Importance of Insulation

Resistance Testing

By: Pak Ringo :* <3

Electrical Maintenance Department
 Content
1.Defenition of Insulation resistance
2.Reasons of Insulation Deteriorating
3.Defenition of Insulation Resistance Testing
4.Purpose of Insulation Resistance Testing
5.Case Study
 What is Insulation Resistance?
Insulation Resistance is a characteristic of
insulator that resist the flow of current, keeping
it to flow within the conductor that is wrapped
by the insulator only.
 Reasons for Insulation Failure
Some of the main reasons for insulation failure:
• Natural deterioration due to aging
• Accelerated by excessive heat and moisture
• Heat, moisture and dirt are main causes of
insulation failure.
• Chemical deterioration
• Mechanical damage
• Sunlight
• Excessive voltage stresses
 What is Insulation Resistance Testing?
• Insulation resistance testing is used as a quality control
measurement for insulator resistance value. The insulation
resistance (IR) test (also commonly known as a Megger) is a spot
insulation test which uses an applied DC voltage (typically either
250Vdc, 500Vdc or 1,000Vdc for low voltage equipment
• Basically, We apply a voltage (specifically a highly regulated,
stabilized DC voltage) across a dielectric, measuring the amount of
current flowing through that dielectric, and then calculating (using
Ohm's Law) a resistance measurement. We use this resistance
measurement to evaluate insulation integrity. The Higher, The
better
• Current flow through a dielectric may seem somewhat
contradictory, but remember, no electrical insulation is perfect. So,
some current will flow.
 Why Insulation Resistance Test
important?
80% of electrical maintenance and testing involves
evaluating insulation integrity. Electrical insulation
starts to age as soon as it's made. And, aging
deteriorates its performance. Harsh installation
environments, especially those with temperature
extremes and/or chemical contamination, cause
further deterioration. As a result, personnel safety
and power reliability can suffer.
So that is why it's obviously important to identify
this deterioration as quickly as possible so we can
take the necessary corrective measures.
 Purpose of Insulation Resistance
Testing
The purposes of performing insulation resistance
testing include:
• Used as a quality control measure at the time a
piece of electrical equipment is produced
• Used as an installation requirement to help
ensure specifications are met and to verify proper
hookup
• Used as a periodic preventive maintenance task
• Used as a troubleshooting tool.
How To Do?
What is the minimum value for IR?
• For power cable or common equipment, the
minimum value is 1kv/ohms
• For Rotating Machinery (Generator, Motor),
the minimum value is kV+1
• For Power Transformer, the minimum value is
(Temperature constant*rate voltage/rated
power)
 What if IR Value is Neglected?
What if We fail to verify the integrity of
Equipment insulation?
To get the conclusion of neglected IR or
insulation integrity failure, let’s take a look on a
case.

The Case of the Secondary School Fault

Source: https://www.ecmweb.com/arc-
flash/case-secondary-school-fault
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault

It all began during a thunderstorm.

Administrators at a high school noticed
momentary power interruptions followed by
smoke emanating from an electrical room,
which housed the main power switchboard for
the building. They immediately called the school
district’s maintenance department, and the lead
electrician responded.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
Upon arrival, the school district electrician recognized
that an abnormal event beyond his expertise had
occurred within the switchboard, so he called in the help
of an independent electrical contractor that had
performed work for the school district before on its main
service equipment. Electricians for that contracting firm
opened the covers on the still-energized switchboard and
found evidence of a failed surge suppressor mounted in
its service entry section. That evidence included
indications of dielectric oil ejections from the suppressor
onto internal components of the switchboard, including
copper bus bars and the insulation of the incoming power
cables.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
At that time, it was early afternoon on a Friday, so
the contractor and school district personnel agreed
that the switchboard could remain in service for a
few more hours — until school recessed for the
weekend. The electric utility was called to shut off
power to the switchboard after teachers and
students had left the building. The service entry
setup at this school included a utility pad-mounted
transformer that delivered 480/270V through
approximate 20-ft lengths of underground rigid
metal conduit, which served a 20-yr-old, 3,000A
four-section switchboard (Figure 1).
The Case of the Secondary School
Fault

1.Figure 1
School Equipment Arrangement
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
Setting the Stage
After utility personnel pulled the transformer’s primary
side fusing to disconnect power, the contractor’s
electricians removed the damaged surge suppressor from
the switchboard along with its bus connection wiring
(Figure 2). Next, they cleaned and inspected the
switchboard interior. Based only on a visual examination
of the equipment, they determined there was no damage
to any of the switchboard’s internal components,
including the bus bars, insulating parts, and visible ends
of the incoming power cables.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault

Figure 2
Damaged surge suppressor unit removed from switchboard.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
The contractor believed the suppressor had failed due to exposure to a
utility-side electrical transient or “surge,” possibly due to lightning
activity. However, his crew did not test the power cables between the
transformer and switchboard to determine the condition of the
insulation hidden from view within the underground conduits. In fact,
with the compromised suppressor fully removed and all visible
contaminants successfully cleaned, the contractor’s lead electrician
told the school district representative on-site that the switchboard
could be returned to service. He did recommend obtaining and
installing a replacement suppressor at a later date, given the fact that
this was potentially a long lead time assembly due to the switchboard’s
age. So that Friday evening, the electric utility crew was directed to re-
energize the pad-mounted transformer.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
The Incident:
• During the de-energization process (prior to repairing the switchboard), the contractor’s
electricians had opened the main breaker and all 22 downstream feeder breakers within that
assembly. After the utility crew re-energized the transformer, the contractor performed voltage and
phase checks at the switchboard connections. The contractor’s electricians then closed the
switchboard’s main breaker and began reclosing the feeder breakers one at time, as school district
personnel confirmed appropriate loads were being restored.
• During this time, one of the contractor’s electricians began reinstalling the front covers on the
switchboard service entry section. Just after closing one of the feeder breakers, a fault event
resulted in an arc flash, sending a fire and pressure wave that emerged from the switchboard
service entry section of the switchgear. The electrician, who was still installing covers, was
positioned directly in the path of the blast. However, the large steel cover he was holding in front of
his head and torso largely shielded him from the thermal effects of the event. Luckily, he was only
knocked down, and suffered minor injuries.
• At the time of this event, the utility crew had already closed up the transformer and left the site.
The fault event also exhausted fire and a pressure wave into the transformer secondary side
compartment, resulting in burning of insulating components, breaching of the transformer tank,
and an oil-fueled fire that largely consumed that assembly (Figure 3). The initial fault event on the
secondary side of the transformer was possibly terminated by opening of the transformer fuses,
and utility primary side protective devices upstream of the transformer eventually opened.
The Case of the Secondary School
Fault

Figure 3:
Burned electric utility transformer removed from service after arc flash event.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
Engineering Evaluation:
• The switchboard exterior conditions appeared normal for a 20-yr-old
installation, but (for safety reasons), I declined to examine the interior in an
energized condition — because it had been exposed to a fault event. Plans
were made with the school and the insurance client to perform that exam at
the time of planned replacement of the switchboard approximately one
month later.
• The surge suppressor removed from the switchboard exhibited failure
conditions typical of age and accumulated stress from exposure to multiple
transient events. The cables and the transformer (inspected at a utility storage
yard) exhibited the damage described above.
• The equipment conditions observed and reported clearly indicated the event
initiated with faulting near mid-length of the power cables while the
switchboard loads were being reconnected. I determined that following the
initial surge suppressor failure event, the cable insulation was probably in a
compromised condition due to a combination of age and exposure to the
various transient events, which eventually caused the suppressor failure.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
Engineering Evaluation:
• The equipment conditions observed and reported clearly indicated the event initiated
with faulting near mid-length of the power cables while the switchboard loads were
being reconnected. I determined that following the initial surge suppressor failure
event, the cable insulation was probably in a compromised condition due to a
combination of age and exposure to the various transient events, which eventually
caused the suppressor failure.
• I further reported that if the electrical contractor performed insulation integrity testing
prior to re-energizing the installation — after recovery from the initial suppressor
failure event — the cable’s degraded insulation conditions would have likely been
detected. This should have led to cable replacement and prevention of the second more
severe and dangerous fault occurrence.
• The failure to test and then replace the distressed power cables after the suppressor
failure led to much more costly damage. This included replacement of the utility
transformer, excavation, and replacement of the underground conduits — and eventual
replacement of the switchboard. In addition, the electrical contractor was extremely
fortunate that one or more of its electricians did not suffer severe arc-flash injuries due
to the occurrence of the secondary fault event. This, in part, was due to their failure to
fully install all switchboard covers prior to reconnecting loads to the switchboard.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
Lesson Learned:
• Electrical professionals can learn many things from this case. For
starters, electrical maintenance contractors in today’s environment
need to be prepared to completely inspect and test malfunctioning
or damaged equipment they are requested to service for any
hidden conditions that may affect safety or reliability.
• When an electrical fault, transient, or surge occurs, it should be
assumed that all current-carrying conductors and insulation systems
in the event path may have been distressed, until proven otherwise
by appropriate evaluation techniques. If there is a concern that any
additional inspection or testing needed to assure that no problems
exist may strain the customer’s cost constraints, then the contractor
needs to fully explain why the additional evaluation is needed. This
explanation should include not only the fees for that extra work,
but also the possible costs (including safety risks), if a failure occurs
due to an undiagnosed weakness in the electrical equipment.
 The Case of the Secondary School
Fault
Lesson Learned:
• The contractor should not assume any special knowledge on the part of the
customer nor expect that customer to request additional evaluation service, even
if they have their own staff electricians. If a customer should refuse evaluation
work needed to assure equipment safety, then the contractor should document
the situation in writing — and refuse to re-energize the equipment if significant
hazard potential exists. In situations where life safety is at risk, the contractor may
need to involve the local inspection authority for proper resolution.
• In the example presented in this article, the electrical contractor failed to take the
extra steps needed to assure the safety and integrity of equipment it had been
charged with restoring. The testimony of the contractor’s employees indicated
they were less than fully cognizant of the applicable industry standards addressing
the need to verify integrity of electrical cable insulation at appropriate intervals.
But instead of taking the opportunity to provide and bill its customer for an
additional valuable service, this contractor ended up entangled in litigation that
resulted in probable significant negative impact to its bottom line and reputation.
The electrical contractor was also fortunate that allowing its employee to perform
work in front of an open energized switchboard cabinet did not result in a tragic
injury or fatality when the arc flash event occurred.
 Conclusion
The insulation resistance value is deeply
important, either to measure the integrity of
electrical equipment insulation, or to ensure
personal safety nearby the equipment.
Sekian dan Terima Kasih