1

Major Factors Affecting Cable Ampacity

Francisco de Len, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper presents a parametric study of the major

II. UNDERGROUND CABLE INSTALLATIONS

factors affecting cable ampacity calculations. The current

carrying capacity (or ampacity) of a cable depends on many of
the installation properties and conditions. In this paper the
effects on ampacity of conductor size, ambient temperature,
bonding arrangement, duct size, soil thermal resistivity,
resistivity and size of backfill (or duct bank) and depth of
installation for underground installations are presented. For
cables air the effects on ampacity of the intensity of solar
radiation, the spacing from the wall and the grouping of cables
are analyzed. For riser pole installations the effect of the solar
radiation, wind speed, ventilation and diameter of the duct are
shown.

Several installation features were varied to study their

effect in the ampacity. In the Appendix the reader can find the
data of cables and installations used to perform the parametric
studies. The ambient temperature was always 25C while the
target temperature has been set to 90C for all ampacity
calculations. The soil thermal resistivity is 1.0 [K-W/m]
except when indicated. All cases are balanced with a unity
load factor.

Index Terms Ampacity. Cable Rating. Underground

Cables. Cables in Air. Cables in Riser Poles. IEC Standards.
CYMCAP. Neher-McGrath.

The size of the cable has been varied from 250 MCM to 1500
MCM. Figure 1 shows the results for single-point and twopoint bonding.

A. Varying Conductor Caliber

600

I. INTRODUCTION

F. de Len is with CYME International T&D, 1485 Roberval, Suite 104, StBruno, Quebec, Canada, J3V 3P8 (e-mail: info@cyme.com).

1-4244-0493-2/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE.

Ampacity [A]

500

Single-Point
Bonded

400

Two-Point
Bonded

300
200
100
0
0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

Conductor Size [MCM]

Figure 1. Ampacity versus conductor size for two bonding types

600
500

Ampacity [A]

MPACITY (or current-carrying capacity) of a cable is

greatly affected by the installation conditions and
material properties. In this paper a parametric study of the
major factors affecting ampacity is presented. All simulations
were performed using the commercial ampacity program
CYMCAP, which works in accordance to the IEC standards;
see references [1] to [7]. The IEEE Standard 835-1994 [8]
gives very similar results to those of the IEC Standards for
underground cables. Differences are more noticeable for
cables in air. Both the IEC and IEEE Standards are based on
the Neher-McGrath method published in 1957 [9]. The
reader is referred to [10] for a thorough review the theory of
ampacity calculations, the historical developments and the
differences between the two methods.
For underground installations the effects on cable ampacity
due to the following parameters is studied: conductor size,
native soil thermal resistivity, bonding type, directly buried
versus duct bank installation and duct size.
For cables in air the effect on cable ampacity of the
following parameters is studied: conductor size, intensity of
solar radiation, distance to the wall and cable grouping.
For cables installed in riser poles the effect on ampacity of
the following installation parameters is studied: conduit size,
surface absorption coefficient of solar radiation, wind speed,
type of ventilation, intensity of solar radiation and length of
the riser pole.

Directly
Buried

400

6%
Duct
Bank

300
200
100
0
0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

Conductor Size [MCM]

Figure 2. Ampacity versus conductor size for directly buried and duct bank
installations (two-point bonding)

From the results presented in figures 1 and 2 one can

appreciate that doubling the conductor cross-sectional area
does not double the ampacity. Although the dc resistance of a

cable reduces in inverse proportion to the conductor area, for

ac excitation the skin and proximity effects play an important
role. The larger the cross sectional area of the conductor the
larger the effects of the induced eddy currents in single-point
bonded installations and the circulating currents in two-point
bonded installations.
Figure 2 shows that directly buried cables have a slightly
higher ampacity, about 6%, than cables installed in PVC
conduits. The reason is that the PVC has a higher thermal
resistivity than the native soil.
B. Varying Soil Thermal Resistivity
The thermal resistivity of the native soil using 4-trefoils
(for 500 and 1000 MCM) directly buried cables was varied
from 0.4 to 4.0 [K-W/m]; this covers the conditions for most
installations. The computed ampacities are presented in
Figure 3. One can note that the ampacity reduces as the
thermal resistivity of the soil increases and seems to follow a
hyperbolic function.

reductions.
TABLE 1. VARIATION OF AMPACITY FOR TREFOILS WITH DIFFERENT BONDING

Bonding Arrangement
Single-Point
Two-Point
Cross Bonding

Equal Section Lengths

AM = 1.5 / AN = 1.25
AM = 2.0 / AN = 1.5
AM = 3.0 / AN = 2.0

464
455
441
416

The same effects can be appreciated in flat formation

installations. Figure 4 summarizes the ampacity results for the
flat formation installation shown in the Appendix. Different
bonding arrangements were used and the distance between
cables was varied.
1000
Single P oint = Cros s Bo nded

800

800

Ampacity

Two P oint (trans po s ed)

600
Ampacity [A]

Ampacity [A]
464
394

400

600
Two P o int (no t trans po s ed)

400
200

1000 MCM

Standing Vo ltage / km

0
0

200
500 MCM
0
0

0.1

0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Distance be twe e n phase s [m]

0.6

Figure 4. Ampacity versus distance for different bonding arrangements (flat

formation installation)

Soil Thermal Resistivity [K-W/m]

Figure 3. Ampacity as a function of soil thermal resistivity

C. Varying Bonding and Transposition

Figure 1 shows that two-point bonded cables have a smaller
ampacity than single-point bonded cables. This is due to the
large circulating currents in (sheaths or) concentric neutrals.
The ampacity reduction effect of the circulating currents
becomes more significant for larger cable sizes were larger
circulating currents are present in the sheaths or concentric
neutrals.
Table 1 shows the calculated ampacity for several bonding
arrangements for the installation of the 4 trefoils specified in
the Appendix using 1000 MCM cables. The ampacity for a
two-point bonded installation is about 15% smaller than that
of the single-point bonded case. The circulating currents
cause this ampacity reduction. Cross bonding the cables with
equal section lengths completely eliminates the circulating
currents. However, in practice the lengths cannot be identical.
Table 1 shows how for different ratios AM (longest/shortest)
and AN (longer/shortest) one obtains different ampacity

The ampacity for single-point bonding and cross bonding is

the highest and increases with the separation of phases. This
is due to a reduction in the induced heating between cables.
While cross bonding cables is more expensive, single-point
bonded cable installations produce standing voltages in the
ungrounded terminal. Those voltages increase with phase
separation (see the bottom curve in Figure 4).
Two-point bonded installations not only have reduced
ampacity as compared with single-point bonded installation,
but the ampacity has the initial tendency to reduce even
further as the separation between the phases increases. This
is because the effect of the larger circulating currents is
greater than the reduction of induced heating. There is a point,
however, where the effect of the increased circulating currents
is overcompensated by the reduction of mutual heating effects
and the ampacity augments slightly as the phases separate.
D. Varying the Number of Neighboring Circuits
Induced heating from neighboring cables produces
important reductions in cable ampacity. Consider the duct
bank installation, with four trefoil circuits, shown in the

E. Varying the Conduit Size

The diameter of a PVC conduit buried in native soil was
varied from a very tight fit to very large size; see Figure 5.
The plot of Figure 6 shows that the ampacity increases
slightly as the diameter of the conduit increases. For steel
conduits the slope is even smaller than for PVC conduits.

Figure 5. Smallest versus largest conduit 160 mm & 500 mm

1000
Steel

1000 MCM

1000
Single-Point Bonding

800

Two-Point Bonding

600
400
200
0
0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

Conductor Size [MCM]

Figure 7. Ampacity as a function of conduit diameter

B. Varying the Solar Radiation Intensity

The effects of the variation of the intensity of solar
radiation on cable ampacity are shown in Figure 8. One can
appreciate, as expected, that the ampacity of the cable reduces
as the intensity of solar radiation increases. The behavior for
several surfaces having different coefficients of solar
absorption is also compared in the figure. As the surface
absorption coefficient increases a larger ampacity derate is
obtained for a given solar radiation intensity.
The solar radiation intensity, for not shaded installations,
depends on the geographical location of the installation
(latitude and altitude) and the day of the year and hour of the
day. The surface absorption coefficient depends on the
material type and color of the cable's external surface (the
surface exposed to the sun).

600
1200

400

500 MCM

200
0
0

100

200

300

400

0 .2
0.4
0 .6
0 .8

1000

PVC

500

600

Duct Internal Diameter [mm]

Ampacity [A]

Ampacity [A]

800

1200

Ampacity [A]

Appendix. When only one trefoil circuit is present the

computed ampacity is 650 A. When a second trefoil is added
the ampacity reduces to 575 A while adding a third trefoil
reduces the ampacity to 512 A. When the last (fourth) circuit
is added the ampacity becomes only 464 A; this is about 70%
of the case with only one cable. Further reductions are
expected as the number of cables heating each other
increases. Frequently, there is the need to account for the
heating (or cooling) induced from neighboring heat sources
(sinks) such as steam or water pipes running parallel to the
cable installation. It is not possible, however, to give rules of
thumb or to perform parametric studies because the
installation possibilities are infinite.

800
600
400
200

Figure 6. Ampacity as a function of conduit diameter

0
0

III. CABLES IN AIR

A. Varying Conductor Caliber
The conductor caliber has been varied from 250 MCM to
1500 MCM. Figure 7 shows the results for single-point and
two-point bonding for a solar radiation intensity of 1000
W/m2, which is typical for North America. One can
appreciate that the ampacity increases with the caliber of the
conductor at a larger rate that for underground cables;
compare the results of Figure 7 with those of Figure 1.

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

Solar Radiation Inte nsity [W/m2]

Figure 8. Variation of ampacity with solar radiation intensity for several surface
absorption coefficients

C. Varying the Distance to the Wall

In the IEC standard 287-2-1, reference [4], there are several
arrangements for cables in air installations using noncontinuous brackets, ladder supports or cleats; see Figure 9.
Table 2 shows the effect on ampacity of the distance from the
cable to the wall. The 1000 MCM concentric neutral cable,

described in the Appendix, was used to compute the

ampacities.

duct is equal to the minimum circumference that encloses the

trefoil formation. As the diameter of the ducts increases the
ampacity reduces reaching a minimum and then slowly rises.

1200
Ampacity [A]

1000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 9. Standardized arrangements for cables in air

0.1

TABLE 2. AMPACITY FOR CABLES IN AIR

1033
838
714
772
772
947
910
544

Comparing the ampacity of cases 1 with 9 and 3 with 10

one can see that cable installations near the wall show a
substantially smaller ampacity than those separated from the
wall. For the single-phase the obtained reduction is 12%,
while for the trefoil the reduction is 24%. One can also note
from cases 4 and 7 that there is no influence when installing
the cables vertically or horizontally. Grouping the cables has
the effect, as expected, of reducing ampacity; compare cases
1, 2 and 4.
D. Groups of Cables
The effect of the separation between cables for groups of
cables was analyzed using the 1000 MCM cable (single-point
bonded) described in the Appendix. Figure 10 shows the
results for flat formations and Figure 11 the results for
trefoils.
In both cases when the cables are grouped
horizontally there is a transition when (e/De) = 0.75. The
ampacity before and after the transition point is independent
of the separation between cables. When the cables are
grouped horizontally and vertically as well, one can see two
smoother transition points.
IV. CABLES IN RISER POLES
In Figure 12 the variation of ampacity as a function of the
internal diameter is presented. The variation is shown for
three different ventilation conditions. As expected, ventilation
on both-ends gives the greatest ampacity followed by the case
vented at the top. In all three cases the ampacity is highest
with very tight ducts, i.e. when the internal diameter of the

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.6

Figure 10. Ampacity as function of separation

1000
Ampacity [A]

Ampacity [A]

800
600
400
200
0
0

0.1

0.2
0.3
0.4
Separation [m]

Figure 11. Ampacity as function of separation

Figure 13 shows the variation of ampacity with the surface

coefficient of solar absorption of the external surface of the
installation (cable or duct). One notices that the ampacity
reduces almost linearly with an increase of the surface
coefficient of solar absorption. Figure 14 shows the variation
of ampacity as a function of the intensity of solar radiation.
The ampacity reduces in a quasi-linear fashion from shaded
conditions as the intensity of solar radiation increases.
1200
1000
Ampacity [A]

Arrangement
Number
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10

0.2
0.3
0.4
S eparation [m]

800

Vented Ends
Vented
Top

600
400

Not Vented

200
0
100

200
300
400
500
Inte rnal Diame te r of Duct [mm]

Figure 12. Varying the internal diameter of the conduit for different

V. CONCLUSIONS

1400

Ampacity [A]

1200

A. Underground Cable Installations

The three major factors affecting ampacity in underground
cable installation are: cable caliber, soil thermal resistivity and
bonding method. Doubling the conductor cross-sectional area
does not double the ampacity; see Figures 1 and 2. The soil
thermal resistivity plays a very important role in the ampacity
of an installation. Keeping all other conditions unchanged, a
large variation on the soil thermal resistivity can affect the
ampacity in more than 50% (Figure 3). Depending on the
particularities of the installation, bonding type can also
account for up 50% of the ampacity (Figure 4).

1000
Vented Ends

800
600
Not Vented

400
200
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Surface Absorption Coefficient

Figure 13. Ampacity as function of the surface absorption coefficient of solar
radiation

1400

Ampacity [A]

1200
1000
Vented Ends

800
600
400

NotVented

200

C. Cables in Riser Poles

The ampacity of cables in riser poles greatly depends on the
diameter of the guard, the intensity of solar radiation and the
surface coefficient of solar absorption (Figures 12, 13 and
14). It is somehow dependent on the wind speed (Figure 15).

0
0

500

1000

1500

B. Cables in Air
For cables in air the three major factors affecting cable
ampacity are: conductor size, the cable grouping and the
distance to the wall. Doubling the conductor cross-sectional
area does not double the ampacity, but the "reduction effect"
is smaller than that of underground cables. Ampacity is less
sensitive to the bonding type and somehow dependent on the
intensity of solar radiation especially for large values of the
absorption coefficient of solar radiation. However, ampacity
is very much dependent on the distance from the cable to the
wall and on cable groping; see table 2 and Figures 10 and 11.

2000
2

Intensity of Solar Radiation [W/m ]

Figure 14. Ampacity as function of intensity of solar radiation

VI. REFERENCES
Figure 15 shows a plot of ampacity versus wind speed. The
ampacity increases with an increase of wind speed. However,
the ampacity increase is larger at the lower end. Thus
increasing the wind speed form 0 to 5 m/s has a large effect
than increasing it from 15 o 20 m/s. The length of the riser
pole was varied from 1 to 20 meters and the ampacity did not
show any significant variation (results are not shown).
800

Ampacity [A]

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

10
15
Wind Speed [m/s]

Figure 15. Ampacity as function wind speed

20

[1]

Electric Cables Calculation of the current rating Part 1: Current rating

equations (100% load factor) and calculation of losses Section 1:
General. IEC Standard 287-1-1 (1994-12).
[2] Electric Cables Calculation of the current rating Part 1: Current rating
equations (100% load factor) and calculation of losses Section 2: Sheath
eddy current loss factors for two circuits in flat formation. IEC Standard
287-1-2 (1993-11).
[3] Electric Cables Calculation of the current rating Part 2: Thermal
resistance Section 1: Calculation of the thermal resistance. IEC Standard
287-2-1 (1994-12).
[4] Electric Cables Calculation of the current rating Part 2: Thermal
resistance Section 2A: A method for calculating reduction factors for
groups of cables in free air, protected from solar radiation. IEC Standard
287-2-2 (1995-05).
[5] Electric Cables Calculation of the current rating Part 3: Sections on
operating conditions Section 1: Reference operating conditions and
selection of cable type. IEC Standard 287-3-1 (1995-07).
[6] Calculation of the cyclic and emergency current rating of cables Part 1:
Cyclic rating factor for cables up to and including 18/30 (36) kV. IEC
Publication 853-1 (1985).
[7] Calculation of the cyclic and emergency current rating of cables Part 2:
Cyclic rating of cables greater than 18/30 (36) kV and emergency ratings
for cables of all voltages. IEC Publication 853-2 (1989-07).
[8] IEEE Standard Power Cable Ampacity Tables, IEEE Std 835-1994.
[9] J.H. Neher and M.H. McGrath, The Calculation of the Temperature Rise
25
and Load Capability of Cable Systems, AIEE Transactions Part III Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 76, October 1957, pp. 752-772.
[10] George J. Anders, "Rating of Electric Power Cables: Ampacity
Computations for Transmission, Distribution, and Industrial
Applications, IEEE Press / McGraw Hill, 1997.

VII. APPENDIX: CABLE AND INSTALLATION DATA

0
Ambient temp = 25C

Figure 16 describes the 15 kV, 1000 MCM, concentric neutral cable

used in this paper. The cables with different calibers used in the
parametric study have the same layers with different sizes; see
Table 3. Figure 17 illustrates the installation used in this paper with
four trefoil formations installed in a 22 duct bank. The directly
buried case is shown in Figure 18 and the flat formation is shown in
Figure 19.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Native Soil = 1.00 C-m/W

-6
Figure 16. Construction and dimensions of the concentric neutral
cable used for most simulation

-4

-2

Figure 18. Four directly buried trefoils (distances in feet)

0
Ambient temp = 25C
2

Voltage = 15.0 kV Cond. area = 0.7854 inch (1000 KCMIL)

Figure 16. Construction and dimensions of the concentric neutral cable used for
most simulations

TABLE 3. CONDUCTOR SIZES

3
External Diameter of Layer [inch]

Size

[MCM]

Shield

Insulation

Screen

C. Wires

Jacket

250

Conductor
0.5748

0.6148

1.6384

1.7927

1.9541

2.1510

500

0.8129

0.8629

1.8866

2.0409

2.2023

2.3992

750

0.9980

1.0480

2.0716

2.2417

2.4448

2.6417

1000

1.1519

1.2119

2.2355

2.4056

2.6088

2.2805

1250

1.2889

1.3489

2.3726

2.5426

2.7458

2.9426

1500

1.4118

1.4718

2.4954

2.6655

2.8686

3.0655

Native Soil = 1.00 C-m/W

-3

Figure 19. Flat formation for the parametric study of cable separation (distances
in feet)

1
2
3
4
5
6
Native Soil = 1.00 C-m/W

-4

-1

Ambient temp = 25C

-6

-2

-2

Figure 17. Duct bank installation of a 2X2 duct bank with four trefoils (distances
in feet)

VIII. BIOGRAPHY
Francisco de Len (S86, M92, SM02) was
born in Mexico City in 1959. He received the
B.Sc. and the M.Sc. (summa cum laude) degrees in
Electrical Engineering from the National
Polytechnic Institute (Mexico), in 1983 and 1986
respectively, and obtained his Ph.D. degree from
the University of Toronto, Canada, in 1992. He
has held several academic positions in Mexico and
has worked for the Canadian electric industry.
Currently working with CYME International T&D
in St. Bruno (Quebec, Canada), he develops
professional grade software for power and
distribution systems and is the leading technical support of CYMCAP, CYME's
cable ampacity program. He has published over a dozen papers in refereed
journals (IEEE/IEE), which have been cited over 100 times in journals listed in
the Science Citation Index.