2010 International Conference on Solid Dielectrics, Potsdam, Germany, July 4-9, 2010

A Comparison between LDPE and HDPE Cable

Insulation Properties Following Lightning Impulse
Ageing
N. L. Dao*, P. L. Lewin, I. L. Hosier and S. G. Swingler
University of Southampton
Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK
*Email: nld06r@ecs.soton.ac.uk

Abstract: Low density polyethylene (LDPE) and high density

polyethylene (HDPE) are common materials used within high
voltage insulation systems. These materials will be aged after
working under high voltage for a long time. The ageing process of
these materials may be affected by external factors. The
application of repetitive lightning impulse over-voltages is one of
these factors and will be considered in this paper. This paper
includes the sample preparation process, the ageing of samples
under identical conditions and finally the analysis of electrical
properties after the ageing process. The obtained results are used Figure 1. Mould tool
to compare the effect of repetitive lightning impulses on these two
materials. These results are also used to highlight the possible
mechanisms behind the lighting impulse ageing process.

Keywords:polyethylene; breakdown; lightning impulse;

dielectric relaxation; space charge.

I. INTRODUCTION Figure 2. Sample dimensions

Cable insulation may suffer a lot of switching or lightning
impulse over-voltages during its working lifetime. A few
papers report the effect of impulse overvoltage with the
lifetime of cable insulation [1-3]. The effect of switching
impulses was clearly identified due to the long on-time of
switching impulses and space charge accumulation into the
bulk of sample is still significant [4]. Repetitive lightning
impulse over-voltages may also lead to acceleration in ageing
processes of an insulation material [5]. Due to the short on-
time, the space charge accumulation may not be the reason for
reduction of lifetime. Parameters of lightning impulses from
polarity [6] to front-time and appearance frequency may also
affect the life expectancy of the dielectric. This paper
highlights the difference between the lightning ageing
processes of two high voltage insulation materials, namely high
density polyethylene (HDPE) and low density polyethylene
(LDPE). The effect of impulse polarity and the mechanisms for
impulse ageing can be deduced from the results.
II. SAMPLE PREPARATION AND AGEING PROCESS
In both cases, pellets were used to make samples. The
samples were created using a heat-press moulding method. A
pre-shaped mould (Fig. 1) was used to create the samples with
a Rogowski profile and thickness of 200 m (Fig. 2). Samples
were sputter coated with gold.
Lightning impulses with front/tail time of 1.2/40 s were
applied to create a peak electric field of 85 kV/mm across the
samples. Both positive and negative lightning impulses were
investigated. Five to seven samples were aged at the same time,
immersed in silicone oil and using mushroom electrodes. The
samples experienced either 3000 or 6000 continuous lightning
impulses [5].
III. BREAKDOWN MEASUREMENT
After lightning impulse ageing, the breakdown strength of
each sample type was evaluated immediately using an AC
ramp breakdown experiment. The ramp rate was 100 V/s and
Weibull distributions were then used to analyze the obtained
results. The transformer is controlled by a motorised variac to
create the AC high voltage across the sample (Fig. 3).
Fig. 4 shows the reduction of breakdown strength of HDPE
after experiencing 3000 lightning impulses. The confidence
limits of positive and negative lightning impulse aged samples
overlap the confidence limit of the unaged samples only below
10.3% and 16% respectively. It can be seen that there is no
significant difference in the influence of positive and negative
lightning impulses on the ageing process of HDPE.

978-1-4244-7944-3/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE

1
 Figure 3. Breakdown measurement setup
Figure 4. Breakdown strength of HDPEs with different lightning impulse
polarities
Fig. 5 shows the effect of the number of lightning impulses
on the ageing process of HDPE. After 6000 lightning impulses,
the breakdown strength of the HDPE was further reduced. The
confidence limits of aged and unaged samples do not overlap.
In contrast, there is no significant difference between the
breakdown strength of aged and unaged LDPEs after 3000
lightning impulses (Fig. 6).
Figure 5. Breakdown strength of HDPEs with different number of impulses
2
Figure 6. Breakdown strength of LDPEs
IV. SPACE CHARGE AND DIELECTRIC
RELAXATION MEASUREMENT
The samples for these experiments were lightning impulse
aged before measurement. The rims of the samples were cut
off, and the samples cleaned using acetone. Measurements
were taken using the Solartron system. The temperature was
fixed at room temperature and a frequency range from 0.01 to
100 Hz, for a 1 V AC applied voltage was used [7]. Space
charge measurement was made using PEA equipment. The rim
of sample was also cut off and samples were left uncoated to
prevent flashover when doing PEA measurement. Samples
were stressed at a fairly low field of 34 kV/mm over 60
minutes to measure the charge build up, and then the voltage
was turned off to measure the charge decay [8]. The
experimental arrangements and methods have been detailed in
a previous paper by the authors [5].
Fig. 7 to Fig. 9 show the relative permittivity, tan delta and
real relative permittivity of aged and unaged HDPE. In general,
the dielectric loss, tan delta, increases when more impulses
were applied to the samples. The real part of relative
permittivity initially reduces after the lightning ageing process.
However, the real part recovers again within twenty four hours.
This suggests that there is a change in capacitance of samples
due to the charge injection after lightning impulse ageing.
These charges decay away relatively quickly. Therefore they
may only be shallowly trapped near the surface of the sample.
The measured values for real part of relative permittivity of
HDPE is higher than the real value (2.3-2.4) because the
geometry of sample does not perfectly fit with the measured
electrode. However, the same electrode was used for
comparison purpose. With LDPE, there is almost no difference
in dielectric loss between aged and unaged samples (Fig. 10).
 Figure 10. Relative permittivity of LDPEs
Figure 7. Relative permittivity tan delta of HDPEs
Fig. 11 to Fig. 17 show the space charge build up and decay
process of the unaged and aged HDPE and LDPE. With the
unaged HDPE, there is almost no charge injection into the
sample bulk. However, there is negative homo-charge injection
in the case of aged HDPE. The charge build up seems to
saturate after 10 minutes and the charge decays considerably
during the first 30 minutes that the voltage is removed. In the
case of LDPE, there is no significant difference between aged
and unaged samples. There is a huge positive hetero-charge
injection to the bulk from the cathode in both cases. After one
hour a lot of charge had decayed, however the amount of
charge left in the bulk is still relatively large. This explains why
LDPE has lower breakdown strength compared with HDPE.

Figure 8. Real relative permittivity of HDPEs

Figure 11. Charge build up with unaged HDPE

Figure 9. Change in real relative permittivity of aged HDPE with time

Figure 12. Charge build up with aged HDPE

3
 Figure 17. Charge decay with aged LDPE
Figure 13. Charge decay with aged HDPE

V. CONCLUSION
Repetitive lightning impulses can actually reduce the
breakdown strength of HDPE but not affect LDPE. There is
almost no difference between the effects of positive and
negative impulses. HDPE becomes lossier and space charge
builds up more effectively after ageing, but LDPE is largely
unaltered. Space charge injection due to lightning impulse
events is less important because any injected charge decays
relatively quickly.

Figure 14. Charge build up with unaged LDPE REFERENCES

[1] S. Boev “Electric aging of polyethylene in pulsed electric field” 12th

IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference. (Cat. No.99CH36358)
1999 , Monterey, CA, USA, Page(s): 1365-8 vol.2
[2] G.C. Stone, R.G. Van Heeswijk, R. Bartnikas “Electrical aging and
electroluminescence in epoxy under repetitive voltage surges” IEEE
transaction on electrical insulation, volume 27, issue 2, April 1992
Page(s):233 – 244
[3] R.A Hartlein, V.S. Harper, Harry Ng “Effects of voltage surges on
extruded dielectric cable life project update” IEEE transactions on power
delivery, volume 9, issue 2, April 1994 Page(s):611 – 619
[4] S. Grzybowski, Life Fellow, IEEE, P. Trnka, Member, IEEE, J.C.
Fulper, Student Member, IEEE “Aging of High Voltage Cables by
Switching Impulse” IEEE Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, 2007,
Page(s): 165-8
Figure 15. Charge decay with unaged LDPE
[5] N. L. Dao, P.L. Lewin, S.G. Swingler, "Lightning impulse ageing of HV
cable insulation," in 16th International Symposium on High Voltage
Engineering, Cape town, South Africa, 2009.
[6] A. Rakowska and K. Hajdrowski “Influence of high-voltage polarisation
on impulse breakdown of polyethylene and crosslinked polyethylene”,
IEEE 5th International Conference on Conduction and Breakdown in
Solid Dielectrics, 1995, Leicester, England, Page(s): 636-640
[7] P. C. N. Scarpa, E. L. Leguenza, and D. K. Das-Gupta, "Study of
electrical ageing of cross-linked polyethylene by dielectric
spectroscopy," Proceedings - International Symposium on Electrets, pp.
395-398, 1999.
[8] Y. Li, M. Yasuda, and T. Takada, "Pulsed electroacoustic method for
measurement of charge accumulation in solid dielectrics," IEEE
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 1, pp. 188-195,
1994

Figure 16. Charge build up with aged LDPE