548 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

Engineering the Thermal Resistivity

of Concrete Duct Banks
Keith Malmedal, Senior Member, IEEE, Carson Bates, Member, IEEE, and David Cain

Abstract—Cables are often installed in underground conduits thermal resistivity due to soil drying will be also reduced [1].
surrounded by concrete. To calculate the cable ampacity in these Using a concrete duct bank will thereby improve the thermal
duct banks, the concrete thermal resistivity must be known. stability of an underground cable system, and the resulting
A set of experiments was performed to determine the effects
that a concrete mixture has on the resulting thermal resistivity. stability will be largely determined by the overall diameter of
Concrete flow-fill mixtures containing water–cement–sand and the concrete surrounding the electrical ducts.
water–cement–fly-ash–sand were studied. Experiments showed When concrete surrounds electrical conduits, the concrete
that the water content of a mixture is not a factor in the final con- becomes part of the thermal circuit through which heat must be
crete thermal resistivity unless fly ash was included in the mixture; conducted to escape the vicinity of the cables [2]. To calculate
however, the water-to-cement ratio is significant for all mixtures.
Empirical equations were derived to find the resistivity of concrete the ampacity of the enclosed cables, the thermal resistivity
as a function of the constituents of the concrete mixture. These of the concrete must be known. It may be desirable to have
equations may be used to design a concrete mixture to produce the the capability of designing a concrete mix that will produce a
desired thermal resistivity or to calculate the thermal resistivity of certain target thermal resistivity. It is also useful to have the
a known concrete mixture. means of predicting the thermal resistivity that will result when
Index Terms—Cable ampacity, duct bank design, soil moisture, the concrete of a known mixture is used.
soil properties, thermal conductivity, thermal stability, thermore- This paper examines the hypothesis that the thermal resis-
sistivity, underground cable design. tivity is a function of the proportioning of a concrete mixture.
Two experiments were designed to test this hypothesis. The first
I. I NTRODUCTION experiment tested concrete mixtures containing cement, water,
and sand, and the second experiment tested mixtures containing
A N underground conduit is often surrounded by concrete in
the form of a concrete duct bank. This is done to protect
electrical conduits and their enclosed cables from damage due
cement, fly ash, water, and sand. The experiments encompassed
the complete range of concrete flow-fill mixtures commonly
to excavation or traffic on the soil above the ducts. The presence used in duct bank construction. The results of the experiments,
of the concrete has an additional benefit of improving the nega- the statistical analysis of the data, and the final design equations
tive effects of any soil thermal instability that may be suspected are reported herein.
at a particular location. The concrete improves the soil thermal
stability since the concrete surrounding the electrical conduit II. P ROPORTIONING C ONCRETE
will be relatively thermally stable compared with most soils
Concrete is a mixture of water, cementitious material (ce-
since, unlike soil, little water migration is expected through
ment and fly ash), aggregate (sand and gravel), and air. The
hydrated concrete. Furthermore, the presence of the duct bank
experiments that were performed tested the thermal resistivity
will result in a larger area through which surrounding soil
of mixtures made of type-II Portland cement, sand, and water,
moisture can return to the drying interface between the concrete
and of mixtures made of type-II Portland cement, type-F fly
duct bank and the soil. This interface will be heated by the
ash, sand, and water. No air entrainment admixtures were used,
enclosed cables and will be the area where drying is expected.
and the air content was assumed to be approximately 3% in all
Since the drying effects on the soil will be reduced by this
cases. All materials were locally procured from sources near
relatively large drying interface area, the changes in the soil
Denver, CO, USA.
Concrete mixes have two design factors that can be varied.
Manuscript received January 23, 2015; accepted May 31, 2015. Date of
publication July 27, 2015; date of current version January 18, 2016. Paper The first design factor is the water content, which affects
2014-CIC-1020, presented at the 2015 IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Con- workability and controls the concrete slump. The second design
ference, Toronto, ON, Canada, April 26–30, and approved for publication in the factor is the water-to-cementitious-material ratio (w/c ratio) that
IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by the Cement Industry
Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. controls the concrete compressive strength and is usually given
K. Malmedal and C. Bates are with NEI Electric Power Engineering, in pounds per square inch. If fly ash is used to replace some of
Inc., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 USA (e-mail: kmalmedal@neiengineering.com; the cement, then an additional design factor will be the ratio of
cbates@neiengineering.com).
D. Cain is with NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc., Wheat Ridge, CO fly ash to cementitious material [3].
80033 USA, and also with the Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, The water content needed for a target slump value is
CO 80204 USA (e-mail: dcain@neiengineering.com). calculated in pounds per cubic yard of the final concrete
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. volume. Slump is a measure of the workability (viscosity) of
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2015.2461182 the concrete. Increasing the water content increases the slump
0093-9994 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
MALMEDAL et al.: ENGINEERING THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF CONCRETE DUCT BANKS 549

and makes the concrete more fluid. Lower slump results in a TABLE I
C ONCRETE M IXES U SED FOR E XPERIMENT 1
stiffer mixture. The slump for the mixtures used in this paper
was between 2 and 7 in, which resulted from a water content
between 350 and 420 lb/yd3 .
The concrete strength is determined by the w/c ratio. This
is the mass of the water divided by the mass of the cemen-
titious material. In this paper, w/c ratios between 0.9 and 0.3
were studied. These w/c ratios will produce concrete strengths
ranging between approximately 1500 and 7000 lb/in2 [3].
Cement is sometimes replaced with fly ash in concrete
mixtures. This reduces the amount of cement needed in the
cementitious material and reduces the amount of water needed
in the mix. The fly-ash-to-cementitious-material ratio is also a
factor of interest. The fly-ash-to-cementitious-material ratio is
normally between 0.05 and 0.4 (5%–40%) and is measured by
dividing the mass of the fly ash by the mass of the total cementi-
tious material needed for the desired strength. The experiments approach can provide insight into the effect that each of the
used studied the range of 5%–40% fly-ash-to-cementitious- process variables, i.e., the w/c ratio and the water content,
material ratios. has on the response variable, i.e., the thermal resistivity. This
The experiments in this paper cover the typical ranges of analysis technique can also provide insight into any interactions
concrete mixtures found in duct bank designs. Once the water, that may occur between the process variables.
the w/c ratio, and if fly ash is used, the fly-ash-to-cementitious- The analysis of variance for the recorded data is shown in
material ratio is chosen, and the fine aggregate (sand) is then Table III. Factor A corresponds to the w/c ratio, and Factor B
added to make up the volume needed. Therefore, the amount corresponds to the water content. Factor AB is the interaction
of sand used, while possibly affecting the thermal resistivity of between the two factors.
the concrete, is not an independent variable in the concrete mix. The effect estimates are the regression coefficients for the
The amount of sand (in pounds per cubic yard) is dependent coded values. SS is the sum of squares for each factor, and DF
on the amount of water and cementitious materials (in pounds is the number of degrees of freedom; MS is the mean square
per cubic yard) used. value of the factor, and F0 is the F statistic calculated from the
mean square of the factor and the pure error. Ftest,0.05 is the
statistical F -distribution value for a 95% significance level and
III. E XPERIMENT 1: WATER –S AND –C EMENT M IXTURE
the appropriate numbers of degrees of freedom.
To explore the effects a concrete mixture may have on the Analysis is done on the information in Table III by com-
thermal resistivity of the concrete, a two-factor two-level (22 ) paring the F0 statistic calculated from the measured data
factorial experiment was designed [4]–[6]. The two factors used with the Ftest,0.05 statistic. This comparison will determine if
in the experiment were the water content in pounds per cubic the null hypothesis can be statistically rejected based on the
yard and the w/c ratio. The measured response variable was measured data. The null hypothesis, i.e., H0 , states that the
the thermal resistivity of the concrete. The thermal resistivity factor being examined has no effect on the response variable.
was measured using standard methods [8]–[10]. To discover If F0 < Ftest,0.05 for a particular factor, this means that, to a
any curvature of the final regression equation, four center point significance level of 95%, the null hypothesis, i.e., H0 , in which
samples were also examined. the particular factor has no effect on the response variable,
A total of 12 4 in (diameter) by 8 in (height) concrete test cannot be rejected. If F0 > Ftest,0.05 , then null hypothesis H0
cylinders were prepared. Two replicates of the four factorial must be rejected, and alternative hypothesis H1 , in which the
combinations and four replicates of the center point combina- factor does have an effect on the resistivity, must be accepted.
tion were prepared. Four cylinders were tested each day, and Examining the values in Table III, it may be seen that, for
the day of testing was used as a blocking factor. The cylinders Factor A, i.e., the w/c ratio, the F statistic is 117.98, and the
were prepared and tested in random order within their blocks. Ftest,0.05 value is 5.59. Since 117.98 > 5.59, the null hypothesis
The mixture in each test cylinder is shown in Table I. After must be rejected, and it may be seen that, statistically, the w/c
preparation, the cylinders were allowed to cure in air for 28 days ratio does have an effect on the resistivity of the concrete.
before testing. It may be also seen that Factor B, i.e., the water content,
The results of the tests are shown in Table II. The Run has a test statistic of 4.62 that is compared with an Ftest,0.05
Order is the order in which the samples were tested, and the of 5.59. Since 4.62 < 5.59, the null hypothesis cannot be
Coded Variables are the coding within the two-level testing rejected, and the conclusion is that there is no evidence from
and analysis; the Actual Variables are the concrete mix values the experimental data that the water content has an effect on the
corresponding to the Coded Variables, and the Results are the thermal resistivity of the concrete.
measured thermal resistivity for each sample. By the same type of comparison, it may be also seen in
An analysis of the variance approach was used to determine Table III that there are no significant interaction effects between
the significance of the measured data [4]–[6]. This statistical the w/c ratio and the water content (AB), that the effect of
550 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

TABLE II
T EST R ESULTS

TABLE III
A NALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE D ATA IN TABLE II

TABLE IV
E XPECTED VALUE AND P REDICTION L IMITS FOR THE T HERMAL
R ESISTIVITY IN cm-◦ C/W AS A F UNCTION OF THE M / C R ATIO

variations between the blocks (the day when each test was
performed) was insignificant, and that the quadratic effects
are statistically significant. The quadratic effects show that Fig. 1. Measured data points and regression line from (2).
there is some curvature in the regression line between the
process variables and the response variable that will have to be It accounts for the evident curvature by using the squared term.
considered when determining the final regression equation for In this model, x are the w/c ratios, and β are the regression
the effect. coefficients. The y term is the thermal resistivity in cm-◦ C/W.
Since it appears from the statistical analysis that the water The final empirical equation derived by linear regression
content and the interaction effects have negligible effects on the from the experimental data, which may be also used to predict
concrete thermal resistivity, the model that will be fitted to the thermal resistivity y in cm-◦ C/W if given w/c ratio x, is
data can ignore these two factors and only consider the w/c ratio
y = 139.4x2 − 214.6x + 115.37. (2)
and its effect on the thermal resistivity. After several attempts at
fitting various equation types to the modeled data, the following This equation is valid over the test conditions of a water
was found to produce the best fit: content between 350 and 420 lb/yd3 , and a w/c ratio of 0.3–0.9.
2
Equation (2) has a coefficient of determination (Radj ) of
y = β1 x2 + β2 x + β0 . (1) 0.9846 [6].
MALMEDAL et al.: ENGINEERING THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF CONCRETE DUCT BANKS 551

Fig. 4. Scatter plot of the R-student residuals versus the predicted values of
resistivity.

TABLE V
C ONCRETE M IXES U SED FOR E XPERIMENT 2

Fig. 2. Normal distribution plot of the R-student residuals.

TABLE VI
S AMPLES , THE S AMPLE RUN O RDER , AND THE
VARIABLES U SED FOR E ACH FACTOR

Fig. 3. Scatter plot of the R-student residuals plotted against the order of
testing.

The 95% prediction interval for any subsequent value of y,

i.e., y0 , calculated from (2) may be found using
 expected to fall between the minimum and maximum values
y −2.262 1.149(5.75−35x+ 05.8x2 −111x3 + 46.3x4 ) ≤ y0
 shown, and a large number of such samples would be expected
≤ y + 2.262 1.149(5.75−35x+ 05.8x2 −111x3 + 46.3x4 ). to have an average value equal to the mean value given.
(3) Fig. 1 is a graph showing the actual measured data (shown by
the square markers) and the regression line that was calculated
Table IV contains the results using (2) and (3) to calculate the using (2). The curvature of the original data indicated by the
expected value (the mean value) and the 95% prediction limits analysis of variance can be clearly seen in this figure.
for the thermal resistivity of the concrete mixture between the The graphs in Figs. 2–4 show the residual analysis resulting
w/c ratios that were tested in the experiment. Any concrete from the fitted model, and they are shown as an aid to deter-
sample prepared at the w/c ratio given in this table would be mining the quality of the data. The residuals appear generally
552 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

TABLE VII
A NALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE TABLE FOR THE D ATA IN TABLES V AND VI

Fig. 5. Resistivity from (5) with the water content = 350. Fig. 6. Resistivity from (5) with the water content = 420 lb/yd3 .
normally distributed. The only points of concern are the two
points that depart from the normal distribution line shown in mixtures and four center point mixtures) in random order and
Fig. 2. Although they appear to be possible outliers in this were allowed to cure for 28 days before testing. The thermal
figure, the testing methodology that resulted in these points was resistivity of each cylinder was then tested. Table V shows the
closely examined, and no reason could be found to justify ex- actual mixtures of the concrete samples.
cluding these points from the analysis. These are the same two Table VI shows the order in which the samples were tested
points that are the farthest from the zero line in Figs. 3 and 4. along with the actual tested variables used in the mixes and the
The test samples that produced these two points both contained results of the test. The w/c ratio is the water-to-cementitious-
low w/c ratios. Rather than being outliers, it may be that the material ratio, and the variable used for this in the final equation
variance of the resistivity is greater for low w/c ratios than for is x1 ; the variable used for this factor in the analysis of variance
larger w/c ratios. is A. Water is the water content in pounds per cubic yard, and
x2 is the variable used in the final equation; B is the factor
identifier in the analysis of variance. Fly ash is the ratio of
IV. E XPERIMENT 2: WATER –S AND –F LY-A SH M IXTURE
the fly ash to the total cementitious material, and x3 is used
A three-factor two-level (23 ) experiment was designed to find in the final regression equation; C is its identifier in the analysis
an empirical equation for the thermal resistivity of the con- of variance. The resistivity column gives the resultant thermal
crete, where type-F fly ash was used to replace part of the resistivity measured for each sample.
cementitious material. The two levels of fly ash used in the Table VII shows the analysis of variance for the data. The
experiment were 5%–40% of the cementitious material. effect estimate is the estimate of the regression variable for the
A single replicate of the factorial samples was used, but coded factors. SS is the sum of squares for each variable, and
four replicates of the center point samples were prepared to DF is the degrees of freedom; MS is the mean square, and F0
determine both the regression curvature and the pure exper- is the F statistic calculated from the measured data. Ftest,0.05
imental error for the statistical analysis of the results. The is the F -distribution statistic for the appropriate number of
experiment was performed in a similar manner to the first degrees of freedom for each test. The F0 value is compared
experiment. Twelve test cylinders were prepared (eight factorial with the Ftest,0.05 value to determine if the null hypothesis for
MALMEDAL et al.: ENGINEERING THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF CONCRETE DUCT BANKS 553

TABLE VIII
M INIMUM AND M AXIMUM R ANGES OF R ESISTIVITY
FOR A S AMPLE OF M IXES

Fig. 7. Normal distribution plot of the R-student residuals.

each variable should be rejected, i.e., the variable has an effect

on the resistivity of the concrete.
The null hypothesis, i.e., H0 , means that a particular variable
has no effect on the final thermal resistivity. The alternative
hypothesis, i.e., H1 , means that the variable has an effect on
the final thermal resistivity. If F0 < Ftest,0.05 , then, to a 95%
significance level, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and
it must be concluded that the particular factor under test was
not shown to have an effect on the material’s resistivity. If
F0 > Ftest,0.05 , then H0 should be rejected, and it should be
concluded that that factor does have a significant effect on the
material’s resistivity.
A comparison of the F0 and Ftest,0.05 columns shows that Fig. 8. R-student residuals versus the order of tests.
the w/c ratio (factor A) has the largest effect on the thermal
resistivity. Furthermore, factor C, i.e., the fly ash ratio, and the
equation was significantly improved by including the water
interaction between the w/c and fly ash ratios (factor AC) also
content in the final analysis. Therefore, it was concluded that,
have significant effects on the final thermal resistivity. The other
unlike the former case with the water–cement–sand mix, for the
interaction factors, i.e., the w/c ratio with the water content
water–cement–fly-ash–sand mixes, the water content did have
(AB), the water content with the fly ash ratio (BC), and the
an effect on the material’s thermal resistivity, although it is a
w/c ratio with the water content and the fly ash ratio (ABC),
relatively small effect.
have no significant effect on the resistivity, and H0 cannot be
The quadratic F0 statistic shows that there is once again
rejected for these interactions.
significant curvature to the regression line. Thus, the final
The water content (factor B) also has an F0 statistic less
regression equation must include a term or terms to account
than the test statistic; therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be
for this curvature. After testing the range of the possible forms
rejected for this factor at the 95% significance level. However, it
of equations, it was determined that the following equation
may be found that, at a slightly different significance level, i.e.,
produced the best fit:
96%, F0 > Ftest,0.04 and the null hypothesis would be rejected.
It was also determined that the fit for the final regression y = β1 x21 + β2 x1 + β3 x2 + β4 x3 + β5 x1 x3 + β0 . (4)
554 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 52, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

Matrix W was derived from the experimental measured data.

For this experiment, the W matrix was found, as shown at the
bottom of the page.
After the one element of matrix Z is found from (6) and (7),
yadd is found using

yadd = 2.447 7.6535(1 − Z). (8)
Value yadd is then both added and subtracted from y found
using (5) to find the 95% prediction interval of resistivity for
any set of x values of interest. A set of x values should produce
a value of resistivity that falls between the minimum and
maximum values calculated using this method. Table VIII lists
the expected ranges of resistivity for a sample of mixtures
Fig. 9. R-student residuals versus the fitted resistivity value using (5). calculated by this method.
Figs. 7–9 are provided for the analysis of the residuals. No
Linear regression using the form of (4) resulted in the final conditions suggesting problems with the data are apparent.
empirical equation as follows:
V. C ONCLUSION
y = 114.34x21 − 176.02x1 − 0.08444x2 − 64.421x3
+ 72.709x1x3 + 142.68 (5) The two experiments whose results are reported herein show
that the thermal resistivity of concrete mixes may be designed
where or predicted if the proportions used in the concrete mixture
x1 = w/c ratio; are known. In the case of the water–cement–sand mixture, the
x2 = water content in pounds per cubic yard; resistivity was found to be a function of only the w/c ratio.
x3 = fly-ash–cementitious-material ratio; Equations (2) and (3) are empirical equations derived from ex-
y = thermal resistivity in cm-◦ C/W. perimentation that may be used to calculate the expected values
of the thermal resistivity for any typical water–cement–sand
The coefficient of determination (Radj 2
) for this equation is concrete mix.
97.1%. Figs. 5 and 6 show (5) plotted at two different values of The experiment using a water–cement–fly-ash–sand mixture
the water content. resulted in a more complex equation since the resistivity was
For any set of variables, i.e., x1, x2 , and x3 , the expected value found to be a function of not only the w/c ratio but also the water
of the resistivity, i.e., y, may be found using (5). The 95% pre- content and the fly ash ratio. It was also found that there is a
diction interval may be also found. Given any set of variables, significant interaction between the w/c ratio and the percentage
i.e., x1 , x2 , and x3 , within the range tested in this experiment of fly ash on the thermal resistivity. Equations (5)–(8) may be
(0.3 < x1 < 0.9, 350 < x2 < 420, and 0.05 < x3 < 0.4), matrix used to calculate the range of the thermal resistivity that will be
X 0 may be formed using expected with any typical water–cement–fly-ash–sand mixture.
⎡ 2 ⎤ These experiments used cement, fly ash, and sand from a
x1 single source at a single location. Additional experimentation
⎢ x1 ⎥ is needed to determine if there will be any variation in the
⎢ ⎥
⎢ x2 ⎥ resistivity due to the source of the raw materials.
X0 = ⎢ ⎢ ⎥. (6)
⎥
⎢ x3 ⎥
⎣x1 x3 ⎦
R EFERENCES
1
[1] K. Malmedal, C. Bates, and D. Cain, “Measurement of soil thermal
stability, thermal resistivity, and underground cable ampacity,” in Proc.
Single-element matrix Z is then found using IEEE Rural Elect. Power Conf., Fort Worth, TX, USA, May 18–21, 2014,
pp. C5-1–C5-12.
Z = X 0 W X 0 (7) [2] J. H. Neher and M. H. McGrath, “The calculation of the temperature
rise and load capability of cable systems,” AIEE Trans., vol. 76, no. 3,
where X 0 is the transpose of X 0 . pp. 752–772, Oct. 1957.

⎡ ⎤
46.2963 −55.5556 0 0 0 13.88889
⎢−55.5556 70.35174 0 6.122449 −10.2041 −18.8776⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0.000102 0 0 −0.03929⎥
W =⎢
⎢
⎥
⎢ 0 6.122449 0 20.40816 −27.2019 −4.59184⎥⎥
⎣ 0 −10.2041 0 −27.2019 45.35147 6.122449 ⎦
13.88889 −18.8776 −0.03929 −4.59184 6.122449 20.90816
MALMEDAL et al.: ENGINEERING THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF CONCRETE DUCT BANKS 555

[3] S. H. Kosmatka and M. L. Wilson, Design and Control of Concrete Carson Bates (M’09) received the B.S. degree in
Mixtures, 4th ed. Skokie, IL, USA: Portland Cement Assoc., 2013. engineering with electrical specialty and the M.S.
[4] D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments. 8th ed. degree in electrical engineering from the Colorado
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2013. School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA, in 2010 and
[5] R. W. Mee, A Comprehensive Guide to Factorial Two-Level Experimen- 2013, respectively.
tation. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2009. He was an Intern with the Advanced Power
[6] D. C. Montgomery, E. A. Peck, and G. G. Vining, Introduction to Linear Electronics for Vehicles Group, National Renewable
Regression Analysis. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2012. Energy Laboratory. He is currently a Full-Time En-
[7] IEEE Guide for Soil Thermal Resistivity Measurements, IEEE Std. 442- gineer with NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc.,
1981, Jun. 1981. Wheat Ridge, CO, USA.
[8] D. P. DeWitt, T. L. Bergman, and A. S. Lavine, Fundamentals of
Heat and Mass Transfer, 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2007,
pp. 207–211.
[9] L. R. Ingersoll, O. J. Zobel, and A. C. Ingersoll, Heat Conduction With
Engineering, Geological, and Other Applications. Madison, WI, USA:
Univ. Wisconsin Press, 1954.
[10] Standard Test Method for Determination of Thermal Conductivity of Soil
and Soft Rock by Thermal Needle Probe Procedure, ASTM D5334, 2008.

Keith Malmedal (M’91–SM’13) received the

B.S.E.E.T. degree from the Metropolitan State Uni-
versity of Denver, Denver, CO, USA, in 1995, the
M.S.E.E. degree in power and the M.S.C.E. degree in
structures from the University of Colorado Denver, David Cain received the Associate of Applied Sci-
Denver, CO, USA, in 1998 and 2002, respectively, ence degree from the Community College of Aurora,
and the Ph.D. degree from the Colorado School of Aurora, CO, USA, in 2011. He is currently working
toward the B.S.E.E.T. degree in electrical engineer-
Mines, Golden, CO, USA, in 2008.
He has over 25 years engineering experience, and ing technology at the Metropolitan State University
he is currently the President of NEI Electric Power of Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
Engineering, Inc., Wheat Ridge, CO, USA. He is also currently an Engineering Intern with
NEI Electric Power Engineering, Inc., Wheat Ridge,
Dr. Malmedal is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and
he is a Registered Professional Engineer in 20 states in the USA, and in the CO, USA.
Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, Canada.