16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, Cape Town, South Africa, 24-28 August 2009, paper No.

1202

POSITIVE STREAMER PROPAGATION ALONG PROFILED

INSULATING SURFACES WITH ROOM TEMPERATURE
VULCANIZED SILICONE RUBBER COATINGS
P. N. Mikropoulos*, L. C. Tzimkas, T. P. Giannopoulos and P.G. Tsintikidis
High Voltage Laboratory, School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Building D, Egnatia Str., 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*Email: pnm@eng.auth.gr

Abstract: Results on positive streamer propagation along smooth and profiled cylindrical
insulating surfaces coated with different room temperature vulcanized (RTV) silicon rubber
coatings are presented; nylon specimens were regarded as reference. Experiments were carried out
in a three electrode arrangement consisting of a 12 cm long parallel-plane gap with an auxiliary
needle in the earthed anode. Streamers were initiated by applying at the needle electrode a pulse
voltage variable in amplitude and propagated over the insulators towards the upper plane electrode
which was stressed by a negative DC voltage. When streamers propagate stably along an
insulating smooth surface the propagation field and the associated velocity are both higher for
RTV coated than bare insulators, however when they propagate along a profiled insulating surface
with a step or a shed this reverses itself. The effect of a step or a shed on an insulating surface is to
increase propagation field, with the only exception where a streamer crosses part of the gap in air
alone, and to reduce the velocity of propagation at all applied fields. The increase of streamer
propagation field due to surface profile is less marked for RTV coated than bare insulating
surfaces whereas the reduction of propagation velocity is more pronounced.

1. INTRODUCTION propagation and breakdown are both functions of the

Room Temperature Vulcanized (RTV) silicon rubber
coatings are used in order to improve the contamination
performance of outdoor high voltage insulators [1-11].
The improved performance of coated insulators is
attributed to the hydrophobicity of the thin surface RTV
coating film provided. However, partial discharges,
usually comprising of surface corona streamers, by
impinging on the coated insulator surface can cause the
coating to lose its hydrophobicity, and hence affect the
long-term performance of the coating. Thus, knowledge
of the characteristics of streamer propagation along
RTV coated insulators is important in understanding
their surface dielectric behaviour, hence also for
evaluating the various coatings performance.
Investigations in a uniform field configuration, under
careful control exercised on the conditions required for
streamer initiation and propagation, have shown that a
streamer when propagating along an insulating surface
is characterised by intrinsic properties, namely
propagation field and velocity, which depend on the
insulator material [12-14]. Recently, it has been shown
that these intrinsic streamer properties are greater in
value when a streamer propagates along RTV coated
than bare insulating surfaces and vary with the type of
coating employed [15]. In these studies, the use of
cylindrical smooth insulating surfaces, ensuring uniform
geometry, facilitated direct comparison of results among
specimens differing in material. However, as most of
the insulating surfaces utilised in practise are profiled,
research on streamer propagation along such surfaces is
important, even more so as it is a poorly investigated
subject. Investigations on streamer propagation along
PTFE cylindrical insulating surfaces with a step or a
shed have shown that the fields required for streamer
relative proportion of the gap traversed along the
insulating surface or in the air [16-18]. Further
investigations on streamer propagation along insulating
surfaces with curved profiles have shown that streamer
properties are modified by changes in the contour
geometry or by the presence of an internal conductor in
the specimens simulating bushings [19, 20].
In the present study positive streamer propagation along
RTV coated profiled cylindrical insulating surfaces is
investigated; results on nylon specimens are regarded as
reference. The pulse voltage amplitude used for
streamer initiation and the ambient field were
considered as influencing parameters on streamer
propagation. It is shown that the streamer propagation
field and the associated velocity of propagation vary
with the material and profile of the insulating surface.
2. EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENT
2.1. General Arrangement
The electrode arrangement has been described in detail
in [15]. It consists of three electrodes, two parallel
planes with a gap clearance of 12 cm and a sharp point,
located in a small aperture at the centre of the lower
plane and level with it (Figure 1). Three groups of nylon
cylindrical insulating surfaces, hereafter called
insulators, were employed in the tests. An insulator
could be inserted between the plane electrodes, adjacent
to them and almost in contact with the sharp point. Each
group consisted of five insulators with geometries as
shown in Figure 2. The first group of insulators was
used in pure form as reference while the other two were
sprayed with RTV silicon rubber coatings of different
synthesis commercially available, hereafter designated
 - HVDC
12 cm
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental setup
120 mm
Figure 2: Types of surface profile of insulators.
as Sample_A and Sample_B. Both coating materials
contained alumina trihydrate fillers, 30% and 40% by
weight for Sample_A and Sample_B respectively. The
relative permittivity value was 5.0 for pure nylon
insulators, 3.9 and 3.6 for Sample_A and Sample_B
insulators, respectively. The thickness of coating was
approximately 0.5 mm and the surface roughness was 4
μm for pure nylon insulators, 4.5 μm and 1 μm for
Sample_A and Sample_B insulators, respectively.
The gap was stressed by negative direct high voltages
applied at the upper plane with the lower plane earthed;
in this way a quasi-uniform electric field was formed in
the gap. At the tip of the needle positive streamers were
initiated by the application of a fast rising high voltage
square pulse, with 20 ns rise time and 185 ns duration,
variable in amplitude between 3 and 6 kV. Two
identical photomultipliers, battery driven, together with
a 400 MHz digital storage oscilloscope enable the
monitoring of the positive streamers traversing the gap.
The photomultipliers were placed at fixed positions,
aiming parallel at the anode and cathode planes to detect
streamer propagation up to the cathode (Figure 1).
2.2. Measurement procedures
The probability of streamer propagation increases with
increasing ambient electric field, the latter defined as
the average electric field in the gap. Thus, multiple-level
tests were performed, similar to those used for
breakdown measurements according to IEC [21], to
study streamer propagation. At constant pulse voltage
amplitude at the point, 20 pulses were applied, at time
intervals of around 10 s, starting from a value of the
ambient field at which no streamer crosses the gap,
increasing in steps of ~1%, up to the value at which a
streamer traversed the gap with 100% probability. In
this way streamer propagation probability distributions
were obtained; typical such distributions are show in
Figure 3. The probability distributions were well
approximated with the normal distribution, thus the
mean streamer propagation field and the corresponding
standard deviation as well as the required electric fields
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probabilty (p.u.) .
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Sample_B insulators
0.2
Type I Type II
0.1 Type III Type IV
Type V
0.0
380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540
Electric field (kV/m)
Figure 3: Propagation probability distributions; 3.5 kV
pulse voltage amplitude, fitting curves were drawn
according to normal distribution.
for propagation corresponding to 0.025 and 0.975
propagation probability, termed “threshold” field and
“stability” field respectively, were computed.
At each pulse voltage application the streamer transit
time was measured from the delay between the start of
the rise of the detected light in each of oscillogramms
such as that shown in Figure 4; thus, streamer
propagation velocity could be found at once.
Measurements of streamer velocity were carried out
both at stability fields and at higher ambient fields,
termed ‘overfields’, and its average value and standard
deviation, obtained from at least twenty measurements,
were computed. The tests were performed in ambient
laboratory air as the atmospheric conditions were not
artificially controlled; absolute, h, and relative humidity,
R.H., were roughly constant, 12 g/m3 and 80%,
respectively. All measured fields were corrected to
standard air density, δ = 1, by assuming a linear
dependence upon δ, the latter as defined by IEC [21].
Figure 4: Typical photomultiplier (PM) signals,
Sample_A, Type I surface profile, 5 kV pulse voltage
amplitude, 500 mV/div, 200 ns/div
− Traces (1) and (2) PM directed at the anode and cathode
plane respectively, ambient field 440 kV/m.
− Traces (3) and (4) PM directed at the anode and cathode
plane respectively, ambient field 500 kV/m.
 3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS insignificant. This can be deduced from Figure 9, which
shows the ratio of the stability field obtained for coated
3.1. Streamer propagation field insulators to that obtained for the reference nylon
insulator, designated ERM. It must be noted that for all
The stability field decreases linearly with increasing
surface profiles the stability field is higher for
pulse voltage amplitude; this is shown in Figure 5 for Sample_B than Sample_A insulators (Figures 8 and 9).
the pure nylon insulators. Also, from this Figure it is
obvious that a step or a shed on the insulating surface 1.20 1.20

results in an increase of the streamer propagation field, 1.15 1.15

more evident for the insulators with a shed. The same is 1.10 1.10

ERP (p.u.)
ERP (p.u.)
also true for the coated insulators with the exception, 1.05 1.05

however, of the insulator of Type II surface profile 1.00 1.00

which displays the lowest stability fields among all 0.95

Nylon
Type II insulators
Sample_A Sample_B
0.95

Nylon
Type III insulators
Sample_A Sample_B

specimens, as can be deduced from Figure 6 for the 0.90

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
5.5 6 6.5
0.90
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
5.5 6 6.5

Sample_B insulators. 1.20 1.20

1.15 1.15

550 1.10 1.10

ERP (p.u.)

ERP (p.u.)
1.05 1.05

525 1.00 1.00

0.95 Type IV insulators 0.95 Type V insulators

Stability field (kV/m).

Nylon Sample_A Sample_B Nylon Sample_A Sample_B

500 0.90 0.90
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV) Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)

475 Figure 7: The effect of surface profile on streamer

stability field with material as parameter.
450
550

425 Nylon Insulators

525
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
400
Electric field (kV/m) .

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 500
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)

Figure 5: Stability field as a function of pulse voltage 475

amplitude with surface profile as parameter.

450
550

425 Type I insulators

525 Nylon Sample_A Sample_B

400
Stability field (kV/m).

500 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)

475 Figure 8: Stability field as a function of pulse voltage

amplitude with material as parameter; smooth surfaces.
450
1.05 1.05

425 Sample_B insulators 1.00 1.00

ERM (p.u.)
ERM (p.u.)

Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V

0.95 0.95
400
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 0.90 0.90

Pulse voltage amplitude (kV) Type II insulators Type III insulators

Sample_A Sample_B Sample_A Sample_B

Figure 6: Stability field as a function of pulse voltage 0.85 0.85

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV) Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)

amplitude with surface profile as parameter 1.05 1.05

1.00 1.00

Figure 7 shows the ratio of the stability field obtained

ERM (p.u.)

ERM (p.u.)

for the profiled insulators to that obtained for a smooth

0.95 0.95

insulator, designated ERP, with material as parameter. It 0.90 0.90

is obvious that the increase of stability field due to

Type IV insulators Type V insulators
Sample_A Sample_B Sample_A Sample_B
0.85

surface profile is less marked for the coated insulators,

0.85
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV) Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)

especially for Sample_A specimens. Also, variations in Figure 9: The effect of coating on streamer stability
stability field due to coating synthesis are greater for the field for all surface profiles.
shedded insulators, especially at lower pulse voltages.
3.2. Streamer propagation velocity
A higher electric field is required for streamers to
propagate along coated than bare smooth insulators; this For all specimens, at stability fields streamer
is shown in Figure 8 for stability field. However, for propagation velocity increases slightly with increasing
profiled insulators this reverses itself or becomes rather pulse voltage amplitude; this is shown in Figure 10 for
 4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

Velocity x10 (m/s) .

Velocity x10 (m/s)

2.5 2.5
5

5
2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

Sample_A insulators Type I insulators

0.5 0.5
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Nylon Sample_A Sample_B
0.0 0.0
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV) Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)

Figure 10: Propagation velocity at stability fields as a Figure 12: Propagation velocity as a function of pulse
function of pulse voltage amplitude; vertical bars voltage amplitude with material as parameter; vertical
represent σ bars represent σ.

the Sample_A insulators. In addition, the propagation

1.5 1.5

1.4 1.4

velocity is lower when a streamer propagates along a 1.3

1.2
1.3

1.2

profiled than a smooth surface, especially for the 1.1 1.1

vRM (p.u.)

vRM (p.u.)
1.0 1.0

insulators with a shed. Figure 11 shows the ratio of the 0.9 0.9

streamer velocity obtained for the insulators with a

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7
Type II insulators Type III insulators

profiled surface to that obtained for a smooth insulator, 0.6

0.5
Sample_A Sample_B
0.6

0.5
Sample_A Sample_B

designated vRP, with material as parameter. It is obvious 1.5

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
5.5 6 6.5

1.5
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
5.5 6 6.5

that, with the only exception of Type II insulators, the 1.4 1.4

reduction of streamer velocity due to surface profile is

1.3 1.3

1.2 1.2

more pronounced for the coated insulators. 1.1 1.1

vRM (p.u.)
vRM (p.u.)

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9

1,2 0.8 0.8

1.2
0.7 0.7 Type V insulators
Type IV insulators
1,0 0.6 0.6 Sample_A Sample_B
1.0 Sample_A Sample_B
0.5 0.5
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
0,8 Pulse voltage amplitude (kV) Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
vRP (p.u.)

0.8
vRP (p.u.)

0,6
0.6 Figure 13: The effect of surface profile on streamer
0,4
Type II insulators 0.4
Type III insulators
propagation velocity with material as parameter.
Nylon Sample_A Sample_B
Nylon Sample_A Sample_B
0,2
2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 0.2

1.2
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
1.2
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
6 6.5
signals (Figure 4). The velocity of the ‘surface’
component increases with electric field and is higher
compared to that of the ‘air’ component which varies
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
only slowly with electric field (Figure 14). In addition,
vRP (p.u.)
vRP (p.u.)

0.6 0.6 the velocity of the ‘surface’ component contrary to that

0.4
Type IV insulators
0.4
Type V insulators
of the ‘air’ component varies with material and surface
0.2
Nylon Sample_A Sample_B
0.2
Nylon Sample_A Sample_B
profile (Figure 14). It is important that a step or a shed
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
5.5 6 6.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Pulse voltage amplitude (kV)
6 6.5
on the insulator surface modifies this streamer system
Figure 11: The effect of surface profile on streamer resulting in only one component reaching the cathode.
propagation velocity with material as parameter.
25
Type I
Higher streamer propagation velocities are observed for Type II

coated than bare smooth insulators (Figure 12). This is 20 Type III

also true for insulators of Type II surface profile, Type IV

Velocity x 10 (m/s)

Type V
however it becomes rather insignificant for Type III and 15 Type I_2nd streamer
V insulators, and reverses itself for insulators of Type
5

IV surface profile, as can be deduced from Figure 13 `

10
showing the ratio of the streamer velocity obtained for
coated insulators to that obtained for the reference nylon
insulator, designated vRM. 5

When the gap is stressed with electric fields higher than 0

that required for stable streamer propagation, along an 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
E/δ (kV/m)
insulator with a smooth surface a streamer system
propagates with a ‘surface’ and an ‘air’ component as Figure 14: Propagation velocity as a function of electric
indicated by the two peaks of light, a time period field; 4.5 kV pulse voltage amplitude, nylon specimens,
elapses between their appearance, in the photomultiplier vertical bars represent σ.
4. DISCUSSION
When streamers propagate stably along an insulating
smooth surface the propagation field and the associated
velocity are both higher for RTV coated than bare
insulators (Figures 8 and 12). This is in accordance with
[15], where streamer propagation along bare and RTV
coated smooth insulating surfaces was discussed, based
on geometric field computations, in terms of the effects
of the conditions at streamer origin and of the physical
processes controlling streamer growth. However, when
the insulating surface is profiled the streamer
propagation field is higher for the bare nylon than RTV
coated insulators (Figure 9); the latter also show a
reduced effect of surface profile on stability field
(Figure 7). These depend to some extent on coating
synthesis and could be attributed to the greater relative
permittivity of nylon, which would result in greater
changes in the geometric field near the insulating
surface due to changes in surface profile.
A shed on an insulating surface, forming an ‘obstacle’
to streamer propagation, results in increased
propagation field (Figures 5-7) and reduced velocity of
propagation (Figures 10 and 11). The same is also true
when a step on an insulating surface faces the anode
(Type III surface profile). These effects of the surface
profile on streamer propagation can be associated with
the longer streamer path, geometric field variation near
the insulating surface and with the additional energy
losses during streamer propagation [17-20, 22].
However, for the coated insulators with a step facing the
cathode (Type II surface profile) both the stability field
and the associated velocity are lower compared to that
obtained for a smooth surface. In this case, as also found
for PTFE insulators [17], a streamer propagates
adhering to the insulating surface up to the step but then
crosses the remaining part of the gap in air alone; it is
well established that the propagation field and the
associated velocity of propagation are both lower when
a streamer propagates in air than along an insulating
surface [12-14, 16-20, 22, 23].
The insulator surface profile affects, besides the
characteristic properties of streamers when propagating
stably, streamer propagation under ‘overfields’. In
agreement with [17,18], for insulators with profiled
surface only the ‘air’ component of a streamer system
reaches the cathode, being retarded by the development
of the ‘surface’ component failing to reach the cathode;
this can be deduced from Figure 14 which shows the
velocities of both components observed only for the
smooth insulator. A streamer system has been found to
develop also under stability fields, however, only for the
nylon insulator of Type II surface profile; again only a
retarded ‘air’ component reaches the cathode, resulting
in propagation field and velocity differing from that
observed for the coated insulators of the same surface
profile (Figures 5, 6 and 11). In the presence of an
insulating surface, a streamer system is more likely to
develop when the conditions for streamer branching are
favoured, that is at ‘overfields’ or when a more vigorous
streamer initiates due to the enhanced geometric field
values in the vicinity of the point of streamer origin
resulting from a higher material permittivity.
The interactions between the ‘air’ and ‘surface’
components of the streamer system developing at
‘overfields’ in the presence of a smooth insulating
surface are better demonstrated in Figure 15. This
Figure shows the velocity of both components as a
function of the displacement distance of the insulator
from the point of streamer origin. The straight line
parallel to the X-axis depicts the velocity of streamer
propagation in air alone, in the absence of the insulating
surface. With increasing displacement distance, the
velocity of the ‘surface component’ decreases whereas
that of the ‘air’ component increases, as the retarding
effect of the ‘surface’ component upon the ‘air’
component becomes less pronounced. It is noteworthy
that streamers prefer to divert and propagate along the
insulating surface even when the insulator is displaced
up to ~ 1 cm from the point of origin of their traverse;
this has been also photographically recorded in [12, 22].
6
5
Velocity x 10 (m/s)
4
5
3
2
1
Surface component
Air component
Air gap
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Displacement distance (mm)
Figure 15: Propagation velocity as a function of
insulator displacement distance from the needle;
Sample_B insulator with a smooth surface, 550 kV/m
ambient field, 4.5 kV pulse voltage amplitude, vertical
bars represent 2σ.
5. CONCLUSIONS
When streamers propagate stably along an insulating
smooth surface the propagation field and the associated
velocity are both higher for RTV coated than bare
insulators, however when they propagate along a
profiled insulating surface with a step or a shed this
reverses itself. These effects vary with RTV coating
synthesis.
At conditions of stable streamer propagation, the effect
of a step or a shed on an insulating surface is to increase
propagation field, with the only exception where a
streamer crosses part of the gap in air alone, and to
reduce the velocity of propagation. The increase of
streamer propagation field due to surface profile is less
marked for RTV coated than bare insulating surfaces
whereas the reduction of propagation velocity is more
pronounced.
At ambient fields higher than stability field, a step or a
shed on an insulating surface results in reduced streamer
propagation velocity, as a streamer reaches the cathode
through air alone being retarded by a surface streamer,
which fails to reach the cathode. In the presence of an
insulating smooth surface both the air and surface
components of the streamer system reach the cathode.
6. REFERENCES
[1] E. A. Cherney, R. Hackam and S. H. Kim,
“Porcelain insulator maintenance with RTV
silicone rubber coatings”, IEEE Trans. On Power
Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 1177-1181, Jul. 1991.
[2] H. M. Shneider and A. E. Lux, “Mechanism of
HVDC wall bushing flashover in nonuniform
rain”, IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp. 577-585, Jan. 1991.
[3] IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation
Society’s Outdoor Service Environment
Committee s-32-3: “Protective coatings for
improving contamination performance of outdoor
high voltage ceramic insulators”, IEEE Trans. On
Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 924-933,
Apr.1995.
[4] H. Deng and R. Hackam, “Low-molecular weight
silicone fluid in RTV silicone rubber coatings”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp. 84-85, 1999.
[5] R. Hackam, “Outdoor HV composite insulators”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No. 5,
pp.557-585, Oct. 1999.
[6] E. A. Cherney and R. S. Gorur, “RTV Silicone
rubber coatings for outdoor insulators”, IEEE
Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.
605-611, Oct. 1999.
[7] H. Homma, C. L. Mirley, J. Ronzello and S. A.
Boggs, “Field and laboratory aging of RTV silicon
insulator coatings”, IEEE Trans. On Power
Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1298-1303, Oct.
2000.
[8] J. Zhidong, G. Zhicheng and G. Haifeng,
“Flashover mechanism of RTV coated insulators”,
Annual Report of CEIDP, pp. 566-569, 2002.
[9] J.P. Reyders et al, “Review of aging and Recovery
of Silicone Rubber Insulation for Outdoor Use”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No. 5,
pp. 620-631, Oct. 1999.
[10] A. E. Vlastos, E. Sherif, “Experience from
Insulators with Silicon Rubber Sheds”, IEEE
Trans. On Power Delivery, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.
2030-2038, Nov. 1990.
[11] IEEE Standard 1523: “IEEE Guide for the
application, maintenance, and evaluation of room
temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone rubber
coatings for outdoor ceramic insulators”, 2002.
[12] N. L. Allen and A. Ghaffar: “Propagation of
positive streamers over insulating surfaces in air”,
Annual Report of CEIDP, pp. 447-450, 1995.
[13] N. L. Allen and P. N. Mikropoulos: “Streamer
propagation along insulating surfaces in air”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp. 357-362, Jun. 1999.
[14] N. L. Allen and P. N. Mikropoulos: “Streamer
properties in air and in presence of insulators”,
Proc. 10th International Conference Electrostatics,
Institute of Physics, pp. 49-52, Cambridge, 1999.
[15] P. N. Mikropoulos, “Streamer propagation along
RTV silicon rubber coated cylindrical insulators”,
IET Science Measurement & Technology, Vol. 2,
No 4, pp. 187-195, Jul. 2008.
[16] N. L. Allen and P. N. Mikropoulos, “Profile effect
on surface flashover in a uniform field”, 11th
International Symposium on High Voltage
Engineering, London, Vol. 3, pp. 216-219, Aug.
1999.
[17] N. L. Allen and P. N. Mikropoulos, “Influence of
insulator profile on streamer propagation”, 11th
International Symposium on High Voltage
Engineering, London, Vol. 3, No. 467, pp. 15-18,
Aug. 1999.
[18] N. L. Allen and P. N. Mikropoulos, “The effect of
surface profile on streamer propagation and
breakdown in air”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr.
Insul., Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 812-817, Oct. 2001.
[19] L. S. Prithcard and N. L. Allen, “Streamer
Propagation Along Profiled Insulator Surfaces”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No 3,
pp 371-380, Jun. 2002.
[20] M. Wang and N. L. Allen, “Streamer propagation
along insulating surfaces and insulating surfaces
of simulated bushings”, 39th International UPEC,
Vol. 1, pp 128-132, Sept. 2004.
[21] IEC 60060-1: ‘High-voltage test techniques, Part
1’, 1989.
[22] N. L. Allen, A. Hashem, H. Rodrigo, and B. H.
Tan, “Streamer development on silicone-rubber
insulator surfaces”, IEE Proc.-Sci. Meas.
Technol., Vol. 151, No 1, pp. 31-38, Jan. 2004.
[23] M. Akyuz, L. Gao, V. Cooray, T. G. Gustavsson,
S. M. Gubanski, and A. Larsson, “Positive
streamer discharges along insulating surfaces”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 8, No 6,
pp. 902-910, Dec. 2001.