IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 23, NO.

2, APRIL 2008 823

Electric Fields on AC Composite

Transmission Line Insulators
IEEE Taskforce on Electric Fields and Composite Insulators
Andrew J. Phillips, Member, IEEE, John Kuffel, Fellow, IEEE, Anthony Baker, Senior Member, IEEE,
Jeffery Burnham, Senior Member, IEEE, Anthony Carreira, Senior Member, IEEE, Edward Cherney, Fellow, IEEE,
William Chisholm, Fellow, IEEE, Masoud Farzaneh, Fellow, IEEE, Robert Gemignani, Member, IEEE,
Anthony Gillespie, Member, IEEE, Thomas Grisham, Member, IEEE, Robert Hill, Member, IEEE,
Tapan Saha, Senior Member, IEEE, Bogdan Vancia, and Jennifer Yu, Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper provides an overview of the electric field

(E-field) distribution on transmission line composite insulators ap-
plied in alternating current applications. Factors that affect the
E-field distribution are discussed as well as the influence of the
E-field distribution on the short and long term performance. Mod-
eling and measurement methods are reported and examples of cal-
culated E-field magnitudes determined are presented together with
corona ring application information. This paper was developed by
the IEEE Task Force on Electric Fields and Composite Insulators.
Index Terms—Composite insulator, corona ring, E-field, electric
field, grading ring, nonceramic insulator (NCI), polymer insulator.

I. INTRODUCTION

T HE electric field (E-field) distribution on transmission

class composite nonceramic insulators, alternatively
called polymer or nonceramic insulators (NCIs), affects both
the long and short term performance. In order to design and
apply composite insulators effectively, a fundamental under-
standing of the E-field distribution and its effect on the insulator
performance is needed.
This document is intended to provide an overview of the
E-field distribution of composite insulators and the related
issues. It is not intended to provide guidance on the design,
selection and application of corona rings. The paper does not Fig. 1. Shaded plot of the E-field distribution on the polymer surface of a com-
discuss changes in the E-field distribution stemming from posite insulator and the equipotential lines surrounding the unit. The E-field
magnitude is indicated in grayscale with white being the highest and black the
defects in the insulators, or under contaminated or icing con- lowest. (Calculated using finite element method.)
ditions.

II. E-FIELD DISTRIBUTION ON COMPOSITE INSULATORS
The E-field distribution on the surface of, and within com-
posite insulators is a function of numerous parameters including
applied voltage, insulator design, tower configuration, corona
ring and hardware design, phase spacing, etc. The following
Manuscript received May 25, 2005; revised December 4, 2006. This paper
was developed by the IEEE Task Force on Electric Fields and Composite Insu-
lators. The main authors were A.J. Phillips and J. Kuffel with contributions and
review by the other authors. Paper no. TPWRD-00313-2005.
A. J. Phillips is with the Electric Power Research Institute, Charlotte, NC
28262 USA (e-mail: aphillip@epri.com).
J. Kuffel is with the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 Canada
(e-mail: kuffelj@cc.umanitoba.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2007.911127
0885-8977/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
discussion will provide generalized information that relates to
the E-field distribution of most transmission line applications.
It should be kept in mind that there are applications, both on
transmission lines and in substations, where the E-field distri-
butions will differ from those that will be presented.
In general, the E-field magnitudes are larger close to the en-
ergized and grounded ends of a composite insulator. Typically
the energized end is subjected to the highest field magnitudes
[1]–[4]. In some cases the position of highest E-field occurs ad-
jacent to the end fittings, while in other cases it may occur within
a short distance of the end fitting. The case where the position
of highest E-field magnitude occurs adjacent to the end fitting
is illustrated in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 shows a shaded plot of the E-field
magnitude distribution on the polymer weather-shed surface of
a suspension composite insulator as well as lines of equal po-
tential surrounding the unit.
824
Fig. 2. Example of the normalized E-field magnitude within the fiberglass rod
of a suspension I-string 115 kV composite insulator determined using 3-D fi-
nite element modeling. The axial measurement line starts at the energized end
fitting and ends at the grounded end fitting. The E-field is normalized against
the maximum value and the distance along the insulator is normalized against
the length of the insulator.
As can be seen from Fig. 1 the magnitude of the E-field close
to the energized end is higher than that at the grounded end. It
can also be seen from the equipotential lines surrounding the
insulator that the direction of the E-field is predominantly along
the axis of the insulator.
Fig. 2 is a plot of the normalized E-field magnitude within the
fiberglass rod measured along an axial line. As can be seen from
Fig. 2 the E-field magnitude is high at the energized end and
reduces exponentially along the insulator length. The magnitude
increases again at the grounded end but to a far lesser extent.
Numerous field observations and results from accelerated
aging tests have shown that E-fields play a significant role in
the degradation of polymer material. As such, the E-field is
recognized as a significant factor in the aging mechanisms of
NCIs [5]–[7].
The E-field distribution indicated in Fig. 2 is the norm for
most applications of composite insulators. However, there are
a significant number of applications where this may not be the
case. The most common of these occurs in overhead transmis-
sion line insulators equipped with corona rings. The application
of a corona ring may result in the highest E-field magnitude oc-
curring a short distance away from the end fitting rather than ad-
jacent to it [1]. An example of this is illustrated in Fig. 3 which
shows the magnitude of the E-field along the axis of one of the
NCIs used in a Vee-string assembly which utilizes corona rings.
It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the presence of the corona rings
results in a shift of the position of highest E-field to a location
3 sheds away from the live end fitting. On insulator assemblies
utilizing corona rings, the location of the highest E-field is a
function of the size and location of the corona ring [1].
III. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE E-FIELD DISTRIBUTION
There are numerous factors that influence the E-field distri-
bution [1]. The most important of these include:
1) geometry of insulator; including weather-shed system,
fiberglass rod and end fittings;
2) electrical properties of polymer weather-shed, fiberglass
rod material and possibly semi-conductive grading [9];
3) the dimensions and position of the corona rings and their
attachment method;
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 23, NO. 2, APRIL 2008
Fig. 3. E-field profile measured along a suspension 500 kV Vee-string com-
posite insulator using a field probe. The unit has a corona ring in place on both
the live and grounded ends [8].
4) the geometry of the attachment hardware, conductor bun-
dles, grounded hardware and grounded structure;
5) the orientation of the insulator and its physical relation-
ship to the attachment hardware, corona rings, conductor
bundle, grounded hardware and line structure;
6) value of the energized line voltage;
7) presence of nearby phases and their energized voltages;
8) presence of the earth.
Each of these parameters must be taken into account when
determining the E-field distribution through either modeling or
measurement techniques. Depending on the specific case the
impacts of variations in these parameters will vary. When de-
termining the E-field through modeling or measurements, it is
important to determine which of these needs to be accounted for
and to what degree.
Since the E-field distribution is dependant on a wide range of
parameters, identical composite insulators applied in different
situations will have different E-field distributions. Similarly, dif-
ferent composite insulator designs applied in the same situation
will have different E-field distributions.
IV. REGIONS OF INTEREST
There are three main regions of interest when considering the
E-field distribution of composite insulators.
1) On the surface of, and in the air surrounding, the polymer
weather-shed surface and surrounding the end-fitting seal
[6]–[8].
2) Within the fiberglass rod and polymer rubber weather-shed
material, as well as at the interfaces between these mate-
rials and the metal end fitting [10].
3) On the surface of, and in the air surrounding the metallic
end fittings and attached corona rings [8].
If the E-field magnitude in any of the these three regions ex-
ceeds critical values, excessively large magnitudes of, discharge
activity can ensue, and the long or short term performance of the
insulator may be affected
There is a direct relationship between the E-field distribution
and the resulting discharge activity on and within composite
insulators. The presence, location and magnitude of discharges
are a function of the magnitude and direction of the local E-field.
PHILLIPS et al.: ELECTRIC FIELDS ON AC COMPOSITE TRANSMISSION LINE INSULATORS
Fig. 4. Example of discharge activity in contact with weather-shed material.
The effect of the E-field distribution on discharge activity may
be categorized into four distinct sections:
A. Corona Discharges on the Surface of, or in Contact With,
the Polymer Weather-Shed Material and/or End-Fitting Seals
Corona activity, either under dry or wetting conditions, has
been shown to result in degradation or changes in the surface
properties of polymer weather-shed material. Fig. 4 is an ex-
ample of such discharge activity.
Under wetting conditions discharges can result due to en-
hancement of the E-field caused by high permittivity water
coming in contact with the surface of the rubber material [6],
[7], [11].
Both research and field experience have shown that prolonged
exposure to corona activity, regardless of its underlying cause,
can damage NCIs.
B. Dry Band Arcing Under Contaminated Conditions
Under critical wetting conditions, contaminated insulators
may have leakage currents flowing on their surfaces. These
leakage currents cause dry band arcing, which can result in
damage to the insulator weathershed material. The potential for
occurrence and the magnitude of this dry band arcing are both
influenced by the E-field magnitude.
In the case of dc systems, high electrostatic forces result in
contamination and moisture being drawn in the direction of the
high E-field. This results in increased accumulation of contam-
inants in the high E-field magnitude regions, and therefore in-
creases the likelihood of dry band arcing. While important dc
applications, this effect is secondary for insulators applied on
ac systems.
C. Discharges Internal to the Fiberglass Rod and Polymer
Weather-Shed Material or at the Interface Between the Rod
and Weather-Shed System
If a critical E-field magnitude is exceeded in these areas, de-
fects such as voids, inclusions or de-bonding may result in in-
ternal discharge activity. This internal discharge activity may
result in damage to the rod or weather-shed material, ultimately
resulting in either an electrical or mechanical failure [10].
825
Fig. 5. Image of dry corona activity from the metallic end fitting of an in-ser-
vice 500 kV composite insulator installed without a corona ring.
D. Corona Activity From Metallic End-Fittings or Corona
Rings
Excessively high E-field magnitudes on the surface of and the
area surrounding the energized and grounded metallic end fit-
tings and corona rings can result in corona activity under dry
conditions. Corona activity also occurs from water drops at-
tached to the hardware in wet conditions as a result of localized
enhancement of the E-field at the droplet tips. Corona activity
results in radio interference and audible noise. Continuous dry
discharge activity near the rubber weather-shed system or end
fitting seal can cause material degradation [12]–[14]. Fig. 5 is
an example of such activity on a 500 kV string which was mis-
applied without a corona ring.
V. CRITICAL E-FIELD VALUES
In order to prevent or reduce the discharge activity discussed
in the previous section, the maximum magnitude of the E-field
should be kept below critical values. While there are no such
universally accepted values available, the following critical
values have been mentioned in the literature. The values are for
dry uncontaminated composite insulators and are indicated in
kV/cm (rms):
• surface E-field magnitudes on weather-shed material and
surrounding the end fitting seal 4.5 kV/cm (rms) measured
0.5 mm above the surface of the sheath [1], [8];
• internal to the fiberglass rod and rubber weather-shed ma-
terial: 30 kV/cm (rms);
• surface E-field magnitudes on the metallic end-fittings and
corona rings: These should be controlled such that the unit
passes the radio interference/corona test indicated in ANSI,
CEA, IEC standards and IEEE guide [15]–[20]. A surface
E-field 21 kV/cm is often used as a reference value for
design purposes. Some utilities utilize values as low as 17
kV/cm to account for corona activity from water drops on
the metal hardware surfaces [20].
Since air density effects the corona onset E-field, correction
factors must be applied to the specified E-field magnitudes sur-
rounding the metallic end fittings and corona rings for applica-
tions at elevations significantly sea level [16], [17].
826
Fig. 6. Examples of the E-field magnitude distribution surrounding three dif-
ferent designs of composite insulator end fittings.
No altitude corrections have been developed for the critical
E-field magnitudes on weathershed surfaces. Using standard al-
titude correction methods in this case is considered conservative
as the onset of corona from water drops is strongly dependant
on electrohydrodynamic forces. This has been shown for water
drops attached to conductors [22].
Factor A above, the E-field on the surface of the weather-
shed material, is usually the controlling value when considering
corona ring selection and end-fitting design.
VI. CONTROL OF E-FIELD DISTRIBUTION
The E-field distribution may be controlled as follows.
1) End Fitting Design: The design of the end fitting has an
influence on the E-field distribution within the composite insu-
lator, on the surface of the weather-shed material and on the sur-
face of the metallic end-fittings. Large end fittings with rounded
edges tend to reduce the peak magnitude of the E-field values
in close proximity of the end fittings. Examples of E-field dis-
tributions for different end fitting designs are shown in Fig. 6.
2) Corona Ring Application: The application of appropri-
ately designed corona rings can also be used to reduce the
maximum E-field magnitudes and move the position of the
maximum E-field away from the end-fitting (as the end-fitting
seal is considered critical). The dimensions and location of
the corona ring have a significant influence on the E-field
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 23, NO. 2, APRIL 2008
Fig. 7. E-field magnitude in the air 0.5 mm above the sheath surface of a com-
posite insulator for 300 mm away from the energized end fitting. The E-field
magnitude profile is shown both with and without a corona ring.
distribution. Fig. 7 shows an example of the E-field profile of a
composite insulator with and without a corona ring installed.
Corona rings are not applied in all applications, Table I indi-
cates generic recommendations for corona ring application from
five different manufacturers. These recommendations may or
may not represent the latest thinking.
Corona rings are generally designed and tested for standard
transmission line applications. If composite insulators are ap-
plied in nonstandard transmission line applications (e.g., in sub-
stations or with nonstandard hardware), the generic recommen-
dations may not apply. Modeling and testing may be necessary.
Fig. 8 is a daytime corona camera image of discharge activity
from insulators installed in a substation with standard transmis-
sion line corona rings that were inadequate for this application.
Industry information has described several examples of
corona rings being improperly installed. Examples include
rings installed in an incorrect location with respect to the end
fitting, not be sufficiently tightened, installed backwards as
shown in Fig. 9, or not installed at all.
In order to overcome these concerns, insulator manufacturers
have designed attachment methods to minimize installation er-
rors. The implementation of an effective education and inspec-
tion program can limit errors [12], [24].
3) Application and Design of Extra Hardware: The appli-
cation of extra hardware, such as arcing horns, extra links, and
additional field grading devices all influence the E-field distribu-
tion. For example if an extra shackle or link is inserted between
the insulator and the conductor, the maximum E-field magni-
tude on the NCI may be increased. Similarly, if an arcing horn
is applied, the maximum E-field maybe reduced. Hardware that
is in close proximity to the composite insulator has the largest
effect on the E-field distribution.
VII. DETERMINATION OF E-FIELD DISTRIBUTION
The E-field distribution on composite insulators can be deter-
mined by either modeling or measurement.
A. Modeling
Commercially available software packages employing one of
two different mathematical methods for determining E-field dis-
tributions can be used: the finite element method (FEM), and
PHILLIPS et al.: ELECTRIC FIELDS ON AC COMPOSITE TRANSMISSION LINE INSULATORS 827

TABLE I
COMPARISON OF GENERIC RECOMMENDATIONS OBTAINED FOR FOUR INSULATOR DESIGNS INDICATING WHAT RING SIZE TO USE (OUTER DIAMETER IS
INDICATED IN INCHES). IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE ARE GENERIC RECOMMENDATIONS; MANUFACTURERS MAY ADJUST RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OR SITUATIONS. THE 3 in RING INDICATED FOR MANUFACTURER Z IS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE END-FITTING
DURING MANUFACTURE ( MAY BE REQUIRED IN CERTAIN APPLICATIONS. SPECIAL DESIGN REQUIRED)

Fig. 8. Corona activity from a 230 kV composite insulator applied in a non-
standard application in a substation.
Fig. 9. Example of a corona ring installed backwards at 230 kV [23].
the boundary element method (BEM) [1], [2]. In order to obtain
accurate results, the following need to be accounted for in the
model:
1) the 3-D nature of the problem;
2) dimensions and material properties of the composite insu-
lators;
3) the dimensions and position of the corona ring;
4) the dimensions and material properties of the structure;
5) the conductor bundle;
6) the hardware that attaches the NCI to the conductor and
structure;
7) nearby phases;
8) the ground planes;
9) the voltages (potential) of the components being modeled.
The degree to which all of the above are taken into account
varies as a function of the region of interest and nature of the
configuration [1]. For example if one was interested in the
E-field distribution in the air surrounding the corona ring of a
500 kV insulator, it may not be necessary to take into account
the separate properties of the fiberglass rod and rubber. If one
was interested in the E-field distribution inside the rod itself,
one would need to take the different dielectric constants of the
rod and rubber into account.
When each of these factors should be accounted for, and to
what degree, can be determined by sensitivity analyses . As
computing power becomes more accessible and affordable, it
will become increasingly more feasible to include greater de-
tail in the modeling to improve accuracy. Currently available
3-D BEM and FEM packages are difficult to use, and require
both a fundamental knowledge of electromagnetics and com-
puter aided drawing skills. The results presented in this paper
are drawn from analyses performed using several different soft-
ware packages utilized by the members of the IEEE Task Force
on E-fields on composite insulators.
Figs. 1 and 2 are examples of outputs of such modeling, while
Fig. 10 is an example of the geometry of a 500 kV model used
to determine the E-field distribution on suspension composite
insulators.
B. Measurement
The E-field distribution may be measured using a range of
techniques:
• by observing the deflection of a phosphor bronze wire
probe [25];
• electro-optic space potential probes [26];
• capacitive space potential probes [27].
The measurement of E-field distribution has some limitations
including:
• inability to measure in regions of interest (i.e., internal to
the insulator or close to the rubber weather-shed surface);
• distortion of the E-field being measured thus reducing ac-
curacy;
• expensive and time consuming.
828
Fig. 10. Example of a 500 kV three phase geometry modeled.
Fig. 11. Shaded plot of the E-field magnitude surrounding the energized end
of a 500 kV composite insulator [1].
Optical inspection techniques can be used to determine
whether there is corona activity present under either dry or wet
conditions. Inspection options include
• naked eye or still cameras under dark conditions;
• standard image intensifiers under dark or low light condi-
tions;
• daytime corona cameras, or other specialized devices.
Three dimensional E-field modeling remains the preferred
method of determining the E-field on the surface of the rubber
material.
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF E-FIELD MAGNITUDES
The E-field magnitudes may be represented in two forms: 1)
shaded plots or 2) line plots. Fig. 11 shows a shaded plot of the
E-field magnitude surrounding the live end of a 500 kV com-
posite insulator.
As can be seen from Fig. 11, the E-field magnitudes are
highest surrounding the corona ring and live end fitting. The
fields on the surface of the composite insulator reduce as the
distance from the end-fitting increases.
Line plots of the E-field magnitude are often plotted along the
length of the insulator. Since one is often interested in the E-field
in the air along the sheath of the unit, the measurement line often
passes through the sheds of the unit. Fig. 7 is an example of line
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 23, NO. 2, APRIL 2008
plots for a composite insulator both with and without a corona
ring installed.
The sudden dips in the E-field magnitude, shown in Fig. 7,
are due to the measurement line passing through the rubber
weather-shed material which has a permittivity higher than that
of air, ( of approximately 4).
The influence of applying a corona ring is also evident in
Fig. 7. It can be seen that the peak E-field is reduced in magni-
tude and shifted away from the end-fitting to between the third
and fourth sheds.
IX. E-FIELD MAGNITUDES
Since the E-field distributions vary considerably by insulator
design and application there is a wide range of values that may
exist. The following section provides examples of magnitudes
determined in order to provide the reader with an indication of
this range.
A. E-Field Magnitudes on the Surface of, and Surrounding
Both the Weather-Shed Material and End Fitting Seal
A considerable amount of modeling of various configurations
has been performed by numerous organizations. In some cases
different organizations have modeled the same configuration
and compared results illustrating that the results are repeatable.
This has been done using both BEM and FEM modeling.
Fig. 12 is a plot of the maximum E-field magnitudes (rms) as
a function of system voltage for a range of configurations com-
piled by one organization [29]. As can be seen maximum E-field
magnitudes varied from 1.5 kV/cm to more than 12.2 kV/cm
depending on the configuration. It should be noted that a 138
kV insulator without a corona ring installed may have higher
E-field values on the rubber surfaces than a 500 kV insulator
with a corona ring installed.
B. Internal E-Field Magnitudes
Fig. 13 shows the maximum internal E-field magnitudes cal-
culated for 230 kV composite insulators in different configura-
tions for five different manufacturers. As can be seen in Fig. 13,
the E-field magnitudes vary from 1.8 to 5 kV/cm depending on
the insulator/corona ring design and configuration [29].
C. E-Field Magnitudes on the Surface of the Metallic
End-Fittings and Corona Rings
International and national standards and utility specifications
require that insulators are corona free under dry conditions
[15]–[20]. This is verified by testing. The surface E-field mag-
nitudes on the end fittings and the corona rings are therefore
generally lower than that required for corona onset.
X. CORONA RING APPLICATION
Corona rings are applied in various situations depending on
voltage level and configuration. Although generic recommenda-
tions have been made by different organizations, these recom-
mendations differ and are merely guidelines that may or may
not be applicable to the design of insulator or the configura-
tion [8], [23], [30]. These guidelines do not specify ring di-
mensions or location, hence care should be taken in their use.
Table I illustrates the differences in corona ring applications by
providing generic recommendations for five different designs of
composite insulators as provided by manufacturers.
PHILLIPS et al.: ELECTRIC FIELDS ON AC COMPOSITE TRANSMISSION LINE INSULATORS
Fig. 12. Maximum E-field magnitudes (rms) on the sheath section of composite insulators modeled as a function of system voltage. (All models account only for
the presence of a single phase.) [29].
Fig. 13. Maximum E-field magnitudes (rms) internal to 230 kV NCI applied in
different configurations. For each configuration the geometry is identical with
BP =
only the manufacturer differing. ( braced post—all models account only
for the presence of a single phase.) [5].
XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The E-field distribution on composite insulators is nonlinear
with the regions close to the energized end normally being sub-
jected to the highest magnitudes. For most transmission line ap-
plications, the dominant direction of the E-field is along the axis
of the insulator.
The E-field distribution influences the presence and magni-
tude of discharge activity within and on the surface of the di-
electric material, as well as discharge activity from the metal end
fittings. Internal and external discharge activity under both dry
and wetting conditions need to be considered when considering
maximum allowable fields. Dry corona and the standard RIV
requirements are not the only reasons for managing E-fields.
The E-field distribution of an insulator can be determined by
modeling or measurement. When determining the distribution,
it is important to account for a number of factors including: 3-D
nature of problem, end fitting dimensions, corona rings, line and
829
ground end hardware, geometry of configuration, conductor, rel-
ative air density and presence of nearby phases. The degree to
which these need to be accounted for is dependant of the con-
figuration being evaluated.
Field magnitudes on the rubber surfaces of composite in-
sulator sheath sections may vary considerably depending on
the design, configuration and application. Maximum values be-
tween 2 and 8.5 kV/cm have been determined for units applied
in standard configurations. Current research indicates that lim-
iting the maximum value to 4.5 kV/cm is preferable. This max-
imum value may change with increased understanding of the
influence of the E-field on the aging process.
Care should be taken when applying composite insulators in
situations for which testing or modeling has not been performed
and there is no field experience. Examples include nonstandard
and substation applications.
Current manufacturers’ designs based on modeling, mea-
surement, and experience have been shown effective for of
most standard configurations. However, instances have oc-
curred where corona ring designs have been inadequate. Users
should consult with manufacturers as to the suitability of their
standard corona rings for varying configurations.
While generic tables providing guidance when to apply
corona rings do exist, these can be misleading as they do not
account for insulator design or nonstandard configurations
(e.g., inclusion of extra hardware between the conductor and
insulator). Even for standard configurations no simple manu-
facturer independent guidelines exist specifying the dimensions
and the location of corona rings. Such a generic guideline is
almost impossible to develop since it would depend heavily on
the insulator end fitting design which varies considerably be-
tween manufacturers. Guidelines also do not take nonstandard
applications or insulator design characteristics into account.
Tables provide by manufacturers with guidance on when to
apply corona rings do take their specific insulator design into
consideration. They may however, not readily apply to nonstan-
dard configurations (e.g., inclusion of extra hardware between
830
the conductor and insulator). Guidelines on the dimensions and
location of the corona rings should be sought from each indi-
vidual manufacturer for standard configurations.
REFERENCES
[1] “Electric field modeling of NCI and grading ring design and applica-
tion,” TR 113-977, EPRI. Palo Alto, CA, Dec. 1999.
[2] T. Zhao and M. G. Comber, “Calculation of electric field and poten-
tial distribution along nonceramic insulators considering the effects of
conductors and transmission towers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 313–318, Jan. 2000.
[3] CIGRE, “Use of stress control rings on composite insulators,” Electra,
no. 143, pp. 69–71, Aug. 1992, CIGRE Working Group 03 of SC 22.
[4] K. Kondo, “Corona ring position of polymer insulators and electric
field stress,” CIGRE session, Paris, Group 33, Answer to Questions
4.1.5 and 4.2.4, 2002.
[5] “230 kV accelerated aging chamber: Condition of NCI after three years
of operation,” 1008737, EPRI. Palo Alto, CA, Nov. 2004.
[6] A. J. Phillips, D. J. Childs, and H. M. Schneider, “Aging of non-ceramic
insulators due to corona from water drops,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1081–1086, Jul. 1999.
[7] A. J. Phillips, D. J. Childs, and H. M. Schneider, “Water-drop corona ef-
fects on full-scale 500 kV non-ceramic insulators,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 258–263, Jan. 1999.
[8] “Application guide for transmission line NCI,” EPRI. Palo Alto, CA,
1998, TR 111-566.
[9] Y. Shen, E. Cherney, and S. Jayaram, “Electric stress grading of com-
posite bushings using high dielectric constant silicone compositions,”
presented at the Conf. Rec. IEEE Int. Symp. Electrical Insulation, In-
dianapolis, IN, Sep. 19–22, 2004.
[10] E. A. Cherney, “Partial discharge, part V: PD in polymer type line in-
sulators,” IEEE Elect. Insul. Mag., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 28–32, Mar./Apr.
1991.
[11] I. Lopez, S. H. Jayaram, and E. A. Cherney, “A study of partial dis-
charges from water droplets on a silicone rubber insulating surface,”
IEEE Trans. Dielect. Elect. Insul., vol. 8, no. 2, p. 262, Apr. 2001.
[12] Field Guide: Corona rings for polymer insulators—selection, inspec-
tion and assessment 1008741, EPRI. Palo Alto, CA, Mar. 2005.
[13] V. Moreno and R. Gorur, “Effect of long term corona on non-ceramic
outdoor insulator housing materials,” IEEE Trans. Dielect. Elect.
Insul., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 117–128, Mar. 2001.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 23, NO. 2, APRIL 2008
[14] V. Moreno and R. Gorur, “Impact of corona on the long term perfor-
mance of non-ceramic insulators,” IEEE Trans. Dielect. Elect. Insul.,
vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 80–95, Feb. 2003.
[15] American National Standard for Insulators—Composites—Suspension
Type, ANSI C29.12-1997 (R2002), ANSI, New York.
[16] IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing, IEEE Std. 4-1995,
2001, Amended.
[17] “IEEE Guide for conducting corona tests on hardware for overhead
transmission lines and substations,” Currently under task force final
voting procedures, To be published as an IEEE Guide in 2007.
[18] IEC 6124, “Overhead lines-requirements and tests for fittings,”2nd ed.
1997-09.
[19] American National Standard for Electrical Power Insulators—Test
Methods, ANSI C29.1-1988 (R2002), ANSI, New York.
[20] CAN/CSA 411.4-98, “Composite suspension insulators for transmis-
sion applications,” 1998, (reaffirmed 2003).
[21] T. Gillespie, Personal Communication. 2005, Powerlink Australia.
[22] A. J. Phillips, I. R. Jandrell, and J. P. Reynders, “Consideration of
corona onset from a water drop as a function of air pressure,” Proc.
Inst. Elect. Eng., Sci., Meas. Technol., vol. 143, no. 2, pp. 125–130,
Mar. 1996.
[23] “Field guide: visual inspection of NCI: Revision 1” EPRI. Palo Alto,
CA, 1008739, May 2004.
[24] “Educational video: Guide to storing, transporting and installing
polymer insulators,” 1006353, EPRI. Palo Alto, CA, Aug. 2001.
[25] Y. Gosho, “Measurement of potential distribution between electrodes
by the electrostatic probe method,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Phenomena
in Ionized Gases, Bucharest, Romania, Sep. 1–6, 1969, p. 625.
[26] R. Hartings, “Electric fields along a post insulator: AC-measurements
and calculations,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 912–918,
Apr. 1994.
[27] G. Vaillancourt, S. Carignan, and C. Jean, “Experience with the detec-
tion of faulty composite insulators on high-voltage power lines by the
electric field measurement method,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 661–666, Apr. 1998.
[28] “Guide to corona and arcing inspection of transmission lines,”
1001910, EPRI. Palo Alto, CA, Oct. 2001.
[29] “Results of electrostatic modelling of the electric field magnitude on the
surface of polymer insulator sheaths,” EPRI, Sep. 2002, Suplememtal
Funder Rep.
[30] IEEE Guide for the Application of Composite Insulators, IEEE 987-
2001, 2001.