More than Twenty Years of Experiences with Commissioning Testing of HV & EHV Cable Systems with Near Power Frequency Withstand & Partial Discharge Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 25 years, thousands of kilometres of installed XLPE High Voltage (HV) and Extra High Voltage (EHV) cable systems have been subjected to after-laying commissioning testing prior to energization. The commissioning test usually consists of a combination AC withstand (HiPot) & Partial Discharge (PD) testing. This paper presents more than two decades of experiences with non-monitored and monitored withstand testing on HV and EHV cables obtained globally with withstand levels and durations as in accordance with IEC standards and PD monitoring in accordance with IEEE & CIGRE recommendations. The paper discusses influence of level and frequency of the applied withstand voltage for successfully identifying typical life limiting laying or installation related defects in newly laid HV & EHV Cable systems both in terms of dielectric break-down and also in terms of detection of partial discharge sources from same defects. The paper further provides statistical summary of tests performed on more than 10,000km of HV and EHV cable systems including failure rates and non-pass PD rates of accessories distinguishing between HV and EHV cable systems. The paper also provides several case studies of PD detected in cable accessories during AC HiPot commissioning testing. The paper also discusses the influence of PD sensitivity on the results obtained especially considering that different types of PD sensors and measurement instruments have been used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".