1362 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO.

5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

A Comparison of the ANSI/IEEE and the

CENELEC/IEC Approaches to Overload
Protection of Insulated Power Cables
Giuseppe Parise, Member, IEEE, and Giuseppe Rubino

Abstract—The same basic principles on which the methods of This paper investigates such differences and suggests a way
power cable protection against overloads are based, are summed to mediate them.
up by different criteria and formulations within ANSI/IEEE
and CENELEC/IEC publications. The studies carried out by the
technical committees of these organizations have been examined II. ADMISSIBLE OVERLOADS IN THE
and compared, in order to point out not only their differences, ANSI/IEEE AND THE CENELEC/IEC RULES
but also their complementary aspects. By combining the two
approaches, it has been possible to outline a “third way” to The starting point of ANSI/IEEE [1] in determining the
determine the admissible duration of overload currents and define overload capacity of cables is the conductor emergency loading
intermediate criteria for the emergency ratings of cables and for temperature , defined as that temperature value, substan-
the coordination of protective devices.
tially higher than normal loading temperature , which can
Index Terms— Emergency ratings of cables, overload protec- be tolerated by a cable for a given maximum time per
tion, power cables. overload, maximum number of overloads per year, and average
number of overloads per year over the cable lifetime. ,
I. THE INNER MEANING OF “OVERLOAD” FOR POWER CABLES its permissible period of permanence, and its frequency of
occurrence vary with the type of cable insulating material.
P OWER CABLES are manufactured to operate at their
rated current-carrying capacity (or ampacity), , 24 hours
a day for a certain number of years, usually 20; is related
For the purpose of this paper, it will be sufficient to take
into consideration the case of EPR and XLP insulated cables,
the emergency ratings of which are specified by ANSI/IEEE
to the normal loading temperature , which is the maximum
as follows:
permissible conductor temperature in continuous steady-state
operation and depends on the type of insulation. emergency loading temperature 130 C;
In regular service, and are reached only occasion- normal loading temperature 90 C;
ally, because cables are employed in circuits designed for a maximum time per overload 36 h;
current value conservatively lower than ; therefore, when maximum number of overloads per year 3;
an overload occurs, the cable conductor is generally at a average number of overloads per year 1.
temperature lower than , and it will take some time to reach Within ANSI/IEEE rules, it is assumed that overload cur-
and overcome because of the cable thermal inertia. rents may be applied to a cable until its conductor reaches the
Moreover, since overcurrents are inevitable during a cable temperature ; on the basis of this assumption, ANSI/IEEE
lifetime, a percentage of its life has to be expended in order has introduced the following practical, easy-to-use equation
to face them; there is an admissible ratio of loss of life of the to calculate the overload ratings of cables in the conservative
cable for each overcurrent and, consequently, an admissible hypothesis that they have been operated at their full ampacity
duration for each overload. prior to the overload itself (preloading 100%) [1]:
ANSI/IEEE and CENELEC/IEC share these fundamental
assumptions, but they come to different conclusions as to
overload ratings of cables and protection criteria.
p u. (1)
Paper ICPSD 95–10, presented at the 1995 IEEE/IAS Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, San Antonio, TX, May where
7–11, and approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY
APPLICATIONS by the Power Systems Engineering Committee of the IEEE cable emergency loading current;
Industry Applications Society. Manuscript released for publication November cable current-carrying capacity;
19, 1996.
G. Parise is with the Electrical Engineering Department, University of Rome conductor emergency loading temperature;
“La Sapienza,” 00184 Rome, Italy. conductor normal loading temperature;
G. Rubino was with the Electrical Engineering Department, University of ambient temperature;
Rome “La Sapienza,” 00184 Rome, Italy. He is now with the Power Delivery
Department, ENEL s.p.a., 73100 Brindisi, Lecce, Italy. time after start of overload in hours;
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(97)06550-X. thermal time constant of cable;
0093–9994/97$10.00  1997 IEEE
PARISE AND RUBINO: ANSI/IEEE AND CENELEC/IEC APPROACH TO OVERLOAD PROTECTION
TABLE I
ANSI/IEEE: TIME CONSTANTS K OF CABLES (IN HOURS)
zero resistance temperature value (234 for copper, 228
for aluminum).
Correction factors have been developed to use the same
expression for lower preloadings, also; in the American rules,
however, it is clearly stated that, regardless of preloading,
protection should be coordinated with cable rating, not loading;
for this reason, data provided are based on 100% preloading.
There are code rules [2] limiting the load that can be carried
continuously (3 h or more) to no more than 80% of the
rating of the circuit protective device. (An exception is made
for circuits supplied by an assembly, which together with its
overcurrent devices, is listed for continuous operation at 100%
of its rating).
The introduction of the thermal time constant of cables
is noticeable in the relation (1), an essential parameter
dependent on cable size and installation type which is often
mentioned in the studies of the thermal behavior of power
cables, but the values of which are unlikely to be indicated or
calculated by any acknowledged analytical expression; on the
contrary, ANSI/IEEE, with a remarkable effort of synthesis,
has tabulated the values for every kind of cable (see Table
I).
In this way, the American rules provide all the elements to
easily determine the time-current characteristics of cables.
Cable protection against overloads in the ANSI/IEEE ap-
proach is consistently based on the comparison between the
time-current overload characteristics of cables and the time-
current operating curves of protective devices plotted on the
same log–log graph paper. The – curve of the selected
protective device should always be below and to the left of the
overload characteristic of the protected cable, the maximum
protection being performed if the two curves match.
Finally, it is important to point out that, in many cases,
the load of a circuit is characterized by a daily duty with a
maximum loading time of three, six, or more hours
per day ( 24 h/d). The expression (1) allows one to
evaluate the minimum values of emergency loading current
, the result of which is protected in
correspondence of the maximum loading time . are concerned, their ratings are prescribed [6], [7], as shown
CENELEC/IEC deals with overload protection of cables
essentially in terms of current values, in the sense that the
overload capacity of cables does not result from any expressed
correlation with the thermal behavior of cables or from any
definition of their emergency loading temperatures; the admis-
sibility of overload currents for moderate periods is asserted as
a consequence of the prescribed coordination criteria between
conductors and protective devices [3] summarized by the two
1363
TABLE II
CENELEC/IEC: CURRENTS If , EXPRESSED IN P.U. OF THE
NOMINAL CURRENTS In , ENSURING EFFECTIVE OPERATION
OF THE CIRCUIT BREAKERS IN CONVENTIONAL TIMES tf
following conditions:
(2)
(3)
where
current for which the circuit is designed;
cable current-carrying capacity;
nominal current or setting current of the protec-
tive device;
current ensuring effective operation of the pro-
tective device;
maximum admissible value of emergency loading
current in conventional time.
In the case of circuit breakers considered in this paper,
is taken as equal to their operating current in the conventional
time .
CENELEC/IEC coordination criteria represent a compro-
mise between the need of the most economical utilization of
cables, which would require a full exploitation of their current-
carrying capacity, and the need of a complete and timely
protection against all the overloads.
As a result of such a compromise, overcurrents up to
and, therefore, between and may be applied
to cables for long periods, not lower than the operating
conventional time of protective devices; this evidence is
somehow mitigated by some additional instructions reported
in different CENELEC/IEC documents [4] (CEI Italian Std.
[5]). Generally, electric circuits are designed for an current,
assuming that small overloads of long duration will not occur
frequently; in circuits where sustained overcurrents lower than
this can occur, according to these additional instructions, the
current of cables must be adequate to such overcurrents.
Substantially, it remains the fact that overload capacity of
cables is indirectly acknowledged by the definition of the
characteristics of protective devices; as far as circuit breakers
in Table II.
It must be noted that in the European rules, protective de-
vices against overloads are selected by taking into account just
one point of their time-current operating curve and precisely
that of coordinates ; this point has to be inside the
range , which is the only reference to the
cable emergency ratings. Overload characteristics of cables
are not defined.
1364 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

III. COMPARISON OF THE ADMISSIBLE OVERLOADS IN THE

TWO APPROACHES FROM THE CABLE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE
ANSI/IEEE methodology for calculating the overload rat-
ings of cables is suitable to a double comparison with CEN-
ELEC/IEC criteria for overload protection: 1) a comparison
between the emergency temperature rise implicitly permitted
by the IEC rules and the ANSI/IEEE and 2) a comparison
between the emergency loading current prescribed by the
ANSI/IEEE rules and the IEC .

A. Temperatures Comparison
Let us consider the equation of temperature rise of a given
cable, characterized by the ampacity and by the thermal
time constant , in the case in which an overcurrent equal to
Fig. 1. Comparison of temperature values f (IEC rules) with ANSI/IEEE
the operating current is applied: temperature E = =
130 C (EPR); solid line for tf =
1 h valid up to K
=
approximately 1.25; dotted line for tf 2 h above K= 1).
(4)

where is the final steady-state value of temperature. Adopt- Moreover, calculations have been executed by the following
ing the well-known expression of the heat flow generated by equation:
Joule’s losses as the ratio

(5) p u. (8)

it is possible to obtain which is more accurate than the ANSI/IEEE formula (1)
because it has introduced the temperature
(6) that is the steady-state temperature of the cable conductor
with time constant corresponding to the overcurrent ; the
temperatures can be determined by using (4) as follows:
By using the provided by ANSI/IEEE (Table I) and
assuming , it is possible to determine for the cable the
value of conductor temperature reached within the (9)
operating conventional time of circuit breakers established
by CENELEC/IEC. Adopting (4) with the substitution of (5), This double comparison has been carried out in the most
the value of conductor temperature is defined as follows: conservative hypothesis from the cable safety perspective; that
is to say, it has been assumed that cables were previously
operated at their full ampacity (preloading 100%) and that
is equal to (maximum admissible value of emergency
(7)
loading current accepted by the CENELEC/IEC rules).
Calculations have been repeated for different values of the
where is given by (6).
thermal time constant of cables, reported in the abscissae
The so-determined temperature values can be compared
axis or as parameters of the following figures. The thermal
with the emergency temperature rating introduced by the
time constant of a cable is directly correlated to its conductor
American rules.
size, as explained in Table I provided by ANSI/IEEE.
Concerning this table, it must be observed that conductor
B. Overcurrents Comparison sizes enabling cable ampacities lower than 63 A have time
On the other hand, the same ANSI/IEEE relationship (1) en- constant values up to approximately 1.25 ( A for
ables one to calculate, for each given cable with time constant 1.25); therefore, in this case, is to be taken as equal to 1
, the value of the overload current that makes h (solid lines in Figs. 1 and 4) according to Table II provided
the conductor temperature rise exactly to the rated emergency by CENELEC/IEC.
temperature within the operating conventional time Likewise, time constants above approximately 1 refer to
of circuit breakers. The so-defined values have to be cable ampacities greater than 63 A 63 A for 1)
compared with the operating current , which represents the and, so, to operating conventional times of 2 h (dotted lines
maximum overload allowed by the CENELEC/IEC rules for in Figs. 1 and 4).
a period equal to the above-mentioned operating conventional The results obtained are illustrated graphically in the fol-
time . lowing figures.
PARISE AND RUBINO: ANSI/IEEE AND CENELEC/IEC APPROACH TO OVERLOAD PROTECTION 1365

Fig. 2. Temperature rise of cables of time constant K = 0.3, 0.7, 1.0, 1.2
(overcurrent 1.45 p.u., tf= =
1 h); temperature rise is stopped at E 130 C
Fig. 4. Comparison of overload current values percentage IEf =Iz %
(EPR) by the ANSI/IEEE rules and at 1 h by the IEC rules.
(ANSI/IEEE rules) with the IEC If =Iz= =
145% (solid line for tf 1h
= =
valid up to K approximately 1.25; dotted line for tf =
2 h above K 1).

conventional time of circuit breakers. The calculating

expression is (8), equal to the ANSI/IEEE (1) with the above-
mentioned correction. The comparison between the admissible
% and the IEC 145% is immediate (solid line
for 1 h valid up to approximately 1.25; dotted line
for 2 h above 1).

IV. HALFWAY BETWEEN ANSI/IEEE AND CENELEC/IEC

Figs. 1–4 clearly show that, in about the overall range
of thermal time constant values, i.e., cable section values,
the emergency overload ratings established by ANSI/IEEE
are more conservative than the CENELEC/IEC criteria for
overload protection.
By combining the two approaches, it is possible to outline a
Fig. 3. Temperature rise of cables of time constant K = 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 matched way to determine the admissible duration of overload
(overcurrent 1.45 p.u., tf= =
2 h); temperature rise is stopped at E 130 C currents and define synthetic criteria for the emergency ratings
(EPR) by the ANSI/IEEE rules and at 2 h by the IEC rules.
of cables and for the coordination of protective devices.
The proposed coordination criteria between conductors and
Fig. 1 shows the temperature values , reached following protective devices, adopting the approach of the IEC rules, are
the CENELEC/IEC rules, in comparison with the ANSI/IEEE summarized by the two following conditions:
temperature 130 C (EPR). is reached when an
(10)
overcurrent 1.45 is applied to cables of time constants
within a conventional time of appropriate value (solid (11)
line for 1 h valid up to approximately 1.25; dotted where the first condition confirms the IEC condition (2),
line for 2 h above 1). and the second condition modifies the IEC condition (3).
Figs. 2 and 3 show the temperature rises of various cables In the proposed formulation, the overload current values
(various constants ) with the same overcurrent are adopted; can be determined using (8), and it
1.45 applied; the ANSI/IEEE rules stop the maximum safe is defined as the current value that makes the conductor
capability of the cables at the temperature 130 C (EPR) temperature rise exactly to the rated emergency temperature
and the IEC rules at the operating conventional time 1 within the operating conventional time of protection
or 2 h in the case of circuit breakers as protective devices. devices (calculations relating to circuit breakers are reported
Fig. 4 shows the overload current values percentage in Table III).
% that makes the conductor temperature rise exactly to Finally, it is important to consider that, according to the
the rated emergency temperature within the operating definition of the current for which the circuit is designed,
1366 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 33, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
TABLE III
OVERLOAD CURRENT VALUES IEf /IZ % CALCULATED BY (8)
in many cases the load is characterized by a daily duty. A no-
thermal-load time of three, six, or more hours per day, in
which the cable is at , is frequent for the circuits; a factor
of overloading margin per day can be considered to
counterbalance the values of no protected emergency loading
currents . [6] Circuit Breakers for Overcurrent Protection for Household and Similar
The analysis so far carried out in the case of EPR and
XLP insulated cables can be repeated for any other insulation
type, and it leads to individuate, depending on the cable size,
which is the best overload protection methodology among the
two proposed by ANSI/IEEE and CENELEC/IEC, in order to
ensure the longest cable duration and operating reliability.
V. CONCLUSION
ANSI/IEEE and CENELEC/IEC methodologies for over-
load protection have been compared with the purpose of
pointing out the safest emergency ratings of insulated power
cables.
The admissible overload currents and temperatures explic-
itly or implicitly accepted by the American and European rules
have been adopted as terms of this comparison.
There is the awareness that a more objective comparison
should be based on the effects of such overload temperatures
and currents on cable insulation; in other words, it would be
necessary to evaluate the ratio of loss of life caused by each
overload event taking place during the cable lifetime.
Such an analysis was begun by CENELEC many years ago
[8], but it has not been adequately performed and, yet, it is
worth being investigated thoroughly, because only by measur-
ing the cable life consumption due to current or overcurrent
carrying will it be possible to determine the real overload
capacity of cables depending on the number of occurring
overloads and on the actual loading conditions.
Further studies in this direction are in progress.
REFERENCES
[1] Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power Sys-
tems, ANSI/IEEE Std 242, ch. 8, “Conductor protection,” 1986.
[2] National Electrical Code, 1990.
[3] Electrical Installations of Buildings, IEC 364-4-43, pt. 4, “Protection for
safety,” ch. 43, “Protection against overcurrent,” 1977.
[4] Electrical Installations of Buildings, IEC 364-5-523, pt. 5, “Wiring
systems,” sec. 523, “Current-carrying capacities,” 1983.
[5] Guide to Use of Low Voltage Cables, CEI 20-40, (CENELEC HD 516
S1), 1992.
Installations, IEC 898, 1990.
[7] Circuit Breakers for Rated Voltage Not to Exceed 1000 V ac or 1200 V
dc, IEC 157-1, 157-1A, 157-1B, 1977–1979.
[8] Overload Temperatures and Currents for Different Types of Low Voltage
Cables with Extruded Insulation, CENELEC TC20 WG1 (SEC) 04A,
1975.
Giuseppe Parise (M’82), for a photograph and biography, see this issue, p.
1347.
Giuseppe Rubino was born in Lecce, Italy, in 1965.
He received the degree with honors in electrotech-
nical engineering from the University of Rome “La
Sapienza,” Rome, Italy, in 1991 and the Master’s
degree in innovation and technologies management
from the Advanced School for Managing Innovation
and Technologies, Tecnopolis Novus Ortus Science
Park, Bari, Italy, in 1993.
In 1993, he joined the Power Delivery Depart-
ment, ENEL s.p.a., Brindisi, Italy, where he cur-
rently works in the field of medium- and low-voltage
network planning and management.
Mr. Rubino is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Lecce,
Italy.