Comparison of polymeric insulation materials on failure development in low-voltage underground power cables

B. Kruizinga, P.A.A.F. Wouters, E.F. Steennis

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Sustainable developments impose increasing pressure on Low Voltage (LV) underground power cables, leading to an increasing interest in condition assessment for LV systems. LV cables have been designed mainly on mechanical considerations taking insulation of low voltage levels for granted. However, concerns on degradation aspects is now growing. To make a comparison of insulation materials, water cycling tests on artificially damaged cable sections have been performed. The results show that the material has a major role in degradation rate due to local decomposition upon dry-band arcing, as can also be expected from chemical point of view. Chemical compounds add pollution to the damaged spot, enhancing degradation. PVC shows fastest degradation rate compared to polyurethane and XLPE respectively. These results can be considered in optimal cable design. In addition, aspects like water tightness should also be considered.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication2016 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC)
Subtitle of host publicationProceedings
Place of PublicationPiscataway
PublisherInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Pages444-447
Number of pages4
ISBN (Electronic)978-1-4673-8706-4
Publication statusPublished - 2016
Event34th IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference, EIC 2016 - Montreal, Canada
Duration: 19 Jun 201622 Jun 2016
Conference number: 34

Conference

Conference34th IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference, EIC 2016
Abbreviated title EIC 2016
Country/TerritoryCanada
CityMontreal
Period19/06/1622/06/16

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of polymeric insulation materials on failure development in low-voltage underground power cables'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this