See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3341140

Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation · September 2008

DOI: 10.1109/TDEI.2008.4591235 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
22 1,826

2 authors:

N. van Schaik Tadeusz Czaszejko

Nico van Schaik Advice Monash University (Australia)
7 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bubble Formation in Vegetable Oil-filled Power Transformers View project

Acoustic emission from partial discharges in solid insulation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tadeusz Czaszejko on 07 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1120 N. van Schaikand and T. Czaszejko: Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems

Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation

of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems
N. van Schaik
KEMA T&D Testing Services
Utrechtseweg 310, P.O. Box 9035, Arnhem 6800 ET, The Netherlands

and T. Czaszejko
Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia

ABSTRACT
A coherent methodology was developed for analysing the risk of partial discharge
inception in the insulation of high voltage cables containing spherical voids located at
the conductor screen interface and fissures located at the insulation screen interface.
These two types of insulation defects present the two most important cases from the
point of view of insulation integrity in high voltage cable systems. Our approach was
based on the notion of sensitivity of dielectric stress to dimensional change of cable
insulation and the notion of sensitivity of the size of discharge free defect to the change
of electric field intensity. We investigated how modifications of insulation dimensions
can affect the risk of discharge in typical defects. The obtained results revealed that so
called slim design of HV cables requires that the size of voids is reduced by
approximately a third to ensure discharge free operation. The size of fissures must be
reduced approximately tenfold in comparison to the permissible size of similar fissures
in a standard design to ensure discharge free operation at the interface with accessories.
This poses a very high technological demand on new cable system designs of this type.
Increasing the size of cable core creates an increased risk of partial discharge, mainly in
fissures. Based on the dimensions of a typical 110 kV cable we showed that a reduction
of fissure dimensions by approximately a quarter is required for a discharge free
operation if the conductor size increases from 1000 mm2 to 2000 mm2. We have
quantified this way the extent to which quality of the insulation extrusion process as
well as precision of accessories assembly must improve, in order to assure discharge free
operation of cable systems after typical design modifications.

Index terms – Partial discharge inception, high voltage cables, XLPE insulation,
design modifications, voids, fissures.

1 INTRODUCTION undertaking was to investigate possibility of widening the range

DISCHARGE-FREE operation of high voltage power
cables is paramount to their longevity in service. A set of
electrical tests required by technical standards as part of
prequalification or type approval procedure is designed to verify
insulation integrity in newly designed cable systems. International
standards such as IEC60840 [17] and IEC62067 [14], as well as
related national standards, also describe the range of type
approval, i.e. the range of allowed changes in the insulation
dimensions for which re-testing is not necessary.
Prequalification and type tests are both time consuming and
costly, and as such, they are often seen as impediment to
developing new cable system designs. For this reason, CIGRÉ
Working Group B1-06 was formed in 2002 with the task to revise
the range of prequalification and type approval. Part of the
Manuscript received on 14 February 2007, in final form 10 December 2007.
of dimensional change allowed by standards with the aim to
avoid the need for unnecessary prequalification or type tests. In
order to achieve this aim, coherent methodology was developed
to analyse the risk of partial discharge inception caused by
alteration of the principal dimensions of cable insulation.
Specific recommendations resulting from this analysis will be
published by CIGRÉ [16]. The aim of this article is to present
a systematic analytical approach developed for this purpose.
A change of insulation dimensions may be required for two
main reasons:
• change of conductor size for different cable ampacity
• reduction of insulation thickness in so called "slim
design"
If the electric field intensity increases as the result of the
dimensional change, there is a risk that partial discharges will
develop in defects that may be present in the insulation.

1070-9878/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 4; August 2008 1121

Although, there exists vast body of literature related to the
mechanism of partial discharge in solid dielectrics in general,
fewer articles refer directly to partial discharge inception in high
voltage cable insulation. Three-phase belted cables pose special
challenges in this respect which were well addressed in [1]. In this
article, we concentrate on single-core cables with a radial electric
field in the insulation. The work reported in [2] employed
a computer simulation to evaluate PD inception voltage in a
single-core cable. The results cannot be generalised because the
analysis was restricted to one type of defect, a spherical void, and
to only one type of 50 kV, 185 mm2 cable. A much more
complete analysis of discharge inception in voids in single-core
cables was given in [3] followed by an insightful discussion [3].
The aim of [3] was to find an analytical expression for the
minimal thickness of insulation that would result in no discharges
in the voids. Even though the work was based on a narrow range
of dimensions of medium voltage cables, it confirmed
analytically the intuitive rule that a decrease of the insulation
thickness would require a reduction in the size of voids if
discharge-free operation of the cable is to be maintained.
The revision of standards undertaken under the auspices of
CIGRÉ required a more detailed analysis of the relationship
between insulation dimensions and the size of discharge-free
defects. To enable such analysis to apply over the entire range of
cable designs, we have developed new methodology based on the
following two parameters:
1. Sensitivity of dielectric stress to dimensional change
of cable insulation
2. Sensitivity of size of discharge free defect to the
change of electric field intensity
This article shows how this methodology can be utilised in the
design of cable insulation. It also illustrates some limitations of
the electrical stress levels that can be achieved in practical cable
systems if a discharge-free operation is to be achieved.
In order to determine the practical range of the electric field
intensity values, and subsequently its sensitivity to dimensional
change, we need to examine the range of cable dimensions found
in practice. These dimensions are influenced mainly by the cable
voltage and current ratings. According to IEC, power cables are
grouped into three main categories:
• medium voltage (MV), 6 ≤ U ≤ 30 kV
• high voltage (HV), 30 < U ≤ 150 kV
• extra high voltage (EHV), 150 < U ≤ 500 kV
Insulation thickness varies in accordance with cable voltage
rating and manufactures usually follow the recommendations of
international standards in this regard. IEC60502-2 prescribes the
insulation thickness for MV cables. The manufacturer usually
determines the insulation thickness from the design electrical
stress typical for cables in HV and EHV category. In this paper,
we assume the lower limit of insulation thickness to be 2.5 mm,
which relates to a 6 kV rating. We take 34 mm to be the upper
limit of insulation thickness, which corresponds with a 500 kV
rating, although much slimmer designs are known to be
implemented at this voltage level [12].
The range of conductor sizes, and thus the insulation inner
radius, varies in each voltage rating. The smallest conductors are
found in MV cables where a typical range of conductor cross-
section area is between 16 mm2 and 1200 mm2, with 2000 mm2
designs available from some manufacturers. This translates to the
conductor diameter range of approximately 5 – 28 mm. At the
other end of the voltage-rating spectrum, the smallest conductor
normally used in EHV cables is 600 mm2, or 30 mm in diameter,
and the largest one is 3000 mm2, or 72 mm in diameter.

2 DESIGN VALUE OF A.C. ELECTRICAL

STRESS IN HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES.
We restrict our analysis to concentric electrical fields found in
screened core power cables, which form majority of installed
cable population. An interesting study of electrical field
distribution and partial discharge propagation in three-phase
belted cables can be found in [1].
The electric field intensity at a radial location x in a concentric
cable is expressed by a well known formula
U0 1
Ex = (1)
x R Figure 1. Practical range of possible conductor and insulation dimensions of
ln XLPE insulated high voltage cables.
r
If r is the insulation inner radius and w is the insulation wall Figure 1 shows graphically the summary of ranges of typical
thickness, the corresponding field intensities at the insulation dimensions of XLPE insulated high voltage cables. To avoid
inner and outer surface are easily determined clutter, the plot shows conductor size ranges for only a selection
U0 1 of rated voltages.
Er = (2) Figure 2, reproduced from [5], shows the range of insulation
r r+w
ln screen and conductor screen stresses usually found in
r commercially available HV and EHV cables. This source did not
U0 1 include MV cables. Not did it make clear how the data points
ER = (3)
r+w r+w presented were obtained. Therefore, a complete set of electrical
ln stress levels on the conductor screen, Er, and on the insulation
r

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1122 N. van Schaikand and T. Czaszejko: Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems

screen interface, ER, were calculated based on the range of The derivative of field intensity with respect to the inner radius,
insulation dimensions from Figure 1. Figure 3 shows the r, gives the desired sensitivities at the two locations: on the inner
resulting stress minima and maxima for cables in all rated voltage insulation surface, dE r dr , and on the outer insulation surface,
categories from 6 kV up to 500 kV. dE R dr , respectively.
⎛ ⎞
dEr U0 ⎜ w ⎟
= ⎜ − 1⎟ (4)
dr r+w⎜ r+w ⎟
r 2 ln ⎜ (r + w) ln ⎟
r ⎝ r ⎠
⎛ ⎞
dE R U0 ⎜ ⎟
⎜ w
= − 1⎟ (5)
dr r+w ⎜ r+w ⎟
(r + w)2 ln ⎜ r ln ⎟
r ⎝ r ⎠
where, U0 is in kV and all dimensions are in mm.
It can be shown that the result of equation (4) is negative for all
practical values of r and w, indicating that an increase of the
conductor inner radius will always result with a decrease of the
dielectric stress on the conductor screen interface. Similarly, the
result of equation (5) is always positive, indicating that an
increase of the conductor size will always result in an increase of
the dielectric stress on the insulation screen interface.
Figure 2. Conductor and insulation screen stresses used for commercial Differentiating (2) and (3) with respect to w gives expressions
applications at HV & EHV Error! Reference source not found., [5]. of sensitivity to change of insulation width:
dE r −U 0
= 2
(6)
dw ⎛ r +w⎞
r (r + w)⎜ ln ⎟
⎝ r ⎠
⎛ r+w ⎞
U 0 ⎜ ln + 1⎟
dE R ⎝ r ⎠
=− 2
(7)
dw ⎡ r + w⎤
⎢ (r + w ) ln
⎣ r ⎥⎦
The negative signs of equations (6) and (7) imply that, as
expected, a decrease of insulation thickness should result with an
increase of electric field intensity at both the inner conductor
interface and on the outer surface of insulation.
3.1 RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
The absolute value of sensitivity, as described by equations (4)-
Figure 3. Design electrical stress level in high voltage cables. (7), may be useful only if applied to a specific cable whose
operating voltage and relevant dimensions are known. To enable
3 SENSITIVITY OF DIELECTRIC STRESS TO more general analysis, we can represent electrical stress
CHANGE OF CABLE DIMENSIONS sensitivity relative to nominal field intensities Er and ER and to
Based on equations (2) and (3), we define dielectric stress respective dimensions r and w. This leads to the following
sensitivity as the rate of change of field strength with respect to formulas:
the change of a given dimension. In this work, we consider the dE r E r w 1
SDr , r = = −1 (8)
rate of change of field with respect to change of insulation inner dr r r + w ln r + w
radius, r, and with respect to change of insulation thickness, w. At r
the same time, the dielectric stress sensitivity at two specific ⎛ ⎞
locations is of main interest, namely, at the inner and the outer dE R E R r ⎜⎜ w 1 ⎟
surface of insulation. Therefore, we will develop the following SDR , r = = − 1⎟ (9)
four expressions for dielectric stress sensitivity: dr r r + w ⎜ r ln r + w ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ r ⎠
• sensitivity to the change of the insulation inner radius
dEr/dr and dER/dr, dE r E r w 1
SDr , w = =− (10)
• sensitivity to the change of insulation thickness dEr/dw dw w r + w ln r + w
and dER/dw. r

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 4; August 2008 1123

⎛ ⎞ of insulation thickness (SD(R,r),w) rather than on the change of

dE R E R w ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟ conductor size (SD(R,r),r). This observation applies equally to the
SDR , w = =− + 1⎟ (11) field intensity on the conductor screen interface, Er, and on the
dw w r + w ⎜ ln r + w ⎟
⎜ ⎟ insulation screen interface, ER. At the same time, the SDr,w is
⎝ r ⎠
highest when a large conductor size is combined with thin
The expressions obtained can now be used to estimate insulation; hence, it will affect MV cables to a higher degree.
dielectric stress sensitivity values for the whole range of cable When the insulation is thin but combined with small conductor
designs. The operating voltage is still implicitly included in the size, SDR,w has the highest value. However, variations of SDR,w
value of insulation wall thickness, w, while the cable current over the entire range of insulation thickness are very small.
rating is reflected in the value of the insulation inner radius r. Therefore, cables in all voltage categories will be almost equally
affected by this sensitivity.
3.2 PRACTICAL RANGE OF SENSITIVITY VALUES
The notion of electrical stress sensitivity to dimensional change Table 1. Sensitivity of stress to dimensional change - range of values
in selected cables.
applies to power cables of all categories equally, namely, medium
Stress sensitivity range
voltage, (MV), high voltage, (HV) and extra high voltage, (EHV), Min Max
cables. 0.0499 0.2456
SDR,r
Plots of the entire range of electrical stress sensitivity values (r = 22, w = 2.5) (r = 2.4, w = 3.2)
calculated from equations (8)-(11) are shown in Figure 4. SDr,r
-0.2863 -0.0648
(r = 2.4, w = 2.5) (r = 22, w = 3.2)

6 kV
Boundaries of practical cable dimensions from Figure 1 are
-0.9482 -0.6719
superimposed on surface plots to show the practical range of SDr,w
(r = 22, w = 2.5) (r = 2.4, w = 3.2)
sensitivity values. As a further illustration of the results obtained, -1.2237 -1.0619
SDR,w
Table 1 contains a few examples of numerical values of sensitivity, (r = 2.4, w = 2.5) (r = 22 w = 3.2)
namely, those for two MV cables as well as for one cable in the 0.0795 0.2578
SDR,r
(r = 28, w = 5.5) (r = 3.5, w = 5.5)
HV and EHV category.
-0.3540 -0.0845
22 kV SDr,r
(r = 3.5, w = 5.5) (r = 28, w = 5.5)
-0.9155 -0.6460
SDr,w
(r = 28, w = 5.5) (r = 3.5, w = 5.5)
-1.2578 -1.0795
SDR,w
(r = 3.5, w = 5.5) (r = 28, w = 5.5)
0.1258 0.2738
SDR,r
(r = 36, w = 13) (r = 7.95, w = 16)
-0.3597 -0.1633
SDr,r
110 kV

(r = 7.95, w = 13) (r = 36, w = 16)

-0.8605 -0.6057
SDr,w
(r = 36, w = 7.95) (r = 7.95, w = 16)
-1.2738 -1.1258
SDR,w
(r = 7.95, w = 16) (r = 36, w = 13)
0.2075 0.2680
SDR,r
(r = 36, w = 31) (r = 15.1, w = 34)
-0.3975 -0.2696
SDr,r
500 kV

(r = 15.1, w = 31) (r = 36, w = 34)

-0.7449 -0.5872
SDr,w
(r = 36, w = 31) (r = 15.1 w = 34)
-1.2797 -1.2075
SDR,w
Figure 4. Sensitivity of dielectric stress to dimensional change for a range of (r = 15.1, w = 34) (r = 36, w = 31)
cable designs. (on right hand sid eof the figure: SDR,r, SDr,r, SDr,w, SDR,w)

In order to explain the meaning of numerical value of electrical
field sensitivity to dimensional change we use as an example
dimensions of a typical 220 kV, 2000 mm2 cable (w = 20.8 mm,
r = 31 mm). The sensitivity plots give the following readings:
SDr,w = − 0.78, SDr,r = − 0.22,
SDR,w = − 1.18, SDR,r = 0.18
These values indicate (note the negative sign of sensitivity for
SDr,w and SDR,w) that for every 1% reduction of insulation
thickness in this particular cable there will be a 0.78% increase of
electrical stress on the conductor screen, Er. There will be also a
1.18% increase of electrical stress on the insulation screen, ER.
Every 1% increase of the conductor size in this particular cable
will result in a 0.22% decrease of electrical stress at the conductor
screen, Er and in a 0.18% increase of electrical stress at the
insulation screen, ER.
We can also see from Figure 4, and from Table 1, that the
electric field intensity depends to a greater degree on the change
The sensitivities obtained for the dimensional change also
remind us of the fact that an increase in the conductor size will
always result in an increase of stress on the insulation screen
(indicated by the positive values of SDR,r) and a simultaneous
decrease of stress on the conductor screen (indicated by negative
values of SDr,r).
4 SENSITIVITY OF SIZE OF DISCHARGE-
FREE DEFECT TO CHANGE OF
ELECTRICAL STRESS
There exist two common types of defects in cables that can
cause the initiation of partial discharges:
• spherical voids within the insulation
• fissures located on the insulation surface
We will further restrict our discussion to spherical voids
located at the conductor screen interface and fissures located at

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1124 N. van Schaikand and T. Czaszejko: Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems
the insulation screen interface. The void location at the conductor
screen interface represents the worst-case scenario from the point
of view of the risk of discharge. They represent defects that are
typically introduced during the extrusion and curing of the
polymeric cable insulation. In case of fissures, those that appear at
the insulation screen interface are the most common. They
represent defects that are typically introduced during the
installation of accessories.
At a given field strength, a discharge-free operation of the cable
is possible if the defects are sufficiently small. If a change in the
cable design is required so that it would result in an increase of
dielectric stress, a discharge-free operation may be still possible if
the defect size allowed is further reduced.
At a given operating voltage, Uo, the maximum size of
discharge-free defects can be determined with the help of Paschen
curve, shown here in Figure 5 (data from [7]), and the field
equations (2) and (3). We have adopted Paschen voltages for this
purpose even though they were originally determined for gaps
between metallic electrodes. It is beyond the scope of this article
to discuss validity of this approach. However, it is common
practice to use the Paschen breakdown data for voids within
dielectrics.
Figure 5. Breakdown voltage in air in small gaps at different pressures.
In the context of the discharge inception voltage in practical
insulation defects, we are interested in the Paschen voltages for
gaps smaller than 0.1 mm and at atmospheric pressure. We
consider larger gaps, setting 1 mm (1000 μm) as an upper limit, to
account for an occurrence of a major imperfection. In freshly
manufactured cables, gas pressure greater than the atmospheric
may occur in voids. This must be also taken account. The level of
elevated pressure is difficult to assess but for the purpose of this
exercise we will consider the maximum of 4.04x105 Pa (4 bar).
In addition to the upper limit of the defect size, we have also
adopted a 5 μm lower limit in our calculations. This lower limit
was determined by two factors. The main consideration was the
existence of anomaly in the Paschen curve for gaps smaller than
4 μm. This anomaly occurs because of the difference in
breakdown mechanisms in very small gaps in comparison with
larger gaps [8], [9]. Moreover, gaps of such small dimensions do
not develop electrical discharges under practical stress levels, and
as such, they need not be considered.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 5 shows an example of a Paschen curve family with the
above mentioned constraints implemented, i.e. for gap sizes
between 5 μm and 1 mm at gas pressures of (1.01-4.04)x105 Pa
(1−4 atm). Breakdown voltage values in the Paschen curve can be
translated into breakdown field strength values by dividing the
voltage by the corresponding gap size. The results are shown in
Figure 6. This figure also reveals the Paschen curve anomaly at
low gap distances (to the left of the vertical line indicating 5 μm).
The anomaly is seen as a decrease of the field strength at
breakdown with an increase of gas pressure.
The field strength within a spherical void located in a uniform
field can be found from the relationship well known in
electrostatics [10].
3ε
Ev = E ⋅ (12)
1 + 2ε
where E and ε are the field strength and relative permittivity of
the surrounding insulation (XLPE, ε = 2.26).
Figure 6. Electric field strength at breakdown in air at different pressures.
According to equation (12), the electrostatic field enhancement
factor in a spherical void cannot exceed the value of 1.5. This
upper extreme of 1.5 was used in further calculations rather than
the value of 1.23 resulting from equation (12). This allows for the
fact that shape of the void in practical cable insulation may
spheroidal rather than spherical. It is straightforward to show [11]
that in the case of an oblate spheroid with the axes ratio of 2 in the
direction of the field, the field enhancement factor would not
exceed 1.39. The adopted value of 1.5 further allows for the fact
that the void is placed in a radial, rather than a parallel,
electrostatic field.
The field enhancement factor for fissure at the interface to an
accessory can be found as a simple ratio of permittivities of the
insulation material outside the defect and of gas inside the defect
[10]. Assuming relative permittivity of gas equal to 1, we have
E f = E ⋅ε (13)
The maximum field intensity in the dielectric that results in no
partial breakdown in a defect as a function of the size of the
breakdown free defect is derived by taking into account the
breakdown field intensity values from Figure 6 and the field
enhancement factors from equations (12) and (13). The related
curves are depicted in Figure 7.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 4; August 2008 1125

The plot obtained shows that to initiate discharges in a Table 2. Sensitivity of defect size to change of field.
spherical void an approximately 50% stronger field is required Defect size range Defect mid size
than for a fissure of similar dimension. However in the radial field (micrometers) 1/a
of cable insulation, voids may be more vulnerable to discharge
Gas pressure = 1.01x105 Pa (1 bar).
inception if they are located at the conductor screen interface as
5–6 5.5 -0.86
compared to fissures of similar size that are located at the 6–8 6.9 -0.99
interface with accessory. The field intensity ratio Er/ER can be as 8 – 10 8.9 -1.14
high as 3 in some cables. Additionally, we can observe from the 10 – 20 14.1 -1.41
plots obtained that the higher the field intensity in the dielectric 20 – 30 24.5 -1.72
the smaller the size of the defect must be for a discharge free 30 – 40 34.6 -1.89
40 – 50 44.7 -2.00
operation of the cable. 50 – 60 54.8 -2.09
60 – 80 69.3 -2.19
80 – 100 89.4 -2.30
100 – 500 223.6 -2.79
500 – 1000 707.1 -3.90
Gas pressure = 2.02x105 Pa (2 bar).
5 – 10 7.1 -1.41
10 – 15 12.2 -1.72
15 – 20 17.3 -1.89
20 – 25 22.4 -2.00
25 – 30 27.4 -2.09
30 – 40 34.6 -2.19
40 – 50 44.7 -2.30
50 – 250 111.8 -2.79
250 – 500 353.6 -3.90
500 – 750 612.4 -4.77
750 – 1000 866.0 -5.45
Gas pressure = 3.03x105 Pa (3 bar).
3–7 4.7 -1.41
7 – 10 8.2 -1.72
10 – 13 11.5 -1.89
Figure 7. Maximum stress in XLPE with no partial breakdown in a defect at 13 – 17 14.9 -2.00
1.01x105 Pa (1 bar). 17 – 20 18.3 -2.09
20 – 27 23.1 -2.19
27 – 33 29.8 -2.30
33 – 167 74.5 -2.79
167 – 333 235.7 -3.90
333 – 500 408.2 -4.77
500 – 667 577.4 -5.45
667 – 1000 816.5 -6.25
Gas pressure = 4.01x105 Pa (4 bar).
5–8 6.1 -1.72
8 – 10 8.7 -1.89
10 – 13 11.2 -2.00
13 – 15 13.7 -2.09
15 – 20 17.3 -2.19
20 – 25 22.4 -2.30
25 – 125 55.9 -2.79
125 – 250 176.8 -3.90
250 – 375 306.2 -4.77
375 – 500 433.0 -5.45
500 – 750 612.4 -6.25
750 – 1000 866.0 -7.16

Figure 8. Sensitivity of the maximum size of a discharge-free defect to the

change of electric field intensity in the surrounding dielectric at various gas For a numerical estimation of the relationship, we approximate
pressures. sections of the breakdown field curves (Figure 6) using an
exponential function of the following form:
To enable more general conclusions to be drawn from the
above observations, we must find a relationship between the rate Ebd = b ⋅ (gap )a (15)
of change of field intensity, d(Ei), and the rate of change of the
defect size, d(gap), under the assumption of discharge free Differentiating (15) with respect to gap leads to
operation. We express these rates of change in relative terms.
dEbd E
= ab ⋅ (gap )a −1 = a bd (16)
d ( gap ) ⎛ dE ⎞ d ( gap ) gap
= f ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟ (14)
gap ⎝ Ei ⎠ or

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1126 N. van Schaikand and T. Czaszejko: Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems

dEbd d ( gap ) The values obtained of discharge inception voltage were plotted
=a as a function of the defect size and they are depicted in Figure 9
Ebd gap
(17) and Figure 10. These figures refer to discharge inception in a
d ( gap ) 1 dEbd spherical void located at the interface with the inner conductor
=
gap a Ebd screen (Figure 9) and to discharge in a fissure at the interface with
We must now take into account the effect of field enhancement accessory (Figure 10). The discharge inception voltage is
in the defect compared with the cable operating voltage or the PD test voltage.
Ebd = ε i ⋅ Ei These voltages are shown on plots as horizontal lines. The intersect
(18) point of the inception voltage with the operating or test voltage
dEbd = ε i ⋅ dEi indicates the size of the largest defect allowed in a given cable to
which leads to assure its discharge-free operation. These points are shown as solid
d ( gap) 1 dE i dE circles in the plots and their coordinates are listed in Table 3.
= =S i (19) The defect sizes shown in Table 3 represent the worst case
gap a Ei Ei
scenario, i.e. combinations of the insulation inner radius, r, and the
The term S = 1/a is a measure of sensitivity of the maximum insulation thickness, w, that give the highest field intensities Er and
size of the discharge-free defect to the relative change of electric ER. The worst case practically occurs when we have the smallest
field intensity in the surrounding dielectric. conductor size while determining the size of spherical voids and the
1 largest conductor size while estimating the size of fissures. The
S= (20)
a values tabulated show that spherical voids are more conducive to
The value of S is evaluated from Paschen curve (Figure 6) by developing partial discharges than are fissures.
estimating a at the available data points. This requires returning to
equation (15) and using
log Ebd = a ⋅ log(gap ) + log(b ) (21)
in which the values of Ebd and gap are taken from Figure
6. The results obtained are plotted in Figure 8 and the
corresponding numerical values are also shown in
Table 2.
Because each value of S was estimated from two
consecutive coordinates of Ebd and gap the graph shows it
as discrete steps between the data points. The mid values
of gap, which are the mid position between two data points
in the logarithmic scale, are also shown on the plot. The
mid values are used to present the defect size range in
Table 2.
The plots in Figure 8 indicate that, for example, for the defect
size within the range of 8-10 µm, and at gas pressure of 1 bar, the
value of sensitivity, S, is equal to -1.14. The negative sign says
that, in this case, a 1% increase of electric field intensity in the
insulation will require a 1.14% reduction of the defect size for a
discharge-free operation of the cable. To take another example, at
the pressure of 3 bar, the sensitivity value is equal to -1.72 for a
defect of similar size, i.e. 7-10 µm this time.

5 DETERMINATION OF RISK OF PARTIAL

DISCHARGE
5.1 PERMISSIBLE SIZE OF DEFFECTS
The next step in the process of determining the allowable size
of defects for discharge-free operation of the cable involves
calculating the partial discharge inception voltage. This is done
using the maximum stress data from Figure 7 together with
equations (2) and (3) rearranged.
1 ⎛R⎞ Figure 9. PD inception voltage as a function of size of a spherical void
U ivoid = E ri r ln⎜ ⎟ (22) located at the inner conductor interface.
2 ⎝r⎠
Results of Table 3 can be used to predict whether defects of
1 ⎛R⎞
U ifissure = E Ri R ln⎜ ⎟ (23) certain size can cause partial discharge problems. For example,
2 ⎝r⎠ most national standards for MV cables, such as AS1429 [13],

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 4; August 2008 1127

specify the size of largest voids allowed in the insulation as 0.05 Typically, the presence of discharging voids within the cable
mm. Table 3 shows that partial discharges can occur in such voids insulation is detected during routine tests after production of the
at the PD test voltage level in cables rated above 20 kV. cable. The presence of fissure type of defects at interfaces with an
Design standards for cables rated above 30 kV, i.e. in the HV and accessory is detected by tests after installation. Occurrence of
EHV category do not specify the size of allowed defects. In these defects of this type will strongly depend on the workmanship of
cases, Table 3 provides an indication of the size of defects that may the fitters as well as on the cleanliness of the fitting conditions.
be detected during a partial discharge test at the rated and at the PD
5.2 RISKS FROM DESIGN MODIFICATIONS
test voltage level. We can see that the permissible size for
discharge-free defects in EHV cables is very small indeed. We restrict discussion in this section to two cases that
correspond with the most common types of cable design
modifications affecting insulation dimensions:
• decreased insulation thickness ("slim" design)
• increased conductor size
"Slim insulation" is an emerging trend in the design of HV
cables that brings electrical stress levels close to those found in
EHV cable insulation. One of advantages of slim design is in
allowing longer lengths of cable on drums, which in turn, allows
fewer joints per unit length in the installed circuit. Technological
progress achieved in manufacture of cables and associated
accessories for 400 kV and 500 kV systems, confirmed by
anecdotal evidence of generally good reliability record, seem to
validate such direction.
The need for larger conductor sizes is dictated by ever
increasing requirements for transmission power levels in new
cable installations. This can be achieved by either a higher
operating voltage or a higher ampacity of the cable, with the latter
requiring larger conductors. Some cable makers advocate
increased conductor size in preference to a higher operating
voltage.
The net effect of introducing slim design, or increased
conductor size, is an increase of electrical stress in the insulation.
Section 4 of this paper showed to what extent the size of a
discharge-free defect was affected by the change of electric field
intensity in the dielectric at the defect location. This effect was
referred to as sensitivity of size of the discharge-free defect to
change of stress, S.
In Section 3, we examined the effect of change of the insulation
dimensions on the electric field intensity at the insulation inner
and outer surface. This led to a definition of sensitivity of the field
strength to the change of insulation dimensions, equations
(8)−(11).
Figure 10. PD inception voltage as a function of size of fissure located at the A product of the two sensitivity types, i.e. field sensitivity
interface with accessory. times dimensional sensitivity, multiplied by the per unit change of
Table 3. Maximum size of discharge-free defects at 1.01x10 Pa (1
5 a given dimension (Δr or Δw) results in a value of the relative
bar). change of dimension, Δd, of the contributing defect for
Rated PD test Spherical void a discharge-free operation
voltage voltage diameter Fissure thickness
U/U0 Utest (mm) (mm)
Δd r = S ⋅ SD(R ,r ),r ⋅ Δr (24)
(kVrms) (kVrms) @U0 @Utest @U0 @Utest Δd w = S ⋅ SD(R ,r ), w ⋅ Δw (25)
6.6/3.8 6.6 0.795 0.145 >> 1 0.670
11/6.35 11 0.300 0.070 >> 1 0.275 where Δdr and Δdw are the change of dimension of the defect
22/12.7 22 0.150 0.041 0.960 0.170 due to change of conductor radius and insulation thickness
33/19 33 0.107 0.033 1.000 0.175
66/36 54 0.041 0.020 0.195 0.069
respectively.
110/64 96 0.035 0.018 0.117 0.046 To illustrate the practical significance of equations (24) and
132/76 114 0.029 0.016 0.112 0.045 (25), we take a typical 110 kV, 1000 mm2 cable as an example.
150/87 131 0.029 0.015 0.112 0.045 The insulation in such a cable would have the following nominal
220/127 190 0.024 0.013 0.106 0.044 dimensions:
330/190 285 0.016 0.009 0.053 0.025
400/220 330 0.014 0.008 0.047 0.023 r = 19.0 mm
500/290 435 0.010 0.007 0.038 0.019 w = 13.0 mm

Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1128 N. van Schaikand and T. Czaszejko: Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems
We assume that this cable undergoes one of the two following
design modifications:
• slim design, such that the insulation screen stress, ER, is
increased from 5.38 kV/mm to 8 kV/mm
• conductor size increase from 1000 mm2 to 2000 mm2
For a discharge-free operation of the cable of the original
design, according to Table 3, we would allow the maximum size of
a spherical void at the conductor screen interface to be 35 μm and
the maximum size of fissure at the insulation screen interface to
be 117 μm. We will now discuss how each of the proposed cable
modification affects the defect size limits.
5.2.1“SLIM” DESIGN
From equation (3) we can determine that for the slim design
insulation thickness must be reduced from 13 mm to 9.7 mm. The
corresponding relative reduction of insulation thickness is
Δw = (13-9.7)/13 = 0.2538, or 25.4% approximately.
Substituting dimensions of the original cable design to
equations (10) and (11) we obtain
SDR , w = −1.19 (26)
SDr , w = −0.78
The results of (26) and (27) show that each 1% reduction of
insulation thickness will result with a 1.19% increase of field
intensity at the insulation screen interface and a 0.78% increase of
field intensity at the conductor screen interface.
The values of sensitivity of size of the permissible
discharge-free defect to change of field are obtained from
Table 2, and they are Svoid = − 1.89 and Sfissure = − 2.79 at 1.01x105
Pa (1 bar) of gas pressure.
Therefore, for a discharge-free operation the size of
a discharge-free spherical void must be reduced by
Δd wvoid = S void ⋅ SDr , w ⋅ Δw
= (− 1.89 ) ⋅ (− 0.78 ) ⋅ 25.4% = 37.4%
when slim design is implemented.
The corresponding size of fissure must decrease by
Δd wfissure = S fissure ⋅ SDR , w ⋅ Δw
= (− 2.79 ) ⋅ (− 1.19 ) ⋅ 25.4% = 84%
if the redesigned cable is to be discharge free at the accessory
interface. This translates to a reduction of the dimension of
a spherical void from 35 μm to less than 22 μm and of a fissure
from 117 μm to less than 19 μm. The latter difference is
practically of one order of magnitude, which is a substantial
change. It indicates a very high level of precision required in the
assembly of accessories to achieve discharge free operation of the
slim design version of the cable.
5.2.2 INCREASED CONDUCTOR SIZE
The assumed increase of the conductor size from 1000 mm2 to
2000 mm2 will result with the change of the insulation inner
radius from 19 mm to 28 mm, i.e. Δr = (19-28)/19 = − 0.4776, or
47.8% approximately. From equations (8) and (9), using the
nominal cable dimensions we obtain
SDR ,r = 0.19 (28)
SDr ,r = −0.22
Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Results in equations (28) and (29) indicate that a 1% increase
of the conductor radius contributes to a 0.19% increase of the
field intensity at the insulation screen interface and a 0.17%
decrease of field intensity at the conductor screen interface.
The decrease of field intensity has no negative impact, so the
case of a spherical void located at the conductor screen interface
needs no further discussion.
The overall impact of the increased conductor size on the size
of fissure is found as
Δd rfissure = S fissure ⋅ SDR , r ⋅ Δr
(30)
= (− 2.79 ) ⋅ 0.19 ⋅ (−47.8)% = 24.8%
This result shows that resizing cable conductor from 1000 mm2
to 2000 mm2 will decrease the maximum permissible size of
fissure located at the interface with accessory by 24.8%, i.e. from
117 μm to 88 μm approximately. Even if the numerical value of
this impact does not seem large it must be seen in proper context.
In qualitative terms, it means that if accessories are assembled
with consistent precision, larger proportion of fissures will
develop partial discharges in the resized cable at a given voltage.
It also means that the discharge inception voltage will be lower in
(27) the resized cable.
5.2.3 RANGE OF TYPE APPROVAL
Standards such as IEC 60840 and IEC 62067 contain clauses
regarding the Range of Type Approval. They state that once type
tests have been successfully performed on one or more cable
systems of a specific rated voltage and construction the type
approval may be valid for a re-dimensioned cable system if, apart
from a few others, the following conditions are satisfied:
• the conductor cross-section is not larger than that of the
tested cable system
• the calculated nominal electrical stress at the cable
conductor screen in the new system does not exceed the
conductor screen stress of the approved cable system by
more than 10%;
• the calculated nominal electrical stress at the cable
insulation screen does not exceed that of the tested cable
system;
• the calculated nominal stresses at cable-accessory
interfaces do not exceed those of the tested cable system
An increase of conductor cross-section results in an increase
of stress at insulation screen if insulation thickness is
maintained. Current standards would require type testing of
the redesigned cable system in case of such modification.
An increase of the conductor cross-section by one level
increases conductor diameter by 6-18%. The worst case, i.e.
18% stress increase, occurs in HV and EHV cables when the
conductor cross-section is changed from 2000 mm2 to
2500 mm2. If we take a 110 kV and 500 kV cables as an
example then according to Table 3 the size of fissures should
be kept below 117 μm and 35 μm respectively to achieve
discharge free operation under nominal voltage.
Table 2 provides the value of sensitivity S of -2.79 and -1.89
respectively. Therefore, if this type of design modification was
allowed by the standards, the permitted size of fissures would be
(29) reduced to 97 μm at best and to 58 μm at worst in the 110 kV cable.
The same figures for the 500 kV cable would be 31 μm and 23 μm.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation
It should be pointed out that the range of type approval clause
which does not permit increase of conductor cross-section is not
based solely on dielectric stress considerations. An increase of
conductor cross-section causes also greater mechanical stresses in
the cable structure during thermal cycling for example.
An increase of dielectric stress on the conductor screen occurs
either when the conductor cross-section is decreased or the
insulation thickness is decreased. It can be shown that in order to
achieve a 10% increase of stress, the thickness of insulation must
decrease by 11.6% in a 110 kV cable and by 13.3% in a 500 kV
cable. The corresponding size of spherical voids must therefore
decrease by 7.2% in the 110 kV cable and by 17.2% in the
500 kV to maintain discharge-free operation. Such a requirement
may be difficult to meet bearing in mind that size of voids
allowed in standard insulation is already very small (35 and 10
μm, respectively).
The systematic analysis of risk of partial discharge inception
presented in this paper shows origins of range of type approval
requirements. A few simple examples shown above demonstrate
that dimensional change beyond the limits specified in current
standards can increase the risk of partial discharge to an
unacceptable degree. This methodology had formed the bases for
the decision not to recommend relaxing current requirements of
the range of type approval reached by the Cigré WG B1-06 [16].
6 CONCLUSIONS
We have shown a coherent methodology for analysing the risk
of partial discharge inception in high voltage cable insulation. We
analysed spherical voids located at the conductor screen interface
and fissures located at the insulation screen interface. These two
types of insulation defects present two most important practical
cases from the point of view of cable system technology. The
results obtained show that at normal operating voltage, U0, the
permissible size of spherical voids ranges approximately between
800 μm in 3.8/6.6 kV cables and approximately 10 μm in cables
rated 290/500 kV. At the PD test voltage level, the corresponding
range of void size is between 145 μm and 7 μm respectively. The
permissible size of fissures at rated voltage begins at over 1 mm
in 3.8/6.6 kV cables and it comes down to 38 μm in 290/500 kV
cables. At the PD test voltage level, fissures cannot be larger than
670 μm in 3.8/6.6 kV cables and larger than 19 μm in 290/500 kV
cables to assure discharge-free operation. All these results
represent the worst case scenario, i.e. they were obtained for
geometrical dimensions of insulation that give the highest field
intensity at the two locations considered.
We have also analysed how modifications of insulation
dimensions can impact on the risk of discharge in defects
according to their size. We have introduced for this purpose the
notion of sensitivity of dielectric stress to dimensional change of
cable insulation and the notion of sensitivity of size of discharge
free defect to the change of electric field intensity. Using an
example of a 110 kV cable, it has been shown that an increase of
the design stress levels by 50% would reduce the permissible size
of a fissure by nearly 90% to ensure discharge free operation at
the interface with accessories. This creates a technological
demand that may not be achievable in practice.
Using a similar example of a 110 kV cable, we have shown that
a change of conductor size from 1000 mm2 to 2000 mm2 would
require reduction of permissible size of fissures by some 25%.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Vol. 15, No. 4; August 2008 1129
The numerical result is not as dramatic in this case as it was in the
case of increased design stress. However, it indicates that
assembly of accessories must be carried out with much greater
precision on cables of the same voltage rating that have larger
conductor sizes.
The methodology presented in this paper can be used to asses
the degree to which design modifications can increase the risk of
partial discharges in critical locations of cable insulation. Indeed,
it was recently utilised in this way by the Cigré Working Group
B1-06 [16] in assessing the risk posed by relaxing the Range of
Type Approval clauses in IEC60840 and IEC62067 standards.
The methodology also shows the origins of some of the
foundations of these clauses.
REFERENCES
[1] P. C. J. M. van der Wielen, E. F. Steennis, P. A. A. F. Wouters,
"Fundamental Aspects of Excitation and Propagation of On-line Partial
Discharge Signals in Three-phase Medium Voltage Cable Systems",
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 10, pp. 678-688, 2003.
[2] A. Nouar, M. Guibadj, I.K. Lefkaier, A. Boubakeur, "Numerical study of
partial discharges apparition in XLPE insulation of high voltage cables",
Vol. 3, Power Tech Conference Proceedings, Bologna, Italy, 2003.
[3] F. C. Cheng, “Insulation Thickness Determination of Polymeric Power
Cables”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 1, pp. 624-629, 1994.
[4] M. G. Danikas, "Discussion - Insulation Thickness Determination of
Polymeric Power Cables", IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 2,
pp. 1161-1165, 1995,.
[5] J-O. Bolström, A. Camopus, R.N. Hampton and E. Marsden, "Reliable
HV & EHV XLPE cables", CIGRÉ Session, Paper 21-105, 2002.
[6] J-O. Bolström, E. Marsden, R.N. Hampton, U. Nilsson and H.
Lennartsson, "Electrical stress enhancement of contaminants in XLPE
insulation as quality control criteria", IEEE Intern. Sympos. Electrical
Insulation, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 91-95, 2002.
[7] T.W. Dakin, G. Luxa, G. Oppermann, J. Vigreux, G. Wind and H.
Winkelnkemper, "Breakdown of gases in uniform fields – Paschen
curves for Nitrogen, air and sulphur hexafluoride", Electra, No. 32, pp.
61-74, 1974.
[8] P.G. Slade and E.D. Taylor, "Electrical breakdown in atmospheric air
between closely spaced (0.2 μm–40 μm) electrical contacts", IEEE
Trans Comp. Pack. Tech., Vol. 25, pp. 390-396, 2002.
[9] R.S. Dhariwal, J.-M. Torres and M.P.Y. Desmulliez, "Electric field
breakdown at micrometre separations in air and nitrogen at atmospheric
pressure", IEE Proc. Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 147, pp. 261-265, 2000.
[10] F.H. Kreuger, Industrial High Voltage: Fields, Dielectrics,
Construction, Delft University Press, 1991.
[11] G.C. Crichton, P.W. Karlsson and A. Pedersen, "Partial Discharges in
Ellipsoidal and Spheroidal Voids", IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul., Vol. 24
pp. 335-342, 1989.
[12] A. Suzuki, S. Nakamura, M. Matsuda, H. Tanaka, M. Shiomitsu, K.
Hiraga, K. Adachi, K. Hiratsuka, K. Matsuda, M. Yagi, A. Sudo and K.
Sugawara, "Installation of the World's First 500-kV XLPE Cable with
Intermediate Joints", Furukawa review, No. 19, pp. 115-122, 2000.
[13] Australian Standard AS1429.1:2000, "Electric cables – Polymeric
insulated, Part 1: For working voltages 1.9/3.3 (3.6) kV up to and
including 19/33 (36) kV".
[14] International Standard IEC62067, First edition 2001-10, "Power cables
with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages above
150 kV (Um = 170 kV) up to 500 kV (Um = 550 kV) − Test methods and
requirements".
[15] International Standard IEC60502-2, Second edition 2005-03, "Power
cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages
from 1 kV (Um = 1.2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36 kV) Part 2: cables for
rated voltages from 6 kV (Um = 7.2 kV) up to 30 kV (Um = 36 kV)".
[16] WG B1.06, "Revision of qualification procedures for high voltage and
extra high voltage AC extruded underground cable systems", Cigré
Technical Brochure 303, Electra 227 page 30-39, August 2006
[17] International Standard IEC60840, Third edition 2005-4, "Power cables
with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages above
30 kV (Um = 360 kV) up to 150 kV (Um = 1700 kV) − Test methods and
requirements".
1130 N. van Schaikand and T. Czaszejko: Conditions of Discharge-Free Operation of XLPE Insulated Power Cable Systems

Nico van Schaik graduated in 1967 with a B.Sc.
degree in electrical and electronic Engineering
and in 1979 with a Master Degree from the
Technical University of Eindhoven. In 1985 he
joined KEMA as manager of KEMA High
Voltage Testing & Inspection. He is currently
senior consultant power cables and is active in
the area of CBM on power cables (cable
diagnostics). He is chairman of the Dutch
standards committee NEC20A (power cables
and accessories) and is representing the Netherlands on a number of
professional bodies like IEC, CENELEC and CIGRÉ, dealing with
power cables. He has 23 years experience in lecturing of postgraduate
courses at the Institute of Technology, Arnhem. He delivers regularly
the KEMA Power Cables Seminar as in-house course and as an open
course.
Tadeusz Czaszejko (M'89) graduated with a
B.Eng. degree from the Warsaw University of
Technology and obtained the Ph.D. degree from
the AGH University of Science and
Technology, Kraków. Since 1991, he is a Senior
Lecturer in the Department of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering at Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia. Prior to
Monash, he held academic positions at
Swinburne University in Melbourne (from
1987) and in Białystok University of Technology, Poland (from
1977). He is a member CIGRÉ. His research interests focus recently
on aging phenomena in solid insulation, analysis and description of
partial discharge, and also on some aspects of power systems
analysis.

Authorized
View publication stats licensed use limited to: Monash University. Downloaded on January 28, 2009 at 21:01 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.