JianBin Zhou Thesis

Electrical Characteristics of
Aged Composite Insulators

JianBin Zhou

September 2003

Electrical Characteristics of
Aged Composite Insulators

A thesis submitted for the degree of
Masters Degree

by

J ianBin Zhou, B. Eng

School of Electrical & Electronics Systems Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
September 2003

Dec l ar at i on of or i gi nal i t y

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at
any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis
contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due
reference is made.

Signed:
Date:

Ac k now l edgement s
The author wishes to express sincerely thanks to his principal supervisor Associate Professor
David Birtwhistle of the Electrical & Electronics Systems School of Queensland University of
Technology for his support, suggestions, and encouragement through this 3 years research.
Also the author wishes to thank his associate supervisor Dr. Greg Cash of the School of
Physical Sciences for his guidance, support, and help for this research. The author wishes to
express thanks to Professor R.S. Gorur from Arizona University, who provided valuable help
regarding new composite insulator assessment method described in Chapter 6.

Thanks are due to Mr. Ronald Penfold for his work in setting up lab for research test,
especially for the help on setting up the fog chamber in the lab. The author wishes to thank to
Dr. HePing Liu of School of Physical Sciences for performing part of the infrared emission
spectroscopy and Ms. Wen Hu of Faculty of Science for performing part of the scanning
electron microscopy analysis in the thesis.

The author gratefully acknowledges Powerlink of Queensland in funding the research and
financial support from the Electrical & Electronics School of Queensland University of
Technology for travel assistance.

Keyw or ds:
composite insulator, electrical characteristic, aging, fog chamber, EPDM insulator, leakage
current, waveform, chemical analysis, ester/ketone ratio, oxidation index, scanning of electron
microscopy

Abst r ac t :

Composite insulators are widely being used in power industry to alternate traditional
porcelain-based insulators for their advantages, including better pollution performance, low
maintenance cost, light weight, compact line design. However, due to the short application
history and experience, the degradation of composite insulators in natural environment is a
big concern for the power utilities. The knowledge on the degradation of composite insulators
is being studied world wide. The methods to assess the working conditions of composite
insulators are being studied and created. In Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the
approach based on chemical analysis methods was first developed. The work in this thesis
based on the previous research work is focused on correlating electrical characteristics with
chemical analysis results of the composite insulators and physical observations results. First,
the electrical characteristics of composite insulators were presented and analysed, including
leakage current, cumulative current, peaks of leakage current, the statistic results of the
leakage current. Among them, the characteristics of leakage current were mainly studied. The
shape of waveforms was found to relate to the degree of discharge activities of the composite
insulators. The waveforms analysed by FFT revealed that the odd harmonic components
became obvious during the discharge activities. The correlations between the electrical
characteristics of composite insulators and chemical analysis results showed that the
composition of composite insulators plays significant roles in terms of electrical performance.
The oxidation index (O.I.) and the ester/ketone ratio (E/K) differentiated the different
degradation reasons of the composite insulators in the test conditions. Finally, the thesis
presents one approach, which aims to assess the surface conditions of composite insulators in
an easy manner and in short time.
Publ i c at i ons Ar i si ng Fr om Thi s Thesi s
J . Zhou and D. Birtwhistle, "Comparison of Electrical Performance of EPDM Composite
Insulators with Chemical and Physical Indicators of Shed Material Condition", presented at
Electricity Engineers' Association of NZ, Christchurch, NZ, 2002.

J . Zhou, D. Birtwhistle, and G. Cash, "Chemical and Electrical Techniques for Condition
Assessment of Composite Insulators", presented at The 7th International Conference on
Properties and Applications of Dielectric Materials, Nagoya, J apan, 2003.

FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Section View of a Long Rod Composite Insulator 4
Figure 2-2 Section View of a Post-type Composite Insulator 4
Figure 2-3 Formation of Cross-linked Polymer 6
Figure 2-4 Chemical Structure of Polydimethyl Siloxane Polymer 7
Figure 2-5 Cause Failure Distribution 9
Figure 2-6 Degradation Process of EPDM due to Impurities 11
Figure 2-7 Scanning Electron Microscope Images of the Surface of an Aged EPDM
Insulator 14
Figure 2-8 Live Line Tool for Sampling Composite Insulators 16
Figure 2-9 Diagram of the Infrared Emission Spectrometer 17
Figure 2-10 Infrared Spectrum of an Aged EPDM 19
Figure 2-11 Oxidation Index of a 275kV EPDM Aged Insulator 20
Figure 2-12 Chalking Index of an Aged EPDM Insulator 21
Figure 2-13 Expanded FTIR Spectra from the Carbonyl Region 22
Figure 2-14 Scatter Plot Relating the Oxidation Index to the Ester/Ketone Ratio of
Insulators from Different Locations 25
Figure 3-1 Fog Chamber Test Systems 28
Figure 3-2 Fog Chamber 29
Figure 3-3 Plan View of the Fog Chamber 30
Figure 3-4 Control Panel Systems 31
Figure 3-5 Power Systems of the Fog Chamber Control Panel 32
Figure 3-6 Layout of the Fog Chamber and the Control Panel 32
Figure 3-7 Test System and Measurement & Protection Circuitry 34
Figure 4-1 IEC 1106 Accelerated Weather Aging Cycle under Operating Voltage 38
Figure 4-2 Classification of Leakage Current Measurement 50
Figure 5-1 Hydrophobicity Classification of EPDM Insulator in Fog Condition 56
Figure 5-2 Hydrophobicity Classification on Topside Shed of EPDM Insulator #3 57
Figure 5-3 Water Droplets on Core Surface of #3 Insulator 57
Figure 5-4 Water Droplets on Core Surface of #3 Insulator 58
Figure 5-5 Rectified Mean Values of LC (0-100hours) (#1 -#3) 59
Figure 5-6 Statistics of MVLC of the three Insulators 60
Figure 5-7 MVLC of the Three Insulators in Test 61
Figure 5-8 Waveforms of LC at Specific Time (#1-#3 Insulators) 62
Figure 5-9 SEM Images of Surface of the Insulators (#1-#3) before and after the Test 65
Figure 5-10 Mean Values of LC of Insulators in Test A 71
Figure 5-11 Cumulative Charge of LC of Insulators in Test A 71
Figure 5-12 LC Distribution of Two Composition Insulators in Test A 72
Figure 5-13 MVLC of Insulators #1- #4 in Test B 77
Figure 5-14 MVLC of Insulators #5- #8 in Test B 77
Figure 5-15 LC Distribution of the same material insulators in Test B 78
Figure 5-16 (a) LC Waveforms and FFT of #1 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time 82
Figure 5-16 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT of #3 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time 83
Figure 5-17 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #1 Insulator in Test B at specific time 88
Figure 5-21 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Flashovered Insulators before Flashover
99
Figure 5-22 Interval Time between Flashovers 101
Figure 5-23 SEM Images of the eight insulators after test C 103
Figure 5-24 Sequence of Discharges on Hydrophobic Silicone Rubber 109
Figure 5-25 Locations of Sampling for Chemical Analysis 110
Figure 5-26 Oxidation Index of Insulators #1 - #8 before and after the Tests 111
Figure 5-27 Ester/ketone Ratio of Insulators #1 - #8 before and after the Tests 112
Figure 6-1 Arrangement for Water Spray Test 118
Figure 6-2 Surface Conditions of sr1 before and after using Liquid Soup 120
Figure 6-3 LC Waveform of sr1 in Spray Water Test (conductivity=315S/cm with
liquid soup) 121
Figure 6-4 Surface Resistance of Insulators in Spray Water with Liquid Soup 121
Figure 6-5 Thermal effect on insulator surface caused by leakage current 123

Table
Table 2-1Number of Insulators that have Failed in Service 8
Table 2-2 Chemical Analysis Report of Aged Medium Voltage Insulators in Queensland 23
Table 4-1 Summary Test Methods on Composite Insulators 37
Table 4-2 Parameters of Standard 61109Test Conditions 40
Table 4-3 Overview of Discussible Parameters 40
Table 4-4 Main Characteristics of the Inert Material Used in Clean Fog Tests 41
Table 4-5 Kaolin Composition: Correspondence between the Reference Degrees of Pollution
on the Insulator and Volume Conductivity of the Slurry 42
Table 4-6 Relationship between and b 44
Table 4-7 Correspondence between the Value of Salinity, Volume Conductivity, and Density
of the Solution at a Temperature of 20C 47
Table 5-1 Parameters of Insulators (test voltage = 12kV) 53
Table 5-2 Parameters of Preliminary Test Conditions 54
Table 5-3 Distribution (number of times) of MVLC of the Three Insulators 60
Table 5-4 Chemical Analysis Results of the three Insulators before and after the Test 63
Table 5-5 Electrical Characteristics of the three Insulators 63
Table 5-6 HC and Contact Angle of Insulators before and after the Test 64
Table 5-7 Comparison of SEM Images of the three Insulators 67
Table 5-8 Test Parameters of Tests 69
Table 5-9 Parameters of Insulators of Batch I & II 70
Table 5-10 Insulators List after Test C 70
Table 5-11 LC Distribution of Two Composition Insulators in Test A 73
Table 6-1 Shape of Sample Insulators 119
Table 6-2 Configurations for Water Spray Test 119
Table 6-3 Thermal conductivity of four materials used in insulators 124

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...1
CHAPTER 2 COMPOSITE INSULATORS...4
2.1 Construction & Material of Composite Insulators.........4
2.1.1 Construction4
2.1.2 Housing and Weathershed Materials..5
2.1.2.1 Introduction.5
2.1.2.2 Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM)6
2.1.2.3 Silicone Rubber6
2.1.3 Service Report of Composite Insulators.7
2.2 Aging of Field EPDM..10
2.3 New Condition Monitoring Techniques for Composite Insulators.13
2.3.1 Introduction..13
2.3.2 New Method to Diagnose the EPDM Insulators..13
2.3.3 Oxidation Index Analysis Method...15
2.3.3.1 Sampling.......15
2.3.3.2 Oxidation Index17
2.3.4 Chalking Index Analysis Method20
2.3.5 Ester / Ketone Ratio Index..21
2.3.6 Investigation of Aging of Medium Voltage Insulators.......22
2.4 Summary25
CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEST EQUIPMENT..27
3.1 Literature Review..27
3.2 Fog Chamber System28
3.2.1 Fog Chamber28
3.2.2 Fog Chamber Control System..30
3.2.3 High Voltage Supply Equipment.33
3.2.4 Data Acquisition System.34
3.3 Summary.35
CHAPTER 4 REVIEW OF ELECTRICAL TESTS ON COMPOSITE
INSULATORS.36
4.1 Introduction.36
4.2 Electrical Test Standards.36
4.2.1 Introduction..36
4.2.2 IEC Standard........38
4.2.3 IEEE Standard..41
4.2.3.1 The Clean Fog Test41
4.2.3.2 The Salt Fog Test..46
4.3 Test Methodology48
CHAPTER 5 AGING TESTS ON COMPOSITE INSULATORS.52
5.1 Introduction.52
5.2 Preliminary Tests on Composite Insulators53
5.2.1 Test Introduction..........53
5.2.2 Hydrophobicity Loss on Surface of Composite Insulators..54
5.2.3 LC Measurement Results.........59
5.2.4 Comparison between Electrical Characteristics, Chemical Analysis and Physical
Analysis Results63
5.2.5 Summary.67
5.3 Electrical Tests on Composite Insulators..69
5.3.1 Test Conditions and Insulators Parameters69
5.3.2 Results of Test A.70
5.3.3 Results of Test B.74
5.3.4 Summary. .......78
5.3.5 Waveforms of LC.. ....80
5.3.5.1 Introduction ..80
5.3.5.2 Waveforms and Analysis of LC in Test A - Clean Fog Test.......80
5.3.5.3 Waveforms of LC in Test B 2.5 kg/m
3
Salt Fog.......86
5.3.5.4 Waveforms of LC in Test C 5 kg/m
3
Salinity Fog Test98
5.3.6 Summary.........101
5.4 Relationships between Physical, Chemical Analysis Results of Insulator103
5.4.1 SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) Observations of Insulator Surface103
5.4.2 Chemical Analysis Results and Comparison with Physical Observations.110
5.4.3 Discussion of the Relationships between Physical Characteristics and Chemical
Analysis Results of Composite Insulators..115
CHAPTER 6 SURFACE RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT TO ASSESS
SURFACE CONDITIONS OF COMPOSITE INSULATORS11.117
6.1 Introduction117
6.2 Leakage Resistance Assessment Using a Water Spray..117
6.2.1 Test with Water Spray.117
6.2.2 Test with Reduced Surface Tension Water.119
6.2.3 Surface Resistance of Artificially-wet Insulators120
6.3 Discussions.122
6.4 Conclusions.125

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY...127
7. 1 Electrical Characteristics of Composite Insulators in Fog Tests.127
7. 2 Relationships between Electrical Characteristics and Surface Conditions of
Composite Insulators.129
7. 3 Future Work130

Appendix

Appendix-1 - Control Circuitry of Fog Chamber
Appendix-2 - Equivalent Circuitry of Test Transformer and Variac
Appendix-3 - Power Supply in Fog Chamber Test System
Appendix-4 - Terminal Connection of Control Panel and Fog Box
Appendix-5 - LC Waveforms and FFT Analysis of #2 & #4 Insulators in Test A
Appendix-6 - LC Waveforms and FFT Analysis of #2, #4, #6 & #8 Insulators in
Test B

Appendix-7 - LC Waveforms and FFT results of the Eight Insulators before
Flashover in Test C

1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Insulators are important electrical equipment, which are installed on power transmission
towers or poles to suspend or support transmission power lines. The history of composite
insulators in application can be traced back in the late 1960s and 1970s [1]. In 1980s,
composite insulators were widely accepted as substitutes for traditional ceramic insulators [3]
[4]. The advantages of composite insulators over traditional insulators include lightweight,
better contamination performance, resistance to impact damage, particularly to gun-shot, and
the feasibility of compact line design [3].

Lightweight: This great advantage of composite insulators over porcelain reduces the weight
of insulators dramatically, and this characteristic reduces the cost of design, construction, and
maintenance of power tower and poles. In inaccessible areas, the characteristic of lightweight
of composite insulators makes it possible for helicopters to set up high voltage power towers
[5].

Resistance to damage: It is well known that porcelain insulators can be broken accidentally,
such as transportation, installation, and collision. Also vandalism is an important reason
responsible for the failure of porcelain insulators, especially by gunshots. Composite
insulators are resistant to deliberate damage and this is an important reason for power supply
companies to be fond of them.
2
Compact Line Design: The characteristics of light weight of composite insulators, which
means less volume than traditional insulators, simplify and optimise the traditional power
tower design, especially on high or extra-high voltage transmission towers. The compact line
towers have been applied in Queensland on 132 kV and 275 kV power lines. Report on
reasons of selection of composite insulators suggested lighter clarifies 30% [6]. In urban
areas, the compact line design reduces the visual impact and improves the urban landscape.

Pollution Performance: The materials of sheds and sheath of composite insulators are
commonly silicone rubber (SIR), ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), or the combination of
these two materials and other materials, including fillers, anti-oxidants, colorants, UV
stabilisers. One important characteristic of SIR and EPR is hydrophobicity [7]. Compared
with porcelain insulators, which have high surface free energy, composite insulators have
lower surface free energy, which help them not easily form water films on surface. So they
provide good water resistant characteristic for insulators in moist environments. In polluted
environments, this characteristic gives composite insulators good resistance to form atom of
conductive electrolyte along insulator surfaces, which can initiate flashover process [8].
However the polymeric materials of composite insulators deteriorate with time under natural
environment and electric stress. Lifetime of composite insulators is therefore shorter in some
cases [9].

The deterioration of polymer materials of composite insulators over time is a multi-factor
aging process. The process happens in the conditions, which combine natural environmental
and electric stresses. The factors from the natural environment include: fog, ultraviolet (UV),
rain, moisture, temperature, and pollution. These factors combine electric stress in wet and
3
pollution environments resulting in the acceleration of deterioration of polymeric materials.
Studies of the fundamental mechanisms of deterioration of composite insulators in different
environments and to find efficient methods of assessing rates of deterioration of composite
insulators become necessary and urgent with development of polymeric materials. Better
understanding of deterioration of composite insulators helps power supply companies to draw
up optimising policies to manage a large number of composite insulators. Efficient, fast, low
cost, and practical assessment methods on composite insulators help power supply companies
appraise the conditions of composite insulators and avoid insulator failures during service life.
Also the conditions of composite insulators provide useful feedback information to line
designers, which let them select composite insulators with knowledge and service experience.

The objective of this thesis is to investigate how the electrical characteristics of EPDM and
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators change in laboratory test conditions, and to correlate the
electrical characteristics with results of surface analysis of EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber
insulators. Using procedures developed over the past two years at QUT, the knowledge of
relationships between electrical characteristics and chemical analysis results supplements the
understanding of the aging process and leads to improved aging assessment methods for
composite insulators. The thesis also investigates one new technique for diagnosis of aging
conditions of composite insulator surfaces based on surface resistance measurement. The
method explores a new direction for assessment of aged composite insulators in a fast,
efficient, and economical way.

4
CHAPTER 2

COMPOSITE INSULATORS

2.1 Construction & material of Composite Insulators

2.1.1 Construction
There are two main types of composite insulators commonly used in the power industry. One
type is the suspension insulator. The other one is the post type insulator [10, 11]. A typical
suspension insulator is shown in Figure 2-1. Suspension insulators are mainly used in the
situations where insulators are in tension. Post type insulators (see Figure 2-2) are used in the
situations where there is compressive load and bending force.

Figure 2-1 Section View of a Long Rod Composite Insulator [10]
Figure 2-2 Section View of a Post-type Composite Insulator [10]
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library

5
Basically, composite insulators have four main components. They are core, protective
housing, weather sheds, and end fittings. The protective housing and weather sheds of
composite insulators are made of polymeric materials. In the centre of composite insulators, a
load-bearing core carries the mechanical load. The core is composed of glass fibre and
bonded with thermosetting resin. The protective housing and weather sheds envelope the
whole core and provide environmental protection and long surface electrical creepage length.
Mental end fittings consist of malleable iron or aluminium alloy, which are compressed
around the core.
The main differences between suspension insulators and post type insulators are the design of
end fittings and the size of the core. The diameter of the core for post insulators is larger than
that of the suspension insulators due to the fact that its load is dominated by bending force.
Some other forms of composite insulators for specific applications in electrical equipment,
e.g. circuit breakers and transformers, have hollow fibreglass-reinforced core [12].

2.1.2 Housing and Weathershed Materials

2.1.2.1 Introduction
A variety of polymeric insulating materials have been used in composite insulators for
overhead lines. They include, PTFE (Teflon), epoxy resins, polyethylene, instant set polymers
based on urethane chemistry, polymer concretes, various copolymers, ethylene-propylene
elastomers [11]. In this section, ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) and silicone
rubber (SIR) while as by for the most common are described in detail.

6
2.1.2.2 Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM)
EPDM is the copolymer of ethylene and propylene with the mixture of nonconjugated diene.
According to [13, 14], the chains of EPDM consist of randomly combined ethylene and
propylene units forming saturated polymer chains without double carbon bonds, which are
susceptible to attack by ozone and UV. A diene provides C=C double bonds capable of
forming cross-linking. The main chains without double carbon bonds possess the
characteristics of high resistance to weathering by UV and ozone [15]. The cross-linking
process of EPDM with the most common diene, ethylidene-norbornene, is shown in Figure 2-
3.

Figure 2-3 Formation of Cross-linked Polymer [13]

2.1.2.3 Silicone Rubber
Silicone rubber is based on polymers having a molecular backbone of alternate atoms of
silicon and oxygen. Some organic groups are attached to the main chains, which include
methyl, phenyl, or vinyl. The structure of silicone rubber provides properties of good
resistance to UV and ozone. One basic polymer used in silicone rubbers is shown in Figure 2-
4, which is predominantly based on linear chains of polydimethyl siloxane polymer [2].


7

There are two basic types of silicone rubbers. One is high temperature vulcanised (HTV) or
room temperature vulcanised (RTV) and the other is liquid silicone rubber (LSR). Recently
the insulator industry has introduced new materials, which are blends of EPDM polymer and
silicone rubber. The purpose is obviously to combine the rigidity characteristic of EPDM with
the hydrophobic properties imparted by silicone rubber. Apart from the base polymers, the
shed materials also include: UV stabilisers, reinforcing filler (e.g. hydrated aluminium
Al
2
O
3
3H
2
O), tracking and erosion fillers, processing aids and colorants. The amount of base
polymers range from 10% to 90% of the net weight of the insulator.

2.1.3 Service Report of Composite Insulators
The survey by CIGRE [4] revealed that the benefits of the improved technology and the
increased use of composite insulators have led to decrease in costs of composite insulators,
which has made them competitive with conventional porcelain insulators. According to the
CIGRE survey, the main reason for selecting composite insulators was that they possess good
performance under pollution environment. Silicone occupies over 90% of weathershed
material of insulators and 4.2% composite insulators are made of EPDM.

For power industry and insulator researchers, the life expectancy of composite insulators is
the main concern in terms of application. Table 2-1 abstracted from the report [8] shows the
Figure 2-4 Chemical Structure of Polydimethyl Siloxane Polymer [2]

8
number of insulators, which have failed in service. The total number shows that rod failure is
the biggest failure reason followed by weathershed-related failures. The next reason is rod slip
out. End-fitting is the least reason to be responsible for composite insulator failures.

Table 2-1 Number of Insulators that have Failed in Service [8]

But for composite insulators under 200 kV power systems, the number of weathershed
related failures is nearly three times of the number of rod failures. This reason also came the
first in the previous report [6]. That report combined two surveys carried out by the
Southeastern Electric Exchange (SEE), USA, in 1987 and the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), USA, in 1988. The two surveys covered 45,817 composite suspension
insulators across over 58 utilities and a total of 26,967 composite post type insulators used by
51 utilities. Figure 2-5 shows the reasons for deterioration according to the survey. The entire
failure rate was 0.43%, which is higher than that of traditional ceramic insulators. In the
figure, deterioration of weathershed is the major reason responsible for the failures of
composite insulators (64%). In that case deterioration includes erosion, corona cutting,
chalking, and crazing of the surfaces.

This table is not available online.

9

It is noted that the surveys [6] included the first generation design of composite insulators, so
the result of statistics may contain the failure modes of the first generation designs and these
modes may not be characteristic of later improved designs.

There were some reports about service failure accidents of composite insulators. In 1991
Christmas period in Florida, U.S.A, the Florida Power & Light Co. suffered record number of
contamination-related outages. According to the outage investigation report [16], FPL
experienced 172 outages on overhead lines in just 9 days that was far more than the normal
level. Bad weather conditions were blamed for the outages. Under serious fog conditions,
composite insulators lost dielectric properties quickly and resulted in a wide range of
flashovers. The investigation of the incident observed that foggy weather conditions and
industry pollution were responsible for flashovers on insulators of transmission lines and
substation power equipment. These cases show the fact that under specific environments
composite insulators could show poor insulation characteristic rather than reliable
performance. Aging of composite insulators was another important factor which was involved
Figure 2-5 Cause Failure Distribution [6]

10
in the process of rapid-loss of insulation property under serious wether conditions. The
following section describes the mechanism of aging of EPDM insulator material.

2.2 Aging of Field EPDM

It is known that composite materials or polymer materials degrade with exposure in the
natural environment [15] and electrical environment [9]. Aging mechanism of composite
materials involves external and internal factors. The deterioration of composite materials
depends on how and to what extent it interacts with its surroundings. In terms of outdoor
environmental factors, the main components of the environment, which accompany
deterioration, are sunlight, temperature change, moisture, wind, dust, and pollutants. These
factors vary widely in duration, intensity and sequence. On the other hand electrical factors,
such as discharges, corona, and leakage current, etc. also play significant roles in the process
of aging [2]. The consequence of aging includes surface cracking or crazing, ablation of
surface material and exposure of insulator inner material. Aging may also cause breaching of
protective housing and even mechanical failure of the structural core. Among the factors, for
EPDM insulators, photo-oxidation is ascribed the main reason for material deterioration [17].
The following sections describe the photo-oxidation aging mechanism.

Theoretically, pure EPDM should not be affected by terrestrial ultraviolet (UV) light of
wavelength >290nm; however, experience showed that EPDM deteriorates under UV. The
research [18] revealed that polyethylene and polypropylene both are susceptible to light with
wavelength of 300nm, and terrestrial UV light with wavelength greater than 290nm was
identified as the main cause of deterioration. And the presence of impurities, such as

11
hydroperoxides and carbonyl groups, which are left from the process of manufacturing, e.g. in
the process of high temperature extrusion and injection moulding processes, initiates the
process of aging. Because catalyst residues are able to absorb sunlight, they ultimately
produce a free radical, which initiates a chain photo-oxidation process. The process is
illustrated in Figure 2-6 [17].

Figure 2-6 Degradation Process of EPDM due to Impurities [17]

(i) The impurities, which are attached to the carbon backbone of the polymer chain, absorb
the sunlight (wavelength 290nm), and produce free radicals, which are the triggers of a
chain reaction.
(ii) The presence of oxygen reacts with radical forming a peroxy radical.
(iii) The peroxy radical reacts with another polymer chain to produce another free radical and
a hydroperoxide (OOH).
(iv) The hydroperoxide absorbs UV and breaks down to produce an alkoxy radical (O) and a
hydroxy radical (OH).

12
(v) Because the hydroxy radical is very active, it reacts with another polymer chain to produce
further free radical and produces water. Electrical-driven aging on composite insulators
depends on several factors, including environment, composition of insulators, electrical field
stress, and surface condition. In terms of aging, corona and leakage current play considerable
roles which are responsible for composite insulator deterioration [18]. There are three aspects
of aging mechanism caused by corona. (1) Electrical particles impact directly on the bonds of
insulator chains. It is estimated that the energy of one electron is about 3.2 eV, while one C-C
bond binding energy is 4 eV and ionisation energy is about 10-11 eV, so there is chance that
one high energy electron could cause scissoring C-C. When this process is repeated, it leads
to the gradual degradation of the polymer. (2) High temperature on composite insulators
caused by short-period discharge activities can reach as high as 1000 C, which would lead to
disintegration of the polymer producing caves, carbon deoxidation, melt, and dissolve the
structure of composite insulators. (3) The dynamic products left by discharge activities such
as O, O
2*
, and O
2+
, react with chemical molecular of composite insulators, strengthening the
process of aging. Leakage current brings about the formation of dry band, arcing [2], and this
induces tracking on insulator surface. Tracking is irregular and random between HV and
ground. Similar to the process of discharge activities, the effect of tracking results in the
decrease of hydrophobicity of the surface of insulators, decrease in the volume resistance of
insulators, and acceleration of aging of tracking sites.

13
2.3 New Condition Monitoring Techniques for Composite Insulators

2.3.1 Introduction
According to a survey [19] conducted by electricity distribution organisations in Queensland,
Australia, over 7,000 EPDM insulators have been installed in the 66-132 kV range network.
EPDM insulators currently make up 91% of the composite insulator population. The survey
shows 6% of composite insulators are made from silicone rubber, and 3% of composite
insulators are made from the mixture of EDPM and silicone. More than 13,000 medium
voltage (11-33 kV) EPDM insulators are in service across Queensland [20]. The increase in
the use of EPDM insulators in power industry requires efficient, practical, and economical
method to indicate working condition of composite insulators.

2.3.2 New Method to Diagnose the EPDM Insulators
According to Vlastos [21] EPDM composite insulators show good hydrophobicity
characteristic during the first few service years, but deteriorate after they become hydrophilic.
Vlastos and Sherif [22] found that EPDM composite insulators from a +300 kV DC test line
in Sweden flashed over less often than porcelain and glass insulators installed in the same line
during the first three years of service. Unexpectedly, composite insulators flashed over more
often than ceramic insulators during the subsequent 5 years of operation. In 1991, Florida
Power and Light suffered the most serious outages in history [16]. Accident analysis revealed
that flashovers caused by fog environment and degradation of housing of composite
insulators. Two kinds of EPDM composite insulators had worse flashover records than
normal porcelain insulators with same creepage length. From these two cases, the reduced
performance of EPDM insulators was attributed to aging of the surface of the EPDM
insulator.

14

Degradation of EPDM typically happens with the process of losing hydrophobicity on
insulator surface. Accompanied by losing hydrophobicity, surface of EPDM insulator would
appear surface cracks and produce surface layer known as chalking or flouring due to natural
and electrical aging factors [21].
(a) Top View (
1000) (b) Cleaved Section (
1000)
Figure 2-7 Scanning Electron Microscope Images of the Surface of an Aged EPDM insulator
Left: surface in plan view showing surface cracking and erosion.
Right: section through surface indicating a layer of loose surface material (chalking) and bulk polymer

Figure 2-4 shows surface conditions of an aged EPDM insulator using SEM (Scanning
Electron Microscope). It is clear that on surface of the aged EPDM insulator, cracks and
chalking layer formed as the results of degradation. The loose powdery surface accumulated
chalking materials and deposits on insulator surface. The explanation for this is due to
degradation on insulator surface. The oxidation process on composite insulators results in
water repellence of polymer surface decreasing from hydrophobicity to hydrophilicity. The
predominant form of oxygen exists in oxidised hydrocarbon polymers in a single oxygen
atom is bound to a carbon atom in the polymer chain through a double bond, which is known
as carbonyl (C=O). Theoretically, carbonyl is the product of oxidation process, so monitoring
its development and existence provides evidence of the existence of surface oxidation. If

15
using some technology to assess the composition of oxidation products in EPDM material, the
information on deterioration extent of EPDM insulators could be retrieved.

2.3.3 Oxidation Index Analysis Method
At QUT, researchers have developed a new method to quantify oxidation and chalking extent
for aged EPDM insulators [18, 24-27]. This method provides a simple, practical, and cost-
effective condition assessment technique for power companies to operate. The results provide
useful and reliable information related to assessing working condition of composite insulators.
It supplements the existing composite insulator assessment methods, which include visual
inspection (naked eyes and SEM), hydrophobicity classification [27], and on-line leakage
current measurement [29, 30]. The following section is the description of this method.

2.3.3.1 Sampling
The first step of this method is to take a material sample from the surface of composite
insulators. There are three sampling methods available:

Surface swabbing
For EPDM a cotton bud soaked in xylene is used to swab an area of 10 cm
2
on the surface of
insulator to get suitable amount material for analysis. In this procedure traces of surface
polymer are dissolved by the xylene solvent. Some non-soluble material such as ATH fillers
and surface impurities are also removed by this method. The cotton bud is subsequently
rinsed in a bottle, which contains 0.5 cm
3
of xylene. The solution that contains the dissolved
polymer material and other substance is then allowed to settle and polymer-solvent free of

16
solid material is drawn off for chemical analysis. It is noted that the swabbing process does
not damage insulators.

Surface scraping
This technique is achieved by razor blade. The amount of the shed surface for analyse is about
1 mg. Infrared absorption spectroscopy is employed to analyse the surface and get chalking
degree information.

Surface planing
This sampling method is accomplished by use of a patented hot-stick device to cut thin slivers
of surface material from sheds. The slivers area is ~3 cm
2
and they are ~0.25 mm thick. The
samples are analysed by XPS to determine the composition of surface layer of material. Also
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is used to observe the surface condition of slivers. A
live line tool has been developed to make it possible to take samples without de-energising
lines [26]. Figure 2-8 shows the line tool to get samples from live power line insulators.
Figure 2-8 Live Line Tool for Sampling Composite Insulators

Swabbing tool
Planing
tool
Attached live tool
Scraping tool

17
2.3.3.2 Oxidation Index
From the surface swabbing method, the solvent contains minute traces of dissolved polymer,
which can be analysed using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The oxidation
of insulator surface is determined by analysis of infrared spectrum. The theory of this method
is described as follows.

The frequency of vibration and the wavelength of absorbed or emitted radiation is
characteristic of the resonant frequency of the chemical bond, that means the vibrations of
carbonyl (C=O) bonds can be clearly different from those of sound polymer (C-H) bonds.
Researchers at QUT developed a method using infrared emission spectroscopy technique to
measure the wavelength of C=O and CH bonds from the samples which can be retrieved
from the sampling method (A). A schematic diagram of the infrared emission spectrometer
[23] is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29 Diagram of the Infrared Emission Spectrometer [23]

Using this apparatus, polymer solvent is dropped on a 6mm-diameter platinum hotplate by 5-
10 drops. The solvent is heated by an electrically heated platinum hotplate to 120C. This

18
approach is to evaporate the xylene solvent just leaving a thin film of polymer residue on the
hotplate. As showed in the figure, a paraboloidal mirror collects the infrared light emitted by
the hot sample and the infrared light is directed into a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
spectrometer, which provides an intensity spectrum of the emitted light as a function of
wavenumber. The wavenumber is the reciprocal of wavelength and thus the unit for
wavenumber is cm
1
. In the spectral diagram, the height of the spectral peaks is proportional
to the concentration of the molecular structure that produces the spectral peaks. Accordingly,
the degree of polymer oxidation can be determined by counting the ratio of the magnitude of
spectral peak heights combined with carbonyl (C=O) and sound polymer (C-H). A new
concept Oxidation Index was introduced.

Oxidation Index = peak height of carbonyl (1735-1745 cm
-1
) / peak height of sound polymer
(1460 cm
-1
)

The characteristic wavenumber of carbonyl (C=O) is 1735 1745 cm
-1
, for sound polymer
(C-H), the characteristic wavenumber is 1460 cm
-1
. Figure 210 is an infrared spectrum
sample of an aged EPDM material insulator [23] and it shows the spectrum peaks used to
calculate the oxidation index.

19
Figure 210 Infrared Spectrum of an Aged EPDM [23]

The oxidation index was used to diagnose a 275 kV EPDM insulator [25], which had been in
service at a polluted site close to a power station. In Figure 211 [25], the solid diamond
points how the oxidation indices along the length of the insulator. It is clear that the maximum
oxidation index occurred at the high voltage end of the insulator. It is consistent with the fact
that the electrical stress is the highest at the high voltage end of the insulator. It is noted that
an increase trend towards to the grounded end of the insulator. Another 275 kV EPDM
insulator without energised but was installed at the same site with the same environment also
has been investigated using oxidation index. The hollow diamond is the oxidation index along
the insulator. The oxidation indices of this insulator dont change with position, and the value
of oxidation index is generally below the lowest value of oxidation index of energised
insulator. This result indicates that the increased oxidation indices are due to energization and
surface charge. Oxidation index provides a new quantitative analysis method for assessing
EPDM insulators.

20
Figure 211 Oxidation Index of a 275 kV EPDM Aged Insulator [25]

2.3.4 Chalking Index Analysis Method
Another indicator Chalking Index has also been developed for quantitatively evaluating the
amount of surface chalking. The following steps describe the approach of calculating chalking
index [24].

Scrap a small amount of the powdery surface material from degraded EPDM insulators. The
tool is suggested is a razor blade. This method is explained in 2.3.3.1(b).
Mix the sample material with 300 mg of potassium bromide powder, which is transparent to
infrared light.
Press the mixture into a 13mm diameter disk under a pressure of 10 tonnes. The result of this
step is to make a thin transparent disk with finely divided and evenly dispersed sample
material.
Using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer to get infrared absorption spectrum of
the sample.


21
Chalking Index = peak height of alumina-tri-hydroxide (1020 cm
-1
) / peak of height of sound
polymer(2918 cm
-1
)
The characteristic wavenumber for alumina-tri-hydroxide (ATH) is 1020 cm
-1
, and the
characteristic wavenumber for sound polymer is 2918 cm
-1
. Figure 2-9 is a typical FTIR
absorption spectrum from a surface scraping and KBr disc sample [25].

Figure 2-9 Chalking index of an aged EPDM insulator [25]

2.3.5 Ester / Ketone Ratio Index
Ester/Ketone ratio is defined as the ratio of the peak heights associated with the ester carbonyl
(1735 cm
-1
) and the ketone carbonyl (1718 cm
-1
) [30].
Ester/Ketone Ratio = peak height of ester carbonyl (1735cm
-1
) / peak of height of ketone
carbonyl (1718 cm
-1
)


22

Figure 2-10 [31] shows that an insulator from inland (Roma, 425 km from the sea) has a peak
at 1735 cm
-1
, which is the characteristic wavelength of ester carbonyl. The spectra for the
insulator from coastal (Beenleigh, 15 km from the sea; Ingham, 5 km from the sea) form a
peak at 1718 cm
-1
, which is the characteristic wavelength of ketone carbonyl. George [30]
explained the phenomena that for EPDM insulators, UV-induced degradation produces
carbonyl peaks that are centred on the ester group, with characteristic wavelength around
1734-1735 cm
-1
. While aging is mainly dominated by thermal oxidation, the carbonyl peaks
always focus on the ketone group with characteristic wavelength about 1717-1718 cm
-1
.The
significance of Ester/Ketone is that it explains the primary cause for EPDM aging. If the
Ester/Ketone is a high value, which indicates degradation of EPDM insulators is mainly
related to UV radiation. Whilst a low value of Ester/Ketone means the aging of EPDM
insulators is principally dominated by thermal degradation, which is strongly related to
discharge [25].

2.3.6 Investigation of Aging of Medium Voltage Insulators
A survey has been carried out using the chemical analysis methods to investigate the
condition of medium voltage insulators in Queensland [25]. Most sample insulators were
Figure 210 Expanded FTIR spectra from the carbonyl region [32]


23
EPDM and a smaller proportion of EPDM/silicone rubber blends. Table 22 lists the analysis
results.
Table 22 Chemical Analysis Report of Aged Medium Voltage insulators in Queensland [25]
(sea means the area close to sea (the Pacific Ocean) no more than 200 meters and exposed to
salt spray directly. coastal refers to sites more than 200 meters but less than 100km from sea. The
inland locations are 100km from sea. )

It is noted that the oxidation indices for the seaside insulators of manufacturer A are higher
than those of coastal and inland insulators of the same manufacturer. The exception is the
insulator installed at GoodnaCoastal. This insulator was installed near the Brisbane River
where fog occurs frequently. It is supposed that fog weather condition resulted in more moist
environment; therefore, this moist condition brought about more dry band phenomena which
resulted in degradation of surface of EPDM insulators. Similarly, for insulators near seaside,
salt fog spray provided suitable condition for dry band formation. This could explain why the
oxidation indices for seaside insulators are higher than those of the insulators installed at the
other locations.

For insulators from manufacturer B, the oxidation indices are significantly smaller than those
of manufacturer A in spite of the fact that the insulators were installed on the same pole.

24
According to SEM analysis, however, the insulators from manufacturer B showed more
extensive surface damage than those of manufacturer A. The thickness of degradation layer of
manufacturer A is around 10m, whereas for manufacturer B, the thickness of degradation
layer is more than 20m. For insulators from manufacturer C, the performance is the worst,
including the oxidation indices and the thickness of degradation layer. Another point is that
the insulator with blend material showed a higher chalking index than that of pure EPDM
insulators.

Figure 2-11 [31] uses ester/ketone ratios and oxidation indices to classify different insulators
into groups. This two-dimension scatter plot shows the ester/ketone ratio to the oxidation
index for insulators from manufacturer A. Several distinct groups can be identified according
to the indices. The insulators installed in the location of seaside of Miami and the insulators
from Goodna Coastal (G) show high values of oxidation index. At the same time, the
coastal insulators indicate high values of ester/ketone ratio. This can be explained by the fact
that UV at Goodna is stronger than that of Miami. Another location with strong UV radiation
and sunny weather is Roma (R); it is clear that the insulators in this area indicate higher
values of ester/ketone ratio. The insulators from Beenleigh (B) and Ingham (I) show relative
lower values of oxidation index and ester/ketone ratio. Their values overlapped each other;
maybe it is expected that the weather conditions of these two places have some extent
similarity. Summarise the chemical analysis on EPDM insulators, the following lists the
suggested end of life criteria of EPDM insulators [25].

25

Figure 211 Scatter plot relating the oxidation index to
the ester/ketone ratio for insulators from manufacturer A, B [31]

The ester / ketone ration determined from the FTIR spectrum is below 0.6.
The Oxidation Index FTIR is above 0.4.
Levels of surface aluminium from XPS are above 7%.
The degradation layer is thicker than 20 m and the width of surface cracks exceeds 7 m.

2.4 Summary

This chapter introduces the innovative chemical methods to assess surface conditions of
EPDM composite insulators developed in QUT. In other literature, electrical characteristics
are widely used to assess conditions of composite insulators [33, 34]. Leakage current and
flashover voltage are two important electrical characteristics. However, the relationships
between chemical surface conditions of composite insulators and electrical characteristics are
still blank at this stage. It requires research in this area. The following chapters in this thesis
aim to do this work. The strategy is that aged EPDM insulators can be acquired by
accelerating aging on composite insulators in the laboratory. The electrical characteristics of

26
insulators can be recorded. Surface conditions of insulators can be acquired. There are
essential elements in my research. First is to design controlled test procedures. Secondly, it is
necessary to find and record proper electrical characteristics of composite insulators. Thirdly,
compare electrical characteristics of composite insulators with surface conditions to find
relationships between them.

27
CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF TEST EQUIPMENT

3.1 Literature Review

Papers dealing characteristics of insulators with aging show that universities and research
organisations in insulator area use fog chamber to age composite insulators and characteristics
of fog chambers can be found from the publications.

The fog chamber in Ohio State University, USA, is a 1.72 m (length) by 2.44 m (width) by
1.83 m (height) high chamber with a gable roof [34]. A fog chamber with a cubic size of 2.54
m has been built in University of Windsor, Canada [35]. At Dow Corning Corporation, the
first fog chamber is a cube with 1.52 m sides and a pyramidal roof. The details of the fog
chamber are described in [36]. A fog chamber at Arizona State University is in 3.65 m (l) by
3.65 m (w) by 2.44 m (h) [37]. In Japan, a fog chamber was set up at University of
Tokushima. The size is 2 m (l) by 2 m (w) by 3 m (h) [38].

A comprehensive review on different designs of fog chambers can be found in [39]. In this
paper, the authors classify fog chambers into ranges from large size, with dimension 5 m,
medium size with dimensions between 1 m and 5 m, to small size with dimensions smaller
than 1 m.

28

3.2 Fog Chamber System

The whole fog chamber test system is composed of four parts. I - fog chamber. II fog
chamber control system. III - high voltage supply equipment. IV data acquisition system.
The following sections illustrate these parts individually. Figure 3-1 illustrates the system.

Figure 3-1 Fog Chamber Test Systems

3.2.1 Fog Chamber
Fog Chamber Test System
Fog Chamber
Fog Chamber
Control System
High-voltage Test Power
Equipment
Data Acquisition System

29
Developing a fog chamber is one part of my research project. After surveying other fog
chambers, a fog chamber was developed in the High-Voltage Laboratory at QUT. Figure 3-2
illustrates the outline of the fog chamber.

Figure 3-2 Fog Chamber

The body of fog chamber is made of acrylic plastic. The outline of the fog chamber is a
square case. Its size is 2000 x 2000 mm at the base and 1500 mm in height. The fog chamber
body sits on a 20-mm thick wooden board, under which there are four universal wheels that
can move the fog chamber in any direction easily. Two doors are mounted on two opposite
sides that allow operator accessing the interior of the fog chamber. Eight brass hooks are
installed on ceiling of the fog chamber allowing eight insulators to be suspended vertically. A
35 kV class bushing is in the centre of the ceiling of the fog chamber. The end-fittings of
insulators are grounded through the measurement system. Two fog boxes are installed in
diagonal position. Two funnels with an area of 78 cm
2
each are installed beside the fog boxes

30
measuring precipitation rate of fog. The location of the bushing and the hooks is showed in
Figure 33.
Figure 3-3 Plan View of the Fog Chamber

3.2.2 Fog Chamber Control System
The function of fog chamber control system is to control the production of fog. Four
ultrasonic fog nebulizers are installed in two separate ancillary fog boxes attached to the main
chamber in a diagonal position. Each fog box has two ultrasonic fog nebulizers. Fog
generation speed is divided into three settings. At the maximum output rate, the fog nebulizer
consumes water 80ml per hour. Beside each fog box, there are two fans, which provide the
function of circulating fog in the fog chamber. One is installed beside of the fog box and the
other is on the floor. The locations of the fans enable circulating air avoiding to blow directly
on the insulators. One 60-litre barrel provides water for each fog box powered by a
submergible pump. In each fog box, two float switches control water level. If water level is
lower than the low-position float switch, the pump starts to work automatically,

31
supplementing water until water level reaches the position of the high-position float switch.
The high-position float switch controls pump to stop supplementing water when water reaches
the optimum height. The optimum water height is about 3.4cm above nebulizers. The two
float switches maintain the water level in the optimum range for the ultrasonic fog nebulizers.
Water in the fog chamber is collected by a water tank installed under the base of fog chamber
through a slope drain hole (diameter = 10mm) on the floor of fog chamber. Water is not
recycled. In order to drain away water in the tank, another pump is mounted outside the tank
to pump tank water into sewer. A digital thermometer in the laboratory records the ambient
temperature and humidity. A removable control panel was built outside high-voltage test zone
that isolates the operating zone from the high-voltage zone. Inside the control panel, the
secondary control power source and the control circuit board are installed. Figure 3-4 shows
control panel systems.

Control Panel
Power Supply (Figure 4-5) Control Circuit
Fan Speed Controller
and Switch
Pump Speed
Controller and Switch
#1 Fan
#2 Fan
#3 Fan
#4 Fan
#1 Barrel Pump
#2 Barrel Pump
Tank Pump
Nebulizer Switch
#1 Nebulizer
#2 Nebulizer
#3 Nebulizer
#4 Nebulizer
Figure 3-4 Control Panel Systems

32

Figure 3-5 Power Systems of the Fog Chamber Control Panel

Figure 3-6 Layout of the Fog Chamber and the Control Panel

Figure 3-5 illustrates power systems of the fog chamber control panel. The front-view of the
control panel is shown in Figure 3-6. The whole control circuitry is available in the Appendix-
1. Appendix-3 illustrates power supply of the fog chamber test system. Appendix-4 is the
terminal connection of the control panel and the fog box.
AC 24V
AC Power (240V)
AC 12V
DC Power
DC 12V
Fog Nebulizers
Fans
Pumps
Indicator Lights
Power Supply
Transformer (240V/24V/12V) Rectifier (240V AC/ DC )

33
3.2.3 High Voltage Supply Equipment
A 250V/19100V, 5 kVA high-voltage test transformer is employed as the power supply. An
independent power transformer, which is separated from the laboratorys lighting power
system, provides power to the high voltage test transformer. The input voltage of the testing
transformer is controlled by an autotransformer. The nameplate of the autotransformer
indicates that input/output voltage range is 240V/0-240V. A section of cable connects the
high-voltage testing transformer and the 35 kV bushing, providing power source for the test
samples in the fog chamber. The equivalent circuit of the testing high-voltage and
autotransformer (variac) is attached in the Appendix-2. Below are terms defined by IEC
60507 regarding the insulators test.

(a). Test voltage
The r.m.s value of the voltage with which the insulator is continuously energised throughout
the test.
(b). Specific creepage distance (ls) of an insulator
The overall creepage distance L of an insulator divided by the product of the test voltage and
3 , which is normally expressed in mm/ kV.

34
3.2.4 Data Acquisition System
Through a literature review, it was found that there are two main methods to monitor leakage
current. One is the direct measurement method. And the other is the indirect measurement
method. The direct measurement method is described in [35], [36]. It uses resistance to
measure voltage caused by leakage current. The indirect measurement method uses
transducers to convert current signals into voltage signals, avoiding direct contact with the
HV source [40]. Comparing these two methods, they both have their own advantages; the
direct measurement is simple, practical, and economical; while the indirect method is safer,
but expensive. They both meet the required measurement accuracy. Considering the ratio of
price / function, in this project, the direct data acquisition system was chosen as the leakage
current monitoring method. Figure 3-7 shows the whole test system and the measurement &
protection board.

Figure 37 Test System and Measurement & Protection Circuit

In the figure, the signal into the LabVIEW board is a voltage signal, and the leakage current
flows a sampling resistor forming a voltage drop, which is proportional to the current. This

35
signal is connected to the input terminals of an A/D card, which is controlled by LabVIEW
program. The input voltage range for the A/D board, 6023E, is 10V to +10V. In order to
avoid damage to the board, a back-to-back zener diode is used to limit the input voltage of the
A/D card in the range of 5V to +5V. The Data Acquisition System is based on a computer
with 233MHz CPU, 32M memory. A National Instrument Data Collection Board (6023E)
carries out the data acquisition task. It consists of a 12 bits, 16 channel Analog-Digital (A/D)
converter, which samples leakage current at the preset frequency. The data-recording program
was based on the LabVIEW program, which was designed to record leakage current of 8
insulators simultaneously. The waveforms of leakage currents can be displayed on screen.
Also waveforms of individual channel are recorded in a data file. The total sampling duration
and the sampling interval can be changed from the LabVIEW panel. The LabVIEW program
for recording the leakage current of one channel is shown in the Appendix-5.

3.3 Summary

This chapter describes the major test equipment, the fog chamber developed in QUT during
this thesis work. It comprises four parts, the body of fog chamber, the control system, the high
voltage supply system, and the data-acquisition system. The appendices include the details of
the fog chamber system.

36
CHAPTER 4

REVIEW OF ELECTRICAL TESTS ON COMPOSITE INSULATORS

4.1 Introduction

Chapter-2 describes the chemical analysis methods to assess surface conditions of EPDM and
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators at QUT. Chapter-3 describes the development of the
electrical test equipment, the fog chamber. This chapter reviews the test standards and
methodology, which describe test procedures, sample preparation, test parameters, and test
procedures on composite insulators. The objective of this chapter is to produce a set of
suitable test methods, based on reasonable standards and valuable experience from other
research results, for this research project. Chapter-5 will describe test details and test results
on EPDM composite insulators, using the test methods described in this chapter.

4.2 Electrical Test Standards

4.2.1 Introduction
There are two international standards relating to this research project. IEC standard 60507
[41], Artificial pollution tests on high-voltage insulators to be used on a.c. systems is used
for testing the power frequency withstand characteristics of ceramic and glass insulators for
applications. It is applicable to systems with rated voltages ranging from 1000V to 765 kV.

37
IEC standard 61109 [42], Composite insulators for a.c. overhead lines with a nominal
voltage greater than 1000V Definitions, test methods and acceptance criteria, defines the
terms used, prescribes test methods and prescribes acceptance criteria. These two standards
are fundamental guidelines for tests in my research, especially the definitions and terms
involving the electrical tests.

R. Barsch, H. Jahn, J. Lambrecht summarised electrical test methods for composite insulators
[43]. Namely, they are: inclined plane test, arc test, modified rotating wheel dip test, salt fog
test and hydrophobicity transfer evaluation. Table 4-1 lists the main test parameters of these
tests.

Table 4 - 1 Summary of Test Methods on Composite Insulators [43]

All the test methods, except hydrophobicity classification, involve high voltage electrical
tests. The criteria for assessing working conditions of composite insulators vary with
methods. Only the inclined plane test indicates quantitative criteria for assessing insulator
degradation. It is concluded that the other tests have subjective criteria, which may lead to

38
different results from different assessors. In this thesis, the quantitative assessment method
and the other methods are combined together to assess the conditions of composite insulators.

4.2.2 IEC Standard
IEC 60507 [41] is a standard which describes aging test procedures for ceramic and glass
insulators. IEC 61109 (1992) [42] is a standard which defines aging test procedures for
composite insulators. It defines two aging test procedures, the 1000-hour salt fog test (clause
5.3) and the 5000-hour cyclic test (annex C) [44]. The 5000-hour cycle test is a multi-factor
aging test procedure, which aims to simulate the natural environment of the composite
insulators. Figure 4-1 lists the details of this multi-factor artificial aging test.

Figure 4-1 IEC 61109 Accelerated Weather Aging Cycle under the Operating Voltage [42]

In this IEC guide, insulators are subjected to repeating environment stress factors, which
include rain, fog, UV, and surrounding temperature. The duration of 5000 hours is
recommended by the standard. Perrot [45] carried out tests under this guideline, and found
good correlation between the multifactor accelerated aging test and degradation observed on
composite insulators recovered from the network in coastal areas. In another report related to
accelerating aging test carried out by Riquel [46], accelerating aging test was found effective
in producing similar degradation results to those in the real field application. Riquel induced a

39
concept named as the acceleration ratio, which is defined as the ratio of time under test to
time in the field to produce a similar level of damage. It is clear that the acceleration ratio is
dependent on the environment factor because different environment has a wide range of
effects on insulators. According to Riquel, the ratio calculated by their test is about 15 for a
coastal location in France and about 7.5 for a highly polluted coastal industrial area of France.
No other publications have found using this ratio to conduct accelerated aging tests on
composite insulators. It is concluded that aging in the environment is a very complex multi-
factor process, although some ratios could be found in laboratory, different laboratories have
different test conditions, and that would result in different effects. So it is supposed that
different areas have different so-called acceleration ratios. The application of the ratio to other
areas needs more investigation. Although the 5000-hour multifactor aging test applies more
aging factors than the 1000-hour salt fog test, the 1000-hour salt fog test is still commonly
used and accepted by manufacturers and researchers to study characteristics of composite
insulators. IEC 61109 1000-hour salt fog test involves the following main test parameters,
which is listed in Table 4-2.

40

T
S

Table 4-2 Parameters of Standard 61109 Test Conditions [42]

In this test guide, the evaluation criterion is numbers of flashovers (not more than three
overcurrent trip-outs for each specimen tested) and the visual examination of degradation
(no tracking, erosion does not reach the glass fibre core, sheds are not punctured, core is not
visible). However, according to Gutman, some test parameters in this test and test criteria are
doubtfully specified, questionable, or not specified at all [47] [44]. Table 4-3 lists these
points.

Table 4-3 Overview of Discussible Parameters [47]

4.2.3 IEEE Standard

41
Besides IEC standards, IEEE also provides a relevant test standard, IEEE Standard
Techniques for High-Voltage Testing [48]. It mainly applies to ceramic and glass insulators.
It defines some common parameters as in IEC 60507. In this standard, it also defines two
testing environments, the clean fog test and the salt fog test. The following section introduces
these two tests.

4.2.3.1 The Clean Fog Test
4.2.3.1.1 Preparation
In the clean fog test, a contamination layer is applied to the insulator surface using slurry
consisting of water, an inert material, such as kaolin, and an appropriate amount of sodium
chloride (NaCl). The amount of NaCl is determined by the required salt deposit density (S
dd
)
or layer conductivity. The slurry composition consists of:
(i) 40 g kaolin
(ii) 1000 g tap water
(iii) suitable amount of NaCl of commercial purity

Table 4-4 lists main characteristics of the inert materials used for contamination purpose.
W

Table 4-4 Main characteristics of the inert material used in clean fog tests [48]

1
conductance (20 C)

42
Before the insulators are subjected to slurry contamination, they are required to be processed
in the following steps: (a) To be cleaned by scrubbing the insulation surfaces with an inert
material, e.g. kaolin. (b) To be thoroughly rinsed with clean water. After the above process,
the samples are ready for contamination. Before applying high voltage on test samples, two
kinds of surface condition, dry and wet, are applied. In both cases, the standard recommends
that the test starts at the same time as the start of fog generation. The fog around the test
objects in chamber must be uniform and the temperature rise of fog chamber must not exceed
15C by the end of test. The desired volume conductivity of the contamination is reached by
adjusting the amount of salt in the slurry. Also, as a guide, the IEEE standard gives a
correspondence between the reference degree of pollution on the insulator and the volume
conductivity. (It is noted that the temperature of the slurry mentioned in the table is 20 C)
Table 4-5 Kaolin composition: correspondence between the reference degrees of
Pollution on the insulator and volume conductivity of the slurry [48]

4.2.3.1.2 Application of the contamination layer
After cleaning the dry insulators following the steps described in the above section, the next
step is to use contamination slurry (described as the Contamination) to contaminate the

43
insulators. Two methods are recommended for applying the contamination layer: using spray
nozzles or commercial-type spray guns. With the latter one, a distance of 20-40cm between
insulators and spray mouth is recommended by the standard. The purpose of this is to obtain a
reasonably uniform pollution layer. After spraying, the layer is left to dry prior to
commencement of the test.

To determine the conductivity of the contamination layer on insulators, this IEEE standard
describes one method, which defines the degree of contamination by salt deposit density or
layer conductivity. The following steps describe how to measure the salt deposit density S
dd
.

Remove carefully the deposit on the surface of a separate insulator. This insulator must be
identical to the tested insulator and have been subjected to the same contaminating process.
Dissolve the deposit in a known quantity of water, preferably demineralised water.
Stir the mixture of water and the deposit for at least 2 minutes.
Measure the volume conductivity
at the ambient temperature (C).

The value
20
(ambient temperature=20C) is calculated using the following formula:

20
=
* [1 b ( 20)] (1)
where

20
is the layer conductivity at a temperature of 20 C (in S/m)

is the volume conductivity measured at the ambient temperature of C (in

S/m) is the temperature of the insulator surface (in C)
b is a factor depending on temperature, as given in Table 4-6:

44

Table 4-6 Relationship between and b [50]

The salinity, Sa ( in kg/m
3
), of the slurry is determined using the formula:
Sa = (5.7
20
)
1.03
(0.004
20
0.4 S/m) (2)
The Salt Deposit Density, S
dd
, is then determined using the formula:
S
dd
=
A
SaV
(3)
where V is the volume of the slurry (in cm
3
)
A is the area of the cleaned surface (in cm
2
)

The layer conductivity is determined by the following formula.
The layer conductivity (K) = the layer conductance measured on the unenergized insulator F
F =
L
dl l p
0
)] ( / 1 [ (4)
where F is the form factor
p ( l ) is the circumference at partial creepage distance l along the surface
L is the total creepage distance
dl is the increment of integration

4.2.3.1.3 Test procedure

45
In IEEE standard, two alternative test procedures are proposed. Basically the procedures
differ in the conditions of the pollution layer, which is dry or wet when the test voltage is
applied.
(a) Dry before energisation
After preparation described in above section, insulators are put into fog chamber with the
condition of dry contamination layer. The IEEE standard suggests that under the ambient
temperature, the steam input rate shall be within the range of 0.05 0.01 kg/h per cubic meter
of the fog chamber volume. Fog is applied when the test voltage is applied to the insulators.

(b) Wet before and during energisation
This method requires that the prepared insulators are put into fog chamber, which is filled
with fog. The fog generation rate must be sufficient to ensure that the surface conductivity of
insulators reaches the maximum value in 20-40 minutes from the start of fog generation at the
ambient temperature. The maximum value of conductivity is assumed as the reference layer
conductivity. When the maximum conductivity is achieved, the test voltage is applied.

4.2.3.1.4 Test objective
The IEEE standard defines the withstand test and the acceptance criterion as follows [48].
The objective of this test is to confirm the specified withstand degree of contamination at the
specified test voltage. The insulator complies with this specification if no flashover occurs
during three consecutive tests performed in accordance with Procedures.

46
4.2.3.2 The Salt Fog Test
4.2.3.2.1 Preparation
In this test, insulators are subjected to salt fog, which is produced by salt water solution. The
contamination degree is defined by specified salinity of the salt water solution. Before the
test, the insulator surface is cleaned by the solution whish is mixed with water and neutral
detergent, such as trisodium phosphate (Na
3
PO
3
). And then the insulators are cleaned by tap
water. The last step allows the insulators to dry out in the natural environment. After finishing
these steps, the insulators are ready for the test. The test voltage is supplied when the fog
generation system starts.

4.2.3.2.2 Salt solution
The salt solution consists of sodium chloride (NaCl) of commercial purity and tap water.
IEEE standard lists the following salinity to be used in test: 2.5 kg/m
3
, 3.5 kg/m
3
, 5 kg/m
3
, 7
kg/m
3
, 10 kg/m
3
, 14 kg/m
3
, 20 kg/m
3
, 28 kg/m
3
, 40 kg/m
3
, 56 kg/m
3
, 80 kg/m
3
, 160 kg/m
3
, or
224 kg/m
3
. The salinity is decided by measuring the conductivity or by measuring the density
with a correction of temperature. The following Table 4-7 lists the correspondence between
the value of salinity, volume conductivity, and density of the solution at a temperature of 20
C.

47

Table 4-7 Correspondence between the Value of Salinity, Volume Conductivity,
and Density of the Solution at the Temperature of 20C [48]

If the solution temperature is not 20C, the conductivity and density should be corrected by
the following formula,

20
=

[1 + (200 + 1.35 Sa) ( 20) 10
6
] (5)
where

20
is the density at a temperature of 20 C (in kg/m
3
)

is the density at a temperature of C (in kg/m

3
)
Sa is the salinity ( in kg/m
3
) - see formula (2)
is the solution temperature (in C)

4.2.3.2.3 Conditions before starting the test
Before the test, the insulators should be prepared according to 4.2.3.2.1. When the test voltage
is applied, the surface of the insulators should be wet. Additionally, the ambient temperature
should be in the range of 5C to 40C and the difference between the water solution and the
ambient temperature should be no more than 15C.


48
4.2.3.2.4 Test procedure
The IEEE standard states that the objective of the salt fog test is to show whether samples will
withstand the application of test voltage, that is to confirm the specified withstand salinity of
the insulator at the specified test voltage. The acceptance criterion for the withstand test is
described as follows: The insulator complies with this standard if no flashover occurs during
a series of three consecutive tests in accordance to the procedure in withstand test. If only one
flashover occurs, a fourth test shall be performed and the insulator then passes the test it no
flashover occurs.

4.3 Test Methodology

After reviewing test guidelines, this section describes the test methodology for my research
project. The objective of this section is to determine the suitable electrical test parameters and
electrical characteristics based on the previous sections.

The significant factors influencing the electrical performance of composite insulators are the
decrease of hydrophobicity and material aging due to electrical and environmental stresses.
When a number of factors, such as UV, moist, corona, salty fog, etc., affect composite
insulators simultaneously, surface degradation on composite insulators could develop
considerably. From the electrical point of view, the electrical characteristics of composite
insulators may change dramatically during the aging process. In terms of electrical
characteristics, leakage current, partial discharge, corona, dry-band, and flashover, are typical

49
parameters to study the aging process of composite insulators [49] [29]. These electrical
characteristics can be measured or studied in the field [28] [51] or under laboratory test
conditions [51]. Among these electrical characteristics, leakage current is treated as one
typical parameter to represent surface conditions of composite insulators. Fernando and
Gubanski [49] summarised a review of leakage current measurement on composite insulators.
In the conclusion, the authors gave the following directions for future work on composite
insulators:

However, knowledge of the correlation between the parameters of the leakage current
(current level, harmonic content and accumulated charge), and the state of the insulator
surface (contamination level, hydrophobicity and aging) on the other side, is not yet complete.
More work is needed to elucidate the above mentioned relations and, therefore, create a basis
for broader use of LC measurements in practical situations.

Figure 4-2 shows the methods of measuring leakage current on composite insulators. They
contain the site measurement and the laboratory test measurement.

50

Figure 4-2 Classification of Leakage Current Measurement [49]

Gorur, etc. [52] presented leakage current measurements for EPDM and silicone composite
insulators in the clean fog environment and the salt fog environment. The composite
insulators were selected from different ranges: energized at field, field not energized, and kept
indoors with plastic bags. The ones kept indoors are treated as reference for comparing the
results. The leakage current measurement was carried out three times. The first time is
immediately after receiving insulators from the field; the second measurement was done
following the surface wetting of insulators, and the third time is carried out after the DC
flashover tests. For EPDM insulators, the results showed that the EPDM insulators kept
indoors without energized history showed low leakage current, whereas the EPDM insulators
which are subject to outdoor environment with high voltage stress showed higher leakage
current with fluctuation amplitude. Additionally, the authors used guideline from
Hydrophobicity Classification Guide, STRI Guide 92/1, to analyse the surface conditions of

51
composite insulators in different test phrases. It is noted that the duration of measured leakage
current is roughly about 120 mins rather than flashover happened.

In this research project, a fog chamber has been built to carry out the aging tests. Combined
with test conditions, leakage current is selected as the electrical characteristic to assess surface
conditions of composite insulators. Flashover incidences will be recorded for reference. Due
to limitation of equipment, flashover voltage test could not be recorded in the laboratory. The
test parameters in LC tests will be introduced in the following chapter.
52
CHAPTER 5

AGING TESTS ON COMPOSITE INSULATORS

5.1 Introduction

Chapter 4 reviewed test standards and test methodology that have been used to guide tests on
composite insulators in this chapter. They include terminology, test definition, sample
preparation, test condition parameters, and test procedures. This chapter describes details of
tests carried out on EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber insulators based on the test
methodology. The test results are presented. Additionally, chemical analysis and physical
observation of aged composite insulators are compared with the electrical characteristics in
this chapter.

The objectives of this chapter have three aspects. The first objective is to find and understand
the electrical characteristics of EPDM insulators in test conditions. The second objective is to
analysis aged EPDM insulator surface conditions by chemical analysis methods. The third
objective is to compare these two assessment results and to find relationships between
electrical characteristics of aged EPDM insulators and chemical analysis results. In this
chapter, LC of composite insulators in test conditions is used to represent electrical
performance of composite insulators. SEM was carried out to investigate the physical change
on surfaces of composite insulators in the tests. Furthermore, hydrophobicity classification
and contact angle analysis supplement the assessment of physical changes of aged composite
insulators.

53
5.2 Preliminary Tests on Composite Insulators

5.2.1 Test Introduction
Preliminary electrical tests were carried out in clean fog environment. Three 11 kV class
composite long rod insulators were tested in the fog chamber. Insulator #1 was from
manufacturer A and the housing and sheath material was blend of EPDM and silicone rubber.
Insulators #2 and #3 were both from manufacturer B. The housing and sheath material was
EPDM material. #1 insulator was new, and #2 insulator had served in power distribution
network about 5 years. By visual observation, the surface of #2 insulator was in good
condition, and there was no obvious holes or cracks on the surface. #3 insulator was new.
This test was carried out in clean fog condition, which was based on IEC standard 60507 [41].
(Chapter 3.2.3.1.1) Table 5-1 lists the parameters of the insulators.
Insulator
No.
Housing Composition Creepage Length (mm) Core Diameter (mm)
#1 EPDM/silicone rubber 405 22
#2 EPDM 332 25
#3 EPDM 332 25
Insulator
No.
Shed Height
(mm)
Number
of Sheds
Shed
Spacing
(mm)

Manufacturer
Creepage
Stress(mm/
kV)
History
#1 35 4 26 A 33.75 new
#2 38 4 31 B 25.5 field aged
#3 38 4 31 B 25.5 new
Table 5-1 Parameters of Insulators (test voltage = 12 kV)

The preliminary electrical test recorded electrical characteristic - LC. The surface of the
insulators was not contaminated. The insulator surface was processed following the test
methodology (see Chapter-3.2.3.1). The surface of the insulators was cleaned by scrubbing
kaolin powder and rinsed with tap water. In the test, high voltage was applied to sample
insulators while the insulator surface was dry. Fog generation system in fog chamber started
54
to produce fog at the same time when high voltage was applied. Table 5-2 lists the parameters
of the test conditions.
Salinity (salt/
clean water)
Tap Water
Conductivity (S/cm)
Testing
Temperature (C)
Fog Particle
Size (m)
Test
Voltage (rms)
0 305 23-25 10-30 12 kV
Table 5-2 Parameters of Preliminary Test Conditions

The whole test circuit is shown in Figure 3-7 (see page 34). The test lasted about 450 hours.
LabVIEW program recorded LC every 30 minutes. During each sampling period, voltage
waveforms were recorded at sampling frequencies of 2 kHz for 60 seconds.

5.2.2 Hydrophobicity Loss on Surface of Composite Insulators
Under moist conditions, wet areas could form on insulator surface. The wet and dry areas
affect the distribution of electric stress. The distribution of electric stress affects the intensity
of discharge and corona on insulator surface. In high electric field zones, the intensity of
discharge and corona is stronger than that of the less intensity electrical field zones. The
consequence of discharge and corona phenomena is the surface condition change on
composite insulator from hydrophobicity to hydrophilicity. Discharge and corona are active
factors to cause deterioration of composite weather shed and sheath materials [53]. The
degree of hydrophobicity is a useful index to assess surface conditions of composite insulators.
One method so-called Hydrophobicity Classification [54] is used to assess hydrophobicity
conditions of composite insulator surface, which was developed by Swedish Transmission
Research Institute. Observers compare test samples with the images of reference standard to
define the hydrophobicity class.

55
Following the instructions of assessing hydrophobicity degree, before the aging test, the
insulator surface under fog condition was investigated. Figure 5-1 shows images of surface
conditions of two EPDM insulators, #2 and #3 insulators, in fog conditions during the same
time. Both of them showed the similar change rate from hydrophobicity to hydrophilicity
(HC
2
-1 to HC-7).

(a) HC0 (b) HC1

(c) HC2 (d) HC3

2
HC hydrophobicity classification
56

(e) HC4 (f) HC5

(g) HC6 (h) HC7

Figure 5-1 Hydrophobicity Classification of EPDM Insulator in Fog Condition

The results revealed that transition from HC1 (totally hydrophobic) to HC6 (totally
hydrophilic) of the two EPDM insulators (#2 and #3) took about 15 hours, whereas the new
EPDM/silicone rubber insulator (#1) took 12 hours to become hydrophilicity. Figure 5-2
shows the HC change with time on shed one (high-voltage side). The results showed that it
took after 15 hours for the shed-1 of #2 and #3 insulators (EPDM) to become totally wet in
fog environment.

57
Figure 5-2 Hydrophobicity Classification on Topside Shed of EPDM Insulator #3

The backside and core positions were also investigated. Take #3 insulator as an example, it
was found that these two positions took longer time to become totally hydrophilic compared
to the top sides of the sheds. By observation, it showed that back position on shed-1 (high-
voltage side) took 20 hours to accumulate tiny water droplets, which was classified as HC1.
Then it took another 2-3 hours to form small water droplets. And then about 14 hours later,
bigger water droplets formed on the backside of the shed. They were classified as HC1-HC2.
With time went on, water droplets accumulated into big water droplets at the rim of the shed
(HC3-HC5). Due to gravitation, big water droplets dropped. The inside of the rim was still
full of small water droplets. Figure 5-3 (a) shows the observations.

(a) HC1-3 (t=42hours) (b) HC3-5 (t=64hours)
Figure 5-3 Water Droplets on Back-shed Surface of #3 Insulator
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time (hours)
H
y
d
r
o
p
h
o
b
i
c
i
t
y

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
backside rim of the backside
inside of the rim of the backside
58
At t=32 hours, the water droplets on the inside rim changed into HC3-HC5. The number of
bigger water droplets on the inside surface of the shed increased while the droplets on the rim
still kept the same size. It was defined that the underside of the shed was HC=6. Figure 5-3
(b) shows the back surface status of this stage. It was not easy to form big water droplets on
the core surface because the core surface was vertical to the ground. As time progressed, if the
speed of accumulation of small water droplets exceeded the speed of splitting of water
droplets in saturated moist environment, some bigger water droplets formed. Figures 5-4 (a)-
(b) show HC at two occasions.

(a) HC=2 on Core (t= 42 hours) (b) HC=3-4 on Core (t=64 hours)
Figure 5-4 Water Droplets on Core Surface of #3 Insulator

core surface
core surface
59
5.2.3 LC Measurement Results
The LC data was analysed by MatLAB and EXCEL. The three insulators showed different
manner in terms of LC performance. Figure 5-5 shows the averaged MVLC (mean values of
LC) of the three insulators between 0-100 hours in the test.

The MVLC of #1 and #3 increased dramatically about 15 hours, then it became fluctuating,
and #1 insulator showed a faster increase than #3 insulator. Let us to analyse the results
combining with the HC investigation described in the previous section. Previous section
revealed that EPDM insulators (#2 and #3) took about 15 hours and EPDM/silicone rubber
insulator (#1) took about 12 hours to form water films on topside shed. The time coincides
with the increase periods of MVLC of #1 insulator (EPDM/silicone rubber) and #3 insulator
(EPDM). It is concluded that the formation of water films on insulator surface is the direct
reason of LC increase in the test.

Contrarily, the LC of #2 insulator remained at a very low-level for about 65 hours, then it
increased to the level as #1 and #3 insulators. This result could be explained by its surface
conditions. Because its five years service history, small erosion holes on its surface trapped
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time from start of test (hour)
M
e
a
n

V
a
l
u
e
s

o
f

L
e
a
k
a
g
e

C
u
r
r
e
n
t
s

(
m
A
)
#1 i nsul at or
#3 i nsul at or
#2 i nsul at or
Figure 5-5 Rectified Mean Values of LC (0-100hours) (#1 -#3)
60
fog droplets. This prevented the formation of continuous water films on its surface. The
delayed formation of water film on the surface resulted in the slowly increased LC.

Figure 5-6 compares the number of times of VLC recorded in the specified ranges. Table 5-3
summarises the results.
(a) MVLC between 0-0.6 mA (b) MVLC greater than 0.6 mA
Figure 5-6 Statistics of MVLC of the three Insulators

0-0.2
mA
0.2-0.4 mA
0.4-0.6
mA
0.6-0.8
mA
0.8-1.0
mA
1.0-1.5
mA
1.5-2.5
mA
>2.5
mA
#1 insulator 55 785 91 4 2 2 1 0
#2 insulator 166 611 157 5 0 1 0 0
#3 insulator 57 775 90 12 4 1 0 1
Table 5-3 Distribution (number of times) of MVLC of the Three Insulators

It is found 0.2-0.4 mA was the most common LC range in the test, which represented 77% of
all recorded number of times of MVLC values. The three insulators kept the same level
around 600-757 number of times, while #1 insulator was the most (785). #2 was remarkably
higher (157) than the other two (around 90) in the range of 0.4-0.6 mA, which was the second
common range. Due to the slow increase of LC in the first 65 hours, in the range of <0.2 mA,
the third range, #2 insulator also had higher distribution number of times than the other two.
In the range of 0.6-0.8 mA, #3 insulator recorded distribution number of MVLC twice higher
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
#1 Blend(new)
#2 EPDM(aged)
#3 EPDM (new)
0-0.2mA 0.2-0.4mA 0.4-0.6mA
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
#1 Blend(new)
#2 EPDM(aged)
#3 EPDM (new)
0-0.2mA 0.2-0.4mA 0.4-0.6mA
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r

N
u
m
b
e
r

(
t
i
m
e
s
)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
#1 Blend(new)
#2 EPDM(aged)
#3 EPDM (new)
0.6-0.8mA 0.8-1.0mA 1.0-1.5mA 1.5-2.5mA >2.5mA
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

T
i
m
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

(
t
i
m
e
s
)

61
than the other two. In the range of >0.8 mA, the three insulators only had a few times. And
only #3 insulator had recorded values >2.5 mA. The range of 0.6 mA was just about 1% of all
number of times of MVLC values.
Figure 5-7 MVLC of the Three Insulators in Test

Figure 5-7 shows the whole MVLC of the three insulators in the test. The figure shows that
although there were high peak values, the amplitude level was around 0.5 mA. During the
time of 360 to 410 hours, #2 insulator showed that it was in a very unstable condition in
which its MVLC fluctuated 0.1 mA to 0.6 mA. #1 insulator had a period of instability of 5
hours started from 420 hours. #3 insulator remained relatively stable except there were 20
hours of unstable period starting from t=395hours. Between 420 and 440 hours, #1 insulator
had intense current activities. As a whole, LC of the three insulators stabilised around 0.3-0.4
mA level till the end of the test.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Time (hours)
L
e
a
k
a
g
e

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

(
m
A
)
#1 Blend(new)
#2 EPDM(aged)
#3 EPDM (new)
62

The above sections analyse the general situations of LC. Figure 5-8 lists LC waveforms,
which revealed momentary status of LC at 4 different moments. At t=55 hours, the LC
magnitude of #1 insulator fluctuated around 0.2 mA. The LC magnitude of #3 insulator was
0.1 mA. The magnitude of #2 insulator was a very low value of 0.02 mA. At t=70 hours, the
LC amplitude of #2 insulator reached 0.1 mA. The figure shows that the LC amplitudes of the
three insulators were similar, and #3 insulator now showed a higher peak value of 0.15 mA.
At t=396 hours, #3 insulator showed a series of high value current peaks (5 mA), which were
more than 10 times higher than the LC amplitude of the other two insulators. At t=422.5
hours, #1 insulator showed occasional high peaks (around 0.5 mA), which were about 4-5
times higher than its normal level (0.1-0.2 mA). #2 and #3 insulators kept the LC level at 0.1-
0.2 mA without extra peaks. The high-value peaks have been widely recognized as evidence
of discharge [55] [2]. The intensity of discharge is proportional to the amplitude of LC. The
Figure 5-8 Waveforms of LC at Specific Time Intervals (#1 - #3 Insulators)
(a) t=55 hours
-
-0.20
0.00
0.2
0.4
Time Interval (0.06s)
L
C

(
m
A
)

#3 insulator #2 insulator
#1 insulator
(C) t=396 hours
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
L
C

(
m
A
)
#3 insulator
(b) t=70 hours
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
#2 insulator
#1 insulator
#3 insulator
L
C

(

m
A
)

(d) t=422.5 hours
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
#1 insulator
#3 insulator
#1 insulator L
C

(

m
A
)

63
recorded LC waveforms revealed that #3 insulator had more active current activities than the
other two during the later part of the test.

5.2.4 Comparison between Electrical Characteristics, Chemical Analysis and Physical
Analysis Results

Oxidation indices of all insulators were measured before and after electrical testing. Table 5-4
compares chemical analysis results. Table 5-5 lists the features of LC of the three insulators.

Table 5-4 Chemical Analysis Results of the Three Insulators before and after the Test

Table 5-5 Electrical Characteristics of the three Insulators

It is noted that the oxidation indices (O.I.) of all three insulators increased. O.I. values of the
EPDM insulators #2 and #3 were significant different before the test due to their history. For
#2, which had been used in field service, the O.I. increased from 0.265 to 0.355, about 34%.
O.I. value of #3, a new one, changed from 0.224 to 0.405, about 81%. O.I. value of the
EPDM/silicone rubber insulator #1 changed from 0.726 to 0.946, about 30%. In terms of O.I.
change, #3 insulator showed the biggest change among the three. The LC analysis showed
that #3 was more active than #2 insulator because of its recorded high LC peaks. Another
index Ester/ketone (E/K) ratio is also listed in the table. It was found that E/K of the three
insulators decreased in the test. The change rates were similar in all three insulators, which
Oxidation Index. Results Ester/ketone Ratio
Insulator Type
Field Aged
History
before after change (%) before after change
#1 Blend New 0.726 0.946 30% 1.849 1.299 29%
#2 EPDM 5 years 0.265 0.355 34% 2.218 1.674 24%
#3 EPDM New 0.224 0.405 81% 2.546 1.908 25%

#1 insulator #2 insulator #3 insulator
Features of LC
characteristics
Mean values of LC increased
the quickest, the maximum
peak value of LC, LC under
0.5 mA level, more active in
the end of the test
Mean values of LC
increased the slowest,
active between 300-450
hours, LC was 0.3 mA level
Mean values of LC
increased slower and less
active than #1, LC was
under 0.5 mA level
64
were 25% to 30%. So there exist potential relationships between electrical characteristics and
chemical analysis results that electrical discharge results in an increase of O.I. and a decrease
of E/K ratio. These conclusions need more tests to fully confirm their validity.

Additionally, physical characteristics of insulators were examined to assess the surface
change during the test. The physical characteristics include hydrophobicity classification
(HC), contact angle, and surface images by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Table 5-6
compares the results of HC and contact angles of the insulators before and after the test.
Surface Contact Angle
HC (shed 1)
Before After
Insulator
before after
Max (
o
) Min (
o
) Max (
o
) Min (
o
)
#1 1 5 78 17 53 0
#2 1 5 92 0 70 0
#3 1 2 141 66 86 0

#1 and #2 insulators were nearly totally hydrophilic (HC=5) after the test. It is noted that #3
insulator showed sound water resistance (HC=2) after the test. #3 insulator showed the
maximum value of contact angle among the three before and after the test. #1 insulator
showed the minimum value of the maximum contact angle before the test. #2 insulator kept
the value between the two. It is noted that the minimum contact angles of the three insulators
were 0 after the test. The HC results accord with the contact angle results, especially on #3
insulator. The greater the angle, the more hydrophobic the surface becomes. However, the
leakage currents of #3 insulator were not less active than the other two insulators during the
test. It was assumed that in the period of the fog test, the characteristic of hydrophobicity did
not play significant role to delay or to prevent the conditions, which were helpful to form
leakage current and discharges.

Table 5-6 HC and Contact Angle of Insulators before and after the Test
65

(a) #1 Shed Surface before the Test (1000) (b) #1 Cross Section before the Test (1000)
(c) #2 Shed Surface before the Test (1000)
(d) Sheath Surface of #2 before the Test (2000)
(e) #3 Shed Surface before the Test (200) (f) #3 Cross Section before the Test (2000)
Figure 5-9 SEM I mAges of Surface of the Insulators (#1-#3) before and after the Test (Continued)
66

(g) #1 Shed Surface after the Test ( 1000) (h) Sheath Surface of #1 after the Test (200)
(i) #2 Shed Surface after the Test (2000)
(j) Sheath Surface of #2 after the Test (200)
(k) #3 Shed Surface after the Test (1000) (l) Sheath Surface of #3 after the Test (200)
Figure 5-9 SEM Images of Surface of the Insulators (#1-#3) before and after the Test
67
#1 Insulator #2 Insulator #3 Insulator
before
Fresh dark color, no erosion
holes, smooth surface
A litter bit darker caesious
color, dust and small white
particles on surface
Fresh caesious color, no
cracks or holes on surface,
tiny dust on surface, end-
fitting new

after
White dry band, erosion
holes close to ground, some
white chalking, tracking
White dry band, erosion holes
close to ground, bulk exposed,
tracking
White dry band, chalking,
tracking, end fitting with
white chalking coat

Figure 5-9 shows surface images of the three insulators before and after the test. Table 5-7
compares the SEM images of the three insulators before and after the test. It shows that the
deterioration conditions on #2 insulator, especially on sheath surface, were more serious than
those of the other two. For all three insulators, the sheath surface deteriorated (Figure 5-9 (h),
(j), (l)) than the shed surface. After the test, on shed surfaces of the three insulators, pits and
cracks were visible. On sheath surfaces of all insulators, loose chalking layer were formed. It
is noted that the minimum contact angles of the three insulators were all 0 after the test. But
#3 insulator kept the highest hydrophobicity value before the test and after the test in terms of
the maximum contact angle among the three. It agreed well with the surface image showed in
Figure 5-9 (k), which shows that #3 insulator deteriorated less compared with the other two
insulators (Figure 5- 9 (g), (j)).

5.2.5 Summary
This section describes preliminary test procedures and presents test results. The comparison
between electrical characteristics, chemical, and physical analysis results were illustrated. The
objectives of the preliminary test were to investigate the appropriate test procedures to
correlate the relations between different assessment methods. The electrical test results
revealed that 0.2-0.4 mA was the most active range of LC for the tested EPDM insulators.
The amplitude of mean LC values of insulators in test was under 0.8 mA. The results provide
Table 5-7 Comparison of SEM I mAges of the Three Insulators
68
fundamental test results to understand electrical characteristics of EPDM insulators in clean
fog test conditions. The intensity of leakage currents, especially characterized by waveforms,
changed with test time. Generally, the intensity of leakage current increased with test time;
however, the leakage currents of the insulators in the test showed the characteristic of
uncertainty, which was correlated with the surface conditions of the insulators. Other
methods, including chemical and physical assessment, supplemented methods of assessing
surface conditions of insulators. It was noted that the HC degree of the insulator #3 kept
sound hydrophobic state. It was assumed that the surface conditions of the insulator #3 did not
show significant deterioration after the test, although it showed active leakage current
performance in the test. Based on the preliminary test, a series of tests will be carried out on
EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber insulators. The results will be presented in the next
sections. And the relationships between electrical characteristics and chemical analysis results
will be discussed.

69
5.3 Electrical Tests on Composite Insulators

5.3.1 Test Conditions and Insulators Parameters
In this section, a series of tests, including salt fog tests, on composite insulators in clean and
salt fog test conditions are presented. Three different fog conditions, which had three kinds of
different fog conductivity, were used to accelerate the aging process of composite insulators.
Table 5-8 lists the three test conditions.

Table 5-8 Test Parameters of Tests

In test A, B, and C, eight insulators numbered as #1 - #8 were tested. Table 5-9 lists the
parameters of insulators. Among them, #1, #2, #5, and #6 were EPDM/silicone rubber
insulators from the same batch I. #3, #4, #7, and #8 were EPDM insulators from the same
batch II. #1, #3, #5, and #7 insulators were contaminated with kaolin, with a conductivity
value of 408 m/cm. The kaolin contamination was prepared according to 4.2.3.1. It was
intended to find any effects on aging process of insulators caused by kaolin. The ESDD
(equivalent salt deposit density) of contamination was measured at 3.4 mg/cm
3
.

3
Fog particle size was measured by a partial measurement instrument from the Science Department
at QUT.

Test A Test B Test C
Test Period (hours) 450 240 240
Salinity 0 2.5kg/m
3
5kg/m
3

Water Conductivity (S/cm) 305 1750 3100
Testing Temperature (C) 23-25 22-25 22-25
Fog Particle Size (m)
3
10-30 10-30 10-30
70

Batch. Housing Composition Creepage Length (mm) Core diameter (mm)
I EPDM/silicone rubber 405 22.0
II EPDM 380 22.6
Batch
Shed Height
(mm)
Number of
Sheds
Shed Spacing(mm)
Creepage Stress
(mm/ kV)
I 27 4 26 19.5
II 35 5 23 18.3
Table 5-9 Parameters of Insulators of Batch I & II
In test A, #1, #2, #3 and #4 were tested. Then in test B, #5, #6, #7 and #8 were placed inside
the fog chamber. #1, #2, #3, and #4 insulators were still in the fog chamber and were
subjected to test B together with insulators #5 - #8. The tests, which the insulators were
subjected to, are summarised in Table 5-10.

Insulators Test A2 Test B Test C
#1 blend (EPDM+ silicone rubber)
#3 EPDM
#4 EPDM
#7 EPDM
#8 EPDM
Table 5-10 Insulators List after Test C

5.3.2 Results of Test A

Test A lasted about 450 hours. Figure 5-10 shows the mean values of LC of #1 -#4 insulators.
Figure 5-11 shows the cumulative charge
4
of the four insulators. Figure 5-12 compares the LC
distribution of the two different composition insulators.

4
The cumulative charge was calculated by integrating the leakage current every 30 minutes.
71

Figure 5-10 Mean Values of LC of Insulators in Test A
Figure 5-11 Cumulative Charge of LC of Insulators in Test A
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

C
h
a
r
g
e

(
m
C
)
#1 insulator
#2 insulator
#3 insulator
#4 insulator
350 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 470
Time (Hours)
#1 insulator
#2 insulator
#3 insulator
#4 insulator
72

(a) LC Distribution of EPDM/silicone rubber Insulators (b) LC Distribution of EPDM Insulators
Figure 5-12 LC Distribution of Two Composition Insulators in Test A

Figure 5-10 shows that EPDM/silicone rubber insulators (#1 and #2) had lower level of
MVLC than EPDM insulators (#3 and #4). It is interesting to see that for EPDM insulators,
kaolin-polluted insulator #3 had relatively higher leakage current level than non-polluted
insulator #4. However, for EPDM/silicone rubber insulators #1 and #2, the effects of kaolin
on LC were not obvious. Figure 5-11 also shows that EPDM/silicone rubber insulators (#1
and #2) had lower level of cumulative charge than EPDM insulators (#3 and #4), especially
after 200 hours. The cumulative charge was calculated by the intergradation of the recorded
leakage current waveforms, so the value could be positive and negative. In Figure 5-11, the
change of the cumulative charge accords with the mean value of the leakage current of the test
insulators. Figure 5-12 compares LC distributions of the four insulators. For EPDM/silicone
rubber insulators, 0.2-0.4 mA (65%) was the most common LC range, followed by the range
of 0-0.2 mA (20%) and 0.4-0.6 mA (12%). For EPDM insulators, 0.4-0.6 mA was the most
concentrated LC range (48%), followed by 0.2-0.4 mA (21%). Next range was 0.6-0.8 mA
(19%). EPDM/silicone rubber insulators showed lower MVLC level than EPDM insulators.
73
Table 5-11 lists the LC distribution of the four insulators with different surface pollution in
the test.
Table 5-11 LC Distribution of Insulators with different Surface Contamination in Test A
Overall, for the same composition insulators, the kaolin-contaminated insulators (#1 and #3)
and the non-contaminated insulators (#2 and #4) showed different LC distribution. 26% LC
distribution of #3 insulator was in the range of 0-0.2 mA, whereas #4 showed 14%. In the
range of 0.2-0.4 mA, the distribution of LC of #3 was 57% and #4 was 73%. In the range of
0.4-0.6 mA, #3 was 15%, which was 5% greater than #4 (10%). In the range of >0.6 mA, both
insulators showed very small distribution. The effects of kaolin on leakage current were not
obvious.

Kaolin-contaminated EPDM insulator #3 showed greater LC distribution (51%) in the range
of 0.4-0.6 mA than non-kaolin polluted #4 (44%). In the range of 0.6-0.8 mA, LC distribution
of #4 (20%) was greater than that of #3 (10%). In other ranges, the two kept the difference
under 5%. The kaolin-polluted insulator appeared to show more active leakage currents than
non-polluted insulator.

This section presents test results of test A performed on four EPDM and EPDM/silicone
rubber insulators. The results mainly focus on mean values of LC of insulators. EPDM and
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators are compared in terms of leakage current. Also this section
compares the electrical performance of kaolin-polluted insulators with non-polluted insulators
of the same composition. The test results revealed that kaolin did not produce significant pro-
0-0.2 mA 0.2-0.4 mA 0.4-0.6 mA 0.6-0.8 mA >0.8 mA
#1 E/S (with kaolin) 26% 57% 15% <2% <1%
#2 E/S (no kaolin) 14% 73% 10% 2% <1%
#3 EPDM (with kaolin) 10% 18% 51% 10% <2%
#4 EPDM (no kaolin) 8% 23% 44% 20% <5%
74
aging or anti-aging effects on insulators. In this section, EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber
insulators showed different leakage current characteristics in clean fog test conditions.
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators showed better resistance to leakage current than EPDM
insulators. LC distribution analysis classifies mean values of leakage currents into different
groups, which are helpful to differentiate the mean values of leakage currents.

5.3.3 Results of Test B
Figure 5-13 shows mean values of LC of insulators #1 - #4. Figure 5-14 presents mean values
of LC of #5-#8 insulators. The LC distribution of the eight insulators in test B was showed in
Figure 5-15.

According to Table 5-8, Test B was carried out in salt fog, which was produced from water
with 2.5 kg/m
3
salinity. The conductivity of water was 1750 S/cm. The test lasted about 250
hours. #1, #2, #3, #4 insulators have been subjected to the Test A. #5 and #6 insulators were
newly introduced EPDM/silicone rubber insulators; #7 and #8 insulators were newly
introduced EPDM insulators. #5 and #7 insulators were polluted by kaolin, which was
prepared according to. 4.2.3.1. During the test no flashovers occurred except that power was
turned off once.

Figure 5-13 clearly shows that EPDM insulators, #3 and #4 had higher MVLC level (0.5-0.6
mA) than EPDM/silicone rubber insulators #1 and #2 (0.2-0.3 mA). The results agreed with
the results of Test A. In the figure, for EPDM/silicone rubber insulators (#1 and #2), the
difference between kaolin-polluted #1 and non-polluted #2 insulator was not obvious, and
both of them kept the same level of MVLC. For EPDM insulators (#3 and #4), the kaolin-
75
polluted #3 and non-polluted #4 did not show significant difference in leakage current level in
the test.
Figure 5-14 shows that the differences of MVLC between EPDM insulators, #7 and #8, and
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators, #5 and #6, were not as significant as the results in Figure 5-
13. #7 and #8 insulators showed little higher levels (0.4-0.5 mA) of MVLC than #5 and #6
insulators (0.2-0.3 mA). #7 and #8 insulators showed more current peaks than #5 and #6. It is
noted that the MVLC level of EPDM insulators #3 and #4 (0.5-0.6 mA), which have been
subjected to test A, was higher than that of EPDM insulators #7 and #8 (0.4-0.5 mA), which
have not been subjected to Test A. However, for EPDM/silicone rubber insulators, #1 and #2,
which have been subjected to Test A, and #5 and #6, which had the same composition but
have not been subjected to Test A, the difference was not clear. Their MVLC level stayed at
around 0.2 mA. In the figure, for EPDM insulators (#7 and #8), the kaolin-polluted #7
insulator showed a bit higher MVLC level than the non-polluted #8 insulator. There was no
clear difference on MVLC level between kaolin-polluted EPDM insulator #5 and non-
polluted #6 insulator.

Figure 5-15 compares LC distribution of the insulators, which were of the same composition
but with different test history. Figure 5-15 (a) shows that EPDM/silicone rubber insulators, #1
and #5, showed similar LC distribution. The most common LC distribution was 0-0.4 mA.
Figure 5-15 (b) shows that the LC distribution of #2 insulator was mush higher than that of #6
insulator in the range of 0.2-0.4 mA. But the LC distribution of #6 was nearly twice as that of
#2 insulator in the range of 0-0.2 mA. #2 insulator still had higher LC distribution than #6
insulator in the range of >0.4 mA but both of them kept low level of LC distribution.
76

Figure 5-15 (c) compares #3 and #7 EPDM insulators. In the range of 0-0.2 mA, the LC
distribution of #7 insulator was slightly higher than that of #3 insulator. In the range of 0.2-
0.4 mA, the LC distribution of #7 insulator was twice as many as that of #3 insulator. The LC
distribution of #3 was twice as many as that of #7 insulator in the range of 0.4-0.6 mA. In the
range of 0.6-0.8 mA, the LC distribution of #3 was nearly ten times as many as that of #7
insulator. Both insulators were at a very low level of LC distribution in the range greater than
0.8 mA. Figure 5-15 (d) shows that in the range of 0-0.2 mA, the LC distribution of #8 was
slighter higher than that of #4 insulator, and both of them kept similar LC distribution in the
range of 0.2-0.6 mA.

77

Figure 5-14 MVLC of Insulators #5- #8 in Test B
Figure 5-13 MVLC of Insulators #1- #4 in Test B
1esc - #1 insulator
(EPDM/silicone)
contaminated with kaolin

2es - #2 insulator
(EPDM/silicone) without
contamination

3epc - #3 insulator
(EPDM) contaminated
with kaolin

4ep - #4 insulator
(EPDM) without
contamination
5esc - #5 insulator
(EPDM/silicone)
contaminated with kaolin

6es - #6 insulator
(EPDM/silicone) without
contamination

7epc - #7 insulator
(EPDM) contaminated
with kaolin

8ep - #8 insulator
(EPDM) without
contamination
78

Test C was carried out under the fog condition with a fog conductivity value of 3100 S/cm.
The fog was produced from water with 5kg/m
3
salinity. During the test, total seven
flashovers occurred. The data of recorded leakage current was broken seven times. The results
are presented in the section of 5.3.5.3.

5.3.4 Summary
The test results reveal that the composition of insulators, the test history, and the test
conditions are factors that could affect insulators performance during the test. In this section,
Figure 5-15 LC Distribution of the Same Material Insulators with Different
Test History (#1, #3, #5 and #7 with kaolin; #2, #4, #6, and #8 no kaolin)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 (mA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 >0.8 (mA)
#4 insulator
#8 insulator
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 >0.6 (mA) 0-0.2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 >0.8 (mA)
#4 insulator
#8 insulatr
#1 insulator
#5 insulator
(a) #1 & #5 insulators (b) #2 & #6 insulators
#2 insulator
#6 insulator
(c) #3 & #7 insulators (d) #4 & #8 insulators
#3 insulator
#7 insulator
79
the leakage currents of composite insulators were analysed. Mean values of leakage current,
and LC distribution are presented to assess performance of composite insulators. The results
revealed that EPDM/silicone rubber insulators showed better resistance to leakage current
than EPDM insulators. The test results seemed to show that the effect caused by kaolin
coating on EPDM insulators was greater than that on EPDM/silicone rubber insulators. But
the kaolin contamination on insulator surface did not play significant effects on the mean
values of leakage current. The results show that the test history significantly took effect on the
electrical characteristics of leakage currents.

Also the test history showed that the clean fog test and 2.5 kg/m
3
salt fog test could not result
in flashover. Test A and Test B showed that mean values of LC of EPDM insulators mainly
concentrated in the range of 0.2-0.6 mA. For EPDM/silicone rubber insulators, the mean
values of LC mainly concentrated in the range of 0-0.4 mA. In the following sections, the
characteristics of momentary of leakage currents - waveforms of LC, will be presented and
analysed.

80

5.3.5 Waveforms of LC

5.3.5.1 Introduction
In the previous sections, mean values of LC of insulators in different test conditions were
analysed. The mean values provided general characteristics of LC. In this section, waveforms
of LC were studied.

Waveforms contain momentary state of LC of insulators, so it is helpful to study the effects of
LC on the insulator surface. In paper [56], the author studied waveforms of LC of suspension
insulators in wet contaminant and clean fog test conditions, and found that there were six
stages in the LC development from the start of test till flashover. The test found the threshold
values of LC for insulators before flashovers. Butler, etc. studied incipient behaviours of LC
waveforms to detect incipient of discharges of insulators. The results showed that LC
waveforms had erratic behaviour with bursts lasting from half a cycle to several seconds. The
objectives in this section focus on the shape of waveforms of LC, frequency-domain analysis
of waveforms, amplitude of waveforms and development stage of waveforms. The LC
waveforms are analysed to study surface activities of the insulator.

5.3.5.2 Waveforms and Analysis of LC in Test A - Clean Fog Test

In this section, LC waveforms were analysed with fast fourier transform (FFT) using
MATLab. The amplitude and shape of waveforms are presented. This section presents the
characteristics of waveforms of two insulators, #1 and #3, in test A. Appendix 6 lists the LC
waveforms and frequency-domain analysis of the other two insulators, #2 and #4. The reason
81
to raise #1 and #3 insulators to analyse is that #1 was EPDM/silicone rubber insulator and #3
was EPDM insulator, both of them contaminated with kaolin. The previous hydrophobicity
classification revealed that EPDM insulators are apt to become hydrophilic than
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators in moist environment. Figure 5-16 shows LC waveforms
and the FFT analysis of #1 and #3 insulators.

82

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
S
i
g
n
a
l
Time
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) t = 2 hours (ii) t = 26 hours
(iii) t = 98 hours (iv) t = 122 hours
(v) t = 218 hours (vi) t = 338 hours
Figure 5-16 (a) LC Waveforms and FFT of #1 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time (cont.)
83

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
4
6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) t = 362 hours (viii) t = 410 hours
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Figure 5-16 (a) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #1 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time (continued)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) t =2 hours (ii) t =26 hours
(iii) t =98 hours (iv) t =122 hours
Figure 5-16 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #3 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time (Continued)
84

Analysis:
The figure shows that the LC of #1 and #3 can be divided into several stages.
#1 insulator:
Stage 1: LC waveforms were sine signals (Figure 5-16(a)-(i)). It revealed voltage and current
had linear relationship. So the insulator surface was resistive. No discharge was observed
during this stage.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) t =218 hours (vi) t =338 hours
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) t =362 hours (viii) t =410 hours
Figure 5-16 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #3 Insulator in test A at Specific Time (continued)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
85
Stage 2: The shape of waveforms became thinner while discharge emerged (Figure 5-16(a)
(ii) (iii) (iv). The magnitude of LC increased from 0.1 mA to 0.6 mA, which was about triple
times as those of stage one. Audible discharges emerged. Odd harmonic components arose in
the FFT analysis results.
Stage 3: Discharges on insulator surface were visible and audible in this stage. The shape of
waveforms became sharper and that was explained by the fact that 3
rd
and 5
th
harmonic
components appeared in the waveforms. Peaks due to discharges were recorded in the
waveforms (Figure 5-16 (a) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)). The peaks of LC reached to 4 mA. The
general amplitude of waveforms remained at the level of 0.7 mA.

#3 insulator:
Stage 1: This stage lasted about 40 hours. The waveforms of LC of #3 insulator in Figure 5-
16 (i) were of a sine shape, which indicated that the relationships between voltage and current
were linear. The amplitude of LC waveforms was at the level of 0.2-0.4 mA. The FFT
analysis results showed that there was no obvious odd frequency component in the
waveforms. Stage 2: This stage lasted about 150hurs, and it was the longest period in the test. Figure 5-16
(b)-(ii) (iii) (iv) show that the amplitude of LC waveforms increased dramatically, reaching to
1.2-2.0 mA. The shape of waveforms became stretched. The FFT analysis results revealed
that 3
rd
and 5
th
harmonics became significant. Slightly visible and audible discharges were
observed.
Stage 3: This stage lasted about 60 hours. Peaks of waveforms were obvious in this stage.
The general LC amplitude was at the level of 0.5-0.7 mA. Discharges became more severe.
The discharges had big current peaks as high as 12 mA showed in Figure 5-16 (b)-(v). The
86
FFT results showed many harmonic components in the waveforms. These were indication of
intense discharges on the insulator surface.
Stage 4: Stage 4 lasted about 100 hours. Current peaks became more and more frequent. The
amplitude of peaks increased to 2.0-4.0 mA. The shape of LC was distorted and it became
lengthened. The FFT analysis results showed that odd number harmonic components became
considerable (Figure 5-16 (b) - (vi) (vii)), especially 3
rd
and 5
th
harmonic components.
Stage 5: The stage lasted about 100 hours. The LC waveforms performed in a relatively
stable manner. The waveforms were of a similar shape to those in stage 2, but the amplitude
was in the level of 2 mA. Figure 5-16 (b) - (viii) shows that no obvious big peaks were
recorded. The FFT analysis results revealed that there were 50Hz and considerable 3
rd
and 5
th

of harmonic components in the waveforms.

The analysis of mean values of LC showed #3 EPDM insulator was more active than #1
EPDM/silicone rubber insulator in all tests. In this section, the LC waveforms of #1 and #3
insulators showed evidence that discharges on #3 insulator was more active than that on #1
insulator. First, the general amplitude of LC waveforms (no peaks) of #1 was at the level
under 1.5 mA, which was obviously less than that of #3 insulator, which ranged from 2 to 4
mA. Secondly, the frequency and intensity of discharge peaks of #1 insulator were less and
weaker than those of #3. Thirdly, the discharge waveforms of #1 appeared later than that of
#3. Finally, Figures 5-17 (a) (v) (vii) (viii)) show that the number of harmonic components
of LC waveforms of #1 insulator was less than those of #3 insulator.

The waveforms of #2 insulator were similar to those of #1 insulator. The waveforms of #4
insulator were similar to those of #3 insulator. From the waveform analysis point of view,
87
there was no obvious difference between the kaolin-contaminated insulators and the non-
contaminated insulators.

5.3.5.3 Waveforms of LC in Test B with 2.5 kg/m
3
Salt Fog

5.3.5.3.1 Results
Eight insulators (#1 - #8) were subjected to the test. The parameters of insulators and test
conditions were described in 5.3.1. This section studies the LC waveforms and the FFT
results of #1, #5, #3, and #7 insulators. Their LC waveforms of these insulators are listed in
Figure 5-17 to 5-20. The LC waveforms of the other four insulators are listed in the
Appendix-7.

88

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.05
0
0.05
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
5
10
15
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) t = 1 hour (ii) t = 12 hours
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Figure 5-17 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #1 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time
89

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(ix) t = 168 hours (x) t = 196 hours
(xi) t = 216 hours (xii) t = 238 hours
Figure 5-17 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #1 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)
90

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
91

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-40
-20
0
20
40
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-3
-2
-1
0
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(xi) t = 216 hours (x) t = 237 hours
92

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
93

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(xii) t = 120 hours (xiii) t = 144 hours
(ix) t = 168 hours
(x) t = 192 hours
(xi) t = 216 hours (xiii) t = 239 hours
94

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
5
10
15
20
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-10
0
10
20
30
40
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Figure 5-20 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #7 Insulator in Test B at specific time
95

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
96
Analysis:

#1 insulator
In Test B, the general amplitude of LC waveforms of #1 insulator kept around 1.0 mA, which
was greater than that in Test A (>0.5 mA). In Figure 5-17, the peaks ranged from 1.0 mA to
7.0 mA, and discharge peaks emerged earlier (t=12 hours) than those in Test A. FFT results
revealed that harmonic components in waveforms appeared earlier in Test B than in Test A.

Comparison between #1 insulator and #5 insulator
Sawtooth shape waveforms of LC of #5 insulator emerged later (t=48h) than those of #1
insulator (t=24h).
The LC waveforms of #5 insulator showed clear stages, which were similar to the
pattern of #1 insulator in Test A.
The peaks of #5 insulator and FFT results revealed there were more intense discharges
in the later phases in Test B (t=144 hours). They were more active than #5 insulator.
The peak values reached as high as 20 mA (t=144hours).

#3 insulator
The sawtooth shape waveforms of LC appeared earlier (t=48hours) than those in test A2
(t=338 hours).
The amplitude of waveforms of LC in Test B stabilized at the level of 1.0 mA. At t=120
hours, the amplitude of LC waveforms sharply increased to 4.0 mA. At t=144 hours, the
amplitude remained at the level of 1.0 mA. For #3 insulator, the amplitude of
waveforms of LC was in the range of 1.0-2.0 mA.
97
The sawtooth shape of LC waveforms of #3 in Test B emerged much earlier than those
in Test A. It revealed that discharge appeared earlier in Test B, but the peaks in
waveforms showed that the intensity of discharges was weaker than that in Test A.
Comparison between #3 and #7 insulators
In test B, the sawtooth waveforms of discharges of #7 insulator appeared earlier (t=12
hours) than those of #3 insulator (t=48 hours).
The current peaks in LC waveforms of #7 insulator appeared earlier (t=12 hours) than
those of #3 insulator (t=48 hours).
The current peaks in Test B of #7 (I
max
=5 mA-31 mA) were higher than those of #3
insulator (I
max
=6 mA) in the test.
In test B, the general amplitude of LC waveforms of #3 and #7 insulators was at around
1.0 mA.

5.3.5.3.2 Conclusions
Under the 2.5 kg/m
3
salinity fog test condition, no flashover occurred on all insulators.
The leakage current of #1 - #4 insulators, which have been subjected to clean fog Test
A, showed more active waveforms than those of the insulators #5 - #8, which had no
clean fog test history.
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators showed lower level of mean values of LC than EPDM
insulators. In Figure 5-10, EPDM showed obviously higher mean values of LC after 300
hours than EPDM/silicone rubber insulators in test A2. In Figure 5-13, the similar
results were found after around 100 hours in test B.
Three characteristics of LC waveforms described the electrical performance of
insulators in tests. The first one is the mean value of LC. The second one is the
98
waveform shape. The lengthened shape of waveforms and distorted triangle waveforms
was explained by the phenomena of forming dry band, which resulted in discharges.
Sawtooth shape waveforms revealed the intensity increase of discharge activities. The
third one is the current peak, which represented intensity of discharges or arcs.
The signatures of transitional phase in the waveforms were the lengthened shape and the
distorted waveforms. #1 - #4 insulators, which had been subjected to Test A, did not
show clear transitional phase in Test B. The sawtooth shape of waveforms of #1 - #4
insulators appeared in the early stage compared with those of #5 - #8 insulators.

5.3.5.4 Waveforms of LC in Test C with 5kg/m
3
Salinity Fog Test

In Test C, 5 kg/m
3
salt density was applied. The conductivity of salt water was 3100 S/cm.
The test conditions with higher conductivity were more serious than the previous two, Test A
and Test B. The test was carried out 7 days after Test B. Insulators under Test C were the
same insulators #1- #8. In this test, flashover occurred seven times. Figure 5-21 lists LC
waveforms and FFT results of insulators, which had incidence of flashover in the test. All LC
waveforms and FFT results of the eight insulators before flashover were presented in
Appendix-8.

99

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) 1
st
flashover - #1 insulator
(ii) 2
nd
(iii) 3
rd
(iv) 4
th
(v) 5
th
(vi) 6
th
Figure 5-21 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Flashovered Insulators before Flashover
100

The characteristics of the LC waveforms of insulators before flashover are described as
follows.
Big discharge peaks, which ranged up to 45 mA, emerged in the LC waveform before
flashover.
The odd-frequency components in the waveforms of the peaks, especially the 5
th
and 7
th

harmonic components were significant before flashover.
FFT results showed different harmonic components in different waveforms of insulators
before each flashover. #1 insulator (1
st
flashover) and #2 (2
nd
flashover) showed
dominant 50Hz components in waveforms, whereas for other insulators, odd harmonic
components were considerable.
The flashover of insulators happened randomly. In this test, #5 insulator showed active
manner compared with other insulators. Test history of insulators did not increase the
chance of flashover.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-50
0
50
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) 7
th
Figure 5-21 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Flashovered Insulators before Flashover (continued)
101
The waveforms of insulators with no flashovers. They included all forms of waveforms,
sine shape, lengthened waveforms, distorted shape of waveforms, and sawtooth shape
of waveforms.
The interval time
5
between two flashovers is shown in Figure 5-22. The figure shows
that the interval time was around 9-10 hours except for the fourth flashover, which was
just 1 hour.
Figure 5-22 Interval Time between Flashovers

5.3.6 Summary of Waveform Results
Section 5.3.5 presented test results on eight insulators under three different test conditions.
The analysis of test results focused on mean values of leakage currents, the distribution of
leakage current, waveforms of leakage current, FFT analysis of waveforms, and the
characteristics of waveforms before flashover.

The LC waveforms of the testing insulators experienced different phases. It is generally
known that leakage current is divided into two parts; one is current by electrolytic

5
The interval time means the time between the start of energising to flashover.
10 10
9
1
9 9
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flashover
T
i
m
e

(
h
o
u
r
s
)
102
conductivity, and the other is by dry band arcing. Dry band arcing is the main reason resulting
in the degradation on the composite insulators [57]. The waveforms of leakage current from
each part show obviously different features. In the beginning of the tests, the waveforms
appeared in sinusoidal shape, which represent that the voltage and current on the surface of
the insulators were resistant relationship. The energy carried by the current dissipated into the
surface of the insulators. At this stage, no discharge activities were observed. Consequently,
the currents did not significantly affect the structure of the surface of the insulators. However,
the distorted waveforms, which appeared after the sinusoidal leakage currents, showed
observable discharge activities, including arcs, which significant affected the surface
conditions of the insulators. The sawtooth shape of the waveforms represented faint discharge
appeared on the surface of the insulators. The distorted sharper and thinner waveforms of the
leakage currents represented the discharge activities became more serious and arcs appeared
on the surface of the insulators. By observation, the discharge activities and arcs were more
serious in the top end of the insulators and the bottom end of the insulators. The large peaks in
the waveforms showed that strong arcs appeared on the insulator surface. The energy in the
current was strong enough to cause deformation on the insulator surface, which including pits,
scissions. The peaks in the waveforms were the indication of flashover. The FFT analysis
revealed that the 3
rd
harmonic was the main part of the odd harmonic components in the
leakage currents during the discharge activities. Also 5
th
and 7
th
harmonic were obvious in the
leakage currents during the discharge activities.

The characteristics of waveforms of the leakage current are explained to understand the
activities on insulator surface during the tests. Next section investigates the physical change
on insulator surface using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques.
103
5.4 Relationships between Physical, Chemical Properties of Insulator and
Electrical Characteristics

5.4.1 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Observations of the Insulator Surface
SEM was used to observe the physical changes on the surface of eight insulators following
Test C. They are showed in Figure 5-23.

(a) Shed-1 of #1 insulator ( 2000) (b) Shed-1 of #3 insulator ( 2000)
cracks chalking
Figure 5-23 SEM I mAges of the Eight Insulators after Test C
Loose
Area
(c) Core 1-2 of #1 insulator (2100) (d) Core 1-2 of #3 insulator (1000)
Loose
Area
Loose
area
chalking
104

(e) Shed-1 of #2 insulator (1250) (f) Shed-1 of #4 insulator (3000)
(g) Core 1-2 of #2 insulator (100) (h) Core 1-2 of #4 insulator (150)
discharge pits
Figure 5-23 SEM Images of the Eight Insulators after Test C (continued)
105

(i) Shed-1 of #5 insulator (100) (j) Shed-1 of #7 insulator (40)
(k) Core 1-2 of #5 insulator (100) (l) Core 1-2 of #7 insulator (200)
106

(m) Shed-1 of #6 insulator (1000) (n) Shed-1 of #8 insulator (80)
(o) Core 1-2 of #6 insulator (1500) (p) Core 1-2 of #8 insulator (200)
dented trace
107
Observation Results:

I. Figures 5-23 (a) and (b) clearly show that the surface of #3 EPDM insulator had
deteriorated more than that of #1 EPDM/silicone rubber insulator. The cracking and
chalking on #3 insulator surface were obvious. In contrast, #1 insulator did not have any
obvious cracking or chalking, and its surface remained smooth.
II. Figure 5-23 (c) shows marked roughness of the surface of core 1-2 of #1 insulators. This
can be compared to the smooth surface of shed in (a). The surface in (c) appears to have
polynmer leaving ATH behind. Figure 5-23 (d) shows that severe chalking areas and
cracks have formed on core 1-2 surface of insualtor #3.
III. Figures 5-23 (e) and (f) compare the shed surface conditions of #2 and #4 insulators. It
shows that there were some surface deposits on #2 insulator, and there was no obviously
deteriorated cracking and holes on it. Whereas, #4 insulator shed surface showed more
deposits on surface, and there were apparent chalking and cracks on surface.
IV. Figures 5-23 (g) and (h) show that at core 1-2 of #2 insulator, direct discharge evidence
was present, with white color discharge pits scattering on the core surface. On #4
insulator core 1-2, the scrap-like loose flakes were present on the surface. It deteriorated
more than the core 1-2 of #2 insulator.
V. Figures 5-23 (i) shows that on #5 insulator shed surface there was no obvious discharge
pits but discharge traces were present. On #7 insulator shed surface, the evidence of
surface discharges, white discharge pits, was visible. The deterioration on #7 insulator
surface was somewhat more sereve than that of #5 insulator.
VI. Figures 5-23 (k) and (l) show the surface conditions on core 1-2 of #5 and #7 insulators.
#5 insulator core surface did not present holes and chalking material but show obvious
108
discharge traces. #7 insulator presented discharge pits, which changed color to white in
SEM. The centre of pits was more loose than around areas.
VII. Figures 5-23 (m) and (n) show the shed-1 surface of #6 and #8 insulators. There were
what apparent to be loose materials on #6 insulator surface, but no obvious cracks or
chalking. On #8 insulator surface, the whole shed surface became roughened and no flat
areas can be found.
VIII. Figures 5-23 (o) and (p) show the images of core 1-2 surface of #6 and #8 insulators.
For #6 insulator, the core 1-2 surface showed slight discharge dented traces and the
whole areas were relatively smooth. On #8 insulator core 1-2, it had similar situations as
its shed surface that some small loose grains scattered on surface and the core surface
roughened.

Summary:

(a) #1-#4 insulators deteriorated more severe than #5 - #8 insulators. Insulators #1-#4 have
been subjected to Test A, B, and C, and #5-#8 have been subjected to Test B and C.
(b) EPDM insulators, #3, #4, #7, and #8, suffered more serious surface deterioration than
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators, #1, #2, #5, and #6 insulators.
(c) The photos demonstrated that core surface of insulators was more degraded than shed
surface.
(d) #1, #3, #5, and #7 insulators were contaminated with kaolin before the tests. Comparing
with #2, #4, #6, and #8 insulators, which were not contaminated, kaolin-contaminated
insulators did not show more deteriorated surface conditions than non-contaminated
ones.

109
Blackmore [2] investigated discharges on hydrophobic material surface. The results found
that the discharge occurred between water drops in series forming a chain of discharge spots
between electrodes. Figure 5-24 reproduces four pictures from Blackmore, which clearly
demonstrate the discharge development between electrodes from initial discharge to intense
glow discharges.

It is noted that discharges started at the edges of water droplets on surface. Initially, the
discharges presented in blue and purple colour. Then the size of discharge spots increased,
and discharge colour changed to orange red (Figure 5-24 (c)). In Figure 5-24 (d), the
Figure 5-24 Sequence of Discharges on Hydrophobic Silicone Rubber transition from
Initial discharges to intense glow discharges
(=16000S cm
-1
, T
apart
=0.04s) [2]
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
electrodes
110
discharges were very intense and discharge spots began to joint together forming discharge
band areas. The whole discharge pattern was composed of round-shape discharge spots and
band-shape discharge areas. The discharge glowed in bright colour. After the test, the author
found that there were small pits visible to the naked eyes forming erosion parts on rubber
surface. In our fog tests, Figure 5-23 (g) (j) (k) show that there were similar discharge traces
on insulator surface. The results provide evidence of deterioration of the insulator surface due
to discharge.

5.4.2 Chemical Analysis Results and Comparison with Physical Observations
The eight insulators were analysed with chemical assessment methods described in Chapter 2.
Samples were taken from three locations on each insulator. Figure 5-25 shows the three
sampling locations.

Figure 5-25 Locations of Sampling for Chemical Analysis

S1
S4
111

(a) O.I. of Insulators #1 and #2 (b) O.I. of Insulators #3 and #4
(c) O.I. of Insulators #5 and #6 (d) O.I. of Insulators #7 and #8
Figure 5-26 Oxidation Index of Insulators #1 - #8 before and after the Tests
112

(a) E/K ratios of Insulators #1 and #2 (b) E/K ratios of Insulators #3 and #4
(c) E/K ratios of Insulators #5 and #6 (d) E/K ratios of Insulators #7 and #8
Figure 5-27 Ester/ketone Ratio of Insulators #1 - #8 before and after the Tests
113
Figure 5-26 shows the values of oxidation index (O.I.) of the insulators before and after the
tests. The marked points are the average values of three oxidation indices. The error bars
show the standard deviations of the mean values. The results show that the O.I. of insulators
increased after each test. Figure 5-26 (a) shows that the O.I. of EPDM/silicone rubber
insulators #1 and #2 increased 15% and 39% respectively after all the tests. Figure 5-26 (b)
shows that the O.I. of EPDM insulators #3 and #4 increased 84% and 76% respectively after
all the tests. The increases were obviously higher than those of #1 and #2 insulators. It is
noted that while EPDM insulators #7 and #8 were not subjected to the clean fog Test A, their
O.I. increased 150% and 108% respectively (Figure 5-26 (d)). The O.I. of EPDM/silicone
rubber insulators #5 and #6, which had the same test history as #7 and #8, increased about
14% (Figure 5-26 (c)).

Figure 5-27 shows that the average values of the ester/ketone (E/K) ratio for each insulator. In
the figure, the marked points are the average values of E/K ratios from the three locations.
The error bars show standard deviations of the mean values. It is obvious that E/K ratios
decreased with the tests. This indicated that there was an increase in ketone with the tests. The
E/K ratios of EPDM/silicone rubber insulators #1 and #2 insulators decreased 49% and 42%
respectively after all the tests (Figure 5-27 (a)). The E/K ratios of EPDM insulators #3 and #4
decreased 48% and 39% respectively after all the tests (Figure 5-27 (b)). And the E/K ratios
of EPDM/silicone rubber insulators #5 and #6 decreased 46% and 54% respectively after the
tests (Figure 5-27 (c)). The E/K ratios of EPDM insulators #7 and #8 decreased about 28%
and 39% respectively after the tests (Figure 5-27 (d)).

114
Among the insulators #1- #4, it is noted that the change rate of E/K ratios of the insulators in
Test A was much higher than that in Test B and Test C. The E/K ratios of insulators #1, #2,
#3 and #4 decreased dramatically after Test A. The E/K ratios of #1 and #2 insulators
decreased slightly after Test B and Test C. The E/K ratios of #3 also decreased after Test B,
but after Test C, its value seems to have recovered. This could be due to a measurement error.
The E/K ratio of #4 insulator stayed stable after Test B and Test C. For #5-#8 insulators, the
E/K ratios decreased dramatically after Test B, but did not change significantly after Test C.

The results can be summarised as follows. Firstly, EPDM insulators in general showed higher
O.I. change rate than EPDM/silicone rubber insulators, which indicate EPDM insulators are
more susceptible to oxidation conditions on insulator surface than EPDM /silicone rubber
insulators. It is noted that #2 and #4 insulators showed decreased O.I. after Test C, which
contradicts the other O.I. measurement results. Several factors may have affected the
measurement results. (a) The sampling areas after Test C were different from the sampling
areas after Test A and Test B. (b) the deteriorated materials on sampling surface were partly
washed off by water formed by fog moist on insulator surface.

Secondly, the decreased E/K ratio indicated that the thermal effects caused by discharge
activities and leakage currents dominated the degradation process on the insulators in the
tests. This conclusion is based on the fact that ester degradation products are associated with
photo oxidation, and ketone product is associated with thermal oxidation [30]. UV from
sunlight was not a factor in the tests, but some UV would be present during the tests. It is
believed that discharges are apt to happen in moist environment. The oxidation on the surface
of insulators was mainly caused by leakage currents. Discharge is a far more effective
115
initiator of degradation than UV. It is noted that both EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber
material insulators showed similar E/K ratio change during the tests.

5.4.3 Discussion of the Relationships between Physical Characteristics and Chemical
Analysis Results of Composite Insulators

The first conclusion to be drawn from the results of physical and chemical analysis is that
EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber insulators showed different surface deterioration under the
same test conditions. EPDM insulators showed greater surface damages than EPDM/silicone
rubber insulators. Correspondingly, EPDM insulators showed more active electrical
characteristics, including a higher level of leakage currents and more active discharge
activities than EPDM/silicone rubber insulators under the test conditions. Secondly, the
oxidation index revealed that the extent of oxidation on EPDM insulator surface was greater
than that of EPDM/silicone rubber insulators. Thus, the physical observations of the insulators
in the test conditions were consistent with the chemical analysis results. Thirdly, E/K ratios
verified that thermal effect caused by leakage currents and discharges was the dominant
degradation mechanism. Fourthly, the insulators, which had been contaminated with kaolin,
did not show significant differences from the non-contaminated insulators regarding leakage
currents, oxidation index, and E/K ratio.

In Chapter 2, it was noted that silicone rubber can recover hydrophobicity characteristic on its
surface due to the migration of silicone molecular from bulk to surface [21]. It is believed that
the reason for using a combination of EPDM and silicone rubber is to introduce this
characteristic to improve the hydrophobicity of the composition. The results in the fog tests
116
showed that EPDM/silicone rubber insulators did perform better than EPDM insulators in
terms of physical observations, electrical characteristics and chemical analysis results.

117
CHAPTER 6

SURFACE RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT TO ASSESS SURFACE
CONDITIONS OF COMPOSITE INSULATORS

6.1 Introduction

Under some circumstances, there is a need for a simple reliable technique for assessing the
surface conditions of composite insulators prior to installation. For example, when insulators
have been stored for a long period in a dusty environment the appearance of the insulators
may change and power supply company may be reluctant to use the insulators. New
techniques for determining the insulator condition from chemical analysis of housing material
samples have been introduced in the previous chapter. Recently, low voltage tests for
measurement of insulation resistance of insulators has been introduced by an IEEE Working
Group [58]. This following examines a new procedure for measurement of surface leakage
resistance for field applications and the results are compared with chemical analysis results.

6.2 Leakage Resistance Assessment Using a Water Spray

Five high-voltage (275 kV and 330 kV) composite insulators were used as test samples. Three
silicone rubber insulators were numbered as sr1, sr2, and sr3. Insulators sr1 and sr2 had been
stored in a dusty environment for over one year after being removed from service. The
original grey color of sr1 had changed to deep grey color. sr3 was a new silicone rubber
insulator. Two EPDM insulators, ep1 and ep2, were removed from service because of concern
118
about color change. ep2 had once flashed over but no obvious surface deterioration could be
seen. One 11 kV porcelain insulator was tested as a reference.

6. 2. 1 Test with Water Spray
In the test, it was initially proposed to use the leakage impedance method of assessing
composite insulator condition but with the exception that a hand-held water spray was to be
tried as a replacement for a fog generated by a traditional fog chamber. The arrangement of
the initial tests is shown in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1 Arrangement for Water Spray Test

Aluminium foil was wrapped around the shanks of insulators mid-way between the sheds.
Copper wire was bound on the foil as electrodes to connect the AC power supply (50Hz) and
the data-recording system. As shown in Figure 6-1, one pair of electrodes were separated by
several sheds. The creepage distance of the test sections of all insulators was determined to be
close to 450mm. Table 6-1 shows the shape of the insulators. At first, the insulators were
subjected to spraying with tap water (conductivity=315 S/cm) and test voltage at 2 kV (rms).
The test conditions are listed in Table 6-2.

119
Insulators sr1 sr2, sr3, ep1 ep2 porcelain
Shape

Table 6-1 Shape of Sample Insulators

The AC power supply was a 0-19 kV test transformer and the current-measurement used a
shunt and a waveform recorder. Mean values of leakage current (LC) and LC waveforms
were measured. Surface resistance was calculated from Ohms Law.
Leakage Distance Between Electrodes 45 cm
Voltage Applied 2 kV (rms)
Method of Wetting Hand-held spray
Time Duration 5 minutes
315 S/cm
Water Conductivity
2000 S/cm
Table 6-2 Configurations for Water Spray Test

Results revealed that tests with spraying tap water (conductivity=315S/cm) did not yield any
measurable LC on silicone, EPDM, and porcelain insulators. Test with salt water spray
(conductivity =2000 S/cm) also showed no LC on any insulator surface. It was concluded
that under the test conditions, it is difficult to differentiate surface conditions of composite
insulators.

6.2.2 Tests with Water with Reduced Surface Tension
The question arose as to whether it might be possible to increase leakage current to a
measurable value by spraying with water with artificially reduced surface tension in order to
give a uniform coating of moisture on the insulator surface. Professor Ravi Gorur, who was a
visiting Professor of QUT suggested that liquid soup be added to 450 ml water in the spray
120
bottle and well shaken. The purpose of the soap was to reduce the surface tension of water
deposited on the surface of composite insulators. The spray water was used on all the test
samples simultaneously. Figure 6-2 (a) shows surface of insulator sr1 after being sprayed with
tap water. Figure 6-2 (b) shows the surface of sr1 after being sprayed with tap water
containing liquid soup. It is obvious that the surface showed a uniform coating of moisture on
the insulator surface.
Figure 6-2 Surface Conditions of sr1 before and after Using Liquid Soup

6.2.3 Leakage Currents of Artificially-wet Insulators

During test of spraying with 315 S/cm water with liquid soup, in every minute, six
waveforms (0.02 s6=0.12 s) of LC were recorded. During the test, no flashover happened.
Figure 6-3 combines the six waveforms of LC to demonstrate the change of LC in the test. It
shows that the amplitude of waveform decreased with test duration, indicating that there was
an increase in surface leakage resistance with time. The surface leakage resistance was
calculated by dividing the peak supply voltage by the peak leakage current. Surface resistance
results measured in two different test conditions are shown in Figure 6-4 (a) and (b). As
(a) Spay-tap Water (b) Spay-tap Water with Addition of
Drops of Liquid Soup
121
insulator sr3 had no measurable leakage current under all test conditions, no data is shown in
Figure 6-4. Insulator sr3 was regarded as a sound insulator.

Figure 6-4 (a) shows in 315 S/cm water spray test, sr1 had the fastest increase of surface
resistance value, whereas the porcelain insulator increased more slowly and kept the lowest
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
L
e
a
k
a
g
e

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

(
m
A
)Envelope of LC
2
nd
min 3
rd
min 4
th
min 5
th

0.12s 0.12s 0.12s 0.12s 0.12s
1
st
min
Figure 6-3 LC Waveform of sr1 in Spray Water Test (conductivity=315 S/cm with liquid soup)

(a) 315 S/cm water spray (b) 2000 S/cm water spray
Figure 6-4 Surface Resistance of Insulators in Spray Water with Liquid Soup
122
level of surface resistance value. The surface resistance value of insulators sr2, ep1, and ep2
increased steadily during test period. Figure 6-4 (b) indicates that in 2000 S/cm spray water
test, silicone rubber and EPDM insulators had obviously different performance regarding
surface resistance value. The surface resistance of sr1 increased sharply to infinity value after
1 minute from the start of test. sr2 also showed a significantly quick increase in surface
resistance. For EPDM insulators, ep1 retains very low level of surface resistance (around 0.5
M) during the test period while ep2 had a significant increase after 4 minutes from 1.2 M
to infinity level. The porcelain insulator had the lowest surface resistance and maintained this
with little change during the test period.

6.3 Discussion of Results

The different performance of aged composite insulators in terms of surface resistance in water
spray tests is discussed as follows. Firstly, it was noted that the water with higher conductivity
resulted in higher level of leakage current and thereby produced more energy in water film
layer, accelerating the speed of evaporation of water film. Consequently, the surface
resistance value of composite insulators recovered faster in the 2000 S/cm water spray test
than the 315 S/cm water spray test. Figure 6-4 shows the different recovery speed of surface
resistance of the test insulators in the two tests.

Secondly, water film on insulator surface determined the impedance for current to flow across
insulator surface. Leakage current flowing across water film was decided by test voltage and
the impedance of the water film. Consequently, leakage current causes heating. In this test,
123
leakage current on the insulator surface heated water film and resulted in water molecules
receiving heat energy to escape from water layer to air. As a result, the decrease of the
volume of water film on insulator surface brought about the increase of surface resistance. On
the other hand, the heat produced by leakage current on water film not only conducted to
water film but also conducted to the underlying polymer layer. Figure 6-5 demonstrates the
situations. The equation 1 quantifies the heat conducted along Z direction.

q = -
dz
dT
(1)

where q is the heat flux in J/(m
2
sec), -
dz
dT
represents the change in the temperature gradient
in Z direction (degrees Kelvin/m) and is the thermal conductivity.
If considering different composite materials have the same surface area A with water film, the
energy transferred from the surface contacting layer along Z direction is determined by
Figure 6-5 Ther mAl effect on insulator surface caused by leakage current
leakage current
Water
film
Insulator surface
q
Z
A
Heat loss by convection
and evaporation
Heat loss to insulation by
conduction
124
thermal conductivity. The thermal conductivity (at room temperature) of four materials used
in insulators is listed in Table 6-3 [59] [60].

material Polypropylene
Polyethylene
(medium density)
Silicone
Elastomer
Porcelain
Thermal conductivity (W/mk) 0.1-0.3 0.35 0.63 1.7
Table 6-3 Thermal conductivity of four materials used in insulators [59][60]

Porcelain has the highest thermal conductivity among the four materials and is 2 to 17 times
higher than that of silicone elastomer, polyethylene and polypropylene. It was mentioned that
heating caused by leakage current not only led to the evaporation of surface water but also
conducted to the underlying layer of polymer. According to the equation 1, the rate of
conducting heat to the underlying layer of polymer was dependent upon the thermal
conductivity of the insulator material. Compared with other materials, porcelain transferred
more energy from the water film to the insulator interior parts, thus reducing the energy
conducting to surface water film. Therefore the existence of water film layer on insulator
surface kept the surface resistance value low. The thermal conductivity of EPDM and silicone
materials was lower, which resulted in less energy transferring to the insulator interior parts.
More energy was conducted away from water film in the case of EPDM than was the case for
silicone rubber. This causes the water film to be hotter for SIR than for EPDM leading to
ending evaporation and subsequently only pushed up of film resistance for SIR and can be
seen in Figure 6-4.

However, EPDM showed different change in terms of surface resistance with silicone
insulators in Figure 6-4 (b). To better understand this phenomenon, surface conditions of
125
insulators were considered. In this test, ep1 and ep2 were analysed by chemical assessment.
Their oxidation indices (ep1-1.18, ep2- 0.855) were higher than normally acceptable
oxidation index value (0.4) [19]. The degraded surface had cracking and pits, which provided
space for water to reside. The water in extra space eventually prolonged the evaporation time.
One factor may be considered to explain the different results between EPDM and silicone
rubber insulators is the fact that silicone rubber has ability to recover its surface
hydrophobicity due to migration of low molecular weight silicone from the bulk to the
surface.

6.4 Conclusion

Spray water tests on different insulators were used to verify the efficiency of using simple and
practical methods to assess the surface condition of composite insulators. Silicone rubber
insulators showed better recovery of surface resistance than EPDM insulators under water
spray test conditions with added liquid soup. Hydrophobicity and thermal effects caused by
leakage current are hypothesised to be responsible for the recovery of surface resistance.

The question arises as to whether water spray with soap added provides useful information
about the surface of the insulation tested. Certainly water spray with no added soap provides a
direct indication of the surface hydrophobicity. However, adding soap causes immediate lost
of hydrophobicity as normally observed from water droplets on the surface of the material. In
the case with soap there is interesting behaviour of the leakage current as the surface dries
out. The leakage current gradually falls in magnitude and eventually is extinguished. In what
we have done in the lab and simple analysis, it was showed that the rate of which the leakage
126
current affected primarily by the thermal parameter of the shed material. This is not
considerately related to the surface conditions. It is concluded that there is no directly useful
information about the condition of the insulator that can be inferred from measurement with
soap-add to spray water.

127
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY

This thesis is aimed at improving the understanding the electrical characteristics of composite
insulators during their aging in the fog tests. The surface conditions of composite insulators
assessed by chemical and physical methods were correlated with the electrical performance.
The summary of the thesis is presented as follows.

7.1 Electrical Characteristics of Composite Insulators in Fog Tests
The thesis presented the electrical characteristics of composite insulators in fog tests. The test
methodology was based on IEC 60507 Artificially pollution tests on high-voltage
insulators to be used on AC systems, IEC 61109 Composite insulators for AC overhead
lines with a nominal voltage greater than 1000V Definitions, test methods and acceptance
criteria, and IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing. The tests adopted three
different salinity fog conditions to conduct the tests on composite insulators with different
contamination conditions. Mean values of leakage currents, cumulative charges of leakage
currents, and waveforms of leakage currents were recorded as electrical characteristics of
composite insulators. The recorded waveforms of leakage currents showed the following
features.
1) In clean fog and salty fog test, EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber insulators showed
different leakage current distributions. The mean values of leakage currents of EPDM
insulators mainly concentrated in the range of 0.2-0.6mA. For EPDM/silicone rubber
insulators, the range of was 0-0.4mA. EPDM insulators clearly showed a more active
electrical performance than EPDM/silicone rubber insulators. The recorded data showed
128
that the general mean values of leakage currents of all testing insulator samples were
under 1 mA.
2) The shape of waveforms of leakage currents indicated the surface conditions of the
composite insulators in the tests. The sine shape of waveforms represented there were no
discharges on the surface of the insulators, and the voltage and the current were linear
relationship. The deformed waveforms of leakage currents indicated the occurrence of
discharges. The sawtooth shape of waveforms indicated the strengthened discharge
activities. The intense discharges had peak values of current of 30-40 mA. From the
development of discharge activities, audible discharge sound and visible discharges were
observable.
3) The FFT analysis results revealed that the 3
rd
(150 Hz) and the 5
th
(250Hz) frequency
were the main harmonics of the leakage currents during the stable discharge. The
waveforms of big current peaks (10 to 40 mA) showed the harmonics ranged from 50 Hz
to 400 Hz.
4) The chemical analysis on composite insulators revealed that thermal effects caused by
leakage current were the main aging factors for the test insulators under the test
conditions. UV produced by discharges played minor roles in helping aging of the test
insulators.
5) Under Test A ( = 305 S/cm) and Test B ( = 1750 S/cm), no flashover occurred. The
fog with conductivity = 3100 S/cm was suitable for the occurrence of flashover.
6) Surface contamination on the test insulators in fog tests did not show obvious effects on
the physical and chemical analysis results.
7) The physical observations showed that the deteriorated surface conditions on the aged
test insulators were similar to a single aged insulator material, which was subjected to the
129
fog test condition. It was believed that the same discharge mechanism resulted in the fact
that the same phenomena were observed on the different test samples under the fog test
conditions.
8) The results of the preliminary test of the surface resistance measurement on different
material insulators showed that the surface resistance increased with test time. Different
insulators of different compositions showed different change speed due to the different
values of thermal conductivity of the materials.

7.2 Relationships between Electrical Characteristics and Surface Conditions of
Composite Insulators

The EPDM insulators clearly showed more active electrical characteristics than
EPDM/silicone rubber insulators in the fog tests. The EPDM insulators showed more
deteriorated surface conditions than EPDM/silicone rubber insulators after the tests. The
oxidation index (O.I.) change rate of EPDM insulators was higher than that of EPDM/silicone
rubber insulators after the fog tests. The ester/ketone (E/K) change rate of the EPDM
insulators was similar to that of the EPDM/silicone rubber insulators after the test.
Ester/ketone ratio was found to be effective in differentiating the aging factors of the
composite insulators in the fog tests. The ester product was strongly correlated with UV, and
ketone product was strongly correlated with thermal effects. The EPDM insulators were more
susceptible to oxidation conditions on the surface than the EPDM/silicone rubber insulators.
The EPDM and EPDM/silicone rubber insulators were found to be of the same sensibility to
thermal effects. Discharges were found to be directly responsible for the surface damaging of
the test insulators in the fog tests.
130
7.3 Future Work

The future research work is described as follows.
1) The discharge intensity was different at different locations on the test insulators. More
work is needed to study the factor of shape parameters of the composite insulators, which
affects the electrical characteristics, in the energised state.
2) Different discharge intensity resulted in the different deterioration level on the surface of
the insulators. The physical observation results showed that the core locations of the test
insulators were more deteriorated than the shed locations of the test insulators. The
difference of the chemical analysis results on the different locations of the test insulators
needs more tests to compare the results.
3) Discharges were noticeable during the fog tests. However, due to the limitation of
equipment, catching the images of the discharges on the insulators in the fog tests were
not achieved. The continuous and detailed discharge images on the test insulators are
useful to describe the process of discharges on the test insulators, especially the intensity
of the discharges on the test insulators.
4) The preliminary test of surface resistance measurement was a testing process. More test
in different testing conditions are needed to find the results to analyse. Such as the
different test voltage, the creepage length of the test samples, and the tests on the
standardized insulators or the standardized insulator materials.
5) The test conditions need more aging factors to simulate the true application environment
of the composite insulators, such as UV, rain, and dust.
6) Silicone rubber now is widely used in power industry. Chemical analysis assessment is
being developed. The electrical characteristics of silicone rubber insulators in the test
131
conditions and field are also being studied. However, the relationships between the
chemical analysis results and electrical characteristics of silicone rubber insulators have
not been investigated yet. Based on the work in this research, it is necessary to add this
part into the future research work.

132
Reference:

[1] CIGRE, Working Group 22.03, "Worldwide Service Experience with HV Composite
Insulators", No. 130, May 1990.
[2] P. D. Blackmore, "Degradation of polymeric outdoor high voltage insulation: surface
discharge phenomena and condition assessment techniques". Brisbane, Australia:
Queensland University of Technology, 1997, PhD Thesis, pp. 177.
[3] J. F. Hall, "History and Bibliography of Polymeric Insulators for Outdoor
Applications", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 8, pp. 376-385, 1993.
[4] CIGRE, Working Group 22.03, "Worldwide Service Experience with HV Composite
Insulators", Electra, August, pp. 27-43, 2000.
[5] T. Gillespie, "Australian Experience with Composite Insulators", vol. 1, presented at
Symposium on Outdoor Insulators, Brisbane, Australia, 2002.
[6] H. M. Schneider, J. F. Hall, G. Kardady, and J. D. Renowden, "Nonceramic Insulators
for Transmission Lines", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 4, pp. 2214-
2221, 1989.
[7] T. Sorqvist and A. E. Vlastos, "Performance and Aging of Polymeric Insulators",
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 12, pp. 1657-1665, 1997.
[8] J. Mackevich and M. Shah, "Polymer Outdoor Insulating materials Part I: Comparison
of Porcelain and Polymer Electrical Insulation", IEEE Electrical Insulation magazine,
vol. 13, pp. 5-12, 1997.
[9] A. E. Vlastos and E. Sherif, "Natural Ageing of EPDM Composite Insulators", IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 5, pp. 406-414, 1990.
133
[10] J. S. T. Looms, Insulators for High Voltages. London: Peter Peregrinus Ltd, pp. 76-77,
1990.
[11] N. H. malik, A. A. Al-Arainy, and M. I. Qureshi, Electrical Insulation in Power
Systems: MARCEL DEKKER, INC, 1997.
[12] D. Birtwhistle and P. Blackmore, "Composite Insulators", vol. 1, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
[13] D. C. Miles, P. R. I. F, and J. H. Briston, Polymer Technology. New York: Chemical
Publishing Co. Inc., 1979.
[14] J. R. Fried, Polymer Science And Technology, vol. 1, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall PTR, 1995.
[15] A. Davis and D. Sims, Weathering of Polymers, Essex, UK, 1983.
[16] J. T. Burnham, D. W. Busch, and J. D. Renowden, "FPL's Christmas 1991
Transmission Outages", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 8, pp. 1874-1881,
1993.
[17] G. George, "Weathering of Polymer", materials Forum, pp. 145-161, 1995.
[18] P. s. R. o. C. Mechanical Department Publisher, Electrical Insulation Handbook. vol.
1, Bei Jing, China: Mechanical Department Publisher(People's Republic of China),
1990.
[19] P. Blackmore, G. Cash, G. George, and D. Birtwhistle, "New Condition Monitoring
Techniques For Composite Insulators", Journal of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, Australia, vol. 18, pp. 91-99, 1998.
[20] D. Birtwhistle and P. Blackmore, "QTSC Composite Insulator Survey", vol. 1,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 1997.
134
[21] A. E. Vlastos and S. M. Gubanski, "Surface Structural Changes of Naturally Aged
Silicone and EPDM Composite Insulators", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol. 6, pp. 888-900, 1991.
[22] A. E. Vlastos and E. Sherif, "Influence of ageing on the electrical properties of
composite insulators", presented at Fifth International Symposium on High Voltage
Engineering, vol. 1, Braunschweig, Germany, 1987.
[23] P. D. Blackmore, D. Birtwhistle, G. A. Cash, and G. A. George, "Condition
Assessment of EPDM Composite Insulators using FTIR Spectroscopy", IEEE
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 5, pp. 132-141, 1998.
[24] D. Birtwhistle, P. Blackmore, A. Krivda, G. Cash, and G. George, "Monitoring the
Condition of Insulator Shed materials in Overhead Distribution Networks", IEEE
[25] D. Birtwhistle, P. Blackmore, G. Cash, G. George, T. Gillespie, and A. Krivda,
"Application of Advanced Chemical Analysis Techniques to the Assessment of
Composite Insulator Condition", presented at CIGRE, vol. 1, Paris, 2000.
[26] P. Blackmore, G.A. Cash, G.A. George, D. Birtwhistle, Condition Monitoring of
Composite Insulators, Proceedings of the 3rd International Electricity Distribution
Conference (D2000), Brisbane, November 1995.
[27] Swedish Transmission Research Institute, Hydrophobicity classification guide, STRI,
vol. 1, 1992.
[28] J. L. Fierro-Chavez, I. Ramirez-Vazquez, and G. Montoya-Tena, "On-line Leakage
Current Monitoring of 400 kV Insulator Strings in Polluted Areas", IEE Proceedings
online, vol. 1, pp. 560-564, 1996.
135
[29] T. Sorqvist and S. M. Gubanski, "Leakage Current and Flashover of Field-aged
Polymeric Insulators", IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
vol. 6, pp. 744-753, 1999.
[30] P. Blackmore, D. Birtwhistle, G. Cash, G. George, In-Situ Condition Monitoring of
EPDM Composite Insulators Using Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Properties and Applications of
Dielectric Materials, Seoul, Korea, May 25-30, 1997.
[31] P.D. Blackmore, G.A. Cash , G.A. George, D. Birtwhistle, Condition Assessment Of
EPDM Composite Insulators Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy,
Accepted for publication, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
October 1997.
[32] R. Barsch, J. Lambrecht, and H. Jahn, "On the evaluation of the hydrophobicity of
composite insulator surfaces", presented at IEEE 1996 Annual Report of the
Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, 1996., vol. 2,
Fachhochschule Zittau, Gorlitz, Germany, 1996.
[33] W. 15.04, "Development of a Test Techniques to Assess a Polymer's Long Term
Ability to Suppress Leakage Currents under High Voltage and Low Conductivity Salt
Fog Conditions", CIGRE, vol. 1, Paris SC 15, 2000.
[34] S. A. Sebo, E. P. Casale, J. R. Cedefio, W. Tjokrodiponto, S. A. Akbar, J. Sakich, and
T. Zhao, "Review of Features of Fog Chamber at The Ohio State University for
Polymer Insulator Evaluation", IEEE, vol. 1, San Francisco 20-23, October, 1996
[35] R. S. Gorur, E. A. Cherney, and R. Hackam, "A Comparative Study of Polymer
Insulating materials Under Salt-fog Conditions", IEEE Transactions on Electrical
Insulation, vol. 1 E1-21, pp. 175-182, 1986.
136
[36] E. Reynaert, T. Orbeck, and J. Seifferly, "Evaluation of polymer systems for outdoor
HV insulator application by salt fog chamber testing", presented at Conference Record
of the 1982 IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation, vol. 1, New York,
USA, 1982.
[37] O.-A. De-La, R. Gorur, and J. Chang, "AC clean fog tests on nonceramic insulating
materials and a comparison with porcelain", IEEE-Transactions-on-Power-Delivery,
vol. 19, pp. 2000-2008, 1994.
[38] K. Isaka, Y. Yokoi, K. Naito, R. Matsuoka, S. Ito, K. Sakanishi, and O. Fujii,
"Development of real-time system for simultaneous observation of visual discharges
and leakage current on contaminated DC insulators", IEEE Transactions on Electrical
Insulation, vol. 25, pp. 1153-1160, 1990.
[39] S. A. Sebo and T. Zhao, "Utilization of Fog Chambers for Non-ceramic Outdoor
Insulator Evaluation", IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
vol. 6, pp. 676-687, 1999.
[40] C. S. Richards, C. L. Benner, K. L. Butler, and B. D. Russell, "Leakage Current
Characteristics Caused by Contaminated Distribution Insulators", presented at 31st
Annual North American Power Symposium, vol. 1, 1999.
[41] International Electrotechnical Commission, "IEC 60507, Artificial pollution tests on
high-voltage insulators to be used on a.c. systems", 2001.
[42] International Electrotechnical Commission, "IEC 61109, Composite insulators for a.c.
overhead lines with a nominal voltage greater than 1000V - Definitions, test methods
and acceptance criteria", 2001.
137
[43] R. Barsch, H. Jahn, J. Lambrecht, and F. Schmuck, "Test Methods for Polymeric
Insulating materials for Outdoor HV Insulation", IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics
and Electrical Insulation, vol. 6, pp. 668-675, 1999.
[44] I. Gutman, R. Hartings, R. Matsuoka, and K. Kondo, "The IEC 1109, 1000h salt fog
test: Experience and suggestions for improvement", presented at Nordic Insulation
Symposium, vol. 1, Bergen, 1996.
[45] F. Perrot, "Multifactor pollution testing to assess the long term performance of
composite surge arresters and insulators", presented at High Voltage Engineering,
1999. Eleventh International Symposium on (Conf. Publ. No. 467), EA Technol. Ltd.,
vol. 1, Chester, UK, 1999.
[46] J. M. Fourmigue, M. Noel, and G. Riquel, "Aging of polymeric housing for HV
insulators: comparison between natural and artificial testing", presented at Electrical
Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, 1995. Annual Report, vol. 1, Conference on,
1995.
[47] I. Gutman, R. Hartings, R. Matsuoka, and K. Kondo, "Experience with IEC 1109
1000h Salt Fog Ageing Test for Composite Insulators", IEEE Electrical Insulation
magazine, vol. 13, pp. 36-39, 1997.
[48] I. P. E. Society, IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing. IEEE Std 4-
1995, New York, USA.: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
[49] M. A. R. M. Fernando and S. M. Gubanski, "Leakage Currents on Non-ceramic
Insulators and materials", IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
vol. 6, pp. 660-667, 1999.
138
[50] A. E. Vlastos and T. Orbeck, "Outdoor Leakage Current Monitoring of Silicone
Composite Insulators in Coastal Service Conditions", IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 11, pp. 1066-1070, 1996.
[51] X. D. Liang, J. Li, J. Q. Xue, and L. Warren, "The Change of Surface Leakage Current
of Composite Insulators in Salt-fog Test", presented at Sixth International Conference
on Dielectric materials, Measurements and Applications, vol. 1, London, England,
1992.
[52] R. S. Gorur and T. Orbeck, "Surface Dielectric Behaior of Polymeric Insulation under
HV Outdoor Conditions", IEEE Transactions on Electrical Insulation, vol. 26, pp.
1064-1072, 1991.
[53] A. J. C. Phillips, D.J.; Schneider, H.M., "Aging of nonceramic insulators due to
corona from water drops", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, pp. 1081-
1089, 1999.
[54] S. T. R. Institute, "Guide 1, 92/1, Hydrophobicity Classification Guide", vol. 1, 1992.
[55] A. de la O, R. S. Gorur, and J. T. Burnham, "Electrical Performance of Non-ceramic
Insulators in Artificial Contamination Tests Role of Resting Time", IEEE
[56] T.Suda, "Frequency characteristics of leakage current waveforms of an artificially
polluted suspension insulator", IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, vol. 8, pp. 705-709, 2001
[57] H. Kamer and D. Schulte, "Erosion Phenomena of Polymeric Insulating Materials for
HV Outdoor Application", 4
th
Int. Symp. on HV Eng., Athens, paper No. 45.08, 1983
[58] R. S. Gorur, H. M. Schneider, J. Cartwright, Y. Beausajour, K. Kondo, S. Gubanski,
R. Hartings, M. Shah, J. McBride, C. de Tourreil, and Z. Szilagyi, "Surface resistance
139
measurements on nonceramic insulators", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
16, pp. 801-805, 2001.
[59] G. E. Childs, J. L. Ericks, and R. L. Powell, Thermal Conductivity of Solids At Room
Temperature and Below. vol. 1, Boulder: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973.
[60] www. matweb.com, "material Property Data", 2003.

Appendix 1 Control Circuitry of Fog Chamber
Appendix 2 Equivalent Circuitry of Test Transformer and Variac
Appendix 3 Power Supply in Fog Chamber Test System
Appendix 4 Terminal Connection of Control Panel and Fog Box

Appendi x - 5 LC Waveforms of #2 & #4 Insulators in Test A
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix - 5 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #2 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix - 5 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #2 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time (Continued)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
4
6
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(ix) t = 386 hours (x) t =410 hours

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(iii) t= 98 hours (iv) t= 122 hours
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) t= 2 hours (ii) t= 26 hours

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) t= 256 hours (viii) t= 290 hours
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) t= 218 hours (vi) t= 242 hours

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(xi) t= 434 hours (xii) t= 458 hours
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(ix) t= 338 hours (x) t= 386 hours

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(iii) t = 48 hours
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(iv) t = 72 hous
Appendi x - 6 LC Waveforms of #2, #4, #6 & #8 Insulators in Test B
Appendix 6 (a) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #2 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix - 6 (a) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #2 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (a) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #2 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix - 6 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-40
-20
0
20
40
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (b) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)
(xiiii) t = 240 hours (xiv) t = 248 hours
(xv) t = 268 hours

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.05
0
0.05
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
5
10
15
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (c) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #6 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (c) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #6 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (c) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #6 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-10
0
10
20
30
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(xiii) t =226 hours (xiv) t = 239 hours
Appendix - 6 (c) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #6 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-5
0
5
10
15
20
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(iii) t = 24 hours (iv) t = 48 hour
Appendix 6 (d) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #8 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.05
0
0.05
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-30
-20
-10
0
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-3
-2
-1
0
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 6 (d) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #8 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-5
0
5
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/2000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(xiii) t = 224 hours (xiv) t = 239 hours

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
20
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendi x - 7 LC Waveforms Insulators #1 - #8 before Flashover in Test C
(i) before 1
st
Flashover (ii) before 2
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
Flashover (iv) before 4
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #1 before Flashovers

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #1 before Flashover (continued)
(v) before 5
th
Flashover (vi) before 6
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
2
3
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #2 before Flashovers (continued)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-10
-5
0
5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
200
400
600
800
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.05
0
0.05
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
5
10
15
20
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-50
0
50
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-2
0
2
4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(i) before 1
st
nd
Flashover
(iii) before 3
rd
th
Flashover

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
50
100
150
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
L
C

(
m
A
)
Time (1/8000 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
100
200
300
400
M
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
Frequency [hertz]
(vii) before 7
th
th
Flashover
(v) before 5
th
th
Flashover

JianBin Zhou Thesis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JianBin Zhou Thesis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Electrical Characteristics of

Aged Composite Insulators

1000) (b) Cleaved Section (

at the ambient temperature (C).

is the volume conductivity measured at the ambient temperature of C (in

is the density at a temperature of C (in kg/m

S-ar putea să vă placă și