2064
4, OCTOBER 2010
Ampacity Calculations for Cables in Shallow Troughs
George J. Anders, Fellow, IEEE, Mark Coates, and Mohamed Chaaban, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents the findings of an investigation
concerning a calculation method for current-carrying capability
(ampacity) of cables located in a shallow trough. The investiga-
tions proceeded in two parallel directions. On the one hand, an ex-
tensive search of published and unpublished records dealing with
the subject was performed. The second path of investigation in-
volved studies applying finite element analysis. Sensitivity analysis
was also performed. In both cases, the recommendation is to use
the same approach for determining the current rating of cables in
a trough. They both use the cable rating in “free air” as the basis
and add an extra thermal resistance to take into account the effect
of the trough. Based on the investigation of the previous work and
the finite element analysis, two new equations were developed for
the external thermal resistance. The proper choice would depend
on the field or laboratory tests that would confirm our findings or
lead to the modifications of the rating formulae. In the absence of
any additional information, it is recommended that the calculations
be performed using one of three methods listed below. The methods
are listed from the most to the least conservative.
1) method given by a new equation based on the finite element
analysis;
2) method given in the IEC standard 60287;
3) method given by a new analytical equation presented in this
paper.
The comparison of the calculated results with the available test
data shows that the method 3) above, the least conservative one,
gives a good agreement with the measured values.
Index Terms—Ampacities, cable rating, power cables, shallow
troughs, utility sidewalk.
I. INTRODUCTION
ISTRIBUTION cables within cities in the United States
D may be installed within covered troughs where the top
cover is flush with the surrounding surface. These sidewalk
troughs are constructed of precast reinforced concrete placed
on a 6-inch gravel bed. The trough has a 6-inch-thick concrete
lid designed for H20 traffic loading. The precast sections are
72 inches long and 48 inches wide with 6-inch-thick concrete
walls 12 inches tall. A number of cables may be laid on the
base of such a trough.
The purpose of this study was to develop a theoretical model
for determining the current rating of cables installed in a side-
walk trough. Two complementary approaches were adopted, re-
Manuscript received December 30, 2009; revised April 06, 2010. Date of pub-
lication August 23, 2010; date of current version September 22, 2010. Paper no.
TPWRD-00970-2009.
G. J. Anders is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical Uni-
versity of Lodz, Lodz, Poland (e-mail: george.anders@attglobal.net).
M. Coates is with Cobham plc., London KT22 7SA, U.K. (e-mail: mark.
coates@cobham.com).
M. Chaaban is with IREQ, Montreal, QC J3X 1S1, Canada (e-mail (mo-
hamed.chaaban@ireq.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2010.2051239
0885-8977/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO.
sulting in two analytical expressions for cable rating calcula-
tions. One approach is based on the analysis of the work already
done in this area and extraction of the most suitable model. The
other approach involved numerical studies with finite element
analysis and development of a new rating formula.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents some
background on the existing empirical equation given in the
standard IEC 60287 and outlines several other published
approaches. One of these approaches is selected as a recom-
mended method of analysis of such installations. Section III
briefly describes the numerical studies applying finite element
method and the resulting analytical developments. Section IV
compares the results obtained with different methods. Section V
contains a numerical example. Section VI provides comments
on possible methods for improving current ratings for cables in
troughs.
II. PUBLISHED CALCULATION METHODS
Since the IEEE standard 835-1994 [5] does not address the
issue of cable rating for trough installation, the investigations fo-
cused on the work done outside North America. The commonly
used approach is that published in the IEC standard 60287 [1],
and this Chapter reviews the method presented there followed
by the discussion of other published approaches.
A. IEC 60287
IEC 60287 is a standard, published by the International Elec-
trotechnical Committee that sets out methods for calculating
the current rating of cables under a range of different installa-
tion conditions. Many of the equations given in the standard are
based on fundamental heat transfer theory, and others are em-
pirical or semi-empirical equations derived from test work. The
standard includes an empirical approach to the determination of
current ratings for cables in unfilled troughs where the top cover
is flush with the ground surface. The approach used is to calcu-
late the current rating for the cable in air but with an addition to
the ambient temperature that takes account of the effect of the
trough. The increase in ambient temperature is given by
(1)
where:
total power dissipation of all the cables in the
trough, per meter (in watts per meter);
perimeter of the trough that is effective for heat
dissipation (in meters).
If the trough is shaded, then the perimeter, , is given by
. If the top cover is exposed to solar radiation,
then —that is, the top cover is not
considered effective for heat transfer.
ANDERS et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR CABLES IN SHALLOW TROUGHS
In calculating the current rating for each cable in the trough,
the ambient temperature , is replaced by . As the
maximum permitted power dissipation of each cable is a func-
tion of its current rating, an iterative approach has to be used to
determine the current rating in a trough.
This equation was included in the first edition of IEC 60287
in 1969 and was also given in the 1964 CIGRE report that was
the basis of the IEC standard.
The equation is credited to A. Morello of Pirelli Milan. In
his paper [2], he states that the empirical equation gives good
agreement with rating factors given in “IEE Wiring Regulations,
13th Edition, 1955”. No details of the derivation of the empirical
equation are given in Morello’s paper.
B. IEE Wiring Regulations
The IEE Wiring Regulations, BS 7671 1992, is a United
Kingdom standard that sets out the requirements for low-voltage
electrical installations in domestic, commercial, and industrial
properties in the U.K. The aims of BS 7671 are similar to
those of the National Electric Code in the United States in that
it sets out requirements to minimize the risk of danger from
electric shock or fire. Although the aims of the U.K. and U.S.
documents are similar, the detailed requirements are different.
BS 7671 contains tables of ratings and rating factors for com-
monly used types of low-voltage cables. Included in these is a
table of rating factors for cables in closed troughs. Three sizes
of trough are included: 18 in. (0.457 m) wide by 12 in. (0.305 m)
deep, 18 inches (0.457 m) wide by 24 in. (0.610 m) deep, and 24
in. (0.620 m) wide by 30 in. (0.762 m) deep. All three troughs
have a 4-in.-thick concrete cover. Rating factors are given for
up to 3 circuits in the smallest trough and 12 circuits in the
largest trough. The rating factors given are applied to the tab-
ulated rating for cables in free air. For the smallest trough, the
cables are assumed to lie on the bottom of the trough, and for
the other two troughs, they are supported on brackets fixed to
the side of the trough. The cables are assumed to be separated
by at least 2 in.
These derating factors were first introduced into the standard
in the 13th edition, which was published in 1955 and have re-
mained unchanged, other than metrication of the dimensions,
since then. The text associated with the derivation of the der-
ating factors is given in Appendix A.
The origin of the derating factors given in BS 7671 is not
known. However, a draft document has been found that derives
a simple equation for the calculation of the thermal resistance
of a trough. The equation is for troughs with a 4- inch-thick lid,
and the document has a graph of derating factors that aligns with
the factors given in BS 7671. The document is not dated, and no
author is given. However, from the content of the document, it
is believed to have been prepared by one or more U.K. cable
manufacturers. The document also contains a list of references.
the latest of which is dated 1944. This fact suggests that the
document was prepared in the late 1940s or early 1950s. In turn,
this dating suggests that the calculation method given was the
basis of the factors given in BS 7671. The equations given in
this document are reproduced in Appendix A, in metric units.
2065
C. ECRC Report
ERA Technology carried out measurements of temperature
rise of two sizes of cable in two sizes of trough during 1968.
This work was carried out for the Electricity Council Research
Centre (ECRC), and reported in [3]. The Electricity Council
was a body that represented U.K. electricity distribution com-
panies. A review of the contents of the report is presented in
Appendix B.
The report provides empirical equations for the temperature
difference between the cable surface and the inside of the trough
and from the trough wall to ambient. The report includes a com-
parison between the test results and those obtained by the cal-
culation method given in IEC 60287. This comparison shows
that the IEC equation gave a current rating that was about 14%
lower than that obtained from the test results. It was concluded
that the IEC method is very conservative.
The report also states that, if the trough is exposed to solar ra-
diation, the ambient temperature used in the calculations should
be increased by 9 C.
D. Slaninka Paper
A paper by P. Slaninka, [4] sets out a theoretical approach to
the calculation of the thermal resistance of a cable channel. As
with the IEC 60287 method, Slaninka’s approach leads to an ad-
ditional temperature rise, which is added to the ambient air tem-
perature to derive a rating for the cable in a trough. Slaninka as-
sumed isothermal conditions for both the ground surface and the
inner surface of the enclosure as well as made certain assump-
tions that are only valid for troughs of roughly square cross-sec-
tion. The resulting equation equivalent to (1) uses an increase in
the ambient temperature, , given by
(2)
where is derived in Appendix C.
Slaninka compared his theoretical approach with the test re-
sults and demonstrated that he obtained significantly better cor-
relation than was obtained with the IEC 60287 equation.
E. Other Work
Further work has been carried out to extend Slaninka’s so-
lution to a situation with non-isothermal conditions and troughs
that are not roughly square. This work also attempted to develop
a method for calculating the heat transfer between the cable sur-
face and the inner surface of the trough. The method divided the
trough along a horizontal axis that ran through the centreline of
the cables. Heat transfer to the upper part of the enclosure was
taken to be by convection and radiation, while that to the lower
part was taken to be by radiation only. Heat transfer by conduc-
tion for cables laid on the base of the trough was not considered.
The attempt to develop a general calculation method was
abandoned, because it was considered too complex for normal
use as it required the use of many precalculated graphs and ta-
bles of factors as well as an iterative calculation.
F. Proposed Analytical Solution Based on Previous Work
An extension of the Slaninka’s method is set out below. The
unpublished work compares the calculated results with those
2066
obtained from test work reported in ECRC Report ECRC/R219
and gives good agreement.
The thermal resistance of the trough [K m/W] is given by
(3)
where
(4)
in still air, indoors, or (5)
in moving air outdoors, where
is the wind speed, m/s (6)
(7)
(8)
where
thermal resistivity of the cover material (in K.m/W);
thermal resistivity of the surrounding material (in
K.m/W);
internal height of the trough (in meters);
internal width of the trough (in meters);
thickness of the cover (in meters).
The value computed in (3) is then used in (2) in the place of
. concrete, are in contact with compacted rock and native soil. A
The method given above takes no account of solar radiation.
However, the ECRC report states that, if the trough is exposed to
solar radiation, the ambient temperature used in the calculations
should be increased by 9 C. A review of the report shows that
this value was determined from the results of tests on a shallow
trough during a period when the intensity of the solar radiation
ranged between 930 and 1020 W/m . The results from a trough
300 mm deep gave a temperature rise, due to solar radiation of
8 C over the same period.
It is proposed that an increase in ambient temperature of 8 C
should be applied to take solar radiation intro account.
This method gives a derating factor, for solar radiation of
The proposed temperature increase due to solar radiation
is taken from measurements made in southeast England. As
such, it is considered that it can be applied in Northern Europe,
Canada, and the northern United States. For areas having a
greater intensity and longer durations of solar radiation, it
is suggested that temperature rise measurements are made
(but it is considered unlikely that a temperature rise of more
than 15 C will be encountered due to solar gain. The studies
performed by the authors showed that the temperature rise on
a cable exposed to 1000 W/mm of solar radiation can vary
between 10 C for cable in air and 17 C for cable installed in a
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2010
Fig. 1. Sketch of the installation under study. Cables are numbered from 1 to
6, from left to right.
duct as compared to a shaded installation. Hence, the maximum
value of 15 C with the effect of solar radiation in a trough will
be on a safe side in places with high solar intensity.
III. FINITE ELEMENT STUDY
A. Introduction
This section describes the numerical analysis of heat dissipa-
tion from six cables installed on the floor of a shallow trough.
The cover of the trough, made of concrete, is exposed to the am-
bient air and to the sun. The floor and the walls, also made of
sketch of the installation is shown in Fig. 1.
B. Approach
The analysis of this installation is done by coupling the finite
element technique to solve for the heat dissipation in the solid
region (soil, concrete, rock) with an analytical approach inside
the air cavity where the cables are installed. The solid domain
is discretized into small elements to enable the solution of the
2-D partial differential equation of heat conduction. Inside the
cavity, several heat balance equations are written between the
cables, the walls, and the air inside. This calculation leads to
an algebraic system of equations that is solved, at each iteration
(time step), and the results are fed back as input into the finite
element analysis.
C. Results of the Analysis
The study was conducted in transient mode due to the fluctu-
ation of sun radiation and outside air temperature. Fig. 2 shows
the results, which give the required temperature distribution at
the quasi-steady-state conditions.
D. Discussions
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table I.
To compare these results with the available guides and stan-
dard IEC-60287, both circuits were analyzed in free air at 40 C
and inside a trough with an “assumed” ambient temperature of
ANDERS et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR CABLES IN SHALLOW TROUGHS
Fig. 2. Temperature fluctuation at quasi-steady state.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF CABLES’ DAILY TEMPERATURE VARIATION IN THE TROUGH
TABLE II
MCM = I04 0 =
CABLE TEMPERATURE IN FREE AIR ACCORDING TO IEC-60287 (I-750
418 A, = 200 A)
64 C. This temperature is calculated by increasing the ambient
using (1) by a value equal to the total losses (106.6 W/m) inside
the trough divided by three times the perimeter without the top
cover (1.47 m). Table II shows a summary of these calculations
for the hottest cable in each circuit.
One can see that the formulation given by the IEC gives the
conductor temperatures that are very similar, but somewhat
smaller than those obtained from the FE analysis.
2067
Fig. 3. Influence of the thermal resistivity on conductor temperature based on
finite element study.
E. Proposed Analytical Solution Based on the Finite Element
Study
It should be noted that the IEC formulas for calculating cable
temperature in free air are developed on the basis of numerous
tests and observations. The devised equations include many im-
portant factors that can influence heat transfer from the cable to
the surrounding air. It may, therefore, be expected that their re-
sults are, most of the time, sufficiently accurate.
The modification of the ambient temperature given by (1) for
the covered trough case is performed using only one equation,
for which the only parameters are the total thermal dissipation
from the cable and the length of the trough perimeter effective
for heat dissipation. It does not take into account the thermal
resistivity of the trough materials and the surrounding soil or
the placement of the cables inside the trough. For the worst-
case conditions normally used in rating calculations, we have
assumed throughout that the cables in each of the two circuits
are touching with the spacing between the circuits sufficient for
unimpeded heat dissipation by each circuit. To take into account
the effect of the soil thermal resistivity, a series of sensitivity
studies was performed.
The sensitivity analysis performed using the coupled finite
element—analytical solution permits investigation of the influ-
ence of the thermal resistivity of the trough materials and the
surrounding soil on the cable temperature. This influence is pre-
sented in Fig. 3.
In the analysis, the thermal resistances of the materials of the
trough (concrete and compacted rock) and the surrounding soil
were equal to each other and changed simultaneously. It can
be clearly seen that changing the thermal resistance results in a
significant change of temperatures of the cable. We should point
out that the surface emissivity of the cover also has an influence
on the temperature rise, especially when shaded. On the basis of
the above mentioned analysis, it is proposed that the influence of
the soil thermal resistivity be taken into account by modifying
(1) as follows:
(9)
where
thermal resistivity of the material of the trough and
the soil. Constant is equal to 0.077, assuming that
represents an effective thermal resistivity of the
trough and the soil. For the analyzed case, .
2068
TABLE III
CALCULATED THERMAL RESISTANCES OF THE TROUGH
Fig. 4. Cable conductor temperature computed from the finite element analysis
and (9).
The added component in the square bracket will be equal to
0 for standard soil thermal resistivity of 0.9 K.m/W. For other
resistivities, it will appropriately shift the value of . As can
be observed in Fig. 4, the results from the finite element model
and (9) are very close.
IV. COMPARISON
The results given by the IEC 60287 method, Slaninka’s
method, and the proposed approach are given in Table III for
a range of conditions. The IEC equation has been modified to
to give the additional thermal resistance, assuming
that there is only one cable in the trough. This approach allows
direct comparison with the other calculations. The column
headed Slaninka 1 used the equation where the top sides and
bottom are considered together, Slaninka 2 is where the three
components are considered separately, that is, the thermal resis-
tivity of the cover can be different from that of the surrounding
soil.
To fill in the last column in Table III, the expression in the
square bracket in (9) was computed. Omission of the constant
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2010
term has a very small effect on the computed value of the
thermal resistance.
The comparison shows that the IEC 60287 equation is very
limited in that it does not take into account the thermal resistivity
of the surrounding soil and treats a tall narrow trough in the same
way as a shallow wide trough.1
As expected, the Slaninka 1 and 2 results are the same where
the lid and the soil have the same thermal resistivity. If the
thermal resistivity of the surrounding soil is increased, then the
result from Slaninka 1 is higher than that from Slaninka 2; this
is expected. The Slaninka 2 results are higher than that obtained
with the lower soil thermal resistivity; this is expected. Also
the wide shallow trough has a lower thermal resistance than the
narrow deep one, this is expected as well.
The results from the “recommended” method given by (3)
form a similar pattern to those from Slaninka 2, except that the
recommended results are consistently higher.
The method based on the finite element analysis (9) gives the
most pessimistic results but very close to the IEC method and
to the Slaninka method 1 when the soil and lid resistivities are
the same.
As both the recommended method (3) and that of Slaninka 1
claim to give good agreement with test results, it is difficult to
decide which method should be adopted.
Slaninka’s method was compared to test work on a 2.1-m-
wide 1.6-m-deep trough with a 0.35-m-thick lid. The calcu-
lated thermal resistance of the trough by Slaninka 1, is 0.061
(K m/W), and the value derived from the test work ranged from
0.068 to 0.075 (K m/W). The calculated value by using the rec-
ommended method (3) is 0.077 (K m/W). This result indicates
that Slaninka’s method is slightly optimistic and the proposed
method slightly pessimistic, but both could be said to give rea-
sonable agreement with the test results.
1In this comparison, solar radiation is disregarded, hence only the total
perimeter length plays a role.
ANDERS et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR CABLES IN SHALLOW TROUGHS 2069

The method given by (3) was compared with test results for TABLE IV
a 0.61-m-wide 0.31-m-deep trough with a 0.075–m-thick lid. CALCULATED PARAMETERS
The calculated thermal resistance using the proposed method
is 0.101 (K.m/W), and the value derived from the test work is
0.103 (K.m/W). The value derived from Slaninka’s method 1 is
0.054 (K.m/W). This result suggests that Slaninka’s method 1
may not be appropriate for troughs that are not approximately
square or those that have thin covers.
The values corresponding to (9) are similar to the IEC
method, but they take into account the soil thermal resistivity.
These values are slightly larger than the IEC results because of
the design of (9), where an additional term is added.
From the above, it is suggested that the proposed method is
used for the shallow trough installations, but a further allowance
should be made to allow for heat transfer by direct conduction
to the base. Eq. (5)
It should be noted that, from the results shown in Table II, the
conductor temperature computed with the IEC method is below Eq. (4)
the range of the design value of 90 C. Since this method is
more pessimistic than the proposed approach, we can conclude Eq. (3)
that the cables in the utility sidewalk can be safely loaded to
their full design ampacity of 200 and 418 A for the 4/0 and 750 The thermal resistance of the trough is an additional external
MCM constructions, respectively. thermal resistance, and as such, is added to the value of given
However, the results obtained before should be verified by above for a cable in air. In this case, because there are three
either laboratory or field measurements. These tests would single-core cables in the trough, the value of has to be mul-
permit suitable adjustment of the proposed model parameters. tiplied by 3 to give a per-cable value. This is not necessary for
The measures that can be applied to increase current ratings are a three-core cable in a trough because the factor , number of
discussed in Section VI. cores, is included in the current rating equation. The cable rating
The following section presents a numerical example em- is then recalculated using this new value of
ploying the proposed approach.

V. EXAMPLE CALCULATION
The current rating then becomes
The following example is based on a single circuit, where
12.5 kV 750 MCM cable is selected. The cables are installed in
trefoil in a 0.3 m deep 0.6 m wide trough having a 0.1 m thick
concrete lid. The installation is not exposed to solar radiation,
and the wind speed is taken as zero. The thermal resistivity of
the concrete and the surrounding soil is taken to be 1.2 K m/W.
The ambient air temperature is taken as 30 C, and the ground If the trough was filled with cement bound sand having a
temperature as 20 C. thermal resistivity of 1.2 K.m/W, then the circuit in the trough
The basic equation for calculating the current rating of a cable could be treated as a direct buried circuit, and its current rating
is given in IEC 60287 as would be 556 A.

VI. INCREASING CURRENT RATINGS

where the ac conductor resistance R, the various thermal resis-
tances T, and the loss factors are calculated using the equations
set out in the different sections of IEC 60287. These values are
given in Table IV.
The thermal resistance of the trough is calculated using the
equations given in Section II-F as follows:
Eq. (8)
Eq. (8)
Ea. (7)
A. Background
The current rating of a cable is dictated by the maximum
permitted conductor temperature and the rate at which the con-
ductor can dissipate heat to the environment. This rate of heat
dissipation is governed by the temperature difference between
the conductor and the environment and the thermal resistance
in the heat flow path. If the current rating of a cable is to be
increased, for a given temperature difference, then the thermal
resistance must be decreased.
For a cable in a trough, the thermal resistance can be divided
into four components:
1) internal thermal resistance of the cable (a function of the
cable materials and construction);
2070
2) thermal resistance from the cable surface to the inner sur-
face of the trough;
3) thermal resistance of the trough walls, base, and cover;
4) thermal resistance from the outer surface of the trough to
the environment.
Since the internal thermal resistance of the cable is a function
of its design, this measure cannot be changed significantly if the
cable is to remain capable of reliably distributing electricity.
There are a number of possible methods of reducing the
thermal resistance from the cable to the inner surface of the
trough. These methods will be discussed later in this section.
The thermal resistance through the walls, base, and cover of
the trough is a function of the material used and its thickness. In
a concrete trough, the walls and base have a similar thermal re-
sistivity to the surrounding soil, and there is little to be gained by
attempting to improve the resistivity of the walls and the base.
However, as a significant proportion of the heat loss from the
trough will be through the cover, there will be advantages in re-
placing the concrete lid with one having low solar absorptivity.
If the sidewalk is shielded from solar radiation, a cover with
low thermal resistivity would improve heat dissipation. The ob-
vious choice in this case would be a fabricated steel lid. A steel
lid could be readily constructed to have the required strength.
However, a steel lid has a number of disadvantages when used
in a public thoroughfare. It may create a noise nuisance by rat-
tling when traffic passes over it. It will become slippery when
wet and cause a slip or skid hazard.
Alternatively adding cast in “fins” to the underside of the con-
crete trough cover should improve the heat transfer to the cover.
The extent of such an improvement has not been quantified.
To reduce the external thermal resistance, it is necessary to
reduce the thermal resistivity of the material surrounding the
trough. As the existing, nominal, thermal resistivity of the soil
is taken as 0.9 K m/W, it is unlikely that this resistivity could be
improved. It is noted that the trough is laid on a gravel bed. The
thermal resistivity of the gravel, if dry, would be expected to be
closer to 2 K m/W. Replacing the gravel with a weak sand/ce-
ment/gravel mix would improve the heat transfer from the base
of the trough. However, this would also prevent water draining
out through the opening in the base of the trough, and another
approach would have to be adopted for drainage.
B. Cable—Trough Thermal Resistance
A significant proportion of the total thermal resistance be-
tween the cable conductors and the environment is that between
the cable surface and the inner surface of the trough. Reducing
this resistance will increase the current rating of the cable.
The simplest means of reducing this thermal resistance would
be to fill the trough with a material having a relatively low
thermal resistivity. One option would be to fill the trough with
a weak mix cement-bound sand, CBS. A 14:1 CBS mix is often
used as a bedding material for HV cable systems to improve
the thermal properties of the material immediately around the
cable and reduce the risk of thermal runaway should the back-
fill around the cable dry out. The thermal resistivity of dry CBS
can be better than 1.2 (K m/W) if the sand is carefully selected.
CBS is usually compacted around the cables to give a dry den-
sity of at least 1600 kg/m . Due to the compaction required, no
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2010
gravel or other sharp stones should be included in the CBS mix.
Once it has cured, the CBS becomes a solid mass, which cannot
simply be shovelled out of the trough. It has to be broken up like
a weak concrete to remove it. The main disadvantage of using
CBS is this difficulty in removing it, and hence it would greatly
impede the installation of additional cables and the repair of any
faults in the existing cables.
At first sight, the option of adding ventilation holes in the top
cover to allow hot air to escape would appear to be an option
to improve the heat transfer from the trough. This option is not
viable because hot air would only flow out if there was a means
for cold air to flow in to replace it. Test work was carried out
some years ago to improve the current rating of cables installed
in air but surrounded by a thermally insulating enclosure (in-
tended to protect the cables in the event of a fire). It was found
that removing 50% of the top cover of the enclosure only pro-
duced a small increase in the cable rating. It was necessary to
also remove 50% of the base of the enclosure to provide suffi-
cient air flow through the enclosure to significantly improve the
cable rating. Because this latter step would invalidate the fire
protection, the 50% derating factor caused by the enclosure had
to be accepted.
Forced ventilation of the trough is not considered a viable
option, because this would require the installation of fans or
blowers at numerous points along the route of the trough. There
would be significant costs associated with installing and main-
taining such a system. Such costs may exceed the cost of in-
stalling additional cables in parallel with the existing ones to
share the load. Also, the higher current rating could not be main-
tained in the event of a failure in the forced ventilation system.
Installing a circulating water system in the troughs to extract
the heat has the same drawbacks as a forced cooling system,
with the additional risk of a major water leak into the trough.
Natural ventilation can be used to ventilate cable tunnels.
Ventilation is achieved by having two vents in the tunnel to
chimneys of different heights. Natural convection will cause air
to be drawn in through the lower chimney pass along the tunnel
and exit from the taller chimney. The spacing between the chim-
neys and their relative height are a function of the resistance
to air flow offered by the chimney-tunnel-chimney system. Be-
cause a relatively small cable trough offers a higher resistance
to air flow than a large cable tunnel, this form of ventilation may
not be a practical proposition. The required spacing and height
of any chimneys have not been studied in detail. It is considered
likely that this solution will not be practical for a “utility side-
walk” system.
Of the aforementioned options, only that of filling the trough
with CBS is considered to offer a realistic method of improving
the cable rating.
VII. CONCLUSION
The analytical methods reviewed in this paper generally use
the same approach for determining the current rating of cables
in a trough. They all use the cable rating in “free air” as the
basis and add an extra thermal resistance to take into account
the effect of the trough. There are two factors that this does not
take into account: the direct conduction of heat from the cable to
the base of the trough, and the restriction in natural convection
ANDERS et al.: AMPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR CABLES IN SHALLOW TROUGHS
due to the trough. Since the first factor would increase the cable
rating and the second factor would reduce it, the two factors may
balance out to some extent.
The finite element analysis considers heat transfer in all direc-
tions from the cables, and the radiation considers the presence
of walls and other cables. These types of studies are very in-
volved and time consuming; therefore, only limited sensitivity
runs were performed. However, it appears that a simple analyt-
ical solution derived from these investigations may overcome
some of the major limitations of the IEC method.
The amount of test data available relating to the temperature
rise of cables in troughs is very limited. None of the test data
found relate to troughs that are relatively wide and shallow, as
is the utility sidewalk.
All of the methods that have been considered for improving the
current rating of cables in troughs have significant disadvantages.
If a higher rating is required, increasing the conductor size
or using cables with copper conductors may be the best
option.
The test work required to validate any theoretical model
should be carried out on a full-size trough. Tests in a laboratory
are preferred, because this will eliminate the problems caused
by changes in the environmental conditions during the tests. A
design of the tests can be discussed separately.
APPENDIX A
EXTRACT FROM BS7671:1992
IEE Wiring Regulations: The IEE Wiring Regulations, BS
7671, is a U.K. standard that sets out the requirements for low-
voltage electrical installations in domestic commercial and in-
dustrial properties in the U.K. The aims of BS 7671 are similar
to those of the National Electric Code in the U.S. in that it sets
out requirements to minimize the risk of danger from electric
shock or fire. Although the aims of the U.K. and U.S. docu-
ments are similar, the detailed requirements are different.
BS 7671 contains tables of ratings and rating factors for com-
monly used types of low-voltage cables. Included in these tables
is a table of rating factors for cables in closed troughs. Three
sizes of trough are included: 18 inches wide by 12 inches deep,
18 inches wide by 24 inches deep, and 24 inches wide by 30
inches deep. All three troughs have a 4-in.-thick concrete cover.
Rating factors are given for up to 3 circuits in the smallest trough
and 12 circuits in the largest trough. The rating factors given
are applied to the tabulated rating for cables in free air. For the
smallest trough, the cables are assumed to lie on the bottom of
the trough, and for the other two troughs, they are supported on
brackets fixed to the side of the trough. The cables are assumed
to be separated by at least 2 in.
These derating factors were first introduced into the standard
in the 13th edition, which was published in 1955 and have re-
mained unchanged, other than metrication of the dimensions,
since then.
The origin of the derating factors given in BS 7671 is not
known. However, it is considered likely that they were derived
from equations given in an anonymous document probably pre-
pared in about 1950. The equation given in the document for the
2071
thermal resistance of the trough , converted into metric units,
is
where
internal height of the trough (in meters);
internal width of the trough (in meters).
The cable derating factor is then given by
where
total thermal resistance of the cable in air (in K-m/W);
total number of cables in the trough.
It is stated in the document that the equation uses published
data on heat losses through various types of floor, walls, ceilings,
and roofs. This suggests that data available on heat losses from
buildings were used. It is also stated that a ground temperature of
25 C was used, and it was assumed that the heat loss, per unit
area, through the trench walls is the same as that through the
base. It is clear that the equation assumes that the inside surface
of the trough is an isotherm.
Since the equation was based on heat flow data for buildings,
it is probably only applicable to troughs within buildings where
conditions are generally drier, and thermal resistivities will be
higher, than for outdoor troughs.
APPENDIX B
EXTRACT OF THE REPORT FOR ELECTRICITY COUNCIL
RESEARCH CENTRE, ECRC IN THE U.K.
The work performed at ERA was limited to tests on a 12-in.-
wide 6-in. deep concrete trough containing three cables 2 in.
in diameter and tests on a 24-in.-wide 12-in.-deep trough, first
containing three cables 2 in. in diameter and then containing
three cables 4 in. in diameter. The test work was carried out out-
side between February and July 1968. The report indicates the
difficulties of obtaining stable temperature results when there
are continuous changes in the ambient conditions, such as wind
speed, rainfall, temperature, solar radiation, and soil conditions.
The report provides empirical equations for the temperature
difference between the cable surface and the inside of the trough
and from the trough wall to ambient. These equations are:
For 2-in.-diameter cable in the 12 6-in. trough, the cable
surface to trough wall
For 2-in.-diameter cable in the 24 12-in. trough, cable sur-
face to trough wall
2072
For 4-in. diameter cable in the 24 12-in. trough, cable sur-
face to trough wall
For a 12 6-in. trough, trough to ambient
For a 24 12-in. trough, trough to ambient
where
power dissipation from one cable (in watts per
meter);
temperature difference between the cable surface and
the inner wall of the trough (in Kelvin);
temperature difference between the inner wall of the
trough and ambient (in Kelvin).
It should be noted that the equations shown before were ob-
tained by “curve fitting” of the best fit lines drawn through the
test results. Because of this, the equations may only be valid
for the test conditions at the time of the selected results. The se-
lected results were the averages of those recorded over a 24-hour
period on three days, one in April, one in May, and one in June
1968. These days were chosen, because ambient conditions had
been stable for sufficient time, and the average wind speed was
less than 2 mph. The reported thermal resistivity of the backfill
around the troughs at these times was about 0.60 K m/W, and
that at different positions away from the troughs was between
0.45 and 1.03 K m/W.
APPENDIX C
SLANINKA’S METHOD
In this method, the thermal resistance of the trough can be
divided into three parts: 1) from the base of the trough to am-
bient soil, 2) from the sides of the trough to ambient soil, and
3) from the top of the trough to ambient air. This approach al-
lows different thermal resistivities to be used for the material
surrounding each portion of the trough. The equations are
1) For the thermal resistance from the inner surface of the
cover to ambient air
where
thermal resistivity of the cover material (in
K m/W);
internal width of the trough (in meters);
thickness of the cover (in meters).
2) For the thermal resistance from the sides to ambient soil
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2010
where
thermal resistivity of the material surrounding the
sides of the trough (in K m/W)
internal height of the trough (in meters).
3) For the thermal resistance from the base to ambient soil
where
thermal resistivity of the material under the base of the
trough (in K.m/W).
The overall thermal resistance of the trough is then given
by
The above equations constitute the method that we refer to as
Slaninka 2.
If the thermal resistivity of all materials can be taken to be
equal, then is given by
This equation is referred to in the text as the Slaninka 1
method.
REFERENCES
[1] Calculation of the Continuous Current Rating of Cables (100% Load
Factor), IEC Std. 60287 (1969, 1982, 1994), 1994–1995, 1st ed. 1969,
2nd ed. 1982, 3rd ed.
[2] A. Morello, “The calculation of the current flow in new power trans-
mission cables,” L’Elettrotecnica, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 2, Jan. 1959.
[3] D. G. McCormick, “Cable ratings in concrete troughs,” ECRC/R219
Nov. 1969.
[4] P. Slaninka, “Thermal resistance of a cable channel,” Bull. Vuki, vol.
18, no. 5, pp. 212–221, 1965.
[5] IEEE Standard—Power Cable Ampacity Tables, IEEE Std. 835, 1994,
IEEE Press.
George J. Anders (F’99), photograph and biography not available at the time
of publication.
Mark Coates , photograph and biography not available at the time of publica-
tion.
Mohamed Chaaban (SM’00), photograph and biography not available at the
time of publication.