CABLE SHEATHS AND WATER PERMEABILITY

by

GORDON F. TODD

COLLYER INSULATED WIRE COMPANY

I EIGHTH ANNUAL WIRE & CABLE SYMPOSIUM

DECEMBER 1959

Aut 17 1967
PESTI
Lor pub1!c roclcaA
distribution is unlimrited. AGlg
;, U

11 16
 CABLE SHEATHS AND WATER PERMEABILITY
Gordon F. Todd

One of the oldest enemies of wire and cable is moisture. When

moisture successfully attacks an electric cable, the system design
can be seriously affected. By penetrating into the insulation
or into interstices, moisture can impair the electrical characteristics
of capacitance, power factor, insulation resistance and dielectric
strength. Occasionally, because of moisture, a cable will short-
circuit to ground, accompanied by a shower of molten copper, soot, and
irate personnel.

Workers in the cable industry have striven to reduce the

moisture hazard by improving the moisture resistance of insulations,
and by improving splicing methods. We have seen large quantities
of plastic and rubber insulations perform very well in moist and
wet locations. Critical cables have been covered by lead sheaths,
and the sheaths have been covered by protective coverings of their
own.

An yet we ask, "Are rubber and plastic sheaths capable of

great water resistance? What are the standards or reference?
What is the validity of the test methods? What is the effect of
temperature and wall thickness upon the water resistance of a pro-
tective sheath?"
The work described in this paper was done in order to throw
light on these questions. As the result of it we have, first of
all, established considerable data bearing upon the performance
of a number of different materials in water. We have found a
short test to be effective in measuring water penetration, and have
confirmed the findings by a series of observations made with cables.
We have related temperature and wall thickness with the rate of water
penetration. Finally, we have been able to find two materials
of better than average suitability for situations where considerabl
water resistance is needed, but where lead sheath is objectionable.'
For many years, onq popular method of studying the water resist-
ance of rubber and plastic insulations has been a water absorption
test. It has been found to Se conven ent, involving simple equipment.
The cable industry has come to regard it as having consid.rable value
as a supplement to electrical water absorption tests. "'ne test is
based simply upon finding the water absorbed per squa4; inn;. of
surface.

With the help of the water absorption test, such excellent

insulations as RW, RH-RW, TW, and Butyl were developed. It became
possible to achieve good service in wet locations without the
protection of lead sheaths. In many cases, rubber and plastic
sheaths were made possible, by reason of the improved resistance of
insulations to water.

1i
 -2-

It was only natural that rubber and plastic sheaths were

tested for water absorption by the classic test, and relative
merit ascribed. However, it has seemed to us that where protective
coverings are concerned, a new set of conditions is introduced.
Here, the problem is not primarily the maintenance of electrical
properties of the sheath in question, but rather the ability of
the material to serve as a water barrier. A good sheath should
simply keep water out.
It seemed to us that a more natural way to study the barrier
characteristics of a cable sheath was by means of a suitable
water permeability test. We were interested to know how such data
correlated with he classic water absorption test. We sought a chec
method whereby we could verify laboratory specimen tests with
cable tests.
A program of study of 22 rubber and plastic compounds was
undertaken. These compounds represented materials which were in
commercial use, some for insulating, and others for cable sheathing
purposes. Each material was subjected to three groups of tests:
1. Water absorption, IPCEA method.
2. Water permeability, Du Pont method.
3. Water penetration of cable sheath,
Collyer method.
The first method, the classic water absorption test, was made
with uniformly molded sheets .070" thick. Specimens measuring
l"x4" were tested by the method described in the cable industry's
1 ~ IPCEA Specification S-19-81, Appendix N. The tests were dbne in
duplicate. Results are expressed as grams absorbed per square inch
of surface. The meaning of the results is the relative tendency to
soak up water.
The second method, water permeability, was made with uniformlT
molded disds, -030" thick. These 3" diaphragns were tested by the
Du Pont method, based upon measuring the rate of water transmission
directly through the membrane. The actual testing of discs, prepared
in the Collyer Laboratory, was very accurately done by the Du Pont
Company in triplicate, at request. Results art expressed as milligrams
per square inch per day per 1-mul thickness. The meaning of the resultp
: isthe relative rate of permeability.
The third method was much more elaborate. It consisted of
studying cable sheaths immersed in water. Wall thicknesses of
.050" and .080" were compared, as were immersion temperatures of 50°C
and 70°C. The test cables themselves consisted of 3' lengths of
identical 2-cdr. #18 jute-filled cable, insulated with a ORS rubber
compound, and jacketed uniformly with each material. The immersion
studies were carried out for 150 days, and were extended to 300 days
for some groups. The water penetration was detected by studying
mutual capacitance as time progressed, it having been found that the
presence of moisture in the jute-filled cable spaces would rapidly
affect mutual capacitance. Data was recorded as mmf. and time, and
 -3-

was later converted to % change and so plotted, The number of cable

specimens totaled 88, representing 2 walls and 2 temperatures. These
specimen cables were all prepared under strict control in the Collyer
Laboratory. Equipment considerations limited observations to a single
specimen for each case. The meaning of the results is speed of water
penetration through the cable sheath. "
We present several figures with which we describe our work:
Figure #1 shows the form of specimens used in each test.
Figure #2 shows the immersion of the cables.
Figure #3 shows cable samples after immersion for 150 days
at 700C. Note deterioration of one sample
having .050" wall.
Figure #4 shows several typical curves drawn from cable ob-
servations. We cannot show all 88. Note the change
of slope as jute fillers become saturated, as heat
aging takes hold, and as water absorption equil-
ibrium becomes established. Analysis of these
curves was done by tabulating % change in mutual
capacitance with time. It was separately determined
that instantaneous saturation of the jute filler
causes approximately 50% increase in mutual capa-
citance.
Table #1 shows averaged data for the Water Absorption and the
Water Permeability tests. The materials are arranged
in the order of their water absorption. Inspection
of this data reveals no dependable correlation
between Water Absorption and Water Permeability tests.
Table #2 shows a comparison of the Water Permeability data
with one of the Cable Penetration test groups. This
time the order is rearranged in terms of relative
water permeability. Inspection of the data reveals a
strong tendency toward correlation between the two
testing methods. We believe that this agreement
between elaborate tests of cables and simple tests
of discs lends validity to the Water Permeability
procedure, and establishes it as a valuable tool for
evaluating cable sheaths.
Table #3 shows an analysis of all of the Cable Penetration
test groups. Materials are arranged in order of
overall % increase in mutual capacitance in
10 days. Some valuable information is evident:
1. Some materials have assumed a new order of
effectiveness, not apparent where the Water
Absorption test is used.
2. 2he order of effectiveness of each group is
nearly the same, even though walls and
temperature vary.

" " ... - _ -.,. u- .-- _

-. .- .
 -14-

3. The overall order of effectiveness is nearly

the same as the order based on the Water
Permeability of discs. lach method places
a given material in the same general category.
4. Inoreased wall thickness retards water penetration
of sheaths. However, increased walls fail to
make a top-notch material from a fair one.
5. Increased imnersion temperature increases rate
of water penetration of sheaths. This tendency
can be counteracttid only slightly by increasing
wall thickness.
Table #4 show aNoth r analysis df a of the Cable Penetration
test groups. Whe % incr*as in Iutual capacitance in
50 days is shown, V this time the slope of many of
the ourves had changed from a sharp rise to a shape
Indicating equilibrium, complicated by secondary
water absorption and heat aging effects.
Table #5 shows a final analysis of all of the Cable Penetration
test groups. The %increase In mutual capacitance is
qhown for 150 d s for two groups, and 300 days for
oter two. We elieve thd chitf significance is the the de-
movitration of th# longterm birr ir effect poissessed by
fi

I!

,1

4g
 -5- 1
SUMMARY

The degree to which a cable sheath material can protect the in-
terior of a cable from moisture may be determined by simple water
permeability tests. Water permeability tests are more reliable for
this purpose than water absorption tests, and agree quite well with
elaborate cable soaking tests carried out for many months at elevated
temperature.

Extensive cable immersion data relates 22 materials as follows:

Best, Very Good Butyl Compound

Very Good Polyethylene

Good Butyl-Neoprene laminate
Moderate to Fair Black Neoprene, CV Type Sheath
Black Neoprene, Lead Cure Type Sheath
Hypalon Compound
Low Water Absorbing Neoprene Sheath
White Neoprene Sheath
GRS Black Sheath
Black Ozone Resisting Neoprene Sheath
Oil Base Compound
GRS Type RH-RW Compound
Hycar Oil Resistant Compound
Fair to Poor Natural Rubber 60% Black Sheath
Hycar Oil & Water Res't Compound
PVC Low Water Absorbing Sheath
PVC Type TW, 900C Compound
PVC Semi-Rigid Sheath
Natural Rubber 40% Compound
PVC -50:C, Low Water Abs. Sheath
PVC -50 C, Gen'l Purpose Sheath
Very Poor Silicone Rubber 1250C Compound
No rubber or plastic material was found to possess total water
barrier capability.
* -* *

Acknowledgement is made of the outstanding sample preparation

and testing work done by colleagues William E. Game and Joseph L.
Jacinto. We wish also to thank the Du Pont Company for use of its
procedures and testing services, and the B. F. Goodrich Company for
technical aid.
 k$A TEI Asso~o-,,,

4--l
MAM06OA - --

IA

MA7& AADA*'5A711

$Z1. Coq.
 CXAMP,

opjt
0- 0000

1100
 TYPICAL CURVES FOR .080" SHEATHS' I3OMRS AT 70OC
ILLUSTRATING CHANGE IN MUTUAL. CAPACITY WITH TlJM

G.AMA/AAVI

/0M
 TABLE 1
WATER WATER
ABSORPTION PERMEABILITY
OF STRIPS OF DISCS
POLYETHYLENE .5 mg. 2 mg.
BUTYL POWER INSULATION 4 .6

RH-RW INSULATION (GRS) 7 17

PVC SHEATH #1 9 25
PVC TW 900C INSULATION 10 23
PVC SHEATH #2 11 47
PVC SEMI-RIGID SHEATH #3 15 32
SILICONE 1250C INSULATION 15 410
PVC SHEATH #4 16 58
HYPALON SHEATH 18 13
GRS SHEATH 18 19
HYCAR SHEATH #1 20 82
OIL BASE POWER INSULATION 21 18

NEOP. LOW WATER ABS. SHEATH 22 12

NAT. RUBBER 40% INS. 24 32

NAT. RUBBER 60% SHEATH 29 31

HYCAR SHEATH #2 30 65

LAMINATED BUTYL-NEOPRENE 57 3
N4EOPRENE SHEATH #2 70 12

NEOPRENE SHEATH #3 71 8
rEoPRENE SHEATH #4 91 9

NEOPRENE SHEATH #5 99 8
TERMS Mg. / Sq. in. Mg./Sq. In./Day/Mil.

'
 TABLE 2

WATER WATER
PERMEABILIT PENETRATION
OF DISCS OF .050" WALL
CABLE SHEATHS
BUTYL POWER INSULATION
.6 Mg. 2 %
POLYETHYLENE
2 2
LAMINATED BUTYL-NEOPRENE
3 5
NEOPRENE SHEATH #3
8 20
NEOPRENE SHEATH #5 8 18
NEOPRENE SHEATH #4 9 12
NEOPRENE SHEATH #2 12 22
NEOP. LOW WATER ABS. SHEATH 22 17
HYPALON SHEATH 13 9
RH-RW INSULATION (GRS)
27 17
OIL BASE POWER INSULATION
28 16
GRS SHEATH 19 24
PVC TW 90C INSULATION 23 35
PVC SHEATH #1 25 36
NAT. RUBBER 60% SHEATH 32 35
NAT. RUBBER 4o% INS. 32 40
PVC SEMI-RIGID SHEATH #3
32 33
PVC SHEATH #2 47 80
PVC SHEATH #4
58 96
HYCAR SHEATH #2
65 68
HYCAR SHEATH #1 82 84
SILICONE 225"C INS. 410 187
TERMS Mg./Sq. In./bay/kil. %Mutual cap.
gain in 10 days
@ 500C

r'
 TABLE 3
10 DAY

WATER PENETRATION OF CABLE SHEATHS

50*C 50 0C 700C 700C

.050 o8o" .50" .080"
BUTYL POWER INSULATION I % 1% 10 % 5 %
POLYETHYLENE 1 1 10 5
LAMINATED BUTYL-NEOPRENE 5 2 18 10
NEOPRENE SHEATH #2 12 6 40 20
NEOP1ENE SHEATH #3 10 5 49 22
HYPALON 9 8 44 25
NEOPRENE SHEATH #4 12 7 60 31
NEOP. LOW WATER ABS. SHEATH 17 8 65 38
GRS SHEATH 14 11 70 47
NEOPRENE SHEATH #5 18 10 70 35

RH-RW INSULATION 17 9 77 44
OIL BASE POWER INSULATION 16 12 79 52

NAT. RUBBER 6o% SHEATH 35 15 110 74

PVC TW 9000 INSULATION 35 7 133 103
NAT. RUBBER 40% INSULATION 40 17 120 86
PVC SEMI-RIGID SHEATH #3 33 18 127 105
PVC SHEATH #1 36 21 126 106
HYCAR SHEATH #2 68 54 110 107
HYCAR SHEATH #1 84 54 112 111
PVC SHEATH #2 8o 52 153 124
PVC SHEATH #4 96 67 155 131
SILICONE 1250 INS, 187 168 212 208
DATA IS EXPRESSED AS % INCREASE IN
a MUTUAL CAPACITY IN 10 DAYS

IKI- .- - - - - ~ .-. - - -
 TABLE 4
50 DAY

WATER ABSORPTION OF CABLE SHEATHS

500C 500C 700C 700C
.0501 .080" .050" .080"
BUTYL POWER INSULATION 7% 6% 20% 10%

POLYETHYLENE 10 5 47 18

LAMINATED BUfL-NEOPRENE 14 7 48 28

NEOPRENE SHEATH #2 60 34 88 66

NEOPRENE SHEATH #3 67 42 102 81

HYPALON 70 44 128 110

NEOP. LOW WATER ABS. SHEATH 82 54 108 95

NEOPRENE SHEATH #4 88 55 138 ii0

GRS SHEATH 90 70 126 102

NEOPRENE SHEATH #5 92 60 136 105

OIL BASE POWER INS. 110 8- 140 114

RH-RW INSULATION 112 74 148 116

HYCAR SHEATH #2 116 ,11 136 138

NAT. RUBBER 60% SHEATH 122 88 .72" 132

HYCAR SHEATH #I 124 110 140 145

PVC SHEATH #1 142 116 168 156
PVC TW 90eC INSULATION 145 46 160 152
PVC SEMI-RIGID SHEATH #3 149 119 166 168

NAT. RUBBER 40% INS. 155 112 168 151

PVC SHEATH #2 168 130 175 156

PVC SHEATH #4 174 138 178 154

SILICONE 1250C INS. 214 196 266 252

DATA IS EXPRESSED AS % INCREASE IN

MUTUAL CAPACITY IN 50 DAYS
 TABLE 5
LONG TERM

WATER PENETRATION OF CABLE SHEATHS

500C 500C 700C 700C

.050" .080" .050" .080"
300 Days 300 Days 250 Days 150 Days

BUTYL POWER INSULATION 12% 15% 29% 16%

POLYETHYLENE 23 11 56 18
LAMINATED BUTYL-NEOPRENE 26 20 66 46

NEOPRENE SHEATH #2 94 76 130 88

NEOPRENE SHEATH #3 116 101 16o 116
HYPALON 122 98 198 160
NEOP. LOW WATER ABS SHEATH 121 90 134 11i
NEOPRENE SHEATH #4 174 144 450 188
GRS SHEATH 136 115 166 134
NEOPRENE SHEATH #5 210 134 330 166
OIL BASE POWER INS. 160 112 206 160
RH-RW INSULATION 155 125 221 162

HYCAR SHEATH #2 168 165 212 195

NAT. RUBBER 6o% SHEATH 202 150 238 175
HYCAR SHEATH #1 200 160 210 195

PVC SHEATH #1 175 158 218 204

PVC TW 900C INS. 182 57 194 181
PVC SEMI-RIGID SHEATH #3 190 153 298 319
RUBDER 40% INS.
PT. 196 157 236 195
PVC SHEATH #2 200 147 204 172
PVC SHEATH #4 191 165 238 189
SILICONE 125 0C INS. 328 286 495 438
DATA IS EXPRESSED AS % INCREASE IN
MUTUAL CAPACITY FOR PERIOD SHOWN

I~3~
 APPENDIX

QK. absorption
MethodWater Sheets .070":t.010", Specification S-19-81, Appendix
Test: IPCEA700 " N, .
Water Permeability Test: Du Pont Method, dated i/ /5, 4l.Om 030"
50 R.W. 0
t.003", Thwing - Albert cups. Catalogue 68-1. 751,

Cable Penetration Test: See Figures 1 and 2. Sample con iners

were continuously maintained in ovens at designated temperatures for
periods shown. Periodic capacitance measurements were made after cool-
ing to room temperature, using L & N bride.
Samples were fabricated from 1 length #18/2 SV foundation:
GRS rubber insulation, U.L. grade - class 3, .016" wall
2 insulated conductors twisted to make 1 pair, employing
dry jute fillers, to make round.
Rayon serve, 100% coverage, to .185" diameter.
Sheaths applied via laboratory extrusion, core pre-warmed
to remove moisture, and fed to extruder frota hot chamber.
Sheaths diameters - .285" and .345"±.005"
The laminated sheaths were built up by extruding the
Butyl compound first, then the Neoprene, so that each
comprised 50% of the total wall.
Rubber sheaths were vulcanized with ends sealed.
All
Greatsamples weretaken
care was oventodried before
avoid initial test.
contamination and defects.
Samples were prepared uniformly. Tight fit in cover of polyetrylene-
lined immersion boxes was obtained. Ends we i sealed with poured
hi-temp wax, through which conductor ends projected.
Materials applied as sheaths:

Butyl Power Insulation: Collyer ozone-resisting compound,

IPCEA Appendix 0.
Polyethylene: IPOEA Appendix P, black, weather-resistant,
for line wire.
Laminated Butyl - Neoprene: Collyer compounds, Butyl
Power Insulation (above) and Neoprene Sheath #5 (below)
Neoprene Sheath #2: Collyer compound, IPOEA Appendix K,.
black, CV type.
Neoprene Sheath #3: Collyer compound, IPCEA Appendix K,
black, Lead Cure type.
Neoprene Sheath #4: Collyer compound, IPCEA Appendix K,
white, all-purpose.
Neoprene Sheath #5: Coilyer compound, IPCEA Appendix K,
corona resisting, black.
Neoprene Low Water Absorbing Sheath: Collyer compound,
IPCEA Appendix K, black.
Hypalon: Typical wire covering composition, black.
aRS Sheath: Collyer compound, U.L. class 6, IPORA
Appendix E, black, CV type.
RH-RW Insulation: ollyer compound, U.L., IPCZA
Appendix C & N, QR-S.
Oil Base Power Insulation: Collyer compound, IPOEA
Appendix D.

... . .
 Natural Rubber 60% Sheath: Collyer compound,
IPCEA
Appendix F, Lead Cure type.
Natural Rubber 40% Insulation: Collyer compound,
special purpose, black, CV type.
PVC Sheath #1: Polyvinyl thermoplastic available to
industry, IPCEA Appendix J, also qualified
as TW, low
water absorbing, -40 C bend, high compression-cut
resistance, black.
PVC Sheath #2: Polyvinyl
Industry, IPCEA Appendixthermoplastic available to
J, low water absorbing,
-500C bend,
PVC Semi-Rigid black.
Sheath #3: Polyvinyl thermoplastic
available to industry, shipboard use, non-exhuding,
black.
PVC Sheath #4: Polyvinyl thermoplastic available
to
PVCindust
TW 90%,C IPCEA Appendix J, -500C bend, black.
Insulation: Polyvinyl thermoplastic
available to industry, IPCEA Appendix J,
multi-
purpose, -400C bend, black.
Hycar Sheath #1: Compound designed for cable
sheath,
oil and water resistant polymer, black.
Hycar Sheath #2: Compound designed for cable
sheath,
oil resistant polymer, black.
Silicone 125*C Insulation: Compound available
to
industry, general purpose, white.

I,

• i