21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 Paris Session 1998

http://www.cigre.org 15-102 © CIGRÉ

Pollution flashovers on wall bushings at a coastal site

R. Gilbert, A. Gillespie *A. Eklund, J. Eriksson, R. Hartings **B. Jacobson
Northern Ireland Electricity plc. STRI AB ABB Components AB

United Kingdom Sweden Sweden

SUMMARY salt pollution carried by unusual south easterly gales, was

deposited on the 275 kV substation wall bushings
Severe salt pollution during stormy weather on 3rd associated with Kilroot Power Station. This led to
February 1994 caused pollution flashovers on wall flashovers on these bushings resulting in a progressive
bushings in a substation close to the sea in Northern loss of all four circuits from the substation and thus the
Ireland. It resulted in the complete disconnection of the complete disconnection of the power station which was
power station, which was supplying 32% of the total carrying 32% of the total system demand at the time. The
system demand at the time. The subsequent investigation substation is shown in figure 1.
resulted in the replacement of the bushings and
installation of pollution monitors, a weather station, and
a water washing system. The replacement bushings were
pollution tested with the standard Salt fog method and a
new pollution test (the Dry Salt Layer method), in order
to get input for the pollution monitoring system. The tests
led to the determination of a suitable leakage current
warning signal which may be used as a suitable threshold
level for the initiation of the washing system.

KEYWORDS

Bushing - Flashover - Operation experience - Pollution -

Salt - Test method
1. INTRODUCTION
Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE) is responsible for
the transmission, distribution and supply of electricity to
some 665.000 customers within the province. The
Northern Ireland system is supplied from four power
stations with total installed capacity of 2123 MW. On 3rd
February 1994, the province experienced its worst
sudden loss of power ever, as a result of storm conditions.
In addition to storm damage on the distribution network,
Figure 1: Cleaning of the bushings in the Kilroot
substation after the incident in February 1994.
This paper will examine the decisions and remedial
actions taken as a result of this incident and subsequent
inquiry, in order to minimise the probability of such a
reoccurrence.
NIE formed a panel of inquiry which made a number of
recommendations for appraisal in respect of the wall
bushings at Kilroot and Ballylumford substations.
(Ballylumford is a similar 275 kV substation situated on

* Swedish Transmission Research Institute, P.O. Box 707, S-771 80 Ludvika, Sweden
** Presently with ABB Power Systems AB
the coast 23 km from Kilroot.) Both substations lie within
1 km from the sea.
The recommendations of the panel included:
• monitoring of the bushings,
• appraisal of pollution detection systems (at that time
only installed at Ballylumford),
• appraisal of water washing systems (at that time only
installed at Ballylumford),
• extension of the 275 kV bushing insulator creepage
distance,
• application of grease or other coatings on the insula-
tors.
Ballylumford had a pollution monitor based on the
principle of immersing a dummy insulator into a water
bath and then measuring conductivity. This substation
also had water washing facilities on the bushings. Kilroot
had neither washing nor pollution monitoring.
2. PREVIOUS OPERATION EXPERIENCE
The Ballylumford geographical area has had previous
experience of pollution flashovers. On 10th September
1976, salt pollution was the cause of flashovers on line
insulators on two 275 kV circuits from Ballylumford. At
this same time, the circuits from Kilroot were under
construction. A subsequent investigation resulted in the
following. Firstly, in respect of the overhead lines, two
additional discs were added to the tension insulator sets to
increase the creepage from 6132 mm to 7000 mm (25,4
mm/kV). Secondly, the requirement for water washing
equipment, which was originally proposed for Kilroot
was reviewed. It was deemed that because any exposed
insulation was located on the north face of the substation,
away from the sea and shielded to the east and west by the
transformer annexes, it was sufficiently protected from
any salt laden air. Water washing equipment was
therefore not recommended at Kilroot. It may be that
eddy currents over the roof of the substation and round
the sides of the annexes, impacted on the pollution build
up on and perhaps under the bushing sheds.
The wall bushings at Kilroot were installed in 1976. They
were of a synthetic-resin bonded-paper (SRBP) design
with porcelain insulators of the deep anti-fog shed profile
and were installed at an angle of 15 degrees to the
horizontal at a height of 30 m from the ground on the
north wall of the substation.
3. REMEDIES
3.1. Cleaning
The first action taken after the incident in 1994 was to
clean the existing bushings at Kilroot. Salt residue on the
bushings was removed by manual washing from elevated
platforms. The bushings had relied on natural cleaning by
rain which created problems. The deep under-rib profile
and the angle of installation of the bushings tended to
concentrate a higher level of pollution on the lower edges.
The recommendations of the panel of inquiry were then
investigated in parallel and these are now discussed.
3.2. RTV Coating
Extensive investigations were carried out to identify a
suitable coating and pollution monitor. Sylgard [1], an
RTV silicone rubber coating, was applied to two of the
four circuits in February 1995 as a trial to ascertain its
performance on the existing bushings. The principle of
the silicone coating is to ensure that moisture filming on
the insulator surface is minimised by having a water
repellent (hydrophobic) surface. The silicone coating at
this stage was intended as a temporary measure as the
issue of creepage distances required to be addressed.
It was observed that the RTV-coated bushings
experienced much lower values of leakage current
compared to the uncoated bushings, however, during this
period of monitoring, the weather conditions were not as
severe as those experienced on the 3rd February.
3.3. Pollution monitor
When sourcing the pollution monitor, one of the main
requirements was that the monitor should be an on-line
real-time device suitable for installation on the wall
bushings so that changes in conditions could be
monitored. It was envisaged that the information from the
monitor would be used in providing alarm trigger levels
of dangerous conditions. Pollution monitors vary in their
method of operation [2]. Equivalent Salt Deposit Density
(ESDD) and Non-Soluble Deposit Density (NSDD)
meters are largely based on measurements on a pilot
insulator which has been cleaned with a known quantity
of water on which conductivity measurements and
filtering are made. Conductance monitors are installed on
de-energised insulators. A large number of monitors are
based on leakage current measurement and are designed
to be installed on energised insulators.
The monitor finally selected comprises three sections,
namely charge integrator, meteorological sensors and
datalogger / memory / communications. The pollution
monitor measures and records leakage currents flowing
across the surface of the bushings. Currently four Kilroot
circuits and three Ballylumford circuits are monitored on
a single phase basis, along with relevant meteorological
data such as wind speed, wind direction, ambient
temperature, humidity, and rainfall.
The connection to the bushing consists of a thin copper
band fixed 2-3 cm from the lower end of the porcelain
surface and connected by a wire of small cross sectional
area to an interface box. The input resistance is low
(approximately 5 Ω) and is protected by Zener diodes and
a 100 V spark gap. The lowest part of the porcelain
surface is greased to prevent leakage current shunting
directly to ground. The surface leakage currents are
passed to earth via a charge measurement section - the
value of charge being integrated over a fixed period (10
s) and passed to the datalogger for storage.
The datalogger software is arranged to store all sensor
values in battery backed memory at 10 s intervals and can
be downloaded either locally or remotely via an attached
modem. Leakage currents above a set threshold will
trigger an alarm card to generate a system alarm for the
individual 275 kV circuits.
The present trigger logic demands that the average
leakage current exceeds the set threshold in 3 consecutive
measuring periods (each 10 s long) in order to produce a
valid alarm signal.
4. SPECIFICATION OF REPLACEMENT
BUSHINGS
4.1. Dimensions
The old bushings at Kilroot and Ballylumford had a
creepage distance of 6985 mm which equates to a
minimum nominal specific creepage distance of 19,4
mm/kV. From IEC 815 [3],
L = d sc ⋅Ur ⋅k D (1)
L = creepage distance (mm)
dsc = minimum nominal specific creepage distance (mm/
kV)
Ur = highest system voltage (300 kV)
kD = average diameter correction factor (1,2 for the old
bushing)
NIE currently purchases outdoor insulator equipment to
Class III category (heavy pollution) in accordance with
IEC 815, which specifies a minimum nominal specific
creepage distance of 25 mm/kV. The old bushing
creepage distance would therefore place them in Class II
category (medium polluted). It was decided to bring these
bushings in line with the requirements of Class III as a
minimum.
Initially, bushing refurbishment was considered but
turned out not to be a feasible option due to the internal
construction of the bushing. Current bushing designs
were investigated and an enquiry was placed for the
supply of 30 wall bushings as replacements for both
Kilroot and Ballylumford substations.
A new technical specification was drafted. The key points
of the specification were as follows:
• 300 kV, 2000 A, capacitance graded, oil impregnated
paper type with porcelain insulators generally in
accordance with IEC 137 [4].
• Minimum nominal specific creepage distance of out-
door porcelain to IEC 137 and 815 for the case of
'heavy' pollution levels (25 mm/kV at highest system
voltage and appropriate shed diameter factor).
• Preference for alternate long-short (ALS) shed pro-
file.
• Mounting arrangement - eighteen intended for
mounting at 15 degrees to the horizontal, twelve for
mounting vertically.
• Type and routine tests according to IEC 137 and IEC
60-1 [5].
• Pollution performance tests:
1. Salt fog test in accordance with IEC 507 [6], (3
out of 4 tests without flashover to constitute a
pass) withstand salinity of 80 kg/m 3 followed by,
2. Wet test with artificial rain according to IEC 60-1
[5] falling at 90 degrees to the bushing (rain con-
ductivity 100 µS/cm, duration 60 s).
• Additional pollution tests to be agreed if required.
4.2. Testing
Although, composite type bushings were investigated, it
was decided to restrict the enquiry to porcelain bushings
for several reasons. Firstly, NIE has little or no
experience of composite insulators, particularly at this
voltage level. Secondly, although the pollution
performance of composite insulation may be considered
superior initially, there were concerns over the lifetime of
the hydrophobicity of the composite material. Thirdly,
the current standard in relation to insulator pollution
testing, namely IEC 507, (BSEN 60507, 1993), only
applies to ceramic/glass type insulators and not to
composite materials and NIE was seeking test assurance
of the pollution performance of the replacement
bushings.
Discussions with manufacturers and other utilities on the
pollution performance of different shed profiles resulted
in an ALS profile being specified. In the vertical position,
there is shielding of the short shed from the long shed. In
the horizontal position, the ALS has better self cleaning
properties than the anti-fog design. It was however the
opinion that testing would be required to determine the
pollution performance, in both orientations, of the ALS
design.
The IEC 507 Salt fog test was specified as a pass/ fail test
for the bushing design. The successful Tenderer would be
required to test the offered bushing in both vertical and
horizontal (15 degrees) positions - a requirement of the
standard to test in the in-service orientation. A value of 80
kg/m 3 was selected as the pollution severity. This was
deemed to be a reasonable figure based on available Table I: Parameters of the tested wall bushings.
information and is stated as a reference value for ‘heavy’
polluted locations in Elektra [7]. The Salt fog test was to
Bushing
be followed by an artificial rain test. Additional pollution
Parameter (mm)
tests were envisaged, primarily for calibration of the new
Replacement Old
pollution monitor.
Creepage distance
The successful Tenderer for the supply of these bushings 10290 6985
outdoor
constructed one unit to undergo the Salt fog tests. The
parameters of the new bushing are as follows: Insulation length
3225 2134
• Rated voltage: 300 kV outdoor
• Shed profile: ALS
• Outdoor creepage distance: 10290 mm Core shape Straight Conical
• Minimum nominal specific creepage distance: 31,2 Average core
mm/kV 355 406
diameter

The bushing passed the Salt fog tests without a single Average diameter 406 535a
flashover. NIE decided to pursue further pollution testing
in order to provide calibration information for the Shed profile Long-short Underrib
installed pollution monitor. This was to attempt to set a Shed spacing 70 152
pre-warning threshold level, based on on-line leakage
current measurements which could be used to initiate a a. This is approximated by the average small
course of action, in advance of dangerous conditions at shed diameter.
either substation. The Dry Salt Layer (DSL) test, which
more closely resembles the natural pollution conditions
experienced on site was chosen as the additional pollution
test. The tests and the suggested pre-warning threshold
level are described in sections 6. and 7.

5. REPLACEMENT BUSHINGS

5.1. Design

Both bushings were oil-filled and capacitance graded and

had porcelain insulators. The original bushing had resin-
bonded paper as main insulation and the replacement
bushing has oil impregnated paper. The main parameters
are listed in table I and the bushings ares shown in figure
2. The old bushing is conical in shape and the average of
the values for the high voltage end and the ground end
have been used.

Design freedom was limited because the bushings were

required to work in both horizontal and vertical positions
and to fit existing connectors and busbars. The conse-
quences of this dual requirement were mainly of mechan-
ical nature; the cantilever withstand strength of the
bushing and the oil expansion chamber length were di-
mensioned for the horizontal case. Two different sets of
oil level indicators were designed. No specific difficulties
from the dual usage were encountered during manufac-
turing.

The ALS sheds and a straight cylindrical insulator back-

bone were chosen for this project due to the following Figure 2: The replacement bushing (upper picture) and
features: good service record, good self-cleaning proper- the old bushing (lower picture) during tests.
ties, standard tooling available, easy manufacturing at the
porcelain manufacturer. The coastal position of the instal-
lation did not influence the mechanical design, but clearly
prompted the use of a long creepage distance, compared
to inland installations. The minimum nominal specific
creepage distance was chosen to be 31 mm/kV times a di-
ameter factor of 1,1; based on the pollution tests demand-
ed by the utility and the available porcelains.
5.2. Salt fog performance
A rough estimation of the performance of the insulator
for Salt fog testing can be made by equations (2) and (3).
σ
S = --- (2)
F
S = surface conductance
σ = surface conductivity
F = form factor of insulator
The dimensionless form factor, F, can be estimated by
equation (3).
L
F ≈------- (3)
πD
L = creepage distance
D = average diameter
From equations (2) and (3) and the values from table I the
surface conductance can be estimated thus: S=0,124σ for
the replacement bushing and S=0,241σ for the old
bushing. The surface conductivity is roughly proportional
to salt fog salinity if the whole surface is wetted and the
test objects are hydrophilic. This means that the
withstand salinity roughly can be a factor of two (0,241/
0,124=1,94) higher on the replacement bushing and still
give the same surface conductance as on the old bushing
for a given salt fog salinity. This is largely in agreement
with the flashover results in section 7. The old bushing
withstands 28 kg/m 3 and flashes over at 40 kg/m 3. The
replacement bushing withstands 80 kg/m 3.
The higher average axial electric field (applied phase-
ground voltage divided by the insulation length) of the
original bushings, 81 kV/m at service voltage compared
to 54 kV/m for the replacement bushings, and the slightly
non-linear relation between salinity and water conductiv-
ity could further explain the difference in outcome of the
Salt fog tests between the two different bushings.
5.3. Distortion of the capacitive field grading
The capacitive current from condenser core to surface de-
termines the field distribution on the insulator surface of
the condenser bushing during dry conditions. During wet
and polluted conditions, this distribution is distorted by
the surface currents on the insulator. The field distribu-
tion on the insulator surface is dominated by the pollution
when the surface currents are higher than the radial ca-
pacitive polarization current through the insulation mate-
rials of the bushing. The capacitive current to the
insulator surface for the replacement bushing is in the or-
der of 12 nA rms /V during dry conditions, from FEM
field calculations. This gives 2 mA at operation voltage
for this application.
An estimate of the average surface conductance, required
to perturb the capacitive field significantly is
12 ⋅10 Ω − 1. It is assumed that the surface conductivity
–9
is equal all over the surface, which of course in reality is
never really true.
6. VALIDATION TESTS
6.1. Salt fog
The Salt fog tests were conducted according to IEC507
[6] including preconditioning with repeated flashovers.
Each individual test takes one hour.
6.2. Dry Salt Layer
In the DSL test, salt water spray is generated by nozzles
and dried in the air to give small salt particles. These are
blown towards the energized test object by fans and result
in a salt accumulation on its surface. The salt is then
wetted by steam fog during which the test object is
energized at constant voltage. The test object fails the
individual test if it flashes over during the test time. The
test is otherwise continued until the leakage current has
decreased to such a level that the risk of flashover is
deemed negligible, typically 1-2 hours.
During the wetting of the polluted test object the leakage
current was measured at 1 kHz sampling frequency. In
some of the tests the NIE leakage current monitor was
connected in series with the laboratory shunt to
demonstrate that the current signals could be compared.
Tests showed that the output signal from the NIE leakage
current monitor could be simulated by simply calculating
the average current from the laboratory measuring system
over 10 s intervals. The difference in values for each 10 s
interval was not more than a few percent and can be
understood from the difference in exact sampling time
and absolute calibration. In addition:
• Flashovers were registered.
• The visible discharge activity was recorded by a
video camera.
• For the DSL tests the Salt Deposit Density (SDD)
was measured on small parts of the bushing sheds
after the polluting, but before the wetting.
7. RESULTS For comparison of the different types of leakage current
variables, figure 3 and figure 4 have been included. By
7.1. Flashovers comparing these figures to each other it is possible to
more easily grasp their different influence on the raw data
The flashover results of the tests with Salt fog and DSL signal. The ‘Minimum of three’is just a filtering of peaks.
are summarized in table II and table III respectively. Single high readings do not influence this variable and
consequently will not trigger the alarm. The Imean100 is
Table II: The Salt fog flashover results an averaging of all the absolute values measured in 100 s
intervals. Peaks are not filtered out but are instead
smoothed out and influence the result with equal weight
Salinity Flashovers
Bushing Position as all other values. From a comparison of the curves in
(kg/m 3) (No. of tests) figure 3 and figure 4, it is seen that for this test object the
‘Minimum of three’ and the largest Imean100 do not
vertical 28 0 (3)
Old deviate very much from each other. The difference is a
vertical 40 2 (2) few mA only. The same applies to the other tests
performed on this bushing, both the DSL and the Salt fog
vertical 80 0 (3) tests.
Replacement
horizontal 80 0 (3)
0.035

0.03

Table III: The DSL flashover results for equal polluting 0.025
times. I (A)
0.02

0.015
Average
SDD Flashovers 0.01
Bushing Position
(No. of tests)
(mg/cm 2) 0.005

0
Old vertical 0,96 2 (4) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (s)
Replacement vertical 1,38 0 (4)
Figure 3: Leakage current information from DSL test 1
on the old bushing. The dark curve is Imean10
7.2. Leakage current signals and the lighter curve is the ‘Minimum of
three‘. The time 0 is counted from the start of
During each test the leakage current was measured and the wetting.
the following quantities were calculated from the
individual values sampled at 1 kHz: 0.035

0.03
• Imean10 is the 10 s average of the rectified leakage
0.025
current. This is the same quantity which is measured
Imean100 (A)

by the NIE leakage current monitor. It calculates it 0.02

by measuring the integrated charge and divides by 0.015
10.
0.01
• Imean100 is the 100 s average of the rectified leak-
age current. 0.005
• Imax is the highest value of the rectified leakage cur- 0
rent in 10 s intervals. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
• Minimum of three is what remains if one always Time (s)
keeps the lowest of three consecutive values of
Imean10. This is the variable which the NIE leakage Figure 4: Imean100 from DSL test 1 on the old bushing.
current monitor compares to the set pre-warning The time 0 is counted from the start of the
threshold level according to the present trigger logic. wetting.

For the DSL tests the average SDD (salt deposit density) 7.3. Leakage current pre-warning signal
after salt application was calculated from eight individual
measurements along the bushings on both the bottom and In addition to the tests mentioned in table II and table III
top sides of the sheds. some DSL tests with shorter polluting time, giving lower
SDD levels, have been performed as pre-tests. These tests
have been included in the following analysis.
In order to find a suitable leakage current pre-warning
signal the following treatment of the measured leakage
current has been adopted:
1. For each individual test (both DSL and Salt fog) the
highest value of Imean10, Imean100, the NIE trigger
and Imax has been determined.
2. The current values for an individual test have been
omitted in case Imax did not exceed 100 mA. Imax
above 100 mA is here regarded as one criterion for
dangerous pollution event.
3. From all the remaining values the smallest one has
been picked for each of the two test objects and for
each of the two test methods separately.
These values are shown in table IV and constitute a
suggested upper limit of pre-warning signal for the
corresponding current variable. Generally the DSL tests
show lower values than the Salt fog tests in table IV. This
is probably caused by the larger span of severity covered
in the DSL tests since also the pre-tests with low SDD
levels were included.
Table IV: Suggested upper limits of pre-warning signals
for the two test objects and for the two
different test methods based on different
current variables. The lowest value for the
respective current variable has been
shadowed.
Current DSL SF
Bushing
variable (mA) (mA)
NIE trigger 8a 11
Old Imean10 14 14
Imean100 11 9 25
Imean10 13 24
Replacement
Imean100 11 13
a. A flashover occurred during this test.
Since the dimensions of the bushings are different the
form factor will also be different and any pre-warning
level is therefore specific to that particular bushing.
All the currents in table IV are substantially higher than
the contribution from the capacitive current which is 2
mA as discussed in section 5.3. The voltage distribution
at the time of triggering with these values would therefore
be very different from the pure capacitive distribution
found in dry conditions.
Which is then the best choice of current variable, Imax,
Imean10, Imean100, the ‘Minimum of three’ or some
other? Obviously the Imax is attractive because it is the
highest currents which cause the flashover and Imax
therefore has a strong coupling to flashover probability.
Because of Imax’s potential sensitivity to electronic noise
and the fact that the NIE leakage current monitor does not
measure Imax, one of the other current variables should
be considered. A demand should be that the current
variable should show a strong coupling to the flashover
probability or pollution severity. A current variable
which is more or less constant independently of different
pollution conditions is of little use since it will be difficult
to set a distinct pre-warning signal. The signal may either
suffer from many false alarms or will not give any
warning at all.
Because of the similarity in values of the largest
Imean100 and the ‘Minimum of three’mentioned in table
IV only the Imean100 is included in the following
analysis.
7.4. Correlation between leakage current and SDD
In the comparison of the different leakage current
variables an independent parameter is necessary with
which to judge the severity of the test. For the Salt fog
tests the salinity is such a parameter, but the salinities
were limited to the few pre-defined levels used in the
tests. For the DSL tests, however, the SDD can be used as
severity parameter and it furthermore covers a wide range
of values.
In figure 5, the largest Imean100 is shown as a function
of the average SDD for each DSL test. With the exception
of one data point the values lie around 10-12 mA
independent of the average SDD. Therefore, this
parameter does not seem to be adequate to indicate the
test severity.
rain
20
Largest Imean100 (mA)
15
COM DSL Imean100 (m
BC DSL Imean100 (mA
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2
Average SDD (mg/cm )
Figure 5: The largest Imean100 as a function of the
average SDD obtained in the DSL tests on the
two bushings. replacement bushing, old
bushing.
The only odd point was obtained during a special
additional test with rain applied to the bushing during the
steam fog wetting of the DSL test. Most probably the
applied IEC rain gave a high and even surface
conductivity and caused an almost continuous leakage
current for some seconds or tens of seconds before the
salt was washed away. All current variables based on
mean values therefore reach high values although the
peak currents are not high.
The largest Imean10 in figure 6 shows a steady increase
as a a function of average SDD, at least up to SDD levels
of 1 mg/cm 2. This makes it much more attractive as pre-
warning signal for dangerous pollution events.
• Pollution flashovers on bushings in Northern Ireland
70
60 rain
Largest Imean10 (mA)
The data points at largest Imax equal to 1,2 A are in fact
flashovers and are in reality higher and determined by the
test transformer, not the pollution characteristics. After
the pollution application in one of the DSL tests the salt
layer on the bushing was humid. This point has been
marked in figure 7. This also happens to be the same data
point which gives the suggested threshold value of 13 mA
for Imean10 in table IV. This might be an indication that
the most critical DSL test case here is the slightly humid
pollution layer.
8. CONCLUSIONS
substations, led the utility to replace the bushings,
install leakage current monitoring, and automatic
water washing system.

50 • The replacement bushing has shown better labora-

40
tory pollution performance than the old bushing. It
COM DSL Imean10 (mA)
withstands a salinity about 3 times higher than the
30 BC DSL Imean10 (mA)
old bushing (80 kg/m 3 compared to 28 kg/m 3).
20 • Also in the Dry Salt Layer tests the replacement
10 bushing was superior.
• The largest part of the improvement is related to the
0
larger form factor, which is 2 times higher for the
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
replacement bushing.
Average SDD (mg/cm 2)
• The complex shedding of the old bushing does give it
Figure 6: The largest Imean10 as a function of the some advantage in tests without rain cleaning and the
average SDD obtained in the DSL tests on the average SDD levels are lower than for the replace-
two bushings. replacement bushing, old ment bushing.
bushing. • In the real coastal environment where the pollution
accumulation is mixed with rain cleaning, the open
The behaviour of the largest Imax in figure 7 resembles ALS profile of the replacement bushing should col-
Imean10 in figure 6, but does show an increase also for lect less pollution.
the highest average SDD levels. The rain point is indeed • From the leakage current signals studied the average
also conspicuous in figure 6, but not in figure 7. absolute leakage current over 10 s intervals seems to
However, Imax cannot be measured by the NIE leakage be the most reliable warning signal of dangerous pol-
current monitor. lution conditions.
• On this particular replacement bushing a trigger level
of 13 mA is suggested, e.g. for the automatic start of
1.2 the water washing system or other course of action.
• The present operation experience of the replacement
1 flashovers bushings in the two substations is good and no
humid salt layer flashovers have occurred.
Largest Imax (A)

0.8

0.6 Recently, the installation of water washing equipment

has been completed at both locations. This is currently
0.4
initiated automatically once per week, however there are
0.2 rain concerns over its operation under certain weather
conditions, such as very high winds. It is the intention to
0
use the information gleaned from the pollution tests as a
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
trigger level for a course of action, should pollution levels
Average SDD (mg/cm 2)
and weather conditions cause leakage currents
Figure 7: The largest Imax as a function of the average approaching dangerous conditions in the future.
SDD obtained in the DSL tests on the two
bushings. replacement bushing, old
bushing.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Sylgard, a registered trademark of Dow Corning
Corporation
[2] Cigré task force 33.04.03, “Insulator pollution
monitoring”, Elektra No. 152, 1994.
[3] IEC 815:1986, Guide for the selection of insulators
in respect of polluted conditions.
[4] IEC 137:1984, Bushings for alternating voltages
above 1000 V.
[5] IEC 60-1:1989, High voltage test techniques -
General definitions and test requirements.
[6] IEC 507:1991, BSEN 60507:1993, Artificial
pollution tests on high-voltage insulators to be used
on a.c. systems.
[7] Elektra No.64, Table II page 131.