Ensuring Reliability of Carbon Fiber Composite (CFC) Core

through Design Validation Tests specified in ASTM B987

1. What is ASTM B987:

ASTM B987, the standard specification for Carbon Fiber Thermoset Polymer Matrix Composite Core
(CFC) for use in Overhead Electrical Conductors, is an industry leading and internationally recognized
standard for testing and validating carbon fiber composite core strength members used in overhead
transmission lines. The B987 standard details the type and routine testing requirements and minimum
acceptance criteria that CFC’s must meet in order to qualify and be used in overhead conductors.
Important parameters such as tensile strength, elastic modulus, bend capability and galvanic layer
thickness all have minimum acceptance criteria. There are also long-term thermal aging requirements
to ensure that strength loss over time due to high temperature operation, still ensures good tensile
strength over the service life of the conductor.

B987 requires that a Design Validation Report be available to show the purchaser that their product
meets the specified strength grade and thermal aging requirements outlined in this standard. In many
utilities around the word, the ASTM B987 Design Validation report must be submitted at the time of
bid, which requires CFC manufacturers to have already performed this testing prior to bidding on
projects. Steel standards such as IEC 60888 or ASTM B498 also lay out specific requirements and
ASTM B987 for CFC’s is written with similar testing requirements. Thus, it is important that a CFC
manufacturer meets a specific standard so the utility can be confident the design of the CFC product
will meet the application requirements and be able to withstand the rigors of a 40 to 50-year service
life.

2. History of ASTM B987:

A standard for carbon fiber composite strength member for overhead transmissions lines was first
introduced to ASTM B01 Electrical Conductors Committee in October 2010. The first ASTM B987 draft
Specification for Composite Cores was first published in late 2014. The specification at that time had
been through several subcommittee and full committee votes before it was adopted and published
by ASTM as B987-14. The B01 committee consisted of members from companies that produce
overhead conductor (aluminium and copper based), representation from utilities such as Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) and Pepco, both major utilities in the United States, OPGW manufacturers
and steel and other composite core manufacturers. Thus, B987 was only adopted after several years
of answering committee questions and concerns and negotiating with other interested parties that
wanted to make a composite core conductor. Since 2014, only small changes to B987 have been voted
on by the B01 committee to offer clarification to terms (-17 and -20 versions) and the galvanic
thickness specification (-17 version). In 2017 CTC Global introduced a draft specification for conductors
utilizing composite cores, and this standard is still being voted on and negotiated today.

3. What is Design Validation:

Design validation is the practical exercise of determining that the design of a product meets the
functional and minimum requirements specified for the product, by means of chemical, mechanical,
and physical testing.
4. Importance of Design Validation test:

Validation to an industry standard allows components to be commercially released in the market with
confidence. Validation is vital for determining whether newly designed products using composite
materials meet demanding design and operational performance requirements.

5. Design validation test of composite core:

Composite materials, consisting of reinforced fibers embedded in a polymer or metal matrix material,
are playing an increasingly important role in overhead conductor designs because they have high
strength and stiffness, low thermal expansion, good damage tolerance, and excellent fatigue
properties, as well as resistance to chemical attack and environmental degradation. Composite
components promise higher performance vs. conventional materials, and as composites replace the
conventional metals used throughout all industries, testing of these composites requires a high level
of scrutiny to ensure these new materials meet the requirements of their intended use. As a result,
testing to validate performance is a priority.

ASTM B987, the specification for composite cores used in overhead conductors, specifies certain
minimum chemical and structural requirements that the design is validated against. These properties
are then validated at two levels:
1. To confirm manufacturability and ensure the design meets the requirements of the overhead
conductor application.
2. To scrutinise structural performance of the composite core in a controlled (often extreme
condition) environment to prove capability when operating at the extremes of the real-world
operating environment.

6. Definition of Design Validation test as per ASTM B987:

The purpose of these tests is to verify the suitability of the CFC [Carbon Fiber Composite] design,
materials, and method of manufacturing to meet the requirements in the specification. To ensure
compliance with the specification, tests are performed on composite core samples at the time of
manufacture and are repeated whenever the design, manufacturing method or the materials have
changed.

7. Why Design Validation Test Reports should be a requirement at the time of bid in all tenders:

The intent of the Design Validation Report, a requirement in Section 8 of ASTM B987, is to require a
composite core manufacturer to submit testing results that prove the design of the composite core
meets the minimum requirements needed for a composite core to perform as the strength member
of an overhead conductor. The requirement for a validation test report ensures that all composite
core manufacturers have proof their design has been validated against the industry minimum
requirements. When an overhead conductor manufacturer bids a composite core conductor on a
project, the manufacturer should provide proof the design already meets industry minimums. ASTM
B987 requires that these tests are carried out by the manufacturer once and repeated whenever there
is a change in design, manufacturing method or the material. ASTM B987 says the following tests are
to be performed on composite core as Routine Tests.
8. A statement to add into Technical Specification is proposed:

To ensure compliance with this specification, bidder shall submit a Design Validation Test Report for
the previously performed tests as per ASTM B987 on the class of core being offered, and it must be
performed by an ISO/IEC 17025 Accredited Laboratory. The purpose of these tests is to verify the
suitability of the Carbon Fiber Composite (CFC) core design, materials, and method of manufacturing
to meet the requirements in this specification.

9. ASTM B987 Tests on Carbon Fiber Composite Core to Validate the Design

ASTM B987, which was recently updated from B987-17e1 to B987-20, lists tests and their requirements
for the composite core to meet the needs of the overhead conductor application. The test
requirements are listed below. While ATSM B987 does not specifically state that these tests should
be performed at or witnessed by a laboratory with ISO/IEC 17025 certification, the utility can specify
this as a requirement for the Design Validation Test Report. This ensures test data in the Design
Validation Report has been reviewed and verified by an outside testing agency, and/or the data
collected under a Quality System that is in compliance of international norms.
ASTM B987 Test Requirements:
• Tensile Test
• Glass Transition Temperature
• Density
• Dimensions
• Heat Exposure
• Heat/Stress Test
• Bending Test
• Dye Penetrant after Bending Test
• Tensile Test after Bending Test
• Galvanic Protection Barrier Layer Thickness Test
It is important to note that the test requirements are for as-manufactured CFC. In the Design
Validation Test definition (Section 3.1.3), it is required that the test be carried out on samples taken
at the time of manufacturing. Note A in Table 2, states “Properties listed are before stranding values”.
Thus, the Design Validation Tests and the results are based upon composite core taken shortly after it
was manufactured. Testing of the CFC before stranding or after leaving the CFC manufacturing facility,
like for Acceptance Testing, requires the test values be agreed to between purchaser and
manufacturer.

10. Below is the list of tests per ASTM B987, the proposed test protocols for any technical
specification, and clarification for the test method explaining why the test should be performed a
certain way.

i. Tensile Test
Test Protocol:
Tensile properties tests shall be carried out per ASTM B987 Section 9, that refers to ASTM
D3916 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Pultruded Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic
Rod. The results shall meet the strength requirements of ASTM B987 (2137 MPa for High
Strength Grade and 2586 MPa for Extra High Strength Grade) unless specified otherwise.

ii. Glass Transition Temperature (Tg) Test

Test Protocol:
Tg shall be determined in accordance with ASTM B987, and the test method shall be in
accordance with ASTM D7028 Standard Test Method for Glass Transition Temperature of
Polymer Matrix Composites by Dynamic Mechanical Analysis. The Tg shall be measured as the
peak in the Loss Modulus curve as per ASTM B987 and shall be at least the stated rated Tg.
Explanation:
The manufacturer shall specify their composite core’s minimum Rated Tg for their product in
the as-manufactured state. The minimum Rated Tg shall be between 180°C and 250°C per
Table 2 for the composite to be qualified as a CFC according to B987. The minimum Rated Tg
is required to be 25°C higher than the maximum continuous operating temperature. Thus,
the minimum Rated Tg is calculated by the following methodology:
• Heat exposure capability temperature is determined in Section 16 Heat Exposure Test,
as this test temperature shall be 5°C less than the Rated Tg of the CFC.
• Table 2 then specifies the maximum continuous operating temperature as being 20°C
less than the heat exposure [capability] temperature.
• Therefore, as an example, if the composite core manufacturer claims their CFC has a
maximum continuous operating temperature of 180°C, the Rated Tg is required to be
25°C above this temperature. The 25°C requirement is calculated by adding 20°C to
the manufacturer’s claimed maximum continuous use temperature plus 5°C more
above the heat exposure test temperature.
Therefore, in tender technical specifications, the glass transition temperature shall be greater
than the maximum continuous operating temperature of the offered HTLS conductor plus
25°C.

iii. Density
Test Protocol:
For the purpose of calculating mass per unit length, cross-sections and so forth, the actual
density of the Carbon Fiber Composite core shall be used in the determination. Density shall be
calculated from mass divided by volume.
The preferred method is taking the weight of a known length and dividing by the volume of
the core being measured. According to Table 2 in B987, the manufacturer shall specify their
nominal density and the measured value shall be within ±5% of this value.
iv. Dimensions and Permissible Variations
Test Protocol:
A core specimen approximately 122 cm long shall be dimensionally measured approximately
8 cm from each end using a micrometer per ASTM B987. The specimen shall be measured in
at least three places to obtain maximum and minimum diameter. The average of these two
dimensions shall be reported as the diameter and shall meet the tolerance requirements of
ASTM B987, or manufacturer’s specified nominal diameter ± 0.05 mm.
Explanation:
The diameter of a core specimen shall be measured in at least three places to obtain a
maximum and minimum diameter. The diameter is then determined by taking the average of
the maximum and minimum values. The diameter shall meet the tolerance requirements of
ASTM B987 Section 12, or the manufacturer’s offered CFC nominal diameter ± 0.05 mm.

v. Bending Test on Carbon Fiber Composite Core

Test Protocol:
Two Carbon Fiber Composite core samples shall be tensioned to 7.5% of RTS and wrapped 180
degrees around a cylindrical mandrel. Tension may be measured on one of the core ends or at
the bending mandrel. If tension is measured at the bending mandrel, the load shall be 15% of
the rated tensile strength. The application of bending and tension loads may be independent
or combined provided that full bending load and tension load are simultaneously held for a
minimum of 1 minute. The mandrel tread diameter shall be not more than 50 times the
diameter of the Carbon Fiber Composite core for high strength core and 60 times diameter for
extra high strength core. After completion of the two bending tests, one core specimen shall
withstand 100% RTS and one core specimen shall be subjected to the dye penetration test per
ASTM B987. Dye penetrant exposure time shall be 30 +1/-0 minutes. The results shall meet
customer requirements and ASTM B987.
Explanation:
The bending test in ASTM B987 is intended to be performed on samples taken from the time
of manufacturing. Bend testing of composite core after this time, shall be determined
between purchase and manufacturer of the CFC.

vi. Dye Penetrant Testing After Bending Test

Test Protocol:
One specimen taken from the bending test described above shall be subjected to the dye
penetrant test. Specimens for dye penetrant testing shall be taken from the part of the bending
test specimen that was in direct contact with the mandrel (where the highest stresses would
occur). To detect the presence of any cracks that may have formed inside the carbon fiber
composite core during the bending test, a minimum of five specimens shall be tested in
accordance with Test Method D5117. Specimens shall be placed in the dye penetrant bath in
the vertical position, with the bottom surface submerged in the dye penetrant. At the
completion of the test, the presence of a few, very small, separated, wicking dots on the top
surface would not constitute failure. When there are cracks in the Carbon Fiber Composite
core, the dye penetrant will wick quickly to the top surface. If the dots merge and the top
surface of the Carbon Fiber Composite core becomes covered in dye penetrant to a level of
50% surface area or greater during the test period, then the sample has sustained damage and
has failed the test.
vii. Tensile Test after Bending Test
Test Protocol:
One specimen taken from the bending test described above shall be subjected to the tensile
test. The specimen for the tensile test shall be selected from the part of the sample that was
in direct contact with the mandrel (where the highest stresses would occur) and subjected to
the tensile testing. The results shall meet the strength requirements of ASTM B987 (2137 MPa
for High Strength Grade and 2586 MPa for Extra High Strength Grade) unless specified
otherwise.

viii. Heat Exposure Test

Test Protocol:
Testing shall be performed per ASTM B987. A sample of recently manufactured core is
prepared into 1.2-meter specimens and placed in a suitable oven modified to allow 150 mm
on each end to extend outside of the heat zone. The specimens shall be dried by raising oven
temperature, at a rate not exceeding 5°C per minute to avoid thermal shock, from near
ambient to a temperature that is 5°C less than the Rated Tg specified by the CFC manufacturer.
The oven temperature shall be monitored. Specimens shall be exposed to a total of 52 weeks
at the specified temperature. Subsequent to exposure, three specimens shall be tested for
breaking strength. The average value of the three specimens shall meet 95% of rated tensile
strength.
Explanation:
For a CFC manufacturer to claim a specific maximum continuous operating temperature, this
temperature is required to be 20°C less than the temperature used for the heat exposure test.
In turn, the heat exposure temperature is required to be 5°C less than the CFC manufacturer’s
Rated Tg. Therefore, the heat exposure test temperature and Rated Tg both specify the
maximum continuous operating temperature the manufacturer can claim. If a CFC
manufacturer claims 180°C continuous but performs the heat exposure test at 180°C, the
maximum continuous use temperature cannot be 180°C, but only 160°C.

ix. Heat/Stress Test

Test Protocol:
A specimen of Carbon Fiber Composite core of sufficient length shall be subjected to a 1000-
hour test where the core is continuously loaded at 25% of the rated tensile strength and
continuously exposed to a temperature of the Rated Tg minus 10°F [5°C]. The Carbon Fiber
Composite core shall be gripped according to the manufacturer’s suggested gripping method.
At the end of the heat exposure the Carbon Fiber Composite core shall be tested for tensile
strength. The Carbon Fiber Composite core shall retain at least 95% of its rated tensile
strength. The Carbon Fiber Composite core shall show no signs of cracking or wrinkling after
exposure.
Explanation:
As with the heat exposure test, for a CFC manufacturer to claim a specific maximum
continuous operating temperature, this temperature is required to be 20°C less than the
temperature used for the heat/stress test. In turn, the heat/stress test temperature is
required to be 5°C less than the CFC manufacturer’s Rated Tg. Therefore, the heat/stress test
temperature and Rated Tg both specify the maximum continuous operating temperature the
manufacturer can claim. If a CFC manufacturer claims 180°C continuous but performs the
heat/stress test at 180°C, the maximum continuous use temperature cannot be 180°C, but
only 160°C.
x. Galvanic Protection Barrier Layer Thickness
Test Protocol:
Determination of the minimum thickness of the galvanic protection barrier layer shall be done
by microscopic examination. Specimens shall be polished, and the minimum thickness
determined using an optical comparator. The minimum thickness shall be in according with
the latest version of ASTM B987.
Explanation:
The current version of ASTM B987-20, states the minimum galvanic thickness shall not be less
than 0.38 mm. A clarification was also made in ASTM B987-20, where the definition of the
galvanic protective barrier layer (section 3.1.5) was modified to include the word “non-
conductive”, to clarify the intent that the galvanic proactive barrier layer is not a material that
is conductive. The clarification was made in response to manufacturers claiming to meet all
requirements of B987, where the composite core is all carbon, and is surrounded by an
aluminium tube encapsulation that has a thickness greater than 0.38 mm. It was never the
intent of B987 that the galvanic protective layer consists of a material that is conductive and
in direct contact with the carbon fibers of the composite core. The galvanic layer’s purpose is
to ensure the carbon fibers are always separated from the conductive aluminium. When the
aluminium tube and carbon fibers are in direct contact, galvanic corrosion can potentially
occur. Aluminium will corrode over time, leading to the potential for hot spots in the
conductor.