ppi21061-HLXL SUSP-Freeport Indonesia

PRODUCT PERFORMANCE INQUIRY
(11-24-2009)
PPI NUMBER:
CUSTOMER:
PRODUCT:
CATALOG NUMBER:
INITIATOR:
21061
Freeport Indonesia
Hi*Lite XL Suspension
513213-1001/512213-1201
J.Rumble
PPI INFORMATION ENTERED IN SYSTEM: 8/6/2009
MATERIAL AVAILABLE FOR EVALUATION: 11/3/2009
BACKGROUND
Three Hi*Lite XL suspension insulators were returned by Freeport Indonesia for analysis. Of these, two insulators
were catalog number 513213-1001 and one insulator was 512213-1201. The RGFS indicated that the insulators were
installed in a service area with high humidity and mineral dust.
INVESTIGATION / OBSERVATIONS
Based on the number of weathersheds and the end fitting configuration it was confirmed that the returned insulators
were catalog number 512213-1001 and 512213-1201. The catalog numbers also matched the markings on the CSR's
on each insulator. The two insulators returned (catalog number 513213-1001) were marked as #282 and #230,
whereas catalog number 512213-1201 was marked as tower 3 by the customer. The condition of the insulators at the
time of return is listed below.
Catalog Number
513213-1001
Sample Number
#282
Condition at the time of return
The insulator had signs of severe contamination; the polymer housing was
covered with a brown residue. The first weathershed from line end had
significant erosion extending through the weathershed to the sheath.
Weathersheds #17, 19, 21, 33, 35 and 37 from line end also had some erosion.
Serial number: 33796, indicates that the unit was made on 337th day of the
year 1996.
513213-1001
#230
There was no visible damage to the insulator. One side of the insulator had
some unknown black residue. The insulator appeared chalked.
Serial number: 06497, indicates that the unit was made on 64th day of the year
1997.
512213-1201
Tower 3
The insulator was shipped with a line end ring attached. The ring was installed
1/4 " below the normal ring position. The insulator appeared chalked and the
mid sections were covered with brown residue. There was no visible damage to
the insulator.
Serial number: 01497, indicates that the unit was made on 14th day of the year
1997.
Table 1: Condition of returned insulators
Page 1 of 6
This information is of a confidential nature and is not to be conveyed to any organization or individual other than those
expressly approved by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
Figure 1: Ground end sample#282
Figure 5: Contaminant on Sample#282
Figure 6: Contaminant on sample#230
Figure 2 Line end sample#282
Figure 7: Sample#230
Figure 3: Erosion on sample#282
Figure 8: Contaminant on sample Tower#3
Figure 4: Line end sample#282
Page 2 of 6
This information is of a confidential nature and is not to be conveyed to any organization or individual other than those
expressly approved by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
Figure 9: Sample#230
Figure 10: Ring assembled 0.25" below normal position
An ESDD test was performed on sample # 282 to determine the level of contaminants / amount of salts present on the
insulator. The ESDD (Equivalent Salt Deposit Density) test measures the soluble salts deposited on the surface of the insulator
by washing that surface in a known volume of deionized (DI) water. The water’s conductivity is measured after the washing is
complete. From the conductivity of a known volume of water and the surface area of the insulator washed, an average deposit
density for NaCl can be calculated. This relative value can then be comparatively ranked.
The ESDD values were calculated using the equations published in “APPLICATION GUIDE FOR INSULATORS IN A
CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENT “(IEEE F 77 639-8.)
The equivalent salt quantity in the solution was calculated by the following equation.
X (mg) =A*B*10
Where A is the quantity of DI water solution (ml) and B is the percentage equivalent salt concentration
And the equivalent salt quantity per unit surface area Y (mg/cm2) is calculated by dividing the equivalent salt quantity in
solution by the washed surface area of the insulator, S (cm 2)
Y = X/S= (A*B*10)/S
In this case A =920 ml, B=0.00150 %
X= 920*.00150*10
X =13.8mg
The surface area of each shed is approximately 27.46 in2 or 177.13 cm 2. For this test, 6 weathersheds were washed and the
surface area was calculated as
S= 177.13*6=1062.78 cm2
ESDD=Y= X/S = 13.8/1062.78 =.0129 mg/ cm2
The calculated ESDD value falls under the very light range (0.0 – 0.03 mg/cm2).
Page 3 of 6
This information is of a confidential nature and is not to be conveyed to any organization or individual other than those
expressly approved by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
Sample On
Test
Sample#
282
Area Washed
6 sheds washed
(middle of unit)
Measured
Ohm Cm
Temp.
Deg. F
Temp.
Correction
Factor
Corrected
Temp.
Resistivity
Ohm Cm
Soluti
on
In
ML
%
NACL
Area In
Square
Cm.
36231.9
70
1.065
38586.9
920
0.0015
1062.78
Mg/Cm
Squared
.0129
Table 2: ESDD on sample#282
Next all three returned samples were subjected to wet 60HZ flash over testing per ANSI C29.1. The results from the
flashover tests are shown in the table below.
Designation
Bar. (cm Hg)
Temp. Dry (°F)
Rel. Hum.
Unit 1
Sample# 282
73.8
65.8
41.2
kV (RMS)
Uncorrected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
ANSI C29.1
Corrected
Unit 2
Sample# 230
73.8
65.8
41.2
kV (RMS)
Uncorrected
ANSI C29.1
Corrected
Unit 3
Tower #3
73.8
65.8
41.2
kV (RMS)
Uncorrected
ANSI C29.1
Corrected
650*
655.3
650
655
650
655
630
635
655
660
620
625
650
655
650
655
610
614
640
645
640
645
640
645
590
594
650
655
655
660
640
645
585
589
650
655
620
625
640
645
610
614
650*
655.3
641
646.8
626.5
631.6
* Sample#282 could not be flashed over within the transformer limit of 650KV, so the
sample was energized to 650KV and the voltage was held for 1 minute.
Table 3: 60HZ wet Flashover Test
Next the insulators were subjected to ultimate tensile load test. Samples marked #282 and 230 were rated for 50,000
lbs ultimate and sample marked tower#3 was rated for 30,000 lbs ultimate load. All three samples met the
requirements. The table below shows the ultimate load and mode of failure for each sample.
Sample# (Catalog#)
SML (lbs)
Ultimate Load (lbs)
Mode of Failure
282 (513213-1001)
50,000
62,626
Crimp slip (ball fitting end)
230 (513213-1001)
50,000
50,823
Crimp slip (chain eye fitting)
Tower#3 (512213-1201)
30,000
45,861
Crimp Slip (ball fitting end)
Table 4: Ultimate tensile load test
Page 4 of 6
This information is of a confidential nature and is not to be conveyed to any organization or individual other than those
expressly approved by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
Figure 11: Test Setup
Figure 12: Test Setup
Figure 13: Test Setup
Figure 14: Crimp Slip (tower#3)
Figure 15: Crimp Slip (sample#282)
Figure 16: Crimp Slip (Sample#230)
Page 5 of 6
This information is of a confidential nature and is not to be conveyed to any organization or individual other than those
expressly approved by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.
ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSIONS
The ESDD test performed on sample #282 indicated very light contamination. The ESDDs are also affected by
environmental conditions around the time of removal of the insulator from service. Flashovers, rain and handling will
all alter the level of contamination on the insulator and can give varying ESDD values. The erosion observed on
sample #282 appears to be the result of heavy leakage current activity. With ESP, heavy leakage current activity can
result in erosion of the base material. The polymer will not, under normal circumstances, track.
The wet flashover test indicated that the flashover values are approximately 90% of the ratings of a new product (wet
flashover for new product =720KV). The ultimate tensile load on all three insulators exceeded the SML.
All three returned insulators appeared to have light chalking. Chalking results from exposure of the polymer to ultraviolet energy (UV). Within a discrete bandwidth, the UV energy has the potential to disrupt the molecular bonds in
the backbone of the polymer molecules. If that occurs, the organic portions of the polymer ablate, leaving behind the
inorganic filler, alumina tri-hydrate (ATH). The ATH appears as a white, chalky powder. Chalking will not affect the
electrical performance of the insulators and will help to shield the underlying polymer from additional UV exposure.
The erosion observed on sample#282 appears to have been caused by leakage current activity over an extended period
of time. Also the overall appearance indicated that the service environment was severely contaminated. Any insulators
with severe erosion to the polymer should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. If the erosion on the insulator
extends to the core (exposing the fiberglass rod) then such insulators must be replaced immediately.
The contaminant on the insulators could not be positively identified but based on the information from the RGFS it
appears that it is mineral dust. Overall, all three insulators performed satisfactorily both electrically and mechanically.
(Please note that, unless otherwise directed by the customer, it is our intent to dispose of
the parts returned under this PPI after 03-1-2010)
APPROVED BY:
R. A. Bernstorf
_____________________________________________
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, INSULATORS
John P. Lombardi
______________________________________________________
ADMINISTRATOR, QUALITY SYSTEMS
Page 6 of 6
This information is of a confidential nature and is not to be conveyed to any organization or individual other than those
expressly approved by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.