See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224351588

Current Distribution in Parallel Single-Core Cables on Metal Tray

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · January 2009

DOI: 10.1109/TIA.2008.2006345 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

5 2,862

3 authors, including:

Ya Ping Du
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
178 PUBLICATIONS   1,154 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Electrical Safety of Low-Voltage Distribution Network View project

flux modulated motor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ya Ping Du on 02 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Current Distribution in Parallel Single-Core Cables
on Metal Tray
Y. Du, Y.Z. Huan and Li Wang
Department of Building Services Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
(e-mail: beydu@inet.polyu.edu.hk)
Abstract–In Hong Kong parallel single-core (single-conductor)
cables are employed in the backbone of a building distribution
system. As power consumption in buildings grows continuously,
overheating problems associated with such a cable installation
have become a concern. This paper investigates current
distribution among parallel single-core cables installed on metal
tray in a multi-phase distribution system. A general prediction
method of current distribution is introduced, and validated
experimentally. To analyze current distribution under different
cable arrangements, empirical formulas of cable impedance are
presented. The current distribution associated with the Hong
Kong practice of parallel cable installations is evaluated and
recommendations for the design and installation are presented.
Index Terms – cable, current distribution, metal tray
I. INTRODUCTION
Electric cables are widely used for low-voltage power
distribution in Hong Kong buildings. It is quite common to
employ multiple single-core (single-conductor) cables
connected in parallel (e.g., three 630mm2 (1250MCM) XLPE
copper cables per phase) in the backbone of a building
distribution system. As power consumption in buildings grows
continuously, overheating problems associated with the parallel
cable installation are experienced. The problems arise from
unequal current distribution among the parallel cables in any
one phase, causing unequal and excessive temperatures. It has
been estimated that an increase of 8oC to 10oC in insulation
temperature can lead to a 50% reduction of insulation life
expectancy [1].
The current distribution in a balanced three-phase circuit
has been addressed in recent decades. A number of theoretical
studies have been carried out [2-5]. In [2] an iterative
procedure was derived to determine the current distribution in a
set of parallel conductors, and was demonstrated for several
cable configurations. A matrix algebra procedure was proposed
in [3,4], which can overcome some difficulties encountered in
the iterative procedure. A simple test was conducted for
validation, and reasonable accuracy was observed. These
studies provided useful results for estimation of temperature
rise, and subsequently cable current carrying capacity. The
methods presented in [2-4], however, are difficult to apply to
determine current distribution among the cables installed on
metal tray. This is because cable impedance in the presence of
metal tray is unknown. The traditional impedance formulas are
only applicable to the cables installed in free air or on non-
magnetic surface.
1
This paper presents an investigation into current distribution
associated with the parallel single-core (single-conductor)
cables installed on metal tray. A generic prediction method of
current distribution in a multi-phase cable distribution system
is introduced. As this method needs a detailed knowledge of
cable impedance, empirical formulas for both cable resistance
and reactance are presented. The laboratory experiment for
deriving these empirical formulas in the presence of metal tray
is described. Experimental validation of the prediction method
is addressed as well. Finally, the current distribution associated
with the Hong Kong practice of parallel cable installations is
evaluated, and recommendations for the design and installation
are presented.
II. CURRENT DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
In large buildings of Hong Kong electrical power is
delivered to customers via a three-phase four-wire distribution
system. Parallel single-core cables are often employed in the
main and feeder circuits for power distribution to various floors
and load centers. As the impedance of these distribution cables
is much less than load impedance, the system loads determine
phase currents at power frequency. The cable distribution
system then can be represented by a set of cable loops excited
by independent sources of current, as shown in Figure 1. Each
loop in Figure 1 is formed with one phase cable and one
neutral cable (reference cable). The reference cable is shared
by all loops as the returning current path. The supply voltage
sources in the figure are suppressed, as they are connected in
serial with their corresponding current sources.
Ia1
Ia2
Ea Ia,s
Ec Ib,s
Ib1
Ics Eb
Ic2 Ib2
Ic1 In1
In2
Ref. Cable
Fig. 1. Representation of a cable distribution system
As seen in Figure 1, the cable distribution system is treated
as a set of mutually-coupled conductor loops excited by three-
phase current sources. Based on this circuit model, the where Yij ,s ( i , j = a, b and c ) is the summation of all elements
following equations are derived by applying Kerchief’s laws:
in its corresponding sub-matrix Yij identified in (4) (e.g.,
Ea = Z a1 a1 I a1 + " Z a1b1 Ib1 + " Z a1c1 I c1 + " Z a1 n1 I n1 + " (1)
Yaa , s = ∑i =a1 ∑ j =a1 YAA (i, j ) ), and E a , Eb , and Ec are the
m m
st
for the 1 cable loop in phase A (Loop A1) , and
voltages of cable loops in their corresponding phases. Es can be
0 = Z n1a1 I a1 + " Z n1b1 I b1 + " Z n1c1 I c1 + " Z n1n1 I n1 + " (2) solved directly from (6). Then, I is solved by substituting Es in
for the 1st cable loop in the neutral (Loop N1). In (1-2) Z ij is (4).
mutual impedance between loops i and j. By repeating the III. CABLE IMPEDANCE
procedure for all other loops, the matrix equation is obtained,
as follows: There are various types of single-core cables for power
ZI = E or distribution. XLPE insulated cables with stranded copper
conductors to BS/IEC standards are widely used for rising
⎡ Z AA Z AB Z AC Z AN ⎤ ⎡ I A ⎤ ⎡ E A ⎤ main and feeder circuits in Hong Kong buildings. These cables
⎢Z usually have the cross-section area of 400mm2 (800MCM) or
Z BB Z BC Z BN ⎥ ⎢ I B ⎥ ⎢ E B ⎥ 630mm2 (1250MCM). Normally single-core cables do not have
⎢ BA ⎥⋅⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (3)
⎢ Z CA Z CB Z CC Z CN ⎥ ⎢ I C ⎥ ⎢ E C ⎥ a magnetic armouring, but they can be installed on galvanized
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ iron tray.
⎣ Z NA Z NB Z NC Z NN ⎦ ⎣I N ⎦ ⎣E N ⎦ Analytical formulas [5-6] are available for calculating the
impedance of single-core cables installed in free air or on a
where E A , E B , E C and E N are phase voltage vectors, which non-metallic surface. These formulas, however, cannot be
contain the voltages of cable loops in phases A, B, C and N, applied for the cables installed on metal tray as cable
respectively. Note that voltages are identical for all cable loops impedance is significantly affected by eddy-current in the
in one phase, and equal to zero for all cable loops in the metal tray. Laboratory measurement, then, is necessary to
determine cable impedance for current distribution analysis.
neutral. I A , I B , I C and I N are defined in a similar way.
Equation (3) can be rewritten, as follows: A. Measurement Method
I = YE or Traditionally, the cables in a three-phase distribution circuit
are modeled by average resistance and effective reactance, and
⎡ I A ⎤ ⎡YAA YAB YAC YAN ⎤ ⎡ E A ⎤
are measured under balanced current conditions. Such
⎢ I ⎥ ⎢Y YBB YBC YBN ⎥ ⎢ E B ⎥ impedance data are not sufficient to analyze current
⎢ B ⎥ = ⎢ BA ⎥⋅⎢ ⎥ (4) distribution among the parallel cables. It is necessary to
⎢ I C ⎥ ⎢ YCA YCB YCC YCN ⎥ ⎢ E C ⎥ develop a database of mutual impedance between two cable
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣I N ⎦ ⎣YNA YNB YNC YNN ⎦ ⎣E N ⎦ loops with any spacing, as described in Section II.
−1
where Y = Z , and Z ij or Yij is the mi × m j sub-matrix
I1 L1
Z11
between phase i and phase j ( i, j = A, B, C and N ), V11
L2 Z21

and mi and m j are loop numbers for phase i and phase j, Z21
V21
respectively.
Total phase currents I a , s , Ib , s and I c , s can be expressed in N
relation to loop currents I ai , I bi and I ci in their corresponding (a) Circuit model
phases by the following equations

∑
ma s1
I = I a,s
i =1 ai
s2

∑
mb
I = I b,s
i =1 bi
(5) d d d
L1 L2 N
∑
mc
I = I c,s
i =1 ci
(b) Cable arrangement
Fig. 2 Single-core cables under the single-phase current injection
To solve (4) for cable loop currents, E needs to be determined
first. Substitution of (4) into (5) yields the following equation: Figure 2 illustrates the measurement of loop impedance
⎡ I a , s ⎤ ⎡Yaa , s Yab, s Yac, s ⎤ ⎡ E a ⎤ using the method of single-phase current injection. For
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Ybc, s ⎥ ⋅ ⎢⎢ Eb ⎥⎥ (6)
illustration only two loops formed with cables L1 N and
I s = Ys E s or ⎢ I b, s ⎥ = ⎢Yba , s Ybb , s cables L2 N are presented in the figure. During the experiment,
⎢⎣ I c , s ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣Yca , s Ycb, s Ycc, s ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Ec ⎥⎦ a single-phase current is injected into the cable loop ( L1 N ).
Voltages and currents on all cable loops are then recorded. Self

2
impedance and mutual impedance of these loops are calculated possible to express both resistance and reactance using
using the following equations: empirical formulas obtained from the measured data.
V11 0.2
Z11 = (5a)
I1 0.15

Rs (mohm/m)
I2 = 0
0.1
V
Z 21 = 21 (5b) 0.05
I1 I2 =0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
By repeating this procedure for the cables with different cable s/d
spacing, a database of mutual impedance is obtained. 0.8

0.6

Xs (mohm/m)
B. Measurement Setup
Figure 3 shows the experiment setup for measuring loop 0.4

impedance in the laboratory. The cables being tested were laid 0.2

straight on galvanized-iron tray at the height of 1.0 m above 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
the ground. These cables were terminated by a copper bar at s/d
one end, and connected to a current injection set at the other.
Fig. 4. Self impedance of cable loops (400mm2 cables)
The magnitude of the injected current was adjusted using an – Empirical formulas
autotransformer. ο Measured results

Cables under test 0.2

Rs (mohm/m) 0.15

0.1
Single-core cables
0.05
for connection
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
s/d
Auto-transformer
0.8

0.6
Xs (mohm/m)

220V 50Hz 7kVA 220/5V 0.4

Step-down Tx.
0.2

Fig. 3 Measurement setup 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
s/d
A PM3000A power analyzer together with three current
Fig. 5. Self impedance of cable loops (630mm2 cables)
transforms (CTs) was employed to measure voltage, current – Empirical formulas
and power on the tested cables. The analyzer had 12 voltage ο Measured results
ranges from 0.5V to 2000V (peak), and was capable of
measuring small cable voltage, which was in the range of 1-2 The empirical formulas of both self-resistance and self-
volts in most of the cases. This instrument had a basic accuracy reactance were derived in terms of cable spacing s d , and are
of 0.1% under the condition of full analyzer ranges. The CTs plotted in these figures as well. These formulas are given, as
had a magnitude accuracy of 0.2%, and a phase accuracy of follows:
0.3° in the frequency range of 5 Hz – 2.5 kHz.
0.0515 + 0.3533 ( s d ) + 0.0040(s d ) 4
2

Rs =
1 + 2.7819 ( s d ) + 0.0206 ( s d )
2 4
C. Measurement Results (6a)
Samples of single-core, XLPE insulated cables were
collected for the study of cable impedance. These cables had Xs = 0.181⋅ ln ( s d ) + 0.1919
cross-section areas of 400mm2 and 630mm2, and are frequently for 400mm2 single-core cables with the r 2 values of 0.9997
used in buildings for power distribution. These sample cables and 0.9980, respectively, and
were 7.5 and 6.8 meters long, respectively. 0.0561 + 0.0336 ( s d )
Figures 4 and 5 show the self impedance of cable loops with Rs =
different cable spacing for 400mm2 and 630mm2 cables, 1 + 0.1974 ( s d ) (6b)
respectively. In these figures both resistance Rs and reactance Xs = 0.1804 ⋅ ln ( s d ) + 0.1956
X s are expressed in mohm/m, and are plotted against cable for 630mm2 single-core cables with the r 2 values of 0.9999
spacing expressed in multiple of cable diameter ( s d ). It is and 0.9971, respectively. The average value of the error for
noted that both resistance and reactance increase with these formals is less than 2.5%. With these formulas both self
increasing cable spacing due to both eddy current on the tray resistance and reactance for the cable loops with other cable
and presence of magnetic material in the vicinity. As these spacing can be calculated directly without doing any additional
measurement.
changes against cable spacing s d are relatively smooth, it is

3
 Mutual impedance of two cable loops is generally affected = 0.0482 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.2987 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.3382
2
Rm
by cable spacing of these two loops. As there are a large (7a)
= 0.0187 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.7936 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.0931
2
number of combinations of the cable spacing, it is impossible Xm
to obtain mutual impedance experimentally. It is not possible for 400mm2 single-core cables with the r 2 values of 0.9935
to derive empirical formulas in terms of the cable spacing of and 0.9969, respectively, and
two loops either. To find an efficient and accurate method for
= 0.1739 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.3207 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.2878
2
determining the mutual impedance of two cable loops, the Rm
(7b)
= 0.1824 ( s2 s1 ) + 0.6361( s2 s1 ) + 0.1246
2
mutual impedance is plotted in terms of resistance ( Rm ) and Xm
reactance ( X m ) ratios against the spacing ratio. The mutual for 630mm2 single-core cables with the r 2 values of 0.9960
resistance or reactance ratio is a fraction of mutual and 0.9951, respectively.
resistance/reactance of the loops over self resistance or
reactance of the outer loop. Similarly, the spacing ratio is a IV. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
fraction of cable spacing of the inner loop over that of the outer
loop, that is, s2 / s1 , as illustrated in Figure 2. To validate the prediction method, four 400mm2 single-core
cables were employed to form a single-phase circuit for testing.
1
There were three different configurations of parallel single-
cables, as illustrated in Figure 8. In these configurations, one
Rm (per unit)

0.5
cable was employed as the neutral. Other two or three cables
were connected in parallel, and served as the line. In the
experiment, a total current of 400A was injected into the tested
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 cables, and cable currents in all cables were measured.
s1/s2

1
L1 L2 L3 N L1 L2 N L1 L2 N
Xm (per unit)

d d
0.5
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 8 Configurations of the single-core cables under test
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (all line cables were connected together)
s1/s2

Fig. 6 Mutual impedance of cable loops (400mm2) Table 1 shows the measured results under three different
– Empirical formulas configurations of the single-core cables. In the table all
ο Measured results
currents are expressed in percentage with the reference of the
1 injected current. It is found that the current is unevenly
distributed among these cables. The ratio of the maximum
Rm (per unit)

cable current to the minimum cable current can be up to 5

0.5
under the configuration of (a). Cable sizing with the
assumption of even distribution could lead to a significant
0 overheating problem when these cables operate under full-load
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
s1/s2
conditions.
1
TABLE 1 CURRENT D ISTRIBUTION IN PARALLEL CABLES ON TRAY
Config. (a) Config. (b) Config. (c)
Xm (per unit)

Cable No.
0.5
Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc.
Cable 1 14.7% 14.9% 27.4% 26.1% 34.3% 36.3%
Cable 2 17.5% 16.1% 74.8% 76.9% 66.3% 64.4%
Cable 3 71.8% 73.1%
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
s1/s2
The calculated results using the prediction method are also
Fig. 7 Mutual impedance of cable loops (630mm2)
– Empirical formulas
presented in the table. These results were calculated with the
ο Measured results empirical formulas of cable impedance given in Section III. It
is noted from the table that both measured data and theoretical
Figures 6 and 7 show per-unit mutual resistance and data agree well. The average error is less than 5%.
reactance of two cable loops against the spacing ratio. It is
interesting to note that the per-unit impedance increases It was noted that the metal tray was made of a ferromagnetic
smoothly as the spacing ratio is increased. Therefore, it is material – galvanized iron. To investigate the current
possible to use empirical formulas to determine mutual distribution impact of material non-linearity a test was
resistance and reactance, given by the spacing ratio. The performed on the cables under the configuration of (b) by
empirical formulas of both mutual-resistance and mutual- varying the current magnitude. It was found that the currents
reactance are plotted in these figures, and are given, as follows: (percentage) in Cables 1 and 2 changed approximately 2%

4
when the injected current was increased from 200A to 560A. mainly resulted from the unequal phase angle of the cable
The influence of material nonlinearity is insignificant. currents. This indicates that the total heat generated under the
arrangement of (a) is much more than that with uneven current
V. CURRENT DISTRIBUTION EVALUATION distribution. Table 5 also shows the results under the
arrangement of (d), in which three cables are employed as the
Single-core cables in a parallel cable installation can be neutral. In general, there is no much difference of current
arranged in different ways. The typical cable arrangements, distribution in the arrangements of (a) and (d), except that the
which are commonly adopted in 3-phase 4-wire distribution neutral cables may carry small currents in the arrangement of
systems of Hong Kong, are illustrated in Figure 9 (three cables (d) even under balanced load conditions.
per phase). Normally, 400mm2 or 630 mm2 XLPE cables with
stranded copper conductors are used in the cable installations Table 4Current distribution in parallel 400mm2 cables on tray
(Arrangement (c): ABCCBAABCN)
as they have relatively large current-carrying capacity. The Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C
actual selection of cable arrangement depends up on site Cable 1 38.8% 35.2% 32.5%
conditions, electrical contractor's experience as well as Cable 2 31.4% 33.3% 32.1%
preference. Cable 3 29.9% 31.5% 35.5%

Table 5 Current distribution in parallel 400mm2 cables on tray

A A A B B B C C C N (Arrangement d): AAABBBCCCNNN)
(a) Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase N
Cable 1 21.7% 63.7% 62.0% 14.8%
A B C A B C A B C N Cable 2 24.5% 23.0% 20.2% 0.1%
(b) Cable 3 58.8% 52.0% 19.0% 10.4%

A B C C B A A B C N Tables 6-9 show the calculated results of current

(c) distribution in 630mm2 parallel cable installations. It is found
A A A B B B C C C N N N that the pattern of current distribution in both 400m2 cable
installations and 630mm2 cable installations is almost the same.
(d)
Fig. 9. Cable arrangements for current distribution evaluation
The arrangement of (a) or (d) leads the most uneven
distribution in the case of one neutral or three neutral cable(s).
Current distribution among parallel single-core cables under However, the current distribution in the 630mm2 cable
these arrangements was evaluated using the method discussed installations is slightly worse than the 400mm2 cable
in Section III. Tables 2-5 show the calculated results for the installations. This may be caused by less resistance of 630mm2
400mm2 cables. In these tables the currents are expressed in cables. The higher cable resistance could lead to more even
terms of a current ratio (on the base of the total phase current). current distribution among the parallel single-core cables. It is
It is noted form Tables 2 and 4 that the cable arrangement of also found that the total cable current under the arrangement of
(a) leads the most uneven current distribution among the (d) can reach 145% of the total phase current.
cables. One of the cables in phase B is subject to almost 200% Table 6 Current Distribution in Parallel 630mm2 Cables on Tray
of the expected cable current (with the assumption of equal (Arrangement (a): AAABBBCCCN)
current distribution in one phase). In both cable arrangements Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C
of (b) and (c), the cable is subject to 115% of the expected Cable 1 20.7% 67.2% 61.0%
Cable 2 18.8% 15.5% 12.5%
cable current. There is no significant difference in terms of
Cable 3 65.7% 58.3% 28.5%
current distribution between the arrangements of (b) and (c).
However, it is recommended using the arrangement of (c) as Table 7 Current distribution in parallel 630mm2 cables on tray
the magnetic field associated with these cable currents is the (Arrangement (b): ABCABCABCN)
least due to the field cancellation effect. Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C
Cable 1 26.3% 36.0% 40.2%
Table 2 Current Distribution in Parallel 400mm2 Cables on Tray Cable 2 39.2% 33.4% 35.0%
(Arrangement (a): AAABBBCCCN) Cable 3 35.2% 30.3% 26.7%
Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C
Cable 1 22.0% 64.6% 59.5% Table 8 Current distribution in parallel 630mm2 cables on tray
Cable 2 23.4% 21.2% 16.8% (Arrangement (c): ABCCBAABCN)
Cable 3 64.6% 52.9% 25.8% Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C
Cable 1 40.5% 37.5% 33.5%
Cable 2 30.8% 33.3% 31.5%
Table 3 Current distribution in parallel 400mm2 cables on tray
(Arrangement (b): ABCABCABCN) Cable 3 28.6% 29.2% 35.1%
Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C
Table 9 Current distribution in parallel 630mm2 cables on tray
Cable 1 25.7% 34.1% 38.0%
(Arrangement d): AAABBBCCCNNN)
Cable 2 37.8% 33.4% 35.0%
Cable No. Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase N
Cable 3 36.6% 32.9% 28.1%
Cable 1 18.4% 67.6% 65.7% 15.1%
Cable 2 20.7% 17.5% 14.9% 7.1 %
It is found in Table 2 that the summation of cable currents Cable 3 65.5% 60.0% 20.6% 8.0%
in one phase is greater than the actual total current in that phase
under the arrangement of (a). The total cable current in phase B
is almost equal to 140% of the total phase current, which

5
 VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper discussed current distribution associated with
parallel single-core cables installed on galvanized iron tray. A
generic analytical method for solving current distribution
among parallel single-core cables was derived, and validated
experimentally. Empirical formulas of both cable resistance
and reactance in the presence of metal tray were provided in
for analyzing current distribution under different cable
arrangements.
The prediction method is applicable in a multi-phase
distribution system, as long as total phase currents are given or
current sequence is known. Current distribution in practical
cable installations was evaluated also.
It is concluded that the current distribution is affected by
cable characteristics and installation methods. The current
distribution tends to be even if these cables are installed
symmetrically. Cable resistance plays a positive role in
evenness of the current distribution. The distribution becomes
less even if the resistance is smaller, or when the reactance is
comparably larger. It is suggested adopting the cable
arrangement of (c) in parallel single-core cable installations as
this arrangement has the least impact on uneven current
distribution as well as generates the least magnetic field in the
surrounding area.
View publication stats
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work leading to this paper was supported by grants
from the Research Committee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, and the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region.
REFERENCES
[1] K.A. Petty, Power Plant Electrical Reference Series, Vol. 4 Wire and
Cable. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, (EL-5036 Vol.
4), 1987.
[2] A.Y. Wu, “Single-Conductor Cables in Parallel,” IEEE Trans. on IA,
Vol. 20 No. 2, March/April 1984, pp. 377-395.
[3] F.P. Dawson, M. Cao, and P.K., Jain, “A Simplified Approach to
Calculating Current Distribution in Parallel power Busses,” IEEE Trans.
on Magnetics, Vol. 26 No. 2, March 1990, pp. 971-974.
[4] K.A. Petty, “Calculation of Current Division in Parallel Single-Conductor
Power Cables for Generating Station Applications,” IEEE Trans. on
PWRD, Vol. 6 No. 2, April 1991, pp. 479-483.
[5] Y. Du and J. Burnett, “Current distribution in single-core cables
connected in parallel,” IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 148, No.
5, Sept. 2001, pp. 406-412.
[6] IEC 287-1-1: Electric Cables – Calculation of the current Rating, IEC
publication,1997.
[7] IEC 228: Conductors of insulated cables, IEC publication 228, 1978
[8] G.J. Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables, IEEE Press, Now York,
1997.
[9] H.C. Booth, E.E. Hutchings, “Current Rating and Impedance of Cables in
Buildings and Ships,” Report (Ref. F/T115) of the British Electrical and
allied Industries Research Association, 1938.
[10] C. McAllister, Electric cables handbook, Granada, London, 1982
[11] BS Standard BS5467: Cables with the Thermosetting Insulation for
Electricity Supply for rated voltages of up to and Including 600/1000V
and up to and Including 1900/3300V, British Standards Institution, 1989