Cigré 640 - A Guide For Rating Calculations of Insulated Cables PDF

640
A Guide for Rating Calculations

of Insulated Cables
Working Group
B1.35
December 2015
A GUIDE FOR RATING CALCULATIONS OF INSULATED CABLES
A GUIDE FOR RATING

CALCULATIONS OF
INSULATED CABLES
Working group B1.35
Members
Frank DE WILD, convenor (NL), Jos VAN ROSSUM, secretary (NL),
George ANDERS (CA), Rusty BASCOM (US), Bruno BRIJS (BE),
Pietro CORSARO (CH), Antony FALCONER (ZA), Alberto GONZALEZ (ES),
Georg HÜLSKEN (DE), Nikola KULJACA (IT), Bo MARTINSSON (SE),
Aleksandra RAKOWSKA (PL), Christian RÉMY (FR),
Francis WAITE & James PILGRIM (GB)
Corresponding Members
Marcio COELHO (BR), Seok-Hyun NAM (KR), Tsuguhiro TAKAHASHI (JP)
Copyright © 2015
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support

only infers right of use for personal purposes. Unless explicitly agreed by CIGRE in
writing, total or partial reproduction of the publication and/or transfer to a third party is
prohibited other than for personal use by CIGRE Individual Members or for use within
CIGRE Collective Member organisations. Circulation on any intranet or other
company network is forbidden for all persons. As an exception, CIGRE Collective
Members only are allowed to reproduce the publication”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor
does it accept any responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the
information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
permitted by law”.
ISBN :978-2-85873-343-9
A GUIDE FOR RATING

CALCULATIONS OF
INSULATED CABLES
Technical Brochure of working group B1.35 on cable ratings
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 7
1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 A Guide to this Technical Brochure .................................................................................. 10
1.2 Information regarding the Working Group’s Objectives .................................................... 11
1.3 Information regarding the Terms of Reference and Scope of Work ................................. 12
1.4 Introduction to the Questionnaire...................................................................................... 13
2 OVERALL ISSUES WITH RATING CALCULATIONS ......................................................... 15

2.1 How to calculate the Current Rating of a Power Cable .................................................... 16
2.2 Basis for the Calculation ................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Margin in Cable Rating Calculations................................................................................. 20
3 STARTING POINTS FOR RATING CALCULATIONS.......................................................... 22

3.1 Identification of an Underground Cable System ............................................................... 22
3.2 Cataloguing the Installation Conditions along the Cable Route ....................................... 25
3.3 Identify the Thermal Properties of Soils and Special Backfills.......................................... 30
3.4 Selection of Ambient Soil Temperature ............................................................................ 32
3.5 Collected Practices ........................................................................................................... 33
3.5.1 Common Installation Method.......................................................................................... 34
3.5.2 Soil / Seabed / Tunnel Ambient Temperature ................................................................ 34
3.5.3 Soil / Seabed Thermal Resistivities................................................................................ 38
3.5.4 Soil Dry Out .................................................................................................................... 40
3.5.5 Thermal resistance and Characterisation of Backfill ...................................................... 42
3.5.6 Limiting Factors in Current Rating Calculations ............................................................. 42
3.5.7 Operating Conditions...................................................................................................... 42
3.6 Discussion on Starting Points ........................................................................................... 43
3.6.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 45
Page 1
4 CALCULATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................... 46

4.1 Symbols used.................................................................................................................... 48
4.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 53
5 DUTY ASPECTS IN CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS ..................................................... 56

5.1 Loading (Current) .............................................................................................................. 56
5.1.1 Continuous Loads........................................................................................................... 56
5.1.2 Time Varying Loading .................................................................................................... 57
5.1.2.1 Cyclic ....................................................................................................................... 57
5.1.2.2 Emergency .............................................................................................................. 60
5.1.2.3 Arbitrary Load Patterns ........................................................................................... 61
5.1.2.4 Long Time to Reach Steady State .......................................................................... 62
5.1.2.5 “Short” (less than 5 second) Loading Patterns ....................................................... 62
5.1.3 Dynamic.......................................................................................................................... 63
5.2 Voltage .............................................................................................................................. 63
5.3 Frequency and one, two and three phase systems .......................................................... 63
5.3.1 AC Frequency................................................................................................................. 64
5.3.2 One, two and three phase systems................................................................................ 65
5.3.3 DC Current Ratings ........................................................................................................ 66
5.3.4 Other AC Frequencies.................................................................................................... 67
5.3.5 Harmonics ...................................................................................................................... 67
6 CABLE ASPECTS IN CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS .................................................. 70

6.1 Conductor.......................................................................................................................... 70
6.1.1 Skin and Proximity Effect ............................................................................................... 71
6.2 Insulation........................................................................................................................... 71
6.2.1 Thermal Resistance........................................................................................................ 71
6.2.2 Dielectric Loss ................................................................................................................ 72
6.3 Arrangement of Cores in a Cable ..................................................................................... 74
6.3.1 Single Core Cables......................................................................................................... 74
6.3.2 Multi-core Cables (including three core)......................................................................... 74
6.3.3 Pipe type Cables ............................................................................................................ 75
6.3.4 Concentric Cables .......................................................................................................... 75
6.4 Metal Sheaths and Screens.............................................................................................. 76
6.4.1 Metal Sheath and Screen Losses .................................................................................. 76
6.4.2 Multiple Sheaths and/or Screens ................................................................................... 77
6.5 Armour Bedding ................................................................................................................ 77
6.6 Armour and Metal Pipes ................................................................................................... 78
6.6.1 Armour Loss in Multicore Cables ................................................................................... 78
6.7 Outer Covering.................................................................................................................. 81
7 INSTALLATION ASPECTS IN CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS .................................... 82

7.1 Features Common to Many Installation Types ................................................................. 82
7.1.1 Cable Spacing / Arrangement ........................................................................................ 82
7.1.2 Bonding of cable sheaths ............................................................................................... 82
Page 2
7.1.3 Multiple Parallel Circuits ................................................................................................. 83

7.1.3.1 Conductor ac Resistance ........................................................................................ 83
7.1.3.2 Impact on Sheath Loss for Specially Bonded Cable System.................................. 83
7.1.3.3 Impact on Sheath Loss for Solidly Bonded and Earthed Cable System................. 87
7.1.3.4 Impact on Armour Losses ....................................................................................... 87
7.1.3.5 Thermal Impact of Multiple Circuits ......................................................................... 87
7.1.4 Multiple Cables per Phase ............................................................................................. 87
7.1.5 Circuits Crossing ............................................................................................................ 88
7.1.6 Long Lengths (charging currents) .................................................................................. 88
7.1.6.1 Critical Length ......................................................................................................... 88
7.1.6.2 Power Transfer for Long Circuits ............................................................................ 89
7.1.7 Joints .............................................................................................................................. 91
7.1.7.1 Single Isolated Joints .............................................................................................. 91
7.1.7.2 Multiple Joints.......................................................................................................... 94
7.1.8 Terminations................................................................................................................... 95
7.1.9 Metalwork ....................................................................................................................... 95
7.1.10 Short Lengths different to rest of Installation (longitudinal heat flow) ............................ 95
7.1.11 Parallel Metallic Paths (e.g. earth continuity conductor ) ............................................... 96
7.2 Buried installations (not tunnels)....................................................................................... 97
7.2.1 Common Aspects and Direct Buried installations .......................................................... 97
7.2.1.1 Multiple Parallel Circuits: Thermal Impact............................................................... 97
7.2.1.2 Unequally Loaded Circuits ...................................................................................... 98
7.2.1.3 Circuit Crossings ................................................................................................... 100
7.2.1.4 Soil dry-out ............................................................................................................ 102
7.2.1.5 Multiple thermal resistivity values (e.g. backfill) .................................................... 103
7.2.1.6 Water cooled cable systems ................................................................................. 103
7.2.1.7 Non-cable Objects................................................................................................. 104
7.2.1.8 Method of Determining Ambient Temperature ...................................................... 105
7.2.1.9 Very Deep Installations ......................................................................................... 106
7.2.1.10 Variable Inter-axial Spacing ................................................................................ 107
7.2.2 Duct installations including directional drillings ............................................................ 107
7.2.2.1 Duct filling Material or Casing Grouting Material................................................... 108
7.2.2.2 Losses in Steel Casings ........................................................................................ 111
7.2.2.3 Multiple thermal resistances of Duct Bank Environments..................................... 112
7.2.3 Surface Trough and Shallow Installation...................................................................... 112
7.2.3.1 Filled surface troughs or shallow installations....................................................... 113
7.2.3.2 Unventilated and Naturally Ventilated Troughs..................................................... 113
7.2.3.3 Force Ventilated Troughs ...................................................................................... 115
7.2.3.4 Effect of Solar Radiation........................................................................................ 116
7.3 Installations in air ............................................................................................................ 116
7.3.1 Transients..................................................................................................................... 116
7.3.1.1 IEC approach ........................................................................................................ 116
7.3.2 Solar Radiation ............................................................................................................. 117
7.3.3 Cables cleated to walls................................................................................................. 117
7.3.4 Cable bridges ............................................................................................................... 118
7.3.5 Riser Poles ................................................................................................................... 118
7.3.5.1 Energy Conservation Equations............................................................................ 120
Page 3
7.3.5.2 Energy Conservation Equation for the Cable Outside Surface............................. 120
7.3.5.3 Energy Conservation Equation for the Wall Inside Surface .................................. 120
7.3.5.4 Energy Conservation Equation for the Wall Outside Surface ............................... 121
7.3.5.5 Energy Conservation Equations – Heat Transfer ................................................. 121
7.3.5.6 Convection Coefficients in Riser Applications....................................................... 122
7.4 Tunnel installations ......................................................................................................... 123
7.4.1 Naturally ventilated / unventilated tunnel installations.................................................. 123
7.4.2 Forced air ventilated tunnel installations ...................................................................... 124
7.4.3 Water cooled tunnel installations.................................................................................. 126
7.4.4 Method of Determining Ambient Temperature ............................................................. 129
7.4.4.1 Notes on Air Ambient Temperature....................................................................... 129
7.5 Submarine cable installations ......................................................................................... 130
7.5.1 Seabed burial installations ........................................................................................... 130
7.5.1.1 Buried submarine cable rating calculations........................................................... 130
7.5.1.2 Thermal Resistivity of the Seabed Soil ................................................................. 130
7.5.1.3 Ambient Temperature of the Sea Floor................................................................. 131
7.5.1.4 Seafloor Conditions Changing with Time .............................................................. 131
7.5.2 Cables Installed on the Seabed ................................................................................... 132
7.5.3 Cables Installed in Free Water ..................................................................................... 132
7.5.4 Submarine Cables installed in Risers (J-tubes) ........................................................... 133
7.5.5 Cable Protection Systems ............................................................................................ 133
8 USING CALCULATION TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES ........................................................ 135

8.1 Steady State and Transient Rating Tools ....................................................................... 135
8.2 Dynamic (or real time) Rating Tools ............................................................................... 137
8.2.1 Inputs ............................................................................................................................ 137
8.2.2 Outputs ......................................................................................................................... 138
8.2.3 Use of Cable Dynamic Rating System ......................................................................... 139
8.2.4 Verification and Testing of Cable Dynamic Rating System.......................................... 140
8.3 Calculation Techniques................................................................................................... 141
8.3.1 Analytical ...................................................................................................................... 141
8.3.2 Empirical....................................................................................................................... 141
8.3.3 Numerical ..................................................................................................................... 142
8.3.4 Dynamic Rating Techniques ........................................................................................ 142
8.4 Discussion of Survey Results ......................................................................................... 144
8.4.1 Emergency Rating methods ......................................................................................... 144
8.4.2 Method of Calculation of Steady State Current Ratings............................................... 146
8.4.3 Comparison of Calculated and Measured Cable Temperatures .................................. 146
8.4.4 Transient Rating Methods ............................................................................................ 147
8.4.5 Limitations or Difficulties with Cyclic or Emergency Ratings........................................ 148
8.4.6 Cyclic or Emergency Ratings fully Integrated into the Network or Stand-alone .......... 149
8.4.7 Real Time Temperature Monitoring Systems............................................................... 149
8.4.8 Position of the Optical Fibre Sensor for DTS Monitoring Systems .............................. 149
8.4.9 Use of Fixed or Mobile DTS Systems .......................................................................... 150
8.4.10 Overall Accuracy Check for the DTS System .............................................................. 150
8.4.11 Limitations or Difficulties Experienced with DTS Monitoring Systems ......................... 150
Page 4
8.4.12 Number of Companies using Real Time Current Rating Systems............................... 151
8.4.13 Use of Optical fibre (DTS) System as Input to Real Time Current Rating System ...... 152
8.4.14 Use of Safety Factors in Real Time Current Rating System ........................................ 153
8.4.15 Number of Integrated and Standalone Real Time Current Rating Systems ................ 153
8.4.16 Limitations or Difficulties Experienced with Real Time Current Rating Systems ......... 153
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 155
10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 157
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE (EMPTY) ............................................................................... 169
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE – INCLUDING REPLIES SUMMARY .................................. 185
APPENDIX C: TABLE OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO IEC STANDARDS .................. 263
APPENDIX D: MIND MAP OF CURRENT RATING CALCULATIONS ..................................... 266
APPENDIX E: BONDING SCHEMES OF CABLE SYSTEMS ................................................... 269
Page 5
André-Marie Ampère (20 January 1775 – 10 June 1836) – French physicist and mathematician
Acknowledgement
The working group would like to thank all responders to the questionnaire for their time to create
input to the working group. Many responders completed the questionnaire in a very thorough way,
giving meaningful insights to the working group. Furthermore, the working group would like to
express their sincere thanks to our team of reviewers of this report. The content of the report was
reviewed by Mr. Brakelmann, Mr. Coates and Mr. Dorison, as well as by many SC B1 members.
Their comments provided both multiple improvements as well as useful guidance in the finalization of
this report. Thank you!
Page 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current rating of insulated power cables, including buried, submarine and in-air installations, is
1
considered in detail in this technical brochure, which addresses problems establishing the ampacity
of new and existing power cables. There is a wide variety of power cable types and installation
conditions, which all influence a power cable’s current rating, and although there are well-known
standards that govern ampacity calculations, these standards are not fully complete.
For new power cable installations, there is a need to establish the current rating on common
grounds. The current rating is an important indicator of the performance of the power cable, and as
such receives a lot of attention when a power cable and an installation condition are selected for a
planned underground or submarine cable connection.
Also for existing power cable installations, the current rating is an important topic to consider.
Installation conditions may have changed since the times of engineering and installation (for
example, due to nearby installation of other utilities), and also the current rating calculation methods
have evolved over time. This means that the current rating of an existing power cable presently in
operation might be quite different from the original engineering assessment. In order to establish the
actual current rating of an existing power cable circuit, a reassessment of its ampacity is often of
interest.
To help cable engineers to perform current rating calculations, this technical brochure was
developed by CIGRE. The report covers three major topics:
 A consideration of the starting points for cable rating calculations.
 A guide to methods for calculating current rating in situations which are not (fully) described in
the existing IEC standards.
 A discussion concerning the tools and techniques available for performing cable rating
calculations.
The calculation of cable rating is actually very similar for medium, high and extra high voltage power
cables (Figure 1 gives an impression). Therefore, the Working Group believes that this report is quite
well usable for many power cable types, including submarine and HVDC cables.
The intended usage of this report is as follows:
 If a user wants to understand what topics are important to consider before calculating the current
rating of a power cable in a certain situation, it is advised to read Chapter 3 describing the
starting points of the calculations. From this Chapter, it can be learned how the calculations are
approached around the world and what should be considered when defining starting points.
 If a user wants to calculate the current rating of a power cable in a certain situation, it is advised
to follow IEC standards as much as possible (as e.g. IEC 60287, IEC 60853). However, if the
situation facing the designer is not exactly described in the IEC standard, this brochure can give
guidance on how to proceed. The reader is encouraged to start with the mind map in appendix D
to find the CIGRE recommendation on the calculation method to be used.
 If a user wants to understand the background and capabilities of the calculation tools (mostly
computer programs) or dynamic rating systems, the guidelines in Chapter 8 may give interesting
1
The term ampacity is widely used in North America to denote current rating capability. Both terms,
ampacity and current rating, will be used interchangeably in this report.
Page 7
information helping to make an informed choice or to understand important details about the
calculation tools.
 If a user is in general interested in the current rating of cable circuits, the Working Group advises
to read though the complete brochure to gain an understanding on how well current rating
calculations for power cables can be done today as well as review the supporting references
listed throughout the document. More development work still needs to be done, as was defined
by the WG in various places in the document. The most important of those have been listed in
the recommendations in Chapter 9 of this document.
It has been the WG’s goal to provide guidance to a user trying to calculate, or to understand the
current rating of a power cable system. It is hoped that this brochure, the related Electra article or the
tutorial presentation, which also is available, provide the needed guidance and will help the user
forward in the quest to understand the current rating of the power cable in his or her situation.
FIGURE 1: (EXTRA) HIGH VOLTAGE CABLE TYPES – AN IMPRESSION
Page 8
1 Int rodu ct ion

This technical brochure is the final report of the CIGRE Working Group (WG) B1.35 and discusses
the issues related to power cable ratings. The report has been drafted in the period 2010 to 2014
and gives guidance on performing cable rating calculations. The report is intended for power cable
engineers having the need to calculate or to understand the loading possibilities of new or existing
power cables.
The topic of cable rating (or “cable current rating”, “ampere capacity” or “ampacity”) refers to the
amount of current (in Ampères) a cable system can transmit without exceeding design limitations of
the cable system at any position along the circuit. Together with the capability of the cable insulation
material to withstand a certain voltage gradient, this capability leads to the power transmission
capacity of the cable system.
Being so fundamental, it is interesting to note that safeguarding the current rating is performed
completely differently from safeguarding the voltage withstand capabilities. The latter is directly
tested in the high voltage laboratories while the former is typically not tested or verified but only
calculated, largely due to the fact that the current rating cannot be sufficiently assessed without also
considering the installation conditions and actual circuit loading may be far below rated conditions
much of the time. It is, therefore, very important that the calculation is performed correctly, in order to
result into a representative cable rating & power transmission capability for the power cable system
under consideration. This report supports the user in that important task by providing an index to
world-wide industry experience located in standards, publications, methods and tables.
The topic of cable rating is not new. Various numerical methods and analytical approaches have
been developed over the years. Many members of the cable community are familiar with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards in this area such as the IEC 60287 and
IEC 60853 series and with related fundamental work such as described by J.H. Neher and M.H.
McGrath (1957). As power cables have been used since about the 1880s, the cable rating is a topic
which has been considered by engineers for more than a century.
Being one of the most important requirements for a power cable system, the topic of cable ratings is
on the agenda of utilities, manufacturers, consultants and universities, mainly during the following
phases of a cable life:
1. The contractual phase,

in which a power cable having a certain capability to transport current is bought by a utility / user.
Although this contractual phase is before design and engineering takes place, the current rating
of the power cable is often discussed when evaluating the bids of suppliers.
2. The design and engineering phase,

where the cable rating is usually calculated by the manufacturer, and has to meet specific
requirements (steady state or dynamic) set by the utility / user leading to reviews or
recalculations by utility engineers or consultants. This theoretical exercise is often the only
background behind a cable’s current rating as testing the current rating is a very seldom used
option.
3. The operation phase of power cables,

where cables often become increasingly loaded. For utilities initially planning a new underground
cable, it is not easy to set the current rating requirements for the 30 – 50 years to come in the
expected operating life of the system, as there are very many rapid changes in the world of
electric energy generation, transmission, distribution and consumption. When the loading of an
existing power cable grows close to the allowable rating according to the (old) engineering
calculations, it is becoming very important to understand the exact limitations regarding the cable
Page 9
rating. The importance is related to both the prevention of severe overloading and timely
investment in new transmission facilities.
Therefore, there is a need to establish a reliable and representative rating for each power cable
system whatever its situation or age.
However, this is easier said than done. The standards and long history referenced above does not
imply that the calculations of the current rating are fully understood, or absolutely correct. Existing
methods are not fully complete for different reasons, for example, the on-going developments of the
cable systems and joints for land and submarine applications, the increasing complexity of cable
trenches and cable installation conditions, the dependency of the cable rating on the thermal
parameters of the cable environment, the resulting complicated calculations and the lengthy
development time for verified calculation methods to address special situations. All these reasons
lead to difficulties when calculating the current rating of cable systems.
1.1 A Guide to this Technical Brochure

This technical brochure intends to support the user trying to calculate the current rating of a new or
existing cable system by giving guidance in the topics of establishing starting points for rating
calculations, performing rating calculations in complex situations, and choosing rating calculation
methods.
The technical brochure should be used as a reference book in which guidance can be found
regarding implication of choices made in the process of calculating the current rating, or in which
guidance can be found in the case of a limitation that has to be overcome when performing a rating
calculation.
Do note that this technical brochure is not a standard. The brochure is to be used in addition to the
standards and other references and contains guidance from the CIGRE Working Group (WG)
experts on current ratings for power cable engineers with the intention to calculate or to understand
the loading possibilities of new or existing power cables. The work has predominantly been based
on:
 IEC 60287
 IEC 60853.
It is noted that these standards are revised from time to time. As such any recommendations in this
TB should be reviewed with reference to the latest standard as some recommendations in this TB
may become outdated.
Inside this technical brochure, the following information can be found:

In Chapter one, the subject of current ratings is introduced, and the goal, scope of work and terms
of reference posed to the WG are given. Furthermore, general information on the questionnaire used
by the WG to collect experiences worldwide is provided. It will be shown that the questionnaire has
an important, worldwide coverage.
Chapter two gives general information on the way rating calculations are performed around the
world. More importantly perhaps, overall issues with rating calculations are considered which need to
be addressed on a more strategic level before calculations are performed.
Page 10
Chapter three provides information on starting points for rating calculations. After all, without the
correct starting points, rating calculations will end up producing misleading results. Within this
Chapter, the questionnaire results are used to provide information on what kind of starting points are
actually used in practice, while, on the other hand, it will be discussed what starting points are
actually needed for performing rating calculations correctly. From a gap analysis performed between
these two, recommendations are given to improve the setting of starting points.
A subsequent section of the report is composed of Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7. Together, these Chapters
can be used as a guide for performing rating calculations in situations which are not (fully) described
in the IEC standards. Chapter 4 will provide an introduction on how to use the calculation guide,
including an overview in the form of a lookup table and a visual “mind map” (e.g., a flow chart
illustrating the divergent factors contributing to a specific rating case), to give a quick access to the
information contained in Chapter 5, 6 and 7. Chapter 5 describes the impact that (time varying)
voltage and current have on the current rating of a cable system, Chapter 6 discusses construction
details of cables and their impact on the current rating and Chapter 7 describes the effect of
installation features.
Chapter 8 is the third and last major part of the document and provides information on available
calculation techniques and tools. The information is based on the survey questionnaire that was
distributed to various utilities and other organizations, and it provides a good overview to those
considering various calculation techniques – both steady state and dynamic – as well as the usage
of Distributed Temperature Sensing (“DTS”).
Chapter 9 contains a set of conclusions and recommendations. Future work is recommended both
to cable engineers as well as to CIGRE and some reflections from the WG members are given on
the applicability of the brochure.
Chapter 10 provides all references used or referred to in this brochure. This list gives the reader
access to further information.
Appendix A contains the questionnaire sent out and analysed by the WG as background information
to readers and other CIGRE working groups. In Appendix B, a summary of all questionnaire replies
received is provided. Appendix C provides an overview of potential improvements to IEC standard
IEC60287/ IEC60853 and references to the sections in this report. Appendix D contains an overview
(Mind Map) of current rating calculations sub areas with references to the clauses in this brochure as
an aid the reader. In Appendix E, bonding schemes of cable systems are depicted, for information
only.
1.2 Information regarding the Working Group’s Objectives

The Working Group which prepared this brochure was started in order to reach three different,
related objectives. These goals are listed below, with the background for each of these objectives.
1. Starting points for rating calculations
Starting points for rating calculations deal with establishing the thermal properties of the cable
environment. As the cable environments can become quite complex (tunnels, multi layered soils,
submarine installations, and so on), establishing the thermal properties also becomes quite
complex. Furthermore, the way thermal properties are established differs significantly over the
world, leading to a varying amount of uncertainty, depending on the method used. Being
complex and having an uncertainty, these starting points are extremely important for rating
calculations. If the starting points are not defined correctly, or if errors are made here, these will
have a significant influence on the outcome of the cable rating calculation.
Page 11
For this reason, it has been the WG’s goal to report experiences and information on starting
points for cable rating calculations, and to provide practical recommendations regarding
acquiring starting points (refer to Chapter 3).
2. Performing rating calculations
Rating calculations themselves are nowadays mostly based on the IEC 60287, 60853 or IEEE
standards. Although these standards are reasonably easy to use and regularly updated, they do
not cover all installation or operating conditions where cables are used. Given the increasing
complexity of environments in which cables are installed, and given the continuous development
of the cable systems themselves, it is often unclear how to proceed with performing a rating
calculation. This means that many cable engineers, manufacturers, utilities and consultants
make their own interpretations, either in the calculation method or the data used in the
calculations, and subsequent calculations, possibly leading to a discrepancy in the calculation
results.
For this reason, it has been the WG’s goal to give guidance in performing rating calculations in
situations where there is no standard approach reported in the IEC or IEEE (refer to Chapters 4
to 7).
3. Calculation tools
Calculation tools are also an important consideration. Understanding the difficulties in
establishing starting points, and the existing uncertainties of how to actually calculate the current
rating, it is important to correctly understand how rating calculations are performed in practice.
Another development is the use of dynamic rating systems in which the current rating is
calculated in real time to allow for more optimal utilisation of the cable systems. Calculations
performed by the computer programs, as well as the basis (method or model) of these
calculations, should be fully understood as increasingly, utilities will base their power market
decisions on the output of these tools.
For this reason, it has been the WG’s goal to report calculation methods used and to report
recent developments in (dynamic) rating programs and systems (refer to Chapter 7).
In summary, the challenge posed to the WG was to give guidance to the user such that reliable and
representative cable rating calculations can be performed, using a correct set of starting points and
appropriate calculation techniques and tools, applicable to power cables whatever their type,
construction, age or installation conditions may be.
1.3 Information regarding the Terms of Reference and Scope of Work

The Working Group considered the following terms of reference:
1. To collect experiences and information from different countries regarding:
a. Acquiring the starting points for cable engineering (e.g. soil properties, ambient
temperature properties),
b. Calculation methods used (e.g. type of software, differences in software, sources of
information other than IEC, recent developments in dynamic rating software, temporary
ratings. Note that no benchmark of software whatsoever took place).
2. To assess and interpret the result of 1a and to make conclusions and practical recommendations
regarding acquiring the starting points to use within a cable rating study.
Page 12
3. To set up a general framework to guide the user to calculate the (steady state and dynamic)
current ratings of a cable circuit in any situation.
4. To list special situations in cable circuits (e.g. crossing cables and heat sources, deep cable,
cable in horizontal directional drilled locations, cable in open trough, cable on sea floor).
5. To recommend an existing calculation method, to highlight possible calculation methods or to
give indications for the calculation of the cable rating in every situation listed under point 4.
6. To assess and interpret the result of 1b and to report potential difficulties and problems with the
methods as well as to report recent developments in the methods (this includes recent
developments in dynamic rating methods).
7. To prepare the deliverables including an indexed bibliography regarding cable rating standards,
publications or other references.
The scope of work considered by the Working Group is:

All AC and DC cables with emphasis on the high and extra high voltage areas, but where possible
extended to the medium voltage area as much as possible, excluding accessories.
1.4 Introduction to the Questionnaire
Power cable rating calculations are performed worldwide on a regular basis. In order to learn from
the experiences gained around the world, a questionnaire was prepared and distributed by the
Working Group. This questionnaire was focused on the calculation techniques used, on the way
starting points are selected and on the need for cable rating calculation improvements.
The questionnaire turned out to be rather extensive (see Appendix A for the full questionnaire) but
was nevertheless answered by more than 100 companies. Figure 2 gives an overview of the
countries from which responses (sometimes multiple answers, from multiple companies) have been
received. Given the multitude of answers, it is believed that the questionnaire outcome gives a
realistic representation of the practice worldwide.
Although the questionnaire is believed to give a realistic representation, this does not mean that
each answer given may be correct. The working group decided not to change any answer received,
and is thus representing the input of the questionnaire respondents ‘as was put forward’. All answers
received are reported in appendix B showing reactions on open questions. Furthermore, throughout
this report statistics and overviews are given showing typical values and typical numbers. These
numbers thus have not been verified by the working group and should be regarded as being ‘typical’.
The questionnaires have been completed by employees working for utilities (57%), cable
manufacturers (22%), consultancy companies (13%) and others (8%, of which 50% Universities).
Table 1 provides some more details about this distribution of responses among the various types of
organizations.
Page 13
FIGURE 2: COUNTRIES RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE 1: ORGANIZATIONS COMPLETING THE SURVEY VERSUS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION (QUESTION 1.1)
Number of responses
North America South America Europe Africa Asia Oceania

Company type number number number number number number
Cable 1 1 13 0 7 0
manufacturer
Consultancy 2 1 8 0 1 0
company
Utility 11 2 24 2 12 8
Other (specify) 0 0 4 0 4 0
Grand total 14 4 49 2 24 8
101 replies in total
The questionnaire results are fully integrated in the report wherever needed to provide useful
information to the user.
Page 14
2 O v er al l I ss ue s w it h R at i ng Ca l cul at ion s
Cable rating calculations are performed by different companies in different moments of the life cycle
of power cables as was already mentioned in Chapter 1. Table 2 and Table 3 coming from the
questionnaire, confirm this.
TABLE 2: WHEN PERFORMING RATING CALCULATIONS, WHO DOES THE CALCULATION?
Organization Yes No Blank

Internal 89 4 8
Supplier 45 34 22
Consultants 24 39 38
Other 8 0 0
TABLE 3: AT WHAT STAGES ARE RATING CALCULATIONS PERFORMED?
Stage Yes No Blank

Feasibility 83 9 9
Specifications 69 20 12
Detailed design 76 15 10
As-build 56 32 13
Future modifications 67 22 12
Reassessment 61 25 15
Other 6 0 0
A few important phases exist where the current rating will receive a significant amount of attention:
A. Feasibility phase
In case of feasibility studies, often utilities are evaluating ideas about the development of their
networks. This comes with coarse estimates regarding the power cable type, the trench
dimensions, major route features, cable configuration and the current rating.
B. Tendering phase
When a bid is requested from the market place, suppliers will give a current rating of the
proposed cable system usually in response to the owner’s requirements. In this phase, the
current rating is often based on a set of estimations (either forwarded in specifications or not)
and on an intended installation method. The calculations performed during this phase are very
important for manufacturers because a contract could be won or lost because of it. Unexplained
differences in the current rating stated between bids can easily lead to confusion. Note that if the
utility / owner is taking responsibility for specifying the cable size, the calculation responsibility
belongs to the utility / owner rather than to the manufacturer.
C. Design phase
When a detailed design is made and agreed upon, the current rating of the cable system to be
constructed is usually established and agreed. In this phase, it is customary to replace
estimations and assumptions by measurements and agreements, and to perform a relatively
accurate current rating study. Again, it is typically the supplier who calculates the current rating,
while the utility or his consultant will review the calculation. Sometimes the utility or a third party
(consultant, etc.) evaluates the as-built ampacity of the system.
Page 15
D. Operation phase
During modifications of existing situations and reassessments of the capabilities of the network,
the utility is often responsible for performing current rating calculations or hiring a consultant to
perform these calculations on their behalf. It is often the utility that is performing the current
rating calculation. It is often the goal to redefine the current rating of an existing power cable
because the circuit’s environment was changed (see Houwelingen and Rossum, 2007); the load
pattern (daily load factor) has changed, or because there is a desire to increase the rating on the
circuit (“uprating” or “increased power flow” studies).
In this Chapter, it is discussed how these rating calculations are typically done, and what the strategy
of the calculation might be in terms of the margin and the approach. Therefore, a reference will be
made to the above.
Relation to the voltage level

It is common to perform current rating calculations for all voltage classes (57%), see Figure 3.
However, 37% of the respondents claim to only perform current rating calculations above a certain
voltage class, while sometimes the importance of the connection is taken into account when deciding
if the current rating needs to be calculated or not. The latter two categories may be related to the
redundancy of the network at a certain voltage level, or to the impact of a cable failure, which makes
sense according to the WG. Due to the increasing cost with respect to voltage, greater care in
developing cable ratings is often used because there are better economies of optimization at the
higher voltages. This was, however, not questioned and, therefore, remains unknown.
All
above a certain voltage
depending on the importance of

the network
FIGURE 3: WHEN A CALCULATION IS PERFORMED (QUESTION 1.5)
2.1 How to calculate the Current Rating of a Power Cable
The current rating can be calculated or established in different ways, fulfilling also different needs.
In case of feasibility studies for example, the current rating may need to be understood only roughly.
A more coarse approach to find the current rating of a power cable may then be used.
Page 16
In the case of a bidding phase, the current rating needs to be known already more precisely.
However, exact starting points and installation conditions may not be known, and of course, the
detailed design phase is yet to come. In this phase, it is believed to be best to list the assumptions
made regarding starting points and installation conditions, and subsequently perform current rating
calculations for the cable types under consideration. These current rating calculations should follow
IEC or IEEE guidelines as much as possible. If IEC and IEEE are not applicable, the guidelines in
this brochure could be used to come to an answer. Ratings for estimating purposes are also
published in rating tables (IEC 60055-2 and IEC 60502) that prescribe a given set of conditions but
do not require specific calculations to be performed by the user.
In the case of a detailed design, starting points and installation conditions ideally should be
completely defined. Starting points can be deduced by taking measurements or by making
estimations, as will be discussed in Chapter 3. However, it is important that in this phase, the error
margin on the starting points is known and taken into account. The same is valid for installation
conditions which must be known, and whose variations must be understood and taken into account.
Only when these variations are taken into account, the current rating of the cable system can be
established accurately.
Despite these best efforts in the detailed design phase, there is often some degree of construction
variability that may not be accounted for. As a result, as-built ampacity calculations are often
performed at the conclusion of a construction project.
In the case of a cable already in the operation phase, the starting points for a cable rating study will
most likely need to be verified or set. Starting points may actually change over time, and in history,
starting points were regularly estimated rather than measured or engineered. When the starting
points and installation details are known, the current rating of the cable system can be calculated
more accurately than when using estimated values. As-built plan and profile drawings are often a
resource for this purpose.
Some points regarding the above variations when calculating the current rating must be clearly
understood:
Starting points
Starting points play a very important part in rating calculations. This is further detailed in Chapter 3.
Circuit rating
For almost every application, the current rating from busbar to busbar, i.e., the “circuit rating”, is the
value which is needed for operation. That means that besides the current rating of a power cable in
its normal installation condition, also the current rating of joints, terminations, as well as any
switchgear, current transformers and other equipment in between the busbars needs to be taken into
account. After all, it is no use of having a high 1000A current rating for a power cable, while the
limitation is given by a switchgear which may not be loaded higher than 800A. It is therefore advised
to always consider busbar to busbar ratings, in which the cable may, and may not be the limiting
factor. The scope of this technical brochure is limited to the cable portion of the circuit.
When considering a busbar to busbar rating, a power cable may be found in series with an overhead
line or a power transformer. Those other primary components also have a maximum current rating,
which is governed by different aspects compared to the power cable. When the components are in
series, the limiting component will limit the loading of the other primary components as well. It must
be noted that as the current rating limitation of a power cable depends on the type of rating
calculation and the cable environment, the actual limitation may change in time. Having components
in series thus may lead to changes in the limiting component (e.g.: in winter, the power cable is
limiting, in summer the overhead line in series), see for an example Wild et al. (2007).
Page 17
Rating versus loading

The rating of a cable circuit gives information on how much current a cable circuit could transport. It
is very different from the loading of a cable circuit, which is the amount of current which is actually
transported by the cable circuit. The loading of a power cable will depend on the load flows in the
network, which in itself depends on the impedances of the various components in the network, and
the location of generators and load centres. For transmission systems in utilities, typically
redundancy is present leading to loadings much lower than the rating of cable systems. For
distribution systems in utilities and especially factories, the loading may be closer to the rating of
cable circuits. However, any network operator must be able to rely on the availability of the full rating
of a cable system in order to accommodate emergency situations in the network and to prevent
forced outages. This explains the importance of the rating of both new and older cable systems.
Thermal degradation
The loading versus the rating of a power cable system gives information about the possibility of
thermal degradation of the power cable. The cable rating and cable degradation are thus related to
each other. More information about this relation can be found in CIGRE (2008).
Maximum temperatures
Loading a power cable system will lead to heating of that power cable system. There is a limitation
on this heating in the form of maximum temperatures. When such a limitation is reached, the cable
system is fully loaded (up to its rating). Temperature limitations exist because of the materials in or
around the power cable, as:
 A limitation on the conductor temperature to avoid overheating of the adjacent insulation

material. This is a very important limitation to the loading of a power cable often used in rating
calculations. Increasing the temperature beyond this limitation will have impact on degradation
and remaining lifetime of the power cable which typically is irreversible.
 A limitation on the temperature of the outside jacket (outside surface) of the power cable. When
installed inside a soil, this limitation typically aims to prevent dry out of the soil. Dry out of the soil
will lead to significant deterioration of the soil thermal properties, which leads to increased
heating. In such an event, the cable itself can easily become significantly overheated (a thermal
runaway). Dry out can be both reversible and irreversible depending on the soil type.
When installed inside a tunnel, this limitation typically presents a limitation because of safety
(think of burning a hand).
 When installed inside a selected-sand backfill having a high dry out temperature, the limitation
may be on the interface between the selected-sand backfill and the native soil rather than on the
jacket temperature of the power cable.
 A limitation on the temperature of the air around the power cable. Where a power cable is
installed in a tunnel or cellar, there may be limitations on the temperature of the air inside that
tunnel or cellar. Typically countries have maximum temperature limitations on working
environments for personnel. In case a tunnel or cellar is such a working environment (it typically
is), the air temperature may be one of the more severe limitations for the rating of a power cable.
Other temperature limitations may exist in other installation situations or in specific cable designs,
and also limitations to temperature differences may exist. For HVDC cables these limitations are
discussed in section 5.3.3.
In general it is advised to understand the temperature limitations very well before a current rating
calculation is performed.
Page 18
Temperatures during emergency situations

During emergency situations, refer to Chapter 8, the temperature of the conductor is often allowed to
rise above the maximum operating temperature of the power cable. From the questionnaire (for
details refer to appendix B), it was learned that:
 The duration of such emergencies seems to range from less than 10 minutes up to 15 days,
strongly depending on the company answering the questionnaire.
 The maximum temperature specified at the end of such an emergency situation is reported to
range between the normal maximum operating temperature (90 ºC for XLPE insulated cables, so
no increase beyond the normal maximum operating temperature) and 130 ºC (excluding extreme
entries), with the most popular maximum emergency temperature being 105 ºC, see also Tang
et al. (2014).
The working group notes that care must be taken not to increase the emergency temperature, or the
emergency duration at an increased temperature, too much. This may lead to irreversible damage to
the insulation material of the power cable. Such damage may shorten the cables’ lifetime, or – when
emergency temperatures are very high – may lead to immediate defects in the cable system over the
complete length.
Local differences along the cable route

Different cable environments will lead to different cable temperatures. As such, the temperatures
along the cable route will change with changes in the cable environment and with changes in the
cable configuration. Given the temperature limitations, there will be several locations along the cable
route which will come close to the temperature limitation when the cable circuit is fully loaded (to its
rating). It is critical to understand where these locations are situated along the route, and to keep the
properties of these situations under full control.
In case of a situation with a limited length, typically 5 m, there will be axial heat flows reducing the
impact of such a situation, although even small length situations will have a thermal impact. For
reasons of practicality, in rating calculations typically situations are considered with a length greater
than 5 meters. Smaller length situations are typically neglected. However, in cases of extremely
worsening environmental changes (e.g. a situation in which a cable crosses a 1 meter thick foam
insulation block having very bad thermal conductivity), it is advised to also consider those smaller
sized situations.
2.2 Basis for the Calculation
The calculation of the current rating itself is often performed on the basis of the IEC or IEEE
standards. The questionnaire indicated that IEC standards are always/often used by 79% of the
respondent (see Table 4) worldwide. Only 6% of the respondents replied that IEC standards are
never used as a reference. In these cases, national standards are used for calculating the current
rating (Japan, Germany). In Japan, the JCS standard (Japanese Electric Wires & Cable makers)
0501’ Calculation of the current rating of power cables for rated voltages more than 66kV’ and JCS
168 E1995 is commonly used which is similar to IEC with some small differences.
In North America, the IEEE standards 835 and 848 are often used.
Page 19
TABLE 4: ORGANIZATIONS VERSUS IEC USAGE FOR CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS (QUESTION 1.2)
Results
Company type
Always Often Occasional Rare Never Other
A cable manufacturer 13 6 1 1
A consultancy company 7 6
A utility 14 27 9 2 5 2
Other (specify) 5 1 1 1
Grand total 39 40 11 2 6 3
Note: References to commercial cable rating software are given as non-standard IEC method by some
respondents.
The fact that the vast majority of the companies worldwide use the IEC standards for rating
calculations does not mean that an answer is always easily reached with the IEC standards. Many
needs for improvements regarding the steady state rating calculations were indicated by the users in
the questionnaire.
Furthermore, most system designers experience the limitations of the present current rating
calculation methods. In those cases the following options (workarounds) are followed:
The ‘Finite Element Method’ (FEM) is the most used method; this was reported by 17% of the
questionnaire responses. Remarkably approximation, which is the very opposite of FEM, was the
second most popular method, reported by 12% of the responses. Other methods are ‘contact/hire a
consultant’ (9%), ‘ask the cable manufacturer’ (7%.), ‘use site measurements’ (3%) and ‘discuss with
the client’ (3%). Only a small number of respondents reported that they have not experienced such a
case so far (7%). While FEM appears to see prominent use, the WG expects that this method is
seldom applied by utilities directly and instead is requested by utilities from manufacturers or
consultants.
The above, once again, confirms that the topic of current rating is one of importance for many
companies around the world, as was indicated in Chapter 1.
2.3 Margin in Cable Rating Calculations
Power cables seem to have a certain margin for higher loading. After all, cases in which power cable
systems fail during operation because of overloading are rather rare (though these have happened in
multiple countries in the world). However, this finding may be merely a symptom of the way power
cables are utilized to date. They are very seldom loaded close to their thermal limit. Refer also to the
bullet list in section 2.1.
Given the changing usage of transmission and distribution networks in the future (CIGRE 2010) the
loading of power cables may come closer to the limitations. Especially in those cases, it is very
important to understand the capabilities and limitations of the power cable in enough detail to prevent
unplanned overloading situations.
This means that there is a need to understand the current rating of a power cable in operation quite
well. This, in turn means that the current rating calculation itself, and the starting points, must be
accurately determined. Also dynamic rating systems or other software tools must provide enough
accuracy to determine the dynamic current rating of a power cable.
Page 20
The quality of the definition of the starting points, the calculation method and the calculation tools
used thus must be in balance. It is obviously of no use to have a very accurate and time consuming
FEM calculation for some complex cable environment if, in the same study, there is a possible error
margin of tens of percents regarding the dry-out temperature or thermal resistivity of the native soil.
In such a case, balance must be created first by dedicating attention to the establishment of realistic,
reasonable starting points, possibly at the cost of some accuracy of the FEM calculation, to yield the
best result. To detect these cases, the reader is referred to Chapter 3 on starting points. Accurate
models for cable ratings are known, but the reader should be aware that detailed knowledge of the
native soil thermal environment is often not known better than to within 10 - 20%.
The accuracy of the current rating calculations is typically limited by inaccuracies in the starting
points, limitations to accurately understand input parameters and fundamental limits in calculation
methods and models. This implies that it is good engineering practice to have some margin between
the current rating of a power cable and the expected maximum loading of the circuit.
Obviously, dynamic rating calculations (real time) can come closer to the actual rating of a power
cable because they provide more realistic calculation results compared to the offline loading
calculations, which are often based on the assumed system conditions. In cases where the dynamic
rating systems are applied, the margin in the calculations is also an important subject to consider
before applying such a system (predicted loadings) to control the power flow in the network.
The questionnaire was used to investigate the current practice regarding safety margins, details can
be found in Appendix B. The questionnaire shows that currently safety margins are not commonly
applied except that some designers apply a lower conductor temperature if the soil conditions are not
known (as per AEIC CG1 and CG6 : -10 °C), and that other designers limit the cable outer sheath
temperature such that soil drying out is prevented or limited (i.e. 45-50 °C outer sheath temperature).
The same holds true for safety margins in transient rating calculations.
A number of methods are in use by a small group of cable system designers to include a certain
margin in the calculated current rating of a cable system, such as a reduction of the cable conductor
temperature (5%), assuming a higher thermal resistance on site (3%), or other imposed limitations
(7%) such as rounding down the calculated rating to 5 or 10 A accurate numbers, impose a
maximum outer sheath temperature (e.g. 45 °C) or assume worst case conditions.
The following guidelines on the topic of margin in cable rating calculations can be given:
 Balance the accuracy in starting points, calculation methods and calculation tools relatively
evenly. Do note that although it is realistic to have a calculation method with accuracy down to a
few percent for some situations, it is not realistic to expect the same accuracy for the starting
points.
 Discuss the margin in any rating calculations in the bidding phase and design phase of the
project as well as in the operation phase when the existing cables are considered.
Page 21
3 St ar t in g Po int s f o r R at i ng Ca l cul at ion s

Insulated power cable ratings must be calculated with consideration of many parameters. The steps
to approach these ratings must be carefully considered by the engineer performing the calculations.
This section of the guide identifies the main considerations for addressing rating calculations when
presented with a particular set of circumstances. Sections 3.1 to 3.5 discuss the aspects and starting
points needed for a rating calculation, while Section 3.6 discusses how starting points are currently
established based on the questionnaire results. Section 3.7 concludes this Chapter with important
learning points.
3.1 Identification of an Underground Cable System
The user of this guide should understand the basic cable construction features and identify the cable
system type. Within this context, the cable types that might be encountered include:
 Extruded cable including cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE, see Figure 4) and ethylene propylene
rubber (EPR, see Figure 5). This type of cable is available in voltages from secondary
distribution up to 550 kV. Most cables are constructed with one core, although three-core cable
has been commercially supplied up to 220 kV. Conductors may be made of stranded or solid
copper or aluminium. The outer metallic cable layers vary widely but can include a stranded
copper or aluminium wire shield, a taped copper or aluminium shield, copper, aluminium or
stainless steel corrugated sheath, or extruded lead sheath; combinations of these shield and
sheath constructions have been used.
FIGURE 4: 220/380KV XLPE INSULATED CABLE WITH FIGURE 5: 46KV 3x500 mm2 SUBMARINE CABLE, CORES
2000 mm2 CU MILLIKEN CONDUCTOR AND SMOOTH EPR INSULATED
ALUMINIUM SHEATH
Page 22
 Self-contained fluid-filled cable, sometime referred to as low-pressure oil filled or medium-

pressure oil filled cable, has been used commercially from typically medium voltage up to
525 kV. Single-core cable constructions usually consist of a hollow-core copper conductor, oil-
impregnated paper insulation, lead or corrugated aluminium or copper sheath, and insulating
jacket (see Figure 6). Three-core cables often have fluid ducts in the interstices between
conductors.
FIGURE 6: 400KV LOW PRESSURE OIL FILLED CABLE WITH LEAD SHEATH AND PVC JACKET
 Paper-insulated lead-covered cable (PILC) typically has a stranded copper conductor, sector or
circular shaped, and mass impregnated paper insulation with a lead sheath (see Figure 7). Some
constructions have an insulating jacket over the lead sheath. Both single-core and three-core
cables are commercially available.
FIGURE 7: LEFT PICTURE: BELTED CABLE WITH COMMON LEAD SHEATH, RIGHT PICTURE: SINGLE LEAD
SHEATH ON EACH INSULATED CORE
Page 23
 Pipe-type cables (common in North America but with very limited applications elsewhere) consist
of a carbon steel pipe in which the three cable phases are installed (Figure 8). Each phase
consists of a stranded copper or aluminium conductor, oil-impregnated paper or paper-
polypropylene-paper (PPP) insulation, metallic taped shield and metallic skid wire (stainless
steel, brass, bronze, zinc or aluminium). The interior of the pipe together with the cables is
pressurized with dry nitrogen gas or dielectric oil (mineral oil, alkyl-benzene or polybutene).
FIGURE 8: HIGH-PRESSURE FLUID FILLED CABLE
The user should be familiar with these cable system types and have them identified for a particular
cable circuit rating study. Within a certain cable route, transitions between cable types are
sometimes used. Common transitions include:
 Change in conductor size within the same cable type.

 Transition from self-contained fluid-filled or PILC cable to extruded cable.
 Transition from pipe-type to extruded.
As an initial step in preparing to evaluate cable ratings, the user should identify all of the cable types
along the route and gather the respective data about the cable construction.
Often, this data may be located in utility records or in manufacturer cable sheets and will indicate
dimensions (thickness, areas) and materials used for cable construction. Industry guidelines (such
as IEC standards 60287 and 60853) will provide standard material characteristics for the cable
components (electrical resistivity of metallic components, thermal resistivity and volumetric specific
heat for non-metallic components), etc. Generally, only main characteristics are provided in the
factory acceptance test results as well as the factory data sheets. If the customer intends to make
“accurate” calculations, it is useful to make measurements on the cable provided.
One of the challenges of developing cable data is the variation in information that may be available.
Sources of cable construction are often obtained from manufacturer’s data sheets, but there is
variability in what may be reported on these sheets. The dimensions may include the thickness of
each cable layer, or the nominal diameter of each layer. The manufacturer is allowed to apply
tolerances when making the cable, so the data sheets may vary from the actual manufactured cable.
Factory acceptance test reports usually include dimensional checks of the cable as it is
manufactured, but there are also variations during a production run such that these are not entirely
Page 24
uniform for an entire batch of cable. The reader is encouraged to get the most accurate information
available to describe the cable. In general, this means selecting data from the following list with a
decreasing quality of information:
 Factory Acceptance Test Results – These provide actual dimensions of how the cable was
made.
 Cable Factory Data Sheets – These sheets provide a good description of the cable but do not
necessarily reflect the manufacturing tolerances or the actual deviation from the design of the
cable system to that which is actually put into production. They may include specific measured
material characteristics as well.
 Specifications and Industry standards – Generally, cables of a given voltage class and conductor
size will have characteristics within the parameters of industry standards and specifications. If
better sources of information are not available due to lost or unavailable records, industry
practice with similar voltage and conductor cable may be the only alternative.
3.2 Cataloguing the Installation Conditions along the Cable Route
In addition to cable construction details, the installation conditions along the route have a strong
influence on the cable rating. Therefore, establishing a cable rating for a circuit requires careful study
of the information about the route. Much of this information is established from records including plan
and profile drawings. The difficulty for some circuits is that these records are lost, incomplete or
inaccurate. In these situations, estimates must be made or investigations need to be executed before
a rating calculation is performed.
A cable circuit rating is based on determining the worst combination of installation conditions along
the route that results in the highest operating temperature and, therefore, the lowest rating. The
factors that should be ascertained for cables buried in the ground, or installed in pipes or ducts in the
ground are:
 Burial depth – The path for heat leaving the cable which ultimately passes to the earth’s surface
becomes longer with increased burial depth. This longer heat path, other factors held constant,
increases the thermal resistance to heat leaving the cable and lowers the cable rating.
 Phase and circuit separation – Mutual heating among cables causes a de-rating effect due to the
closer proximity among cables. Closer spacing lowers ampacity because of greater mutual
heating effect (except sometimes in the case of multiple-point bonded systems where circulating
current losses may increase at a faster rate than the reduction in mutual heating).
 Mutual heating from adjacent circuits, either in parallel or crossing the circuit of interest – In
addition to cables among the same circuit or system of cables, nearby cables whether
transmission or distribution or other underground heat sources (e.g., steam lines) can cause
mutual heating when running in parallel or crossing the circuit being rated.
 Native soil thermal resistivity – Areas with increased soil thermal resistivity will provide a greater
thermal resistance to heat escaping from the buried cable. Therefore, it is important to identify
these areas to account for the soil characteristics in rating calculations. In case of changes to the
environment (e.g. a paving is made or soil is exchanged) the soil thermal resistivity is likely to be
changed.
Page 25
 Extent and characteristics of special backfill – As with the native soil, the characteristics of the
backfill, both the material thermal resistivity and quantity and dimensions installed around the
cables, should be known.
 Local ambient soil temperature – Higher ambient soil temperature limits the allowable
temperature rise for current-carrying capacity of the cable and therefore lowers the cable rating.
The native soil temperature must be known at cable depth to properly evaluate the cable rating.
Areas under roadways and pavements may have a higher ambient temperature due to increased
solar absorptivity, and summer ambient temperatures are greater than winter temperatures
which can be important for cable circuits concerned with seasonal ratings.
Where the cable system is cooled, installed in tunnels or installed in air then different or additional
information will be required to calculate the current rating.
Establishing the above mentioned parameters is best done during new circuit design. Some projects
are designed based on estimated parameters which, in some cases, are later examined through field
work.
Selecting the worst case situation amongst many situations encountered is quite difficult. For this
reason, it may be necessary to perform multiple rating calculations for a given route.
The type of cable installation also must be well defined in order to both develop a thorough
understanding of the hot spots along the cable route and to select the model to be used for ampacity
calculations. Some of the major types of cable system installations include:
 Direct buried (see Figure 9) – The cable surface is in direct contact with either the native soil or
special thermal backfill. The smaller diameter (as compared to cables installed in conduits) can
result in an increase in the heat flux leaving the cable surface although the thermal resistances
from the cable surface to conduit and conduit itself are not present. Conduit installations often
have direct buried segments near risers.
FIGURE 9: DIRECT BURIED CABLE CIRCUIT
Page 26
 Cable in Conduit (see Figure 10) – The cable is pulled into a previously-installed conduit. The
conduits are often backfilled with special materials including fluidized thermal backfill (FTB) and
concrete. The conduit type (PVC, HDPE, fiberglass reinforced epoxy) must be known as they
have different heat transfer characteristics.
FIGURE 10: CABLES IN CONDUIT
 Pipe-Type Cable – The cable pipe is buried much like a conduit for other cable types and then
backfilled with a granular backfill or fluidized thermal backfill.
 Submarine Cables (see Figure 11) – The cables are placed on the water bottom (sea bed, lake
bed or river bed) or embedded below the water bottom.
FIGURE 11: LANDING OF A SUBMARINE CABLE
Page 27
 In-air Cable Installations (see Figure 12) – Cables may be installed either vertically or
horizontally in air including at termination structures and along riser poles. The extent to which
the cables have free air ventilation must also be assessed in determining the rating.
FIGURE 12: IN-AIR CABLE INSTALLATION
 Trenchless Installation Methods – Cables may be installed without a trench excavated from the
surface through methods such as pipe-jacking, micro-tunnelling or horizontal directional drilling.
These “trenchless” methods can involve the installation of a casing pipe that consists of steel or
high-density polyethylene. Each of the pipes may be filled or unfilled.
 Steel Casing (see Figure 13) – This casing type is often selected by civil engineering firms
because of its high longitudinal tensile strength, but extruded and self-contained cables installed
within the casings will induce hysteresis and eddy current losses in the steel. The extent and
type of grout or presence of air within the casing between the inner conduits and casing wall
must also be carefully evaluated.
Page 28
FIGURE 13: CABLES INSTALLED IN A STEEL CASING
 HDPE Casing – This casing type is often more flexible than a steel casing, but the thick casing
wall consisting of high-density polyethylene has a high thermal resistances but with no additional
electrical losses. The extent and type of grout or presence of air within the casing between the
inner conduits and casing wall must also be carefully evaluated.
 No Casing – This type of installation involves pulling a bundle of conduits directly into the bore
hole. There is generally no opportunity to grout the space between the boring and the bundle of
conduits, so the characteristics of the soil left around the conduits – usually consisting of a
combination of drilling mud and native soil – and relative depth to the water table must be
assessed for rating purposes.
 Trenchless installations of cable often use much heavier wall conduit materials to provide greater
tensile strength for pull back during installation of the conduits. This heavier wall introduces a
greater thermal resistance to heat leaving the cable system.
 Laying in troughs – a trough is either a prefabricated U-shaped element or it can be cast-in-place

as sections or as a continuous concrete casting. The cables are pulled in, and the trough is
eventually backfilled. Finally, a cover is placed on top of the trough.
 Tunnels are used in cities when more circuits or more utilities have to use the same route and
when the transmission capacity cannot be obtained by burying cables. When the surroundings
allow it, the tunnel can be made by excavating from ground level, after which the tunnel is
constructed. When traffic, buildings or other installations in the ground do not allow for using the
excavation method, the tunnel can be dug by using a tunnel excavation machine working
underground an placing tunnel segments and jointing them together. Tunnels can also be dug by
means of pipe jacking: this method also entails placing segments next to each other and joining
them together. The diameter of a circular tunnel can vary from less than 2 m up to 14 m.
Installation in tunnels requires consideration of measures to avoid fire propagation and the
Page 29
establishment of fire doors/sections et cetera. In connection with tunnels, shafts and ventilation
systems must typically also be established.
 Bridges can be used for cable systems to cross roads, rivers and railways. Vibration, elongation,
bending at junctions, expansion joints heat and wind must also be considered.
The reader is also reminded that increased burial depth of trenchless installations often means that
mutual heating effects of parallel circuits or heat courses have a greater zone of influence that must
be considered for rating purposes.
3.3 Identify the Thermal Properties of Soils and Special Backfills
While insulated cables may be installed in free air, tunnels or manholes, the predominant type of
installation is underground. Because of this, soil thermal resistivity is a critical parameter for cable
ratings as it represents 50-75% of the thermal resistance between heat leaving the conductor and
ambient earth. For this reason, it is one of the most important parameters and also one of the least
understood. Soil testing can be performed to characterize the soil thermal resistivity. The sensitivity
of the thermal resistivity with respect to moisture content is important due to the soil drying that may
occur in the presence of cable heating, see: CIGRE(1982), CIGRE (1992-4), Arrighi et al. (1970),
Donnazzi et al. (1979), Koopmans and Kuiper (1990) and Groeneveld et al. (1984).
Soil testing is often used, both in the field and on samples in the laboratory. Soil characteristics vary
both along the route and with depth, especially with the soil type and the groundwater table. Heat
leaving the cable is generally acknowledged to move away from the cables towards the earth’s
surface, so variations in the strata of soil can impact the heat transfer as well. Most rating methods
assume that the soil has uniform properties outside of the cable trench, but this is not always the
case. Other analytical methods or finite element analysis may be required where the soil cannot be
assumed to have uniform thermal characteristics.
Soil testing for submarine environments is essentially done in the same manner as for conventional
buried cables aside from the increased complexity of performing the in situ measurements and
obtaining samples.
When measurements are not performed, there are few alternatives for determining the native soil
thermal resistivity as this is a parameter not commonly catalogued except within the cable rating
community. A good starting point is IEC standard 60287-3-1 “Electric cables – Calculation of the
current rating – Part 3-1: Sections on operating conditions – Reference operating conditions and
selection of cable type”, but these values should be used with caution (see Section 3.5.3).
Page 30
Several parameters affect the thermal resistivity of the soil. These include (but also refer to section
03.5.5 and 3.6):
1. Soil composition
a. Type of mineral
b. Organic content
c. Bonding between particles
2. Texture
a. Fine - coarse
b. Grain size distribution
c. Natural or crushed
3. Water content
a. Wet, moist, damp, dry
4. Dry density
a. Solids content
b. Loose, compact, dense
c. Pore size and distribution
5. Other factors
a. Loss of fines
b. Dissolved salts/minerals.
Once installed, the dry density, type and most other factors of the soil does not change. Only the
moisture content will change because of an environmental change (summer, winter, rain, etc.). The
cable itself can also negatively influence the moisture content of the soil by means of the dry out
process. The moisture content has a profound effect on the soil thermal resistivity as illustrated in
Figure 14.
Establishing the thermal properties for calculation means that, once soil properties are well known, a
choice is to be made regarding the moisture content to take into account. It is often possible to detect
the lowest groundwater table in a soil analysis. Given the soil properties, from the lowest
groundwater table, the lowest moisture content of the soil around the power cables can be deduced.
This lowest moisture content is subsequently used to calculate (or measure – in a laboratory
environment) the thermal properties of the soil around the power cable for cable rating
considerations.
Note that in a normal situation, typically there is more moisture in the soil than expected on the basis
of the lowest groundwater table (it may have rained, the groundwater table may have risen because
of some other reason), and thus the thermal properties of the soil may be better than in the worst
case. This is something to take into account when conducting field measurements: for engineering
the current rating, the worst case thermal situation is needed, while in a field measurement the actual
situation is measured instead of the worst case situation. Figure 14 indicates that the difference
between the two may be very large. For example if the moisture content of uniform sand is measured
at 15% moisture content, then the thermal resistivity will be less than 50 °C∙cm/W (point A). However
the conditions may change with the sand drying out and the thermal resistivity will increase to over
250 °C∙cm/W (point B). If the current rating of the cable is calculated assuming the measured values
then the current rating will not be valid when the conditions change.
Page 31
FIGURE 14: THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF VARIOUS SOILS AS A FUNCTION OF THE MOISTURE CONTENT,
LETTERS A AND B DENOTE WET AND DRY DOMAINS
The degree of compaction of the soil will also influence its thermal resistivity. Thus during any
laboratory measurements and reinstatement of the cable route it is important that the appropriate
degree of compaction is achieved.
3.4 Selection of Ambient Soil Temperature
The soil temperature imposes a limitation on the allowable temperature rise in cable conductors and
therefore restricts the current carrying capacity of cables. The IEC standards all use the hypothesis
of Kennelly, which assumes that the earth surface must be an isotherm.
In IEC 60287 (see reference list, Chapter 10), this isotherm is referred to as θa which can vary
substantially depending on geographic location and time of the year. The ambient temperature is,
according to IEC60287-1-1, section 1.4.1.1, the temperature of the surrounding medium under
normal conditions, at a situation in which cables are installed, or are to be installed, including the
effect of any local source of heat, but not the increase of temperature in the immediate
neighbourhood of the cables due to heat arising therefrom. These temperatures are usually
established during a route thermal survey or based on historical values.
Factors that determine the temperature of the ground can be grouped in three general categories:
meteorological, terrain and subsurface variables.
Large-scale regional differences in ground temperature are determined primarily by meteorological
variables such as solar radiation, air temperature, rainfall and precipitation. Micro- or local variations
are caused by differences in terrain, surface characteristics and ground thermal properties (including
moisture content and/or water table).
Page 32
Meteorological elements, primarily solar radiation and air temperature, influence surface and
subsurface temperature by affecting the rate at which heat is transferred to or from the atmosphere
and the ground. Solar radiation is probably the most important factor. Other meteorological factors
such as wind or rain can cause significant local variations.
Since many of these parameters change in a seasonal cycle, or irregularly with time, it is impossible
to predict exactly the earth temperature at any given location or any given time in the future,
particularly at locations near the earth's surface. Earth temperature predictions, therefore, are of a
statistical nature and some deviation from the average is to be expected in any given day, season, or
year.
Ideally, the ambient temperature should be obtained from measurements. Published references such
as IEC 60287 include tables of ambient temperature by region but usually these are not sufficiently
specific for the purposes of preparing an accurate cable rating. Methods can be used for
characterizing the ambient soil temperature using air temperature data. Surface conditions and burial
depth, particularly for shallower depths, must be considered when selecting a temperature for
ratings. For depths shallower than 0.5-0.75 m, the ambient temperature may be 5 °C greater than
the prevailing temperature in the area due to higher solar absorptivity below asphalt.
Cables laid on the bottom of a large body of water, but not buried, generally do not have thermal
constraints due to the heat being absorbed and convected away from the cables. However, many
submarine installations involve embedding the cables below the sea floor. In these situations, the
subsurface temperature will be closely aligned with the water temperature at the same depth and
moderated by seasonal fluctuations in the water temperature.
3.5 Collected Practices
Now that starting points needed for calculations are discussed, it is interesting to understand how
starting points are used and deduced in practice. The collected practices regarding starting points
are based on the questionnaire replies to questions 1.6 to 3.3 and question 4.2, see Appendix B, and
are divided in the following, subsequent, subclauses:
 Installation method
 Soil/ seabed / tunnel ambient temperature
 Soil / seabed thermal resistivities
 Soil dry out temperature
 Backfill thermal resistance and characterisation
 Limiting factors in current rating calculations.
It is noted that the questionnaire responses should be regarded to reflect typical values. Their
individual entries have not been verified by the working group. See also section 1.4.
Page 33
3.5.1 Common Installation Method
Based on the questionnaire replies on questions 1.6 to 1.8, the most common installation
configuration can be defined:
 Single core HV cables

 Direct buried
 Installed in close trefoil or in flat formation
 Installed between 0.4 m and 2.0 m deep
 With pavement/ asphalt/road as typical covering on top of the trench.
It must be emphasized that specific installations are more dominant per continent such as concrete
encased duct banks in North America and buried tunnels in Asia. Also, the installation of (large)
submarine connections and inter-array connections (cables connecting a number of turbines in a
string to a collecting off-shore platform) for off-shore wind farms indicates the need for more detailing
of starting conditions for these types of circuits.
As cables are often installed in urban areas, pavement / asphalt / tarmac are frequently covering the
top of the trench. The type of ground surface may influence the ambient temperature by absorbing
solar radiation, or may influence the soil moisture content. This is seldom considered by the
designers.
3.5.2 Soil / Seabed / Tunnel Ambient Temperature
From question 2.1, it can be concluded that the soil or seabed temperature is often assumed (72%)
and occasionally measured (21%). The reasons for undertaking site measurements are various and
were mostly reported for submarine cable circuits, provided by customer/utility, and done for direct
buried cables.
Various methods for measuring the soil temperature have been reported: mostly by thermocouples
at various installation depths (0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.2 m, 1.5 m and even 5.0 m) along the cable route
(every 500 m or at possible hot spots). The usage of DTS measurements is increasing: the soil
ambient temperature is then measured before the circuit goes live. A few respondents indicated that
measurements are done in that time of the year with the highest ambient temperatures. Soil and
seabed temperatures are most of the time assumed by the designer, often due to a lack of detailed
information about the site conditions.
The usage of seasonal or regional values is confirmed by respectively 51% and 40% of the
responses.
Figure 15 shows the typical soil temperatures per country, for hot conditions, with Figure 16 showing
the same for the cold conditions.
Page 34
45
40
Soil temperature (°C)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FIGURE 15: TYPICAL SOIL TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR HOT CONDITIONS PER COUNTRY
50
40
30
20
Soil temperature (°C)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
FIGURE 16: TYPICAL SOIL TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR COLD CONDITIONS PER COUNTRY
The variation between neighbour countries, or even within one small country, is considerable. Figure
17 shows the assumed seabed temperatures per country, for hot conditions, in Figure 18 this is
depicted for cold conditions.
Page 35
45
40
35
Seabed temperature (°C)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FIGURE 17: TYPICAL SEABED TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR HOT CONDITIONS PER COUNTRY
30
25
Seabed temperature (°C)
20
15
10
FIGURE 18: TYPICAL SEABED TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR COLD CONDITIONS PER COUNTRY
Around the world, there seems to be consistent adoption of the seabed temperature in hot and cold
condition: the variation is relatively small.
Figure 19 shows the assumed air temperatures in tunnels/galleries per country, for hot conditions,
and the same in Figure 20 for cold conditions.
Page 36
Tunnel / gallery temperature (°C) 60
50
40
30
20
10
FIGURE 19: TYPICAL TUNNEL / GALLERY TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR HOT SEASON CONDITIONS PER COUNTRY
60
Tunnel / Gallery temperature (°C)
50
40
30
20
10
FIGURE 20: TYPICAL TUNNEL / GALLERY TEMPERATURE RANGE FOR COLD SEASON CONDITIONS PER
COUNTRY
The data references for the soil, seabed and tunnel temperatures were reported as follows:
 Assumed 26 responses
 Measured 17 responses
 (Local) standards 15 responses
 Historical data 8 responses
 Provided by client 8 responses
 Based on meteorological data 3 responses
Page 37
The ambient temperature is an important parameter in the current rating calculations; most values for
this parameter are assumed and vary considerably per user or per region. The international standard
IEC60287-3-1‘Operating Conditions’ is seldom referred to as reference.
3.5.3 Soil / Seabed Thermal Resistivities
From all respondents on question 2.2, 70% indicate that the soil or seabed thermal resistivities are
assumed values. Reasons stated include: lack of data, small cable project, low voltage class, pre-
tendering phase.
However, there is a growing interest in measuring the soil/seabed thermal resistivities as reported by
twenty five (25%) responses, especially for new cable projects, submarine links, on customers
request and for critical site conditions like in congested areas.
Reported methods of measuring the soil/seabed thermal resistivities:
 Frequency: soil samples are taken every 50 m to 500 m or at suspected hot spots or at random.
 Location: specific depths, specific layers in the trench and changes in soil types.
 Measured parameters: thermal resistivity, moisture content and density, critical temperature.
 Deduce worst case for engineering purpose: highest thermal resistivity, deepest point of the
route or soil conditions with full or partially dry soil.
The uses of seasonal and/or regional values are not applied by most responses (63% respectively
55%). Figure 21 until Figure 23 provide an overview of the applied soil and seabed thermal
resistivities in various countries.
8
Soil thermal resistivity (K.m/W)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FIGURE 21: TYPICAL SOIL THERMAL RESISTIVITY RANGE FOR DRY SEASONS PER COUNTRY
Page 38
3,5
Soil thermal resistivity (K.m/W)
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
FIGURE 22: TYPICAL SOIL THERMAL RESISTIVITY RANGE FOR WET SEASONS PER COUNTRY
Note: the reported high thermal resistivities for Finland and the Netherlands refer to dry and wet
peat.
3,5
Seabed thermal resistivity (K.m/W)
2,5
1,5
0,5
FIGURE 23: TYPICAL SEABED THERMAL RESISTIVITY RANGE PER COUNTRY
Reported references for given values in:
 Historical data and/ or papers 23 responses

 Local standards 16 responses
 Provided by customers 6 responses
 Laboratory tests on samples 2 responses
Page 39
3.5.4 Soil Dry Out
Another important parameter for direct buried cable is, besides the soil thermal resistivities, the dry
out temperature of the soil surrounding the cable circuit (question 2.3). Soil drying-out is considered
by most respondents (63%) but more than one third of the respondents (36%) do not consider this
parameter at all. Given reasons for considering the soil drying out are: known soil characteristics,
water table, customer specification, cable class.
Figure 24 and Figure 25 provide an overview of the typical applied thermal resistance of backfill as in
use in various countries, for the dried out and for wet soil.
8
Soil thermal resistivity for dried- out
7
6
5
soil (K.m/W)
4
3
2
1
0
FIGURE 24: TYPICAL THERMAL RESISTIVITY RANGE FOR DRIED-OUT SOIL PER COUNTRY
Note: the reported high thermal resistivity for the Netherlands refers to dry peat.
3
Soil thermal resistivity for surrounding
2,5
2
wet soil (K.m/W)
1,5
0,5
FIGURE 25: TYPICAL THERMAL RESISTIVITY RANGE FOR WET SOIL, SURROUNDING DRIED-OUT SOIL PER
COUNTRY
Page 40
The variation in applied thermal resistances for dried out soil is considerable whereas for wet soil is
remarkable uniformly. Figure 26 summarise the responses replies for the critical isotherm values.
80
Critical isotherm temperature (°C)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FIGURE 26: TYPICAL CRITICAL ISOTHERM FOR SOIL DRYING OUT PER COUNTRY
Note: the large difference in dry out temperatures in the Netherlands results from the wide variety of
soils encountered (cables are typically installed in native soil in the Netherlands) and from the wide
variety in the groundwater tables. Exceptionally good soils are present, as well as exceptionally bad
soils (for instance badly graded sands with poor moisture retention) in terms of dry out temperature.
Reported references for the values given in Figure 24 to Figure 26 :
 Measured 13 responses
 (Local) standards 9 responses
 Literature 6 responses
 Historical data 3 responses
 Customer spec 3 responses
 Common practice 1 response
A resting time to allow re-hydration of the soil is normally not considered, this is only reported by
10% of the responders.
Page 41
3.5.5 Thermal resistance and Characterisation of Backfill
Backfill, directly surrounding the cable(s), is usually characterized by the users (question 2.4) with
the following parameters:
 Thermal resistivity : 88% of the responses

 Grain size distribution : 47% of the responses
 Compaction : 57% of the responses
Other reported parameters are thermal resistance at a specific moisture content /minimum moisture
content (4 responses), reference to standard/specify material (4 responses) and usage of fluid
thermal backfill.
Control on the rest of the backfill material is done by 42% whereas 45% does not. If control is given
to the rest of backfill materials, compaction level (38%) and thermal resistivity (29%) are measured
or cross checked with customer provided specification (17%).
3.5.6 Limiting Factors in Current Rating Calculations

The influence of other heat sources in the cable ratings is handled in different ways by the
respondents (question 2.5), varying from ‘calculating the exact influence’ (68%), via ‘adding a margin
to ambient temperature’ (30%) and ‘usage of de-rating tables’ (26%) to ‘not taken into account at all’
(4%).
For the calculation of the exact influence, IEC is the ruling reference (20%), followed by usage of
commercial software (19%) and FEM (13%). The margin that is added to the ambient temperature
varies from +5 °C (27%) to +10 °C (20%), while +15 °C and +20 °C are reported by one respondent
2 3
each. For de-rating tables, standards like IEC, VDE and JCS are used (31%) or generated by
software (15%).
Another approach which is adopted by some countries according to the results of the questionnaire
is to take a minimum separation between cable circuit and heat source into account to ensure
thermal independence of the cable systems. One response mentioned 1000 mm when laid in parallel
and 500 mm when crossing. Do note that this approach is questionable while the numbers will only
be valid in certain specific laying conditions. However, this approach is reported to be adopted by
some countries.
3.5.7 Operating Conditions
A maximum conductor temperature is used as a limitation by 85% of all respondents. Those that do
not use maximum conductor temperature (question 3.1) clearly show that the IEC calculation method
is indeed implemented and that the limitation of the current rating through the maximum conductor
temperature is substituted by different limiting parameters as, for example, cable surface
temperature to avoid drying out of the soil around the cable.
The answers to questions 3.2 in the Questionnaire demonstrate in more detail which alternative
limiting parameters are in use. The differentiation of the answers to item 3.2 shows also a clear
2
VDE: ‘Verband der Elektrotechniek’, German association
3
JCS: Japanese Electric Wires & Cable makers
Page 42
understanding of the physical model in use of the IEC standard. The most usual thermal design
limitations are the conductor temperature and the native soil/surrounding conditions/operating
conditions. An interesting reference is Zhang (2014): this paper refers to the use of a 2 K maximum
increase in environment temperature criteria used in Germany, including wind load statistics.
The survey did not ask the question regarding other temperature limitations. In some, rare cases, the
backfill/duct bank maximum temperature are limited to avoid soil dry out.
Question 3.3 dealt with using an assumed daily load cycle instead of calculations based on a
continuous load. Assuming a load cycle often results in peak load currents which are significantly
higher than those with a continuous load. The majority of users used assumed daily load cycles
while 32% of the users preferred to calculate the current rating based on continuous loadings. While
some of these users may not be fully loading their cables given that most cables are unlikely to be on
a continuous load, some users may be using dynamic ratings. Variations of the load factor down to
0.7 are obviously common practice and in some cases values down to 0.6 and more could be found.
A few others use measurements as base for the load factor.
The questionnaire ended with a few open questions in relation to starting points (question 4.2)
Other reported limitations/regulations influencing cable ratings are EMF limitations (21%), heat
source/thermal influence other heat sources (11%) and maximum allowed temperature rise near the
cables (7%).
The following reasons for thermal break downs in cable systems, because of overheating, were
reported:
 Overloading 4 responses
 Selection of cables, in-correct special bonding system 2 responses
 High thermal resistance soil 2 responses
 Changes in operating conditions 2 response
 Field situation different from engineered situation 2 response
 Thermal impacts to laminated cables 1 response
 Remaining life time exceeded 1 response
 Large no. of 11kV cables, under asphalt buried in beach sand. 1 response
The majority of cable failures due to overheating seems to be related to differences in starting points
during engineering phase and the in-situ situation, i.e.: overloading, changes in operating conditions
and field different from engineered situations.
As an interesting recommendation given by the respondents, a data sheet is mentioned which
should be used between the engineering company and the cable system user, detailing the starting
points for the performed rating calculations. Also synchronization and clarification of calculation
methods is recommended.
3.6 Discussion on Starting Points
The results of the questionnaire items as described in Section 3.1 to 3.5, dealing with the starting
points for cable rating calculations are summarized below:
 IEC / Neher-McGrath method is the prevailing method for cable rating calculations; these
calculations are performed during all stages of a cable system lifetime and are also widely used
for determining the influence of secondary heat sources.
Page 43
 A worldwide most common installation configuration can be defined:

- Single core HV cables,
- Direct buried,
- Installed in close trefoil or in flat formation,
- Installed between 0.4 m and 2.0 m deep,
- With pavement/ asphalt/road as a typical soil/air interface.
 Soil/seabed ambient temperature is mostly assumed without a clear reference. Occasionally, it is
measured for important connections, such as for submarine installations and various other
reasons. Seasonal and / or regional values are taken into account by ~ 50% of the respondents.
The variation of the assumed soil/seabed temperature between countries and even within
countries is considerable.
 Soil/seabed thermal resistivity is also normally assumed, based on historical data, although it
was mentioned that this parameter is now measured for new circuits and for submarine
connections indicating the growing awareness of this very important parameter. A large variation
in the assumed values is observed: not only between countries and continents, but also within
one country. Also, the use of seasonal and / or regional values for the thermal resistance is not
common; this is only taken into account by ~40% of the respondents. When the soil / seabed
thermal resistance is measured, the following parameters are measured: thermal resistivity,
moisture content, density and critical temperature.
 Soil drying out is considered by ~ 60% of the respondents, with a dry out isotherm varying
between 20 °C and 70 °C indicating that there is not universal agreement on this parameter. It is
uncommon to take into account a re-hydration of the soil after a drying out period.
 When backfill is applied around the cables, the thermal resistance is usually determined, based
on the compaction level and grain size distribution.
 The influences of secondary heat sources are calculated by most respondents, IEC / Neher-
McGrath are the preferred methods.
 The conductor temperature is the limiting factor, but additional limitation towards outer sheath
temperatures are also taken into account.
 Load factors are normally not considered.
 An EMF limit requirement is some times a developing current rating limitation.
 System failure as a consequence of overheating is very rare.
The questionnaire part related to starting points indicates that most starting points are assumed in
the current rating calculations although respondents indicated that the use of measured parameters
is increasing for new (and important, such as submarine) connections. However, this uncertainty in
starting points seldom led to system failures due to overheating; this is more related to applying
incorrect information at the design stage.
It is expected that given the many uncertainties in the assumed starting points, the need for more
accurate starting points will be larger than the need for more detailed current rating calculation
techniques.
Page 44
3.6.1 Conclusion
As shown in the questionnaire results, starting points, such as ambient soil/ seabed temperatures
and in-situ soil thermal resistivities, are just assumed by the majority of the respondents. A wide
tolerance in the assumed parameters indicates the need for measured, trustworthy, values as this
will lead to more realistic current rating calculations.
Page 45
4 Ca lc ul at i on M et ho ds and Pr oc edu r e s
There are a number of different methods and procedures that can be used to calculate the current
rating of a cable system. Not only the cable system design, but also the calculation methods and
procedures used, will have an impact on the current rating.
This section (together with sections 5, 6 and 7) is intended to have two main uses. One is to guide
engineers considering specific cable systems to gain an insight into the impact of various cable
system design choices and find the appropriate calculation methods. There are many standards,
reports and technical papers that give methods for the calculation of current ratings but no one
document gives methods for all situations. In some situations there is more than one calculation
method published. In general this document does not provide the appropriate calculation method but
refers to publications that contain these methods where they exist, giving guidance on the relative
merits of each method where more than one exists. Given the large body of literature published
regarding current ratings, while this document references an extensive number of other documents,
it is not the aim to cover a complete list of all documents written regarding this subject.
The second intended use for this document is to identify where the existing body of standards,
books, reports and technical papers can be improved. Where no published method of calculation
exists for specific cable system arrangements, these are identified in the hope that methods will be
developed and published. Some methods published as reports or technical papers may deserve to
be considered for more formal publication, by example being incorporated into standards. Finally,
where a weakness has been found, particularly in the IEC standards, this has been identified.
Any guidance that could be given by the WG to the user in a specific situation is given in this
brochure. The guidance comes in several variations. Reference to an existing standard is the
strongest, while hints, tips and descriptions unanimously accepted by the WG members is the
weakest variation. The WG found it to be most important to give guidance as much as possible to the
engineer dealing with a difficult rating calculation.
In the majority of cases, the current rating of a cable system is set by the cable and not the other
parts of the cable system (for example, the joints and terminations). These additional components
should be designed and installed so as not to limit the cable current rating. Hence, this document
concentrates on the current rating of the cable itself. There are cases where the rating of the cable
system is not limited by the cable and some of these cases have been noted. In the end the users
should focus on busbar to busbar rating of the circuit, as highlighted in Chapter 2.
The calculation methods covered in this section of the report are generally analytical approaches
where the solution can be found by entering parameters into a function or equation. With the
widespread availability of fast computers there are also a number of numerical methods such as
finite element analysis, which are not fully covered in this document. A more detailed discussion of
these numerical methods can be found in Section 8.3.3. Preference has been given to analytical
methods since these give independently reproducible results. Where numerical methods have been
discussed it is hoped that future work may be able to find analytical approximations.
Most underground cable ratings calculated using analytical methods are evaluated based on the
fundamental concept of heat transfer through a solid medium by thermal conduction. The basis for
this evaluation is an equivalent thermal circuit that is developed to model a specific cable
construction; the thermal equivalent is based on a temperature rise resulting from heat flowing
through a thermal resistance and capacitance. The thermal capacitance of the various cable layers
and surrounding earth introduces a delay in the response of the temperature to changing load
conditions based on the specific heat characteristics of the cable components and the environment
in which the cable system is installed. An example equivalent thermal circuit for an extruded or self-
contained fluid filled cable installed in a conduit is shown in Figure 27.
Page 46
FIGURE 27: EQUIVALENT THERMAL CIRCUIT FOR AN EXTRUDED OR SELF-CONTAINED FLUID FILLED CABLE
INSTALLED IN A CONDUIT
The cable system design parameters that affect current ratings can be summarised into three broad
areas: duty, cable design and installation. This is summarized in Figure 28.
FIGURE 28: OVERVIEW OF ASPECTS THAT CAN AFFECT CURRENT RATINGS
In the following sections a more detailed evaluation of each aspect is made together with
recommendations on methods of calculation that can accommodate the described situation.
Appendix D gives detailed mind maps for each of the sections to aid the reader.
In section 7.1 common aspects that may affect many cable installation types (such as the impact of
any parallel metal conductors) are covered, rather than repeating the description under each
installation. In other parts of section 6 and 7, some aspects (such as sheath losses) appear in one
section (for sheath losses in metal sheath section) and this description will be referenced in other
sections (such as impact of AC voltages for sheath losses) rather than repeating the description
twice. In this way any duplication of descriptions for calculation methods is avoided.
The most widely used documents for current ratings are the IEC series of standards. The cable
engineer with experience in current rating calculations will be more familiar with the aspects of a
cable system as described in IEC 60287 (that is in terms of losses, thermal resistances and base
assumptions). For these engineers a table in Appendix C has been compiled that contains a list of
calculation methods missing in the IEC standards, indexed in a similar fashion to IEC 60287 with
cross references to the appropriate section in Chapter 6.
Page 47
4.1 Symbols used
The symbols used in this Technical Brochure and the quantities which they represent are given in
the list below. As much as possible, SI units have been used in this brochure, but where
misunderstandings might be introduced, other units have been used. Because multiple references
are quoted in this brochure, unavoidably sometimes similar symbols are used for different meanings.
Where unclaries might arise as a result of this, the section number where the symbol is used is
stated. Following the practice adopted in the IEC standard 60287, all cable component diameters are
given in millimetres. When the formulae shown in the text require these dimensions to be given in
metres, an asterisk is added to the symbol. For example, De denotes the external diameter of the
*
cable expressed in millimetres, whereas De denotes the same diameter expressed in metres.
Symbol Description Unit
A = Constant in section 7.2.1 -

2
A = Surface area in section 7.3.5.5 m
B = Constant -
B = Connection matrix -
C = Electrical capacitance per core F/m
C1..C8 = Thermal capacitance of a specific layer per unit length J/K∙m
D = Difference between maximum and minimum air temperature K
De = External diameter of the cable mm
Dearth = Earth diameter (jacket, conduit, pipe) m
Di = Outer diameter of layer I mm
Dx = Diameter where average heat output is seen m
E = Electrical stress in the insulation in section 5.3 MV/m
E = Column vector of filament longitudinal voltage drop -
c
E = Column vector of conductor longitudinal voltage drop -
F = Mutual heating effect factor -
G = Geometry matrix -
Gb = Geometric factor for backfill -
I = Current in one conductor (r.m.s.value) in section 5.1 A
I = Column vector of filament currents in section 7.1.3 -

Ii = Average load of hour number i in section 5.1 A
Ic = Capacitive current for the cable A
Icond = Conductor current A
c
I = Column vector of total conductor currents -
IL = Load current for the cable A
Imax = Highest current of daily load cycle A
Page 48
th
In = Current for n harmonic, with n=1 for fundamental frequency A
Iz = Thermal rated current A
L = Burial depth of cable m
Lc = Critical length m
LF = Daily (24 hour) loss-load factor for the cables -
N = Total number of heat producing cables, occupied conduits or
pipes within the backfill -
Nc = Number of equal cables -
Np = Number of water cooling pipe pairs -
NC = Number of conductors -
PL = Active power at load receptor W
Pk = Transmitted real power of cable k W/m
Q = Quantity of water per unit length per pipe kg/m
R = AC resistance of conductor at its maximum temperature Ω/m
R’ = DC resistance of the conductor Ω/m
Rd = Matrix containing filament resistances in the diagonal and zeros

outside the diagonal -
th
Rn = Effective AC resistance of the conductor for n harmonic in
section 5.3 Ω/m
R1..R8 = Thermal resistance of a specific layer per unit length
in section 7.4.3 K∙m/W
Router = AC resistance of outer conductor at operating temperature Ω/m
SG = Apparent power at injection point VA
T(t,x) = Ambient temperature at time t at depth x K
TR = Thermal resistance of the insulation around the steam pipe/hot air pipe K∙m/W
Taverage = Average annual air temperature K
Tij = Mutual thermal resistance between cables i and j K∙m/W
T1 = Thermal resistance per core between conductor and sheath K∙m/W
T2 = Thermal resistance between sheath and armour K∙m/W
T3 = Thermal resistance of external serving K∙m/W
T4 = Thermal resistance of surrounding medion (ratio of cable surface
temperature rise above ambient to the cable losses per unit length) K∙m/W
THD = Total harmonic distortion -
U = Phase to phase voltage V
U0 = Nominal voltage (between conductor and sheath / screen) V
W(t) = Heat loss during time t W/m
Page 49
Wconv = Convective heat transfer loss in section 7.3.5 W

Wcond,w-o = Heat conduction transfer rate from the wall inner surface to its
outside per unit length W/m
Wconv,s = Natural convection heat transfer rate between cable outside
surface and the air per unit length W/m
Wconv,w = Natural convection heat transfer rate between the wall inside
surface and the air per unit length W/m
Wconv,o = Natural convection heat transfer rate between the wall outside
surface and the atmosphere air per unit length W/m
Wd = Dielectric losses per unit length per phase W/m
Wdist = Total heat loss for a cable carrying a distorted waveform W/m
Wi = Total power dissipation of all the cables in a trough per meter
after iteration i in section 7.2.3 W/m
Wj = Sum of Joule and dielectric losses of cable j in section 7.2.1 W/m
Wmax = Maximum heat loss during a load cycle W/m
Wn = Total heat loss generated by all cable components for all frequencies W/m
Wp = Heat generated by steam pipe or hot air pipe W/m
Wrad,s-w = Thermal radiation heat transfer rate between the wall inner
surface and the cable outside surface, per unit length W/m
Wrad,o-sur = Thermal radiation heat transfer rate between the wall surface
and surrounding objects per unit length W/m
Wsol = Solar radiation absorbed by the wall surface per unit length W/m
Wt = Total energy per unit length generated within the cable W/m
2
WI = Total heat loss of the cable related to I R losses of that cable W/m
WTOT = Total power dissipation of all the cables in a trough per meter W/m
2
a = Thermal diffusivity m /s
c = Specific heat capacity J/kg∙K
cw = Specific heat capacity of water J/kg∙K
2
h = Heat transfer coefficient W/ (m ∙K)
i(t) = Heat generated by the cable per unit length in section 7.4.3 W/m
k = Thermal conductivity W/K∙m
n = Number of conductors in a cable
(or, when mentioned, in another space) -
n = Frequency component (n=1 is fundamental frequency, n>1 is
harmonic) in section 5.3 -
p = Perimeter of the trough that is effective for heat dissipation m
sii = Geometric mean radius of filament I m
Page 50
sij = Geometric mean distance between filaments i and j m

t = Time s
t0 = Length of period s
t = Time since maximum air temperature occurred in equation 37 s
v1..v8 = Temperature of a specific node
vi(x,t) means temperature of node i at location x at time t K
vo = Ambient soil temperature K
th
(ys)n = Skin effect factor for the n harmonic -
th
(yp)n = Proximity effect factor for the n harmonic -
x = Depth below the earth’s surface m
-1
α = Temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity in section 5.3 K
α = Sheath loss factor in section 7.4.3 -
β = Stress coefficient of electrical resistivity m/MV

th
γn = Ratio of the n harmonic current to the fundamental current
in section 5.3 -
tan δ = Loss factor of insulation material -
εr = Relative permittivity -
θ = Difference between actual and reference temperatures in section 5.3 K
θa = Ambient air temperature above ground in section 7.2.3 °C

θck = Conductor temperature of cable k in section 7.2.1 K
θi = Temperature inside a trough after iteration i in section 7.2.3 °C
θk max = Maximum conductor temperature of cable k in section 7.2.1 K

θo = Temperature of the wall outside surface in section 7.3.5.5 K
θs = Temperature of the cable outside surface in section 7.3.5 K
θw = Temperature of the wall inner surface in section 7.3.5.5 K
θR = Temperature of the surface of the steam pipe or hot air pipe in
section 7.2.1 K
θW = Temperature of the steam or hot air in section 7.2.1 K
θ0 = Initial temperature inside a trough in section 7.2.3 °C
θ1, θ2 = Temperature of media 1 and 2 in section 7.3.5.5 K
λ1 = Sheath loss factor (ratio of the total losses in the sheaths to the
total conductor losses, or ratio of losses in one sheath to the losses
in one conductor) -
λ2 = Armour loss factor (ratio of the total losses in the armour to the
total conductor losses, or ratio of losses in one armour to the losses
in one conductor) -
th
(λ1)n = Sheath loss factor for the n harmonic -
Page 51
th
(λ2)n = Armour loss factor for the n harmonic -
λ' 1 = Ratio of the losses in one sheath caused by circulating currents
to the losses in one conductor -
λ”1 = Ratio of the losses in one sheath caused by eddy currents
to the losses in one conductor -
μ = Loss-load factor for a load cycle in section 5.1 -
μ = Permeability of the material (μ0∙μr) in section 7.1.3 H/m
μr = Relative permeability of the material (nonmagnetic materials
have a μr of 1) -
-7
μ0 = Permeability of air, 4π∙10 H/m
ρ = Electrical resistivity in section 5.3 Ω∙m
3
ρ = Density in section 7.3.1 kg/m
ρfill = Thermal resistivity of backfill material in section 5.1 K∙m/W
ρi = Thermal resistivity of layer i in section 6.46.2 K∙m/W
ρnative = Thermal resistivity of native soil in section 5.1 K∙m/W
ρ0 = Electrical resistivity at reference temperature in section 5.35.3.3 Ω∙m

τ = Total duration of a load cycle s
-1
ω = Angular frequency (2πf) with f=frequency s
φ = Phase angle °
Δθ = Permissible temperature rise of conductor above ambient temperature K
Δθij = Conductor temperature reduction of cable i due to cable j K
Δθint = Conductor temperature reduction due to heating from neighbouring
cables K
Δθs = Difference between the cable surface temperature in air and ambient K
temperature
Page 52
4.2 Definitions
Description of technical terms and section references are given below.
Term Definition Reference

(Section)
Ampacity The current carrying capacity of a cable. This is a term widely -

used in North America, and avoids any confusion that may
result from the use of the word “capacity”
Bonding Electrical connection of the cable metallic screen, influencing 7.1.2

the current dependent losses in the screen or sheath
Keystone A conductor in which individual strands are pre-shaped, for -

conductor example in a trapezoidal shape, in order to achieve
compaction
Continuous rating The unchanging continuous current at which the conductor or 5.1.1
conductors of a cable will eventually reach a defined maximum
temperature
Cross bonding An arrangement in which the screens of the individual phase Appendix E
cables of a single circuit are electrically connected to another
phase cable screen after a certain distance. This is repeated
such that there are as many sections as there are phases in
the circuit. The goal of this arrangement is to minimize sheath
losses
Cyclic rating The maximum current or VA rating of a cable, when the load is 5.1.2.1
varied in a sequence of steps that are repeated cyclically. The
cyclic rating will differ for different sequences and different
cycle periods
DTS Distributed Temperature Sensing 8.4.2
Dynamic rating The current rating of an installed cable with real time varying 5.1.3
parameters (for example load current, ambient temperature,
thermal resistivity), taking into account the thermal time
constants of the cable and it’s environment
Earthing Electrical connection of the cable metallic screen, referring to 7.1.2

the fault current path and the reference for the electrical stress
in the insulation
Electrical section Section of cable circuit where the cable screens are not 7.1.2
electrically transposed onto another phase cable
Emergency rating The permissible short term rating of a cable already loaded 5.1.2.2
and at a steady state, taking into account the thermal
capacitance and the thermal resistance of the installed cable
system
Flat formation, flat A flat horizontal laying arrangement of usually three single -
configuration cores cables. The cables may be touching or spaced apart,
with the spacing usually defined
Page 53
FEM Finite Element Method. A numerical method for determining 8.3.3

current rating using discrete elements, as detailed in IEC TR
62095
Load factor The total energy transferred over a defined period, expressed 5.1.2.1 (2)
as a percentage, or a per unit value, of energy that would have
been transferred should the load remain at its peak value for
the entire period
Loss factor The heat loss in a metal component of a cable other than the 6.4.1
conductor, expressed as a per unit value of the heat loss in the
conductor
Loss factor, The current though a dielectric that is in phase with an 6.2.2
dielectric alternating voltage applied across the dielectric, expressed as
a per unit value of the current through the dielectric that is in
quadrature with the same applied voltage. Also referred to as
the dielectric power factor, the dielectric loss angle and tan δ
Loss-load factor The total heat loss from a cable over a defined period, 5.1.2.1 (3)
expressed as a percentage, or a per unit, of heat that would
have been lost from the cable should the cable load remain at
its peak value for the entire period
Milliken conductor A conductor consisting of stranded sector-shaped segments, -

lightly insulated from each other, and laid up to form a single
circular conductor
Proximity effect An effect that occurs in adjacent conductors carrying 6.1.1

alternating currents, whereby the current distribution on a
conductor is altered by the current flowing in an adjacent
conductor. This increases the effective resistance of the
conductor
Real time rating A dynamic current rating calculation performed in real time. 5.1.3
Input variables may be taken from on-line measurements
Serving Protection of the metallic screen against mechanical damage 3.1

and against corrosion. Also referred to as Over sheath, Outer
sheath, External sheath and Jacket
Sheath voltage Device similar to a surge arrestor that is normally high -

limiter resistance but allows transient currents to pass through it
Single point In an arrangement such that the at one end of the electrical -
bonding section the cable screens are solidly bonded and earthed and
at the other end of the route the cable screens are not
electrically connected to each other or the earth (other than via
a sheath voltage limiter)
Page 54
Skin effect An effect that occurs in conductors carrying alternating current, 6.1.1
whereby the current density increases towards the surface of
the conductor. This effect is different for different conductor
materials, and increases the effective resistance of the
conductor
Solidly bonded When referring to the cables at end of an electrical section, in -

and earthed (1) an arrangement such that the screens are electrically
connected together and earthed
Solidly bonded When referring to a cable system, in an arrangement such that -

and earthed (2) the cable screens at both ends of the electrical section(s) in the
cable system or part of the cable system are solidly bonded
and earthed
Specially bonded A special arrangement in which the cable screens of the cable -
system are electrically connected such that circulating currents
are minimized
Starting points Initial situation, data and conditions required in order to -

determine the current rating of a cable
Steady state The rating of a cable operated at a load factor of 100% 5.1.1
rating
Thermal time The time taken for the temperature of a conductor in a cable -
constant system to change from an initial steady state value to 1/e of the
change to a final steady state value, in response to a step
change in the conductor current. This assumes an environment
at an ambient temperature that cannot be changed
Time varying The current rating of a cable where the load varies with time 5.1.2
rating
Transient rating The same as the emergency rating 5.1.2.2
Trefoil (formation, A triangular laying arrangement of three single cores, or three -

configuration) single core cables. The cores or cables may be touching or
spaced apart, with the spacing usually defined
Page 55
5 Dut y As p e ct s in C abl e Rat ing C a lc ul at i ons

A cable system is energised with a specific voltage and carries a current so that it transmits power.
The power that the cable system carries may vary with time. The voltage and current can be at a
frequency, continuous or variable and may also contain harmonics. All these factors will impact the
current rating of the cable system and these impacts are discussed in this section.
5.1 Loading (Current)
The cable system can be subjected to a number of different loading patterns, where the current can
vary over a period of time. The simplest load pattern is the continuous loading pattern and many of
the rating methods assume a continuous loading. More complex loading patterns can be modelled
that match reality more closely, giving an increased peak current rating.
5.1.1 Continuous Loads

Typical calculation methods assume that the temperatures of the cable have reached steady-state
conditions after a long period of continuous operation and this load pattern is known as continuous
rating. For this loading pattern only the heat generated, the thermal resistances of the system and
the constraining temperatures need to be considered. The thermal capacitances of each part of the
cable system can be neglected. The current rating is typically calculated using the equivalent thermal
model below.
T1 T2 T3 T4
θc θa
I² R Wd λ1 λ2
Insulation Bedding Serving Surrounding

Conductor Sheath Armour medium
FIGURE 29: THERMAL MODEL
The thermal model shown in Figure 29 leads to the equation described by Neher, J.H. and McGrath,
M. H. (1957) and which can be found in IEC 60287-1-1:
  Wd 0.5T1  nT2  T3  T4 
0.5
 
I   (EQUATION 1)
 R  T1  nR1  1 T2  nR1  1  2 T3  T4 
The constant load pattern may be an assumption if the actual loading on a selected cable circuit is
unknown in operation and conservatively assumes that the loading will have a worst-case cycle (that
of continuous full-current loading). In practice except for specific cable applications (e.g. generator
Page 56
leads, continuously operating equipment, etc.) this type of loading pattern is often conservative in
many utility and industrial applications. Therefore, other loading patterns are considered in
subsequent sections.
5.1.2 Time Varying Loading
Various loading scenarios other than continuous 100% loading may be considered in situations
where the thermal capacitances of the cable system, including the thermal environment, are factored
into the rating calculations.
As with most current rating problems, two general methods may be used to analyse time varying
loadings: either numerical or analytical. Numerical methods include finite elements but also include
simpler methods such as the one published in CIGRE (1983-2). The method in CIGRE can
effectively deal with time-varying loading by representing the physical cable system and its
surroundings by a ladder network of thermal resistances in series and capacitances in parallel. Heat
flow is assumed to be radial both inside and outside the cable and hence it is possible to divide the
cable and the soil into a number of concentric layers corresponding to the elements in the ladder
network. The radius of the soil to be considered will need to increase as the duration of the transient
increases. The principle of superposition is used to properly deal with multiple cables. For long
transients the method may need to consider image sources dissipating heat of an equal value but
opposite sign to model the soil surface as an isotherm (Kennelly’s hypothesis). The method
described in CIGRE (1983-2) which was initially proposed to single-core cables has recently been
successfully applied to multicore cables by Colla (2013). These numerical methods can consider a
number of loading patterns, including arbitrary loading patterns, which make them particularly
suitable for long lasting transients such as the ones foreseen in offshore submarine cable systems.
Analytical methods include the method published by Neher/McGrath (1957) for cyclic ratings and the
methods in IEC 60853 that can be used in a number of different loading patterns.
Time varying loadings can be categorized into four possible patterns as summarized in the following
sections.
5.1.2.1 Cyclic
After a 100% (constant) load pattern, the most fundamental loading scenario to consider is an
indefinitely repeated load pattern. Using cyclic loads can reduce the required cable conductor size,
but this should be examined case by case, see Pilgrim et al. (2014). This type of evaluation
considers the long thermal time constant of the earth surrounding the power cable system and
recognizes that the extent of heating that occurs in the soil will effectively be the average of the heat
generated by the power cable during the load cycle. In practice, loading patterns vary, but a common
load variation that has some consistency is usually associated with a 24-hour load cycle as
illustrated in Figure 30.
Page 57
1.2
1
Per Unit Loading (amperes or MVA)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Time (hours)
FIGURE 30: SIMPLE 24H LOAD PATTERN
The load factor is generally defined as the ratio of average load over a period of time compared to
the maximum load over the same period of time. With known load values (either from system
planners or recorded load data), the load factor may be calculated from the following equation (for a
24-hour cycle). The load factor relates the average loading pattern to the peak loading pattern,
usually over a 24 hour load period.
24
I
i=1
i
(EQUATION 2)
Load Factor =
24 I max
Where:
Ii = average hourly load [A]
For cable rating purposes, the heat output (or losses) emitting from the cable must be considered, so
the ratio of average losses to peak losses must be known; the loss-load (μ) factor (also known as
loss factor) can therefore be determined as follows:
The loss factor is defined by:

1

Wmax  
  W (t )  dt
t 0
(EQUATION 3)
Page 58
This is usually approximated by:

23
I 2
i
(EQUATION 4)
= i= 0
2
24 I max
System planners may be able to offer a load factor but may not know the actual (or projected)
loading for a cable circuit. Empirical relationships (Neher, J.H. and McGrath, M.H 1957) such as the
following may be used to relate the loss-load factor to the load factor:
= 0.3( ) + 0.7( ) (EQUATION 5)
Figure 31 illustrates the variation in load and loss-load factor for a 24-hour sinusoidal cycle. Do note
that in case of other types of cycles, the relation between load factor and loss-load factor will be
different.
1.2
Load / Loss
1 100% / 100%
95% / 90%
Load Shape (per unit of peak current)
0.8
89% / 80%
83% / 70%
0.6
76% / 60%
0.4
67% / 50%
0.2
54% / 40%
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (hours)
FIGURE 31: VARIATION IN LOAD AND LOSS-LOAD FACTOR FOR A 24 HOUR SINUSOIDALCYCLE
There are two analytic approaches considering the cyclic loading pattern. The calculation procedures
in IEC 60287 may be modified in one of two ways. As illustrated in the preceding Figure 31, the
reader should be aware that if a loss-load factor is incorporated into the ratings, the calculated
ampacity will be the peak current during the load cycle.
 IEC 60853-1 gives a cyclic rating factor, M (a value greater than or equal to 1.0) to the 100%
load factor rating to consider the cycle nature of the load. Section 3 of IEC 60853-1 defines the
calculation of the cyclic rating factor after first determining the thermal time constants of the
cable and the surrounding environment. The method supports considering cycle ratings for
periods of 24 hours or other durations. The method requires that some knowledge of the time at
Page 59
peak current be known in developing the factors (or assumptions as in Neher/McGrath can be
made if these are not known).
 Neher/McGrath (1957) offered an alternative method for considering cyclic loading by making an
assumption that the 24-hour load cycle closely followed a sinusoidal load shape (note: this is an
important assumption). On this basis, peak losses are applied to cable components and the
portion of the earth thermal circuit that are “near” to the cable while average daily (24-hour cycle)
losses are applied to the thermal resistance values entering the ground beyond a diameter, Dx.
Diameter Dx is determined based on the thermal diffusivity of the soil and is typically taken to be
about 210 mm for most soils and regardless of the outer diameter of the cable, conduit or pipe.
The earth thermal resistance is then determined using an equation of the form:
     2 L  4L2  D 2   
  DX    lnF    
 LF  ln Native   Fill N  Gb
n  
T4   Fill  ln X
  Dearth 
(EQUATION 6)
2    DX    
      
Where:
n = number of conductors within Dearth
ρ = earth or backfill thermal resistivity [K∙m/W]
Dearth = earth diameter (jacket, conduit, pipe) [m]
L = burial depth of cable [m]
Dx = diameter where average heat output is seen [m]
F = mutual heating effect factor
LF = daily (24-hour) loss-load factor for the cables
Gb = geometric factor
N = total number of heat producing cables, occupied conduits or pipes within the
backfill
Other approximations of the fictitious diameter Dx corresponding to different shapes of the load
cycle can be found in the book by Heinhold (1990).
The above methods for calculating cyclic ratings should only be considered for the buried portions of
cable systems. For cables in tunnels, air, water or other non-solids, transient ratings are more
complex and covered in Section 7.4. Cable systems with segments in free air will generally have a
much shorter thermal time constant and, therefore considerations of cyclic rating for cables in air are
generally not made, except at the highest voltages.
5.1.2.2 Emergency
Emergency ratings (sometimes called “transient” or “contingency” ratings) evaluate the permissible
loading on a cable system that is applied for a finite period of time. The increased ratings afforded for
these conditions consider higher allowable cable temperatures (usually constrained by the conductor
temperature) and also consider the thermal time constant of the cable and the surrounding earth.
The duration (period) for these emergency ratings is sometimes associated with the local protocol.
Common designations include:
Page 60
 LTE or “Long Time Emergency” – often associated with emergency ratings longer than 24 hours.
 STE or “Short Time Emergency” – emergency ratings less than 24 hours in duration and
sometime shorter than 4 hour or as little as 15 minutes.
 DAL or “Drastic Action Limit” – these are very short duration emergency ratings usually less than
15 minutes in duration and often requiring that the operator of the cable system sheds load.
The rating durations are often dictated by manufacture’s recommendations, industry standards,
mechanical or structural limits associated with a particular cable design.
Regardless of the terminology, the rating calculations are based on a method that generally
considers the temperature response of the cable system to a step change in load. IEC 60853-2
defines a procedure for evaluating the temperature response to a step change in load. The method
involves considering the thermal time constant of the cable circuit and, separately, that of the
environment. The effects of both parameters are a function of many parameters including the
duration of the emergency.
For cables installed in free air, the air environment has a much shorter time constant than the same
cables buried in the ground. As a result, the only transient part of the analysis is the temperature
response of the cable (alone) resulting in lower emergency ratings than for buried cables. For cables
in tunnels, transient ratings are more complex and covered in Section 7.4.
As put forward above, emergency rating calculations based on IEC 60853 assume a step change in
the cable loading. The step change starts from a stationary loading situation with stationary
temperatures. If this is not the case, emergency rating calculations will lead to erroneous results, not
necessarily being worst case. As an example, the emergency rating cannot be combined with a
cyclic rating calculation resembling daily load cycles.
5.1.2.3 Arbitrary Load Patterns
The methods in IEC 60853 permit considerations of cyclic ratings and simple emergency load
patterns in relatively simple installation arrangements. The methods approximate the cable into a
one dimensional thermal equivalent circuit having two lumped circuits and this generally limits the
use to the given durations and installations. As noted in IEC 60853, the method provided in CIGRE
(1983-2) can be used to yield adequate accuracy for any time period. This may be necessary to
overcome the limitations of IEC 60853 method.
An example of arbitrary load pattern is shown in Figure 32 along with the attendant conductor
2
temperature of a 132kV 3x800 mm Cu submarine cable.
Page 61
FIGURE 32: TYPICAL GRAPH SHOWING CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE (IN RED) VERSUS TIME DUE TO A TYPICAL
WIND LOAD CURRENT (IN BLUE) IN A 132KV 3X800 mm 2 CU SUBMARINE CABLE.
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE: 10 °C, BURIAL DEPTH: 1.5 m AND SOIL THERMAL RESISTIVITY: 1 Km /W”
5.1.2.4 Long Time to Reach Steady State
Cable ratings for deep installations (generally 10 m for buried cables or depth greater than 1-2 tunnel
diameters) must consider the large thermal capacitance of the ground that can result in very long
time periods to reach temperatures close to the maximum operating temperatures. This is discussed
further in Section 7.2.1.9.
5.1.2.5 “Short” (less than 5 second) Loading Patterns
Another type of rating not generally associated with conventional calculations is the current carrying
capacity of a conductor during fault conditions. The durations of these events are generally less than
1 second and typically less than 3-10 cycles. A common approach is to assume adiabatic conditions
for the conductor, screen or metal sheath during the fault while recognizing the characteristics of the
metal carrying the current and non-metallic cable layers that may be in contact with the metal (cable
insulation, jacket, etc.). Adjustments to the values calculated using the assumption of adiabatic
conditions can be made to take account of the heat loss to give more realistic values. Methods of
calculation for both adiabatic and non-adiabatic conditions are shown in IEC 60949.
Page 62
Other parts of the cable system may also limit the maximum short circuit temperatures, for example
some cable joints use soldered conductor connections and the typical limit for this type of connection
is 160 °C, more information about temperature limits during short circuit situations can be found in
IEC 61443.
5.1.3 Dynamic
Dynamic ratings are ratings that change depending on real time information. The current rating
methods can generally be based on calculations used for arbitrary load patterns, particularly if the
real time rating information is the same as the input parameters (or starting points) used in the
calculations such as the ground ambient temperature. In some cases the real time measurements
include values other than input parameters (for example the temperature of the cable surface). In
these cases, the current rating calculations will need modification. A summary of dynamic rating
techniques is given in Section 8.3.4.
5.2 Voltage
The voltage applied to the cable system has relatively few direct effects on the current rating of the
cable. The main direct effect is for AC cables only, where the time varying electric field generated by
the voltage will cause a dielectric loss in the insulation of the cable (see Section 6.2.2). Unlike heat
losses that are related to the current in the cable, the voltage tends to be relatively constant when a
cable is in operation, hence the heat loss generated is constant. Note that these losses can be fairly
high in paper insulated extra high voltage cables.
For very long cable circuits, the charging current losses, which are also voltage dependent, might
limit the allowable real power that can be transmitted by the circuit (see Section 7.1.6). Referring to
question 5.8 of the questionnaire: “Do you consider the impact of charging currents on the real power
transfer in long cable systems?” around 34% of the respondents had taken account of charging
currents although only around 30% of utilities had taken account of charging currents. A number of
respondents commented that they did not have sufficiently long length circuits to need to take
account of charging current. Of the comments regarding the method of calculation, many mentioned
load flow calculations and many also mentioned that the frequency, capacitance, and length of the
cable had to be taken into account.
For DC cables the electric stress on the cable insulation is influenced by the resistivity of the
insulation, which in turn is influenced by the temperature of the insulation. As the current rating of the
cable affects the temperature of the insulation, this will affect the electric stress of the cable and,
hence, the maximum operating voltage and the current rating of the cable are interlinked. Further
details are given in Section 5.3.3.
5.3 Frequency and one, two and three phase systems
There are a number of different potential frequencies, voltages and currents that a cable system can
operate at although typically the frequency is 50 or 60 Hz (power frequency AC). In some systems,
direct current (DC) is used. The number of poles or phases that a cable system operates at can also
vary.
Page 63
5.3.1 AC Frequency
The current and voltage in a cable system operating at power frequency will generate a time varying
magnetic and electric field that will generate additional heat losses above the DC resistance losses
in the conductor. These losses are:
 Additional AC losses in the conductor through skin and proximity effects (see Section 6.1.1).
 Dielectric losses in the insulation (see Section 6.2.2).
 Induced current, both eddy currents and circulating currents, in the metal sheath (see Section
6.4) and any other non-magnetic metal objects (see Section 7.2.1.7) near the cable system.
 Magnetic hysteresis losses in the cable armour (see Section 6.6) and any other magnetic metal
objects near the cable system.
IEC 60287 does not consider the magnetic coupling of all the cable conductors but presents the
relevant equations for one two-phase or three-phase circuit only. This qualifies the accuracy of the
conductor losses and hence current rating calculation but still demonstrates the tendency correctly.
To get a first impression of the dependency on the frequency, Figure 33 has been prepared based
on the following cable construction: A 110 kV XLPE cable with 630 mm² copper conductor, round
compacted, thickness of insulation 18 mm, copper wire screen 35 mm², PE-outer sheath
approximately 3 mm, overall diameter approximately 83 mm.
FIGURE 33: CURRENT RATING OF A GIVEN SYSTEM AS FUNCTION OF THE FREQUENCY
Page 64
With different frequencies, current rating calculations have been conducted according to IEC. The
parameters on the curves demonstrate which frequency depending effect has what influence on the
entire system. In the diagram (Figure 33) the frequency is scaled on 50 Hz and the current rating is
scaled too on its value at 50 Hz.
The scaling of the variables in the diagram is done to ensure that qualitative dependencies only are
shown in the diagram.
Curve 3 demonstrates a cable with no screen losses by circulating currents due to the cross bonding
measures and with the dielectric losses suppressed. So the losses of this cable are based on the DC
conductor losses including skin effect and proximity effect. Curve 2 added the dielectric losses to the
system and curve 1 shows the entire loss situation including circulating current losses in the screen.
The tendencies in the entire diagram identify the screen losses due to solid bonding and skin effect
as well as proximity effect as those loss sources which show a significant reaction on changes of the
frequency. It is possible to influence those loss sources either by the bonding method of the screen
or special improvement measures on the conductor construction (Milliken conductor). At least the
loss structure is important to know. In case loss sources with a frequency up to 2 kHz have to be
considered e.g. the bonding method of the screen decides which attenuation level of the signal can
be expected.
5.3.2 One, two and three phase systems
The number of phases that a power system operates at can vary. Typically three phase systems are
used at the voltages considered in this technical brochure. These phases will require a multitude of
three cables to be placed in close proximity to each other and these other cables will cause mutual
heating and may impact on some of the losses being generated (see Section 6.4.1). Generally
current rating calculation methods are well developed for three phase systems.
Two phase systems are also generally well covered with specific clauses in IEC 60287. There is,
however, no method given to calculate specially bonded single core cables for two phase systems
and the generalised method for calculating sheath losses given in Section 7.1.3.2 has to be used.
At higher voltages, neutral currents are often small because the phase currents are generally
balanced. If this is the case, the contribution to mutual heating from the losses in the neutral
conduct(s) can often be neglected. Where this is not the case, IEC 60287 does not make any
specific provision for determining the neutral current. When the neutral currents are known, the
methods in IEC 60287 may be applied by treating the neutral cables as line heat sources with
superposition and the effect can be subsequently taken into account.
Single phase networks are used on railway systems and some distribution networks. The effects of
time varying magnetic field described for three phase systems still apply, but additionally the return
current must be considered. Since the return current can travel along any earthed path, it is typical to
reduce the inductance of the intended return path to a minimum to ensure the return current travels
along the intended conductor. This can be done by using a concentric conductor and the current
rating for these is covered in Section 6.3.4. Alternatively a separate neutral return cable can be
installed close to the phase cable. In this case, the methods used to calculate the current rating for a
two phase cable system will be generally applicable although some approximations would have to be
made since the phase and neutral cable will have dissimilar cable designs and the neutral cable will
not generate any dielectric losses.
Page 65
5.3.3 DC Current Ratings
When DC is used on a power cable system, as opposed to AC, a number of sources of heat loss
generated by the cable no longer exist (see AC losses in Section 5.3.1).This leads to a simplification
of the equations derived, and these simpler equations are shown in IEC 60287-1-1. In addition the
limitations due to charging currents as detailed in Section 7.1.6 are also irrelevant.
As noted in Section 6.2.2, the electrical stress for AC cables depends on capacitive effects, which in
turn depend on the permittivity of the insulation material. The permittivity is relatively stable under all
operating conditions encountered by AC cables and hence the electrical stress in an AC cable is also
relatively stable. For DC cables the electrical stress is dependent on resistive effects, which in turn
depend on the resistivity of the insulation material. The resistivity is sensitive to temperature and this
change in resistivity can change the electrical stress distribution within the cable. For example, when
the cable is cold after just being energised, the resistivity of the insulation will be uniform throughout
the cable. The electrical stress in the cable will then follow a similar pattern to AC cables (that is
higher stress at the insulation close to the conductor).
Once the cable has been energised for a length of time and carrying significant load current, the
insulation closer to the conductor will be hotter than that at the edge of the cable. Generally the
hotter the insulation material is, the lower the electrical resistivity becomes (additionally there is a
dependency on the electrical stress). The electrical resistivity can be modelled using the following
formula:
( )
= (EQUATION 7)
Where:
ρ0 = resistivity at reference temperature [Ω∙m]
θ = difference in temperature between the actual and reference temperatures [K]
-1
α = temperature coefficient of electrical resistivity [K ]
β = electrical stress coefficient of electrical resistivity [m/MV]
E = electrical stress in the insulation [MV/m]
Typical values of α and β may be found in CIGRE (2005), although it should be stressed that there
may be subtle differences between appropriate values for different types of the same insulation. For
further discussion on this theory, refer to Eoll (1975) or Jeroense (1995). Hence the voltage drop
across the inner part of the insulation will be reduced and the stress at the outer edge of the
insulation will increase. It is possible that under some operating conditions the stress will actually be
higher at the outer part of the insulation, with a stress distribution opposite to that seen when the
cable was cool.
For some insulation materials, particularly mass impregnated non-draining (MIND) insulation, when
the load on a cable is reduced, the resulting insulation cooling will form additional voids in the
insulation. These additional voids will reduce the dielectric strength of the material.
This link between the current being carried by the cable and the electrical stress and strength in the
insulation can lead to additional rating constraints (other than maximum operating temperature),
particularly for higher voltage DC cables. For these reasons, the assumption that the maximum
current rating is limited by the values obtained by applying the methods of IEC 60287 is not correct
for higher voltage DC cables, see Huang (2013) and Murata (2014).
Page 66
5.3.4 Other AC Frequencies
Power systems typically operate at frequencies around 50 Hz to 60 Hz. There may be some
situations where the frequency being considered is not at these typical values, particularly in the
case of harmonics (see Section 5.3.5).
The frequency will have an effect on heat loss generated by the cable system. This will impact all the
sources of heat loss generated by the cable. The AC resistance of the conductor will change due to
the skin and proximity effect. The dielectric loss of the cable, the sheath loss and the armour loss are
directly related to the operating frequency. Additionally, any heat generated due to metallic objects or
parallel conductors are affected by the operating frequency. In general, as the frequency increases
the losses generated will increase, all other things being equal.
Where frequency has an impact on the calculation normally this is recognised with the term explicitly
stated in the formulae. For the methods shown in IEC, this is the case. The methods generally
assume that the frequency considered is approximately in the range 50 Hz to 60 Hz. IEC may be
used for lower frequencies (16⅔ Hz, 25 Hz) as the impact of the frequency reduces and the resulting
calculated current rating remains accurate.
5.3.5 Harmonics
The ideal AC wave shape is a pure sinusoid. In some cases, for example due to power electronics,
the wave shape may become distorted. This distorted wave shape may be represented by a current
and voltage of the fundamental frequency and then a number of harmonics with frequencies at a
multiple of the fundamental frequency. A measure of total harmonic distortion is often defined as:

THD  
2
(EQUATION 8)
n
n2
Where:
th
γn = ratio of the n harmonic current to the fundamental current
The total heat loss generated by each component of the cable, at the fundamental and all harmonic
frequencies, can be shown to be the sum of the calculated heat losses for each frequency. As noted
in Section 5.3.4, the methods to calculate heat losses generally include a frequency term in the
calculation so it is possible to calculate the heat loss at each frequency.
While it is possible to calculate the current rating by using the total heat loss for each component of
the cable in the normal current rating methods, this can be time consuming. A simplification (as
described by Anders 1997) can be made by assuming the total heat loss (Wn) generated by all the
cable components for each frequency (where n=1 is the fundamental and n > 1 are the harmonics)
is:
  n  1   1 n    2 n 
W n  I n 2 R ' 1   y s n  y p (EQUATION 9)
Page 67
Where:
th
In = current for n harmonic [A]
R’ = DC resistance of conductor [Ω/m]
th
(ys)n = skin effect factor for n harmonic
th
(yp)n = proximity effect factor for n harmonic
th
(λ1)n = sheath loss factor for n harmonic
th
(λ2)n = armour loss factor for n harmonic
This enables the calculation of an effective AC resistance of the conductor (Rn) for each frequency:
 
Rn  R' 1   ys n   y p n 1  1 n  2 n  (EQUATION 10)
The total heat loss for a cable carrying a distorted waveform (Wdist) is the addition of all the heat
losses for each frequency:

W dist  I
2
n Rn (EQUATION 11)
n 1
th
This can be rearranged by introducing the term γn, being the ratio of the n fundamental current to
the fundamental current (I1):

W dist  I 1 
2 2
n Rn (EQUATION 12)
n 1
Additionally, the approximation is made that the heat loss of the cable will be the same both for the
cable carrying the fundamental frequency only at maximum load (i.e. at full current rating I) and
carrying the distorted maximum load, hence

I 2 R1  I 1 
2 2
n Rn (EQUATION 13)
n 1
And this can be re-arranged to give:
R1
I1  I  (EQUATION 14)
R1   n Rn
2
n 2
Page 68
The above equation can be used to estimate the maximum current of the fundamental frequency of a
distorted waveform in conjunction with equation 10. It is apparent that knowledge of the relative
magnitudes of each harmonic is required as the effective conductor resistance is different for each
harmonic. Hence knowledge of the total harmonic distortion value (equation 8) alone is not sufficient.
More information on the impact of harmonics is given in Hiranandani (1995), Sakis et al. (1992),
Demoulias et al. (2007) and Donazzi (1987).
Two further notes on harmonics are:
 Harmonics are typically damped by transmission in the power cable. With increasing length
therefore the amount of harmonics present will change.
 Harmonics will also be present in DC cables depending on the filtering present in the converter
stations.
Page 69
6 C abl e As p ect s in C a ble R at ing C al cu la t io ns
The current rating of a cable system is influenced by the specific design of the power cable itself.
Aspects regarding the cable design, as the conductor type, skin and proximity effects, insulation
design and the effects of screens, sheaths and armours all influence the current rating and are
discussed in this chapter.
6.1 Conductor
A cable conductor can be made up of different materials, generally copper or aluminium, and can
have different constructions, for example solid, compacted circular or Milliken, see Figure 34.
FIGURE 34: OVERVIEW OF CONDUCTOR CONSTRUCTIONS
The majority of conductor materials and constructions are referenced in IEC 60287-1-1 although oval
and aluminium segmental are not. Values for the skin and proximity effect are suggested in the next
section. These different materials and constructions all affect the DC and AC resistance of the
conductor. The calculation methods used are those found in IEC 60287-1-1 and given the symbol R’
for DC resistance and R for AC resistance at maximum operating temperature.
Page 70
6.1.1 Skin and Proximity Effect
The AC resistance of a conductor will be greater than the DC resistance of the conductor due to the
skin and proximity effect. Solid conductors will be worst affected by the skin and proximity effect. The
effect of strands in the conductor will disrupt the proximity effect. The skin effect is reduced only in
Milliken conductors. Both effects mitigate the increase of the resistance in AC compared to DC.
Some manufacturing processes, such as extrusion, may impact on the stranding, for example by
compressing the strands together. Milliken conductors are specifically designed to maximise the
disruptive effect of the strands and optimise the AC resistance of the cable. The disruptive effect of
the strands can be further improved by increasing the electrical resistance between the individual
strands using some form of surface treatment (oxidation or enamelling).
The AC resistance is derived from the DC resistance through 2 coefficients, representing the skin
and proximity effects. For the calculation of skin and proximity effects for Milliken conductors of
extruded cables, the methods of calculation are given in IEC. CIGRE (2005-1) gives extensive
guidance on calculating AC resistance for these conductor designs and for conductors with large
2
(>1600 mm ) cross-sections. Given the difficulty in performing calculations, the publication
recommends that the AC resistance is measured during the type tests. When measured values are
not available, the publication recommends that the classical IEC 60287 formula is used but with the
coefficients revised with the values given in the publication.
For oval and aluminium shaped conductors it is recommended that the values for round stranded
conductors are used.
In addition to the skin effect, the proximity effect has to be taken into account especially for three-
core cables, single-core cables in trefoil or cradle formation for large cross section single core
cables.
For shaped conductors, a common feature of multicore cables, the proximity effect factor yp is
smaller than for circular conductors.
6.2 Insulation
6.2.1 Thermal Resistance
Different materials will have different thermal resistivities and will hence have an impact on the
thermal resistance of the cable between the conductor and sheath. This value is calculated in IEC
60287-2-1 and given the symbol T1. Care has to be taken with cables with corrugated sheaths to
select the correct dimensions.
Often there is more than one material layer between the conductor and sheath, but this is not
generally taken into account by the model. Typically, the thermal resistivity of the insulation is used
for the entire thickness between conductor and sheath. However, if there is a substantial layer with a
higher thermal resistance, this should be accounted for by modification of the IEC 60287 calculation.
Where the heat transport is still by thermal conduction, it is possible modify the calculation of T1
[K.m/W] accordingly to:
1
= ∙ ∙ ln (EQUATION 15)
2
Page 71
Where:
i = number of the layer between the conductor and metal sheath
Di = outer diameter of layer i [mm]
ρi = thermal resistivity of layer i [K.m/W]
For thermal resistivity values of various materials, manufacturer values may be used for accurate
results (refer to section 3.1). The modification of T1 given above does not take into account contact
resistance between various layers nor any changes in thermal resistance of bedding material due to
compression.
In some cases, the heat transport may be more complex, for example this may occur for cables that
have a substantial volume of oil or air (clearance) under the sheath, particularly corrugated sheaths.
Methods to take account of this air or oil gap have included adding an empirically derived constant
(not found in standards) to the calculated thermal resistance. Due to the difference in corrugation
designs between manufacturers, it is difficult to recommend constants, see Brakelmann et al. (1991).
Note that when the cables are hot, the clearance is usually reduced because of the thermal
expansion of the insulation, which is beneficial to the heat transfer.
6.2.2 Dielectric Loss
The insulation of the cable can be constructed from different materials, for example XLPE, EPR, oil
or impregnated paper. Different insulation materials will have a different relative permittivity and this
will impact the capacitance and dielectric loss of the cable. These values can be calculated in IEC
60287-1-1 and the symbol for dielectric loss is Wd.
The power cable is typically a long cylindrically symmetrical capacitor and the AC voltage initiates an
AC current through the dielectric whose resistive part, responsible for all thermal changes, is
represented by the tan δ of the insulation. Therefore, the equation for the dielectric losses Wd (W/m)
is as follows:
= (EQUATION 16)
Where:
ω = angular frequency (radian /s)
C = capacitance (F/m)
U0 = phase to earth voltage (V)
tan δ = loss angle
The equations in IEC 60287-1-1 give methods to calculate the capacitance for circular conductors
with co-axial screens only. For oval conductors, IEC 60287-1-1 recommends that the geometric
mean of the minor and major diameters is used. Generally, other conductor shapes and belted
cables are used at lower voltage where dielectric losses are smaller, so it is considered acceptable
to use a suitable approximation.
Besides the direct physical relation of voltage and dielectric losses there is a dependency of
temperature on the dielectric losses via the tan δ connected to the properties of the insulation
material itself. The following diagrams representing the dielectric loss factor for an insulation material
illustrates this relationship.
Page 72
With higher temperatures, tan δ increases. Above 100 °C this becomes particularly pronounced,
which means that in this situation a thermal runaway of the insulation may be initiated. With higher
stresses, the beginning of this process moves towards lower temperatures. In general, this behaviour
can also be found in paper insulated cables
.
FIGURE 35: DIELECTRIC LOSS FACTOR VERSUS TEMPERATURE FOR VARIOUS STRESS LEVELS OF XLPE
MATERIAL ‘A’
FIGURE 36: DIELECTRIC LOSS FACTOR VERSUS TEMPERATURE FOR VARIOUS STRESS LEVELS OF XLPE
MATERIAL ‘B’
Under service conditions, the maximum operating temperature of XLPE insulation is set to be 90 °C
(e.g. IEC 60502, IEC 60840 and IEC 62067) and for the dielectric loss factor IEC 60287
recommends a value of 0,001. Today’s XLPE insulated cables are operated at stress levels between
about 6 kV/mm and 14 kV/mm and it is common practice under all testing conditions not to exceed a
stress limit of 30 kV/mm. Therefore, now looking to the comparison of both materials in Figures 35
and 36, material B would not have been chosen for a highly stressed XLPE insulation.
Page 73
It should be noted that the relative permittivity εr, which is hidden in the calculation of the capacitance
has no significant dependency on the temperature and hence the electrical stress gradient of an AC
cable is relatively static despite load and temperature changes within the cable.
Ageing can affect the tan delta of power cables negatively. Older power cables are sometimes found
to show a significantly increased tan delta, especially at higher temperatures. Of course, the increase
of tan delta depends on many cable details making it difficult to generalize findings. The advice is
given to establish the tan delta of a cable insulation material as a function of temperature in case
significantly aged power cables are considered in an engineering study, or in case these aged power
cables are loaded close to their original current rating.
6.3 Arrangement of Cores in a Cable
Although single core cables are most common, it is possible to have a number of cores and
construct these in different arrangements within the cable. These different constructions will have an
impact on the calculation of thermal resistances and losses. In case of multicore cables, conductors
can be shaped. Shape also has an influence on losses.
6.3.1 Single Core Cables
The simplest construct is to have a single conductor contained within the cable and these are known
as single core cables. However, a circuit will then consist of more than one phase cable or at least
have a separate neutral cable and the circuit arrangement will have to be considered (see Section
7.1.1).
6.3.2 Multi-core Cables (including three core)
It is possible for some cable designs to contain more than one conductor and since power is
generally transmitted using three phases, it is common to have 3 core cables, each core carrying a
separate phase. For land cables, the typical construction is to have three cores, each core insulated
for full phase to earth voltage, then laid up in a single common metal sheath. However, it is possible
that each core has an individual sheath which is typical for submarine cables, see Figure 37. If the
cable is a multicore construction, this will affect the thermal resistance of the insulation (T1) and
possibly the thermal resistance between sheath and armour (T2) and methods of calculation are
given in IEC 60287-2-1.
Page 74
FIGURE 37: THREE CORE 36KV SUBMARINE CABLE, EACH CORE HAVING AN INDIVIDUAL SHEATH
Sheath and armour losses will be lower than for single conductor cables and these are discussed in
Sections 6.4 and 6.6 respectively.
6.3.3 Pipe type Cables
Losses for pipe-type cables are determined in accordance with equations from Neher/McGrath’s
1957 paper and were adopted by IEC 60287. Equations from IEC 60287-1-1, Section 2.4.3, “Losses
in Steel Pipes”, should be used in the calculations.
The user should note that the calculated equations are based on empirical work done in the 1950s
and 1960s for typical cable pipe diameters up to 305 mm. The application of these equations to
larger pipe sizes, including those that might be used as steel casings with extruded cables, should
be done with caution as the empirical relationships may not accurately represent larger sizes of pipe.
In particular, the Neher / McGrath paper refers to three single core cables placed inside the pipe in
either a trefoil or cradled configuration. Thus, when the number of cables in the pipe is different, or
the casing is relatively large compared to the cable diameter, or the cables are placed in other
arrangements, the above approach cannot be used.
Factors such as the magnetic permeability of the steel pipe (a quantity seldom known by the user)
could influence the accuracy of the losses. Alternatively, electromagnetic finite element studies have
to be used.
6.3.4 Concentric Cables
A concentric cable has a conductor around the core for a return path. These are typically used for
single phase systems or for single core HVAC submarine cable circuits where specially bonded
cable systems are not possible. Also DC cables may be of concentric type as is the case in an
integrated return conductor cable, where the return conductor is installed around the core conductor.
Two phase concentric cables are not directly covered by IEC 60287. The suggested method is to
assume that the current in the outer conductor is equal to the current in the central conductor. The
heat loss in the outer conductor can then be calculated and hence a revised sheath loss factor can
be evaluated:
Page 75
R outer
1  (EQUATION 17)
R
Where:
Router = a.c. resistance of outer conductor at operating temperature [Ω/m]
Note: Normally for the outer conductor the AC resistance can be assumed to be the same as the DC
resistance as the skin and proximity effect will be negligible. For the inner conductor the proximity
effect can be assumed to be negligible although the skin effect will still need to be calculated. Any
subsequent metal sheaths or armour layers can then be assumed to have no heat losses as the
magnetic field outside the outer conductor generated by the cable will be negligible.
6.4 Metal Sheaths and Screens
There are a number of variations in cable design but almost all use some form of a metal earth return
path for short circuit currents, charging current, circulating current and as screening for the electrical
field in some cable constructions. Optionally, there may be a requirement to stop water entering the
core of the cable or hold a fluid inside the cable system. Typical cable designs may use one or more
of the following:
 Metal sheaths: extruded lead, copper, aluminium or stainless steel either plain or with
corrugations
 Copper or aluminium wire screens
 Foil laminates
 Copper tapes
 Steel pipes with cable cores inside.
6.4.1 Metal Sheath and Screen Losses
For AC cables, the time varying magnetic fields will generate currents in the metal sheaths and
screens. Formulae for a number of different cable designs and installations arrangements are given
in IEC 60287. In IEC 60287 the currents generate a heat loss, represented by the loss factor λ1.
These sheath losses consist of losses caused by circulating currents ( ) and eddy currents ( ),
where:
 1   1'   1' ' (EQUATION 18)
The formula expresses the loss in terms of the total power in the conductor(s), and for each
particular case it is indicated which type of loss has to be considered.
For single-core cables in a solidly bonded cable system, only the loss due to circulating currents in
the sheaths need normally be considered, although there are exceptions for large Milliken conductor
cables. For single point bonded cable systems, there will be no circulating currents and for cross
bonded cable schemes, circulating currents will only result if the minor sections are unbalanced.
Page 76
There are some cable designs or cable arrangements that are not covered by formulae in IEC
60287. In particular:
 The formulae for single core cables apply to single circuits or two flat spaced circuits only.
However, the general approach for the latter case can be extended to more circuits in any phase
arrangement.
 A formula for the sheath loss for two phase cross-bonded systems is not given.
 Cable constructions with multiple sheaths or screens are not considered (see Section 6.4.2).
For cable arrangements or designs not covered by other methods, the generalised methods
described in Section 7.1.3.2 may be applied.
6.4.2 Multiple Sheaths and/or Screens
For cable systems that are solidly bonded and earthed, the sheath losses can be estimated by
combining the calculation of all nonmagnetic metallic layers. The parallel resistance of the multiple
layers can be used in the formulae given in IEC 60287, much in the same way as would be done for
non-magnetic armour or reinforcement.
For cable systems that are specially bonded and earthed, the majority of cable designs that have
multiple sheaths or screens will have a copper wire screen as one of the layers. Cables with copper
wire screens are considered in CIGRE (2005-1) and as the losses in a copper wire screen are
negligible they need not be considered, leaving only the other layers to be considered.
Where the methods above are not appropriate, the methods given in Section 7.1.3.2 can be used to
calculate the sheath losses.
Cables that use multiple sheaths and/or screens will generally have bedding layers between the
sheaths and/or screens. The bedding will have a thermal resistance and this can be calculated in a
similar fashion to the armour bedding (see Section 6.5). In most cases, it is desirable to add the
resulting value to the thermal resistance of the cable external serving (T3) or armour bedding (T2) if it
exists, but if the sheath loss of the inner layers are negligible, then the resulting value can be added
to the thermal resistance of the insulation (T1).
6.5 Armour Bedding
The armour bedding will have a thermal resistivity and this is accounted for in IEC 60287. Where the
armour is nonmagnetic, IEC 60287 suggests that the armour loss is combined with the sheath loss.
The resultant loss should be treated as the sheath loss ( ) and no armour loss. The thermal
resistance of the armour bedding (T2) is added to the thermal resistance of the cable external serving
(T3). Note that this approach is not applicable to submarine SL-type cables with sheath/concentric
neutral wires around each core and common nonmagnetic armour.
Page 77
6.6 Armour and Metal Pipes
Armouring, also called reinforcement, has a mechanical protection function for the given cable.
Armouring can be either magnetic or not-magnetic. This section pertains to the magnetic armour
losses.
The armouring of the cable can be constructed from different materials, for example steel, bronze,
copper, aluminium or stainless steel. Different armouring will have a different resistivity and different
temperature coefficient and this will impact the overall loss of the cable. These values can be
calculated in IEC 60287 as a fraction of overall conductor losses and the symbol for armour loss is
λ2.
Referring to question no. 5.6 in the questionnaire, ‘have you made any comparison between
calculated and measured steel wire armour losses for 3 core cables?’, in total 7 respondents had
reported measuring steel wire armour losses. Of these 5 were cable manufacturers, with the other
two being a consultant and a utility. The following comments were made:
 IEC calculations too high 2 responses

 Evaluation not complete 1 response
 Evaluation not complete, preliminary results IEC losses too high 1 response
None of the comments found that the armour losses agreed with IEC calculations but only 4
comments were received.
Pipe type cables use steel pipes to contain the cores of the cable and the oil. These steel pipes will
generate losses and empirical formulae to calculate these losses are given in IEC 60287. Since pipe
type cables do not have any armour, the losses are given the same symbol (λ2). IEC 60287 gives
formulae for some limited pipe dimensions and arrangements only. Where IEC is not applicable, an
alternative may be to use finite element methods. Moutassem and Anders (2010) describe some of
the issues.
The temperature of the armour or pipe is a function of the current and, therefore, an iterative method
is used for the calculation.
6.6.1 Armour Loss in Multicore Cables
Steel wire armour losses in three-core cables are described in the IEC standard 60287. Three types
of cable designs are dealt with in the standard: steel wire armoured, steel tape armoured and SL
type cables where each core in the three-core cable has a sheath and an overall magnetic armour.
Two types of losses are created in the steel wire armour in a three-core ac cable, eddy currents
losses and hysteresis losses, both induced by the magnetic flux.
New measurements performed by one cable manufacturer on steel wire armoured XLPE cables of
SL type with lead sheaths have shown that the IEC standard gives losses that are too high. No
recent measurements have been found for cables with reinforcing tapes, or with flat wire armour.
A report about armour loss in three-core submarine XLPE cables was presented at Jicable 2011 by
Palmgren, D. et al. (2011). The measurement setup and the measured losses with and without
armour are given in the report for two different XLPE cables of SL type.
Page 78
The first cable (Cable 1) is a 145 kV cable that has aluminium conductors with a cross-section of
2
815 mm and a single layer of mixed armour of steel wires and plastic wires. The number of steel
wires in the armour is reduced in order to lower the cable weight and the power loss. Every second
wire is replaced by a PE string of the same diameter as the steel wire. Table 5 shows the resulting
loss factors for the sheath and the armour for Cable 1 as a function of the conductor current. The
armour loss factor is current dependent and essentially smaller than the IEC value.
TABLE 5: 145KV SINGLE ARMOUR CABLE MEASURED LOSS FACTOR AS FUNCTION OF THE CONDUCTOR
CURRENT
Icond [A] 326.1 431.9 640.7 846.7
1 0.1653 0.1680 0.1739 0.1798

0.1132 0.1355 0.1609 0.1870
2
2 (corrected to 90C conductor temp) 0.0872 0.1044 0.1245 0.1430
2 (according to IEC 60287) 0.2511
2
The second 132 kV cable (Cable 2) has solid copper conductors with a cross-section of 240 mm
and double wire armour layers. Table 6 and Table 7 show the resulting loss factors for Cable 2 as
function of the conductor current. The loss factors are given for one (Table 7) and two (Table 6)
armour layers. The loss factors are current dependent and essentially smaller than the IEC values.
TABLE 6: 132KV DOUBLE ARMOUR CABLE MEASURED LOSS FACTOR AS FUNCTION OF THE CONDUCTOR
CURRENT
Icond [A] 303.5 402.6 600.1 789.0
1 (two layers) 0.0992 0.1001 0.0998 0.1076
2 (two layers) 0.0655 0.0700 0.0779 0.0712
TABLE 7: 132KV SINGLE ARMOUR CABLE MEASURED LOSS FACTOR AS FUNCTION OF THE CONDUCTOR
CURRENT
Icond [A] 304.9 404.3 600.4 799.0
1 (one layer) 0.0966 0.0985 0.1007 0.1043
2 (one layer) 0.0597 0.0675 0.0816 0.0859
Page 79
Additional measurements have also been performed on 400 kV three-core SL type cable with 1200
2
mm Al conductors and a single layer steel wire armour, see Table 8. The loss factor are current
dependent and essentially smaller than the IEC values. The IEC 60287 standard gives an armour
loss factor ( ) of 0.476.
TABLE 8: 400KV 3 CORE 1200MM2 AL SL TYPE CABLE WITH SINGLE LAYER STEEL WIRES ARMOUR, MEASURED
LOSS FACTOR AS FUNCTION OF THE CONDUCTOR CURRENT
Icond [A] 302.2 403.9 597.0 790.7

1 0.3337 0.3272 0.3343 0.3366
2 0.3774 0.4018 0.4169 0.4281
Performed measurements give similar armour losses for single and double layer armoured cable.
The similar loss factor could be explained by the fact that the inner armour layer acts as a magnetic
shielding for the outer layer.
The above measurements, made by one cable manufacturer, show that the derived losses in a steel
wire armoured three-core SL type cable are approximately 60% of the losses according to the IEC
60287 standard.
Other publications also underline the overly estimation of 2 for armour losses if calculated by IEC,
see Pilgrim et al. (2014): the impact on the cable current rating being 6% less than accounted if the
real armour losses are taken into account. Also Halto and Bremnes (2014) investigated the
current dependent armour loss in three-core cables: The paper “Comparison of FEA results and
measurements” shows experiments and FEM results that suggest that armour losses calculated by
IEC are overestimated by a considerable amount. Results suggest in some cases hysteresis losses
will be significant.
It is recommended that additional measurements are made by other cable manufacturers in order to
verify that a different design philosophy or another material selection does not result in any major
influence on the losses.
The most recent measurements show it is important to measure the losses on a suitable length of
cable in order to achieve well measurable values and reach an acceptable level of accuracy. The
measurement must be performed at rated current since the loss factor is current dependent. It is also
recommended to do a comparative measurement with and without the steel wire armour, however it
should be noted that the difference between these two measurements will not equate to the
magnitude of the armour losses. This is due to the effect which the presence of the armour has on
the conductor and sheath losses. A difference analysis will reduce the total error due to dimension
variations between different cable samples and the measuring accuracy.
No new measurements have been found for three-core cables with tape armour, it is therefore
recommended that the formulas according the IEC 60287 standard are used for this type of cable.
It must be noted that this section describes various measurements that showed losses different to
that deduced from the IEC models. This implies that the current IEC models are in need of updating.
In this case there however must either be enough reliable measurements to come to an empirical
model, or there must be fundamental work to come to a sound physical model explaining the
measurements conducted. Either route will take time, and during this time to come to improvements,
Page 80
the WG recommends to use the existing IEC standards (giving too high losses), unless one is
absolutely sure about an alternative based on representative measurements.
6.7 Outer Covering
The outer covering or external serving as it is named in IEC 60287 (in North America the term jacket
is used), is the outer component of the cable. It is typically a concentric even layer. It can be
extruded or not, depending on the function and applications. It can be constructed from different
materials e.g. PE, PVC, jute or polypropylene yarns. Lapped serving are typical of submarine cables
in the so-called semi-wet design of this layer; there are no additional losses but it represents an
additional thermal resistance. In the case of extrusion on a corrugated metallic sheath, an equivalent
diameter has to be taken into account. Formulae for both cases and extruded over corrugated
sheath covering are covered by IEC 60287-2-1. The thermal resistivity of various materials are
reported in IEC 60287-2-1 but where a thermal resistivity of a material is not reported in the
standards, a value should be either provided by the supplier or measured. For thin layers, such as
semi-conducting layers for serving tests, the change in the overall thermal resistance will be small
and hence the thickness of these thin layers is included in the outer covering.
In case other layers present, such as fire protection material, these layers have to be included in the
total thermal resistance of the outer covering.
Page 81
7 Ins t a ll at i on As p ect s i n C ab le R at ing C al cu lat ion s
7.1 Features Common to Many Installation Types
Many of the design aspects of a cable system (e.g. cable spacing) impact the current rating in the
same way, even though the cable system may be installed in different ways (e.g. buried or in air).
The impacts of these design aspects, or installation features, are covered in this section.
7.1.1 Cable Spacing / Arrangement

In addition to cable construction, circuit layout has to be taken into account. The two common cable
arrangements are trefoil and flat configurations. In some cases, a cradled configuration (typical of
three single core cables installed in a pipe) or open trefoil may be used. There are occasions, for
example when installing cables in existing ducts, where the formation may not be a recognised one
and installations in any arbitrary configuration are feasible.
The configuration and cable spacing will affect the losses generated by magnetic fields, in particular
the conductor (see Section 6.1) and sheath losses (see Section 6.4.1). Where the cables are
installed in typical cable configurations, IEC 60287 provides methods to calculate these losses.
Where the installation configuration is not standard, it may not be covered in IEC 60287 and, in these
cases, the more generalised methods described in Section 7.1.3 may have to be used.
The configuration of the cables will also affect the mutual heating between them. For buried cables,
(see Section 7.2), a generalised method of calculation is given in IEC 60287. For cables installed in
air (see Section 7.3) and similar installations such as tunnels, a variety of arrangements is
considered by IEC 60287 but there is no generalised method.
7.1.2 Bonding of cable sheaths

The simplest method of bonding cable sheaths is to solidly bond them at each end of an electrical
section. Typically the cable sheaths will also be earthed at solid bond positions to ensure that the
sheath is at or near earth potential and hence that the voltage drop across the insulation is correct.
Additionally the earth may be needed to act as a fault current path. An electrical section is, in this
case, a section of cable circuit where no transposition of cable sheath has been made between the
phase cables. For single core cables, this will result in circulating currents in the cable sheaths that
will reduce the current rating of the cable. For single core cable circuits required to carry larger
currents, it may be economic to use a special bonding scheme (such as single point bonding or
cross bonding). Cable systems that use special bonding schemes or multicore cables will have either
negligible or reduced circulating currents but there will still generally be eddy currents in the sheath
that will need to be calculated. These circulating and eddy current losses are termed sheath losses
and details are given in Section 6.4. For more information on bonding and earthing see CIGRE
(2005-2) and IEEE (IEEE 575, “Guide for Bonding Sheaths and Shields of Single-Conductor Power
Cables Rated 5 – 500 kV”).
Page 82
7.1.3 Multiple Parallel Circuits
When cable circuits are installed in parallel, one circuit will impact the other circuit. This impact will
be directly, where the heat generated by the cable may heat the other cable circuit. These effects are
considered in the installation specific sections of this document. Additionally, the magnetic field
generated by one circuit will impact on the other circuit, altering the losses generated by the
conductors and the sheaths.
7.1.3.1 Conductor ac Resistance
When calculating the current rating of a cable circuit, the currents in parallel circuits will generate
magnetic fields in the conductors of the cables in question that will cause some redistribution of the
current within the conductor and an increase in its apparent AC resistance. This is a similar effect to
the other phase cables within the same cable circuit and this is calculated as the proximity effect.
However, given that generally the spacing between cable circuits is significantly greater than those
between cables within the same circuit and that the proximity effect is generally small, the effect of
parallel circuits on the AC resistance of the conductor of the cable can generally be neglected.
If there is a concern that the current rating accuracy may be affected, the generalised computation
method (filament heat source simulation) described in Section 7.1.3.2 can be used.
7.1.3.2 Impact on Sheath Loss for Specially Bonded Cable System
When there are several circuits in a proximity to each other, the induced voltages and the
corresponding eddy currents in sheaths caused by the parallel circuits should be considered. IEC
60287-1-2 gives methods to calculate sheath eddy current losses for two identical single core
parallel cable circuits in flat spaced formation.
However, the methods to calculate the sheath losses in IEC 60287 apply to limited circuit
configurations and, in addition to being limited to two cable circuits, the methods to calculate eddy
currents for single core cables are limited to three phase systems with flat or trefoil formations.
Analytical methods for alternative arrangements can be derived, for example Jackson (1975), but
can become very complex. An alternative generalised method to calculate losses due to induced
voltages can be applied and is briefly described below. It should be noted that this method will not
only calculate the losses generated by the eddy currents, but all the losses generated by induced
currents such as circulating losses in the sheath and proximity effects in conductors.
Such systems can conveniently be analyzed with the application of the filament heat source
simulation (f. h. s. s.) method published by Anders (1997). The term conductor is used to denote any
metallic component of the cable. Applying the method of filament heat source simulation, the
conductors are replaced by a large number of smaller cylindrical sub-conductors or filaments. The
number of filaments should be large enough so that the current density can be assumed uniform
throughout each filament cross section. The size of the filaments is calculated such that the sum total
cross-sectional area of the filaments equals the total conductor cross-sectional area. Helically wound
wires are replaced by tubes with equivalent resistances.
Page 83
The expressions describing the electrical connections of the filaments are as follows:
Ic  B I (EQUATION 19)
E Bt Ec (EQUATION 20)
Where the superscript t denotes transpositions and:

1 1 . . . 1 0 0 . . . 0 0 . 0
0 0 . . . . 1 1 . . . 1 0 . 0
 
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . .
 
. .
B = connection matrix, B  
. .
 
. .
. 0
 
0 1 
column vector of filament longitudinal voltage drop, E   E1, E2 , .. ., En 

t
E =
 
c t
E = column vector of conductor longitudinal voltage drop, E c  E1c , E c2 , . .. ENC
c
column vector of filament currents, I   I1, I2 , . . . , In 

t
I =
c
I = 
column vector of total conductor currents, I c  I 1c , I 2c ,... I NC
c

t
NC = number of conductors
c = superscript referring to conductor quantities
n = number of filaments
The value of NC will depend on the number of cables per phase and on whether or not the cables
have metallic armour or sheath. The presence of neutral cables and earth conductors will further
increase NC. In above method it is assumed that there is no cross-filament current: the contact
resistance is ignored.
We can see that the connection matrix B is such that the sum of the filament currents in each
conductor equals the total conductor current, and the longitudinal voltage drops in each filament of a
conductor are equal to the conductor longitudinal voltage drop.
Our aim is to express filament currents as a function of phase conductor currents and the geometry
of the system. The longitudinal voltage drop in a filament is given by:
   
E  R d  j 0 r G   I (EQUATION 21)
 2 
Page 84
Where:
 1 1 1 
ln s ln
s12
. . . ln
s1n 
 11 
. . 
G = geometric matrix, G  
 . . 
 1 1 
ln . . . . ln 
 sn1 snn 
Rd = n  n matrix with vector  R1, R2 ,..., Rn  of filament resistances in the diagonal and
zeros outside the diagonal
sii = geometric mean radius of filament [m]
sij = geometric mean distance between filaments i and j [m]
μ0 = permeability of air, H/m
μr = relative permeability of the material, (μr =1 for nonmagnetic materials)
Since both E and I are complex quantities, their separate components must be determined. In effect,
therefore, there are 2n equations and 4n unknown quantities to be found. After some manipulations,
we obtain:
1 1 1
       
I  R d  j G B t BR d  j G B t  I c (EQUATION 22)
 2    2  
Where:
μ = μ0 μr
For systems where all the conductor currents are known, evaluation of the above equations
represents the required solution. For systems in which total conductor currents are not known,
calculations must be performed to determine the unknown values of the currents.
These equations can now be used to determine the sheath and armour loss factors by suitably
specifying the matrix boundary conditions. If the sheaths are solidly bonded, the sheath and armour
filaments are solidly bonded. Equation 22 yields both the circulating and approximate eddy currents
after observing the boundary conditions that the voltage drops in all sheath filaments are equal and
the sum of all sheath filament currents is zero. If the sheaths are bonded at one end only, the
filaments representing the sheath of each cable are bonded together, but not those belonging to
different cables. The boundary conditions now require the sum of sheath filament currents in each
cable be equal to zero. Thus, the eddy currents and standing voltages can be computed from the
above equations.
For solidly bonded systems, for example, we proceed as follows. Let us suppose that the first i-1
c
entries in the vector I represent known cable conductor currents. From Kirchhoff’s first and second
laws, we have:
I 1c  I 2c  ...  I ic1  ...  I NC

c
0 (EQUATION 23)
E ic  E ic1  ...  E NC
c
 E 0  a constant (EQUATION 24)
Page 85
Where:
E0 = the sheath longitudinal voltage drop [V]
Defining:
1 1
    
C  B  R d  j G B t  (EQUATION 25)
  2  
We obtain:
 E1c   C11 C12 . . . C1, NC   I1c 

     Ic 
 .   .   2 
 .   .   . 
     
 .   .   . 
E c   .   I ic1 .
 i 1      (EQUATION 26)
 E0   .   . 
 .   .   . 
     
 .   .   . 
    
 E0  CNC,1 CNC, NC   . 

 0   1 1 . . . 1   I NC c 

This constitutes a set of NC+1 equations in NC+1 unknowns. Some reduction in computational effort
can be obtained by noting that the longitudinal voltage drops of the central conductors are not of
interest.
Similar equations can be set up for single-point bonded systems. The sheath voltages in this case
are different and are to be computed.
The loss factor for a particular conductor (a sheath, armour, or pipe) composed of filaments k to m is
equal to:
I ik
2
R
i i
 (EQUATION 27)
I j
2
R
j j
Where j is the index of central conductor filaments belonging to the same cable as the sheath or
armour. The current represents the rms values. Please note that the f.h.s.s. method assumes that all
the conductors are straight (and parallel). As it is, it is not directly applicable to the calculation of
losses in the screen of single-core cables composed of a bundle of wires or in the metal screen of 3-
core cable (because of the twisting of the conductors).
Page 86
7.1.3.3 Impact on Sheath Loss for Solidly Bonded and Earthed Cable System
When there are several circuits in a proximity to each other, the induced voltages and the circulating
currents in sheaths caused by the parallel circuits should be considered. IEC 60287-1-3 gives
methods to calculate sheath circulating current losses for any given formation.
7.1.3.4 Impact on Armour Losses
The magnetic field from one circuit will modify the losses generated by the armour on another circuit.
For multicore cables that are armoured, the spacing between the cores will be much smaller than the
spacing between circuits, so the effect is likely to be negligible. For single core cables, in most cases
the cables will be installed much closer together than the circuits so it is anticipated that the effect
will be small and the effect can be neglected.
7.1.3.5 Thermal Impact of Multiple Circuits
The thermal impact of circuits on one another will depend on how they are installed and hence are
covered in the sections on each specific type of installation.
7.1.4 Multiple Cables per Phase
With a single cable per phase, it is reasonable to assume a balanced system in which the conductor
currents are equal. When it is necessary to install a number of cables per phase in one circuit, the
reactances of the sheaths and conductors are functions of their spacings from all the other sheaths
and conductors. Because of this, not only will the impedance of the sheaths vary but also the
impedance of each phase conductor may vary, depending on the relative positions of the cables.
Hence, for cables in parallel, the current flowing in each conductor may be different, and the situation
is often referred to as load sharing. This leads to the need to solve simultaneous equations for both
the conductor and sheath currents. For example, for two cables per phase in a three-phase system,
the six conductor currents and the six sheath currents must be found. In this case, a set of 12
simultaneous equations with 12 unknowns has to be solved, each equation having a real and an
imaginary component. In general terms, for n cables per phase, 6n simultaneous equation must be
solved. Additional equations may be required to set up the boundary conditions for voltages and
currents. A general approach that should be used is set out in the IEC standard 60287, with details
of the derivation of the equations in the standard given in Chapter 8 of Anders book (1997). This is
not a task for manual calculations.
Other aspects such as the thermal impact of cables on each other are similar to cable installations
with multiple parallel circuits and these aspects are covered in the sections on multiple parallel
circuits.
Page 87
7.1.5 Circuits Crossing
The impact of circuit crossings will be specific to the method of installation. For most installation
methods the installation design is made to make the impact of the circuit crossing negligible but for
buried installations (including subsea installations) it is not possible. Section 7.2 on buried
installations covers circuit crossings.
7.1.6 Long Lengths (charging currents)
The power transfer capacity of a circuit is affected by long cable lengths. An increase in length
causes increased charging currents in the cables, allowing for less real power to be transferred
through the cables. Adding compensation shunt reactors connected at one or both ends of cable
circuits mitigates the effect to some extent.
As a general rule, in AC links compensation is necessary when the reduction of the active power is
larger than 15%. In any case, it is required to do a system planning study which determines the
quantity and type of compensation (one end, two ends, placed in the middle of the connection) and a
system impact study which determines the impact of a cable on the rest of the power system. As a
reference, CIGRE (2013-2) describes system technical performance study issues which are
important for a power system with long AC cable lines.
More detailed calculations about power transmission over long cable circuits can be found in Arrighi
(1986) and Del Brenna (2004). A simplified approach is given in Section 7.1.6.1 and
Section 7.1.6.2 but should be considered as indicative.
7.1.6.1 Critical Length
The series inductance of an overhead line is about 2-3 times larger compared to an underground
circuit but the shunt capacitance of an underground line is about 10-20 times larger. These factors
depend on the geometrical configuration of the cable system and material properties of the cable. It
is possible to define the concept of “critical length” and we can use the following simplified scheme
considering only the capacitance of the cable to illustrate this concept.
FIGURE 38: REACTIVE POWER GENERATED BY A CABLE
Page 88
Where:
Iz = the thermal rated current for the line (steady-state) [A]
Ic = the capacitive current for the cable [A]
IL = the load current [A]
PL = the active power at load receptor [W]
SG = the apparent power at injecting point [VA]
To feed a purely resistive load in a radial network with a given current trough an underground line, it
is necessary to inject a higher current at the source to compensate for cable capacitance. The
difference being the capacitive current generated in the line, in quadrature with the current in load.
This is the charging current:
I z  I c2  I L2
2
(EQUATION 28)
With increasing length, the capacitive charging current will reach the value of the maximum allowable
current of the cable, so the charging current accounts for all the available heat losses in the cable.
This length is called the “critical length” (Lc) and occurs when the condition in the above equation
occurs:
I z  Ic (EQUATION 29)
The equation can be re-arranged to find the length at which the charging current is equal to the
thermal rating of the cable:
U ∙ω∙C∙L I √3
I = → L = ∙ ∙ 10 (m) (EQUATION 30)
√3 ∙ 10 ω∙C U
Where:
C = capacitance per unit length [μF/km]
-1
ω = angular frequency of voltage [s ]
U = rms phase-phase voltage [kV]
It can be concluded that the critical length “LC” is determined by the system voltage and frequency
and by cable rating which is determined by the conductor size, environmental and installation
conditions and cable capacitance.
7.1.6.2 Power Transfer for Long Circuits
The maximum transmitted power in an underground radial link is dependent on the frequency, length
and voltage across the insulation. However a large conductor can transfer higher loads than a
smaller conductor can. Therefore the charging current becomes of less importance when the
conductor area becomes larger, if the generated power is unchanged. With reference to Figure 38,
Page 89
the power transfer of a long cable system (assuming purely resistive loads and no compensation)
can be found:
S =P +Q → P = S − (ωCLU ∙ 10 ) (EQUATION 31)
As an example, we can apply the above equations for calculating the critical length of several
underground lines with rated voltage of 20 kV and 400 kV, and different cross-sections of the cable
(refer to table 9).
TABLE 9: CRITICAL LENGTH FOR 20KV AND 400KV CABLE SYSTEM
For lower voltages the critical length is longer when the conductor area is larger (due to Iz, higher
ratings). At higher voltages as the conductor area increases the capacitance increases and counters
the increase of critical length due to higher current ratings seen at lower voltages.
In Figure 39, the active power (at cos φ = 1) at the load point (PL) versus the length of the line is
presented:
FIGURE 39: EFFECT OF LENGTH ON POWER TRANSMITTED BY A CABLE SYSTEM
Page 90
For actual systems as discussed above it is mandatory to do a system planning study which
determines the actual current taking into account required load currents, charging current in the
cable, and other reactive currents in the wider power system.
It should be noted that the charging current will vary along the length of the cable route. The thermal
bottleneck of the cable system may not be at the end of the circuit and the required current carrying
capacity (taking into account both load and charging current) should be verified at the position that
the thermal bottleneck occurs.
As DC cable systems have no charging currents the length of a DC cable system does not have the
same considerations and this is an advantage of such systems.
7.1.7 Joints
It is possible under certain circumstances that joints can be the limiting factor for a cable system’s
ampacity. The issue is dealt with on a case by case basis, and different methods have been applied
for this purpose.
The number of publications within the subject of ampacity calculations concerning cable joints is
small and, therefore, many aspects seem not to be fully explored at present. Almost all of the
publications are concerned with high voltage cables (above 100 kV) and most are concerned with
directly buried cable systems or cable systems in air.
7.1.7.1 Single Isolated Joints
Even though the number of research projects concerned with temperatures in cable joints is small,
some researchers have investigated the thermal performance of single isolated cables with joints. It
is acknowledged by most studies that the normal IEC standardised method cannot be applied to
cable joints, as the standard does not consider longitudinal heat flow. Therefore, the thermal
performance of a cable joint must be investigated in 3D (unless 2D rotational symmetry may be
assumed) such as for example in Lyall (2004), Anders (2007), Moutassam (2007) and Liang (2008).
It is confirmed in these studies that the conductor temperature in the cable joint is higher than in the
rest of the cable, and, thus, the cable rating (if limited by the conductor temperature) may need to be
evaluated on the basis of the temperature which will be reached in the joint. It should be noted that
this joint operating temperature may not be the same as the maximum operating temperature for the
cable itself and confirmation should be sought from the manufacturer.
The studies utilise the thermoelectric equivalents (TEE, also denoted lumped parameters models)
and finite element method (FEM) for the calculation of the dynamic thermal response of cable joints
and the results are generally confirmed via laboratory experiments. The methods for the calculations
are publically available and derating factors could possibly be developed for specific components by
manufacturers who know the design of their components better than anyone else. It should be noted
that the studies find that the thermal time constant is higher for the joint part of the cable than the
rest, and thus temporary high loads may not be as severe for the joint as for the rest of the cable.
The joints of 3-core cables are particularly difficult to handle. Anders and Coates in EPRI Bronze
Book (2011) give the following thoughts to the analysis of cable joints.
Page 91
Ampacities for resin- or compound-filled three-core cable joints can be calculated using the
calculation methods used for cables. However, unfilled heat/cold-shrink joints contain significant air
voids. These voids restrict the heat flow from the conductors in the joint and are likely to cause the
joint to run warmer than the cable. Analytical calculation methods for determining the thermal
resistance across a complex heat path including air voids are not generally available. If there is a
requirement to calculate temperatures in an unfilled three-core cable joint, it is recommended that
finite element methods are used. Because the air voids in such joints are restricted, heat transfer by
convection in the voids can be ignored, and only conduction across the air void is considered. The
thermal resistivity of still air can be taken as approximately 40 Km/W.
The increased insulation thickness in a joint leads to a higher internal thermal resistance than for a
cable. However, the larger overall diameter leads to a reduction in the external thermal resistance.
The balance between these two factors varies with cable and joint design as well as with cable size
and installation conditions. For direct buried cables, the calculated ampacity for a joint may be 3%
2 2
lower than that for a 350 kcmil (~170 mm ) cable but 1.5% higher for a 1000 kcmil (~500 mm ) cable.
When cables are installed in ducts, the joints are normally positioned at manholes. Heat transfer by
convection is greater in a manhole than in a duct, and thus the ampacity in the manhole is higher
than in a duct.
Simple ampacity calculations for joints based on the methods used for cables do not take into
account any longitudinal heat transfer. If the joint runs hotter than the cable, longitudinal heat transfer
reduces the temperature in the joint. The calculation methods given by Whitehead and Hutchins
(1938) or Brakelmann and Anders (2001) can be used. The temperature profile along a joint that is
1 m long is given in Figure 40 for a 350 kcmil and a 1000 kcmil cable. For this figure, it has been
assumed that the ampacity of the joint, without considering longitudinal heat conduction, is 5% less
than that of the cable and the cable is operating at full load. The temperature expected within the
joints without longitudinal heat conduction is approximately 98 °C.
96
350 kcmil
95
1000 kcmil
94
Temperature, °C
93
92
91
Inside joint outside joint
90
89
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Distance from centerline of joint, m
FIGURE 40: TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN A JOINT (EPRI, 2011)
Page 92
These curves demonstrate that longitudinal heat conduction can reduce the temperature of a
potential hot spot by 3 to 4 K. Additionally, special precautions can be taken to avoid overheating
cable joints. These precautions could include:
 Use of materials with low thermal resistivity

 Increased spacing of joints compared to the relevant cable
 Improved thermal environment around the joints compared to the cables (manholes, forced
cooling, etc.).
As mentioned above, due to their longer thermal time constants, joints present a higher short-term
emergency overload capacity than the corresponding cable, as shown in Figure 41.
FIGURE 41: TEMPERATURE INCREASE IN A CABLE CONDUCTOR AND IN A JOINT DUE TO A STEP CURRENT
CHANGE (EPRI 2011)
However, depending on the duration of the loading cycles, joints may present a gradual increase of
conductor temperature in subsequent cycles (an example of a type test in air is shown in Figure 42).
Page 93
FIGURE 42: ‘EXAMPLE OF THE TEMPERATURE VARIATION IN A CONDUCTOR AND A JOINT FOR A CYCLIC
LOADING (EPRI, 2011)
Lyall (2004) shows that the jacket temperature of the joint, due to the larger geometry, can be
significantly lower than the jacket of the rest of the cable. This reference contends that the steady
state rating is not limited by the joint. However, there are cases where the joint may prove to be the
steady state rating limit, particularly where cooled installations and ventilated tunnels are concerned.
It has not been possible to find general guidelines for calculating de-rating factors for single isolated
cable joints, and a case by case approach must therefore be applied.
7.1.7.2 Multiple Joints
One study, Pilgrim (2009), has been concerned with modelling three single phase cables with joints,
and, therefore, this is the only study which has been found to deal with the mutual thermal influence
of multiple cable joints in close proximity. The thermal performance of three single phase directly
buried cables in flat formation in a joint bay was investigated by modelling the system with an
extensive 3D FEM. It is found that, by allowing the axial spacing between cables to increase
sufficiently at the joints, the cable joints will not be the thermally limiting part of the transmission line.
Staggered joint bays were shown to allow for smaller axial spacing between the cables in the joint
bay than when arranging the joints in parallel.
It should be noted that all knowledge within this area relies on this single study, and thus verification
of the problem may be necessary. Furthermore, Pilgrim (2009) does not include experimental
validation, which may be necessary for further validation and implementation of the technique.
Several of the studies are also concerned with including forced cooling of the joints in the models. It
is generally shown that the ampacity can be increased by cooling, however Pilgrim (2009) finds that
the ampacity of the normal part of the cable increases more than the joint part, and thus the
Page 94
conductor temperature of the joint may become the limiting parameter for cables forced cooled with
parallel water pipes.
With this background, it must be concluded that no generally available de-rating factors are available
for jointed cables, and calculations must therefore be performed on a case by case basis.
7.1.8 Terminations
Although the construction of cable terminations is similar to that of cable joints, the manner in which
they are installed usually prevents the use of the calculation methods used for cables being used for
the thermal analysis of the terminations. Further discussion of this may be found in Electra 128
(CIGRE, 1990).
Terminations are likely to be installed vertically in air, in air-filled boxes or in compound-filled boxes.
A further factor that complicates the calculation of temperatures in terminations is heat transfer to, or
from, connected equipment. This factor is likely to have a greater effect on the operating temperature
of a termination than its design. When cables that are expected to operate at close to their maximum
temperature are connected to equipment, a check should be made to ensure that any heat
transferred into the equipment from the cable does not cause undue degradation of the equipment.
Conversely, if cables are connected to equipment expected to operate at high temperatures,
measures should be taken to ensure that heat transferred from the terminations of the equipment
does not cause undue degradation of the cable insulation.
7.1.9 Metalwork
Metalwork (including baseplates of outdoor sealing ends) need to be considered and often the rule
is, if a magnetic material is used, that there is a break in the material to stop a loop being formed
around the conductor. Even if there is no loop, for buried installations there may be a reduction in
current rating because eddy currents in the steel work might cause additional temperature rise in the
cable system.
In some cases there is a requirement to minimise the magnetic field of installations and this can
reduce the current rating, see cigre (2013).
The number of companies that reported they made calculations of the heat generated by induced
currents in nearby steel plates, concrete reinforcing wires or parallel earth wires was 24, while the
majority of 76 companies reported they did not (see Appendix B for details, question 5.3). The main
method reported was FEM but a number of companies appeared to report methods that were not
consistent with the question.
7.1.10 Short Lengths different to rest of Installation (longitudinal heat flow)
In some installations, short sections of cable will be installed in a different arrangement than the rest
of the route, and these short sections may limit the current rating of the entire circuit. Normally
current rating calculations are made in 2 dimensions but for short sections heat may flow
longitudinally along the cable circuits and an improved current rating may be obtained by considering
this additional heat flow. An example is cable circuits crossing other cable circuits (see Section
7.2.1.3), where relatively easy to use methods of calculation have been developed.
Page 95
Pilgrim et al. (2009) shows an alternative approach in the evaluation of temperature distribution in a
cable joint bay using the finite element modelling (FEM) during steady state load conditions. The
method (FEM) however does not seem to be limited to the joint bay application, and all of the
calculations shown in Anders (2005) should thus be reproducible by FEM. Furthermore FEM may
create an easier overview when compared to Anders (2005) in the case of complex cable
installations, see e.g. Chaaban and Leduc (2011). However the method of Anders (2005) is a simpler
approach and obviously requires less computational effort while maintaining a high reliability.
For nonstandard installation arrangements other than cable crossings, there is unlikely to be a
simple current rating method and most of the time it is anticipated that FEM methods will have to be
used. Pilgrim et al. (2014) shows with FEM how variable burial depth and ground topography
(greater earth surface area than flat ground) allows an increase of around 4% rating when
longitudinal heat flow along the cable and the ground is considered.
7.1.11 Parallel Metallic Paths (e.g. earth continuity conductor )
In some cases, parallel metallic conductors are installed close to cable systems. Typically this is the
earth continuity conductor (ecc) for single point bonded systems (see ENA C55/4 1989) or screening
cables intended to reduce induced voltages in other parallel cable circuits such as pilot cables. Earth
continuity conductors are normally installed with transpositions at the mid-point of the cable sections
to minimise any circulating current and in these situations the earth continuity conductor can be
ignored for current rating calculations.
In some cases, particularly duct blocks, it is not possible to install the earth continuity conductor with
such transpositions and then it may be necessary to include the earth continuity conductor as part of
the current rating assessment.
This topic is very sparsely described in the literature. There are a number of published studies
concerned with induced currents in e.g. pipelines, adjacent cable systems, etc. In one way or the
other these studies are application of the basic electromagnetic equations, which for power lines
most commonly are solved by the “Telegrapher’s equation”, “Lossy transmission line model” or
“Finite element method” (or similar numerical methods), see Taflove and Dabkowski(1979-1),
Taflove and Dabkowski (1979-2), Djogo and Salam (1997), Ferkal and Black (1996), Du and Wang
(2010), Kovač et al. (2006) and Novák and Koller (2011).
It is suggested that the reduction in ampacity is divided into two parts. Firstly, the currents in the
parallel metallic path are determined and secondly these currents are converted into joule losses and
the influence on the ampacity of the cable is evaluated. Methods of calculation as described in
CIGRE TB 283 can be used to calculate the circulating current. Having determined the currents
induced in the parallel metallic path, the losses should be fairly easy to estimate (based on the
geometry and knowledge of the materials).
When the losses are known, IEC60287-2-1 gives suggestion on how to calculate the derating of the
power cable (clause 2.2.3.1) in the static case, and IEC60853-2 (see Anders (2005) for in depth
description) in the dynamic case. The standard suggests that the ampacity of the power cable is
determined by decreasing the allowed temperature rise which is caused by the induced losses in the
parallel metallic path (the principle of superposition, for in depth description see Anders (1997).
Alternatively, the dynamic thermal response can be evaluated by the finite element method.
Page 96
7.2 Buried installations (not tunnels)
This Chapter highlights all aspects of cable current rating calculations related to direct buried cables,
cables installed in ducts, installed in surface troughs and horizontal directional drillings.
7.2.1 Common Aspects and Direct Buried installations
Installing cables in a trench, embedded in a sand or special backfill layer with good thermal
properties around the cables, and normal soil on top is in many countries one of the most common
installation methods. For AC systems, cables are installed in (close) trefoil formation, (touching) flat
formation, with one or multiple circuits with mutual influences. This configuration differs from place to
place, depending on the available space and influence of the environment area (thermal, vibrations,
space and other conditions).
Horizontal directional drilling is often used when it is impossible or inconvenient to carry out digging
work, for example when crossing roads, rivers or vegetation. Horizontal directional drilling is carried
out by drilling a hole from the surface or from a pit to the destination required. One pipe or a bundle
of pipes is then pulled through the hole, making it possible to pull cables through the pipes at a later
stage.
Ducts are used to provide mechanical protection to cables, for instance at crossing roads or railways.
Ducts are also in use for minimization of public nuisance by installing small duct sections and pulling
in cables at a later stage. Duct laying configurations are similar to that of direct buried cables.
For buried cables, the thermal resistance is formed mainly by the surrounding soil. The thermal
resistivity of the soil not only depends on its composition (which can vary considerably along the
cable run) but also on the current condition of the soil which, in turn, is influenced by the operation of
the cable and the atmospheric conditions. The most important factor here is the moisture content of
the soil; the dryer the soil, the higher its thermal resistance, refer to section 3.3.
This section reviews two aspects dealing with the ampacity calculations for cables installed in
multiple parallel circuits namely: the thermal impact, i.e., heat generated by other circuits and the
induced currents.
7.2.1.1 Multiple Parallel Circuits: Thermal Impact
Ampacity calculations of a single circuit or a group of cables are described in the IEC standard
60287-2-1. The treatment of a group of cables is described in the section dealing with calculations of
the external thermal resistance of a cable of interest. The proposed approach is an application of the
principle of superposition, assuming that each cable acts as a line source and does not distort the
heat field due to the other cables.
The effect of neutral and earth conductors can be calculated by including them in the appropriate
loops. The method set out in the standard does not take account of any portion of the sheath
circulating currents that may flow through the earth or other extraneous paths. The conductor
currents and sheath circulating currents in parallel single-core cables are unlikely to be equal.
Because of this, the external thermal resistance for buried parallel cables should be calculated using
the method set out in section 3.1 of IEC 60287-2-1. Because the external thermal resistance and
sheath temperatures are functions of the power dissipation from each cable in the group, it is
Page 97
necessary to adopt an iterative procedure to determine the circulating current losses and the external
thermal resistance (see also Section 6.4.2 ).
The method itself is based on the superposition principle, and is not applicable for those situations
where the cable circuits are touching.
The IEC 60287 series contains two standards providing tables and equations related to additional
losses:
IEC 60287-1-2 provides a method for calculating the eddy current losses in the metallic sheaths of
single-core cables arranged as a three phase double circuit in flat formation. The method provides
coefficients which are applied as corrections to the loss factors for the sheaths of one isolated three
phase circuit. In practice this method should be used for most sizes of aluminium-sheathed cables
and unusually large lead-sheathed cables.
IEC 60287-1-3 provides a method for calculating the phase currents and circulating current losses in
single core cables arranged in parallel, i.e., multiple cables per phase. The method can be used for
any number of cables per phase in parallel in any physical layout.
No literature was found on multiple parallel circuit thermal aspects. It is believed that the IEC 60287
provides sufficient guidelines to calculate the mutual influences between parallel installed circuits
from a thermal and mutual losses point of view.
7.2.1.2 Unequally Loaded Circuits
Ampacity calculations of a single circuit or a group of identical cables are described in the IEC
60287-2-1. The treatment of a group of cables is described in the section dealing with calculations of
the external thermal resistance of a cable of interest. The proposed approach is an application of the
principle of superposition, assuming that each cable acts as a line source and does not distort the
thermal field due to the other cables.
Two situations are dealt within the standard. The first, and most general type, is a group of unequally
loaded cables of different construction, and for this problem the standard gives a general indication
of the method only. The second type, which is a more particular one, is a group of equally loaded
identical cables and, for this problem, a fairly simple solution can be derived, see Anders (1997).
This section first reviews the IEC 60287 approach and then discusses a possible method for
calculating the total ampacity of a group of unequally loaded buried cables. A general case of
unequally loaded cables is considered.
Standard approach for ampacity of unequally loaded cables

A typical power cable consists of a conductor, insulation, metallic sheath or screen, possible armour
bedding, armour, and external serving layers. The main sources of heat generated by a cable are the
Joule losses in the conductor, sheath/screen, armour, and pipe. In addition, some cables may
produce substantial dielectric losses. This heat is dissipated through the various cable layers and the
soil. The thermal resistances of the cable layers and its surroundings influence the rate at which the
heat is dissipated, and hence the rise of the conductor temperature above the ambient temperature.
This thermal interaction can be represented for the steady-state conditions by a lump-parameter
thermal circuit that incorporates the thermal resistances of the cable layers and the soil, the Joule
and dielectric losses, and the ambient and conductor temperatures. The thermal circuit is then
solved to obtain the maximum conductor current, given the allowable insulation temperature. The
Page 98
solution for the current, I [A], is formulated hereunder, with a comprehensive derivation given in
Anders (1997):
0.5
 A   int 
I   (EQUATION 32)
 B 
Where:
A, B = constants dependent on the cable construction and laying conditions
Δθint = conductor temperature reduction due to heating from the neighbouring cables
Calculating Δθint for the ampacity equation of the cable of interest ‘i’ is obtained by summing up the
thermal influences of all neighbouring cables, as given by equation 33. The thermal influence by
each cable ‘j’ on cable ‘i’, Δθij, is calculated using equarion 34 by multiplying the heat produced by
the cable ‘j’, Wj, and the mutual thermal resistance Tij between cables ‘j’ and ‘i’. Wj is the sum of the
Joule and dielectric losses of cable ‘j’. Tij depends on the distance between the two cables and their
depth below the earth’s surface.
n
 int   
j 1
ij (EQUATION 33)
j i
ij  Wj Tij (EQUATION 34)
Calculation of the mutual thermal resistance becomes somewhat more involved when the cables are
located in a duct bank, backfill or a large casing.
It is evident from equations 32 to 34 that in order to calculate the ampacity of a cable ‘i’, the currents
of all the other cables must be known. However, these currents are not known a priori because the
objective is to compute the ampacities of all the cables in the system. The application of equation 34
to every cable will result in a system of interrelated equations. In practice, these equations are solved
iteratively. However, in many cases, the iterative method is not always convergent and does not
guarantee the optimal cable loading. A recently postulated alternative is to express these equations
as an optimization problem and then solve it to obtain the ampacities (Anders (2007)). This method
is always convergent, and is summarized next.
Ampacities of unequally loaded cables as an optimization problem

Because the ampacity of a cable is the largest current that it can carry while not causing its
conductor temperature to rise above a specified maximum, the total ampacity of a group of cables is
the largest sum of the currents that do not cause any of the cables to overheat. Using equation 34 for
every cable, the resulting system of interrelated equations can be expressed, through algebraic
manipulations, as an optimization problem with an objective function of maximizing the sum of all
cable currents or the sum of the transmitted real powers Pk with the constraints of having every cable
conductor temperature θck below a specified maximum θk max . The resulting formulation for
Page 99
optimization of the transmitted power, with a complete mathematical derivation is detailed in

Moutassem (2007).
Maximize P
k
k
(EQUATION 35)
subject to  ck   k max for all k
An additional constraint should be added requiring that the currents of all three phases in a circuit be
equal when a balanced system is specified. When some cables carry a specified current, these are
excluded from the objective function in equation 35 but added as the equality constraints.
This problem belongs to the class of continuous convex optimization problems. Such type of
problems can be solved effectively using the barrier method algorithm or a similar interior point
approach, see Boyd and Vandenberghe (2004).
7.2.1.3 Circuit Crossings
This section reviews the ampacity calculations for cables crossing cables, direct buried or ducted,
installed in soil with uniformly thermal resistivity or with multiple thermal resistivities.
IEC Standard 60287-3-3 provides a method for calculating the continuous current rating factor for
cables of all voltages where crossings of external heat sources are involved. The method is
applicable to any type of cable. The method assumes that the entire region surrounding a cable, or
cables, has uniform thermal characteristics and that the principle of superposition applies. The
principle of superposition does not strictly apply to touching cables and hence the calculation method
set out in this standard will produce an optimistic result if applied to touching cables.
Furthermore, IEC60287-3-3 does not specify if the calculation method is applicable for cable
installed in ducts or when the crossing circuits are installed in soil with multiple layers with differing
thermal resistivity. Dynamic aspects are also not considered.
IEC60287 does not provide an answer when:
 Crossing cables are touching

 Crossing cables are installed in ducts
 Crossing cables are installed in non-uniform soil with differing thermal resistivity
 Dynamic ratings of crossing cables are considered
 Soil dry out caused by moisture migration is considered.
Crossing cables are touching

For crossing touching cables, the superposition principle is no longer valid and, since the mutual
heating has to be considered in 3D, FEM should be used to determine the current ratings of the
circuits.
Page 100
Crossing cables installed in ducts.

If the ducts are filled with a solid mass, like bentonite, the same calculation principle can be applied
as in IEC60287-3-3. However, the thermal resistance of the solid mass filling and the thermal
resistance of the duct shall be added to the thermal resistance of the cable covering T3, multiplied by
the number of conductors in one cable, and not to the external thermal resistance T4.
In unfilled ducts, an air space is present between the cable surface and the duct internal surface. As
known from IEC60287-2-1, the thermal resistance of this air space is, among other factors,
depending on the average temperature in this air space. Because of the crossing, a temperature
gradient is present in axial direction, causing an axial air flow in the air space due to convection. It
can be assumed that because of this air flow, the temperature of the air space will be lower, resulting
in a higher thermal resistance at that hot spot. The exact influence can be calculated numerically, but
as a rule of thumb it is suggested to calculate the thermal resistance of the air space as if there is no
crossing, to be on the safe side. Further calculation can be done in the same way as suggested for
the filled ducts.
Crossing cables installed in soil with multiple thermal resistivities.

Please refer to clause 7.2.1.5 of this report for obtaining an average soil thermal resistivity when
multiple thermal resistivities are involved. It should be noted that the assumption of an average soil
thermal resistivity may introduce error into the calculation, particularly where a wide range of thermal
resistivity values is encountered.
Dynamic ratings of crossing cables

The determination of de-ratings of crossing cable circuits with transient and cyclic loadings are
described in Anders (2005). The described method determines the temperature rise caused by cyclic
variation of losses in the external heat source at an arbitrary time τ assuming that the heat dissipated
in the external cable is directly proportional to the square of the applied current.
Soil dry out caused by moisture migration

The determination of de-ratings of crossing cable circuits with partially soil dry out because of
moisture migration is described in clause 3.7 of Anders (2005).
Multiple crossing angles are considered.

The method in IEC60287-3-3 is applicable for one or multiple cable(s) or heat sources for one
crossing angle. If more than one crossing angle is observed, IEC60287-3-3 is still applicable: the de-
ratings of the cables of belonging to the same crossing angle should be determined, thereafter the
de-ratings of the cables belonging to the second crossing angle etc. This is an iterative process.
Consideration of screen longitudinal heat flow

Metallic components in the cable, other than the conductor, will generate additional losses. Clause
3.5 of Anders (2005) indicates how the longitudinal heat flow in these components can be taken into
account.
Page 101
7.2.1.4 Soil dry-out
The thermal resistivity of the soil in which a cable is buried has a large effect on the rating of the
cable. One important factor is the formation of dry zones around the underground power cables due
to the migration of moisture along the temperature gradient. This migration of moisture occurs when
the cable surface temperature is raised above a certain temperature limit, defined in IEC 60287 by
the critical temperature rise.
IEC 60287-1-1 Clause 1.4.2 gives a general steady state rating equation based on the two zone
model taking into account the critical temperature and the thermal resistivity of the wet and dried-out
soils. Clause 1.4.3 of the same standard gives a formula based on the limitation of the cable external
temperature to the critical temperature. IEC 60853-3 provides formulae for transient ratings. Both
IEC methods are limited to a single circuit only.
Heinhold (1990) provides a calculation method for taking into account the backfill layer around the
power cables and to determine the possibility of native soil drying out at the boundaries of the back
fill layer. This method allows for multiple circuits.
There have been a lot of discussions, conferences and papers about the topic of soil dry-out. The
generally accepted physical description of the very complex system of heat and moisture transfer
processes is the Philip/de Vries-model (PdV model), which describes the transport of water, water
vapour and heat as functions of the gradients of temperature, moisture content and of gravity,
depending on some external parameters as e.g. the distance to the groundwater level. The arising
nonlinear partial differential equations are governed by a set of diffusion coefficients, which change
their magnitudes over some decades in dependence on temperature and moisture content. Better
information on these problems can be found in the KEMA/Heijdemij (1981) report and the works of
Cigré Working Group B1-41.
There are groups not accepting the two-layer-model for partial soil dry-out. Their argument is, that
the time-dependent transport mechanisms in soil are not governed by temperatures, but by the
gradients and thus by the direction of the heat flow density. Indeed, some tests for classification of
soils with respect to “thermal instability” are defined in the USA to measure a “time to drying-out” of a
soil as a function of the heat flow.
The two-layer-model is widely adopted because of its simplicity and manageability. It could be
shown, refer to Brakelmann (1984) by means of the Philip/de Vries-model, that the situation
described by the two-zone-model with a critical isotherm may actually happen in nature, if somewhat
advantageous soil parameters and conditions (e.g. remote groundwater level, low initial moisture
content) are given. Extensive simulations by means of FEM and based on the PdV-model (Pilgrim et
al. 2011) have shown the same results and conclusions.
The two-zone-model drying-out is considered as the result of instability, but which can be contained
by reducing temperatures and power flux densities at the border of the arising dry zone, and
consequently avoiding a “thermal runaway”. So it is important that the assumed thermal properties of
the dry zone and the surrounding wet zone (dry thermal resistance, wet thermal resistance and
critical temperature rise) are selected on the safe side. The crucial advantage of the two-layer-model
is that it allows current rating calculations in a quite simple way, even for complicated structures in
the trench as groups of different cables with different load cycles, heat sources, crossings et cetera,
refer to Brakelmann (1984).
Please refer also to section 3.3 for additional information on this subject.
Page 102
7.2.1.5 Multiple thermal resistivity values (e.g. backfill)
The earth portion of the thermal circuit accounts for more than 50% of the total cable system thermal
resistance. A cable design must be based on accurate soil thermal parameters. Native soils may not
always have the most preferable thermal properties, or may contain sharp materials that might
damage the cable outer sheath. In such cases, selected sand or backfill may be applied around the
power cables. Usually this backfill material does not have the same thermal properties as the native
soil and this will have an impact on the cable rating.
IEC 60287-2-1 provides a method (in Clause 2.2.7.3) based on the works of Neher and MacGrath
(1957) with consideration of a cylinder equivalent to the actual backfill. The formula used for
calculating the equivalent cylinder is of limited application range (ratio of dimension has to be lower
than 1/3). El-Kady and Horrocks (1985) have extended the range of application of the “geometrical
factor”.
An interesting formulation is proposed by Slaninka and Morgan (1992): a method is described for
calculating the external thermal resistance of a power cable buried in a backfilled trench or in
thermally non-uniform soil of defined shape. The analysis is based on the multiple reflections of a
line source of heat and its images. Cable configurations examined are: within or beneath a horizontal
top layer of soil; close to the vertical boundary between dissimilar media; near or within a vertical
layer sandwiched between two media; and within a backfilled trench
Other alternatives are the use of conformal transformation as presented in CIGRE (1985). In some
cases, it may be simpler to deploy finite element analysis, particularly where transients or multiple
circuits are concerned. With the same approach other configurations could be studied, see for
example Pilgrim et al. (2014) where FEM results allowed and increase of around 2% rating for cables
installed in a non-uniform thermal resistance ground.
7.2.1.6 Water cooled cable systems
Water cooled cable systems are not addressed in the IEC standards; however a number of
installations exist. They offer an alternative to multiple cables per phase where the required rating
cannot be achieved, even with the largest conductor sizes.
The typical forced cooling methods are as follows:
 External cooling, where pipes of synthetic material containing circulating water are laid in close
proximity to directly buried cables. This is most commonly rated using CIGRE (1979).
 Surface cooling, where the coolant flows in direct contact with the cable external surface, which
can be rated using CIGRE (1979).
 Conductor cooling, where coolant flows along the central duct of the cable conductor. Usually
the cooling fluid circulates in a closed circuit and is refrigerated at convenient sites along the
cable route. As a general rule, the conductor operating temperatures are the same as for
naturally cooled cables of the same type. Rating methods are presented in Anders (2005).
Those intending to use CIGRE (1979) should also note the erratum to the paper. Where transients
and cyclic loads are to be considered, calculation methods were discussed in CIGRE (1986).
The efficiency of forced cooling is higher for systems with reduced separation between cables and
coolant, the best conditions occurring in the case of conductor cooled cable systems. In comparison
Page 103
with natural cooled cables, the orders of magnitude increases in transmissible power for the most
typical forced-cooling methods are as follows (CIGRE 1979):
 40 / 50% for externally water cooled cables having cooling sections several km long.
 40 / 50% for surface oil cooled cables with single core cables inside a common steel pipe,
having cooling sections several km long.
 100% for surface water cooled cables with 1 single core cable per (non magnetic) pipe having
cooling sections several km long.
For both surface and conductor cooling, significant increase of the transmissible power may be
achieved by returning the coolant along a suitable separate pipe.
Special cooling methods exist for fluid-filled pipe type cables. They include oil circulation between
two circuits or between a cable pipe and a return pipe to smooth out thermal hot spots as well as
forced cooled installations when the oil is circulated through oil-to-air heat exchangers (chillers) or
refrigeration cooling plants permitting upwards of 50% increases in ratings, see EPRI (1984). Other
examples for such systems can be found in Koreman et al. (2006) and Vavra and Wanda (2006).
7.2.1.7 Non-cable Objects
This section discusses the influence and consequence of non-cable objects in the vicinity of cable
circuits and the impact these objects might have on the cable ampacity. The following non-cable
objects are identified:
 thermal sources, like steam or hot-air pipes, or magnetic material

 thermal sinks, like high water table or water course, or water cooling pipes, sewages.
The IEC Standard 60287 does not specifically address these non-cable objects, which have an
influence on the system rating due to high temperatures (steam pipe, hot air pipe) or low temperature
(sewage, water pipe).
Steam pipe/ hot air pipe

A method for calculating the influence of steam or hot air pipes on power cables is given in Clause
3.4.2 of Anders book (2005) and is described below:
The heat generated by the steam pipe or the hot air pipe can be calculated with the following
equation:
W = [W/m] (EQUATION 36)
Where:
θR = temperature at the surface of the steam / hot air pipe [K]
θW = temperature of the steam / hot air [K]
TR = thermal resistance of the insulation around the steam / hot air pipe [K∙m/W]
The steam / hot air pipe can be now represented as a single core cable where the outer diameter of
the pipe (including the thermal insulation) is equivalent to the outer diameter of the single core cable.
Page 104
Ferromagnetic material
The use of ferromagnetic material for EMF shielding of structures such as pipes and casings is
increasing, Maioli (2007). The effect this ferromagnetic material has on the system current rating is
complex and is normally calculated with dedicated software. An outline of the issues is presented in
CIGRE (2013-1), which is a good first point of reference. For detailed calculations, finite element
approaches may be required.
Thermal Sink (high water table, water course, water cooling pipes, sewages)
As mentioned before, the current-carrying capacity of buried cables depends to a large extent on the
thermal conductivity of the surrounding medium. The soil thermal conductivity is highly dependent on
its moisture content Mochlinski (1976). The current rating of cable system installed nearby water
courses or in soil with a high water table will be maximized due to the optimized thermal conductivity.
Furthermore, the risk of moisture migration away from the cable will be limited, minimising the risk of
thermal runaway. When including the beneficial impacts of such thermal sinks, it is important to
consider whether the thermal sink will be continuously active throughout the life of the cable to avoid
the risk of over-rating the circuit.
For dedicated water cooling circuits, please refer to Section 7.2.1.6.
7.2.1.8 Method of Determining Ambient Temperature
IEC 60287-3-1 contains an overview of common ambient temperatures for buried cables, subdivided
into country and/or regions and seasonal influence. It should be noted that these values are
applicable for ‘standard’ buried cables, limited to a minimum and a maximum buried depth.
IEC 60287-3-1 gives no guidelines for regions not mentioned, for cable installed at shallow (<0.5 m),
or larger depths (>3 m).
In those cases where the air temperature is known, an estimation of the ambient temperature can be
calculated with the annual average air temperature as input variable (Williams and Gold, 1976):
∙
∙
2πt π
T(t, X) = T +D∙e ∙ cos( −x∙ ) (EQUATION 37)
t a∙t
Where:
Taverage = average annual air temperature [K]
D = difference between maximum and minimum air temperature [K]
x = depth below the earth surface [m]
2
a = thermal diffusivity [m /s]
to = length of period [s]
t = time since maximum air temperature occurred [s]
Note: when a measurement or accurate estimate of the thermal diffusivity is not available, the
thermal diffusivity can be estimated according to Appendix D of IEC 60853.
Page 105
It should be noted that the soil nearby the earth surface is less homogenous and this may affect the
soil temperature. It is also reported that the ambient temperature under roads (asphalt, paving
stones) is higher than under bare land due to the solar radiation absorption by the covering layer on
earth. The exact correlation between solar radiation and ambient temperature cannot be given, as
rule of thumb, a 5 °C increase of the ambient temperature can be considered in these cases.
7.2.1.9 Very Deep Installations
Burying cables at large depths is becoming more common these days as:
 Cables are installed in directional drillings up to 40 m laying depth for crossing rivers, rail tracks,
motorways or suburban areas with minimal nuisance for public.
 Cables cannot be installed at usual depths in urban areas as these are already congested with
other infrastructure.
The questionnaire indicated that the number of companies reporting to use IEC calculations for this
situation was 60, while 36 other companies reported to use non-IEC calculations. The majority of
companies that used methods other than IEC did not specify the method used. Of those that did,
FEM was the main method identified. Additionally, a number of companies identified changes from
their normal current rating practice. These were using transient ratings, lowering the ambient
temperature and reducing the soil thermal resistance.
Cigre can give the guidelines below in the situation of deep buried cables.
The current rating of deep installed cables is influenced by daily, weekly and even yearly load
variations, these effect are not so profound for cables installed at usual depths. These effects are not
considered by the IEC standards. Therefore, the standard IEC60287 approach might lead to
pessimistic results and another approach for determining the current ratings calculations is needed.
The IEC standard 60287-2-1 contains a statement about very deep installed cables: ‘For cable
circuits installed at laying depths of more than 10 m, an alternative approach for calculating the
current rating is to determine the continuous current rating for a designated time period (usually 40
years) by applying the formulae given in IEC 60853-2, taking into account as far as is practical
seasonal variations in load and ground conditions, if any. Finite element modelling may provide a
more versatile model for such a lifetime assessment. This subject is under consideration’.
Various papers have been published on ratings of very deep installed cable. A good summary and
guidelines can be found in Dorison et al. (2010). This paper provides equations and guidelines for
deeply installed cables, taking into account daily, weekly and yearly cycles. Furthermore, the paper
introduced the concept of ‘equivalent laying depth’, which makes it possible to use the continuous
current rating calculations and avoid the more complex transient approach.
For deeply installed directional drillings, the cable circuit crosses various soil layer which might have
different thermal properties. For this situation: the guidelines in this report towards ‘multiple thermal
layers’ shall be followed (clause 7.2.1.5).
Page 106
7.2.1.10 Variable Inter-axial Spacing
For single core cable circuits with sheaths solidly bonded at both ends and possibly at intermediate
points, the circulating currents and the consequent loss increase as the spacing increases; therefore,
it is advisable to use as close a spacing as possible. The optimum spacing is achieved by
considering both losses and mutual heating between cables. It is not always possible to install cables
with one value of spacing all along a route. IEC provides equations and guidelines how to cope with
this situation, see IEC60287-1-1 clause 2.3.4.
Loss increase as a consequence of variable inter-axial spacing does not apply to installations with
single-point or cross bonding.
7.2.2 Duct installations including directional drillings
Cables are nowadays commonly installed in ducts. Ducts are often used in situations where power
cables cross other infrastructures as roads, highways, rivers. Increasingly, ducts are also used to
bridge areas where the underground is particularly crowded (full of other utility infrastructures),
typically in urbanized or industrialized areas.
Ducts often used for cable installation are made of PE or PVC in the case of horizontal directional
drillings. For large dimensions, steel pipes are often used, typically for road crossings. Concrete
ducts also exist, but are less common. Ducts are either filled or unfilled, though this classification
may not be optimal. An unfilled duct is filled with air, while a filled duct may be filled with water or
bentonite-like mixtures.
There are various possibilities to accommodate cables inside ducts, for some examples, see Figure
43 and Figure 44.
FIGURE 43: TYPICAL CABLE INSTALLATIONS IN DUCTS
If ducts in ducts are used, typically the outer duct is filled with bentonite. There may be more,
typically similar duct structures next or on top of each other (see Figure 44).
Page 107
Air / water
Soil
15 m
5m
5m
FIGURE 44: TYPICAL CONFIGURATION OF MULTI DUCT ARRANGEMENTS
It is important to consider the mutual heating if multiple cables are installed in a single duct / drilling.
When power cables are buried at normal depths of 1 to 1.5 meters in soils with normal thermal
resistivities, a cable circuit spaced horizontally with a distance in the order of meters will have
virtually no thermal influence anymore. However, if a circuit is installed at larger depths, this thermal
influence is not negligible anymore and must be taken into account.
Calculation of the effect of multiple cables can be performed by means of superposition as is also
used in IEC 60287.
In the case of inclined ducts, it is important to consider that the methods for determining T4. The IEC
standards assume that a 1 m cable length equates to a 1 m length of ground surface for the heat to
be dissipated from. This assumption is violated for inclined ducts, and the effect should be taken into
account in the calculation of T4. For example: in case of a 45 degrees inclined duct, then 1 m of
cable equates to 0.71 m of ground surface, and hence, T4 should be increased by a factor of 1.41.
7.2.2.1 Duct filling Material or Casing Grouting Material
It is important to consider the duct filling material. The duct filling may be a solid or a solidifying
substance as for example bentonite, or may be a fluid, such as air or water. In the former situation, a
solid, heat transfer from the power cable is governed by conduction. This means that the heat
transfer can be modelled with means as described in IEC 60287-2-1.
If the duct is filled with a fluid, the situation is more difficult:
 Horizontal – air – closed at both sides

Considering a horizontal cable system in a perfect horizontal duct filled with air, closed at both
sides, the heat transfer will consist of contributions of purely radial conductive, convective and
radiative heat transfer, of which the latter 2 are strongly temperature dependent.
 Horizontal – water – closed at both sides

A horizontal cable system in a perfect horizontal water filled duct, closed at both sides, can be
considered in the same way, thought the properties of the fluid are of course significantly
different.
 Non horizontal
In non-horizontal arrangements, the situation is significantly more complex because there will
also be axial heat transfer next to the radial heat transfer which can have a significant effect.
This means that the warmest locations are expected to be near the higher sides of the ducts.
Page 108
 Air - open at one or both sides

In situations where the duct is not closed, care has to be taken. If ducts are completely open and
filled with air, there will be a heat exchange to the free air. However, a certain temperature
difference is needed to overcome the flow resistance of the duct system to start this heat
exchange process, meaning that this heat exchange will depend on a number of geometric
parameters.
Furthermore, if the ducts are open to free air, the ambient temperature of the free air, which is
different from the ambient temperature of the soil around a buried power cable, must be
considered. Vertical ducts of this type are discussed in Anders (1997).
 Water – open at one or both sides

If the duct is not fully closed, completely underground and there is water filling, the ducts can
lose the water filling to their environment leaving an (unexpected) air gap. Also note height
differences between the duct ends.
Example
In this example, the temperature of a HV power cable in a water filled horizontal directional drilling at
relatively low loading was monitored by means of DTS measurements. The drilling was made to a
depth of 10-20 meters to cross a water way, and was a few hundred meters in length. At both ends
of the drilling, hotspots were noted having a temperature of up to 10 degrees higher than in the direct
vicinity outside the ducts. This effect may be originating from either the presence of air pockets at the
termination points of the drilling, from a change in soil conditions, or from the fact that warmer water
collects at the higher points in the drilling, or from a combination of both. The exact reasons are
currently unknown and further measurements and analyses are needed to figure out the dominating
effect. However, it becomes clear that in a case of water filled horizontal directional drillings, the
current rating of the cable circuit may very well be limited at the termination points of the drilling,
rather than at the deepest point.
Temperature in a horizontal drilling
35 5
5
30
4 4
25
Temperature [C]
4
Temperatuur [C]
3 3
20
3
15
2 22 2
10 2
1 1 1 1
5
1
0 0 0 0 00 0
9200 9300 9400 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900
Glass fibre length [m]
FIGURE 45: TEMPERATURE IN A HORIZONTAL DRILLING
Page 109
Heat transfer through the duct wall and beyond

Typically ducts consist of a layer of solid PE or PVC material. This leads to a relatively simple
calculation of the thermal resistance of the duct wall as described in IEC 60287. Some ducts consist
of pipes with air enclosures inside the pipe wall. The thermal resistance of such a wall may be high if
heat convection in the air enclosures is prevented. As a worst case approximation, stationary air with
a specific thermal resistivity of 40 Km/W can be used when modelling the behaviour of such pipe
walls.
Outside a duct, often concrete or native soil is found which can be taken into account. Note that
different soil layers with different thermal properties may be crossed in the case of horizontal
directional drillings.
Guidelines for calculations of cable inside ducts filled with a fluid

IEC guidelines exist for the situation of horizontal ducts. These calculations are based on a set of
approximations detailed in Anders (1997). Not much literature exists describing accurate calculation
techniques in the situation of inclined ducts as horizontal directional drillings. This remains to be an
important gap for calculations as horizontal directional drillings are often filled with water or air. Only
one paper (Defega, 2012) on the subject was identified which can provide a comparison between the
different ways of representing air in a duct.
Guidelines which can be given in this situation are more general in nature:
 The heat transfer from cable to duct wall is governed by a combination of conduction, convection
and radiation, which all have to be considered. The latter two processes are strongly
temperature and geometry dependent. Inclination of ducts further complicates the calculations
as the problem becomes three dimensional due to the axial heat transfer. Care is required in
these situations.
 Consider the possibility of air pockets in case of water filled ducts which may need to be
avoided.
 Note in this situation that the termination points may be the actually limiting situations to the
current rating because of the above.
 In case of air filled ducts which are open to free air, there may be some heat exchange to the
free air, which can give both relief (release of heat) and pressure (additional ambient air
temperature to take into account).
Guidelines for calculations of cable inside ducts filled with a solidifying medium
Follow IEC 60287 guidance with larger depth and additional thermal resistance allocated for the
filling medium and duct wall.
Cables in environments with non-homogeneous thermal properties

The most common approach to handling non-homogeneous thermal properties is the use of the finite
element technique or the conformal mapping technique in CIGRE (1985).
Page 110
Note the situation regarding inclined ducts crossing multiple layers of soil especially if there is a fluid
inside these ducts (air, water). In this case, the possibility of axial heat transfer along the duct must
be considered, refer to the previous section. In such a case, a deeper layer of soil with bad thermal
properties may have an effect at another (higher) location along the drilling. Simply considering the
radial heat transfer may be too optimistic. Multiple soil layers are discussed in Section 7.2.1.5.
ρ=1.2
ρ =0.8
ρ =1.7
FIGURE 46: A DUCT CROSSING MULTIPLE LAYERS OF SOIL WITH VARIOUS THERMAL RESISTIVITIES.
WHERE IS THE LOCATION LIMITING THE CURRENT RATING?
7.2.2.2 Losses in Steel Casings
IEC 60287-1-1 provides empirically-derived equations for calculating the Joule losses in steel pipes
normally associated with pressurized pipe-type cables where the pipe diameter and cable phase
separation are relatively small. These equations are based on experimental tests done in the 1950s
on a particular line pipe (Morris, (1954), Katz (1978)) derived for the size of pipe, type of steel and
typical current loading most common in the USA and select countries worldwide. The equations
given are for two common configurations, cradled at the bottom of the pipe when the ratio of pipe
inner-diameter to cable skid wire diameter is 1.6 or greater or triangular for when this ratio is smaller
than 1.6, of the three cable phases in a pipe-type cable system. The empirical equations were
developed from tests on a particular cable pipe with a given permeability. In practice, the
permeability of steel line pipe varies both due to variation in the characteristics of the pipe but also
due to handling during installation including welding, heating and bending that occur during
installation.
Single core cables are sometimes installed with groups of all three phases together in large-diameter
steel casings, but the equations for pipe-type cables may not adequately describe the loss
characteristics for these cable system types. For single core cables, a more practical formula is given
in Kawasaki et al. (1981) as in practice the three single cores will lie in a formation somewhere
between trefoil and cradle. Other references (“Designer’s Guide – Pipe AC/DC Resistance Ratio”,
EPRI EL-3977-V1, 7832-3) permit a more precise consideration of the relative positions of the cables
within larger casings and casing permeability than the empirical equations of IEC 60287). Another
numerical approach is given in Kawasaki et al. (1981) and Mekjian and Sosnowski (1983).
The reader should note that installing individual cable cores in ferromagnetic pipe can result in
significant hysteresis losses that may exceed the losses of the individual cable conductor and
metallic screen/sheath of the cable within; installing individual cables in carbon steel pipe should
Page 111
therefore be avoided. Pipe-type cable systems avoid this problem by using non-magnetic stainless
steel pipes for each phase between the trifurcator and termination.
In the course of preparing this technical brochure and administering the survey, approximately a
quarter of respondents have calculated current ratings for cables installed in large steel conduits
using various methods as follows:
 Software 5 responses
 Calculated (method not disclosed) 4 responses
 Finite element method (FEM) 3 responses
 IEC60287, pipe type 2 responses
 Use consultants 1 response
 IEEE paper 1 response
 Modified IEC 1 response
 B1-102 CIGRE 2008 1 response
 IEC 60287 (applied to non-pipe cables) 1 response
 Paper by Moutassem and Anders 1 response
 Avoid use 1 response
From the methods identified, there appear to be a number of different approaches. This may indicate
a lack of a credible standard method within the cable industry.
7.2.2.3 Multiple thermal resistances of Duct Bank Environments
For cables laid in ductbanks, there may be multiple thermal resistances of the cable environment.
Most importantly, the duct bank may have different thermal properties as compared to the cable
environment. Calculations are possible with a correction factor (IEC and Anders (1997)), and in more
complicated situations with multiple soil layers with conformal mapping CIGRE (1985) or finite
element analysis.
7.2.3 Surface Trough and Shallow Installation
This section reviews several analytical methods, including some recent publications dealing with the
current rating calculations for cables in surface troughs, unfilled troughs, or indeed shallow installed
cables. Finite element methods have also been applied (see Pilgrim et al. (2012)) to solve the trough
current rating problem but they are not reported here since standard partial differential equations are
used and several commercial programs are available to deal with this subject. Where cables are
installed in troughs, the trough lid is commonly flush with the ground and exposed to solar radiation.
The troughs may be unventilated air filled, naturally ventilated air filled, force air cooled or filled with
sand or other material. The troughs have the surface flush with the ground level. Figure 47 shows an
example of a surface trough.
Page 112
FIGURE 47: EXAMPLES OF CABLES IN SURFACE TROUGH INSTALLATION
7.2.3.1 Filled surface troughs or shallow installations
Current ratings for filled troughs can be generally calculated as though the cables were direct buried,
provided that the thermal resistivity of the sand filling, the trough, and the surrounding ground can be
taken to be the same. However:
 It is likely that any filling material in the trough will dry out and have a high thermal resistivity
unless it is specially selected. Thus, the thermal resistivity of the various materials is likely to be
different, and, hence, finite element methods would usually be used to calculate the external
thermal resistance. An alternative approach is to use the partial drying method for buried cables,
as provided in IEC 60287 or the method as described by El-Kady and Horrocks (1985).
 The cable ambient temperature is likely to be affected more directly by solar radiation leading to
higher ambient temperatures than for deep installations (Swaffield et al., 2008).
 The ground may not be isothermal and hence the IEC calculation for thermal resistivity of the
ground (T4) may no longer be correct (Swaffield et al., 2008).
For shallow installations the method involving creation of an artificial soil layer at the earth surface
can be used. The method is described by King and Halfter (1983). The thickness of the artificial layer
will depend on the earth surface and air ambient temperatures and its resistivity is the same as that
of the native soil.
7.2.3.2 Unventilated and Naturally Ventilated Troughs
The questionnaire revealed that around 40% of the respondents had calculated ratings for unfilled
unventilated surface troughs although only 29% of utilities have calculated unventilated surface
troughs ratings. Since cable manufacturers and consultancies deal with multiple utilities, it suggests
that the 29% reported from utilities is a better indication of the use of unventilated troughs. The IEC
60287 method was the most used approach but a number of alternative methods were also used.
More details can be found in Appendix B.
Several methods have been published for determining the current rating of cables in an air-filled
trough (IEC60287-2-1, Slaninka (1965)). Test work on the subject was reported by McCormick
(1969). Both of the calculation methods base the current rating of a cable in a trough on the current
Page 113
rating of the cable in air, with an additional thermal resistance or temperature rise to take into
account the effect of the trough.
The IEC 60287 method

IEC standard 60287 sets out methods for calculating the current rating of cables under a range of
different installation conditions. For cables in air-filled troughs, the method uses an empirical
equation to calculate a temperature rise due to the trough. This temperature rise is added to the
ambient air temperature to give a new “ambient” temperature. An ambient temperature correction
factor is then applied to the tabulated, in-air ampacity. The IEC equation for the temperature rise due
to the trough is:
WTOT
 tr  (EQUATION 38)
3p
Where:
WTOT = total power dissipation of all the cables in the trough, per meter [W/m]
p = perimeter of the trough that is effective for heat dissipation [m]
The equation is credited to Morello (1959). In his paper, he states that the empirical equation gives
th
good agreement with rating factors given in “IEE Wiring Regulations, 13 Edition, 1955”. No details
of the derivation of the empirical equation are given in Morello’s paper.
Morello (1959) gives a suggestion how the above equation can be applied in practice. An intuitive
iterative approach starts with an initial guess for the temperature inside the trough θ0. This can be
the air ambient temperature above ground, θa. Starting with this initial guess for the temperature
inside the trough, the IEC standard method to rate the corresponding installation in free air can be
applied. In general the total loss obtained for the corresponding installation in free air will not
satisfy equation 38. However equation 38 can be used to compute a “better” second guess using:
Wi
i 1  i  (EQUATION 39)
3p
With this new temperature inside the trough, the main iteration loop explained above is repeated.
The air ambient is set to θ1 and the current I1 and the total loss W1 are obtained. One can check
whether the new total loss W1 and the temperature inside the trough θ2=θ1+θa satisfy equation 38.
As Purushothaman et al. (2012) point out, it turns out that this is almost never the case (Terracciano
et al. (2012)). In fact the sequence of solutions Ti, Wi, Ii for any typical installation, will not converge
to the set of final solutions for the inside temperature of the trough. Extensive experimentation with
different cable installations and initial guesses has shown that the fixed point iteration described
above rarely arrives at the correct results. The iteration frequently diverges or toggles between a
high and a low value. The use of (de-)acceleration factors in the Gauss-Seidel method also proved to
be ineffective. Although convergence is achievable with large de-acceleration factors for many
examples, the convergence is slow and still not guaranteed. The above reference proposes
successive relaxation to obtain consistently accurate solutions for the thermal rating of cables inside
Page 114
unfilled troughs. The method is based on equation 38, but the new value for the temperature inside
the trough is computed as a linear combination of the previous value and the one computed.
Slaninka’s method
In this method, the thermal resistance of the trough can be divided into three parts: from the base of
the trough to ambient soil, from the sides of the trough to ambient soil, and from the top of the trough
to ambient air. This approach allows different thermal resistivities to be used for the material
surrounding each portion of the trough.
Anders-Coates method
An extension of the Slaninka’s method was more recently published by Anders and Coates (2010).
The method is based on an unpublished work that compares the calculated results with those
obtained from test work reported by McCormick (1969) and gives good agreement. The approach
uses an equation identical to Slaninka (1965) but the value of T0 includes not only a representation
of the trough but also of the surrounding soil.
Naturally Ventilated troughs

There is one publication by Pilgrim et al. (2012) using the finite element method for the current rating
calculations for ventilated troughs. In such troughs lids are replaced by ventilated grilles. This
reference shows that for a specific installation with about 50% of the surface being exposed to the
outside air, by allowing full natural ventilation of existing covered troughs, the continuous rating could
be increased by as much as 28% above the unventilated trough rating. Although its reliability has not
been rigorously tested, an approach used in the UK has been to assume that the rating of such an
installation would be 90% of the rating obtained by an IEC 60287 calculation for the cable being in
free air.
7.2.3.3 Force Ventilated Troughs
In this type of installation the cables are installed in troughs by cleats in air. The lid of the trough is
solid and the air is circulated from one end of the trough to the other by means of a ventilation fan
system. Current ratings for force ventilated troughs can use methods used for force ventilated
tunnels. Another method which can be applied (and should give conservative values) may be found
in Heinhold (1990).
When using either force ventilated troughs, or naturally ventilated troughs as described in Section
7.2.3.2, it must be noted that the rating calculated will be dependent upon the air flow being
unrestricted. Depending on the location of the air inlets, or ventilated trough covers, it may be
necessary to enforce a maintenance regime to ensure that inlets are not blocked by leaf litter of
similar debris.
Page 115
7.2.3.4 Effect of Solar Radiation
The methods given above take no account of solar radiation. However, McCormick (1969) states that
if the trough is exposed to solar radiation, the ambient temperature used in the calculations should
be increased by 9 °C. A review of the report shows that this value was determined from the results of
tests on a shallow trough during a period when the intensity of the solar radiation ranged between
2
930 and 1020 W/m . The results from a trough 300 mm deep gave a temperature rise, due to solar
radiation of 8 °C during the same period.
It is proposed that an increase in ambient temperature of 8 °C should be applied to take account of
solar radiation.
The proposed temperature increase due to solar radiation is taken from measurements made in
southeast England. As such, it is considered that it can be applied in Northern Europe, Canada, and
the northern United States. For areas having a greater intensity and longer durations of solar
radiation, it is suggested that temperature rise measurements are made (but it is considered unlikely
that a temperature rise of more than 15 °C will be encountered due to solar gain. The studies
performed by the authors (Anders and Coates, 2010) showed that the temperature rise on a cable
2
exposed to 1000 W/m of solar radiation can vary between 10 °C for cable in air and 17 °C for cable
installed in a duct as compared to a shaded installation. Hence, the maximum value of 15 °C with the
effect of solar radiation in a trough will be on a safe side in places with high solar intensity.
7.3 Installations in air
This section comments on the situation where cables are installed in free air, individually or in
groups, supported by a structure. Information is provided for both the steady state and the transient
situations.
IEC standard 60287-2-1 describes a calculation method for the external thermal resistance (T4) of
cables installed horizontally in free air, without or with solar radiation. The method includes an
1/4
iterative procedure for calculating (Δθs) , where Δθs is the difference between the cable surface and
the ambient air temperatures. In section 2-2 of the same standard a calculation is provided for
reduction factors, to be applied to the current rating for individual cables, for groups of cables in free
air, without solar radiation. The method accommodates a maximum of 9 cables in a square
formation, or 6 trefoil groups (2 vertical layers of 3 horizontal trefoils).
7.3.1 Transients
The transient temperature response of a cable to a step-function of current in its conductor (or
conductors) depends on the combination of thermal capacitances and resistances formed by the
constituent parts of the cable itself and its surroundings.
7.3.1.1 IEC approach
For cables in air, generally the conductor temperature follows changes in load current sufficiently
rapidly so that the usual daily cycles do not permit peak loads greater than the steady-state value or
Page 116
emergency rating although for large conductor sizes used on transmission circuits this may not
always be the case. A suitable transient rating method in this case is given by IEC 60853-2 (2008).
An explanation for this is that the heating speed in the air is 300 times faster than inside the XLPE
insulation (see Table 10), because of the difference in thermal diffusivity. Therefore, in the thermal
dynamic analysis, the thermal capacitance of air is negligible, and we only work with the static part,
the thermal resistance.
TABLE 10: HEATING SPEED OF AIR VERSUS XLPE
Properties Air XLPE
thermal conductivity k [W/K∙m] 0.03 0.3

density ρkg/m3 1 1000
specific heat capacity c [J/kg∙K] 1000 2000
thermal diffusivity akρ∙c [m /s]
2 -6 -6
30 x 10 0.1 x 10
IEC 60853 contains a manual method for calculating the transient temperature response of a cable
to a step function of current, while CIGRE (1983-2) gives a computer method. Both consider only the
thermal resistance of the air.
7.3.2 Solar Radiation
IEC standard 60287, Section 2-1 in section 2.2.1.2 calculates the external thermal resistance (T4) for
cables installed in free air, with solar radiation. The calculation is based on cables in air without solar
1/4
radiation (T4), excepting that the calculation of (Δθs) is modified to include an absorption
coefficient, the local solar intensity and the cable diameter. A graphical method is also provided.
7.3.3 Cables cleated to walls
Common installations where cables may be cleated to walls include cable basements, culverts and
“in-air” installations within substations. Cases where cables are cleated to walls within a tunnel are
dealt with separately under Section 7.4. A number of cases of cables cleated to walls are covered by
the IEC 60287 standard, through particular methods of calculating the cable surface heat dissipation
coefficient, h. The standard current rating equation for cables in air is used with the appropriate value
of h to compute the rating. A subdivision can be made between those cables which are cleated such
that they are touching the wall and those where the cable is stood off the wall by at least 0.5 De
(where De is the external diameter of the cable).
Heat dissipation coefficients are given for a total of 8 cable arrangements which are separated from
the wall by greater than 0.5 De, with the exceptions being single cables (greater than 0.3 De) and
vertical touching cables (greater than one cable diameter from the wall). The data is based on the
work of Whitehead and Hutchings (1939). A restriction is placed upon the cable external diameter,
which must be less than 0.15 m, however, the vast majority of single core designs should fall within
this range.
Page 117
Only two cases are given in IEC 60287 for cables which are clipped directly to a vertical wall, these
being heat dissipation coefficients for single cables and three cables in trefoil. The restriction on
*
external diameter of the cables is given as De ≤ 0.08 m. No other methods are known for the
calculation of larger diameter cables cleated directly to a wall, however such installations are
considered to be rare.
It should be noted that while the IEC method can cover multiple circuits, it does so for only a limited
number of arrangements. In addition, for grouped arrangements it is assumed that all cables are of
the same construction and are equally loaded.
7.3.4 Cable bridges
Installation of cables on bridges is a common method to cross rivers or other obstacles. The
following installation configurations appear:
 Installation in open air, shielded or unshielded, refer to Section 7.3
 Installation in a utility tunnel within the bridge, ventilated or non-ventilated, refer to Section 7.4
 Installation in surface through, filled or unfilled. For this case, the calculation methods
(Section 7.2.3) are too limited. The publication from McRae (1975), dedicated for cable in
troughs on bridges, is a good guidance.
7.3.5 Riser Poles
Power distribution systems frequently consist of a combination of overhead lines and underground
cables. In most cases, the underground cable system is connected to the overhead line through a
short section of cable located in a protective riser. Also, each cable terminating at a substation is
terminating through a vertical riser portion, which can be protected or not. Figure 48 shows a cross
section of a submarine cable installed on a riser pole with a protective guard. The protective guard is
often simply referred to as a riser. The current-carrying capacity of the composite system is limited
by that segment of the system that operates at the maximum temperature.
FIGURE 48: CROSS-SECTION OF A SUBMARINE CABLE ON A RISER POLE (CRESS AND MOTLIS, 1991)
Page 118
From the questionnaire (appendix B, question 5.11) it appeared that around 35% of the respondents
calculated the current rating of cables installed vertically exposed to solar radiation.
Considering the importance of accurately rating power cable systems consisting of cables on riser
poles, several mathematical models were introduced to represent such systems. All these models
are based on writing the power balance equations. Construction of those equations is briefly
discussed below.
For cables installed in air, the significant modes of heat transfer are as follows:
1. By natural or free convection when no longitudinal induced flow is present
2. By forced convection by air flow along the cables
3. By radiation of the heat from the cable surface to the ambient air, walls, or covers.
Since conduction in air accounts for a small fraction of heat transfer in the installations under
consideration in this Chapter, we will, in agreement with common practice, ignore this mode of heat
transfer in further analysis.
The convective heat transfer process in a riser is determined by the following factors:
1. The geometry of the riser, including its diameter and length. The size of the air gap between the
cable and the internal wall of the riser will also be important in determining the extent of any
convective behaviour
2. Venting conditions at the ends
3. The heat flux generated in the cable, which depends on the electric current and cable type
4. The environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, solar radiation, wind speed, and
others.
Thermal radiation is an important heat transfer mode in air-filled cable-wall systems. Thermal
radiation transfers energy from the cable surface to the wall inside surface. This is different from
convective heat transfer. Thermal radiation from the cable surface accounts for 40 - 60% of the total
heat transfer (Keyhani and Kulacki (1985)). Thus, with free convection and air flow at low velocities,
the proportion of heat removed by radiation is substantial and must be accounted for in calculations.
The amount of heat transferred by radiation depends upon a number of factors, including surface
temperatures and emissivity.
To compute the rating of cables in air considered in this Chapter, the temperatures at various points
of the thermal circuit are required. To obtain the required temperatures, a set of energy conservation
equations has to be solved. In the next section, we will develop a general set of energy balance
equations for a cable system surrounded by a wall, and the selection of appropriate coefficients will
be discussed.
Note: The effect of solar radiation on a vertically installed riser might be of importance. It will depend
on the riser surface solar absorption coefficient, sun angle and the intensity of the solar radiation.
Page 119
7.3.5.1 Energy Conservation Equations
This section deals with cables in vertical risers filled with air. The following assumptions are
introduced to simplify the calculations:
1. The process is steady state
2. The length of the wall and the cable are large, so the heat transfer can be considered as one
dimensional
3. The wall is opaque and the cable jacket material is radiatively gray and opaque; the air inside the
protective wall is radiatively transparent
The physical properties of all materials in the cable system are temperature dependent. The model
takes into account the variation of physical properties with temperature.
7.3.5.2 Energy Conservation Equation for the Cable Outside Surface
Considering the outside surface of the jacket under steady-state conditions, the conduction heat flux
from its outer surface is equal to the heat loss through free convection and thermal radiation in the
air between the cable surface and the wall. The energy balance equation takes the form
Wt  Wconv,s Wrad ,sw (EQUATION 40)
Where:
Wconv,s = natural convection heat transfer rate between the cable outside surface and the air
per unit length [W/m]
Wrad,s-w = thermal radiation heat transfer rate between the wall inner surface and the cable
outside surface, per unit length [W/m]
Wt = total energy per unit length generated within the cable, where:
Wt WI Wd (EQUATION 41)
7.3.5.3 Energy Conservation Equation for the Wall Inside Surface
For the wall inside surface, the energy transferred by conduction through the wall material is equal to
the energy transferred through convection and radiation on the inner surface of the wall. Thus, the
energy conservation equation under steady-state conditions is
Wcond,wo  Wconv,w Wrad,sw (EQUATION 42)
Page 120
Where:
Wcond,w-o = conduction heat transfer rate from the wall inner surface to its outside
surface per unit length [W/m]
Wconv,w = natural convection heat transfer rate between the wall inside surface and the
air per unit length [W/m]
7.3.5.4 Energy Conservation Equation for the Wall Outside Surface
In this section, we will consider cable installations which have air as a medium outside the wall. At
the outside surface of the wall, the energy transferred through the wall material by conduction and
the energy gain due to solar radiation are balanced by the convective and radiative energy losses to
the atmosphere. Thus, the energy conservation equation is:
, = + , + , (EQUATION 43)
Where:
Wconv,0 = natural convection heat transfer rate between the wall outside surface and
atmosphere air, per unit length [W/m]
Wrad,o-sur = thermal radiation heat transfer rate between wall surface and surrounding
objects, per unit length [W/m]
Wsol = solar radiation absorbed by the wall surface, per unit length and time [W/m].
This quantity is only considered for installations exposed to solar radiation
7.3.5.5 Energy Conservation Equations – Heat Transfer
The above equations are the basic energy conservation equations for the cable-riser system. There
are three unknown temperatures;  s ,  w and  o , so this nonlinear system can be solved if the
parameters are known. Full equations are developed in Anders (1997). There are several issues to
be addressed when the parameters are entered.
One issue relates to the calculation of the radiative heat transfer. There are well known expressions
for single cable and the wall system. Usually, the radiation effect between the cables is ignored, but
in the riser situation it might be of importance when three cables are located in one duct. Normally, a
single cable is placed in a riser; hence, this issue is of a peripheral importance.
The second issue of significant importance is how to compute the convective heat transfer losses. A
general equation has a form:

Wconv  h 1   2 A (EQUATION 44)
Where the temperatures between the two media 1 and 2 are sought and the two parameters A
(surface area) and h (the convection coefficient) are required. In the riser application, three different
convection coefficients need to be computed corresponding to convection between the cable surface
and air in the duct, between the wall of the duct and the air in the duct and between the duct outer
Page 121
surface and the environment. The first two convection coefficients will depend on the venting
conditions of the riser.
7.3.5.6 Convection Coefficients in Riser Applications
In general, three situations can occur: the riser can be open at both ends, closed at one end only
and, closed at both ends. In each of the cases, different approaches should be used.
Case 1: Riser closed at the top and bottom
An increasing number of applications in microelectronic packaging, nuclear engineering, and solar
systems resulted in remarkable attention being focused on natural convection heat transfer inside
confined spaces. The correlations for this case proposed by Anders (1997) are taken from Keyhani
and Kulacki (1985).
Case 2: Riser open at the top and bottom

Considerable research has been done on the laminar natural convection in open-ended vertical
concentric annuli. Joshi (1987, 1988) studied the natural convection in an isothermal vertical annular
duct and discovered that the heat transfer strongly depends on the radius ratio K = Dd / De. If K is
less than 1.2, the solutions for annular ducts coincide with those for parallel plates. Natural
convection in the air gap formed by two vertical parallel plates has been studied for many years and
corresponding heat transfer correlations can be found in many publications. Al Nimr (1993) studied
free convection in vertical concentric annuli and the dependence of the heat transfer rate on the
radius ratio K. In practical applications for cable on a riser pole, the convective heat transfer
coefficients were calculated based on Al Nimr’s results and the convection correlations for vertical
slot formed by two parallel plates discussed in Raithby and Hollands (1985).
Case 3: Riser open at the top and closed at the bottom

There are very few published data available for the heat transfer in this particular configuration.
Hartlein and Black (1983) used the natural convection correlation for vertical plates to calculate the
convection coefficient at the cable outside surface. They also applied the glycerin free convection
correlation in open thermosyphons to calculate the heat transfer coefficient of air at the inside
surface of the riser. An open thermosyphon is a device to transfer heat from a high-temperature
region to a low-temperature reservoir or atmosphere. The simplest open thermosyphon is a vertical
tube sealed at its lower end. The tube is heated by the high temperature heat source from which
energy is transferred to outside by the natural convection of the fluid in the tube. In the model
proposed by Anders (1997) the natural convection correlation for open thermosyphons is adopted to
calculate the heat transfer between the riser inside surface and the gas, see Dryer (1978), Martin
and Cohen (1954), Martin (1955).
The natural convection heat transfer correlation for vertical cylinders can be used for the outside
surface of the cable (Morgan (1982)) and in the case of a forced convection the correlations
described in Holman (1990) can be applied.
Page 122
Case 4: Riser closed at the top and open at the bottom

This configuration design is uncommon, but it may unintentionally occur in practice. For such
situation, the configuration can be treated as Case I: Riser closed at the Top and bottom.
Finally, the question of the intensity of solar radiation modelling for riser installations should be
addressed. This factor plays an important role in riser pole cable rating calculations and a
comprehensive treatment of this subject can be found in Cress and Motlis (1991).
7.4 Tunnel installations
Cable tunnels have become increasingly popular in urban areas, as the convenience of installation
and improved access to the cable often outweighs the high capital expenditure required for their
construction. These installations can be classified into three types, based on the way in which they
are cooled:
1. Naturally ventilated/unventilated
2. Forced air ventilated
3. Water Cooled (often also with some form of air ventilation).
The survey results identified that 30% of users had undertaken rating studies for tunnels, with a wide
variety of methods noted depending on the cooling type. This section of the report summarises the
main methods which can be applied to cable tunnel ratings, identifying a number of issues which
must be addressed by users when doing cable rating calculations in tunnels.
7.4.1 Naturally ventilated / unventilated tunnel installations
This section reviews the calculation methods applicable for tunnels which do not have forced air
ventilation. At the time of producing this guide, no method exists within IEC 60287 for rating cables in
tunnels where no longitudinal flow can be expected. We highlight here a number of alternative
methods which do exist and could be suitable for use in simpler installations. Work is ongoing in the
UK to produce a method which will be suitable for both steady state and transient simulations in
more complex tunnel environments.
Although IEC 60287 is capable of rating cable circuits installed in free air, the same methodology
can’t be used for rating unventilated tunnels. The reason for this is that the calculation assumes that
once heat leaves the cable surface, it dissipates into surrounding environment (via convection and
radiation), but does not cause the temperature of the environment to increase. While this is
acceptable for outdoor free-air installations, it does not hold true for an un-ventilated tunnel (or e.g. a
cable cellar or joint bay) as the thermal energy may only leave the tunnel air by way of the tunnel
wall. As the tunnel wall presents a large thermal resistance in most cases, substantial air
temperature rises are to be expected.
A number of methods have been published which are suitable for calculating steady state
temperatures in simpler tunnels. These simpler tunnels can be classified as:
 Containing only identical cable circuits
 The load cycle of all cable circuits is identical
Page 123
 The tunnel has a constant cross section and can be safely assumed to be at the same depth,
surrounded by a thermally-uniform material
 The heat transfer coefficients from all of the cable surfaces can safely be assumed to be the
same.
Work by Weedy and El-Zayyat (1972-1 and 1972-2) in the 1970’s provides a thermal network model
which can be applied to un-ventilated tunnels (denoted “free-cooling” by Weedy). Equations are
given for convective and radiative heat transfer coefficients, with some experimental validation of
results. A later review by Anders (1997) summarizes the main energy balance equations required
and draws together the most appropriate heat transfer coefficients. Where the tunnel may be
particularly deeply buried, it can be valuable to consider using an “equivalent laying depth”, as
discussed in Dorison et al. (2010). A further method may be found in the text of Heinhold (1990).
7.4.2 Forced air ventilated tunnel installations
This section reviews the calculation methods applicable for tunnels with forced air ventilation, for
which a new section of the IEC 60287 standard is presently being formulated. This update to the
main international standard is based on a numerical method published in CIGRE (1992-1)) and
CIGRE (1992-2). A brief review is provided on the situations in which this method will be applicable,
with relevant assumptions highlighted for the user.
In addition to the method of CIGRE (1992-1), a number of other numerical methods exist which may
be appropriate depending on the level of detail required from the calculation. A brief review of these
methods is provided here for the benefit of users with more complex tunnel systems.
IEC standard 60287 sets out methods for calculating the current rating of cables under a range of
different installation conditions. At the time of producing this guide, the new section relating to forced
ventilated tunnels was under final review and is expected to be published in 2015. The methodology
presented is largely based on the earlier work of CIGRE (1992-1), but with minor amendments to
bring it into line with the terminology and calculation style used throughout the remainder of the IEC
60287 standard.
Five main components of heat transfer are represented within the model, all of which are essential
for the successful calculation of a rating for this type of installation. They include:
 Conductive heat transfer within the cable itself, using the familiar IEC 60287 thermal model to
represent the cable
 Heat transfer by radiation direct from the cable surface to the tunnel wall
 Heat transfer by convection from the cable surface to the tunnel air
 Heat transfer by convection from the tunnel air to the tunnel wall
 Longitudinal heat transfer resulting from the flow of air along the length of the tunnel
 Radial heat transfer by conduction through the soil.
Relations are given for both laminar and turbulent convection, with the assumed boundary between
the two being at a Reynolds number, Re, of 2000 for the cable surface heat transfer and Re=2500
Page 124
for the tunnel wall transfer. The magnitude of the Reynolds number demonstrates the ratio of inertial
forces (dominant in turbulent flow) to viscous forces (dominant in laminar flow).
The equations are solved using a straightforward iterative process to obtain the steady state current
rating. A method is given to obtain the cable conductor temperature at the hottest point, along with
an air temperature profile along the tunnel length. Although the method is sufficient for the majority of
cable tunnels, it is important to note the following restrictions:
1. All cables are assumed to be identical in terms of construction and loading
2. The tunnel geometry is assumed to remain constant along the length
3. Cable losses are assumed to remain constant with length, based on AC resistance at the
maximum conductor temperature
4. Heat transfer (convection and radiation) from the surface of all cables is considered equal.
Should these assumptions be incompatible with the tunnel to be rated, it may prove necessary to use
an alternative method. Similarly, should transient ratings be required, a full numerical method is the
only option. It should be noted that the convection and radiation heat transfer from such cable
systems must be considered carefully. In tunnels with lower ventilation rates, radiation heat transfer
can become the dominant mode by which heat is transferred from the cable to the tunnel. The
position of the cable within the tunnel may also influence the extent of the convection from the cable
surface, thus the locations of the cable should be designed with this in mind. Where a given cable is
particularly close to a wall, great care must be taken to avoid selecting an overly optimistic
convection coefficient.
Electra 143 (CIGRE (1992-1))

The most commonly used numerical rating method for forced ventilated tunnels, according to the
survey data, is that of CIGRE (1992-1) Electra 143. As the assumptions in the method are largely
common with those of the IEC 60287 approach, they are not described in detail here. One additional
restriction of this model is that the convection correlations given are valid solely for turbulent
convection, thus it is important to check the magnitude of the Reynolds number if the air flow rate is
low.
The general approach is to calculate a temperature profile through one-dimensional slices of the
(equivalent) cable and the tunnel, with each of these slices being linked longitudinally at the air node.
By incorporating appropriate thermal capacitances at nodes within this model, it is possible to obtain
transient temperature profiles, including those based on a steady state initialization. If such
calculations are performed, it is important to choose a representative time step to ensure an accurate
set of results.
Complex Tunnel Scenarios

In a number of cases, the assumptions affecting the above methods prove excessively limiting.
Perhaps the most common case is that where multiple independent cable circuits, of different
construction and load cycle, exist within the same tunnel space. This is becoming more common,
particularly where transmission and distribution utilities share the same tunnel space (Boone and De
Wild (2007)). For such installations, it is necessary to model each individual cable circuit separately
in order to ensure that the conductor temperature remains below the accepted limit. This can be
Page 125
achieved by making a series of amendments to the calculation of Electra 143, for instance as
presented in Pilgrim et al. (2010). Although such approaches are more complex, they do permit
complex tunnel scenarios and combinations of cable loadings to be evaluated; hence, they may be
valuable when designing these systems.
While it is also possible to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques to rate forced
ventilated tunnel sections, existing evidence suggests that the additional data available from the
calculation process is not sufficient to outweigh the increase in complexity of the calculation and the
time taken to obtain the results. Some respondents to the survey indicated that this approach had
been trialled, but it was not considered a standard approach.
As cable tunnel networks increase in complexity, it becomes important to ensure that no small
section is omitted from the rating calculation, as it may prove to be a limiting factor. An example of
this is the riser shaft, which may be less than 50 m in length, but frequently contains very different
heat transfer behaviour. Where the shaft has a significantly greater cross sectional area than the
main tunnel, it should be noted that the linear air speed across the cable surface will be reduced,
leading to a reduction in the convective heat transfer from the cable to the air. For tunnels where
conductor temperature (as opposed to air outlet temperature) is the limiting factor, any length of
cable installed in the outlet shaft is frequently the limiting section. This change in velocity must be
accounted for in the evaluation of convective heat transfer coefficients. Al-Jallaf (2014) gives details
of a custom thermodynamic computation model to calculate air flow, air temperature and air
pressure, coupled with an ELECTRA model to calculate conductor temperature. Both natural cooling
(using different shaft heights) and forced cooling are calculated.
7.4.3 Water cooled tunnel installations
In order to increase ampacity of cables in a tunnel, water cooling system can be adopted. Generally,
water pipes in the tunnel, in many cases pairs of forward and backward direction, are utilized. They
absorb heat and lower the air temperature in the tunnel. Their cooling value depends on temperature
difference between air and cooling pipe (water), and a surface radiation thermal resistance. Such
system can be examined by analysing an equivalent thermal circuit as shown in Figure 49 taken
from ETRA (1998).
Page 126
(cable section; number:Nc)

ai(t)
v1 R1 R2 R3 (soil section)
v2 v3
v4 R7 v6 R8 v0
i (t)
C1 C2 C3
C6
C4
(water cooling section; number:Np)

ai(t) R4 R5 R6 v 5F
v1 R1 R2 R3
v2 v3
C5
i (t)
R4 R5 R6 v 5B
C1 C2 C3
C5
FIGURE 49: EQUIVALENT THERMAL CIRCUIT OF A WATER COOLED CABLE SYSTEM IN A TUNNEL
Where:
R1 = thermal resistance per unit length of insulating material of cable [Km/W]
R2 = thermal resistance per unit length of cable sheath [Km/W]
R3 = thermal resistance per unit length of surface heat radiation of cable [Km/W]
R4 = thermal resistance per unit length of surface heat radiation of water cooling pipe
[Km/W]
R5 = thermal resistance per unit length of water cooling pipe [Km/W]
R6 = thermal resistance per unit length between water and water cooling pipe [Km/W]
R7,8 = thermal resistance per unit length of soil section [Km/W]
C1 = thermal capacity per unit length of conductor [J/Km]
C2 = thermal capacity per unit length of insulating material [J/Km]
C3 = thermal capacity per unit length of sheath [J/Km]
C4 = thermal capacity per unit length of air in tunnel [J/Km]
C5 = thermal capacity per unit length of water and water cooling pipe [J/Km]
C6 = thermal capacity per unit length of soil section [J/Km]
v1 = temperature of cable conductor [K]
v2 = temperature of cable sheath [K]
v3 = temperature of cable surface [K]
v4 = temperature of air in tunnel [K]
v5F = temperature of water in forward direction pipe [K]
v5B = temperature of water in backward direction pipe [K]
v6 = temperature of soil section [K]
v0 = base temperature of soil [K]
Page 127
i(t) = heat generated by the cable per unit length [W/m]

α = sheath loss factor
Nc = number of equal cables
Np = number of water cooling pipe pairs
Temperatures of a cable section are expressed as:
∂v (x, t) 1 v (x, t) − v (x, t)

= i(t) − (EQUATION 45)
∂t C R
∂v (x, t) 1 v (x, t) − v (x, t) v (x, t) − v (x, t)

= αi(t) + − (EQUATION 46)
∂t C R R
∂v (x, t) 1 v (x, t) − v (x, t) v (x, t) − v (x, t)

= − (EQUATION 47)
∂t C R R
Where (x,t) means values at position x along the tunnel and at time t. The temperature of the air in
the tunnel is expressed as:
( , ) 1 ( , )− ( , )
=
( , )− ( , ) ( , )− ( , )
− − (EQUATION 48)
+ + + +
( , )− ( , )
−
Temperatures of water cooling sections are expressed as:
∂v (x, t) 1 v (x, t) − v (x, t) dv (x, t)

= +c ∙Q∙ (EQUATION 49)
∂t C R +R +R dx
∂v (x, t) 1 v (x, t) − v (x, t) dv (x, t)

= +c ∙Q∙ (EQUATION 50)
∂t C R +R +R dx
Where:
Q = quantity of water per length per pipe [kg/m]
cw = specific heat capacity of water [J/kgK]
The soil temperature in a section is expressed as:
∂v (x, t) 1 v (x, t) − v (x, t) v (x, t) − v

= − (EQUATION 51)
∂t C R R
Page 128
It is difficult to solve equations 45 to 51 analytically and a differential approximation method by

numerical calculation should be adopted.
7.4.4 Method of Determining Ambient Temperature
When rating cables installed in a tunnel, it is important to consider both the ambient temperature of
the ground and, for forced-ventilated tunnels, that of the inlet air. Some reference information is
provided in IEC 60287, as noted in Section 7.4.2. However this information is unlikely to be sufficient,
thus guidance is given on the selection of ambient temperatures appropriate for tunnel operation.
Some reference data on operating conditions is given in IEC 60287 Part 3 Section 3.1 “Reference
operating conditions and selection of cable type”. Information is given for 15 countries, including
appropriate soil ambient temperature and outdoor annually-averaged air temperature, although it
should be noted that the types of data given differs slightly between countries and can cover very
wide ranges. The importance of project specific data is also emphasized within the IEC document,
which states “Attention is drawn to the fact that the information provided in Clause 4 is intended only
as a guide for cable installation designers when data provided by a user is incomplete”. Wherever
site specific data is available, it should be used in preference to the data given in IEC 60287-3-1.
Selecting an appropriate value of ground ambient temperature is important for all tunnel rating
applications. For un-ventilated tunnels, the only ambient temperature value required is that of the
ground. The value should be selected to be representative of the temperature at tunnel depth,
without the presence of the tunnel itself. Generally speaking, the temperature at tunnel depth is
unlikely to be greatly affected by the season as the thermal resistance between the tunnel and
ground surface is high, while the specific heat capacity of the ground is very large. For this reason,
the selection of a single annually-averaged value of ground temperature is likely to be appropriate.
Where tunnels are shallow buried, or where the air ambient temperature is known to have a very
large annual range, a number of methods are available for calculating the year cycle of ground
temperature at tunnel depth. Work undertaken in the United States provided measured data from
weather stations across the country, with an equation then provided to calculate the temperature at
the required depth (Kusuda and Achenbach (1965)). Similar equations were also published in
Canada by William and Gold (1976). Although these publications refer to data from specific
countries, the general methods they present should be valid across most of the world. Exceptions
may need to be made for areas which suffer permafrost during winter, or for areas which swing from
drought conditions to fully saturated soil, as the thermal diffusivity of the ground would vary
substantially between seasons.
7.4.4.1 Notes on Air Ambient Temperature
Choosing an appropriate value of ambient temperature for the air is much more complex than that of
the ground itself, as the air temperature will typically exhibit substantial daily and seasonal variations.
For an example discussing this further, refer to Boone and de Wild (2007). Fortunately, for a long
forced-ventilated tunnel, the daily variations are often attenuated long before the tunnel outlet is
reached. This occurs due to the exchange of thermal energy between the air and the tunnel wall by
convection. It is important to note that there is no set length of tunnel for which the daily variation will
prove insignificant, as the rate of attenuation is dependent upon the tunnel geometry and ventilation
flow rate.
Page 129
For the purpose of calculating a continuous rating, it is necessary to choose a representative,

average air temperature either for the year, or where significant variations are expected, for the
season. Any such values will be site specific; thus local meteorological data should be sought.
One note of caution must be highlighted concerning potential differences between the outdoor
ambient temperature and that seen by the tunnel. If the ventilated system is configured as “forced-
intake”, as opposed to “forced-extract”, any thermal losses from the fan and its associated drive
system could be drawn into the tunnel. Where tunnels have particularly high air flow rates (and
hence large fans), this additional heat can make a significant difference to the tunnel air inlet
temperature and must be accounted for by increasing the ambient air temperature used in the rating
calculation.
7.5 Submarine cable installations
Submarine cable installations are becoming more common, especially with the advent of offshore
renewable power generation. This section reviews the common installation scenarios for these
cables and makes recommendations for appropriate rating techniques.
7.5.1 Seabed burial installations
The current rating of buried submarine cables follows the same rules as for buried land cables.
However, submarine cables usually have armour.
7.5.1.1 Buried submarine cable rating calculations
The IEC does not give any specific recommendation for the calculation of the current rating of
submarine cables buried in a seabed. The calculation of the current rating in this specific installation
configuration can, however, be performed by adopting the methods according to the IEC 60287
series of standards for cables directly buried in the ground and considering the laying depth in the
seabed, the seabed soil thermal resistivity and its temperature. The seabed soil characteristics have
to be evaluated along the entire submarine cable route: those values can be extrapolated from
historical data or measured in situ during a submarine seabed survey. A review may be found in
Worzyk (2009), along with some example calculations.
7.5.1.2 Thermal Resistivity of the Seabed Soil
The thermal resistivity of the seabed soil is a critically important starting point for rating calculations,
as was noted in Section 3.3. It is a function of the soil base material, the dry density, the distribution
of grain size, the compaction, the humidity and the content of organic materials. The influence of
humidity, one of the most important factors for land based soils, can be disregarded in subsea soils
because the soil is typically saturated. This is also valid for seafloors of tidal flats which fall dry during
low water tides.
Thermal resistivity values are shown in Worzyk (2009) for some different submarine soils: a thermal
resistivity from 0.2 up to 2.5 Km/W is possible. Thermal characteristics of the sea soil are given for
some countries in IEC-60287-3-1. The large distribution of these values implies that it is one of the
Page 130
most important objectives of the marine survey to measure the thermal resistivity of the soil along the
cable route.
The measurement of thermal resistivity values for soil is rather delicate. Soil samples taken from the
intended installation site can represent the soil base material, grain size distribution, and, in case of
submarine soil samples, the humidity content. However, the in-situ degree of compaction is difficult
to reproduce in the laboratory. The degree of compaction might be different in virgin soil and in soil
after cable laying and burial. The soil conditions in the vicinity of the submarine cable can also be
inhomogeneous. It is important to create a complete picture of the soil conditions along the entire
cable route before designing the cable system. The locations of the limited number of soil samples
should be chosen so that the thermal properties of the cable route can be mapped in sufficient
accuracy.
7.5.1.3 Ambient Temperature of the Sea Floor
For the thermal design of buried submarine cables, the ambient temperature of the sea floor at the
cable burial depth must be taken into account, as was noted in Section 3.4. The temperature of the
sea floor varies with the water temperature above the soil-water surface. The daily variation of the
water temperature influences the temperature in the sea floor only to some centimetres depth. The
annual variation of the water temperature determines the soil temperature up to much deeper depths
in the sea floor.
With increasing depth, the ambient temperature in the sea floor will decrease in amplitude, while the
peak value will be occurring later in the year. The annual sea floor temperature at a certain depth
may be approximated as a sinusoidal variation over the year and is a function of the annual variation
of the water temperature and the depth of cable installation (Worzyk, 2009).
For every submarine power cable project the annual average temperature on the seafloor and the
amplitude of the annual variation of the seafloor temperature should be identified. If they cannot be
retrieved from long-term measurements, the estimated values should have sufficient safety margins.
7.5.1.4 Seafloor Conditions Changing with Time
Seafloor conditions, which have been charted by survey operations, may alter during the cable’s
lifetime:
 Coastal waters exposed to tidal currents are subject to strong and fast changes of the
bathymetric structure
 Spring tides and storms can cause erratic changes both in the soil composition and in the laying
depth of submarine power cables
 Changes by human activities such as dredging, dumping, etc.
These changes have to be surveyed and evaluated during the cable’s lifetime for every submarine
power cable and where possible taken into account for the submarine cable design and calculation.
A common issue is the impact of sand waves, which may cause the burial depth of the cable to vary
significantly during the lifetime of the cable system.
Page 131
7.5.2 Cables Installed on the Seabed
Many submarine cables were laid unprotected on the seafloor (except for the immediate beach zone)
until the 1990s. When appropriate subsea burial equipment became available in the 1980s, the burial
of longer cable stretches became more common. Today, almost all submarine power cables have an
external protection (burial or covered). Submarine power cables at very large depths are possibly still
laid on the seafloor unprotected.
The IEC does not give any specific recommendation for the calculation of current rating of submarine
cables laid on the seabed. It has to be considered that a submarine cable laid on the seabed during
its lifetime will be gradually covered by a layer of sand, algae, shells and/or other types of seabed
sediments and vegetation. The thickness and the composition of this layer depend on a great
number of factors such as sea floor geological composition, sea currents, presence of particular
marine vegetation and so on.
A possible approach to perform the current rating calculation in this specific installation configuration
is to consider the cable as directly buried in the seabed with a burial depth equal to the estimated
thickness of the sediment layer described previously and performing the calculation as described for
cables buried in the seafloor. The thickness of the sediment can be conservatively assumed equal to
0.3 m. It should be noted that because sediment is likely to be of a relatively low density its thermal
resistivity is likely to be higher than that of the true seabed.
7.5.3 Cables Installed in Free Water
IEC standards do not provide a method for the rating of cables installed in free water. A suitable
means of assessing the rating would be via energy balance equations. This requires the application
of a suitable convective heat transfer coefficient to describe the rate at which heat is lost from the
cable surface.
For unburied submarine cables, the ambient temperature is simply the temperature of the seafloor
water. It should be noted that the annual variation of seafloor water temperature varies significantly
depending upon location, with some areas seeing almost constant temperatures while others may
witness fluctuations of at least 10 °C. Relevant data for a specific submarine cable project can often
be obtained from the national hydrographical institute or commercial survey companies. The highest
summer temperature of the seafloor water is different in different years. Statistics list 10-years-high,
or 100 years-high values. It is up to the decision of the cable owner/operator which of these values
should be used in the context of the overall cable system design.
When the unburied cable is carrying load, its surface temperature can only be a few degrees over
the ambient water temperature. This will largely depend upon the flow rate of the water, with still
water being a worst case. Caution should be exercised if flowing water is assumed.
From the survey responses received, only a small number of respondents had considered this type
of cable installation. The majority treated the cable as if it were shallow buried, while some used
modified methods for cables in air. It is noted that it is very unlikely that sections installed in open
water would prove limiting, hence many users neglected to explicitly calculate a rating for these
sections.
Page 132
7.5.4 Submarine Cables installed in Risers (J-tubes)
The IEC does not give any recommendation for the calculation of current rating of submarine cables
installed in J-tubes. Some published methods do exist in the literature and these are briefly reviewed
here. It should be noted that the results of different methods do not always show good agreement,
however the survey undertaken showed that these methods are in routine use in a variety of
countries.
Thermal network approaches have been used for J-tube ratings in the past, with the most common
approach being that of Hartlein and Black (1983). This method is applicable to the following J-tube
designs:
 Riser closed at both the top and the bottom

 Riser open at both the top and the bottom
 Riser open at the top but closed at the bottom
The method accounts for convection from the cable surface to the air, the air to the J-tube wall and
from the J-tube surface to the ambient air. Thermal radiation between the cable surface and the J-
tube and between the Jtube and the environment is included, along with the ability to include solar
radiation and wind on the surface of the tube. It should be noted that the published method focuses
on the J-tube thermal model. Within the J-tube model the cable can be modelled as done in other
standard configurations.
Experimental work was also undertaken by ERA Technology in the UK, leading to the publication of
a technical report Coates (1988). This led to the creation of empirical equations with which to obtain
the temperature of the J-tube. Similarly to the above referenced Hartlein & Black model, ERA 88-
0108 does not include a cable model explicitly. The method can handle both sealed and open topped
J-tubes, including the effects of solar radiation.
In some circumstances it may be desirable to conduct finite element analysis (particularly if the air
filled section of the tube is short, meaning that some longitudinal cooling can be expected). It should
be noted that, while 3D finite element analysis is viable for J-tubes, it is relatively time consuming. If
the air filled section of the tube is sufficiently long, the use of 2D finite element analysis is practical as
a sufficient length of cable within the tube will be at the same temperature. This is underlined by the
publication of Pilgrim et al. (2014) where a J tube 3D FEM result is presented and the work made
comparisons with 2D and operational installation measurements, although the comparison work is
not described. It is noted that the temperature is relatively constant along the J tube and hence a 2D
model is likely to be effective.
7.5.5 Cable Protection Systems
Some specific cable protection devices used for the protection of submarine cables, such as bending
stiffeners, could represent a local hot spot for the cable. As these hot spot regions are usually limited
in size the current rating should be calculated taking into account the longitudinal heat flow along the
cable. It is also worth noting that they may not represent a thermal limit on the cable route, if other
areas (perhaps landfall sites or lengths of cable in J-tubes) are more limiting. Other possible thermal
obstacles may include concrete mattressing and rock dumps, which may be used to protect cables at
crossing points, see Figure 50-52.
Page 133
FIGURE 50: CONCRETE MATRESSES FOR PROTECTING FIGURE 51: SAND/CEMENT BAGS ON TOP
SUBMARINE CABLES OF A SUBMARINE CABLE CIRCUIT
FIGURE 52: CAST IRON SHELL PROTECTION OF A SUBMARINE

CABLE
Page 134
8 Us ing C al cu la t io n T ools and T ech niq ue s

A number of different tools can be used to calculate the current ratings of cable systems including
hand or spreadsheet calculations, tables of pre-calculated values, bespoke software, and
commercially available software packages. These tools can use a variety of calculation methods or
techniques to estimate the current rating.
The tools and techniques to estimate the current ratings of cable circuits can be divided into two
general types as described below.
 Steady state and transient rating: current ratings that are calculated using starting points, such
as ambient temperature, that are assumed (typically the worst case) as actual values are not
known. These current rating calculations are referred to as either steady state or transient
calculations (covering cyclic and emergency calculations) and are typically calculated before the
cable system is actually operated. In the survey, 80% of utilities reported that they used
emergency ratings (see question 3.4.1) and 40% reported using cyclic ratings (although 35% did
not respond to the cyclic rating question, see question 3.3). It is assumed that all the utilities
used the steady state rating.
 Dynamic (or real time) rating: systems that use real time information about some of the starting
points of the current rating calculation to enable some of the assumptions to be removed and
generally provide a larger current rating, as the starting point assumptions are typically worst
case assumptions. These systems are referred to as dynamic current rating systems and the
current ratings are generally calculated as the cable system is being operated.
The increase in the availability of fibre optic based distributed temperature sensing systems for
cables has stimulated the interest in dynamic rating systems. Additionally, the increase in the
connection of renewable energy sources to the transmission network has led to an increase in the
connection of intermittent energy sources and it is possible that dynamic rating systems can help to
maximise the use of intermittent energy, while minimising the expansion of the transmission network,
see CIGRE (2010).
This section of the report describes some of the tools and techniques available to calculate steady
state, transient and dynamic cable current ratings.
8.1 Steady State and Transient Rating Tools
The tools used to calculate current ratings will be influenced by the current rating model used. These
techniques can generally be split into analytical or numerical approaches. Analytical techniques use
the manipulation of mathematical expressions to produce equations that find the exact solution
(typically after making a number of assumptions). Analytical techniques are characterised by finding
the solution in a single step or in a limited number of iterations. Numerical techniques solve a
problem using algorithms that use numerical approximations and typically involve a number of
interlinked equations that need a significant number of iterations to obtain a converged solution.
Analytical techniques involve a smaller amount of calculation and hence a greater range of tools are
available to implement an analytical method. Some of the available tools are:
 Some users rely on tables of current ratings, see IEC 60502, 60055 (not maintained) and IEEE
835. Note that these standards are for cables up to a certain voltage level where the current
rating has already been calculated using another tool. These tables can be specific to a cable
Page 135
installation or can consider a limited number of variations (e.g. depth, type of sheath bonding,
ambient temperature). Tables have the advantage that they are easy to use and a table or
ratings can be verified once and then relied upon. There is, however, the possibility of using the
table incorrectly, particularly by users who do not fully understand cable systems.
 For a relatively simple cable installation, it is possible to use hand calculations with a calculator,
the spreadsheet function of spreadsheets, or computer algebra systems. For hand calculations,
each individual calculation step is performed by hand, making this method time consuming but
with the benefit of allowing for unusual installation configurations to be considered. Spreadsheets
or computer algebra systems allow hand calculations to be reused, or modification to the original
calculation to be made. Hand calculations are generally verified by a second person repeating
the calculation (or at least checking that similar results are given in tables). Spreadsheet
calculation can prove difficult to verify, particularly when they are modified. Additionally
spreadsheet programs are not well suited to the iterations that are generally needed for current
rating calculations.
 Bespoke current rating software (that is software written specifically for the user) uses a
computer program specifically written to use a current rating technique, or number of techniques.
The result may be a current rating or in some cases an intermediate result such a ground
thermal resistance (T4) that can be used by another tool to calculate the final current rating.
These can vary from simple programs that consider a limited number of cable system
configurations and a limited number of current rating techniques to complex programs that
consider a number of possible cable system configurations and can use a number of different
current rating techniques. Computer programs are suited to performing iterative calculations,
permit more complex calculations and can be verified more easily than spreadsheets. However
more complex current rating software can still be difficult to verify, particularly if the results of
intermediate steps cannot be readily accessed.
 Commercial current rating software is similar to bespoke current rating software but is written by
a third party and made available to a number of users. These current rating programs will tend to
be more complex and have a larger number of cable system arrangement options available,
using a number of different current rating techniques, and should be verified. These programs
sometimes, however, do not document very well the techniques used to calculate the current
rating and may make it difficult for the user to verify that the calculation is correct or appropriate,
or what assumptions were made.
Numerical methods by definition involve a large number of iterative calculations and hence generally
are performed by computer programs. These can be either bespoke or commercial programs.
Typically a program will concentrate on a specific numerical technique and the programs are
generally classified by the specific technique used. In some cases, the program may not actually
calculate the current rating, but calculate a parameter of the current rating that is then used by
another current rating technique using a different tool. Typically where fluids play a role, the empirical
calculations will be increasingly difficult.
In all of the above cases it is essential that the correct base parameters are used (like cable
modelling, bonding, installation arrangements, etc.) and that the mathematical model used is
appropriate (like the assumptions made by the mathematic model are valid, the boundary conditions
correctly specified, the finite element mesh sufficiently detailed) for the cable system being studied.
To this end the person carrying out the calculation must be properly trained in the calculation
method.
Page 136
8.2 Dynamic (or real time) Rating Tools
Dynamic cable rating tools take a real time input to calculate the cable current rating. Since the
calculation is generally only valid for a limited time period after it is performed, the tool has to repeat
the complete calculation for the cable system at every specified time interval. To be useful to a
system operator, the resulting cable current ratings should be integrated into a tool that calculates
the current rating of the busbar to busbar system as defined in Chapter 2. Dynamic cable rating tools
do not have to be adaptable to different cable systems as such a tool is linked to a specific cable
system in a specific environment. However, they may have the ability to be adaptable to different
cable systems so that the same tool can be used on more than one cable circuit.
Dynamic cable rating tools can use a variety of different real time inputs and produce a variety of
different outputs, as discussed further in the following sections. According to the survey carried out,
many users have limited experience with using these calculation tools which can make it difficult to
successfully set up the system and correctly interpret the results.
Currently a working group of CIGRE WG B1.45 'Thermal monitoring of cable circuits and grid
operators’ use of dynamic rating systems' is working on this topic. The context to start with this
working group is the following: nowadays due to the more variable situations and increasing loads in
the power grids, a dynamic rating system and various measured values aid the asset manager in
making optimal decisions in planning investments in the High Voltage grid.
Based on measurement a grid operator can on the one hand decide if a hotspot in network should be
taken away to increase the capacity or if the hotspot should be managed with the dynamic rating
system and on the other hand will know the load and overload possibilities in real time and for the
coming hours.
8.2.1 Inputs
By definition a dynamic cable rating system must have some form of real time input. A number of
inputs are possible and some dynamic rating systems can accept more than one real time input. In
some cases the measurements may be at a single point such as a thermocouple while other
measurements can be distributed such as distributed temperature measurements using fibre optics.
A number of potential inputs are listed below.
1. Historic and actual loading: if the cable system has not been continuously loaded at the
continuous 100% current rating, the cable will not be at its maximum operating temperature and
the cable will be able to be loaded above the continuous 100% current rating for a period of time,
typically using an emergency rating calculation (see Section 5.1.2.2).
2. Predicted or potential future loading: the transmission operator can inform the dynamic rating
system of the expected future loading, or give a number of scenarios.
3. Historic and actual ambient temperature: these temperatures are measured away from the cable
system. As with historic loading, historic lower ambient temperatures may lead to the cable not
being at its highest operating temperature and a potential current rating increase may be
available for a period of time typically using an emergency rating calculation (see Sections 3.5.2
and 5.1.2.2).
4. Predicted future ambient temperature: If a lower ambient temperature can be relied on to be
stable over the period of the study, an additional increase in current rating can also be calculated
for the period of time in question. In some cases, such as buried installations, the historic
Page 137
ambient temperature can be used as the basis of predicting the future ambient temperature. In
other cases some other forecasting method may be available.
5. Other cable rating input parameters (historic and predicted): although the majority of dynamic
cable rating systems use loading and temperatures as inputs, other cable rating starting points
described in Section 3 could be measured, such as air velocity in a tunnel.
6. Historic and actual system temperature: these temperatures are measured close to the cable
system and are influenced by its operation. The most useful would be a measurement of the
conductor temperature but this is difficult to obtain as the conductor is at system voltage.
Normally, temperatures measured are parts of the system that are at earth potential. The closest
component to the conductor at earth potential is the cable metal sheath or screen and some
cables are designed with built in temperature monitoring sensors at that location (normally
optical fibre). A number of other system temperatures are possible including cable outer
temperature, soil temperature close to a cable system, tunnel wall temperature, air temperature
at the exit of a forced ventilated tunnel, air temperature in an unfilled trough, etc. These
temperatures will be influenced by a number of different cable current rating input parameters
and hence the use of these system temperatures is more complex.
As with all measurements, these inputs will be subject to errors. The dynamic rating system designer
should be aware of the tolerance of the inputs to ensure that the results of the dynamic rating system
are valid. These errors include errors in the values measured, response times, and spatial resolution
and assumed location for distributed measuring systems. Any measurement equipment should have
an accuracy specified and tested as part of a quality assurance programme.
It should also be noted that an input parameter may also be required as an output for verification
purposes. For example, it may be desirable to make use of ambient temperature data to provide a
context to the ratings calculated by the system. Some intermediate steps may also be required for
verification (for example, if the system estimates the soil thermal resistivity as an input to the rating
calculation, it is important to verify that the measurements or calculations seem realistic. This is
discussed further in Section 8.2.4).
8.2.2 Outputs
The functionality of a dynamic rating system can vary between systems and this difference will lead
to different outputs from different schemes. Some systems are able to produce a number of different
outputs, which are used at different times for different purposes. Available outputs from the dynamic
rating systems are listed below.
1. Temperature output: The simplest output for a dynamic rating system is to calculate the present
and the expected future temperatures, perhaps as a function of time. This output can be used to
implement an alarm type function warning the user that the cable is being, or is at risk of being,
overloaded. In a more complex system, the user can enter a desired future loading pattern and
the system will calculate the estimated temperature at each point in time and warn of any
potential pre-set limit being exceeded.
2. Maximum loading output: For this function, the dynamic rating system will calculate the future
permissible current rating from the present moment, typically as a permissible current rating for a
defined period of time. More flexible systems allow a future cyclic or arbitrary loading pattern to
be specified by the user.
Page 138
3. Rating study output: Some dynamic rating systems can calculate cable ratings not only at the
present moment, but also following certain scenarios in the future. This output is useful for
system schedulers who need to plan for potential loading patterns to decide how the system
should be configured in the next days or weeks, for example to decide outages on the system.
4. Some of the inputs into the dynamic rating system are predicted future values. In some instances
the cable dynamic current rating system may calculate current rating starting points (such as
ground thermal resistivity) from indirect measurement and use these to predict the value of that
starting point. Care must be taken with how these predicted future inputs are treated. Some
inputs can be treated as starting points in the calculation methods that do not change during the
period of any study; for example buried ambient soil temperature may be considered stable over
a day. However, some inputs may change in the future, for example air ambient temperature will
vary over the period of a day, and any calculations must take account that these inputs are not
stable. This can also be important if the dynamic cable rating system calculates current rating
starting points, for example ground thermal resistivity that may change over the period of the
study due to changes in the soil water content. In the extreme case, this can lead to the output of
a dynamic rating system being a probabilistic in nature, giving a current rating, or group of
ratings, to a given level of confidence.
A dynamic cable rating system should consider the rating for each part of the cable system, and of
the busbar to busbar system. In some cable systems, different parts of the route will constrain the
rating at different times. For example, a section of cable installed in air may have a higher continuous
current rating than a buried cable section but the air section may limit some emergency ratings. A
dynamic cable system rating should take account of all potential parts of the cable system that could
limit the circuit rating.
8.2.3 Use of Cable Dynamic Rating System
For practical use by a system operator, the output of the dynamic cable rating system has to be
integrated into a circuit dynamic rating system. The circuit dynamic rating system has to combine the
predicted ratings of the cable with the predicted ratings of the other equipment and provide an overall
circuit output. From the results of the survey (see Section 8.4.6) it would appear that most of the
systems on offer are not integrated, while the majority of utilities who have dynamic rating
capabilities have integrated, or are investigating integrating their system.
Generally, transmission operators install dynamic rating systems to improve the current rating of the
circuit. The two main scenarios where the current rating increase can be used are:
1. Time limited current rating increase: the dynamic rating system gives a temporary rating increase
to the circuit that can be used by the transmission operator to schedule outages and generators
in a more efficient manner.
2. Long term current rating increases: a dynamic rating system that gives a permanent rating
increase allows the transmission operator to reduce the need for transmission circuit upgrades or
for new circuits. Permanent rating increases are likely to be based on re-evaluation of current
rating starting points, possibly moving away from worst case assumptions and moving to a
probabilistic current rating.
Page 139
Where probabilistic current ratings are used, the transmission planning strategy has to be compatible
with the use of probabilistic current ratings. For example, agreements with generators that allow the
transmission operator to change the maximum energy that can be generated (typically tied to a more
favourable commercial arrangement) will facilitate the use of dynamic rating systems. On the other
hand, a system where generators are guaranteed a fixed connection rating will make a dynamic
rating system less useful.
8.2.4 Verification and Testing of Cable Dynamic Rating System
There are no standard methods for verification or tests and there are not many papers regarding the
verification or testing of cable dynamic rating systems and these papers generally use different
methods (see Lyall et al. (2004), Liang and Li (2008)), Hennuy et al. (2014) and Chimi et al. (2014).
Methods of testing can be using actual installations, laboratory tests, and computer simulations.
These are described in more detail below.
 Actual installations: an existing cable system can be furnished with monitoring equipment and
the dynamic rating system results compared with the measured values. With this method, it is
not possible to measure the conductor temperature and the actual loads on the cable system are
not generally under the tester’s control. It is not necessary to perform the test live and historic
information can be used on the dynamic rating system. Majority of modern dynamic rating
systems will have a module that adjusts some system parameters (e.g., soil thermal resistivity or
its ambient temperature) to match the measured value, usually the sheath/screen or jacket
temperatures.
 Laboratory tests: a cable system, or simulation such as hot water pipes, is installed in the
laboratory and the measured values compared with the dynamic rating system. In some cases,
the test may be combined with another activity, such as a prequalification test. Depending on the
test arrangement, it is possible to measure all relevant values and control the loading although
laboratory tests will not take account of unanticipated real life factors. Again, the test does not
need to be performed live and historic information can be used on the dynamic rating system.
 Simulation: it is possible to run a thermal model of a simulated cable system (generally using the
most complete thermal model available). From the simulation, input values for the dynamic rating
system then can be recorded and used to obtain results from the dynamic rating model. The
values calculated in the simulation and the dynamic rating system can be then compared. It is
possible to alter parameters in the simulated cable system (particularly those not used as inputs
in the dynamic rating) and understand how the dynamic rating system copes. This approach will
be most useful where known cable temperature data is available. The simulation can then be run
from a known starting point to calculate ratings at different points in time, allowing comparison
with the predictions obtained from the dynamic rating system. In practice, this approach may still
leave some uncertainties and a mixture of these 3 approaches is likely to provide the best result.
During the verification or testing, it is possible to investigate the impact of tolerances in input values
due to measurement inaccuracies by repeating a test but altering the input within the known
accuracy of the measuring device and evaluating any changes in the results from the dynamic rating
system. A number of users reported, via the survey, that they had experienced problems with either
accuracy or calibration of the systems, including a number related to DTS systems. The usage of
DTS systems, for monitoring the actual distributed temperature along the cable route, is not a
common practice, 27% of the responses experienced limitations with these systems, referring to:
Page 140
accuracy of the system unknown (13%), system not reliable/subject to failure (7%) and difficult to
use/ inexperienced users (4%).
8.3 Calculation Techniques
Sections 8.1 and 8.2 have outlined some of the tools which are commonly used in the calculation of
current ratings. When using tools, in particular third party software, it is vital to understand which
methods the tool is using in order to avoid the use of inappropriate methods (leading to incorrect
ratings). We briefly review here the calculation techniques most commonly used, providing
references for the benefit of those readers requiring more in depth information.
8.3.1 Analytical
Analytical methods are the most commonly applied, particularly those based around the key IEC
standards. The approach taken by analytical methods is to represent the cable circuit using an
electrical analogue to the thermal problem. For steady state problems, a simple network is required,
consisting only of thermal resistances (to represent the thermal properties of the cable components)
and sources (to represent the electrical losses which generate heat). For the transient case, thermal
capacitances must be added to represent accurately the time constant of the cable system in its
given installation environment. This typically takes the form of a ladder network. For further
information, refer to Anders (1997).
The accuracy of the analytical methods can be very high for simple installations, particularly involving
single core cables where the thermal resistance and capacitance of each layer may easily be
calculated. For a number of cases, an exact analytical solution may not exist, meaning that some
empirical data (data acquired for experiments) be required. Another alternative is to use the
technique of conformal mapping to calculate the equivalent thermal properties. This is most
commonly used for representation of the external thermal resistance in more complex buried cable
arrangements, for example as discussed in Luoni et al. (1972). IEC has issued a Technical Report
explaining how the finite element approach can be used for thermal analysis of a buried cable circuit,
see IEC TR 62095 (2003).
8.3.2 Empirical
In some cases, the heat transfer from the cable is a mixture of conduction, convection and radiation
between multiple surfaces and media. Historically, this has led to experimental tests being
undertaken to determine appropriate ways of representing the heat transfer. A good example is that
of cables installed in J-tubes (Coates (1988)). Provided the experimental conditions are a good
match for those which the cable could be expected to see in service, empirical data can be used to
rate cable systems with high levels of accuracy. Care should be taken in using experimentally
obtained data or correlations, in order to ensure that the conditions under which the original work
was conducted are a sufficiently close match for the intended application.
Page 141
8.3.3 Numerical
With the advent of more powerful desktop computing over the last two decades, cable engineers
have begun to turn to numerical methods in order to deal effectively with more complex problems, in
particular those where the assumptions required to produce an analytical solution would lead to the
calculation being unrepresentative of the actual installation. We briefly introduce the applicable
methods here – a full description of their operation and functionality is beyond the scope of this
Technical Brochure. All of the methods described share a common principle, which is the need to
discretize a set of partial differential equations across the solution area. This is typically achieved
through the use of a mesh – a series of interconnected nodes spread across the geometry. The
differences between the methods are typically related to the way in which the connections between
each node are treated.
1. Finite Difference: the general principle of finite difference calculations is to approximate the
derivatives of a partial differential equation (PDE) by linear combinations of function values at
each node, i.e. an expression can be written to express the value of a variable (for instance
temperature) at each node in relation to the values at the adjacent nodes. The mathematical
form used to relate one node to another is typically that of the Taylor series. It is normal to use a
uniform grid, which does present some difficulties in working with curved boundaries as are
found with cable systems. The finite difference method has been largely superseded by the finite
element method for carrying out rating calculations.
2. Finite Element: at a basic level, the principle of the finite element method is similar to the finite
difference method, with a mesh being applied to a geometry to allow discretization of a PDE.
The benefits of using finite elements are largely ones of flexibility – the mathematical techniques
used to describe the relationships between each node permit a greater variety of element types,
permitting much more complex geometries to be handled. Finite element methods are also
better able to cope with non-linearity. Many engineers have applied finite elements to cable
rating problems, particularly those where the installation environment around the cable is too
complex to be handled with analytical methods (see IEC TR 62095, 2003) and Lesur et al.
(2014).
3. Boundary Element: the boundary element method is generally suitable for solving PDEs relating
to linear, homogeneous materials, although inhomogeneous media can also be accounted for.
The boundary element method is less widely used than the finite element method, although it
can still be applied for cable rating problems.
4. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): CFD techniques are typically based upon finite volume
methods (these can be considered as a 3D form of finite difference). Some researchers have
applied these techniques to problems involving cables in air, for instance in air filled troughs or
tunnels. The correct application of these techniques is extremely complex, particularly where the
air flow may be considered to be turbulent. As such, CFD techniques are normally used only as
a last resort where no other methods are found suitable, or as a comparator to simpler
calculations.
8.3.4 Dynamic Rating Techniques

Dynamic rating tools may use a range of different techniques to calculate ratings, meaning that it is
not possible to provide a comprehensive summary here. When designing or assessing a dynamic
rating tool, the following areas should be considered:
 Base thermal models: many dynamic rating tools available to system operators at the present
time make use of existing thermal models. A large proportion is based on IEC 60853 with others
Page 142
using the CIGRE Electra 87 method. A small number use bespoke algorithms, although these
are generally intended for use on specific types of cable circuits.
 Treatment of input values: in order to calculate the rating dynamically, the system must take the
relevant real-time measurement inputs (as noted in Section 8.2.1) and input them into the
thermal model in a suitable manner. For the use in the base thermal models, these can be
treated in two broad categories:
o Present time values that are assumed starting point parameters of the base thermal
model: these values such as ambient temperature or thermal resistivity can be used
directly by the thermal model. Care must be taken that these values remain constant for
the time period that the output considers or that any changes are modelled.
o Historic and actual system values that are derived parameters of the base thermal
model: these values are intermediate values calculated by the base thermal models,
such as cable surface temperature. Since these are intermediate calculations of the
base thermal model it is not a simple matter to change the value in the model to obtain a
new result. Instead these will typically show up as a difference between the calculated
value in the base thermal model and the measured value. Some dynamic systems will
adjust the assumed values of other rating parameters (e.g. thermal resistivity of the
ground) to minimise the difference between calculated and measured values (see
assumed values section below).
 Treatment of assumed rating parameters: in a dynamic system the most accurate results would
be obtained by measuring all the parameters used in the calculation but this is not practical.
However, in at least one instance known to the authors of this brochure such measurements
were undertaken (see Figure 53). As with other current rating calculations often the worst case
value is used for any assumed parameter. However in some dynamic current rating systems, an
actual cable system temperature (general the cable surface temperature) may indicate that
some of the assumptions are incorrect and the system may adjust the assumed rating
parameter. The trend in Figure 53 well illustrates this problem. The soil thermal conductivity
decreases as the year progresses but is the measurements were to be taken at the beginning of
the period only, the resulting ampacity values would be too high.
 The method may account for historical behaviour, or may just undertake a forward calculation
(using the base thermal model) from the present state. The most advanced methods also take
account of predicted variation in the input parameters over the period of the forward calculation.
Page 143
1.4
1.2
1
Thermal conductivity (W/Km)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1-Aug 8-Aug 15-Aug 22-Aug 29-Aug 5-Sep 12-Sep 19-Sep 26-Sep 3-Oct 10-Oct 17-Oct
FIGURE 53: MEASURED SOIL THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY DATA OVER A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS
The thermal conductivity (Figure 53) was measured at the depth of the cable in close vicinity to the
circuit. The reduction of the conductivity values (increase in thermal resistivity) might have been
caused by drying out of the soil.
8.4 Discussion of Survey Results
The results of the survey in this section look at the questions that are to do with measurement
techniques and tools. Where comments were requested and given these have been summarised
and grouped together. In some of the surveys there were blank responses, sometimes indicating
questions were not applicable to the company or sometimes missed out in error. For some of the
analysis presented below, this means that the results (in particular the number of comments) do not
add up to the totals reported.
8.4.1 Emergency Rating methods
Table 11 shows the number of companies that consider emergency ratings (refer to question 3.4 of
the questionnaire).
Page 144
TABLE 11: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT CONSIDER EMERGENCY RATINGS
Result
Company type
Considered Not considered Blank Total
Cable manufacturer 22 0 0 22
Consultancy 12 0 1 13
Utility 44 11 3 58
Other 6 2 0 8
Total 84 13 4 101
The results in Table 11 show that all the cable manufacturers and all the consultancies that
responded to the question could calculate emergency ratings. The majority (76%) of Utilities
considered emergency ratings.
Of the companies that reported using emergency ratings (84 companies), the method of calculation
reported is shown in Table 12. Note that since more than one method may be used by a company,
the total number of methods used is greater than 84.
TABLE 12: THE METHOD OF EMERGENCY CALCULATION AS REPORTED
Result
Emergency rating method Yes No Blank
IEC 60853 53 30 1
Rating ratio 13 70 1
Automatic (e.g. real time rating) 12 71 1
Other 31 52 1
The other rating methods reported fell into the following general categories
 Method not given (max temp. referred to) 7 responses
 Calculate: method not disclosed 5 responses
 Customer requirement 5 responses
 External software 4 responses
 Real time rating 2 responses
 JCS 0501:2002 2 responses
 CIGRE B1-209 1 response
 Method not given 1 response
 As specified by supplier 1 response
 Blank 1 response
The results show that the majority of companies used IEC 60853. It is interesting that none of the
companies report using CIGRE (1983-2) computer method although this may be implemented in
software and the companies reporting use of a computer did not report the method used by the
software.
Page 145
8.4.2 Method of Calculation of Steady State Current Ratings
A number of different tools can be used to calculate steady state current ratings and the table below
shows the number of companies that use each type of tool (refer to question 5.1), see Table 13.
TABLE 13: THE STEADY STATE CALCULATION METHOD USED
Result
Calculation method
Yes No Blank
Hand or spreadsheet 57 30 14
Rating tables 33 44 22
In house (IEC
Neher/McGrath) 57 30 14
Commercial (not FEM) 33 51 17
FEM 25 56 20
Other 15 51 35
The following “other” methods were identified:
 Commercial 4 responses
 In house (method not disclosed) 4 responses
 Hand / spreadsheet 2 responses
 In house (JCS0501) 2 response
 In house (CIGRE B1-102) 1 response
 In house (finite difference) 1 response
 In house (forced cooling) 1 response
 Rating tables 1 response
The majority of other methods identified were in house methods that did not use IEC or
Neher/McGrath although it appears some “other” methods identified were identified in error (e.g.
commercial or rating tables already is an option). Note that more than one “other” method could be
identified leading to more methods identified than companies reporting “other” in Table 38.
The results for question 5.1 suggest that the majority of companies perform current rating
calculations themselves. These are either by hand, spreadsheet or in house computer program, or a
combination of these. It should be noted that the survey may be biased in that the companies
performing their own calculations were more likely to reply to the survey. However, it does suggest
that there are a large percentage of companies that use current rating standards directly.
8.4.3 Comparison of Calculated and Measured Cable Temperatures
Around 40% of the respondents had compared calculated temperatures to measured cable
temperatures for continuous ratings (details come from question 5.5, and are shown in Table 14).
Page 146
TABLE 14: MEASURED AND CALCULATED TEMPERATURES COMPARED
Result
Company type
Yes No Blank
Cable manufacturer 7 13 2
Consultancy company 5 6 0
Utility 22 37 1
Other 6 2 0
Total 40 58 3
The following comments were made:

 DTS 8 responses
 Good results 4 responses
 Laboratory 6 responses
 DTS and thermocouples 2 responses
 Need transient models 1 response
 Steady state never reached 1 response
 Bad results 1 response
 Measurement made at hot spots 1 response
 Dynamic rating system used 1 response
 At street crossing (big difference once) 1 response
The majority appeared to use a DTS system. Some noted that steady state conditions were not
achieved and that a transient current rating or dynamic rating system was required. While most did
not comment on the success of the measurement, where a comment was made, generally good
results were reported but there was some that either reported bad results, or suggested difficulties.
8.4.4 Transient Rating Methods
Table 15 gives the number of companies that calculate transient ratings (question 6.1).
TABLE 15: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES CALCULATING TRANSIENT RATINGS
Result
Company type
Calculated Not calculated Blank Total
Utility 24 30 4 58
Other 6 2 0 8
Total 54 40 7 101
The results in Table 15 show that the majority of utilities do not calculate the transient ratings
themselves. However, most of the other respondents do so.
Page 147
Of the companies that reported using calculating transient ratings, the method used is reported in the
following table:
TABLE 16: TRANSIENT RATING CALCULATION METHODS USED
Result
Emergency rating
method Yes No Blank
In house, IEC 31 17 7
In house, CIGRE 11 27 13
Commercial program 25 17 10
Other 13 23 15
The other rating methods reported fell into the following general categories
 In house, JSC 2 responses
 In house, modified IEC 2 responses
 In house CIGRE B1-209 2012 1 response
 In house, own method 1 response
 In house, numerical method 1 response
 In house method 1 response
 In house CIGRE 1 response
 Rating factors 1 response
 Dynamic rating system 1 response
 FEM 1 response
A number of respondents are using their own methods, although many appear to be based on
existing standards.
8.4.5 Limitations or Difficulties with Cyclic or Emergency Ratings
Of the companies asked, 24 of respondents had reported limitations or difficulties (question 6.3).
Many of the comments appeared to relate to dynamic (or real time) rating systems and these
comments have been left out:
 Complex calculation 6 responses

 Short/variable loadings (IEC 60853 not applicable) 2 responses
 Convection not modelled for air installations 1 response
 Moisture migration not modelled in IEC 60853 1 response
 Not clear deep HDD calculation is accurate 1 response
 Calculation results not used as not integrated 1 response
 Thermal resistivity not static 1 response
A number of companies commented on the complexity of the calculation.
Page 148
8.4.6 Cyclic or Emergency Ratings fully Integrated into the Network or Stand-alone
Only 13 of the companies including 5 utilities (9% of such companies) reported on question 6.4 to
use a fully integrated system. There were, however, 46 (46%) blank responses, of which utilities
provided 31 (56% of utilities).
8.4.7 Real Time Temperature Monitoring Systems
Of the companies surveyed, 46 reported using a real time temperature monitoring system, with 38
reporting they did not and 17 not answering question 7.1. The minority of 13 reported using their own
developed system. The number of companies reporting using a commercial DTS system was 52. It is
noted that this is more than the number of companies reporting using a real time temperature
monitoring system and some specifically reporting they did not have a real time temperature
monitoring system. This may be as some companies were using the DTS systems for real time rating
systems.
8.4.8 Position of the Optical Fibre Sensor for DTS Monitoring Systems
The companies were asked the location of the optical fibre sensor if they used DTS monitoring
systems (question 7.2). Table 17 shows the results of the question.
TABLE 17: LOCATION OF DTS SENSOR
Result
Company type Blank
Yes No
Inside cable, cable screen 41 21 36
Cable surface 38 20 40
External parallel conduit 33 33 42
Other 8 33 57
Where the location was other, the following locations were identified:
 Inside conductor 2 responses
 Inside the surrounding medium 1 response
 Middle of cable trefoil 1 response
 In the armour 1 response
There are a number of different locations, with some companies using different locations depending
on the specific installation. There did not appear to be a predominant location although the cable
screen or attached to the cable surface appeared to be the most common.
Page 149
8.4.9 Use of Fixed or Mobile DTS Systems
The companies were asked if the DTS monitoring systems they had installed were connected
permanently to the same circuits or if the DTS system were used on a temporary basis (question
7.2). The majority of users (39 companies) connected the DTS system permanently, 20 companies
used mobile/temporary connections, 3 used both types. One company responded that it did not have
any DTS system and 38 companies left the answer blank.
8.4.10 Overall Accuracy Check for the DTS System
The companies were asked if the overall accuracy of the DTS system was checked (question 7.3).
Table 18 shows the results.
TABLE 18: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT CHECKED OVERALL ACCURACY OF A DTS SYSTEM
Result
Company type Yes No Blank
Consultancy 4 4 5
Utility 15 20 23
Other 3 2 3
Total 33 31 37
It appears that most companies check the accuracy of their DTS. The company was asked to
provide the results of the check and these are shown:
 Good accuracy 6 responses
 Compare DTS to thermocouples 3 responses
 Generally acceptable (within 2 °C) 1 response
 Problems with longer lengths 1 response
 Lab tests 1 response
 System and distance dependent 1 response
 Not possible to check accuracy of conductor temperature 1 response
 Time lag between conductor and measurement 1 response
In general, good accuracy was reported although some users reported problems, particularly with
longer lengths. Users also noted that the conductor temperature was generally not measured or
easily deduced.
8.4.11 Limitations or Difficulties Experienced with DTS Monitoring Systems
The number of companies that reported limitations or difficulties is shown in Table 19 (question 7.3).
Page 150
TABLE 19: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT REPORTED LIMITATIONS OR DIFFICULT EXPERIENCES
Result
Company type
Yes No Blank
Consultancy 5 4 4
Utility 13 14 31
Other 6 0 2
Total 26 28 47
While about the same number of companies reported limitations or difficulties as did not, when
split by company type, there is considerable variation. The limitations or difficulties reported were:
 Unreliable equipment 6 responses
 Does not measure conductor temperature 5 responses
 Difficult to use 2 responses
 Cost 1 response
 Difficult to calibrate over the required operating temperature range 1 response
 For cables in air, surface temperature measurement uncertain 1 response
 Communication problems 1 response
 Unstable software 1 response
 Calibration difficult 1 response
 Sensitive to different fibres 1 response
 Accuracy 1 response
There appear to be three main themes: unreliable systems, difficult to use (or interpret conductor
temperature), and accuracy/calibration problems. These subjects will be further considered in the
CIGRE WG B1.45 ‘Thermal monitoring of cable circuits and grid operators’ use of dynamic rating
systems’.
8.4.12 Number of Companies using Real Time Current Rating Systems
The number of companies using real time current rating systems is shown in the table below
(question 8.1).
TABLE 20: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES USING REAL TIME CURRENT RATING SYSTEMS
Result
Company type Yes No
Cable manufacturer 10 12
Consultancy 5 8
Utility 15 36
Other 1 7
Total 31 66
The majority of companies do not use real time current rating systems. There is a significantly larger
number proportion of cable manufacturers and consultancies using (it is assumed offering) real time
Page 151
current rating systems than utilities, assumed to be actually using such systems. In many of the
comments it was noted that while many companies do not use a real time current rating system at
present they are considering or working on implementing a real time current rating.
Of the companies that used real time current rating systems, the number of companies using a
system developed by their company is given in Table 21.
TABLE 21: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES USING OWN DEVELOPED REAL TIME CURRENT RATING SYSTEMS
Result
Company type Yes No
Consultancy 3 2
Utility 2 14
Other 1 0
Total 12 20
The majority of utilities that have a real time current ratings system do not develop the system. In
contrast, the majority of cable manufacturers and consultancies use (it is assumed that this means
offer a system) a system that is developed by the company.
Of the companies that used real time current rating systems, the number of companies using a
commercial real time current rating system is given in Table 21.
8.4.13 Use of Optical fibre (DTS) System as Input to Real Time Current Rating
System
Of the companies that use a real time current rating system, the majority 25 reported using an optical
fibre DTS as the input to the real time current rating. There were 7 (22%) that reported not using an
optical fibre DTS and 3 (9%) left a blank entry on question 8.2.
TABLE 22: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES USING COMMERCIAL REAL TIME CURRENT RATING SYSTEMS
Result
Company type
Yes No
Consultancy 1 4
Utility 14 2
Other 0 1
Total 19 13
As expected from the results in Table 21, the majority of utilities using a real time rating system use a
commercial real system and the majority of manufacturers and consultants do not.
Page 152
Note that one utility reported using both own developed and commercial systems, while 2 companies
reported they used a real time current rating system but did not identify either an own developed or
commercial system. Hence, the results in Table 21 and Table 22 do not add to up to those shown in
Table 20.
8.4.14 Use of Safety Factors in Real Time Current Rating System
Of the companies that use a real time current rating system, 7 reported using a safety factor
(question 8.3). The safety factors reported were:
 Early alarm below maximum operating temperatures 3 responses

 As specified by the client 2 responses
 Same safety factor as static (10 °C reduction when soil condition not known) 1 response
8.4.15 Number of Integrated and Standalone Real Time Current Rating Systems
The number of real time systems that are fully integrated and standalone is reported below (question
8.4).
TABLE 23: THE NUMBER OF INTEGRATED AND STANDALONE REAL TIME CURRENT RATING SYSTEMS
Result
Company type Integrated Standalone Blank
Consultancy 1 4 1
Utility 8 7 2
Other 0 1 0
Total 10 18 5
Of the companies that reported using real time current rating systems, the majority use standalone
version. However amongst the utilities 50 % of the current rating systems are integrated with another
utility (6%) stating that they were studying integrating the real time current rating system. Of the
companies that were not utilities, it is assumed that they were offering real time current rating
systems and the majority of these were standalone systems. It should be noted that some
companies had both integrated and standalone systems.
8.4.16 Limitations or Difficulties Experienced with Real Time Current Rating Systems
Of the companies that reported using a real time current rating system, the number of companies
that reported limitations or difficulties is shown in Table 24 (question 8.5).
Page 153
TABLE 24: THE NUMBER OF COMPANIES THAT REPORTED LIMITATIONS OR DIFFICULT EXPERIENCES
Result
Company type Yes No Blank
Consultancy 3 1 1
Utility 2 11 3
Other 1 0 0
Total 8 17 7
Although in general only 8 companies reported limitations or difficulties with real time current rating
systems, 3 out of 4 consultants reported limitation or difficulties. The limitations or difficulties reported
were:
 Reliability of measurement / monitoring systems 6 responses

 Accuracy 1 response
 Use in control room 1 response
 Rating estimation at low load 1 response
The majority of limitations related to the measurement / monitoring systems, mainly a concern of the
accuracy of the measurement, sometimes in specific locations such as ducts blocks, although the
reliability of the measurement equipment was also a concern. Another concern noted was the ability
of the control room to use current ratings that would change over time.
Page 154
9 Con clu s ion s and R e c omm end at ion s
This technical brochure provides guidance to experts calculating the current rating of new or existing
cable circuits. Starting points for cable rating studies, the rating calculations themselves, and the
calculation tooling have all been considered. The WG hopes to have contributed to the topic of
current rating calculations by providing clarity on how a current rating study can be performed for a
power cable whatever its situation. By providing these guidelines, it is also hoped that companies
worldwide will use similar approaches to deal with similar problems, so that in the long run, also
solutions to the most difficult problems become available.
The major conclusions are reported, and recommendations both to users and Cigre SC B1 are
given.
A first aspect to be noted in this section is that system failures due to overloading of power cables is
rather rare. It appears that the moderate loading of the majority of the cable systems in use is the
most important explanation to this finding. This means that in case of significant load (profile)
changes in the future, we may be coming much closer to the limitations of the current rating of power
cable systems than we are today. Given the ongoing developments in renewable energy and energy
usage, the working group therefore believes that the topic of current ratings of power cables is only
increasing in importance.
Secondly, within cable projects cable rating evaluation studies will always come at a certain limited
accuracy. There should be a margin in cable rating calculations which is dependent in this accuracy
and therefore also on the exact project phase. The working group recommends that this margin in
rating calculations is consequently discussed and agreed between parties in any cable project.
Reference is made to Section 2.3 of this brochure.
Considering the starting points for rating calculations, it is concluded that most starting points are
currently being assumed, rather than measured or investigated. Assuming starting points easily lead
to uncertainties of tens of percent’s in the cable’s current rating. Consequently, the user is
recommended to measure or investigate the relevant starting points rather than to estimate or
assume them. In order to have a well-defined cable current rating, there must be an even balance in
between the accuracy of starting points, calculation methods and calculation tools. Although
calculation methods typically already have an accuracy down to a few percent, this is not a realistic
expectation for the starting points, although these are at the basis of every cable rating study.
Therefore, the working group strongly recommends paying attention to measuring / investigating
starting points.
Information on how to improve the definition of starting points can be found in this document, but the
working group also identified that an overall document on practical ways to determine the thermal
resistivity of soils (which strongly vary in multiple aspects over the world) or the dry out behaviour of
soils is currently not available in international literature. The working group recommends Cigre SC
B1 to consider drafting such an overall document.
Cable rating calculation methods are available to deal with many different situations. This technical
brochure contains many different calculation methods, guidelines, and hints additional to existing IEC
standards, to help the user in selecting the right method to perform a cable rating calculation. The
WG is under the impression that the calculation methods presented in this technical brochure cover
the vast majority of cables and installation methods, and provide a constructive procedure towards
an answer. It is noted that the WG was not able to provide a detailed method in every situation.
Sometimes, there is simply too little international experience available to come to a good solution. In
Page 155
those cases, the WG has provided more abstract guidance and hints on the way to come to a proper
calculation as much as possible.
In some situations, it is believed that there is an important need to develop better calculation
methods. Experts are encouraged to publish their methods regarding those situations in international
literature, so that in some years from now, the cable community can come to more precise
calculations. The following situations are believed to be calling more strongly for the attention of
experts, although this technical brochure contains significant wording on each of them:
 The current rating of HVDC cables. Especially the dependency of heat losses on detailed
material characteristics needs to be known better, together with the temperature dependency of
the electric field in the insulation material. Refer to Section 5.3.2.
 The effect of oil / air gaps or pockets in cables with e.g. corrugated sheaths should be detailed.
Given the wide usage of cables with corrugated sheaths, there is a need to understand the effect
of these substantial oil / air filled clearances in the cable design on the current rating, preferably
leading to a verified physical model. Refer to Section 6.2.1.
 There is evidence available that the armour losses of three core submarine cables is smaller
than what is currently calculated based on existing methods, implying that these existing
methods should be improved. In order to come to this (and to a higher rating of submarine
cables), more investigations of different companies are needed. Refer to Section 6.6.1.
 Only a little experience (measurements, investigations, calculations) is available regarding the

current rating of joints and terminations. It is helpful to increase the information on this subject in
order to be able to derive, for any cable circuit, the limitations to the stationary and dynamic
current rating coming from these accessories. Refer to Sections 7.1.7 and 7.1.8.
 Where cables are installed in inclined air or water filled ducts (e.g. horizontal directional drillings)
and especially in combination with layered soils, the heat transfer from the power cable to the far
environment becomes very complex, calling for detailed investigations in order to determine the
governing heat transfer equations. Refer to Section 7.2.2.
Regarding calculation tools available to perform rating calculations, this technical brochure contains
descriptions of the calculations methods used. The amount of tools available has been increasing
with multiple transient and dynamic rating tools. Also the user’s reflection on these tools is given
within this brochure. It was found that dynamic rating systems and transient ratings are slowly
attracting more attention, although at present the majority of companies do not use dynamic rating
tools yet.
The most important recommendation which can be made regarding calculation tools, is that the user
needs to verify the calculations of the tool before using it. Despite some tools being used frequently,
and by multiple companies, it is generally unclear exactly how a calculation is performed by the
calculation tool. Given the many different installation situations and cable designs which exist, and
for which a strict IEC based calculation is not even possible (refer to the many examples in this
technical brochure), the user should verify how the situation is treated by the calculation tool. The
assumptions made and the formulae used must be applicable, but these are not gathered in any
standard. For dynamic or transient ratings, verification becomes even more important as the dynamic
behaviour significantly complicates the models and their output.
As it is rather difficult to verify calculations of calculation tools, especially when these tools provide
transient or dynamic ratings, or real life situations which are not precisely covered by IEC, the WG
considers helping the cable community by setting up a uniform calculation verification protocol, which
can be used to ensure a correctly working software within a certain (limited) domain.
Page 156
10 Ref e re nc e s
Al Jallaf, S., Busamra, H., Al Roken, K., George, J., Popiel, L., Moreau, O. and Jarry, O.J. (2014)
“Flexibility of natural/forced ventilated tunnel for EHV cable links across urban environments”,
Cigre 2014, Paris, France, paper B1-114
Al-Nimr, M.A. (1993), "Analytical Solution for Transient Laminar Fully Developed Free Convection in
Vertical concentric Annuli", International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.36, pp. 2385-
2395
Anders, G.J. (1996), “Rating of Cables on Riser Poles, in Trays, in Tunnels and Shafts – A Review”,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 11, no. 1
Anders, G.J. (1997), “Rating of Electric Power Cables – Ampacity calculations for transmission,
distribution and industrial applications”, IEEE Press, New York, Republished in 1998 by
McGraw-Hill, New York
Anders, G.J. and Brakelmann, H. (1999-1), “Cable Crossings – Derating Considerations Part I –
Derivation of Derating Equations,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 709-
714
Anders, G.J. and Brakelmann, H. (1999-2),“Cable Crossings – Derating Considerations Part II –

Example of Derivation of Derating Curves” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 715-720
Anders, G.J. and Dorison, E. (2004), “Derating Factor for Cable Crossings With Consideration of
Longitudinal Heat Flow in Cable Screen” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 19, no. 3,
pp. 926-932
Anders, G.J. (2005) “Rating of electric power cables in unfavourable thermal environments”, IEEE
Press, New York, Published in 2005 by John Wiley and Sons, New York
Anders, G.J. and Moutassam, W. (2007), “Barrier optimization algorithm applied to calculation of
optimal loading of dissimilar cables in one trench,” Proc. of Jicable’07, Versaille, France, 2007-
B10-6
Anders G.J., Coates, M. and Chaaban, M., (2010), “Ampacity of cables in shallow troughs”, IEEE
Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 2064-2072
Anders G.J. and Coates M (2011) “Ampacity of Distribution Cables” in EPRI “Bronze Book”
Arkell, C. A., Bazzi, G., Ernst, G., Schuppe, W. and Traunseiner, W. (1980), “First 380kV bulk power
transmission system with lateral pipe external cable cooling in Austria”, CIGRE session, Paris,
France, paper 21-09
Arrighi, R., Ridon, R., Bénard, P. and Causse, L. (1970), “Contribution to the study of buried cables”,
CIGRE session 1970, report 21-06
Page 157
Arrighi, R. (1986), “Carrying capacity of AC high Voltage systems with internal insulation over long
distances”, CIGRE report 21-13 1986
Bejan, A. (1993), “Heat transfer”, John Wiley & sons, ISBN 0-471-50290-1
Boone, W. and De Wild, F. (2007), “HV Power Cables Installed in Multi Purpose Tunnels, a
Challengeable Option”, Jicable 2007, Versailles, France, June 24-28
Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L,( 2004) “Convex Optimization”, Cambridge, Cambridge University
press, 2004
Bremnes, J. J., Evenset, G. and S. R, (2010), “Power loss and inductance of steel armoured three-
core cables: comparison of ‘2.5D’ FEA results and measurements”, CIGRE session, Paris,
France, paper B1-116
Brakelmann, H. (1984) “Physical principles and calculation methods of moisture and heat transfer in
cable trenches”, ETZ report 19, page 1-93, VDE- verlag GmbH, Berlin u. Offenbach, 1984
Brakelmann H., Honerla, J., and Rasquin, W. (1991) “Thermal Resistance of Cables with Corrugated
Sheaths” ETAP Vol 1, No. 6 pp 341 - 346
Brakelmann, H. (1999), “Reinforcement of Power Cables Crossing Thermally Unfavourable regions,”

ETEP, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 199-202
Brakelmann, H. and Anders, G. (2001), “Ampacity Reduction Factors for Cables Crossing Thermally
Unfavourable Regions,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 444-448
Cress, S.L. and Motlis J. (1991), "Temperature Rise of Submarine Cable on Riser Poles", IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 25-33
Carslaw H.S. (1945), “Introduction to the mathematical theory of the conduction of heat in solids”,
Dover publications, New York
Chaaban, M., and Leduc, J. (2011), “Reduction in Current Carrying Capacity due to Cables
th
Crossing,” 8 International Conference on Insulated Power Cables – Jicable’11, Versaille,
France, paper id: c.8.4
Chimi, E., Heimbach, B., Bader, J. and Luternauer, H. (2014), “Pilot project for cable capacity
monitoring using optic fibre cables and prognostic software in the city of Zurich”, Cigre 2014,
Paris, France, paper B1-208
CIGRE (1979), “The calculation of continuous ratings for forced cooled cables”, Electra, vol. 066,
with erratum
CIGRE (1982), “the conditions govering the drying-out of soil around power cables”, Electra, vol 84
CIGRE (1983-1), “Forced cooling of cable joints and terminations”, Electra, vol. 90
Page 158
CIGRE (1983-2), “Computer method for the calculation of the response of single core cables to a
step function thermal transient”, Electra, vol 87
CIGRE (1985), “The calculation of the effective thermal resistance of cables laid in materials having
different thermal resistivities”, WG2 of CIGRE SC 21, Electra, no 98
CIGRE (1986), “Forced cooled cables. Calculation of thermal transients and cyclic loads”, Electra
vol. 104
CIGRE (1987), “The calculation of continuous rating for forced cooled high pressure oil filled pipe
type cables”, Electra vol. 113, including erratum: Electra vol. 119 (1988) and addendum: Electra
135 (1991)
CIGRE (1990), “The steady state thermal behaviour of accessories for cooled cable systems”, WG 8
of CIGRE SC 21, Electra no. 128
CIGRE (1992-1), “Calculation of temperatures in ventilated cable tunnels – Part 1”, WG8 of CIGRE
SC 21, Electra, no 143, pp 39-59
CIGRE (1992-2), “Calculation of temperatures in ventilated cable tunnels – Part 2”, WG8 of CIGRE
SC 21, Electra, no 144, pp 97-105
CIGRE (1992-3), “Methods for calculating cyclic ratings for buried cables with partial drying of the
surrounding soil”, Electra vol. 145
CIGRE (1992-4), “Determination of a value of critical temperature rise for a cable backfill material”,
Electra vol. 145
CIGRE (2004), Technical Brochure 250, “General guidelines for the integration of a new
underground cable system in the network”, WG B1.19
CIGRE (2005), “Addendum to recommendations for tests of power transmission dc cables for a rated
voltage up to 800kV”, Electra, vol. 218, pp39-45, February 2005
CIGRE (2005-1), Technical Brochure 272, “Large cross section and composite screens design”, WG
B1.03
CIGRE (2005-2), Technical Brochure 283 “Special bonding of high voltage power cables”, WG B1.18
CIGRE (2008), Technical Brochure 358 “Remaining life management of existing AC underground
lines”, WG B1.09
CIGRE (2010), Fröhlich, K. “Cigre technical activities – strategic directions 2010-2020”, Electra no
249, April 2010
CIGRE (2013-1), Technical Brochure 559, “Impact of EMF on current ratings and cable systems”,
WG B1.23
Page 159
CIGRE (2013-2), Technical Brochure 556, “Power system technical performance issues related to
the application of long HVAC cables”, WG C4.502
Coates, M. (1988), "Rating Cables in J-tubes", Leatherhead: ERA Report 88-0108
Colla, L. and Marelli, M. (2013), “Dynamic rating of submarine cables – Application to offshore
windfarms”, in proc of EWEA Offshore, Frankfurt, Germany
Cress, S.L. and Motlis J. (1991), "Temperature Rise of Submarine Cable on Riser Poles", IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 25-33
Defega, M.Z., Lehtonen, M. and Millar, R.J. (2012), “Comparison of Air-Gap Thermal Models for MV
Power Cables indside Unfilled Conduit”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery (2012), volume
27, issue 3, page 1662-1669
Del Brenna, M., Donazzi, F., Mansoldo, A. (2004), “Long length EHV underground cable systems in
the transmission network”, CIGRE session 2004, paper B1-304
Demoulias, C., Labridis, D. P., Dokopoulos P. S. and Gouramanis K. (2007), “Ampacity of

Low_Voltage Power Cables Under Non-sinusoidal Currents”, IEEE Transaction on Power
Delivery, Volume: 22, Issue: 1, pp. 584-594
Donazzi, F., Occhini, E., Eng, C. and Seppi, A. (1979), “Soil thermal and hydrological characteristics
in desgning underground cables”, IEE proceedings, Vol. 126, June 1997
Dryer, J. (1978), "Natural Convective Flow Through a Vertical Duct with Restricted Entry",
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.21, pp. 1344-1354
Djogo, D. and Salam, M.M.A. (1997), “Calculation of inductive coupling from power lines to multiple
pipelines and buried conductors,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 41, issue 1, pp. 75-84
Donazzi, F., Carpinelli, G. and Valenza, D. (1987), “On the low and medium voltage cables sizing
problem in presence of current and voltage non-sinusoidal waveform”, L’Energia Eletrica, vol
64, no. 5
Dorison, E., de Kepper, B., Protat, F., Gurkahaman, A. and Masure, L., (2003), “Current rating of
cables installed in tunnels”, Proc. of Jicable 2003, Versailles, France, paper C8-1-6
Dorison E., Anders, G. and Lesur F., (2010), “Ampacity calculations for deeply installed cables”.
IEEE Trans. on Power Deliver”, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 524-533
Dorison, E. and Anders, G., (2011), “Current rating of cables installed in deep or ventilated tunnels”,
Proc. Of Jicable 2011, Versailles, France, paper C8-3
Du, P.Y. and Wang, X.H. (2010), “Electrical and thermal analyses of parallel single-conductor cable
installations,” IEEE Transactions on industry applications, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1534-1540
Page 160
El-Kady, M.A. and Horrocks, D.J. (1985), “Extended values of geometric factor of external thermal
resistance of cables in duct banks”, IEEE Transactions on Power apparatus and Systems, PAS-
104, no 8, pp. 1958-1962
El-Shaarawi and Sarhan, A., (1981), "Developing Laminar Free Convection in a Heated Vertical
Open-ended Concentric Annulus", Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, Fundamentals, Vol.20,
No.4, pp. 388-394
ENA C55/4, 1989, “Insulated Sheath Power Cable Systems”
Eoll, C. “Theory of stress distribution in insulation of high-voltage dc cables: part II,” Electrical
Insulation, IEEE Transactions on, Vols. EI-10, no. 2, pp. 49-54, June 1975
EPRI (2011), “EPRI Underground Distribution Systems Reference Book”, Electric Power Research
Institute
EPRI (2011), Presentation of Henk Geene at the IEEE ICC 2009 fall meeting
EPRI (1984), “Designer’s handbook for Forced-Cooled high-pressure oil-filled pipe-type cable
systems”, EPRI EL-3624, July 1984
ETRA (1998), Electric Technology Research Association report, Vo. 53, No. 3 (1998) “Ampacity
design for underground cables”, Japanese language
Ferkal, K., Poloujadoff, M. and Dorison, E., (1996), “Proximity effect and eddy current losses in
insulated cables,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1171-1178
GB 50217 (2007), “Code for design of cable of electrical work”, translated Chinese standard, issued in
October 2007, in force April 2008
Groeneveld, G.J. et al. (1984), “Improved method to calculate the critical conditions for drying out
sandy soils around power cables”, IEE proceedings, vol. 131, Pt C n02 – 1984
Hatlo, M.M. and Bremnes, J.J.(2014) “Current depend armour loss in three-core cables; comparison
FEA results and measurements”, Cigre 2014, Paris, France, paper B1-306
Hartlein, R.A. and Black, W.Z. (1983), "Ampacity of Electric Power Cables in Vertical Protective
Risers", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No.6, pp. 1678-
1686
Heinhold L. (1990) “Power Cables and Their Applications – Part I”, Siemens, Germany
Hennuy, B., Leemans, P., Mampaey, B., Burceanu, M. and van Slycken, J. (2014), “Belgian
philosophy and experience with temperature monitoring of cable systems by means of
distributed temperature sensing techniques and future PD monitoring techniques” Cigre 2014,
Hiranandani, A. (1995), “Calculation of ampacities and Sizing of Line and Neutral Conductors in the
Presence of Harmonics”, Annaul Meeting of Industry Society, Orlando, Florida, USA
Page 161
Holman, J.P. (1990), "Heat Transfer", McGraw-Hill, New York
Houwelingen, D. van and Rossum, J. van (2007), “Re-evaluation of 150kV cable capacity”, Proc. of
Jicable 2007, Versailles, France, paper 2007-B4-5
Huang, Z. Y., Pilgrim, J. A., Lewin, P. L.., Swingler, S. G. and Tzemis, G. (2014) ., “Thermal-Electric
Rating Method for Mass-Impregnated Paper-Insulated HVDC Cable Circuits”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 30 (1), 437-444
ICEA P-32-382-2007, “Short-circuit characteristics of insulated cables”, 2007
ICEA P-45-482-2007, “Short-circuit performance of metallic shields & sheaths”, 2007
IEC standard 60055, “Paper-insulated metal-sheathed cables for rated voltages up to 18/30 kV (with
copper or aluminium conductors and excluding gas-pressure and oil-filled cables”:
 IEC standard 60055-1 (2005), “Paper-insulated metal-sheathed cables for rated voltages up
to 18/30kV (with copper or aluminium conductors and excluding gas-pressure and oil-filled
cables) – Part 1: Tests on cables and their accessories”
 IEC standard 60055-2 (1981), “Paper-insulated metal-sheathed cables for rated voltages up
to 18/30kV (with copper or aluminium conductors and excluding gas-pressure and oil-filled
cables) – Part 2: General and construction requirements”
IEC standard 60287, “Calculation of the Continuous Current Rating of Cables (100% load factor)”:
 IEC standard 60287-1-1 (2014), “Electric Cables - Calculation of the current Rating – Part
1: Current rating equations (100% load factor) and calculation of Losses – section 1:
General”
 IEC standard 60287-1-2 (1993), “Electric Cables – Calculation of the current rating – Part
1: Current rating equations (100% load factor) and calculations of losses – Section 2:
Sheath eddy current loss factors for two circuits in flat formation”
1: Current rating equations (100% load factor) and calculations of losses – Section 3:
Current sharing between parallel single-core cables and calculation of circulating current
losses”
2: Thermal resistance – Section 1: Calculation of thermal resistance”.
2: Thermal resistance – Section 2: A method for calculating reduction factors for groups of
cables in free air, protected from solar radiation”
3: Sections on operating conditions – Section 1: Reference operating conditions and
selection of cable type”
3: Sections on operating conditions – Section 2: Economic optimization of power cable
size”
Page 162
3: Sections on operating conditions – Section 3: Cables crossing external heat sources”
IEC standard 60502, “Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages
from 1 kV (Um=1,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um=36 kV)”:
 IEC standard 60502-1 (2009), “Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories
for rated voltages from 1 kV (Um = 1,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36kV) – Part 1: Cables for rated
voltages of 1 kV (Um = 1,2 kV) and 3 kV (Um = 3,6 kV).”
 IEC standard 60502-2 (2014), “Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories
for rated voltages from 1 kV (Um = 1,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36kV) – part 2: Cables for rated
voltages from 6kV (Um = 7,2 kV up to 30 kV (Um = 36 kV)”
 IEC standard 60502-4 (2010), ““Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories
for rated voltages from 1 kV (Um = 1,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36kV) – Part 4: Test
requirements on acce3ssories for cables with rated voltages from 6 kV (Um = 7,2 kV) up to
30 kV (Um = 36 kV)”
IEC standard 60724 (2008), “Short-circuit temperature limits of electric cables with rated voltages of
1 kV (Um=1,2kV) and 3 kV (Um = 3,6 kV)”
IEC standard 60840 ed4.0 (2011), “Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for
rated voltages above 30 kV (Um = 36 kV) up to 150 kV (Um = 170 kV) – Test methods and
requirements”
IEC standard 60853, “Calculation of the cyclic and emergency current rating of cables”:
 IEC standard 60853-1 (1985), “Calculation of the cyclic and emergency current rating of
cables – Part 1: Cyclic rating factor for cables up to and including 18/30 (36) kV”, including
Amendment 1 (1994) and Amendment 2 (2008)
cables – Part 2: Cyclic rating of cables greater than 18/30 (36)kV and emergency ratings for
cables of all voltages”, including Amendment 1 (2008)
cables – Part 3: Cyclic rating factor for cables of all voltages, with partial drying of the soil”
IEC standard 60949 (1988), “Calculation of thermally permissible short circuit currents, taking into
account non-adiabatic heating effects including Amendment 1 (2008)”
IEC standard 60986 (2008), “short-circuit temperature limits of electric cables with rated voltages
form 6 kV (Um = 7,2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36 kV)”
IEC standard 61443 (2008), “Short-circuit temperature limits of electric cables with rated voltages
above 30 kV (Um= 36 kV)”
IEC standard 62067 ed2.0, “Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated
voltages above 150kV (Um = 170 kV) up to 500 kV (um = 550kV) – Test methods and
requirements”
Page 163
IEC standard 62095 (2003), “Electric cables - Calculation for current ratings – finite element method”
IEC Technical Report 62095 (2003), “Calculation of current rating - Cable current rating calculations
using finite element method”
IEEE standard 835 (1994), “IEEE Standard - Power Cable Ampacity Tables”, IEEE Press
Jackson, R.I. (1975), “Eddy-current losses in unbounded tubes”, Proceedings of institution of

Electrical Engineers, vol. 122, no 5, pp 551-557
Jeong, S., Nam, K., Choi, S., Ryo, H. and Lee, J., (2004), “Analysis on the Longitudinal Temperature
Derating Factor of Power Cables Surrounding Dissimilar Soil Materials Region,” In Proc. 2004
International Conference on Power System Technology – POWERCON 2004, pp. 1463-1468
Jeroense, M. and Kreuger, F., “Electrical conduction in hvdc mass-impregnated paper cable,”
Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 718-723, October
1995
Jivet, I. and Dragoi, B. (2008), “Performance analysis of direct digital synthesizer architecture with
amplitude sequencing”, WSEAS transactions on Circuits and Systems, vol 7, 1
Joshi, Himanshu M, (1987) "Fully Developed Natural Convection in an Isothermal Vertical

Annular Duct". International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 14, No.6, Nov-
Dec 1987, pp. 657-664
Joshi, Himanshu M. (1988) "Numerical Solutions for Developing Laminar Free Convection in Vertical
Annular Ducts Open at Both Ends", Numerical Heat Transfer, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 393-403
Katz, C. et al. (1978), “ Progress in the Determination of AC/DC resistance Ratios of Pipe-Type
Cable Systems” , IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol PAS-97, No. 6
Kawasaki K., Inami, M. and Ishikawá, T., (1981), “Theoretical considerations on eddy currents losses
in non-magnetic pipes for power transmission”, IEEE Transactions on power apparatus and
systems, Vol. PAS-100, no 2, pp. 474-484
KEMA/Heijdemej, “Moisture migration and drying-out in sand round heat dissipating cables and
ducts”, Arnhem, 1981, additional: workshop “Current rating of buried cables in relation to
thermal properties of soil”, Arnhem 1985
Keyhani, M. and Kulacki, F.A., (1985) "Natural Convection in Enclosures Containing Tube Bundles",
in "Natural Convection", edited by KaKac,S. et al., Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. New
York
King, S.Y., Halfter, N.A., (1983) “Underground Power Cables”, Longman, London, United Kingdom
Koopmans, G. and Kuiper, J. (1990), “The critical temperature for drying-out of soils around power
cables as a function of local conditions”, Kema scientific & technical reports, 1990
Page 164
Koreman, C.G.A., Aanhaanen, G.L.P., van Rossum, J.C.M., Koning, R.F.F., Boone, W. and de Wild,
F. (2006), “Development of a new 380kV double circuit XLPE insulated cable system in the
Netherlands”, Cigre 2006, Paris, France, paper B1-107
Kovač, N., Sarajcev, I. and Poljak, D., (2006), “Nonlinear-coupled electric-thermal modelling of
underground cable systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 4-14
Kusuda, T. and Achenbach, P. (1965), “Earth Temperature and Thermal Diffusivity at Selected
Stations in the United States”, National Bureau of Standards Research Report 8972
Lesur, F., Mirebeau, P., Mammeri, M. and Santana, J. (2014), “Innovative insertion of very long AC
cable links into the transmission network” Cigre 2014, Paris, France, paper B1-301
Lian, Y.C. and Li, Y.M. (2008), “On-line dynamic cable rating for underground cables based on DTS
and FEM. WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems” 2008, Vol. 7, 4, pp. 229-238
Luoni, G., Morello, A. and Holdup, H. (1972), “Calculation of the external thermal resistance of buried
cables through conformal transformation”, Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers,
vol. 119, 5, pp 575- 586
Lyall, J.S. Brooks, J. and McKeown, D., (2004), “A dynamic rating technique for underground power
cables”, Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC 2004)
Maioli P. (2007), “Passive loops technique for electromagnetic fields mitigation: applications and
theoretical considerations” Proc. Of Jicable 2007, Versailles, France, paper A.8.4
Martin, B. and Cohen, M. (1954), "Heat Transfer by Free Convection in an Open Thermosyphon
Tube", British Journal of Applied Physics, Vol.5, pp. 91-95
Martin, B. (1955), "Free Convection in an Open Thermosyphon with Special Reference to Turbulent
Flow", Proc. of Royal Society, Vols. 230, no. 1183, pp. 502-530
Mekjian A. and Sosnowski, M. (1983), “Calculations of alternating current losses in steel pipes
containing power cables”, IEEE Transactions on Power apparatus and systems, Vol. PAS-102,
No.2
McCormick, D. G. (1969), “Cable Ratings in Concrete Troughs”, ECRC report R219.
McRae, B.P., Dowd, G. and Flanagan, P. (1975), “The performance of underground cables when laid
in concrete bridges”, The electricity commission of new South Wales Transmission Division
Mochlinski, K. (1976), “Assessment of the influence of soil thermal resistivity on the ratings of
distribution cables”, IEE, vol 123, no1 , pp 60-72
Moore, G.F. (1997) “Electric Cables (HANDBOOK)”, Oxford ; Malden, Mass. : Blackwell Science
Morgan, V.T. (1982), "The Thermal Rating of Overhead-Line Conductors Part I. The Steady-State
Thermal Model", Electric Power Systems Research, 5, pp. 119 - 139
Page 165
Moreau, C. and Courset, L. (2007), “Current ratings of cables in plastic ducts”, Proc. of Jicable 2007,
Versailles, France, paper B8-4
Morello, A. (1959), “The Calculation of the Current Flow in New Power Transmission Cables”,
L’Elettrotecnica, Vol. 46, No. 1, p.2, January 1959
Morris, M. and R.W. Burell (1954), “Current-Carrying Capacity of Pipe-Type Systems under Steady-
State and Transient Cyclical Loading Conditions”, AIEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, June, pp. 650-660
Moutassem W. (2007) “Optimization procedure for rating calculations of unequally loaded power
cables”, M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto
Moutassem, W. and Anders, G.J. (2010) “Calculation of the eddy current and hysteresis losses in
sheathed cableles inside a steel pipe”, IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery Vol 25 No 3, pp 2054-
2063
Murata, Y., Watanabe, C., Itou, Y., Sasaki, H., Katakai, S. and Watanabe, M. (2014) “Practical
application of +/-250kV DC-XLPE cable for Hokkaido-Honshu HVDC link”, Cigre 2014, Paris,
Nakamura, S., Morooka, S. and Kawasaki, K., (1992), “Conductor temperature monitoring system in
underground power transmission XLPE cable joints,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
Vol. 7, Issue 4, pp. 1688-1697
NBS report 8972 (1965), “Earth Temperature and Thermal Diffusivity at Selected Stations in the
United States”, National Bureau of Standards Reports
Neher, J. H., and McGrath, M. H. (Oct. 1957) “The Calculation of the Temperature Rise and Load
Capability of Cable Systems”, AIEE Transactions, Part III, Volume 76, pp 752–772
Novák and Koller, L. (2011), “Influence of phase order on losses and outer magnetic field of grouped
underground cables,” IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition (PSCE), pp. 1-6
Palmer, J.A., Degeneff, R.C., McKernan T. M. and T. M. Halleran (1993) “Pipe Type Cables
Ampacities in the Presence of Harmonics”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp.1689-1695, Page 19 of 20
Palmgren, D., Karlstrand, J. and Henning, G., (2011), “Armour loss in three-core submarine XLPE
cables”, Proc. of Jicable 2011, Versailles, France. 2011-A7-4
Pavlovsky, M. and Bauer, P. (2002), “Cable selection and Shunt compensation for Offshore
Windparks”, Delft University of Technology
Pilgrim, J.A. Swaffield, D., Lewin, P. and Payne, D., (2008), “An investigation of thermal ratings for
high voltage cable joints through the use of 2D and 3D finite element analysis,” Conference
record of the 2008 IEEE international symposium on electrical insulation, pp. 543-546
Page 166
Pilgrim, J.A. Swaffield, D., Lewin, P., Larsen, S. and Payne, D., (2009), “Assessment of the impact of
joint bays on the ampacity of high-voltage cable circuits,” IEEE Transactions on power delivery,
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 1029-1036
Pilgrim, J.A., Swaffield, D., Lewin, D., Larsen, P., Payne, D. and Waite, F., (2010), “Rating
Independent Cable Circuits in Forced-Ventilated Cable Tunnels”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 25, no. 4, pp 2046-2053
Pilgrim, J.A., Swaffield, D., Lewin, P., Swingler, S., Waite, F. and Payne, D. (2011), “Impact of
moisture migration on the current rating of high operating temperature cables”, proc. of Jicable
2011, Versailles, France, C.9.6
Pilgrim J.A., Lewin, P. Senior, Larsen, S., Waite, F. and Payne, D., (2012), “Rating of Cables in
Unfilled Surface Troughs”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 993-1001
Pilgrim, J.A., Catmull, R., Chippendale, P.L., Lewin, P., Stratford, P. and Tyreman, R. (2014),
“Current rating optimisation for offshore wind farm export cables”, Cigre 2014, Paris, France,
paper B1-108
Raithby, G.D. and Hollands, K.G.T. (1985), "Natural Convection", in "Handbook of Heat Transfer",
edited by Rohsenow, W.M. and Hartnett, J.P., McGraw-Hill, New York
Ruiter, J.P. and Thus, A.W. (1984), “Cooling of oil-filled cable joints using heat pipes,” IEE
Proceedings Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 131, Issue 7, pp. 340-348
Sakis Meliopoulos, A.P. and Martin Jr, M.A (1992), “Calculation of Secondary Cable Losses and
Ampacity in the Presence of Harmonics” , IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 2,
pp. 451-459
Sande, E. van de, and Hamer, B.J.G. (1979), “Steady and transient natural convection in enclosures
between horizontal circular cylinders (constant heat flux)”, Intl. J. Heat. Mass. Tranfer, Vol 22.
pp 361-370
Slaninka, P. (1965), “Thermal Resistance of a Cable Channel.” Bull. Vuki, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 212–
221
Slaninka, P. and Morgan, V.T. (1992), “External thermal resistance of power cable in non-uniform
soil”, Vol 139, no 3, pp. 117-124
Swaffield, D.J. et al. (2008), “Methods for rating directly buried High Voltage Cable Circuits”, IET
Generation, Transmission & Distribution, Vol 2, issue 3, pp. 393-401
Taflove and Dabkowski, J. (1979-1), “Prediction method for buried pipeline voltages due to 60Hz ac
inductive coupling Part I - Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
98, issue 3, pp. 780-787
Taflove and Dabkowski, J. (1979-2),“Prediction method for buried pipeline voltages due to 60Hz ac
inductive coupling Part II – Field test verification,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. 98, issue 3, pp. 788-794
Page 167
Tang, K., Paton, D., Bucea, S., Mashio, S., Muramatsu, Y. (2014), “330kV XLPE cable specific
testing protocol requirements”, Cigre 2014, Paris, France, paper B1-102
Terracciano, M., Purushothaman, S., de Leon , F. (2012), “Thermal analysis of cables in unfilled
troughs investigation of the IEC standards and a methodical approach for cable rating”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 27, issue 3, pp. 1423-1431
Vavra, J. and Wanda, M., (2006), “400kV Vienna – the Vienna 400kV North input”, Cigre 2006, Paris,
Wald, D., Nyffenegger, H., Orton, H. and Anders, G. (2011), “Improved cooling of high voltage
cables”, Proc. of Jicable 2011, Versailles, France, paper C.10.4
Weedy, B.M., and Perkins, P. (1967), “Steady-state thermal analysis of a 400 kV-cable through joint”
Proceedings of Institution of Electrical Engineers, Vol. 141, Issue 1, pp. 109-115
Weedy, B.M., and El-Zayyat, H.M. (1972-1), “The Current Carrying Capacity of Power Cables in
Tunnels”, Paper T72 505-6, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, San Francisco, California
Weedy, B.M., and El-Zayyat, H.M. (1972-2), “Heat Transfer from Cables in Tunnels and Shafts”,
Paper C72 506-4, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, San Francisco, California
Wild, F. de, Boone, W., Geest, H. van der, Smit, J. (2007), “Dynamic rating systems in general and in
a hybrid 150kV transmission system”, Proc. of Jicable’07, Versailles, France, paper 2007-A6-5
Williams G. P. and Gold, L. W. (1976), “Ground Temperatures”, Canadian Building Digest 180
Wormer, C van (1955), "An Improved Approximate Technique for Calculating Cable Temperature
Transients", AIEE Trans., vol. 74, pp.277 -281
Worzyk, Th. (2009), "Submarine Power Cables: Design, Installation, Repair, Environmental
Aspects", Power Systems (2009)
Zhang, D., Werle, V. and Jung, J. (2014), “The first HVAC and HVDC grid connection projects for
wing power integration in German North Sea: experience, challenge and outlook”, Cigre 2014,
Page 168
Ap p end ix A: Q u e st i o nna ir e ( Empt y)
Note that name and address have been blanked.
Page 169
Questionnaire
on
Cable Rating starting points and calculation methods
Introduction
This questionnaire has been sent to you by XXXXXX, convenor of CIGRE Working Group B1-35, to
collect information regarding starting points for cable rating calculations as well as to collect
information regarding the cable rating calculation methods currently used in your company for the
engineering of high voltage power cable systems (both AC and DC).
The most important goal of the CIGRE Working Group B1-35 is to prepare a guide for cable rating
calculations. This guide comprises three sections: a section on how we can best establish the
starting points for a cable rating study, a section on how we can perform a cable rating calculation if
other sources (e.g. IEC) do not provide an answer, and a section on how we can best perform a
stationary, dynamic or on-line rating cable rating calculation.
In order to prepare a useful guide for you, as one of Cigre’s customers, we currently request your
input information. It will help us to pinpoint the most important problems in the field of cable ratings,
and it will enable us to share best practices in order for all to learn and improve. Therefore, please
help us in our work on cable rating calculations by completing the questionnaire!
Your answers will be analyzed and compared to the answers of other utilities, but the final result will
be made anonymous. Only to ensure correct interpretation of your input, we request your contact
details in the questionnaire.
The time needed to complete the questionnaire will be about 2 to 4 hours. You can simply answer
the questionnaire digitally, just by adding text to this file. Feel free to add any comment or attach any
document you want.
Thank you for your effort!
XXXXX
Convenor of Cigre Working Group B1-35 on Cable Ratings
Page 170
Contact information
th
Please send the completed questionnaire on or before April 19 to Mr. XXXXX either via e-mail to
XXXXXX, or via normal mail to:
XXXXXX
Personal details
For reference purposes and for possible clarifications only, please complete your name and contact
details:
Name :
Company name :
E-mail :
Telephone :
Address :
City :
Postal Code :
State :
Country :
Page 171
Questions
Note: Cross boxes, select option or complete text fields to give your answer.
1 Your Company and Cable rating practice
1.1 What kind of company are you belonging to?
- a utility
- a cable manufacturer
- a consultancy company
- other
please specify:
1.2 What is the method used in your Company for cable

rating?
IEC methods (60287 and 60853 series) Please select
Other(s), please specify:
1. Please select
2. Please select
3. Please select
1.3 Who is performing cable rating in your company?
- internal
- tenders / cable manufacturers
- consultants
- other
please specify:
1.4 At what stages are you performing cable rating?
- feasibility / basic design

- tendering documents / specifications
- detail design / design review
- verification with installation feedback
- updates in case of modifications along the
route
- reassess rating of existing cables
- other
please specify:
Page 172
1.5 On which type of lines are you doing cable rating

calculations?
- All
- above a certain rated voltage
please specify:
- depending on the importance within your
network
please specify:
1.6 On which HV cable types are you doing cable rating

calculations?
- general Please select

- single core cables Please select
- three cores cables Please select
- armoured cables Please select
- submarine cables Please select

- DC cables Please select
1.7 Laying configurations
What typical methods are used in your Company?
- direct buried Please select

- in filled buried troughs Please select
- in unfilled buried troughs Please select
- in direct buried ducts Please select
- in concrete encased ducts (duct bank) Please select
- in free air Please select
- in air in tunnel Please select
- horizontal directional drilling Please select
- other, please specify:
- Please select
- Please select
Laying configurations for 3 single core cables:
- trefoil touching phases Please select

- trefoil non touching phases Please select
- ‘L’ position in duct banks Please select
- Flat formation Please select
Installation depth (direct buried):
- do you install cables less than 0.4 m depth?

- do you install cables between 0.4 and 2 m Please select
depth? Please select
- do you install cables between 2 and 10 m
depth? Please select
- do you install cable very deep (more than
10m) ? Please select
What is the typical land use on the top of the cable?

(e.g. pavement, tarmac, grass etc):
Page 173
2. Parameters related to the surrounding conditions
2.1 Soil/ Seabed Ambient temperature
Note: according to IEC 60287 / Neher Mc Grath

definitions, the ambient temperature is the
temperature of the surrounding medium under
normal conditions, at a situation in which cables are
installed, or are to be installed, including the effect of
any local source of heat, but not the increase of
temperature in the immediate neighbourhood of the
cables due to heat arising therefrom.
What is your practice regarding this parameter ?
Site measurements (1) Please select

If occasional/rare, when (e.g. submarine)
Assumed values (2)
If occasional/rare, when (e.g. below Please select

132 kV)
(1) Site measurements
Please give details on your measurement method

(how many, where on the route, at what depth,
measuring equipment, when/which period, etc.)
(2) Assumed values
Note : it is understood that assumed values are

excluding the effect of any local source of heat. Yes No
Yes No
Do you use seasonal values?
Hot Cold
Do you use regional values for soil?
season season
What are your assumed values (please detail per Region A
°C
season and region/installation where applicable)? If °C
necessary use separate sheet if the table does not Region B
°C
allow correct data entry. °C
Region C
°C
°C
Seabed
°C
°C
Page 174
How did you set these values?
2.2 Soil/Seabed Thermal resistivity
What is your practice regarding this parameter?
Site measurements (1) Please select
Please select
Assumed values (2)
Please give details on your measurement method

:
- Frequency of the measurements

- Location of the measurements
- What parameters do you measure
- How you deduce your worst case for
Yes No
engineering purposes ?
Yes No
(2) Assumed values
Do you use seasonal values ?
Do you use regional values ?

Dry Wet seas
season on
Region A
K.m/W K.m/W
Region B
What are your assumed values (please detail per K.m/W K.m/W
season and region/installation where applicable)?
Region C
If necessary use separate sheet if the table does
K.m/W K.m/W
not allow correct data entry.
Seabed
K.m/W K.m/W
Page 175
2.3 Soil Drying out:
Do you consider soil drying out in your cable rating

calculations?
Yes, always
No, never
Yes but under conditions (please detail:

depending on cable type, installation conditions,
operating conditions etc ..)
When using soil drying out, what are the typical

values you use for the following parameters : K.m/W
Thermal resistivity of the dried soil; K.m/W
Thermal resistivity of the moist soil
Others (please specify) K.m/W
K.m/W
°C
Critical temperature of the soil and temperature of (seasonal values if any)

the boundary between dry and moist zones
How did you set these values (if any)? If you

Yes No
measure it please give details of the method.
After a possible drying out period do you consider a

“resting” time to allow re-hydration of the
surrounding soil?
2.4 Backfill and surrounding material properties
What parameters of usual material directly

surrounding the cable do you specify :
Thermal resistivity Yes No
Grain size distribution Yes No
Page 176
Compaction Yes No
Others (please specify)
Yes No
Do you make any control on the rest of backfill

materials?
Please detail:
2.5 Influence of other heat sources
How do you take into account influence of other heat

sources in your cable ratings?
By adding a margin to ambient temperature Yes No

(please indicate typical margin value) ( °C)
By using de-rating tables or similar tools Yes No
(please provide details)
Yes No
By calculating the exact influence
Yes No
Not taken into account Yes No
Other
3. Operating parameters
3.1 Do you use IEC maximum temperature as

conductor normal operating temperature?
Yes No
If not, or if there are exceptions to this rule,
please detail your practice and value.
Page 177
3.2 Where does the temperature limitation come

from?
- Conductor temperature Yes No

- Metallic sheath temperature Yes No
- Cable surface temperature Yes No
- Air temperature (for tunnel) Yes No
3.3 Load factor
- Not considered
- Case per case calculations (based on
IEC 60853)
- Assumed values
- Others,
please specify:
In case of assumed values please give details

and typical values.
3.4 Emergency
What is your practice regarding emergency?
- Not considered
- Case per case calculations (based on (1)
IEC 60853)
- Assumed ratio to normal operating (2)
ratings
- Automatic (real time rating, etc.)
- Others
please specify:
(1) Case per case calculations parameters

min / min / hours
Emergency Durations considered:
What is your practice regarding maximum

conductor temperature at the end of
emergency? Please detail:
Page 178
What are the typical values of density and kg/m3 / J/kg.°C

specific heat capacity you use for : kg/m3 / J/kg.°C
kg/m3 / J/kg.°C
- Dried soil
- Wet soil kg/m3 / J/kg.°C
- Concrete kg/m3 / J/kg.°C
- Others (please details)
-
-
(2) Assumed Coefficients to normal operating min / min / hours

ratings
/ /
Durations
Corresponding assumed coefficients
4 Others
4.1 Bottleneck mitigation
What are your practice to increase cable rating

at bottlenecks?
- Special backfill Yes No

(Please indicate target thermal ( K.m/W)
resistivity)
- Cooling systems :
- Water cooling system Yes No
- Natural ventilation Yes No
- Forced ventilation Yes No
- Air conditioned (thus: active cooling) Yes No
- Consider axial thermal Flux Yes No
- Change in laying configuration Yes No
please indicate how:
Yes No
- Others
please specify:
4.2 Feedback from your cable rating experience
What are the most usual thermal design

limitations? (conductor/sheath temperature, soil
dry out, surrounding conditions, operating
conditions etc.)
Do you face other limits/regulations which

influence cable ratings? (environmental aspects
like EMF or temperature increase, vicinity with
other equipment etc.)
If your Company experienced cable breakdowns
Page 179
due to over-ratings could you give some details

(overloading, mistake in original cable rating
calculations, modification of the environment,
others):
Comments & additional starting points for

calculations which are missing in this
questionnaire?
What is your recommendation dealing with

starting points for cable rating calculations?
5 Steady state rating
5.1 Do you perform steady state calculations yourself :
By hand or spreadsheet? Yes No
With rating tables? Yes No
With in-house software based on IEC or

Neher/McGrath? Yes No
With commercial available program (not FEM)? Yes No
With Finite Element (FEM) program? Yes No
Other (please specify)? Yes No
5.2 Do you use a safety margin in the rating

calculations? Yes No
If yes:
- do you use a lower conductor temperature? Yes No

- do you use a reduced normal rating or a
lower pre-emergency load? Yes No
- Other? Yes No
please specify:
Page 180
5.3 Do you calculate heat, generated due to induced

currents, in steel plates, concrete reinforcement or
parallel earth wires? Yes No
If yes, how do you calculate:
5.4 Do you use standard IEC calculations (only) for deep

buried cable system beyond 5 meter, e.g directional
drillings? Yes No
If no, how do you calculate:
5.5 Have you made any comparison between calculated

and measured cable temperature to check if the
calculations are correct? Yes No
If yes, please specify:
5.6 Have you made any comparison between calculated

and measured steel wire armour losses for 3-core
cables? Yes No
If yes, please specify your findings:
5.7 Do you calculate cable rating for unfilled unventilated

surface trough in general? Yes No
5.8 Do you consider the impact of charging currents on

the real power transfer in long cable systems? Yes No
If yes, how do you calculate?
5.9 What calculation methods do you use for tunnel

installations not covered in Cigré publication Electra
No 143?Think for example about multiple cable
circuits, natural ventilated, vertical shafts etc.
5.10 Do you calculate current rating for cables in riser

poles (J-tubes)? Yes No
5.11 Do you calculate current rating for vertical cables

exposed to solar radiation? Yes No
5.12 Do you calculate current rating for cables in large

steel conduits? Yes No
5.13 Do you calculate current rating for cables in open
Page 181
water (not embedded)? Yes No
5.14 Where are the most important needs for

improvement regarding steady state rating?
5.15 What do you do when IEC or Neher/McGrath does

not provide an answer?
6. Dynamic rating (cyclic or emergency time dependent rating)
6.1 Do you perform dynamic rating calculations yourself? Yes No
If yes, how do you perform these calculations:
- with in-house software based on IEC/Neher

McGrath?
- with in-house software based on Cigré?
- with commercial available program?

- With another method?
please specify:
6.2 Do you use any safety margin in the calculations

(Think for example about a lower temperature or
limited time durations)? Yes No
Page 182
6.3 Did you experience limitations or difficulties with the

used dynamic rating calculations? Yes No
6.4 Is the dynamic rating system fully integrated in your

network system or is it a stand-alone program / Fully Integrated
system? Stand Alone
7. Real time temperature monitoring system
7.1 Do you use real time temperature monitoring

systems?
- No
- Yes, an own developed system, e.g. PT100
- Yes, a commercial available DTS system
- Yes, another system
please specify:
7.2 If you use a glass fibre temperature monitoring

system (DTS), what is the glass fibre position?
- inside cable, cable screen

- cable surface
- external parallel conduit
- other
please specify:
Permanent
Is the DTS system used permanently connected to Mobile/Temporary

the same cable circuit or is it used on a temporary
basis among different circuits?
Yes No
Have you checked the overall accuracy of the DTS

system?
If yes, please specify the findings:
7.3 Have you experienced limitations or difficulties with

the currently used temperature monitoring system? Yes No
Page 183
8 Real Time Current Rating System
8.1 Do you use a Real Time Current Rating system for

any cable circuit?
- No
- Yes, our own developed system
please specify system:
- Yes, a commercial available system

please specify type of system:
8.2 Do you use a fibre optic( DTS) system as an input for

the Real Time Current Rating System? Yes No
In both cases, please specify:
8.3 Do you use any safety margin in the Real Time

Current Rating System? Yes No
8.4 Is the Real Time Current Rating System fully

integrated in your network system or is it a stand- Fully Integrated
alone system? Stand Alone
8.5 Have you experienced limitations or difficulties with

the currently used temperature monitoring system? Yes No
9 Others
9.1 Do you have any additional observations regarding

calculations methods or dynamic rating system? Yes No
9.2 Did you make any comparison between calculated

and measured steady state or transient
temperatures? Yes No
9.3 What recommendations could you give to other users

considering steady state or dynamic rating
calculations?
Thank you for your time! For sending the questionnaire, see introduction
Page 184
Ap p end ix B: Q u e st i o nna ir e – In c lud ing R e pli e s Su mm a r y
Note: Where company names or persons names are given, these names have been changed to
‘XXX’.
Questions
1 Your Company and Cable rating practice
1.1 What kind of company are you belonging to?
Kind of company
Kind of company Number of replies
A utility 59 replies
A cable manufacturer 22 replies
A consultancy company 12 replies
Other 8 replies (4 Universities)
1.2 What is the method used in your Company for cable rating?
Method used for cable rating

Method Blank Always Often Occasional Rare Never
IEC methods (60287 and
39 40 11 2 6
60853 series)
Other(s) References were given to commercial cable rating software
1.3 Who is performing cable rating in your company?
Who performs cable rating

Blank Yes No
Internal 8 89 4
Tenders / cable
manufacturers 22 45 34
Consultants 38 24 39
Other 8
Others specified are:
 Current ratings are mainly calculated for HV Cables based on installation conditions specified by
clients
 University
 Some sub-contracting but always check with our own calculations
Page 185
 Confirmation by cable manufacturer

 Consultants set the guidelines, Engineers adopt them to the practical situation
 Designing team
 Developers and supporting specialists
 Own developed program based on IEC.
1.4 At what stages are you performing cable rating?
At what stages are cable rating calculations performed

Stage Blank Yes No
Feasibility / basic design 9 83 9
Tendering documents / specifications 12 69 20
Detail design / design review 10 76 15
Verification with installation feedback 13 56 32
Updates in case of modifications along
12 67 22
the route
Reassess rating of existing cables 15 61 25
Other 6
Others specified are:
 On line cable monitoring

 Assessment of temporary enhancement requests for operational purposes making use of known
better ambient conditions
 N/A (It depends on customers)
 For research
 We perform cable rating at the time of designs proposals/or to do feasibility studies. We use to
work join cable manufactures, whom generally furnish power cables, accessories and service
installations. The cable manufacturers usually are responsible to perform ampacity calculations
and define the cable rating
 Real time ratings.
1.5 On which type of lines are you doing cable rating calculations?
Types of lines on which cable rating calculations are done

Types of line Blank Yes No
All 22 58 21
Above a certain voltage 31 40 30
Depending on the importance within your
54 9 38
network
Page 186
The voltage specified in case of a voltage above which calculations are done is:
 415V
 6 kV
 11 kV (6x)
 33kV (5x)
 46kV (2x)
 50kV (3x)
 60 (3x)
 63 kV
 66 kV (3x)
 69 kV (2x)
 72 kV
 88 kV
 110 kV (6x)
 132 kV
 138 kV
 150 kV
 154 kV
 275 kV.
1.6 On which HV cable types are you doing cable rating calculations?
HV cable types on which cable ratings are calculated

Cable Types Blank Often Occasional Rare Never
HV cables, general 13 74 7 4 2
Single core cables 2 94 4 1 0
Three core cables 5 40 20 15 21
Armoured 7 27 20 27 20
Submarine 24 17 17 18 25
DC 23 10 14 18 36
1.7 Laying configurations
What typical methods are used in your Company? What is the typical land use on the top of the
cable? (e.g. pavement, tarmac, grass etc):
Page 187
Typical laying configurations per continent – North America

Laying configuration Blank Always Often Occasional Rare Never
Direct buried 4 5 4 2
Filled buried troughs 1 2 4 2 6
Unfilled buried troughs 2 1 5 1 7
Direct buried ducts 5 6 2 2
Concrete encased ducts 14 1
In free air 1 4 6 1 3
In air in tunnel 1 1 5 5 3
HDD 4 2 4 2 3
Other 1 2
Other laying methods reported for North-America: Buried pipe type cables (1xoften) and submarine cables
(2xoccasional )
Typical laying configurations per continent – South America

Direct buried 2 1 1
Filled buried troughs 1 1 2
Unfilled buried troughs 2 1 1
Direct buried ducts 2 1 1
Concrete encased ducts 2 2
In free air 1 1 2
In air in tunnel 1 1 2
HDD 4
Other
Typical laying configurations per continent – Europe

Direct buried 36 5 5 2
Direct buried ducts 2 31 6 4 5
Concrete encased ducts 2 20 13 8 5
In free air 1 14 17 11 5
In air in tunnel 11 20 12 5
HDD 5 17 19 5 2
Other 1 2 1
Other laying methods reported with occurrence: J-tube (1xoften), steel pipes shielded (1xoccasional), cables
on bridges (1xoccasional), sub-lake ducts (1xoccasional), cable crossings (1xrare), Buried pipe TYPE cables
(1 x often) and submarine cables (1 x occasional).
Page 188
Typical laying configurations per continent – Africa

Direct buried 2
Filled buried troughs 1 1
Unfilled buried troughs 1 1
Direct buried ducts 1 1
Concrete encased ducts 2
In free air 2
In air in tunnel 1 1
HDD 1 1
Other
Typical laying configurations per continent – Asia

Direct buried 15 6 2
Direct buried ducts 2 16 3 1 1
Concrete encased ducts 1 9 11 2
In free air 2 8 7 3 3
In air in tunnel 1 13 9
HDD 5 7 4 7
Other
Typical laying configurations per continent – Oceanic

Direct buried 7 1
Filled buried troughs 1 5 2
Unfilled buried troughs 1 1 5 1
Direct buried ducts 8
Concrete encased ducts 1 4 2 1
In free air 1 4 3
In air in tunnel 1 1 2 3 1
HDD 4 4
Other
Laying configurations for 3 single core cables:
Laying configuration for 3 single core cables

Laying configuration Always Often Occasional Rare Never
Trefoil touching phases 65 16 6 6
Trefoil non touching phases 29 21 26 14
L’ position in duct banks 14 17 18 27
Flat 61 14 12 4
Page 189
Installation depth (direct buried):
Installation depth (direct buried) – North America

Laying depth Blank Often Occasional Rare Never
Less than 0.4 m depth 3 4 8
Between 0.4 and 2 m depth 4 8 3
Between 2 m and 10 m depth 5 4 4 2
Very deep: >10m depth 2 6 6 1
One response with following remark: ‘standard is 3 ft to top of duct bank. Due to urban congestion, often 5-6
ft to top is required.’
Typical land use on the top of the installed cables in North America:
 Roadway 3 responses
 Pavement 3 responses
 City streets 3 responses
 Grass 3 responses
 Granular fill or native soil 1 responses
 Green spaces, etc. 1 responses
 Pavement and tarmac 1 responses
 Any type of land can be accounted for as long as we know its thermal resistivity. 1 responses
 All possible surfaces 1 responses
 Varies greatly from marine installation to urban area to green field 1 responses
Installation depth (direct buried) – south America

Less than 0.4 m depth 4
Between 0.4 and 2 m depth 3 1
Between 2 m and 10 m depth 1 1 2
Very deep: >10m depth 1 1 2
Typical land use on the top in South America:
 Tarmac , pavement , concrete surfaces , 1 response

 Tarmac 1 response
 Pavement, asphalt 1 response
 Pavement or grass 1 response
Page 190
Installation depth (direct buried) – Europe

Less than 0.4 m depth 2 1 5 12 8
Between 0.4 and 2 m depth 2 45 1
Very deep: >10m depth 2 4 9 19 14
Typical land use on the top in Europe:
 Tarmac/asphalt/roads 18 responses
 Agricultural 10 responses
 Soil / sand / peat 5 responses
 Concrete 4 responses
 Gravel / shingle 2 responses
 Tiles 1 response
 Drilling under roads 1 response
 All types 1 response
One remark by the responder: the ground temperature is increased by 5 till 10 °C when tarmac is used.
Installation depth (direct buried) – Asia

Less than 0.4 m depth 2 1 1 6 14
Between 0.4 and 2 m depth 21 1 1 1
Between 2 m and 10 m depth 3 3 8 8 2
Typical land use on the top in Asia:
 Tarmac / asphalt 5 responses
 Concrete / cement 2 responses
 Interlock tiles 1 responses
 Vehicular road 1 responses
 N/A(It depends on customers) 1 response
 And bridge 1 response
Installation depth (direct buried) – Oceanic

Less than 0.4 m depth 1 1 6
Between 0.4 and 2 m depth 8
Typical land use on the top in Oceanic:
 Tarmac / roadway 3 responses
Page 191
Installation depth (direct buried) – Africa

Less than 0.4 m depth 2

Between 0.4 and 2 m depth 2
Between 2 m and 10 m depth 2
Very deep: >10m depth 2
Typical land use on the top in Africa:
 Tarmac 1 responses
2 Parameters related to the surrounding conditions
2.1 Soil/ Seabed Ambient temperature
Note: according to IEC 60287 / Neher Mc Grath definitions, the ambient temperature is the
temperature of the surrounding medium under normal conditions, at a situation in which cables are
installed, or are to be installed, including the effect of any local source of heat, but not the increase of
temperature in the immediate neighbourhood of the cables due to heat arising therefrom.
Soil/ seabed temperature – assumed or measured

Blank Always Often Occasional Sometimes Rare never
Measured 3 1 9 21 5 21 41
Assumed 6 7 73 7 2 3 3
Occasional/Sometimes/ rare reasons for measured:
 Submarine 11 responses
 Provided by customer/utility 5 responses
 Reassessment of existing cables 4 response
 Buried cables 3 responses
 Combined with thermal resistance testing along route 2 responses
 Important high profile circuits 2 response
 Base on the rule of GB 50217(2007), the average earth temperature
in the hottest month is chosen as surrounding temperature of laid place. 1 response
 River crossings, with thermal borings 1 response
 Reference temp. 1 response
 And in case of on line monitoring 1 response
 Confirmation of worst case scenario 1 response
 In some land where normal values are unknown 1 response
 In critical situation 1 response
 Service tunnel locations 1 response
Occasional/Sometimes/ rare reasons for assumed:
 No data available 10 response
Page 192
Please give details on your measurement method (how many, where on the route, at what depth,
measuring equipment, when/which period, etc.)
Details given:
 A few thermo-couples are installed, but have not been used for rating purposes
 Usually assumed worst case summer conditions for depth and location
 Thermocouples placed at terminating substations at depth of cable and +/-5 ft (1.5 m)) both
above and below depth of cable
 Work with a consultant to determine along route, depth of proposed cables
 Thermocouples, PT 100 in depth of 0,5 to 2 meters, OF measurement of a non loaded cable.
 For on line monitoring, near measuring points (in case no optical fibre measurements).
Submarine, based on annual temperature profiles
 Never, this is generally done by the Utilities and in many cases using the optical fibre with one
DTS
 Assumed value 35 °C
 During thermal resistance surveys at nominally 1.2 m depth
 Due to a long period heat waves during the summer seasons of 2008 and 2009. This coincided
with the design stage of the most recent 275 kV cable installation which resulted in soil
temperature measurements being taken during the hottest part of the day
 Temperature measured at 500 mm, 900 mm and 1.2 m deep at selected trial holes (eg proposed
joint bays)
 Measured at trench depth at one or two locations only
 For big schemes geotech studies undertaken during development stage these include soil
sampling. During project more taken
 At approximately 500 m intervals in the cable route, one @0.5 m depth, one @0.8 m depth and
third one on the trench floor at about 1.2 m depth. This is carried out to investigate thermal
characteristics of native soil in the cable route to accommodate in design for verification of cable
ampacity. To be on safer side all the measured soil temperatures were well below 25 °C, hence
we have assumed ambient soil temperature of 25 °C
 Discrete thermocouples or increasingly DTS
 Seabed surveys, depending on route difficulties
 Site measurements not carried out by EA Technology
 To measure thermal resistivity of soil, temperature of soil is measured.
 Example of deep laying case
 Measurement point: 1
 Position: near planning position
 Depth: depending on laying depth (selectable values: 2 m, 5 m, 10 m, 15 m and 20 m; decided
by measurement device specification)
 Sensor: thermocouple in a needle probe (transient probe method)
 Period: not decided (more than three times, more than 2 days’ interval)
 Case by case
 We use results of the site measurements and not perform it
 Thermocouples placed at 10 cm deep and at 70 cm deep at 2 meters of the cables
 We take information from customer’s specification or IEC values
 IEEE & ASTM standard
Page 193
 Open trench several measurements along the route and throughout the day/night
 "Temperature measurements (DTS) will often be installed in a period after commissioning of the
wind farm to approve the design of the cables. Ambient temperature will be available in no/low
load periods
 The fibre is included in the subsea cables but in separate duct along onshore cable routes
 Experience from previous cables with DTS installed
 Probes in selected points (possible hot spot) along the route at about 1 m depth. Period depends
on many factors
 Normally the particular conditions such as soil ambient temperature are established in the project
specifications by the utility or the customer; We only checked by region and we take as reference
the maximum and minimum temperature reached in the year
 We have measured the seasonal variation at typical HV cable burial depths to give a real-time
ambient temperature approximation
 0.5 m，away from surface；0.5 m，away from cable；ambient temperature is recorded by
automatic measuring instruments
 Measuring equipment: Fiber Optic Temperature Measurement depth:0.5 m, 1 m, 1.5 m, 5 m
 Thermocouples installed away from the cables at cable depth. There are a few in our country,
leading to an understanding of the ambient temperature seasonal variations
 Several over the route, thermal probe
 We have used soil temperature measurements using thermocouples placed at different depths to
record seasonal data, cable depth, maximum ground temperature in Winter and Summer
 With FEM we rely mainly on the ambient air temperature rather than the soil temperature
 Every time the soil thermal parameters are measured. At least at three depth levels using digital
equipment.
(2) Assumed values
Do you use seasonal values? Do you use regional values for soil?
Soil / seabed temperature – use of seasonal and/or regional values

Blank Yes No
Use of seasonal values 9 52 40
Use of regional values 9 40 52
What are your assumed values (please detail per season and region/installation where applicable)?
Page 194
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Typical soil temperature range (in °C) for hot conditions per country
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Typical soil temperature range (in °C) for cold conditions per country
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Typical seabed temperature range (in °C) for hot conditions per country
Page 195
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Typical seabed temperature range (in °C) for cold conditions per country
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Typical tunnel / gallery temperature range (in °C) for hot season conditions per country
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Typical tunnel / gallery temperature range (in °C) for cold season conditions per country
Page 196
Answers given:
 Detailed data from the 1950s

 Assumed / some measured
 Previous in situ measurements
 A three year earth ambient study
 Use certain values based on location (inland vs coastal) 31 °C near coast, 25 °C inland
 Hot season temperatures are 3 °C warmer under pavement. Soil temperatures decrease with
depth and become more consistent between seasons
 History and operating experience
 Historic measurements, thermocouples installed in empty ducts
 We perform on every circuit a soil investigation on base of K.m/W, dry-out, soil fractures, etc.
 Region A: common practice, region B: common practice for deep installed cables L>8 m
 Based on long term annual temperature profiles where available, with verification by onsite
measurements
 As per client specification
 Statistical analysis based on meteorological public company data
 French RTE specifications 'Cahier des charges général - Lignes souterraines HTB"
 According to IEC 60287-3-1
 Singapore's temperature
 We consider soil temperature as 30 °C and ambient temperature as 40 °C
 Usually temperatures fall within following ranges in India
 Ground temp. 30 to 40 °C
 Ambient air temp. 40 to 50 °C
 Assumed value of 35 °C for all Oman
 BOM ground temps at 2'6" over 45 years
 Direct data from Bureau of Meteorology
 Originally used IEC287 values for Australia (25 & 15 °C) but after field tests confirmed higher
values (especially under asphalt) have revised upwards
 Accepted norm for Australian values
 Past practice. Tunnel installations treated separately
 From occasional measurement
 Use values from IEC standard
 Studies carried out many years ago considering a range of typical UK conditions
 Use existign BS document that holds mean temperatures at 1m depth along with summer and
winter varfiations for UK (NB seen and used it before, cant find the number right now)
 Values mainly based on NG TS 2.05
 Values are supplied by customers and are occasionally different to the above
 UK standards
 From measurement data
 Region A: 1.2 m or below, Region B: 4.0 m or below
 JCS 0501 or Electric Technology Research Association 53-3.
 JCS 168 E 1995 It is besed on literature
 Depend on customer's specification
 JCS 0501:2002
 For the highest temp
Page 197
 Region A : Europe
 Region B : Asia or Africa
 Seabed : Europe
 Tunnel/Gallery : AsiaR
 Region A values of soil temperatures in west Europe from 1,5 m to 5 m depth
 Ambient soil temperature depends on burial depth; these values were set based on literature
studies and soil studies : 20 °C below 1m , 15 °C between 1m and 4m , 10 °C more than 4m
 Our soil temperature value for duct banks is 25 °C
 They are the result of measurements and statistic values of different specifications.
 Values normally used in Portugal
 We usually take customer’s information on this topic, and we take always the worst case do
perform the calculations
 Legal procedure about HV lines
 Meteorological data 3 month average
 Assumed standard values in Denmark
 Region A: normal cable trench
 Region B: deep drilling
 The temperature in seabed is site dependent. Ranges for two sites are enclosed in the schedule
 Based on geotechnical report from 1980’s.
 DTS measurements from a non-energized cable system showed higher values on land, therefore
this parameter is under revision"
 Experience
 Values are set on the base of Historical/Literature value
 According on the type soil material and geographic location we select values of the thermal
resistivity of soil taken from reference tables of IEC 60287
 These are for 1.1 m burial depth not close to heated cellars. If built up area, we don't give the
benefit of the cooler temp. We use an adjusted sinusoidal time dependence. Note, this is just for
research purposes. As far as we are aware, the utilities generally assume a constant ambient
temperature of 15 °C in Finland
 Average of values under the conditions present in the company
 Based on data of "XXX"
 According the atmosphere condition
 Users request
 The values are used in the area of Greece - in the case of seabed, we consider 15 °C for depths
over 15 m and 25 °C for smaller
 From studies carried out several years ago in Ireland
 Use of fixed values minimum 10 °C and maximum 35 °C
 Customer specified, IEC 60287-3-1 or from "Application Guide AG 31-008"
 Based on historical temperatures or informed by clients.
 Data are supplied by customers
 By site measurement of surrounding temperature at least one year
 Numerous regions around the world. Values used according to customer specifications or taking
from IEC 60287-3-1 when no other information is given.
 According to IEC 60287-3-1 § 4.13 for Switzerland
 Projects provide the information
 Values are for NL, and are dependent on application. For engineering the highest values in the
area are used, for realistic calculations, real measured values are used
Page 198
 Customers provide this value as an input based on the typical seasonal or regional values of soil
ambient temperatures available in their area
 By multiple measurements in other places
 We use average ait temperature of -4 °C in December (peak load) and +21 °C in July
 It is difficult to set one value per season as it depends on the expected laying depth
 Based on SANS 10198-4.
2.2 Soil/Seabed Thermal resistivity
Soil / seabed thermal resistivity – assumed or measured

Blank Always Often Occasional Sometimes Rare Never
Measured 4 4 20 24 4 23 22
Assumed 7 2 69 10 5 4 4
Given reasons if occasional/sometimes/rare is mentioned for measured values:
 Done for all new projects 16 responses

 Done for new submarine 9 responses
 On customer request 5 responses
 For critical site conditions (congested areas) 3 responses
 When route is close to being finalised 1 response
 Reassessment of existing connections 1 response
 Installations using directional drilling at deep depth 1 response
Given reasons if occasional/sometimes/rare is mentioned for assumed values:
 No data available 6 responses

 Small projects, lower voltage class 4 responses
 Only for research purposes, in tender and pre-tender stage 3 response
 Limited project budget 2 responses
 If advised/requested by customer 2 response
 Soil near rivers, sand earth surface 1 response
 Adjust somewhat by soil type if identifiable 1 response
 Circuit diversions 1 response
 The values are chosen depending of the site conditions for other links 1 response
1) Site measurements
Please give details on your measurement method:
Frequency of the measurements
Answers given:
 At least every 300-450 m

 Every 500-1000 ft
Page 199
 Typically, contract with a soil thermal testing specialist to perform a soil resistivity study in
conjunction with geotechnical soil study at least every manhole location at various depth
intervals around proposed installation depth
 Periodic (every 500-1000 ft)
 Strongly depend on cable route and surroundings
 Every 100-250m
 Average each 500vm along route
 Route survey with thermal resistance measurements every 500 m max
 Approx. every 100 m interval along the cable route
 At every 50 mts. Along proposed cable route before laying
 Through the route at every 250 m, average of multiple readings, this followed by laboratory test
 250-500 m
 Thermal resistance measurements are carried out every 100m for cable runs > 1km. smaller
intervals are used for smaller runs. If a thermal resistance measurement is found that is
considered higher than expected measurements are taken 25m either side to establish boundary
of that soil condition
 One off test during project design at critical locations along route. Soil samples sent interstate for
testing (Brisbane) at various moisture content levels. Not tested installation. Worse case
assumed for ratings and laying arrangement
 Once off during pre-design
 Measured at trench depth at one or two locations only
 In trench wall 500 mm above trench. For tender purposes assumed to be every 100 m. Actual
dictated by change in soil type
 Soil thermal resistivity measured values were used for designing the cable rating. At
approximately 500 m intervals in the cable route in situ thermal resistivity
 At assumed hot spots at Zone subs and transmission stations
 For major submarine projects measurements are taken at regular intervals along the route
 Seabed surveys
 Dependent on project, finding worst case soil conditions (eg only larger grain size, no fines)
 Measurements done when site survey indicates poor backfill material and the samples sent to
laboratory
 Example of deep laying case
 More than three times, more than 2 days’ interval
 Case by case
 Detail design
 "Once/twice across cable route measuring thermal resistivity
 Every drilling, for submarine: every km
 Done by the clients
 At each meter depth up to max depth of drilling at each side (end) of the drilling is a soil sample
taken
 3 point on every 200 m
 3-10 samples depending on the length of the cable route
 Site measurement is typically performed along the land route and/or in sections that can
represent a thermal bottleneck for the cable (e.g. landfall)
 Normally the particular conditions such as soil thermal resistivity are established in the project
specifications by the utility or the custom; We use a procedure to measure the thermal resistivity
of soil established in IEEE standard 442-1981.The frequency of measurement depends on
whether the particular project have not established the values
Page 200
 Some years ago I made extensive site measurements for MV and HV also with moisture
dependence. Worst case - soil or backfill sample in oven for 24 hours at 108 deg. C
 Choose some random points in the area , then measure with four-electrode method
 Only one measurements during the civil works
 Temperature of soil and temperature of different cable sheaths
 We sometimes take samples of lean mix concrete duct surround material, particularly from new
suppliers. Soil measurements are taken only in areas where thermal resistance is a particular
concern
 The measurements are performed for each new line to check the design. Location: critical points
of the lines where there is another source of heat near the cable
 Measure the soil thermal resistivty in about 1 week in the soil far away from cables heat resisting
coefficient choose the biggest parameter as the result
 Provided through subcontractors if needed
 We take samples along the cable route, every few 100 m, depending on the geology. We
analyse the samples in our labs to get typical soil data, which we use to establish the thermal
parameters and proctor density. We measure: grain distribution, density, moisture content,
proctor density, water retaining properties. We use established models depending on the soil
type to deduce the thermal parameters from this set of information, which relates very
accurately. Worst case situation is deduced from analysing the groundwater table at site, and
performing calculations to acquire the thermal parameters at the lowest groundwater table
occuring in the past
 We have actually incorporated thermocouples and RTD to measure temperatures at anticipated
depth and also measured soil thermal resistivity when we undertake such work. When such
opportunities are not available then a worst case case used on archived data
 Once at the beginning of the installation
 Usually one set of measurement per circuit as many as possible and wherever there is suspicion
that the soil parameters can limit the cable load
 Once per project. Measurement required if source of type of soi changes.
Location of the measurements
Answers given:
 Thermal probe at 1 and 2 m depths

 Depends on geotechnical information
 Along route
 At various depth of the cable trench
 Upper and lower layer of trench
 Trial pits at burial depth
 Cable centreline at burial depth
 Within 5 m of cable centreline
 At anticipated thermal hot spots
 In trench wall 500 mm above trench. For tender purposes assumed to be every 100 m. Actual
dictated by change in soil type
 One @ 0.5 m depth, one @ 0.8 m depth and third one on the trench floor at about 1.2 m depth.
Further collecting at least 1 off undisturbed tube sample from each location at 0.8 m depth and
enough disturbed bag samples sufficient to prepare at least two additional mould in the
Page 201
laboratory. This is carried out for thermal dry-out testing in the laboratory. The thermal resistivity
value at 1% moisture content for soil immediately around the cable/conduit (450 mm x 450 mm)
was considered to investigate the cable rating. This is referred as dry zone. Similarly, the thermal
resistivity value at knee point for general ground soil was assumed. The knee point is identified
as point on the thermal dry out curve where there is a rapid rise in thermal resistivity for little
change in moisture level
 For every soil type along the route
 Position: near planning position
 Case by case
 Condition due to the passage of the route
 Once/twice across cable route measuring thermal resistivity
 Every drilling, for submarine: every km
 Location at crossings
 Laboratory measurement on soil samples from cable level
 At each side (end) of the drilling soil samples are taken ; along the submarine cable route
 Usually at 1,5 m, 1 m and 0,5 m depth
 Samples in different sections of the route. seabed, landfall, field, bug, etc.
 Special thermal resistance samples in deep drillings or crossings and area with gravel or bog
(organic material)
 We use a procedure to measure the thermal resistivity of soil established in IEEE standard 442-
1981.The frequency of measurement depends on whether the particular project have not
established the values
 Along the trench
 At several levels above the cables
 Source of blanket and bedding soil.
What parameters do you measure?
Answers given:
 Geothermal samples at 1.25 m and 2.5 m depths

 In situ thermal resistivity and moisture content for dry-out characteristic
 In situ and thermal dry out
 Dry/wet thermal resistivity and dry-out temperature
 Thermal resistivity wet and dry critical temperature
 Thermal resistance value in situ test and in laboratory (up to 0% moisture content)
 Thermal resistance (Km/W)
 Thermal resistance, moisture content. Temperature during measurement
 Thermal resistance and moisture content
 Thermal resistance and moisture content
 Thermal resistance, moisture content and density
 Thermal resistance, moisture content and density
 Thermal resistance vs moisture content,compaction
 Thermal resistance on site conditions and dried out, measure moisture content at same time
 As per NGTS 2.05, dry density, particle size, void ration, thermal resistance
 Thermal probe method, only dry values relevant
Page 202
 Temperature (transient probe method: heater and thermocouple are installed in a needle probe,
thermal resistivity is obtained from relation of heat quantum, temperature and distance)
 Case by case
 Temperature rise when a certain amount of heat that caused heat source
 This has to be done by a third party
 Humidity, porisity, conductivity
 Thermal resistivity wet soil, dried out soil; porosity; water saturation
 Saturation degree
 Porosity
 Density
 Thermal resistivity
 Humidity, specific gravity, thermal resistivity in dry and wet condition, porosity, degree of
saturation
 Thermal conductivity
 m*K/W for soil moisture (as found)
 m*K/W for dry sample
 % moisture
 Probes in the soil, during limited time duration, in few points, measuring T, Thermal Resistivity.
Worst case from historical data
 Resistivity and diffusivity, verifying the amount of water in the soil, soil density (dry and with
water)
 Thermal resistivity and stability
 Thermal resistivity most often
 As per SANS 10198-5.
How you deduce your worst case for engineering purposes?
Answers given:
 New installations; 1 measurement / 1.6 km; measured thermal resistivity and ambient
temperature. Frequency: varies from project to project; location: as close to final design route as
can get
 Frequency: 27 samples in 9.6 km; in situ thermal resistivity and temperatures at various depths;
worst case is the deepest point along route
 Every 15 mins to 30 mins. Collected by thermocouples which are written to SCADA or archival
file
 Send samples for soil thermal resistivity lab tests
 Highest thermal resistivity value
 Consultant recommendations
 Determine max. conductor temperature based on measured values
 Critical analys of results
 Dryout curves
 If dryout can be avoided, use measured value x1.2. If dryout can not be avoided, dryout value
x1.2
 Worst case thermal resistance
 Thermal resistance at critical moisture content
 Highest thermal resistance values used to determine conductor size
Page 203
 Worst case of soil conditions with full or partially dried out soil
 Worst case assumption: ampacity increasing is examined, by adopting such as insulated wire
stranded, or water cooling system
 Case by case
 Worst case related to soil plus safety margin
 Average value of the local soil; but depends of cases.
 Calculation with worst case conditions (dried out soil)
 We take and average, and we look the tendency of measured values
 Position and depth of sample
 Soil description
 Worst thermal resistivity location
 Worst case - combination of depth, resitivity and moisture
 Worst case based on engineernig judgement.
(2) Assumed values
Do you use seasonal values? Do you use regional values?
Soil/ seabed thermal resistivies – use of seasonal and/or regional values (question 2.2)
Blank Yes No
Use of seasonal values 6 33 62
Use of regional values 7 40 54
What are your assumed values (please detail per season and region/installation where applicable)?
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Typical soil thermal resistivity range (in K.m/W) for dry seasons per country
Page 204
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Typical soil thermal resistivity range (in K.m/W) for wet seasons per country
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Typical seabed thermal resistivity (in K.m/W) applied values country
Answers given:
 0.9 °C-m/Watt assumed

 1957 Neher/McGrath paper
 Somewhat temperate climate (assume summer worst case), but coastal areas are winter
peaking and may consider seasonal issues in future
 Conservative typical values from industry references.
 If utility doesn't have tests in the same area, they assume 1.0 to 1.2 °C -m/Watt
 Historic
 No typical values, K.m/W values varies significantly even in a few kilometers
 Rule of thumb, IEC and/or soil surveys
 Measurements in the 70 °C
 French RTE specifications “Cahier des charges général - Lignes souterraines HTB"
Page 205
 According to IEC 60287-3-1

 Through complied data
 Assumed value is 1.5 Km/W
 Assumed soil thermal resistance 1.2 to 1.5 Km/W when it is not specified by the client/user
 Historical soil tests in Sydney Region
 IEC287 and average from knowledge of local testing which confirms this value.
 Assumed standard nominal resistivity for Australian conditions
 Soil testing and past practice
 Based on measurements across regions
 If a thermal resistance value is not specified by the utility or is not measured, then for budgetary
purposes only a thermal resistance value is assumed.
 Studies carried out many years ago considering a range of typical UK conditions
 Dry season based on 1.2 outside 50 °C isotherm and 2.7 inside 50 °C isotherm
 Assume worst case scenario eg 2KM/W with CBS or 3Km/W with poor soil conditions
 From NGTS
 Based on land values, software has been created for submarine cables. The user can put his/her
own values in
 Region A: above the groundwater level, Region B: below the groundwater level
 JCS 0501 or Electric Technology Research Association 53-3.
 JCS 168 E 1995 It is based on literature.
 JCS 0501:2002
 By measurements and assumption
 The worse case is used.
 Based on experienced values ; controlled backfill 1 Km/W
 1,0 K.m/W for most soil or controlled thermal backfill; 2,5 Km/W for dried soil (above 50 °C) for
land cables
 These values were set based on literature studies and soil studies
 Our value for the soil is: 1 K.m/W
 They are the result of measurements and statistic values of different specifications.
 We take the values given on customer’s specs or IEC values if it’s not required the measurement
 A historic typical value
 We require a certain value for the the backfill (sand) when it is delivered. Thermal resistivity for
soil is measured in critical projects and values used in other projects
 A = Normal farmland, B = Marsh
 Danish assumed values
 Onshore we are using worst expected values or make special back fill if the section with high
thermal resistance is a limited length
 General onshore value in 1m burial depth between 1.0 and 1.4 Km/W
 Fields 1.0 in general but is expected to be better
 Cable design to fit the complete cable route without limitation.
 Submarine is based on experience from system with DTS installed
 Land is based on literature
 We are involved in various international projects in different areas of the world, typically at tender
and execution stage we use mainly data provided by the clients
Page 206
 If nothing is specified by the client (typically in early project stage or feasibility study stage) we
can refer to values specified in IEC 287-3-1 where applicable or make some assumptions based
on mean ambient temperature data issued by local institutions where available
 From experience
 If historical data are not available the Dry-season value (1,5) is conservative for majority of
cases. In case of rocks or other known problematic soil, values are increased
 According on the type soil material and geographic location we select values of the thermal
resistivity of soil taken from reference tables of IEC 60287
 These are just examples - region A graded crushed rock or sand backfill, region B native soil - in
Finland we are more concerned with moisture migration than seasonal moisture variation
 Consulting values normally used around the world
 Average of values under the conditions present in the company
 "Regional" values depending on the type of soil: sand/clay: 0,75 Km/W, peat 2,0 Km/W
 Information received by installers/utilities and literature - in the case of seabed, 0.7 K.m/W
applies for larger depths of 15 m. For smaller depths, we consider 1.2 K.m/W
 From investigations carried out several years ago
 Most of our region is wet and we use the design value of 1 °C.m/W
 Customer specified or IEC 60287-3-1
 Based on historical soil resistivities or informed by clients
 Data are supplied by customer
 By measurement in different spot in a region at least one year
 Numerous regions around the world. Values used according to customer specifications or taking
from IEC 60287-3-1 when no other information is given
 According to IEC 60287-3-1 § 4.13 for Switzerland; region C is in case of rocky soil
 Depends on the location on earth and the situation in the field, and the project and purpose.
Typical for NL are a thermal resistance of 0.75, but in reality everything between 0.4 and 3.0 is
found
 Customer provide the value
 Experience
 Usually we assume rho of 90 for the soil and 50 for the concrete
 I use measurement and drying curve for setting all values
 based on local South African standards (SANS 10198-4).
2.3 Soil Drying out
Do you consider soil drying out in your cable rating calculations?
Consider soil drying out

Blank No, never Yes, always Yes, but under
considerations
Consider soil drying out 2 36 15 48
Page 207
The considerations given are:
 Known poor soils

 We typically attempt to put our cables at or below the water table, which for most of Florida is
high
 New lines get soil dry-out curves; 13% moisture content on average (red clay will not dry out
more than that and get 40 in / 1016 mm of rain / year)
 Assume that there is typically a 0.5-1% moisture content
 Yes, we install thermal backfills where feasible and consider them to retain a certain amount of
their moisture based on backfill dry out curves, depth, and water table. Also, thermal dry out
curves of the soil are obtained during the soil resistivity study
 Cable type, installation conditions, mostly for high capacity circuits
 Depending on the lowest water table
 If allowed/specified by client
 When data is available from measurements and/or cable ratings are critical
 Usually not used for generation cable connection (no overload)
 This is considered when we have to calculate the overload with a long duration (>5 min)
 Depending on the project location
 Direct or direct duct buried installation
 We normally specify the design of the trench such that the 50 °C isotherm is contained within the
controlled backfill. If it can be, only the dry out thermal resistance of the backfill is considered. If
the 50 °C can’t be contained within the backfill then the dry out of the soil is considered
 Special designs for major 66kV high capacity cables and we have soil tested at various moisture
contents. In general we assume 5% moisture content will apply. Not for operational purposes
 Design FTB around cables to ensure interface between soil & backfill <60 °C
 The thermal resistance for our summer ratings is based on 5% moisture content from dryout
curves
 Depends on backfill materials used or operational conditions e.g., several circuits in close
proximity
 Only for 132 kV and above
 Region, laying conditions
 As use dry density and resultant dry thermal resistance for calculation, this does not arise
 In critical conditions, i.e., where there could be persistent high operating temperatures. Most
circuits will see high temps for a relatively short time
 In case of a particularly wet or dry soil.
 If requested when the condition is clearly provided
 Depending on the installation conditions
 Always for submarine cables and some requirements of the client
 Dried out from 50 °C temperature for unknown critical T or effective critical T if it is known
 Currently, the calculation of T4´´´ is not considering soil drying out. We are studying it in order to
decide whether to include it or not in the calculations
 Direct buried cables
 We include it in considerations, but it is not used because it is required that the outer cable
covering is not allowed to get warmer than 50 °C
 Normal operation temp 50 °C on outer jacket = no dry out
 Drying out is taken into consideration where the load may be more or less continuous over a
longer period. Excavations in wet areas or some deep drillings
 Emergency loading. After some days of cable sheath temperature above 50 °C
Page 208
 In principle, the dry out is always taken into account; however, it can be neglected in particular
installation conditions; for example, when special backfills that prevent dry out are adopted or
when the cable surface temperature is low
 Rare installations in critical soil
 Depending on T on outer sheath (for example > 70 °C), installation and operating conditions
 I understand that considering the soil properties it is necessary calculations using "Conformal
Transformation". Moisture migration /apparent resistivity ( soil + backfill)
 XXX recalculated the current rating of XLPE-cables based on a maximum sheath temperature of
45 °C instead of a maximum conductor temp. of 90 °C, assuming that a maximum sheath temp
of 45 °C never leads to drying out of the soil
 Installation conditions, multiple circuits, full loading
 Soil dry out has not been a problem in Ireland. We get rain here all year round!
 For underground cables laid in conditions with seldom rainfall and surface temperature is above
50 °C
 Depending on the customer specifications. Only when required
 When the calculation of cable surface temperature is higher than 50 °C
 Depending on client request, and depending on the situation
 Under pavement and near a heat source
 In the rare case of direct buries installation. The problem is not encountered in our typical duct
bank installations
 Whenever the cables are in direct contact with native soil and where there is indication that the
cable surface temperature exceed certain value
 In substation
 Special installations
 We do not operate XLPE cables above 70 °C (continuous) in order to prevent drying gout of soil.
When using soil drying out, what are the typical values you use for the following parameters:
Thermal resistivity of the dried soil; Thermal resistivity of the moist soil; Others (please specify)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil drying out: typical values used for thermal resistance (in K.m/W) for dried out soil, per
country
Page 209
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Soil drying out (in °C): typical values used for thermal resistance (in K.m/W) for wet soil, per
country
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Soil drying out: typical values used for critical isotherm (in °C), per country
How did you set these values (if any)? If you measure it please give details of the method:
Answers given are:
 We take in situ samples for thermal resistivity and temperature. The dry-out curves are drawn
and thermal resistivity values corresponding to 3% dry-out and complete dry-out values
 Soil lab tests (geotechnial survey); then take soil samples based on geotech survey. If sea soil is
uniform, then do fewer tests
 Consultant recommendation
 Measured in laboratory on soil samples
 Common practice, soil survey's
 From measurement results
 Adopted median value for various soil
 2.5 Km/W is the classical value for dry sand (from measurements) 55/60 based on Electra
 Depending on customer requirements
Page 210
 Our soil condition is always wet so we go by details mentioned in item 2.2

 50 °C isotherm based on a research paper
 Historical data passed down (some previous CIGRE research on this)
 We have used the thermal resistivity value at 1% moisture content for soil immediately around
the cable/conduit (450 mm x 450 mm) which is referred as dry zone. Similarly, the thermal
resistivity value at knee point for general ground soil was assumed
 Used values that were measured in the UK for typical soils
 Generally accepted temperature for UK, partly confirmed by XXX study
 These are the typical assumptions of others
 UK standard
 No comment
 The same as 2.2
 By measurements and assumption
 XXX Cable handbook third edition
 These values were set based on literature studies and soil studies ; measurement methods :
IEEE “Guide for Soil Thermal Resistivity Measurements” – IEEE Std 442 – 1981 ( 2003 ) ; ASTM
– Determination of thermal Conductivity of Soil and Soft Rock by thermal needle probe
procedure – ASTM D 5334-05; “Détermination d’une valeur d’échauffement critique pour les
matériaux de remblai de câbles » - Electra N° 145 – Décembre 1992
 IEC literature
 Assumed Danish values
 According to IEC recommendation as far as I remember
 Comment to the below. resting time is only used for few cases and as back up if the load
fluctuation and max load exceeds the expected time (eg. 7 days) - which is not expected to
happen ever. Primary a question of guarantee that no damage to the cable will ever occur; issue
during transfer of cable system to a transmission owner
 Geotechnical report from 1980´s
 Bibliography
 These are rough values that have given the best fit when modelling moisture migration models to
recorded temperatures around a cable scale heating tube we have constructed - we set very
long time constants (3 months) for the return of moisture
 From historical calculations
 Among others by means of consulting XXX of XXX
 Literature
 Not appropriate
 1 °C.m/W - moist soil 2 °C.m/W dried soil
 Electra No. 104/IEC 60287-3-1
 Site measurements
 This value will be measured in experiments in this September
 IEC 60287-3-1 § 4.13 (for direct buried, in case of permanent load)
 We use our previously conducted lab experiments on different types of soil. Depending on the
soil water retaining properties, the Tcrit will vary significantly. Depending on compaction and
grain size distribution, and the soil type, the dry thermal resistance may become very high (e.g.
in peat areas)
 Thermal probe and laboratory measurements
 We have used DTS to identify such zones and then deployed temperature sensors to monitor
soil temperatures
 IEC
Page 211
 Based on rho/moisture drying curve obtained in the lab

 IEC guidance.
After a possible drying out period do you consider a “resting” time to allow re-hydration of the
surrounding soil?
Consider resting time to allow re-hydration of the soil (question 2.3)

Blank Yes no
Resting time considered 39 10 52
2.4 Backfill and surrounding material properties
What parameters of usual material directly surrounding the cable do you specify?Do you make any
control on the rest of backfill materials?
Backfill and surrounding material properties

Item Parameter Blank Yes No
What parameters of Thermal resistivity 4 89 8
usual material directly Grain size distribution 13 47 41
surrounding the cable Compaction 10 57 34
do you specify? Others 23 (see note 1)
Do you make any control on the rest of the backfill 14 42 (see note 2) 45
materials?
Note 1: other parameters specified for material directly surrounding the cable:
 FTB 3 responses
 Sieve dimensions for granular backfill 2 responses
 Compaction level at optimum moisture content 2 response
 Thermal resistance at a specific / minimum moisture content 4 responses
 Reference to standard/ specify material 4 responses
 Excluding materials (vegetal soil ) 1 response
 Minimise cement content below 1% 1 response
 Dry relative density 1 response
 Depend on customer's specification 1 response
 Diffusivity 1 response
Note 2: The following additional information is given when control is given on the rest of the backfill materials:
 Compaction level 16 responses

 Thermal resistivity 12 responses
 On specification provided by others 7 responses
 Grain size distribution 5 responses
 Moisture content 5 responses
 Soil composition 4 responses
 No organic material 4 responses
 CBS and / or bentonite 2 responses
 Voltage class depending 1 response
Page 212
2.5 Influence of other heat sources
How do you take into account influence of other heat sources in your cable ratings?
Influence of heat sources

Method Blank Yes No
By adding a margin to ambient temp 20 30 51

Use of de-rating tables 20 26 55
Calculating exact influence 8 69 24
Not taken in to account 42 4 55
Other 53 7 41
By adding a margin to ambient temp:
 + 5 °C 8 responses
 + 10 °C 6 responses
 +15 °C 1 response
 +20 °C 1 response
 A "point" heat source added to the model 1 response
 For new lines as needed consultants determine the final rating incorporating
other known heat sources. For existing lines, ratings have not been adjusted
to account for potential heat source
 Depending on crossing and type (steam, duct bank, etc.) 1 response
 Temperature increase from heat pipes 1 response
By using the de-rating tables:
 Standard (IEC, VDE, JCS) 8 responses

 Software 4 responses
 Provided by manufacturers 2 response
 De-rating of conductor temperature (-10 °C) 1 response
 20% de-rating for parallel circuits in the same trench 1 response
By calculating exact influence:
 IEC60287 or local standards 14 responses

 Commercial software 13 responses
 FEM 9 responses
 Reference to literature 4 responses
 Assume similar loading and use IEC 3 responses
 If parameters are known 3 responses
 Done by others 2 responses
Note: one responder states that the influence of parallel circuits is calculated exactly, for heat pipes,
10 to 20 °C is added to the soil temperature. Ta is subtracted from the maximum temperature of the cable
conductor.
If other is selected:
 Maintain separation to ensure thermal independence

 Dependent on separation and asset, e.g. solid bonded gas pipe, ac interconnector, dc
interconnector, sometimes assume a temperature boundary from the existing asset but at further
detailed engineering we may ask the asset owner for their calculations or calculate ourselves
Page 213
 To adopt heat pipe and thermal insulation board (from XXX report 180533)
 Site measurements of surrounding temperature
 Standard rating values are calculated for a max burial depth of 3 m and assume no other heat
source in the vicinity of the cables at a distance of less than 3 m ; other heat sources are taken in
account at detail design stage together with all project-related installation parameters
 Keep a distance between cable and other heat sources, distance is 1000 mm when laid in
parallel, and distance is 500 mm when crossing.
3 Operating parameters
3.1 Do you use IEC maximum temperature as conductor normal operating temperature?
If not, or if there are exceptions to this rule, please detail your practice and value.
Use of IEC maximum conductor temperature

Blank Yes No
IEC maximum conductor temperature
used 0 86 15
Practice detailed:
 Use AEIC as normal operating temperature

 Use AEIC standards
 90-100 °C, indicated by the cable manufacturer
 Use manufacturer's data except for TX tails
 Yes, except for 11 kV and 33 kV where a lower phase conductor temperature is used to allow
improved fault rating in the copper wire screen
 90 °C for XLPE and 70 °C for oil filled
 Mainly except for tunnels where air temperature may be the limiting value
 JCS, allowable conductor temperature is 90 °C, which is the same as IEC
 JCS 168 E 1995, it is based on literature.
 JCS 0501 : 2002
 OF:80～85 °C,CV:90 °C
 JCS 0510:2002
 For XLPE cables we consider 90 ºC as the maximum temperature.
 Normally we specify a lower operating temperature to have a margin for a future network
upgrade
 In order to assess realistically power losses we sometime consider the real conductor
temperature and not the maximum
 Approx 60 °C
 Max 50 °C on cable surface to avoid dryout zones
 Conductor temp in submarine cables.
 Surface on land
 Well, for planning purposes, we generally use 65 °C for XLPE, which tends to be on the safe
side re. moisture migration, but if looking at existing installations, we may use 90 °C but with
Page 214
conservative moisture migration modelling - once again, we are researchers - the utilities tend to
err on the safe side!
 XXX recalculated the current nominal rating of XLPE-cables based on a maximum sheath
temperature of 45 °C instead of maximum conductor temp. of 90 °C, assuming that a maximum
sheath temp of 45 °C never leads to drying out of the soil. This has been done in order to obtain
similar calculation settings both for PILC and XLPE cables.
 Sometimes in very difficult situations, lower temp is considered for safety reasons (ie avoiding
moisture migration etc)
 Not always because for reasons of economy (cost of losses) and/or margin of safety, our
customers in Switzerland often ask us the values of permissible current for a maximum
conductor temperature 60 °C or 75 °C instead of 90 °C for XLPE cables
 Exceptions are clients request, windfarms (sometimes higher temperature), older power cables
(e.g. SCFF, Gas filled: sometimes lower max temperature due to increased dielectric losses not
accounted for otherwise)
 We follow IEC excepting for XLPE insulated cables, were we limit the max conductor normal
operating temperature to 70 °C (not 90 °C) this is to limit drying out of surrounding soil as well as
to limit technical losses.
3.2 Temperature limitation
Where does the temperature limitation come from?
Origin of temperature limitations

Part Reply
- Conductor temperature Yes: 94 replies, No: 3 replies, Blank: 4

- Metallic sheath temperature Yes: 16 replies, No: 59 replies, Blank: 26
- Cable surface temperature Yes: 33 replies, No: 46 replies, Blank: 22
- Air temperature (for tunnel) Yes: 39 replies, No: 44 replies, Blank: 18
3.3 Load factor
Current practice considering load factors

Practice Reply
- Not considered Yes: 32 replies, No: 33 replies, Blank: 36

- Case per case calculations (based Yes: 40 replies, No: 17 replies, Blank: 45
on IEC 60853)
- Assumed values Yes: 27 replies, No: 19 replies, Blank: 56
- Others Yes: 28 replies, No: 29 replies, Blank: 45
Page 215
Specified others:
 A load factor was determined by analysing all cables in the system

 Measured
 We assume 0.75 LF for most cables; will use 1.0 LF for generator leads and other specific lines
where 1.0 LF is required.
 Past load history (load factor corresponding to 50-95% percentile, i.e., 0.81 to 0.91
 In special cases may use line specific values
 Study profiles of windproduction or generators
 Normally no load factor, but can depend on client requirements regarding loads and ratings
 According to French rules we talk about form factor which is 0.9 for 60/90 kV and 0.95 for above 220 kV
 All circuits are designed for 100% load factor
 Actual worst case weekly (summer & winter) load curves used
 We have a target load and aim to carry load 100% of time or design/rate a cable for a dynamic
loading
 Not normally used unless have multiple cable installations in same area - usually at distribution
voltages
 It depends on customers
 Related to wind energy infeed for submarine power cables
 Daily cycling LF = 0,7
 We also use FEM
 In some project an estimate previous load to state the cable temperature has been used;
followed by at long period of max load
 Based on the required values of load factor of the utility
 We basically use transient algorithms, developed for real-time application
 Load factor of the substation being connected
 In cooperation. XXX introduced (de-)rating factors as a compensation for a cyclic cable load
instead of a continuous cable load. Factors of 1-1,5 were calculated for load designated as
"households", "industrial/mixed" and "individual customers"
 Usually for safety reasons but also by customer demand, the calculations are carried out at load
factor 1
 Customer specified
 User specifies this value. Then, the program can perform cyclic rating calculations either as per
IEC or as per Neher McGrath
 Neher/McGrath modification of T4
 Provided by System Planning department
 We calculate this parameter based on the daily load profile of the feeders
 Based on load pattern supplied by a customer
 For cables up to and including 36 kV
 When planning new networks, we always use a load factor of 1 (conservative approach to cable
loading).
Page 216
In case of assumed values please give details and typical values.
Details given:
 Use sample of heaviest loaded circuits and then ran loss factor calculations and assume worst
case design
 Typically 75%
 0.75 - 0.85 depending on area; 1.0 for data center load
 Typical factor of 80% for mixed circuit; higher for generator leads
 Not really applicable since most of our cable connections are for generation units (load factor 1).
For very special cases we calculate according to IEC
 Depends on load cycle ranges from 0.5 to 1.0
 Flat - 1 , Industrial - 0.84, Mixed - 0.76, Domestic - 0.67
 Standard daily load cycles are sometimes used
 Most UK cables operate at 100% load factor
 Power line: 1.0, other line: 0.65
 Power line(from power plant) etc:1.0
 Other line:0.6
 JCS 168 E 1995 It is based on literature.
 0,6
 0.5-0.7
 0.6-1.0
 0.8(design value)
 Permanent rating with load factor 100% and cyclic rating with load factor 0,81 are standard
considered
 It’s not commonly required, and it’s typical a value of 0,8
 1
 75% minimum (reference - "ISO XXX Planning Procedure") -
 100%
 0.7
 According to data provided by our customers. Typical values used frequently in Switzerland:
Load 10 h 100% / 14 h 60% or 10 h 100% / 14 h 70%
 Power plant - 1.0 Transmission - 0.85 Distribution - 0.75 Wind farm - 0.6 Solar farm - 0.45.
3.4 Emergency
What is your practice regarding emergency?
Number of companies that consider emergency ratings

Company type Result
Considered Not considered Blank Total
Utility 44 11 3 58
Other 6 2 0 8
Total 84 13 4 101
Page 217
Method of emergency calculation reported

Emergency rating method Result
Yes No Blank
IEC 60853 53 30 1
Rating ratio 13 70 1
Automatic (e.g. Real time rating) 12 71 1
Other 31 52 1
Given replies when selecting “others”:
 Calculate
 Most lines do not have emergency ratings
 We follow Independent System Operator's guidelines, i.e., LTE, STE, and DAL ratings
 At 230kV for XLPE, try not to run them over 90C (IEC tests to +/-5C of normal rating); concerns
about softening of cross-linked insulation
 Use AEIC standards
 XXX DTCR
 Customer specified
 Not really applicable since most of our cable connections are for generation units (load factor 1).
For very special cases we calculate according to IEC
 As specified by cable manufacturer
 Calculate
 Emergency rating not applied to our 66kV cables. We permit 120 °C max conductor temp for
11kV and 33kV XLPE and 80 °C for PLY
 Conductor temp limited to 90 °C
 XXX
 A plan is to use DTS sensing and switch off turbines if temperature limit exceeded
 XXX software from XXX
 Near real time method using past & future loads at 30 min intervals
 XXX software from XXX
 Based on JCS (about allowable temperature for short time and short circuit condition)
 To adopt short time allowable temperature
 It depends on customers.
 Case per case calculations (based on JCS0501:2002)
 Manual operation considering real time thermal rating
 Depending of the client requirements in accordance with the cables possibilities for overload
(time/temperature)
 Own development Paper B1-209 Cigre 2012
 Depending on customer rules and specification
 Assuming a maximum temperature of emergency depending on the type of insulation for a
limited time
 Long and short capacity durations - (temperature max : ICEA S-108-720)
 In cooperation with XXX of XXX, XXX introduced (de-)rating factors as a compensation for a
cyclic cable load instead of a continuous cable load. These factors are also applicable in
emergency conditions < 24h. Factors of 1-1,5 were calculated for load designated as
"households", "industrial/mixed" and "individual customers"
 Usually max. 25-30% overload
Page 218
 Write programme to calculate the capacity in emergency

 Internal calculation program existing long standing (details not available)
 General calculation routine based on IEC 60853.
 We analyse various scenarios of circuits loss and the dispatching of the load on other nearby
circuits
 As we use 70 °C conductor normal operating temperature, the 90 °C rating is reserved for
emergencies/contingencies (24 hours). The 130 °C rating is an even further "absolute" max
emergency rating allowed for short (8 hours max) durations (never exceed).
(1) Case per case calculations parameters
Emergency Durations considered:
12
10
number of companies
0
s
s
ys
s
ys
s
ys
ur
in
in
ur
ur
ur
in
da
da
da
m
ho
ho
ho
m
ho
2
30
60
15
5
10
24
12
2
=
<=
<=
x<
=
=
x<
=
<=
x<
x<
x<
x<
x<
x
<
<
x
<
<
s<
s<
<
y
ys
<
s<
s
ur
da
ys
ur
da
in
in
ur
ho
ur
da
1
ho
m
2
ho
ho
1
5
10
30
12
6
Duration of emergency
What is your practice regarding maximum conductor temperature at the end of emergency?
Please detail:
 The maximum temperatures is just reached at the end of the emergency duration
 Per AEIC guides or 90 °C normal and 105 °C emergency for XLPE
 105 °C at end of emergency period. This may change as we are being asked to go back to LTE
at the end of the emergency
 AEIC CS9 (cross-linked), CS2 (for pipe-type). At 230kV, they generally have 2 cables per circuit
so would require an N-1-1 contingency for one cable to exceed normal maximum
 105 °C
 105 °C / 8 hour; utility currently only rate XLPE cable for emergency ratings
 90 °C normal, 105 °C emergency
 Manufacturer recommended values
 105 °C
Page 219
 105 °C for short duration (<600min), 90 °C for longer durations.

 Depending actual client requirements. This also accounts for the below values which are mainly
taken from soil investigations in such situations
 90 °C for France, until 105 °C typically used for other countries
 105 °C and 130 °C
 105 °C
 Max. conductor temperature at the end of emergency up to 130 °C for a limited duration
 Emergency rating not applied to our 66kV cables. We permit 120 °C max conductor temp for
11kV and 33kV XLPE and 80 °C for PLY.
 90 °C (except transformer cable emergency rating - 105 °C)
 105 °C
 105 °C for XLPE
 The requirements would be specified by the Utility
 Usually max rated conductor temperature but may allow it to be exceeded by 5 °C
 As per NGTS 2.05
 90 °C
 For conductor temperature of XLPE cable)short time: 105 °C, short circuit: 230 °C
 JCS 168 E 1995, it is besed on literature.
 Nothing
 We have no data because we are not operator
 100 °C
 The maximum conductor temperature at the end of emergency must be lower than 110 °C for
XLPE and 80 °C for PILC.
 Maximum conductor temperature at the end of the emergency are in agreement between
manufacturer and utility
 We take 105ºC for XLPE cables
 The same as steady-state
 90 °C
 100 °C is being considered for future projects
 At the moment still 50 °C on cable surface
 90 °C - since our cable systems in general connect one production to the grid, there is no
possibility to have unexpected extra load
 90 °C
 In the IEC standards there is no higher conductor temperature specified than the nominal
 Max conductor temperature = 90 °C (for extruded insulation). Higher (105 °C) in case of specific
customer request
 We are told 110 °C is OK on rare occasions, but in practice, I have usually used 90 °C
 105 °C
 For the thermal diffusivity, we use data from IEC 853 but also from XXX course power cable
ampacity
 The permissible steady overload and conductor temperature for 0.5hr, 1 hr, 2 hr & 4 hr are
specified as a function of prior loading (50%, 75% and 90%)
 Max. conductor temperature 90 °C
 We use the emergency temperature stated by the standards (105 °C or 130 °C)
 110 kV: 130 deg C; 220 kV: 105 deg C
 90 °C, with no influence of normal operation and its life time
 Usually 90 °C, may be 105 °C on request
Page 220
 For HV cables we generally assume a maximum conductor temperature of 105 °C at the end of
the overload (duration max. 8 h / day and a total of 100 h / year)
 160, 250 °C
 Maximum temperature is max operating temperature, not higher
 105 °C for paper and 130 °C for XLPE
 AEIC CG1 and CG6
 105 °C
 110 °C for XLPE 100 °C for paper insulated unless manufacturer advise differently.
Summary:
If the company used IEC 60853 for case by case calculations (53 companies indicated this), 31
companies reported values for the emergency period. 9 submitted a single value and 22 submitted
more than one value or indicated that they used many values. The durations reported are shown in
the figure above.
The durations of the emergency period used seemed to range across a large number of different
periods from minutes to days. It is noted that one company reported lower than 10 minutes (they
reported they used 1 and 5 minutes), while this would appear to be outside the scope of IEC 60853.
The practice for specifying the maximum conductor temperature at the end of the emergency as
reported in the questionnaire is given below:
 Maximum temperature 90 °C 10 responses

 Maximum temperature 105 °C 10 responses
 Client specified 4 responses
 Maximum temperature 105 °C XLPE 3 responses
 Manufacturer specified 2 responses
 Maximum temperature 110 °C XLPE 2 responses
 Maximum temperature 80 °C PILC 2 responses
 Maximum temperature 50 °C surface 1 response
 Maximum temperature 95 °C 1 response
 Maximum temperature 100 °C Paper 1 response
 Maximum temperature 105 °C for 10 hours 1 response
 Maximum temperature 105 °C paper 1 response
 Maximum temperature 105 °C XLPE 8 hour 1 response
 Maximum temperature 105 °C 220kV 1 response
 Maximum temperature 120 °C (11&33kV XLPE) 1 response
 Maximum temperature 130 °C XLPE 1 response
 Maximum temperature 130 °C 110kV 1 response
 Standard CS2 1 response
 Standard JSE 1 response
 Variable temperature depending on pre-load and duration 1 response
Page 221
The most popular maximum temperature during an emergency rating was 105 °C (17 responses).
The next most popular temperature was 90 °C (10 responses). This could be taken to generally not
exceeding the continuous maximum operating temperature. Although 250 °C and 160 °C was
reported by one company, this is assumed to be the short circuit maximum temperature so it is
assumed that highest temperature reported for an emergency rating was 130 °C. It should be noted
that while there were a number of temperatures without qualification of specific cable types reported;
this does not mean the limits were used for all cable types since some companies only have or
supply a limited range of cables.
What are the typical values of density and specific heat capacity you use for:
3
Typical values for dried soil density [kg/m ]:
 125 lbs/ cubic ft

 1600
 1500
 1.5
 We use customer’s values
 Use appendix D of IEC60853
 Software defaults
 Fully dependent on the situation.
Typical values for dried soil specific heat capacity [J/kg∙K]:
 2000
 2000
 2.52
3
Typical values for wet soil density [kg/m ]:
 1900
 1600
 1600
 0.6
Typical values for wet soil specific heat capacity [J/kg∙K]:
 2200
 2000
 800
 2.52
Page 222
3
Typical values for concrete density [kg/m ]:
 2400
 2200
 2000
 2000
 1.0
Typical values for concrete specific heat capacity [J/kg∙K]:
 1800
 920
 900
 1.84
 1
3
Typical values for other material density [kg/m ],:
 2200
 Follow IEC standard
 These values are set by commercial program for the cable rating
 Please note that in our algorithms, we generally deal with the density of the constituent solid
material, the density of water, the density of air, the porosity and the saturation degree - which is
0 for dry and 1 for saturated, this gives us values for thermal resistivity and diffusivity using the
formulae by Donazzi and 60287
Typical value for other material specific heat capacity [J/kg∙K]:
 1000
 Don’t really consider
 Tests to NG TS 3.5.07
 Follow IEC standard
 These values are set by commercial program for the cable rating
Page 223
Summary:
Summarized: for the ground environmental parameters used for the IEC 60853 calculations, the
following was reported:
 Use IEC 60853 guidance 3 responses

 Software defaults 2 responses
 Use values based on density and specific heat 2 responses
 Customer requirements 1 responses
 Dependent on situation 1 responses
(2) Assumed Coefficients to normal operating ratings
Reported emergency operation ratios

Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding
Durations assumed assumed Durations assumed
[min] coefficients Durations [min] coefficients [hours] coefficients
10 180% 20 120% 8 110%
10 100% 30 60% 2 30%
4 Others
4.1 Bottleneck mitigation
What are your practices to increase cable rating at bottlenecks?
Practices to increase cable rating at bottlenecks

Practice to increase cable rating at Result
bottlenecks Yes No Blank
Special backfill 73 20 8
Cooling systems
Water cooling system 21 59 21
Natural ventilation 47 37 17
Forced ventilation 42 43 16
Air conditioned (thus active cooling) 15 63 23
Consider axial thermal flux 14 61 26
Change in laying configuration 72 20 9
Target thermal resistivity specified in case of special backfill:
 0,5 (3x)
 0,6 (2x)
 0,7 (5x)
 0,8 (4x)
 0,85 (2x)
 0,9 (5x)
 1,0 (17x)
Page 224
 1.2 (4x)
 1,5
 Varies
 typically 1.0-1.2 K.m/W
 Special backfill 0,6+1,0 mK/W
 0.6-0.8
 0.4-1.0
 0.5 to 0.7
 0.5, 0.75 with ambient
 Usually 0.65 to 0.75
 0.55 to 0.60 Km/W.
Laying condition changes reported:
 Increased spacing (41 x)

 Increase conductor size (2 x)
 Reduce burial depth (4x)
 Sheath/screen single point/cross-bonded
 Increased thermal envelope dimensions
 Flat at 300 centres
 From trefoil to flat spaced (8x)
 "Protection pipe -> culvert (in a case of lack of ampacity, cased by such as multiple cable laying
in a substation)
 Directional drillings are buried deeper and 1m between all cables
 Change in laying configuration is only used in crossings if possible
 It depends on the duct bank arrangement if it is a flat configuration of multiple rows and columns
can be changed a flat configuration cables for a triangular configuration cables
 Choosing another cable trench.
Other practices to increase cable rating at bottlenecks reported
 First options are to consider backfills, natural ventilation, but have not had to consider forced-
ventilation or water cooling
 Increase in conductor size or reroute to eliminate congestion
 Heat pipe's in HDD, experimental
 No (10x)
 If the current rating requirement is not met in spite of above, then higher conductor size is
selected"
 Increased conductor size
 Enamelled conductors
 Bentonite filling of ducts. The ability to consider axial thermal flux would be useful
 Separate drilling instead of common drilling
 Replace air in duct with bentonite
 The special bonding system like cross bonding and single point
 Relatively speaking, Finland is not the most congested place, but CBD in Helsinki is becoming
challenging
 Increasing the distance between circuits
Page 225
 Special low resistivity thermal backfill (0.6K.m/W) has been used last year for a particular
application
 No practice
 Note: In Switzerland we rarely encounter a bottleneck because the cables are often designed for
an operating temperature below the maximum allowable value (see § 3.1). Thus there is usually
a safety margin that allows in most cases without particular difficulties to absorb any additional
heating to where could present a bottleneck
 Use water circulation system (no cooling, circulation is enough)
 We have placed copper bars and exploiting the use of heat pipes
 Localised good backfill around crossing of cables.
4.2 Feedback from your cable rating experience
What are the most usual thermal design limitations? (conductor / sheath temperature, soil dry out,
surrounding conditions, operating conditions etc.)
 Conductor temperature (45 x)

 Surrounding medium (32 x)
 Crossing other cable systems or deep crossings under major roads
 Steam lines, contingency ratings
 Poor native soil, 2) Utility's own distribution circuits 3) directionally-drilled sections or jack & bore
under water installations
 Soils and depth
 Maximum conductor temperature; Directional drills and jack & bores
 Operating conditions
 Soil dry-out
 Soil dry our, installation conditions
 Sometimes crossings/parallel with existing other links
 Congestion of cables at stations' entry and exit points (surrounding conditions)
 For the larger direct buried projects the constraining factor has been the joint bay design
 Conductor temperature for laid direct cables, air temperature for tunnel cables
 Other cables/heat sources and having to install at depths below 5m, maximum conductor size
that can be manufactured
 Multiple cables (and other heat source) in close proximity ie restricted space
 Thermo mechanical movement (e.g. lead sheathed cables in unfilled ducts). Air exit temperature
in tunnels
 Temperature in tunnel
 Correct, all of them
 Conductor temperature in relation with the laying conditions (use of special backfilling to avoid
dry-out - good dimensioning of this one)
 Presence of other links; soil conditions
 Drillings at very high depth are usual thermal design limitation depending on surrounding soil
conditions especially in case of drying out of the soil
 The most usual thermal design limitation occurs in unfilled buried troughs (directional drilling)
due to the depth of the troughs.
 Other cables in the near soil
 Other cables or heat sources and bad confection of accesories
Page 226
 Surface temperature to avoid dry out soil is our limitation

 Thermal resistivity of the soil onshore/landfall for subsea cable. Onshore cables deep crossings;
soil cover
 Soil dry out on land (surface temperature), conductor temperature on submarine cables and
joints temperature
 Soil dry out or high soil temperature
 MI insulation (55 °C)
 Surrounding conditions (presence of other cables, heat sources, summer conditions)
 Principally conductor/sheath temperature and operating conditions
 If 90 °C is used, then moisture migration is definitely an issue - and in fact may be an issue at
much lower temperatures. However, the Finnish practice of using steady-state ratings for 65 °C
conductor temperatures tends to be conservative. If real-time algorithms come into play,
moisture migration modelling or thermally stable backfill will be essential
 Soil dry out
 Sheath temperature
 Soil dry out, surrounding conditions, operating conditions
 Installation conditions, bonding schemes, soil conditions
 For submarine cables, the short distance between the high water mark and the sea-land
transition joint is a rating bottleneck for the circuit
 Ambient temperature
 Max. permissible conductor temperature according to IEC, or maximum operating temperature
set by our clients (for economic operating reasons or other)
 Conductor temperature, surrounding condition
 Avoiding soil dry out leading to a maximum jacket temperature. For DC cables there is also a
max. temperature difference over the insulation to be respected
 Heat sources at the vicinity in urban environment
 Other sheath temperature of 50 °C
 Sheath temperature limitation (55 °C) to avoid moisture migration and fault current rating
 Operating conditions, other heat sources (parallel cables) surrounding conditions, sheath
temperature.
Do you face other limits/regulations which influence cable ratings (environmental aspects like EMF or
temperature increase, vicinity with other equipment etc.)?
 No (23x)
 Magnetic fields (15 x)
 Max. temperature rise near cable circuit (7 x)
 Nearby / adjacent steam lines (3x)
 No EMF limits required by that state/area at this time
 Voltage drop for very long installations
 EMF, railways, pumping of water
 Yes, according to customer specification
 Environmental aspects, vicinity with other cables, heat sources
 Banks of cables with mutual heating and load cycle effects
Page 227
 The practice of prudent avoidance in regard to EMF levels can sometimes lead us to reduce
cable spacing. To keep rating different backfills are considered
 Directional drilling below roads and railway. And at depths 5-10 m
 Yes on certain projects we have had to install EMF mitigation measures
 Increase in ambient ground temperature (i.e. 2 K criteria in Germany)
 Other heat sources, deep installations
 In Germany there is a limit of 2 K temperature rise 200 mm from sea floor
 Rare
 Influence from next heat supply pipe
 Thermal influence from next circuit
 Yes (temperature increase with other equipment)
 Hot water pipe
 Yes (temperrature increase with other equipment)
 Yes, insulation, etc
 We fulfill with the European Recommendation above magnetic fields (value lower than 100 uT)
 Environmental,interference
 District heating pipes
 Seabed temperature rise in Germany.
 ENV. ASPECTS
 I really think that thermal parameters are the most critical
 No EMF requirements/limitations, sometimes limitations due to heating of soil by heating pipes
 Occasionally EMF aspects on HV
 For HVDC cables the temperature drop across the insulation can limit the current rating
 Besides proximity with other circuits, no
 In case of parallelism of laying many power cables
 And criteria not to increase the temperature of the cable environment above a certain value
 We do not have such issues
 Rarely. Biggest issue to contend with is overloading due to electricity theft / illegal connections.
If your Company experienced cable breakdowns due to over-ratings could you give some details
(overloading, mistake in original cable rating calculations, modification of the environment, others):
 N/A or no (35 x)
 Winter rating have been reduced due to more accurate modelling and more powerful rating
software
 Thermal impacts to laminated cables
 EMF has been an issue for solid dielectric cables 2) Pipe-type has fluid issue (not for the rating
but for the construction)
 Changes in operating conditions over time leading to inaccurate ratings and unintentional
thermal overload
 Remaining life time exceeded
 Excessive thermo-mechanical forces in gallery with rigid installation. Non conventional
installation underestimating heat by solar radiation
 No breakdowns due to over-rating are coming from the cable design but generally from our
experience these are coming from a big surrounding environment change not mentioned in the
specifications
 Overloading and ageing
Page 228
 High thermal resistance soil installed around a cable by 3rd party

 1 kV cable tunnel fire at XXX substation - large no. of 11 kV cables, under asphalt buried in
beach sand. This plus Auckland incident has led us to take more interest in thermal resistance
of native soil
 Overloading of 11 kV circuits
 Mainly at low voltage - obvious evidence of long term overheating
 Very rare, Auckland is the exception
 Most of the thermal breakdown appears in the joint (connectors)
 Overloading and external aggressions (machinery)
 Unexpected drying out of soil, due to special local draining arrangement. Detected by DTS - No
breakdown occurred
 Suspect overheating due to hot summer conditions on MV cables (especially PILC cables)
 We are manufacturer of cables and give technical support to utility mainly we have found system
failures due to errors in selection of cables, overloading and a mistaken engineering for special
bonded system
 We are aware of a few joint failures that may be thermo mechanical in nature - no pure thermal
runaway to my knowledge
 XXX does not observe cable breakdowns due to overheating. We do observe failures of MV-
joints due to thermo-mechanical behaviour (impact of expansion of cable conductors into the
joint, leading to stress control problems and overheated compression connectors
 We have not experienced any such breakdowns
 We experience one cable breakdown but it was a mistake in original cable calculation
 Proximity of the heating main
 We have seen a few examples of overloaded cables. The common problem is that the field
situation is different from what is engineered, leading to problems in the field (melting cables)
 Cable degradation /ageing has occurred in certain areas due to excessive overloading (illegal
connections and electricity theft areas). However, the XLPE insulated cables have proven to be
extremely robust given the operating conditions.
Comments & additional starting points for calculations which are missing in this questionnaire?
 N/A or no (12 x)
 Electric utility isn't always informed when a steam line is installed after a transmission cable;
mitigate as needed/encountered. Utility has not had a problem
 What is an initial remaining life time of 30-40 years in relation to maximum temperatures i.e. a
windmill park will last 20 yrs and the insulation 40 yrs
 Designs are based on input parameters that included tolerances. These tolerances should be
addressed when as-build current rating measurements are performed
 Which is the current rating capacity relevant for the customer: the permanent value at maximum
conductor temperature? Or other current capacity like the maximum current value according to
cable loading
 IEC 60287 contains some unclear sections related to calculation of spaced and touching single
core cables and conduits. Refer attached email
 Thermal resistivity and ambient ground temperature survey of route. Testing of backfill materials
before and during construction
 The need for joint bay design to be fully considered in establishing a circuit rating, the focus
tends to be on the trench configuration
Page 229
 Look at deep HDD, with wide (5 m) phase separation, looked at unfilled trough and how
modelled
 Length effects are not covered
 Data request too detailed for the majority of experienced cases (feasibility studies).
 The relation between soil drying out and the load factor. if the soil drying out could be ignored
when the load factor is lower?
 If the starting points are not established correctly and accurately, calculations need not to be
very accurate. However, the emphasis is often vice versa.
What is your recommendation dealing with starting points for cable rating calculations?
 N/A or no (7x)
 Neher/McGrath
 Going from STE to DAL to LTE (not to Normal) 2) Best way to select loss factor? 3) Sometimes
it is the LTE that matters, not the normal rating. Our company has no such breakdowns / did not
understand the last question
 Training
 Set up a meeting with raw material suppliers, cable manufacturers and end-users. This is never
done?
 When no information is available, provide rule of thumb so everyone refers to the same input
parameters and results are comparable
 Clear definitions of client requirements for required ratings
 Main recommendation: spend time in data collection, you will save some when modelling
 Cable parameter, soil parameter, seasonal temp and trench configuration
 Measurements of site values including temperature soil tr etc
 Use of IEC calculations
 Based on location, determine the worst case scenario, investigate conditions and rate for the
worst case scenario in terms of laying conditions at 100% load rating
 IEC 60287
 Start with book by G J Anders "rating of power cables in unfavourable thermal environment,
IEEE Press, New Jersey, 2005"
 Always introduce questionnaire to the client for bording the theoretical conditions.
 Hypotheses have to be defined and/or all project-related parameters have to be taken in
account
 Backfill
 Cable rating in critical situations like drilling or near heat sources
 For our scope (temperature assessment rather than cable design) too much emphasis on
material characteristics. Often real thermal parameters and geometry change significantly along
the line or are uncertain
 We believe that the criteria included in this questionnaire covering most of the points required for
cable rating calculations
 Starting points : to invest in the feasible studies : power cables depth , laying configurations,
destructive or non-destructive methods ( tunnel , directional drilling ) , choice of backfill material,
interferences along the route
 More comments are needed in IEC 60287 as when do which formulas apply or not apply and
what assumptions where made when the formulas were established
 Pay attention to the thermal resistivity and the dry out phenomenon. If this is not under control,
further calculations quickly become useless
Page 230
 Comments: Not enough emphasis on the new FEM methods. After all we are in the 21 century
and these methods are used successfully in all areas. It is time to start applying these methods
in cable ampacity calculations due to their flexibility and accuracy.
5 Steady state rating
5.1 Do you perform steady state calculations yourself?
Steady state calculations performed

Result
Steady state calculation… Yes No Blank
By hand or spreadsheet 57 30 14
With rating tables 33 44 22
With in-house software based on IEC
or Neher/McGrath 57 30 14
With commercial available program
(not FEM) 33 51 17
With Finite Element (FEM) program 25 56 20
Other 15 51 35
Others specified:
 Forced cooling program (pipe-type) and XXX

 XXX
 XXX or XXX
 Rating tables used as a "back of envelop" (i.e., estimate)
 In house XXX software
 Our in house spreadsheet program performs IEC60287 calcs for single core cables and also
does cyclic, emergency, and group rating factors for groups of up to 50 cables based on XXX
methods, can accept 3 core cable parameters.
 XXXX
 Use XXX program
 In house finite difference program for dynamic ratings
 Own program (Excel base)
 Own program
 With in-house software based on JCS0501.
 With in-house software based on JCS168
 (*) Calculations performed with XXX worksheets based on IEC 287 method and proprietary
software.
 With own algorithms, which use thermal circuit for both cables and environment
 By hand
 We have developed our own software for calculations
 Most of the time XXX.
Page 231
5.2 Do you use a safety margin in the rating calculations?
Use of safety margins in calculaitions

Result
Safety margin usage Yes No Blank
Use of safety margin 33 63 5
If yes:
Do you use a lower conductor temperature 17 40 44
Do you use a reduced normal rating or a lower pre-emergency load 16 39 46
Other 14 35 52
Others specified:
 Research has shown limited effect of steel reinforcing

 Consultant
 FEM
 By calculating the heat loss in the metal armouring
 Very rarely then we use FEM models
 FEM
 Only occasionally if the system was already close to thermal limits and no viable heat sink
locally
 It's our know-how
 Metallic sheath
 E.g. armouring of submarine power cables (calculation by manufacturer)
 Finite elements
 We check the induced currents in the sheath with XXX.
 By hand, based on CEI
 Own development Paper B1-102 Cigre 2008 (Carson Model)
 Only what is already included in the IEC standard
 IEC 287, FEM
 In some situation not performed by ourselves
 Not necessary for our scope
 In particular we calculate the heat generated in the cable shields and parallel earth wires with
different formulas and methods that are specified in the Chapters of our technical manual
 Standard sheath current calculations
 That is not easy. We calculate if close by and having an effect on the cable rating using
induction formulae. If too complicated we try to influence the project by proposing a different
installation method and avoid problems
 We have done one instance
 Using proprietary software or manual calculations.
Page 232
5.3 Do you calculate heat, generated due to induced currents, in steel plates, concrete
reinforcement or parallel earth wires?
Calculation of heat generated due to induced currents
Blank Yes No
Do you calculate heat, generated due to

induced currents, in steel plates, concrete 1 24 76
reinforcement or parallel earth wires?
 FEM (2x)
 Research has shown limited effect of steel reinforcing
 Consultant
 By calculating the heat loss in the metal armouring
 Very rarely then we use FEM models
 Only occasionally if the system was already close to thermal limits and no viable heat sink local
 Metallic sheath
 E.g. armouring of submarine power cables (calculation by manufacturer)
 Finite elements
 We check the induced currents in the sheath with XXX
 By hand, based on CEI
 Own development Paper B1-102 Cigre 2008 (Carson Model)
 Only what is already included in the IEC standard
 IEC 287, FEM
 In some situation not performed by ourselves
 Not necessary for our scope
 In particular we calculate the heat generated in the cable shields and parallel earth wires with
different formulas and methods that are specified in the Chapters of our technical manual
 Standard sheath current calculations
 That is not easy. We calculate if close by and having an effect on the cable rating using
induction formulae. If too complicated we try to influence the project by proposing a different
installation method and avoid problems
 We have done one instance.
5.4 Do you use standard IEC calculations (only) for deep buried cable system beyond 5 meter,
e.g directional drillings?
Use of standard IEC Calculation for deep buried cable systems

Blank Yes No
Do you use standard IEC calculations
(only) for deep buried cable systems
beyond 5 meters (e.g. directional 5 60 36
drillings)?
Page 233
If no, how do you calculate:
 Software, assume better thermal resistivity

 We rely on consultants for these ratings
 Done by consultant(s)
 Allowable temperature improves, earth mass at depth has improved thermal time constant.
Sometimes upsized conductor to give some margin
 Lower soil temperaurestemperatures
 User lower ambient temperature but a thermal resistivity usually around 1.2 C°C-m/watt for
drilling mud with soil mixtures
 With commercially available software and in-house calculation rules
 FEM calculations
 Installations, where laying depth beyond 5 m, are very rare
 FEM software is used to better obtain temperatures
 Our inhouse program is based only on IEC60287. When cable manufacturer performs
calculations for our special 66kV projects with depth capped at 5meters (we queried this and
received an unsatisfactory response)
 XXX software
 XXX and XXX also used
 I use my own dynamic ratings programs to calculate cable temperature rises occuringoccurring
as a result of previously known worst case loading patterns, ege.g. from wind farm data.
However, most customers will require steady ratings based on maximum load and the standard
IEC calculation, even though the dynamic calculations indicate conductor temperatures several
10s of degrees lower
 We can also use finite element methods
 For deep buried cable system beyond 5m a temperature of 10°C is considered
 We use an in-house software based on IEC program to calculate the drilling
 Usually we ask for manufacturers support
 Stable and lower temperature
 We normally do not burry beyond 5m
 We are only calculating according to IEC but may have supplier or third party calculation using
FEM
 Calculations by manufacturer
 We perform a calculation that takes into account thermal capacity of the ground.
 Usually FEM, with generous lengths to boundaries
 Same as the rest
 Use of the software XXX that is based on IEC standards
 Finite Element (FEM) program but not only.
 Occasionally using FEM.
 Well, we use quite standard calculations, but correct for very deep drillings where one does
never meet the end temperature. Dynamic calculations are thus used in this situation
 Use method of XXX and XXX
 FEM Analyses
 Easy with FEM to take care of this condition by using transient calculation.
Page 234
5.5 Have you made any comparison between calculated and measured cable temperature to
check if the calculations are correct?
Comparison between calculated and measured cable temperatures

Blank Yes No
Have you made any comparison
between calculated and measured
5 40 56
cable temperature to check if the
calculations are correct?
 DTS values have been taken and used to adjust/verify models

 Pipe-type cables
 Waiting on research results. Planning
 Commissioning first DTS unit this year
 OF measurement @ 30 to 60% of load
 In situ measurement results of monitoring cable circuits over long periods (years)
 This was done in the past and the result was good
 Temperature monitoring
 DTS, Type K thermocouples
 In the process of measuring cable temperature via DTS
 Using calculated sheath temp to compare with measured sheath temp given measured load.
Very good matching
 Yes for cables in air (i.e. within a lab), occasionally for buried cables
 We always aim to, with DTS systems on the market it will be more common to do so
 cables in trefoil of ducts formation and three cables per duct have been studied in the laboratory
- using heating tubes as the cables
 For some specific circuits (sections), at which (for example) hot spots are supposed, calculation
and measurement have been compared
 No data because we are not operator
 Comparison between pre-calculation and thermal rating (PT100, FO)
 Use of commercial program for the cable rating calculation for which comparisons were made by
the consultant
 Right now we are developing a project installing a DTS in order to study this comparison.
 Fiber optic sensors
 We install fiber optic cables with all cable systems. We monitor temperature for the first few
years of service
 Some to see that the design is on the safe side.
 Dynamic rating system on some newer lines
 "Steady state current rating assumes completely stabilised conditions which are never reached
in operation on installed cables
 Some internal tests have been performed using DTS and the results confirm our conductor
temperature calculation
 But it would be possible
Page 235
 Measurements are made by people operating of the electricity supply company and we are
compared against the results obtained
 We have logged temperatures on an HV connection plus measurement of our own heating
tube...
 Based on some experiments, we found the measured value is quite different from the calculated
one. Calculation method in IEC-60287 assumes that 1) the earth surface is isothermal, 2) the
cable surface is isothermal, 3) the superposition principle is suitable. But the surrounding is
complex, the soil is non uniform, water content is different, and load current of city power system
changes a lot in a day. Those factors are not consistent with the assumptions, so the errors
occur
 Based on a study with XXX of XXX
 For several tests, we check the temperature of the sheath of the cables with fibre sensors. in
general we have seen a very good agreement between calculations and reality
 By cable temperature rise experiment，comparing measured temperature in every lay and
calculated value
 It is done for HV cable installed in the air. Earlier it has been done for HPPT cable laid
underground.
 We measured the temperature of cables, the range of temperature is correct
 But tried once after PQ-test, hence having no easy transient conditions
 Lab experiment
 We have made a lot of verification measurements with DTS and DRS systems. In our DRS, our
calculation tools are inside, and thus we get a reading about the comparison between reality and
practice. Result is that if you do not apply dynamic models, you will always find significant
differences between model and measurement
 On a 525 kV AC submarine cable where we had DTS fiber installed in hollow conductor. Yes, as
well as on a 230 kV submarine cable
 We have a 100 m experimental duct bank where we verify our FEM model. Also site
measurement are used
 For street crossing and discovered big difference in one case
 For cables in tunnel
 We are currently piloting DTS on some of our HV cable.
5.6 Have you made any comparison between calculated and measured steel wire armour losses
for 3-core cables?
Comparison between calculated and measured steel wire armour losses

Blank Yes No
Have you made any comparison
5 7 89
steel wire armour losses for 3-core
cables?
Page 236
If yes, please specify your findings:
 Based on temperature measurements on export cables of offshore windfarms it appears that the
calculated armour losses for large 3-core cables acc. to IEC are too high
 The evaluations are still being examined
 No data because we are not operator
 Different tests to evaluate the wire armour losses in 3-core cables are ongoing. Preliminary
results show lower losses than those calculated with IEC 287 method
 Please see paper B1-116 from CIGRE 2010.
5.7 Do you calculate cable rating for unfilled unventilated surface trough in general?
Calculation of cable rating for unfilled unventilated surface troughs

Blank Yes No
Do you calculate cable rating for
unfilled unventilated surface trough in 3 40 58
general?
 Likewise installation in a plastic duct

 Energy balances, convection and radiation (very rarely)
 This installation is one of our typical one, included in our internal software
 Very rarely. We calculate temperature rise as per IEC 60287 calculation formula and then
calculate current rating in air, at an increased air temperature, considering temperature increase
as above
 Only 1 trough installation. Assumed it was "in air"
 When required and this is a task placed on the cable contractor to complete as part of design
process
 Taken care of in software
 Using IEC 60287 plus a higher ambient temperature
 Using IEC in air ratings with increased ambient temperature
 We model it as filled but with ambient air temperature
 IEC 60287 empirically derived function and recently the method of XXX
 IEC 60287 Wtot/3p method
 JCS：thermal resistivity calculation for trough without sand
 JCS 0501
 According to self-made program
 With a commercial program
 One solution could be to use finite element methods (XXX)
 Use of module in commercial program for the cable rating calculation
 We use an in-house software based on IEC program to calculate the drilling
 CEI 287
 IEC 287 recommendations
 IEC 287 formula
 We use a method that are defined in IEC 60287 particularly in Chapter 9 section 6
Page 237
 By software for cable rating calculation, and according to the method that laying in free air
 We have empirical formulae but also we use formulae found in IEC 60287 as well as in literature
(i.e. journal papers)
 According to IEC 60287-2-1, clause 2.2.6.2
 Using XXX
 Adding 5 K to the ambient air temperature in trough and calculating acc. to cable laid free in air
 Not often, but we have done twice, using a set of heat transfer formulae (conduction,
convection, radiation) to calculate heat transfer from the cable to the environment. If we have
open troughs, they quickly become filled with rubble, leading to a blocking of the convection
path, and a resulting increase in temperatures…it is always important to refer to the situation in
reality to find the right way of calculating on the safe side
 IEC 60287
 IEC
 IEC 60287-2-1 § 2-2-6-2
 IEC 60287.
5.8 Do you consider the impact of charging currents on the real power transfer in long cable
systems?
Consideration of the impact of charging currents on real powr transfer

Blank Yes No
Do you consider the impact of
charging currents on the real power 6 34 61
transfer in long cable systems?
 Power flow cases account for charging currents; current loading is measured at both ends
 Dissipation factor is assumed
 Shunt reactors are added - cable manufacturer's performed the calculations
 Looking at charging current for switching, but generally don't have any long cables
 Planners account for cable charging
 Utility does not have "long" cable circuits where charging current is an issue
 By hand
 Usually not, only in extreme long cable lengths this is considered
 Based on load flow calculation in the circuit and grid, at all required circumstances at the grid
connection point (MVAr exchange and grid voltage boundaries)
 By hand
 With internal software
 The cable circuits are usually not too long
 Longest cable run is 18 km and we are uncertain as to the impact of this
 Longest cable run is 4 km
 Calculate charging current based on the cable dimensions and length. Add this reactive current
to the specified real current
 XXX
Page 238
 Standard charging current equation (frequency and capacitance). I normally calculate for no
reactive compensation and reactive compensation at both ends (50/50)
 UK systems not generally long enough for this
 JCS 0501
 First calculation is made to have the apparent power and after, depending of the length,
calculation of the MVAR generated by the link. And, evaluation of necessity to install
compensation or not
 Evaluation of necessity to install compensation or not
 The value used is 1
 Charging current is included in total required ampacit
 Cables are designed according to load from grid analysis calculations
 Cables are designed according to load from grid analysis calculations
 We use proper dedicated software that is based on the transmission line equations
 Charging current is supposed to circulate all along the cable
 Well, this touches on another research area of ours - we have to run a full power flow with cable
susceptances for long rural cable connections - but compensation will be needed if rural cabling
becomes a reality in the far north
 Commercial program
 Taking into account the charging current and the phase to ground voltage, the reactive power
per meter is estimated
 Calculate the maximum current as the vector sum of load current and the capacitive current
 Calculate the exact currents flowing in the power cable and take the highest currents for the
rating calculations
 With the metering we have the vector sum of the charging and load currents on a long
submarine cable given by CTs mounted on the cable.
5.9 What calculation methods do you use for tunnel installations not covered in Cigré publication
Electra No 143? Think for example about multiple cable circuits, natural ventilated, vertical shafts
etc.
Answers given:
 Consultant
 N.A. (12x)
 No tunnels
 Consultant
 Use of cigre documents and first experience with a multi cable and pipe tunnel
 Electra N° 143
 Under study/development with our R&D department, we try FEM models
 Yes, we use a in-house software according to the publication Electra N° 143
 No comment
 Current rating of air, calculated as per IEC 60287
 IEC methods
 IEC for cables in air with altered external thermal resistance and an ERA method
 None
 IEC and FEM
 No tunnel cables
Page 239
 Get FEM calculations done

 A combination of IEC 60287 plus electra No. 143 + 144
 XXX model, based on Electra 143 but with rework to accommodate multiple independent cable
circuits, vertical shafts, joints in tunnels, tunnel junctions etc. Some bespoke models from XXX
for cables in troughs in tunnels
 No tunnels present
 XXX
 Not done to date
 For multiple cable circuits I use an extension to Electra 143 taking into account different power
losses from different circuits. This method gives results close to those obtained with modelling at
Southampton University
 Use Cigre, calculate losses for all cables and assume same cable in Cigre method. Iterate to
resolve
 Based on JCS, for tunnel
 Calculation based on equivalent thermal circuit for tunnel
 Modified JCS method(0501)
 Electric Technology Research Association 53-3(JAPAN)
 No comment
 JCS 0501:2002
 No confronted yet
 By consultants or manufacturers
 Right now we are developing a Finite Element (FEM) program to cover these cases
 We use manufacturers recommendations and tables
 Internals
 CEI 287, assuming they are groups of cables in free air, protected from solar radiation
 We perform calculations on installation configurations tha are included in CIGRE.
 Never happened
 We use a software called XXX. In this software exists models that consider various groups of
the same cable type, only one cable type and loading are supported per installation. The
reduction factors use in this software are specified in IEC 601042 together with those of table
9.11 of the book: XXX
 We are doing some research into this, but its early stages
 Have not use the publication
 Again we use empirical formulae but also the commercial program XXX and methods described
in such as XXX books
 XXX handbook, pages 230-238
 XXX
 Adding power loss of different cables as a lump sum. Otherwise using Electra 143 with assumed
values e.g. for air flow in natural ventilated tunnels
 As in air
 We use heat transfer formulae to calculate the heat transfer via conduction and convection to
the air for each power cable, we have a heat balance for the air in the enclosure, and we have
heat transfer with convection and conduction from the air to the enclosure wall. Next to this,
there is radiation of heat directly from the cable to the tunnel wall, or to another cable. Add
everything together in a model, and calculate the result. Note that the air flow can be modelled
and can be found to be turbulent or laminar, influencing the convection coefficients. The problem
is to find correct convection coefficients. Different sources report different coefficients. Using
Page 240
them all, and analysing the end results leads (in our experience) not to very different outcomes.
The rest should be controlled with an on-line air temperature monitoring system.
 Siemens method for unventilated tunnels but no vertical shafts
 By FEM
 Have not installed yet.
5.10 Do you calculate current rating for cables in riser poles (J-tubes)?
Calculation of current rating for cables in riser poles (J-tubes)

Blank Yes No
Do you calculate current rating for
cables in riser poles (J-tubes)? 7 23 71
 Hand calculations for circulating currents

 Requires riser shields per National Electric Safety Code where exposed to public. Use PVC riser
pipe but don't do calculations currently
 XXX
 Software
 IEEE (PAS-102 June 1983) ampacity of electric power cables in vertical protective risers
 Software handles calculation
 Using a method defined by XXX in the UK
 Use XXX document for guidance
 JCS 0501 or Electric Technology Research Association 53-3
 Same way as cable in air. If necessary, solar radiation will be considered in accordance with IEC
 In-house software based on IEC 287
 Only j-tubes on offshore wind platfoms where cooling is ideal on the outside during full load
(wind)
 We are using the cable supplier ampacity information in J-tubes
 But have used XXX. We do not have enough experience with these to evaluate on the results."
 ERA "Rating Cables in J-tubes" - Report: 88-0108
 We use a software called XXX. In this software consider that Cables on riser pole are installed in
vertical arrangements with guard to provide mechanical protection. The guard acts as ducts for
thermal analysis purposes, the program supports both ends vented guards, partially vented and
completely closed risers
 But we should!
 XXX cable rating book
 IEEE paper "Ampacity of electric power cables in vertical protective risers",R.A.Hartlein and
W.Z.Black
 Using XXX
 But we will soon have to
 As per XXX book "Rating of Electric Power Cables".
Page 241
5.11 Do you calculate current rating for vertical cables exposed to solar radiation?
Calculation of current rating for vertical cables exposed to solar radiation

Blank Yes No
vertical cables exposed to solar 5 35 61
radiation?
 Should be developed further by industry

 XXX
 Software/spreadsheet
 Cable in air subjected to solar radiation
 Such installations are rare
 Treated as in air per IEC
 Solar shields installed as standard and lengths are short
 We should be considering for terminations on poles exposed to sun
 Solar shielding installed
 Software handles calculation
 In air method with higher ambient temperature
 Use UV shields
 IEC 60287 - in UK only relevant for cables exiting tunnels

2
Temperature rise cased by solar radiation is considered (solar radiation :1000W/m , radiation
coefficient: 0.9)
 Temperature rise by solar radiation is considered
 JCS 0501 or Electric Technology Research Association 53-3
 JCS 168 E 1995 It is based on literature
 Same way as cables laid in air
 JCS 0501:2002
 It calculates in consideration of the rise in heat by solar radiation
 Internal program
 In function of the localisation, a value of radiation is selected and introduced in the software
(XXX)
 Use of commercial program for the cable rating calculation
 Internal software
 The solar radiation effect on the cable depends also on the angle of incidents of the radiation. It
is not clear which methodology to adopt
 IEC 60287
 XXX and XXX’s cable rating book
 IEEE paper "Ampacity of electric power cables in vertical protective risers",R.A.Hartlein and
W.Z.Black
 Follow the IEC standard
 Usually the same as for horizontal cables
Page 242
 Sometimes. Advantage here is that the cables are not shielded, and that the air flow can be
taken away from the cables. Calculation can be done with fluid dynamics (convection
coefficients for laminar and turbulent convection along a vertical cylinder are known)
 XXX
 Free flow of air, solar flux and not taking into consideration of reflecting surface of o/h towers
 Estimate from IEC 60287.
5.12 Do you calculate current rating for cables in large steel conduits?
Calculation of current rating for cables in large steel conduits

Blank Yes No
cables in large steel conduits? 8 26 67
 Interface temperature on pipe

 Jack & bore (by the consultant(s))
 If a jack-and-bore, will look at casing losses
 Not in house
 Software
 IEC 60287, pipe type cables
 IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.PAS-100, No.2, February 1981
 Take into account amx. Heating of steel conduits (incidental)
 Per IEC with some assumptions
 Only 1 installation of trefoil 66kV in pipe. Calcs done by manufacturer
 I use formulae in IEC 60287 for cables laid on steel pipes
 Rare - assume IEC 60287 pipe type
 With FEM program.
 It calculation in consideration of decreasing rate
 Finite elements
 Commercial software
 Losses calculated through Finite Element Method and injected in IEC 287 model
 We are trying to avoid this installation feature due to the generation of eddy currents on the steel
ducts. We are currently studying this situation. However for the time being and if it is necessary
to use metallic pipe, we propose to have the cables in trefoil formation inside the ducts
 According to IEC 60287
 But with all three phases in a single steel pipe, where the EM fields in the steel pipe are
cancelling up to a certain extent
 Paper by Moutassem and Anders
 XXX Program.
Page 243
5.13 Do you calculate current rating for cables in open water (not embedded)?
Calculation of current rating for cables in open water (not embedded)

Blank Yes No
cables in open water (not 10 12 79
embedded)?
 Do not have any

 By consultants
 Guidelines for shallow water installation
 XXX
 Use 1m burial in low thermal resistance seawater
 I assume a heat transfer coefficient of 10W/m2K and use the in air rating formula to calculate
ratings of cables on the seabed
 Considered the deposited soil
 Water temperature is considered as ambient temperature
 JCS 0501:2002
 This calculation is done by the supplier of the cable.
 Commercial software
 When a cable is laid on seabed (not buried in the seabed soil) during it’s lifetime it can be
covered by the seabed soil/marine growth / shells etc. Therefore in this case for the current
rating it has to be considered as if the cable is “directly buried” in the seabed soil
 We consider that the cable, for some length, will be buried in the seabed, hence being the worst
case we focus on that
 Assume that the cable will sink 0.2-0.3 m in seabed
 Using software.
5.14 Where are the most important needs for improvement regarding steady state rating?
Answers given:
 Accuracy of ground temperature and thermal resistivity

 Thermal correction factor may be reviewed as per practical laying conditions
 Thermal resistance of backfill and native soil as well as MC of both
 Clear understanding of worst case ambient conditions. i.e. from measurements at one point in
time how do we deduce worst possible conditions?
 A good knowledge of the environment in which the cables are installed.
 Soil and ambient temperature
 Soil drying out, influence of the temperature of the air around the cables on duct type
installations
 It is important to obtain soil condition precisely and generally.
 Surrounding condition
Page 244
 Eliminate "hot spot"

 Soil thermal resistivity
 More knowledge where to find hotspots
 Presence of layers with different thermal resistivity above the cable
 The most important is to have realistic parameters that are related to the installation conditions,
such as ambient temperature at a specific depth or air, exposed to sun or not, dry and wet soil
thermal resistivity
 How to determine ambient thermal resistance
 For direct burial cable laying method, the most important needs for improvement regarding
steady state rating are improving soil thermal resistivity, controlling the conductor temperature &
maintain proper space between the cable circuits
 Offshore: All temperature measurements shows a very low temperature on subsea cables in
seabed compared to calculations. Update on this calculation would be very much appreciated
 External influences from other heat and EMF sources, like power cables and others
 Whole circuit modelling
 Improved environment modelling and improved rating calculation method
 Improved methods for rating cables when they are within bridge
 For shorter span cables the difference in cable rating due to different bonding arrangement
(single point and double point bonding) has to be brought out
 Emergency ratings now control - not the normal
 Being able to use a loading factor for long term emergency ratings (i.e. >24 hrs) and modelling
for ducts in steel casings
 Shallow burials
 To reach the steady state temperature quicker
 Due to more dispersed generation cable load will more tend to dynamic behaviour instead of
continuous/steady state behaviour. Does this imply a different approach in cable current rating
calculations and assumptions?
 Cases with air gaps of different configurations;- cases of cable passing through the walls;- loses
in metallic screens and armours of asymmetrically installed circuits
 The parameters are not constant, the heat transmission impact most of parameters, especially
in transient situation.
 Multi-circuit laying
 Cable crossings below ground
 Numerical Calculation Method for Two soil TR condition (Backfill in Trench & Surrounding Native
Soil - different from duct bank )
 To have a reliable method to take all of the above into account and also for large conductors
 Unfilled ducts (cables >100mm)
 Onshore: Are the IEC standard calculation valid on deep cable positions? Or is there a depth
from where the cable ampacity will not be decreased by going deeper?
 Calculation techniques for horizontal directional drilling depending on type of crossing (e.g. road
vs river)
 Construction method of directional
 Don't use steady state rating if cables are buried below 2 m. Use instead transient method
 Provide formulas to solve 'new' installation cases such as HDD with cables inside multiple
concentric tubes, cables in tunnel
 Horizontal Directional Drilling, deep burial depth and tunnels
 Rating of cable at large burial depths
 Deep HDD - continuous ratings (temperature and thermal resistance)
Page 245
 Calculation of the current rating in drilling with metallics troughs and in tunnels (with or without
forced ventilation).
 Mutual influence between cables in tunnel
 Cables in tunnel
 Different cable types in an unventilated tunnel
 Tunnel installation
 Cables on risers (in-air)
 J-tubes
 A re-assessment of the XXX calculations for J-tubes. Are they still appropriate for the very large
cables used nowadays?
 In the submarine installation with galvanised steel armour where actual knowledge shows that
measurements and calculations are really different
 Submarine/armoured cables
 Rating for large 3-core armoured cables
 Armour losses in 3core cable formula
 Revision of armour loss for 3-core submarine cables
 We need to consider losses in three phase armoured submarine cables
 Currently there is a need to determine the placement of several circuit of different voltages
within a duct bank optimally to improve the current rating for cables. There is also the need to
determine the current rating for cables when they are placed in several duct banks and backfill
in the same installation
 Simplified models for crossings of duct banks at an angle
 Temperature dependence of heat transfer due to radiation and convection in conduit
installations
 Number of cables, cable construction, medium in which cables are installed, cable locations(
each other/earth surface) ,cable bonding arrangement
 1. Including large steel casings used in horizontal drillings 2. include calculation of sheath
bonding current especially GCC
 Examine bottlenecks and try and mitigate them
 To cover the real installation cases
 Ease of following document, as some terminology or references can be easily confused
 ks=?
 Insulation power factor not known
 Better understanding of how to match the cyclic rating of an underground cable when it is then
connected to an existing overhead line
 If everybody follows IEC, everybody ends with a different result. That is the result from courses
we give and bid evaluations we do in projects. Everything has to do with the interpretation of
IEC: when is it valid and when should you do something else? In the latter case, there is no
solution given, and we believe the calculator should be open in showing what he has
assumed/done to overcome that difficulty, rather than to say the calculation is IEC conform.
5.15 What do you do when IEC or Neher/McGrath does not provide an answer?
Answers given:
 Rely on consultant's knowledge and experience

 Best approximation using tools that are available
Page 246
 Make some generalized assumptions

 Hire a consultant
 Call consultant
 Built up experience and common sense
 Estimate and discuss with client
 Advise client on boundaries and limitations of standardized calculation methods and advise on
best estimates, including risk analyses for situation.
 FEM modelling, adaptation of existing formulae
 No comment
 Such situations are rare
 Discuss issue with client and manufacturer
 Refer to manufacturer. Apply a conservative load factor
 Unknown
 Seek advice from specialist consultants/cable suppliers
 Source software e.g. XXX, cable manufacturers, FEM software
 Calculate best estimate using IEC or other approved methods. Evaluate ratings via either FEM
or where necessary by measurement.
 Use external support such as XXX to carry out FEA modelling.
 Chat to other cable engineers and discuss
 Try to model as close as possible so can use IEC/NM
 Work up my own theory
 Cigre
 None
 Own program
 When JCS does not provide an answer, we ask Japanese cable manufacturer about it
 FEM program
 No comment
 Contact the cable manufactures
 Evaluation by a temperature survey is performed
 No confronted yet
 Physics calculation, finite elements
 Use of commercial program for the cable rating calculation
 Ask the supplier.
 Ask support from the manufacturers
 Fem or assumptions
 "Inventing"......
 FEM calculation
 Asking the manufacturer
 Uses our experience
 Those situations are discussed directly with the client. If other methods are not applicable
sometimes a FEM calculation can be the solution
 I try to bring-back to a IEC case staying 'on the safe side' from a thermal point of view
 Normally we use the XXX software that is based on methods of IEC´s and Neher and McGrath if
there is no particular condition of installation we use the condition most similar
 We generally use FEM
Page 247
 None
 No experience (until this moment..!) - Maybe, a reliable answer, I will find on CIGRE Technical
Brochure ..!
 Do self-research, as done earlier with XXX.
 If we cannot make a valid or safe calculation with our tools, we propose changes to the
customer installation conditions which will make feasible the usage of out methods of calculation
 We consult a CIGRE specialist
 Use FEM-analysis
 Did not occur
 Calculate ambient thermal resistance according to real ambient
 We will have more experiments
 FEM
 Search for a approximate calculation method

2
HVDC system; How to calculate the AC resistance of conductors above 1400mm
 Find another route to an answer, write it down, and report it with the result to the customer
 We look into the published literature
 Use a commercial finite element program
 FEM
 Go for FEM
 Use FEM
 FEM is occasionally used
 FEM
 Have not had such cases
 Have not yet encountered such a situation.
6. Dynamic rating (cyclic or emergency time dependent rating)
6.1 Do you perform dynamic rating calculations yourself?
Dynamic rating calculations performed by yourself

Result
Dynamic rating calculation… Yes No Blank
Perform calculation (by yourself) 54 40 7
If yes, how do you perform these calculations:
with in-house software based on IEC/Neher McGrath 30 29 42
with in-house software based on Cigré 11 40 50
with commercial available program 30 30 41
with another method 15 35 51
Specified other methods:
 XXX program
 We have XXX in its initial stages
 Don't do themselves; use a commercially available program
 Use programs just for engineering information; only use static ratings so far in operating
underground system
Page 248
 XXX
 Usually dynamic ratings calculation is not performed
 Occasionally using XXX
 Use excel program based on IECs and as no cyclic rating but constant dynamic load, use
influence of step functions per day and the influence it has on the system 7 days after the step
function completed
 XXX
 XXX
 With in-house spreadsheet based on modified JCS method(0501)
 With in-house software based on JCS0501
 By consultants or manufacturers
 FEM
 Our own algorithms, which model the entire installation as a thermal circuit, assuming
logarithmic temperature distribution between nodes, so that we can approximate the extent of
the dry region in real time, etc., etc
 De-rating factors for cyclic loads based on XXX-calculations
 Electra No. 87 - Computer method for the calculation of the response of single-core cables to a
step function thermal transient
 On a basis of cable thermal circuit，measure real-timely cable buried parameters
 Numerical value method
 Internal calculation program existing long standing (details not available)
 We use in house software based in IEC, but extended for situations not in IEC.
6.2 Do you use any safety margin in the calculations (Think for example about a lower
temperature or limited time durations)?
Safety margin used in the calcuations

Blank Yes No
Do you use any safety margin in the
calculations (Think for example about
a lower temperature or limited time 24 17 60
durations)?
If yes, specifications given are:
 Use the same as for static (non-dynamic) ratings

 Not applicable
 Time durations currently limited to 6 hrs for cables although consideration being given to longer
periods
 Ambient and power factor can be used and adjusted to give a worst case scenario
 I routinely carry out limited time calculations for durations between 1 to 10 days. If there is
uncertainty about the duration, e.g. the expected limited time is usually 3 days, but could be
longer, and then I might perform calculations for longer times. Cable sizing should always take
into account the duration of maximum loading. For example, if in a power station load flow
analysis shows that a certain loading could be maintained for an indefinite period, I would size
Page 249
the cable to ensure that the conductor temperature did not exceed 60-70 °C, rather than 90 °C.
However, if it is a case of two parallel circuits where the load in one circuit is doubled and the
other has failed, it is sufficient to rate circuits by calculating the maximum load that results in a
conductor temperature of 90 °C being attained X days after the start of the emergency. This is
the "distribution" rating, used by some DNOs in the UK. In general it assumes a standard load
cycle, but these days it is possible to calculate it for any load cycle and any duration of days
 Lower temperature limits
 Some customers ask us to use 70 °C for XLPE conductor instead of 90 °C
 Lower temperature
 Lower temperature
 We insist that moisture migration must be considered in transient ratings, as the inherent safety
margin of steady state ratings has been lost
 20 °C
 “Rounding down" calculated derating factors
 We take into consideration any limitations are set in standards and in greatly accepted journal
publications
 See & 3.1
 Depending on the project a safety margin can be in the thermal parameters used to characterize
the environment, in the ambient or max temperature used, or in a round off
 We focus on th hottest cable of each circuit
 Conservative tharmal resistivity.
6.3 Did you experience limitations or difficulties with the used dynamic rating calculations?
Limitations / difficulties experienced with used dynamic rating calculations

Blank Yes No
Did you experience limitations or
difficulties with the used dynamic 23 24 54
rating calculations?
If yes, specifications given are:
 Parameter filters, re-start values

 Working through a consultant - in the process
 Only limitations are a lack of fibre integrated in the cable so there is a little time lag. Work
around is to use appropriate models
 Often considered as a nice to know, and max. circuit ratings still based on the static ratings
 the calculations seem to be complex
 Extremely difficult to calculate for a number of reasons it has not yet been achieved in any of our
cable projects still under development
 Reliability of the measurement equipment. Reliability of the operators of the measuring
equipment
 Limitations imposed by gathering of useful dynamic ambient temperature data
 Developed equations, no available guidance so again discussed with other cable engineers
 Deep HDD. not convinced that IEC methods accurate
Page 250
 Calculations with short variations of time. For example, train/tram rating where additional
calculations are needed
 Missing knowledge of the cable
 Yes, lack of examples or reference cases
 Although this is of course more challenging that steady state
 We do not observe cable failures due to overloading
 IEC 853 does not support moisture migration
 Limited experience
 The value of thermal resistance changes all the time, especially with the cyclic load
 IEC 60853 could be more precise in the used variables and what they mean
 Thermal equilibrium of the cable
 Cyclic and emergency ratings as defined in IEC 60853 are not well usable: you go from steady
state to steady state (step response), or you have every day the exact same load cycle. Both
are not realistic, leading to difficulties to use the results
 The load/DTS readings are kept and used for only the past 24 hours
 Early installation of the real-time OS was very buggy but subsequent versions seemed
improved. We had such a system that was monitoring approximately 10 different 230kV
transmission circuits. This was subsequently de-commissioned as the circuits were replaced
with newer designs.
6.4 Is the dynamic rating system fully integrated in your network system or is it a stand-alone
program/system?
Type of dynamic rating system

Blank Fully integrated Stand alone
Type of dynamic rating system 47 13 41
7 Real time temperature monitoring system
7.1 Do you use real time temperature monitoring systems?
Use of real time temperature monitoring systems

Result
Use of real time temperature monitoring Yes No Blank
Do you use real time temperature monitoring? 52 38 11
If yes
an own developed system, e.g. PT100 13 36 52
a commercial available DTS system 52 14 35
another system 6 30 65
Page 251
Other systems specified:
 Currently we have a project to tackle with the Dynamic Rating. We are going to install a DTS to
verify (compare) the results
 Commissioning DTS this year
 The requirement is more relevant to cable users
 As a cable manufacturer/supplier we design and supply such systems rather than "use" them
 Bragg gratings
 DTS on some subsea export cables (Fibre optic). Not in general
 We use DTS system, not RTTR, up to now
 We use commercially available DTS for single mode fibres most of the time
 We have approximately 5 DTS systems currently and plan to install 5 more to monitor critical
circuits. Older forced cooling system uses PT100 RTDs to monitor soil temperature.
7.2 Use of glass fibre temperature monitoring systems (DTS)
Glass fibre position

Result
Glass fibre position Yes No Blank
Inside cable, cable screen 42 20 39
Cable surface 40 20 41
External parallel conduit 33 22 46
Other 8 32 61
Others positions specified:
 Mainly depending on available situation at circuit to be monitored. Preferred location inside

cable
 The requirement is more relevant to users. However as per our knowledge fibre optic cable is
laid externally in parallel conduit
 Middle of trefoil formation
 Usually blown fibre
 Submarine cable (armoured part)
 Temperature near cable (in culvert)
 FO integrated in subsea cable. Onshore in external parallel duct
 FO integrated in subsea cable. Onshore in external parallel duct
 We have not use a monitoring system (DTS)
 We are aware of a 110 kV cable with the fibre just under the screen - it was monitored just after
its installation, but the monitoring is expensive
 In conductor
 Both experience with inside cable screen which is better, or in a parallel conduit. In the latter
situation the conduit is usually attached to the power cable, but we had experience with a
conduit 5 cm away
 At some point inside the surrounding medium
 Inside the hollow conductor of a 525 kV AC submarine cable.
Page 252
Permanent or temporary use of DTS

Mobile /
Permanent Both blank
temporary
Is the DTS system used permanently connected
to the same cable circuit or is it used on a 20 39 3 39
temporary basis among different circuits?
I
Accuracy check of the DTS system

Blank Yes No
Have you checked the overall accuracy
37 33 31
of the DTS system?
Findings specified in case of positive answer:
 At the beginning during the DTS calibration

 Not yet
 Utility has 1 permanent system and 1 portable system
 Findings are OK
 See CIGRE 2006 paper B1-107
 In general the specified ranges are over-estimated. (faster decay of accuracy at longer lengths)
 good accuracy
 In the beginning
 As per our information, DTS used is permanently connected to cable circuits. However users
would be better source of information on this
 DTS system not yet installed
 The one system purchased never functioned correctly
 Lab tests
 By DTS supplier
 Still commissioning
 Just before installation, heating test is performed
 Compare with measurement value
 See CIGRE 21_101_2000_150 kV UNDERGROUND LINKS IN BELGIUM New technical Stage
for XLPE insulated cables
 System and distance dependent
 In installed systems it is possible to verify only the accuracy of the measuring sensor not the
complete system accuracy as the real conductor temperature is unknown
 Correct temperature measurement
 We have not used a monitoring system (DTS)
 Unfortunately, the PT100 sensors were put on the wrong cable (the top of the coolest cable
instead of a position that represented the average temperature of a hottest cable, and so we
couldn't really use our algorithm to compare with the DTS system
 Based on the values compared with DTS system other thermometry and theoretical calculation,
it is known that the accuracy of DTS system is not high enough. The temperature transmitted
from conductor to cable surface quite late
 Test in scene
 It works fine with very good accuracy
 Within stated tolerances
Page 253
 The experiments were carried out using short cable lengths equipped with DTS and
thermocouples
 We test DTS systems. We found that there are DTS machines that do not measure the
temperature and have software errors leading to erroneous results (see CIGRE discussion
contribution 2012 for a picture). Normally, the DTS machines are accurate within 2 °C, which is
enough for our purposes
 Better than manufacturer data sheet in some instances
 We install thermocouples along the cable route for the validation of DTS
 The comparison of DTS can be done with discrete measurement with carefully analysis of the
locations. It cannot be compared indiscriminately. If compared to the system based on
thermocouples the fibre sensor should reflect the very limited location (coil)
 Some measurements along cables in tunnels have been performed
 In progress
 We are still piloting the DTS system on our 1st feeder. The feeder and DTS system is still to be
commissioned.
7.3 Have you experienced limitations or difficulties with the currently used temperature
monitoring system?
Limitations / difficulties experienced with used temperature monitoring system

Blank Yes No
Have you experienced limitations or
difficulties with the currently used 47 26 28
temperature monitoring system?
In case of limitations / difficulties experienced, the following was specified:
 Checked accuracy with reference temperature; Experience: Have been using DTS since 1998
 Costs
 Question more relevant to users
 It is new system and performance not established
 Limitation: Ability to calibrate over the required operating temperature range
 Instruments prone to failure
 As stated the one unit purchased has never functioned and this is leading to questions as to the
usefulness of this technology
 High component failure(about to replace)
 For cables in air the attachment method is not guaranteed to be giving actual cable surface
temperature
 Difficult to use as the system has been disconnected
 Conductor temperature cannot but be estimated value, because it is not measured directly.
There must be some influence from surroundings
 Broken thermocouples (ageing)
 When we use mobile/temporary DTS we do not know how the temperature changes. We are
starting to have permanent DTS and pt100 in our most critical lines
 Communication problems
 Unstable/ un-mature DTS software
Page 254
 DTS calibration difficult, both with respect to reference measurements and equipment tuning
 Sensitivity to changes in fibre type (both within the G655 spec)
 Not really limitations with equipment but with people's understanding of heat transfer
 The accuracy of measurement is not high enough
 Not all professionals are trained in the system
 Measured surface temperature exists error
 Accuracy
 See 7.2. Other limitations are with the conduit: Often the glass fibre separates from the power
cable in a HDD or joint. That is a pity as these locations are often thermal bottlenecks. Thus,
one should consider if the glass fibre is measuring the complete cable circuit! Another thing is
that we have bad experiences with DTS machines working for years and years. Usually after a
few years, errors appear in the measurements, or the accuracy is decreasing
 Accurate estimation of the soil thermal properties in real time poses a challenge
 Lot of breakdown of the system. Not very reliable yet
 If the sensor fiber is installed properly and not damaged there should not be any difficulties or
limitations.
8 Real Time Current Rating System
8.1 Do you use a Real Time Current Rating system for any cable circuit?
Use of real time current rating systems

Result
Use of real time current rating systems Yes No Blank
Do you use of real time current rating system 26 60 15
If yes:
own developed system 13 28 60
a commercial available system 20 25 56
Own developed systems which were specified are:
 XXX
 We currently do not however a system is in the process of being developed as part of the new
275kv installation
 A circuit thermal monitor system using real-time loads and temperatures and based on cable,
transformer and other equipment rating models
 Design/supply RTTR
 XXX DRS-system (dynamic rating system).
 The work is in process aimed at application of our own developed and commercially available
system
 We developed our own software after an evaluation of commercially available products. We use
this system as a commercial system selling it to TSO's. Our system does not depend on
permanently installed DTS systems, which is an important difference with other systems
available.
Page 255
Commercial available systems which were specified are:
 XXX
 XXX
 Two RTTR systems monitoring cables only
 XXX
 Until now no use of RTCR system /purchase process for commercial RTCR system is ongoing
 DTS
 Not yet, but we are worrying on integrating a RTCR system.
 Planning to implement DTS/RTTR on an upcoming project in 2013
 developed by cable manufacturer, based mainly on IEC
 XXX system
 We are planning to test a commercial product. We have developed/parameterized a program to
calculate the conductor temperature having the temperature of the metallic sheath or the
temperature of the plastic over sheath. The rating can be extracted from these data. This is to
be tested and verified
 XXX
 several suppliers available
 XXX software
 XXX system
 XXX.
8.2 Do you use a fibre optic (DTS) system as an input for the Real Time Current Rating System?
Use of DTS systems as input for real time current rating systems
Blank Yes No
Do you use a fibre optic (DTS)
system as an input for the Real Time 36 25 40
Current Rating System?
Specifications given in either case:
 Cable tunnel
 XXX (manufacturer)
 XXX under development
 DTS system and RTTR system are used simultaneously
 Under development
 Cable temperature, ground temperature, current
 Not for CTM, but RTTR uses DTS
 XXX
 We actually install 220kV-cables with optical fibres to be able to use DTS in future
 Various types/manufactures
 No, but we are considering its introduction on forthcoming projects.
 DTS from XXX
Page 256
 The work is in progress aimed at the development of such systems

 We use a DTS if a glass fibre is available, to find the thermal bottlenecks in the circuit. Once
known, we characterize the thermal bottleneck, and stop with the DTS. We come back once
every while to see if new bottlenecks appear, but this is almost never the case. We can also use
this approach for cables without glass fibres, where we find the thermal bottleneck with an
extensive site survey. See Cigre article on that where we use dynamic rating on a combination
of a SCFF and a OHL in series
 We are in the process of putting together these systems
 XXX.
8.3 Do you use any safety margin in the Real Time Current Rating System?
Use of safety margin in real time current rating systems

Blank Yes No
Do you use any safety margin in the
36 25 40
Real Time Current Rating System?
Specification given when answered positive:
 Use same assumptions as static

 Under development
 Early Alarm (80-85 °C is provided)
 Maximum calculated conductor temperature alarm is set to 85 °C
 If specified by the client
 Depending on a discussion with the client, we define a warning level and a maximum level, both
having a safety margin to avoid risks. We want to come closer to the edge, but not want to go
over it.
8.4 Is the Real Time Current Rating System fully integrated in your network system or is it a
stand-alone system?
Type of real time current rating system

Fully integrated Stand alone both
Type of real time current rating
9 24 3
system
Page 257
8.5 Have you experienced limitations or difficulties with the currently used real time current rating
system?
Limitations / difficulties experienced with used real time current rating system
Blank Yes No
Have you experienced limitations or
difficulties with the currently used real 53 13 35
time current rating system?
In case of limitations / difficulties experienced, the following was specified:
 It is in its initial experimental stage

 It is in its initial experimental stage
 Not yet
 Limitation: Ability to calibrate over the required operating temperature range
 Reliability of the measurement equipment. Reliability of the operators of the measuring
equipment
 For cables in air the attachment method is not guaranteed to be giving actual cable surface
temperature
 Difficult to use in UK as the system has been disconnected
 Temperature measurement from open duct in duct bank with multi circuit
 Rating estimation on low load
 Accuracy
 Limitations of the DTS were already highlighted but we are glad our DRS does not depend on it.
An important limitation is the adaption of varying loading possibilities in a control room
environment. It is not in the heart and minds of the operators to use varying numbers
 Estimation of soil properties in real time pose a challenge
 Thermocouple connections break down
 Not fully operational yet. Some difficulties with input/output.
9 Others
9.1 Do you have any additional observations regarding calculations methods or dynamic rating
system?
Additional observations regarding calculation methods or dynamic rating systems

Blank Yes No
Do you have any additional
observations regarding calculations 23 14 63
methods or dynamic rating system?
Page 258
Additional observations given:
 It is very important for the cable community to establish a method for measuring the ac
resistance for large conductors; It is very important for the cable community to establish a
method for measuring the ac resistance for large conductors I am looking for an asset manager
who is willing to do dynamic loadings with awareness
 Another issue that needs to be addressed to is that IEC 60287, currently, does not provide the
2
skin and proximity coefficients for copper conductors larger than 1400 mm with number of
segments more than 4. In addition, IEC 60287 provides values for unidirectional of copper wires
and not for bi-directional. The issue of copper enamelled and oxidized wires needs to be
standardized if possible crossing of multiple circuit calculation method
 It is very important for the cable community to establish a method for measuring the ac
resistance for large conductors
 Another issue that needs to be addressed to is that IEC 60287, currently, does not provide the
2
skin and proximity coefficients for copper conductors larger than 1400 mm with number of
segments more than 4. In addition, IEC 60287 provides values for unidirectional of copper wires
and not for bi-directional. The issue of copper enamelled and oxidized wires needs to be
standardized if possible
 Usually, not performing calculations for dynamic ratings
 In development
 Dynamic ratings should be calculated on a case by case basis, I know some companies are
using a blanket load factor (cable is rated at 70% of the full production capacity of the wind
plant)
 Experience on thermal calculation of subsea cables with bending restrictor is requested
 Publish more solved cases to be used as reference
 Just the lack of continued funding to turn our real-time temperature prediction algorithm into a
dynamic rating system
 I checked that some recognized ampacity calculations softwares results in different power cable
conductors using the main parameters
 Another case that is not covered in IEC 60287 is the moisture migration with not equally loaded
cables. A very difficult case to be tackled
 Current rating of cables installed in water filled pipes are not covered in IEC or CIGRE
 Dynamic rating is calculated by thermal circuit
 Many people trust softwares a lot. We have made a comparison to find our own ways of dealing
with the subject of cable rating, and found that very many softwares say they calculate conform
to IEC, but they actually do not. Where they do not, they also not tell what is different from IEC.
It may be correct, it may not be, given the situation. This is not good, as the people using the
software tend to know less rather than more about cable rating calculations
 While the engineering has been done integration into the System control centre is expected to
provide valuable insights on data should be presented and how it may be used
 I think, utilities should insist to have the fibre located within the sheath for useful use of the
system.
Page 259
9.2 Did you make any comparison between calculated and measured steady state or transient
temperatures?
Comparison between calculated and measured steady state or transient temperature

Blank Yes No
Did you make any comparison
21 21 59
steady state or transient
temperatures?
Specifications given in case of comparisons made:
 Not yet but want to eventually

 Not yet. Utility hopes to do once DTS system is commissioned
 To be discussed
 During monitoring of cable circuits
 In development
 Using calculated sheath temp to compare with measured sheath temp given measured load.
Very good matching
 A study was made looking at tunnels comparing calculated and observed temperatures
 Awaiting system being made live
 Have checked steady state ducted cable ratings using experimental rig. Have confirmed
accuracy of any of own finite difference calculations against published current/temperature vs
time data
 For some specific circuits (sections), at which (for example) hot spots are supposed, calculation
and measurement have been compared
 We have monitored temperatures of a cable system and compared the results with simulations
after measuring the thermal resistivity of the soil. Generally, the simulations matched well the
temperature measurements
 We only check for hotspots and major deviations between calculations and measurements
 Planning to do
 Indirectly we perform the calculations under different methodologies and our client makes on
site measurements to the different circuits
 As mentioned, with a 110 kV cable we monitored temperatures and seasonal variation of
thermal resistivity (with a buried probe) but the temperatures were trivial. Therefore, we built a
heating tube that runs through a backfilled region and a native soil region, that we could, for
example, force moisture migration with, to develop that aspect of our calculation methods
 By cable temperature rise experiment，comparing measured temperature in every lay and
calculated value
 For single cable laid in air
 In lab
 We verify all our dynamic rating systems in the field situation with measurements. It can be
shown that these systems have an accuracy of about 1-2 °C in these cases, if we use realistic
environmental properties resulting from soil investigations (they yield actual and worst case
data)
 We match the measured DTS readings
 The model parameters are adjusted to match measured and computed cable/duct surface
temperatures
 We have done some limited work but more is being planned.
Page 260
9.3 What recommendations could you give to other users considering steady state or dynamic
rating calculations?
 Do economics justify applications?

 Transmission planners must be involved all the time, as they may have different priorities than
the operators of the cable system
 When in doubt, be conservative
 Is there a possibility for me to speak about this topic during a near future meeting?
 Make a firm risk analysis of the steady state and dynamic ratings that are required. In normal
grid configurations it is still very often seen that the approach is very conservative even if this
requires large extra investments
 Steady state calculation as per IEC 60287 is quite user friendly and covers most of the
installation conditions
 In development
 Clear details of cable construction and ambient conditions are needed to ensure
sensible/believable calculations
 Consider trials with commercial software XXX as developments over last 10years have greatly
improved available packages
 Consider how you plan to use the information you will measure
 It is essential to understand and use the correct input parameters for calculations
 We need to have a simple system that can be used/not used as the operator sees fit
 Make sure that you fully understand the methods and their limitations!
 Do not try to load the cable 100%. Take a margin to avoid problem with the thermal resistivity,
thermal problems in the accessories (connectors) and problem in the joints due to the thermal
expansion of the conductors
 Even calculations show that bottlenecks should be directional drillings, have we never
experienced problems, due to cyclic ratings
 To consider the natural soil temperature variation without the cable
 Once ampacity calculation has been made, make 'sensitive' analysis varying main parameters
(Tambient, Thermal resistivity etc.)
 We must be careful when we do a study because we have to consider the two different
conditions so we try to have all system operating conditions in order to efficiently optimize the
results
 Be careful when moving to a dynamic rating system - measurements are invaluable. If
temperature measurements are made in real time on the point of the surface that represents the
average surface temperature of the hottest cable, then algorithms such as the ones we
developed give a very accurate prediction of the hottest conductor temperature. If our algorithms
are run without temperature measurement, then the moisture migration parameters should be
set very conservatively
 Be particularly aware of rating bottlenecks in the circuit
 Use IEC 60287 standards if applicable
 I think the model of the cable is very important. All the methods should be based on the
experiment
 Always make sure that the calculation you make is applicable to the situation. IF in doubt, either
make first case calculations or consult another party as errors are easily made. If cables are
really loaded higher based on the calculation, the calculation should be well founded
 Focus should be on real time estimate of soil thermal properties
Page 261
 DTS technology is a valuable tool that can be used to operate cable systems more safely and
effectively
 Go for FEM modelling; use dynamic rating for deeply buried installation
 Do not expect high accuracy
 None (8x).
Page 262
Ap p end ix C: T ab le of P ot e nt i al I mp rov e m e nt s t o I EC St a nd ar ds
The table below lists calculation methods that are missing from IEC standards, or calculation
methods that generate incorrect results in IEC standards. An entry in this table does not imply
necessarily that the IEC standard should be changed as the omission or error may be negligible, rare
in real world situations or the solution may be too complex for inclusion in the IEC standard.
Section Description
Losses (conductor)
6.1 IEC 60287-1-1 Table 2, Skin and proximity effects missing for: oval conductors and
aluminium sector-shaped
6.3.4 Skin and proximity effects for concentric cables
7.1.3.1 Proximity effects for multiple circuits or multiple cables per phase
Losses (dielectric)
6.2.2 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.2 Calculation of capacitance for sector-shaped or belted cables
is not included
Losses (sheath and armour)
6.4.2 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.3 does not cope with copper wire screen and metal sheaths in
the same cable
7.1.1 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.3.1 to 2.3.6.2, No method for calculation of sheath losses for
unequal cable spacings (but method for AC conductor resistance is included) for single
core cables. Sheath losses can only be calculated for flat spaced and trefoil formation.
6.6.1 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.4.2 Armour losses for multi core cables within a common
armour are too large when calculated using IEC 60287
7.1.3 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.3: The sheath losses of several circuits. The IEC standard
considers losses in the three phases of the same circuit without consideration of the
effect of neighbouring circuits.
7.1.3.4 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.4: The electromagnetic effect of several circuits on losses in
armours. The IEC standard considers magnetic losses in the three phases of the same
circuit without consideration of the effect of neighbouring circuits.
5.3.1 IEC 60287-1-1 clauses 2.3 and 2.4: For single phase cables with a separate neutral
cable with different construction to the phase cable, the electromagnetic effects of
losses in sheaths / amours needs calculation.
6.3.4 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.3: Sheath loss on concentric cable
5.3.1 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.3: Specially bonded two phase single core cables
7.1.11 IEC 60287-1-1 clause 2.3: The effect of an earth continuity conductor on cable rating in
a single point bonded system. Additionally other parallel metallic paths may be installed.
7.1.6 IEC 60287-1-1, general: The effect of charging current on cable current rating for very
long cable routes
Page 263
7.1.9 IEC 60287-1-1, general: Losses in metalwork near to cable systems, including
potentially magnetic materials.
6.6 IEC 60287-1-1, general: Cables in magnetic pipes. At the moment, only the pipe type
cables in trefoil or cradled configurations are considered in the IEC 60287. This
includes the installations in large casings crossing roads, tracks, rivers, etc. This would
appear to be an issue for pipe jacking.
Thermal resistances of constituent parts of cable
6.2.1 IEC 60287-2-1 clause 4.1.1 Thermal resistance of layers between conductor and
sheath substantially greater than the insulation (e.g. air layers in XLPE cables under
corrugated aluminium sheaths) may need to be considered
External thermal resistances for cables installed in air
7.3.5 BS EN 60287-2-1 General: Cables on riser poles. IEC standard does not recognize this
installation.
BS EN 60287-2-1 General: Cables on trays
7.3.2 BS EN 60287-2-1 General: Only limited number of cables in groups are covered in IEC
60287-2-2 for cables installed in air
7.3.3 BS EN 60287-2-1 General: Cables on bridges with the effect of solar radiation and
protective panels
External thermal resistances for cables installed buried
7.2.3.1 IEC 60287-2-1 clause 4.2.6.1: Cables at shallow depths and filled surface troughs.
Kennelly’s hypothesis assumes that the ground / air interface is an isotherm. How to
calculate the temperature increase at the earth – air interface above a power cable
circuit. This cannot be done using the IEC models as they are based on the Kennelly’s
hypothesis, although this question is increasingly being raised.
Additionally IEC 60287-2-1 may not correctly account for solar gain.
7.2.3.2 IEC 60287-2-1 clause 4.2.6.2: Cables installed in unventilated unfilled surface troughs.
IEC 60287 gives an empirical formula.
7.2.1.5 IEC 60287-2-1 general: Cables placed underground with more than two soil types. The
IEC standard recognizes one backfill/duct bank scenario (see IEC 60287-2-1 clause
4.2.7.4). Note: this can be different backfills or alternatively different layers of soil
7.2.1.9 IEC 60287-2-1 general: Deeply buried cables
0 IEC 60287-2-1 general: Soil dry out with multiple circuits
7.2.2.1 IEC 60287-2-1 clause 4.2.7: Convection in ducts, particularly along the duct
7.2.1.7 IEC 60287-2-1 clause 4.2.3.2: Heat sources such as steam pipes with set temperature
rather than set heat output
7.2.1.7 IEC 60287-2-1 general: High water table or water course providing heat sink
7.2.1.3 IEC 60287-3-3 general: Cable crossings with ducts or more than one thermal resistivity
Page 264
External thermal resistances for cables not installed in IEC considered

installation types
7.2.1.6 Water cooled circuit
7.5.4 Submarine cables installed in J tubes
7.5.2 Submarine cable installed on seabed
7.5.3 Submarine cable installed in free water
7.2.3.2 Cables installed in surface troughs that are unfilled and naturally ventilated
07.2.3.3 Cables installed in surface troughs that are unfilled and force ventilated
7.4.2 Cables in force air ventilated tunnels (not yet published)
7.4.3 Cables in force water cooled tunnels
7.4.1 Cables in naturally ventilated or unventilated tunnels
Additional problems
7.1.10 Calculation of short lengths with heat flow along the cable
5.3.3 HVDC above 5 kV not covered. DC cables have additional constraints such as
temperature dependent stress profiles and void formation
5.3.5 Harmonic currents. This will create extra conductor and sheath losses (note AC
conductor resistance will be different to 50 Hz)
7.2.1.2 Ampacity of dissimilar/unequally loaded circuits. The IEC standard gives a formula for
the mutual heating effect, but no algorithm for cable rating. Numerical experimentations
have shown that the results are different for different approaches (an iterative
procedure, maximizing total ampacity, maximizing total power).
The effect of measures to reduce magnetic fields. Some papers have been published,
but no official method suggested
5.1.2.3 Transients with arbitrary load curves
5.1.2.4 Calculated current ratings may take an unrealistically long time to reach steady state
and higher current ratings may be acceptable (e.g. tunnel ratings may take decades)
5.1.3 Current ratings where intermediate (e.g. sheath temperatures) are known. Dynamic
ratings
7.1.7 Joints
7.5.1 method of determining temperature at depth below seabed
6.3.4 Concentric cables not covered
7.2.1.1 What circuit separations are required before a cable circuits are thermally independent?
Page 265
Ap p end ix D: M ind M a p of Cu r r ent R at in g C al cu lat ion s
Main areas for current rating calculations
Subarea for current rating calculations: duty
Subarea for current rating calculations: cable design
Page 266
Subarea for current rating calculations: Installation – common features
Subarea for current rating calculations: Installation – common aspects and laid direct
Page 267
Subarea for current rating calculations: Installation – free in air
Subarea for current rating calculations: Installation – tunnel
Subarea for current rating calculations: Installation – submarine
Page 268
Ap p end ix E: Bon din g S ch em e s of Ca bl e S yst e ms
Figure 54:
Bonding Scheme: Single point bonding of screen / sheath with earth continuity conductor,
which can be omitted in substation with earthing grid.
Figure 55:
Bonding Scheme: Regular cross bonding of screen / sheath. In flat formation of cable the
current in screen / sheath is not completely balanced with a residual current
to ground and accompanied losses.
Figure 56:
Bonding Scheme: Regular cross bonding of screen / sheath with transposition of phase cable.
In flat formation it leads to a phase balanced impedance of circuit
especially important for double circuits with two cables per phase.
FIGURE 54: SINGLE POINT BONDING OF SCREEN / SHEATH
Page 269
FIGURE 55: REGULAR CROSS BONDING OF SCREEN/ SHEATH
Page 270
FIGURE 56: REGULAR CROSS BONDING OF SCREEN/ SHEATH WITH TRANSPOSITION OF PHASE CABLE
Page 271

Cigré 640 - A Guide For Rating Calculations of Insulated Cables PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cigré 640 - A Guide For Rating Calculations of Insulated Cables PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

640

A Guide for Rating Calculations

A GUIDE FOR RATING

“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support

A GUIDE FOR RATING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 7

2 OVERALL ISSUES WITH RATING CALCULATIONS ......................................................... 15

3 STARTING POINTS FOR RATING CALCULATIONS.......................................................... 22

4 CALCULATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................... 46

5 DUTY ASPECTS IN CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS ..................................................... 56

6 CABLE ASPECTS IN CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS .................................................. 70

7 INSTALLATION ASPECTS IN CABLE RATING CALCULATIONS .................................... 82

7.1.3 Multiple Parallel Circuits ................................................................................................. 83

8 USING CALCULATION TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES ........................................................ 135

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 155

10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 157

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE (EMPTY) ............................................................................... 169

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE – INCLUDING REPLIES SUMMARY .................................. 185

APPENDIX C: TABLE OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO IEC STANDARDS .................. 263

APPENDIX D: MIND MAP OF CURRENT RATING CALCULATIONS ..................................... 266

APPENDIX E: BONDING SCHEMES OF CABLE SYSTEMS ................................................... 269

 A consideration of the starting points for cable rating calculations.

FIGURE 1: (EXTRA) HIGH VOLTAGE CABLE TYPES – AN IMPRESSION

1 Int rodu ct ion

1. The contractual phase,

2. The design and engineering phase,

3. The operation phase of power cables,

1.1 A Guide to this Technical Brochure

Inside this technical brochure, the following information can be found:

1.2 Information regarding the Working Group’s Objectives

1.3 Information regarding the Terms of Reference and Scope of Work

The scope of work considered by the Working Group is:

1.4 Introduction to the Questionnaire

FIGURE 2: COUNTRIES RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

North America South America Europe Africa Asia Oceania

TABLE 2: WHEN PERFORMING RATING CALCULATIONS, WHO DOES THE CALCULATION?

Organization Yes No Blank

TABLE 3: AT WHAT STAGES ARE RATING CALCULATIONS PERFORMED?

Stage Yes No Blank

Relation to the voltage level

above a certain voltage

depending on the importance of

FIGURE 3: WHEN A CALCULATION IS PERFORMED (QUESTION 1.5)

2.1 How to calculate the Current Rating of a Power Cable

Rating versus loading

 A limitation on the conductor temperature to avoid overheating of the adjacent insulation

Temperatures during emergency situations

Local differences along the cable route

2.2 Basis for the Calculation

2.3 Margin in Cable Rating Calculations

3 St ar t in g Po int s f o r R at i ng Ca l cul at ion s

3.1 Identification of an Underground Cable System

 Self-contained fluid-filled cable, sometime referred to as low-pressure oil filled or medium-

FIGURE 8: HIGH-PRESSURE FLUID FILLED CABLE

 Change in conductor size within the same cable type.

3.2 Cataloguing the Installation Conditions along the Cable Route

FIGURE 9: DIRECT BURIED CABLE CIRCUIT

FIGURE 10: CABLES IN CONDUIT

FIGURE 11: LANDING OF A SUBMARINE CABLE

FIGURE 12: IN-AIR CABLE INSTALLATION

FIGURE 13: CABLES INSTALLED IN A STEEL CASING

 Laying in troughs – a trough is either a prefabricated U-shaped element or it can be cast-in-place

3.3 Identify the Thermal Properties of Soils and Special Backfills