See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3341087

Characterization of Polyurethane Foam Dielectric

Strength

Article in IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation · May 2008

DOI: 10.1109/TDEI.2008.4483452 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

4 538

2 authors, including:

Mehmet Argin
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
10 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Integration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehmet Argin on 23 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
350 M. Argin and G.G. Karady: Characterization of Polyurethane Foam Dielectric Strength

Characterization of Polyurethane Foam Dielectric Strength

M.Argin and G.G.Karady
Department of Electrical Engineering
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA

ABSTRACT
Internal flashovers in hollow insulation systems can produce serious damage.
Frequently, SF6 or N2 is used to eliminate this problem, but possible gas leakage may
endanger the insulation. This paper proposes the use of polyurethane foams to fill the
hollow spaces in insulation systems. Thus far, few publications deal with the dielectric
properties of foams. This paper demonstrates the dielectric strength of three different
foams which are investigated using ac and lightning impulse voltages under different
humidity and temperature conditions. The results show that polyurethane foams have
2-3 times better dielectric strength than air. The breakdown strength decreases with
the thickness of the foam; temperature and humidity have negligible effects on the
breakdown voltage. The major parameter is the size of the voids in the foam. Reducing
the size of the voids increases the breakdown strength. This can be achieved by
improving the manufacturing technology.
Index Terms — Breakdown strength, impulse voltage, insulation, polyurethane
foam.

1 INTRODUCTION of a single pore. Findings showed that, in a short time, partial

POLYURETHANE foams have been in use for decades by
the industry [1]. Although the use of polyurethane foams is
common in low voltage switchgears, few applications are
reported in medium and high-voltage (HV) systems [2]. At high
voltages, SF6 and/or N2 are applied in the hollow insulation
system, for example Optical Instrument Transformers (OIT), to
avoid internal flashover. Firmly sealing these gases within the
insulating system over a long period of time as well as over
variable temperatures are difficult. As a result of this sealing
problem, gas pressure drops, moisture may penetrate into the
insulation medium, and the dielectric strength of the insulation
system decreases. In addition, there is a growing concern about
the release of SF6 into the atmosphere given that SF6 is one of
the greenhouse gases. In comparison with these gases,
polyurethane foam allows for a much easier seal in insulation
systems and eliminates the potential risk of gas leakage. Also,
the water penetration and condensation effects can be
minimized more with polyurethane foams because polymeric
materials have better hydrophobic properties. Furthermore, the
lightness of the polyurethane foam encourages its application in
HV insulation.
In early studies, the electrical properties of particular
polyurethane foams were investigated with ac and lightning
impulse voltages under dry conditions. The ac breakdown
strength and partial discharge performance of polyurethane
foams were verified, and breakdown models of the
microporous structures were built up based on the breakdown
Manuscript received on 1 February 2007, in final form 10 October 2007.
discharges in a few pores would not cause a breakdown of the
foam [3, 4]. In 2003, the authors of this paper investigated the
rigid pour polyurethane foam’s electrical property under ac and
lightning impulse voltages. The effects of the water and foam
skin on its electrical strength were also considered. The outcome
revealed that the average AC breakdown strength of 36.2±6.6
kV/cm and average lightning impulse breakdown strength of
97.6±11.5 existed in the samples that contained skin [5]. In
2004, the authors investigated the use of foam for insulation of
an Optical Instrument Transformer (OIT). The insulation of the
OIT was modeled with rigid polyurethane foam-filled tubes and
appropriate electrodes. The AC voltage test and partial
discharge measurements proved that foam insulation met with
the requirements set for 69 kV class instrument transformers [6].
Recently, one type of the rigid pour polyurethane foam
insulation was investigated in different humidity and
temperature conditions. The results showed that the effect of
humidity and temperature appeared to be less significant than
that of voids on the dielectric strength of the material [7]. All of
these studies demonstrate that polyurethane foams have a high
breakdown strength, which suggests their use as an alternative
for high voltage insulation.
At this point, the query is whether all types of polyurethane
foams have identical dielectric characteristics. This will be
investigated by looking at the differences between the foams in
terms of dielectric strength and the main parameters determining
the foams' electrical strengths. The objective of this paper is to
characterize the electric properties of polyurethane foams and to
identify the parameters affecting dielectric strength.

1070-9878/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 2; April 2008 351

2 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF Table 1. Properties of polyurethane foams.

POLYURETHANE FOAM Chemical Chemical PH Boiling point

Isocyanates, a range of polyols of different molecular Family Name level
Type Part A Part A Part B Part A Part B
weights and additives are utilized to produce all types of
Aromatic isocyanic 7.5- 207.7 14 lbs
polyurethane materials. Foam 1 Isocyanate acid 8.5 °C boils at
Polyols are reactive substances that contain at least two 32°C
isocyanate-reacting groups attached to a single molecule. NA polymeric NA 210 °C Above
Polyols are manufactured based on either polyether or Foam 2 diisocyanate 204.4°
C
polyester and are named as polyether-based or polyester- Aromatic isocyanic 8 207.7 Above
based, respectively. Polyols have been developed to have Foam 3 Isocyanate acid °C 204.4°
the required reactivity with isocyanates and to produce C
polyurethanes with specific properties. The choice of
polyol is especially contingent on the size and flexibility
of its molecular structure and its functionality. 3 DETERMINATION OF THE VOID
Isocyanates are divided into two groups: Toluene DISTRIBUTION
diisocyanate (TDI) and Diisocyanate-diphenylmethane
(MDI) and its derivatives. In addition to isocyanates and The previous study indicated that the electrical property of
polyols, at least some of the additives, including catalysts, the foam depends on the void size and distribution [7]. These
cross-linking chain-extending agents, blowing agents, properties of the foams were analyzed by preparing 10 cross-
surfactants, coloring materials, fillers, smoke cut samples from each of the foams and scanning the samples
suppressants, and flame retardants, are also incorporated using an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope
in order to control and modify polyurethane reactions and (ESEM). The images were then analyzed to calculate the
the properties of the final product. average size of the voids. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show sample
ESEM pictures for each type of Foam.
Polyurethane foams are mainly manufactured by simply
mixing the required ratios followed by hand pouring into
a mould and by high-pressure foaming machine that have
been designed to measure the required ratio of chemicals
followed by reaction injection molding (RIM). Most
polyols and isocyanates used in the manufacturing of
polyurethanes are liquids at ambient temperatures and are
easy to manage. The comparison of the chemical
properties of the different foams resulted in the selection
of three different foams.

Foam 1 is a low viscosity, high yield, low pressure,

rigid, closed-cell, two component flotation foam ideal for
use in filling large voids. Foam 2 is a two-part
polyurethane backfill product designed to straighten
utility poles. Foam 3 is a low viscosity, high density,
Figure 1. Void distribution in Foam 1.
rigid, closed-cell, two component molding foam. Table 1
lists the physical properties of these foams.

In this study, the manufacturing of the foams is as

follows. Each of the foams consists of two parts, namely
parts A and B. Equal amounts of components A and B are
poured into a beaker and mixed for 45 seconds. This
mixture is then poured into 30 cm long square molds. The
foam is covered completely with a plate, and 125.7 kg/m2
pressure is applied to the plate; this pressure prevents the
foam from rising. This process is completed in 30 s, but
the foam is removed from the molds after 2 h. In order to
manufacture uniform and reproducible foam samples, the
foam production took place at room temperature (24 °C)
and room RH (30-36%). One sample at each temperature
is used for each test. Figure 2. Void distribution in Foam 2.
352 M. Argin and G.G. Karady: Characterization of Polyurethane Foam Dielectric Strength

with transformer oil. Prior to preliminary testing, whether the

transformer oil penetrates into the foam samples or not was
investigated. The results proved that transformer oil does not
penetrate into the foam samples with skin. The identical
electrode system made of steel was used in both tests. The
occurrence of the discharge was observed visually on an
oscilloscope. The gradual increase of voltage permitted
accurate detection of discharge development a few seconds
before the breakdown but may not detect short duration (1/2-1
cycles) discharge immediately before the breakdown.

The heat tests were conducted with samples exposed to

different heat conditions (24 °C, 40 °C, and 60 °C) to observe
Figure 3. Void distribution in Foam 3. the effect of heat on the foam’s electrical properties. The
samples tested at 40 °C and 60 °C were heated for an hour in
An ESEM investigation of the foam samples indicated that an oven. Immediately following the samples’ removal from
the size and the distribution of the voids inside the the oven, electrical tests were completed.
polyurethane foam are not homogeneous [5, 7]. Table 2
reveals the results of the ESEM investigation. The samples were also tested at an ambient humidity of 36%
RH (Relative Humidity), 45% RH, and 80% RH. Humidity
Table 2. Average size and distribution of voids. conditions were generated according to the ASTM Standard
104-02 [9]. The samples were kept under 80% RH for the
Type Avg. diameter void ratio Foam Density duration of 48 hours, and then high voltage tests were
in µm (%) g/cm3 performed. Water absorption was not apparent at these three
Foam 1 130 50 0.13-0.14 different levels of humidity; thus, measurements show less
Foam 2 200 90 0.10-0.11 than 1% water absorption under all three conditions. Each
Foam 3 200 70 0.125-0.13
sample was manufactured using the same method; this assures
the uniformity of the samples.
The smaller voids and dense structure suggests that Foam 1
retains better dielectric performance.
Table 3. Number of tests conducted with each foam type under different
conditions.

4 TEST METHODS
Room temperature 24 °C Room RH 30-36%
The performance of the polyurethane foam has been 36% RH 45% RH 80% RH 24 ºC 40 ºC 60 ºC
investigated through the ac and lightning impulse breakdown Foam
15 15 16 15 15 17
1
tests. Foam
16 26 17 16 15 13
2
The ac breakdown test was conducted according to the IEEE Foam
11 NA 14 11 10 NA
Standard 4-1995 [8]. The test was performed with 60 Hz AC 3
voltages on a flat foam sample using a metal sheet as the
bottom electrode and a standard cylindrical electrode at the
top. The top cylindrical electrode dimensions were 51 mm in 5 TEST RESULTS
diameter and 25 mm in height with the edges rounded to a 6.4
mm radius. The high voltage tests were performed to determine the
A low voltage was applied to the foam sample and raised dielectric strength of polyurethane foam insulation exposed to
slowly with 0.8 kV/sec speed until breakdown. The different humidity and temperature conditions. The AC and
breakdown usually occurred at the edge of the electrode. The lightning impulse tests were conducted with samples that were
breakdown voltage was recorded. exposed to 36% RH, 45% RH, 85% RH and (24 °C), 40 °C,
and 60 °C. Table 4 illustrates the number of tests conducted
The dielectric strength of rigid pour polyurethane foam was with each foam type under different conditions.
also studied with standard positive polarity 1.2/50 lightning
impulses. The breakdown voltage was determined by a The test results are given in Table 4 and Table 5. The Tables
stepwise increase of the impulse voltage, thus applying five exhibit the values for breakdown strength. The strength is the
impulses per step with a 10 seconds time interval between two division of breakdown voltage to the thickness of the sample.
impulses until breakdown.
In general, the breakdown strength of solid insulation
The partial discharge was measured using a Haefely made materials tends to decrease with increasing temperatures and
partial discharge detector. In order to prevent surface humidity [10]; however, that is not true for polyurethane foam
discharges, the foam samples were tested in a vessel filled insulation.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 2; April 2008 353

Table 4. Comparison of ac breakdown test results. The average AC breakdown strength is calculated as 49.7±9.8
kV/cm. The breakdown stress of air insulation, measured with
ac breakdown strength (kV/cm) the same arrangement, is 15 kV/cm. Hence, this foam
Room temperature 24 °C Room RH 30-36 % breakdown stress is about 3 times higher than that of air. The
36% RH 45% RH 80% RH 24 ºC 40 ºC 60 ºC figure shows that the breakdown strength is practically
Foam 36.5 6 53.2 2 55.9 7 37.0 1 54.6 6 44.6 6 independent from the thickness of Foam 1, which possesses
1 the thickness range of 0.7-1.6 cm.
Foam 39.2 7 45.5 3 35.3 6 39.2 7 40.3 8 40.3 5
2 120
Foam NA 44.2 5 40 4.2 44.2 5 51.2 2 NA
3
100

Table 5. Comparison of lightning impulse test results.

Breakdown Strength(kV/cm)
80

Lightning impulse strength (kV/cm)

60
36% RH 45% RH 80% RH 24 ºC 40 ºC 60 ºC

Foam 40
161.2 2 147.7 3 187.8 4 162.1 8 177.5 3 155.3 3
1
Foam
139.6 1 148.5 2 117.6 1 141 1 169.5 2 168.4 2 20
2
Foam
157.3 9 NA 131.9 1 162.3 8 146.9 2 NA
3 0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.81.85
Thickness(cm)

The test results reveal that in some cases the strength Figure 5. The ac breakdown strength versus thickness of Foam 2.
decreases, while in other cases it increases. In addition, the
standard deviation of the breakdown voltage is substantial. The breakdown strength decreases due to increasing
The study of void distribution presented before suggests that thickness as shown in Figure 5. All data points are within the
the voids have a major effect on the breakdown voltage [7]. 95% confidence interval except one. The average ac
breakdown strength is calculated as 39±7.0 kV/cm. This foam
During the tests, the partial discharge was measured as the breakdown stress is about 2.6 times higher than that of air.
voltage increased. The samples were immersed in oil, which
eliminated the surface discharge. The significant finding is
120
that partial discharge was not observed during the increase of
voltage.
100

6 STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF THE

Breakdown Strength(kV/cm)

80
TEST RESULTS
The test results show that the effect of humidity and 60
temperature on the breakdown strength of polyurethane foam
is small compared to the internal voids produced in variation 40
of the breakdown voltage.
20
120

0
100 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Thickness(cm)

Figure 6. ac breakdown strength versus thickness of Foam 3.

Breakdown Strength(kV/cm)

80

As in Foam 2, the breakdown strength of Foam 3 decreases

60
due to increasing thickness, as seen in Figure 6. All points are
within the 95% confidence interval. The average ac
40
breakdown strength is 44.7±6.3 kV/cm. This foam breakdown
stress is about 3 times higher than that of air. The standard
20
deviation is much less than those found for Foams 1,2.
0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 In Figure 7, the lightning impulse breakdown strength of
Thickness(cm)
Foam 1 decreases rapidly with increasing thickness. All the
Figure 4. ac breakdown strength versus thickness of Foam1. data points are found to be within 95 % confidence interval.
354 M. Argin and G.G. Karady: Characterization of Polyurethane Foam Dielectric Strength

280 300

260 280

260
240
240

Breakdown Strength(kV/cm)
Breakdown Strength(kV/cm)

220
220
200
200
180
180
160
160

140 140

120 120

100 100

80 80
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Thickness(cm) Thickness(cm)

Figure 7. Lightning impulse breakdown strength versus thickness of Foam 1. Figure 9. The lightning impulse breakdown strength versus thickness of Foam
3.

There are no outliers. The average lightning impulse 7 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
breakdown strength is calculated as 166.2±37.3 kV/cm. The
breakdown stress of air insulation, measured with the same 7.1 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE
arrangement, is 55 kV/cm. This foam breakdown stress is It is believed that temperature does not affect the breakdown
about 3 times higher than that of air. stress of gases in the 20 – 100 °C range. However, an increase
in temperature may decrease the breakdown stress of the solid
part of the foam. ESEM investigation revealed that voids
300
composed of gases occupy 50%, 90%, and 70% of Foam 1,
Foam 2, and Foam 3, respectively. If a breakdown initiates in
250
the voids and the temperature does not affect the breakdown
stress of gases there, then the temperature effects on the foam
Breakdown Strength(kV/cm)

breakdown voltage must be negligible.

200

7.2 EFFECT OF HUMIDITY

150 Exposure to high humidity produces water penetration in the
foam. In our previous paper [5], we performed tests and
measured the weight increase due to humidity exposure. It
100
was determined that exposure to 100% RH increases the
sample weight by only 0.05% if the sample has skin and 2% if
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 the sample has no skin. These findings verify that humidity
Thickness(cm)
must have only a small or negligible effect on the foam
Figure 8. Lightning impulse breakdown strength versus thickness of Foam 2. breakdown voltage.

Figure 8 shows that the lightning impulse breakdown EFFECT OF FOAM DENSITY AND VOIDS
strength of Foam 2 decreases with thickness. All data points Foam 1 has the highest breakdown strength. It also has the
are within the 95 % confidence interval except for one highest density and smallest average void diameter. In
outlier. The average breakdown strength is 147.9±28.8 addition, voids only occupy 50% of the foam.
kV/cm. This foam breakdown stress is about 2.7 times
higher than that of air. Foam 2 has the lowest breakdown strength along with the
lowest density and a significantly greater average void
In Figure 9, the lightning impulse breakdown strength of diameter. In addition, voids occupy 90% of the foam.
Foam 3 decreases rapidly with increasing thickness. All
points are within the 95% confidence interval. The average Foam 3’s breakdown strength is in between that of Foam 1
lightning impulse breakdown strength is calculated as and Foam 2. Foam 3 has the second lowest density with voids
144.2±20.7 kV/cm. This foam breakdown stress is about 2.6 occupying 70% of the foam.
times higher than that of air. The standard deviation is much
less than that of found for Foam 1 or Foam 2, as in the ac These findings show the relationship between the
test. breakdown voltage and foam density as well as void size and
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 15, No. 2; April 2008
void distribution. Foam with a higher density, smaller voids,
and less void distribution is expected to have larger electric
breakdown strength. Therefore, high density foams should be
used for electric insulation.
DIELECTRIC BREAKDOWN HYPOTHESIS
The breakdown behavior of porous dielectrics and solid
insulation materials has been studied by many authors [11,
12]. Partial discharges, one of the main factors that have
major impact on the breakdown mechanism of solid insulation
materials, has also been studied [13-15]. The influence of the
void parameters upon the induced charges due to partial
discharges for spheroidal voids was discussed. It was noted
that the void orientation with reference to the applied field has
most important effect on induced charges in addition to void
location, geometry and dimension, void gas pressure and
composition [13, 14]. In another study, decay of charge
accumulated by partial discharges deposited on the wall of a
gaseous void due to surface currents at the void wall was
studied [15]. The paper concludes that the decay rate is
significantly reduced by an increase in the permittivity of the
bulk medium.
However, there is no single theory explaining the
breakdown mechanisms in porous dielectrics and solid
insulation materials. A past study [3] suggested that the
electric breakdown was initiated by discharge in the
voids. This leads to a breakdown hypothesis. Our field
distribution studies show that the electric field is higher in
the voids than in the solid part of the foam. The increase
in voltage generates discharge in the voids, which is then
filled with conducting ions. This causes short-circuiting
of the voids. The short circuit increases the voltage across
the solid particles. In addition, higher voltages increase
the electric field, which causes secondary short circuits in
the other voids. This further increases the voltage across
the solid particles. The continuation of this process finally
leads to an electric breakdown of the solid material. We
assumed that this is a fast avalanche process because no
partial discharge was observed prior to the breakdown
during the voltage increase. Cursory electrical field
calculations show that the electric field is similar in the
voids independent of the void location and size. Because
of the more-or-less uniform distribution of the electric
field in the voids, we assume that the discharge starts
simultaneously in all voids; this suddenly increases the
electric field and produces an avalanche breakdown.
Additional electrical field studies will be performed to
prove this breakdown hypothesis.
8 CONCLUSIONS
This paper characterized the electrical breakdown strength
of polyurethane foam insulation and presented a hypothesis
for the breakdown mechanism.
It was found that
The foam breakdown stress depends on the void size
and distribution
355
The high density foams, with smaller void diameters,
have higher breakdown stress.
The test indicated that isocyanic acid foam is better
than polymeric diisocyanate foam.
The foam breakdown stress is about 3 times higher
than that of air under similar conditions.
The temperature and humidity effects are negligible
in the 0-100% RH and 20-60 °C range.
The overall average ac breakdown strength is calculated as
49.7±9.8 kV/cm, 39±7.0 kV/cm, and 44.7±6.3 kV/cm for
Foam 1, Foam 2, and Foam 3, respectively.
The overall average lightning impulse breakdown strength is
calculated as 166.2±37.3 kV/cm, 147.9±28.8 kV/cm and
144.2±20.7 kV/cm for Foam 1, Foam 2, and Foam 3,
respectively.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We gratefully acknowledge the use of facilities within the
Center for Solid State Science at Arizona State University.
10 REFERENCES
[1] M. Szycher, “Szycher’s Handbook of Polyurethanes”, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999.
[2] D. Koenig, H.J. Heller, B. Bayer and P. Westbrock, “PUR-Hard
foam insulation. Some fundamentals and relevant applications in high
voltage switchgear technology”, Cigre Symposium, Report 61-03,
Vienna, Austria, 1987.
[3] D. Koenig,, B. Bayer and H. J.Heller, “Breakdown of Polyurethane
Hard-foam Insulation under Short-Time HV Stress”, IEEE Trans.
Electr. Insul., Vol. 24, pp. 239-248, 1989.
[4] D.Koenig and H.J. Heller, “Breakdown Performance of PUR-Foam
Insulation under AC-Voltage Stress”, Intern. Conf. Properties and
Applications of Dielectric Materials, pp. 97-100, 1985.
[5] G.G.Karady, M.Argin, B.Shi, F.Rahmatian and A.H. Rose,
“Electrical properties of rigid pour polyurethane foam applied for high
voltage insulation”, Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Transmission and
Distribution Conf., Vol. 3, pp. 870-874, 2003.
[6] G.G.Karady, M.Argin, F.Rahmatian and A.H. Rose, “Polyurethane
Foam application for high voltage application” IEEE Conf. Electr.
Insul. Dielectr. Phenomena (CEIDP), pp. 526-529, 2004.
[7] M. Argin and G.G. Karady, “The Performance of Polyurethane foam
at different humidity and temperature conditions for high voltage
insulation”, Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Transmission and Distribution
Conf., pp. 1070-1075, 2006.
[8] IEEE Std 4-1995: “IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage
Testing” , 1995.
[9]ASTM Standard Practice for Maintaining Constant Relative
Humidity by Means of Aqueous Solutions, ASTM Standard 104-02,
2002.
[10] A. Schwaiger, “Theory of Dielectrics”, John Wiley & Suns, 1932.
[11] M.G. Danikas, “Discharge studies in solid insulation voids”, IEEE
Conf. Electr. Insul. Dielectr. Phenomena (CEIDP), pp.249-254, 1990.
[12] M. Idea, M. Nagao and M. Hikita, “High-field conduction and
breakdown in insulating polymers”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul.,
Vol. 1, pp. 934-945, 1994.
[13] G.C. Crichton, P.W. Karlsson and A.Pedersen, “Partial discharges
in ellipsoidal and spheroidal voids”, IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul., Vol. 24,
pp. 335-342, 1989.
[14] I.W. McAllister, “Partial discharges in spheroidal voids:void
orientation”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 4, , pp. 456-461,
1997.
[15] I.W. McAllister, “Decay of charge deposited on the wall of a
gaseous void”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 27, pp. 1202-
1207, 1992.
356 M. Argin and G.G. Karady: Characterization of Polyurethane Foam Dielectric Strength

Mehmet Argin was born in Germany. He received the George G. Karady (SM’70, F’78) received the BSEE
B.Tech degree from Istanbul Technical University and D.Eng. degrees in electrical engineering from the
(ITU), Turkey, in 1997 and the M.S. degree from Technical University of Budapest. Dr. Karady is the
Yildiz Technical University (YTU), Turkey, in 2000. Salt River Project Chair Professor at Arizona State
Between 1998 and 2001, he worked for YTU as a University, where he teaches electrical power and
Research/Teaching Assistant. He is currently pursuing performs research in power electronics, high voltage
his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at Arizona techniques, and electric power systems. Previously,
State University. he was with EBASCO Services, where he served as
Chief Consulting Electrical Engineer, Manager of
Electrical Systems, and Chief Engineer of Computer
Technology. Prior to that, he was Electrical Task supervisor for the Tokomak
Fusion Test reactor project at Princeton. He has worked for the Hydro Quebec
Institute of Research as a Program Manager. Dr Karady started his career at
the Technology University of Budapest, where he progressed from a Post
Doctoral Student to Deputy Department Head. Dr. Karady is a registered
professional engineer in New York, New Jersey, and Quebec. He is the author
of more than 200 technical papers. Dr. Karady is active in IEEE, and he was
chairman of the Chapter/Membership’s Award Committee, the Education
committee’s Award Subcommittee, and WG on Non-ceramic insulators of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society. Dr. Karady also served in the US National
Committee of CIGRE as Vice President and Secretary Treasurer.

View publication stats