Abstract

In 1999, the concept of textile-based innerducts was introduced to the telecommunications industry. A new construction solution for the outside plant market, and manufactured from monofilament yarns similar to fishing line, these products promised easier cable installation compared to standard High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) conduits.This premise was based on the notion that these products exhibited lower coefficients of friction in static as well as dynamic laboratory tests. The lower friction was a result of not only material changes but the construction of the fabric as well.In addition, the flexible nature of a textile product as a result of lower bending stiffness and the non-rigid configuration, allows the product to adopt the corresponding profile of the cables placed within. Textile innerducts were intended to increase the numbers of cables that could be placed into a single conduit by using excess air space.Network engineers are now confronted with numerous possibilities for designing network solutions, whether in existing plant facilities or in new Greenfield construction. Network installers are also affected by the increase in use of textile innerducts due to changes in manpower requirements and the development of new installation techniques.This paper will assess the performance of several configurations of textile innerducts in a variety of duct applications over the same test length. Key areas to be presented are:1. Comparison of tensions for installing textile innerducts versus rigid innerducts in empty 4" PVC outer duct structure.2. Comparison of tensions for installing fiber optic cables in textile and rigid innerducts in 2" PVC and 4" PVC outer ducts.3. Evaluation of placing textile innerduct within occupied conduit (existing cable or innerduct) versus an empty conduit.4. Evaluation of the effect of twisting of textile innerducts on tensions of fiber optic cable installation.5. Evaluation of the order of cable placement in textile innerducts and its effect on cable pulling tensions (top vs. bottom and vice versa).

© 2006 Optical Society of America

PDF Article