Optical Fiber Proof Testing
Application Notes
Optical Fiber Proof Testing A Comparison of Dry Versus Gel Filled Optical Cables Issued: October 2003 Document: Author AN0002
John Peters
Abstract Basic understanding of optical fiber proof-testing and comparison between various standards.
Issued
Keywords December 2012 Optical fiber, Proof-testing
Abstract
The “dry” cable design compares favorably with a “wet” design that uses a flooding compound in the voids within the cable core and/or a thixotropic gel within the buffer tube to achieve comparable water blocking performance.
Keywords Dry cable, super absorbent powder, fiber buffer tubes, cable weight, environment friendly, cost savings
Application Notes What is Proof-Testing ? Proof testing is a common technique to ensure minimum strength of optical fiber and eliminate the flaws whose sizes are dependent on the stress applied during proof testing. In proof testing, predetermined load is applied on fiber by tensile loading. The fiber breaks at the weak points and the weak parts are eliminated from the fiber. The proof test will guarantee a minimum strength level (i.e. above proof testing stress) of the fiber and lifetime. 2. Proof testing cycle Proof testing cycle i.e. variation of applied stress during proof testing with time is shown in the following figure.
A Comparison of Dry Versus Gel Filled Optical Cables s Author
APPLIED LOAD
Proof testing load, p
John Peters
Issued December 2012
TL
Abstract
TD
TU
TIME
where, TL is the loading timecompares (time to reach zero towith proofa testing load) that uses a flooding The “dry” cable design favorably “wet” design D is the time of applied proof testing load (also known as dwell time) T compound in the voids within the cable core and/or a thixotropic gel within the buffer U is the unloaded time (time to come to zero load level) T tube to achieve comparable water blocking performance. Total Proof testing time = TL + TD + TU
Keywords Strength Degradation of Fiber During Proof Testing
Dry cable, super absorbent powder, fiber buffer tubes, cable weight, environment
Strength degradation can take place due to fatigue that occurs during unloading. This is a concern friendly, because thecost fibersavings might not break regardless of the fact that its strength decreases below proof testing stress. Degradation of fiber strength during unloading is dependent on unloading time and crack growth parameters of fiber like n and B. FOTP (EIA/TIA)-455-31C describes requirement of maximum unload time to ensure specified minimum strength and corresponding minimum proof testing stress in detail.
Application Notes
Proof Testing Specification of Sterlite’s Fiber and Comparison with International Standards SPECIFICATION ITU G652 IEC 60793 BS EN 188100:1995 Sterlite’s all optical fiber
PROOF STRESS Minimum 0.69 GPa Minimum 0.69 GPa Minimum 0.7% Minimum 1% strain or 0.7 Gpa or 100 kpsi
PROOF TESTING TIME Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
A Comparison of Dry Versus Gel Filled Optical Cables
To ensure minimum 0.7 Gpa strength of proof tested fiber, following conditions are to be followed as per FOTP (EIA/TIA)-455-31C Unload time (ms) Proof Stress (Gpa) n-value As per FOTP Maximum 75 Minimum 0.729 Minimum (EIA/TIA)-455-31C 15 As per Sterlite’s Proof
17
0.75
Minimum
Authortest machine’s set point 20
and hardware John Peters
(B value is assumed to be 6Gpa2-ms as per FOTP (EIA/TIA)-455-31C)
Issued Sterlite’s fibers have been proof testing as per recommended standards and specification where unloading time rather December 2012than proof testing time is a requirement. Further Reading
Abstract
1. The “dry” Glaesemann. G.S., ”The effect offavorably proof testing the minimum of a optical fiber”, cable design compares withon a “wet” designstrength that uses flooding compound IWCS, 1991, in thepp.582-586. voids within the cable core and/or a thixotropic gel within the buffer 2. tube“Proof testing of optical fiber by Tension”, to achieve comparable water blockingFOTP-TIA/EIA-455-31C performance. 3. “Measurement methods and test procedures-Fiber proof test”, CEI IEC 60793-1-30 4. “Power law theory of optical fiber reliability”, IEC SC 86A/WG 1, September 1996. 5. Bhaumik Sudipta, “Correlation between Size and Distribution of pre- and post Proof Test Keywords level flaw of draw-abraded fiber”, WCTS, Wire-Expo, 2002,Chicago,USA. Dry cable, super absorbent powder, fiber buffer tubes, cable weight, Science, environment 6. Fuller.E.R. et al, “Proof testing of ceramics Part2-Theory”, J. of Material 15(1980), cost savings friendly, pp. 2282-2295.
Copyright© 2017 Sterlite Technologies Limited. All rights reserved. The word and design marks set forth herein are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Sterlite Technologies and/or related affiliates and subsidiaries. All other trademarks listed herein are the property of their respective owners. www.sterlitetech.com
Optical Fiber Proof Testing A Comparison of Dry Versus Gel Filled Optical Cables Issued: October 2003 Document: Author AN0002
John Peters
Abstract Basic understanding of optical fiber proof-testing and comparison between various standards.
Issued
Keywords December 2012 Optical fiber, Proof-testing
Abstract
The “dry” cable design compares favorably with a “wet” design that uses a flooding compound in the voids within the cable core and/or a thixotropic gel within the buffer tube to achieve comparable water blocking performance.
Keywords Dry cable, super absorbent powder, fiber buffer tubes, cable weight, environment friendly, cost savings
Application Notes What is Proof-Testing ? Proof testing is a common technique to ensure minimum strength of optical fiber and eliminate the flaws whose sizes are dependent on the stress applied during proof testing. In proof testing, predetermined load is applied on fiber by tensile loading. The fiber breaks at the weak points and the weak parts are eliminated from the fiber. The proof test will guarantee a minimum strength level (i.e. above proof testing stress) of the fiber and lifetime. 2. Proof testing cycle Proof testing cycle i.e. variation of applied stress during proof testing with time is shown in the following figure.
A Comparison of Dry Versus Gel Filled Optical Cables s Author
APPLIED LOAD
Proof testing load, p
John Peters
Issued December 2012
TL
Abstract
TD
TU
TIME
where, TL is the loading timecompares (time to reach zero towith proofa testing load) that uses a flooding The “dry” cable design favorably “wet” design D is the time of applied proof testing load (also known as dwell time) T compound in the voids within the cable core and/or a thixotropic gel within the buffer U is the unloaded time (time to come to zero load level) T tube to achieve comparable water blocking performance. Total Proof testing time = TL + TD + TU
Keywords Strength Degradation of Fiber During Proof Testing
Dry cable, super absorbent powder, fiber buffer tubes, cable weight, environment
Strength degradation can take place due to fatigue that occurs during unloading. This is a concern friendly, because thecost fibersavings might not break regardless of the fact that its strength decreases below proof testing stress. Degradation of fiber strength during unloading is dependent on unloading time and crack growth parameters of fiber like n and B. FOTP (EIA/TIA)-455-31C describes requirement of maximum unload time to ensure specified minimum strength and corresponding minimum proof testing stress in detail.
Application Notes
Proof Testing Specification of Sterlite’s Fiber and Comparison with International Standards SPECIFICATION ITU G652 IEC 60793 BS EN 188100:1995 Sterlite’s all optical fiber
PROOF STRESS Minimum 0.69 GPa Minimum 0.69 GPa Minimum 0.7% Minimum 1% strain or 0.7 Gpa or 100 kpsi
PROOF TESTING TIME Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
A Comparison of Dry Versus Gel Filled Optical Cables
To ensure minimum 0.7 Gpa strength of proof tested fiber, following conditions are to be followed as per FOTP (EIA/TIA)-455-31C Unload time (ms) Proof Stress (Gpa) n-value As per FOTP Maximum 75 Minimum 0.729 Minimum (EIA/TIA)-455-31C 15 As per Sterlite’s Proof
17
0.75
Minimum
Authortest machine’s set point 20
and hardware John Peters
(B value is assumed to be 6Gpa2-ms as per FOTP (EIA/TIA)-455-31C)
Issued Sterlite’s fibers have been proof testing as per recommended standards and specification where unloading time rather December 2012than proof testing time is a requirement. Further Reading
Abstract
1. The “dry” Glaesemann. G.S., ”The effect offavorably proof testing the minimum of a optical fiber”, cable design compares withon a “wet” designstrength that uses flooding compound IWCS, 1991, in thepp.582-586. voids within the cable core and/or a thixotropic gel within the buffer 2. tube“Proof testing of optical fiber by Tension”, to achieve comparable water blockingFOTP-TIA/EIA-455-31C performance. 3. “Measurement methods and test procedures-Fiber proof test”, CEI IEC 60793-1-30 4. “Power law theory of optical fiber reliability”, IEC SC 86A/WG 1, September 1996. 5. Bhaumik Sudipta, “Correlation between Size and Distribution of pre- and post Proof Test Keywords level flaw of draw-abraded fiber”, WCTS, Wire-Expo, 2002,Chicago,USA. Dry cable, super absorbent powder, fiber buffer tubes, cable weight, Science, environment 6. Fuller.E.R. et al, “Proof testing of ceramics Part2-Theory”, J. of Material 15(1980), cost savings friendly, pp. 2282-2295.
Copyright© 2017 Sterlite Technologies Limited. All rights reserved. The word and design marks set forth herein are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Sterlite Technologies and/or related affiliates and subsidiaries. All other trademarks listed herein are the property of their respective owners. www.sterlitetech.com
