A Comparison Between Measured Leakage Current

And Surface Conductivity During

Salt Fog Tests
Wilhelm H. Schwardt*, Jacobus P. Holtzhausen* and Wallace L. Vosloo**
*
Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1,
Matieland, 7602, South Africa.
**
ESKOM, TSI, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Abstract This paper deals with an Insulator Pollution II TEST SET UP AND PROCEDURE
Monitoring Relay (IPMR), designed to measure and
monitor pollution on high voltage insulators. The IPMR For this experiment, the IPMR is placed inside the salt
determines the pollution severity by measuring the surface fog chamber near the test insulators. The test insulators
conductivity on the test insulator. The paper reports on how
were energised from a separate high voltage source and
the IPMR was used to measure surface conductivity on the
test insulator while a salt fog test was performed on typical the leakage currents were monitored for the duration of
power line insulators. The leakage currents were measured the salt fog test.
on the test insulators and the data was captured together
with the surface conductivity values. The results discuss The IPMR is normally used to monitor the degree of pre-
whether the IPMR is capable of the early detection of an deposited pollution in the vicinity of a high voltage line
instantaneous pollution event. The results are also utilised to or in a substation as shown in Figure 1.
compare the relationship between measured surface
conductivity and leakage current values thus predicting
flashover.

Keywords Peak Leakage Current, Salt Fog Tests, Site

Severity, Surface Conductivity.

I. INTRODUCTION

The performance of outdoor high-voltage insulators is

adversely affected by environmental pollution in coastal
and industrial regions. In some instances, solid pollution
particles settle on the insulator surface and become a
conductive electrolyte when the insulator surface is
wetted by rain or fog. This allows leakage currents to
flow over the insulator surface and lowers the electrical
withstand voltage of the insulator, leading to possible
flashover. This process is called a pre-deposited pollution
event and is best simulated, using a pre-deposited clean
fog test. A similar process takes place when a relatively
clean insulator is subjected to a conductive fog or spray, a
so-called instantaneous or rapid pollution event. This
process is best simulated, using a salt fog test. After a
rapid pollution flashover very little pollution remains on
the insulator as evidence.

The Insulator Pollution Monitoring Relay (IPMR) has Figure1: Photo showing IPMR installed at a
been developed to monitor the severity of pollution on substation.
high voltage insulators by measuring the surface
conductivity on a test insulator, in the case of a pre- In such cases, artificial wetting of the insulator is
deposited pollution event [1]. The IPMR measurements provided during the conductivity measurement, once or
can then be utilised to indicate whether the surrounding twice a day. In the case of instantaneous or rapid
insulation should be cleaned. pollution, the artificial wetting cycle of IPMR is not
required and the conductivity can be monitored
In the present work the use of IPMR to monitor the continuously.
severity of an instantaneous pollution event is
investigated by measuring the surface conductivity during The surface conductivity is determined by applying of a
a salt fog test. 3kVrms voltage and measuring the leakage current that
flows through the pollution layer. The voltage is only III. DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
applied for 5 voltage cycles to avoid the formation of dry
bands that can lead to incorrect measurements. 3.1 Comparison of Measured Conductivities and
Leakage Currents
The salt fog chamber was built according to the
specifications supplied in the IEC 60507 [2]. The The measured IPMR conductivities (µS) are plotted
chamber measures 6m (w) x 6m (w) x 3m (h). The against the corresponding test salinities (kg/m3) in Figure
chamber is equipped with a 9-channel leakage current 2. A linear relationship can be seen to exist for the
monitor that uses high accuracy Hall effect current severity range covered in these tests. The pollution
transducers. The leakage current monitor samples each classification [3] for the corresponding conductivities is
channel continuously at 2 kHz. The sampled values are also shown in the right-hand column on the graph.
stored in flash memory and the highest leakage current
peak occurring in each minute is stored for the duration of The test insulator, energised at 25 mm/kV, flashed over
the test. during the 88 kg/m3 test. This value coincides roughly
with the severity withstand value for this insulator
Various artificial testing techniques can be applied to the energised at a specific creepage distance of 25mm/kV [4].
IPMR to simulate natural conditions. The solid layer
method (clean fog method) [2] can be used to simulate
effects on pollution with a pre-deposited pollution, 3.2 Critical Flashover Voltage, derived from the
whereas the salt fog method [2] can used to simulate measured surface conductivity:
conditions during an instantaneous pollution event, as
was done in the present investigation. Theoretical models to predict insulator flashover have
been developed and applied by Rizk [5], Holtzhausen [6]
A number of different salt fog tests were done with and Vosloo [7]. According to these models the critical
different salinities, representing different pollution levels. flashover voltage of an insulator depends on the surface
The salt water for the fog test was prepared by mixing the conductivity of the insulator surface and the shape (form
required amount of NaCl with water in the storage tanks. factor) of the insulator.
Care was taken to ensure thorough mixing and complete
solution. This critical flashover voltage is given by the following
semi-empirical formula [5, 6]:
The test insulator used during the IPMR surface
conductivity test was one standard glass cap and pin k2
insulator. The test insulator used during the salt fog test  FF .106 
−3
Vc = k 1.10 .  .L (1)
consisted of two standard glass cap and pin discs. Each
disc has a 146mm connecting length and 280mm
 σ s .L 
creepage distance. The test voltage was raised to a value
where:
such that the specific creepage distance on the test
Vc : critical insulator flashover voltage (kV)
insulator was 25mm/kV. The test was started as soon as
FF : form factor of the insulator
the salt water solution and air was applied to the nozzles.
The IPMR and leakage current monitor were both set up σs : surface conductance (µS)
to measure surface conductivity and leakage currents at 1- L : creepage length of the insulator (mm)
minute intervals. k1= 7.6
k2 = 0.35

IPMR Surface Conductivity vs. Salt Fog Salinity

Severity [3]
25 [ Very Heavy

20
Surface Conductivity ( S)

Heavy

15

10
Medium

5
Light

Very Light

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
3
Salinity (kg/m )

Figure 2: IPMR Surface Conductivity (PS) vs. Salinity (kg/m3).

 Critical Flashover Voltage vs. Salinity

30

25

Critical Flashover Voltage

20

Voltage (kV)
15
Applied Voltage

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Salinity (kg/m3)

Figure 3: Critical Flashover Voltage (kV) vs. Salinity (kg/m3).

As the relationship between the surface conductivity and 3.3 Critical leakage current (Imax)
salt fog salinity is known from Figure 2, the critical
voltage (Vc) was calculated and plotted against the test Theoretical and empirical investigations indicate that
salinity in Figure 3. The dotted horizontal line represents there exists a critical value of leakage current that
the applied voltage and the solid-line curve the calculated presents a threshold above which the flashover
critical voltage. It can clearly be seen that flashover probability increases sharply. [6], [8], and [9].
probability is increased when the critical flashover
voltage approaches the applied voltage. This increased Verma [8] defined this current as the maximum peak
flashover probability coincides with a salinity between 50 leakage current that flows the half cycle before flashover
and 60 kg/m3. The severity withstand levels for salt fog as Imax.
tests are given in Table 1.
2
 SCD 
Table 1: Salinity withstand values and recommended I max =  (2)
specific creepage lengths. 15.32 
Salinity Recommended where:
Degree of
range specific creepage SCD : Specific Creepage Distance (mm/kV)
Pollution
(kg/m3) [2] length [3]
Light 5 - 14 16 Holtzhausen [9, 10] proposed that, to minimise
Medium 14 - 40 20 flashovers, the maximum permissible peak leakage
Heavy 40 - 112 25 current must remain below 25% as that of Imax.
Very Heavy > 160 31
The peak leakage current, measured in each test, was
It is interesting to note that the above range falls in the plotted against the test severity in Figure 3. Similarly to
"Heavy" pollution range. The specific creepage length of Figure 2, the flashovers can be experienced when the
the insulators (25 mm /kV) is also suitable for heavily peak leakage currents exceed the maximum permissible
polluted areas. It is interesting to note that one flashover peak leakage current.
did occur 88 kg/m3.
It will be noted that this point again coincides with
It must be borne in mind that the IPMR surface salinity between 50 and 60 kg/m3. These tests were done
conductivity values were measured on a “cold” (non- at a fixed specific creepage length for the specific test
energised) insulator surface whereas the peak leakage insulators.
currents were measured on a “hot” (full-time energised)
insulator surface. The actual surface conductivity of the
insulator was thus appreciably higher at the 88 kg/m3 test
– it could be as high as double the value [6].
 Imax vs. Salinity

1.20

1.00

0.80
0,25.Imax

Current (A) 0.60

0.40

0.20
Peak Leakage Current

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
3
Salinity (kg/m )

Figure 4: Peak Leakage Current (A) vs. Salinity (kg/m3).

IV. CONCLUSIONS [7] Vosloo, W. L., “ A comparison of the performance of

high-voltage insulator materials in a severely
It appears that IPMR can be used to evaluate the severity polluted coastal environment” , Ph. D Dissertation,
of an instantaneous pollution event as simulated by the March 2002.
salt fog tests. The results obtained show that the [8] Verma, M. P., “ Highest Leakage Current Impulse As
occurrence of pollution flashovers were observed in all Criterion For The Performance Of Polluted
cases when the measured values and calculated Insulators” , CIGRE 33-73 (WG 04) (6) IWD.
parameters approached the critical insulator performance [9] Holtzhausen, J. P., Du Toit, L. P., “ Insulator
limits (surface conductivity, critical flashover voltage and Pollution: Interrelationship of Highest Leakage
0,25.Imax). Current, Specific Creepage Distance and Salinity” ,
Proc. SAIEE, Vol. 78, No. 1, 1987.
The inclusion of a real time leakage current measuring [10] Holtzhausen, J. P., Vosloo, W. L., “ The Pollution
sensor and weather monitoring facilities in the IPMR Flashover of AC Energised Post Type Insulators: The
measuring options will improve the IPMR measurement Role of Shortening of the Arc” , IEEE Trans. For
capability. Dielectrics and Insulation, April 2001.

Further work is required to investigate the effect of

variation in specific creepage distance and the effect of VI. AUTHORS
different insulator shapes.
Principal Author: Wilhelm H Schwardt received his
Post Graduate Diploma in Engineering (PDE) from the
V. REFERENCES University of Stellenbosch in 2001. He is currently
working towards his M.Sc (Eng.Sci) at the same institute.
[1] Schwardt, W. H., Holtzhausen, J. P., Vosloo, W. L.,
“ Determination Of A Calibration Curve For An Co-Author: Jacobus P Holtzhausen holds a PhD degree
Insulator Pollution Monitoring Relay” , SAUPEC in Electrical Engineering from the University of
2002, Vanderbijlpark, January 2002. Stellenbosch. He is a retired Senior Lecturer from the
[2] IEC Publication 60507, “ Artificial Pollution Tests on University of Stellenbosch and is presently employed
HV Insulators to be Used On AC Systems” , Second under contract to do research in High Voltage
Edition, 1991. Engineering at the same University.
[3] CIGRE Working Group 33.04, Study Committee 33,
“ A Critical Comparison of Artificial Pollution Test Co-Author: Wallace L Vosloo holds a PhD degree in
Methods for HV Insulators” , Electra No. 64, 1979. Electrical Engineering from the University of
[4] IEC Publication 60815, “ Guide for the Selection of Stellenbosch. He is at present a Chief Consultant
Insulators in respect of Polluted Conditions” , 2002. (Insulators) for ESKOM, TSI.
[5] Rizk, F. A. M., “ Mathematical models for pollution
flashover” , Electra, Vol. 78, pp 71-103, 1978.
[6] Holtzhausen, J. P., “ A Critical Evaluation of AC
Pollution Flashover Models for HV Insulators
Having Hydrophilic Surfaces” , PhD Thesis,
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1997.