test units.

This is due primarily to the fact that three consecutive the conductor current was reduced until the temperature at the
15-min duration partial wetting tests were performed on each ar¬ center of the packed cable mass stabilized at approximately the
rester, with less than 10 cooling minutes between tests. This test is cable insulation rating. The measured current was 26 A.
three times longer than that normally performed on gapped silicon
carbide arrester designs. In addition to testing the arrester's external Comparison of Results
insulation strength, the 3-cycle test duration is intended to evaluate The equations given in this paper were used to obtain the pre¬
the thermal performance of the multiple-unit designs. All arresters dicted maximum temperature for cable tray with covers. In addition,
demonstrated thermal stability when energized at MCOV for 30 min the method presented in [1] was used to obtain the predicted max¬
after completion of the third slurry cycle. imum temperature for cable in a tray without a cover. The average of
the measured temperatures and the predicted temperature are
Gap Performance given in Table I.
In addition to evaluating the thermal performance of the arresters
under the various pollution conditions, the magnitudes and dura¬ Covered Tray Versus Open-Top Tray
tions of the associated transient internal grading currents were also Table II presents a comparison of the ampacity of cable in covered
monitored. The long-term effects of these transient currents on tray with open-top tray for several copper conductor sizes and cable
series gap elements was examined. configurations. The covered tray cable ampacities were calculated
A repetitive duty test was set up in which a gap assembly was using
subjected to 1.1-million discharges, spaced 1 second apart. The maximumequations given in the paper for 25.4 mm (1 in) fill, a 90°C
the
cable temperature, and a 40°C ambient. The open-top tray
charge content of each repetitive duty discharge was approximately cable ampacities are taken from ICEA Pub. 54-440.
15 to 25 times greater than the coulomb content associated with The covered tray cable ampacities are, in general, 70 to 75 per cent
either pollution test's maximum internal current discharge. of the open-top tray cable ampacities. The calculated values in Table
The sparkover performance of the test gap was monitored II represent an ampacity derating significantly greater than that
throughout the course of the repetitive duty test. After more than suggested in the National Electric Code.
1-million repetitive operations, the maximum sparkover level of the
gap was unchanged. References
Discusser: G. L. Gaibrois.
[1] J. Stolpe, "Ampacities for cables in randomly filled trays," IEEE
Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-90, Pt. I, pp. 962-974,1971.
[2] R. Namgre and L Ashbaugh, The use ofbarriers for fire protec¬
"

tion of cables/'Paper A77 586-1, presented at the IEEE PES 1977

Summer Meeting.
Discussers: Paul J. Estreich and Philip A. Nobile.
83 SM 405-0 TABLEI
February 1984, pp. 345-352 Predicted and Measured Temperatures

Ampacity of Cable in Covered Tray Predicted

Temp
Average
Measured Temp
Gary Engmann, Senior Member, IEEE 20 Amp Load Current degree C degree C
Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers
Kansas City, MO Without cover (Part 1 ) 41 (Ref. 1) 37
With cover (Part 2) 62 (This Paper) 56
Rise due to cover 21 19
Introduction Predicted Measured
Power cable tray systems in electric power generating stations Conductor Conductor
frequently include tray covers, and power cable may be required to Current Current
operate in cable tray with covers over part or all of the cable route. amp amp
There is scarce published data on the effect of tray covers on cable Insulation Temp Near Rating
operating temperature. In [1], the statement is made that Under¬
writers' Laboratories found that open cable tray ampacities must be Without cover (Part 3) 33 (Ref. 1) 37
reduced about four to five per cent where covers are used. Calcu¬ With cover (Part 4) 25 (This Paper) 26
lated results presented in [2] indicate that the use of cable tray covers
may require ampacity derating in excess of four to five percent.
A heat transfer model is developed in this paper that is an exten¬
sion of the theoretical development presented in [1]. Analytic ex¬ TABLE II
pressions are given that can be used to calculate the allowable
ampacity of conductors installed in trays with solid covers. Comparison of Open-Top and Covered Tray Ampacity
Experimental Results Copper
Conductor Open-Top Tray Covered Tray
An experiment was conducted to produce data that could be Conductor Ampacity
compared with the results predicted from the analytic equations Configuration Ampacity
Size
given in the paper. A three conductor, 8 AWG copper conductor, amps amps
600V EPR.Neoprene power cable was installed in cable tray. 1 Cond.-Jacketed 12 8 5.9
Thermocouples were installed at various locations in the packed 8 20 14.4
cable mass and connected to a digital pyrometer. 6 29 20.8
Part 1 of the experiment was conducted without tray covers. The 2 65 45.8
cable was connected to an ac voltage source and the conductor was 2/0 128 89.0
loaded with 20 amps and temperatures were recorded. Part 2 of the 3 Cond.-Triplexed 12 10 7.2
experiment was conducted with a solid tray cover installed onwith the 8 25 17.6
entire length of the cable tray. The conductor was again loaded 6 36 25.7
20 A, and temperatures in the system were recorded. In Part 3 of the 2 81 57.2
experiment, the cable conductors were loaded until the temperature 3 Cond.-Jacketed 12 13 9.2
at the center of the packed cable mass stabilized at approximately 8 31 21.7
the cable insulation rating. The measured current was 37 A. In Part 4 6 44 30.8
of the experiment, the solid tray cover was installed on the tray and
30 IEEE Power Engineering Review, February 1984