2013 Electrical Insulation Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2 to 5 June 2013
Comparison Between the Use of Surface and
Volume Conductivity to Compute Potential
Distribution along an Insulator in Presence of a
Thin Conductive Layer
C. Volat
University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Chicoutimi, QC, Canada
cvolat@uqac.ca
Abstract— This paper describes a comparative study on the
modeling of a thin conductive dielectric layer usually found on
polluted or ice-covered insulators. Two different approaches such
as those offered by most FEM commercial software were studied.
The first one is a volume approach which takes into account the
thickness of the thin layer. The second is the surface approach
where the thin layer is treated as a specific boundary condition.
Simulations were performed using the FEM commercial software
Comsol Multiphysics® that allows both volume and surface
approaches. Parameters such as conductivity and permittivity of
the thin layer as well as the number of elements used are studied
both in 2D axisymmetric and 3D modeling. The results obtained
demonstrated that the surface approach is the best solution as it
provides the same results as the volume approach but with 3
times less elements required for the mesh. The surface approach
should then be considered for 3D complex problems where thin
conductive dielectric layer is present.
Keywords: FEM, thin conductive dielectric layer, polluted
insulator, potential distribution.
I. INTRODUCTION
E-field modeling using commercial software has become
an indispensable tool employed in different high voltage
engineering fields and particularly in outdoor insulation
simulations. Indeed, E-field distribution calculation is largely
employed for adequately designing and dimensioning
insulators and corona rings as well as to study the potential
and E-field distribution modifications under pollution or icing
conditions [1-4]. For these specific conditions, a thin
conductive layer mimic a wetted pollution layer or thin water
film at the ice surface must be considered. Modeling of a thin
conductive surface (few millimeters or hundred of
nanometers) versus the insulator length leads to an important
dimensional ratio is the principal difficulty. Depending of the
used software, the thin conductive layer can be treated in two
ways.
The first approach is to consider the conductivity volume
layer ; in this case the thickness of the layer in the numerical
model must be taken into account. Such approach has been
used in previous works based on Finite Element Method
(FEM) [1-3] and Boundary Element Method (BEM) [4-5] for
978-978-1-4673-4744-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
both polluted and ice-covered insulators. However, taking into
account the thickness of the layer leads to a drastic increase of
the size of the numerical model due to a large number of
elements dedicated to the thin conductive layer modeling. This
is due to the fact that a minimum size of mesh element is
required to model thin conductive layer in order to provide
some reliable results. This requirement becomes important
when 3D simulations have to be performed, which
automatically leads to large problem size to solve.
The second approach is to consider the thin layer as a
conductive surface. This approach has been firstly introduced
by Andersen in a FEM program in order to calculate E-field
and potential distributions in presence of resistive coating on
the surface insulation [6]. Later, such approach was also
implemented in a BEM program to analyze conductive film
effects over the surface of an insulator [5]. Using this
approach, the thin conductive layer can be modeled as a
specific interface or boundary condition. Hence, this permits
to simplify the model as well as to decrease considerably the
number of elements required to mesh the layer. Such specific
interface or boundary condition is actually available in
commercial FEM software which was used in previous works
to model thin water film at the ice surface [7].
This paper attempts to clarify some modeling aspects
related to the presence of a thin conductive dielectric layer on
insulator surface. A comparison between the volume and
surface approach is performed. In fact, the influence of
different parameters related to the thin layer like permittivity,
volume conductivity as well as the number of elements used
for the mesh were taken into account and discussed. The
simulations were performed with different models: a 2D
model which analytical solution is known and a 2D
axisymmetric and 3D uniformly polluted insulator.
II. MODELING OF THIN CONDUCTIVE LAYER
A. Thin layer with volume conductivity (volume approach)
For most HV insulation equipment, the magnetic energy
can be negligible compare to the electric energy and electric
field can be decoupled from the magnetic field. In this
409
condition, the electric field can be JG expressed only as the
gradient of the electric potential V ( E = −∇ ⋅V ).
Considering a conductive layer of thickness d, of volume
conductivity σV (S/m) and permittivity ε (F/m) which are both
considered as isotropic, the conservation law that governs the
conductive layer, in harmonic regime, can be expressed as
follows [5-6]:
JJG JG
( )
∇. J v + jω ∇. D = 0 (1)
with JV (A/m2) being the volume current density, D (C/m2) the
electric flux density and ω (rad/s) the pulsation.
Equation (1) shows that the conductive layer is treated as a
conductive dielectric material.
B. Thin layer as conductive surface (surface approach)
If the conductive layer is very thin, the conduction current
and the displacement current densities can be considered
uniform along its thickness d. In that case, the approximation
of the layer as a conductive surface can be done. Based on
these assumptions and as proposed by different authors [5-6],
all the vector quantities of (1) can be projected on the
conductive surface, which leads to the following equation:
d(σV + jωε)∇ 2V+jωρS = 0 (2)
where:
- V (V) is the electrical potential;
- d (m) the thickness of the layer;
- ρS (C/m2) the surface charge density
Equation (2) will be used as a boundary condition between
the insulator or the ice layer and the air to model the presence
of the conductive layer of thickness d, volume conductivity σV
and permittivity ε.
C. Influence of layer permittivity
In harmonic regime, the behavior of a material is governed
by its electrical conductivity σV, permittivity ε or relative
permittivity εr and applied frequency or pulsation ω regarding
the value of ratio α given by the following equation [8]:
σV (3)
α=
ωε
For high α values, the thin layer is considered as a good
conductor and displacement current can be neglected. This
corresponds to a resistive regime where potential and E-field
distributions are governed by σV and can be determined using
conductive DC approximations [5]. On the other hand, low α
values mean that the conductive current can be neglected and
that E-field and potential distributions are dominated by the
permittivity (capacitive regime) where electrostatic simulation
can be employed. For intermediate α values both the
conductivity and permittivity of the thin layer have an
influence on E-field and potential distributions. This
corresponds to capacitive-resistive regime as defined by [8]
and quasi-static approximation has to be employed.
For polluted or ice-covered insulators, the service
frequency is 60 Hz and εr can be considered equal to 80 for
melting water film or wetted polluted layer [2, 4]. Finally, σV
can cover a large range of value, from few nS/m to few S/m
410
TABLE I. α AS A FUNCTION OF THIN LAYER CONDUCTIVITY
Conductivity σV (S/m) 1e-9 1e-6 1e-3 1
Ratio α
-3 3
3.7e 3.7 3.7e 3.7e6
depending on pollution severity [8]. Table I present some α
values obtained for different conductive layer conductivities
according to the frequency and permittivity values given
previously. The influence of the layer permittivity has to be
considered under a layer conductivity of around 10 µS/m.
Also, both conductivity and permittivity have to be considered
for a conductivity range between 0.1 nS/m to 10 µS/m. Finally
for conductivity value above 10 µS/m, the permittivity effect
can be neglected.
III. COMPARISON BETWEEN VOLUME AND SURFACE
APPROACH
A. Validation of volume and surface approach with 2D
model and its analytical formulation
In order to provide a comparison between volume and
surface approach, the commercial FEM software Comsol
Multiphysics® was used for all the simulations done in this
study. This software has the advantage to be able to model thin
dielectric conductive surface layer as described by (2).
Therefore, comparison with volume approach is possible using
the same software.
In order to validate the influence of the layer conductivity,
the simple model shown in Fig. 1, extracted from [5], was
used. This model represents a thin dielectric plate of thickness
h and permittivity εd covered by a conductive surface of length
L of 20 cm and conductivity σs.
Figure 1. Model used to validate both surface and volume conductivity
approach [5]
Considering a symmetric problem along the z axis (see Fig.
1), the analytical expression of the real value of the electric
potential along the conductive surface can be obtained as
followed [5]:
cosh ⎡⎣ k ( 2 L − x ) ⎤⎦ cos ( kx ) + cos ⎡⎣ k ( 2 L − x ) ⎤⎦ cosh ( kx )
V ( x) = V0 (4)
2 ⎡⎣cosh 2 ( kL ) − sin 2 ( kL ) ⎤⎦
where V0 is the applied voltage equal to 100 V and k is a
coefficient equal to:
ω.ε d (5)
k=
2hσ S
where:
- εd (F/m) is the electrical permittivity of the dielectric
plate of thickness h;
- σS (S) is the conductivity of the conductive surface.
- ω (rd/s) is the pulsation of the applied voltage.
 Reference line

(b)

(a) (c)
Figure 2. Comparison of potential distributions along the thin layer for Figure 3. Numerical model of the dead-end 28 kV insulator (a) surface
surface conductivities equal to 1 nS and 0.1 mS approach (b) and volume approach (c)

The comparisons of analytical and numerical results

obtained for both volume and surface approach are presented Figure 4 presents a comparison of the potential distribution
obtained with the two approaches for a thin layer conductivity
on Fig. 2 for two following surface conductivities σS: 1nS and
of 10 nS/m and a relative permittivity of 15 and 80. The
100 nS. For the volume approach, a thickness d of the potential distribution was computed along the same reference
dielectric conductive layer was fixed at 1 mm, the same value line as presented on Fig. 3.
was used in the surface approach modeled as a boundary
surface condition in the commercial FEM software. The
volume conductivity σV in the model was in accordance to the
surface conductivity of the analytical model. The simulations
were performed in the quasi-static mode in order to take into
account the influence of thin layer conductivity and
permittivity.
εr = 80
The results obtained from Fig. 2 exhibit a good
concordance between analytical formulation and the two
numerical surface and volume approaches implemented with
the commercial FEM software.
εr = 15
B. Influence of layer conductivity and permittivity
In this part, the volume and surface approach was applied
to a uniform polluted insulator in order to compare both
approaches in terms of layer permittivity and conductivity
influence. The insulator used for this simulation is a 28-kV Figure 4. Comparison of potential distributions along the uniform
dead-end thermoplastic elastomeric (TPE) insulator and its polluted insulator for thin layer conductivity of 10 nS/m and relative
principal characteristics are presented in Table 2. permittivity of 15 and 80 respectively
The 2D axisymmetric numerical model of the insulator The results confirmed the previous results shown in Fig. 2
with both volume and surface modeling approaches are shown regarding the use of both volume and surface approach to
TABLE II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 28-KV DEAD-END TPE model a thin dielectric conductive layer which conduct to
INSULATOR almost the same potential distributions. Indeed, as illustrated
Section length (mm) 438 by the results of Fig. 4, the discrepancy obtained between
Dry arcing distance (mm) 285 surface and volume approaches is lower than 3 % for the
Leakage distance (mm) 675
maximum value and lower than 1% for the average value.
Shed quantity 6
Outer shed diameter (mm) 100 Additionally, the results obtained demonstrated that for the
Rod diameter (mm) 14 conductivity of 10 nS/m, the electrical permittivity of the thin
layer has a notable influence on the potential distribution as
in Fig. 3. For the volume approach, a thin layer having a 1 mm the ration α given by (1) is equal to 0.2 and 0.037 for relative
thickness was used. The simulation was done for layer permittivity values of 15 and 80 respectively. With such a
conductivities of 1 nS/m, 1 µS/m and 0.1 mS/m and for ratio value, potential distribution is governed by the
relative permittivity of 15 and 80. The voltage applied to the capacitive-resistive effect of the insulator and the thin layer at
insulator was fixed at 16.2 kVrms (the phase-to-ground service its surface which is adequately taken into account by both the
voltage) as the simulations were performed in the quasi-static volume and surface approach.
mode.

411
 C. Comparison of volume and surface approach in 3D
modeling of the uniform polluted insulator
Tridimensional (3D) simulations of the uniform polluted
dead-end 28 kV insulator (Table II) were performed in order
to study the influence of the thin layer modeling approach on
the discrepancy of the potential distributions as well as on the
problem size (mesh element number). The thickness of the
layer was fixed at 1 mm, its volume conductivity at 1 µS/m
and its relative permittivity at 80. The 3D insulator model,
presented on Fig. 7, is simply based on the 2D axisymmetric
one (Fig. 3) which was rotated on 360°.
Figure 8 presents the comparison of potential distributions
obtained between the 2D axisymmetric surface approach and
Figure 5. Discrepancy obtained between potential distributions
the 3D volume and 3D surface approach. The corresponding
computed using surface and volume approach for thin layer conductivity discrepancy relative to 2D surface approach is presented on
of 10 nS/m and relative permittivity of 15 and 80 respectively Fig. 9 and the number of elements used for the mesh is
presented in Table III.
In order to study the effect of the thin layer conductivity
The results of Figs. 8 and 9 demonstrate a very good
and permittivity on the potential distribution, additional
concordance between 2D and 3D surface approach with an
simulations were performed using surface approach applied to
average discrepancy of 0.13 %. For the 3D volume approach,
the same dead-end 28 kV insulator. The results, presented in
Fig. 6, were obtained for conductivity values of 0 S/m (clean
insulator), 10nS/m, 1µS/m and 0.1mS/m and for permittivity
thin layer values of 15 and 80 respectively. Under a volume
conductivity of 1µS/m, the influence of the thin layer
permittivity increases as the conductivity decreases. For low
conductivity, the potential distribution obtained is closed to
the potential distribution of the clean insulator which is only
governed by the capacitive regime. The thin layer can be then
considered as a good dielectric, which is consistent with the
result of Table I. Additionally, as the conductivity increase,
the influence of the permittivity decreases and becomes
neglected for a volume conductivity greater than 1 µS/m. In
fact, the thin layer becomes a better conductive layer (resistive
regime) as verify by the ratio α given presented in Table I.
These results are in agreement with the results presented by
[2].
Figure 7. 3D modeling of the uniform polluted 28 kV PTE insulator

Figure 6. Comparison of potential distributions along the uniform

polluted insulator as a function of its volume conductivity and its Figure 8. Comparison of potential distributions obtained along the
relative permittivity uniform polluted insulator using 3D modeling for both surface and
volume approach (σV = 1 µS/m and εr = 80)

412

Figure 9. Comparison of discrepancy obtained between 2D
axisymmetric and 3D potential distributions for both surface and volume
approach (σV = 1 µS/m and εr = 80)
a good concordance is also obtained but with an average
discrepancy of 1.74 % which decreases to 0.58 % with mesh
refining. This confirms that the two approaches give some
very good results both in 2D and 3D.
However, the use of the surface approach in 3D modeling
is advantageous in terms of number of elements. As revealed
by the information of Table III, the 3D volume approach
requires a larger number of elements (more than 6.5 times for
the refined mesh) than the 3D surface approach. This
difference comes principally from the number of elements
used to model the polluted layer which represent about 25 %
of the total number of elements used to mesh the entire model.
Using the surface approach is an economical strategy to
decrease the size of 3D modeling in order to obtain adequate
solution when thin conductive dielectric layer is present.
IV. CONCLUSION
The performance and functionalities of current FEM
commercial software’s are increasingly exploited to study the
influence of pollution or ice layer of outdoor insulator electrical
performance. The main difficulty in such problem lies in the
modeling of the thin conductive dielectric layer present at the
insulator or ice surface. This thin layer can then be modeled
using a volume approach which takes into account the
thickness of the layer or using a surface approach where the
thin layer is approximated by a specific boundary condition.
413
The results presented in this paper have permitted to
compare surface and volume approaches in terms of thin layer
conductivity and relative permittivity influence as well as in
terms of problem size. For that, a commercial FEM software,
Comsol Multiphysics was used which permit to implement the
two approaches.
Depending of the thin layer conductivity, both surface and
volume approach modeling have demonstrated that the
permittivity of the thin layer has an influence for values lower
than 1 µS/m. For higher values, only the thin layer conductivity
dominates. So with both approaches, capacitive-resistive
regime of the problem can be taken into account.
Both surface and volume approach provide the same
results in terms of potential distribution in 2D axisymmetric as
well as in 3D. However, in 3D, the volume approach requires
a large number of elements as more than 25 % of these
elements are dedicated to the thin layer. This demonstrated
that for 3D modeling, the surface approach should be
prioritized.
Additionally, in the surface approach, the polluted layer is
not drawn as it is considered as a specific boundary condition.
This permits to greatly simplify the construction of the 3D
model which is a task to be considered in the case of complex
problems where insulator, tower, grading ring and support
system must be taken into account.
REFERENCES
[1] .J. Phillips et al., “Electric Fields on AC Transmission Line Insulators”,
IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 2, 2008, pp. 823-830.
[2] S. Ilhan, A. Ozdemir, S. H. Jayaram and E. A. Cherney, “AC and
Transient Electric Field Distributions along a 380 kV V-String
Insulator”, Conference records of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on
Electrical Insulation (ISEI), 2012, pp. 399-403.
[3] W. A Sima, Q. Yang “Potential and Electric-field Calculation along an
Ice-covered Composite Insulator with Finite Element Method”, IEE
Proceedings Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 153, no. 3,
2006, pp. 343-349.
[4] C. Volat and M. Farzaneh, “3-D Modeling of Potential and Electric
Field Distributions along an EHV Ceramic Post Insulator Covered with
Ice - Part I: Simulations During a Melting Period”, IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 3, , July 2005, pp. 2006-2013.
[5] J.L. Rasolonjanahary, L. Kräenbühl and A. Nicolas, “Computation of
Electric Fields and Potential on Polluted Insulators using a Boundary
Element Method”, IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. 28, no. 2, March
1992, pp. 1473-1476.
[6] Q.W. Anderson, “Finite Element Solution of Complex Potential
Electric Fields”, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
96, no. 4, July/August 1977, pp. 1156-1160.
[7] C. Volat, S.M.A. Emran and M. Farzaneh, “Dynamic Evolution of
Potential and Electric Field Distributions Around an Ice-Covered
Insulator During Ice Accretion”, Proceedings of the 10th International
Workshop on Atmospheric Icing of Structures, IWAIS 2002, Brno,
Czech Republic, June 2002, 6-8.
[8] E. Asenjo S., N. Morales O and A. Valdenegro E., “Solution of Low
Frequency Complex Fiels in Polluted Insulators by Means of the Finite
Element Method”, IEEE Trans. on Dielectric and Electrical Insulation,
vol.4, no. 1. February 1997, pp. 10-16.
[9] M. Farzaneh, W. A. Chisholm, “Insulators for Icing and Polluted
Environments”, IEEE Press Series on Power Engineering, Oct. 2009