The Effect of Humidity on Partial Discharge Measurement

Supawat Naprasert, Somboon Chongchaikit, Surapol Puthwattana

Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Chulalongkorn University
254 Phyathai Road, Patumwan, Bangkok Thailand, 10330
E-mail: supawat9ghotmail.com

Abstract factors as mentioned above especially the humidity.

This paper is a study of the effect of humidity on
partial discharge measurement in rotating machine. As
we know, partial discharge measurement is effected by
several factors and the humidity is one of the most
important factors. To study the effect of humidity on
partial discharge test, slot defect stator bar models
were manufactured for data acquisition at 40°0, 60%
and 70°0 relative humidity respectively. The data were
then analyzed by visual inspection to see the difference
of three dimension distribution of Hj1( ,q) and two
dimension distribution of Hqmax( Si5), Hqn( Si5), Hn( i ),
H(q) and H(p). Statistical values were also calculated
in order to compare the trend of those parameters at
each level of relative humidity. The test result shows
that visual inspection in the same stator bar model at
each level of relative humidity has different patterns.
In addition, the statistical parameters change upon the
variation of relative humidity. Therefore, partial
discharge measurement without consideration on
humidity can lead to misinterpretation.
INTRODUCTION
For this reason, understanding the effect of humidity is
useful for partial discharge analysis.
EXPERIMENTAL DESCRIPTION
Stator bar model without artificial defect is called
perfect bar model which is shown in figure 1 It
consists of copper strand, insulation, low-resistance
semiconductor, high-resistance semiconductor and
aluminum bar. Three perfect stator bars models (named
S1, S2 and S3) were formed to study the effect of
humidity. Perfect stator bar (S1) was tested at 60%
relative humidity, perfect stator bar (S2) was tested at
60% relative humidity whereas perfect stator bar (S3)
was tested at 40°0o, 60% and 70°0 relative humidity
successively. Twenty measurements from each bar
have been performed at 6.6 kV and then were
scratched to simulate slot defect stator bar models.
Low resistance
semi condulctor
Aluminum bar
Nvl...UU..UUUL
Copp?er strand
L---L-
r-

Generator is one of the critical components in power

plant and power generating system. Therefore, an in isulation
appropriate maintenance program should be applied to High resistance
semiconductor
the generator in order to make power system more
reliable and to prevent generator at early stage before Fig. 1 Perfect stator bar model
failure. Most of the troubles concerning the generator
occurred during an operation comes from stator Artificial defect
winding deterioration and continuous deterioration of Low resistance
semiconductor Aluminum bar
stator winding can ultimately result in generator \ / eCopper strand
failure. Many tests can be performed to assess the
stator winding condition that help to better a
maintenance plan and one of those tests is partial
discharge measurement. Since the partial discharge has
significant effect on the insulation life, a new partial
Insulation
discharge detector has been developed for monitoring High resistance
the condition of electrical insulation. Partial discharge semiconductor

measurement using digital techniques which makes

more complex functions can be calculated easily and
yield many different parameters [1],[2]. Each
parameter gives specific information which leads to
better evaluation and possesses more advantages than
conventional techniques. Although partial discharge
test is one of the most effective tools used to assess the
condition of insulation, it is influenced by several
Fig.2 Slot defect stator bar model
To simulate the progress of slot degradation, the
semiconductor layer covering stator surface of the
same bar was scratched at different defect sizes and
was tested again. Firstly, slot defect stator bar model

1-4244-0189-5/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE. 57

(SI) was scratched at three different defect sizes which
are 2x5 cm2, 2x10 cm2 and 2x15 cm2 to simulate a
lower degradation level comparing to slot defect stator
bar model (S2) and each defect size was tested at 60%
relative humidity while slot defect stator bar model
(S2) was scratched at three different defect sizes of
2x10 cm2, 2x20 cm2 and 2x30 cm2 to simulate a higher
degradation level comparing to slot defect stator bar
model (SI) and each defect size was also tested at 60%
relative humidity. The last slot defect stator bar model
(S3) was scratched at four different defect sizes (2x5
cm2, 2x7.5 cm2, 2x10 cm2 and 2x15 cm2) and each
defect size was tested at 4000 relative humidity. In
addition, slot defect stator bar model (S3) with the
defect size of 2x15 cm2 was tested at 60% and 70°O
relative humidity as well to study the effect of
humidity on partial activity at the same defect size.
PARTIAL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS
The data from each stator bar was analyzed by visual
inspection and compared the difference of the three
dimension distribution, H1( S7 ,q) which displays the
relationship between discharge magnitude (q),
discharge intensity (n) and phase angle( i ). The
following two dimension distributions were also
processed: the maximum pulse height Hqmax( $7) the
mean pulse height Hqn( S ), the pulse count Hj( z) , the
number of discharge vs. discharge magnitude H(q) and
the number of discharge vs. discharge energy H(p).All
distributions of each stator bars which were testes at
4000, 60% and 7000 relative humidity were compared
to study the effect of humidity on partial discharge
measurement. Although the distributions have
characteristic shapes which vary upon the size of the
defect, it's quite difficult to observe the change of
these distributions, Thus the following statistical
parameters are also calculated to observe the change of
parameters when the degradation progresses.
The first parameter is skewness which represents the
asymmetry of the distribution. If the distribution is
symmetric, Sk = 0, if it is asymmetry to the left, Sk >
0, if it is asymmetry to the right, Sk < 0. The skewness
is defined as equation 1[3].
Sk
N
Y (qi-p) 3Pi (1
i=1 I
Where qj is the record value and p1 is the probability of
frequency of appearance for that value qj in time
window i, Vt is the mean value E qi. pi, and ca is the
variance CG2 = ( qij )2. pi. The Sk+ and Sk- are the
skewness of distribution in the positive and negative
half of the voltage cycle respectively.
1-4244-0189-5/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.
The second parameter is kurtosis representing the
sharpness of the distribution. If the distribution has the
same sharpness as a normal distribution, Ku = 0. If it is
sharper than normal, Ku > 0, and if it is flatter, Ku < 0.
The kurtosis is defined as equation 2[3].
Ku =
N (qi -A)4 Pi (2)
itl
The Ku+ and Ku - are the kurtosis of distribution in
the positive and negative half of the voltage cycle
respectively.
The third is fractal analysis[4]. In particular, the fractal
method processes two parameters: the fractal
dimension and the lacunarity. The fractal dimension
corresponds to the roughness of a surface of three
dimension distribution. The fractal dimension (D) is
derived from equation 3.
N(L) = KL-D (3)
The lacunarity could be compared to the density of
surface of three dimension distribution. A low value
corresponds to an empty surface; a high value
corresponds to a dense surface. The lacunarity (A) is
defined as equation 4.
A=M2(L)-[M(L)2]
(4)
[M(L)2 ]
where M(L) is the mean and M2(L) is the variance of
the number of sites per box. N(L) is the mean of boxes
per site, K is a constant and L is the length of box.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 3,4 and 5 show the results of partial discharge
measurement of slot defect stator bar model (S3) tested
at 4000, 60% and 7000 relative humidity respectively. It
is clearly visible that partial discharge activity at 4000
relative humidity is quite differ from partial discharge
activity at 60% and 7000 relative humidity noticing
from the higher discharge magnitude and the number
of the pulse count. Visual comparison of the test
results at 60% and 7000 relative humidity show some
differences, but it is quite difficult to quantify these
differences. Figure 15,16 and 17 show skewness,
kurtosis and fractal analysis of slot defect bar model
(S3). They show the change of statistical parameters
upon the variation of humidity. Figure 6 to 14 show all
statistical parameters of slot defect stator bar models
(S1, S2 and S3) tested at 60%, 60% and 40% relative
humidity respectively. The results show that both
skewness and kurtosis of a lower degradation model
(S1) cannot be used as tools to show the trend of
insulation degradation while in a higher degradation
58
model (S2) tested at the same humidity a better trend Sk+ vs. Sk- Plot of Hqn at Different Defect Sizes
could be shown. Nevertheless, fractal analysis of all 1.7

models (S 1, S2 and S3) shows the best trend of 1.6

1.5
insulation degradation, even though the partial Sk- 1.4
* PerfectBar#Sl
M DefectBar #S(2x5cm')
discharge activity is low. Figure 8,11 and 14 of model 1.3
1.2
A Defect Bar #Sl(2xlOcm')

S3 show that all statistical parameters can show the 1.1

|X Defect Bar #Sl(2xl5cm')

trend of insulation degradation, even though both 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.51.6 1.7 1.81.9 2
skewness and kurtosis cannot show the trend of Sk+

insulation degradation at high relative humidity.

Fig.6 Sk plot of SI model at different defect sizes

Sk+ vs. Sk- Plot of Hqn at Different Defect Sizes

1.7
1.6
7 * Perfect Bar #S2

k 114Defect Bar #S2(2xlOcr)

1.3 |A Defect Bar #S2(2x20cm')

Defect Bar
1.2 x X #S2(2x3Ocm')
1.1

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

Sk+

Fig.7 Sk plot of S2 model at different defect sizes

Fig.3 S3 model at 4000 relative humidity Sk+ vs. Sk- Plot of Hqn at Different Defect Sizes

1.7
1.6 * Perfect Bar #S3
1.5 Defect Bar #S3(2x5cm')
Sk 14 A Defect Bar #S3(2x7.5cm')
1.3 ! *!x Defect Bar #S3(2xlOcm')
#S3(2xl5cm')
1.

13 Defect Bar

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

Sk+

Fig.8 Sk plot of S3 model at different defect sizes

Ku+ vs. Ku- Plot of Hqn at Different Defect Sizes

-1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5

-0.2
# Perfect Bar #SI1
04
Defect Bar #S1(2x5cm')
Ku-
Fig.4 S2 model at 60% relative humidity
06
A Defect Bar #S1(2x7.5cm')
-0.8 X Defect Bar #Sl(2xlOcm')
-1
.,A -1.2
-1.4
Ku+

Fig.9 Ku plot of SI model at different defect sizes

Ku+ vs. Ku- Plot of Hqn at Different Defect Sizes

-1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5

-0.2
I0 4 * Perfect Bar #S2
I
Ku- -0.6 * Defect Bar #S2(2xlOcm')
I* * -0.8A,Defect Bar #S2(2x20cm')
I~~~~
K1 X Defect Bar #S2(2x3Ocm')
1u4
Ku+4

Fig.5 SI model at 60% relative humidity

Fig. 10 Ku plot of S2 model at different defect sizes

1-4244-0189-5/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE. 59

 Ku+ vs. Ku- Plot of Hqn at Different Defect Sizes Ku+ vs. Ku- Plot of Hqn at 40%, 60% and 70% Relative Humidity

-1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 -2 -1 0 1 2

-0.2 -0 .2 * Defect Bar #S3 (2xI 5 cm2)

-0.4 * Perfect Bar #S3 Ku -0. 4 40% Relative Humidity
Ku- -0.6 * Defect Bar #S3(2x5cm') -0.6 N DefectBar#S3 (2x1cm)
*0 Defect Bar #S3(2x7.5cm') -0.8 60% Relative Humidity
XDefect Bar #S3(2xl Ocm) A DefectBar#S3 (2x1cm)
-1 70% Relative Humidity
O12 Defect Bar #S3(2xl5cm')
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
Ku+ Ku+

Fig. 11 Ku plot of S3 model at different defect sizes Fig. 16 Ku plot of S3 model at different humidity

Fractal Analysis at Different Defect Sizes Fractal Analysis at 40%, 60% and 70% Relative Humidity
2.4
2235 2.4
2.3 2.36
2.32 * Defect Bar #S3 (2xI cm)
2 2.25 -Perfect Bar #SI
2.2 E Defect Bar #SI(2xScm) 2.28
=,72.24- 40% Relative Humidity
2.15 *ADefect Bar #SI2x7.5cm') * Defect Bar #S3 (2xI1cm)
60% Relative Humidity
2.1 XDefect Bar #S1(2xIOcm) 5 2.16
a2.12-
2°5
2.05 2 08
2.04
A Defect Bar #S3 (2xI1cm)
70% Relative Humidity
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Lacunarity
Lacunarity

Fig. 12 Fractal analysis of S1 model

at different defect sizes Fig. 17 Fractal analysis of S3 model
at different humidity
Fractal Analysis at Different Defect Sizes
CONCLUSION
2.4
2235
223
2.2
* PerfectBar#S2
* Defect Bar# S2 (2xlO
cm1 )
The test results show that the lower relative humidity,
2.15
2.1 4
Defect Bar # S2 (2x20 cm)
X Defect Bar # S2 (2x30cm)
the higher partial discharge activity, so we can
2.05
conclude that partial discharge phenomenon is
0 0.01 0.02
Lacunarity
0.03 0.04 0.05
influenced by the humidity. In addition, it was
confirmed that the change of skewness and kurtosis at
low relative humidity can be directly correlated with
Fig. 13 Fractal analysis of S2 model the insulation degradation, but at high relative
at different defect sizes humidity the correlation could not be shown. However,
the fractal analysis is the best effective tool used to
Fractal Analysis at Different Defect Sizes assess the condition of insulation since it shows a good
224 correlation at both low and high relative humidity.
2.3 x 4O* Perfect Bar #S3
2=253 - Defect Bar #S3(2x5cm')
2.2 - Defect Bar #S3(2x7.5cm') REFERENCES
a215 X DefectBar #S3(2xlOcm1
)
2.05 - Defect Bar #S3(2xl5cm')
2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
[1] E. Gulski., F.H. Kreuger, "Computer-aided
Lacunarity recognition of Discharge Sources," IEEE Transactions
on Electrical Insulation, Vol. 27 No 1, pp.82-92
February 1992.
Fig. 14 Fractal analysis of S3 model [2] A. Krivada, "Automated Recognition of Partial
at different defect sizes
discharges," IEEE Transactions on Electrical
Insulation, Vol. 2 No 5, pp.796-821, October 1995.
Sk+ vs. Sk- Plot of Hqn at 40%, 60% and 70% Relative Humidity
[3] Yue Bo., Li Jian., Cheng Yonghong., Hengkun
2 Xie, "Study on the Multi-Stress Aging of Stator
1.5
* * DefectBar #S3 (2x 1cm')
40% Relative Humidity Insulation Based on Fingerprint Parameters," Proc. Of
Sk- * Defect Bar #S3 (2xI
60% Relative Humidity
1cm') 2001 International Symposium Electrical Insulating
0.5 * Defect Bar #S3 (2xI1cm')
70% Relative Humidity Materials (ISEIM 2001), pp. 729-732, 19-22 Nov.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2001.
Sk+ [4] Satish., L. and Zaengl, W.S. "Can Fractal be used
for Recognizing 3-D Partial Discharge Patterns?,"
Fig. 15 Sk plot of S3 model at different humidity IEEE Transaction of Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, Vol. 2, pp. 352-359, 1995.

1-4244-0189-5/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE. 60