This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Cables in Backfills and Duct Banks –
Neher/McGrath Revisited
Leon Ramirez
Abstract— The Neher/McGrath paper and the IEC Standard
60287-2-1 contain the formulae for the calculation of the external
thermal resistance of cables installed in backfills or duct banks.
These models are based on several assumptions, which often are
not valid for practical installations. This paper examines the
applicability of the Neher/McGrath model and proposes a new
solution for the calculation of the external thermal resistance for
such installations. Numerical examples illustrate the difference
between the two methods.
Index Terms— power cables, ampacity calculations, external
thermal resistance, backfills and duct banks.
I. INTRODUCTION
In many North American cities medium- and low-voltage
cables are often located in duct banks in order to allow a large
number of circuits to be laid in the same trench. The ducts are
first installed in layers with the aid of distance pieces, and then
a bedding of filler material is compacted after each layer is
positioned. Concrete is the material most often used as a filler.
High- and extra-high-voltage cables are, on the other hand,
often placed in an envelope of well-conducting backfill to
improve heat dissipation. What both methods of installation
have in common is the presence of a material which has a
different thermal resistivity from that of the native soil.
The first attempt to model a duct bank was presented by
Simmons in 1923, [1] in which he first introduced the method
for modeling of duct banks as an equivalent isothermal circle.
In 1949, J. Neher has further elaborated on this method, [2]. The
seminal paper by Neher and McGrath [3] summarized the
knowledge on cable ampacity calculations in 1957 and the
method for treating the cables in duct banks or backfills was
later adopted in the IEC Standard 60287-2-1 [4]. In later works
by El-Kady and others [5], the basic method of Neher [2] and
Neher and McGrath [3], referred to here as an N-M approach,
was extended to take into account backfills and duct banks of
elongated rectangular shapes, and to remove the assumption
that the external perimeter of the rectangle is isothermal.
The issue of calculation of cable ratings installed in duct
banks or backfills has ignited the interest of scientists and
engineers from early 1920s. There was even a paper published
in 1942 during the II World War describing how the duct banks
This paragraph of the first footnote will contain the date on which you
submitted your paper for review. It will also contain support information,
including sponsor and financial support acknowledgment. For example, “This
work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Commerce under Grant
BS123456.”
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
George J. Anders, Fellow IEEE
should be analyzed during the wartime [6]. However, to the best
knowledge of the authors, since the reference [5] was published
in 1985 there was no other publication discussing the validity
of the Neher-McGrath approach for calculation of the external
thermal resistance of cables in duct banks or backfills. Many
papers were published dealing with rating of cables in such
installations as can be observed from chronologically arranged,
selected list of publications given in the reference section below
[7-23]. Many other papers are not listed because of the lack of
space, but the selection given here gives a good picture of the
breath and depth of the investigative efforts. However, none
offered a critical analysis of the assumptions made in the
Neher/McGrath paper.
The Neher/McGrath method is based on several assumptions,
which will not be valid in the majority of the cable installations.
Therefore, the authors of this paper decided to review the
assumptions on which the widely used method is based and to
propose a new, more accurate solution to the calculation of the
external thermal resistance of cables in duct banks and
backfills. The major new ideas are to replace the depth of the
center of the duct bank by the actual location of the cable and a
replacement of the correction factor for the external thermal
resistance of a cable by a correctly computed contribution of a
duct bank or backfill to the value of this parameter for each
cable separately. These simple changes give not only more
accurate results but also allow analysis of circuits with different
loads in the same backfill/duct bank, which cannot be done
correctly with the N-M model. The proposed approach thus
removes a major problem with the N-M method in which the
same correction factor is applied to all cables in the installation
independently on their location in the backfill.
The new developments are extended to the cyclic loading of
the cables. A major limitation of the N-M approach requiring
the same loss factor for all cables in the installation is relaxed
allowing each circuit to be treated as it really operates.
In the following section, we will review the Neher/McGrath
(N-M) computation of the external thermal resistances of cables
laid in backfills and duct banks, neglecting the effect of
moisture migration. The subject of moisture migration in the
vicinity of backfills and duct banks is treated briefly in
Heinhold [13].
The paper is organized as follows. Chapter II contains the
Leon Ramirez is with CYME Int. in Montreal, Canada (email:
LeonDarioRamirez@Eaton.com).
George J. Anders is with the Technical University of Lodz, Poland, and is
president of aco-Anders Consulting Ltd in Toronto, Canada (email:
george.anders@bell.net).
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2

analysis of the N-M approach whereas Chapter III proposes a LG = depth of laying to the center of the backfill, mm
more accurate solution. The difference in the external thermal rb = equivalent radius of the envelope, mm.
resistance and the cable ampacity resulting from application of
either of the methods is explored in numerical examples.
The practical numerical examples in Chapter IV show that,
in some instances, the error committed when applying N-M
approach can be very significant.
In what follows, we will use the term backfill to denote both
the thermal envelope and the duct banks.

II. THE NEHER-MCGRATH APPROACH – CONSTANT LOAD

A. Cables directly buried
In the developments presented in the reminder of the paper,
we will use the IEC notation. Since the developments pertain to
cables laid directly in the soil as well as in ducts, the external
thermal resistance will be denoted by the symbol T4 for both
cases remembering that for ducted cables it refers to the value
of T4''' .
Fig. 2 Illustration of distances in equation (2)
Let us consider the single 3-phase cable circuit shown in Fig. Fig. 3 illustrates the replacement of a backfill with
1.
dimensions x and y by a circle with the radius rb (we will
e
Lp De assume that x is smaller than y).

Cable p Cable k
Fig. 1 Directly buried cable circuit

The external thermal resistance of cable p is composed of two

components:
• Self – as seen by the heat generated by cable p

( )
2 Lp
T4 p − self = e ln u + u 2 − 1 u = (1)
2 De
• Mutual – as seen by cable p from the heat generated
Fig. 3 Representation of a backfill by a circular envelope
by other cables, with the distances shown in Fig. 2.
Considering the surface of the duct bank to be an isothermal
 N W  d pk 
'

T4 p − mutual = e  k ln   (2)
circle of radius rb , the thermal resistance between the duct bank
2 k =1 W p  d pk  and the earth’s surface will be a logarithmic function of LG
k p
and rb . In order to evaluate rb in terms of the dimensions of a
B. Cables in duct banks or backfills rectangular thermal envelope, consider two circles: one
When the cable system is contained within an envelope of inscribed and outside the envelope. With the above notation,
thermal resistivity  c , the effect of thermal resistivity of the the equivalent radius is given by (see [14] for the development
concrete or backfill envelope being different from that of the of this formula).
surrounding soil  e is handled by first assuming that the 1 x  4 x   y2  x
rb = exp   −  ln 1 + 2  + ln  (4)
thermal resistivity of the medium is  c throughout. A  2 y   y   x  2 
correction is then added algebraically to account for the Equation (4) is only valid for ratios of y/x less than 3.
difference in the thermal resistivities of the envelope and the
native soil. III. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW EQUATIONS
The correction to the thermal resistance is given by
A. Unity load factor
T4corr =
N
2
( e − c ) ln ub + ub2 − 1 ( ) When we have several cables in a backfill, the N-M approach
(3) described in Chapter II, assumes is that all of them have the
N L
= ( e − c ) Gb ub = G same equivalent circular envelope. Another important
2 rb assumption is that while evaluating the effect of cable k on cable
where: p, the envelope center is placed at the location of cable k as
N = number of loaded cables in the envelope illustrated in Fig. 4.

0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3

From these formulas, we can make the following

observations:
Self-external thermal resistance T4 p − self (  c ) : Both the N-
M and the IEC Standard use the depth of the cable instead of
the backfill to calculate self-thermal resistance. In the case these
values are different, which is common, this term is assuming
that the center of the envelope of thermal resistivity and radii
𝑟𝑏 are at the cable/duct position.
Self-correction thermal resistance T4corr p − self : The N-M and

the IEC Standard use the backfill depth 𝐿𝐺 . However, the

development above shows that the cable depth 𝐿𝑝 should be
used, since the concentricity is required to apply the
superposition. The magnitude of this error depends on the
Fig. 4 Displacement of circular envelopment (representing the backfill) to the
center of cable k, for evaluation of the influence of cable k on cable p relative location of the cables within the backfill with respect to
Referring to Fig. 4, heating of cable p by cable k can be the backfill center and the diversity of the losses generated in
written as: each cable.
Mutual thermal resistance T4 p − mutual (  c ) : This calculation
1  b c 

 
e
r
1 is done correctly in the IEC Standard when a general formula is
 pk = Wk  dr +  e dr  − Wk  dr used when the losses are different in each cable. The N-M

2 d pk r r  2 r
 rb  d 'pk
method considers equal cable losses only.
1  b c  Mutual-correction term T4corr
d 'pk
e p − mutual : The N-M and the IEC
r

dr 
2  dpk r 
= Wk dr +
r  Standard make three assumptions that are not correct in some
 rb
 cases (see numerical examples):
1  b c c  1. Using backfill depth LG : As in the calculation of T4corr
' ' '

e c
d pk d pk d pk
p − self ,
r

2  dpk r  r  r  r dr 
= Wk dr + dr + dr −
the concentricity is required to apply the superposition;
 rb rb rb
 '
thus, the cables distance d pk should be used in (3) instead
  c d pk '
 − c d '

= Wk  + e  = Wk (T4 pk ( c ) + T4 pk )
pk corr
ln ln of double of the backfill depth 2 LG . This assumption could
 2 d pk 2  r
 b 
yield an error over 20% in the ampacity computation in
(5) installations with horizontal shallow backfills.
For N cables, the temperature rise in cable p is obtained by 2. The cables have the same losses: If the ratio of losses
adding to the temperature rises obtained from (5). Hence:
N Wk / Wp is not considered, it is assumed that the cables in
 p =  pself +   pk the backfill have the same losses. In the case of cables of
k =1
k p different circuits, the error in the ampacity computation
= W p (T4 p − self ( c ) + T4corr
p − self ) +  Wk ( T4 pk (  c ) + T4 pk )
N
corr could be over 30%.
k =1
k p
3. ( )
The formulation of ln u + u 2 − 1 instead of ln(2u ) is
 
(6)
not consistent with the equations of the mutual effect.
 T4 pk ( c ) 
N
Wk
= W p T4 p − self ( c ) +  The magnitude of the error described in point 2 depends on
 k =1 W p

 k p  the installation conditions. For some cases, the error will be
small; however, it could be substantial for other. We will
 
illustrate this with numerical examples in Chapter IV.
+  T4corr
N
Wk corr 
 p − self k
+ T
=1 W p
4 pk 
B. Cyclic load
 k p 
This equation can be written as: The method proposed in [3] introduces a circular envelope,
 p = Wp T4 p − self ( c ) + T4 p − mutual ( c ) + T4corr
concentric with the cable (circle with Dx diameter in Fig. 5), to

p − self + T4 p − mutual 
corr
model the effect of the cyclic load, represented by the load-loss
(7) factor defined in [3] and [14].
where: Inside the envelope, the losses are oscillating and outside are

p − self =
T4corr
e − c
2
ln u + ( rb
(u (8) 2
− 1) ) u=
Lp constant. Note that should only be applied to joule losses.
Hence, the power losses ratio for cable k is defined by:
kWk − joule + Wk − diel
It can be observed from (5) to (8) that the authors decided to wpk = (9)
separate the external thermal resistance of a cable into two Wp
distinct parts clearly identifying its own and neighboring cables
contribution to the conductor temperature rise.

0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

Fig. 5 Envelopes to model the effects of cyclic load and backfill at cable p.
The temperature rise of cable p, due to its own influence is:
(
 pp = Wp T4 p − self ( cyclic ) + T4corr
p − self ( cyclic ) (10)
The self-portion of the external thermal resistance becomes:
1  x c  rb 
D /2
Dx
u1 =  1  Dx  2 Dep (17)
2 Dep
whereas, when applying (11), the requirement is Dx  Dep .
We can observe that the differences between new equations
and those in the N-M and the IEC methods are the same as the
ones analyzed in the Section III-A. Additionally, the load-loss
factor is assumed to be the same in the N-M approach, which
is true provided that the cables in backfill are in the same circuit
and the circuit is balanced. For multiple circuits the general
method proposed in this paper is required.
) IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In order to illustrate the importance of the proposed changes
in the rating calculations of cables in backfills, several
numerical examples will be presented in this chapter. In all
  
2 Lp

T4 p − self ( cyclic ) + T4corr   dr +   c dr +  e dr  wpp  cases studied, the ambient temperature is 20ºC, the thermal
p − self ( cyclic ) =
2  rep r  D /2 r r   resistivities of the soil and the concrete are 1.5 and 0.8 K.m/W,
  x rb 
respectively.
1  x c  rb      
D /2 2 Lp 2 Lp 2 Lp

=   dr +   c dr +  e dr +  c dr −  c dr  w pp  The discussion below concentrates on the analysis of the

2  rep r  D /2 r r r r   errors committed when applying the N-M/IEC method given by
  x rb rb rb 
(1) to (4) and the proposed approach given by (7) and (8). In
1  x c  2 Lp   − c  
D /2 2 Lp

=   dr +   c dr +  e dr  w pp  order to make the comparison on the same basis, equation (2)

2  rep r   
  Dx / 2 r rb r  with the ratio of losses is used in the N-M method even though
  it is not in the original Neher-McGrath paper [3] but it could be
D  4 Lp  − c 2 Lp
=  c ln x + c ln wpp +  p e ln wpp  deduced from the formulations in the IEC standard. Thus, this
 2 D 2 Dx 2 rb 
 ep  method will be called the IEC approach. The method presented
(11) in this paper will be called Extended IEC (EIEC).
From (11):
c A. Identical unequally loaded cables
T4 p − self ( cyclic ) = ln ( 2u1 ) + ln ( 2u2 ) wpp 
2  As mentioned in the introduction, one of the major problems
(12) with the N-M method is that correction factor given by (3)
Dx 2 Lp
u1 = , u2 = assumes that all cables are equally loaded. To illustrate this
2 Dep Dx problem, we will consider a typical 3x2 duct bank of 0.49m x
0.775m with 6 identical cables as shown in Fig. 6 with the
p − self ( cyclic ) = T4 p − self w pp
T4corr corr
(13)
centre of the duct bank varied between 1 and 5 m depth.
The fictitious diameter Dx , at which the loss cycle is seen, is
defined for a sinusoidal cycle in [3] and for other load shapes in
[13].
Since Dx is normally smaller than the cable distances, the
mutual component, its correction term are also affected by the
factor of every cable. Adding this factor to equations (2) and
(6), the temperature rise in cable p is:
 T4 p − self ( cyclic ) + T4corr
p − self ( cyclic )

 p = W p   (14)
 +T 
 4 p − mutual ( cyclic ) + T4 p − mutual ( cyclic ) 
corr
Fig. 6 Six cables in a 3x2 duct bank
From (2) and (7):
Let as assume that for the 5 m depth, the circuit on the left of
 N  d pk 
'

T4 p − mutual ( cyclic ) = c  ln  wpk (15)

the duct bank has the load of 340 A, which is double that of the
2 k =1  d pk  circuit on the right with 170 A. For other depths, the same ratio
k p of loadings is maintained, but the magnitude is adjusted to
e − c N  d pk
'
 remain at the maximum operating temperature of 90ºC. The
p − mutual ( cyclic ) =
T4corr
2
 ln  wpk (16) calculation of the conductor temperature was performed using
k =1
k p
 rb  the following 3 methods:
An important limitation applies to the first term of (12); a. Finite element program (denoted as FE)
namely: b. N-M/IEC method using equations (1) to (3) (denoted as
IEC)
c. Extended IEC method presented in this paper: equations
(7) and (8) (denoted as EIEC).

0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
The cables are 132 kV 630 mm2 with the data sheet shown in
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Test cable data information
Each of the cables will have different conductor temperature.
Fig. 8 shows this parameter as a function of the depth of the
center of the duct bank for cable number 5 (the numbering of
the cables is shown in Fig. 6).
Cable 5
85
Conductor temperature [°C]
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
1 2 3 4
Depth [m]
Fig. 8 Conductor temperature of cable 5 as a function of the depth of the duct
bank center
Other parameters appearing in rating equations may also
influence the differences between the results of the proposed
and that of N-M methods. The largest influence will be related
to the variables appearing in the calculation of the external
thermal resistance. To illustrate this point, another study was
performed in which the thermal resistivity of the soil is 1.5
K.m/W and the one of the backfill is varied. The results are
shown in Fig. 9.
All other cables exhibit similar behaviour with the
temperature differences between the IEC and the EIEC/FE
approaches reaching 20°C.
B. Equally loaded cables and ampacity calculation
The approximation of a rectangular duct bank or backfill by
an isothermal circle with a radius given by (4) is only valid if
the height/width ratio is in the range of 1/3 to 3. To overcome
this restriction, El-Kady and Horrocks [5] used the finite-
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Transactions on Power Delivery
5
element method to develop values for the geometric factor if the
thermal envelopes have ratios beyond the above range. Their
method is described in [14] and the resulting values of the
geometric factor are displayed in terms of the height/width
(h/w) and depth/height ( LG / h ) ratios. A fragment of the table
with the values of Gb is shown in Fig. 10, [14]. The dimensions
of this table extend to 20.0 and 5.0 in the horizontal and vertical
dimensions, respectively. The table also includes the values
covered by the N-M equations.
Cable 5
100
Conductor temperature [°C]
90
80
70
60
FE IEC EIEC
50
1 0.5 1.5 2 2.5
Backfill thermal resistivity [K.m/W]
Fig. 9 Conductor temperature of cable 5 as a function of the backfill thermal
resistivity
FE
IEC
EIEC
5
Fig. 10 Fragment of a table of extended geometric factors [13]
The applicability of the N-M/IEC approach depends on two
parameters appearing in the upper left corner of this table. Table
A1 in the Appendix shows the error which is committed when
equation (3) is used to compute the geometric factor. We can
observe that in small part of the table, the error is relatively
small. However, even in the area marked by black rectangle
where the N-M approach is applicable, the error can be in the
range of 50 to 100%.
In order to illustrate the effect of this error on ampacity
calculations, an elongated duct bank was selected with y/x = 3
and the depth of burial was varied between 1 and 10 m. The last
depth seldom occurs in practice but is used in the example as it
falls within the range of the applicability of the N-M approach.
Let us consider a cable system with the following
parameters: a concrete 4x2 duct bank with the dimensions
shown in Fig. 11 housing two 3-phase circuits. Two ducts are
reserved for control purposes.
The burial depth of the duct bank, measured from the center,
will change from 1 m to 10 m.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 6

of the difference between (4) and the table in Fig. 10. In

ampacity calculations, IEC yields optimistic results in deep
installations, reaching about 7% at 10m.
C. Cyclic loading
In this example, the same system as considered in Section
IV.B but the cables are unequally loaded with the daily load
factor of circuit 2 set to 0.5. The comparison is made between
the Neher-McGrath, and the EIEC methods, considering, again,
the latter as the reference.
Fig. 13 shows that the behavior is similar to the previous test,
but the error is larger, 25% on average. This is because the
proposed method used the proper load-loss factors in the
calculation of T4corr
p − mutual [see (9)], while the N-M approach uses

Fig. 11 Two 3-phase circuits in a duct bank (3).

The comparison was conducted as follows. First, the circuit
ampacity was found using the IEC method. Using these
currents, the temperature of the conductors of all the cables was
obtained using the IEC and EIEC approaches. Since, as can be
observed in Fig. 8, the FE and EIEC methods give almost
identical results, the latter was taken as a basis for error
calculations. Thus, the error in the conductor temperature in this
and the next example is defined as:
 −  EIEC
Error = IEC 100% (18)
 EIEC
Similar definition applies to ampacity calculations. Fig. 12
displays this error for circuit 2 and the error in the ampacity
calculation of both circuits as a function of the depth of the duct
bank center. The negative error means that the IEC method Fig. 13 Plot of difference in the conductor temperatures between the IEC
and EIEC for the cyclic loading example.
gives too high temperatures, which for the correct ampacity
value would lead to the conductor temperature reaching 100ºC
V. CONCLUSIONS
(11% over the maximum).
The minimum average error occurs at the 5 m depth. At this The Neher-McGrath approach has been used by cable rating
depth, the error is mainly caused by the use of the DB depth specialists for about 70 years. It works well for standard cable
instead of the cable depth. When the DB is shallower or deeper, installation conditions and the cables equally loaded. When the
the error increases. The figure also shows the average absolute cables are not equally loaded, the IEC 60287 approach can be
error. applied when the cables have unity load factor and uniform soil.
For the backfill/duct bank installations with circuits having
different load factors, the N-M approach cannot be used.
The paper presents analytical equations approximating the
external thermal resistance for cables in backfills/duct banks.
The expressions are much more accurate that the values
obtained using the N-M approach for cases when the
width/height ratio is within interval [1/3 to 3], for which the N-
M equations are said to be applicable.
This paper presented an extension of the N-M method for
unequally loaded cables with different load factors. The derived
analytical expressions are applicable to a wide range of
situations encountered in practice.
The numerical examples illustrate a significant error when
the original N-M approach is used even for simple installations.
Fig. 12 Plot of difference between the IEC and EIEC in conductor
temperatures of circuit 2, for equally loaded circuits, and ampacity calculation
REFERENCES
of both circuits. [1] D. M. Simons, "Cable geometry and the calculation of current-
carrying capacity," in Journal of the American Institute of Electrical
We can observe that the average temperature difference can Engineers, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 525-539, May 1923.
reach about 10% for usual depths of the duct bank but can [2] J. H. Neher, "Heating of cables in a Duct bank," in Electrical
increase considerably for larger depths. This is mainly because Engineering, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 835-835, Oct. 1949.

0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
[3] Neher, J.H., McGrath, M.H., (1957) "The Calculation of the
Temperature Rise and Load Capability of Cable Systems", AIEE
Transactions, Vol. 76, Part 3, pp. 752-772, October 1957.
[4] Electric cables, Calculation of the current rating, Part 2-1: Calculation
of thermal resistance- Edition 2:12017, IEC Standard 60287-2-1.
[5] El-Kady, M.A., Horrocks, D.J., (1985), "Extended Values of
Geometric Factor of External Thermal Resistance of Cables in Duct
Banks", IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
104, pp. 1958 - 1962.
[6] L. R. Gaty, "Underground Distribution Systems in Wartime," in
Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, vol.
61, no. 3, pp. 107-112, March 1942.
[7] J. I. Adams, "The Thermal Behavior of Cable Backfill Materials," in
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-87,
no. 4, pp. 1149-1161, April 1968.
[8] Symm, G.T., (1969) "External Thermal Resistance of Buried Cables
and Troughs", Proc. IEE, Vol. 166, No. 10, pp. 1696-1698.
[9] Tarasiewicz, E., El-Kady, M.A., Anders, G.J., (1987) "Generalized
Coefficients of External Thermal Resistance for Ampacity
Evaluation of Underground Multiple Cable Systems", IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2, No. 1, January
1987, pp.15-20..
[10] El-Kady, M.A., Anders, G.J., M.A., Horrocks, D.J., Motlis, J., (1988)
"Modified Values for Geometric Factor of External Thermal
Resistance of Cables in Ducts", IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1988, pp.1303-1309.
[11] M. A. Hanna, A. Y. Chikhani and M. M. A. Salama, "Thermal
analysis of power cables in multi-layered soil. II. Practical
considerations," in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 8, no.
3, pp. 772-778, July 1993.
[12] J. A. Williams, D. Parmar and M. W. Conroy, "Controlled backfill
optimization to achieve high ampacities on transmission cables," in
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 544-552, Jan.
1994.
[13] L. Heinhold, Power Cables and Their Applications: Part 1, Wiley,
N.Y., 1996.
[14] G. J. Anders, in Rating of Electric Power Cables – Ampacity
Calculations for Transmission, Distribution and Industrial
Applications,. New York: IEEE Press & John Wiley, 1997.
[15] F. de Leon, "Major factors affecting cable ampacity," 2006 IEEE
Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Montreal, Que., 2006,
pp. 6 pp.-.
[16] F. de Leon and G. J. Anders, "Effects of Backfilling on Cable
Ampacity Analyzed With the Finite Element Method," in IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 537-543, April
2008.
[17] O. E. Gouda, A. Z. El Dein and G. M. Amer, "The effect of the
artificial backfill materials on the ampacity of the underground
cables," 7th International Multi- Conference on Systems, Signals and
Devices, Amman, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[18] E. C. Rusty Bascom, N. Patel and D. Parmar, "Thermal environment
design considerations for ampacity of buried power cables," 2014
IEEE PES T&D Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, 2014, pp.
1-5.
[19] O. E. Gouda and A. Z. El Dein, "Improving underground power
distribution capacity using artificial backfill materials," in IET
Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 2180-
2187, 19 11 2015.
[20] A. Cichy, B. Sakowicz and M. Kaminski, "Economic Optimization
of an Underground Power Cable Installation," in IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1124-1133, June 2018.
0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7
[21] O. E. Gouda, G. F. A. Osman, W. A. A. Salem and S. H. Arafa,
"Cyclic Loading of Underground Cables Including the Variations of
Backfill Soil Thermal Resistivity and Specific Heat With
Temperature Variation," in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 3122-3129, Dec. 2018.
[22] K. Charerndee, R. Chatthaworn, P. Khunkitti, A. Kruesubthaworn, A.
Siritaratiwat and C. Surawanitkun, "Effect of Concrete Duct Bank
Dimension with Thermal Properties of Concrete on Sensitivity of
Underground Power Cable Ampacity," 2018 18th International
Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies
(ISCIT), Bangkok, 2018, pp. 484-489.
[23] IEEE Draft Recommended Practice for Cable Installation in
Generating Stations and Industrial Facilities," in IEEE P1185/D6
May 2019 , vol., no., pp.1-129.
VI. BIOGRAPHIES
Leon Ramirez, with 14 years of experience in power systems,
is the Team Leader of Engineering at EATON and the main
developer of CYMCAP. Leon has a bachelor’s degree and a
Master of Sciences in power systems, from École
Polytechnique de Montréal. He is very passionate in the power
cable rating field and Real Time Thermal Rating.
George J. Anders (F’99). Dr. Anders’ main interests are in
the field of ampacity calculations of electric power cables. He
published over 100 papers in IEEE Transactions and wrote
four books. He is the author of the original computational
engine of CYMCAP, most widely used program in cable
rating calculations. Dr. Anders is a recipient of 2016 IEEE
Herman Halperin Award in Transmission and Distribution,
and 2018 IEEE Roy Billinton Award in Power System Reliability and 2019
IEEE Transactions Prize Paper.
VII. APPENDIX - DISCREPANCY (%) BETWEEN TABLE AND
CALCULATED GEOMETRIC VALUES
Reference [5] contains a table of the geometric factors for a
wide range of backfill/duct bank geometries. It also covers the
range of dimensions covered by the N-M approach. The table
below shows the discrepancy between N-M formula and the
values from [5]. The discrepancy is computed from the
following formula:
Gb (table in [5]) − Gb ( with N − M )
(19)
Gb (table in [5])
The discrepancy is represented directly in the table (rows are
h/w, columns are Lb/h) with the following information:
• White cells highlight values with relative error lower
than 10 %,
• The other colours represent ranges of error greater
than 10, 20, 50 and 100 %,
• The bold black rectangle frames the domain of
𝑦
validity < 3 of the IEC formula.
𝑥
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2020.3017616, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 8

0,6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20
0,05 -2,43 -3,80 -2,88 -2,36 -2,02 -1,77 -1,60 -1,45 -1,34 -1,25 -1,16 -1,08 -1,01 -0,96 -0,91 -0,86 -0,81 -0,77 -0,70
0,1 -1,74 -1,74 -1,34 -1,11 -0,96 -0,85 -0,78 -0,71 -0,66 -0,60 -0,56 -0,52 -0,49 -0,46 -0,44 -0,41 -0,39 -0,36 -0,32
0,2 -0,95 -0,70 -0,55 -0,44 -0,37 -0,33 -0,33 -0,30 -0,28 -0,25 -0,23 -0,21 -0,20 -0,18 -0,17 -0,15 -0,13 -0,12 -0,09
0,3 -0,53 -0,33 -0,25 -0,19 -0,15 -0,13 -0,14 -0,13 -0,11 -0,10 -0,09 -0,07 -0,06 -0,05 -0,04 -0,03 -0,01 -0,01 0,02
0,4 -0,30 -0,19 -0,14 -0,10 -0,08 -0,06 -0,07 -0,06 -0,05 -0,04 -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02
0,5 -0,15 -0,15 -0,13 -0,11 -0,09 -0,07 -0,07 -0,05 -0,05 -0,04 -0,03 -0,02 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05
0,6 -0,10 -0,10 -0,08 -0,07 -0,05 -0,03 -0,03 -0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,10
0,7 -0,08 -0,07 -0,05 -0,04 -0,03 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,10 0,11 0,12 0,14
0,8 0,74 -0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,07 0,09 0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,17 0,19 0,20 0,22 0,24 0,27
0,9 0,21 -0,04 -0,01 0,02 0,04 0,07 0,10 0,12 0,15 0,17 0,19 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28 0,30 0,32 0,33 0,35 0,39
1 -0,01 -0,03 0,02 0,05 0,09 0,12 0,16 0,19 0,23 0,25 0,28 0,31 0,34 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,44 0,45 0,49
1,2 -0,40 -0,08 -0,01 0,03 0,06 0,10 0,14 0,17 0,20 0,23 0,26 0,29 0,31 0,34 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,43 0,46
1,4 -0,57 -0,11 -0,03 0,02 0,05 0,08 0,12 0,15 0,19 0,22 0,25 0,27 0,30 0,32 0,34 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,45
1,6 -0,69 -0,14 -0,05 0,00 0,04 0,08 0,11 0,15 0,18 0,21 0,24 0,27 0,29 0,32 0,34 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,41 0,45
1,8 -0,77 -0,15 -0,06 -0,01 0,03 0,07 0,11 0,14 0,18 0,21 0,24 0,27 0,30 0,32 0,34 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,45
2 -0,82 -0,17 -0,06 -0,01 0,03 0,07 0,11 0,15 0,18 0,22 0,25 0,28 0,31 0,33 0,35 0,37 0,39 0,41 0,43 0,46
2,2 -0,88 -0,20 -0,06 -0,01 0,04 0,08 0,13 0,17 0,21 0,24 0,27 0,30 0,33 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,44 0,46 0,49
2,4 -0,92 -0,22 -0,06 -0,01 0,04 0,09 0,14 0,18 0,22 0,26 0,30 0,33 0,35 0,38 0,40 0,43 0,45 0,46 0,48 0,51
2,6 -0,95 -0,24 -0,06 -0,01 0,05 0,10 0,16 0,20 0,24 0,28 0,32 0,35 0,38 0,40 0,43 0,45 0,47 0,49 0,50 0,54
2,8 -0,97 -0,26 -0,06 -0,01 0,06 0,12 0,17 0,22 0,26 0,30 0,34 0,37 0,40 0,42 0,45 0,47 0,49 0,51 0,53 0,56
3 -0,99 -0,29 -0,06 -0,01 0,06 0,13 0,19 0,24 0,28 0,32 0,36 0,39 0,42 0,44 0,47 0,49 0,51 0,53 0,54 0,58
3,2 -1,00 -0,30 -0,06 0,00 0,07 0,14 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,34 0,37 0,41 0,44 0,46 0,49 0,51 0,53 0,55 0,56 0,59
3,4 -1,03 -0,31 -0,06 0,00 0,08 0,15 0,21 0,27 0,32 0,36 0,39 0,42 0,45 0,48 0,50 0,53 0,54 0,56 0,58 0,61
3,6 -1,05 -0,33 -0,07 0,01 0,09 0,16 0,23 0,28 0,33 0,38 0,41 0,44 0,47 0,50 0,52 0,54 0,56 0,58 0,59 0,62
3,8 -1,07 -0,34 -0,07 0,01 0,10 0,18 0,24 0,30 0,35 0,39 0,42 0,46 0,49 0,51 0,53 0,56 0,57 0,59 0,61 0,64
4 -1,08 -0,36 -0,07 0,01 0,11 0,19 0,26 0,31 0,36 0,40 0,44 0,47 0,50 0,53 0,55 0,57 0,59 0,61 0,62 0,65
4,5 -1,13 -0,38 -0,09 0,03 0,13 0,22 0,29 0,35 0,40 0,44 0,48 0,51 0,53 0,56 0,58 0,60 0,62 0,64 0,65 0,68
5 -1,19 -0,40 -0,11 0,04 0,16 0,25 0,32 0,38 0,43 0,47 0,51 0,54 0,56 0,59 0,61 0,63 0,65 0,66 0,67 0,70

0-10 % 10-20 % 20-50 % 50-100 % > 100 %

This table was copied from the IEC WG19 document prepared by Mr. Frederic Lesur (with the permission of the author).

0885-8977 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 05,2020 at 02:11:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.