Comparative performance of insulating

materials used in high voltage insulators

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2461, 040001 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094121
Published Online: 17 August 2022

H. Rajini, Adithya Ballaji, S. Saahithi, et al.

AIP Conference Proceedings 2461, 040001 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094121 2461, 040001

© 2022 Author(s).
 Comparative Performance of Insulating Materials Used in
High Voltage Insulators
Rajini H,a) Adithya Ballaji, Saahithi S, Manish Bharat, and Ashwini Kumari.P
School of EEE, REVA University Bengaluru, Kranataka, India 560064
a)Corresponding author: rajini.h@reva.edu.in
Abstract. Ceramic Insulators are used as electrical insulators ever since the introduction of power system. These insulators
provide mechanical strength to the live lines and electrically isolate them. Because of its rigid structure, heavy weight, more over
pollution flash-over, which is one of the main disadvantages, they are being replaced by polymeric insulators, these days. These
polymeric insulators are light in weight and are comparatively less prone to pollution flashover because of its hydrophilic nature
and are gaining more popularity these days. In the manufacturing process of these insulators, the check on polymeric materials
used becomes very important as, the life of polymeric materials depends on the composition of materials used in producing the
insulators. In this paper, polymeric material samples with different compositions of SiR are evaluated for their electrical and
mechanical properties. The electric field simulation of polymeric material sample is carried out using ANSYS software. An
attempt has been made to bring out best composition of Silicone Rubber material which can have better performance of insulator.

INTRODUCTION

Electrical insulation is an essential part of power systems which directly influences their efficiency and reliability.
The primary function of the insulator is to provide mechanical support and to electrically isolate live lines. The
transfer of energy from source to load centers requires higher system voltage in Ultra High Voltage (UHV) AC or
DC in order to reduce the transmission losses and increase the power handling capacity. As the level of transmission
voltage increases, switching and dynamic over voltages and withstand ability of insulation under different conditions
like continuous electromechanical stress, pollution, humidity, thermal, electrical surface discharges, UV radiation,
acid exposure, etc., which determines the insulation level of the system. The external insulation in the UHV range
is generally designed on the basis of switching over voltage level and in some cases, by lightning over voltages.
Switching over voltage is mainly concerned at system voltages of 300kV and above, while lightning over voltages
is dominating at lower system voltage. Pollution flashover may occur at operating voltage both on AC and DC
transmission system. The reliability of the transmission system is affected in the form of flashover which occur, when
the polluted surface of the insulator is wetted and resulting in the formation of dry bands leading to scintillations or dry
band arc or partial arc. When these scintillations occur consequently, there will be a flashover. This flashover results
in the failure of insulators. Even though the ceramic insulators have more than 100 years of experience, the problems
faced by them started increasing and Pollution flashover is one among them. The other problems faced by the ceramic
insulators include, their weight, damages due to gun shots, high maintenance cost puncture, de-capping, formation of
Micro-cracks, the hydrophilic property of the ceramic surface, and much more. In the view of these problems in the
glass and porcelain insulators, search for alternative material was identified. Non-ceramic insulators are the outcome
of such research and developments.These Polymeric insulators have excellent pollution performance. Their Light
weight with the advantage of lower tower construction, lower transportation and maintenance costs, greater strength
to weight ratio, better contamination performance, makes them more advantageous than ceramic insulators. Even
though these polymeric insulators perform better than the ceramic ones, they have some disadvantages like, aging of
the insulators, tracking and erosion, brittle fracturing, chalking, mechanical pull out or crimping, etc. So, there is a
requirement to do a quality test on the insulating materials used for the manufacturing these insulators and to find
out the best among them. The pollution level at the installation site mainly affects the pollution performance of the
insulators. So in order to analyze the pollution severity, Equivalent Salt Deposit Density (ESDD) and Non- Soluble
Deposit Density (NSDD) tests are carried out on the insulators. For the present study Salt Deposit Density is carried
out on the 3 different samples of insulators in the laboratory and ESDD and NSDD values are calculated. An attempt
is made to evaluate the performance of polymeric insulating materials by carrying out:
1. Inclined Plane Tracking and Erosion Test
2. Recovery of Hydrophobicity due to Corona Discharges
3. Mechanical Tests like, Specific Gravity, Tensile Strength and Hardness.
International Conference on Recent Trends in Electrical, Electronics & Computer Engineering for Environmental and Sustainable Development
AIP Conf. Proc. 2461, 040001-1–040001-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094121
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4357-0/$30.00

040001-1
 TRACKING AND EROSION- INCLINED PLANE TEST

In order to evaluate and compare the tracking and erosion resistance performance of the insulating material samples,
under AC stress, three samples of commercialized SiR materials with different composition of Silicone Rubber and
ATH filler, and one sample of EVA material were tested in accordance with material testing standards IEC 60587.
Erosion Depth, Tracking Length and Leakage Currents (LC) on the surface of the specimens was recorded and ana-
lyzed.

TEST SPECIMEN PREPARATION

Three samples of SiR material with different composition of SiR and filler material and one sample of Ethylene Vinyl
Acetate material were selected to perform the evaluation test and analysis [1]. Table 1 gives composition details of
the tested samples. Figure 1 shows the specimens details with a size of 50mm x 120mm x 6mm was used according
to the IEC 60587 standards.

FIGURE 1. Test Specimen Dimension

TABLE 1. Composition of Tested Samples

Material Samples Composition
Matrix(SiR) in Percentage Filler (ATH)in Percentage
Silicone Rubber (SiR) Sample 1 20 80
Sample 2 25 75
Sample 3 30 70
Sample 4 30 70
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) - -

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

A standard inclined plane tracker equipment is employed in carrying out the tracking and erosion test. Figure2 shows
the experimental setup of test sample[2] .The testing material specimen is mounted on to holder which holds the
specimen at an angle of 45° with filter-paper behind. De-ionized water with 0.1% of NH4Cl and 0.02% of Iso Octyl

040001-2
phenoxy Polyet0hoxy Ethanol (a non-ionic wetting agent) is used as contaminant [3]. The flow rate of contaminant
on the surface of specimen is set to 0.7ml/min as per standards. Figure 3 shows the experimental setup for Inclined
Plane test and Table 2 gives the details about the test parameters followed during Incline Plane test.

FIGURE 3. Experimental setup for Inclined Plane

FIGURE 2. Experimental setup for Test Sample
Test

TABLE 2. Test Parameters

Sl.No Parameters Values
1 Applied voltage 4.5kV
2 Flow rate of contamination 0.7ml/min
3 Type of Contamination NH4Cl
4 Conductivity 2.55 mS/cm
5 Inclination 45°
6 Duration 6 hours

The tracking and erosion performance of five samples after Inclined plane test is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3. Test Outcome

Sample Details Results Inference
Sample 1 (SiR – 20% Fillers – 80%) Failed More than 5mm of erosion depth was observed
Sample 2 (SiR – 25% Fillers – 75%) Failed More than 3mm of erosion depth was observed
Sample 3 (SiR – 30% Fillers – 70%) Passed No tracking or erosion was observed
Sample 4 (SiR – 30% Fillers – 70%) Passed No tracking or erosion was observed
Sample 5 (EVA) Passed No Tracking and Erosion was observed

FIGURE 4. Samples after Inclined Plane test

Tracking and erosion performance of the samples after performing Inclined plane test is as shown in figure 4. It
was observed that, Sample 1 showed high tracking and erosion on its surface. The tracking length of more than 50mm

040001-3
and erosion depth more than 5mm was observed. Sample 2 showed slightly lesser tracking and erosion. The erosion
depth was around 3mm.Sample 3 on the other hand showed high resistance towards tracking and erosion. No signs of
tracking and erosion was observed on the surface of EVA material. From the three samples of SiR materials and one
sample of EVA material, it can be concluded that Sample 3 with 30 wt.% SiR and 70 wt.% ATH as well as Sample 5,
EVA material showed best results.

ELECTRIC FIELD MODEL

The electric field distribution and voltage distribution of the polymeric material is simulated using Finite Element
Method (FEM) tool. The simulation was done using ANSYS Maxwell 14.0[4]

FIGURE 5. Voltage Distribution Pattern FIGURE 6. Current Distribution Pattern

High Electric field strength was observed near the tip of the top electrode and gradually reduces towards the bottom
electrode [5]. Figure 5 shows the distribution of voltage and figure 6 shows the current distribution patterns on the
samples after simulating in ANSYS Maxwell for Inclined plane test.

HYDROPHOBICITY TEST

Hydrophobicity of the composite insulator material is very much important for the long-term performance of the
insulator under service conditions in order to check the hydrophobicity of the material, the sample is subjected to
hydrophobic test. The water is sprayed on the insulator material surface to check the hydrophobicity class which
is classified into 6 classes HC-1 to HC-6. HC-1 corresponds to completely hydrophobic (water repellent) and HC-6
corresponds to complete hydrophilic (easily wetted).

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The standards, REC 76/2006 and ASTM G 53 describes the procedure to be followed in carrying out the test for the
present study, one sample of SiR material and one sample of EVA material that have qualified inclined plane test

040001-4
are employed. Figure 7(a) shows the experimental setup for recovery of Hydrophobicity due to corona and figure (b)
shows the experimental setup for corona test. As per the standards, both the samples are subjected to corona discharges
for a duration of 100 hours [6]. A standard point- plane electrodes with a gap distance of 1mm are employed in order
to create non-uniform electric field. The details about test parameters is given in the table 4.

FIGURE 7. (a)Experimental Setup for Recovery of Hydrophobicity due to Corona (b) Experimental Setup for Corona Test

TABLE 4. Test Parameters

Sl. No Parameters Values
1. Applied Voltage 12kV
2. Test Duration 100 hours
3. Gap Distance 1mm

The two samples were subjected to Hydrophobicity test after completing 48 hours from Inclined plane test.Water
droplets were sprinkled on he surface of the material and the performance of the samples were seen as shown in figure
8[7][8].

FIGURE 8. Water droplets on samples after Hydrophobic Test

It was observed that, the SiR material sample had regained its hydrophobic property as it showed HC 1 class of
hydrophobic nature on its surface. The material showed great resistance to the flow of water droplets. While on the
other hand, the EVA material sample had become hydrophilic and showed HC 5 and HC 6 class of hydrophobicity.

MECHANICAL TESTS

In order to analyze the mechanical properties of the sample materials several mechanical tests were performed on the
materials. Hardness test, Specific Gravity and Tensile Strength tests were performed on the samples[9].

040001-5
 HARDNESS TESTS

One sample with SiR + 70% of ATH and one more sample i.e.. EVA were subjected to hardness test as shown in
figure 9.

FIGURE 9. Experimental Setup for Hardness Test measure hardness of the samples

In this test hardness of the samples were evaluated as shown in table 5. It is observed that sample B (EVA) has
more hardness compare to sample A (SiR + ATH)[10].

TABLE 5. Test Values of samples after Hardness test

Sample Details Values (Shore A)
Sample A (SiR + ATH) 60
Sample B (EVA) 80

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

After hardness test both the samples A, B were subjected to Specific gravity test as shown in figure 10.

FIGURE 10. Experimental Setup for specific gravity Test

In this test it is observed that the specific gavity of Sample A (SiR + ATH) is high compare to Sample B (EVA) as
shown in table 6.

040001-6
 TABLE 6. Test values of samples after Specific gravity test
Sample Details Values (Room Temperature 35°C)
Sample A (SiR + ATH) 5.827
Sample B (EVA) 2.446

TENSIL STRENGTH TEST

Sample A and Sample b were subjected to Tensil strength after specific gravity test as shown in figure 12.

FIGURE 11. Experimental Setup for specific gravity Test

In this test it is seen that the tensil strength of Sample A (SiR + ATH) is less compare to Sample B (EVA) as shown
in table 7.

TABLE 7. Test parameter to measure Tensile strength of the samples

Sample Details Values (Room Temperature) N/m2
Sample A (SiR + ATH) 44.14
Sample B (EVA) 114+

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Samples with different composition of Silicon rubber content with ATH filler and one sample of EVA material is
subjected for the various tests to access their electrical and mechanical properties in selecting a suitable insulating
material. After completion of tests, results from Inclined Plane test were observed that tracking length must be less
than 2/3rd of the total length of the material, erosion depth must be less than 3mm. It was also observed that insulating
material with Silicon -30% and filler-70% has regained its hydrophobic nature after 48 hours of test and Mechanical
properties of the insulating materials showed better performance.

040001-7
 CONCLUSION

Quality assessment of insulating material plays a major role in overall performance of insulators. Inclined Plane Test
(IPT) on SiR + ATH filled material with low Silicone content failed the test. IPT on SiR+ ATH with high Silicone
content showed superior performance. Recovery of hydrophobicity with the improved material composition showed
high recovery. Mechanical properties like Tensile Strength, Specific Gravity and Hardness of material samples are
also evaluated. From the above study it clear that Silicone Rubber with proper percentage of filler material showed
superior performance of Insulating material. Further study on the use of filler material to get the overall performance
is very much required.

REFERENCES
1. D. Meng, B.-Y. Zhang, J. Chen, S.-C. Lee, and J.-Y. Lim, “Tracking and erosion properties evaluation of polymeric insulating materials,” in
2016 IEEE International Conference on High Voltage Engineering and Application (ICHVE) (IEEE, 2016) pp. 1–4.
2. A. Banik, S. Dalai, and B. Chatterjee, “Studies the effect of equivalent salt deposit density on leakage current and flashover voltage of
artificially contaminated disc insulators,” in 2015 1st Conference on Power, Dielectric and Energy Management at NERIST (ICPDEN) (IEEE,
2015) pp. 1–5.
3. A. Krzma, M. Albano, and A. Haddad, “Comparative performance of 11kv silicone rubber insulators using artificial pollution tests,” in 2015
50th International Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC) (IEEE, 2015) pp. 1–6.
4. M. Piah, A. Darus, and A. Hassan, “Effect of ath filler on the electrical tracking and erosion properties of natural rubber-lldpe blends under
wet contaminated conditions,” Journal of Industrial Technology 13, 27–40 (2004).
5. P. Biswas and M. Veena, “Performance analysis of silicone rubber insulator in dc high-voltage inclined plane tracking test,” Electrical Engi-
neering , 1–8 (2019).
6. C. Bar, R. Barsch, A. Hergert, and J. Kindersberger, “Evaluation of the retention and recovery of hydrophobicity of insulating materials in high
voltage outdoor applications under ac and dc stresses with the dynamic drop test,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation
23, 294–303 (2016).
7. S. Amarathunga, D. Saranga, L. Ranathunga, R. Samarasinghe, P. Lakmal, J. R. Lucas, and G. S. J. K. Defence, “A tool to determine the
hydrophobicity of insulators using contact angle of a water droplet,” .
8. S. Ilhan and Z. Aslan, “Investigation on leakage current, erosion, and hydrophobic performance of high-voltage insulator coatings of different
thicknesses,” Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 28, 1197–1207 (2020).
9. H. Khan, M. Amin, and A. Ahmad, “Characteristics of silicone composites for high voltage insulations,” Reviews on Advanced Materials
Science 56, 91–123 (2018).
10. N. Kamarudin, J. Abd Razak, N. Norddin, A. Aman, and N. Nazir, “Effect of filler loading on tracking and erosion of silicone rubber based
composites under dc voltage,” in Intelligent Manufacturing & Mechatronics (Springer, 2018) pp. 73–83.

040001-8