Initial Evaluation of Composite Distribution Pole Technology

Transcription

1 Initial Evaluation of Composite Distribution Pole Technology NEETRAC Project Number: July, 2004 A Research Center of the Georgia Institute of Technology Requested by: Dean Hettenbach Composite Materials Technology, LLC Principal Investigator: Caryn M. Riley, Ph.D. Reviewed by: Frank C. Lambert, P.E.

2 Table Of Contents SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 SECTION 2.0 SCOPE...1 SECTION 3.0 TEST SAMPLES...2 SECTION 4.0 PROCEDURES Leakage Current Measurements Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Dry Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Wet...6 SECTION 5.0 RESULTS Leakage Current Measurements Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Dry & Wet...12 SECTION 6.0 CONCLUSIONS...21 SECTION 7.0 EQUIPMENT USED...22 SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES & STANDARDS...22 SECTION 9.0 APPENDIX Impulse Logs...23 NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30, 2004 i

3 Table of Tables Table 1: Performance Summary by Pole Type for Electrical Testing...1 Table 2: Electrical tests performed....2 Table 3: List of samples used in project...2 Table 4: Precipitation conditions during wet critical impulse flashover testing...6 Table 5: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample CCA Table 6: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample Table 7: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample 9T...10 Table 8: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample AT Table 9: Critical Impulse Flashover Test Results...13 Table 10: Atmospheric Conditions During Critical Impulse Flashover Testing...13 Table 12: Summary of Dielectric Test Results by Pole Type...21 Table 13: Impulse log for Sample 10T...23 Table 14: Impulse log for Sample 9B...24 Table 15: Impulse Log for CCA-2 Dry Critical Impulse Flashover Testing...25 Table 16: Impulse log for Sample 10B...25 Table 17: Impulse log for Sample 11T...26 Table 18: Impulse log for Sample CCA-2 Wet Critical Impulse Flashover Testing...28 NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30, 2004 ii

4 Table of Figures Figure 1: Leakage current measurement setup for samples 13 and 9T....3 Figure 2: Leakage current measurement setup for samples CCA-1 and AT Figure 3: Critical impulse flashover test setup with sample 10T...5 Figure 4: Example of a flashover event during dry CFO testing of sample 9B...5 Figure 5: Wet critical impulse flashover test setup with sample 11T...7 Figure 6: Example of wet sample 10B...8 Figure 14: CCA Pole on fire during leakage current measurement test...9 Figure 15: Resistive current versus applied voltage for the composite poles tested...11 Figure 16: Watts-Loss versus applied voltage for the composite poles tested...12 Figure 17: Damage to sample 10T after the positive CFO dry testing was complete...14 Figure 18: Closeup view of damaged sample 10T after positive CFO dry testing Figure 19: Damage to sample 9B after the positive CFO testing dry was complete...16 Figure 20: Close up views of sample 9B at neutral connection after positive CFO dry testing.17 Figure 21: Views of sample 10B after the positive CFO wet testing...18 Figure 22: View of sample 11T after positive CFO wet testing was halted...19 Figure 23: Close up views of trapped water within sample 11T after the positive CFO wet testing was halted...20 NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30, 2004 iii

5 Initial Evaluation of Composite Distribution Pole Technology NEETRAC Project Number / SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NEETRAC completed an initial evaluation of the dielectric properties of three prototype pole materials manufactured by Composite Materials Technology, LLC. For comparison to current technology, the testing program also included evaluation of CCA pole technology. These poles were supplied by NEETRAC. Three dielectric tests were performed including measurement of the leakage current over a range of applied voltages, and positive critical impulse flashover testing under both dry and wet conditions. A total of nine samples were tested as a part of the dielectric properties evaluation. A new composite pole was installed prior to each dielectric test. Two CCA samples were used for the three dielectric tests performed. Each pole was configured with a pole-top porcelain pin insulator mounted such that it was centered on the pole and the mounting bolt was 4 from the top of the pole. The neutral was mounted on a spool insulator 66 from the top of the pole. The best performing pole type for each dielectric test is listed in Table 1. Table 1: Performance Summary by Pole Type for Electrical Testing Electrical Dielectric Test Best Performing Pole Type Leakage Current CMT Type 3 Positive CFO Dry CMT Type 1 Positive CFO Wet CCA SECTION 2.0 SCOPE In March 2004, Dean Hettenbach from Composite Materials Technology, LLC (hereafter CMT) requested testing services from NEETRAC s electrical and mechanical systems group. Two separate testing programs were initiated and the results of the electrical testing are discussed in this report. The work completed under both testing programs is subject to the proprietary information agreement between CMT and the Georgia Tech Research Corporation. All results and conclusions contained in this report are considered proprietary information. NEETRAC performed three different electrical tests on multiple pole types as listed in Table 2. CMT supplied seven different poles for the electrical testing. NEETRAC supplied the CCA poles for testing. Leakage current measurements were recorded over a range of system voltages from 4kV through 115kV. The positive critical impulse flashover tests were performed as specified in IEEE Std Clause subsection b. The wet testing was performed under the precipitation conditions specified in the Standard test procedure of Table 3 of IEEE Std with the following exception: tap water was used in the testing. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

6 Table 2: Electrical tests performed. Test Description Leakage Current Measurement (dry only) Positive Critical Impulse Flashover DRY Positive Critical Impulse Flashover WET Pole types tested CCA, Three CMT types CCA, Two CMT types CCA, Two CMT types SECTION 3.0 TEST SAMPLES Seven poles of three different types were supplied by CMT for the electrical testing. Of the poles supplied by CMT, types 1 & 2 were predrilled and sealed with a caulked gasket (if necessary). NEETRAC drilled pole AT02 with a masonry bit prior to performing the leakage current measurements. NEETRAC supplied two CCA poles for the testing. The complete list including the pole type is contained in Table 3. Table 3: List of samples used in project. Sample ID Description Sample Description Supplied By 13 New/predrilled CMT 10T CMT Type 1 New/predrilled CMT 10B New/predrilled with caulked gasket on top CMT 9T New/predrilled CMT 9B CMT Type 2 New/predrilled CMT 11T New/predrilled w/caulked gasket on top CMT AT02 CMT Type 3 New/not predrilled CMT CCA 1 CCA Pole New NEETRAC CCA 2 CCA Pole Old field-aged 2-3 years NEETRAC Using NEETRAC s pole stand, each pole for the electrical testing was outfitted with a pole-top 25kV pin insulator and a neutral. The pole-top porcelain pin insulator and neutral were mounted on the pre-drilled locations on each CMT prototype pole. For the CCA poles, the pole-top porcelain pin insulator was mounted such that it was centered on the pole and the mounting bolt was 4 from the top of the pole. The neutral was mounted on a spool insulator 66 from the top of the pole. SECTION 4.0 PROCEDURES 4.1 Leakage Current Measurements NEETRAC measured the leakage current of four different pole samples. This test simply evaluated each pole s material; therefore the pole-top pin and spool insulators were removed from the pole configuration described in Section 3.0. The test voltage was applied to the pin of the pole-top pin insulator mounting bracket. The current was then measured from the lower bolt on the insulator mounting bracket to the mounting bolt for the spool insulator. See Figure 1 for an example of the configuration. For samples 13 and 9T, the NEETRAC Field HIVARC test set was used to supply the NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

7 test voltage. The leakage current drawn by the CCA-1 sample exceeded the available supply of the NEETRAC Field HIVARC test set and required use of the Biddle 700kV Series Resonant test set. Figure 2 shows an example of this configuration. To reduce setup time, the same voltage supply was used to test CMT sample AT02. Measurements of the leakage current and test voltage were recorded from 2.3kV up to 66.4kV (all phase to ground voltages). This voltage range is equivalent to system voltages of 4kV to 115kV. The results of the testing are presented in Section 5.1. Voltage Probe Voltage Supply Figure 1: Leakage current measurement setup for samples 13 and 9T. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

8 Voltage Source Voltage Probe Figure 2: Leakage current measurement setup for samples CCA-1 and AT Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Dry Three new test samples were used to evaluate the critical impulse flashover characteristics of the CCA, CMT type 1 and CMT type 2 pole materials. A Maxwell 2.1MV Impulse generator was used to apply lightning impulses compliant with the specification given in IEEE Std Clause The 50% disruptive discharge voltage test procedure from IEEE Std Clause b (up-and-down method) was used to determine the critical impulse flashover voltage for each sample. In this test, a 1.2/50 lightning impulse is applied to the sample. The voltage level is then increased by V if one or more withstands occur; otherwise it is decreased by the same amount. Each impulse was measured using a Nicolet Power Pro 610 impulse data acquisition system. The peak voltage, front time, and tail time were computed and recorded electronically. The test setup utilized for this testing is pictured in Figure 3. Copper tubing was used to represent the phase voltage and neutral conductors. During the course of the testing, the overshoot values exceeded the tolerances specified in IEEE Std To eliminate this error, a 10kV arrester was used to smooth the impulse voltage peak. For this project, only impulses of positive polarity were applied to evaluate the samples. An example of a flashover event is shown in Figure 4. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

9 10kV Arrester Impulse Divider Impulse Generator Figure 3: Critical impulse flashover test setup with sample 10T Figure 4: Example of a flashover event during dry CFO testing of sample 9B NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

10 4.3 Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Wet For the wet critical impulse flashover testing, two new poles of CMT type 1 and CMT type 2 were utilized. The same pole sample, CCA-2, was used to determine its wet critical impulse flashover characteristics. Either the Maxwell 2.1MV Impulse generator or the Haefely 600kV Impulse generator was used to apply lightning impulses compliant with the specification given in IEEE Std Clause The 50% disruptive discharge voltage test procedure from IEEE Std Clause b (up-and-down method) was used to determine the critical impulse flashover voltage for each sample. In this test, a 1.2/50 lightning impulse is applied to the sample. The voltage level is then increased by V if one or more withstands occur; otherwise it is decreased by the same amount. Each impulse was measured using a Nicolet Power Pro 610 impulse data acquisition system. The peak voltage, front time, and tail time were computed and recorded electronically. The test setup utilized for this testing is pictured in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The precipitation conditions used for each test met the requirements of IEEE Std Clause 14.2 Table 3 Standard Test Procedure with one exception. The testing was performed with tap water and not conditioned water. The precipitation conditions including the resistivity of the water are reported in Table 4. Copper tubing was used to represent the phase voltage and neutral conductors. Samples 10B and 11T were topped with a sealing gasket to remove the possibility of water ingress from the top. During the course of the testing, the overshoot values exceeded the tolerances specified in IEEE Std To eliminate this error, a 10kV arrester was used to smooth the impulse voltage peak. For this project, only impulses of positive polarity were applied to evaluate the samples. Table 4: Precipitation conditions during wet critical impulse flashover testing 1 Sample Number Precipitation Rate Vertical Component in mm/min Horizontal Component in mm/min Collected Water Parameters Temperature in C Resistivity in Ω m 10B T CCA IEEE Std specifies the following limits for the Standard Test Procedure: vertical component mm/min and horizontal component mm/min; Measurements were recorded over the pole section from the pole-top pin insulator to the neutral. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

11 Impulse Divider 10kV Arrester Impulse Generator Water Spray Figure 5: Wet critical impulse flashover test setup with sample 11T NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

12 Figure 6: Example of wet sample 10B NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

13 SECTION 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Leakage Current Measurements Four different pole types were tested to determine their leakage properties, three composite poles and one CCA pole. The CCA pole demonstrated the highest leakage currents of the four types tested. In attempting to raise the applied voltage to 7.2kV (12kV system voltage), the pole caught fire internally (see Figure 7) and burned an internal channel. Of the three composite poles, pole AT02 demonstrated the lowest leakage current. Figure 8 and Figure 9 depict the resistive current and wattsloss measured respectively for the three composite poles. The measurement data from this testing is contained in Table 5 through Table 8. System Voltage (Phase to Phase) Table 5: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample CCA-1 Equivalent Phase to Ground Voltage Applied Vrms in kv I rms in ma I res in ma I cap in ma 2 Watts 4kV 2.3kV kV 3.2kV kV 7.2kV ~6.0 No measurement recorded. Pole caught fire. Smoke Figure 7: CCA Pole on fire during leakage current measurement test. 2 Capacitive current only valid for sine waves, 60Hz. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

14 System Voltage (Phase to Phase) Table 6: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample 13 Equivalent Phase to Ground Voltage Applied Vrms in kv I rms in ma I res in ma I cap in ma 3 Watts 4kV 2.3kV kV 7.2kV kV 8.7kV kV 11.55kV kV 14.4kV kV 15.6kV kV 20.2kV kV 26.6kV kV 39.8kV kV 66.4kV System Voltage (Phase to Phase) Table 7: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample 9T Equivalent Phase to Ground Voltage Applied Vrms in kv I rms in ma I res in ma I cap in ma 3 Watts 4kV 2.3kV kV 7.2kV kV 8.7kV kV 11.55kV kV 14.4kV kV 15.6kV kV 20.2kV kV 26.6kV kV 39.8kV kV 66.4kV Capacitive Current valid only for sine waves, 60 hz. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

15 System Voltage (Phase to Phase) Table 8: AC Leakage Current measurements for Sample AT02 Equivalent Phase to Ground Voltage Applied Vrms in kv I rms in ma I res in ma I cap in ma 4 Watts 4kV 2.3kV kV 7.2kV kV 8.7kV kV 10.55kV kV 14.4kV kV 15.6kV kV 20.2kV kV 26.6kV kV 39.8kV kV 66.4kV Resistive Current vs. Applied Voltage for Composite Poles Tested Resistive Current in ma Applied Vrms in kv Sample 13 Sample 9T Sample AT02 Figure 8: Resistive current versus applied voltage for the composite poles tested 4 Capacitive current only valid for sine waves, 60Hz. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

16 Watts-Loss vs. Applied Voltage for Composite Poles Tested Watts Applied Vrms in kv Sample 13 Sample 9T Sample AT02 Figure 9: Watts-Loss versus applied voltage for the composite poles tested. 5.2 Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Dry & Wet The critical impulse flashover test was performed on five different samples. Samples 10T, 9B, and CCA-2 were subjected to the critical impulse flashover test under dry conditions using only positive polarity impulses. Sample CCA-2 was used in the testing due to the internal damage to CCA-1 during the leakage current measurements. Samples 10B, 11T and CCA-2 were subjected to the critical impulse flashover test under wet conditions. The up-and-down 50% disruptive discharge voltage test method as described in IEEE Std was used. A minimum of twenty impulses was required in order to calculate the positive CFO value for any sample. The positive CFO values for each sample are reported in Table 9. The complete impulse logs are contained in the appendix in Section 9.1. In the testing under dry conditions, the CMT poles both exceeded the CFO value for a new CCA pole. However, sample 10T was no longer mechanically viable at the end of the testing. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the damage experienced by the pole as a result of the testing. CMT pole type 2, sample 9B, had a high CFO value and experienced less damage than CMT pole type 1 as a result of the testing. The greatest damage was seen at the neutral bolt connection (see Figure 13). The CCA pole experienced minimal damage during the CFO test. In the testing under wet conditions, the CCA pole outperformed both CMT pole types. CMT pole type 1, sample 10B, was able to complete the test series, but did show signs of water ingress on the NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

17 surface (see Figure 14.) CMT pole type 2, sample 11T, was unable to complete the entire test series. A channel was formed in the material during the course of the testing. Figure 16 shows the trapped water within the sample after it was removed from the testing. This pole type did show a positive CFO value of 712kV prior to the channel being formed. This CFO value was calculated from only eight impulses, however, and cannot be considered a true rating. The reported values in Table 9 have been corrected to standard atmospheric conditions according to IEEE Std The atmospheric conditions during each sample s testing are listed in Table 10. Table 9: Critical Impulse Flashover Test Results Sample Pole Type Test Positive CFO in kv 5 10T CMT Pole Type Critical Impulse Flashover 9B CMT Pole Type Dry CCA 2 CCA B CMT Pole Type Critical Impulse Flashover 11T CMT Pole Type 2 N/A Wet CCA 2 CCA 471 Table 10: Atmospheric Conditions During Critical Impulse Flashover Testing 6 Sample Date and Time Uncorrected Barometer Temperature at Barometer Dry Bulb Temperature Wet Bulb Temperature 10T 04/28/2004 2:17 PM mmhg 24.0 ºC 75.0 ºF 55.0 ºF 9B 04/29/2004 9:35 AM mmhg 22.0 ºC 71.0 ºF 58.0 ºF CCA-2 (Dry) 05/07/ :50 AM mmhg 24.0 ºC 76.0 ºF 64.0 ºF 10B 04/30/ :00 AM mmhg 23.0 ºC 75.0 ºF 65.0 ºF 11T 05/04/2004 9:30 AM mmhg 21.0 ºC 70.0 ºF 55.0 ºF CCA-2 (Wet) 05/07/2004 3:00 PM mmhg 24.5 ºC 78.0 ºF 64.0 ºF 5 6 These values have been atmospherically corrected per IEEE Std Note for all atmospheric readings in this report, laboratory location: 33º 39 North latitude, 1,010 elevation. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

18 Figure 10: Damage to sample 10T after the positive CFO dry testing was complete. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

19 Figure 11: Closeup view of damaged sample 10T after positive CFO dry testing. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

20 Figure 12: Damage to sample 9B after the positive CFO testing dry was complete. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

21 Figure 13: Close up views of sample 9B at neutral connection after positive CFO dry testing. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

22 Trapped water on pole surface Figure 14: Views of sample 10B after the positive CFO wet testing. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

23 Water path within the material Figure 15: View of sample 11T after positive CFO wet testing was halted. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

24 Trapped water post testing Figure 16: Close up views of trapped water within sample 11T after the positive CFO wet testing was halted. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

25 SECTION 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Three dielectric tests were performed to evaluate the electrical characteristics of two CMT pole prototype pole materials. To establish baseline performance information from current pole technology, CCA poles were also subjected to the same testing. A third prototype material only had the leakage current measurements recorded. When compared to the CCA poles tested, the CMT prototype poles demonstrated reduced leakage current properties, higher positive critical impulse flashover dry values (by as much as 29%), and lower positive critical impulse flashover wet values (by as much as 35%). Table 11 compares the dielectric test results by pole type and includes observations about the conditions of the poles after the testing. Although CMT Type 1 completed all of the dielectric tests, the structural integrity of the sample was compromised after positive CFO dry testing was completed. Table 11: Summary of Dielectric Test Results by Pole Type Pole Type Resistive Leakage Current in ma at System Voltage 4kV 115kV Positive CFO Dry in kv Positive CFO Wet in kv CMT Type CMT Type Failed to complete CMT Type Not tested Not tested Observations Severely reduced structural integrity at the end of positive CFO dry testing. Good structural integrity at the end of positive CFO wet testing. Some water trapped on the pole surface. Reduced structural integrity at the end of positive CFO dry testing, holes in the material near the neutral. Channel formed in the material during positive CFO wet testing. Sample damaged and unable to complete the required number of impulses. Lowest overall leakage current measured. Sample was not consistent with typical pole geometry. NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

26 Pole Type CCA 90.6 Resistive Leakage Current in ma at System Voltage 4kV 115kV Failed to complete Positive CFO Dry in kv Positive CFO Wet in kv Observations Excessive leakage current above 5kV (phase to ground) caused pole fire and an internal channel. Second pole sample used for CFO testing had minimal external damage after testing was complete. SECTION 7.0 EQUIPMENT USED Haefely 600kV Impulse Generator Maxwell 2.1MV Impulse Generator CQ2102 CQ2127 CQ2215 CN2157 CQ2191 CQ2210 CQ2215 CQ2217 CQ2219 SECTION 8.0 Biddle 700kV Series Resonant Test Set Nicolet Power Pro Impulse Scope Hipotronics Damped Capacitive Divider Cole Parmer Psychrodyne Tektronix TDS3014 Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope Fluke 27 Multimeter Princo Barometer Phenix 200kV Voltage Probe NEETRAC Field HIVARC Test Set REFERENCES & STANDARDS IEEE Std IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing L.T. Coffeen and J.E. McBride, 90 WM PWRD, High Voltage AC Resistive Current Measurements Using a Computer Based Digital Watts Technique, IEEE NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

27 SECTION 9.0 APPENDIX 9.1 Impulse Logs The peak voltage values in each table have not been corrected to standard atmospheric corrections. The values grouped by the dashed line were used to calculate the critical impulse flashover value. Table 12: Impulse log for Sample 10T Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage Front Time Tail / Chop Overshoot in kv in µs Time in µs (%) 4/28/ :53:46 red_10t_ /28/ :55:28 red_10t_ /28/ :58:03 red_10t_ /28/ :00:09 red_10t_ /28/ :01:58 red_10t_ /28/ :05:24 red_10t_ /28/ :30:38 red_10t_ /28/ :33:03 red_10t_ /28/ :35:08 red_10t_ /28/ :37:31 red_10t_ /28/ :16:59 red_10t_ /28/ :19:13 red_10t_ /28/ :21:46 chop_10t_ /28/ :27:24 ws_10t_ /28/ :29:59 ws_10t_ /28/ :32:19 chop_10t_ /28/ :34:50 ws_10t_ /28/ :36:55 chop_10t_ /28/ :38:54 ws_10t_ /28/ :40:47 chop_10t_ /28/ :42:48 ws_10t_ /28/ :44:55 chop_10t_ /28/ :48:40 ws_10t_ /28/ :50:42 chop_10t_ /28/ :52:23 ws_10t_ /28/ :54:08 ws_10t_ /28/ :56:04 chop_10t_ /28/ :58:00 chop_10t_ /28/ :59:49 ws_10t_ /28/ :01:31 chop_10t_ NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

28 Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage Front Time Tail / Chop in kv in µs Time in µs 4/28/ :03:25 ws_10t_ /28/ :06:52 chop_10t_ /28/ :08:59 ws_10t_ /28/ :11:36 chop_10t_ /28/ :13:23 ws_10t_ Overshoot (%) Table 13: Impulse log for Sample 9B Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage Front Time Tail / Chop in kv in µs Time in µs 4/29/2004 9:44:03 red_9b_ /29/2004 9:46:07 red_9b_ /29/2004 9:48:23 red_9b_ /29/ :15:21 red_9b_ /29/ :17:00 chop_9b_ /29/ :19:21 chop_9b_ /29/ :21:15 ws_9b_ /29/ :22:57 chop_9b_ /29/ :24:39 ws_9b_ /29/ :26:06 ws_9b_ /29/ :27:56 chop_9b_ /29/ :29:22 ws_9b_ /29/ :46:19 chop_9b_ /29/ :48:14 ws_9b_ /29/ :50:41 chop_9b_ /29/ :53:02 ws_9b_ /29/ :54:41 chop_9b_ /29/ :56:47 ws_9b_ /29/ :58:19 chop_9b_ /29/ :00:22 chop_9b_ /29/ :02:03 ws_9b_ /29/ :03:42 chop_9b_ /29/ :05:10 ws_9b_ /29/ :06:30 ws_9b_ /29/ :08:10 chop_9b_ /29/ :10:32 ws_9b_ Overshoot (%) NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

29 Table 14: Impulse Log for CCA-2 Dry Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage in kv Front Time in µs Tail / Chop Time in µs Overshoot (%) 5/7/ :55:39 red_cca_1d /7/ :57:45 red_cca_2d /7/ :59:26 red_cca_3d /7/ :01:29 red_cca_4d /7/ :03:49 ws_cca_5d /7/ :05:47 chop_cca_6d /7/ :07:52 ws_cca_7d /7/ :14:27 chop_cca_8d /7/ :16:47 prefire /7/ :18:05 ws_cca_9d /7/ :20:11 chop_cca_10d /7/ :21:39 ws_cca_11d /7/ :23:15 chop_cca_12d /7/ :25:14 ws_cca_13d /7/ :27:20 chop_cca_14d /7/ :28:42 ws_cca_15d /7/ :31:14 chop_cca_16d /7/ :33:26 chop_cca_17d /7/ :35:21 ws_cca_18d /7/ :37:12 ws_cca_19d /7/ :39:14 chop_cca_20d /7/ :41:05 ws_cca_21d /7/ :43:21 chop_cca_22d /7/ :45:16 ws_cca_23d /7/ :47:09 ws_cca_24d /7/ :48:47 chop_cca_25d /7/ :55:17 ws_cca_26d Table 15: Impulse log for Sample 10B Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage in kv Front Time in µs Tail / Chop Time in µs Overshoot (%) 4/30/ :58:08 red 10B /30/ :13:14 red 10B NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

30 Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage in kv Front Time in µs Tail / Chop Time in µs Overshoot (%) 4/30/ :15:14 RED 10B /30/ :19:12 WS 10B /30/ :21:17 CHOP 10B /30/ :24:27 CHOP 10B /30/ :26:20 WS 10B /30/ :29:43 CHOP 10B /30/ :32:23 CHOP 10B /30/ :34:37 CHOP 10B /30/ :37:44 WS 10B /30/ :40:24 CHOP 10B /30/ :42:05 WS 10B /30/ :44:14 CHOP 10B /30/ :45:20 WS 10B /30/ :46:57 CHOP 10B /30/ :48:51 WS 10B /30/ :50:12 CHOP 10B /30/ :51:38 WS 10B /30/ :53:13 CHOP 10B /30/ :54:49 WS 10B /30/ :56:06 WS 10B /30/ :58:19 CHOP 10B /30/ :59:18 WS 10B /30/ :01:43 CHOP 10B /30/ :04:14 WS 10B /30/ :06:32 CHOP 10B /30/ :07:48 WS 10B /30/ :09:13 CHOP 10B Table 16: Impulse log for Sample 11T Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage in kv Front Time in µs Tail / Chop Time in µs Overshoot (%) 5/4/ :05:56 red_11t_ /4/ :08:26 red_11t_ /4/ :10:17 red_11t_ /4/ :11:51 red_11t_ NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

31 Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage in kv Front Time in µs Tail / Chop Time in µs Overshoot (%) 5/4/ :13:23 red_11t_ /4/ :15:28 red_11t_ /4/ :16:50 red_11t_ /4/ :17:50 red_11t_ /4/ :19:21 red_11t_ /4/ :20:19 red_11t_ /4/ :40:32 red_11t_ /4/ :42:10 red_11t_ /4/ :44:04 red_11t_ /4/ :46:26 red_11t_ /4/ :47:58 red_11t_ /4/ :49:50 red_11t_ /4/ :51:53 red_11t_ /4/ :54:05 red_11t_ /4/ :56:15 chop_11t_ /4/ :58:08 chop_11t_ /4/ :59:42 ws_11t_ /4/ :02:01 chop_11t_ /4/ :03:22 chop_11t_ /4/ :04:52 ws_11t_ /4/ :06:39 ws_11t_ /4/ :08:01 ws_11t_ /4/ :10:32 ws_11t_ /4/ :13:10 chop_11t_ /4/ :15:15 ws_11t_ /4/ :17:11 chop_11t_ /4/ :18:56 ws_11t_ /4/ :20:24 chop_11t_ /4/ :22:46 ws_11t_ /4/ :25:28 chop_11t_ /4/ :27:42 chop_11t_ /4/ :29:37 chop_11t_ /4/ :32:05 chop_11t_ /4/ :33:44 chop_11t_ /4/ :37:59 chop_11t_ /4/ :40:02 chop_11t_ NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,

32 Table 17: Impulse log for Sample CCA-2 Wet Critical Impulse Flashover Testing Date Time Test Description Peak Voltage Front Time Tail / Chop in kv in µs Time in µs 5/7/ :04:56 red_cca_1w /7/ :07:23 red_cca_2w /7/ :10:21 ws_cca_3w /7/ :13:26 chop_cca_4w /7/ :16:56 chop_cca_5w /7/ :19:40 chop_cca_6w /7/ :21:24 ws_cca_7w /7/ :23:21 chop_cca_8w /7/ :25:41 ws_cca_9w /7/ :27:54 chop_cca_10w /7/ :32:08 ws_cca_11w /7/ :34:46 chop_cca_12w /7/ :37:29 chop_cca_13w /7/ :39:24 ws_cca_14w /7/ :41:55 chop_cca_15w /7/ :44:47 chop_cca_16w /7/ :46:49 ws_cca_17w /7/ :49:05 chop_cca_18w /7/ :51:12 ws_cca_19w /7/ :53:11 chop_cca_20w /7/ :55:05 ws_cca_21w /7/ :56:44 chop_cca_22w /7/ :58:32 ws_cca_23w Overshoot (%) NEETRAC Project Number , Draft July 30,