Ceramic vs.

Polymer (NonCeramic) Insulators

March 2002 Andrew Phillips EPRI

Polymers History
l

Late 1950s: Lightweight NCI considered necessary for 1,000 kV lines 1959: GE develops first NCI, but experiences problems with tracking & erosion of epoxy sheds Early 1960s: Europeans introduce first generation of modern Polymers (fiberglass rod covered with various types of polymer sheds & hardware
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-2

Advantage of polymers over ceramics

l l l l l l l l

90% weight reduction Reduced breakage Lower installation costs Aesthetically more pleasing Improved resistance to vandalism Improved handling of shock loads Improved power frequency insulation Improved contamination performance

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-3

Early Problems
Tracking and erosion flashover and line drops l Chalking and crazing incr. Contamination, arcing, and flashover l Bonding failures flashover Failure l Hardware separation, failures of fiberglass core line drops l Splitting of sheds, water penetration electrical failure
l
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-4

Result
l

Some manufacturers left the business Some focused on Transmission Polymers only Some focused on Distribution Polymers only Some developed second- and third-generation Polymers

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-5

Polymers Applied As:

Suspension insulators: carry tension loads in I-string, Vee-string, and dead-end applications l Post insulators: Carry tension, bending, or compression loads l Phase-to-phase insulators: Loaded in tension, torsion, bending, or compression to couple two phases together to control conductor spacing during galloping
l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-6

Elements of Modern Polymers

Grounded End Fitting

Energized metallic end fitting l Energized end grading ring* l Fiberglass reinforced plastic rod (FRP) l Polymeric weathershed system (weathersheds and sheath) l Grounded end grading ring* l Grounded metallic end fitting*
l

Grounded End Grading Ring

Fiberglass Rod

Shed

Sheath

Energized End Grading Ring

*Not all applications

Energized End Fitting

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-7

Basic Make-up

End Fitting

Fiberglass rod Sheds Sheath

Sheds

End Fitting Sheath

Cross-section through a Distribution Class NCI

(Basic makeup is identical to a transmission class NCI)

Photograph of Suspension NCI showing main components

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-8

Hydrophobicity (Appendix D TR 111- 566)

l

Surface wetting property of rubber materials Hydrophobic - resists wetting by forming beads of water Hydrophilic - Surface wets out, films of water Silicone Rubber Units Hydrophobic EP Rubber Units l Hydrophilic l Could be hydrophobic initially
l

HC1

HC2

HC3

HC4

HC5

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-9

HC6

Grading rings

Energized End Grading Ring

Grounded End Grading Ring

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-10

Grading Rings
l

Reduce E-field magnitudes at live and ground end fittings

No Grading Ring With Grading Ring

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-11

Why Grading Rings?

l

Prevent corona under dry conditions l Radio interference, audio noise Prevent internal discharge l Voids & defects in rubber Reduce wetting corona activity l Ages rubber & end fitting seal

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-12

Wetting Corona Activity

l

Result of: l Non-uniform wetting l High E-field Occurs mainly at live and ground ends Lower hydrophobicity makes discharge activity more likely

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-13

Wetting Corona Activity

l

Is a function of: l Type & magnitude of wetting

l l

Hydrophobic/hydrophilic Rain/mist/fog/condensation Grading ring dimension and position End fitting design Configuration and live end hardware

Magnitude of surface E-field

l l l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-14

Wetting Corona Aging Mechanism

l

Corona generates l UV light l Heat l Gaseous by-products

l

03 (Ozone), NO2

NO 2 + H 2O = HNO 3 (Nitric Acid)

EPRI tests: Wetting on NCI lowers pH to 3.4 after 15 min. of wetting corona activity
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-15

Failure Modes
Brittle fracture l Failure of rod due to discharges l Flash-under l End fitting attachment l Contamination flashover l Mechanical failure of rod
l

Water Reaches Rod

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-16

Brittle Fracture
l l

Water reached rod Acids form l Discharge activity l Contaminants l Acid rain l Corrosion Fibers cut by stress corrosion cutting
Axial Delamination Fracture Plane

Broomstick

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-17

Failure of Rod Due to Discharges

Water ingress into rod l Discharge activity degrades rod l Chemically l Ionic wind l UV l Temperature l Rod fails under load
l
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-18

Flash-under
Water ingress l Conductive path l Through rod itself l On rod surface l NCI cannot hold voltage - flashover l Power arc bursts through rubber
l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-19

End-fitting Attachment
Under crimping - pull out l Over Crimping l Cracked rod l May break with time
l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-20

Contamination Flashover
Insulator becomes severely contaminated due to local environment l Flashover may occur under critical wetting conditions
l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-21

Mechanical Failure of Rod

l

Rod may fail mechanically in service due to: l Poor rod manufacture l Mishandling during shipping or installation
l l

Severe torsion Severe bending

Mistreatment during manufacture Overloading

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-22

Issues with Polymers

l

Aging of Polymer Materials Limited Experience Large Variation in designs, materials and manufacturing techniques Handling concerns l Storing, transporting and installing
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-23

Ceramic Insulators Types

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-24

Porcelain Cap & Pin Insulators Basic Components

l

Porcelain Shell Portland Cement Hardware

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-25

Issues with Ceramic Insulators

Flashovers l Punctures l Cement Growth Cracking l Pin erosion l Long Term M&E Strength Reduction l Coupling Hardware Corrosion
l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-26

Ceramic vs. Polymers

Ceramics
l

Polymers
l

Made from Inorganic materials l Do not age >80 years of experience Flexibility in Length High Leakage Distance Profiles Can be coated & washed

Made from Organic Materials l Age > 30 years experience

l

l l

Latest designs < 10 years

Lighter Less susceptible to vandalism Smaller Viewing Profile Good short term performance in polluted environments
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-27

l l

Polymers vs. Ceramic Weight

Item Voltage (kV) Dist. 15 Dist. 15 Trans. 69 138 69 138 Type Ceramic Weight (lbs) 9.5 6.0 82.5 119.0 124.0 280.0 Polymer Weight (lbs) 2.4 3.8 27.2 8.0 28.0 98.9 Weight Reduction (lbs) 74.7 36.7 67.0 93.2 77.4 64.7

Insulator Arrester Post Insulator Suspension Trans. Insulator Intermediate Subs. Arrestor Station Subs. Arrester

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-28

Ceramic vs. Polymer Dry Arc Distance

Dry Arc Distance = 72

Dry Arc Distance = 63

Dry Arc Distance = 58

Connection Length = 69
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-29

Polymer vs. Ceramic

Connection Length & Dry Arc Distance
l

For the same connection Length Polymers have shorter Dry Arc Distances
Example for 12 Bell Equivalent
Voltage Level Connection Length 69 69 0% Dry Arc 72 58.4 -19% AC flashover Dry 690kV 585kV -15% Wet 490kV 510 kV +4% Critical Impulse +ve 1105kV 945kV -15% -ve 1105 kV 970kV -12%

Ceramic Polymer Reduction

230 kV 230 kV 0%

Therefore: One needs to be careful when replacing a Ceramic with a Polymer!!

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-30

*Note: Example for one specific polymer manufacturer and 5 Bells

Electrical design
Voltage Level 138 kV 60 Hz Low Freq. Dry 390kV (NESC) Connect Length 42.5 46.0 51.7 Requirements for 138 kV 60 Hz Low Impulse Contamination Freq. Wet +ve -ve Level 741 kV 722 kV Low Specific Leakage Distance 16 mm/kV

Ceramic
No of Bells 7 bells 8 bells 9 bells 60 Hz Low Freq. Dry 435 kV 485 kV 540 kV 60 Hz Low Freq. Wet 295 kV 335 kV 375 kV Impulse +ve -ve 695 kV 780 kV 860 kV 670 kV 760kV 845 kV Leakage Distance 2.04 m 2.34 m 2.63 m Specific Leakage Distance 15 mm/kV 17 mm/kV 19 mm/kV

Polymer

Connect Length 47.4 49.5 53.9 58.2

P1 P2 P3 P4

60 Hz Low Freq. Dry 390 kV 410 kV 450 kV 490 KV

60 Hz Low Freq. Wet 320 kV 340 kV 380 kV 415 kV

Polymer

Impulse +ve -ve 635 kV 670kV 735 kV 805 kV

Leakage Distance 2.53 m 2.68 m 2.99 m 3.30m

605 kV 640 kV 710 kV 780 kV

Specific Leakage Distance 18 mm/kV 19 mm/kV 22 mm/kV 24 mm/kV

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-31

Polymer vs. Ceramic

Strike Distance

Vertical Strike Distance

Connection Length

Dry Arc Distance

Horizontal Strike Distance Vertical Strike Distance Horizontal Position of Conductor Vertical Bundle Position

Vertical Position of Conductor

Horizontal Strike Distance

One needs to be careful when replacing a Ceramic with a Polymer!!

Horizontal Bundle Position

B ra ce

is

ta

nc

to

ro

ss

Dr y Ar Co c nn Di sta ec tio nc n e Le ng th

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-32

Polymer vs. Ceramic

Aging of Polymers
l

Polymers made from Organic Materials

l

Rubber & Fiberglass UV, rain, contamination, mist, E-fields Different manufacturers Different material types Environment

Materials age with exposure to environment

l

Different polymers age differently

l l l

Experience with new Polymers & Processes is limited

l

Designs used today are from the early to late 90s Less than 12 years experience
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-33

Polymer vs. Ceramic

Performance under contaminated conditions
l

EPDM Polymers appear to perform similarly ceramic insulators in flashover tests SIR Polymers appear to perform better than ceramic insulators (in flashover tests)
l

Material properties (SIR hydrophobicity)

In some cases Polymers have been found in to perform better than ceramic l Short term SIR definitely l Long term jury still out
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-34

Polymer vs. Ceramic

Performance under contaminated conditions EPDM
l

Aged EPDM perform similarly or worse than to ceramic in flashover tests

l

Aging of rubber material

Rubber material can become aged & degraded - continual discharge activity l Dry Band Arcing l Leakage Currents Results in l Flashovers l Material degradation
l

cracking, rod exposure, tracking

Line Droppings
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-35

Polymer vs. Ceramic

Performance under contaminated conditions SIR
l

Aged SIR can perform better than ceramic (in

flashover tests)
l

Material can become overwhelmed l Lower Hydrophobicity l Flashovers Short-term definite improvements Degradation Long-term can be a problem l Tracking both good & bad experiences l Rod Exposure

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-36

Polymer vs. NCI Mechanical Ratings - Suspension

Ceramic Insulators
l

Mechanical & Electrical Rating (M&E) Mechanical Load at which the Insulator Bell stops functioning either:
lMechanically lElectrically

or

l l l

Every unit tested to a load of 50% of M&E rating for 10 secs. Every unit electrically tested (after or simultaneously with the
mechanical test)

Units applied l < 20% of M&E rating for everyday load l < 50% of M&E rating for maximum loads

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-37

Polymer vs. NCI Mechanical Ratings- Suspension

l

Polymer Insulators Specific Mechanical load (SML)

Mechanical Load that a Polymer can hold for 60 seconds without failing

Every unit tested @ 50% of SML for 60-90 secs l Routine Test Load (RTL) l No electrical stress applied Units applied l < 20% of SML rating for everyday load l < 50% of SML rating for maximum loads
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-38

Porcelain vs. Glass vs. Polymer

Type Polymers Pros Lightweight & Easier to Han dle Reduced Installed Cost Improved contamination performance Smaller profile Cons Reduced Dry Arc Distance Susceptible to arcing damage due to flashovers Lack of standard dimensions Relatively limited experience Difficult to inspect Damaged by Corona Activity, etc, Porcelain Inert surface Performance well quantified Puncture of a single unit does not take out a string Long history of use Damaged units easier to identify Flexible in Length (# of units) Glass Performance well quantified Long history of use Easy to identify damaged unit Flexible in Length (# of units) Heavy and cumbersome Real Fun to shoot Surface defects failure Heavy and cumbersome Hidden defects Fun to shoot Pin corrosion Cement growth Post cascade failures Issues Susceptible to aging Prone to handling damage Grading rings Contamination performance changes with time Brittle Fracture

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-39

EPRI Related Research

l

Aging of Polymer Insulators l 500 kV Full Scale Aging Test

l

Report Prod ID# 100719

230 kV Full Scale Aging Test

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-40

Insulator Related Guides

Application Guide for Transmission Line NCI TR 111-566 l Guide to Visual Inspection of NCI 10000998 l Guide to Corona & Arcing Inspection of OHT Lines 1001910 l Educational Video Storing, Transporting & Installing Polymer Insulators 1006353 l Storing, Transporting & Installing Polymer Insulators: An Practical Guide
l
AJPOctBAC 99 p.-41

Other Research Reports

E-field Modeling of NCI and Grading Ring Design & Application TR 113-977 l Effect of High Temperature Operation on NCI Product Id# 1000033 l Electrical & Mechanical Performance of Ceramic Insulators 1000505 l Fracture Analysis of Polymer Insulators 1006293
l

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-42

Ongoing research
l l l l

End fitting Performance and Design Evaluation of In-service Insulators Development of In-service Inspection Tools Industry Survey on experience with Polymers 71 utilities Failure Database 3 years in the making If you have had any failures @ voltages > 69 kV please send a note to aphillip@epri.com

AJPOctBAC 99 p.-43