Please contact the conference organizers at secretariat@ish2017.

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

NEED OF STANDARDIZED ADHESION TEST FOR COMPOSITE

INSULATORS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM SERVICE EXPERIENCE
AND TESTING

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
composite insulators of type 1 in one week were
experienced on the 130 kV transmission line in
Sweden. The two failed insulators were inspected
in the laboratory and the root cause of the damage
was considered as weak adhesion between the
fibreglass rod and housing material. This was most
probably followed by the creation of some kind of
internal conducting path inside the insulators (in
the interface silicone rubber/fibreglass rod) which
finally resulted in the so-called “flashunder” type of
failure. Two batches of new line composite
insulators of two different types (type 1 and type 2)
were later evaluated in the laboratory by sample
testing. All these data formed a basis for the
evaluation of the existing IEC-based test methods
and the first application of the new test methods
intended to prevent such type of failures before the
insulators reach the network.
The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the
applicability of the IEC-based test methods
intended to check the interface between the
fibreglass rod and the silicone rubber together with
the non-standard test methods.
3 FAILURE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Test samples
Two damaged insulators of type 1 removed from
service were investigated; the insulators were
rated for 145 kV.
3.2 Test program
The test program proposed a number of tests to be
performed in the sequence and included:
 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

Visual inspection. The first glance inspection Figure 3: Hydrophobic Insulators at

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.

Figure 1: Example of openings along the insulator.

At both insulators conductive tracking in the

fibreglass rod was observed, see Figure 2.

Figure 4: Estimation of pollution level according to

IEC 60815-1 (red circle).

Adhesion test. The non-standard adhesion test

Figure 2: Example of tracking mark in the
was performed by cutting strips of the housing at
fibreglass core.
different positions of the two insulators. A force
straight out from the insulator was then applied to rod and silicone rubber housing, by which the HV
pull off the housing material and the adhesion potential was transferred from the HV fitting up
between the two materials were estimated and along the insulator. The short circuit path amplified
documented. However, for the first insulator the electric stress and this initiated corona which

Fo
relatively large parts of the housing were loose
already upon arrival and the rest was easily
removed by hands, see Figure 5.
firstly locally degraded the hydrophobicity. Finally
this created either erosion or punctures through
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.

This probable mechanism of development of such

Figure 5: Poor adhesion: housing removed by

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.

Figure 6: Poor adhesion: a strip of housing

removed by hands.
3.4 Root case of failure
The root cause of the damaged and failed
insulators was considered as weak/no adhesion
between the fibreglass core and the housing. This
is typically a pure manufacturing and not service-
induced problem. Mishandling of the insulators can
be ruled out in this case, since large areas of the
interface are with no adherence at all. Possible
mechanism of what happened in service is as
follows. Initially air filled voids between the
fibreglass rod and silicone rubber were in long-
term in service filled by moisture due to diffusion
through the silicone rubber. With time this led to a
partially conductive layer between the fibre glass
Figure 8: Examples of hot spots on insulators
observed by IR-inspection in service.
4 TESTS OF NEW INSULATORS TYPE 1
4.1 Test samples
Three new insulators of type 1 rated for 145 kV
were randomly selected from three different
transport boxes from a larger batch of about 150
insulators.
4.2 Test program
The test program proposed a number of tests to be
performed in the sequence and included:
 1. Visual and hydrophobicity inspection.

2. Test on interfaces. Selection of tests

according to Clause 9.2 of IEC standard
62217 “Tests on interfaces and

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

24 h after finishing the steep-front
impulse voltage test. The flashover
voltage test was performed in the
same way as described in clause
“a” followed by 30 minutes at 80%
of the reference flashover voltage
and temperature measurements.
3. Adhesion test.
4.3 Test results
y
rubber to the fibreglass by cut and remove pieces
of the housing is a generally accepted method
which is performed by many manufacturers as an
internal check of the quality in the production of
composite insulators. A similar method is
described in [4] where it is stated that good
adhesion of the housing to the rod should result in
the general cohesive failure of the rubber rather
than the adhesive failure between the rubber and
the rod. The adhesive and cohesive failures are
explained in Figure 9 .

Visual and hydrophobicity inspection. All three

insulators passed the visual and hydrophobicity
inspection without any significant remarks.

Test on interfaces. All tests were performed

strictly according to the IEC requirements [3]. The
acceptance criteria require that the flashover
voltage of each of the test specimen shall be
greater than or equal to 90% of the reference
flashover voltage. No puncture of any part of the
insulator shall occur and the maximum
temperature rise shall be less than 20 K compared
to the reference temperature determined prior to
the power frequency tests. The results are Figure 9: Illustration of adhesive and cohesive
summarized in Table 1 and all insulators formally
failures [4].
passed the standard IEC tests.
Examples of the results of adhesion tests (which
appeared to be poor for all three insulators tested)
are presented in Figure 10 to Figure 12.
 2. Adhesion test.

4.3 Test results

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.

Figure 12: Poor adhesion: larger part of housing

can be removed by hands.

TESTS OF NEW INSULATORS TYPE 2

4.1 Test samples

Four randomly selected from new batch insulators

of type 2 of 145 kV voltage class were
investigated.
Figure 14: Good adhesion tested in radial
4.2 Test program direction.

Taking into account that the previous

investigations showed that the standard IEC tests
could not reveal the weakness in adhesion, the
program included:

1. Visual and hydrophobicity inspection.

 internal weakness as poor adhesion. At the same
time rather simple non-standard adhesion test
clearly revealed the obvious difference in adhesion
properties between the insulators of type 1 and

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.

It is considered that the weak adhesion between

the fibreglass rod and silicone rubber housing as a
result of poor manufacturing control was the root
cause for the “flashunder” type of failure in service.
In-service inspection of the rest of insulators by IR-
camera confirms this consideration.

At the same time all three new investigated

insulators of type 1 passed the selection of
electrical tests according to the IEC standard
62217 aiming for the test of interfaces. According
to the manufacturer, the insulators of this type also
passed standard IEC tests before delivery.

This indicates that the requirements of the present

standard issued in 1992 and slightly revised in
2008 cannot reveal the insulators with such type of

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)