C37.41 WGPolymer Cutout Task Force

Frank C. Lambert, P.E.April 29, 2015

11

Noticea. The material contained herein is, to our knowledge, accurate and reliable at the date of publication. b. It is provided for the overall benefit of the electric energy delivery industry.c. It shall not be construed as an endorsement of any project, process or provider by the Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC), the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) or NEETRAC.d. Neither GTRC nor GIT nor NEETRAC shall be responsible for any injury to or death of persons or damage to or destruction of property or for any other loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use of the project results and/or data. e. GTRC, GIT and NEETRAC disclaim any and all warranties, both express and implied, with respect to analysis or research or results contained in this material.f. It is the user's responsibility to conduct the necessary assessments in order to satisfy themselves as to the suitability of the products or recommendations provided in this material. g. Title to the information herein shall reside with GTRC.

22

Polymer Cutout ManufacturersParticipation from:ABB, Advanced Rubber Products, Aluma‐Form, Eaton’s Cooper Power Systems, Hubbell Power Systems, MacLean Power Systems, Powerline Hardware and Utility Solutions

33

Anonymous Data• Only manufacturers of cutouts will have access to their own results, if they so elect. All other NEETRAC members (both utilities and manufacturers) will only have access to generic data.

• NEETRAC Member cutout manufacturers (ABB, Aluma‐Form, Eaton’s Cooper Power Systems, Hubbell and MacLean) will have the right to share their results as per standard NEETRAC baseline policy.

• Non‐member manufacturers (ARP, PLH and Utility Solutions) will have access to their own results for Internal Use only. They will not have the right to share their results with NEETRAC utilities.

• NEETRAC will present generic results to Polymer Insulator TF of C37.41 after review by Technical Advisors.

44

4.1 Mechanical Endurance at Temperature Extremes

55

• Operational tests at temperature extremes completed

66

• Heat rise tests completed

• Fuse operation and dye penetration scheduled for May.

4.2 Long Term Deformation/Creep TestingProposed New Procedure

1. Measure distance between upper contact / lower hinge on 3 cutout bodies.

2. Place 3 bodies and 3 solid blades in oven at 75 °C and wait until parts reach equilibrium.

3. Install blades in all 3 cutouts and start clock.4. After 1 hour, remove first cutout and place in ambient

temperature water bath for 1 minute.5. Remove blade and measure distance between upper

contact / lower hinge.

7

6. After 10 hours, remove second cutout and place in ambient temperature water bath for 1 minute.

7. Remove blade and measure distance between upper contact / lower hinge.

8. After 100 hours, remove final cutout and place in ambient temperature water bath for 1 minute.

9. Remove blade and measure distance between upper contact / lower hinge.

10. Plot 1, 10 and 100 hour creep measurements to predict long term deformation.

8

• Determine random measurement order for 8 unconditioned samples

• Have two technicians repeat 10 measurements on all 8 samples.• Place all samples and fuse tubes in chamber at 75 °C and leave

overnight.• The following morning, install fuse tubes and return them to the

chamber.• Start clock.• Remove two samples at each of the following times: 8 hours, 24

hours, 56 hours, and 168 hours from start time. (Removal times chosen to facilitate employee availability.)

• Immediately submerge in room temperature water for 1 minute.

Trial Run Process

9

• Remove the samples from the water tank and begin measurements (two technicians, 10 measurements each).

• Let samples sit for 24 hours, then repeat measurements (two technicians, 10 measurements each).

• Analyze data.

10

11

24 Hours8 Hours 56 Hours

Heating after 8 hours does not increase measurements

168 Hours

Difference between samples are GREATER than difference caused by heating

Numbers are hours in thermal chamber

12

13

• Ready to perform this modified LTD procedure on three samples from eight manufacturers if acceptable to the Polymer Task Force.

5.2.3 Test setup ‐ Each sample shall be tested for a duration of 1000 hours in accordance with one of the following methods in clauses 5.2.3.1 or 5.2.3.2.5.2.3.2 Fluorescent UV• Using bulbs as specified in ASTM G154

Procedure Changes Needed:• No bulb type truly specified• Referencing ASTM G154 does not actually specify a

recommended exposure sequence. Please be more specific or state that the report on the test must state the exposure sequence.

5.2 Accelerated Weathering

14

5.2 Accelerated Weathering

15

• Aging completed on first four samples.

• Final four samples scheduled for completion in August.

5.2 Accelerated Weathering – Procedure followed at NEETRAC Test

16

• UVB bulbs• 4 hr. UV at 60˚C, cycled

with…• 0.25 hr. Water spray / 3.75

hr. Condensation at 50˚C• 2000 hours, inspected at

250 hour intervals (color, integrity, etc.)

5.3 Tracking and Erosion

• All samples completed 30,000 cycles and successfully passed 5.3.4 Acceptance Criteria electrical tests: Meggar, steep front and impulse.

17

18

5.3.4 a)Requirements > 0.003 GΩ

Top ‐Center Bottom ‐Center Top ‐Bottom1 45 50 702 30 30 503 15 2.5 184 45.2 37 96.85 14 10 236 50 40 707 44.5 26.5 83.58 10 9 20.89 62.3 35.6 11410 15 11 2711 17 11 2912 80 80 10013 100 100 10014 100 100 2015 100 100 3516 2 100 10017 100 100 10018 0.2 100 10019 0.15 0.09 0.2520 0.075 0.07 0.1521 0.065 0.06 0.12522 35 20 7023 100 100 10024 100 100 100

SampleResistance Measurements (GΩ)

4.3.4 Acceptance Criteria Issues“Each aged sample is acceptable if there is no tracking or erosion to the core and no shed or housing puncture that exposes the core rod occurs.”

19

Pass or Fail?

5.3 Tracking and ErosionProcedure Changes Needed:• De‐ionized water can be many different conductivities.

Recommend keeping the suggested salt to water ratio but also specifying a final range of conductivity level.

• Clause 5.3.4 (b) references Steep‐front impulse voltage test in 6.1 but it’s called Steep‐Wave Impulse Test in the clause title.

• Clause 5.3.4 (b) is not clear. “(b) Steep‐wave impulse voltage test detailed in Clause 6.1.3 (e) “How much of the 6.1.3 procedure is supposed to be done? Is it only section 6.1.3 (e) or is it (e) – (h)?

20

5.3 Tracking and Erosion Changes5.3.4 Acceptance Criteria

Immediately after the tracking wheel test, each aged sample and the reference sample shallbe tested and evaluated to with the following tests, which must be completed within 48hours from removal from the salt exposure. The samples shall be rinsed in de-ionizedwater prior to the following tests. The tests shall be performed in the order listed:

a. Each aged sample is acceptable if there is no tracking or erosion to the core and noshed or housing puncture that exposes the core rod occurs.

b. Each sample shall undergo a Mega-Ohm meter resistance test. The minimum testvoltage shall be 1kV. Measurements shall be made between each top insert andbetween each insert and the center insert. The resistance shall be at least 3MΩ forall tests.

c. Perform Clause 6.1.3 (e) only on each aged sample. Samples are considered tohave passed this test if no punctures occur that expose the core rod.

d. Lightning Impulse Withstand Test. Each tested sample must be able to successfullypass a Lightning Impulse Withstand test at 80% of its rating.

21

6.1 Steep‐Wave Impulse Test • Delayed due to equipment failure, now planned for late May

or June.

7.1 Interrupting Test at Temperature Extremes • Interruption testing November 3 ‐ 4 and March 16 ‐ 17 at NEETRAC NJCL in Chicago.

• March tests were conducted with a 6K link selected by the manufacturer on the six manufacturers that experienced issues during November tests.

• Test procedure trials were successful to perform interruption at target high and low temperature.

22

7.1 Interrupting Test at Temperature Extremes • Results:

– Six of eight manufacturers passed the three cold (‐30°C) interruption test series 1 (0, 90 and 140 degrees) and five of eight passed the three hot (+40°C) interruption test series 1 shots.

– Average temperature at interruption was ‐28.2°C and +41.0 °C.

– Post test evaluation Dye Penetration as in Clause 4.1.4.1. Seven of eight manufacturers passed dye penetration for cold interruption test series and all eight passed for the hot interruption test series.

23

24

Temp 0 Time Temp 90 Time Temp 140 Time Temp Dye PenC P 4:01 -32.2 P 3:48 -31.8 P 3:30 -29.0 PC P 4:37 -22.0 P 4:38 -26.3 P 3;34 -27.9 PC P 4:38 -26.0 P 4:41 -27.0 P 3:19 -27.5 PC P 4:09 -29.3 P 3:20 -30.3 P 3:25 -25.8 PC P 4:51 -28.6 P 3:25 -32.0 P 3:35 -31.5 FC P 3:25 -28.7 P 4:02 -26.2 P 3:37 -27.5 PC F 3:55 -29.8 PC F 4:32 -28.7 P

Average 4:16 -28.2Min 3:25 -32.2Max 4:51 -22.0

H P 4:22 40.7 P 3:32 41.2 P 3:22 41.5 PH P 3:15 40.6 P 3:40 42.1 P 4:50 40.7 PH P 5:35 40.2 P 3:33 40.6 P 3:33 40.5 PH P 3:32 42.4 P 2:58 43.1 P 2:59 41.2 PH P 3:13 41.3 P 3:29 41.6 P 3:30 41.1 PH F 3:16 42.0 PH F 3:28 40.1 PH F 3:25 40.8 P

Average 3:45 41.0Min 3:13 40.1Max 5:35 42.4

4.1.4.1 Dye Penetration Test Issues• Issues

– Five 10 mm samples difficult to cut, particularly on 15 kV units.

– Dye comes up on outside of sample, especially in/ along mold lines.

25

Pass Fail