by Thermo 31. March 2011 16:23

Soaking I:  Diminishing Returns

 

Dear Greatest of Soakers,

 

It seems odd to me that for one who spends so much time soaking herself, that soaking cables is anathema to your firm’s culture.  When is it appropriate to soak a No.2 compressed URD cable?  If I do soak, for how long should I soak?

 

Geometrically constrained,

Alaskan Amber

 

Dear Amber-

 

You ask more questions than any of my other numerous fans.  I like that, except I have been told that some find the questions and the answers too technical.  My response to those critics is to ask your own questions.  If you ask a simple question, I will provide a simple answer.  This Amber guy is cool, his question is appropriate, and a proper answer it is going to require two posts.  Here is the first …

 

I can see why you might have been misled to believe that I am anti-soak, but that characterization is unfair.  Let’s set the facts straight:

 

1.   Novinium has a pile of patents that make soaking unnecessary, even for multi-decade life, for all but the most geometrically constrained cables.  I will define “geometrically constrained” later.  The following technological advancements, which I have expounded upon in past blogs, mean that even without a soak, Novinium technology will last longer than the two-decade old approach used by less enlightened purveyors of rejuvenation:

a.   Catalyst improvements were chronicled in Catalytic Considerations I and Catalytic Considerations II.

b.   Novinium Voltage Stabilizers are not present in older approaches.

c.    Our ultra-violet package, which retards the formation of electrical trees was laid out in “To UV or not to UV.”

d.   The tremendous power of effective anti-oxidants present only in Ultrinium™ brand fluids was described in “AO, AO … its home from work we go.”

e.   Chain Entanglement” dramatically slows the exudation of treatment fluid from the cable and is another patented Novinium innovation.

f.     The “Really Long Term Life” afforded by still another patented Novinium innovation delivered by an ultralow permeability component.

2.   The folks at Novinium invented soaking over two decades ago.

3.   Novinium does soak cables under certain circumstances.

 

We do consider soaking as a last resort, however, because soaking has two drawbacks.  First, and in order of importance to us, there are safety compromises associated with leaving a hydraulic connection to an energized cable for a long period of time.  I enumerated these risks in my post:  Greatest Rejuvenation Risks.”  For live-front applications, Novinium can greatly mitigate these risks with a piece of proprietary technology called an HVFI or high-voltage fluidic-interface.  Click here to view a HVFI test report.  Second, there are economic costs associated with a soak period.  In short, a soak bottle with an associated capital cost must be deployed for the duration of the soak period and the injection team has to be redeployed to the site to remove said soak bottle.

 

Despite these challenges we occasionally resort to soak periods.  The very first consideration is whether the cable to be rejuvenated has a severely constrained geometry.  The “Draft Guide for Rehabilitation and Rejuvenation of Extruded Dielectric Cable” defines constrained geometry in general and severely constrained geometry in particular as follows:

 

“When the available volume of fluid that can be held in the strand interstices at atmospheric pressure is less than the optimum quantity of fluid to treat the cable, the cable is said to be a constrained geometry cable.  Figure 3-1 [below] shows the three realms of geometry for round (or concentric), compressed, and compact strand cables, namely unconstrained (greater than 20 kg/km), moderately constrained (<20 kg/km and >10 kg/km), and severely constrained (<10 kg/km).

 

In practice severely constrained cables are those with conductors of 7-strand and compact 19-strand construction.  If your cables do not have severely constrained conductors, four decades of life extension are possible without resorting to soak periods.

 

At Novinium we routinely employ soak periods on severely constrained geometry cables for high value circuits with live-front terminations.  Submarine cables provide an example of such high value circuits.  These cables can require 7-figures to replace, so the incremental cost of providing a soak is justified.  Can Novinium make soaking safe in the dead-front applications typical of residential distribution cable?  To answer that question check out my subsequent posts in this series:

 

Soaking II:  Safety First

 

Unconstrained by old paradigms,

Thermo

Comments (2) -

4/18/2011 9:29:33 PM #

Kinda Dry

My Dear Frog,

Of your green beauty,
There is no compare,
But I wish to challenge and seek clarification,
If I might dare.

You have stated in “Soaking: Diminishing Returns I” that, "If your cables do not have severely constrained conductors, four decades of life extension are possible without resorting to soak periods." The graph that you appended to this post shows that for any cable conductor smaller than about 250kcm, the "Fluid Required" will not be supplied. Yet Novinium routinely injects without a soak period and provides a 40-year warranty.

Based on your statement above, I would assume that if my cables have severely constrained conductors, four decades of life extension are not possible without resorting to soak periods. Does the “Fluid Required” volume need to be supplied in order to get actual 40-year life extension, and not just a guarantee of such? Is "Fluid Required" the same as your "Target" that you list in the Cable Table?

I don't like to have bottles left in transformer boxes, but like they say, "Better to have your cables soaking than croaking."

Kinda Dry

Kinda Dry United States |

4/20/2011 8:48:51 PM #

T. B. Frog

Dear Kinda Dry-

Please send me a physical address and I will send you a nifty Novinium diameter tape.  You spent some creative time writing that query and you deserve recognition.  Not only does your inquiry have poetic merit, it is insightful too.  First my excuse … I am constrained in the length of my blog entries by the attention span of the average human.  Frogs don’t suffer the same problem.  It is not unusual for me to sit in quite contemplation for 60 minutes or more studying the flight pattern of a single house fly.  Sooner or later it strays within tongue’s shot, I snap into action, and then I am ready to begin contemplating anew.

Left unsaid on the “Fluid Requirement & Supply” graph is its ultimate source and the meaning of “Fluid Required.”  The data for this graph is from U.S. Patent 6,162,491, to Glen Bertini and assigned to UTILX Corporation, filed in 1999.  In the patent document, the data is provided in tabular form at column 6, line 35.  The preferred fluid is CableCURE®/XL fluid, another Bertini innovation.  In 1999 when this patent was filed, the problem with poorly coordinated catalyst was unknown to Mr. Bertini, his colleagues, indeed to the world.  To review my writing on that subject check out the two installments on the subject.  The first is at ...

www.novinium.com/.../...ns-e28093-Component-I.aspx

… you can link to the second installment from the first.

So, the “Fluid Required” in the graph is that which is required of the previous generation of Fluid.  Fortunately, Novinium fixed the catalyst problem in all of its fluids, which reduces the fluid requirement about 37% right off.  Other chemistry improvements reduce the fluid requirements from those of CableCURE/XL even further.  I have enumerated these advancements in previous posts:

www.novinium.com/.../Voltage-Stabilizer.aspx
www.novinium.com/.../To-UV-or-not-to-UV.aspx
www.novinium.com/.../AO-(Anti-oxidant).aspx
www.novinium.com/.../Chain-Entanglement.aspx
www.novinium.com/.../Really-Long-Term-Life.aspx

Furthermore, process improvements employed exclusively by Novinium yield at least another 10% fluid savings.  The older process loses CableCURE fluid to splices and elbows when the fluid is allowed to come in contact with EPDM elbows and splices.  For a complete description of that phenomena, check out:

www.novinium.com/.../...mponent%20Interactions.pdf

Finally, Novinium has a patented Sustained Pressure Rejuvenation (SPR) process that delivers more fluid to the cable than the interstitial volume indicated in the graph.  The volume in the graph is calculated based upon the older Unsustained Pressure Rejuvenation (UPR) paradigm – the only choice in 1999.  SPR delivers fluid rapidly to the carbon black in the conductor strand shield cleverly circumventing the interstitial constraints – SPR fits two quarts of milk into a one quart space!  To understand more of the details which explain why injection is better with sustained pressure, check out my post at:

www.novinium.com/.../Better-with-Pressure.aspx

In short, the volume of fluid required using modern injection techniques and modern rejuvenation fluids are substantially less than what was required for the first generation of fluid.  The modern process used to deliver these state-of-art fluids delivers more fluid to cable than was possible with old technology without resorting to soak periods.  The graph only applies to the technology as delivered in 1999.

Wet and lovin’ it,
T. B. Frog

CableCURE and UTILX are registered trademarks of UTILX Corporation.

T. B. Frog United States |

Pingbacks and trackbacks (1)+

Comments are closed

Frog Blog

Month List