Aging characterization of electrical insulation papers impregnated with synthetic ester and mineral oil: Correlations between mechanical properties, depolymerization and some chemical markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a comparative study of two types of transformer solid insulation: standard Kraft and thermally upgraded Kraft papers. The paper samples were impregnated with two different fluids, namely a synthetic dielectric ester fluid, Midel 7131, and a synthesized mineral oil, Luminol Tri. The impregnated papers were submitted to, accelerated aging at 150°C, temperature higher than the temperatures found inside transformers, for extended periods. The results show that for the first hours of aging, the cellulose depolymerization was similar for all the four studied cases. At a specific point, the paper samples aged in the ester fluid exhibited a lower depolymerization exceeding the 8000 hours of aging without reaching the levelling-off degree of polymerization (LODP). A similar trend was observed through the decrease of mechanical properties of papers in the ester-based oil. However, the difference in performance of both fluids was amplified due to the temperature used; at lower temperatures the difference should be smaller. Additionally, a relationship between the degree of polymerization and the mechanical properties accessed by the tensile testing was obtained regardless of the type of paper or oil. The total acidity in the ester fluid was higher than in mineral oil. Methanol, a chemical marker that is closely linked to the rupture of 1,4-ß-glycosidic bonds of cellulose, showed a partial sensitivity to the cellulose aging in the ester fluid. Furan (C4H4O) content was monitored during the aging and its concentration was found to be sensitive to the depolymerization along with the decrease in the mechanical properties of cellulose papers regardless of the type of paper. More importantly, its concentration was found to be dependent on the type of oil. More investigations are needed to further confirm the importance of furan as an indirect indicator of the mechanical performance along with its correlation with the depolymerization of paper aged in ester fluids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".