Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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.
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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.
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
)
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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]
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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.
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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)
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
* [1 b ( 20)] (1)
where
20
is the layer conductivity at a temperature of 20 C (in S/m)
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
This table is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
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
)
(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
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 6, pp. 612-619, 1999.
[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
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 3, pp. 827-835, 1996.
[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]
(i) t = 2 hours (ii) t = 26 hours
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]
(iii) t = 96 hours (iv) t = 122 hours
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]
(vii) t = 338 hours (viii) t = 362 hours
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]
(v) t = 146 hours (vi) t = 218 hours
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]
(xi) t = 434 hours (xii) t = 458 hours
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
Appendix - 5 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #2 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time (Continued)
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
Appendix - 5 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 Insulator in Test A at Specific Time (Continued)
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
Appendix - 5 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 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)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
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
Appendix - 5 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #4 Insulator in Test A 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
-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]
(i) t = 2 hours (ii) t = 24 hours
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]
(v) t = 118 hours (vi) t = 144 hours
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]
(vii) t = 168 hours (viii) t = 192 hours
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]
(ix) t = 216 hours (x) t = 268 hours
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
(i) t = 2 hours (ii) t = 24 hours
(iii) t = 48 hours (iv) t = 68 hours
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)
(v) t = 78 hours (vi) t = 96 hours
(vii) t = 120 hours (viii) t = 144 hours
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)
(ix) t = 168 hours (x) t = 172 hours
(xi) t = 192 hours (xii) t = 216 hours
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]
(i) t = 0 hour (ii) t = 12 hours
(iii) t = 24 hours (iv) t = 48 hours
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]
(v) t = 68 hours (vi) t = 76 hours
(vii) t = 96 hours (viii) t = 120 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
-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]
(ix) t = 144 hours (x) t = 168 hours
(xi) t = 192 hours (xii) t = 216 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
-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]
(i) t = 0 hour (ii) t = 12 hours
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]
(vii) t = 106 hours (viii) t = 120 hours
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]
(v) t = 72 hours (vi) t = 96 hours
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]
(ix) t = 144 hours (x) t = 168 hours
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]
(xi) t = 192 hours (xii) t = 216 hours
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
-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
Appendix 6 (d) LC Waveforms and FFT Results of #8 Insulator in Test B at Specific Time (continued)
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
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 #2 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (vi) before 6
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
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 #3 before Flashovers
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
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #3 before Flashovers (continued)
(v) before 5
th
Flashover (vi) before 6
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
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 #4 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (vi) before 6
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #4 before Flashovers (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 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
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 #5 before Flashovers
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
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 #4 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (vi) before 6
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #4 before Flashovers (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 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
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 #5 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (vi) before 6
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #5 before Flashovers (continued)
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
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 #6 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (vi) before 6
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
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #6 before Flashovers (continued)
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
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 #7 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (vi) before 6
th
Flashover
(vii) before 7
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #7 before Flashovers (continued)
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
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 #8 before Flashovers
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
Flashover (iv) before 4
th
Flashover
Appendix 7 LC Waveforms and FFT Results of Insulator #8 before Flashovers (continued)
(v) before 5
th
Flashover (vi) before 6
th
Flashover