On-Site Partial Discharge Assessment of HV and Ehv Cable Systems

728
ON-SITE PARTIAL DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT

OF HV AND EHV CABLE SYSTEMS
WORKING GROUP
B1.28
MAY 2018
ON-SITE PARTIAL DISCHARGE
ASSESSMENT OF HV AND EHV
CABLE SYSTEMS
WG B1.28
Members
M. FENGER, Convenor CA R.N. HAMPTON, Secretary US
H. BLANDINE BE Q. DE CLERK BE
R.J. DENSLEY CA F. COCHET CH
R. PLATH DE J.Z. HANSEN DK
X. BALZA ES B. DHUIQ FR
M. TOZZI IT G.C. MONTANARI IT
E. PULTRUM NL A. RAKOWSKA PL
M.L. SJOBERG SE A. BARCLAY UK
M. MASHIKIAN US S. ZIEGLER US
Corresponding Members
N. DE LOUREDO BR X. YANG CN
L. TESTA IT M. NISHIUCHI JP
R. COLON MX
Copyright © 2018
“All rights to this Technical Brochure are retained by CIGRE. It is strictly prohibited to reproduce or provide this publication in
any form or by any means to any third party. Only CIGRE Collective Members companies are allowed to store their copy on
their internal intranet or other company network provided access is restricted to their own employees. No part of this
publication may be reproduced or utilized without permission from CIGRE”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
permitted by law”.
WG XX.XXpany network provided access is restricted to their own employees. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or utilized without permission from CIGRE”.
Disclaimer notice ISBN : 978-2-85873-430-6

“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
ON-SITE PARTIAL DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT OF HV AND EHV CABLE SYSTEMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this report the Working Group has considered the field partial discharge (PD) testing of HV and EHV
extruded cable installations. The terms of reference for the working group were as follows:
 Collect experience with PD testing, with respect to methods/equipment and results
 Evaluate the added value of the PD testing at site for commissioning and diagnostic testing
 Valuate the applied technology, taking into account what previous CIGRE and ICC WG’s have
done so far
 Recommend the protocol, to validate the on-site measurement results (calibration, sensitivity
assessment)
 Recommend guidelines for PD test procedures at site (voltage level, measuring time, measuring
conditions)
 Identify widely acceptable requirements for commissioning and diagnostic testing
Over the past five years there has been a dramatic increase in the PD testing of new installations
throughout the world, although many utilities still do no PD tests. One of the main reasons for this is the
improvements in PD detection and measurement technologies resulting in significantly increased
sensitivity of measuring PD signals in noisy environments. In addition there has been good experience
with PD testing in finding defects in new installations. A survey carried out as part of this study found
that there were three main reasons for PD testing:
• Reliability
o Lowers the probability of near-term in-service failure of a newly installed cable system
o Provides engineering information
o Confirms good installation practices used and workmanship
• Confidence
o Complies with national regulation
o Increases grid owner confidence
• Cost
o Avoids economic penalties in case of poor quality of supply
o Reduces the cost (in both time and money) of locating and repairing a fault in a cable
system
o Defines contractual handoff from installer/manufacturer to the end-client
One of the main aims of this report is to help non-experts understand on-site PD measurement
techniques, in particular, to place there terms “conventional” and “non conventional” PD techniques in
a better context, this is done for both lab and on-site tests. The report explains the differences between
the two techniques and describes, in tabular form, where each technique should be used. Consequently
the widespread use of the “non conventional” technique, which detects PD over an ultra wide frequency
bandwidth, to detect and measure PD at accessories on long cable installations is recognised and
documented. The report also addresses the use of sensitivity tests for on site PD tests rather than the
more familiar laboratory calibration approach. The work has recognised that On-Site PD Testing is
significantly different from the more familiar Laboratory or Factory testing and that although many of the
concepts are similar the approaches, assumptions and criteria are not directly transferable is all cases.
The major differences between Laboratory and onsite PD testing include:
o Long lengths of cable system - many 10’s of km
o Complicated construction – cables systems include accessories, cables, bonding; this
is not the case when testing in the factory
o High levels of ambient and system noise -; this is not the case when testing in the factory
o Signal Attenuation& Dispersion in long (> one km) cable segments
3
o Signal Deterioration due to reflections and loss of charge at the accessories (assumed
to be negligible when testing with a small and simple test object in the laboratory)
o Need to identify and locate PD sources
o Sensitivity Assessment replaces Calibration as the underlying assumptions become
less valid with increasing length
o Restricted physical access to test locations
o Special Voltage Sources required for energization of long systems
The report also discusses the test parameters for after laying or commissioning tests and proposes test
levels and durations for every voltage class; these are fully consistent with the voltages and times
described in clauses of IEC60840 & IEC 62067. The report also provides acceptance criteria for on-site
tests. The recommendation is that there should be no detectable PD for newly laid cable systems, which
will generally be limited by external noise, at the test voltage. The interpretation of PD data still needs
to be improved through the sharing and discussion of the collected data: this is consistent with the
message within Electra 173.
Note, IEC 62067 recommends a threshold limit of 27 kV/mm, for the electric stress in the cable or
accessory, that should not be exceeded (unless agreed by the supplier), in order to avoid any possible
weakening of the insulation prior to service. Thus the values in the tables below should not exceed this
threshold.
WITHSTAND /CONDITIONING (MONITORED) PD TEST

Voltage Class Test Level Frequency Range Duration PD Pass/Fail
[kV] [U0] [Hz] [min] Criterion
66-72
2.0
110/115
132/138 PDEV > 1.5
150/160
10 - 300 60
220/230 1.7 (No detectable PD
275/285 at 1.5U0)
345/400
500 1.5
4
Suggested commissioning test voltages and duration for new cable systems
5 Years* to 15 Years > 15 Years
Frequency
Voltage Class Duration Test Level PD Test PD Pass/Fail
Range
[kV] [min] Pass/Fail Level
[Hz] [U0] Criterion
Criterion [U0]
66-72
1.5
110/115
132/138
No No
150/160 10-300 60 1.1
Detectable Detectable
220/230 1.4
PD PD
275/285
345/400
500
Suggested maintenance test voltages and duration (*or end of warranty period whichever is the longer).
PD measuring techniques are continuously evolving with the advances in signal detection in the
presence of noise. This will continue in the foreseeable future so that improved sensitivity is likely, which
will benefit after laying PD tests. It will enable less severe defects to be detected although improved
data interpretation will also be needed. The advances in signal processing, coupled with improved data
storage and interpretation, will increase the use of on-line monitoring.
5
6
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 3
1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 11
2. PURPOSE AND VALUE OF TESTING .......................................................................................... 15

2.1 THE PURPOSE OF TESTING ....................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 THE VALUE OF TESTING ............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.1 Usage and drivers for usage............................................................................................................................ 16
2.2.2 Outcomes of tests performed ........................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.3 Cable system information .................................................................................................................................. 20
2.3 DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 22
2.4 EVALUATING THE ADDED VALUE OF PD TESTING ............................................................................................... 22
2.5 CASE STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
2.5.1 Case Study 1: Commissioning Test, Distributed PD Measurement, Joint Hopping, 220kV ..................... 23
2.5.2 Case Study 2: Commissioning Testing, Distributed PD, Joint Hopping, 138kV ........................................ 26
2.5.3 Case Study 3: Commissioning Testing, Terminal PD measurement, 345kV ............................................... 28
2.5.4 Case Study 4: Commissioning Testing, Distributed PD, Continuous Monitoring, 345kV Termination .... 29
2.5.5 Case Study 5: Commissioning Testing, Terminal PD Measurement, Damped AC .................................... 32
2.5.6 Case Study 6: On-Line Maintenance Testing, 33 kV XLPE Feeder, Terminal PD Measurement ............ 34
2.5.7 Case Study 7: Continuous PD Measurements, Daisy Chained PD............................................................... 36
2.5.8 Case Study 8: PD During Soak ......................................................................................................................... 38
3. UNDERSTANDING PD MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 39

3.1 PARTIAL DISCHARGES IN CABLE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 39
3.2 PARTIAL DISCHARGE SENSORS ................................................................................................................................ 40
3.3 FREQUENCY CONTENT OF PD MEASUREMENTS .................................................................................................. 41
3.4 CONVENTIONAL & NON CONVENTIONAL PD MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................... 42
3.5 METRICS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 44
3.6 THE INFLUENCE OF CABLE SYSTEM COMPLEXITY ................................................................................................ 45
3.7 PARTIAL MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGIES ......................................................................................................... 45
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF FIELD PD MEASUREMENTS .................................................................. 49

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.2 VOLTAGE SOURCES ................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.3 PARTIAL DISCHARGE TESTING OF HV & EHV CABLE CIRCUITS ......................................................................... 51
4.4 PARTIAL DISCHARGE MAGNITUDE SENSITIVITY FOR FIELD TESTING OF HV & EHV CABLE CIRCUITS ...... 53
4.5 THE INFLUENCE OF NOISE ON FIELD PD MEASUREMENTS................................................................................. 56
5. GUIDELINES FOR ON-SITE PD TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................. 59
7
5.1 AFTER LAYING COMMISSIONING (ACCEPTANCE) TESTING AT OVER-VOLTAGE ........................................ 59

5.2 MAINTENANCE TESTING AT OVER-VOLTAGE ...................................................................................................... 64
5.3 MAINTENANCE TESTING: ON-LINE MONITORING .............................................................................................. 65
6. REPORTING .................................................................................................................................... 67
6.1 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMISSIONING TEST AT OVER-VOLTAGE.................. 67
6.2 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMISSIONING TEST AT SYSTEM VOLTAGE .............. 68
6.3 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE TESTING AT OVER-VOLTAGE ................ 68
6.4 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-LINE MONITORING ....................................................... 69
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 71
APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS, ABREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS .......................................................... 73

A.1. GENERAL TERMS .......................................................................................................................................................... 73
A.2. SPECIFIC TERMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX B. LINKS AND REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX C. SAFETY AWARENESS ...................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX D. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX E. SUGGESTED TEST LEVELS AND DURATIONS – COMMISSIONING &

MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................................... 85
APPENDIX F. OVERVIEW OF LABORATORY AND FACTORY PD TESTS ........................................ 91
APPENDIX G. POSSIBLE USE OF DAMPED AC VOLTAGE SOURCES ............................................. 93
APPENDIX H. POSSIBLE USE OF VERY LOW FREQUENCY (VLF) VOLTAGE SOURCES .............. 95
FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1.1: Photo of One of the First AC Proof & PD Commissioning Tests Performed on an EHV Cable System
Using Variable Frequency Resonant test Sets Performed in 1998 ........................................................................ 11
Figure 1.2: Photo Montage of Commissioning Testing performed in the Netherlands ........................................... 12
Figure 1.3: Photo Montage of Commissioning Testing performed in the United States of America....................... 13
Figure 2.1: Replies Received from Cable Owners and Cable Manufacturers ........................................................ 16
Figure 2.2: Usage Experience with Cable PD Testing – Utility Responses ........................................................... 17
Figure 2.3: Relative importance of PD testing - Significant Reasons..................................................................... 18
Figure 2.4: Relative importance of PD testing - Less Significant Reasons ............................................................ 18
Figure 2.5: Disbursement of Voltages Reported In The Survey Within The HV and EHV Classes (the lengths in
the figure refer to the cumulative length of the cable systems) .............................................................................. 21
Figure 2.6: Evolution of Reported Commissioning Tests – Voltage withstand tests both With (Yes) and Without
(No) PD Tests ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
8
Figure 2.7: Photo of Permanently Installed HFCTs in a Link Box .......................................................................... 23

Figure 2.8: Commissioning Tests of a 220kV XLPE Feeder .................................................................................. 24
Figure 2.9: PD activity detected on a 220 kV feeder during commissioning tests (note, higher level noise pulses
are super imposed) ................................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 2.10: Photo of Unshielded HFCTs and PFCTs Placed Around the Bonding Links of the Joints in Manhole 1
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2.11: PD Activity Measured On-Line and Off-Line on Phase B, Manhole 1 ................................................ 27
Figure 2.12: Photo of Test Setup Including Capacitive PD Coupler ...................................................................... 28
Figure 2.13: Longitudinal PD Map. Note, length units in feet ................................................................................ 29
Figure 2.14: Photo of Inductive PD Sensors installed within the link box in a Manhole ......................................... 30
Figure 2.15: Photo of Voltage Supply for 250kV Tests .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.16: PD Activity Detected on a 345kV Termination ................................................................................... 31
Figure 2.17: Evidence of External Tracking on a 345kV Termination .................................................................... 31
Figure 2.18: Photo of the DAC Voltage Supply and Connection to Cable Under Test........................................... 32
Figure 2.19: DAC voltages and PD patterns observed during testing. (a) example of PD pattern at 0.2U0 of phase
L1, (b) example of PD pattern at breakdown voltage of 0.4U0 of phase L1, (c) PD pattern at 1.3U0 of phases L2
and L3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 2.20: PD Activity Detected on a 33 kV Feeder During an On-Line PD Test ............................................... 34
Figure 2.21: PD Mapping for Phase L3 of a 33kV XLPE Feeder ........................................................................... 35
Figure 2.22: Deterioration at Joint Pit 8, Phase B, Circuit B .................................................................................. 35
Figure 2.23: PD Activity Detected on Joint 20 Phase B1 ....................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.24: Photo of Differential PD Field Probe .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 2.25: PD Activity On A 138kV Joint. (Left: Beginning Of Soak test, Right: End of Soak Test) ................... 38
Figure 3.1: Sketch of typical void defect and associated induced discharge currents (LEFT) ............................... 39
Figure 3.2: Sketch of Partial Discharge Sensors on a Cable ................................................................................. 40
Figure 3.3: ABC PD Model – left: physical representation, right electrical representation ..................................... 41
Figure 3.4: Lumped capacitance vs. distributed impedance models for PD detection ........................................... 42
Figure 3.5: Relationship Between PD Measurement Frequencies and Applicability of the Circuit Modelling
Approach (Figure 3.3). ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.6: PD Signal deterioration (Equivalent wave impedance circuit) ............................................................. 45
Figure 3.7: Sketch of Single Ended PD Field Measurement .................................................................................. 46
Figure 3.8: Sketch of Double Ended PD Field Measurement ................................................................................ 46
Figure 3.9: Example of a Periodic Distributed Field PD Measurement .................................................................. 47
Figure 3.10: Sketch of Continuous Distributed PD Field Measurement (PDM = Partial Discharge Monitor) ......... 48
Figure 4.1: Sketch of Laboratory Sensitivity Setup For Field Testing of Long Lengths of Cable (top: for
characterization of Joint; bottom: for characterization of Termination) .................................................................. 56
Figure 4.2: Photo of HF Pulse Injection Into a Cable Using a matched Impedance .............................................. 56
Figure 4.3: Different Implementation Approaches to Classification of Measured Pulses (Classification Maps) ..... 58
Figure 5.1: PD On-Set time at 1.7U0 (based on available data from service providers) ........................................ 60
Figure 5.2: Distribution of PDIV (based on available data from service providers From >5 Countries) ................. 61
Figure 5.3: Typical Voltage vs Time Envelope for a Commissioning Test (From an Actual Field Test) ................. 63
Figure 5.4: Typical Voltage vs Time Envelope for a Commissioning Test (From an Actual Field Test) ................. 63
Figure 5.5: Typical Voltage vs Time Envelope for a Maintenance Test (From an Actual Field Test) ..................... 65
App Figure E.1: Distribution of PDIV presented in a Weibull format (based on available data from service
providers from >5 countries) .................................................................................................................................. 86
9
TABLES
Table 2.1: Breakdown of categories for survey responses .................................................................................... 16
Table 2.2: Common practices for field PD testing.................................................................................................. 19
Table 2.3: Commissioning Test Experience of a US Transmission Utility ............................................................. 36
Table 4.1: Usage of voltage sources for on-site PD testing (based on survey) ..................................................... 49
Table 4.2: Overview of field PD test methodologies .............................................................................................. 52
Table 5.1: Suggested partial discharge commissioning test voltages and duration ............................................... 61
Table 5.2: suggested maintenance test voltages and duration (*or end of warranty period whichever is the longer)
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 5.3: on-line monitoring voltages and test duration ....................................................................................... 65
App Table A.1 Definition of general terms used in this TB .................................................................................... 73

App Table A.2 Definition of technical terms used in this TB .................................................................................. 73
App Table E.1: suggested commissioning test voltages and duration ................................................................... 85
App Table E.2: suggested maintenance test voltages and duration (*or end of warranty period whichever is the
longer) ................................................................................................................................................................... 85
App Table E.3: Test Voltage Distribution Based on Conductor Length for Typical HV & EHV Cable Classes ...... 87
App Table E.4: Electrical Stress Analysis .............................................................................................................. 88
App Table F.1: Overview of Conventional PD Measurements ............................................................................... 91
App Table G.1: suggested commissioning test voltages and duration .................................................................. 93
App Table H.1: suggested commissioning test voltages and duration ................................................................... 95
10
1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Today, PD measurements are made as part of production quality-control testing of cable and
accessories, using measuring systems for apparent charge measured over a limited bandwidth
according to the (present-day) standard IEC 60270. This method relied on analogue integration of
signals received within a time resolution of several microseconds. It was often used to display phase-
resolved PD superimposed on a Lissajou curve, the classic elliptical time base. This standard and its
predecessors were originally intended to measure PD magnitude in lumped-parameter electrical
components.
The application of this concept to a cable system in the field, which is a distributed parameter apparatus
and, therefore, subject to travelling electromagnetic waves, presents difficulties. PD pulses emanating
from different discrete locations over a significantly long section of cable could be lumped together with
noise signals in the integration process. Specifically, the issues with field PD measurements of installed
HV and EHV cable systems are:
 Long lengths
 Complicated construction
 Ambient and system noise
 Signal Attenuation, Dispersion
 Signal Deterioration
 Identification of location of PD sources
 Physical access to test locations
 Voltage Sources for energization
 Grounding/Earthing (bonding scheme)
The introduction in 1988 of IEC 60885, “Electrical Test Methods for Electric cables – Part 3: Test
methods for partial discharge measurements on lengths of extruded power cables”, attempted to
address some of the difficulties of IEC 60270 while retaining the same basic concept. It dealt extensively
with problems of attenuation and superposition in long lengths of cable with particular relevance to
factory testing.
Figure 1.1: Photo of One of the First AC Proof & PD Commissioning Tests Performed on an EHV Cable
System Using Variable Frequency Resonant test Sets Performed in 1998
11
PD measured due to a
PD measured on a floating component
termination
Figure 1.2: Photo Montage of Commissioning Testing performed in the Netherlands
12
PD in a Termination
PD coupling 1st
joint down
PD coupling 2nd joint

down
PD Sensor
Figure 1.3: Photo Montage of Commissioning Testing performed in the United States of America
13
14
2. PURPOSE AND VALUE OF TESTING

2.1 THE PURPOSE OF TESTING
Field tests of HV & EHV cable systems generally fall into three categories:
 Commissioning Testing (after laying test)
 Re-Commissioning Testing
 Maintenance Testing
Commissioning Testing or After Laying Acceptance Testing refers to a field performed on the after
completion of the cable system installation, including terminations and joints, but before the cable
system is placed in normal service. The primary purpose of field PD testing of HV and EHV cable
systems is to check the integrity of the individual components and their interfaces and the cable system
at large including damage which occurred during installation and/or workmanship issues resulting in
limiting life.
Re-Commissioning Testing refers to a test performed on a (newly) installed cable system which has (a)
not yet been put in normal service but failed prior to commissioning tests or (b) which has been placed
in service but failed prematurely, for any given reason, within the first five years or service or before the
end of the warranty period. Like a Commissioning Test, a Re-Commissioning Test is intended to detect
installation damage (related to repair) and to identify any gross defects or workmanship related issues
in installation of other system components causing limiting life.
Maintenance Testing refers to a test performed on a field aged cable system made during the operating
life of a cable system. A maintenance test is intended to detect deterioration and to check the
serviceability of the system.
Experience from Commissioning and Re-Commissioning Testing shows the primary source of PD to be
accessories [B46]. The primary purpose for Maintenance Testing of field aged cable system is to assess
the condition of the cable system and to identify what, if any, insulation aging mechanisms have
progressed to the point where partial discharge activity has manifested itself [B27][B29][B35][B53].
2.2 THE VALUE OF TESTING
Whether it is beneficial or not to perform a PD measurement during an Acceptance/Commissioning test
or a diagnostic test maintenance test can ultimately be determined by a cost/benefit analysis and/or via
national or local regulations. Performing a cost / benefit analysis of PD testing is beyond the scope of
this Technical Brochure. However, if PD measurements are requested during a Commissioning test or
Maintenance Test the cable owner should have incentives for doing so with respect to Reliability,
Confidence and Cost, such as:
 Reliability
o Lowers the probability of near-term in-service failure of a newly installed cable system
o Provides engineering information
o Confirms good installation practices used and workmanship
o Identifies a defective spot generating PD so that may be replaced BEFORE a failure,
thereby revealing much better information on the root cause and possible mitigation
actions
 Confidence
o Complies with national regulation
o Increases grid owner confidence
 Cost
o Avoids economic penalties in case of poor quality of supply,.
o Reduces the cost (in both time and money) of locating and repairing a fault in a cable
system
o Defines contractual handoff from installer/manufacturer to the end-client
The benefit of a PD measurement should be compared to the cost of performing the PD measurement,
the importance of the cable system under test, existing failure rate in similar cable systems,
consequences of a fault, etc. – that is to say a cost/benefit analysis.
15
A survey has been carried out amongst membership countries. The survey asked about usage and
drivers for usage of field PD measurement, outcomes of the tests performed and basic information on
the cable systems tested (rated voltage, length etc.). The break-down in response is as outlined in Table
2.1.
Table 2.1: Breakdown of categories for survey responses

CATEGORY RESPONSE
Utilities 58%
Manufacturers 22%
Service Companies 20%
2.2.1 Usage and drivers for usage

The following is an attempt to illuminate some of these incentives that, from the view points of cable
owners and other involved parties, are important to take into account when performing a cost / benefit
analysis. To do this the WG performed a survey in the form of an online questionnaire, which was sent
to cable owners and other relevant parties. Cable owners were requested to answer questions such as
“how often” and “why they request” PD measurements during a commissioning test. The cable owners
were requested to rate the importance of the different reasons for making their decisions, i.e. not
important, neutral, important, very important.
The survey was very effective and elicited 60 replies from 13 different countries and different parts of
the world. Figure 2.1: Replies Received from Cable Owners and Cable Manufacturersshows the
disbursement of the locations for the replies that were received. Of these 60 responses 58% of replies
came from cable owners (utilities), 21% from cable system manufacturers and the remainder from
providers of diagnostic services. In the following the two groups of respondents will be treated
separately.
Figure 2.1: Replies Received from Cable Owners and Cable Manufacturers
16
30
Percent of Utility Responses

25
20
15
10
0
l
ne na i ts se its ui
ts
No is o ircu pon ircu ic rc
ca c s c
Oc V Re ew HV
EH No ln
ew A l ew
ln lln
Al A
Figure 2.2: Usage Experience with Cable PD Testing – Utility Responses

Respondents were requested to describe their normal practice regarding the use of PD measurement
as a part of commissioning testing of new cable systems. The following analysis considers replies
from the cable owners (44 respondents) and is shown in Figure 2.2. 27% of the respondents
answered that they do not perform PD tests on their HV or EHV cable systems. The rest (62 % when
the no responses are excluded) of the cable owners answered that they perform PD measurement on
new cable system always or on an occasionally basis.
The survey explored how valuable respondents viewed the common reasons given for undertaking PD
tests (Figure 2.3 & Figure 2.4). Respondents generally see the value of PD testing (Very Important,
Important) in terms of assessing the quality of the installation and the quality of the accessories. Other
reasons for performing a PD measurement originally thought to be important elicited lower levels of
importance (Neutral, Important or Not Important). The ranking of the reasons for undertaking a PD test
on a cable system were ranked as: Tests quality of installation (most important), Tests quality of
accessories, Reduces the consequences of a fault (in service or on test), Tests quality of cable,
Forms part of company Quality Assurance program, Increases assurance if a withstand test was
only possible at a lower voltage than required, Peer/Industry custom & practice, National/regional
regulation and Public relations (least important).
17
Figure 2.3: Relative importance of PD testing - Significant Reasons
Figure 2.4: Relative importance of PD testing - Less Significant Reasons
18
Table 2.2: Common practices for field PD testing
Field PD measurements are not required to conform to IEC 60270 and IEC
Standards
60885-3
Distributed
Terminal
Distributed
Reported as a
Reported as a charge charge usually from
Location of
with a reference to integration of Reported using convenient
Test
laboratory calibration current / time (often multi faceted) metrics
procedures (see Table traces for pulses / features (see Table 4.1 for
4.1 for detailed (see Table 4.1 for detailed explanation)
explanation). detailed
explanation)
Point of Single or Double Distributed PD Measurement with sensors at
Measurement Terminal Measurement accessories (joints and / or terminations
Sensor Any internal or external sensor

HV Cables Systems
Global
< 50% of tests <5% of tests 50 to 80% of tests
Experience
(to 2010)
Typical
Length (km) 0.2, 16, 1,
[Low Range, 1, 35, 5,
Median, 2 55 20
High Range]
EHV Cables Systems
Global
Experience < 35% of tests <5% of tests 65 to 80% of tests
(to 2010)
Typical
Length (km) 0.2, 14, 1,
[Low Range, 3, 14, 6,
Median, 6 32 14
High Range ]
Point of Single or Double Distributed PD Measurement with sensors at
Measurement Terminal Measurement accessories (joints and / or terminations

A complimentary study was conducted to look at the PD technologies that had been used and on what
voltage / length of systems they had been employed. The collation of this study is summarised in Table
2.2. The techniques fall into two groups in terms of test point (Terminal and Distributed) and two groups
in terms of data reporting (charge based and multi faceted (voltage / current / frequency / time)). In this
context a distributed measurement is where sensors are located close to the device (generally a
termination or joint) under study to obtain optimal signal and noise rejection. This approach is often
termed “joint hopping”.
19
The description of the techniques within the survey leads to some imprecision. However the reports
show that the most prevalent approaches are ones that use Distributed Sensors and report their findings
in some representation other than charge. This embodiment of the technology accounts for between
50% & 80% of HV cable system tests and 65% to 80% of EHV cable system tests. As with other parts
of this brochure, IEC 60840 has been used to designate the voltage range of HV systems and IEC
62067 has been used to designate the voltage range of EHV systems. One consequence is that 35 kV
& 46kV cable systems have been classified as HV, whilst some practitioners would consider these as
MV voltage classes. The largest effect of this is to inflate the proportion of Terminal measurements
conducted at HV.
The data provided were used to estimate typical (in this case median – mid point of the data) lengths
upon which these techniques have been deployed. Thus for HV systems approx 5% of tests have been
conducted using a distributed sensor / charge approach for lengths between 16 km & 55 km (35 km
median), whereas for EHV systems between 65% - 80% of tests have been conducted using a
distributed sensor / multi faceted approach for lengths between 1 km & 14 km (6 km median) systems.
2.2.2 Outcomes of tests performed
In the test survey respondents were asked to indicate whether PD tests resulted in detectable PD so
that some estimates could be made for the range of outcomes that might be expected when PD test are
conducted. The majority of the data submitted in the survey was for commissioning tests, thus the results
refer to these tests. When considering these results it is important to be aware of the effect of
“confirmation bias” where respondents are more likely to report the occurrences of PD rather than its
absence. As a consequence the analysis reported here should be regarded as representing the upper
limits, i.e. the real percentage of systems which have shown detectable PD during testing may be lower
than the numbers derived from this survey.
The occurrence of PD within commissioning tests has been segregated for HV & EHV systems and is
considered in two ways: 1) in terms of the number of tests conducted (irrespective of length) and 2) in
terms of the length of cable systems affected. Thus the results of the survey on commissioning tests
show:
 <32% of tests on EHV cable systems result in detectable PD
 PD was detected in cable systems that account for <35% of the total length of EHV cable
systems tested
 <38% of tests on HV cable systems result in detectable PD
 PD was detected in cable systems that account for <9% of the total length of HV cable systems
tested
One of the benefits of PD testing as part of commissioning is that the detection of PD provides the
opportunity of curtailing the test before failure occurs, thereby reducing cost and repair times. A number
of respondents provided information on whether dielectric failures occurred when PD was detected. In
these cases dielectric failure occurred in between 3% and 4% of the tests where PD was detected. The
failure rate for a non PD monitored withstand commissioning test to IEC 60840 and IEC62067 has not
been determined in this study. However, rates higher than these numbers have been reported to the
working group.
2.2.3 Cable system information
As noted previously, IEC 60840 was used to designate the voltage range of HV systems and IEC 62067
was used to designate the voltage range of EHV systems. The number of entries (where PD was and
was not used) per system voltage is shown in Figure 2.5. The figures represent the total length of cable
systems.
Survey respondents, in general, gave an indication of the year in which tests (with and without PD
tests) were carried out. Thus it is instructive to examine the evolution of the testing (Figure 2.6). As
can be seen the number of commissioning tests have increased with time. It is also clear that the
fraction that integrates PD measurements has increased, such that by the end of the 2008 including
PD tests upon commissioning is the norm. Cursory inspection of the EHV data would suggest an
extremely high adoption rate of PD tests. Although there is no doubt that this is a significant fraction of
tests; “confirmation bias” (only reporting tests where PD was used) has a significant effect and this
figure should be taken as representing the upper limit.
20
EHV HV
40
23,934 km 47,378 km
30
Percent of Entries
20
10
0
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
Cable Voltage (kV)
Figure 2.5: Disbursement of Voltages Reported In The Survey Within The HV (IEC 60840) and EHV (IEC
62067) Classes. Note, the lengths in the figure refer to the cumulative length of the cable systems.
EHV PD Test HV
80 NO
YES
70
60
Number of Tests
50
40
30
20
10
0
Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Figure 2.6: Evolution of Reported Commissioning Tests – Voltage withstand tests both With (Yes) and
Without (No) PD Tests
21
2.3 DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS

The high rating (importance) of quality of installation, accessories and cable in the replies from both
cable owners and non-cable owners is in good agreement with the general philosophy behind
commissioning testing, which is done to check the quality of the installation work. It is interesting that
PD measurement in case of a low Utest/Uo voltage ratio during the withstand voltage test – e.g. less
than recommended by IEC or IEEE– is not rated particularly high, because in this case the PD
measurement could be viewed as a means to partly compensate for the reduced test voltage level.
2.4 EVALUATING THE ADDED VALUE OF PD TESTING
When a cable owner shall evaluate the added value of performing a PD measurement during a
commissioning test of new cable system or as a part of a diagnostic test, e.g. as part of AC withstand
voltage test, it should be analyzed what information the PD measurement contributes to the overall
knowledge about the condition of the cable system under test. The advantage of PD measurements as
a diagnostic tool in cable systems is well described in the literature, cf. CIGRE technical report 182 [B8],
and below is listed some of these:
1. Early warning of an imminent failure, which makes it possibly to stop a test before a
destructive failure occur in the cable system
2. The presence of certain defects which have not led to failures during the AC withstand
voltage test can be located and evaluated
3. In cases where cable system cannot be tested at the full recommended test voltage a PD
measurement could compensate for this
4. In case of diagnostic test these can normally be consider non-destructive, when based on
PD measurement.
It is clear that a PD measurement has the potential to contribute valuable information to the overall result
of both commissioning and maintenance/diagnostic tests. However, in a particularly cable system there
can be technical or practical limitations, which can influence such parameters as the sensitivity of the
PD measurement etc., and therefore make it questionable whether a PD measurement will add any
valuable extra information to the overall picture of the cable system condition. The cable owner should
be aware of such limitations when considering whether a PD measurement should be done or not.
Technical and practical limitations together with recommendation for ordering a PD measurement as
part of a commissioning test, e.g. during the AC withstand voltage test or as a stand alone test, are
described in other parts of this technical report.
22
2.5 CASE STUDIES

2.5.1 Case Study 1: Commissioning Test, Distributed PD Measurement, Joint Hopping, 220kV
In April 2008, cable commissioning tests were performed on a 220kV, 3-phase XLPE insulated cable
circuit located in the Middle East. The circuit is approximately 12.0 km long and consists of 20 joints
and two GIS terminations per phase. Following IEC 62067 and client test specifications the AC Proof
level was set to 216kV - corresponding to 1.7U0.- for a duration of 60 minutes. Following client
specifications, the Partial Discharge (PD) tests were performed after the AC Proof tests at 152kV (1.2U0)
after conditioning the cable at 178kV (1.4U0) for 15 seconds. The sensitivity of the PD test should be a
minimum of 10 pC. The partial discharge tests were performed as a distributed PD test using mobile
PD crews (joint hopping). PD measurements were obtained using broad band PD monitors connected
to integrated inductive high frequency current transformers permanently mounted in the link of all
accessories of the cable circuit. The PD sensors were supplied and installed by the cable manufacturer
(Figure 2.7). The bandwidth of the PD sensors was stated to be 200 kHz to 50 MHz. The PD monitors
used have a true analog bandwidth of 400 MHz with a frequency response from DC to 400MHz and a
maximum digital sampling rate of 5 GS/s and minimum dead time between triggers is stated to be 25S.
The monitor acquires an entire AC cycle of PD at a time and stores the data for post processing.
Figure 2.7: Photo of Permanently Installed HFCTs in a Link Box
23
Figure 2.8: Commissioning Tests of a 220kV XLPE Feeder
Using two mobile 260kV, 83 Amp resonant test sets, each phase was energized to 216 kV (Figure 2.8).
The test frequency was 34.31 Hertz and at 216 kV the test current was measured to 123.6 Amps.
During the AC withstand tests, Blue phase suffered an insulation failure while ramping up to 216 kV.
The AC withstand tests and partial discharge tests were completed on phases Yellow and Red. No
failure occurred during the AC withstand tests on Yellow and Red phases and no evidence of partial
discharge activity was detected at any accessories of the two phases.
Following fault finding initiatives, the failure was located to be within joint no. 2 of blue phase. Installation
of the cable feeder was part of a larger infrastructure upgrade. As a result, after installation of Joint 2,
a four lane high way had been located on top of Joint 2. Therefore, as a solution, a directional bore
under the high way was performed allowing for a diversion of blue phase and two additional joints, Joints
2A and 2B located on either side of the high way, were added to the phase allowing for a repair of blue
phase.
The feeder was retested in August 2008. Following a successful AC Proof test, partial discharge tests
showed no evidence of PD activity at 1.2 U0 with the exception of the recently added joints of 2A and
2B where, in both cases, evidence of PD activity was detected. Specifically, clusters of negative and
positive polarity PD can be found centered at 45° and 225° phase angle with reference to the phase-to-
ground test voltage (Figure 2.9). The maximum magnitude of the PD activity detected was
approximately 20 mV for joints 2A and 2B. The source showed a predominance of positive polarity PD
pulses. The Partial Discharge Extinction Voltage (PDEV) was measured to 145kV.
The PD sensitivity was evaluated by injecting a known charge on the link of each PD sensor and
establishing a scale factor (pC/mV). The minimum injected charge which yielded a detectable response
at the PD monitor was 20 pC. The detected response to 20 pC was 170 mV yielding a calibration
constant of 0.11 pC/mV. As the maximum magnitude of the PD activity detected 2.2pC for both joints.
24
Partial Discharge Pulse Phase Analysis Plots

Joint 2A Joint 2B
Figure 2.9: PD activity detected on a 220 kV feeder during commissioning tests (note, higher level noise
pulses are super imposed)
The intent of the transmission utility (end-client) was to have a PD free cable system. However, given
the reference of a minimum sensitivity of 10 pC for the measurement the interpretation of the cable
installer and cable supplier was the joints passed the partial discharge test. As a compromise, it was
agreed to leave the joints in place and perform periodical on-line PD measurements. By the end of the
warranty period, another AC Proof & PD test would be performed to determine if the PDIV and PDEV
of the source had decreased further thus indicating aging had occurred. At the time of writing this
document, the warranty period had not expired and the re-tests had not been performed.
As a result of this case, the transmission utility has changed its cable commissioning specifications to
distinguish between minimum sensitivity requirements for a test and to clarify the PD acceptance criteria
for a test. The current test specifications state the sensitivity of the PD test should be 10 pC or better
and that no PD should be detected at any accessories.
25
2.5.2 Case Study 2: Commissioning Testing, Distributed PD, Joint Hopping, 138kV
In May 2005, AC Proof tests were performed on a 3-phase, 138 kV XLPE feeder located in the north
east region of the United States of America. The feeder is approximately 4 km long and consists of five
joints and two open air terminations per phase. The cable connects two substations in the downtown
area of a large American city. The cable is pulled in ducts and joints are located in manholes.
Prior to May 2005, the cable circuit had been subjected to two in-service failures which both occurred in
the same location (Manhole 1). The circuit was completed earlier in 2005 and successfully passed a
soak test as per IEC 60840. Partial discharge testing was not performed during the soak test. However,
after energizing the cable system, a failure occurred within one minute. Consequential damage to the
two adjacent joints resulted in all three joints being replaced. Following repair, a second soak test was
performed. The cable system passed the soak tests. Again, an in service failure occurred. This time,
the failure occurred within 5 minutes of applied load. Again, consequential damage to the two adjacent
joints resulted in all three joints being replaced.
Following the second repair, it was decided to perform an AC Proof test with partial discharge tests
being obtained at all manholes using a mobile PD crew (joint hopping). The AC Proof test voltage was
set to 132 kV - corresponding to 1.65U0 – for 60 minutes. The resonant frequency was 34 Hz. Partial
discharge measurements were obtained at each joint using inductive high frequency current
transformers clamped on the bonding lead to each joint. The PD sensors used are stated to have a
frequency response covering the range of 0.5 MHz to 50 MHz. The partial discharge monitor used has
a frequency range of 100 kHz to 50 MHz. A test voltage reference was supplied by a PFCT also placed
around the bonding links (Figure 2.10). Coaxial cables were routed up to underneath the manhole cover
thus eliminating the need for manhole access during the tests.
Figure 2.10: Photo of Unshielded HFCTs and PFCTs Placed Around the Bonding Links of the Joints in
Manhole 1
During the AC Proof tests, evidence of PD activity was detected on the joint of phase B at manhole 1
(Figure 2.11). PDIV and PDEV measurements were not performed. No evidence of PD activity was
detected at any other joint during the tests. As the joint of Manhole 1 was not monitored continuously it
is not known whether the activity was present consistently during the test nor whether it was present by
the end of the test.
26
Classification Map Phase Resolved PD Plot
May 2005
AC Proof, 132 kV
Off-Line
June, 2005
80 kV
On-Line
June, 2006
80 kV
On-Line
Figure 2.11: PD Activity Measured On-Line and Off-Line on Phase B, Manhole 1
Due to the necessity of having the feeder energized and due to the lack of knowledge on PDIV, PDEV
and dynamic PD behaviour it was decided to leave the joint in place and energize the feeder. The
following month, in June 2005, on-line PD measurements were performed and no evidence of PD activity
was detected. The feeder has since then been monitored periodically for PD on-line and no evidence
of PD has detected.
As a result of the tests performed here, the utility decided to mandate AC Proof and partial discharge
commissioning testing of its solid dielectric feeders rated 138 kV and above. PD monitoring has since
then been performed such that PDIV and PDEV can be measured and that accessories are monitored
continuously during the over voltage tests. In the latter years, longer solid dielectric feeders have been
commissioning tested with daisy chained PD systems.
27
2.5.3 Case Study 3: Commissioning Testing, Terminal PD measurement, 345kV

In September 2006, AC Proof and PD Commissioning tests were performed on two 3-phase 345 kV
XLPE feeders located in north east region of the United States of America. The feeder is approximately
3.5 km long and consists of six joints and two open air terminations per phase.
The AC Proof test level was set to 250 kV – corresponding to 1.25 U0 – as per IEC 62067 and client
specifications. Partial discharge measurements were performed continuously during the AC withstand
tests using a capacitive partial discharge coupler connected to the termination of the phase under test.
As such, the tests were performed as a terminal PD measurement using a capacitive sensor. A
conventional PD calibration was performed and the sensitivity of the test was found to be between 10
pC to 20 pC depending on the phase tested.
Using a 260kV, 83 Amp resonant test set, each phase of the cable system was tested to 250 kV (Figure
2.12). The resonant frequency of the test was 52.4 Hz and the test current was 47.1 Amps at 250 kV.
No evidence of PD activity occurring at any accessory was detected during the tests. An example of a
longitudinal PD map (PD Plot) is shown in Figure 2.13.
Though no break-down occurred during these tests and though no evidence of PD activity was detected
during the AC withstand tests the transmission utility decided to make AC Proof & PD commissioning
testing mandatory for all new solid dielectric feeders rated 230 kV and above. Since then, the utility has
commission tested a number of feeders. During these tests installation related issues have been
identified via AC Proof and PD commissioning tests.
Figure 2.12: Photo of Test Setup Including Capacitive PD Coupler
28
Figure 2.13: Longitudinal PD Map. Note, length units in feet
2.5.4 Case Study 4: Commissioning Testing, Distributed PD, Continuous Monitoring, 345kV
Termination
In the fall of 2008, AC Proof tests were performed on a 3-phase, 345 kV XLPE feeder located in the
north east region of the United States of America. The feeder is approximately 24 km long and consists
of fifty joints and two open air terminations per phase. The cable is pulled in ducts and joints are located
in manholes.
The AC Proof test level was set to 250 kV – corresponding to 1.25 U0 - as per IEC 62067 and client
specifications. The partial discharge tests were performed on all joints at 250 kV as a distributed PD
test using mobile PD crews (joint hopping). PD measurements were obtained using broad band PD
monitors connected to integrated inductive high frequency current transformers permanently mounted
in the link of all accessories of the cable circuit.
The PD sensors were supplied by a service company and installed by the cable manufacturer (Figure
2.14). Since these the grounding of the joints was established using coaxial bonding cable as opposed
to single core bonding cable the HFCT’s had to be installed within the link box for PD measurements to
be performed. The bandwidth of the PD sensors was stated to be approximately 300 kHZ to 50 MHz.
The PD monitors used have a true analog bandwidth of 400 MHz with a frequency response from DC
to 400MHz and a maximum digital sampling rate of 5 GS/s and minimum dead time between triggers is
stated to be 25S. The monitor acquires an entire AC cycle of PD at a time and stores the data for post
processing.
Given the number of joints it was impractical to start and complete the PD measurements during one
hour of 250 kV. It was agreed between the transmission utility and the cable manufacture that once the
60 minutes of AC withstand testing had been successfully completed the voltage would be raised and
lowered between U0 and 1.25U0 until all accessories had been subjected to a PD test at 250kV.
29
Figure 2.14: Photo of Inductive PD Sensors installed within the link box in a Manhole
Figure 2.15: Photo of Voltage Supply for 250kV Tests
Using three 260kV, 83 Amp resonant test sets operating in parallel each phase of the cable system was
energized to 250 kV (Figure 2.15). While the joints and remote end terminations were subjected to
periodic PD measurements using joint hopping, at the test end, the terminations were subjected to
continuous PD monitoring. For one phase, approximately 22 minutes in to the HiPot test, evidence of
30
PD occurring at the termination located at the test end was detected with clusters of positive and
negative polarity PD detected at approximately 45 and 225 with reference to the applied phase to
ground test voltage (Figure 2.16). The PDIV and PDEV were measured to 230 kV and 199 kV
respectively.
Following the completion of the tests, it was agreed upon between the transmission utility, the installer
and the cable manufacture to dismantle the termination to investigate. Clear evidence of tracking (PD)
was found on several sheds of the termination (Figure 2.17). The termination housing was replaced
and the phase was subjected to a re-test. During the re-test, only the termination and first joint down
from the termination were subjected to PD testing. No evidence of PD was detected during the re-tests.
Classification Map Phase Resolved PD Plot
Figure 2.16: PD Activity Detected on a 345kV Termination
Figure 2.17: Evidence of External Tracking on a 345kV Termination
In response to the findings with the 345 kV termination, i.e. the fact that PD activity did not occur right
away, and in response to the expense associated with the joint hopping PD methodology, moving
forward, the transmission utility has decided to implement continuous PD monitoring of all accessories
on major 345 kV cable installation projects.
31
2.5.5 Case Study 5: Commissioning Testing, Terminal PD Measurement, Damped AC

In 2012, a newly installed 13 km long, 3-phase 220 kV XLPE insulated underground cable circuit was
subjected to commissioning testing using a Damped AC resonance system. The test frequency was 49
Hz and test voltage was set to 1.3U0 (for each DAC shot). The partial discharge test was performed as
a terminal PD measurement using a capacitive PD coupler connected to the termination of the cable
phase under test. Partial discharge activity was monitored during each voltage shot. The PD test was
performed in accordance to IEC 60270 and to IEC 60885-3.
As the DAC test voltage was increased, and starting from 0.2U0, PD activity has been observed in phase
L1. The PD activity was observed to increase with increasing test voltage and at 0.4U0 an insulation
break-down occurred. Using longitudinal PD mapping, the PD source was found to be located 5.16 km
into the cable from the test end which again indicate this was the location of the break-down
experienced. The cable joint at this location was exposed, removed and forensic activities were under
taken. Investigation of the failed joint has confirmed the presence of a discharging installation defect in
this 220kV joint.
The testing showed that the defect in the joint produced PD before the actual breakdown occurred, and
with TDR analysis the PD defect location could be determined. No discharge activity was detected from
the remaining two phases of the circuit nor did an insulation break-down occur. Therefore, the remaining
two phases successfully passed the test.
Figure 2.18: Photo of the DAC Voltage Supply and Connection to Cable Under Test
32
L1 @L1_70kV0_2013-04-18-08'25'57.tot
PD level: 665 pC ; frequency: 47.06 Hz L1 @L1_71kV8_2013-04-18-07'05'10.tot
PD level: 1367 pC ; frequency: 10000.00 Hz
60
40 60
Voltage (kV)
20 40
Voltage (kV)
0 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0
-20
Time (ms) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
-40 -20
Time (ms)
-60 -40
-60
600
500 600
400 500
PD (pC)
300 400
PD (pC)
200 300
100 200
0 100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time (ms) 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
N:\...\L1_70kV0_2013-04-18-08'25'57.tot 18 àïðåëÿ 2013 ã. 8:25 L2@L2_197kV5_2013-04-18-05'45'45.tot
a
Time (ms)
PD level: 69 pC ; frequency: 47.17 Hz N:\...\L1_71kV8_2013-04-18-07'05'10.tot 18 àïðåëÿ 2013 ã. 7:05
200
Voltage (kV) 150
100
b
50
0
-50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Time (ms)
-100
-150
-200
600
500
400
PD (pC)
300
c 200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Time (ms)
N:\...\L2_197kV5_2013-04-18-05'45'45.tot 18 àïðåëÿ 2013 ã. 5:45
Figure 2.19: DAC voltages and PD patterns observed during testing. (a) example of PD pattern at 0.2U0 of
phase L1, (b) example of PD pattern at breakdown voltage of 0.4U0 of phase L1, (c) PD pattern at 1.3U0 of
phases L2 and L3
33
2.5.6 Case Study 6: On-Line Maintenance Testing, 33 kV XLPE Feeder, Terminal PD

Measurement
In 2010, on-line PD tests were performed on an existing 3-phase 33 kV double feeder located in the
United Kingdom. The double feeder is referred to as System A and System B. The feeder consists of
a 1.7 km long land portion and a 11.5 km long sub-sea portion and connects a substation with an off-
shore wind farm. The land portion consists of single core XLPE cable whereas the subsea portion
consists of tri-core cable. The land cable is directly buried.
Partial discharge measurements were obtained via clamp-on HFCTs placed around the bonding cable
at each termination. As such, the tests were performed as a terminal PD measurement using an
inductive sensor. Measurements were not obtained at any other locations due to the lack of accessibility.
The bandwidth of the PD sensors was stated to be 500 kHz to 100 MHz. The PD monitors used have a
true analog bandwidth of 400 MHz with a frequency response from DC to 400MHz and a maximum
digital sampling rate of 5 GS/s and minimum dead time between triggers is stated to be 25S. The
monitor acquires an entire AC cycle of PD at a time and stores the data for post processing.
During the tests, no evidence was detected on System A. However, evidence of PD was detected on
System B. Specifically, high levels of PD reaching up to 10,000 pC were detected on Phase L3. Using
the flight of time arrival principle (on-line time domain reflectrometry) a longitudinal PD map was
produced. The map showed the PD to originate approximately 800 meters into the cable system (from
the test end) which coincided with Joint Pit 8.
Due to the very high levels of PD detected and due to the economic consequences of experiencing an
in service failure and associated penalties it was decided to excavate the area around joint pit 8. Though
high levels of PD were detected at only one joint it was decided to replace all six joints (for Circuits A
and B both). Once the area had been excavated severe deterioration of the joint of Phase L3 of System
B was clearly visible (Figure 2.22).
Following completion of the repairs the circuit was subjected to re-testing. No evidence of PD was
detected on subsequent on-line tests on the circuit.
Pulse Phase Analysis Plots

Phase L1 Phase L2 Phase L3
Cable PD Cable PD Cable PD

10,000
PD Magnitude (pC)
PD Magnitude (pC)
PD Magnitude (pC)
5,000
0 0 0
-5,000
-10,000
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Phase of Pow er Cycle (deg) Phase of Pow er Cycle (deg) Phase of Pow er Cycle (deg)
Figure 2.20: PD Activity Detected on a 33 kV Feeder During an On-Line PD Test
34
Figure 2.21: PD Mapping for Phase L3 of a 33kV XLPE Feeder
Figure 2.22: Deterioration at Joint Pit 8, Phase B, Circuit B
35
2.5.7 Case Study 7: Continuous PD Measurements, Daisy Chained PD

Since 2006, the transmission utility located in the south west region of the United States has mandated
that its solid dielectric feeders be subjected to AC Proof & PD commissioning tests. The test experience
of the utility is outlined in the table below (Table 2.3). As can be seen, the utility engaged in its first
commissioning tests in 2007. Four 230 kV circuits were subjected to a 60 minute AC Proof test at 1.7U0.
Partial discharge testing was performed after the AC Proof test at rated voltage. An in service failure
was experienced within the first 18 months of service. In response to the possibility that the joint may
have exhibited PD during the AC Proof which would then not have been detected since the PD tests
were performed after the AC Proof test at rated voltage, moving forward, the utility mandated that partial
discharge tests be performed on all accessories during the AC Proof test. Furthermore, the cable
commissioning test specification was revised such that the pass criterion for a commissioning PD test
was that no PD should be detected from any accessory during the AC Proof test.
A number of feeders were then subjected to AC Proof and PD testing using a joint hopping PD
methodology. But, as the feeders were located in downtown area of a large US city obtaining joint
access during the AC Proof test for PD measurements was practically difficult and expensive to provide.
Therefore, in 2011, the utility decided that future feeders should be subjected to continuous PD
monitoring during the AC Proof test using pre-installed PD sensors and pre-installed PD monitors which
were linked together via a fiber optic cable communication network. A daisy-chain of PD monitors would
then be installed with the HV or EHV cable system prior to commissioning testing allowing for continuous
PD monitoring of all accessories of the cable system during the AC Proof test from a central location.
Table 2.3: Commissioning Test Experience of a US Transmission Utility

Voltage for PD
PD Outcome of Tests
AC Measurement
Measurement
Rated No. HiPot Joint Contin- Cable Joint Term. In Service
Cable Length Type
Year Test Type Voltage Joints/ Hopping uous Failure Section PD PD Performance
Circuit
[kV] [km] phase [U0] (see Table 5) [U0] [U0] # of Locations w. PD (Failure)
A 230 12 26 1.7 Distrbuted 1.0 Joint
B 230 12 26 1.7 Distributed 1.0
2007 Commissioning Tests
C 230 6 9 1.7 Distributed 1.7
D 230 6 9 1.7 Distributed 1.7 1 3rd Party Damage
Retest after diversion and to A 230 2 2 1.7 Distributed 1.7 1
2009 compliment prior PD mea- A 230 12 24 1.7 Distributed 1.7 1 3rd Party Damage
surements performed at U0 B 230 12 24 1.7 Distributed 1.7
F 230 1 0 1.7 Terminal 1.7
2010 Commissioning Test
G 230 1 0 1.7 (double ended) 1.7
Recommissioning Test of A 230 12 24 1.4 Distributed 1.4*
2011
Circuits tested in 2009 B 230 12 24 1.4 Distributed 1.4*
H 230 10 20 1.7 Distributed 1.7 1 14 4 Termination
Commissioning Test
I 230 10 20 1.7 Distributed 1.7 2 4 3
2012
Commissioning Test due to J 138 6 6 1.7 Distributed 1.7 ` 1 1
criticality in line and change K 138 6 6 1.7 Distributed 1.7 1
(*) terminations and repaired joints only
The first long feeder subjected to a daisy chained PD test was commissioned in 2012. The feeder
consists of two 3-phase, 230 kV XLPE feeder configured as two conductors per phase and located in
the United States of America. The feeder is approximately 13 km long and consists of 20 joints and two
open air terminations per phase. The cable is pulled in ducts and joints are located in manholes.
Using two 260 kV, 83 Amp RTS sets operating in parallel configuration each phase was energized to
226 kV. A daisy chained PD system was installed prior to testing. A performance check was performed
prior to testing by injecting a 50 volt pulse on each phase. By measuring the response at each PD sensor
it was ensured that (a) all the Partial Discharge monitors were functioning properly and (b) that the
sensors from the individual joints (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2) were correctly paired to the six PD inputs
at each PD monitor.
PD activity was monitored on all accessories during the ramp up to 226 kV as well as during the
withstand test itself. As can be seen from Table 2.3 above a number of PD sources were detected in
terminations and joints. As well, a number of insulation failures occurred during testing. Accessories
subjected to PD were repaired or exchanged and the associated phases were retested such a no partial
discharge activity was detected from the cable system.
36
An example of one PD source located in a joint is given in Figure 2.23: As can be seen, at Joint 20, a
cluster of negative polarity PD pulses
centered at approximately 45 phase
angle with reference to the phase-to-
East Termination
ground test voltage was detected at
226kV. The PD activity increased in
magnitude during the AC withstand test.
Due to the magnitude of the PD activity
within Joint 20 and due to proximity of
the termination (approximately 100
meters away) and the proximity of the
next joint, discharge activity originating
from Joint 20 were also detected at
these locations.
After approximately 10 minutes, the
Manhole 20
activity had reached a level of
approximately 2.5 nC of apparent
charge 1 and it was decided to
terminated the withstand test to avoid
having a failure. Typically, a strong
predominance of negative polarity
discharge pulses centered at 45 phase
angle with reference to the phase-to-
ground test voltage is indicative of
discharge activity originating the HV
conductor. An investigation of the joint
Manhole 19
during a tear down revealed the problem

to relate to a small protrusion on the
inner conductor of the joint. The issue
was addressed and a new joint was
installed. No evidence of PD occurred
during the retests of this phase.
Following successful testing of the two
feeders, the PD system was removed
but the PD sensors and fiber optic Figure 2.23: PD Activity Detected on Joint 20 Phase B1
communication systems were left in place to accommodate for future testing.
1 It should be noted the reference to apparent charge in this context is different to the type of apparent charge which
is obtained via a conventional PD measurement in the laboratory. Please refer to the sections titled partial discharge
magnitude sensitivity for field testing of HV & EHV cable circuits on page 51 and Overview of laboratory and factory
PD tests on page 83.
37
2.5.8 Case Study 8: PD During Soak

A newly installed 138kV XLPE cable circuit was subjected
to partial discharge measurements during a 24 hour soak
test with the cable energized a nominal line to ground
voltage but with no load on the cable system. The cable
system consists of one conductor per phase with each
phase consisting of two ope- air terminations and eight
joints. The accessories were subjected to periodic PD
measurements during the soak test (joint hopping).
In this case, since the link-boxes were in accessible an

external differential field probe was used as means of
detecting PD - Figure 2.24 [B39]. The sensor has a
frequency response from close to DC to 250 MHz and is
embedded in the partial discharge monitor.
Figure 2.24: Photo of Differential PD Field
During first half of the soak test, evidence of discharge Probe
activity internal to one of the 24 joints was detected – see Figure 2.25. During the end of the 24 hour
soak test, the discharge activity was still present though the magnitudes and intensity had decreased.
The soak test was extended for another 12 hours during which the discharge activity was monitored
continuously. A continuous decrease in discharge activity was detected during the extension. Prior to
the end of the extended soak test the discharge activity had extinguished.
Following the extended soak test the cable system was subjected to load. During the first 12 hours of
load the joint was monitored for PD activity. No discharge charge activity was detected form the joint
during the first 12 hour of load.
The case study serves as an example that for newly laid, in it self, detection of PD is not a direct indicator
of limiting life. It is well known that for new insulation systems, internal discharge sources can occur
during the beginning of energization – whether at over voltage or at line voltage – and extinguish after
a period of time. Thus, for off-line testing, a conditioning period with over voltage is needed to detect
sustainable PD and, similarly, during a soak test, PD should be monitored continuously or periodically
during the entire duration of the soak test.
Partial Discharge Pulse Phase Analysis Plots
Figure 2.25: PD Activity On A 138kV Joint. (Left: Beginning Of Soak test, Right: End of Soak Test)
38
3. UNDERSTANDING PD MEASUREMENTS
3.1 PARTIAL DISCHARGES IN CABLE SYSTEMS
The theory of Partial Discharge in solid dielectrics is well known and well described theoretically and
experimentally [B15][B17][B22][B23][B25][B29][B30][B35][B36][B37]. A Partial Discharge is defined as
a “localized electrical discharge that only partially bridges the insulation between conductors and which
can or cannot occur adjacent to a conductor)” [B6].
Partial discharge activity may occur around life limiting defects within the cable system such as inner or
outer conductor shield protrusions, within voids, at impurities, at polluted surfaces, at or on dielectric
interfaces, on damaged stress cones in joints or terminations or at areas where accessory components
are misaligned. These defects may cause localized enhancement of the electrical background field and
result in localized breakdown and thus partial discharge activity. For HV & EHV cable systems
experience shows that accessories are often the source of partial discharge activity [B46]. Therefore,
the measurement of partial discharge activity can significantly aid in assessing the condition of a cable
system. Depending on the type and location a defect may give rise to PD activity during normal on-line
operations at rated line-to-ground voltage or the defect may require an overvoltage to be detected [B53].
The physics of partial discharge activity can broadly be described as follows: A partial discharge
constitute a movement of electrons and positively charged ions travelling against and with the direction
of the local electrical field respectively. The partial discharge current itself generates time varying an
electro-magnetic field which permeates the bulk dielectric and result in induced currents on both the
inner and out conductor [B17]. The duration of a partial discharge occurring within a cable system
depends on the nature of the defect and its location but is typically of the order of one to tens of
nanoseconds [B15][B16][B17][B28][B30]. Thus, frequency content of an actual partial discharge pulse
is in the order of tens to several hundreds of megahertz. The magnitude of the induced current depends
on the strength and direction of the electro-magnetic field, caused by the PD current itself, at the inner
and outer conductor. The magnitude of the induced PD signal thus depends on location of the discharge
source relative to the inner and outer conductor.
Figure 3.1: Sketch of typical void defect and associated induced discharge currents (LEFT)
The induced current at the inner and outer conductor will start propagating in either direction and may
be detectable via a high frequency sensor connected directly to the cable conductor or directly to the
outer conductor. The following issues should be considered when partial discharge signals are
propagating through a coaxial transmission line:
39
1. Attenuation and dispersion [B33]

2. Transmission and reflection at an impedance mismatches such as at a joint-cable or a
termination-cable interfaces.
3. Lack of conservation of charge.
Issues 1 and 2 above are discussed in detail later in this technical brochure. With respect to issue no.
3: It should be considered that in the field three phase (single feeder or double feeder) cable systems
are tested. Three phase cable systems are electro-magnetically connected primarily at terminations
and joints. Therefore, as part of a propagating PD signal is electro-magnetically coupled to adjacent
phases via bonding cables/leads at joints in HV & EHV cables equipped with bonding boxes. As the
transmitted part of a propagating PD wave transmits through a joint, part of the signal is electro-
magnetically coupled to adjacent phases via bonding cables/leads. Thus, when propagating through a
jointed HV or EHV cable system the partial discharge signal deteriorates partly due to attenuation, partly
due to transmission and reflection at accessories and partly due to mutual coupling between phases at
bonding links.
It should be noted that when energizing HV insulation systems for the first time a number of non-life
limiting partial discharge sources may initially be active. Thus, as a result, for routine tests and type
tests, partial discharge testing is performed after a period of applied overvoltage – typically 5 min to 15
min.
3.2 PARTIAL DISCHARGE SENSORS

Induced partial discharge currents in cable systems can be detected by means of a suitable high
frequency sensor. A multitude of sensors exist.
 For terminal Partial Discharge measurements, often, high voltage capacitive coupling capacitors
connected directly to the cable conductor are used.
 For distributed Partial Discharge measurements, typically, High Frequency Current
Transformers (HFCT) are used though a multitude of additional sensors exist (Sheath Sensors,
Directional Coupler, Transient Earth Voltage Sensor, Differential Field Probe).
 For both distributed and terminal measurements, it is also possible to make use of integrated
PD sensors embedded within the cable accessories.
Apparent Charge at
discharge location VPD
R
Measured Apparent
Charge
Attenuation Attenuation
C iPD
VPD
iPD VPD
R
R Measured Apparent
Charge
Figure 3.2: Sketch of Partial Discharge Sensors on a Cable
Note, the use of any type of PD sensor for any category of an on-site PD test should not adversely
affect the performance of the cable system. This is particular important with permanently embedded
sensors (external and internal sensors) and communication equipment.
40
3.3 FREQUENCY CONTENT OF PD MEASUREMENTS

Traditionally, the theory of Partial Discharge has been described analytically using an equivalent circuit
- the so called “ABC” Model in which the test object, the void and the coupling between the void and the
electrodes can accurately be modelled by three capacitances [B1]: CA represents the equivalent lumped
capacitance of the test object, CB represents the capacitive coupling between the void and the
measuring electrode and CC represents the capacitance of the void (Figure 3.3). Practically, this means
the test object (cable system) should be sufficiently short and sufficiently “simple” so that the test object
can be treated as a lumped capacitance and not a distributed impedance.
Induced Induced
Charge
A Charge
A
+ QHV
+ QHV + QHV
CB
Actual CB1
Charge -Q 
BPD CA CC
iPD CA CC
+Q
CB2
- QLV - QLV
- QLV
Figure 3.3: ABC PD Model – left: physical representation, right electrical representation
Following the ABC Model, a discharge in the void will cause a capacitive coupling of the discharge
current to the measuring electrode. The discharge current may be measured by means of a suitable
capacitive PD coupler, CK. The response measured for a conventional PD measurement, i.e., according
to IEC 60270, is partial discharge magnitude in the unit of millivolt (VPD). However, the relationship
between the voltage magnitude measured by the capacitive PD coupler and the apparent charge on the
HV terminal of the object under test can be established by means of a calibration constant (pC/mV).
The calibration constant may be derived by injecting a known charge, QINJECT, via an injection coupler,
CINJECT, at the HV terminal and measuring the response VPD.INJECT. The calibration constant is derived
simply by K = QINJECT/VPD.INJECT. The measurement of apparent charge at the terminals is thus based
converting a measured voltage magnitude (mV) into a pC level via a calibration constant. The methods
works within the margin of error when the coupling capacitor, CINJECT, is at least 10 times less in value
than that of the test object and when the bandwidth does not exceed a width of 300 kHz and when the
upper detection frequency does not exceed 1 MHz [B1][B3][B17].
The approach outlined in IEC 60270 is based on two important and fundamental assumptions:
(1) The test object can be accurately modeled as a lumped capacitance and
(2) the void in which the PD occur can be modeled via a capacitance with capacitive coupling to the HV
electrode and grounded electrodes of the object under test [B1][B3][B17].
For field testing installed cable systems it should be considered the test object constitutes a distributed
impedance and not a lumped capacitance – see Figure 3.4. In a lumped capacitive test object, the
induced PD current as measured at the terminal equals the induced PD current at the location of the
discharge itself and thus charge is conserved. In a distributed impedance the induced PD current as
evaluated at the terminal no longer equals the induced PD current at the discharge location and thus
the charge is not conserved.
As well, an analytical description of the theory of measurement of Partial Discharge transients following
a macroscopic field approach shows that the relationship between the actual partial discharge and the
induced apparent charge on the measuring electrode cannot accurately be evaluated simply by void
41
capacitance as the proximity of the void relative to the measuring electrode has a significant effect on
the magnitude of the induced charge [B17][B19][B20][B21][B22][B23][B24]
Lastly, it should be considered that a conventional approach to field PD measurements (follows IEC
60270 and uses the lumped capacitance representation (Figure 3.4) has a sensitivity to the level of
ambient noise. This is because a Conventional partial discharge measurement cannot detect PD signal
activity below the ambient noise level. In the field, the ambient noise level can often be very
significant.[B3][B25][B29][B30][B33][B35]
3.4 CONVENTIONAL & NON CONVENTIONAL PD MEASUREMENTS
With respect to the frequency bandwidth of the measurement of partial discharge activity, it typically
breaks into one of two broad categories: Using a conventional (IEC 60270) approach as well as an
unconventional approach. The conventional approach is most often used for laboratory testing whereas
the unconventional (or non conventional) approach is often used for field testing of HV & EHV cable
systems.
A Non Conventional PD measurement refers to a measurement methodology which is not required to
conforming to IEC 60270 and addressing the issues inherent in a distributed impedance representation
(Figure 3.4). However, often, an unconventional PD measurement is understood to be an Ultra Wide
Band measurement looking at a frequency spectrum from tens of kHz up to several hundreds of MHz.
A wide range of commercially available ultra wide band partial discharge monitors are available from
equipment manufacturers and service providers.
LUMPED CAPACITANCE TEST
DISTRIBUTED IMPEDANCE TEST OBJECT
OBJECT
Cable Cable Cable Cable
Termination Termination Termination 1 Termination 2
Cable Cable Cable

Section 1 Joint 1 Section 2 Joint 2 Section 3
Cable under test
Grounding
Ground/Earth
IPD.terminal LCC1 LJC1 LCC2 LJC2 LCC3

IPD.T1 IPD.T2
IPD.source RCC2 RCC1 RJC1 RCC2 RJC2 RCC3 RCC2
IPD.J2
CCable CT1 CCC1 CJ1 CCC2 CJ2 CCC3 CT2
LSC1 LJC1 LSC2 LJC2 LSC3
RSC2 RSC1 RJS1 RSC2 RJS1 RSC3 RSC2
Figure 3.4: Lumped capacitance vs. distributed impedance models for PD detection
The conventional approach follows the measurement methodology outlined in IEC 60270 and makes
use of either a “narrow band” (f  [9 kHz, 30 kHz] with f2 < 500 kHz) or “wide band” (f  [100 kHz,
42
400 kHz] with f2 < 1 MHz) low frequency approach. In terms of current embodiments the IEC term “wide
band” is a little confusing as this is not really that wide a band. In the conventional approach the
interpretation and calibration procedures are based on the simplified “Lumped Capacitance Model”. This
is a very good approach for cable lengths which are shorter than the wavelength of the PD signal
measured. Thus the applicable cable length depends upon the measurement frequency (Figure 3.5).
As can be seen the longest lengths may be achieved with lower frequencies. Unfortunately the electrical
noise tends to increase as the frequency reduces. In field measurements practitioners have moved away
from the convention of IEC 60270 to avail themselves of the lower noise levels and diagnostic power of
higher frequency measurements.
 IEC 885 recognizes limited cable length
 Attenuation
 Impedance mismatch
 Lack of conservation of charge
This non-conventional approach makes use of ultra wide band partial discharge monitors with frequency
responses up to 500 MHz with up to full bandwidth depending on manufacturer. In the non conventional
approach the interpretation is based on the more general “Distributed Impedance Model”. The practical
length / frequency range for field diagnostics is shown to the upper right of (Figure 3.5).
Variable 0.4 0.5 0.6 1

Wav elength (m)
10% Wav elength (m) IEC IEC
10000.0 Narrow Wide Practical Field
Band Band Measurement
Range
DISTRIBUTED IMPEDANCE
Cable System Length (m)
1000.0 MODEL
100.0
Limit
10.0
LUMPED CAPACITANCE
1.0 MODEL Recomended
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0
Measurement Frequency (MHz)
Figure 3.5: Relationship Between PD Measurement Frequencies and Applicability of the Circuit Modelling
Approach (Figure 3.3).
Note: the red line represents the recommended maximum length (10% of the wavelength of the PD
signal); the black line represents the wavelength of the PD signal.
Figure 3.5 may be interpreted as follows: (A) With in the frequency- and bandwidth range specified by
IEC 60270 the assumption that the cable predominantly behaves like a lumped capacitance is likely to
be valid for lengths less than 200 meters. As a consequence, calibration of the measured PD magnitude
as per IEC 60270 is a valuable concept. (B) A cable system with a length exceeding 1,000 meters is
likely to behave as a distributed impedance and should be tested as such for all practically deployed PD
measurements. Figure 3.5 serves to demonstrate why it is not possible to directly compare measured
PD magnitude data between factory (conventional) PD tests and field PD tests. Although PD
measurements (occurrence, PDIV, PDEV and pulse repetition rate) may still be performed on cable
systems with lengths and PD measurement frequencies above the black line in Figure 3.5 (as per Table
4.2), the calibration of measured PD magnitude as per IEC 60270 is no longer valid. Note, Figure 3.5
43
deals with transition from lumped capacitances to distributed impedances. For jointed cable systems
and long lengths of non-jointed cables further PD signal deterioration effects exists – please see the
section titled “the influence of cable system complexity” (attenuation, dispersion, reflection and loss of
charge).
Most unconventional partial discharge monitors offer the following advantages:
 Ability to use different sensors
 Ability to generate high resolution phase resolved partial discharge plots
 Ability to measure and/or store pulse shapes
 Ability to separate measured signal categories including the ability to separate noise signals
from partial discharge signals via data processing techniques [B35][B36][B37]
 Ability to make use of digital filtering techniques for improving signal to noise ratios
 Ability to communicate with a central recording or control station via LAN, fiber-optic or wireless
means.
3.5 METRICS
Because the simplification of lumped capacitance cannot, in most cases, be applied to field PD testing
the metrics used to describe PD cannot take a simple form either. However, any PD test in the field will
ultimately wish to quantify, in some way, the PD activity. As an example tests in the laboratory are
designed to determine a level that may be compared. However, in the field, the goals are to (a) identify
that PD is present and (b) and to identify its location. Furthermore, the goal is to be able to show the
activity is at a low or zero level. Many descriptive metrics are used in field PD measurements. These
include but are not limited to:
 Number of pulses
 Pulse Rate
 Pulse Voltage Magnitude
 Apparent Charge
 Integrated Current (note, not the same as Apparent Charge)
These parameters are often segregated for phase distribution or pulse characterization (frequency
components, duration, shape, etc.)
Apparent Charge is a preferred metric for technologies that employ terminal measurements.
Practitioners emulate the Apparent Charge as evaluated by IEC 60270 and IEC 60883-2. Techniques,
which use this metric, account for 20% to 50% and 25% to 35% of reported field tests for HV and EHV
respectively. At first sight an Apparent Charge representation is attractive because it is related to a
standard (IEC 60270). Unfortunately the test objects subjected to PD being measure do not conform to
the assumptions inherent to the standards (Figure 3.4) and furthermore the charge that appears at the
measurement point will depend upon where that point is located relative to location of the PD source.
Pulse voltage magnitude and integrated current are common metrics for technologies that employ
distributed PD measurements. Techniques, which use this metric, account for 50% to 80% and 65% to
80% of reported field tests for HV and EHV respectively.
When considering maintenance tests it is universally accepted that high levels of PD activity or PD
activity increasing with time or different levels of PD activity within cohort units are clear indications for
asset owner action. The critical level of PD activity for asset owner action will depend on a number of
features, which include:
 PD location within the cable system
 The criticality of the cable system
 Rated voltage Class of the asset
 The PD test methodology used
 The PD technology employed
The influence of all of the above would need to be taken into account when defining acceptance or
rejection metrics for maintenance testing. On a practical level, for after laying acceptance testing of new
cable systems, the guiding criterion is the cable system should be free of detectable PD activity.
44
3.6 THE INFLUENCE OF CABLE SYSTEM COMPLEXITY

It is well understood that high frequency current signals are subjected to attenuation and dispersion
when travelling through a cable section. Attenuation of high frequency pulses propagating through cable
sections can be significant [B29][B33]: as little as 10% of the magnitude of propagating signal can be
left after 300 meters of propagation [B26][B33][B41].
It is also well understood that further signal deterioration occurs due to reflections caused by wave
impedance mismatches between cable sections and joints and between cable sections and
terminations. An equivalent wave impedance circuit for a cable assembly is sketched in Figure 3.6.
From a high frequency current propagation point of view a jointed cable system constitutes a series of
wave impedances and the effect of wave impedance mis-match must also be considered. The effect of
wave impedance mis-matches can be characterized for specific cable sections and joints through
laboratory measurements [B41].
Cable Cable
Termination 1 Termination 2
PD
Trans. Trans. Trans. Trans. Trans. Trans.
Refl. Refl. Refl. Refl.

Attenuation Attenuation Attenuation
Refl. Refl.
Cable Section 1 Joint 1 Cable Section 2 Joint 2 Cable Section 3
Ground/Earth
ZTERM.1 ZCABLE.SECT.1 ZJOINT.1 ZCABLE.SECT.2 ZJOINT.2 ZCABLE.SECT.3 ZTERM.2
Figure 3.6: PD Signal deterioration (Equivalent wave impedance circuit)
3.7 PARTIAL MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGIES

Single Ended Terminal PD Measurement: Single Ended Terminal PD Measurements are performed
with a PD Coupling Capacitor connected to the HV conductor at one cable end only. In some cases, a
High Frequency Current Transformer or Capacitive Sheath Sensor may be used in conjunction with or
instead of a coupling capacitor. In the majority of situations, this style of measurement is applied to
short cable runs for which attenuation and loss of charge are considered negligible. In terms of setup,
the measurement is analogous to a conventional partial discharge measurement. This measurement
methodology is typically used for cable systems with no joints or with one or few straight metal clad
joints (wire or braid screens are excluded as these permit a significant amount of the discharge signal
to escape before being measured). Typical lengths are less than 2,000 m from each terminal sensor
used for the measurement but lengths are typically lower due to attenuation effects. Often, partial
discharge levels are reported in values of apparent charge. It should be noted that the values of pC of
apparent charge in this case may not be the Apparent Charge as reported in Laboratory Tests following
IEC 60270 on short circuits – please reference Chapter 4.4 “partial discharge magnitude sensitivity for
field testing of HV & EHV cable circuits”.
Figure 3.7 below shows a sketch of a typical single ended terminal PD Measurement. The measurement
methodology has the advantage that it does not require access to accessories during the test.
45
Cable Cable
Termination Termination
HV Source
CX HV Divider +
PD Sensor
Vref VPD
CR L
Cable under test
Ground/Earth
Figure 3.7: Sketch of Single Ended PD Field Measurement

Double Ended Terminal PD Measurement: Double Ended Terminal PD Measurements are performed
with a PD Coupling Capacitor connected to the HV conductor at both cable ends. In some cases, a
High Frequency Current Transformer or Capacitive Sheath Sensor may be used in conjunction with, or
instead of, a coupling capacitor. The Double Ended Terminal PD measurement can be applied to
medium length cable circuits thus addressing sensitivity concerns with respect to attenuation and loss
of charge for induced propagating partial discharge pulses. In terms of setup, the measurement is
analogous to a conventional partial discharge measurement. This measurement methodology is
typically used for cable systems with up to two joints. Typical lengths are less than 2,000 m from each
terminal sensor used but lengths are typically lower due to attenuation effects. Often, partial discharge
levels are reported in terms of apparent charge. It should be noted that the values of pC of apparent
charge in this case may not be the Apparent Charge as reported in Laboratory Tests following IEC
60270 on short circuit lengths – please reference Chapter 4.4 “partial discharge magnitude sensitivity
for field testing of HV & EHV cable circuits”. Figure 3.8 below shows a sketch of a typical Double Ended
Terminal PD Measurement. The measurement methodology has the advantage that it does not require
access to accessories during the test.
Cable Cable
Termination Termination
HV Source
CHV HV Divider +
CHV PD Sensor
Vref Vref
CLV
CLV
VPD VPD
Cable Cable
Section Joint Section
Grounding
Figure 3.8: Sketch of Double Ended PD Field Measurement

Periodic Distributed Measurement: This approach is also known as Joint Hopping, partial discharge
measurements are performed using mobile crews at cable accessories for a time limited duration during
or after the AC Proof at elevated voltage. Typically, due to attenuation effects, to achieve sufficiently
high sensitivity PD measurements are performed at all accessories. Measurements are made with
either temporary installed PD sensors (e.g., HFCTs, or Capacitive Sheath Sensors or Differential Field
Probes) or integrated sensors. Figure 3.9 below shows an example of a typical Periodic Distributed PD
Measurement. Attention must be paid to the bonding and/or grounding configuration of the cable to
ensure optimal PD signal coupling. Often, partial discharge levels are reported in magnitudes of mV or
46
converted to some form of an Apparent Charge. With respect to the latter, it should be noted that the
Apparent Charge does not correlated with the Apparent Charge as reported in Laboratory Tests
following IEC 60270 on short circuits – please reference Chapter 4.4 “partial discharge magnitude
sensitivity for field testing of HV & EHV cable circuits”. As well, additional PD measuring metrics are
processed for reporting purposes. The test methodology requires access to joint locations during testing.
The terminology allows for measurement of partial discharge sources which are active and detectable
while a mobile PD crew is performing a measurement at a given location. It should be noted it is possible
that active PD sources may not be detected as the mobile PD crew may not be present and performing
measurements at the accessory when a PD source is active.
Cable Cable

Section 1 Joint 1 Section 2 Joint 2 Section 2 Joint 2 Section 3
Ground or
Ground or Earth
Earth
HFCT
T1 TEST LOCATIONS J1 J2 J3 T2
Figure 3.9: Example of a Periodic Distributed Field PD Measurement

Continuous Distributed PD Measurements: Partial discharge measurements are performed using
preinstalled PD sensors and pre-installed PD monitors at cable accessories during and/or after the AC
Proof at elevated voltage. Typically, due to attenuation effects, to achieve sufficiently high sensitivity
PD measurements are performed at all accessories. Often times, partial discharge monitors are daisy
chained using a pre-installed fiber optic data communication system. However, technologies also exist
which allows for PD measurement via wireless means. Measurements are made with either temporary
installed PD sensors (e.g., HFCTs, Capacitive Sheath Sensors or Differential fFeld Probes) or integrated
sensors. Attention must be paid to the bonding and/or grounding configuration of the cable to ensure
optimal PD signal coupling. Often, partial discharge levels are reported in magnitudes of mV or some
form of apparent charge. With respect to the latter, it should be noted that the Apparent Charge does
not correlate with the Apparent Charge as reported in Laboratory Tests following IEC 60270 on short
circuit lengths – please reference section Chapter 4.4 “partial discharge magnitude sensitivity for field
testing of HV & EHV cable circuits”. As well, additional PD measuring metrics are processed for reporting
purposes. The test methodology does not require access to manholes during testing. The methodology
provides optimal coverage and continuous PD monitoring of the cable system thus allowing for
premature termination of the AC Proof test in case a sustainable PD source is detected in an accessory
thus avoiding a potential cable or accessory failure thus optimizing repair time. Figure 3.10 below shows
an example of a typical Continuous Distributed PD Measurement. Some systems allow for remote
switching between phases thus eliminating any need for access to accessories until a cable system has
fully passed an AC Proof & PD Test.
47
Cable Cable
Operator or
PD Expert
Section 1 Joint 1 Section 2 Joint 2 Section 2 Joint 2 Section 3
PDM PDM
PD HFCT
Sensor
PDM PDM PDM
T1 TEST LOCATIONS J1 J2 J3 T2
Figure 3.10: Sketch of Continuous Distributed PD Field Measurement (PDM = Partial Discharge Monitor)
48
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF FIELD PD MEASUREMENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The following chapter focuses on practical implementation of on-site partial discharge measurements of
HV & EHV cable systems. The chapter describe differences in off-line and on-line on-site PD
measurements as well as differences for PD measurements performed as a commissioning
(acceptance) test on newly laid cable systems and maintenance test on field aged cable systems. As
discussed in Chapter 3, partial discharge activity is primarily driven by local electrical field conditions
and, therefore, it is important to consider the type of voltage source used for off-line PD measurements.
Consequently, Chapter 4 contains a discussion of the different categories of voltage sources available
for off-line on-site PD testing of HV & EHV cable systems. As well, as discussed in Chapter 3, on-site
partial discharge testing is different from laboratory PD tests in that, often, in the field, longer lengths of
cable systems are subjected to PD testing. Unlike short cable runs tested in the factory or laboratories,
longer cable systems do not behave like lumped, capacitive test objected but rather constitute a
distributed impedance. This poses special challenges for calibration and sensitivity checks. Therefore,
Chapter 4 contains guidance for sensitivity methodologies to be employed for field PD measurements.
Lastly, an important aspect of on-site PD measurements is mitigation of ambient or induced Radio
Frequency noise. Chapter 4 concludes with remarks and guidance of noise mitigation techniques for
on-site field PD measurements.
4.2 VOLTAGE SOURCES
Table 4.1: Usage of voltage sources for on-site PD testing (based on survey)
PD Measurement Methodology Is this PD Methodology used
Voltage Source
(see Table 4.2) with this Voltage Source?
Alternating Voltage at Terminal (Single & Double Ended) Yes

System Frequency Distributed – Scaled No
(49 Hz to 61 Hz) Distributed – Multi Featured Yes
Terminal (Single & Double Ended) Yes
Alternating Voltage
Distributed – Scaled Yes
(20 Hz to 300 Hz)
Distributed – Multi Featured Yes
Very Low Frequency Terminal (Single & Double Ended) Yes

AC Distributed – Scaled No
(≤0.1 Hz) Distributed – Multi Featured No
Terminal (Single & Double Ended) Yes
Damped AC Voltage
Distributed – Scaled No
(20 Hz to 300 Hz)
Distributed – Multi Featured No
Off-line testing uses a source of test voltage other than direct connection to the system.
Common issues to be borne in mind for all voltage sources
 Time above U0
 Amount above U0
 Values (PD level, PDIV, PDEV, PD Patterns) cannot be compared between voltage sources or
PD measurement methodologies
 Test Setup – corona free.
Note, though modern PD systems can separate between external corona and PD originating from within
the cable system, for on-site PD testing, efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate any external
corona originating on or from the HV test setup itself.
49
Various voltage waveforms and corresponding sources are applicable.

Alternating Voltage at System Frequency: This is the waveform generally used for factory testing
and for field testing of shorter lengths of HV & EHV cable systems. This is an ideal source with
respect to performance. Due to the substantial capacitance of typical cable circuits, resonant
test systems are generally applied (Variable Inductance Resonance Test Systems). For a given
cable system (fixed capacitance), a inductor is tuned such the capacitive and inductive test
currents cancel each out at 50/60Hz. Though some versions of these test sets are not
particularly suited to mobile use on installed circuits they have been used in this way particularly
on relatively short routes. There is full control of the applied voltage, and a sine waveform of
high purity, but the frequency is locked to system frequency.
It should be noted that a special case of Alternating Voltage at System Frequency is the case of
on-line PD measurements which, naturally, are performed with the system energized by the grid
and subjected to rated line to ground voltage at power system frequency.
Alternating Voltage at Non System Frequencies. For testing installed circuits at alternating
voltage, a transportable resonant system is the system of choice. Conventional tuned-
inductance resonant systems can be used in this way by making use of a variable frequency
input power source. Testing at non-power frequencies have the further advantage for PD testing
that the test frequency is unlocked from the system frequency and thus discharge activity
occurring in adjacent HV components to the cable circuit under test will not be phase correlated
to the test frequency.
However, the significant technological shift in resonant testing involves the combination of
electronic power conversion with a fixed-inductance resonant circuit. Both the frequency and
the amplitude of the low voltage waveform injected into the resonant circuit are adjusted, so as
first to achieve resonance with the capacitance under test and then to control the output voltage.
The advantages of this combination are many: the elimination of moving parts from the means
both of tuning and of voltage control results in reduced size, mass and cost; increased efficiency,
robustness and transportability. This is now the dominant method of testing circuits in the field.
The frequency span is often limited by IEC standards and as such the test frequency often range
from 20 Hz to 300 Hz [B4][B5] though when testing very long lengths of cables test frequencies
down to 10Hz have been used. Research has shown that when testing within the 20 Hz to 300
Hz range the variation in test voltage ranges less than 8% from 20 Hz to 300 Hz [B32][B52].
Nonetheless, this method is used for the application of withstand voltages, with or without PD
measurement.
Damped AC Voltage (Oscillating Wave): This method uses what is effectively a fixed-inductance
resonant circuit. The fundamental difference from the previous method is that power is input as
a transient, by charging the capacitance of the cable, rather than as a continuous oscillation
[B47][B48][B51]. This excites a damped oscillation at the natural resonant frequency of the
inductance of the equipment and the capacitance of the circuit under test. The damped
oscillation usually has a duration of hundreds of miliseconds. There is no attempt to feed in
power at this frequency to prolong the oscillation.
As the duration of the damped oscillatory output voltage waveform is up to tens of cycles at over
voltage and as the damped oscillating wave depends primarily of the impedance of the test
object, it therefore changes from test object to test object. It does provide an alternating voltage
at which partial discharge measurements can be made.
Note, the impact of DC polarization (before damped AC stress) on the cable system is not
covered in this document.
Very low frequency (VLF): This method deals with the problem of the reactive power requirement
when testing significant capacitance at high voltage by reducing the frequency dramatically,
typically to 0.1 Hz or below. There is no resonant circuit. Instead, energy is injected into, and
extracted from, the load capacitance cyclically by modulating the output of a direct voltage
source.
It should be recognised that when making PD measurements at VLF, since the rate of change
of voltage is different from the service condition, so the PD phenomena which are the target of
the measurement may be different. Nonetheless, this method is used for the application of
withstand voltages, with or without PD measurement.
50
The survey performed showed that most experience exists with over voltage testing using either variable
inductance or variable frequency resonance test system.
4.3 PARTIAL DISCHARGE TESTING OF HV & EHV CABLE CIRCUITS
The survey also showed that the partial discharge test performed typically fall into one of four
configurations:
1. Terminal Partial Discharge Measurement
2. Periodic Distributed Partial Discharge Measurement during AC Withstand
3. Partial Discharge Measurement following successful AC Withstand Testing.
4. Continuous Distributed Partial Discharge Measurement during AC Withstand
Terminal PD measurements somewhat mimic a conventional PD test and in particular mimic type tests
performed in the laboratory. However, due to attenuation effects, terminal PD measurements are often
constrained to short lengths of cable – typically a termination to termination run. A special case of the
terminal PD measurement would be a circuit with two terminations and two joints. In this case, two PD
coupling capacitors may be used – one at each termination. Using this approach, a conventional
calibration can be performed although significant caution should be taken if using ultra wideband
detection systems.
Considering the issues related to attenuation of PD signals and considering accessories are often the
source of PD in HV & EHV cable systems often a PD measurement is performed as a distributed PD
test. The test can be performed continuously at each accessory during or after a withstand test. This
requires each accessory to be equipped with either external or internal PD sensor, a partial discharge
monitor positioned at each accessory and a communication infra-structure between accessories. The
advantage of this approach is that all accessories are monitored continuously during the withstand test
and therefore periodically or cyclic occurring PD sources may be detected and a Partial Discharge
Inception Voltage (PDIV) and Partial Discharge Extinction Voltage (PDEV) can be measured. A further
practical advantage is this methodology does not require access to joints during the test. Often, a cable
circuit may be located in congested areas and access to joints may thus require traffic control and
manhole access support crews. This particular test methodology does require pre-planning such as
equipping each accessory with PD sensors and PD monitors prior to testing. Also, prior to testing, a
system check should demonstrate that each component of the PD monitoring system is functioning
adequate.
Where these requirements cannot be met a distributed PD test can be performed as a periodic
distributed PD test with mobile PD test crews moving from accessory to accessory acquiring data for a
predestined length of time at each location. This is also referred to as “Joint Hopping”. If performed
during a withstand test, this require a sufficient amount of mobile PD crews. As well, the methodology
requires access to joints during the withstand test.
Sometimes, the PD test is performed following a successful withstand test. The PD test is still performed
at an elevate voltage albeit at a reduced over voltage. This test methodology mimics the type test
methodology where the cable assembly is conditioned with an AC withstand test prior to performing the
partial discharge test. Typically, the PD test level is 70% of the AC withstand level. This approach
typically does not require pre-installation of PD sensors at every accessory and only requires a limited
amount of mobile PD test crews (and monitors) so that such testing is completed in a timely manner.
Based on feedback from membership countries on test practices extensive discussions within the work
group determined that there were three general types of PD test methodologies none of which are
constrained to conform to IEC 60270 or IEC 60883 (see Figure 3.5):
1. Terminal PD Test: PD measurements conducted at cable system terminals with reslts most
often report as an Apparent Charge. The Apparent Charge obtained via these tests is not similar
to the Apparent Charge referred to in laboratory tests conforming to IEC 60270).
2. Distributed PD Tests – Scaled Charge: PD measurements are obtained on some or all cable
accessories with results report on using a measure of apparent charge. The apparent charge
can be evaluated using a pre-derived scale factor or can be derived via integration of PD current
wave forms)
3. Distributed PD Tests – Multi Featured: PD measurements are obtained on some or all cable
accessories with results report on using any relevant metric – typically PD magnitudes
referenced in the unit of mV.
Table 4.2 below outlines the three different PD field test methodologies and relevant features here off.
51
Table 4.2: Overview of field PD test methodologies
Distributed Distributed
Test Category Terminal
– scaled charge – multi feature
Point of Single or Double Terminal Distributed PD Measurement with sensors at
Measurement Measurement accessories (joints and / or terminations

<2,000 m from each terminal
sensor used.
Typical Cable or No joints or few straight
Cable System metal clad joints Any length
Length Limited by cable system
propagation characteristics lengths
often lower due to attenuation
effects – see Range Check
< 10MHz Typically <750MHz Typically

Frequency of PD
measurement Any specified bandwidth within the range
Any well documented form

of either classic calibration
or double sensors.
Calibration Not applicable.
Calibration voltage pulse with a rise
time typically 10 times faster than
circuit response
Any well documented form

of either double sensor
Scale methods and/or sensitivity
Not applicable by construction Not applicable
Factor
Includes evaluation of wave
propagation in the cable adjacent
to sensors
Sensitivity Check required across the

Required across the
Sensitivity frequency range of the bandwidth of the
frequency range of the
measurement.
Check bandwidth of the
measurement Includes evaluation of wave propagation in the cable
adjacent to sensors
Performance
Required to check PD System Operability
Check
Range Required to establish the range that a PD pulse can travel down a cable at
Check selected levels of amplitude and dispersion
Noise mitigation may not be essential due to

Noise Noise mitigation is essential sensor location at accessories & propagation
(filter) characteristics of cable
Loss assumed to be small
Recognizes loss of charge / current,
Loss of charge enough not to perturb
especially at bonding of cable systems
measurement
Apparent charge by suitable Induced apparent charge Any suitable
Reporting on PD
(typically digital) integration by suitable (typically digital) metric (pC, mV,
activity
technique. integration technique. iPD)
Location by time of flight Location by sensor position or time of flight
52
from terminals
Calibration: A procedure which establishes the linear relationship between apparent charge (pC) and
measured peak voltage at the PD detector for cable systems which conform to IEC 60270
and IEC 60885-3 (i.e. short cable systems which can be electrically represented as a
lumped capacitance). Calibration procedures, including numerical treatments, must be
identical to those used to make the PD measurement. This procedure is carried out on
every test object/sensor combination. The injection pulse must conform to IEC 60270.
Scale Factor: A procedure which establishes the relationship between apparent charge (pC) the
measured input signals at the PD detector. Scale factor procedures, including numerical
treatments, must be identical to those used to make the PD measurement. This procedure
is carried out on every test object/sensor combination. The injection pulse should closely
resemble the expected PD pulses.
Sensitivity Check: A procedure which establishes the sensitivity across the frequency range of the PD
measurement itself and enables the user to normalize PD measurements obtained at
different frequencies and bandwidths.
Performance Check: A procedure performed just prior to commencing testing which ensures the whole
PD monitor system is functioning within established parameters. This procedure is carried
out every time a PD sensor is relocated.
Range Check: A procedure which establishes the distance a PD pulse can travel down a cable at
selected levels of amplitude and dispersion. This procedure is carried out on every test
object. The injection pulse should closely resemble the expected PD pulses.
4.4 PARTIAL DISCHARGE MAGNITUDE SENSITIVITY FOR FIELD TESTING OF HV &

EHV CABLE CIRCUITS
The two most salient issues related to field partial discharge measurements of HV & EHV cable systems
relate to:
1. Evaluation of PD magnitudes
2. Sensitivity of the PD measurement
PD Magnitudes
For most ultra-wide band PD monitors the unit of measurement is voltage – specifically millivoltage. At
times, the need for a correlation between a PD magnitude as evaluated in mV and pC exists. For a
ultra-wideband partial discharge measurement it is technically not possible to provide a simple
relationship between pC of apparent charge and mV via a calibration constant as the response of the
cable (or accessory) under test is highly frequency dependent. Specifically, to evaluate a calibration
constant for an ultra-wide band partial discharge measurement the transfer function (or frequency
response) of the cable under test, the PD sensor and the PD instrument must be described.
However, most ultra-broad band PD monitors are able to measure signal shapes. If the shape of a PD
signal can be measured a measure of charge can be provided by converting the voltage signal
measured to a current signal and integrating up the appropriate area of the signal [B1][B45]. It should
be noted the apparent charge of pC in this case physically deviates from the apparent charge of pC as
evaluated by a conventional low frequency narrow band PD measurement. Specifically, the apparent
charge as evaluated on integrating the appropriate area of a measure partial discharge current relates
to the time-dynamic response of the measuring circuit (including the cable or accessory under test)
during the partial discharge event while the apparent charge as evaluated via a conventional PD
measurement relates to the electro-static response of the measuring circuit (including the cable under
test) following completion of the PD event [B17][B18][B22].
Sensitivity of the PD Measurement
The sensitivity of a field PD measurement is a complex topic to handle practically as the sensitivity
fundamentally depends on not just the electro-magnetic coupling between the actual partial discharge
and the cable or cable accessory, the propagation path travelled prior to being detected, the electro-
magnetic coupling between the measuring electrode, but also the partial discharge monitor itself. With
respect to the latter, key issues with respect to PD sensitivity assessment specifically related to the
53
performance of the PD monitor extend beyond a bandwidth and frequency range but also include
acquisition techniques including trigger parameters (for instance magnitude, phase), measuring
parameters (for instance peak voltage, phase angle, ability to measure and store signal shape) and
signal conditioning (digital filtering, gating etc). Still, three key approaches to sensitivity assessment
are currently employed:
1. Terminal PD measurement
2. Terminal PD measurement (double ended)
3. Distributed PD Measurement
For a short cable circuit consisting of two terminations and one cable section, the test setup is somewhat
analogous to that used in the laboratory for Type Testing of cable assemblies. Therefore, while the cable
circuit does not fully behave as a lumped capacitance, a conventional PD measurement using a terminal
PD measurement methodology – and calibration - can be performed. It is recommended that, if possible,
an ultra wide band partial discharge measurement be performed simultaneously to the conventional PD
measurement.
For a shorter cable circuit consisting of two terminations, three cable section and two joints per phase
the circuit is also somewhat analogous to a typical cable assembly on which type tests are performed
in the factory. Again, while the cable circuit does not fully behave as a lumped capacitance, a
conventional PD measurement using a double ended terminal PD measurement methodology – and
calibration - can be performed as per [B3]. It is recommended that, if possible, an ultra wide band partial
discharge measurement be performed simultaneously to the conventional PD measurement. The longer
the cable sections, the higher the voltage class of cable the more significant are the issues with
magnitudes of induced charge and attenuation of high frequency pulses as PD propagates through the
cable.
As long lengths of jointed cable circuits constitute a distributed network of impedances and therefore a
conventional PD measurement including a conventional calibration does not apply for measurement of
PD on such circuits. For these circuits, a distributed PD measurement should be performed with PD
data being obtained at each accessory. The issue around PD sensitivity assessment for a distributed
PD measurement is not trivial. For an ultra-wide band partial discharge measurement a PD sensitivity
assessment should (A) cover the bandwidth of the measuring system and (B) should display the
sensitivity to partial discharge-like signals [B17][B41]. To establish the sensitivity of an ultra wide band
width measurement partial discharge-like signals of varying frequency content should be properly
injected into the accessory under test and the response should be measured by the sensor. This is
often not practical to do in a field setting. However, this can be done in the laboratory for instance after
successful completion of a type test of the cable assembly [B41]. By injecting symmetric and non
symmetric PD-like pulses into a cut cable system using matched impedances the response to known
high frequency pulses by external or internal sensors can be characterized for both a joint and a
termination (Figure 4.1). In order to ensure the signal is fully injected into the cable system matched
impedance must be used. An example of a matched impedance for injecting pulses into a cable system
is provided in Figure 4.2. The pulses injected should have frequency contents covering the bandwidth
of the Partial Discharge measurement technology used. This methodology is also often referred to as
Sensitivity-by-Construction. As its name suggests, Sensitivity-by-Construction has a narrow range of
applicability (same cable, same accessories, same sensor and PD monitor). The methodology
constitutes a practical approach as cable systems are subjected to type test prior to being accepted for
installation in the field. Thus, cable manufactures and/or service providers have an opportunity to
perform a sensitivity assessment for specific joint and termination designs over a wide range of
frequencies. This methodology is useful especially for accessories being delivered with integrated PD
sensors. Following this methodology, the sensitivity of the PD measurement can be characterized both
in terms of magnitudes [mV] or charge (pC of apparent charge). Again, it should be noted that for ultra-
wideband PD measurement the measure of pC of apparent charge is physically different from that of
pC of apparent charges for a conventional PD measurement.
54
Cable
Termination
CHV
Vref
CLV
VPD
Cable Cable
Section Joint Section
HF Pulse
PDM
Generator
HFCT Oscilloscope
PD Sensor
PDM
55
Cable
Termination
CHV
Vref
HFCT
CLV
VPD
Cable
Section
HF Pulse
PDM
Generator
Oscilloscope
Figure 4.1: Sketch of Laboratory Sensitivity Setup For Field Testing of Long Lengths of Cable (top: for
characterization of Joint; bottom: for characterization of Termination)
Figure 4.2: Photo of HF Pulse Injection Into a Cable Using a matched Impedance
4.5 THE INFLUENCE OF NOISE ON FIELD PD MEASUREMENTS

As a partial discharge measurement constitute the measurement of induced high frequency, very high
frequency and/or ultra high frequency signals on power apparatus rejection of similar non-partial
discharge related signals is key. For off-line measurements, the issue of noise rejection primarily relates
to separating induced PD signals from induced noise signals. For on-line measurements, an additional
issue exists: Separation of partial discharge signals obtained from the cable under test from partial
discharge signals originating from connected power equipment (transformers, breakers etc.).
Typically, for a field measurement, the ambient noise environments vary from location to location and
may also vary depending on the time of day the measurement is performed. Also, different types of
noise exist.
Tools for improving the signal to noise ratio exist and are well known. They include front-end analog
noise filtering, gating (rejection) of ambient noise pulses, and, for modern PD monitors ‘on-the-fly’ digital
56
filtering. In addition, improvements over the past decade for signal classification for measured data
have significantly improved the value and interpretation of acquired PD data.
The classification map [B35][B37][B38] constitutes a major advancement in signal processing and PD
interpretation. Various approaches to this technique have been implemented by manufactures and
suppliers of PD test equipment. The technique involves classifying individual measured pulses on the
basis on their main frequency content, duration and characteristic associated with their pulse shape.
The processing and generation of a classification map can only be applied to actual measured data and,
therefore, in many cases classification mapping do not significantly improve the true signal-to-noise
ration of a field PD measurement in the presence of intense noise sources. In some cases, for
measurements performed in less intense noise environments, classification map has been shown
provide an actual improvement in signal-to-noise ratio of the test.
The technique is in particular useful for on-line PD measurements where, often times, multiple PD
sources are present. Classification of different categories of measured pulses can help separate multiple
PD sources from one another and thus produce individual pulse phase analysis plots for each source
thereby greatly enhancing a PD test engineers ability to interpret complex on-line PD data sets.
Classification mapping often adds significant value to an on-line PD test and in comes cases also add
significant value to an off-line PD test.
A thorough discussion of noise issues are beyond the scope of this report. It should be stated that
ambient noise constitutes an important factor to address for most field PD measurements. The field
requires knowledge on radio frequency transmission and pick up and acquisition and signal processing
techniques embedded in the PD monitor(s) used for a PD measurement. Various example of
classification mapping are provided below.
Classification Map Pulse Phase Analysis Plot
180
Symmetry
57
Figure 4.3: Different Implementation Approaches to Classification of Measured Pulses (Classification

Maps)
58
5. GUIDELINES FOR ON-SITE PD TEST PROCEDURES

Most experience reported to the working group for on-site PD testing of HV and EHV cable system is
for commissioning testing. As time goes by, it is expected that the experience for maintenance testing
will increase.
On Line Off Line
Advantages Performed at continuous elevated The response of a cable to normal load and
voltages. Approximately 95% of operating transients, and environmental
detected PD sources are initiated at influences can be established. All the stress
voltages higher than U0 (Figure 5.2). factors relevant to real working conditions are
available.
Can measure the PD inception and
extinction voltages (PDIV and Possible correlation PD vs quantities (e.g.
PDEV) time {trending}, temperature, current, etc.)
Safety all connections and work on Cheaper and more flexible than the off-line
the tested circuits are conducted testing because an external voltage source is
without voltage energisation. not needed.
Non-invasive. In some cases, there may be no
need to disconnect the line, so the final users
are not disturbed and the cable insulation
does not suffer the connection and
disconnection stresses.
Does not probe the response of a Not performed at continuous elevated
cable to normal load and operating voltages. Approximately 95% of detected PD
transients, and environmental sources are initiated at voltages higher than
influences U0 (Figure 5.2).
Trending of the PD phenomena is Cannot measure the PD inception and
possible if re testing is carried out extinction voltages (PDIV and PDEV)
with the external voltage source
Due to the significant fault levels available
More difficult to instigate and more from the system, any failure during test will
expensive than online testing result in significant damage to the circuit at the
because an external voltage source defect site and possibly elsewhere, as well as
is needed. probable damage to the PD measuring
equipment.
Schedule flexibility due to the
reduced size of the needed Safety. In some cases, the testing crew has to
equipment. work with ‘live’ elements. Even if they are
earthed, the danger of an accident is still
An outage is required.
there. The circuit under test, which is by
definition of un-proven performance, as well
as other equipment nearby, must necessarily
be live at some stage. Any failure while
connected to the HV power system, with its
high fault levels, can have severe
consequences for personnel in the vicinity.
5.1 AFTER LAYING COMMISSIONING (ACCEPTANCE) TESTING AT OVER-VOLTAGE

The primary purposes of a commissioning test are to ensure that (A) the cable system is free of life
limiting defects caused by damage during transportation or installation as well as for workman ship and
(B) to provide a clear contractual hand over to the asset owner. A secondary benefit is that a
commissioning test provides a base line measurement for any future PD measurements.
The survey performed showed that the most common practice for commissioning testing of extruded
HV & EHV cable systems is a combination of AC Withstand Testing (performed according to IEC 60840
or IEC 62067) with partial discharge testing.
59
Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 show recent data provided by working group members obtained during
commissioning testing where partial discharge activity was monitored for continuously during the 60
minute HV test and detected. The figures are based on the database collected by the working group
and is thus complied from several hundred commissioning tests. As can be seen from Figure 5.1 some
partial discharge sources require some time before becoming active. Note, Figure 5.1 is based on tests
performed with test frequencies between 20 Hz to 300 Hz. As well, as can be seen from Figure 5.2 the
majority of discharge sources had a PDIV exceeding 1.5U0. This emphasizes the necessity for the 60
minute withstand/conditioning at voltages higher than 1.5U0 prior to performing the PD test.
Feedback from cable owners of HV & EHV cable systems and the working group members indicate that
commissioning tests performed at voltage test levels less than 1.7U0 do not adequately identify life-
limiting defects via partial discharge measurements. Feedback from test experiences indicate a higher
rate of in-service failures on cable circuits commissioning tested at voltages lower than 1.7U0.
Consequently, the working group recommends the suggested test voltages and durations set out in
Table 5.1 as minimum test conditions. For any Re-Commissioning tests these conditions should apply
within a 5 year period or the end of the warranty period which ever is longer.
100
80
60
Percent
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PD Inception Time at 1.7Uo (Mins)
Figure 5.1: PD On-Set time at 1.7U0 (based on available data from service providers). Note, similar
behaviour may be associated to lower UTEST/U0 factors for EHV systems having higher electrical
gradients
60
1 1.4 1.7
100
80
60
Percent
54
40
20 19
1.4
1.7
0
1
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

PD Inception Voltage (Uo)
Figure 5.2: Distribution of PDIV (based on available data from service providers From >5 Countries)
Following extensive discussion and research in the work group based (in lines with the terms of
reference) on the test experiences submitted suggestions for after laying acceptance testing are as
outlined in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1: Suggested partial discharge commissioning test voltages and duration
WITHSTAND /CONDITIONING (MONITORED) PD TEST
66-72
2.0
110/115
132/138 PDEV > 1.5
150/160
10 - 300 60
220/230 1.7 (No detectable PD
275/285 at 1.5U0)
345/400
500 1.5
With respect to test voltage: The withstand voltage is a trade-off between (A) using a voltage high
enough to initiate PD from defects (during a one hour test) that would result in an in service failure during
the normal service life of the cable and (B) using voltage which is too high and which cause PD around
defects in the cable system which would otherwise not have resulted in an in-service failure during the
normal service life of the cable. International standards (IEC 60840 and IEC 62067) recommend a set
of test voltages and specify their applicability. Electra 173 has addressed test voltage and has
commented that “As there is little experience with these tests the developing experience should be kept
under review and changes made as appropriate”. The working group undertook extensive discussions
and investigations (see Annex 2) as identified by Electra 173 and recommended that the PD monitoring
be performed during the withstand (conditioning) phase with a withstand voltage of at least 1.7U0 with
the PD Pass/Fail criterion that the cable system be PD free at the end of the withstand test at a voltage
61
of 1.5U0 (PDEV>1.5) to identify installation related defects which would cause in-service failure(s) during
the normal service life of the cable. This is partly based on in-service performance of cable systems
tested at voltages lower than 1.7U0, partly based on the distribution of PDIVs reported from
commissioning tests (Figure 5.2). Note, for the PD test, the PD test level of 1.5U0 referenced in Table
5.1 above should not give rise to a calculated electrical stress exceeding 24kV/mm at any interface in
the cable system. If this stress levels is exceeded, voltage at which the PD test is performed should be
lowered accordingly.
The working group has acknowledged that in some countries have good experience with testing at 2.0
U0. However significant caution if considering test voltages of above 2 U0.
Test Frequency: AC resonant test sets typically have a working frequency range of 20 Hz to 300 Hz. It
may be necessary to extend the lower limit to 10 Hz to allow the testing of very long lengths of cable.
Research has shown that when subjected to electrical stresses in the frequency range of 20 Hz to 300
Hz PD inception and electrical tree growth does not vary significantly and therefore, from a PD point of
view, solid dielectric cable systems behave as at near power frequency [B32][B50].
Withstand Duration: The test duration should be 60 minutes. It should be noted that, in some countries,
the duration of the withstand test may be increased when testing at lower frequencies such as near 20
Hz or between 10 Hz to 20 Hz. It should also be noted that the withstand phase also acts as conditioning
phase for the partial discharge measurement. As per Figure 5.1 the occurrence of partial discharge is
not simply dependent on the magnitude of the applied test voltage but is also influenced by the duration
of the applied overvoltage. Furthermore, during the withstand (conditioning) phase, it is recommended
that the cable system be monitored for partial discharge activity. Continuous monitoring of partial
discharge activity during the Withstand Phase offers the advantage of prematurely terminating the
withstand test in case the partial discharge activity becomes indicative that a failure under test is
immediate. Avoiding a failure (dielectric puncture) can often result in a significantly reduced repair time
and, as well, in significantly reduced repair costs. Should the Withstand test be prematurely terminated
due to PD being indicative of an imminent failure, then the withstand test would be repeated in full
following repair/replacement of the accessory.
Figure 5.3 below shows a typical voltage envelope for Commissioning or Re-Commissioning (less than
5 years in service) test for Single Ended Terminal, a Double Ended Terminal, a Distributed Continuous
PD test or a Periodic Distributed PD test where all accessories can be visited for a reasonable period of
time during the hold portion of the AC Proof test. Figure 5.4 shows a typical voltage envelope for Joint
Hopping or Daisy Chain measurements when there are too many locations to be addressed in the 60
minute hold period.
62
Voltage [U0]
Figure 5.3: Typical Voltage vs Time Envelope for a Commissioning Test (From an Actual Field Test)
Testing
Figure 5.4: Typical Voltage vs Time Envelope for a Commissioning Test (From an Actual Field Test)
63
In the case where not all test locations can be visited within the hold portion of the AC Proof test the
voltage envelope often looks as shown in Figure 5.4. As can be seen, as much of the PD tests are
completed as is practical during the hold portion of the AC Proof test and the remaining test locations
are completed after the hold portion of the AC Proof test. The subsequent tests are completed at
elevated voltages but in some cases at lower elevated voltages than the AC Proof test. The voltage is
decreased to zero or to U0 while the mobile PD crews are dismantling, in transit between test locations
or setting up. Experience shows that if the subsequent PD tests are performed at voltages less than
1.7U0 then the cable circuit is often conditioned at 1.7U0 for 15 to 30 seconds after which the voltage is
lowered to the PD test voltage. When this methodology is implemented it is recommended that the PD
test voltage is no less than 1.5U0.
5.2 MAINTENANCE TESTING AT OVER-VOLTAGE

The primary purpose of a maintenance test is to check that the cable is free of life limiting defects caused
by insulation aging mechanisms acting on the main insulation system. The survey performed shows
that very few cable owners engage in maintenance testing of HV & EHV cable systems. The survey
indicated that maintenance tests are mostly performed after repair of failure or when reworking the
existing cable circuit – for instance, re-routing the cable or adding extra sections. In some cases,
maintenance testing may also be performed if a partial discharge source has been detected in an
accessory but, still, the accessory was accepted and deemed fit for service.
For the case of performing a maintenance test following repair present practices indicate that for circuits
less than 2 to 5 years old the cable system be subject to a full AC withstand and partial discharge test
with withstand levels and durations as indicated in Table 5.1.
For circuits older than 5 years, AC withstand and PD testing is often performed but at a reduced voltage
level and/or duration. There are very few data on such tests. Thus the WG was guided by the levels
used for commissioning with the application of appropriate reduction factors: in general the test voltages
lie mid way between the commissioning (Table 5.1) voltages and the maximum voltage for the cable
system (Um). It is possible that these levels may be too low and that future experience will reveal more
effective levels.
Table 5.2: suggested maintenance test voltages and duration (*or end of warranty period whichever is the
longer)
5 Years* to 15 Years > 15 Years
Voltage Frequency
Duration Test PD Pass/Fail Test PD Pass/Fail
Class Range
[min] Level Level
[kV] [Hz] Criterion Criterion
[U0] [U0]
66-72
1.5
110/115
132/138
No No
150/160
10-300 60 Detectable 1.1 Detectable
220/230
1.4 PD PD
275/285
345/400
500
Figure 5.3 shows a typical voltage envelope for Maintenance or Re-Commissioning test on cable
systems >5yrs but < 15 yrs in service.
64
1.60
Maintenance Testofof a 230XLPE
kV XLPE Feeder
Test Voltage [U0]

Maintenance Test a 110kV Feeder
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Time [min]
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 5.5: Typical Voltage vs Time Envelope for a Maintenance Test (From an Actual Field Test)
5.3 MAINTENANCE TESTING: ON-LINE MONITORING

Monitoring, or On-Line PD Testing, is conducted with the circuit under test connected to the power
system and therefore with the cable circuit under test energized. Usually the connection is made in
such a way that the circuit experiences its normal system voltage between each phase and earth, though
other connections are possible. An On-Line PD Test can be periodic with Partial Discharge Data
acquired at pre determined intervals or it can be continuous for an extended period typically days to
years.
While on-line partial discharge testing is not performed at elevated voltage levels several case studies
have documented the applicability of on-line PD testing and monitoring for, in particular, solid dielectric
field aged cable system [B53]. In particular for terminations, partial discharge activity can be present for
a significant amount of time prior to failure and, thus, on-line PD testing, can be used an early warning
for failure.
Equipment setup time for an on-line monitoring test typically ranges from 10 minutes to 30 minutes.
Monitoring duration times typically range from a couple of minutes to several hours to periodic
measurements performed over days.
Table 5.3: on-line monitoring voltages and test duration
Voltage Test Frequency Monitoring PD Pass/Fail
Class Level Range Duration
Criterion
[kV] [U0] [Hz] [min]
66-72 Guiding criterion is no detectable
PD. However, experience shows
110/115 that in some cases utility specific
132/138 1.0 49-61 >10 criteria exists depending on the
specific application.
220/230
345/400
65
66
6. REPORTING
The final report should contain all the important data about the cable systems being tested, test
methodology, test conditions, test results and conclusions. The following gives details of the information
that should be included in the test report for different types of tests.
6.1 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMISSIONING TEST AT
OVER-VOLTAGE
Cable system: for each phase of every cable circuit tested information in the report should consist of:
 the identification of the circuit and phase
 the voltage rating
 length of cable under test
 number of joints/splices. every joint should be tested for PD
 lengths of cables between joints/splices
 number and location of cross-bonded joints, if present
 type of terminations
Test methodology: the report should include the following information:

 voltage source (e.g., resonant AC test set, very low frequency)
 PD sensors (e.g., inductive or capacitive, frequency response, locations)
 monitors (e.g., name of manufacturer, frequency response)
 method of data acquisition
 method of sensitivity check
 PD continual monitoring or joint hopping
Test conditions: the report should include the following information

 Test voltage: A calibrated measure of the test voltage applied to the cable system should be
included in the report. If a measured voltage envelope is available this should be included as
well.
 Test frequency. AC resonant test sets typically have a working frequency range of 20 Hz to
300 Hz. It may be necessary to extend the lower limit to 10 Hz to allow the testing of very long
lengths of cable.
 Test duration at different voltage levels. The test duration at the full test voltage is usually one
hour. When raising the voltage, the voltage is often taken up in steps of 0.5Uo to verify that
the AC power supply and the PD equipment is working satisfactorily. If it is known that the
test duration will exceed one hour to PD test all the accessories by joint hopping, the voltage
may be reduced to Uo during the moving from one cable chamber to the next and then raised
to the test voltage when required. Consideration should also be given to extend the test
duration if the test frequency of the AC resonant power supply is below a predetermined
value.
 Ambient conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity)
Test results: the report should include the following information:

 Results of sensitivity check
 Minimum detectable level of PD
 PD detection system frequency bandwidth used
 Results of PD tests for every cable tested, preferably in tabular form that includes test voltage,
frequency, number of cycles*, PD severity, PD location
 Examples of traces from PD monitors
Conclusions: the report should include the following information:

 Summary of the results (e.g., number of cables tested, number of cables without measurable
PD, number of cables with measured PD)
 General assessment
67
*One of the most common voltage sources used in the testing of HV and EHV cable systems is the AC
series resonant power supply. As the test frequency depends on the capacitance of the cable under
test, the test frequency will decrease with increasing cable length. Thus cables of different lengths will
be exposed to different numbers of cycles of the AC waveform during the usual one hour test. This
would probably mean that the number of PD pulses would also be different unless the testing time was
changed to give the same number of cycles of the AC voltage.
6.2 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMISSIONING TEST AT
SYSTEM VOLTAGE
 number of joints/splices

 Voltage source (e.g., on line, AC resonant test set, very low frequency)

 Test voltage. A typical test voltage is 1.5Uo.
 Test frequency
 Test duration at different voltage levels
 Ambient conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity). The test can be conducted while the cable
is carrying load current so that thermal and mechano-thermal effects may be evaluated.

frequency, PD severity, PD location
 Examples of PD/Noise traces from PD monitor

 Summary of the results (e.g., no of cables tested, number of cables without measurable PD,
number of cables with measured PD)
6.3 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE TESTING AT

OVER-VOLTAGE
68

 Voltage source (e.g., resonant AC test set, very low frequency)

 Test voltage
 Test frequency
 Test duration at different voltage levels
 Ambient conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity)

 Include voltage/time profile for every test
frequency, number of cycles2, PD severity, PD location

 General assessment.
6.4 MINIMUM BEST PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-LINE MONITORING


 PD continuous or periodic monitoring
 Monitoring of ambient conditions

 Test voltage
2 One of the most common voltage sources used in the testing of HV and EHV cable systems is the AC
series resonant power supply. As the test frequency depends on the capacitance of the cable under
test, the test frequency will decrease with increasing cable length. Thus cables of different lengths will
be exposed to different numbers of cycles of the AC waveform during the usual one hour test. This
would probably mean that the number of PD pulses would also different unless the testing time was
changed to give the same number of cycles of the AC voltage.
69

frequency, PD level, PD location

70
7. CONCLUSION
In this report the Working Group has considered the field partial discharge (PD) testing of HV and EHV
extruded cable installations. The terms of reference for the working group were as follows:
 Collect experience with PD testing, with respect to methods/equipment and results Evaluate the
added value of the PD testing at site for commissioning and diagnostic testing
 Evaluate the applied technology, taking into account what previous CIGRE and ICC WG’s have
done so far
 Recommend the protocol, to validate the on-site measurement results (calibration, sensitivity
assessment)
 Recommend guidelines for PD test procedures at site (voltage level, measuring time, measuring
conditions based on a survey
 Identify widely acceptable requirements for commissioning and diagnostic testing
The terms of reference have been fulfilled.
Over the past five years there has been a dramatic increase in the PD testing of new installations
throughout the world, although many utilities still do no PD tests. One of the main reasons for this is the
improvements in PD detection and measurement technologies resulting in significantly increased
sensitivity of measuring PD signals in noisy environments. In addition there has been good experience
with PD testing in finding defects in new installations. A survey carried out as part of this study found
that one of the main reasons for PD testing was to confirm the quality of the installed cable and
accessories that enabled a reduction in service failures.
One of the main aims of this report is to help non-experts understand on-site PD measurement
techniques, in particular, to clarify the confusion about the use of conventional and non conventional
techniques and laboratory and on-site tests. The report explains the differences between the two
techniques and describes, in tabular form, where each technique should be used. For example, the non
conventional technique, which detects PD over an ultra wide frequency bandwidth, should be used to
detect and measure PD at accessories on long cable installations, whereas conventional methods
should be confined to terminal measurements on short cable lengths. The report also addresses the
calibration and sensitivity issues of the PD circuit that are closely related to conventional and non
conventional measurements. The report also stresses the need to evaluate the sensitivity of non
conventional PD techniques via laboratory measurements on short cable lengths and accessories for
each cable and accessory design and for each sensor type.
The report also discusses the test parameters for after laying or commissioning tests and proposes test
levels and durations for every voltage class. The report also provides acceptance criteria for on-site
tests. The recommendation is that there should be no detectable PD for newly laid cable systems, which
will generally be limited by external noise, at the test voltage. The interpretation of PD data still needs
to be improved through the sharing and discussion of the collected data.
PD measuring techniques are continuously evolving with the advances in signal detection in the
presence of noise. This will continue in the foreseeable future so that improved sensitivity is likely, which
will benefit after laying PD tests. It will enable less severe defects to be detected although improved
data interpretation will also be needed. The advances in signal processing, coupled with improved data
storage and interpretation, will increase the use of on-line monitoring.
71
72
APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS, ABREVIATIONS AND

SYMBOLS
A.1. GENERAL TERMS
App Table A.1 Definition of general terms used in this TB
Acronym Phrase Definition

TB Technical Brochure A publication produced by CIGRÉ representing the
state-of-the-art guidelines and recommendations
produced by an SC WG. Hardcopy TBs can be
purchased [B1], or Individual Members, or staff of a
Collective Member can download the PDF for free
using their login credentials (copyright restrictions
for use within their own CIGRE Membership only)
SC Study Committee One of the 16 technical domain groups of CIGRE
WG Working Group A group formed by a SC to develop a TB on a
particular subject of interest
A.2. SPECIFIC TERMS
App Table A.2 Definition of technical terms used in this TB

After Laying test or Commissioning A field test made after cable system installation,
test but before the cable system is placed in normal
service. The test is intended to detect
installation damage and to show any gross
defects or errors in installation of other system
components.
After Repair test or Re-Commissioning A field test made after cable system repair or
test diversion or maintenance but before the cable
system is placed back in normal service. The
test is intended to detect damage and to show
any gross defects or errors in work on other
system components Calibration - a procedure
that establishes the linear relationship between
apparent charge (pC) and measured peak
voltage at the PD detector for cable systems
that conform to IEC 60270 and IEC 60885-3
(i.e. short cable systems which can be
electrically represented as a lumped
capacitance).
Classification Map A phase resolved plot of the measured signals
sorted according to their shape to classify them
as PD or external signals, e.g., noise or corona.
73

Continuous Distributed PD PD measurements are performed using
Measurements preinstalled PD sensors and pre-installed PD
monitors. The term “Daisy Chained” PD is often
used to describe contemporaneous distributed
PD measurements.
Conventional PD Measurement A PD measurement performed using a PD
measuring system as outlined in IEC 60270,
suitable for lumped capacitances. The upper
limit of the frequency spectrum is one
megahertz.
Damped AC Voltage test set Generates a damped oscillatory waveform used
to perform high voltage tests on cable systems.
Distributed PD Where PD sensors are located, and PD
Sensors/Measurements measurements are made, at terminations and
joints by moving sensors from joint to joint. The
terms “joint hopping” and “daisy chaining” are
different but commonly used PD test
methodologies.
Double Ended Terminal PD PD Measurements are performed with a PD
Measurement sensor connected to the HV conductor at both
cable ends.
EHV Extra High Voltage As defined in IEC 62067.
EPR Ethylene Propylene Rubber
HFCT High Frequency Current Transformer
HV High Voltage As defined in IEC 60840.
Maintenance test A field test made during the operating life of a
cable system. It is intended to detect
deterioration and to check the serviceability of
the system.
Non Conventional PD Measurement A PD measurement not conforming to IEC
60270, suitable for distributed capacitances. It is
usually an Ultra Wide Band measurement with a
frequency spectrum from tens of kHz up to
several hundreds of MHz; see Section 3.4 for
fuller description.
PD Partial Discharge Defined as a localized electrical discharge that
only partially bridges the insulation between
conductors and which can or cannot occur
adjacent to a conductor.
PDEV Partial Discharge Extinction Voltage,
Ve
PDIV Partial Discharge Inception Voltage, Vi The voltage which generates a sufficiently high
electrical stress for inception of partial discharge
activity.
PD Map (longitudinal) A plot of the length of the cable circuit showing
the positions of the accessories and the
locations and magnitudes of the PD.
PFCT Power Frequency Current
Transformer
74

Performance Check A procedure performed just prior to
commencing testing which ensures the whole
PD monitor system is functioning within
established parameters Resonant Alternating
Voltage test set – generates an AC waveform
used to perform high voltage tests on cable
systems.
Proof Test A proof test is a form of stress test to
demonstrate the fitness of a structure (cable
system in this case) to function as designed.
This term is used interchangeably with AC
HiPot or Withstand tests. In this document, the
term ‘soak test’ is not considered a proof test.
Phase Resolved PD or Pulse A plot of the apparent discharge magnitude (q),
Phase Analysis Plot or nΦq Plot the number of discharges (n) and their phase
angle, Φ, on the AC sinusoidal waveform.
Range Check A procedure that establishes the distance a PD
pulse can travel down a cable at selected levels
of amplitude and dispersion.
Scale Factor A procedure that establishes the relationship
between apparent charge (pC) and the
measured input signals at the PD detector.
Sensitivity Check A procedure that establishes the sensitivity
across the frequency range of the PD
measurement itself and enables the user to
normalize PD measurements obtained at
different frequencies and bandwidths.
Sensitivity-by-Construction A procedure which establishes the transfer
function of the total PD measuring circuit (cable
assembly, PD sensor and PD monitor) across
the frequency range of the measuring capability
of the PD sensor used.
Sequential Distributed PD A distributed PD measurement where PD
Measurements measurements are performed sequentially (i.e.
not continuous) at cable accessories during the
over voltage test using mobile field PD test
crews. The term ‘Joint Hopping” is often used to
describe sequential distributed PD
measurements.
Single Ended Terminal PD A PD Measurement performed with a PD
Measurement sensor connected to the HV conductor at one
cable end only.
RTS Resonant Test Set
Very Low Frequency (VLF) test set Generates a low frequency AC waveform used
to perform high voltage tests on cable systems.
XLPE Cross-linked Polyethylene
75
76
APPENDIX B. LINKS AND REFERENCES

[B1] IEC 60183:1984, Guide to the selection of high-voltage cables
[B2] IEC 60270 “High Voltage Test Techniques – Partial Discharge Measurements”
[B3] IEC 60883-3 “Electrical Test Methods for Electric Cables Part 3 Test Methods for Partial
Discharge Measurements on Lengths of Extruded Power Cable”
[B4] IEC 60840 “Power cables with extruded insulation and their accessories for rated voltages
above 30 kV (Um = 36 kV) up to 150 kV (Um = 170 kV) – Test methods and requirements”
[B5] IEC 62067 “Power Cables Above 150 kV and their Accessories for Rated Voltages Above
150 kV (Um = 170 kV) up to 500 kV (Um = 550 kV) – Test methods and requirements”,
2006
[B6] IEC 60270-2002-12 “High-voltage test techniques –Partial discharge measurements”
[B7] IEC 60885-3 Ed 1 “Electrical test methods for electric cables. Part 3: Test methods for
partial discharge measurements on lengths of extruded power cables”
[B8] CIGRE 182 “Partial discharge detection in installed HV extruded cable systems”
[B9] CIGRE WG 21.09 “After Laying Tests on High Voltage Extruded Insulation Cable
Systems”, Electra, vol. 173, pp. 33-41, August 1997
[B10] CIGRE WG D1.33 Task Force 05, “Experiences in partial discharge detection of
distribution power cable systems,” Electra, vol. 208, pp. 35–43, June 2003
[B11] CIGRE WG D1.33.03, “Guidelines for Unconventional Partial Discharge Measurements”,
Technical Brochure, 2012
[B12] CIGRE WG D1.33.03, On-site testing of HV components, Technical Brochure, 2012
[B13] CIGRE TF D1.02.05; “Practical aspects of the detection and location of partial discharges
in power cables,” Electra 297
[B14] IEEE Std 400 Omibus 2012 “IEEE Guide for Field Testing and Evaluation of the Insulation
of Shielded Power Cable Systems Rated 5 kV and Above”
[B15] L.A. Dissado & J.C. Fothergill, “Electrical Degradation and Breakdown in Polymers”, IEE
Publications, Peter Peregrinus Ltd. London, United Kingdom
[B16] Densley, J., “Ageing Mechanisms and Diagnostics for Power Cables—An Overview,”
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, January/February 2001—Vol. 17, No. 1
[B17] A. Pedersen, G. C. Crichton and I. W. McAllister, “The Theory and Measurement of Partial
Discharge Transients”, IEEE Trans on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol 26, No. 3,
pp. 487-497, 1991
[B18] Pedersen, G.C. Crichton and I. W. McAllister, “PD Related Field Enhancement in The Bulk
Medium”, Gaseous Dielectrics VII, Plenum Press, New York, 1994
[B19] A. Pedersen, G. C. Crichton and I. W. McAllister, “PD-Related Stresses In The Bulk
Dielectric And Their Evaluation”, Annual Record – CEIDP, pp.474-480, 1993
[B20] G. C. Crichton, P. W. Karlsson and A. Pedersen, “Partial Discharges in Ellipsoidal and
Spheroidal Voids”, IEEE Trans. Elect. Insul., Vol. 24, pp. 335-342, 1989
[B21] I. W. McAllister and G. C. Crichton, “Analysis of the Temporal Electric Fields in Lossy
Dielectric Media”, IEEE Trans. Elect. Insul., Vol. 26, this issue, 1991
[B22] I. W. McAllister, “Electric Field Theory and the Fallacy of Void Capacitance”, IEEE
Transactions on Electrical Insulation Vol. 26 No. 3, June 1991
[B23] A. Pedersen, G. C. Crichton and I. W. McAllister, “The Functional Relation between Partial
Discharges and Induced Charge”, IEEE Trans. Elect. Insul., Vol. 2, No. 4, pp 535-543,
1994
[B24] I. W. McAllister “Partial Discharges in Spheroidal Voids - Void Orientation”, IEEE Trans.
Elect. Insul., Vol. 4, No. 4, pp 456-461, 1997
77
[B25] S. A. Boggs and G. C. Stone, “Fundamental Limitations In The Measurement of Corona

and Partial Discharge”, IEEE Transactions on Electrical Insulation Vol. EI-17 No.2, April
1982 143
[B26] S.A. Boggs, D.D. Pecena, S. Rizzetto, and G.C. Stone, “Limits to Partial Discharge
Detection—Effects of Sample and Defect Geometry,” Gaseous Dielectrics, V, L.
Christophorou, ed. Pergamon Press, 1987, p. 629
[B27] Gillespie, M.T.G., Murchie, G. B., Stone, C. G., “Experience with AC Proofs and Partial
Discharge Tests for Commissioning Generating Station Cables and Switchgear,” IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, Sept 1989
[B28] J. Densley, T. Kalicki, and Z. Nadolny. “Characteristics of Partial Discharge Pulses in
Electrical Trees and along Interfaces in Extruded Cable Systems.” ”, IEEE Transactions
on Electrical Insulation Vol 8 No 1, February 2001, pp. 48-57
[B29] Stone, G.C. and S.A. Boggs. “Propagation of Partial Discharge Pulses in Shielded Power
Cable”. 1982 Annual Report of the Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric
Phenomena, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. p. 275-280
[B30] S. Boggs & R. J. Densley, ”Fundamentals of partial discharge in the context of field cable
testing” IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine”, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 13 – 18, Sept.-Oct. 2000
[B31] Boggs, S., Pathak, A., Walker, P., “Partial Discharge XXII: High Frequency Attenuation in
Shielded Solid Dielectric Power Cable and Implications Thereof for PD location,” IEEE
Electrical Insulation Magazine, January/February 1996—Vol. 12, No. 1
[B32] Gockenbach, E. and Hauschild, W., “The selection of the frequency range for HV on-site
testing of extruded cable systems,” IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine 16 (2000), pp.11–
16
[B33] N. Oussalah, Y. Zebboudj & S. A Boggs, “Partial Discharge Pulse Propagation in Shielded
Power Cable and Implications for Detection Sensitivity”, IEEE Electrical Magazine, Vol 23.
Issue 6, pp.. 5 – 10, Nov/Dec 2007
[B34] Gulski, E., “Digital analysis of partial discharges,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and
Electrical Insulation, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 822–837, 1995
[B35] A. Cavallini, C. Subramaniam and G. C. Monntanari, “Partial Discharge Detection in
Power Cables: Practical Limits as a function of cable Length”, Proceedings of the 2007
JiCable Conference
[B36] A. Contin, A. Cavallini, G.C. Montanari, F. Puletti, “A novel technique for the identification
of defects in stator bar insulation systems by partial discharge measurements”, IEEE ISEI,
pp. 501-505, Anaheim, USA, April 2000
[B37] F. Puletti, F. Ombello, M. Albertini, A. Cavallini, G.C. Montanari, “Improved diagnostic
tools for cable accessories by digital PD detection systems", Conf. On High Voltage Plant
Life Extension, pp. 2.2.1-2.2.9, Linkebeek, Belgique, November 2000
[B38] Contin, A., Cavallini, A., Montanari, G. C., Pasini, G., Puletti, F., “Artificial intelligence
methodology for separation and classification of partial discharge signals,” Proc. of the
Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena 2000, 2000, pp. 522–526
[B39] A. Cavallini, G. C. Montanari, R. Candela, L. Testa, “Partialdischarges detection in
medium voltage systems using directional antenna sensors “Proc. of the Conference on
Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena 2008
[B40] R. Candela, A. Contin, “A Portable Instrument for the Location and Identification of
Defects Generating PD “, Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE DEIS Electrical Insulation
Conference, Annapolis, Maryland, June 2011
[B41] M. Fenger, J. Levine “Sensitivity Assessment for HV & EHV Field Partial Discharge
Measurements via Laboratory Testing”, Conference Record of the 2012 IEEE International
Symposium on Electrical Insulation (ISEI), June 2012
[B42] Kreuger, F. H., Gulski, E, and Krivda, A., “Classification of partial discharges,” IEEE
Transactions on Electrical Insulation, vol. 28, no. 6, pp, 917–931, 1993
78
[B43] Mashikian, M. S., Luther, R., McIver, J. C., Jurcisin Jr., J., and Spencer, P. W., “Evaluation
of field-aged crosslinked polyethylene cables by partial discharge location,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 620–628, 1994
[B44] Hernandez Mejia J.C., Perkel J., Harley R., Begovic M., Hampton R.N., Hartlein R.,
"Determining Routes for the Analysis of Partial Discharge Signals Derived from the Field,"
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 15, No. 6; December 2008
[B45] M. Fenger, “Test Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for PD Commissioning Testing of
Transmission Class Cables”, Conference Record of the 2010 IEEE International
Symposium on Electrical Insulation (ISEI), June 2010
[B46] M. Fenger, “Experiences with Commissioning Testing of HV & EHV Cable Systems: The
Influence of Voltage Level and Duration for Identifying Life Limiting Defects”, Conference
Record of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation (ISEI), June
2012
[B47] Farneti, F., Ombello, F., Bertani, E., Mosca, W., “Generation of Oscillating Waves for
After-laying Test of HV Extruded Cable Links,” CIGRE 1990 Session, 26th Aug.–1st Sept.,
1990, Paper 21-110
[B48] Farneti, F., Ombello, F., Bertani, E., Mosca, W., “After Laying Test of Extruded Insulation
Cable Links.” 6th ISH, Paper No. 45.02, New Orleans, U.S.A. August, 1989
[B49] Plath, R., “Oscillating Voltages,” als Prüfspannung zur Vor-Ort-Prüfung und TE-Messung
kunststoffisolierter Kabel, Ph.D. Thesis, Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin, Germany, 1994
[B50] Dr. Schiller, G “Das Durchschlagverhalten von vernetztem Polyethylen (VPE) bei
unterschiedlichen Spannungsformen und Vorbeanspruchungen”, PhD Thesis, University
of Hannover, Germany 1996
[B51] Seitz, P. P., Quak, B., Gulski, E., Smit, J. J., Cichecki, P., de Vries, F., Petzold, F., “Novel
Method for On-site Testing and Diagnosis of Transmission Cables Up to 250 kV,”
Proceedings Jicable '07. 7th Intern.Conf. Insulated Power Cables, Versailles, France,
Paper 16, 2007
[B52] Hauschild, W., Coors, P., Schufft, W., Plath, R., Herrmann, U., Polster, K., “The technique
of AC on-site testing of HV cables by frequency-tuned resonant test systems,” CIGRE
Session Paris (2002) Report 33-304
[B53] Ahmed, N. H., Srinivas, N. N., “On-line partial discharge detection in cables,” IEEE Trans.
On Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 181–188, Apr. 1998
79
80
APPENDIX C. SAFETY AWARENESS

For all tests involving hazardous voltage levels, special attention shall be paid to ensure the
safety of personnel. Personnel safety is of utmost importance during all testing procedures. All
cable and equipment tests shall be performed on de-energized and isolated systems except
where otherwise specifically required and properly authorized. Appropriate safety practices
shall be followed. Where applicable, the safety practices shall include, but not be limited to,
the following requirements:
 Applicable user safety operating procedures.
 Applicable national, state, and local safety operating procedures.
 Protection of utility and customer property.
High-voltage field testing of cable systems involves all of the factors normally associated with
working on energized circuits, as well as several unique situations that shall be addressed.
Cable circuits will normally have one or more ends remote from the location of the test
equipment and the test operator. These ends must be cleared and guarded to protect the
safety of personnel. Reliable voice communication should be established between all such
locations and the test operator. The use of an energized circuit indicator or other suitable
device should be used to indicate that the circuit is completely de-energized before application
of safety grounds. Portable ground clamps and grounding assemblies built and tested per IEC
61230 are recommended. Precautions should be taken to allow adequate voltage clearance
when testing conductors in close proximity to other energized conductors. Failure to maintain
safe clearances can lead to flashover between the test conductor and other live conductors,
particularly when test voltages above the rated operating voltage are used. When spacing is
marginal, special precautions should be required to prevent flashover.
81
82
APPENDIX D. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Modern cables utilizing extruded polymer dielectric materials were introduced commercially in the mid-
1960s, but did not become widespread in North America until the late 1960s and early 1970s. At about
the same time XLPE was established in Europe as an alternative to paper insulation in power cables at
distribution voltages to 11kV (15kV). The 1970s also saw the first dry cure extrusion lines which
decreased the moisture content and the size of voids in the extruded core. This enabled higher voltages
to be attained at reasonable insulation thicknesses and the first 230 kV XLPE cable was installed in
1978. Since then further developments of the extrusion process, such as the triple head extruder, and
the introduction of extremely clean insulation and very smooth carbon screening materials has enabled
the XLPE insulation system to reach the highest transmission voltages, e.g.,.400 kV and 500 kV XLPE
transmission circuits were introduced in the mid to late 1990s. Large quantities at 110/132 kV have
been installed across Europe with notable installations at 380/400 kV in the UK, Denmark, Germany,
Spain and Austria. The first two circuits of 400 kV XLPE cable were installed in the UK in 1998 and
were subjected to on-line PD measurement. Since the turn of the millennium, XLPE insulated cables
have effectively superseded pressure assisted types for new installations.
A number of research projects on field PD testing of cable installations were initiated world-wide in the
1980s. One project, supported by eight electric utility companies, was started at the University of
Connecticut, USA, in 1985. At the onset, the most crucial problem to surmount was determined to be
noise interference. In order to deal with this issue and achieve an accurate PD source location estimate,
the instrumentation system was selected to have a very large bandwidth (“ultra wideband” in accordance
with IEC 60270), in the order of 10 MHz - 30 MHz, and the signal processing was performed digitally.
The application of advanced signal processing methods and the introduction of several new “pinpoint”
location methods led to a successful mitigation of noise and achievement of satisfactory accuracy. The
first successful PD location in a field environment was achieved in 1989.
Throughout the 1990’s, a European cable user contemplated making a major reinforcement using 380
kV extruded cable systems, see Figure 1.1. To this end, it sponsored a competitive trial of a number of
complete systems of cable, terminations and joints from various manufacturers. These were assembled
at a neutral test laboratory and energised at overvoltage for a period of one year with loading cycles.
This was followed by a second similar round of testing involving a further six complete cable systems.
PD sensors were incorporated into accessories and their signals monitored throughout.
CIGRÉ SC21 held a colloquium in 1995 on diagnostic methods for HV cable systems. PD detection
was identified as the diagnostic tool applicable to extruded cable systems. The following year, WG 21-
16 was established to examine “Partial Discharge Detection in Installed Extruded Cable Systems.” The
WG met from 1997 to 2000. It focussed on
• Definition and clarification of terms
• A guide to users
• A survey of commercially available PD testing methods and services.
The WG report was published as CIGRÉ Technical Brochure 182, “Partial Discharge Detection in
Installed Extruded Cable Systems,” in 2001.
The measurement of partial discharge activity can be categorized into two broad categories:
 Following the measurement methodology outlined in IEC 60270 that makes use of either a
narrow band (f  [9 kHz, 30 kHz] with f2 < 500kHz) or wide band (f  [100 kHz, 400 kHz]
with fm < 1MHz) low frequency. This is referred to as the conventional approach and is often
used for laboratory testing
 Making use of ultra wide band partial discharge monitors with frequency responses up to 500
MHz with up to full bandwidth depending on manufacture. This is referred to as the
unconventional approach and is often used for field testing of HV & EHV cable systems.
This technical brochure will amongst other issues discuss and explain the differences in the two
measurement methodologies/approaches.
The Association of Edison Illuminating Companies (AEIC) specification CS5-69 was the first
specification in North America to address PD testing requirements of polyethylene-insulated cables
including XLPE above the PD inception voltage. All new XLPE cables manufactured after around 1965
were required to undergo a factory PD test in electromagnetically shielded test areas in accordance with
AEIC CS5-69 and ICEA Publication T-24-380. Before 1973, the acceptance criteria, based solely on
83
the maximum allowable discharge magnitude, expressed in picocoulombs (pC), at prescribed levels of
60 Hz test voltage were 5 pC, 30 pC,55 pC and 80 pC at 1.5Uo, 2Uo, 2.5Uo and 3Uo respectively. PD
measurements were made while the test voltage was gradually reduced from its maximum value. The
high levels of picocoulomb acceptance criteria were due to the cable manufacturing process at that time,
for example, double pass extrusion, steam curing, and taped or graphite semiconducting screens. The
introduction of dry curing and true triple extrusion enabled a more stringent acceptance criterion of 5 pC
at 3Uo.
84
APPENDIX E. SUGGESTED TEST LEVELS AND

DURATIONS – COMMISSIONING & MAINTENANCE
The survey for experience with on-site PD testing of HV & EHV cable systems, as required in the scope
for this working group, has shown that constant voltage AC resonance testing is preferred by the majority
of users surveyed. Based on the survey performed App Table E.1 below summarizes the recommended
test levels and durations for PD tests with constant over voltage tests of newly laid HV & EHV Cable
Systems. For any Re-Commissioning tests these Commissioning conditions should apply if the tests
are conducted within a 5 year period of initial installation or the end of the warranty period, whichever is
longer.
IEC62067 recommends a threshold limit of 27 kV/mm, for the electric stress in the cable or accessory,
that should not be exceeded (unless agreed by the supplier), in order to avoid any possible weakening
of the insulation prior to service. Thus the values in App Table E.1 & App Table E.2 should not exceed
this threshold.
App Table E.1: suggested commissioning test voltages and duration

66-72
2.0
110/115
132/138
150/160 No Detectable PD
10-300 60
220/230 1.7 at 1.5U0
275/285
345/400
500 1.5
Based on the survey performed and the experience of the Working Group Members the table below
(App Table E.2) summarizes the recommended test levels and durations for constant over voltage
testing of field aged HV & EHV Cable Systems ie Maintenance Tests.
App Table E.2: suggested maintenance test voltages and duration (* or end of the warranty period,
whichever is the longer)
Frequency 5 Years* to 15 Years > 15 Years

Voltage Class Duration
Range Test Level PD Pass/Fail Test Level PD Pass/Fail
[kV] [min]
[Hz] [U0] Criterion [U0] Criterion
66-72 1.5
110/115
10-300 60 No Detectable 1.1 No Detectable
132/138
1.4 PD PD
220/230
345/400
The levels detailed in App Table E.1 are based on three general goals:
• be consistent with PD commissioning experience (Section 2.2.2)
85
• already be described in relevant standards (IEC 60840 & IEC 62067)

• be in line with the Utility “Value Proposition” for PD Tests in Section 2.2
App Figure E.1 shows the PD inception voltages for the available data, together with the variously
suggested test voltages from IEC 60840 & IEC 62067 for after installation tests. As can be seen the
determination of the most appropriate test voltage for an effective PD test is somewhat a matter of
judgment but has been guided by the available survey data. However the available data collected by
the WG, a process suggested by the Authors of Electra 173, shows that the efficiency of PD detection
is rather low for voltages at the recommended range 1.1 to 1.4Uo. Inspection of the data (not included
here) for tests conducted >1.9Uo shows a rapid increase in the occurrence of PD whilst the occurrence
in the range 1 to 1.9Uo is quite smooth. Thus it does not seem that increasing the test voltage >2Uo
improves the effectiveness of PD detection of latent defects in the cable system, it is increasingly likely
that the elevated test voltage develops the defects itself. Consequently it was judged that the most
appropriate recommendation for effective PD testing was to follow the common approach in both IEC
60840 & IEC 62067, namely 1.7Uo for 60 minutes.
1.1 1.4 1.7

90 IEC60840 IEC62067
80
70
60 Table 10
54
50 IEC62067
40
30
Percent
20 19
10
5
6
4
3
2
1.1
1.4
1.7
1
1
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.5 2
PD Inception Voltage (Uo)
App Figure E.1: Distribution of PDIV presented in a Weibull format (based on available data from service
providers from >5 countries)
When making the recommendation of 1.7Uo for 60 minutes, the Working Group Members used the
survey data to assure that such voltages were practically and technically attainable in the field. The data
provided to the WG is shown in App Table E.3. This Table represents all of the onsite PD tests where
the test voltage has been recorded. The table shows the distribution in test voltage, based on conductor
length tested, for common classes of HV and EHV cable systems. Table E4 displays the same data
represented is a cumulative distribution function.
As can be seen from Table E4, the majority of HV cable systems tested have been tested with voltages
equal to or higher than 1.7U0. Specifically,
 for 66/72kV systems, approximately 69% of have been tested successfully at 1.7U0 or higher.
 for 110/115kV and 132/138kV approximately 97% and 69% of systems, respectively, have been
tested successfully at 1.7U0 or higher.
 for 220/230kV systems approximately 73.1% of installed cable systems were tested at voltages
higher than 1.4U0 and approximately 51% were tested tested at voltages 1.7U0 or higher.
 For 345/400kV class cable systems, approximately 38.1 % are tested at voltages higher than
1.25U0 and approximately 29.4% are tested at voltages of 1.7U0 or higher.
86
Upon examination of the database it can be seen that, for 220/230kV class cable systems, the percent
usage is depressed due to the weighting of the test experiences of the 1990’ties and 2000’s where,
typically, test voltages lover than 1.7U0 were used. In the early 2000, advancements in resonant test
systems allowed for multiple test systemst to connected in parallel or serial connection allowing for
higher test current capability thus allowing for longer lengths of cable to be tested at higher voltages.
Table E5 displays test experiences from 2004 onwards. As can be seen, for 220/230kV class cable
systems since 2004, 73% were tested at voltages higher than 1.4U0 and 57% were tested at voltages
of 1.7U0 or higher. Thus, E4 and E5 shows that there is significant experience with testing EHV cable
systems at voltages higher than the test levels outlined in Table 10 of IEC 62067 (1.1 U0 to 1.4 U0)
App Table E.3: Test Voltage Distribution Based on Conductor Length for Typical HV & EHV Cable Classes
(since 1997)
VOLTAGE TEST LEVEL DISTRIBUTION BASED ON CONDUCTOR LENGTH
Test Level Voltage Class [kV]
[UTEST/U0] 66/72 110/115 132/138 220/230 345/400
<1.25 1.48% 1.52% 18.48% 2.25% 57.96%
>1.25 ; 1.4< 0.00% 0.94% 3.38% 24.68% 5.70%

≥ 1.4 ; 1.7< 29.25% 0.28% 9.35% 21.80% 9.18%
≥1.7; 1.8< 6.60% 2.58% 50.91% 42.63% 27.17%
≥1.8 ; 2.0< 49.67% 42.48% 8.58% 5.47% 0.37%
≥2 13.00% 52.19% 9.30% 3.16% 0.00%
– Cummulative Distribution (Since 1997)
[UTEST/U0] 66/72 110/115 132/138 220/230 345/400
< 1.4 1.48% 2.46% 21.86% 26.94% 63.65%
≥ 1.4 98.52% 97.54% 78.14% 73.06% 36.72%

≥ 1.7 69.27% 97.26% 68.79% 51.27% 27.54%
≥ 1.8 62.66% 94.68% 17.88% 8.63% 0.37%
≥ 2.0 13.00% 52.19% 9.30% 3.16% 0.00%
– Cummulative Distribution (Since 2004)
[UTEST/U0] 66/72 110/115 132/138 220/230 345/400
< 1.4 0.46% 2.93% 23.53% 15.63% 63.52%
> 1.4 99.54% 97.07% 76.47% 84.37% 36.61%

≥ 1.7 58.19% 96.96% 65.98% 57.73% 26.47%
≥ 1.8 48.71% 93.73% 15.51% 9.89% 0.13%
87
≥ 2.0 8.05% 54.57% 8.62% 3.62% 0.00%
These data may be interpreted as showing that at least 80% of the tests conducted to date have used
voltages >1.7U0. Thus the WG viewed that the 1.7U0 would be a practical PD test level as it is being
implemented in a wide range of locales.
Further support for the choice of 1.7U0 for 60 minutes from both IEC60840 & IEC62067 comes from the
review of service experience after successful PD tests. The number of in service failiures on HV and
EHV cable systems is small. However, of this small number a significantly large fraction of failures come
from cable systems that were PD tested at voltages below 1.7U0. The experience reported to the WG
for PD tests at voltages between 1.7U0 to 2U0 was that there was a much lower rate of failures. This
finding is striking, given the proportionately higher number of tests (App Table E.3) carried out in this
voltage range. Consequently these findings lend confidence to the practicality and effectiveness of the
PD test recommendations in App Table E.1 of this document.
As an exercise, an analysis of the associated electrical stresses of the recommendations provided in

App Table E.1 was performed. As noted in Chapter 5, the electrical stress at any interface should not
exceed 24kV/mm for a PD test at over voltage. The 24kV/mm threshold is based on feed back provided
by cable manufacturers for this study.
Specifically, using recently tested cable designs across a number of manufacturers, the electrical stress
at the inner and outer conductor screens as well as the average stress was calculated for a smaller
sized conductor (500 mm2 to 630 mm2) as well as for a larger sized conductor (2,533 mm2) for various
classes of HV and EHV cable systems – please refer to App Table E.6. As can be seen, with the
recommendations in App Table E.1, the average electrical stress during testing increases with
increasing voltage class of cable. This is a natural consequence of average design stresses increasing
with voltage level. While it may be tempting to set a test voltage level such electrical stresses are similar
across the different voltage classes of cable systems it must be considered that, as previously
mentioned,
A. experiences show that there has been a much lower, or zero, fraction of failures in service
reported for cable systems tested to the main voltage option described in IEC 60840 & IEC
62067 (1.7U0) and
B. a test voltage level should also take into account the magnitude of transients which may be
applied to a cable system in case of failures else where in the system, lightening strikes or
switching operations.
As can also be seen, caution must be taken when testing 345/400kV and potentially also 500kV class
cable systems with small conductor designs as, here, the electrical stresses at the inner conductor may
exceed 24kV/mm. If so, in individual cases, the test voltage may be lowered such the 24kV/mm
threshold is not exceeded.
App Table E.6: Typical Electrical Stresses During PD Testing

Conditioning prior to PD Test
PD Test [1.5 U0]
[1.7U0-2.0U0]
Electrical Stress [kV/mm] Electrical Stress [kV/mm]
Voltage Conducto Inner Outer Inner Outer
Class Averag Averag
r Size Conducto Conducto Conducto Conducto
e e
[kV] [mm2] r r r r
500 8.2 4.6 6.0 7.2 4.1 5.3
66-72
2,533 7.0 5.1 6.0 6.2 4.5 5.3
88
633 11.0 6.5 8.3 9.7 5.7 7.3

110/115
2,533 10.2 7.0 7.4 9.0 6.2 6.5
500 12.5 6.7 9.0 11.0 5.9 7.9
132/138
2,533 10.9 6.6 8.1 9.6 5.8 7.1
500 15.4 5.9 9.1 13.6 5.2 8.0
220/230
2,533 13.16 8.1 10.2 11.6 7.1 9.0
630 24.6 9.75 15.0 21.7 8.6 13.2
345/400
2,533 17.6 9.9 13.0 15.5 8.7 11.5
89
90
APPENDIX F. OVERVIEW OF LABORATORY AND

FACTORY PD TESTS
The work and discussions within the Working Group have concluded that PD testing in the field is far
removed from the testing in the factory / laboratory that is familiar to many people. Consequently the
criteria that many people are familiar with are not relevant. Nevertheless it is useful to understand to
some of the elements of laboratory PD testing and why (through comparison with Table 4.2) field tests
differ.
App Table F.1: Overview of Conventional PD Measurements
“Conventional” Topic
Conform with IEC 60270 Conform with IEC 60885-3 Standards
Laboratory Testing Factory Testing Location
Global Experience
N/A
(to 2010)
Point of
Terminal PD Meas.
Measurement
Coupling capacitor & measuring circuit Sensor
Typical Cable or
<100 meters <1,000 m Cable System
Length
Reporting on PD
Apparent charge by Quasi Integration.
activity
f2 <1MHz f2 <500 kHz
Frequency of PD
Narrow Band: Df = [9 kHz ; 30 kHz] with fmax < 1 MHz
measurement
Wide Band: Df Î [100 kHz ; 400 kHz] w. fmax < 500 kHz
Injection of known charge at cable
Injection of known charge at one end
ends (near & far)
only Calibration
Calibrator must comply with IEC
Calibrator must comply with IEC 60270
60885-3
Scale
Not Applicable
Factor
Capacitive sensors assumed to
Capacitive sensors assumed to have Sensitivity
have negligible effect if
negligible effect if measurement
measurement conforms to IEC Check
conforms to IEC 60270
60885-3
Performance
Included in the Calibration Procedure
Check
Not required as it is assumed that if standards are followed all PD signals can Range
be measured at the terminations Check
<5pC <5pC Noise
Charge conservation is assumed Loss assumed to be insignificant Loss
91
92
APPENDIX G. POSSIBLE USE OF DAMPED AC VOLTAGE

SOURCES
The survey for experience with on-site PD testing of HV & EHV cable systems, as set in the scope for
this working group, has shown that constant voltage AC resonance testing is preferred by the majority
of users surveyed. However, there has some lower level of usage reported for Damped AC. The amount
and scope of this usage is not believed to be sufficient to make recommendations on test parameters.
However, should users wish to undertake experimentation and gather information on PD under Damped
AC the working group found it useful to set out some guidance as per below.
There remain a number of concerns with this voltage source which include:
 The damped nature of the voltage waveform thereby making specification of test duration and
voltage exposure challenging
 The non constant nature of the applied test voltage.
 As with conventional fixed inductance resonant test sets the test frequency is defined by the
capacitance of the cable under test.
 The electrical tree initiation and growth dynamics are largely unknown for repetitive applications
of damped oscillating waveforms.
 The appropriate initial voltage test level to initiate PD of life limiting defects in typical HV & EHV
solid dielectric cable systems are largely unknown.
 The appropriate number of shots of Damped AC required to initiate PD at life limiting defects
otherwise requiring local losses (some time with constant voltage AC) to be detectable is
unknown.
 The number of shots required to cause insulation failure for life limiting defects which do not
give rise to PD during constant voltage resonant tests but rather cause insulation failure
detectable is unknown.
Whilst accepting the concerns listed above it is recognized there can be interest in conducting
experimentation with on-site PD testing with Damped AC as a voltage. To provide guidance to this
experimentation, some minimum test parameters for commissioning and maintenance testing are
provided below. This guidance is based on limited working group experience and uses the common
practices for AC resonant testing listed in Table 5.1.
The applied DC field prior to damped AC energization can have effects on some accessories or some
cables, use of this voltage source should be agreed with cable system manufacturer.
App Table G.1: suggested commissioning test voltages and duration

Voltage Test Frequency Duration PD Pass/Fail
Class Level Range
[min] Criterion
[kV] [U0] [Hz]
66-72 ≥1.9 10-500 Appropriate Minimum No Detectable
PD
110/115 ≥ 1.9 Number of Shots is
Unknown
132/138 ≥ 1.7
≥ 50*
150/160 ≥ 1.7
220/230 Insufficient reported experiences
275/285
345/400 No reported experiences
500
* the number of shots required is currently unknown but for experimental purposes a number of greater
than 50 is suggested
93
94
APPENDIX H. PUSE OF VERY LOW FREQUENCY (VLF)

VOLTAGE SOURCES
The survey for experience with on-site PD testing of HV & EHV cable systems, as set in the scope
for this working group, has shown that constant voltage AC resonance testing is preferred by the
majority of users surveyed. However, there have been a few initial usage reported for sinusoidal
VLF. The amount of this usage is not sufficient to make recommendations on test parameters
including voltage level and duration. However, there maybe users who wish to undertake
experimentation and gather information on PD under VLF. The working group found it useful to set
out some guidance as per below.
There remain a number of concerns with this voltage source which include:
 The electrical tree initiation and growth dynamics are largely unknown for VLF frequencies
for the electrical stresses for HV & EHV.
 The appropriate initial voltage test level to initiate PD of life limiting defects in typical HV &
EHV solid dielectric cable systems are largely unknown.
 The duration of VLF required to initiate PD at life limiting defects otherwise requiring local
losses (some time with constant voltage AC) to be detectable.
 The duration of VLF required to cause insulation failure for life limiting defects which do not
give rise to PD during constant voltage resonant tests but rather cause insulation failure.
Whilst recognizing the concerns listed above it is recognized there can be interest in conducting
experimentation with on-site PD testing with VLF as a voltage. To provide guidance to this
experimentation, some minimum test parameters for commissioning and maintenance testing are
provided below. This guidance is based on limited working group experience and uses the common
practices for AC resonant testing listed in Table 5.1.
App Table H.1: suggested commissioning test voltages and duration

Voltage Test Frequency Duration PD Pass/Fail
Class Level Range
[min] Criterion
[kV] [U0] [Hz]
66-72 ≥1.9 0.05 – 0.1 Appropriate Minimum Time is Unknown No
Detectable
110/115 ≥ 1.9 ≥ 60* min for 0.1 Hz
PD
132/138 ≥ 1.7 It is possible that this time might need to be
increased if frequencies approach 0.05 Hz
150/160 ≥ 1.7
220/230
Insufficient reported experiences
275/285
345/400
No reported experiences
500
* the minimum time required is currently unknown but for experimental purposes a time of greater or
equal to 60 mins is suggested, it might be appropriate to use an increased time if the frequency is
significantly reduced.
95

On-Site Partial Discharge Assessment of HV and Ehv Cable Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

On-Site Partial Discharge Assessment of HV and Ehv Cable Systems

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

On-Site Partial Discharge Assessment of HV and Ehv Cable Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

728

ON-SITE PARTIAL DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT

Disclaimer notice ISBN : 978-2-85873-430-6

WITHSTAND /CONDITIONING (MONITORED) PD TEST

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 3

1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 11

2. PURPOSE AND VALUE OF TESTING .......................................................................................... 15

3. UNDERSTANDING PD MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 39

4. IMPLEMENTATION OF FIELD PD MEASUREMENTS .................................................................. 49

5. GUIDELINES FOR ON-SITE PD TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................. 59

5.1 AFTER LAYING COMMISSIONING (ACCEPTANCE) TESTING AT OVER-VOLTAGE ........................................ 59

APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS, ABREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS .......................................................... 73

APPENDIX B. LINKS AND REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 77

APPENDIX C. SAFETY AWARENESS ...................................................................................................... 81

APPENDIX D. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 83

APPENDIX E. SUGGESTED TEST LEVELS AND DURATIONS – COMMISSIONING &

APPENDIX F. OVERVIEW OF LABORATORY AND FACTORY PD TESTS ........................................ 91

APPENDIX G. POSSIBLE USE OF DAMPED AC VOLTAGE SOURCES ............................................. 93

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 2.7: Photo of Permanently Installed HFCTs in a Link Box .......................................................................... 23

App Table A.1 Definition of general terms used in this TB .................................................................................... 73

Figure 1.2: Photo Montage of Commissioning Testing performed in the Netherlands

PD coupling 2nd joint

2. PURPOSE AND VALUE OF TESTING

Table 2.1: Breakdown of categories for survey responses

2.2.1 Usage and drivers for usage

Percent of Utility Responses

Figure 2.2: Usage Experience with Cable PD Testing – Utility Responses

Figure 2.3: Relative importance of PD testing - Significant Reasons

Figure 2.4: Relative importance of PD testing - Less Significant Reasons

Table 2.2: Common practices for field PD testing

Sensor Any internal or external sensor

Sensor Any internal or external sensor

2.3 DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS

2.5 CASE STUDIES

Figure 2.7: Photo of Permanently Installed HFCTs in a Link Box

Figure 2.8: Commissioning Tests of a 220kV XLPE Feeder

Partial Discharge Pulse Phase Analysis Plots

Classification Map Phase Resolved PD Plot

Figure 2.11: PD Activity Measured On-Line and Off-Line on Phase B, Manhole 1

2.5.3 Case Study 3: Commissioning Testing, Terminal PD measurement, 345kV

Figure 2.12: Photo of Test Setup Including Capacitive PD Coupler

Figure 2.13: Longitudinal PD Map. Note, length units in feet

Figure 2.15: Photo of Voltage Supply for 250kV Tests

Figure 2.16: PD Activity Detected on a 345kV Termination

Figure 2.17: Evidence of External Tracking on a 345kV Termination

2.5.5 Case Study 5: Commissioning Testing, Terminal PD Measurement, Damped AC

PD level: 69 pC ; frequency: 47.17 Hz N:\...\L1_71kV8_2013-04-18-07'05'10.tot 18 àïðåëÿ 2013 ã. 7:05

2.5.6 Case Study 6: On-Line Maintenance Testing, 33 kV XLPE Feeder, Terminal PD

Pulse Phase Analysis Plots

Cable PD Cable PD Cable PD

Figure 2.20: PD Activity Detected on a 33 kV Feeder During an On-Line PD Test

Figure 2.21: PD Mapping for Phase L3 of a 33kV XLPE Feeder

Figure 2.22: Deterioration at Joint Pit 8, Phase B, Circuit B

2.5.7 Case Study 7: Continuous PD Measurements, Daisy Chained PD

Table 2.3: Commissioning Test Experience of a US Transmission Utility

during a tear down revealed the problem

2.5.8 Case Study 8: PD During Soak