Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Analysis of underground cable ampacity considering non-uniform soil

temperature distributions
S. Maximov ∗ , V. Venegas, J.L. Guardado, E.L. Moreno, R. López
Department of Electrical Engineering, Instituto Tecnológico de Morelia, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An analytical model for the assessment of cable ampacity due to non-uniform underground temperature
Received 11 August 2015 distribution is presented. The uneven underground temperature is usually caused by a non-uniform
Received in revised form 4 November 2015 surface heating (e.g., a street or parking crossing, etc.), which is extended for certain length along the
Accepted 12 November 2015
cable installation and in depth. The underground temperature distribution is obtained by solving the
heat equation with the respective boundary conditions. The cable ampacity reduction is calculated as a
Keywords:
function of the surface temperature distribution and the cable depth of burial. The model is validated and
Ampacity
several numerical results are obtained for different installation conditions.
Thermal resistivity
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Derating factor
Unfavorable region
Dirichlet problem

1. Introduction There are different approaches for cable ampacity analysis. In

The use of high-voltage underground cables for energy distri-
bution is increasing every year due to their practical advantages,
esthetics, and low environmental impact [1]. In order to improve
cable reliability, it is important to determine the maximum allowed
currents in a given installation. This parameter is helpful to avoid
overloads that may lead eventually to insulation failure or reduced
service life.
Cable ampacity calculation requires the assessment of several
adverse factors that may affect underground cable operational
characteristics, such as soil conditions, thermal conductivities of
cable components, cable geometry, trench profile, trays, backfilling,
bedding properties, burial depth, segments of conduit, radiation
and convection, harmonics currents, etc. [2–11]. The combined
action of all these factors may reduce cable ampacity up to 40%
of its rated capacity [2].
The assessment of cable ampacity for a given installation is basi-
cally a problem of heat dissipation generated in the different cable
components, i.e., conductor, insulation, metallic screen, and cover.
The problem is complicated by the fact that any unfavorable ther-
mal conditions decrease the heat dissipation rate and therefore
cable ampacity must be reduced [2,5,6].
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 443 317 18 70; fax: +52 443 317 18 70.
E-mail address: sgmaximov@yahoo.com.mx (S. Maximov).
general, they can be classified in numerical and analytical models.
Numerical models rely mainly in the finite element method (FEM)
[3,5,6,8,9,12–14]. The impact on cable loading capacity of several
factors like ground surface heat, cable trench profile, concrete and
asphalt cover, mixtures for bedding, both in steady-state and tran-
sient conditions, have been analyzed using this approach in [3]. In
[12], the impact of solar emission and radiation is incorporated into
the FEM. In [14], a comparative study about FEM accuracy in cable
ampacity calculation has been presented.
Several derating factors have been calculated for cables in con-
duits [5]. The derating factors are dependent on conduit length,
soil resistivity, burial depth, and number of cables in the conduit.
In [6], the influence of metallic trays and non-sinusoidal currents
on low-voltage cables ampacity is analyzed, leading to derating
factors influenced considerably by large cable cross-sections and
harmonic loads. In [8], Hwang et al. carried out studies using FEM
in order to obtain derating factors for cables in open-top and cov-
ered trays. The effect of backfilling on cable ampacity is analyzed
in [9,13] and shows that this parameter has a significant effect on
loading capacity.
On the other hand, there are also several studies based on ana-
lytical methods aimed to calculate cable ampacity. In [1], the effect
of a large burial depth is analyzed, and in [2] and [11] some der-
ating factors are proposed. These factors take into account the
influence of burial depth and non-favorable thermal conditions,
like those encountered in street crossing. Some other publica-
tions deal with the development of simplified analytic models for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.11.005
0378-7796/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29 23

calculating thermal conductivity [4], the impact of harmonic In order to find the temperature at any point in the cable, it
currents, and optimization of cable installation for increasing is first required to find the underground temperature distribution
ampacity [7]. In addition, derating factors due to the formation of which varies in two dimensions—along the cable and with depth.
dry zones and the type of backfill around underground cables are This approach is used for modeling with better accuracy the heat
proposed in [10]; the impact of plug-in electric vehicles and the dissipation phenomenon in cable underground installations. So, the
transient heating of underground cables and their thermal degra- following stationary heat equation should be solved:
dation have been analyzed in [15].
∇2 = 0 (1)
From the above review, it is a clear trend to obtain derating fac-
tors dependant on diverse operating and installation conditions. In where, ∇ 2 is the Laplace operator. Eq. (1) should be considered
addition, it is evident that thermal conditions inside underground together with the respective boundary conditions. In this paper,
installation are rarely constant along the installation route. This the boundary conditions in Dirichlet form are taken, i.e., the tem-
may result in a non-uniform temperature distribution along the perature distribution on the soil surface is considered known.
underground cable system and into the ground depth. Temperature Then, according to the chosen system of coordinated axis, the
distribution in the ground is especially important because most of surface temperature can be represented by the formula:
the available right-of-ways are already occupied either by other ⎧
⎪  x < −l
power or communication circuits, and therefore burying cables at ⎨ 2
greater depths is more and more frequent [1]. S = 1 −l ≤ x ≤ l (2)
Usually, the available models for calculating cable ampacity ⎪
⎩
reduction consider an unfavorable region of heat dissipation, as an 2 l<x
area with well-defined borders and constant temperature along the The solution to Eq. (1) with the boundary conditions as in (2)
entire region [11], i.e., street crossing. Under such considerations, has the form [17]:
the ambient temperature can change steeply when the power cable 
crosses the border into an unfavorable thermal region. On the other ∂G (r, r )    
 (r) = − s r dS (3)
hand, the temperature change into the ground depth of this region s ∂ n
is usually neglected.
where, r is the radius-vector, n is the unitary normal vector to
In this paper, an analytical model for calculating cable ampac-
the surface S at the point with the radius-vector r , G(r,r ) is the
ity reduction (derating factors), due to unfavorable regions with a
Green’s function for the Dirichlet problem of the Laplace equation
non-uniform underground temperature distribution, is presented.
(1) [17] which has the form:
The proposed model takes into account the ambient temperature
gradient along the underground cable and into the ground depth.   1 1
G r, r = − (4)
The temperature distribution inside and outside the unfavorable 4 |r − r | 4 r − r ∗
region is obtained by solving analytically the heat equation. The
boundary conditions for the heat equation are taken in Dirichlet where, r* is the radius-vector r = (x , y , z ) reflected with respect
form by assuming that the temperature distribution on the surface to soil surface, i.e., r* = (x , −y , z ). Substituting the Green’s function
is known. (4) and the boundary condition (2) into solution (3) and calculating
the respective integral over the entire soil surface, the underground
temperature distribution can be expressed as a function of two
coordinates:
2. Underground temperature distribution
1 − 2

x+l x−l

 (x, y) = 2 + arctan − arctan (5)
 |y| |y|
Let us consider a high-voltage cable crossing a section of unfa-
vorable thermal conditions of length 2l, with a surface temperature In Fig. 2, the calculated temperature distribution (5) is shown.
 1 , Region 1 in Fig. 1. However, the cable is rated for Region 2, with The surface temperatures in the Regions 1 and 2 are taken as
a surface temperature  2 . The cable is buried at a depth h, and when  1 = 30 ◦ C and  2 = 15 ◦ C, the street width is 4 m. One can observe
crossing Region 2, the cable might be placed in a pipe. that in depth there are no strict borders between Regions 1 and 2,

Fig. 1. Cable crossing an unfavorable thermal region, Region 1.

24 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29

(1)
where, T  4 is the thermal resistance of the air or oil between
(1)
the cable surface and the duct internal surface, T  4 is the ther-
(1)
mal resistance of the duct itself, and is the external thermal T  4
resistance of the duct. The details of the computations of thermal
resistances and other parameters can be found in [2] and [11]. The
equivalent radial thermal resistance in Region 1 or 2 is
() ()
Tt = T1 + n (1 + 1 ) T2 + n (1 + 1 + 2 ) (T3 + T4 ) (10)

where, T1 , T2 , T3 and T4 are the thermal resistances of insula-

tion, oil, jacket and the external medium, respectively. Then, the
conductor temperature can be obtained as follows:
() () ()
 () = amb (x, h) + d + Wc Tt + (Wr − Wc ) Tr (11)

()
where, d is the temperature rise due to dielectric losses:

 

() () ()
d = Wd T1 /2 + n T2 + T3 + T4
Fig. 2. Ambient temperature distribution.
n is the number of conductors in the cable, 1,2 are the sheath and
armor loss factors, Wd are the dielectric losses per unit of length,
and the ambient temperature is changing continuously along the
and the equivalent radial thermal resistance is
buried cable.
() ()
Tr = T1 + n(T2 + T3 + T4 ) (12)
3. Longitudinal cable temperature distribution
The conductor joule losses are
The ambient temperature distribution (5) along the buried cable
is used in the calculation of the longitudinal cable temperature dis- Wc = Wct + W ()
tribution. It is considered that the cable is buried at a depth h.
where:
The ambient temperature  amb (x,h) along the cable at a depth h,  
according to (5), is Wct = Wc0 1 − ˛T 0
1 − 2

x+l x−l
 (13)
W = ˛T Wc0
amb (x, h) = 2 + arctan − arctan (6)
 h h
˛T is the conductor temperature coefficient of electrical resis-
where,  1 and  2 are the surface temperatures in Regions 1 and
tance, Wc0 is the heat rate in the rated cable at the reference
2, respectively in ◦ C, 2l is the length of Region 1 in meters, and
temperature  0 :
h is the cable burial depth in meters. This non-uniform ambient
temperature distribution should be considered in the analysis of I 2 R0
the heat dissipation process in the buried cable.
Wc0 =  
1 + ˛T nom − 0
The heat dissipation in cables is represented by the heat equa-
tion which describes the process of energy losses in radial and Considering (13) into the expression for Wc and substituting this
longitudinal directions. The heat equation for buried cables in an last one, together with Eqs (7) and (8) into (11), we finally obtain
unfavorable environment was obtained in [11]. Here, the heat the heat equation for the cable in the form:
equation for buried cables is modified considering a non-uniform
ambient temperature distribution described by (6). Thus, the 1 d2  () ()
 () − = st (x, h) (14)
energy conservation law for cables is 2 dx2
dWL ()
+ Wr − Wc = 0 (7) Where, st (x, h) is the steady state conductor temperature:
dx
() ()
where, the longitudinal heat flow has the form: () Wct Tt + d + amb (x, h)
st (x, h) = (15)
1 d ()
1 − WTt
WL = − (8)
TL dx 


Wc represents the heat losses generated by the conductor cur- TL 1 − WTt()

rent and Wr is the radial heat flow. TL is the cable longitudinal  = (16)
()
thermal resistivity given by the formula: Tr
c
TL = (9) The two main differences between Eq. (14) and the correspond-
A ing one proposed in [11] are the following:
where, A is the cross-section area of the conductor and c the The ambient temperature in Eq. (6) around the cable is a con-
thermal resistance of the material. The longitudinal resistance of air tinuous function of the coordinate x;
or oil in the pipe or duct is neglected. The radial thermal resistance Eq. (14) contains a new parameter, the depth of installation.
()
of air or oil in the pipe is included in the values of T4 , where,  = 1 Observe that this new parameter allows calculating the under-
or 2 for Regions 1 and 2, respectively. So, the radial external thermal ground cable ampacity as a function of the depth of installation.
resistance in Region 1 has the form: Eq. (14) is a linear non-homogeneous differential equation; and
for each region can be solved by the method of variation of param-
= T  4 + T  4 + T  4
(1) (1) (1) (1)
T4 eters [18]. As a result, the following expressions are obtained:
 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29 25

In Region 1 (0 ≤ x ≤ l): Finally, by substituting Eqs. (19)–(22) into Eqs. (17) and (18), the
cable temperature distribution in Regions 1 and 2 are obtained as
 (1) (x, h) = A cosh ( 1 x) + B sinh ( 1 x) a function of the coordinate x and the depth h of installation.
x
− 1
(1)
sinh [ 1 (x − x1 )] st (x1 , h) dx1 (17) 4. Calculating the ampacity derating factor

l To obtain the ampacity of underground cables in an unfavorable

thermal environment, we should calculate the maximum temper-
In Region 2 (x ≥ l):
ature reached by the cable. The solution form (see, for instance, the
x condition before Eq. (19)) indicates that the maximum temperature
 (2) (x, h) = Ce 2 x + De− 2 x − 2
(2)
sinh [ 2 (x − x1 )] st (x1 , h) dx1 is reached in Region 1 in the point x = 0. From (17), the following
expression is obtained:
l
(18) l
(1) (1)
max (h) =  (0, h) = A − 1 sinh [ 1 y] st (y, h) dy
Formulas (17) and (18) represent the general solution to Eq. (14) 0
in the regions 0 ≤ x ≤ l and x ≥ l, respectively. It is not necessary to
Substituting in the above expression (21), (20) and (19):
solve Eq. (14) in the region x ≤ 0 because the problem under study
is symmetric with respect to the point x = 0; so we can solve Eq. l
(14) for positive x, and the solution for negative coordinates can (1)
max (h) = 1 [
1 cosh ( 1 y) − sinh ( 1 y)] st (y, h) dy
be obtained by reflecting the solution for positive x with respect to
0
x = 0.
In Eqs. (17) and (18), the constants A, B, C, and D can be obtained ∞
by taking into account the following boundary conditions: + 2
2 e− 2 y st (y, h) dy
(2)
(23)
The longitudinal heat flux disappears at the center of Region
1 (x = 0) and in the limit x→∞. The first one is due to the sym- l

metry of the problem, and the second one means that any soil where, the following denotations have been introduced:
non-uniformities and heat sources are far enough from the system 2
under analysis and do not disturb it. 1 sinh ( 1 l) + cosh ( 1 l)

1 = 2
The temperature is a bounded function along the cable. 1 cosh ( 1 l) + sinh ( 1 l)
The cable temperature is a continuous function on the boundary
between the two zones. and
The heat flow is a continuous function on the boundary between 2 2 l
1 e
the two zones.
2 = 2
1 cosh ( 1 l) + sinh ( 1 l)
In the point x = 0, condition 1 has the form:

d (1) (x, h)
Temperature given in Eq. (23) is used for calculating cable
=0 ampacity. Thus, in order to obtain the factor that determines the
dx
x=0 cable ampacity reduction due to unfavorable thermal conditions,
it is necessary to make the maximum cable temperature (Eq. (23))
Substituting the derivative of Eq. (17) into this equation:
equal to the nominal temperature  nom for which the cable was
l rated, i.e.,
(1)
B = − 1 cosh [ 1 x1 ] st (x1 , h) dx1 (19) max (h) = nom (24)
0
Then, this equation should be solved with respect to the current
From condition 2, it follows that: which is contained in the term Wc0 = R0 I2 [1], where, R0 is the con-
()
ductor resistance at  =  0 . Indeed,  max (h) is a function of st (x, h),
lim e− 2 x  (2) (x, h) = 0 according to (23), which is, in turn, a function of Wc0 = R0 I2 (see
x→∞
Eqs. (15) and (13)). Eq. (24) is nonlinear with respect to the term
By substituting (18) into this equation and noticing that some Wc0 . However, in the first iteration, we can neglect the dependence
terms after multiplication by e− 2 x tend to zero, the following can on Wc0 in the coefficients  (16). In this sense, Eq. (24) becomes
be obtained: quadratic for Wc0 , and can be solved with respect to the current as
∞ follows:
2  2  
e− 2 x st (x1 , h) dx1
(2)
C= (20)
2 b/a − b/a − c/a
2
l I = (25)
R0
Finally, from conditions 3 and 4 the constants A and D are
where,
obtained:    
(1) (2)
2 a = ˛T Tt Tt (K1 + K2 ) 1 − ˛T 0 + ˛T nom (26)
1 sinh ( 1 l) + cosh ( 1 l) 2C 2 e 2 l
A = −B + 1
(21)
2
1 cosh ( 1 l) + sinh ( 1 l)
2
1 cosh ( 1 l) + sinh ( 1 l) 1

  
(2) (1) (1) (2) (2)
b= K2 Tt − ˛T L2 Tt + K2 Tt d + Tt L1 + K2 0
2
Be 2 l
2
cosh ( 1 l) − sinh ( 1 l)  
 
1 (1) (2) (1) (1) (2)
D=− + Ce 2 l 2 + K1 (Tt 1 − ˛T 0 − Tt ˛T d ) + Tt + Tt ˛T nom
2
1 cosh ( 1 l) + sinh ( 1 l) 1 cosh ( 1 l) + sinh ( 1 l)
(22) (27)
26 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29

(1) (2) Table 1

c = nom − L1 − L2 − K1 d − K2 d (28)
Cable parameters.

Parameters
l Cable nominal ampacity I (A) 902
K1 = 1 [
1 cosh ( 1 y) − sinh ( 1 y)] dy Number of conductors in the cable n 3
Loss factor (screen) 1 0.010
0 Loss factor (armor or reinforcement) 2 0.311
Conductor resistance at  0 R0 (/m) 24.5 × 10−6
= 1 − cosh ( 1 l) −
1 sinh ( 1 l) (29) (1)
Thermal resistance of insulation T1 (K m/W) 0.422
(1)
Thermal resistance of oil, Region 1 T2 (K m/W) 0.046
(2)
Thermal resistance of oil, Region 2 T2 (K m/W) 0.082
l Thermal resistance of jacket T3 (K m/W) 0.017
(1)
External thermal resistance 100% LF, T4 (K m/W) 1.073
L1 = 1 [
1 cosh ( 1 y) − sinh ( 1 y)] amb (y, h) dy (30)
Region 1
(2)
0 External thermal resistance 100% LF, T4 (K m/W) 0.343
Region 2

∞
External thermal resistance nonunity LF,
(1)
T4 (K m/W) 0.903
K2 = 2
2 e− 2 y dy =
2 e− 2 l (31) Region 1
(2)
External thermal resistance nonunity LF, T4 (K m/W) 0.289
l Region 2
∞ Losses in the conductor
Dielectric losses
Wc (W/m)
Wd (W/m)
19.93
4.83
− 2 y
L2 = 2
2 e amb (y, h) dy (32)
l

(2) (2)
A (h) = d + amb (0, h)
Therefore, the ampacity reduction factor (derating factor) due
to the non-uniformity on cable temperature is equal to (see [11]):
 Tt (2) , Tr (1) , and Tr (2) , are obtained from Eqs. (10) and (12), and the
b− b2 − ac
DF = 2
 (34) characteristic cable coefficients 1 and 2 in the first iteration are
(1) (2)
˛T Tt nom − A
From Eq. (16), the coefficients 1 and 2 are functions of current,
and therefore an iterative process should be implemented in Eq.
(25) in order to obtain the derating factor [11]. In the first iteration,
the nominal current is substituted into 1 and 2 , and the new
current (Eq. (25)), and the respective derating factor (Eq. (34)) are
calculated. In the second iteration, the current calculated in the first
iteration, is substituted into Eq. (16), and the next approximation
for maximum permissible current and the corresponding derating
factor are calculated. This iterative process can be extended until
the current reaches a given tolerance.
In Section 5, the problem of how the non-uniformity of the
underground temperature distribution affects the cable ampacity
is studied numerically with several examples.
5. Numerical results
A 138 kV high-pressure, oil-filled, pipe-type cable with a con-
ductor cross-section of 800 mm2 and a street crossing width of 10 m
1 ,
2 (see above), and Eqs. (26–33) must be calculated. The results
is considered. The cable ampacity rated for the case of a uniform
underground temperature distribution is 902 A. For Region 1, the
soil thermal resistivity under the asphalt is equal to 2.5 Ko m/W and
the asphalt temperature is 45 ◦ C. The surface temperature in Region
2 is 25 ◦ C and the nominal cable temperature is  nom = 70 ◦ C. For the
pipe-type cables, it is common to denote the thermal resistance of
the oil by T2 and the pipe cover thermal resistance by T3 . The value
of T2 varies when changes in the current magnitude and is different
(33) process should be started by assuming that the conductor current
is equal to the steady-state normal conditions, i.e., 902 A. The joule
losses Wc0 are computed at 20 ◦ C. After that, substituting Wc0 into
Eq. (13), we obtain Wct and W. The total thermal resistances Tt (1) ,
calculated according to Eq. (16). The results of these calculations
are presented in Table 2.
Once the cable parameters calculated above are available, it is
possible to obtain the longitudinal cable temperature distribution,
Eqs. (17) and (18), in Regions 1 and 2, respectively. Such cable
temperature distribution can be obtained for any installation con-
ditions, such as different depths of burial and surface temperature
distributions.
Fig. 3 shows the temperature distribution along the cable due to
unfavorable thermal conditions for different surface temperatures
in Regions 1 and 2. The cable is buried at the depth h = 1 m. One
can observe that in Region 2, far from the center of the unfavorable
region, the temperature in the cable tends to its rated value of 70 ◦ C.
When moving from Region 2 to Region 1, the cable temperature
increases continuously, reaching its maximum value at the center
of the unfavorable Region 1. For example, for the surface tempera-
tures  1 = 45 ◦ C and  2 = 25 ◦ C, the maximum cable temperature is
 max = 168.72 ◦ C.
In order to obtain the derating factor, the additional parameters
of this calculation are presented in Table 2. Then, Eq. (34) yields the
ampacity derating factor: DF = 0.49956.
Table 2
Cable calculated parameters.
Parameters Parameters
(2)
in both regions. So, it should be adjusted during the iterations. The Wc0 16.657 W/m d 7.424 K
following equation is used to calculate T2 [19]. Wct 15.348 W/m
1 0.9997
W 0.06546 W/m
2 11.2712
0.26 (1)
Tt 4.207 K m/W a 0.03726
T2 = T4 = (35) (2)
1 + 0.00056m De Tt 1.883 K m/W b 2.52183
(1)
Tr 3.32 K m/W c 11.0384
where,  m is the mean oil temperature (◦ C) and De (mm) is an (2)
Tr 1.586 K m/W K1 0.97105
outside diameter for one core. The parameters required for the TL 2.574 K/mW L1 40.8803
analysis, are shown in Table 1 according to the IEC-287 [20,21]. 1 0.749 m−1 K2 0.02895
Some of the parameters to be calculated, such as Wc0 , 1 and 2 , 2 1.193 m−1 L2 0.89262
(1) (2)
d 17.480 K A 49.9104
are functions of the cable current. Then, as noted above, the iterative
 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29 27

Table 3
Ampacity and derating factor under different surface temperatures and depth of burial (2l = 10 m).

Surface temperature [◦ C] Cable depth of burial [m]

h=1 h=2 h=3

1 2 DF I [A] DF I [A] DF I [A]

20 25 0.587 529.385 0.586 528.190 0.585 527.320

25 25 0.578 521.376 0.578 521.376 0.578 521.376
30 25 0.567 511.085 0.569 512.914 0.570 514.207
35 25 0.551 497.365 0.557 502.118 0.560 505.387
40 25 0.530 478.129 0.541 487.856 0.548 494.267
45 25 0.498 449.127 0.519 468.113 0.532 479.803

Table 4
Ampacity and derating factor under different surface temperatures and width of the street (h = 1 m).

Surface temperature [◦ C] Street width [m]

2l = 10 2l = 20 2l = 30

1 2 DF I [A] DF I [A] DF I [A]

20 25 0.587 529.385 0.582 525.047 0.582 525.210

25 25 0.578 521.376 0.571 514.808 0.571 514.652
30 25 0.567 511.085 0.556 501.352 0.555 500.692
35 25 0.551 497.365 0.535 482.856 0.534 481.300
40 25 0.530 478.129 0.505 455.763 0.502 452.568
45 25 0.498 449.127 0.457 411.948 0.449 405.056

Once calculated the derating factor, we can calculate the derated calculating the derating factor and cable ampacity are presented
current in the first iteration as follows: for different installation conditions.
In Fig. 4, the cable ampacity as a function of the surface tem-
IDF = Inom DF = 902 × 0.49956 = 450.605 A perature in Region 1 for different depths of burial and temperature
 2 = 25 ◦ C in Region 2, is shown. From Fig. 4, it can be seen that for
This current magnitude is used in the next iteration in order
deeper installations, the cable ampacity is higher with the condition
to recalculate Joule losses and the thermal resistance of the oil.
 1 ≥  2 . This is because the ambient temperature and its gradient
In total, four iterations have been executed. Finally, the following
along the cable are reduced for large depth of installation, and
derating factor and derated current are obtained: DF = 0.498 and
therefore the heat dissipation is more intensive at these depths.
IDF = 449.127 A.
In Fig. 5, the ampacity variation versus depth of burial is shown for
In reference [11], the derating factor is calculated under the
different temperatures on the soil surface. In this figure, it can be
same conditions but with a uniform surface temperature distribu-
observed that cable ampacity changes faster for smaller depths.
tion of  1 =  2 = 25 ◦ C. The obtained value is DF = 0.579. The ampacity
In Fig. 6, how the street width affects cable ampacity is shown.
model proposed in this paper yields for the same surface temper-
Three curves of ampacity variations with depth and different sur-
ature distribution the derating factor value DF = 0.578. From the
face temperature distributions are shown. One can clearly observe
above, it shows that the model developed in [11] is a particular
the ampacity reduction when increasing the width of the unfavor-
case of the ampacity model presented in this work.
able region. Note that l is half the total width of this region. For a
These parameters are obtained for the depth h = 1 m and the
width greater than 8 m, the ampacity tends to stabilize and there is
surface temperatures  1 = 45 ◦ C and  2 = 25 ◦ C in Regions 1 and 2,
not a significant variation with the width change.
respectively. In order to study how the derating factor and the
From the analysis presented above, one can conclude that cable
ampacity depend on the depth of burial and the surface temper-
ampacity decreases up to 50.8% with respect to its nominal value
ature distribution, all the calculations mentioned above should
when h = 1 m and the surface temperature reaches  1 = 45 ◦ C and
be executed for each condition. In Tables 3 and 4, the results of
 2 = 25 ◦ C in Regions 1 and 2, respectively. Of course, for higher

Fig. 3. Temperature distribution in the cable for different surface temperature dis-
tributions. Fig. 4. Ampacity behavior for different surface temperatures and depths of burial.
28 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29
Fig. 5. Ampacity dependence with the depth of burying for different surface tem-
peratures.
Fig. 6. Ampacity dependence on the asphalt temperature for different widths of the
street.
street temperature surfaces this effect is also increased. On the
other hand, this effect is less severe for increasing depth of cable
burial; for example, using the same temperature data and h = 3 m,
cable ampacity decreases only 46.8%, see Table 3.
Also, for a greater depth of cable burial cable ampacity tends to
stabilize, and for depths greater than 8 m, their magnitudes do not
change significantly, see Fig. 5. In turn, if the street width increases
from 2l = 10 m to 2l = 30 m, cable ampacity decrease from 49.8% to
44.9%. These calculations are for h = 1 m and surface temperatures
of  1 = 45 ◦ C and  2 = 25 ◦ C, see Table 4.
6. Conclusions
In this work, an analytical model for the assessment of cable
ampacity due to a non-uniform underground temperature distri-
bution has been presented. The uneven underground temperature
distribution is usually caused by a non-uniform surface heating like
a street or parking crossing. Thus, by solving the Dirichlet problem
for the heat equation, it has been shown that the underground tem-
perature distribution is non-uniform both along the cable and in
depth of burial. Therefore, cable ampacity depends not only on the
width of the unfavorable region but also on the surface tempera-
ture distribution and on the depth of burial. By using this approach,
a more realistic model for calculating temperature distribution in
the soil yields a better estimation of cable ampacity.
The proposed improved formulation for ampacity estimation
problems depends completely on the correctness of modeling of
the heat source term in Eq. (35). In general, this term can depend
on many factors like the thermal properties of the conductor, insu-
lation, duct, soil, etc. But first of all, this term, and consequently Eq.
(35), depends nonlinearly on the cable current. Therefore, unlike
Eq. (1), Eq. (35) cannot be considered as independent from Eq. (14).
This can involve some mathematical difficulties when solving the
system of Eqs. (35) and (14). As a possible solution to those difficul-
ties, an iterative method can be considered. In this iterative method
the effect of the environment heating by the cable is neglected in
the first iteration and the system of Eqs. (1) and (14) is obtained.
From this point of view, the results of this paper can be consid-
ered as the first iteration of the system of Eqs. (35) and (14). Future
works will be focused in the analytic solution of this non-linear
problem.
The numerical results presented validate the proposed model
and show that this is a more general formulation than the one
presented in [11]. Once validated, cable ampacity is analyzed
considering some variations in parameters typical of cable instal-
lations.
The authors believe that the proposed cable ampacity model
can be improved still further by incorporating the heating of the
environment by the cable itself. However, it is evident that during
operation, the cable heats the surrounding medium, in turn, avoids
heat dissipation in the cable and therefore increases the cable tem-
perature. As a result, the cable ampacity decreases. For an exact
estimation of the environment heating by the cable and how it
affects the cable ampacity, the heat Eq. (1) should be modified. Such
modification with the respective boundary condition should take
the form:

∇ 2  = −W (r)
(36)
 = S (x, z)
S
where, W(r) is the heat source, i.e., the heat emitted by the cable
in the volume unit;  S (x,z) is the temperature distribution on the
soil surface. Thus, the system of the partial differential Eq. (36) and
the ordinary differential Eq. (14) should be considered. This is a
topic of research in future works.
References
[1] Eric Dorison, George J. Anders, Frederic Lesur, Ampacity calculations for deeply
installed cables, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25 (2) (2010) 524–533.
[2] H. Brakelmann, G. Anders, Ampacity reduction factors for cables cross-
ing thermally unfavorable regions, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 16 (4) (2001)
444–448.
[3] J. Nahman, M. Tanaskovic, Determination of the current carrying capacity of
cables using the finite element method, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 61 (2002)
109–117.
[4] G. De Mey, V. Chatziathanasiou, A theoretical model for effective thermal
conductivity of multicore power cables, Elect. Power Syst. Res. 87 (2012)
10–12.
[5] Pascal Vaucheret, R.A. Hartlein, W.Z. Black, Ampacity derating factors for cables
buried in short segments of conduit, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 20 (2) (2005)
560–565.
[6] C. Demoulias, D.P. Labridis, P. Dokopoulos, K. Gouramanis, Influence of metallic
trays on the ac resistance and ampacity of low-voltage cables under non-
sinusoidal currents, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 78 (2008) 883–896.
[7] D.A. Zarchi, B. Vahidi, M.M. Haji, Optimal configuration of underground cables
to maximize total ampacity considering current harmonics, IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib. 8 (6) (2014) 1090–1097.
[8] C.C. Hwang, J.J. Chang, H.Y. Chen, Calculation of ampacities for cables in trays
using finite elements, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 54 (2000) 75–81.
[9] F. de León, G.J. Anders, Effects of backfilling on cable ampacity analyzed
with the finite element method, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 23 (2) (2008)
537–543.
[10] Ossama E. Gouda, Adel Z. El Dein, Ghada M. Amer, Effect of the formation of the
dry zone around underground power cables on their ratings, IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv. 26 (2) (2011) 972–978.
[11] G.J. Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables in Unfavorable Thermal Environ-
ment, IEEE Press Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005.
[12] J. Nahman, M. Tanaskovic, Evaluation of the loading capacity of a pair of three-
phase high voltage cable systems using the finite-element method, Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 81 (2011) 1550–1555.
[13] M.S. Al-Saud, M.A. El-Kady, R.D. Findlay, A new approach to underground cable
performance assessment, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 78 (2008) 907–918.
 S. Maximov et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 132 (2016) 22–29 29

[14] J. Nahman, M. Tanaskovic, Calculation of the ampacity of medium voltage self-
supporting cable bunch, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 93 (2012) 106–112.
[15] J.S. Marshall, P.D. Hines, J.D. Zhang, F. Minervini, S. Rinjitham, Modeling the
impact of electric vehicle charging on heat transfer around underground cables,
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 97 (2013) 76–83.
[17] V.S. Vladimirov, Equations of Mathematical Physics, Mir, Moscow, 1984 (Edit.).
[18] E.A. Coddington, N. Levinson, Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955 (Ed.).
[19] George Anders, Rating of Electric Power Cables: Ampacity Computations for
Transmission, Distribution and Industrial Applications, IEEE Press/McGraw Hill,
NY, USA, 1997.
[20] J.H. Neher, M.H. McGrath, The calculation of the temperature rise and load
capability of cable systems, AIEE Trans. Part III—Power Appar. Syst. 76 (1957)
752–772.
[21] Calculation of thermal resistances, IEC., Standard 287, Part 2-1 1994.