WCA May 2016

The Effect of Cable Construction on Flame Retardancy in Moisture- cure Compounds By Peter C Dreux, Abhijit Ghosh-Dastidar, Kurt A Bolz, The Dow Chemical Company

Abstract Flame retardant fillers are used in insulation and jacket coatings to produce building and industrial cables that meet critical fire safety standards and codes. These flame retardant additives mitigate the inherent fuel properties of the base resins used to provide electrical insulation to the underlying conductor, thereby slowing the spread of fire and providing critical escape time should a fire start. VW-1 (UL 44 and UL 2556) is an industry specification describing the flame retardancy of a polymer coated wire and its likelihood to propagate a fire after the removal of the initial heat source. With the advent of moisture cross-linked formulations in wire and cable systems, and the use of a draft-free burn chamber, compound manufacturers and cable producers have found it more and more challenging to pass VW-1. Beyond the critical parameter of polymer compound formulation, a further understanding of the cable construction including insulation wall thickness and conductor core (solid vs stranded) is necessary in the design of systems that will meet this level of burn performance. In this work, the effects of wire construction, including insulation thickness and conductor type, are investigated on the burn performance of various flame retardant formulations. Moisture-cured, low voltage wire insulations are made by mixing ethylene-vinylsilane copolymer, dibutyltin dilaurate catalyst masterbatch and varying levels of flame retardant masterbatch, and extruding on wires. Burn performance is described by burn time and char length of wires passing VW-1 as tested in a UL certified burn chamber. 1 Introduction Underwriters Laboratories Inc (UL ® ) has established the specification UL-44 (Thermoset-Insulated Wires and Cables) for type XHH, XHHW, XHHW-2 RHH,

RHW, RHW-2, RH and SIS insulated wires. In addition to dictating maximum operating voltages, conductor properties (size, metal type, solid vs stranded, etc) and insulation thicknesses, UL-44 specifies performance requirements for the insulation materials. These performance criteria are defined in terms of physical and electrical properties, fluid resistance, and thermomechanical performance. In addition, designations of flame retardancy are defined with FV-2/VW-1, vertical specimen, having one of the most rigorous burn compliance criteria. To achieve a marking of VW-1, a finished wire, either a 14 AWG (2.08mm 2 ) copper or 12 AWG (3.31mm 2 ) aluminium conductor with a 30 mil (0.76mm) insulation layer must not be capable of conveying flame along its length or in its vicinity in accordance with the test [1] . While the specification is not explicit about the use of solid versus stranded conductor, insulation formulators typically test specimens using solid conductors. This is largely due to the fact that other physical and electrical testing beyond flame performance does require the use of solid conductors. However, because of their flexibility and relative ease in handling during installation, cable manufacturers by and large produce only stranded conductors, even at smaller gauge sizes. Therefore samples submitted by cable producers for VW-1 testing, either for new product introductions or existing product compliance, are typically made using stranded conductors. It is therefore imperative that compound manufacturers understand and are able to predict the burn performance of their flame retardant compounds on a given conductor type. The conductor size is known to be a key parameter in the burn performance of wire and cable constructions, with larger conductors providing a greater heat-sink, and thus a disruption to the ‘fire triangle’ (heat/oxygen/fuel) [2] . There has been no effort in either the industry or the literature to determine if burn performance is significantly impacted by the type of conductor, stranded vs solid.

51

www.read-wca.com

Wire & Cable ASIA – May/June 2016