MV Insulation Coordination

SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION
Research, Testing and Development
CONFIDENTIAL
Technical Report
Title : MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17

Date Compiled : 20 March 2017
Report No : 1810098
Revision : A
Project/Activity/Task No : N.RA80006.R.17
Author : Andreas Beutel, Wilhelm Bisschoff, Richard Evert
Section : Distribution Solutions
Functional Area : Power Delivery & Utilisation
Copyright of this report is reserved. No publication or dissemination of its contents is allowed without
written permission.
Keywords: Medium voltage, overhead distribution lines, insulators, insulation coordination,
bird safety, pollution, pole top fires, wood impedance, wood resistance, high voltage test,
lightning.
Submitted by: Accepted by: Authorized by:
…………………………….. …………………………….. ……………………………..

Andreas Beutel Andreas Beutel
Raphael Swinny
Task Leader Project Leader Project Manager
Date: ………………………… Date: ………………………… Date: …………………………
Document Template: RT&D TE 209-22 Rev.2

REVISIONS
REV. DESCRIPTION/COMMENT AUTHOR DATE

Andreas Beutel,
A First issue Wilhelm Bisschoff, 20 March 2017
Richard Evert
DISTRIBUTION
Riaz Asmal Wilhelm Bisschoff
Richardo Davey Richard Evert
Ockie Fourie Hendri Geldenhuys
Nkateko Khoza Manie Kotze
Marilize Kramer Rudi Kruger
Aletta Mashao Bruce McLaren
Raphael Swinny Willem van Schalkwyk
Kelly Whitehead
Information Centre
Distribution
20 March 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work is to quantify the insulation that is provided by existing structure
configurations used on Eskom’s overhead medium voltage (MV) distribution networks and
to compare this to the insulation offered by alternative configurations. The reasons for
doing this are:
 There have been reports of eagles, vultures and similar birds being electrocuted on
networks of these voltages.
 There have been reports of structural failure on networks where the BIL spark gap has
been installed.
 There are alternative materials available for poles and cross-arms to those currently
used.
The report includes further results of bird and wood impedance measurements and a
consequent model of phase-to-pole contact by a bird sitting on the pole. This includes an
estimate of the risk of electrocution that birds are exposed to in this mode. The results of
an indepth field investigation in Northern Cape OU as also included, as are the results of
high voltage laboratory tests performed on various structures configurations.
The following is a summary of the conclusions:

1. The effect of surface wetting has a significant effect on the resistance of woodpoles.
2. There is some uncertainty as to what the threshold wood resistance should be above
which birds are most likely safe in this mode of contact. In any case, such cases of
electrocution are rare considering the large number of woodpoles installed in the field.
3. Having said that, new poles do pose a certain level of risk, irrespective of the
conditions, and all poles pose a risk when wetted.
4. Lightning flashover can cause woodpole burning in the BIL gap.
5. The cause of the tracking on pole OV 17-204-25 can still not be determined.
6. The benefits of using the BIL spark gap significantly outweigh the small risk of failure
of new poles.
7. Woodpole damage is likely in the BIL gap in areas with frequent lightning, or even in
areas with infrequent lightning but no tall vegetation, where no BIL spark gap is
present,
8. All presently used structures adhere to the required minimum BIL of 200 kV. All
structure configurations under investigation also meet this requirement.
9. A holistic longer term MV structure configuration can only be devised once all results
(laboratory, KIPTS, field) have been obtained and collectively analysed. However,
there is enough information to already start looking at various options in more detail
than has been possible to date.
10. Presenting papers and discussing the contents with third parties has proven to be
very beneficial to this work by providing confidence in the results and avoiding
duplication with other researchers.
The following is recommended going forward:

1. The work on bird safety should continue as planned, paying special attention to the
effect of surface wetting on feather impedance, updating of the bird-wood model if
necessary and extending the model to 11 kV and 33 kV systems.
Executive Summary
20 March 2017
2. Options for addressing bird safety should be looked at, including the possibility of
keeping connections to the wood surface and the possibility of limiting bird contact to
feathers, cf. the body.
3. The Northern Cape field investigation should continue as planned.
4. The following recommendations are for the attention of Northern Cape OU (to be
communicated via the official channel):
a. The situation should continue to be monitored, especially with respect to pole fires
or tracking similar to that found on the OV 17-204-25 structure. Also, once the
section of line where this pole is situated has been sanded and spark gaps and
silicone rubber insulators installed, that section of line should be monitored for
tracking or other anomalous activity.
b. Lines with known lightning damage should be brought to the latest standard,
including the BIL spark gap.
c. Individual structures that are replaced should include BIL spark gap devices.
d. Trunions should be used as a means of preventing conductor or tie burn-off on
replaced structures.
5. The high voltage laboratory tests should be repeated at high altitude (Gauteng or
nearby) to determine the effect of altitude on the test results. The structures tested
should be modified as needed to ensure that flashover occurs in a predictable way.
6. Once KIPTS is ready for energisation, further testing as listed should be performed.
7. Publishing results externally should continue, due to the benefits noted.
8. Silicone rubber post insulators with F-neck should be tested with conductors, armour
rod etc. to evaluate how this combination performs under flashover. This should be
referred to stream 1 of this research project.
Executive Summary
20 March 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Revisions ........................................................................................................................... 2
Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 3
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 9
1.3 Structure of this report .......................................................................................................... 9
2 Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode .......................................................... 11

2.1 Introduction and background .............................................................................................. 11
2.2 Bird impedance measurements .......................................................................................... 12
2.3 Wood impedance measurements....................................................................................... 13
2.4 Combined bird and wood model ......................................................................................... 16
2.5 New estimate of “safe” bird current level ............................................................................ 16
2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 17
3 Northern Cape OU field investigation ......................................................................... 19

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Rietfontein .......................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Upington ............................................................................................................................. 29
3.4 Calvinia ............................................................................................................................... 30
3.5 Other analysis ..................................................................................................................... 42
3.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 46
4 High voltage laboratory tests ..................................................................................... 47

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Overview of tests ................................................................................................................ 47
4.2.1 List of tests .................................................................................................................. 47
4.2.2 Evaluation criteria ........................................................................................................ 48
4.3 Test equipment ................................................................................................................... 49
4.3.1 Impulse generator ....................................................................................................... 49
4.3.2 Power frequency source ............................................................................................. 50
4.4 Results ................................................................................................................................ 50
4.4.1 Test 1: 500 mm wood gap ........................................................................................... 50
4.4.2 Test 2: Spark gap ........................................................................................................ 53
4.4.3 Test 3 and 4: Glazed and unglazed stay insulators .................................................... 56
4.4.4 Test 5: Fibreglass stay insulator ................................................................................. 60
4.4.5 Test 6: Fibreglass and porcelain tubes ....................................................................... 63
20 March 2017
4.4.6 Test 7: Polymer cross-arm .......................................................................................... 68
4.4.7 Test 8: Raptor protector .............................................................................................. 70
4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 72
5 Other items ................................................................................................................ 73

5.1 Interrupted KIPTS tests ...................................................................................................... 73
5.2 Aborted SKA site visit ......................................................................................................... 74
5.3 External publications .......................................................................................................... 75
6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 76
7 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 78
8 References ................................................................................................................ 79
9 Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 80
10 Appendix B ............................................................................................................. 86
11 Appendix C – Detailed high voltage impulse test results ......................................... 96
11.1 Test 1: 500 mm Wood Gap ............................................................................................. 96
11.2 Test 2: Spark Gap ........................................................................................................... 96
11.3 Test 3 and 4: Glazed and Unglazed stay insulators ....................................................... 97
11.4 Test 5: Fibreglass Stay insulator .................................................................................... 97
11.5 Test 6: Fibreglass/Porcelain Tubes ................................................................................ 98
11.6 Test 7: Polymer Cross Arm ............................................................................................. 98
20 March 2017
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Tests performed............................................................................................................... 48
Table 4-2: Standard voltages and insulation level ............................................................................ 48
Table 4-3: Impulse generator specifications ..................................................................................... 49
Table 4-4: Power frequency source specifications ........................................................................... 50
Table 4-5: 500 mm wood gap test conditions ................................................................................... 51
Table 4-6: Spark gap test conditions ................................................................................................ 54
Table 4-7: Porcelain stay test conditions .......................................................................................... 58
Table 4-8: Fibreglass stay test conditions ........................................................................................ 61
Table 4-9: Fibreglass/porcelain tube test conditions ........................................................................ 65
Table 4-10: Polymer cross-arm test conditions ................................................................................ 68
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 2-1: Electrocution of birds near Beaufort West........................................................................... 11
Fig 2-2: Bird impedance test results – Cape Vultures only ................................................................ 12
Fig 2-3: Winter (August) 2016 woodpole resistance measurements in the field – East London
(above), Beaufort West (below) ........................................................................................................ 13
Fig 2-4: Summer (January/February) 2016-17 woodpole resistance measurements in the field –
East London (above), Beaufort West (below) ................................................................................... 14
Fig 2-5: Summer results for East London – combination of 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 results ...... 15
Fig 2-6: Summer wood resistance results with estimated bird safety limits – East London (above),
Beaufort West (below) ...................................................................................................................... 18
Fig 3-1: Pole MIK 82T 12: repaired structure (top left), burnt pole in the CNC (top right), pieces of
burnt wood on site (below) ............................................................................................................... 20
Fig 3-2: Pole MIK 82T 12 and surroundings ...................................................................................... 21
Fig 3-3: Rietfontein with respect to Upington................................................................................... 21
Fig 3-4: Pole MIK 82T 11 ................................................................................................................... 22
Fig 3-5: Pole MIK 82T 13 ................................................................................................................... 23
Fig 3-6: Pole MIK 82T 14 ................................................................................................................... 24
Fig 3-7: Pole MIK 82T 15 ................................................................................................................... 25
Fig 3-8: Pole MIK 479 ........................................................................................................................ 26
Fig 3-9: Pole MIK 480 ........................................................................................................................ 28
Fig 3-10: Pole OV 17-204-25 ............................................................................................................. 29
Fig 3-11: Pole OV 17-204-25 in Jan 2015 (left) and Sep 2016 (right)................................................ 30
Fig 3-12: Failed pole near Calvinia .................................................................................................... 30
Fig 3-13: Location of Calvinia ............................................................................................................ 31
Fig 3-14: Poles without earth downwires damaged by lightning ..................................................... 31
Fig 3-15: Structure MOU F1 258-364 ................................................................................................ 32
20 March 2017
Fig 3-19: Structure MOU F1 584-108-147 ......................................................................................... 37
Fig 3-20: Structure MOU F1 976 ....................................................................................................... 38
Fig 3-24: Normalised lightning analysis for MV networks covered in this report ............................. 44
Fig 3-25: Number of strokes per km per year ................................................................................... 45
Fig 4-1: Lightning impulse test pass criterion [5] .............................................................................. 49
Fig 4-2: Impulse generator and power frequency source ................................................................. 50
Fig 4-3: 500 mm wood gap structure................................................................................................ 51
Fig 4-4: Wood gap U10 compared to minimum required BIL............................................................. 52
Fig 4-5: Wood gap test photos.......................................................................................................... 53
Fig 4-6: Spark gap structure .............................................................................................................. 54
Fig 4-7: Spark gap U10 compared to minimum required BIL ............................................................. 55
Fig 4-8: Spark gap test photos .......................................................................................................... 55
Fig 4-9: Porcelain stay insulator structures....................................................................................... 57
Fig 4-10: Porcelain stay insulator structures U10 compared to minimum required BIL .................... 58
Fig 4-11: Porcelain stay structures leakage current measurements under wet conditions .............. 59
Fig 4-12: Porcelain stay insulator test photos................................................................................... 60
Fig 4-13: Fibreglass stay insulator structures ................................................................................... 61
Fig 4-14: Fibreglass stay insulator structure U10 compared to minimum required BIL ..................... 62
Figure 4-15: Porcelain stay insulator structures leakage current measurements under wet
conditions .......................................................................................................................................... 62
Fig 4-16: Fibreglass stay insulator test photos ................................................................................. 63
Fig 4-17: Fibreglass/porcelain tube structures ................................................................................. 64
Fig 4-18: Fibreglass/porcelain tube structure U10 compared to minimum required BIL ................... 66
Fig 4-19: Fibreglass/porcelain tube structures leakage current measurements under wet conditions
.......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Fig 4-20: Fibreglass/porcelain tube test photos ............................................................................... 67
Fig 4-21: Polymer cross-arm structure .............................................................................................. 68
Fig 4-22: Polymer cross-arm structure U10 compared to minimum required BIL .............................. 69
Fig 4-23: Polymer cross-arm test photos .......................................................................................... 70
Fig 4-24: Raptor protector test photos, with typical raptor claws.................................................... 71
Fig 4-25: Raptor protector a.c. flashover voltage (peak values) ....................................................... 72
Fig 5-1: 11 kV line feeding KIPTS test site ......................................................................................... 73
Fig 5-2: Proposed new test structure 4 (left) and structure 6 (right) for KIPTS ................................. 74
Fig 5-2: Fully bonded and earthed structures on SKA line ................................................................ 75
20 March 2017
RT&D TECHNICAL REPORT
MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page
1810098 A 9/98
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The purpose of this work is to quantify the insulation that is provided by existing structure
configurations used on Eskom’s overhead medium voltage (MV) distribution networks and
to compare this to the insulation offered by alternative configurations. The reasons for
doing this are:
 There have been reports of eagles, vultures and similar birds being electrocuted on
networks of these voltages.
 There have been reports of structural failure on networks where the BIL spark gap has
been installed.
 There are alternative materials available for poles and cross-arms to those currently
used.
The final outcome of this work is a recommendation for structure materials and
configurations that provide the best reasonable balance between all factors, such as bird
and people safety and lightning and pollution performance. This is not a trivial task since
the different (at times conflicting) factors need to be traded off, hence the need for
laboratory tests as well as field work.
This is an interim report since the work is not complete as yet, and follows on from the
2015-16 report [1]. A final report will be issued, with recommendations, once the work has
been completed.
1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following Eskom staff are acknowledged and thanked for their assistance:
 Distribution Upington Zone staff, especially Ockie Fourie, Petrus Stols, Marlize Kramer,
John Coetzee and Manie Kotze; also Richardo Davey and Richard Evert from RT&D.
 Distribution Western Cape OU: Hein Olivier, Andre Minnie, Cherwon Julies, Fareed
King and Simon Jooste.
 HV lab tests: Wilhelm Bisschoff, Petrus Pieterse (Stellenbosch University), Ian Braid
(donation of polymer cross-arm), Bruce McLaren, Hendri Geldenhuys.
 Bird tests: EWT (Constant Hoogstad, Megan Murison), Transmission Solutions in
RT&D (Matimba Mathebula, Thabiso Mahlangu, Arnold Msimanga).
 Bird model: Bruce McLaren, Nkateko Khoza, Hendri Geldenhuys, Rudi Kruger,
Marietjie Snyman, John Van Coller (Wits University).
 SKA line: Leon Christiaans.
 KIPTS: Lucky Mvayo, Rob Watson, Richardo Davey, Frans Jooste, Bruce McLaren.
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The various aspects are covered as follows:
Introduction
20 March 2017
1810098 A 10/98
 Chapter 2 covers the results of bird and wood impedance measurements and a
consequent model of phase-to-pole contact by a bird sitting on the pole. This includes
an estimate of the risk of electrocution that birds are exposed to in this mode, and is
more detailed than reported previously.
 Chapter 3 details the results of an indepth field investigation in Northern Cape OU, this
is an extension of previous work.
 Chapter 4 presents the results of high voltage laboratory tests performed on various
structures configurations.
 Chapter 5 covers other items: interrupted KIPTS tests, aborted SKA site visit and
external publications.
 Chapters 6 and 7 list the conclusions of the work performed to date and
recommendations for the next steps in the work, respectively.
Introduction
20 March 2017
1810098 A 11/98
2 BIRD ELECTROCUTION IN PHASE-TO-WOODPOLE MODE
2.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In May 2013 several large birds, mostly eagles and buzzards, were found electrocuted in
the Beaufort West area. Some of these electrocutions were suspected to be in phase-to-
pole mode (frame earthed via the pole), as shown in Fig 2-1.
Fig 2-1: Electrocution of birds near Beaufort West
Since then, a significant amount of testing has been performed to establish whether such
an electrocution is possible and under what circumstances. This has involved testing of
wood poles (and cross-arms) to determine typical impedances. Dead birds have also been
tested in a similar way.
The aim of this chapter is to:

 Present further bird impedance test results (Section 2.2).
 Present further wood impedance test results (Section 2.3).
Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

20 March 2017
1810098 A 12/98
 Tie all of that together into a more detailed model than previously compiled (Section
2.4).
 Estimate a more accurate “safe” current level below which birds will most likely be safe,
and use this to estimate the risk posed to birds in the field (Section 2.5).
 Summarise the results (Section 2.6).
2.2 BIRD IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTS
Bird impedance was previously measured near Polokwane in late 2015, the details of
which have previously been reported [1]. Further tests were required in order to obtain
more data points (only 2 birds were tested at Polokwane), to perform tests under a.c. (d.c.
only was used at Polokwane for practical reasons) and to perform tests with greater
current supply available to obtain a better estimate of the impedance (the current was
limited to 11.5 mA at Polokwane). Two further birds, both Cape Vultures, were tested at
Eskom’s Megawatt Park Corona Cage facility to at least partly address the above. The
same test method as before was used, but with a different power supply.
The results are plotted in Fig 2-2. This compares the results obtained at the corona cage
with those obtained for the single Cape Vulture previously, and shows that the impedance
of the “new” birds was a few orders of magnitude higher than the vulture tested previously.
However, the same trend as before was found, i.e. that feather impedance is very high
when compared to body impedance and a.c. impedance was lower than for d.c., but very
similar to the d.c. impedance of the previous bird.
Fig 2-2: Bird impedance test results – Cape Vultures only

20 March 2017
1810098 A 13/98
2.3 WOOD IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTS
In line with plans, wood resistance measurements were repeated during the winter of 2016
and the 2016-17 summer using the test method described in [1]. The winter results are
plotted in Fig 2-3. The summer test results are shown in Fig 2-4.
Fig 2-3: Winter (August) 2016 woodpole resistance measurements in the field – East
London (above), Beaufort West (below)

20 March 2017
1810098 A 14/98
Fig 2-4: Summer (January/February) 2016-17 woodpole resistance measurements in

the field – East London (above), Beaufort West (below)
The East London summer results include the results for two new poles added to include
data for what was a relatively large gap between the ages of 11 and 24 years. Combining

20 March 2017
1810098 A 15/98
the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 summer results for East London to further close that gap,
gives the results shown in Fig 2-5.
Fig 2-5: Summer results for East London – combination of 2015/2016 and 2016/2017
results
The winter results from East London show that most poles still have a resistance in the 1 -
100 MΩ range, as before [1], but that there are fewer resistances less than 0.1 MΩ. This is
ascribed to the drier conditions during the winter. The effect of surface wetting is also clear
– the surface resistance dropped by approximately two orders of magnitude when the
wood was wetted across about one third of the 500 mm gap under test.
The winter Beaufort West results show that the profile of the measurements is inverted
from the previous case, i.e. the surface has the lowest resistance whereas previously [1]
the heartwood resistance was the lowest. This is because the measurements were
performed on a rainy day. The effect is therefore similar to the East London results when
the wood surface was wetted. The screw-strap values are also lower than before.
The summer results from East London show a slight drop in results generally, as
expected. The effect of surface wetting is also slightly less than in winter. The biggest
difference is for newer poles.
The summer results from Beaufort West show more marked differences from the winter
results, with approximately three orders of magnitude difference in the surface resistance
since the summer measurements were performed in sunny weather. The artificially wetted
wood surface had similar resistance to the naturally wetted surface. The heartwood-

20 March 2017
1810098 A 16/98
surface resistance showed a smaller (two orders of magnitude) difference, as expected,

whereas the heartwood resistance dropped from winter to summer. All of this is as
expected.
2.4 COMBINED BIRD AND WOOD MODEL
A more accurate model than that included in [1] was compiled. This model includes the
effect of capacitance and was presented at the 25th Southern African Universities Power
Engineering Conference (SAUPEC 2017). The paper is included in Appendix A and
concludes that the effect of wood capacitance on the current flowing through a bird, and
the voltage appearing across the bird, when making phase-to-woodpole contact is
significant, but does not affect the estimate of the risk the a bird is exposed to in a
substantial way. This is in line with field experience, which indicates that only a small
number of scenarios pose a risk to birds.
A 1 nF capacitance causes both bird voltage and current to be less dependent on circuit
resistances than 1 pF does. This is, however, a high estimate of capacitance and so the
effect in reality is expected to be less pronounced. Resistance is therefore an acceptable
estimate of the risk of phase-to-pole electrocution to birds on overhead woodpole
distribution lines.
However, a more accurate estimate of the threshold current allowed to flow through the
bird (Ib) is required, i.e. the margin below the 120 mA level from the literature, since that
value is a 90% fibrillation level. This is looked at in the next section.
2.5 NEW ESTIMATE OF “SAFE” BIRD CURRENT LEVEL
The following additional information [2] was found that was not available previously:
 Wet eagle feathers were found to burn at 5-7 kV, but there as no measureable current
at 70 kV on dry feathers.
 Bird convulsion current at 400 V to 500 V was found to be 9-12 mA.
 Salt water wet and wet wood are also alluded to, but no numbers or other details are
given.
 Voltage is therefore not a determining factor at MV.
 The current threshold is therefore of the order of 10 mA, which is significantly lower
than the 100/120 mA used up to now.
The previous value of 120 mA (90% convulsion current) should be divided by a factor to
give a “safe” current. IEC factors for humans were used as a guide for this factor as
follows:
 Fig 20 of IEC 60479-1 [3] gives a difference of 6.5 (1300/200 mA) on the x-axis (10 ms
duration), 33.3 (1000/30 mA) at 200 ms duration, 25 (500/20 mA) at 500 ms and 8
(110/13 ms) at 1 second.
 This is for curves b (Perception and involuntary muscular contractions likely but usually
no harmful electrical physiological effects) and c3 (Probability of ventricular fibrillation
above 50 %).

20 March 2017
1810098 A 17/98
 Curve c3 approximates the existing bird data (ventricular fibrillation in 90% of birds) and
curve b approximates the “safe” condition.
 So 120 mA divided by the biggest number (rounded off to 30) gives 4 mA.
4 mA is therefore recommended as the new threshold. Applying this to the wood model
and ignoring bird impedance gives a (conservative) threshold wood impedance of 12.7
kV/4 mA = 3.18 MΩ.
This means that the wood in the earth path should have a resistance of larger than 3.18
MΩ. The previous (rougher) estimate was 127 kΩ - refer to the CIGRE 2016 paper in
Appendix B. The majority of dry poles (i.e. poles not wetted on the surface and older than
about 10 years) meet both criteria. Surface-wetted poles, e.g. during rain, pose a greater
risk, but the impedance of the bird, particularly the feathers, would further limit this current.
Exploring this further by using the same methodology as in Appendix B, i.e. including a
bird body impedance of 17 kΩ in series with the wood, reduces the threshold wood
resistance to 3.16 MΩ. This is only a small difference. However, if contact is made via a
wing feather, the bird resistance is estimated to increase to the order of 100 MΩ, and so
the current would in all likelihood be sufficiently low to protect the bird.
Adding the above resistances (3.16 MΩ and 127 kΩ) to the summer results (generally
slightly lower resistance) gives Fig 2.6.
2.6 SUMMARY
Bird impedance is understood well enough at this stage, except that the effect of surface
wetting on feather impedance still needs to be tested and that it is not practically possible
to fully evaluate the effect of bird capacitance.
The effect of surface wetting is significant on the resistance of woodpoles. Further tests
are required to obtain a better understanding of how fast wood resistance changes over
time and seasonally. Poles dating from 2015/16 and further poles from 1995-2005 are
ideally still required, but has not been found possible in the areas being used for testing so
will not be done.
It has been shown that wood capacitance has no significant effect on the model of a bird
making phase-to-woodpole contact, resistance can therefore be used going forward to
model both birds and wood.
There is some uncertainty as to what the threshold wood resistance should be above
In any case, new poles pose a risk, irrespective of the conditions, and all poles pose a risk
when wetted. Options for addressing bird safety can already be looked at, including the
possibility of keeping connections to the wood surface and the possibility of limiting bird
contact to feathers, cf. the body.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 18/98
This model is only for 22 kV systems, the calculations should be repeated for 11 kV and
33 kV.
Most likely safe*

3.16 MΩ*
127 kΩ*
Danger*
Most likely safe*

3.16 MΩ*
127 kΩ*
Danger*
Fig 2-6: Summer wood resistance results with estimated bird safety limits – East
London (above), Beaufort West (below)
* For contact with the body (cf. feathers) only.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 19/98
3 NORTHERN CAPE OU FIELD INVESTIGATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim is to understand the circumstances and details of burnt poles and poles with
damage in the BIL gap where spark gap devices have been installed, and follows on from
previous investigations reported in [4]. Further field investigations were performed during
September 2016, namely:
 A burnt pole in the Rietfontein area.
 Pole OV 17-204-25 near Upington which has tracking on the pole in the BIL gap [4].
The insulators had been removed and were inspected.
 A pole severely damaged by lightning in the Calvinia area.
 Analysis of lightning activity and potential problems in the Kuruman area.
Other analysis was also performed, including an analysis of lightning strikes to the
networks in various areas with the BIL spark gap installed and an analysis of the
effectiveness of the BIL spark gap.
3.2 RIETFONTEIN
Pole MIK 82T 12 had burnt from the top and had been replaced. This occurred more than
one year before investigation. The new pole was manufactured in 2007. The pole is shown
in Fig 3-1 and the area is shown in Fig 3-2. Rietfontein is located more than 200 km north
of Upington, as shown in Fig 3-3. Inspection of the returned pole or its replacement or the
hardware did not give any clues as to the cause of the fire. Nearby poles were therefore
inspected to see if evidence could be found of similar failures.
Pole MIK 82T 11 is the adjacent pole on one side, and is shown in Fig 3-4. The structure
dates from 2000, according to the pole tag, and evidence of pole splintering due to
lightning flashover was found, as well as bird droppings. However, no tracking or burning
could be found.
Pole MIK 82T 13 is the adjacent pole on the other side, and is shown in Fig 3-5. This pole
also dates from 2000 (according to the pole tag) and shows clear evidence of pole
splintering and the initial stages of burning (blackening) in the BIL gap. The blackening is
all around the splintering, which is deep in places. The pole is also blackened at the base,
indicating that a veld fire went through at some point in time.
Pole MIK 82T 14 is the next pole and is of a similar age to poles 11 and 13 and evidence
of pole splintering and bird droppings were also found, as shown in Fig 3-6. No tracking or
burning was found, apart from blackening at the base due to what is presumed to be the
same veld fire that affected pole 13.
Pole MIK 82T 15 is next pole and is of a similar age to poles 11, 13 and 14. There is again
evidence of pole splintering and blackening at the base, as well as a woodpecker hole.
The pole is shown in Fig 3-7.
Northern Cape OU field investigation

20 March 2017
1810098 A 20/98
Pole MIK 82T 13 clearly shows that lightning flashover can cause woodpole burning in the
BIL gap. It is therefore strongly suspected that this is what caused pole MIK 82T 12 to
burn, cf. leakage current. The burnt pole (MIK 82T 12) appears to have been the source of
a veld fire (blown in only one direction), but this cannot be confirmed. There are signs
generally of lightning activity, also birds perching (not related to the fire). There were two
conductor joints near the burnt pole, these appear to be unrelated to the fire. The network
dates from around 2000.
Fig 3-1: Pole MIK 82T 12: repaired structure (top left), burnt pole in the CNC (top
right), pieces of burnt wood on site (below)

20 March 2017
1810098 A 21/98
Fig 3-2: Pole MIK 82T 12 and surroundings
Fig 3-3: Rietfontein with respect to Upington

20 March 2017
1810098 A 22/98
Fig 3-4: Pole MIK 82T 11

20 March 2017
1810098 A 23/98

20 March 2017
1810098 A 24/98

20 March 2017
1810098 A 25/98
Two other nearby poles (MIK 479 and 480) were also inspected for signs of lightning
activity, since these poles are located in a salt pan and such poles have been reported as
typically being replaced more often than other poles. Pole 480 is an example of such a
pole, having been replaced in 2012, and the new structure has a BIL spark gap installed.
No evidence of excessive flashover was found on either structure. The poles are shown in
Fig 3-8 and 3-9.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 26/98
Fig 3-8: Pole MIK 479

20 March 2017
1810098 A 27/98

20 March 2017
1810098 A 28/98
Fig 3-9: Pole MIK 480

20 March 2017
1810098 A 29/98
3.3 UPINGTON
Pole OV 17-204-25 is on the Oasis-Vanrooisvlei network close to Upington and has been
previously investigated due to unexplained tracking on the pole in the BIL gap [4]. The
structure was inspected again to see if any changes had occurred in the approximately 15
months since the last inspection. The insulators had also been removed and were
inspected to determine whether these were responsible for excessive leakage current flow
that could have caused the tracking.
The structure is shown in Fig 3-10, and does not show much change in the tracking from
before [4]. However, Fig 3-11 shows that the significant blackening around the tracking
that was present when the pole was first inspected was no longer present at the most
recent inspection. There was therefore clearly a flashover across the BIL gap at some
point before the January 2015 photos were taken.
Both removed silicone rubber insulators were meggered, and both measured greater than
5 TΩ resistance, so both insulators are in acceptable condition. No signs of damage were
found on any of the three insulators, even though all have had flashovers at some point –
caused either by lightning or bird streamers (but this is normal). Pollution in the area is
light to medium. The insulators were therefore ruled out as the causes of the tracking.
Possible causes are a micro-climate with mist/fog with the porcelain insulator most likely to
cause excessive leakage or birds or their nests short-circuiting the insulator(s).
A final point is that the “bandit” strap is not in contact with the pole in several places, which
may lead to concentration of leakage current. This may possibly be due to pole shrinkage.
Fig 3-10: Pole OV 17-204-25

20 March 2017
1810098 A 30/98
Fig 3-11: Pole OV 17-204-25 in Jan 2015 (left) and Sep 2016 (right)
The section of line where this pole is situated will be sanded and spark gaps and silicone
rubber insulators will be installed on that section.
3.4 CALVINIA
A report of a pole severely damaged by lightning, shown in Fig 3-12, was received. Since
this pole has a BIL spark gap installed, it was decided to investigate this incident in more
detail. Calvinia is located approximately halfway between Upington and Cape Town, as
shown in Fig 3-13, and is in a very dry area with sparse vegetation. Power lines are
therefore prone to being struck by lightning during the few storms that occur there.
Fig 3-12: Failed pole near Calvinia

20 March 2017
1810098 A 31/98
Fig 3-13: Location of Calvinia
Poles without earth downwires damaged by lightning are shown in Fig 3-14. Such damage
is expected due to the absence of the downwires.
Fig 3-14: Poles without earth downwires damaged by lightning

20 March 2017
1810098 A 32/98
A number of structures were inspected in situ, these are each covered in turn now.
MOU F1 258-364 – near a pole “destroyed” by lightning
This is an old structure and dates from 1990 according to the pole label; the use of glass
insulators certainly points to a structure that was not recently installed or refurbished. It is
shown in Fig 3-15. The structure was inspected because it is near a pole that was badly
damaged by lightning, but shows little or no signs of flashover.
Fig 3-15: Structure MOU F1 258-364

20 March 2017
1810098 A 33/98
MOU F1 258-365 – adjacent to “destroyed” pole
This structure also dates from 1990 according to the pole label. It has no earth downwire
and shows no visible signs of lightning activity. Evidence of pole twist is, however, present.
The structure is shown in Fig 3-16.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 34/98
MOU F1 258-366 – “destroyed” by lightning
This structure was replaced with a pole dating from 2004. Pieces of the previous pole are
still present on site, with some pieces some distance from the structure. Similar damage
as shown in Fig 3-14 is evident on the destroyed pole, which is explained by the fact that
there was no earth downwire present. The new structure also has no earth downwire. The
structure is shown in Fig 3-17.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 35/98
MOU F1 258-367 – adjacent on the other side of 366
This pole has also been more recently replaced, since the pole dates from 2011. This
structure has a BIL spark gap with downwire installed and hence is expected to have the
lowest flashover voltage of the structures in the immediate vicinity (the original line was
constructed without earth downwires). It was hence inspected closely for signs of lightning
activity, but none were found – refer to Fig 3-18.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 36/98
MOU F1 584-108-147 – class 4 pole
This pole is on a different section of the same network (Moutonsdrift Farmers 1), also
dates from 1990 and also has no earth downwire. It was marked for replacement due to a
large crack that appears to have been caused by lightning. Pole twist is evident, as is
discolouration on one of the silicone rubber insulators. This discolouration may be due to a
large number of flashovers across the insulator, as similar marking was found during
laboratory testing. The structure is shown in Fig 3-19.
MOU F1 976 – section where “new” pole failed
This is the section of line where the pole shown in Fig 3-12 was installed. More than one
pole has been replaced in this section, this particular pole dating from 2011. A BIL spark
gap is installed on this structure, and hence it was inspected in detail for signs of flashover
since it is expected to most susceptible to this. However, no signs of flashover could be
found, as before. The structure is shown in Fig 3-20.
This is the next pole and has not recently been replaced, with the pole dating from 1990.
No signs of lightning activity were found, as shown in Fig 3-21.
This is the next pole and was replaced with a 2012 pole with BIL spark gap and earth
downwire. Once again no signs of lightning activity were found, despite thorough
inspection, the results of which are shown in Fig 3-22.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 37/98
Fig 3-19: Structure MOU F1 584-108-147

20 March 2017
1810098 A 38/98
Fig 3-20: Structure MOU F1 976

20 March 2017
1810098 A 39/98

20 March 2017
1810098 A 40/98
This is the next pole and was replaced with a 2011 pole with BIL spark gap and earth
downwire. Some signs of lightning activity were found, but it cannot be conclusively stated
that they are due to lightning. The structure is shown in Fig 3-23.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 41/98

20 March 2017
1810098 A 42/98
In conclusion, the failure of the relatively new pole shown in Fig 3-12, despite having a BIL
spark gap installed, is attributed to the new pole being relatively moist inside and hence
the inside of the pole provided a more attractive path for flashover than the spark gap.
This has previously been observed on the Gordonia-Nakop line near Upington [4].
3.5 OTHER ANALYSIS
Lightning analysis
The lack of evidence of flashover on structures where one would expect to see signs of
relatively frequent flashover in the Calvinia area was anecdotally attributed to fewer storms
occurring in recent years. This observation was tested by performing an analysis of the
lightning strikes to the networks in the Calvinia area. This was also done for the networks
in the Upington area covered in this report and for the Droërivier Farmers 2 network in the
Beaufort West area1, for comparison.
The results are plotted in Fig 3-24, which shows 10 years data (Feb 2006 to Feb 2016) as
a 3-year moving average and normalised to the highest number of strokes annually. The
Upington networks are plotted in blue, the Calvinia networks in red-brown and the
Beaufort West one in green. The buffer zone around the lines is 1 km on each side of the
lines. Fig 3-24 shows that there is indeed a downward trend on some of the Calvinia
1
This network also has BIL spark gaps installed.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 43/98
networks, most notably on the Mountonsdrift Farmers 1 network covered in the previous
section.
The number of strokes per km is plotted in Fig 3-25. The strokes per km2 (stroke density)
for each line can be calculated from these figures by 2 (the width of the buffer zone).
Effectiveness of the BIL spark gap
The number of poles with BIL spark gap installed was compared against the number of
pole failures due to lightning, with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of the BIL spark
gap in preventing such failures. The results are as follows:
 Calvinia – number of poles with BIL spark gap:
o Moutonsdrift Farmers 1: 247.
o Moutonsdrift Farmers 2: 264.
o Sutherland Farmers 3: 79.
o Helios Farmers 1: 60.
 Calvinia – number of poles failed with BIL spark gap: 1.
 Beaufort West – 106 poles with BIL spark gap on Droërivier Farmers 2.
 Beaufort West – number of poles failed with BIL spark gap: 1.
These results show that the BIL spark gap is effective in performing its task, since only two
out of 756 poles failed, i.e. less than 0.4% failed2.
Other parts of Northern Cape OU
No significant failures due to pole-top fires claimed in the Kuruman area, but due to the
interventions below the context will now be better understood, as well as what field staff
should be looking for. An information sharing session was held with the two Plant staff for
Upington Zone, representing the two sectors (Kalahari and Kgalakgadi), with the
resolution that the inspection and reporting procedure is to be formalized with each CNC
and coordinated by the two Plant staff. The importance of earthing and addressing line
patrol deficiencies regarding earthing practices was also noted. An information sharing
session was also held with Kuruman and Hotazel CNC staff, where all types of pole
damage were covered.
The above interventions in Upington Zone are being expanded to also cover Kimberley
Zone and so the whole of Northern Cape OU is now being covered, with specific emphasis
on lightning and earthing. This extension is at the request of the Northern Cape OU Plant
Department.
2
Note that this figure only applies to the networks in question and that these devices have been
installed on other networks in the country as well, but very few such failures have been reported
generally.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 44/98
Fig 3-24: Normalised lightning analysis for MV networks covered in this report

20 March 2017
1810098 A 45/98
Fig 3-25: Number of strokes per km per year

20 March 2017
1810098 A 46/98
3.6 SUMMARY
Pole MIK 82T 13 near Rietfontein clearly shows that lightning flashover can cause
woodpole burning in the BIL gap. It is therefore strongly suspected that this is what caused
pole MIK 82T 12 to burn.
The cause of the tracking on pole OV 17-204-25 on the Oasis-Vanrooisvlei network can
still not be determined, with insulator failure or degradation having been ruled out.
The spectacular failure of the relatively new pole on the Mountonsdrift Farmers 1 network
in the Calvinia area, despite having a BIL spark gap installed, is attributed to the new pole
being relatively moist inside and hence the inside of the pole provided a more attractive
path for flashover than the spark gap. This has previously been observed on the
Gordonia-Nakop line near Upington [4].
However, the BIL spark gap has proven to be very effective in preventing lightning
damage to poles in the Calvinia and Beaufort West areas, with a pole failure rate of less
than 0.4% reported in those areas. This is in agreement with anecdotal reports of very few
such failures generally. New (relatively moist) poles are therefore at some (small) risk of
“catastrophic” failure due to lightning when spark gaps are installed, but the risk is clearly
very small.
More generally, the fact that high BIL structures, i.e. unbonded and unearthed structures,
are prone to “catastrophic” failure due to lightning has been reinforced. Likewise, it has
been confirmed that woodpole damage is likely in the BIL gap in areas with frequent
lightning, or even in areas with infrequent lightning but no tall vegetation. Also, pole twist is
likely on older lines in dry areas.
The intervention in the Upington area has been extended to cover the entire Northern
Cape OU, and the situation should continue to be monitored by Northern Cape OU field
staff, especially with respect to pole fires or tracking similar to the OV 17-204-25 structure
since this hasn’t been explained yet despite significant effort. Also, once the section of line
where this pole is situated has been sanded and spark gaps and silicone rubber insulators
installed, that section of line should be monitored for tracking or other anomalous activity.
Other recommendations are:

 Lines with known lightning damage should be brought to the latest standard, including
the BIL spark gap.
 Individual structures that are replaced should include BIL spark gap devices.
 Trunions should be used as a means of preventing conductor or tie burn-off on
 However, the silicone rubber post insulators with F-neck should be tested with
conductors, armour rod etc. to evaluate how this combination performs under flashover.
This should be referred to stream 1 of this research project.
A longer term structure configuration can only be devised once all results (laboratory,
KIPTS, field) have been obtained and collectively analysed.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 47/98
4 HIGH VOLTAGE LABORATORY TESTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Insulation coordination is the study of the high voltage electrical stresses placed on the
components of an electrical system and designing the insulation system such that these
stresses will not result in the damage of equipment or impact the selected reliability
margins. Electrical stresses include temporary overvoltages at the supply frequency and
transient overvoltages caused by lightning and switching impulses. Switching impulses are
not significant in most distribution systems as these overvoltages are below the standard
operating withstand voltages [5].
The most significant electrical stress placed on distribution systems in South Africa, is
caused by lightning. Hence, the insulation of such systems is designed to withstand the
following three types of electrical stresses:
 Normal and maximum system operating voltages at supply frequency,
 Temporary power frequency overvoltages, and
 Transient overvoltages caused by indirect lightning strikes.
Direct strikes almost always cause a flashover to earth at the nearest pole to the strike.
Indirect strikes cause induced voltages of up to 250 kV and may result in a flashover to
ground if insulation levels are insufficient. However, according to [5] induced voltages
rarely exceed 200 kV on structures that are similar to those that are used on the Eskom
MV network.
4.2 OVERVIEW OF TESTS
Lightning impulse testing utilizes a high voltage impulse generator to replicate a waveform
as described in SANS 60060-1 [6]. The standard lightning impulse wave has a front time
of 1.2 µs and a time to half-value of 50 µs. By making use of statistical methods, as
described in SANS 60060-1, and varying the discharge voltage of such a wave, the 10, 50
and 90% impulse disruptive-discharge voltages (U10, U50, and U90) can be determined.
4.2.1 List of tests

The wood pole structures that were tested included various fully-dressed standard
structures used in-service on the Eskom MV network. Other equipment that was tested
included a raptor protector, polymer cross-arm and customized tube insulators. The
structures and equipment were put through a series of lightning impulse and power
frequency tests to establish the impulse disruptive-discharge voltages (U10, U50, and U90)
and power frequency leakage currents flowing across each structure. The conditions of
each test varied in terms of temperature, humidity, structure wetness and impulse polarity.
Table 4-1 lists the structure configurations and the type of test that was performed;
detailed drawings of each configuration are added in the results section. The tests were
performed in the high voltage laboratory of the University of Stellenbosch.
High voltage laboratory tests

20 March 2017
1810098 A 48/98
Table 4-1: Tests performed
Test description Lightning impulse Power frequency

Test 1: 500 mm wood gap configuration X
Test 2: Spark gap device configuration X
Test 3: Glazed stay insulator configuration X X
Test 4: Unglazed stay insulator configuration X X
Test 5: Fibreglass stay insulator configuration X X
Test 6: Fibreglass/Porcelain tube insulator configuration X X
Test 7: Polymer cross arm configuration X X
Test 8: Raptor bird protector X
4.2.2 Evaluation criteria
Lightning impulse tests
According to SANS 1019, the standard voltages and insulation level for distribution
systems should be as described in Table 4-2 [7].
Table 4-2: Standard voltages and insulation level

Nominal system voltage Highest equipment Rated lightning impulse
Un, kV r.m.s. voltage Um, kV r.m.s. withstand voltage, kV peak
11 12 95
22 24 150
33 36 200
The Eskom standard for the insulation coordination of the MV wood pole structures are
stricter and specify that a BIL of at least 200-300 kV should be maintained. Therefore, the
pass criterion for all lightning impulse tests was set at a minimum BIL of 200 kV and is
visually illustrated in Fig 4-1.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 49/98
Fig 4-1: Lightning impulse test pass criterion [5]
Power frequency tests
Extensive research performed by Eskom into pole-top fires on overhead MV wood pole
lines has indicated that under conducive conditions, insulators coated with a pollution layer
and lightly wetted, conduct leakage current which may cause sparking and charring of the
wood, and finally trigger the ignition of the wood pole or cross-arm. It has been found that
leakage currents in excess of about 1 mA under the conditions mentioned above may lead
to pole-top fires and hence the pass criterion for all power frequency tests have been set
to 1 mA.
4.3 TEST EQUIPMENT

4.3.1 Impulse generator
The specifications of the impulse generator that was used for conducting all lightning
impulse tests are listed in Table 4-3. Fig 4-2 (left) shows an image of the impulse
generator.
Table 4-3: Impulse generator specifications
Impulse Generator
Model Phillips Model PW 5922
Rated Voltage 1400 kV
Rated Energy 16 kW sec
Energy per cap 2 kW sec
Charging Voltage 175 kV

20 March 2017
1810098 A 50/98
4.3.2 Power frequency source
The specifications of the power frequency source that was used for conducting the a.c.
leakage current tests are listed in Table 4-4. Fig 4-2 (right) shows the transformer.
Table 4-4: Power frequency source specifications
Transformer Capacitor
Messwandler-Bau TEO
Model Model Felten & Guilleaume Carlswerk
300/150
Rated Voltage 0-300 kV Rated Voltage 300 kV
Rated Power 150 kVA Capacitance 60 pF
Fig 4-2: Impulse generator and power frequency source
4.4 RESULTS
The test procedure that was followed throughout the tests is described in SANS 60060-1
and may be referenced for any queries in the procedure followed [6]. All results were
corrected for humidity and air pressure as per the standard procedure for the application
of correction factors described in SANS 60060-1 [6]. The detailed impulse test results are
included in Appendix C.
4.4.1 Test 1: 500 mm wood gap

On intermediate structures, the BIL downwire with a 500 mm wood gap aims to achieve a
200 to 300 kV BIL. The wood gap structure is employed in areas with high lightning activity
(more than 2 strikes/km2/year). The structure was dressed as shown in Fig 4-3, utilizing
porcelain and silicone rubber post and silicone rubber long rod insulators. The insulators
were bonded together and earthed through the 500 mm wood gap.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 51/98
1) Porcelain post insulator (D-DT-3017)

Total creepage: 750 mm
Specific creepage: 31 mm/kV
2) Silicon rubber post insulator (D-DT-3017)

3) Silicon rubber longrod insulator (D-DT-3134)

4) Fully bonded cross-arm (2500 mm)
5) 500 mm wood gap
Fig 4-3: 500 mm wood gap structure
Positive and negative polarities were tested under dry and wet conditions. Table 4-5
summarizes the conditions under which the tests were performed.
Table 4-5: 500 mm wood gap test conditions
Specific creepage Impulse disruptive-discharge

Insulator Conditions* Polarity
(kV/mm) voltage (%)
Silicon rubber post 31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90
longrod
Porcelain post 31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90
* Wet tests consisted of surface wetting of the wood gaps and insulators on the structure
using low concentration salt water, as per IEC 60507:2013, (100 µS/cm) applied manually
before the test [8].
Test results
Fig 4-4 shows the 10% impulse disruptive-discharge voltage (U10) obtained for each test.
The U10 value represents a 10% probability of flashover at that specific voltage and was
compared to the minimum BIL3 of 200 kV (shown in red). As can be seen from the figure,
all U10 results were greater than the minimum required BIL of 200 kV and hence the
minimum BIL was met. It can also be seen that the wet tests produced U10 values that are
3
Basic insulation level, defined in this report as the minimum withstand voltage (U 10) required.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 52/98
close to the minimum required BIL; however, these tests were performed under worst-
case conditions with severe wetting and yet still produced results above the minimum
requirements.
The sum of squares approximation is also shown on the figure and approximates the
duplex gap withstand voltage by calculating the sum of squares of the withstand voltages
of the individual gaps. The sum of squares approximation is added to this and all
succeeding graphs but is intended to be used as an approximation only. The actual U10
values should be accepted as factual and used for any further studies.
Corrected voltage (kV)
Fig 4-4: Wood gap U10 compared to minimum required BIL
Test photos
A series of high-speed photos was taken throughout the tests and added as additional
content. A great deal can be learnt regarding the flashover path and arc connection points
from these photos. In the case of the wood gap, when comparing the dry and wet tests, it
should be noticed that under dry conditions the blast of the wood gap is much more
superficial than under wet conditions. Under wet conditions, it appears as if the blast is
contained within the wood pole which may cause more damage to the heartwood and
effectively impact the mechanical strength of the pole.
It should also be noted that the flashover path across the insulator varies quite
significantly. Comparing the flashover paths of the three porcelain post insulators, it can
be seen that three different paths were followed resulting in three different connection
points.
Examples of the above are shown in Fig 4-5.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 53/98
Fig 4-5: Wood gap test photos
4.4.2 Test 2: Spark gap
The spark gap structure is similar to that of the wood gap with the only difference being
the replacement of the 500 mm wood gap with the spark gap device detailed in Eskom
drawing no. D-DT-3134. The structure was dressed similar to that of the wood gap as

20 March 2017
1810098 A 54/98
shown in Fig 4-6. The bottom insulators were bonded together and bonded to the
downwire with the spark gap device.


3) Silicon rubber longrod insulator (D-DT-

3134)
5) Spark gap device (D-DT-3134)
Fig 4-6: Spark gap structure
Positive and negative polarities were again used, under dry and wet conditions. Table 4-6
summarizes the conditions under which the tests were performed.
Table 4-6: Spark gap test conditions
Specific creepage Impulse disruptive-discharge

Insulator Conditions* Polarity
(kV/mm) voltage (%)
Silicon rubber post 31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90
longrod
Porcelain post 31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90
* Wet tests consisted of surface wetting of the wood gaps and insulators on the structure –
low concentration salt water, as per IEC 60507:2013, (100 µS/cm) applied manually
Test results
Fig 4-7 shows the 10% impulse disruptive-discharge voltage (U10) obtained. As with the
wood gap, the 10% probability of flashover of the spark gap structure was compared to the
minimum BIL of 200 kV. As can be seen from the figure, all U10 results were greater than
the minimum required BIL of 200 kV. It can also be seen that all of the tests produced U 10
values that are much higher than the minimum required BIL.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 55/98

Fig 4-7: Spark gap U10 compared to minimum required BIL
Test photos
Examples are shown in Fig 4-8, and show that the spark gap device consistently diverts
the flashover path across the metal horns and away from the wood path under both dry
and wet conditions. As with the wood gap structure, it could be seen that the flashover
path and connection point across the insulators were inconsistent throughout the duration
of the spark gap tests.
Fig 4-8: Spark gap test photos

20 March 2017
1810098 A 56/98
4.4.3 Test 3 and 4: Glazed and unglazed stay insulators
On stayed structures, the same BIL of 200 to 300 kV is required. The insulation values of
the conventional porcelain stay insulator are low and may be considered as adding value
to the system only in terms of providing protection to the public against accidental power
frequency voltage and providing very little additional surge insulation. The structure was
dressed as shown in Fig 4-9 utilizing porcelain and silicone rubber post and porcelain long
rod insulators. The phase insulators were bonded together and to the stay.
The structure and test were set up in such a way that both positive and negative polarities
could be tested under dry and wet conditions. Leakage current measurements under
nominal a.c. voltage were also performed on this structure. Table 4-7 summarizes the
conditions under which the tests were performed.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 57/98



5) Glazed stay insulator device (D-DT-3144)



5) Unglazed stay insulator device (D-DT-3144)
Fig 4-9: Porcelain stay insulator structures

20 March 2017
1810098 A 58/98
Table 4-7: Porcelain stay test conditions
Phase insulator Impulse disruptive- Voltage used to

Insulator specific creepage Conditions* Polarity discharge measure leakage
(kV/mm) voltage (%) current (kV r.m.s)
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
post
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
longrod
Porcelain post 31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
Test results (Fig 4-10)
As with previous tests, the 10% probability of flashover of the porcelain stay structures
were compared to the minimum BIL of 200 kV (shown in red). As can be seen from the
figure, all U10 results were greater than the minimum required BIL of 200 kV. It can also be
noticed that the U10 values of the glazed and unglazed stays are very similar and fall within
a very narrow band. This is owed to the similar geometry and air gap sizes of the two stay
insulators.
Fig 4-10: Porcelain stay insulator structures U10 compared to minimum required BIL
Leakage current measurements also indicated only a small difference in leakage current
when comparing the glazed and unglazed stay insulators, as shown in Fig 4-11. The
porcelain post insulator in combination with the porcelain stays under wet conditions
produce leakage currents greater than the 1 mA threshold; however, this excludes the
effect of pollution which significantly increases the leakage current flow. Additional leakage

20 March 2017
1810098 A 59/98
current tests under polluted conditions might be required to establish if these

measurements are of concern.
Fig 4-11: Porcelain stay structures leakage current measurements under wet
conditions
Test photos (Fig 4-12)
The photos of the glazed stay insulator tests revealed that the flashover path remained
fairly consistent throughout the tests. The majority of photos indicated that the flashover
path was horizontally across the two strain conductors. The unglazed stay produced
similar photos confirming that the flashover path remained fairly consistent.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 60/98
Fig 4-12: Porcelain stay insulator test photos
4.4.4 Test 5: Fibreglass stay insulator
On stayed structures, the BIL downwire with a fibreglass stay insulator aims to achieve a
300 kV or higher BIL. The insulation strength of the fibreglass stay insulator is much higher
than that of the conventional porcelain stay insulators and not only adds value to the
system in terms of providing protection to the public against accidental power frequency
voltage but also providing additional surge insulation. The structure was dressed as shown
in Fig 4-13 utilizing porcelain and silicone rubber post and silicone rubber long rod
insulators. The insulators were bonded together and to the stay wire.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 61/98
1) Porcelain post insulator


Specific creepage: 31 mm/kV:

5) Fibreglass stay insulator (D-DT-3144)
Fig 4-13: Fibreglass stay insulator structures
The structure and test were set up such that both positive and negative polarities could be
tested under dry and wet conditions. Leakage current measurements under nominal a.c.
voltage was also done on this structure. Table 4-8 summarizes the conditions under which
the tests were performed.
Table 4-8: Fibreglass stay test conditions

Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
post
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
longrod
Test results (Fig 4-14 and Fig 4-15)
As with previous tests, the 10% probability of flashover of the fibreglass stay structure was
compared to the minimum BIL of 200 kV (shown in red). All of the tests produced U10

20 March 2017
1810098 A 62/98
values in the vicinity of at least 340 kV which is much higher than the minimum required
BIL. Power frequency tests indicate minimal leakage current flow across the structure.
Fig 4-14: Fibreglass stay insulator structure U10 compared to minimum required BIL
Figure 4-15: Porcelain stay insulator structures leakage current measurements

under wet conditions
As with the porcelain stay insulators, the flashover path was consistent across the
fibreglass stay insulator.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 63/98
Fig 4-16: Fibreglass stay insulator test photos
4.4.5 Test 6: Fibreglass and porcelain tubes
This is a new structure design being evaluated. It utilizes the spark gap device in parallel
with a fibreglass or porcelain tube with the aim of achieving the lightning performance of
the spark gap device while diverting leakage current away from the wood and across the
tubes. The impedance of the tubes should be less than that of the wood and should
conduct the majority of the leakage flowing to earth. The structure was dressed as shown
in Fig 4-17 utilizing porcelain and silicone rubber post and silicone rubber longrod
insulators. The insulators were bonded together and to the downwire with the spark gap
device and tubes. Table 4-8 summarizes the conditions under which the tests were
performed.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 64/98



3134)
6) Fibreglass tube insulator with 300 mm gap
7) Earth downwire



6) Porcelain tube insulator with 300 mm gap
7) Earth downwire
Fig 4-17: Fibreglass/porcelain tube structures

20 March 2017
1810098 A 65/98
Table 4-9: Fibreglass/porcelain tube test conditions

Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
post
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
longrod
Test results (Fig 4-18 and Fig 4-19)
In order to achieve a constant flashover across the spark gap device, a sufficient
separation distance between the copper straps of the downwire insulator was needed to
ensure that flashover consistently occurred across the spark gap device. Through trial and
error, it was established that a distance of 300 mm between the copper straps was
necessary. Any separation distance less than this caused intermittent flashovers to the
tubes and in some cases, flashover between the copper straps which bypassed the spark
gap device.
As expected, the results show that the structure performed similar to the spark gap
structure in terms of lightning performance. The leakage currents flowing across the
structure was very low w.r.t. the maximum permitted leakage current of 1 mA. The
maximum leakage current flow across the fibreglass tube was below 100 µA. The
porcelain tube and porcelain post insulator produced currents exceeding 700 µA.
In some cases with the porcelain post insulator, the voltages became too high to ensure
that the flashover path remained across the spark gap device. As the voltage increased,
the number of flashovers to the tubes also increased and hence a U10 couldn’t be
determined in some instances.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 66/98
Fig 4-18: Fibreglass/porcelain tube structure U10 compared to minimum required BIL
Fig 4-19: Fibreglass/porcelain tube structures leakage current measurements under

wet conditions
Photos captured during the testing of the tube structures revealed that an alternative
design might be necessary to reduce the number of flashovers to the tubes. It was found
that the tubes were interfering with the spark gap device flashover path, as can be seen
from the photos below. A possible solution would be to reposition the tubes on the
opposite side of the spark gap device with sufficient offset from the wood pole.
Alternatively, a tube with a smaller diameter may be used provided that the electrical
characteristics remain the same.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 67/98
Fig 4-20: Fibreglass/porcelain tube test photos
As mentioned above, it was established that the copper strap separation distance should
be no less than 300 mm, as lower separation results in the tube interfering with the
flashover path as shown in the bottom left photo of Fig 4-20. The bottom right photo
indicates the flashover path after the separation distance has been increased to 300 mm.
The top left photo illustrates a flashover between the straps rather than across the spark
gap device. This is also due to insufficient strap separation.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 68/98
4.4.6 Test 7: Polymer cross-arm
The polymer cross-arm structure consists of an unbonded polymer cross arm and bracing
straps along with a full-length downwire running down from the through-bolt at the top of
the pole. The structure was dressed as shown in Fig 4-21 and utilized a silicone rubber
post and two silicone rubber longrod insulators. The insulators were not bonded together.
Table 4-10 summarizes the conditions under which the tests were performed.
Table 4-10: Polymer cross-arm test conditions

Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
post
Silicon rubber
31 Dry & wet + and - 10, 50 and 90 14
longrod

3134)

3) Unbonded polymer cross-arm (2500 mm)
4) Earth downwire
Fig 4-21: Polymer cross-arm structure
Test results (Fig 4-22)
As can be seen from the figure, the long rod insulator’s U10 results are significantly higher
than the minimum required BIL of 200 kV. The polymer cross-arm with longrod insulator
produced U10 values in excess of 600 kV which is due to the unbonded cross-arm and the

20 March 2017
1810098 A 69/98
nearest earthed point being the downwire on the wood pole. The silicone rubber post
insulator had much lower U10 values than the longrod as it was situated much closer to the
downwire.
Power frequency tests performed on the cross-arm yielded very low leakage currents that
couldn’t be measured accurately. These currents were less than 50 µA which is within the
noise band of the measurement equipment.
Fig 4-22: Polymer cross-arm structure U10 compared to minimum required BIL
The longrod insulators were positioned at the end of the cross-arm, which created an air
gap of at least 1.1 m to the nearest earth connection. As shown in the photos below, the
air gap insulation broke down before that across the cross-arm, suggesting that its
insulation strength is higher than that shown in Fig 4-22.
Another observation from the photos is that the flashover never occurred across the dry
arc distance of post insulator, which indicates that the insulation strength from the post
insulator in conjunction with the polymer cross-arm was higher than that of the air between
the downwire and the phase conductor. This was confirmed by the photos showing that
the flashover path was inconsistent and moving between the through-bolt and downwire
intermittently.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 70/98
Fig 4-23: Polymer cross-arm test photos
4.4.7 Test 8: Raptor protector
This test was set up in such a way that the insulation strength between the conductor and
the edge of the open-end groove of the raptor protector could be determined as shown on
the right of Fig 4-24. There are concerns that the claws of larger species raptors, when
sitting on a raptor protector, may “curl” into this open-ended groove hence come into close
proximity to the phase conductor. The raptor protector may therefore not be providing
sufficient protection to a bird in such a case.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 71/98
To determine whether the insulation strength between the conductor and raptor’s claw is
sufficient, a copper band was wrapped around the raptor protector and earthed. The
conductor was then energized using the a.c. voltage source and the voltage was slowly
increased until flashover occurred. The test was repeated numerous times under dry and
wet conditions until the flashover voltage was consistent.
Fig 4-24: Raptor protector test photos, with typical raptor claws4
Test results
The results show that the a.c. flashover voltage is 18 kV peak (12.7 kV r.m.s.) for both dry
and wet tests. There is therefore a risk of flashover, since the nominal system voltage is
22 kV r.m.s. phase-to-phase and 12.7 kV r.m.s. phase-to-earth, not accounting for any
excursions from the nominal.
4
The photo on the bottom left was obtained from [9].

20 March 2017
1810098 A 72/98
Fig 4-25: Raptor protector a.c. flashover voltage (peak values)
4.5 SUMMARY
The lightning impulse laboratory tests proved to be a worthy exercise in proving that all
presently used structures adhere to the required minimum insulation strength (BIL) of 200
kV. A great deal of additional information regarding the flashover path was captured
through the use of high speed imaging. Further analysis and comparison of the data is
possible, if required, and could include:
 Differences of dry vs. wet tests.
 Differences of positive vs. negative tests.
 Insulator performance comparison.
 Structure BIL comparison.
The a.c. tests also proved that the leakage currents are within reasonable levels, but
further investigation may be required on certain structures where values are close to or
above the 1 mA threshold. All a.c. tests were conducted under “clean” wet conditions and
excluded the contributions of a possible pollution layer on the insulators.
The results presented in this report will also be compiled into a journal paper and
submitted for publication. The results gathered from the tests at Stellenbosch University
will be used as a basis at low altitudes. The majority of the tests will be repeated at high
altitude in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the effects of altitude on the various
structures. These tests will also be used to ensure that flashover occurs in a predictable
way on any modified structure designs used in future.

20 March 2017
1810098 A 73/98
5 OTHER ITEMS
This section summarises the other items covered by this stream of the research project.
5.1 INTERRUPTED KIPTS TESTS
Six structures configurations have previously been tested at the Koeberg Insulator
Polluton Test Station (KIPTS), with the results reported in [1]. However, KIPTS has not
been energised since February 2016 due to ground clearance of the incoming 11 kV
(municipality) line being breached by a sand dune which also prevents vehicle access to
the site. There are plans underway to remedy the situation, but there will still likely be a
significant further delay until testing can resume. No date for energisation is available at
this stage. One of the structures on the municipality line is shown in Fig 5-1.
Fig 5-1: 11 kV line feeding KIPTS test site
Once the site is ready for energisation, further testing at KIPTS includes the following:
 Obtaining more data on the performance of a modified structure design with downwire
insulator,
 Evaluation of a bonded but not earthed structure, and
 Evaluation of the electrical performance of composite poles/cross-arms.
Structures 4 and 6 are to be changed, with the other structures to remain unchanged.
Other items
20 March 2017
1810098 A 74/98
The following changes are to be made to Structure 4:

 Composite brace straps to be added but not connected to the bonding.
 Earth downwire with BIL spark gap device to be installed.
 Fibre glass tube from the laboratory tests to be used, with final electrode spacing from
those tests (30 cm).
The following changes are to be made to Structure 6:

 A new composite cross-arm and composite bracing straps to be installed on the
existing wood pole.
 Three silicone rubber phase insulators, with 31 mm/kV specific creepage, to be
installed.
Schematics of the new configurations are shown in Fig 5-2.
Fig 5-2: Proposed new test structure 4 (left) and structure 6 (right) for KIPTS
5.2 ABORTED SKA SITE VISIT
A line feeding the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) site near Carnarvon is an MV line built on
fully bonded and earthed woodpole structures, to minimise interference with the SKA
measurements. Photos of the configurations are shown in Fig 5-2. The documentation that
Eskom has, has been obtained (Eskom does not own this line). The Endangered Wildlife
Trust (EWT) was contacted, with only 1 bird fatality reported in the area.
The aim was to visit the site to understand the reasoning and performance of this line, as
input to Eskom’s thinking. However, since Eskom’s research philosophy has since shifted
to likely keeping the BIL gap in some form or another, this visit is no longer necessary.
Other items
20 March 2017
1810098 A 75/98
Fig 5-3: Fully bonded and earthed structures on SKA line
5.3 EXTERNAL PUBLICATIONS
Several papers have been published and presented externally, these are:
 Several of the wood resistance measurements included in [1] and in section 2 of the
present report – at Eskom’s Line Engineering Services National Conference in October
2016.
 The refined bird and woodpole model discussed in section 2 – at the Southern African
Universities Power Engineering Conference (SAUPEC) in January 2017 (refer to
Appendix A for the full paper).
 The first findings from the bird and woodpole modelling research – at the CIGRE Paris
Session in August 2016 (refer to Appendix B for the full paper).
Presenting these papers and discussing the contents with third parties has proven to be
very beneficial to this work by providing confidence in the results and avoiding duplication
with other researchers.
Other items
20 March 2017
1810098 A 76/98
6 CONCLUSIONS
The following may be concluded from the work on bird safety:

1. Bird impedance is understood well enough at this stage, except that the effect of
surface wetting on feather impedance still needs to be tested and that it is not
practically possible to fully evaluate the effect of bird capacitance.
2. The effect of surface wetting has a significant effect on the resistance of woodpoles.
Further tests are required to obtain a better understanding of how fast wood
resistance changes over time and seasonally. Poles dating from 2015/16 and further
poles from 1995-2005 are ideally still required, but has not been found possible in the
areas being used for testing.
3. It has been shown that wood capacitance has no significant effect on the model of a
bird making phase-to-woodpole contact, resistance can therefore be used going
forward to model both birds and wood.
4. There is some uncertainty as to what the threshold wood resistance should be above
5. Having said that, new poles do pose a certain level of risk, irrespective of the
conditions, and all poles pose a risk when wetted.
6. Options for addressing bird safety can already be looked at, including the possibility of
7. The model is only for 22 kV systems, repeating the calculations for 11 kV and 33 kV is
required.
The following may be concluded from the Northern Cape field investigation:
1. It has been shown, to a high degree of confidence, that lightning flashover can cause
woodpole burning in the BIL gap.
2. The cause of the tracking on pole OV 17-204-25 on the Oasis-Vanrooisvlei network can
still not be determined, with insulator failure or degradation having been ruled out.
3. The spectacular failure of the relatively new pole on the Mountonsdrift Farmers 1
network in the Calvinia area, despite having a BIL spark gap installed, is attributed to
the new pole being relatively moist inside and hence the inside of the pole provided a
more attractive path for flashover than the spark gap. This has also been previously
observed.
4. Despite this, the BIL spark gap has proven to be very effective in preventing lightning
damage to poles in the Calvinia and Beaufort West areas, with a pole failure rate of
less than 0.4% reported in those areas. This is in agreement with anecdotal reports of
very few such failures generally.
5. New (relatively moist) poles are therefore at some (small) risk of “catastrophic” failure
due to lightning when spark gaps are installed, but the risk is clearly very small.
6. The fact that high BIL structures, i.e. unbonded and unearthed structures, are prone to
“catastrophic” failure due to lightning has been reinforced. Likewise, it has been
confirmed that woodpole damage is likely in the BIL gap in areas with frequent
lightning, or even in areas with infrequent lightning but no tall vegetation.
Conclusions
20 March 2017
1810098 A 77/98
7. The intervention in the Upington area has been extended to cover the entire Northern
Cape OU.
The following may be concluded from the high voltage laboratory tests:
1. The lightning impulse tests showed that all presently used structures adhere to the
required insulation strength (BIL) of 200-300 kV.
2. All structure configurations under investigation also meet this requirement. However,
further work is required in refining certain aspects of these designs to ensure that
flashover occurs in a predictable fashion.
3. The effect of altitude also requires investigation.
4. A great deal of additional information regarding the flashover path was captured
through the use of high speed imaging. Further analysis and comparison of the data is
possible, if required, and could include:
o Differences of dry vs. wet tests.
o Differences of positive vs. negative tests.
o Insulator performance comparison.
o Structure BIL comparison.
5. The a.c. tests also proved that the leakage currents are within reasonable levels, but
further investigation may be required on certain structures where values are close to or
above the 1 mA threshold.
6. The results will also be compiled into a journal paper and submitted for publication.
Other conclusions:
1. A holistic longer term structure configuration can only be devised once all results
(laboratory, KIPTS, field) have been obtained and collectively analysed. However, there
is enough information to already start looking at various options in more detail than has
been the case to date.
2. The fact that KIPTS has not been energised since February 2016 means that no testing
has been possible in the 2016-17 financial year. Once the site is ready for energisation,
further testing is as listed in Section 5.1.
3. Eskom’s research philosophy has shifted to likely keeping the BIL gap in some form or
another, the planned SKA visit is therefore no longer necessary.
4. Presenting these papers and discussing the contents with third parties has proven to be
very beneficial to this work by providing confidence in the results and avoiding
duplication with other researchers.
Conclusions
20 March 2017
1810098 A 78/98
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The work on bird safety should continue as planned, paying special attention to the
following (for the attention of the task leader, Andreas Beutel):
1. The effect of surface wetting on feather impedance should be tested.
2. At least one further set of wood resistance measurements should be performed.
3. After the above tests are performed, the model should be updated if necessary.
4. The calculations for the model should be repeated for 11 kV and 33 kV systems.
5. Options for addressing bird safety should be looked at, including the possibility of
The Northern Cape field investigation should continue as planned. The following
recommendations are for the attention of Northern Cape OU:
1. The situation should continue to be monitored, especially with respect to pole fires or
tracking similar to that found on the OV 17-204-25 structure. Also, once the section of
line where this pole is situated has been sanded and spark gaps and silicone rubber
insulators installed, that section of line should be monitored for tracking or other
anomalous activity.
2. Lines with known lightning damage should be brought to the latest standard, including
the BIL spark gap.
3. Individual structures that are replaced should include BIL spark gap devices.
4. Trunions should be used as a means of preventing conductor or tie burn-off on
5. The above are to be communicated to the OU via the appropriate channel by the task
leader (Andreas Beutel).
Other recommendations:
1. The high voltage laboratory tests should be repeated at high altitude (Gauteng or
nearby) to determine the effect of altitude on the test results. The structures tested
should be modified as needed to ensure that flashover occurs in a predictable way.
This is for the attention of the task leader, Wilhelm Bisschoff.
2. Once KIPTS is ready for energisation, further testing as listed in Section 5.1 should be
performed. This is for the attention of the task leader, Richardo Davey.
3. Publishing results externally should continue, due to the benefits noted.
4. Silicone rubber post insulators with F-neck should be tested with conductors, armour
rod etc. to evaluate how this combination performs under flashover. This should be
referred to stream 1 of this research project. This is for the attention of the task leader,
Andreas Beutel.
Recommendations
20 March 2017
1810098 A 79/98
8 REFERENCES
[1] R. Davey and A. Beutel, “MV insulation coordination – 2015-16 research output”,
Eskom RT&D Document # N.RA80006.R.10_1, March 2016.
[2] Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, “Suggested practices for avian protection
power lines: the state of the art in 2006”, PIER Final Project Report CEC-500-2006-
022, 2006, pp. 48-49 (contents referenced from elsewhere by this reference).
[3] IEC/TS 60479-1, “Effects of current on human beings and livestock – Part 1:
General aspects”, Edition 4, 2005-07.
[4] M. Ntshani, “Northern Cape field investigations”, Eskom Research Technical

Memorandum N.RA80004.R.23_001, Sep 2015.
[5] C. T. Gaunt, A. C. Britten and H. J. Geldenhuys, “Insulation Co-ordination of

Unshielded Distribution Lines from 1 kV to 36 kV,” South African Institute of
Electrical Engineers, Johannesburg, 1989.
[6] SANS 60060-1: High-voltage test techniques, Pretoria: South African Bureau of
Standards, 2011.
[7] SANS 1019: Standard voltages, currents and insulation levels for electricity supply,
Pretoria: South African Bureau of Standards, 2014.
[8] IEC 60507: Artificial pollution tests on high-voltage insulators to be used on a.c.
systems, Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2013.
[9] Pixabay, “Birds of prey,” Pixabay, 1 June 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://pixabay.com/en/bird-of-prey-vulture-bird-zoo-beak-1522346/. [Accessed 21
February 2017].
References
20 March 2017
1810098 A 80/98
9 APPENDIX A
Appendix A
20 March 2017
1810098 A 81/98
Appendix A
20 March 2017
1810098 A 82/98
Appendix A
20 March 2017
1810098 A 83/98
Appendix A
20 March 2017
1810098 A 84/98
Appendix A
20 March 2017
1810098 A 85/98
Appendix A
20 March 2017
1810098 A 86/98
10 APPENDIX B
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 87/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 88/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 89/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 90/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 91/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 92/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 93/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 94/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 95/98
Appendix B
20 March 2017
1810098 A 96/98
11 APPENDIX C – DETAILED HIGH VOLTAGE IMPULSE TEST RESULTS

11.1 TEST 1: 500 MM WOOD GAP
11.2 TEST 2: SPARK GAP
Appendix C – Detailed high voltage impulse test results

20 March 2017
1810098 A 97/98
11.3 TEST 3 AND 4: GLAZED AND UNGLAZED STAY INSULATORS
11.4 TEST 5: FIBREGLASS STAY INSULATOR

20 March 2017
1810098 A 98/98
11.5 TEST 6: FIBREGLASS/PORCELAIN TUBES
11.6 TEST 7: POLYMER CROSS ARM

20 March 2017

MV Insulation Coordination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MV Insulation Coordination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION

Research, Testing and Development

Title : MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17

Submitted by: Accepted by: Authorized by:

…………………………….. …………………………….. ……………………………..

Task Leader Project Leader Project Manager

Date: ………………………… Date: ………………………… Date: …………………………

Document Template: RT&D TE 209-22 Rev.2

REV. DESCRIPTION/COMMENT AUTHOR DATE

Riaz Asmal Wilhelm Bisschoff

Richardo Davey Richard Evert

Ockie Fourie Hendri Geldenhuys

Nkateko Khoza Manie Kotze

Marilize Kramer Rudi Kruger

Aletta Mashao Bruce McLaren

Raphael Swinny Willem van Schalkwyk

The following is a summary of the conclusions:

The following is recommended going forward:

2 Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode .......................................................... 11

3 Northern Cape OU field investigation ......................................................................... 19

4 High voltage laboratory tests ..................................................................................... 47

5 Other items ................................................................................................................ 73

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The various aspects are covered as follows:

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

2 BIRD ELECTROCUTION IN PHASE-TO-WOODPOLE MODE

2.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Fig 2-1: Electrocution of birds near Beaufort West

The aim of this chapter is to:

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

2.2 BIRD IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTS

Fig 2-2: Bird impedance test results – Cape Vultures only

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

2.3 WOOD IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTS

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

Fig 2-4: Summer (January/February) 2016-17 woodpole resistance measurements in

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

surface resistance showed a smaller (two orders of magnitude) difference, as expected,

2.4 COMBINED BIRD AND WOOD MODEL

2.5 NEW ESTIMATE OF “SAFE” BIRD CURRENT LEVEL

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

Most likely safe*

Most likely safe*

* For contact with the body (cf. feathers) only.

Bird electrocution in phase-to-woodpole mode

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

3 NORTHERN CAPE OU FIELD INVESTIGATION

Northern Cape OU field investigation

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

Northern Cape OU field investigation

MV insulation coordination execution 2016-17 Report No Rev. Page

Fig 3-2: Pole MIK 82T 12 and surroundings