[0001] The present invention relates to cable applications, such as a coating on a fiber
optical cable. coaxial cable, or telecommunications cable, comprising a layer of a
specific polyethylene composition. More specifically, the polyethylene composition
used in the cable of the present invention comprises a particular type of ethylene
/α-olefin interpolymer, especially a homogeneously branched ethylene/α olefin interpolymer,
and most preferably a homogeneously branched substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin
interpolymer; and a heterogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer (or linear
ethylene homopolymer). The cable of the present invention may have good mechanical
properties such as abrasion resistance and flexibility, and good processability, moreover,
may be less environmentally harmful (as compared with polyvinyl-chloride (PVC) based
cables) when disposed.
[0002] Various types of thermoplastic polymer have been used for wire and cable jacketing
applications. Especially, polymer compositions based on ethylene homopolymer via high
pressure polymerization processes (low density polyethylene (LDPE)), and polyvinyl-chloride
(PVC) have been used conventionally.
[0003] Various mechanical properties are desired for the cable jacketing application, for
example, mechanical properties such as abrasion resistance, flexibility and reduced
notch sensitivity are highly required. Moreover, good processability is also required
for production efficiency and good appearance or quality of produced cable.
[0004] However, the above resins (that is LDPE, PVC) have several deficiencies. For example,
LDPE may be acceptably flexible (that is low stiffness) but very often has low abuse
resistance; moreover, since PVC contains chlorine, PVC-based cables release environmentally
harmful gas such as hydrochloride gas when combusted. Furthermore, considering environmental
adaptability, polymers such as PVC, especially those containing lead stabilizers,
tend to release environmental harmful materials (for example, lead leached into ground
water) when combusted or landfilled and should be avoided for this application. In
addition, when the plasticizers leach out of a PVC formulation, the cable becomes
brittle which leads to premature failure.
[0005] Linear polyethylene has also been used as a layer in a cable application, but these
linear polyethylene polymers do not have adequate abuse resistance in combination
with the necessary flexibility; that is, to increase abuse resistance in a linear
polyethylene, one merely has to increase the density of the polyethylene, however
raising the density reduces the flexibility. Reduced flexibility hampers installation
of the cable, especially where the cable must be routed through numerous bends and
twists/turns. Jacket or sheath damage resulting from poor flexibility usually results
in cable failure.
[0006] In view of the above deficiencies, a resin composition which satisfies the above
various mechanical properties, processability and environmental adaptability has been
long awaited.
[0007] One aspect of the present invention is a cable of categories 1, 2 or 3 as defined
by ASTM D 1248, comprising a jacket layer comprising a polyethylene composition, characterized
in that the polyethylene composition comprises:
(A) from 25 to 45 perecnt by weight of the total composition of at least one homogeneously
branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer having:
(i) a density from 0.89 g/cm3 to 0.94 g/cm3,
(ii) a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) from 1.8 to less than 3.5,
(iii) a melt index, I2, from 0.001 g/10 min. to less than 0.5 g/10 min., and
(iv) a CDBI greater than 50 percent,
(B) at least 5 percent by weight of the total composition of at least one heterogeneously
branched ethylene interpolymer or linear ethylene homopolymer having a density from
0.9 g/cm3 to 0.965 g/cm3,
wherein the final melt index, I
2, of the polyethylene composition in the cable jacket is in the range from 1 to 50
g/10 minutes, the polyethylene composition has a density of 0.945 g/cm
3 or more, and the cable jacket has a strain hardening modulus, Gp, greater than 1.6
MPA wherein Gp is calculated according to the following equation:

wherein
λn and σ
dr represent the natural draw ratio and engineering draw stress, respectively, and a
reduced notch sensitivity as indicated for a notched cable jacket comprising a polyethylene
composition and having a thickness from 2.03 to 2.29 mm (80-90 mil) taken in a circumferential
direction by less than 55% loss of elongation compared to an unnotched cable jacket
sample from said cable, as measured in accordance with ASTM D 638 at 23.9°C using
a die V (5) with a 2.5 cm jaw separation and pulling at a rate of 5.08 cm per minute.
[0008] Most preferably, the cable comprises a layer of a polyethylene composition characterized
in that the polyethylene composition comprises 40 percent (by weight of the total
composition) of the at least one first polymer which is characterized as having:
(i) a density from 0.91 to 0.92 g/cm3,
(ii) a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of 2,
(iii) a melt index (I2) of 0.1 g/10 min., and
(iv) a CBDI greater than 50 percent; and
about 60 percent (by weight of the total composition) of the at least one second
polymer which is characterized as having heterogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin
interpolymer:
(i) a density of 0.96 g/cm3,
(ii) a melt index (I2) of 6 g/10 min., and
(iii) a CDBI less than 50 percent.
[0009] Another aspect of the present invention is a cable jacket comprising the polyethylene
composition of the invention which has at least 10 percent, preferably at least 20
percent, more flexibility than a cable made using conventional heterogeneous linear
ethylene polymer having about the same density as the inventive polyethylene composition.
[0010] Yet another aspect of the invention is a cable comprising a thermoplastic cable jacket
having a thickness from 80 to 90 mils (2.0 to 2.3 mm) in contact with a metal shield
creating a notch in said jacket, wherein a sample of said notched jacket taken in
a circumferential direction, in accordance with ASTM D 638, has less than 55 percent
loss of elongation than an un-notched cable jacket sample from said cable.
[0011] Still another aspect of the invention is a cable comprising a thermoplastic ethylene
polymer cable jacket composition, wherein a plaque having a single notch, a thickness
from 70 to 80 mils (1.8 to 2.0 mm) made from said jacket composition has at least
100 percent, preferably at least 200 percent, more preferably at least 300 percent,
especially at least 400 percent, and most especially at least 500 percent, ultimate
tensile elongation, wherein the notch has a depth of at least 10 mils (0.25 mm), a
radius from 0.275 mm to 0.55 mm, preferably 0.3 mm to 0.525 mm, and especially from
0.38 mm to 0.51 mm, and wherein said ethylene polymer composition has a density of
at least 0.945 g/cm
3.
[0013] The strain hardening modulus (Gp) is calculated from the conventional tensile stress-strain
curve using the theory of rubber elasticity. More specifically, the true stress, σ
t, is calculated from the engineering stress, σ
Eng, and draw ratio, λ, as shown in Equation (I). For cable jacket resins, Equation (II)
was used to calculate the strain hardening modulus, where λ
n and σ
dr represent the natural draw ratio and engineering draw stress, respectively. The natural
draw ratio was determined by measuring the elongation of a grid pattern which was
printed on the tensile dogbones. As shown in Equation (III), the strain hardening
modulus is inversely related to the molecular weight between entanglements, M
e, that is, the molecular weight of the tie-molecules between crystalline domains and
ρ is the density of the resin.
[0014] Figure 4, for example, shows strain hardening modulus as a function of density of
the ethylene polymer composition. For examples E, En, A, and An, the strain hardening
modulus relationship can be approximated by the following equation:

where ρ = density of the ethylene polymer composition (including carbon black in
the density calculation if appropriate) and Gp is the strain hardening modulus. Note
that polymers B and Bn fall above the line, which is believed to be attributed to
higher levels of long chain branching ( that is, the I
10/I
2 melt flow ratio is higher for the homogeneous component for resin Bn than for the
homogeneous component of resins En and/or An.
[0015] For comparative polymers J, D, I and G, the strain hardening modulus follows a different
relationship described by equation (V):

Note that the line for the comparative polymers is much lower than that for the polymer
compositions of the invention.
[0016] Preferably, the polyethylene composition used in the cable of the present invention
is prepared by a process comprising the steps of:
(i) reacting by contacting ethylene and at least one α-olefin under solution polymerization
conditions in at least one reactor to produce a solution of the at least one first
polymer which is a homogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer, preferably
a substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer,
(ii) reacting by contacting ethylene and at least one α-olefin under solution polymerization
conditions in at least one other reactor to produce a solution of the at least one
second polymer which is a heterogeneously branched ethylene polymer,
(iii) combining the solution prepared in steps (i) and (ii), and
(iv) removing the solvent from the polymer solution of step (iii) and recovering the
polyethylene composition.
[0017] The cables of the present invention have good flexibility, mechanical properties
and good processability, furthermore, are environmentally less harmful when disposed
relative to cables comprising conventional PVC. An important aspect of the present
invention is the fact that cables, where the outer cable jacket comprises the compositions
disclosed in this invention, have improved flexibility relative to comparative cables
where the jacket is produced from conventional heterogeneous linear low density polyethylenes
(LLDPE). Cable flexibility is an important performance criteria, since more flexible
cables are easier to install and bend around corners. Cable flexibility was measured
by clamping a piece of cable honzontally in an Instron tensile machine and measuring
the force required to deflect the cable in the upward direction. Lower deflection
forces demonstrate improved flexibility, as shown in Figure 1. Cable jackets produced
from the copolymers of this invention are preferably 10 percent more flexible, and
more preferably 20 percent more flexible than comparative cables made using conventional
heterogeneous linear low density ethylene polymers having about the same density (
that is, the density of each polymer is within 10 percent of the other).
[0018] These and other embodiments are more fully described below, and in conjunction with
the Figures, wherein:
FIG. 1 is a plot of deflection force (kg) versus cable deflection (mm) for example
A and comparative example G;
FIG. 2 is a plot of ultimate tensile elongation (percent) versus notch number in the
test sample for example B and for comparative example G;
FIG. 3 is a plot of change in the relative tensile elongation versus temperature for
example A and comparative example G;
FIG. 4 is a plot of strain hardening modulus (MPa) versus polymer and composition
density for example polymers A, An, B, Bn, E, and En, and for comparative examples
D, G, I and J;
FIG. 5 is a surface roughness scan of a cable jacket made from example B;
FIG. 6 is a surface roughness scan of a cable jacket made from comparative example
G; and
FIG. 7 is a schematic representation, in perspective and party broken away, showing
one cable of the present invention.
[0019] The "substantially linear" ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers useful in the present
invention are not "linear" polymers in the traditional sense of the term, as used
to describe linear low density polyethylene (Ziegler polymerized linear low density
polyethylene (LLDPE)), nor are they highly branched polymers, as used to describe
low density polyethylene (LDPE). The "substantially linear" ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers
have long chain branching, wherein the backbone is substituted with 0.01 long chain
branches/1000 carbons to 3 long chain branches/1000 carbons, more preferably from
0.01 long chain branches/1000 carbons to 1 long chain branches/1000 carbons, and especially
from 0.05 long chain branches/1000 carbons to 1 long chain branches/1000 carbons.
Note that the long chain branches are not the same as the short chain branches resulting
from incorporation of the comonomer. Thus, for an ethylene/1-octene copolymer, the
short chain branches are six carbons in length, while the long chain branches for
such a substantially linear ethylene/1-octene copolymer are at least seven carbons
in length, but usually much longer than seven carbons.
[0020] The substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers of the present invention
are herein defined as in U.S. patent 5,272,236 (Lai et al.) and 5,278,272 (Lai et
al.). Long chain branching is defined herein as a chain length of at least 7 carbons,
above which the length cannot be distinguished using
13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The long chain branch can be as long
as the length of the polymer backbone.
[0021] For ethylene homopolymers and ethylene/C
3-C
7 alpha-olefin copolymers, long chain branching can be determined by
13C NMR spectroscopy and can be quantified using the method of Randall (Rev. Macromol.
Chem. Phys., C29 (2&3), p. 285-297). Union Carbide, in EP 0659773 Al, used a 1990
paper (Mirabella et al.) to quantify long chain branching. Exxon used "viscous energy
of activation" to quantify long chain branching in PCT Publication WO 94/07930.
[0022] Both the homogeneous linear and the substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers
useful for forming the compositions of the present invention are those in which the
comonomer is randomly distributed within a given interpolymer molecule and wherein
substantially all of the interpolymer molecules have the same ethylene / comonomer
ratio within that interpolymer, as described in USP 3,645,992 (Elston). The homogeneity
of the interpolymers is typically described by the SCBDI (Short Chain Branching Distribution
Index) or CDBI (Composition Distribution Branch/Breadth Index) and is defined as the
weight percent of the polymer molecules having a comonomer content within 50 percent
of the median total molar comonomer content. The CDBI of a polymer is readily calculated
from data obtained from techniques known in the art, such as, for example, temperature
rising elution fractionation (abbreviated herein as "TREF") as described, for example,
in Wild et al,
Journal of Polymer Science, Poly. Phys. Ed., Vol. 20, p 41 (1982), in U.S. patent 4,798,081 (Hazlitt et al.), or in U.S. patent
5,089,321 <Chum et al.). The SCBDI or CDBI for the homogeneous ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer
used in the present invention is greater than 50 percent, more preferably greater
than about 70 percent, and especially greater than about 90 percent. The homogeneous
ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers used in the present invention essentially lack a linear
polymer fraction which is measurable as "high density" fraction by the TREF technique
( that is homogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers do not contain a
polymer fraction with a degree of branching less than or equal to 1 methyl/1000 carbons).
For homogeneous linear or substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers, especially
ethylene/1-octene copolymers, having a density from about 0.88 g/cm
3 and higher, these interpolymers also do not contain any highly short chain branched
fraction ( that is the homogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin polymers do not contain
a polymer fraction with a degree of branching equal to or more than about 30 methyls/1000
carbons).
[0023] The homogeneous linear or substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer for
use in the present invention typically are interpolymers of ethylene and at least
one C
3-C
20 α-olefin and/or C
4-C
18 diolefin, preferably interpolymers of ethylene and C
3-C
20 α-olefins, more preferably a copolymer of ethylene and a C
4-C
8 α-olefin, most preferably a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene. The term interpolymer
is used herein to indicate a copolymer, or a terpolymer, or the like. That is, at
least one other comonomer is polymerized with ethylene to make the interpolymer. Ethylene
polymerized with two or more comonomers can also be used to make the homogeneously
branched substantially linear interpolymers useful in this invention. Preferred comonomers
include the C
3-C
20 α-olefins, especially propene, isobutylene, 1-butene, 1-hexene, 4-methyl-1-pentene,
1-heptene, 1-octene, 1-nonene, and 1-decene, more preferably 1-butene, 1-hexene, 4-methyl-1-pentane
and 1-octane.
[0024] The homogeneously branched linear and substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers
used in the present invention have a single melting peak, as determined using differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC) using a second heat and a scanning range from -30°C to
140°C at 10°C/minute, as opposed to traditional heterogeneously branched Ziegler polymerized
ethylene/α-olefin copolymers having two or more melting peaks, as determined using
DSC.
[0025] The density of the homogeneously branched linear or substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin
interpolymers (as measured in accordance with ASTM D-792) for use in the present invention
is generally from 0.89 g/cm
3 to 0.94 g/cm
3, and preferably from 0.9 g/cm
3 to 0.935 g/cm
3.
[0026] The amount of the homogeneously branched linear or substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin
interpolymer incorporated into the composition used in the cable of the present invention
varies depending upon the heterogeneously branched ethylene polymer to which it is
combined. However, preferably from 5 to 95 percent, more preferably from 20 to 80
percent, most preferably from 25 to 45 percent (by weight of the total composition
) of the homogeneous linear or substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin polymer may
be incorporated in the polyethylene composition for use in the cable of the present
invention.
[0027] The molecular weight of the homogeneously branched linear or substantially linear
ethylene/α-olefin polymer for use in the present invention is conveniently indicated
using melt index measurement according to ASTM D-1238, condition 190°C/2.16 kg (formerly
known as "condition (E)", and also known as I
2). Melt index is inversely proportional to the molecular weight of the polymer; although,
the relationship is not linear. The homogeneously branched linear or substantially
linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers useful herein will generally have a melt index
of at least 0.001 grams/10 minutes (g/10 min.), and preferably at least 0.03 g/10
min. The homogeneously branched linear or substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer
will have a melt index of less than 0.5 g/10 min.
[0028] Another measurement useful in characterizing the molecular weight of the homogeneously
branched substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers is conveniently indicated
m melt index measurement according to ASTM D-1238, condition 190°C/10 kg (formerly
know as "Condition (N)" and also known as I
10). The ratio of the I
10 and I
2 melt index is the melt flow ratio and is designated as I
10/I
2. Generally, the I
10/I
2 ratio for the homogeneously branched linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers is about
5.6. For the homogeneously branched substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers
used in the polyethylene composition of the present invention, the I
10/I
2 ratio indicates the degree of long chain branching, that is, the higher the I
10/I
2 ratio, the more long chain branching in the interpolymer. Generally, the I
10/I
2 ratio of the homogeneously branched substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers
is at least 6, preferably at least 7, especially at least 8 or above, and can be as
high as 20. For the homogeneously branched substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin
interpolymers, the higher the I
10/I
2 ratio, the better the processability.
[0029] The molecular weight distribution of the substantially linear ethylene interpolymer
in the present invention may be analyzed by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) on
a Waters 150°C high temperature chromatographic unit equipped with three mixed porosity
columns (Polymer Laboratones 10
3, 10
4, 10
5 and 10
6), operating at a system temperature of 140°C. The solvent is 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,
from which 0.3 percent by weight solutions of the samples are prepared for injection.
The flow rate is 1.0 mL/minutes and the injection size is 100 microliters. A differential
refractometer is being used as the detector.
[0030] The molecular weight determination is deducted by using narrow molecular weight distribution
polystyrene standards (from Polymer Laboratories) in conjunction with their elution
columns. The equivalent polyethylene molecular weights are determined by using appropriate
Mark-Houwink coefficient for polyethylene and polystyrene ( as described by Williams
and Ward in
Journal of Polymer Science, Polymer Letters, Vol. 6, (621) 1968, incorporated herein by reference) to derive
the following equation:

[0031] In this equation, a=0.4316 and b=1.0. Weight average molecular weight, Mw, is calculated
in the usual manner according to the following formula: Mw=Σ wi*Mi, where wi and Mi
are the weight fraction and molecular weight, respectively, of the i
th fraction eluting from the GPC column.
[0032] For the homogeneously branched linear and substantially linear ethylene/α-olefin
interpolymers, the molecular weight distribution (M
w/M
n) is from 1.8 to less than 3.5, preferably from 1.8 to 2.8, more preferably from 1.89
to 2.2 and especially about 2.
[0033] The ethylene polymer to be combined with the homogeneously branched linear or substantially
linear ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer is a heterogeneously branched ethylene polymer,
preferably a heterogeneously branched (for example, Ziegler polymerized) interpolymer
of ethylene with at least one C
3-C
20 α-olefin (for example, linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE)).
[0034] Heterogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers differ from the homogeneously
branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers primarily in their branching distribution.
For example, heterogeneously branched LLDPE polymers have a distribution of branching,
including a highly short chain branched portion (similar to a very low density polyethylene),
a medium short chain branched portion (similar to linear low density polyethylene)
and often a linear ( that is, non-short chain branched) portion. The amount of each
of these fractions varies depending upon the whole polymer properties desired. For
example, linear homopolymer polyethylene has no short chain branching. A very low
density heterogeneous polyethylene having a density from 0.89 g/cm
3 to 0.915 g/cm
3 (such as Attane™ copolymers, sold by The Dow Chemical Company and Flexomer™ sold
by Union Carbide Corporation) has a higher percentage of the highly short chain branched
fraction, thus lowering the density of the whole polymer.
[0035] Preferably, the heterogeneously branched ethylene polymer is a heterogeneously branched
ethylene/α-olefin interpolymer, most preferably Ziegler polymerized ethylene/α-olefin
copolymer. The α-olefin for such ethylene interpolymer may include α-olefin having
3 to 30 carbon atoms, more preferably an α-olefin having 4 to 8 carbon atoms, most
preferably 1-octene.
[0036] More preferably, the heterogeneously branched ethylene polymer is a copolymer of
ethylene with a C
3-C
20 α-olefin, wherein the copolymer has:
(i) a density from 0.9 g/cm3 to 0.965 g/cm3,
(ii) a melt index (I2) from about 0.1 g/10 min. to about 500 g/10min.
[0037] The heterogeneously branched ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers and/or copolymers, especially
those having a density of less than 0.95 g/cm
3, (excluding, of course, ethylene homopolymers having a single melting peak) also
have at least two melting peaks as determined using Differential Scanning Calorimetry
(DSC), using the same scanning rate and temperature range described earlier herein.
[0038] The compositions disclosed herein can be formed by any convenient method, including
dry blending the individual components and subsequently melt mixing or by pre-melt
mixing in a separate extruder (for example, a Banbury mixer, a Haake mixer, A Brabender
internal mixer, or a twin screw extruder).
[0039] Another technique for making the compositions
in-situ is disclosed in PCT applications WO 92/11269 and WO 94/01052. PCT applications WO
92/11269 and WO 94/01052 describe, inter alia, interpolymerizations of ethylene and
C
3-C
20 α-olefins using a homogeneous catalyst in at least one reactor and a heterogeneous
catalyst in at least one other reactor. The reactors can be operated in series or
in parallel.
[0040] A preferred density of the polyethylene composition used for the cable of the present
invention may depend upon desired stiffness of the finished cable. However, typical
densities will preferably be from 0.91 to 0.96 g/cm
3, more preferably from 0.92 to 0.96 g/cm
3.
[0041] A preferred melt index ( that is I
2) of the polyethylene composition disclosed herein may depend upon process conditions
and desired physical properties. However, generally, the melt index of the polyethylene
composition disclosed herein may be from 1 to 50 g/10 minutes for all categories of
cable, preferably preferably greater than 1 to 10 g/10 minutes for category three
(3), and preferably greater than 10 to 25 g/10 minutes for category two (2), and greater
than 25 g/10 minutes for category one (1). These general categories are found in ASTM
D 1248, and are also included in the Standard Specifications for Plastic, Molding
and Extrusion, However, if the I
2 of the polyethylene composition disclosed herein is lower than about 0.1 g/10 minutes,
the polyethylene composition is often difficult to extrude and may cause melt fracture
on the surface of the finished cable. Likewise, if the I
2 of the polyethylene composition disclosed herein is higher than the above ranges,
the molten polymer tends to have a low melt viscosity and melt tension. thus may be
difficult to fabricate into the desired cable.
[0042] The I
10/I
2 of the polyethylene composition disclosed herein may be preferably from 7 to 16.
more preferably from 9 to 14, most preferably from 10 to 13. If the I
10/I
2 of the polyethylene polymer disclosed herein is lower than the above range, surface
quality of the finished cable tends to be deteriorated, and processability of the
cable may become unacceptably low.
[0043] The resin composition of the present invention may comprise any known additives and/or
fillers to the extent that they do not interfere with the enhanced formulation properties
discovered by Applicants. Any additives commonly employed in polyolefin compositions,
for example, cross-linking agents, antioxidants (for example, hindered phenolics (for
example, Irganox™ 1010 made by Ciba Geigy Corp.), phosphites (for example, Irgafos™
168 also by Ciba Geigy Corp.), flame retardants, heat stabilizers, ultra-violet absorbents,
anti-static agents, slip agents, process aids, foaming agents, plasticizers, dyes,
miscellaneous fillers such as clay and pigments can be included in the formulation.
A preferable additive of the present invention may include, for example, carbon black,
and an antioxidant such as Irganox™ 1010 and Irgafos™ 168.
[0044] The composition of the present invention may be further fabricated into desired cable
of the present invention by using any known fabrication method. The composition of
the present invention may be used not only for cable jacketing, but also cable insulation
or any layer of a cable. For example, the composition described herein may be heated,
melted, kneaded and extruded by a mono- or bi-axial extruder through an extrusion
die such as a cross-head die so as to be applied onto a core substrate, and then it
may be subjected to a cooling step, or the next coating step if desired. Multiple
layers of polymers may be applied onto the core substrate if desired. The core substrate
may comprise any known materials in the an, for example, control cables comprising
any conductive material such as copper, and aluminum, insulating material such as
low density polyethylene, polyvinyl-chloride, polyethylene compositions including
compositions described herein, conductive or semiconductive shields such as aluminum,
copper, and steel, usually in form of tape, foil, screen, net or any combinations
thereof, and any reinforcement material.
[0045] Various cables and cable designs may include, as at least one layer, the polyethylene
compositions disclosed herein. For example, USP 3,638.306 (Padowicz) shows a communications
cable which has a water proof core of conductors and a sheath including an unsoldered
steel layer. Figure 7 herein shows such a structure: the steel layer (1) is stretch-formed
to attain a tightly registered longitudinal seam which eliminates the necessity of
soldering or other means of mechanically joining the seam.
[0046] A cable 101 includes a plurality of conductors or conductor pairs 4 within a cable
core 2. The conductors 4 are surrounded by and the interstitial spaces therebetween
are filled with a waterproof filler material 6.
[0047] About core 2 is a core wrap 8 which may be a suitable plastic or other material.
A binder can be placed around core wrap 8 to hold it in position about core 2, a layer
of conductive metal is placed about the core. A thin aluminum layer 10 having a longitudinal
seam 14 therein advantageously can be used for lightning protection and shielding.
Longitudinal seam 14 is not required to be soldered or otherwise mechanically joined,
a steel layer 20 having unsoldered overlapping edges 16 and 18 forming a longitudinal
seam 17 is longitudinally wrapped about aluminum layer 10 to provide protection from
mechanical forces such as abrasion. The use of an unsoldered seam 17 for steel layer
20 is possible, since the cable core 2 is waterproof. Steel layer 20 and aluminum
layer 10 advantageously can be transversely corrugated and meshed with each other
to provide a more flexible sheath. Steel layer 20 is stretch-formed and cold-worked
as it is wrapped about aluminum layer 10 and edges 16 and 18 are closely meshed to
provide a tightly registered overlapping seam 17. The stretch-forming and cold-working
insure that edges 16 and 18 retain their respective positions without the necessity
for external holding forces after the forming forces have been removed. Thus, the
tightly registered seam 17 is maintained. Edges 16 and 18 will retain their positions
and maintain the tightly registered seam 17 even when cable 101 is would on a reel.
The outer or overlying edge 16 of steel layer 20 advantageously can be turned slightly
inward toward core 2 to insure that no sharp edges are presented by steel layer 20.
[0048] Corrosion protection for steel layer 20 and added protection against water penetration
are provided by hot-melt flooding each side of steel layer 20 with respective coatings
12 and 22 of a corrosionproof, waterproof material (such as a Primacor™ Adhesive Polymer
made by The Dow Chemical Company). This readily can be accomplished by drawing cable
101 through a bath of appropriate material as layer 20 is being applied. Coatings
12 and 22 advantageously might be the same material as is utilized for filler material
6. Protection against water penetration is obtained since coatings 12 and 22, respectively,
fill all spaces between steel layer 20 and the adjacent layers 10 and jacket 24 of
the cable sheath. Jacket 24 is desirably made using the ethylene polymer compositions
disclosed herein. Seam 17 is also sealed against water ingress by coatings 12 and
22 being drawn into seam 17 by capillary action of the tightly registered seam. Added
mechanical strength is also obtained from the adhesive forces of coatings 12 and 22
which tend to adhere steel layer 20 to adjacent layers 10 and jacket 24.
[0049] For added corrosion protection of layer 20 and for additional mechanical and moisture
protection, an exterior ethylene polymer composition jacket 24 advantageously is extruded
around the extenor surface of layer 20. Thus, the cable sheath comprising an aluminum
layer 10, an unsoldered steel layer 20 and a thermoplastic layer or jacket 24 joined
by corrosion coatings 12 and 22 provides mechanical, rodent, and waterproof protection
at a cost substantially less than the sheaths of prior art cables. In Figure 7, various
layers may comprise the ethylene polymer compositions disclosed herein, including
jacket 24, layers 22, 12 and 8; further any or all of these layers may comprise the
ethylene polymer compositions disclosed herein.
[0050] Other United States Patents disclosing useful cable structures enhanced by use of
a layer comprising the polyethylene compositions layer of the present invention include
US Patent 4,439,632 (Aloisio, Jr. et al.), US Patent 4,563,540 (Bohannon, Jr. et al.),
US Patent 3,717,716 (Biskebom et al.), and US Patent 3,681,515 (Mildner).
[0051] The present invention will be more clearly understood with reference to the following
examples.
Cable Example 1
[0052] A cable was produced by using polymer A which was an
in-situ blend made according to PCT Publications WO 92/11269 and WO 94/01052, wherein 36
weight percent of the total composition of a homogeneously branched substantially
linear ethylene/1-octene copolymer having a density of 0.915 g/cm
3 was made in a first reactor, and 64 weight percent of the total composition of a
heterogeneously branched linear ethylene/1-octene copolymer having a density of 0.955
g/cm
3 was made in a second reactor. Polymer A had a melt index (I
2) of 0.78 g/10 minutes, I
10/I
2 of 11.9, a density of 0.958 g/cm
3 (note that polymer A contained 2.6 weight percent carbon black and 400 ppm of a fluoroelastomer)
and 0.039 long chain branches/10,000 carbons (0.39 long chain branches/1000 carbons)
as determined using a kinetic model, and a M
w/M
n of 7.5. The polymer was extruded onto a cable by using a cable manufacturing line
equipped with an extruder having a diameter of 6.35 cm, length to diameter ratio of
20 to 1 with a 5 turn metering screw having a compression ratio of 3.66 to 1, with
a crosshead die having a die diameter of 2.04 cm, die-tip inside diameter of 1.73
cm. a die gap of 0.318 cm, and 0 cm land length. The cable was produced by forming
corrugated steel over a polyvmylchloride jacketed control cable and extruding the
polymeric jacket over the steel sheath. The extruder speed was approximately 55 rpm
and the cable line speed was held constant at 760 cm/minutes. The melt temperature
was 232°C to 240°C using the following temperature profile: zone 1, 166°C; zone 2,
171°C; zone 3, 188°C; zone 4, 205°C; cross head, 219°C; die, 227°C. Pressure, amps,
melt temperature and cable melt strength were evaluated subjectively (for example,
the cable jackets did or did not have the required melt strength during extrusion
as reported in Table 1). The surfaces of the cable jackets were evaluated visually
and assigned a numerical surface rating, where the highest quality surface was given
a rating of 100. The results are also reported in Table 1. The finished cable was
subjected to physical properties test described below.
Cable Example 2
[0053] A cable was produced by using polymer B which was an
in-situ blend made according to PCT Publications WO 92/11269 and WO 94/01052, wherein 41
weight percent of the total composition of a homogeneously branched substantially
linear ethylene/1-octene copolymer having a density of 0.915 g/cm
3 was made in a first reactor, and 59 weight percent of the total composition of a
heterogeneously branched linear polymer ethylene/1-octene copolymer having a density
of 0.955 g/cm
3 was made in a second reactor. The polymer B had a melt index of 0.89 g/10minutes,
I
10/I
2 of 11.3, density of 0.957 g/cm
3 (note that polymer B contained 2.6 weight percent carbon black and 400 ppm of a fluoroelastomer),
0.18 long chain branches/10,000 carbon atoms (1.8 long chain branches/1000 carbon
atoms) as calculated using a kinetic model, and molecular weight distribution ( that
is M
w/M
n) of 5.01. The polymer was extruded onto cable as described in Example 1. The finished
cable was subjected to the physical property tests described below. Melt tension and
cable surface rating were measured by the methods described in Example 1, and are
reported in Table 1.
Cable Example 3
[0054] An cable is produced by using polymer C which was an
in-situ blend ethylene/l-octene copolymer produced by the same process described in Example
1, having a melt index of 0.87 g/10minutes, I
10/I
2 of 10.47 and density of 0.952 g/cm
3(note that polymer C contained 2.6 weight percent carbon black and 400 ppm of a fluoroelastomer)
and a M
w/M
n of 5.22. The polymer was extruded onto cable as described in Example 1. Surface rating
is reported in Table 1. The finished cable was subjected to physical properties tests
described below.
Comparative Cable Example 4
[0055] A cable was produced by using polymer D, which is a currently available polyethylene
(for example UCC 8864 by Union Carbide) having melt index of 0.76 g/10minutes, I
10/I
2 of 12.3, density of 0.942 g/cm
3, and M
w/M
n of 3.7, and no long chain branching. Polymer D also contained 2.6 weight percent
carbon black and about 400 ppm of a fluoroelastomer. The polymer was extruded onto
cable as described in Example 1. Melt tension data and cable surface rating are reported
in Table 1.
Cable Example 5
[0056] A cable was produced by using polymer E which was an
in-situ blend ethylene/1-octene copolymer produced by the same process described in Example
1, having a melt index of 0.58 g/10minutes, I
10/I
2 of 11.03, and density of 0.944 g/cm
3, and M
w/M
n of 5.1. Polymer E also contained 2.6 weight percent carbon black and 400 ppm of a
fluoroelastomer. The polymer was extruded onto cable as described in Example 1. Melt
tension and surface rating are reported in Table 1. The finished cable was subjected
to physical properties test described below.
Cable Example 6.
[0057] A cable was produced by using polymer F which was an
in-situ blend ethylene/1-octene copolymer produced by the same process described in Example
1, having a melt index of 0.88 g/10minutes, I
10/I
2 of 10.13, density of 0.94 g/cm
3, and a M
w/M
n of about 4.6. Polymer F contained 2.6 weight percent carbon black and 400 ppm of
a fluoroelastomer. The polymer was extruded onto cable as described in Example 1 and
subjected to physical properties tests described below. Melt tension and surface rating
are reported in Table 1.
Comparative Cable Example 7
[0058] A cable was produced by using polymer G, which is a currently available polyethylene
(for example UCC 3479 by Union Carbide) having melt index of 0.12 g/10minutes, I
10/I
2 of 29.4, density of 0.958 g/cm
3, M
w/M
n of 5.6, and no long chain branching. Polymer G contained 2.6 weight percent carbon
black and about 400 ppm of a fluoroelastomer. The polymer was extruded onto cable
as described in Example 1 and subjected to physical properties tests described below.
Melt tension and surface rating are reported in Table 1.
Table 1
| Resin* |
Used to Make Cable |
I2 (g/10min.) |
I10/I2 |
Density (g/cm3) |
Visual Surface Rating |
Melt Strength
(cN) |
| Polymer A |
Example 1 |
0.78 |
11.9 |
0.958 |
90 |
- |
| Polymer B |
Example 2 |
0.89 |
11.3 |
0.957 |
100 |
3.69 |
| Polymer C |
Example 3 |
0.87 |
10.47 |
0.952 |
75 |
- |
| Polymer D |
Comp. Ex 4 |
0.76 |
12.26 |
0.942 |
95 |
6.57 |
| Polymer E |
Example 5 |
0.58 |
11.03 |
0.948 |
65 |
4.5 |
| Polymer F |
Example 6 |
0.88 |
10.13 |
0.940 |
70 |
4.2 |
| Polymer G |
Comp. Ex 7 |
0.12 |
29.4 |
0.958 |
80 |
7.1 |
| * All of these resins contained 2.6 wt percent carbon black and 400 ppm fluoroelastomer |
Surface Profilometry
[0059] The surface roughness of Example 2 and comparative Example 7 was quantified using
surface profilometry. More specifically, the average surface roughness of theses cables
was measured using a Surftest 402 Surface Roughness Tester, produced by Mitutoyo.
This analyzer computes various surface roughness parameters given a scan of the cable
surface with a diamond tipped stylus. Surface roughness is quantified by the statistical
parameter,
Ra, known as the average roughness. This quantity is the arithmetic mean of all departures
of the roughness profile from the average mean line as in Equation (V),

where N is the number of digitized data points within the length of cable used for
the measurement and ƒ(
x) is the vertical departure from the mean surface line at each data point.
[0060] The average roughness of Example 2 was 28.0 ± 1.4 µ in. (0.71 ± 0.036 microns), while
the average roughness of comparative example 7 was 60.5 ± 2.1 µ in (1.54 ± 0.053 microns).
The surface roughness of the copolymers described in this invention is less than half
the roughness of the comparative sample. Typical profilometer traces from the surface
of cable Example 2 and Example 7 are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
[0061] This surface roughness data is surprising, given the I
10/I
2 values, for example, 11.3 for Example 2 and 29.4 for comparative Example 7. More
specifically, it is well known that processability improves and surface roughness
(melt fracture) decreases as I
10/I
2 increases. In other words, the very smooth cables produced by the copolymers of this
invention were surprising, given their relatively low I
10/I
2 values.
Circumferential and Longitudinal Tensile Tests
[0062] Circumferential tensile samples were cut from the finished cables perpendicular to
the cable axis with no metal seam impressions within gauge length. Longitudinal tensile
samples were cut parallel to the cable axis with no metal seam impressions within
gauge length. The tensile test was carried out according to ASTM D 638, using Die
V (5) (for example microtensile), with a 2.54 cm jaw separation and pulling at 1.27
cm/minutes. The tensile strength data are reported in Table 2.
Table 2
| Resin |
Circumferential Tensiles |
Longitudinal Tensiles |
| |
Yield
(kg/cm2) |
Ultimate |
Yield
(kg/cm2) |
Ultimate |
| |
|
Stress
(kg/cm2) |
Elongation
(percent) |
|
Stress
(kg/cm2) |
Elongation
(percent) |
| Polymer A |
125 |
144 |
380 |
127 |
178 |
510 |
| Polymer B |
117 |
158 |
450 |
122 |
186 |
525 |
| Polymer C |
134 |
201 |
540 |
137 |
204 |
565 |
| Polymer G* |
169 |
111 |
460 |
157 |
214 |
670 |
| Polymer E |
89 |
123 |
385 |
89 |
176 |
530 |
| Polymer F |
91 |
162 |
480 |
95 |
190 |
530 |
Notched circumferential tensile tests
[0063] Circumferential tensile samples were cut perpendicular to the cable axis from the
finished cables prepared as described above, and the notch (due to the metal overlap)
was centered within the gauge length. The test was carried out as described in ASTM
D638 using Die V (5) (for example microtensile), with a 2.54 cm jaw separation and
puling at 5.08 cmlminute. The results are reported in Table 3.
Table 3
| Resin |
Notched Tensile at 23.9°C |
Notched Tensile at -32.2°C |
| |
Yield
(kg/cm2) |
Ultimate |
Yield
(kg/cm2) |
Ultimate |
| |
|
Stress
(kg/cm2) |
Elongation
(percent) |
|
Stress
(kg/cm2) |
Elongation
(percent) |
| Polymer A |
145 |
88 |
280 |
221 |
75 |
24 |
| Polymer B |
125 |
63 |
220 |
*a |
*a |
*a |
| Polymer C |
96 |
79 |
250 |
211 |
80 |
180 |
| Polymer G* |
138 |
49 |
40 |
238 |
90 |
24 |
| Polymer E |
73 |
70 |
190 |
199 |
90 |
95 |
| Polymer F |
82 |
42 |
61 |
197 |
98 |
116 |
| *comparative Example |
| *a : Sample Cracked |
Reduced Notch Sensitivity (Cables)
[0064] An important aspect of the present invention is the fact that cables, where the outer
cable jacket is composed of the compositions disclosed in this invention, have reduced
notch sensitivity relative to comparative cable jackets. It is well known that the
tensile properties of polyethylenes are sensitive to notches or surface imperfections.
During the cable jacketing process, notches are generally produced at the shield overlap.
In the case of poor or incomplete shield overlap, severe notches are produced in the
jacket which can result in failures under relatively mild impact or tensile forces.
The reduced notch sensitivity of the cable jackets of this invention is shown in Table
4. For example, due to the notch, the cable jackets of this invention lost 26 to 54
percent of their tensile elongation, that is, the tensile elongation with no notch
present. In contrast, 90 percent of the tensile elongation was lost for cable jackets
produced from a comparative polyethylene (Example G). Thus, cable jackets produced
from the copolymers of this invention have reduced notch sensitivity. Reduced notch
sensitivity means the cables are easier to install, for example, the cables do not
fail (split) during the bending and/or twisting which occurs during the installation
process.
Table 4
| Sample |
Percent (%) |
| |
Cable Jacket Circumferential Tensile Elongation |
Cable Jacket Notched Circumferential Tensile Elongation |
Loss of Elongation. due to Notch |
| Example A |
380 |
280 |
26 |
| Example B |
450 |
220 |
51 |
| Example C |
540 |
250 |
54 |
| Comparative Example G |
400 |
40 |
90 |
Cable Flexibility
[0065] Cable flexibility of the final cable jacket bonded to corrugated steel was determined
by measuring the amount of force required to deflect the cable. A cable having a length
of 33 cm was cut, the cable core was discarded, and each end, approximately 3 cm in
length, was flattened. The cable was inserted through the upper grip assembly of the
Instron tensile machine and the flattened ends were clamped to the frame of the Instron
tensile machine. The cable samples were deflected at a rate of 12.7 cm/minutes, and
the force required to deflect the cable 5, 10, 15 and 20 mm was recorded and reported
in Table 5. Lower force indicates greater flexibility. This test is described in detail
in "Chemical/Moisture Barrier Cable for Underground Systems" by K.E. Bow and Joseph
H. Snow, presented at IEEE/PCIC Conference, held Sept. 1981 in Minneapolis, MN, pp.
1-20, especially pages 8-10.
Table 5
| Cable Sample |
Polymer density (g/cm3) |
Force (Kg) at Deflection of |
| |
|
5mm |
10mm |
15mm |
20mm |
| Polymer A |
0.958 |
7.3 |
11.5 |
14.6 |
17.2 |
| Polymer B |
0.957 |
6.8 |
11.5 |
14.6 |
16.8 |
| Polymer C |
0.952 |
6.3 |
10.4 |
13.5 |
16.8 |
| Polymer G* |
0.958 |
8.0 |
12.7 |
16.4 |
19.7 |
| Polymer E |
0.948 |
5.2 |
9.4 |
12.5 |
14.8 |
| Polymer F |
0.94 |
6.5 |
10.0 |
12.9 |
15.7 |
[0066] The cables made from polymer A (density: 0.958 g/cm
3), polymer B (density: 0.957 g/cm
3) and polymer C (density: 0.952 g/cm
3) showed greater flexibility ( that is lower force at deflection) than cable made
from Polymer G (density: 0.958 g/cm
3), where these samples are of similar density. Especially, the cable made from polymer
A showed superior flexibility than the cable made from polymer G, despite the density
of the both polymers being about the same. The results for these two trials are also
shown graphically in FIG. 1. The results shown in Table 5 indicate the cables of the
present invention have superior flexibility than the cable made from the current polymer.
For example, the data show that it takes less force to deflect a cable of the invention
for a given distance (for example, 5, 10, 15 or 20 mm as shown in the table), than
for a cable made from currently commercially available polyethylene, even at similar
densities.
Shrinkback
[0067] Samples of jacket were removed from the finished cable prepared above, and the shrinkback
was measured in accordance with ASTM D 4565. As an exception to ASTM D 4565. 4 specimens
having 5.1 cm length parallel to the cable axis and 6.4 mm width were cut from the
cable. One of the specimens was cut from a portion of the cable lying directly over
the outer shield overlap and the other three were cut at successive 90 degree increments
to the overlap. Cables should not shrink back more than 5 percent, preferably not
more than 2 percent, after 4 hours in an oven at 100°C. The results are reported in
Table 6.
Table 6
| Resin |
percent Shrinkback |
| Polymer A |
1.5 |
| Polymer B |
0.5 |
| Polymer C |
0.5 |
| Polymer G* |
1.0 |
| Polymer E |
1.0 |
| Polymer F |
1.0 |
Melt Index Drift
[0068] The melt index of the cable jacket, after extrusion, was determined according to
ASTM D 1238. The percent drift in melt index ( that is, the change in melt index as
a result of extrusion) (percent M drift) was determined using the following equation:

wherein MI
initial represents a melt index of the resin prior to extrusion, and MI
cable represents a melt index after extrusion. The change in melt index as a result of
extrusion indicates the amount of crosslinking that may take place during extrusion;
normally, minimal change is desired. The results are reported in Table 7.
Table 7
| Resin |
MIcable |
Miinitial |
percent MIdrift |
| Polymer A |
0.83 |
0.78 |
6.4 |
| Polymer B |
0.94 |
0.89 |
5.6 |
| Polymer C |
0.96 |
0.87 |
10.3 |
| Polymer G* |
0.16 |
0.12 |
33.3 |
| Polymer E |
0.75 |
0.58 |
29.3 |
| Polymer F |
0.96 |
0.88 |
9.1 |
[0069] The results shown in Table 7 indicate that the melt index drift of the resin used
in the present invention was generally lower than that of commercially available currently
used resin G*.
Jacket Bond Test
[0070] The jacket bond test was conducted according to ASTM D 4565 for cables with a bonded
steel sheath. A section of the cable jackets prepared as described above was removed
by slitting the jacket longitudinally along the shield overlap. The cable was ringed
circumferentantially with a knife, flexed at the cut point to break the steel shield
at the ring. The metal sheath was opened, flattened, and the cable core was discarded.
The specimen strip was cut in the circumferential direction. Three strips having a
width of 13 mm were cut for each strip. For each specimen, the jacket was separated
from the shield or armor only of a length sufficient to permit forming a tab of each
sheath component. Three specimens were tested for each cable sample at a crosshead
speed of 50 mm / minute. The results are reported in Table 8.
Table 8
| Resin |
Circumferential |
Longitudinal |
Overlap |
| |
Bond Strength
(N/m) |
Failure Mode |
Bond Strength
(N/m) |
Failure Mode |
Bond Strength
(N/m) |
| Polymer A |
4,136 |
Jacket |
6,110 |
Metal / Jacket |
6.366 |
| Polymer B |
10,246 |
Jacket / Metal |
7,299 |
Metal |
3,929 |
| Polymer G |
6,523 |
Jacket |
7,721 |
Metal/ Jacket |
1,160 |
| Polymer E |
5,963 |
Metal |
5,825 |
Metal |
4,224 |
| Polymer D |
6,601 |
Jacket / Metal |
6,110 |
Metal |
6,091 |
Bend Tests: Hot, Room Temperature and Cold
[0071] A cold bend test was conducted according to ICEA specification S-84-608-1988 which
calls out ASTM 4565 for the specifics on the test procedure. Samples were equilibrated
in a cold room at - 30°C for 4 hours, pnor to the testing. A cable sample having length
of 91.4 cm was bent in a 180° arc around a mandrel having a diameter of 8 times the
cable diameter, then the sample was straightened, rotated 180°, and then bent again
180°. Upon completion of the second bend, the cable was straightened, rotated 90°
and bent in a 180° arc. Upon completion of the third bend, the cable was straightened,
rotated 180° and then bent for the fourth time.
[0072] A room temperature bend test was conducted in a manner similar to ASTM 4565. The
cable samples were conditioned at 20°C for 4 hours prior to testing. A cable sample
was bent in the same manner as the cold bend test as described above, except the sample
was bent around a mandrel having a diameter of 20 times the cable diameter.
[0073] A hot bend test was conducted in a manner similar to ASTM 4565. The cable samples
were conditioned at 60°C for 4 hours prior to testing. A cable sample was bent in
the same manner as the cold bend test as described above, except the sample was bent
around a mandrel having a diameter of 10 times that of the cable diameter.
[0074] After bending each cable sample, the surface area of the samples were inspected for
cracks in the bent area using normal or corrected to normal vision. Results of the
cold, room temperature and hot bend test are reported in Table 9.
Table 9
| Resin |
-30°C bend |
20°C bend |
60°C bend |
| Polymer A |
no visual change |
no visual change |
no visual change |
| Polymer B |
no visual change |
no visual change |
no visual change |
| Polymer D* |
no visual change |
no visual change |
no visual change |
| Polymer E |
no visual change |
no visual change |
no visual change |
| Polymer G* |
no visual change |
no visual change |
no visual change |
Cold impact test.
[0075] According to ASTM D-4565, the cable samples were conditioned at -20°C for 4 hours
and tested for impact resistance. A 0.45 kg weight was dropped onto the cable samples
from a height of 0.9 m, and inner and outer surfaces of the cable samples were inspected
with normal or corrected to normal vision. The results are reported in Table 10.
Table 10
| Resin |
-20°C bend |
| Polymer A |
no visual change |
| Polymer B |
no visual change |
| Polymer D* |
no visual change |
| Polymer E |
no visual change |
| Polymer G* |
no visual change |
Cable Torsion
[0076] Cable samples having length of 152 cm were conditioned more than 24 hours at a temperature
of 18 to 27°C. One end of the straight sample was fixed in a vise and the other end
was rotated in a direction opposite to the overlap in the steel sheath without bending
during the test, by an angle φ defined below in Equation (IV),

wherein OD is an outer diameter of the cable in mm. The results are reported in Table
11.
Table I 1
| Resin |
Torsion Result |
| Polymer A |
no visual change |
| Polymer B |
no visual change |
| Polymer D* |
no visual change |
| Polymer E |
cable zippered |
| Polymer G* |
no visual change |
Example 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14, and Comparative Example 11 and 13, Abrasion Resistance
[0077] The abrasion resistance of Polymers A, B, C and F (which are the same polymers used
in Examples 1, 2, 3 and 6), and Polymer H which is an
in-situ blend produced by the same process described in Example 1 (polymer H is an ethylene/1-octene
copolymer blend), are summarized in Table 13. Examples 8, 9 and 10 are summarized
in Table 12. The Taber abrasion data is detailed in Table 13, which measurements were
determined using abrading wheel H 18 with a 1000 g load and 1000 cycles on molded
plaques.
Table 12
| Example No. |
Resin |
I2
(g/10min.) |
I10/I2 |
Density
(g/cm3) |
| Example 8 |
Polymer An* |
0.92 |
11.87 |
0.94 |
| Example 9 |
Polymer Bn* |
0.89 |
11.35 |
0.94 |
| Example 14 |
Polymer H** |
0.82 |
11.45 |
0.952 |
| * "n" denotes natural version of these polymers, that is, no carbon black or fluoroelastomer |
| * *Sample contains 2.6 wt percent carbon black and 400 ppm of fluoroelastomer |
Table 13
| Example No. |
Resin* |
Taber Abrasion
(g lost / 1000 revolutions) |
| Example 8 |
Polymer An |
0.033 |
| Example 9 |
Polymer Bn |
0.031 |
| Example 10 |
Polymer C |
0.033 |
| Comparative Example 11 |
Polymer G |
0.029 |
| Example 12 |
Polymer F |
0.039 |
| Comparative Example 12 |
Polymer D |
0.031 |
| Example 14 |
Polymer H |
0.029 |
| * "n" denotes natural version of these polymers, that is, no carbon black or fluoroelastomer |
[0078] As the data of Table 13 indicate, the polymer compositions disclosed in the present
invention have similar abrasion resistance relative to the currently available polymers.
Examples 15, 16, 18 and 19, and Comparative Examples 17 and 20, Notch Sensitivity
[0079] Plaque samples for standard microtensile test according to ASTM D-1708, Die V (5)
were prepared using a special mold containing four ridges with the dimensions described
in Table 14. These ridges produced well defined notches in the final plaques. Microtensile
dogbone samples were cut from the plaque, with the notch centered within the gauge
length. The tensile test was conducted according to ASTM D 638 at 25.4 cm/minutes
cross-head speed (pull rate) with 2.5 cm jaw separation at three temperatures, for
example -30°C, 0°C and 25°C, using each notched sample and control samples having
no notch. The results are reported in Table 15.
Table 14
| |
Notch Depth (mm) |
Notch Radius (mm) |
Radius/Depth Ratio |
| Notch 1 |
0.251 |
0.508 |
2.02 |
| Notch 2 |
0.249 |
0.381 |
1.53 |
| Notch 3 |
0.254 |
0.254 |
1.00 |
| Notch 4 |
0.257 |
0.127 |
0.50 |
Table 15
| Example No. |
Polymer / Density (g/cm3) |
Notch |
Elongation at Break (percent) |
Stress at Break (kg/cm2) |
| |
|
|
20°C |
0°C |
-30°C |
20°C |
0°C |
-30°C |
| Example 15 |
Polymer B / 0.957 |
Control |
546 |
452 |
279 |
229.8 |
237.3 |
231.8 |
| Notch 1 |
529 |
180 |
32 |
212.6 |
157.1 |
232.3 |
| Notch 2 |
230 |
41 |
24 |
138.7 |
173.9 |
242.6 |
| Notch 3 |
44 |
24 |
17 |
55.9 |
176.8 |
220.8 |
| Notch 4 |
34 |
20 |
13 |
52.9 |
150.0 |
220.4 |
| Example 16 |
Polymer C/ 0.952 |
Control |
627 |
458 |
150 |
236.0 |
216.3 |
224.2 |
| Notch 1 |
439 |
392 |
26 |
195.0 |
191.0 |
203.8 |
| Notch 2 |
452 |
53 |
21 |
203.0 |
182.0 |
203.3 |
| Notch 3 |
48 |
26 |
20 |
75.5 |
183.5 |
211.1 |
| Notch 4 |
38 |
29 |
17 |
41.3 |
54.1 |
163.6 |
| Comparative Example 17 |
Polymer G / 0.958 |
Control |
637 |
304 |
128 |
173.3 |
197.1 |
224.1 |
| Notch 1 |
53 |
25 |
16 |
109.9 |
73.9 |
276.1 |
| Notch 2 |
29 |
22 |
52 |
156.2 |
128.9 |
211.6 |
| Notch 3 |
20 |
18 |
52 |
179.4 |
64.8 |
211.4 |
| Notch 4 |
22 |
19 |
12 |
104.9 |
55.5 |
394.5 |
| Example 18 |
Polymer E / 0.948 |
Control |
624 |
505 |
472 |
252.1 |
284.9 |
299.9 |
| Notch 1 |
543 |
497 |
310 |
210.7 |
281.1 |
276.0 |
| Notch 2 |
508 |
471 |
30 |
190.6 |
265.9 |
223.5 |
| Notch 3 |
218 |
43 |
23 |
140.4 |
104.7 |
223.2 |
| Notch 4 |
44 |
35 |
16 |
53.5 |
67.2 |
241.6 |
| Example 19 |
Polymer F/ 0.940 |
Control |
671 |
573 |
452 |
261.0 |
215.1 |
270.8 |
| Notch 1 |
574 |
524 |
326 |
208.4 |
281.2 |
253.4 |
| Notch 2 |
542 |
493 |
33 |
196.0 |
262.7 |
210.7 |
| Notch 3 |
273 |
45 |
22 |
128.8 |
127.3 |
216.1 |
| Notch 4 |
47 |
35 |
26 |
57.1 |
64.7 |
79.2 |
| Comparative Example 20 |
Polymer D / 0.942 |
Control |
923 |
739 |
372 |
259.7 |
297.6 |
230.1 |
| Notch 1 |
759 |
683 |
405 |
216.1 |
285.8 |
225.4 |
| Notch 2 |
736 |
653 |
454 |
209.5 |
277.3 |
242.4 |
| Notch 3 |
689 |
438 |
28 |
202.8 |
205.9 |
199.0 |
| Notch 4 |
71 |
47 |
19 |
83.2 |
84.1 |
207.1 |
[0080] As shown in Table 15, the polymers used in the cable of the present invention (for
example polymer B, C, E and F) were less notch sensitive than the polymers currently
available in the industry (for example Polymer D and G), comparing at about same density,
for example, Polymers B and C have the higher elongation at break than Polymer G,
and polymers E and F have the higher elongation at break than Polymer D, at almost
all temperatures.
Reduced Notch Sensitivity (Compression Molded Plaques)
[0081] Improved notch sensitivity of the copolymers of this invention was also demonstrated
by the tensile properties of compression molded plaques, as described in "Notched
Tensile Low-Temperature Brittleness Test for Cable Jacketing Polyethylene" by R. Bernie
McAda, as appeared in the May 1983 issue of
Wire Journal International Magazine. Well defined notches were produced in compression molded plaques using a special
"notched" mold. In general, as shown in Figure 2, tensile elongation decreased as
the severity of the notch increased (for example, Notch 2 was more severe than Notch
1, etc.). Figure 2 also shows that the copolymer described in this invention (Example
B) is much less notch sensitive than comparative Example G. In fact, Notch 1 had no
effect on the ultimate tensile elongation of Example B (within experimental error),
while comparative Example G failed catastrophically at all four notches.
Improved Low Temperature Tensiles (Compression Molded Plaques)
[0082] The copolymers useful in this invention also have improved low temperature tensile
properties. For example, as shown in Figure 3, the reduction in tensile elongation
for Example A was 18 percent at 0°C and 56 percent at -30°C. In contrast, the reduction
in tensile elongation for comparative Example G was 52 percent at 0°C and 80 percent
at -30°C. Thus, relative to comparative samples, the copolymers of this invention
have improved tensile properties at low temperature. As a result, the cables of this
invention are easier to install at low temperatures, for example, less susceptible
to failures (splitting) at low temperatures.