Robust High Voltage Cable Joint Design
Subhankar Das*, Bhamini Pandyan, Prahlad Bhugra
RAYCHEM INNOVATION CENTER
RAYCHEM RPG (P) LTD.
SAFARI CROSSING , NEAR HALOL GIDC. VILLAGE - KANJARI, TALUKA:HALOL.
DISTRICT:- PANCHMAHAL GUJARAT INDIA –389350
*email: subhankar_das@raychemrpg.com
Abstract- Rapid growth of Indian cities calls for power
transmission and distribution through underground
networks. The reliability of the underground power
transmission is largely dictated by the performance of cable
joints. Currently, the installation of cable joints is being
performed by skilled and experienced jointers. Since the
reliability of cable joints not only depends on the design but
also attributed to workmanship, the present paper aims at
establishing a robust design methodology to minimize the
dependency of skilled jointers. The performance of the cable
joints is related to e-field concentration which is essentially
result in partial discharges. The e-field concentration in
cable joints is attributed to several variables such as (1)
stress cone radius and geometry, (2) faraday cage design and
edge radius, (3) ground clearance, and (4) creepage distance
between faraday cage and stress cone etc. The relationship
between the above parameters to the e-field is studied in
detail by using FEM package: ANSYS Maxwell. Besides,
robust design space is established through performing design
of experiments (DOE). The transfer function, derived
through DOE, indicates a non-liner relationship with the
above design parameters. The transfer function is validated
through high voltage tests for partial discharge and AC
withstand test on two different cable joint designs.
Index term- Cable joint, Robust Design, Workmanship,
Installation variation, Design of Experiment.
I NOMENCLATURE
FC Faraday Cage
SC Stress Cone
HV High voltage
PD Partial Discharge
DOE Design of Experiment
II INTRODUCTION
High Voltage (HV) cable is manufactured for a finite
length (like 500m) for ease of transport and handling,
hence cable joints in a HV cable network is inevitable.
Experience of different electrical power distribution
utilities reveals that cable joint is one of the major causes
of HV cable network failure. Single piece pre molded
cable joint was introduced in the end of last century to
provide a better solution for workmanship compared to
other variants of cable joint ( Oil type, Resin based on site
preparation joint, Tape joint, three piece joint etc.) [1, 2].
However, it has been still observed that cable joints failed
during the first time charging the cable network or pre
maturely, during its operational life. In this scenario robust
design will help to nullify the error due to workmanship to
a greater extent. Geometry based electrical field control is
widely used technique as on today [1,3]. In the geometry
based field control there are 2 major components inside
the joint. The high field concentration due to removal of
semi-con layer is taken care by stress cone (SC) and the
high field concentration over the mechanical connector is
taken care by faraday cage (FC). This paper demonstrates
the utilization of statistical method for optimizing the
cable joint design. To derive robust design space,
statistical tool DOE was utilized and the electric field for
the cable joint was computed for different suggested
combination of geometrical parameters using ANSYS
Maxwell package [4]. Typical pitfalls of conventional
joint installation were carefully studied across different
installation sites and feedback considered from different
jointers. The installation related errors are considered in
the design so that similar performance of cable joints can
be attained when installation is carried out with lesser
skilled jointers. To validate the robust design methodology
two different joints were installed and the design margin
established. Established design margin validates the robust
design methodology.
III NUMERICAL MODEL
High electric field concentration in different critical
areas of cable joint creates partial discharge (PD) which
will degrade the quality of insulation. This is having a
cascading effect. Once PD started it creates treeing which
in turn causes more PD and this continues [5]. This will
accelerate the aging of the joint. Partial Discharge can
start in a cable joint due to various reason which can be
categorized broadly under a) Design Defect, b)
Manufacturing process related defects, c) Installation
related errors and d) Extreme usage [6]. Partial discharge
is very critical in case of HV cable joint (132 kV and
above).
Figure 1 contains categories different factors which will
contribute to obtain the HV performance of the cable joint.
All the factors are classified under Inputs, Noise and
Design parameter (controllable). In this work emphasis
has been given to understand the impact of geometrical
factors to control the electrical stress in the critical areas.
Material composition which can results a high breakdown
strength material is out of scope of the present work.
Figure 1 Classifications of different factors of cable
joint design
Cross section view of a typical 132 kV cable joint has
been shown in figure 2. Different critical zone had been
identified in the same figure.
1. The faraday cage tip curvature (c1) is one of the most
critical design parameter which decides the peak stress
inside the cable joint body.
2. The insulation thickness (d2) between the faraday cage
& the outer ground layer needs to withstand the highest
average stress. This area is similar to a parallel plate
configuration. From electrostatic model it is clear that the
most critical path will be near the faraday cage tip.
3. The distance between faraday cage & stress cone (d1)
decides surface stress and this needs to be given within
safe limit to avoid the surface flashover.
4. Stress cone curvature (c2) will impact on the peak stress
at the cable outer semi-con cutting point. This point acts
like a triple point & care needs to be given to keep this
stress minimum.
Figure 2 Identification of different parameters which
control electric field
A 2D axi-symmetry electrostatic model is developed in
Ansys FEM. The applied boundary conditions are 190 kV
( equivalent to power frequency withstand test) on the live
part & 0 V in the grounded part. Electric field plot is
shown in figure 3. As explained in previous figure the
high field concentration area and the value of peak stress
is quantified using the FEM model. The peak stress
coming at the tip of faraday cage and the stress cones is
10.4kV/mm and 7.2kV/mm respectively. Note as per the
analysis the highest stress area is the insulation of the
cable. The XLPE is designed to take this stress and we
will not discuss on the maximum stress of the XLPE in
this paper.
Figure 3 Electric field distribution inside joint
The peak electric stress along the faraday cage curvature
(c1), stress cone curvature (c2) and the insulation thickness
d2 is shown in figure 4. Due to the rogowski profile the
electrical stress along the curvature of the faraday cage
remain uniform. It is important to note that the faraday
cage curvature is having more than one radius and they are
jointed tangentially to make the electric field uniform
along the profile. From the analysis it is clear that the peak
stress comes along the profile of the faraday cage among
all the critical regions. Hence, the peak stress on the
faraday cage curvature is considered as the response
parameter in the robust design section.
Figure 4 Peak electrical stress variation along the critical
area of cable joint
 IV STATISTICAL METHOD- ROBUST DESIGN APPROACH

For robust design approach effect of each design factors

needs to be evaluated and quantified to achieve the desired
peak electrical stress. Design of Experiment methodology
is a powerful statistical method to capture the impact of
multiple parameters at one time. Unlike conventional
technique, this method allows to vary multiple factors
simultaneously and obtain impact of each factor. This
method suggests performing experiments in predefined
points in the design domain. It is possible to obtain the
optimum setting of different parameters in the design
domain with minimum number of experiments. It also
provides the transfer function which can be used to
compute the response value inside the design domain.

Initially a screening DOE is carried out to filter the critical
design parameters which majorly control the response
value. The pareto of screening DOE is shown in figure 5.
Screening DOE shows that faraday curvature (c1) and
faraday cage to ground layer distance (d2) will be key
design parameter which controls the peak electrostatic
field inside the joint.
Figure 6 Experimental domain and suggested point to
perform experiment
Figured 6 represent the experimental points in the design
domain. DOE pointed that total 9 experiments and 4
repetition in the centre points to be performed to obtain
the statistical response inside the design domain.
Important to note that response surface model suggests to
perform few experiments out the design domain to ensure
the robustness and consider a second order curve for
deriving the transfer function. Hence, essentially it
considers the non-linear response of the design
parameters.

Repetitions are more important when experiments are

carried out in a prototype. Total 9 FEM model are made in
Ansys to capture the peak electric field along the faraday
cage curvature (c1). The peak electrical field value from
different FEM models are fed into DOE worksheet for the
analysis [8]. Minitab tools [8] helps to derive the transfer
function within the design domain. Obtained transfer
function is

Peak stress= K-M*(d2)+N*(c1)2 +P*(d2)2+Q*(c1)(d2)

Figure 5 Pareto of main factors in screening DOE

A 2 factor response surface full factorial design [7] has
been chosen to further quantify the impact of two key
parameters. Table 1 summarizes the factors and their
limits which is considered for the response surface model
DOE.

FC-
Faraday cage Ground
curvature distance
(c1) [mm] (d1) [mm]
USL 110 20
Centre 126 35
LSL 145 50

Table 1 Design limits of 2 key factors.

Figure 7 Optimum design curves for different setting of
design parameter
where, K is a constant, M, N,P and Q represent coefficient body. The faraday cage length has been extended in both
of different linear and non-liner terms. It shows a non- side of the mechanical connector so that entrapped air is
liner relationship with the significant design parameters. below the faraday cage even though more XLPE is
This transfer function can be used to predict the peak removed. It will eventually take care of XLPE shrinkage
electrical stress in the design zone. The contour plot due to installation practice or during operational life.
obtained from the response surface model analysis (Figure Figure 9 a shows the impact of air entrapment due to
7) shows the different combination of these two design higher XLPE removal.
parameter which lead to minimum peak stress. This also
shows design zone where the variation of these two 3. Positioning of the joint body- This is extremely
parameters will not results a significant variation of peak important to position the joint body within the specified
stress. From figure 7 it is clear that there are combination limit. The extended length of stress cone and faraday cage
of faraday cage curvature and the faraday cage to ground will ensure wide positional tolerance of the joint body
clearance which leads to a minimum peak electrical stress over the cable.
inside the cable joint. this zone is depicted as z1 in figure
7. Also nearly +/-25% variation of these 2 factors will not
alter the peak stress to a larger extend (it will be <10%
variation). However, this tolerance is not applicable
throughout the design region. These design curves provide
a wide band of tolerances for both the critical design
parameters in the optimum zone. The cable diameter of
the same voltage class varies a lot due to insulation
thickness variation, conductor cross section and conductor
types based upon the manufactures. The cable diameter
also depends to operator skills to remove the semicon
layer. The diameter variation of the cable impacts the Faulty installation Proper installation
clearance (d2) and the faraday cage tip curvature (c1 ) after Semicon cut point is Semicon cut point is
the joint is installed over the cable. Hence, the robust not shielded shielded.
design will ensure that the e field in the critical area does
not vary much due to variation of d2 and c2. This helps to Figure 8 Impact of less semi-con layer removal
have a single joint design to cover a wide range of cable
diameter.

V INSTALLATION VARIATION
Authors of this paper interviewed different jointers to
understand the area where variation can happens during
the cable preparation before jointing and during
installation of joint. Various reports were studied to
understand the problem of cable accessories installation
[9, 10]. It was felt due care needs to be provided to offset
these skill related variations by the design robustness.
Majorly these variations depend on the jointers skills,
installation tools, installation process etc. There are three
major variations that can come due to installation process. Faulty installation Proper installation void
higher XLPE removed due XLPE removal
1. Length of semi-con removal- Outer semi-con layer below faraday cage
needs to be peel off to a specific distance depending on
the joint design. Lesser removal can cause a smaller Figure 9 Impact of higher XLPE layer removal
creepage and uncovered semi-con cut point. Moreover,
after removal of semi-con layer the pencil shape needs to
be provided for the end of the semi-con layer to achieve a VI EXPERIMENTAL RESULT
smooth transition. This is a high skill process and during
this pencilling there is chance that higher or lesser length The performance of two different joints was evaluated
of semi-con layer got removed. To take care of this by performing partial discharge test inside HV laboratory.
variation the stress cone flat part length is given Partial discharge inception voltage, magnitude and counts
sufficiently large so that triple point will not become are the measured. Joint 1 is having the critical dimensions
unshielded. Figure 8 shows the impact of unshielded semi- in the region of robust design whereas the joint 2 is having
con cut point. dimensions outside the robust design. Both the joints were
assembled with same cable by the same cable jointer team
2. Length of XLPE removal- Higher length of XLPE using same tools. Hence, it can be assumed the quality of
removal will lead to air entrapment inside the cable joint
joint installation is same for both the sample, in other
words the noise factors related to cable, installation etc
remains constant for both the sample.
The setup consists of HV resonant type transformer with T
shape LC noise filter and coupling capacitor inside a
shielded room (Figure 10). The background noise of the
shielded room is <1pC. The voltage raise in a stair-case
form and the PD pattern is captured for 30s at each step
using omicron PD detector.
1 HV performance of cable joint. The error due to
2 methodology wherein the overlap length of faraday cage
6 and length of stress cone flat portion needs to be rightly
3 chosen. The combination of insulation thickness and
4 will help for the same joint to be used for a wide range of
5 using the statistical technique and this will reflect as
1.HV T/F; 2. Filter & divider ; 3. Coupling
Capacitor; 4.Water end termination; 5. Cable with
joint; 6 Faraday cage wall
Figure 10 Experimental setup for PD
measurement
Before inserting joint over the cable, only cable sample is
tested in the same way till 230 kV and it was recorded that
the partial discharge level is < 5pC at 230 kV. Cable was
terminated using reusable water termination. The de-
ionised water temperature was maintained < 30 Deg C
throughout the experiments. The PD inception voltage
(PD level> 5pC) recorded for the joint 1 and joint 2 is
190kV and 150kV respectively. This shows that joint 1
will have better HV performance due to its design in
robust region compared to joint 2. PD magnitude for both
the cable joints is shown in figure 11.
Figure 11 PD magnitude w.r.t applied voltage
The maximum magnitude of stable PD increases with the
increase of applied voltage. The PD inception voltage is
low in case of cable joint 2. This clearly shows the less
design margin for the cable joint 2. This design will be
prone to installation variation, cable dimension variation
and manufacturing variation.
VII CONCLUSION
While preparing cable for jointing operation
workmanship is having a major impact for the successful
workmanship can be minimized with robust joint design
faraday cage curvature radius in the optimum design curve
cable diameter. Higher design margin can be achieved
higher PD inception voltage as a measure for superior
high voltage performance.
VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors of this paper thankfully acknowledge the supports
provided by the management and the technical team of the
KEC International Limited, Vadodara to carry out the
partial discharge experiments at their high voltage lab.
Constant encouragement and guidance of Dr. Asokan
(CTO, Raychem RPG (P) Ltd.) for the entire work is
highly appreciated and acknowledged by the authors.
REFERENCE
[1] U Amerphol, P Argant, K Barber, H Bergqyist, S Koibuchi, J P
Lamy, M Laurent, P Nyberg, B Parmigiani, M R Vermeulen,
“Accessories for HV cables with extruded insulation”, Tech.
Report, Working Group 21.06, Report no. 177, CIRGEE, February
2001.
[2] Alexander Eigner and Sepehr Semino, “50 Years of electrical stress
control in cable accessories”, IEEE- DEIS Vol. 29 No. 5, pp 49-55,
2013.
[3] Samuel Ansorge, Bruno Arnold, “Jointing of high voltage cable
systems”, Tech. Report, Pfisterer Ixosil AG, 2005
[4] Ansys Inc. Electromagnetic Products, “User’s guide- Maxwell 2D,
Maxwell 15.0.
[5] Y G Park, H K Lee, W S Kim, K J Lim, S H Kang, J H Ree, B H
Kim, “ Classification of defects in solid insulation material by PD
methods”, IEEE 6 th International Conference on Properties and
application of dielectric material, pp. 749-752, June 2000.
[6] H A Illias, Z H Lee, A H A Baker, H Mokhlis, G Chen, P L Lewin,
“ Electric field distribution in 132kV one piece premoulded cable
joint structures”, IEEE International conference on condition
monitoring and diagnostics, pp. 643-646 2012.
[7] Stephen R Schmidt, Robert G Launsby, “Understanding Industrial
Designed Experiments”, Colorado Springs, Colorado,4th Edition,
2000.
[8] User’s Manual, Minitab.
[9] Jorge altamirano et al, “Diagonostic testing of underground cable
system,” Tech. Report, NEETRAC, December 2010.
[10] Kieron Leeburn et al, “Cable accessory workmanship on extruded
high voltage cables,” Tech. Report, Working group B1.22,Report
No. 176, CIGREE, October 2011.