How accurate is CYMCAP? Has it been validated?

By: Francisco de León Updated: June 23, 2005

CYMCAP is based on the IEC Standards on ampacity calculations. Therefore, CYMCAP

is as accurate as the standards are. CYMCAP uses the following standards/publications to
perform the computations [1-7]:

[1] IEC Standard 287-1-1 (1994-12)

[2] IEC Standard 287-1-2 (1993-11)
[3] IEC Standard 287-2-1 (1994-12)
[4] IEC Standard 287-2-2 (1995-05)
[5] IEC Standard 287-3-1 (1995-07)
[6] IEC Publication 853-1 (1985)
[7] IEC Publication 853-2 (1989-07)

Using as well the subsequent amendments; see full references at the end. There are
differences between CYMCAP and the IEC standards. Differences occur when we know
of better (more accurate, more reliable, more detailed, etc.) computations. We should also
point out that CYMCAP is frequently ahead of the IEC Standards and the improvements
we implement eventually become part of the IEC standards. The following figure shows
the results of experiments made to validate the equations in CYMCAP for underground
cables. One can appreciate that the simulated and measured results match with
reasonable accuracy.

Figure 1. Comparison of test measurements and CYMCAP

Page 1 of 4
How accurate are the standards and CYMCAP?

The numerical results have been validated in the following ways:

(1) The IEC standards are based for steady state computation on the Neher/McGrath
paper [8] and for transient computation on the Neher paper [9]. They performed
experimental verification of their equations.

(2) The Canadian Electricity Association (CAE) performed substantial field

verifications in the 1980’s for the early CAP versions. These verifications were
made mainly for underground cables [10]. Figure 1 (above) corresponds to one of
the tests.

(3) Phillips Cables (today, Northern Cables) compared the numerical results of the
earlier versions of CYMCAP with experimental tests for cables in air [11]. The
simulations very closely matched the measured values; see Table 1.

Shield Temperature Ampacity

Conductor Temperature
[°C] [A]
[°C]
Actual CAP Actual CAP
90 76.0 73.6 810 817
130 102.0 102.6 1005 1004

Table 1. Comparison of numerical and experimental results for cables in air

(4) Verifications with a finite elements program were carried out in [10] and are
performed for the developments not considered in the IEC standards. Figure 2 and
Table 2 show a duct bank installation and the comparisons made with Massif, the
finite elements program developed by Hydro Quebec.

Cable Massif Cymcap Difference

°C °C %
1 81.2 81.0 0.3
2 85.7 84.6 1.3
3 79.4 79.2 0.3
4 78.7 77.9 1.0
5 76.5 75.7 1.1
6 68.9 69.3 -0.6
7 72.4 72.1 0.5
8 68.3 67.7 0.8

Figure 2. Typical duct bank installation Table 2. Comparison between Cymcap and Massif

Page 2 of 4
(5) The IEEE Standard 835-1994 (IEEE Standard Power Cable Ampacity Tables)
gives very similar results to the IEC Standards for underground cables.
Differences are more noticeable for cables in air [12], but since CYMCAP has
been validated experimentally (see Table 1 taken from [11]) we believe that our
results are closer to reality than those published in the IEEE.

(6) The ampacity and heat generated computed with CYMCAP was compared with a
finite elements program by ALCAN Cables and the Georgia Institute of
Technology. The results are published in the IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery in 2005 [13] and Table 3 (below) has been extracted from the paper.

Ampacity [A] Heat Generated [W/m]

Installation
CYMCAP Finite Elements CYMCAP Finite Elements
Single-Cable
1008 993 75.78 72.70
Directly Buried
Single-Cable
855 867 54.46 56.04
In Conduit
Three-Cables
666 678 102.4 106.4
Directly Buried
Three-Cables
604 604 84.32 84.33
In Conduit
Table 3. Comparison of CYMCAP and a finite elements program for directly buried cables

(7) The book by George Anders [14] presents all the theoretical information
supporting the numerical algorithms implemented in CYMCAP.

Page 3 of 4
 References

[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] J.H. Neher and M.H. McGrath, “The Calculation of the Temperature Rise and Load
Capability of Cable Systems”, AIEE Transactions Part III - Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. 76, October 1957, pp. 752-772.
[9] J.H. Neher, “The Transient Temperature Rise of Buried Cable Systems”, IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-83, February 1964, pp. 102-114.
[10] Canadian Electrical Association, "Ampacity Calculation on Power Cables & Cyclic Loading
for Distribution Cables in Duck Bank – Volume I: Overview of the Technical and
Experimental Developments", Contract No. 138-D-375 and No. 137-D-374, October 1986
[11] Phillips Cables, "FIECAG Ampacity Program – Evaluation Phase I, Engineering Report No.
87-30, December 1987.
[12] IEEE Standard Power Cable Ampacity Tables, IEEE Std 835-1994.
[13] P. Vaucheret, R.A. Hartlein, and W.Z. Black, "Ampacity Derating Factors for Cables Buried
in Short Segments of Conduit", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 20, No. 2, April
2005, pp. 560-565.
[14] George Anders, “Rating of Electric Power Cables: Ampacity Computations for
Transmission, Distribution, and Industrial Applications”, IEEE Press, 1997, ISBN 0-7803-
1177-9. It is now available through McGraw-Hill only.

Page 4 of 4