IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No.
1, January 1997
AMPACITY OF CABLES IN SINGLE COVERED TRAYS
B. L. Harshe
Consumers Power Company
Jackson, Michigan
-
ABSTRACT A mathematical thermal model is developed
to predict the operating temperatures of cables in a single
covered tray when there is load diversity in the cable
bundle. The model accommodates two different loading
-
scenarios one in which the heat is distributed evenly
across the cable tray cross section and the second one
which concentrates the heavily loaded cables along the
centerline, while surrounding them with more lightly
loaded cables. The temperature predictions provided by
the model are compared to data found in other IEEE
papers, data collected in laboratory measurements, and
new data from a four-year study of cable trays in an
operating nuclear plant. Reasons for differences between
the field data and the computer results are discussed. The
model is used to evaluate the conservatism in the available
Codes and Standards.
A derating factor is introduced that is defined in terms
of the ampacity of cables in open-top trays. The derating
factor accounts for the added thermal resistance present
when a cover is placed over the cables, trapping a layer of
stagnant air on top .of the cable mass. The computer
model is then used to predict values for the derating
factor as a function of cable depth. The derating factor
is shown to be independent of the composition of cables in
the tray. The presence of a cover is shown to reduce the
ampacity based on an uncovered tray by up to 25 percent
depending on the depth of the cables in the tray.
I. INTRODUCTION
Before 1974, the derating of cables in open-top cable trays
was calculated on a case-by-case basis using engineering
96 WM 209-7 PWRD A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE
Insulated Conductors Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for
presentation at the 1996 IEEEPES Winter Meeting, January 21-25, 1996,
Baltimore, MD. Manuscript submitted March 27, 1995; made available for
printing November 16, 1995.
0885-8977/97/$10.000 1996 IEEE
W. 2. Black
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
judgement. Analytical work at San Diego Gas & Electric in
1970 led to a thermal model proposed by Stolpe [l] which
provided the basis for the ampacities found in the ICENNE-
MA Standard P54-440 [2]. This staqdard is very conserva-
tive because it assumes that every cable in the tray is loaded
at the maximum code allowable current. The conservatism
in Stolpe’s model assures that every cable in the bundle
operates at a temperature that is less than a selected maxi-
mum value. This work provided the first basis for establish-
ing cable ampacities based on experimental results, however,
it was limited to open top cable trays. Since the introduction
of P54-440, several studies that are primarily experimental in
nature have been used to establish the ampacity of cables in
covered trays.
The best guidance for selecting a derating factor for cables
in covered trays comes from two sources. The first is the
National Electric Code [3], and the second is an IEEE paper
by Engmann [4]. The National Electric Code introduces a
derating factor based on cable size and severely limits the
amount of cable that can be placed in a tray. Engmann [41
suggests a constant derating factor for all size cables and all
fill conditions covered by ICENNEMA Standard P54-440[2].
The problem of selecting an appropriate derating factor for
cables in covered trays is complicated when diversity exists
in the cable loading. Studies [5] on the effect of diverse
loading on the cables in open top trays have shown the large
amount of conservatism in the Code for practical conditions.
Rarely are cable trays loaded in the manner assumed by the
Code, because the cables in a tray do not simultaneously
carry the maximum code allowable current for an extended
period. Typically, the actual electrical load is significantly
less than the maximum code allowable value due to conserva-
tive cable sizing practices used by design engineers. There-
fore, the actual temperatures of cables in trays are typically
lower than those predicted by ICENNEMA Standard P54-
440. This fact suggests that the cables may be conservatively
operated at current levels above those presently allowed by
the Code.
Currently, there is no consistent guidance that can be
reliably used to address the derating of powzr cables in
covered cable trays, especially when diversity is present in
the loading of the cables. This paper provides a model that
can be used to calculate derating factors for many cable tray
geometries. The model results are compared with test
measurements provided in other studies and by an extensive
4

test program carried out in an operating power plant. convects heat to the surrounding air.
An energy balance on the cables show that the heat
II. THERMAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT generated in the cable bundle is removed by a combination of
radiation and convection from both the top and bottom
The goal of the ampacity model is to predict the maximum surface of the bundle as:
temperature within the cable mass for a given current in each
conductor, a given geometry, and a given ambient tempera-
ture. The geometry considered and related symbols are
shown in Fig. 1. The model is based on several assumptions
that simplify the mathematical formulation and provide a The radiative heat transfer rates from the top and bottom
degree of conservatism in the predicted temperature. These surfaces of the cable mass for a unit length of tray are:
assumptions include:
1. Steady state conditions exist.
2. The tray is horizontal and no other heat sources are
nearby.
3. The tray is placed in a large room with stationary air
surrounding the tray. (3)
4. The sides of the tray are insulated providing for one-
dimensional, vertical heat transfer in the cable bundle. and the convective heat transfer rates from the top and bottom
5 . The heat transfer from both the top and bottom surfaces of the cable mass for a unit length of the tray are:
surfaces of the cable bundle are equal to the average
value for both surfaces. This assumption produces a
condition for which the maximum cable temperature
occurs along the horizontal centerline of the cable
bundle.
The cable bundle temperatures and the temperature of the
tray cover are related to the total current in the bundle and The convective heat transfer coefficient for the air gap
the ambient temperature by the principle of conservation of between the top of the cable bundle and the cover is given by
energy. That is, the heat generated in the cables is conducted r.9, pg.4341
through the cable bundle to the surface of the bundle. There
it is convected and radiated from the top and bottom surfaces
of the cable bundle. From the bottom surface the heat is
transferred to the surrounding ambient air. From the top
surface, the heat is convected to the air trapped below the when,
cover and is radiated to the cover that has an unknown Ra, 5 3284
temperature. The top surface of the cover then radiates and

Still air: T, when,

Rat < 3284

and h for the bottom surface of the cable bundle is [9,

pg.4331

The temperature of the cover is determined by an energy

balance on the cover that yields:

Fig. 1 Cable and Tray Geometry

 5

the cables are functions of the unknown temperatures, the

process of determining the maximum cable temperature is an
(9) iterative one. The various temperatures are pssumed and
substituted into the equations to calculate the heat transfer
from the cover and both the upper and lower surfaces of the
cable bundle. The conservation of energy applied to both the
cable bundle and the cover is then checked to see if heat
transfer from the bundle matches the heat generated because
The convective coefficient for top surface of the cover is of Joulian heating. If a balance is not achieved, a new set of
given by [9, pg.4331 temperatures is assumed and the process repeated until a
balance of energy is achieved.
After the surface temperature of the cable bundle is deter-
mined and once the distribution of heat generated within the
various cables that make up the cable mass is specified, the
when, centerline or maximum bundle temperature can be calculated.
io7 < ~ a , io1' The present codes and standards are based on the assumption
that all cables in the tray are energized to such a level that
the energy is distributed uniformly throughout the bundle
cross-section. Referring to this distribution as the unifonn
model, the relationship between the maximum cable temper-
when, ature and the surface temperature is given by [l].
i@ a , < io7

and the expression for h, is given by (6) and (7) depending

on the magnitude of the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh
number in (10) and (11) is given by: The uniform model is unable to account for load diversity
in the cable bundle, because all cables must be loaded to their
code allowable limits. However, a simple modification to the
uniform assumption allows a calculation of a maximum
temperature that accounts for a diversity of current loading in
and the Rayleigh number used in (6) and (7) is: the cables. This model, which accounts for load diversity, is
called the layered model. The layered model assumes that
Ra, = 0.71t
(?)
- (T, - T, ) (13) the most heavily loaded cables are placed along the bundle
centerline where they will achieve the highest temperature
and they are surrounded by the more lightly loaded cables.
The thermal properties to be used in these expfessions Using this assumption, the layered model provides the most
depend on temperature and they can be expressed as [8, conservative cable temperature profile, because the lightly
pg.5201 loaded cables act as a blanket that insulates the more heavily
loaded cables along the tray centerline. The layered model,
k = ~ . O X I O - ~ T+, 0.0237 (14) therefore, accounts for load diversity but retains a conserva-
tive approach to ampacity calculations by predicting a
maximum cable temperature profile in the bundle. For the
-
ss = l.02X104 - 2 . 3 9 4 ~ 1 0Z~j + 1.85~10~ (15) layered assumption, the relationship between the surface
V2 temperature and the maximum bundle temperature is [SI

where Tf is the average of the surface temperature and the

ambient air temperature. In (14) and (15), the film tempera-
ture Tf must be expressed in "C which will result in units of
W/m"C for k and 11°C for gPlVz.
Once the currents in all of the cables are specified, (1)
through (14) can be solved simultaneously to determine the
surface temperature of the cable bundle ( T, ) and the The layered model assumes all cables in the bundle are
temperature of the cover ( To). Since all of the convective subdivided into one of three categories: heavily loaded,
heat transfer coefficients and the electrical resistances of all
6
moderately loaded, or lightly loaded. The heavily loaded
cables number N, and are placed along the bundle center;
moderately loaded cables number N, and are placed over the
heavily loaded layer; and finally, the lightly loaded cables
number NL and are placed on the outside the cable bundle.
For a loosely packed cable array, the depths of the three
layers that appear in (17) can be determined by the expres-
sions:
The layered model requires that the user select the criteria
that distinguishes each cable layer. A logical criterion is
based on the percent of the current in each cable compared to
its code allowable value. For example, a cable energized to
a level of current greater than 60 percent of the code ampacit-
y is categorized as a heavily loaded cable. Similarly, a cable
that carries a current less than 20 percent of its code rating is
classified as a lightly loaded cable. Then all cables that fall
between these two levels are placed in the moderately loaded
layer. The values of 60 percent and 20 percent are arbitrary
in this example, but they are reasonable values nevertheless.
They require that heavily loaded power cables be packed
together where they increase the temperature at the center of
the cable mass to a maximum value. All lightly loaded
instrument or control cables or cables that have only inter-
mittent loads then fall in the lightly loaded category. These
form the thermal blanket that further inhibits the flow of heat
to the surface of the cable bundle and gives the layered model
its conservative nature.
Since the model assumes one dimensional heat transfer and
steady state conditions exist, it should not be used where
significant variations in geometry or operating conditions
exist along the length of the tray or in situations which
change with respect to time. The uniform heating model
assumes that the individual power conductors are spread
uniformly across the cable bundle. This model predicts the
average temperature of the cable bundle in the tray, but it is
not a good model for the situation that exists when heavily
loaded cables are grouped together. The layered model gives
more accurate results where heavily loaded cables are placed
close to each other.
IU. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
Program Description
The testing program to measure the temperatures of cables
in horizontal, covered cable trays spanned a three year period
that included both summer and winter conditions. This
investigation was carried out concurrently with a four year
testing program that measured temperatures in open top cable
trays. All cable trays were ladder type trays with open
Table 1 Range of Test Conditions
Tray Tray Depth % of % of
Depth Width of Fill Power ICEA
inches inches inches Cables Allowable
(cm) (cm) (cm1 in Ampacity*
I Tray I
4 12 - 24
(30 - 61)
(10) (3 - 9)
*Allowable ampacities for tray fill over 3 inches were
extrapolated.
bottoms, and all tests measured the temperature rise resulting
from operating conditions typically experienced in power
plants. The range of conditions that existed for these covered
cable tray tests is summarized in Table 1.
All of the tests were conducted on cable trays containing a
mixture of both control cables and 480 volt power cables.
Since all testing was carried out at an operating nuclear
power plant, the cables could not be damaged or altered to
take the temperature measurements. Therefore, the thermo-
couples were attached to the jackets of the cables, rather than
drilled through the insulation and attached directly to the
conductors. This was a procedure used in previous open top
cable tray investigations. Calculations of the temperature
drop across the insulation of the typical low voltage power
cable show that the conductor temperature was practically
equal to the jacket temperature, so the measured values were
concludd to represent the maximum temperature of the cable
to which it was attached. This conclusion is also supported
by earlier investigations [6].
All of the test sites were located in rooms that had continu-
ally operating ventilating fans. The thermocouple locations
and the cable trays selected were not in the path of air
currents caused by the ventilating fans. In addition, thermo-
couples were placed in areas where the cables were tightly
packed, reducing vertical movement of air between adjacent
cables. These locations were specifically selected because the
reduced air flow provides a location of maximum cable
temperatures.
The objective of the experimental phase of this project was
to verify the accuracy of the computer model. The locations
of the thermocouples were selected so they could be used to
verify the predictions of both the uniform and layered
program options. To provide both uniform and layered
temperatures, thermocouples were placed near cables that
were lightly loaded and directly on cables that were heavily
 7

loaded. The thermocouples placed directly on the heavily
loaded cables in the cable tray were used to measure the
maximum temperature within the cable bundle and to verify
the layered temperature prediction of the computer model.
The remaining thermocouples were scattered throughout the
bundle area and in the air space between the cover and the
bundle. The thermocouple readings were averaged along
with the layered temperature@)to obtain a weighted average
temperature of the cable bundle. The percentage of layered
temperatures used to calculate the uniform temperature was
proportional to the percentage of the energized power cable
area in the cable tray. This uniform temperature was used to
validate the temperature prediction of the uniform computer
model.
Thermocouples were installed longitudinally on both sides
of the test location to verify that a negligible axial tempera-
ture gradient existed along the cable tray. The ambient air
temperature was measured at one inch above and below the
cable tray at each test location. The average of these
measurements was used as the ambient air temperature.
Since the heat generated within the cable bundle was low, the
presence of the tray did not influence the air temperature
measured by the thermocouple above the tray. The differ-
ence between the air temperature above and below the tray
was always less than 1°C.
The current was measured in all of the instrumented
heavily loaded power cables in the cable tray. The current of
the remaining power cables in the instrumented trays was
obtained from other sources, such as name plate data.
Control cables were assumed to have no current. Sensitivity
studies carried out during the experimental investigation
supported this assumption.
To simulate a long run of covered tray, tray covers ten feet
in length were used. To prevent the flow of cool air into and
out of these trays, insulation was inserted into the ends of
each tray test section to block the flow of air. Where cables
entered or exited the tray within the tray test section, a hole
was provided in the tray cover. The hole was blocked with
insulation to prevent air movement.
measurements carried out at Georgia Tech [lo]. Three
ladder trays were loaded with three different cable sizes. The
temperatures from forty thermocouples placed throughout the
cable mass were recorded by an automatic data acquisition
system. Only the data from the bottom tray in the three cable
tray stacked configuration were used. The data resulting
from this tray closely simulated a single tray surrounded by
stagnant ambient air and not heated by the cable trays below
it.
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
General
To determine the accuracy and conservatism of the
proposed thermal model in predicting temperatures in
realistically operated cable trays, cable temperatures were
measured in an operating power plant and temperature data
were collected from two other studies [4 and 101 as described
.
in the previous section Each cable tray section tested was
then simulated using the model. The predicted temperature
rises are compared with the measured temperature rises and
are shown in Fig. 2. k conservative temperature prediction
falls below the 45" line. Nonconservative results appear
above the 45" line.
In Fig. 2, the data points fall below the 45" line suggesting
that the model provides conservative results. In fact the
model predicts a maximum temperature that is often signifi-
cantly greater than the measured value. In a few cases, the
model predicts the temperature rise in the cable bundle that
is approximately three times the value measured by the
thermocouples. The experimental data by Engmann [4] was
collected for trays in which cables were evenly loaded to
90°C ampacities in a laboratory setting. These data points
naturally cluster near the 45" line. This behavior is expected
because the neatly laid cables are heavily loaded and they
Bo
"nl4
A m
6"-
e
+ QATrhllq

Data From Other Experiments om-

a
=m-
The experimental data obtained by Engmann [4] were used 5
Em-
to validate the computer model's predictions. Engmann e:
€40-
performed two tests with covered trays containing cables of
a uniform size and equal electrical loading. Of the 15 %-
E
thermocouples used, three measurements (T5, 7, 9) were
located along the centerline of the cable bundle during each oP-
E 10 -
test. These temperatures were treated as independent
measurements in this investigation since they represented 0 I I I I I I I I 1
o i o z o ~ 4 o ~ e o m m w
independent temperature values within a uniformly heated CalculatedTemDerahlm R b CC)
cable mass.
The computer predictions of the cable mass temperatures Fig. 2 Measured vs. Calculated Temperature Comparison
were also compared to a series of covered tray laboratory for Covered Trays
8
provide uniform heat generation across the cable bundle cross
section. Therefore, the conditionsduring the test more nearly
match the assumptions used in the mathematical model.
Effect of Load Diversity on Ampacity
The layered thermal model can be used to quantify the
influence of diversity on the temperature rise within a
covered cable tray. Fig. 3 shows the temperature rise
predicted by the thermal model plotted as a function of the
percent of ICEA code allowable current. This curve assumes
a 4" by 24" covered tray that is 75 percent filled (3-Inches)
with #10 AWG cables. When a cable tray contains several
power circuits at various percentages of code allowable
ampacities, it should be assumed that all of the cables are
loaded at the worse case level when using Fig. 3. For
example, if power circuits account for 25 percent of the total
cable energized area, and the worse case loading in one set
of the cables is 130 percent of code allowable, then all of the
power cables should be assumed to operated at 130 percent
of the ICEA code current. The temperature rise for a
covered tray for this situation would be conservatively
estimated at 35°C as shown in Fig. 3.
Modeling many trays with varying fill configurationsrevealed
that the cable size and the mix of the cables do not influence
the curves generated. Therefore, even though the data in
Fig. 3 were developed for a tray loaded with a single size
cable size, the results can be used for a tray that contains a
variety of cable sizes. The individual curves in Fig. 3 plot
the results assuming only that proportion of the cable in the
covered tray is energized. All other cables in the tray are
assumed to be either deenergized or generate a negligible
amount of heat. The percent energized value is the percent
energized cable area in the tray. The results show that the
temperature rise dramatically decreases as the percent of
Percent of Code Allowable Ampacity
Fig. 3 Effect of Load Diversity on Temperature Rise in
Covered Trays
energized cables decrease. From this observation it can be
concluded that the load diversity in a realistically loaded
covered tray will produce significantly lower temperatures
than predicted by the existing code [ 2 ] . Fig. 3 is similar to
the earlier published curves [5] for uncovered cable tray, but
it includes the added thermal resistance imposed by the
presence of the tray cover.
Ampacity Ratings Based on a Derating Factor
A simple way to determine the maximum allowable
ampacity of cables in covered trays, is to determine the
required reduction in ampacity that results from the presence
of the tray cover. This reduction in ampacity can then be
directly related to the ampacity values for cables in uncovered
trays published in existing standards. Using this philosophy,
a derating factor can be developed. Once values for the
derating factors are established, the ampacity of cables in a
covered tray can then be simply obtained by applying the
derating factor to the code allowable ampacity for cables in
an uncovered tray. Using this approach, the ampacity values
published in the present codes, standards, and previous
ampacity models that have been used reliably for many years
can be retained.
The derating factor is simply defined as the ratio of the
maximum code allowable ampacity of a cable in a covered
tray to that of the same cable in an uncovered tray. This
definition assumes that the uncovered and covered trays are
identically loaded, have reached the same maximum operating
temperature, and have experienced the same ambient air
temperature. The derating factor is defined as:
Since the two trays are assumed to be loaded with identical
cables, this derating factor can also be expressed in term of
the rate of heat generated in the covered and uncovered trays
or the derating factor can be written as:
Equation (20) provides a simple way to calculate the
derating factors by using the results from the computer
ampacity model. First, the temperature rise at the centerline
of the cable bundle for an uncovered tray installation is
related to the total heat generated by the cables. The pro-
gram is then used to calculate the temperature rise as a
function of the total heaf generated in an identical cable
bundle for an uncovered tray installation. The derating factor
can then be derived from tbe two curves through (210). The
derating factor is the square root of the ratio of total heat
 9

generated in the covered to uncovered cables for a specific

temperature rise. The curves in Fig. 4 for varying cable
depths are independent of the size of the cables placed in the
tray. In other words, the curves for a tray full of 410 cables
were identical to the curves that result when a tray is filled
with #12 AWG cables. The dominant factor in arriving at
the derating factor using (20) is the heat generated in the
cables. Therefore, the derating factors for all cable sizes can
be calculated from a single set of curves as shown in Fig. 4.
The primary factor that influences the derating factor is the
thickness of the air layer between the top of the cable mass
and the bottom surface of the itray cover. This conclusion
can be verified by examining the removal of the heat from
the cable bundle. A schematic diagram of the thermal circuit
for an uncovered tray is shown in Fig. 5 . The equivalent
schematic for a covered tray is shown in Fig. 6. Conserva-
tion of energy requires that the total heat generated in the
cables must be transferred from the upper and lower surfaces
of the cable mass by a combinaition of radiation and convec-
tion. Ohms' law, as it applies to a thermal circuit, states that
the heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference
across the thermal resistance and it is inversely proportional
to the resistance. Given this, the derating factor expressed in
(20) can be restructured in ternls of the thermal resistances
shown in Figs. 5 and 6 or:
A comparison of the resistance in Figs. 5 and 6 show that the
conductive resistance of the cable mass and both the radiative
and convective resistances from ithe bottom surface of the tray
are identical for the covered and uncovered trays. Therefore,
the only factors that influence (he derating factor are those
that alter the resistance from the top of the bundle. In fact,
1 I
,
L T m
Fig. 5 Thermal Circuit for Uncovered Tray
the thermal resistances from the top of the bundle for an open
top tray are practically identical to the thermal resistances
from the top of the cover of a covered tray. Tile difference
in the thermal circuits is a result of the resistance of the
trapped air layer below the cover when the cables are placed
in a covered tray. The thermal resistance of this insulating
air layer is the primary reason that the allowable ampacity of
cables in a covered tray is always less than that of the same
cable placed in an identically filled, uncovered tray.
The thermal resistance of the entrapped air layer above the
cables is a weak function of the thickness of the air layer.
When the air gap is large, (6) is the prevailing equation and
the heat transfer coefficient is independent of the air layer
thickness. For this condition, the derating factor is only a
function of the cable depth and not a function of the thickness
of the air gap. Once the depth of the cables increases and the
thickness of the air layer becomes thin, the mode of heat
transfer through the air layer changes from one of convection

I 1 1
0 1
50 100 150" w~'sbo'$o'do'do
c n i I ;R i 'w/m)
C1 LL
Fig. 4 Development of Derating Factors Fig. 6 Thermal Circuit for Covered Tray
10
to that of conduction. At this point, (7) dominates and
improved heat transfer results. For trays with large fill
levels, the thickness of the air gap strongly influences the
total resistance in the thermal circuit. The thickness of the
air gap can ultimately improves the derating factor in these
cases, as indicated in (7).
Since the derating factor is most strongly affected by the
depth of cables and the tray height, it is reasonable to plot the
derating factors & a function of these two variables. The
computer model described in the first part of this paper was
used to construct curves like the ones shown in Fig. 4 for a
given tray size and cable depth. From these curves the
derating factors were calculated. Fig. 7 shows a composite
of the derating factors as a function of cable depth for three
different tray heights. The curves show that the derating
factor is not a function of the tray height provided the
thickness of the air gap above the cables is greater than one-
half inch (13"). Once the cable depth approaches the tray
height, however, the derating factor increases because the
thermal resistance of the air layer dramatically decreases (7).
This behavior explains the three, nearly vertical "tails" on the
curves in Fig. 7.
The application of the derating factor to the ampacity of
cables in covered trays can be further simplified by ignoring
the influence of the tray height on the derating factor. Since
choosing a lower value for the derating factor provides
conservative ampacity values, the derating factors suggested
by the "tails" of the three curves ;1Fig. 7 can be ignored.
As explained above, these "tails" occur only when the cable
depth comes to within one-half inch of the tray height. Using
the lower extreme of the derating factor curve, a conservative
derating curve based solely on the cable depth can be
established. The result of this is the recommended derating
factor curve shown in Fig. 8. Using the derating factors ;1
Fig. 8 will always produce conservative ampacity values.
0 1 2 9 4
Cable Depth (inches)
5 6 7
Fig. 7 Derating Factors as a Function of Cable Depth for
3-Inch, 5-Inch, and 7-Inch Hi& Trays
What is more important, it will limit the selection of a
derating factor to one that requires only a knowledge of the
depth of the cables in the tray.
V. CONCLUSION
The computer model proposed in this paper conservatively
predicts cable temperature rise in covered trays. It accounts
for diversity in the loading of the cables withb the covered
trays and provides a theoretical justification for cable derating
factors that are not present in the National Electric Code.
The model confirms that the suggested derating factors from
previous investigators are conservative, and it may be
permissible to relax them using conservative criteria. The
derating factor is shown to be independent of cable size and
a conservative value for the derating factor that is a function
only of the cable depth in the tray is recommended.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Consumers Power Company System
Protection Department and the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant
Electrical Maintenance Department, the Electrical Systems
Engineering Department, and the Electrical Design Engi-
neering Department for their assistance. The authors also
want to thank Carl Fox of the Palisades Configuration
Control Project for his work in coordinating the test program;
Daniel Ugorcak for his extensive technical analysis and
review; and Jay Blewett for his review in support of the
publication of this document.
1
0.7 0 1 2 8 4
Cable Depth (Inches)
6 7
Fig. 8 Recommended Conservative Derating Factors for
Covered Trays as a Function of Cable Depth

W.REFERENCES
J. Stolpe, "Ampacities for Cables in Randomly Filled
Cable Trays," IEEE Paper No. 70 TP 557 PWR.
ICEA/NEMA Ampacities of Cables in Open-Top Cable
Trays, ICEA Publication N'o. P54-440; NEMA Publica-
tion No. WC51, publishedby NEMA Washington, D.C.,
1986.
1993 National Electrical Code, ANSIINFPA 70, August
14, 1992; Published by the National Fire Protection
Association.
G. Engmann, "Ampacity of Cable in Covered Tray,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and System,
Vol. PAS-103, No. 2, pp. 345-352, February 1984.
B.L. Harshe and W.Z. Black, "Ampacity of Cables In
Single Open-Top Cable Trays, IEEE Transactions of
'I
Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1733-1740, October
1994.
R. H. Lee, "Ampacities of Multiconductor Cables in
Trays," IEEE T-PAS, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp 1051-1056,
June 1972.
C. W. Nemeth, et al, "Anpacities of Cables in Trays
with Firestops," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 7, pp. 3573-3579, July
1981.
Frank Kreith and William Z. Black, Basic Heat Trans-
fer, Harper and Row, N.Y., 1980.
Frank P. Incropera and David P. DeWitt, Fundamentals
of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2nd Ed., John Wiley, N.Y.,
1986.
[lo] William Z. Black, "Cable Tray Ampacity and Cable
Operating Environments", EPRI NP-7399, Project
2927-6, Final Report, June 1991.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce Harshe received a BME in 1969 from Ohio State
University and MS in Nuclear Engineering in 1975 from the
University of Cincinnati specializing in heat transfer and fluid
flow. He has written several technical publications and
articles, including the one cited for open top trays. Since
1975, he has been employed ais an engineer by Consumers
11
Power Company supporting the Palisades Nuclear Power
Plant. He is a registered professional engineer in Ohio and
Michigan.
W. Z. Black received his BS and MS in mechanical engineer-
ing from the University of Illinois, and his PhD in mechani-
cal engineering from Purdue University. For the past 28
years, he has been in the George W Woodruff School of
Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology
where is presently Regent's Professor and Georgia Power
Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He has
directed a number of EPRI projects relating to ampacity of
underground cables and overhead conductors. He is on
several IEEE ampacity committees and is a registered
professional engineer in Georgia.
NOMENCLATURE
4' surface area of cable bundle per unit length (m)
d outer diameter of cable (m)
DF derating factor
g acceleration of gravity (m/sec2)
H total depth of cable bundle (m)
h convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-OC)
I current (amps)
k thermal conductivity of air (W/m-OC)
n number of cables in a subgroup bf cables of same size
N total number of cables in tray
q heat transfer rate per unit length of tray (W/m)
R' A.C. resistance of cable per unit length (ohms/m)
Ra Rayleigh number
R, total thermal resistance ("C - m/W)
T temperature ( O C)
t thickness of air gap between cables and cover (m)
W' Watts generated within cable bundle per unit length
(W/m)
w cable tray width (m)
Subscriuts
B bottom surface of the cable bundle
C convection
cov cover
f film or average value
gap surface between the cable bundle and cover
H value for heavily loaded cables placed in inner layer of
cable bundle
i counting index
L value for lightly loaded cables placed on outer layer of
cable bundle
M value for moderately loaded cables placed in center layer
12

of cable bundle Greek Svmbols

~ l l i ~maximum
x or center-line value
R radiation
S surface value
t value based on thickness of air gap
T top surface of the cable bundle
top top surface of cover
w value based on width of tray
00 ambient air
0 thermal expansion coefficient of air (l/"C)
AT temperature difference, T- - T,, ("e)
E emissivity
resistivity of the cable bundle including con-
ductor, insulation and encapsulated air (m-"C/W)
U Stefan-Boltz" constant (W/mz-K4)
v kinematic viscosity of air (m2/sec)
 13

Discussion a weighted average of the component resistivities. The

Vincent T. Morgan (CSIRO Division of Applied Physics,
Lindfield, N.S.W., Australia): The authors are to be commended
for presenting another careful study of the heating of a bundle of
cables in a tray. In this case, the presence of the top cover
introduces an additional complexity, because of the variable
thickness of the air gap below the ccwer.
Equation (5), for the heat convection from the bottom surface of
the cable mass, assumes that the bo1tom of the tray is very open. If
this is not the case, an additional conduction term for the common
area between the bottom of the cable mass and the bottom of the
tray will be required.
Equation (6), for the convective heat transfer across the air gap
under the top cover, should be referenced as [9, p. 439, eqn. 9.371.
This equation is derived from measurements of the free convective
heat transfer in water between parallel horizontal plates [A].
Equations (8), (10) and (11) were originally proposed in terms of
the characteristic length L* = A / P, where A is the surface area of
the plate and P is its perimeter; hence, L* = WL / (U.+ 2w), where
L is the length of the plate. When L >> w, L* = w / 2, which is
assumed in the paper.
Will the authors please indicate how the effective thermal
conductivity p of the cable bundle in (16) and (17) is determined.
In the experimental work, whit size thermocouples were
employed, and how where they fixed to the surface of the cables?
In view of the use of ventilating fans at the test sites, it is unlikely
that pure natural convection 0ccum.d at the top surface of the tray
and bottom surface of the cable masa.
An important conclusion from the pposed model is that the size
and mix of the cables does not infliience the curves shown in Fig.
3. Has this been tested experimentally? ?he curves in Fig. 7 show
clearly the relative effects of cable depth, tray height and air gap
thickness on the derating factor for a covered tray.
REFERENCE
A. DDropkin and E. Somerscales, “Heat Transfer by Natural
Convection in Liquids Confined by Two Parallel Plates
which are Inclined at Various Angles with Respect to the
Horizontal”, ASME J. Heat Tmmsfer, Vol. 87, pp. 77-84,
February 1965.
Manuscript received February 15, 1996.
component resistivities are air p = 4000 (cm-’C/W),
insulation p = 100 - 300 (cm-OC/W), aluminum p = 0.42 (cm-
0
C/W) and copper p = 0.26 (cm-’C/W). While some
researchers in the past have used an average thermal
resistivity of 400 (cm-’C/W) for the bundle, we fell that this is
a very conservative value and a more appropriate value would
be between 100 and 200 (cm-’C/W). The lower value was
determined by running the program and comparing the
calculated bundle temperatures with the measured bundle
temperatures for various values of thermal resistivities. The
best correlation between the measured temperatures &
covered trays and the computer predicted values were
achieved for resistivity values in the range of 100-200 (cm-
OCNV).
We did notice that the neatness of the cables in the tray and
the presence of the cover had a bearing on the appropriate
value for the effective resistivity of the bundle. When cables
were neatly arranged in an uncovered tray with very little air
space between adjacent cables, best-fit values for the effective
resistivity appeared to be about 200 cm ‘C/W. When cables
were routed more randomly with larger air spaces between
the cables, which is a condition that often occurs in the field,
the value for the effective resistivity was found to decrease to
approximately 50 to 100 (cm-OCNV).
When a cover was placed over the tray, the effective
resistivity was found to increase, although the value never
exceeded the conservative value of 400 (cm-’C/W) assumed
by the current standard. The increase in effective resistivity
was believed to be the result of restricted air flow between the
cables when the cover was in place. T h s observation was
discussed in [5] in the “Analysis of Data” section. Vertical
air movement within the cable bundle has been noted by
previous investigators. Stople [ 11, for example, indicated that
it was necessary to place a plastic film on the bottom of the
trays to stabilize the thermocouple readings in his test. Since
it is difficult to quantify the neatness of the cables in the tray,
it is therefore difficult to determine the extent to which air
will be able to circulate through the cable bundle. Also since
the neatness of cables in trays can vary along the length of the
tray, we felt that the selection of a conservative resistivity of
400 (cm-’C/W) is prudent for our calculations in the paper.
By using a high value of thermal resistivity, the calculated
temperatures will be on the high side and will provide a
degree of conservatism that should exist when using a
computer heat transfer model.

B.L.Harshe and W.Z.Black : The testing was performed on a wide range of trays with a
variety of fills consisting of mixtures of power cables of
The thermal model for conduction of heat through the cable varying sizes mixed with control cables. The measured
mass, and the convection and radiation effects that occur from temperatures did venfy that the temperature rise is a function
the exposed surfaces to the ambient air is simplified by a only of the amount of heat generated in the cables and not a
number of assumptions stated in the paper. The bundle of function of cable size. It was found that unless the cables
cables consisting of conductois, insulating materials and were carrying over 25% of the code allowable value, the heat
entrapped air between the cables is replaced by a uniform generated in either power cables or instrument cables did not
mass with an equivalent thermal resistivity that approximates significantly affect bundle temperature.
14
Temperatures were measured with 20 AWG thermocouples
that were attached to the outer surface of the cables. The
conductors operated at slightly higher temperatures, but as
explained in [ 5 ] the temperature drop across the insulation
material has been shown to be rather small.
thermocouples could not be attached to the conductors
because the tests were carried out on cable installed in an
operating nuclear plant. The impact of field variables was a
major concern to the investigators, and the way they were
addressed was covered in detail in [5]. The testing for this
paper was performed during the same time frame as the
testing for [ 5 ] . If there was any reason to doubt the validity of
the data (air movement present, non-steady state heat transfer
present, or the temperature monitor was found out of
calibration, for example), the data was discarded.
Several regions of test tray were located in the vicinity of
circulation fans. No data were collected when these fans were
in operation. Therefore all data shown in the paper were
collected when free convection conditions existed.
The
The convection coefficient used for the bottom surface of the
tray is based upon heat transfer from a downward facing
horizontal heated plate. The cable mass is assumed to be in
good thermal contact with the bottom of the tray and the
thermal resistance of the thin, metallic tray is neglected.
Therefore we do not need to include an additional conduction
resistance term in the thermal model.
Manuscript received April 17, 1996.