Figure 1.
Schematic diagram of inclined plane test. The silicone rubber sample was fixed onto an inclined plane by two electrodes and contaminated liquid was dropped to the sample via filter paper.
Figure 1.
Schematic diagram of inclined plane test. The silicone rubber sample was fixed onto an inclined plane by two electrodes and contaminated liquid was dropped to the sample via filter paper.
Figure 2.
Schematic diagram of the LIBS setup. The LIBS setup includes a laser, a spectrometer, a digital delay generator, a computer and an optics system.
Figure 2.
Schematic diagram of the LIBS setup. The LIBS setup includes a laser, a spectrometer, a digital delay generator, a computer and an optics system.
Figure 3.
Failure time of IPT for different samples with different ATH contents under 3.5 kV test conditions.
Figure 3.
Failure time of IPT for different samples with different ATH contents under 3.5 kV test conditions.
Figure 4.
Thermogravimetric curve of silicone rubber (#23) whose ATH filler and silica filler mass fraction is 1.0 and 0.3, respectively, under a heating rate of 5 °C/K.
Figure 4.
Thermogravimetric curve of silicone rubber (#23) whose ATH filler and silica filler mass fraction is 1.0 and 0.3, respectively, under a heating rate of 5 °C/K.
Figure 5.
Emission spectrum of the new HTV silicone rubber for the first shot, while the mass fraction of its ATH and silica filler is 1.0 and 0.3, respectively.
Figure 5.
Emission spectrum of the new HTV silicone rubber for the first shot, while the mass fraction of its ATH and silica filler is 1.0 and 0.3, respectively.
Figure 6.
Emission spectrum of new HTV silicone rubber with no additional ATH and silica filler.
Figure 6.
Emission spectrum of new HTV silicone rubber with no additional ATH and silica filler.
Figure 7.
Emission spectrum of new silicone rubber with no silica filler, while the mass fraction of ATH is 1.5.
Figure 7.
Emission spectrum of new silicone rubber with no silica filler, while the mass fraction of ATH is 1.5.
Figure 8.
Emission spectrum of new silicone rubber with no ATH filler, while the mass fraction of silica filler is 0.3.
Figure 8.
Emission spectrum of new silicone rubber with no ATH filler, while the mass fraction of silica filler is 0.3.
Figure 9.
Relationship between actual ATH content and thermal mass loss in the first stage of thermogravimetric analysis.
Figure 9.
Relationship between actual ATH content and thermal mass loss in the first stage of thermogravimetric analysis.
Figure 10.
Relationship between base resin content and thermal mass loss in the second stage of thermogravimetric analysis.
Figure 10.
Relationship between base resin content and thermal mass loss in the second stage of thermogravimetric analysis.
Figure 11.
Normalized Al atomic line (Al I 308.2 nm) average intensity of samples with different ATH content; blue, red, yellow and violet points correspond to the silicone rubber samples classified as 1A0, 1A2.5, 1A3.5 and 1A4.5, respectively.
Figure 11.
Normalized Al atomic line (Al I 308.2 nm) average intensity of samples with different ATH content; blue, red, yellow and violet points correspond to the silicone rubber samples classified as 1A0, 1A2.5, 1A3.5 and 1A4.5, respectively.
Figure 12.
Intensity ratio of Si I 566.5 nm to C II 514.3 nm for samples with different resin content.
Figure 12.
Intensity ratio of Si I 566.5 nm to C II 514.3 nm for samples with different resin content.
Figure 13.
Intensity ratio of Si I 300.8 nm to O II 440.5 nm for samples with different silica filler content.
Figure 13.
Intensity ratio of Si I 300.8 nm to O II 440.5 nm for samples with different silica filler content.
Figure 14.
Relationship between the intensity ratio of Mg II 309.7 nm to Mg I 316.8 nm and the tracking and erosion resistance grade.
Figure 14.
Relationship between the intensity ratio of Mg II 309.7 nm to Mg I 316.8 nm and the tracking and erosion resistance grade.
Figure 15.
Relationship between the intensity ratio of Mg II 309.7 nm to Mg I 361.3 nm and the tracking and erosion resistance grade.
Figure 15.
Relationship between the intensity ratio of Mg II 309.7 nm to Mg I 361.3 nm and the tracking and erosion resistance grade.
Figure 16.
Distribution of spectral sets of samples for different tracking and erosion resistance performance in the new coordinate space.
Figure 16.
Distribution of spectral sets of samples for different tracking and erosion resistance performance in the new coordinate space.
Figure 17.
Confusion matrix of the neural network algorithm using the MATLAB neural net pattern recognition toolbox.
Figure 17.
Confusion matrix of the neural network algorithm using the MATLAB neural net pattern recognition toolbox.
Table 1.
Concentrations of 27 samples. The numerical value represents mass fraction taking resin content as a reference.
Table 1.
Concentrations of 27 samples. The numerical value represents mass fraction taking resin content as a reference.
Index | Resin | ATH | Silica | Other Assistance |
---|
1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
2 | 1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
3 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
4 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
5 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
6 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.264 |
7 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.264 |
8 | 1 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
9 | 1 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
10 | 1 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
11 | 1 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
12 | 1 | 0.75 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
13 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.264 |
14 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
15 | 1 | 0.85 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
16 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
17 | 1 | 0.95 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
18 | 1 | 1.05 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.264 |
20 | 1 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
21 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
22 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
23 | 1 | 1 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
24 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.264 |
25 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.264 |
26 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.264 |
27 | 1 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.264 |
Table 2.
Configuration of the inclined plane test for different testing levels.
Table 2.
Configuration of the inclined plane test for different testing levels.
Test Voltage (kV) | Preferred Test Voltage (kV) | Contaminant Flow Rate mL/min | Series Resistor, Resistance (kΩ) |
---|
2.0–2.75 | 2.5 | 0.15 | 10 |
3.0–3.75 | 3.5 | 0.3 | 22 |
4.0–4.75 | 4.5 | 0.6 | 33 |
Table 3.
Grading criterion for the inclined plane test.
Table 3.
Grading criterion for the inclined plane test.
Classification Result | Test Voltage—2.5 kV | Test Voltage—3.5 kV | Test Voltage—4.5 kV |
---|
1A0 | fail | - | - |
1A2.5 | pass | fail | - |
1A3.5 | - | pass | fail |
1A4.5 | - | - | pass |
Table 4.
The results of the inclined plane test for all the samples.
Table 4.
The results of the inclined plane test for all the samples.
Index | ATH | Silica | Tracking and Erosion Resistance Classification |
---|
1 | 0.05 | 0.3 | 1A0 |
2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
3 | 0.15 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
5 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1A2.5 |
7 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1A2.5 |
8 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1A4.5 |
9 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1A4.5 |
10 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 1A4.5 |
11 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 1A4.5 |
12 | 0.75 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
13 | 1.5 | 0 | 1A4.5 |
14 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1A3.5 |
15 | 0.85 | 0.3 | 1A3.5 |
16 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 1A3.5 |
17 | 0.95 | 0.3 | 1A3.5 |
18 | 1.05 | 0.3 | 1A3.5 |
19 | 0 | 0 | 1A0 |
20 | 0 | 0.3 | 1A0 |
21 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
22 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1A2.5 |
23 | 1 | 0.3 | 1A3.5 |
24 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1A4.5 |
25 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 1A4.5 |
26 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 1A4.5 |
27 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 1A4.5 |
Table 5.
Summary of the tracking and erosion resistance classification for all samples and the corresponding test condition.
Table 5.
Summary of the tracking and erosion resistance classification for all samples and the corresponding test condition.
ATH Content Range | Tracking and Erosion Resistance Grade |
---|
0–5 | 1A0 |
10–75 | 1A2.5 |
80–105 | 1A3.5 |
110–150 | 1A4.5 |
Table 6.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples below 1A0 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Table 6.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples below 1A0 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Classification | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|
1A0 | 96.3% | 100.0% | 99.7% |
1A2.5 | 3.7% | 0.0% | 0.3% |
1A3.5 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
1A4.5 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Table 7.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples classified as 1A2.5 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Table 7.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples classified as 1A2.5 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Classification | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|
1A0 | 2.3% | 0.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
1A2.5 | 97.7% | 99.3% | 99.9% | 99.6% |
1A3.5 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
1A4.5 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.3% |
Table 8.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples classified as 1A3.5 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Table 8.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples classified as 1A3.5 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Classification | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|
1A0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
1A2.5 | 31.3% | 6.8% | 0.2% | 0.3% |
1A3.5 | 57.6% | 75.7% | 99.3% | 99.0% |
1A4.5 | 11.3% | 17.6% | 0.4% | 0.7% |
Table 9.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples classified as 1A 4.5 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Table 9.
Recognition results of the tracking and erosion resistance of samples classified as 1A 4.5 using the LIBS technique based on the neural network algorithm.
Classification | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|
1A0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
1A2.5 | 4.3% | 0.7% | 3.1% | 1.8% |
1A3.5 | 6.9% | 1.4% | 2.2% | 0.6% |
1A4.5 | 88.8% | 97.9% | 94.8% | 97.9% |