Ambient Temperature

Correction Factor Task Group

Ambient Temperature Correction
Factor Task Group
 Maintainer Installer
 Larry Ayer, IEC, Chairman
 Stan Folz – NECA Arizona
 Carmon Colvin, IEC, Alabama
 Labor
 Jim Dollard, IBEW, Co-Chair
 IAEI
 Donny Cook, IAEI – Alabama
 Patrick Richardson, IAEI Tamarack
Florida
 Manufacturers
 Alan Manche, NEMA
 Research and Testing
 Bill Fiske, Intertek
 Dave Dini, UL
 Tim Shedd, Professor Univ of
Wisc Madison
 William Black, Professor
Georgia Tech
 William Black, Phd
William Z. Black received his BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering from the University
of Illinois in 1963 and 1964, respectively, and his PhD in Mechanical Engineering from
Purdue University in 1967. Since taking his doctorate, he has been at the George W.
Woodruff School of mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
where he is presently Regent's Professor and the Georgia Power Distinguished
Professor of mechanical Engineering. He has directed a number of EPRI projects
relating to ampacity of underground cables and overhead conductors. He is on several
IEEE ampacity committees and is a member of CIGRE Committee 22.12 on the thermal
behavior of overhead lines. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Georgia.

Member, IEEE/ICC Committee 3-1 Ampacity Tables

Member, IEEE/ICC Committee 12-44 Soil Thermal Stability
Member, IEEE Standard 442-1981 WG
Member, IEEE Standard on Soil Thermal Resistivity Working Group
Member, ICC/IEEE Standard 835-1994 Working Group
Member, IEEE Standard. 738-1993 Working Group
Member, IEEE/ICC Transient Ampacity Task Force
Member, Emergency Ratings of Overhead Equipment Task Force
Member, IEEE Thermal Aspects of Bare Conductors and Accessories Working Group
Member, IEEE/ICC, Working Group C24, Temperature Monitoring of Cable Systems
Chairman, IEEE/ICC C34D Committee on Mitigating Manhole Explosions
 Tim Shedd, Phd
Direct applications of this work are spray cooling of high heat flux electronics, boiling and
condensation in smooth and enhanced tubes, and the development of cleaner, more efficient
small engines through a better understanding of carburetor behavior. We are approaching this
through the use of unique experimental flow loops and flow visualization techniques. Long, clear
test sections are used to study a range of fluids and flow conditions. New optical measurement
techniques, such as Thin Film PIV, are being developed to quantify flow behavior. Results from
these measurements will be fed into efforts to develop accurate, flexible and computationally
efficient models for use both by university researchers and system designers in industry. Though
he has several areas of interest, Tim's current focus is on identifying the primary mechanisms
responsible for two-phase heat and momentum transfer in thin films. While this may sound a
little esoteric, these conditions exist in literally millions of appliances and commercial products
world wide. A better understanding of the behavior of vapor-liquid systems can lead to improved
efficiencies, less waste materials (refrigerants and heat exchangers), and greater affordability of
products.
 Task Group Approach

 Reviewed Historical Information

 Conference Call – invited all concerned parties to express their

views.

 Discussed if any known failures if they had occurred.

 Reviewed UL/CDA and IAEI papers

 Developed Heat Transfer Model with UW-Madison

 Developed Public input for CMP-6

 Historical Year 1889 1894 1896 NEC 1923

AWG Kennelly 50% 60%

1889-Kennelly 14 25 12.5 15 15
12 33 16.5 20 20
10 46 23 28 25
• 1894 Insurance Co. set 8
6
58
78
29
39
35
47
35
50
at 50% 5 90 45 54 55
4 104 52 62 70
3 120 60 72 80
• 1896 Insurance Co. 2 144 72 86 90
1 172 86 103 100
revised to 60% 0 206 103 124 125
00 246 123 148 150
000 298 149 179 200
• 50C Code Grade Rubber 0000 360 180 216 225
250
300
350
400
500
600
 Year 1923 1925 1935 1940

1940-Present 50C 50C 50C

3 conductors
in
Single
Conductor in
AWG Rubber Rubber Rubber conduit Free Air
Insul Insul Insul
50C 50C
Rubber Insul Rubber Insul

Rosch 14 15 15 15 15 20
12 193820 Rosch
20 20 20 26
•Used basic Heat 10 25 25 25 25 35
8 35 35 35 35 48
Transfer Equation to
determine ampacity
6
• Used
50 50
basic 50
Heat 45
Transfer 65
5 55 55 55 52 76
4
Equation
70
to
70
determine
70 60 87
ampacity
•Ampacity for 3 80 80 80 69 101
2 90 90 90 80 118
Conductors in free air 1 • Ampacity
100 100for Conductors
100 91 in 136
0 125
free air 125 125 105 160
00 150 150 150 120 185
•Ampacity for 000 175 175 175 138 215
Conductors in conduit • Ampacity
200 200for Conductors
200 in
0000 conduit
225 225 225 160 248
250 250 250 250 177 280
300 275 275 275 198 310
350 300 300 300 216 350
400 325 325 325 233 380
500 400 400 400 265 430
600 450 450 450 293 480
1938-1940
I Current Flow

𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 120V 0V
𝑰=
𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆
Resistance of copper
conductor

Q Heat Flow
∆ 𝑻𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆
Q= 50 30C
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆

Thermal Resistance
Heat Transfer of Cable
 Heat Transfer within Conduit

90 30

R1 R2 R3 R4
Insulation Air Resistance Conduit Conduit to Air
Resistance Inside Conduit Resistance Resistance
 Heat Transfer

 Conduction through
Insulation
 Natural Convection
outside conduit
x Radiation in
x Radiation out
x Forced convection
outside (wind)
x Forced convection inside
(wind, chimney effect)
x Natural Convection inside
conduit
 Ampacities of Three Single Insulated Conductors,
SIZE Rated 0-2000 Volts, IN Conduit in Free Air Based on 1984-1987
Ambient Air Temperature of 40C
60C 75C 90C

TYPE RH,
RHW, RUH,
TYPE SA,  Proposals to NEC
AWG TYPES RUW, AVB, FEP,
MCM T, TW, UF
THW, THWN,
FEPB, THHN,  Neher-McGrath Method 1956
XHHW, USE,
ZW
RHH, XHHW  Corrected Rosch – 1938
 Considered to be more accurate
Copper
14 18 22 25  Included in 1984 NEC for adoption in
12 23 28 32 1987
10 29 37 42
8 36 48 55
6
4
50
65
64
83
75
97
 Most parts rejected in 1987 due
3 76 98 114 to termination concerns
2 87 112 130
 Retained for medium voltage
1 104 134 156
0 119 153 179  Moved to Annex B for low voltage
0 135 175 204
0 160 207 242
0 184 238 278
250 210 271 317
300 232 300 351
350 254 328 384
400 274 354 475
500 314 407 477
 Proposal 6-41 (1984)

1. The NEC is very conservative in its ratings of bare and covered conductors
(line wire).
2. The NEC does not employ a technique to account for the effect of sun and
wind.
3. The NEC does not correctly account for the difference in ampacity of bare and
covered line wire.
4. The NEC ratings for not more than three conductors in a raceway can cause
both the inspector and the user to make significant errors because:
 They do not provide for the variables of load factor and earth thermal
resistivity in underground applications.
 There is no derating factor that will get one to the most common earth
ambient - 20°C.
 For most direct burial applications the NEC will waste money because it is
too conservative.
 For conduit-in-air applications, the NEC ratings are too conservative.
 Proposal 6-41 1984

 COFFEY (UL Representative) : I am voting against the Panel

recommendation to accept this proposal even though I
agree it is technically correct. My negative vote is based
on: (i) its far-reaching impact on equipment and
installations covered by many other parts of the Code and,
(2) the need for coordination with those parts of the Code
that are effected by changes in the ampacity rating of
conductors. I recommend that a study be made to assess
the overall impact of these changes and to identify any
needed modifications to other provisions of the Code.
Numerical Model of Wire
Heating
Timothy A. Shedd
29 September 2014
 Univ of Wisc-Madison Report

 When conduit is in contact with roof surface the conductor

temperature is highly dependent on the roof surface temp.
 When the roof surface is 77 deg C, the conductor temp rise
above ambient is approximately 33C above ambient.
 When roof surface is 42C, conductor temperature rise above
ambient is 7.2C.
 When conduit is raised off the roof, conductor temperature
is approximately 22.8C above the ambient.
 Numbers obtained from model are in-line with numbers
from UL fact-finding report.
 Roof
Wiring systems
mounted directly
on roof
Add 33C Celsius

Figure 8: EMT Conduit with Roof Surface at 350 K (77 °C, 170 °F), 30 Degree Contact Angle Roof

Wiring systems
raised off roof
Add 22C Celsius
Figure 9: EMT Conduit Raised off of Roof Surface
 Roof
Convection Reflected Solar
Radiation

Solar
Radiation

Rooftop
Conduction

Roof

Convection Reflected Solar

Radiation

Solar
Radiation
Case 4: 3 No. 12 AWG in ¾” EMT

¾” EMT raceway
O.D. 0.92 in =23.4 mm
ID = 0.824 in = 21 mm
Wall = 0.049 in = 1.25 mm
Galvanized steel
k_s = 51 W/m-K
emissivity = 0.83
absorptivity = 0.7
 Assumptions in model
• Tamb = 41 °C (105.5 °F)
• No forced air movement external to conduit (only natural convection)
• No axial air movement internal to conduit
• Absorption coefficient α = 0.7 (from NREL database)
• Emission coefficient ε = 0.83 (from NREL database, where ε = 0.88;
adjusted downward to match UL study data; Pessimistic adjustment)
• Natural convection coefficient = 6 W/m2K
• Resistance between wire and conduit = 0.5 K-m/W (from finite element
simulation)
• Solar radiation 1050 W/m2 (UL results only use data for insolation
between 1000 and 1100 W/m2)
• I = 0 A (for comparison with UL data)
• Temperature-variable model of wire resistivity used
• Radiation only through upper half of conduit (both absorption and
emission; net radiative exchange with roof assumed negligible)
 Results – Compare to UL
measurements

Twire,mod = 63.3 °C; ΔTamb = 22.5 °C (40.4 °F)

 Results – I2R losses included
• I = 20 A (per wire)
– Twire,mod = 75.6 °C; ΔTamb = 34.7 °C (62.5 °F)
• I = 25 A (per wire)
– Twire,mod = 82.7 °C; ΔTamb = 41.9 °C (75.4 °F)
Case 15: 3 500 kcmil in 4” EMT

4” EMT raceway
O.D. 4.5 in =114.3 mm
ID = 4.334 in = 110.1 mm
Wall = 0.083 in = 2.11 mm
Galvanized steel
k_s = 51 W/m-K
emissivity = 0.83
absorptivity = 0.7
 Results – Compare to UL
measurements

Twire,mod = 61.6 °C; ΔTamb = 20.7 °C (37.3 °F)

emissivity increased to 0.88 (NREL value)
 Results – I2R losses included
• I = 430 A (per wire)
– Twire,mod = 80.6 °C; ΔTamb = 39.7 °C (71.5 °F)
• I = 380 A (per wire)
– Twire,mod = 76.2 °C; ΔTamb = 35.4 °C (63.7 °F)
 UL / CDA Report infers rooftop issue is linear

Example
o 41 degree C ambient in Nevada
o 33 degree C ambient Temp Rise
in Conduit due to Radiation
o 50 degree C rise due to fully
loaded conductor.

124 degree C rise Total

 UNLV Report

• All conduits tested were raised off roof 8 inches. Did not compare with
conduits on roof to test for affects of roof conduction.

• Circuit had 13.3 amps. Well short of NEC allowable limits.

With 8 in
Without
Rooftop Adder

12 AWG Cu. 90°C Ampacity 30 30

Ambient Temp Correction 0.65 0.82
Final ampacity with rooftop
temp deration 19.5 24.6
 UNLV Report

Each of the wiring methods experienced a temperature rise that exceeded the
ambient temperature. In the case of the energized conductors, which were the
minimum allowable size for the continuous load carried, the maximum
temperature experienced was 69° C, approximately 77% the temperature rating of
the conductor insulation (i.e., 90° C). In the case of the non-energized conductors,
the maximum temperature experienced was 60° C, approximately 67% the rated
temperature of the conductor insulation.

Since this is an experimental setup and not a working installation, the measured
temperatures are likely higher than a real-world installation due to the complete
exposure of the entire conduit length including origination points. Real-world
installations usually terminate on a rooftop, but originate in lower ambient
temperature locations such as in an electrical room or on the side of a building.
 Findings

 Heat Transfer is complex.

 CDA / UL Report do not take into account electrical loading in conduit

 CDA / UL Report do not take into account how conduits are terminated.

 CDA / UL Report assume that Heat Transfer outdoors is linear when it is not.

 If conduits are not elevated above roof conductor temperature can be

elevated above 90C due to added conductive heat transfer from roof.

 1000 W/m2 solar radiation. 1000 W/m2 is based maximum solar radiation
during a one or two hours a day, during one or two months out of a year.

 When considering full loading of conductors, conductors inside conduits

raised off roof will be below the 90C threshold.