Effect of Altitude on the Flashover Voltage of
Contaminated Insulators
Raji Sundararajan and Robert W. Nowlin
Dept. of Electrical Engineering & Dept. of Electronics and Computer Technology
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ - 85287-5706
Abstract
Contamination flashover of insulators depends not
only on the severity and type of contamination, but
also on the altitude at which these insulators are
situated. Reduced pressure or air density combined
with light contamination at high altitudes decreases
the flashover voltage. Experimental testing of a
number of insulators for a wide range of outdoor
conditions is time consuming as well as expensive.
This paper presents the results of an investigation on
the ac flashover voltages of contaminated insulators at
reduced pressure using a numerical model. The model
results agree well with experimental data.
Introduction
Economy dictates that bulk power at high voltages be
transmitted by overhead lines. This causes insulators
to be exposed to the outdoor environment. The
insulation strength and surface discharge of these
insulators are influenced by various uncontrollable
atmospheric conditions, such as contamination,
temperature, altitude, ice, snow, humidity, and
pressure [l]. At high altitudes, the dielectric strength
of air decreases with decreasing pressure. This
increases the mean free path and consequently this
results in a decreased flashover voltage [FOV]
compared to that at sea level.
With increased industrialization, mountainous and
high altitude regions are viable alternatives for power
transmission and distribution [2, 31. While the height
itself can decrease the FOV, deposition of
contaminants, even at lower levels has a cumulative
effect on decreasing the insulation strength of
insulators. The combined effect of high altitude and
light contamination deteriorates the performance of
insulators [2-41. Due to the increasing tendency
towards the use of mountainous regions, it is of
practical interest to investigate the performance of
insulators at high altitudes.
Experimental testing of a variety of insulators for their
performance in a wide range of outdoor conditions is
not only expensive and time consuming but also the
data obtained is widely scattered. This necessitates the
(0-7083-3580-5) 1996 IEEE Annual Report - Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, San Francisco, October 20-23, 1996
use of computational techniques to estimate the
performance of a number of insulators. The
computational study can be used to complement
experimental testing, by performing only a few key
experiments to verify the accuracy of the model.
Presented in this paper are the model results of ac
FOVs of contaminated porcelain suspension and pin
type insulators. Wherever possible, the model results
have been compared with experimental data with good
correlation between the two.
Model Concept
Literature Review:
A survey of available literature indicates that only
limited work has been done on the effect of altitude on
the flashover voltage of contaminated porcelain
insulators [2-51. This is to be expected, because when
even the normal atmospheric phenomena itself is not
yet fully understood, the reduced pressure due to high
altitude poses multiple variables that must be
considered
In general, the FOV at high altitudes varies
nonlinearly with the pressure at that altitude as [4,6]:
v m o = (P/PO>" (1)
where V is FOV at reduced pressure p, Vo is the FOV
at standard pressure at sea level po (760 mm of
mercury). The index m is found to vary with the type
of insulator, i.e., the profile and the type of voltage
(ac or dc) [7]. A value of m=0.5 is found to be in
common with the published data available for std cap
and pin insulators [4,61.
A physical modeling technique derives the ac arc
reignition equation including the effect of pressure, as
[71:
V arcig = 716 x P 0.77/ im0.526 (2a)
where V arcig is voltage required for arc reignition (V),
x is arc length (cm), p is pressure (in the range of 0.6
- 1 atmosphere, corresponding to an altitude of
approximately up to 4 km or 13000 ft) and im (A) is
arc current. Without loss of accuracy, the above eqn.
has been used in the present investigation as:
Computational Philosophy:
An ac contamination FOV model was developed and
used to investigate various aspects of atmospheric
conditions, such as type of contaminant and effect of
ice or snow [8-101 at atmospheric pressure. This
model has been adapted to compute the FOV of
insulators at high altitudes by using the appropriate
arc reignition equation as given in eqn. (2b) above
which considers the role of reduced pressure on FOV.
It is assumed that the arc current is the same as the
pollution current to reduce complexity of modeling the
arc flashover phenomena. Also, it was assumed that
at any pressure, the arc follows the leakage distance
without bridging the adjacent ribs or sheds [7]. This
procedure is designated as Model 1. Calculations have
also been performed using the empirical formula (eqn.
(1)) with reported index data. This is designated as
Model 2.
Insulator Details
Fig. 1 shows the suspension (transmission) and pin
type (distribution) insulator profiles considered in this
investigation [2]. A, B and H are the three types of
suspension insulators and PA is a pin type insulator.
Type A is the IEEE std cap and pin insulator, type B
is the antifog or fog type insulator with deep skirts
A B H
IEEE Std Antifog Aerodynamic
@ PA
Pin Type I
Fig. 1: Insulator Profiles Considered
434
and longer leakage length to combat contamination
and type H is the aerodynamic insulator used in desert
environment. Pin type I (PA) is widely used in
distribution. Table 1 furnishes the dimensions of
these insulator profiles,
Table 1: Dimensions of Suspension and Pin Type
Insulators Used [2,31
Diameter Height
Dmm Hmm
Results and Discussion
Fig. 2 shows a comparison of Model 1 and the
experimental results for IEEE std insulator at ESDD =
0.07 mg/cm2 (unless mentioned otherwise, the model
calculations have been performed using Model 1). It
can be seen that the model FOV follows the same
trend as the experimental data. There is a decrease in
the FOV with decrease in pressure, indicating lower
electrical strength at high altitudes. Fig. 3 shows
similar results obtained for pin type I insulator at the
same contamination severity as above. It can be seen
that there is good agreement between the model and
the experimental data in both cases.
Fig. 2: Comparison of Experimental and Model
Results of IEEE Std Insulator at 0.07 ESDD
The accuracy of the IEEE std insulator is around 10%
except at 650 mm Hg, where it is 12.12%. In the
case of pin insulator type I, the accuracy varies from
6% (at atmospheric pressure) to 18.24%. This can be factors can be used to select the number of insulators
attributed to the difference in the shape of the for a given contamination severity at a specific altitude
insulators. This is in line with the experimental by linear extrapolation. For a givenaltitude, the
observations of the previous researchers, where an
average index of pressure, p was observed to be m =
0.5 for the IEEE std insulator while it is 0.8 for the
pin type I insulator [4]. However, the model uses the
same value of index (m=0.8) for both insulators. g) 100
-m
c

80
L
Q)
>
0
60
P 151-
i Expt
r
U)

-
c ii 40
A- 20
Model 2

i!
cn
E:
m ' O r
0
100 85.5
% Pressure
76 67

500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Fig. 4: Percentage Variation of IEEE Std Insulator at
Pressure, mm Hg 0.07 ESDD (E - Expt, M1 - Model 1, M2 - Model 2)
Fig. 3: Comparison of Experimental and Model Table 2: FOV Variation with Altitude
Results of Pin Type I Insulator at 0.07 ESDD
11 Altitude IFOV, IRatio I % I Variation li
Using Model 2 (eqn. (l)), the FOVs have been
computed and Fig. 3 shows a comparison of Model 2
and experimental data for pin type I insulator. There
is good correlation in this case too. However, the
disadvantage with this method is that for each
individual insulator, the corresponding index m is to
be used. Shown in Fig. 4 is a comparison of %
variation of FOV with pressure for both model and
experimental data for IEEE std insulator at ESDD =
0.07 mg/cm2. There is better agreement in this case,
compared to the FOV comparison.

Table 2 illustrates the variation of FOV with altitude
for IEEE std insulator at 0.03 ESDD. The variation is
almost linear up to 15000 ft. At heights above this
the variation is slightly nonlinear. Assuming
linearity for the entire range, the overall average
variation is 1.765% per 1000 ft, which is equivalent
to 5.79% per 3280 ft or 5.79% per km. This is in
excellent agreement with the published value of 6%
per km for ac voltage [6]. This demonstrates that the
model is capable of estimating FOVs as good as
experimental values and can conveniently be used as a
complement for insulator selection at high altitudes by
conducting only a few key experiments.
Fig. 5 presents the % altitude derating factor for IEEE
std insulator at 0.03 ESDD. These altitude correction
pressure has been calculated using the Pressure
Altitude Calculator available in Netscape [lll. In
general, the change in FOV can be represented as:
A(V/Vo) = 0.018 H
where H is altitude in 1000s of feet.
Presented in Fig. 6 is the variation of FOV with
pressure (model results) for three types of suspension
insulators at 0.03 ESDD. It can be seen that the FOV
decreases with decrease of pressure for all three
profiles. However, the relative variation of FOV
remains the same. Further work to incorporate the
role of insulator profile on the index, m, is in
progress.

435
 Acknowledgments

The information provided by M. Muralidhar and H. El-

Kishky, Arizona State University is gratefully
25 L
- acknowledged.
--
20 L -- References
--
T. A. Phillips et al, “Influence of Air Density
on Electrical Strength of Transmission Line
--- Insulation”, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 86, No. 8,
Aug 1967, pp. 948 - 958

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Altitude, ft
Fig. 5: Altitude Derating Factor for IEEE Std
Insulator at ESDD = 0.03 mg/cm2
Pressure, mm Hg
Fig. 6 Variation of FOV with Pressure for Suspension
Insulators
Conclusions
A contamination flashover model previously
developed has been adapted to compute the flashover
voltage of contaminated insulators at high altitudes.
In general, the FOV vs. pressure follows the form,
V/Vo = (p/p0)”, where m = 0.5 for ac voltage.
The derating of the FOV strength varies at the rate of
1.8% per 1000 ft for ac voltage at light-moderate
contamination severities (0.03 - 0.07 ESDD).
V. M. Rudakova and N. N. Tokhodeev,
“Influence of Low Air Pressure on Flashover
Voltages of Polluted Insulators”, IEEE Trans.
PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan 1989, pp. 607 -
612
T. Kawamura et al., “Pressure Dependence of
DC Breakdown of Contaminated Insulators”,
IEEE Trans. EI, Vol. 17, No. 1, Feb 1982, pp.
39-45
Anibal de la 0 L. and J. G. de la Vega,
“Performance of AC Insulators under Low
Pressure for Fog Chamber Tests”, 7th ISH,
paper 44.19, Dresden, 1991
Gou Rui-Feng, “Influence of Pressure on AC-
Flashover Voltage and Pre-Flashover Current of
Contaminated Insulators”, 7th ISH, Paper
43.06, Dresden, 1991
H. P. Mercure, “Insulator Pollution
Performance at High Altitude: Major Trends”,
IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 2, Apr 1989
F. A. M. Rizk and A. Q. Rezazada, “Modeling
of Altitude Effects on AC Flashover of Polluted
High Voltage Insulators”, Paper LI-96 WM606
R. Sundararajanet al., “Computer Aided Design
of Porcelain Insulators under Polluted
Conditions”, IEEE Trans. EI, Vol. 2, No. 1,
Feb 1995
R. Sundararajan and R. S . Gorur, “Role of
Non-soluble Contaminants on the Flashover
Voltage of Porcelain Insulators”, IEEE Trans.
DEI, Vol. 3, No. 1,Feb 1996, pp. 113-118
R. Sundararajan, “A Computational Study of
Flashover voltage of Iced Insulators”, 58th
American power Conference, Apr 1996

It is hoped that the model can be beneficial to other http://nwselp.epcc.edu/elp/presalt.html

researchers and design engineers as a complement to
experimentation to better understand the high
altitude contaminationflashover phenomena.

436