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

net/publication/297137713

The history and mystery of the: Neher-McGrath formula

Article · July 2014

CITATIONS READS
2 41

1 author:

Tim Linenbrink

3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tim Linenbrink on 03 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The history and mystery of the
Neher-McGrath formula
In its abbreviated form, the Neher-McGrath formula appears straightforward.
For electrical engineers, it must be carefully reviewed and used.
BY TIMOTHY L. LINENBRINK, PE, North American Engineering PLLC, Richland, Wash.

A
while back, a col-
Learning league brought up
objectives a problem that had
 Learn the scientific basis occurred on a $100 mil-
for the Neher-McGrath for- lion industrial project. A few
mula. months after plant turnover,
 Understand how to use the several feeder breakers start-
Neher-McGrath formula to ed tripping. There are few
find conductor ampacity.
things that will cost an electri-
 Appreciate factors that can
cal engineer more sleep than
impact accuracy.
random breaker operations.
After considerable consterna- Figure 2: The NEC allows, under engineering
tion, the under-slab feeders supervision, the use of an abbreviated form of
were pulled out and found to Neher and McGrath’s cable rating equation. But
have heat damaged insulation. correctly applying it requires understanding the
The cables had been sized per assumptions and simplifications that are buried
National Elec- within. Courtesy: North American Engineering
trical Code
(NEC) Article 310 and the temperature above the insulation’s
there wasn’t any over- thermal limit. Overheating degraded
loading, so what was the the insulation; add a little moisture, and
problem? breakers start opening.
The cause is an object In hindsight the cable ratings should
lesson we could all learn have been adjusted for the actual tem-
from: You can not blindly perature in which they were expected to
apply the NEC tables to operate. Article 310.15 of the NEC points
determine cable ampacity. this out and provides the Neher-McGrath
The installation and oper- formula as the engineered solution for
ating conditions must be doing so.
considered. In its abbreviated form, Neher-McGrath
Figure 1: The NEC tables cannot always be used to Located above the slab appears straightforward (see Figure 2).
determine cable ampacity. The number of ducts, their were a series of industrial The devil is in the details. Tc is readily
proximity, and site-specific conditions combine to make furnaces. The cables’ available from product data; an Rdc value
2
ampacity calculations a complex undertaking. Here we Joule (I R) losses, com- (not necessarily the correct value) is avail-
see a duct bank being installed free of interfering heat bined with heat radiating able from published sources, but what
sources. Courtesy: Stokes Electric of Central Florida Inc. through the slab, elevated about the other factors? Is the ΔTd sig-

46 Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014 www.csemag.com

nificant? What if there is an external heat
source affecting the installation? What if
a complex cable type is used? While the
NEC version of Neher-McGrath appears
straightforward, finding the right param-
eters that accompany it is not.
If a cable of complex construction is
used (see Figure 10), the rating equation
takes the form of Figure 3.
In practice the terms “conductor” and
“cable” are used interchangeably. For
clarity the term “conductor,” as used
here, indicates the current-carrying part
of a cable. The term “cable” refers to a
complete assembly, for example, conduc-
tors, filler, insulation, jacket, armor, serv-
ing, and so on.
Adapted from Ander’s, Rating of Figure 4: The underlying principle of Neher-McGrath is the Kennelly Hypothesis.
Electric Power Cables, ΔT is the temper- Developed by Arthur E. Kennelly in 1893, its premise is that the temperature rise at
ature rise over ambient, Wd the dielectric any point can be predicted based on the heat produced, the heat absorbed, the ambi-
heating, Ri the thermal resistances, n the ent temperature, and the intervening thermal resistivities. Courtesy: North American
number of conductors, Rac the ac resis- Engineering
tance, and λ i the loss ratios for armor
and shielding. History of Neher-McGrath Carnegie Institute and a founding mem-
Labeling Neher and McGrath’s work a John Hutchins Neher (1899–1973) and ber of the AIEE Insulated Conductors
“formula” implies ampacity problems can Martin Hager McGrath (1902–1980) did Committee, was vice president and chief
be solved algorithmically; provide a few not have an epiphany when they wrote engineer of the General Cable Corp. In
inputs, crank through some calculations, their 1957 paper, “The Calculation of the 1962 he arranged for then competitor
and out pops an answer. Their paper does Temperature Rise and Load Capability of Anaconda Wire and Cable (General Cable
not provide an algorithm; ampacity prob- Cable Systems.” They had worked with acquired Anaconda Wire and Cable in
lems cannot be solved by plug-and-chug. a cadre of engineers on the problem for 1999) to develop the first set of ampac-
Neher and McGrath’s work is a body decades; the significance of their con- ity tables on an IBM 650—tables that
of knowledge, some aspects of which tribution was in compiling the collected became AIEE Special Publication S-135,
are applicable to an installation, some knowledge as it stood at the time. Power Cable Ampacities, a forerunner of
are not. Equations like those above must Neher, a 1921 graduate of Princeton, IEEE 835, Standard Power Cable Ampac-
be considered case-specific; as presented was a senior engineer with the Philadel- ity Tables.
they include assumptions and simplifica- phia Electric Co. A Navy Commander Neher and McGrath’s goal was to
tions that affect the validity of any calcu- during WWII, he served in London work- develop something the practicing engi-
lated result. ing on the use of radar to find U-boats. neering could use with the computing
He was made a Fel- tools available at the time. For most
low of the American engineers that was the slide rule. This
Institute of Elec- was no easy task considering that in
trical Engineers their lifetimes published ampacities
(AIEE), now the varied widely. AWG #1/0 copper, for
Figure 3: The rating equation becomes more compli- Institute of Electri- example, had values ranging from 71
cated depending on the installation, the application, and cal and Electronics to 372 amps.
the cable used. When dielectric effects and shield losses Engineers (IEEE), (In full disclosure, Neher and McGrath
are factors, Anders’ equation is more applicable. (Based in 1957 for his con- also dealt with conductors in air, a topic
on the discussion in “Rating of Electric Power Cables: tributions in both which will not be discussed here. Inter-
Ampacity Computations for Transmission, Distribution, cable heating and ested readers are directed to IEEE Std
and Industrial Applications” by George Anders.) Cour- protective relaying. 738-2006, IEEE Standard for Calculating
tesy: North American Engineering McGrath, a 1924 the Current-Temperature of Bare Over-
graduate of the head Conductors.)

www.csemag.com Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014 47

 Neher-McGrath formula
The Kennelly hypothesis A heat source, +qc, is buried at a depth
Arthur E. Kennelly (1861-1939) was Lb in uniform soil (constant ambient tem-
one contemporary Neher and McGrath perature, constant thermal resistivity,
drew on. His research on ampacity was a etc.). Heat will migrate from the source
de facto standard until 1938 when Samuel to all points of lower temperature by con-
J. Rosch, an employee of Anaconda Wire duction (and by convection and radiation
and Cable working under the auspices of if enclosed in a pipe or conduit containing
National Electrical Manufacturers Asso- air). If the heat sink is treated as a single
ciation (NEMA), produced what became point, -qc, represented by the reflected
the NEC ampacity tables, which were in image of the source, the temperature rise
use until the 1980s. can be found from the difference in the
Aside from working on other topics, two heat flows.
Kennelly developed the hypothesis that A relatively simple design problem
underlies Neher-McGrath: The movement (Figure 5) helps to put Neher-McGrath’s
of heat through a cable system’s thermal work in context; the objective being to
resistances will cause a temperature rise. find the cable system’s current carrying
Treat the cable system as an infinitely capacity. (This example was not chosen
long, cylindrical heat source buried at randomly; NEC Annex B and IEEE 835
some depth in a uniform medium, and the values are used so the results can be com-
temperature rise at any point—be it the pared to published values, an important
surface of a cable, interior of a duct, or verification and validation step.)
any other point—can be predicted. This For underground cable systems, deter-
is shown graphically and mathematically mining ampacity involves five elements:
in Figure 4.
1. Defining the
installation
2. Finding the
conductor’s ac
resistance at the
desired operating
temperature
3. Determining the
thermal resis-
tances of each
element
4. Calculating the
total effective
thermal resis-
tance
5. Computing the
cable’s ampacity.
Inputs and design
Figure 5: For the design example, a three-way underground parameters
duct bank consists of 4-in. ducts encased in concrete and This problem is for
buried 36 in. below the earth’s surface. Neher-McGrath an industrial cable duct
uses approximations and empirical factors to reduce such operating at 480 V. It
systems to a cylindrical equivalent heat source and cylindri- consists of three poly-
cal layers of thermal resistances. The calculations require vinyl chloride (PVC)
understanding the factors and approximations that are valid conduits embedded in
and those that are not for each installation. Courtesy: North a concrete duct bank
American Engineering 11.5 in. tall and 27 in.
48 Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014
Figure 6: Fundamental to calculating
ampacity is the “buildup” of the cable.
Typical low-voltage cables are made of
stranded conductors covered by a layer
of insulation with a nylon jacket. Cour-
tesy: North American Engineering
wide, buried 36 in. below the earth’s sur-
face. Three parallel sets of equally loaded,
single-core, 75 C, 500 kcmil aluminum
cables form the circuit. The ambient tem-
perate of the earth is 20 C. The thermal
resistivity of the earth, insulation, conduit,
and concrete are taken as 120, 450, 600,
and 55 C-cm/W, respectively.
The cable buildup (Figure 6) consists
of a 0.813 in. diameter, multi-strand alu-
minum conductor with 95 mils (0.095
in.) polyethylene (PE) insulation under a
nylon jacket. (Insulation thicknesses are
from IEEE 835.)
Assuming no interfering sources, the
only heat production is by the conductor’s
I2R losses.
Temperature rise due to dielectric
heating, ΔTp, is ignored. Per the NEC,
dielectric heating is negligible for volt-
ages below 44 kV. As shown in Figure 7,
dielectric losses are less than 0.5 W/ft at
that voltage and virtually zero at 480 V.
A helpful technique is to think of the
installation as a thermal circuit (Figure
8): a rationalization justified by Ohm’s
Law being analogous to Fourier’s Law,
electrical resistance equivalent to thermal
resistance, electrical potential (voltage)
being on par with thermal potential (tem-
perature change), and charge flow (cur-
rent) being synonymous with heat flow.
Viewing it in this way emphasizes the
elements included and allows the prob-
lem to be solved using circuit analysis
techniques. (This approach was advanced
by Donald L. Simons in the 1920s, and is
detailed Anders’ texts.)
www.csemag.com
 Figure 8: Reducing the physical installation to an equivalent
thermal circuit is the accepted practice for modeling under-
ground cable installations. If the only heat is from the Joule
losses, the thermal circuit reduces to a single source and with
the thermal resistivities connected in series. Elementary circuit
analysis techniques can then be used to find the temperature
rise, ΔT. Courtesy: North American Engineering

Figure 7: For voltages less than 44 kV, the NEC ignores heating
due to dielectric effects, justifiable since below this voltage the
losses are less than 0.5 W/ft. The dielectric effect was modeled
in MathCAD Prime 3.0 and the heat loss plotted for voltages
from 0.480 to 110 kV. Courtesy: North American Engineering

ac conductor resistance The work of

A precursor to finding the cable’s
ampacity is finding the conductor’s ac
resistance at the operating temperature,
or more precisely the factors that con-
stitute ac resistance, that is, skin and
proximity effects.
From Southerwire’s Power Cable
Manual, the dc resistance of stranded
aluminum, at a base temperature of 25
C, is 35.4 μΩ/ft. The corresponding 25
C temperature coefficient of aluminum
is 0.00395 K -1. Referring to the accom-
panying worksheet—related equations
indicated parenthetically—the dc resis-
tance by (2.1) at an operating tempera-
ture of 75 C is 42.392 μΩ/ft.
ac resistance is found by adjusting
the dc value by the skin effect at 60 Hz
and the proximity effect of all cables.
Using an approximation for the Bessel
function, the skin effect coefficient is
found by (2.2) and (2.3). Similarly, the
proximity effect coefficient is found
from (2.5) through (2.8). k s and k p
are factors related to the arrangement
and coating of the conductor strands;
their values are available in published
sources.
Equation (2.9) is the Y c factor in
Neher-McGrath. The total ac resistance
is found from (2.10).
(2.1) through Figure 9: The literature uses differing forms for many of the equa-
(2.10) can be tions. Here an example from Neher and McGrath on the left is
avoided by substi- contrasted with the equivalent metric form used by Anders on the
tuting published right. The two are equivalent, but not obviously so without some
ac resistance unit and exponential manipulation. Courtesy: North American
values, but care Engineering
must be exercised
to ensure that the right temperature- A complication in these calculations is
corrected resistance, skin, and proxim- the mix of British Imperial (U.S. Cus-
ity factors are used. tomary) and metric units: Lengths and
thicknesses are in inches, temperatures
Thermal resistances in Celsius and Kelvin, thermal resistances
Thermal resistance, the inverse of in Thermal-Ohm-Feet, and so on. As a
thermal conductivity, is the property demonstration consider (Figure 9) two
that restricts heat flow and causes tem- seemingly different, albeit similar, equa-
perature rise. In this example, there are tions are in fact—once conversion factors
five layers of material (cable insulation, and identities applied—the same.
the medium in the duct, the duct wall, Cable insulation thermal resistance:
the concrete duct bank, and the soil) that In this example, using three single con-
impede heat transfer. (The concrete and ductor cables in a triangular configura-
soil get treated concurrently in one com- tion, the thermal resistance of the insu-
plex sequence.) lation is found by (3.2). Equation (3.2)
In 1951 John Neher observed in his applies to single conductor cables only.
paper “The Determination of Tempera- If there were multiple insulation layers,
ture Transients in Cable Systems by (3.2) would have to be repeated for each
Means of Analogue Computer”: layer. If the cable was armored, or includ-
“The [ampacity] calculation … is a ed skid wires, or used metal tape (Figure
relatively simple matter; the only diffi- 10), the additional thermal resistances
culty experienced is that of determining would have to be accounted for and the
the proper thermal constants for the com- additional heating due to ferromagnetic
ponents of the thermal circuit.” effects would have to be included.

www.csemag.com Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014 49

 Neher-McGrath formula
Figure 10: Ampacity calculations for
complex cables like this one are more
involved due to the layers of material,
filler materials, and the additional heat-
ing caused by the magnetic induction of
the skid wires. Courtesy: ABB
Two- and three-core cables require
equations with a geometric factor, Gb. For
a three-core cable (3.2) would be:
Equations for Gb were developed by
Mie, Russell, and Simons but are fairly
involved; Anders provides a thorough
discussion of their makeup. Curves for
finding Gb are given in Simons’ Calcu-
lation of the Electrical Problems of the
Transmission by Underground Cables,
Standard Underground Cable Company,
Pittsburgh, 1925; in British Standard
BS7769-2-2.1; and in Anders.
Lastly, the nylon jacket is ignored. Nylon
has a thermal resistivity up to 830 C-cm/W.
Low-voltage cables have very thin jackets,
on the order of 10 to 50 mils, contributing
less than 0.5 Thermal-Ohm-Foot.
Duct medium: The thermal resistance
of the air in the duct is not insignificant,
amounting to 25% of the thermal circuit.
Ignoring it overstates ampacity by 16%.
The equation for determining it (3.5)
is unlike any of the others, and needs
explaining.
Within the duct itself, heat transfer is
by conduction, convection, and radia-
tion. Assuming everything is linear and
the principle of superposition applies, we
could just add the three together. How-
ever, combining all three heat transfer
equations crates a differential equation
without an analytic solution.
50 Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014
Neher, working in conjunction with a
General Electric engineer named Fran-
cis H. Buller, published a separate paper,
“The Thermal Resistances Between
Cables and a Surrounding Pipe or Duct
Wall,” in 1949 that developed an approxi-
mation approach to this part of the prob-
lem. Rearranging the terms in the com-
pound differential equation and plotting
the experimental data on duct tempera-
tures, they observed that the temperature
rise (of the medium in the duct) against
the thermal resistivity approximates a
straight line. Treating it as such, they
extracted A, B, and C from the slopes
and intercepts.
The values of A, B, and C, along with
the multiplier to find D’s, vary with the
cable type and lay. For the various con-
figurations, see Table VII in Neher and
McGrath’s paper.
n in this equation is not always n; Neher
and McGrath use the variable in differ-
ent contexts and their intent is not always
clear. Sometimes n is the total number
of ducts, sometimes the total number of
cables in the system, and sometimes the
total number of cables in the ducts. When
this ambiguity arises, clarity can be found
by asking, “How many heat-producing
cables are in this particular part of the
problem?” The answer is the value of
n. Here it is 3, the number of energized
cables within a single duct.
Per Kennelly, heat sources are reduced
to a single, equivalent, cylindrical source.
Within the duct this cylinder has the
diameter circumscribing all three cables,
hence the geometric adjustment D’s. A
similar situation arises in making the rect-
angular duct bank appear round.
Tm is the assumed mean temperature of
the air in the duct; Neher and McGrath
use 60 C. This may come from the IEEE
forerunner, the American Institute of
Electrical Engineers AIEE standardiza-
tion rules for the maximum allowed tem-
perature of natural rubber insulation, but
that is an inference from the literature.
An alternate approach is to assume any
air temperature, solve for the current in
the cables, determine the heat produced,
and iterate until a constant air tempera-
ture is achieved. Experience shows a
solution converges in less than 10 itera-
tions if 60 C is used (Figure 11), or 15
iterations if starting at the ambient soil
temperature, Ta.
Duct wall thermal resistance: PVC
conduit is the duct running through the
bank. Its thermal resistance is factored
in even though the contribution is on the
order of 1.0 Thermal-Ohm-Feet. If steel
conduit was used, a value of 1.0 could
be assumed.
In (3.6) Neher and McGrath substitute
a “thin-wall approximation” to find Rd; n
has the same value as before. (The thin-
wall approximation exploits linearity of
logarithms for numbers on the order of
1.001, 1.002, etc. In cases where the ratio
on the duct’s outer-to-inner diameter is
of this order, the approximation works.)
Concrete duct bank and earth ther-
mal resistance: Neher and McGrath’s
way of finding the thermal resistance
Figure 11: When an iterative approach
is used to find the temperature in the
duct, the temperature converges to a
steady-state solution in less than 10
iterations if a starting temperature of 60
C is used, or 15 iterations starting with
the ambient temperature. A program was
developed to calculate cable ampacity by
Neher-McGrath, determine the resulting
Joule losses, and then the temperature
in the duct (Tm). The process was then
repeated, substituting the new value of
Tm, until it became constant. Courtesy:
North American Engineering
www.csemag.com
of the concrete duct bank and the soil
is complicated. Included are load cycle
effects, a cylindrical equivalent duct
bank, and the mutual heating of all
cables. They find the thermal resistance
by assuming concrete throughout then
adjusting for the soil, a counterintuitive
approach compared to the other elements.
Load cycles
The load cycle effects show up twice:
in the form of a fictitious diameter, Dx,
and a corresponding loss factor, LF.
The fictitious diameter, D x , is an
assumed distance at which the effect of
load changes commences. For continuous
loading, a fictitious diameter must still
be found.
Dx is dependent on α, the soil thermal
diffusivity and the duration of the load
cycle. Equation (3.7) is the modern form
for α and not the one used by Neher and
McGrath. For continuous loading, the
load cycle is 24 hours.
Due to an odd choice of symbols and
an unconventional choice of terms, the
loss-load factors can be a source of con-
fusion. The loss factor LF is dependent
on a daily loss cycle having a load factor
lf. The latter is a percentage of the cable
systems daily loading. LF is found from:
For continuous loading lf would be 1.0,
making LF 1.0 as well. (“Load factor”
should not be confused with “demand
factor”; both are related to cyclical load-
ing but their application is different.)
Historically, the loss-load factors were
included for underground utility systems.
Utilities optimize their underground plant
by trying to operate near the thermal lim-
its. In 1953 the AIEE sponsored a sym-
posium on how to include load cycles in
cable ampacity, but no real consensus
emerged. Four years later Neher and
McGrath published their paper and this
equation became de facto.
The use of any loss factor is a matter
of engineering judgment and unique to
each installation.
www.csemag.com
Neher and McGrath derive another
geometric factor, also called Gb, based on
the burial depth and radius of an equiva-
lent round duct bank. This is derived
from (3.10) through (3.12), where x1 is
always the short dimension and y1 the
long dimension. The equivalency is valid
for y 1/x 1 being less than 3. (For other
ratios, El-Kady and Horruck developed
an alternate form of Gb and published it in
“Extended Values for Geometric Factors
of External Thermal Resistance of Cables
in Duct Banks.”)
A very critical element is F, the mutual
heating factor, a multiplier directly relat-
ed to the Kennelly Hypothesis. The effect
of the hottest duct and its reflected image
is taken as 1. The effect of the other ducts
and their images are proportional to their
locations relative to the hottest duct.
Because of the former, (3.17) will always
have 1 term less than the number of ducts.
The ratios are the distance between the
hottest duct’s center and a duct’s reflected
image, divided by the axial separation of
the hottest duct and the corresponding
neighbor (Figure 12).
In simple situations the hottest duct can
be identified by inspection; in complex con-
figurations it may be necessary to calculate
all possible values of F and use the largest
found. F increases geometrically with the
number of ducts; it tends to dominate (3.18).
Referring back to n is not always n, it
is worth pointing out that n here is the
number of cables in one duct and N is the
number of ducts in the cable system. De is
the diameter in contact with the concrete
(if a duct bank is used) or the earth (if
direct buried conduit or cable is used). If
there is no duct bank (3.19) reduces to:
with ρe substituted for ρc, and n becoming
n’ = n×N.
It would be an omission not to pause
and discuss ρ; primarily, ρe and ρc.
As long as cable engineers have been
arguing over ampacity, they have been
Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014
Figure 12: The mutual heating of all the
cables is a dominant factor in ampacity
calculations. The mutual heating effect
factor, F, for a three-duct system is found
from the ratios of the distances between
each duct and its reflected image. Cour-
tesy: North American Engineering
arguing over soil resistivity. As Conrad
Bauer, a Commonwealth Edison cable
engineer, observed about calculations
and thermal resistivities at an AIEE con-
ference, “To date we have not been able
to match field tests […], without first
introducing known answers and work-
ing backwards…”
Soil considerations
For insulation and conduit the ther-
mal resistivity of the material is readily
available from the manufacturer or pub-
lished sources. However, NEC Annex B
provides some rather specific values for
earth and concrete without elaboration.
The 1920s and ‘30s produced a lot of
field research on soil resistivity. Taken as
a whole, one can conclude: 1) ρe varies
a lot between locations, and 2) ρe drifts
over time. The latter is especially true
where heat causes moisture migration
or in sandy soils that undergo cycles of
saturation and drying.
In the example, underestimating the
value of ρe by 25% will overstate cable
ampacity by 9%.
Similarly, the American Concrete
Institute’s Guide to Thermal Proper-
ties of Concrete and Masonry Systems
observes that the thermal resistivity of
concrete depends on the aggregate used.
Values of ρc can range from 8 C-cm/W
51
 Neher-McGrath formula
to 111 C-cm/W. However, the effect on
ampacity is small; the worst-case error
changing ampacity by 3%.
The simple fact is ρ can only be found
by measuring it.
A basis for the ambient soil temperature
also is needed. This can be done by long-
term measurement (a luxury rarely avail-
able) or by consulting research sources.
For example, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratories has extensive soil tempera-
ture measurement histories (Table 3.15).
It may be reasonable to infer soil tempera-
ture from the frost depth, a data source
being the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration database. Below
the frost depth, soil temperature is unlikely
to ever be less than 0 C.
For the sample installation, a 10 C error
in soil temperature will affect ampacity by
±10%.
Returning to the thermal circuit, the
effective thermal resistance is found by
summing the components:
reducing the circuit to a Thevenin’s equiv-
alent from which the cable ampacity is
found.
Cable ampacity
Once the dc resistance (at the desired
operating temperature) is known—along
with the skin and proximity effect factors,
the total effective thermal resistance, and
the design temperature—finding cable
ampacity is, as Neher observed, rather
anticlimactic.
Including rounding and truncation
errors, the current carrying capacity of
the cables is found to be 250 amps, cor-
responding to the published value.
If the soil thermal resistivity turned out
to be 77 C-cm/W instead of 120 C-cm/W,
ampacity would increase by 13%; making
a 250 amp circuit a 300 amp one.
It was assumed there are no external
(i.e., interfering) heat sources. If the
ducts ran adjacent to steam lines, as in
the case of some facilities, the additional
heat source’s effect would have to be
included. A calculation similar to (3.2)
52 Consulting-Specifying Engineer • JULY 2014
Figure 13: A modern approach to find cable ampacity is the finite element method.
Here, the finite element mesh for a two-duct system was developed in Lisa 8.0 (for
clarity, the mesh representing the air in the duct was omitted). The next step is to
solve the heat transfer equations at each node in the mesh using a known set of
boundary conditions. The boundary conditions are a constant temperature at the sur-
face of each conductor and an ambient temperature at the outside edges. Courtesy:
North American Engineering
would be needed to find the temperature been toward numerical methods using a
rise, ΔTinf. combination of boundary element methods
An interfering temperature of 15 C (BEM) and finite element analysis (FEA).
would drop cable ampacity to 223 amps. These techniques allow multi-physics sim-
ulations where both the thermal and electric
Keeping the equation in mind effects can be modeled concurrently. Figure
There is clearly more to Neher-McGrath 13 shows the finite element mesh of a sim-
than meets the eye. The calculations have ple duct installation used for such analysis.
ample opportunities for error and misap- This approach models the physical sys-
plication. Proper use requires keeping in tem at a granular level with each element
mind that: defined by its material properties. Using
 Neher-McGrath is a body of knowl- known boundary conditions, the underlying
edge; engineering judgment is energy conservation laws can be solved to
required. find temperature rise and ampacity values.
 Buried within its equations are The finite element approach makes pos-
assumptions, simplifications, and sible representing the entire installation;
constraints that may or may not transitions and terminations need not be
always be applicable. ignored.
 Neher-McGrath does not consider Today, the Neher-McGrath formula is
harmonics, and assumes balanced the code-accepted practice for determining
phase loading, two omissions that cable ampacity. Certainly no one wants to
can significantly impact operating revisit the acrimony that accompanied its
temperature, ampacity, and cable incorporation into the NEC, but modern
protection. techniques have a great deal to offer over a
method intended for the slide rule.
Computational methods and machines
have progressed considerably in the 45 Timothy L. Linenbrink is a principal
years since Neher and McGrath stopped engineer at North American Engineer-
working on the problem. (Neher retired ing. A 1986 graduate of the University
from Philadelphia Electric in 1966, of Wyoming, he is a licensed professional
McGrath from General Cable in 1969.) engineer in 14 states. He has performed
Today it is doubtful the problem would be engineering, consulting, and project
approached in a pseudo-algorithmic fash- management services for the Naval Sea
ion. Since the early 1980s the trend has Systems Command, Bechtel, and others.
www.csemag.com
  

ERRATA 

The original article omitted the following calculations. The parenthetical equation referenced starting on 
page 49 correlate to the equations in the following sheets. 

### 
1. INPUTS AND PARAMETERS

CABLE BUILD UP AND PARAMETERS

Conductor base resistance temperature: TBase ≔ 25.00 [ºC]
Conductor dc resistance at 25°C: Rdc_25C ≔ 35.4 [ μΩ /foot]
Conductor diameter: dc ≔ 0.813 [inches]
Conductor proximity effect coefficient: kp ≔ 1.00 [unitless]
Conductor skin effect coefficient: ks ≔ 1.00 [unitless]
Conductor temperature coefficient at 25°C: α25C ≔ 0.00395 [1/K] (aluminum)
Cable insulation thickness: ti ≔ 0.095 [inches]
Cable diameter: Dc ≔ dc + 2 ⋅ ti [inches]
Cable (operating) temperature: Tc ≔ 75.00 [ºC]
Cable system interference temperature: ΔTinf ≔ 0.00 [ºC]

DUCT BANK DIMENSIONS AND PARAMETERS

Duct bank burial depth: Lb ≔ 36.0 [inches]
Duct bank cable group axial separation: s1 ≔ 7.5 [inches]
Duct bank dimensions: x1 ≔ 11.5 by y1 ≔ 27.0 [inches]
Duct inside diameter: Did ≔ 4.026 [inches]
Duct mean temperature: Tm ≔ 73.2083 [ºC] (by iteration)
Duct outside diameter: Dod ≔ 4.5 [inches]
Duct wall thickness: dt ≔ ⎛⎝Dod − Did⎞⎠ ÷ 2 = 0.237 [inches]
Diameter of the surface in contact with the earth: De ≔ Dod = 4.5 [inches]
Number of conductors per cable group: n≔3
Number of cable groups: N≔3

MISCELLANEOUS FACTORS
Earth ambient temperature: Ta ≔ 20.00 [ºC]
Load factor: lf ≔ 100%

THERMAL RESISTIVITY VALUES

Thermal resistivity of the earth: ρe ≔ 120.00 [ºC-cm/W]
Thermal resistivity of the cable insulation: ρi ≔ 450.00 [ºC-cm/W]
Thermal resistivity of the duct: ρd ≔ 600.00 [ºC-cm/W]
Thermal resistivity of the concrete duct bank: ρc ≔ 55.00 [ºC-cm/W]
2. CALCULATE THE CONDUCTOR AC RESISTANCE AT THE TARGET TEMPERATURE

(2.1) DC resistance adjusted to the operating temperature: Rdc_75C ≔ Rdc_25C ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α25C ⋅ ⎛⎝Tc − TBase⎠⎞⎠⎞ = 42.392

Skin effect equations...

Rdc_75C
(2.2) Input to the Bessel approximation ( ks is an empirical factor): x ≔ ――― = 42.392
ks

11
(2.3) Bessel function approximation: Fsp (x) ≔ ――――― 2
⎛ 4 2.56 ⎞
⎜x + ―
x
− ――2 ⎟
⎝ x ⎠

(2.4) Skin effect coefficient: Ys ≔ Fsp (x) = 0.0061

Proximity effect equations...

Rdc_75C
(2.5) Input to the Bessel approximation ( kp is an empirical factor): x ≔ ――― = 42.392
kp

11
(2.6) Bessel function approximation: Fxp (x) ≔ ――――― 2
⎛ 4 2.56 ⎞
⎜x + ―
x
− ――2 ⎟
⎝ x ⎠

(2.7) By convention S is used instead of Dc : S ≔ Dc = 1.003

2 2
⎛ dc ⎞ ⎛ 1.18 ⎛ dc ⎞ ⎞
(2.8) Proximity effect coefficeint: Ycp ≔ Fxp x ⋅ ⎜―⎟ ⋅ ⎜――――+ 0.312 ⋅ ⎜―⎟ ⎟ = 0.0179
( )
⎝ S ⎠ ⎝ Fxp (x) + 0.27 ⎝S⎠ ⎠

(2.9) Combined skin and proximity effects: Yc ≔ Ys + Ycp = 0.02403

(2.10) AC resistance, at the operating temperature, in μΩ per foot: Rac_75C ≔ Rdc_75C ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + Ys + Ycp⎞⎠ = 43.41
3. CALCULATE THE THERMAL RESISTANCES

Thermal resistance of the cable insulation...

(3.1) Diameter over the insulation: Di ≔ dc + 2 ⋅ ti

⎛ Di ⎞
(3.2) Thermal resistance of the insulation: Ri ≔ 0.012 ⋅ ρi ⋅ log ⎜―⎟ = 0.4925
⎝ dc ⎠
Thermal resistance between the surface of the cable and the inner duct wall...

(3.3) Empirical factors [N-M, Table VII]: A ≔ 17 B ≔ 2.3 C ≔ 0.024

(3.4) Diameter circumscribing the 3 cables: D's ≔ 2.15 ⋅ Dc

Thermal resistance of the duct wall...

⎛ n⋅A ⎞
(3.5) Thermal resistance in the duct: Rsd ≔ ⎜――――――⎟ = 5.231
⎝ 1 + ⎛⎝B + C ⋅ Tm⎞⎠ ⋅ D's ⎠

dt
(3.6) Thermal resistance of the duct wall: Rd ≔ 0.0104 ⋅ ρd ⋅ n ⋅ ――― = 1.0407
Dod − dt
Thermal resistance of the earth and the concrete duct bank...
104
(3.7) Thermal diffusivity of the soil: α ≔ ―― 0.8
= 2.258
⎛⎝ρe⎞⎠

(3.8) Fictitious diameter where lf commence: Dx ≔ 1.02 ⋅ ‾‾‾‾

α ⋅ 24 = 7.508

2
(3.9) Loss factor: LF ≔ 0.3 ⋅ lf + 0.7 ⋅ lf = 1

⎛ ⎛ 2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ x1 ⎞ ⎛ 4 x1 ⎞ y1 ⎞ ⎛ x1 ⎞⎞
⎜ ― ⋅ ⎜―⎟ ⋅ ⎜―− ―⎟ ⋅ log ⎜1 + ―― ⎟ + log ⎜―⎟⎟
⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎝ y ⎠ ⎝ π y ⎠ 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠
⎝ 1 1 ⎝ x1 ⎠
(3.10) Duct bank equivalent radius: rb ≔ 10 = 8.063

Lb
(3.11) Aspect ratio: u ≔ ―= 4.465
rb
⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾
2 ⎞
(3.12) Duct bank geometric factor: Gb ≔ log ⎝u + u − 1 ⎠ = 0.945

(3.13) Distance from duct 2 (hottest) to duct 1: d21 ≔ s1

(3.14) Distance from duct 2 (hottest) to duct 3: d23 ≔ s1

‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2
(3.15) Distance from duct 2 to duct 1's image: d'21 ≔ ⎛⎝2 ⋅ Lb⎞⎠ + ⎛⎝s1⎞⎠

(3.16) Distance from duct 2 to duct 3's image: d'23 ≔ d'21

⎛ d'21 ⎞ ⎛ d'23 ⎞
(3.17) Mutual heating effect factor: F ≔ ⎜―― ⎟ ⋅ ⎜―― ⎟ = 93.16
⎝ d21 ⎠ ⎝ d23 ⎠
(3.18) Thermal resistivity of the earth, taking into account the concrete duct.

⎛ ⎛ Dx ⎞ ⎛ 4 ⋅ Lb ⎞⎞
R'e ≔ 0.012 ⋅ ρc ⋅ n ⋅ ⎜log ⎜―⎟ + LF ⋅ log ⎜――⋅ F⎟⎟ + ⎛⎝0.012 ⋅ ⎛⎝ρe − ρc⎞⎠ ⋅ n ⋅ N ⋅ LF ⋅ Gb⎞⎠ = 13.5151
⎝ ⎝ De ⎠ ⎝ Dx ⎠⎠
4. EQUIVALENT THERMAL RESISTANCE OF THE CIRCUIT

(4.1) Total effective thermal resistance: Rca ≔ Ri + Rsd + Rd + R'e = 20.28

5. CALCULATE CABLE AMPACITY

‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Tc − ⎛⎝Ta + ΔTinf⎞⎠ 3
(5.1) Cable ampacity: I≔ ―――――― ⋅ 10 A = 250 A
3 Rdc_75C ⋅ ⎝1 + Yc⎠ ⋅ Rca
⎛ ⎞
( 10 comes from the resistance being in μΩ per foot)

The rated current from NEC Table B.310.15(B)(2)(7) aluminum Detail 2 column LF = 100%, ρe = 120, IRated = 250A.

View publication stats