Conference Record of the 19% IEEE International Symposium on Electrical Insulation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 16-19,1996

EFFECT OF NEW CLEANING SOLVENTS

ON ELECTRICA INSULATlON MATERIALS
L. Lamarre, N. Amyot, M. Durand and C. Laverdure
Hydro-Quebec (IREQ), 1800 Monlee Ste-Julie, Varennes, Quebec, CANADA, J3X 1S1

Abstract: Trichloroethane which was often used to clean high
voltage cables (during installation of joints or terminations),
various accessories, generators and motors, now has to be
replaced by friendlier solvents to protect the ozone layer. Among
the new solvents considered,di-chloro-fluoroethanes prove to be
the best candidates; terpenes offered a cheaper alternative for
some applications. A set of various physical, chemical and
electrical tests was designed to assess compatibility and
preservation of long term electrical performance of the insulation
materials exposed to the cleaning solvent. Physical testing
includes swelling, decoloration and elongation at break
measurements. Chemical testing includes volatility, residue
analysis; attention was paid to the flash point. Electrical
performance was checked using tan 6, resistance to breakdown
and tracking tests.
INTRODUCTION
For the last 25 years, trichloroethane (Methylchloroform) has
been used at Hydro-Quebec as a cleaning (degreasing) solvent
for various electrical apparatuses. Applications varied from
using small volumes for cleaning extruded XLPE transport or
distribution cables before jointing or terminating to using large
volumes (i.e., -300 liters) for the cleaning of hydro-generators.
However, l,l,l-trichloroethane has been listed as an ozone
depleting chemical under the Montreal Protocol that mandates
the phase-out and eventual elimination of this substance [ l , 4,
51. These reasons made it necessary for utilities, solvent and
accessory manufacturers to find alternative solvents for cable
cleaning. The Montreal Protocol has specified a reduction of
its production of 50% by January 1994, of 85% by January
1995 and of 100% by January 1996. Scientists and Engineers
working in the field of electrical insulation materials have
since been looking for a replacement [4-111. For aspects
regarding cables, a committee is addressing the question at
ICC meetings [3].
Providing a clean insulation surface free from remaining
semiconductor residues, dirt, surface oils and moisture is one
of the most important preparation steps before installing a
molded joint on power cable to ensure lasting integrity.
l,l,l-Trichloroethane is well suited for this application. It has
no flash point, cleans oily and greasy soils extremely well,
dries very quickly, leaves no residue, is inexpensive and does
not affect the operation of cable's extruded components when
contact is limited to short-term exposure. However, like: other
electrical solvents, it has been under pressure for the last
several years because of the potential toxicity of its vapor.
A variety of cable cleaning solvents are currently proposed by
manufacturers as candidates for the replacement of
l , l , 1-trichloroethane while other solvents may also become
potential candidates for use in cable splicing [6, 71. I3efore
using any of these available alternates, a complete evaluation
of their suitability has to be done. To the present day, alternate
solvents that are effective as cable cleaners have been
evaluated by cable, accessory and solvent manufacturers and
also by some electrical utilities [8-111 and by Hydro-QuCbec
[12-151. Parameters that are usually consideIed far the
evaluation of cable cleaning solvents are reviewed in [3]. Most
of the solvent evaluations include evaporation rate,
flammability and cleaning effectiveness. Some evaluations
also included assessment of solvent compatibility with the
cable and splice materials, especially for the semicondiuctive
shielding layers which may come in contact with the solvent
during the cleaning operation.
Trichloroethylene, as well as terpenes (D-limonene) and a
newly synthesized molecule (1,l-dichloro- 1-fluoroelhane,
otherwise known as HCFC 141b), all became strong
candidates to replace trichloroethane. Therefore, this paper is
focusing more particularly cm these three candidates for
replacement of trichloroethanie: trichloroethylene, a terpene
based mix and pure HCFC 141b.
Among the numerous criteria to consider for a cleaning
solvent, the flash point ought to be given serious consideration.
Trichloroethylene has no flash point; so does the pure HCFC
141b. Hydrocarboflerpene blends have flash points of -60-
65°C whereas hydrocarbonM[CFC 141b blends are around
80°C.
COMPARISON OF SOLVENTS
This study includes the effect of four solvents on all materials
involved in splicing: semiconductive cable shield (carbon
black filled EVA), cable insulation (XLPE), splice insullation
(EPDM) and splice semiconductive material. Effects on the
epoxy insulations and on wedging materials of generators; bars
were also checked, but none W i B observed.

707
We have considered a number of physical and chemical
HCFC 141b
properties that a suitable cleaning solvent or mixture should
have. They fall into three categories: dielectric properties
Cable 011
(tan 6 , resistance to breakdown, resistivity), chemical
properties (volatility, compatibility with materials) and others
such as propensity to swell surrounding materials and practical
considerations such as ease of application and cost. Most
important of all, safety is the determining factor in making the
final choice.

Dielectric Properties
Breakdown voltages of the solvents were found to be very
satisfactory (Table I, showing breakdown voltages of the
cleaning solvents considered in this study).
Cable Oil + 1%Sdnnt

Loss Factor Analyses of ContaminatedCable Oil

I Table I 1
I Breakdown strength of solvents I
Solvent Breakdown Strength") Blend

l,l,l-Trichloroethane 26.8 f 1.9

1,l,2-Trichloroethylene I NIA
Hydrocarboflerpene Blend I 51.8 +: 4.1
1 HCFC 141b 18.1 rtr 3.2 1
According to ASTM D1816 (VDE electrodes, 2 mm apart).

In the unlikely event that the cleaning solvent contaminates

cable oil during the jointing of an oil cable with an extruded
type cable (i.e., the making of a transition joint), we have
measured the changes of tan 6 and resistivity of 1% mixture of
solvent and cable oil (shown in Figure 1). The solvents
considered were found to be good dielectrics and were not
found deleterious to cable oil as shown by tan 6 and resistivity Cable Oil + 1% Solwent

measurements. Resistivity Analyses of Contaminated Cable Oil

Regarding the possibility that some solvent could be left
behind on the surface of cable insulation (XLPE), it was felt
necessary (especially for transport cable) to check for the
resistance to interfacial breakdown (i.e., internal tracking
between joint and cable). A set up was built in order to verify,
at least partially, if a solvent contaminated interface could
withstand a certain value of voltage stress. Pieces of cable
XLPE and of joint EPDM were sandwiched together and held
under pressure. The interface between XLPE and EPDM was
previously soaked with solvent; two strips of aluminum were
laid across the interface to act as electrodes, and were
separated by 4 mm. Results show that all solvents in this study
did not weaken interfaces which held at least an average stress
of 4 kV/mm. For a 120 kV cable, this implies that interfaces
could be able to resist to -500 kV.
Figure 1. Effectof contaminating cable oil with the various solvents.
Changes in tan 6 (top) and in resistivity (bottom) are generally
without major consequence. Properties shown are for 1% solvent
content.
Volatility (Rate of Evaporation)
Table I1 gives a comparison of the volatility of the 4 solvents
chosen in this study. ASTM D1901-85 was used to find
relative evaporation times; although used for halogenated
solvents and their admixtures, it was found suitable for the
solvents in the present study. In this regard, the terpene based
solvent was found the most suitable and compares well with
trichloroethane .

708
 Using these curves to perform interpolations for short times, it
is possible to get values far a 5 minute exposition of the
surface to the solvents. Table I11 shows that swelling of the
materials involved is minor. In one of our study [15],
resistivity and breakdown voltage measurements on swollen
l , l , 1-Trichloroethane pieces cut from distribution cables and joints showed that
1,1,2-Trichloroethylene insulation materials were not !significantlyaffected.

Hydrocarboflerpene Blend
HCFC 141b

The evaporation rates were normalized with respect to that of

trichloroethane. A relative evaporation rate of 1 means 2.7 that
of ether and is obtained by taking the ratios of the respective
volumes evaporated per unit of time for a given quantity of
solvent.
HCFC 141b was found to be highly volatile (more so than
trichloroethane); therefore, this is a limitation when used in
degreasing applications such as for generators. A suitable
mixture in which a slower evaporating liquid is mixed with the
HCFC 141b is more desirable; the second slower evaporating
ingredient picks up dirt and greases and is later removed by
rinsing with pure HCFC 141b. A commercially available
mixture of HCFC 141b with aliphatic hydrocarbons was used Soaking of XLPE Insulationand Semi-conductiveLayer
for generators in our company; however, these hydrocarbons
brought down the flash point to 80°C, but nevertheless were
found safe to use since no live equipment was close.

Swelling Capacity
Although the occurrence of swelling in actual applications is
very unlikely, we wanted to use this criterion to help us make
the optimal choice. Only accidentally a solvent will be left in
contact with materials for a sufficient duration to allow any
swelling to be observable.
Most solvents, including trichloroethane, have the capability to
swell cable, joint or termination materials (semiconductor,
EPDM rubber). Figure 2 presents increase in weight of a piece
of cable XLPE cut with its insulation shield (semiconductive)
still on it, when totally immersed in the 4 solvents for a very
long time (144 hours). While minor swelling was noticed for I
Drying Duratlan (hours)
insulation =PE, it was more serious for the semiconductive
layer; the terpene blend and the HCFC 141b performed better Drvine of the XLPE Insulation and Semi-conductiveLayer
in this otherwise extreme test. Figure 3 shows the same
experiments for joint materials; pieces of insulating EPDM Figure 2. (Top) Weight increase of a piece of cable (piece of XLPE
from a 120 kV premolded cable joint were cut with some
with semiconductive screen on it) during total immersion. (Bottom)
semiconductive rubber on them. As expected, swelling was
Subsequent drying when piece is left in ambient air to allow solvent
important for EPDM rubber.
to desorb.

709
 Other Considerations
Trichloroethylene was found to be a potential carcinogenic.
Solvent % Weight Increase Safety aspects gave support to the no-flash point solvent when
work has to be done in the proximity of live apparatus; in
those cases, pure HCFC 141b is the only one choice.
I l,l,l-Trichloroethane I 0.22% 1 0.37% I Cost comparisons are shown in Table IV. HCFC 141b is rather
I 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene I 0.76% I 0.93% I costly; for large volume applications, such as the cleaning of
generators or motors, terpenes are an interesting alternative.
Hydrocarboflerpene Blend 0.09% 0.17%
HCFC 141b 0.15% 0.26%

Relative Cost

- 0.5 I
I

1,l,ZTrichloroethylene
I HydrocarbonlTerpene Blend I - 1.25 I
HCFC 141b 2-3

Elongation at break experiments, performed on specimens

soaked in solvents and subsequently dried, show that
insulation materials retain good mechanical properties [ 151.

- SoaLingDu~ation(lloun) - CONCLUSION
Soaking of 120 kV Cable Joint Materials
Prime candidates for the replacement of trichloroethane are

I '7 HCFC 141b and terpenes. The former is superior in terms of

flash point but the latter is cheaper by a factor of 2 to 3. We
have found that both perform very well and affect only slightly
dielectric and mechanical properties. Trichloroethylene is
perhaps more toxic and maybe carcinogenic. Moreover, among
I '"'I the 4 solvents considered in this study, it does not stand out as
far superior with respect to the other ones in the comparison
tests shown here. So why bother increasing the risk of health
hazard?

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Ms P.E. Beaudoin and D. Jean for
help in conducting experimental work. Discussions with
H. Krizou, P. Bourassa, M. Bissada and J.P. Banville also
Drying Duration (hwrs)
contributed to set objectives regarding specific applications
Drying of 120 kV Cable Joint Materials (Distribution cables, Transport cables and Generators
respectively) for this work.
Figure 3. (Top) Weight increase of a piece of cable joint (piece of
EPDM with semiconductive screen on it) during total immersion.
(Bottom) Subsequent drying when piece is left in ambient air to allow
solvent to desorb.

710
REFERENCES 8. Perry D.D., Bolcar J.P., "Effects of Degreasing Solvents on
Conductive Separable Connector Shields and Semicondiictive
1. Montreal Protocol Conferences. Montreal 1987; London 1990;
Cable Shields", 1989 IEEEYPES T&D Conf., 89 TD 362-5
Copenhagen 1992.
PWRD.
2. Smith J.T.111, "Cable Cleaning Solvents: Their Use and
9. Wilcox D.P., Hunder D.N., "Cable Cleaning Solvents:
Evaluation", IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag., Vol. 9, No. 1, p p 18-21,
Environmental Issues and Effective Replacements", IEEE Trans
1993.
Power Del., Vol. 7, Iss. 2, pp. 1023-6, 1992.
3. ICC Committee; project 10-54 "Guide for alternative Cleaning
10. Yellow, J., Compatibility Testing Procedures and Results for
Solvents for Electrical Cables".
Plastics and Elastomers Used with Alternative Cleaning Agents",
Chairman: Gene Weitz.
Proc. 40th Electronic Comp. Techno]. Conf., Vol. 1, pp.258-60,
4. Walitsky P.J., "The Effect of the Clean Air Act on The 1990.
ElectricalElectronics Industry", Proc. 20th Electr. Electron.
11. Fee J., "Don't let Solvents Degrade Cable Shields", Electr.
Insul. Conf., #91CH2991-8, pp.78-81, 1991.
World., p. 48, 1991.
5. Richards B.P., Lodge K.J., Andrews D.C., "CFCs, Ozone
12. Amyot N., "Expertise sur leis solvants de nettoyage pour cables
Depletion and their Impact on the Electronics Industry. L.
extrudCs", IREQ Internal report #92-306, 1992.
Background', Eng. Science Educ. Jour., Vol. 1, Iss. 3,
pp. 131-41, 1992. 13. Durand M., Lamarre L., "Identification de nouveaux solvilnts de
nettoyage pour les alternateurs pour remplacer le
6 Lea C., "Solvent Altematives for the 1990s", Electron. Com.
l,l,l-trichloroCthane", IREQ Intemal report 94-350, 1994..
Eng. Jour., Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 53-62, 1991.
14. Laverdure C., Lamarre L., "Identification de nouveaux solvants
7. Hayes M.E., "Semi-aqueous Cleaning: An Alternative to
de nettoyage pour les c2bles haute tension pour remplacer le
Halogenated Solvents", 40th Electron. Comp. Techno]. Conf.,
I,l,l-trichloro6thane", IREQ Internal report 95-378, 1995.
#9G€H2893-6, pp. 247-52, 1990.
15. Amyot N., "Evaluation de solvants de nettoyage pour cables
extrudCs", IREQ Intemal report 95- 18 1, 1995.

71 1