AMPACITIES OF MULTICONDUCTOR CABLES IN TRAYS
Ralph H. Lee.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.)
Newark, Delaware
Abstract-The presently available rules for prescribing ampacities
of cables in trays have been found unduly restrictive for light to medium
tray loading, leading to wide disregard of such derating for all loadings.
Here is presented a method, founded -on sound heat-transfer technology,
and experimentally verified, for such ampacity determination. Its use
should restore user confidence, with realistic ratings dependent on tray
fill, and eliminate the serious consequences of tray cable overloading.
INTRODUCTION
The rapidly widening use of cable in trays as the distribution method
in industrial and utility service has sharpened the need for more mean-
ingful application guidance in this field. The available guidelines involve
the regimentation of cables into layers and cables per layer1, or impose
ratings based on number of conductors per tray1 2, regardless of tray or
cable size. Since practical tray use seldom tolerates the uniform layer-
row orientation, and since fifty small conductors in seven cables in an
18-inch wide tray, still subject to 50% de-rating, constitutes almost un-
reasonably light loading, it is little wonder that the existing guidelines
have been disregarded. This disregard, while reasonable in the light to
medium fill region, has been found to be highly dangerous where heavy
tray fill is involved. Serious fires resulting from high ampere loading of
conductors in over-full trays have raised questions in some quarters about
the wisdom of tray use at all.
One of the consequences has been the investigation by Stolpe3 of
temperature rises in cables, random-laid in trays, as a function of cur-
rent. His findings related cable ampacity to the cross section area oc-
cupied by the particular cable, and to the percentage fill of the random-
filled trays, the latter based on 3-inch available depth in the trays. These
tests utilized mixed conductor sizes and single and multiconductor cables,
simulating normal field installations.
Before the Stolpe tests were reported, the writer's company, also
recognizing the need for more meaningful data, initiated a test program
to determine tray cable ampacities under various loading conditions. The
status of the Stolpe testing was learned while the tests were in progress,
and liaison was established. From this, it developed that the Du Pont 'at the center of the 6-foot straight lengths. Half of these were placed di-
test results corresponded very closely to the theoretical analysis origi- rectly on the conductors through a slit in the insulation, half on the out-
nated by Stolpe, corroborating this analysis for even a third type of side of the jackets adjacent to the cuts in jacket and conductor insula-
TRANSITE BARRIER
T 1"TC
LADDER TRAY
TCs AT MID POINT
3" RUNG SPACING - 9'
AMBIENT
4 /'2 -4'/ 4/2'-- -4/2 4/ T.C
Is8 20 22
1 12 614 THERMOCOUPLE
6 PATTERN.
<2 ,g4,{6 OD D NOs. -ON COND R.
Y
EVEN NOs. -ON JACKET
EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT
Fig. 1. Test Arrangement
Paper 71 TP 543-PWR, recommended and approved by the Insulated Con-
ductors Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the
IEEE Summer Meeting and International Symposium on High Power Testing, Port-
land, Ore., July 18-23, 1971. Manuscript submitted January 19, 1971; made avail-
able for printing April 28, 1971.
cable not included in his tests, and lending additional proof to the valid-
ity of his theories.
EQUIPMENT OUTLINE
These tests employed a ladder-type tray, 18-inches wide, with 3-
inch depth available for filling with cable as shown in Figure 1. The tray
test section was 6-feet long, with the cable extending a few inches be-
yond the tray on each end for turning. Cables were installed in layers,
without being cut, but looped back into the same layer at 1/2 tray pitch
separation somewhat like the method of winding random-wound motors.
All conductors of the cable in each layer were connected in series, and
layers were connected in series, so uniform current flowed in all the con-
ductors. Current was supplied from low voltage transformers, with pri-
mary voltage adjustment by a variable autotransformer.
No. 12, No. 6, and No. 2 AWG three conductor cables were tested,
one size at a time. One, two, and three layers of cables were tested in
sequence. Each size and number of layers was tested, installed as close
together as possible (in each layer), and also spaced 1/3 cable diameter
apart in each layer. In the case of the spaced cable test, truly uniform
spacing could not be maintained, since the cables were not constrained
except at the ends of the 6-foot length of tray. All cables tested con-
sisted of three conductors of THHN stranded copper, with crumpled
polyethylene filler, Mylar® polyester film cable tape and PVC jacket.
Dimensions were:
TABLE I
Dimensions of THHN Cables Tested
Cable OD Area Cables /Layer
Size Inches In.2 Clos e Spaced
12 .38 .113 42 32
6 .69 .374 22 16
12 1 1.01 . 801 16 12
Temperatures were measured with iron-constantan thermocouples
tion, directly above the conductor being measured. Six thermocouples
(three pairs) were used in each layer, at the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 width po-
sitions. A thermocouple was placed 9 inches beyond the edge of the tray
to measure room ambient t&mperature. Another thermocouple was
placed 12 inches above the top of the tray, just beneath a Transite sheet
at the position another tray would have occupied in two-high arrange-
ment. All the thermocouples were connected to a 24-trace recorder,
along with monitoring thermocouples at 0°C and 1 00°C for continuous
checking.
To check possible loss of heat axially along the cable to cooler ends,
an axial temperature profile was taken, showing slightly lower tempera-
tures within 1 foot of the tray ends, but no variation in the center 2/3 of
the tray length. Additionally, for some of the tests, the outer turning
portion was blanketed with fiberglass mats; no temperature variation at
the center of the tray section between blanketed and unblanketed states
was detected.
TEST PROCEDURE
Current was adjusted to a preselected value and maintained at that
value throughout each segment of the test. Temperatures were monitored
1051
 80

30 40 50 60 70
TEMP. RISE - IC

Fg2.Cretan
10
/eprtr Rie-1
3// HNCbe TYPICAL VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE
3 LAYERS - 3/C #2

Fig. 5. Vertical Temperature Profile - Three Layers #2 3/C Cable

CURRENT - A#APERES
TEIAP. RISE VS CURKNT 3/C #12 TM N CABLES
Fig. 2. Cu 35ent and .p A typical vertical temperature profile up through the middle of a
3-layer fill is shown in Figure 5. It was noted, not without some concern,
that some of the jacket temperatures were higher than the correspond-
ing conductor temperatures. Subsequently it was determined that the
jacket locations displaying higher temperatures were closer to the center
so
of the cable mass than the respective conductors, and the higher tem-
peratures were due to heat progressing from near the center of the mass
- 30 outward, not just from each conductor outward. It is evident that insu-
lation and jacket temperatures close to the center of a tray fill are all at
X20 essentially the same temperature as that of the conductors, for a condi-
tion of uniform cable loading. Consequently, the jacket material should
15
be capable of operation at the same temperature as the insulation.
Temperature rise of the air 12 inches above the top of the tray
10 15 20 30
CURRENT - AMPERES
50 70 100 (TC #24) averaged 16% of the maximum temperature rise of a conduc-
TEMP. RISE VS CURRENT 3/C #6 TIN CABLES
tor in the tray.
Fig. 3. Current and Temperature Rise - #6 3/C THHN Cables APPLICATION GUIDES

Stolpe's development of equation 93,

D
V Kr
where I = Ampacity
D = Overall diameter of cable
Q = Allowable uniform heat per unit area (W/ft) in2. (see Fig-
20
30I50 70 100 ure 43)
- .X n = Number of conductors per cable
~20 30 5 / 70
R = AC resistance of a conductor at oper. temp., Q/ft.

CURRENT- AMPERES
TEAP. RISE VS CURIENT 3/C 42 THHH CABLES
continuously, and allowed to reach and maintain a steady value for one
hour before readings were take,n. Typically, this required about four
hours. At least three current levels were used fQr each conductor size,
number of layers and spacing; the current levels were relatively widely
spaced to reduce the effect of small errors in current and temperature
readings.
OBSERVATIONS
Temperatures for any one layer of cable at each cuffrent level were
relatively uniform, indicating that essentially all the heat, at least for the
central 3/4 of the tray width, was dissipated through the top and bot-
tom. For each combination of conductor size, cuffent, number of layers
and spacing, the maximum conductor temperatures in the trays are
shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. These points lie closely along straight lines
on log-log plot of temperature versus cuffent, of slope = 2. This would
be expected from the heat developed being proportional to current
squared.
1 052
and Figure 43 provide a basis for developing a tray ampacity rating for
each size of conductor and cable type, for a given percentage tray fill.
Based on 10% fill of a 3-inch depth of tray, and for three cable types of
3/C cable, the above relations make possible the development of Table
II and Figures 6 and 7. Dimensions of the three cable types (RHH,
XLPE and THHN) for the range of sizes, along with 10% fill datum lines
for 50°C rise calculated from Stolpe equation 9, are shown in Table II.
For other temperature rise values, multipliers equal to the square roots
of the ratios of the application temperature rise to 500C are applicable.
The position in Figure 6 of the 10% fill lines for XLPE and THHN
cables below that for RHH indicates lower datum lines for 10% tray fill.
This is correct, since 10% fill of these smaller cables would place more
conductors in the tray, with higher wattage loss if the same current were
permitted. A little calculation indicates, not shown here, that for the
same number of conductors of given sizes in the tray, the ampacities of
all three cable types are identical, since those fill percentages of the
smaller types are less than for the full-sized cable. For principally con-
trol cables, where the current loading is seldom as much as 10% of con-
ductor ampacity, the smaller cable types would prove especially advan-
tageous, as greater numbers of cables per tray would be practical, reduc-
ing tray space requirements.
Figure 7 is the Ampacity Multiplier chart, by which tray percent
fill indicates the multiplier which applies to the "10O% datum" of that
 TABLE II
10% Fill Datum Line Development - 3/C Cables, 50°C Rise
From Stolpe Equation 9

Condr. RHH XLPE THHN

Size Diam. Area Datum Diam. Area Datum Diam. Area Datum
14 .57 .196 25.6 .46 .166 20.6 .34 .091 15.3
12 .62 .302 36.1 .51 .204 29 .38 .113 21.6
10 .69 .373 49.4 .57 .255 40.7 .46 .166 32.9
8 .94 .695 84.5 .74 .43 66.5 .61 .292 55
6 l.00 .785 114 .82 .53 94 .69 .374 79
4 1.15 1.04 165 .93 .68 134 .87 .59 125
2 1. 2$ 1.29 231 1.07 .90 193 1.01 .80 182
1/0 1.62 2.06 368 1.35 1.43 284 1.25 1.23 278
2/0 1.75 2.40 447 1.48 1.72 379 1.33 1.39 335
4/0 2.00 3.15 645 1.72 2.32 555 1.59 1.99 480
350 2.57 5.20 1040 2.20 3 .0 $90 1.96 3.01 795
500 2.90 6.30 1400 2.52 5.00 1215 2.24 3.95 1080

FROM STOLPE EQ. 9 & FIG. 4

2000

1000
700
500

300
L^ 200
w
0.

100

70
50

30
20

8 6 4 2 1/02/0 4/
CONDUCTOR SIZE- AWG OR KCMil.
Fig. 6. 10% Fill Datum Lines and Ampacities, RHH, XLPE and THHN
3/C Cables, 50°C Rise

conductor size shown in Figure 6. This is nearly a straight line on log- strong corroboration to the theoretically-derived de-rating method and
log scale, from 10% - 1.00 to 40% - 0.43 and 100% - 0.23. values. Also surprisingly close are the data shown from the spaced-
cables, which average only about 5% higher ampacity than those which
were close-spaced. Of course, the percent fill for the wider-spaced cables
TEST RESULTS was lower than for the close-spaced ones, making the number of cables
for a given depth of fill lower. Table III shows the experimental values
From intercepts of the lines of Figures 2, 3, and 4, and the 50°C derived from Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6 to develop Figure 8.
ordinate, values of corresponding current were noted. Percentage fills In Figure 6, the IPCEA and NEC ampacities for one 3/C cable in
were determined, the percentage of current to the 10o datums (from air are also plotted. These lines differ markedly from the datum lines de-
Figure 6) calculated, and all plotted in log-log form along with the de- veloped by the Stolpe formula, and which are confirmed by the results
rating line of Figure 7,in Figure 8. The pointsdetermined from the close- of his testing as well as those reported here. While testing reported in
spaced cables, shown as solid symbols, lie very closely along the de- this paper did not include conductors larger than #2 AWG, the slope
rating line. Those determined from wider-spaced cables all lie slightly and position of the datum ampacity line for THHN cables between #1 2
above the line as would be expected from the additional through- and #2 AWG was established by test even before Stolpe data was availa-
convection cooling. The correspondence of the close-spaced points to ble, with extremely close correspondence when his data became available.
the line is unusually good for experimentally developed data, and lends Stolpe's testing did include single conductors of 1/0, 2/0, 4/0, and
1053
 FROM STOLPE FIG. 4 1.5
1.0
lY 1.0
LU
I

Lu .7

.5
I.5 0s
.4

.3
.3
.2
5 7
10 15 20 30 50 70 100
% FILL - 3" DEEP TRAY
10 20 30 50 70 l1O
% FILL - 3" DEEP TRAY Fig. 8. Plot of 50°C Results from Figures 2, 3, and 4 in Terms of Fig-
ures 6 and 7
Fig. 7. Ampacity Multipliers for Cable Tray Fills Over 10%

500 kcmil. sizes, with results comparable to the datum lines of Figure 6
except adjusted for single conductors. These lie parallel to but below the
lines for 3/C cables, because they permit more conductors per unit area.
The disparity of these datum lines from the IPCEA and NEC ampacities
is quite marked, for sizes greater than about #6 (for NEC) and #2 (for
IPCEA). The differences indicate that more investigation is needed in
this area.
From this development, a guide for cable rating may be considered:
Step 1. Use Figures 6 and 7, with cable sizes, types and tray fill, to de-
termine ampacity.
Step 2. If this figure is lower than the single 3/C in air IPCEA or NEC
ampacity (whichever is applicable by local regulation), retain and utilize
it (Step 1 value).
Step 3. If the IPCEA or NEC is the lower, use the IPCEA or NEC
ampacity.
The reason for the datum lines' elevation above IPCEA ratings is
that they are based on a rectangular "flat" fill of the tray, which cannot
be fulfilled by the larger cables until the tray loading reaches at least one
full layer. Thus for lighter loading, the single 3/C in air rating must apply.
It would appear that the IPCEA "single 3/C in air" ampacities, being
based on Neher-McGrath ampacity determination, are realistic. The NEC
prescribed values, about 20% lower, appear a compromise rating identical
to that for 3 1 /C wires in conduit, possibly to avoid having an additional.
ampacity table.
When trays are stacked veriically in indoor space, the ampacities of
cables in all trays above the lowest one should be calculated on the
basis of ambient air temperature 8°C (or 16% of conductor temperature
rise) above normal room ambient. This may be disregarded outdoors
because of the effect of even minor air movement.
CONCLUSIONS
These test results for fill-related derating of cables in trays strongly
corroborate the theories set forth by Stolpe3 and are at considerable
variance with previously available guidelinesl,2. Differences are most
marked in the size range of #6 AWG and larger, and are characterized
by higher low-fill ampacities but more severe de-ratings with heavy fill.
From this it is evident that for above-average fill, ampacities must be
curtailed even more than presently recommended.
In light of this finding, it is reasonable to anticipate less extreme
loading of trays than has been practiced in some quarters, with accom-
panying reduction in catastrophic failures.
These ampacity guides make possible an application guide for tray
cable use:
Step 1. Determine theoretical ampacities from Figures 6 and 7.
Step 2. If the value from Step 1 is lower than the IPCEA* or NEC*
"3/C in air" ampacity, use the Step 1 value.
Step 3. If the value from Step 1 is higher than the IPCEA* or NEC*
ampacity, use the latter. *Whichever is required by local authority.
It is convenient, in many instances, to standardize on a maximum
tray fill, such as 40%, except for the large cables, or for cable trays used
for control wiring only. When fill exceeds this figure, additional or larger
trays are required.
REFERENCES
[1] IPCEA "P-33.440" - "Factors for Calculating Ampacities of Cables
Installed in Ladder Supports, Trays, and Troughs."
[2] National Electric Code 1968. Table 310-12.
[3] "Ampacities for Cables in Randomly-Filled Trays" - John Stolpe
- IEEE 70 TP 557-PWR.

TABLE III
Development of % Rating from Current for 500C Rise

10% 1 laver 2 Layers 3 Layers

Wire Fill % Cur. % % Cur. % % Cur. %
l__| Size Rtg. Fill a. Rtg. Fill a. Rtg. Fill a. Rtg.
Oj0
oCu
12
6
21.6
79
8.8
15
23
59
106
75
17.6
29
16
41
74
42
26
46
12
31
56
39
co 2 182 24 108 59 48 73 40 72 56.5 31
12 21.6 6.7 28.5 136 13.4 22 105 20 15 20
a 6 79 11 79 100 22 56 71 33 48 61
X r- 2 182 18 130 71 36 101 55 54 85 47
co

1054
 Discussion
Norwood D. Kenney (16 Lantern Lane, Hingham, Mass. 02043): It is
with considerable pleasure that one, who was active as a cable engineer
for forty years, notes the increasing number of technical and engineer-
ing papers relative to insulated cables being presented by their users and
not just their manufacturers. Examples of such activity are transaction
papers 71 TP 543 - PWR "Ampacities of Multiconductor Cables In
Trays" by Ralph H. Lee and 70 TP 557 - PWR "Amacities for Cables
in Randomly Filled Trays" presented by Mr. J. Stolpe last year. For
those involved in cable systems in trays, these two papers are of consid-
erable value.
There are a few comments that I would like to make relative to
Mr. Lee's paper and in fact in some cases they apply to Mr. Stolpe's
paper of a year ago.
Figure 6 - "Datum Lines and Ampacities 3/C Cable in 3" Deep
Tray - 50°C. Rise" indicates a larger ampacity (for a given size con-
ductor) for RHH as compared with XLPE and THNN-V cables. This dif-
ference in ampacity also was noted by Mr. Stolpe and as can be seen
from equation 93 is because RHH cables have larger overall diameters
due to their thicker insulation as compared to the thinner wall XLPE
and THHN-V cable and their resulting smaller overall diameters.
This feature points out the! fact that in future design of cables to
be installed in trays, one must consider very carefully the advisability of
further decreasing their thicknesses of insulations and jackets. When
cables in trays are to be heavily loaded, is it possible that economics and
reliability might dictate the choice of a cable having a larger overall di-
ameter for a given conductor size rather than a thinner wall type?
Modern cable insulations are such that in many cases recommended
emergency and short circuit maximum conductor temperatures are con-
siderably higher than the limits for normal continuous operation. When
cables are packed tightly in a tray, is there a possibility of "run away
temperatures" (increasing conductor and air tray temperatures) under
emergency overload conditions which might result in damage to the
cables and even causing a fire? Because of concern of the reliability of
cables in trays and even possible fires, as noted by Mr. Lee, it seems to
me that emergency load ampacity - conductor temperature tests on
cables installed as in Fig. (1) may be of value.
Mr. Lee reports - "insulation and jacket temperatures close to the
center of a tray fill are all at essentially the same temperature as that of
the conductots, for a condition of uniform cable loading. Consequently,
the jacket material should be capable of operation at the same tempera-
tures as the insulation". Assuming the test data are correct, it may be
necessary for the user of cables in trays, undet heavy load conditions,
to make such a design request of the cable manufacturer, as many cables
now installed in trays are not so constructed. I wonder what Mr. Lee
would consider the ampacity-temperature profile of cables in trays when
the outer covering is metallic?
Although outside of the subject matter of both Mr. Lee's and Mr.
Stolpe's papers, it seems to me that in making ampacity-temperature
tests of cables in trays and considering Mr. Lee's statement "Serious
fires resulting from high ampere loading of conductors in over-filled
trays have raised questions in some quarters about the wisdom of tray
use at all", it is important not only to observe the various ampacity-
temperature profiles, but to observe and report on the physical condi-
tions of the cables.
Recommended maximum conductor temperatures are not impor-
tant just because they influence cable ampacities, but because if they
are exceeded, the short and long time reliability of the cable system may
be shortened. Because of the support pointsin a ladder-type tray as well
as the uneven pressures applied to the bottom cables by the weight of
those above in a heavily filled tray. It would be most valuable to have
data relative to the degree of cable deformation and changes in the phys-
ical condition of cable materials as a function of percent tray-fill, con-
ductor sizes, as well as normal and emergency ampacities. I wonder if
Mr. Lee has such data?
Manuscript received July 6, 1971.
R. C. Waldron (The Okonite Company, Ramsey, N.J. 07446): The work
reported by Mr. Lee in this paper agrees with the theory set forth by
Mr. Stolpe in the referenced article. As a result of this work by Mr. Stolpe
and Mr. Lee, a joint IPCEA-ICC Committee was formed to work up
suitable tables. This has been done but they have not yet been finalized
and printed. It is proposed to publish these tables by IPCEA in the near
Manuscript received August 3, 1971.
1055
future in a somewhat more convenient form to use than the curves pre-
sented by Mr. Lee in this paper. At this time we would merely point out
that these tables will be available and that in general the conclusions
arrived at by Mr. Lee appear to be valid. The revision of the original
IPCEA correction factors is long overdue and we feel that these tables
will fill a much wanted gap in connection with the expanding use of
cables in trays.
R. C. Shah (Sargent and Lundy, Chicago, Ill.): The author is to be com-
mended for the excellent experimental data for ampacities of mutlicon-
ductor cables in trays. This has further provided justification about the
validity of Mr. J. Stolpe's theory 1.
The author's suggested approach for assigning ampacity to a cable
agrees very well with the ampacity assigned to a cable in the proposed
IPCEA Standard2.
REFERENCES
[1] Reference [3] of the paper.
[21 Proposed IPCEA Standard for "Ampacity of Cables in Trays" - to
be published.
Manuscript received August 5, 1971.
Ralph H. Lee: We appreciate the interest expressed by the discussors,
and the additional breadth introduced into the subject by their questions.
As Mr. Kenney notes, there now exists a healthy increase of interest in
insulated cables by users; this subject has suffered much from insufficient
user knowledge in an era of more exotic components. It is logical to be-
lieve that this increased interest should result in improved application of
cables, leading to greatly increased reliability.
Regarding our Figure 6 and Mr. Stolpe's equation 9, the apparent
greater ampacity in trays of cables having thicker insulation is exactly
compensated for by the greater percentage of tray cross section area they
occipy. Calculation shows that, in trays filled to 1 or more layers, a
given number of cables having thick insulation will have exactly the same
ampacity as the same number of cables having thinner insulation. The
total wattage dissipation capability of a given tray remains the same re-
gardless of its fill, so when wires of smaller outside diameter (thinner in-
sulation) are used, there will be more of them required to reach a given
% fill, or depth. Therefore, a lower ampacity must be assigned to the
smaller cable, in terms of % fill.
In this connection, it should be remembered that THHN (THWN)
wire was originally designed to overcome the sensitivity of TH (TW) wire
to cold-flow cut-through, as reported by the author in a conference
paper in 1960*. While the wire has been eminently successful in this
aspect, it now receives most of its publicity because of its small diameter.
This wire was used in the cables tested in the current paper.
No investigation was conducted into the runaway temperature as-
pect, largely because no difficulties had been enfcountered from this
cause, to our knowledge. Possibly other investigators will have interest'
in this field. The phenomenon appears associated with underground
cables, due to the migration of moisture away from the heat source,
causing rapid increase in soil resistivity and consequent cable tempera-
ture rise. The moisture content of the air around cable trays is not a
basic contributor to their cooling, so the danger of runaway should not
be likely. Actually, the increasing effectiveness of heat radiation with in-
creasing temperature should be stabilizing influence.
The uniform temperatures of conductors; insulation and jackets in
the middle of the trays shows a condition which must have existed not
only in trays, but in large conduit and bundled wiring, for some time. As
a result of these tests, we should report that at least one manufacturer of
tray cable is supplying jackets to match the temperature rating of the
insulation. We agree that observation of temperature conditions within
wiring systems is most important.
*"Improving Building Wire Performance" -
Ralph H. Lee AIEE CP 60-379,
Winter General Meeting, 1960
Manuscript received August 24, 1971.
 An estimate of the effect of an outer metallic covering on individual
cables in trays would be that of increasing their ampacity; the metallic
sheath should tend to act as a heat conductor from within the mass of
cables, thus reducing the temperature difference from the center to the
outside sutface. In other terms, the metal sheath would reduce the value
of p in Mr. Stolpe's equation 5, or the effective thermal resistivity of the
cable mass.
Our tests did not include any physical deformation or long-time
reliability measurements. Visual observations, in conjunction with the
temperature tests, however, may be useful. In the logical progression of
testing, first a single layer was tested, then a second added and the two
layers tested, followed by the third. In each case, the maximum temp-
eratures were in the 900 to 1 000C range with instances of as high as
1070C. For 1 and 2 layers, this was the bottom layer directly on the
rungs; for three layers, it was the middle layer. The temperature at the
very bottom of the cable mass would be about 10°C lower than the top
for 1 layer; for 2 layers, about 200C and for 3 layers, about 30°C lower,
actually the coolest point in the cables. The number of hours each cable
was exposed to this temperature would be about 35 hours, or 5 periods
of 7 hours each. (Testing was not continued overnight.) The points of
support of the cable mass were on the one-inch width of the rungs, at
9-inch spacing; these supported the entire weight of the cable. The jacket
material was a PVC commonly accorded a 75°C rating. There was no
undue distortion of the cable jacket at the support points. This condi-
tion would also exist in actual practice; the support point is the coolest
point of the cable mass, and the heavier the pressure, the farther it is
from the heat center. Actual instances place the principal source of
ignition from cable tray overloading at points well within the cable mass.
Our own rather extensive use of over 30,000 miles of cable in about
1000 miles of trays has not indicated any weakness of tray cabling from
the standpoint of heat and load distortion at rung support points. We
must add that our normal practice limits cable depths to about 2 inches
except where used principally for control. On the other hand, we have
numerous instances of failure of wiring systems from concentrated pres-
sure at bushings, trifurcating clamps and the like. We judge that the use
of jackets on tray cable plus the absence of such extreme bending as can
1056
occur at conduit bushings, is principally responsible for this improved
performance. Conversely, the failure to provide cabling and jackets for
small single conductors, has been found to be a cause of failure. An un-
authorized field-fabricated mitre vertical offset having a 300 sharp bend
in the vertical plane did cause a fault to ground in a single #14 ga TW
wire from crushing by a 3/C 500 kcmil cable lying squarely across it.
Fuses operated properly, there was no fire, but the incident caused a
costly production outage. We feel strongly that only jacketed cables, or
at least cables no less than about 1/2"d should be permitted in cable
trays. Existing NEC rules indicate that only authorized "wiring methods"
such as cables or raceways may be used in trays.
It has been our pleasure to participate with Mr. R. C. Waldron in
the joint IPCEA-ICC Committee, along with Mr. Stolpe and Mr. Shah,
in the development of new IPCEA-published Ampacities for Cable in
Trays. The much-needed data should be useful in attaining properly
engineered cable tray installations, and in avoiding dangerous overload-
ing such as has been responsible for serious tray system fires. The tabu-
lar form in which the IPCEA data is presented, while more voluminous,
will make selection of ampacities for individual cables much more facile
than the curves of our paper.
As Mr. Shah suggests, we, too were highly gratified with the very
good consistency of the experimental data, both within itself, and with
the theory developed by Mr. J. Stolpe. For this, the technicians at our
Engineering Test Center are to be congratulated. Their care in setting up
the equipment, placing thermocouples, and calibrating measurement
components, along with the patience required to permit complate sta-
bilization of temperatures was admirable. Part of this was made possible
by scheduling this work to be concurrent with other testing, so that con-
tinual standby attention was not necessary. Limiting switches in the
temperature instrument guarded against inadvertent over-high tempera-
ture.
We thank the discussors for their perceptive discussion, adding, as
it does, to aspects of cable application not included in the original paper.
It is hoped that these discussions will prompt additional investigation in-
to this and other aspects of cable use, both in or out of trays.