IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 14, No.

4, October 1999

1555

COMPARISON BETWEEN I.E.E.E. AND CIGRE AMPACITY STANDARDS

Neil P. Schmidt, Senior Member, IEEE
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
San Francisco, C A 94105
Abstract: Bolh l,E,:.E. and CIGRt havc published industry
standards Cor calculating thc ampaciiy of overhrad conductors.
Although these t w o standards use the same basic heal balance
concept, they usc difSercnt appriiaches to calculate ainpacity ratings.
As a result of thcse diSCercnces. thc ampacity rating cak!ukdted by
each mcthod may vary by almost 10% dcpcnding on the
environmenlal conditions being considered. This paper looks at thc
diSSerent approaches used to calculate individual heal bdldncc terms,
at lhe ovcrall impacl oSlhesc tcrms on the ampacity rating. and at
Lhc scnsitivity oi thesc approaches to varinus input parameters. The
uscr of these standzirds should he aware of thesc variations in
calculated ratings and, i f they consider these variations significant.
thz uscr inectls lo sclcct a singlc approach Cor rating thcir lines based
on thcir undcrstanding oC these difScrcnt approaches and of thc
puhlishcd cxpcrimcntdl research supporting each method.
Keywords: Conductors, current, EHV lrdnsinission lincs, power
distribution lines. powcr transmission lincs. resistance heating. solar
heatinglcooling.

1. - INTRODUCTION
Both the IEEE Standard for Calculating the Currenl
Temperafure Relationship of Bare Overhead Conductors [I]
and CIGREs Thermul Behavior cf Overhead Conductors [2]
each present diffcrent methodologies for calculating the
steady state ampacity of bare overhcad conductors. Although
these two industly standards use the same basic heat balance
concept, their approach to the calculation of the heat balance
terms i s different.
As a result of these differences, the
ampacity rating calculated by each method may vaiy by
almost 10% depending on the environmental conditions
being considered.

A person wishing to dctermine the ampacity rating of an

overhead line should be aware ofthe different standards and
the pcrson needs to select which of the two standards to use
for h i s or hcr calculations. To inake this selection, the user
PE-749-PWRD-0-06-1997 A paper recommended and approved by
the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivew. Manuscrint submitted December 9. 1996: made available for
printingJune 9 , 1997:~~
~
~~

~~

has to understand the differences and the limitations o f each

method. This paper helps in this understanding by looking at
the different approaches used to calculate individual heat
balance terms, at the overall impact of these terms on the
ampacity rating, and at the sensitivity o f these different
approaches to various input parameters. The paper does not
attempt to establish which o f the two methods is morc
accurate. Users must make this determination based their
understanding of these different approaches and of the
published experimciital research supporting each method.
11. - IJEAT B A L A N C E TERMS
A . Heal Balance Equalion
l.E.E.E. and CIGRE methods is a
The foundation of
steady state heat balance concept that all heat supplied to the
conductor is balanced by the licat dissipated. The general
equation describing this basic concept is:

PI t P,,, + P, + Pf = P,

+ P, + P ,

where:

PI

P,

Joule Heating
Magnetic Heating
P, = Solar Heating
Pf = Coronalleating
P, = Convective Cooling
P, = Radiative Cooling
P, = Evaporative Cooling
Units = Watts per unit area
Although both methods use the same heat balance concept,
each method uses a different approach, often based on
different published experimental rcsearch, to calculate
individual heat balance terms.

The I.E.E.E. method simplifies the above heat balance

by eliminating
three terms that often have little
i w a c t on the determination of ampacity ratings. The three
eliminated terms are Magnetic
Heating.,
- Corona Heating and
Evaporative Cooling. CIGRE on the other hand includes
these terms in its heat balance formula although two of them,
Corona Heating and Evaporative Cooling, are gcnerally not
used in ampacity rating calculations.
It should be noted that all I.E.E.E. formulas arc in British
units and therefore the I.E.E.E. heat balance terms are in
Watts/root2 while the CIGREs SI Unit formulas are in
Watts/meter2. The different units used in the two methods
can be easily converted from one choice o f units to the other.

0885-8977/99/$10,00 0 1997 IEEE

1556

B. Solar Heating Equations

I) Solar Position: A key part of the calculation of Solar
Heating is determination of the suns position with respect to
the conductor. The position of the sun is a function of the
Solar Declination or height of the sun due to the day of the
year, the Hour Angle of the sun due to the time of day, and
the Latitude of the line. The I.E.E.E. document contains an
Altitude and Azimuth table that is used to determine the
position of the sun. Since the I.E.E.E. solar position table is
based on a specific day of the year (June 10 and July 3), a
time period between 1O:OO AM and 2:OO PM, and on a
location in the Northern hemisphere, its application is
restricted to these environmental boundaries. The CIGRE
method on the other hand uses formulas to calculate the
position of the sun. These formulas can he applied any time
or day of the year and at any latitude. The CICRk method for
calculating the solar position is therefore much more flexible
than the I.E.E.E. method. The Solar Altitude and Azimuth
values calculated
by either method, within I.E.E.E.s
environmental restrictions, are vely similar.
2) Solar Intensify: I.E.E.E. only considers direct radiation
in its Solar Intensity calculations. In contrast, CIGRE
considers direct radiation, reflected radiation and defuse
radiation. I.E.E.E.s method varies the solar intensity
depending on the type of atmosphere, clear or industrial,
where industrial air quality has a lower solar intensity than
clear air. C E R E approach is different in that it doesnt
adjust for air quality but does make adjustments for the type
of ground surface, a term needed for the reflected radiation
calculation. The I.E.E.E. method uses a Solar Intensity Table
to determine the intensity while C E R E uses a formula to
calculate this term.

The overall impact of these different approaches is that

CIGRks method generally calculates a Solar Heating term
slightly higher (-l0-15%) than I.E.E.E. If desired by the
user, the solar reflectance term can be adjusted to make the
two methods calculate essentially the same Solar Heating
values.
Both methods increase the solar intensity for altitude
above sea level. CIGRE calculates a larger intensity increase
for altitude during the Summer months than the Winter.
I.E.E.E.s solar intensity increase for altitude does not
account for seasonal variations. The overall impact is that
CIGREs method increases the solar intensity at a slightly
higher rate than I.E.E.E. for the Summer months but
increases the intensity at a lower rate for the Winter months.
C. Convective Cooling Equations
Convective Cooling is the cooling effect from air flow
around the conductor. Both methods evaluate both forced air
flow, i.e. from wind movement, and natural convection, i.e.
without wind. The largest of these two cooling effects is then

used for the Convective Cooling term in the hea balance

equation.
I.E.E.E. uses a tabular method to determine the air
viscosity, air density and thermal conductivity whil ! CIGRI?
uses formulas lo determine these teims that arc then used for
convective cooling calculations. The effect of these different
methods is that, at wind speeds less than 5 fps C E R E
calculates a slightly higher value for Convective CO(ling than
does I.E.E.E. and at higher wind speeds I.E.E.E. ca culates a
higher value. Ihe difference for the Convective Cooling
term between the two methods is less than 4% at all wind
speeds.
There is a much more pronounccd variation bel ween the
two methods at different wind angles. At wind angl :s greater
than I O degrees, CIGRE consistently calculates valres up to
7% highcr, than I.E.E.E. At wind angle less than 1 ) degrees
or almost parallel to the line, I.E.E.E. calculates a higher
value. At 0 degree attack angle, I.E.E.E. calxlates a
Convective Cooling term 18% higher than CIGRE.

D. Radiative Cooling Equation.s

Radiation heat loss, i.e., heat emitted directly from the
conductor, is usually a small fraction of the total ieat loss,
especially comparcd to forccd convection. Both methods use
formulas to calculate the radiation heat loss and the resulting
values are almost identical.

E. Magnetic Heating & .Joule Heating Eyziation

For nonferrous conductors, CIGRE computes the Joule
Heating or 12R effect in the same manor as thi I.E.E.E.
method. For ferrous conductors CIGRE adjusts the Joule
Heating term to account for Magnetic Heating and skin
affects. This extra ClCRk heating term results in overall
reduction in the ampacity rating on ferrous conductors, due to
Magnetic Heating and skin affect, typically betw :en 0-3%
depending on the number of wire layers and lhe ampacity
rating being evaluated.
F. Corona Heating Equation
CIGRE considers Corona Healing in its hert balance
equation although it is only a theoretical inclus on in the
formula. Since Corona Heating is only significant i!hen there
are high surface voltagc gradients, a condition t iat would
normally only occur during heavy precipitation and high
wind on a well designed line, this heating term is usually
more than offset by the high convective and e!aporative
cooling terms also occurring at these same metiorological
periods. The Corona Heating term is therefore generally
ignored in determining ampacity ratings.

1557

Solar tlctting

Magnetic lleating
Cnrona Heating
Convective Cooling
Radiative Cooling
Evap. Cooling
hrnpacily Rating
~~~

4.31 Wifl

4.96 W/R

+13.2%

NIA

I
1
I
I
I
I

Ignored

I
1
I
I
I
I

the other is a cooling term, the net effect of these differences

cancel each other and the important value, the ampacity
rating, is essentially the same.

t3.9%
0.0%

C. WindSpeed Effect,s

1
I
I
I
I

Nih
25.0 WIfl
7.5 W/fl
NIA
992Ampi

Ignored
26.0 W/fl
7.5 Wifl
Ignored
99RArnpr

+0.6%

Tahlc I .Basc Case Comparison Resolls

G. Evaporative Cooling
Of the two methods, only C E R E considers Evaporative
Cooling in it's heat balance formula. Evaporative Cooling is
generally not significant from air horn water vapor or from
water droplets flowing around the conductor but can be when
the conductor is entirely wetted. CIGRE states that, in
general, Evaporative Cooling can be ignored. The CIGRE
document also does not provide a method for calculating this
term.
111. - AMPACITY RATING COMPARISONS

A. Base Case Scenario

Of all variables, wind speed has the most influence on the

determination of the ampacity rating. The two calculation
methods produce slightly different ampacity ratings for
varying wind speeds as shown in Fig. 1. The maximum
ampacity deviation for the wide range of winds speeds
evaluated is at 6 fps where there is a 29 Ampere or 2.4%
differencc in the ampacity values with the I.E.E.E. method
calculating a higher rating. (Note: The "Basc Case" is
highlighted 011Fig. 1-6 to give a comparison refcrcncc point.)

D. Wind Direction Efects

Fig. 2 shows the variation of ampacity ratings versus
changes in wind direction. With the exception of a wind
direction of less than I O degrees, the two methods are
relatively consistent with the largest variation occurring at a
line anglc of approximately 80 degrees where the difference
in ampacity ratings is 19 Amperes or I.8%, For wind attack

'The following base case scenario was developed to

compare the ampacity ratings calculated by I.E.E.E. and of
the CIGRE mcthods. Later in this section, the sensitivity of
various input parameters are also examined.
These
comparisons show the overall net impact of all the heat
balance terms calculated by each method.
For a base case cxample, the ampacity rating of a 795
kcmil 26/7 ACSR (Drake) conductor is evaluatcd. This is a
common conductor used in the United States and a conductor
often used in technical investigations and comparisons. The
following assumptions are used in the base case calculations:
Amhient Temperature:
Wind Speed:
Wind Direction
Latitude:
Azimuth or Conductor,
Atmosphcrc:
Solar Heating:
Diltitse Solar Radiation:
Emissivity:
Asnrplivily:
Elcv. above Sea Ixvcl:
Oruond Surfacc 'Type:
'Time of Day:
Time of Year:
Man. Conductor 'Temp.:

~~~,

700

40 "C
2 fps
Pcrpcndicular to line
30"
90

,.

3
4
5
Wind Spced (fps)

~!

Fig. I Wind Spccd Erects Comparison

Clear
On

0 (Ignored)
0.5
0.5
0 Fcet
Ilrhan
11'00 am
Junc 10

"O0

imoc

B. Base Case Comparison

The results of the base case scenario arc shown in Table 1
In the base casc example the U G R E method calculates
slightly higher values for both Solar Heating and Convective
Cooling. But, because one of the terms is a heating term and

~~7~~~

in

~,

20
30 40
50
60
70
Witid Dirccticiii (90 Ucg = I'crpendicular)

Fig. 2 Wind Direction Erfccts Conipariron

80

9n

1558
I100

angles less than I O degrees the two methods deviate slightly

because the I.E.E.E. method calculates a constant rating
between 0 and I O degrees while the CIGRe method
calculates varying ratings. The maximum variance for wind
direction occurs a1 0 degrees or a parallel wind with a
difference of 64 Amperes or 8.5%.

E. Ambient Temperature Effects

Ambient temperature is another important factor in
determination of ampacity ratings. Fig.. 3 compares the
ampacity ratings as a function of changes in ambient

900

~~~~

. ~.~...
~ . ~

ILO0 AM

1000hM

1200 PM

~ ..4
~
.

L O O PM

2:OO PM

Time of Day

Fig. 4 Time of Day Effects Comparisoii

temperature. The two methods are very consistent for

variations i n ainbieiit temperature with the maximum
variance occurring at 10C where the I.E.E.E. method
calculates a lower value by 10 Amperes or 0.8%.

F. Solar Intensity Effects

The effect of the sun on the ampacity rating is shown in
Table 2.
The time of day has relatively small influence on solar
intensiiy and therefore only a Small influence on the ampacity
rating itself. Fig. 4 compares the changes in ratings for
different times of the day. The two methods are very
consistent for all times of day with the I.E.E.E. method
consistently calculating ratings about 6 Amperes or 0.7%
less.
G. Elevation Effects

The effect of elevation on the ampacity rating is illustrated

in Fig. 5 . At elevations less than 3000 feet the I.E.E.E.

I
I
I

Solar Healing
Sun On

Sun Off

/.E.E,E.

992hmps
1065Amps

I
I
I

CMRk
998Amps
10x1 Amps

I
1
I

Di/f

+0.6%
+1.5%

Table 2 - Solar Intensity Effect Comparison

1300

800

1000

-P

950

2E

900

4
M

$
Y

850

--

800

5,000

~-i
i

10,000
Elevation (Feel)

15.000

Fig, 5 Elevation Effects Comparison

method consistently calculates a rating appn ,ximately 6

Amperes or 0.6% less than the CIGRE meth(d. As the
elevation increases above 3000 feet, the differe ice steadily
increases between the two methods to where h e I.E.E.E.
method is approximately I O Amperes or 1.1% I :ss at 6,000
feet.

H. Conductor Size Effects

Fig. 6 compares the ampacity ratings for a w h e range of

c-10

~~~~

?n
40
Ainbienl Tcinpcratuic (DEB.Cl

20

Fig. 3 Ambient Tempernlure Effccts Comparison

50

500

1000

~SOD
2000
2500
AAC Conductor kcmil Sine

300c

Fig, 6 Conductor Size Effects Comparison

3500

1559

conductor sizes.
This comparison was made for all
aluminum conductors (AAC) to avoid complications from
different stecl core combinations used in ACSR conductors.
This comparison SIIOWS that the two methods are very
consistent, with a typical variations less than I%,over the
range of conductor sizes studied. I.E.E.E. calculates a
slightly lower ampacity rating for all conductor sizes less
than 1750 kcmil and calculates a slightly higher ratings for
larger conductor sizes.
1V. - SUMMARY

Both I.E.E.E. and CIGRE usc the same general heat

balance equation methodology for determining conductor
ratings. I.E.E.E. has simplified this equation by eliminating
three heat balance terms that normally have very little
influencc on most ampacity rating calculations. CIGRE on
the other hand has maintained the more theoretically
complete heat balance evaluation. The overall impact of the
omission of the three heat balance terms is gcnerally not
significant.

used to base their ampacity ratings. This determination

should be based on their understanding of the different
approaches and of the published experimental research
supporting each method.
Another broader issue is the need to have two industry
standards. Although both CIGRE and I.E.E.E. organizations
encourage the development of joint standards, a comparison
between these two methods shows how two different
organization? can dcvelop parallel standards using the same
basic principles but taking different approaches to their
solution. There should be an effort to combine these two
standards into one worldwide standard.

VI. - REFERENCES
[I]
IEEE Standard for Calculating llie Current
Tempcrature Relationship of Bare Ovcrhead Conductors,
IEEE P738-1993.
121
CIGRE Thermal Behavior of Overhead
Conductors, ELECTRA No. 144, October 1992.

Although the difference between ampacity ratings

calculated by the two methods was as high as 8.596 in one
situation examined, the difference in the ratings for most
typical applications were often lcss than 1%. The I.E.E.E.
method generally calculates slightly lower ampacity values
cxcept For high wind speeds and for wind directions
cssentially parallel to thc line.

VII. - BIOGRAPHY
Neil Srlimidt received his Bachclor 01
Electrical Lhgincering Dzgrec from Frcsno
Slate Univcrsity iii 1968 and ti Master of
Electrical lingincering Ucgree from
University nf Santa Clara in 1974.

Hc is a Registered Professional Engineer in

the stale OC California. Me is a Senior
Mcinber of l i E E and is Vice-Chairman of
IELEs Towcrs, Poles and Conduclors SuhC ~ n n y t t c e . Ile i s t h o a incmlicr if
CIGRE.

V. -CONCLUSIONS
Although the general methodologies arc very similar, the
approachcs used by I.E.E.E. and CIGRk to the calculations
are very different. I.E.E.E. relies very heavily on tabular data
to determine various heat balance terms while C E R E uses
closed form equations to calculate these same terms. In some
cases CIGREs equations may the source, or at least are very
a similar method, to the methods used to establish the
original I.E.E.E. tables. The overall impact of these tables
vs. equations approaches is that CIGRk method is mucli
more flexible and can be used over a much wider range of
environmental situations. I n contrast the I.E.E.E. method is
restrictcd to the limited environmental situations considered
in the tables (See Writers tiote below).
For most practical transmission linc design and operation
applications, both methods can be considered equivalent and
the difference in ampacity results are generally not
significant, especially considering the precision of most
environmental input parameters. For some less typical
applications such as high wind speed and/or parallel wind
speed calculations, users of thcse standards should be aware
of the variations in the calculated ratings and, if they consider
the difference between the two methods to be significant, the
user needs to determine which of the two methods should be

Mr. Sclimidl lias 28 years of enperieiicc iii

all pliaser o f transmission engineering primarily iii transmission liiic design.
Hc is currcntly the supcwisar of PG&i?s transmission sobstation
enginccring group

WUl(1773SVOTE: The I.C.E.I! sliiiiiliird i s currcnlly bcing opdatcil a s part

of l.l<.l:.E,s 5 yciir reaffirmation proccss. The primary thrust o l l h i s opdalc
will bc climination o f most tabular data melhods and the adoption of clvsed
form eqoatioiin, Tliis modification will rmwt likely cio1 change the
celculatcd ampticity values osiiig this inctliad

1560

Discussion

It is encouraging to see that the resu ts

Anjnn K. Deb, P.E.

obtained from both methods are

(ELECTROTECH Consultant). I wish

comparable.

to thank the author for comparing IEEE

This is to be expected as both methc ds

standard and the Cigr6 mathematical

follow the same laws of physics. W1 iat is

model for the evaluation of conductor

more important is an analysis of the

temperature in the steady state. After

assumptions that are made to calculi t e

presenting the well-known conductor

ampacity. For example, Fig 1, show 3

heat balance equation the author states

that conductor ampacity will be

that the heat balance equation is

significantly different if 2 Ws or 6 fi /s

simplified in the IEEE standard by

wind speed is assumed. In my opini )n

neglecting the effects of magnetic

proper assumptions of the following

heating, corona heating and evaporative

factors are most important to evaluate

cooling.

ampacity:

1. Wind speed and direction

First of all I wish to mention that the

2. Ambient temperature

IEEE standard considers magnetic

3. Solar radiation

heating by entering the ac resistance of

4. Line direction

the conductor at low and high value of

5. Radial temperature differential

conductor temperature. Example data

6. Maximum conductor temperatui e

presented in section 2.6.1.1 of the

7. Height of conductor above grou id

referenced IEEE standard provides the

8. Switching overvoltage

ac resistance of Drake conductor at 25

It is beyond the scope of this writin!; to

'C and 75 OC. Generally, these values are

discuss all of the above factors. The

obtained from conductor manufacturer

interested reader will find a detailec

catalogs. The ac resistance of the

study of most of the above factors i 1

conductor at any other temperature is

discusser's recent doctoral dissertation

evaluated by linear interpolation by the

[l]. In the dissertation the different line

application of equation (1 0) given in the

rating models for steady state, dynanic

IEEE standard. Corona heating and

state and transient conditions are

evaporative cooling is presently not

compared. A line ampacity expert

considered due to the reasons explained

system computer program using ob ect-

in the Cigrk report.

oriented modeling is also described in

1561

the reference [2] [3], which enables

of meteorological conditions in the

consideration of the above factors.

specific geographic region [l].

Wind tunnel studies were carried out

previously to compare different
ampacity models [4] where a comparison

REFERENCES
[l] Power Line Ampacity System -

of Nusselt vs. Reynold number

Theorv, Madeline & Aaalications.

relationship is presented showing good

Anjan K. Deb, Ph.D. dissertation.

agreement of empirical models presented

School of Arts & Science, Columbia

by different authors. A good discussion

Pacific University, California, USA.

of ac resistance and ac/dc ratio, as well

December 1998.

as radial conductor differential is also

[2] "Object oriented expert system

provided in this reference. In the Cigrk

estimates power line ampacity,"

report [5], a probabilistic approach to

Anjan K. Deb, IEEE Computer

conductor thermal modeling is given

Application in Power, volume 8,

where most of the above mentioned

number 3, 1995.

factors are also considered.

[3] "Line-rating system boosts

economical energy transfer," M. B.

In conclusion I would like to state that

Wook, M. Choi, Anjan K. Deb,

while it is important to properly evaluate

IEEE Computer Application in

different conductor thermal rating

Power, volume 8, number 3, October

models, as done in this paper, it is also

1997.

important to analyze the assumptions of

[4] "Wind tunnel studies of

the different parameters that are used to

transmission line conductor

calculate transmission line ampacity.

temperatures," J. F. Hall,

Proper assumptions regarding the

Anjan K. Deb, J. Savoullis, IEEE

meteorological variables, transmission

Transactions on Power Delivery,

line terrain, route, line to ground

Vol. 3 , number 2, April 1988.

clearance, and conductor thermal

[5] "Probabilistic determination of

properties are best prepared by the

conductor current ratings," Cigrk

transmission line engineer by following

WG 22.12, Electra, Number 164

line design standard and by the analysis

,February 1996.

1562

Neil P. Schmidt:
I agree with Mr. Deb that the enviroumenlal
paramcler assumptions used in the ampacity
formulas have a significant effect on the
outcome of the calculations. The intent of the
paper was to compare the IEEE and CIG&
ampacity calculation methods. In making this
comparison, the sensitivity of the two methods

to each of the environmental parameters was

evaluated. It was not the intent of this pap(:r to
evaluate or assess which parameters slroul~I be
used when making thcse calculations. As Mr.
Deb indicates, the linc engineer needs to s':lccl
the environmental parainetcrs that best fil thc
specific situation being evaluated.
Manuscript receivcd April I , 1998.