Degradation Degree Classification of GIS Insulation Surface Defects Based on Mean Value Normalized by Work Function

doi:10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2024.435

Abstract

Abstract:

Insulation surface defects are common defects inside gas insulated switchgear (GIS). The ultra-high frequency (UHF) method is the most widely used method to detect GIS insulation defects in operation. However, as the mechanisms of signal change during defect degradation remain unclear, the amplitudes of UHF signals cannot be directly correlated with the severity of defects, making it difficult to reasonably divide defect degradation stages. An experiment is conducted to measure UHF signals during the degradation of insulation surface defects and the change mechanism of UHF signals is explored through simulation. Then, a method is proposed to divide the degradation stages of surface defects based on the normalized mean of work function according to the simulation results of UHF signals at different degradation stages. The findings suggest that the surface work function is closely related to the number of discharge pulses and the UHF mean values during the degradation. The UHF mean values normalized by the work function can be used as a criterion for dividing the defect degradation stages into three categories: low, medium, and high. It is verified that the proposed method can effectively divide the insulation surface defect degradation process.

Key words: insulation surface defect, degradation, work function, ultra-high frequency (UHF) mean, discharge simulation

CLC Number:

TM835

ZHANG Zhaoqi, SONG Hui, WANG Zonglin, SHENG Gehao, JIANG Xiuchen. Degradation Degree Classification of GIS Insulation Surface Defects Based on Mean Value Normalized by Work Function[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2026, 60(7): 1207-1215.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Tab.1

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

References 26

[1]	QI B, LI C R, XING Z L, et al. Partial discharge initiated by free moving metallic particles on GIS insulator surface: Severity diagnosis and assessment[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 2014, 21(2): 766-774.
[2]	齐波, 李成榕, 郝震, 等. GIS绝缘子表面固定金属颗粒沿面局部放电发展的现象及特征[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2011, 31(1): 101-108.
	QI Bo, LI Chengrong, HAO Zhen, et al. Evolution phenomena and features of surface partial discharge initiated by immobilized metal particles on GIS insulators[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2011, 31(1): 101-108.
[3]	李阳, 唐志国. 恒压下GIS环氧树脂绝缘子沿面放电发展全过程状态特征研究与诊断[J]. 电瓷避雷器, 2024(3): 123-130.
	LI Yang, TANG Zhiguo. Research and diagnosis of state characteristics in the whole process of creeping discharge development of GIS epoxy resin insulating parts under constant voltage[J]. Insulators & Surge Arresters, 2024(3): 123-130.
[4]	ZENG F P, DONG Y L, TANG J. Feature extraction and severity assessment of partial discharge under protrusion defect based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2015, 9(16): 2493-2500. doi: 10.1049/gtd2.v9.16 URL
[5]	TANG J, JIN M, ZENG F P, et al. Feature selection for partial discharge severity assessment in gas-insulated switchgear based on minimum redundancy and maximum relevance[J]. Energies, 2017, 10(10): 1516. doi: 10.3390/en10101516 URL
[6]	朱宁, 吴司颖, 曾福平, 等. 基于SF₆分解特性的局部放电故障程度评估[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2019, 39(3): 933-942.
	ZHU Ning, WU Siying, ZENG Fuping, et al. Partial discharge failure evaluation based on SF₆ decomposition characteristics[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2019, 39(3): 933-942.
[7]	唐志国, 李阳. 恒压下GIS固体绝缘界面气隙缺陷放电严重程度评估[J]. 高压电器, 2024, 60(2): 62-68.
	TANG Zhiguo, LI Yang. Severity assessment of air gap defect discharge at GIS solid insulation interface under constant voltage[J]. High Voltage Apparatus, 2024, 60(2): 62-68.
[8]	宋辉, 代杰杰, 李喆, 等. 运行条件下GIS局部放电严重程度评估方法[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2019, 39(4): 1231-1241.
	SONG Hui, DAI Jiejie, LI Zhe, et al. An assessment method of partial discharge severity for GIS in service[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2019, 39(4): 1231-1241.
[9]	MENG X L, SONG H, DAI J J, et al. Severity evaluation of UHF signals of partial discharge in GIS based on semantic analysis[J]. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2022, 37(3): 1456-1464. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2021.3087749 URL
[10]	满玉岩, 董艳唯, 王伟, 等. 基于局部放电能量的油纸绝缘典型缺陷放电严重程度评估方法[J]. 高压电器, 2019, 55(8): 223-229.
	MAN Yuyan, DONG Yanwei, WANG Wei, et al. Discharge severity evaluation method for typical defects of oil-paper insulation based on partial discharge energy[J]. High Voltage Apparatus, 2019, 55(8): 223-229.
[11]	HUSSAIN G A, HASSAN W, MAHMOOD F, et al. Partial discharge based risk assessment framework for MV switchgear containing electrical defects[J]. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 2023, 59(6): 7868-7875. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2023.3299902 URL
[12]	LUO B, HE H X, CHENG C, et al. Numerical simulation of the positive streamer propagation and chemical reactions in SF₆/N₂ mixtures under non-uniform field[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 2020, 27(3): 782-790.
[13]	FLORKOWSKI M. Imaging and simulations of positive surface and airborne streamers adjacent to dielectric material[J]. Measurement, 2021, 186: 110170. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.110170 URL
[14]	周录波, 张钊棋, 王栋, 等. SF₆中沿面放电及其放电信号的多尺度仿真研究[J]. 上海交通大学学报, 2025, 59(9): 1397-1406. doi: 10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2023.525
	ZHOU Lubo, ZHANG Zhaoqi, WANG Dong, et al. A multiscale simulation of surface discharge and discharge signals in SF₆[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2025, 59(9): 1397-1406.
[15]	ZHANG Z Q, SONG H, LUO L G, et al. Comprehensive simulation research on microprocess and macroscopic electromagnetic signals of surface discharge in SF₆[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 2023, 30(4): 1769-1778.
[16]	CALLENDER G, TANMANEEPRASERT T, LEWIN P L. Simulating partial discharge activity in a cylindrical void using a model of plasma dynamics[J]. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 2019, 52(5): 055206. doi: 10.1088/1361-6463/aaedf0
[17]	TIAN P, SHAN Y Y, LIU G H, et al. Analysis of temperature sensitivity parameters in hydrodynamic model of streamer[J]. IEEE Access, 2023, 11: 45056-45065. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3273611 URL
[18]	CHRISTOPHOROU L G, VAN BRUNT R J. SF₆/N₂ mixtures: Basic and HV insulation properties[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 1995, 2(5): 952-1003.
[19]	ZHANG R M, WANG L J, LIU J, et al. Numerical simulation of breakdown properties and streamer development processes in SF₆/CO₂ mixed gas[J]. AIP Advances, 2022, 12: 015003. doi: 10.1063/5.0076343 URL
[20]	OU X F, WANG L J, LIU J, et al. Numerical simulation of streamer discharge development processes with multi-component SF₆ mixed gas[J]. Physics of Plasmas, 2020, 27(7): 073504. doi: 10.1063/5.0006140 URL
[21]	HAGELAAR G J M, DE HOOG F J, KROESEN G M W. Boundary conditions in fluid models of gas discharges[J]. Physical Review E, 2000, 62(1): 1452-1454. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1452 URL
[22]	ZHENG Q F, LUO L G, QIAN Y, et al. A joint simulation of UHF signal generation and propagation based on pulsed current model of partial discharge[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 2023, 30(5): 2001-2009.
[23]	SATO N. Discharge current induced by the motion of charged particles[J]. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 1980, 13(1): L3-L6.
[24]	NIEMEYER L. A generalized approach to partial discharge modeling[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 1995, 2(4): 510-528.
[25]	GUTFLEISCH F, NIEMEYER L. Measurement and simulation of PD in epoxy voids[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics & Electrical Insulation, 1995, 2(5): 729-743.
[26]	ZHANG R, ZHANG Q G, ZHOU J J, et al. Critical study of partial discharge inception in voids: Statistical behavior to stochastic nature[J]. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 2022, 55(6): 065501. doi: 10.1088/1361-6463/ac30ba

严重程度	r_e	发展距离/mm		R₁/Ω		R₂/Ω		C₁/pF		C₂/pF
严重程度	r_e	正向	负向	正向	负向	正向	负向	正向	负向	正向	负向
1	0.5	0.40	1.20	1.02×10⁴	5.49×10⁴	1.98×10¹⁰	2.87×10¹⁰	0.222	0.074	0.055	0.111
2	0.7	0.49	1.25	1.24×10⁴	4.78×10⁴	1.79×10¹⁰	1.98×10¹⁰	0.180	0.071	0.059	0.118
3	1.0	0.64	1.29	1.79×10⁴	3.54×10⁴	1.52×10¹⁰	9.83×10⁹	0.138	0.069	0.065	0.125
4	1.2	0.83	1.33	2.21×10⁴	2.89×10⁴	1.25×10¹⁰	4.93×10⁹	0.107	0.067	0.076	0.132
5	1.5	2.00	1.38	4.20×10⁴	2.53×10⁴	1.00×10⁷	1.32×10⁹	0.044	0.064	1	0.143