112 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

Cable Ampacity Calculations:

A Comparison of Methods
Carson Bates, Member, IEEE, Keith Malmedal, Senior Member, IEEE, and David Cain

Abstract—When designing electrical power systems, it is of- with cable loading [1]. This paper compares the difference in
ten necessary to determine underground cable ampacity. Various results obtained when using various methods, including one
methods are in use today, including computer simulation, ampac- recently proposed [1], to include the effects of soil thermal
ity tables, and a method that has recently been suggested that
includes the effects of moisture migration through soil. Each of instability. These methods will include cable ampacities calcu-
these methods can yield substantially different ampacity results lated using the Neher–McGrath method, IEEE Cable Ampacity
for the same installation. Regardless of the method, using the cor- tables, and a commercially available computer program.
rect value of soil thermal resistivity is critical and using the wrong Each of these methods requires some values that must be
value can result in cables that are incorrectly sized. This paper collected at the location where the cable will be installed. These
examines several commonly used methods and their underlying
assumptions. Examples are provided to illustrate the differences include the soil thermal resistivity, also known as “rho” and
in the results obtained from various methods and the consequences measured in Kcm/W (◦ C∗ cm/W), and the maximum expected
of using incorrect assumptions. It is hoped that these examples will ambient temperature, at the depth of the hottest cable. The
provide guidance on the implementation of each method. soil thermal resistivity, while critical, may not be as readily
Index Terms—Cable ampacity, power cable installation, power available as the ambient temperature. IEEE Std. 835 states:
distribution, soil thermal resistivity, soil thermal stability, solar “In the past, when the thermal resistivity of the earth was not
power generation, underground power distribution lines, under- known a rho of 90 was recommended for rating the cable.
ground power transmission lines, wind power generation. However, the ratings for buried cables are significantly
affected by the earth’s portion of the thermal circuit and
I. I NTRODUCTION therefore correct knowledge of the effective soil thermal
resistivity and soil thermal stability is paramount in estab-
U SING accurate cable ampacities is critical to electrical
power system design. An optimally sized cable results in
minimum cost and high reliability. Wind and solar power plants,
lishing the correct rating for a buried cable system [2].”
Measuring the in situ thermal resistivity is not a difficult
in particular, strive to optimize cable design by using ampacities process, as described in [5], but it is frequently not performed.
that closely match maximum generation. It is likely that a cable size will be selected that is either smaller
Cable ampacities have been estimated over the years based or larger than the optimal, if this step is skipped.
on engineering assumptions and site conditions. Various
configurations require different parameters and assumptions.
II. A MPACITY C ALCULATION M ETHODS
Cables placed underground require information about the am-
bient earth temperature, cable separation distance, soil thermal A. Black Books
resistivity, etc. If these values are inaccurately estimated, the
The “Black Books,” entitled AIEE-IPCEA Power Cable
resulting cable size will be inaccurate. This may lead to cable
Ampacities [3], were the first tabulated ampacities using the
overheating, if the cable is undersized, or increased cable cost,
Neher–McGrath method and were published in 1962. This
if the cable is oversized.
allowed an engineer to look up the appropriate cable size
Underground cable ampacity is difficult to estimate because
based on current rather than calculating the cable size using
a primary factor determining ampacity, i.e., soil thermal resis-
Neher–McGrath calculations [4]. Considering the number
tivity, varies from moist to dry conditions, which in turn varies
of calculations needed to determine ampacity using the
Neher–McGrath method, it is obvious why engineers would
Manuscript received December 21, 2014; accepted August 6, 2015. Date
of publication August 31, 2015; date of current version January 18, 2016. prefer using this simplified tabular method. These same tables
Paper 2014-REPC-0990, presented at the 2015 IEEE Rural Electric Power are still used by some engineers today as their primary method
Conference, Asheville, NC, USA, April 19–21, and approved for publication of sizing underground cables.
in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by the Rural
Electric Power Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. It is important to understand the assumptions used to create
C. Bates is with NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc., Arvada, CO 80001 these tables. For example, one assumption used in the tables
USA (e-mail: cbates@neiengineering.com). is that the ambient temperature of the earth is 20 ◦ C. Many
K. Malmedal and D. Cain are with NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc.,
Arvada, CO 80001 USA, and also with the University of Colorado at Denver, locations in the Southwest USA experience the maximum
Denver, CO 80204 USA (e-mail: kmalmedal@neiengineering.com; dcain@ underground soil temperature of 25 ◦ C–30 ◦ C, which reduces
neiengineering.com). the ampacity by 5%–8% below the tabulated values. The tabular
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. values must be adjusted using methods included in the introduc-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2015.2475244 tory pages.
0093-9994 © 2015 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.
BATES et al.: CABLE AMPACITY CALCULATIONS: A COMPARISON OF METHODS 113

Another assumption is that the cable depth is 36 in and the

cable spacing is 7.5 in. If the burial depth was 18 in, this would
increase the ampacity by approximately 10%, and doubling the
spacing would increase it by approximately 6%. Adjustment
factors for these assumptions are not given in the tables; hence,
the Neher–McGrath calculations must be done if conditions of
depth or spacing vary from the assumptions. Furthermore, mod-
ern cables use different insulation material and thickness than
those used in these older tables. In addition, these tables assume
that the cables are not jacketed. All of these assumptions may
present difficulties for a modern user and, if differences are
ignored, can result in cables that are sized too large or too small.
The key assumptions in these tables are listed as follows:
• 20 ◦ C ambient earth;
• 90 ◦ C maximum conductor temperature; Fig. 1. Cable configuration.
• cable shields are single-point grounded;
• 36-in depth; type (e.g., ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) is 350 Kcm/W),
• 7.5-in spacing; allowing the thickness and order of the components to be
• generic rubber insulation; adjusted. Programs are typically advertised as using the Neher–
• thicker than modern insulations for equivalent voltage McGrath method to determine ampacity, meaning that the only
rating; assumptions necessary are those inherent to the Neher–McGrath
• higher thermal resistivity (500 Kcm/W versus modern method.
350 Kcm/W);
• higher insulation power factor resulting in higher di-
electric losses (3.5% versus modern 0.5%). D. Neher–McGrath Adaptation
The method proposed in [1] focuses on the thermal stability
of the soil. All soils increase in resistivity as moisture content
B. IEEE 835 Cable Ampacity Tables
decreases. The suggested method addresses the issue of mois-
In 1994, a new set of tabulated ampacities was issued by ture migration, with a simple procedure to approximate the ef-
IEEE in order to “update the cable constructions and design fective thermal resistance to ambient earth, including the effects
changes that had taken place since the original publication” [2]. of drying. The nondrying heat rate (NHR) and the completely
While maintaining the fundamental calculations set forth by dried soil resistivity must be known, in addition to the in situ
Neher and McGrath, the tables include updated information on soil resistivity. These are used to calculate a dried soil diameter,
cable properties and adjust some of the original assumptions. which is then included in the Neher–McGrath method. The
This includes assuming a 25 ◦ C ambient earth temperature cable ampacity may be calculated with the aid of a spreadsheet,
and cable shields that are shorted (grounded at both ends) for by hand, or by using a computer program that includes the
most cable sizes. The standard also includes some step-by-step capability of adding concentric layers of thermal resistance
examples of the Neher–McGrath method, with updates to ad- surrounding the cable. Another notable feature of this method
dress changes in assumptions of the original method. The steps is that it does not assume that the only heat transfer mecha-
given allow an engineer to develop a spreadsheet to calculate nism of the cable is conduction to ambient earth. Rather, it
ampacity for any cable configuration, which eliminates the need includes the effects of heat transfer by moisture moving through
for the tables except as a convenient check. the soil.
The key assumptions for these tables are given as follows:
• 25 ◦ C ambient earth; III. C OMPARISON
• 90 ◦ C maximum conductor temperature; In order to highlight the differences between these methods,
• cable shields shorted; some examples are provided. Each example involves three
• 36-in depth; single copper conductors that are directly buried 36 in under-
• 7.5-in spacing. ground, as shown in Fig. 1, which is the same configuration
as figure “k” of IEEE 835 [2]. In addition, each example
involves single-point grounded cables, and the design requires
C. Computer Modeling
an ampacity of at least 500 A at 15 kV, with EPR insulation and
Commercially available computer software allows for the tape shielding. A load factor of 100% is assumed.
calculation of cable ampacity by modeling the cable properties
and the physical configuration. The cables can be modeled
A. Site-Specific Data Collection
with the intended design geometry and with the intended ca-
ble type. Programs utilize values of cable constituent thermal To begin the design the in situ soil thermal resistivity and
resistivity as specified by IEEE 835 [2] for each material the moisture content must be measured, as described in IEEE
114 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

Fig. 2. Maximum soil temperature and minimum moisture content per year.

Std. 442 [5] and ASTM D4643 [6]. For this example, the in situ Fig. 3. Soil temperature and moisture content over one year.
soil thermal resistivity has been measured at 90 Kcm/W, at an
in situ moisture content of 8%. It is important to measure soil
resistivity at the minimum soil moisture content occurring at
the site since moisture content has a large effect on resistivity.
In addition, moisture content and resistivity should be measured
at the depth that the cables will be installed.
Determining the minimum moisture content is often difficult
because it may occur at any time during the year and, for
most projects, it is impractical to measure the moisture content
throughout the year. In addition, the minimum moisture content
will vary from year to year, and the year when the soil resistivity
was measured for the design may be abnormally high. This
would result in a low soil resistivity and a cable size that is
too small during a drought.
A practical method to determine the approximate minimum Fig. 4. Soil dry out curve.
soil moisture content involves using the data provided by
the Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) operated by the
National Water and Climate Center [7]. This publicly available the minimum moisture content and maximum temperature that
data provide soil moisture content and soil temperature for result in the minimum ampacity may occur in September com-
various soil depths up to 40 in at locations across the United pared with the maximum temperature occurring in July with
States. From this data, the minimum soil moisture content the minimum moisture content in December. This is obviously
and maximum soil temperature can be found over a period more time consuming than using the minimum annual moisture
of several years. A plot of the minimum soil moisture and content and maximum temperature, which will result in a more
maximum soil temperature over a given year at a depth of 40 in conservative design.
below grade for the soil used in this example is show in Fig. 2. Another piece of information that is needed for the method
The maximum soil temperature and the minimum soil mois- proposed in [1] is the soil dry out curve. This curve is derived
ture content are the conditions that result in the lowest cable from laboratory tests rather than in situ. The laboratory test of
ampacity. Using these extremes will result in a design adequate the soil in this example is shown in Fig. 4.
for all expected environmental conditions. In the case of Fig. 2, This curve provides information on the soil thermal resistiv-
the lowest moisture content is 8%, and the highest soil tem- ity over a range of moisture contents. It should not be used to
perature is 25 ◦ C. Of course, the lowest moisture content may replace the in situ moisture content and thermal resistivity mea-
not occur concurrently with the highest soil temperature. A plot surements, and the in situ soil resistivity at the in situ moisture
of the soil moisture content and the soil temperature over one content may not match that measured in the laboratory. This
year is shown in Fig. 3. This shows the maximum temperature curve is used for determining the dry soil resistivity and the
occurring four months before the minimum moisture content. resistivity at moisture contents other than the one measured in
The designer may choose to use the moisture content and the field. Before it can be used, the curve must be calibrated to
temperature that occur simultaneously rather than the yearly match the in situ measured data. One calibration method is to
minimum moisture content and yearly maximum temperature. use a calibration factor, as suggested in [8], which calibrates the
This would require the examination of multiple combinations of curve found in the laboratory using a comparison between the
moisture content and temperature. The combination that results resistivity found in situ and that shown on the laboratory curve.
in the lowest ampacity would be the one used in the design. Laboratory tests allow for complete dehydration of the soil
The designer must determine the in situ thermal resistivity for but do not permit the ingress of moisture from the surrounding
each moisture content level that is evaluated for determining soil that would normally be experienced in situ. Furthermore,
the ampacity. For example, after examining multiple cases, a reconstituted laboratory sample is unlikely to match the soil
BATES et al.: CABLE AMPACITY CALCULATIONS: A COMPARISON OF METHODS 115

TABLE I which is shown in the per-unit-length form in (2) as follows:

A MPACITY W ITH RHO-90
Dprobe (q̇w,cable + q̇v,cable )
Dcable = (2)
ṁNHR,probe (hv + Cw ΔTcable )
where
Dcable is the outside diameter of the cable (cm);
q̇w,cable is the heat rate due to inflowing water (W/cm);
q̇v,cable is the heat rate due to water vapor (W/cm);
qualities found in the field. As a result, laboratory measure-
ṁNHR,probe is the mass flow rate of water at the probe
ments of thermal properties may not match those measured in situ.
diameter (lb/sec∗ cm);
hv is the latent heat of vaporization of water
B. Cable Sizing Example (1025 kJ/lb);
After the soil data specific to the site has been determined, the Cw is the specific heat of water (1.89 kJ/lb◦ C);
ampacity can be found using various methods. Table I shows the ΔTcable is the temperature difference between ambi-
calculated values of cable ampacity using four different meth- ent earth and the dried soil interface, which
ods, assuming that the soil resistivity remains at 90 Kcm/W, i.e., is the cable diameter in the case of the
the soil does not dry out. NHR (◦ C).
All of these methods result in an equivalent cable size, al-
though there are slight discrepancies in the resulting ampacity. The mass flow rate of water is given in (13) of [1], as shown
These differences can be attributed to the different assumptions in the per-unit-length form in (3) as follows:
used by each method. q̇NHR,cable − q̇c
ṁNHR = (3)
hv + Cw ΔT
C. Soil Drying Consideration
where q̇NHR,cable is the total heat rate at the NHR for the
The effect of soil drying can be checked by measuring the cable (W/cm).
NHR, as described in [1]. This example will use a value of The heat absorbed by inflowing water and the heat trans-
0.53 W/cm as the NHR measured, using a standard probe ferred by water vapor are shown in (4), which is the per-unit-
diameter of 1.5875 cm, as per IEEE 442 [5]. In order to length form of (12) in [1]. That is
determine if soil drying occurs, the NHR can be compared to
the cable heat rate. The cable heat rate for a simple underground q̇w,cable + q̇v,cable = q̇NHR,cable − q̇c,cable (4)
nonshielded low-voltage cable is simply I 2 R W/cm, where R is
the cable resistance per unit length, and I is the expected current where q̇c,cable is the conductive heat rate at the NHR for the
in amperes. For more complex shielded cables and cables at cable (W/cm).
higher voltages, the heat rate can be calculated, as describe by The conductive heat rate at the NHR for the cable can be
Neher and McGrath [4]. A computer program may also be used found, in terms of the NHR, using the same assumption as in
to find the heat rate. The amount of heat a cable can generate (1): that the increase in total heat rate from the NHR at the
before causing the soil to dry is a function of the diameter of probe diameter to the NHR at the cable diameter will result
the cable. The NHR found using the standard probe must be in a proportional increase in each component of the heat rate,
adjusted for the cable diameter before it can be compared to i.e., the heat transferred by conduction, water, and vapor. This
the actual cable heat rate. This can be accomplished by first is shown in (5), which is the per-unit-length form of (20) in [1].
calculating the conductive heat flow rate of the test probe at the That is
NHR using (1), which is (7) in [1]. That is q̇NHR,cable
q̇c,cable = q̇c,probe . (5)
2π(T1 − T2 ) q̇NHR,probe
q̇c,probe =   (1)
4L The NHR for the cable diameter can now be calculated using
ρ ln Dprobe
(2)–(5), as shown in the following derivation.
where Begin by inserting (3) into (2). That is,
q̇c,probe conductive heat rate at the NHR for the test probe Dprobe (q̇w,cable + q̇v,cable )
(W/cm); Dcable = q̇NHR,probe −q̇c,probe
. (6)
hv +Cw ΔTprobe (hv + Cw ΔTcable )
L length of the test probe (cm);
T1 maximum temperature of the NHR test (◦ C); The terms hv + Cw ΔTcable can be cancelled by hv +
T2 ambient temperature of the NHR test (◦ C); Cw ΔTprobe , if the same assumption is made as that in [1].
ρ in situ soil thermal resistivity (using [5]); Inserting (4) into (6) and cancelling the equivalent terms
Dprobe outside diameter of the test probe (cm). results in

The NHR for the cable diameter using the NHR measured Dprobe (q̇NHR,cable − q̇c,cable )
Dcable = . (7)
with a test probe can be derived by beginning with (19) in [1], q̇NHR,probe − q̇c,probe
116 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

Inserting (5) into (7) results in TABLE II

A MPACITY W ITH RHO-120
 
q̇NHR,cable
Dprobe q̇NHR,cable − q̇NHR,probe q̇c,probe
Dcable = . (8)
q̇NHR,probe − q̇c,probe

Rearranging the terms in (8) completes the derivation, which

is shown as

Dcable (q̇NHR,probe − q̇c,probe )

q̇NHR,cable =   . (9)
q̇c,probe
Dprobe 1 − q̇NHR,probe

Using test data of T1 = 36 ◦ C, T2 = 20 ◦ C, and the IEEE

442 [5] standard probe dimensions yield the following q̇c,probe
based on (1): ments, and the designer may choose the highest value shown on
the graph for safety.
2π(36 ◦ C − 20 ◦ C) Using this method, a value of soil resistivity will be selected
q̇c,probe =  4∗120 cm  = 0.196 W/cm. from the laboratory test based on the minimum moisture con-
90 Kcm
W ∗ ln 1.5875 cm tent of 8%. The other values are the same as those used in the
first example. The value of resistivity found from laboratory
Using a cable diameter of 3.2 cm (compact stranded
was approximately 120 Kcm/W. Using the same methods used
350 kcmil) yields the following NHR that is corrected for the
in Table I, results in the ampacities and cable sizes are shown
cable diameter using (9)
in Table II.
3.2 cm(0.53 W/cm − 0.196 W/cm) Comparing Tables I and II shows that all of the cables had to
q̇NHR,cable =   =1.06 W/cm. be increased in size from a 350-kcmil to a 500-kcmil cable, in
1.5875 cm 1 − 0.196 W/cm
0.53 W/cm order to carry the desired 500-A design current. Using a cost of
$9900/1000 ft for 350 kcmil and $12 600/1000 ft for 500 kcmil,
Now that the NHR is known for the cable diameter in increasing the size from 350 kcmil to 500 kcmil would result in
question, a direct comparison can be made to the calculated a 25% cost increase of $2700.00/1000 ft.
cable heat flow rate needed in the design. The Neher–McGrath If the designer relied upon a typical rho of 90 Kcm/W, and
method yields values for the cable heat “W” that are the sum of the actual field rho was 120 Kcm/W, the cable would have been
the losses developed in a cable [4]. The value W is the sum undersized. It would also be operating at higher the desired tem-
of all of the other losses (Wc , Ws , Wp , and Wd ), the most perature, possibly resulting in early failure. Conversely, if the
important of which will be the I 2 R losses. For a direct-buried designer decided to use the conservative value of rho = 120,
cable operating at 15 kV, the conduit losses (Wp ) and dielectric and the rho was only 90, the costs of the larger cable size
losses (Wd ) are zero. For this particular example, the cable heat would be unnecessarily high. In either case, the desirability of
rate, W or q̇cable , is equal to 0.373 W/cm. This is well under obtaining accurate soil resistivity data is evident.
the 1.06 W/cm calculated for this soil; hence, soil drying is
not expected to occur, and no modification is needed for the
calculations due to soil thermal instability [1]. E. Sand Backfill Cable Sizing Example
Sand is often used to backfill cable trenches in a direct-buried
configuration. This protects the cables from damage that might
D. Laboratory Testing Versus In Situ Testing
otherwise occur if native backfill were used containing rocks
A common concern when sizing cables is that the cable will or other debris. Protection against cable damage is required
heat up the surrounding soil enough to dry the soil, thereby by section 300.5 of the National Electrical Code, which states,
raising its resistivity. This phenomenon is thermal instability. “Where necessary to prevent physical damage to the raceway
The result of thermal instability is an increase in the tem- or cable, protection shall be provided in the form of granular or
perature of the cable, causing further drying of the soil and selected material” [8]. In addition, some cable manufacturers
resulting in additional temperature rise. This would continue recommend that “sand or stone-free earth” be used “within
until the temperature rating of the cable was exceeded. This 4 inches of the cable” [9].
dramatic increase in temperature is sometimes referred to as Sand has poor thermal properties compared with many native
thermal runaway, but even a small amount of soil drying may soils when it is dry, and it dries with relatively low heat rates if
be sufficient to result in exceeding a cable’s temperature rating. the surrounding soil does not have high moisture content. For
To avoid this problem, an engineer might choose to use a value the next example, a value of resistivity equal to 90 Kcm/W is
of resistivity that is higher than the value measured in situ. used for the in situ soil with a moisture content of 8%. All other
If in situ measurements are unavailable, the laboratory ther- values are the same as in the first two examples. In addition, a
mal measurements similar to those in Fig. 4 may need to be dry resistivity of 350 Kcm/W is used for the surrounding sand
relied upon. These are commonly higher than in situ measure- layer, and an NHR of 0.1 W/cm will be assumed. Converting
BATES et al.: CABLE AMPACITY CALCULATIONS: A COMPARISON OF METHODS 117

TABLE III IV. C ONCLUSION

A MPACITY W ITH D RIED S OIL I NCLUDED
The assumptions included in several methods for determin-
ing underground cable ampacity have been discussed. The
older Black Books use an ambient earth temperature of 20 ◦ C,
whereas the IEEE 835 tables use an ambient earth temperature
of 25 ◦ C. However, the IEEE tables assume that the cable
the NHR at the test probe diameter to the cable diameter using shields are shorted, whereas the Black Books assume that the
(1), based on test data in sand, yields the following: shields are single-point grounded. Overall, IEEE 835 results in
2π(25 ◦ C − 20 ◦ C) a lower ampacity than the Black Books. Designers must under-
q̇c,probe =  4∗120 cm  = 0.061 W/cm. stand that the assumptions used in preparing these tables may
90 Kcm
W ∗ ln 1.5875 cm not match field conditions where cable is to be installed. Soil
resistivity and ambient temperatures are particularly variable
Note that this equation uses the maximum temperature from site to site.
reached during the NHR test for sand, as well as the thermal Using the Neher–McGrath method, or a software program
resistivity of sand. That is, using that method, allows for calculating cable ampacities
3.2 cm(0.1 W/cm − 0.061 W/cm) using various soil resistivities, ambient temperatures, and shield
q̇NHR,cable =   = 0.20 W/cm. grounding configurations. This reduces the error in the cal-
1.5875 cm 1 − 0.061 W/cm
0.1 W/cm culated ampacity by eliminating the assumptions used in the
tables.
Because the cable heat rate is 0.37 W/cm and the NHR of the Regardless of the method, it is recommended that an in situ
sand surrounding the cable is 0.2 W/cm, soil drying will occur. soil thermal resistivity study be performed rather than attempt-
Equation (8) can be used to determine the extent of drying. ing to utilize only laboratory thermal resistivity measurements
That is, or “typical” values. Performing an in situ test also allows for the
  measurement of the NHR, which can be used in determining
1.5875 cm∗0.373 W/cm 1− 0.061 W/cm the possibility and resulting effects of soil thermal instability.
0.1 W/cm
Ddry soil = = 5.9 cm. Using a higher value of resistivity, whether because the actual
0.10 W/cm−0.061 W/cm
value is uncertain or because of concerns for thermal instability,
This diameter of dried soil can be accounted for by adding can result in larger cable sizes and unnecessary cost increases.
 It may also result in underestimating the effects of thermal
its resistance to Rca , as stated by [1] using (34) in the same
reference and shown in (5) as follows: instability, resulting in future cable failure.
  The method proposed in [1], along with sufficient field and
Ddry soil laboratory testing, allows for a more accurate assessment of
Rdry soil = 0.012ρdry soil log (10)
Dcable the cable size and includes the effects of soil thermal insta-
bility. Soil thermal instability is not otherwise included in the
where Rdry soil is the resistance of the dried soil (thermal ohms) Neher–McGrath method and computer programs derived from
and ρdry soil is the resistivity of the dry sand (Kcm/W). it or in the tables. Including all design and environmental
Solving for the resistance added by the dried sand yields factors relevant to cable ampacity will minimize cable costs by
  preventing oversized cables while preventing early cable failure
350 Kcm 5.9 cm
Rdry soil = 0.012 ∗ ∗ log = 1.12Ωthermal. due to overheated cables.
W 3.2 cm

The effective resistance of the earth portion of the circuit,

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
i.e., Re in [4], must be recalculated for the new diameter of the
 The authors would like to thank D, Portlock of Colorado
dried soil. It can then be added to Rca . This yields a new am-
pacity of 504 A rather than the 541 A previously calculated in Wire & Cable Company Inc. for providing cost estimates for
Table I, which did not include the dried sand. It confirms that a cables described in this paper.
350 kcmil will be adequate to handle the design current of
500 A but is much less than the ampacities calculated in Table I.
R EFERENCES
This result is stated in Table III.
This method addresses the issue of soil drying and the [1] K. Malmedal, C. Bates, and D. Cain, “The measurement of soil thermal
stability, thermal resistivity, and underground cable ampacity,” in Proc.
possibility of thermal runaway by calculating an expected dried IEEE REPC, 2014, pp. C5-1–C5-12.
soil diameter rather than assuming that the surrounding soil [2] IEEE Standard Power Cable Ampacity Tables, IEEE Std. 835-1994,
all dries to a larger resistivity, which would result in installing Sep. 1994.
[3] J. H. Neher et al., “Power cable ampacities,” Elect. Eng., vol. 81, no. 10,
larger than necessary cables. The engineer may still include a pp. 799–800, Oct. 1962.
factor of safety when sizing cables because of the large impact [4] J. H. Neher and M. H. McGrath, “The calculation of the temperature rise
that slight variations of soil resistivity have on the ampacity. and load capability of cable systems,” Power App. Syst., Part III, Trans.
Amer. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 752–764, Apr. 1957.
However, this factor of safety no longer needs to include the [5] IEEE Guide for Soil Thermal Resistivity Measurements, IEEE
risk of thermal runaway. Std. 442-1981, Jun. 1981.
118 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

[6] Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Keith Malmedal (SM’12) received the B.S.E.E.T.
Soil by Microwave Oven Heating, ASTM Std. D4643-08, 2008. degree from the Metropolitan State College of
[7] Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN), National Water and Climate Denver, Denver, CO, USA, the M.S.E.E. degree in
Center, Portland, OR, USA, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.wcc. power and the M.S.C.E. degree in structures from the
nrcs.usda.gov/scan/scan%20brochure.pdf University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, CO, and
[8] Standard Test Method for Determination of Thermal Conductivity of the Ph.D. degree from the Colorado School of Mines,
Soil and Soft Rock by Thermal Needle Probe Procedure, ASTM D5334, Golden, CO.
2014. He has over 20 years of combined experience
[9] National Electrical Code, 2008, Section 300.5. in electrical power system design and system study,
[10] T. P. Arnold and C. D. Mercier, Southwire Power Cable Manual, 3rd ed. teaching, and research, and he is currently a Principal
Carrollton, GA, USA: Southwire Company, 2005. Engineer and the President of NEI Electric Power
Engineering, Inc., Arvada, CO, specializing in power system design. He is also
an Adjunct Faculty Member with the University of Colorado at Denver.
Carson Bates (M’09) received the B.Sc. degree Dr. Malmedal is a Registered Professional Engineer in 25 U.S. States and
in engineering with an electrical specialty (magna the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, Canada.
cum laude) and the M.Sc. degree in electrical en-
gineering in 2013 both from the Colorado School
of Mines, Golden, CO, USA, where he was an David Cain received the Associate of Applied Sci-
intern while working toward the B.Sc. degree with ence degree with two Certificates of Completion
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the from the Community College of Aurora, Aurora,
Advanced Power Electronics for Vehicles Group in- CO, USA, concurrent with his graduation from high
vestigating heat transfer through an insulated-gate school, in 2011. He is currently working toward
bipolar transistor package. the B.S.E.E. degree in electrical engineering at the
Since 2011, he has been a Full-Time Engineer University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, CO.
with NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc., Arvada, CO, where he has had He is a Registered Electrical Apprentice, with
the opportunity to design multiple substations and industrial electrical power three years of field experience: one year of industrial,
systems. He has also spent significant time commissioning substations and one year of commercial, and one year of residential.
electrical installations. He is also with NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc.,
Mr. Bates is a Registered Professional Engineer in multiple states. Arvada, CO.