FULLTEXT01

DEGREE PROJECT IN ELECTRIC POWER ENGINEERING 120 CREDITS,
SECOND CYCLE
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2016
Electric field distribution of

sphere-plane gaps
A SIMULATION APPROACH
MICHAIL MICHELARAKIS
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

Electric field distribu on of
sphere-plane gaps
Master Thesis project
Michail Michealrakis
September 2015
KTH School of Electrical Engineering

Supervisor & Examiner: Associate Professor Hans Edin
Commissioned by ABB AB, HVDC

Supervisors: Dr. Dong Wu
Dr. Liliana Arevalo
TRITA-EE 2016:030
Abstract
The continuous increase of the voltage levels in power transmission systems has lead
to the occurrence of higher switching transients during their operation. The design
of equipment and grid components able to sustain such a stressful operation, requires
an intensive study of the electric field stress generated by these transients, and their
distribution to the vicinity of each configuration.
Sphere-plane gaps are the most theoretically and practically interesting electrode
configurations. So far, the majority of the conducted work is referred to the study of
the discharge characteristics of this structure. However, a study of the electrostatic
electric field is required. An accurate calculation of the electric field can contribute
significantly to an even better understanding of the discharge characteristics and the
principles behind them.
In this project, is presented a simulation approach for the calculation of the electro-
static field of a sphere-plane configuration, varying the dimensions of the sphere and
the gap distance. For this purpose, a Finite Element Method (FEM) solver was used, in
which the configuration was designed and the numerical solution of the problem was
implemented. After that, an attempt was performed to specify the breakdown voltage
based on the electric field calculation and distribution.
Useful results were recorded from both the simulation of the electrostatic model
and the calculation of the breakdown voltage. One of the most important findings, was
the specification of an approximate relation between the diameters of the sphere and the
tube where this is mounted. As a consequence, the study of the electric field distribution
became easier, while at the same time an accurate calculation of the breakdown voltage
was achieved.
A series of validations were performed, through the comparison with the already ex-
isting, published and unpublished, experimental tests and a number of conclusions were
listed. One of the most significant, was the specification of the correlation between the
electrostatic model and test measurements and how these different approaches can be
linked to each other in a practically efficient way. At the end, there is a proposal for
further work on the subject, and possible improvements of the already conducted work.
Keywords: sphere-plane electrode configuration, electric field, electrostatics, gap dis-

tance, breakdown voltage, Finite Element Method (FEM), high voltage testing
i
Sammanfa ning
Ökningen av spänningsnivåerna i kraftöverföringssystem har lett till högre kop-
plingstransienter under drift. Konstruktionen av utrustning och nätverkskomponen-
ter som kan motstå en sådan påkänning, kräver en noggrann förstudie av de elektriska
fältet som genereras av dessa transienter.
Ett gap av sfär-platta är den mest teoretiskt och praktiskt intressanta elektrodkon-
figurationen att studera. Hittills har majoritetet av genomfört arbete avsett att studera
urladdningsegenskaper för denna struktur. Dock krävs studie av elektrostatiska elek-
triska fältet. En noggrann beräkning av elektriska fältet kan bidra till en ännu bättre
förståelse för urladdningsegenskaper och principerna bakom dem.
I detta projekt presenteras en simuleringsmetod för beräkning av elektrostatiska fäl-
tet av en sfär-plan konfiguration, med varierande dimensioner av sfären och gapavstån-
det. För detta ändamål har använts en Finite Element Method (FEM) lösning, där kon-
figurationen utformades och problemets numeriska lösningen genomfördes. Därefter
har gjorts ett försök för att ange genombrottsspänningen baserad på beräkning och
distribution av elektriskta fältet.
Resultat registrerades från både simulering av elektrostatiska modellen och beräkn-
ing av genomslagsspänningen. Ett av de viktigaste resultaten var specifikationen av ett
ungefärligt förhållande mellan diametrarna av sfären och röret där sfären är monterad.
Som en konsekvens blev studiet av elektriska fältfördelningen lättare, medan en exakt
beräkning av genomslagsspänningen uppnåddes.
En valideringsserie har genomförts genom jämförelse med de redan existerande,
publicerade och opublicerade, experimentella tester och ett antal slutsatser har noterats.
En av de mest meningsfulla, var specifikation av sambandet mellan den elektrostatiska
modellen och provmätningarna samt hur dessa olika tillvägagångssätt kan kopplas till
varandra på ett praktiskt och effektivt sätt. Slutligen finns det ett förslag för fortsatta
arbete samt eventuella förbättringar av redan genomfört arbete.
Nyckelord: sfär-platta elektrodkonfiguration, elektriskt fält, elektrostatik, gapavstånd,

genombrottsspänning, Finite Element Method (FEM), högspänningsprovning
iii
Acknowledgements
The current Thesis project constitutes the final part of my M.Sc degree in Electric
Power Engineering at KTH, Royal Institute of Technology. This Thesis work was
commissioned by ABB AB, HVDC and was conducted at ABB AB, HVDC, Ludvika,
Sweden.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors at ABB AB,
HVDC, Dr. Dong Wu and Dr. Liliana Arevalo for their guidance and contribution on
the project during the five and a half months of its implementation. I enjoyed every
single meeting and discussion we had. I am very grateful to Dr. Raul Montano, Manager
of the DC/US/R&D Studies Department for his continuous support and for making
me feel comfortable within the company from the very first day. I would like also to
thank Dr. Joan Hernandez for his assistance during the design of the simulation model
used for the current project.
Furthermore, my deepest thanks to my supervisor and examiner at KTH, Associate
Professor Hans Edin, for his support and advice.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for being always next to me, and my long-
time friends Efi Stragali, Georgios Karmiris, Ioannis Chatzis, Konstantina Pantagaki
and Sotirios Missas.
Michail Michelarakis
Stockholm, September 2015
v
Contents
Abstract i
Sammanfattning iii
Acknowledgements v
Contents vii
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xv
List of Symbols xvii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problem definition & Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Report overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Overview of sphere-plane gaps in High Voltage testing 5

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Smooth electrode surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Surface irregularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Different environment conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Electric field and potential calculation 11

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Electrostatic fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1 Coulomb’s law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2 The electric field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3 Gauss’s law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
vii
CONTENTS
3.2.4 Rotation of the electrostatic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2.5 Electric potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.6 Poisson’s & Laplace’s equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.7 Electric displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 Electric field distribution in electrode configurations . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1 Uniform distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2 Non-uniform distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.1 Method of images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2 Charge Simulation Method (CSM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.3 Finite Element Method (FEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Implementation of the electrostatic model 21

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 Design of configuration geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3 Simulation workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4 Mesh generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.5 Stability of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.6 Post-processing of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5 Case study 31
5.1 Background description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2 Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.1 Electric field over d gap /R sphere ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.2 The tube diameter issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3.3 Stability of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.3.4 Electric field over actual gap distance d gap . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3.5 Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface . . . 42
5.3.6 Electric field and voltage distribution along the gap . . . . . . 42
5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.4.1 Sphere mounted on a tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.4.2 Sphere without any mounting object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.5 Study of the breakdown voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.6 Validation of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6.1 Published measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6.2 ABB internal tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6 Closure 61
6.1 Summary of the conducted work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2 Conclusions from case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3 Proposal for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
viii
CONTENTS
References 67
Appendices 71
A Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface 73
B Sphere and tube diameter ratio for different cases 79
C Calculated values 85
C.1 Maximum electric field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C.2 Breakdown voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
ix
List of Figures
1.1 Typical electrode configurations used for electric strength tests. . . . . 2
2.1 Example of a lightning impulse waveform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 U50% over gap distance for different sphere electrode radii. . . . . . . . 7
2.3 U50% over gap distance for different sizes and places of installation of
the protrusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Infinite parallel plates of opposite charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Electric field distribution in needle-plane configuration. . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Calculation of potential between a sphere and an infinite grounded
plane using the method of images. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1 Laboratory sphere-plane configuration set-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.2 Sphere-plane configuration designed in Comsolr Multiphysics. . . . . . 23
4.3 Schematic representation of the simulation procedure in Comsolr . . . 24
4.4 Mesh generated in Comsolr Multiphysics with extra fine element size. . 26
4.5 Custom mesh set-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.6 Geometry parameters that should not affect the calculations. . . . . . . 27
4.7 Parts on the configuration geometry that the post-processing of the
simulation results will be based on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1 Maximum electric field on the sphere surface, appears at the bottom of
the sphere electrode, and maximum electric field on the tube surface,
over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for different Dsphere values . . . . . . . . 33
5.2 Maximum electric field on the sphere surface, appears at the bottom of
the sphere electrode, and maximum electric field on the tube surface,
over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for Dsphere < 1 m and Dtube = 0.1 m. . . 34
5.3 Maximum electric field on the sphere surface, appears at the bottom
of the sphere electrode (continuous lines), and maximum electric field
on the tube surface (dashed lines), over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for
Dsphere > 1 m and Dtube = 0.45 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
5.4 Electric field at the bottom of the sphere electrode and the maximum
electric field on the tube surface, over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for
different Dsphere values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.5 Maximum electric field on the sphere and the tube over Dratio . . . . . . 38
5.6 Maximum electric field on the sphere surface, appears at the bottom
of the sphere electrode, and maximum electric field on the tube sur-
face, over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for different Dsphere values. Here
Dratio = 4.36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.7 Emax over size of the domains used for the open boundaries set-up. . . 40
5.8 Emax over Ltube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.9 Emax over dright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.10 Maximum electric field Emax over the actual gap distance dgap for dif-
ferent Dsphere studied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.11 Electric field distribution on the sphere surface for Dsphere = 0.25 m
and different dgap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.12 Electric field distribution on the sphere surface for Dsphere = 2 m and
different dgap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.13 Electric field distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 0.25 m
and various dgap values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.14 Voltage distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 0.25 m and
various dgap values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.15 Electric field distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 2 m and
various dgap values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.16 Voltage distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 2 m and var-
ious dgap values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.17 Percentage differences between points of figure 5.6. . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.18 Typical electrode configurations used for electric strength tests. . . . . 49
5.19 Electric field lines for two different gap distances. . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.20 Emax of a sphere without any mounting object and a sphere mounted
on a tube. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.21 Emax over Vapplied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.22 Breakdown voltage Vb over gap distance for different sphere electrode
diameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.23 Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage based in (5.15) and
(5.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.24 Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage Vb and U50% from
test results included in [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.25 Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage Vb and U50% from
test results included in [4]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.26 Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage and unpublished
test results provided by ABB AB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
6.1 Emax for different enhancement factor f concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.1 Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface for Dsphere =
0.25 m and different dgap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
0.5 m and different dgap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
0.75 m and different dgap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2 m and different dgap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
B.1 Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 0.25 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

B.2 Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 0.5 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
B.3 Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 0.75 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
B.8 Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 2 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
xiii
List of Tables
4.1 Typical tube dimensions used in laboratory experiments. . . . . . . . . 23
B.1 Dratio for every Dsphere value studied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C.1 Simulation results for maximum electric field in [kV/cm]. Each col-
umn corresponds to a different sphere diameter value Dsphere , while
each row to different gap distance over sphere diameter ratio values
dgap /Dsphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
C.2 Calculation results for breakdown voltage Vb in [kV]. Each col-
umn corresponds to a different sphere diameter value Dsphere , while
each row to different gap distance over sphere diameter ratio values
dgap /Dsphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
xv
List of Symbols
ε0 Permittivity of free space C/ (V · m)

η Field efficiency factor
λ Line charge C/m
ρ Volume charge C/m3
σ Surface charge C/m2
D Electric displacement field C/m2
Dratio Sphere and tube diameter ratio
Dsphere Sphere electrode diameter m
Dtube Tube diameter m
E Electric field V/m
Eb Breakdown strength of air V/m
Em Electric field magnitude kV/cm
Emax Maximum electric field (norm) V/m
Emean Mean electric field (norm) V/m
F Coulomb force N
Nke Shape function used in FEM
OB Open boundary domain width
Qenc Enclosed charge C
Rsphere Sphere electrode radius m
Rtube Tube radius m
Vapplied Applied voltage to the high voltage electrode V
Vb Electrostatic breakdown voltage V
U50% 50 % breakdown voltage V
UB Breakdown voltage from Menemenlis et al. V
dgap Gap distance m
xvii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
dright Distance to the side on the right in the simulation geometry m

f Field enhancement factor
pij Potential coefficients used in CSM
qr Random charge C
qs Source charge C
r Distance between charges m
r̂ Position vector
xviii
Chapter 1
Introduc on
1.1 Background
Over the years, the continuous population growth and industrial development resulted
in a corresponding increase of power demand, not only quantitatively but also qualita-
tively. In addition, the search of more environmentally friendly energy sources has led
to an even more extensive study on the modern power systems and how these can be
adapted to the existing requirements.
Due to efficiency, control capability, interconnection distance and cost constraints,
HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) transmission of electricity is considered as the
state of art for modern power systems. Although, the increase of the voltage levels
requires the design and development of equipment able to sustain such a demanding
operation, including even more stressful switching transients.
Following the continuously increasing voltage levels, electric fields and breakdown
phenomena lead to always new and challenging approaches. This makes the under-
standing of the electric field characteristics and their distribution to the vicinity of each
studied configuration, a very interesting and useful field of study. Furthermore, a suffi-
cient understanding of the electric field behaviour will contribute to a very good extent
to the understanding of the discharge phenomena and the principles behind them.
So far, many studies were dedicated to the discharge characteristics of different
electrode configurations and under different voltage stresses, environment conditions
and polarities. Most of these studies were based on laboratory tests and numerical
approaches focusing mainly on the breakdown voltage on each case. Additionally, the
major part of this work was conducted many years ago, when the availability in software
and equipment was negligible compared to nowadays. All these consist of important
motivations to approach again, after a long period of limited work, this area of study,
this time through in a simulation level.
1
1.2. PROBLEM DEFINITION & OBJECTIVES
A well defined model is expected to return a set of results that will match in a very
good extend with the already conducted and published in previous works [1-6]. Possible
limitations in the design of the model and the available resources during the calculations
may lead to partial convergence of the results. A series of evaluations will be performed
to confirm the accuracy of the produced results. All the possible divergences, mutatis
mutandis, will be discussed in detail and the suggested improvements will be proposed
as future work.
1.2 Problem defini on & Objec ves

For electric strength tests there are various electrode configurations which give the
opportunity to the involved to create electric fields with different degrees of inhomo-
geneity. Some of the typical configurations used in this kind of testing, also illustrated
in figure 1.1, are known as needle-plane, rod-plane, sphere-sphere and sphere-plane.
d gap d gap
(a) Needle-plane. (b) Rod-plane.
ere ere
D sph D sph
d gap
d gap
(c) Sphere-sphere. (d) Sphere-plane.
Figure 1.1: Typical electrode configurations used for electric strength tests as these
are depicted in the majority of the bibliography [7-10].
All the configurations presented above are of special interest. One of the most used
in High Voltage equipment are the sphere-plane gaps (figure 1.1d) and therefore one of
the most interesting to study. Regarding the electric field, in this kind of configuration
2
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
it is possible to meet all the three types of distribution, the uniform, the quasi-uniform
and the non-uniform, depending of the distance that separates the charged electrode
with the grounded plane. This is an additional motivation to study and understand
these configurations with respect to the static electric field behaviour and the discharge
characteristics.
Available studies on the subject are almost entirely based on the specification of
the breakdown voltage and its variation with different geometry characteristics of the
configuration. The demanding calculations required [11-13] and the lack in advanced
software and tools, made the systematic electric field calculation a very challenging
procedure, back in the years when the majority of these works were conducted.
Through the next pages, will be presented a simulation approach on the electric
field calculation of sphere-plane gaps. The general purpose is to take the advantage of
modern software packages, as Finite Element Method solvers, and create a simulation
model which will give an accurate calculation of the electric field distribution. There
will be also performed an attempt, after the post-processing of the first batch of results,
to estimate the breakdown voltage of the electrostatic model for different dimensions
of the electrode configuration.
The aim of the working procedure described above, and the overall project, is to
suggest a new approach to the understanding of sphere-plane gaps, this time through
the study of the electrostatic field distribution. A possible sufficient calculation of the
breakdown voltage would constitute a very useful contribution, especially for the cases
where a quick and precise calculation is required, substituting time- and cost-demanding
tests.
1.3 Report overview

Chapter 1 is an introduction to the studied field while at the same time are presented
the definition of the problem that is about to be solved together with its objectives.
Chapter 2 constitutes a brief overview of the sphere-plane gaps in High Voltage testing,
while Chapter 3 deals with the calculation of the electric field and potential, starting
from the basic principles of electrostatics until more complicated numerical methods.
In Chapter 4 is described the implementation of the electrostatic simulation model,
with main focus on how the theoretical assumptions can be adapted during the FEM
solver set-up. Chapter 5 is the largest part of the current report. In this, can be found
the results from the simulation of the electrostatic model and the calculation of the
breakdown voltage. Finally in Chapter 6 are listed all the conclusions of this thesis
project as well as some ideas for future work and further improvement of the existing.
3
Chapter 2
Overview of sphere-plane
gaps in High Voltage tes ng
2.1 Introduc on
In order to get a better view on the applications of sphere-plane gaps in High Voltage
testing, it is convenient to present a series of models that have been used in laboratory
tests and a brief summary of the corresponding results. The purpose behind this is to
present the wide range of applications that this specific electrode configuration can be
used and how useful in the recording of numerous conclusions can be. Together with
the presentation of each case, there will be provided an appropriate description of the
principles and definitions that are considered in each of the studies.
As it was mentioned before, most of the already conducted work about the be-
haviour of sphere-plane gaps, consists of laboratory tests under various conditions.
Because of the test procedure and the availabilities in measurement equipment, almost
in all of the works, the authors base their observations around the influences on the
Critical Flashover Voltage (CFO).
In almost all of the studies, the contributors focus on testing under impulse voltages.
This kind of voltage, has the characteristic that it reaches its peak value very fast and
then decays to zero after a certain time [14]. There are two kind of impulse voltages
[7, 15, 16],
• The lightning impulse voltages, which are characterised by short front duration,
ranging between 1 µs up to a few tens of µs, and then with a slower rate they
decrease to zero. As their name implies, the source of lightning overvoltages are
lightning discharges. The standard lightning impulse voltage waveform accepted
is 1.2/50 µs.
5
2.2. SMOOTH ELECTRODE SURFACE
• The switching impulse voltages, which represent the transient overvoltages due
to sudden changes in the power systems, switching operations or faults. The
standard switching surge voltage is designated to 250/2500 µs.
1.1
(2)
1
(3) (4)
0.9
0.8
Voltage in [p.u.]
0.7
0.6
(1)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time in [µs]
Figure 2.1: Example of a lightning impulse waveform. Curve derived by imple-
menting equation (2) included in [17]. (1) Time to half the peak voltage, (2) Time
to peak voltage, (3) − (4) Time above 90 %.
During testing procedure when a number of impulses are applied, usually not all of
them, but a percentage, will lead to electrical breakdown of the gap [18]. When a specific
impulse voltage leads to breakdown in all of its applications then this voltage represents
the U100% . When breakdown occurs for half of the applications of the applied impulse
voltage then the same voltage represents the U50% . Respectively, U0% represents the
largest peak impulse voltage that does not cause any breakdown during any of its ap-
plications [14]. More information on general definitions and test requirements in High
Voltage testing, can be found in IEC 60060-1:2010 [18].
2.2 Smooth electrode surface

Despite the case that a spherical electrode with a smooth surface, is expected to be
“easier” to be studied compared to more special configurations, practically they require
quite much attention. The absence of irregularities of any kind on the surface of the
electrode, makes the observation and the record of the results more sensitive to a variety
6
CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF SPHERE-PLANE GAPS IN HIGH VOLTAGE TESTING
of factors, like the set-up of the entire laboratory. Moreover, it is required very special
treatment in order to manufacture a completely smooth surface, free of even very small
attached particles.
There are numerous references in the bibliography about sphere-plane gaps. In all
of them is included a brief description of the electrode configuration set-up and the
voltage stress preferred. A quite recent and very detailed description is given in [3].
For the case of a smooth sphere surface, the fact that during the tests all the break-
downs were initiating from the surface of the sphere is a detail not clearly mentioned
by the authors of different works [1, 2, 19-21]. The place where the maximum stress is
supposed to appear, will be one of the major considerations of this work. As it will be
seen in a later chapter, this will play an important role in the design of the simulation
model.
A very common description and depiction of the breakdown voltage in sphere-
plane gaps that can be found in many classical textbooks [8, 22] is the one of figure 2.2.
Here is presented the variation in U50% with the change of the gap distance, and the
sphere electrode diameter.
I II III
D3 > D2
D2 > D1
D1
U50%
0
0
Gap distance
Figure 2.2: U50% over gap distance for different sphere electrode diameters. Plots
were redrawn based on material included in [8, 22].
As it is described, in Zone I for small gap distances the electric field is considered
as uniform and the U50% depends mainly on that distance. In Zone II, as the gap be-
comes longer, the electric field becomes non-uniform and the 50 % breakdown voltage
depends on both the sphere radius/diameter and the gap spacing. Finally, in Zone III,
7
2.3. SURFACE IRREGULARITIES
the electric field is considered as strongly non-uniform and the U50% is affected only by
the gap spacing [8,22]. When the electric field turns strongly non-uniformly distributed,
breakdown is preceded from predischarge phenomena such as corona.
In all the cases and corresponding sources it is stated the complexity in the studying
of non-uniform electric fields for such electrode configurations and that the research
is still ongoing. This gives an extra point of interest to the study of the behaviour of
U50% , similar to the estimations in figure 2.2. One possible drawback in this approach
is that the sphere electrode is assumed to consist only of an ideal sphere without any
extra component, a tube or a rod, where it is supposed to be mounted.
2.3 Surface irregulari es

Different electrode surface conditions is a quite interesting topic for study, regarding
the sphere-plane electrode structure. Practically, irregularities on the surface of the
sphere electrode can appear as a result of insufficient manufacturing where protrusions
of the same electric constant as the electrode material are introduced. Also, external
factors such as insects or small particles of different electric constant are responsible
for surface corrosion.
In [3] and [23] are presented very interesting test results for cases where metallic
protrusions and objects of very high electric constant are installed. In [23], is studied the
case of a segmented sphere as part of the bottom shield of an HVDC valve. In all cases
is observed the drastic reduction of dielectric strength of the gap by the installation of
each kind of protrusions and how the place of their installation affects correspondingly
the place where the discharge is initiated. A brief summary of the results is presented
in figure 2.3 [3].
An interesting study is presented also in [1], where among the other cases, is stud-
ied the installation of a spark plug in order to achieve an artificial acceleration of the
corona discharge. Such an experiment gives a view on how the breakdown voltage of a
relatively long gap is affected if the predischarge phenomena, like corona, are artificially
initiated. As it was expected, also this attempt resulted to the reduction of U50% .
2.4 Different environment condi ons

Environment conditions defer when the intent of the involved in the implementation of
the experiment is to study an outdoor or indoor HV installation. Different assumptions
should be performed, for example, for an indoor HV installation where humidity, pollu-
tion, presence of insects and temperature, diverge significantly from the corresponding
outdoor.
An extended research on the how rain affects long air-gaps, including the sphere-
8
CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF SPHERE-PLANE GAPS IN HIGH VOLTAGE TESTING
2400
2200
2000
U50% in [kV]
1800
1600
1400
Without protrusion
1200 10 mm protrusion - side
50 mm protrusion - side
1000 10 mm protrusion - underside
50 mm protrusion - underside
800
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gap distance in [m]
Figure 2.3: U50% over gap distance for different sizes and places of installation
of the protrusion. Here the diameter of the sphere electrode is 1.6 m. Plots were
redrawn from figure 5 in [3] and are based on the test results presented in the same
publication.
plane configuration, is described in [21]. It is observed that the presence of rain reduces
considerably the breakdown voltage in long sphere-plane gaps for switching impulses
of any polarity while at the same time, the affection of rain decreases with the increase
of the gap spacing. Also the probabilistic nature of the U50% seems to be affected from
rain as for long sphere-plane gaps the standard deviation increases significantly.
A useful study for indoor installations is presented in [24], for several different
electrode configurations. The correction procedure from the test conditions to the
standard conditions, and vice versa, according to IEC 60060-1:2010 [18] is put under
observation in order to verify its accuracy. The understanding of this bidirectional
procedure is a significant contribution to the understanding of the differences between
the two installation types. According to the conclusions included in [24] the correction
procedure for sphere-plane gaps produces quite accurate results.
9
Chapter 3
Electric field and poten al
calcula on
3.1 Introduc on
Electromagnetism constitutes one of the fundamental principles for the understanding
of power systems. On one hand, the conversion of mechanical energy into kinetic in
rotating machines, and the increase and decrease of voltage levels in power transformers
are two very obvious cases were the magnetism is the basis of the analysis. On the other
hand, electric fields are crucial in electrical insulation, the description of the energy
transfer from charged particles to the insulating materials and the occurrence of several
phenomena in transmission lines and substations [25].
Over time, electric and magnetic fields, regarding their role in power systems men-
tioned before, used to introduce limitations in their understanding mostly because of
the challenging required calculations. Because of this, there are some effective ap-
proaches where under some circumstances an electromagnetic problem can be solved
if it is reduced to an equivalent circuit level. Another available option is the use of
recently developed software packages which give the opportunity to design the config-
uration that is under study and provide a solution based on the already known numerical
methods used in electromagnetism.
In all the cases, in order to produce an accurate solution so that someone will be
able to interpret this, it is required a sufficient knowledge of the background theory.
For the current work, the analysis will be limited in the principles behind electrostatic
fields. A brief description of the most popular numerical techniques for the calculation
of this kind of fields, will be also presented.
11
3.2. ELECTROSTATIC FIELDS
3.2 Electrosta c fields

3.2.1 Coulomb's law
Classical electromagnetism is also referred in theoretical physics as classical electrody-
namics. The very basic principle behind this, is the calculation of the force between
an electric charge, qs , which is considered as the source, and another random electric
charge qr . Both of the charges are assumed to be in a motion as a function of time. If
the source charge is considered as stationary, though the rest of the charges are mov-
ing, then this is considered as a case of electrostatics [26]. In that case, the force F
between the stationary source charge and a random charge in motion can be calculated
by Coulomb’s law
1 qs qr
F = r̂ [N] (3.1)
4πε0 r2
where, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, r is the distance between the two charges
and r̂ is known as the position vector.
In the case where the source charge consists of multiple point charges then
Coulomb’s law is adapted by the principle of superposition,
F = F1 + F2 + F3 + . . . + Fn (3.2)
3.2.2 The electric field

In electrostatics, the electric field is defined in two ways, the one induced by point
charges and the other induced by continuous distributions, such as line, surface and
volume charges. The electric field from several point charges is given by,
1 ∑ qi
n
E (r) = r̂ [N · C −1 ] (3.3)
4πε0 i=1 ri2
where this time ri is the distance between the point charge qi and the point where
the electric field is needed to be calculated. The general equation that expresses the
continuous charge distribution is
∫
1 dq
E (r) = r̂ (3.4)
4πε0 r2
where dq is the amount of the distributed charge [26]
12
CHAPTER 3. ELECTRIC FIELD AND POTENTIAL CALCULATION
dq → λdl ∼ σdS ∼ ρdV (3.5)
The parameters λ, σ and ρ correspond to the line, surface and volume charge den-
sities with SI units C/m, C/m2 and C/m3 respectively.
3.2.3 Gauss's law

One of the fundamental laws that characterize the electrostatic fields is the Gauss’s law,
and which can be expressed in two forms. The first one, which is easily derived since
the electric field is also adapted according to the superposition principle, is the integral
form
I
Qenc
E · da = (3.6)
S ε0
The right part of (3.6) denotes the electric flux and the definition behind this equation
is that the total electric flux out of a closed surface equals to the enclosed charge over
the permittivity of free space. By using the divergence theorem and the definition of
volume charge density of (3.5) is derived the differential form of Gauss’s law
ρ
∇·E = (3.7)
ε0
Gauss’s law is one of the very useful and flexible theorems used in electrostatics,
although its application is easier when there is a symmetry of the shapes used in the
studied geometry. The most characteristic of them are the plane, spherical and cylindri-
cal but even in these kind of symmetries there are restrictions. For example, cylindrical
symmetry can be studied accurately if someone considers an infinitely or extremely long
cylinder.
3.2.4 Rota on of the electrosta c field

Another basic characteristic of the electric fields in electrostatics is that they are con-
sidered as irrotational
∇×E =0 (3.8)
This also implies that the electrostatic forces are conservative [27].
13
3.2. ELECTROSTATIC FIELDS
3.2.5 Electric poten al

The equation that links the electric field E, which is defined as a vector, with the electric
potential V , which is correspondingly defined as a scalar, is
E = −∇V (3.9)
As it was mentioned before, the electric field is irrotational, so it is possible to
express it as a gradient of a scalar potential. The minus sign in (3.9) has a conventional
role and it implies that by moving against the electric field, the potential increases. It
can also be expressed as
∫
V =− E · dl (3.10)
which is a very useful equation to calculate V when E is already known. With respect
to (3.10), (3.4) and (3.5), the potential for a continuous charge distribution will be,
∫
1 dq
V = (3.11)
4πε0 r
3.2.6 Poisson's & Laplace's equa on

Combining (3.9) with (3.7) results to
ρ
∇2 V = − (3.12)
ε0
Equation (3.12) is known as Poisson’s equations, and in places where there is no charge
(ρ = 0) the same equation is reduced to
∇2 V = 0 (3.13)
which represents Laplace’s equation. Both of them are partial differential equations of
elliptic type.
3.2.7 Electric displacement

Multiplying (3.7) by the constant ε0 , leads to,
∇·D =ρ (3.14)
where
14
D = ε0 E [C/m2 ] (3.15)
is known as the electric displacement1 . As it is shown from (3.8) and (3.14), a static
field is irrotational but not source-free/divergence-free.
3.3 Electric field distribu on in electrode con-

figura ons
3.3.1 Uniform distribu on
The principles behind the uniform distribution of the electrostatic field are quite simple
and can be explained properly through a very common example which describes the
field between two infinite, parallel and opposite charged plates.
V
d
z
x y
V
Figure 3.1: Infinite parallel plates of opposite charge.
In figure 3.1 the electric field directs from the positively charged plate to the nega-
tively. By implementing (3.9),
dV V+ − V−
E=− =− (3.16)
dz d
shows that, since the voltage decreases along the gap d from V+ to V− with a stable rate,
then the gradient of that voltage will be constant and equal to the potential difference
between the plates over the distance between them.
Such a behaviour can be found, under circumstances, in some of the common elec-
trode configurations such as the Rogowski electrode, the sphere-plane and the sphere-
sphere if the gap distance is narrow. Especially for the sphere-plane, for a given sphere
electrode diameter, there is a range in the gap distance where the electric field is dis-
tributed uniformly.
1
Electric displacement or charge density or electric flux.
15
3.4. NUMERICAL METHODS
3.3.2 Non-uniform distribu on

In almost all the electrode configurations, for the majority of the studied cases, the
distribution of the electric field is non-uniform and actually this is the most realistic
approach.
Figure 3.2: Electric field distribution in needle-plane configuration.
An example of a non-uniform field gap is shown in figure 3.2. The straight line
represents the critical field line, which corresponds to the point with the shortest dis-
tance to the grounded plane. The maximum electric field in that kind of configuration
occurs always at the tip of the needle. Because of its sharpness, this point, shows an
extremely big field “concentration”, and at the same time a steep fall in the vicinity of
it [28].
For the case of sphere-plane gaps, for gap distances relatively bigger than the sphere
electrode diameter, the distribution of the electric field varies from weakly to strongly
non-uniform for very long gaps. A general depiction of such a configuration was shown
previously in figure 1.1d. Here also the critical field line corresponds to the point in the
sphere surface closest to the grounded plane, and this is where normally the maximum
electric field occurs. Through the next chapters will be given a more extensive analysis
on this specific electrode configuration.
3.4 Numerical methods

Summarizing the principles briefly described above, the purpose of an electrostatic
problem is to properly define a geometry in which will be described and then will be
solved the partial differential equations of (3.12) and (3.13). The procedure for this
16
kind of calculations is quite challenging. Several methods are developed, which can be
adapted to all the available space dimensions, such as 1D, 2D and more recently 3D,
and with a variety of boundary conditions. Each method has its own advantages and
disadvantages over the rest. Usually, what defines the best method are the requirements
of the problem under solution.
The next lines constitute a brief introduction to some of these methods. The pur-
pose is to provide an overview of which one and why is used in the current study and
for the model that will be described in the next chapters. References regarding more
detailed theoretical background of each method and examples of their application will
be provided.
3.4.1 Method of images

Assume a point charge +q placed above a grounded plane. The potential due to this
charge, everywhere in the space, is the sum of two potentials, the one due to +q itself
and the other one due to its image charge −q, placed at the mirror point with respect
to the plane.
( )
1 q q
Vtot = V+ + V− = − (3.17)
4πε0 r+ r−
This method is based on the uniqueness theorem of Poisson’s equation (3.12), which
implies that, if there is a gradient that satisfies a specific set of boundary conditions, then this gradient
is the only and correct one [26].
Assume the charged sphere of radius R in a distance d above a grounded plane as
this is shown in figure 3.3. The potential at a distance x from the upper sphere +Q, will
be the result of the contribution of both +Q and the image charge −Q and according
to (3.17) will be given by,
+Q −Q
V (x) = +
4πε0 r+ 4πε0 r−
(3.18)
+Q −Q
= +
4πε0 x 4πε0 (2d − x)
After specifying the potential at a specific point is easy to calculate also the electric
field by using (3.9). In the same way, can be specified the potential at any point on the
2D plane, if just considering that
r2 = x2 + y 2 ⇒
√ (3.19)
r = x2 + y 2
17
R
Q
x
d
Q
R
Figure 3.3: Calculation of potential between a sphere and an infinite grounded

plane using the method of images.
A popular use of the method of images is for the calculation of the parameters for
overhead transmission lines [29].
3.4.2 Charge Simula on Method (CSM)

Another numerical method for the calculation of the electric field is the known as
Charge Simulation Method (CSM). Because of numerous different electrode config-
urations, the electric field calculation can become extremely demanding. A numerical
method like CSM, combined with some computational tools, can deliver a sufficient
result for that purpose.
The basic concept behind this method is to replace, in the region where the field
solution is needed, the distributed charge with fictitious discrete ones. The magnitudes
of these charges have to be calculated so that their induced voltage or electric field
satisfies the boundary conditions exactly as they are setted [30]. Also CSM complies in
terms of the uniqueness theorem of electromagnetic fields as the purpose again is the
solution of Poisson’s or Laplace’s equation.
Taking the advantage of the superposition theorem, the potential of a distributed
charge is the sum of the different potentials resulting from the individual fictional dis-
crete charges,
18
∑
n
Vi = pij Qj (3.20)
j=1
Here Qj is an individual charge, pij is a potential coefficient between the boundary i

and the charge j, and n is the total number of simulated charges [30]. For n unknown
charges, according to (3.20) there will be n linear equations
     
V1 p11 p12 . . . p1n Q1
     
 V2   p21 p22 . . . p2n   Q2 
 = ·  (3.21)
 ..   .. .. .. ..   .. 
 .   . . . .   . 
Vn pn1 pn2 . . . pnn Qn
Equation (3.21) should be able to return results for the simulated charges Q1 ,
Q2 , . . . , Qn . It should be confirmed if these charges can produce an accurate cal-
culation of potential, preferably on a boundary where this potential is already known.
The difference between the calculated and the actual value on the boundary is a factor
to determine the accuracy of the solution. In case the returned result is sufficient then
the potential and the electric field can be calculated.
Further details on this method, improvements and optimizations, can be found
plenty in the bibliography [7, 25, 31] and in publications [11-13].
3.4.3 Finite Element Method (FEM)

The basic principle behind the Finite Element Method (FEM) is the division of the
domain of interest into a number of sub-regions, known as elements. The number and
the size of the elements can vary so they can fit within the boundaries of the desired
geometry. The solution values of the partial differential equation, that is about to be
solved, are represented by the nodal values of the elements. The great advantage of
the FEM is its flexibility and that it can be adapted to very complicated geometries and
different media representations [30, 31].
The procedure followed during this method can be divided in the following steps
[30]:
• Division of the initial domain into elements.

• If the elements are for example triangles, then the function ue within the elements
that is about to be solved is approximated by the nodal values
∑
ue = Nke uk (k = i, j, m) (3.22)
k
19
where ui , uj , um are the vertices of each triangle and Nke are the shape functions.
• Specification of the element matrix equation, using weighted residual or varia-
tional principle [30, 31]
• Form a matrix equation
Ku = B (3.23)
where u is a column matrix of order equal to the number of elements N , K is the

N × N system matrix and matrix B includes the source from Poisson’s equation
and the boundary conditions.
• The solution of (3.23) returns the calculated values at the nodes.
The above description is quite simplified and in practise the whole procedure is
quite demanding in calculations and in time, which make it really challenging. All this
can be replaced by the use of modern sophisticated software packages, which are de-
veloped for this exact purpose, to solve partial differential equations with the use of
Finite Element Method. For the current work, among a variety of FEM solvers, was
preferred Comsolr Multiphysics 5.0.
20
Chapter 4
Implementa on of the
electrosta c model
4.1 Introduc on
In the previous chapters the intention was to give a sufficient explanation, to what
extent the understanding of electrode configurations, and especially sphere-plane gaps,
is useful. Additionally, the majority of the principles described previously indicate the
challenges, regarding the calculation procedure, scientists had to cope with in the past
years when the resources were limited.
Nowadays, the development of advanced software packages has given the oppor-
tunity to approach this field of study again, this time through electric field calculations.
A well designed simulation model, together with an effective calculation procedure,
can give a quite accurate result which can be validated from the already existing or
upcoming laboratory test measurements.
In this chapter will be presented a simulation model implemented using a modern
Finite Element Method (FEM) solver, Comsolr Multiphysics 5.0. The most important
parts of the model design, the theoretical background behind them, and the assump-
tions made, will be attached here. The purpose is to provide all the required information
to the interested in order to be able to reproduce the simulation model with same or
similar results.
It is convenient to mention at this point that the model was designed in 2D - Ax-
isymmetric dimension, focusing in electrostatics physics and in a stationary study mode.
Further details and workflow can be found within the next sections of the current chap-
ter.
21
4.2. DESIGN OF CONFIGURATION GEOMETRY
4.2 Design of configura on geometry

The subject of the simulation is the calculation of the electric field distribution within
the sphere-plane gaps. There are many examples of configurations that have been
presented in different works from different authors. Some of these configurations
could be considered as complicated in structure [1], while some others are related with
some constraints regarding the environment where the experiment was conducted, for
example indoors or outdoors [19], available space in the laboratory, etc.
A configuration that can be properly transferred to a CAD design and through this
to be simulated using Comsolr Multiphysics, is the one presented in [3] and which is
reproduced in figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Laboratory sphere-plane configuration set-up with a sphere mounted

to a tube, and a double toroid used for the termination of it. Photo taken from [3].
The metallic sphere electrode, of a specific diameter Dsphere , is mounted to a metallic

tube, of also a specific diameter Dtube , which in its turn is terminated through a double
toroid. The presence of the double toroid eliminates the potential gradient due to the
creation of a sharp edge at the end of the tube. The installation of the test objects
is vertical with a considerable distance from the nearest grounded object inside the
laboratory. Some of the typical values of the tube diameter and length, depending on
the diameter of the sphere, electrode are presented in table 4.1.
Having the laboratory set-up in [3] as a reference, it should be ensured that nothing
in the vicinity of the electrode configuration, wall or grounded object, can influence the
calculation of the result. This can be achieved by assuming open boundaries around
the configuration. Additionally the double toroid and its role in the elimination of the
22
CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC MODEL
Dsphere [m] Dtube [m] Ltube [m]

<1 0.10 1
>1 0.45 3
Table 4.1: Typical tube dimensions used in laboratory experiments according to

the sphere diameter.
sharp edge, can be simplified by assuming a tube of infinite length.

An initial version of the simulation model as this is designed in
Comsolr Multiphysics environment is presented in figure 4.2
Figure 4.2: Sphere-plane configuration as this is designed in

Comsolr Multiphysics.
Domain 1 corresponds to the main part of the design, while domains 2, 3 & 4 have
a supporting role in the set-up of the open boundaries mentioned before. This is the
one half of a 2D design since it is supposed to be axisymmetric.
4.3 Simula on workflow

The most efficient way to describe the workflow of the simulation, is through a simple
and comprehensive flow-chart. The sequence of steps someone should follow in order
to design, configure and finally run a simulation model using Comsolr Multiphysics, is
shown in figure 4.3.
23
4.3. SIMULATION WORKFLOW
Space dimension
⊕
Physics interface
⊕
Study type
Definition of parameters
Design of the geometry
Material Boundary Create Study

properties conditions Mesh set-up
&
Run the simulation
Post-processing of the results
Figure 4.3: Schematic representation of the simulation procedure in

Comsolr Multiphysics.
24
Through the model wizard is easy in simple steps to specify the space dimension of
the geometry, the physics interface and the study type of the model. The definition of
the model parameters should be done in a practical basis so that the final design will be
easily adjusted when one of the basic parameters is modified. Such parameters are, for
example, those referred to the geometry (Dsphere , Dtube , etc.) and parameters that will
be used for the set-up of the mesh. On the geometry panel there is variety of available
shapes, operations and transforms which make possible the design from simple to even
more complicated geometries.
After the design of the geometry is completed, there is another batch of settings
that should be performed before running the simulation. The definition of the material
properties, the boundary conditions, the creation of the mesh and the study set-up
consist the next step of the procedure. There is no particular order in the set-up of the
above but they have to be done after the entire geometry is well defined and, before
the final simulation of the model.
In the material library, there are available several built-in materials which can be
added directly. For the purposes of the model of figure 4.2, for all the created domains
the material used is the Air. The specification of the boundary conditions can be done
by choosing, through a variety of available options, the best fitting to the physical and
geometrical assumptions made during the design of the model. The set-up of the mesh
is one the most important, if not the most, of the simulation procedure and will be dis-
cussed in more detail in section 4.4. The creation of the study gives the opportunity to
perform different kind of parametric sweeps using, a single parameter or combinations
of two or more. This requires a proper definition of the model parameters as described
previously.
After all the steps of the workflow are well treated then it is possible to run the
simulation and actually solve the “problem” that was defined previously. After the
simulation is finished then comes the post-processing of the results.
4.4 Mesh genera on

One of the most important parts during the implementation of the simulation model
is the generation of the mesh. This procedure is based on the division of the designed
geometry into small units of simple shapes, known as mesh elements [32].
In 2D geometries the domains are discretized into triangular or quadrilateral ele-
ments. When curves are included in the geometry, especially on the boundaries, there
is a risk that the surrounding area will not be properly divided and the resulted solution,
even if it will be acceptable, it will not be the optimal. A fix to this is to try to use mesh
structures that smoothly change in size and resolution near these boundaries, where the
solution is exposed to more steep changes and certainly is an area of higher interest.
25
4.5. STABILITY OF THE RESULTS
Figure 4.4: Mesh generated in Comsolr Multiphysics with extra fine element size.
In figure 4.4 is shown an example of a generated mesh for the geometry of figure 4.2.
Here, for all the four different domains, a free triangular mesh is created with an extra
fine element size. The division of the domains seems quite uniform, with a small change
of the distribution of the elements in the vicinity of the electrode curve. From one point
of view this mesh can be considered as sufficient, in case someone is interested in a fast
and approximate solution. If the purpose is to produce, an as much as possible, precise
solution, then it is strongly suggested to generate an even finer mesh, at least on the
boundaries where the solution is of major importance.
In figure 4.5 is presented the acceptable version for the purposes of the current
study. In that case, the mesh is quite denser for the entire geometry compared to
the one in figure 4.4. Furthermore, around the curve and the line that represents the
mounting tube, the mesh is even finer which means that the returned solutions will be
more precise along these areas. For the additional domains used for the specification
of the open boundaries, is used a quadrilateral mesh structure with predefined size and
distribution of the elements.
4.5 Stability of the results

When a simulation model is designed and a simulation is performed, it is convenient to
ensure that the produced result remains stable under the variation of parameters who
are supposed indeed to leave it unaffected. The parameters that will be studied for this
purpose are presented in figure 4.6.
26
Figure 4.5: Custom mesh set-up used for the cases studied in the current report.
OB
Ltube
d right
Figure 4.6: Geometry parameters that should not affect the calculations.
27
4.6. POST-PROCESSING OF THE RESULTS
The parameter OB 1 corresponds to the width of the open boundary domains, Ltube
is the tube length for the part that belongs to the main domain of the designed geom-
etry (Domain 1 in figure 4.2) and dright is the distance between the edge of the sphere
electrode to the right boundary of the main domain. An acceptable level of variation
in the results, is less than or equal to 2 %.
4.6 Post-processing of the results

The very last step of the simulation procedure is the post-processing of the results.
There are several available options through the Comsolr Multiphysics interface but
also the results can be exported, in files of appropriate format,
( and be)used for further
study and calculations through other software packages ex. Matlabr .
For the current study during the post-processing should be included the illustrations
and possible calculations for the below,
(1). The value of the maximum electric field Emax and the place in the entire geometry
where this appears
(2). Electric field and voltage distribution along the sphere-plane gap
(3). Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface
(4). Electric field distribution on the surface of the mounting tube
The list above is also depicted in figure 4.7. On these parts of the geometry will be paid
more attention in the next chapter.
1
OB stands for Open Boundary. An alternative name is IED for Infinite Element Domain.
28
1
 4
 3
 2
Figure 4.7: Parts on the configuration geometry that the post-processing of the
simulation results will be based on. (1) refers to the entire designed geometry,
(2) minimum distance between the sphere electrode and the grounded plane, (3)
surface of the sphere electrode and (4) surface of the mounting tube.
29
Chapter 5
Case study
5.1 Background descrip on

In this chapter will be studied how the electric field is distributed within the sphere-
plane configuration for different values of the sphere electrode diameter Dsphere and the
gap distance dgap . So far has been given an overview of the model that will be used and
the assumptions have been made about its design. Of major importance is to specify
the value of the maximum electric field Emax and the exact point in the entire geometry
this appears.
In one of the most well known electrode configurations, the rod-plane, the max-
imum electric field usually appears at the tip of the rod facing the grounded plane.
Regarding the sphere-plane gaps, as these were defined in figure 1.1d and for the sim-
plicity of the calculations, the maximum electric field should also appear at the bottom
of the sphere electrode. Such a behaviour can be achieved by specifying the mounting
tube diameter in such a way so it is ensured that the maximum electric field will not
appear on the tube surface. The proper way to do this, is to express Dtube as a function
of Dsphere . As it will be shown, this will also give the opportunity for an easier look on
the discharge characteristics of this electrode configuration and will lead to very useful
conclusions.
5.2 Inputs
The inputs of the model are related with the geometry parameters of the electrode
configuration. The values of the sphere electrode diameter that will be studied are,
Dsphere = [0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 2] m (5.1)
31
5.3. SIMULATION RESULTS
while the gap distance will be expressed as a function of this diameter,
dgap = [1, 2, 3 . . . , 15] × Dsphere [m] (5.2)
It is obvious from (5.2) that the ratio between the gap distance and the sphere
diameter is,
dgap
= [1, 2, 3 . . . , 15] (5.3)
Dsphere
while the gap spacing over the sphere radius will be for each case,
dgap
= [2, 4, 6 . . . , 30] (5.4)
Rsphere
The initial values for the diameter of the mounting tube will be based on those
presented in table 4.1. Additionally, since the scope of the current work is the calcu-
lation of the electric field distribution under the application of a DC voltage, then the
optimal physics interface for the simulation model will be the electrostatics. In that
case, it is required as an input the applied voltage to the high voltage electrode of the
configuration, and which is set to Vapplied = 1000 kV. Depending on the situation and
the requirements, additional cases for (5.1) and (5.2) will be studied.
5.3 Simula on results

5.3.1 Electric field over dgap/Rsphere ra o
It is essential to have a look on the behaviour of the electric field over the dgap /Rsphere
ratio. This way of recording can give a clear view how the sphere electrode dimensions
affect the electric field strength since also the gap distance dgap is expressed as a function
of it. In figures 5.1 to 5.3 are presented the corresponding results of the electric field
magnitude Em for the different Dsphere and dgap /Rsphere values mentioned in (5.1) and
(5.4) respectively. The curves in these plots refer to the maximum electric field on the
sphere and the tube surfaces, as these are depicted in figure 5.4.
For all the different Dsphere and on both the sphere and the tube surfaces, the maxi-
mum electric field magnitudes decrease with the increase of the dgap /Rsphere ratio. Fur-
thermore, the maximum electric field on the sphere surface is not always higher than
the corresponding on the tube. As it was mentioned before, such a behaviour requires
special treatment.
32
CHAPTER 5. CASE STUDY
120
Sphere - Dsphere = 0.25 m
100 Sphere - Dsphere = 1.60 m
Tube - Dsphere = 0.25 m
80
Electric field in [kV/cm]

60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
dgap /Rsphere ratio
Figure 5.1: Maximum electric field on the sphere surface, appearing at the bottom
of the sphere electrode (continuous lines), and maximum electric field on the tube
surface (dashed lines), over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for different Dsphere values.
33
110
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
dgap /Rsphere ratio
surface (dashed lines), over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for Dsphere < 1 m and Dtube =
0.1 m.
34
22
18 Tube - Dsphere = 1.5 m
16
14
12
10
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
dgap /Rsphere ratio
surface (dashed lines), over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for Dsphere > 1 m and Dtube =
0.45 m.
35
Tube
surface
Bottom of
the sphere
Figure 5.4: Bottom of the sphere electrode and the tube surface as these are defined
in the simulation model geometry.
5.3.2 The tube diameter issue

Before proceeding to any comments or any further work regarding the behaviour of the
electric field, it is worth to make a pause and focus on the issue plotted on figures 5.1
and 5.2.
In some works have been listed difficulties because of flashovers initiating from the
supporting objects and reaching the grounded electrodes [2, 19]. In other works, it is
stated clearly that the observed breakdowns were coming from the sphere surface [3],
while in most of them is not included any special reference.
For every electrode configuration of a specific geometry, under standard reference
atmosphere1 , the surrounding air will show a maximum dielectric strength expressed
in V/m, MV/m, kV/cm, etc. When these levels of dielectric strength are reached,
electrical breakdown of the air gap or discharge and pre-discharge phenomena will
occur, depending on the configuration, no matter if the place of occurrence will be
on the sphere or the tube surface. As it will be shown in the next sections, if the aim
of the study is the behaviour of the electric field in sphere-plane gaps, with a possible
extension to the calculation of the breakdown voltage, the presence of the maximum
electric field at the bottom of the sphere can facilitate the required calculations. As
a reminder, the bottom of the sphere is the point with the shortest distance to the
1
According to IEC 60060-1:2010, the standard reference atmosphere corresponds to: temperature t0 =
20 ◦ C, absolute pressure p0 = 1013 mbar and absolute humidity h0 = 11 g/m3 [18].
36
grounded plane. Thus, it is imposed that the maximum voltage gradient should appear
on the sphere.
Focusing on figure 5.2, for all the three different cases there are useful observations.
For Dsphere = 0.25 m the maximum electric field on the sphere is always higher than
that on the tube. For Dsphere = 0.5 m, and for longer gap distances, the maximum
electric field appears on the tube surface, while for Dsphere = 0.75 m the field on the
tube dominates over the corresponding on the sphere for all the gap distances studied.
Hence, it would be useful to specify a relationship between Dsphere and Dtube with the
purpose that the maximum electric field of the entire geometry will always appear at
the bottom of the sphere. The ratio between those two parameters can be expressed
as,
Dsphere
Dratio = (5.5)
Dtube
or,
Dsphere
Dtube = (5.6)
Dratio
The smaller the sphere diameter the stronger the electric field will be at its surface.
This means that, in order to achieve an electric field magnitude on the tube, close
enough to the one on the sphere, it is required a lower Dratio compared to the cases of
bigger sphere diameters. For a given Dsphere , lower Dratio will result to a bigger Dtube .
Consequently, the Dratio which will be specified for the smaller Dsphere studied, will be
applicable also for the bigger ones.
It is possible through Comsolr Multiphysics to perform a parametric sweep with
varying parameter the Dratio . This will give the opportunity to illustrate the maximum
gradients on both the sphere and the tube surfaces and specify the appropriate value for
the diameters ratio, and consequently for Dtube . As it can be understood from figure 5.2,
this procedure is worth to be followed for the maximum assumed gap distance, dgap =
15 × Dsphere . The implementation of the above is summarized in figure 5.5.
The intersection between the curve of the maximum electric field on the tube and
the maximum electric field on the sphere returns Dratio = 4.37. A value of Dratio ≃
4.36 is chosen, which covers, from a simulation point of view, all the different cases
of Dsphere studied. The divergence between the two values is around 0.23 %, which
practically corresponds to a few millimetres difference in the diameter of the tube,
for the biggest sphere considered2 . It is very important to mention that the electric
field at the bottom of the sphere remains almost stable with the variation of Dratio , and
consequently the Dtube . There is a divergence of less than 2 % between the two extreme
2
For Dsphere = 2 m, when Dratio = 4.37 then Dtube = 0.457 m, while when Dratio = 4.36, Dtube =
0.458 m.
37
75
Maximum electric field on sphere
Maximum electric field on tube
70
65
4.37
60
55
3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2
Dratio
Figure 5.5: Maximum electric field on the sphere and the tube over Dratio . Here
Dsphere = 0.25 m and dgap = 15 × 0.25 = 3.75 m.
values of the maximum electric field on the sphere as these are shown in figure 5.5. For
dgap = 1 × Dsphere this variation is specified around 0.29 %.
After the assumption that Dratio = 4.36, the updated content of figure 5.1 is pre-
sented in figure 5.6. Again the maximum electric field on both surfaces decreases with
the increase of dgap /Rsphere for all the different Dsphere . This time the maximum elec-
tric field on the sphere surface is always higher than the corresponding on the tube
for all the different cases. Even for dgap /Rsphere = 15, despite they are very close, the
maximum electric field of the entire geometry does not appear on the tube surface.
38
120
80 Tube - Dsphere = 1.50 m
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
dgap /Rsphere ratio
surface (dashed lines), over the dgap /Rsphere ratio and for different Dsphere values.
Here Dratio = 4.36. 39
5.3.3 Stability of the results

As it was mentioned in section 4.5, it is important to confirm that the produced results
remain stable within a range of ±2 % during the variation of some of the geometry
parameters. The checked parameters are, the width of the domains used for the open
boundary set-up, the length of the tube Ltube that belongs to the main part of the de-
sign, and the distance dright from the edge of the sphere to the right boundary of the
main domain. These parameters are also shown in figure 4.6 and the related results are
presented in figures 5.7 to 5.9.
52.22
Emax over OB size 0.1229%
52.21 Reference point
Maximum difference
52.2
Emax in [kV/cm]
52.19
52.18
52.17
52.16
52.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
Times bigger to the already designed
Figure 5.7: Emax over size of the domains used for the open boundaries set-up.
Here Dsphere = 0.5 m and dgap = 1 × 0.5 = 0.5 m.
In figure 5.7 is shown that with the increase of the width of the Open Boundary
domains the maximum electric field Emax is not affected considerably. Even if the
domain is ten times bigger than the one used in the simulation model, the divergence in
Emax is less than 0.2 %. The same occurs in figure 5.8 for the case where Ltube increases.
The maximum variation in Emax , is less than 0.3 %. Even smaller is the difference
when dright increases, as this is illustrated in figure 5.9. The maximum variation does
not exceed the negligible 0.0011 %.
There is no significant divergence, less than 0.3 %, in the calculation of Emax , with
the variation of those three parameters. This implies that the model is properly de-
signed and the assumptions made in the model and mentioned in chapter 4 seem to be
sufficiently adapted during the design and the simulation.
40
52.28
Emax over Ltube 0.2289%
52.26 Reference point
Maximum difference
52.24
Emax in [kV/cm]
52.22
52.2
52.18
52.16
52.14
0 2 4 6 8 10
Ltube in [m]
Figure 5.8: Emax over Ltube . Here Dsphere = 0.5 m and dgap = 1 × 0.5 = 0.5 m.
52.1526
Emax over dright
Reference point
0.0011%
52.1524
Maximum difference
52.1522
Emax in [kV/cm]
52.152
52.1518
52.1516
52.1514
52.1512
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dright in [m]
Figure 5.9: Emax over dright . Here Dsphere = 0.5 m and dgap = 1 × 0.5 = 0.5 m.
41
5.3.4 Electric field over actual gap distance dgap

In figure 5.10 is illustrated the behaviour of the maximum electric field Emax over the
actual gap distance dgap . For all of the cases presented, Emax appears at the bottom of
the sphere electrode.
The approach here is different from the one presented in section 5.3.1. For all the
different Dsphere cases, it is visible the reduction in the maximum electric field with the
increase of the actual gap distance. The decrease in Emax with the per meter increase
of dgap is more abrupt for smaller sphere diameters. Additionally, the decrease in the
electric field levels between Dsphere = 0.25 m and Dsphere = 0.5 m is much larger than
the corresponding one between Dsphere = 1.2 m and Dsphere = 2 m.
5.3.5 Electric field distribu on on the sphere electrode

surface
In figures 5.11 and 5.12 is shown the distribution of the electric field on the sphere
surface for the two extreme values of Dsphere studied, 0.25 m and 2 m respectively. The
fifteen different curves correspond to the fifteen different dgap values, from dgap =
1 × Dsphere to dgap = 15 × Dsphere . The horizontal axis refers to the length of the arc
segment that corresponds to the curve of the sphere electrode as this is depicted in
figure 4.7. The vertical grey dashed-dotted line represents the axis of symmetry of the
simulation model and divides the arc length into two equal parts.
For all the different Dsphere values there is a similar trend in the field distribution
and how this varies with the increase of the gap distance. This is the reason why the
plots for all the different Dsphere values are not attached here. The point for maximum
electric field for each curve always appears at the intersection with the vertical grey line
which in its turn corresponds to the bottom of the sphere. The closer the high voltage
electrode is to the grounded plane the stronger is the electric field at the bottom. With
the increase of the gap distance, the more smoothly distributed on the sphere surface
the electric field becomes. In the appendix A can be found all the plots for all the
different cases, of the different Dsphere values studied.
5.3.6 Electric field and voltage distribu on along the gap

In figures 5.13 and 5.14 are shown the distribution of the electric field and the voltage
along the gap for Dsphere = 0.25 m and for all the gap distances studied. The same
kind of plots, but this time for Dsphere = 2 m are shown in figures 5.15 and 5.16. The
vertical axes in figures 5.13 and 5.15 are set to a logarithmic scale. Same here, as the
previous section, the plots for each different case of Dsphere are similar so are attached
only the two extreme cases.
42
120
Dsphere = 0.25 m
Dsphere = 0.50 m
Dsphere = 0.75 m
Dsphere = 1.20 m
100 Dsphere = 1.30 m
Dsphere = 1.50 m
Dsphere = 1.60 m
Dsphere = 2.00 m
Maximum electric field Emax in [kV/cm]
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Actual gap distance dgap in [m]
Figure 5.10: Maximum electric field Emax over the actual gap distance dgap for
different Dsphere studied.
43
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
60 dgap = 10 × Dsphere
dgap = 11 × Dsphere
20
0
0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Arc length in [m]
Figure 5.11: Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface for Dsphere =
0.25 m and different dgap . The vertical dashed-dotted line corresponds to the axis
of symmetry of the simulation model.
14
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
4
2
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
Figure 5.12: Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface for Dsphere =
2 m and different dgap . The vertical dashed-dotted line corresponds to the axis of
symmetry of the simulation model.
44
For all cases, the zero value in the horizontal axis corresponds to the bottom of the
sphere where both the electric field and the voltage are maximum. Moving towards to
the grounded plane, the electric field decreases. Depending on how long the gap is, the
electric field will be more, or less, close to zero. The voltage starts with its maximum
value at the electrode and it becomes zero when the grounded plane is reached.
10 3 dgap = 1 × Dsphere
Maximum electric field in [kV/cm]
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
10 -1
0 1 2 3 4
Gap distance in [m]
Figure 5.13: Electric field distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 0.25 m
and various dgap values. Zero on the horizontal axis corresponds to the bottom of
45
1200
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
1000
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
Voltage in [kV]
800
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
200
0
0 1 2 3 4
Gap distance in [m]
Figure 5.14: Voltage distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 0.25 m and
various dgap values. Zero on the horizontal axis corresponds to the bottom of the
sphere electrode.
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
10 -1 dgap = 14 × Dsphere
10 -2
0 10 20 30
Gap distance in [m]
Figure 5.15: Electric field distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 2 m
and various dgap values. Zero on the horizontal axis corresponds to the bottom of
46
1200
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
1000
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
Voltage in [kV]
800
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
200
0
0 10 20 30
Gap distance in [m]
Figure 5.16: Voltage distribution along the gap spacing, for Dsphere = 2 m and
various dgap values. Zero on the horizontal axis corresponds to the bottom of the
sphere electrode.
5.4 Discussion
5.4.1 Sphere mounted on a tube
Comparing the different ways of depiction of the results in figures 5.6 and 5.10, it could
be said that the variation in Emax can be discussed on two different bases, one is the
dgap /Rsphere ratio and the other the actual gap distance dgap .
From figure 5.6 it can be observed that for every different Dsphere , as the dgap /Rsphere
ratio increases, the Emax that appears at the bottom of the sphere decreases. The rate
of decrease is faster for the lower values of the ratio, while for the higher seems that a
decrease, of lower rate, still occurs. Someone would expect Emax to saturate for longer
gaps, which does not happen.
In figure 5.17 is illustrated the percentage decrease in the maximum electric field,
as dgap /Dsphere increases. For all the different Dsphere the percentage reduction is the
same as dgap /Dsphere gets higher. A possible interpretation of this, is that the closer to
the grounded plane the high voltage electrode is, the stronger the electric field will be.
In such cases, the voltage gradient is higher, and more exposed to variations during
changes in the gap distance. As the high voltage electrode is moved away from the
grounded plane the lower the variation in Emax will be with any further increase in
47
5.4. DISCUSSION
the gap distance. This is also supported from figure 5.18, where the density of the
equipotential lines when the gap distance is short (figure 5.18a) is much higher than the
corresponding when the gap distance is longer (figure 5.18b). For example, when the
gap distance changes from dgap = 1 × Dsphere to dgap = 2 × Dsphere , the change in the
density of the equipotential lines close to the sphere bottom will be much bigger than
the case where it changes from dgap = 14 × Dsphere to dgap = 15 × Dsphere .
-2
Percentage difference [%]
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15
dgap /Dsphere ratio
Figure 5.17: Percentage decrease of maximum electric field with the increase of
dgap /Dsphere . Here are included eight different curves, one for each Dspehre value,
but they are not all of them visible since they coincide with each other.
Considering figure 5.10, for the same gap distance and applied voltage to the elec-
trode, the smaller the sphere diameter is the stronger the electric field on its surface
will be. From the definition of electrostatic potential (eq. (3.11)), with an increasing
sphere surface, the charge density will decrease. Consequently, the concentration of
the charge at the bottom point of the sphere electrode will be lower for bigger Dsphere .
For instance, for Dsphere = 0.25 m in the vicinity of the sphere, it is expected the de-
crease in the potential to be steeper compared to Dsphere = 0.5 m or higher. Such a
behaviour will lead to a higher gradient at the same point of the sphere surface. This
can be observed in all the figures 5.11 to 5.16.
The results in figures 5.13 and 5.15 are well expected, after the study of the previous
plots. Here it seems that for short gap distances, even close to the grounded plane a
weak electric field will still exist. This is more understandable after having a look on
the field lines as these are depicted in figure 5.19. For a short gap distance these lines
reach the grounded plane while for longer they do not3 . The closer the high voltage
3
Actually there is a very small electric field in most of the cases < 0.5 kV/cm. Its depiction depends on
how many levels are considered in the contour line plot.
48
(a) dgap = 1 × Dsphere (b) dgap = 15 × Dsphere
Figure 5.18: Equipotential lines for two different gap distances. Here Dsphere =
0.25 m.
electrode is to the grounded plane the closer to perpendicular to the same plane the
electric field lines will tend to become. On the other hand when the equipotential lines
are close to a grounded plane, or any other grounded surface, they will tend to become
parallel to it.
(a) dgap = 1 × Dsphere (b) dgap = 15 × Dsphere
Figure 5.19: Electric field lines for two different gap distances. Here Dsphere =
0.25 m.
49
5.4. DISCUSSION
The shortest the gap distance the closer the electric field will be to the uniform
distribution, and this is observable in both figures 5.14 and 5.16. The voltage begins
from Vapplied = 1000 kV at the electrode and for the short gap distances, for instance
dgap = 1 × Dsphere , the decrease in the voltage is almost linear. As the gap distance
increases the voltage distribution comes closer to an exponential decaying behaviour.
For all cases in figures 5.13 to 5.16 the distribution is studied along the so-called critical
line of the sphere-plane gap. This line represents the distance between the bottom of
the sphere and the plane, where the shortest dgap occurs.
5.4.2 Sphere without any moun ng object

In [19] the authors reproduce an approximate equation which was first included in [33]
many years ago, and is referred to the calculation of the maximum electric field in
sphere-plane configurations. According to this, Emax is expressed as,
( ) √( )2 
4dgap 4dgap
+1 + + 1 + 8
Vapplied 

Dsphere Dsphere

Emax = (5.7)
dgap  4 
where Vapplied is the applied voltage on the high voltage electrode. The authors state
that the results from (5.7) differ from the exact values less than 1 % for a range of
dgap /Dsphere ratio between 0 and 25. By subtracting the tube geometry from the model
used in the current study (figure 4.2), the obtained results match with those from (5.7)
with a maximum divergence of 0.34 %. The difference in Emax between the case of a
sphere without any mounting object and the model of figure 4.2, is presented in fig-
ure 5.20. The percentage difference between the two different cases of configurations is
the same for all the different Dsphere values studied. For short gap distances the two dif-
ferent configurations can be considered as quite close in their results. The disadvantage
is that so short gap distances, are not realistic and after a value of dgap /Rsphere ≃ 3 − 4
their difference becomes quite big. After this, it is obvious the importance of an accu-
rate representation of the electrode geometry with well defined assumptions regarding
its design. Approximations as this of (5.7), can result to over- or under-estimations in
the electrode dimensioning, especially when calculating gradients, and possibly insuf-
ficient conclusions regarding the discharge characteristics of large electrode gaps like
those considered in the current study.
50
120
Dsphere = 0.25 m
Dsphere = 0.50 m
Dsphere = 0.75 m
Dsphere = 1.20 m
Dsphere = 1.50 m
Dsphere = 1.60 m
Dsphere = 2.00 m
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
dgap /Rsphere ratio
Figure 5.20: Emax of a sphere without any mounting object (dashed lines) and a
sphere mounted on a tube (continuous lines). The results for the first case are based
on (5.7), and for the second are exported from the simulation model. Because of
the limited free space on the plot, in the legend are included only the continuous
lines while the sequence of the colours is the same also for the dashed. 51
5.5. STUDY OF THE BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE
5.5 Study of the breakdown voltage

There are not many available test results listed regarding the electric field in sphere-plane
configurations. A proper way to validate the results produced from the electrostatic
simulation model, is to make an attempt to estimate the corresponding breakdown
voltage Vb . The way that the link between the electrostatic model and the breakdown
voltage will be achieved constitutes a quite interesting process.
In [7] is described the “field efficiency factor” η which is defined as,
Emean
η= (5.8)
Emax
where Emax is the maximum electric field and Emean is the mean value of the electric
field,
Vapplied
Emean = (5.9)
dgap
Based in (5.8), for a uniformly distributed electric field η = 1, while for a strongly
non-uniform electric field η → 0. By inserting (5.9) to (5.8) results to,
Vapplied
η= (5.10)
dgap · Emax
Solving (5.10) for Vapplied ,
Vapplied = η · dgap · Emax (5.11)

As it is already known from the electrostatic simulation model, the maximum elec-
tric field Emax finally appears at the bottom of the sphere electrode. When the break-
down strength of air Eb is reached then this will lead to an electrical breakdown of the
gap or other discharge or pre-discharge phenomena depending on the geometry char-
acteristics of the configuration. In such a case, the applied voltage on the electrode can
be considered as the breakdown voltage Vb . An equivalent expression of (5.11) is
Vb = η · dgap · Eb (5.12)
A similar approach to η is that of the “field enhancement factor” f which is met
also in the bibliography [8] and publications specific on the subject [1], and which is
most commonly defined as,
Emax Rsphere + dgap

f= = 0.9 (5.13)
Emean Rsphere
52
The relationship between η and f is obvious,
1 R
η= = ( sphere ) (5.14)
f 0.9 · Rsphere + dgap
Equation (5.14) shows that f , and hence η, depends only of the geometry charac-
teristics of the configuration. This gives the opportunity to substitute (5.10) into (5.12)
which will result to,
Eb
Vb = Vapplied (5.15)
Emax
Equation (5.15) is very helpful when an electrostatic model is available, through
which is defined the maximum electric field Emax for a specific applied voltage Vapplied
on the high voltage electrode. Knowing in advance the breakdown strength of air for
this specific geometry, it returns the corresponding breakdown voltage Vb . Another
very useful observation is that (5.15) represents a linear dependence of the maximum
electric field to the applied voltage Vapplied ,
Vb Vapplied
= (5.16)
Eb Emax
In a laboratory test, when the breakdown strength of air Eb is known, and through the
test is specified the breakdown voltage, then it is possible with the use of (5.16) to switch
the study from a laboratory configuration to an electrostatic simulation model, similar
to the one studied in the current work. In figure 5.21 is presented the variation of Emax
over Vapplied as this is exported from the simulation model in Comsolr Multiphysics.
The line of figure 5.21 passes through the origin of the axes, which implies that the
mathematical expression that represents it, is of the form,
Vapplied 1
Emax = aVapplied or = = const. (5.17)
Emax a
which actually confirms (5.15) and (5.16).
In order to be able to apply (5.15) to the exported results of figure 5.10, it is required
to know the breakdown strength of air Eb . A useful approximation for the calculation
of this is given in [1], where the authors summarized published and unpublished test
results in order to conclude to an expression for the field strength of air,
( )
1 + dgap /Rsphere
Eb = ( ) [MV/m] (5.18)
0.42 + 0.30 dgap /Rsphere
The application of (5.18) is limited to the quasi-uniform distribution of the electric
field, which according to their presented results ranges between,
53
5.5. STUDY OF THE BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE
120
Maximum electric field Emax in [kV/cm]
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Applied voltage Vapplied in [kV]
Figure 5.21: Emax over Vapplied . Here Dsphere = 0.25 m and dgap = 1 × Dsphere .
dgap /Rsphere ∈ [0.1, 4.5] (5.19)
There is not any relationship available in the bibliography, nor any of the publications,
that could give a quick calculation of the breakdown strength of air for the cases when
dgap /Rsphere > 4.5, where the electric field is considered as strongly non-uniform. In-
stead, in order to attempt an extended re-calculation of Eb , it is required a completely
different model which will be based in principles out of the scope of the current work.
Consequently, the analysis regarding the breakdown voltage, will be limited in the quasi-
uniform electric field distribution. The combination of the data of figure 5.10 with
(5.15) and (5.18), gives the results of figure 5.22.
The breakdown voltage has an opposite behaviour to that of the electric field and
depends on both the sphere diameter and the gap distance. The bigger the Dsphere or the
dgap or both of them, the higher the required voltage to lead to an electrical breakdown
of the gap. In the range of quasi-uniform electric field, as it described in [1], breakdown
coincides with corona inception. This differs from the cases where dgap /Rsphere > 4.5,
during which corona discharge phenomena usually precede the breakdown [6].
54
3000
2500
2000
Breakdown voltage Vb in [kV]
1500
1000
Dsphere = 0.25 m
Dsphere = 0.50 m
Dsphere = 0.75 m
Dsphere = 1.30 m
Dsphere = 1.50 m
Dsphere = 1.60 m
Dsphere = 2.00 m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Gap distance dgap in [m]
Figure 5.22: Breakdown voltage Vb over gap distance for different sphere electrode
diameters. Here dgap = [0.1, . . . , 4.5] × Rsphere , based on (5.19).
55
5.6. VALIDATION OF THE RESULTS
5.6 Valida on of the results

5.6.1 Published measurements
Compared to the electric field, for the breakdown voltage there are more recorded and
published measurements which can be used for the validation of the calculations of
section 5.5.
In [1], the authors summarize the results from multiple works [19-21], with the
help of which they derived an equation which gives the 50 % breakdown voltage for
the quasi-uniform filed distribution of sphere-plane gaps in dry conditions,
1
UB = [MV] (5.20)
0.38/dgap + 0.27/Rsphere
where dgap and Rsphere are substituted in meters. The comparison between the calcu-
lated results of figure 5.22 and (5.20) are summarized in figure 5.23. Additionally, it is
included a curve that corresponds to the discharge voltage of the rod-plane configu-
ration. This curve is usually used as a reference, mostly to compare
( with the sphere- )
plane gaps for the strongly non-uniform electric field distribution dgap /Rsphere > 4.5 .
Equation (5.21) is known as the Paris formula and was firstly included in [5].
U50% = 500 · d0.6 [kV] (5.21)
The variation of the UB has a similar behaviour to the calculated Vb . For every
Dsphere , a very sharp increase is observed for short gap distances and a more mild as
dgap approaches 4.5 × Rsphere . Despite the obtained values from both cases seem to be
very close, there is a significant difference between them. The maximum percentage
difference is specified around 6.76 %, with the results from (5.20) to be always lower
from those in figure 5.22.
In figure 5.24 are compared a batch of U50% measurements included in [3] with the
calculated Vb . The test results refer to dgap /Rsphere values greater than 4.5. In order to
be able to compare them with the corresponding Vb , (5.18) is used “inappropriately”
for the calculation of the breakdown strength of air. This is because, the limits within
(5.18) is considered as accurate, are those specified in (5.19). However the results seem
to match to a very satisfactorily level, a feature that introduces some concerns about the
exact limits of the dgap /Rsphere that correspond to the quasi-uniform field distribution.
In the same spirit, in figure 5.25 are compared the results for the case of Dsphere =
1.3 m with test results included in [4]. The final result is slightly controversial as for the
shorter gap distances the percentage difference is higher than for the longer. Due to
the probabilistic nature of U50% and the fact that the calculation of Vb is limited along
56
3000
2500
2000
Breakdown voltage in [kV]
1500
1000
Dsphere = 0.25 m
Dsphere = 0.50 m
Dsphere = 0.75 m
Dsphere = 1.20 m
Dsphere = 1.50 m
Dsphere = 1.60 m
Dsphere = 2.00 m
Rod-plane
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 5.23: Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage based in (5.15)

(continuous lines) and (5.20) (dashed lines). Because of the limited free space on
the plot, in the legend are included only the continuous lines while the sequence of
the colours is the same also for the dashed.
57
3500
3000
2500 1.30%
0.56%
2000 0.36%
1500
Dsphere = 1.3 m
U50% - Test results
500 dgap /R0.65 ∈ [0.1, 4.5]
dgap /R0.80 ∈ [0.1, 4.5]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 5.24: Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage Vb and U50% from
test results included in [3].
3000
2500 12.82%
0.73%
2000 2.64%
1500
1000
Dsphere = 1.3 m
500 U50% - Test results
dgap /Rsphere = 4.5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 5.25: Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage Vb and U50% from
test results included in [4].
58
the critical field line, it could be said that it does not occur any surprisingly abnormal
situation.
5.6.2 ABB internal tests

A series of measurements were provided from ABB AB for validation purposes of the
simulation model. In this set of data, are included test measurements for sphere radii
Dsphere = 0.125 m and Dsphere = 1 m which are not presented so far in the previous
sections. Additionally to the cases of (5.1), the two new Dsphere values are simulated.
Through (5.15) is calculated the breakdown voltage Vb and the results are summarized
in figure 5.26.
The test results seem to match quite well with the calculations based on the electro-
static simulation model. The fit is even better for lower dgap values, however this does
not mean that they lack of precision for the higher. Details on the exact set-up of the
experimental configuration are not available and possibly there are factors which affect
the measurements when the gap spacing becomes longer.
The curvatures shaped from the test results are slightly lesser than those from the
calculated. A possible explanation is similar to the one discussed in section 5.4.1. As the
Dsphere values tested are relatively small (≤ 1 m), the occurred electric fields, and there-
fore the U50% , are more sensitive to the presence of surrounding objects or variations
in the test configuration, especially when the high voltage electrode moves increasingly
higher from the grounded plane.
Additionally to the above, taking also into account restrictions, such as the prob-
abilistic nature of U50% and the fact that the Vb calculations are limited to the critical
field line, the results of figure 5.26 can be considered as surprisingly convergent. After
all the series of validations, it could be said that the simulation model used, together
with the suggested calculation procedure of Vb , can return results sufficiently close to
the test measurements.
59
1500
1350
1200
1050
900
750
600
450
Dsphere = 0.125 m - Simulation

300 Dsphere = 0.250 m - Simulation
Dsphere = 0.125 m - Test meas.
150 Dsphere = 0.250 m - Test meas.
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Figure 5.26: Comparison between calculated breakdown voltage Vb and unpub-

lished test results for U50% provided by ABB AB. Here dgap = [0.1, . . . , 4.5] ×
Rsphere which, according to [1], corresponds to the quasi-uniform electric field dis-
60 tribution.
Chapter 6
Closure
6.1 Summary of the conducted work

In the current work, it was attempted to give a clear view on the electric field distribution
of sphere-plane gaps through the implementation of an electrostatic simulation model.
An overview on the already conducted research work regarding this field of study was
required in order to list properly all the assumptions made in order to built the model.
Additionally, a brief description of the numerical methods used for the calculation of
the electric field and potential was presented. The intention behind this was to give an
overview to the reader of the complexity behind the calculations, and the constraints
introduced because of them in the past studies.
After the introductory parts, it was paid more attention on the used model. First, it
was described the implementation of the electrostatic simulation model, using Comsolr
Multiphysics, the theoretical background, the assumptions made and the expectations.
The initial objective of the current work, the specification of the electric field distribu-
tion for different sphere-plane gap geometry characteristics, was fulfilled and to some
extent validated despite the very limited availability in electric field calculations in the
previously conducted works. Obstacles, like the tube diameter issue described in sec-
tion 5.3.2, were treated with respect to the theoretical and practical principles covered
by the model, and after that useful conclusions were derived. Finally, a series of valida-
tions were performed by studying the breakdown voltage of the model and comparing
the results with the already existing from previous test measurements.
The next and final step is to list all the conclusions that can be exported from
the comparison of the simulation model and the already existing published material.
This will be part of an attempt to describe the contribution of the current work to
the corresponding field of study. Then is added a list of ideas for future work and
suggestions for improvement of the already existing.
61
6.2. CONCLUSIONS FROM CASE STUDIES
6.2 Conclusions from case studies

• The breakdown voltage Vb was specified in two ways. One was based on the
theoretical principles and background regarding the electric field distribution be-
tween the electrodes (eq. (5.16)), and the other through the simulation model
(figure 5.21 and eq. (5.17)). This validates the use of the derived equation and
confirms that it can work as a “bridge” for the calculation between Emax and Vb
when an electrostatic simulation model is available.
• The linear relationship between the maximum electric field and the applied volt-
age on the high voltage electrode (eq. (5.16)), could be said that it constitutes
the link between a test model and an electrostatic simulation similar to the one
used in the current study. From a test model is derived U50% , and by knowing
Eb for the specific electrode geometry used, it is possible to switch the study to
an electrostatic simulation model. The opposite path, and which was one of the
objectives of this study, is that having Vapplied and Emax from the electrostatic sim-
ulation model and knowing again Eb can lead to the calculation of the breakdown
voltage Vb .
Electrostatic Vb Vapplied Test

Eb
= Emax
model model
• During the design and the simulation of the used model, it was observed how
the mounting tube affect the maximum electric field. A tube of relatively small
diameter compared to the sphere diameter, can lead Emax to appear on the tube
surface. In the current work it was produced an approximate relationship be-
tween those two diameters (eq. (5.6)). Knowing the diameter of the sphere it is
easy to calculate the appropriate diameter for the tube, so that it will be ensured
the maximum electric field will always appear at the bottom of the sphere.
• The relationship between the sphere and the tube diameters can be a very useful
approach regarding laboratory testing. The specification of the tube diameter
during the initial set-up of the electrode configuration can be time and cost ef-
fective for the whole test procedure.
• The calculated breakdown voltage Vb was validated through the comparison with
U50% test results (figures 5.24 to 5.26). This was performed for gap distances
which correspond to the quasi-uniform electric field distribution (eq. (5.19)).
62
CHAPTER 6. CLOSURE
This implies that the results from the simulation model regarding Emax are suffi-
ciently accurate for that range. Since Emax values for the uniform and the quasi-
uniform electric field distributions are reliable, then also the values that corre-
spond to longer gap distances can be considered as accurate.
• During the validation procedure, it was observed a sufficient convergence be-

tween Vb and U50% , also for gap distances longer than those which correspond
to the quasi-uniform field distribution (figures 5.24 and 5.25). These results con-
tribute to the growing doubts about how wide is that range and if it is properly
defined in previous works.
• Menemenlis et al. in their calculations use the “field enhancement factor” f

(eq. (5.13)) for the calculation of the 50 % breakdown voltage. The analytical
expression of this factor differs, to a small extent, through different resources.
This makes slightly offish the use of the mathematical definition of this factor
since there is a possibility to introduce an amount of error in the calculation. In
the current study, the calculation of the breakdown voltage Vb (eq. (5.15)) is free
of this enhancement factor, which is an extra advantage during the calculation
procedure, with a predefined Emax .
• A more reliable approach for the calculation of the “field enhancement factor”
f is given from Schneider et al. (eq. (5.7)). According to the authors the pro-
duced results are sufficiently validated from measurements. These results are
also confirmed from the simulation model of the current work if only a high
voltage sphere, without any mounting tube or rod, is considered together with
a grounded plane. A drawback of this approach is the absence of a mounting
object to the high voltage sphere.
The comparison regarding Emax between different concepts and models is sum-
marized in figure 6.1. The simulation model without a mounting tube and the
Schneider et al. approach match almost perfectly. The differences from Men-
emenlis et al. and the configuration with a tube are significant. These results
shown the importance of the proper definition of f and the incorporation of the
mounting tube in the simulation model and the calculations.
• For the calculation of the breakdown strength of air for the quasi-uniform electric
field, it was used the Eb as this was determined by Menemenlis et al1 (eq. (5.18)).
This expression constitutes a common reference between the calculation of Vb ,
performed for the purposes of the current study and the UB suggested by Mene-
menlis et al (eq. (5.20)). The divergence between the two methods of calculation
is introduced probably because of differences in the calculation of Emax .
1
In [1] it is denoted as Emax , but here is used Eb to avoid possible inconvenience with the surface
maximum electric field.
63
6.3. PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE WORK
55
Simulation - without tube
Schneider et al.
50 Menemenlis et al.
Simulation - with tube
dgap = 4.5 · 0.25 = 1.125 m
45
40
35
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 6.1: Emax for different enhancement factor f concepts. Here Dsphere =
0.5 m and dgap = [1, . . . , 15] × Dsphere .
6.3 Proposal for future work

The current master thesis project has achieved its purpose but in engineering problems
there are no complete solutions and there are always many alternative versions and
ideas for further improvement.
Regarding the current subject, there is no doubt that an accurate calculation of
the breakdown strength of air is the missing piece of the puzzle, and which would be
worthy of further study. In this work it was followed an opposite path of calculation
compared to what had been used so far. This gave the opportunity to obtain a clear
view, from a different perspective this time, to what happens regarding the distribution
of the electric field in sphere-plane configurations.
In this type of electrode structures, for uniform distribution of the electric field,
even the theoretical approaches that can be found in the bibliography are enough to
cover the practical part. For the quasi-uniform, despite there are many significant con-
tributions, conducted mainly many years ago, an update regarding the calculation of
Eb would be welcomed, so it would be possible to compare again with the already ex-
isting material. Regarding the strongly non-uniform field distribution for longer gaps,
despite it is the most practically useful and interesting, the availability of information is
related primarily with test results and the specification of the 50 % breakdown voltage.
64
CHAPTER 6. CLOSURE
In parallel with the calculation of the breakdown strength of air, it would be useful to
reconsider the exact limits of the three different distribution types of the electric field.
It is important during all this procedure, to pay extra attention to the existence of a
mounting tube and not just an ideally hanging sphere.
A suggested working procedure on the above could be that, firstly each subject is
studied at an electrostatic simulation level. In that way, it is possible to adapt efficiently
almost all the theoretical assumptions. After that, the results produced from the sim-
ulation model can be validated through a well designed laboratory experiment. Apart
from the financial advantages, in that way it would be easier also to get a view on how to
perform an appropriate set-up of the laboratory in order to avoid obstacles that could
affect the accuracy and the quality of the measurements.
It would be very interesting also to see a simulation model where a double toroid
is included for the termination of the tube, similar to the one of figure 4.1 [3]. It is
expected that the produced results will not differ considerably from those of the con-
figuration studied in this project. However, the appropriate design and the adjustment
of the geometry, seem challenging since there are some additional parameters related
with the double toroid dimensions and which should be taken into account. An even
more extensive study could be performed by redesigning the current simulation model,
but this time in a 3D space dimension. In that way, it would be possible to examine how
the presence of protrusions on the surface of the sphere electrode affects the electric
field distribution.
After the implementation of an appropriate numerical or simulation model for the
specification of Eb , even for longer gaps, it will be possible to use these values with the
Emax calculated in this project. This approach will give a complete calculation of Vb .
After this, it would be wise to examine to what extent is achievable to adapt the new
approaches to different electrode configurations.
65
References
[1] C. Menemenlis, G. Harbec, and J. F. Grenon, “Switching-impulse corona incep-

tion and breakdown of large high-voltage electordes in air,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-97, no. 6, pp. 2367–2374, 1978.
[2] J. K. Hepworth, R. C. Klewe, and B. A. Tozer, “Impulse breakdown of large
sphere-plane gaps,” Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol. 119, no. 12,
pp. 1751–1753, 1972.
[3] D. Wu, L. Arevalo, L. Ming, and M. Larsson, “Switching impulse test of large
sphere-plane air-gaps with protrusion on large spheres,” in 18th International Sym-
posium on High Engineering, Seoul, Korea, 2013.
[4] L. Arevalo, “Numerical simulations of long spark and lightning attachment,”
PhD thesis, Uppsala University, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://urn.kb.se/
resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-149171
[5] L. Paris and R. Cortina, “Switching and lightning impulse discharge characteristics
of large air gaps and long insulator strings,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS-87, no. 4, pp. 947–957, 1968.
[6] K. Feser, “Mechanism to explain the switching impulse phenomena,” Schweizerische
Technische Zeitschrift, vol. 46, 1971.
[7] E. Kuffel, W. Zaengl, and J. Kuffel, High Voltage Engineering: Fundamentals.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/book/9780750636346
[8] S. Naidu and V. Kamaraju, High Voltage Engineering. McGraw-Hill Education
(India) Pte Limited, 2013.
[9] H. Ryan, High-Voltage Engineering and Testing (3rd Edition). Institution of
Engineering and Technology, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://digital-library.
theiet.org/content/books/po/pbpo066e
67
REFERENCES
[10] V. Ushakov and V. Ushakov, Insulation of High-Voltage Equipment. Springer, 2004.

[Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540207290
[11] H. Singer, H. Steinbigler, and P. Weiss, “A charge simulation method for the
calculation of high voltage fields,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
vol. PAS-93, no. 5, pp. 1660–1668, 1974.
[12] A. Yializis, E. Kuffel, and P. H. Alexander, “An optimized charge simulation
method for the calculation of high voltage fields,” IEEE Transactions on Power Ap-
paratus and Systems, vol. PAS-97, no. 6, pp. 2434–2440, 1978.
[13] N. H. Malik, “A review of the charge simulation method and its applications,”
IEEE Transactions on Electrical Insulation, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 1989.
[14] V. Cooray, The Lightning Flash. Institution of Engineering and Technology,
2014, (ed). [Online]. Available: http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/books/
po/pbpo069e
[15] S. Okabe, T. Tsuboi, and G. Ueta, “Study on lightning impulse test waveform for
UHV-class electric power equipment,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
Insulation, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 803–811, 2012.
[16] S. Okabe, G. Ueta, T. Tsuboi, and J. Takami, “Study on switching impulse test
waveform for UHV-class electric power equipment,” IEEE Transactions on Di-
electrics and Electrical Insulation, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 793–802, 2012.
[17] A. P. Brede, P. Werle, E. Gockenbach, and H. Borsi, “A new method of determin-
ing the mean curve of lightning impulses according to IEC 60060-1,” in Eleventh
International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, (Conf. Publ. No. 467) 1999, vol. 1,
Conference Proceedings, pp. 74–77 vol.1.
[18] IEC, “High-voltage test techniques - Part 1: General definitions and test require-
ments,” p. 149, 2010-09-29 2010.
[19] H. M. Schneider and F. J. Turner, “Switching-surge flashover characteristics of
long sphere-plane gaps for UHV station design,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 551–560, 1975. [Online]. Available:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1601485
[20] G. Carrara and L. Thione, “Switching surge strength of large air gaps: A physical
approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 95, no. 2, pp.
512–524, 1976.
[21] F. A. M. Rizk, “Influence of rain on switching impulse sparkover voltage of large-
electrode air gaps,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 95, no. 4,
pp. 1394–1402, 1976.
68
REFERENCES
[22] C. Wadhwa, High Voltage Engineering. New Age International (P) Limited, 2007.
[23] L. Arevalo and D. Wu, “Effect of high dielectric protrusions on the breakdown
phenomena of large electrodes under positive switching impulses,” in IEEE Con-
ference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena (CEIDP), 2014, Conference Pro-
ceedings, pp. 51–54.
[24] M. Li, F. Sahlen, D. Wu, G. Asplund, and B. Jacobson, “Humidity effects on di-
electric strength of air-gaps for indoor HV installations,” in 2005 Annual Report
Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, 2005. CEIDP ’05, Confer-
ence Proceedings, pp. 43–46.
[25] F. Rizk and G. Trinh, High Voltage Engineering. Taylor & Francis, 2014.
[26] D. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics. Pearson Education, 2014.
[27] D. Bromley and W. Greiner, Classical Electrodynamics. Springer New York, 2012.
[Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780387947990
[28] R. Arora and W. Mosch, High Voltage and Electrical Insulation Engineering. Wiley,
2011.
[29] H. Saadat, Power System Analysis. PSA Pub., 2010.
[30] P. Zhou, Numerical Analysis of Electromagnetic Fields. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642503214
[31] V. Chari and S. Salon, Numerical Methods in Electromagnetism. Academic

Press, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/
9780126157604
[32] Comsol AB, “Comsol Multiphysics Reference Manual, ver. 5.0,” 2014.
[33] G. R. Dean, “The maximum voltage gradient in a spark gap in terms of the radius
of curvature of the electrodes,” General Electric Review, vol. 117, no. 16, pp. 148–
150, 1913.
69
Appendices
71
Appendix A
Electric field distribu on on
the sphere electrode
surface
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
Figure A.1: Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface for Dsphere = 0.25 m
and different dgap .
73
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
74
APPENDIX A. ELECTRIC FIELD DISTRIBUTION ON THE SPHERE ELECTRODE SURFACE
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
75
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
76
APPENDIX A. ELECTRIC FIELD DISTRIBUTION ON THE SPHERE ELECTRODE SURFACE
120
dgap = 1 × Dsphere
dgap = 2 × Dsphere
dgap = 3 × Dsphere
100
dgap = 4 × Dsphere
dgap = 5 × Dsphere
dgap = 6 × Dsphere
80
dgap = 7 × Dsphere
dgap = 8 × Dsphere
dgap = 9 × Dsphere
20
0
4 2 0 2 4
Arc length in [m]
Figure A.8: Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface for Dsphere = 2 m and
different dgap .
77
Appendix B
Sphere and tube diameter
ra o for different cases
85
80
75
70
65
4.3783
60
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
Figure B.1: Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 0.25 m.
79
42
40
38
36
34
32 4.363
30
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
28
27 Maximum electric field on tube
26
25
24
23
22
4.3924
21
20
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
80
APPENDIX B. SPHERE AND TUBE DIAMETER RATIO FOR DIFFERENT CASES
17
16.5
Electric field in [kV/cm] 16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
4.5726
13
12.5
12
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
15.5
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
4.6222
12
11.5
11
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
81
13
12.5 Maximum electric field on tube
12
11.5
11
4.7258
10.5
10
9.5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
12.5
11.5
11
10.5
10 4.7793
9.5
9
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
82
APPENDIX B. SPHERE AND TUBE DIAMETER RATIO FOR DIFFERENT CASES
9.5
9
8.5
8
4.9808
7.5
7
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Dratio
Figure B.8: Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 2 m.
Dsphere [m] Dratio

0.25 4.378
0.50 4.363
0.75 4.392
1.20 4.573
1.30 4.622
1.50 4.726
1.60 4.779
2.00 4.981
Table B.1: Dratio for every Dsphere value studied.
83
Appendix C
Calculated values
C.1 Maximum electric field

0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 2
0.05 1707.1 853.59 426.78 284.52 213.39 177.83 164.15 142.25 133.37 106.68
0.1 909.19 454.62 227.29 151.53 113.65 94.71 87.42 75.76 71.03 56.82
0.2 512.87 256.4 128.19 85.46 64.1 53.41 49.3 42.73 40.06 32.05
0.3 382.98 191.41 95.7 63.79 47.85 39.87 36.8 31.9 29.9 23.92
0.4 319.25 159.54 79.76 53.17 39.88 33.23 30.68 26.59 24.92 19.94
0.5 281.68 140.77 70.38 46.92 35.19 29.32 27.07 23.46 21.99 17.59
0.6 257 128.44 64.21 42.81 32.11 26.76 24.7 21.4 20.07 16.05
0.7 239.59 119.74 59.87 39.91 29.93 24.94 23.03 19.96 18.71 14.97
0.8 226.64 113.28 56.64 37.76 28.32 23.6 21.78 18.88 17.7 14.16
0.9 216.64 108.29 54.14 36.09 27.07 22.56 20.82 18.05 16.92 13.54
1 208.66 104.31 52.15 34.77 26.08 21.73 20.06 17.38 16.3 13.04
1.1 202.15 101.06 50.53 33.68 25.26 21.05 19.43 16.84 15.79 12.63
1.2 196.72 98.34 49.17 32.78 24.59 20.49 18.91 16.39 15.37 12.29
1.3 192.11 96.05 48.02 32.01 24.01 20.01 18.47 16.01 15.01 12.01
1.4 188.15 94.07 47.03 31.36 23.52 19.6 18.09 15.68 14.7 11.76
1.5 184.71 92.35 46.17 30.78 23.09 19.24 17.76 15.39 14.43 11.54
1.6 181.68 90.83 45.42 30.28 22.71 18.92 17.47 15.14 14.19 11.35
1.7 178.98 89.49 44.74 29.83 22.37 18.64 17.21 14.91 13.98 11.19
1.8 176.58 88.28 44.14 29.43 22.07 18.39 16.98 14.71 13.79 11.04
85
C.2. BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE
1.9 174.4 87.2 43.6 29.07 21.8 18.17 16.77 14.53 13.62 10.9
2 172.43 86.21 43.11 28.74 21.55 17.96 16.58 14.37 13.47 10.78
2.1 170.64 85.32 42.66 28.44 21.33 17.77 16.41 14.22 13.33 10.66
2.2 168.99 84.49 42.25 28.16 21.12 17.6 16.25 14.08 13.2 10.56
2.25 168.21 84.11 42.05 28.03 21.03 17.52 16.17 14.02 13.14 10.51
3 159.4 79.7 39.85 26.57 19.92 16.6 15.33 13.28 12.45 9.96
4 152.21 76.1 38.05 25.37 19.03 15.85 14.63 12.68 11.89 9.51
5 147.46 73.73 36.86 24.58 18.43 15.36 14.18 12.29 11.52 9.22
6 144 72 36 24 18 15 13.85 12 11.25 9
7 141.32 70.66 35.33 23.55 17.66 14.72 13.59 11.78 11.04 8.83
8 139.15 69.58 34.79 23.19 17.39 14.5 13.38 11.6 10.87 8.7
9 137.35 68.68 34.34 22.89 17.17 14.31 13.21 11.45 10.73 8.58
10 135.81 67.91 33.95 22.64 16.98 14.15 13.06 11.32 10.61 8.49
11 134.48 67.24 33.62 22.41 16.81 14.01 12.93 11.21 10.51 8.41
12 133.31 66.65 33.33 22.22 16.67 13.89 12.82 11.11 10.42 8.33
13 132.26 66.13 33.07 22.04 16.53 13.78 12.72 11.02 10.33 8.27
14 131.32 65.66 32.83 21.89 16.42 13.68 12.63 10.94 10.26 8.21
15 130.46 65.23 32.62 21.75 16.31 13.59 12.55 10.87 10.19 8.15
Table C.1: Simulation results for maximum electric field in [kV/cm]. Each column
corresponds to a different sphere diameter value Dsphere , while each row to different
gap distance over sphere diameter ratio values dgap /Dsphere .
C.2 Breakdown voltage

0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 2
0.05 14.32 28.64 57.28 85.91 114.55 137.46 148.92 171.84 183.28 229.13
0.1 27.5 54.99 109.99 164.98 219.97 263.97 285.96 329.97 351.98 439.96
0.2 50.55 101.12 202.24 303.35 404.47 485.39 525.84 606.74 647.18 808.95
0.3 69.63 139.32 278.65 418.01 557.3 668.81 724.54 835.98 891.72 1114.7
0.4 85.43 170.94 341.93 512.91 683.88 820.67 889.06 1025.8 1094.2 1367.8
0.5 98.62 197.33 394.71 592.08 789.44 947.33 1026.3 1184.2 1263.1 1578.9
0.6 109.75 219.6 439.23 658.86 878.48 1054.2 1142 1317.8 1405.6 1757
0.7 119.25 238.6 477.24 715.87 954.48 1145.4 1240.8 1431.7 1527.2 1909
0.8 127.47 255.01 510.06 765.09 1020.1 1224.2 1326.2 1530.2 1632.2 2040.3
86
APPENDIX C. CALCULATED VALUES
0.9 134.63 269.34 538.71 808.06 1077.4 1292.9 1400.6 1616.1 1723.9 2154.8
1 140.95 281.97 563.96 845.94 1127.9 1353.5 1466.3 1691.9 1804.7 2255.9
1.1 146.57 293.2 586.41 879.64 1172.8 1407.4 1524.7 1759.2 1876.5 2345.7
1.2 151.61 303.27 606.55 909.81 1213.1 1455.7 1577 1819.6 1941 2426.2
1.3 156.16 312.35 624.71 937.06 1249.4 1499.3 1624.3 1874.1 1998.6 2498.9
1.4 160.29 320.6 641.21 961.83 1282.4 1538.9 1667.2 1923.6 2051.9 2564.9
1.5 164.06 328.14 656.29 984.43 1312.6 1575.1 1706.4 1968.9 2100.2 2625.2
1.6 167.52 335.06 670.14 1005.2 1340.3 1608.3 1742.4 2010.4 2144.4 2680.6
1.7 170.72 341.45 682.91 1024.4 1365.8 1639 1775.6 2048.7 2185.3 2731.6
1.8 173.67 347.36 694.73 1042.1 1389.5 1667.3 1806.3 2084.2 2223.1 2778.9
1.9 176.43 352.86 705.74 1058.6 1411.5 1693.8 1834.9 2117.2 2258.3 2822.9
2 178.99 357.99 715.98 1074 1432 1718.4 1861.6 2148 2291.2 2864
2.1 181.39 362.8 725.6 1088.4 1451.2 1741.4 1886.6 2176.8 2321.9 2902.4
2.2 183.65 367.31 734.62 1101.9 1469.2 1763.1 1910 2203.8 2350.8 2938.5
2.25 184.73 369.46 738.92 1108.4 1477.8 1773.4 1921.2 2216.8 2364.5 2955.7
Table C.2: Calculation results for breakdown voltage Vb in [kV]. Each column
corresponds to a different sphere diameter value Dsphere , while each row to different
gap distance over sphere diameter ratio values dgap /Dsphere .
87
TRITA TRITA-EE 2016:030
www.kth.se

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEGREE PROJECT IN ELECTRIC POWER ENGINEERING 120 CREDITS,

Electric field distribution of

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

Master Thesis project

KTH School of Electrical Engineering

Commissioned by ABB AB, HVDC

Keywords: sphere-plane electrode configuration, electric field, electrostatics, gap dis-

Nyckelord: sfär-platta elektrodkonfiguration, elektriskt fält, elektrostatik, gapavstånd,

List of Symbols xvii

2 Overview of sphere-plane gaps in High Voltage testing 5

3 Electric field and potential calculation 11

3.2.4 Rotation of the electrostatic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Implementation of the electrostatic model 21

A Electric field distribution on the sphere electrode surface 73

B Sphere and tube diameter ratio for different cases 79

1.1 Typical electrode configurations used for electric strength tests. . . . . 2

2.1 Example of a lightning impulse waveform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 Infinite parallel plates of opposite charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4.1 Laboratory sphere-plane configuration set-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6.1 Emax for different enhancement factor f concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . 64

B.1 Dsphere over Dtube ratio for Dsphere = 0.25 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.1 Typical tube dimensions used in laboratory experiments. . . . . . . . . 23

B.1 Dratio for every Dsphere value studied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

ε0 Permittivity of free space C/ (V · m)

dright Distance to the side on the right in the simulation geometry m

1.2 Problem deﬁni on & Objec ves

(a) Needle-plane. (b) Rod-plane.

(c) Sphere-sphere. (d) Sphere-plane.

1.3 Report overview

2.2 Smooth electrode surface

2.3 Surface irregulari es

2.4 Diﬀerent environment condi ons

3.2 Electrosta c ﬁelds

3.2.2 The electric ﬁeld

dq → λdl ∼ σdS ∼ ρdV (3.5)

3.2.3 Gauss's law

3.2.4 Rota on of the electrosta c ﬁeld

3.2.5 Electric poten al

3.2.6 Poisson's & Laplace's equa on

3.2.7 Electric displacement

3.3 Electric ﬁeld distribu on in electrode con-

Figure 3.1: Infinite parallel plates of opposite charge.

3.3.2 Non-uniform distribu on

Figure 3.2: Electric field distribution in needle-plane configuration.

3.4 Numerical methods

3.4.1 Method of images

Figure 3.3: Calculation of potential between a sphere and an infinite grounded

3.4.2 Charge Simula on Method (CSM)

Here Qj is an individual charge, pij is a potential coefficient between the boundary i

3.4.3 Finite Element Method (FEM)

• Division of the initial domain into elements.

where u is a column matrix of order equal to the number of elements N , K is the

4.2 Design of conﬁgura on geometry

Figure 4.1: Laboratory sphere-plane configuration set-up with a sphere mounted

The metallic sphere electrode, of a specific diameter Dsphere , is mounted to a metallic

Dsphere [m] Dtube [m] Ltube [m]

Table 4.1: Typical tube dimensions used in laboratory experiments according to

sharp edge, can be simplified by assuming a tube of infinite length.

Figure 4.2: Sphere-plane configuration as this is designed in