ReView by River Valley This

Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. High Voltage
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

Porcelain Insulation – Defining the Underlying Mechanism of Failure

Joni Kluss 1*, Mojtaba Rostaghi Chalaki 1, Wilburn Whittington 2, Hongjoo Rhee 3, Samuel Whittington 3,
Aref Yadollahi 3,
1
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mississippi State University, 406 Hardy Road, MS, USA
2
Mechanical Engineering, Mississippi State University, 479-1 Hardy Road, MS, USA
3
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State University, 200 Research Blvd, MS, USA
*
joni@ece.msstate.edu

Abstract: Porcelain insulators have a long history and wide application range in power systems, but just like any other
insulator, they can fail. A number of pole fires occurred on lines utilizing porcelain suspension insulators. In some cases, the
insulators appeared to be visually intact with no external signs of degradation or abnormal stress. This prompted a
comprehensive assessment to identify the mechanism that leads to the permanent loss of insulating properties while
retaining external physical characteristics. A single test is not sufficient to determine the underlying cause of conduction as
results may produce contradictory conclusions. Electrical tests were able to identify samples with poor dielectric strength.
Nevertheless, these same samples exhibited excellent mechanical properties. Despite successfully passing numerous porosity
tests, SEM analysis revealed porosity and multiple microscopic punctures in the porcelain dielectric. Only upon complete
dissection of samples, was the conduction mechanism revealed. This paper discusses the challenges associated with
establishing the root failure mechanism for the investigated porcelain insulators that allows visually sound samples to lose
their insulating properties without experiencing catastrophic failure.

under contaminated conditions, as well as superior resilience

1. Introduction
A three-phase distribution feeder was serviced in
2013-2014 – all new components were installed, including
poles, cross arms, insulators, and bolts. In 2016, an outage
occurred following rough weather. A pole had ignited and
burnt at the cross arm and this failure was termed to be a result
of lightning. During the same year, the serviced line
experienced multiple failures (five separate pole fires
occurred on one particular day). In some cases, the insulators,
all porcelain ANSI Class 52-9, 4 ¼" (108 mm) suspension
type insulators, appeared to be in good conditions – no visible
defects, traces of arcing or visual cracks. Nevertheless, in
such cases, the cross arm and/or pole had still ignited (Fig.1b).
In other cases, the insulator had clearly punctured as evident
in Fig.1a. Following this series of incidents, the utility
company started replacing all installed insulators of this
particular brand and type with composite insulators which
have several advantages over porcelain, including light
weight, improved hydrophobicity and flashover performance
to vandalism [20, 21]. During removal, linemen measured
voltage between the eyebolt on the cross arm to the pole
ground and observed full primary voltage, thus signifying a
complete lack of insulation and full conduction through the
insulators. In addition to the risk of pole fires, sufficient
leakage current flowing through the insulator and cross arm
to the ground can present hazards to people in the vicinity of
the pole [18]. This prompted questions concerning the quality
and performance of the insulators.
2. Cap and pin insulator characteristics
Cap and pin insulators are suspension insulators that
mechanically and electrically separate the phase conductor
from grounded components of an overhead line. These
insulators come in all shapes and sizes depending on their
application – operating voltage, ambient conditions, required
leakage distance/dry arcing distance, etc. For higher voltages,
more units can be connected in series to increase withstand
strength. ANSI/NEMA C29-8 [1] requires cap and pin
insulators to be made from good commercial grade wet-

a b
Fig. 1. Damaged overhead line components
(a) Punctured porcelain suspension insulator, (b) Visible Fig. 2. Design of a Class 52-9 cap and pin suspension
tracking and burning of cross arm around eyebolt connection insulator

2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only 2

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
process porcelain with the entire surface of the insulator
glazed (improving mechanical strength) and relatively free
from imperfections. However, raw materials, including clay,
quartz, feldspar and corundum, can vary in quality, impurity
and consistency [2] thus influencing the final product.
Referring to Fig. 2, the main dielectric strength is provided
by the porcelain shell, which separates the conducting clevis
cap and eyebolt pin. Cement (typically Portland cement), also
insulating by nature, provides mainly mechanical support and
holds the assembly together. Bitumen (asphalt) or a similar
material, can be used at the tip of the pin for cushioning. The
metal parts should be good commercial grade malleable iron,
ductile iron, steel or aluminum.
In short, “overhead line insulators must withstand
voltage stresses higher than those for which the power system
apparatus is designed and flashover at higher stresses without
puncture of the dielectric” [12]. Insulation recovery after an
overvoltage flashover event, such as a lightning or switching
surge, should be quick. Referring to the work of the IEEE
Overhead Lines Subcommittee, Working Group on Insulator
Performance and Applications [12], a comprehensive
assessment of in-service porcelain suspension insulators must
consider a multitude of perspectives to determine their
suitability for continued service. Factors related to hardware
corrosion [19] such as the removal of the galvanized layers
due corona discharge, deposited pollution and other
contaminants (such as salt in coastal areas) combining with
moisture to allow leakage current across the insulator surface,
and pin corrosion resulting from electrolytic reactions, can all
deteriorate the insulation. “Cracked insulators, from not only
pin corrosion, but from cement expansion, micro-crack
propagation and electrical puncture, typically do not support
full line voltage, but may retain some capability to support
mechanical load” [12] This statement is aligned with
observations on the condition of the evaluated samples.
Although no externally visible damage is apparent,
observations suggest a latent defect inside the sample.
Considering external atmospheric factors, [12]
explains that line drops (mechanical separation of the pin and
cap resulting in the release of a phase conductor) can occur
with sufficient current flowing through cracked insulators, for
example, as a consequence of arcing following a lightning
caused flashover. Such catastrophic failure was, however, not
observed for the investigated insulators in service. No major
environmental events were reported in 2013-2015. In 2016,
flooding was responsible for a number of outages in the area
and in December 2017, cold weather (ice and snow) caused
damage over a three day period. Meteorological data from
2017 showed temperatures reaching as low as -11ºC for a
short duration in December. According to [12, 23], a
bituminous layer is applied the metal cap and pin for
cushioning against forces developed in hot and cold service
environments as well as prevent electrolytic action and
mechanical stress concentration by improving the interface
between metal and cement. This bituminous layer should
maintain its functions even at low temperatures but it
deteriorate in time leading to an uneven stress distribution
resulting in cracking of the porcelain. However, the cold
temperatures experienced in-service were not extreme, the
porcelain samples are relatively new, and reduced mechanical
strength was not observed.
As was mentioned before, an insulator should
flashover without puncture. The distinction between the two
2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only
High Voltage
phenomena is related to the steepness (rise time) of the
applied voltage stress, e.g., lightning and switching surge.
Most common rate of rise of voltage for medium voltage bare
conductor networks range between 500 kV/µs and
1000 kV/µs (corresponding to a direct stroke to a single
conductor with surge current ranging from 2.3 kA/µs to 4.6
kA/µs). Lightning surge current rarely exceeds 9.3 kA/µs
(corresponding to 2000 kV/µs). Such steepness values occur
typically for back flashover or lines terminated with
distribution transformers [13]. At higher steepness values, the
formative time for flashover enables very high stress prior to
flashover (the greater the steepness, the higher the flashover
voltage in air). If the steepness is sufficiently high, dielectric
puncture may occur [12, 14]. Although IEC 61211 [15] no
longer directly specifies a voltage stress of 2500 kV/µs for
puncture testing of insulators in air, its current steepness
specification, given in p.u. values, are comparable. According
to [14], quality insulators should be able to meet requirements
of 2500 kV/µs impulse stress. So, if a good insulator is
expected to withstand a typical lightning stress, what is
causing the investigated insulators to result in pole fires? [12]
explains that repeated lightning surges and corona discharge
at the cap rim can lead to partial breakdown of the porcelain
and, given sufficiently long time, can lead to circumferential
cracks in the shell. However, it unclear how many repeated
lightning surges and the duration of corona is needed to fail
an insulator, as this is dependent on a number of variables.
Considering that the investigated sample have only been in
service 2-3 years and exhibited no clearly visible surface
degradation around the cap rim or porcelain shell due to
possible corona or repetitive lightning, this approach is less
probable. [12] continues to explain that “more commonly
punctures are initiated at the inside corner of the shell head in
the region where there is high electrical stress due to the small
radii of curvature for both the shell and the metal pin and are
not visually evident.” As such, this assessment is aimed at
finding and explaining the mechanism allowing for the
formation of such latent properties with focus on samples that
appear visually sound but exhibit unacceptable level of
conduction.
In addition to external stresses, different failure
mechanisms can be related to materials and manufacturing
methods used in preparing these insulators [2]. The
manufacturing quality of porcelain insulators has a critical
role in their long-term service performance. Porcelain may
appear uniform, but “at the microscopic level, it remains
heterogeneous, with crystals of various sizes and chemistries
having different pores and grain boundaries” [22].
The electrical and mechanical characteristics of a
porcelain insulator are mostly dependent to its ingredients,
sintering temperature and fillers. “Although the dielectric
breakdown strength of porcelain is a function of a range of
parameters such as composition, temperature, and surface
condition, the thickness of the specimen has the most
profound effect, with an inversely exponential relationship
between the dielectric breakdown strength and the specimen
thickness” [23]. According to [23], increasing the dielectric
thickness elevates the probability of micro-defects within the
bulk of the material. Such cracks and micro-voids introduced
during the manufacturing process can severely impact the
puncture strength of the insulator.
Hence, in addition to standard electrical and
mechanical evaluation, microstructural analysis is an
2
3
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
Fig. 3. Example of an insulator string with a single unit
maintaining insulating properties (external flashover) while
the remaining units are conductive
effective method for examining the quality of porcelain
insulators and is not only limited to new products but can be
applied to aged and failed in-service insulators [9, 24-27].
3. Evaluation of samples
A number of Class 52-9 distribution suspension
insulators were removed from service and delivered to the
High Voltage Laboratory at Mississippi State University for
evaluation. It was observed that despite being of the same
brand, the metal end caps had different markings. The
different markings shall be referred to as type A, B, and C.
All pole fires occurred with type C insulators. It is worth
noting that type C samples are Class 52-9 insulators, however,
each sample has 52-1 marking on the cap. According to ANSI
C29-2A-2013 [4] Class 52-9 and 52-1 have similar clevis cap,
eyebolt, and bolt dimensions but differ in shell diameter and
unit spacing (and as such, leakage distance), but it is
inconclusive whether the different classes have different
insulator head dimensions within the cap, i.e., can a 52-1 cap
be installed onto a 52-9 shell?
3.1. Electrical evaluation
Sample mounting arrangements were made to
correspond to realistic service conditions using the same
cross arm, bolts, grounding wire, and connections (with the
exception of insulators suspended vertically instead of
horizontally for practical reasons). Low-frequency dry and
wet flashover voltages (FOV) tests were performed according
to C29.2A [4] while simultaneously observing leakage
current and audible corona inception. Full measurement data
is available in [6].
A healthy sample is considered to have high corona
inception voltage (above rated voltage) and an adequately
high flashover value. Poor samples exhibit evident corona
below (or at) rated voltage as well as fail to flashover, i.e.,
high conductivity does not allow voltage to increase across
the sample. Four out of eight type C distribution insulators
(Class 52-9) failed the dry and wet flashover tests and were
termed as “bad”. In some cases, an insulator string consisting
of multiple units included both “bad” and “good” samples as
evident in Fig. 3. Here, despite including defective units, the
string is able to maintain sufficient dielectric strength and is
2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only
High Voltage
Fig. 4. Burning cross arm connection due to conducting
insulation (notice the absence of flashover across the
insulators)
termed “good”. It is the combined insulating properties of the
healthy insulator unit and the wooden cross arm that allow
FOV to meet the acceptance criteria. This same behavior was
also observed when performing dissipation factor and
resistance measurements. An insulator string that passed the
dry and wet AC tests, included individual units that exhibited
poor loss characteristics – low resistance (several hundred kΩ)
and high power dissipation. The metal components of units
exhibiting high leakage current and power dissipation would
quickly heat up to very high temperatures sufficient to burn
one’s finger when touching them. According to [12],
electrical failures that occur upon voltage application indicate
“a pre-existing partial or complete crack in the dielectric, or
one that has electrically punctured in service” and are
“usually found at the energized end of a string where the
voltage stress is highest.”
In cases where all of the units are defective, an
increase in voltage did not results in flashover. Instead, the
insulators allowed current to flow through them and along the
cross arm to the pole ground. This resulted in burning at the
pole connection of the cross arm as evident in Fig. 4 around
the cross arm center connection to the pole.
3.2. Partial discharge
The initial electrical evaluations clearly confirmed
that certain samples were defective. However, these tests do
not provide sufficient information to conclusively define the
reason for failure or the mechanism by which it occurs. Next,
focus was shifted to determining the path which current leaks
through the insulator design. For destroyed samples (such as
in Fig. 1a), a clear traceable puncture path is evident.
However, the “poor” samples do not exhibit any visible
defects or external signs of increased conductivity.
The earlier AC tests showed the presence of corona.
External corona discharge on the surface of a conducting
metal component is not necessarily a concern. However, if
continuous discharge is in contact with the dielectric material
(porcelain), this may lead to deterioration of insulating
materials over time and ultimately, with the increase in
conductivity, failure. Partial discharge events within cavities
of the dielectric are recognized as the most harmful type of
discharge in HV insulation leading to irreversible physical
changes (thermal, electrical, chemical and structural), and
eventually, failure [16, 17]. Electrical partial discharge
measurements were performed to discriminate between
external corona and internal cavity discharge using phase
resolved partial discharge analysis (PRPDA). One would
expect poor insulation to have cavities but, interestingly, the
behavior of the tested samples was contradictory to
expectations. “Good” samples exhibit internal (cavity)
3
4
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. High Voltage
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

discharge at voltage levels above rated voltage with discharge

pulses evident on the rising and falling phase of the supply
voltage whereas “bad” samples behaved similar to external
corona (discharge at the during the peak phase of the applied
voltage).
Consider the implications of audible surface corona
versus internal partial discharge. By definition, corona is one
form of partial discharge that occurs in gaseous media around
conductors [3]. For bad samples, charges are allowed to
displace (current flow) through the insulation, decreasing
clearances, and accumulating at the conducting (highly
inhomogeneous) connection hardware to result in sufficient
local ionization of the surrounding air to trigger audible
Fig.5. Multiple views of a three-dimensional x-ray of
corona. In contrast, good samples retain charge accumulation
insulator sample (insulator is upside down in these images).
(porcelain does not allow charge migration through it)
thereby creating sufficient electric fields inside the insulation
to trigger internal discharge in any present voids present
between conductors.
To evaluate the presence of internal voids, three-
dimensional 3D x-ray imaging was used to identify the
internal structure of the insulators without having to
destructively dissect the samples. In Fig. 5, the x-ray focuses
on the internal content of the iron cap (upside down in the
figure). Both “good” and “bad” samples showed very similar
composition – slightly offset pin, millimeter range cavities in
cement. Similar sized voids were not observed in the
porcelain shell (the resolution of these scans was insufficient
to observe the smallest microscopic details). The largest
irregularities (voids) were observed to be on the surface of the a
metal pin in the cement as well as in the cement between the
porcelain and cap. Some of the discoloration around the pin
tip is also due to the bitumen cushioning material. These areas
also coincide with the areas of highest electric field
concertation in this design.
The x-ray images were imported to construct a
representative Finite Element Method (FEM) model with
similar characteristics (off center pin and porous cement) to
investigate electric field distribution in critical areas. Wooden
poles are often CCA treated (chromated copper arsenate) to
better withstand outdoor atmospheric conditions. CCA also
increases the electrical conductivity of the wood [18]. Cross
arms with similar electrically conducting weathering
treatments may bring the ground potential closer to the high b
voltage phase conductor and thereby additionally stress the Fig. 6. FEM simulation of two suspension insulators on a
insulator. Even without intentional treatments, wooden cross grounded cross arm.
arms may overtime become conducting through external (a) Potential distribution, (b) electric field strength
mechanisms of abnormal aging, prolonged deterioration, and
harsh weathering. Furthermore, in a three-phase assembly,
the center phase is located at the pole in close vicinity to the
ground wire (“2 inch minimum spacing between ground wire
and hardware associated with energized conductors”
according to [7]). As such, the simulation scenario brings the
ground potential directly to the top of the upper unit
addressing the aforementioned conducting cross arm.
As mentioned, the internal geometry was created
using the x-ray dimensions. Coupling hardware and shed
geometries were simplified while maintaining approximate
dimensions. Materials were defined using approximate
relative permittivity values (porcelain εr = 6, cement εr = 4,
bitumen εr = 2.8, conductors and air εr = 1) and assumed
homogeneous. 7.6 kV rms (10.7 kV peak voltage stress), was
applied across the two units, i.e., cross arm defined as ground, Fig. 7. Electric field distribution in cavities surrounding the
bottom unit pin as 10.7 kV, and remaining conducting pin. Note that the orientation of the pin is upside down here
compared to Fig. 6 (similar to Fig. 5). 4

2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only 5

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
components as floating potentials. Simulations show that the
highest potential difference across one insulator is
approximately 5400 V which is defined by the degree of
capacitive coupling to the floating cap between the two units.
As evident from Fig. 6, the electric field does not exceed 2
kV/mm in any region, which is below the 3 kV/mm threshold
value for air (the approximate critical field strength under DC
voltage and homogeneous field distribution). As such, a
completely conducting cross arm does not result in sufficient
stress to lead to failure of otherwise healthy insulation.
Furthermore, applying 5400 V stress to the single insulator
model with representatively sized cavities (approximate
dimensions obtained from x-ray) in Fig. 7 does not generate
electric fields with sufficient strength to ignite discharge in
cavities within the porous cement or any other region within
the insulator.
Recall that the internal discharge observed
experimentally in “good” samples were obtained at voltage
values above the normal operating level of the insulator. Also,
“bad” samples did not exhibit internal discharge as there most
likely was insufficient charge accumulation due to increased
conductivity (i.e., voltage is unable to increase across a cavity
to ignite discharge). Instead, “bad” samples displayed
external corona discharge which could be explained by
charge accumulation at conducting hardware in the insulator
string. Ideally, the absence of voids in the cement would
remove any questions concerning partial discharge (there
would not be any internal partial discharge under ideal
boundary conditions). However, to the knowledge, of the
authors, the role of the cement is primarily mechanical and no
specific measures are taken to minimize the porosity of the
cement (unless the cavities are severe enough to influence
mechanical strength).
3.3. Mechanical evaluation
Wet conditions can result in cement growth
(expansion), a phenomena explained in [10, 11] as attributing
to high failure rates of suspension insulators. In their research,
radial cracks in two piece cap and pin insulators caused by
expanding cement paste resulted in 30-90% reductions in
mechanical strength leading to insulator parting and line
dropping. It was observed that horizontal assemblies
(deadend) were affected. Heat played a role in the expansion
process as well. [10, 11] describe how some intact insulators
were found to be internally stressed (mechanically) and only
fractured upon application of heat. Their findings stated that
a b
Fig. 8. Mechanical tests on insulator samples
(a)“Bad” sample failed at metal connection between two
units, (b) “Good” sample failed at the top cap connection
2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only
High Voltage
the temperature required to fracture porcelain was above
216 ºC. Although temperature was not recorded during power
factor measurements, poor samples did heat up considerably,
enough to burn one’s finger immediately upon contact. The
examined samples in this paper did not show any visible
cracks in the porcelain shell (even upon removal of cap) and
the field samples have not resulted in dropped lines (only pole
fires). Nevertheless, the possibility of cement expansion
needs to be considered.
Mechanical tests were performed on both “good” and
“bad” samples. Class 52-9 insulators must be tension proof to
approximately 2300 kg. Interestingly, a “bad” sample
withstood 6317 kg and a “good” sample 7210 kg. Mechanical
failure did not occur in the insulation, but instead at the metal
coupling hardware (Fig. 8). A slight reduction in mechanical
strength was observed between “good” and “bad” samples,
but nothing comparable to the 30-90% reported in [10]. Based
on these findings, the cement does not appear to be a
contributing factor to the experienced failures.
3.4. Material evaluation
Reluctant to cut open the metal cap in fear of
destroying any sensitive evidence of failure, porosity tests
were performed on the exposed porcelain shell, assuming that
the characteristics of the porcelain are homogenous
throughout the material. As specified in ANSI/NEMA
C29.2A with reference to ANSI/NEMA C29.1, freshly
broken fragments of specified size were immersed in a
fuchsine/alcohol solution and pressurized to 4000 psi for 5
hours. Penetration of the dye into the body of the dielectric
would be considered failure. Shell fragments from “bad” and
“good” Type C insulators were assessed. Contrary to
expectations, all samples passed the porosity test and no
observable difference was found between “good” and “bad”
samples. Surprised by the results, the metal cap was removed
to expose porcelain in the most critical electric field areas as
well as allow for more detailed scanning of the material
(Fig. 9a).
The unglazed top portion of the porcelain showed no
visible damage. However, using a hand held multimeter to
measure resistance through the porcelain identified random
areas of reduced resistance (in the MΩ range, which is
considered very low [2]). These areas are randomly
distributed along the surface and conductivity would
disappear with a slight displacement of the measurement
leads – that is, majority of the porcelain is insulating but
contains multiple regions of reduced resistance. With
evidence of conductivity through the porcelain, further
a b
Fig. 9. Dissection of sample
(a) Removal of metal cap, (b) porosity test on remaining
porcelain
5
6
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
porosity tests were performed – both with the remaining
porcelain intact (Fig. 9b) and with standard sized fragments
from the top region of the porcelain (inside the cap). Once
again, all samples successfully passed the porosity test
without any visible sign of dye penetration. This brings into
question the effectiveness of the porosity test. It was clearly
observed that a conductive path exists through the material,
yet this test method fails to identify such phenomena.
The samples were further dissected to remove the pin
and expose the critical field areas simulated earlier. Initially,
both “good” and “bad” samples displayed visible hotspots,
with the “bad” samples exhibiting a greater number of them
(Fig. 10a). Recall that internal discharge was also observed
during partial discharge measurements with “good” samples
thus supporting the visual observation of these hotspots.
However, the visible discolorations on the “good” sample
appear to be superficial (not a puncture) and could be wiped
away when cleaning the sample.
a b
Fig. 10. Visual hotspots on glazed inner surface of porcelain
above the metal pin
(a) “Bad” sample, (b) “Good” samples.
Scale (S): 200 µm Scale (S): 200 µm
Magnification (M): x 20 Magnification (M): x 50
S: 100 µm, M: x 100 S: 100 µm, M: x 100
S: 10 µm, M: x 400 S: 10 µm, M: x 1000
a b
Fig. 11. SEM images of the glazed surface of porcelain shell
with varying zooms
(a) “Bad” sample, (b) “Good sample”
2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only
High Voltage
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) allowed for a
closer comparison between the samples. Fig. 11 shows the
glazed surface of the fragments introduced in Fig. 10. The
“bad” samples have evident punctures in the glazing and
show a smoother surface when compared with the “good”
samples. In some cases, the observed cavities in the “bad”
samples were filled with what appears to be molten material
suggesting high heat (conduction) while other cavities
propagated deeper into the porcelain beyond the view of the
scan (Fig. 12). The opposite (unglazed) side of the sample
fragment did not show clearly evident differences between
“good” and “bad” samples (Fig. 13). Both show cavities, but
it is uncertain if they are interconnected to the punctures
observed on the glazed side. Localized hot spots may
puncture the glazing, but is there sufficient conductivity to
create a channel through the porcelain?
a
b
Fig. 12. SEM images of cavities in “bad” samples
(a) molten material inside cavity, (b) deep cavity penetrating
into the porcelain
S: 100 µm, M: x 123 S: 100 µm, M: x 100
S: 10 µm, M: x 500 S: 10 µm, M: x 500
a b
Fig. 13. SEM images of the opposite (unglazed) side of
sample fragments
(a) “Bad” sample, (b) “Good” sample
6
7
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
Scans of the top (unglazed) portion of the porcelain
shell show some voids on the surface which appear to be
paths of conduction based on the discoloration around the
openings (Fig. 14). Further evidence of hot spots in the “bad”
samples is apparent when comparing the surrounding cement
at the glazed porcelain boundary, i.e., around the tip of the pin
(Fig. 15). The surface of the “bad” sample cement appears to
have multiple burnt marks and extensive fracturing whereas
the “good sample” also exhibits voids but with no evident
discoloration or deterioration around the openings. It is worth
noting that some of the observed fractures and cavities in the
cement may be a result of the dissection of the sample.
All images considered, “bad” samples display traces
of higher conduction at the cement interface, glazed porcelain
shell above the pin, and the top of the porcelain shell.
Puncture formation is most evident in the area of highest
electric field around the tip of the pin. Fig. 16 shows the edge
of a scanned fragment – the boundary between the glazed
surface and the downward sloping unglazed surface of the
fragment. Both fragments show similar porosity in the
porcelain below the glazed surface. According to [22] this is
to be expected as “the presence of pores and grain boundaries
between crystals are common to all porcelain.” It is possible
that once current is injected past the glazing, it finds multiple
parallel paths to flow to the metal cap. These multiple paths
(either already interconnected pores or micro-cracks present
in the porcelain or new bridged channels formed by the
Fig. 14. Top unglazed portion of porcelain shell
a b
Fig. 15. SEM images of cement surface at boundary between
cement and glazed porcelain above the pin
(a)“Bad” sample, (b)“Good” sample
a b
Fig. 16. Edge of fragment sample showing the boundary
between glazed and unglazed porcelain
(a) “Bad” sample, (b) “Good” sample
2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only
High Voltage
current) could reduce the current in each individual path and
prevent the formation of a larger more conductive channel
that would result in a large evident puncture channel.
By chance, once sample was broken during dissection
to reveal the hypothesized discharge channels (Fig. 17). The
glazed porcelain surface at the injection and exit points
exhibits similar small hotspots as in Fig. 10. Being so small,
these hotspots were not initially noticed, making it very
difficult to locate the discharge channels. Based on visual
evidence, it appears that the channel begins close to the side
curvature of the pin inside the shell head where electric field
concentration is highest, supporting the earlier statement by
[12]. Upon exiting the porcelain, channels progress along the
inner surface of the cement and connect with the conducting
cap through existing cavities in the cement. SEM scans of
these discharge channel paths are provided in Fig 18 showing
larger channels 10-20 µm in diameter as well as smaller
weaker channels of approximately 5 µm.
An independent report [8] identifies the
microstructure of the samples to be consistent with C110 tri-
axial porcelain, “the lowest grade or sub-grouping of
electrical porcelain”, and classifies the samples as “poor” for
this sub-group. The report also observed significant porosity
throughout all samples, noting that some of the pores “were
large and potentially interconnected, which has a negative
impact on dielectric and mechanical strength”. The report
continues to explain that “featureless silica rich zones were
observed, indicating that the porcelain was under-fired, either
in terms of insufficient peak temperature or insufficient time
a
b
Fig. 17. Evidence of discharge path through porcelain
(a) Multiple puncture channels visible in porcelain head, (b)
Possible tracking (white paths) on inner surface of cement
surrounding the porcelain head.
7
8
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. High Voltage
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

a Fig. 19. Damage to pole utilizing the same type insulators

Water ingress and cement expansion with heat can

b the damage is concentrated around the eyebolt penetrating
c flowing to the eyebolt which gradually heats the surrounding
Fig. 18. SEM scans of discharge path through porcelain
(a) Scale 100 µm: multiple parallel channels of varying
diameter, (b) Scale 30 µm, (c) Scale 10 µm
at peak temperature.” X-ray diffraction and SEM techniques
were also used in [9] to examine porosity, quartz grain size,
mullite formation, and micro-cracks of porcelain insulators.
Microstructural analysis showed that failed samples exhibit
larger pore agglomeration, which was linked to reduced
dielectric strength. These findings are well aligned with the
results presented in this paper.
It would appear that both “bad” and “good” samples
have poor microstructural properties. As explained earlier,
“good” samples also displayed traces of hotspots but these
had yet to puncture the insulation and could be wiped away
from the surface with gentle cleaning. Below the glazed layer,
both “good” and “bad” samples show similar porosity. The
dominating factor discriminating between “good” and “bad”
is the time it takes for the conductivity to penetrate through
the glazing layer and migrate through the porous porcelain.
As more channels form, a greater amount of current is
allowed to pass, which in turn leads to further heat
generation. This heat may deteriorate the porcelain further,
allowing even more channels to form, thus feeding the
process.
occur but is not supported by the mechanical measurements.
The cement is deemed as not contributing to the failure. The
conductivity of the cross arm has minimal influence on
overall field distribution (in particular when considering the
placement of the middle phase conductor relative to the pole
grounding). The possibility of a lightning strike igniting the
pole fires can be questioned by examining damage to the
cross arms and poles. A pole fire (July 2018) is shown in Fig.
19. Here, the same type insulators were installed directly onto
the pole (single-phase deadend). It is clearly observable that
through the pole. A direct lightning strike injecting a high
magnitude surge to the phase conductor would most likely
flashover (bypass) across the insulation (assuming healthy
dielectric properties) and jump to the closest ground (visible
approximately 30 cm below the eyebolt in Fig. 19) either
along the surface of the pole or through the air. A lightning
surge travelling through the pole would most likely result in
much more severe damage such as extensive splintering or
catastrophic failure of the pole or at least leave visible traces
along the insulators and pole. Instead, this observed damage
suggest a longer duration stress – e.g. continuous current
wood.
Similar behavior was replicated in the laboratory as
observed in service when power frequency voltage is allowed
to flow through the insulators (using the mechanisms
discussed in this paper) to ignite a pole fire as was illustrated
in Fig. 4. The highest heat concentration was observed to be
in the eyebolt connecting the cross arm to the pole. Once the
insulator loses its insulating properties and the multiple
conduction channels merge to create a hot highly ionized
channel maintained by the line voltage, a catastrophic failure
such as the puncture in Fig. 1a can be expected.
By eliminating possible influential factors, the
underlying mechanism leading to insulation failure, and
ultimately pole fires, converges to the porcelain and its
internal properties. Being of the lowest grade of electrical
porcelain, the C110 porcelain microstructural properties need
to be near ideal to satisfy ANSI standard requirements [8].
Optimal mullite formation, reduced porosity, and reduced
micro-cracking can be achieved through careful temperature
control. [4] defines a lot (batch) as a group of insulators
manufactured under similar conditions of production and
shall not exceed 10,000 units. If temperature control (heating
and cooling rate, firing time and temperature) was inadequate
for a lot, one would expect that all samples from this same lot
would fail. Based on the SEM analysis, the microstructure of

2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only 9

ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited.
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.
the evaluated units appear to be relatively similar in both
“good” and “bad” samples. Then why did some samples fail
while others satisfied electrical test requirements? The
answer may simply be time – it takes time to puncture the
glazing and reach the porous porcelain; it takes time for the
multiple channels to propagate through the porcelain; and it
takes time for these channels to lead to complete failure, as
was observed with the insulators in service.
The performed flashover tests exert a ramped voltage
(continuous increase) reaching considerably higher values
than normal operating voltage and ultimately leading to
failure. In some cases, flashover was not possible as voltage
never increased to sufficiently high values due to
conductivity through the sample. Withstand tests, such as
those defined in [5], increase voltage to a specified value and
the sample must maintain this stress for a short duration (e.g.,
60 seconds) to meet acceptance criteria. Although withstand
tests were not performed in this paper (as it is not requested
in the list of standard procedures for distribution suspension
type insulators [4]), it is clear that the “bad” samples would
be unable to maintain this specified value and thereby fail to
meet standard requirements. However, it is also expected that
the “good” samples, given a sufficient time period would lead
to eventual failure as well. This may seem like a blanket
statement since all insulators will eventually fail at some
point. However, a normal expected lifetime of porcelain
insulators is considerably longer than the few years these
assessed insulators were in service before resulting in pole or
cross arm fires. In fact, lifetimes up to 50 years have been
reported [2].
4. Conclusions
Determining the root cause of failure is a complex task
due to the many variables contributing to the failure process
in solid insulation. A limited scope of assessment can lead to
invalid conclusions or contradictory observations. Only upon
complete dissection of samples, was the main cause of failure
established in this particular case. Identification of similar
latent defects as discussed in this paper could be applied to
other insulator designs as well. Particular focus should be on
establishing the quality of the dielectric. SEM imaging is
useful in evaluating the microscopic structure of a sample.
However it can be difficult to identify interlinked cavities.
Multi-channel discharge paths are studied in [17] by
implementing surface resistivity measurements to detect
reduced resistivity and Energy Dispersion Spectroscopy
(EDS) to identify components with conductive characteristics.
This could be used to help locate areas of suspected
conduction which can be further dissected to confirm the
presence of discharge channels. Nevertheless, this approach
is destructive by nature (one would have to remove
components to expose the dielectric). Latent defects which
leave the insulator externally intact but remove its insulating
properties poses challenges as faulty units are difficult to
identify using traditional line inspections and can thereby go
unnoticed for extended periods of time. It would be highly
beneficial to develop methods to detect latent faults
externally in a time-effective manner allowing service crew
to quickly remove defective samples from service before they
result in hazardous and expensive faults. One alternative
could be to focus on observing the characteristics of leakage
current along the pole or tower instead of the insulator. As
2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only
High Voltage
explained is [18], leakage current signatures are useful in
identifying and detecting incipient and imminent wooden
pole fires. This approach does not evaluate the insulator, but
can be used to locate insulators warranting closer inspection.
Further development of nonintrusive onsite (or remote)
inspection, capable of similar depth of assessment as that
performed under laboratory conditions in this paper is well
merited.
5. References
[1] ANSI/NEMA C29.8: “Wet Process Porcelain Insulators
– Apparatus, Cap and Pin Type”, 2013
[2] Gorur, R.S.: ‘Failure modes in porcelain and toughened
glass suspension insulators’ IEEE Electr. Insul. Conf,
Annapolis, USA, June 2011, pp. 221-225.
[3] IEC60270: “High-voltage test techniques – partial
discharge measurements”, 2000
[4] ANSI/NEMA C29.2A: “Wet Process Porcelain and
Toughened Glass – Distribution Suspension Type”, 2013
[5] ANSI/NEMA C29.1: “Test Methods for Electrical
Power Insulators”, 2013
[6] Kluss, J., Wallace, D., Whittington, W., et al: ‘Failure
investigation on field aged porcelain suspension insulators’
IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition, Denver, USA, April 2018, pp. 1-5
[7] United States Department of Agriculture, ‘Specifications
and Drawings for 12.5/7.2 kV Line Construction’ (REA
Bulleting 50-3 (D-804), 1983)
[8] Powertech Labs Inc., ‘Microstructural examination of
ANSI class 52-9 suspension insulators for grid power
products’, (Project No. PL-27233, 2017)
[9] Rawat, A., Gorur, R.S.: ‘Microstructure based evaluation
of field aged and new porcelain suspension insulators’,
IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., 2009, 16, (1), pp. 107-
115
[10] Cherney, E.A.: ‘Cement growth failure of porcelain
suspension insulators’ IEEE Trans. Power App. Sys., 1983,
102, (8), pp. 2765-2774
[11] Cherney, E.A., Hooton, R.D.: ‘Cement growth failure
mechanism in porcelain suspension insulators’ IEEE Trans.
Pow. Del., 1987, 2, (1), pp. 249-255
[12] Cherney, E.A., Baker, A.C., Kuffel, J., et al:
‘Evaluation and replacement strategies for aged high voltage
porcelain suspension-type insulators’ IEEE Trans. Pow.
Del., 2014, 29, (1), pp. 275-282
[13] Aro, M., Elovaara, J., Karttunen, M., et al: ‘7.6
Implementation of spark gaps for overvoltage protection’, in
‘High Voltage Engineering (Suurjännitetekniika)’ (Otatieto,
2015, 4th edn.), pp. 364
9
10
ReView by River Valley This
Technologies
article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. High Voltage
Content may change prior to final publication in an issue of the journal. To cite the paper please use the doi provided on the Digital Library page.

[27] Rawat, A., Gorur, R.S.: ‘Electrical strength reduction of

[14] Morita, K., Suzuki, Y., Nozaki, H.: ‘Study on electrical porcelain suspension insulators on AC transmission lines,"
strength of suspension insulators in steep impulse voltage 2008 Annual Report Conf. on Electrical Insulation and
range’, IEEE Trans. Pow. Del., 1997, 12, (2), pp. 850-856 Dielectric Phenomena, Quebec, Canada, October 2008, pp.
245-248.
[15] EIC 61211: “Insulators of ceramic material or glass for
overhead lines with a nominal voltage greater than 1 000 V
– Impulse puncture testing in air”, 2004

[16] Lemke, E.: ‘Using a field probe to study the mechanism

of partial discharges in very small air gaps under direct
voltage’ IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, 2016, 32, (4),
pp. 43-51

[17] Florkowksi, M., Florkowska, B., Kuniewski, M., et al:

’Mapping of discharge channels in void creating effective
partial discharge area’ IEEE Trans. Diel. Electr. Ins., 2018,
25, (6), pp. 2220-2228

[18] Sokolowksi, P., Yu, X.: ‘Characterizing impedance

profiles for leakage currents from HV insulators on wooden
poles’, IEEE Trans. Diel. Electr. Ins. 2016, 23, (3), pp.
1338-1346

[19] Luo, L., Wang., L, Guan, Z., et al: ‘Influence of pin

corrosion on mechanical characteristic of UHVDC disc
suspension insulators and solutions’, IEEE Trans. Diel.
Electr. Ins., 2015, 22 (4), pp. 2242-2251

[20] Chen, C., Jia, Z., Ye, W., et al: ’Condition assessment
strategies of composite insulator based on statistic methods’,
IEEE Trans. Diel. Electr. Ins., 2016, 23, (6), pp. 3231-3241

[21] Yin, F., Jiang, X., Farzaneh, M.: ‘Electrical

performance of composite insulators under icing
conditions’, IEEE Trans. Diel. Electr. Ins., 2014, 21, (6), pp.
2584-2593.

[22] ‘Reviewing Modes of Insulator Failure’,

http://www.inmr.com/reviewing-modes-of-insulator-failure/,
accessed February 23, 2019

[23] Anjum, S.: ‘A study of the detection of defects in

ceramic insulators based on radio frequency signatures’,
MSc Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2014

[24] Han, S.W, Cho, H.G: ‘A study on the microstructural

reinforcement of aluminous porcelain insulators with high-
strength’, Proc. PowerCon Int. Conf. Power System
Technology, Perth, Australia, December 2000, pp. 1501-
1504

[25] Ramaswamy, P., Vynatheya, S., Seetharamu, S.:

‘Structural characteristics linked performance assurance in
alumina based porcelain insulators’, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Solid Dielectrics, Toulouse, France, July 2004, pp. 423-426

[26] Mishra, A. P., Gorur, R.S., and Venkataraman S.:

‘Evaluation of porcelain and toughened glass suspension
insulators removed from service’, IEEE Trans. Diel. Electr.
Ins., 2008, 15, (2), pp. 467-475.

10

2019/04/09 09:53:52 IET Review Copy Only 11