Condition assessment of MV switchboards:
performance of a new sensors for partial discharge
monitoring
G. C. Montanari
CAPS, Florida State University
Tallahasse, USA
Abstract— Condition assessment of MV switchboards requires
effective, but not expensive, solutions to become a common
practice. On the other hand, failure of a switchboard component
can cause cascade effects and outage of other apparatus, in
addition to significant economic losses due, e.g., to lack of energy
availability. A major property to evaluate switchboard health
and reliability is partial discharges, being a direct cause of
failure of organic insulation systems. A new type of partial
discharge sensoring is presented in this paper, which relies upon
capacitive divider embedded in switchboard bushings. Testing
the embedded bushing sensor in factory on switchboards, in
presence of defective components as cable terminations and
bushings, it is shown that the bushing sensor is able to provide
good sensitivity, compared to other sensors, as well as good
capability to locate the cabinet and identify the type of source
generating partial discharges.
Keywords – Bushing; MV switchboards; Partial discharge;
Sensors.
I. INTRODUCTION
Even if it is widely thought that failure and outages of
medium voltage apparatus and devices in electrical networks
do not cause severe economic losses, this may be not true in
several industrial, transport and distribution assets. From
ships, to renewables, from high-tech factories to data centers,
and considering unconventional type of electrical stress as
those involving power electronics, failure rate can become so
high to affect reliability and profitability of assets.
Switchboards may play a significant role to ensure asset
reliability. Even if failure of one of their components is not
per se involving expensive repair, it can cause cascade effects
that will make the cost of outage, lack or production or
functionality of an asset a serious issue. The aspect which
differs sensibly from the condition assessment of HV
apparatus is that the cost of any diagnostic monitoring device
has to be proportioned to the cost of the switchboard, thus
relatively unexpensive. Hence, the choice of sensors to be
used to assess switchboard health must be oriented towards
effective and low-cost solution, focusing on those degradation
mechanisms that are associated with faster aging rate. One of
978-1-7281-4547-1/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 23,2021 at 17:09:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
L.Cirioni; G. Galvagno; S. Mastroeni
COL GP SpA
Catania, Italy
these diagnostic properties, that is also a primary cause of a
premature failure of electrical insulation, is partial discharges,
PD.
Various types of PD sensors for MV switchboards are
examined in this paper, focusing on a new idea for a sensor
which is embedded in switchgear bushings, based on a
capacitive coupler which is often already pre-existing in some
bushes in order measure the presence of voltage. Sensitivity to
PD detection, also as a function of type of defect and distance
from the sensor, is investigated in comparison with other
commonly used sensors, which couple with irradiated or
conducted PD signals.
II. EMBEDDED BUSHING SENSOR
There are two coupling mechanisms for PD, which follow
up in dedicate type of sensors, that is, conduction and
irradiation.
Regarding conduction, PD signals can propagate from the
source (i.e., bushings, cable terminations, etc.) to the ground
through earthing systems, so that the typical sensor is the high-
frequency current transformer, HFCT. Measuring conducted
signals by HFCT offers in many cases good sensitivity, but
measurements can be affected by noise. Furthermore, when
several cable lines are connected in parallel through busbars,
the same PD signal can split among the earthing systems of
parallel lines and be observed at different locations, although
with different magnitudes and PD pulse spectral
characteristics.
Irradiation can be exploited through two basic coupling
mechanisms, that is, near field and far field irradiation. The
former corresponds to relatively low frequencies (e.g. below a
few hundreds MHz), at which PD signals couple in a
capacitive way with the cabinet, inducing transient earth
voltages (TEV) on the metalclad surface. These signals can be
detected by measuring the voltage difference existing between
metallic surfaces separated by openings (TEV sensor) or using
capacitive probes. Far field irradiation occurs at higher
frequencies, at which PD signals can irradiate outside the
cabinet, if they excite dielectric-aperture resonance
frequencies (of several hundreds of MHz [1]) with sufficient
energy. The type of sensor that can work with such signals is
resonant antennas tuned at the resonance frequencies of
dielectric apertures, or, in case of a variety of apertures having
different sizes and dielectric materials (thus resonance
frequencies), the Transverse Electro-Magnetic (TEM)
antennas having flat frequency.
Eventually, acoustic sensors are used, too, but their
effectiveness is questionable, being more sensitive to corona
discharges than to internal discharges, the former much less
harmful than the latter [2].
All types of sensors must able to be sensitive enough to
detect the most harmful sources of PD, that is, cavities
embedded in insulation, delamination at the cable
terminations, and, at the same time, such that localization in a
specific cabinet of a switchboard is feasible [1].
A sensor which is derived from the capacitive divider Figure 1. Drawing of the bushing sensor (a) and scheme of the sensor able to
embedded in switchboard bushings could work properly to provide both synchronization signal (with the supply voltage) and PD pulses
satisfy the above requisites. Such sensor can be sensitive (b).
mostly to irradiated signals generated inside a cabinet, thus
quite well shielded from external noise, but also to conducted
signals coming e.g. from defective cable termination, which
flows towards the bushing. Figure 1 shows a sketch of a
bushing with its embedded capacitive sensor [2].
This sensor has, in addition, the advantage to be able to
provide not only PD signals, but also the synchronization
signal for PD pulse aquisition (referring to zero voltage),
which is fundamental to achieve a correct phase-resolved PD
(PRPD) pattern representation [3]-[6].
Figure 2 reports mean results of discharge measurements,
where pulses were generated by a PD calibrator [7],
comparing sensitivity of a HFCT and the bushing sensor [2].
For signal generated near the location of both sensors, the
devised bushing sensor seems even more sensitive than a
broadband HFCT (bandwidth 10 kHz-50 MHz). Figure 2. Sensitivity for bushing sensor and HFCT to calibration pulses. The
HFCT is connected to the earthing of the cable termination reaching the
cabinet where the bushing sensor is located.

III. SWITCHBOARD TESTING CIRCUIT

The testing circuit is depicted in Figure 3. It consists of
three MV switchboards series connected and fed by a LV-MV
transformer. A defect which is a source of PD was realized by
a MV bushing that contained an embedded cavity, see Figure
3. Another source of PD considered in the following was a
defective cable termination. Bushing sensors were placed in
each switchboard cabinet.
The PD detector was a broadband commercial instrument,
with enhanced capability to recognize noise and PD, as well as
to identify the types of sources generating PD [4], [6].

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 23,2021 at 17:09:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 PD source 1 SWITCHBOARD n°1 SWITCHBOARD n°2 SWITCHBOARD n°3
(Defective bushing)
LV/MV TEV sensors PD source 2
Transformer (Defective cable termination)

CABINET 1 CABINET 2 CABINET 3 CABINET 1 CABINET 2 CABINET 3 CABINET

Bushing Bushing
phase 4 phase 12 HFCT sensors

Figure 3. Switchboard test circuit layout.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS PD (due to the peculiar pattern shape [4], [9]). Fig. 5 displays
typical PRPD patterns obtained by the bushing sensor located
Partial discharge measurements were performed (and at phase 4, switchboard 1, and phase 12, switchboard 3
monitored for times up to a few hours) in several locations of (Figure 3). Sensitivity is intermediate, for this type of defect,
the assembly of switchboards of Figure 3. Various types of between those of TEV and HFCT, but the capability of
defects, inside and outside the switchboards, were considered. recognizing the type of defect generating PD is at the same
Here, those relevant to defective MV bushing (having an level (it is noteworthy that the patters reported in these and
internal cavity), Figure 1, and defective cable termination are following figures were denoised using the T-F map approach,
reported and discussed. [1], [4], [6], endowed in the PD testing instrument).
Three types of sensors were considered, as indicated in
Figure 3. Transient earth voltage, TEV, sensors, were placed
on the outer part of the cabinet enclosure, where resistance
variation could generate an impulsive voltage drop at the
occurrence of a PD. A second sensor was a high-frequency
current transformer, HFCT, which was connected on the
ground lead of cable terminations entering into a switchgear
cabinet, see Figure 3. As mentioned, TEV and HFCT are the
most frequently used electromagnetic sensor for PD
measurements in switchboards.
The third sensor was the embedded bushing sensor Figure 4. Phase-resolved PD (PRPD) patterns obtained from sensors TEV (a)
described above. and HFCT (b) located as in Figure 2 (that is, TEV at switchboard 1 and
HFCT cable termination at switchboard 1). Defective bushing generating PD.
PD measurements were performed at various bushing
sensors farer and farer from the PD sources, and also moving
HFCT and TEV along the switchboard cabinets, in order to
evaluate sensitivity of the sensors as a function of the distance
from the PD source.

A. Defective bushing
Phase-resolved PD (PRPD) patterns were obtained while
monitoring PD from a defective bushing located on the wall
near switchboard 1 (Figure 3), through TEV, HFCT and
embedded bushing sensors.
Examples of PD patterns are reported in Figure 4 and
Figure 5. Fig. 4 shows PRPD patterns obtained by TEV (a) Figure 5. Phase-resolved PD (PRPD) patterns obtained from the bushing
and HFCT (b) sensors, located as in Figure 3 (that is, TEV at sensor located at phase 4, switchboard 1, phase 12, switchboard 3 (Figure 2).
switchboard 1 and HFCT cable termination at switchboard 1). Defective bushing generating PD.
The TEV is clearly more sensitive than HFCT, for this type of
defect, but both sensors point out the type of defect generating

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 23,2021 at 17:09:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B. Defective cable termination
A cable with defective termination was connected to the
cabinet of switchboard 3. Bushing sensors are located in
cabinet 2 of switchboard 1, cabinet 2 of switchboard 2 and in
the switchboard 3. The HFCT sensor was set in each cabinet
as in Figure 3.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 report examples of PRPD patterns
obtained by the HFCT and the bushing sensor, respectively.
Even if sensitivity of the bushing sensor is obviously lower
than that of the HFCT (the latter being very close to the defect
and, in addition, devised specifically to detect conducted
signals), it can still work to figure out the presence of PD and,
in addition, the type of defect generating them (again internal
discharges, as in the previous case). Hence, it can be
speculated that a bushing sensor can pick up also conducted
signals generated outside a switchboard, but in its vicinity.
Figure 6. Phase-resolved PD (PRPD) pattern obtained from HFCT located in
the cabinet 2 of switchboard 1, as in Figure 3 (that is, at cable termination in
switchboard 1).
Figure 7. Phase-resolved PD (PRPD) patterns obtained from the bushing
sensor located cabinet 2 switchboard 1 (a) and switchboard 3 (b).
A comparison of the sensitivity of the three sensors as
function of the distance from the PD source is summarized in
Figure 8. As can be seen, the amplitude attenuation of bushing
sensor is larger than that of the HFCT. This prompt better
capability of the bushing sensor to be triggered by PD
phenomena generated inside the cabinet or very closely
outside, thus helping in the identification of PD phenomena
relevant to a specific cabinet of a switchboard and in the
rejection of noise and disturbance coming from outside the
switchboard.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 23,2021 at 17:09:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 8. Comparison of the sensitivity of the three types of sensors as a
function of the distance from the defect generating PD (defective termination
connected to the cabinet of switchboard 3), see Figure 3.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Carrying out condition assessment of MV switchboards
require effective, smart and not too expensive solutions. Thus,
focusing on those properties which are associated with the
fastest aging mechanisms is a must, and among those,
monitoring partial discharges, which are able to cause
insulation failure in short times once incepted, seems to be the
most appropriate choice. It is important, however, to have
available sensors which are effective, allow defect location to
be performed easily, and provide PD patterns which indicate
the type of defect generating PD. Depending, indeed, of the
PD-source typology, maintenance action can be prioritized or
neglected. As an example, signals coming from corona
discharges can activate efficiently acoustic sensors, but no
maintenance would be required, while discharges in cavities
inside bushings or delamination in cable terminations may
need immediate maintenance action. As consequence,
electromagnetic sensors should be preferred, in general, to
acoustic ones.
The bushing sensor investigated in this paper fits to the
requirements of sensitivity, especially to irradiated signals,
selectivity, allowing the switchboard cabinet where PD are
present to be singled out, and cost, being, in principle, already
embedded in bushings for the purpose of voltage
measurement. In addition, their sensitivity can be amplified
redesigning the coupling capacitance in order to improve
detection bandwidth and sensitivity to PD detection. Also,
they provide the synchronization signal (with the supply
voltage), which is an important add up for the identification of
the type of defect generating PD, which is based on the shape
of the PD pattern. Low noise, thus high signal-to-noise ratio,
as a consequence of being partially shielded by cabinet
enclosure, and low disturbance (that is, sensitivity to PD
signals generated outside a switchboard, e.g. in loads
connected to it) are also interesting features of this sensor.
 REFERENCES

[1] M. Tozzi, G.L. Giuliattini Burbui, A. Cavallini, G.C. Montanari,

“Sensoring partial discharge signals in MV switchgears”, INSUCON,
pp. 34-38, Birmingham, UK, May 2009.
[2] G. C. Montanari, L. Cirioni, G. Galvagno, S. Mastroemi, “Partial
Discharges testing in MV switchboards: sensitivity evaluation of
embedded sensors”, IEEE EIC, Indianapolis, USA, June 2020
[3] F. H. Kruger, Discharge detection in high voltage equipment, London,
UK, Temple Press. 1964.
[4] A. Cavallini, M. Conti, A. Contin and G. C. Montanari, "Advanced PD
inference in on-field measurements. II. Identification of defects in solid
insulation systems," in IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 528-538, June 2003.
[5] F. Gutfleisch and L. Niemeyer, "Measurement and simulation of PD in
epoxy voids," in IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 729-743, Oct. 1995.
[6] A. Contin, A. Cavallini, G. C. Montanari, G. Pasini and F. Puletti,
"Digital detection and fuzzy classification of partial discharge signals,"
in IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 9,
no. 3, pp. 335-348, June 2002.
[7] IEC 60270, Partial Discharge Measurements, 3rd Edition March 2001.
[8] P.H.F. Morshuis, "Partial Discharge Mechanisms", Ph.D. Thesis Delft
University of Technology, Delft University Press, 1993.
[9] IEC 60034-27-2, On-line partial discharge measurements on the stator
winding insulation of rotating electrical machines, CDV, 2019.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on May 23,2021 at 17:09:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.