Radiat. Phys. Chem. Vol. 35, Nos 4q5, pp. 680-686, 1990 Int. J. Radiat. Appl. Instrum.

, Part C Printed in Great Britain

0146-5724/90 $3.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Press plc

ELECTRON PROCESS

BEAM CROSSLINKING OF INSULATED ECONOMICS AND COMPARISON WITH

WIRE OTHER

AND CABLE: TECHNOLOGIES

N. Studer Bereich Elektronenbestrshlung, Studer Draht- und Kabelwerk AG, 465B D~niken, CH

ABSTRACT

Electron beam crosslinking of wire and cable insulation has gained a secure place in industries in North America, some Asian countries and, partially, in Europe. This has been achieved as a result of several factors which made possible the development of radiation technology: the significant amount of knowledge accumulated on radiation chemistry and physics of polymers, availability of adequate radiation sources matching industrial requirements in throughput, reliability and economics, and the growing market for crosslinked products. The present contribution compares the electron beam technology with several of the most common chemical croeelinking techniques: peroxide, monosil and sioplas (silane) orosslinking. The comparison is based on actual industrial experience.

KEYWORDS

Industrial crosslinking technologies of insulated wire and cable, process economics, economical comparison, service center.

INTRODUCTION

Electron beam crosslinking has gained a secure place in the wire and cable industry of North America, Japan and partially in Europe. Surprisingly enough, this technology has begun to stagnate during these last years rather than to spread as anticipated. This fact is all the more interesting since the firms which posess the capacity to do their own electron beam crosslinking express themselves overwhelmingly positive in print as to the multifunctional capabilities of this technology (I). Quite a few firms are even convinced that, by using this technology, they have helped to achieve s milestone for handling the future. To provide a generally satisfying answer to this apparent contradiction seems to be difficult due to the complexity of the problems. As a representative of one directly involved family business I shall attempt to demonstrate that there really is a way in which electron beam crosslinking can be utilized economically in the cable and wire industry. No extensive market analysis need be conducted to realize that these firms have one commmon denominator in the manner in which they have determined their strategies; namely, their diversification according to the market-nieh concept. This well-known concept searches for openings in the market where s positive ratio between demand and supply might exist. If a company can take advantage of these openings, "new products" can be sold which are more costeffective and which are supplied to a new group of users. Of course one has to consider if such a project is useful to the firm and if it can be integrated into the present company policy. How the project can be integrated into the existing production facilities and if the new invsstements, that is the acquisition of an irradiation
680

7th International Meeting on Radiation Processing

681

unit, might negatively influence the cash-flow of a single company - these questions will have to be given serious consideration. The guiding principle must be that the new projects may never go so far as to threaten the existence of the present company. Because of the high investment costs, so many projects have not been realized by individual companies, even through the use of an electron beam was judged to be a positive asset on the whole. But there is a rather elegant solution: the design and realization of an electron beam service center. This makes it possible for a company to pursue a more diversified product strategy, which is an essential requirement for a growing firm. If radiation processing is properly utilized by several users in a multi-functional way, it will lead to long-term growth, will minimize the risk and will guarantee, nevertheless, that each single company can retain its independence. Radiation processing is only cost-effective if a certain quantity of products can be guaranteed. Thus the creation of a neutral and competent electron beam service center is certainly an effective means for small and medium-sized companies to stay in touch with new product requirements and to realize these products as part of their own defined product line.

REQUIREMENTS

FOR

THE

ELECTRON

BEAM

TECHNOLOGY

During the recent third international conference for radiation technology in October 1980 in Tokyo, Mr. K.H. Morgenstern, past senior president of RDI, shared what I consider to be his "statement of faith": "If the obstacles can be eliminated, what else is required to get radiation processing going? As I see it, the first requirement is to think radiation. One has to take the blinders off and recognize that radiation can be a viable alternate technique to an existing process. And second, one needs high production throughputs or production rates in order to obtain the favorable economics associated with large power outputs. In conclusion, if one goes the radiation route, the potential rewards to one's company, to our society, and to the individual are great."(2) Of interest are also the considerations of Professor Silverman who wrote the following in his article entitled "Status of radiation processing" in 1979: "Nevertheless, there appear to be sufficient advantages associated with the radiation process to stimulate the interest of many companies (3).

ELECTRON

BEAM

CROSSLINKING

VERSUS

OTHER

CROSSLINKING

TECHNOLOGIES

The advantages and disadvantages of electron beam crosslinking can only be judged in comparison with all the crosslinking technologies that are available to the industry. The following are the crosslinking technologies mainly used by the cable industry, except for electron beam crosslinking, according to heat medium partially: - continuous vulcanization = CV-Technology (peroxide and salt bath crosslinking) - monosil crosslinking (8,9)
i
-

(4,5,6,7)

sioplas crosslinking (or silane crosslinking)

(8,9,10,11,12)

Each type of crosslinking on-line. The high-voltage

crosslinking has its specific advantages and disadvantages (7,9,10). The CV is the most widely used technology to date. Extrusion and crosslinking take place use of CV crosslinkinq is advantaqeous for medium- and high-voltage cables (for cables > 50 kV, CV is the only method of crosslinking).

However, the following important advantages speak in favor of electron beam crosslinking: a) as compared to the CV method (13,14)
-

eliminates start-up and end scrap (By using the CV method, the start-up or end scrap is generally about 100 m long; with the EB method, on the other hand, there is absolutely no start-up scrap.) lower energy consumption (The CV method requires up to five times more.)

682

N. S'rt~ER

not limited by coumpounds (EPDM, PVC, fluorinated polymers etc. can eesiliy be croselinked by the EB process.) less factory space needed (EB crosslinking requires only about 50 % of the space needed by the CV method.) higher crosslinking speed (CV method: low voltage, e.g. I kV - 60 to 200 m/min.) (EB method: low voltage, e.g. I kV: up to 500 - 600 m/min.) e larger spectrum of possible cross-sections can be treated (Practically ell cables can be crosslinked, depending on the EB voltage. When the cable insulation is changed, the only parameter that needs to be changed is the dose. This can s~mply b e d o n e by changing either the~speed or the radiation-intensity.) faster end more flexible processing is made possible by a multi-functional service center process control (Multifunctional use improves the ability end makes it easier to reproduce the croeelinking.) etc.

b) as compared to the sioplas method

-

insulation materials can be stored cheaper and for unlimited periods, whereas sioplae compounds have limited shelf lives radiation technology needs not to be licenced from e specific supplier, thus greater freedom in ordering materials

- fewer extrusion problems - extrusion and crosslinking of flame-resistent insulation materials is much easier no dependency on polyehtylene~ since ell insulation materials that can be physically croselinked can also be croealinked by electron beam. Electron beam croeelinking merely requires adjusting the radiation dose to the value appropriate for the product.

All these considerations speak for electron beam crosslinking. In addition, much progress has been made across the entire spectrum of the process technology, resulting in higher equipment output, greater process security and standerdised laboratory testing procedures (15,16,17,18,

19).
PARAMETERS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE USE OF ELECTRON BEAM CROSSLINKIN6 "How cost-

It was obvious that we needed to pose the following question to the professionals: effective is cost-effective?"

For this reason we asked carefully selected cable companies about the reasons for their success in using electron beam croselinking. Among others, we visited the following companies: Brand-Rex, ESSEX, Northern Telecom, Shaw, Siemens, Surprenent end others. Interestingly enough, all these companies used electron beam croselinking as en additional crosslinking technology. That means that they concurrently used CV and salt bath or other methods, to crosslink a wide spectrum of products. When asked if they would use electron beam crosslinking again, every company answered with a definite "yes. In general, the following advantages were mentioned:

- diversity and multiple functions

-

greeter acceptance on the market

- croeslinking that can be controlled

7th International Meeting on Radiation Processing

683

- higher safety levels - lower costs per unit

The transition from electron beam crosslinking to the CV crosslinking happens mostly in the 1 kV area. In 1975 the West German Ministry for Research and Technology published a study concerned with the introduction of electron beam crosslinking of electric cables. Although it appeared some time ago it is probably still the most comprehensive marketing study of radiation processing. Briefly, it states the following: "A medium-sized company takes a much greater risk in entering the field of electron beam crosslinking than a large firm does because of the cost of necessary equipment. It is thus advisable to build an electron beam service center. Individual cable compenies are not qualified enough to develop croselinking compounds of superior quality. Therefore, a team consisting of radiation chemistry researchers and material experts from the cable companies should be formed who would be responsible for standardizing the necessary electron beam crosslinking compounds needed by the interested cable companies. The ultimate goal of such a team would be to plan an industrial electron beam service center which would be operating on a time-sharing basis." In 1994, our company made such a service center available to other cable-producing companies. We explain this step as follows: "Powerful facilities are especially cost-effective if used to their full c~pacity. Thus, the cooperation with other firms in crosslinking on a time-sharing basis becomes an interesting alternative for both the user and the one who provides this service."

COST - EFFECTIVENESS

SYNERGIES

The existing cost-ratio models (20,21,22) are to be approached at least with great skepticism: - Few cable companies (with the exception of a few large firms) can practically get the full use out of an accelerator around the clock. - The main advantages of electron beam crosslinking - the ability to croselink a great variety of materials and the lack of start-up scrap even for materials of short length - generally conflict with these conventional models of cost-effectiveness. Several studies that are based on experience point out that, generally speaking, a single company may not be able to process the quantity of orders which are needed to do its own electron beam crosslinking in-house. If several companies, however, have access to an electron beam service center, this becomes an attractive solution to the problem that each firm would face if it tried to do its own radiation processing (23). (see figure 1)

Fig. 1 :

Comparison of production costs of different crosslinking technologies for VPE insulated low voltage cables at different order sizes ( Cross section range: 16 - 300 ram2 )

Costs per production unit

"
] ] PeroxideCrosslinking(CV) EB Crosslinking Mono- Sil Technique (MT) SioplesTechnique ( ST) ] ] order size
Medium Large

i!iiiiii iiiiil
Small order size order size

684

N. S~,~DER

Such an EB service center will be profitable if the volume of croaslinked cables is large enough. Product calculations have shown that an EB facility which is not operating for at least 2000 hours per year can really not become profitable by a multi-functional use of the accelerator. With EB crosslinking, the conventional extruders can be utilized. (see figure 2)

Fig. 2:

E x t r u s i o n a n d c r o s s l i n k i n g costs o f v a r i o u s m e t h o d s ( Cross s e c t i o n r a n g e : 16 - 300 m m 2 )

SFr. / rn 0,90 0,80

Cl ia
0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 .~ 0,20 0,10

i
J------L--!

a:

Manufacturing costs on an integrated extrusion and cross - linking plant ( peroxide cross - linking ) Manufacturing costs on a conventional plant and dircet labour costs of cross - linking

b:

ct: Direct labour (osts of cross - linking with high speed electrons ( EB )

Cz: EB cross-linkingcostsonatime-sharingbasis
d: Extrusion costs on a conventional plant without cross - linking

0,00
0 1'000 2'000 3'000 4'000

5'000

6'000 h

Annual duration of utilization

Table 1 and figure 3 show a typical calculation model for a 1,5 MeV/50 mA accelerator. Unit capital cost are lower for radiation than for CV, whenever the production load can keep a radiation facility busy (24,25)~

T a b l e 1:

EB c r o s s l i n k i n g costs p e r h o u r

Fig. 3: C r o s s l i n k i n g costs p e r h o u r ( EB - c r o s s l i n k i n g

( C a l c u l a t i o n basis: 1,5 M e V / 5 0 m A a c c e l e r a t o r )
Hours Anual Costs ( * ) 107.320 173.640 239.960 306.290 372.600 438.930 505.250 571.570 638.900 704.210 770.540 836.860 903.180 969.500 1.035.820 1.102.140 Capital Costs ( ** ) 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 961.400 Total Costs 1.068.720 1.135.040 1.201.360 1.267.690 1.334.000 1.400.330 1.466.650 1.532.970 1.600.300 1.665.610 1.731.940 1.798.260 1.864.580 1.930.900 1.997.220 2.063.540 Costs per hour 2672 SFR/HOUR housa nd .J
2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

400 800
1200

1600 2000
2400 2800 3200 3600

1419 1001 792

667 588 824

479
44S 416 394 375 359 345 333 322

4000
4400 4800 5200 5600

6000
6400 (* ) (**)

Including fixed costs p.a. SFR 13.000 for running building costs Capital costs: EB - accelerator 600.000, handling - system 165.000, building 196.400 Initial investment: EB - accelerator about 4.0 Mio SFR, handling system about 1.1 Mio SFR,building about 2.5 Mio SFR ( SFR = Swiss Franc; 1 SFR ~ ca. 0.66 US $ )

I 4

I I I : : : : ~ : : : i i I I 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 3 6 , 0 , , 48 52 56 60 64

F x 100 -1

HOURS/

7th International Meeting on Radiation Processing

685

When comparing budgeted versus actual cost, the existing calculation models must as a rule be adapted to fit the real situation. The following are some of the factors that are often underestimated by those who are not thoroughly familiar with radiation processing: the cost of installation and handling systems, and the length of time during which radiation processing is interrupted due to reel changes, different cross-sections or materials. Our practical experience has shown, however, that electron beam crosalinking can be truly cost-effective if it is done pzoperly. To make a decision for or against electron beam croaalinking only on the basis of economics would be a grave error. To enter the world of this new technology means a change in the entire company philosophy: away from thinking mass-production and turning to products with low production cost and a high resale value - CABLES BY PROFESSIONALS FOR PROFESSIONALS You do not believe me? Please permit me to quote an excerpt from an interview with the director of one of the most successful Swiss cable companies: "What products we supply ia determined by the needs of our customers. We do not just simply sell a cable worldwide - that would be tooexpensive - but u e e h o u the customer that making use of products croeslinked by electron beam provides security to his company. The demand is there, we juet n e e d t o demonstrate this fact to our customers. All in ell, cables end insulated wires that have been croselinked by electron beam are superior to products that have been chemically crosslinked." By the way, this firm is one of the toughest but at the same time one of the fairest competitors of our parent company. It is relatively smell as compared to other cable companies worldwide - yet it uses 6 accelerators. If any cable company ie truly successful in adopting the NEW PRODUCTS FOR NEW CUSTOMERS philosophy, it will soon realize that it cannot ignore electron beam croaslinking in the long
run.

SAFETY

AND

SOCIAL

ASPECTS

Electron beam facilities change electrical current into a high energy electron beam. This process is controlled by computers. No radioactive material is needed for creating this ionized electron beam. It is also a proven fact that no radioactivity can be induced in materials with accelerator energy levels up to 8 MV. In addition, one must take into account that the actual croselinkin9 process requires all in all up to five times less energy end that normally no waste is produced. Thus it is appropriate to state that this technology meets the increased environment requirements of the present and the future. Today's cable technology is able to provide the consumer with insulation materials which are in accordance with the most stringent fire safety standards demanded by today's environmentalists, such as halogen-free or low-smoke cables. Unfortunately, end mostly for economical reasons, too few users have taken advantage of this opportunity. It would be desirable if the legislative branch of the government would pass laws facilitating the use of these high-tech products for the common good of mankind, especially in high-risk areas such as in the chemical industry, nuclear power plants, public buildings and others.

CONCLUSIONS Powerful facilities are especially cost-effective if used to their full capacity. Thus, the cooperation with ether firms in croaslinking on a time-sharing basis becomes an interesting alternative for both the user and the one who provides the service. Electron beam crosalinking - "yes or no?" - this is not simply a question of cost-effectiveness. Electron beam crosslinking is much more: it is the YES to new ideas, maybe even a demonstration of the will to survive.

REFERENCES

1) AEG-Telefunken, Fachgebiet Flugweeen und Sondertechnik "8estrahlun~stechnik", aicht 75; atrahlenvernetzter Kabel und Leitungen; Internal publication

MarktOber-

686

N. STUDEa

2) Morgenstern, K.H.: Industrial radiation and processing - Present status and prospects, International Meeting on Radiation Processing (1980), Tokyo

3) Silverman, Prof. J.: Current status of radiation processing, Rad. Phys. Chem., vol 14
(1979) 4) Bickel, H.-D.: c/o Siemens: Peroxydisches Vernetzungsverfahren for PE-isolierte Adern von I kV Starkstromkabeln ohne Druckanwendung, Draht, Vol. 29 (1978) 5) Hofmann, Dr. W.: Chemie und Elektronik als Helfer im Kabelwerk, STZ nr. 18, September 1982 6) Aoltonen, M.: Completely dry curing and curing process (CDDG), Wire Journal, June 1978 7) Proc@des de r@ticulation sans vapeur pour fils et cables; deuxi@me partie, Caoutchoucs et Plastiques, nr. 5B4, November 1978 B) Hochstrasser, U.: A new one step crosslinking process for MW cables, Wire Industry, January 85 9) Kertscher, M.E.: Proc~d@a de r@ticulation sans vapeur pour file et cables, Caoutchoucs et Plastiques, nr. 583, October 19B7 10) Van de Laar, T. and Hochstrasser, P.: M~lichkeiten zum Vernetzen von PE-Isolierungen, Drahtwelt, 2 (1985) 11) Van de Laar, T.: Silance crosslinked power cabel~ An investigation of cable properties, International Conference on Large High Voltage Systems, 19B2 session, paper 21-02 12) Roberts, B.E. and Verne, S. c/o BICC Power Cables GB: Industrial applications of different methods of crosslinking PE, Plastic and Rubber Processing and Applications, vol. 4, nr. 2, 84 13) Vorteile beim Eineatz einer Elektronenbestrahlungsanlage; Cation. August 1979 AEG Telefunken, internal publi-

14) Voigt, H.U.: 8rundlagen und Methoden dar chemischen Vernetzung von Polyethylen, "Kabel und iaolierte Leitungen", VDI Verleg GmbH, OOaaeldorf, 1984, pp 147-172 15) Commercial radiation crosslinking compounds; Association Internationale d'Irradiation Induatrielle, August 1984 16) Mair, H.J. et al: Kunststoffe in der Kabeltechnik, volume III. Kontakt und Studium, Expert Verlag, D7031 Grafenau, 1983 17) Hensen, Knappe und Patente: Kunatetoff-Extrusionetechnik II: Extrusionsanlagen, Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich, 1986, pp 485-510 18) Kabel und iaolierte Leitungan, VDI Verlag GmbH, DOsseldorf, 1984, pp 1 - 60, 115-132 19) Sarbach, E., Lee, D.W.: MeasunQ der Vernetzungsdichte an isolierten Leitungen~ apeziell mit Infrarotapektographie, SEV/VSE Bulletin, vol. 77 (1968), nr. 13, pp 762-76 20) Cleland, M.R.: Electron Beam Processing, Future markets, RDI Technical Information Series TIS 80-3, March 1980 21) Brandt, E. et al: Electron beam crosslinking of wire and cable insulation, Rubber World, November 1978 22) Estimated Capital and Operating Coot for 2800 KV Electron Beam Processing Systems; HVE Internal, 1981 23) Sander, G.: Kunststoffe for Energiekabel wirtschaftlich verarbeiten, Drahtwelt 6 (1986) 24) Sarbach, E.: Electron beam cross-linking in the cable industry - an economic alternative, Wire World International, vol. 27 January/February 1985 25) Studer, N.: Radiation crosslinking of Polymers in the wire and cable industry, beta-gamma 1/88