F E A T U R E A R T
Partial Discharge Detection in Medium
Voltage and High Voltage Cables:
Maximum Distance for Detection,
Length of Cable, and Some Answers
Key words: cables, partial discharge detection, detection distance, cable reliability and failure
Introduction
Partial discharge (PD) measurement is becoming a common
procedure in the commissioning and off-line diagnostic testing
of cable systems. On-line PD cable monitoring is beginning to
show growing interest as well. Arising from this is an important
question being asked by testing companies, maintenance per-
sonnel, and asset managers: What are the maximum lengths of
high voltage (HV) and medium voltage (MV) cables that can be
scanned with sufficient sensitivity for PD activity by present day
PD detectors? In other words, what is the maximum distance
a PD measurement point can be from the PD source and still
detect the PD. The answer can be complex, or not satisfactorily
understood, being related to the measurement sensitivity, volt-
age level, type of insulation, and cable construction. Detection
also depends on the bandwidth of the measurement circuit. The
signal-to-noise ratio must be large enough to enable PD detec-
tion at a level compatible with the reliability of the cable, that is,
terminating maintenance or commissioning diagnostic tests be-
fore cable breakdown. Indeed, the capability of detecting pulses
with an apparent charge below 5 pC is a common requirement
for HV polymeric cable systems [1], whereas a much lower sen-
sitivity, i.e., 5 nC, for mass-impregnated cables is generally ac-
cepted. The meaning of such limits in cable systems is doubtful
as PD measurements are most often done from the cable ter-
mination because localized sensors are often unavailable, and
since not in close proximity to the source, a lumped-parameter
network representing the cable network for picocoulomb cali-
bration is invalid. In a cable system PD pulses travel on the con-
ductor and metal sheath, and the cable is viewed as a distributed
parameter network; thus, the PD quantity measured is typically
volts or millivolts. As the PD pulses travel along the cable, they
lose frequency content as a consequence of skin effect or ohmic
loss at high frequencies, and semicon and insulation dielectric
losses [2], [3]. Thus, the larger the distance from the PD site to
the coupler, the smaller the detector cutoff frequency that en-
September/October Vol. 32, No. 5 0883-7554/16/2016/IEEE
I C L E
Gian Carlo Montanari
Department of Electrical Engineering, Uni-
versity of Bologna, Italy
This article provides a simple back-
ground to clarify the problem of de-
tection distance for partial discharge
occurring in cable systems, present-
ing models, simulations, and mea-
surements, which could help unravel
this complex matter.
ables the best possible signal-to-noise ratio. Due to noise, the
signal-to-noise ratio can be very small, particularly in on-line
measurements, and it degrades with distance traveled along the
cable. However, it is of fundamental importance to establish the
maximum distance that still allows effective PD detection from
cable terminations. The question is how many PD detectors are
required, and where should their installed locations be to obtain
sufficient sensitivity. Unfortunately, this simple question does
not have a simple answer as the answer is dependent on the cable
insulation material, semicon material, cable geometry, and the
detection technologythe type of sensors and detectors used
for the measurements.
This article provides a framework from which answers can be
derived, using simulation tools to investigate PD pulse attenua-
tion while traveling on a cable and considering both HV and MV
polymeric cables. The crucial role taken by the noise and the
capability of a PD instrument to reject the noise or measure PD
41
Figure 1. EMTP simulation [5] results for a 5-km-long medium
voltage ethylene propylene rubber cable, where partial dis-
charge (PD) at a termination is measured using two types of de-
tectors, ultrawide band for PD pulse peak and IEC 60270com-
pliant for PD pulse apparent charge as a function of traveled
distance. The regression line fitting the data is shown together
with the slope (dotted).
pulses even below the noise level is highlighted, showing that
if sensors and/or detectors are able to keep noise to low values,
significantly long cable distance can be scanned, especially in
MV cables where larger PD amplitudes than in HV are expected
to bring the cable to premature failure.
Bandwidth and Noise
Nowadays, typical instruments used for PD measurements
include ultrawide band (UWB) detectors and detectors compli-
ant with IEC 60270 specifications for wide band systems, the
latter having an upper cutoff frequency of some hundreds of
kilohertz [4]. Based on the bandwidth, sensitivity of measure-
ments can change significantly as a function of cable length and
noise. As an example, Figure 1 shows the simulation results for
a 5-km-long MV cable [ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) insu-
lation], where PD at a termination is measured using two types
of detectors, one UWB and one IEC 60270 compliant. The data
are obtained through EMTP simulation described in [5], where
simulation and measured data show a good fit.
As can be seen, the lines show slopes of 0.76 and 0.32
for PD pulse peak and PD pulse apparent charge, respectively,
which means that the PD pulse peak is attenuated more rapidly
as a function of traveled distance when UWB detectors are used.
This result is related clearly to the larger attenuation that high-
frequency components suffer while travelling along the cable,
as was shown earlier by Stone and Boggs [2]. In their work, the
cable is represented as a distributed parameter network, having
longitudinal impedance Z, which includes the skin effect, and a
parallel admittance Y, accounting for losses due to the insulation
and the semicon layer, and all parameters are frequency depen-
dent. The propagation constant is given by
= + j = ZY = (r + j l )(g + j c ), (1) Detection Distance
42 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
Figure 2. Analytical model of Equation (1), showing the attenua-
tion in decibels of the partial discharge pulse frequency compo-
nents as a function of the traveled distance for a medium voltage
ethylene propylene rubber cable.
where l and r are the inductance and resistance per unit length
(the latter accounting for skin and proximity effects), g and c are
the insulation and semicon losses, and capacitance (permittivity)
per unit length [6]. The damping of the PD pulse frequency com-
ponents comes out clearly from Figure 2, where the attenuation,
in decibels, is reported as a function of the traveled distance,
from the PD source to the detection point.
Considering the optimum bandwidth of 6 dB (50% attenu-
ation) as indicated in [7], the component at 100 MHz travels a
bit more than 10 m, while that at 20 MHz just 100 m. On the
contrary, the low-frequency components can travel a long dis-
tance, e.g., that at 1 MHz, which is close to the upper cutoff of
the IEC 60270 bandwidth, loses 50% of magnitude after 2 km.
This means that most of the high-frequency components of a PD
pulse are significantly attenuated after a few tens or hundreds of
meters from the PD source. Thus, the dynamics of pulse ampli-
tude measured by UWB instruments are much larger than that
recorded by IEC 60270compliant detectors, as shown in Figure
1, but the two types of instruments will provide similar readings
at long distances, as seen in Figure 3.
The simulations based on cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE)
cable insulation are shown in Figure 4, which are similar, in
terms of behavior and slope, to MV EPR cables. Figure 5 in-
dicates that in the case of UWB detection, HV cables display a
higher attenuation rate in a shorter distance than MV cables, but
for a cable length exceeding 1 km, the attenuation curves tend to
overlap, thus showing similar attenuation behavior for medium-
and low-frequency components, related to the skin effect.
Calculation on a broad range of PD pulse amplitude values,
based on (1), provides Figure 6, where the voltage at the detec-
Figure 3. EMTP simulation results for a 5-km-long medium volt-
age ethylene propylene rubber cable showing partial discharge
pulse peak value in millivolts for ultrawide band (UWB) and
IEC 60270compliant detectors.
tion point, recorded by an UWB instrument, is shown as a func-
tion of the distance between the source and the coupler of the
PD detector. As can be seen, the voltage at the detection point
decreases as a function of the traveled distance in a nonlinear
way, also in the log-log plot due to the significant loss of the
high-frequency components in the first 100 m. However, taking
into consideration segments of the curve, some linear behavior
can be achieved, as in Figure 7. Also in Figures 1 and 3, for very
low PD pulse values, the regression lines show a good fit in the
semi-log plot.
Figure 7 shows the apparent charge at the PD source, for both
MV and HV cables, providing a reading at the detection point
of 1 pC, as a function of the distance of the source from the
detection point, and using a PD instrument compliant with IEC
60270. Noting the linearity of detected PD magnitude versus
source distance, in the charge range considered, for a detector
Figure 4. EMTP simulation results for a 5-km-long high voltage
cross-linked polyethylene cable, where partial discharge (PD)
at a termination is measured using two types of detectors, ultra-
wide band for PD pulse peak and IEC 60270compliant for PD
pulse apparent charge, as a function of traveled distance. The
regression line fitting the data is shown together with the slope
(dotted line).
September/October Vol. 32, No. 5 43
Figure 5. Comparison of simulated results between partial dis-
charge pulse ultrawide band detection, as a function of traveled
distance, for high voltage (HV) cross-linked polyethylene and
medium voltage (MV) ethylene propylene rubber cables. (After
[5].)
reading of 1 pC (Qd1) the relationship between the charge at the
PD source, Qs, giving this reading and traveled distance, LM, is
Qs = 1.4LM + Qd1 = 1.4LM + 1, (2)
where 1.4 and 1 are the slope and ordinate intercept, respec-
tively, of the regression line in Figure 7, and LM the traveled
distance, in kilometers, giving Qd = 1 pC when the source is Qs.
Thus, with attenuation, LM is the maximum distance that can
provide a minimum reading of 1 pC. Then,
Qs Qd1 Qs 1
LM = = . (3)
1.4 1.4
Figure 6. Partial discharge pulse peak voltage at the detection
point (recorded by an ultrawide band instrument), as a function
of the traveled distance between the source and detection point
and calculated using the analytical model of (1). The peak volt-
age at the source is 1 V.
 If the minimum reading increases due to, for example, problems
of sensitivity or noise, (3) has just to be scaled by the minimum
value of picocoulombs or millivolts that is required at the de-
tection point. Indeed, considering noise, the minimum value of
the detection reading can increase, because for conventional PD
instruments, only charge pulse amplitude above the noise can be
detected. Keeping Qs constant means a shorter cable distance.
For example, if the reading Qd goes to 5 pC, then

Qs Qd 5 Qs 5
LM = = . (4)
1.4 1.4

This emphasizes the added value of PD instruments able to

Figure 7. Regression lines with slopes for medium voltage (MV)
and high voltage (HV) cables showing the apparent charge at
the partial discharge (PD) source, providing a reading at the de-
tection point of 1 pC, as a function of the distance of the source
from the detection point, using a IEC 60270compliant instru-
ment.
reject noise efficiently through the use of the T-F map, see [8],
[9]. Figure 8 shows an example of a PD pattern extracted from a
global pattern where the noise has a larger magnitude than PD.
Regarding HV cables, Equations (2) to (4) still hold, but
based on Figure 7, where the slope of the regression line is 1.3,
the 1.4 value in the equations needs to be replaced by 1.3. To
further highlight the effect of noise on the maximum distance
for PD detection, Figure 9 shows the limits for the traveled dis-
tance of a PD pulse magnitude of 100 mV, as measured with an

Figure 8. Example of partial discharge (PD) detection in a high voltage cross-linked polyethylene
cable below the noise level using an ultrawide band detector and the T-F map to identify and reject
noise. The entire pattern can be subdivided in two patterns, one corresponding to the black cluster
(Black phenomenon) corresponding to background noise, and the other corresponding to the red
cluster (Red phenomenon) corresponding to PD. Clearly, the maximum PD amplitude is well below
the maximum noise level.

44 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine

Figure 9. Partial discharge magnitude simulation for high volt-
Figure 10. Partial discharge magnitude simulation for medium
age cables using an ultrawide band detector at the detection
voltage cables using an ultrawide band detector at the detection
point, as a function of the traveled distance, with a noise level
point as a function of the traveled distance, with a noise level be-
between 20 and 40 mV, and 100-mV PD magnitude at the source.
tween 20 and 40 mV, and 500-mV partial discharge magnitude
The horizontal lines correspond to Qd of 5 and 10 mV.
at the source. The horizontal line corresponds to Qd of 30 mV.

UWB detector, for a 220-kV XLPE cable. A PD of this magni-

tained results are quite robust with changing cable parameters
tude within a HV cable or its accessories can lead to premature
such as dimensions, semicon characteristics, and the type of in-
failure, according to forensic observations. As can be seen, the
sulation, which is typically EPR and XLPE for MV and XLPE
noise level has a large influence on detection limits.
for HV cables. Therefore, the simple expressions to determine
As an example, in the case of instruments unable to extract
the maximum cable length for PD detection are approximate,
PD pulses from noise, a limit of 45 mV, which is just above
but are still good for a rough estimate.
the maximum noise corresponds to a distance less than 100 m.
HV or extra-HV cables have PD scanning lengths that can
However, if the PD instrument can record PD pulses below the
vary from 100 m to a few kilometers depending on the noise
noise level, or it can reject noise through appropriate gating or
level. Based on these findings, it is evident that PD sensors
filtering, the detection distance becomes 2 km for Qd = 10 mV
must be installed that have the least sensitivity to noise as pos-
and 5 km for Qd = 5 mV.
sible. Field experience shows that high-frequency current trans-
For MV cables, the same type of plots can be considered,
formers installed in the link boxes or on the ground lead of the
but the slope will slightly change according to Figure 5. The
sheath can be affected by the noise levels indicated in Figures 9
significant difference is the acceptable level of PD that can be
and 10. Thus, either the PD detector is endowed with enhanced
withstood before failure, which from forensic observations may
solutions for noise rejection, or sensors, as capacitive couplers
be one order of magnitude larger than in HV. Thus, for MV
inside the joints, are the preferable solutions with noise of a
cables, Figure 10 is similar to Figure 9 for HV cables, but due
few millivolts [11], [12]. PD scanning distance in MV cables
to the much higher allowable level of PD without immediate
can be very long, even if noise is not negligible; thus, solutions
failure, the maximum distance at which PD can be detected be-
such as high-frequency current transformers or transient earth
comes larger by more than one order of magnitude. Therefore,
voltage can be feasible, having compatibility with the detector
in HV cables measuring PD below the noise level is crucial,
bandwidth.
whereas in MV cables this is not so crucial. A sensitivity of
Looking at the recent developments in PD off-line commis-
30 mV provides a scanning distance of about 10 km, which
sioning tests, on-line monitoring of HV cables, and the increased
becomes 20 km if the PD measurements are performed from
interest in MV cable diagnostics based on PD measurements,
both sides of a cable.
the question of maximum scanning distance is gaining more and
more significance. The analysis shown in this article may be use-
Discussion and Conclusions ful to establish optimized testing and monitoring procedures, as
To summarize, the question dealing with the maximum cable well as to choose appropriate PD detectors. Even long links like
length at which PD can be detected can have different answers those connecting off-shore wind farms, or islands, to the main-
depending on various factors. The simulations used for the plots land most likely can be PD scanned, thus increasing reliability
and the results reported here are well supported by experimental and improving maintenance processes.
data [5], [6] and the literature [10], and are based on XLPE and
EPR insulation, with a semicon resistivity of 3 m and 0.5-mm
References
thickness, but the results cannot be extended to all polymeric ca- [1] IEEE Guide for Partial Discharge Testing of Shielded Power Cable Sys-
bles, having different semicon formulation and high-frequency tems in a Field Environment, IEEE Standards Project P400.3/D5 (PE/IC),
characteristics, and various types of shields. However, the ob- draft 11.

September/October Vol. 32, No. 5 45

[2] G. C. Stone and S. A. Boggs, Propagation of partial discharge pulses in
shielded power cables, in IEEE Conf. Electr. Insul. Dielectr. Phenom.,
1982, pp. 275280.
[3] J. P. Steiner, P. H. Reynolds, and W. L. Weeks, Estimating the location of
partial discharges in cables, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 27,
pp. 4459, 1992.
[4] Partial Discharge Measurements, IEC Standard 60270, 3rd Ed. 2001.
[5] S. Chandrasekar, A. Cavallini, and G. C. Montanari, Bandwidth and
sensitivity issues in PD detection in power cables, IEEE Trans. Dielectr.
Electr. Insul., vol. 14, pp. 735743, 2007.
[6] M. Tozzi, A. Cavallini, G. C. Montanari, and G. L. Giuliattini, PD detec-
tion in extruded power cables: An approximate propagation model, IEEE
Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 15, pp. 832840, 2008.
[7] N. Oussalah, Y. Zebboudy, and S. Boggs, Analytical solutions for pulse
propagation in shielded power cables for symmetric and asymmetric
PD pulses, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 14, pp. 12641270,
2007.
[8] A. Cavallini, A. Contin, G. C. Montanari, and F. Puletti, Advanced PD
inference in on-field measurements. I. Noise rejection, IEEE Trans.
Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 10, pp. 216224, 2003.
[9] A. Cavallini, G. C. Montanari, and F. Puletti, A novel method to locate
PD in polymeric cable systems based on amplitude-frequency (AF) map,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., vol. 14, pp. 726734, 2007.
[10] S. Boggs, A. Pathak, and P. Walker, Partial discharge XXII: High field
attenuation in shielded solid dielectric power cable and implications
thereof for PD location, IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., vol. 12, pp. 916,
1996.
[11] A. Cavallini, M. Tozzi, and G. C. Montanari, Improving PD location in
cable routes through advanced analysis techniques, in NORDIC Insul.
Symp., 2007, pp. 141144.
[12] G. C. Montanari, S. Heberer, and L. Scerbo, On-line partial discharge
screening of MV and HV cables: Feasibility and potential, in Jicable,
2015, pp. 14.
tems, in diagnostics of electrical systems, and in the field of
innovative electrical materials including magnetics, electrets,
nanostructured polymers, and superconductors. He is also en-
gaged in the fields of power quality and power systems design;
power electronics; statistics; new materials for electrical appli-
cations including superconductors, nanomaterials, and piezo-
electrics; diagnostics and condition monitoring of electrical
assets; and asset management. He is an IEEE Fellow, a member
of AEI and the Institute of Physics, and president of the Italian
chapter of the DEIS. He is an associate editor of the IEEE
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation. He is the
Italian representative in IEC TC 112 (insulating materials and
systems) and is active in TC 2 (rotating machines). He has re-
ceived national and international awards, such as AEI Faletti
Nosari (1988), AEI Asea Brown Boveri (1995), IEEE DEIS
Ziu-Yeda Memorial Award (2006), IEC 1906 award (2006), the
DEIS T. W. Dakin Award (2008), and the DEIS Whitehead
Award (2010). He is the founder and president of the spin-off
company TechImp, established in 1999, and the author or coau-
thor of more than 700 scientific papers, 140 of which were
published in 11 different IEEE transactions journals.

Gian Carlo Montanari (F 00) is a pro-

fessor of electrical technology in the De-
partment of Electrical Energy and Infor-
matics, University of Bologna, where he
teaches courses in technology, reliability,
and asset management. He has worked
since 1979 in the field of aging and endur-
ance of solid insulating materials and sys-

46 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine