Professional Documents
Culture Documents
flxblt in flexibility in design aspects [1].control, and parameterr estimation. Statistical variables can be
Polymers due to their hydrophobic nature (resistance to eithro an reraesr aespon.S variable swr the
water film formation) have a much better flashover regressor variable iS the surface resistance. The response
performance over ceramic insulators. The term flashover can variable is theah rvage Tesstatistical mode
be defined as disruptive electric discharge over or around the velope in thiswor is laied Tpedictinthe aover
insulator. NCIs are observed to lose their hydrophobicity with vol ef ifferen levels ofmsurfaceresistance[5].
time and in these conditions when exposed to moisture in the Regesson models d ar etrflie rn-inear.mo.
els The
Regression are either linear or non-linear. The most
form of dew, fog it gives rise to leakage currents. Leakage generic form of linear regression model is given as (1)
current formation promotes dry band discharges (arcs) in the
insulator. Flashover occurs when the arc propagates and Y /+I x & (1)
ultimately bridges about two thirds of insulator leakage where,
length. The various factors that contribute to flashover can be y - is the response variable
summarized as contamination accumulation, aging (location Po - is the intercept
of insulators, UV radiation) and material composition. The Pl- is the slope
extent of power interruption due to insulator flashover x- regressor variable
depends on the operation of associated relays and circuit - is the error
sraerssac
relationship ob
In this work the sosre between flashover voltage and
o iera tflosa
The authors acknowledge Power Systems Engineering Research Center
(PSERC) for sponsoring this work.
exponential trend. As the model is not linear in the unknown
1-4244-0228-X/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE parameters a nonlinear regression analysis technique is used in
663
this scenario. The generic form of the nonlinear model is measurements for the same level of surface resistance [7].
given by (2). As we have an exponential trend between the
variables the equation takes the formI of (3) [5].
In this work field aged silicone rubber and EPDM samples Ultrasonic
(5 years of exposure in midwest USA) were used. All the nebulizers
experiments were carried out in a fog chamber with
dimensions of about 4mX4mX3m high. Ultrasonic nebulizers
were used for fog generation as these proved to have
considerable advantages over conventional fog generators like
easy to maintain, more efficient and corrosion free. The IV. PARAMETER ESTIMATION IN NONLINEAR SYSTEM THROUGH
surface resistance measurement and flashover experiments LINEARIZATION AND GAUSS NEWTON ITERATION TECHNIQUE
were performed after ensuring 100 00 relative humidity [7].
In order to estimate the parameters of nonlinear system the
To measure surface resistance an ac voltage of the range of first step is to linearize the function and perform Gauss
2-4 kV was used. The leakage distance of the insulators Newton iteration procedure. Linearization is performed by a
between the electrodes was chosen as 15 cm. The voltage
applied was just adequate to establish a measurable leakage T
current and not high enough for discharges to be initiated. It is
advisable to have a vertical orientation of insulators and was
Aol 030.....0pO)
00 = 0020 and retaining the linear terms
Zk =z ] 6
fk 1k
=4 . fkj5
fi,1'1f2k,,, , 5s
i [Olk4 02k . ''..... pk] 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
2.2
1.8
1.2 i_
Compute the following 0.61 20 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
f In ((P1) + (P2 X;
,Ln (y)-f; Iterations
l |z,<l := 1/ 01 ; Fig. 5 Convergence of (D2
V. STATISTICAL MODELING
No Yes Based on the above values of (DI, (D2, Minitab was used for
Stop
further statistical analysis. Models with and without intercept
Stop are provided as the constant of intercept model was not
Fig.3 Flow chart of matlab program [5] significant. The results are given as follows
Depending upon the initial values chosen the number of
iterations to converge to obtain <Al, CD2 vary. The sample
number of iterations taken is shown in Table I. Figs 4 and 5
show the convergence <>l, D22
665
TABLE II. COMPARISON OF LINEAR AND EXPONENTIAL MODEL
Intercept model for FOV vs SR
FOV - 0.01 + 11.6 exp (0.662)*SR Parameter Linear Exponential % Improvement
S = 0.49 R-Sq = 96.5% R-Sq(adj) = 95.7% Average width of Pi 1 3.8 | 2.6 31.6
PRESS = 2.4 R-Sq(pred) = 91.45%
25
Analysis of Variance UL at 95 % PI
Source DF SS MS F P 20 Meanof UL at 95 % Cl
Regression 1 27.3 27.3 110.9 0.000 LL,
Residual Error 4 0.98 0.25
Total 5 28.3 -5-L t 5%P
0 LL at 95 % C~~~~~LLa95%P
No intercept model for FOV vs SR 10LL at95%
FOV = 11.6 exp (0.662)*SR 10
PredictedI
validated
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P 5 Experimental values region
Noconstant
exp(0.662)*SR 11.6 0.13 86.6 0.00 0
S = 0.44; PRESS = 1.46 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Analysis of Variance Surface resistance (Mohm/cm)
Source DF SS MS F P Fig.6 Plot of surface resistance vs FOV; CI - Confidence Interval, PI -
Regression 1 1474.0 1474.0 7497.3 0.000 Prediction Interval, LL- Lower Limit, UL - Upper Limit
Residual Error 5 1.0 0.2
Total 6 1475.0 VI. CONCLUSION
666