IEEE Std 304-1977

(Revision of Std 304-1977)

IEEE Test Procedure for Evaluation and

ClassiÞcation of Insulation Systems for
Direct-Current Machines

Sponsor
Rotating Machinery Committee
of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society

Approved September 9, 1976

Reaffirmed September 26, 1991
IEEE Standards Board

Approved July 17, 1981

Reaffirmed May 6, 1992
American National Standards Institute

Copyright © 1977 by
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
Approved September 9, 1976

IEEE Standards Board

William R. Kruesi, Chair

Irvin N. Howell, Jr., Vice Chair
Ivan G. Easton, Secretary

William E. Andrus Benjamin J. Leon Gustave Shapiro

Jean Jacques Archambault Anthony C. Lordi Ralph M. Showers
Dale R. Cochran John P. Markey Robert A. Soderman
Warren H. Cook Thomas J. Martin Leonard W. Thomas, Sr.
Louis Costrell Donald T. Michael Charles L. Wagner
Jay Forster Voss A. Moore William T. Wintringham
Joseph L. Koepfinger William S. Morgan
Irving Kolodny William J. Neiswender

Deceased

Foreword

[This foreword is not a part of IEEE Std 304-1977, Test Procedure for Evaluation and ClassiÞcation of Insulation Systems for
Direct-Current Machines.]

The activity that culminated in this standard was initiated with work that was Þrst presented in an appendix to IEEE
Std 117-1974 , Test Procedure for Evaluation of Systems of Insulating Materials for Random-Wound AC Electric
Machinery.

Now, years later, incorporating the Þndings and the experience of a number of workers on the direct-current task force,
a test procedure for trial use, completely divorced from IEEE Std 117-1974 , is herewith presented. Because it is an
initial presentation and because it includes the work of several individuals, the proposed test procedure is not a
precisely ritualized test procedure but presents alternative schemes for effecting the desired results.

However, the philosophy of functional testing presented is in accord with similar test procedures issued by the IEEE
and accepted by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute, and
it is to be hoped and expected, as further work is done in this area by people and companies interested, that the
alternative schemes can be merged so that a more uniÞed approach will evolve in subsequent revisions of this
proposed test procedure.

This publication was prepared by the Working Group on Insulation for Direct-Current Machines of the Insulation
Subcommittee of the Rotating Machinery Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society. The membership of the
Working Group was:

*W. B. Penn, Chair

J. S. Askey L. M. Johnson C. L. Sidway

*J. C. Botts J. L. Kuehlthan *W. G. Stiffler
G. P. Gibson L. P. Mahon H. P. Walker
W. H Gottung *G. L. Moses *E. S. Yates

*Task force members participating in the tests.

This standard was revised in 1976 and the revision group consisted of the following members.

W. G. Stiffler, Chair

W. B. Penn F. Cook

ii
CLAUSE PAGE
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methods of Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Insulation Test Models for Direct-Current Machines .........................................................................................3

2.1 Field Coils (Random or Mush Wound)...................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Field Coils (Precision, Layer, Flat Wound) ............................................................................................... 6
2.3 Armatures, Random-Wound Coils, Test Models....................................................................................... 7
2.4 Armatures, Form-Wound Coils, Test Models............................................................................................ 9
2.5 Other Test Fixtures................................................................................................................................... 10
2.6 Actual Machines ...................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Test Exposures ..................................................................................................................................................11

3.1 Temperature and Time of Exposure......................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Mechanical Stress (Vibration) ................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Moisture Exposure ................................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Voltage Checks ........................................................................................................................................ 14

4. Procedure for Analysis and Reporting of Thermal Life Test Data ...................................................................15

5. References .........................................................................................................................................................15

iii
IEEE Test Procedure for Evaluation and
ClassiÞcation of Insulation Systems for
Direct-Current Machines

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this test procedure is to classify insulation systems for direct-current machines in accordance with their
limiting temperatures as determined by test rather than by chemical composition, in accordance with IEEE Std 1-1969,
General Principles for Temperature Limits in the Rating of Electric Equipment.

The intention is to classify according to the recognized A, B, F, and H categories by determining thermal capability in
accordance with machine temperature-rise standards. However, no standard hot-spot allowances have yet been
established for direct-current machines, at least for integral-horsepower motors. These would, of course, vary with the
ventilation, enclosure, etc.

Insulation systems may be shown by experience to have suitable thermal endurance when operated in a machine at the
limiting temperature rise speciÞed in the standard for the machine under consideration or by accepted test wherein the
thermal, electric, and other stresses occurring in the operation of a machine are simulated and the deleterious effects
accelerated in a manner affording correlation with service conditions.

Other insulation systems may then be compared to service-proven systems under similar test conditions. If a
comparison is made on a system of a given insulation class, the new system must have equal or longer thermal life
under the same test conditions to be considered in that temperature class. Data from such tests may be used to establish
the temperature classiÞcation of new insulation systems before they are service proven. The concepts implemented
herein are based on IEEE Std 1-1969.

A wide and increasing variety of synthetic electrical insulating materials is available for application in electric
machinery and apparatus. Included in these materials are wire enamels, Þlms, papers, felts, elastomers, resins, and
varnishes. As there is a growing tendency either to rely solely on these materials as electrical insulation or to employ
them with the old familiar materials in novel combinations, there is a corresponding increase in the problems
associated with the selection and evaluation of insulations. An insulation system or combination of insulation
materials must be evaluated rather than one insulating material.
IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

Many of the speciÞcations regulating the use of insulation materials were written before the advent of the newer
synthetics and were based upon experience gained with the old materials over a long period of time. DifÞculties arise,
therefore, when an effort is made to classify these new insulation materials or combinations under the various
standards as Class A, Class B, Class F, or Class H insulations.

This test procedure has been prepared to indicate accepted tests for the evaluation and classiÞcation of insulation
systems for direct-current electric machines. It is expected that the various insulating materials or components making
up the insulation system to be tested will Þrst have been screened in accordance with speciÞc material test procedures,
such as ASTM D23071 for magnet wire, to establish their probable success.

This procedure is intended to evaluate insulation systems for use in usual service conditions.

It does not cover special requirements such as for machines in gas atmospheres being subjected to strong chemicals,
to metal dusts, or to submersion in liquids.

1.2 Methods of Evaluation

Components, Þxtures, and models suitable for use in insulation evaluation tests are described, and a series of
exposures to heat, vibration, moisture, and electric stress to which the models may be subjected to represent
cumulative effects of long service under accelerated conditions is recommended. The end point of insulation life is
established by periodic voltage checks.

It is also recommended that for each particular system to be evaluated, a suitable type of specimen be selected and that
an adequate number of these be subjected to repeated cycles of heat, vibration, moisture, and electric stress as outlined
in this procedure.

An adequate number of samples to obtain a good statistical average for each chosen temperature of heat exposure
should be carried through the test procedure until failure occurs. The tests should be carried through on the indicated
number of specimens for at least three different test temperatures for each insulation system to be evaluated. To
promote uniformity in the results, there are given seven alternative ranges of temperature, requiring from 1 to 49 days
per cycle, that are appropriate for making these tests.

The number of cycles, converted to total number of hours of heat aging to the end of life, is averaged for each group
of samples at each of the test temperatures and is then reported in the Þnal results of the tests. The ratios of these hours
of life for the new insulation system to those for the old established insulation system provide a rough measure of the
ratio of the service life expectancy of the new system to that of the old system but are not an absolute evaluation of
service life. The combined effects of the heat, vibration, moisture, and electric stresses imposed on the insulation
during these tests are intentionally made more severe than those normally found in service at the same temperature.
Therefore, the life of any given insulation system in these tests will be shorter than that to be expected in actual service
at a comparable temperature.

This procedure will permit approximate comparisons only and cannot be relied upon to determine completely the
merits of any particular insulation. Such information can only be obtained from extended service experience. In the
course of time, however, it is expected that enough data may be obtained from tests of this kind to establish a normal
number of hours of heat aging before failure that will be representative of each of the standard temperature classes of
insulation systems A, B, F, and H for each type of specimen. It may also be feasible in machine standards to specify
the number of hours before failure that will be appropriate as indications of satisfactory performance under special
service conditions, such as short-time or intermittent and high-temperature exposures. Following the general
procedures outlined above, the temperature classiÞcation in which any new insulating system belongs may be
determined.

1ASTM Standards can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

2 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

With such a background of information, it should be possible to classify insulation systems on a performance basis.
Ultimately, therefore, the deÞnition of insulating systems may be based on their performance in such tests as these.

1.3 Summary

This test procedure has been prepared to serve as a useful guide for the evaluation of insulation systems for direct-
current machines and to establish a sound basis for their temperature classiÞcation.

Its purpose is to deÞne procedures, and not to establish any normal values for insulation life or provide any standards
of performance whatever.

2. Insulation Test Models for Direct-Current Machines

Caution: The careful preparation of test samples is critically important. It is essential to the satisfactory performance
of the test and the meaningfulness of the test results. Insulation damaged in assembly could produce erroneous results.

Each of the insulation items involved in the test samples should be subjected to separate screening tests to establish
consistency prior to assembly. The Þnished components themselves should be subjected to both visual and
nondestructive electrical inspection to make sure that a consistently high quality level is maintained in all of the
samples. Proof tests such as high potential, corona-starting voltage, dissipation factor, insulation resistance, and
resistance should be applied to all the components to ensure their uniformity. Variations should be carefully checked
and held to acceptable limits. It is of the utmost importance that variations between samples of a given lot be held to
a minimum so as not to obscure the differences that may be obtained on test between different insulation systems.
Therefore, everything possible should be done to assure that the individual items are uniform and representative of the
materials used or to be used in actual service and that the techniques of insulating the component with the required
insulations are maintained uniform with the work being done by the best qualiÞed operators available.

2.1 Field Coils (Random or Mush Wound)

2.1.1 Scope

This section recommends an appropriate and convenient sample whereby insulating systems for small random-wound
direct-current Þeld coils may be subjected to the exposures and conditions outlined in Section 3 to simulate and
evaluate their behavior in service. It is felt that the one insulation specimen as deÞned in the following will adequately
represent direct-current Þeld coils as used in small integral-horsepower motors and of 600 V or less rating. Other
specimens may be required to represent machines in the fractional-horsepower range as well as other than random-
wound coils.

2.1.2 Full-Scale Equipment

Whenever economics or the size of the electric equipment, or both, warrant, the actual equipment or component should
be employed for test purposes.

2.1.3 Model Direct-Current Field Coil Assembly

When size, convenience, or cost requires that models or model components rather than complete machines be
evaluated, these models should be made to embody all of the elements involved in the insulation system and should be
as nearly as possible representative, in this case, of a completely insulated random-wound direct-current Þeld coil.

Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 3

IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

This proposed Þeld coil test is not a substitute for the elimination tests and factory producibility trials that precede the
selection of insulation materials for a given application. Each manufacturer should make certain that the materials
proposed for evaluation by this

Figure 1ÑTest Fixture for Random-Wound Field Coils

proposed test procedure, to determine the effective temperature classiÞcation in service, are capable of being
satisfactorily handled in the owner's manufacturing processes.

It is recommended that for the purposes of testing random-wound direct-current Þeld coil insulation a model coil
assembly be employed as shown in the accompanying Þgures.

Fig 1 shows the parts of the random-wound Þeld coil test Þxture. The Þnished Þeld coil test assembly, ready for test,
is shown in Fig 2.

Figure 2ÑRandom-Wound Field Coils Mounted onto Test Fixture

The assembly consists simply of a Þeld coil insulated from ground, mounted on a drawn metal section which simulates
a pole body and which is then bolted to a curved metal plate that simulates the motor frame. The metal parts, that is,
the pole piece as shown in Fig 3 and the frame plate in Fig 4 are formed from 1/16 in (1.6 mm) stock and then are
suitably plated (as with cadmium, chromium, or nickel). Heavier stock may be found to be necessary as experience is
acquired. Actual pole pieces may be used if desired and may, in some cases, be necessary if the stresses induced in the
structure permit movement of the shell pole to introduce variations from actual service conditions.

4 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

Figure 3ÑManufacturing Drawing for Simulated Pole for Random-Wound Field Coil Test Fixture

Figure 4ÑManufacturing Drawing for Simulated Frame for Random-Wound Field Coil Test Fixture

The coil should be a typical Þeld coil differing from a standard production-type coil only in that it is wound with two
wires in parallel to permit making conductor-to-conductor electrical tests simulating turn-to-turn measurements. The
coil should be wound as in standard shop practice except with the two wires in parallel, with care being taken to
prevent damage to the wire insulation. Insulation of the coil to ground should be by standard shop techniques, which,
obviously, may differ among different manufacturers. Leads suitable for aging and compatible with the coil
insulations may be afÞxed to the coil ends as in normal practice, and the lead ends connected to the terminals mounted
on the frame plate with all connections suitably protected, or the coil ends may be brought out for direct connection to
the terminals, these coil ends being protected with sleeving. These terminals should be two porcelain standoff
insulators mounted approximately 5/8 in (16 mm) from the frame-plate edge and set approximately 1 1/4 in (32 mm)
between the centers. Varnish treatment, impregnation, or compounding should follow general practice, which usually
calls for treatment of the coils prior to assembly onto the pole piece and mounting on the frame. The coils will be bent

Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 5

IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

to produce a curvature corresponding to the curve of the motor frame plate, prior to varnish treatment, following
factory practice.

2.2 Field Coils (Precision, Layer, Flat Wound)

The parts of the nonbent Þeld coil test Þxture are shown in Fig 5 while Fig 6 shows the coil assembled onto the text
Þxture. The simulated pole piece, Fig 7, and the curved frame plate, Fig 8, should be formed from 1/16 in (1.6 mm)
steel. These should be protected for future environmental tests by plating. Actual poles may be used if convenient and
may be desirable if techniques for holding the coils to poles depend on rigidity of the pole structure. Heavier steel can
also be used for the frame plate for similar reasons. (See Table 1 for English to metric conversion table for Figs 5-9.)

Table 1ÑEnglish to Metric Conversion Table for Figs 5- 9

Metric Metric Metric
English (in) (mm) English (in) (mm) English (in) (mm)

1/16 1.6 1 1/4 32 4 1/4 108

3/32 2 1 5/16 33 4 3/8 111

1/ 3 1 3/ 35 4.50 114
8 8

5/32 4 1 1/2 38 5 127

1/ 6 1 7/ 48 5 1/ 133
4 8 4

9/32 7 2 51 6 152.5

5/16 8 2 1/16 52.5 6 3/16 157

3/ 9.5 2 1/8 54 6 1/4 159
8

7/16 11 2 1/ 63.5 6 3/ 171

2 4
1/ 13 2 5/8 67 6.95 177
2
5/ 16 2 3/ 70 8 203
8 4
3/ 19 3 76 8 3/4 222
4

13/16 21 3 1/ 80 12 305
8

1 25 3 1/4 82.5 20 508

bolt 1/
4 × 20 6 mm diameter × 1mm pitch

The coil should be wound as in standard manufacturing practice except that it should be wound with two wires in
parallel to permit conductor-to-conductor checking simulating turn-to-turn measurements. Insulation of the coil to
ground including varnish treatment should follow regular manufacturing procedures and may be different for each
manufacturer. Insulated leads may be afÞxed to the coil ends or the coil ends brought out,

6 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

Figure 5ÑTest Fixture for Layer- or Precision-Wound Field Coils

Figure 6ÑLayer- or Precision-Wound Field Coil Mounted onto Test Fixture

protected by sleeving, for connection to standoff insulators mounted onto the frame plate. If leads are used, careful
selection should be made so that they are capable of withstanding the thermal exposure of test without degradation
themselves or without harming adjacent components. Connections of coil to lead should also be suitably protected so
that the coil insulation system is the factor being evaluated, not the allied components. The mounting of coil to the pole
should follow regular manufacturing procedure for any given manufacturer.

2.3 Armatures, Random-Wound Coils, Test Models

In the evaluation of insulation systems for random-wound armatures, from both a size and a simulation viewpoint, it
has become apparent that the Þxture most aptly incorporating the desired characteristics of an armature should be an
armature itself.

Conductor, commutator, insulation, winding, varnish treatment, etc, should follow regular manufacturing procedure.
To augment the data to be obtained from the test vehicle, the connection of the armature coil will differ from normal
practice in that each individual coil will terminate in the same commutator segment in which it started. This produces
a winding which is not operative as a machine but in which each individual armature coil is isolated from any other to
permit many electrical measurements to be made on the same test sample. Other techniques for isolating individual
coils may be employed in the various alternative modiÞcations possible in the preparation of the random-wound test
Þxture for electrical testing.

Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 7

IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

Figure 7ÑManufacturing Drawing for Simulated Pole for Layer-Wound Field-Coil Test Fixture

Figure 8ÑManufacturing Drawing for Simulated Frame for Layer-Wound Field-Coil Test Fixture

All variations must involve dielectric proof tests to determine coil-to-coil and turn-to-turn dielectric quality, most
readily by application of suitable voltage differentials between appropriate segments of the commutator.

Techniques for identifying failed components or removing them from the test sequence are left to the individual
laboratory's discretion, based on the particular testing procedure used. As test data are accumulated, the minor
differences will be reconciled to a single recommended test procedure.

8 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

2.4 Armatures, Form-Wound Coils, Test Models

This section makes general suggestions concerning appropriate samples of insulating materials or insulating systems
that may be usefully subjected to the exposures outlined in Section 3 to simulate their behavior in service. While it is
considered that a suitable type of model motor has been designed to represent adequately each basic type of machine
employing form-wound preinsulated coils in the medium size, it is felt that no single model can represent all the types
of machines covered by this range.

Models. When size and convenience require that models rather than complete machines be used for evaluation of
insulation systems, the models should be made to embody all the essential elements and should be as nearly as possible
representative of a complete winding system and its structural supports. The generic name Òdirect-current form-wound
motoretteÓ is applied to models coming within the scope of this procedure.

Since no standard model can be established for all the types and sizes of machines employing the insulation systems
to be evaluated by this test procedure, it is the responsibility of each test laboratory to use suitable models. Full and
complete design information of the model should be published at the time of presenting test data. It shall be the
responsibility2 of the organization using a model to make such models or the specialized components available, so that
the results of all functional evaluation tests may be subject to recheck by independent laboratories.

The slot and support structure should simulate the magnetic core and mechanical supports insofar as it is necessary to
reproduce operating exposure conditions during the testing. It is recognized that different models must be employed to
cover the range of machines included in this test procedure. It is suggested that the machines be grouped as follows and
that dimensions be chosen approximately within these limits:

1) Small direct-current machines:

a) Slot width 1/8 Ð 3/8 in (3Ð9.5 mm)
b) Slot depth 3/4Ð1 1/2 in (19Ð38 mm)
c) Core length 1 1/2 Ð 6 in (38Ð152.5 mm)
2) Medium-size direct-current machines:
a) Slot width 1/4 Ð 1/2 in (6Ð13 mm)
b) Slot depth 1Ð21/2 in (25Ð63.5 mm)
c) Core length 6Ð12 in (152.5Ð305 mm)

The coils should contain all the elements employed in the coils they simulate and should be considered only as smaller
replicas. Insulation thicknesses and creepages should be appropriate for the voltage class and industry or equipment
standards or practices. If the windings are not to be tested with impulse testing equipment between turns, the coils may
be wound with two parallel conductors so that turn-to-turn tests may be made with conventional low-voltage
alternating-current or direct-current test equipment.

Each designer of a speciÞc model should select the overall design and components carefully with the objective of truly
evaluating the insulation system as a whole. Each component used should be subjected to separate screening tests, to
establish uniformity and normality before they are assembled.

Two alternative methods are again presented. As test data are accumulated, one single procedure will be
recommended.

1) One direct-current form-wound motorette for evaluating form-wound coils for direct-current armatures is
similar to the Þxture adopted in IEEE Std 275-1966 (Reaff 1972), Test Procedure for Evaluation of Systems
of Insulation Materials for AC Electric Machinery

2Models may be sold by the organization using them or arrangements made for their manufacture and sale by an outside concern.

Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 9

IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

Figure 9ÑTest Fixture for Form-Wound Coils

Employing Form-Wound Preinsulated Stator Coils, for form-wound coils for alternating current machines,
but in addition provision is made for the follow-up loading imposed upon these coils in service as a result of
centrifugal forces and banding pressures as shown in Fig 9. This model uses special coils with parallel sides
inserted into an 8 slot Þxture with a 1Ð3 coil span. Six full coils are used with 4 extra slot sections of coils as
slot Þllers for the Þxture. End turn pressure is applied by maintaining torque on bars pressing down on end
turn and lead end. Spring loading might be used here to maintain pressure.
Dielectric testing should be done by direct connection to each of the coils and the slot Þxture as ground.
2) Another test Þxture that has been used for evaluating form-wound coils for direct current armatures is an
actual armature core or section thereof without shaft or commutator. Production-made coils with radial sides
are inserted, wedged, banded, and treated as in an actual armature but with all coil ends or leads brought out
and sleeved. This test Þxture offers the advantage of large numbers of coil insulation samples per Þxture and
for using regular factory built and inserted coils, but is limited to the small end of the form-wound coil size
range by the size and weight handling difÞculties of the armature core unless a core section is used. Dielectric
tests are made by direct connection to the coil leads projecting from one end of the armature core.

Since this Þxture does not provide for follow-up pressure, a supplementary Þxture is used in the testing program. Slots
are cut into steel blocks, coil slot sections inserted, and a spring-loaded cover plate applied to produce follow-up
pressure during the aging cycles. Dielectric testing is done by direct connection to the conductors in each coil slot
section.

2.5 Other Test Fixtures

It is not the intent of this test procedure to be restrictive. Test Þxtures other than those described in the previous
sections may be used if they better simulate the particular component being studied in a particular machine, as can
modiÞcations of actual machines to permit more deÞnitive tests to be made for closer service simulation.

2.6 Actual Machines

Although the best test vehicles for evaluating insulation systems for direct-current machines would be actual
machines, the caution indicated at the start of this section applies directly. Evaluation of an actual machine is a test on
a machine built in the factory so that the test results show not only an evaluation of the materials combined in the
insulation system but an evaluation of the handling and processing of that system.

10 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

If convenience, cost, size, etc, permit, complete machines may be used for the evaluation of insulation systems.

3. Test Exposures

It is the purpose of this section of the test procedure to specify appropriate exposures to heat, mechanical stress,
moisture, and voltage, concurrently or in repeated cycles, which will represent the cumulative deteriorating effects of
service, on insulation materials and systems, on an accelerated basis.

Extensive experience with other tests of this general nature has indicated that most of the deteriorating effects of
service can be reasonably approximated by such a sequence of exposures to high temperature, mechanical stress,
moisture, and voltage, as outlined in this section.

The best results are obtained when the sample is Þrst aged (and thus made brittle), then exposed to mechanical stress
(thus producing cracks in the most brittle parts), and Þnally exposed to moisture followed by application of the test
voltage.

It is recognized that ovens provide the most convenient means of obtaining high temperatures. This method of aging
subjects all the parts of the insulation system to the full temperature, while in actual service a large proportion of the
insulation may operate at considerably lower temperatures than the hottest spot temperature. Also, the products of
decomposition are likely to remain near the insulation during oven aging, whereas they are usually carried away by the
ventilating and cooling air in actual operation. For both reasons, the life in oven aging at a given hot-spot temperature
should be expected to be shorter than in actual service, but is presumed to be comparable.

It is recognized also that failures resulting from abnormally high mechanical stresses or voltages are generally of a
different character from those failures that are produced in long service. For this reason, the mechanical and electrical
exposures recommended are only moderately above those normally met in service. The temperature exposure is
intentionally made more severe than that met in service in order to shorten the required time for testing. Moisture is
used to seek out degradation effects, not to promote deterioration.

Testing of actual machines will necessarily produce the temperature differentials of actual service augmented by the
elevated temperature of operation during test. Increased machine temperatures may be obtained by restricting
ventilation, by raising the ambient temperature, by use of reversing cycles, by current surges of weakening and
strengthening Þelds, etc.

Other test procedures than those outlined in the following have appeared and show equal promise. As additional
background is acquired, attempts will be made to combine the best features of all into a uniÞed method with
consistency, reproducibility, and applicability.

3.1 Temperature and Time of Exposure

Table 2 lists the suggested temperatures and corresponding times of exposure in each cycle for insulating systems for
different estimated values of the limiting hottest spot temperatures. For example, the recognized A, B, F, and H classes
of insulation systems would normally be tested at the times and temperatures shown in columns 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the
table, respectively. Either the time or the temperature may be adjusted to make the best use of facilities, but
comparisons must take such variations into consideration.

Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 11

IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

Table 2ÑTemperature and Exposure Time* (Estimated Hottest Spot Temperature Range)
Exposure Class A Class B Class F Class H
Temperature (days) (days) (days) (days)

250 1

240 2

230 4

220 1 7

210 2 14

200 1 4 28

190 2 7 49

180 1 4 14

170 2 7 28
160 4 14 49

150 7 28

140 14 49

130 28

120 49
*
The above schedule is selected to fit into a 5 day work week with most of the humidity exposure occuring
on weekends and is based upon an approximate Ò10°CÓ rule for insulation deterioration, which states that the
life of the insulation is reduced one half for every 10°C rise in temperature. However, the aging times at the
lowest temperatures for each of the above classifications have purposely been shortened in order to have
more tests at the lower temperature.
The temperature measurements should be taken in the immediate neighborhood of each
model, as the temperature is rarely uniform over the entire oven space. Random rearrangement
of the specimens from time to time will minimize this effect.
.

The selected temperature in degrees Celsius of heat exposure for the tests should be held within a ±3 percent limit.

It is permissible to change the exposure periods a few days either way, as may be desirable to Þt into a 5 day work
week.

It is recommended that models be subjected to the temperature corresponding to either the 28 or the 49 day exposure
period, and to at least one other of the above temperatures, and that at least 10 samples be carried through successive
cycles of exposure at each of the test temperatures until failure occurs. At least 3 temperatures should be used, with the
lowest of these not more than 30°C higher than the temperature rating of the insulation system. The spread between
exposure temperatures shall be at least 20°C.

It is intended that these temperature exposures be obtained by placing the models in enclosed ovens, with sufÞcient
ventilation or forced convection to maintain temperatures uniform over the models. The cold models should be placed
directly in preheated ovens so as to subject them to a uniform degree of thermal shock in each cycle. Likewise, the hot
specimens should be removed from the ovens directly into room air, so as to subject them to uniform thermal shock on
cooling as well as on heating.

Some materials age more rapidly when the products of decomposition remain in contact with the insulation surface,
whereas other materials age more rapidly when the decomposition products are continually removed. It is, therefore,

12 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

desirable that the conditions of ventilation and temperature be precisely maintained for tests on other specimens with
which the test materials are to be compared. If the insulation in actual service is so arranged that the products of
decomposition remain in contact with it as in a totally enclosed non-ventilated motor, the test specimens should then
be designed in the same way so that the oven ventilation will not remove these decomposition products.

Depending on the test facilities available, the type of specimen employed, and other factors, it may be desirable to
modify the methods of exposing and ventilating the specimens during these tests. It is all important that when any two
different materials or insulation systems are to be compared, the test specimens of each should be subjected to
precisely the same exposure and other conditions of test.

The periods of exposure time for each of the temperatures and each of the insulation classes have been selected so as
to give a mean life of about 10 cycles before failure for each condition under normal circumstances. For the longer
period, the number of days of exposure has been made a whole number of weeks to Þt conveniently with the schedule
of a normal 5 day work week.

If half the samples do not fail by the tenth cycle, double heat time. If one third of the samples fail by the third cycle,
cut heating time in half.

3.2 Mechanical Stress (Vibration)

Following each cycle of high-temperature exposure of the specimen as outlined in 3.1, each specimen should be
subjected for a period of 1 hour to mechanical stress.

It is recommended that the mechanical stress applied be of the same general nature as would be experienced in service,
and of a severity compersonble with the highest forces expected in normal service. The procedure for applying this
stress may vary with each type of specimen and kind of service. It is important that whenever any new insulating
materials are subjected to stress exposure, the stresses should also be applied in precisely the same way to familiar
insulations so that the test results will be truly comparable.

As a preferred method of applying mechanical stress to models, after each cycle of high-temperature exposure, each
model should be mounted on a shake table and operated for a period of 1 hour with a 60 Hz oscillating motion, with a
double amplitude (peak to peak) of approximately 8 mil (0.2 mm) corresponding to an acceleration of 1.5 times that
of gravity.

The models should be so mounted that the motion occurs at right angles to the plane of the coils, so that the coil ends
will be free to vibrate as they would under radial end-winding forces in an actual motor. This vibration test should be
made at room temperature and humidity and without any applied voltage. (Adequate time should be allowed after
removal from the oven to reach room temperature.)

Alternatively mechanical stress also could be applied to the armature test Þxtures by spinning the armatures
mechanically, reproducing the centrifugal loading of service.

3.3 Moisture Exposure

After each cycle of mechanical stress exposure, as described in 3.2, each specimen should be exposed for a minimum
of 48 hours to an atmosphere of 100 percent relative humidity with visible condensation on the winding. No voltage
should be applied to the specimens during this period.

Exposure to condensation for a 2 day period is recognized to be a more severe test than is met in normal service. The
time period of 2 days is recommended because experience has shown that at least this long a time is required for
moisture to penetrate throughout the winding, that is, for the insulation resistance to reach a fairly stable value. In
service, insulation is exposed to alkalies and other chemicals as well as to moisture, and salt spray (fog) tests may be
used to determine its endurance under these conditions. Experience has indicated, however, that the 100 percent
relative humidity test is quite adequate, and is much simpler, for the purposes of this test procedure.
Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 13
IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

This severe moisture exposure without chemicals is considered to be the most satisfactory way of making an overall
test of the insulation condition when exposed to industrial atmospheres that produce conducting surface contaminants.

An atmosphere of 100 percent relative humidity and condensation is readily obtained by covering the ßoor of the test
chamber with a shallow layer of water and using an immersion heater to heat the water to a temperature from 5 to 10°C
above room temperature. The exterior walls of the moisture chamber should be thermally insulated. The roof of the
chamber should not be insulated and should be sloped so as to drain the condensed water to the back of the sides of the
cabinet and prevent drip on the samples. The interior of the cabinet should be constructed of corrosion-resistant
materials, and junctions of dissimilar metals should be avoided. Doors or removable covers should be constructed with
overhanging lips so that moisture collecting around them will drain into the interior of the chamber.

Other techniques or equipment that can effect a reproducible 100 percent relative humidity are also acceptable, such
as those listed in IEEE Std 117-1974, Test Procedure for Evaluation of Systems of Insulating Materials for Random-
Wound AC Electric Machinery.

3.4 Voltage Checks

Recommended Check Voltages: Each model should be carried through repeated cycles of the high temperature,
mechanical stress, and moisture exposure in sequence until failure occurs as determined by the voltage test. In order
to check the condition of the samples and determine when the end of their useful life has been reached, voltage should
be applied after each successive exposure to heat and moisture.

The recommended voltage levels for proof high-potential testing should be as follows for the various test Þxtures as
outlined in 2.1Ð2.4. The voltage should be applied for a period of 10 min.

Check Voltage (rms) for Sequence Testing (V at 60

Hz)

Expected Line-to-Line
Direct Voltage in Service
(V) To Ground or Coil to Coil Between Conductors

35 or less 200 117

36Ð250 500 117

251Ð600 1200 117

E 2E 117

The normal certifying proof voltage on a new machine (speciÞed by NEMA MG 1-12.03 or UL5083) is twice
maximum rated voltage plus 1000 V. Due to the accelerated heat aging and humid conditions the voltage required to
search out degradation of the test models is less.

In general, the test voltage speciÞed is twice the rating of the insulation system being evaluated. Alternating current is
speciÞed at 60 Hz, the standard in the industry. Also, armature coils carry alternating current. Direct current or
alternating current of other frequency may be employed if correlation is determined between such results and those
obtained at 60 Hz. At the very low voltages, this test is merely one for checking spacing, not dielectric barriers.

3NEMA standards can be obtained from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2101 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. UL
standards can be obtained from UL Publications Stock, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Ill. 60062.

14 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved

INSULATION SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT-CURRENT MACHINES IEEE Std 304-1977

In the testing of actual machines, only rated voltage will be applied, except for possible transients occurring during the
cycle.

The voltages should be applied in succession between conductors, between coils, and to ground each time a check is
made following each successive exposure to moisture. The voltage should be applied for a period of 10 min, while the
specimens are still in the humidity chamber and are wet from exposure, at approximately room temperature. The
applied voltage should be held for 10 min each, Þrst between the conductors, then from coil to coil, and Þnally from
line to ground. Experience has shown that this prolonged time of voltage application in the wet condition is necessary
to detect failures. Many of the failures in this condition occur as the result of creepage along wet surfaces, with a
gradual building up of the leakage current that would not occur in the usual 1 min test. Dielectric breakdown will most
often occur at this time when the insulation materials are saturated.

Failure in any of these voltage check tests will be indicated by an unusual current ßow, unusual local heating, or the
presence of smoke. Minor spitting and surface sparking should be recorded, but do not constitute a failure. It is
desirable in these tests to use an alternating-current ÒnonsurgeÓ high-potential tester, which automatically trips on
overcurrent.

Test equipment should be of sufÞcient capacity (1 kVA or more) to assure identiÞcation of failure.

Any such failure in any component of the insulation system constitutes failure of the entire sample and Þxes the end
point of the life.

It is recognized that by applying the voltages as recommended above, which are Þxed by the intended voltages in
actual service, markedly different periods of life may be obtained for the same insulating materials, depending on the
insulation barriers and lengths of the creepage paths employed.

As this indicates, the test procedures recommended are adapted to prove the reliability of the insulation proposed for
a given temperature, for high humidity, and for a given voltage. This reliability may be improved by greater thickness
or other changes in the insulation system with usual insulating materials as well as by employing materials of higher
temperature endurance.

4. Procedure for Analysis and Reporting of Thermal Life Test Data

The test data compiled under this test procedure should be analyzed in accordance with the method speciÞed in IEEE
Std 101-1972 , Guide for Statistical Analysis of Thermal Life Test Data.

5. References

[1] IEEE Std 117-1974, Test Procedure for Evaluation of Systems of Insulating Materials for Random-Wound AC
Electric Machinery.

[2] YATES, E. S. Functional Evaluation of Two DC Form-Wound Rotor Coil Insulation Systems Using a Test
Formette. Paper CP58-149, presented at the 1958 AIEE Winter General Meeting, New York, N. Y.

[3] PENN, W. B. Progress in the Evaluation of Random Windings and Field Coils in Accordance with AIEE No. 510.
Paper CP58-643, presented at the 1958 AIEE Middle Eastern District Meeting, Washington, D. C.

[4] Ñ Development and Evaluation of Insulation Systems for DC Machines. AIEE Paper CP59-5081, December
1959.

Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved 15

IEEE Std 304-1977 TEST PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF

[5] Ñ Evaluation of New Materials for DC Motors and Generators, presented at the 1960 Conference on Electrical
Insulation.

[6] DAVID, J. S., and McCLARY, G. D. Formette Testing of Armature Coil Insulation for Large DC Machines. Paper
CP61-1110, presented at the 1961 AIEE Fall General Meeting, Detroit. Mich.

[7] PENN, W. B., and SHARROW, R. F. New Insulation System for DC Field Coils, presented at the 1962 Conference
on Electrical Insulation.

[8] IEEE Std 1-1969, General Principles for Temperature Limits in the Rating of Electric Equipment.

[9] BOTTS, J. C. A Model for Thermal Evaluation of Insulation Systems for Armatures of Large Rotating Machines.
Paper CP63-383, presented at the 1963 IEEE Winter General Meeting, New York, N.Y.

[10] YATES, E. S., and McCLARY, G. D. Experience Using IEEE Std 275-1966. Paper CP65-244, presented at the
1965 IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, N.Y.

[11] BOTTS, J. C., CONNORS, L. P., and WOLFORD, R. D. The Value of IEEE Std 275-1966 in Insulation
Development. Paper CP65-202, presented at the 1965 IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, N.Y.

[12] CONNORS, L. P. Modem Materials and Their Application in Insulating Large DC Machines. Proc. 1965
Electrical Insulation Conference (New York), pp. 91Ð94.

[13] GOTTUNG, W. H. Insulation Systems Evaluation for Large DC Machines Using Functional Testing Procedures.
IEEE Transactions on Power Apperatus and Systems, vol. PAS-87, pp. 1079Ð1083, April 1968.

[14] KLEIN, H., and WILSON, A. C. A Method of Evaluating Insulation Systems for Universal Motors Used to
Power Portable Tools. Proc. 1967 Electrical Insulation Conference (Chicago, Ill.), pp. 134Ð136.

16 Copyright © 1998 IEEE All Rights Reserved