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

net/publication/228894684

Insulator pollution and wetting processes at a severe coastal site

Article · January 2003

CITATIONS READS

8 312

2 authors, including:

Wallace Vosloo
Eskom
49 PUBLICATIONS   305 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wallace Vosloo on 24 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Insulator pollution and wetting processes at a severe coastal site
W.L. Vosloo1 and J.P. Holtzhausen2
1
Eskom Technology Services International, South Africa
2
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

Abstract: High voltage insulators that are exposed to

a coastal environment become conductive due to the
formation of a conductive layer on the insulator
surface. This layer could be due to a salt spray near
the coast or due to the deposition of a dry pollution
layer with subsequent wetting due to rain, dew or fog.
The pollution collection depends on the type of
material of the surface of the insulator and the
condition of the surface. The pollution collection of
identically shaped insulators made of different
materials was monitored for a period of twelve
months. The pollution deposition was monitored on
the sample insulators and compared to that of non-
energised insulators. The pollution sources, pollution
deposition and wetting mechanisms were
investigated.
It was found that wind is the main carrier of pollution
and that the wind causes directional deposition of
pollution. More pollution was visible on the non-
Fig. 1: Possible pollution sources near the test station
energised units than on the energised units, although
the surface conductance measurements indicated the pollution sources surrounding KIPTS (indicated at the
contrary. A hypothesis is presented for the centre of the map Fig. 1 ) are summarised as follows:
phenomenon. � The Atlantic Ocean lies to the west of the test
station. Wave action, sea breezes/winds and
1. Introduction periodic mist banks are the cause of an influx of
oisture and salt particles in the vicinity of the test
station.
Koeberg Insulator Pollution Test Station (KIPTS) is
� The breakwater wall at the Koeberg Nuclear plant
situated along the Cape West Coast, 50 m from the
north of KIPTS causes local salt mist banks to
sea. The site is generally recognised as a severe
occur.
coastal test station for the pollution and ageing
� To the east a predominantly agricultural area
performance of outdoor insulators. Various types of
(wheat, vineyards) is found with occasional veld
energised insulators have been exposed to the
fires, ploughing, harvesting and crop spraying.
environment, while the leakage current flow over the
� North-east of KIPTS (10 - 13 km) an industrial
insulator surface was monitored. In a specific
experiment a number of new 22 kV insulators having area emits burnt diesel, coal and heavy fuel oil
particles into the atmosphere.
the same shapes but made of different materials were
energised at the site. The insulators materials were: � To the south-south-east heavy industries such as a
HTV silicone rubber (1S, 6S), EPDM rubber (2E, 7E), fertiliser plant and an oil refinery are the main
porcelain (3P, 8P), RTV silicone rubber coated causes of severe particle emissions.
porcelain (4C) and cyclo-aliphatic epoxide (5A). The
leakage currents were monitored continuously and the 3. Pollution deposition process
highest value of each 10 minute period was stored.
Meteorological data were logged simultaneously. It was found that wind is the main carrier of pollution
at KIPTS. The other effects (gravity and electric
2. Pollution sources near test site field) mentioned in the CIGRE review [1] were found
to be secondary.
An environmental survey was performed on the area The dominant wind direction during winter is north-
around Koeberg. Firstly, a topographical map of the easterly, and south-westerly in summer. The wind
area surrounding KIPTS was obtained and 5 km radius speeds can be extremely high (gale force). Westerly
circles were drawn, outwards up to 20 km. The main winds bring marine pollution, south-easterly winds

1
bring industrial pollution, north-easterly winds bring
rain, and easterly winds tend to be hot.
3.1 Observations relating to pollution deposition
Visual observations of insulator pollution deposits
were done on a weekly basis for the first six weeks
and thereafter every sixth week and the following was
noted:
� Light pollution build-up and salt crystals were
noted from week 1 on both the energised and non-
energised insulators.
� The first signs of directional pollution dominant
from the south were observed mainly on the shed
tips and rod housing (sheath) from week 5
onwards.
� The directional pollution build-up was always less
prominent on the energised insulators.
� There was no significant difference between the
composition of the pollution deposits on the
various material types of test insulators.
The visual pollution build-up on the energised
porcelain insulator was lower than that on the non-
energised porcelain insulator, as shown in Fig. 2. The
pollution build-up was also higher on the south-
eastern rim of the bottom of the shed. This correlates
well with the expected theories of wind-borne
pollution processes. This was also true for all the
other test insulators. The proposed hypothesis is that
the differences in pollution build-up and distribution
could be due to the leakage current and discharge
activity on the energised insulator breaking down the
pollution deposit and rendering it more soluble, which
then helps distribute the pollution over the surface.
3.2 Insulator pollution measurements
Insulator pollution measurements such as localised
equivalent salt-deposit density (LESDD), and surface
conductivity data obtained using the insulator
pollution monitoring apparatus (IPMA) were recorded
at set time intervals.
New Non-energised
Fig. 2: Photograph showing the directional pollution build-up on a non-energised porcelain test insulator
2 Vosloo, W.L. & Holtzhausen, J.P.
3.2.1 Monitoring localised equivalent salt-deposit
density (LESDD)
Localised ESDD (LESDD) measurements were made
on the silicone rubber and EPDM insulators, energised
and non-energised, the spot contamination
measurement method [2]. Four readings
corresponding to the cardinal points (north, east,
south, and west) were taken on the top of the sheds.
The LESDD was calculated using the same equations
as for ESDD [3]. The only differences were the
surface area tested (78.57 mm2 ) and the volume of
distilled water used (100 � l).
To interpret the LESDD data,‘probability of exceeding
abscissa’ plots were drawn as shown in Fig. 3.
From the above probability graphs it is clear that the
energised SR and EPDM insulators had higher
average values of LESDD than the non-energised
units during both the winter and summer test periods.
This seems to be contradictory to the visual
observations, which show more pollution on the non-
energised units. This supports the hypothesis made in
section 3.1.
3.2.2 Measurements of surface conductivity using
the insulator pollution monitoring apparatus
(IPMA)[4 ]
IPMA surface conductivity measurements were made
on insulators 6S, 7E and 8P energised and non-
energised.
The IPMA test procedure is described as follows:
a) The test insulator is placed in a closed, controlled
environment (chamber).
b) A heater and/or air blower is engaged to dry the
test insulator.
c) The insulator is energised for five 3 kV AC
voltage cycles and the voltage and leakage current
over the test insulator is measured as a dry
reference.
d) The wetting cycle is then begun; a short pulse of
Energised
 100

EPDM-energised

Table 1: Table of IPMA surface conductivity measurements and

90

SR-energised
Probability of exceeding absyssa (%)
80
Winter EPDM-non-energised pollution-severity classifications for week 53 on energised and
70
SR-non-energised non-energised insulators 1S, 2E, 3P, 4C and 5A. The numbers of
60
test iterations are also shown.
50

IPMA, SURFACE CONDUCTIVITY (µS)

40
Week 53
30
Energised Iterations Non-Enegised
20 13.64 16 37.52
1S
10
Heavy Very-Heavy
50.60 11 90.61
0
100 2E
Exceptional Exceptional
EPDM-energised
90 53.77 9 21.83
3P
Exceptional Heavy
Probability of exceeding absyssa (%)

SR-energised
Summer
80
8.09 24 29.27
70
EPDM-non-energised 4C
Medium Very-Heavy
SR-non-energised
139.78 9 13.74
60
5A
Exceptional Heavy
50

40 implies a change in the resistivity of the pollution

30 layer and a possible decrease in the area available for
20
current flow.
10

The RTV SR-coated porcelain insulators had more

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
ESDD (mg/cm²)
Fig. 3: Probability of the average LESDD measurements on
the energised and non-energised SR and EPDM insulators 6S
and 7E is shown for both winter and summer test programme
cycles
steam is injected into the chamber and the voltage
and leakage current are recorded in the same
manner as (c) above. The wetting cycle continues
until a decline in leakage current is registered (the
current decreases for more than three successive
wetting cycles). The number of wetting cycles
for the test is referred to as iterations.
e) The insulator is then dried as per (b) above and
returned to its natural environment.
The surface conductivity of the test insulator, when
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
iterations and lower surface conductivity values than
the HTV SR test insulators. This implies that the
RTV SR allowed more hydrophobicity transfer than
the HTV SR, which correlates with the findings of
Cherney and Gorur [6].
The IPMA surface conductivity values measured in
week 53 on the energised SR (RTV coating and HTV)
and EPDM test insulators were found to be lower than
on the non-energised insulators. This contradicts the
previous findings that the energised insulators have
higher surface conductivity values than the non-
energised ones. Why is this so? The hypothesis that
the material changes in the dry-band regions is the
140

artificially wetted, can then be calculated from the 120

1S

voltage and leakage current results and the form

2E
Surface Conductivity (µS)

3P

factor. The IPMA surface conductivity measurements Energised

100
4C

in Fig. 4 were made on the naturally aged test 80 5A

insulators, energised and non-energised, at the end of 60

the test period (week 53). The number of iterations is 40

an indicator of the solubility of the pollution layer. 20

The more iterations needed, the less soluble the

pollution layer. The surface conductivity results,
1400

1S

number of iterations and the pollution levels are 120

Non-energised 2E

shown in Table 1. 3P
Surface Conductivity (µS)

100
4C

The surface conductivity results in Fig. 4 show that 80 5A

the pollution layers on the energised test insulators 60

generally dissolved faster than the layers on the non-

energised insulators. The number of iterations needed
40

to reach a peak value of surface conductivity was less 20

for the energised insulators. Thus, energisation 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

influences the pollution by making it more soluble, Iterations

which supports the hypothesis proposed above. Fig.4 : Consecutive IPMA measurement cycles for the
The higher number of iterations for the SR test various insulators.
insulators (RTV coating and HTV) indicates that the most plausible. The idea that energisation activates
pollution layer takes longer to dissolve than do the and facilitates the hydrophobicity transfer cannot be
reference porcelain and other insulators tested. It is used as this cannot occur on the EPDM test insulator.
assumed that hydrophobicity transfer from the SR The aluminiumtrihydrate (ATH) filler is the only
material to the pollution layer has taken place, as common material component. It is known [7] that
described by Kindersberger and Kuhl [5]. This also when subjected to electrical discharge activity, the

Insulator pollution and wetting processes at a severe coastal site 3

ATH filler changes, and the resultant surface has a
high component of aluminium oxide (Al2 O3 ).
Aluminium oxide is hard, has a very low solubility
and is non-conducting. Thus, a surface area with large
concentrations of aluminium oxide in relation to the
pollution will be difficult to dissolve, have a higher
resistivity and result in a lower surface conductivity
than a normally polluted surface. This supports the
hypothesis that the dry-band region has a different
surface conductivity, which influences the overall
IPMA surface conductivity measurements.
There was a large difference in surface conductivity
values between energised and non-energised
cycloaliphatic test insulators (5A). The non-energised
unit’s value was very close to that measured for the
reference porcelain insulator, possibly indicating that
the non-energised cycloaliphatic insulator material had
minimal interaction with the pollution layer.
However, the big difference in surface conductivity
measurements on the energised cycloaliphatic
insulator supports the hypothesis that there is an
interaction between the insulator surface material and
the pollution layer, possibly increasing the surface
area available for current flow.
4. Insulator wetting
The principal wetting processes are spray wetting,
adsorption of moisture from ambient air and
condensation. Spray wetting can occur any time of
day or night while adsorption depends on the relative
humidity of the air and the insulator temperature.
While adsorption occurs at a constant temperature, the
insulator surface must be cooler than the ambient air
for condensation to occur.
The insulator material thermal properties, notably
thermal conductivity and heat capacity have been
found to play a significant role in the wetting process
and therefore leakage current performance of the
various materials [ 8].
Solar radiation has a great effect on the wetting of the
insulator surface as it heats the insulator to a
temperature above dew point.
Hydrophobicity inspections were made using the
STRI method [9] It was found that the surface
hydrophobicity was lost on all the test insulators
within the first six weeks, on both energised and non-
energised.
5. Conclusion
From the insulator pollution and wetting observations
on the test insulators at KIPTS, it is concluded that the
insulator pollution and surface conductivity levels on
the energised insulators are higher than those of the
non-energised insulators (confirmed by LESDD and
IPMA surface conductivity measurements). This is
4 Vosloo, W.L. & Holtzhausen, J.P.
View publication stats
attributed to the pollution being dissolved on the
energised insulators due to electrical leakage current
and discharge activity.
The results suggest that there is an interaction between
the insulator material surface and the pollution layer,
which alters the resistivity and the surface area
available for leakage current flow. Hydrophobicity
transfer was also confirmed on the SR test insulators.
It was more prominent on the RTV SR coating. It is
further suggested that the material in the dry-band area
changes due to electrical leakage current and
discharge activity.
A ranking of the energised test insulators is suggested,
based on the IPMA surface conductivity values (week
53). The test performance decreased in the following
order: 4C (best performer), 1S, 2E, 3P (reference) and
5A (worst performer).
(N.B. :It should be noted that these are not general
conclusions and that they apply only to the conditions
pertaining to the present investigation.)
Further research work is necessary to investigate the
effect of the thermal properties of the various insulator
materials on the leakage current performance of the
insulators.
References
[1] CIGRE Taskforce 33-04-01, “Polluted Insulators: A Review
of Current Knowledge”, June 1999.
[2] G Besztercey, GG Karady, DL Ruff, “A novel method to
measure the contamination level of insulators – spot contamination
measurement”, IEEE International symposium on electrical
insulation, Arlington VA, USA, June 1998.
[3] CIGRE Working Group 33-04, “The measurement of site
pollution severity and its application to insulator dimensioning for
a.c. systems”, Electra No. 64, 1979.
[4] Van Wyk, L., Holtzhausen, J.P. and Vosloo W.L., Surface
Conductance as an Indication of Leakage Current, obtained for a
Marine Test Site, Tenth International Symposium on High Voltage
Engineering , September 1997, Montreal, Canada
[5] J Kindersberger, M Kuhl, “Effect on hydrophobicity on
insulator performance”, 6 th International Symposium on High
Voltage Engineering, New Orleans, USA, 1989.
[6] EA Cherney, RS Gorur, “RTV silicone rubber coatings for
outdoor insulators”, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, Vol. 6, No. 5, October 1999.
[7] N Yoshimura, S Kumagai, S Nishimura, “Electrical and
environmental aging of silicone rubber used in outdoor insulation”,
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 6,
No. 5, October 1999.
[8] W.L. Vosloo, J.P. Holtzhausen, "The Effect Of Thermal
Characteristics Of Power Line Insulators On Pollution
Performance", Africon, George, October 2002.
[9] STRI guide “Hydrophobicity classification guide”
92/1,1992.
Author address: Wallace L Vosloo
Eskom TSI, Email: Wallace.Vosloo@eskom.co.za.
holtzhau@sun.ac.za