Effect of Altitude on the Flashover Voltage of Contaminated Insulators Raji Sundararajan and Robert W. Nowlin Dept.

of Electrical Engineering & Dept. of Electronics and Computer Technology Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ - 85287-5706

Abstract Contamination flashover of insulators depends not only on the severity and type of contamination, but also on the altitude at which these insulators are situated. Reduced pressure or air density combined with light contamination at high altitudes decreases the flashover voltage. Experimental testing of a number of insulators for a wide range of outdoor conditions is time consuming as well as expensive. This paper presents the results of an investigation on the ac flashover voltages of contaminated insulators at reduced pressure using a numerical model. The model results agree well with experimental data. Introduction Economy dictates that bulk power at high voltages be transmitted by overhead lines. This causes insulators to be exposed to the outdoor environment. The insulation strength and surface discharge of these insulators are influenced by various uncontrollable atmospheric conditions, such as contamination, temperature, altitude, ice, snow, humidity, and pressure [l]. At high altitudes, the dielectric strength of air decreases with decreasing pressure. This increases the mean free path and consequently this results in a decreased flashover voltage [FOV] compared to that at sea level. With increased industrialization, mountainous and high altitude regions are viable alternatives for power transmission and distribution [2, 31. While the height itself can decrease the FOV, deposition of contaminants, even at lower levels has a cumulative effect on decreasing the insulation strength of insulators. The combined effect of high altitude and light contamination deteriorates the performance of insulators [2-41. Due to the increasing tendency towards the use of mountainous regions, it is of practical interest to investigate the performance of insulators at high altitudes. Experimental testing of a variety of insulators for their performance in a wide range of outdoor conditions is not only expensive and time consuming but also the data obtained is widely scattered. This necessitates the

use of computational techniques to estimate the performance of a number of insulators. The computational study can be used to complement experimental testing, by performing only a few key experiments to verify the accuracy of the model. Presented in this paper are the model results of ac FOVs of contaminated porcelain suspension and pin type insulators. Wherever possible, the model results have been compared with experimental data with good correlation between the two. Model Concept Literature Review:
A survey of available literature indicates that only limited work has been done on the effect of altitude on the flashover voltage of contaminated porcelain insulators [2-51. This is to be expected, because when even the normal atmospheric phenomena itself is not yet fully understood, the reduced pressure due to high altitude poses multiple variables that must be considered

In general, the FOV at high altitudes varies nonlinearly with the pressure at that altitude as [4,6]:
v m o = (P/PO>" (1)

where V is FOV at reduced pressure p, Vo is the FOV at standard pressure at sea level po (760 mm of mercury). The index m is found to vary with the type of insulator, i.e., the profile and the type of voltage (ac or dc) [7]. A value of m=0.5 is found to be in common with the published data available for std cap and pin insulators [4,61.
A physical modeling technique derives the ac arc reignition equation including the effect of pressure, as [71: V arcig
= 716 x P 0.77/ im0.526

(2a)

where V arcig is voltage required for arc reignition (V), x is arc length (cm), p is pressure (in the range of 0.6 - 1 atmosphere, corresponding to an altitude of approximately up to 4 km or 13000 ft) and im (A) is

(0-7083-3580-5) 1996 IEEE Annual Report - Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, San Francisco, October 20-23, 1996

arc current. Without loss of accuracy, the above eqn. has been used in the present investigation as:

Computational Philosophy:
An ac contamination FOV model was developed and used to investigate various aspects of atmospheric conditions, such as type of contaminant and effect of ice or snow [8-101 at atmospheric pressure. This model has been adapted to compute the FOV of insulators at high altitudes by using the appropriate arc reignition equation as given in eqn. (2b) above which considers the role of reduced pressure on FOV.

and longer leakage length to combat contamination and type H is the aerodynamic insulator used in desert environment. Pin type I (PA) is widely used in distribution. Table 1 furnishes the dimensions of these insulator profiles, Table 1: Dimensions of Suspension and Pin T y p e Insulators Used [2,31 Diameter Dmm Height Hmm

It is assumed that the arc current is the same as the pollution current to reduce complexity of modeling the arc flashover phenomena. Also, it was assumed that at any pressure, the arc follows the leakage distance without bridging the adjacent ribs or sheds [7]. This procedure is designated as Model 1. Calculations have also been performed using the empirical formula (eqn. (1)) with reported index data. This is designated as Model 2. Insulator Details Fig. 1 shows the suspension (transmission) and pin type (distribution) insulator profiles considered in this investigation [2]. A, B and H are the three types of suspension insulators and PA is a pin type insulator. Type A is the IEEE std cap and pin insulator, type B is the antifog or fog type insulator with deep skirts

Results and Discussion

Fig. 2 shows a comparison of Model 1 and the experimental results for IEEE std insulator at ESDD = 0.07 mg/cm2 (unless mentioned otherwise, the model calculations have been performed using Model 1). It can be seen that the model FOV follows the same trend as the experimental data. There is a decrease in the FOV with decrease in pressure, indicating lower electrical strength at high altitudes. Fig. 3 shows similar results obtained for pin type I insulator at the same contamination severity as above. It can be seen that there is good agreement between the model and the experimental data in both cases.

H
Aerodynamic

IEEE Std

Antifog

@
PA
Pin Type I

Fig. 2: Comparison of Experimental and Model Results of IEEE Std Insulator at 0.07 ESDD The accuracy of the IEEE std insulator is around 10% except at 650 mm Hg, where it is 12.12%. In the case of pin insulator type I, the accuracy varies from

Fig. 1: Insulator Profiles Considered

434

6% (at atmospheric pressure) to 18.24%. This can be attributed to the difference in the shape of the insulators. This is in line with the experimental observations of the previous researchers, where an average index of pressure, p was observed to be m = 0.5 for the IEEE std insulator while it is 0.8 for the pin type I insulator [4]. However, the model uses the same value of index (m=0.8) for both insulators.

factors can be used to select the number of insulators for a given contamination severity at a specific altitude by linear extrapolation. For a givenaltitude, the

m c
L

g) 100
80
Q)

P 151i
c -

Expt

r
U)

> 0

60

i i 40
20

A-

Model 2

i!

cn E: m ' O r
500 550
600

100

85.5

76

67

% Pressure

650

700

750

800

Pressure, mm Hg

Fig. 4: Percentage Variation of IEEE Std Insulator at 0.07 ESDD (E - Expt, M1 - Model 1, M2 - Model 2) Table 2: FOV Variation with Altitude

Fig. 3: Comparison of Experimental and Model Results of Pin Type I Insulator at 0.07 ESDD Using Model 2 (eqn. (l)), the FOVs have been computed and Fig. 3 shows a comparison of Model 2 and experimental data for pin type I insulator. There is good correlation in this case too. However, the disadvantage with this method is that for each individual insulator, the corresponding index m is to be used. Shown in Fig. 4 is a comparison of % variation of FOV with pressure for both model and experimental data for IEEE std insulator at ESDD = 0.07 mg/cm2. There is better agreement in this case, compared to the FOV comparison. Table 2 illustrates the variation of FOV with altitude for IEEE std insulator at 0.03 ESDD. The variation is almost linear up to 15000 ft. At heights above this the variation is slightly nonlinear. Assuming linearity for the entire range, the overall average variation is 1.765% per 1000 ft, which is equivalent to 5.79% per 3280 ft or 5.79% per km. This is in excellent agreement with the published value of 6% per km for ac voltage [6]. This demonstrates that the model is capable of estimating FOVs as good as experimental values and can conveniently be used as a complement for insulator selection at high altitudes by conducting only a few key experiments. Fig. 5 presents the % altitude derating factor for IEEE std insulator at 0.03 ESDD. These altitude correction

11 Altitude

IFOV, IRatio

I Variation

li

pressure has been calculated using the Pressure Altitude Calculator available in Netscape [lll. In general, the change in FOV can be represented as:

A(V/Vo) = 0.018 H
where H is altitude in 1000s of feet. Presented in Fig. 6 is the variation of FOV with pressure (model results) for three types of suspension insulators at 0.03 ESDD. It can be seen that the FOV decreases with decrease of pressure for all three profiles. However, the relative variation of FOV remains the same. Further work to incorporate the role of insulator profile on the index, m, is in progress.

435

Acknowledgments The information provided by M. Muralidhar and H. ElKishky, Arizona State University is gratefully acknowledged.

25 L 20 L
-

References
T. A. Phillips et al, Influence of Air Density

on Electrical Strength of Transmission Line Insulation, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 86, No. 8, Aug 1967, pp. 948 - 958
V. M. Rudakova and N. N. Tokhodeev, Influence of Low Air Pressure on Flashover Voltages of Polluted Insulators, IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan 1989, pp. 607 612 T. Kawamura et al., Pressure Dependence of DC Breakdown of Contaminated Insulators, IEEE Trans. EI, Vol. 17, No. 1, Feb 1982, pp. 39-45 Anibal de la 0 L. and J. G. de la Vega, Performance of AC Insulators under Low Pressure for Fog Chamber Tests, 7th ISH, paper 44.19, Dresden, 1991

5000

10000 15000 Altitude, ft

20000

Fig. 5: Altitude Derating Factor for IEEE Std Insulator at ESDD = 0.03 mg/cm2

Gou Rui-Feng, Influence of Pressure on ACFlashover Voltage and Pre-Flashover Current of Contaminated Insulators, 7th ISH, Paper 43.06, Dresden, 1991
H. P. Mercure, Insulator Pollution Performance at High Altitude: Major Trends, IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 2, Apr 1989 F. A. M. Rizk and A. Q. Rezazada, Modeling of Altitude Effects on AC Flashover of Polluted High Voltage Insulators, Paper LI-96 WM606 R. Sundararajanet al., Computer Aided Design of Porcelain Insulators under Polluted Conditions, IEEE Trans. EI, Vol. 2, No. 1, Feb 1995 R. Sundararajan and R. S . Gorur, Role of Non-soluble Contaminants on the Flashover Voltage of Porcelain Insulators, IEEE Trans. DEI, Vol. 3, No. 1,Feb 1996, pp. 113-118
R. Sundararajan, A Computational Study of

Pressure, mm Hg

Fig. 6 Variation of FOV with Pressure for Suspension Insulators Conclusions A contamination flashover model previously developed has been adapted to compute the flashover voltage of contaminated insulators at high altitudes. In general, the FOV vs. pressure follows the form, V/Vo = (p/p0), where m = 0.5 for ac voltage. The derating of the FOV strength varies at the rate of 1.8% per 1000 ft for ac voltage at light-moderate contamination severities (0.03 - 0.07 ESDD). It is hoped that the model can be beneficial to other researchers and design engineers as a complement to experimentation to better understand the high altitude contaminationflashover phenomena.

Flashover voltage of Iced Insulators, 58th American power Conference, Apr 1996 http://nwselp.epcc.edu/elp/presalt.html

436