21, rue d'Artois, F-75008 Paris
http://www.cigre.org 33-401
DIMENSIONING OF INSULATORS FOR SALT POLLUTION:
A NOVEL PROCEDURE AND A LABORATORY TEST METHOD
CS Engelbrecht*, SM Berlijn, B Engström, R Hartings
STRI
(Sweden)
Abstract:- Statnett is considering upgrading existing
300 kV lines to 420 kV. A laboratory test method,
which simulates pollution flashover conditions with
air-borne salt pollution, has been used to select and
dimension insulators to obtain a required outage
rate. This paper describes the statistical dimension-
ing procedure used as well as the tests performed
with the Dry-Salt-Layer pollution test.
Keywords:- Line - Upgrade - Insulator - Pollution - Test
1 Introduction
The Norwegian Power Grid Company, Statnett,
owns and operates about 12 000 km of transmission lines
ranging from 132 kV to 420 kV, which constitutes
approx. 95% of Norway’s main grid. Increasing domestic
consumption, public resistance to new lines and a need
for cost effective solutions have stimulated interest in the
upgrading of existing 300 kV lines to 420 kV.
One of the challenges of this upgrading project is to
improve the insulation level of the present tower config-
uration from the existing level at 300 kV, to that required
for 420 kV, while maintaining the same outage rate.
Because the same tower structure is used, only a very lim-
ited increase in the length of the insulators is possible. In
this case the length of insulator strings can be increased
from the present value of 2,4 m to 2,8 m, which is still
below the 3,1 m usually required at 420 kV.
Although all aspects of the insulation design, such as the
ice, lightning and switching performance, have been con-
sidered, only those aspects concerning the pollution
flashover performance of the line will be discussed in this
paper. In this regard, the use of laboratory pollution test
* Box 707, Ludvika, S-771 80, Sweden
Session 2002
© CIGRÉ
KÅ Halsan
Statnett
(Norway)
results to select an adequate insulator is explained. This
was achieved as follows:
• Calculating the relationship between the length of the
insulators and the expected pollution outage rate of
the line for the presently used glass disc insulators.
• Comparing the pollution flashover performance of
two lengths of silicone rubber insulator with that of
the existing glass insulator assembly.
7m
3,2 m
fig 1 A photograph of the test setup during the deposit phase of
the Dry-Salt-layer test. The insulator is exposed to wind
borne humid salt particles. The blower array can be seen
on the right-hand side of the picture.
The Dry-Salt-Layer (DSL) pollution test method, see fig
1, is also introduced in this paper as a viable alternative to
determine the pollution flashover performance of both
ceramic and polymeric insulators. This method has been
developed with the intention of simulating flashover con-
ditions close to the coast, which can be described as the
accumulation of semi-dry, or humid, salt particles on the
insulators followed by wetting in the form of rain or fog.
2 Considerations when selecting insulators
When selecting insulators for a certain installa-
tion, both the pollution performance and ageing of the
insulators should be considered, as is illustrated in fig 2.
Polymeric Ceramic or glass
Pollution
Ageing performance Ageing
Emphasis of paper Emphasis of Considered of
by Maxwell et al.[1] this paper lesser importance
fig 2 A schematic drawing showing that both the ageing and pol-
lution flashover performance should be considered when
selecting insulators.
In this paper, however, the discussion will be limited to
aspects concerning the pollution flashover performance.
The ageing aspects are, in the case of polymeric insula-
tors, discussed in a complementary paper[1], and in the
case of glass or ceramic insulators, regarded as less
important[2].
It has been shown that there are three main factors that
needs to be considered objectively to obtain an accepta-
ble pollution flashover performance. These are:
1. The shed profile, e.g. aerodynamic, standard or fog
shape. This determines to a great extent the amount of
pollution which will collect on the insulator[3], [4].
2. The insulator housing or body material, e.g. silicone
rubber or glass, which could influence the surface
resistance of the insulator[5].
3. The principal dimensions, e.g. axial length, creepage
distance and diameter, as these can directly be related
to the pollution flashover performance[4].
Historically, insulator selection has mostly been based on
service experience, complemented in some cases, with
laboratory tests. However, for this upgrading project,
there has been a greater reliance on the use of laboratory
tests, as there was not sufficient time or resources availa-
ble to allow for field trials. A three step approach[6] has
been followed:
1. Evaluation of the type of pollution and site severity.
2. Selection of a laboratory test method and its parame-
ters to be representative of the pollution at the site.
3. Selection of the insulators that show a good behaviour
under this test through an analysis of the test results.
3 Evaluation of the site severity
At the time of the study, the exact location of the
transmission lines to be upgraded had not yet been deter-
mined. It was expected though, that the lines would be
situated in the southern, inland part of Norway, where the
bulk of the 300 kV lines are. This area is classified as
having a “Light” pollution level[6] based on the perform-
ance of transmission lines in the area that are insulated
typically with standard glass disc insulators having a spe-
cific creepage distance of 17 mm/kV. Failure statistics[7]
show that only about 3% of the 378 faults per year
ascribed to environmental effects on the transmission
network were related to pollution flashovers. This infor-
mation was used to estimate 0,1 mg/cm2 as an upper limit
for the Equivalent Salt Deposit Density that has a 2%
probability of being exceeded, i.e. ESDD2.
It was further assumed, as there were no severity meas-
urements available for this area, that the spread in ESDD
values will follow Log-Normal distribution with a stand-
ard deviation of 0,78. This assumption was based on
ESDD measurements from three sites in Sweden.
A study of atmospheric ice on insulators, has shown that
a large portion of the pollutants, which are found on the
insulators installed in the inland area of southern Nor-
way, are carried over long distances by wind from the
industrial areas of Europe and the Sea. It was further
found that the pollution layers typical for this region have
a very low non-soluble component.
4 The selection of the laboratory test method
The Dry Salt Layer method(DSL) was identified
as the laboratory pollution test that would be best suited
for the comparative tests of the silicone rubber and glass
insulators for Norwegian conditions. This is because the
essential features of the DSL, described below, corre-
spond well with the environment in Norway as discussed:
• The DSL determines the ability of an insulator to
withstand, for a short time, a specific environment at
its operating voltage level, and exactly the same test
procedure is used independent of the insulator type or
insulating material.
• The insulator is polluted by wind-borne salt particles.
• The pollution layer has a low non-soluble component.
The standard DSL withstand test comprises a separate
pollution deposit and wetting phase as is shown in fig 3.
For the duration of the test, i.e. during both the deposit
and wetting phase, the test object is energised with a con-
stant voltage. The acceptance criteria of the withstand test
are those of IEC 60507[9], i.e. a maximum of one
flashover is allowed out of four complete tests.
Voltage
D eposit phase
W etting phase
Preparation
Time
fig 3 Structure of the withstand Dry-Salt-Layer pollution test. The
duration of the deposit phase depends on the selected
severity and can vary between 20 and 60 minutes, whereas
in the duration of the wetting phase is fixed at 100 minutes.
4.1. The deposit phase
Wind is utilised in the DSL as the driving force to
deposit humid salt particles onto the test object. ESDD
measurements at a coastal site have shown a strong cor-
relation between ESDD levels and wind speed, indicating ence insulator string. This is the normal insulator assem-
wind as a dominating factor that determines the amount bly used on the inland 420 kV lines in Norway. A
of pollution on insulators at coastal sites[10]. drawing of the reference string is provided in fig 4.

The humid salt particles are generated by a salt injection

system comprising conventional salt injection nozzles.
The salt spray is, however, not directed towards the test

3,1 m
object as its purpose is to suspend the salt particles in the
airflow established in the laboratory chamber.

The severity of the DSL test is quantified by the time of
exposure to the wind-borne salt particles. Salt Deposit
Density(SDD) measurements[9] on a reference insulator,
such as a string of standard shape disc insulators, or any
other type specified by the customer, are used to calibrate
the exposure time to the pollution severity specified. This
is referred to as the “target SDD”.
4.2. The wetting phase
The wetting phase utilizes a modified steam fog
that lasts for 100 minutes. More details are provided in
section 5.3.
Max. system voltage: 420 kV
Number of discs per string: 18
Creepage distance of string: 6840 mm
fig 4 A drawing of the reference glass insulator assembly tested.
5.1.2.The silicone rubber insulator string
A 2,8 m and a 2,5 m silicone rubber insulator were
tested in the same vertical double string arrangement as
was used for the reference glass string. The main details
of these insulators are provided in table 1.
table 1 Details of the two silicone rubber insulators tested

Max System voltage 420 kV 420 kV

4.3. Conditioning
Section length 2,8 m 2,5 m
No special conditioning prior to the DSL test is Length over insulating part 2,5 m 2,2 m
prescribed. Any requirement for conditioning is deter- Creepage distance 6868 mm 6900 mm
mined by the purpose of the test, which is in line with the
No of large sheds/ no of small sheds 19/18 20/20
approach adopted by Cigré[11].

4.4. Selection of the test principle

The chosen laboratory pollution test can, in prin-

ciple, be used in two ways during an insulator selection 5.2. Deposit phase
process:
Figure 5 shows the positioning of the test object and asso-
1. It can be used to qualify insulators for a particular pol- ciated test equipment during the deposit phase of the DSL
lution severity. This is done with a withstand test as test. A photograph is also given in fig 1. The deposit
per IEC[9] that provides a “pass” or “fail” verdict. phase is run on each test object separately.
2. A series of tests can be performed at a particular pol-
lution severity to determine the pollution flashover Test hall
characteristic at that pollution level, as is described by Salt injection
e.g. the 50% flashover voltage, U50, and the standard system
deviation, σ.
Wind
direction Wall bushing
The latter method was selected for this series of tests as it
is particularly well suited for the task of comparing the
flashover performance of different types of insulators.
Blower
5 Details of laboratory tests performed array Glass
5m
plates
Test
All the DSL tests were conducted in STRI's cli-
object
mate hall, which is a cylindrical test hall with an 18 m
diameter and a 22 m free height. fig 5 Setup of test equipment and the test object during the
deposit phase of the Dry-Salt-Layer test. The wind speed at
the test object is between 4-7 m/s.
5.1. Test objects
5.2.1.Wind speed at the test object
5.1.1.The reference glass insulator string
The airflow carrying pollutants to the test object is
A vertically hanged 18-disc double string of created by using a blower array to circulate the air around
standard shape glass disc insulators was used as a refer-
the test chamber as is shown in fig 5. It consists a stack of
electrical fans installed in a cabinet to improve the direc-
tionality of the generated airflow, as seen on the right-
hand side of fig 1.
The fan speed settings were selected to obtain a airflow-
speed of between 4-7 m/s with a smooth wind-speed pro-
file at the test position, which is 5 m from the blower out-
let. Measurements of the salt-in-air density at a coastal
insulator testing station have indicated that at this speed
there is a marked increase in the salt-in-air density
because the wind is then strong enough to break up waves
out at sea, to form the so called “white caps”, which pro-
duces the humid salt particles carried by the wind.
An ultrasonic anemometer was used to check the undis-
turbed wind profile before the test object was installed.
Figure 6 shows a contour plot of wind speed measure-
ment results.
Area for optimal placement of test object
9.5
8.5
Height above floor (z; m)
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Distance from blower centre line (y; m)
fig 6 Wind speed contour plot at the position of the test object.
The wind speed (m/s) is indicated on selected contours.
5.2.2.Selection of the test pollution severity
The pollution severity for these tests was defined
in terms of the SDD on the reference glass insulator string
shown in fig 4. It was selected so that the estimated 50%
flashover voltage of the reference string would be as
close as possible to the service voltage. This resulted in a
target SDD of 0,2 mg/cm2, which is significantly higher
than the maximum ESDD expected to occur in the Nor-
wegian environment. This relatively high level was how-
ever necessary to obtain flashover data from the test in
which a comparison was to be made between the glass
and silicone rubber insulators possible. All the rests run at
this target SDD had a deposit phase duration of thirty
minutes.
The humid salt particles were generated with 18 salt fog
nozzles[9], each with a salt water flow rate of 5 l/h and an
air pressure of 7±0.5 bar. The salt water salinity was
40 kg/m 3 . The same equipment as specified by the
IEC[9] for the salt fog test is thus used, but with different
settings.
The relative humidity in the test chamber is maintained at
80±2% during the deposit phase, to establish optimal
conditions for the attachment of the pollution particles to
the insulator.
5.2.3.Voltage application
During the deposit phase the test voltage across
the insulator was kept constant at the phase-to-ground
equivalent of the 420 kV maximum system voltage, i.e.
243 kVrms.
5.3. Wetting phase
Figure 7 shows the positioning of the test object
and associated test equipment during the wetting phase of
the DSL test. Up to three test objects can be tested simul-
taneously as is indicated in the figure. This is made pos-
sible through the use of spring loaded fuses that
disconnect insulators that flash over from the testing cir-
cuit without interrupting the test for longer than a few
minutes.
Test hall
Steam Test position 1
inlet
Test
pos. 2
Wall bushing
Test
pos. 3
Blower
Wind
array
direction
Steam
Steam inlet
inlet
fig 7 Setup of test equipment and the test object during the wet-
ting phase of the Dry-Salt-Layer test. The wind speed at the
test object is between 0,2-0,5 m/s.
5.3.1.Method of wetting
The DSL test method utilizes a wetting technique, which
was developed to achieve optimal wetting on all types of
insulator. Steam fog is gently blown - at a speed of about
0,2-0,5 m/s - towards the test object. This method is
based on the results from a series of laboratory tests,
which indicated the following points as important to
achieve effective wetting, especially on polymer insula-
tors:
• Wetting by the droplets colliding with the insulator
surface is more effective than wetting through con-
densation. This is because condensation is unlikely on
the polymeric housing material that tends to adjust
quickly to the ambient temperature.
• Fog with a small droplet size, e.g. steam, is more
effective in wetting both the top and underside of
insulators than fog with a larger drop size, e.g. cold
fog[12].
The steam intensity during the wetting phase was
0.075 kg/h per cubic meter of test chamber volume,
which is higher than that specified by IEC 60507 for the
procedure B steam fog[9].
5.3.2.Voltage application
A modified quick flashover voltage technique[13] called
the progressive stress method[14], was used to determine
the 50% flashover voltage, U50, and the standard devia-
tion, σ, of the tested insulators at the target test severity.
During this method, the voltage applied to the object is
increased in a step-wise fashion until flashover occurs.
The parameters that define a progressive stress test are:
the number of tests, the starting voltage, the step duration,
the step amplitude, the number of steps and the rise time
of the increase in voltage[14].
A problem when using the progressive stress method
with a pre-deposited layer pollution test, is that the
flashover voltage of the tested insulator varies during the
a test, decreasing at first due to the wetting of the pollu-
tion layer and then increasing because of the leaching, or
washing, effect[13]. The parameters used during the pro-
gressive stress test were therefore selected so that there is
a high probability that flashover will be obtained at the
time when the insulator has its lowest flashover voltage.
Previous tests indicated that the time of lowest flashover
voltage ranged from 30 to 100 minutes from the start of
the wetting phase[13].
400
m ain part of test
350
300
Test voltage (kV)
5.4. Parameters recorded
During each test the following parameters were
recorded:
• Flashover voltage and the time to flashover
• Pollution level on the test object (SDD) after the pol-
lution phase. For the reference string this was per-
formed on an extra glass disc included during the
deposit phase, and for the silicone rubber insulators
was measured on only a small portion of the top and
bottom side of a shed in the middle of the insulator.
• Leakage current during the wetting phase
5.5. Conditioning
The glass insulators were treated with a kaolin
suspension and washed with tap water before the labora-
tory tests to ensure that the surface was uniformly
hydrophilic, as is typical of service. The silicone rubber
insulators were just rinsed with tap water as it was
reported that the hydrophobicity on these insulators are
generally good in inland areas[17].
6 Test Results
Three DSL tests were performed with the progressive
stress method at the target test severity on the reference
glass and the two silicone rubber strings, i.e. Test series
A. The results of these tests can be found in tables 2, 3
and 4 together with the U 50 and σ estimated by the
method of maximum likelihood[15]. One additional test
at double the target test severity, i.e. Test series B, was
performed on the reference glass string of which the
results are presented in table 5.

250 table 2 Test results for the reference glass insulator string at
the target test severity.
200

150
Test series A Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Starting voltage SDD [mg/cm2] 0,26 0,26 0,26
100
Flashover voltage [kV] 235 260 260
50
a
50% flashover voltage[U50; kV] 252 ± 15
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Standard deviation [σ;kV] 14
Time (minutes)
Flashover probability at 243 kV [p.u.] 0,27
fig 8 The applied voltage during the wetting phase of the DSL
test for a progressive stress test. a. 85% confidence interval
An example of the voltage application during a progres-
table 3 Test results for the 2,8 m silicone rubber insulator
sive stress test is presented in fig 8. It shows that the volt- string at the target test severity.
age step amplitude is kept constant throughout the test,
but that the step duration is varied. Initially, steps of short Test series A Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
duration are used to reach the defined starting voltage SDD [mg/cm2] 0,24 0,20 0,25
after about 30 minutes. Subsequently for the main part of Flashover voltage [kV] 485 460 460
the test, i.e. the next 70 minutes, a step duration of 10 50% flashover voltage[U50; kV] 468 ± 15a
minutes is used to cover the range of the expected
Standard deviation [σ;kV] 14
flashover voltage of the insulator. If flashover has not
been reached by the 100th minute, steps of small duration Flashover operability at 243 kV [p.u.] 0,00
are again used to obtain a flashover before the pollution a. 85% confidence interval
layer is completely leached from the insulator surface.
table 4 Test results for the 2,5 m silicone rubber insulator together with the curve fitted through them by selecting
string at the target test severity.
suitable values for the constants, K and α in equation (1).
Test series A Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Similar curves for a flashover probability of 30% and
10% are also shown in the figure.
SDD [mg/cm2] 0,24 0,20 --
140
Flashover voltage [kV] 485 510 --
120
50% flashover voltage[U50; kV] 497 ± 16a 85% confidence interval
a

Flashover stress (kV/m)

Standard deviation [σ;kV] 15 100

Flashover operability at 243 kV [p.u.] 0,00 50 A B

10 30
80

a. estimated from table 3.

60
Service stress at 420 kV Estimated range
table 5 Test results for the reference glass insulator 40
string at double the target test severity. Estimated U50 from DSL Tests
20
Fitted curve: Equation (1) K=68,5
Test series B Test 1 α=0,136
0
SDD [mg/cm2] 0,43 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
2
Flashover voltage [kV] 235 Pollution severity (ESDD; mg/cm )

50% flashover voltage[U50; kV]
Standard deviation [σ;kV]
Flashover operability at 243 kV [p.u.]
235 ± 32a fig 9 The flashover stress of a 3,1 m long insulator assembly as
a function of pollution severity. Curves are shown for a
a flashover probability of 50%, 30% and 10%. The insulator
13
assembly is shown in fig 4.
0,70

a. Estimated from table 2.

7 Calculation of expected line outage rate
The results from the laboratory tests were used to
calculate the relationship between the insulator length
and the pollution outage rate of a 50 km long 420 kV line,
located in southern Norway. It was assumed that the line
is insulated with the glass insulator string shown in fig 4.
The line outage rate can be estimated with a probabilistic
method similar to that used for switching overvolt-
ages[16], whereby the risk for flashover is calculated
from the distribution of pollution severity and the insula-
The service stress of the 3,1 m long insulator at a 420 kV
system voltage, is indicated by a solid horizontal line in
fig 9. It can be seen that along this line, the probability for
flashover increases with the pollution severity. This
strength relationship has been derived from the test data
and is shown in fig 10 for two cases i.e. with one and 500
parallel insulator strings. The probability of a flashover
on “i” parallel insulators, Pi, is described by:
i
Pi = 1 – [1 – P] (2)
Where P the flashover probability of one insulator.
1
Points calculated
0.9
from test results
Probability for flashover (p.u.)

0.8
tor strength. In section 3, the pollution severity distribu-
tion is described, and the insulator strength is derived 0.7
500 insulator strings B
form the test results as a function of the pollution severity 0.6

in the following section. 0.5

0.4

7.1. Insulator strength as function of pollution 0.3

A
0.2
It has been shown that the relationship between one insulator string
0.1
the flashover stress and pollution severity, can be
0
described by the following equation [4]: 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
2
Pollution Severity (ESDD; mg/cm )
U 50 ( γ )
---------------- = K γ –α (1) fig 10 The probability for flashover as a function of pollution
l severity for one and 500 reference glass insulator strings at
a voltage stress of 79,2 kV/m.
Where:
It can be seen in fig 10 that the 50% flashover probability
• γ is the pollution severity in ESDD, (mg/cm2)
for one insulator string is reached at an ESDD of
• U50(γ) is the applied voltage, (kV), that has a 50%
0,34 mg/cm2.
probability of flashover at a pollution severity of γ,
• l is the insulator string length, (m) 7.2. Risk for flashover calculation
• K and α are experimental constants.
The risk of failure has been calculated for the esti-
From the test results, an estimate is available for the 50% mated upper limit of the pollution severity in southern
flashover voltage at two levels of pollution severity, see Norway and for a 50 km long 420kV line insulated with
tables 2 & 5. These points are shown graphically in fig 9 3,1 m long the reference insulator strings. It is assumed
that there would be 500 insulator strings installed on this The same method as described above, has been used to
line and that all strings will be exposed to the same pol- calculate the expected line performance for different
lution level. The distributions used in the calculation are insulator lengths and levels of pollution severity. The
shown in fig 11. results of these calculations are presented in fig 12 as a
50 1 contour plot. The contours show the pollution outage rate
Estimated density of pollution severity
Strength of 500 insulator assemblies
0.9 per year of the studied 420 kV line as a function of the
40 0.8 length of the glass insulator strings and the pollution
severity described by the 2% ESDD level.
Density of pollution severity

Probability for flashover

0.7

30 0.6

0.5 8 Comparison of the glass and silicone rub-

20
10
0 0
0 0.05
Pollution Severity (ESDD; mg/cm )
fig 11 The probability density of ESDD occurrence and the prob-
ability for flashover of 500 parallel reference insulators.
For the case shown in fig 11, the risk of flashover is cal-
culated as 0.0098 per pollution event, which means that
on average, one in 102 pollution events will lead to a
flashover on the line. A pollution event is considered any
time period when there is a significant leakage current
across the insulator. Typically for this part of Norway it
occurs under storm conditions, with strong winds from
the ocean. To translate this calculated risk to a yearly out-
age rate on the line, it is necessary to estimate the number
of pollution events that would on average occur in one
year. In the present case this is a rather difficult task
because little information is available. However, service
experience at coastal test station, Anneberg, on the Swed-
ish west coast[18], indicates that 12 pollution events per
year would present a conservative assumption for the
inland areas of Norway. Based on this, the calculated
flashover risk for the line can be multiplied by 12 to
obtain the risk for flashover per year. For the calculation
above the risk becomes 0,118 per year, or on average, one
pollution related fault every 8,5 years.
0.12
10
0.4
ber insulators
0.3
A comparison of the performance of the glass and
0.2 silicone rubber insulators can be made by inspecting
0.1 tables 2, 3 and 4. It shows that the silicone rubber insula-
tors consistently had a slightly lower SDD than the glass
0.1 0.15 0.2
2
insulators although exposed to the same test conditions.
This is probably due to the more aerodynamic profile of
the silicone insulators. In addition, both silicone rubber
insulators exhibited a much higher flashover voltage than
the glass string. For example, the estimated U 50 of the
2,8 m silicone rubber insulator is 86% higher than that of
the 3,1 m glass insulator string. It is thought that the small
diameter and the water repellency of the silicone rubber
insulators are the reasons for their improved performance
over the glass string.
9 Discussion
In this section it is explained how the results can
be used to choose the insulators for the line upgrade.
Thereafter the accuracy of the results is discussed.
9.1. Selection of insulation for the upgraded line
The aim of this study was to select the insulation
for the upgraded line so that the line performance will be
at least as good as the existing lines. Based on informa-
tion on present line performance[7], an upper limit for the
acceptable pollution performance was selected as 0,04
faults per 50 km per year. The relationship between pol-
lution level and insulator length for this performance

requirement is shown in fig 13.

0 .5

0 .1
5

0 .0

0 .0 1
2
2% P o llutio n level; E S DD , mg/cm

0.1
Figure 13 shows that in an environment with an ESDD 2
equal to 0,1 mg/cm2, an insulator length of 3,2 m would
0.08 be required to fulfil the performance criterion of
4

0,04 faults/50 km/year. This is however longer than the

1
10

0 .0
0 .5

1
0.
5

1
00
01

well performing 3,1 m length of the existing 420kV

0.

0.06
0.

insulators, which indicates that the actual pollution level

0.04 in Norway is probably lower than that estimated in sec-
0.
1 0.
04 tion 3. It can be seen in the figure that the existing 420kV
1

5 1
5 0. 00
0.
10

01
0.02
0.
glass insulation, will perform better than the required per-
formance in environments with an ESDD 2 of below
0,08 mg/cm2.
1 0. 1 0. 01 0. 00 1
0 .5
0
1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4
Insulato r length, m
fig 12 The pollution performance of a 50 km, 420 kV line fitted
with 500 glass insulator string assemblies, as a function of
the pollution severity and insulator length. The contour
lines represent the risk of failure per year.

0.12
2
0.1
2% Po llutio n level; E SD D , m g/cm
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 .0 4
0
1.8 2 2.2
fig 13 The relationship between pollution level and length of the
reference glass insulator string assemblies of a 50 km long,
420 kV line with a required performance of 0.04 pollution
related outages per year.
An interesting feature of fig 13 is the non-linear relation-
ship between the pollution level and the required insula-
tor length. Below a pollution level of about 0,04 mg/cm2
the insulator length needs to be increased drastically for a
small increase in the ESDD2 value. However, a doubling
in pollution level, from 0,05 to 0,1 mg/cm2 only requires
a 10% increase in insulator length. For this type of insu-
lator this “knee” point corresponds quite well with the
IEC recommendation for minimum specific creepage dis-
tance[6] in lightly polluted environments, which is
16 mm/kV or an insulator length of 3m in this case.
From the calculated performance, presented in fig 13, it is
expected that a 2,8 m glass string, which is longest allow-
able on the upgraded line, will not perform as required in
the intended environment with an ESDD 2 level of
0,08 mg/cm2. Thus, in this lightly polluted environment,
the pollution performance of the glass insulators becomes
a limiting factor when considering shorter insulators and
other possibilities needs to be considered.
The test results for both the 2,8 m and 2,5 m long silicone
rubber insulators indicate these insulators as likely candi-
dates that will have an acceptable pollution performance.
In tables 3 and 4, it was shown that these silicone rubber
insulators will have a zero flashover probability at a volt-
age stress equivalent to that of a 420kV system, and at a
pollution severity of 0,2 6mg/cm2 as measured on the ref-
erence string. From the pollution flashover performance
point of view, there is thus not a significant difference in
the expected line performance for the two lengths of sili-
cone rubber insulator.
The choice between the two Silicone rubber insulators
will therefore be based on other factors, such as its ageing
or ice flashover performance. A somewhat higher degree
of ageing, possibly as a result of the higher a.c. stress[1],
can however, be tolerated on these insulators. This is
because the expected life for the upgraded line is
expected to be about 20-25 years, which is to a large
extent determined by the remaining life of the tower
structures that are re-used.
4
9.2. Accuracy of the results
0 .0
There are several factors that influence negatively
the accuracy of the results. Little information is available
on the pollution level in the area where the upgraded lines
4
0.0
will be located, and only limited number of pollution tests
were performed. However, in the preceding section it is
0.
04 shown that outage rate calculated from the test results
agree reasonably well with that observed on 420 kV lines
in southern Norway. Further tests were therefore not con-
2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4
Insulator length, m sidered necessary.
Another factor that could subtract from the validity of the
results is the fact that pollution tests performed according
to the progressive stress method will overestimate the
strength of the tested insulation in the same way as the
quick flashover Salt-fog test does[13]. In the case of the
Salt-fog test it was found that the flashover voltage is
over estimated by 6%[13], but this still needs to be quan-
tified for the DSL progressive stress test. This problem
could also be avoided by carrying out repeated tests, each
with a constant but different voltage level. Examples of
such tests are the up-and-down, and the multiple level
method. However, such testing will be much more time
consuming and carries therefore a cost premium.
On the other hand, the progressive stress DSL tests can be
particularly useful when the aim is to compare the per-
formance of a different insulator design with that of an
existing one with known, and acceptable, service experi-
ence. The laboratory test is then used to provide a relative
ranking, and the concerns raised here will play an insig-
nificant role as both insulators will be affected in the
same way.
10 Conclusions
A novel method for the dimensioning of insulators
in terms of their pollution flashover performance is intro-
duced. It is based on a probabilistic analysis of laboratory
pollution test results to dimension insulators based on a
required line outage rate. The presented method has been
used to identify suitable insulators that can be used for the
upgrading of a 300 kV line to 420 kV. This could be done
in spite of the very little site severity information, such as
ESDD measurements, available at the time.
The progressive stress Dry-Salt-Layer (DSL) pollution
test method is described and shown to be applicable for
coastal and inland areas that are characterised by a wind-
born salt pollution deposit with a low non-soluble com-
ponent. The test results show good agreement with serv-
ice experience on the same type of insulator. It has also
been shown that the progressive stress test principle is
well suited for the comparison of the performance of dif-
ferent insulators.
The calculated results show that the length of the glass
insulator strings at 420 kV cannot be reduced from the
usual value of 3,1 m to the maximum allowable 2,8 m on
the upgraded line without risking a large increase in the
line outage rate because of pollution related flashovers.
The laboratory results did, however, indicate the tested
silicone rubber insulators as suitable candidates for the
line upgrade. It was found that these insulators will have
an acceptable pollution performance, for section lengths
of 2,5 m or longer. Other factors such as the ageing[1] or
ice flashover performance could however dictate the
eventual length requirement for these insulators.
References
[1] Maxwell AJ, et al.: “Selection of composite insula-
tors for a.c. overhead lines: implications from in-
service experience and test-station results.” Cigré
Paris 2002, SC 33.
[2] J.S.T. Looms, “Insulators for High Voltages,”
(Book) IEE Power Engineering Series 7, Peter Per-
egrinus, 1988, Ch. 8.
[3] Engelbrecht CS, Eklund A, Hartings R, Znaidi R:
“Field and laboratory testing for the choice of opti-
mum composite insulator design for a marine-desert
environment.”, Cigré Paris 2000, paper 33-202.
[4] Cigré TF 33-13-01: “Polluted insulators: A review of
current knowledge”, Technical Publication 158, June
2000.
[5] Kindersberger J, Kuhl M.: “Surface conductivity of
polluted silicone rubber insulators”, 7th ISH, Dres-
den, August 26-30, 1991, paper 43.15.
[6] IEC Publication 60815: “Guide for the selection of
insulators in respect of polluted conditions”, 1986.
[7] Statnett: “Driftsforstyrrelser i 33-420 kV nettet -
Årsstatistikk 2000”, (in Norwegian).
[8] Fikke SM, Hanssen JE, Rolfseng L: “Long range
transported pollutants and conductivity of atmos-
pheric ice on insulators”, IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, Vol.8, No.3, July 1993.
[9] IEC Standard 60507: “Artificial pollution tests on
high-voltage insulators to be used on a.c. systems.”,
1991-04.
[10]Taniguchi Y, Arai N, Imano Y: “Natural contamina-
tion test of insulators at Noto testing station near
Japan Sea,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-98, No. 1, Jan./Feb., 1979.
[11]Cigré TF 33-04-07: “Natural and artificial ageing
and pollution testing of non-ceramic insulators,”
Technical publication 147, 1999.
[12]Karady G, “The effect of fog parameters on the test-
ing of artificially contaminated insulators in a fog
chamber,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and sys-
tems, vol. PAS-94, no. 2, March/April 1975.
[13]Lambeth PJ: “Variable-voltage application for insu-
lator pollution tests”, IEEE Trans. on Power Deliv-
ery, Vol.3, No.4, Oct. 1988, pp 2103-2111.
[14]Hauschild, W., Mosch, W.: “Statistical techniques
for high-voltage engineering”, Book, Peter Peregri-
nus, 1992.
[15]Technical University Dresden, Hivolt: “Statistical
evaluation of measurement results”, Computer pro-
gram for the progressive stress method.
[16]IEC Standard 60071-2: “Insulation co-ordination:
Part 2: Application Guide”, 1996-12.
[17]Maxwell AJ, Hartings R: “Evaluation of optimum
composite insulator design using service experience
and test station data from various pollution environ-
ments.”, Cigré Paris 2000, paper 33-203.
[18]Sherif EM, “Performance and ageing of HVAC and
HVDC overhead line insulators”, Tech. report No
169, 1987, Chalmers University of Technology.