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

net/publication/335194869

Lightning Impulse Withstand of Insulating Liquid in Terms of Unified Weak-

Link Theory

Conference Paper · June 2019

DOI: 10.1109/ICDL.2019.8796761

CITATIONS READS
3 66

1 author:

Mladen Marković
Končar D&ST
14 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mladen Marković on 31 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Lightning Impulse Withstand of Insulating Liquid in
Terms of Unified Weak-Link Theory
Mladen Marković
Product Development Department
Končar D&ST Inc.
Zagreb, Croatia
mladen.markovic@koncar-dst.hr
Abstract—Paper investigates the applicability of newly pro-
posed weak-link model to lightning impulse breakdown measure-
ments for different electrode geometries. Applicability has been
confirmed on both positive and negative polarity impulses, and
a functional relation of lightning impulse with AC breakdown
withstand in terms of field non-uniformity has been established.
Index Terms—streamline sweep area, impulse withstand, neg-
ative polarity, positive polarity, AC withstand, DIL factor, power
transformer, mineral oil, insulating liquid, weak-link
I. I NTRODUCTION
Insulating liquid breakdown can be observed from micro-
scopic and macroscopic point of view [1], [2]. Microscopic
analysis concerns with electrical stresses between liquid and
electrode interface on molecular level, whereas macroscopic
analysis empirically describes how electrode and liquid char-
acteristics (e.g. number of particles in the liquid, water content,
electrode size, electrode distance, etc.) affect breakdown. Em-
pirical influence of the size and the distance of the electrodes
has been researched in terms of ‘weak-link’ methods, namely
stressed liquid volume, stressed electrode area and cumulative
stress (Weidmann curves) [1]. It has been shown that these
methods can be unified [2], [3] by a ‘weak-link’ quantification
of a particular part of electric flux. Application of the unified
model has been shown for AC measurements, and this paper
investigates if the model may be applied to lightning impulse
(LI) measurements as well.
II. S TREAMLINE SWEEP AREA
Unified weak-link model [2], [3] quantifies tubes of force
that exit the electrode where electric stress has the greatest
value. The main concept of the model is that the imaginary sur-
face area (mm2 ) of tubes of force is proportional to number of
imaginary ‘weak-links’ of an observed electrode configuration
(generally accepted ‘weak-link’ principle is that the greater the
number of ‘weak-links’, the higher the probability that one of
them will ‘break’, which is manifested as breakdown voltage
decrease). The surface area is calculated for tubes of force
that exit the part of electrode which ‘contains’ electric field
greater than 90 % of maximum electric field (E ≥ 0.9Emax ).
The term used for this type of surface area of tubes of
force is streamline sweep area (SSA), and the unit for this
978-1-7281-1718-8/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
measure is mm2 . Value of SSA depends on electrode size and
gap, and also on number of tubes of force n that exit the
electrode surface. The number of tubes of force (represented
as streamlines in a 2D axisymmetric coordinate system) can
be chosen arbitrarily, however, it has been shown [2] that for
n = 10 the model sufficiently represents electric flux regardless
of electrode configuration, even for highly non-uniform fields,
because of the before-mentioned rule that the streamlines exit
the electrode where electric field is E ≥ 0.9Emax (and this
is always at the tip of the electrode in non-uniform fields).
Therefore, the value n = 10 is used for numerical calculation
throughout this paper.
Breakdown withstand of an electrode configuration is rep-
resented as an average field stress ESSA along SSA. Field non-
uniformity is represented through factor µSSA (the higher the
µSSA , the more non-uniform the field is). Finally, the break-
down instance of a particular electrode configuration can
be
represented with a point T (x, y, z) = T SSA, ESSA , µSSA [3].
It has been shown that AC breakdown instances of different
electrode configurations (for uniform, quasi-uniform and non-


uniform fields) defined as T SSA, ESSA , µSSA may be repre-
sented in form of an ‘AC breakdown withstand plane’ in 3D
logarithmic coordinate system (see [3], Fig. 48). The question
is whether such plane can be defined for LI breakdown
measurements as well.
III. N UMERICAL CALCULATION
A. LI measurements
LI measurements for 50 % probability breakdown of min-
eral oil are taken from [4]–[18] with summarized electrode
configuration in Table I. Extracted LI breakdown values are
shown on Fig. 1 and used as boundary values in numerical
model.
B. Numerical model
Electrode configurations from Table I are modeled as 2D ax-
isymmetric FEM models. Model examples are shown on Fig.
2, with electric field streamlines (which represent streamline
sweep area) colored in red.
C. Results


Calculated points T (x, y, z) = T SSA, ESSA , µSSA for break-
down instances from Fig. 1 for negative and positive polarity
 TABLE I
E LECTRODE CONFIGURATIONS OF LI MEASUREMENTS

Measurement El.a Pol.b Rc gd

Liu & Wang [4] –| +, – 0.050 15...75
oo
Haegele et al. [5] ·o – 0.060...6.5 10...50
–o
Duy et al. [6],
Lesaint & Massala [7], –| +, – 0.100 20...300
Massala & Lesaint [8]
Trinh et al. [9]e B – 82.5...1279.5 2...150
Katim et al. [10] oo +, – 6.35 2.0; 3.8
Rozga et al. [11] ·o +, – 0.050 25
–|
Thien et al. [12]–[15] +, – 0.050...6.35 2.0...50
–o
–o
Denat et al. [16] +, – 0.300 10...70
–|
–|
R. Liu et al. [17]
–o
+, – 0.040 25 a) b) c)
Hosticka [18] ·| +, – 0.7, 1.6 1.3...76
a Electrodes: ‘–’ needle; ‘·’ point; ‘|’ plane; ‘o’ sphere; ‘B’ Bruce;
Fig. 2. 2D axisymmetric FEM models for different electrode geometries:
e.g. ‘oo’ is ‘sphere-sphere’, ‘·|’ is ‘point-plane’ etc. a) needle-plane b) needle-sphere (point-sphere) c) sphere-sphere. Electric field
b Polarity: ‘+’ positive, ‘–’ negative streamlines (colored in red) are swept around axis of symmetry and form
c Electrode radius (mm) ‘streamline sweep area’ or SSA (mm2 ).
d Electrode gap (mm)
e Measurements in [9] are assumed to be of negative polarity,
although this is not explicitly stated in [9]
Negative polarity

Negative polarity Positive polarity 103.0

Liu Liu
103.0 Duy 102.5 Duy
Katim Katim
2.5
103 103 10 Thien 102.0 Thien
Denat Denat
102.0 R. Liu
LI (+) breakdown voltage (kV)

R. Liu
LI (-) breakdown voltage (kV)

101.5

µSSA
Hosticka Hosticka
µSSA

101.5 Rozga Rozga

Haegele
Haegele 101.0
101.0 Trinh Trinh

10 0.5 100.5

2 Liu 2 0
10 Duy 10 10 100
Katim 107 107
Liu 6
Thien Lesaint 10 106
105

SSA
Denat Katim 105
R. Liu Thien
SS 104 104

(mm
Hosticka Denat A 103
(m 103
Rozga R. Liu m2 102 100
101 102

2)
Haegele Hosticka )
101 102 m) 101
Trinh Rozga
(kV/m 102 101 100
101 101 E SSA
100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103 ESSA (kV/mm)
Gap (mm) Gap (mm)

a) b) Fig. 3. Breakdown

instances from Fig. 1a represented as points
T SSA, ESSA , µSSA , viewed from two different angles.
Fig. 1. LI breakdown voltages (mean values) for geometries given in Table I

are plotted in 3D coordinate system with logarithmic scale Positive polarity

and shown on Fig. 3 and 4 respectively. As visible from these Liu Liu
Lesaint
figures, LI breakdowns may be represented as planes, similarly 2.5
Katim
102.5 Lesaint
Katim
10 Thien Thien
to AC measurements in [3]. 102.0
Denat
R. Liu
102.0 Denat
R. Liu
Planes from Fig. 3 and 4 may be written in a form [19]: Hosticka Hosticka
µSSA

1.5 Rozga
10 101.5 Rozga
µSSA

101.0
Ax + By +Cz + D = 0 (1) 100.5
101.0

100 100.5
where 107
6
10
100
105
x = log SSA, (2) 104 1076
SSA

SS
A 103 10 5
(m 10 4
m2 102 100 10 3
y = log ESSA , (3)
(m m

1
) 10 10 2
101 102 10 1
2)

10 102 101 100

z = log µSSA (4) E SSA (kV/m
m)
ESSA (kV/mm)

and A, B, C and D are given in Table II. Table II also contains Fig. 4. Breakdown instances from Fig. 1b represented as points


coefficient values for AC measurements calculated in [19]. All T SSA, ESSA , µSSA , viewed from two different angles.
three planes are shown on Fig 5.
 Negative polarity
TABLE II
VALUES OF COEFFICIENTS IN (1) DEPENDING ON TYPE OF MEASUREMENT

Measurement A B C D 12
LI(−) -0.3924 -2.077 -1 4.842
10
LI(+) -0.2081 -1.690 -1 3.612

DIL factor
ACa -0.2463 -1.247 -1 2.446 8
a calculated in [19]
6

3.0 AC 2
10 102.0 107
LI (-) 106
101.5 105

102.5 LI (+) 101.0 104

103
100.5 10 2
SSA (mm2 )
102.0 µSSA 100 101

a)
µSSA

101.5 Positive polarity

101.0

100.5 12
0 10
10
107

DIL factor
8
106 6
105 4
SS 104
2
A 10 3
107
(m 102.0
106
m2 102
100 101.5 105
) 101 101.0 104
101 102 103
m) 100.5
(kV /m
102
µSSA 100 101 SSA (mm2 )
E SSA
b)
Fig. 5. ‘Breakdown withstand planes’ for LI and AC measurements
Fig. 6. LI/AC ratio (DIL factor) depending on streamline sweep area (SSA)
and field non-uniformity (µSSA ) for a) negative and b) positive polarity of the
impulse
IV. A NALYSIS
Different values of coefficients A, B and D for LI(−) , LI(+)
and AC measurements from (1) in Table II should be compared will decrease 0.8/0.48 = 1.67 times ‘faster’ than LI(−) , which
in terms of gradients (i.e. slopes) of planes which they define. will lead to greater difference of AC and LI(−) withstand (in
For example, if (1) is written as kV mm−1 ) in highly non-uniform fields.
To qualitatively describe LI/AC withstand ratio vs. field
A C D
y(x, z) = − x − z − , (5) non-uniformity and SSA, the following function can be de-
B B B fined:
then for an arbitrary value of field non-uniformity (z = const.), yLI (x, z)
DIL (x, z) = , (10)
gradient yAC (x, z)
Φyx = ∂ y/∂ x = −A/B kV mm−3
 
(6)
where DIL is ’Design Insulation Level’ factor, yLI and yAC
defines ‘rate of change of electric withstand vs. streamline are calculated from (5) for LI and AC measurements, and
sweep area’; or, for a constant value of streamline sweep area x and z are streamline sweep area and field non-uniformity
(x = const.), gradient from (2) and (4), respectively. It should be noted that DIL
factor is traditionally calculated for voltages [20], and in
Φyz = ∂ y/∂ z = −C/B kV mm−1
 
(7) (10) it is calculated for average withstand fields, however,
defines ‘rate of change of electric withstand vs. field non- both calculations of DIL are mutually comparable because
uniformity’; etc. average field (kV mm−1 ) is nothing other than voltage (kV)
In case of arbitrary x = const., for LI(−) and AC measure- ‘normalized’ to 1 mm distance (which is reduced in DIL
ments, (7) is: calculation itself).
(−)
Visualization of function (10) for LI(−) and LI(+) measure-
ΦLI
yz = −0.48 kV mm−1 , (8) ments is given on Fig. 6. Positive polarity results shown on
ΦAC
yz = −0.80 kV mm . −1
(9) Fig. 6b should be taken with reserve, as LI(+) measurements
for SSA & 104 mm2 in uniform fields were not found in
(−)
The fact that ΦLIyz 6= ΦAC
yz means that the LI/AC withstand ra- available literature at the time of writing this paper (absence
tio differs for different values of field non-uniformity. Namely, of these measurements may significantly influence the gradient
for arbitrary increase of field non-uniformity, the AC withstand of the LI(+) plane). On the other hand, results from Fig. 6a
 3.0
2.8
DIL factor
2.6
2.4
2.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Highest Voltage for equipment winding, Um (kV)
Fig. 7. LI/AC ratio (DIL factor) calculated from Table 2 in IEC 60076-3 [21]
indicate that DIL factor for LI(−) measurements ranges from
DIL ≈ 2.4 in uniform fields (µSSA ≈ 1) up to DIL ≈ 10.5 and
even more in highly non-uniform fields (µSSA & 100).
In terms of power transformer insulation design, this may
indicate that bare electrode configurations with highly non-
uniform fields (e.g. sharp edges on grounded parts like trans-
former core or tank) are more susceptible to breakdown when
exposed to ‘one-minute’ AC tests. Namely, IEC [21] defines
LI voltages for power transformers (Table 2 in [21]) with
corresponding DIL values in the range of 2.26 ≤ DIL ≤ 3.00
(visualized on Fig. 7), which are associated with uniform and
quasi-uniform fields (µSSA . 100.25 ≈ 1.8, Fig. 6a). Therefore,
if a power transformer is subjected to dielectric tests according
to IEC 60076-3 [21], its bare electrode parts with non-
uniform fields (µSSA & 1.8) should be dimensioned according
to AC test voltages, since LI voltage levels (kV) do not
have sufficiently high values in order to be relevant in such
case. It should be noted however that this is indicative only
for bare electrode configurations with solely insulating liquid
as an insulator in electrode gap, and not necessarily for
creepage breakdowns and electrodes with liquid-impregnated
paper coatings.
V. C ONCLUSION
Calculated results indicate that lightning impulse (LI) break-
downs may be represented as ‘LI breakdown withstand plane’,
similarly to ‘AC withstand plane’ from previous research.
Comparison of LI and AC breakdown planes indicates that
uniform fields have lower values of LI/AC ratio than non-
uniform fields. For power transformers subjected to dielectric
tests according to IEC standard, this could mean that parts of
the transformer with bare electrodes and non-uniform fields
may be more susceptible to breakdown when exposed to AC
test voltages.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Küchler, High Voltage Engineering, 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer, 2018.
[2] M. Marković, “Unified method for determination of breakdown voltages
of insulating liquid AC breakdown (in Croatian),” Ph.D. dissertation,
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb,
May 2017.
[3] M. Marković and Ž. Štih, “New method for prediction of insulating
liquid AC breakdown,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 437–454, Feb. 2017.
View publication stats
[4] Q. Liu and Z. Wang, “Streamer characteristic and breakdown in synthetic
and natural ester transformer liquids under standard lightning impulse
voltage,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 285–294, Feb. 2011.
[5] S. Haegele, F. Vahidi, S. Tenbohlen, K. Rapp, and A. Sbravati, “Light-
ning impulse withstand of natural ester liquid,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 8,
p. 1964, 2018.
[6] C. Duy, O. Lesaint, A. Denat, and N. Bonifaci, “Streamer propagation
and breakdown in natural ester at high voltage,” IEEE Transactions on
Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1582–1594,
Dec. 2009.
[7] O. Lesaint and G. Massala, “Positive streamer propagation in large
oil gaps: experimental characterization of propagation modes,” IEEE
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 5, no. 3, pp.
360–370, Jun. 1998.
[8] G. Massala and O. Lesaint, “A comparison of negative and positive
streamers in mineral oil at large gaps,” Journal of Physics D: Applied
Physics, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1525–1532, May 2001.
[9] N. Trinh, C. Vincent, and J. Regis, “Statistical dielectric degradation
of large-volume oil-insulation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS-101, no. 10, pp. 3712–3721, Oct. 1982.
[10] N. Katim, M. Ishak, N. Mohamad Amin, M. Abdul Hamid, K. Amali
Ahmad, and N. Azis, “Lightning breakdown voltage evaluation of
palm oil and coconut oil as transformer oil under quasi-uniform field
conditions,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 2676, 2018.
[11] P. Rozga, M. Stanek, and K. Rapp, “Lightning properties of selected
insulating synthetic esters and mineral oil in point-to-sphere electrode
system,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1699–1705, 2018.
[12] Y. V. Thien, N. Azis, J. Jasni, M. Z. A. A. Kadir, R. Yunus, M. T.
Ishak, and Z. Yaakub, “Evaluation on the Lightning Breakdown Voltages
of Palm Oil and Coconut Oil under Non-Uniform Field at Small Gap
Distances,” Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 184–191, Jan. 2016.
[13] Y. Thien, N. Azis, J. Jasni, M. Ab Kadir, R. Yunus, M. Ishak, and
Z. Yaakub, “The effect of polarity on the lightning breakdown voltages
of palm oil and coconut oil under a non-uniform field for transformers
application,” Industrial Crops and Products, vol. 89, pp. 250–256, Oct.
2016.
[14] Y. V. Thien, N. Azis, J. Jasni, M. Z. A. A. Kadir, R. Yunus, M. K. M.
Jamil, and Z. Yaakub, “Pre-breakdown streamer propagation and break-
down characteristics of refined bleached and deodorized palm oil under
lightning impulse voltage,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Elec-
trical Insulation, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1614–1620, Oct. 2018.
[15] Y. V. Thien, N. Azis, J. Jasni, R. Yunus, M. Z. A. A. Kadir, and
Z. Yaakub, “Influence of Electrode Geometry on the Lightning Impulse
Breakdown Voltage of Palm Oil,” in 2018 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power
and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC). IEEE, Oct. 2018, pp.
317–320.
[16] A. Denat, O. Lesaint, and F. McCluskey, “Breakdown of liquids in
long gaps: influence of distance, impulse shape, liquid nature, and
interpretation of measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and
Electrical Insulation, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2581–2591, Oct. 2015.
[17] R. Liu, C. Törnkvist, V. Chandramouli, O. Girlanda, and L. A. A.
Pettersson, “Geometry impact on streamer propagation in transformer
insulation liquids,” in 2010 Annual Report Conference on Electrical
Insulation and Dielectic Phenomena, Oct 2010, pp. 1–4.
[18] C. Hosticka, “Dependence of Uniform/Nonuniform Field Transformer
Oil Breakdown on Oil Composition,” IEEE Transactions on Electrical
Insulation, vol. EI-14, no. 1, pp. 43–50, Feb. 1979.
[19] M. Marković, “Breakdown withstand of insulating liquid with paper
insulated electrodes : A numerical approach,” in 2018 IEEE 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Dielectrics (ICD). IEEE, Jul. 2018, pp. 1–4.
[20] S. V. Kulkarni and S. A. Khaparde, Transformer Engineering: Design
And Practice (Plant Engineering Series). Marcel Dekker Inc, 2004.
[21] IEC 60076-3:2013 Power transformers - Part 3: Insulation levels,
dielectric tests and external clearances in air, IEC Std., Jul. 2013.