IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
Ampacity Calculations for Deeply Installed Cables
Eric Dorison, George J. Anders, Fellow, IEEE, and Frederic Lesur
Abstract—In this paper, a new method is proposed for ampacity
calculations of deeply installed cables. Two factors make these
types of installations different from more common situations of
cables located up to five meters underground. On the one hand,
the time constant of the soil layer above the cable trench is very
large, resulting in a very slow conductor temperature rise when
the cable is first loaded, and, on the other hand, the weekly and
yearly load-cycle variations can be taken into account to take the
advantage of the greater laying depth. Both issues are explored
in this paper. This paper introduces the concept of the equivalent
laying depth which makes it possible to use the rating rules appli-
cable to the steady-state conditions and avoid transient analysis.
Index Terms—Ampacities, cable rating, direct drilling, load cy-
cling, power cables.
I. INTRODUCTION
I Pr E
NSTALLATION of new cable lines in large metropolitan
areas in industrialized countries becomes more and more
difficult. Obtaining necessary permissions is only one of the
problems. From a technical point of view, most of the avail-
E
able right-of-ways are already occupied either by other power
or communication circuits or by other infrastructures such as
f
heating, sewage, and water pipes or underground transportation
corridors. oo
Therefore, burying cables at great depths is more and more
frequent and, in spite of fairly high costs, laying of cables in
IE
deep tunnels become attractive; for instance, such tunnels were
recently built in Toronto, Berlin or London, and several projects
are under consideration in major European and North American
cities. The most important are as follows.
• The civil engineering work does not have to distract pedes-
trian or vehicular traffic.
• The length of the cable route can be minimized.
• Cables can be laid independently of the structure of the
buildings above the right-of-way.
• Access to the circuits is facilitated if they are laid in large
tunnels.
• The influence of electromagnetic fields at the earth surface
is considerably diminished in comparison with the stan-
dard installations.
Manuscript received May 12, 2009.
[Author: Please pro-
E. Dorison is with Electricité de France
vide city and postal code] (e-mail: eric.dorison@edf.fr).
G.J. Anders is with the Technical University of Lodz [Author:
Please provide city and postal code], (e-mail:
george.anders@kinectrics.com).
F. Lesur is with RTE, the French TSO, Paris [Author: Please
provide postal code], (e-mail: frederic.lesur@rte-france.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2009.2033961
0885-8977/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE
1
• In case of large tunnels, additional circuits may be installed
without a loss of existing rating capabilities by the intro-
duction of forced air circulation.
• An advantageous thermal environment is created, permit-
ting improved heat dissipation.
The last bullet is of particular interest in the context of cable
rating calculations and will be explored in this paper.
An advantageous thermal environment for deeply buried ca-
bles is a result of several factors. On the one hand, the soil tends
to have higher moisture content at large depth due to the pene-
tration of ground waters. On the other hand, daily, weekly, and
even yearly load variations have a profound effect on the ratings
of deeply buried cables. This effect is not so pronounced for ca-
bles buried at the usual depths. In addition, the large amount of
soil above the cable trench results in the very large time constant
of the thermal circuit and a slow heating of cable conductor.
These facts, even though well recognized by the cable ex-
perts, have not been harnessed in practical mathematical for-
mulae that could be included in the cable rating standards. Even
though there are several publications dealing with ratings of
cables in tunnels, a literature search conducted by the authors
revealed that only one article has recently been published ad-
dressing the advantages of the deeply buried tunnels. The paper
by Matsumura et al., [14] suggests the use of transient calcula-
tions to account for the very large thermal capacitance of the soil
surrounding deep tunnels. This approach has been used success-
fully in the past by specialists in the field but it is cumbersome
and requires significant skills and knowledge.
The aim of this paper is to introduce a new simple method of
cable ampacity calculations specifically taking advantage of the
special heating regime of deeply buried cables, which could be
incorporated into the next revision of the IEC standard dedicated
to the calculation of the continuous current rating of cables [1].
The paper brings forward the definition of an equivalent depth,
which allows using the rating rules applicable to the steady-state
conditions, thus avoiding transient analysis. As the equivalent
depth depends upon a limited number of parameters, charts may
be developed to determine the value to be taken into account in
an actual case.
We will start by presenting mathematical formulae which take
advantage of the high thermal constant of such installations as
well as daily, weekly, and yearly load variations, and conclude
by considering several practical examples.
II. TEMPERATURE CHANGES FOR DEEPLY BURIED CABLES
The time constants for deeply buried cables are very large.
This can be illustrated using standard computational procedures
for the steady state [1] and transient ratings [2], [3]. Table I
summarizes the results of such analysis for a typical XLPE cable
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

TABLE I (1)
EXAMPLE OF AMPACITIES AND TEMPERATURES OF DEEPLY BURIED CABLES
where:

a.c. resistance of the conductor (ohm/m);

internal thermal resistance of the cable (K m/W);
internal thermal resistance for dielectric losses
(W/m);
sheath and armor loss factors;
attainment factor for the outer cable surface;
external thermal resistance (K m/W);
dielectric losses (W/m).
and are functions of the cable diameter (m) and
the laying depth (m), and are defined by

(2)

(3)

tion of a step function at t = 0.

Pr E
Fig. 1. Temperature profile for cables buried at various depth with an applica-
E where

soil thermal resistivity (K m/W);

exponential integral;
soil thermal diffusivity (in m /s).

f
circuit laid 10, 20, and 40 m deep with a step current applied at
For large , the first exponential integral in (3) can be approx-
.
imated by [4]
oo
As can be seen, after 40 years, the cable conductor has not
reached its maximum allowable temperature of 90 C when the
(4)
IE
cable is buried at the depth greater than 20 m. This point is
illustrated further in Fig. 1 by the temperature profiles of the
same installations over a period of time. Combining (2)–(4), we have
The temperature is computed with a standard equation for the
external thermal resistance using an exponential integral [3].
In Fig. 1 the temperature rises quickly at first but then the
growth is very slow. (5)
Analysis of these results suggests that applying the standard
steady-state calculation algorithm would yield ampacities that Let be the external thermal resistance for the same cable,
are too small. A more appropriate approach would be to use the but with the depth smaller than . Let be the maximum
transient analysis algorithm and iteratively find out what value permissible current for a continuous load, corresponding to the
of the current would give the desired temperature at the end of maximum conductor temperature rise above ambient .
the study period. This suggests that one can define an equivalent This temperature rise is obtained from the standard equation
depth of the cable circuit that with the application of the steady-
state algorithm would give the same value of current as obtained (6)
from the transient analysis. This approach is presented in the
next section. If after time , the steady-state allowable temperature is
reached
III. EQUIVALENT DEPTH OF DEEPLY BURIED CABLES (7)
A. A Single Cable Substituting (1) and (6) into (7), results in the following equa-
Let be the conductor temperature rise at time due to tion:
a current step , [3]:

(8)
DORISON et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR DEEPLY INSTALLED CABLES 3

Fig. 3. Relationship between the actual depth and an equivalent depth as a func-
=
tion of the soil thermal diffusivity for t 40 years.

Fig. 2. Relationship between actual depth L and an equivalent depth L as a

function of the study period.
B. Multiple Cables
In this section we will examine an implication of the fact that
The equivalent depth is obtained assuming , which for deeply buried cables the presence of the adjacent cables may
leads to have a more profound effect on the rated cable than might be the

Pr E
Substituting (5) for the left-hand side in (9) and using (2) for
with replacing , we finally obtain
E (9)
case for cables buried at a normal depth.
Considering a group of equally loaded cables (each with the
joule losses ), the external thermal resistance of the hottest
cable may be expressed as

(11)

f
where is the spacing between cables and and is the
oo (10) spacing between cable and the image of cable .
The transient temperature rise of the outer surface is
The equivalent depth is a function of the time and the soil
IE
shown in (12) at the bottom of the page.
thermal diffusivity . Fig. 2 illustrates the relation between the Since for deeply buried cables, we can assume for every cable
equivalent and actual depth for a typical value of soil thermal
diffusivity of m /s.
Fig. 2 indicates that the longer the study period the higher an (13)
equivalent depth will be. However, in all cases, the equivalent
depth is much lower than the actual depth if the cable is laid at we have
large depth.
The equivalent depth is a function of the soil diffusivity as
(14)
well. Fig. 3 shows this dependence for a typical value of the
time horizon, 40 years.
We can observe that the value of soil thermal diffusivity plays and using an approximation of the exponential integral as in (4)
an important role in the definition of the equivalent depth. The with the assumption of low values of , shown in (15) at
equivalent depth more than doubles when we move for a soil the bottom of the page.
with diffusivity of m /s to the value that is four times This gives the same equivalent depth as in the case of a single
higher. cable.

(12)
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

IV. CASE OF DEEP TUNNELS

Calculation of temperatures of cable tunnels, ventilated or

not, may be complex because of the combination of heat trans-
fers, (conduction, convection and radiation) between cables and
tunnel wall, as well as longitudinal circulation of air [5]. We only
focus here on the conductive heat transfer between the outer side
of the tunnel wall and the ground surface.
The case of deep tunnels involves special considerations as
follows.
• Depth value can easily reach hundreds of meters (tunnel
between two valleys in a mountainous area).
• The initial temperature of rocky soils at the core of moun-
tains can reach unexpected temperature values (more than
50 C).
• The heating source can be the combination of cable losses, Fig. 4. Comparison of accurate and approximate formulae of equivalent depth.
other circulating fluids’ thermal effects (in multipurpose Tunnel diameter 8 m, depth 30 m. Soil diffusivity 0.5E-6 m /s.
structures), but also water-cooling and forced ventilation
with cold air renewal.
The installation of cables in shared tunnels (e.g., railway tun- Denoting by the calculated value of the right-hand-side of
nels) can lead to large diameters, because some tunnel-boring (18), the solution is given by
machines are capable of excavating a diameter greater than eight

be required as shown below.

Pr E
meters. Therefore, some of our assumptions in Chapter III re-
garding the depth and the diameter may no longer be valid and a
more accurate, although somewhat more complex, solution may

We introduce new parameters

E Finally, the equivalent depth of the tunnel is found from (17)
(19)

(20)

f
A question arises of when to use (10) and when to use the
oo more complex equations (18)–(20). Fig. 4 shows that the ap-
proximation given by (10) is very good, even for deep tunnels.
The exact formula for the external thermal resistance of the However, the approximation would not work for low values of
IE
round tunnel is given by the duration of the transient, because the equivalent depth would
be smaller than the radius of the tunnel.
(16) We observe that the approximate value of is lower than
the accurate one, which means that the value of the thermal re-
where sistance of the external environment is not on the safe side
when this approximation is used. However, investigations by the
(17) authors have shown that the error decreases rapidly with a de-
crease of the tunnel diameter and an increase of the depth of
laying.
When the value of exceeds 10, a good approximation (with
the error smaller than 0.1%) is given by (2). However, as men-
tioned before, for large tunnels, (16) should be used. V. DAILY, WEEKLY, AND YEARLY LOAD VARIATIONS
Using (16) in (9), we obtain
When the cable circuit is located at large depths, for example,
in a deeply buried tunnel, the heating time constant is very large,
and in addition to daily load variations, the load changes over
a week or a year could be considered. Representation of daily,
(18)
weekly, and yearly load cycles is discussed next.

(15)
DORISON et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR DEEPLY INSTALLED CABLES
A. Daily Load Variations
Neher and McGrath [6] proposed a simple method to account
for the cyclic loading of a cable. Their approach requires a mod-
ification of the external thermal resistance of the cable. The un-
derlying principles are discussed below.
In order to evaluate the effect of a cyclic load upon the max-
imum temperature rise of a cable system, Neher [7] observed
that one can look upon a heating effect of a cyclical load as a
wave front that progresses alternately outwardly and inwardly
in respect to the conductor during the cycle. He further assumed
that, with the total joule losses generated in the cable equal to
(W/m), the heat flow during the loss cycle is represented by
a steady component of magnitude plus a transient compo-
nent , which operates for a period of time during
each cycle. The transient component of the heat flow will pen-
etrate the earth only to a limited distance from the cable, thus
the corresponding thermal resistance will be smaller than
its counterpart which pertains to steady-state conditions.
Assuming that the temperature rise over the internal thermal
cable resistance is complete by the end of the transient period
, the maximum temperature rise at the conductor may be ex-
pressed as
Pr E
where is the apparent internal thermal resistance of the cable,
defined as
E (21)
f
where is the external thermal resistance with constant load,
oo
is the effective transient thermal resistance in the earth, and
is the temperature rise due to dielectric losses (we will omit
IE
them from now on).
Further, Neher [7] assumed that the last thermal resistance in
(21) may be represented with sufficient accuracy by an expres-
sion of the general form
(22)
in which constants and were evaluated empirically to best
fit the temperature rises calculated over a range of cable sizes.
Using measured data, Neher obtained the following values for
the constants: and when is expressed
in hours and is expressed in m /s.
Introducing the notation
(23)
with expressed in meters, the external thermal resistance in
(21) can be written as
(24)
where is the loss factor.
5
The right-hand-side of (24) can be interpreted as follows.
Inside the circle of diameter , the temperature changes ac-
cording to the peak value of the losses. Outside this circle, it
changes with the average losses.
From (23), we observe that the fictitious diameter at
which the effect of loss factor commences is a function of the
diffusivity of the medium and the length of the loss cycle.
In the majority of cases, the soil diffusivity will not be known.
In these cases, a value of m /s can be used. This
value is based on a soil thermal resistivity of 1.0 K m/W and a
moisture content of about 7% of dry weight [see Section 5.4 of
[4] for more details on this subject]. The value of for a load
cycle lasting 24 h and with a representative soil diffusivity of
m /s is 212 mm (or 8.3 in.).
Expressions equivalent to (23) can be developed based on
methodology applied in the IEC standards (Appendix A) or
through solving heat-transfer equations (Appendix B). The re-
sulting characteristic diameter is given by
(25)
with ranging from 0.97 to 1.37 for cable diameters of up to
100 mm. Hence, the IEC and Neher–McGrath approach can be
considered to be equivalent in this case. For larger diameters
(ducts and tunnels), the value of increases with the heating
source diameter and is given by (see Appendix B)
(26)
Alternative expressions for (in millimeters) are given by
Heinhold [8]
(27)
(28)
(29)
where is the length of the period and
day.
Heinhold assumes the following relationship:
Thus, when we take the recommended value of the soil
thermal diffusivity of m/s (the corresponding value
of the thermal resistivity equal to 1 K m/W), (27) is equivalent
to the Neher’s expression.
The choice of the method to compute the fictitious diameter
depends partially on the analyst’s preferences and partially on
the available information. If the daily load cycle variations are
known, the IEC 60853 [2], [3] approach can be used. On the
other hand, when a sinusoidal load shape can be assumed, ei-
ther (23) or (25) or (27) can be applied. In other cases, IEC ap-
proach for load cycles where the shape is unknown and only the
loss-load factor is known or (28) or (29) should be used, re-
membering that these are approximate equations.
The following numerical example shows the results for all the
formulae for sinusoidal load variations.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

TABLE II
CABLE DIMENSIONS

TABLE III
RESULTS ARE SUMMARIZED

Consider three, single-core, 1000 mm Cu XLPE 123 kV ca-

bles with a PE jacket. Cables are in flat formation 1m under-
ground spaced 0.2 m apart. Additional parameters are as fol-
lows:
Pr E
Soil thermal characteristics: ambient : 10 C-resistivity 1.0
K m/W—diffusivity m /s (for the Heinhold formula
the value of 4.67 is used instead).
E
For IEC calculations, the sinusoidal load curve is simulated
by 24 steps as follows:

f
oo with
Fig. 5. Characteristic diameter for cables in tunnel: the rows correspond to
=
IE
daily, weekly and yearly load cycles, respectively, and the columns to 
The right-hand column “steps” in Table III is the result of 1-h 0:4; 1:0 and 2.5 K1m/W, respectively. D is the tunnel diameter.
steps superposition until convergence is reached.
Hence, we can see that the approaches are really equivalent.
Equations (27) to (29) are independent of the cable diameter. The external thermal resistance of the cable or tunnel located
Investigations by Brakelmann [13] have shown that these equa- at large depth can be obtained from the following expression
tions are valid for cables with diameters between 5 and 150 mm. [8]–[11]:
For larger ducts and tunnels, the expressions developed in Ap-
pendix B or discussed in the next section should be used.

B. Weekly and Yearly Load Variations

In the majority of practical cases, the load variations will (30)

exhibit a more complex pattern than the one described by a
daily load cycle. For example, loading of cables is usually
much lighter during the weekend than during the weekdays.
For deeply buried cables, the yearly load variations will play a
significant role because of the very long time constants at great
depths.
For cables in deep tunnels, the characteristic diameter can
be obtained from the curves in Fig. 5 [9], [10]. Brakelmann
used Fourier analysis to obtain those curves for tunnel diam-
eters ranging from 2 m (the upper boundary of the region) to
5 m (lower boundary) for two shapes of the load cycle: sinu-
soidal (region bounded by straight lines) and rectilinear (region
bounded by curved lines).
where subscripts and correspond to daily, weekly and
yearly load variations and represent the ex-
ternal thermal resistances of the tunnel, daily, weekly, and yearly
fictitious diameters, respectively. The characteristic diameters
are given by (25)–(29) or (42) with the appropriate length of the
period.
VI. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS
A sinusoidal variation of the air ambient temperature leads to
a sinusoidal variation of the temperature in the ground, with a
damping factor and a time delay, which both depend upon the
soil diffusivity and the period.
DORISON et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR DEEPLY INSTALLED CABLES 7

Fig. 6. Soil temperature daily variations for different depths.

The temperature at depth as a function of the time can be Fig. 7. Installation of cables in tunnel.
expressed as [12]

(31) A. Standard Computations

The external thermal resistance of the tunnel is computed
where from the following expression [8]:

Fig. 6 illustrates (31) for

diffusivity
Pr E
maximum ambient temperature, C;
duration of the cycle period (in seconds s);
soil diffusivity, m /s.
day, C, and soil
m /s. It can be seen that for deeply buried
E
cables, the surrounding soil temperature is nearly constant.
where:

tunnel,
height and width of the
depth of soil above the tunnel plus the thickness of
the tunnel wall (it is assumed that the tunnel wall has the same

f
thermal resistivity as the soil).
VII. EFFECT ON CABLE AMPACITY
oo This gives K m/W and the ampacity of 258 A.

The various approaches described in the previous chapters
IE
will be used to illustrate the effect of the depth of the cable
on its rating. We will compute the ratings of six circuits, each
in trefoil formation located in a horizontal tunnel as shown in
Fig. 7. The 15-kV XLPE cables with concentric neutral wires
bonded at both ends have the following parameters:
B. Equivalent Depth Scenario
Let us assume that the time horizon of interest is 40 years
and soil thermal diffusivity equals to m /s. For the
cable system considered here, the equivalent depth of the tunnel
can be obtained by applying the approximation given by (10),
yielding the equation shown at the bottom of the page.
The external thermal resistance of the tunnel is equal to 0.607
K m/W, and the resulting ampacity is 267A.

C. Daily, Weekly, and Yearly Load Variations

The tunnel has a square cross section with a height of 2.0 We will assume the following average loss factors for daily,
m with 0.5 m concrete walls and 18 m of soil above the roof. weekly, and yearly load variations:
The thermal resistivity of the soil is 1.0 K m/W and the ambient
temperature is 15 C.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY

Assuming rectilinear load shapes, the following characteristic measure of the equivalent square current between
diameters correspond to these values (see Fig. 5): and h prior to the expected time of
maximum conductor temperature;
iratio of the core temperature at time hours to the
core temperature at steady state and is equal to [4]
The external thermal resistances between characteristic diam-
eters and the earth surface are equal, respectively to
for
(33)
and
(34)
Considering now daily, weekly, and yearly load cycles, from
(30), we have with the subscripts and corresponding to the
core and the external cable surface, respectively.
are the conductor losses and represents
the total joule losses of the cable;
cable attainment factors. For the long durations
and considered here, we can assume and
is computed from (3).

Pr E
The cable rating corresponding to this value of the external
thermal resistance of the tunnel is equal to 313 A, a 21% increase
compared with the standard calculations.
E
VIII. CONCLUSION
Remembering that
approximated by
and , (32) can be

(35)

f
The effect of laying cables at great depth has a profound in-
fluence on its rating. The influence depends to a large extent on
oo Introducing a notation and substituting (33)
the ratio of the depth of laying to the cable/duct/tunnel diameter into (35), we obtain
and on the time horizon being considered. This paper presents
IE
several new developments on ampacity calculations of such ca-
bles. (36)
Fictitious diameters computed according to Heinhold’s or
Brakelmann’s formulae for nonsinusoidal shapes are slightly Because , (36) has the same form as (21) with
higher than diameters resulting from the IEC formula. recom- (6) representing and thus can be approximated by
mended for unknown load shape.
The numerical examples presented in the paper show that the (37)
effect can be particularly significant if cyclic load variations
over the week and the year are considered. Using approximation with an exponential integral (valid for
an infinite thin wire), may also be written as

APPENDIX A (38)
CHARACTERISTIC DIAMETER—IEC STANDARD
Following the IEC approach and taking the six-hour-load Comparing the right-hand-sides of (37) and (38), we obtain
variation before the maximum conductor temperature is ob- (25). More generally, for a cycle of length hours,
tained, the maximum cable temperature may be written as (see
(5.25) in [4]): (39)

which leads to (25) with .

(32)
APPENDIX B
CHARACTERISTIC DIAMETER FOR SINUSOIDAL LOAD AND
where LARGE TUNNEL DIAMETER
DORISON et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR DEEPLY INSTALLED CABLES 9

Fig.8. Relationship between fictitious and cable diameters.

Pr E
The approximations considered above assumed that a cable is
represented by an infinitely small wire. In the developments pre-
sented below, this assumption is dropped and, as a consequence,
the cable diameter influences the diameter of the area affected
E
by load variations. This is particularly important for cables in
Fig. 9. Relationship between fictitious and tunnel diameters for three values of
soil diffusivity.

TABLE IV
VALUE OF K

f
tunnels, where the tunnel diameter replaces the diameter of the
cable. oo
For a sinusoidal load (with magnitude and period ), the
temperature around the cable/tunnel may be expressed, with the
IE
complex notation, as

(40)

with

where

cable/tunnel radius;
is the soil thermal resistivity,
diffusivity;
and are modified Bessel functions.
The maximum cable/tunnel surface temperature can be
written as
Figs. 8 and 9 show the relationships between fictitious diam-
eter and the cable/tunnel diameters. The relationships are almost
is the soil
linear with the fitting equations shown in the graphs. The fol-
lowing relationship can be applied to all curves:
(42)

This leads to an error less than 3% for up to 3 m, for

every type of variations, with soil diffusivity ranging from
to m /s. Equation (42) is the most general expression
for fictitious diameter, covering virtually all practical cases.
(41) For tunnels with large diameters, daily and weekly variations
lead to characteristic diameters close to the tunnel diameter.
10
For cables directly buried, can be approximated with
(43)
The is given in Table IV and is not far from the value of 1.02
given by Neher.
REFERENCES
[1] Calculation of the Continuous Current Rating of Cables (100% Load
Factor), IEC Std. 60287 (1969, 1982, 1994), First edition 1969, Second
edition 1982, Third edition 1994–1995.
[2] Calculation of the Cyclic and Emergency Current Ratings of Cables.
Part 1: Cyclic Rating Factor for Cables up to and Including 18/30 (36)
kV, IEC Std., (1985), Publication 853-1.
[3] Calculation of the Cyclic and Emergency Current Ratings of Cables.
Part 2: Cyclic Rating Factor of Cables Greater Than 18/30 (36) kV and
Emergency Ratings for Cables of All Voltages, IEC Std., (1989), Publ.
853-2.
[4] G. J. Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables. Ampacity Computations
for Transmission, Distributions and Industrial Applications, ser. IEEE
Press Power Eng. Ser.. New York: IEEE Press, , 1997.
[5] Calculation of Temperatures in Ventilated Cable Tunnels CIGRÉ WG
Rep. 21.08, Aug. 1992, Electra No. 143.
Pr E
[6] J. H. Neher and M. H. McGrath, “The calculation of the temperature
rise and load capability of cable systems,” AIEE Trans., vol. 76, pt. 3,
pp. 752–772, Oct. 1957, (1957).
[7] J. H. Neher, “Procedures for calculating the temperature rise of pipe
cable and buried cables for sinusoidal and rectangular loss cycles,”
AIEE Trans., vol. 72, pt. III, pp. 541–545, June 1953, (1953).
[8] L. Heinhold, Power Cables and Their Application. Part 1, 3rd ed.
[Please provide lo-
E
: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, 1990
cation of publisher].
f
[9] H. Brakelmann, “Kabelbelastbarkeit bei Berücksichtigung von Tages
und Wochenlastzyklen,” Elektrizitästwirtschaft, pp. 368–372, 1995a,
Jg. 94, Heft 7. oo
[10] H. Brakelmann, “Kabelbelastbarkeit im Unbelüfteten Tunnel,” Elek-
trizitästwirtschaft, pp. 368–372, 1995b, Jg. 94, Heft 26.
[11] G. J. Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables in Unfavourable
IE
Thermal Environment, ser. IEEE Press Power Eng. Ser.. New York:
Wiley, 2005.
[12] H. S. Carslaw and J. C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd ed.
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford .
[13] H. Brakelmann, Balastbarkeiten der Energiekabel—Berechnungsme-
toden und Parameteranalysen. Berlin/Offenburg: VDE-Verlag,
1989.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY
[14] M. Matsumura, K. Fukuda, E. Fujiwara, T. Shiro, M. Watanabe, Y.
Sakaguchi, and T. Ooimo, “Transmission capacity design of under-
ground power cables installed in deep tunnel,” presented at the Power
Eng. Soc. General Meeting, Jun. 18–22, 2006.
Eric Dorison is Design Engineer in the field of un-
derground cables, within the Research and Develop-
ment Department Electricité de France, where he has
been since 1978.
For several years, he has been Project Manager for
technoeconomical optimization of bulk power trans-
mission underground lines, using VHV synthetic ca-
bles. He is currently involved in cable thermal rating
matters and development of a health index dedicated
to underground links as an asset management tool.
Mr. Dorison is a member of several IEC and
CIGRE working groups.
George J. Anders (M’74–SM’84–F’99) received
the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from
the Technical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland,
in 1973, and the M.Sc. degree in mathematics and
Ph.D. degree in power system reliability from the
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 1977
and 1980, respectively.
Since 1975, he has been with Ontario Hydro as a
System Design Engineer in the Transmission System
Design Department of the System Planning Division
and as a Principal Engineer in Kinectrics, Inc., (a suc-
cessor company to Ontario Hydro Technologies).
Dr. Anders is the author of two books on power cables “Rating of Electric
Power Cables,” (IEEE Press, 1997 and McGraw-Hill, 1998) and Rating of Elec-
tric Power Cables in Unfavorable Thermal Environment (IEEE Press/Wiley).
He is a registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario.
Frederic Lesur was a Research Engineer with Silec
and was involved in the development of 400 kV un-
derground lines in modeling and engineering tools
design. He moved to EDF utility in 1999, and was re-
sponsible for the cable system testing facility of Les
Renardières. He has been working in he engineering
branch of RTE, the French Transmission System Op-
erator, since 2007.
Mr. Lesur is the Secretary of the technical com-
mittee of Jicable conference and is involved in var-
ious CIGRÉ activities.