488

Resistance to Weathering and UV Radiation of

Polymeric Materials for Outdoor Insulation

Working Group
D1.14

February 2012
 RESISTANCE TO WEATHERING AND
UV RADIATION OF POLYMERIC
MATERIALS FOR OUTDOOR
INSULATION

Working Group
D1.14

Members
J. Kindersberger (DE) – (Convener), D. Windmar (SE) – (Secretary), D. Agoris† (GR),
R. Bärsch (DE), C. Beisele (CH), E. Brocard (FR), C. George (FR), R. Gorur (US),
S. Gubanski (SE), W. Haverkamp (DE), M. Henriksen (DK), H. Janssen (DE),
B. Komanschek (DE), X. Kornmann (CH), M. Kurrat (DE), C. Leuci (FR), C. Lumb (FR),
R. Macey (ZA), P. Mähönen (FI), U. Massen (CH), M. Nagao (JP), F. Schmuck (CH),
J. Seifert (DE), J. Stoker (GB), W. Vosloo (ZA), H.-J. Winter (DE)

Copyright © 201
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of
use for personal purposes. 8QOHVVH[SOLFLWO\DJUHHGE\&,*5(LQZULWLQJWRWDORUSDUWLDOUHSURGXFWLRQRIWKH
SXEOLFDWLRQDQGRUWUDQVIHUWRDWKLUGSDUW\LVSURKLELWHGRWKHUWKDQIRUSHUVRQDOXVHE\&,*5(,QGLYLGXDO
0HPEHUVRUIRUXVHZLWKLQ&,*5(&ROOHFWLYH0HPEHURUJDQLVDWLRQV&LUFXODWLRQRQDQ\LQWUDQHWRURWKHU
FRPSDQ\QHWZRUNLVIRUELGGHQIRUDOOSHUVRQV$VDQH[FHSWLRQ&,*5(&ROOHFWLYH0HPEHUVRQO\DUHDOORZHGWR
UHSURGXFHWKHSXEOLFDWLRQ

Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any
responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and
conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”.

ISBN: 
 CONTENTS

I.  WORK PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 3 

II.  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 
II.1  Available tests.............................................................................................................. 3 
II.2  Discussion on available tests ....................................................................................... 3 
III.  TEST SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 4 
IV.  UV EXPOSITION TEST DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 5 
IV.1  Xenon arc test .......................................................................................................... 5 
IV.2  Fluorescent UV lamp test......................................................................................... 7 
V.  Test results.................................................................................................................... 10 
V.1  Visual aspect .............................................................................................................. 10 
V.2  Surface resistivity ...................................................................................................... 11 
V.3  Hardness .................................................................................................................... 13 
V.4  Elongation at break .................................................................................................... 14 
V.5  Tracking and erosion test ........................................................................................... 15 
VI.  Discussion .................................................................................................................... 16 
VI.1  Material characteristics evolution .......................................................................... 16 
VI.2  Test parameters ...................................................................................................... 17 
VII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 18 
ANNEX 1 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in Fluorescent UV test
chamber of laboratory B ........................................................................................................... 19 
ANNEX 2 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in Fluorescent UV and
Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T ................................................................................. 23 
ANNEX 3 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in Fluorescent UV and
Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory H ................................................................................. 28 
ANNEX 4 Characteristic energy and wave length of chemical bonds ................................... 32 
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 33 

2
I. WORK PURPOSE
Outdoor high voltage insulation is exposed to weather and sun. Insulating materials are
affected by weathering; this requires implementing relevant testing. The WG D1.14 report
“Material properties for non-ceramic outdoor Insulation - State of the art” [1] describes the
two laboratory test procedures being mainly used to simulate weathering (the Xenon arc test
and the Fluorescent UV test methods) and concludes that, for the resistance to weathering and
UV, an additional study had to be performed in order to define the parameters and test criteria
of a UV resistance test (time of testing, rain cycle, sample temperature, lamp type…) in order
to calibrate these two test methods.

II. INTRODUCTION
II.1 Available tests
The UV tests which are available today use different types of lamps associated with various
tests procedures, the main ones are the following:
 Xenon arc lamps (ISO 4892-2) [2]; Test devices using this kind of lamps are often
called Weather-O-Meter (WOM).
 Fluorescent UV lamps (ISO 4892-3) [3]; Spectra generated by this method are also
known in the literature as Global UV (GUV).
 Open flame Carbon arc lamps (ISO 4892-4) [4].
 High pressure Mercury vapour lamps (French standard NF C 32-062 [5]) generating
spectra with discrete lines.

II.2 Discussion on available tests

Xenon arc test:
The Xenon arc produces high IR radiations which may result in high sample temperature (up
to 80°C black panel temperature). The lamp will lose intensity during a 1000 hours test if its
power supply is not adjusted all along the test.

Fluorescent UV test:
The Fluorescent UV test has good reproducibility under standardised conditions but needs to
be improved by a better wavelength definition and quantitative irradiation specifications.
Based on the different possibilities proposed in the standard, the following parameters can be
selected:

 Spectrum < 270 nm: 0%; 270 nm to 300 nm: 8%; 320 nm to 360 nm: 53% and 360 nm
to 400 nm: 37%. These values may vary by 20% from this specification.
 Irradiation intensity: 85 ± 20 W/m2 in the range 320 nm to 400 nm.
 Irradiation dose: an irradiation intensity with 85 W/m2 in the range 270 nm to 400 nm
over a test period of 5000 hours would result in an irradiation dose of 1,5 GJ/m2.

The fluorescent lamp UV test can be operated at 30% to 50% of the cost of Xenon arc test due
to lower initial equipment and lamp cost. Moreover, the lamp life is longer for the fluorescent
units.

3
 Open flame Carbon arc lamp test:
This standard is practically not in use anymore.

High pressure Mercury vapour lamp test:

Mercury vapour lamps are widely used in industry to check the materials’ resistance to UV
radiaton (e.g. [13]). The lamps present a UV discrete line spectrum above 290 nm and the test
temperature (60°C) is directly measured on the sample surface by means of a Pt 100 sensor.
A comparison test with natural aging on identical EPDM samples has shown by FTIR
analysis that 400 hours in this test chamber is equivalent to one year in natural aging in
temperate Europe.
A second comparison test with a Xenon arc test chamber was performed using actinometer
polyethylene films of which UV aging is well known by mean of FTIR spectrometry analysis;
this test has shown that the high pressure mercury vapour lamp test [13] has a 2,5 acceleration
factor compared to the Xenon arc test [6].
This test is standardised for communication cables (NF C 32-062).
This test method generates spectra with discrete lines; it is the least comparable to natural
sunlight and calibration has to be performed carefully.

Up to now the Xenon arc test (ISO 4892-2) has been the most widely used and many
references are available [7]. On the other hand, the fluorescent UV test (ISO 4892-3) has
promising features with respect to cost effectiveness and reproducibility.
The Cigre WG D1.14 has performed Xenon arc and Fluorescent UV tests in order to compare
their respective severity and determine among some material parameters which ones are
affected by this type of aging and have to be taken into account in such tests.

III. TEST SEQUENCE DESCRIPTION

Several exposition tests were performed on different materials, in different test chambers,
according to the Xenon arc and the Fluorescent UV test procedures. The verification of some
of the material characteristics before, during and after the exposition test allowed comparison
of the two test methods.

The materials selected for this comparison were:

 HTV Silicone rubber.
 EPDM rubber.
 HCEP (Epoxy resin).
 EVA rubber.

The tests were performed by three manufacturers in their laboratories (laboratory B,

laboratory H and laboratory T). According to the limited number of available test chambers
and available positions in each, the materials to be tested were distributed as follows:

Table 1- Materials tested in each laboratory

Laboratory laboratory T laboratory H laboratory B
Xenon test EVA – SIR EVA – SIR – HCEP -
Fluorescent test EVA – SIR – HCEP EVA – SIR – HCEP EVA – SIR – HCEP
– EPDM – EPDM – EPDM

The different verifications selected to monitor the evolution of the characteristics of the tested
materials are listed below:

4
 1. Visual inspection (Photography and notes for surface texture and crack appearance).
2. Surface resistivity (IEC 93 [8]).
3. Shore A or Shore D hardness according to material type (ISO 868 [9]).
4. Elongation at break on five samples (ISO 37 type 2 [10] or ISO 527-1 [11] according
to material type).
5. Resistance to tracking and erosion (IEC 60587).
The surface resistivity, hardness and elongation at break measurements were performed at the
beginning of the UV exposition, and after 1000, 2500 and 5000 hours.
The resistance to tracking and erosion test was performed on 5 samples before the beginning
of the UV exposition, and after 5000 hours on only 2 samples in order to reduce the number
of samples in the chamber.
The table below summarises the sequence of the tests:

Table 2 - Test sequence

After After After
Before
1000 hours 2500 hours 5000 hours
Type of test UV
UV UV UV
exposition
exposition exposition exposition
Tracking and erosion test 5 samples - - 2 samples
Surface resistivity 1 sample 1 sample 1 sample 1 sample
Elongation at break 5 samples 5 samples 5 samples 5 samples

IV. UV EXPOSITION TEST DESCRIPTION

IV.1 Xenon arc test
The ISO 4892-2 1994 standard allows many different possibilities for the definition of the test
parameters (with or without rain, with or without dark period, choice of the temperature,
choice of the relative humidity, etc.). The typical parameters are defined as follows:

 Spectral irradiance between 290 and 800 nm defined as 100% and between 290 and
320 nm defined as lower than 0,8% (Method “A”)
 Irradiance equal to 550 W/m2 between 290 and 800 nm (reference value)
 Temperature : 65°C +/- 3°C or 100°C +/- 5°C
 Relative humidity : 65% +/- 5% or 50% +/- 5%
 Spray cycle : 18 min +/- 0,5 min
 Dry interval between spraying: 102 min +/- 0,5 min
 Dark period undefined

However, the test performed in laboratory T and laboratory H were integrated into already
scheduled test campaigns and the test conditions were those generally used by these
laboratories. The differences with the “standard” conditions are shown in table 3:

5
 Table 3 – Xenon arc test parameters
Parameters ISO4892-2 Std 1994 laboratory T laboratory H
Light Period
Duration undefined 16 hours / 24 hours 16 hours / 24 hours
Method A : Xenon lamp : Xenon arc lamp B
100% < 290 – 800 Xenochrom 300 type with inner quartz
Spectral irradiance
nm daylight filter and outer “S”
0,8% < 290 – 320 nm 290 – 800 nm borosilicate filters
Unknown
Total irradiance 550 W/m2 620 W/m2
2,2 W/m2 at
Irradiance at 340 nm 0,5 W/m2 at 340 nm 0,55 W/m2 at 340 nm
340 nm
Black standard
65°C or 100 °C 65°C 70°C
temperature
Relative humidity 50% or 65% 65 +/- 5% 50%
Spray cycle 18 min +/- 0,5 min 18 min +/- 0,5 min 20 min
Dry interval between 102 min +/- 0,5
102 min +/- 0,5 min 160 min
spraying min
Dark Period
Duration undefined 8 hours / 24 hours 8 hours / 24 hours
Temperature undefined 38°C 38°C
Relative humidity undefined 65% 95%

Irradiance in the chamber of laboratory H was measured between 300 nm and 820 nm
resulting in 620 W/m2. The irradiance of 550 W/m2 in the wavelength range between 290 nm
and 800 nm as stated in 4.1.3 is achieved, in the case of method A, when a spectral irradiance
of 0,50 W/m2 at 340 nm is selected (ISO 4892-2 1994).

Table 4 – Xenon arc test cycle. Laboratory T

Darkness
38°C
RH: 65%

UV
65°C
Spay cycle

UV
65°C
RH 65%

Time (hours) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Table 5 – Xenon arc test cycle. Laboratory H

Darkness
38°C
RH: 95%

Front specimen
spray

Dry
RH: 50%

UV
70°C

Time (hours) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

6
 IV.2 Fluorescent UV lamp test

For the fluorescent UV test, the ISO 4892-3 1994 standard proposes two principal
possibilities for the definition of the test parameters, (with or without dark period, with or
without rain, choice of the temperature, etc.). However, the test performed in the laboratories
B, H and T were integrated into already scheduled test campaigns and the test conditions were
those generally used by these laboratories. These cycles are described in table 6.

7
 Table 6 – Fluorescent UV test parameters.
ISO4892-3 Std 1994 ISO4892- 3 Std 1994
Parameters laboratory T laboratory H laboratory B
Exposure mode 1 Exposure mode 2
Light period
Total light period
8 hours 6 hours 8 hours 6 hours 8 hours
duration
Global UV Weiss Global UV 200 Weiss
8 UVA lamps (40 W System type System type
Spectral Fluorescent UV lamps Fluorescent UV lamps each) UV200SB/20DU UV200RB/20DU
irradiance type 1 type 1 340 nm – type 1 16 lamps: 18 lamps:
F40/2090/RS Atlas 270 – 450 nm 290 – 450 nm
85 W/m2 50 W/m2
Dry period 4 hours 5 hours 8 hours 5 hours 8 hours
Temperature
60°C +/- 3°C 50°C +/- 3°C 60°C 50°C 60°C
during dry period
Relative
/ 10% +/- 5% / 10% +/- 5% < 20%
humidity
Spray or
condensation / Spray: 1 hour / Spray: 1 hour /
period
Temperature
during spray / 20°C +/- 3°C / 50°C /
cycle
Dark period
Total dark period
4 hours / 4 hours / 4 hours
duration
Temperature 50°C +/- 3°C / 50°C / 50°C
Relative
Condensation / Condensation / 95%
humidity

Note: The lamps power is given for the spectrum range.

8
 Table 7 – laboratories T and B. Fluorescent UV test cycle.
Darkness
50°C
Condensation

UV
60°C
RH: 65%

Time (hours) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Table 8 – laboratory H. Fluorescent UV test cycle.

Sprinkling
with
demineralised
water

Dry

UV
50°C

Time (hours) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

The normalised lamp spectrum, as used in laboratory H, is described in figure 1 and figure 2.

Weather-OMeter(Xenon) <-> Fluorescent Lamp UV

200%

WOM standardised for 352nm

FL UV standardised for 352nm
CIE Sun D65-1kW/m² standardised for 352nm
150%
From To FL UV/CIE Wom/CIE
Standardised for 352nm [%]

[nm] [nm]
270 318 507% 209%
320 358 237% 100%
100%
360 398 115% 128%
400 460 10% 90%
270 800 19% 114%

50%

0%
250 300 350 400 450
Wave length [nm ]

Figure 1 – Normalised lamp spectrum as used in laboratory H;

250 to 450 nm range.

9
 Weather-OMeter(Xenon) <-> Fluorescent Lamp UV
8

Xenon WOM
7 FL UV
CIE Sun D65-1kW/m²

6
Irradiation intensity [W/m²/nm]

From To FL UV/CIE Wom/CIE

5 [nm] [nm]
270 318 507% 209%
320 358 237% 100%
4
360 398 115% 128%
400 460 10% 90%
3 270 800 19% 114%

0
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100
Wave length [nm ]

Figure 2 – Lamp spectrum as used in laboratory H.

 The Xenon arc lamp spectrum is characterised by higher irradiation intensity in the IR
range, which can provoke, if not controlled, a temperature increase of the samples.
 The Fluorescent UV lamps present higher irradiation intensity in the UV range which
can provoke a higher damage of the sample exposed surface than under natural ageing.

V. Test results
V.1 Visual aspect
The tests results, as presented in table 9, are significantly different from one laboratory to the
other: the UV test performed in laboratory H shows appearance of chalking on EPDM, EVA
and HCEP samples, roughness increase on HCEP samples in both Xenon arc and Fluorescent
UV tests, and bending of the EVA sample in the Fluorescent UV test.
These phenomena are not observed on the samples coming from the other test chambers.

 Fluorescent UV tests: A comparison of the testing devices show that the fluorescent
UV lamps in the chamber of laboratory H does not deliver the highest power
(85 W/m2 against 50 W/m2 in the chamber of laboratory B and 320 W in total in the
chamber of laboratory T) but present a wider spectrum which starts from 270 nm
while in the other chambers, the spectrum starts from 290 nm. A second point is that
the cycle applied in laboratory H is the only one to present a spray cycle which
induces a periodic washing of the sample surface with a possible acceleration of the
aging.
 Xenon arc test: A comparison of the testing devices show that the Xenon arc lamps
deliver a higher power per m2 in the chamber of laboratory T in comparison with the
chamber of laboratory H. Moreover, some other parameters were also different: rain
cycles more spaced out, higher temperature during light periods (70°C against 65°C)
and different humidities during light and dark periods.

10
If a reference test had to be set up, all these parameters should be precisely defined: cycle,
rain, temperature, humidity, lamp spectrum and filter. Furthermore, the irradiance dose should
be measured in a specific range instead of exposure duration.
Table 9: Visual aspect after UV aging
HTV Silicone EPDM HCEP EVA
Discoloration
UV Fluorescent test Discoloration Discoloration
after 1000 hours No modification
in laboratory B (yellow)
after 2500 hours after 5000 h
Slight
UV Fluorescent test Discoloration
No modification discoloration No modification
in laboratory T after 2500 h
after 2500 h
Xenon arc test
No modification Not tested Not tested No modification
in laboratory T
- Slight
- Slight
discoloration
Slight discoloration
Discoloration after 1000 h
UV Fluorescent test discoloration after 1000 h
and chalking - Chalking and
in laboratory H after 2500 h
after 1000 h roughness
- Light chalking
(brighter) and bending
increase after
after 5000 h
5000 h
Chalking and
Slight Slight
Xenon arc test roughness
discoloration Not tested discoloration
in laboratory H after 2500 h
increase after
after 1000 h
5000 h

V.2 Surface resistivity

The surface resistivity shows a large scatter in the measurement results. Depending on the
material, the values can present a ratio of 102 to 105 as shown on the graphs below. The
largest differences are found for EVA and HCEP materials, while for the EPDM and HTV
Silicone, these differences are much lower and no specific trend can be noted.

Silicone HTV surface resistivity EPDM surface resistivity

1,0E+18 1,0E+18
1,0E+17 1,0E+17
1,0E+16
1,0E+16
Resistivity

Resistivity

1,0E+15
1,0E+15
1,0E+14
1,0E+13 1,0E+14

1,0E+12 1,0E+13
1,0E+11 1,0E+12
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
1,0E+11
hours 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
hours
Lab. B fluo. Lab. H fluo Lab. H Xenon
Lab. T fluo Lab. T xenon Lab. B fluo. Lab. H fluo Lab. T fluo

Figure 3: HTV Silicone surface resistivity Figure 4: EPDM surface resistivity

11
 EVA surface resistivity HCEP surface resistivity

1,0E+17 1,0E+18
1,0E+16 1,0E+17
Resistivity

1,0E+15 1,0E+16

Resistivity
1,0E+14 1,0E+15

1,0E+13 1,0E+14

1,0E+12 1,0E+13

1,0E+11 1,0E+12
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
1,0E+11
hours 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
hours
Lab. B fluo. Lab. H fluo Lab. H xenon
Lab. T fluo Lab. T xenon Lab. B fluo. Lab. H fluo Lab. H xenon Lab. T fluo

Figure 5: EVA surface resistivity Figure 6: HCEP surface resistivity

This scatter could be due to

 a problem of measurement repeatability.
 a difference between the different measuring devices used in the laboratories.

The measurement repeatability was checked in laboratory S on the samples coming from the
fluorescent UV chamber of laboratory B. The measurements were performed the same day,
after the same conditioning sequence (96 hours in desiccators) on both exposed and non-
exposed surfaces. The results, which are presented in the figures below show a much lower
scatter of the values measured on the non-exposed surfaces of the materials, except on HCEP
for which this measure could not be achieved.

Surface resistivity (Ohm/sq) after 96 hours samples drying Surface resistivity (Ohm/sq) - Not exposed surfaces Fluorescent
Fluorescent test – laboratory B
test – laboratory B

1,E+18
1,E+18
1,E+17
1,E+17
1,E+16
1,E+16
1,E+15 1,E+15
1,E+14 1,E+14

1,E+13 1,E+13

1,E+12 1,E+12

1,E+11
1,E+11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 0 0 0 1000 2500 5000
UV test duration (hours) UV test duration (hours)

HTV silicone EPDM HCEP EVA

HTV silicone EPDM EVA

Figure 7: surface resistivity on the four Figure 8: surface resistivity on

materials – Exposed surfaces HTV Silicone, EPDM and EVA –
Non-exposed surfaces

A comparison of the different measuring devices was also performed by measuring the
surface resistivity of additional EPDM samples which were circulated to different
laboratories:

12
 Table 10 : Surface resistivity on new samples
Surface
laboratory laboratory
resistivity
S T
(Ohm/sq)
EPDM Surface 1 1,4E16 1,3E16
sample 1 Surface 2 1,4E16 1,2E17
EPDM Surface 1 1,4E16 1,4E16
sample 2 Surface 2 1,4E16 1,3E16

These different results show that for HTV Silicone and EPDM, there is no influence of the
UV aging on the surface resistivity. For EVA or HCEP, larger differences can be observed on
samples aged in the Fluorescent UV chamber of laboratory B and measured in laboratory S.
This difference could be due to a different surface state at the end of the UV aging and/or a
difference of the sample conditioning for the surface resistivity measurement.
However, taking into account the many different parameters which can influence the test
results (as the surface state, ambient temperature, humidity, etc.) and the different behaviour
of these materials, the surface resistivity does not seem to be an adequate parameter for the
UV aging characterisation requirements.

V.3 Hardness
The hardness was measured in each laboratory where the UV aging had been performed.

Table 11: Hardness results

UV exposure time
Material Laboratory /UV test Unit
0 1000 2500 5000
lab. T / Fluor. Shore D (A) 21 (71) 21 (71) 21 (71) 21 (71)
lab. T / Xenon Shore D (A) 21 (71) 24 (75) 23 (74) 24 (75)
HTV
lab. H / Fluor. Shore A 72 - - 83
Silicone
lab. H / Xenon Shore A 72 - - 80
lab. B / Fluor. Shore A 79 80 80 83
lab. T / Fluor. Shore D (A) 23 (74) 23 (74) 23 (74) 24 (75)
EPDM lab. H / Fluor. Shore A 72 - - 77
lab. B / Fluor. Shore A 74 71 70 72
lab. H / Fluor. Shore D 91 - - 92
HCEP
lab. H / Xenon Shore D 91 - - 92
lab. T / Fluor. Shore D 45 45 45 45
lab. T / Xenon Shore D 45 45 45 45
EVA lab. H / Fluor. Shore D 43 - - 45
lab. H / Xenon Shore D 43 - - 44
lab. B / Fluor. Shore A (D) 95 (55) 92 (50) 92 (50) 92 (50)

For hard materials, as HCEP and EVA, the Shore D scale is generally used, while for softer
materials as silicone or EPDM rubbers, the Shore A scale is preferred. The hardness was
measured using the equipment available in each laboratory. The results presented in table 11
are given in the measured units. In order to compare the different values of the tested
materials, in the case of silicone and EPDM rubbers, the equivalent Shore A value is

13
presented between brackets for the results given in Shore D unit, while in the case of HCEP
and EVA, the equivalent Shore D value is given between brackets for the results given in
Shore A units.

EVA and HCEP, which present a higher hardness, do not show any significant modification
after 5000 hours UV aging in any laboratory.

The behaviour of the soft silicone HTV and EPDM materials is different and show hardness
increases on the samples in the UV chambers of laboratory H, both fluorescent and xenon:
from 72 to 83 Shore A for the silicone rubber and from 72 to 77 for the EPDM rubber. On the
other hand, there is no modification observed on the samples of these materials coming from
the other aging chambers.

V.4 Elongation at break

The elongation at break value is very different from one material to the other: with more than
400% for EVA, and less than 2% for HCEP, the range of values is very large but the results
obtained in the different laboratories, presented in table 12, show a general trend of reduction
of elongation at break versus the exposition to UV duration.
The reduction ratio is also very different for each material: The silicone rubber is the most
sensitive one with a final elongation at break value after 5000 hours which is found between
22% and 46% of the initial value. EPDM and HCEP are not so far from each other with

Table 12: Elongation at break results

UV exposure time
Material Laboratory /UV test
0 1000 2500 5000
lab. T / Fluorescent 244 202 134 93
lab. T / Xenon 244 260 202 113
HTV
lab. H / Fluorescent 188 145 100 85
Silicone
lab. H / Xenon 188 136 120 85
lab. B / Fluorescent 249 96 69 55
lab. T / Fluorescent 286 244 223 143
EPDM lab. H / Fluorescent 180 140 140 135
lab. B / Fluorescent 275 180 189 184
lab. H / Fluorescent 1,29 1,19 1,11 0,99
HCEP lab. H / Xenon 1,29 0,90 0,93 0,84
lab. B / Fluorescent 1,30 1,19 1,08 0,98
lab. T / Fluorescent 606 485 522 445
lab. T / Xenon 606 373 482 443
EVA lab. H / Fluorescent 422 397 412 396
lab. H / Xenon 422 326 361 398
lab. B / Fluorescent 421 254 369 455

elongations measured respectively between 50% and 75% for the first and, for the second,
between 65% and 77% of their initial values. EVA presents the lowest reduction ratio for
elongation at break with a final value measured between 73% and 95%.

14
 Elongation at break - Silicone HTV (%) Elongation at break - EPDM (%)
350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
UV test duration (hours)
Lab. T fluorescent – Median Lab. T Xenon – Median Test duration (Hours)
Lab. T fluorescent – Median Lab. H fluorescent
Lab. H fluorescent – Median Lab. H xenon – Median
Lab. B fluorescent – Median
Lab. B fluorescent – Median

Figure 9 : Elongation at break; Figure 10 : Elongation at break;

HTV Silicone EPDM

Elongation at break - EVA (%) Elongation at break - HCEP (%)

800 1,40

700 1,30

600 1,20

500 1,10
400 1,00

300 0,90

200 0,80
100
0,70
0
0,60
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
UV test duration (Hours)
UV test duration (Hours)
Lab. T fluorescent – Median Lab. T Xenon – Median
Lab. H fluorescent Lab. H xenon – Median Lab. T fluorescent – Median Lab. H fluorescent
Lab. B fluorescent – Median Lab. H xenon Lab. B fluorescent

Figure 11 : Elongation at break; Figure 12 : Elongation at break;

EVA HCEP

As for hardness, it can be noted that the greatest variations in elongation at break are observed
on the soft materials, HTV Silicone and EPDM, but not in the same tests chambers since the
Fluorescent UV test of laboratory T gives the greatest variation in both cases.

V.5 Tracking and erosion test

The tracking and erosion test was performed with two different methods:
 The constant tracking voltage method (method 1 according to IEC 60587), performed
in laboratory B at 3,5 kV during six hours.
 And the stepwise tracking voltage method (method 2 according to IEC 60587)
performed in laboratories T and H, but without any fixed duration in order to observe
the material performance limit for comparative purpose.

These tests, as indicated in paragraph III were performed on five new samples and on two
others after 5000 hours UV exposure.

The constant tracking voltage method does not show any modification of performance of any
material: the classification 1A 3,5 and 1B 3,5 is confirmed after UV aging for HTV Silicone,
EPDM, EVA and HCEP.

15
 The stepwise tracking voltage method in laboratories T and H gives slightly different results
but they do not show any significant performance modification before and after UV exposure
for the four materials: In laboratory H, while for Silicone HTV, EPDM and EVA no
performance modification can be observed after UV exposure, the HCEP shows a
performance reduction after UV exposure (2B 3,75 instead of 2B 6 for the new samples).
However, this test is well-known to be highly dependent on the surface state of the test
sample, a surface defect being able to fix the arcing activity on a single point, initiating the
sample degradation. This result is obtained on a sample on which a roughness increase had
been observed after 5000 hours UV exposure in laboratory H. In the same way, in laboratory
T, while for Silicone, EPDM and HCEP no modification can be observed, the EVA shows a
performance reduction on one sample after UV exposure. This material had shown a
performance increase in laboratory H after fluorescent UV test.

VI. Discussion
VI.1 Material characteristics evolution
The choice of the characteristics to monitor the evolution of the materials during the test was
made considering that the UV aging affects primarily the superficial part of the material. The
material characteristics chosen were the following:
 Visual aspect.
 Surface resistivity.
 Hardness.
 Elongation at break.
 Tracking and erosion resistance.

The visual aspect is a sensitive criterion because it can show an evolution very early in the test
run: a slight discoloration can be observed after the first 1000 hours. On the other hand, the
observations show important differences between laboratories: depending on the test chamber,
the first observation of discoloration appears on a given material after either 1000 hours or
5000 hours and some other effect such as chalking, bending or roughness increase are not
observed at all in some other test devices.

The surface resistivity has shown a large scatter in the measurement results on the exposed
surfaces, contrary to the measurements performed on the non-exposed surfaces or to those
performed on the same material in different laboratories. It is still not clear which
parameter(s) is responsible of this scatter (sample surface state, conditioning, temperature,
humidity, measuring devices, etc.), but this characteristic does not seem to be a reliable
parameter for the UV aging characterisation requirements.

The material hardness is a characteristic which does not show any modification for the EVA
and HCEP materials, while it has shown an increase for the HTV Silicone and EPDM in some
test chambers, particularly in the test devices of laboratory H which also gave the most
accentuated modification of the visual aspect. However, the hardness is very different from
one material to the other and the maximum value reached by the silicone is lower than the
starting hardness value of EVA or HCEP. A test requirement on this property should be
related to its variation and probably have different limits for each material. At present, the
material hardness can only be considered as an informative test measurement.

16
The elongation at break is also a sensitive parameter which shows a progressive modification
all along the 5000 hours of testing for all materials except EVA which reaches its minimum
value after 1000 hours only. There is a general trend to the reduction of the elongation at
break, but the values are so different from one material to the other, both in terms of absolute
value and in relative reduction that, as for the hardness property, the elongation at break
should only be performed for information purpose.

The tracking and erosion test showed a performance reduction in two cases, but these results
are not sufficient to define a general trend. They remain significant because probably
correlated to the roughness increase of the exposed surface of these samples. As the roughness
increase is already a test criteria defined for the weathering and UV test in the IEC 62217
standard, it does not seem useful at present to maintain the resistance to tracking and erosion
as test criteria.

VI.2 Test parameters

The tests were performed in five different test chambers, two Xenon arc and three fluorescent
UV test devices. Some important differences can be noted between the test chambers. For the
Xenon tests (see table 3) the lamps’ irradiance, the temperature during the light period and the
relative humidity were different. For the fluorescent tests (see table 6) the lamps’ spectra, the
lamps’ irradiance, the use of dark periods or spray cycles and the temperature during light
period were different.
All these differences gave a very large range of results.
The fact is that the standards leave a more or less wide freedom to the user in the choice of the
test parameters.

The fluorescent test standard ISO 4892-3 (2006)1 gives the widest possibilities:

 Many different types of lamps are available; Three of them are preferred in the ISO
standard: UV1-A (340 nm), UV1-B (351 nm) and UV2 (313 nm). For daylight
simulation, the standard recommends to use UV1-A lamps but proposes also a
combination of UV1-A and UV1-B lamps. In the first case, the specified irradiance
should be 0,76 W/m2 at 340 nm. In the last case, the irradiance should be 45 W/m2 in
the range 290 nm to 400 nm (in the 1994 edition of the ISO 4892 series, no irradiance
level was given).
 For the daylight simulation, four different cycles are proposed (ISO 4892-3 2006
table 4) with condensation or spray periods or a combination of both. The
temperatures during the dry periods (50°C, 60°C or 70°C) and wet periods (25°C or
50°C) are different in each case. The relative humidity is not indicated for the two
first cycles. Moreover, a dark period can be introduced in the cycle.

1
The Cigre WG D1.14 started this work in 2005 with ISO 4892-2 1994 and 4892-3 1994 standards. The 2006
editions of these standards were published recently and are those taken into account for the discussion.

17
 The choice of parameters in the case of the Xenon arc test is also possible but much more
reduced:

 A single spectrum and irradiance value are required.

 The wet period is also defined using water spray.
 The user can choose the black standard temperature (65 or 100°C)
 A room temperature and relative humidity are proposed for each black standard
temperature.

However, it is recognised that the main difficulty for each one of these two types of test (UV
fluorescent test and Xenon arc test), is the repeatability from one chamber to another one and
the comparison of results obtained in two different test apparatuses. Both standards ISO 4892-
2 and 3 (paragraph 3.7) give this cautionary advice:

Intercomparaison of results obtained from specimens exposed in different apparatus should

not be made unless an appropriate statistical relationship has been established between the
apparatuses for the particular material exposed.

VII. Conclusion
In the different standards for weathering and UV testing, many important test parameters are
not fixed. The high diversity of UV and weathering test chambers in the industry makes it
necessary to define a unique test as reference test to which the others can be compared. This
reference test will allow each individual test method and chamber to be calibrated for a given
material. If more than one type of material is tested, the calibration of the same test chamber
will have to be performed for each material.

Its historical use, the quantity of data accumulated and the lower number of parameters to be
fixed, lead to the conclusion that the Xenon arc test according to ISO 4892-02 should be this
reference test. Once this calibration has been made by comparison between samples aged in
both a reference Xenon arc test chamber and the user’s test chamber and method, a scale
factor can be determined and the user can work with his own test chamber and method for this
material.

Using the cycle number 1 with an 8 hours darkness period, the Xenon arc test presents the
advantage of being easily and precisely defined, each parameter being fixed. The tests
performed during this study show that a test duration of 1000 hours is a minimum. In addition
to the acceptance criteria defined in the IEC 62217 standard (no surface degradations as
cracks, and roughness increase limited), the evolution of the following characteristics of the
materials could be monitored purely for information purposes:
 Hardness.
 Elongation to break.

18
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV test chamber of laboratory B

ANNEX 1
Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV test chamber of laboratory B

Fluorescent UV test chamber: Global UV 200 Weiss System

1 – Visual aspect

HTV Silicone EPDM

HCEP EVA
Figure 13: Visual aspect – laboratory B

HTV Silicone: a discoloration is observed after 1000 hours. No other modification is noted.
EPDM: a progressive discoloration is observed after 2500 hours. No other modification is
noted.
HCEP: A discoloration is observed after 5000 hours. No other modification is noted.
EVA: no modification observed.

19
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV test chamber of laboratory B
2 – Surface resistivity

The test was performed at laboratory S, by mean of a Keithley 6517 HI-R test device. The
measurement was performed twice:
 a first time on the samples as they were received.
 then, a second time, after 96 hours in a desiccator.
Preparation of the samples: no specific preparation.
The results are given in the tables below:

Table 13: Surface resistivity test results – laboratory B

Surface resistivity before drying (Ohm)
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 9,1E+15 5,4E+14 2,8E+14 5,3E+13
EPDM 4,0E+15 1,2E+16 1,7E+16 7,2E+15
HCEP 2,0E+14 3,4E+13 6,9E+12 2,8E+11
EVA 1,9E+15 1,7E+12 8,8E+11 2,2E+11

Surface resistivity after 96 hours drying (Ohm)

After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 7,2E+15 3,8E+14 2,0E+14 5,2E+13
EPDM 3,1E+15 1,9E+15 4,0E+15 3,3E+15
HCEP 2,3E+13 2,5E+12 1,9E+12 1,4E+11
EVA 6,1E+14 1,4E+11 2,3E+11 3,2E+11

Surface resistivity (Ohm/sq) Surface resistivity (Ohm/sq) after 96 hours samples

Fluorescent test – laboratory B drying
1,E+18 Fluorescent test – laboratory B
1,E+18
1,E+17
1,E+17
1,E+16
1,E+16
1,E+15
1,E+15
1,E+14 1,E+14
1,E+13 1,E+13

1,E+12 1,E+12

1,E+11 1,E+11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
UV test duration (hours) UV test duration (hours)

HTV Silicone EPDM HCEP EVA HTV silicone EPDM HCEP EVA

Figure 14: surface resistivity Figure 15 : Surface resistivity after 96 h

– laboratory B drying – laboratory B

20
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV test chamber of laboratory B
3 – Hardness measurement

The test was performed at laboratory B for the soft materials (HTV Silicone, EPDM, EVA),
according to ISO 868 standard (Hardness Shore A).

Table 14: Hardness test results – laboratory B

After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 79 80 80 83
EPDM 74 71 70 72
HCEP - - - -
EVA 95 92 92 92

The values measured do not show any significant modification of the hardness.

4 – Elongation at break test

The test was performed at

 laboratory S for the soft materials (HTV Silicone, EPDM), according to ISO 37
standard.
 laboratory T for EVA, according to ISO 37 standard
 laboratory H for HCEP according to ISO527

Table 15: Elongation test results – laboratory B

Elongation at break (%) (5 samples / material)
After 1000 After 2500 After5000
Before UV hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure exposure exposure exposure
HTV Median 249 96 69 55
HTV Silicone HTV Max 256 100 73 70
HTV min 248 65 64 50
EPDM Median 275 180 189 184
EPDM EPDM Max 287 192 195 192
EPDM min 267 162 166 165
HCEP Median 1,30 1,19 1,08 0,98
HCEP HCEP Max 1,32 1,23 1,15 1,02
HCEP min 0,74 1,14 0,86 0,96
EVA Median 421 254 369 455
EVA EVA Max 444 374 445 470
EVA min 370 142 230 243

21
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV test chamber of laboratory B
5 – Tracking and erosion test

The test was performed at laboratory B, according to IEC 60587, following the method 1 with
a constant voltage adjusted at 3,5 kV during 6 hours:

Table 16: Tracking and erosion test result – laboratory B

Erosion Erosion A criteria B criteria Class
Constant voltage: 3,5 kV
depth length < 60mA < 25mm kV
6 hours
(mm) (mm) (min)
HTV Silicone
Initial 0,7 11 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
After 5000 h Fluor. UV exp. 0,4 5,6 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
EPDM
Initial 1,3 5,0 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
After 5000 h Fluor. UV exp. 2 1,6 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
HCEP
Initial 0,1 2,8 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
After 5000 h Fluor. UV exp. 0,1 3,6 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
EVA
Initial 0,9 4,2 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5
After 5000 h Fluor. UV exp. 2,9 7,6 OK OK 1A, 1B 3,5

HCR EPDM

EPOXY
EVA

Figure 16: Erosion and tracking –laboratory B

22
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T

ANNEX 2
Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T

Xenon arc test chamber: Atlas Xenotest alpha high energy

Fluorescent UV test chamber: Atlas UVCON UC-327-2

1 – Visual aspect

Figure 17: visual aspect – HTV Silicone rubber – laboratory T

23
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T

Figure 18: Visual aspect – EVA, EPDM and HCEP – laboratory T

24
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T
Comments: A slight discoloration for EPDM and more pronounced for HCEP after UV
fluorescent test can be observed. EVA and HTV Silicone do not show any modification

2 – Surface resistivity

The test was performed at laboratory T, according to ASTM D 257 [13].

Measuring equipment: HP 4339A – Direct reading – guarded electrode 5 kg pressure – 40
mm2 – 2 minutes – 1000V

Table 17: Surface resistivity test results – laboratory T

Surface resistivity (Ohm) – Fluorescent UV test
After After After
Before UV
1000 hours UV 2500 hours UV 5000 hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 7,5E+14 - - 1,5E+14
EPDM 2,2E+16 - - 5,2E+14
HCEP 2,2E+17 7,8E+14 2,1E+14 3,5E+15
EVA 1,3E+14 4,3E+14 1,2E+15 1,9E+15

Surface resistivity (Ohm) –Xenon arc test

After After After
Before UV
1000 hours UV 2500 hours UV 5000 hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 7,5E+14 - - 6,7E+14
EPDM 2,2E+16 - - -
HCEP 2,2E+17 - - -
EVA 1,3E+14 - - 1,9E+16

Surface resistivity Surface resistivity

Fluorescent test – laboratory T Xenon test – laboratory T
1,E+18
1,E+18
1,E+17
1,E+17
1,E+16
1,E+16

1,E+15
1,E+15

1,E+14 1,E+14

1,E+13 1,E+13

1,E+12 1,E+12

1,E+11
1,E+11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
UV test duration (hours)
UV test duration (hours)

HTV silicone rubber EPDM HCEP EVA

HTV silicone ubber EVA

Figure 19: surface resistivity test results – Figure 20: surface resistivity test results –
UV test laboratory T Xenon arc test laboratory T

3 – Hardness measurement

The test was performed at laboratory T, according to ISO 868 standard.

Test device: Zwick 7206 – (Hardness Shore D).

25
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T

Table 18: Hardness test results – laboratory T

Fluorescent UV test
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 20-21 20-21 20-21 20-21
EPDM 22-23 22-23 22-23 23-24
HCEP - - - -
EVA 44-46 44-46 44-46 44-45

Xenon arc test

Before UV After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
exposure hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 20-21 23-24 22-23 23-24
EPDM - - -
HCEP - - - -
EVA 44-46 44-45 44-45 44-45

The values measured do not show any significant modification of the hardness.

4 – Elongation at break test

The test was performed at laboratory T for the soft materials (Silicone, EPDM, EVA),
according to ISO 37 standard.
Test device: Instron 4302 – Crosshead speed 100 mm/min – optical extensometer.

Table 19
Elongation at break (%) (5 samples / material)
Fluorescent UV test
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Median 244 202 134 93
HTV Silicone HTV Max 269 232 148 100
HTV min 219 172 120 85
EPDM Median 286 244 223 143
EPDM EPDM Max 300 254 239 150
EPDM min 300 234 207 135
HCEP Median - - - -
HCEP HCEP Max - - - -
HCEP min - - - -
EVA Median 606 485 522 445
EVA EVA Max 696 512 569 460
EVA min 515 457 474 430

26
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory T
Table 20: elongation test results – laboratory T
Elongation at break (%) (5 samples / material)
Xenon arc test
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Median 244 260 202 113
HTV Silicone HTV Max 269 286 234 125
HTV min 219 237 196 100
EPDM Median - - - -
EPDM EPDM Max
EPDM min
HCEP Median - - - -
HCEP HCEP Max
HCEP min
EVA Median 606 373 482 440
EVA EVA Max 696 445 528 443
EVA min 515 301 436 405

5 – Tracking and erosion test

The test was performed at laboratory T, according to IEC 60587.

Test device: Henry A Patterson & Partners TER 10K
Internal specific test procedure: stepwise procedure with a 10 hours duration.

Table 21: Tracking and erosion test results – laboratory T

Voltage
Test Erosion Erosion
Level B criteria Class
duration depth length
(kV) < 25mm kV
(h:min) (mm) (mm)
Start End
HTV Silicone
Initial 2,5 4,75 10:00 - > 25mm Failure (3/5) NA
After 5000h fluor.UV exp 2,5 4,75 06:02 Hole < 25mm Failure (1/2) NA
After 5000h Xenon exp. 2,5 4,75 10:00 Hole < 25mm Failure (1/2) NA
EPDM
Initial 2,5 4,75 10:00 - < 25mm OK NA
After 5000h fluor.UV exp 2,5 4,75 10:00 - < 25mm OK NA
After 5000h Xenon exp. - - - - - - -
HCEP
Initial 2,5 4,75 10:00 - Tracking Failure (3/5) NA
After 5000h fluor.UV exp 2,5 4,75 10:00 - > 25mm Failure (2/5) NA
After 5000h Xenon exp. - - - - - - -
EVA
Initial 2,5 4,25 10:00 - < 25mm OK NA
After 5000h fluor.UV exp 2,5 4,75 10:00 - < 25mm OK NA
After 5000h Xenon exp. 2,5 4,75 07:02 Hole >25 mm Failure (1/2) NA

These test results do not show any significant difference before or after UV exposure.

27
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory H

ANNEX 3
Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory H

Xenon test chamber: Atlas WeatherOmeter CI 5000

Fluorescent chamber: Weiss system type UV200SB/20DU

1 – Visual aspect

HTV Silicone EPDM

HCEP EVA
Figure 21: Visual aspect – laboratory H

 HTV Silicone: a slight discoloration is observed after 2500 hours in both the xenon
and UV fluorescent test.
 EPDM: discoloration and chalking are observed after 1000 hours in the UV
fluorescent test.
 HCEP:
o a slight discoloration is observed from 1000 hours in both the UV fluorescent
and Xenon tests.
o Chalking and a roughness increase of the exposed surface is observed after
5000 hours in both the UV fluorescent and Xenon tests.
 EVA:
o a slight discoloration is observed after 1000 hours in both tests.
o a slight chalking and bending of the samples are observed after 5000 hours in
the UV fluorescent test.

28
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory H
2 – Surface resistivity

The test was performed at laboratory H, by mean of a Keithley 8009 test device. The
measurement was performed after two days at 23°C and 50% RH.
Preparation of the samples : none
The results are given in the tables below:

Table 22: Surface resistivity – laboratory H

Fluorescent UV lamp test – Surface resistivity (Ohm)
After After After
Before UV
1000 hours UV 2500 hours UV 5000 hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 9,1E+14 1,7E+16 8,1E+15 4,1E+15
EPDM 1,8E+16 1,7E+16 1,7E+16 2,5E+16
HCEP 9,9E+15 3,5E+16 1,6E+16 1,6E+16
EVA 3,0E+15 1,2E+16 1,6E+16 1,7E+16

Xenon test – Surface resistivity (Ohm)

After After After
Before UV
1000 hours UV 2500 hours UV 5000 hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone 9,1E+14 2,3E+16 1,3E+16 8,7E+15
EPDM 1,8E+16 - - -
HCEP 9,9E+15 9,4E+15 1,1E+16 1,7E+14
EVA 3,0E+15 8,4E+15 1,2E+16 8,0E+15

Surface resistivity Surface resistivity

Fluorescent test – laboratory H Xenon test – laboratory H

1,E+18 1,E+18

1,E+17 1,E+17

1,E+16 1,E+16

1,E+15 1,E+15

1,E+14 1,E+14

1,E+13 1,E+13

1,E+12 1,E+12

1,E+11 1,E+11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
UV test duration (hours) UV test duration (hours)

HTV siliconer EPDM HCEP EVA HTV silicone HCEP EVA

Figure 22 : surface resistivity test results Figure 23 surface resistivity test results –
– Fluorescent UV test laboratory H Xenon arc test laboratory H

29
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory H
3 – Hardness measurement

The test was performed at laboratory H, according to ISO 868 standard

Table 23: Hardness test results –laboratory H

Fluorescent UV test
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone (Shore A) 72 - - 83
EPDM (Shore A) 72 - - 77
HCEP (Shore D) 43 - - 45
EVA (Shore D) 91 - - 92

Xenon arc test

Before UV After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
exposure hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Silicone (Shore A) 72 - - 80
EPDM (Shore A) - - - -
HCEP (Shore D) 43 - - 44
EVA (Shore D) 91 - - 92

4 – Elongation at break test

The test was performed at laboratory H, according to ISO 527 standard.

Table 24: Elongation test results – Fluorescent UV test at laboratory H

Elongation at break (%) (5 samples / material)
Fluorescent UV test.
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Median 188 145 100 85
HTV Silicone HTV Max
HTV min
EPDM Median 180 140 140 135
EPDM EPDM Max
EPDM min
HCEP Median 1,29 1,19 1,11 0,99
HCEP HCEP Max
HCEP min
EVA Median 422 397 412 396
EVA EVA Max
EVA min

30
 Material characteristic verification on samples exposed in
Fluorescent UV and Xenon arc test chambers of laboratory H

Table 25: Elongation test results – Xenon arc test at laboratory H

Elongation at break (%) (5 samples / material)
Xenon arc test
After 1000 After 2500 After 5000
Before UV
hours UV hours UV hours UV
exposure
exposure exposure exposure
HTV Average 188 136 120 85
HTV Silicone HTV Max
HTV min
EPDM Average 180 - - -
EPDM EPDM Max
EPDM min
HCEP Average 1,29 0,9 0,93 0,84
HCEP HCEP Max
HCEP min
EVA Average 422 326 361 398
EVA EVA Max
EVA min

5 – Tracking and erosion test

The test was performed at laboratory H, according to IEC 60587, procedure 2. The initial test
was performed starting from 2,0 kV level.
Before testing, the samples were sanded and cleaned with isopropyl alcohol and distilled
water.

Table 26: Tracking and erosion test – laboratory H

Voltage
Test Erosion Erosion
Level B criteria Class
duration depth length
(kV) < 25mm kV
(h:min) (mm) (mm)
Start End
HTV Silicone
Initial 2 3 3:53 >6 26 Failure(3/5) 2B 2,75
After 5000h fluor. UV exp 1 3 8:53 5,6 27 Failure 2B 2,75
After 5000h Xenon exp. - - - - - - -
EPDM
Initial 2 6 17:00 3,6 14 OK 2B 6
After 5000h fluor. UV exp 3,5 6 11:00 4,4 17 OK 2B 6
After 5000h Xenon exp. - - - - - - -
HCEP
Initial 2 6 17:00 0,5 Light OK 2B 6
After 5000h fluor. UV exp 3,5 4 2:03 1 50 Failure(1/2) 2B 3,75
After 5000h Xenon exp. - - - - - - -
EVA
Initial 2 4,75 10:40 >6 - OK 2B 4,5
After 5000h fluor. UV exp 2,5 6 15:00 5,8 11 OK 2B 6
After 5000h Xenon exp. - - - - - - -

31
 ANNEX 4
Characteristic energy and wave length of chemical bonds

Wave length λ = hc / E
Where: h = Planck’s constant = 6.63 E-34
c = 2.99792458E+08 (ms)
E = chemical bond energy (J)

Wave length
Kcal/mol KJ/mol
nm
Si - O 106 443 270
C-O 80 334 358
Si - C 75 313 382
C-C 85 355 337
C-H 99 414 289

Constant from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics - 75 edition -

32
 REFERENCES

[1] Cigré, “Material properties for non-ceramic outdoor insulation”, WG D1.14, brochure
255, august 2004.
[2] International Standard Organisation, “Plastics-Method of exposure to laboratory light
sources-Part 2: Xenon-arc lamps”, ISO 4892-2.
[3] International Standard Organisation, “Plastics-Method of exposure to laboratory light
sources-Part 3: Fluorescent UV lamps”, ISO 4892-3.
[4] International Standard Organisation, “Plastics-Method of exposure to laboratory light
sources-Part 4: Open-flame carbon-arc lamps”, ISO 4892-4.
[5] Norme Française, “Composants électroniques – Matériaux de faible corrosivité pour
isolation et gainage des câbles de communication ayant des propriétés particulières en
comportement au feu », NF C32-062-1, 1995.
[6] Jacques Lemaire, « Predicting polymer durability », Chemtec, pp 42-47, october 1996.
[7] C. de Tourreil, P. Bourdon, J Lanteigne, “Ageing of composite insulators caused by
service and simulated service conditions”, Cigre session 1986, 15-01.
[8] International Electrotechnical Commission, “Methods of test for volume resistivity and
surface resistivity of solid electrcal insulating matetials”, CEI 93, 1980.
[9] International Standard Organisation, “Plastics and Ebonite - Determination of indentation
hardness by means of a durometer (Shore hardness)”, ISO 868 - 2003.
[10] International Standard Organisation, “Plastics and Ebonite - Determination of indentation
hardness by means of a durometer (Shore hardness)”, ISO 37 - 1994.
[11] International Standard Organisation, “Plastics - Determination of tensile properties”, ISO
527-1 – 1996.
[12] International Electrotechnical Commission, “Electrical insulating materialsused under
severe ambient conditions – Test methods for evaluating resistance to tracking and
erosion”, CEI 60587, 2007.
[13] Atlas SEPAP 12-24 chamber (4 x 100 W/m2)

33