Evolution of Temperature Field around Underground Power Cable for Static and Cyclic Heating
, Zarghaam Haider Rizvi 1,*,†, Joan Chetam Christine Arp 1, Frank Wuttke 1, Vineet Tirth 2,3 and Saiful Islam 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper introduces a well-established research work to investigate the temperature distribution around underground cables in different soil conditions. The paper's content is important since the reliable operation of underground cable lines strongly depends on the insulation condition. Thermal stress is the main aging factor of cable insulation.
The results of the research are worth to be published, but some improvement is suggested:
-The title of the paper does not reflect the real content of the manuscript. Please try to find a more descriptive title.
-The first sentence of the abstract is not true. Around the cables, there is also a magnetic field, the same as overhead power lines. The cable's shielding only shields the electric field.
-"High tension" means high voltage? In electrical engineering, "high voltage" is the correct term.
-Row 315: Fig. 4b instead of Fig. 2b.
-Legends are too small on the figures.
Otherwise, the paper is well-organized. The introduction summarises the background of the study in the light of relevant literature.
The description of the measurement enables the reproducibility of the results, which are presented clearly. The results support the conclusions.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestion to improve the present form of the manuscript. The answers are given in pointwise manner.
The paper introduces a well-established research work to investigate the temperature distribution around underground cables in different soil conditions. The paper's content is important since the reliable operation of underground cable lines strongly depends on the insulation condition. Thermal stress is the main aging factor of cable insulation.
The results of the research are worth to be published, but some improvement is suggested:
-The title of the paper does not reflect the real content of the manuscript. Please try to find a more descriptive title.
The tittle is amended to reflect proper content of the manuscript.
-The first sentence of the abstract is not true. Around the cables, there is also a magnetic field, the same as overhead power lines. The cable's shielding only shields the electric field.
The magnetic field in the buried power lines are limited in the vicinity of the cable up to 1-2 m. However, the overhead lines can affect up to 100m. Therefore, the sentence has validity and is considered valid from the author’s side.
-"High tension" means high voltage? In electrical engineering, "high voltage" is the correct term.
Correction is made as suggested.
-Row 315: Fig. 4b instead of Fig. 2b.
Correction is made as suggested.
-Legends are too small on the figures.
Correction is made as suggested.
Otherwise, the paper is well-organized. The introduction summarises the background of the study in the light of relevant literature.
The description of the measurement enables the reproducibility of the results, which are presented clearly. The results support the conclusions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well structured, the results are verified and justified, and the presented results are a contribution to the knowledge in the field. Some parts of the paper should be improved with more precise and clear explanations and descriptions.
- The Abstract should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was studied and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What conclusions can be drawn from the results? What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature? Please include specific and quantitative results in your Abstract, while ensuring that it is suitable for a broad audience. References, figures, tables, equations and abbreviations should be avoided.
- The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to have sufficient results to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper. The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.
- Some quantities results should be presented in abstract.
- A plot can be added For the thermal conductivity of the sand vs Temp.
Author Response
The authors extended their sincere thanks to the reviewer for point to the missing information. The suggestion is well received and improved in the revised form of the manuscript.
The paper is well structured, the results are verified and justified, and the presented results are a contribution to the knowledge in the field. Some parts of the paper should be improved with more precise and clear explanations and descriptions.
The Abstract should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was studied and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What conclusions can be drawn from the results? What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature? Please include specific and quantitative results in your Abstract, while ensuring that it is suitable for a broad audience. References, figures, tables, equations, and abbreviations should be avoided.
The abstract is modified as per the reviewer’s suggestion to weigh upon the novelty of the work and important results. References, figures, tables, equations, and abbreviations were avoided.
Therefore, in this study, we performed a series of experiments with dry sand and an embedded cylindrical heater, heated to a temperature of 70°Cand 90°Cwith cyclic heating to capture the diurnal fluctuations. Also, the effect of moisture on the temperature field around the power cable is studied with, a series of five days of static heating temperature test of 70°Cwith dry, unsaturated and saturated sand. The measurement of thermal conductivity for different density, moisture and temperature is also done to provide material parameters for theoretical and numerical modelling. The test results could be used to benchmark such models.
The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to have sufficient results to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper. The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature?
What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections. Some quantities results should be presented in abstract.
The results have been briefly discussed in the abstract as per the reviewer’s comment. Conclusion is revised and it reflects the novelty and future scope of this work.
A plot can be added for the thermal conductivity of the sand vs Temp.
Fig 5a is added showing dependence of Thermal conductivity with Temp.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All of the comments have been applied
