IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 14, No.

5; October 2007 1207

Electrical Insulation Characteristics of Silicone

and EPDM Polymeric Blends – Part I
R. Raja Prabu
B.S.A Crescent Engineering College
Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048
Tamil Nadu, India

S. Usa, K. Udayakumar
High voltage division, College of Engineering, Anna University
Gunidy, Chennai – 600 025
Tamil Nadu, India

M. Abdullah Khan and S.S.M. Abdul Majeed

B.S.A Crescent Engineering College
Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048
Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
The typical parts of a polymeric insulator are core, metal end fittings and polymeric housing
material. The housing is intended to protect the fibre glass rod from the environment and
electrical surface discharges. Since the housing materials are made of organic polymeric
material, its insulation characteristics need to be studied. Amongst the many different
polymers available, this work focuses on Silicone rubber and Ethylene Propylene Diene
Monomer (EPDM). Blends of EPDM and silicone rubber are prepared in a two roll mixing
mill. Dicumyl Peroxide is used as vulcanizing agent. The blends consisting of various
proportions of component polymers are prepared, compression moulded into sheets, and post
cured. The blends are tested for their insulation characteristics as per IEC and ASTM
standards. Volume and surface resistivity, dielectric strength, dielectric constant, tan δ,
tracking resistance, arc resistance, comparative tracking index, tensile strength, and
percentage elongation at break of the blends are studied and discussed. The test results show
that the increasing proportion of silicone enhances the electrical insulation properties whereas
increasing weight percentage of EPDM improves the mechanical strength of the blends.
Index Terms – Polymeric Insulators, insulation characteristics, tracking resistance,
dielectric strength, tensile strength, blend composition.

1 INTRODUCTION under wet conditions, as it absorbs moisture. To overcome

POLYMERIC insulators are being accepted increasingly for
use in outdoor applications. The tremendous growth is due to
their advantages over the traditional ceramic and glass insulators.
It includes lightweight, higher mechanical strength to weight
ratio, resistance to vandalism, better performance in the presence
of heavy pollution in wet condition, and better withstand voltage
than porcelain insulators. However, because polymeric insulators
are relatively new, the expected lifetime and their long-term
reliability are not known, and therefore are of concern to users.
The typical parts/components of a polymeric insulator are
core/rod, metal end fittings/rings and polymer housing/
weather sheds. Here, the fibre glass or ceramic rod is
employed for mechanical strength and electrical strength
under dry conditions. However, fibre glass is a poor insulator
Manuscript received on 29 November 2006, in final form 17 May 2007.
this limitation of intrinsic core, the housing is installed over
the core with a suitable, stable interfacial sealant to maintain
dielectric strengths. Proper end fittings are provided for
connections to pole and conductor.
Housing material made of Silicone and EPDM rubber for a
polymeric insulator is the focus of this research work.
EPDM elastomer possesses good mechanical strength and
outstanding resistance to attack by oxygen, ozone and weather
[1]. It has excellent dielectric properties even at high
temperatures. Silicone elastomers have excellent dielectric
properties coupled with high temperature stability [2].
Blending of two polymers is an attractive way to develop a
new material with good dielectric characteristics, thermal
stability, and resistance towards polluted environment [3].
Polymeric materials cost higher than porcelain materials, with
respect to Indian context.

1070-9878/07/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE

1208 R. Raja Prabu et al.: Electrical Insulation Characteristics of Silicone and EPDM Polymeric Blends – Part I

To access the suitability of the blends for housing Table 1. Composition of silicone and EPDM blends.
material applications and to obtain a complete database, Silicone
EPDM Dicumyl
seven formulations of EDPM and silicone are prepared rubber Blend
(in percentage Per oxide
[Table 1] and tested for their electrical insulation (in percentage (in phr)
Notation.
by weight)
characteristics as per IEC and ASTM standards. [Section by weight)
2.4] 0 100 2.5 A
Polymers can be formulated suitably to make them 10 90 2.5 B
more resistive to damage from the numerous elements in
nature such as UV radiation, chemicals, corona, electrical 30 70 2.5 C
arc discharge activity, and extreme temperature [3]. 50 50 2.5 D
Standard tests are prescribed by various agencies like 70 30 2.5 E
IEC, ASTM, and BIS for evaluating the resistance of the
material to these polluting elements. Even on well- 90 10 2.5 F
formulated material, electrical discharges present a 100 0 2.5 G
significant cause of degradation. A reasonably accurate
prediction of the onset of material degradation has defied
researches for many years.
2.4 CHARACTERIZATION
The present investigation is directed towards the
In this section, the test conditions and procedure for the
development of new material for housing/weather sheds
important electrical and mechanical insulation characteristics of a
of a polymeric insulator. Hence, the focus is to prepare
polymeric insulator are described.
blends of EPDM and silicone elastomer and to study
systematically the dielectric characteristics and
mechanical properties, as per the standard procedures 2.4.1 TRACKING RESISTANCE
given in section 2.4, so as to use the same for housing Tracking resistance is determined as per IEC-60587. The
material. distance between the top and bottom electrode is adjusted to
be equal to 50 mm and 4.5 kV is applied. Ammonium
chloride solution of 0.1 % concentration is used as
2 EXPERIMENTAL contaminant at a flow rate of 0.6 ml / min, which is controlled
2.1 MATERIALS by using a peristaltic pump. The conductivity of the
The characteristic parameters of the commercial contaminant is 2500 μS/cm. The conductivity is measured
polymers used to prepare the blends are as follows. using Lutron CD 4302. Time to failure due to tracking is
arrived at once the arc is noted [5].
Silicone rubber is supplied by Japan synthetic rubber
company. It is of VMQ type elastomer. EPDM (EP96) is
supplied by Japan synthetic rubber company. It contains 2.4.2 VOLUME RESISTIVITY AND SURFACE
third monomer as ethylene norbornene (ENB). Dicumyl RESISTIVITY
Peroxide (98 % active) is supplied by MERK, Germany. The volume and surface resistivity of the samples are measured
as per ASTM D257 (IEC 60093) Standards. The voltage applied
2.2. BLEND PREPARATION is 500 V (DC) for 60 seconds at room temperature. The diameter
The blends of EPDM and Silicone containing various and thickness of the specimen are 100 mm and 3 mm
proportions of component polymers are prepared in a respectively. Million meg-Ohm meter is used to measure volume
laboratory model two roll mixing mill at a temperature of and surface resistivity.
353 K. Vulcanizing agent dicumyl peroxide is mixed
during the mill mixing. The compositions of the blend 2.4.3 ARC RESISTANCE
prepared are listed in Table 1. The blend preparation
procedure is detailed in appendix-A. Arc resistance of the sample is determined as per ASTM D
495 standard at 250 V and 50 Hz. The applied voltage is 12.5
2.3 VULCANIZATION kV and the distance between the electrodes is 6 mm. The
The vulcanization of the blends is carried out in a thickness of the specimen used is 3 mm. Two electrodes are kept
hydraulically operated press at 443 K for 10 minutes. The above the specimen, which is placed on the specimen holder. The
vulcanized samples are post cured at 423 K for 2 hours in voltage is applied intermittently and severity is increased in steps,
an air-circulated oven. Test specimens are punched out until the failure occurs. An arc is struck in between the electrodes.
from the compression-moulded sheets. After some time, the carbon path developed on the surface of the
material led to conduction. The arc resistance is measured in
The various blends prepared (Table 1) are tested for their
terms of time in seconds for failure to take place.
electrical characteristics like tracking resistance [4], arc
resistance, volume resistivity, surface resistivity,
dielectric strength, comparative tracking index and tan δ 2.4.4 COMPARATIVE TRACKING INDEX (CTI)
and mechanical characteristics like tensile strength and The comparative tracking index is determined as per IEC 60112.
percentage elongation at break. The voltage applied is 500 V. The electrolyte used is 0.1 % of
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 14, No. 5; October 2007 1209

aqueous ammonium chloride. The distance between the
electrodes is 4 mm. The thickness of the electrode is 3 mm. Two
chisel edged electrode, usually of brass are rested on horizontal
test piece 4 mm apart. Drops of specified size of 0.1 % NH4Cl
solution are made to fall between the electrodes at 30 seconds
interval. The number of drops required to cause failure is found
for several voltages and a curve of number of drops to failure
against voltage is constructed. The voltage corresponding to 50
drops is noted. The numerical value of this voltage is called C.T.I.
2.4.5 DIELECTRIC STRENGTH
Dielectric strength of the blended sample is determined as per
IEC-60243-1 (ASTM D 149) standard at 250 V and 50 Hz.
The diameter and thickness of the samples are 100mm and
1mm respectively. Test specimen is placed between two
electrodes and the voltage is increased at a fixed rate of
2 kV/s, until the dielectric breakdown occurs. The voltage at
which dielectric breakdown occurs is read as dielectric
breakdown voltage. Dielectric breakdown strength (kV/mm) is
calculated from the ratio of dielectric breakdown voltage (kV)
to the thickness of the specimen (mm).
2.4.6 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT AND DISSIPATION
FACTOR (tan δ)
The measurement of dielectric constant and dissipation
factor (tan δ) is carried out as per IEC 60250 standard at 50
Hz. The specimens with 50 mm in diameter and 3 mm in
thickness are used.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 2 gives the comprehensive experimental results
obtained for various blends of silicone rubber and EPDM.
It can be seen that amongst the electrical characteristics,
except dissipation factor, all other characteristics that are
studied in this work continue to increase as silicone rubber
composition is increased in the blend. As expected, the
dissipation factor decreases with increasing silicone rubber
composition in the blend, as silicone rubber possesses good
electrical characteristics against EPDM.
Amongst the mechanical properties, tensile strength of the
blend decreases with increasing silicone rubber composition in
the blend. Also, higher the value of percentage elongation at
break, lower is the mechanical strength of the material and this
is also observed when the silicone composition is increased in
the blend.
It is quite intuitive to assess the increase in electrical
properties against the decrease in tensile strength or the
increase in percentage elongation at break in order to identify
the optimal composition of silicone rubber and EPDM in the
polymeric blend.
The effect of silicone rubber on each and every electrical
property, considered in this work and its effect on the tensile
strength of the polymer blends is compared. Later, a similar
comparison on the effect of silicone composition in the
polymer blend on dissipation factor and percentage elongation
at break is made.

2.4.7 TENSILE STRENGTH AND PERCENTAGE

ELONGATION AT BREAK
The tensile Strength and percentage elongation at break are
assessed by ASTM D-412, using universal testing machine.
The shape and the size of the test specimen used are also as
per ASTM D-412. The tensile testing machine of constant
rate of crosshead movement is used.
3.1 TRACKING RESISTANCE
The tracking resistance and tensile strength obtained for the
blends are plotted against each other as a function of
percentage by weight of silicone rubber in the silicone: EPDM
polymeric blend and shown in Figure 1.

Table 2. Insulation characteristics of silicone/EPDM polymeric blends.

Mechanical
Electrical Characteristics
Characteristics

Notation
Tracking Tensile %
Vol. Res. Surf. Res. Arc Res. Dielec. Str. Dissip.
Res. CTI Dielectric Strength Elongat
(VR) (SR) (AR) (DES) Factor
(TR) (V) Const. (TS) ion at
Ω-m Ω (s) kV/mm (tan δ) Break
(minute) N/mm2

A 86 8.00 e12 5.65 e13 182 20.00 415 2.244 0.0412 4.257 76
B 95 2.00 e13 1.30 e14 246 24.27 435 2.303 0.0335 2.971 101
C 108 3.00 e13 1.80 e14 308 25.92 452 2.349 0.0239 2.733 130
D 116 4.70 e13 2.60 e14 363 27.56 475 2.678 0.0134 2.332 175
E 123 8.00 e13 5.00 e14 382 31.95 495 2.851 0.0077 1.936 182
F 129 1.30 e14 7.80 e14 427 33.26 505 3.397 0.0029 1.490 260
G 138 6.29 e14 3.10 e15 600 36.08 520 3.973 0.0029 0.500 400
1210 R. Raja Prabu et al.: Electrical Insulation Characteristics of Silicone and EPDM Polymeric Blends – Part I

presented in Figure 2 and a comparison is made on the impact

150 4.5
of silicone rubber on the tensile strength of the polymer
140 4 blends.
Tracking Resistance (minute)

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

130 3.5 40 4.5

Dielectric Strength (kV/mm)

120 3 4

Tensile Strength (N/mm 2)

110
100
90
80
70
60
A B C D
Silicone : EPDM Blend Composition
Tracking Resistance
Figure 1. Effect of blend composition on tracking resistance and tensile
strength of polymeric blends.
The tracking time increases with increasing percentage of
silicone rubber in the blends whereas the tensile strength
decreases with increasing percentage of silicone in the
blends. The tracking time for pure silicone rubber is 60 %
more than that of pure EPDM. On the other hand, the tensile
strength of pure silicone rubber is almost one tenth of the
pure EPDM.
Here, an attempt is made to study the performance of the
given blend (with respect to silicone rubber) at the cross over
point.
% decrease in tracking resistance by the addition of
50 % EPDM (138 − 116)
= × 100
= 15.9
Similarly,
% increase in tensile strength by the addition of
50 % EPDM (2.332 − 0.5)
= × 100
= 366.4
The tensile strength increases with increasing percentage of
EPDM in the blends and the tracking time decreases with
increasing percentage of EPDM rubber in the blends. The
reason for the poor tensile strength of the silicone-rich blends
is hypothesized due to highly flexible bonding in silicone.
Increasing trend in tracking time as the silicone proportion
increases could be attributed to the presence of high bond
energy of Si-O-Si bonds in silicone. From the above
calculations, it is found that the tracking resistance for the 50:
50 blends is reduced by 16 %, whereas, the tensile strength of
the blend is improved by 366 %.
3.2 DIELECTRIC STRENGTH
The values of dielectric strength obtained for the blends
with various compositions of component polymers are
35 3.5
2.5
3
30
2 2.5
2
1.5 25
1.5
1 20 1
0.5
0.5
15 0
0 A B C D E F G
E F G Silicone:EPDM Blend Composition
Dielectric Strength Tensile Strength
Tensile Strength
Figure 2. Effect of blend composition on dielectric strength and tensile
strength of polymeric blends.
An increasing trend in dielectric strength is observed as the
proportion of silicone rubber is increased in the blends.
% decrease in dielectric strength by the addition
of 50 % EPDM (36.08 − 27.56)
= ×100
36.08
= 23.6
The increasing trend in dielectric strength is because of
silicone- oxygen bond, which is stronger than the carbon-
carbon bond of organic polymers. Silicones make better
electrical insulators and are more resistant to oxidation. Each
silicone molecule can sweep out its own space, preventing
138 close contact with its neighbors. Hence, silicones have weak
forces of attraction, low surface tension, and low freezing
points. These inherent characters make it a choice for remote,
coastal, desert regions and highly polluted areas. The main
properties are hydrophobic, less weight, UV and ozone
stability and better dielectric properties [6, 7].
0.5 Figure 2 indicates that 50:50 silicone rubber: EPDM is the
best composition where the cross over of both the curves
occurs. From the above calculations, it is found that the
dielectric strength for the 50: 50 blends is reduced by 24 %.
But, the tensile strength of the blend is improved by 366 %.
3.3 VOLUME AND SURFACE RESISTIVITY
The effect of silicone rubber composition in the blend on
volume resistivity and surface resistivity is presented in Figure
3 and Figure 4 along with its effect on tensile strength. It is
clearly observed that increasing proportion of silicone rubber
increases both volume resistivity and surface resistivity of the
blends. In the case of silicone rubber-rich blends, a significant
improvement in the above properties is noted. This may be
due to the Si-O-Si bonds present in silicone, which imparts
higher electrical resistance [8].
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 14, No. 5; October 2007 1211

3.55E+15 4.5 700 4 .5

Surface Resistivity (Ohm)

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

3.05E+15 4 600
4

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

3.5 3 .5

Arc Resistance (S)

2.55E+15 500
3 3
2.05E+15 2.5 400 2 .5
1.55E+15 2 300 2
1.5 1 .5
1.05E+15 200
1 1
5.50E+14 0.5 100
0 .5
5.00E+13 0
0 0
A B C D E F G A B C D E F G
Silicone:EPDM Blend Composition S ilicone:E P D M B lend C omposition
Surface Resistivity Tensile Strength A rc R e s is ta n c e Te n s ile S tre n g th

Figure 3. Effect of blend composition on surface resistivity and tensile Figure 5. Effect of blend composition on arc resistance and tensile strength
strength of polymeric blends. of polymeric blends.

It is seen in Figures 3 and 4 that the surface resistivity and The cross over point of electrical characteristics i.e. arc
volume resistivity picks up significantly above 70 weight resistance and the tensile strength plotted as a function of
percentage of silicone rubber in the blend. However, the blend composition confirms that 50:50 (on weight basis)
tensile strength of those blends containing such a high combination of silicone rubber and EPDM possesses better
proportion of silicone rubber is significantly dropped. dielectric characteristics as well as good tensile strength than
their pure counterparts.
4.5
6.05E+14
4 3.5 COMPARATIVE TRACKING INDEX (CTI)
Volume Resistivity (Ohm-m)

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

5.05E+14 3.5
The values of CTI obtained for various blends are plotted
3
4.05E+14 against the blend composition in Figure 6. The increasing
2.5
3.05E+14 2
trend in the CTI values with increasing weight percentages of
1.5
silicones indicate that silicone rich blends could give better
2.05E+14
1
performance at polluted environments. This may be due to the
1.05E+14
0.5
chemical inertness of silicone elastomers.
5.00E+12 0
A B C D E F G
Silicone:EPDM Blend Composition 540 4.5
Volume Resistivity Tensile Strength 4
520

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

Figure 4. Effect of blend composition on volume resistivity and tensile 3.5
strength of polymeric blends. 500
3
CTI (Volt)

480 2.5
This clearly shows that a penalty has to be paid in terms of 460 2
significant reduction in tensile strength if the silicone rubber 1.5
composition is enhanced beyond 50 weight percentage in the 440
1
blend in order to obtain a higher volume resistivity and surface 420
0.5
resistivity. Hence, this comparison also suggests that 50:50
silicone rubber: EPDM is the optimal blend composition. 400 0
A B C D E F G
Silicone:EPDM Blend Composition

3.4 ARC RESISTANCE CTI Tensile Strength

The effect of blend composition on arc resistance of the Figure 6. Effect of blend composition on comparative tracking index and
samples is presented in Figure 5. tensile strength of polymeric blends
The resistance towards electric arc decreases when EPDM
proportion is increased in the blend. This may be due to the However, from the combined perspective of electrical as
hydrocarbon nature of EPDM. well as mechanical characteristics of the polymer blend, a
% decrease in arc resistance by the addition 50:50 blend of silicone rubber and EPDM (on weight basis) is
(600 − 363) the optimal composition as suggested by the cross over point
of 50 % EPDM = ×100 in Figure 6.
600
= 39.5
% decrease in CTI by the addition
of 50 % EPDM (520 − 475)
From the above calculations, it is found that arc resistance = ×100
for the 50: 50 blends is reduced by 40 %, whereas, the tensile 520
strength of the blend is improved by 366 %. = 8.7
1212 R. Raja Prabu et al.: Electrical Insulation Characteristics of Silicone and EPDM Polymeric Blends – Part I

From the above calculation, it is found that CTI for the 50:
50 blends is reduced by 9 % whereas the tensile strength of the
blend is improved by 366 %.
3.6 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT
The comparison of dielectric constant and the tensile
strength as a function of blend composition is shown in Figure
7. The blends consisting of higher weight percentages of
silicone possess lower values of tan δ and higher values of
The reason for the poor mechanical characteristics of the
silicone-rich blends is due to highly flexible bonding in
silicone.
In order to confirm that the 50:50 silicone rubber: EPDM
is indeed the most optimal polymer blend, only the curves of
dissipation factor and percentage elongation at break against
the blend composition is shown in Figure 8.
0.05 450

% Elongation at Break
dielectric constant. 400
0.04

Dissipation Factor
The values of dielectric constant and tan δ of silicone- rich 350
blends indicate that Si-O-Si bonds in silicone contribute for 300
0.03
250
the improvement in dielectric properties of the blends.
200
0.02
150
5 4.5 0.01 100
4 50

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

4.5 0 0
Dielectric Constant

3.5
A B C D E F G
4 3
Silicone:EPDM Blend Composition
2.5
3.5
2 Dissipation Factor % Elongation ta Break
3 1.5
1
2.5 Figure 8. Effect of blend composition on dissipation factor and percentage
0.5 elongation at break of polymeric blends.
2 0
A B C D E F G
Figure 8 clearly establishes that 50:50 composition of
Silicone:EPDM Blend Composition
silicone rubber and EPDM is the optimal blend composition to
derive the best of electrical and mechanical characteristics of
Dielectric Constant Tensile Strength silicone rubber and EPDM blends.
Figure 7. Effect of blend composition on dielectric constant and tensile
strength of polymeric blends.
3.8 COST ANALYSIS
The dielectric constant is at an optimal value with 50 weight The raw material cost of silicone rubber (with respect to
percentage of silicone rubber in the blend. At this blend Indian context) is high. Hence, it becomes necessary to
composition, the tensile strength is reasonably high, although analyze the cost factor, so as to make it economically viable.
it decreases from the value of pure EPDM. From the data in With respect to Indian context,
Table 2, it is seen that the dissipation factor for 50:50 of 1 kg of silicone rubber = INR 575
silicone rubber: EPDM is appreciably lower while possessing
significantly higher tensile strength at this blend composition. 1 kg of EPDM rubber = INR 275
50 : 50 SIR and EPDM mixture = INR 425

3.7 COMPARISON OF ELECTRICAL

CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCENTAGE Percentage of saving in the raw Material’s cost
ELONGATION AT BREAK by EPDM addition (575 − 425)
= × 100
Similar analyses as described in sections 3.1 to 3.6 can be 575
made by plotting all the electrical characteristics of the blends =26.0
and the percentage elongation at break as a function of
silicone rubber: EPDM composition. Thus the addition of EPDM to silicone rubber reduces the
cost, by 26 % for the preparation of blends.
The data shown in Table 2 clearly suggests that as the
silicone rubber composition increases above 50 weight
percentage in the blend, the percentage elongation at break
exponentially increases. Hence, it is not advisable to work
with more than 50 weight percentage of silicone rubber in the 3.9 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE
polymer blend. The same is observed with regard to tensile Table 3 summarizes the various percentage increase
strength also wherein above 50 weight percentage of silicone /decrease in the insulation characteristics of 50:50 silicone:
rubber in the blend, the tensile strength drastically decreases. EPDM blend (with reference to 100 % silicone).
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation
Table 3. Percentage increase/decrease in the insulation characteristics of 50 :
50 silicone: EPDM blend (with reference to 100 % silicone)
% increase(+)
Sl. No. Characteristics (or)
% decrease(-)
1 Tensile Strength +366
2 Tracking resistance -16
3 Dielectric strength -24
4 Arc resistance -40
5 Comparative tracking index -9
4 CONCLUSION
The present work reveals that, the mechanical properties of
silicone rubber can be significantly improved by blending it
with EPDM rubber. Also, this addition does not cause much
reduction in any of the electrical properties, studied.
The addition of EPDM to silicone rubber enhances the
mechanical strength of the polymeric blend by 366 % and
reduces the raw material cost by 26 %, with a less percentage
reduction in electrical characteristics.
The blends consisting of 50:50 weight percentage of
silicone/EPDM possess balanced electrical and mechanical
properties.
The experimental values confirm that the EPDM-rich
blends possess better mechanical strength properties. The
silicone-rich blends show better electrical characteristics and
poor mechanical properties due to highly flexible bonding in
silicone.
The literature [9-11] shows that addition of filler particles
enhances the mechanical strength of polymeric insulators and
offer better tracking resistance. Hence, it is not wise to
enhance the EPDM level beyond 50-weight percentage in the
blend to gain mechanical strength at the cost of poor electrical
characteristics of the blend.
In the subsequent paper by the same authors (part-II), the
influence of adding inorganic fillers to this optimal (50:50)
blend of silicone rubber and EPDM would be discussed
APPENDIX A
PREPARATION OF BLENDS
Passing through the rollers for three minutes softens EPDM
rubber initially and then silicone rubber is mixed
The mixing of EPDM and silicone rubber is carried out for
twelve minutes. Di cumyl peroxide is mixed at the final stage
of mixing.
The blends of silicone and EPDM containing various
proportions of component polymers are prepared in a
laboratory model two roll mixing mill at a temperature of 353
K. Dicumyl Peroxide is mixed during the mill mixing as a
curing agent to all the blends at 2.5 parts per hundred parts of
rubber (phr).
Vol. 14, No. 5; October 2007 1213
A.1 VULCANIZATION
The vulcanization of the blends is carried out in a
hydraulically operated press at 443 K for 10 minutes. The
vulcanized samples are post cured at 423 K for 2 hours in an
air circulated oven. Test specimens are punched out from the
compression moulded sheets.
A.2 BLEND COMPOSITION
Various compositions of silicone rubber and EPDM blends
prepared are given as follows
First EPDM rubber is blended with silicone rubber in a
complementary mixture of 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, and 100
percent by weight. 2.5 phr of di-cumyl peroxide is added as
the curing agent. With the above set of mixtures, it becomes
possible to analyze the performance characteristics of silicone
rubber alone, EPDM rubber alone and a mixture of silicone
and EPDM in various ratios.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the
Management of B.S.A Crescent Engineering College, Mr
Abdul Qadir A. Rahman Buhari, Correspondent, Dr.V.M.
Periasamy, Principal and Dr.T.R. Rangaswamy, Dean
(Academic) for their support and encouragement.
Special encomiums are due to the faculty, department of
High Voltage Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy,
Anna University, Chennai-25.
The authors wish to thank All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE), Government of India, for providing funds
to carry out the research work.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Kurata, “Evaluation of EPDM rubber for high voltage insulators”,
IEEE. Conf. Electr. Insul. Dielectr. Phenomena (CEIDP), pp. 471-474,
1995.
[2] S. Simmons, M. Shah, J. Mackvich and R.J. Chang “Polymeric Outdoor
Insulating Materials, Part-III – Silicone Elastomer Consideration”, IEEE
Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol.13, No.5, pp.25-32, 1997.
[3] M.Brown, “Compounding of ethylene propylene polymers for electrical
application”, IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol.10, No.1, pp. 16-22, 1994.
[4] R. S. Gorur, J. Montesinos, L. Varadadesikan, S. Simmons and M.
Shah, “A Laboratory Test for Tracking and Erosion Resistance of HV
outdoor insulation”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol.4, pp. 767-
774, 1997.
[5] L. Centurioni, “A contribution to the study of the tracking phenomenon
in solid dielectric materials under moist conditions”, IEEE Trans. Electr.
Insul., Vol. 12, pp.147-152, 1977.
[6] V. Shah, Handbook of Plastics Testing Technology, second edition, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 114-117, 1998.
[7] John S. Dick, Rubber Technology Compounding and Testing for
Performance”, Hanser publishers, Munich, pp. 190-193 and pp. 235-
237, 2001.
[8] J. E. Davis and D.E.W. Rees, “Silicone Rubbers – Their Present Place in
Electrical Insulation”, Proc. IEE, Vol.112, pp. 1607-1613, 1965.
[9] R.S. Gorur, E.A. Cherney, and R. Hackam, "The AC and DC Performance of
Polymeric Insulating Materials under Accelerated Aging in a Fog Chamber",
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 3, pp.1892-1902, 1988.
[10] L.H. Meyer, S.H. Jayaram, and E.A. Cherney, "Thermal Characteristics of
RTV and Hot Pressed Silicone rubber filled with ATH and Silica under Laser
Heating", IEEE Conf. Elect. Insul. Dielect. Phenomena (CEIDP),
Albuquerque, USA, pp.383-386, 2003.
[11] L.H. Meyer, E.A. Cherney and S.H. Jayaram, "The Role of Inorganic
Fillers in Silicone Rubber for Outdoor Insulation - Alumina Trihydrate or
Silica", IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.13-21, 2004.
1214 R. Raja Prabu et al.: Electrical Insulation Characteristics of Silicone and EPDM Polymeric Blends – Part I
Dr. R. Raja Prabu (M’05) was born in 1967. He
received the B.E. and M.E. degrees in electrical
engineering and power system engineering
respectively in 1988 and 1990, respectively. He
received the Ph.D. degree in high voltage engineering
from Anna University. Currently he is working as
Professor in E.E.E department of Crescent
Engineering College, Chennai. All India Council for
Technical Education, India, sponsored his research
work. He is a member of CIGRE, I.E (I) and I.S.T.E. His research interests
include outdoor insulation, digital protection, high voltage engineering and
nanodielectrics.
Dr. S. Usa received the B.E, M.E., and Ph.D., degrees in electrical
engineering from the College of Engineering, Anna University in 1986, 1989
and 1995, respectively. From 1992 to 2000, she worked as Lecturer and since
2000 as Assistant Professor at the College of Engineering, Anna University.
Her research interests include electromagnetic field computation and high
voltage engineering. She is a member of IEE, UK.
Dr. K. Udayakumar (SM’80) received the B.E.,
M.E., and Ph.D., degrees from the College of Anna
University in 1972, 1974 and 1987, respectively. He
started his career as Lecturer in Anna University and
subsequently promoted as Assistant Professor and
currently he is a Professor, in the Department of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Anna
University. He guided a number of Ph.D. students and
has several publications in journals. He served as
Director of various centers of the University. His
research interest is in high voltage engineering. Dr. Udayakumar was the
Chair of the Madras Chapter of IEEE.
Dr. M. Abdullah Khan (M’78) was born in 1940.
He obtained the B.E. degree in electrical
engineering, the M.E. degree in high voltage
engineering and the Ph.D. degree in power system
engineering, respectively in 1961, 1968 and 1974.
He guided several Ph.D. and M.E. students.
Currently he is working as a Professor in the Dept. of
EEE, Crescent Engineering College. He is a member
of ISTE (India). He published several papers in journals and conferences.
Previously, he was the Dean and Director of Anna University. He has teaching
and research experience of more than 40 years.
Dr. S.S.M. Abdul Majeed received the M.Sc degree
in industrial chemistry from Bharathidasan University,
India and the Ph.D. degree in polymer science and
technology from Anna University, India, in 2002. He
has been with Crescent Engineering College, Chennai,
India, since 1988 and currently he is serving as Assistant
Professor in the Department of Polymer Technology.
His research interest includes the development and
characterization of polymeric insulators, polymer
blends, biodegradable plastics and composites.