IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No.

4; August 2015 2125

A Prediction Method for Breakdown Voltage

of Typical Air Gaps Based on Electric Field Features
and Support Vector Machine
Zhibin Qiu, Jiangjun Ruan, Daochun Huang, Ziheng Pu
School of Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University
Wuhan 430072, Hubei Province, China

and Shengwen Shu

State Grid Fujian Electric Power Research Institute
Fuzhou 350007, Fujian Province, China

ABSTRACT
Breakdown voltage of the air gap is of vital importance for the design of the external
insulation in high-voltage transmission and transformation projects. In this paper, a
new prediction method for the breakdown voltages of typical air gaps based on the
electric field features and support vector machine (SVM) was proposed. According to
the finite element calculation results of static electric field distribution, the electric field
values in the whole region, discharge channel, surface of the electrode and the shortest
path were extracted and post-processed, which constituted the electric field features
characterizing the gap structure. Then, the breakdown voltage prediction model of the
air gap was established by using electric field features as the input parameters to SVM,
and whether the gap breakdown would happen as the output parameters of SVM,
which changing the regression problem to a binary classification problem. This model
was applied to predict the power frequency breakdown voltages of different short air
gaps including sphere-sphere gaps, rod-plane gaps, sphere-plane gaps and sphere-
plane-sphere gaps. The power frequency breakdown voltages of longer air gaps which
are affected by corona, and the 50% positive switching impulse breakdown voltages of
long sphere-plane gaps and rod-plane gaps were predicted as well. The predicted
results agree well with experimental values and simulated results of the published
models, which validate the effectiveness of the proposed model. This method supplies a
new possible way to obtain the breakdown voltage of air gaps.
Index Terms - Air gap, breakdown voltage, electric field features, prediction, support
vector machine (SVM).

1 INTRODUCTION achieved to predict the breakdown voltage of actual project

BREAKDOWN voltage of the air gap is an important factor
for external insulation design of high voltage projects [1-3].
Gap structures applied on transmission lines and in substations
or converter stations are various, and therefore their discharge
characteristics are different [4]. Currently, the insulation
design of extra high voltage (EHV) and ultra-high voltage
(UHV) transmission and transformation projects is mainly
based on air gap discharge test results [5-10]. Generally, tests
are conducted on typical gaps, like the rod-plane gap, to
master the basic breakdown characteristics and the results are
Manuscript received on 3 September 2014, in final form 30 December 2014,
accepted 5 January 2015.
gaps by taking the gap factor into consideration, but there is
certain deviation [11]. On the other hand, the full-scale tests
get the disadvantages of high expense and long test periods
[11]. In order to overcome the difficulties of tests, many
researchers have turned to the study of the gap discharge
mechanism and try to predict the gap breakdown voltages of
actual projects by using simulation model, which contributes
to the fine design of external insulation in power transmission
projects and reduces the test work as well. The present
prediction models for breakdown voltage of air gap include
empirical and semi-empirical formulas, and physical models.
Empirical formulas are usually obtained by fitting the
experimental data, the most representative of which are
Gallet’s formula [12] and CRIEPI’s formula [13]. The basic
idea of semi-empirical formulas is to regard the breakdown

DOI 10.1109/TDEI.2015.004887

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2126 Z. Qiu et al.: A Prediction Method for Breakdown Voltage of Typical Air Gaps Based on Electric Field Features

voltage as the sum of streamer and leader voltage drop, and plane-sphere gaps. The power frequency breakdown voltages
ignore the specific physical process of the discharge. The of longer rod-plane gaps and 50% positive switching impulse
breakdown voltage is calculated by analytic formulas. The voltages of sphere-plane long gaps were predicted as well.
most representative of semi-empirical formulas includes The prediction results were compared with the experimental
Mosch’s method [14], Carrara’s method [15], and Rizk’s values and the model was proved to be effective.
method [16]. The empirical and semi-empirical formulas are
easy to use in projects. However, some parameters in the Breakdown voltage
test (training samples)
formulas are obtained from specific test conditions and
therefore result in poor generalization performance.
Breakdown voltage Ub0
Physical models simulate the entire duration of the discharge Applied voltage
by establishing the mathematical model or criterion of each (initial value U0)
Breakdown (1) or
stage, including the initial corona inception criterion, the withstand (-1)
streamer propagation model, the leader inception criterion, the Predicted
continuous leader propagation model, and the final jump Electric field calculation
air gap
criterion. CIGRE summarized the engineering models for the
prediction of gap strength, especially for the evaluation of the Test Electric field features extraction, Training
samples dimension reduction and normalization samples
dielectric strength of external insulation under lighting impulse
or switching impulse voltage [17]. The most representative of Improved GSM, Parameter optimization
U=U0+dU
physical models includes Huztler’s model [18], Goelian- GA, PSO by cross validation
Gallimberti’s model [19-20], Becerra-Cooray’s model [21-22],
and Fofana’s equivalent electrical network [23-25]. Physical Input SVM Input
models of gap discharge have been greatly developed with the prediction model

constantly progressive numerical computing technology. Output

However, there is still insufficient such as some unreasonable or
unverified assumptions. In addition, some physical parameters
cannot be described accurately or measured, and some
mechanisms are imperfect, which may lead to distinct deviations
between the model calculation and test measurement results.
The breakdown voltage dispersion of a certain air gap can
be controlled within limits under specific applied voltage
waveform and atmospheric conditions. The discharge process
may be entirely different, but the static electric field
distribution characteristics before the corona inception are the
same. Besides, the typical electrodes, like the rod-plane gap,
can be characterized by geometric parameters such as the gap
length and the curvature radius of the electrode head.
However, complicated heterogeneous electrode structures
such as those used in actual power transmission projects
cannot be simply characterized by geometric parameters.
Hence, in this paper, a new prediction method for air gap
breakdown voltage based on electric field features and support
vector machine (SVM) is proposed. This method establishes
the multidimensional nonlinear relationship between static
electric field and breakdown voltage directly and ignores the
process after the corona inception and developing to
breakdown. According to the static electric field calculation
results, four kinds of electric field values are extracted,
including the whole region, discharge channel, surface of the
electrode, and the shortest path. Then, the electric field values
are post-processed and constitute the set of electric field
features to characterize the gap structure. The electric field
features are used as inputs of the SVM model, and the outputs
are whether the gap breakdown will happen. Hence, the
breakdown voltage prediction has transformed from a
regression problem to a binary classification problem. The
proposed model was used to predict the power frequency
breakdown voltages of typical short air gaps including the
sphere gaps, rod-plane gaps, sphere-plane gaps, and sphere-
No, output -1
1?
Yes
Breakdown voltage
test (test samples) Ub=U0
Error
Experimental value of analysis
breakdown voltage
Figure 1. Flow chart of the prediction method.
2 PREDICTION METHOD
The proposed prediction method for breakdown voltage is
based on electric field features and SVM. The flow chart of
the method is shown in Figure 1. Firstly, the breakdown
voltage of the gap belonged to training sample is measured by
experiment, recorded as Ub0. The applied voltage in the
interval [90%Ub0, 100%Ub0) is unable to breakdown the gap,
defined as -1, and that in the interval [100%Ub0, 110%Ub0] is
defined as 1, which means the gap will breakdown under this
voltage. Hence, the breakdown voltage prediction is
transformed to a binary classification problem that is whether
the gap will breakdown under a given applied voltage.
Secondly, the electric field distribution of the gap under these
voltages in the above-mentioned intervals is calculated by
finite element method (FEM). The computation results are
post-processed and the electric field features are extracted.
Dimension reduction and normalization are also conducted.
Thirdly, the breakdown voltage prediction model is
established by SVM, and the electric field features of the
training samples are used to train the SVM model. Three
optimization algorithms including the improved grid search
method (GSM), genetic algorithm (GA), and particle swarm
optimization (PSO) are used to optimize the parameters of the
SVM model. Then, the optimized prediction model is used to
predict the breakdown voltage of the gaps belonged to test
samples. The predicted air gap is applied initial voltage U0,
and its electric field features are input to the SVM model. If

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 4; August 2015 2127

the prediction model outputs -1, then the applied voltage is set Table 1. Set of Electric Field Features.
as U=U0-dU, and repeat the above process until the model Spatial location Electric field features Number
outputs 1. The critical voltage turned from -1 to 1 is Emw; Eaw; Edw; Ww; Wew; Vr90w; Vr75w;
considered as the breakdown voltage. Finally, the predicted Whole area 13
Vr50w; Vr25w; Wr90w; Wr75w; Wr50w; Wr25w
results are compared with the experimental values and the Emd; Ead; Edd; Wd; Wed; Vr90d; Vr75d; Vr50d;
Discharge channel 11
errors are analyzed. Wr90d; Wr75d; Wr50d
Electrode surface Ems; S90; S75; S50; S25; Sr90; Sr75; Sr50; Sr25 9
2.1 THE SET OF ELECTRIC FIELD FEATURES The shortest path E´max; E´min; E´ave; E´r90; E´r75; E´r50; E´r25 7
The finite element method was used to calculate the electric
field distribution of the air gap. For each kind of gaps, a two-
dimensional axisymmetric simulation model was established
for the calculation. Taking a rod-plane air gap for example,
The outermost air
the radius of the hemispherical rod head R=10 mm, the gap
distance d=4 cm, when the rod electrode was applied 1 V, and
the plane electrode was 0 V, the electric field distribution
cloud chart of the gap is shown in Figure 2, in which the unit
Whole
of the electric field strength is V/m. The simulation results region
were post-processed to get the number, area, barycenter’s x- Rod
coordinate value, and electric field strength of each element, electrode
y-coordinate values of the points on the surface of the
60°
electrode were extracted as well. Then the volume and electric Surface of R
the electrode
field energy of each element could be calculated, which
constituted some of the electric field features. Shortest
path
Discharge
channel
Plane
electrode

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the spatial location (rod-plane air gap).

Figure 2. Electric field distribution of the rod-plane gap (R=10 mm, d=4 cm).
Forty parameters related to the static electric field distribution
of the gap were defined and applied in the prediction model.
The set of electric field features is shown in Table 1, which is
divided into four groups according to the spatial location,
including the whole area, the discharge channel, the surface of
the electrode, and the shortest discharge path. Taking a rod-
plane air gap as example, the schematic diagram of the spatial
location used for classification of the electric field features is
shown in Figure 3. The whole area means the computational
domain except for the outermost air. The size of the discharge
of the electrode and the air gap, and does not represent the
actual discharge path in the physical process.
The electric field features can also be defined by physical
quantities and dimensions. They can be divided into the
following six groups: 1) Electric field strength, L2MT-3I-1; 2)
Electric field energy, L2MT-2; 3) Energy density, L-1MT-2; 4)
Superficial area, L2; 5) Electric field gradient, LMT-3I-1; 6)
Scale parameters, dimensionless.
The physical quantities listed in Table 1 are defined as
follows:
1) Maximum electric field strength: Em, including Emw, Emd,
and Ems.
Em  max Ei (i  1, 2, , n) (1)
Ei is the electric field strength of the ith volume/area element,
n is the amount of the volume/area elements.
2) Average electric field strength: Ea, including Eaw and Ead.
n
Ea   maxE
i 1
i /n (2)

channel has been proven to have almost no effect on the 3) Distortion factor of the electric field: Ed, including Edw
prediction result when the width is set by the same way and Edd.
ranging from 2×Rsin30° to 2×1.5R, in which R means the Ed  ( Em  Ea ) / Ea (3)
curvature radius of the rod electrode, as shown in Figure 3. 4) Total electric field energy: W, including Ww and Wd.
Hence, the width of the discharge channel is set as 2Rsin60° n n
1
in this paper. The electrode surface refers in particular to the
surface of the high voltage electrode. In addition, the
W  Wi 
i 1
 i 1 2

(  0 Ei2Vi ) (4)

discharge path is random and therefore the shortest path ε0 is the permittivity of vacuum. Wi and Vi are respectively the
proposed in this paper is just used to characterize the structure energy and volume of the ith volume element.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2128 Z. Qiu et al.: A Prediction Method for Breakdown Voltage of Typical Air Gaps Based on Electric Field Features

5) Total volume: V 2.2 FEATURE DIMENSION REDUCTION METHODS

n
Feature dimension reduction, usually as a preprocessing
V V
i 1
i (5)
step for machine learning, is to select low-dimensional feature
set from the initial high-dimensional feature set, so as to
6) Energy density: We, including Wew and Wed.
reduce the feature space optimally according to a certain
We  W / V (6)
evaluation criterion. It can effectively eliminate redundancy
7) Volume ratio of the region which exceeds x% of the and increase computational efficiency. Simultaneously,
maximum electric field strength: Vrx, including Vr90w, Vr75w, dimension reduction can help to preserve or increase the
Vr50w, Vr25w, Vr90d, Vr75d, and Vr50d. performance of various analysis algorithms [26] and improve
xn
the prediction accuracy.
Vrx  V
xi 1
xi /V (7)
Before dimension reduction process, the features should be
normalized so as to eliminate the influence of different order
Vxi is the volume of the ith volume element which exceeds x%
of magnitudes and units, and decrease the effect of improper
of the maximum electric field strength, and xn is the amount
data processing on the prediction results. In addition,
of those volume elements. In this paper, x% includes 90%,
normalization will accelerate the training and convergence
75%, 50%, 25%.
speed of the prediction model. The normalization method is
8) Energy ratio of the region which exceeds x% of the
x  xmin
maximum electric field strength: Wrx, including Wr90w, Wr75w, xi  i (14)
Wr50w, Wr25w, Wr90d, Wr75d, and Wr50d. xmax  xmin
xn
xi is the normalized value of a certain feature xi, xmin and xmax
Wrx  W
xi 1
xi /W (8)
are the minimum and maximum values of xi. Hence, the feature
Wxi is the energy of the ith volume element which exceeds x% has been normalized from the interval [xmin, xmax] to [0, 1].
of the maximum electric field strength. Correlation analysis and principal component analysis
9) The total superficial area of the high voltage electrode (PCA) are used in this paper for feature dimension reduction.
surface: S. In correlation analysis, the features displayed a strong
n correlation with the output are selected, while those displayed
S S
i 1
i (9) a weak correlation with the output, or with a strong cross
correlation are rejected. The correlation degree of two features
Si is the area of the ith area element, and n is the amount of the is evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient r.
area elements.
10) The area of the region on the surface of the high voltage r
 ( x  x )( y  y )
i i
(15)
electrode which exceeds x% of the maximum electric field  (x  x ) ( y  y )
i
2
i
2

strength: Sx, including S90, S75, S50, and S25.

1 n 1 n
Sx 
xm

S xj (10)
x
n i 1
xi , y 
n i 1

yi , i  1, 2, n (16)
xj 1
xi and yi are the ith value of any two features belong to a
Sxj is the area of the jth area element which exceeds x% of the certain feature class, while x and y are the average value. It is
maximum electric field strength, and xm is the amount of
generally recognized that r=0 is zero correlation, 0<|r|<0.3 is
those area elements. In this paper, x% includes 90%, 75%,
basic uncorrelation, 0.3<|r|<0.5 is low correlation, 0.5<|r|<0.8
50%, 25%.
is significant correlation, 0.8<|r|<1 is high correlation, and
11) Area ratio of the region on the surface of the high
|r|=1 is complete correlation.
voltage electrode which exceeds x% of the maximum electric
In PCA method, the principal components corresponding to the
field strength: Srx, including Sr90, Sr75, Sr50, and Sr25.
characteristic values whose cumulative contribution of variance
S rx  S x / S (11) accounted to an index value P (0.85≤P≤0.95) are selected.
12) Electric field gradient: E´, including E´max, E´min, and k p
E´ave. P  i /  i (17)
E   gradE (12) i 1 i 1
k is the number of the principal components, and p is the
The calculation formulas of the maximum and minimum number of the original features, k≤p.
values are the same form as (1), and the average value is the
same form as (2). 2.3 SVM THEORY AND PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION
13) The length ratio of the path which exceeds x% of the METHODS
maximum electric field gradient: E´rx, including E´r90, E´r75, There is a multidimensional nonlinear relationship between
E´r50, and E´r25. the electric field features and the air gap breakdown voltage,
Erx  Lx / L (13) and the sample data is limited. SVM is a machine learning
Lx is the length of the path which exceeds x% of the maximum algorithm developed from the optimal hyperplane in linear
electric field gradient, and L is the total length of the shortest separable cases. It is based on the structural risk minimization
path. principle and minimizes the empirical risk and confidence

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 4; August 2015 2129

interval simultaneously so as to ensure the generalization. Two groups, altogether 15 experimental values were set as
SVM has good adaptability in the case of small samples [27]. training samples, and five groups, altogether 25 experimental
The LIBSVM toolbox developed by Dr. Chih-Jen Lin in values were set as test samples, as shown in Table 2. Here, D
National Taiwan University [28] is used in this paper to solve is the sphere diameter, d is the gap distance, and Ub is the
the classification problem and parameter selection for cross breakdown voltage. Training samples include the breakdown
validation effectively. The kernel function chosen in this voltage data of different sphere diameters and gap distances.
paper is radial basis function (RBF).
Table 2. Training and Test Samples of Sphere Gap.
2
K ( x, xc )  exp( x  xc ) (18) Training samples
γ is the parameter of the kernel function, γ>0. Group D/cm d/cm Ub/kV Group D/cm d/cm Ub/kV
The penalty coefficient C and the parameter of the kernel 1.0 32.0 5.0 65.5
function γ determine the recognition performance of SVM. K 1.2 37.6 6.25 67.5
folds cross validation is applied in this paper. The effects of 1.4 42.9 10.0 69.5
improved grid search method, genetic algorithm, and particle 1.5 45.5 12.5 2.4 70.0
1 5 2
swarm optimization on the predicted results are comparatively 1.6 48.1 15.0 70.0
analyzed. The improved GSM reduces the optimizing time of 1.8 53.0 25.0 70.0
traditional GSM and prevents over study. GA and PSO are 2.0 57.5 50.0 70.0
heuristic algorithms with varied optimizing results, therefore, 2.2 61.5 — — —
the optimization of each set of data was conducted for five Test samples
times and their average value was considered as the result. Group D/cm d/cm Ub/kV Group D/cm d/cm Ub/kV
1.5 45.5 10.0 64.5
2.4 ERROR ANALYSIS METHOD 1.6 48.1 12.5 64.5
Error analysis is part of the essential procedures of the 1 6.25 1.8 53.5 2 15.0 2.2 64.5
breakdown voltage prediction of air gaps. By error analysis, 2.0 58.5 25.0 64.5
the merits of the prediction model can be evaluated 2.2 63.0 50.0 64.5
scientifically so as to guide the reasonable application of the 2.6 74.5 12.5 108.0
model. Four error indexes as follows are applied in this paper 2.8 79.5 15.0 110.0
to examine the error of the prediction results. 3 10.0 3.0 84.0 4 35.0 4.0 112.0
1) Sum of squared error (SSE). 3.5 95.0 50.0 112.0
N 4.0 105.0 75.0 112.0
eSSE  (A  P )
i 1
i i
2
(19)
10.0
4.5 115.0 15.0 7.0 169.0
5 5.0 123.0 5 25.0 8.0 206.0
2) Mean square error (MSE).
12.5 6.0 146.0 — — —
N
1
eMSE 
N
( A  P )
i 1
i i
2
(20) 33 features except for the electric field gradient ones, which
are E´max, E´min, E´ave, E´r90, E´r75, E´r50, and E´r25, of the
3) Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). discharge path were used for the prediction firstly. SVM
1 N Ai  Pi optimal parameters and errors of the predicted results obtained
eMAPE 
N i 1 Ai
 (21)
by the three optimization algorithms including the improved
GSM, GA, and PSO are shown in Table 3. Here, t is the
4) Mean square percentage error (MSPE)
optimizing time. Four error indexes were analyzed for group 1
1 N
Ai  Pi 2 to group 4 so as to evaluate the performance of the prediction
eMSPE 
N
(
i 1 Ai
) (22)
model within or slightly larger than the range of the training
samples. Only mean absolute percentage error was analyzed
Ai and Pi are the experimental and predicted values of the ith
for group 5 to evaluate the generalization performance of the
sample respectively, and N is the number of the predicted samples.
prediction model extending to longer gaps.
3 POWER FREQUENCY BREAKDOWN Table 3. Optimal Parameters and Errors Obtained by Different Optimization
VOLTAGE PREDICTION OF TYPICAL Algorithms.
Algorithm
SHORT AIR GAPS Result
Improved GSM GA PSO
The power frequency breakdown voltages of typical short C 415.8732 382.173 386.166
air gaps including the sphere gap, rod-plane gap, sphere-plane γ 0.2973 0.3194 0.3242
gap, and sphere-plane-sphere gap were predicted by the t/s 16.8 18.0 176.74
proposed method. SSE (1-4) 108.5158 105.1686 108.9318
3.1 SPHERE GAP MSE (1-4) 0.5209 0.5128 0.5219
The training samples and test samples of the sphere gap MAPE (1-4) 0.018 0.018 0.0185
MSPE (1-4) 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055
were chosen from the experimental data of the power
MAPE (5) 0.072 0.074 0.074
frequency breakdown voltage given in IEEE Std 4-2013 [29].

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2130 Z. Qiu et al.: A Prediction Method for Breakdown Voltage of Typical Air Gaps Based on Electric Field Features

It can be seen from Table 3 that there is little difference between power, and a resistance-capacitance divider was used to measure
the prediction accuracy of the model with optimal C and γ by the the test voltage. The applied voltage was raised slowly and
three algorithms. Optimizing time of PSO is the longest, while the continuously until the gap was breakdown, and the breakdown
improved GSM and GA are almost the same. The improved GSM voltage was recorded. Three kinds of rod electrodes shown in
is more suitable for the application in this paper because of its Figure 5 with different head shapes were used in the tests. One is a
better prediction accuracy and less optimizing time, besides, the conical head rod with the diameter of 20 mm, the cone angle is 45°
improved GSM does not have the problems of heuristic algorithms, and the diameter of the spherical head is 6 mm. The other two rod
including the instability and local optimal solution. electrodes both have a hemispherical head, while the diameters are
The optimal parameters and errors of the sphere gap model 20 mm and 30 mm respectively. The plane electrode is a copper
under different feature dimensions are shown in Table 4. Thereinto, plate with chamfered edges. The size of the plane electrode is 40
11-dimension (11-d) is reduced by correlation analysis and 12- cm (length) ×40 cm (width) ×0.2 cm (thickness).
dimension (12-d) is decreased by principal component analysis The breakdown voltage of each gap distance was measured for
when P=0.95, both from the original 33 dimensions (33-d) without five times and corrected to standard atmospheric condition by
considering the electric field gradient features. In addition, 26- considering the parameter g defined in IEC 60060-1 [30]. Test
dimension (26-d) is reduced by correlation analysis from the total results are shown in Table 5. Here, Ub is the power frequency
40 dimensions (40-d) with taking the electric field gradient features breakdown voltage in kV, which is the average of the five
into account. corrected values; σ is the relative standard deviation which equals
to the value of the standard deviation divided by the breakdown
Table 4. Optimal Parameters and Errors of Sphere Gap under Different
Feature Dimensions.
voltage. The mean relative standard deviation is 1.35%. Data in
Dimension
bold italics were chosen as training samples and the others were
11 12 26 33 40 test samples.
Result
C 274.374 64 157.586 415.873 238.856
γ 1.6818 0.1051 0.0544 0.2973 0.0292
SSE (1-4) 106.902 193.863 117.009 108.516 110.711
MSE (1-4) 0.5170 0.6962 0.5409 0.5209 0.5261
MAPE (1-4) 0.0195 0.0225 0.015 0.018 0.02
MSPE (1-4) 0.0056 0.0069 0.0053 0.0055 0.0057
MAPE (5) 0.07 0.056 0.026 0.072 0.062

It can be seen from Table 4 that the prediction accuracy of

the model is the highest using 26-d features. Taking the test
samples from group 5 as example, the comparison between
predicted and experimental values of sphere gap breakdown
Figure 5. Three kinds of rod head shape.
voltage is shown in Figure 4, in which the predicted values
include the conditions considering the electric field gradient Table 5. Power Frequency Breakdown Voltages of Rod-Plane Gaps with
features (26-d) or not (33-d). It can be seen that the Different Rod Head Shapes.
generalization performance of the model becomes better when Gap distance Conical rod
Hemispherical Hemispherical
considering the electric field gradient features and the rod (Φ20 mm) rod (Φ30 mm)
(d) /cm
Ub/kV σ/% Ub/kV σ/% Ub/kV σ/%
dimensions are reduced by correlation analysis. 1.0 16.08 1.90 25.26 1.34 26.56 2.15
240 1.5 18.77 1.32 31.34 1.44 34.05 2.06
Experimental value 2.0 20.73 1.64 35.81 0.90 40.87 1.32
Breakdown voltage (crest, kV)

220 Predicted value (26-d) 2.5 24.24 2.00 38.39 0.88 43.13 1.08
Predicted value (33-d) 3.0 26.16 0.68 41.61 1.50 48.33 1.36
200 3.5 1.02 1.02 1.76
27.18 43.95 51.51
180 4.0 28.89 0.98 46.60 0.60 54.52 1.40

160 The optimal parameters and errors of rod-plane gap model

140 under different feature dimensions are shown in Table 6.
Dimensions were reduced by correlation analysis. 40-d means
120
the total dimensions. 37-d was obtained by rejecting the
100 features with basic uncorrelation (0<|r|<0.3), and 31-d was
6 7 4 58
Gap distance (cm) obtained by rejecting the features with low correlation
Figure 4. Comparison between predicted and experimental values of sphere (0.3<|r|<0.5). It can be seen from Table 6 that the MAPE
gap breakdown voltage. decreases from 2.08% to 1.77% when the dimensions are
reduced to 37-d, while it increases to 2.69% when the
3.2 ROD-PLANE GAP dimensions are reduced to 31-d. The prediction accuracy
Power frequency breakdown voltage tests of rod-plane gaps increases by rejecting those features which are almost not
were conducted in the high voltage laboratory of Wuhan correlative with the breakdown voltage. However, the features
University. A voltage regulator and a 30 kVA/100 kV power whose correlation coefficient is in the range from 0.3 to 0.5
frequency testing transformer were used to supply the electrical contain effective information in the nonlinear relationship.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 4; August 2015 2131
Table 6. Optimal Parameters and Errors of Rod-Plane Gap Model under values of the power frequency breakdown voltage of sphere-
Different Feature Dimensions.
plane-sphere gap is shown in Figure 8.
Dimension
31 37 40 It can be seen from Figure 8 that the power frequency
Result
breakdown voltage of the sphere-plane-sphere gap decreases
C 55.7152 48.5029 55.7152
γ 0.1539 0.0670 0.0583
obviously compared with the sphere gap. The unified model
SSE 18.4501 9.0886 13.7480
has high prediction accuracy while the MAPE is as low as
MSE 0.3304 0.2319 0.2852
1.78%. The results preliminary prove the validity of the
MAPE 0.0269 0.0177 0.0208 proposed method to predict the power frequency breakdown
MSPE 0.0102 0.0068 0.0080 voltage of short gap with heterogeneous electrodes.

3.3 SPHERE-PLANE GAP

The power frequency breakdown voltage of sphere-plane gap
was predicted by the unified model of the sphere gap and rod-
plane gap and measured by the test for comparison. The SVM
prediction model was trained by the breakdown voltage of the
sphere gap and rod-plane gap. Two kinds of sphere-plane gap
were set as test samples, the diameters of the spheres are 10 cm
and 22.8 cm. The experimental values of 10 cm sphere-plane
gaps were obtained by tests. The test procedure is the same as
that of rod-plane gap. The mean relative standard deviation is
0.77%. The experimental values of 10 cm sphere-plane gaps
were given in [31]. The optimal feature dimension of the model
Figure 7. Test arrangement for power frequency breakdown voltage test of
is 35-d, the penalty coefficient C=51.9842, and the kernel sphere-plane-sphere gap.
function parameter γ=0.03125. The errors are as follows:
SSE=105.6616, MSE=0.7907, MAPE=0.0162, MSPE=0.0067. 140
The comparison between predicted and experimental values of 120
Breakdown voltage (crest, kV)

breakdown voltage of sphere-plane gap is shown in Figure 6. It

can be seen that the predicted results coincide with the 100

experimental values very well. 80

200 60

40
Breakdown voltage (crest, kV)

150 Exprimental value of sphere gap

20
Exprimental value of sphere-plane-sphere gap
Predicted value of sphere-plane-sphere gap
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
100 Gap distance (cm)
Figure 8. Comparison between predicted and experimental values of sphere-
plane-sphere gap breakdown voltage.
50 Experimental value (10 cm)
Predicted value (10 cm)
Experimental value (22.8 cm)
4 BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE PREDICTION
0
Predicted value (22.8 cm) OF TYPICAL LONG AIR GAPS
0 2 4 6 8 10
Gap distance (cm)
4.1 BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE PREDICTION IN LONG
Figure 6. Comparison between predicted and experimental values of sphere-
plane gap breakdown voltage. ROD-PLANE AIR GAPS
Power frequency breakdown voltage tests of longer rod-
3.4 SPHERE-PLANE-SPHERE GAP plane air gaps were conducted, with a hemispherical rod
In order to verify the universality of the new method, the whose diameter is 20 mm, as shown in Figure 5. The variation
power frequency breakdown voltage of sphere-plane-sphere of breakdown voltage with gap distance is shown in Figure 9,
gap was predicted by the unified model of typical electrodes. together with the experimental values of positive DC corona
Meanwhile, power frequency breakdown voltage tests were onset voltage of the same electrodes [32].
conducted for comparison with the predicted results. The test According to the optical observation and electrical
arrangement is shown in Figure 7. The plane electrode was measurement in [33], the curve in Figure 9 can be divided into
fixed on a post insulator and placed exactly in the middle of three regions, in region A, Ub≈Uc; in region B, Ub>Uc; and in
the sphere gap. The gap distance can be adjusted. The region C, Ub> Ug>Uc. Here, Ub is the breakdown voltage, Uc
diameter of the sphere is 10 cm and the size of the plane is 30 is the corona onset voltage, and Ug is the inception voltage for
cm (length) ×30 cm (width) ×0.5 cm (thickness). The mean stable glow discharge. The discharge process in the three
relative standard deviation of the experimental values is regions can be described as follows. The gap distance in
1.20%. The comparison between predicted and experimental region A is short, once the streamer is formed, the gap will

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2132 Z. Qiu et al.: A Prediction Method for Breakdown Voltage of Typical Air Gaps Based on Electric Field Features

breakdown. In region B, the streamer corona develops For the hemispherical rod (Φ20 mm)–plane gap, the SVM
intermittently and the stem of the streamer lengthens until it prediction model with training samples contained the
causes flashover, there is no stable glow discharge in this breakdown voltage of d=9 cm in region B and d=10 cm in
region. In region C, the time intervals of the streamer corona region C was applied to predict the breakdown voltage of longer
become shorter with a rise in the applied voltage and then gap. The comparison between predicted results and
become longer until the streamer corona ceases to start a experimental values is shown in Figure 11a. The input
stable glow corona, when the applied voltage rises, the glow dimension was 40-d, and the prediction model was optimized by
corona will expand into the breakdown of the gap. the improved GSM, the penalty coefficient C=97.0059, and the
kernel function parameter γ=0.378929. Similarly, the predicted
100 results of the hemispherical rod (Φ30 mm)–plane gap is shown
Breakdown voltage (crest)
90 in Figure 11b, by taking the breakdown voltage of d=13 cm and
Corona onset voltage
14 cm into training samples. The input dimension was also 40-d,
80
while C=181.019, γ=0.659754. It can be seen from Figure 11
that when the training samples contain the data of the gap
Voltage (kV)

70

60 distance in region C, the SVM model has high prediction

accuracy for the breakdown voltage of all the gap distances in
50 A
three regions. The results demonstrate the applicability of the
40 new method to long air gaps. The application of this method
B C
30 may be possible to reduce test times and decrease cost.
20 100

Breakdown voltage (crest, kV)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Experimental value
Gap distance (cm) Predicted value
Figure 9. Breakdown voltage and corona onset voltage of rod-plane air gap. 80

It can be seen from the above-mentioned analysis that only 60

in small gap distance the streamer inception will lead to
breakdown, and the breakdown voltage is approximately equal 40
to the corona onset voltage. When the gap distance is longer,
the formation and development of corona will affect the
20
breakdown voltage obviously, and the first corona will not 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
cause the breakdown of the gap, hence, the breakdown voltage Gap distance (cm)
is larger than corona onset voltage. If the SVM prediction (a)
model trained by the data of short gaps in Table 5 is used to 120
Breakdown voltage (crest, kV)

predict the breakdown voltage of longer gaps, it will result in Experimental value
big errors. The comparison between the predicted and 100 Predicted value
experimental values is shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that
the prediction accuracy for the breakdown voltage in region C 80
is poor, and the relative error becomes larger with the increase
60
of the gap distance. This is due to that the proposed method in
this paper is based on the static electric field features and 40
cannot reflect the effect of corona. Therefore, the breakdown
voltage prediction for longer gap should consider the 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
influence of corona. The training samples should increase the Gap distance (cm)
breakdown voltage of the gaps in region C, hence, the (b)
prediction model contains the effect of corona. Figure 11. Comparison between the predicted and experimental values of rod-
plane gap breakdown voltage with considering the effect of corona (a)
100
Experimental value
hemispherical rod (Φ20 mm), (b) hemispherical rod (Φ30 mm).
Breakdown voltage (crest, kV)

Predicted value (40-d)

80 Predicted value (37-d) 4.2 POSITIVE SWITCHING IMPULSE FLASHOVER
Predicted value (31-d) VOLTAGE PREDICTION OF LONG SPHERE-PLANE
AIR GAP
60
The positive switching impulse discharge voltage tests of
40
long sphere-plane gaps were carried out at the high voltage
laboratory in the UHVDC test base of State Grid Corporation
of China (SGCC) in Beijing, China [34]. The diameter of the
20 sphere includes 38 mm, 250 mm, 450 mm, 750 mm, 950 mm,
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Gap distance (cm) and the gap distance includes 2 m, 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m. The
Figure 10. Comparison between the predicted and experimental values of rod- applied voltage is 250/2500 μs positive standard switching
plane gap breakdown voltage without considering the effect of corona. impulse voltage. The U50 of the gaps is shown in Table 7,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 4; August 2015 2133

Table 7. U50 of Long Sphere-Plane Gap under Positive Switching Impulse

2000
Voltage. Experimental value
D/mm Bondiou and Gallimberti
38 250 450 750 950 1800 Fofana and Beroual
d/m
2 793 800 864 1126 — SVM model
1600

U50 (kV)
3 1014 1020 1045 1222 1504
4 1157 1154 1186 1331 1550
5 1286 1286 1303 1412 1585 1400

which had been corrected to standard atmospheric condition. 1200

Here, D is the sphere diameter and d is the gap distance. Data
in bold italics were selected as training samples and the others 1000
2 4 6 8 10
were test samples. Gap length (m)
The optimal feature dimension of the SVM model is 34-d, (a)
the penalty coefficient C=90.5097, and the kernel function 3500
parameter γ=0.25. The errors are as follows: SSE=5238.7867, Experimental value
Fofana and Beroual
MSE=6.5799, MAPE=0.0155, MSPE=0.0051, the maximum SVM model
relative error is as low as 3%. The comparison between the 3000
predicted and experimental values of U50 is shown in Figure

U50 (kV)
12. It can be seen that the predicted results are very close to 2500
the experimental values. The results prove that the proposed
method in this paper is applicable to long air gaps, thus
2000
possessing applicable value in engineering.
1800
Exprimental value 1500
d=5m 2 4 6 8 10
1600 Predicted value Gap length (m)
(b)
1400
(kV)

Figure 13. Comparison of the U50 predicted results with experimental values
1200 reported by Les Renardières Group (a) 320/10000 μs positive switching
50

d=3m impulse voltage, (b) 60/3000 μs negative switching impulse voltage.

U

1000
d=2m
800
600
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Diameter (mm)
Figure 12. Comparison between predicted and experimental values of U50 of
long sphere-plane gap under positive switching impulse voltage.
It should be noted that the breakdown voltage of the long air
gap in uneven electric field is affected by the space charges after
corona inception. The error of the predicted results may be large
if the training samples only contain the breakdown voltage
values of the short air gap in a slightly uneven electric field,
hence, the space charge electric field should be taken into
account. However, if the training samples contain the
breakdown voltage of long air gap in uneven electric field,
relatively accurate prediction results can be obtained though the
space charge effect is not considered. In this paper, the latter
method was applied to the prediction of the 50% positive
switching impulse discharge voltage of the long air gap.
4.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SVM MODEL AND
THE PUBLISHED MODELS
In order to perform the comparisons of the proposed model
with the published model, the experimental results obtained by
Les Renardières Group [35-36] on hemispherical rod-plane air
gaps ranging from 2.6 m to 10 m were taken into account for
prediction by the SVM model. Nonstandard positive switching
surges 320/10000 μs and negative switching surges 60/3000
μs were considered. The diameter of the rod tip is 0.6 m and
the gap length includes 2.6 m, 3 m, 4 m, 7 m, and 10 m.
Taking the experimental values of d=2.6 m and 3 m as
training samples, the input feature dimension of the SVM model
is 40-d. For positive switching impulse voltage prediction, the
penalty coefficient C=8, the kernel function parameter γ=0.0192,
and for negative, C=8, γ=0.0146. The comparison of the U50
predicted results with experimental values is shown in Figure 13.
The model was also compared with the published simulated
results obtained by Bondiou and Gallimberti [37], Fofana and
Beroual [25]. A satisfactory concordance between these results
can be observed from Figure 13. For positive switching impulse
voltage, the prediction errors of the SVM model are respectively
SSE= 2018.7716, MSE=8.9861, MAPE=0.012, MSPE=0.0056.
The prediction accuracy is a bit lower than that obtained by
Fofana and Beroual, and higher than that obtained by Bondiou
and Gallimberti. For negative switching impulse voltage, the
prediction errors of the SVM model are respectively
SSE=5597.0989, MSE=14.9627, MAPE=0.01, MSPE=0.0053.
It can be seen from Figure 13(b) that the prediction accuracy of
the SVM model is higher than that obtained by Fofana and
Beroual. The maximum absolute percentage error of the
predicted values is 2%, both for positive and negative switching
impulse voltage. These results validate the validity and
superiority of the proposed model.
It should be noted that most of the published physical
models try to simulate or explain the physical development
process of the discharge so as to obtain the dielectric strength
of the air gap. However, the proposed model makes an attempt
to avoid discussing the physical development process of the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2134 Z. Qiu et al.: A Prediction Method for Breakdown Voltage of Typical Air Gaps Based on Electric Field Features
discharge because of its dispersity. Furthermore, the proposed
model is easier to realize owing to the fewer requirements of
the physical parameters during the discharge process. This
method supplies a new possible way to obtain the breakdown
voltage of air gaps.
5 CONCLUSIONS
1) A new prediction method for breakdown voltage of
typical air gap based on electric field features and SVM is
proposed in this paper. This method characterizes the gap
structure by static electric field features and avoids
considering the physical process of gap discharge. The
multidimensional nonlinear relationship between the electric
field features and breakdown voltage is simulated by SVM
directly, and therefore its implementation process is relatively
simple.
2) The power frequency breakdown voltages of the sphere
gaps, rod-plane gaps, sphere-plane gaps, and sphere-plane-
sphere gaps were predicted by the proposed method. The
power frequency breakdown voltage of the longer rod-plane
air gap and the 50% positive switching impulse discharge
voltages of long sphere-plane air gaps were predicted as well.
The prediction results coincide with the experimental values
with small errors. The proposed model was also compared
with the published models. The results validate the availability
of the method for different gap structures and the possibility to
be applied in long air gap. The application of this method is
possible to reduce test times and decrease cost.
3) Taking the electric field gradient features into account
contributes to improve the generalization performance of the
prediction model. The prediction accuracy of the model can be
increased by appropriate dimension reduction of features with
correlation analysis and principal component analysis. The
prediction accuracy and optimizing time of the improved
GSM are more optimal than GA and PSO, and it does not
have the problems of heuristic algorithms, including the
instability and local optimal solution.
It should be noted that air gap breakdown is affected by
other factors except for gap structure, such as the type and
waveform of the applied voltage, the discharge trajectory, the
statistical time-lag, and the atmospheric conditions. The SVM
model should take these aspects into consideration in the
future study. Furthermore, breakdown voltage prediction of
complicated heterogeneous electrode structures such as actual
gaps used in power transmission projects should be studied in
further research.
REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Rakotonandrasana, A. Beroual, and I. Fofana, “Modelling of the
negative discharge in long air gaps under impulse voltages,” J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys., Vol. 41, No. 10, pp. 105210–105224, 2008.
[2] Y. Bourek, L. Mokhnache, N. N. Said, and R. Kattan, “Determination
of ionization conditions characterizing the breakdown threshold of a
point-plane air interval using fuzzy logic,” Electr. Power Syst. Res.,
Vol. 84, No. 1, pp. 2038–2047, 2012.
[3] N. K. Kim, S. H. Lee, G. E. Georghiou, D. W. Kim, and D. H. Kim,
“Accurate prediction method of breakdown voltage in air at
atmospheric pressure,” J. Electr. Eng. Technol., Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 97–
102, Jan. 2012.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[4] C. Gu, W. L. Zhang, J. B. Fan, Z. Y. Su, X. Wang, W. M. Liao, and Q.
F. Li, “Influence of rod electrode structure on switching impulse
discharge characteristics of rod-plane air gap,” Proc. Chinese Soc.
Electr. Eng. (CSEE), Vol. 31, No. 28, pp. 120–127, 2011 (in Chinese).
[5] D. C. Huang, Y. B. Shu, J. J. Ruan, and Y. Hu, “Ultra high voltage
transmission in China: developments, current status and future
prospects,” Proc. IEEE, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 555–583, 2009.
[6] C. Menemenlis, and G. Harbec, “Switching impulse breakdown of
EHV transmission towers,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-
93, no. 1, pp. 255–263, Jan. 1974.
[7] S. Taniguchi, S. Okabe, A. Asakawa, and T. Shindo, “Flashover
characteristics of long air gaps with negative switching impulses,”
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 399–406, 2008.
[8] S. Chen, R. Zeng, C. J. Zhuang, Z. Q. Yu, and J. L. He, “Switching
impulse breakdown characteristics of large sphere-plane air gaps
compared with rod-plane air gap,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul.,
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 839–844, 2013.
[9] Y. Wang, X. S. Wen, L. Lan, Y. Z. An, M. Dai, D. X. Gu, and Z. J. Li,
“Breakdown characteristics of long air gap with negative polarity
switching impulse,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp. 603–611, 2014.
[10] Y. Liao, C. Gao, R. Li, G. Wang, and G. Lu, “Long front time
switching impulse tests of long air gap in UHV projects at altitude of
2100 m,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 982–
987, Jun. 2014.
[11] W. J. Chen, R. Zeng, and H. X. He, “Research progress of long air gap
discharges,” High Voltage Eng., Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1281–1295, Jun.
2013 (in Chinese).
[12] G. Gallet, G. Leroy, R. Lacey, and I. Kromer, “General expression for
positive switching impulse strength valid up to extra long air gaps,”
IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. 94, No. 6, pp. 1989–1993, Nov.
1975.
[13] I. Kishizima, K. Matsumoto, and Y. Watanabe, “New facilities for
phase-to-phase switching impulse tests and some test results,” IEEE
Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. 103, No. 6, pp. 1211–1216, 1984.
[14] W. Mosch, E. Lemke, and V. P. Larionov, “An estimation of the
voltage-time characteristic of long rod plane gaps in air at positive
switching impulse voltages,” 13th Int’l. Conf. Phenomena in Ionized
Gases, pp. 427-430, 1977.
[15] G. Carrara, and L. Thione, “Switching surge strength of large air gaps:
a physical approach,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. 95, No. 2,
pp. 512–524, 1976.
[16] F. A. M. Rizk, “Switching impulse strength of air insulation: leader
inception criterion,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 2187–
2195, 1989.
[17] CIGRE Working Group 33.07, “Guidelines for the evaluation of the
dielectric strength of external insulation”, Int. Council Large Electric
Systems (CIGRE), Paris, France, Tech. Brochures 72, 1992.
[18] B. Hutzler, D. and Hutzler-Barre, “Leader propagation model for
predetermination of switching surge flashover voltage of large air
gaps,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 1087–1096,
1978.
[19] N. Goelian, P. Lalande, A. Bondiou-Clergerie, G. L. Bacchiega, A.
Gazzani, and I. Gallimberti, “A simplified model for the simulation of
positive-spark development in long air gaps,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.,
Vol. 30, No. 17, pp. 2441–2452, 1997.
[20] I. Gallimberti, G. Bacchiega, A. Bondiou-Clergerie, and P. Lalande,
“Fundamental processes in long air gap discharges,” Comptes Rendus
Physique, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 1335–1359, 2002.
[21] M. Becerra, and V. Cooray, “A self-consistent upward leader
propagation model,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 39, No. 16, pp.
3708–3715, 2006.
[22] M. Becerra, and V. Cooray, “A simplified physical model to determine
the lightning upward connecting leader inception,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 897–908, 2006.
[23] I. Fofana, and A. Beroual, “A model for long air gap discharge using
an equivalent electrical network,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul.,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 273–282, 1996.
[24] I. Fofana, and A. Beroual, “A predictive model of the positive
discharge in long air gaps under pure and oscillating impulse shapes,” J.
Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 1653–1667, 1997.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 4; August 2015
[25] I. Fofana, A. Beroual, and J-H. Rakotonandrasana, “Application of
dynamic models to predict switching impulse withstand voltages of
long air gaps,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.
89–97, 2013.
[26] J. Yan, N. Liu, S. C. Yan, Q. Yang, W. Fan, W. Wei, and Z. Chen,
“Trace-oriented feature analysis for large-scale text data dimension
reduction,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 1103–
1117, 2011.
[27] V. N. Vapnik, “Methods of pattern recognition,” in The nature of
statistical learning theory, 2nd ed., New York: Springer-Verlag,
1995, pp. 138–146.
[28] Chih-Chung Chang, Chih-Jen Lin, “LIBSVM: A library for support
vector machines,” ACM Trans. Intel. Syst. Tec., Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 1–
27, Apr. 2011.
[29] IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing, IEEE Std 4,
2013.
[30] IEC 60060-1, “High-voltage test techniques-Part 1: General definitions
and test requirements,” 2010.
[31] H. R. Hiziroglu and S. A. Sebo, “Calculation of breakdown voltages of
short air gaps”, IEEE Conf. Electr. Insul. Dielectr. Phenomena
(CEIDP), pp. 435-438, 2000.
[32] M. Abdel-Salam, and N. L. Allen. “Onset voltage of positive glow
corona in rod-plane gaps as influenced by temperature,” IET Proc.-Sci.
Meas. Technol., Vol. 152, No. 5, pp. 227–232, 2005.
[33] I. Tsuneyasu, K. Nisijima, and Y. Izawa. “Flashover phenomena in
positive rod-to-plane air gaps under impulse and DC voltages,” Electr.
Eng. JPN, Vol. 112, No. 6, pp. 20–32, 1992.
[34] X. Wang, Z. Y. Su, W. M. Liao, and C. Gu, “Experimental studies on
critical radius of rod-plane air gaps at different altitudes,” Power Syst.
Technol. Chinese, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 194–198, 2011. (In Chinese)
[35] Les Renardières Group, “Positive discharges in long air gaps at Les
Renardières,” Electra, No. 53, pp.31-153, 1977.
[36] Les Renardières Group, “Negative discharges in long air gaps at Les
Renardières – 1978 results,” Electra, No. 74, pp.67-216, 1981.
[37] A. Bondiou and I. Gallimberti, “Theoretical modelling of development
of the positive spark in long air gaps,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 27,
No. 6, pp. 1252–1266, 1994.
Zhibin Qiu was born in Jiangxi Province, China in
1991. He received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering and automation from the School of
Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan,
China in 2011, where he is currently pursuing the
Ph.D. degree in high voltage and insulation
technology. His research interests include air gap
discharge characteristics, external insulation of power
transmission and transformation equipment, high
voltage testing technology.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Graz. Downloaded on May 02,2022 at 14:11:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2135
Jiangjun Ruan (M’03) was born in Zhejiang
Province, China in 1968. He received the B.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electric machine engineering from
Huazhong University of Science & Technology,
Wuhan, China in 1990 and 1995, respectively, and
finished his post-doctoral research from Wuhan
University of Hydraulic & Electric Engineering,
Wuhan, China in 1998. He is currently a Professor of
Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. His research
interests include electromagnetic field numerical
simulation, high voltage and insulation technology.
Daochun Huang (S’08-M’10) was born in
Heilongjiang Province, China in 1976. He received
the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in high voltage and
insulation technology from the School of Electrical
Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China in
2003 and 2009, respectively. Currently, he is an
Associate Professor with the School of Electrical
Engineering, Wuhan University. He is a member of
IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society
(DEIS) and the International Council on Large
Electric Systems (CIGRE). His research interests include external insulation
of transmission and transformation equipment, high voltage apparatus,
numerical analysis of electromagnetic field and its applications in engineering.
Shengwen Shu was born in Jiangxi Province, China
in 1987. He received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering and automation from the School of
Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan,
China in 2009, and received the Ph.D. degrees in high
voltage and insulation technology from the School of
Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan,
China in 2014. Currently, he is with the State Grid
Fujian Electric Power Research Institute, Fuzhou,
China. His research interests include air gap discharge
characteristics, high voltage apparatus.
Ziheng Pu was born in Hubei Province, China in
1987. He received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering and automation from the School of
Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan,
China in 2010. Currently, he is pursuing the Ph.D.
degree in high voltage and insulation technology
from the School of Electrical Engineering, Wuhan
University. His research interests include overvoltage
in power systems, high voltage apparatus and testing
technology.