IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No.

5; October 2015 2703

Compatibility of Transformer Construction Materials

with Natural Ester-based Insulating Fluids
H. M. Wilhelm
Diagno Materiais e Meio Ambiente, DIAGNO
Rua México, 1053, Bacacheri
Curitiba, PR – 82510.060, Brazil

V. Franch, L. Tulio
Institute of Development Technology, LACTEC
Department of Chemical Technology
Caixa Postal 19067, Curitiba, PR – 81531.990, Brazil

and A. F. Franch
Companhia Paranaense de Energia, COPEL
Curitiba, PR 18045, Brazil

ABSTRACT
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of transformer construction
materials, such as kraft insulation paper, varnish, core steel and gasket materials
(rubber), on the physicochemical properties of natural ester-based insulating oils (NEIs)
and mineral insulating oil (MIO) under heating. We evaluated two NEIs, one
formulated with soya oil (Envirotemp FR3) and other with corn oil (Biovolt A). The test
specimens were placed in a 1-L jar with 800 mL of insulating oil and then the jar was
placed in an oven at 100 0C for 716 h. The insulating fluids were analyzed before and
after the heating tests by physicochemical analyses, such as kinematic viscosity, acid
number (or neutralization number), dissipation factor and interfacial tension for MIO.
Properties of the aged reference and the test specimen oils for a standard testing
method for compatibility of construction materials with NEIs are proposed. The only
parameter that showed variation after the NEI compatibility testing with different
materials was the dissipation factor at 90 0C. The results show that besides
compatibility and aging tests, mechanical tests for the gasket or seal materials should
also be performed to conclude whether a material is suitable for construction of
transformers insulated with NEIs.
Indexing Terms - Compatibility, insulating oil, natural ester insulating oil, construction
materials, transformer.

1 INTRODUCTION DGA (Dissolved Gas Analysis) for power transformer

TESTS of fluid compatibility with interior transformer
construction materials are usually conducted because
incompatibility of insulating fluids with, for example, the
rubber used in seals and gaskets, can lead to fluid leaks.
Therefore, the compatibility of these two materials is
critical to minimize transformer leaks and the resulting
environmental impacts.
More and more power transformers containing natural
ester insulating fluids (NEIs) are being constructed and
energized. Several studies have been published about the
in-service degradation of these fluids and the application of
Manuscript received on 5 June 2014, in final form 23 June 2015,
accepted 23 June 2015.
failure prediction [1-6]. Equilibrium charts for moisture in
paper and pressboard insulations in natural ester
transformer oil have also been published [7,8]. The same
applies to impregnation of cellulose insulation [9].
However, there is little published information about the
compatibility of NEIs with construction materials [10].
Verification of compatibility is necessary to have assurance
that no excessive interaction or reaction will occur between
materials in contact with the dielectric coolant. In general,
the oil supplier indicates the types of rubber that can be
used in the transformer. The method generally used to
evaluate the compatibility of internal transformer materials
with mineral insulating oil (MIO) is that described in
ASTM D3455 [11]. This standard provides typical values
for the reference oil (oil aged without the test specimen),

DOI 10.1109/TDEI.2015.004755

Authorized licensed use limited to: Gopalan Ramesh. Downloaded on November 23,2020 at 11:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2704 H. M. Wilhelm et al.: Compatibility of Transformer Construction Materials with Natural Ester-based Insulating Fluids
while ABNT NBR 14274 (a Brazilian standard) [12]
provides typical values for both, reference oil and test
specimen oil (oil aged with the test specimen).
The procedure for testing the compatibility of a material
with MIO, according to ABNT NBR 14274 [12], consists
of comparing the results obtained for the specimen oil with
the reference oil. The acceptable variations according this
standard are shown in Table 1. If the results are in line with
the acceptable values shown in the table, the oil is
considered not to be affected by the material and the tested
specimen will be considered compatible with the oil, and
hence suitable for further tests. If either result exceeds the
threshold values defined in Table 1a compatibility problem
may exist and the material should be reevaluated or
rejected. On the other hand, if the reference oil exceeds any
of the limit values shown in Table 2 (values from ABNT
NBR 14274), the oil will be suspect and possible
contamination of the oil and/or test temperature above the
threshold value of 100 0C should be investigated.
Nowadays, the same procedure and reference values used
for MIO (ABNT NBR 14274 and ASTM D3455) are
employed for compatibility testing of NEIs. The main
objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of
construction materials such as kraft insulating paper,
varnish, core steel and gasket materials (rubber) with NEIs
and MIO, using the same procedure and reference values
used for MIO (ABNT NBR 14274 and ASTM D3455). We
evaluated two NEIs, one manufactured from with soya oil
and the other with corn oil. Physicochemical analyses were
performed on the insulating fluids before and after thermal
aging tests, by measuring kinematic viscosity, acid number
(or neutralization number), dissipation factor and also
interfacial tension for MIO.
Table 1. Typical values for the difference between the results of physical-
chemical properties of reference oil and tested specimen oil suggested in
ABNT NBR 14274 [12].
Property Typical changes on values
Dissipation factor at 90 0C 0.5%, max change
Interfacial tension 5 mN/m, max change
Acid number 0.02 mg KOH/g oil, max change
Color 0.5, max
Table 2. Typical values for reference oil suggested in ABNT NBR 14274 [12].
Property Limit value
Dissipation factor at 90 0C 1.1%, max
Interfacial tension 38 mN/m, min
Acid number 0.03 mg KOH/g oil, max
Color 0.5, max
2 EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 MATERIALS
In this study we used the MIO AV60-IN, purchased from
Petrobras, and the NEIs Envirotemp® FR3™ (formulated
with soya oil) and Biovolt A® (formulated with corn oil),
acquired from Cooper Power Systems and Mineraltec,
respectively. In this paper Biovolt is referred to as NEI A
and FR3 as NEI B.
Neutral kraft paper and core steel specimens were
supplied by a transformer manufacturer. Nitrile rubber,
identified by the supplier as “compound 1361”, and
Authorized licensed use limited to: Gopalan Ramesh. Downloaded on November 23,2020 at 11:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
fluorosilicone rubber, identified by the supplier as
“compound 5370”, were obtained from a domestic vendor.
Both these rubber materials are used for gaskets. Varnish
specimens (amine epoxy) were provided by a local
manufacturer. The varnish specimens were prepared by
application of a 20-m coat of epoxy primer for
background and an 80-mm thick topcoat of amine epoxy
paint.
2.2 ANALYSIS OF INSULATING FLUID AND
RUBBER SAMPLES
The NEIs were analyzed according to ASTM D6871 [13]
and the MIO was analyzed according to ANP Resolution
36/2008. Shore A hardness tests were performed on rubber
specimens (nitrile and fluorosilicone). The hardness
measurements were performed at room temperature with a
Bareiss HPE-A durometer, according to ASTM D2240
[14], with 1 kgf load. The meter reading was performed 5
seconds after the device’s indicator stabilized.
Mechanical properties were determined in new rubber
specimens according to ASTM D412 [15], to evaluate the
original properties. Then the specimens were thermally
aged in an oven at 125 0C for 70 h according to ASTM
D573 [16] and the mechanical properties of these aged
samples were again determined.
2.3 COMPATIBILITY TESTS OF TRANSFORMER
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS WITH MIO
Compatibility tests with MIO and the following internal
transformer construction materials were performed
according to ABNT NBR 14274 [12]: nitrile rubber
(compound 1361), fluorosilicone rubber (compound 5370),
varnish coating (amine epoxy), core steel and neutral kraft
paper.
All compatibility tests were performed in duplicate,
based on the experimental procedure described in ABNT
NBR 14274 [12]. First, the specimens were dried in an oven
at 105 0C for 16 h. After that, they were removed from the
oven and placed in a desiccator to cool to room
temperature. The dried specimens were immersed in the
oils in 1-L amber glass bottles, followed by bubbling with
nitrogen gas (purity of 4.6) for 2 min at a flow rate of
approximately 1 L.min-1 in each jar containing MIO. The
material to be tested as indicated by ABNT NBR 14274.
After nitrogen bubbling, the jars were closed and placed in
the oven at 100 0C for 164 h. The following ratios between
the tested materials and the oils were used:
• reference oil (only the oil, aged without test material):
800 mL of oil;
• gasket material (rubber): 65 cm2 in 800 mL of oil;
• varnish: painted 1300 cm2 plate in 800 mL of oil;
• core steel: 6200 cm2 in 800 mL of oil;
• neutral kraft paper: 800 cm2 in 52 mL of oil.
After 164 h, the jars were removed from the oven and
allowed to cool to room temperature, after which the
following measurements were carried out: interfacial
tension (ASTM D971), acid number (ASTM D974) and
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 5; October 2015 2705
0 Table 3. Physical-chemical characterization of non-aged NEIs (ASTM
dissipation factor at 90 C (ASTM D924). The results for
D6871).
the specimen oil (oil aged in the presence of the test
Property Limit value NEI A NEI B
material) were compared with those obtained for the Acid number, (mg KOH/g oil) 0.06 max. 0.01 0.06
reference oil to determine the change in the physical- Water, (mg/kg) 200 55 37
chemistry analysis values. For example, the difference Density at 20 ºC, (g/mL) 0.96 max. 0.9182 0.9199
between the acid number of the oil aged with neutral kraft Dissipation factor at 25 ºC, (%) 0.20 max. 0.03 0.25
paper (specimen) and the respective value of the reference Dissipation factor at 100 ºC, (%) 4.0 max. 0.70 1.5
Flash point, (°C) 275 min. 310 312
oil (aged without specimen) is reported here as “change in Fire point, (°C) 300 min. 340 346
acid number”. Dielectric breakdown voltage, (kV) 30 min. 49 47
Kinematic viscosity at 20 ºC, (cSt) 150 max. 66.5 75.0
2.4 CHEMICAL RESISTANCE TESTS OF Kinematic viscosity at 40 ºC, (cSt) 50 max. 31.5 35.8
Kinematic viscosity at 100 ºC, (cSt) 15 max. 7.7 8.4
RUBBER SAMPLES IN NEIs Corrosive sulfur Not Not Not
Tests to evaluate the chemical resistance of the rubber corrosive corrosive corrosive
samples in the insulating oils (MIO and NEIs) were also PCB content, (ppm) Not Not Not
performed. Specimens of nitrile and fluorosilicone rubber detectable detectable detectable
Pour point (0C) -10 max. -12 -21
were immersed in the insulating fluids and placed in the
oven for 70 h at 125 0C for aging, according to the
Table 4. Mechanical characterization of non-aged rubber.
procedure described in ASTM D471 [17]. After this period,
Property Nitrile rubber Fluorosilicone rubber
the samples were removed from the oven and the following Shore A hardness 68 72
tests on aged rubber were performed: Shore A hardness Stress at max load 9.4 MPa 8.2 MPa
(ASTM D2240), volume variation (ABNT NBR 11407), Elongation 243% 281%
tensile strength (ASTM D412), elongation at break (ASTM
Table 5. Change in mechanical properties between non-aged and
D412) and cracking (visual inspection). thermally aged rubber.
Change on Nitrile rubber Fluorosilicone rubber
2.4 ACCELERATED AGING TESTS OF Shore A hardness + 10 -7
Stress at max load 3.9 MPa 7.9 MPa
TRANSFORMER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Elongation 55% 263%
WITH NEIs AND MIO Cracks Absent Absent
For the accelerated aging tests, we used the same 3.3 COMPATIBILITY TESTS OF TRANSFORMER
procedure as for the compatibility tests described in Section CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS WITH MIO
2.3. However, the duration was extended to 716 hours.
During the test, the aged NEIs were analyzed for kinematic Table 6 presents the results of the compatibility tests of
viscosity (ASTM D445), acid number (ASTM D974) and MIO with core steel, neutral kraft paper, varnish and rubber
dissipation factor at 90 0C (ASTM D924). Aged MIO was (nitrile and fluorosilicone).
analyzed for acid number (ASTM D974), interfacial tension
Table 6. Change in physicochemical properties between reference and
(ASTM D971) and dissipation factor at 90 0C (ASTM specimen oil (MIO).
D924). Change on:
Diagnostic
Interfacial Dissipation
Specimen Acid number 0 according
tension factor at 90 C
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (mN/m)
(mg KOH/g oil)
(%)
ABNT NBR
14274*
3.1 ANALYSIS OF NEIs AND RUBBER Neutral kraft
0.4 0 0 C
paper
SAMPLES
Core steel 0.8 0 -0.01 C
Table 3 shows the results and acceptable limits for NEIs. Varnished -20.7 0 0.13 I
NEIs met the ASTM D6871 [13] specifications and the Fluorosilicone
-18.4 0 7.59 I
rubber
results obtained for the MIO (data not shown) satisfied the Nitrile rubber -7.2 0 0.09 I
requirements of ANP Resolution 36/2008. Among the * C: compatible; I: Incompatible
analyzed fluids, NEI B presented higher acidity and
dissipation factor than NEI A, probably due to differences By analyzing the variation between the reference oil and
in the production process and/or base oil feedstock used by specimen oil (Table 6), it can be concluded that only paper
the supplier (Table 3). and core steel are compatible with MIO considering the
The mechanical test results for the new rubber specimens limit values presented in ABNT NBR 14274 (Table 1). The
(nitrile and fluorosilicone) are shown in Table 4. Similar results in Table 6 also show that the interfacial tension was
results were obtained for the two rubber types. After the parameter that was responsible for defining these
thermal aging, Shore A hardness changed significantly in materials as incompatible in all of the cases. Also, in 50%
both rubbers (Table 5). The aged nitrile stress at max load of the analyses, the dissipation factor for these two
decreased about 58% and the elongation declined by 77% materials was above the limit reported in Table 1, again
in comparison with the non-aged rubber (Table 5). The indicating these particular products are incompatible.
results in Table 5 also indicate that nitrile was more However, this does not necessarily mean that similar
affected by thermal aging than fluorosilicone rubber. products from other suppliers, or even different lots from

Authorized licensed use limited to: Gopalan Ramesh. Downloaded on November 23,2020 at 11:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2706 H. M. Wilhelm et al.: Compatibility of Transformer Construction Materials with Natural Ester-based Insulating Fluids

the same supplier, will also be incompatible. All the The only parameter of the NEIs that showed variation
materials (neutral kraft paper, core steel, varnish and after aging with different materials was the dissipation
rubbers), compatible and incompatible with MIO, were factor at 90 0C (Table 10). Based on the threshold value for
used to perform the accelerated aging test with the NEIs. the dissipation factor stipulated in the standard for
compatibility of MIO (ABNT NBR 14274), which is 0.5%
3.4 RUBBER-OIL CHEMICAL RESISTANCE TESTS (Table 1), only neutral kraft paper and silicon steel are
The mechanical properties of the rubber samples after the compatible with the NEIs.
chemical resistance tests with the insulating oils are shown The dissipation factor at 90 °C (Figure 2) for the
in Table 7. different reference oils varied in the presence of
fluorosilicone rubber in the following order: MIO>NEI B>
Table 7. Change in mechanical properties of rubbers after chemical
resistance tests with NEIs and MIO.
NEI A. Considering the maximum variation for this
Change in: MIO NEI A NEI B parameter, described in ABNT NBR 14274 (maximum
Shore A hardness -4 -1 -1 increase of 0.50%), the fluorosilicone rubber can be
Volume 7.7 1.2 6.7 classified as incompatible with MIO (Figure 2).
rubber
Nitrile

Stress at max load - 25 MPA - 32 MPA - 50 MPA Considering this same threshold value for the neutral kraft
Elongation - 43% - 40% - 48%
paper and core steel, these materials can be classified
Cracks absent absent absent
Shore A hardness +3 +1 +1 compatible with NEI A. All other materials used in this
study can be considered incompatible with the NEIs. The
Fluorosilic
one rubber

Volume 1.1 1.1 1.6

Stress at max load + 30 MPA - 7 MPA - 11 MPA values found for materials classified as incompatible with
Elongation - 4% - 13% - 10% NEIs indicate two conditions: 1) the material affects the
Cracks absent absent absent dielectric loss factor of NEIs at 90 ºC, or 2) the limits for
MIO considered in the classification of materials as
According to the results shown in Table 7, after chemical incompatible (ABNT NBR 14274) (Table 1) cannot be
resistance tests with the oils, the rubber samples showed applied to NEIs, so a new standard should be issued with
small variations of hardness and volume. However, the new parameters for natural ester-based insulating fluids.
variations of elongation and tensile strength, for both
rubbers in all tested oils, increased greatly after the test.
Change on acid number (mg KOH/g oil)

0.03 NEI A + PAPER

NEI B + PAPER
Nitrile presented the highest variations. In the presence of MIO + PAPER
NEI A + CORE STEEL
MIO, the fluorosilicone rubber presented different values in NEI B + CORE STEEEL
MIO + CORE STEEL
comparison with the NEIs. 0.02 NEI A + FLUOROSILICONE
NEI B + FLUOROSILICONE
MIO + FLUOROSILICONE
NEI A + NITRILE
3.5 ACELERATED AGING TESTS OF NEI B + NITRILE
MIO + NITRILE
TRANSFORMER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 0.01

WITH THE OILS

Figures 1-4 present the comparative results for
0.00
compatibility tests of different insulating fluids with core 0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
steel, neutral kraft paper, varnish and rubbers (nitrile and Aging time (h)
fluorosilicone). Tables 8-10 present the maximum values Figure 1. Change in acid number of insulating oils, mineral and natural
obtained for the specimen and reference oils. esters after accelerated aging tests with transformer construction materials.
The maximum variation observed for the acid number
Change on dissipation factor at 90 C (%)

was 0.02 mg KOH/g oil (Table 8). This same value is 12 NEI A + PAPER
NEI B + PAPER
referenced in ABNT NBR 14274 [12] to infer whether the MIO + PAPER
0

10 NEI A + CORE STEEL

tested material is compatible with MIO. NEI B + CORE STEEEL
MIO + CORE STEEL
Viscosity is not an important parameter to ascertain 8 NEI A + FLUOROSILICONE
NEI B + FLUOROSILICONE
compatibility of a material with MIO. In fact, no significant 6
MIO + FLUOROSILICONE
NEI A + NITRILE
variation in viscosity from different compatibility tests was NEI B + NITRILE
MIO + NITRILE
observed. The slight variations observed are within the 4
repeatability error of the experimental method used, which
2
corresponds to 0.35% of the average value obtained. These
results show that no materials affected the viscosity of 0
NEIs, suggesting two possibilities: 1) all materials are 0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
Aging time (h)
compatible with the analyzed NEIs; or 2) viscosity
Figure 2. Change in dissipation factor of insulating oils, mineral and
measurements cannot reveal the compatibility of a material natural esters after accelerated aging tests with transformer construction
with NEI. The maximum variation observed for viscosity materials.
was 0.24 cSt (Table 9). In general, since the variations
observed in the acid number and viscosity for the tested Among the six materials tested, four affected the
materials were not significant, it is not possible to conclude interfacial tension of MIO (Figure 4). Based on the
based on these tests whether a material is compatible or maximum variation shown in ABNT NBR 14274 (decrease
incompatible with NEIs. of 5 mN/m), all of these materials can be considered

Authorized licensed use limited to: Gopalan Ramesh. Downloaded on November 23,2020 at 11:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 22, No. 5; October 2015 2707

incompatible with MIO (Figure 4). Considering just the the variations observed in the acid number and viscosity for
dissipation factor of MIO (Figure 3), only fluorosilicone the tested materials were not significant and therefore could
was considered incompatible with this fluid. However, the not be used to conclude whether the material tested was
material is considered incompatible with the fluid under compatible or incompatible with NEIs.
investigation if only one or more measured parameters are The only parameter that showed variation after the NEI
outside the limit variations presented in Table 1. Thus, compatibility testing with different materials was the
among the analyzed materials only the neutral kraft paper dissipation factor at 90 0C (Table 10). Based on the limit
and core steel are compatible with MIO. value for the dissipation factor compatibility with MIO
(ABNT NBR 14274), which is 0.5%, only kraft paper and
0.40
NEI A + PAPER silicon steel are compatible with NEIs (Table 10).
Change on kinematic viscosity (cSt)

NEI B + PAPER
0.35 MIO + PAPER
NEI A + CORE STEEL
0.30 NEI B + CORE STEEEL Table 8. Maximum change in acid number obtained for NEI specimen oils
MIO + CORE STEEL
NEI A + FLUOROSILICONE relative to reference oil.
0.25
NEI B + FLUOROSILICONE

0.20
MIO + FLUOROSILICONE Change in acid number (mg KOH/g oil) for:
NEI A + NITRILE
NEI B + NITRILE
Specimen
0.15 MIO + NITRILE NEI A NEI B
0.10 Paper 0.01 0.01
Core steel 0.01 0.01
0.05
Paint 0.01 0.01
0.00 Fluorosilicone 0.01 0.01
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
Nitrile 0.02 0.02
Aging time (h)
Figure 3. Change of kinematic viscosity of insulating oils, mineral and Table 9. Maximum change in viscosity at 40 0C obtained for NEI
natural esters after accelerated aging tests with transformer construction specimen oils relative to reference oil.
materials.
Change in viscosity (cSt) for:
5 MIO + CORE STEEL
Specimen
NEI A NEI B
Change on interfacial tension (mN/m)

MIO + FLUOROSILICONE
MIO + NITRILE
0 MIO + PAPER Paper 0.08 0.17
Core steel 0.24 0.26
-5 Paint 0.10 0.20
Fluorosilicone 0.14 0.15
-10 Nitrile 0.01 0.01

-15
Table 10. Maximum change in dissipation factor at 90 0C obtained for NEI
specimen oils relative to reference oil.
-20
Change in dissipation factor (%) for:
-25 Specimen
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720 NEI A NEI B
Aging time (h)
Paper 0.36 0.33
Figure 4. Change in interfacial tension of MIO after accelerated aging Core steel 0.26 0.21
tests with transformer construction materials. Paint 1.48 0.87
Fluorosilicone 11.1 4.64
Based on all the tests performed, we can propose the Nitrile 0.22 0.85
following limits for NEI reference oil in compatibility tests:
 Dielectric loss factor at 90 °C: maximum increase of
0.2%. 4 CONCLUSION
 Acid number: maximum increase of 0.01 mg KOH/g Based on the NEI oil reference values for changes in acid
oil. number, dissipation factor and kinematic viscosity
 Viscosity at 40 °C: maximum increase of 0.3 cSt. compared to non-aged oil, the following limits are
suggesting for reference oils in compatibility tests of
If the NEI reference oil exceeds any of these limits, it transformer construction materials with NEIs:
will be suspect for use as insulating fluid. We also suggest Dissipation factor at 90 0C: 0.2%, max.
monitoring the color and the dielectric strength of the Acid number: 0.01 mg KOH/g oil, max.
reference oil. Viscosity at 40 0C: 0.3 cSt, max.
Tables 8 and 9 present the results obtained for the change The two NIEs investigated in this study showed similar
in acid number and viscosity between the reference and performance with the different materials tested. The
specimen oil. The maximum change observed for the NEI dissipation factor at 90 0C was the only parameter that
acid number was 0.02 mg KOH/g oil. This same value is showed significant variations between the two NIEs,
referenced in ABNT NBR 14274 to infer whether or not the especially in the presence of the two rubber types.
material tested is compatible with MIO. The maximum The chemical resistance tests showed that the nitrile and
variation observed for NEI viscosity was 0.26 cSt (Table 9). fluorosilicone rubbers tested in this study are unsuitable for
The viscosity parameter is not an important parameter to use with MIO, as indicated by the tests of these materials’
judge the compatibility of a material with MIO. Generally, compatibility in this fluid.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Gopalan Ramesh. Downloaded on November 23,2020 at 11:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2708 H. M. Wilhelm et al.: Compatibility of Transformer Construction Materials with Natural Ester-based Insulating Fluids
It was not possible to correlate the chemical resistance of
nitrile and fluorosilicone rubbers in NEIs with the
compatibility tests with NEIs. The fluorosilicone rubber,
which showed the greatest change in dissipation factor after
the compatibility test with both NIEs, presented satisfactory
performance in the chemical resistance test, while the nitrile
rubber, which showed the smallest change in dissipation
factor in relation to fluorosilicone, presented unsatisfactory
results in the chemical resistance test. These results show
that besides compatibility and aging tests, mechanical tests
for gasket or seal materials should also be performed to
conclude whether a material is suitable for construction of
transformers insulated with NEIs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank COPEL and ANEEL for the approval of the
study; CNPq for the research grant to Dr. Helena Maria
Wilhelm; BS Prodetec and Lactec for providing
infrastructure and support.
REFERENCES
[1] H. M. Wilhelm, T. Tulio, R. Jasinski and G. Almeida, “Aging
markers for in-service natural ester-based insulating fluids”, IEEE
Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.714-719, 2011.
[2] H. M. Wilhelm, G. B. Stocco and S. G. Batista Jr., “In-service
natural ester-based insulating fluids reclaiming: preliminary study”,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.128-134, 2013.
[3] IEEE C57.104™, “Guide for interpretation of gases generated in oil-
immersed transformer”, pp. 1-36, 2009.
[4] N. A. Muhamad, B. T. Phung and T. R. Blackburn, “Dissolved gas
analysis for common transformer faults in soy seed-based oil”, IET
Eletric Power Application, pp. 133-142, 2011.
[5] N. A. Muhamad, B. P. Phung and T. R. Blackburn, “Dissolved gas
analysis of overheating fault in bio-degradable transformer oil”,
Power Engineering Conf. pp. 663-666, 2008.
[6] N. A. Gomez., H. M. Wilhelm, C. C. Santos and G. B. Stocoo,
“Dissolved gas analyses (DGA) of natural ester insulating fluids with
different chemical compositions”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul,
Vol. 21, No.3, pp. 1074-1078, 2014.
[7] V. Vasovic, J. Lukic, C. Perrier and M.-L.Coulibaly, “Equilibrium
charts for moisture in paper and pressboard insulations in mineral
and natural ester transformer oils”, IEEE Electr. Insul. Magazine,
Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 10-16, 2014.
[8] M. Jovalekic, D. Kolb, S. Tenbohlen, L. Bates and R. Szewczyk, “A
methodology for determining water saturation limits and moisture
equilibrium diagrams of alternative insulation systems”, IEEE Int’l.
Conf. Dielectr. Liquids (ICDL), pp.1-5, 2011.
[9] J. Dai and Z. Wang, “A comparison of the impregnation of cellulose
insulation by ester and mineral oil”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr.
Insul, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.374-381, 2008.
[10] “Material Compatibility”, available:
http://www.spxtransformersolutions.com/assets/documents/Compatib
ilitySectionAbstracts.pdf, acessed in April 2015.
[11] ASTM D3455, Standard test methods for compatibility of
construction material with electrical insulating oil of petroleum
origin, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2011, http://www.astm.org.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Gopalan Ramesh. Downloaded on November 23,2020 at 11:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[12] ABNT NBR 14274, Mineral insulating oil – Determination of
compatibility of materials used in electrical equipment, ABNT NBR
Standard, BR, 2013, http://www.abnt.org.br.
[13] ASTM D6871, Standard Specification for Natural (Vegetable Oil)
Ester Fluids Used in Electrical Apparatus, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2008, http://www.astm.org.
[14] ASTM D2240, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property -
Durometer Hardness, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2010, http://www.astm.org.
[15] ASTM D412, Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and
Thermoplastic Elastomers – Tension, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2013, http://www.astm.org.
[16] ASTM D573, Standard Test Method for Rubber - Deterioration in an
Air Oven, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2010, www.astm.org.
[17] ASTM D471, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property - Effect of
Liquids, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2012, http://www.astm.org.
Luciane Tulio was born in Curitiba, Brazil, in
1964. She received the B.Sc. degree in chemical
engineering from Federal University of Parana,
Curitiba, Brazil in 1989, and M.Sc. in
technology development from PRODETEC,
Curitiba, Brazil in 2009. She works at the
company COPEL.
Helena Maria Wilhelm was born in Cerro
Largo. Brazil, in 1971. She received the B.Sc.
degree in chemistry from the Federal University
of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil, in 1993; M.Sc. in
chemistry from the Federal University of Santa
Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil, in 1996; and the
Ph.D. degree in chemistry from the State
University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, in
2000. She is currently working in research and development projects with
the companies Diagno and MGM, and is a professor in the graduate
courses of Materials Engineering at Federal University of Paraná and
Technology Development at LACTEC.
Vinícius Siqueira Franch was born in Pelotas,
Brazil in 1983. He received the B.Sc. degree in
biology from Positivo University of Curitiba in
2007 and M.Sc. in materials engineering at Federal
University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Alberto Luis Funari Franch was born in Bagé,
Brazil, in 1961. He received the B.Sc. degree in
electrical technology from the Federal Technical
School of Pelotas, Brazil in 1987. He works at the
company COPEL.