1. NSRP Electrical Technologies Panel Meeting – July 23-24, 2019
Shipboard Fiber Optic Cables Design Enhancements 2019 ELECTRICAL Panel PROJECT Project Update Giovanni Tomasi Billie Jo Mitchell
NSRP Electrical Technologies Panel Meeting – July 23-24, 2019

2. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Objectives
Project Team
Methodology
Schedule
Findings
Next Steps
Average cable cost of $5/ft and labor cost of $50/hr used in estimates. installation of 1,000 ft of FO cable: 6 person, 2 full workdays. Removal of 1000 ft of damaged cable: 6 person, 11 hours

3. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
CHALLENGE
10% to 20% of the fiber optic cables are damaged at installation1.
At least one of four fibers breaks when installing the 4F cable on a DDG 512.
Some runs require upwards of six (6) tries3.
New applications (lighting, power over fiber, and laser weapon systems) require highly reliable cables.
M85045 shipboard cables based on technologies from 25 years ago.
OBJECTIVE  TOC REDUCTION
Reduce cable damage.
Reduce the cost of installation.
Improve systems’ reliability.
Improve commonality of parts.
Ship Class
Est. Cable Qty (ft)
Cost of Damage ($)
CVN 78
4,000,000
$5,240,000
LHA/LPD
2,000,000
$2,620,000
DDG 51
1,000,000
FFG/LCS
500,000
$1,310,000
SSN
100,000
$262,000
Average cable cost of $5/ft and labor cost of $50/hr used in estimates. installation of 1,000 ft of FO cable: 6 person, 2 full workdays. Removal of 1000 ft of damaged cable: 6 person, 11 hours
Cable damage estimated at 10% on CVN, LHA, and LPD. 20% on all other classes.
1. Per Discussions with NSRP Electrical Panel members, July 24-25, 2018, Washington, D.C.
2. Per Discussion with BIW Engineer, October 16, 2018, Bath, ME
3. D.S. Dorfman, F. A. Strom III, “An Optimization Model for Fiber-Optic Cable Installation Aboard Navy Vessels”, Navy Postgraduate School Thesis, June 2013

4. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
SOLUTION
Apply technical advances* and commercial best practices to make fiber optic cables more reliable. Examples:
Higher tensile strength.
Improve crush and abrasion resistance.
Improve bend/kink (1) resistance.
Identify designs suited for multiple applications: data, lighting, power over fiber, laser delivery…
(*) Example: Many new Thermoplastics are surpassing the performance of the Thermoset materials typically used for shipboard cables’ outer jackets (Robert Blakley, Cable Product Manager, OFS Fitel, November 12, 2018).
BENEFIT / PAYOFF
Reduce cost of FO cable installation by up to $260,000 per every 100,000 ft of cable installed.
Potential cost saving on CVN >$5 million.
NOTE (1) – Cable “KINK” is experienced when the cable pulled has twist memory and kinks as more pulling force is applied, breaking the fibers.
Average cable cost of $5/ft and labor cost of $50/hr used in estimates

5. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
TEAM
Lead: RSL Fiber Systems
Giovanni Tomasi
Billie Jo Mitchell
Support: Penn State University, Applied Research Lab, Electro-Optics Ctr.
Shipyards: Austal, NNS, HII, BIW
US Navy: SUPSHIP GC, NSWCDD
Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturer: OFS Fitel
NSRP Project Manager: Nick Laney
NSRP PTR: Walt Skalniak

6. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Identify Causes of Cables’ Failure:
Evaluation of the existing M85045 cables, installation, and failure mechanisms (Visits to shipyards, observation of installations, meetings with AITs).
Identify the ideal performance parameters to minimize/eliminate cable failures.
Identify Design Enhancements:
Investigate new commercial and military cable designs, materials, constructions, and installation hardware.
Determine how they may be applied to reduce/eliminate cable breakage.
Retain/enhance critical shipboard cable characteristics: low smoke, low toxicity, zero halogen, water blocked.
Minimize Impact of Design Enhancements:
Compatibility with legacy hardware, installation and fiber termination methods, require no AITs’ re-training.

7. TASKS AND PROGRAM SCHEDULE
MONTH
TASK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.0       Identify Causes of Cables’ Failure
1.    Kick-off Meeting x
2.    Identify AIT PoC and schedule visits to shipyards
3.    Visit shipyards and meet with AIT
4.    Report 1 - Summarize possible causes of failure. X
2.0       Identify Design Enhancements
1.    cable manufacturers - identify design enhancements
2.    Evaluate cables used for similar applications
3.    Report 2 – commercial designs to decrease breakage.
4.    Determine any additional/enhanced testing.
5.    Report 3 – Define additional tests required.
6.    New F.O. technologies and req. cable enhancements.
7.    Report 4 – Cable design options and test methods.
3.0       Minimize Impact of Design Enhancements
1.    Review other equipment to insure compatibility.
2.    Review installation methods to insure compatibility.
3.    Report 5 – Confirm no neg. impact on equipment & install.
4.0       Determine Cost of Qualification and Impact on Breakage
1.   Investigate the cost of qualification.
2.   Determine cost impact of proposed vs. qualified cables.
3.   Review design to estimate impact on breakage.
4.   Report 6 – Cost of qualification and of changes.
5.0   Final Report – Study findings
1.   Recommended enhanced cable design;
2.   Recommended test enhancements;
3.   Estimated impact on cable damage and TOC savings.

8. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
June – July 2019 Activities
SHIPYARD VISITS
June 11, 2019: BIW, Bath, ME
June 26-27, 2019: HII, Pascagoula, MS and Austal USA, Mobile, AL
July 16, 2019: NNS, Newport News, VA
Activities
Performed by RSL and OFS Fitel personnel with shipyard personnel:
Met with AITs to understand cable installation and breakage issues;
Discussed cable installation methods and possible causes of breakage;
Discussed fiber termination challenges;
Discussed enhancements to facilitate installation and system acceptance.
Special Thanks to: Greg Stevens, BIW; Jason Farmer, HII Pascagoula; Shawn Wilber, Austal; David Ellis, NNS for coordinating the visits and the meetings with technical personnel.

9. June – July 2019 Findings Fiber Optic Cable Breakage
Installers training is very important to minimize breakage.
Fiber optic cables are installed by hand using no mechanical pulling devices by a team of AITs.
Kellems style grips are used at times.
A turntable is used a times to help with installation (cable coils placed on turntable)
Some cables are pulled in multi-cable bundles.
Cables are run parallel to each other. Very rare that cables are pulled perpendicular. Power and signal are segregated and fiber runs down the middle of the tray.
Breakage at installation was given from “negligible” to 30%.
Some cable breakage occurs at the metal cable ties. Ties have a rubber grommet but it may fall out during re-work. Over-tightening crushes cables.
Sharp cable bends around corners may cause breakage.
Cable breakage is due primarily to over bending.
Stacking limits were implemented on some ships to eliminate cable crushing.

10. June – July 2019 Findings Fiber Optic Cable Breakage
Some fiber breakage occurs where the OFCC leaves the outer jacket and the buffer leaves the OFCC jacket.
A flexible OFCC is preferred.
Armored cable already installed in trays at times gouges and damages fiber cables as they are being installed.
OTDR is used to test cable lengths and identify points of high losses.
Some breakage may occur as additional work is performed around the cables.
Breakage may be higher for ships during maintenance, repair, overhaul and conversion (MROC).
BOF tubes are challenging to install due to kinking and crush issues.
Average cable pull lengths:
LCS: 180 ft MM, 300 ft SM (SM for ship to shore communication);
DDG 51 F-IIA: 186 ft
LPD / LHA: 300 ft avg, 475 ft longest.
CVN: 152 ft fiber avg, 200 ft BOF Avg.

11. June – July 2019 Findings Fiber Cable Terminations
On ship termination of one end of 4F cable takes about 1.5 hrs. Set up time may be longer based on where terminations are made.
Some yards use machine polishers, others use hand polishing.
Highest fiber failure is generated by SM terminations performed on board.
Dusty environment contaminates fibers. Very easy to contaminate 8.7 µm core.
Some multi-channel MIL-C SM connectors w/MIL-T termini may take up to 3 times to re-pin to pass.
M85045 SM cables require 2 ship sets of pins for one ship.
Even if 1 pin is bad, all have to be cut back.
Delphi MIL-T pins are preferred over FSI due to the pre-radius tip.
The ideal backshell for MIL-C connectors would incorporate space for fusion splices so that the MIL-T could be pre-terminated in a clean environment.
Fusion splicing is allowed on some applications. Would like to see it allowed on all applications.
Fusion splicing is used in termination boxes.
A semi-loose buffer is preferred for fusion splicing.

12. June – July 2019 Findings Other Findings
4F (MIL-PRF-85045/18) is most used, then 8F (MIL-PRF-85045/17) then 36F (MIL-PRF-85045/20).
Use of SM fiber is increasing.
The change from RF to fiber will double the amount of fiber used on most ships.
All yards visited indicted that fusion splicing would eliminate much of the fiber rework at installation. This is especially important as more SM fiber is used.
One shipyard indicated that cables supplied as GFE have higher losses than cables terminated at the yard. This is verified when testing the system end to end.
Server racks come with LC connectors. LC are more break prone than ST.
Some cables are installed with one end pre-terminated.
From DDG 116 on, MIL-PRF-85045/22 with 9 MM and 9 SM is used on the mast. The cable is enclosed in a flexible conduit.
On some installations, COTS “blue cable” was used.

13. June – July 2019 Findings KEY POINTS AITs training is critical.
Much rework is caused by terminating fibers on the ship.
The rework issue is much greater with SM fibers.
Use of fiber is anticipated to increase, especially SM.
Fusion splicing can drastically reduce rework.
Some cable design improvements can facilitate fusion splicing.
More flexible cable components may reduce fiber breakage.
Cable breakage is from negligible to 10% when installed by the shipyards’ AITs.
More breakage can occur as other activities take place around the cables.

14. Identify Design Enhancements (Complete by Oct 31, 2019).
SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLES DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
NEXT STEPS
Visit Shipyards to identify causes of failure (Completed – Report Pending).
Option: Contact MROC yard to obtain cable breakage data (cables broken in service and during overhaul activities).
Identify Design Enhancements (Complete by Oct 31, 2019).
Insure compatibility of enhancements with other system components (Complete by Nov 30, 2019).
Determine cost of qualifying cable with design enhancements (Complete by Feb 28, 2020)
Final Report (Due March 31, 2020)
Next it would be interesting to contact a maintenance, repair, overhaul and conversion (MROC) yard to see if similar information is provided as the shipyards.