384 Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.

384~388, 2012
http://dx.doi.org/10.5370/JEET.2012.7.3.384

Determination of the Ampacity of Buried Cable in Non-Homogenous

Environmental Condition by 3D Computation
Behrooz Vahidi and Amin Mahmoudi*
Abstract Finite Volume Method (FVM) is chosen to calculate the heat transfer field and the heat
generation with in the cable and heat dissipation in the surrounding soil of a three phase 145kV
underground cable brunch that make it possible to analyze the ampacity of the cable. FLUENT as the
proper software in this field is used to generate and solve the problem. Non-homogenous environment
is considered for cable ampacity calculation and results are compare with homogenous environment
condition
Keywords: Ampacity, Cable, Environmental, 3D simulation, FVM

1. Introduction
Ampacity is a term given by Del Mar in 1951 to the
current carrying capacity of a cable [1]. Calculation of the
current-carrying capability, or ampacity of power cables
has been extensively discussed in the literature and is the
subject of several international and national standards.
Ampacity calculation techniques are as old as the cables
themselves. Anders has summarized the history of
ampacity calculations in his book [2]. There are analytical
and numerical approaches to calculate cable ampacity. The
two major international standard associations, the IEEE
and the IEC, have adopted the analytical methods as the
basis for their standards [3-5]. The calculation procedures
in both standards are, in principle, the same and are based
on the model that is proposed by Neher and McGrath paper
[6]. The major difference between them is the use of units
and because of this, the same equations look completely
different. The numerical approaches are mainly based on
finite differences, finite volume or finite elements
techniques. The finite volume technique is better suited for
cable ampacity because of physical condition of this
problem, Anders [7], Nahman [8].
Thermal field problem of underground cable for
different cable route has been studied by many researchers,
Gela [9], Koopmans [10], Al-Ohaly [11], Vaucheret [12].
Ampacity in an underground cable system is determined
by the capacity of the installation to extract heat from the
cable and dissipate it in the surrounding soil and
atmosphere. The maximum operating temperature of a
cable is a function of the damage that the insulation can
suffer as a consequence of high operating temperatures.
The insulation withstands different temperatures as

Corresponding Author: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Amirkabir

University of Technology, Iran (vahidi@aut.ac.ir)
*
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology,
Iran
Received: June 14, 2010; Accepted: December 8, 2011

function of the duration of the current circulating in the

conductors. There are three standardized ampacity ratings:
steady state, transient (or emergency) and short-circuit.
Only steady state ampacity ratings are discussed in this
paper. As providing analytical solution for complex
situation is very indirect and in many cases the
experimental method may preferred, in these condition
numerical method as FVM is more pragmatic and cost
effective. This paper focuses on the numerical techniques
for the computation of cable ampacity in steady-state
through the use of assumptions that simplify the problem.
Finite Volume Method (FVM) is chosen to calculate the
heat transfer field and heat generation with in the cable and
heat dissipation in the surrounding soil. FLUENT as a
proper software in this field is used to generate and solve
the problem, FLUENT 6.3 [13].
Most of the researches in this field are for homogenous
area (soil) condition in order to simulate the actual soil in
this paper a three dimensional model of the cable in full
size and non-homogenous surrounding area is designed in
FLUENT. Results are compared with the homogenous area
condition.

2. Modeling
In the development of a mathematical model we will use
cable shown in Fig. 1. This is a 145 kV, paperpolypropylene-paper cable with 2000 mm2 copper
segmental conductor and aluminum corrugated sheath. The
outer covering is a PE jacket. The cables are laid in a flat
formation without transposition, in the soil, with ambient
temperature equal to 25o C. The sheaths are cross bounded
with unknown minor section length. The centers of the
cables are below the ground and phases are 0.5 m apart (in
three phase configuration). This laying condition is called
the standard conciliation of this cable. The cable
parameters are provided in Table 1 [14].

Behrooz Vahidi and Amin Mahmoudi

385

Table 1. Cable parameters

General Data
Relative permittivity of
insulation

Maximum operating temp. of

conductor

85 C

System frequency

60 Hz

Loss factor of insulation

Thermal resist. per core between

cond. and sheath

T1

0.579 oKm/W

Sheath loss factor

Thermal resist. of external serving

T3

0.056 oKm/W

Thermal resist. of surrender medium

T4

1.276 oKm/W

Current in conductor

1365 A

Skin effect factor

ys

0.132

Losses in conductor per unit

length
Dielectric losses per unit
length per phase
Total RI2 power loss of each
cable
Total power dissipated in the
cable per unit length

Proximity effect factor

yp

0.005

2.8

tan

0.001

0.150

Wc

23.40 W/m

Wd

6.53 W/m

WI

26.92 W/m

Wt

33.45 W/m

Diameter over insulation

Di

Fig. 1

External diameter of
conductor

dc

Fig. 1

Calculated Data

Cross sectional area of conductor

2000 mm

Fig. 1. Cable cross section

FLUENT analysis relies on its element and choosing this
element has an important effect on the results. We use the
Tgrid-Map element that is triangular element and well
suited for round shapes like cable cross section that is
similar to circles.
Boundary condition as said before all are isothermal, 25
degree, heat generation in cable entered as a load. An
iterative method is used to calculate ampacity of the cable.
Also the skin effect is considered as a reduction in the main
current. Maximum temperature of power cables is
determined by the cable insulation. This temperature is
produced by the energy that is generated by W = R.i 2 . In
cable simulation, it is considered as the source of heat
generation that is calculated as follow:
Conductor resistance is calculated in two stages. First,
the dc value R (/m) is obtained from the following
expression:
R =

1.02
S

20 [1+ ( - 20)]
20

(1)

where
20 = resistivity of the conductor at 20oC
S = cross-sectional area of conductor
20 = temperature coefficient of resistance at 20oC
= maximum operating temperature
In the second stage, the DC value is modified to take
into account the skin and proximity effects. The resistance
of a conductor when carrying an alternating current is
higher than that of the conductor when carrying a direct
current. The principle reasons for the increase are: skin
effect, proximity effect, hysteresis and eddy current losses
in nearby ferromagnetic materials, and induced losses in
short-circuited non-ferromagnetic materials nearby. The
degree of complexity of the calculations that can
economically be justified varies considerably. Except in
very high voltage cables consisting of large segmental
conductors, it is common to consider only skin effect,
proximity effect, and in some cases, an approximation of
the effect of metallic sheath and/or conduit. The relevant
expression is:
R = R (1+ ys + y p )

(2)

where
ys = skin effect fator
yp = proximity effect fator
When paper and solid dielectric insulations are subjected
to alternating voltage, they act as large capacitors and
charging currents flow in them. The work required to effect
the realignment of electrons each time the voltage direction
changes (i.e., 50 or 60 times a second) produces heat and
results in a loss of real power that is called dielectric loss,
which should be distinguished from reactive loss. For a
unit length of a cable, the magnitude of the required
charging current is a function of the dielectric constant of

386

Determination of the Ampacity of Buried Cable in Non-Homogenous Environmental Condition by 3D Computation

the insulation, the dimensions of the cable, and the

operating voltage. For some cable constructions, notably
for high-voltage, paper insulated cables; this loss can have
a significant effect on the cable rating. The dielectric losses
are computed from the following expression:
Wd = 2f

2
0

(3)

where the electrical capacitance and the phase to ground

voltage are obtained from:
C=

D
18ln i
dc
U
U0 =
3

-9

(4)

(6)

The quantity 1 is called the sheath loss factor and is

equal to the ratio of the total losses in the metallic sheath to
the total conductor losses. Similarly, 2 is called the
armor loss factor and is equal to the ratio of the total losses
in the metallic armor to the total conductor losses.
Incidentally, it is convenient to express all heat flows
caused by the joule losses in the cable in term of the loss
per meter of the conductor. Heat generation that is applied
to the conductor surface in the FLUENT simulation is

Heat Generation = WI

Case 1:
12 m of route is considered, the length of route is
divided to 3 equal segments and different thermal
resistivity is assigned to the soil (Fig. 2).

(5)

heath losses are current dependent, and can be divided

into two categories according to the type of bonding. These
are losses due to circulating currents that flow in the
sheaths of single-core cables if the sheaths are bonded
together at two points, and losses due to eddy currents,
which circulate radially (skin effect) and azimuthally
(proximity effect). Eddy current losses occur in both threecore and single-core cables, irrespective of the method of
bonding. Eddy current losses in the sheaths of single-core
cables, which are solidly bonded, are considerably smaller
than circulating current losses, and are ignored except for
cables which large segmental conductors. Thus, the total
joule loss WI in a cable can be expressed as
WI = Wc +Ws +Wa = Wc (1+ 1 + 2 )

mathematical analysis should be done, for which the

temperature distribution around the cable is a function of
the axial location, distance from the cable a depth below
the surface of the earth, Vaucheret [12].
In the present paper the arrangement of thermal
resistivity of soil is chosen in order to have as much as
possible a non-homogenous condition which is far from
homogenous condition. Therefore two cases are considered
for route of cable.

Fig. 2. Three segment route [thermal resistivity of different

parts are shown on figure (Km/W)]
Case 2:
12 m of route is considered, the length of route is
divided to 2 equal segments and different thermal
resistivity is assigned to the soil (Fig. 3).

(7)

3. Simulation
The calculation of the ampacity of a cable (with conduit
or without conduit) routed through soil with different
thermal resistivity is very complex. Due to different
thermal resistivity of soil around the cable, 3D

Fig. 3. Two segment route [thermal resistivity of different

parts are shown on figure (Km/W)]

Behrooz Vahidi and Amin Mahmoudi

Fig. 4 shows the dimensions of different parts and burial

depth below the surface. These dimensions are used in
simulation.

387

system in conduit.
Comparison of ampacity of single phase cable (without
conduit) in homogenous and non-homogenous soil are
shown in Fig. 8, for non-homogenous soil with conduit and
without conduit the variation of ampacity shows similar
trace shape.

Fig. 5. Comparison between ampacity of three phase cable

(with conduit) in different conditions

Fig. 4. Route dimensions are used in simulation

In these cases for cables with conduit, there is air around
each cable and in simulation natural air convection should
be considered

Fig. 6. Comparison between ampacity of single phase

cable (with conduit) in different conditions

4. Simulation Results
Simulations are done for different condition (with
conduit and without conduit) for three phase cable system
(three single phase cable in flat configuration) and single
phase cable.
Comparison of ampacity of three phase cable (with
conduit) in homogenous and non-homogenous soil are
shown in Fig. 5.
Comparison of ampacity of single phase cable (with
conduit) in homogenous and non-homogenous soil are
shown in Fig. 6, for non-homogenous soil with conduit and
without conduit the variation of ampacity shows similar
trace shape.
Comparison of ampacity of three phase cable (without
conduit) in homogenous and non-homogenous soil are
shown in Fig. 7. In non homogenous soil for with conduit
and without conduit the variation of ampacity shows
different trace shapes (Fig. 7). For three phase cable with
conduit (three phases are in a pipe shape conduit) in the
point of view of heat dissipating the conduit acts like single
phase cable and the variation of ampacity shows a trace
shape like single phase cable. But for without conduit each
phase dissipates the heat and thermal field for this system
in the surrounding soil is not the same as three phase

Fig. 7. Comparison between ampacity of three phase cable

(without conduit) in different conditions

Fig. 8. Comparison between ampacity of single phase

cable (without conduit) in different conditions

388

Determination of the Ampacity of Buried Cable in Non-Homogenous Environmental Condition by 3D Computation

5. Conclusion
In the present paper a 3D simulation is introduced for
computation of power cable ampacity in different
conditions of route soil.
From results of the present paper simulations (Figs. 5 to
8) can judge that calculation of cable ampacity for
homogenous soil and non-homogenous soil are not the
same and there is a difference of more than 10%.
Therefore computation of cable ampacity for homogenous
soil and then using the cable in a route with nonhomogenous soil can over load the cable.

[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]

References
L. DeLeon, Calculation of underground cable
ampacity, CYME International T&D, pp 1-6, 2005.
[2] G. L. Anders, Rating of Electric Power CablesAmpacity Calculations for Transmission, Distribution
and Industrial application, McGraw-Hill, 1998.
[3] IEEE Standard, Power Cable Ampacity Tables, IEEE
Std. 835-1994.
[4] IEC Standard 60287, Calculation of the Continues
Current Rating of Cables (100% load factor), 1st
edition 1969, 2nd edition 1982, 3rd edition 1994-1995.
[5] IEC Standard 60287, part 2-1, Calculation of Thermal
Resistances, 1994.
[6] J. H. Neher and M. H. McGrath, The calculation of
the temperature rise and load capability of cable
systems, AIEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 76, pp
752772, 1957.
[7] G. L. Anders and H. S. Radhakrishna, Power cable
thermal analysis with considerationof heat and
moisture transfer in the soil, IEEE Trans. On Power
Delivery, vol. 3, pp 1280-1288, 1988.
[8] J. Nahman and M. Tanaskovic, Determination of the
current carrying capacity of cables using the finite
element method, Electric Power Systems Reasearch,
Elsevier, vol. 61, pp 109-117, 2002.
[9] G. Gela, and J. J. Dai, Calculation of thermal fields
of underground cables using the boundary element
method, IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery, vol. 3,
pp 1341-1347, 1988.
[10] G. Koopmans, G. M. L. M. Van de Wiel, L. J. M. Van
Loon and C. L. Palland, Soil physical route survey

and cable thermal design procedure, IEE

Proceedings, Pt. C, vol. 136, pp 341-346, 1989.
A. A. Al-Ohaly, Performance of underground power
cables under extreme soil and environmental
conditions, Kuwait J. Sci. Eng., vol. 30, pp297-312,
2003.
P. Vaucheret, R. A. Hartlein, and W. Z. Black,
Ampacity derating factors for cables buried in short
segments of conduit, IEEE Transaction on Power
Delivery, vol. 20, pp 560-565, 2005.
FLUENT 6.3 (Getting Started Guide), Finite Volume
Simulation Software, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA,
2006.
G. L. Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables in
Unfavorable Thermal Environments, 1st Edition,
IEEE Press, 2005.

[1]

Behrooz Vahidi was born in Abadan,

Iran in 1953. He received the B.S. in
electrical engineering from Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
in 1980 and M.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Amirkabir University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran in 1989. He
also received his Ph.D. in electrical
engineering from UMIST, Manchester, UK in 1997. From
1980 to 1986 he worked in the field of high voltage in
industry as chief engineer. From 1989 to present he has
been with the department of electrical engineering of
Amirkabir University of Technology where he is now a
professor. Prof. Vahidi is a Senior Member of IEEE. His
main fields of research are high voltage, electrical
insulation, power system transient, lightning protection and
pulse power technology. He has authored and co-authored
five books and 250 papers on high voltage engineering and
power system.
Amin Mahmoudi was born in Bandar
Abas, Iran in 1983. He received the
B.S. in electrical engineering from
Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran in 2005
and M.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Amirkabir University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran in 2007.
.