Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ish2017 145
Ish2017 145
Ish2017 145
org if you require an accessible file, as the files provided by ConfTool Pro
to reviewers are filtered to remove author information, and this filter technique unfortunately cannot preserve screen reader information.
However, the filter can easily be disabled by the organizers.
The 20th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina, August 27 – September 01, 2017
Fo
1* 1 2
I. Gutman , J. Lundengård and C. Ahlrot
1
STRI AB, Box 707, 771 80, Ludvika, Sweden
r
2
E.ON Elnät Sverige AB, Nobelvägen 66, 20509, Malmö, Sweden
*Email: igor.gutman@stri.se
Pe IS
Abstract: In the beginning of 2016 two failures of line composite insulators were
experienced on the 130 kV transmission line. The two failed insulators were inspected in
er H 2
the laboratory and the root cause of the damage was considered as weak adhesion
between the fibreglass rod and housing which finally resulted in the so-called “flashunder”
type of failure. The results of IR inspection of the rest of the insulators in service were in
line with this assumption, revealing a lot of hot spots on different insulators. This indicated
R 01
some kind of internal conducting path inside the insulators (in the interface silicone
rubber/fibreglass rod). Two batches of new composite insulators of two different types
ev 7
were then evaluated in the laboratory by sample testing. The program for sample testing
included:
Visual inspection and hydrophobicity classification.
ie
Test on interfaces according to the appropriate selection of tests from the IEC
standard (reference dry power frequency test, water immersion pre-stressing,
w
visual examination, steep-front impulse voltage test, dry power frequency voltage
test).
Adhesion test not defined by the IEC. A special procedure was developed and
O
applied, which will be described in detail. Based on general insulator knowledge
good adhesion should result in separation in rubber material before the
nl
separation between the fibreglass and the silicone rubber housing. This method
is generally accepted and performed by many manufacturers as an internal check
y
of the quality during the production of composite insulators.
All insulators have passed the selection of electrical tests according to the IEC standard
aiming for test of interfaces. However, obvious weakness in adhesion has been revealed
for one type of the insulators (the same as being detected in service), which would
influence the long-term performance. This indicates that the requirements of the present
standard cannot reveal the insulators with internal weakness of such type. Revealing of
poor adhesion should be an important topic for CIGRE/IEC in the future, i.e. to develop
new representative test methods and to revise relevant IEC standards.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 GOAL
In the beginning of 2016 two failures of line The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the
composite insulators of type 1 in one week were applicability of the IEC-based test methods
experienced on the 130 kV transmission line in intended to check the interface between the
Sweden. The two failed insulators were inspected fibreglass rod and the silicone rubber together with
in the laboratory and the root cause of the damage the non-standard test methods.
was considered as weak adhesion between the
fibreglass rod and housing material. This was most 3 FAILURE INVESTIGATION
probably followed by the creation of some kind of
internal conducting path inside the insulators (in 3.1 Test samples
the interface silicone rubber/fibreglass rod) which
finally resulted in the so-called “flashunder” type of Two damaged insulators of type 1 removed from
failure. Two batches of new line composite service were investigated; the insulators were
insulators of two different types (type 1 and type 2) rated for 145 kV.
were later evaluated in the laboratory by sample
testing. All these data formed a basis for the 3.2 Test program
evaluation of the existing IEC-based test methods
and the first application of the new test methods The test program proposed a number of tests to be
intended to prevent such type of failures before the performed in the sequence and included:
insulators reach the network.
1. Visual inspection. This inspection was The hydrophobicity inspection showed that the
performed to document the condition of the Hydrophobicity Class (HC) was HC 1 to HC 2
exterior of the insulators and provide some confirming that the insulators were highly
observations regarding the possible root hydrophobic, see Figure 3. This was measured
Fo
cause of the damage. The inspection also upon arrival in the laboratory, thus some recovery
included check of surface hydrophobicity of the hydrophobicity might took place.
according to [1].
r
2. Estimation of pollution severity. This
measurement was performed to document
Pe IS
if the insulators have been exposed to a
high level of pollution.
er H 2
3. Adhesion test. This test was performed to
evaluate the adhesion at the interface
between the fibreglass rod and the
R 01
housing material (silicone rubber).
ev 7
3.3 Test results
ie
revealed that the silicone rubber housing was Hydrophobicity Class 1-2 (upon arrival in
opened on a major part on both insulators, see as laboratory). HC 1 is completely hydrophobic, HC 7
an example a part of the insulator in Figure 1. is completely hydrophilic.
w
These openings covered 80-90% of the insulation
length showing that with a high probability a Estimation of pollution severity. This was
complete “flashunder” between the fittings had evaluated according to the IEC 60815-1 [2]. The
O
occurred (flashover in the interface silicone measured Equivalent Salt Deposit Density (ESDD)
2
rubber/fibreglass rod). was 0,007 mg/cm and the measured Non-Soluble
nl
2
Deposit Density (NSDD) was 0,04 mg/cm . From
these values the site pollution severity can be
y
estimated as “Light” by the relation adopted from
the IEC 60815-1 and showed in Figure 4 (note
that this is just an estimation because this was not
a reference insulator recommended by the IEC for
measurements). The estimated pollution level is
considered as relatively typical level in the
southern part of Sweden about 10 km inland.
However, it should be noted that this measurement
represents single insulator occasionally taken out
of service and any rain just before the removal
could have washed pollution off.
Fo
relatively large parts of the housing were loose firstly locally degraded the hydrophobicity. Finally
already upon arrival and the rest was easily this created either erosion or punctures through
removed by hands, see Figure 5. the housing (some punctures were also found). A
schematic drawing of this mechanism is shown in
r
Figure 7.
Pe IS
er H 2
R 01
ev 7
ie
Figure 7: Illustration of probable mechanism of
development of damage from internal type to
w
external over time.
O
damages was confirmed by the field observations
hands.
using IR inspection of the rest of the insulators in
nl
service, showing a lot of hot spots on different
For the second insulator the adhesion appears to
insulators, see Figure 8. The position of the hot
be only slightly better compared to the first
spots at the distance from the fittings may be
y
insulator. Two parallel cuts were made in the
explained by “short-circuiting” of the part of the
housing using the wooden ruler as a support. After
insulator by internal conductive path and probable
this a decimetre long strip was easily removed
punctures.
from the rod by hands, see Figure 6.
Fo
Table 1: Results of dry power frequency test
connections of end fittings” [3]:
Result
a. Reference dry power frequency vs. Temperature
r
Test object Part o
test (9.2.4). The reference dry criterion, before/after, C
power frequency flashover voltage kV
Pe IS
was determined by averaging five Insulator 1 Upper 346>327 22/23
flashover voltages obtained on
one insulator. Insulator 1 Lower 340>308 22/24
er H 2
Insulator 2 Upper 345>327 22/24
b. Water immersion pre-stressing
(9.2.6). This includes water Insulator 2 Lower 338>308 22/24
R 01
immersion in boiling water for 42
hours. Insulator 3 Upper 333>327 22/24
ev 7
Insulator 3 Lower 333>308 22/24
c. Visual examination (9.2.7.2).
ie
d. Steep-front impulse voltage test Adhesion test. This test was made on all three
(9.2.7.3). 25 impulses of positive insulators to check the adhesion between the
and 25 impulses of negative
w
fibreglass rod and housing material. Cuts were
polarity with the steepness at least made at different positions of the insulator and a
1000 kV/µs were applied on each force straight out from the insulator was applied to
O
500 mm section of the insulator. pull off the housing material. Based on general
insulator knowledge good adhesion should result
e. Dry power frequency voltage test
nl
in separation in rubber material before the
(9.2.7.4). The dry power frequency separation between the glass fibre and the
voltage test was performed within housing. The method to test the adhesion of the
y
24 h after finishing the steep-front rubber to the fibreglass by cut and remove pieces
impulse voltage test. The flashover of the housing is a generally accepted method
voltage test was performed in the which is performed by many manufacturers as an
same way as described in clause internal check of the quality in the production of
“a” followed by 30 minutes at 80% composite insulators. A similar method is
of the reference flashover voltage described in [4] where it is stated that good
and temperature measurements. adhesion of the housing to the rod should result in
the general cohesive failure of the rubber rather
3. Adhesion test. than the adhesive failure between the rubber and
the rod. The adhesive and cohesive failures are
4.3 Test results explained in Figure 9 .
Fo
Visual and hydrophobicity inspection. All four
insulators passed the visual and hydrophobicity
inspection without any significant remarks. The
hydrophobicity was HC 1.
r
Adhesion test. This test was made on all four
Pe IS
insulators to check the adhesion between the
Figure 10: Poor adhesion along the middle of the fibreglass rod and housing material. Cuts were
insulator tested in longitudinal direction. made at different positions at the insulators, i.e. the
er H 2
same method as for the insulator type 1 was
applied. All insulators had good adhesion
properties and illustrations are given in Figure 13
R 01
to Figure 16.
ev 7
ie
w
Figure 11: Example of poor adhesion tested in
radial direction.
O
nl
y
Figure 13: Good adhesion tested in longitudinal
direction.
Fo
type 2.
5 CONCLUSIONS
r
The root cause of the failure in service was
attributed to the poor adhesion in the interface
Pe IS
between the fibreglass rod and the silicone rubber
housing. This was clear revealed by non-standard
adhesion tests, however was not revealed by the
er H 2
IEC-based tests intended to verify the interfaces.
This observation should be a topic of interest for
Figure 15: Good adhesion tested in longitudinal CIGRE/IEC in the future, i.e. to develop new
R 01
direction. representative test methods and to revise relevant
IEC standards.
ev 7
REFERENCES
[1] IEC TS 62073, Ed. 2.0, “Guidance on the
ie
measurement of hydrophobicity of insulator
surfaces”, 2016.
w
[2] IEC TS 60815-1, “Selection and dimensioning
of high-voltage insulators intended for use in
polluted conditions - Part 1: Definitions,
O
information and general principles”, 2008.
[3] IEC 62217, Ed. 2.0, “Polymeric HV insulators
nl
for indoor and outdoor use – General
definitions, test methods and acceptance
criteria”, 2012.
y
[4] F. Schmuck, S. Aitken and K. Papailiou, “A
Proposal for Intensified Inspection and
Figure 16: Good adhesion tested in longitudinal Acceptance Tests of Composite Insulators as
an Addition to the Guidelines of IEC 61109 Ed.
direction.
2: 2008 and IEC 61952 Ed. 2: 2008”, IEEE
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
DISCUSSION
Insulation, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2010.
Five insulators type 1 were investigated in the
laboratory. Two of them were removed from the
overhead line after the failure and three were
randomly selected from a larger batch of about 150
new insulators. Very weak adhesion was
consistently revealed on all of five insulators.