NBSIR 87-3546

Corrosion Evaluation of

Underground Telephone Cable

Shielding Materials

J. L. Fink, D. Mathews, G. Hessler, and E. Speed

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Metallurgy Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

January 1988

QC

100

• U56

87-3546

1988

it of Agriculture

trification Administration

n, DC 20250

NBSIR 87-3546

CORROSION EVALUATION OF

UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE

SHIELDING MATERIALS

Research Information Center

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

N3sc

Qaoo

yy°. h- 3

c.>-

J. L. Fink, D. Mathews, G. Hessler, and E. Speed

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Metallurgy Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

January 1988

Sponsored by:

Department of Agriculture

Rural Electrification Administration

Washington, DC 20250

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
. i. f, it < >!•
CORROSION EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE SHIELDING MATERIALS

J. L. Fink and D. Mathews

Corrosion and Wear Group

Metallurgy Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Gregory J. Hessler

Outside Plant Branch

Telecommunications Staff Division

Rural Electrification Administration

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250

INTRODUCTION

The increase of underground telephone cable installation by the

telephone industry throughout the United States has created a demand

for comprehensive and reliable information regarding the corrosion

of shielding materials. In order to obtain such corrosion data on both

currently accepted and experimental cable systems, the National Bureau

of Standards (NBS) and the Rural Electrification Administration (REA)

initiated an underground corrosion program. The program began in 1968

with the burial of thirty-one cable systems in selected soil

environments. A paper summarizing the results for specimens buried for

one year was given at the 18th International Wire and Cable Symposium

(1). Since the first report many additional systems utilizing metals or plastic coated metals have been incorporated into the program. Other

papers, summarizing the results obtained for these initial materials and

the additional systems after burial for periods of up to six years, were presented at the Corrosion/74 (2) and Corrosion/76 Symposia (3). This

paper (the seventh report) contains additional data for some of the

systems included in the earlier reports. Table 1 describes the various

cable systems included in this report.
sons ai mi rrsT sms

IM e Miciiih.il and physical properties of the soils at the test sites

•ire given In fable 2, the chemlc/il properties show that the soils

(I lifer widely with respec t to their composition .ind their concentrations

of soluble salts. Ihe pll of the soils ranges from extreme acidity M.O)

to high alkalinity (8.8) . The electrical resistivity of the soils

ranges Irom r

> fj ohm (in. which Is approx Imately that of sea water, to

10,000 ohm (in, indicating the absence of soluble salts. The physical

conditions of the soils range from well aerated to poorly aerated.

Ihese widely differing soli environments allow for a comprehensive

soil corrosion program, the soils Included are moderately corrosive

(Sites B and D) to very corrosive (Sites A, C, I, and G) toward ferrous

and other metals, the soils cover a wide range of soil properties found

throughout the United States. I'urthermore, it is possible to correlate

corrosion data from these six soils with data previously obtained from

\?\\ test sites In which the National Bureau of Standards has conducted

extensive Investigations on the underground corrosion of metals and

alloys (l). Descriptions ol the soils at the six test sites are as

loll ows

Sngoinoor sandy loam ( SI te A) is a well-drained alkaline soil and is

typical ol soils found In vast, areas of eastern Washington and Oregon.

Ihe s 1 1 r Is located on the Yakima Indian Reservation near Toppenlsh,

Washington. Ihe soil is consistent in composition to a depth of at

least seven feel and supports abundant growth of sage brush.

Hagerstown loam (Site B) i s a well-drained soil represen fa t i ve of

the majority ol well developed soils found In the eastern part of the

United States, flip silt' is located at the Loch Raven Reservoir of the

?
Baltimore City Water Department. The soil consists of a brown loam

about one foot deep, underlain by a reddish-brown clay that extends five

feet or more to underlying rock. Practically all of the materials that

have been investigated in the extensive NBS soil corrosion tests since

1922 have been exposed at this site. Therefore, this site can serve as

a reference site for the correlation of data obtained for specimens in

the present program with data obtained from the earlier tests.

Clay soil (Site C) consists of a plastic gray clay to a depth of

twelve inches. This is underlain by a poorly drained, very heavy

plastic clay to which the specimens are exposed. The site is located in

a large clay pit on level land at the U. S. Coast Guard Receiving Center

at Cape May, New Jersey.

Lakewood sand (Site D) is a white, loose sand with some black

streaks occurring in places and supports an abundant growth of beach

grasses. The site is located in a well -drained rolling area on the

property of the U.S. Coast Guard Electronic Engineering Station at

Wildwood, New Jersey. The area is not subject to overflow from the

ocean except under unusual flood conditions.

Coastal sand (Site E) is a typical white, coastal beach sand with

a high content of black sand that occurs in streaks. This sand is

similar to Lakewood sand in Site D except that at this site the sand is

continuously saturated with salt water. The site is located on the

Two-Mile Beach on the property of the U.S. Coast Guard Electronic

Engineering Station, Wildwood, New Jersey.

Tidal marsh (Site G) is a soil typical of the poor ly-drained marsh

soils that are found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is charged

3
with hydrogen sulfide. The site is located along a creek that empties

into the Chesapeake Bay at Lexington Park, Maryland, on the property of

the U.S. Naval Air Training Center.

TEST PROCEDURE

In order to expose the shield material to the environment and to

simulate conditions which may occur in field installations of buried

telephone cables, specimens were prepared as shown in Figure 1.

Specimens used in this study were polyethylene jacketed cable lengths,

approximately fourteen inches (35.6 cm) long, containing either metallic

or plastic coated metallic shields. With a few exceptions, the shield

was exposed by stripping the outer polyethylene protective jacket at two

areas approximately four inches (10.2 cm) from one end of the cable

length creating a window and a ring. The window was an exposed area

along the length of the cable approximately two inches

(5 cm) long x 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) wide, while the ring was an exposed area

0.5 inch (1.3 cm) wide around the circumference of the cable. In

addition, some of the systems were electrically coupled to copper strips

by mechanically bonding the strip to the shield at the ends of the cable

with bonding harnesses (Figure 1). Coupling the shield to copper

created a galvanic cell between the copper and the shield material.

This was done to simulate field conditions in which dissimilar metal

shields may be coupled either to existing cable systems having copper

shields for shield continuity or to copper rods at grounding points.

The ends of the specimens were sealed with a sealing compound and

wrapped with vinyl tape to prevent entry of mojsture at the end areas. With a few exceptions, six specimens of each system were buried at

each of the six soil sites. All specimens were buried at an approximate

4
depth of between three to four feet (0.9 to 1.2 m) below the ground line

in trenches two feet (0.6 m) wide.

For the six previous NBS reports, a replicate specimen was withdrawn each year from each of the burial sites for cleaning and

examination. For this report, a replicate specimen was withdrawn three

years following the last previous recovery from each of the burial sites

for cleaning and examination.

The areas examined on each specimen for corrosion were the exposed

window, the exposed ring, the jacketed area, one-half inch around the

exposed ring and exposed window and the remainder of the jacketed

shield. After examining each area for corrosion, a numerical rating

corresponding to the degree of corrosion was assigned to each area. The

numerical rating system is listed in Table 3. When composite, clad or

separate shielding materials were encountered, the outer, middle and

inner shields at each area were rated individually. If the composite,

clad or separate shielding contained two materials, the inner shield

ratings were enclosed in parenthesis. If the above materials contained

three materials, the middle shield ratings were enclosed in parenthesis.

RESULTS

The results obtained from the evaluation of cable specimens exposed

for periods up to seven years in the various underground soil

environments are summarized in Tables 4 through 9. At the time of this

report, specimens from Site A had not been recovered since 1979. There

had been no specimens removed from Site E, no specimens of Systems 73

through 94 removed from Site B and no specimens of Systems 89 through 94

removed from Sites C, D and G since the 1982 recovery. The results of

5
the specimens from Sites A and E, Systems 73 through 88 from Site B and

Systems 89 through 94 from Sites B, C, D, and G were presented in the

fourth, fifth, and sixth NBS reports, NBSIR 81-2243 (4), NBSIR 82-2509

(5) and NBSIR 85-2702 (6), respecti vely. Specimens of selected systems

with varying degrees of corrosion are shown in Figures 2 through 48.

The words "tacky" and "semi -tacky" are used to describe the filling

compound used in the exposed specimens. Specimens with filling

compounds were all tacky at the time of installation. As previously

noted, areas of the shields were given numerical ratings to indicate the

extent of degradation due to corrosion. A rating of ten indicates that

the shield was unaffected by corrosion, while a rating of zero indicates

severe corrosion sufficient to cause longitudinal electrical

discontinuity (ELD) of the shield. When the shield exhibited ELD at all

areas measured, it was considered to be destroyed. Examination showed

that degradation of some specimens exposed for shorter periods of time

was much more severe than that observed on similar specimens exposed for

greater periods of time. This may be partially explained by the methods

used in preparation of the specimens. If the cut through the outer

jacket made to expose the window and ring was deep enough to penetrate

the shield, it could allow corrosion of the inner shield materials. On

the other hand, if the depth of cut was such that only the outer jacket

was slit, then the integrity of the shield materials could be

mai ntained

Perhaps in future specimen preparations a device incorporating the

shield and a probe in a medium voltage circuit could be used to detect

cut-through of the coating to the metal shield underneath insuring an evaluation of the "coastal shield".

6
System 56. This system consisted of a 3-mil (0.1 mm) Type 430

stainless steel outer shield metal lurgical ly bonded to a 3-mil (0.1 mm)

1100 aluminum alloy inner shield with a clear flooding compound on the

core side.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, C, D, E and G

only.

Delamination of the outer and inner shields was noted on nearly all

of the specimens examined.

There was no degradation of either the outer or inner shields of

specimens exposed for six years at Site A and five years at Site D; nor

was there any degradation of the outer shield on specimens buried for up

to six years at Site C and four years at Site E. The outer shield was

ELD or near ELD at the window and ring areas on specimens exposed for

four and six years at Site G. The inner shields were perforated due to

localized corrosion after burial for four and six years at Site C and

three, four, and six years at Site G. The inner shield was at or near

ELD on specimens exposed from two to six years at Site G.

The filling compound was still tacky except where corrosion was

observed.

System 57. This system is the same as System 56 except that the

system was coupled to copper.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, C, D, E, and G

only.

As noted for System 56, there was del ami nation of the outer and

inner shields jon nearly all specimens examined.

In general there was no degradation of the outer shield on specimens buried for up to six years at Sites A, C, D, and E. Localized

7
corrosion pitting was noted on the outer shield of one specimen exposed

for one year at Site A. The outer shields were perforated due to

corrosion at window or ring areas on specimens buried at Site C for five

and six years.

There was no degradation of the inner shield on specimens buried

from two to six years at Site A and one year at Site C. For the

specimens buried at Site C for four to six years, the inner shield was

ELD or near ELD at jacketed and exposed areas. The inner shield of

specimens buried at Site D for three and five years and at Site E for

two and three years were ELD at the window, while all areas of the inner

shield exposed at Site E for six years were ELD. Similarly, the inner

shield of specimens exposed at Site G was ELD at all examined areas,

while only the window and ring areas were ELD on the outer shield for

the same exposed time.

The filling compound was tacky except at areas where the shields

were corroded.

System 58. This system consisted of a 3-mil (0.1 mm) Type 304

stainless steel outer shield with a 4-mil (0.1 mm) vapor deposited

aluminum alloy coating on the inner shield.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, C, E, and G only.

The outer shield was unaffected by corrosion at Sites A and E for

up to six years. No corrosion or only superficial corrosion was noted

on specimens from Site C for up to three years of exposure. The outer

shield buried for six years at Site C was noted as having superficial

corrosion at all areas examined, while all areas examined on the inner

shield were ELD or near ELD. Corrosion in varying degrees was noted on the outer shield after being buried up to six years at Site G. However,

8
the inner shield at the same site was ELD at all areas examined. The

specimen at Site E was not installed for the six year exposure because

of a lack of prepared specimens.

System 59. This system is the same as System 58 except that the

system was coupled to copper.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, C, E, and G only.

With few exceptions, corrosion was superficial or nonexistent on

the outer shield exposed up to five years at Sites A and C, and six

years at Site E. Specimens buried for five and six years at Site G were

perforated due to corrosion on the outer shield at all areas examined,

while the inner shield was ELD for specimens exposed for two to six

years. All areas of the inner shield were also ELD for specimens buried

for two to six years at Site E.

System 60. This system consisted of a 3-mil (0.1 mm) Type 304

stainless steel shield with a 2-mil (0.05 mm) vapor deposited aluminum

coating on the outer and core sides of the shield.

Specimens of this system were buried at Sites A, C, E, and G only.

There was no apparent corrosion of the stainless steel on any of

the specimens buried for up to five years at these sites. With very few

exceptions, the stainless steel shield was unaffected by corrosion at

all areas examined for specimens buried for up to six years at Sites A,

C, and E. The stainless steel shield for specimens from the six year

exposure at Site G was perforated at and adjacent to the window area as

well as at the jacketed areas examined. The vapor deposited aluminum

coated outer shield was near ELD at all areas except for the area adjacent to the ring on the specimen buried up to five years at Site A,

while the vapor deposited aluminum inner shield showed slight corrosion

9
at all areas. Both inner and outer vapor deposited aluminum shields of

specimens buried for five and six years at Site C were at or near ELD,

while companion specimens at Site G for two through six years were ELD

at all areas examined. The outer aluminum shield at and adjacent to the

window and ring areas of specimens buried for four years at Site E were

ELD. The inner aluminum shield at the jacketed areas was ELD for the

same exposure time. The specimen at Site E was not installed for the

six year exposure because of a lack of prepared specimens.

System 61. This system is the same as System 60 except that the

system was coupled to copper.

Specimens of this system were buried at Sites A, C, E, and G only.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated corrosion on the inner

and outer vapor deposited aluminum coating at all four sites. In

general, the stainless steel shield specimens exposed at Sites A and E

for up to five years were unaffected by corrosion. However, the

stainless steel shield specimens exposed at Site G for up to six years

were perforated due to corrosion at nearly all areas examined. With few

exceptions, the stainless steel shields exposed at Site C for two, four,

and six years were unaffected by corrosion. Perforation due to severe

corrosion on the inner aluminum shields exposed at Site A was observed,

while ELD or near ELD of the outer aluminum shield of specimens buried

up to five years was evident. Specimens exposed for two through six

years at Sites C, E, and G were ELD at all areas on the inner and outer

aluminum shield.

10
System 62. This system consisted of a 50-pair, 22-gauge air core

cable having an 8-mil (0.2 mm) aluminum shield with a copolymer coating

on both sides of the shield. There was no window or ring on specimens

of this system. The conductors were removed from the cable leaving a hollow shell with no taped ends.

The performance of this system showed no corrosion after exposure

for five years at Sites A and C and for four years at Site B. Specimens

exposed for up to six years at Sites D and E indicated no corrosion

except for the specimens exposed for four years. Perforation due to

localized corrosion pitting was noted for specimens exposed at Site G

for two and four years, while companion specimens exposed for three and

five years were unaffected by corrosion. Specimens from Sites C and G

showed minor degradation after exposure for six years.

System 63. This system consisted of a 16-pair, 22-gauge cable

having an 8-mil (0.2 mm) uncorrugated aluminum alloy shield which was

bonded on both sides to a polyolefin film. The shield was bonded to the

jacket. There was no window or ring on specimens of this system. The

conductors were removed from the cable leaving a hollow shell.

No corrosion was observed on specimens buried for five years at

© Site A and for six years at Sites B, C, D, and E. The shields of

specimens buried for two, four, and five years at Site G were perforated

due to corrosion, while companion specimens exposed for one, three, and

six years were unaffected by corrosion. Slight dissipation of the

shield was noted at the sheared ends of the specimens.

11
System 64. This system consisted of a 25-pair, 18-gauge cable

having an 8-mil (0.2 mm) uncorrugated aluminum alloy shield which was coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm) polyolefin film. The shield

was bonded to the jacket. There was no window or ring on specimens of

this system. The conductors were removed from the cable leaving a hollow shell

Specimens exposed for four 'years at Site B, five years at Site A,

and six years at Sites D and E were unaffected by corrosion. Only four

specimens were buried at Site B due to a lack of sufficient specimens to

allow for a five and six year exposure. Pitting which resulted in

corrosion perforation of the shield was observed on the specimens buried

for four years at Site C and specimens exposed for four, five and six

years at Site G. The shield of the specimen from Site C buried for six

years showed minor corrosion degradation. Slight metal dissipation at

the exposed sheared ends of the specimens was observed at all sites.

System 65. This system consisted of a 25-pair, 24-gauge cable

having an 8-mil (0.20 mm) uncorrugated aluminum alloy shield which was

bonded on both sides with a polyolefin film. The shield was bonded to

the jacket. There was no window or ring on specimens of this system.

The conductors were removed from the cable leaving a hollow shell.

There was no apparent corrosion on specimens of this system after

exposure for five years at Site A and for six years at Sites B, C, D, E,

and G.

System 66. This system is the same as System 65 except that the

shield was coupled to copper.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, B, C, D, and E

only.

12
These specimens were unaffected by corrosion after exposure for up

to five years at Site A and for up to six years at Sites B, C, D, and E.

System 67. This system consisted of 4-mil (0.1 mm) aluminum foil

3 3/4 in. x 8 in. (9.5 cm x 20.3 cm) coated on both sides with a

6-mil (0.15 mm) ethylene acrylic acid copolymer.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, B, C, and D only.

There was no apparent degradation of specimens of this system after

exposure for two years at Site A and for five years at Sites B, C, and D.

Specimens buried for two years at Sites B and D and for three and five

years at Site C were not recovered.

System 68. This system consisted of 4-mil (0.1 mm) aluminum foil

3 3/4 in. x 8 in. (9.5 cm x 20.3 cm) coated on both sides with a

6-mil (0.15 mm) polyester film.

These specimens were exposed at Sites A, B, C, and D only.

Specimens of this system were unaffected by corrosion after

exposure for three years at Site A, four years at Site C, and five years

at Sites B and D. The specimen buried for five years at Site C was not

recovered

System 69. This system consisted of 4-mil (0.1 mm) aluminum foil

1 1/2 in. x 12 in. (3.8 cm x 30.4 cm) coated on both sides with a 5.5

mil (0.14 run) polyester film.

These specimens were exposed at Sites A, B, C, and D only.

Corrosion of specimens of this system was nil after exposure for up

to three years at Site A, four years at Site D, and five years at Sites

B and C. Specimens exposed for one, three, and five years at Site D and

for three years at Sites B and C were not recovered.

13
System 70. Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed at

Sites A, B, C, and D only.

Corrosion was nil for specimens buried for up to two years at Site A

and up to five years at Sites B, C, and D. Severe corrosion was

observed for the specimen exposed for three years at Site A . Where

more than 25 percent of the metal shield was dissipated due to

corrosion. There was no window or ring on specimens of this system.

Systems 71 and 72 were buried plant housings and are not included

in this report.

System 73, The inner and outer shields of specimens of this system

(Table 1) exposed for one year at all sites were not severely unaffected

by corrosion. Degradation of the outer black plate steel shield was

severe at the window and ring areas on the specimen buried at Site B for

up to three years. The outer shield was near ELD at the window and ring

areas for specimens buried for three and four years at Site B. The

outer shield of the specimens exposed at Site A for two years and at

Site C for two and three years was severely corroded at the window and

ring areas, while the specimen from Site D showed only minor corrosion.

The same areas of the specimens exposed for four and seven years at Site

C were ELD. The window and ring area on the outer shield at Site D were

near ELD on the specimens exposed for seven years. Perforation due to

corrosion at the window areas of the outer shield of specimens exposed

for two years at Site E was noted as was the severe corrosion at the

window and ring areas exposed for four years. The outer shield except

for jacketed areas exposed for three and four years at Site G was at or near ELD while all areas examined on the specimen at Site G after seven years exposure indicated the outer shield was ELD. The inner aluminum

14
alloy shield showed little effect by corrosion except at Site G where

ELD, or near ELD, was observed at or adjacent to the window and ring

areas on specimens exposed for three, four and seven years, while the

inner aluminum alloy shield at Site C was ELD at all areas on the

specimen exposed for seven years.

System 74. This system was the same as System 73 except that the

'shields were coupled to copper.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the shields, at all areas examined. With few exceptions corrosion on

the inner shields of specimens buried up to three years at all sites was

nil or superficial. Specimens at Site B were ELD, or near ELD, for the

first four years of exposure on the outer shield at both the window and

ring areas, while the regions adjacent to the window and ring areas were

severely corroded. Severe degradation of the outer shield was noted at

the window and ring areas exposed for up to four years at Site D and up

to three years at Site E, while the outer shield of the specimens

exposed at Site D for seven years and at Site E for four years were ELD

at the window and ring areas. After four years of exposure the inner

shield of the specimen buried at Site C was ELD at all areas examined as

was the outer shield except at the jacketed areas, while the specimen

after seven years of exposure at Site C was ELD at all areas examined

and was considered destroyed. The inner shield of the specimen exposed

at Site D for seven years indicated slight corrosion at all examined

areas. Of the specimens buried at Site G all areas examined on the

inner shield were ELD after two and three years of exposure. The outer

shield at the window area was ELD on specimens exposed at Site G for

one, two, and three years, while the ring and adjacent area were ELD on

15
specimens buried for two and three years. The specimens exposed for

four and seven years at Site G were ELD at all areas examined and were

considered destroyed.

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas. System 75. The inner aluminum alloy shield on specimens of this

system (Table 1) exposed for up to four years at Sites B and E and for

seven years at Sites C, D and G were unaffected by corrosion. The outer

steel shield on specimens buried at Sites C, E, and G for one year,

Sites A and B for up to two years, and Site D for up to four years was

also unaffected by corrosion. Corrosion was superficial or nil on specimens buried at Site E for up to four years.

With one exception, corrosion at all areas examined on both shields

was nil on specimens buried for one to three years at Site C. The outer

shield showed slight corrosion at all areas examined after two years of

exposure at the same site, while only the window and ring areas showed

slight corrosion after four and seven years of exposure. The specimen

exposed for seven years at Site D indicated slight corrosion of the

outer shield at only the window and ring areas. At Site G the window

area was near ELD for the specimens buried for two and four years and

near ELD at and adjacent to the ring area after three years exposure.

The specimen buried for seven years at Site G was ELD at all examined

areas

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas.

System 76, Same as System 75 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling the shields to copper accelerated the corrosion of the

outer shield in the soils in which the specimens were exposed for up to

16
four years at Sites B and E and seven years at Sites C, D, and G. No

degradation was observed on the inner aluminum alloy shield of the

specimens buried for up to four years at Sites B, E, and G and up to

seven years at Site D. The inner shield of the specimen exposed up to

four years at Site C indicated corrosion at the ring area as a result of

perforations while specimens exposed for seven years at Site C indicated

the inner shield was ELD at all areas. With one exception the outer

steel shield was corroded to varying degrees at exposed areas on all

specimens exposed for up to four years. Corrosion at these areas was

most severe on specimens buried at Sites C, E, and G. After seven years

exposure at Site C, the outer shield of the specimen was observed to be

ELD at or adjacent to the window and ring areas while the specimen

buried at Site G for the same length of time was ELD. The unjacketed

area was unaffected. The outer shield of the specimen exposed up to

seven years at Site D indicated moderate corrosion at the window and

ring areas and the area adjacent to the ring.

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas.

System 77. The aluminum alloy inner shield on specimens of this

system (Table 1) were unaffected by corrosion after exposure for up to

two years at Site A, for up to four years at Sites B and C and for up to

seven years at Site D. One specimen buried for four years at Site E and

two specimens buried for three and four years, respectively at Site G

exhibited some corrosion. After seven years exposure at Site C, the

aluminum alloy inner shield was considered to be ELD. There was no degradation of the outer steel shield of specimens buried for one year

at Sites A, B, and D. After exposure for three years, corrosion of the

outer shield was superficial or nil at jacketed areas of all specimens

17
except for those exposed at Sites B and C. Corrosion of the outer

shield was observed at the window and ring areas of all specimens buried

for two and three years in all soils. The outer shield of the specimens

exposed at Site D for four and seven years indicated mild to severe

corrosion at the window and ring areas. The specimens exposed for four

years at Sites B, C and E were at, or near ELD, on the outer shield at

or adjacent to the window and ring areas. The outer shield at, or adjacent to, the window and ring areas of the specimens exposed for u

p

to seven years at Site C was considered to be ELD. Corrosion

perforations due to localized pitting was noted at window and ring areas

on specimens buried at Sites A and D for two years and on the outer

shield for specimens buried at Sites B and C for up to three years. The

specimens exposed at Site G for two, three, and four years were ELD on

the outer shield at and adjacent to the window and ring areas and ELD on

the inner shield at all areas examined except the area adjacent to the

window after exposures for four years. The specimen at Site G exposed

for seven years was considered destroyed.

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas.

System 78. Same as System 77 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling the shields to copper accelerated corrosion of the outer

shield in all of the soils and of the inner shield at Sites C, E, and G.

The inner shields of specimens buried for four years at Sites B and D

were unaffected by corrosion. The inner shield of the specimen buried

for seven years at Site D was slightly corroded at the window and ring

areas and the area adjacent to the ring. Corrosion of the inner shield

on specimens buried at Sites C and G occurred at and adjacent to the

18
window and ring areas. For specimens buried at Site G for three years

and at Site C for seven years, the inner shield was ELD or near ELD at

window and ring areas and severely corroded at jacketed areas. The

specimens exposed at Site G for four and seven years were ELD at all

areas examined and were considered destroyed. In general, severe

corrosion was observed on the outer shield at the window and ring areas

on all specimens of this sytem. For the specimens buried for two and

three years at Sites B, C, and G, the outer shield was at or near ELD at

the window and ring areas. For the specimens buried for four years at

Sites B and C, the outer shields were either ELD or near ELD in the

areas of the window and ring. The outer shield of the specimen exposed

for up to seven years at Site C was ELD for all areas examined and was

considered destroyed. Corrosion of the outer shield was severe at the

window and ring areas on specimens of this system buried for two years

at Site A, seven years at Site D, and four years at Site E.

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas. System 79. Except for the specimens of this system (Table 1)

buried at Site G and one specimen at Site C, there was no degradation of

the inner aluminum alloy shield on any of the specimens buried up to

four years at Sites B and E and seven years at Site D. Severe corrosion

was noted on the inner shield at the window and ring areas on specimens

exposed for up to two years at Site G and at or near ELD at all areas

examined on the specimens buried for three, four and seven years at

Site G and seven years at Site C. In general, corrosion of the outer

steel shield occurred at or adjacent to the window and ring areas. The

specimens at Sites B and C for four years and Site D for seven years

were severely corroded at the ring areas. The outer shield of the

19
specimen buried for up to seven years at Site C was at or near ELD for

all areas examined. Perforation due to corrosion at the jacketed and

adjacent window areas was observed after exposure for one year at Site E.

At the same site, the window and ring areas of the outer steel shield

were perforated due to corrosion for specimens exposed for two and three

years. The specimens buried for up to four and seven years at Site G

were at or near ELD at the window and ring areas. The specimen exposed

for four years at Site E was not recovered.

The filling compounds were still tacky at all uncorroded areas,

while corroded areas were noted as dry.

System 80. Same as System 79 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

With a few exceptions, there was little or no corrosion on either

shield at jacketed areas of specimens buried at Sites A and C for two

years and Sites D and E for three years. The inner aluminum alloy

shield was perforated due to corrosion at window and ring areas on

specimens buried for three and four years at Site B and for two and

three years at Site D. All areas examined on the inner shield were ELD

for specimens exposed for four and seven years at Site C. Specimens

buried for three, four, and seven years at Site D were at or near ELD at

the window and ring areas, while only the four year exposure was ELD at

the ring area at Site E. Specimens exposed for three and four years at

Sites B, C, G, and four and seven years at Site D were ELD at the window

and ring area on the outer steel shield and were ELD on both shields of

specimens exposed at Sites C and G for three, four and seven years. All

areas examined on the inner and outer shields of specimens buried at

Site G for two, three, four, and seven years were ELD and were considered

destroyed

20
The filling compounds were still tacky at all uncorroded areas,

while corroded areas were noted as dry.

System 81. There was no corrosion of the inner aluminum alloy

shield for specimens of this system (Table 1) after exposure for one and

two years at Sites A and G, for up to four years at Sites B, C, and E

and for up to seven years at Site D. The inner shield of the specimen

exposed for up to seven years at Site C was severely corroded at, and

adjacent to, the window and ring areas. Corrosion of the steel outer

shield in varying degrees was noted at window and ring areas in

specimens exposed up to four years at Sites B, C, D, and E. The outer

shield exposed for up to seven years at Sites C and D were either

severely corroded or near ELD at the window and ring areas. The inner

and outer shields at the window and ring areas of the specimens were at

or near ELD after the third and fourth year of exposure at Site G.

However, only the inner shield was ELD at the adjacent ring area after

the third year of exposure. The specimen buried at Site G for seven

years indicated that both shields were ELD at all areas examined thus

classifying the specimen as destroyed.

System 82. Same as System 81 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the outer steel shield at window and ring areas in all of the soils.

The inner and outer shields at jacketed areas exhibited little or no

corrosion after exposure for up to two years at Sites A and B and for up

to three years at Sites D and E. Corrosion was noted at and adjacent to

the window and ring areas of the specimen exposed for four years at

Site E. Severe corrosion was observed on the outer steel shield at the

21
window and ring areas of specimens buried for two years at Site A and

for up to four years at Sites D and E. The specimen exposed for seven years at Site D indicated that the outer shield was at or near ELD

condition at all examined areas. The inner shield of the same specimen

was at or near ELD conditions at all examined areas except for the area under the jacket. The outer shield at the window and ring areas was severely corroded after exposure of one year at Site B as were the

adjacent window and ring areas of the outer shield after exposure for

three and four years. The specimen exposed for four years at Site C was

ELD at all areas examined on the outer shield except at the unjacketed

areas, whereas, the specimen exposed for seven years was ELD at all

areas examined. Specimens buried for two and three years at Site B and

one year at Site G were ELD at the window and ring areas, while

specimens exposed at Site G for two, three, four and seven years were

ELD at all areas examined and were considered destroyed.

The filling compound was semi-tacky to dry for all specimens.

System 83. With few exceptions specimens of this system (Table 1)

were unaffected by corrosion. Specimens exposed at Site C were

perforated due to corrosion on the outer steel shield at the window and

ring areas for specimens exposed up to two years and severely corroded

at the same areas after three years while after seven years these same

areas were ELD. The inner shield on the specimen exposed for seven

years at Site C was ELD at all examined areas. The inner aluminum alloy

shield of the specimen exposed for seven years at Site D was unaffected

by corrosion while the outer steel shield of the same specimen indicated

slight corrosion at all areas except for the area adjacent to the

ring. The aluminum alloy inner shield of specimens exposed for two

22
years at Site G showed slight corrosion at the adjacent window areas,

while severe corrosion was observed at the window and ring areas of

specimens buried at the same site for the same amount of time. The

window and the area adjacent to the window were ELD on the specimen

buried at Site G for four years with all examined areas being ELD on the

specimen exposed for seven years at the same site. Perforation was

noted at the window and ring areas of the outer shield for specimens

exposed at Site G for two years and at the region adjacent to the ring

area of specimens exposed for up to three years. The window area of the

outer shield was near ELD on the specimens buried for three and four

years at Site G, as was the region adjacent to the window area of the

specimen buried for four years. For the specimen exposed at Site G for

seven years, the window area was considered ELD while the ring area was considered near the ELD condition. The specimen exposed at Site C for

four years was not recovered.

The filling compound was semi-tacky to dry for all specimens.

System 84. Same as System 83 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated the

corrosion of the outer corrugated steel shield of specimens buried in

five of the six soils. The specimen at Site A was unaffected by

corrosion after an exposure of two years. Specimens from Sites C and E

showed varying degrees of corrosion on the inner shield after four years

of exposure. After seven years of exposure at Site C the inner shield

was ELD at all examined areas. The inner shield of the specimens buried

at Site D for seven years was ELD at only the window area and the area adjacent the window. Varying degrees of corrosion were noted at the

23
window and ring areas on the outer shield of specimens buried at all

sites for up to four years. Perforation due to corrosion was observed

at the window and ring areas for specimens exposed at Sites B, C, and E

for up to four years, and at Site D for two, three, and four years.

After seven years of exposure at Site C the outer shield was ELD at all

areas examined, while the specimen exposed at Site D for seven years

indicated that the outer shield was at or near ELD at only the window

and ring areas. The outer shield of the specimen exposed for two years

at Site G was ELD at the window and ring areas. However, ELD was observed on both shields at the same areas of specimens exposed at Site

G for three years. All inner shield areas except the region adjacent to

the window area were ELD after exposure for three years at Site G.

After four and seven years exposure at Site G, the inner shield was ELD

at all areas. After four years of exposure at Site G, all areas of the

specimens were ELD except for the jacketed areas on the outer shield.

After seven years of exposure at the same site, only the unjacketed

window area was ELD with all other areas showing signs of very severe

corrosion.

The filling compounds were semi-tacky to dry for all specimens.

System 85, With few exceptions specimens of this system (Table 1)

were noted as having superficial or negligible degradation on the inner

aluminum alloy shield exposed for up to three years at Sites C and E and

up to four years at Sites B and D. Varying degrees of corrosion were

noted at all areas examined on the inner shield of the specimens exposed

for four years at Sites C and E with the most severe corrosion occurring

at and adjacent to the ring areas at Site C. The inner shield of the

specimen exposed at Site C for seven years was ELD at all areas while

24
the inner shield of the specimen exposed at Site D for seven years

showed superficial or slight corrosion at all areas examined. The inner

shield at the ring area was near ELD on the specimen buried at Site G

for one year. Companion specimens buried for two, three, four, and

seven years at the same site were severely corroded at all areas

examined and were considered destroyed. The corrugated steel outer

shield was unaffected by corrosion on specimens buried at Site A for two

years. Perforation due to severe corrosion was noted at the window and

ring areas on the outer shields of the specimens exposed for three and

four years at Sites B, C and E, and for three, four and seven years at

Site D. The outer shield of the specimen at Site C was at, or near, ELD

at the window and ring areas exposed for four years while after seven years of exposure at the same site the outer shield was ELD at all areas

and was considered destroyed. Slight degradation on the inner shield

at, and adjacent to, the window area of the specimen exposed at Site C

was observed after three years of exposure. The specimen exposed at

Site E for three years was not recovered.

The filling compound was semi -tacky to dry for all specimens.

System 86. Same as System 85 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the shields, particularly at the unjacketed areas. The inner

aluminum alloy shields of the specimens buried for two, four, and seven years at Site C were ELD at all areas examined. The specimen exposed

for three years at the same site was ELD at and adjacent to window and

ring areas. Severe corrosion of both shields was noted on specimens

buried up to seven years at Site G. The inner shield on the specimen

25
exposed for one year at Site G was perforated due to corrosion at all

areas examined, while corrosion on the outer steel shield at jacketed

areas was negligible. Specimens buried at the same site were ELD on the

outer shield at the window and ring areas after one year exposure. Both

shields were ELD at all areas examined for specimens exposed at Site G

for two, three, four and seven years and were considered destroyed.

With few exceptions for the specimens buried in the other four sites for

four years, both shields were perforated to severely corroded at all.

areas examined. For the specimen buried at Site D for seven years, both

shields were ELD at all areas examined and considered destroyed.

The filling compound was semi-tacky to dry for all specimens.

System 87. There was no degradation of the corrugated aluminum

alloy inner shield on specimens of this system (Table 1) buried up to

one year at Site G, two years at Site A, four years at Sites B, C, and

E, and seven years at Site D. The inner shield of the specimen exposed

for two years at Site G was perforated due to corrosion at all areas

examined, while the companion specimens exposed for three, four and

seven years were ELD at all areas on both the inner and outer shield and

were considered destroyed. Perforations due to localized corrosion

pitting at the window and ring areas on the steel outer shield was noted

for specimens exposed at Site A for one and two years and at

Site D for two, three, and four years. The steel outer shield of the

specimen buried at Site D for seven years was near ELD at the window and

ring areas. Companion specimens at Sites B, C, and E buried up to four

years were perforated or severely corroded at or adjacent to window and

ring areas. Both shields on the specimen buried at Site C for seven years were ELD at all areas examined.

26
The filling compound was semi -tacky to dry for all specimens.

System 88. Same as System 87 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling the specimens of this system to copper accelerated the

corrosion of the black plate steel outer shield at the window and ring

areas after exposures of up to two years at Site A, four years at

Sites B, C, and E, and seven years at Site D. The window and ring areas

of the black plate steel outer shield were ELD after one year of

exposure at Site G. The outer shields at exposed areas ranged from mild

to very severe corrosion for specimens buried at the six sites.

Corrosion of the corrugated aluminum alloy inner shield was negligible

at all areas examined for up to one year at Site C, two years at Site A,

three years at Site D, and four years at Sites B and E. The inner

shield of the specimen buried at Site C for two years was at or near ELD

at the window and adjacent to the window area. After three years of

burial at Site C, the inner shield was ELD at all areas examined. The

inner shield of the specimen exposed at Site D for four years was noted

to be severely corroded and perforated at the window as a result of

localized pitting.. The specimen buried at Site D for seven years

exhibited severe corrosion of the inner shield at all areas examined

with the most severe corrosion occurring at the ring area. Both shields

of the specimens exposed at Site G for two, three, four and seven years

and at Site C for four and seven years were ELD at all areas rated, and were considered destroyed.

The filling compound was semi-tacky to dry on all specimens.

System 89. This system consisted of a 100-pair, 22-gauge semiconducting cable having a 5-mil (0.1 mm) corrugated copper alloy shield

27
and a low density polyethylene jacket.

With one exception, corrosion on the specimens of this system was nonexistent in all of the soils after exposure for three years.

Perforation due to corrosion was noted at or adjacent to the window and

ring areas of the specimen exposed for three years at Site 6.

System 90. Same as System 89 except that the shield was coupled to

copper.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper had little or no effect

on the corrosion behavior of the copper alloy shield.

System 91. This system consisted of a 3-mil (0.1 mm) corrugated

1006 low carbon steel outer shield bonded to a 3-mil (0.1 mm) 4022

aluminum alloy inner shield.

Corrosion of either shield at the jacketed areas was not

appreciable for specimens buried for one year at Site D or two years at

Site B. Severe corrosion was observed on the outer shield at the window

and ring areas of specimens exposed for up to two years at Sites C and

E. The specimens were ELD or near ELD at the window and ring areas on

both shields exposed for two and three years at Sites B and D. The

inner and outer shields were at or near ELD at the window and ring

areas on specimens exposed for one and two years at Site E. The

specimen at Site A was ELD at all areas examined after one year of

exposure and was considered destroyed. The same was observed for the

specimen at Site G exposed for one, two, and three years, and for three

years at Sites C and E. All three specimens were considered destroyed

at these sites.

System 92. Same as System 91 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

28
Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, B, and G only.

Coupling the specimens of this system to copper accelerated

corrosion of both shields. Corrosion of varying degrees was noted on

the inner aluminum alloy shield for specimens buried at Site B for two

years with ELD noted at the window and ring area after three years of

exposure. The outer shield was at or near ELD at the window and ring

areas for specimens exposed at Site B for two and three years. The

shields of specimens were ELD at all areas and were considered destroyed

after burial for one year in all three soils and for up to three years

at Site G.

System 93. This system consisted of a 3-mil (0.1 mm) corrugated

1006 low carbon steel inner shield bonded to a 3-mil (0.1 mm) 4022

aluminum alloy outer shield.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A, B, C, D, and E

only.

With one exception there was no appreciable degradation of the

outer aluminum alloy shield after exposure for one year at these sites.

The outer shield of the specimen exposed for one year at Site A was perforated at all areas examined, while the inner shield was ELD at all

areas except under the jacket. Corrosion of the inner and outer shield

varied from superficial to moderate at all areas examined after burial

for up to two years at Sites B, C, D, and E. Perforation due to

corrosion was noted both at or adjacent to the window and ring areas on

the specimens exposed for three years at Sites B, D, and E. The

specimen exposed at Site C for three years was not recovered.

System 94. Same as System 93 except that the shields were coupled

to copper. Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites A and B only.

29
Coupling the specimens of this system to copper accelerated

corrosion of both shields. Both the inner and outer shields of

specimens exposed for one year at Site A and up to three years at Site B were ELD at all areas examined and were considered destroyed.

System 95. This system was a coaxial cable consisting of a 25-mil

(0.6 mm) uncorrugated seamless aluminum alloy outer shield and a 112-mil

(2.8 mm) solid copper alloy center conductor with a high density

polyethylene jacket.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites B, C, D, E, and G

only.

For specimens buried up to one year at Site C, up to two years at

Site E, and up to five years at Sites B and D, the evaluation indicated

that corrosion of the aluminum alloy outer shield was nonexistent or superficial. For the specimen buried at Site C for four years, slight

corrosion of the outer shield was noted at all areas examined. The

specimen buried at Site G was ELD at the window and ring areas and

experienced severe corrosion at the area adjacent to the window for the

first year of exposure, while the specimen exposed for the second year

was perforated due to corrosion at the window and ring areas. The

specimen at Site G after five years of exposure was ELD at all areas and

was considered destroyed.

System 96. Same as System 95 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites B, C, D, E, and G

only.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the shields buried for one year in all soils. In general, there was

30
little or no degradation of the specimens buried for up to five years at

Site B. The specimen exposed at Site C for one year was ELD at the

window, ring, and region adjacent to the ring area, while the specimen

exposed at the same site for four years was ELD for all areas examined

and was considered destroyed. Perforation due to corrosion was noted on

the specimen at or adjacent to the window and ring areas exposed for up

to five years at Site D and two years at Site E. The unjacketed areas

on specimens buried at Sites D and E were perforated due to corrosion

pitting. The specimens exposed for up to five years at Site G were ELD

at all areas examined and were considered destroyed. The specimen from

Site D was exposed without a window for the first year of exposure.

System 97, Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed at

Sites B, C, D, E, and G only.

There was little or no corrosion on the specimens exposed at Site C

for up to four years. Specimens of this system were unaffected by

corrosion during their first two years of exposure at Site E and the

first five years of exposure at Sites B and D. The shield of the

specimen from Site G was severely corroded at the ring area and near ELD

at the window area exposed for one year, while ELD was observed at the

ring area of the companion specimen buried for two years. The specimen

exposed after five years at Site G indicated that the window and ring

areas were ELD with very severe corrosion occurring at the area beneath

the jacket.

The filling compounds were dry.

System 98. Same as System 97 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites B, C, D, E, and G

31
Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites B, C, D, E, and G

only.

Coupling the specimens of this system to copper accelerated the

corrosion of the aluminum alloy shield. For the specimens buried at

Sites B and D for up to five years, slight corrosion was noted at the

window and ring areas with severe corrosion occurring at the area adjacent to the ring on the specimen buried at Site B for five years.

The specimen buried at Site C for one year was ELD at the window and

ring areas, while the specimen buried at the same site for four years

was ELD at and adjacent to the window and ring areas. The specimen

exposed at Site E was perforated due to localized corrosion pitting at

the window and ring areas after one year of exposure, while the same

areas were ELD after two years of exposure. After burial for one year

at Site G, the shield of the specimen was near ELD at the area adjacent

to the window, while the window, ring, and regions adjacent to the ring

areas were ELD. The specimens buried for two and five years at the same

site were ELD at all areas examined and were considered destroyed.

The filling compound was still tacky at all areas.

System 99. Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed at

Sites B, C, D, E, and G only.

Corrosion was nil or superficial on both shields of the specimens

buried for up to two years at Site E, four years at Site C, five years

at Site B, and one year at Site D. Corrosion of the inner shield was

nil on the specimens buried for up to two years at Site G and up to five

years at Site D. The tin-free steel outer shield of the specimens

buried for up to five years at Site D was perforated at the window and

ring areas as a result of localized corrosion pitting. At Site G, the

32
developed severe corrosion at the window area and perforation due to

localized pitting corrosion at the ring area. The companion specimen

showed severe corrosion at and adjacent to the window and ring areas

after two years exposure. For the specimen exposed for five years at

Site G, both shields were severely corroded at all areas due to

perforations which resulted from localized corrosion pitting. In

addition, the outer steel shield window area was ELD.

The filling compound was still tacky.

System 100. Same as System 99 except that the shields were coupled

to copper.

Coupling the specimens of this system to copper accelerated the

corrosion of the tin-free steel outer shield exposed for up to two years

at Site E, four years at Site C, and five years at Sites B and D, while

the only inner shields to be severely corroded were from specimens

exposed for four years at Site C and two years at Site G. After

exposure for four years at Site C, five years at Sites B and D and two

years at Site G, the window and ring areas were severely corroded due to

perforations which resulted from localized pitting corrosion. The

specimen exposed for two years at Site B was perforated due to corrosion

at the area adjacent to the window, while the specimen exposed for two

years at Site D was corroded at the area adjacent to the ring. The

sample exposed for five years at Site G was ELD at all areas examined

and was considered destroyed.

The filling compound was still tacky at all areas. System 101. Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed at

Sites B, C, D, E, and G.

33
There was no degradation on the uncorrugated aluminum alloy inner

shield on the specimens buried up to two years at Sites E and G, four

years at Site C, and five years at Sites B and D„ The specimen exposed

at Site C for one year was perforated due to corrosion on the outer

shield at the window area and slightly pitted at the ring area, A

companion specimen also buried at Site C after four years showed slight

pitting at and adjacent to the window and ring areas on the outer

shield. The tin-plate steel outer shield of the specimen exposed at

Site B for one year was noted to have slight rust stains at the jacketed

and unjacketed seamed areas, while the specimen exposed for two years at

the same site was observed to have perforations at the ring area. The

outer shield of the specimen exposed for five years at Site B indicated

only slight pitting at the window area. For specimens buried for two

years at Sites D and E, perforations due to corrosion were observed at

the window and ring areas of the outer shield, while the specimen

exposed for five years at Site D ranged from superficial to slight

corrosion at all areas examined on the outer shield. The outer shield

of the specimen buried at Site G for one year was perforated by

corrosion at all areas examined. Corrosion was severe on the companion

specimens from the same site at all areas examined with ELD occurring at

and adjacent to the window areas exposed for two and five years.

The filling compound was semi-tacky except at corroded areas where

it was dry.

System 102. Same as System 101 except that the shields were

coupled to copper.

Specimens of this system were exposed at Sites B, C, D, E, and G

only.

34
Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the corrugated tin-plate steel outer shield. All areas examined on

the aluminum alloy inner shield were unaffected by corrosion after

exposure for up to two years at Sites E and G, four years at Site C and

five years at Sites B and D. Degradation of either shield at Site D was

superficial or nil for the first year of exposure. The specimen buried

at Site C for one year was near ELD on the outer shield at the window

and ring areas and perforated due to corrosion at the region adjacent to

the ring area. The specimen buried at Site C for four years was ELD on

the outer shield at the window and ring areas and the regions adjacent

to the window and ring areas. Severe corrosion was observed at the

window and ring areas of the specimen buried at Site B for one year,

while companion specimens exposed for two and five years were perforated

due to corrosion at and adjacent to the window and ring areas. The

outer shield of the specimen exposed for five years at Site D was near

ELD at the window and ring areas and the region adjacent to the ring

area. The outer shield of the specimen exposed for one year at Site G

was ELD at the window area; however, and the corrosion of the outer

shield at all other rated areas of this specimen was moderate to

severe. The outer shield of the specimen buried for two years at Site G

was ELD at all areas examined, except the jacketed areas. The specimen

exposed for five years at the same site was ELD at all examined areas

and was considered destroyed. The specimen exposed for two years at

Site D was not recovered.

The filling compound was dry at corroded areas. System 103. Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed only

at Sites B, C, D, and E.

35
The corrosion of both shields was nil or superficial after two

years of burial at Site E. Corrosion of the outer shields on specimens

buried at Sites B and D after two years of exposure was nil or superficial, while the inner shields of the specimens buried for five

years at Site B and D were unaffected by corrosion. The outer shield at

the window areas for the specimens buried at Site B for one, two and

five years and Site D for five years showed slight localized pitting

corrosion, while the same shield of the specimen exposed at Site E

showed slight localized pitting corrosion at all areas examined after

two years. The outer shield of the specimen exposed at Site C for one

year was perforated due to corrosion at the window and ring areas, while

the outer shield of the specimen exposed at the same site for four years

exhibited perforation due to localized pitting corrosion at the window

area and the regions adjacent to the window and ring areas with the ring

area near ELD. Corrosion of the inner shield was nil on the specimen

exposed at Site C after one year, while after exposure for four years at

the same site, the inner shield was ELD at the window and ring areas.

The filling compounds were still tacky.

System 104, Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed only

at Sites B, C, D, and E.

After exposure for two years at Sites D and E and five years at

Site B, the specimens exhibited little or no corrosion on the inner or

the outer shields. For the specimen exposed for five years at Site D,

the inner shield was unaffected by corrosion, while the outer shield

showed slight localized pitting at the window area. The specimen buried

at Site C for one year was perforated at the ring area on the outer

shield, while the outer shield of the specimen buried at the same site

36
for four years was ELD at the window and ring areas with very severe

corrosion noted at all other areas. The inner shield of the specimen

exposed at Site C for one year was unaffected by corrosion, while the

companion specimen buried for four years at the same site showed that

the inner shield was ELD at all areas examined.

The filling compound was still tacky.

System 105. Specimens of this System (Table 1) were exposed only

at Sites B, C, D, and E.

The specimens buried at Site C for one year. Site E for two years,

and Sites B and D for five years indicated that both shields were

unaffected by corrosion. The specimen exposed for four years at Site C

showed that the inner shield was ELD at the window area with severe

corrosion occurring at the region adjacent to the window. The same

specimen indicated that the outer shield was perforated due to localized

pitting corrosion at all areas examined with severe corrosion occurring

at the window area.

The filling compounds were still tacky.

37
DISCUSSION

The data presented describes the performance of various cable

systems after exposure for up to seven years in different soil

environments. Forty-eight (48) different shielding systems incorporating either metal or plastic coated metals were investigated under some

very adverse conditions.

With a few exceptions, direct burial telephone cable specimens

containing the various metallic shielding protective systems were

prepared with portions of the outer jackets damaged in order to simulate

that which could occur in actual field installations. In addition some

of the systems were electrically coupled to copper strips, thus creating

a galvanic cell between the copper and the noncopper shield materials.

This was done to simulate field conditions where the shield may be

coupled to existing cable systems having copper shields or to copper

ground rods.

Six soil environments which had chemical and physical properties

representative of a wide range of soils that may be encountered in the

United States in actual field installations were used as the test beds

for this study. Some are moderately corrosive and some are very

corrosive toward ferrous and other metals or alloys.

The data show that of the cable specimens buried for up to seven

years, few were resistant to corrosion in all of the soils in which they

were exposed.

The performance of Systems* 56 and 57 after exposure for six years

was excellent in alkaline soil. Specimens of System 56 buried in

Lakewood sand showed no corrosion after five years of exposure.

38
Corrosion resistance of the specimens of System 56 exposed for six years

were rated fair in clay soil and coastal sand, while corrosion

resistance of the specimens of System 57 buried in the same soils was

rated poor, as were the specimens exposed in a tidal marsh. Specimens

of Systems 56 and 57 were not installed in Hagerstown loam.

Specimens of System 58 exposed for five years had good corrosion

resistance in an alkaline soil. However, the corrosion resistance of

the specimens of System 59 buried for the same amount of time in the

same soil was rated poor. Corrosion resistance of System 60 specimens

after four years in coastal sand was very poor and the same was true for

specimens exposed in alkaline soil for five years. Similarly, the

corrosion resistance of the specimens of System 58 buried for five years

in coastal sand and System 61 in alkaline soil were noted as performing

poorly. After exposure for six years, specimens of Systems 58, 59, 60,

and 61 exhibited poor resistance to corrosion in clay soil and tidal

marsh as did specimens of Systems 59 and 61 buried for the same time in

coastal sand. Specimens of Systems 58, 59, 60, and 61 were not

installed in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand.

*Systems are described in Table 1.

39
After exposure for five years in an alkaline soil, six years in

clay and Lakewood sand, and four to six years in Hagerstown loam, there

was little or no corrosion of specimens of Systems 62, 63, 64, 65, and

66. Similarly, there was no corrosion of specimens of System 65 after

exposure for up to six years in a tidal marsh. The corrosion

performance of Systems 62, 63, and 64 exposed in a tidal marsh was fair.

Specimens of System 66 were not buried in this soil.

Specimens of Systems 67, 68, and 69 buried for three years in an alkaline soil and five years in Hagerstown loam, clay and Lakewood sand

were unaffected by corrosion. The corrosion resistance of the specimens

of System 70 exposed for three years in alkaline soil was poor, while

the performance of the specimens buried in Hagerstown loam, clay, and

Lakewood sand were rated as excellent. Systems 67, 68, 69, and 70 were

not installed in coastal sand or tidal marsh.

After exposure for four years in coastal sand, the corrosion

resistance of System 73 was generally rated as poor. The resistance to

corrosion of the specimens of Systems 73 and 74 (same as System 73

except coupled to copper) buried in alkaline soil were rated poor to

very poor. Similarly, companion specimens of the same systems exposed

for four years in Hagerstown loam and coastal sand and seven years in

clay, Lakewood sand and a tidal marsh, performed poorly.

The corrosion resistance of the specimens of System 75 buried for

two years in an alkaline soil, four years in coastal sand, and seven

years in clay and Lakewood sand ranged from good to excellent. The

specimens exposed for seven years in a tidal marsh had very poor

corrosion resistance. System 75 exposed in Hagerstown loam had good

corrosion resistance after four years of exposure. The resistance to

40
corrosion of the System 76 specimens (same as System 75 except coupled

to copper) buried for four years in Hagerstown loam and coastal sand and

buried for seven years in clay, Lakewood sand and a tidal marsh were

rated fair to very poor.

The corrosion performance of System 77 exposed for two years in an

alkaline soil was good, while that of System 78 (same as System 77

except coupled to copper) was poor to very poor. Corrosion of System 77

specimens buried for four years in Hagerstown loam were rated poor while

specimens of System 78 under the same conditions were judged to be in

poor to very poor condition. Corrosion resistance of Systems 77 and 78

were rated poor to very poor in coastal sand after an exposure of four

years and in clay soil, Lakewood sand and tidal marsh after an exposure

of seven years.

For the specimens of System 79 exposed for two years in an alkaline

soil there was little or no corrosion observed. The corrosion

performance of System 80 (same as System 79 except coupled to copper)

buried for two years in an alkaline soil was rated fair, as was System

79 exposed for three years in coastal sand. The performance of

specimens of System 79 buried for four years in Hagerstown loam was fair

to poor, while companion specimens of the same system buried for seven years in clay soil and Lakewood sand were rated fair to very poor. The

corrosion resistance of System 79 in a tidal marsh was poor to very poor

after seven years of exposure. The corrosion performance of System 80

in Hagerstown loam and coastal sand after four years of exposure and in

clay, Lakewood sand, and tidal marsh after seven years of exposure was

rated poor to very poor.

41
There was no corrosion on System 81 buried in alkaline soil for

two years. However, the corrosion resistance of System 82 (same as System 81 except coupled to copper) exposed in the same soil and for the

same length of time was observed as poor. The corrosion performance of

the specimens of System 81 exposed in coastal sand for four years was

rated fair while the performance of the specimens of the same system

exposed in Lakewood sand for seven years ranged from fair to very

poor. The System 81 specimens buried in Hagerstown loam and System 82

in Lakewood and coastal sand had poor corrosion resistance. The

corrosion resistance of System 81 in clay soil and tidal marsh was very

poor as was the corrosion resistance of the specimens of System 82 in

Hagerstown loam and clay soil. Specimens of System 82 exposed in tidal

marsh for seven years were considered destroyed.

Systems 83 and 84 were unaffected by corrosion after being exposed

for two years in an alkaline soil. System 83 remained generally

unaffected by corrosion after four years in Hagerstown loam and coastal

sand and after seven years in Lakewood sand. The resistance to

corrosion of the specimens of System 84 (same as System 83 except

coupled to copper) buried in coastal sand for four years was good while

that of companion specimens in Hagerstown loam was noted as moderate to

poor. The System 84 specimens buried in Lakewood sand for seven years

had good to very poor corrosion resistance. The condition of both

systems were poor to very poor with respect to corrosion in clay soil

and tidal marsh after being buried for seven years.

For specimens of System 85 exposed in an alkaline soil for two

years, no corrosion was observed. However, corrosion of System 86 (same

as System 85 except coupled to copper) buried in the same soil for the

42
same time was moderate. Specimens of System 85 after exposure for four

years in Hagerstown loam and after exposure for seven years in clay and

Lakewood sand exhibited poor to very poor corrosion resistance. The

resistance to corrosion of the System 85 specimens exposed for four

years in coastal sand was rated fair to poor. Specimens of System 86

were found to be severely corroded after four years exposure in

Hagerstown loam and coastal sand and after seven years exposure in clay

and Lakewood sand. Both systems were destroyed due to exposure in tidal

marsh after seven years.

The corrosion of Systems 87 and 88 buried for two years in an alkaline soil was moderate. System 87 specimens exposed in coastal sand

performed well, while System 88 (same as System 87 except coupled to

copper) specimens performed very poorly after four years of exposure.

Corrosion resistance of both systems was poor to very poor after being

buried for four years in Hagerstown loam and after being buried for

seven years in Lakewood sand. Severe corrosion was noted for specimens

of Systems 87 and 88 exposed in a tidal marsh and specimens of System 88

exposed in a clay soil. The specimens of both systems were considered

destroyed after seven years of exposure in clay and tidal marsh.

Specimens of Systems 89 and 90 buried in an alkaline soil for one year and three years in all other soil environments showed little or no corrosion attack except in a tidal marsh where corrosion resistance was generally good. The corrosion resistance of Systems 91 and 92 in

Hagerstown loam and System 91 in Lakewood sand was very poor after an exposure of three years. Specimens of both Systems 91 and 92 were

considered destroyed after exposure in alkaline soil for one year and

tidal marsh for three years. Specimens of System 91 were also destroyed

43
after three years in clay soil and coastal sand. There were no specimens of System 92 installed in clay soil, Lakewood, or coastal

sand

The specimens of System 93 buried for three years in Hagerstown

loam and clay soil were observed to be in generally good condition. The

corrosion resistance of the specimens of System 93 after exposure for

one year in an alkaline soil was rated very poor as was the corrosion

resistance of the specimens exposed for three years in Lakewood and.

coastal sand. Specimens of System 94 (same as System 93 except coupled

to copper) buried in the same soil for one year and buried in Hagerstown

loam for two years were destroyed due to corrosion. Specimens of System

93 were not installed in a tidal marsh, nor was System 94 installed in

clay soil, Lakewood sand, coastal sand, or tidal marsh.

The specimens of System 95 exposed for two years in coastal sand,

four years in clay soil, and five years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood

sand had corrosion resistance that ranged from good to excellent, while

the corrosion resistance of the specimens buried in tidal marsh for two

years was rated as good. The specimen buried for five years in the

tidal marsh was considered destroyed.

The corrosion performance of specimens of System 96 buried for five

years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand was good to fair. Specimens

exposed for four years in clay soil and two years in coastal sand

exhibited poor to very poor corrosion performance. The specimen exposed

in tidal marsh for five years was considered destroyed.

Specimens of System 97 exposed for four years in clay soil, five

years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand and two years in coastal sand

44
had little or no corrosion. The specimen buried in tidal marsh for five

years had very poor resistance to corrosion.

For System 98, the specimens exposed for five years in Hagerstown

loam and Lakewood sand showed good to fair corrosion performance. The

corrosion performance of specimens buried for four years in clay soil

and for two years in coastal sand was very poor. The specimen buried in

tidal marsh for five years was considered destroyed.

Specimens of System 99 after exposure for four years in clay soil,

five years in Hagerstown loam, and two years in coastal sand had

excellent corrosion resistance. Specimens buried for five years in

Lakewood sand and tidal marsh had corrosion resistance that ranged from

fair to very poor.

The corrosion resistance of specimens of System 100 buried for four

years in clay soil, five years in Hagerstown loam, and Lakewood sand and

two years in tidal marsh was rated as fair to very poor, while the

corrosion performance of the specimen exposed in coastal sand for two

years was rated as good. The specimen in the tidal marsh was considered

destroyed after five years of exposure.

The corrosion performance of specimens of System 101 exposed for

four years in clay soil, five years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand

and two years in coastal sand was rated good. However, the corrosion

resistance of the specimens buried in tidal marsh for five years was

rated very poor.

For System 102, the corrosion resistance of the specimens was poor

to very poor in coastal sand and tidal marsh after two years of exposure

and in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand after five years of exposure.

After five years of exposure in tidal marsh the specimen was considered

destroyed

45
The corrosion performance of specimens of System 103 exposed for

two years in coastal sand and five years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood

sand was rated as good. For the specimens buried in clay soil for four

years the corrosion resistance rating ranged from good to very poor. No

specimens of this system were exposed at Site 6.

For System 104, the corrosion resistance was good to excellent in

coastal sand after two years of exposure and in Hagerstown loam and

Lakewood sand after five years of exposure. The specimens buried in

clay soil for four years had a corrosion rating of good to very poor.

No specimens of this system were exposed at Site G.

The corrosion resistance of the specimens of System 105 exposed for

one year in clay, two years in coastal sand, and five years in

Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand was excellent. The corrosion

resistance of the specimen exposed in clay soil after four years was

rated very poor. No specimens of this system were exposed to tidal

marsh.

46
SUMMARY

The following should not be considered for use because of the

relatively poor performance in one or more of the less aggressive

soils: Systems No. 56, 58, 60, 61, 73, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 91, and 93.

When Systems No. 57, 59, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 92, 94,

96, 100, and 102 were coupled to copper, their performance was poor to

very poor in one or more of the soils. For most of the materials

studied in this investigation, the copper strip coupled to the shield

caused an appreciable acceleration of corrosion to the shield over that

observed when the material was not coupled to copper. The copper

behaved as the cathode in a galvanic cell where the dissimilar metal

shield was the anode. The result was dissipation of the shield by

sacrificial corrosion in addition to the normal corrosion occurring in

the particular soil environment.

Some exceptions to the above were noted where some specimens

fabricated with stainless steel shields were coupled to copper, i.e.,

Systems No. 57 and 59. For these specimens, the copper was anodic to

the stainless steel outer shield and cathodic to the inner aluminum

shield. With the exception of one specimen, there was little or no degradation of the copper strips buried in any of the soils; however,

some green patina was observed on areas on all of the copper strips.

47
REFERENCES

1 G. A. Lohsl and M. Romanoff , "Corrosion Evaluation of Shielding

Materials for Direct Burial Telephone Cables," a paper at the 18th

International Wire and Cable Symposium, Atlantic City, NJ, December 5,

1969.

2 W. F. Gerhold, J. P. McCann, and W. E. Williamson, "Corrosion of

Underground Telephone Cable Shielding Materials in Soil Environments

After Exposure for Four Years," paper presented at NACE Corrosion/74,

Chicago, IL, March 1974.

3 W. F. Gerhold and 0. P. McCann, "Corrosion Evaluation of Underground

Telephone Cable Shielding Materials," paper #31 presented at NACE

Corrosion/76, Houston, TX, March 1976.

4 W. F. Gerhold and J. L. Fink, "Corrosion Evaluation of Underground

Telephone Cable Shielding Materials," Department of Commerce, NBSIR

81-2243, April 1981.

5 J. L. Fink and E. Escalante, and W. F. Gerhold, "Corrosion Evaluation

of Underground Telephone Cable Shielding Materials," Department of

Commerce, NBSIR 82-2509, June 1982.

6 J. L. Fink and E. Escalante, "Corrosion Evaluation of Underground

Telephone Cable Shielding Materials," Department of Commerce,

NBSIR 83-2702, May 1983.

48
Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Description of Various Systems Included in the Soil Corrosion

Study of Telephone Cable Shielding Materials

Properties of the Soils at the Test Sites

Rating Code for the Corrosion Evaluation of Shields in Cable

Specimens

Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Sagemoor Sandy Loam (Site A)

Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Seven

Years in Hagerstown Loam (Site B)

Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Seven

Years in Clay Soil (Site C)

Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Seven

Years in Lakewood Sand (Site D)

Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Coastal Sand (Site E)

Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Seven

Years in Tidal Marsh (Site G)

49
Figure Captions

Figure 1 Preparation of specimens for cable exposure tests

Figure 2 & 3 Systems 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 exposed at

Site C for four years.

Figure 4 & 5 Systems 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 exposed at

Site C for four years.

Figure 6 System 95 exposed for five years.

Figure 7 System 96 exposed for five years.

Figure 8 System 97 exposed for five years.

Figure 9 System 98 exposed for five years.

Figure 10 & 11 System 99 exposed for five years.

Figure 12 & 13 System 100 exposed for five years.

Figure 14 & 15 System 101 exposed for five years.

Figure 16 System 102 exposed for five years.

Figures 17 - 48 Systems 73 thru 88 exposed for seven years.

50
Table 1. Description of Various Systems Included in the Soil Corrosion Study

of Telephone Cable Shielding Materials

System Description

56 3-mil (0.08 mm) Type 430 stainless steel outer shield bonded to a 3-mil (0.08 m) 1100 aluminum alloy inner shield with a clear

flooding compound on the core side.

57 Same as System 56, except that the system was coupled to copper.

58 3-mil (0.08 mm) Type 304 stainless steel with 4-mil (0.10 mm) vapor

deposited aluminum on the outer surface.

59 Same as System 58, except that the shield was coupled to copper.

60 3-mil (0.08 mm) Type 304 stainless steel with 2-mil (0.05 mm) vapor

deposited aluminum on the outer and core sides of the shield.

61 Same as System 60, except that the shield was coupled to copper.

62 50-pair, 22-gauge air core cable having an 8-mil (0.20 mm)

aluminum alloy shield with a copolymer coating on both sides of

the shield. Cable core was removed.

63 16-pair, 22-gauge cable having an 8-mil (0.20 run) uncorrugated

aluminum alloy shield bonded on both sides to a polyolefin polymer.

Shield was bonded to the jacket.

64 25-pair, 18-gauge cable having an 8-mil (0.20 mm) uncorrugated

aluminum alloy shield bonded on both sides to a 2-mil (0.05 mm)

polyolefin polymer. Shield was bonded to the jacket.

65 25-pair, 24-gauge cable having an 8-mil (0.20 mm) uncorrugated

aluminum alloy shield bonded on both sides to a polyolefin polymer.

Shield was bonded to the jacket.

66 Same as System 65, except that the shield was coupled to copper.

67 4-mil (0.10 mm) aluminum foil 3 3/4 in. x 8 in. (9.52 cm x 20.32 cm)

coated both sides with a 6-mil (0.15 mm) ethylene acrylic acid

coploymer

68 4-mil (0.10 mm) aluminum foil 3 3/4 in x 8 in. (9.52 cm x 20.32 cm)

coated both sides with a 6-mil (0.15 mm) polyester film.

69 4-mil (0.10 mm) aluminum foil 1 1/2 in. x 12 in. (3.81 cm x 30.48 cm)

coated both sides with a 5.5 mil (0.14 mm) polyester film.

70 25-pair, 24-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated copper

alloy outer shield (nominal chemical composition: 97.5 percent Cu,

2.5 percent Fe, 0.02 percent P) and an inner shield of 4-mil

51
System

Table 1 (continued)

Description

(0.10 mm) aluminum alloy coated on both sides with a 5.5-mil

(0.14 mm) polyester film. Outer shield was bonded to the jacket.

This was a filled cable having a clear flooding compound.

73 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated black

plate steel outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum alloy inner shield coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm)

ethylene acrylic acid copolymer. This was a filled cable having

a clear flooding compound over the core and inner shield and

another type of clear flooding compound over the outer shield.

74 Same as System 73, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

75 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield, coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm) ethylene

acrylic acid copolymer and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum

alloy inner shield, coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm)

ethylene acrylic acid copolymer. This was a filled cable having

a clear flooding compound over the core and inner shield and

another type of clear flooding compound over the outer shield.

76 Same as System 75, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

77 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum alloy

inner shield coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm) ethylene

acrylic acid copolymer. This was a filled cable having a clear

flooding compound over the core and inner shield and another

type of clear flooding compound over the outer shield.

78 Same as System 77, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

79 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum alloy

inner shield. This was a filled cable having a clear flooding

compound over the core and inner shield and another type of

clear flooding compound over the outer shield.

80 Same as System 79, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

81 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum alloy inner

shield coated on both sides with 2-mil (0.05 mm) ethylene acrylic acid

copolymer. This was a filled cable with amophous polypropylene

applied over the core, inner shield, and outer shield.

82 Same as System 81, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

52
System

Table 1 (continued)

Description

83 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil ( o . 15 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield coated on both sides with 2-mil (0.05 mm) ethylene

acrylic acid copolymer and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum

alloy inner shield coated on both sides with ethylene acrylic acid

copolymer. This was a filled cable with amorphous polypropylene

applied over the core, inner shield, and outer shield.

84 Same as System 83, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

85 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum alloy

shield. This was a filled cable with amorphous polypropylene

applied over core, inner shield, and outer shield.

86 Same as System 85, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

87 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated black

plate steel outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminum alloy inner shield coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm)

ethylene acrylic acid copolymer. This was a filled cable with

amorphous polypropylene applied over core, inner shield, and

outer shield.

88 Same as System 87, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

89 100-pair, 22-gauge semi -conducting cable having a 5-mil (0.13 mm)

corrugated copper alloy shield and a low density polyethylene

jacket.

90 Same as System 89, except that the shield was coupled to copper.

91 A corrugated 3-mil (0.08 mm) 1006 low carbon steel inner shield bonded

to a 3-mil (0.08 mm) 4022 aluminum alloy outer shield.

92 Same as System 91, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

93 A corrugated 3-mil (0.08 mm) 1006 low carbon steel inner shield bonded

to a 3-mil (0.08 mm) 4022 aluminum alloy outer shield.

94 Same as System 93, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

95 A coaxial cable consisting of a 25-mil (0.64 mm) uncorrugated seamless

aluminum alloy outer shield and a 112-mil (2.84 mm) solid copper alloy

center conductor with a high density polyethylene jacket.

96 Same as System 95, except that the outer shield was coupled to

copper.

53
System

Table 1 (continued)

Description

97 A coaxial cable consisting of a 25-mil (0.64 rnn) uncorrugated seamless

aluminum alloy outer shield and a 112-mil (2.84 mm) solid copper alloy

center conductor. This was a filled cable having a flooding compound

of polyisobutylene between jacket and outer shield, with a high

density polyethylene jacket.

98 Same as System 97, except that the outer shield was coupled to

copper.

99 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated tin

free steel outer shield, coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm)

ethylene acrylic acid copolymer and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated

aluminum alloy inner shield, coated on both sides with a 2-mil

(0105 mm) ethylene acrylic acid copolymer. This was a filled cable

having a clear flooding compound over the core and inner shield,

and another type of clear flooding compound over the outer shield.

100 Same as System 99, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

101 6-mil (0.15 mm) corrugated tin plated steel outer shield coated on both sides with a 2-mil (0.05 mm) ethylene acrylic acid copolymer

and a 25-mil 9). 64 mm) uncorrugated seamless aluminum alloy inner

shield (outer conductor) have a 98-mil (2.49 mm) solid copper

alloy center conductor with a polyethylene inner and outer

jacket.

102 Same as System 101, except outer shield was coupled to copper.

103 25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a corrugated aluminum alloy outer

shield bonded to a corrugated low carbon steel inner shield coated

only on the inner shield. This was a filled cable having a clear

flooding compound on the outer and inner shields.

104 25-pair, 22 gauge cable having a corrugated aluminum alloy outer

shield bonded to a corrugated low carbon steel inner shield.

This was a filled cable having a clear flooding compound on the

outer and inner shields.

105 25-pair, 22 gauge cable having a corrugated aluminum alloy outer

shield bonded to a corrugated low carbon steel inner shield coated

on both the outer and inner shields. This was a filled cable having

a clear flooding compound on the outer and inner shields.

54
Internal

Composition

of

water

extract

drainage

(parts

per

million)

Site

of

test

Resistivity*

NaK o u ii om i cn i • i o

lT> I XT I • I oO I CM i • I CDO lI O I O I in ii 03i ni l l i l < CD O

xtOOoo

<x>

00

<—

VOo

C_> I o o o

o’ o’

03

CM x-t VO cr>

VO VO co in

CM CM

cno o o o' o o o o’

CO

<a TOE 2 ( 55 )

TDS,

total

dissolved

sol i

ds--

res i

due

dried

at

105

°C

^Analyses

not

made

for

soils

at

sites

[)

and D

because

of

the

very

low

concentrations

of

soluble

salts

in

these

soils
Table 3. Rating Code for the Corrosion Evaluation

of Shields in Cable Specimens

Rating

10

9

8

7

6 +

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Performance Degree of Corrosion

Excellent

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Poor

Very Poor

Very Poor

Very Poor

Unaffected. No indication of corrosion.

Superficial rust or etching on surface.

Uniform metal attack, rust, and/or slight

localized pitting.

Appreciable pitting over the surface, but no perforations through metal shield. Some

minor delamination or dissipation of

metal lurgical ly or plastic-bonded metals

leaving cathodic metal intact.

Localized pitting: only one perforation in

shield by pitting.

Localized pitting: two to five perforations

in shield by pitting.

Many localized pits causing perforation of

shield; less than 5 percent of shield

dissipated by corrosion; extensive

delamination of metallurgical ly bonded

metals.

Severe corrosion: pitting to perforation of

shield; five to ten percent of shield

dissipated by corrosion of anodic part of

metallurgical ly bonded metals.

Severe corrosion: pitting to perforation of

shield; ten to twenty-five percent of shield

dissipated by corrosion.

Severe corrosion: more than twenty-five

percent of shield dissipated by corrosion:

shield still has electrical continuity along

the cable.

Severe corrosion: shield is close to

electrical discontinuity (ELD) due to

perforation in shield and dissipation of

metal by corrosion.

Severe corrosion: shield is electrically

discontinuous (ELD) due to dissipation of

metal by corrosion.

56
Table 4. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Sagemoor Sandy Loam (Site A)

Exposure

System Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

56 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

3 10 10 10 10 10

4 10 10 10 10 10

5 10 10 10 10 10

6 10 10 10 10 10

57 1 10(4) 10(5) 10 10(5) 10(5) 10

2 10 10 10 10 10 10

3 10 10 10 10 10 10

4 10 10 10 10 10 10

5 10 10 10 10 10 10

6 10 10 10 10 10 9

58 1 10(5) 10(5) 10(0) 10(5) 10(7)

2 10(5) 10(4) 10(0) 10(5) 10(5)

3 10(5) 10(5) 10(0) 10(7) 10(7)

4 10(10) 10(10) 10(5) 10(7) 10(7)

5 10(7) 10(7) 10(7) 10(7) 10(7)

59 1 10(0) 10(2) 10(2) 10(0) 10(3) 9

2 10(0) 10(2) 6(10) 10(0) 10(1) 9

3 9(0) 9(2) 9(0) 10(0) 9(2) 10

4 9(5) 9(4) 9(0) 9(7) 9(5) 9

5 9(5) 10(4) 9(5) 9(3) 9(5) 10

60 1 0(10)5 0(10)5 0(10)5 0(10)5 0(10)3

2 0(10)8 1(10)8 0(10)0 1(10)7 0(10)7

3 0(10)4 1(10)3 0(10)0 0(10)2 0(10)5

4 1(10)5 2(10)7 0(10)0 1(10)7 1(10)7

5 1(10)7 1(10)8 1(10)7 1(10)7 7(10)8

61 1 0(10)1 0(10)0 0(10)1 0(10)3 0(10)5 9

2 1(10)5 1(10)5 0(10)0 0(10)2 0(10)3 10

3 0(10)0 1(10)4 0(5)0 0(10)2 1(10)2 10

4 0(10)4 0(10)1 0(10)5 0(10)5 0(10)5 10

5 0(10)0 0(10)3 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)3 9

57
Table 4 (Site A continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

62 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

63 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

64 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

65 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

66 1 10 10

2 10 9

3 10 Missi ng

4 10 10

5 10 Missing

67 1 10

2 10

3 10

68 1 10

2 10

3 10

69 1 10

2 10

3 10

70 1 10

2 10

3 3

58
Table 4 (Site A continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

73 1 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 4(10) 2(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

74 1 2(9) 1(9) 9(10) 5(9) 3(9) 10

2 4(10) 2(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

75 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 8(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

76 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 8(10) 6+ ( 10

)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

77 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

78 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 4(10) 1(10) 10(10) 10(8) 10(8) 10

79 1 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

80 1 10(10) 5(6) 9(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10

2 4(4) 4(4) 10(10) 10(5) 10(10) 10

81 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

82 1 6(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 4(2) 3(5) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

83 1 10(10)’ 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

84 1 Not recovered

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

85 1 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

86 1 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

87 1 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9(10)

2 6(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

88 1 6(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 8(10) 5(10) 10(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10

59
Table 4 (Site A continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring

89 1 9 9 10 10 10

90 1 9 9 10 10 9

91 1 Destroyed

92 1 Destroyed

93 1 5(0) 5(0) 5(4) 5(0) 5(0)

94 1 Destroyed

Copper

Cathode

10

60
Table 5. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Seven

Years in Hagerstown Loam (Site B)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

62 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

63 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

64 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

65 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

66 1 10 10

2 10 10

3 10 10

4 10 Missing

5 10 Missing

6 10 9

67 1 10

2 Not recovered

3 10

4 10

5 10

68 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

61
Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

69 12 Not recovered

3

4

5

10

10

10

10

70 12

3

4

5

10

10

10

10

10

73 1 2(10) 2(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 4(10) 3(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 2(10) 1(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 1(10) 2(10) 7(10) 6+(10) 7(10)

7 Not recovered

74 1 0(10) 1(10) 9(10) 9(10) 5(10) 10

2 3(10) 2(10) 9(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10

3 0(10) 1(10) 8(10) 2(10) 3(10) 9

4 1(7) 0(5) 5(10) 5(10) 1(10) 9

7 Not Recovered

75 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 6+ (10) 6+(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 5(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

7 Not Recovered

76 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 5(10) 5(10) 10

2 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10

3 3(10) 4(10) 10(10) 5(10) 7(10) 10

4 1(10) 6(10) 10(10) 5(10) 7(10) 9

7 Not Recovered

77 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 6(10) 8(10) 8(10) 9(10)

3 4(10) 6+ ( 10

8(10) 8(10) 9(10)

4 2(10) 6+(10) 6+(10) 6(10) 6(10)

7 Not Recovered

78 1 2(10) 2(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

2 1(10) 1(10) 10(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 0(10) 0(10) 6(10) 2(10) 2(10) 10

4 0(10) 0(10) 6(10) 0(10) 0(10) 9

7 Not Recovered

62
Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

79 1 6(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 5(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 4(10) 3(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 4(10) 3(10) 8(10) 5(10) 8(10)

7 Not Recovered

80 1 2(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10

2 2(6+) 1(9) 8(9) 8(10) 9(10) 10

3 0(4) 0(4) 5(10) 4(10) 5(10) 10

4 0(4) 0(3) 8(9) 4(9) 5(9) 9

7 Not Recovered

81 1 9(10) 5(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 3(10) 4(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

3 4(10) 9(10) 5(10) 6(10) 6+( 10)

4 3(10) 4(10) 6(10) 7(10) 6(10)

7 Not Recovered

82 1 2(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9

2 1(10) 1(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 1(10) 1(10) 8(10) 2(10) 2(10) 9

4 1(10) 1(10) 7(10) 5(10) 3(10) 9

7 Not Recovered

83 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 10(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

7 Not Recovered

84 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 8(10) 10

2 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

3 3(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

4 3(10) 3(10) 10(10) 5(10) 4(10) 9

7 Not Recovered

85 1 9(10) 4(10) 9(10) 4(10) 9(10)

2 6(10) 4(10) 10(10) 8(10) 9(10)

3 4(10) 4(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 4(10) 3(10) 9(10) 6(10) 9(10)

7 Not Recovered

86 1 3(9) 3(9) 10(9) 9(9) 9(9) 10

2 2(10) 1(10) 10(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10

3 1(6) 2(6) 9(6) 8(6) 9(6) 10

4 1(6) 1(6) 9(6) 5(6) 6+(7) 9

7 Not Recovered

63
Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

87 1 5(10) 5(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

2 4(10) 4(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 3(10) 3(10) 8(10) 6(10) 8(10)

4 3(10) 2(10) 8(10) 5(10) 4(10)

7 Not Recovered

88 1 3(10) 3(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

2 2(10) 1(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 2(10) 0(10) 7(10) 7(10) 7(10) 10

4 2(10) 0(10) 7(10) 2(10) 4(10) 9

7 Not Recovered

89 1 9 9 9 9 9

2 9 9 9 9 9

3 9 9 9 9 9

90 1 9 9 9 9 9 10

2 9 9 9 9 9 9

3 9 9 9 9 9 9

91 1 4(5) 3(8) 8(9) 6(9) 7(9)

2 0(9) 3(9) 8(9) 7(9) 3(9)

3 0(6) 0(6) 5(5) 6(6) 6(6)

92 1 Destroyed Missing

2 0(4) 0(3) 7(7) 4(6) 0(5) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 5(5) 5(5) 5(5) 9

93 1 9(6) 9(7) 9(7) 9(7) 9(7)

2 9(7) 9(7) 9(7) 9(7) 9(7)

3 7(7) 5(5) 6+(6+) 6(6) 7(7)

94 1 Destroyed 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed Missing

95 1 9 9 10 10 10

2 9 9 10 10 10

5 10 9 10 10 10

96 1 8 8 10 8 8 10

2 7 7 9 8 8 9

5 8 9 9 9 9 9

97 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

5 10 10 10 10 10

64
Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

98 1 8 8 10 10 10 10

2 7 7 7 7 7 9

5 8 8 8 7 6+ 8

99 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

5 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

100 1 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

2 2(10) 3(10) 10(10) 4(10) 10(10) 9

5 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 8

101 1 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

2 7(10) 6+(10) 8(10) 7(10) 7(10)

5 7(10) 8(10) 8(10) 9(10) 9(10)

102 1 4(10) 4(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9

2 3(10) 5(10) 10(10) 6(10) 5(10) 9

5 2(10) 4(10) 7(10) 5(10) 6(10) 8

103 1 8 10 10 10 10

2 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

5 7(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

104 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

5 8(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

105 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

5 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

65
Table 6. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Seven

Years in Clay Soil (Site C).

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

56 12

3

4

5

6

57 12

3

4

5

6

58 12

3

4

5

6

59 12

3

4

5

6

60 12

3

4

5

6

61 12

3

4

5

6

10 10

10 10

10 10

10(2) 10

10 10

10(5) 10(5)

10 10

10(5) 10(5)

10(5) 10(5)

10(0) 10

10(0) 3(2)

6(0) 10(0)

10(5) 10(5)

10(2) 9(3)

9(2) 9(5)

9(5) 7(7)

8(4) 6+(5)

9(1) 9(0)

9(3) 10(2)

10(1) 10(0)

10(0) 10(0)

10(0) 8(0)

9(0) 5(0)

6+(0) 6+(0)

4(10)7 6(6)6

0(10)5 0(10)8

1(10)7 2(10)7

0(10)7 0(10)8

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)1

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)0

0(10)0 0(10)4

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)0

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 6+)0

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)0

05)0 0 9)0

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)0

10 10

10 10

10 10

10 10

10 10

10(5) 10(5)

10 10

10 10(5)

10 10

10 10

10(0) 10(0)

10(0) 9(0)

10(4) 10(7)

10(4) 10(5)

10(0) 10(4)

9(1) 9(5)

10(2) 9(5)

9(0) 9(0)

10(3) 10(5)

10(0) 10(0)

5(0) 10(0)

5(0) 9(0)

10(0) 9(0)

3(0) 6+(0)

4(10)1 5(10)5

3(10)2 7(10)5

0(10)0 2(10)5

4(10)1 2(10)5

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)1

0 ( 6)0 0 ( 10)0

0 ( 10)1 0 ( 10)0

0(5)0 0(10)0

0(6)0 0(5)0

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)0

0(6+0 0(9)0

0 ( 10)0 0 ( 10)0

10

10

10

10

10

10(5)

10 9

10(5) Missing

10 Missing

10 10

10(3) 9

10(0) 9

‘Sill

10(7)

9(7)

6+(5)

9(1)

10(2) Missi nq

10(0) 9

10(0) 10

6+(0) Missing

10(0) Missing

6(0) 5

5(10)5

2(10)5

2(10)8

3(10)7

0(10)1

0(10)0

0(10)5 10

0(10)0 9

0(6)0 Missing

0(10)0 6

0(9)0 9

0(10)0 3

66
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

62 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 7

63 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

64 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 5

5 10

6 7

65 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

66 1 10 10

2 10 Missi ng

3 10 Missing

4 10 Missing

5 10 Missing

6 10 Missing

67 1 10

2 10

3 Not Recovered

4 10

5 Not Recovered

68 1 10

2 10

3 Not Recovered

4 10

5 Not Recovered

67
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

69 1 10

2 10

3 Not Recovered

4 10

5 10

70 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

73 1 9(10) 2(10)

2 2(10) 2(10)

3 4(10) 2(10)

4 0 2 0 3)

7 0(0) 0(0)

74 1 1(10) 1(8)

2 0(0) 0(3)

3 0(10) 4(10)

4 0(0) 0(0)

7 Destroyed

75 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 8(10) 8(10)

3 10(10) 10(10)

4 8(10) 8(10)

7 7(10) 7(10)

76 1 2(10) 2(10)

2 5(10) 4(10)

3 4(10) 4(10)

4 0(10) 2(5)

7 0(0) 0(0)

77 1 6(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 4(10)

3 3(10) 3(10)

4 3(10) 3(10)

7 0(0) 1(1)

78 1 2(10) 2(10)

2 0(8) 0(4)

3 0(0) 0(0)

4 0(0) 0(0)

7 Destroyed

9(10) 9(10) 5(10)

8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

79 07 0(7)

4(0) 4(0) 4(0)

9(10) 3(10) 2(10) 10

9(10) 8(8) 8(10) Mi ssi ng

9(10) 3(10) 2(10) 10

8(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

7

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

10(10) 9(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 8(10) 6(10) 10

10(10) 5(10) 5(10) 10

10(10) 7(10) 5(10) 10

10(10) 2(10) 4(10) 9

5(0) 0(0) 0(0) 7

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 8(10) 8(10)

10(10) 8(10) 5(10)

6+( 10) 7(10) 3(10)

6+(0) 0(0) 1(0)

10(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10

8(10) 1(10) 0(10) 10

8(4) 3(5) 1(5) 9

7(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

Mi ssi ng

68
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

79 1 Not Recovered

2 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 3(10) 5(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 4(10) 2(3) 7(10) 6+( 10) 7(10)

7 Destroyed

80 1 2(5) 2(2) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

2 0(0) 0(0) 8(8) 8(1) 8(3) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 6+(0) 5(0) 5(1) 9

4 0(0) 0(0) 7(0) 5(0) 7(0) 9

7 Destroyed

81 1 9(10) 6+( 10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 Not Recovered

3 4(10) 2(10) 6+( 10) 7(10) 8(10)

4 4(10) 3(10) 7(10) 7(10) 7(10)

7 0(0) 0(0) 6+(5) 4(1) 3(1)

82 1 2(10) 1(5) 10(10) 9(10) 10(10) Mi ssi ng

2 0(0) 0(1) 9(10) 2(8) 4(8) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 9(0) 2(0) 2(2) 9

4 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

7 Destroyed Mi ssi ng

83 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 2(7) 5(10) 10(10) 5(10) 9(10)

4 Not Recovered

7 0(0) 0(0) 7(0) 5(0) 5(0)

84 1 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

3 2(7) 4(10) 10(10) 4(7) 10(10) 10

4 3(3) 2(5) 10(5) 4(9) 3(5) 9

7 Destroyed

85 1 6+(10) 5(10) 9(10) . 9(10) 9(10)

2 6(10) 4(10) 10(10) 8(10) 9(10)

3 4(9) 5(9) 10(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 0(6) 1(0) 8(4) 6(5) 5(10)

7 Destroyed

86 1 0(9) 1(0) 9(9) 9(9) 9(9) Mi ssi ng

2 1(0) 0(0) 10(0) 8(0) 10(0) Missing

3 0(0) 1(0) 8(1) 5(4) 3(0) 10

4 0(0) 0(0) 6(0) 0(0) 5(0) 9

7 Destroyed Mi ssing

69
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Wi ndow Ring Cathode

87 1 6(10) 5(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

2 4(10) 3(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 5(10) 2(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 2(10) 4(10) 8(10) 7(10) 5(10)

7 0(0) 0(0) 0(10) 0(0) 0(0)

88 1 2(5) 1(10) 9(10) 0(10) 9(10) 10

2 1(0) 1(5) 8(10) 8(1) 8(10) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 7(0) 7(0) 8(0) 9

4 Destroyed 9

7 Destroyed Mi ssing

89 1 9 9 9 9 9

2 8 8 9 9 9

3 8 8 9 9 8

90 1 9 9 9 9 9 10

2 8 8 9 9 9 Mi ssi ng

3 7 8 9 8 8 Mi ssing

91 1 0(0) 0(0) 6(6) 6(6) 5(5)

2 1(1) 1(4) 5(5) 7(4) 7(5)

3 Destroyed

93 1 5(5) 5(5) 6(6) 5(5) 5(5)

2 7(7) 6(6) 8(7) 8(7) 8(7)

3 Not Recovered

95 1 8 8 8 9 9

4 7 7 7 7 7

96 1 0 0 7 5 0 9

4 Destroyed 7

97 1 8 8 10 10 10

4 8 8 8 8 8

98 1 0 0 10 5 4 9

4 0 0 7 0 0 8

99 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 8(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

100 1 3(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

4 2(5) 0(5) 10(5) 10(5) 7(5) 9

101 1 6(10) 7(10) 10(10) 9(10) 8(10)

4 7(10) 7(10) 10(10) 7(10) 7(10)

70
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

102 1 2(10) 1(10) 9(10) 7(10) 5(10) 9

4 0(10) 0(10) 5(10) 0(10) 0(10) 9

103 1 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 5(0) 1(0) 7(10) 5(4) 5(4)

104 1 7(10) 6+(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 0(0) 0(0) 4(0) 4(0) 4(0)

105 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 2(0) 6+(6) 6+(10) 4(2) 6+(10)

71
Table 7. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Seven

Years in Lakewood Sand (Site D) _ Exposure

~

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

56 1 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

3 10 10 10 10 10

4 10 10 10 10 10

5 10 10 10 10 10

6 Not Recovered

57 1 Not Recovered

4

2 10(5) 10(5) 10 10(5) 10 10

3 10(0) 10(4) 10 10(5) 10(5) Mi ssi ng

4 10(6) 10(5) 10 10 10 10

5 10(0) 10(4) 10(5) 10(4) 10(4) 10

6 Not Recovered

62 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 8

5 10

6 10

63 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

64 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

65 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

66 1 10 Mi ssi ng

2 10 Mi ssi ng

3 10 Mi ssi ng

4 10 Mi ssi ng

5 10 10

6 10 Mi ssing

72
Table 7 (Site D continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Rindow Ring Cathode

67

68

12 Not Recovered

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

69

70

1 Not Recovered

2 10

3 Not Recovered

4 10

5 Not Recovered

1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

73 1 9(10) 6(10)

2 8(10) 4(10)

3 8(10) 3(10)

4 5(10) 3(10)

7 2(10) 1(10)

74 1 5(10) 2(10)

2 4(10) 4(10)

3 4(10) 2(10)

4 3(10) 2(5)

7 0(7) 0(7)

75 • 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10)

3 10(10) 10(10)

4 10(10) 10(10)

7 7(10) 6+(10)

76 1 10(10) 6+ ( 10

)

2 5(10) 6(10)

3 6+ ( 10

)

6+(10)

4 8(10) 5(10)

7 5(10) 5(9)

10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

7(10) 7(10) 5(10)

7(10) 7(10) 7(10)

9(10) 9(10) 4(10) 10

8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

7(10) 7(10) 4(10) 9

5(8) 5(7) 7(7) 7

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10 10

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

10(10) 10(10) 6+(10) 7

73
Table 7 (Site D continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

77 12

3

4

7

78 12

3

4

7

79 12

3

4

7

80 12

3

4

7

81 12

3

4

7

82 12

3

4

7

83 12

3

4

7

84 12

3

4

7

10(10) 10(10)

8(10) 6(10)

9(10) 9(10)

9(10) 3(10)

5(10) 1(10)

6(10) 5(10)

5(10) 4(10)

4(10) 2(10)

2(10) 2(10)

1(7) 2(7)

6+(10) 6(10)

8(10) 5(10)

8(10) 8(10)

4(10) 2(10)

1(10) 1(10)

8(10) 6(10)

5(10) 4(10)

3(10) 2(10)

1(7) 1(7)

1(6) 1(1)

9(10) 9(10)

8(10) 5(10)

5(10) 4(10)

5(10) 4(10)

2(10) 1(10)

5(10) 5(10)

4(10) 2(10)

4(10) 2(10)

2(10) 2(10)

0(1) 0(0)

10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10)

7(10) 8(10)

10(10) 6(10)

5(10) 5(10)

6(10) 6(10)

6+(10) 5(10)

0(0) 3(7)

10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10(10) 9(10)

10(10) 9(10)

9(10) 6+(10)

8 ( 10 ) 8 ( 10 ) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 5(10)

10(10) 9(10)

9(10) 7(10)

7(10) 7(10)

10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10(10) 9(10)

10(10) 9(10)

9(10) 9(10)

8 ( 10 ) 8 ( 10 ) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 8(10)

9(10) 9(10)

8 ( 8 ) 6 +( 8 ) 7(5) 7(6)

10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10(10) 9(10)

9(10) 8(10)

7(10) 7(10)

10(10) 10(10)

9(10) 9(10)

9(10) 8(10)

9(10) 6+(10)

1(7) 1(1)

10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 8(10) 7(10)

10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10 ( 10 ) 10(7) 10(0)

10(10)

9(10)

9(10)

6(10)

6+ ( 10

10(10) 10

10(10) 10

7(10) 10

9(10) 10

8(7) 7

10(10)

9(10)

9(10)

9(10)

8(10)

10(10) 10

8(10) 10

8(10) 10

7(8) 10

7(6) 7

10(10)

10(10)

9(10)

8(10)

8(10)

10(10) 10

9(10) 10

9(10) 10

8(10) 10

1(0) 7

10(10)

10(10)

10(10)

10(10)

10(10)

10(10) 10

10(10) 10

10(10) 10

10(10) 10

7(7) 7

74
Table 7 (Site D continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

85 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 7(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10(10)

4 4(10) 2(10) 8(10) 9(10) 6(10)

7 2(8) 1(8) 7(9) 7(9) 8(9)

86 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 4(10) 4(10) 10(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10

3 2(9) 2(6+) 9(6+) 8(9) 9(8) 10

4 1(6+) 1(6) 6+(8) 7(7) 7(7) 10

7 Destroyed 7

87 1 7(10) 7(10) 9(10) 7(10) 8(10)

2 5(10) 5(10) 5(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 5(10) 5(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 2(10) 2(10) 8(10) 7(10) 7(10)

7 1(10) 1(10) 7(10) 7(10) 7(10)

88 1 6(10) 5(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

2 2(10) 3(10) 8(10) 9(10) 8(10) 10

3 2(10) 2(10) 7(10) 8(10) 8(10) 9

4 2(4) 2(7) 7(10) 7(10) 7(10) 9

7 1(5) 1(1) 7(5) 2(5) 7(4) 7

89 1 10 9 9 10 10

2 9 9 9 9 9

3 9 9 9 9 9

90 1 9 9 9 9 10 10

2 9 9 9 9 9 10

3 9 9 9 9 9 10

91 1 6(9) 6(9) 9(9) 9(9) 9(9)

2 1(1) 0(0) 5(5) 6(6) 6(6)

3 0(1) 0(3) 5(5) 5(5) 5(5)

93 1 9(7) 9(7) 9(7) 9(7) 9(9)

2 8(7) 6+( 6+) 8(6) 8(7) 8(7)

3 5(5) 6(6) 6(4) 8(3) 8(3)

95 1 9 9 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

5 8 9 9 10 10

96 1 4 9 7 Miss

2 5 5 7 5 9 10

5 5 6 7 7 7 7

75
Table 7 (Site D continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

97 1 10 10

2 10 10

5 10 10

98 1 8 8

2 5 5

5 7 7

99 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 6(10)

5 7(10) 6(10)

100 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 3(10) 5(10)

5 5(10) 5(10)

101 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 6(10) 6(10)

5 8(10) 8(10)

102 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 Not Recovered

5 2(10) 2(10)

103 1 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10)

5 7(10) 8(10)

104 1 10 10

2 9(10) 9(10)

5 7(8) 8(8)

105 1 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10)

5 10(10) 10(10)

Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

Jacket Window Ring Cathode

10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10 10

10 5 8 10

8 8 8 7

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

10(10) 10(10) 7(10) 7

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

8(10) 8(10) 2(10) 7

10 10 10

10(10) 9(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10 10 10

10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

8(8) 8(8) 8(8)

10 10 10

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

76
Table 8. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Coastal Sand (Site E)

System

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

56 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

3 10(5) 10(5) 10(7) 10(5) 10(6)

4 10(2) 10 10 10(5) 10

5 Not Recovered

6 10(5) 10(3) 10(5) 10(5) 10(5)

57 1 10(4) 10(4) 10(5) 10(5) 10(5) 9

2 10(0) 10(5) 10 10(5) 10(5) 10

3 10(0) 10(4) 10(5) 10(4) 10(4) Missi ng

4 10(4) 10(4) 10(4) 10(4) 10(4) 10

5 Not Recovered

6 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 9

58 1 10(7) 10(7) 10(7) 10(7) 10(7)

2 10 4 10 4 10 (2) 10 7 10 7)

3 10(4) 10(4) 10(5) 10(5) 10(5)

4 10(1) 10(0) 10(1) 10(4) 10(5)

5 10(5) 10(5) 10(0) 10(1) 10(3)

59 1 10(1) 10(2) 10(7) 10(0) 10(7) 10

2 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 9

3 10(0) 10(0) 6(0) 9(0) 9(0) 9

4 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 9

5 10(0) 10(0) 5(0) 5(0) 10(0) 9

6 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 9

60 1 2(10)7 2(10)7 8(10)7 4(10)8 5(10)8

2 0(10)5 0(10)1 0(10)2 2(10)5 5(10)4

3 0(10)5 4(10)7 0(10)4 4(10)5 5(10)8

4 0(10)5 0(10)4 3(10)0 0(10)5 2(10)5

5 Not Recovered

61 1 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 10

2 0(10)1 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 Missi ng

3 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 10

4 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(6)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 Missing

5 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 10

6 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(6)0 0(6)0 0(9)0 10

62 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 8

5 10

6 Not recovered

77
Table 8 (Site E continued)

System

63

64

65

66

73

74

75

76

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

(years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

12

3

4

5

6

10

10

10

10

10

10

12

3

4

5

6

10

10

10

10

10

10

123

4

5

6

10

10

10

10

10

10

1 10 10

2 10 Mi ss

3 10 10

4 10 Miss

5 10 10

6 10 Miss

1 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 0(10) 5(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

3 9(10) 8(10) 8(10) 9(10) 9(10)

4 3(10) 3(10) 6+(10) 7(10) 7(10)

1 5(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

2 4(10) 3(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 3(10) 2(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

4 0(3) 0(10) 7(10) 7(10) 3(10) 10

1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 2(10) 5(10) 10

2 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

3 5(10) 3(10) 10(10) 5(10) 5(10) 10

4 4(10) 4(10) 10(10) 5(10) 4(10) 9

78
Table 8 (Site E continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

77 1 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 9(10) 8(10)

3 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 8(10) 6(10)

4 3(10) 3(5) 5(10) 6+(10) 5(10)

78 1 3(10) 2(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10(4) Missing

2 0(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 8(10) 10

3 2(10) 2(10) 10(10) 5(10) 8(10) 10

4 0(10) 0(2) 8(10) 6(4) 6(3) 9

79 1 9(10) 9(10) 6+(10) 6+ (10) 9(10)

2 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10(10)

3 5(10) 5(10) 9(10) 8(10) 6+(10)

4 Not Recovered

80 1 4(10) 4(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 2(10 2 10) 10 10 9 10 10(10 10

3 4(10) 3(10) 6+(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

4 2(4) 0(0) 7(5) 7(6) 7(5) 10

81 1 5(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 9(10)

2 4(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 5(10) 5(10) 8(10) 8(10) 6+ ( 10

)

4 5(10) 5(10) 8(10) 9(10) 9(10)

82 1 3(10) 3(10) 9(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10

2 2(10) 3(10) 8(10) 9(10) 8(10) 10

3 4(10) 2(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

4 5(5) 2(4) 8(10) 7(7) 7(6) 10

83 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

84 1 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 4(10) 9(10) 10

2 7(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

3 7(5) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 7(10) 10

4 6+(5) 5(5) 10(7) 6(7) 6(7) 10

85 1 9(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 7(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

3 Not Recovered

4 6(8) 4(7) 9(8) 7(8) 8(8)

86 1 5(9) 4(4) 10(9) 9(9) 10(9) 10

2 4(5) 5(1) 10(5) 8(5) 10(3) 10

3 2(6+) 2(4) 8(6) 8(6) 9(6) 10

4 4(3) 3(6) 8(5) 8(5) 9(6) 10

79
Table 8 (Site E continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

87 1 7(10) 7(10) 6(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 6(10) 7(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 5(10) 6(10) 7(10) 7(10) 7(10)

88 1 5(10) 3(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

2 4(10) 2(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 3(10) 2(10) 7(10) 8(10) 8(10) . 8

4 1(10) 1(10) 8(10) 7(10) 8(10) 10

89 1 9 9 9 9 9

2 9 9 9 9 9

3 9 9 9 9 9

90 1 9 9 9 9 9 10

2 9 9 9 9 9 Miss

3 9 9 9 9 9 9

91 1 2(2) 0(0) 5(5) 6(6) 6(6)

2 KD KD 5(5) 5(5) 5(5)

3 Destroyed

93 1 8(7) 7(7) 8(7) 6(6) 8(7)

2 6(6) 6(6) 8(7) 6+(6+) 6(6)

3 7(1) 5(1) 6(1) 6+(2) 7(2)

95 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

96 1 6+ 5 8 7 7 10

2 3 3 7 6 6 9

97 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

98 1 6 6+ 10 10 10 10

2 0 0 9 5 6+ 9

99 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

100 1 6(10) 6+(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 6(10) 7(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

101 1 Not Recovered

2 6(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

80
Table 8 (Site E continued)

Exposure

Systems

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

102 1 7(10) 5(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

2 3(10) 4(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

103 1 9 9 10 9 9

2 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

104 1 8 9 9 9 9

2 9(8) 9(8) 8(9) 8(9) 8(8)

105 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

81
Table 9. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Seven

Years in Tidal Marsh (Site G)

Systems

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

56 1 10 10 10 10 10

2 0 10(2) 10(0) 10(0) 10(5)

3 10(5) 10(2) 10(5) 10(5) 10(5)

4 0(0) 1(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0)

5 10(0) 10(1) 10(0) 10(0) 10(0)

6 0(0) 10(1) 10(0) 5(0) 10(1)

57 1 9(2) 9(3) 10(5) 9(3) 9(3) • 9

2 0 5(0) 5(0) 4(5) 10(0) 9

3 0 9(4) 9(5) 5 10(3) Mi ssing

4 0 0(4) 0 0 0 Mi ssing

5 0(0) 2(2) 10(0) 10(2) 10(2) Mi ssing

6 0(0) 0(0) 5(0) 3(0) 3(0) 3

58 1 6(0) 6(0) 5(0) 5(0) 6(0)

2 9(0 5 0 5 0 6+(0) 5(0)

3 9(0) 9(0) 5(0) 6(0) 6+(0)

4 6(0) 5(0) 5(0) 5(0) 5(0)

5 6(0) 9(0) 8(0) 9(0) 9(0)

6 5(0) 6+(0) 6+(0) 6(0) 9(0)

59 1 9(0) 6+(l) 9(0) 6(0) 10(1) 9

2 6(0) 6(0) 5(0) 5(0) 6(0) 9

3 5(0) 9(0) 5(0) 6(0) 6(0) 9

4 2(0) 6(0) 5(0) 6(0) 0(0) 9

5 6(0) 5(0) 6(0) 6(0) 6(0) 9

6 6(0) 4(0) 5(0) 5(0) 5(0) 9

60 1 0(6)0 2(8)5 1(5)0 0(6)0 1 ( 6+) 7

2 0(10)0 0(6)0 0(5)0 0(9)0 0(6)0

3 0(8)0 0(9)0 0(6)0 0(6)0 0(8)0

4 0(9)0 0(8)0 0(5)0 0(9)0 0(8)0

5 Not Recovered

6 0(5)0 0(9)0 0(5)0 0(6)0 0(9)0

61 1 0(5)0 1(8)4 0(5)3 0(5)0 0 ( 6+) 0 9

2 0(5)0 0(6+)0 0(5)0 0(9)0 0(9)0 9

3 0 ( 6+) 0 0 ( 6 +) 0 0(6)0 0(6)0 0(9)0 9

4 0(4)0 0(6)0 0(5)0 0(8)0 0(9)0 9

5 0(4)0 0(8)0 0 ( 6+) 0 0(9)0 0(6)0 9

6 0(6)0 0(8)0 0(5)0 0(6)0 0(5)0 9

82
Table 9 (Site G continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Copper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

62 12

3

4

5

6

63 12

3

4

5

6

64 12

3

4

5

6

65 12

3

4

5

6

73 1 9(10) 9(10)

2 0(10) 1(10)

3 0(7) 0(0)

4 0(0) 0(0)

7 0(0) 0(0)

74 1 0(10) 1(5)

2 0(0) 0(0)

3 0(0) 0(0)

4 Destroyed

7 Destroyed

75 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 1(10) 5(10)

3 5(10) 1(10)

4 2(10) 5(10)

7 0(6+) 0(9)

6 +

5

10

5 10

7

10

5 10

5

5

10

10

10

10

5

5

6

10

10

10

10

10

10

10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

8(10) 0(10) 0(1)

7(10) 3(7) 0(5)

0(10) 0(0) 0(0)

9(9) 9(9) 3(5) 10

8(0) 2(0) 0(0) 10

8(0) 2(0) 0(0) 9

9

Missing

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 5(10) 5(10)

10(10) 8(10) 2(10)

10(10) 4(10) 10(10)

0(10) 0(10) 0(10)

83
Table 9 (Site G continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

76 1 1(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 0(10) 0(10) 5(10) 0(10) 4(10) 10

3 2(10) 0(10) 0(10) 4(10) 2(10) 10

4 0(10) 0(10) 0(10) 0(10) 0(10) 9

7 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 0(0) 0(0) Missing

77 1 4(10) 1(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 0(10) 0(10) 10(10) 3(10) 0(10) . 3 0(0) 0(10) 9(10) 2(5) 0(10)

4 0(0) 0(0) 9(0) 0(7) 3(0)

7 Destroyed

78 1 10(2) 10(0) 10(4) 9(0) 10(0) 10

2 0(0) 0(0) 8(4) 8(0) 3(0) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 6(2) 1(0) 2(0) 9

4 Destroyed 9

7 Destroyed Missing

79 1 5(10) 1(2) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 1(3) 2(3) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 5(0) 8(1)

4 0(0) 0(0) 7(0) 7(0) 8(0)

7 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 0(0) 0(0)

80 1 0(0) 1(1) 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed 9

7 Destroyed Missing

81 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 4(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 0(0) 0(0) 5(5) 4(2) 4(0)

4 1(0) 0(0) 7(3) 7(5) 2(3)

7 Destroyed

82 1 1(10) 1(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed Missing

7 Destroyed Missing

83 1 2(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(3) 5(3) 10(10) 8(8) 4(8)

3 1(10) 5(10) 10(10) 5(10) 7(10)

4 2(0) 7(5) 10(5) 3(0) 10(7)

7 0(0) 3(0) 5(0) 5(0) 5(0)

84
Table 9 (Site G continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

84 1 7(10) 5(6) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

2 0(10) 0(10) 9(10) 2(10) 2(10) Missing

3 0(0) 0(0) 10(0) 3(2) 3(0) 8

4 0(0) 0(0) 9(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

7 0(0) 2(0) 5(0) 2(0) 2(0) Missing

85 1 5(10) 4(1) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 Destroyed

3 Destroyed

4 Destroyed

7 Destroyed

86 1 0(0) 0(1) 9(5) 9(3) 9(2) 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed 9

7 Destroyed Missing

87 1 6(10) 3(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

2 0(4) 0(3) 8(5) 8(5) 8(5)

3 Destroyed

4 Destroyed

7 Destroyed

88 1 0(0) 0(0) 8(8) 8(4) 8(4) 9

2 Destroyed 9

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed 8

7 Destroyed Missing

89 1 9 9 9 9 9

2 9 9 9 9 9

3 5 3 7 6 6

90 1 9 9 9 9 9 9

2 9 9 9 9 9 9

3 6 6+ 7 6+ 6+ 5

91 1 Destroyed

2 Destroyed

3 Destroyed

92 1 Destroyed

2 Destroyed

3 Destroyed

95 1 0 0 7 3 7 2 6 6+ 7 7 7

5 Destroyed

85
Table 9 (Site G continued)

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Window

1/2 Inch

Ring

Copper

Cathode

96 1 Destroyed

2 Destroyed

5 Destroyed

97 1 1 3 10 10 10

2 4 0 10 6 2

5 0 0 4 7 7

98 1 0 0 10 2 0 9

2 Destroyed 9

5 Destroyed Missing

99 1 4(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 3(10) 3(10) 10(10) 3(10) 3(10)

5 0(5) 3(5) 4(5) 4(5) 4(5)

100 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

2 0(0) 3(4) 5(9) 3(1) 2(4) 9

5 Destroyed Missing

101 1 4(10) 5(10) 6(10) 6(10) 5(10)

2 0(10) 2(10) 5(10) 3(10) 4(10)

5 0(0) 2(2) 7(7) 0(0) 3(3)

102 1 0(10) 4(10) 5(10) 4(10) 5(10) 9

2 0(10) 0(10) 4(10) 0(10) 0(10) 9

5 Destroyed Missing

86
PREPARATION of specimens

FOR CABLE EXPOSURE TESTS

SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS SPECIMEN TYPE I Z

14

7 -75

*

10

rflnrr

1.5"-*! B

SPECIMEN TYPE 2

CORE AND INNER JACKET

—SHIELD OVERLAP

^CORRUGATED SHIELD

k OUTER JACKET

0.5" RING AROUND

Figure 1 Preparation of specimens for cable exposure tests.

87
Figure 2. Outer Shield: Systems 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,

and 100, left to right, exposed at Site C for

four years. Severe corrosion on Systems 98

and 100 at window and/or ring areas, with

severe corrosion on System 96 at all areas.

Figure 3. Outer Shield: Systems 95, 96, 97, and 98,

Inner Shield: Systems 99 and 100, left to

right, exposed at Site C for four years.

Severe corrosion on System 98 at the window

and ring areas, with severe corrosion on

System 96 at all areas.

88
Figure 4. Outer Shield: Systems 101, 102, 103, 104,

and 105, left to right, exposed at Site C for

four years. Dark areas indicate corrosion

at the window and/or ring areas on specimens

from Systems 102,103,104, and 105.

Figure 5. Inner Shield: Systems 101, 102, 103, 104, and

105, left to right, exposed at Site C for

four years . Severe degradation at the window

and/or ring areas on the specimens from

Systems 103, 104, and 105.

89
Figure 6. Outer Shield: System 95, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years.

Severe degradation at all areas on the

specimen from Site G.

Figure 7. Outer Shield: System 96, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion on the specimens from all sites.

90
Figure 8. Outer Shield: System 97, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years.

Degradation at the window and ring areas on

the specimen from Site G was severe.

Figure 9. Outer Shield: System 98, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

degradation at all areas on specimens from

all sites.

91
Figure 10. Outer Shield: System 99, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years. Dark

areas indicate corrosion at the window and

ring areas on the specimens from Sites D and

G, with severe corrosion on the specimen

from Site G.

Figure 11. Inner shield: System 99, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for the five years.

Dark areas indicate corrosion at all areas

on the specimen from site G.

92
Figure 12. Outer Shield: System 100, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion on specimens at window and ring

areas, with severe corrosion at all areas on

the specimen from Site G.

Figure 13. Inner Shield: System 100, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

degradation at the window and ring areas

,

with severe degradation on the specimen from

Site G.

93
Figure 14. Outer Shield: System 101, Sites B, D, and

G, left to right, exposed for five years.

Dark areas indicate corrosion at window and

ring areas, with severe corrosion on the

specimen from Site G.

Figure 15. Inner Shield: System 101, Sites B, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for five years. Dark

areas indicate severe corrosion at the

window and ring areas on the specimen from

Site G.

94
Figure 16. Outer Shield: System 102, Sites B, D, and G

left to right, exposed for five years.

Coupling this system to copper severely

accelerated corrosion on specimens from all

sites

.

95

>
Figure 17. Outer Shield: System 73, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe corrosion at the window and ring

areas on specimens from Sites C and D, with

severe corrosion at all areas on the

specimen from Site G.

Figure 18. Inner Shield: System 73, Sites C, D, and G

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G, except at the under

jacket area on the specimen from Site G,

which remained excellent.
Figure 19. Outer Shield: System 74, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion severely on specimens from all

sites

.

Figure 20. Inner Shield: System 74, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion on specimens from all sites.

97
Figure 21. Outer Shield: System 75, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Dark areas indicate severe corrosion at all

areas on the specimen from Site G.

Figure 22. Inner Shield: System 75, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Degradation of the window area on the

specimen from Site G.

98
Figure 23. Outer Shield: System 76, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion. Dark areas indicate severe

corrosion at all areas except under jacket

areas on specimens from Sites C and G.

Figure 24. Inner Shield: System 76, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

degradation at all areas on the specimens

from Sites C and G.

99
Figure 25. Outer Shield: System 77, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Dark areas indicate severe corrosion at all

areas, except under jacket areas on

specimens from Sites C and G.

Figure 26. Inner Shield: System 77, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Darker areas indicate severe degradation at

all areas on specimens from Site C and G.

100
Figure 27. Outer Shield: System 78, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion severely on specimens from all

sites

.

Figure 28. Inner Shield: System 78, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

degradation severely at all areas on

specimens from all sites.

101
Figure 29. Outer Shield: System 79, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe corrosion at all areas on the

specimens from Sites C and G.

Figure 30. Inner Shield: System 79, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G.

102
Figure 31. Outer Shield: System 80, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion at all sites.

Figure 32. Inner Shield: System 80, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion at all sites.

103
Figure 33. Outer Shield: System 81, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Dark areas indicate severe corrosion at all

areas on specimens from Sites C and G.

Figure 34. Inner Shield: System 81, Sites C, D, and G,

JLeft to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at the window and ring

areas on the specimen from Site C, with

severe degradation at all areas on the

specimen from Site G.

104
Figure 35. Outer Shield: System 82, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion severely at all areas on all

specimens

.

Figure 36. Inner Shield: System 82, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

degradation severely at all areas on all

specimens

.

105
Figure 37. Outer Shield: System 83, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Dark areas indicate corrosion with severe

corrosion at the window and ring areas on

the specimens from Sites C and G.

Figure 38. Inner Shield: System 83, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G.

106
Figure 39. Outer Shield: System 84, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe corrosion at the window and ring

areas on the specimen from Site D, with

severe corrosion at all areas on the

specimens from Sites C and G.

Figure 40. Inner Shield: System 84, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G.

107
Figure 41. Outer Shield: System 85, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe corrosion at the window and ring areas

on the specimen from Site G, with severe

corrosion at all areas on the specimens from

Sites C and G.

Figure 42. Inner Shield: System 85, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G.

108
Figure 43. Outer Shield: System 86, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion severely at all areas on all

specimens

.

Figure 44. Inner Shield: System 86, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion severely at all areas on all

specimens

.

109
Figure 45. Outer Shield: System 87, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe corrosion at the window and ring

areas on the specimen from Site D, with

severe corrosion at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G.

Figure 46. Inner Shield: System 87, Sites C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for seven years.

Severe degradation at all areas on specimens

from Sites C and G, except under jacket

areas on the specimen from Site C.

110
Figure 47 . Outer Shield: System 88, Sites C, D, and G,

to riaht exposed for seven years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated

corrosion severely at all areas on all

specimens

.

Figure 48 . Coupling chis system to

degradation severely at all areas on a f

111
NBS-114A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OP COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 87-3546

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Corrosion Evaluation of Underground Telephone Cable Shielding Materials

5. AUTHOR(S)

J. L. Fink, D. Mathews, G. Hessler, E. Speed

6, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Coverec

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

Rural Electrification Administration

Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

|

! Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a si gnificant

bi bliography or literature survey, mention it here)

Corrosion data are given on the performance of base and plastic-coated metals

intended for use as cable shields for buried telephone cable. The materials

investigated on specially prepared specimens were buried for periods up to seven years in six different soil environments. Metals tested included homogeneous

plastic-bonded and metallurgically bonded laminates. Some specimens were exposed

bare (uncoated), while others had plastic coatings or other types of coatings on either one or both sides. Metals studied included aluminum, copper, low carbon

steel, and stainless steel alloys.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

alloys; corrosion; metallurgically-bonded ; metals: plastic-bonded; soils; telephone

cables; underground.

13. AVAILABILITY

nn Unlimited

|

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

! | Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

113

15. Price

$18.95

USCOMM-OC 6O43-P80