Analysis of the EPRI Transmission Line Polymer

Insulator and Fiberglass Component Failure

Databases: 2012
1024148

Analysis of the EPRI Transmission Line Polymer Insulator

and Fiberglass Component Failure Databases: 2012
1024148

Technical Update, December 2012

EPRI Project Manager

T. Shaw

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS
TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION(S), UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF
ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2012 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organization prepared this report:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
1300 West W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigator
T. Shaw
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Analysis of the EPRI Transmission Line Polymer Insulator and Fiberglass Component Failure
Databases: 2012. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1024148.
iii

ABSTRACT
Polymer insulators, also known as composite or non-ceramic insulators, are proliferating on
transmission systems due to their ease of handling, resistance to vandalism, and relatively low
cost. Polymer insulators are a relatively new technology compared to porcelain and glass
insulators, with certain advantages and disadvantages. Long-term field experience remains
limited, and the number and type of failures that have occurred are not all documented. To fill
the information gaps, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) maintains a database of
reported polymer insulator failures.
The EPRI polymer insulator failure database was started in 1997 and has been continually
updated. This database contains detailed information about individual insulator failures, failure
reports, and photographs of the individual failures when possible.
Together with other deliverables from EPRIs comprehensive polymer insulator research effort,
the survey results and failure database will help member utilities to increase transmission service
reliability and reduce operations and maintenance costs through the correct selection and
application of new insulators and management of existing insulators.
Keywords
Failure
Insulator
Polymer

CONTENTS
ANALYSIS OF THE EPRI TRANSMISSION LINE POLYMER INSULATOR AND
FIBERGLASS COMPONENT FAILURE DATABASES: 2012 .....................................................I
1 INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY ...........................................................1-1
Introduction .........................................................................................................................1-1
2 DESCRIPTION OF FAILURES MODES OF COMPOSITE COMPONENTS IN
SERVICE .................................................................................................................................2-1
Description of Failures .........................................................................................................2-1
Brittle Fracture (Stress Corrosion Cracking of Fiberglass Rod) .......................................2-1
Flashunder (Tracking in or along fiberglass rod and the resulting flashover) ...................2-2
Destruction of Rod by Discharge Activity ........................................................................2-3
Mechanical Failure due to End Fitting Pullout or Mechanical Failure of the Rod .............2-4
3 ANALYSIS OF POLYMER INSULATOR FAILURE DATABASE .........................................3-1
Year, Age and Installation Date of Failed Units....................................................................3-5
Failure Modes and Reasons for Failures .............................................................................3-7
Manufacturer A..............................................................................................................3-9
Manufacturer B............................................................................................................3-10
Manufacturer C ...........................................................................................................3-11
Manufacturer D ...........................................................................................................3-11
Manufacturer E............................................................................................................3-13
Manufacturer L ............................................................................................................3-14
Configuration .....................................................................................................................3-15
Grading Ring Use ..............................................................................................................3-16
4 FAILURES FROM 2011 AND 2012 ......................................................................................4-1
5 FAILURES OF FIBERGLASS COMPONENTS ....................................................................5-1
6 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................6-1
Polymer Insulators...............................................................................................................6-1
Guy Strain Insulators and Fiberglass Cross-arms................................................................6-2

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Worldwide location of failures (note: EPRI only actively collects failure
information the United States and Canada) ......................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2: The number of failures sustained by different manufacturers and the average
age ...................................................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-3: Failure distribution in the United States for manufacturers A, B, C, D, F, G, K,
L, O, and Unknowns .........................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-4: Failure distribution in the United States for manufacturers E ..................................3-4
Figure 3-5: Graph showing the years in which the failures were reported to have
occurred ...........................................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-6: Age of failures in years...........................................................................................3-6
Figure 3-7: Year of Installation of failed units ...........................................................................3-7
Figure 3-8: Failures per failure mode across all manufacturers ................................................3-8
Figure 3-9: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer A ...............................................................................................................3-9
Figure 3-10: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer B .............................................................................................................3-10
Figure 3-11: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer C .............................................................................................................3-11
Figure 3-12: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer D .............................................................................................................3-12
Figure 3-13: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer E .............................................................................................................3-13
Figure 3-14: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer L..............................................................................................................3-14
Figure 3-15: Configuration of the failures and failure mode ....................................................3-15
Figure 3-16: Application of grading rings at various voltage levels .........................................3-16
Figure 4-1:ReliableJanuary 2011 ...........................................................................................4-1
Figure 4-2: Reliable January 2011 ........................................................................................4-1
Figure 4-3: Reliable February 2011 .......................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-4:Ohio Brass April 2011 ...........................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-5: LAPP Polypace May 2011...................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-6: NGK May 2011 ...................................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-7: LAPP Polypace May 2011...................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-8: Ohio Brass June 2011.........................................................................................4-4
Figure 4-9: Reliable - December 2011 .....................................................................................4-4
Figure 4-10: LAPP Polypace February 2012 ..........................................................................4-5
Figure 4-11: Ohio Brass February 2012 ................................................................................4-5
Figure 4-12: Reliable - 2012 .....................................................................................................4-6
Figure 4-13: Ohio Brass March 2012 ....................................................................................4-6
ix

Figure 4-14: LAPP April 2012 ................................................................................................4-7

Figure 4-15: LAPP May 2012 ................................................................................................4-7
Figure 4-16: Reliable June 2012 ...........................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-17: Sediver July 2012 .............................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-18: Reliable July 2012 .............................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-19: NGK July 2012 ..................................................................................................4-9
Figure 4-20: NGK July 2012 ..................................................................................................4-9
Figure 5-1: Failures by component type ...................................................................................5-1
Figure 5-2: Years when failures occurred .................................................................................5-2
Figure 5-3: Failures modes ......................................................................................................5-3
Figure 5-4: Guy Strain Test Layout ..........................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-5: Guy Stain Insulator Test.........................................................................................5-5
Figure 5-6: Humidity Filled Chamber ........................................................................................5-6
Figure 6-1: Average cumulative age and count of failed insulators ...........................................6-1

INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY

Introduction
Although the use of polymer insulatorsalso called composite or non-ceramic insulators (NCI),
guy strain insulators and fiberglass cross arms has become more widespread, the extent to which
they are used remains largely unknown. Service experience and the number of failures that have
occurred are also not well defined.
To address this issue, EPRI started the development of EPRIs Polymer Insulator Failure
Database in 1997. This database contains not only detailed information about individual
insulator failures but also photographs taken of the individual failures as well as failure reports
from manufacturers or independent laboratories when possible. This database is a living
document and is updated as other failure information is available.
In 2006 EPRI initiated a Transmission Line Fiberglass Component Failure database to collect the
failures of guy strain insulators and fiberglass cross-arms. This report will provide the initial
results from this database.
Failure information collected is not limited to recent events, rather when soliciting failure
information EPRI researchers attempt to collect detailed information about failures that may
have occurred in previous years. This data is often difficult to collect and researchers require
written reports, images, or actual failure samples for inclusion in the database.
The failure database is focused on 69 kV and above polymer type insulators; however failures
below 69 kV are collected. Both post and suspension unit failures are collected.
In 2003 and 2010 EPRI published an analysis of the polymer insulator failure database [Polymer
Insulator Survey 2002: Utility Field Experience and In-Service Failures, 1007752, 03/06/2003
and Analysis of the EPRI Transmission Line Polymer Insulator and Fiberglass Component
Failure Databases: 2010:. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 2010. 1019966]. This document provides an
update to the 2010 analysis accounting for further data collection.
It is important to determine what number of units has been sold to understand failure rates.
Unfortunately, little manufacturing data has been obtained since the 2003 report where data was
obtained from polymer insulators. Therefore, the following information from the 2003 report will
be utilized for the polymer insulator case.
Major polymer insulator manufacturers that supply the North American Market were contacted
and the following information requested:
1. Number of unit sold in North America - 69kV and above - both suspension and post.
2. Number of insulator years in-service in North America (calculated by multiplying the
number of insulators sold in any year by the age today).

1-1

Results were obtained from the following manufacturers: Ohio Brass, NGK, Reliable, Sediver,
and K-line. No results were obtained for any other manufacturers.
It was reported that, as of 2002, the total number of suspension and post units including and
above 69kV sold to the North American market was 3,938,000 units. The total number of service
years indicated was 25,163,000 (the service years indicated is based on the date of sale, not on
the date of installation).
Based on the above results it may be calculated that the average age of the polymer insulators
sold was 6.4 years at the end of 2002 (for the manufacturers that provided the information). For
individual manufacturers the average values vary between 2.8 and 8.7 years. It should be noted
that these are average values and are up until the end of the 2002 calendar year.
These results are considered to be best estimates and may include some inaccuracies. Although
all of the major manufacturers continuing to service the market were represented, no information
was about sales of the Polypace units that were marketed by Lapp in the eighties and nineties.

1-2

DESCRIPTION OF FAILURES MODES OF COMPOSITE

COMPONENTS IN SERVICE
Description of Failures
For purposes of the database, a failure was defined as either of the following two conditions:

The component was unable to insulate the line from ground

The component lost its mechanical strength.

Precluded from this survey are two types of failures:

Flashover due to external contamination, e.g., due to marine pollution

Failure due to extreme mishandling, e.g., the unit is broken during installation

Units that have been removed from service as they considered a high risk

The main failure modes of composite components are described below. This material is not
intended to be comprehensive. Rather, it is intended to be a brief overview of the main types of
failure modes. More detailed descriptions of failure modes are presented in the EPRI reports
Application Guide for Transmission Line NCI (TR-111566) and Transmission Line Reference
Book: 200kV and Above, 3rd Edition, 1009742, 2005.
Brittle Fracture (Stress Corrosion Cracking of Fiberglass Rod)
Brittle fracture failures are a mechanical failure of the fiberglass rod, i.e., a complete separation
as shown in Figure 2-1. Brittle fracture is more correctly called stress corrosion cracking of the
fiberglass rod.
Features of a brittle fracture are:

One or more smooth, clean planar surfaces, mainly perpendicular to the axis of the
fiberglass rod giving the appearance of the rod being cut.

Several planar fracture planes separated by axial delaminations.

Residual mechanical fracture surfaces, i.e., broomstick.

2-1

Figure 2-1: Photograph of a brittle fracture. Note the several separate flat transverse
fracture planes and the broomstick.

Brittle fractures are caused by chemical attack of the fiberglass rod when non-siliceous ions are
leached from the fibers and the surrounding thermoset resin matrix is hydrolyzed. This chemical
attack together with the mechanical load results in a transverse crack. The crack will continue to
develop until the remaining cross section of the rod can no longer support the applied load and
total separation occurs. Brittle fractures are more accurately called stress corrosion cracking.
Flashunder (Tracking in or along fiberglass rod and the resulting flashover)
Flashunder is an electrical failure mode. This failure mode occurs when internal discharge
activity or moisture tracks up the fiberglass rod or the interface between the rod and rubber.
When a critical distance along the insulator has been spanned the insulator can no longer
withstand the applied voltage and a flashunder occurs.
Internal discharge activity may occur due to the presence of moisture or defects internal to the
rod or rod / rubber interface. Defects that can result in internal discharges include voids and
conductive defects. Moisture can be present due to a compromised end fitting seal or
compromised rubber weathershed system (housing).
Features of a flashunder include:

Tracking through the rod or along the rod-rubber interface

Puncture holes and splits along length of insulator due to internal discharge activity and
the power arc during failure.

2-2

Figure 2-2 shows images of a flashunder and the associated features.

Two halves of a dissected polymer insulator

that has failed due to a flashunder.

External photograph of an insulator that has

failed due to a flashunder.

Figure 2-2: Two photographs showing a flashunder and the associated features

In a number of cases after a flashunder occurred and the line was reenergized, the insulator has
provided sufficient insulation to prevent an immediate outage. This is due to the resulting power
arc drying out the insulator and improving the insulation ability of the unit. However, with time
or renewed wetting, the unit results in further outages until the progressive damage renders the
insulator useless.
Destruction of Rod by Discharge Activity
Destruction of the rod by discharge activity is a mechanical failure mode. Internal discharge
activity destroys the rod until the unit is unable to hold the applied load and the rod separates as
shown in Figure 2-3.
Internal discharge activity may occur due to the presence of moisture or defects internal to the
rod or rod / rubber interface. Defects that can result in internal discharges include voids and
conductive defects. Moisture is usually present due to a compromised end fitting seal or rubber
weathershed material.

2-3

Dissection of failed unit.

End fitting of failed unit.

Figure 2-3: Photographs of unit that failed due to destruction of the rod by discharge
activity

Mechanical Failure due to End Fitting Pullout or Mechanical Failure of the Rod
These are mechanical failure modes. In these cases either the rod mechanically fails when the rod
separates from the end fitting or the rod itself mechanically fails. These failures may occur due to
errors in the manufacturing process, e.g., overheating of the fiberglass rod, or long term
degradation, e.g. decomposition of the epoxy in an epoxy cone type end fitting, etc. Care has
been taken not to include failures of this type that are the result of mishandling or overloading.
Figure 2-4 shows an example of a unit that has failed due the rod pulling out of the end fitting
due to decomposition of the epoxy cone.

Dissected end fitting of failed unit.

Rod from failed unit.

Figure 2-4: Photographs of unit that failed due to decomposition of the epoxy cone

2-4

Figure 2-5: Photographs of unit that mechanically failed in-service due to a manufacturing
process concern.

2-5

ANALYSIS OF POLYMER INSULATOR FAILURE

DATABASE
As of September 2012, EPRI has collected 348 failures from 69 different utilities. Of the 348
failures, 299 occurred in the USA and Canada as shown in Figure 3-1. It should be noted that
EPRI only actively collects failures from member utilities based in the USA and Canada.
Information is obtained from both member and non-member utilities. The limited number of
worldwide failures collected is from utilities that EPRI is engaged with outside of North
America.
Review of the IEEE Task Force Report: Brittle Fracture in NCI, PE-504PRD (02-2002)
indicates that there are an additional 46 international brittle fracture failures that are not included
in the EPRI failure database. The IEEE Task Force report only reported brittle fracture failures
and ten years have passed, therefore the total number of failures worldwide is expected to be
larger. The total number of failures worldwide therefore exceeds 350.
It should be kept in mind that not all of failures that have occurred worldwide are recorded in the
EPRI failure database. EPRI relies on utilities to report insulator failures, so it is quite reasonable
to expect insulator failures that are not reported.

3-1

Figure 3-1: Worldwide location of failures (note: EPRI only actively collects failure
information the United States and Canada)

The failures collected are from eleven different manufacturers indicated by the letters A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, J, K, L, and O. Manufacturer E, which accounts for 113 of the 348 recorded failures,
stopped manufacturing insulators in 1994. Therefore, in the presentation of the data the results
for manufacturer E has been separated from the other manufacturers; which will be referred to
as Others in some charts. Although Manufacturer E no longer manufactures units and the
design is not relevant to insulators manufactured today, the data is still valuable, as many units
are estimated to remain in-service. There are nine failures where the manufacturer was not
reported or could not be determined and are listed as Unknowns
Figure 3-2 indicates the distribution of failures between different insulator manufacturers. The
majority of the failures are from manufacturers A through E and L. The age range of the
majority is from 0 years to 29 years and the average age range is between 6 and 12 years. The
average age of failure is 9.5 years. With respect to age of failures, the top six manufacturers
show a similar average service life. There is too little data about the remaining manufacturers to
draw conclusions about age.
To truly compare performances, a failure rate is needed which requires knowledge of the number
of insulators of each manufacturer installed. The latest numbers received by manufacturers are
up to 2002.

3-2

Figure 3-2: The number of failures sustained by different manufacturers and the average
age

Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 shows that the distribution of failures in the USA. These maps cannot
be used to compare the numbers of failures to geography. These maps show which regions are
reporting failures and how frequently they are reporting. One can see that fewer locations are
reporting failure of manufacturer E than other manufacturers. This can be attributed to utilities
proactively removing manufacturer E from service before failures can occur or having not
installed them.

3-3

Figure 3-3: Failure distribution in the United States for manufacturers A, B, C, D, F, G, K, L,

O, and Unknowns

Figure 3-4: Failure distribution in the United States for manufacturers E

3-4

Year, Age and Installation Date of Failed Units

Figure 3-6 shows the years in which the failures recorded in the database occurred.

Figure 3-5: Graph showing the years in which the failures were reported to have occurred

It is expected that the percentage of failures captured by the database increased after 1997 as
failures were actively sought after this date. The number of failures is around ten per year over
the past four years.
As can be seen in Figure 3-7, a large number of failures occur within the first year of installation.
This could be seen as weeding out the bad actors or units with initial defects.

3-5

Figure 3-6: Age of failures in years

3-6

Figure 3-8 shows the number of failures based on when the insulator was installed (the
installation date of 94 insulators is unknown).

Figure 3-7: Year of Installation of failed units

Failure Modes and Reasons for Failures

The failure mode describes the final mechanism under which the insulator fails either
mechanically or electrically. The failure modes are described in chapter 2. The reason for failure
indicates the component of the insulator that failed that lead to the initiation of the failure
mechanisms.
Figure 3-9 shows the number of failures per failure mode across all the manufacturers. The two
leading failures modes are brittle fracture and flashunder. The failures per failure mode for each
manufacturer are presented in Figure 3-10 through Figure 3-15. The average age for each failure
mode is included as well as a breakdown of reason for failure.

3-7

Figure 3-8: Failures per failure mode across all manufacturers

3-8

Manufacturer A
The prominent failure of manufacturer A is Brittle Fracture followed by Mechanical
Failure. For Brittle Fracture, the leading reason for the failure is water penetrating pass the
end fitting seal or through the weathershed system. The occurrence of brittle fracture has been
from 2 years to 25 years with an average of 11 years. Mechanical Failure occurs largely due to
mis-handling on average 5 years after installation. The third category Destruction of the rod by
discharge activity is mostly due to water ingress through the weathershed and occurs (between 6
and 25 years) with an average of 18 years.

Figure 3-9: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer A

3-9

Manufacturer B
The prominent failure of manufacturer B is Brittle Fracture The leading reason for the
Brittle Fracture failure is water penetration through the weathershed system. The data shows
that brittle fractures occur between 6 and 13 years.

Figure 3-10: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer B

3-10

Manufacturer C
Manufacturer C has been reported as failing mostly by Brittle Fracture and Flashunder.
The primary reason for the brittle fracture failures was water penetrating past the end fitting seal
and range from 1 to 21 years (averaging 10 years). For most of the flashunders where a reason
for failure was investigated, it was found to be a batch manufacturing issue.

Figure 3-11: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer C

Manufacturer D
The failure modes of manufacturer D occurred almost equally across the first four modes
shown in Figure 3-13. For the flashunder failures, the known reason for most of the failures was
Water through the weathershed system and manufacturing defect. The next two failure modes
were due to water penetrating the weathershed system. The fourth prominent failure mode was
due to improper heating of the fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) rod during manufacturing. The
range of time to failure across the four failure modes was 0 to 17 years.

3-11

Figure 3-12: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer D

3-12

Manufacturer E
Manufacturer E was one of the earlier manufacturers on the market and as a result had some
design flaws that permitted water to penetrate the end fitting. The result was mostly brittle
fractures and flashunder which took an average of 8 and 13 years respectively to occur.

Figure 3-13: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer E

3-13

Manufacturer L
There have been a small number of failures from manufacturer L and most of them were
mechanical breaks and brittle fractures. The reason for failure of was not further investigated for
many of the failures. For failures where a reason was determined, it was due to moisture ingress.

Figure 3-14: Number of failures per failure mode, failure reason, and average age of
manufacturer L

3-14

Configuration
Figure 3-16 indicates the configuration in which the failed insulators were applied and the
distribution of the failure mode. The largest number of failures reported occurred on suspension
units. It should be noted that the population of suspension units is far larger than that of dead-end
units; hence, the failure rate for dead-end units is probably higher than that for suspension units.
The suspension and dead end insulators have been most susceptible to brittle fracture failures.
Suspension insulators are equally susceptible to flashunders. Flashunders are the typical failure
mode for post and braced post configurations.
Note: Other refers to configurations not covered by the standard terminology often due to lack of
standardization in nomenclature. Unknown is used when information about the configuration was
not available.

Figure 3-15: Configuration of the failures and failure mode

3-15

Grading Ring Use

Figure 3-18 shows the reported use of grading rings on failures at the different voltage levels.
For 220 kV and up, it is considered normal practice to install a grading ring and in fact, about
70% of the failures had grading rings installed. Until recently, the industry did not see a need for
grading rings at voltages from 115 161 kV as shown by the data. EPRI has recently published a
report about the use of grading rings at these levels: Application of Corona Rings on 115/138 kV
Polymer Transmission Line Insulators: Existing Populations and New Applications. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2008. 1015917.

Figure 3-16: Application of grading rings at various voltage levels

3-16

FAILURES FROM 2011 AND 2012

Failed January 2011

ID#: 2011-01-21_C01
Reliable
138 kV
Suspension
Corona Ring: No
Flashunder

Figure 4-1:ReliableJanuary 2011

ID#: 2011-06-07_C01
Reliable
Texas - 345 kV
Suspension
Corona Ring: Yes
Destruction of rod by discharge activity

Figure 4-2: Reliable January 2011

4-1

Failed February 2011

ID#: 2011-02-25_C01
Reliable
Texas- 69 kV
Post
Corona Ring: No
Flashunder

Figure 4-3: Reliable February 2011

Failed April 2011

ID#: 2011-04-08_A01
Ohio Brass
Kansas- 345 kV
Dead End
Age: 11
Corona Ring: Yes
Brittle Fracture

Figure 4-4:Ohio Brass April 2011

4-2

Failed May 2011

ID#: 2011-05-04_E01
LAPP Polypace
Alabama - 115 kV
Post
Age: 19
Corona Ring: No
Flashunder

Figure 4-5: LAPP Polypace May 2011

ID#: 2011-05-13_B01
NGK
Alabama - 46 kV
Post
Age: 8
Corona Ring: No
Flashover

Figure 4-6: NGK May 2011

ID#: 2011-05-19_E01
LAPP Polypace
Alabama - 115 kV
Post
Age: 20
Corona Ring: No
Flashunder

Figure 4-7: LAPP Polypace May

2011

4-3

Failed June 2011

ID#: 2011-06-04_A01 & A02 & A03
Ohio Brass
Indiana
Suspension
Age: 5 years
Corona Ring: Yes
Mechanical Failure

Figure 4-8: Ohio Brass June 2011

Failed December 2011

ID#: 2011-12-28_C01 & C02
Reliable
Ohio 69 kV
Post
Age: 9 years
Corona Ring: No
Flashunder

Figure 4-9: Reliable - December 2011

4-4

Failed February 2012

ID#: 2012-02-09_E01
LAPP Polypace
Colorado 115 kV
Dead End
Age: 24
Corona Ring: No
Brittle Fracture

Figure 4-10: LAPP Polypace

February 2012
ID#: 2012-02-17_A01
Ohio Brass
Texas 345 kV
Dead End
Age: 0
Corona Ring: Yes
Mechanical Failure

Figure 4-11: Ohio Brass February

2012

4-5

Failed 2012
ID#: 2012-07-20_C01
Reliable
Nebraska- 115 kV
Suspension
Corona Ring: No
Flashover

Figure 4-12: Reliable - 2012

Failed March 2012

ID#: 2012-03-22_A01
Ohio Brass
Ohio - 345 kV
Suspension
Age: 14 years
Corona Ring: Yes
Flashover

Figure 4-13: Ohio Brass March 2012

4-6

Failed April 2012

ID#: 2012-04-10_L01
LAPP (Rodurflex)
745 kV
Suspension
Age: 7 years
Corona Ring: Yes
Destruction of Rod by Discharge Activity

Figure 4-14: LAPP April 2012

Failed May 2012

ID#: 2012-05-24_L01
LAPP (Rodurflex)
Colorada - 115 kV
Post
Age: 18 years
Corona Ring: No
Flashunder

Figure 4-15: LAPP May 2012

ID#: 2012-05-24_A01
Ohio Brass
Wisconsin- 138 kV
No photo available

Suspenios
Age: 17 years
Corona Ring: No
Brittle Fracture

4-7

Failed June 2012

ID#: 2012-06-18_C01
Reliable
230 kV
Dead end
Corona Ring: Yes
Brittle Fracture

Figure 4-16: Reliable June 2012

Failed July 2012

ID#: 2012-07-30_D01
Sediver
Wisconsin - 345 kV
Suspension
Corona Ring: Yes
Destruction of Rod by Discharge Activity

Figure 4-17: Sediver July 2012

ID#: 2012-07-02_C01
Reliable
Ohio- 138 kV
Suspension
Age: 24
Corona Ring: No
Brittle Fracture

Figure 4-18: Reliable July 2012

4-8

2012-07-20_B01
NGK
Nebraska- 115 kV
Suspension
Age: 12
Flashover

Figure 4-19: NGK July 2012

NGK
Virginia 765kV
Suspension
Brittle Fracture

Figure 4-20: NGK July 2012

Failed August 2012

ID#: 2012-08-05_B01
NGK
Virginia - 230 kV
No photo available

Dead end
Age: 13 years
Corona Ring: Yes
Brittle Fracture

4-9

Failed September 2012

ID#: 2012-09-02_D01
Sediver
California - 230 kV
Dead end

No photo available

Age: 2 years
Corona Ring: Yes
Brittle Fracture

4-10

FAILURES OF FIBERGLASS COMPONENTS

Failure Data
In 2009, EPRI began collecting information about failures of fiberglass components other than
polymer insulators. These components include fiberglass cross arms (FGA), guy strain
insulators, and fiberglass poles. This effort is an extension of the insulators failure database and
initiated by member utilities that want to track emerging issues with fiberglass components.
To date there are 41 failures recorded in the database from six utilities. The failures span across 9
manufacturers that could be identified. Much of the data collected so far has been captured from
utility records. As a result, some information is not available.
Figure 5-1 shows what fiberglass components failed. Most of the failures recorded to date are
guy strain failures and fiberglass cross arms.
25

Number of Failures

20

15

10

0
Guy Strain Insulator

Fiberglass Cross Arm

Configuration

Figure 5-1: Failures by component type

5-1

Fiberglass Pole

Figure 5-2 shows the years that failures occurred. The failure database was started in 2006 after
the industry began to see a rise in failures. EPRI is beginning to see 2 to 4 failures a year
reported by the utilities.
8
7

Number of Failures

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1999

2002

2004

2005

2006
2007
2008
Year of Failure

Guy Strain Insulator

2009

2010

2011

2012

Fiberglass Cross Arm

Figure 5-2: Years when failures occurred

Figure 5-3 shows the failure modes recorded. The primary mode of failure is brittle fracture. The
reason for the brittle fracture is subject to on-going research. Brittle fractures are typically
associated with high E-fields. Guy strain insulators are not in high E-fields so the traditional
theories are not applicable. The EPRI report Investigation in to the Brittle Failure Mechanisms
of Glass Fiber Reinforced Guy Strain Insulators. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1021634 proposes
a brittle fracture theory related to crevice corrosion that can occur between the metal end fitting
and the fiberglass rod. Crevice corrosion can create acidic by-products with to necessary pH
levels to cause a brittle fracture.

5-2

35

30

Number of Failures

25

20

15

10

0
Brittle Fracture

Mechanical Failure

Guy Strain Insulator

Rod pullout from endfitting

Failure Mode

Fiberglass Cross Arm

Unknown

Fiberglass Pole

Figure 5-3: Failures modes

Testing
The leading mode of failure for guy strain insulators is the brittle fracture. Since the guy strain
insulators are not in the presence of high E-fields, several theories have arisen as to the reason
for the brittle fracture; one of which was described previously. Another theory is related to the
twist imposed on the end fittings by the attached cable. As the cable is tensioned, the twisted
strands try to untwist imposing a twisting force on the end fittings of the guy strain insulator. The
end fittings can twist as much as 90 degrees and has lead to theories that the twist is causing
cracks in the fiberglass rod.
EPRI has initiated a test using six guy strain insulators to determine which factors most affect the
onset of brittle fracture in the guy strain insulators. The test layout shown in Figure 5-4 has three
pairs of samples installed with three different angles of twist: 0, 45, and 90 degrees. This first
factor is to determine if the amount of twist on the insulator affects the formation of a brittle
fracture. The second factor considers the theory that crevice corrosion by-products are acidic
enough to create a brittle fracture. Three samples (one for each level of twist) is subjected to a
wetting cycle where a ultrasonic humidifier fills the chambers with moisture until the samples
are wetted as shown in Figure 5-6. To assist with the degradation of the samples, each insulator
is to 4 UV bulbs to simulate sun exposure. Each sample is mechanically loaded to 5,000 pounds
so that brittle fracture can be initiated if or when the acid becomes present; if the tension is too
low, brittle fracture may not occur.
5-3

The goals of the test are to monitor the condition and the load cells of the samples monthly and
record any changes. The tension on the samples will be maintained at 5,000 pounds to ensure
that brittle fracture can occur. The test will run until at least one sample fails. At that time, the
samples will be assessed and chosen to remain under test or removed for analysis.

Figure 5-4: Guy Strain Test Layout

5-4

Figure 5-5: Guy Stain Insulator Test

5-5

Figure 5-6: Humidity Filled Chamber

5-6

SUMMARY
Polymer Insulators
As of September 2012, a total of 348 failures at 69kV and above have been recorded in the EPRI
failure database. Of these, 299 failures occurred in the United States or Canada where failure
data collection has been more active.
About 8% of the failures occurred in the first year of service due to manufacturing defect or misapplication. As the population of polymer insulators age, both the average age of the failures and
number of failures recorded are increasing as shown in Figure 6-1. Note: The average age data
was calculated based on 262 insulator failure information.
300

11

275

262
10
9.53
9

250
225

8
7

175

150

125

100

75

Cumulative Failures

Cumulative Average Age

Figure 6-1: Average cumulative age and count of failed insulators

6-1

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

Year of Failure

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

0
1984

0
1982

1980

25
1978

1976

50

Age (years)

Number of Failures

200

Discussing average failure age and failure rates is difficult since there are large design
differences between years and manufacturers. In order to perform failure rate analyses not only is
the number of failures for a specific vintage necessary, but so is the number of units
manufactured of specific designs in each years. EPRI has collected some information as
presented in Figure 3-5 and will continue to pursue this information.
It can be seen from the data, Figure 3-7, that units from manufacturer E, which are no longer
manufactured, have a high failure rate both initially and as they age. Failures from this
manufacturer continue to be recorded even though no new units have been manufactured for
many years. These failures can be directly linked to design, manufacturing and material issues
[Unpublished Memo: Issues with Lapp Non-Ceramic Insulators, Andrew Phillips, 1999].

Guy Strain Insulators and Fiberglass Cross-arms

The fiberglass components failure database was started with the same concept as the insulator
failure database: to track emerging issues in the industry. A total of 41 failures have been
recorded; all located in the US.
The amount of data collected so far is small and it is difficult to draw any conclusion about
failure modes or manufacturer issues. The age of the failures is unknown for nearly all 41
records, so no vintage of fiberglass components can be determined. What can be concluded is
that fiberglass components may fail and the failures need to be tracked to reveal and address any
emerging issues. EPRI has begun testing guy strain insulators in an installation simulation to
better understand what factors cause failure.

6-2

Export Control Restrictions

The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted

with the specific understanding and requirement that
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being
undertaken by you and your company. This includes an
obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S.
resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and
foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain
access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge
that it is your obligation to consult with your companys legal
counsel to determine whether this access is lawful.
Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case
basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and
your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes.
You and your company acknowledge that it is still the
obligation of you and your company to make your own
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company
understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a
prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities
regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property
hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.

(EPRI, www.epri.com) conducts research and

development relating to the generation, delivery
and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An
independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI brings
together its scientists and engineers as well as
experts from academia and industry to help
address
reliability,

challenges
efficiency,

in

electricity,

health,

including

safety

and

the

environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy

and

economic

analyses

to

drive

long-range

research and development planning, and supports

research

in

emerging

technologies.

EPRI's

members represent approximately 90 percent of the

electricity generated and delivered in the United
States, and international participation extends to
more than 30 countries. EPRI's principal offices and
laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity

2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE
FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

1024148