10278 Session 2022

B2 - Overhead Lines
PS 2 – Latest Techniques in Asset Management,
Capacity Enhancement, Refurbishment

Overhead Line Insulators in Operating Constraints under Severely Polluted

Conditions: the Benefits of Silicone Coated Glass Insulators and their
Application at the PG&E Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

Craig ESPINOSA* Do VO Jean-Marie GEORGE

Sediver Pacific Gas and Electric Sediver
USA USA France
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

SUMMARY

Over the years, power utilities have had three options to insulate their power lines: porcelain,
glass, or polymer insulators. In heavily contaminated environments many utilities were and are
still solving pollution related flashover issues by either washing, or by simply putting grease to
their existing ceramic insulators, without a design change. Once polymer insulators were easily
available, many utilities applied this technology in contaminated areas due to the hydrophobic
nature of their silicone surface. The hydrophobicity of silicone defends against moisture which
acts like a conductive catalyst to insulators that have a layer of pollution on the surface.
However, a greater need for resiliency in the power grid brings a stronger focus on pollution
mitigation methods using traditional insulators which is a key driver for using silicone coating
on overhead line insulators. For decades, silicone coatings on high voltage ceramic (glass and
porcelain) insulators have proven to perform well under severe pollution environments, and
primarily in substations.

We now see coated ceramic overhead line insulators as a fourth option of choice from a design
stage combining the benefits of greater resiliency with enhanced performance in high pollution
environments without washing. This is especially true in remote areas that are difficult to access
by maintenance crews. Often, pollution flashover issues are isolated to just a particular location
on the overhead line where pollution exists more so than other locations. Other times, these
areas are much larger in scale like transmission lines that run along the coast, or through the
desert. In either case, the practicability of coating is an attractive alternative to regular insulator
washing. Today it is not uncommon to see new transmission lines designed from the beginning
with this combined feature with the coating being more and more often applied in an industrial
and controlled environment for performance and longevity considerations compared to on site
application.

1
The rapid growth of silicone coatings has led several standardization bodies to start looking
into this technology with the objective of setting guidelines in material selection, application
methods, screening properties towards ageing, etc. Among the recent work CIGRE TB 837
constitutes a good reference document. A review of the key elements under consideration is
given in this paper.

To illustrate the performance of silicone coated insulators, we look to the California coast where
Pacific Gas & Electric shares their experience from their nuclear facility at the Diablo Canyon
Power Plant (DCPP) located on the shore of Avila Beach, CA. Nuclear power generation
requires cooling water, so it is common to position these plants on the coast where there is an
abundance of sea water. However, the coastal environment requires the infrastructure to be
more robust, and able to operate under corrosive and contaminated conditions. The same is true
for the power lines connecting the generation station to the grid. The presence of coastal salt
fog creates a major stress on the insulators. Surface pollution, such as salt deposits, together
with periods of moist salt fog can lead to surface discharges and potentially flashovers.

KEYWORDS

pollution / insulators / silicone coating / glass insulators / maintenance/ reliability / resilience /

insulator washing / asset management / nuclear / transmission

2
1. INTRODUCTION

Insulator selection criteria for overhead lines has evolved over the last decades. Pollution
resulting either from airborne dust or coastal salt fog constitutes a major factor in this
determination. In extreme conditions, ceramic insulators (glass or porcelain) often serve beyond
their limits, forcing periodic insulator wash to clean off contaminants. Another option is to use
polymer insulators in which the housing material is made of silicone rubber, thus providing the
benefit of a water repellent surface, the so-called hydrophobic property of silicone. This
property results in a reduction of the leakage current on the surface of the insulator when
moisture is absorbed by the surface deposits and subsequently reduces the risk of flashovers.

While this property is one of the key features of polymer insulators, the last decades have also
shown the limitations and risks related to ageing of polymer insulators especially in these harsh
conditions. An alternative popular approach that sees extensive application in substation is the
use of silicone coating over either traditional glass or porcelain insulators on overhead lines.
The selection of the appropriate silicone chemistry and the choice of the application process are
being reviewed in this paper with a quick review of the key parameters to take into consideration
for coatings.

A case study of the use of silicone coating over glass insulators is presented in this paper through
the actual field experience of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in California where
porcelain insulators had to be washed frequently. The study performed to improve this situation
involves considerations of leakage distance availability combined with the use of RTV (Room
Temperature Vulcanizing) silicone coating.

2. HYDROPHOBICITY

The capability of silicone surfaces to shed water is largely known today and used in the electric
sector mostly to prevent surface currents and subsequent surface arcing. A material is being
classified as hydrophobic when the contact angle as shown in figure 1 is higher than 90°. A
classification of the hydrophobic status of a surface was set up in IEC TS 62073 [1]. This
property is transferred through the pollution deposit and is expected to survive over time even
in very harsh conditions as shown in Figure 1. For overhead line insulators it offers a mean to
reducing leakage currents, avoiding flashovers but this benefit should not be traded against risks
of failure or line drops.

Figure 1 (Left) : defines hydrophobicity, (Right): hydrophobicity maintained in the surface of

a silicone coated glass insulators after approximately 20 years in harsh environment.

Originally silicone grease was applied on the surface of porcelain bushing and other apparatus
in substations. This was not well adapted for overhead lines since the grease had to be removed

3
and reapplied periodically thus not practically applicable to insulator strings hanging up in the
air on towers and often disseminated in the wilderness.

The use of polymer insulators came in for the very reason that it offered the same benefit
without the need of replacing the grease. Nevertheless, polymer insulators showed their limits
in a number of locations and especially harsh environments. In fact, the silicone housing, while
ensuring proper overall hydrophobicity to prevent flashovers, is stressed electrically through
corona and dry band activity. These conditions often led to erosion of the silicone itself and
expose the internal core of the insulator until a failure occurs as shown in Figure 2. Field
experience has shown that hydrophobicity often survives the stage where a silicone polymer
housing is eroded but the level of erosion is usually the limiting lifetime factor for polymer
insulators. It is in this context that silicone coating gained popularity in the protection of
overhead line insulators when exposed to harsh contamination conditions. For coated insulators
erosion can also take place (Figure 2) but the risk of a catastrophic failure is eliminated by the
fact that under the silicone housing the material is not an organic fiberglass core like for
polymers.

Figure 2 (Left): Erosion of a polymer insulator which is still hydrophobic after approximately
15 years in service in harsh conditions. (Right): Comparative erosion of a silicone coated
glass insulator.

3. SILICONE COATED INSULATORS

Silicone coated insulators have been used in a variety of conditions and environments with great
success. A very interesting document published by CIGRE in 2021 bringing together most
technical aspects related to silicone coating (CIGRE TB 837 [5]) describes the key physico-
chemical, ageing considerations, pollution performance, application methods and examples of
specifications. The most important elements to keep in mind can be summarized as follow:

• Fingerprinting of the material: many coatings exist, and various tests are suggested to
verify that the coating supplied is in line with the one selected through type tests. Among
those TGA testing (Thermo Gravimetric Analyses) will ensure the presence of ATH
(Alumina Tri Hydrate) which is a very effective filler known for tracking and erosion
resistance.
• Thickness consistency with appropriate check points.
• Adherence of the silicone to the surface: method for testing was discussed in the
Technical Brochure TB837. Scratch test method using the tool from ISO2409 [3]
standard is favoured. Discussions around the water boiling test as per IEEE 1523 [4]
have shown that this test is relatively irrelevant and will be discussed further.
• Ageing testing of coated insulators can be evaluated through various test procedures,
but one seems to stick out since it has already been adopted by many utilities. The test
4
 sequence is shown in Figure 3 and consist of a 2000h multi-stress test. It is an interesting
test since it shows a clear ability to discriminate best performers (Figure 4).

Figure 3: 2000h multi stress test cycle for ageing evaluation of silicone coated insulators

Figure 4: Examples of visuals of silicone coated glass insulators using different chemistries of
coating after the 2000h test.

4. POLLUTION PERFORMANCE

Laboratory testing of silicone hydrophobic surfaces (also called HTM) can be tricky. Recent
[5] and ongoing work is trying to establish the best test procedure for an insulator which exhibits
dynamic properties such as the transfer of hydrophobicity through the contamination deposit
and the recovery if disrupted by preliminary preconditioning during testing (as currently
described in IEC 60507 [6]).

Nevertheless, either for salt fog conditions or with solid layer pollution an abundant set of test
results is clearly showing the extremely interesting performance of silicone coated insulators.
Figure 5 shows the performance of non-coated glass insulators relatively to fully coated or
under coated glass insulators. The latter (Figure 6) is an option which is gaining popularity
since it combines very good pollution performance, easier handling, shipping and packaging
conditions. Pacific Gas & Electric is using undercoated glass insulators as a standard feature
today for their polluted areas across the grid (Figure 7).

5
Figure 5: Relative pollution performance in % between non coated (A, D), fully coated (B, E)
and under coated insulators (C, F). With reference on a base 100 for non-coated units. In
green salt fog test at 40g/l. In blue clean fog test with ESDD=0.1mg/cm² and
NSDD=0.2mg/cm².

Figure 6: Under coated glass insulators

Figure 7: Example of under coated glass insulators installation at PG&E

In the end the best laboratory test is the actual field performance and, in this respect, the
following experience at DCPP is very interesting.

5. DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

DCPP (Figure 8) was commissioned by PG&E in the mid 1980’s with two 500kV overhead
lines extending out from the generators and turbine building to deliver power. Since the plant’s
inception, DCPP would wash insulators and other equipment regularly, and as a result, had not
experienced a pollution related flashover for nearly 3 decades. However, in the years of 2012
to 2014 DCPP saw an elevated number of flashover incidents at the station which resulted in
loss of generation. Identified causes included insulator contamination, inadequate insulator
leakage distance, and equipment not designed to withstand the harsh coastal environment. It is

6
noteworthy that this period was documented as the 3rd driest period on record in San Luis
Obispo County going back to 1870. This extremely dry period deprived the station of several
inches of rain which would have had a cleaning effect on the insulators as well as other
equipment. At that time, Equivalent Salt Deposit Density (ESDD) were reported at very high
levels sometimes beyond 1 mg/cm² which is largely above the “very heavy” classification of
IEC 61815 [7]. A risk mitigation plan was needed.

Figure 8: DCPP nuclear generation station is located directly on the Pacific coast

A preventive maintenance program was implemented which included an escalated insulator

washing schedule. With an 8-man crew, DCPP was washing insulators 4-6 times per year. Due
to the frequency of washing and given the particular aspects of a nuclear generation where both
outage costs and reconnection complexity to the grid are major issues there was not the luxury
of planned outages. Therefore, the insulators were washed while the line was energized, known
as hot wash where deionized water spray was applied at high pressure. Hot washes are
considered high risk activities as they expose the energized lines to a potential flashover that
can lead to a unit trip and jeopardize crew safety. Insulator washing needed to be planned,
coordinated and scheduled carefully with many departments to avoid conflict with other
maintenance activities, grid configuration and plant operations. The water spray from insulator
washing was also affecting other energized equipment causing further disruption.

Alternative insulator options were considered to improve performance. It was discovered that
toughened glass insulators can have a much higher leakage distance than porcelain units due to
the geometric strength of toughened glass. The inner ribs of glass insulators can be longer,
thinner, and deeper than porcelain which results into higher leakage distance. Another
consideration was silicone coating to defend against pollution which could eliminate the need
to wash altogether. The added leakage distance with a hydrophobic surface, on a material that
does not age, was considered a “belt and suspenders” solution that could drastically reduce the
amount of time, cost and resources to keep the 500kV lines safe and operational.

7
The 500kV lines connecting to the turbines were originally insulated with 58 porcelain
insulators in a double bundle dead end configuration (Figure 9). The replacement of porcelain
insulators to silicone coated toughened glass was evaluated and compared in the table below.
Without any change to the existing hardware, the glass units could be installed “like for like”
and provide 68% more leakage distance than the porcelain. No adjustment of conductor sag
was necessary.

This final choice resulted in the combination of higher leakage distance and a hydrophobic
surface (Table 1). The simple addition of leakage distance would have improved the situation,
but the extreme contamination encountered would still be considered as a potential threat.
Likewise, using silicone coating without changing the leakage distance could have resulted in
a possible ageing of the coating. Today experts recognize that even when HTM (hydrophobic
surface) can avoid flashovers, leakage distance should not be sacrificed to ensure a better
longevity of the material. The decision to act on both parameters appeared to be the way to go.

Leakage Insulator Total

M&E Number of Total
Distance Spacing Leakage
Insulator Type Rating Insulators Insulator
per Unit per Unit Distance
(lbs) per String Spacing (in)
(in) (in) (in)

Porcelain Fog Type 36,000 12.81 5.75 58 743.13 333.50

Coated Glass Fog Type 36,000 21.50 5.75 58 1,247.00 333.50

Table 1: summary of insulator string designs and characteristics before and after

Figure 9: String arrangement

In October 2015, DCPP replaced three dead end strings on Turbine Unit 2 with silicone coated
glass insulators as a pilot project (Figure 10). Immediately, there was a noticeable reduction in
audible noise and RF noise from the insulator strings. Thermography photos also indicated a
lower operating temperature compared to porcelain units. The dead-end insulator strings on
Unit 1 were later replaced in 2016. Since the successful installments on Unit 1 and 2, there has
been no degradation of the insulators, nor has there been pollution related flashovers. The plant
no longer hot washes. For over 6 years is a savings of approximately 55 washes and counting.
In addition to a large cost savings, it has allowed the maintenance crews to concentrate on other
projects which keep the plant safe and reliable. DCPP still performs cold washes since it is
mandated as per maintenance procedures every 18 months during the refueling outage. Cold
wash is the application of deionized water spray at low pressure when the line is not energized

8
(rain resemblance). It was clearly noticed that the strings remain silent for their entire service
time up to each one of these maintenance operations.

From a practical point of view, the insulators being fully coated (Figure 11) required special
care to avoid surface damages. Nevertheless, some units were damaged and therefore were
repaired using a silicone repair kit prior to installation (Figure 11). This point has since been
fixed by the manufacturer who offers today to PG&E a proprietary coating chemistry more
robust to handling and installation.

Figure 10: Installation of the coated strings

Figure 11: Fully coated glass insulators prepared on the ground for installation. Some small
damages were identified and repaired on site prior to installation.

Overall, the experience gathered since 2015 is showing great benefits as summarized in table
2 below.

9
 Before After Primary Benefit
Hot washing 4-6 times per year No hot washing Less cost
Wash planning & scheduling conflicts Less maintenance conflicts Improved efficiency
High operational risk No risk Plant/equipment safety
Personal safety risk No risk Crew safety
Generation loss No generation loss Reliable power delivery
Water consumption Less water consumption Sustainability
Audible RF noise from corona Audible / RF noise Less impact on RF
discharge reduction sensitive instrumentation

Table 2: Summary of benefits with the silicone coated glass solution

6. CONCLUSION

The experience at DCPP has shown that contamination can be controlled by the use of silicone
coated glass insulators. This technology provides the resiliency of toughened glass with a
hydrophobic surface to fight against major pollution related flashover problems that can cause
sustained outages. The elimination of hot washing is a substantial cost savings, reduces the risk
of equipment failure and improves personal safety. Water preservation is also an important
concern as we see our climate change in the images of draught and forest fires. Water spray can
also have a negative impact on energized equipment causing trips or even flashovers. Grid
hardening and the greater need for long lasting resiliency has driven insulator technology to be
more robust and to reduce maintenance cost.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] IEC TS 62073. Guidance on the measurement of the wettability of insulator surfaces (IEC
Standard, 2016)
[2] Coating for improvement of electrical performance of outdoor insulators under pollution.
(CIGRE Technical Brochure, TB 837, 2021)
[3] ISO 2406. Paints and varnishes crosscut test. (ISO standard, 2020)
[4] IEEE 1523. Guide for the application, maintenance and evaluation of room temperature
vulcanizing silicone coatings for outdoor ceramic insulators. (IEEE Standard,2018)
[5] IEC 60507. Artificial pollution test on high voltage ceramic and glass insulators to be
used on ac systems. (IEC Standard, 2013)
[6] State of the art of pollution test procedures for insulators with hydrophobic Transfer
Materials. Gutman, et al. (CIGRE Science & Engineering, N°21, p.29, June 2021)
[7] IEC TS 60815-2. Selection and dimensioning of high voltage insulators for polluted
conditions - Part 2. (IEC Standard, 2008)

10