Corrosion Evaluation of

Underground Telephone

Shielding Materials

Cable

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau cf Standards

National Measurement Laboratory

Center for Materials Science

Metallurgy Division

Washington, DC 20234

May 1 983

Sponsored r>y.

-uc

1UU

• U5b

65-2/02

^apartment of Agriculture

ira! Electrification Administration

ashington, DC 20250

19do

MAY 3 1 1983

NBSIR 83-2702

CORROSION EVALUATION OF

UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE

SHIELDING MATERIALS

J.L. Fink

E. Escalante

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Measurement Laboratory

Center for Materials Science

Metallurgy Division

Washington, DC 20234

May 1983

Sponsored by:

Department of Agriculture

Rural Electrification Administration

Washington, DC 20250

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

CORROSION EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE SHIELDING MATERIALS

J. L. Fink and E. Escalante

Corrosion Group

Metallurgy Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

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 with respect to the corrosion

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

currently accepted and proposed experimental cable systems, the National

Bureau of Standards and the Rural Electrification Administration initiated

a six-year underground corrosion program. The program was initiated 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].

During the period since the first report and the present time, many

additional systems utilizing metals or plastic coated metals have been

incorporated into the program. Other papers summarizing the results

obtained for these 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 sixth 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.

1
SOILS AT THE TEST SITES

The chemical and physical properties of the soils at the test

sites are given in table 2. The chemical properties listed show that

the soils differ widely with respect to their composition and the

concentrations of soluble salts they contain. The pH of the soils

ranges from extreme acidity (4.0) to high alkalinity (8.8). The electrical resistivity of the soils ranges from 55 ohm-cm, which is approximately that of sea water, to 30,000 ohm-cm, indicating the absence of

soluble salts. The physical conditions of the soils range from well

aerated to very poorly aerated.

These widely differing soil environments allow for a comprehensive

soil corrosion program. The soils included are moderately corrosive

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

and other metals. The soils cover a wide range of soil properties,

with respect to corrosion, found throughout the United States. Furthermore, it is possible to correlate corrosion data from these six soils

with data previously obtained from 128 test sites in which the National

Bureau of Standards has conducted extensive investigations on the

underground corrosion of metals and alloys [3]. Descriptions of the

soils at the six test sites are as follows:

Sagemoor sandy loam (Site A) is a well -drained alkaline soil and

is typical of that found in vast areas of eastern Washington and Oregon.

The site is located on the Yakima Indian Reservation near Toppenish,

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

least seven feet and supports abundant growth of sage brush.

Hagerstown loam (Site B) is a well -drained soil representati ve of

the majority of wel 1 -devel oped soils found in the eastern part of the

2
United States. The site 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 and, therefore, it 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) . This site is located in a large clay pit on

level land at the U.S. Coast Guard Receiving Center at Cape May, New

Jersey. The soil 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.

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 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.

3
Tidal marsh (Site G) is a soil typical of the poorly-drained marsh

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

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 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 metallic or plastic coated

metal shields. With a few exceptions, the shield was exposed by stripping

the outer polyethylene protective jacket at two areas, one each approximately four inches (10.2 cm) from either 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 ci rcumference of the cable. In addition, some of the

systems were electrically coupled to copper strips by mechanically

bonding the strip to electrical wires which were in turn mechanically

bonded to the shield at the ends of the cable. Coupling the shield to

copper thus 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 or to copper ground rods. The ends of the specimens

were sealed with a sealing compound and wrapped with vinyl tape to

prevent entry of moisture at the end areas.

4
With a few exceptions, six specimens of each system were buried

at each of the six soil sites. All specimens were buried at a depth of

approximately three to four feet (0.9 to 1.2 m) below the ground line

in trenches two feet (0.6 m) wide.

Each year a replicate specimen was withdrawn from each of the

burial sites for cleaning and examination.

Five areas on each of the specimens were examined and rated numerically in accordance with table 3. These areas were the exposed window,

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

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

the exposed ring, and the remainder of the jacketed shield. In the

case of composite and clad materials, the outer, middle, and inner

shields were rated individually.

RESULTS

The results obtained from the evaluation of cable specimens exposed

for periods up to six years in various underground soil environments

are summarized in tables 4 through 9. It should be noted that at the

time of this report specimens of Site A had not been recovered since

the underground corrosion removals of 1979 and that the results indicated

are those of the fourth and fifth NBS reports, NBSIR 81-2243 [4] and

NBSIR 82-2509 [5]. Specimens of selected systems with varying degrees

of corrosion are shown in figures 2 through 43. The words "tacky" and

"semi -tacky" are used to describe the filling compound used in the

exposed specimens. Specimens with filling compounds were 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

5
corrosion. These ratings are described in table 3. 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. It was

noted 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 maintained. The various systems and their performance in the

six soil environments in which the specimens were exposed are described

below.

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

stainless steel outer shield 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, B, C, 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 the outer or inner shields of specimens

exposed for six years at Site A and five years at Site D or 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 unjacketed

6
window and/or 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 E. In general, 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 delamination of the outer and

inner shields on 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 pitting

corrosion 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

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

and sjx 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 unjacketed 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 unjacketed window, while all areas exposed

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

inner shield of specimens exposed at Site G was ELD at all examined

7
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. Nil or superficial corrosion was noted on specimens

from Site C for up to three years of exposure. The outer shield at

Site C buried for six years 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,

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 material.

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.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated corrosion of both

shields. With few exceptions, corrosion was superficial or nil 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

8
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 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 were ELD for two through

six years at all areas examined. The outer aluminum shield at and

adjacent to the window and/or 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 material.

9
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 examined.

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 shel 1

The performance of this system was excellent 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 were unaffected by corrosion

except for the specimens exposed for four years at the same sites.

Perforation due to localized pitting corrosion was noted for specimens

exposed at Site G for two and four years, while companion specimens

10
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 bonded on

both sides to a polyolefin polymer. 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 was noted

at the sheared ends of the specimens.

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

having an 8-mil (0.2 mm) uncorrugated aluminum alloy shield bonded on

both sides to a 2-mil (0.05 mm) polyolefin polymer. 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 material to

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

in 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 degradation. Slight dissipation at the sheared ends

of the specimens was observed at all sites.

11
System 65 . This system consisted of a 25-pair, 24-gauge cable

having an 8-mil (0.20 mm) uncorrugated aluminum alloy shield bonded on

both sides to a polyolefin polymer. 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.

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.

12
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 mm) polyester film.

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

Corrosion of specimens of this system was nil exposed 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.)

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 at Site A for three years. 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 . In general, the inner and outer shields of specimens of

this system (Table 1) exposed for one year at all sites were unaffected

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

severe at the unjacketed window and ring areas on the specimen buried

at Site B for up to three years. The shield was near ELD at the unjacketed

13
window and ring areas for specimens buried for three and four years.

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

Sites C and D for two and three years was severely corroded at the

un jacketed window and/or ring areas while the same areas at Site C were

ELD on the specimen exposed for four 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 unjacketed

window and ring areas exposed for four years. In general, the inner

aluminum alloy shield was unaffected by corrosion except at Site G

where ELD or near ELD was observed at or adjacent to the window and/or

ring areas on specimens exposed for three and four years. The outer

shield exposed for three and four years at Site G was at or near ELD at

all areas examined, except for the jacketed areas.

The filling compound was tacky except at corroded areas.

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, in general, 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 the

window and/or ring areas, while the regions adjacent to the window and

ring areas were severely corroded. Severe degradation was noted at the

window and/or ring areas exposed for up to four years at Sites D and

for up to three years at Site E, while the specimen exposed at the same

site for four years was ELD at the window and ring areas. After four

years of exposure the inner shield of the specimen buried at Site C was

14
ELD at all areas examined as was the outer shield except at the jacketed

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

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

four years at Site G was ELD at all areas examined and was 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 all sites was 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 years of exposure. 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 filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas.

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

to copper.

15
Coupling the shields to copper accelerated the corrosion of the

outer shield in all of the soils in which the specimens were exposed up

to four years. No degradation was observed on the inner aluminum alloy

shield of the specimens buried for up to four years, except at Site C

at the ring area which was perforated due to corrosion after four years

of exposure. With one exception, the outer steel shield was corroded

to varying degrees at unjacketed 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. The outer shield of the specimens buried

for two years at Site G was ELD at the window and ring areas. Both ring

and jacketed areas were ELD after exposure at this site for three

years, while all areas examined were ELD after four years of exposure.

The outer shield of the specimen buried for one year at Site A was

unaffected by corrosion.

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

four years in all soils with the exception of one specimen buried for

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

at Site G. 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 for all specimens 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. With few exceptions, specimens exposed for four years at all

sites were at or near ELD on the outer shield at or adjacent to the

16
window and/or ring areas. Perforation due to localized pitting corrosion

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/or ring areas and ELD on the inner shield at all areas

examined except the adjacent window area after exposure for four years.

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. Corrosion of the inner shield on

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

window and/or ring areas. For specimens buried at Site G for up to

three years, the inner shield was ELD or near ELD at window and ring

areas and severely corroded at jacketed areas. The specimen exposed at

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

considered destroyed. In general, severe corrosion was observed on the

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

system. 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 un jacketed window

and ring areas. Corrosion of the outer shield was severe at the window

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

Sites A and D and four years at Site E.

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas.

17
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. 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 and four years. In general, corrosion of the outer steel shield

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

specimens at Sites B, C, and D were severely corroded at the unjacketed

ring areas after exposure for four years. 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 on

the outer steel shield were perforated due to corrosion for specimens

exposed for two and three years. The specimens buried for up to four

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.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the shields. 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 unjacketed 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

18
shield were ELD for specimens exposed for four years at Site C. Specimens

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

un jacketed window and ring areas, while only the four year exposure was

ELD at the unjacketed ring area at Site E. Specimens exposed for three

and fodr years at Sites B, C, and G were ELD at the window and ring

areas on the outer steel shield and were ELD on both shields of specimens

exposed at Sites C and G for the same time. All areas examined on the

inner and outer shields for specimens buried at Site G for two, three,

and four years were ELD and were considered destroyed.

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 i) after exposure for one

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

and E. Corrosion of the steel outer shield in varying degrees was

noted at un jacketed window and/or ring areas of specimens exposed up to

four years at Sites B, C, D, and E. The inner and outer shields at the

unjacketed 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 after the third year of

exposure.

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

19
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

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

and for up to four years at Sites D and E. 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. 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, and four

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. The aluminum alloy inner shield of specimens

exposed for two 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 adjacent areas were ELD on the specimen buried at

Site G for four years. 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

20
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. 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.

Varying degrees of corrosion were noted at the unjacketed window and

ring areas on the outer shield of specimens buried at all sites up to

four years. Perforation due to corrosion was observed at the unjacketed

window and/or 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. The

outer shield of the specimen exposed for two years at Site G was ELD at

the unjacketed 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

years of exposure at Site G, all areas of the specimen were ELD except

for the jacketed areas on the outer shield.

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 nil degradation on the inner aluminum

21
alloy shield exposed up to three years in all soils. Varying degrees

of corrosion were noted at all areas examined on the inner shield of

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 at the unjacketed ring area was near ELD on the specimen

buried at Site G for one year. Companion specimens buried for two,

three, and four 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

unjacketed window and/or ring areas on the outer shields of specimens

exposed for three and four years at Sites B, C, D, and E. The outer

shield of the specimen at Site C was at or near ELD at the unjacketed

window and ring areas exposed for four years. 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 specimen buried for two and four years at Site C

were ELD at all areas examined. The companion specimen exposed for

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

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

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

22
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 un jacketed window and ring areas after one year

exposure. Both shields were ELD at all area examined for specimens

exposed at Site G for two, three, and four 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.

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

three years in four of the six soils. 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 and

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

were considered destroyed. Perforation due to localized pitting corrosion

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. 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.

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 specimens of this system to copper accelerated the corrosion

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

23
after an exposure of up to four years in all soils. In general, the

performance of the outer shields at unjacketed areas was fair to very

poor for specimens buried at the six sites. Corrosion of the corrugated

aluminum alloy inner shield was nil at all areas examined for up to

three years in four of the six soils, while only Sites B and E were

unaffected by corrosion on the inner shield at all areas examined for

up to four years. The inner shield of the specimen buried for three

years at Site C was ELD at all areas examined. Both shields of specimens

exposed at Site G for two, three, and four years and Site C for four

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

and a low density polyethylene jacket.

With one exception, corrosion on the specimens of this system was

nil or negligible 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 exposed for three years at Site G.

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) corrugated

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.

24
Severe corrosion was observed on the outer shield at the window and/or

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

ELD or near ELD was noted on the window and ring areas on both shields

of specimens 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.

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

Coupling 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) corrugated

4022 aluminum alloy outer shield.

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

only.

25
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. Perforations due to

corrosion were 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.

Coupling 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 consisted 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. With one exception corrosion was nil or superficial in all of

the soils after exposure for up to two years. The specimen buried at

Site G was ELD at the unjacketed window and ring areas and experienced

severe corrosion at the area adjacent to the unjacketed 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.

26
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

little or no degradation of the specimen buried for one and two years

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

un jacketed window, ring, and regions adjacent to the ring areas.

Perforation due to corrosion was noted on the specimen at or adjacent

to the window and/or ring areas exposed for up to two years at Sites D

and E. The unjacketed areas on specimens buried in Sites D and E were

perforated due to pitting corrosion. The specimens exposed for up to

two 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 specimen exposed at Site C

for one year. With two exceptions, specimens of this system were

unaffected by corrosion during their first two years of exposure. The

shield of the specimen from Site G was severely corroded at the unjacketed

ring area and near ELD at the unjacketed window area exposed for one

year, while ELD was observed on the companion specimen at the ring area

buried for two years.

The filling compounds were still tacky.

27
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

only.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the aluminum alloy shield at the window and ring areas for up to two

years exposed in all soils. The specimen buried at Site C for one year

was ELD at the window and ring areas, while the regions adjacent to the

window and ring areas were perforated due to corrosion. The specimen

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

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

areas were ELD after two years of exposure. After burial of 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 specimen buried for two years at the same site was

ELD at all areas examined and was 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 on the inner shield of the specimens buried for

up to two years at all sites. At Site G, the tin-free steel outer

shield of the specimen buried for one year developed severe corrosion

at the unjacketed window area and perforation due to localized pitting

corrosion at the unjacketed ring area. The companion specimen showed

severe corrosion at and adjacent to the unjacketed window and ring

areas after two years exposure. Perforation due to localized pitting

corrosion was noted at the unjacketed window and ring areas after two

years exposure at Site D.

28
The filling compound was still tacky.

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

to copper.

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

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

of the tin-free steel outer shields exposed for up to two years at most

sites, while only the inner shield of the specimen exposed for two

years at Site G was severely corroded. After exposure for one year at

Site C and two years at Sites B, D, and G the un jacketed window and

ring areas were perforated due to corrosion as were the regions adjacent

to the window area at Site B and adjacent to the ring area at Site D.

All other areas examined at all sites were unaffected by corrosion.

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.

There was no degradation on the uncorrugated aluminum alloy inner

shield on any of the specimens buried for one and two years. 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. In general, slight rust stain was noted on specimens exposed at

Site B on the tin-plated steel outer shield at jacketed and unjacketed

seamed areas exposed for one year, while perforation due to corrosion

was observed at the window and/or ring areas of specimens buried at

Sites B, D, and E for two years and one year at Site C. 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

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

the unjacketed window area exposed for two years.

29
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.

Coupling specimens of this system to copper accelerated corrosion

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

the aluminum alloy inner shield were unaffected by corrosion after

exposure for up to two years. 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. Severe corrosion was observed at the window

and ring areas of the specimens buried at Site B for one year, while

the companion specimen was perforated due to corrosion at and adjacent

to the window and ring areas exposed for two years. The specimen at

Site G was ELD at the window area due to corrosion on the outer jacket,

and corrosion at all areas rated on this specimen were moderate to

severe for one year of exposure. The specimen buried for two years was

ELD at all areas examined, except the jacketed areas.

The filling compound was still tacky except at corroded areas

where dry. The specimen exposed for two years at Site D was not recovered.

System 103 . Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed at

Sites B, C, D, and E only. Corrosion of both shields was nil or superficial after two years of burial in Sites B, D, and E. The outer

shield at the unjacketed window area of the specimen showed slight

30
localized pitting corrosion after exposure at Site B for one and two

years, while the same shield of the specimen exposed at Site E showed

slight localized pitting corrosion at all areas examined after two

years. The specimen exposed at Site C for one year was perforated due

to corrosion at the window and ring areas on the outer shield.

The filling compounds were still tacky.

System 104 . Specimens of this system (Table 1) were exposed at

Sites B, C, D, and E only. After exposure for two years at Sites B, D,

and E, the specimens exhibited little or no corrosion on the inner or

outer shields. The specimen buried at Site C for one year was perforated

at the ring area on the outer shield.

The filling compound was still tacky.

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

Sites B, C, D, and E only. Specimens buried at all four sites were

unaffected by corrosion after one year of burial at Site C and after

two years at Sites B, D, and E.

The filling compounds were still tacky.

DISCUSSION

The data presented describes the performance of various cable

systems after exposure for up to six years in different soil environments.

Forty-eight (48) different shielding systems (using 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

fabricated 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,

31
thus creating a galvanic cell between the copper and the non-copper

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 were employed which have chemical and physical

properties representative of a wide range of soils that may be encountered

in the United States in actual field installations. 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 six

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. Specimens of System 56 exposed for six years were fair in clay soil and

coastal sand, while specimens of System 57 buried in the same soils

were 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 were good in an

alkaline soil. However, the specimens of System 59 buried for the same

amount of time and in the same soil were poor. Corrosion 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,

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

* Systems are described in table 1.

32
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.

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 degradation due to corrosion of specimens of Systems

62, 63, 64, 65, and 66. Similarly, there was no degradation of specimens

of System 65 after exposure for up to six years in a tidal marsh. The

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

general, 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 condition of specimens of

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

specimens buried in Hagerstown loam, clay, and Lakewood sand were in

excellent condition. Systems 67, 68, 69, and 70 were not installed in

coastal sand or tidal marsh.

After exposure for four years in coastal sand, the condition of

System 73 was generally rated as poor. The condition of specimens of

Systems 73 and 74 (same as System 73 except coupled to copper) buried

in alkaline soil were poor to very poor. Similarly, companion specimens

of the same systems exposed for four years in Hagerstown loam, clay,

Lakewood sand, coastal sand, and a tidal marsh, performed poorly to

very poorly.

33
Specimens of System 75 buried for two years in an alkaline soil

and four years in clay, Lakewood and coastal sand, showed little or no

corrosion, while the specimens exposed in a tidal marsh were poor.

System 75 exposed in Hagerstown loam and System 76 exposed in Lakewood

sand were in good condition after four years of exposure. The condition

System 76 (same as System 75 except coupled to copper) was generally

fair to very poor in Hagerstown loam, clay, and coastal sand after

exposure for four years.

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

soil was good, while that System 78 (same as System 77 except coupled

to copper) was poor to very poor. Specimens of System 77 buried for

four years in Hagerstown loam performed poorly while specimens of

System 78 under the same conditions were judged to be in poor to very

poor condition. Systems 77 and 78 performed poorly to very poorly in

clay soil, Lakewood sand, coastal sand, and tidal marsh after an exposure

of four years.

For the specimens of System 79 exposed for two years in an alkaline

soil there was little or no corrosion observed. System 80 (same as

System 79 except coupled to copper) buried for two years in an alkaline

soil was in fair condition, 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 and clay soil was fair to poor. The

corrosion resistance of System 79 in a tidal marsh was poor to very

poor after four years of exposure. The performance of System 80 in

Hagerstown loam, clay, Lakewood sand, coastal sand, and tidal marsh was

also poor to very poor for the same length of time.

There was no corrosion on System 81 buried in alkaline soil for

two years. However, the condition of System 82 (same as System 81

34
except coupled to copper) exposed in the same soil and for the same

length of time was observed as poor. Specimens of System 81 exposed in

Lakewood and coastal sand for four years were rated fair. The System

81 specimens buried in Hagerstown loam and System 82 in Lakewood and

coastal sand performed, in general, poorly. The condition of System 81

in clay soil and tidal marsh was very poor as were the specimens of

System 82 in Hagerstown loam and clay soil. Specimens of System 82

exposed in tidal marsh for four 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

after four years in Hagerstown loam, Lakewood and coastal sand. The

condition of specimens of System 84 (same as System 83 except coupled

to copper) buried in Lakewood and coastal sands for four years was good

while that of companion specimens in Hagerstown loam was noted as

moderate to poor. The condition of both systems were poor to very poor

in clay soil and tidal marsh after being buried for four years.

For the 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 same time was moderate. The specimens of System 86 in coastal

sand and in Lakewood sand were in very poor condition after four years

of exposure. Specimens of System 85 in Hagerstown loam and clay soil

were observed to be in poor to very poor condition after exposure for

four years. Severely corroded specimens of System 86 were found in

Hagerstown loam, clay, Lakewood, and coastal sand after four years

exposure. Both systems were destroyed due to exposure in tidal marsh

after four years.

35
The corrosion of Systems 87 and 88 buried for two years in an

alkaline soil was moderate.

Specimens of System 87 exposed in coastal sand performed well,

while System 88 (same as System 87 except coupled to copper) specimens

performed very poorly after four years exposure. Corrosion resistance

of both Systems was poor to very poor after being buried for four years

in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand. Severe corrosion was noted for

specimens of Systems 87 and 88 exposed in a tidal marsh and specimens

of System 88 in a clay soil. The specimens were considered destroyed

after four years of exposure.

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. Systems 91 and 92 in Hagerstown loam and System 91 in

Lakewood sand were 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 after three years in clay soil and

coastal sand. There were no specimens of System 92 installed in clay

soil, Lakewood, or coastal sand.

Specimens of System 93 buried for three years in Hagerstown loam

and clay soil were observed to be in generally good condition. The one

year exposure of System 93 in an alkaline soil was rated as very poor

as were 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

36
System 93 were not installed in a tidal marsh, nor was System 94 installed

in clay soil, Lakewood sand, coastal sand, and tidal marsh.

Specimens of System 95 exposed for one year in clay soil and two

years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood and coastal sand showed little or

no corrosion, while the condition of specimens buried in tidal marsh

for the same period of time was rated as good.

The performance of specimens of System 96 buried for two years in

Hagerstown loam and Lakewood sand was good to fair. Specimens exposed

for one year in clay soil and two years in coastal sand were observed

to be in poor to very poor condition, while the specimen exposed in

tidal marsh for the same period of time was considered destroyed.

Specimens of System 97 exposed for one year in clay soil and two

years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood and coastal sand had little or no

corrosion. The specimen buried in tidal marsh for two years was rated

as being in very poor condition.

For System 98, the specimens exposed for two years in Hagerstown

loam and Lakewood sand were observed to be in good to fair condition.

The performance of specimens buried for one year in clay soil and for

two years in coastal sand was very poor. The specimen buried in tidal

marsh for two years was considered destroyed.

Specimens of System 99 after exposure for one year in clay soil,

two years in Hagerstown loam and coastal sand were in excellent condition.

Specimens buried for two years in Lakewood sand and tidal marsh were

observed to be in fair to poor condition.

The corrosion resistance of specimens of System 100 buried for one

year in clay soil, two years in Hagerstown loam, Lakewood sand, and

tidal marsh was rated as poor to very poor, while the specimen exposed

37
in coastal sand for the same period of time was observed to be in good

condi ti on.

The condition of specimens of System 101 exposed for one year in

clay soil, two years in Hagerstown loam and Lakewood and coastal sand

was observed as generally good. However, the specimens buried in tidal

marsh for two years performed very poorly.

For System 102, the corrosion resistance was poor to very poor in

all soils after exposure for one and two years.

The performance of specimens of Systems 103 and 104 exposed for

one year in clay soil were rated as generally good. The corrosion

resistance of specimens of System 105 buried in the same soil for the

same period of time was observed as excellent. The corrosion resistance

of specimens of Systems 103, 104, and 105 exposed for two years in all

soils was also excellent. Systems 103, 104, and 105 were not exposed

in tidal marsh.

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

38
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.

39
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 J. 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, E. Escalante, and W. F. Gerhold, "Corrosion Evaluation of

Underground Telephone Cable Shielding Materials," Department of

Commerce, NBSIR 82-2509, June 1982.
Tables

Table 1 Description of Various Systems Included in the Soil Corrosion

Study of Telephone Cable Shielding Materials

Table 2 Properties of the Soils at the Test Sites

Table 3 Rating Code for the Corrosion Evaluation of Shields in Cable

Specimens

Table 4 Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Sagemoor Sandy Loam (Site A)

Table 5 Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Hagerstown Loam (Site B)

Table 6 Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Clay Soil (Site C)

Table 7 Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Lakewood Sand (Site D)

Table 8 Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Coastal Sand (Site E)

Table 9 Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried for Up to Six

Years in Tidal Marsh (Site G)

41
Figure Captions

Figure 1 Preparation of specimens for cable exposure tests.

Figures 2&3 Systems 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, and 102 exposed at Site C

for one year.

Figure 4 System 95 exposed for two years.

Figure 5 System 96 exposed for two years.

Figure 6 System 97 exposed for two years.

Figure 7 System 98 exposed for two years.

Figures 8&9 System 101 exposed for two years.

Figures 10&11 System 102 exposed for two years.

Figures 12&13 System 89 exposed for three years.

Figures 14-43 Selected systems between Systems 73 and 88 exposed for

four years.
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 mm) 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 mm) 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

copolymer.

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

(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.

43
Table 1 (continued)

System

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Description

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.

Same as System 73, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

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.

Same as System 75, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated steel

outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20 mm) corrugated aluminun 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.

Same as System 77, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

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.

Same as System 79, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

25-pair, 22-guage cable having a 6-mil (0.15mm) corrugated steel

outer shield and an 8-mil (0.20mm) 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 amorphous polypropylene

applied over the core, inner shield, and outer shield.

Same as System 81, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

25-pair, 22-gauge cable having a 6-mil (0.15 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.

44
Table 1 (continued)

System Description

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 3-mil (0.08 mm) corrugated 1006 low carbon steel outer shield

bonded to a 3-mil (0.08 mm) corrugated 4022 aluminum alloy inner

shield.

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

93 3-mil (0.08 mm) corrugated 1006 low carbon steel inner shield

bonded to a 3-mil (0.08 mm) corrugated 4022 aluminum alloy outer

shield.

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

95 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.

97 25-mil (0.64 mm) 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 polyi sobutyl ene 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.

45
Table 1 (continued)

System

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Description

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.

Same as System 99, except that the shields were coupled to copper.

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 (0.64 mm) uncorrugated seamless aluminum alloy inner

shield (outer conductor) having a 98-mil (2.49 mm) solid copper

alloy center conductor with a black polyethylene inner and outer

jacket.

Same as System 101, except outer shield was coupled to copper.

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.

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.

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.

46
CO oo</)

CO oCOCO

lO

rH

CM

O' 11 in O' CM 1 m

in CM co m co

in

CO CNJ +* O Q u O <o x

ft. X c

o» o

ft- *—

0> r4-» f- CO

fl E O * u °

H- 0) O CL Co^ «3 t- d. «T3 U) '-'Z o

CLEoo

to

4-» 0)

a»

4-> <0o

tou

a>CLO

fc=

cm

ai -Q

<0

3!a

— E > U

V) f- E

p* <U m o> 4-> c <0 m L C 3)

a> •*- 4->

«»-> ro C 5- ^

c— T3

O

00COodod

cm

CMCM

VOo«3° to 1 CO O' | CO O

co od

co

o'm

*rdoCM

O'

O'O

in

LOo©

CD

O©

O CM I CO O' I CM CO

o'

m

cm 10 CO rH

CMOCO o © o

f-4 00 o m

tou

O) o

ft. 0)a,

(A

4-> C

01>

O’

<3J E

<0u

Oi

©dom

co

O'

rHd

(O od 1 o 1 r*» 1 CM

coin

©o ©oCM ooCO o m o o m o © CO oCO

T3 TJ J- TD ft.

L

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

cn

O QO O. O.OX < 2: • c

.c a> m >

t- to c ex

0)CL -C

CL

U o o

>>

to

Ooo

.X

ft- IQ Q-C

T3 o Oo o_ _cn “ J J C

d> -a XI -r

CL *— •—

X

rrj

— 0>

O 31 > -»

O

c-

>0

"O %0 c C *0

«5 <d c jC

in

C in fO

m 5 in ft. t. O *0 (0 0 4-> O E 0 in O «0 E ft- * 4-> <u 0) > 0) m tO O) cn «TJ -X «j *0

(Q to r— <0 0

COX

O -J

O

LU

O

Analyses

not

made

for

so
Table 3. Rating Code for the Corrosion Evaluation

of Shields in Cable Specimens

Rati ng

10

9

8

7

6+

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Performance Degree of Corrosion

Excel 1 ent

Excel 1 ent

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

pi tti ng.

Appreciable pitting over the surface, but no perforations through metal shield. Some minor delamination

or dissipation of metal 1 urgi cal 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;

< 5 percent of shield dissipated by corrosion;

extensive delamination of metal 1 urgical ly bonded

metal s.

Severe corrosion: pitting to perforation of shield;

five to ten percent of shield dissipated by corrosion

severe corrosion of anodic part of metal 1 urgical ly

bonded metals.

Severe corrosion: pitting to perforation of shield;

ten to twenty-five percent of shield dissipated by

corrosi on.

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.

48
Table 4. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Sagemoor Sandy Loam (Site A)

System

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

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)0 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)5 0(10)4 0(10)1 0(10)5 0(10)5 10

5 0(10)0 0(10)3 0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)3 9

49
Table 4 (Site A continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

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 Missing

4 10 10

5 10 Mi ssi ng

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

50
Table 4 (Site A continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

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) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

2 8(10) 5(10) 10(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10
Table 4 (Site A continued)

Exposure

T ime Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Wi ndow Ring Jacket Wi ndow Ring Cathode

89 1 9 9 10 10 10

90 1 9 9 10 10 9 10

91 1 Destroyed

92 1 Destroyed

93 1 5(0) 5(0) 5(4) 5(0) 5(0)

94 1 Destroyed

5
Table 5. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Hagerstown Loam (Site B)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Wi ndow Ring Jacket Wi ndow 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 Mi ssi ng

5 10 Missi ng

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

69 1 10

2 10

3 Not recovered

4 10

5 10

53
Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

70 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

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)

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

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)

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

1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 4(10) 6+(10) 8(10) 8(10) 9(10)

4 2(10) 6+(10) 6+(10) 6(10) 6(10)

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

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)

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

80
Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Wi ndow Ring Jacket Wi ndow Ring Cathode

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

DO
91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Table 5 (Site B continued)

Exposure

me

'ears)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

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)

1 Destroyed Mi ssi ng

2 0(4) 0(3) 7(7) 4(6) 0(5) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 5(5) 5(5) 5(5) 9

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)

1 Destroyed 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed Mi ssi ng

1 9 9 10 10 10

2 9 9 10 10 10

1 8 8 10 8 8 10

2 7 7 9 8 8 9

1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10 10 10 10 10

1 8 8 10 10 10 10

2 7 7 7 7 7 9

1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 10(10) 7(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

2 2(10) 3(10) 10(10) 4(10) 10(10) 9

1 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

2 7(10) 6+(10) 8(10) 7(10) 7(10)

1 4(10) 4(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9

2 3(10) 5(10) 10(10) 6(10) 5(10) 9

1 8 10 10 10 10

2 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 10 10 10 10 10

2 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 10 10 10 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

56
Table 6. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Clay Soil (Site C)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

56 1 10 10

2 10 10

3 10 10

4 10(2) 10

5 10 10

6 10(5) 10(5)

57 1 10 10

2 10(5) 10(5)

3 10(5) 10(5)

4 10(0) 10

5 10(0) 3(2)

6 6(0) 10(0)

58 1 10(5) 10(5)

2 10(2) 9(3)

3 9(2) 9(5)

4 9(5) 7(7)

5 8(4) 6+(5)

6 9(1) 9(0)

59 1 9(3) 10(2)

2 10(1) 10(0)

3 10(0) 10(0)

4 10(0) 8(0)

5 9(0) 5(0)

6 6+(0) 6+(0)

60 1 4(10)7 6(6)6

2 0(10)5 0(10)8

3 1(10)7 2(10)7

4 0(10)7 0(10)8

5 0(10)0 0(10)1

6 0(10)0 0(10)0

61 1 0(10)0 0(10)4

2 0(10)0 0(10)0

3 0(10)0 0(6+)0

4 0(10)0 0(10)0

5 0(5)0 0(9)0

6 0(10)0 0(10)0

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10

10(5) 10(5) 10(5)

10 10 10 9

10 10(5) 10(5) Mi ssi ng

10 10 10 Mi ssing

10 10 10 10

10(0) 10(0) 10(3) 9

10(0) 9(0) 10(0) 9

10(4) 10(7) 10(8)

10(4) 10(5) 9(5)

10(0) 10(4) 10(7)

9(1) 9(5) 9(7)

10(2) 9(5) 6+(5)

9(0) 9(0) 9(1)

10(3) 10(5) 10(2) Mi ssing

10(0) 10(0) 10(0) 9

5(0) 10(0) 10(0) 10

5(0) 9(0) 6+(0) Mi ssing

10(0) 9(0) 10(0) Mi ssi ng

3(0) 6+(0) 6(0) 5

4(10)1 5(10)5 5(10)5

3(10)2 7(10)5 2(10)5

0(10)0 2(10)5 2(10)8

4(10)1 2(10)5 3(10)7

0(10)0 0(10)1 0(10)1

0(6)0 0(10)0 0(10)0

0(10)1 0(10)0 0(10)5 10

0(5)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 9

0(6)0 0(5)0 0(6)0 Mi ssing

0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 6

0(6+)0 0(9)0 0(9)0 9

0(10)0 0(10)0 0(10)0 3

57
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

62 12

3

4

56

63 123

4

56

64 12

3

4

5

6

65 1

2

3

4

56

66 1

2

3

4

5

6

67 1

2

3 Not recovered

4

5 Not recovered

68 12

3 Not recovered

4

5

10

10

10

10

10

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

5 10

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 10

10 Mi ssing

10 Missing

10 Missi ng

10 Mi ssing

10 Missi ng

10

10

10

10

10

Not recovered

10
Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Wi ndow Ring Jacket Wi ndow 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) 9(10) 9(10) 5(10)

2 2(10) 2(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 4(10) 2(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 0(2) 0(3) 7(9) 0(7) 0(7)

74 1 1(10) 1(8) 9(10) 3(10) 2(10) 10

2 0(0) 0(3) 9(10) 8(8) 8(10) Mi ssing

3 0(10) 4(10) 9(10) 3(10) 2(10) 10

4 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

75 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10(10)

4 8(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

76 1 2(10) 2(10) 10(10) 8(10) 6(10) 10

2 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 5(10) 5(10) 10

3 4(10) 4(10) 10(10) 7(10) 5(10) 10

4 0(10) 2(5) 10(10) 2(10) 4(10) 9

77 1 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 3(10) 3(10) 10(10) 8(10) 5(10)

4 3(10) 3(10) 6+(10) 7(10) 3(10)

78 1 2(10) 2(10) 10(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10

2 0(8) 0(4) 8(10) 1(10) 0(10) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 8(4) 3(5) 1(5) 9

4 0(0) 0(0) 7(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

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)

59
80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

T ime Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

(years) Wi ndow Ring Jacket Wi ndow Ring Cathode

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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) Mi ssi ng

3 0(0) 1(0) 8(1) 5(4) 3(0) 10

4 0(0) 0(0) 6(0) 0(0) 5(0) 9

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)

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

1 9 9 9 9 9

2 8 8 9 9 9

3 8 8 9 9 8

60
90

91

93

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Table 6 (Site C continued)

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

1 9 9 9 9 9 10

2 8 8 9 9 9 Mi ssing

3 7 8 9 8 8 Mi ssing

1 0(0) 0(0) 6(6) 6(6) 5(5)

2 1(1) 1(4) 5(5) 7(4) 7(5)

3 Destroyed

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

1 8 8 8 9 9

1 0 0 7 5 0 9

1 8 8 10 10 10

1 0 0 10 5 4 9

1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 3(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

1 6(10) 7(10) 10(10) 9(10) 8(10)

1 2(10) 1(10) 9(10) 7(10) 5(10) 9

1 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 7(10) 6+(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

61
Table 7. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Lakewood Sand (Site D)

Exposure

T ime Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Wi ndow Ring Jacket Wi ndow Ring 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

2 10(5) 10(5) 10 10(5) 10 10

3 10(0) 10(4) 10 10(5) 10(5) Missing

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

62
Table 7 (Site D continued)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring Cathode

66

67

68

69

70

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

10

10

10

10

10

1

2 Not recovered

3

4

5

10

10

10

10

1

2

3

4

5

10

10

10

10

10

1 Not recovered

2

3 Not recovered

4

5 Not recovered

10

10

1

2

3

4

5

10

10

10

10

10

Missi ng

Mi ssi ng

Missi ng

Mi ssing

10

Mi ssi ng

73 1 9(10) 6(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 8(10) 4(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 8(10) 3(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

4 5(10) 3(10) 7(10) 7(10) 5(10)

74 1 5(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 4(10) 10

2 4(10) 4(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 4(10) 2(10) 8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

4 3(10) 2(5) 7(10) 7(10) 4(10) 9

75 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) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

S3
Table 7 (Site D continued)

Exposure

System

T ime

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

76 1 10(10) 6+( 10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 5(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

3 6+(10) 6+(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

4 8(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

77 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 8(10) 6(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

3 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

4 9(10) 3(10) 9(10) 6+(10) 6(10)

78 1 6(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10

3 4(10) 2(10) 10(10) 9(10) 7(10) 10

4 2(10) 2(10) 9(10) 7(10) 9(10) 10

79 1 6+(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 8(10) 5(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

3 8(10) 8(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

4 4(10) 2(10) 9(10). 9(10) 9(10)

80 1 8(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

3 3(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 8(10) 10

4 1(7) 1(7) 8(8) 6+(8) 7(8) 10

81 1 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 8(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

3 5(10) 4(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

4 5(10) 4(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

82 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 4(10) 2(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

3 4(10) 2(10) 9(10) 8(10) 9(10) 10

4 2(10) 2(10) 9(10) 6+(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)

3 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

4 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

84 1 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

2 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

3 6(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

4 6+(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

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)

64
Table 7 (Site D continued)

System

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

86 1 5(10) 5(10)

2 4(10) 4(10)

, 3 2(9) 2(6+)

4 1(6+) 1(6)

87 1 7(10) 7(10)

2 5(10) 5(10)

3 5(10) 5(10)

4 2(10) 2(10)

88 1 6(10) 5(10)

2 2(10) 3(10)

3 2(10) 2(10)

4 2(4) 2(7)

89 1 10 9

2 9 9

3 9 9

90 1 9 9

2 9 9

3 9 9

91 1 6(9) 6(9)

2 1(1) 0(0)

3 0(1) 0(3)

93 1 9(7) 9(7)

2 8(7) 6+(6+)

3 5(5) 6(6)

95 1 9 9

2 10 10

96 1

- 4

2 5 5

97 1 10 10

2 10 10

98 1 8 8

2 5 5

99 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 5(10) 6(10)

100 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 3(10) 5(10)

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

10(10) 8(10) 10(10) 10

9(6+) 8(9) 9(8) 10

6+(8) 7(7) 7(7) 10

9(10) 7(10) 8(10)

5(10) 8(10) 8(10)

8(10) 8(10) 8(10)

8(10) 7(10) 7(10)

8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

8(10) 8(10) 8(10) 10

7(10) 8(10) 8(10) 9

7(10) 7(10) 7(10) 9

9 10 10

9 9 9

9 9 9

9 9 10 10

9 9 9 10

9 9 9 10

9(9) 9(9) 9(9)

5(5) 6(6) 6(6)

5(5) 5(5) 5(5)

9(7) 9(7) 9(7)

8(6) 8(7) 8(7)

6(4) 8(3) 8(3)

10 10 10

10 10 10

9 7 Mi ssi ng

7 5 9 10

10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10 10

10 5 8 10

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10

10(10) 10(10) 5(10) 10

65
Table 7 (Site D continued)

System

Exposure

T ime

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

101 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 6(10) 6(10)

102 1 10(10) 10(10)

2 Not recovered

103 1 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10)

104 1 10 10

2 9(10) 9(10)

105 1 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10)

Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

Jacket Window Ring Cathode

9(10)

9(10)

10(10)

9(10)

10(10)

9(10)

9(10) 9(10) 9(10)

10

10(10)

10

9(10)

10

10(10)

10

10(10)

10

9(10)

10

9(10)

10

10(10)

10

10(10)

10

10(10)

66
Table 8. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Coastal Sand (Site E)

Exposure

Time Exposed Exposed Under 1/2 Inch 1/2 Inch Cooper

System (years) Window Ring Jacket Window Ring 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) Mi ssing

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 Mi ssi 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 Mi ssing

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

67
Table 8 (Site E continued)

Exposure

System

T ime

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Coopi

Cathi

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 10

2 10 Miss

3 10 10

4 10 Miss

5 10 10

6 10 Miss

73 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)

74 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

75 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)

76 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

63
Table 8 ((Site E continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Window

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

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) Mi ssi ng

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

63
Table 8 (Site E continued)

Exposure

System

T ime

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

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 Mi ssi ng

3 9 9 9 9 9 9

91 1 2(2) 0(0) 5(5) 6(6) 6(6)

2 1(1) 1(1) 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)

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

70
Table 8 (Site E continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

103 1 9 9

2 8(10) 8(10)

104 1 8 9

2 9(8) 9(8)

105 1 10 10

2 10(10) 10(10)

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

10

8(10)

9

8(10)

9

8(10)

9

8(9)

9

8(9)

9

8(8)

10

10(10)

10

10(10)

10

10(10)

71
Table 9. Performance of Shields in Cable Specimens Buried Up to Six

Years in Tidal Marsh (Site G)

Exposure

System

T ime

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

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 ssi ng

4 0 0(4) 0 0 0 Missing

5 0(0) 2(2) 10(0) 10(2) 10(2) Missing

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 l(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

7 2
Table 9 (Site G continued)

System

Exposure

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

62 1 6+

2 5

3 10

4 5

5 10

6 7

63 1 10

2 5

3 10

4 5

5 5

6 10

64 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 5

5 5

6 6

65 1 10

2 10

3 10

4 10

5 10

6 10

73 1 9(10) 9(10) 10(10) 9(10) 9(10)

2 0(10) 1(10) 9(10) 8(10) 8(10)

3 0(7) 0(0) 8(10) 0(10) 0(1)

4 0(0) 0(0) 7(10) 3(7) 0(5)

74 1 0(10) 1(5) 9(9) 9(9) 3(5) 10

2 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 2(0) 0(0) 10

3 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 2(0) 0(0) 9

4 Destroyed 9

75 1 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 1(10) 5(10) 10(10) 5(10) 5(10)

3 5(10) 1(10) 10(10) 8(10) 2(10)

4 2(10) 5(10) 10(10) 4(10) 10(10)

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

73
Table 9 (Site G continued)

Exposure

System

T ime

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

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)

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

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)

80 1 0(0) 1(1) 10(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed 9

81 1 5(10) 5(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 4(10) 5(10) 10(10) 8(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)

82 1 1(10) 1(10) 9(10) 9(10) 9(10) 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed Mi ssi ng

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)

84 1 7(10) 5(6) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10) 9

2 0(10) 0(10) 9(10) 2(10) 2(10) Mi ssi ng

3 0(0) 0(0) 10(0) 3(2) 3(0) 8

4 0(0) 0(0) 9(0) 0(0) 0(0) 9

85 1 5(10) 4(1) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 Destroyed

3 Destroyed

4 Destroyed

86 1 0(0) 0(1) 9(5) 9(3) 9(2) 10

2 Destroyed 10

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed 9

74
Table 9 (Site G continued)

Exposure

System

Time

(years)

Exposed

Wi ndow

Exposed

Ring

Under

Jacket

1/2 Inch

Wi ndow

1/2 Inch

Ring

Cooper

Cathode

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

88 1 0(0) 0(0) 8(8) 8(4) 8(4) 9

2 Destroyed 9

3 Destroyed 9

4 Destroyed 8

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

96 1 Destroyed

2 Destroyed

97 1 1 3 10 10 10

2 4 0 10 6 2

98 1 0 0 10 2 0 9

2 Destroyed 9

99 1 4(10) 6(10) 10(10) 10(10) 10(10)

2 3(10) 3(10) 10(10) 3(10) 3(10)

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

101 1 4(10) 5(10) 6(10) 6(10) 5(10)

2 0(10) 2(10) 5(10) 3(10) 4(10)

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
PREPARATI 0 N Of SPECIMENS

FOR CAGLE EXPOSURE TESTS

SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS SPECIMEN TYPE I 1

0.3“ RING AROUND

Figure 1 Preparation of specimens for cable exposure tests
Figure 2. Outer Shield: Systems 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, and

102, left to right, exposed at Site C for one

year. Severe corrosion on Systems 96, 98, and

102 at window and ring areas.

Figure 3. Outer Shield: Systems 95, 96, 97, and 98, Inner

Shield: Systems 101 and 102, left to right,

exposed at Site C for one year. Severe corrosion

on Systems 96, 93, and 102 at window and/or ring

areas

.

77
Figure 4. Outer Shield: System 95, Sites B, D, E, and G,

top to bottom, exposed for two years. Degradation at the window and ring areas on the speci- men from Site G.

Figure 5. Outer Shield: System 96, Sites B, D, E, and G,

top to bottom, exposed for two years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion on the specimens from Sites B, E, and G severely.

79
Figure 6. Outer Shield: System 97, Sites B, D,

top to bottom, exposed for two years,

tion at the ring area on the specimen

G was severe.

E, and G,

Degradafrom Site

Figure 7. Outer Shield: System 98, Sites B, D, E, and G,

top to bottom, exposed for two years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated degradation

at the window and ring areas on all specimens.

79
Figure 8. Outer Shield: System 101, Sites B, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for two years. Dark areas indicate corrosion at the window and ring areas.

Figure 9. Inner Shield: System 101, Sites B, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for two years. Dark areas indicate corrosion at the window and ring areas

on specimens with severe corrosion on the speci- men from Site G.

80
Figure 10. Outer Shield: System 102, Sites, B, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for two years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion on specimens at window and ring areas with severe corrosion on the specimen from Site G.

Figure 11. Inner Shield: System 102, Sites B, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for two years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion on specimens at window and ring areas, with severe corrosion on the specimen from Site G.

81
Figure 12. Outer Shield: System 89, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for three years.

Light areas indicate perforation due to corrosion at the window and ring areas on the specimen from Site G.

Figure 13. Inner Shield: System 89, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for three years. Dark areas indicate corrosion at the window and ring areas of specimen from Site G.

82
I

i

Figure 14. Outer Shield: System 73, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Dark areas indicate corrosion with severe corrosion

at the window and rings on specimens from Sites

B , C , E , and G

.

i

Figure 15. Inner Shield: System 73, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Severe

degradation at the window and ring areas on the

specimen from Site G.

I 83
Figure 16. Cuter Shield: System 74, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated corrosion on the specimens from all sites.

Figure 17. Inner Shield: System 74, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated degradation on the specimens from Sites C, E, and G.

84
Figure 18. Outer Shield: System 75, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Dark areas indicate corrosion at the window and ring areas on the specimen from Site G.

Figure 19. Inner Shield: System 75, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Specimens were unaffected by corrosion.

85
Figure 20. Outer Shield: System 76, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years.

Coupling this system to copper accelerated corrosion at the window and ring areas as indicated by

dark areas.

Figure 21. Inner Shield: System 76, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. After

coupling this system to copper the shield was unaffected by corrosion.

86
Figure 22. Outer Shield: System 77, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Dark

areas indicate corrosion with severe corrosion

at the window and/or ring areas on all the

specimens

.

Figure 23. Inner Shield: System 77, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left tc right, exposed for four years. Severe

degradation of the window and ring area on the

specimen from Site G.

87
Figure 24. Outer Shield:

left to right,

this system to

the window and

System 78, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

exposed for four years. Coupling

cooper accelerated corrosion at

ring areas.

Figure 25. Inner Shield: System 78, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated degradation on specimens from Sites C, E, and G.

88
Figure 26. Outer Shield: System 79, Sites B, C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Dark areas indicate corrosion with severe corrosion

at the window and ring areas.

Figure 27. Inner Shield: System 79, Sites B, C, D, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Severe

degradation on the specimen from Site G and the

ring area on the specimen from Site C.

89
Figure 28. Outer Shield: System 80, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion on all

specimens severely.

Figure 29. Inner Shield: System 80, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated the degradation

on all specimens.

90
Figure 30 Outer Shield: System 81, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Dark areas indicate corrosion with severe corrosion on the

specimens from Site G.

Figure 31. Inner Shield: System 81, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

Left to right, exposed for four years. Severe

degradation at the window and ring areas on the

specimen from Site G.

91
Figure 32. Outer Shield: System 82, Sties B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion at the

window and ring areas.

Figure 33. Inner Shield: System 82, Sites B, C, 0, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated degradation

severely on the specimens from Sites C and G.

92
Figure 34. Outer Shield: System 83, Sites B, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Severe

corrosion at the window area on the specimen from

Site G.

Figure 35. Inner Shield: System 83, Sites B, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Dark areas indicate severe degradation at the window area on the specimen from Site G.

93
Figure 36. Outer Shield: System 84, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion at the

window and ring areas.

Figure 37: Inner Shield: System 84, Sites B, C, D,^E, and a left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated degradation on the specimen from Site G severely.

94
Figure 38. Outer Shield: System 85, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Severe

corrosion at the window and ring areas on the

specimens from Sites B, C, D, and G.

Figure 39. Inner Shield: System 85, Sites B, C, D, E, and

G, left to right, exposed for four years. Severe

degradation at all examined areas on the specimen

from Site G.

95
Fiqure 40. Outer Shield: System 87, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Dark areas indicate corrosion with severe corrosion at window

and ring areas on specimens from Sites B, C, D, and

G.

Figure 41. Inner Shield: System 87, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. The specimen from Site G was severely degraded.

%
Fiaure 42 Outer Shield: System 88, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

y ' left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated corrosion on all

specimens severely.

Figure 43. Inner Shield: System 88, Sites B, C, D, E, and G,

left to right, exposed for four years. Coupling

this system to copper accelerated degradation or the specimens from Sites C and G.

07

NBS-114A (rev. 2 -ec) U.S. DEPT. Ol* COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 83-2702

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

April 1983

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

CORROSION EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE CABLE SHIELDING MATERIALS

5. AUTHOR(S)

J. L. Fink and E. Escalante

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Con tract/ Grant No.

S. Type of Report & Period Covered

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City. State. ZIP

)

Rural Electrification Administration

Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 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 significant

bibliography 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 six years in six different

soil environments. Metals tested included homogeneous plastic-bonded and metallurgical ly 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 semicolon s) Alloys; corrosion; metal lurgically-bonded; metals; plastic-bonded; soils; telephone

cables; underground

13. AVAILABILITY

| X | Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

{X | Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

99

15. Price

$11.50

USCOMM-DC G043-P80


%