1 . Metal-clad cable - defined in NEC Article 334-1. Protective earthing ground. Hewlett Packard digitizing oscilloscope. Rohde & Schwarz Test Receiver. Fluke 8840 multimeter.

INTRODUCTION As technology has progressed in the application of PWM inverters over the past decade, the switched power devices used in these inverters also have been greatly improved with resulting faster switching rates. TABLE I lists approximate values for the shortest pulse rise or fall time attainable for the devices widely used to-date for PWM derived voltage waveforms.

TABLE 1 Typical Pulse Switching Time for PWM Power Devices Date 1980 1983 1984 1990 1995-96 Power Device Type SCR Fast thyristor GTO Turn off thyristor GTR Giant transistor IGBT Insulated gate bipolar IGBT Power plate type Switching Time Microseconds 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 (Est)

Shorter switching times have reduced the power device losses resulting in smaller size of the device and heat sink assemblies. The increased rate of change of the driving voltage has however produced a corresponding increase in magnitude of the small incremental vectorial currents that make up the motor current waveform. As a consequence of this increased dv/dt, the motor cabling has become more "noisy" with these faster rates of change producing stronger electromagnetic and electrostatic fields surrounding the cables. In spite of the "noisy" cable phenomena, most installations to-date utilize "conventional" fixed frequency and voltage three phase cables, in accordance with NEC and UL, and have been, and may continue to be, satisfactory for use with the majority of miscellaneous stand-alone ac drive systems. However, the global base of operating experience on Systems projects, involving larger quantities of coordinated low-downtime drives such as those applied to paper making and finishing machines, has definitely shown the need for engineering concern in regard to cable selection. CABLE CONCERNS AND TEST GOALS Cable Concern #1 - Currents in the NEC Equipment Grounding Circuit(s) The equipment (motor frame) grounding circuit(s) accompanying the phase conductors, especially in North America where they are required to be in accordance with NEC, have been observed to contain a relatively high current composed primarily of three frequencies, and their harmonics: 1) The base operating frequency of the ac power being delivered to the motor stator. This frequency varies from near zero all the way up to the top operating frequency of the drive system, perhaps 90 to 100 Hz in most applications. 2) The frequency of the PWM carrier, 800 to 3500 Hz in most coordinated system applications. 3) The effective frequency derived from the switching time of the PWM voltage pulses. This frequency is approximately equal to the inverse of the pulse rise/fall time, as tabulated above, for the various devices, and ranges from 100 kHz for some GTO's to 5 MHz for the smaller IGBT'S. Combining these three frequencies and their harmonics, the total frequency spectrum of ground currents then ranges from near dc to >30 MHz. North American and International standards are currently emphasizing the use of a common grounding system for drive power and control circuits, rather than the concept of creating a separate isolated ground devoted for sensitive electronic control equipment, and the required NEC safety and protective ground. This was an early practice developed with the advent of operational amplifiers in the 1960's, and was quite commonly adopted by the main-

frame computer industry as well as the industrial control community for drive systems employing analog controllers and feedback sensors.

Figure 1 Cable Shield and Ground Current Paths in NEC Grounding Configuration

Notes: For Figure 1 iG1,iG2,iG iCGI iCGM is ZG1,2,3 ZT ZMF ZPEG iPEG iPEGS iBRG ZBRG Grounding conductor currents Cable ground current at inverter PE bus end Cable ground current at motor frame PE end Shield current - longitudinally impedance of ground conductors within the shield Transfer impedance of cable shield Impedance of motor frame to PE - usually very low Impedance of PE path between inverter PE and motor PE Current flow between motor PE and inverter PE Stray currents sharing this PE ground plane, i.e., welders, etc. Current flow through motor bearing(s) to PE Impedance of current path: motor frame through bearing(s) to PE

Figure 1a illustrates a simplified physical arrangement, and Figure 1b shows the equivalent single line, associated with an NEC compliant grounding scheme for a typical inverter fed ac motor using a shielded three phase cable with integral equipment ground conductor(s) within the cable core. The system shown is doubly grounded to a PE, protective earth, ground plane in a conventional manner, one connection at the inverter end, and one connection at the motor frame. It should be noted that the NEC 1996, Article 250, does not require the second PE ground at the motor end, provided the grounding conductors are "continuous", i.e., no disconnect switches etc. in the grounding circuit. The doubly grounded system is widely used however, and provides the most salient advantage of reducing common mode voltage. High stray currents, iPEGS, not cable generated, but sharing the PE ground plane, are beyond the scope of this paper, but must be minimized in any high performance system. The injection of noisy ground current, shown as iCGI on Figure 1b, from the motor feeder cables, especially with large groups of motors and controllers, into the PE ground bus serving the sensitive electronics associated with high performance motor control has led to problems with both system performance and electronics reliability. The goal became obvious: Select a cable system to minimize the net injected ground current into the drive system PE ground bus. Cable Concern # 2a - Common Mode Current The net instantaneous current flowing in the total cable system, including all phase conductors, all ground conductors, and shield, should ideally be zero in a perfect cable power delivery system. Any net instantaneous current flow in the total cable, defined as common mode current in these tests, must flow back to the source inverter via multiple ground return paths. If the transfer impedance, ZMF, of the path through the motor frame to PE ground is high (a "floating" motor with respect to ground) the common mode current will be primarily shield current, is resulting in a common mode impedance drop occurring across the cable transfer impedance, ZT. This common mode voltage, shown as UL on Figure 1b, will appear at the point of connection of the shield and grounding conductors. This point must be connected to the motor frame, in accordance with the NEC, Articles 250 and 430, to meet safety codes for "permanently located" motors. Voltage UL energizes the motor frame in parallel paths to PE, across ZMF and ZBRG, the bearing path impedance. Note that ZMF may range from nearly zero, shunting out the motor frame completely, on a well designed high frequency ground system, to an open circuit on a motor without a second PE ground at the frame. The higher impedance ZMF becomes, greater is the probability of diverting a portion of the common mode current through a lower impedance, ZBRG , via a path through the bearing(s) and drive train to PE under the load equipment. This portion of the common mode current, iBRG , results in bearing current path shown on Figure lb. Even if bearing dielectric breakdown is initiated from other internal motor distributed capacitance effects, such as discharge mode currents, or motor asymmetry induced currents, the follow through current from the common mode current will hasten the bearing failure process.[13] To prevent increased probability of bearing currents a second goal was set: Select a cable to minimize common mode currents. Cable Concern #2b - Motor Frame Voltage to PE Ground at the Motor This concern is a special case of the common mode current concern, where the motor frame does not have an intentional second direct connection to the PE ground plane under the motor, and ZMF is effectively infinite. In those installations, the bearing currents may be produced by the energized motor frame as described under Concern 2a. Tests were run with an insulating block under the motor and an insulating motor shaft coupling. With the two paths to PE effectively infinite impedance, the common mode current was forced to flow through the shield only, so the common mode voltage and motor frame voltage became synonymous, being equal to the cable shield transfer impedance drop. Consequently, a combination of optimum symmetry (low induced current) and low shield transfer impedance would be the ideal solution for reducing the motor frame voltage to PE, leading to the third goal: Select a cable to minimize the open circuit voltage between the motor frame and the ground plane under the motor.

Cable Concern # 3 - Cross Talk Between Adjacent Motor Circuits This problem arises when two or more inverter-motor circuits are physically located adjacent to each other for relatively long distances in trays, raceways, or conduits. The induced voltages/currents from one circuit to another may lead to destructive voltage stress to either the motors or the inverter equipment, or cause intermittent performance of one of more of the involved systems. The other problem associated with this cross talk between drive circuits, relates to personnel safety. A typical case in which this problem may pose a safety hazard would be when one drive system is energized and operating a motor, while a second drive may require motor maintenance, such as motor replacement, wherein an electrician is required to handle the bare cable termination at the motor end to change out the motor with a spare. If these two motor circuits travel a considerable distance together in a tray for example, the open circuit (1000 Ohms to ground was used in accordance with IEEE Std 80-1986 IEEE) may receive enough electromagnetic/electrostatic coupling from the energized circuit to produce a driving voltage and current flow that could be dangerous, or potentially fatal. [9] [10] A fourth goal was set, based on this potential safety hazard: Select a cable that would minimize cross talk with other adjacent cables of the same type. TEST DETAILS Objectives The concerns and goals described above resulted in the four main objectives of the cable tests: 1) Select a cable to minimize the net induced ground currents into the drive system ground 2) Select a cable to minimize common mode currents 3) Select a cable to minimize the open circuit voltage between the motor frame and the ground plane under the motor 4) Select a cable that would minimize cross talk with other adjacent cables of the same type when supplying power to an inverter fed motor 5) Determine the electrical interconnection(s) between the sheath, shield, and ground to give optimum performance to each cable configuration tested. Cables Tested The goals of the tests, when examined from the standpoint of practical applied engineering, solutions, boil down to making choices from commercially available, and most commonly used, cable technology and construction. If it was found necessary, to meet the minimum goal objectives, the required modification of standard cable technologies would be kept to a minimum. Guided by the principle of utilizing available technology, the goals were tackled by dealing with the two principal electrical subsystems of a standard power cable: 1) Base cable core configuration 2) Sheath configuration (When used)

Figure 2 Photographs of The Cables Tested

Figure 2 illustrates photographs and cross sectional views of the eight cables selected for testing. TABLE 2 identifies the NEC or IEC cable types and a description of the configuration for each cable. TABLE 2 Cables Selected for Test Cable # 1 2 3 Cable Type NEC/MC NEC/TC NEC/MC Description 3 phase, 3 grounds, no shield, aluminum interlocked armor 3 phase, 3 grounds no shield, no armor 3 phase, 3 grounds, no shield, galvanized steel interlocked armor 3 phase, 1 ground, no shield, aluminum continuous armor 3 phase, 3 ground, Cu tape spiral shield, galvanized steel interlocked armor 3 phase sectored symmetrical, no grounds, Cu tape + wire shield, no armor IEC 3 phase sectored asymmetrical, 1 ground, Cu tape + wire shield, no armor 3 phase, 3 grounds, no shield, aluminum continuous armor Conductor Sizes

4 5

NEC/MC NEC/MC

IEC/MCMK

IEC/MCMK

8 Notes:

NEC/MC

Cable # 1,2,3,5,8 4 6 7 8

Phase #2AWG #2AWG 35mm2 35mm2 #2AWG

NEC Gnd #10AWG #8AWG

IEC Gnd

IEC Shield

316mm2

16mm2 #10AWG

316mm2

#2AWG = 33.63 mm2 Aluminum continuous corrugated armor thickness = 0.025 inch

Inverter and Motor For all the tests except the Cross Talk tests, each of the eight cables were cut to the same length of approximately 150 feet. All cables were tested in a similar manner under similar conditions in the systems development laboratory shown in Figure 3. All motor and control apparatus used was commercial production type equipment. The inverter was a PWM type, rated 50 kVA, three phase, 0-200 Hz, vector controlled speed regulated. It was connected to the constant voltage dc bus supplied from a regenerative dc line supply, input rated at 500 kVA, 400 volt, three phase, 50 Hz. The motor tested was a 37 kW, 70 A, 48 kVA, four pole, 400 volt, three phase, 50 Hz, TEFC, squirrel cage induction motor. The motor, shown in Figure 4, was mounted on an insulated base and equipped with an insulated shaft coupling to the speed reducer. The reducer was coupled via a long indrive shaft to a flywheel and loading motor shown in the background of Figure 3. Note the common mode current sensor surrounding the test cable entering the terminal box connector in the foreground of Figure 4.

Figure 3 Systems Test Lab With Cable Test Equipment

Figure 4 Test Motor With Insulated Base and Coupling

Measuring Equipment Three instruments were used to during the course of testing: 1) HP 2) R&S 3) FLUKE - Digitizing Oscilloscope - HP54522A - Rohde & Schwarz digital test receiver and analyzer - Fuke 8840 Multimeter

Four Basic Test Runs The test runs were intentionally kept simple and few in number and were all run in a similar manner under similar conditions. Each test measurement was taken after the drive system reached steady state at four running conditions: 1) 25 Hz @ 0% rated motor torque 2) 25 Hz @ 40% rated motor torque 1) 75 Hz @ 0% rated motor torque 2) 75 Hz @ 40% rated motor torque The test motor indrive and loading configuration used was the one normally used for system analysis of dynamic performance under torsional and backlash conditions; therefore, the test runs replicated torque, current, and voltage excursions similar to actual installations. The measured data consequently included a typical content of electrical noise, induced by the electromechanical drive train components. Figure 5 shows a simplistic functional diagram of the basic equipment and measurement points. The three instruments were used as follows:

Figure 5 Simplified Test Diagram HP54522A Oscilloscope The digitizing oscilloscope was used to obtain data during the four basic runs for the following measurement points: [F] Motor Frame Voltage [S] Stator Current [P] Phase to Ground Voltage Frame Voltage to Ground Measurements The rms motor frame voltage to ground was quite different for the various cables during the four test runs; therefore, it was determined to be a critical factor. Figure 6 presents a summary of the relative motor frame voltages to ground for all cables during the four test runs. The relative voltage data plotted in figure 6 was measured with the ground conductors, shields, and armors all interconnected for optimum performance. The relative data shown therefore represents realistic performance of property field installed cables. The excellent performance of Cable #5 is attributable to the copper tape shield providing a low transfer impedance. This can be verified by observing that Cable #3, essentially the same cable core and interlocked steel armor as Cable #5, but had no copper shield, produced about 6.5 times the frame voltage as Cable #5. Stator Current Measurements The stator three phase current waveforms were not influenced to any measurable degree by the cable type used during the tests; therefore, this measured data was not considered significant in the cable selection process. Phase Voltage to Ground Measurements The rms phase to ground voltage was nearly the same for all cables under the conditions of the four test runs. It was concluded that this voltage is not a direct function of the eight cable types used; therefore, no more consideration was given to the use of this data in the final analysis and recommendations.

Figure 6 Relative Motor Frame Voltage to Ground FLUKE Multimeter - Cross Talk Tests The digital multimeter was used to obtain rms voltage data for the cross talk tests. These tests were conducted after the all the current and voltage tests were completed. The cable lengths were all cut in half, and wire tied together in pairs at close intervals over the entire length of the pair to simulate close proximity in trays, raceways, or conduits, as shown Figure 7. For each pair of cables, one of the cables was connected to the inverter and motor similar to the connections used earlier for the current tests. The other cable was connected to an inverter in the line-up with the test inverter, with it's dc link disconnect switch open. This was equivalent to the "tag out" condition of a drive section isolated for electrical maintenance such as a motor change-out. The motor end, the phase and ground conductors were tied together through a 1.0 kS resistor to ground. The resistor simulates the moist human body resistance to ground in accordance with IEEE Std 80-1986.[9] The test inverter and motor were then energized and put through the four basic test runs, and voltage data across the resistor was taken. This relative voltage to ground for all cable pairs is summarized in Figure 8. This cross talk voltage summary shows that Cables #4, #5, and #8 performed the best, attributable to the electric field containment and rejection properties of the continuous metallic shields utilized by these three cables. The other shielded cables, Cable #6 and #7, utilizing IEC concentric copper wire shields, did not perform as well, producing over 30 times the cross talk of the best performer, Cable #5.

Figure 7 Cable Pairs Arranged for Cross Talk Tests

Figure 8 Relative Cross Talk Voltage

Rohde & Schwarz Analyzer The data receiver and analyzer was used for all the current measurements for the measurement points: [G] NEC ground wires [A] Armor (or shield on cables #5, #6, and #7) [T] Total (Armor and/or shield and NEC ground wires tied together) [C] Common mode

The Rohde & Schwarz had the capability to scan and store a very wide range of frequencies. In the current test measurements, four bands were chosen for these frequency scans as shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 Frequency Bands for The R&S Measured Data Band # 1 2 3 4 Typical Current Measurements Figure 9 shows a typical set of four frequency band plots of current vs. frequency, and the following conditions apply to this set of tests: Cable Tested: Cable No. 4 (3 phase conductors, 1 ground conductor, no separate shield, aluminum continuous armor) Ground connections: One common to NEC gnd conductor & armor Loading conditions: 25 Hz, 40% torque Current measured: Armor Current measured at: Inverter end, from armor-to-PE bus ground R & S Frequency Bands: Figure 9a: 20 - 200 Hz Figure 9b: 0.2 - 10 kHz Figure 9c: 0.1 - 150 kHz Figure 9d: 0.15 - 30 MHz Time of sampling measurement: 20 ms Upper curve: Peak value during the 20 ms sampling period Lower curve: Avg. of all values during the 20 ms sampling period Start Point Hz 20 200 10K 150K End Point Hz 200 10K 150K 30M Step Size Hz 2 20 200 10K

Figure 9 Typical R&S Frequency Band Current Plots

Also note on Figure 9 that the "y axis" current magnitude data is presented in dB (1.0 A rms). This indicates that the dB values are referred to 1.0 A rms. This is a difficult unit to relate to in practical engineering considerations therefore, the data was converted to Arms (rms amperes) for comparison and simplification analysis. This plot of armor current was chosen to illustrate a typical plot, but also to show specifically Cable No 4 with only one NEC ground. The current flowing between the connector and the armor at the inverter end of the cable is higher with this asymmetrical cable configuration than a three NEC ground cable such as No 8 and No 5. The current frequency band contains some relatively high values in the megahertz region. The importance of using a low impedance connector and proper ground connections should be evident at higher frequencies. Recall the discussion associated with Figure 1, where it was pointed out that a low shield transfer impedance ZT must be provided if the shield is to be effective in reducing common mode voltage and current, and the connector impedance adds to the total transfer impedance of the shield. R & S Current Measurement Results The data collected for the current flowing in all the ground conductors, shields, and armors, in various interconnection combinations, for all cables, for all four tests basic test runs was monumental. Mathematical software techniques were applied to manage the task of consolidation of this data. For the final comparisons in this paper, we used only the data measured with the ground conductors, shields, and armors all interconnected in the recommended configuration for optimum performance for any given cable. As a consequence, the measured common mode and total ground currents have been converted to relative performance

values as shown in Figure 10, and represent the performance of properly field installed cables of each type. Again, Cables #4, #5, and #8, those with continuous metallic shields, were the best performers for minimization of both common mode and total ground currents. This summary graph shows the primary reasoning for recommending Cable #8(three NEC grounds) over Cable #4 (one NEC ground) and Cable #5 (three NEC grounds + a special Cu tape). The common mode current was the lowest, and probably more importantly, it will remain the lowest even if the connection between the shield and NEC ground wires is not good (poor connector or corrosion, or accidentally left completely open (absolutely not recommended!).

Figure 10 Relative Common Mode and Total Ground Current

SELECTING THE OPTIMUM CABLE, CONNECTORS, AND GROUND INTERCONNECTIONS Base Cable Core Configuration The symmetry of the conductors within the three phase cable was found to be quite critical in order to minimize the induced current in the ground conductor(s). Our European friends have been using an IEC symmetrical cable for years, even with sine wave fed motors. A similar construction was used in North America many years ago, utilizing compacted(Formed) phase conductors and a continuous lead (Pb) sheath(shield). A typical IEC type MCNFK cable is configured as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 Typical IEC Three Phase Symmetrical Cable Configuration

The compacted phase conductors are insulated and assembled closely spaced to each other, and bound together by an insulating tape overlay. This cable core is surrounded by a single or double layer of spiral wound small copper conductors and usually an open helix (non-overlapping) Cu tape to equalize the high frequency potential around the cable. This IEC Std 502 shield is secured by another insulating overlay tape. Finally, the entire cable is covered by

an insulating jacket for mechanical protection, and to insure that the shield does not make undesired contacts with mill ground along the length of the cable run. Tests confirm that the shield must be used as a common mode current drain wherein it is connected to around (PE bus) at the inverter end and to the motor frame ground point. For North American installations, where IEC symmetrical cable is rarely used, the recommended technique, to minimizing the induction of ground circuit current , will be to utilize a more symmetrical cable core configuration, using an acceptable and commonly available North American "round conductor" cable construction as shown on Figure 12.

Figure 12 Recommended Symmetrical Cable Core Configuration (Outer Sheath Not Shown)

Cable Shielding and Sheath The test results revealed that electrical shielding of the base cable configuration is extremely influential in achieving all four of the goals for our selected motor cable system. Shielding, properly connected to ground, is perhaps the one most important total cable system characteristic that we can engineer to achieve major improvements to the cable system performance. Generally, in the past, drive system motor power cables have not been electrically shielded with any degree of consistency. Quite frequently the metallic armor or conduit was considered to function as a shield, but we had not placed a high priority on "electrical shielding effectiveness" of these outer sheathing systems, usually chosen for mechanical protection. Our testing showed very clearly that the shielding of the cable core configuration was most effective when it possessed the following characteristics: 1) Low resistivity metallic material (Copper or aluminum) 2)Low resistance end-to-end configuration 3) Low inductance end-to-end configuration 4) Continuous metallic surface surrounding the cable over the total length of the run. Previous testing and well documented reports have been published explaining the theoretical and practical advantages of low resistance continuous metallic shielding, especially for internal containment, and external rejection of higher electromagnetic frequencies through the effect of self-induced eddy currents in the shield wall. [6], [7] The most common methods in use today of sheathing our North American cables are: 1) Interlocked aluminum - NEC Type MC 2) Interlocked steel - NEC Type MC 3) Continuous corrugated aluminum - NEC Type MC 4) Steel conduit 5) Aluminum conduit We thoroughly tested type MC interlocked aluminum, type MC interlocked steel, and type MC continuous corrugated aluminum sheathed base cable systems, in addition to the IEC type MCMK, 1kV, symmetrical cables with a concentric copper wire/tape shield. The continuous corrugated aluminum sheath performed the best overall for the North American types, and compared quite favorably with the IEC concentric cables. The continuous aluminum sheath meets all four of the characteristics listed above required for a good electrical shield. The interlocked steel armor fails to meet the low resistivity characteristic, and in addition tends to exhibit a high end-to-

end inductance due to the solenoid effect of the spiral wound interlocking, wherein the turn-to-turn contact resistance is relatively high destroying the existence of a continuous surface characteristic. The interlocked aluminum performed reasonably close to the continuous aluminum, but in time, especially in damp environments with airborne chemical contaminants, the turn-to-turn resistivity will increase, causing both the end-to-end resistance and inductance to increase, but more importantly, the effect of a continuous shield surrounding the cable will be lost, similar to the steel interlocking.[6] The continuous aluminum sheath also serves as a protective armor and can provide excellent long term environmental protection for the base cable system when coated with a PVC jacket. Cable #5, type MC, with three phase conductors, three ground conductors, and interlocked steel armor, plus a copper tape shield, performed very well in all tests, primarily due to the effectiveness of the copper shield. The interlocked steel armor primarily provides only mechanical protection. The specifications for this construction come from the medium voltage field where a dielectric stress relieving shield is mandated by UL and NEC. It is considered somewhat special for a 600 volt rating, and in addition, hardware and installation techniques for terminating the thin tape shield for 600 volt systems is not in widespread use today. Taking these factors into account, the continuous aluminum armor cable is recommended over cable #5 since the electrical performance is nearly equal, and it becomes a more practical and perhaps more economical cable to apply, primarily due to the fact that the continuous armor provides the multiple functions of electrical shielding, mechanical protection, and environmental protection. Recommended Cable Configuration On the basis of the primarily technical considerations dealt with thus far in this paper, we strongly recommend a symmetrical, six conductor, three phase, base cable core with a continuous corrugated aluminum armor type sheath. The resulting cable is basically per the NEC, type MC, with a configuration as shown on Figure 13.

Figure 13 Recommended Cable Configuration

Connectors The connectors used with the recommended cable must provide a very good electrical and mechanical connection between the cable aluminum shield/armor and the PE ground plane at each end of the cable. The electrical connection between the cable shield and connector body should provide extremely low ohmic contact resistance as well as a low impedance path for high frequency shield currents. [7] Connector types were not evaluated as part of the cable test program. Ideally, to meet EMC & RFI requirements, the connector should provide an electrical extension of the shield itself directly to the PE ground plane at each end of the cable.[7] To date this has generally not been practical for drive system power shielding, but connectors are commercially available that provide a good practical grounding scheme when the armor is used as the electrical shield. Figure 14 shows a photo of such a connector with the component parts as they assemble on the cable. Note the machined tapered insert with internal threads to mate with the armor 'lead screw' corrugation, which, when securely tightened, provides 360E electrical contact between shield and connector body.

Figure 14 Connector With Acceptable 360E Shield Grounding

Interconnections & Grounding As indicated earlier, the effectiveness of the cable shielding and symmetry are both dependent upon a proper interconnection of all the cable electrical components. Figure 15, utilizing a good 360E connector similar to that shown in Figure 14, shows the proper connections for a typical motor circuit. All connections must be kept as short as practical to insure low impedance paths to ground or PE for the high frequency components of the phase, ground circuit, and shield currents. The installation manuals for the inverters and motors should be consulted for specific details regarding placement of power and ground circuits for a given product type or rating.

Figure 15 Typical Cable Connectors With Acceptable Interconnection Grounding

Conduit Systems Conduit systems were not specifically tested due to a lack of time and resources. It is our opinion, that properly installed, either a steel or aluminum conduit enclosing an equivalent type TC symmetrical three phase cable core as recommended, and shown in Figure 12, would yield performance comparable to the type MC continuous aluminum armor/shield. The problem arises in the quality control of the installation of the conduit sections, fittings, and end termination to the system ground planes. The conduit lengths must be coupled together with the equivalent electrical integrity of a continuous metallic sheet to achieve the performance of the recommended cable, and also terminated at the ends of the run with the electrical equivalency of the connector recommended. It is highly doubtful that this quality will be maintained during the installation of a typical industrial conduit-based system. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, conduit systems are not our prime recommendation, and the recommended type MC cable system will be more likely to produce the cable performance achieved in our tests, both initially and over the longtime installed life of the cable system.

Cable Voltage Rating Cable voltage stress factors were not tested, nor instrumented extensively, as part of the cable test program. However cable selection cannot be made without voltage considerations, and the following information will present an overview of the voltages producing dielectric stress on cables applied to PWM fed ac motors, Figure 16 shows the basic voltages and location in the system, that will be discussed in this section.

Figure 16 Voltages in Inverter System

The basic relationships involving a sinusoidal ac voltage, such as Vsupply in Figure 16, are as follows:

or

For a 480 Vrms system: For a 575 Vrms system: Now consider ph-gnd voltage:

(Ph-Gnd voltage is significant in UL Tests)

For a 480 Vrms circuit:

For a 575 Vrms circuit:

Consider the voltage relationships experienced by the cables and motor which are derived from the constant dc link voltage, Vdclink:

1) 2)

(The output of a 3 ph rectifier, with filter) Vpeak = Vdclink (By definition, the PWM pulses are equal to the Vdclink, ignoring transients and voltage reflection)

Substituting 1) into 2) and rearranging we get the general relationship between supply voltage and the peak voltage value of the ac waveform applied to the cables and motor:

Using this general equation, the basic relationships involving the PWM waveform are:

For a 480 Vrms circuit:

For a 575 Vrms system:

Considering ph-gnd voltages:

(Ph-Gnd is significant in UL Tests)

For a 480 Vrms circuit:

For a 575 Vrms circuit:

Voltage Reflection Mode of Operation This is a concern where the cable-to-motor impedance ratio is sufficiently large, and the cable run length is long enough to provide the possibility of producing voltage reflection phenomena. This well known phenomena may be prevalent in all types of electrical transmission lines. The motor cable can exhibit the reflected wave phenomena as the steep front of a PWM pulse is transmitted along the cable from the inverter to the motor which tends to exhibits a high (appears to be unterminated) impedance to this wave front. When the reflected wave from the motor end meets another transmitted wave, the net voltage at that point is the vectorial sum of the two traveling waves, and when exactly in phase, can effectively amplify the source voltage from the inverter. Theoretically, with very long lengths of low loss cable, combined with mismatched cable and motor impedance, the reflections could continue to add vectorially to produce greater than twice dc bus voltage, and in some installations, transient peak magnitudes of three times dc bus voltage have been observed. Most commonly, this phenomena when prevalent, applies only approximately twice dc bus voltage peaks to the cable and motor. If voltage reflection is expected, then the cable phase conductor insulation should be supplied to withstand the corresponding doubled voltage. A rough check for voltage doubling possibility may be made with the following calculation:

Where: Lcr = critical cable length in m - shortest length at which full reflection may occur v = 150 m/s - speed of wave front propagation in the cable, generally about one half speed of light in space tr = rise time of the pulse in s For the fastest IGBT (Refer to TABLE 1 tr = 0.1s, and the critical cable run length would be:

For the slowest time shown (Refer to TABLE 1), 1, = 4.0 s, and the critical cable run length would be:

This critical length equation for Lcr was used to construct the curve shown in Figure 17 showing the approximate maximum cable run length for tr values from 0.2 to 1.5 s, the most common range of switching times covering the majority of installations of systems drives in use today.

Figure 17 Critical Cable Run Length

Filtering and/or impedance matching hardware, either integral to the inverter assembly or externally mounted, to accommodate reflection prone applications may also be used to permit longer cable runs without reflection mode for a given inverter switching time. Voltage Relationships Figure 18 shows the voltage relationships that could exist phase-to-phase within the motor cables, given the various voltage ratings of the cable and inverter equipment used. Note that the Sine wave forms have been plotted for three cable voltage ratings: 2000 V ("2000rms" curve), 1000 V ("1000rms" curve) and 600 V ("600rms " curve), plus 575 V ("575rms" curve) and 480 V ("480rms" curve), representing the two common motor voltage ratings.

Figure 18 Sine Wave Voltage Relationships

The next four flat top and bottom curves are really envelopes of PWM wave form curves with the actual pulse widths and number of pulses/half cycle being dependent upon dynamic conditions of frequency, voltage and load torque. Curves "Vpwm575" and Vpwm480" represent the peak value of the 575 and 480 volt inverter pulse outputs respectively. Curves "Vref575" and "Vref480" represent the peak values of the 575 and 480 outputs when operating in the reflection mode described above. Let's look at an example. In a normal situation with a 480 volt motor, 480 volt inverter, a 480 volt, three phase, diode rectifier type line supply, and cable lengths not long enough to produce voltage reflections. The peak voltage (Vpwm480) applied to the cables will be 648 volts. The standard low voltage (600V) rated cables have been designed and tested for a sine wave shown by the 600rms curve with 848 peak volts, well above the 648 volts represented by the "Vpwm480" line. This margin between the sine wave and PWM wave peak voltages is conventionally accepted and applied throughout the industry, and has proved to be very successful in thousands of inverter powered installations. Now lets take the same example, except the cable lengths combined with the device switching times, yield the possibility of voltage reflections. Now the peak voltage (Vrefl480) applied to the cables could be 2x 648 volts, or 1296 volts. This value of 1296 volts now exceeds the 848 volt peak value of the 600 volt sine wave by a ratio of 1.53. A similar set of examples may be worked out using a 575 volt motor and a 575 volt, three phase diode rectifier type supply to the inverter. The peak non-reflected voltage (Vpwm575) applied to the cables will be 776 volts, below the 848 volt peak value of the conventional 600 volt sine wave. The reflected peak voltage (Vref'575) on a very long cable run could be 1552 volts. In this example the reflected peak voltage of 1552 volts exceeds the 848 volt peak value of the 600 volt sine wave by a ratio of 1.83. An inspection of Figure 18 reveals that a 575 volt system operating in voltage reflection mode also exceeds the 1414 volt peak value of the 1000 volt rated cable commonly applied in IEC communities. Cable Stress Potential Testing Considerations After reviewing the above examples, it is obvious that voltage reflection mode of operation will reduce the margin of safety by additional dielectric stress on the cable insulation. However, before a conclusion can be reached in regard to the voltage rating required for motor cables, some background on cable insulation dielectric stress potential may be useful.

The authors have determined that at present there seems to be no formal cable industry program in place to address the issue of cable voltage rating required for PWM ac motor cables. There have been however, numerous cable industry based informal efforts to give this issue some direction within IEEE, ICEA, and other organizations. The general consensus is that the presence of PWM pulses in today's inverter fed motor cables is not likely to cause cable failures, and there has not been a high priority placed on this issue, primarily due to: 1) Negligible failures have occurred to-date on inverter fed motor applications 2) The electrical stress applied to 600 volt rated cables by inverter fed systems is relatively low when compared to: a) The routine stresses applied to 60 Hz medium voltage cable systems. The peak voltage stress that will be encountered phase ground on 480 & 575 volt inverter applications are approximately one-third the voltage stress routinely handled over the past 40 years by 15 kV cables. b) The dielectric test potentials applied in conformance with UL1569 Metal Clad Cable test specifications. TABLES 4 and 5 have been prepared to show comparisons of the relative dielectric stress levels. At the top of TABLE 4 the basic 600 volt MC cable (NEC TABLE 310-13) insulation thickness in mils, as well as the UL1569 Test voltages are shown for various phase conductor sizes . These values have been combined and converted into Vpeak/mil (Ph-Gnd) values for the various conductor sizes. These values are a quantitative measure of the dielectric stress applied to the conductor insulation to ground (The grounded metal sheath of the cable). Note that the values range from 141 Vpeak/mil on #14-#9 conductors to 103 Vpeak/mil on #1-4/0 conductors. Carrying on with the same computational procedure, the Vpeak/mil values were computed for: 1) 575 and 480 Sine wave across-the-line fed motor 2) 575 PWM wave inverter fed motor, with and without reflection mode 3) 480 PWM wave inverter fed motor, with and without reflection mode TABLE 4 Peak Voltage Stress Comparison to UL 1569 For 600 Volt Cable
Cable Test or Application Note: 10 mil = 0.001 inch Dielectric Voltage Withstand Test UL 1569 600 V Cable - Type XHHW2 Rating Insul thk - mill (RHW Per NEC Table 310-13) UL1569 Test RMS pH-Gnd UL1569 Test Peak PH-Gnd Test Voltage Stress Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd 575 V Sine-Across the Line Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress 575 V PWM - Inverter Fed Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress Voltage Reflection: Vpeak Ph-Gnd Voltage Reflection: Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress 480 V Sine - Across the Line Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress 480 V PWM - Inverter Fed Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd Conductor - AWG #14-10 #8 #7-#2 #1-4/0 MCM 213-500 Avg % of UL

30 3000 4243 141 469 16 11 448 15 11 896 30 21 392 13 9 374 12

45 3500 4950 110 469 10 9 448 10 9 896 20 18 392 9 8 374 8

45 3500 4950 110 469 10 9 448 10 9 896 20 18 392 9 8 374 8

55 4000 5657 103 469 9 8 448 8 8 896 16 16 392 7 7 374 7

65 5000 7071 109 469 7 7 448 7 6 896 14 13 392 6 6 374 6

9.0

8.6

17.2

7.5

% of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress Voltage Reflection: Vpeak Ph-Gnd Voltage Reflection: Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress

9 748 25 18

8 748 17 15

8 748 17 15

7 748 14 13

5 748 12 11

7.2

14.3

These Vpeak/mil values were then compared to the UL 1569 Test voltage Vpeak/mil values, and shown as the gray shaded "% of UL 1569 Test Voltage Stress" values. For example, the 480 V PWM wave inverter fed motor when fed from a type MC cable with #8 phase conductors, without reflection mode, subjects the cable insulation to 8% of the UL1569 test voltage, and with reflection mode, it stresses the insulation 15% of the UL1569 test voltage. TABLE 5 Peak Voltage Stress Comparison to UL 1569 For 2000 Volt Cable
Cable Test or Application Note: 10 mil = 0.001 inch Dielectric Voltage Withstand Test UL 1569 2000 V Cable - Type RHW, RHH Rating Insul thk - mil (XLP, EPR Per NEC TABLE 310-52, Col B) UL1569 Test Vrms Ph-Gnd UL1569 Test Vpeak Ph-Gnd Test Voltage Stress Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd 575 V Sine - Across the Line Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress 575 V PWM - Inverter Fed Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress Voltage Reflection: Vpeak Ph-Gnd Voltage Reflection: Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress 480 V Sine - Across the Line Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress 480 V PWM - Inverter Fed Motor Vpeak Ph-Gnd Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress Voltage Reflection: Vpeak Ph-Gnd Voltage Reflection: Vpeak/mil Ph-Gnd % of UL1569 Test Voltage Stress Conductor - AWG #14-10 #8 #7-#2 #1-4/0 MCM 213-500 Avg % of UL

60 6000 8485 141 469 8 6 448 7 5 896 15 11 392 7 5 374 6 4 748 12 9

70 6000 8485 121 469 7 6 448 6 5 896 13 11 392 6 5 374 5 4 748 11 9

70 7500 10607 152 469 7 4 448 6 4 896 13 8 392 6 4 374 5 4 748 11 7

90 9000 12728 141 469 5 4 448 5 4 896 10 7 392 4 3 374 4 3 748 8 6

105 10000 14142 135 469 4 3 448 4 3 896 9 6 392 4 3 374 4 3 748 7 5

4.5

4.3

8.6

3.8

3.6

7.2

TABLE 5 compares exactly the same four applications with the characteristics of a UL 1569 rated 2000 volt, type MC cable. Note that the "% of UL Test Voltage Values" are very low for all applications when 2000 V cable is used. The bar graph of Figure 19 summarizes the insulation stress levels tabulated in TABLES 4 and 5, and has been prepared to graphically illustrate the average stress level comparison against UL1569. The average stress value for all five conductor size categories, tabulated in the far right column on TABLES 4 and 5, has been used in this graph. The significant information from this graph is that no mode of operation with either 480 or 575 V PWM systems greatly exceeds 10% of the UL 1569 test voltage stress on 600 volt cables. This margin is probably indicative of why there have not been many instances of cable failures experienced with PWM drives to date.

Figure 19 Summary of Relative Peak Voltage Stress Applied to Cables

There are several factors that quite strongly affect the integrity and life of cable insulation dielectric strength, and can cause a premature insulation breakdown, especially in the presence of voltage stresses higher than anticipated by UL 1569. These are: temperature, moisture, chemical attack, mechanical abrasion, and rate of change of stress ( Either frequency or dv/dt).[11][12] Temperature is usually not a problem when the cables are selected per NEC ampacity selection tables. Mechanical abrasion due to electromagnetic forces between conductors is not a factor, with UL and NEC approved cables located in approved trays & raceways, and properly terminated. The three remaining: moisture, chemical attack, and dv/dt may be detrimental. Moisture and chemical attack go hand-in-hand, and may be kept to a negligible factor by proper insulation and materials selection for the cable construction, and proper installation procedures to avoid unnecessary exposure of the cables to both moisture and chemicals. For example, the outer insulating jacket (Most commonly PVC) over the metallic sheath should be kept intact and not torn open anywhere on the total length of the cable run during installation insofar as possible. A sealant compound should be used to prevent moisture or airborne chemical contamination from entering the interior of the cables at the termination. The continuous metallic sheath recommended in this paper provides excellent insurance against the entry of both moisture and airborne contaminants into the interior of the MC cable. Voltage Rating Recommendation From the foregoing overview of voltage stress related factors, testing standards, and experience or lack of experience, TABLE 6 has been prepared for guidance in selecting cable voltage ratings. This table is backed by extensive installed experience, with the exception of 575 volt systems, operating in the reflection mode, using 600 volt rated cables. At this time, the faster switching time devices that will produce reflection mode at commonly used cable run lengths have just begun to emerge in volume for use in 575 volt systems. Since IEC communities use 1000 volt cable ratings on nominal 660 volt systems, we are alone in North America, in respect to building an experience base in these emerging 575 volt reflection mode systems using 600 volt rated cables. For this reason, the 2000 volt (an existing UL 1569 standard) cable is recommended in the bottom row of TABLE 6 for such systems. TABLE 6 RECOMMENDED CABLE VOLTAGE RATINGS Motor Rated Voltage Volts
# 480

Reflection Mode NO X X X YES X

UL Cable Voltage Rating Volts 600 600 2000

575 575

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Cable Type General: Type MC Metal-Clad Three Phase Cable per NEC 334-1, UL Approved Specific configuration recommendations Conductors: Three (3) - Phase conductors - Ampacity per NEC Three (3) - Ground conductors - Ampacity per NEC for 1) Single cable motor circuit 2) Parallel motor circuits Metallic Sheath: Continuous corrugated aluminum - Welded or seamless, with wall thickness as heavy as practical Overall Jacket: PVC or equivalent Voltage Rating: Per TABLE 6 Connector Type General Type: For Jacketed Metal Clad Cable UL & SA Approved, Cl 11 EFG Specific configuration recommendations 360E contact between armor & body Use Bonding Grounding fitting - Ref Figure 14 Grounding Interconnections: Good high frequency techniques - Ref Figure 15 CABLE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Installed Cost Considerations Estimates were made for evaluating the relative cost factors for installing each of the eight cable types in an identical application. The factors all relate to the first cost expenditures, as well as long term considerations. The factors are: 1) Cost of cable and connectors 2) Cable availability - stocked vs. custom 3) Termination and connector installation ease 4) Weight and volume cost factors 5) Crush resistance - installation damage costs 6) Long term effectiveness of shielding These factors for the eight cables, when combined and normalized, are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20 Relative Installed Factors Final Performance Summary The combined relative results of all the technical testing, as well as the installed factors have been plotted on Figure 21. This figure effectively provides the conclusion to this paper, and quantitatively substantiates the cable recommendations made.

Figure 21 Cable Total Performance Summary

Concluding Note on Cable and Connector Selections The user may specify temperature ratings, insulation properties and colors, phase and ground conductor metal and plating, jacket material and color details in accordance with normal procedures to meet national and local codes and practices. These details, primarily mechanical or environmentally oriented in nature, will not substantially affect the electrical characteristics dealt with in this paper on a short term basis. Resistance to environmental degradation and dielectric stress is always a desired function when selecting long term electromechanical equipment.[12] The connectors however, do affect the electrical path to the ground plane at the termination of the cable, and should be chosen and installed with care as explained in this document. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to express their appreciation to all those who supported the laboratory work involved in carrying out the testing and data processing, as well as those providing technical and commercial information, and critical review of this paper. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] National Electrical Code 1996 - 1995 NFPA 70 Underwriters Laboratory - "Metal-Clad Cables UL 1569" Dr. Sten Benda, "Interference-free electronics" Studentlitteratur, Lund 1991 ISBN 0-86238- 255-6 IEEE Standard I 100- 1992 "IEEE Emerald Book" ISBN I 55937-231-1 ABB Internal Documentation Report Ver 3.0 "AC Motor Cable Tests" Helsinki, 1995 IEEE P 1143/D7 Unproved draft of "Guide on Shielding Practice for Low Voltage Cables" Prepared by Task Group 9-26, Subcommittee No. 9 of IEEE/PES, Insulated Conductors Committee, IEEE/PES March 7, 1994. Dr. Sten Benda "Earthing, grounding, and shielding of process and communication circuits" ABB Review 10/95, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., Zurich, ISSN: 1013-3119 Austin Bonnett "Analysis of the Impact of Pulse width Modulated lnverter Voltage Waveforms on A.C. Induction Motors" IEEE, Conference record of 1994 Pulp & Paper Industry Technical Conference, June 20, 1994 IEEE Std8O-l986 IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding(ANSI) "Electrical Shock Safety Criteria" , Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Electrical Shock Safety Criteria Erkuan Zhong and Thomas A. Lippo "Improvements in EMC Performance of Inverter-Fed Motor Drives" IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 31, No. 6, November/December 1995, W. D. Wilkens, " Statistical Methods for the Evaluation of Electrical Insulating Systems", Ch. 7, ASTM Engineering Dielectrics Vol II, ASTM STP 926, ISBN 0-8031-0941-X, May 1987 Jay Erdman, Doyle Busse, Russell Kerkman, Dave Schlegel, Gary Skibinski "Bearing Currents and Their Relationship to PWM Drives" IEEE conference record of November 1995 Industrial Electronics Society

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]