High Voltage Cable Ratings

Muhammad Nurazlan Jamaluddin School of Electronic and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton, SO17 3BJ, United Kingdom mnj104@ecs.soton.ac.uk

Abstract :
Cable rating can be determined by calculating the ampacity of the cable, also known as ampacity. The method which can be used to determine the rating is varied but most of them are based on Neher-McGrath method which has been used for more than 50 years. The importance and concept of cable rating in underground cable transmission as a way to reduce installation cost as well as improving the cable performances have been discovered by researchers all over the world. This paper firstly presents background theory of heat transfer mechanism in cable systems, as well as history of cable rating methods and factors which affects the rating. The current standards which is the analytical method is then described along with other numerical rating method used which enhanced the accuracy of the cable rating, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each method studied on this topic. Finally, each method are thoroughly explained and compared to each other in terms of performance and reliability. Some papers were then critically evaluated; taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of each method and a new idea were suggested.

throughout its life without risking damage due to excessive heat. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the modern techniques of rating a high voltage cable where complex thermal environment is expected. The power rating should be as accurate as possible in order to manage the transmission system effectively. Power cables should be operated at a tolerable temperature level to steer clear of overheating of cable insulation. By using the power cable above its maximum temperature levels, the cable insulation will age faster and subsequently increasing the maintenance cost. Therefore, a rating is made for the power cables and the load-current rating of a cable can be determined by its maximum operating temperature by using well-known methods such as the Neher-McGrath method and the IEC 60287 standard.There are also a number of parameters which heavily influenced the cable ratings such as the cable depth, weather conditions and few others. This parameter will give different effects on different times of day, therefore the worst case condition will be considered so that even in the worst condition the maximum operating temperature will not be exceeded. The present method such as given in IEC 60287 makes a few assumptions in order to simplify the calculation which means the cable ratings are not 100% accurate. While these are still within the acceptance region; improving the precision of the ratings is still important due to the needs of increasing the cable circuit current carrying capability to its maximum limit. Factor such as cable losses are also examined in finding the ratings. Modern techniques such as finite element analysis (FEA) modeling and finite difference analysis are some of the new methods used and their advantages, approaches and results are studied in this project to discover the best possible cable rating method.

1. Introduction
It is well-known that underground power cables are more expensive compared to overhead lines in terms of maintaining and its installation. The cost of installation comes from a various reason such as the high cost of materials, equipment, labor, and time required to manufacture and install the cable. Thus it is necessary to use their full capacity due to its large cost of investment. On the other hand, conductor temperature of a power cable limits its ampacity (i.e., maximum allowable temperature for XLPE insulated cables is 90C). Cable rating can be said as their current carrying capacity which the cable can permit

1.1Thermal (Heat) Transfer in Cables The rate of heat dissipation is the major factor needs to be considered in order to calculate the current carrying capacity of cables, as the heat is supposed to be transferred away from the cables to ensure that the maximum operating temperature is not exceeded. This is important to ensure the ageing process of the cable is not accelerated since a excellent heat transfer mechanism can ensure that the excess heat can be transferred to the surroundings in order to prolong the life of the cable.[7] Heat transfer mechanism in underground cables are mostly by conduction from the conductor to the other parts of the cable and finally to the surrounding medium. Convection and radiation on the other hand is commonly found in cables exposed to air but as the paper discuss more on the underground cable transmission it will not be discussed further. In order to understanding ampacity, we have to understand heat transfer [22]. The definition of ampacity has been given by Del Mar in 1951 is the current carrying capacity of the cable itself. It has to meet the conditions of use without exceeding its temperature rating [1]. It is determined by the ability of the cable to extract heat and then dissipate them to the surroundings.

simplifications. Consequently, investigation of complex configurations will be not suitable since part of the complex content is not considered. As a solution, the finite element method (FEM) has been introduced to solve the problem. This is mainly due to its capability to handle geometrical modeling complexity by means of solving problems that are demonstrated by partial differential equations, using numerical techniques. The area to be analyzed is represented as a gathering of finite elements. Approximating functions in finite elements are defined in terms of nodal values of a physical field. In this paper, current rating calculations for power cables in steady-state conditions were discussed using IEC 60287, finite difference, finite element method and few other methods which have been used. The results for each method is then discussed and compared by using a table. Fundamental concepts for each method are also discussed while the numerical method for simple calculation as in the IEC 60287 is performed. One of the most important needs in power cable engineering and operation is to have information about the maximum currentcarrying capacity which a cable can tolerate throughout its life without risking deterioration or damage. Because computations of cable ampacities are generally quite involved, it is a common practice for cable engineers to use ampacity tables or to perform approximate calculations to determine the cable size and type to be used for a particular application. This practice often leads to the installation of oversized cables, thus unnecessarily increasing costs [11] The analytical techniques discussed above are useful to ensure the right value of cable rating is achieved in order to save cost and optimizing performance. 2.1 Parameters Involved In Cable Rating Calculation

Figure 1 : Typical Single Core XLPE cable

2. Cable Rating
One of the common methods to determine a cable rating is the Neher-McGrath method which was proposed for calculating ampacity of underground cable by Neher-McGrath in 1957 .This method is proven to be successful as it has been used and widely accepted for more than 50 years. As of today, the most utilities and cable manufacturers have been using the IEC-60287 standard .However, this has few disadvantages. Firstly, a lot of simplifications are involved and few limitations has aroused due to its

Dielectric Losses Most cables used nowadays are consists of oil or paper insulation. This insulator will then behave as large capacitors with charging currents present whenever the alternating voltage is applied. In theory, the electrons in the material will realign every time the voltage is applied. This will produce heat due to friction that arises from the movement of the electrons. The heat is treated as losses and it is proportional to the capacitance, the phase voltage, the frequency and the loss factor (or power factor tan ). The losses however are only significant in high

voltage applications since the current involved is fairly large. Joules losses in the conductor Heat is generated whenever a current passes through a conductor and the heat generated is measured in Joules. As a safety measure, the heat must be transferred to the surroundings i.e. air or soil. One way of doing that is by keeping the resistance of the conductor to a minimum in order to reduce this heating effect. This resistance is mainly due to two factors, skin and proximity effects.

the thickness of the dielectric. To improve the accuracy of the approximate solution using lumped constants, Van Wormer, in 1955, proposed a simple method of allocating the thermal capacitance between the conductor and the sheath so that the total heat stored in the insulation is represented. Since the thermal properties are directly involved with resistance and capacitance, correlation between electrical and thermal networks exists.

Equation 1 : Correlation between thermal and electrical

Thermal capacitance is then

Figure 2: Effects of skin and proximity

Thermal resistances Thermal resistance is the properties of a material which resist the heat from flowing away off the material. This property even exists in metallic components even though it is only a small amount of resistance and can be neglected in most calculations. An analogy between electrical resistance and thermal resistance are shown in the figure below:

Equation 2 : Thermal Capacitance Formula

Where

V = Volume (m )

c = Specific heat (J/(m K)) D = internal diameter (m) D = external diameter (m) Dielectric losses are the main concern when dealing with thermal capacitance.
2 1

3. Cable Rating Methods

Neher-McGrath
Figure 3 : Thermal Circuit

Figure 4 : Equivalent electric circuit for the thermal circuit

Thermal capacitances Many cable-rating issues are time dependant. This is typical where two circuits are sharing equal load and suddenly one of the circuits switches off. The load increase on the cable in service causes a slow change in the increase in temperature distribution within the cable and the surrounding environment. As Anders (1997, p 39) describes, The thermal capacity of the insulation is not a linear function of

Since its publication in 1957, the Neher- McGrath technique has been widely accepted as the standard for determining the current-carrying capacity of underground cable installations. Few assumptions had to be used in this method in order to simplify the ampacity calculations. [7] The method uses only the steady-state equations as this is based on assumptions that radial heat has been constant for a long time. Another assumption made is that they assume that cables used are infinitely long cable with heat uniformly distributed along its length so that end effects can be neglected. However, longitudinal heat transfer from cable to termination or vice versa is not discussed since their contribution minimal.

Francisco de Leon and Anders has discussed the effects of this T4 term using finite element.[26] With this method, a parametric study on how cable ampacity is affected by different configurations of the backfills is performed. Comparison of IEC 60287 with Neher-McGrath
Equation 3: Neher-McGrath Equation

NeherMcGrath Steady-state ampacity simulations Transient ampacity Eddy Losses Using imperial

IEC 60287

IEC 60287 This IEC 60287 gives a simple analytical method for calculation of current ratings. This approach however makes few assumptions [11] in which will not be suitable for some cases such as that there are regions of homogenous material and therefore isotropic thermal conductance within regions including the backfill region (either wet or dry condition); a fixed uniform ambient temperature for all regions prior to current application and heating from dielectric loss is assigned to a single point in a simple 1-D thermal conductances ladder network. According to the IEC 60287 publication, the cable rating can be calculated by using this formula [11]: Thermal Resistances Using metric

Explicit equations - Triangular configurations only - Magnetic armors are not considered - No distinctions between trefoil and flat configurations - Do not consider in details unequally loaded cables.

Detailed methodologies -Triangular and flat configurations - Magnetic armors are considered - Gives expressions for geometric factors of three cores, oil-filled, belted cables. - Consider more insulation materials

Equation 4 : IEC 60287 Formula

Where; is temperature rise above ambient for the cable conductor, T1, T2, T3, T4 are equivalent thermal resistances calculated from the cable material thermal properties and geometry. R is the electrical resistance of the cable conductor, n the number of conductors per cable and 1 2 are multipliers for sheath and armour losses respectively. T4 is the cable external thermal resistance and is dependent on the proximity of other cables and burial depth, a working a parameter for this study. The external thermal resistance T4, depends on the diameter of the cable, the depth of laying, the thermal characteristics of the soil, mode of installation and on temperature rise generated by neighboring cables.

Table 1 : Comparisons of Neher-McGrath and IEC 60287

Alternative Numerical Methods The usefulness of the numerical methods on the other hand are used to work out the temperature distribution within the cable and also its surrounding when the heat generated within the cable is given (this is particularly useful the temperature field and specific isotherms around the cable has to be determine). But, when numerical methods are used to determine cable rating, an iterative approach has to be used for this purpose. This is done by specifying a certain conductor current and then calculating the equivalent conductor temperature. After that, the current is adjusted and then repeated for the

calculation until the specified temperature is found convergent within a specified tolerance. In short, these will include finite difference methods, boundary element methods, the superposition method described in Electra 87 as well as the approaches that include conformal transformation and the finite difference method.[5] Refinements of Neher-McGrath It has been identified that there have been a number of researches done in order to improve the accuracy of cable ratings specifically using the Neher-McGrath method. As Sellers and Black proposed in [24], there are few refinements that can be made for this matter. This refers to their mathematical model based on numerous assumptions, and furthermore some of them were based by the computing capabilities of the 1950's and therefore considered the best available at that time. Nevertheless, more accurate results can be achieved in this modern day through the growing number of recent developments which greatly upgraded and enhanced the underground ampacity model. Firstly, the mutual heating parameter factor and how it removes the assumption that all cables must generate the same amount of heat. This refinements hence can improved the accuracy of ampacity calculations when the currents flowing in the metallic shield results to an imbalanced heating between the cables [24]. Sellers and Black proposed that this method can increase the ampacity value by up to 7 percent which is quite remarkable for certain cable installations system. For the second refinement, the correlation used to calculate the thermal resistance of the air or oil layer that surrounds pipe-type cables or cables in ducts are involved. By replacing the old heat transfer model, more accurate and realistic ampacity values can be obtained. . In this refinement on the other hand, greater increment of ampacity value is proposed, which is up to 11 percent. Meanwhile, the third refinement considers the calculation of the thermal resistance of a rectangular duct bank. Finite Difference Method The first numerical method to be discussed is the finite difference methods (FDM). This method is normally used in the study of electric stress distribution in cable joints and terminations. The strong advantage of this method is it excels in three dimensional cable problems. From researches, it has been proven that FDM is better than FEM in solving

this particular problem. This is mainly due to difficulties when using FEM to model of long thin objects, such as cables considering it in three dimensions. However, FDM also has it major drawback which is not suitable for modelling curved surfaces since it is intended for use with rectangular elements. Finite Element Method The second method is finite element method (FEM). There is an IEC publication named IEC 62095 which solely concentrated on dealing with calculating ampacity by means of this finite element method. The major points of this method is it can solve complex partial differential equations problems that been used in studying the heat transfer of cables. The fundamental concept of the finite element method is that temperature can be approximated by a discrete model composed of a set of continuous functions defined over a finite number of sub-domains. The piecewise continuous functions are defined using the values of temperature at a finite number of points in the region of interest (IEC 62095, p15). Researches point out that the thermal conductivity of surrounding medium are the major factor which determines the current carrying capacity of power cables are largely determined by. Therefore, the heat transfer mechanism of cables can be studied in order to find the ampacity of the cables. Since the heat transfer phenomenon around power cables is often portrayed by partial differential equations, it can be said that the finite element method is one of the best method available. The fundamental concept of FEM is simple. Firstly, nodal points or nodes are identified. These nodes are a finite number of points in the solution region and then the temperature at each node is classified as the variable to be found out. A finite number of subregions called elements are then formed by dividing the region to be studied. The small elements are all connected by common nodes and finally the temperature is approximated over each element by a polynomial that is defined using nodal values of the temperature. [27] In solving the cable ratings problem, the model is normally defined in two dimensional plane of x and y. The shapes of those elements are either triangular or quadrilateral in shape as shown in the figure below. The plane shape is determined by the number of nodes as in triangle for three nodes and quadrilateral for four nodes.

The accuracy of calculation can be controlled by several parameters such as the size of the region, the size of the elements constructed by mesh generator, the type and location of region boundaries, the representation of cable losses, and the selection of the time step in transient analysis.[27]
Figure 6 : Mesh Generated for Finite Element Method

Other Methods Apart from the method discussed above, there are a few method which has been used such as boundary element methods and superposition method. Taking boundary element method as an example, it need less effort in defining the input data and use less computer time than FEM. This is usually good since less usage of computer time is such a good advantage. However, the lack of ability to do the transient analysis makes this method is less favourable. On the other hand, superposition method is also a good method. It is described in Electra 87 for the calculation of the response of single core cables to a step function thermal transient and it has a number of advantages over FEM. Firstly, it requires relatively little modelling data such that the nodes required are only a fraction of what needed in finite element method. Hence it is suitable for real time rating systems. Superposition also can develop as an approximate method to be used when two different cable backfills exist. Another advantage of this method is that they can be used as a basis for calculating transient temperatures for three dimensional problems such as occurs in cable joint bays and systems with separate water cooling as well as calculating mutual heating between crossing cables. Although this superposition method is suitable for many cable rating problems, it is not well suited to problems involving a large number of cables and complex geometry.[27] Example Cases Cables in trays In this case, Hwang, Chang and Chen [23] describe a finite element method for calculating the ampacities of cables in a tray. They used Galerkins procedure and the Newton-Raphson iterations to solve nonlinear finite element equations as a result of the inclusion of radiation boundary conditions. They proposed the used of an equivalent thermal conductivity of cable mass in a tray.

Figure 5 : Quadratic Triangular Element and Triangular or Quadrilateral Element

Generation of a Finite Element Mesh One of the main difficulties in using this Finite Element Method is to generate the mesh in order to solve the engineering problems involved in this cable rating calculation method. The main requirement while generating the mesh is that the mesh should be based on the geometry of the system such that the system boundaries are accurately presented. Moreover there are certain areas in the system that requires accurate solution. This leads to the elements created to be as small as possible. This surely brings difficulty in terms of solution time and storage. Therefore it can be said that while the results obtained from this method is better, the method is rather tedious compared to the IEC 60287 method. Currently there is a lot of commercial software packages that has been used to generate this mesh since all the other parts involved in the FEM method do not consume time as much as this part. Some of the software packages are such as CYMCAP, USAMP and ETAP. All of this software packages not only saves time to generate mesh but also able to gives the best solution without much hassle. Hwang, Chang and Chen had succeeded to calculate ampacities for cables in trays using the finite element method [23]. They used the finite element thermal model for calculating the ampacity of the open-top and covered tray by taking into consideration the convection and radiation boundary conditions. The method is quite general such that it is capable of modeling any configuration of cable tray.

Cables in ducts Anders[2] has present a finite element analysis with an exact method of modeling the heat flux distribution in the region between the cables and the retaining duct in the underground power transmission system. The outcome of this paper is that, the heat flux on the inside surface of the retaining duct is shown not uniform, opposing general assumption made in normal cable ampacity calculations. In fact, the heat flux is maximum at the top where the convection induced flux is much stronger than at the bottom or elsewhere around the duct. Laboratory experimental procedure is also done for verification purposes. 154kv single underground cable Aras [11] has shown in this paper that insulation thickness of a cable affects the permissible maximum current and heat transfer from the cable. On top of that it is also proven that higher insulation thickness blocks the heat generated in the conductor.

not compatible for transient analysis. Yet, it requires less data input and computational processes so this might gives advantage to some. For isothermal boundary condition on the other hand, does give a closely matched result as shown in [13]
Finite Element Method Accurate rating possible due to multiple iteration process Tedious mesh generating task Modelling curved surfaces Complex cable installations Finite Difference Method Three dimensional cable problems Superposition Requires relatively little modelling data Boundary element Less data input and computational processes

Advantage

Disadvantage

Only suitable for use with rectangular elements Study of electric stress distribution in cable joints and terminations i.e. modelling long thin objects Modelling curved surfaces

Suitable for

Accuracy reduced when used for complex geometry Calculation of the response of single core cables to a step function thermal transient

Not compatible for transient analysis Simple rating calculation or steady-state rating

4. Comparison and Discussion

It can be deduced that the classic analytical methods used are subject to assumptions that have to be made. These assumptions however are avoided in numerical methods such as finite element, finite difference and boundary elements. Not only has it overcome certain limitations that the classical methods cannot solve accurately, it is also proven to give a much better cable rating compared to the analytical method discussed, albeit the method is much more complicated. The iterative approach is then used to calculate the ampacity of the cables. This method is done with multiple iterations by specifying a certain parameter such as conductor current and calculating the corresponding conductor temperature. The current is adjusted and the calculation repeated until the specified temperature is found convergent within a specified tolerance (maximum operating temperature). Each method has its own advantages. Some of them may face difficulties during the process such as when using finite element method as it is not appropriate in modeling long thin objects, such as cables, in three dimensions. The finite difference method is however suitable for modelling three dimensional cable problems. This method is intended for use with rectangular elements and hence is not well suited for modelling curved surfaces. The other method mentioned being the boundary elements method is
Not Recommended for Modelling long thin objects, i.e rectangular elements

Problems involving a large number of cables and complex geometry

Determining highly accurate cable rating

Table 2 : Comparison of numerical rating methods

5. Critical Evaluation
From the researches that have been made so far, it is notable that rating high voltage cables has its significance in the modern day underground cable transmission. Not only it can improves the performance of the cable, it also can reduce the maintenance cost since the correct rating of cables can reduce the risk of overheating which can led to its damage. In order to calculate the ampacity of the cables, we need to understand the fundamental concept of the ampacity itself where heat transfer mechanism is the basis. In underground cable installation most of the heat transfer mechanism is via conduction it has been studied extensively, whereas for other types of installation convection and radiation could also takes place.

Basically there are two types of ampacity calculation method as described by de Leon [ ], one is analytical method which involves more of a standard equation and can be solved by hand without the needs of modern software. It is also used as the standards as it is much simpler method. The major drawbacks of this method are however it makes a few assumptions in which the accuracy might get reduced in certain circumstances. The second method on the other hand is numerical method which is based on finite difference and finite element method. This method greatly improves the accuracy of cable rating but in turn involving a great amount of work. It requires more data input and computational processes as to ensure the calculation is done in details Aras, Oysu and Yilmaz [11] have construct a good test setup to compare the IEC 60287 , finite element and experimental to compare those three method. In the paper, the versatility of finite element analysis has been proven by investigating the thermal regions of the three cables installation. This also indicated that IEC 60287 can works well in simple cable installations but not for complex cable installations due to the assumptions and simplifications. On the other hand, cable rating calculations can be improved in so many ways, as Anders proposed in [4] which is to consider introduction of the temperature dependence of the conductor losses in the rating formulas, while Sellers and Black [24] has discussed the refinements of Neher-McGrath method. These two improvements are some of the improvisation that has been made over the years due to the increasing needs of accurate cable rating. Their proposal is backed up by their experimental procedure which proves the current method is fine but still can be improved. While the method of calculation is studied by many, the major factors which affects the ampacity is also studied as has been shown in [8].Leon has discussed on major factor affecting cable ampacity such as by varying conductor caliber, soil thermal resistivity and the bonding method. All this factors can greatly affects the ampacity which means it has to be taken into considerations before any calculation can be made. From the observations, it can be said that finite element analysis is the most capable, versatile method available at the moment. This is mainly down to todays computer technologies since it is well capable to solve any complex configuration in particular the ones which involves uneven surface. The aid to generate the mesh required and solves the calculation has improved the calculation of ampacity which in the end saves the investment and operation expenses. There are so many commercial ampacity

program nowadays and each has their own advantages, CYMCAP USAMP ETAP to name a few and these packages takes advantage of the finite element methods as well as utilizing both the Neher McGrath and IEC 60287 methods.

6. References
[1] Rating of Electric Power Cables : Ampacity Computations for Transmission, Distribution, and Industrial Applications ; George J. Anders, , IEEE Press / McGraw Hill, 1997. [2] New Approach to Ampacity Evaluation of Cables in Ducts Using Finite Element Technique Anders, G. J.; Chaaban, M.; Bedard, N.; Ganton, R. W. D.;Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on Volume 2, Issue 4, Oct. 1987 Page(s):969 975 [3] A robust framework for cable rating and temperature monitoring Millar, R.J.; Lehtonen, M.; Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on Volume 21, Issue 1, Jan. 2006 Page(s):313 321 [4] Improvement in cable rating calculations by consideration of dependence of losses on temperature Anders, G.J.; Brakelmann, H.; Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on Volume 19, Issue 3, July 2004 Page(s):919 925 [5] A Comparison between 2-D Isothermal Region Matrix and Finite Element Analysis Cable Rating Methods for Water Cooled Circuits Swaffield, D.J.; Lewin, P.L.; LeBlanc, M.; Sutton, S.;Electrical Insulation, 2006. Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on 11-14 June 2006 Page(s):490 493 [6] IEEE Std 835-1994 - IEEE Standard Power Cable Ampacity Tables - Part1 1994 Page(s):c1 535 [7] Neher-McGrath Calculations for Insulated Power Cables Pollak, Peter; Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on Volume IA-21, Issue 5, Sept. 1985 Page(s):1319 1323 [8] Major Factors Affecting Cable Ampacity Francisco de Leon [9] Interactive tutorial for calculating cable ampacity Bascom, E.C., III; Rodenbaugh, T.J.; Brown, H.J.;Computer Applications in Power, IEEE Volume 4, Issue 4, Oct. 1991 Page(s):31 34 [10] A 2-D finite element mesh generator for thermal analysis of underground power cables Mushamalirwa, D.; Germay, N.; Steffens, J.C.;Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on Volume 3, Issue 1, Jan. 1988 Page(s):62 68 [11] An Assessment of the Methods for Calculating Ampacity of Underground Power Cables Aras, Faruk; Oysu, Cneyt; Yilmaz, Gne Electric Power Components and Systems, Volume 33, Number 12, Number 12/December 2005 , pp. 1385-1402(18),Taylor and Francis Ltd

[12] A Comparison between 2-D Isothermal Region Matrix and Finite Element Analysis Cable Rating Methods for Water Cooled Circuits Swaffield, D.J.; Lewin, P.L.; LeBlanc, M.; Sutton, S.;Electrical Insulation, 2006. Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on 11-14 June 2006 Page(s):490 493 [13] Cable rating methods applied to a real-time cable system monitor Larsen, S.T.; Ong-Hall, C.L.; Stephenson, P.L.; Power Cables and Accessories 10kV - 500kV, 1993., Third International Conference on 23-25 Nov 1993 Page(s):203 207 [14] Method for rating power cables buried in surface troughs Lewin, P.L.; Theed, J.E.; Davies, A.E.; Larsen, S.T.; Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IEE ProceedingsVolume 146, Issue 4, July 1999 Page(s):360 364 [15] Field test program and results to verify HPFF cable rating Williams, J.A.; Bascom, E.C., III; Aabo, T.; Horgan, B.M.; Transmission and Distribution Conference, 1991., Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE Power Engineering Society 22-27 Sept. 1991 Page(s):45 51 [16] Increasing the capacity of cable systems using cable asset management based on thermal and mechanical properties Grotenhuis, B.J.; Jaspers, J.E.; van der Wey, A.H.; de Wild, F.H.; Kerstens, A.; Electricity Distribution, 2001. Part 1: Contributions. CIRED. 16th International Conference and Exhibition on (IEE Conf. Publ No. 482) Volume 3, 18-21 June 2001 Page(s):5 pp. vol.3 [17] Thermal analysis for determination of current carrying capacity of PE and XLPE insulated power cables using finite element method Kocar, I.; Ertas, A.; Electrotechnical Conference, 2004. MELECON 2004. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Mediterranean Volume 3, 12-15 May 2004 Page(s):905 - 908 Vol.3 [18] Ampacity derating for underground cables Shokooh, F.; Knutson, H.M., Jr.; Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, 1988. Conference Record, Papers Presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting. 2-5 May 1988 Page(s):92 98

[19] Practical Aspects of Applying Soil Thermal Stability Measurements to the Rating of Underground Power Cables Martin, M.A.; Bush, R.A.; Black, W.Z.; Hartley, J.G.; IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems Volume PAS-100, Issue 9, Sept. 1981 Page(s):4236 4249 [20] Increasing cable rating by distributed fiber optic temperature monitoring and ampacity analysis Williams, J.A.; Cooper, J.H.; Rodenbaugh, T.J.; Smith, G.L.; Rorabaugh, F.; Transmission and Distribution Conference, 1999 IEEE Volume 1, 11-16 April 1999 Page(s):128 - 134 vol.1 [21] Circulating current and hysteresis losses in screens, sheaths and armour of electric power cablesmathematical models and comparison with IEC Standard 287 Barrett, J.S.; Anders, G.J.; Science, Measurement and Technology, IEE Proceedings Volume 144, Issue 3, May 1997 Page(s):101 110 [22] Understanding the Neher-McGrath Calculations and the Ampacity of Conductors Gerald C. Newton http://www.electrician2.com/articles/ampacity.htm [23] Calculation of ampacities for cables in trays using finite elements C.C. Hwang *, J.J. Chang, H.Y. Chen [24] Refinements to the Neher-McGrath Model for Calculating the Ampacity of Underground Cables Sally M. Sellers, W.Z.Black IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery Vol 11 ,No 1, January 1996 [25] Calculating Underground Cable Ampacity Francisco De Leon, [26] Effects of Backfilling on Cable Ampacity Analyzed With the Finite Element Method Francisco De Leon, George J. Anders IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2008 [27] Investigate the Use of Thermal Protection for Underground Cables in Ergon Energys Electricity Network Cosmas Gianoulis November 2006