TR - 111321 - Behavior of Paper - Polypropylene - Paper Laminate Under Thermal and Electrical Stresses

Behavior of Paper-Polypropylene-Paper Laminate Under
Thermal and Electrical Stresses
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3)
and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this
publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI.
This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the
document prior to publication.
13514801
13514801
Behavior of Paper-Polypropylene-
Paper Laminate Under Thermal and
Electrical Stresses
TR-111321
Final Report, September 1998
EPRI Project Manager

T. Rodenbaugh
EPRI • 341213514801
Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK
SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
Detroit Edison Company
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box
23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (510) 934-4212.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1998 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
13514801
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Detroit Edison Company

2000 Second Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Authors
N. Singh
O. Morel
S. Multani
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the
following manner:
Behavior of Paper-Polypropylene-Paper Laminate Under Thermal and Electrical Stresses, EPRI,

Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-111321.
iii
13514801
13514801
REPORT SUMMARY
PPP laminate has successfully replaced kraft paper insulation in high-voltage, high-
pressure, fluid-filled (HPFF) cables. This has created a need for information on the
laminate's gassing behavior and mechanical characteristics as a function of cable aging.
Background
Though there have been many studies on paper-polypropylene-paper (PPP) laminate
insulation, there has been very little research on the behavior of PPP from the
standpoint of dissolved gas analysis (DGA). Until now, most DGA has been limited to
cables with cellulosic paper insulation. With low-loss PPP laminate replacing cellulosic
paper in new generation HPFF cables, the industry needs a better understanding of gas
generation behavior in operating cables.
Objectives
To assess the gassing behavior and mechanical characteristics of PPP as affected by
thermal and electrical aging conditions.
Approach
During the course of this study, researchers investigated thermal aging of PPP, gas
generation caused by normal thermal aging, and gas constituents caused by electrical
stress. Gas migration through the cable's insulation wall and the effect of high gas
concentration on the dielectric strength of impregnated PPP insulation also was
investigated. To aid in their investigations, researchers developed an automated DGA
system (EPOSS or EPRI Pressurized Oil Sampling System) and a procedure to check the
accuracy of DGA among different laboratories.
Results
Study results provided information that helps explain PPP laminate's effectiveness in
HPFF cables. For example, its findings identified (1) cable manufacturing cycles
responsible for increasing the laminate's physical strength and (2) conditions that keep
the low-loss laminate's insulation gases in solution, thus preventing any gas-induced
adverse effects on the laminate or the dielectric strength of the insulating fluid. The
report also presents accurate DGA data for fluid samples from a large number of cable
systems, including high-pressure gas-filled (HPGF), self-contained fluid-filled (SCFF),
as well as HPFF.
v
13514801
EPRI Perspective
Until recently, little was known about the physical and chemical characteristics of PPP
laminate from the standpoint of DGA. This study has changed that situation, providing
information that will allow the industry to use PPP-insulated HPFF cables in more
efficient ways. In the process, DGA has been shown to assess the condition of PPP
cables as successfully as it has conventional kraft paper insulated cables.
TR-111321
Interest Categories
Substation O&M
Underground construction, O&M
Underground system alternatives
Keywords
Fluid-filled cable
Thermal aging
Electrical aging
Cable condition assessment
Dissolved gas analysis
vi
13514801
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
The work presented in this report covers a wide range of studies concerning many
aspects related to the behavior of paper-polypropylene-paper (PPP) laminate utilized in
high pressure fluid-filled (HPFF) cables. These studies include thermal aging of PPP,
gas generation under thermal and electrical stresses, gas migration through the
insulation wall and the effect of high gas concentration on the dielectric strength of
impregnated PPP insulation.
The physical strength of PPP laminate is improved by the drying/ impregnation stage
during cable manufacturing and early aging of the cable. The application of dissolved
gas analysis (DGA) techniques to the diagnosis of PPP cables is no different than that of
conventional paper insulation.
The lower gas permeability observed in impregnated PPP laminate compared to

impregnated kraft paper results from the utilization of low permeability paper in PPP
and not from the non-porous polypropylene material. As a result, the low overall
diffusion rates of gases through PPP insulation leads to accumulation of significant
amounts of gas in the innermost tape of the insulation wall. It can be concluded from
this work that as long as the hydrostatic pressure applied on the insulation wall
exceeds the partial pressure of the insulation fluid, gases remain in solution and the ac
dielectric strength of the fluid alone and impregnated PPP is not significantly affected.
In fact, a small improvement in dielectric strength was observed when the fluid
contains large concentration of hydrocarbon gases.
Finally, DGA data are presented for fluid samples taken from a large number of cable
systems: high pressure gas-filled (HPGF), self contained fluid-filled (SCFF) and high
pressure fluid-filled (HPFF) over a wide range of operating voltages. Fluid samples
were taken from splices, terminations, reservoirs, tankers and degassing units. This
work demonstrates that DGA can be successfully applied to assess the condition of
operating cables and accessories.
vii
13514801
13514801
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
2 THERMAL AGING OF PPP LAMINATE ............................................................................. 2-1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2-1
Experimental Conditions and Materials ........................................................................... 2-1
Results................................................................................................................................ 2-5
Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................. 2-58
Gas evolution ............................................................................................................ 2-58
Degradation of PPP laminate and paper................................................................... 2-59
3 MEASUREMENT OF GAS PERMEABILITY THROUGH PPP LAMINATE......................... 3-1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
Results................................................................................................................................ 3-5
Thermal Expansion of Impregnation Fluid (Thermal Flow)................................................ 3-13
Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 3-26
4 EFFECT OF ELECTRICAL STRESS ON GAS FORMATION IN A CABLE FLUID ............ 4-1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4-1
5 AUTOMATION OF EPOSS GAS ANALYSIS PROCEDURE .............................................. 5-1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Technical ............................................................................................................................ 5-2
EPOSS Cell..................................................................................................................... 5-2
Automated Analyzer........................................................................................................ 5-3
Process Control Software................................................................................................ 5-5
Gas Separation and Identification ................................................................................... 5-6
ix
13514801
6 EFFECT OF HIGH GAS CONCENTRATION ON THE AC DIELECTRIC STRENGTH

OF AN INSULATING FLUID................................................................................................... 6-1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
Apparatus and Experimental Procedure ............................................................................. 6-2
Results and Discussion....................................................................................................... 6-9
Dielectric Strength of Gases under Pressure .................................................................. 6-9
Dielectric Strength of Low Viscosity Polybutene Fluid Under Pressure......................... 6-11
Dielectric Strength of Fluids Containing High Dissolved Gas Content........................... 6-11
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 6-19
Summary of Conclusions .................................................................................................. 6-28
7 PREPARATION OF GAS-IN-CABLE FLUID CALIBRATION SOLUTIONS........................ 7-1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7-1
Experimental....................................................................................................................... 7-1
Results................................................................................................................................ 7-3
8 DISSOLVED GAS ANALYSIS FOR GAS AND FLUID FILLED CABLES; FIELD
WORK .................................................................................................................................... 8-1
High Pressure Gas Filled Cables ........................................................................................ 8-1
Self Contained Fluid Filled Cables (SCFC) ......................................................................... 8-2
High Pressure Fluid Filled Cables (HPFF) .......................................................................... 8-3
A GAS DIFFUSION IN GAS FILLED CABLES ......................................................................A-1
B DGA DATA ON HIGH PRESSURE GAS FILLED CABLES ...............................................B-1
C DGA ON SELF CONTAINED FLUID FILLED CABLES .....................................................C-1
D DGA ON HIGH PRESSURE FLUID FILLED CABLES .......................................................D-1
E LIST OF COMMANDS ........................................................................................................ E-1
F COMMAND FILE FOR THE OPERATION OF EPOSS ....................................................... F-1
x
13514801
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Schematic Diagram for the High Pressure Test Cell............................................. 2-3
Figure 2-2 Experimental Set-Up for Fluid Filling and Degassing............................................ 2-4
Figure 2-3 Distribution of Test Cells in Aging Ovens.............................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-4 Cumulated carbon oxide concentration during aging of fluid impregnated
PPP at 110°C. Open symbols show actual data and curves values estimated from
equation in Appendix A. ................................................................................................ 2-25
Figure 2-5 Cumulated carbon oxide concentration during aging of fluid impregnated
PPP at 120°C. Open symbols show actual data and curves values estimated from
equation in Appendix A. ................................................................................................ 2-25
Figure 2-6 Cumulated carbon oxide concentration after aging of fluid impregnated PPP
at 130°C. Open symbols show actual data and curves show values estimated
from equations in Appendix A. ...................................................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-7 Cumulative carbon oxide concentration after aging of fluid impregnated PPP
at 140°C. Open symbols show actual data and curves values estimated from
equations in Appendix A ............................................................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-8 Carbon monoxide accumulated during aging of impregnated PPP laminate
at selected temperatures............................................................................................... 2-29
Figure 2-9 Carbon dioxide accumulated during aging of impregnated PPP laminate at
selected temperatures................................................................................................... 2-29
Figure 2-10 Rate evolution of carbon monoxide from impregnated PPP laminate as a
function of temperature ................................................................................................. 2-30
Figure 2-11 Rate evolution of carbon dioxide from impregnated PPP laminate as a
function of temperature ................................................................................................. 2-30
Figure 2-12 Methane to hydrogen ratio in gases evolved during aging of impregnated
PPP laminate ................................................................................................................ 2-32
Figure 2-13 Ethane to ethylene ratio in gases evolved during aging of impregnated
PPP laminate ................................................................................................................ 2-32
Figure 2-14 Isobutylene to methane ration in gases after aging of impregnated PPP
laminate ........................................................................................................................ 2-33
Figure 2-15 Propane to propylene ratio in gases after aging of impregnated PPP
laminate ........................................................................................................................ 2-33
Figure 2-16 Loss in mechanical strength of PPP laminate after thermal aging at 110°C..... 2-43
xi
13514801
Figure 2-20 Loss in mechanical strength of paper delaminated from PPP aged at
110°C ............................................................................................................................ 2-45
120°C ............................................................................................................................ 2-46
Figure 2-22 Loss in mechanical strength of paper delaminted from PPP aged at 130°C .... 2-46
140°C ............................................................................................................................ 2-47
Figure 2-24 Tensile strength of paper delaminated from PPP as a function of aging
time for selected temperature........................................................................................ 2-55
Figure 2-25 Tensile energy absorption (TEA) of paper delaminated from PPP as a
function of aging time for selected temperatures .......................................................... 2-55
Figure 2-26 Folding endurance of paper deleminated from PPP as a function of aging
time for selected temperatures...................................................................................... 2-56
Figure 2-27 Burst strength for paper delaminated from PPP as a function of aging time
for selected temperatures ............................................................................................. 2-56
Figure 2-28 Arrhenius plot for selected physical properties of paper delaminated from
PPP after thermal aging. Kinetic parameters are listed in Table 2-21 .......................... 2-57
Figure 2-29 Loss of TEA in PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 110°C.
Actual data shown by squares, results of the degradation model shown by solid
lines............................................................................................................................... 2-60
Figure 2-30 Loss of TEA in PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 120°C.
Refer to Figure 2-29 ...................................................................................................... 2-60
Figure 2-31 Loss in TEA of PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 130°C.
Refer to Figure 2-29 ...................................................................................................... 2-61
Figure 2-32 Loss in TEA of PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 140°C.
Refer to Figure 2-29 ...................................................................................................... 2-61
Figure 3-1 Permeability of selected gases through Jen-Coat 6 mil as a function of the
reciprocal of temperature ................................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-2 Permeability of selected gases through Jen-Coat 6 mil as a function of the
reciprocal of temperature .............................................................................................. 3-10
Figure 3-3 Permeability of selected gases through fluid impregnated Jen-Coat 4 mil as
a function of the reciprocal of temperature.................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-4 Effective diffusivity for selected gases through Jen-Coat 6 mil as a function
of the reciprocal of temperature .................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-7 Comparison of cumulative excess volume (heavy line) and volume per layer
(light broken line) during thermal expansion of impregnation fluid in a PPP
insulation wall................................................................................................................ 3-23
xii
13514801
Figure 3-8 Distribution of impregnation fluid within the insulation wall of a forced-cooled
345 kV HPFF cable after 30+ years of service. Open squares show relative
concentration of impregnation fluid in terms of peak response from a GC/FID.
Solid squares indicate the refractive index of the fluid in the cable tapes. .................... 3-25
Figure 3-9 Distribution of pipe fluid within the insulation wall of a forced-cooled 345 kV
HPFF cable after 30+ years of service. Open squares show relative concentration
of pipe fluid in terms of peak response from a GC/FID. Solid squares indicate the
refractive index of the fluid in the cable tapes. .............................................................. 3-25
Figure 3-10 Distribution of pipe fluid through the insulation wall of a static 138 kV HPFF
cable, 1970 vintage....................................................................................................... 3-26
Figure 4-1 Detailed view of the electrodes............................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4-2 Schematic dagram of the test and ancillary equipment ........................................ 4-4
Figure 4-3 Hydrogen to acetylene ratio as a function of power dissipated. Open circles
represent the actual data and the solid line the linear regression ................................. 4-13
Figure 5-1 Diagram of gas lines associated with the automated EPOSS gas analysis
system............................................................................................................................. 5-3
Figure 5-2 Diagram of the EPOSS sampling cell ................................................................... 5-4
Figure 6-1 Schematic diagram showing a top and side view of the Micarta high
pressure breakdown cell including the cell body, lid and electrodes ............................... 6-4
Figure 6-2 Set-up for the determination of the breakdown of gas/fluid solutions under
high hydrostatic pressure ................................................................................................ 6-7
Figure 6-3 Effect of fluid filtering on the dielectric strength of a low viscosity Polybutene
fluid (Dussek 0CS). Note the initial electrode conditioning period on the
breakdown of the unfiltered fluid. .................................................................................... 6-8
Figure 6-4 Dielectric breakdown as a function of hydrostatic pressure for selected
components. Note the abrupt increase in the dielectric strength of propane as this
gas condenses to a liquid at pressures over 118 psig. ................................................. 6-10
Figure 6-5 Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric strength of a well
degassed low viscosity polybutene fluid. Upright open triangles indicate the
dielectric strength at increasing pressure, while downright open triangles is the
dielectric strength as the pressure is released. ............................................................. 6-12
Figure 6-6 Effect of moisture on the AC dielectric strength of degassed low viscosity
polybutene dielectric fluid.............................................................................................. 6-13
Figure 6-7 Effect of hydrogen concentration and hydrostatic pressure on the AC
dielectric strength of a low viscosity fluid. The dielectric strength decreases rapidly
as the hydrostatic pressure falls below the saturation pressure of the solution
before the solution becomes saturated. ........................................................................ 6-15
Figure 6-8 Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric strength of a low viscosity
fluid containing large amounts of carbon dioxide (open symbols). The AC strength
of carbon dioxide gas is shown by the solid circles as a function of gas pressure ........ 6-16
Figure 6-9 Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric strength of a low viscosity
fluid containing large amounts of ethylene. For comparison, the AC strength of
degassed fluid is is given by the solid line..................................................................... 6-17
xiii
13514801
Figure 6-10 Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the C strength for a low viscosity
polybutene fluid containing large amounts of propane. For comparison the AC
strength of degassed fluid is given by the solid line. ..................................................... 6-18
Figure 6-11 Diagram of the G-10 high pressure electrical strength test cell showing the
external taped feeders .................................................................................................. 6-24
Figure 6-12 Dielectric strength of 4 mil Jen Coat PPP laminate impregnated with
degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-place electrode configuration ............................ 6-25
Figure 6-13 Dielectric strength of 6.8 mil kraft paper impregnated with Dussek 0CS in a
sphere-to-plane electrode configuration........................................................................ 6-25
Figure 6-14 Dielectric strength for a double layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate
impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane configuration ............... 6-26
Figure 6-15 Dielectric strength for a single layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP laminate
impregnated with Dussek 0CS containing 1,100,000 ppm of hydrogen in a
sphere-to-plane electrode configuration....................................................................... 6-26
Figure 6-16 Effect of hydrogen (1,100,000 ppm) in the dielectric strength of perforated
4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate impregnated with Dussek 0CS (solid circles) in a
plane-to-plane electrode configuration. Open circles show the dielectric strength
of degassed fluid........................................................................................................... 6-27
Figure 7-1 Diagram of the apparatus designed to prepare gas-in-cable fluid calibration
solutions.......................................................................................................................... 7-2
xiv
13514801
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Material Content in High Pressure Test Cells ......................................................... 2-6
Table 2-2 Gas Evolution from Fluid Alone Aged Under Pressure at 110qC ............................ 2-9
Table 2-3 Gas Evolution from Fluid Alone Aged Under Pressure at 120qC .......................... 2-11
Table 2-6 Gas Evolution from Fluid Impregnated PPP laminate Aged Under Pressure at
110qC ............................................................................................................................ 2-16
Table 2-7 Gas Evolution from Impregnated PPP laminate Aged Under Pressure at
120qC ............................................................................................................................ 2-18
130qC ............................................................................................................................ 2-20
140qC ............................................................................................................................ 2-21
Table 2-10 Gas yields from impregnated PPP laminate corrected for the gas yield of
cable fluid alone ............................................................................................................ 2-23
Table 2-11 Correlation Between Peroxide Content in Insulating Fluid and Yield of
Carbon Oxides .............................................................................................................. 2-34
Table 2-12 Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Aging in Dichevrol 3000 at 110qC
and 200 psia ................................................................................................................. 2-37
Table 2-13 Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Aging in Dichevrol 3000 at 120qC
and 200 psia ................................................................................................................. 2-38
Table 2-14 Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Thermal Aging in Dichevrol 3000 at
130qC and 200 psia ...................................................................................................... 2-39
Table 2-15 Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Thermal Aging in Dichevrrol 3000
at 140qC and 200 psia .................................................................................................. 2-40
Table 2-16 Degree of Crystallinity for Polypropylene (PP) Samples Aged at 110qC............. 2-41
Table 2-17 Fractional loss of mechanical strength of PPP laminate aged at 110qC ............. 2-51
Table 2-21 Arrhenius parameters for the rates of loss in selected mechanical properties
of paper delaminated from PPP after thermal aging. .................................................... 2-57
xv
13514801
Table 2-22 Comparison of paper degradation rates ............................................................. 2-62

Table 3-1 Gas permeability and effective diffusivity through fluid-impregnated
(Dichevrol 3000) PPP Jen-Coat 6 mil for selected gases as a function of
temperature..................................................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-2 Gas permeability and effective diffusivity through fluid-impregnated
(Dichevrol 3000) Jen-Coat 4 mil for selected gases as a function of temperature .......... 3-7
Table 3-3 Arrhenius Parameters for Gas Permeation Through PPP Laminate...................... 3-8
Table 3-4 Isobutylene Permeation Through Selected Cable Materials ................................ 3-12
Table 3-5 Air Permeation Through Selected Papers at Room Temperature........................ 3-12
Table 3-6 Thermal Flow Calculations for a 345 kV PPP Cable, Cablec 1985...................... 3-17
Table 4-1 Summary of Test Conditions................................................................................. 4-7
Table 4-2 Dissolved Gas Analysis of the Fluid After Application of Electric Field to the
Paper Sample ............................................................................................................... 4-10
Table 4-3 Gas Ratios After Application of Electrical Stress ................................................. 4-11
Table 4-4 Inter-Correlation Parameters ............................................................................... 4-12
Table 4-5 Top Correlations Among Gases and Variables.................................................... 4-13
Table 6-1 Particle Size Distribution in a Low Viscosity Polybutene Fluid (Dussek 0CS) ........ 6-5
Table 6-2 AC breakdown voltage for a 3.8 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate strip
impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane electrode
configuration ................................................................................................................. 6-20
Table 6-3 AC breakdown voltage for a 6.8 mil kraft paper impregnated with degassed
Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane electrode configuration ............................................ 6-21
Table 6-4 AC breakdown voltage for a double layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate
impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane electrode
configuration ................................................................................................................. 6-21
Table 6-5 AC breakdown voltage for a single layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate
impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS containing 1,100,1000 ppm hydrogen in
a sphere-to-plane electrode configuration..................................................................... 6-22
Table 6-6 AC breakdown voltage for a double layer of perforated 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-
laminate impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS in a plane-to-plane electrode
configuration ................................................................................................................. 6-22
Table 6-7 AC breakdown voltage for a double layer of perforated 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-
laminate impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS containing 1,100,000 ppm of
hydrogen in plane-to-plane electrode configuration ...................................................... 6-23
Table 7-1 Volume Determination for the Mixing Unit.............................................................. 7-4
Table 7-2 Gravimetric Preparation of a Nitrogen Solution in Selected Dielectric Fluids
and Comparison with Conventional EPOSS-DGA .......................................................... 7-5
Table 7-3 Gravimetric Preparation of a Hydrogen Solution in DCL-500 and Comparison
with Conventional EPOSS-DGA...................................................................................... 7-8
Table 7-4 Fractional Composition and Molecular Weight of Gas Blend ............................... 7-11
Table 7-5 Preparation of a Mixed Gas Solution in DCL-500 and Comparison with
Conventional EPOSS-DGA ........................................................................................... 7-12
xvi
13514801
1
INTRODUCTION
The successful introduction of PPP laminate as a replacement for kraft paper insulation
in high voltage high pressure fluid-filled (HPF) cables has created the need to generate
information on gassing behavior and loss in mechanical characteristics of this material
as a function of cable aging. This information is essential for the development of
diagnosis techniques based either on a non-destructive approach through dissolved gas
analysis or through invasive physical examination.
This research project covers several aspects of the thermal degradation of PPP-laminate
such as loss of mechanical strength, gas generation and gas movement through the
insulation wall. The effect of gas concentration on the dielectric strength of fluids, fluid
impregnated paper and PPP-laminate was also investigated. In addition, an automated
system for DGA by EPOSS (EPRI Pressurized Oil Sampling System) was developed
and implemented. A procedure for the preparation of standardized gas-in-oil solutions
to check the accuracy of DGA analysis among different laboratories was developed.
The rate of material decomposition as a function of temperature is essential for the

condition assessment of cables through DGA or mechanical strength measurements of
the taped insulation. This information was determined in this work by aging samples
of PPP-laminate in the presence of impregnation fluid. The aging work was carried out
at temperatures sufficiently high to allow substantial material decomposition within the
duration time of this project. The concurrent determination of gas generation and loss
of mechanical properties PPP laminate was conducted under 200 psi pressure in
specially designed testing cells with no headspace.
Generation of gases in the taped insulation of a cable occurs in areas of high thermal
and electrical stresses near the conductor. Since DGA is based in the measurement of
gases residing in the pipe fluid, information relating to the transport mechanism
controlling the movement of these gases from the point of generation to the pipe area is
essential. Gas diffusion through fluid impregnated tapes was reported in EPRI EL-
7488-L, 1992. Those measurements were extended in this project to included PPP
laminate of two different thicknesses. Considering that PPP laminate contains a layer
of non-porous polypropylene, there was an initial concern that the presence of this
polymeric layer could limit gas permeation and thus lead to excessive gas accumulation
in the PPP insulation wall.
1-1
13514801
Introduction
Gas movement through the insulation wall is not solely controlled by molecular
diffusion . Evidence of fluid exchange between the impregnation fluid and the pipe
fluid has been observed in cables removed from service. This fluid exchange is thought
to result from expansion-contraction cycles of the impregnation fluid brought about by
daily load cycles.
Estimations of radial volume distribution of the impregnation fluid in the insulation

wall were made during this project . Within the taped insulation wall, impregnation
fluid fills the gap spacing between tapes and the internal paper tape porosity.
Whenever a cable is exposed to a load increase, the increase in conductor and cable
insulation temperature forces a small part of the impregnation fluid out of the
insulation. This is due to the fact that the thermal expansion coefficient of dielectric
fluids is significantly higher than that of paper and the metal conductor.
Movement of impregnation fluid as a result of load cycling can become an effective

transport mechanism for gases. This movement is expected to be more noticeable in the
outer regions of the insulation wall where the accumulative effect of excess fluid is at
its maximum. In this region, molecular diffusion is expected to become completely
masked by the effects of thermal expansion. As the impregnation fluid containing
dissolved gases reaches the pipe, gases become diluted in the much larger volume of
pipe fluid. The fluid with a lower gas content is then forced into the insulation during
the contraction stage. Repetition of this cycle through the life of the cable results in the
displacement of gas out of the insulation wall and into the pipe.
This thermal expansion mechanism is not expected to represent an effective mode of

gas transport in areas close to the conductor. Accordingly, gas accumulation in this
region is expected. The effect of gas accumulation on the dielectric properties of the
impregnation fluid was one of the topics investigated in this project. Dielectric
strength of fluids below and above gas saturation was determined, alone and in
conjunction with paper and PPP laminate..
The growing in the application of dissolved gas analysis (DGA) techniques to fluid-
filled cables by EPOSS (EPRI Pressurized Oil Sampling System, EPRI EL-7488-L report)
required a significant increase in sample capacity. Further improvements in precision
and accuracy of EPOSS method were also desirable. The original EPPOS procedure
was operated manually and consisted of a number of valving operations plus lengthy
equilibration stages. Since this procedure lends itself to automation, a system was
designed to increase sample throughput and reduce error caused by human
intervention. Towards this end, an automated procedure was developed in this project
which resulted in a significant increase in sample capacity, reproducibility and
accuracy. The final configuration of the automated system is discussed in this report
along with the description of the software of the user interface. The automated system
has been successfully utilized for all laboratory and field DGA requirements since 1989.
1-2
13514801
Introduction
Dissolved gas analysis results vary significantly from laboratory to laboratory. These
differences are often inherent of the method used. Corrections for the efficiency of gas
extraction are difficult to determine and correctly apply. Quality of gas calibration
blends, temperature control, nature of the fluid, viscosity and gas content can all lead to
significant errors in the determination of dissolved gas content. In the light of these
difficulties, a device was designed and constructed to prepare fluid solutions of known
gas concentrations. These solutions are kept in gas tight syringes and are available to
laboratories to check the accuracy of their analysis.
During the course of this project several, underground taped insulation cable systems
belonging to a number of utilities were sampled and analyzed with the automated
EPOSS technique. Fluid sampling in a cable system are taken from terminations,
splices and fluid reservoir. To locate a potential problem along a cable length, pipe
fluid can be moved as fluid sampling is performed. The knowledge of pipe fluid
volume per foot allows the positioning of problem site. Hot tapping can be used to
install sampling ports, if not already available. Results from dissolved gas analysis of a
number of cable systems sampled during this project are included in this report. These
results cover a number of different types of cable systems, including high pressure gas-
filled (HPGF), self-contained fluid filled (SCFF), high pressure fluid-filled (HPFF)
In HPGF cables, nitrogen gas samples was taken from terminations and the cable itself.
The high pressure nitrogen rules out the EPOSS glass cells. Therefore, the nitrogen gas
was sampled with stainless steel cylinders and the gas was directly analyzed by gas
chromatography after decompression to atmospheric pressure. Although t his situation
makes HPGFF cables much easier to sample, data interpretation requires special care as
discussed later in this report.
1-3
13514801
13514801
2
THERMAL AGING OF PPP LAMINATE
Introduction
A wide variety of studies on paper-polypropylene-paper (PPP) laminate insulation

have been made in the past ranging from laboratory material evaluation to actual cable
testing at the EPRI Waltz Mill Cable Test Facility in Ruffsdale, Pennsylvania. However,
hardly any attention has been paid to the behavior of PPP from the standpoint of
dissolved gas analysis (DGA). Dissolved gas analysis is emerging as a viable
diagnostic technique for HPFF and LPFF type cables, but most of the work involving
DGA has been directed exclusively to cables with cellulosic paper insulation. The
utilization of low loss PPP laminate in replacement of cellulosic paper in new
generation HPFF cables demands a better understanding of gas generation behavior
during cable operation.
Another aspect of the PPP insulation that needs to be treated in more detail is the
physical degradation of PPP under thermal stress. This work addresses the role of
polypropylene on the mechanical strength of PPP, as affected by accelerated thermal
aging conditions. Correlations of gas evolution yields and mechanical strength of PPP
with aging temperature and aging time were established in this work.
Experimental Conditions and Materials
The PPP laminate utilized in this work was fabricated by Jen-Coat, Inc., Westfield,
Massachusetts, and made available through Cablec, Inc., Yonkers, New York. Two
different nominal thicknesses, 4 mil and 6 mil, were utilized. The laminate was
shipped in large rolls from which sheets 18 x 24 inch were cut for the aging work. The
6 mil PPP laminate utilized in this work was obtained from batch JE#8185-00 and had
an actual thickness of 5.4 ± 0.1 mil, while the 4 mil PPP laminate was obtained from
batch JE#8178-01 with actual thickness of 3.8 ± 0.1 mil.
The development of surface roughness as the paper layers and polypropylene (PP)
layers are pulled apart prevented the determination of thickness for individual layers.
Extrusion of PP between the two layers of paper forces the polymer to flow into paper.
The thickness of the paper used in the calculation of tensile strength corresponded to
the value measured by the manufacturer before the extrusion process. The original
2-1
13514801
Thermal Aging of PPP Laminate
thickness of paper utilized to form 6 mil PPP laminate was 45 microns (1.8 mils),
according to Cablec, Inc. The two layers of paper in PPP are of equal thickness so that
the thickness of the PP layer (1.8 mil) was determined by difference from the actual
thickness of PPP.
Two 18 x 24 inch sheets of PPP laminate were rolled and introduced into each of the
high pressure aging cells. Dichevrol 3000 (polybutene with a viscosity of 3,000 SUS at
100qF) obtained from Shrieve Chemical Co., Houston, Texas, was utilized as the PPP
impregnation fluid. This fluid was received in 5-gallon plastic containers. The only
treatment performed to this fluid consisted of extensive degassing by expansion in a
vacuum chamber. A small loss of moisture content is expected from the degassing
treatment.
The high pressure aging cells utilized in this work are described in detail on the EPRI
EL-7488L1 report. Briefly, the cells consisted of a custom made 20 inch long, 1 inch OD,
type 304 stainless steel nipple fitted with two 2-1/8 inch knife edge end-flanges. A
stainless steel volume compensator was welded to one of the end-flanges as shown in
Figure 2-1. The volume compensator was utilized to transmit hydrostatic pressure to
the impregnation fluid without gas contamination A small amount of excess fluid was
needed for dissolved gas analysis after the aging period. This caused the fluid to paper
ratio to be just slightly higher than in actual cables.
The PPP rolls were first introduced in the aging cell and then dried at 115qC under
vacuum. The drying operation was carried out in groups of 8 cells in a forced
convection oven. Valves located at the bottom flange of the cells were connected to a
common vacuum manifold. The PPP laminate was considered to be dried when the
background pressure of the pumping system was reestablished (<60 microns). In
general, the drying process lasted for about 48 hours. A liquid nitrogen trap was
installed between the vacuum manifold and the vacuum pump to condense the
generated moisture and to avoid back-diffusion of pump oil into the aging cells.
After drying, the cells were removed from the drying oven and connected to a
degassing unit as shown in Figure 2-2. Degassed fluid (Dichevrol 3000) was forced
through the cells containing the dry PPP material. Cells filled with fluid alone were
filled following the same procedure.
The impregnation fluid was circulated through the aging cells and back to the
degassing chamber until no bubbles were observed in the return line. This procedure
reduced the possibility of air entrapment and fluid contamination during the cell filling
1
Singh, N., Morel, O. E., Butucel , B. and Rochon, M. in “Development of an Oil Deterioration Test Method
to Monitor Condition of High-Pressure Fluid-Filled Paper Cable”, EPRI EL-7488-L, November 1991
2-2
13514801
operation. The presence of oxygen in the form of residual air oxidizes the paper and
the fluid resulting on a higher yield of carbon oxides.
The cells filled with degassed cable fluid were placed in isothermal ovens and slowly
heated to aging temperature. A 25-psi cranking pressure check valve was connected to
each of the aging cells through a 1/8 inch shut-off valve (valve A in Figure 2-1). This
check valve allowed cable fluid expansion during heating of the cell and its contents to
aging temperature. Once the cells reached final temperature, valve A was closed and
the check valve detached from the aging cells.
Figure 2-1
Schematic Diagram for the High Pressure Test Cell
2-3
13514801
Figure 2-2
Experimental Set-Up for Fluid Filling and Degassing
The volume compensators were pressurized with nitrogen to 230 psi after removal of
the check valves. A digital pressure indicator was connected to the nitrogen line to
continuously monitor the pressure in the cells during the aging process.
Nitrogen pressure was maintained in the line with a double-stage pressure regulator in
series with an adjustable check valve. The pressure regulator was set at exactly 230 psi
while the check valve was set at a pressure slightly higher. The baseline pressure was
thus maintained by the regulator while over-pressures were handled by the check
valve. A diagram of the aging cells and connecting gas lines is shown in Figure 2-3.
At the end of the aging period, cells were removed from the oven and the fluid
sampled in duplicate for DGA. The fluid remaining after taking the DGA samples was
transferred to an amber glass bottle for later analysis and the cell opened to retrieve the
aged PPP laminate. The impregnated PPP laminate was placed in a modified Sohxlet
extraction apparatus to remove the impregnation fluid by reflux with cyclohexane.
After overnight solvent extraction, the aged PPP laminate was placed in a vacuum oven
at 60qC to eliminate the excess solvent. Under vacuum, the solvent evaporation process
2-4
13514801
takes only a few minutes. Finally, the clean and dry PPP laminate was conditioned for
48 hours at 25qC and 50% relative humidity in a walk-in chamber according to ASTM
Method D 685.
Figure 2-3
Distribution of Test Cells in Aging Ovens
Results
The amount of material added to each aging cell is listed on Table 2-1. It should be
noted that only half of the cells were filled with PPP while the other half were filled
with impregnation fluid alone. The use of fluid blanks allowed discrimination between
gas evolution from PPP and the fluid. Furthermore, by comparing DGA results from
fluid/PPP and fluid/alone, the effects of these materials on the gas yield could be
established.
The amount of dry PPP laminate aged in each cell varied from 65 to 70 grams while the
amount of fluid varied from 109 to 120 grams, depending on small variations of the cell
volume. On a mass basis, the average ratio of fluid to PPP was about 1.8. This ratio is
nearly twice as large as that expected in a cable. However, in order to monitor gas
evolution through DGA, 30 to 50 cc of free fluid volume is needed for sampling.
Provided that the material/fluid ratio has no effect on gas yields, the amount of gas
evolved can always be expressed in terms of total volume of gas evolved per unit mass
of PPP.
2-5
13514801
Table 2-1
Material Content in High Pressure Test Cells
Aging Temperature Cell Weight PPP Dry Imprgn. Fluid Imprgn Fluid
(qC) Cell ID (g) (g) (g) (cc @ NPT)
110 42 1,525.4 64.8 119.9 137.0
48 1,566.4 65.1 115.3 131.7
44 1,585.3 65.5 116.1 132.6
51 1,572.8 65.5 114.4 130.7
33 1,575.8 0.0 163.5 186.8
13 1,547.3 0.0 164.2 187.6
34 1,570.9 0.0 163.2 186.5
32 1,579.1 0.0 165.5 189.1
120 52 1,545.1 65.8 114.4 130.7
43 1,550.0 65.4 121.3 138.6
38 1,586.3 65.8 120.6 137.8
46 1,593.0 65.5 119.7 136.8
40 1,523.0 0.0 174.6 199.5
36 1,560.7 0.0 170.0 194.2
50 1,560.1 0.0 169.4 193.5
45 1,517.4 0.0 174.0 198.8
130 31 1,570.5 62.6 107.8 123.2
32 1,556.7 62.9 112.3 128.3
45 1,517.4 93.0 122.6 140.1
49 1,600.7 0.0 154.2 176.2
47 1,492.2 0.0 155.6 177.8
52 1,448.4 0.0 222.0 253.6
140 35 1,550.9 65.6 117.6 134.4
12 1,534.2 69.3 113.6 129.8
36 1,564.6 62.09 118.7 135.6
14 1,560.2 65.0 115.4 131.8
39 1,566.5 0.0 160.2 183.0
37 1,563.5 0.0 166.5 190.2
40 1,539.6 0.0 169.7 193.9
42 1,542.6 0.0 166.2 189.9
2-6
13514801
The degree of aging imposed on each of the samples varied accordingly to the aging
temperature and exposure time. The approximate time schedule for the aging study
was as follows:
Within the lower temperature range, 110qC, 120qC and 130qC, the aging process was
extended for over 5 months with about one cell per month. At 140qC, the aging process
is considerably faster and samples were aged for only 50 days. Based on work
published in EPRI EL-7488L Report2, Table 6-3, aging at 140qC is 13 times faster in terms
of gas generation than aging at 110qC. Accordingly, the sample exposed to the most
extensive aging was the 50-day sample at 140qC.
Aging Time in Days

Temperature Set #1 Set #2 Set #3 Set #4
110qC 5 15 30 50
120qC 15 30 60 120
130qC 20 50 130 170
140qC 40 80 120 170
The results from each duplicate DGA sample as well as the respective averages are
given in tables 2-2 through 2-5 for fluid alone, and in tables 2-6 through 2-9 for fluid
impregnated PPP. Nitrogen is not listed among the gases reported. The only source of
nitrogen contamination other than air was from contact with nitrogen used to push the
fluid out of the cell. Since oxygen was not detected in any of the fluid samples taken
from the aging cells that are listed in this table, air contamination could be discarded.
In terms of gas yield, the most significant difference between DGA of fluid aged alone
and fluid aged with PPP is the presence of large amounts of carbon dioxide whenever
PPP laminate was present. In the absence of PPP laminate, the highest gas
concentration is represented by isobutylene.
In order to further analyze the impact of PPP on gas composition after thermal aging,
gas evolution from the fluid alone was subtracted from the gas evolution of the fluid
impregnated PPP. The results are shown in Table 2-10. Numbers in parenthesis
2
2-7
13514801
indicate that the amount of gas observed during the aging with PPP was lower than
that observed after aging of fluid alone.
Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are the only gases on Table 2-10 that show a
systematic increase in concentration during the aging of impregnated PPP laminate.
This is expected due to the presence of cellulosic paper in the PPP laminate. Other
gases including hydrogen and isobutylene, which are second in yield after carbon
oxides, showed a systematic decrease in yield whenever PPP laminate was present. We
do not have an explanation for this phenomenon. However, the possibility of surface
interference in the decomposition mechanism of less stable species present in the fluid
or gas absorption by the PPP laminate cannot be discarded.
Gas generation from low temperature degradation (thermolysis) of polyolefinic fluids

is largely due to the rapid decomposition of peroxy and hydroperoxy radicals present
in the fluid and not to the bulk degradation of the fluid. Peroxides can be formed
during manufacturing of the hydrocarbon fluid through exposure to temperature in the
presence of air. Peroxides can also be formed in the presence of UV radiation and air,
although, this is not a likely to be the case in fluid manufacturing process. The peroxy
radicals decompose rapidly at relatively low temperatures through radical propagation
reactions leading to a number of stable oxygenated species and carbon oxides.
Hydrogen can also recombine through secondary reactions in the presence of PPP
laminate resulting in smaller yields compared to the yield from fluid alone.
For the most part, carbon oxides result from the decomposition of cellulosic material
present in the PPP laminate. These yields can be estimated utilizing the kinetic
equations presented in EPRI EL-7488L3 for kraft paper decomposition under vacuum.
Comparison between the yields estimated by the model and the actual values obtained
during this work are shown in figures 2-4 through 2-7. The actual yields of carbon
oxides (open symbols) are shown at four different temperatures together with the
predicted yields for vacuum aged kraft paper (solid lines). The carbon dioxide from
impregnated PPP is close to the estimated data. However, the estimation for the
accumulation of carbon monoxide is systematically in excess of the experimental
values. A similar situation was also reported in the previous report. This seems to
indicate that the evolution of carbon monoxide is somewhat altered when measured in
the presence of impregnation fluid in a batch reactor.
3
2-8
13514801
Table 2-2
Gas Evolution from Fluid Alone Aged Under Pressure at 110qC
Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

(hrs) Gas (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
960 Hydrogen 1914 1893 1903

Carbon Monoxide 1390 1411 1401
Carbon Dioxide 2697 2754 2725
Methane 792 795 794
Ethane 554 587 571
Ethylene 125 132 129
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1081 1165 1123
Propylene 350 376 363
Isobutane 234 251 243
N-Butane 301 327 314
Isobutylene 20971 22622 2179
Trans-2-Butene 35 37 36
1-Butene 68 73 70
1968 Hydrogen 2112 2015 2063

Methane 887 857 872
Ethane 673 655 625
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1346 1252 1299
N-Butane 356 337 347
Isobutylene 26056 25253 22505
1-Butene 79 79 79
2928 Hydrogen 2253 2239 2246

Methane 895 979 982
Ethane 625 586 605
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1198 1116 1157
N-Butane 325 304 315
Isobutylene 22505 21378 26344
1-Butene 81 75 78
2-9
13514801
Table 2-2
Continued
3912 Hydrogen 2676 2649 2663

Methane 982 937 959
Ethane 712 905 708
Ethylene 144 147 14
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1393 1386 1390
N-Butane 373 376 375
Isobutylene 263344 26105 26225
1-Butene 78 78 78
2-10
13514801
Table 2-3

480 Hydrogen 1747 1671 1709

Methane 996 985 992
Ethane 727 711 719
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1069 1040 1055
N-Butane 359 355 357
Isobutylene 28960 28462 28711
1-Butene 86 85 86
1200 Hydrogen 2158 2124 2141

Methane 910 918 914
Ethane 684 676 680
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1368 1299 1334
N-Butane 363 325 344
Isobutylene 27921 25293 26607
1-Butene 84 75 80
2880 Hydrogen 1885 1912 1899

Methane 853 859 856
Ethane 619 647 633
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1273 1321 1297
N-Butane 346 364 355
Isobutylene 26111 27251 26681
1-Butene 91 91 91
2-11
13514801
Table 2-3
Continued

4152 Hydrogen 2258 2328 2293
Methane 1004 997 1001
Ethane 675 665 670
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1352 1321 1337
N-Butane 368 362 365
Isobutylene 30147 29539 29539
1-Butene 90 86 88
2-12
13514801
Table 2-4
Time Gas Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

(hrs) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
360 Hydrogen 548 700 624

Methane 455 557 506
Ethane 341 388 364
Ethylene 80 91 86
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 583 659 621
N-Butane 206 240 223
Isobutylene 20633 23627 22130
1-Butene 50 58 54
840 Hydrogen 773 895 834

Methane 619 631 625
Ethane 376 421 399
Ethylene 89 99 94
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 585 680 633
N-Butane 204 241 223
Isobutylene 20563 24000 22281
1-Butene 50 59 55
1560 Hydrogen 2133 2015 2074

Methane 1233 1151 1192
Ethane 738 727 733
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1431 1442 1436
N-Butane 379 371 375
Isobutylene 38337 37777 3805
1-Butene 105 104 105
2-13
13514801
Table 2-5
Time Gas Sample # 1 Sample #2 Average

120 Hydrogen 675 687 681
Methane 768 797 783
Ethane 432 430 431
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 540 527 534
N-Butane 220 209 215
Isobutylene 23077 22112 22595
1-Butene 59 58 59
360 Hydrogen 1273 1326 1299

Methane 1142 1204 1173
Ethane 682 703 692
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1388 1422 1405
N-Butane 381 385 383
Isobutylene 38254 38856 38555
1-Butene 94 99 97
720 Hydrogen 911 961 936

Methane 659 696 677
Ethane 403 433 418
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 616 668 642
N-Butane 206 225 216
Isobutylene 23232 25505 24369
1-Butene 55 59 57
2-14
13514801
Table 2-5
Continued

1200 Hydrogen 1088 1023 1055

Methane 683 625 654
Ethane 492 463 478
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 748 701 725
N-Butane 259 238 249
Isobutylene 30132 29113 29622
1-Butene 74 70 72
2-15
13514801
Table 2-6
Gas Evolution from Fluid Impregnated PPP laminate Aged Under Pressure at 110qC

960 Hydrogen 1378 1383 1381
Methane 681 745 713
Ethane 523 570 547
Ethylene 71 75 73
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1063 1184 1125
N-Butane 290 321 305
Isobutylene 21674 23946 22810
1-Butene 60 65 63
1968 Hydrogen 1812 1761 1787

Methane 751 762 757
Ethane 620 600 610
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1235 1182 1208
N-Butane 334 312 323
Isobutylene 23751 22373 23047
1-Butene 90 80 85
2928 Hydrogen 6047 6420 6234

Methane 769 835 802
Ethane 576 630 603
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1076 1157 1116
N-Butane 297 313 305
Isobutylene 21319 22670 21995
T-Butene 76 81 78
2-16
13514801
Table 2-6
Continued

3912 Hydrogen 1945 2126 2055
Methane 725 764 745
Ethane 525 479 502
Ethylene 39 39 39
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1110 948 1029
N-Butane 311 274 293
Isobutylene 22359 19841 21100
1-Butene 72 62 67
2-17
13514801
Table 2-7
Gas Evolution from Impregnated PPP laminate Aged Under Pressure at 120qC

480 Hydrogen n/a 1179 1179
Carbon Monoxide n/a 2544 2544
Carbon Dioxide n/a 12428 1242
Methane n/a 739 739
Ethane 600 563 582
Ethylene 95 91 93
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 915 855 885
N-Butane 315 298 30
Isobutylene 26503 25111 25807
1-Butene 73 70 72
1200 Hydrogen 1346 1480 1413

Methane 743 728 735
Ethane 575 535 555
Ethylene 87 79 83
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1204 1066 1135
N-Butane 320 277 299
Isobutylene 25455 22158 23806
1-Butene 71 64 68
3168 Hydrogen 1603 1576 1589

Methane 874 882 878
Ethane 562 626 594
Ethylene 54 62 58
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1100 1292 1196
N-Butane 294 350 322
Isobutylene 23718 28125 25921
1-Butene 77 86 82
2-18
13514801
Table 2-7
Continued
4152 Hydrogen 5512 5603 5558

Methane 862 888 875
Ethane 559 594 576
Ethylene 42 44 43
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1141 1245 1193
N-Butane 328 346 337
Isobutylene 28015 29685 28850
1-Butene 75 73 74
2-19
13514801
Table 2-8

360 Hydrogen 496 678 587
Methane 450 490 520
Ethane 320 384 352
Ethylene 62 74 68
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 548 625 586
N-Butane 210 227 218
Isobutylene 18980 20665 19822
1-Butene 50 54 52
840 Hydrogen 829 774 801

Methane 97 647 67
Ethane 423 399 411
Ethylene 71 68 70
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 643 618 631
N-Butane 221 215 218
Isobutylene 21153 20595 20874
1-Butene 54 53 54
1560 Hydrogen 1672 1569 1621

Methane 854 759 807
Ethane 543 515 529
Ethylene 73 68 71
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1144 1099 1122
N-Butane 316 311 314
Isobutylene 31338 30327 30832
1-Butene 84 80 82
2-20
13514801
Table 2-9

120 Hydrogen 655 671 663

Methane 675 675 675
Ethane 426 410 418
Ethylene 101 98 99
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 560 537 549
N-Butane 227 219 22
Isobutylene 24045 3106 23576
1-Butene 55 56 56
360 Hydrogen 1039 1222 1131

Ethane 632 649 640
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1290 1307 1298
N-Butane 349 359 354
Isobutylene 37253 38026 37639
1-Butene 83 86 85
720 Hydrogen 1333 1314 1323

Carbon Dioxide 121896 119638 120767
Methane 730 703 717
Ethane 426 414 420
Ethylene 72 71 72
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 642 624 633
N-Butane 216 210 213
Isobutylene 21563 20885 21224
1-Butene 57 55 56
2-21
13514801
Table 2-9
Continued
1200 Hydrogen 1445 1399 1422

Carbon Dioxide 94428 100274 97351
Methane 1088 1157 1123
Ethane 661 705 683
Acetylene 0 0 0
Propane 1016 1089 1053
N-Butane 363 293 378
Isobutylene 38641 n/a 38641
1-Butene 103 111 107
2-22
13514801
Table 2-10
Gas yields from impregnated PPP laminate corrected for the gas yield of cable fluid alone
Temperature 100qC 120qC

Gas/Time (days) 40 82 122 163 20 50 132 173
Hydrogen (522) (276) 3,988 (608) (530) (728) (310) (17,378)
C. Monoxide 778 2,492 4,032 5,057 363 2,159 (4,801) 10,635
C. Dioxide 13,098 35,094 34,846 45,200 8,230 16,973 39,940 72,278
Methane (81) (115) (180) (214) (253) (179) 22 (136)
Ethane (24) (15) (2) (206) (137) (125) (39) (94)
Ethylene (56) 2 25 (107) (56) (74) (93) (115)
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 2 (91) (41) (361) (170) (199) (101) (144)
Propylene (961) (70) (89) (3,778) (94) (96) (92) (153)
Isobutane 8 (2) 3 (64) (38) (25) (27) (17)
n-Butane (9) 323 (10) (84) (50) (45) (33) (28)
Isobutylene 1,014 902 (4,349) (5,125) (2,904) (2,801) (760) (689)
t-2-Butene (5) 9 8 (6) (7) (7) (3) (5)
1-Butene (7) 6 0 (11) (14) (12) (2) (14)
Temperature 130qC 140qC
Gas/Time (days) 15 35 65 5 15 30 50
Hydrogen (37) (33) (453) (18) (168) 387 367
C. Monoxide 1,794 4,349 7,906 2,185 6,065 16,807 22,763
C. Dioxide 22,664 39,362 68,448 25,591 59,079 117,974 94,763
Methane 14 48 (385) (108) (100) 40 469
Ethane (12) 12 (205) (13) (52) 2 205
Ethylene (18) (24) (132) (18) (66) (42) (85)
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane (35) (2) (314) 15 (107) (9) 328
Propylene (23) (14) (151) (9) (71) (18) 143
Isobutane (24) (6) (77) 5 (22) (33) 98
n-Butane (5) (5) (61) 8 (29) (32) 129
Isobutylene (2,308) (1,407) 7,225 981 (20,916) (3145) 9,019
t-2-Butene (1) (1) (23) 0 (3) (1) 23
1-Butene (2) (1) (23) (3) (12) (1) 35
2-23
13514801
Accumulation Rates for Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. Differential rate
laws for the generation of carbon oxides from PPP could not be calculated from the
small set of aging data. However, a linear correlation was found between the
accumulated gas concentration and aging time for PPP within the studied temperature
range.
The volumes of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide accumulated during the aging of
PPP are shown in figures 2-4 and 2-5. Actual data are indicated by the symbols while
the solid lines show the best linear fit.
The accumulated concentration of each gas was assumed to increase linearly with aging
time, according to the following relationship:
[ CO] = kt (cc gas @ NPT / g of PPP) (eq. 2-1)
where k is the proportionality constant function of temperature only and independent

of time, and t corresponds to aging time. The volume expressed by (cc @ NPT)
corresponds to cubic centimeters of gas measured at normal pressure (P = 1 atm) and
room temperature (T = 298.16 K). The instantaneous rate constant which in this case
equals a constant k times aging time, is obtained by differentiating (eq. 2-1),
This equation indicates that carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide evolve at a
constant rate similar to a zero order reaction.
d[ CO]
= k (cc gas @ NPT / g of PPP / time) (eq. 2-2)
dt
4 5
In general, all of the published work for aging of impregnated and non-impregnated
cellulosic paper was carried out in sealed ampules (batch reactors) reported zero order
gas evolution rates. However, the main finding in EPRI EL-7488 was that these rates
follow a complex kinetic mechanism notably different from a zero order type.
Observations carried out in batch type reactors (ampules or steel cells) resulted in rates
that appear to be zero order only due to the lack of sensitivity inherent with cumulative
4
.Murphy, E.J., J. Polym. Sci., 58, 649 (1962), Trans. Electrochem. Soc. Vol. 83, 161, 1943.
5
.Lawson, W.G., Simmons, M.A. and Gale, P.S., “Thermal Aging of Cellulose Paper Insulation”, IEEE
Trans. Elect. Ins., EI-12, 1, pp. 61-66, Feb. (1977).
2-24
13514801
data. Mechanism of paper degradation are not expected to dramatically change in the
presence of impregnation fluid.
Figure 2-4
Cumulated carbon oxide concentration during aging of fluid impregnated PPP at
110°C. Open symbols show actual data and curves values estimated from
equation in Appendix A.
Figure 2-5
Cumulated carbon oxide concentration during aging of fluid impregnated PPP at
equation in Appendix A.
2-25
13514801
Figure 2-6
Cumulated carbon oxide concentration after aging of fluid impregnated PPP at
130°C. Open symbols show actual data and curves show values estimated from
equations in Appendix A.
Figure 2-7
Cumulative carbon oxide concentration after aging of fluid impregnated PPP at
equations in Appendix A
2-26
13514801
The proportionality constant k in eq. 2-1 can be correlated with temperature utilizing
the Arrhenius equation, as follows,
ln( k ) = A exp( − E / RT ) (eq. 2-3)
The actual correlation between rates and temperature is shown in figures 2-10 and 2-11,
where the observed values of E/R values in the order of 13,700 to 14,000 are well
within range expected for chemical reactions.
Accordingly, the total volume of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide evolved by PPP at
any given temperature and aging time can be estimated from the following
relationships:
[ CO] = 2.05 × 1010 exp(−14,066 / T )t (cc gas @ NPT / g of PPP) (eq. 2-4)
and
[CO ] = 7.0 × 1010 exp(−13,578 / T )t (cc gas @ NPT / g of PPP) (eq. 2-5)
where T is reaction temperature in degree Kelvin and t is aging time in hours.
An example for the application of these equations is given as follow:
The concentration of carbon oxides accumulated within a PPP tape close to the
conductor shield of a cable after 20 days operation at 80qC is calculated. The diameter of
the insulation at the selected tape is 1.63 inches. The tape was laid with a pitch angle of
10.3 degrees and a butt spacing equivalent to 5% (0.044 inch) of the 0.87 inch width
tape. Tape thickness is 3.9 mil with 66.7% by volume of paper and 33.3% PPP. The
density of the PPP laminate is 0.85 g/cc. The density of the paper in the laminate is 0.95
g/cc and the density of the paper fiber is 1.55 g/cc.
Calculations
2S(1.63/2 in)(2.54 cm/in)

Length of inner PPP tape = ------------------------------------- = 13.2 cm
cos (10.3)
Volume of inner PPP tape = (13.2 cm)(0.87 in)(0.0039 in)(2.54 cm/in)2
= 0.29 cc
2-27
13514801
Volume of paper = (0.29)(0.667) = 0.19 cc
Mass of paper = (0.19 cc)(0.95 g/cc) = 0.18 g
Pore volume = (0.19 g)((1-0.95/1.55) = 0.074 cc
Butt spacing volume = (13.2 cm)(0.044 in)(0.0039 in)(2.54 cm/in)2
= 0.015 cc
Total void volume = 0.074 + 0.015 = 0.089 cc
Total yield of CO at 80qC and 480 hours
= 2.05 x 1010exp(-14,066/(80+273.16))(480 hr)
= 4.96 x 10-5 cc/g
Total yield of CO2 at 80qC and 480 hours
= 7.0 x 1010exp(-13,758/(80+273.16))(480)
= 4.05 x 10-4 cc/g
Results
The actual concentration of these gases at the inner tape becomes:
[CO] = (4.96 x 10-5 cc/g)(0.089 g)(1 x 106 ppm/cc)
= 4.4 ppm
and
[CO2] = (4.05 x 10-4 cc/g)(0.089 g)(1 x 106 ppm)
= 36 ppm
The gas concentration calculated above corresponds to the accumulated value within the tape
not considering fluid movement or gas loss by diffusion.
2-28
13514801
0.05
Accumulated CO (cc NPT/g PPP)

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 500
Aging Time (hours)
110C 120C 130C 140C
Figure 2-8
Carbon monoxide accumulated during aging of impregnated PPP laminate at
selected temperatures.
0.4
CO2 (cc NPT/g PPP)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Aging Time (hours)
110C 120C 130C 140C
Figure 2-9
Carbon dioxide accumulated during aging of impregnated PPP laminate at
selected temperatures
2-29
13514801
-10.0
-10.5
k(T) = 2.05E10 exp(-14,066/T)
-11.0
Ln(k)
-11.5
-12.0
-12.5
-13.0
0.0024 0.0025 0.0026
1/Temp (K)
Figure 2-10
Rate evolution of carbon monoxide from impregnated PPP laminate as a function
of temperature
-8
-8.5
k(T) = 7.0E10 exp(-13,758/T)
-9
Ln(k)
-9.5
-10
-10.5
-11
0.0024 0.0025 0.0026
1/Temp (K)
Figure 2-11
Rate evolution of carbon dioxide from impregnated PPP laminate as a function of
temperature
2-30
13514801
No other gases showed a systematic increase during aging of impregnated PPP. The
amount of isobutylene, which is strongly associated with the decomposition of oxidized
polyisobutylene (PIB) polymer, showed a decrease in the presence of PPP. Although its
yield showed an increase with reaction temperature, no systematic increase was
observed with aging time. This observation seems to indicate that isobutylene is
formed at a rate too rapid to be measured by this experimental approach and most of it
is formed essentially while the fluid is being heated to the reaction temperature.
Gas ratios were calculated for some gases and are graphically shown in figures 2-12
through 2-15. The selected ratios appear to have a strong temperature dependency.
The equation for the best linear fit to each gas ratio as a function of temperature is
indicated in each figure. These equations can be utilized to determine maximum fluid
exposure temperature in case of abnormal overheating. Substantial variations in the
product ratio are not expected for other hydrocarbon fluids. According to EPRI
EL7488-L, gas ratios for high viscosity polybutene (Cosden 15EG) were within 40% of
those obtained in this work for high viscosity Dichevrol 3000 at the same temperature
range.
Similar to the findings in EPRI EL7488-L, the gas ratios for methane/hydrogen and
isobutylene/methane obtained in this work showed a rapid increase with temperature,
while the ratios ethane/ethylene and propane/propylene showed a decrease with
temperature. Gas ratios indicate that, although at 110qC or below, the yield of
hydrogen is larger than that of methane, the yields of hydrogen and methane are nearly
equal at a temperature over 140qC. The yield of isobutylene which is always higher
than that of hydrogen, increases even more at increasing temperature. The ratio of
ethane to ethylene as well as propane to propylene follow the trend expected from
thermodynamics whereby the stability of unsaturated species increases over that of
saturated species with increasing temperature.
Although gas ratios appear to be controlled by thermodynamic equilibrium, total gas

yields are controlled by the total level of impurities, such as peroxides compounds. In
order to predict the total gas yield from any of these fluids at a given temperature, it is
necessary to know the level of impurities in the fluid. Table 2-11 shows the effect of
total peroxide content in the yield of carbon oxides from fluids with three different
levels of peroxides.
2-31
13514801
Figure 2-12 Methane to hydrogen ratio in gases evolved during aging of

impregnated PPP laminate
Figure 2-13 Ethane to ethylene ratio in gases evolved during aging of

impregnated PPP laminate
2-32
13514801
Figure 2-14
Isobutylene to methane ration in gases after aging of impregnated PPP laminate
Figure 2-15
Propane to propylene ratio in gases after aging of impregnated PPP laminate
2-33
13514801
Table 2-11
Correlation Between Peroxide Content in Insulating Fluid and Yield of Carbon Oxides
Peroxide Peroxide
CO CO2 Estimated Actual
Fluid Description (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Polybutene 06CS 541 1,336 2.6 3.8
Alkylbenzene DO-100 0 129 0.2 0.2
Alkylbenzene DO-500 40 186 0.3 0.9
The value under the estimated peroxide column was calculated assuming that all the
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide originates from the oxygen in the peroxide
molecules. Clearly, this assumption is not totally correct since not all types of
peroxides can fully decompose. This implies that the peroxide content estimated from
the yield of carbon oxides could be less than the measured peroxide content. Despite
this assumption, this table clearly shows a sound match between actual peroxide
content in the fluid and its carbon oxide yield.
Since level impurities in fluids utilized for the manufacturing of cables are for the most
part completely unknown, it is only through the utilization of gas ratios that it is
feasible to confirm abnormal temperatures conditions in the cable insulation.
Rate of Accumulation for Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. The aging of the PPP
laminate material was studied by following the degradation of physical strength as a
function of time and temperature. Folding endurance, which is a sensitive test for
paper was not performed in this study due to the presence of the PP layer in the PPP
laminate. The elasticity of the PP layer impaired the detection of the paper rupture
during the folding test. A similar effect was observed during the determination of
tensile strength and Finch tear of PP delaminated from aged PPP. Fortunately, the
brittleness of PP increased rapidly after mild thermal treatment and most of the tests,
except for MIT folding, could be made on the aged samples. Accordingly, the
following tests were performed on PPP laminate:
x Breaking load (tensile strength), TEA and elongation of PPP laminate, delaminated
paper and aged PP (ASTM D 828)
x Burst strength of PPP laminate and delaminated paper (ASTM D 774)
x Finch tearing resistance of PPP laminate and delaminated paper (ASTM D 827)
2-34
13514801
x MIT folding endurance of delaminated paper (ASTM D 2176)
Tensile energy absorption (TEA) corresponds to the area under the strain-stress curve
up to the maximum load at breaking point. In the MIT folding endurance test, the
paper always failed before the PP and the latter would continue to stretch almost
indefinitely. Under these conditions, the failure point of the material could be
determined to stop the test. The same problem was observed during the determination
of Finch tearing resistance. Our observations indicate that fresh PP could be stretched
beyond 120% of its initial strip length without breaking.
Unaged PP has a degree of crystallinity of about 65% and a glass transition temperature
Tg = -18qC, and it behaves like a rubbery material at room temperature. Through
thermal aging, however, PP undergoes significant loss of elasticity making the
determination of tear strength on PPP laminate and even tensile breaking load possible
on aged samples of PP.
The thickness of paper utilized to calculate the cross sectional area of the test strips
corresponded to that measured and reported by the laminate manufacturer before PP
extrusion. A systematic difference in paper thickness was found when the PPP
material was delaminated by pulling the layers apart. This is due to the development
of roughness on the paper surface in contact with the PP layer resulting in larger
apparent thickness values. The same situation was observed for the PP layer.
Therefore, the actual thickness of the PPP layer was determined by difference between
the actual thickness of the PPP laminate and twice the thickness of each paper layer as
reported by the manufacturer.
The results showing the degradation of physical strength of PPP laminate, laminate
with only one paper layer, delaminated paper and delaminated polypropylene layer
are shown in Tables 2-12 through 2-15. It should be stressed that the PPP laminate was
aged in one piece and that delamination of the paper layers was performed after the
aging treatment.
All values represent averages of 10 measurements. The standard deviations are

indicated next to the average values. All tensile and tearing strength tests were
performed with the standard 1-inch wide strips. In addition to the aged samples, these
tables also include measurements performed on fresh and blank samples. While the
term fresh designates material as-received, the blank corresponds to material dried at
115qC for 24 hours, fluid impregnated and solvent extracted exactly the same way the
aged samples, except for aging. Only slight differences in mechanical strength were
detected between the fresh and blank samples.
Graphical representations of these data are given in figures 2-24 through 2-27 for the
PPP laminate and figures 2-28 through 2-31 for delaminated paper. While the physical
strength properties of the paper delaminated from PPP at all temperatures decrease
2-35
13514801
gradually with increasing aging time, the physical strength properties of the PPP
composite show an initial increase in strength followed by a rapid decay. It should be
noted that while at 110qC all mechanical properties of PPP showed an abrupt increase
before decreasing, those aged at 140qC only showed a gradual decrease. For samples
aged at 120qC and 130qC, some properties showed an increase while others only
showed a gradual decrease with aging time. The property least affected by aging is
tensile strength while burst strength and TEA are the most affected.
It was not possible to determine the tensile breaking load nor the elongation of PP
delaminated from fresh PPP laminate samples. However, by exposing the PPP
laminate to a 24-hour drying cycle at 115qC, the increase in PP brittleness made the
determination of the breaking load and elongation of the aged polymer possible. This
embrittlement which leads to the strengthening of thermally aged PPP is likely to result
from the increase in degree of crystallinity of the polymer.
The degree of crystallinity of the PP-laminate was determined for a series of samples
obtained from PPP laminate aged at different conditions. The results are given in Table
2-16. The degree of crystallinity, which was determined by differential scanning
calorimetry, was observed to increase rapidly from 65.8% to 84.7% during the initial
drying stage. Only a marginal increase was observed thereafter in the aging process. It
is thus likely that the increase in polypropylene crystallinity can account for the loss in
elasticity observed in the blank and aged samples. It is also possible that this loss in
elasticity could have contributed to the initial increase of the toughness of the material
in samples aged at 110qC, 120qC and 130qC.
Tensile Strength Considerations. The tensile strength of fresh PPP laminate was
always lower than the tensile strength of the paper delaminated from the same PPP
laminate. This weakening indicates that the presence of polypropylene does reduce the
overall physical strength of the composite when compared to paper alone. This
disadvantage, however, appears to be compensated by the strengthening effect
observed after thermal aging. Mechanical properties of the PPP laminate improve with
aging as clearly shown by Figure 2-24 (data corresponding to samples aged at 110qC).
It should be noted that the cable has experienced this improvement during the drying/
impregnation cycle during cable manufacturing.
The degradation of tensile strength in aged PPP was slow and it showed a peculiar
increase in the 1,000-hour sample aged at 140qC. In samples aged at 120qC and 130qC,
the tensile strength remained nearly constant before decreasing at increasing aging
time. In the case of the sample aged at 140qC, the tensile strength decreased more
gradually with increasing aging time.
2-36
13514801
Table 2-12
Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Aging in Dichevrol 3000 at 110qC and 200 psia
Aging Breaking Elongation TEA Tensile St. Burst Load Finch M.I.T. Wet-Tensile
(hrs) Load (%) (lb-ft) (psi) (lb) Tear Folding (psi)
(lb) (lb) (# d-folds)
Paper-Prolypropylene-Paper
Blank 52.4r3.0 1.260r0.2 0.364r0.07 9,707 60.7r10 14.9

960 57.6r3.0 1.550r0.1 0.528r0.06 10,657 64.0r6 6.4
1,920 49.6r2.0 1.100r0.1 0.296r0.03 9,180 45.3r3

2,976 48.7r2.9 1.000r0.1 0.268r0.03 9,009 29.5r10 5.3
3,912 48.0r2.9 0.980r0.0 0.248r0.02 8,889 29.0r9 4.7
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 30.4r2.9 1.461r0.2 0.250r0.05 8,453 32.8r7

960 31.4r2.1 1.276r0.1 0.235r0.04 8,719 30.6r9
1,920 27.4r1.9 1.000r0.1 0.153r0.02 7,606 26.5r11
2,976 26.2r2.9 0.930r0.1 0.126r0.02 7,283 22.5r12
3,912 25.9r2.2 0.920r0.1 0.123r0.02 7,194 22.1r5
Paper
Blank 19.9r1.6 1.259r0.1 0.149r0.03 11,072 15.4r9 2.1 12,474 1,222

960 18.7r1.2 1.070r.1 0.122r0.02 10,389 14.9r6 1.3 7,937 7,444
1,920 17.6r0.7 0.790r0.0 0.086r0.01 9,778 10.1r9 5,769 7,667
2,976 16.9r0.4 0.774r0.0 0.075r0.00 9,406 7.5r11 1.2 2,543 7,222
3,912 16.3r1.0 0.720r0.1 0.065r0.01 9,056 4.9r7 0.9 1,450 7,000
Polypropylene
Blank 9.6 11.650 0.975 5,333 14.8

960 10.1 2.765 0.212 5,611 3.0
2,976 10.3 2.440 0.177 5,722 2.5
3,912 10.1 2.065 0.148 5,611 2.0
2-37
13514801
Table 2-13
Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Aging in Dichevrol 3000 at 120qC and 200 psia
Aging Breaking Load Elongation TEA Dry Tensile Burst Load Finch Tear M.I.T. Wet-Tensile
(hrs) (lb) (%) (lb-ft) (psi) (lb) (lb) Folding (psi)
(# d-folds)
Paper-Prolypropylene-Paper
Blank 52.4r3.0 1.260r0.2 0.364r0.07 9,707 60.7r10 14.9

480 51.2r2.3 1.370r0.1 0.411r0.04 9,480 50.9r10 5.8
1,200 52.9r2.7 1.301r0.1 0.399r0.05 9,796 50.2r11 5.1
3,192 45.9r2.1 0.910r0.1 0.215r0.02 8,496 30.5r7 4.5
4,152 44.0r2.9 0.900r0.0 0.200r0.02 8,148 28.9r9 3.6
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 30.4r2.9 1.461r0.2 0.250r0.05 8,453 33r7

480 30.6r1.6 1.211r0.1 0.211r0.03 8,497 31r10
1,200 29.6r1.6 1.204r0.1 0.204r0.04 8,211 37r12
3,192 24.8r1.9 0.858r0.1 0.108r0.02 6,878 19r10
4,152 22.2r2.2 0.760r0.1 0.091r0.02 9,175 15r5
Paper
Blank 19.9r1.6 1.259r0.1 0.149r0.03 11,072 15r9 2.1 12,474 1,222

480 19.6r0.9 1.117r0.1 0.128r0.01 10,816 15r10 1.4 7,933 5,567
1,200 17.5r0.4 0.096r0.1 0.091r0.01 9,722 13r10 1.3 4,400 7,722
3,192 16.3r0.6 0.674r0.0 0.059r0.00 9,056 7r11 0.9 2,435 5,889
4,152 12.1r0.9 0.570r0.0 0.043r0.01 6,733 4r11 0.7 1,250 5,222
Polypropylene
Blank 9.6 11.650 0.975 5,333 13.6

480 10.0 3.013 0.233 5,556 3.4
1,200 10.0 2.760 0.211 5,556 2.8
3,192 10.1 2.320 0.162 5,611 2.0
4,152 9.9 1.880 0.127 5,500 1.6
2-38
13514801
Table 2-14
Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Thermal Aging in Dichevrol 3000
at 130qC and 200 psia
Aging Breaking Load Elongation TEA Dry Tensile Burst Load Finch Tear M.I.T. Wet-Tensile
(hrs) (lb) (%) (lb-ft) (psi) (lb) (lb) Folding (psi)
(# d-folds)
Paper-Polypropylene-Paper
Blank 52.4r3.0 1.260r0.2 0.364r0.07 9,707 60.7r10 14.9

360 52.5r3.2 1.323r0.1 0.395r0.05 9,726 54.2r10 5.25
840 43.2r2.6 0.960r0.1 0.228r0.03 8,004 39.8r5 4.35
1,560 37.5r2.9 0.750r0.0 0.139r0.02 6,943 26.3r9 3.15
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 30.4r2.9 1.461r0.2 0.250r0.05 8,453 32.8r7

360 28.8r2.9 1.042r0.2 0165r0.05 7,839 24.9r9
840 26.0r1.1 0.962r0.1 0.136r0.02 7,211 22.3r6
1,560 21.2r2.2 0.710r0.1 0.081r0.02 5,889 12.0r5
Paper
Blank 19.9r1.6 1.259r0.1 0.149r0.03 11,072 15.4r9 2.1 12,472 1,222

360 17.1r1.6 0.939r0.1 0.088r0.09 9,478 10.2r3 1.2 3,606 6,500
840 13.8r1.7 0.599r0.1 0.047r0.01 7,667 6.2r10 0.9 1,675 5,500
1,560 12.1r1.0 0.584r0.1 0.042r0.01 6,694 4.25r7 0.6 860 4,222
Polypropylene
Blank 9.6 11.650 0.975 5,333 14.8

360 9.1 2.250 0.165 5,056 2.2
840 10.0 1.580 0.107 5,556 1.7
1,560 9.5 1.10 0.095 5,278 0.9
2-39
13514801
Table 2-15
Mechanical Properties of Jen-Coat After Thermal Aging in Dichevrrol 3000 at 140qC and 200
psia
Aging Breaking Load Elongation (%) TEA Dry Tensile Burst Load Finch Tear M.I.T. Wet-Tensile
(hrs) (lb) (lb-ft) (psi) (lb) (lb) Folding (psi)
(# d-folds)
Fresh 54.8r3.1 1.650r0.2 0.581r0.10 10,148 61.0r1 20.4
Blank 52.4r3.0 1.260r0.2 0.364r0.07 9,707 60.7r10 14.9
120 49.5r3.2 1.179r0.2 0.338r0.07 9,169 47.8r13 4.7
360 37.4r2.9 0.747r0.1 0.143r0.03 6,921 19.3r13
720 30.1r2.2 0.573r0.1 0.089r0.01 5,578 16.9r8 1.5
1,200 23.3r3.5 0.396r0.1 0.047r0.01 4,307 13.0r11 1.0
Paper-Polypropylene
Fresh 28.1r2.5 1.230r0.2 0.220r0.06 7,806 30.9r3
Blank 30.4r2.9 1.460r0.2 0.250r0.05 8,453 32.8r7
120 27.9r2.4 1.07r0.1 0.170r0.03 7,758 24.5r10
360 19.4r2.1 0.651r0.1 0.068r0.02 5,386 13.6r5
720 17.3r1.6 0.540r0.1 0.049r0.01 4,817 9.5r7
1,200 16.1r1.3 0.440r0.0 0.036r0.01 4,467 7.3r9
Paper
Fresh 17.92.1 1.010r0.2 0.110r0.03 9,944 14.5r2 2.0 12,058 778
Blank 19.91.6 1.259r0.1 0.149r0.03 11,072 15.4r9 2.1 12,474 1,222
120 17.1r0.9 0.833r0.1 0.082r0.01 9,522 10.2r8 1.1 4,921 5,944
360 9.3r1.4 0.421r0.1 0.021r0.01 5,189 5.0r7 672 3,611
720 8.6r0.7 0.356r0.0 0.016r0.00 4,783 3.0r5 0.4 15 1,700
1,200 7.2r1.2 0.272r0.1 0.010r0.00 4,022 0.0 0.3 3 1,244
Polypropylene
Fresh 9.6 19.5 0.975 5,333 12.5
Blank 9.6 11.650 0.129 5,306 2.0
360 9.0 2.005 0.106
360 9.0 1.755 0.106 4.972
720 8.8 1.165 0.058 4.861 1.6
1,200 7.1 0.915 0.038 3,944 1.0
2-40
13514801
Table 2-16
Degree of Crystallinity for Polypropylene (PP) Samples Aged at 110qC
Sample Description Degree of Crystallinity by DSC
Fresh As-Received 65.8%
Dried at 115qC for 24 hours 84.7%
Dried & Aged for 40 days 86.9%
The tensile strength of paper delaminated from aged PPP showed a gradual decrease at
increasing aging time for all temperatures. The tensile strength for PP delaminated
from aged PPP at 110qC, 120qC and 130qC showed a rapid initial increase followed by a
steady value at increasing aging time. The sample aged at 140qC showed a gradual
decrease in tensile strength at increasing aging time.
Elongation Considerations. Elongation corresponds to the total increase in the

longitudinal dimension of the strip at the failure point. It is expressed as percent
increase respect to the initial sample length. The elongation of PPP, which is a measure
of elasticity, showed an initial increase followed by a decrease in the samples aged at
110qC and 120qC, while a gradual decrease was observed for samples aged at 130qC
and 140qC. The paper delaminated from the aged PPP showed a gradual decrease with
aging at all temperatures.
The elongation of PP delaminated from the aged PPP laminate showed an abrupt initial
decrease at all temperatures, as shown in tables 2-12 through 2-15. After the rapid
initial decrease, a much slower loss in elongation was observed with increasing aging
times. This reduction in elongation is likely associated with the rapid increase in
degree of crystallinity as measured for the 110qC samples (Table 2-12). The rapid
reduction in elongation observed for PP was not observed for the PPP laminate which,
to the contrary, showed an initial increase at 110qC and 120qC. Although this seems
contradictory, the rapid decrease in elongation of PP is caused by the strengthening of
this material resulting in an overall strengthening of the PPP laminate.
2-41
13514801
Tensile Energy Absorption (TEA) Considerations. Tensile energy absorption

corresponds to the area under the stress-strain curve as the paper is stretched to
rupture. Tensile energy absorption combines tensile strength and elongation and is a
measure of the toughness of the material. The increase of either the tensile strength or
the elongation results in an increase in TEA. Increase of both tensile strength and
elongation produces an even larger increase in TEA. This effect is clearly shown in
Figure 2-20 for the aging of PPP laminate at 110qC where and abrupt initial increase in
TEA was observed due to the combined increase in tensile and elongation. The initial
increase in TEA for the 120qC sample (Figure 2-21) is not so large, despite of the
increase in elongation, because the tensile strength was slightly lower. An even smaller
increase in TEA was observed for the sample at 130qC due to the even smaller increase
in elongation, Figure 2-22. Finally, a gradual decrease in TEA was observed for the
sample aged at 140qC, as shown in Figure 2-22. In the case of paper delaminated from
aged PPP, both tensile strength and elongation decrease simultaneously, therefore,
causing TEA to decrease gradually with increasing aging time.
Burst Strength Considerations. The bursting load of PPP laminate only showed a
slight increase at the beginning of the aging work at 110qC. At higher temperatures,
burst strength decreases gradually. Burst strength is the property most affected by
thermal aging of PPP material.
Wet Tensile Considerations. Wet tensile strength, which is determined from the
breaking load of a water-soaked paper strip expressed per unit cross section of dry
strip, has a particular significance for the determination of paper insulation age6.
Although this physical property cannot be measured directly on PPP and it is not
related to the strength of PPP laminate, wet tensile performed on paper layers
delaminated from aged PPP is a useful age determining parameter.
Wet tensile, as shown in Figure 2-32, shows an initially rapid increase followed by a
slower decrease, at increasing aging time. Measurements of wet tensile strength were
performed according to TAPII Method T 456 om-87.
Wet tensile shows the most significant increase during thermal aging. The reason for
this increase has been known for some time and is reported in the literature.7 8 This is
6
. Singh, N., Morel, O.E., Singh, S.K. and Rodenbaugh, T.J., “The Assessment of the Degree of Paper and
Remaining Life of Fluid-Filled Paper-Insulated High Voltage Underground Transmission Cable Through
Wet-Tensile Strength”, pp 443-447, Proc. EEIC, Chicago, September (1995)
7
. Graminski, E. L., “The Stress-Strain Behavior of Accelerated and Naturally Aged Papers”, Tappi, Vol.
53, No. 3, pp. 406 (1970)
8
. Black, E. L., Pulp Paper Mag. Can. 68 (4): T 165 (1967)
2-42
13514801
believed to be the result of either an increase in the degree of crystallinity of cellulose or

the formation of intermolecular crosslinks between the cellulosic fibers. According to
Back9, heat treatment of cellulosic papers results in the increase of wet tensile and
reduction of hygroexpansivity due to the formation of intermolecular hemiacetal
linkages. The accelerated aging study by Graminski10 on 18 different commercial
papers, covering the spectrum from newsprint to all-rag ledger paper, confirmed the
strengthening of wet tensile strength. Graminski's work also supported that the
strengthening of wet tensile strength is not only peculiar to papers undergoing
accelerated aging but it is also observed in naturally aged papers, a consideration of
interest to service cables.
Figure 2-16
Loss in mechanical strength of PPP laminate after thermal aging at 110°C.
9
Murphy, E.J., J. Polym. Sci., 58, 649 (1962), Trans. Electrochem. Soc. Vol. 83, 161, 1943.
10
Lawson, W.G., Simmons, M.A. and Gale, P.S., “Thermal Aging of Cellulose Paper Insulation”, IEEE
2-43
13514801
Figure 2-17
Loss in mechanical strength of PPP laminate after thermal aging at 120°C
Figure 2-18
2-44
13514801
Figure 2-19
Figure 2-20
Loss in mechanical strength of paper delaminated from PPP aged at 110°C
2-45
13514801
1.6
1.4
PPP Paper
1.2
Conversion
1
f = 0.45
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-21
1.2
1.0
PPP Paper
0.8
Conversion
f = 0.35
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-22
Loss in mechanical strength of paper delaminted from PPP aged at 130°C
2-46
13514801
1.6
1.4
PPP Paper
1.2
Conversion
1
f = 0.45
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-23
The data shown in Figure 2-32 indicates that a slow decrease in wet tensile strength
follows the rapid initial increase. The rate of increase (positive slope of the property
v/s time) as well as the rate of decrease (negative slope of the property v/s time) are
affected by aging temperature with both rates increasing with increasing aging
temperature. Also observed in these data is the fact that the value of wet tensile
strength maximum increases with decreasing aging temperature. This behavior seems
to agree with a degradation mechanism, including no less than two separate
temperature activated reaction mechanisms. One mechanism controlling the formation
of intermolecular linkages while a second one controlling the degradation of the
cellulose fiber strength through depolymerization reactions. The combination of these
two mechanisms can result in an initial increase in wet tensile strength with a
subsequent decay as the fibers begin to weaken.
Since the reactions involved are strongly temperature dependent, the rapid degradation
of fiber strength at elevated temperature does not allow the full utilization of the newly
formed intermolecular linkages. That is, even though an increase in the bonding
between fibers takes place, the rapid degradation of the fibers results in a early loss of
wet paper strength. At low temperature, on the other hand, the somewhat slower
degradation of the cellulosic fibers allows the better utilization of the increased fiber
bonding, resulting in a higher wet tensile strength maximum. The appearance of the
maximum in wet tensile strength correlates well with temperature, as shown in Figure
2-47
13514801
2-33. In this plot the logarithm of the reciprocal of the time for the observation of the
maximum was correlated to the reciprocal of the aging temperature in degree Kelvin.
The slope of this line, which corresponds to the activation energy divided by the gas
constant, is as high as 34.0 kcal/mol, indicating an activated chemical process.
Kinetic Study on Physical Strength Properties of PPP laminate. The development

of kinetics for mechanical properties of PPP is essential for the quantitative assessment
of degradation of this material. The data that has been presented above shows that,
although paper provides the base for the physical strength of PPP laminate, the rapid
increase in the degree of crystallinity of PP results in a transient increase in the physical
strength of PPP laminate. As aging progresses, the strength of the PPP laminate
follows a pattern parallel to the degradation of paper.
The initial increase in mechanical strength of PPP could not be modeled given the small
number of data points available during the early stages of the reaction. However, the
gradual changes observed in the degradation of paper delaminated from the aged PPP,
allows the determination of property kinetics and establishment of rate equations.
Corrections can later be introduced to the rate equations representing the degradation
of paper to accommodate the transient strengthening of the PPP laminate.
The degradation of physical strength of paper can be simulated by:
dP
= − kP (eq. 2-6)
dt
where P stands for the instantaneous value of the physical strength parameter, t is
aging time and k the rate constant. This expression indicates that the reduction of the
physical strength varies proportional to the amount of strength remaining. Integration
of the eq. 2-6, results in
P = Po exp(− kt ) (eq. 2-7)
where Po is the initial property magnitude. By defining D as the fraction of property

remaining,
P
α= (eq. 2-8)
Po
equation eq. 2-7 can be written as:
α = exp(− kt ) (eq. 2-9)
2-48
13514801
Equation 2-9 indicates that mechanical properties should decay in an exponential

manner as a function of aging temperature. Transformation of mechanical strength
data into fractional conversion was made utilizing the strength values of blank samples
and the results are given in tables 2-12 through 2-15. Fractional conversions of
mechanical properties are given on tables 2-17 through 2-20. According to eq. 2-9,
graphical representations for tensile strength, TEA, folding endurance and burst
strength are given in tables 2-34 through 2-37.
The temperature functionality of the rate constant (k) is usually well represented by the
Arrhenius equation, as follows:
B
k (T ) = A exp( − ) (eq. 2-10)
T
where A is the pre-exponential factor and B = E/R with E the activation energy and R
the universal gas constant. This equation commonly utilized to express the
temperature functionality of fundamental single chemical reactions. Since paper
degradation involves several and complex reactions, we have chosen to write eq. 2-10
in terms of B (Kelvin) and not in terms of E (cal/mol)/R (cal/mol-K).
The temperature correlation for rate constants for all the mentioned mechanical
properties are shown in Figure 2-28. The kinetic parameters are shown in Table 2-21.
The rate constant k for the degradation of an specific property can be calculated by
substituting in eq. 2-9 the values from Table 2-21. Replacing the value of k on eq. 2-9
allows the estimation of the fraction of property left in paper after any given service
time.
In the estimation of the loss in mechanical strength of the PPP composite a major
difficulty was encountered with the rapid strengthening of the material early on during
the aging process. Our experimental data indicated that the thermal degradation of the
paper component of the PPP appears to be significantly faster than the deterioration of
the PPP laminate. Although most of the strength in PPP originates from the paper, the
degradation of the laminate appears to be much slower than that of the paper forming
part of the PPP composite. This effect if even more surprising at early stages of thermal
aging at low temperature where the strength of the slightly aged material is markedly
higher than each of its parts, paper and PP.
Lack of data impeded the formulation of a kinetic model for the strengthening period
of the PPP laminate. However, by multiplying the rate of constant for the degradation
of paper by a fudge factor (f < 1), as shown in figures 2-29 to 2-32, the paper
degradation model could be forced to fit the data representing the degradation of PPP
laminate, except for the strengthening period. Notice that the strengthening is more
2-49
13514801
evident at low temperatures than at high temperatures. The correction factor is

indicated in these plots by the f number. Large f numbers were needed at low
temperatures, whereas a smaller correction was needed at high temperatures. A small f
number means that the rate of PPP degradation is slower than that of paper, with f=1
both rates are equal.
Discussion of Results. The data obtained in this work for the aging of paper
delaminated from PPP are compared with the previous work by Detroit Edison (EPRI
EL-7488-L) as well as Pirelli General. The study sponsored by EPRI corresponded to
the aging of kraft paper in polybutene fluids under 200 psi pressure while the work by
Pirelli General corresponded to aging of kraft paper in dodecyl benzene under low
pressure nitrogen headspace.
Data from these sources are shown in Table 2-22 in the form of rates for the
degradation of tensile strength, folding endurance and burst strength at three different
temperatures. The rate constants are first order are given in hours-1. For easy
comparison the rates have been multiplied by a factor of 105.
2-50
13514801
Table 2-17
Fractional loss of mechanical strength of PPP laminate aged at 110qC
Time Tensile Burst Finch Folding

(days) Strength TEA Elongation Strength Tear Strength
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
906 1.100 1.450 1.230 1.055 0.428
1,920 0.950 0.810 0.870 0.746
2,976 .930 0.740 0.790 0.486 0357
3,912 .920 0.680 0.780 0.478 0.313
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
906 1.032 0.938 0.873 0.934
1,920 0.900 0.611 0.684 0.810
2,976 0.862 0.503 0.637 0.687
3,912 0.851 0.491 0.630 0.675
Paper
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
906 0.938 0.817 0.850 0.969 0.614 0.636
1,920 0.883 0.576 0.627 0.658 0.436
2,976 0.849 0.503 0.615 0.488 0.581 0.204
3,912 0.818 0.436 0.572 0.319 0.424 0.116
Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
906 1.050 0.220 0.240 0.221
2,976 1.070 0.180 0.210 0.186
3,912 1.050 0.150 0.180 0.149
2-51
13514801
Table 2-18

Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
480 0.980 1.130 1.090 0.839 0.391
1,200 1.010 1.100 1.030 0.827 0.345
3,192 0.880 0.590 0.720 0.503 0.301
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
480 1.005 0.843 0.829 0.947
1,200 0.971 0.815 0.824 0.824
3,192 0.814 0.431 0.587 0.565
4,152 0.731 0.363 0.520 0.470
Paper
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
480 0.981 0.856 0.887 0.976 0.686 0.636
1,200 0.878 0.672 0.765 0.876 0.595 0.353
3,192 0.818 0.394 0.535 0.423 0.419 0.195
4,152 0.608 0.288 0.453 0.273 0.343 0.100
Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
480 1.040 0.240 0.260 0.252
1,200 1.040 0.220 0.240 0.204
3,192 1.050 0.170 0.200 0.148
4,152 1.030 0.130 0.160 0.116
2-52
13514801
Table 2-19

Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
360 1.002 1.086 1.050 0.893 0.352
840 0.824 0.626 0.762 0.656 0.292
1,560 0.715 0.382 0.595 0.433 0.211
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
360 0.927 0.657 0.713 0.761
840 0.853 0.542 0.658 0.680
1,560 0.697 0.323 0.486 0.366
Paper
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
360 0.856 1.098 0.746 0.665 0.571 0.289
840 0.692 0.284 0.476 0.401 0.414 0.134
1,560 0.605 0.281 0.464 0.273 0.295 0.069
Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
360 0.950 0.170 0.220 0.161
840 0.950 0.110 0.140 0.125
1,560 0.990 0.100 0.090 0.066
2-53
13514801
Table 2-20

Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
120 0.944 0.930 0.936 0.788 0.315
360 0.692 0.393 0.593 0.318
720 0.575 0.244 0.455 0.278 0.101
1,200 0.444 0.192 0.314 0.214 0.069
Paper-Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
120 0.918 0.677 0.733 0.747
360 0.637 0.271 0.445 0.414
720 0.570 0.194 0.370 0.289
1,200 0.528 0.144 0.301 0.221
Paper
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
120 0.860 0.536 0.662 0.666 0.500 0.395
360 0.469 0.137 0.334 0.325 0.054
720 0.432 0.105 0.283 0.195 0.181 0.001
1,200 0.363 0.066 0.216 0.138
Polypropylene
Blank 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
120 0.995 0.132 0.172 0.315
360 0.932 0.109 0.151
720 0.911 0.059 0.100 0.101
1,200 0.724 0.039 0.079 0.069
2-54
13514801
Figure 2-24
Tensile strength of paper delaminated from PPP as a function of aging time for
selected temperature
Figure 2-25
Tensile energy absorption (TEA) of paper delaminated from PPP as a function of
aging time for selected temperatures
2-55
13514801
Figure 2-26
Folding endurance of paper deleminated from PPP as a function of aging time for
Figure 2-27
Burst strength for paper delaminated from PPP as a function of aging time for
2-56
13514801
Figure 2-28
Arrhenius plot for selected physical properties of paper delaminated from PPP
after thermal aging. Kinetic parameters are listed in Table 2-21
Table 2-21
Arrhenius parameters for the rates of loss in selected mechanical properties of
paper delaminated from PPP after thermal aging.
Rate = A exp(-B/T) (1/hrs)
Property A B
12
Tensile strength 3.10x10 14,825
12
Burst strength 1.76x10 14,100
16
Folding endurance 3.93x10 17,826
10
Tensile Energy Absorption (TEA) 4.68x10 12,712
2-57
13514801
Considering the diversity of papers, fluids and experimental conditions under which
these studies were performed, good agreement among these data was observed. The
results indicate aging conditions do not significantly affect paper aging. For instance,
although the aging of dry paper under nitrogen seems to proceed at a slower rate for
tensile strength and folding endurance, it does not hold true for burst strength.
Similarly, paper in PPP laminate seems to loose tensile and folding endurance at a rate
slower than regular paper. However, this does not hold for burst strength.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Gas evolution
x Gas yield from thermal aging of fluid-impregnated PPP laminate, corrected by the
gas yield of fluid alone aged under identical condition, shows that the presence of
PPP leads to the generation of large amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon
monoxide and a significant reduction in the yield of isobutylene and hydrogen. The
yield of other gases is not affected by the presence of the polypropylene film.
The accumulation rates for carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide obtained during this
work agree within an order of magnitude with the rates reported in the previous EPRI
report EL-7488-L11 for dry paper utilizing a differential flow reactor.
x This indicates that the mechanism of carbon oxide generation is not significantly
altered by the presence of the cable fluid.
x The activation energies for the rates of generations of carbon dioxide and carbon
monoxide are within the range expected for chemical reactions.
x The methane to hydrogen ratio increases with temperature and is slightly higher
11
than that reported for a lighter polybutene cable fluid (06EG, 500 SUS @ 100qF).
x The isobutylene to methane and propane to propylene ratios are slightly lower than
those reported for 06 EG polybutene cable fluid.
x The ethane to ethylene and propane to propylene ratios indicate that the relative
concentration of the unsaturated hydrocarbon increases respect to the saturated
hydrocarbon at increasing fluid temperatures.
11
2-58
13514801
x Thermal degradation of peroxides, which are present in polybutenes fluids

contribute to gas generation. Similar gas ratios are produced in polybutenes of
different viscosities and hence these gases might originate from similar peroxides
compounds present in all polybutene fluids. These ratios hold potential as
temperature markers in fluid equipment.
Degradation of PPP laminate and paper
x In comparison to paper, the mechanical strength of PPP laminate shows an initial

increase followed by a gradual decrease with aging time. This was observed at all
temperatures studied. The strengthening effect in PPP laminate is believed to be
due to the rapid embrittlement of polypropylene film when exposed temperature.
This embrittlement was confirmed by a rapid increase in the degree of crystallinity
of polypropylene as this material was exposed to a drying cycle of 115qC for 24
hours. Subsequent aging at 110qC, for up to 163 days, showed only a marginal
increase in degree of crystallinity.
x The effect of embrittlement of polypropylene was also observed during tensile

strength determination for polypropylene. The fresh polypropylene was too elastic
to allow the determination of its breaking load under tensile stress. However, after
exposure to 115qC for 24 hours, the determination of the breaking load and
elongation of this polymer was possible.
x Compared to paper, PPP laminate does not lend itself to the measurements as many
mechanical properties during aging studies. Based on TEA (tensile energy
absorption) measurements, it is noteworthy that the rate of deterioration of PPP
laminate is 65% to 15% slower than that for paper, depending on the aging
temperature. The lower the aging temperature, the slower the rate of TEA loss is in
comparison to paper.
x Considering that the normal an emergency temperatures for pipe-type cables do not
exceed 105qC, the strength developed in PPP laminate during the drying and
impregnation cycle and subsequent operation renders this insulating material
stronger than paper. In addition, PPP experiences a lower loss in mechanical
strength compared to paper.
2-59
13514801
1.6
1.4
PPP Paper
1.2
Conversion
1
f = 0.45
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-29
Loss of TEA in PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 110°C. Actual data
shown by squares, results of the degradation model shown by solid lines
1.2
1.0
PPP Paper
Conversion
0.8
f = 0.35
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 500
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-30
Loss of TEA in PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 120°C. Refer to
Figure 2-29
2-60
13514801
1.2
PPP Paper
1
0.8
Conversion
f = 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-31
Loss in TEA of PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 130°C. Refer to
Figure 2-29
PPP Paper
0.8
Conversion
0.6
0.4 f = 0.85
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Aging Time (hours)
Figure 2-32
Loss in TEA of PPP and paper delaminated from PPP aged at 140°C. Refer to
Figure 2-29
2-61
13514801
Table 2-22
Comparison of paper degradation rates
Property/Rate Constant (1/hrs)x10-5 120qC 110qC 80qC
Tensile Strength
This work: paper delaminated from PPP aged at 200 psia 13.1 4.88 0.18
EPRI EL-7488-L12: Paper aged in cable fluid at 200 psia 18.2 7.11 0.31
Pirelli General13: Paper aged in nitrogen at atmospheric press. 7.86 2.87 0.10
Pirelli General14: Paper aged in cable fluid at sub-atmospheric press. 16.8 6.12 0.21
Folding Endurance
EPRI EL-7488-L: Paper aged in cable fluid at 200 psia 106.5 31.8 0.56
Pirelli General: Paper aged in nitrogen at atmospheric press. 103.0 27.1 0.32
Pirelli General: Paper aged in cable fluid at sub-atmospheric press. - - -
Burst Strength
EPRI EL-7488-L: Paper aged in cable fluid at 200 psia 21.8 6.86 0.14
Pirelli General: Paper aged in nitrogen at atmospheric press. 27.9 12.1 0.73
Pirelli General: Paper aged in cable fluid at sub-atmospheric press. 22.3 8.09 0.28
12
13
Lawson, W.G., Simmons, M.A. and Gale, P.S., “Thermal Aging of Cellulose Paper Insulation”, IEEE
14
Head, J. C., Gale, P. S., Skipper, A.W. and Stannett, A.W.,“Ageing of Oil-Filled Cable Insulation”,
CIGRE, Paris (1980).
2-62
13514801
3
MEASUREMENT OF GAS PERMEABILITY THROUGH
PPP LAMINATE
Introduction
Mechanisms of gas migration through the insulation wall was addressed through the
determination of gas permeation rates through fluid-impregnated PPP tapes. Kraft
paper utilized in HV insulation is a relatively porous material while polypropylene
(PP) which forms part of about 1/3 of the insulation wall of a cable, is essentially non-
porous. The influence of the PP layers on the overall gas migration rate through the
insulation wall is essential to the application of DGA to HPFF cables with PPP
insulation.
The rates of gas permeation through impregnated PPP laminate for a number of gases
within a temperature range applicable to HPFF cables are presented. Since rates of gas
permeation can only be utilized to calculate actual migration rates through the
insulation in the absence of bulk movement of the impregnation fluid, the effect of
thermal cycling on the displacement of impregnation fluid was also addressed.
The process of gas migration through the insulation wall has mostly been assumed to
be a process controlled by the rates of molecular diffusion through the stagnant
impregnation fluid. However, temperatures changes in the insulation wall bring about
density changes in the impregnation fluid due to load cycling. Excess fluid is pushed
out of the insulation wall into the cable pipe, as the density of the impregnation fluid
decreases with increasing temperature (net increase in volume).
The reverse situation dominates when the cable cools, pipe fluid is forced into the
insulation wall to replenish the fluid lost during expansion. This fluid exchange, which
is believed to be limited to the outer sections of the wall, results on a positive
displacement of gases from the insulation wall to the cable pipe. Consequently, the
evolved gases accumulate in the pipe fluid.
The gases generated in the insulation are expected to slowly move into areas of low gas
concentration by mechanisms involving molecular diffusion and/or thermal flow.
Under the DGA view point, it is important to know the time any given gas takes to
3-1
13514801
Measurement of Gas Permeability Through PPP Laminate
traverse the insulation wall from the point of origin to the pipe space. This information
is important to the application of DGA since the possibility exists that the insulation
may act as a molecular barrier whereby light gases traverse the wall faster than heavier
gases resulting in gas discrimination.
Thermal flow is the internal movement of the impregnation fluid in the insulation wall
associated with density variations resulting from changes in cable temperature.
Molecular diffusion is controlled by the magnitude of gas concentration gradients and
respective diffusion coefficients. Whereas molecular diffusion is strongly dependent on
the nature of the gas and temperature, thermal flow depends on the differences of
thermal expansion coefficients among the materials present in the insulation wall, i.e.
PPP and impregnation fluid.
Diffusion rates can be calculated provided diffusion coefficients and gas concentration
are available. The estimation of diffusion rates requires the solution of transport
equations under conditions of varying temperature and in the presence of butt gaps.
The scope of this project was to determine the effective diffusion coefficient for a
number of gases through fluid-impregnated PPP which corresponds to the first step in
the determination of gas diffusion rates and gas residence times within the insulation
wall.
High limits for the residence time of gases in the insulation can be estimated assuming
that molecular diffusion is the only viable mechanism of transport throughout the
entire insulation. However, the residence times estimated solely from molecular
diffusion can be shortened considerably by the action of thermal flow.
In this work, permeation data are presented for several components of PPP laminate:
dry paper, impregnated paper, dry PP and impregnated PPP. Diffusion coefficients
were calculated from the permeation data and comparison was made with materials
utilized in other paper cables. It was found that gas permeation in PPP cables is limited
by the low air permeability paper utilized in PPP and not by the PP film.
Finally, to quantify the importance of thermal flow in gas transport through the
insulation a model of fluid flow movement was designed. Volume expansion was
accounted for layer by layer within the controlled insulation volume. The controlled
volume was represented by a 12-inch long section of cable.
Experimental
Thin PPP, paper and polymeric laminates, 3 in. in diameter, were placed between two
o-ring sealed cavities in a stainless steel cell. A permeate gas was maintained at
constant pressure in one of cavities, while a stream of carrier gas (helium) was passed
over the other side to carry the gas permeating through the laminated to a gas
chromatograph. The concentration of the permeate in the carrier gas was determined
3-2
13514801
by directing a portion of the carrier gas into a gas chromatograph separating column.
Both cavities were kept at equal pressure to eliminate laminate deformation and
eliminate the possibility of dynamic flow.
The permeation rate of gas through the laminate was calculated from the carrier flow
rate and gas concentration. It should be noted that in some cases highly sensitive gas
detection system was needed to determine the very low permeate concentration in the
carrier gas. The permeate concentration in the carrier gas was initially adjusted by
varying the exposed surface area of the film.
Theoretical
The permeability coefficient (PM) was calculated from eq. 3-1, below15,16,17,18
PM ( Pi ,1 − Pi , 2 )
Ni = (eq. 3-1)
Z
2
where Ni is the permeation flux gas through the laminate in moles per seconds per cm ,
PM is the permeability coefficient, Pi,1-2 is the partial pressure of the permeate gas in sides
1 and 2, respectively, and Z is the laminate thickness. The partial pressure of the
permeate on side 2 was assumed to be zero. This is indeed an acceptable
approximation since actual permeate concentrations were in the order of 20 ppm or
less.
De (Ci ,1 − Ci ,2 )
Ni = (eq. 3-2)
Z
15
Singh, N. Morel, O. E., Butucel, B. and Rochon, M. in “Development of an Oil Deterioration Test Method
to Monitor Condition of High-Pressure Fluid-Filled Paper Cable”, EPRI-EL7488-L, November (1991).
16
Kesting, R.E. and Fritzsche, A. K. In “Polymeric Gas Separation Membranes”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1993).
17
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. And Lightfoot, E. N. In “Transport Phenomena”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York (1960).
18
Hines, A. L. And Maddox, R. N. In “Mass Transfer, Fundamentals and Applications”, Prentice Hall, Inc.,
New Jersey (1985).
3-3
13514801
where De is the effective diffusion coefficient in cm2/sec and Ci the surface

concentration of the permeate in moles per cm3. From Henry's law, the partial pressure
Pi, can written in terms of the solubility, according to eq. 3-2
Ci = Si Pi (eq. 3-3)
or
Ci
Pi = (eq. 3-4)
Si
Replacing eq. 3-4 into eq. 3-1 and combining with eq. 3-2, we obtain:
PM
De = (eq. 3-5)
Si
This equation shows that by knowing the proportionality constant between the partial
pressure of the permeate and its concentration in the impregnation fluid which is
actually the gas-in-liquid solubility, it is possible relate the permeability coefficient
with the effective diffusion coefficient.
The concept of effective diffusion coefficient was introduced to account for the blocking
effect of the paper fibers to the permeation of gases. It should be pointed out that
cellulose fibers, being impervious to gases, results in a gas blocking effect that leads to
the reduction of the geometrical transference area and an elongation of the diffusion
path when compared to the actual thickness of the material. The elongation of the
diffusion path is associated with the fact that the actual path of the permeating
molecules is around the cellulosic fibers constituting the paper. All these terms can be
grouped in the following equation:
θ
De = D (eq. 3-6)
δ
where T is the paper porosity and G the tortuosity. Porosity is the fraction of void space
in the total volume of material while tortuosity is associated with the length of the non-
linear paths of the permeate molecule as they traverse the thin film of material. The
tortuosity for paper is usually several factors larger than the actual laminate thickness.
3-4
13514801
Results
Data showing permeability and effective diffusion coefficients are given in tables 3-1
and 3-2 for Jen-Coat 6 mil and Jen-Coat 4 mil, respectively. All these data were
obtained with Jen-Coat PPP laminate after vacuum impregnation with Dichevrol 3000
fluid. The columns in these tables show the permeate gas, its permeability in three
different units, gas solubility and effective diffusion coefficient. In all cases the
permeability and diffusion coefficient increased with temperature.
For the same material, gases can be organized from higher to lower permeability at a
temperature of 50qC:
H2 > isoC4H8 >> C3H8 t C2H2 > CH4 t C2H6 t C2H4 t CO2 t CO
and diffusivity at a temperature of 50qC:
H2 >> CO > C2H2 > CH4 > CO2 t C2H4 >C2H6 > isoC4H8 t C3H8
3-5
13514801
Table 3-1
Gas permeability and effective diffusivity through fluid-impregnated (Dichevrol 3000) PPP
Jen-Coat 6 mil for selected gases as a function of temperature
Gas Temperature Permeability Permeability Permeability Solubility Eff. Diffusivity

(qC) (mol/m/s/Pa) (mol/cm/s/atm) (cc/cm/s/atm) (mol//cc/atm) (cm2/sec)
Hydrogen 29.6 1.80E-17 1.82E-14 4.46E-10 6.38E-06 2.86E-09
50.0 2.90E-17 2.94E-14 7.19E-10 7.96E-06 3.69E-09
79.4 5.80E-17 5.88E-14 1.44E-09 1.02E-05 5.74E-09
104.0 8.90E-17 9.02E-14 2.21E-09 1.21E-05 7.44E-09
Carbon Monoxide 33.6 7.30E-19 7.40E-16 1.81E-11 4.91E-06 1.51E-10

49.4 1.80E-18 1.82E-15 4.46E-11 5.10E-06 3.58E-10
79.2 3.80E-18 3.85E-15 9.42E-11 5.40E-06 7.13E-10
101.7 6.70E-18 6.79E-15 1.66E-10 5.59E-06 1.21E-09
Carbon Dioxide 30.5 8.10E-19 8.21E-16 2.01E-11 3.94E-05 2.09E-11

49.5 2.00E-18 2.03E-15 4.96E-11 3.23E-05 6.27E-11
79.4 6.50E-18 6.59E-15 1.61E-10 2.52E-05 2.61E-10
103.3 1.10E-17 1.11E-14 2.73E-10 2.16E-05 5.17E-10
Methane 30.5 7.40E-19 7.50E-16 1.83E-11 1.59E-05 4.72E-11

49.7 2.50E-18 2.53E-15 6.20E-11 1.35E-05 1.88E-10
80.8 8.80E-18 8.92E-15 2.18E-10 1.09E-05 8.16E-10
104.0 1.60E-17 1.62E-14 3.97E-10 9.58E-06 1.69E-09
Acetylene 32.8 2.47E-18 2.50E-15 6.12E-11 1.85E-05 1.36E-10

49.7 4.10E-18 4.15E-15 1.02E-10 1.78E-05 2.33E-10
79.5 1.10E-17 1.08E-14 2.65E-10 1.70E-05 6.39E-10
104.9 1.88E-17 1.90E-14 4.66E-10 1.64E-05 1.16E-09
Ethane 31.4 1.32E-18 1.34E-15 3.27E-11 8.94E-05 1.50E-11

49.6 2.33E-18 2.36E-15 5.78E-11 6.84E-05 3.45E-11
79.5 6.57E-18 6.66E-15 1.63E-10 4.80E-05 1.39E-10
104.7 9.32E-18 9.44E-15 2.31E-10 3.80E-05 2.49E-10
Isobutylene 32.8 1.29E17 1.31E-14 3.20E-10 1.42E-03 9.21E-12

49.6 2.10E17 2.13E-14 5.21E-10 8.70E-04 2.45E-11
79.4 3.79E17 3.84E-14 9.40E-10 4.31E-04 8.91E-11
104.5 5.02E17 5.09E-14 1.24E-09 2.70E-04 1.88E-10
3-6
13514801

Ethylene 30.3 9.40E19 9.52E-16 2.33E-11 5.00E-05 1.90E-11
49.6 2.04E- 2.07E-15 5.06E-11 4.15E-05 4.99E-11
80.1 6.41E-18 6.49E-15 1.59E-10 3.27E-05 1.98E-10
104.8 1.16E-17 1.18E-14 2.88E-10 2.81E-05 4.18E-10
Propane 32.1 3.19E-18 3.23E-15 7.91E-11 4.64E-04 6.97E-12
49.6 5.87E-18 5.95E-15 1.46E-10 3.12E-04 1.91E-11
79.6 1.56E-17 1.58E-14 3.87E-10 1.80E-04 8.77E-11
104.3 2.08E-17 2.11E-14 5.16E-10 1.26E-04 1.67E-10
Table 3-2
Gas permeability and effective diffusivity through fluid-impregnated (Dichevrol 3000) Jen-
Coat 4 mil for selected gases as a function of temperature

Hydrogen 31.9 1.12E-17 1.13E-14 2.78E-10 6.38E-06 1.78E-09

49.7 1.77E-17 1.79E-14 4.39E-10 7.93E-06 2.25E-09
79.5 2.87E-17 2.91E-14 7.11E-10 1.02E-05 2.84E-09
104.7 3.73E-17 3.78E-14 9.25E-10 1.21E-05 3.21E-09
Isobutylene 33.9 6.56E-20 6.65E-17 1.63E-12 1.37E-03 4.85E-014

49.5 1.68E-19 1.70E-16 4.16E-12 8.72E-04 1.95E-13
79.4 5.67E-19 5.75E-16 1.41E-11 4.30E-04 1.34E-12
104.5 9.63E-18 9.76E-15 2.39E-10 2.70E-04 3.61E-11
Propane 59.7 7.65E-20 7.75E-17 1.90E-12 2.55E-04 3.04E-13

69.8 1.13E-19 1.14E-16 2.80E-12 2.12E-04 5.40E-13
79.4 1.88E-19 1.90E-16 4.66E-12 1.81E-04 1.05E-12
89.4 4.37E-19 2.96E-16 7.24E-12 1.55E-04 1.91E-12
104.5 4.43E-16 1.08E-11 1.26E-04 3.52E-12
3-7
13514801
In general, permeability is strongly dependent on the gas solubility in the permeating

material (impregnation fluid). Accordingly, with the exception of hydrogen, the higher
the gas solubility, the higher its permeability. The solubility effect on permeability
derives from the fact that at equal permeate partial pressure and not widely different
diffusion coefficient, a gas with a higher solubility produces a higher surface
concentration on the laminate and, therefore, a greater concentration gradient. This
general tendency does not apply to hydrogen. The low surface concentration of
hydrogen in the film is compensated by its very high mobility.
Diffusivity has a more fundamental significance than permeability and, therefore, more
strongly influenced by molecular size, molecular weight and other gas/liquid
interactions. Accordingly, hydrogen presents the highest diffusivity and isobutylene
and propane the lowest of all the gases studied.
Temperature has a strong effect on both gas permeability and gas diffusivity, as shown
in figures 3-1 through 3-3 for permeability and figure 3-4 through 3-6 for diffusivity.
Note that data for hydrogen are shown in all plots for comparison purposes.
These plots represent the natural logarithm of permeability or diffusivity versus the
reciprocal of the temperature in degree Kelvin (absolute temperature scale). The
corresponding correlation parameters are given in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3
Arrhenius Parameters for Gas Permeation Through PPP Laminate
De = A exp(-B/T)
Gas A E
Hydrogen -14.73 -1,501
Carbon Monoxide -11.48 -3,373
Carbon Dioxide -7.72 -5,103
Methane -5.27 -5,577
Ethane -9.99 -4,539
Ethylene -8.79 -4,867
Acetylene -11.27 -3,507
Propane -8.67 -5,174
Isobutylene -9.42 -4,867
3-8
13514801
In general, gas diffusion through kraft paper is significantly higher than through PPP (6
mil and 4 mil). The diffusion through PPP is smaller than that through kraft paper by
almost one order of magnitude (both materials were fluid-impregnated). However, the
cause for the low gas diffusion through PPP is not due to the presence of the PP
laminate as initially thought, but due to the presence of low permeability paper. As
showed in Table 3-4, the diffusion of isobutylene through the PP film is three orders of
magnitude larger than that through the PPP laminate. However, the paper torn from
both the PPP 6 mil and 4 mil shows a diffusivity much smaller than that of PP film.
Figure 3-1
Permeability of selected gases through Jen-Coat 6 mil as a function of the
reciprocal of temperature
Measurements of air permeation through dry papers supported the earlier finding,
indicating that the air permeability for paper torn from the PPP laminates is orders of
magnitude smaller than that of regular HV kraft paper, refer to Table 3-5.
It should be noted that the term air permeability, as defined in the paper industry,
corresponds to the time in seconds to pass 100 cc of air through a 1 square inch piece of
paper under a pressure of 4.88 inches of water. Accordingly, an increase in time
indicates a reduction in air permeability. The air permeability for some of the papers
selected in this study was available from the manufacturer. As shown in Table 3-5,
these values closely matched those determined experimentally in our laboratory. Air
permeability, as defined above, should not be confused with gas permeability as
3-9
13514801
utilized throughout this work. Air permeability is measured on dry paper and
measures air flow as opposed to diffusion.
Figure 3-2
Permeability of selected gases through Jen-Coat 6 mil as a function of the
Figure 3-3
Permeability of selected gases through fluid impregnated Jen-Coat 4 mil as a
function of the reciprocal of temperature
3-10
13514801
Figure 3-4
Effective diffusivity for selected gases through Jen-Coat 6 mil as a function of the
Figure 3-5
3-11
13514801
Figure 3-6
Table 3-4
Isobutylene Permeation Through Selected Cable Materials
Permeation
Material (mol gas/m-s-Pa) x 1019
PPP Jen-Coat 4 mil 1.7
PPP Jen-Coat 6 mil 210
Paper Delaminated from PPP Jen-Coat 4 mil 31
Paper Delaminated from PPP Jen-Coat 6 mil 500
PP Delaminated from Jen-Coat 6 mil 240,000
Impregnated Kraft Paper 5.4 mil 13,000
Table 3-5
Air Permeation Through Selected Papers at Room
Thickness Manuf. Spec. Actual Flow Rate
Paper (mils) Air Permeation Air Permeation (cc/min)

Delaminated from PPP 4 mil 1.4 580,500 0.84
3-12
13514801
Thickness Manuf. Spec. Actual Flow Rate
Paper (mils) Air Permeation Air Permeation (cc/min)

Delaminated from PPP 6 mil 2.0 55,200 8.75
Paper A 6.0 1,020 967 500
Paper C 4.0 1,900 1,660 291
Paper D 5.4 1,300 1,248 387
Paper G 7.8 1,248 1,017
Paper H 7.2 1,009 485
Air-Perm stands for air permeability expressed in seconds to pass 100 cc air under a constant differential
pressure of 4.88 inches of water
Thermal Expansion of Impregnation Fluid (Thermal Flow)
The magnitude of fluid movement within the insulation can be estimated from the total
volume of fluid resident in the taped insulation and the expected volume expansion
due to changes in temperature (load cycling). Detailed calculations are presented in
this section for a controlled volume equivalent to 1 ft piece of cable. Within this
volume, temperature gradients were considered only in the radial direction and,
therefore, no thermal flow along the axis of the cable and/or insulation wall was
allowed. Furthermore, thermal expansion of paper was considered negligible
compared to that of impregnation fluid.
Since the density of the impregnation fluid is a function of temperature, changes in the
cable temperature lead to expansions and contractions in the impregnation fluid.
Expansion leads to hydrostatic pressure build-up within the insulation and subsequent
fluid movement in the direction of pressure drop. Similarly, upon cooling, contraction
of the fluid reduces the hydrostatic pressure on the cooler section of the insulation wall
and back flow results from the constant pressure pipe region. Through load cycles
associated with service life, the impregnation fluid is slowly replaced by pipe fluid.
Gases dissolved in the impregnation fluid are thus transferred to the pipe region.
Obviously, the largest exchange of fluids is expected at the outer layers of the cable
wall where excess fluid volume is much larger than the pore and butt space volume
associated with each layer. At the same time, the minimum effect of thermal flow is
expected within the inner tapes near the insulation where the excess fluid volume is at
its minimum.
The quantitative determination of thermal flow of impregnation fluid in the insulation

wall was based on an estimation of the total void space in each tape layer considering
3-13
13514801
voids space between tapes (butt gaps or butt spacing) and voids within paper fibers
(paper porosity).
The maximum volumetric expansion of the impregnation fluid results from the
maximum possible swing in temperature, which is realizable when the cable at ground
temperature is energized and brought to a conductor temperature close to its maximum
allowable temperature i.e. 80qC.
The volumetric expansion, tape by tape, is shown in Table 3-6. This table was
calculated based on a sample piece of a 2000 kcmil 345 kV PPP cable made by Cablec,
Yonkers, N.Y. A short length of this cable was dissected and the dimensional
characteristics carefully determined. Since the butt gaps are not always constant, a
spacing corresponding to 5% of the tape thickness was assumed in all cases.
This cable had an over the conductor shield diameter of 1.63 in. and a total PPP wall of
about 650 mils. The insulation wall was conformed of 4 different PPP tapes: 30 tapes
laid in two reversals were 1-1/4 in. wide tapes by 6 & 5 mil thick; 33 tapes laid in two
reversals were 1-1/8 in. by 5 mil; 44 tapes laid in two reversals were 1 in. by 4 mil and
42 tapes laid in two reversals were 7/8 in. by 4 mil.
The pitch angle (T) of the tapes was theoretically calculated for each layer according to
(for details on the development of these equations refer to Appendix 3-B):
Wt
θ = arcsin (eq. 3-7)
2πr
where Wt is the width of the PPP tape plus the 5% butt gap; and r is the approximate
radial distance from the layer to the center of the conductor. The resulting angle varies
between 10 degrees, for innermost tapes to 8 degrees, for outer most tapes.
The length x of a tape per turn depends on its radial position respect to the center of the
conductor r and a pitch angle T, can be calculated from:
2πr
x= (inch per turn) (eq. 3-8)
cosθ
The number of turns of tape in a 1 foot cable length depends on the radial position of
the tape and the pitch angle and can be calculated from:
12
No. of turns = (eq. 3-9)
2πr tan θ
3-14
13514801
or expressed in terms of Wt, we get
12 cosθ
No. of turns = (eq. 3-10)
Wt
The total tape length per foot can be calculated from Eq. 3-8 and Eq. 3-10, as follows
24πt
L= (eq. 3-11)
Wt
The total butt gap volume per layer per foot Vg of cable can then be determined
in cubic centimeters from:
Vg = 0.05WLTh (2.54 cm / inch) 3 (cc per foot of cable) (eq. 3-12)
where W is the tape width and Th its thickness with the butt gap being about 0.05W.
The total interfiber pore volume per layer is calculated from:
Vp = ThWπrθF (cc per foot of cable) (eq. 3-13)
where T is the paper porosity (T = 0.40) and F is a fudge factor utilized for PPP, where
roughly 66% of the tape is composed of porous paper while the other 33% is composed
of solid polypropylene (F = 0.33).
The total volume of fluid in the voids is given by
VT = Vg + Vp (eq. 3-14)
All the volumes involved in this calculation are given tape by tape in Table 3-6 per unit
foot of cable.
The temperature gradient across the insulation wall was obtained from a heat transfer
program not described in this work which includes a dielectric loss heat generation
term with fixed conductor and insulation shield temperatures. The cable was first
considered at ground temperature and then at steady state conditions with a 80qC
conductor shield temperature and a 30qC insulation shield temperature. The
temperature gradient tape by tape is given in Table 3-6.
3-15
13514801
The volume expansion for the impregnation fluid was calculated from the following
density-temperature correlation (EPRI EL-7488-L, page 2-10):
D (Temp) = 11051
. − 0.00075936T (K ) (g / cc) (eq. 3-15)
where T is the fluid temperature in degree Kelvin.
The cumulative excess volume is highlighted in the right most column. This volume
corresponds to the total excess volume calculated tape by tape, starting from the first
tape over the conductor shield. Initially, the excess volume corresponds to a just a
small percentage (5%) of the total volume of the respective layer, however, as this
excess volume is forced into the next layer and added to the excess volume of that
layer, the excess fluid starts to increase rather fast. The curves represented in Figure 3-
7 show the growth of the excess volume (heavy line) in comparison with the volume of
each tape layer (light line). From this plot it is clear that at layer 21, the cumulative
excess volume equals the volume of that layer. Therefore, in ideal terms, beyond layer
21 a complete fluid exchange takes place.
In reality, complete fluid exchange is not expected within the PPP tapes because the
fluid found in the paper pores is not greatly affected by the expansion of the fluid by
the hydrostatic pressure generated within the insulation. The pores in the paper layers
are all dead-end type due to the pore sealing effect of the solid PP layer on one side of
the paper tape. Accordingly, gas exchange between the fluid resident in pores and that
flowing between tapes and through the butt gaps can only take place by molecular
diffusion.
3-16
13514801
Table 3-6
Thermal Flow Calculations for a 345 kV PPP Cable, Cablec 1985
1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21
Tape No. Tape Tape Cumul Butt Tape Tape Tape No. of Tape Total Butt Tape Total Initial Final Impreg Fluid Vol Excess Cumul
No. ofTapes Thickn Width Imsltn Gap Inner Outer Pitch Turns Length Tape Gap Vol Void Fluid Vol Insltn Insltn Fluid at Final Vol Excess
in Rvrsl Thckns Radius Radius Angle per ft of per Turn Length Volume Wall Wall Dnsty Wall Vol
Cable per ft of Temp Temp Ratio Temp
Cable
## # (mils) (in) (mils) (in) (in) (in) (degree) (#/ft) (in) (in/ft) (cc/ft) (cc/ft) (cc/ft) (qC) (qC) (cc/ft) (cc/ft) (cc/ft)
1 1 3.9 0.870 3.9 0.044 0.815 0.819 10.3 12.9 5.20 67.3 0.19 1.01 1.20 20.0 80.0 1.054 1.26 0.065 0.07
2 2 3.9 0.870 7.9 0.044 0.819 0.823 10.2 12.9 5.23 67.6 0.19 1.01 1.20 20.0 79.1 1.054 1.27 0.064 0.13
3 3 3.9 0.870 11.8 0.044 0.823 0.827 10.2 12.9 5.25 67.9 0.19 1.02 1.21 20.0 78.7 1.053 1.27 0.064 0.19
4 4 3.9 0.870 15.8 0.044 0.827 0.831 10.1 12.9 5.28 68.2 0.19 1.02 1.21 20.0 78.2 1.053 1.28 0.064 0.26
5 5 3.9 0.870 19.7 0.044 0.831 0.835 10.1 12.9 5.30 68.6 0.19 1.03 1.22 20.0 77.8 1.052 1.28 0.064 0.32
6 6 3.9 0.870 23.6 0.044 0.835 0.839 10.0 12.9 5.33 68.9 0.19 1.03 1.23 20.0 77.3 1.052 1.29 0.064 0.39
7 7 3.9 0.870 27.6 0.044 0.839 0.843 10.0 12.9 5.35 69.2 0.19 1.04 1.23 20.0 76.9 1.051 1.29 0.063 0.45
8 8 3.9 0.870 31.5 0.044 0.843 0.847 9.9 12.9 5.37 69.5 0.20 1.04 1.24 20.0 76.5 1.051 1.30 0.063 0.51
9 9 3.9 0.870 35.5 0.044 0.847 0.850 9.9 12.9 5.40 69.9 0.20 1.05 1.24 20.0 76.0 1.051 1.31 0.063 0.57
10 10 3.9 0.870 39.4 0.044 0.850 0.854 9.8 12.9 5.42 70.2 0.20 1.05 1.25 20.0 75.6 1.050 1.31 0.063 0.64
11 1 3.8 0.870 43.2 0.044 0.854 0.858 9.8 12.9 5.45 70.5 0.19 1.03 1.22 20.0 75.2 1.050 1.28 0.061 0.70
12 2 3.8 0.870 47.1 0.044 0.858 0.862 9.8 12.9 5.47 70.8 0.19 1.03 1.22 20.0 74.8 1.049 1.28 0.060 0.76
13 3 3.8 0.870 50.9 0.044 0.862 0.866 9.7 12.9 5.50 71.2 0.19 1.03 1.23 20.0 74.3 1.049 1.29 0.060 0.82
14 4 3.8 0.870 54.7 0.044 0.866 0.870 9.7 12.9 5.52 71.5 0.19 1.04 1.23 20.0 73.9 1.049 1.29 0.060 0.88
15 5 3.8 0.870 58.5 0.044 0.870 0.874 9.6 13.0 5.54 71.8 0.20 1.04 1.24 20.0 73.5 1.048 1.30 0.060 0.94
16 6 3.8 0.870 62.4 0.044 0.874 0.877 9.6 13.0 5.57 72.1 0.20 1.05 1.25 20.0 73.1 1.048 1.30 0.060 1.00
17 7 3.8 0.870 66.2 0.044 0.877 0.881 9.5 13.0 5.59 72.4 0.20 1.05 1.25 20.0 72.7 1.047 1.31 0.059 1.06
18 8 3.8 0.870 70.0 0.044 0.881 0.885 9.5 13.0 5.61 72.7 0.20 1.06 1.26 20.0 72.3 1.047 1.32 0.059 1.12
19 9 3.8 0.870 73.8 0.044 0.885 0.889 9.5 13.0 5.64 73.0 0.20 1.06 1.26 20.0 71.9 1.047 1.32 0.059 1.18
3-17
13514801
20 10 3.8 0.870 77.7 0.044 0.889 0.893 9.4 13.0 5.66 73.4 0.20 1.07 1.27 20.0 71.4 1.046 1.33 0.059 1.23
21 11 3.8 0.870 81.5 0.044 0.893 0.896 9.4 13.0 5.68 73.7 0.20 1.07 1.27 20.0 71.0 1.046 1.33 0.058 1.29
22 12 3.8 0.870 85.3 0.044 0.896 0.900 9.3 13.0 5.71 74.0 0.20 1.08 1.28 20.0 70.6 1.046 1.34 0.058 1.35
23 13 3.8 0.870 89.1 0.044 0.900 0.904 9.3 13.0 5.73 74.3 0.20 1.08 1.28 20.0 70.2 1.045 1.34 0.058 1.41
24 14 3.8 0.870 93.0 0.044 0.904 0.908 9.3 13.0 5.76 74.6 0.20 1.09 1.29 20.0 69.8 1.045 1.35 0.058 1.47
25 15 3.8 0.870 96.8 0.044 0.908 0.912 9.2 13.0 5.78 74.9 0.20 1.09 1.29 20.0 69.4 1.044 1.35 0.057 1.52
26 16 3.8 0.870 100.6 0.044 0.912 0.916 9.2 13.0 5.80 75.3 0.21 1.09 1.30 20.0 69.0 1.044 1.36 0.057 1.58
27 17 3.8 0.870 104.4 0.044 0.916 0.919 9.1 13.0 5.83 75.6 0.21 1.10 1.31 20.0 68.6 1.044 1.36 0.057 1.64
870
28 18 3.8 0. 108.3 0.044 0.919 0.923 9.1 13.0 5.85 75.9 0.21 1.10 1.31 20.0 68.2 1.043 1.37 0.057 1.70
29 19 3.8 0.870 112.1 0.044 0.923 0.927 9.1 13.0 5.87 76.2 0.21 1.11 1.32 20.0 67.8 1.043 1.37 0.056 1.75
30 20 3.8 0.870 115.9 0.044 0.927 0.931 9.0 13.0 5.90 76.5 0.21 1.11 1.32 20.0 67.4 1.043 1.38 0.056 1.81
31 21 3.8 0.870 119.7 0.044 0.931 0.935 9.0 13.0 5.92 76.8 0.21 1.12 1.33 20.0 67.1 1.042 1.38 0.056 1.86
32 22 3.8 0.870 123.6 0.044 0.935 0.939 8.9 13.0 5.95 77.2 0.21 1.12 1.33 20.0 66.7 1.042 1.39 0.056 1.92
33 23 3.8 0.870 127.4 0.044 0.939 0.942 8.9 13.0 5.97 77.5 0.21 1.13 1.34 20.0 66.3 1.041 1.39 0.055 1.98
34 24 3.8 0.870 131.2 0.044 0.942 0.946 8.9 13.0 5.99 77.8 0.21 1.13 1.34 20.0 65.9 1.041 1.40 0.055 2.03
35 25 3.8 0.870 135.0 0.044 0.946 0.950 8.8 13.0 6.02 78.1 0.21 1.14 1.35 20.0 65.5 1.041 1.40 0.055 2.09
36 26 3.8 0.870 138.9 0.044 0.950 0.954 8.8 13.0 6.04 78.4 0.21 1.14 1.35 20.0 65.1 1.040 1.41 0.055 2.14
37 27 3.8 0.870 142.7 0.044 0.954 0.958 8.8 13.0 6.06 78.7 0.21 1.14 1.36 20.0 64.8 1.040 1.41 0.054 2.19
38 28 3.8 0.870 146.5 0.044 0.958 0.961 8.7 13.0 6.09 79.0 0.22 1.15 1.36 20.0 64.4 1.040 1.42 0.054 2.25
39 29 3.8 0.870 150.3 0.044 0.961 0.965 8.7 13.0 6.11 79.4 0.22 1.15 1.37 20.0 64.0 1.039 1.42 0.054 2.30
40 30 3.8 0.870 154.2 0.044 0.965 0.969 8.7 13.0 6.14 79.7 0.22 1.16 1.38 20.0 63.6 1.039 1.43 0.054 2.36
41 31 3.8 0.870 158.0 0.044 0.969 0.973 8.6 13.0 6.16 80.0 0.22 1.16 1.38 20.0 63.3 1.039 1.43 0.053 2.41
42 32 3.8 0.870 161.8 0.044 0.973 0.977 8.6 13.0 6.18 80.3 0.22 1.17 1.39 20.0 62.9 1.038 1.44 0.053 2.46
43 1 3.9 1.000 165.7 0.050 0.977 0.981 9.9 11.3 6.23 70.1 0.23 1.21 1.43 20.0 62.5 1.038 1.49 0.054 2.52
44 2 3.9 1.000 169.7 0.050 0.981 0.985 9.8 11.3 6.25 70.4 0.23 1.21 1.44 20.0 62.1 1.038 1.49 0.054 2.57
45 3 3.9 1.000 173.6 0.050 0.985 0.989 9.8 11.3 6.28 70.7 0.23 1.22 1.44 20.0 61.8 1.037 1.50 0.054 2.63
46 4 3.9 1.000 177.5 0.050 0.989 0.993 9.7 11.3 6.30 71.0 0.23 1.22 1.45 20.0 61.4 1.037 1.50 0.054 2.68
47 5 3.9 1.000 181.5 0.050 0.993 0.996 9.7 11.3 6.33 71.3 0.23 1.23 1.45 20.0 61.0 1.037 1.51 0.053 2.73
3-18
13514801
48 6 3.9 1.000 185.4 0.050 0.996 1.000 9.7 11.3 6.35 71.6 0.23 1.23 1.46 20.0 60.7 1.036 1.51 0.053 2.79
49 7 3.9 1.000 189.3 0.050 1.000 1.004 9.6 11.3 6.38 71.8 0.23 1.23 1.47 20.0 60.3 1.036 1.52 0.053 2.84
50 8 3.9 1.000 193.3 0.050 1.004 1.008 9.6 11.3 6.40 72.1 0.23 1.24 1.47 20.0 60.0 1.036 1.52 0.052 2.89
51 9 3.9 1.000 197.2 0.050 1.008 1.012 9.5 11.3 6.42 72.4 0.23 1.24 1.48 20.0 59.6 1.035 1.53 0.052 2.94
52 10 3.9 1.000 201.1 0.050 1.012 1.016 9.5 11.3 6.45 72.7 0.23 1.25 1.48 20.0 59.2 1.035 1.54 0.052 2.99
53 11 3.9 1.000 205.1 0.050 1.016 1.020 9.5 11.3 6.47 73.0 0.24 1.25 1.49 20.0 58.9 1.035 1.54 0.052 3.05
54 12 3.9 1.000 209.0 0.050 1.020 1.024 9.4 11.3 6.50 73.2 0.24 1.26 1.50 20.0 58.5 1.034 1.55 0.051 3.10
55 13 3.9 1.000 212.9 0.050 1.024 1.028 9.4 11.3 6.52 73.5 0.24 1.26 1.50 20.0 58.2 1.034 1.55 0.051 3.15
56 14 3.9 1.000 216.9 0.050 1.028 1.032 9.4 11.3 6.55 73.8 0.24 1.27 1.51 20.0 57.8 1.034 1.56 0.051 3.20
57 15 3.9 1.000 220.8 0.050 1.032 1.036 9.3 11.3 6.57 74.1 0.24 1.27 1.51 20.0 57.5 1.033 1.56 0.050 3.25
58 16 3.9 1.000 224.7 0.050 1.036 1.040 9.3 11.3 6.59 74.4 0.24 1.28 1.52 20.0 57.1 1.033 1.57 0.050 3.30
59 17 3.9 1.000 228.7 0.050 1.040 1.044 9.2 11.3 6.62 74.7 0.24 1.28 1.52 20.0 56.8 1.033 1.57 0.050 3.35
60 18 3.9 1.000 232.6 0.050 1.044 1.048 9.2 11.3 6.64 74.9 0.24 1.29 1.53 20.0 56.4 1.032 1.58 0.050 3.40
61 19 3.9 1.000 236.5 0.050 1.048 1.052 9.2 11.3 6.67 75.2 0.24 1.29 1.54 20.0 56.1 1.032 1.58 0.049 3.45
62 20 3.9 1.000 240.5 0.050 1.052 1.055 9.1 11.3 6.69 75.5 0.24 1.30 1.54 20.0 55.8 1.032 1.59 0.049 3.50
63 21 3.9 1.000 244.4 0.050 1.055 1.059 9.1 11.3 6.72 75.8 0.24 1.30 1.55 20.0 55.4 1.031 1.60 0.049 3.55
64 22 3.9 1.000 248.3 0.050 1.059 1.063 9.1 11.3 6.74 76.1 0.25 1.31 1.55 20.0 55.1 1.031 1.60 0.048 3.59
65 23 3.9 1.000 252.3 0.050 1.063 1.067 9.0 11.3 6.77 76.4 0.25 1.31 1.56 20.0 54.7 1.031 1.61 0.048 3.64
66 24 3.9 1.000 256.2 0.050 1.067 1.071 9.0 11.3 6.79 76.6 0.25 1.32 1.56 20.0 54.4 1.030 1.61 0.048 3.69
67 25 3.9 1.000 260.1 0.050 1.071 1.075 9.0 11.3 6.81 76.9 0.25 1.32 1.57 20.0 54.1 1.030 1.62 0.047 3.74
68 26 3.9 1.000 264.1 0.050 1.075 1.079 8.9 11.3 6.84 77.2 0.25 1.33 1.58 20.0 53.7 1.030 1.62 0.047 3.78
69 27 3.9 1.000 268.0 0.050 1.079 1.083 8.9 11.3 6.86 77.5 0.25 1.33 1.58 20.0 53.4 1.030 1.63 0.047 3.83
70 28 3.9 1.000 271.9 0.050 1.083 1.087 8.9 11.3 6.89 77.8 0.25 1.34 1.59 20.0 53.0 1.029 1.63 0.046 3.88
71 29 3.9 1.000 275.9 0.050 1.087 1.091 8.8 11.3 6.91 78.1 0.25 1.34 1.59 20.0 52.7 1.029 1.64 0.046 3.92
72 30 3.9 1.000 279.8 0.050 1.091 1.095 8.8 11.3 6.94 78.3 0.25 1.35 1.60 20.0 52.4 1.029 1.64 0.046 3.97
73 31 3.9 1.000 283.7 0.050 1.095 1.099 8.8 11.3 6.96 78.6 0.25 1.35 1.60 20.0 52.1 1.028 1.65 0.046 4.01
74 32 3.9 1.000 287.7 0.050 1.099 1.103 8.7 11.3 6.98 78.9 0.25 1.36 1.61 20.0 51.7 1.028 1.66 0.045 4.06
75 33 3.9 1.000 291.6 0.050 1.103 1.107 8.7 11.3 7.01 79.2 0.26 1.36 1.62 20.0 51.4 1.028 1.66 0.045 4.10
3-19
13514801
76 34 3.9 1.000 295.5 0.050 1.107 1.111 8.7 11.3 7.03 79.5 0.26 1.37 1.62 20.0 51.1 1.027 1.67 0.045 4.15
77 35 3.9 1.000 299.5 0.050 1.111 1.114 8.7 11.3 7.06 79.7 0.26 1.37 1.63 20.0 50.8 1.027 1.67 0.044 4.19
78 36 3.9 1.000 303.4 0.050 1.114 1.118 8.6 11.3 7.08 80.0 0.26 1.38 1.63 20.0 50.4 1.027 1.68 0.044 4.24
79 37 3.9 1.000 307.3 0.050 1.118 1.122 8.6 11.3 7.11 80.3 0.26 1.38 1.64 20.0 50.1 1.027 1.68 0.044 4.28
80 38 3.9 1.000 311.3 0.050 1.122 1.126 8.6 11.3 7.13 80.6 0.26 1.39 1.64 20.0 49.8 1.026 1.69 0.043 4.32
81 39 3.9 1.000 315.2 0.050 1.126 1.130 8.5 11.3 7.16 80.9 0.26 1.39 1.65 20.0 49.5 1.026 1.69 0.043 4.37
82 40 3.9 1.000 319.1 0.050 1.130 1.134 8.5 11.3 7.18 81.2 0.26 1.39 1.66 20.0 49.1 1.026 1.70 0.043 4.41
83 41 3.9 1.000 323.1 0.050 1.134 1.138 8.5 11.3 7.20 81.4 0.26 1.40 1.66 20.0 48.8 1.025 1.70 0.042 4.45
84 42 3.9 1.000 327.0 0.050 1.138 1.142 8.4 11.3 7.23 81.7 0.26 1.40 1.67 20.0 48.5 1.025 1.71 0.042 4.49
85 43 3.9 1.000 330.9 0.050 1.142 1.146 8.4 11.3 7.25 82.0 0.26 1.41 1.67 20.0 48.2 1.025 1.72 0.042 4.54
86 44 3.9 1.000 334.9 0.050 1.146 1.150 8.4 11.3 7.28 82.3 0.27 1.41 1.68 20.0 47.9 1.025 1.72 0.041 4.58
87 1 5.0 1.125 339.8 0.056 1.150 1.155 9.4 10.0 7.32 73.4 0.34 1.79 2.13 20.0 47.6 1.024 2.18 0.052 4.63
88 2 5.0 1.125 344.8 0.056 1.155 1.160 9.4 10.0 7.35 73.7 0.34 1.80 2.13 20.0 47.3 1.024 2.19 0.051 4.68
89 3 5.0 1.125 349.7 0.056 1.160 1.165 9.3 10.0 7.38 74.0 0.34 1.81 2.14 20.0 46.9 1.024 2.19 0.051 4.73
90 4 5.0 1.125 354.7 0.056 1.165 1.170 9.3 10.0 7.42 74.3 0.34 1.81 2.15 20.0 46.6 1.023 2.20 0.050 4.78
91 5 5.0 1.125 359.7 0.056 1.170 1.175 9.2 10.0 7.45 74.7 0.34 1.82 2.16 20.0 46.3 1.023 2.21 0.050 4.83
92 6 5.0 1.125 364.6 0.056 1.175 1.180 9.2 10.0 7.48 75.0 0.34 1.83 2.17 20.0 46.0 1.023 2.22 0.050 4.88
93 7 5.0 1.125 369.6 0.056 1.180 1.185 9.2 10.0 7.51 75.3 0.34 1.84 2.18 20.0 45.7 1.023 2.23 0.049 4.93
94 8 5.0 1.125 374.5 0.056 1.185 1.190 9.1 10.0 7.54 75.6 0.35 1.84 2.19 20.0 45.4 1.022 2.24 0.049 4.98
95 9 5.0 1.125 379.5 0.056 1.190 1.195 9.1 10.0 7.57 75.9 0.35 1.85 2.20 20.0 45.1 1.022 2.25 0.049 5.03
96 10 5.0 1.125 384.5 0.056 1.195 1.199 9.1 10.0 7.60 76.2 0.35 1.86 2.21 20.0 44.8 1.022 2.26 0.048 5.08
97 11 5.0 1.125 389.4 0.056 1.199 1.204 9.0 10.0 7.63 76.6 0.35 1.87 2.22 20.0 44.5 1.022 2.26 0.048 5.12
98 12 5.0 1.125 394.4 0.056 1.204 1.209 9.0 10.0 7.66 76.9 0.35 1.87 2.23 20.0 44.2 1.021 2.27 0.047 5.17
99 13 5.0 1.125 399.3 0.056 1.209 1.214 8.9 10.0 7.69 77.2 0.35 1.88 2.24 20.0 43.9 1.021 2.28 0.047 5.22
100 14 5.0 1.125 404.3 0.056 1.214 1.219 8.9 10.0 7.72 77.5 0.35 1.89 2.24 20.0 43.6 1.021 2.29 0.046 5.26
101 15 5.0 1.125 409.3 0.056 1.219 1.224 8.9 10.0 7.75 77.8 0.36 1.90 2.25 20.0 43.3 1.020 2.30 0.046 5.31
102 16 5.0 1.125 414.2 0.056 1.224 1.229 8.8 10.0 7.78 78.1 0.36 1.91 2.26 20.0 43.0 1.020 2.31 0.046 5.36
103 1 5.1 1.125 419.3 0.056 1.229 1.234 8.8 10.0 7.82 78.5 0.37 1.97 2.34 20.0 42.7 1.020 2.39 0.047 5.40
3-20
13514801
104 2 5.1 1.125 424.5 0.056 1.234 1.239 8.8 10.0 7.85 78.8 0.37 1.98 2.35 20.0 42.4 1.020 2.40 0.046 5.45
105 3 5.1 1.125 429.6 0.056 1.239 1.245 8.7 10.0 7.88 79.1 0.37 1.99 2.36 20.0 42.1 1.019 2.41 0.046 5.49
106 4 5.1 1.125 434.7 0.056 1.245 1.250 8.7 10.0 7.91 79.4 0.37 2.00 2.37 20.0 41.8 1.019 2.42 0.045 5.54
107 5 5.1 1.125 439.8 0.056 1.250 1.255 8.7 10.0 7.94 79.8 0.38 2.01 2.38 20.0 41.5 1.019 2.43 0.045 5.59
108 6 5.1 1.125 444.9 0.056 1.255 1.260 8.6 10.0 7.97 80.1 0.38 2.01 2.39 20.0 41.2 1.019 2.44 0.045 5.63
109 7 5.1 1.125 450.0 0.056 1.260 1.265 8.6 10.0 8.01 80.4 0.38 2.02 2.40 20.0 40.9 1.018 2.45 0.044 5.67
110 8 5.1 1.125 455.2 0.056 1.265 1.270 8.5 10.0 8.04 80.7 0.38 2.03 2.41 20.0 40.6 1.018 2.46 0.044 5.72
111 9 5.1 1.125 460.3 0.056 1.270 1.275 8.5 10.0 8.07 81.1 0.38 2.04 2.42 20.0 40.4 1.018 2.46 0.043 5.76
112 10 5.1 1.125 465.4 0.056 1.275 1.280 8.5 10.0 8.10 81.4 0.38 2.05 2.43 20.0 40.1 1.018 2.47 0.043 5.80
113 11 5.1 1.125 470.5 0.056 1.280 1.286 8.4 10.0 8.13 81.7 0.39 2.06 2.44 20.0 39.8 1.017 2.48 0.042 5.85
114 12 5.1 1.125 475.6 0.056 1.286 1.291 8.4 10.0 8.16 82.1 0.39 2.06 2.45 20.0 39.5 1.017 2.49 0.042 5.89
115 13 5.1 1.125 480.7 0.056 1.291 1.296 8.4 10.1 8.20 82.4 0.39 2.07 2.46 20.0 39.2 1.017 2.50 0.041 5.93
116 14 5.1 1.125 485.9 0.056 1.296 1.301 8.3 10.1 8.23 82.7 0.39 2.08 2.47 20.0 38.9 1.017 2.51 0.041 5.97
117 15 5.1 1.125 491.0 0.056 1.301 1.306 8.3 10.1 8.26 83.0 0.39 2.09 2.48 20.0 38.6 1.016 2.52 0.040 6.01
118 16 5.1 1.125 496.1 0.056 1.306 1.311 8.3 10.1 8.29 83.4 0.39 2.10 2.49 20.0 38.4 1.016 2.53 0.040 6.05
119 17 5.1 1.125 501.2 0.056 1.311 1.316 8.2 10.1 8.32 83.7 0.39 2.11 2.50 20.0 38.1 1.016 2.54 0.039 6.09
120 1 5.1 1.250 506.3 0.063 1.316 1.321 9.1 9.0 8.38 75.6 0.40 2.11 2.51 20.0 37.8 1.016 2.55 0.039 6.13
121 2 5.1 1.250 511.4 0.063 1.321 1.326 9.1 9.0 8.41 75.9 0.40 2.12 2.52 20.0 37.5 1.015 2.56 0.039 6.17
122 3 5.1 1.250 516.6 0.063 1.326 1.332 9.1 9.0 8.44 76.2 0.40 2.13 2.53 20.0 37.2 1.015 2.57 0.038 6.21
123 4 5.1 1.250 521.7 0.063 1.332 1.337 9.0 9.0 8.47 76.5 0.40 2.14 2.54 20.0 37.0 1.015 2.58 0.038 6.24
124 5 5.1 1.250 526.8 0.063 1.337 1.342 9.0 9.0 8.50 76.8 0.40 2.15 2.55 20.0 36.7 1.015 2.59 0.037 6.28
125 6 5.1 1.250 531.9 0.063 1.342 1.347 9.0 9.0 8.53 77.1 0.40 2.15 2.56 20.0 36.4 1.014 2.59 0.037 6.32
126 7 5.1 1.250 537.0 0.063 1.347 1.352 8.9 9.0 8.57 77.4 0.41 2.16 2.57 20.0 36.1 1.014 2.60 0.036 6.35
127 8 5.1 1.250 542.1 0.063 1.352 1.357 8.9 9.0 8.60 77.7 0.41 2.17 2.58 20.0 35.8 1.014 2.61 0.036 6.39
128 9 5.1 1.250 547.3 0.063 1.357 1.362 8.9 9.0 8.63 78.0 0.41 2.18 2.59 20.0 35.6 1.014 2.62 0.035 6.42
129 10 5.1 1.250 552.4 0.063 1.362 1.367 8.8 9.0 8.66 78.3 0.41 2.19 2.60 20.0 35.3 1.013 2.63 0.035 6.46
130 11 5.1 1.250 557.5 0.063 1.367 1.372 8.8 9.0 8.69 78.6 0.41 2.20 2.61 20.0 35.0 1.013 2.64 0.034 6.49
131 12 5.1 1.250 562.6 0.063 1.372 1.378 8.8 9.0 8.73 78.8 0.41 2.20 2.62 20.0 34.8 1.013 2.65 0.034 6.53
3-21
13514801
132 13 5.1 1.250 567.7 0.063 1.378 1.383 8.7 9.0 8.76 79.1 0.41 2.21 2.63 20.0 34.5 1.013 2.66 0.033 6.56
133 14 5.1 1.250 572.8 0.063 1.383 1.388 8.7 9.0 8.79 79.4 0.42 2.22 2.64 20.0 34.2 1.012 2.67 0.033 6.59
134 15 5.1 1.250 578.0 0.063 1.388 1.393 8.7 9.0 8.82 79.7 0.42 2.23 2.65 20.0 33.9 1.012 2.68 0.032 6.62
135 16 5.1 1.250 583.1 0.063 1.393 1.398 8.6 9.0 8.85 80.0 0.42 2.24 2.66 20.0 33.7 1.012 2.69 0.032 6.66
136 1 5.1 1.250 588.1 0.063 1.398 1.403 8.6 9.0 8.88 80.3 0.42 2.22 2.63 20.0 33.4 1.012 2.66 0.031 6.69
137 2 5.1 1.250 593.2 0.063 1.403 1.408 8.6 9.0 8.92 80.6 0.42 2.22 2.64 20.0 33.1 1.011 2.67 0.030 6.72
138 3 5.1 1.250 598.2 0.063 1.408 1.413 8.5 9.0 8.95 80.9 0.42 2.23 2.65 20.0 32.9 1.011 2.68 0.030 6.75
139 4 5.1 1.250 603.3 0.063 1.413 1.418 8.5 9.0 8.98 81.2 0.42 2.24 2.66 20.0 32.6 1.011 2.69 0.029 6.78
140 5 5.1 1.250 608.3 0.063 1.418 1.423 8.5 9.0 9.01 81.5 0.42 2.25 2.67 20.0 32.3 1.011 2.70 0.029 6.80
141 6 5.1 1.250 613.4 0.063 1.423 1.428 8.4 9.0 9.04 81.8 0.42 2.26 2.68 20.0 32.1 1.011 2.71 0.028 6.83
142 7 5.1 1.250 618.4 0.063 1.428 1.433 8.4 9.0 9.07 82.1 0.42 2.26 2.69 20.0 31.8 1.010 2.72 0.028 6.86
143 8 5.1 1.250 623.5 0.063 1.433 1.438 8.4 9.0 9.10 82.3 0.43 2.27 2.70 20.0 31.6 1.010 2.72 0.027 6.89
144 9 5.1 1.250 628.5 0.063 1.438 1.444 8.3 9.0 9.14 82.6 0.43 2.28 2.71 20.0 31.3 1.010 2.73 0.027 6.91
145 10 5.1 1.250 633.6 0.063 1.444 1.449 8.3 9.0 9.17 82.9 0.43 2.29 2.72 20.0 31.0 1.010 2.74 0.026 6.94
146 11 5.1 1.250 638.6 0.063 1.449 1.454 8.3 9.0 9.20 83.2 0.43 2.30 2.73 20.0 30.8 1.009 2.75 0.026 6.96
147 12 5.1 1.250 643.7 0.063 1.454 1.459 8.3 9.0 9.23 83.5 0.43 2.30 2.74 20.0 30.5 1.009 2.76 0.025 6.99
148 13 5.1 1.250 648.7 0.063 1.459 1.464 8.2 9.0 9.26 83.8 0.43 2.31 2.74 20.0 30.3 1.009 2.77 0.024 7.01
149 14 5.1 1.250 653.8 0.063 1.464 1.469 8.2 9.0 9.29 84.1 0.43 2.32 2.75 20.0 30.0 1.009 2.78 0.024 7.04
Totals 653.8 653.8 277.6 7.04
3-22
13514801
Considering that the longest pores in the paper layers are probably 5 times the
thickness of the paper (EPRI EL-7488-L, pp. 3-23), the time for a gas molecule to exit
from average deep pores (2.5 times the paper thickness) can be estimated utilizing the
following relationship19:
X 2 = 2Dt (eq. 3-16)
where X is the pore length, D the molecular diffusion coefficient and t time. The
diffusion coefficient can be estimated from the effective coefficient De given in tables 3-1
and 3-2 and eq. 3-17 , assuming T = 0.48 and G = 5,
8
Fluid Volume (cc/foot of cable)
5
4
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Tape No. from Conductor
Cumulative Excess Volume Fluid Volume per Layer
Figure 3-7
Comparison of cumulative excess volume (heavy line) and volume per layer (light
broken line) during thermal expansion of impregnation fluid in a PPP insulation
wall
τ
D = De (eq. 3-17)
θ
19
. Glassman, I. in "Combustion", pp. 167, Academic Press (1977).
3-23
13514801
Considering the paper in 6 mil PPP having a thickness of 1.8 mils, the time needed for a
molecule of gas to diffuse the length of a typical pore varies at 50qC of temperature,
from a few minutes for hydrogen to a few days for propane. This estimation indicates
that through a combination of molecular diffusion at pore level and thermal flow at
insulation wall level a very efficient avenue for gas movement is available in the
insulation.
In absolute terms, the total fluid exchange resulting from the conditions selected for
Table 3-6 corresponds to 7.04 cc per foot of cable out of a total of 277.6 cc per foot which
represents about 2.5% exchange. Although, a cable might experience only a very small
number of total temperature swings per year in its lifetime, daily small temperature
swings through its entire service life can account for a sizeable fluid exchange and gas
movement within the insulation wall.
Since the thermal flow should conduce to fluid exchange between the insulation wall
and the pipe, the different identities of these fluids allows confirmation of this
movement through the identification of these fluids in the insulation wall. Although
penetration of pipe fluid into the insulation wall has been reported after observing a
decrease in impregnation fluid viscosity within the paper tapes, a more detailed
analysis was carried out in this work by checking the fluid identity almost tape by tape.
Two pieces of service cables corresponding to a forced cooled 345 kV paper HPFF and a
static 138 kV paper HPFF were carefully dissected while samples of the impregnation
fluid (0.10 to 0.12 g of paper in 6.9 to 7.5 g hexane) were analyzed by high resolution
capillary chromatography. A group of distinctive peaks was selected for each fluid and
the area under the peaks normalized by the size of the sample determined in each case.
The results for the forced cooled 345 kV cable are shown in figures 3-8 and 3-9 where
each figure shows the distribution of impregnation fluid and pipe fluid throughout the
respective insulation wall. The solid squares show the corresponding measurements
for the diffraction index. In Figure 3-8 the open squares show the distribution of
impregnation fluid where the concentration of this fluid reaches a maximum toward
the center of the insulation wall. This peak coincides with the peak in refraction index.
On the other hand, Figure 3-9 shows the distribution of pipe fluid through the
insulation wall. Correspondingly, a minimum of pipe fluid was found toward the
center of the insulation wall.
The results for the 138 kV static cable are shown in Figure 3-10 for the distribution of
pipe fluid. Only the distribution of pipe fluid was investigated in the case. In contrast
with the forced cooled 345 kV, in the case of the static 138 kV line, a penetration of pipe
fluid into the insulation wall from the pipe seems only to have occurred in a big scale
from the e cable after reduction of cable load. In this case low hydrostatic pressure
areas are formed near the conductor that are not rapidly filled with fluid from the pipe
side but rather filled with fluid originating from the conductor side. Although,
originally the conductor is filled with impregnation fluid, through fluid expansion and
3-24
13514801
contraction cycles, pipe fluid can penetrate through the cable splices and termination
into the conductor region.
Conductor
1E+06 1.500
Pipe Cable Fluid Concentration 1E+06

1.494
1E+06
Refractive Index
1E+06
1.488
9E+05
1.482
8E+05
7E+05
1.476
6E+05
5E+05 1.470
0 50 100 150 200
Tape Layer Number
Figure 3-8
Distribution of impregnation fluid within the insulation wall of a forced-cooled 345
kV HPFF cable after 30+ years of service. Open squares show relative
concentration of impregnation fluid in terms of peak response from a GC/FID.
Solid squares indicate the refractive index of the fluid in the cable tapes.
Conductor
1E+05 1.500
Impregnation Fluid Concentration
1E+05 1.494
Refractive Index
8E+04 1.488
6E+04 1.482
4E+04 1.476
2E+04 1.470
0 50 100 150 200
Tape Layer Number
Figure 3-9
Distribution of pipe fluid within the insulation wall of a forced-cooled 345 kV HPFF
cable after 30+ years of service. Open squares show relative concentration of
pipe fluid in terms of peak response from a GC/FID. Solid squares indicate the
refractive index of the fluid in the cable tapes.
3-25
13514801
Conductor
1E+06
Pipe Fluid Concentration

1E+05
1E+04
1E+03
0 20 40 60 80 100
TAPE LAYER NUMBER
Figure 3-10
Distribution of pipe fluid through the insulation wall of a static 138 kV HPFF cable,
1970 vintage
The pipe fluid has a significantly lower viscosity than the impregnation fluid and
therefore can move more easily than the impregnation fluid. Furthermore, in the case
of the forced cooled line, the viscosity of the pipe fluid is even lower than the pipe fluid
of the static line and with more light fluid penetrating the conductor, more intensive
fluid exchange could take place from the conductor side as observed in figures 3-8 and
3-9.
Discussion and Conclusions
The data generated during this work have shown that molecular diffusion is a very
slow mechanism for gas transfer while thermal flow provides a mechanism that can
lead to significant radial exchange of fluid between the outer layers and the pipe. Gas
movement by molecular diffusion is strongly dependent on temperature and nature of
the gas. The rate of molecular diffusion reaches its maximum where the temperature is
the highest. The gas with the highest mobility is the hydrogen. On the other hand,
thermal flow which is driven by temperature differences has a stronger influence at
point where accumulated volume is at maximum, that is within the outer regions of the
cable. Thermal flow is non specific to the nature of the gas since the entire volume of
gas moves in the direction of low pressure. It is likely that both mechanism are
simultaneously responsible for the transport of gas out of the cable in a way where
3-26
13514801
transport in the inner sections is controlled mainly by molecular diffusivity while in the
outer regions is controlled mainly by thermal flow.
Molecular diffusivity through PPP laminate is substantially slower than through

regular kraft paper tapes. However, contrary to expected, the limitation is presented
by the lack of permeability of the paper tapes and not by the polymeric laminate.
However, the significance of thermal flow is not expected to be different from a paper
cable with the same wall thickness since in both cases the impregnation fluid has to
have access to the entire insulation, otherwise it would not be possible to impregnate
the dry insulation during cable manufacturing.
With a larger diffusivity limitation in PPP cables a smaller rate is expected for gas
movement within the inner tapes where thermal flow does not present a viable
mechanism for gas transport. However, with a wall thickness nearly half of that
utilized for a paper cable of the same voltage and conductor, the small rates for gas
transport are slightly compensated by the shorter path needed to be covered from the
source region to the pipe oil region.
3-27
13514801
13514801
4
EFFECT OF ELECTRICAL STRESS ON GAS
FORMATION IN A CABLE FLUID
Introduction
The utilization of dissolved gas analysis as a routine test to assess the condition of
fluid-filled taped (FFT) underground transmission cables and their accessories
constitutes a truly cost effective approach. The sensitivity and selectivity of this
technique allows detection and positive identification of abnormal stresses in the taped
insulation wall. A major challenge in the application of this technique is, however,
presented by proper gas data interpretation. Many a times, the observed gas
concentrations follow well established patterns that can be easily associated with
stresses of either thermal or electrical origin, and combinations thereof. Other times,
remarkable high concentrations of a single gas, i.e. hydrogen, are observed with all
other common gases absent or present at extremely low concentrations. This condition
has loosely been associated with ionization activity. The presence of acetylene has
always being associated with partial discharges. The question is whether is possible to
reproduce field conditions of ionization activity in the lab where, in the absence of a
gas phase, only hydrogen is generated. The objective of this work was to determine
whether is possible to realize high hydrogen yields in samples of impregnated paper
under AC stress and completely submerged in cable fluids.
Gas formation and absorption in dielectric fluids exposed to strong gas phase corona
discharges have constituted an area of extensive effort 20 21 22 23. This work have led to
20
. Palandri G. and Pellagati U., "Insulation Oils for Electric cables", Elettrotecnica (Milan) Jan. 8, 1955.
21
. Reynolds, E. H. and Black, R. M, "Evaluation of dielectric fluids by gassing-cell tests", Proc. IEE, Vol.
119, No. 4, April 1972
22
. Horsby, E. A., Irving, R, and Patterson, E. A., "New criterion of the gassing tendencies of insulating
oils", Proc. IEE, No. 112, No. 3, March 1965.
23
. Sloat, T. K., Johnson, J. L. and Sommerman, G. M. L.; "Gas evolution from transformer oils under
high-voltage stress", IEEE Transactions on Power Alp. & Systems. Vol. PAS-86, No. 3 , March 1967.
4-1
13514801
Effect of Electrical Stress on Gas Formation in a Cable Fluid
the establishment of standardized ASTM procedures24 for the determination of gassing

characteristics of dielectric fluids. Hydrogen-absorbing behavior in fluids was found to
be brought about by the presence of structural unsaturation in hydrocarbon molecules,
while fully saturated molecules present gas evolving characteristics under hydrogen
and most other gases. The practicality of these tests in cable fluid formulation has been
strongly supported by Reynolds25, however, the same level of success has not been
claimed for transformer fluids24.
In addition to chemical absorption, gas solubility presents another avenue for an

efficient mechanism of gas absorption FFT equipment operating under high hydrostatic
pressure. It should be noted, however, that considering the low solubility of
hydrogen, this is the only gas for which could be more efficiently absorbed by
chemical reactions than by gas solubility. Chemical absorption of other gases, with the
exception of oxygen in oxidation reactions, is negligible compared to absorption by gas
solubility. Furthermore, through the utilization of elevated hydrostatic pressure, the
formation of gas pockets in the insulation is virtually eliminated and with it, ionization
and potential for gas formation under operating conditions. This makes the gas
absorbing requirements of the dielectric fluid utilized in high pressure equipment not
as essential as in low pressure applications.
Despite the virtually ionization free operation of impregnated insulation under high
hydrostatic pressure, rapid generation of hydrogen has been observed in splices of
HPFF cables, 120 kV to 345 kV class. In these cases, gases other than hydrogen have not
been detected. In fluid gassing tests, however, hydrogen is not the only gas generated
as other low molecular weight hydrocarbons are always observed24..
Correlation of gas yield with the total energy released from partial discharges in fluid
impregnated paper, in the absence of a gas phase, has been reported by Viale et al.26
Relatively large amounts of hydrogen and methane where observed as product gas
together with small amounts of ethane. It is interesting to note that in their work, a
rather constant gas concentration ratio was observed in the gaseous products over the
energy range studied. This suggests that in average, the power released by each partial
discharge was constant throughout their test as gas distributions are not expected to
remain unchanged as a result of discharges of varying power.
24
. Palandri G. and Pellagati U., "Insulation Oils for Electric cables", Elettrotecnica (Milan) Jan. 8, 1955.
25
Reynolds, E. H. and Black, R. M, "Evaluation of dielectric fluids by gassing-cell tests", Proc. IEE, Vol.
119, No. 4, April 1972
26
.Viale, F., Poittevin, J., Fallou, Morel, J. F., Buccianti, R., Yakov, S., Cesari, S. and Serena E.; "Study of a
correlation between energy of partial discharges and degradation of paper-oil insulation"; Intrntl. Conf.
on Large High Voltage Electric, CIGRE September, 1982.
4-2
13514801
It is the major goal of this work to simulate conditions that could lead to the generation
of hydrogen without measurable amounts of acetylene or any other unsaturated
hydrocarbon. The yield of hydrogen without low molecular weight hydrocarbons
requires the preferential scission of C-H bonds instead of C-C bonds. Unfortunately,
this situation is not thermodynamically favored as the C-C bond is in general weaker
than the C-H bond. However, many other considerations must be kept in mind that
can allow such dehydrogenation process to be achieved. Among some of the factors
that can alter the relative strengths in C-H and C-C bonding are homolytic versus
heterolytic scission, solvent effects, hydrocarbon branching effect and formation of
charged species (ions).
The tests described in this section correspond to a screening program where electric
field stresses ranging from 80 to 600 V/mil were applied to impregnated paper sheets
having relatively high dissipation factors. Gas formation was determined by dissolved
gas analysis after completion of the test. The amount of energy dissipated in the system
was determined from the actual dissipation factor of the fluid impregnated paper, the
applied average voltage stress and length of the exposure.
Figure 4-1
Detailed view of the electrodes
4-3
13514801
Figure 4-2
Schematic dagram of the test and ancillary equipment
Experimental and Materials
The sample consisting of three circular pieces of HV quality kraft paper from Crocker
Technical Papers, Inc., was placed between two round brass electrodes 1 inch in
diameter. Two 5 mil thick paper disks were placed against the electrodes while a third
7 mil thick paper disk was placed in between. The center paper disk had two 0.25 inch
round perforations made near the center to simulate the presence gap spacing in actual
cable insulation.
One of the brass electrodes was mounted on a spring loaded device so that the paper
disks were always held together with a fairly reproducible force. A more detailed
diagram of the two electrodes is shown in Figure 4-1. The test cell consisted of a
stainless steel cylinder 6 inches long and 2 inches in diameter with two end flanges,
each one fitted with a 10 kV feedthrough ceramic bushing. The body of the test cell had
an annular glass midsection that allowed visual inspection of the electrodes and
provided additional insulation.
After loading the paper sample, the test cell was evacuated to less than 50 microns and
then filled with well degassed dielectric fluid. Two different fluids were utilized, a
polybutene 0CS and a polybutene/alkyl benzene blend DCL500, both obtained from
Dussek Campbell, Ontario, Canada. During the test, the fluid in the test cell was
maintained under atmospheric pressure.
4-4
13514801
A 40 kVAC transformer was utilized to energize the test cell. An schematic diagram of
the test configuration is shown in Figure 4-2. An Olman Model 605 Capacitance and
Tan G Bridge was utilized to determine the dielectric loss of the insulation being tested.
Measurements of dissipation factor were made at fixed time intervals during the test.
The tests were run for varying total length of time ranging from 22 to 144 hours. This
amount of time was assessed to be sufficient to yield measurable amount of gases. A
sample of the dielectric fluid was taken for dissolved gas analysis after each test.
Dissipation factor at the applied stress was monitored during the length of the test.
Calculation of dielectric dissipation power and total energy were made based on
measurements of dissipation factor, electrical stress and field exposure times. It was
possible to vary the dissipation factor of the impregnated paper by varying the degree
of dryness before impregnation.
Results and Discussion
A summary of test conditions is shown in Table 4-1. The total thickness of the three
paper samples averaged about 18 mils. Runs #1 through #17 were carried out by
exposing the fluid impregnated paper insulation having a wide range of dissipation
factor to a varying electrical stress and time. The electrical stress was varied from 80 to
500 volts per mil, while the dissipation factor of the impregnated paper insulation was
varied from 0.6% to 25%. Measurements of dissipation factor were taken at periodic
intervals during the test runs.
In the absence of corona monitoring equipment, the power transferred to the fluid
impregnated paper insulation as a result of the applied electric field was calculated
from dissipation factor and electric field strength measurements according to the
following equation:
Power Dissipation = (5 / 9 × 10−12 εf tan δ ) E 2 (watts / cc) (eq. 4-11)
where H is the dielectric constant of the fluid impregnated paper sample, f the
frequency in Hz, G the dielectric loss angle and E the field strength in volts per
centimeter.
The total energy absorbed by the dielectric material placed between the two electrodes,
which is likely to be integrated into the insulation material as heat, can be determined
from:
Energy = Power Dissipation × t × V (Joules) (eq. 4-12)
4-5
13514801
where t is the exposure time in seconds and V the volume of the insulation between
the electrodes. According to Dakin27, power dissipation values of 0.1 W/cm3 or larger
can cause dangerous dielectric heating of equipment insulation. The values in Table 4-
1 show power losses varying from 0.008 to 0.9 W/cm3, with the upper value
significantly higher than the limit suggested by Dakin.
Dissolved gas analysis was performed in duplicate at the end of each test on samples
from the test filling fluid. The results of gas analysis from these tests are shown in
Table 4-2. An increase in gas detection limit was achieved by a reduction of the
internal free volume of the test cell. The total internal volume of the cell was reduced
from 324 ml to 198 ml by adding an aluminum part.
Gas yields determined through DGA are typically expressed in parts per millions, that
is, cc of gas at normal pressure and temperature (NPT) per cc of oil at room
6
temperature multiplied by 1x10 . Since in this work two test cells with different
internal volume were utilized, to avoid dilution errors due to the presence of varying
amounts of fluid in the cell, the gas yield was expressed in terms of total gas volume in
nanoliters (10-6 cc/nl) at NPT. The resulting volumetric gas yields are given in Table 4-
2, while resulting gas concentration ratios are shown in Table 4-3.
Hydrogen was the most predominant gas observed after application of electrical stress.
Acetylene was present in all runs but at concentrations significantly lower than that of
hydrogen. Higher concentrations of hydrogen, acetylene and carbon monoxide were
observed in cases where evidence of arcing of was clear by the presence of perforations
and/or blackening of the paper disks as opposed to cases where none of this evidence
was found. The hydrogen to acetylene ratio were also higher in cases where no arcing
was observed.
27
. Dakin, T. W. in "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers", edited by D. G.Fink and H. W. Beaty,
11 edition, pp 4-128 (1978).
4-6
13514801
Table 4-1
Summary of Test Conditions
Test Fluid Time Voltage Tan G Stress Power Energy
(hrs) (V) (V/mil) (W/cc) (kJ)

1 0CS 20.0 9,000 0.1110 506 0.528 37.9
2 0CS 65.8 9,000 0.1296 506 0.616 145.9
3 0CS 93.6 9,000 0.0060 506 0.029 9.6
4 0CS 22.5 5,000 0.2690 281 0.395 32.0
5 0CS Perforated 9,000 0.2087 506 0.992

b kd
6 0CS Non-Perforated 8,000 0.2099 449 0.789
b kd
7 0CS 67.6 5,000 0.2081 281 0.305 74.3
8 0CS Perforated 7,500 0.2831 421 0.935

b kd
9 0CS 89.0 5,030 0.2365 283 0.351 112.5
10 0CS 96.1 4,020 0.1841 226 0.175 60.4
11 0CS Non-perforated 4,020 0.0998 226 0.095

bl k i
12 DCL-500 62.9 6,000 0.1706 337 0.361 81.6
13 DCL-500 62.8 6,000 0.2451 337 0.518 117.1
14 DCL-500 118.1 2,000 0.1146 112 0.027 11.4
16 DCL-500 144.1 1,500 0.5096 84 0.008
17 DCL-500 144.2 1,500 0.1607 84 0.021 11.0
* Because of arcing evidence, the runs marked with the star were not considered for trending analysis.
Correlations between type of gas with the intensity and length of the applied electric
stress were determined in this work through the utilization of an intercorrelation
matrix. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4-4. This table shows all
possible correlations between gases and test conditions. The correlation coefficients
range from -1 to 1, where 0 corresponds to no correlation at all while 1 or -1 stand for
the best correlation. The sign indicates whether the slope of the linear correlation is
positive or negative. The test variables included in the cross correlation were time,
dissipation factor, power dissipated, energy dissipated, gases and gas ratios.
The information given in Table 4-4 shows that a good correlation exists between
acetylene and energy and to a lesser extend with power dissipated. Hydrogen presents
a similar behavior with respect to energy and power dissipated but with lower overall
correlation coefficients. That is, the yield of acetylene and hydrogen increases with
4-7
13514801
increasing both energy and power dissipation. Assumedly, energy is dissipated in the
insulation through mild ionization in the absence of arcing activity.
In runs were no insulation breakdown was observed, the yields of hydrogen and
acetylene increased linearly with increasing energy and power dissipated. Linear
correlation of acetylene and hydrogen against energy and power resulted in r-square
values of 0.83 to 0.9 for acetylene and somewhat less for hydrogen, refer to Table 4-4.
The somewhat high dispersion observed in the concentration data for hydrogen
prompted for an alternative way to study the relationship energy/power dissipated
with the hydrogen to acetylene concentration ratio. This approach utilized the linear
equations previously determined through statistical fit to calculate the hydrogen to
acetylene ratios and not the actual gas concentration data. The results of this analysis
are summarized in Figure 4-3. As shown in this figure, the hydrogen to acetylene ratio
seems to decrease at increasing power dissipated. That is, at small values of power, the
yield of hydrogen is relatively higher than that of acetylene. Likewise, at increasing
power, more acetylene than hydrogen is generated. During this work, the total energy
dissipated in the insulation system was calculated by integrating the power over the
entire exposure time. It is possible that by making more direct measurements of power
dissipated a better correlation could be expected.
A summary of cross correlation between gases and test conditions is given for selected
gases on Table 4-5. In this table, the best correlation of each gas with a measured
variable and other gas are shown. For example, in the case of hydrogen, this gas
showed the best correlation with total energy dissipated as calculated from Eq. 4-1 and
with methane concentration. Acetylene correlates well with total energy dissipated and
with hydrogen On the other hand, gases such as saturated hydrocarbons and
isobutylene correlate fairly well with the length of the experimental run. This
correlation was not immediately understood. However, as it was later realized, the
energy dissipated in the fluid by the dissipation losses could lead to localized
overheating resulting in the decomposition of unstable peroxides or hydroperoxides
present in the impregnation fluid. The observed correlation between exposure time
and isobutylene concentration confirms this possibility as the formation of this gas has
been associated with thermal degradation reactions.
Concentration ratios of other hydrocarbons that also showed positive trend with time
exposure are those involving molecules with equal number of carbons but with one in a
saturated form and the other with a double bond. These ratios showed that the
concentration yield of the saturated hydrocarbon increased over the unsaturated form.
4-8
13514801
This is in good agreement with findings reported in an earlier EPRI Report 28 for
thermal degradation of insulating fluids.
28
. Singh, N., Morel, O., Butucel, B. and Rochon, M., "Development of an Oil Deterioration Test Method
to Monitor the Condition of High-Pressure Fluid-Filled Paper Cable", EPRI EL-7488-L, Research Project
7895-1, November, 1991.
4-9
13514801
Table 4-2
Dissolved Gas Analysis of the Fluid After Application of Electric Field to the Paper Sample
Test # Hydrogen C.Monoxide C.Dioxide Methane nl Ethane nl Ethylene nl Acetylene Propane nl Propylene Isobutane n-Butane nlIsobutylene t-2-Butylene 1-Butene nl
nl of gas nl of gas nl of gas of gas @ of gas @ of gas @ nl of gas of gas @ nl of gas nl of gas of gas @ nl of gas @ nl of gas @ of gas @
@NPT @ NPT @ NPT NPT NPT NPT @ NPT NPT @ NPT @ NPT NPT NPT NPT NPT
1 22,245 0 3,762 0 178 455 356 198 238 0 0 267 0 0

2 37,788 1,752 8,237 980 545 1,287 812 426 970 149 238 1,010 0 69
3 3,930 2,089 6,593 0 208 228 168 248 188 149 99 317 0 178
4 7,940 416 2,376 3,564 168 139 119 228 129 178 198 188 0 0
5* 701,702 460,776 35,739 44,223 8,336 27,185 110,999 5,544 6,683 2,475 1,782 1,040 267 851
6* 170,122 2,317 4,505 8,801 3,742 1,436 2,049 3,475 851 1,109 1,604 871 515 564
7 45,500 3,049 6,960 1,465 416 515 356 545 366 228 218 366 0 0
8* 536,283 90,367 24,483 37,244 11,722 8,069 25,898 10,405 2,564 3,020 4,980 970 327 614
9 82,200 4,742 10,326 2,416 1,970 752 406 2,594 703 960 1,129 624 30 277
10 27,334 10,464 29,205 703 653 386 139 1,194 396 436 475 525 20 89
11* 34,295 11,707 31,490 8,837 7,264 5,416 1,443 13,141 4,427 9,729 14,010 5,643 373 2,027
12 25,592 0 2,237 911 267 465 554 1,099 267 218 1,673 4,653 0 1,297
13 169,609 0 4,735 5,546 1,703 697 778 3,211 470 470 2,886 6,924 0 2,108
14 4,718 0 7,375 1,352 2,170 802 <20 9,356 1,289 1,085 5,818 17,313 0 3,837
16 7,663 0 14,157 257 604 515 40 2,831 574 426 2,000 6,188 79 1,396
17 0 0 8,490 0 846 1,369 354 3,290 964
* These runs were considered outliers and were not utilized for trending analysis
-9
** nl stands for nanoliter which is equivalent to 1x10 liter
4-10
13514801
Table 4-3
Gas Ratios After Application of Electrical Stress
Test Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio

H2/C2H2 CH4/H2 C2H6/C2H4 C3H9/C3H6 iC4H8/CH4
1 62.5 0.33 0.91

2 46.5 0.33 0.91
3 23.4 0.026 0.42 0.44 1.03
4 66.7 0.91 1.32
5* 3.6 0.449 1.21 1.77 0.05
6* 83.0 0.063 0.31 0.83 0.02
7 127.8 0.052 2.61 4.08 0.1
8* 20.7 0.032 0.81 1.49 0.25
9 202.5 0.069 1.45 4.06 0.03
10 196.7 0.029 2.62 3.69 0.26
11* 23.8 0.026 1.69 2.83 0.475
12 46.2 0.258 1.34 2.97 0.64
13 218. 0.036 0.57 4.11 5.11
14 235.9 0.033 2.44 6.83 1.25
16 191.6 0.034 1.17 4.93 24.04
17 0.62 3.41
4-11
13514801
Table 4-4 Inter-Correlation Parameters
Time Tan d Stress Power Energy H2 CO CO2 CH4 C2H6 C2H4 C2H2 C3H8 C3H6 iC4H10 nC4H10 iC4H8 CH4/H2 C2H6/ C3H8/ iC4H8/ H2/ C2H2
C2H4 C3H6 CH4
-0.13 0.52 0.53 0.45 0.64 1.00
H2
0.19 0.24 -0.11 -0.17 0.19 0.00 1.00
CO
0.55 -0.17 -0.38 -0.47 -0.09 -0.13 0.86 1.00

CO2
-0.27 0.77 0.01 0.32 0.35 0.76 -0.17 -0.32 1.00
CH4
0.47 0.12 -0.38 -0.26 0.14 0.47 .03 .06 0.41 1.00
C2H6
0.25 -0.29 0.29 0.27 0.60 0.25 -0.08 -0.04 -0.05 0.42 1.00
C2H4
-0.40 0.25 0.74 0.83 0.90 0.66 -0.15 -0.35 0.34 -0.01 0.55 1.00
C2H2
0.60 -0.26 -0.61 -0.59 -0.34 -0.00 -0.21 .01 0.10 0.80 0.27 -0.36 1.00
C3H8
0.59 -0.40 -0.26 -0.29 0.08 -0.05 -0.06 0.11 -0.11 0.69 0.78 -0.03 0.76 1.00
C3H6
0.64 0.03 -0.62 -0.55 -0.10 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.92 0.25 -0.33 0.84 0.68 1.00
iC4H10
0.55 -0.24 -0.57 -0.53 -0.30 .09 -0.34 -0.10 0.18 0.74 0.23 -0.24 0.97 0.66 0.74 1.00
nC4H10
0.54 -0.36 -0.55 -0.54 -0.38 -0.04 -0.40 -0.12 0.08 0.63 0.23 -0.28 0.94 0.66 0.64 0.98 1.00
iC4H8
-0.46 0.07 0.49 0.33 0.25 -0.16 -0.27 -0.46 -0.20 -0.42 -0.29 0.40 -0.32 -0.41 -0.38 -0.15 -0.12 1.00
CH4/H2
0.48 0.06 -0.64 -0.70 -0.31 -0.26 0.55 0.51 -0.21 0.23 -0.22 -0.55 0.37 0.18 0.47 0.27 0.25 -0.23 1.00
C2H6/
C2H4
0.80 -0.16 -0.84 -0.79 -0.34 0.09 0.06 0.26 0.06 0.70 0.05 -0.44 0.82 0.52 0.81 0.80 0.75 -0.55 0.66 1.00
C3H8/
C3H6
0.69 -0.70 -0.60 -0.47 -0.54 -0.18 -0.38 0.10 -0.21 -0.20 -0.14 -0.32 0.03 -0.01 -0.16 0.08 0.14 -0.25 -0.44 0.21 1.00
iC4H8/
CH4
0.65 0.16 -0.63 -0.51 -0.01 0.53 0.43 0.56 0.33 0.74 -0.04 -0.20 0.82 0.20 0.77 0.55 0.36 -0.89 0.37 0.83 0.29 1.00
H2/C2H2
4-12
13514801
300
250
H2:C 2H2 Rat io

200
150
100
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Po w e r Dis s ip ate d (w /cm 3)
Figure 4-3
Hydrogen to acetylene ratio as a function of power dissipated. Open circles
represent the actual data and the solid line the linear regression
Table 4-5 Top Correlations Among Gases and Variables
Gas Best Correlation with Best Gas

Correlation
Hydrogen Energy Dissipated Methane

Carbon Monoxide Energy Dissipated Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide Time Carbon Monoxide
Methane Tangent delta Hydrogen
Ethane Time Isobutane
Ethylene Time Propane
Acetylene Energy Dissipated Hydrogen
Propane Time n-Butane
Propylene Time Propane
Isobutane Time Ethane
n-Butane Time Isobutylene
Isobutylene Time n-Butane
Methane/Hydrogen Power Dissipated n-Butane
Ethane/Ethylene Time
Propane//Propylene Time
Isobutylene/Methane Time
Hydrogen/Acetylene Tan delta
4-13
13514801
Gases that correlate well with energy dissipated are hydrogen, acetylene and carbon
monoxide. This finding is very much in line with previous experience with
degradation reactions involving high energy sources. Although, methane shows a
better correlation with tan delta, its correlation with energy dissipated is nearly just as
good.
The initial goal of this work was to explore conditions that favor evolution of hydrogen
over that of acetylene, that is, to search for conditions under which hydrogen can be
produced without generation of acetylene. Table 4-4 shows a fairly good correlation of
hydrogen with acetylene, which indicates that in average under the conditions
explored, formation of hydrogen is favored over the formation of acetylene in tests run
under very low field stresses. Although, conditions that lead to formation of only
hydrogen were achieved only on one test, test #14. The conditions of test #14 consisted
on long term low stress (112 V/mil) test with relatively low dissipation factor.
Conditions were simulated in tests #16 and #17 with even lower electric stress,
however, the gas yields were not the same as in test #14.
Discussion and Conclusions
Based on the gas yields observed and their dependency with various basic parameters,
it is clear that the field stresses applied are sufficiently strong to cause slight ionization
of the dielectric material, probably as a consequence of electron impact. The average
energy that a molecule presents due to its normal thermal agitation is in the order of
0.04 eV. The first ionization potential of most hydrocarbon molecules similar in
structure to the dielectric fluids considered is of the order of 8 to 10 eV. High energy
electrons can emanate from the surface of the electrode (anode) when placed under a
strong electric field. These escaping electrons are further accelerated in the fluid phase
by the applied field before colliding with fluid molecules. If the electron is allowed to
gain enough kinetic energy, formation of positive molecular ions by collision with fluid
molecules. Positive ions are unstable species which can undergo rapid stabilization
within a few molecular vibrations through rearrangement and/or fragmentation.
Rearrangement reactions lead to formation of double bonds or ring structures plus
evolution hydrogen, while fragmentation reactions lead to the formation of low
molecular unsaturated hydrocarbons and methane.
Although the fragmentation pattern of a molecular ion will depend to a large degree on
the constitution of the original material, hydrocarbons under high excitation energy
have the peculiarity of stabilizing through the formation of common end-products such
as saturated molecules containing 2 through 5 carbon atoms. When higher energy is
available, saturated hydrocarbons become less stable than unsaturated hydrocarbons.
That is, the unsaturation level of the resulting hydrocarbons increases at increasing
reaction temperature, being acetylene together with carbon and hydrogen the only
species stable under high energy conditions.
4-14
13514801
The nature of gases evolved from the insulation under electrical stress differ according
to the type and intensity of the stress applied. Thermal stress leads to the formation of
saturated hydrocarbons in addition to isobutylene. In fluids with large content of
branched hydrocarbons, the applied electrical stress tend to favor the formation
unsaturated hydrocarbons. As the energy of the applied stress increases, the level of
unsaturation in the hydrocarbon species increases, being acetylene the most
predominant gas apart form hydrogen. Other species such as carbon and carbonaceous
materials are formed under conditions of electrical breakdown.
The yields of hydrogen, acetylene and carbon monoxide showed a direct correlation
with the total energy dissipated in the insulation. However, under conditions of low
energy ionization, the formation of hydrogen is favorated to the formation of acetylene.
During this work, it was not possible to reproduce conditions of low ionization
whereby hydrogen was the only specie generated. Gases such as carbon dioxide,
ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, n-butane and isobutylene correlate well with
thermal stress.
4-15
13514801
13514801
5
AUTOMATION OF EPOSS GAS ANALYSIS
PROCEDURE
Introduction
The dissolved gas analysis technique developed by DECo under EPRI sponsorship
named EPOSS for EPRI Pressurized Oil Sampling System involved many repetitive
valve manipulations as well as lengthy equilibration steps. Some of these steps lend
themselves to frequent operation errors while the equilibration time severely limited
sample throughput.
As a result of the commercial application of EPOSS for HPFF and LPFF (SCOF) cables
and their terminations a dramatic increase in sample analysis prompted the need of a
more reliable and more time efficient procedure. Moreover, increase in internal
demand of EPOSS must also be considered due to ongoing aging projects.
Changes were also needed for the EPOSS sampling cell to eliminate frequent leaks
caused by the original three-way ball valve, presence of compression fittings and
degassing of a large elastomeric o-ring seal. A three-way bellows valve designed for
high vacuum application was identified from old blue prints from Crawford Valve &
Fitting Co. and fitted with VCO o-ring face seal fittings available from the same
company.
Once the newly designed sampling valve was built and tested, the new analysis system
was built around the new cell design. By replacing all manual valves by remotely
actuated valves and introduction of pressure and temperature sensors to eliminate
human intervention, the entire sample preparation and analysis steps could be
programmed and be controlled from a personal computer (PC). Random errors and
sample losses were quickly eliminated by relying on a computer to make routine
operations such as sequential opening and closing of valves, selection of samples
including decisions on pre-established levels of pressure and/or temperature.
The goals set for this task were fully achieved with the current system design. At the
moment we have logged more than 27,000 hours of continuous operation and we feel
that human error has virtually been eliminated as a cause of sample loss. In addition,
5-1
13514801
Automation of EPOSS Gas Analysis Procedure
the automated unit permits the analysis of up to 30 samples during an 8-hour shift. The
system allows safe and reliable unattended operation for sample analysis overnight.
The total time needed to analyze one sample is 13 minutes. This time includes 5
minutes for the actual gas chromatographic separation of over 20 different gases and 4
minutes for column conditioning. That is, nearly equal time is spent in sample
preparation than in sample analysis. The actual interpretation of results is a parallel
task that can be performed by the technical operator while a new batch is being
analyzed. With 130 minutes needed for a single 10-sample batch, three batches can
easily be accommodated in one day plus a fourth one can be run unattended over
night. That is, 40 samples can be analyzed on a normal 8-hour day operation.
Technical
The EPOSS system comprises a wide range of hardware and ancillary equipment. The
analysis system consists of a large number of sampling cells, a series of remote
controlled air operated and electrically operated valves together with pressure and
temperature sensors and sophisticated communication and interfacing devices
(microcontrollers), two gas chromatographs and two 286 IBM compatible PC’s to
control the operations and acquire the gas separation data.
Among the ancillary equipment, a trichloroethane vapor degreaser equipped with a

forced circulation pump is utilized to clean the cells before and after the analysis. An
fluid-free vacuum system is utilized to evacuate the cells to ready them for cable fluid
sampling.
EPOSS Cell
An schematic representation of the current cell is showed in Figure 5.1. This design is
4.5 years old and no changes are being planned at this time. The major drawback of
this design is associated with the bellows in the main valve. During sampling, fluid is
pushed between the convolutions of the bellows seal requiring a great deal of solvent
flushing and air blasting to clean the oil out before the analysis. During the analysis the
entire bellows is exposed to vacuum and the presence of fluid leads to excessive
outgassing.
This problem was solved with the purchase of the vapor degreaser equipped with an
additional solvent pump. The additional pump allows clean solvent to be pushed
through the three-way valve while the entire cell is being cleaned inside the vapor
degreaser. This procedure saves a considerable amount of time during the cleaning
and consequently saves time during the analysis due to the reduction of the outgassing
problem.
5-2
13514801
Figure 5-1
Diagram of gas lines associated with the automated EPOSS gas analysis system
Automated Analyzer
A schematic diagram of the computer controlled automated analyzer is shown in

Figure 5.2. This diagram shows the gas connection with solid lines and electrical
signals with broken lines. Compressed air lines needed for the operation of the remote
valves were not included to increase the readability of the diagram.
The gas handling equipment was located around the multiposition valve. This valve is
operated by a binary code (BCD) emerging from the controlling computer and can be
made to direct the common line to any of 12 different positions. The common line is
part of the gas manifold that contains pressure and vacuum monitors and is connected
to vacuum and carrier gas (argon). The remote on/off valves were obtained from
Nupro and correspond to basically three configurations of bellows valves, female VCO
(SS-BNV71-B-C), male VCR (SS-BNVCR4-C) and female VCR (SS-BNVS1-C). The zero
5-3
13514801
clearance VCR type fitting utilizes a one-time metal seal and was used for permanent
connections, while the zero clearance VCO type fitting that uses a reusable o-ring seal
cells. The electromechanical actuators needed to operate the pneumatic valves were
normally closed solenoid type valves that allow compressed air to enter the valve
actuator after receiving a 110 VAC signal (40 mA inrush and 27 mA holding).
Figure 5-2
Diagram of the EPOSS sampling cell
Communication between the valve actuators and the computer was achieved through
24-channel TTL-compatible digital boards. The selected Analog Devices RTI-817,
which allows incoming and ongoing information, was installed into the extension slots
of a Compaq 286 computer. The signal emanating from the RTI-817 were routed to a
DB-24 boards having 6 quad solid state relays(SSR) capable of switching AC current.
With this configuration the remote valve can be controlled directly from the computer
through a resident program of the keyboard.
The temperature and pressure transducers were interfaced via microcontrollers (MC)
utilizing the computer’s serial I/O port. Each MC has a unique address and up to 124
MC units can be daisy chained to the computer. Since, the MC operate under a fast
RS485 series protocol, a protocol converter (RS485 to RS232) was utilized between the
MCs and the computer.
5-4
13514801
A Pirani type gauge from Alcatel was utilized to monitor the pressures down to 10-4
torrs. A MKS Baratron 127A absolute pressure transducer was utilized to monitors
pressures in the range from 10 to 1000 torrs. The Baratron 127A has an accuracy of
0.15% and temperature controlled.
Process Control Software
The software utilized to control the entire operation consisted of a two level program.
The user level (level one) consisted of a series of 18 possible commands that are written
in a text file utilizing a text editor or word processor. All these commands consist of
one word followed by numerical parameters used to identify devices, define time or
other sensor input parameters.
The second level program, which is not accessible to the user, reads and interpret the
instructions in the text file to generating the machine language level instruction that
allow the computer to control I/O instructions that allow operation of valves and input
data from pressure/temperature sensors. The second level program was written in
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.5 and contains several hundred instruction lines. A certain
degree of intelligence was made possible by the utilization of IF statements which
allow the operation of peripheral devices based on pre-select levels of temperature,
pressure and/or time.
Countless number of operations can be stored in different command text files for which
this program prompts at the beginning. The operation of any valve can be overridden
from the keyboard at any time during the operation. This feature is fundamental
during the establishment of a new method were errors can be found. The program has
an error checking routine to check for incomplete or erroneous commands. An
example of simple operation that can be controlled by this system is given in the
following examples. In this examples, the command is shown in capitals while an
explanation shown at the right side in lower case was added to clarify the instruction.
Example 1
TASK
Open valve #12 until pressure falls below 50 mtorrs. Maintain the system under vacuum
for 3 minutes. After 3 minutes close valve #12 and open valve #14.
List of commands to be typed in the text file (capital letters only):
DEF PRESS = INPUT(3); define variable PRESS as the input from the pressure
sensor
5-5
13514801
DEF LOWP = 0.050; define variable LOWP with the low pressure limit
OPEN SSR12; open valve #12
UNTIL PRESS < LOWP; wait until the pressure reaches 50 mtorrs
STARTIMER ; call timer
TIMEOUT 3 MINUTES; set countdowm timer to 3 minutes
CLOSE SSR12; after countdown close valve #12
OPEN SSR14; open valve #14
END ; end of operation
Example 2
TASK
Direct multiposition valve to port position #3. Open and close on/off valve connected
with this port three times, holding the valve open for 5 seconds each time.
Program:
POINTVICI 3 ; direct multi-position to port #3
DO; start do loop
OPEN SSR3; open valve associated with port #3
STARTIMER ; call timer

TIMEOUT 5 SECONDS; set countdown timer to 5 seconds
CLOSE SSR3; close valve #3
LOOP COUNTER 1, 4; go to DO line and repeat three times
END ; end operation
The list of all available instructions are given in Appendix E together with more
examples. Appendix F shows the list of commands that are currently utilized by the
system during a regular gas analysis.
Gas Separation and Identification
A gas sample from the headspace of a pressurized EPOSS cell is directed to two gas
chromatographic units. These gas chromatographs (GC) are connected in parallel and
are fitted with different columns operating at different temperatures. One unit is
dedicated to the separation and detection of permanent gases, including hydrogen,
nitrogen, oxygen, methane and carbon oxides, while the other unit is dedicated to the
separation of hydrocarbons from C2's to C6's. The former unit was fitted with a 6 ft. 1/8
inch O.D. column packed with HayeSep N in series with a 0.53 mm I.D. PLOT Molsieve
capillary column and two detectors, a thermal conductivity and flame ionization. A
5-6
13514801
short piece of a nickel catalyst was placed after the second column to convert carbon
oxides into methane so that an increase in sensitivity could be achieved for these two
gases. The second GC unit was fitted with a 50 m 0.32 mm I.D. PLOT Alumina
capillary column and a flame ionization detector for the separation of hydrocarbon
gases and vapors. The two units were linked to a PC based data acquisition system,
Baseline Workstation by Waters, Inc. To expedite the analysis of data, a one PC unit
was dedicated to data acquisition, while a second PC unit was utilized for data
analysis. All computers, including the one utilized for operation control, were linked
to a local network, Lantastic V4.1 from Artisoft, Inc., Tucson, Arizona, which allowed
the transfer of data files for data analysis
5-7
13514801
13514801
6
EFFECT OF HIGH GAS CONCENTRATION ON THE AC
DIELECTRIC STRENGTH OF AN INSULATING FLUID
Introduction
The generation of gaseous products as a result of exposure to thermal and electric

stresses of the organic constituents of the fluid/paper taped insulation is well
recognized. Under normal operation conditions, the rates of gas generation by either of
these mechanisms are small and the migration of the generated gases out of the
insulation wall is severely limited by a slow molecular diffusion processes. Under
these circumstances, gases will tend to accumulate in the innermost tapes reaching
concentrations that can significantly higher than those observed in the pipe fluid. The
actual level of gas concentration within the generation area can be calculated from a
mass balance involving the rates of gas formation and gas diffusion.
At small gas generation rates, gases will remain in solution with the impregnation fluid
as long as saturation concentrations are not surpassed. It is well known that the gas
holding capacity of a fluid depends on the nature of the gas, the temperature of the
fluid phase and the hydrostatic pressure to which the solution is subjected. Once the
saturation point is reached, the excess gas can separate in the form of gas bubbles. The
actual mechanism for bubble formation is not controlled by gas solubility alone but by
bubble nucleation and bubble growth mechanisms once the saturation point is reached.
That is, under certain circumstances it is possible to form over-saturated solutions
without the separation of the gas phase in the form of bubbles. However, such unstable
condition could become abruptly terminated resulting in the rapid formation of
bubbles.
The dielectric constants of gases are usually smaller than that of liquid and/or solid
insulation. This implies a higher electric stress in the gas phase compared to liquid
dielectric surrounding the gas bubble. This situation can promote ionization and
corona discharges within the gas phase which can lead to the chemical degradation of
the insulation by collisions with charged particles with high kinetic energy.
The high hydrostatic pressure applied on HPFF cables is sufficient to assure a large gas
holding capacity of the fluid and thus prevent gas saturation. Furthermore, dielectric
6-1
13514801
Effect of High Gas Concentration on the AC Dielectric Strength of an Insulating Fluid
strength of gases increase with pressure. This suggests that even in the event of gas
saturation, the dielectric strength of the insulation is not expected to fall so rapidly.
Evaluation of the dielectric strength of the insulation under a range of gas content
including gas saturation is the main objective of this work.
The effect of high gas concentration on the dielectric strength of insulating fluids and
impregnated taped insulation (including paper and PPP) has not been established for
conditions pertaining to HPFF cables. It is also unclear whether the loss in the
dielectric strength of a gas-fluid solution can be predicted solely in terms of its gas
saturation point or if a decrease in dielectric strength is expected before the saturation
point is reached.
To carry out this work a high pressure breakdown test cell was devised to allow
dielectric strength measurements in fluid/gas solutions within the pressure range 0-300
psig under a uniform field. The dielectric strength of an insulating fluid was thus
determined as a function of gas, gas concentration and hydrostatic pressure. All the
dielectric strength measurements were carried out at room temperature.
Apparatus and Experimental Procedure
A heavy wall test cell machined out of a single piece of Micarta, a cotton fiber phenolic
resin composite laminate, was utilized to hold the fluid/gas solutions under high
hydrostatic pressure during the determination of dielectric strength. Micarta has
excellent electric insulating properties with additional high mechanical strength so that
the need for bulky high voltage bushings is avoided. Coating the external surface of
Micarta with high electrical strength varnishes and downsizing all external metal pieces
allowed us to apply maximum voltage to ground AC potentials slightly over 40 kV.
Adjusting the electrode gap to 30 mils resulted on maximum voltage stresses of about
1,300 V/mils.
The outside dimensions of the rectangular cross section cell shown in Figure 6-1 were 4
inch wide, 4 inch long and 3.5 inch tall. A cylindrical cavity 2 inch in diameter and 2.5
inch depth was bored at the center of the cell body leaving a minimum of 1 inch wall
all around the cavity. A circular cover, 4 inch diameter and 1 inch thick fitted with an
o-ring seal was utilized to enclose cell.
A sphere-to-plane configuration was utilized during these measurements. A brass

plate was cut from a 1 inch brass rod with a flat surface and a radius inscribed in the
edges. The sphere was a 0.375 inch diameter hardened steel bearing. The electrodes
were polished in a lathe to a mirror finish with fine aluminum oxide powder. After
polishing, the electrodes were rinsed with 1,1,1 trichloroethane. The electrode gap was
set by bringing one electrode to contact with a fixed electrode and then retracting it
while measuring the travel with a Mitutoyo dial indicator with 0.001 inch divisions.
6-2
13514801
The gap was set at 30 mils for the entire testing. The gap spacing was selected in order
to maintain the expected maximum breakdown levels under 40 kV AC.
After setting the electrodes, the cell was rinsed with dry methanol and then evacuated
overnight. After 12 hours of conditioning, the pressure in the cell was reduced to
below 80 microns as measured directly in the cell with a thermocouple gauge. The test
cell was pressure tested up to 350 psi.
A Beckman PA5 AC Dielectric Strength Test power supply was utilized for the
measurement of the dielectric strength of the fluid samples. The rate of voltage raise
was set to 0.5 kV/sec for all measurements. The ASTM D 1816-84a procedure was
followed for the dielectric strength determinations. Each data point corresponds to the
average of a minimum of 5 breakdowns measured at 1 minute intervals. The selection
of 5 breakdown per pressure point was chosen in order to minimize damage to the
electrode surfaces and to the testing fluid. Fresh fluid was added to the cell after each
data points to partially dilute gases formed during the breakdown testing.
The experimental setup utilized for fluid handling is schematically depicted in Figure
6-2. Briefly it consisted of an fluid degassing unit, a high pressure mixing chamber and
a pneumatic measured with a temperature compensated test gauge, 0-400 psi and
0.25% full scale accuracy.
6-3
13514801
Figure 6-1
Schematic diagram showing a top and side view of the Micarta high pressure
breakdown cell including the cell body, lid and electrodes
The fluid was admitted in the degassing unit and processed until the total gas content
was reduced to under 500 ppm. The dissolved gas content was determined with the
EPOSS method. A small reduction in moisture content was also observed after
degassing. The fluid utilized had a moisture content under 10 ppm and a particle
count according to Table 6-1.
To asses the effect of particle content, the dielectric breakdown was determined after
filtering the fluid with a 7 micron filter. As shown in Figure 6-3, the filtered fluid
showed a higher initial breakdown when compared to that of degassed as-received
fluid.
6-4
13514801
Table 6-1
Particle Size Distribution in a Low Viscosity Polybutene Fluid (Dussek 0CS)
Size Range Filtered Unfiltered
5-15 microns 74,700 407,290
15-25 microns 2,890 4,180
25-50 microns 580 810
>100 microns 40 80
However, the dielectric strength of the filtered fluid decreased very rapidly with the
number of breakdowns reaching the value of the non-filtered fluid after 4 breakdowns.
On the other hand, the degassed as-received fluid showed a small increase in
breakdown during the conditioning period.
The effect of electrode pretreatment and conditioning period has been treated in great
detail by several investigators29 30 31. The initial increase in the dielectric strength of a
degassed non-filtered fluid can be due to the conditioning effect described by
Maksiejewski and Tropper1 after their studies on the dielectric strength of organic
fluids. On the other hand, the decrease observed for the degassed filtered fluid could
be the result of the accumulation of fine carbon particles after each breakdown. The
end result is a similar breakdown level for both fluid samples after the initial
conditioning of the electrodes. As it will be shown latter, the conditioning effect was
not observed with the unfiltered fluid after the cell and electrodes were maintained
under vacuum overnight. It was decided to utilize as-received fluid in all experiments
to reduce fluid handling.
29.
Maksiejewski, J. L. and Tropper, H., "Some Factors Affecting the Measurement of the Electric Strength
of Organic Liquids", Proc. IEEE, Vol. 100, pp. 183, (1953).
30.
Sharbaugh, A. H., Devins, J. C. and Rzad, S. J., "Progress in the Field of Electric Breakdown in
Dielectric Liquids", IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul. Vol. EI-13, No. 4, (1978).
31.
Danikas, M. G. "Breakdown of Transformer Fluid', IEEE Elect. Insul. Magzn. Vol. 6, No. 5 pp. 27,
(1990).
6-5
13514801
During the determination of the dielectric strength of fluid alone, the degassed fluid
was fed directly into the pressurization pump and into the test cell. The gas/fluid
mixtures were prepared by first adding 750 cc of freshly degassed fluid into an
evacuated mixing chamber (1,500 cc) followed by a given pressure of the desired gas.
A constant headspace pressure was maintained while mixing with the gas. A magnet
stirrer was utilized to assist mixing which was carried out for about of 12 hours before
the gas content in the liquid phase was checked by EPOSS. The saturation pressure of
the solution was calculated from the solubility data for the gas-fluid pair at room
temperature and the gas concentration measured by the EPOSS method, according to
the following relationship:
Cfluid (ppm) 14.7

Psat = − 14.7 (psig) (eq. 6-13 )
Si (moll / cc / atm) 24.47 × 109
where Cfluid is the actual gas in fluid concentration in ppm, Si is the gas-fluid solubility
in mol/cc/atm, Psat is the headspace pressure in atm and 24.47 x 109 is a constant to
convert solubility from mol/cc/atm to ppm/atm.
6-6
13514801
Figure 6-2
Set-up for the determination of the breakdown of gas/fluid solutions under high
hydrostatic pressure
6-7
13514801
Figure 6-3
Effect of fluid filtering on the dielectric strength of a low viscosity Polybutene
fluid (Dussek 0CS). Note the initial electrode conditioning period on the
breakdown of the unfiltered fluid.
The solution in the mixing chamber was first allowed to flow into the evacuated test
cell. Several hundred ml of solution were first drained from the test cell to condition
the cell. A fluid sample was taken from the test cell after draining to determine the gas
content.
After an initial set of measurements, the fluid pressure in the test cell was increased in
50 psi increments up to 300 psig. Subsequently, dielectric strength measurements were
taken at decreasing hydrostatic pressure to a final value below the saturation pressure
of the solution.
It should be noted that the gas content in the fluid remained constant throughout a
given test, while the hydrostatic pressure was increased or decreased. Increase in gas
content due to accumulation of gases after each breakdown was considered
insignificant in comparison to the amount initially present in the solution.
Furthermore, fluid was drained out of the cell after each set of measurements.
6-8
13514801
Incrementing the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid in the cell has the effect of moving
the gas-fluid solution away from the saturation as if gas was taken out. On the other
hand, decreasing the hydrostatic pressure applied over the fluid moves the solution
toward the saturation point by decreasing the gas in fluid solubility. It was possible to
decrease the hydrostatic pressure below saturation point. Heavy frothing of the fluid
was expected to take place in this pressure region while measurements of dielectric
strength were made.
Results and Discussion
Dielectric Strength of Gases under Pressure
The dielectric strength of two inert gases: nitrogen and carbon dioxide and a
combustible gas, propane, was determined over the 0-300 psi pressure range. The
pressure effect on the dielectric strength of these gases is clearly observed in Figure 6-4.
The dielectric strength of a degassed fluid (Polybutene 0EG) was added to this plot as a
reference point.
The dielectric strength of carbon dioxide (solid dots) and nitrogen (open dots) increases
rapidly with pressure. For carbon dioxide an almost linear increase in dielectric
strength was observed as a function of pressure. In the case of nitrogen, a fast initial
increase was observed up to 50 psig followed by a smaller increase towards higher gas
pressures. For the case of the two gases shown in Figure 6-4, their dielectric strength at
about 300 psig reached values equal or higher than that for the fluid at the same
pressure. The dielectric strength of nitrogen was always slightly higher than carbon
dioxide up to 300 psig of pressure.
The results for these two gases are in good agreements with those indicated by Cohen
where a dielectric strength of 1060 volts/mil was reported for both nitrogen and
carbon dioxide at 300 psig. In the present work, the measured dielectric strength for
carbon dioxide was 770 volts/mil and for nitrogen 820 volts/mils both at 300 psig. The
difference between the values reported by Cohen and those from this work are more
likely to be due to differences in electrode configurations. Cohen utilized a plane-to-
plane configuration with electrode contour according to Bruce32. In this work a sphere
to plane configuration was utilized.
The dielectric strength of propane (solid squares) is also shown in Figure 6-4 as a
function of pressure. Propane has a critical temperature of 96.7oC and a vapor pressure
32.
Bruce, F. M., "Calibration of Uniform-Field Spark Gaps for High-Voltage Measurement at Power
Frequencies", Journal IEE, 94, pp. 138 (1947).
6-9
13514801
of 118 psig at room temperature. Accordingly, condensation of the gas to a liquid

phase is expected to begin at 118 psig. Effectively, at 118 psig a sharp increase in the
dielectric strength of propane was observed as shown in Figure 6-4. Below 118 psig,
the dielectric strength of propane increased with pressure reaching a strength of 535.3
V/mil before condensation at 117 psig. At 118 psig the strength increases abruptly to
1,121.3 V/mil. As the cell was completely filled with liquid propane the dielectric
strength seemed to stabilize at about 1,180 V/mil. Dielectric strength measurements for
propane were not continued to higher pressures because of limitations with the
maximum voltage operation of the test cell.
Figure 6-4
Dielectric breakdown as a function of hydrostatic pressure for selected
components. Note the abrupt increase in the dielectric strength of propane as
this gas condenses to a liquid at pressures over 118 psig.
6-10
13514801
In general, the dielectric strength measurements were in good agreement with those
values reported for gases under pressure by Cohen33 and Clark34 despite the fact that the
stress fields used in this work were not the same as those utilized by these
investigators.
Dielectric Strength of Low Viscosity Polybutene Fluid Under Pressure
The effect of large amounts of gas on the dielectric strength of an fluid was examined
for a Cosden 0EG polybutene fluid. Initially the fluid was degassed to less than 50
microns of headspace pressure resulting in a total dissolved gas content under 500 ppm
of total gas (mainly nitrogen).
Dielectric breakdown as a function of hydrostatic pressure for selected materials.

Notice the abrupt increase in the dielectric strength of propane as this gas condenses to
a liquid at a pressure in excess of 118 psig.
The dielectric strength of a degassed dielectric fluid is shown in Figure 6-5 as a function
of increasing pressure (upright open triangles) and decreasing pressure (downright
open triangles). A linear correlation of the average values (solid circles) is shown by
the continuous line. The linear correlation indicates an increase in the dielectric
strength of the fluid by about 0.8 V/mil per pound of hydrostatic pressure.
Accordingly, an increase of 200 V/mil or 39% of the original value of dielectric strength
at 0 psig was observed for this fluid at 250 psig.
The effect of moisture content on dielectric strength of an insulating can be observed in

Figure 6-6 as a function of pressure. The dielectric strength for the low moisture
content fluid (12 ppm) resulted always higher than that of the high moisture content
fluid (50 ppm).
Dielectric Strength of Fluids Containing High Dissolved Gas Content
The dielectric strength of fluids with high contents of hydrogen, carbon dioxide,
ethylene and propane was determined in the present work. The effect of varying
amounts of hydrogen can be observed in Figure 6-7. The hydrogen-fluid blends were
prepared by stirring the degassed fluid under a constant pressure of gas until most of
the fluid became saturated with hydrogen. The actual gas concentration of fluid
33.
Cohen, E. H., "The Electric Strength of Highly Compressed Gases", Proc.. IEE, Vol. 103, Feb., pp. 57,
(1956).
34.
Clark, F. M. in "Insulating Materials from Design and Engineering Practice", John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
New York, pp. 88-91 (1962).
6-11
13514801
introduced in the test cell was determined by dissolved-gas-analysis DGA utilizing the
EPOSS method. The actual saturation pressure was calculated accordingly to eq. 6-1.
Since no headspace exists in the high pressure test cell, a valid assumption was made
whereby, by applying replacing the headspace pressure by an equal hydrostatic
pressure, the gas concentration in the liquid phase remains the same. However, as the
hydrostatic pressure is increased the gas holding capacity of the fluid increases pushing
the fluid into an under saturation conditions. Similarly, by decreasing the hydrostatic
the fluid decreases and a over saturation condition is achieved.
Figure 6-5
Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric strength of a well degassed low
viscosity polybutene fluid. Upright open triangles indicate the dielectric strength
at increasing pressure, while downright open triangles is the dielectric strength as
the pressure is released.
6-12
13514801
Figure 6-6
Effect of moisture on the AC dielectric strength of degassed low viscosity
polybutene dielectric fluid
Hydrogen. The data shown in Figure 6-7 shows that the dielectric strength of the fluid
is not significantly affected by the presence of hydrogen provided that fluid/gas mix is
not saturated. Data is shown in this figure for fluid solutions containing from zero up
to 70.2% (v/v) of hydrogen, where the later is equivalent to 700,000 ppm.
In comparison to the dielectric strength of degassed fluids, the dielectric strength of

non-saturated fluid solutions containing exceedingly large amounts of hydrogen
showed in some cases a slight increase in dielectric strength while in other cases, no
effect was observed on the dielectric strength.
The dielectric strength of the degassed fluid is represented in this figure by the solid
straight line. The dielectric strength for the hydrogen solutions of different
concentrations in this figure by the various symbols. Open symbols correspond to low
hydrogen concentrations while solid symbols correspond to high hydrogen
concentrations. The arrows point to the solution saturation pressure on the pressure
axis.
It should be noted that the dielectric strength of all solutions falls rapidly as the
saturation pressure is approached. The dielectric strength continues to fall as the
pressure is further reduced. The loss in dielectric strength is in part due to the
formation of gas bubbles and also due to the decrease in gas dielectric strength with
falling pressure.
6-13
13514801
Carbon Dioxide. The addition of vast amounts of carbon dioxide (341,000 and 677,000
ppm, respectively) to a degassed fluid brought about no significant changes in the
dielectric strength of the solution compared to the dielectric strength of the degassed
fluid, as shown in Figure 6-8. Once again, a rapid drop in the dielectric strength of the
solution was observed as the hydrostatic pressure was reduced to values close to the
actual equilibrium pressure of the solution. Solutions with the indicated gas
concentrations still have sub-atmospheric equilibrium pressures. Significant deviations
from the average dielectric strength of the degassed fluid were observed at pressures
below 50 psig. This pressure is still significantly higher than the vapor pressure of the
carbon dioxide solutions utilized in this work which seems to indicate that the presence
of the gas could be felt However, the dielectric strength of pure carbon dioxide in the
low pressure range is still significantly lower than that of saturated carbon
dioxide/fluid solution, as shown by the solid circles in Figure 6-8. It is expected that as
the pressure is reduced even further, the dielectric strength of the solution will
eventually approach that of the gas alone.
6-14
13514801
Figure 6-7
Effect of hydrogen concentration and hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric
strength of a low viscosity fluid. The dielectric strength decreases rapidly as the
hydrostatic pressure falls below the saturation pressure of the solution before the
solution becomes saturated.
Ethylene. The presence of ethylene resulted on a small increase in the dielectric

strength of the ethylene/fluid solution as shown by the open circles in Figure 6-9. The
saturation pressure for the given ethylene concentration is below atmospheric pressure.
6-15
13514801
Propane. The effect of propane on the dielectric strength a gas/fluid solution is

observed in Figure 6-10. The solution containing about 3.2 cc of gas per cc fluid
showed a dielectric strength always higher than that of the degassed fluid. From
previous work on dielectric strength of pure gases, it was observed that the dielectric
strength of gas phase propane at a pressure under 100 psig was slightly lower than that
of degassed fluid, however, the dielectric strength of propane in the liquid phase was
significantly higher than that of the degassed fluid. Propane has a critical temperature
above ambient temperature and vapor pressure of 118 psig at room temperature. As
such, propane can be compressed to a liquid phase by compressing the vapor phase to
its vapor pressure. In a non-saturated propane/fluid solution, the gas molecules
occupy a volume similar to that of its liquid phase and therefore it can be assumed to
be in a liquid form. Since the dielectric strength of liquid propane is about twice as
high as that of the dielectric fluid utilized in this work, the addition of propane to this
dielectric fluid is expected to increase the dielectric strength of the fluid. This effect is
expected for all gases having a liquid phase dielectric strength higher than the dielectric
fluid.
The concentration of propane in volume percent (liquid/liquid) can be estimated

assuming that the molar volume at its normal boiling point which is -67oC, 75 cc/mol,
is roughly the same at 118 psig and room temperature. As such, 3.2 cc of gas per cc
fluid corresponds to nearly 1% of liquid propane in the dielectric fluid. It seems
surprising that such a small amount of liquid propane can have such a dramatic
influence in the dielectric strength of the polybutene fluid. The estimated equilibrium
pressure for the propane solution utilized in this work was about 70 psig.
Figure 6-8
Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric strength of a low viscosity fluid
containing large amounts of carbon dioxide (open symbols). The AC strength of
carbon dioxide gas is shown by the solid circles as a function of gas pressure
6-16
13514801
Figure 6-9
Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the AC dielectric strength of a low viscosity fluid
containing large amounts of ethylene. For comparison, the AC strength of
degassed fluid is is given by the solid line.
6-17
13514801
Figure 6-10
Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the C strength for a low viscosity polybutene
fluid containing large amounts of propane. For comparison the AC strength of
degassed fluid is given by the solid line.
The dielectric strength of the propane solution was determined after opening the test
cell and letting the solution release the excess gas. The first measurement taken while
the solution was bubbling gave a dielectric strength of 359 V/mil. The dielectric
strength of a degassed fluid at the same pressure is 513.3 V/mil. As the propane from
the propane/fluid solution was allowed to evolve, the dielectric strength began to
increase from 359 V/mil to 392 and 412 V/mil after several hours. If most of the
propane would have been allowed to escape from the fluid, while no air (moisture)
allowed to contaminate the fluid, the dielectric strength of the propane/fluid solution
would have been expected to reach that of the degassed fluid.
6-18
13514801
Conclusions
The dielectric strength of a low viscosity polybutene fluid remained essentially

unaffected by the presence of exceedingly large amounts of gas as long as the
hydrostatic pressure exerted over the solution exceeded the saturation the pressure of
the gas/fluid mixture.
The dielectric strength of all solutions fell rapidly as the hydrostatic pressure solution
fell below the equilibrium pressure of the solution.
Some of the hydrocarbon gases tested presented a higher dielectric strength than the
polybutene fluid utilized in this work. The higher dielectric strength of solutions
containing large concentration of hydrocarbon gases was observed to decrease as the
hydrocarbon gas is allow to escape from solution.
Finally, for this work is concluded that the presence of large gas concentrations in the
insulation wall near the conductor of a cable are not expected to deteriorate the
dielectric strength of the impregnation fluid as long as the hydrostatic pressure is
higher than the corresponding equilibrium pressure of the solution. Depending on the
nature of the dissolved gases, it is even possible to expect a slight improvement of the
AC strength of the dielectric fluid.
Dielectric Strength of PPP Impregnated with Fluids of High Dissolved Gas Content
The cell utilized to measure the AC dielectric strength of strips of PPP-laminate at high
fluid pressure is shown in Figure 6-11. This new test cell was built from G-10, a high
strength glass fiber and epoxy resin laminate with excellent mechanical and electrical
characteristics even under humid atmospheric conditions. Two rollers were placed
inside the cell to hold the material being tested. The rollers were able to be operated
from the outside of the pressurized test cell to feed the new material to the electrodes
after each breakdown. A rachet was installed in one of the rollers to allow a fixed
feeding direction and also to provide a way to measure the length of the material being
fed by counting the rachet stops. One electrode was fixed while the other was
mounted on a spring so that a constant force could be applied over the testing material.
A first set of experiments consisted on AC dielectric strength measurements on 4 mil

PPP and 6 mil kraft paper, both fluid impregnated. In the case of PPP, the test was
carried out with one and two layers of the laminate placed between a sphere-to-plane
electrode configuration. Measurement of paper were made with only one layer. A
second set of experiments was performed with one layer of PPP with 1/8 inch diameter
perforations to simulate butt gaps along with a second layer of unperforated PPP. In
this test a plane-to-plane electrode configuration was utilized. The distance between
the 1/8 inch perforations were variably spaced along the axis of the tape so that a single
perforation could always be positioned between the electrodes. After each breakdown
6-19
13514801
test, the roller was turned a fixed number of rachet stops allowing the positioning of
the next perforation in the center of the 5/8 inch diameter electrode.
The dielectric strength of PPP laminate, perforated as well as unperforated was

determined after impregnation with a degassed fluid as well as with a fluid containing
1,100,000 ppm of hydrogen. This amount of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to 0.13%
volume of liquid hydrogen per volume of fluid. The AC dielectric strength results for
the first set of experiments are shown in tables 6-2 through 6-4 and figures 6-12 through
6-14.
Table 6-2
AC breakdown voltage for a 3.8 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate strip impregnated with
degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane electrode configuration
Hydrostatic Breakdown Voltage Average Standard

Pressure deviation
(psig) (kV) (kV)
50 10.9-9.6-10.5-11.0-12.0-11.2-11.0-10.5-10.5 10.9 0.7
100 11.0-12.0-12.5-11.2-13.0-13.5-10.5-11.5-11.0-13.3 12.0 1.1
150 12.0-11.5-13.0-13.0-13.2-11.0-12.0-14.0-12.8-12.0 12.5 0.9
200 11.5-11.0-12.5-13.0-12.0-12.0-13.2-11.0-13.0-13.0 12.2 0.8
250 11.5-13.8-12.0-11.0-10.5-12.1-12.6-11.6-12.2-10.6-11.0-12.0 11.8 0.9
300 10.5-12.8-12.8-10.7-11.7-13.0-9.8-11.0-12.2-13.0-12.0 11.7 1.0
350 12.0-10.4-12.0-11.0-12.5-11.5-12.2-10.6-11.5-10.5-10.4-11.0 11.4 0.8
6-20
13514801
Table 6-3
AC breakdown voltage for a 6.8 mil kraft paper impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS in
a sphere-to-plane electrode configuration

Pressure deviation
(psig) (kV) (kV)
50 16.2-16.2-16.4-16.4-15.0 16.1 0.5

100 17.4-17.1-20.2-16.1-16.3-18.4 17.6 1.4
150 16.6-21.0-21.4-18.5-16.0-19.0 18.8 2.2
200 18.5-17.2-20.0-20.8-20.1 19.3 1.5
250 20.8-17.5-21.8-20.5-18.5-18.8 19.0 2.1
300 22.1-23.0-23.0-17.8-20.2-21.2 21.2 1.8
Table 6-4
AC breakdown voltage for a double layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate impregnated
with degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane electrode configuration

Pressure deviation
(psig) (kV) (kV)
50 20.2-19.5-19.0-19.0-20.5-17.6-20.5 19.4 1.0
100 18.5-21.5-21.5-20.0-20.0-20.5-19.0-21.0 20.3 0.9
150 18.5-18.0-22.5-18.0-18.8-21.2-19.8-19.6-18.0-18.8-22.8-20.8 19.7 1.7
200 20.5-18.0-22.0-22.0-21.2-19.2-20.2-21.2-21.0 20.6 1.2
250 20.5-18.0-20.2-19.6-21.2-17.9-21.4-18.2-19.9 19.8 1.3
300 20.9-21.0-20.0-19.2-20.5-19.8-19.0 20.1 0.7
350 21.0-20.0-19.2-18.0-20.5-20.5-18.0-19.2-20.5-22.0 19.9 1.3
6-21
13514801
Table 6-5
AC breakdown voltage for a single layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate impregnated with
degassed Dussek 0CS containing 1,100,1000 ppm hydrogen in a sphere-to-plane
electrode configuration

Pressure deviation
(psig) (kV) (kV)
150 11.6-11.8-12.0-12.1-11.5-11.4 11.7 0.3

160 12.0-12.1-10.2-11.6-12.0 11.6 0.8
180 9.5-11.5-9.0-11.0-10.8 10.4 1.1
200 11.0-11.2-9.2-10.5-9.6 10.3 0.9
250 12.0-12.0-11.6-10.5-10.0 11.2 0.9
300 10.0-9.2-9.3-9.9-9.2 9.5 .4
350 11.6-11.8-10.4-12..0-12.0 11.6 0.7
120 9.1-9.3-11.6-9.3-11.0 10.1 1.1
90 9.6-11.5-9.8-10.5-11.5 10.4 0.9
60 8.9-9.8-9.5-9.9-8.5 9.3 .6
40 9.0-7.3-9.6-7.7-10.1 8.7 1.3
Table 6-6
AC breakdown voltage for a double layer of perforated 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate
impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS in a plane-to-plane electrode configuration

Pressure deviation
(psig) (kV) (kV)
300 16.7-17.0-15.5-12.5-16.6-16.9-13.8-14.7-16.0-15.3 15.5 1.5

250 16.6-15.6-12.7-14.8-17.0-15.4-15.0-14.0-12.5-15.2 14.9 1.5
200 15.2-14.1-16.5-12.2-11.6-13.4-12.1-15.2-16.0 13.8 1.8
100 11.8-11.3-12.7-11.36-10.8-11.7-14.8-11.4-14.6-10.8 12.1 1.5
50 11.9-10.8-11.2-11.4-10.8-10.7-10.1-10.7-11.2-10.7 11.0 0.5
0 9.4-10.8-10.0-10.0-9.8-10.7-10.7-9.8-9.8-9.9 10.1 0.5
6-22
13514801
Table 6-7
AC breakdown voltage for a double layer of perforated 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate
impregnated with degassed Dussek 0CS containing 1,100,000 ppm of hydrogen in plane-
to-plane electrode configuration

Pressure deviation
(psig) (kV) (kV)
300 15.3-12.2-16.3-11.7-13.0-14.9-14.9-14.8-15.0-13.7-14.2-
14.3—13.2-12.4+-12.8
200 12.8-12.3-13.4-12.8-12.0—13.4-12.8-13.3-12.2
150 10.5-12.8-12.8-13.9-14.0-12.6-14.0
100 11.7-11.0-10.5-10.6-10.7-10.8-11.0-11.0-11.5-11.7
50 9.8-10.1-10.5-10.0-9.6-9.9-9.3-10.1-9.9-10.1
6-23
13514801
Figure 6-11
Diagram of the G-10 high pressure electrical strength test cell showing the
external taped feeders
The results shown on Table 6-2 and Figure 6-12 indicate that the AC dielectric strength
of PPP is virtually independent of fluid pressure. Whereas, the AC dielectric strength
of 6 mil kraft paper shown on Table 6-3 and Figure 6-13 shows a definite pressure
dependency. The experimental evidence shown in the previous section of this report
indicated the that the dielectric strength of a well degassed dielectric fluid is expected
to show a pressure dependency.
Considering that in paper a much larger pore volume is expected when compared to
PPP-laminate, the pressure dependency of the AC dielectric strength for paper is likely
to be due to the presence of free fluid in the pores of the paper strips.
6-24
13514801
Figure 6-12
Dielectric strength of 4 mil Jen Coat PPP laminate impregnated with degassed
Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-place electrode configuration
Figure 6-13
Dielectric strength of 6.8 mil kraft paper impregnated with Dussek 0CS in a
sphere-to-plane electrode configuration
6-25
13514801
Figure 6-14
Dielectric strength for a double layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP-laminate impregnated
with degassed Dussek 0CS in a sphere-to-plane configuration
Figure 6-15
Dielectric strength for a single layer of 4 mil Jen-Coat PPP laminate impregnated
with Dussek 0CS containing 1,100,000 ppm of hydrogen in a sphere-to-plane
electrode configuration
6-26
13514801
Figure 6-16
Effect of hydrogen (1,100,000 ppm) in the dielectric strength of perforated 4 mil
Jen-Coat PPP-laminate impregnated with Dussek 0CS (solid circles) in a plane-to-
plane electrode configuration. Open circles show the dielectric strength of
degassed fluid.
Dielectric strength data from measurements of breakdown on a double layer of Dussek

0CS impregnated PPP-laminate showed a small decrease in dielectric strength,
although, similar to the measurements of dielectric strength of a single layer, the
dielectric strength of a double layer of PPP-laminate is also independent of hydrostatic
pressure.
Addition of rather large amounts of hydrogen to Dussek 0CS impregnation fluid

resulted on a small reduction in the AC dielectric strength of a single layer of Jen-Coat
4 mil (solid circles) when compared to the AC dielectric strength of Jen-Coat 4 mil
impregnated with well degassed Dussek 0CS (open circles). It should be noted that the
dielectric strength of the PPP-laminate decreased fast after he hydrostatic pressure in
the cell was reduced below the solution saturation pressures of about 143 psig.
Although, the AC dielectric strength of PPP in the presence of hydrogen contamination
seems to be pressure independent above the saturation pressure of the solution.
6-27
13514801
In summary, the addition of vast amounts of hydrogen to the impregnation fluid had
little effect in reducing the dielectric strength of unperforated PPP provided the
hydrogen/fluid solution is away from saturation.
Small 1/8 inch diameter perforations were made on a Jen-Coat 4 mil strip to simulate
the presence of butt spaces between tapes in an actual cable insulation wall. The result
of this test is show on tables 6-6 and 6-76 and Figure 6-16. The AC dielectric strength of
perforated PPP impregnated with well degassed Dussek 0CS fluid shows a nearly
linear relationship with hydrostatic pressure (open circles). This behavior differs from
the pressure independency previously observed for unperforated PPP with and
without hydrogen.
The dependency of the AC dielectric strength on fluid pressure was previously

observed in the case of kraft paper as shown in Figure 6-13. The pressure dependency
on the AC dielectric strength of perforated PPP-laminate once again confirms the
pressure dependency of the free fluid in the perforation region.
The AC dielectric strength of perforated PPP impregnated with a fluid containing vast
amounts of hydrogen (1,100,000 ppm) is shown in Figure 6-14 by the solid circles. The
overall result of the presence of hydrogen on the AC dielectric strength of perforated
PPP-laminate was a small 9% reduction in dielectric strength at pressures beyond the
saturation pressure (143 psig) of the solution.
Summary of Conclusions
The conclusions deriving from the work presented in this Section are listed as follows:
x The dielectric strength of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and propane was observed to
rapidly increase with pressure within the range from 0 to 300 psig. The dielectric
strength of liquid propane was observed to be significantly higher than that of
gaseous propane. Therefore, if gases dissolved in fluids can be assumed to be in the
liquid state, gases with a liquid phase dielectric strength higher than that of a
typical fluid are expected to increase the dielectric strength of the solution as long as
it remains in solution. This is likely to hold true for all gases of interest.
x The dielectric strength of an fluid is not reduced by the presence of gases as long as
the gas concentration is below saturation level.
x Hydrocarbons gases with high dielectric strength in their liquid phases can
significantly increase the dielectric strength of fluids provided that the gas/fluid
solution is not saturated.
x The presence of an electric field does not seem to significantly alter the magnitude
6-28
13514801
x The dielectric strength of an impregnation fluid is significantly more sensitive to

hydrostatic pressure than it is to the presence of dissolved gases, as long as the
gas/fluid solution does not become saturated.
x The dielectric strength of non-perforated fluid-impregnated PPP laminate is nearly

independent of hydrostatic pressure. However, the dielectric strength of perforated
fluid-impregnated PPP is pressure dependent. It is suggested that the pressure
dependency of the dielectric strength is due to the pressure dependency of the free
fluid present in the perforation.
x Although the presence of large amounts of hydrogen (1,100,000 ppm) in the fluid
had little or no effect on the dielectric strength of non-perforated PPP, a 9% decrease
in dielectric strength was observed for perforated PPP with the same
fluid/hydrogen solution.
6-29
13514801
13514801
7
PREPARATION OF GAS-IN-CABLE FLUID
CALIBRATION SOLUTIONS
Introduction
The objective of this task was to device a procedure to prepare solutions of dielectric
fluids with known content of gas. These solutions could then be shipped to
laboratories to monitor the accuracy and precision of dissolved gas analysis techniques.
Two independent methods of analysis were utilized to confirm the accuracy of the
solutions prepared with the equipment designed.
Experimental
A schematic of the apparatus designed for the preparation of standard solution is

shown in Figure 7-1. Briefly this unit consisted of a glass bell jar mounted on an
aluminum base plate and sealed with a Viton L-shape gasket. The aluminum base
plate supported connections to gas, vacuum and fluid lines. A capacitance pressure
gauge (4) was installed to monitor the total headspace pressure down to 1 torr while
pressures below 1 torr were monitored with a thermocouple gauge (3).
A rotary feed-through was connected to a stirring blade to agitate the fluid at the
bottom of the glass dome (11). A high pressure magnetic driven gear pump was
utilized to feed the spray nozzle (8). Samples of the fluid could be taken while the
system was under sub-atmospheric pressure from the high pressure return line and
placed in gas tight syringes (13) for shipping and storage. A liquid nitrogen trap (9)
was installed to collect fluid vapors and avoid vacuum pump contamination.
The fluid was first weighed and completely degassed. Degassing was achieved by
forcing the fluid through a pressure nozzle to generate a fluid spray inside the
evacuated glass dome. After degassing, the gas content of several 75 cc steel cylinders
(5) containing about 600 psi of either a gas or a gas blend of known composition were
expanded into the evacuated system containing the degassed fluid. The actual weight
of the gas added was determined by difference between the weight of the filled and
empty cylinders. The cylinders were light enough to be weighed with an analytical
7-1
13514801
Preparation of Gas-In-Cable Fluid Calibration Solutions
balance having a precision of 1/10 of a milligram. The exact volume of the entire
mixing system had been previously determined by gas expansion from a steel cylinder.
The volume of the steel cylinder was determined gravimetrically.
Figure 7-1
Diagram of the apparatus designed to prepare gas-in-cable fluid calibration
solutions
The mixing system was kept in a constant temperature chamber and the solution was
mixed overnight. The temperature of the system was monitored to 1/10 of a degree
with a calibrated narrow range mercury thermometer. At the end of the equilibration
period samples of the headspace and fluid solution were taken for gas content analysis.
The partial pressure of each component in the headspace was determined from the
actual gas composition and the total headspace pressure. The number of moles of each
component in the headspace was further calculated assuming ideal gas law for a
system of known pressure, temperature and volume. The number of moles in the
7-2
13514801
liquid phase was determined from a mass balance considering the initial gas weight
and the composition of the headspace after equilibrium.
Results
The solution preparation procedure was initially tested utilizing pure nitrogen and
pure hydrogen in solutions with Cosden 0EG, DCL-100 and DCL-500 dielectric fluids.
The volume of the fluid added was determined from weight and density measurements
at system temperature. The pure gas, either nitrogen or hydrogen, was added by
expansion using a number of small steel cylinders containing the gas at high pressure.
The steel cylinders were weighed before and after gas expansion. The total mass of gas
transferred to the system was usually less than 5 grams.
After addition of the gas, the fluid was agitated and allowed to equilibrate overnight at
constant temperature. After equilibration, samples of the headspace and liquid phase
were taken for analysis. The headspace composition was determined with a gas
chromatograph. From this analysis and the total headspace pressure, the equilibrium
partial pressure for each gaseous component was determined. The gas concentration
calculated from the gravimetric procedure was compared to the gas concentration
determined by the conventional EPOSS-DGA method.
Gas concentrations determined gravimetrically and by DGA were in very good

agreement for both pure gases and for the gas blend. The only limitation was found
for the gravimetric estimation of hydrogen when using a gas mixture. Due to the
extremely low solubility of hydrogen, the equilibrium concentration of hydrogen in the
liquid phase becomes too small to be determined from a mass balance However,
considering the excellent match observed between the calculated and DGA value when
utilizing pure hydrogen, the concentration of hydrogen reported will be that reported
from the DGA.
The results from the determination of the volume of the empty mixing unit are shown
in Table 7-1. The laboratory temperature within a 48 hour period was not found to be
not sufficiently stable to assure the accuracy of this procedure. Therefore, the unit was
placed inside the EPRI Paper Testing Lab which is maintained at a constant
temperature. The last two values in Table 7-1 represent the volume obtained with the
system under constant temperature. During subsequent work with the mixing unit in
the walk-in test chamber, a volume of 12,225.2 cc was utilized.
7-3
13514801
Table 7-1
Volume Determination for the Mixing Unit
Gas In Temperature Pressure* Moles of Unit Volume
(g) (qC) (atm) Gas (cc)
3.8626 22.70 0.2759 0.1379 12,131.5

3.7770 22.43 0.2693 0.1348 12,141.3
3.9054 22.34 0.2784 0.1394 12,141.0
3.1846 23.40 0.2274 0.1137 12,200.0
3.2065 23.35 0.2267 0.1145 12,250.3
* Initial system pressure is less than 10 mtorrs
The test results for the fluid solution containing pure nitrogen are indicated in Table 7-
2. The discrepancy between the gravimetric and conventional EPOSS-DGA procedures
was found to be less than 3%. Thus the accuracy of the solutions was confirmed by two
different approaches.
The solubility of hydrogen in dielectric fluids is extremely small and the gravimetric
approach presented certain difficulties for a concentration of hydrogen in the gas blend
of 5,100 ppm. Accordingly, fluid samples containing pure hydrogen were made to
confirm the accuracy of the EPOSS-DGA when handling hydrogen. The results of these
tests are shown in Table 7-3, whereby a maximum discrepancy of 3% was observed
between the gravimetric approach and the conventional EPOSS-DGA method.
Finally, solutions of 9 different gases in DCL-500 were prepared. The concentration of

hydrogen was determined only from DGA. The agreement between the two
procedures was excellent for all other gases even though their concentrations were
usually under 100 ppm.
The concentration of total gas, including nitrogen, can be easily adjusted by varying the
total amount of fluid and total amount of gas blend added. However, to change the
relative distribution of each the gases a gas blend with a different composition is
needed. It is also possible to make solutions with high gas concentration by adding
gases in their pure state. For the case of gases that become liquified at high pressure, as
long as their vapor pressure are sufficiently high to allow their introduction in the
mixing system, solutions can be prepared from its pure components. After preparation,
these solutions can be placed in 50 cc or 100 cc gas tight syringes for shipment to
customers. The solutions will maintain their integrity as long as the fluid does not leak
out.
7-4
13514801
Table 7-2
Gravimetric Preparation of a Nitrogen Solution in Selected Dielectric Fluids and
Comparison with Conventional EPOSS-DGA
Formula Amount
A Nitrogen Molecular Weight (g/mol) 28.0134
B Universal Gas Constant (atm-cc/K-mol) 82.057
C Total System Volume (cc) 12,137.9
D Weight Cosden 0EG Added (g) 1,208.1
E Density Cosden 0EG (g/cc) 0.8769
F Volume Cosden 0EG (cc) DyE 1,377.69
G Volume Headspace (cc) C-F 10,682.08
H System Temperature (K) 295.56
I Headspace Pressure (atm) 0.30066
J Weight Nitrogen Added (g) 3.7444
K Moles Nitrogen Added JyA 0.13367
L Moles Nitrogen in Headspace (IuG)y(BuH) 0.13241
M Moles Nitrogen in Cosden 0EG K-L 0.00126
N Actual Nitrogen Concentration (mol/cc) MyF 9.146E-07
O Actual Nitrogen Concentration (ppm @ Nu2.447E10 22,380
Nitrogen Concentration per DGA (ppm) Sample #1 21,992
Sample #2 21,809
P Average 21,901
Percent DGA Difference (%) (P-O)yOu100 -2.14
Table 7-2
Formula Amount
D Weight DCL-100 Added (g) 1,322.50
E Density DCL-100 (g/cc) 0.8569
F Volume DCL-100 (cc) DyE 1,543.35
7-5
13514801

M Moles Nitrogen in DCL-100 K-L 0.001332
Sample #2 21,002
P Average 21,010
7-6
13514801
Table 7-2
Continued
Formula Amount
D Weight DCL-500 Added (g) 1,340.40
E Density DCL-500 (g/cc) 0.8709
F Volume DCL-500 (cc) DyE 1,539.10
M Moles Nitrogen in DCL-500 K-L 0.00114
Sample #2 18,520
P Average 18,368
Percent DGA Difference (%) (P-O)yOu100 +1.3
7-7
13514801
Table 7-3
Gravimetric Preparation of a Hydrogen Solution in DCL-500 and Comparison with
Conventional EPOSS-DGA
Formula Amount
A Hydrogen Molecular Weight (g/mol) 2.0159
D Weight Cosden DCL-500 Added (g) 2,890.0
E Density Cosden DCL-500 (g/cc) 0.8789
F Volume Cosden DCL-500 (cc) DyE 3,288.2
J Weight Hydrogen Added (g) 0.0766
K Moles Hydrogen Added JyA 0.15447
L Moles Hydrogen in Headspace (IuG)y(BuH) 0.15229
M Moles Hydrogen in DCL-500 K-L 0.00218
N Actual Hydrogen Concentration (mol/cc) MyF 6.630E-07
O Actual Hydrogen Conc. (ppm @ NPT) Nu2.447E10 16,223
P Hydrogen Concentration per DGA (ppm) Average 16,741
7-8
13514801
Table 7-3
Continued
Formula Amount
7-9
13514801
Table 7-3
Continued
Formula Amount
7-10
13514801
Table 7-4
Fractional Composition and Molecular Weight of Gas Blend
Composition Molecular Weight Fractional

Gases (ppm) (g/mol) Molecular Weight
Hydrogen 5,100 2.01588 .010

C. Monoxide 629 28.0104 .018
C. Dioxide 430 44.0098 0.019
Methane 594 18.05864 .011
Ethane 197 30.06964 .006
Ethylene 341 28.05376 .010
Acetylene 181 26.03788 .005
Isobutylene 19 56.10752 .001
Nitrogen 992,509 28.0134 27.804
Totals 1,000,000 27.882
7-11
13514801
Table 7-5
Preparation of a Mixed Gas Solution in DCL-500 and Comparison with Conventional
EPOSS-DGA
Formula Amount
A Gas Blend Molecular Weight (g/mol) 27.8824
J Initial Weight Gas Cylinders (g) 595.0579
K Final Weight Gas Cylinders (g) 591.3183
L Weight Gas Blend (g) J-K 3.7396
M Moles Gas Blend Added LyA 0.1341
N Moles Gas Blend in Headspace (IuG)y(BuH) 0.1332
O Moles Gas Blend in DCL-500 M-N 8.852E-04
Calculated Calculated DGA

Concentration Concentration Concentration
9
Gases (moles/cc) x 10 (v/v ppm @ NPT) (v/v ppm @ NPT)
Methane 2.251 55.1 55.5

Ethane 3.475 85.0 85.9
Ethylene 4.225 103.4 104.1
Acetylene 1.981 48.5 48.2
Isobutylene 1.534 37.5 38.3
Hydrogen 4.190 103.5 90.8
C. Monoxide 4.505 11.0 12.6
C. Dioxide 3.453 84.5 85.9
Nitrogen 620 15,050 17,066
7-12
13514801
Table 7-5
Continued
Formula Amount

Concentration Concentration Concentration(v/v
Gases (moles/cc) x 109 (v/v ppm @ NPT) ppm @ NPT)
Methane 1.8 44.0 42.2

Ethane 4.1 101.2 87.2
Ethylene 5.5 134.1 110.3
Acetylene 1.7 41.6 38.8
Hydrogen -1.7
C. Monoxide 0.93 22.7 18.9
C. Dioxide 4.1 100.2 102.1
Nitrogen 700 17,144 16,949
7-13
13514801
Table 7-5
Continued
Formula Amount


Methane 3.7 91 75.7

Ethane 5.0 123 109.1
Ethylene 7.4 182 131.8
Acetylene 3.0 72 61.6
Isobutylene 9.5 23 26.7
Hydrogen -3.2
C. Monoxide 1.1 28 25.2
C. Dioxide 5.5 135 122.9
Nitrogen 1500 36,553 37,521
7-14
13514801
Table 7-5
Continued
Formula Amount


Methane 3.640 89.1 79.7

Ethane 4.853 118.7 105.9
Ethylene 5.667 138.6 128.3
Acetylene 2.321 56.7 50.0
Hydrogen -5.8
C. Monoxide 0.920 22.5 20.7
C. Dioxide 5.265 128.6 126.7
Nitrogen 124.8 30,537 29,465
7-15
13514801
13514801
8
DISSOLVED GAS ANALYSIS FOR GAS AND FLUID
FILLED CABLES; FIELD WORK
High Pressure Gas Filled Cables
High pressure gas filled (HPGF) cables present a much simpler situation from the gas
analysis stand point than fluid-filled cables. For the latter, the gases are dissolved in
the pipe fluid and must be separated from the liquid phase before they can be
analyzed. In gas cables, gases are already in the gas phase and can be readily analyzed
without the need for sample preparation. In addition, detection limits for gases from a
gas phase sample are about one order of magnitude higher than those of gases
dissolved in a liquid phase. Therefore, under this point of view, detection sensitivity
for gases needed in cable diagnosis is better compared to fluid filled cables.
Some of these advantages, however, are counter balanced by the fact that diffusivities
of gases in the gas phase are in average about 10,000 times faster than gases in low
viscosity fluids and probably 10 6 times when gases are dissolved in pipe fluids of low
and medium viscosity. The significance of a faster diffusivity is that gases generated
within a HPGF cable diffuse away from the source at rates 106 times faster than in fluid-
filled cables. Accordingly, diagnostics gases, such as hydrogen and acetylene for
example, are not expected to remain near the source but to rapidly disperse along the
pipe. Rapid gas dispersion leads to rapid gas dilution and although the sensitivity for
gases in a gas sample is somewhat higher than for a liquid sample, diagnostic gases are
expected to be diluted far more than the increase in sensitivity. It might be necessary to
concentrate the gases of interest in absorbing media in order to increase their detection
limit. Concentration techniques could be utilized for most hydrocarbon and permanent
gases, however, these do not apply in the case of hydrogen.
The significance of gas diffusivity can be studied by estimating penetration times of

gases in nitrogen. Time estimations for gas penetration are presented in this section
based on the equations given in Appendix A. Accordingly, hydrogen can penetrate a
total distance of 1,000 ft (500 ft at each side of the source) in about ½ year while it
would take about 24 years for carbon dioxide to cover the same distance. These are low
limit estimates where no convective fluid movements were considered. Strong natural
convection effects are expected due to the presence of the warm cables in a pipe with
8-1
13514801
Dissolved Gas Analysis for Gas and Fluid Filled Cables; Field Work
relatively cold walls. Fluid movement aided by natural convection can overcame pure
diffusion and significantly increase gas penetration. In any case, at least for the case of
hydrogen, dispersion occurs relatively fast leading to a low concentration caused by a
large volume dilution.
Detroit Edison is one of the utilities with the largest number of 138 kV HPGF cables,
over 40 circuits, and very few samples were seek elsewhere. In addition, it is rather
common to find that gas cables have limited provision for gas sampling, In most cases,
sampling valves are not available at splices or terminations and in many cases the
valves used to fill the systems are attached to large flanges which makes sampling more
involved.
The gas samples were taken in small 75 cc capacity stainless steel cylinders fitted with a
valva in each end. The cylinders need not to be evacuated before sampling, since
flushing is made easy by opening both valves.
Samples were taken from 13 different DECo lines. involving a total of 56 samples
including some duplicates to show the degree of reproducibility. The results are given
in Appendix B. For the most cases, the concentration of hydrocarbon gases were under
1 ppm, while hydrogen ranged from 0 to 360 ppm, carbon dioxide ranged from 0 to 60
ppm and carbon monoxide ranged from 0 to 70 ppm. At least one of these lines, B3-#8,
corresponds to a cable with about 45 years of service. Samples taken from terminations
also show low gas content.
Although the presence of carbon dioxide was common to most samples, carbon
monoxide and hydrogen were not always observed. None of the samples from service
cables showed any acetylene, except for a sample taken after a service failure of cable
A4-#1.
Self Contained Fluid Filled Cables (SCFC)
Self contained cables are filled with low viscosity fluids maintained at a relative low
pressure of about 15 psia. Compared to HPGF and HPFF cables, the phases in SCF
cables are independent of each other and have their own self-pressurized fluid
reservoirs. Depending on the length of the circuit, stop-joints are build along the line to
break the fluid circuits into smaller ones. The pressure and lack of permanent valving
difficults fluid sampling in this type of circuit. To properly sample a splice, fluid is
preferably drawn from the splice casing itself and not from the fluid supply lines. A
sample must be taken from each splice casing. In case of stop joints, it is necessary to
sample both ends of the splice in each phase, that is six samples.
Sampling of terminations from SCF cables must be done making sure that the supply
line to the fluid reservoir at the termination end being sampled is valved off, and that
8-2
13514801
fluid is being forced from the opposite end of the fluid circuit. Otherwise, fluid from
the nearby supply will be drawn in to the sample.
Dissolved gas analysis results for SCF cables from six circuits at four utilities are shown
in Appendix C. In general gas content in these samples is low. It is not unusual to
come across fluids with very large dissipation factors and in some cases even low
dielectric strength. In some cases high hydrogen content have been found in samples
having a high dissipation factor.
High Pressure Fluid Filled Cables (HPFF)
Dissolved gas analysis samples were taken from numerous HPFF cables including four
voltage class (60, 138, 230 and 345 kV) and two PPP cables (138 & 345 kV). Fluid
samples in these cables correspond to splices, terminations, reservoirs, degassing units,
tankers and tanker trucks. Other than HPGF cables, HPFF cables are the easiest type of
fluid-filled cables to sample. The three phases are confined in a single pipe from end to
end of the cable. Sampling valves are usually available at all splices. Most lines will
have a 1”NPT valve at the bottom of the joint and a 2” NPT at the top. Terminations in
this type cables always have a ¼” NPT valve at the top under the corona shield and
frequently, a second valve at the base. Considering the height of the these terminations
and viscosity of the cable fluid, it is always necessary to sample both top and bottom
locations in addition to some fluid draining through the top valve. Depending on the
each specific case, the amount of space between the paper rolls and the inside wall of
the ceramic body could be too narrow to allow effective gas mixing within the
termination considering the relatively high viscosity of most cable fluids. Although not
frequently encountered, major discrepancies can exist between the gas content of a top
and bottom sample. More frequently, the same gases are found in both top and bottom
samples, with only small differences in concentrations.
The major differences between these type of cables and all other fluid filled equipment
is in the level of gas that can sometimes be found. Although cases in which HPFF
cables present extremely low gas concentrations, in many cases alarmingly large gas
concentrations have been also found. Although, the source of gas for some cases
showing extremely large gas concentrations vary widely, the reason for why these
concentrations can be found only in HPFF cables is the hydrostatic pressure of the cable
fluid. Gases can be maintained in liquid state in solution with the cable fluid as long as
the vapor pressure of each exerted by all gases and vapors present in solution do not
exceed the hydrostatic pressure of the line. These lines are for the most part
maintained at about 200 psig, therefore a fairly large concentration of gas can be kept at
such pressure in solution with the cable fluid. If the hydrostatic pressure of the line is
dropped below the vapor pressure of the cable fluid, gases will escape in the form of
bubbles. By returning the hydrostatic pressure back to service value, gases can be
forced back into solution.
8-3
13514801
In the past, cable fluids were supplied under nitrogen blanket containing fairly large
amounts of saturated hydrocarbons but no unsaturated hydrocarbons, Among the
hydrocarbon typically found are: methane, ethane, propane, isobutane and normal
butane. These cable fluids would contained all or at least some of these saturated
hydrocarbon gases.
8-4
13514801
A
GAS DIFFUSION IN GAS FILLED CABLES
As an approximation, the time it takes for a gas to diffuse in one direction provided
that a constant concentration is maintained at the source can be estimated by solving
the for unsteady-state material balance:
∂ 2 C A ∂C A
D = (eq. A-14)
∂X 2 ∂t
where D is the diffusion coefficient of A in B (m2/s), X the penetration distance (m), CA

the instantaneous concentration of gas A and t time (s). A text book solution can be
found for the following boundary conditions:
C A = C A1 at X = 0 for t > 0
C A = C Ao at X = ∞ for all t
C A = C Ao at t = 0 for X > 0
C A - C Ao X
= 1 -erf ( )
C A1 - C Ao (4Dt)
where CA1 is the gas concentration at the source while CAo is the bulk concentration of A
in the pipe. At complete gas penetration, the concentration of hydrogen in the gas
should equal that of the bulk gas, that is, CA = CAo. Thus the equation above becomes,
X
erf( )= 1
4Dt
From tables showing the Gauss error function, when erf(h) = 1.0000 then h=3.0, so that,
A-1
13514801
Gas Diffusion in Gas Filled Cables
X
= 3.0
4Dt
The time for full penetration can be estimated from:
X2
t=
36D
Since gas diffusion in a pipe can take place in both directions at the same time, the
actual width of the gas plug is twice the distance X. The diffusion constant for
hydrogen in nitrogen at 298K is 7.8x10-5 m2/s and that for carbon dioxide in nitrogen at
the same temperature is 1.7x10-6 m2/s. The time for hydrogen to reach 500 feet on each
side of the source (1,000 ft total), assuming that the source can maintain a small but
constant supply of gas is ½ year. Carbon dioxide will cover the same distance in 23
years.
A-2
13514801
B
DGA DATA ON HIGH PRESSURE GAS FILLED
CABLES
The data in the tables that follows has been organized by company code, line number
and location. The company code indicates whether the utility is located in the East
Coast (A), Midwest (B), West Coast (C) and South (D). When there is data from more
of one utility from the same area, a number follows the letter code (A1, A2, ...). The
cables systems (lines) are numbered consecutively within the same utility and same
type and voltage class. If under the same voltage class and cable type, the same line
number in different tables indicates the same cable system. The location in of each
sample was abbreviated according to the following pattern:
PHX, PHY, PXZ or PHA, PHB, PHC corresponds to terminations phase X, Y, Z.

Whether the sample was taken was from the top or bottom valve is indicated by T for
top and B for bottom (PHX-B = termination phase Y, bottom). If the location is
unknown that code left blank. Since each cable has to sets of terminations, a code for
the substation is added.
Splices are identified by the number of the manhole they are located (MH#12345), In
the case of SCFF, the phase is added after the manhole number. If the sample was
taken from a stop-joint, an additional character is used, generally N(north), S(south),
W(west) or E(east).
A few samples were taken from cable fluid reservoirs (RSVR), railroad tankers
(TANKER), tanker trucks (TRUCKS) or out of degassing units (DEGASSED).
B-1
13514801
DGA Data On High Pressure Gas Filled Cables
HPGF 120 kV, SPLICES & TERMINATIONS

Company B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3
Line #1 #1 #2 #2 #3 #4 #4 #5 #5 #6 #6 #7
Location WRN-SS WRN-SS WRN-SS WRN-SS PHX-CA-SS PHX-CA-SS PHZ-CA-SS PHX-CA-SS PHY-CA-SS PHX-CA-SS PHY-CA-SS PHX-CA-SS
Methane 0.000 0.020 0.230 0.160 0.000 0.920 1.750 0.000 0.000 0.560 0.000 6.530
Ethane 0.110 0.110 0.210 0.210 0.000 1.580 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.400 0.050 0.930
Ethylene 0.000 0.000 0.090 0.110 0.000 0.140 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.360
Acetylene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Propane 0.040 0.040 0.190 0.210 0.000 0.620 0.320 0.030 0.000 0.140 0.020 3.420
Propylene 0.040 0.060 0.140 0.140 0.000 0.420 0.230 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 3.770
Isobutane 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.050 0.000 0.920 0.490 0.050 0.000 0.050 0.000 4.010
nButane 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.140 0.000 0.150 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.250
t-2-Butene 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.040 0.000 0.060 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.200
1-Butene 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.050 0.000 0.080 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.190
Isobutylene 0.330 0.330 0.350 0.340 0.460 21.640 12.350 1.120 0.070 0.570 0.150 112.500
Hydrogen 124.2 134.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C.Monoxide 0.0 1.4 3.8 4.9 1.6 69.4 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.7
C.Dioxide 11.2 13.6 24.3 24.0 17.0 52.7 17.1 3.9 0.0 10.9 3.2 11.9
Oxygen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE
Line #7 #7 #4 #3 #3 #3 #8 #8 #8 #8 #8 #9
Location PHY-CA-SS PHZ-CA-SS MH#17409 MH#12985 MH#12986 MH#12987 MH#13038 MH#13039 MH#13040 MH#13028 MH#13026 PHY-COR-SS
Methane 1.090 6.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.800 1.500 3.800
Ethane 0.200 0.890 0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.110 0.080
Ethylene 0.080 0.320 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.130 0.010
Acetylene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Propane 1.020 3.380 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.020 0.090
Propylene 1.070 3.740 0.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.080 0.050
Isobutane 1.500 3.950 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.050
nButane 0.100 0.250 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.050 0.050
t-2-Butene 0.070 0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1-Butene 0.060 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Isobutylene 42.700 111.300 4.380 0.450 0.430 0.390 0.310 0.370 0.280 0.600 0.030 0.950
Hydrogen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 207.0 260.0 360.0 167.0 26.9 467.0
C.Monoxide 2.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 4.3 2.0
C.Dioxide 3.8 14.9 5.3 8.8 10.8 5.5 4.3 5.3 6.8 47.3 60.2 54.4
Oxygen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B-2
13514801
HPGF 120 kV, SPLICES & TERMINATIONS, Continued

Line #9 #10 #10 #10 #10 #10 #10 #11 #11 #11 #10 #10
Location PHX-COR-SS PHX ERN-SS PHY ERN-SS PHZ ERN-SS PHX ERN-SS PHY ERN-SS PHZ ERN-SS PHX ERN-SS PHY-ERN-SS PHZ-ERN-SS PHZ-ERN-SS MH#15417
Methane 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.428
Ethane 0.000 0.160 0.162 0.209 0.160 0.177 0.318 0.000 0.053 0.042 0.024 0.311
Ethylene 0.000 0.077 0.070 0.077 0.061 0.042 0.762 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.121
Acetylene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Propane 0.000 0.196 0.149 0.189 0.174 0.164 0.303 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.326
Propylene 0.000 0.089 0.095 0.092 0.077 0.065 0.155 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.176
Isobutane 0.000 0.070 0.049 0.065 0.040 0.054 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088
nButane 0.000 0.088 0.069 0.102 0.078 0.090 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.150
1-Butene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Isobutylene 0.260 0.465 0.387 0.440 0.388 0.393 0.624 0.115 0.119 0.114 0.101 0.597
Hydrogen 115.0 70.0 100.5 92.8 48.2 47.1 86.9 23.2 28.1 48.3 48.6 56.4
C.Monoxide 0.0 20.5 16.8 20.2 15.7 15.9 32.7 5.8 5.3 5.0 3.2 32.1
C.Dioxide 6.8 16.9 17.4 16.0 14.8 17.3 11.8 3.3 4.2 2.4 4.3 17.0
Oxygen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Line #5 #5 #5 #12 #12 #3 #3 #13 #13 #13 #13 #13
Location PHZ PHX PHY PHX PHY PHY PHZ PHX PHY PHZ PHX-END PHY-END
Methane 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.230 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ethane 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.033 0.074 0.286 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ethylene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Acetylene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Propane 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.253 0.051 1.068 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Propylene 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.096 0.037 1.077 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Isobutane 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.000 1.290 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
nButane 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
t-2-Butene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1-Butene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Isobutylene 2.320 0.051 0.000 0.775 0.077 24.380 4.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.459 0.463
Hydrogen 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.3 0.0 57.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206.8 200.2
C.Monoxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.1
C.Dioxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 2.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.9
Oxygen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B-3
13514801
HPGF 120 kV, SPLICES & TERMINATIONS, Continued

Company B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 D4 A4
Line #13 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #1 #1
Location PHZ-END PHX PHX PHY PHY PHZ PHZ PHZ-TOP B-ST-SS MH#5
Methane 0.000 0.234 0.214 0.197 0.270 2.815 2.845 3.290 0.000 48.700
Ethane 0.000 0.276 0.293 0.246 0.239 0.634 0.603 1.063 0.000 1.500
Ethylene 0.000 0.094 0.112 0.117 0.114 2.065 1.994 2.564 0.000 8.900
Acetylene 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.040 0.016 0.000 14.400
Propane 0.000 0.244 0.258 0.236 0.222 0.349 0.348 0.757 0.205 0.200
Propylene 0.000 0.118 0.117 0.141 0.154 1.217 1.200 1.516 0.000 1.200
Isobutane 0.000 0.104 0.157 0.095 0.102 0.222 0.221 0.367 0.000 0.600
nButane 0.000 0.143 0.162 0.123 0.125 0.124 0.131 0.411 0.000 0.020
t-2-Butene 0.000 0.021 0.061 0.031 0.025 0.064 0.064 0.063 0.000 0.000
1-Butene 0.000 0.045 0.055 0.039 0.038 0.141 0.154 0.224 0.000 0.000
Isobutylene 0.474 0.673 0.919 0.627 0.598 3.859 3.793 4.290 0.177 6.600
Hydrogen 196.1 115.3 170.1 171.4 136.2 145.5 101.6 188.5 243.4 564.9
C.Monoxide 8.2 8.5 8.1 11.3 11.1 4.9 5.1 7.5 1.3 412.9
C.Dioxide 3.0 18.4 18.2 20.8 20.8 19.8 19.7 31.3 8.4 98.7
Oxygen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE BALANCE
B-4
13514801
C
DGA ON SELF CONTAINED FLUID FILLED CABLES

W(west) or E(east).
C-1
13514801
DGA On Self Contained Fluid Filled Cables
FLUID FILLED SELF CONTAINED, SPLICES AND TERMINATIONS

Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2
Location MH#105-A MH#133-A MH#105-B MH#126-B MH#105-C MH#126-C PHC MH#133A MH#1 MH#2 MH#3 MH#4 MH#5
S12
Methane 17.8 85.0 63.1 37.7 17.5 345.9 87.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.5
Ethane 12.6 3.2 7.2 12.3 11.1 74.0 25.6 12.5 18.7 23.2 25.4 365.8
Ethylene 2.6 1.1 8.2 1.9 2.5 42.9 4.1 10.7 10.4 22.8 15.4 63.3
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 3.6 3.1 2.0
Propane 14.7 3.9 4.9 12.9 12.3 64.7 23.8 51.5 56.7 120.3 110.4 521.8
Propylene 5.0 1.8 8.9 2.6 5.4 25.5 4.9 31.3 24.1 77.4 51.2 95.5
Isobutane 1.8 0.6 1.0 1.9 1.4 23.7 8.1 46.2 41.1 120.3 102.2 128.6
nButane 5.7 2.2 2.6 5.6 4.7 44.5 20.7 134.8 106.0 355.9 254.3 355.8
Isobutylene 11.9 1.2 10.9 1.5 1.4 87.0 5.9 96.5 136.1 281.8 333.3 568.6
Hydrogen 13.4 0.0 4047.4 55.3 0.0 215.7 40.3 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 127.7
C.Monoxide 26.7 25.5 179.4 41.8 36.5 349.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.7
C.Dioxide 235.7 215.4 394.0 944.8 500.0 148.3 171.3 180.5 187.1 289.8 206.2 454.0
Oxygen 1,363 2,939 4,467 1,215 1,592 1,447 5,826 542 129 486 114 700
Nitrogen 30,613 30,411 104,737 22,672 29,235 63,851 68,011 108,387 45,666 28,686 17,511 125,920
Company C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH#KG-A GEO MH#KG-A MH#KG-B GEO MH#KG-B MH#KG-B MH#KG-C GEO MH#KG-C MH#KG-C PHA GEO TRP PHA HRSY S/S PHA HRSY S/S PHA HRSY S/S
TRP SIDE HRSY SIDE TRP SIDE HRSY SIDE HRSY SIDE TRP SIDE HRSY SIDE HRSY SIDE CESQ SIDE CESQ SIDE GEO TRP
Methane 70.7 61.1 101.5 58.6 57.9 96.0 75.6 70.1 49.1 0.0 20.6 23.2
Ethane 43.6 38.5 48.8 42.7 39.2 61.2 49.2 43.2 19.9 5.8 7.9 12.5
Ethylene 24.8 15.0 47.9 12.9 11.9 66.2 16.3 13.7 9.1 1.2 1.6 8.9
Acetylene 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8
Propane 44.7 46.9 40.0 51.2 47.0 62.2 59.8 53.2 22.1 4.9 7.2 13.6
Propylene 20.8 17.0 28.5 17.7 16.1 37.4 21.3 17.8 9.3 1.4 1.5 7.7
Isobutane 30.3 61.4 38.6 43.7 41.1 123.6 71.8 63.7 93.5 2.3 1.8 82.8
nButane 12.0 12.8 11.9 13.2 12.3 17.3 15.0 13.6 5.6 1.5 1.5 3.2
Isobutylene 8.0 9.9 10.6 10.3 8.9 14.6 12.0 11.9 7.0 0.8 5.0 12.7
Hydrogen 0.0 248.7 0.0 392.2 439.3 549.5 709.9 665.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C.Monoxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C.Dioxide 194.2 48.1 313.5 55.3 47.4 134.0 75.0 42.8 94.9 189.6 181.6 66.0
Oxygen 0 0 9,533 0 0 0 5,055 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen 0 0 41,682 7,456 0 0 14,444 0 0 4,394 6,934 0
C-2
13514801
FLUID FILLED SELF CONTAINED, SPLICES AND TERMINATIONS, Continued

Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH#KG- GEO MH#KG-A MH#KG-B GEO MH#KG-B MH#KG-B MH#KG-C GEO MH#KG-C MH#KG-C PHA GEO TRP PHA HRSY S/S PHA HRSY S/S PHA HRSY S/S
TRP SIDE HRSY SIDE TRP SIDE HRSY SIDE HRSY SIDE TRP SIDE HRSY SIDE HRSY SIDE CESQ SIDE CESQ SIDE GEO TRIPP
Methane 70.7 61.1 101.5 58.6 57.9 96.0 75.6 70.1 49.1 0.0 20.6 23.2
Ethane 43.6 38.5 48.8 42.7 39.2 61.2 49.2 43.2 19.9 5.8 7.9 12.5
Ethylene 24.8 15.0 47.9 12.9 11.9 66.2 16.3 13.7 9.1 1.2 1.6 8.9
Acetylene 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8
Propane 44.7 46.9 40.0 51.2 47.0 62.2 59.8 53.2 22.1 4.9 7.2 13.6
Propylene 20.8 17.0 28.5 17.7 16.1 37.4 21.3 17.8 9.3 1.4 1.5 7.7
Isobutane 30.3 61.4 38.6 43.7 41.1 123.6 71.8 63.7 93.5 2.3 1.8 82.8
nButane 12.0 12.8 11.9 13.2 12.3 17.3 15.0 13.6 5.6 1.5 1.5 3.2
Isobutylene 8.0 9.9 10.6 10.3 8.9 14.6 12.0 11.9 7.0 0.8 5.0 12.7
Hydrogen 0.0 248.7 0.0 392.2 439.3 549.5 709.9 665.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C.Monoxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C.Dioxide 194.2 48.1 313.5 55.3 47.4 134.0 75.0 42.8 94.9 189.6 181.6 66.0
Oxygen 0 0 9,533 0 0 0 5,055 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen 0 0 41,682 7,456 0 0 14,444 0 0 4,394 6,934 0
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3
Location PHB GEO TRP PHB HRSY S/S PHC GEO TRP PHC HRSY S/S PHC HORSEY PHA GWRD PHA HRSY PHB GWRD PHB HRSY PHC GWRD PHC HRSY PHC-B HPFF
GEO TRP GEO TRP S/S GEO TRP SUB SUB SUB
Methane 46.3 24.3 57.7 35.5 27.4 12.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.2 6.8
Ethane 32.2 14.5 30.0 14.7 11.5 6.7 6.8 7.3 11.9 5.0 8.5 9.1
Ethylene 22.2 7.0 11.5 6.0 4.8 5.3 0.9 2.4 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.8
Acetylene 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 9.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
Propane 18.4 14.5 30.4 16.9 12.9 10.3 9.5 10.5 15.5 7.3 11.1 20.4
Propylene 15.1 7.2 14.0 6.3 5.8 2.3 1.1 1.4 2.6 0.9 1.8 2.4
Isobutane 54.6 9.2 156.0 9.9 8.2 1.9 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.0 2.6 1.7
nButane 4.6 3.6 7.8 4.3 3.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.7 1.3 2.4 3.6
Isobutylene 10.8 6.3 10.7 3.8 3.4 17.5 1.5 3.2 5.0 1.2 2.7 3.1
Hydrogen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1290.7
C.Monoxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 16.2 91.3
C.Dioxide 137.6 56.4 70.2 60.9 52.6 244.6 188.9 241.8 108.8 141.7 86.1 145.0
Nitrogen 6,373 38,581 3,632 9,403 0 1,857 0 7,497 13,499 0 0 29,788
C-3
13514801

Line #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #5 #5 #5
Location MH#37C PHAB MH#37C PHBB MH#37C PHCB PHA MRRN PHB MRRN PHB MRRN PHC MRRN PHC MRRN PUMP PLNT MH#54C PHAB MH#54C PHBB MH#54C PHCB
MRRN
Methane 11.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 20.3 8.8 14.9
Ethane 6.6 4.8 4.7 3.4 4.3 5.4 13.0 6.0 1.3 11.1 9.2 13.2
Ethylene 6.0 2.6 2.2 1.5 2.3 2.8 1.6 1.9 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.6
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 6.0 5.4 6.4 4.7 5.9 6.3 32.5 8.1 0.5 13.9 12.0 15.0
Propylene 4.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.4 4.4 1.5 0.0 2.4 1.4 1.0
Isobutane 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 3.0 1.6 0.0 2.8 1.4 1.7
nButane 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.3 4.6 1.9 0.0 6.6 3.9 5.0
Isobutylene 2.6 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.6 2.1 6.8 2.2 0.4 5.3 1.9 1.8
Hydrogen 169.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1384.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 179.2
C.Monoxide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.6 0.0 0.0 67.9 43.4 53.6
C.Dioxide 33.6 40.4 44.4 80.7 42.5 59.1 231.5 113.9 24.8 195.4 235.1 237.1
Nitrogen 3,569 5,411 3,555 0 0 0 21,286 0 0 3,049 0 4,534
Line #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #6 #6 #6
Location MH#75C PHAB MH#75C PHBB MH#75C PHBB MH#75C PHCB MH#88C PHAB MH#88C PHBB MH#88C PHBB MH#88C PHCB MH#88C PHCB PHA DEL G PHA MRRN SS PHB DEL G
Methane 11.7 15.3 6.2 10.5 19.4 4.9 4.9 9.4 10.5 0.0 18.9 0.0
Ethane 7.0 9.0 9.8 8.0 14.9 8.9 8.5 11.4 9.0 1.1 2.9 1.9
Ethylene 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.7 5.9 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 11.8 15.1 15.1 14.6 16.5 13.8 12.9 22.5 14.3 1.2 2.9 3.2
Propylene 0.6 1.2 1.4 1.5 8.8 1.3 1.3 5.6 1.1 0.0 2.4 1.0
Isobutane 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.5 10.8 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.0
nButane 3.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 9.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Isobutylene 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.0 0.8 3.2 1.0 2.9 5.8 1.7
Hydrogen 342.4 0.0 0.0 398.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 406.7 342.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C.Monoxide 42.9 0.0 14.9 39.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 47.0 33.7 0.0 17.2 0.0
C.Dioxide 103.7 73.8 121.9 117.6 46.6 25.2 12.7 161.7 101.9 95.5 112.3 78.9
Nitrogen 5,122 0 0 7,374 0 0 1,220 2,921 3,996 0 57,689 0
C-4
13514801

Company C3 C3 C3 A5 A5 A5 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3
Line #6 #6 PULPMILL #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2
Location PHB MRRN SS PHC MRRN SS PUMPING PH1 HYNS PH2 MH# #3/1 PH3 MH# #3/1 DEGASSED MIDDLE- PHX PHX CTO PHX WTRMN PHY
PLANT AVE OIL SPLICE
Methane 16.4 26.1 11.3 0.0 188.6 188.7 0.0 23.9 13.1 11.6 11.2 0.0
Ethane 1.9 5.0 32.0 11.9 48.0 52.2 0.9 4.3 47.0 2.5 4.5 41.5
Ethylene 1.6 1.3 4.2 6.0 73.7 103.1 0.7 4.5 10.2 1.9 6.0 10.3
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Propane 2.8 5.8 56.6 25.5 89.3 103.4 0.7 4.4 51.1 2.5 4.1 45.7
Propylene 4.9 2.8 12.1 6.4 66.0 73.0 0.6 3.2 14.2 2.2 4.2 14.4
Isobutane 3.3 14.2 4.1 2.2 7.3 8.2 0.0 1.7 17.5 1.1 1.5 15.5
nButane 0.0 6.5 11.9 5.8 36.0 38.6 0.0 2.0 27.9 1.7 2.1 25.6
Isobutylene 7.8 6.2 7.1 9.8 20.0 18.7 0.5 1.4 19.5 2.1 3.5 20.1
Hydrogen 0.0 178.0 0.0 606.7 151.9 176.8 0.0 1412.6 215.8 461.7 147.9 145.5
C.Monoxide 67.7 32.4 32.1 0.0 715.7 603.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 21.9 26.2 0.0
C.Dioxide 2236.0 194.9 378.1 315.2 30572.4 28074.0 5.7 99.8 384.3 224.8 687.8 327.3
Oxygen 999,999 0 0 0 19,714 3,380 0 5,626 17,943 4,979 0 4,410
Nitrogen 9,999,999 5,836 87,811 12,538 198,369 57,344 0 52,490 127,079 32,527 18,533 38,395
Company B3 B3 B3 B3 B3
Line #2 #2 #2 #2 #2
Location PHY CTO PHY WTRMN PHZ PHZ CTO PHZ WTRMN
Methane 6.1 11.0 21.1 18.1 14.6

Ethane 1.2 9.6 87.7 8.5 5.5
Ethylene 1.3 4.6 15.1 3.6 8.7
Acetylene 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.0
Propane 1.7 11.9 76.7 11.2 4.7
Propylene 1.3 5.5 18.2 4.1 5.9
Isobutane 0.7 3.2 23.2 3.1 1.8
nButane 0.6 6.1 43.2 5.9 2.2
Isobutylene 1.3 7.0 25.5 2.7 4.2
Hydrogen 194.0 171.6 196.2 440.6 194.5
C.Monoxide 9.4 27.9 39.3 35.7 25.9
C.Dioxide 563.5 256.3 355.6 1357.8 342.8
Oxygen 4,645 0 0 3,768 0
Nitrogen 20,927 23,909 7,524 44,689 22,958
C-5
13514801
13514801
D
DGA ON HIGH PRESSURE FLUID FILLED CABLES

W(west) or E(east).
D-1
13514801
DGA On High Pressure Fluid Filled Cables
HPFF 69 kV, TERMINATIONS AND SPLICES

Company A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3
Location PHA SS 83 PHA SS 84 PHB SS 83 PHB SS 84 PHC SS 83 PHC SS 84 MH#11 MH#11 MH#15 PHA SS 117 PHA SS 168 PHA SS 168 TO
117
Methane 424 809 279 835 822 1,486 7 9 8 14 14 13
Ethane 963 2,514 710 3,684 2,338 5,628 2 2 2 20 4 4
Ethylene 11 2 9 3 15 4 1 1 1 15 2 2
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 1,419 3,965 1,190 6,920 3,424 10,417 6 3 4 47 3 5
Propylene 33 21 27 31 40 46 4 3 2 36 2 2
Isobutane 359 1,031 333 2,165 910 3,394 1 0 0 115 0 1
nButane 468 1,435 439 2,900 1,114 4,470 2 3 2 26 3 3
Isobutylene 40 108 54 66 67 73 24 2 2 1,569 3 6
Hydrogen 227 512 267 540 924 959 8,765 25,973 21,995 535 3,053 2,816
C.Monoxide 47 875 56 320 74 262 15 24 23 42 17 13
C.Dioxide 546 1,600 1,612 2,128 982 1,051 71 65 49 235 58 45
Nitrogen 0 21,221 51,089 39,967 41,746 25,241 15,460 17,114 20,716 88,471 11,840 9,047
Line #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4
Location PHA SS 168 TO C PHA SS C PHB SS 117 PHB SS 168 TO C PHB SS C PHC SS 117 PHC SS 168 PHC SS 168 TO PHC SS 168 TO C PHC SS C PHA SS A PHA SS 161
117
Methane 11 40 17 16 17 17 19 14 14 11 5 6
Ethane 4 13 21 5 11 23 6 7 4 12 27 4
Ethylene 2 22 17 3 18 18 3 3 3 20 4 3
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Propane 4 32 53 5 31 48 4 7 4 31 55 4
Propylene 2 30 40 3 26 47 2 2 3 29 13 3
Isobutane 0 4 114 2 4 130 0 2 1 5 6 0
nButane 7 10 24 4 10 25 3 5 3 11 29 2
Isobutylene 1 8 1,463 11 5 1,699 4 24 9 6 105 4
Hydrogen 2,268 205 783 4,833 360 508 4,576 4,392 5,501 301 0 4,736
C.Monoxide 17 9 42 24 9 46 26 20 25 10 10 50
C.Dioxide 106 143 257 57 154 248 79 78 60 115 127 183
Nitrogen 10,131 79,908 109,153 13,614 76,221 91,404 10,221 12,340 11,093 72,113 8,859 9,837
D-2
13514801
HPFF 69 kV, TERMINATIONS AND SPLICES, Continued

Line #4 #4 #4 #4 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 69125 69125
Location PHB SS A PHB SS 161 PHC SS A PHC SS 161 PHA SS A PHA SS 161 PHB SS A PHB SS 161 PHC SS A PHC SS 161 MH#3 PHA TOP
Methane 4 8 5 8 3 8 3 7 3 8 15 5
Ethane 28 3 29 4 27 10 25 9 27 9 24 19
Ethylene 4 3 5 3 4 2 4 1 4 2 4 1
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 59 9 57 5 53 21 51 20 53 20 60 26
Propylene 15 3 14 4 12 7 13 7 12 7 10 9
Isobutane 7 2 6 1 6 4 6 4 6 4 7 6
nButane 31 3 32 3 30 30 29 30 31 30 16 29
Isobutylene 110 2 110 2 96 3 102 3 90 7 34 140
Hydrogen 0 4,727 0 4,868 295 1,969 220 2,070 353 1,764 400 0
C.Monoxide 10 57 15 65 9 140 7 139 11 125 48 24
C.Dioxide 106 182 98 179 102 184 96 190 93 142 536 103
Nitrogen 95,538 7,583 93,213 12,480 96,526 6,185 92,020 5,002 94,919 7,440 99,567 97,200
Company A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3 A3
Line #6 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7
Location PHC TOP MH#3 PHA SS 117 PHA SS C PHB SS 117 PHB SS C PHC SS 117 PHC SS C
Methane 3 10 12 15 8 14 12 14
Ethane 9 14 18 34 18 39 18 48
Ethylene 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 14 45 46 55 45 64 44 64
Propylene 5 7 14 13 15 21 17 14
Isobutane 4 6 124 6 136 6 141 9
nButane 22 12 19 23 23 27 20 33
Isobutylene 136 26 2,175 66 2,221 62 2,488 69
Hydrogen 0 318 547 0 408 0 641 0
C.Monoxide 18 34 47 60 52 44 43 53
C.Dioxide 200 136 163 279 259 244 220 291
Nitrogen 98,125 68,130 49,375 62,054 54,901 76,221 52,995 71,303
D-3
13514801
HPFF 138 kV, SPLICES

Line #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #4 #5
Location MH#2062 MH#2063 HESS SS MH#1661 MH#1662 MH#1663 MH#1849 MH#1849 MH#1955 MH#1957 MH#1955 MH#1007
Methane 8 9 48 8 22 4 15 15 30 18 28 18
Ethane 15 16 38 8 6 4 23 24 53 41 51 6
Ethylene 3 2 1 1 1 0 3 4 10 4 9 3
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 24 25 50 16 15 11 93 92 219 176 216 11
Propylene 6 6 9 4 3 2 13 13 35 21 34 6
Isobutane 7 7 21 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 4 1
nButane 46 49 21 5 4 4 19 18 49 40 47 7
Isobutylene 205 222 304 1 1 1 1 1 14 9 13 3
Hydrogen 248 194 220 470 0 872 246 251 563 264 524 8,656
C.Monoxide 189 173 14 50 92 38 63 64 45 24 43 9
C.Dioxide 504 515 50 250 37 87 85 221 141 207 139
Line #6 #6 #6 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #8 #8 #8 #9
Location MH#1079 MH#1900 MH#1901 MH#1892 MH#1892 MH#1893 MH#1894 MH#1895 MH#1896 MH#1897 MH#1898 MH#1218
Methane 26 7,255 6,227 283 314 6,367 8,041 8,059 26,553 17,518 11,563 19
Ethane 10 1,758 1,758 111 126 1,791 2,968 3,697 10,750 6,783 4,233 15
Ethylene 4 9 9 47 60 20 8 6 7 6 31 14
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 14 900 920 132 151 1,069 2,092 2,939 10,234 5,905 3,847 38
Propylene 8 149 146 60 81 145 127 103 90 85 116 15
Isobutane 3 363 435 36 41 410 756 1,007 1,069 905 735 2
nButane 7 309 344 48 51 471 1,648 2,734 2,836 1,744 1,182 13
Isobutylene 31 6,108 6,956 296 361 5,519 6,615 6,461 6,364 8,554 7,421 3
Hydrogen 614 164 175 663 742 612 759 440 513 648 351 629
C.Monoxide 11 115 123 36 35 135 153 112 177 92 90 35
C.Dioxide 124 448 616 260 236 688 811 303 406 381 243 277
D-4
13514801
HPFF 138 kV, SPLICES, Continued

Company B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2
Line #10 #11 #11 #11 #11 #1 #1 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3
Location MH#999 MH#1080 MH#1081 MH#1082 MH#1085 49TH ST 49TH ST 49TH ST MH#37371 MH#335 MH#336 MH#337
Methane 27 881 2,284 30 982 8,190 18 2,611 43 6 7 14
Ethane 12 253 684 16 537 2,022 44 951 66 21 16 68
Ethylene 5 4 9 12 9 24 6 42 3 9 5 1
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Propane 20 168 447 31 575 965 147 704 204 77 5 64
Propylene 16 31 91 28 39 37 14 56 26 21 11 13
Isobutane 1 73 211 3 355 48 5 35 3 11 0 4
nButane 11 63 166 16 235 123 29 108 1 19 0 16
Isobutylene 6 1,177 3,155 12 4,576 12 12 14 4 32 4 10
Hydrogen 3,015 191 826 1,608 875 54 44 72 214 110 0 58
C.Monoxide 8 12 97 11 17 64 26 24 31 14 41 76
C.Dioxide 362 228 122 122 306 141 253 589 180 270 437
Company A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 B3 B3 B3 B3 D2
Line #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH#339 MH#59440 MH#59442 MH#59442 MH#59442 MH#59442 49TH ST MH#17547 MH#17549 MH#17551 MH#17553 MH#1888
Methane 13 36 28 0 3 25 2,527 17 16 9 17 173,878
Ethane 52 9 51 31 17 53 939 32 15 10 27 53,809
Ethylene 13 2 8 5 1 8 33 3 2 2 4 0
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 52 27 127 8 1 124 700 29 17 13 37 21,031
Propylene 36 8 22 20 6 23 49 5 3 3 8 12
Isobutane 27 0 9 0 0 9 36 26 12 12 28 998
nButane 34 6 26 0 0 27 112 11 6 7 16 2,416
Isobutylene 41 12 25 14 7 27 14 59 35 46 79 709
Hydrogen 75 79 179 64 156 153 151 395 137 155 203 448
C.Monoxide 58 114 100 88 31 102 27 42 25 22 25 0
C.Dioxide 129 403 389 634 1,015 406 293 1,288 91 68 93 90
D-5
13514801

Company D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #3 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
Location MH#1889 MH#1890 MH#1891 RSVR PUMP CLAY W OF RSVR EAST RSVR EAST TRIF POLK TRIF TRIF TRIF 0
MILAN GALLONS
Methane 162,746 132,435 97,842 1,840 137 0 3,121 3,613 149,810 3,139 131,719 128,227
Ethane 52,438 47,150 40,290 10,950 189 3 15,054 19,387 51,189 15,763 49,127 46,818
Ethylene 0 0 0 5 16 2 7 6 351 6 179 163
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 20,319 18,382 17,288 11,414 204 5 14,531 18,651 19,460 15,071 18,648 18,393
Propylene 14 11 9 27 43 6 46 57 35 52 48 55
Isobutane 1,000 1,002 1,087 1,038 101 2 5,539 7,283 6,266 5,910 10,447 11,067
nButane 2,371 2,231 2,207 2,046 52 2 2,398 3,238 2,639 2,575 2,805 2,802
Isobutylene 869 1,255 1,971 2,541 1,707 4 34,962 45,397 27,925 37,686 48,918 52,579
Hydrogen 335 492 622 1,880 181 10,161 6,534 381 807 0 0 518
C.Monoxide 0 0 0 33 36 0 35 0 8 0 23 15
Company D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D3 D4 D4 D4 B5 B5 B5
Line #4 #4 #5 #6 #6 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location TRIF 0.25 W.DALLASxC MH#3570005 MH#3570004 TRIF MH#2580 MH#1 MH#2 MH#3 43 ST TRMNL MH#4684 MH#4685
GALLONS HARTE
Methane 128,953 82,537 635 2,910 30,807 9 16 26 36 7 9 5
Ethane 46,793 38,459 2,830 9,674 18,106 9 9 17 80 7 36 19
Ethylene 161 4 19 27 32 2 2 5 9 2 3 2
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 18,392 16,027 4,109 10,788 10,165 14 14 25 117 11 124 69
Propylene 53 55 53 105 103 6 7 14 30 8 14 8
Isobutane 11,039 13,127 1,594 3,343 4,012 2 4 14 43 2 32 15
nButane 2,790 2,757 341 701 795 12 7 13 53 4 46 25
Isobutylene 52,381 37,483 26,024 113,297 91,326 3 15 36 85 2 193 60
Hydrogen 419 543 513 1,363 4,442 471 523 372 1,889 294 357 1,044
C.Monoxide 19 51 44 38 103 0 267 252 244 27 22 26
C.Dioxide 115 285 811 510 301 111 660 565 401 929 467 610
D-6
13514801

Line #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3
Location MH#2891 MH#2900 28TH ST SS MH#6466 MH#6467 MH#6467 MH#6468 MH#6469 MH#6470 MH#6470 MH#6471 MH#6472
Methane 9 11 7 9 11 12 11 11 10 9 33 2,546
Ethane 17 18 10 26 35 35 36 36 31 29 45 1,325
Ethylene 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 14 1,340
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 38 34 25 67 96 94 98 94 77 77 97 2,160
Propylene 11 11 6 9 11 12 12 12 10 10 28 1,531
Isobutane 1 1 7 36 49 48 33 25 20 19 27 423
nButane 11 10 37 242 329 325 231 156 132 137 147 577
Isobutylene 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 31 3,165
Hydrogen 565 333 81 63 29 39 35 347 197 228 882 814
C.Monoxide 48 52 14 15 10 18 9 14 10 7 10 38
C.Dioxide 801 1,268 273 885 400 398 389 363 178 158 181 189
Line #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
Location MH#71-001 MH#71-002 MH#74-007 MH#74-008 TRIJ CENTER MH#3293 MH#3406 MH#3406 MH#6476 MH#6476 MH#6477 MH#74-005
ST.
Methane 8,418 43,264 61 67 8 1,404 530 551 2,530 6,689 2,388 14,350
Ethane 4,204 18,372 211 291 52 804 321 333 1,404 3,170 1,278 6,200
Ethylene 4,146 17,049 14 19 4 629 192 206 1,362 2,134 1,359 8,298
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 6,664 29,985 527 719 191 1,377 358 384 2,307 2,016 2,063 7,698
Propylene 4,867 21,344 52 69 20 791 264 298 1,530 2,681 1,442 7,737
Isobutane 1,425 8,331 52 112 20 225 48 51 375 816 310 1,049
nButane 1,759 9,521 114 169 46 413 199 230 595 1,502 473 1,981
Isobutylene 10,978 55,163 39 51 174 1,331 119 130 2,439 4,183 1,969 7,297
Hydrogen 0 6,737 161 267 0 429 243 240 565 1,071 449 2,779
C.Monoxide 55 40 112 66 12 37 19 11 42 53 39 51
C.Dioxide 183 377 477 413 141 430 638 634 352 406 347 388
D-7
13514801
HPFF 138 kV, TERMINATIONS
Line #11 #11 #11 #11 #11 #11 #11 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6
Location PHC B OSU PHC T CLINTON PHC T OSU PHB T OSU PHA T OSU PHB B OSU PHB T CLINTON PHC B OSU SS PHB T OSU SS PHC B OSU SS TRIF OSU PHA B OSU SS
Methane 4,231 4,623 4,151 3,802 3,902 4,225 4,036 82,569 74,981 12,076 19,929 84,059
Ethane 1004.1 1874.4 1299.3 908.8 991.2 1282.8 1388.9 12252.7 13817.5 2888.4 2999.9 13196.2
Ethylene 7.9 6.0 12.5 6.5 52.4 28.6 3.9 13145.9 13734.3 1792.7 1757.1 14440.4
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 103.0 90.7 10.7 16.5 109.8
Propane 480.5 1341.8 580.4 408.2 508.8 591.3 1042.6 13202.4 13942.6 3252.0 1967.2 13954.2
Propylene 75.6 60.8 101.3 63.3 165.4 134.1 38.9 28277.3 29886.9 5683.7 2561.8 31092.0
Isobutane 367.7 770.6 430.2 297.0 377.5 436.9 610.5 6230.5 5861.9 1820.0 773.3 7175.0
Nbutane 127.5 189.8 140.8 77.1 85.2 134.9 165.8 1195.0 1542.8 487.0 374.2 1364.7
Isobutylene 4783.8 9099.6 6136.5 4013.0 4260.7 6307.1 6561.3 63171.2 59132.1 21367.7 10409.0 75278.3
Hydrogen 2133.0 615.4 3114.0 2141.9 2325.5 2270.2 553.9 22589.6 19402.4 1874.7 3516.9 23082.1
C.Monoxide 147.2 95.6 150.6 138.2 152.4 145.6 39.6 807.8 756.1 229.8 359.6 935.7
C.Dioxide 751.1 782.3 720.1 651.5 634.1 642.0 358.0 1003.0 998.6 630.4 1270.7 1033.6
Company B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 A2 A2 A2
Line #6 #6 #12 #12 #12 #12 #12 #12 #12 #5 #5 #5
Location PHA T OSU SS PHB B OSU SS PHA T HESS SS PH3 T 5TH AVE PHC T HESS SS PHB T HESS SS PH1 B 5TH AVE HESS SS PH3 5TH AVE PHB E 36TH ST PHC E 29TH ST PHC E 36TH ST
Methane 80,660 18,561 114 48 113 124 13 122 13 23 359 28

Ethane 13518.2 3608.0 50.1 44.6 46.2 57.0 7.8 55.5 6.2 10.5 194.7 52.6
Ethylene 14282.6 2596.5 2.3 20.1 2.8 2.2 4.8 2.1 3.9 7.6 24.2 8.1
Acetylene 113.4 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 14400.1 3887.3 44.7 66.1 43.8 53.3 14.9 52.7 13.1 21.5 97.7 153.8
Propylene 31989.8 7021.9 13.6 43.6 14.0 16.3 12.7 13.6 12.4 20.5 33.4 32.3
Isobutane 8172.2 1953.1 20.2 2.8 16.4 24.0 1.6 24.1 1.1 1.8 34.9 3.1
Nbutane 1533.3 550.8 20.2 26.1 18.6 23.9 9.0 23.2 7.3 5.6 28.2 29.6
Isobutylene 85135.5 22519.2 297.5 5.4 244.6 327.0 5.2 347.0 4.5 7.6 171.4 3.8
Hydrogen 22057.9 2769.5 70.7 68.0 80.6 66.7 78.3 0.0 82.6 443.4 39.6 92.5
C.Monoxide 810.4 335.4 93.5 195.9 95.0 75.0 142.2 69.3 143.8 153.8 48.4 226.8
C.Dioxide 978.8 903.2 1953.9 1974.6 2039.5 1233.9 1224.9 1094.5 1764.2 1210.3 1789.6 1118.7
D-8
13514801
HPFF 138 kV, TERMINATIONS, Continued
Company A2 A2 A2 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3
Line #5 #5 #5 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location PHA E 29TH ST PHA E 36TH ST PHB E 29TH ST PHZB GULLEY PHZB GULLEY PHZB GULLEY PHZB GULLEY PHYB TOWER PHXB TOWER PHXB GULLEY PHYB GULLEY PHYB GULLEY
LINE LINE
Methane 422 25 296 0 47 38 35 25 26 32 39 48
Ethane 214.2 63.1 129.3 113.0 95.0 85.4 84.6 54.0 57.0 74.5 115.8 159.0
Ethylene 27.8 9.9 16.8 14.0 15.0 14.2 13.9 8.0 8.5 10.8 10.3 15.0
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 87.1 189.3 65.2 111.0 73.0 111.3 111.7 72.0 75.0 89.9 74.8 95.0
Propylene 35.8 41.5 23.9 36.0 18.0 20.2 20.4 13.0 13.0 17.3 16.6 23.0
Isobutane 31.8 3.7 29.4 57.0 46.0 62.8 63.9 41.0 45.0 49.2 52.0 61.0
Nbutane 23.7 34.1 23.2 42.0 31.0 40.9 42.5 33.0 32.0 31.7 38.2 44.0
Isobutylene 154.8 4.3 134.6 102.0 72.0 94.5 97.5 81.0 83.0 72.8 83.6 85.0
Hydrogen 427.0 82.9 76.1 606.0 246.0 417.5 104.5 247.0 234.0 226.9 736.5 732.0
C.Monoxide 146.1 150.5 30.6 130.0 72.0 62.3 60.0 58.0 52.0 75.3 156.1 146.0
C.Dioxide 4668.7 977.0 1658.8 2107.0 1444.0 1250.7 1364.0 742.0 833.0 1603.0 1833.4 2054.0
Company B4 B4 B4 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2
Line #1 #1 #1 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6
Location PHC ARSENAL PHB ARSENAL PHA ARSENAL PHB 5.0 PHC 0 GALLONSPHC 0 GALLONS PHB 26TH 5GAL PHB 26TH ST PHB 34.0 PHC 26TH 5GAL PHC 26TH ST PHC 5.0
GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS
Methane 1,128 1,098 976 29,281 34,319 34,550 32,750 33,580 29,733 31,812 34,239 27,964
Ethane 248 251 260 17559.4 19683.0 19689.3 18180.9 19327.2 17377.0 17634.8 19656.0 17302.0
Ethylene 4 4 4 28.4 41.4 140.8 35.8 39.9 28.4 54.2 51.7 33.4
Acetylene 0 0 0 0.0 38.3 154.7 0.0 4.3 4.2 18.4 12.8 5.7
Propane 256 202 262 9945.8 10637.7 10642.8 10301.5 13206.3 9619.7 10141.8 13402.3 9839.9
Propylene 30 26 31 99.9 111.1 189.1 104.6 109.8 97.2 115.5 115.2 99.7
Isobutane 414 415 421 3943.4 4188.7 4340.3 4042.4 3609.9 3633.7 4023.0 3676.4 3863.0
Nbutane 192 190 196 786.8 825.4 824.0 799.9 690.1 738.4 795.2 703.0 760.6
Isobutylene 1,942 1,928 1,983 90578.5 97094.9 96589.0 93113.5 120593.6 84782.3 92061.3 117696.2 89183.4
Hydrogen 207 135 106 4860.8 5582.0 5771.7 4657.9 4181.5 4443.1 5033.4 4160.8 4508.9
C.Monoxide 92 89 94 96.6 197.3 197.1 122.0 0.0 109.1 236.5 0.0 114.8
C.Dioxide 406 401 386 262.3 354.8 357.9 479.7 266.3 271.4 444.4 327.4 258.5
D-9
13514801
Line #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #5 #5 #5
Location PHC 18.0 PHC 2.5 PHC 26TH 0GAL PHA 26TH PHA 26TH 5GAL PHA 26TH ST PHA 0 GALLONS PHA 2.5 PHA 26TH 0GAL PHC 26TH ST PHB 26TH ST PHA 26TH ST
GALLONS GALLONS 2.5GAL GALLONS
Methane 30,994 31,542 28,552 33,408 39,651 27,286 32,741 33,788 31,145 4,603 4,168 4,577
Ethane 18133.1 17617.1 15371.1 17198.6 20566.1 18584.5 17712.3 17789.0 16352.0 8653.9 7983.9 8706.7
Ethylene 39.0 45.9 33.6 37.7 62.7 38.2 27.0 34.7 34.0 11.9 9.7 11.6
Acetylene 31.9 27.0 5.2 16.7 76.3 8.9 0.0 15.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 4.2
Propane 9857.5 9612.9 8604.2 9552.4 10941.9 12755.9 9325.4 9412.5 9106.7 9825.6 9001.6 9984.0
Propylene 103.4 101.5 91.0 101.8 118.6 106.9 95.4 98.3 94.9 53.0 48.4 53.2
Isobutane 3818.0 3757.1 3397.2 3766.2 4155.6 3422.8 3559.7 3534.4 3594.5 3686.5 3426.2 3785.8
Nbutane 768.2 739.0 687.8 750.6 812.0 649.8 717.6 716.3 725.7 680.4 640.1 704.5
Isobutylene 89507.3 86355.6 79556.0 86728.9 94481.5 100860.9 83088.7 81665.7 84238.4 60510.7 58456.6 52603.5
Hydrogen 4706.5 5363.1 4289.2 5018.5 6051.9 4244.1 5259.5 5565.9 4728.5 991.8 1027.7 1025.7
C.Monoxide 133.3 129.9 122.4 319.5 495.9 31.8 114.6 144.4 237.8 29.4 93.3 0.0
C.Dioxide 193.9 306.8 335.9 809.4 1005.6 291.2 314.2 294.2 451.9 273.4 180.3 321.0
Line #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3
Location PHB SS #3 PHC SS #1 PHC SS #3 PHA SS #1 PHA SS #3 PHB SS #1 PHB SS #1 PHB SS #1 PHC SS #1 PHA SS #1 PHA SS #1 PHA SS #1
Methane 15 11 14 10 0 21 26 42 39 31 29 67
Ethane 10.7 7.9 7.3 6.7 9.6 1.4 17.0 9.1 7.7 11.7 9.4 8.8
Ethylene 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.5 2.7 8.1 5.7 4.1 4.9 5.1 4.7
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 18.2 12.6 13.9 12.2 16.6 28.0 24.8 11.3 10.1 13.6 12.2 12.0
Propylene 16.0 13.2 14.5 13.3 15.6 16.0 13.2 7.3 6.1 8.7 7.6 7.0
Isobutane 7.8 3.6 7.5 3.2 7.9 4.2 15.5 3.1 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.0
Nbutane 14.8 9.8 12.2 9.0 14.3 17.8 23.0 10.0 8.8 12.5 10.6 10.8
Isobutylene 1.9 3.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 10.4 2.5 3.6 2.7 2.9 2.6
Hydrogen 512.9 1212.7 507.6 1151.4 512.3 1198.1 322.7 357.5 262.4 190.2 315.2 287.5
C.Monoxide 17.9 846.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.6 64.2 26.8 29.8 47.4 52.4 40.2
C.Dioxide 6301.1 404.7 279.4 247.7 0.0 369.5 576.9 562.2 460.5 507.2 555.9 531.3
D-10
13514801
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location PHB SS #21 PHB SS #21 PHB SS #2 PHB SS #2 PHB SS #2 PHC SS #2 PHC SS #21 PHC SS #21 PHC SS #2 PHC SS #2 PHC SS #2 PHB SS #2
Methane 23 29 33 32 46 32 26 26 37 41 43 38
Ethane 13.9 13.6 11.4 12.9 13.0 13.4 12.1 14.1 11.1 12.2 16.6 14.9
Ethylene 2.8 0.9 5.7 14.3 16.0 15.8 1.6 3.4 6.8 6.8 27.3 16.0
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
Propane 22.9 18.8 15.8 17.2 17.2 16.6 16.2 23.9 13.7 14.2 22.5 17.9
Propylene 9.0 4.8 8.1 11.7 13.5 12.4 5.1 10.1 8.7 8.3 18.0 12.5
Isobutane 1.4 1.8 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.5 0.9 1.4 2.9 2.9 1.6 3.8
Nbutane 13.5 15.2 12.1 12.4 12.1 12.5 13.2 14.7 10.8 11.2 11.8 13.0
Isobutylene 4.3 2.3 3.3 5.0 3.9 3.5 2.4 5.5 3.4 3.3 7.8 3.6
Hydrogen 367.3 115.8 159.5 352.8 423.5 358.9 188.8 388.1 158.0 157.9 359.0 307.3
C.Monoxide 32.7 0.0 0.0 27.2 35.2 30.1 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 34.8 35.6
C.Dioxide 554.5 348.2 127.9 266.2 280.4 314.9 1116.7 584.9 252.4 261.2 494.3 298.8
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location PHA SS #2 PHA SS #2 PHA SS #2 PHA SS #2 PHA SS #2 PHA SS #2 PHB SS #2 PHA SS #2 PH2 WEST PH3 PH3 WEST PH1
SIDE CHRLSTN SS SIDE CHRLSTN SS
Methane 277 75 278 36 31 65 64 267 54 9 54 7
Ethane 37.9 33.8 40.8 15.9 16.4 31.0 37.0 38.3 155.5 6.3 154.1 5.6
Ethylene 413.5 14.1 348.4 18.4 17.3 12.2 29.4 394.9 30.9 1.6 30.3 1.7
Acetylene 1257.3 0.8 1672.8 3.1 0.9 1.7 0.0 1110.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 30.4 30.5 23.9 17.3 15.6 30.3 46.6 30.4 221.6 8.7 224.8 8.3
Propylene 122.6 22.5 112.3 12.8 11.4 20.1 32.1 108.7 94.2 7.4 95.2 7.2
Isobutane 53.1 5.4 58.2 4.1 2.9 5.5 2.5 47.0 55.7 2.8 56.5 2.4
Nbutane 15.1 27.4 15.7 14.4 12.1 28.9 23.2 15.8 94.9 4.0 95.7 3.9
Isobutylene 16.4 5.5 16.3 4.1 3.5 5.2 7.7 15.2 110.7 6.6 112.7 5.2
Hydrogen 2885.4 148.4 3121.2 264.7 342.4 96.8 279.3 2527.4 760.4 0.0 906.2 66.2
C.Monoxide 60.4 185.8 61.3 36.9 36.7 120.3 177.1 61.0 326.0 58.9 321.5 56.0
C.Dioxide 350.8 1075.9 362.9 390.3 316.1 740.3 667.2 402.5 709.9 365.5 725.8 339.5
D-11
13514801
Company D4 D4 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5
Line #1 #1 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
Location PH1 WEST PH2 PHB VALLEY PHC PHA PHB PHBT PHCT PHCT PHAT PHAT PHBT
SIDE CHRLSTN SS SS PARKHILL SS PARKHILL SS PARKHILL SS FIEBRANTZ CENTER ST. FIEBRANTZ CENTER ST. FIEBRANTZ CENTER ST.
Methane 51 8 57 0 37 0 189 7 280 14 104 5
Ethane 141.8 6.7 6.9 4.6 5.0 5.0 139.7 41.5 157.3 47.0 89.9 45.3
Ethylene 28.9 1.8 2.6 4.5 2.2 2.3 97.0 3.6 120.8 4.7 59.6 3.9
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 203.2 8.2 16.4 7.1 7.7 8.9 163.8 192.5 241.0 167.1 107.9 222.5
Propylene 87.2 7.2 5.0 3.3 3.3 3.6 132.1 15.3 153.7 17.8 84.3 18.4
Isobutane 52.4 2.6 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 22.8 15.3 22.6 17.6 15.0 17.1
Nbutane 88.6 4.2 4.1 1.7 1.8 2.8 94.2 33.4 108.3 38.8 62.1 40.2
Isobutylene 103.3 6.1 3.7 2.6 1.7 2.5 61.4 136.0 59.0 157.1 37.4 166.4
Hydrogen 908.6 80.5 68.6 116.1 82.8 71.7 353.7 0.0 196.7 0.0 329.3 0.0
C.Monoxide 299.8 58.1 18.7 0.0 24.8 0.0 26.0 5.5 12.7 6.3 31.2 9.0
C.Dioxide 635.1 351.2 59.3 183.9 179.3 193.7 295.8 162.8 262.9 199.1 273.2 160.0
D-12
13514801
HPFF 230 kV, SPLICES
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location TRAILER 7033 RESVR TRUCK 640 TRUCK 7878 TRAILER 1057 TRAILER 7879 TRAILER 7845 MH#3 MH#2 MH#7 MH#5 MH#4
Methane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethane 2 13 47 5 8 5 27 4 5 24 8 5
Ethylene 0 3 16 1 2 0 13 2 3 12 4 2
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 49 24 218 37 55 34 384 46 65 278 102 48
Propylene 26 4 192 26 27 13 201 28 36 178 61 32
Isobutane 3 4 11 4 4 2 11 3 3 10 4 4
nButane 190 25 604 170 146 100 662 145 167 592 267 165
Isobutylene 231 26 758 204 177 122 868 180 205 776 343 205
Hydrogen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.Monoxide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.Dioxide 249 232 348 268 261 256 281 277 301 243 265 263
Nitrogen 63,113 71,171 80,375 79,168 64,645 61,075 73,917 52,390 57,099 17,271 36,606 44,305
Company A5 A5 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Methane 0 0 59 31 64 54 4 19 87 13 80 35
Ethane 4 30 73 38 77 60 10 23 95 21 105 51
Ethylene 4 16 25 11 26 18 3 6 33 5 33 16
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 50 309 97 55 110 83 30 41 124 37 150 70
Propylene 31 192 37 22 41 32 11 15 47 14 55 29
Isobutane 5 10 47 29 43 36 19 25 52 21 61 38
nButane 160 603 64 35 71 50 24 34 75 27 92 41
Isobutylene 198 785 368 247 330 338 167 199 272 185 318 394
Hydrogen 0 0 278 170 362 168 0 183 806 67 697 437
C.Monoxide 0 0 277 134 314 234 7 66 273 56 422 230
C.Dioxide 341 293 442 140 515 310 29 92 874 148 739 535
Nitrogen 175,758 70,346 126,068 94,028 151,445 114,935 119,846 93,224 251,616 100,471 272,689 106,183
D-13
13514801
Line #2 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4
Location MH#323 MH#322 MH#325 MH#323 MH#322 MH#321 MH#324 MH#301 MH#305 MH#303 MH#302
Methane 32 77 34 59 65 67 29 56 35 53 53 53
Ethane 67 112 90 97 91 85 52 74 76 102 98 105
Ethylene 10 19 15 14 15 16 11 14 12 19 13 17
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 121 245 166 167 172 141 106 120 134 193 180 198
Propylene 26 44 30 31 35 33 29 23 28 40 36 40
Isobutane 210 366 220 240 228 175 211 170 195 176 150 180
nButane 68 105 70 79 78 57 58 58 72 83 78 85
Isobutylene 4,144 6,297 4,458 4,663 4,409 3,432 4,041 3,295 3,600 3,153 2,770 3,179
Hydrogen 1,392 2,430 1,587 3,186 1,909 1,211 862 2,566 1,191 1,366 1,651 1,415
C.Monoxide 78 239 230 242 231 285 92 204 182 231 181 208
C.Dioxide 897 1,993 1,538 1,397 1,483 1,795 1,243 1,282 927 1,281 1,226 1,400
Nitrogen 108,454 56,003 53,449 47,552 54,986 65,260 106,738 49,520 101,900 39,937 38,350 38,135
Line #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3
Location MH#302 MH#301 MH#303 MH#304 MH#304 MH#8 MH#4 MH#4 MH#12 MH#6 MH#8 RESVR
Methane 53 31 50 51 51 4 4 14 20 17 4 0
Ethane 106 64 105 106 106 3 3 8 12 9 2 3
Ethylene 17 12 15 14 14 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 201 123 209 197 197 6 5 9 12 10 2 6
Propylene 39 26 38 34 34 2 2 1 1 0 1 1
Isobutane 179 181 173 166 166 0 0 1 2 2 0 1
nButane 89 60 87 85 85 3 2 3 4 4 2 3
Isobutylene 3,156 3,400 3,044 2,904 2,904 1 0 10 6 6 0 1
Hydrogen 1,135 952 1,647 2,419 2,419 536 326 2,237 816 1,307 1,098 0
C.Monoxide 199 111 183 183 183 63 64 0 8 0 38 0
C.Dioxide 1,350 859 1,238 1,203 1,203 30 60 61 115 41 38 63
Nitrogen 38,328 98,285 36,969 39,718 39,718 3,727 2,512 1,851 2,274 865 5,254 81,822
D-14
13514801
Company C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1
Line #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Methane 20 16 944 7 8 664 39 47 51 76 41 78
Ethane 14 17 76 8 12 132 72 86 95 136 79 139
Ethylene 2 2 55 1 1 100 30 34 41 66 33 61
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 12 15 24 8 11 28 66 80 89 126 79 126
Propylene 2 2 16 1 2 52 39 46 53 80 46 74
Isobutane 2 2 4 2 2 7 37 43 49 64 45 65
nButane 4 5 6 3 3 7 51 51 68 100 63 96
Isobutylene 10 10 32 10 10 57 54 60 64 85 61 86
Hydrogen 98 160 813 40 42 50 636 661 546 502 389 559
C.Monoxide 0 27 26 13 17 45 32 42 43 71 41 68
C.Dioxide 88 360 171 154 194 86 35 49 59 62 67 98
Nitrogen 21,942 42,738 35,198 9,039 14,199 99,518 2,231 3,140 2,954 2,874 12,077 4,129
Line #1 #2 #@ #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3
Location MH#5 MH#6B MH#6C MH#7A MH#5A MH#5B MH#5C MH#2B MH#7B MH#7C MH#2A MH#2
Methane 76 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 13
Ethane 134 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 27
Ethylene 58 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 12
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 126 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 31
Propylene 72 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
Isobutane 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
nButane 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Isobutylene 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
Hydrogen 579 23,526 24,056 1,788 1,780 1,828 1,828 1,188 1,777 1,765 1,247 298
C.Monoxide 67 36 38 47 45 48 32 32 41 50 40 42
C.Dioxide 96 29 33 36 37 38 24 37 36 43 35 143
Nitrogen 4,092 7,391 7,341 10,847 8,376 8,516 5,602 5,241 8,051 6,796 6,050 79,336
D-15
13514801
Company D1 D1 D1 D1 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2
Line #3 #3 #3 #3 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH#2 MH#3 MH#1 MH#4 MH#27320 MH#27315 MH#28991 MH#27318 MH#27317 MH#27318 MH#27319
Methane 29 12 8 10 1241 514 591.2 812 620.4 763 900.3
Ethane 42 34 17 31 281 153 215.1 279 204.8 266 269.1
Ethylene 31 14 4 13 34 56 14.9 90 70.2 93 73.3
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 6.7 4.9 0 12 5.3 14 16.2
Propane 38 37 21 37 425 327 280 398 348.7 399 394.9
Propylene 43 27 14 28 74.2 99 61 165 131.6 168 139.6
Isobutane 20 25 14 26 642 935 1056 1,217 1182.2 1,281 1112.4
nButane 25 29 15 31 915 1605 1663.6 1,753 1666.1 1,767 1462.3
Isobutylene 66 47 39 47 2321 2920 2866.1 3,490 3209.4 3,574 3139.4
Hydrogen 329 296 285 210 557 63497 3522.3 24,041 91372.8 36,123 35447.7
C.Monoxide 28 45 36 35 75.5 42.5 4 143 42.8 60 103.2
C.Dioxide 138 175 132 136 446 264.2 256.2 3,745 263.8 495 711.9
Nitrogen 78,038 84,673 89,663 94,322 89626 52450 52693 6590124 64329.6 78019 648391
D-16
13514801
HPFF 230 kV, TERMINATIONS
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2
Location PHBT CRNY PHCT CRNY PHAT CRNY INIT PHAT CRNY PHBT CRNY INIT PHAT CRNEY PHAT CRNY MID PHCT CRNEY PHBT CRNY PHCT CRNY MID PHCT CRANY PH3 MH #3/1
FINL FINL FINL INIT
Methane 141 142 152 87 120 82 92 103 81 142 157 179
Ethane 407 565 570 494 519 246 456 318 493 560 637 47
Ethylene 102
Acetylene
Propane 542 2,213 1,833 2,242 1,859 554 1,659 702 1,964 1,925 2,323 104
Propylene 16 11 12 13 10 12 11 16 12 11 12 70
Isobutane 79 83 66 90 71 33 61 58 84 72 95 7
nButane 141 186 147 209 184 75 146 115 177 172 207 37
Isobutylene 270 85 67 94 75 92 62 141 82 77 94 24
Hydrogen 326 335 324 277 279 367 601 387 676 206
C.Monoxide 234 79 96 34 57 185 31 250 69 60 73 563
C.Dioxide 205 135 133 74 125 95 102 234 190 118 149 27,876
Nitrogen 116,014 109,898 63,449 106,928 10,507 109,639 8,084 244,557 109,737 104,084 82,113
Company A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 C2 C2 C2
Line #2 #2 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #3 #2 #2 #2
Location PH2 MH #3/1 PH1 HYNS AVE PH1 HBKN PH1 49TH ST PH2 49TH ST PH3 HBKN PH3 49TH ST PH2 HBKN PHA NEWPRT PHCT PHAB PHBT
Methane 189 8 51 46 52
Ethane 48 11 6 20 36 3 17 5 6 76 81 85
Ethylene 74 5 3 10 10 3 11 2 1 9 11 10
Acetylene
Propane 89 29 51 210 202 40 161 45 35 102 119 110
Propylene 66 6 29 121 119 24 106 25 4 21 24 25
Isobutane 7 4 3 8 8 5 9 4 31 177 222 202
nButane 36 8 144 401 388 131 352 129 40 62 82 69
Isobutylene 20 9 179 522 505 155 447 157 58 3,555 4,306 4,065
Hydrogen 152 605 1,883 819 1,475
C.Monoxide 716 466 616 465
C.Dioxide 30,572 115 378 289 255 331 924 270 305 1,214 889 1,024
Nitrogen 198,369 10,746 78,726 90,003 93,352 72,683 806,067 63,180 81,814 69,918 43,580 45,566
D-17
13514801
Line #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #3 #4
Location PHAT PHAB OKMNT N PHBB OKMNT N PHBB PHCB PHB OAKMNT N PHAB OKMNT S PHBB OKMNT S PHCB OKMNT N PHCB OKMNT S PHCB OKMNT N PHCB OKMNT N
Methane 46 322 330 50 52 369 327 827 625 712 620 663
Ethane 78 133 134 80 81 133 121 199 175 204 175 187
Ethylene 10 156 172 13 15 196 207 529 328 356 326 328
Acetylene 1 3 7 4 1 2 5 7 1 4
Propane 108 184 187 110 121 167 169 233 183 232 188 213
Propylene 25 148 165 27 29 174 175 402 255 303 257 258
Isobutane 214 218 232 215 225 223 201 274 210 250 215 180
nButane 72 78 77 74 78 71 69 83 69 81 70 74
Isobutylene 4,157 4,452 4,568 4,257 4,211 4,606 4,517 6,345 4,454 5,488 4,547 3,857
Hydrogen 866 840 764 1,052 1,396 640 883 1,205 602 1,676 611 613
C.Monoxide 778 304 532 329 419 237 620 361 211 416 236 426
C.Dioxide 818 729 861 933 728 729 597 1,128 694 1,099 695 694
Nitrogen 87,508 87,033 88,922 41,558 41,836 96,461 42,058 47,724 77,115 46,478 75,478 69,580
Company C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C1 C1 C1 A2
Line #4 #4 #4 #4 #6 #6 #6 #6 #4 #4 #4 #1
Location PHBB OKMNT S PHBB OKMNT N PHCB OKMNT S PHBB OKMNT N PHC PHA PHB PHA PHB HYPRN PHC HYPRN PHA HYPRN PHA TRMNT
Methane 685 404 414 594 45 36 40 37 3,366 655 391 773

Ethane 187 163 160 186 84 86 92 79 646 94 69 377
Ethylene 424 217 257 305 11 10 10 11 623 103 71 4
Acetylene 3 22 1 13 3 1
Propane 220 219 217 230 100 120 126 102 74 18 15 343
Propylene 334 198 209 253 23 29 27 26 320 53 40 35
Isobutane 179 189 172 188 106 160 163 132 18 4 4 472
nButane 73 84 83 83 48 70 70 64 10 5 4 621
Isobutylene 4,332 3,786 3,769 3,913 2,037 2,898 2,971 2,613 204 52 42 2,317
Hydrogen 841 659 1,088 704 859 549 737 588 687 528 141 90
C.Monoxide 351 297 487 556 546 412 333 403 6 9 26 135
C.Dioxide 959 769 519 596 1,079 1,040 1,130 1,029 263 231 247 206
Nitrogen 36,557 69,323 35,976 121,475 31,611 33,237 34,074 29,965 72,840 58,668 66,409 26,435
D-18
13514801
Company A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location PHB TRMNT PHC TRMNT PHC SPRNBRK PHC PRKCHSTR PHB SPRNBRK PHA SPRNBRK PHA PRKCHSTR PHB PRKCHSTR PHC TOP PHA TOP PHB TOP
SPRNBRK SPRNBRK SPRNBRK
Methane 417 519 401 492 74,534 451 678 385 513 504 71,069
Ethane 166 246 256 255 37,474 237 313 152 289 249 52,132
Ethylene 6 5 17 6 10,517 12 4 6 42 14 13,928
Acetylene
Propane 160 243 485 269 160,186 427 325 179 723 472 214,863
Propylene 24 27 125 28 81,267 142 33 24 253 107 102,751
Isobutane 232 315 918 333 159,015 826 444 232 972 849 210,126
nButane 274 400 884 425 34,578 862 577 261 715 865 47,644
Isobutylene 915 1,465 2,312 1,546 397,919 2,062 2,191 898 2,461 2,402 527,793
Hydrogen 55 103 2,847 55 91 3,753
C.Monoxide 125 165 121 142 3,781 87 134 156 94 112 3,571
C.Dioxide 218 215 279 218 2,522 180 236 265 226 223 2,938
Nitrogen 28,316 35,073 109,328 38,221 96,318 95,917 134,899 158,480 129,635 104,782 106,244
D-19
13514801
HPFF 345 kV PPP, TERMINATIONS
Company A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
Line #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2
Location PHA G.HILLS PHB G.HILLS PHC G.HILLS PHA G.HILLS*** PHB G.HILLS* PHC G.HILLS*
Methane 49 50 83 0 85 777
Ethane 56 73 74 55 142 255
Ethylene 11 14 14 7 54 370
Acetylene 5 4 8 1 45 143
Propane 72 92 94 74 163 175
Propylene 15 20 19 13 48 145
Isobutane 45 47 57 51 73 81
nButane 58 64 75 67 105 102
Isobutylene 60 62 79 70 104 149
Hydrogen 822 642 935 601 656 2,119
C.Monoxide 219 207 149 191 45 183
C.Dioxide 1,353 1,292 1,703 1,504 904 1,022
Nitrogen 86,806 74,416 113,147 97,423 38,955 45,845
D-20
13514801
HPFF 345 kV PPP, SPLICES

Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location BURRIED MH#25603 MH#25604 MH#25605 MH#25609 MH#25610 MH#25614 MH#25615 MH#25615-N MH#25615--S MH#25679 MH#25681
Methane 33.0 23.0 31.0 33.0 36.4 16.0 16.0 41.8 18.0 12.0 5.4 31.9
Ethane 55.0 9.0 13.0 60.0 39.1 10.0 9.0 43.2 12.0 8.0 5.7 32.7
Ethylene 7.9 0.0 14.0 9.5 3.7 2.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 2.6 7.0
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propane 70.0 21.0 15.0 76.0 67.4 32.0 32.0 67.9 32.0 24.0 11.4 47.3
Propylene 16.0 1.0 1.0 19.2 10.7 6.4 6.0 11.5 8.0 6.0 6.7 17.9
Isobutane 50.0 14.0 1.0 52.0 47.2 40.0 39.0 46.3 34.0 28.0 7.2 23.3
nButane 67.0 13.0 19.0 71.0 46.8 50.0 49.0 45.5 48.0 37.0 5.8 19.8
Isobutylene 63.0 86.0 87.0 65.0 101.4 100.0 121.0 95.0 141.0 104.0 26.9 49.3
Hydrogen 619.0 152.0 132.0 632.0 619.0 164.0 164.0 592.0 159.0 112.0 36.6 147.0
C.Monoxide 272.0 217.0 204.0 246.0 145.0 244.0 172.0 228.0 231.0 213.0 105.0 68.3
C.Dioxide 1,135.0 795.0 834.0 1,199.0 1,654.0 914.0 944.0 1,528.0 872.0 779.0 960.0 892.0
Nitrogen 87,934.0 103,827.0 85,900.0 89,946.0 123,587.0 124,636.0 92,213.0 115,760.0 112,149.0 98,136.0 104,766.0 37,510.0
Company A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
Line #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2 #2
Location MH#25767 SPLICE JOINT MH#25603 MH#25604 MH#25609 MH#25610 MH#25614 MH#25615 MH#25615 N MH#25679 TANK CAR
Methane 14.0 28.0 13.0 10.0 23.7 13.0 11.0 40.8 10.0 18.4 23
Ethane 12.6 49.0 3.0 5.0 42.1 4.0 6.0 43.4 7.0 12.0 7
Ethylene 6.6 6.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.3 2.0 4.9 2
Acetylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Propane 18.9 66.0 15.0 16.0 62.1 15.0 18.0 73.0 19.0 19.0 14
Propylene 11.9 15.0 1.0 0.5 9.7 7.0 6.0 12.3 7.0 10.8 7
Isobutane 11.5 50.0 29.0 25.0 41.0 28.0 30.0 49.8 29.0 10.9 23
nButane 8.5 67.0 35.0 29.0 41.2 33.0 34.0 49.4 35.0 8.4 28
Isobutylene 32.4 61.0 151.0 137.0 81.4 152.0 173.0 100.9 157.0 33.5 85
Hydrogen 117.0 565.0 23.0 44.0 631.0 102.0 68.0 567.0 120.0 126.0 100
C.Monoxide 104.0 273.0 289.0 254.0 193.0 404.0 214.0 220.0 216.0 83.5 243
C.Dioxide 981.0 1,155.0 547.0 472.0 1,618.0 734.0 914.0 1,595.0 946.0 943.0 822
Nitrogen 112,370.0 86,022.0 128,487.0 64,980.0 113,664.0 111,163.0 84,240.0 119,159.0 92,213.0 106,193.0 179,056
D-21
13514801
HPFF STATIC 345 kV, TERMINATIONS
Company A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 B3 B3 B3
Line #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4 #1 #1 #1
Location PHA SPRNBRK PHB SPRNBRK PHC SPRNBRK PHA DNWDIE PHB DNWDIE PHC DNWDIE PHA-B DNWDIE PHB-B DNWDIE PHC DNWDIE PHX-B CNFF PHX-T CNFF PHY-B CNFF
Methane 7 9 7 177 192 206 203 182 200 15 9 18

Ethane 6 6 7 135 151 146 151 140 143 32 30 39
Ethylene 2 2 2 15 16 16 16 14 15 9 10 10
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 13 13 12 288 306 381 325 282 331 48 59 55
Propylene 4 4 3 40 43 45 45 40 44 22 29 25
Isobutane 11 11 10 756 800 910 849 752 851 46 40 50
nButane 8 8 8 217 230 239 238 214 233 54 48 58
Isobutylene 36 37 35 2,295 2,449 2,716 2,584 2,293 2,564 236 318 258
Hydrogen 0 0 0 2,741 2,868 2,936 2,942 3,013 2,841 0 0 0
C.Monoxide 165 153 224 42 47 44 47 41 46 21 51 64
C.Dioxide 718 712 951 231 303 251 248 180 241 59 189 101
Nitrogen 84,060 47,079 41,105 104,306 111,366 119,856 117,396 106,059 110,663 93,763 101,236 112,260
Company B3 B3 B3 B3 B4 B4 B4
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location PHY-B CNFF PHY-T CNFF PHZ-B CNFF PHZ-T CNFF PHA TCMSE SS PHB TCMSE SS PHC TCMSE SS
Methane 12 10 19 18 19 60 31
Ethane 37 32 36 35 54 101 69
Ethylene 11 11 10 13 6 13 8
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 50 62 53 67 109 160 120
Propylene 27 33 25 35 22 37 24
Isobutane 44 44 50 45 330 344 304
nButane 49 50 57 48 81 100 85
Isobutylene 296 322 257 357 4,951 5,008 4,502
Hydrogen 102 37 0 37 129 0 115
C.Monoxide 38 81 61 72 11 76 25
C.Dioxide 56 153 84 186 132 238 121
Nitrogen 111,003 105,162 94,647 113,218 87,476 206,517 79,531
D-22
13514801
HPFF STATIC 345 KV, SPLICES
Company B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH17126 MH17127 MH17128 MH17129 MH17130 MH17131 MH17132 MH17133 MH17134 MH17135 MH17136 MH17137 DEGASSED
Methane 69 87 134 189 256 45,799 385 362 197 141 115 152 6
Ethane 80 63 75 98 117 3,306 141 124 77 59 65 81 4
Ethylene 24 33 68 131 187 2,157 191 132 71 42 31 69 3
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 89 64 72 85 97 634 119 107 71 54 61 72 12
Propylene 35 33 59 99 132 1,604 126 85 49 32 27 52 14
Isobutane 59 54 70 106 126 430 136 116 74 52 54 87 42
nButane 72 61 68 86 96 165 114 107 74 56 63 80 8
Isobutylen 240 260 355 523 617 2,137 553 442 306 231 216 356 270
Hydrogene 1,276 737 538 783 666 18,299 1,031 1,468 912 572 646 1,412 110
C.Monoxide 408 307 428 567 693 2,288 1,362 1,675 954 541 620 471 0
C.Dioxide 99 105 148 121 303 2,568 556 689 622 306 229 318 61
Nitrogen 219,710 74,155 73,364 89,391 101,850 216,860 234,260 233,220 121,305 109,375 161,926 153,270 3,960
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH17138 MH17139 MH17140 MH17141 MH17141 MH17142 MH17142 MH17142 MH17143 MH17143 MH17144 MH17145
Methane 300 357 265 349 262 469 541 561 240 108 80 51
Ethane 129 142 113 213 133 160 177 179 158 86 71 62
Ethylene 142 207 180 242 156 130 141 143 174 61 22 9
Acetylene 2 7 2 25 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 0
Propane 100 114 90 168 102 100 106 104 129 77 71 66
Propylene 107 151 127 205 115 127 143 140 144 53 27 15
Isobutane 120 138 128 151 139 105 113 114 132 67 55 51
nButane 103 112 99 68 106 81 84 85 113 70 66 65
Isobutylen 515 630 612 949 680 538 581 574 887 322 248 207
Hydrogene 905 889 1,077 1,014 1,195 460 1,408 1,668 830 1,064 669 763
C.Monoxide 652 768 728 942 695 496 539 548 777 376 270 232
C.Dioxide 531 268 462 486 439 512 435 428 321 323 154
Nitrogen 136,954 285,633 91,244 177,300 99,634 85,619 90,822 85,761 167,000 78,779 64,047 54,801
D-23
13514801
HPFF STATIC 345 KV, SPLICES, Continued
Line #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Location MH17146 MH17146 MH17147 MH17148 MH17148 MH17149 MH17149 MH17150 MH43370 MH43376 MH43381 MH43593
Methane 36 10,300 47 8,890 0 1,032 0 20 1356 88 105 1,636

Ethane 64 2,175 101 3,690 159 757 37,960 39 126 112 139 256
Ethylene 10 1,929 12 2,290 106 346 36,388 10 6 4 5 2
Acetylene 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 0 0 0 0 0
Propane 79 2,472 12 4,890 157 1,158 33,916 55 267 241 284 164
Propylene 17 3,412 127 11,060 195 1,252 64,810 26 55 58 69 32
Isobutane 42 1,873 67 3,060 143 1,030 34,850 50 690 1,022 1,266 730
nButane 55 474 88 776 53 211 6,294 59 160 125 177 68
Isobutylen 227 19,107 380 40,720 1,240 9,876 254 1836 2,175 3,121 2,706
Hydrogene 926 1,462 530 1,160 928 291 15,760 0 437 186 162 124
C.Monoxide 191 210 221 190 82 55 108 118 60 13
C.Dioxide 154 159 291 117 77 57 637 563 472 109
Nitrogen 61,230 45,578 66,630 89,530 86,207 100,443 93,723 116,925 139,361 126,033 79,785 54,696
D-24
13514801
E
LIST OF COMMANDS
This section lists the commands available in alphabetical order. The format, argument
requirements and examples of use are shown for each command.
ASSIGN
Command format: ASSIGN
Command description: This command is used to declate the positions of the multipath
valve that will be utilized during the analysis. The progeam prompts the user to inout the
ative positions, which can be enterd in any oprder.
CLOSE
Command format: CLOSE valve1, valve2, ...
Command description: This command will deactivate any solid state relay (SSR#)
declared in the argument. The SSRs have been numbered accoridng to their position in the
RTI board. Such position can be assocaited to valve numbers if so desired with the
DEFINE command.
CLOSEVICI
Command format: CLOSEVICI
Command description: This command is used to close the valve associated witht he
position of the multipath valve (VICI). No argument is needed for this command.
DEF
Command format: DEF argument
Command description: This command associated a name with an argument for later use in
a given command, The argumant must be in the form needed fo rht ecommand with which
it will be utilized. The word oir name must be a singlew worth with no spaces or commad
followed by a space an equal sign and a space.
E-1
13514801
List of Commands
Examples:
DEF Module3 = Temperature, degC, =###.##
This instruction defines Module3 as a temperature input reading in degree Celsius

with two decimal places. It should be noted that in order to access a sensor the
word MODULE must be followed with a number with no space. The modules
which stand for micro controllers have different configurations, Some are
dedicated thermocouple readouts while others are transmitters for pressure. The
addresses of these modules have been predefined during installation and are
associated with the module number. In other words, the same definition above
could not have been used for MODULE4 since this corresponds to a pressure
transmitter and not a temperature transmitter.
DEF LowPress = 50
This definition assigns 50 to the variable LowPress.
DO
Command format: DO
Command description: This command The DO command acts together with the LOOP
command by enclosing a list of instruction that to be repeated until a condition defined in
the LOOP argument is achieved.
LOOP
Command format: LOOP Argument
Command description: This command closes the loop starting from the previous DO
command. The loop is repeated until the argument in LOOP is true. Arguments can be:
VICI, UNTIL, FOREVER and COUNTER.
VICI: The LOOP VICI instruction repeats the loop until all positions declared active
with the ASSIGN command for the multiport valve are scanned.
UNTIL:This instruction must be followed by a logical statement (=, <, > or <>).
When the statement is true the condition is met and the loop is terminated.
FOREVER:This condition will repeat the loop endlessly. To halt this loop hit Ctrl-
Brk keys.
COUNTER:This requires two addition parameters; a lower limit and an upper limit.
These parameter mus be numeric. When the loop begins, the counter is set equal to
E-2
13514801
List of Commands
the lower limit. Each time the loop is executed, the counter is incremented until is
reaches the upper limit. The same counter can be utilized to operate the valve
having the same number as the counter.
Example:
DO
OPEN SSR(COUNTER)
CLOSE SSR(COUNTER)
LOOP COUNTER = 5, 10
In this example, the first execution of the loop sets the counter at #5 so that relay #5 is activated
and then deactivated. The second time around, relay #6 is activated and then deactivated, and so
on up to relay #10.
MESSAGE
Command format: MESSAGE string
Command description: This command displays the string in the message area of the
display.
OPEN
Command format: OPEN Argument
Command description: This command opens the valve listed in the argument
OPENVICI
Command format: OPENVICI
Command description: This command activates the relay associated with the multipath
position to which VICI is pointing. This position is set by the POINT VICI command. It
can also be set within a DO. . . LOOP VICI loop where the positions are sequentially set
according to the order they were entered in the ASSIGN instruction.
POINTVICI
Command format: POINTVICI Argument
Command description: This command directs the multiport valve to the position indicated
by the argument.
E-3
13514801
List of Commands
STARTIMER
Command format: STARTIMER
Command description: This command is used to zero the countdown timer and it must
precede the TIMEOUT command.
TIMEOUT
Command format: TIMEOUT Argument
Command description: This command loads the countdown timer with the time count and
the units separated by a single space. The time units can be seconds, minutes or hours.
UNTIL
Command format: UNTIL argument
Command description: This command halts the program until the condition specified in
the argument is met. The argument can include a sensor output value or counter value.
Example:
UNTIL INPUT(4) < 16
E-4
13514801
F
COMMAND FILE FOR THE OPERATION OF EPOSS
List of commands currently being utilized for the analysis of dissolved gas through the utilization
of the EPOSS sampling cell:
'Revision Feb.93
'Main REPOSS Program
'TABLE FOR AUTOMATIC CONTROL OF DGA
DEF Pa = 3000 4000 5
DEF INPUT(2) = Pressure,Torrs,+#####.##,.1,0
DEF INPUT(7) = Temperature,degC,+####.##,1,0
DEF INPUT(3) = Vacuum,mV,+####.##,.001,0
DEF PRES = INPUT(2)
DEF VAC = INPUT(3)
DEF GC = INPUT(1)
DEF READY = 128
DEF LP = 3.0
DEF HP = 850
DEF BT = 59.5
MESSAGE DGA AUTOMATION CONTROL PROGRAM (RUN, MAIN PROGRAM Jan-91)
MESSAGE CHEKING BATH TEMPERATURE
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
MESSAGE BATH TEMPERATURE BELOW SET POINT
UNTIL INPUT(7) > BT
MESSAGE TEMPERATURE BATH OK
OPEN SSR24
MESSAGE CELL INSTALLATION STAGE
PROMPT PRESS ENTER KEY TO START
ASSIGN
OPEN SSR14
OPEN SSR13
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 2 SECONDS
UNTIL INPUT(3) < LP
DO
OPENVICI
OPEN SSR13
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 2 SECONDS
UNTIL INPUT(3) < LP
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 5 SECONDS
CLOSE SSR13
'PURGING CYCLE
F-1
13514801
Command File For The Operation of EPOSS
MESSAGE PURGING VALVES (ARGON IN)

OPEN SSR12
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 6 SECONDS
CLOSE SSR12
OPEN SSR13
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 2 SECONDS
UNTIL INPUT(3) < LP
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 5 SECONDS
MESSAGE PURGE LOOP (ARGON OUT)
CLOSE SSR13
CLOSEVICI
LOOP VICI
CLOSE SSR14
PROMPT OPEN ALL CELLS AND PRESS ENTER KEY WHEN READY
'CELL EQUILIBRATION
MESSAGE STAGE 2 (CELL EQUILIBRATION)
OPEN SSR14
OPEN SSR13
DO
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
UNTIL VAC < LP
LOOP VICI
CLOSE SSR14
DO
DO
OPEN SSR12
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
UNTIL PRES > HP
PULSEVICI Pa
UNTIL PRES > HP
CLOSE SSR12
LOOP VICI
'EQUILIBRATION TIME = 3 MINUTES
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 MINUTES
LOOP COUNTER = 1 , 3
'PRESSURE READOUT
FILE.OPEN
DO
OPEN SSR12
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
UNTIL PRES > HP
CLOSE SSR12
OPENVICI
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
CLOSEVICI
FILE.PRINT
F-2
13514801
Command File For The Operation of EPOSS
FILE.RECORD
LOOP VICI
FILE.CLOSE
CLOSE SSR24
MESSAGE STAGE 3 (GAS SAMPLING)
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
MESSAGE READING FOR CELL ANALYSIS, PURGING SAMPLING LOOPS
OPEN SSR14
DO
OPEN SSR13
OPEN SSR11
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
UNTIL INPUT(3) < LP
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 5 SECONDS
CLOSE SSR13
OPEN SSR12
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
OPEN SSR15
OPEN SSR16
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 5 SECONDS
CLOSE SSR12
CLOSE SSR15
CLOSE SSR16
OPEN SSR13
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
UNTIL VAC < LP
STARTIMER
........................MESSAGE PURGING; HOLDING VACUUM UNTIL GC READY
UNTIL GC = READY
CLOSE SSR13
OPENVICI
OPEN SSR15
OPEN SSR16
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 15 SECONDS
CLOSE SSR11
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 10 SECONDS
OPEN SSR17
STARTIMER
TIMEOUT 3 SECONDS
CLOSE SSR17
CLOSE SSR15
CLOSE SSR16
CLOSEVICI
LOOP VICI
MESSAGE SAMPLING FINISHED
END
F-3
13514801
13514801

TR - 111321 - Behavior of Paper - Polypropylene - Paper Laminate Under Thermal and Electrical Stresses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TR - 111321 - Behavior of Paper - Polypropylene - Paper Laminate Under Thermal and Electrical Stresses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavior of Paper-Polypropylene-Paper Laminate Under

Thermal and Electrical Stresses

Final Report, September 1998

EPRI Project Manager

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

Detroit Edison Company

This report was prepared by

Detroit Edison Company

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Behavior of Paper-Polypropylene-Paper Laminate Under Thermal and Electrical Stresses, EPRI,

The lower gas permeability observed in impregnated PPP laminate compared to

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1

2 THERMAL AGING OF PPP LAMINATE ............................................................................. 2-1

3 MEASUREMENT OF GAS PERMEABILITY THROUGH PPP LAMINATE......................... 3-1

4 EFFECT OF ELECTRICAL STRESS ON GAS FORMATION IN A CABLE FLUID ............ 4-1

5 AUTOMATION OF EPOSS GAS ANALYSIS PROCEDURE .............................................. 5-1

6 EFFECT OF HIGH GAS CONCENTRATION ON THE AC DIELECTRIC STRENGTH

7 PREPARATION OF GAS-IN-CABLE FLUID CALIBRATION SOLUTIONS........................ 7-1

A GAS DIFFUSION IN GAS FILLED CABLES ......................................................................A-1

B DGA DATA ON HIGH PRESSURE GAS FILLED CABLES ...............................................B-1

C DGA ON SELF CONTAINED FLUID FILLED CABLES .....................................................C-1

D DGA ON HIGH PRESSURE FLUID FILLED CABLES .......................................................D-1

E LIST OF COMMANDS ........................................................................................................ E-1

F COMMAND FILE FOR THE OPERATION OF EPOSS ....................................................... F-1

Table 2-22 Comparison of paper degradation rates ............................................................. 2-62

The rate of material decomposition as a function of temperature is essential for the

Estimations of radial volume distribution of the impregnation fluid in the insulation

Movement of impregnation fluid as a result of load cycling can become an effective

This thermal expansion mechanism is not expected to represent an effective mode of

A wide variety of studies on paper-polypropylene-paper (PPP) laminate insulation

Experimental Conditions and Materials

Aging Time in Days

Gas generation from low temperature degradation (thermolysis) of polyolefinic fluids

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

960 Hydrogen 1914 1893 1903

1968 Hydrogen 2112 2015 2063

2928 Hydrogen 2253 2239 2246

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

(hrs) Gas (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

3912 Hydrogen 2676 2649 2663

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

480 Hydrogen 1747 1671 1709

1200 Hydrogen 2158 2124 2141

2880 Hydrogen 1885 1912 1899

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

Time Gas Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

360 Hydrogen 548 700 624

840 Hydrogen 773 895 834

1560 Hydrogen 2133 2015 2074

Time Gas Sample # 1 Sample #2 Average

360 Hydrogen 1273 1326 1299

720 Hydrogen 911 961 936

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

1200 Hydrogen 1088 1023 1055

Time Gas Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

1968 Hydrogen 1812 1761 1787

2928 Hydrogen 6047 6420 6234

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

(hrs) Gas (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

Time Gas Sample #1 Sample #2 Average

1200 Hydrogen 1346 1480 1413

3168 Hydrogen 1603 1576 1589

Time Sample #1 Sample #2 Average