Mechanisms, Procedures, and Instruments to Detect Faults and Defects of
Electro-Optical Oceanic Cable Arrays in SSW vs. FW
Colin Sandwith1 and Michael Welch1
1
Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105 USA
Abstract - All marine cable systems must be immersion tested
prior to final delivery. Selecting and determining the tests and
environments is a compromise between risk and consequence of
early system mortality versus the cost and time of the testing.
Reasons, methods, and instruments for insulation resistance
testing in natural seawater or simulated seawater vs. natural or
fresh water in hydropressure and/or soak tanks are discussed
here. Voltmeters, ohmmeters, and meggers detect and locate two
general models of electrical faults. Detection, failure analyses,
and a novel method of freezing to determine defect location are
also presented.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
We have observed and performed immersion tests using
megohmmeters on cable systems and sonar sensor arrays in
simulated seawater (SSW) to detect and locate extremely small
electrical leak paths, faults, and defects that freshwater (FW) tests
cannot. Hypotheses and likely mechanisms for the increased
sensitivity when using SSW vs. FW are proposed here.
To reduce the risk of system problems or mortality during and
after deployment, there is a critical need to conduct hydropressure
as well as preliminary immersion tests, especially for state of the art
cable systems and sonar arrays with splices and connectors. Testing
is particularly important in new or unproven designs, especially for
fractional kilometer-length arrays with multiple inline components
such as sensors, connectors, splices, varying cable diameters,
overmolds, interfaces etc. Testing of the final assembly, which may
contain repairs or alternate materials that are incorporated during
production, is imperative, especially if the system must work
“perfectly” on the first deployment.
II. TEST DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Typically, a nominal or minimum electrical insulation resistance
(IR) between the cable conductors and test chamber electrolyte or
wall is determined or set jointly by the designers and customers. We
find it better to set the limit for IR for the service environment [1, 2].
For example, 20, 40, 60, or preferably 100 megohms of resistance
can be set as the lower limit in SSW. IR readings below the
specified values are expected to be caused by electrical faults. These
values should be specified taking into consideration circuitry design
requirements, experience with cable reliability, quality, life
expectancy, risk and consequence of infant mortality, molding
processes, manufacturing maturity, possible innate defects, material
concerns, state of design development and history. Joint, splice, or
repair processes and actions need to be stressed by such a test
because this is the last and final measure to reveal problems before
acceptance and service.
A reasonable SSW immersion test of electrical IR and
electro-optics system function is twenty-four hours at maximum test
pressure after stepping up or cycling up and down to pressure while
operating the system and periodically measuring IR of all cable
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
systems and arrays. The possible causes of faults or defects prior to
service are listed here and not necessarily repeated herein:
1. SSW leaks
2. Galvanic cells
3. Improper repairs
4. Thin electrical insulation
5. Cracks and/or pinholes
6. O-ring seal leak
7. Improper mold or adhesive processing
8. Contaminated insulation or jacket
9. Unbonds, discontinuous bonding
10. Contaminated overmold, adhesive interfaces
11. Design flaw
12. Interface imperfection
13. Defective microstructure, nonuniformity
14. Material composition variations
15. Trapped solvent
16. Creep, cutting, and contact
17. Branching or carbon particle/flake networks
Internal part displacement in connectors, or short-term creep
induced electrical or optical problems may also occur and be
detected.
Many costly lessons have been learned that prove the necessity
and value of electrical IR, operation, and pressure testing and
exercising of cable systems in a medium with identical or more
challenging chemical and physical characteristics than the service
environment. Experience has shown that testing of a cable system
and a sonar array that was intended for seawater service in fresh
water can lead to false positive results. An array tested in fresh
water passed an acceptable limit of about 20 megohms insulation
resistance; the same test in SSW resulted in considerably lower
insulation resistance—well below the acceptable limits. Detection
of such faults and defects prevented an almost certain critical
in-service failure.
When measuring IR with VOMs (volt-ohm-milliammeter
ohmmeters) and megohmmeters, the conductive test medium needs
to have the least electrical resistance (highest electrical
conductance) and service composition to insure the highest
sensitivity to leaks and faults in a reasonable amount of time with a
suitable test voltage. Consequently, accurate fault detection and
evaluation of marine cable systems and sonar arrays requires a test
environment with elevated pressure and voltage factors in a
chemically conductive medium with the same composition as that in
which the system will be deployed.
Although the bulk conductivity and composition of SSW vs. FW
may not seem significant for IR testing, they are essential for
maximum sensitivity and duplicating the aggressive service
environment during testing. When the possible electrical faults may
involve microscopic leaks along long, thin, and narrow leak paths,
diffusion along paths across mold/bond lines, through contaminated
dielectrics or charge alignment across imperfect or faulty insulting
layers, the highly ionically conductive dielectric medium provided
by SSW enables the detection of small faults that might otherwise
 be undetected.
Early deployment (infant) mortalities in the form of leaks and
low IR tend to show up in such a test, especially if the test pressure
exceeds the expected service pressure by a factor of about 1.5 or 2
and the megohmmeter voltage exceeds the expected voltages by a
factor of 5, 100, or more. Such pressure over short times should
produce leaks and creep of plastic insulation or of molded insulation
over conductors that are likely to occur, causing electrical resistance
to decrease to a level that would show early service failures. Cable
systems should be exercised or flexed prior to or during IR
immersion testing to open and expose weak bonds, interfaces, seals,
joints, or cracks. Such flexing can open weak and tight cracks to
allow better SSW diffusion or leaking and make the test represent
realities of deployment and service.
Due to increased costs and potential damage to pressure vessels
by corrosion, there is management and engineering reticence to use
SSW in hydropressure, cyclic, or stepped testing. However, the high
to unacceptable cost of service failures often outweighs the people
power and facilities costs of testing. Lessons of corrosion science
can be used to reduce corrosion and contamination of test facilities
and apparatus. Proven methods can reduce corrosion, fouling, and
contamination of pressure test systems [3–11].
If natural seawater (NSW) is the expected service environment,
then NSW or SSW should be the test electrolyte. The SSW should
be similar to or comply with ASTM D1141-98(2003) Standard
Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Ocean Water or be made
from proper Cargill sea salt to about 50 mS/cm conductivity or the
conductivity of the service environment [12, 13].
Not only is the SSW test more sensitive to defects, faults, or
marine service performance but it is the ONLY test that can give the
highest assurance that the system will work in the expected service
environment, with the required IR behavior. A SSW hydropressure
IR and function test is the best protection against infant and later
mortality. There is no substitute or alternative final acceptance test
than the SSW IR hydropressure test to minimize risk. An extended
SSW soak IR test following cable exercising and hydrostatic
function testing is the next best step to reduce risk.
III. TWO FAULT MODELS
There are two definable and detectable kinds, based on test
response and cause, of marine cable electrical faults, defects, low IR,
and erratic electrical readings due to manufacture, material, or
design problems of interest here. Often, they are detected by
different procedures during immersion and hydropressure testing.
Here, the term “fault” refers to an unacceptably low or erratic
(drifting, unstable, or non-repeating) IR or unacceptable voltage
readings between internal cable conductors, strength members, or
system metals and the vessel wall or alternate electrode.
Fault model 1 is at least one water leak path (leak rate from
diffusion up to at least a thin but continuous water leak path)
between one or more cable “metallic” conductors and/or the outside
liquid in the test tank. By definition, this fault model can allow at
least a finite amount of DC current to flow from the conductor or
armor through the electrolyte in the leak, bulk electrolyte, and to the
wall or electrode. Essentially model 1 fault in SSW may be viewed
as a weak battery (galvanic cell), which can be in series or parallel
“or concert” with a “leaky” electrolytic capacitor. The conductor is
one plate, the cable jacket is the normal dielectric, the SSW is an
ionically conductive electrolyte between the jacket and wall or
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
electrode. The galvanic cell is often that produced between the
conductor (often copper alloy), the tank electrolyte (more reactive if
SSW), and the tank wall (often unpainted steel). Examples of leak
paths are cracks, pinholes, etc., as previously listed. Any and all
leakage contributions/effects are additive and enhanced by the
relatively large surface area of the cable and vessel wall. Fault
model 1 is best, and at times only, detected by testing in SSW.
Fault model 2 is not a leak path via SSW through diffusion or
actual liquid path but by design has a continuous dielectric (typical
electrical insulating material such as jacket or plastic) encasing all
metallic conductors; but the encasement is poor (defective) or
imperfect in terms of continuity, uniformity, thickness, composition,
contamination, cohesion, or microstructure. Essentially model 2
faults in SSW might be modeled (thought of) as an imperfect/real
dielectric whose collective surface, interfaces, and interior that have
SSW ions diffused, forced, or migrated into them. An existing or
applied voltage helps diffusion and migration of ions. In certain
cases the collective jackets may be looked at as a “leaky” dielectric
of a pseudo capacitor. Examples of such model 2 faults would be
too thin, poor quality, or damaged insulation jacket, contaminated
bond lines, poor bond interfaces/lines, or trapped foam or bubble
paths in insulation, overmolds, or splices. Further, the mechanism of
conduction by “branching” in plastics or carbon particle/flake
networks in rubbers can also be an example of fault cause. Any and
all fault effects tend to be additive and probability of occurrences
increases with the immersed length and surface area of the cable.
Interestingly, seawater itself can be characterized as an ionically
conductive dielectric. Fault model 2 is also best, and at times only,
detected by testing in SSW.
IV. TESTING WITH SSW VS. FW
The conductivity and behavior of SSW vs. FW is not negligible.
The differences between hydropressure and/or soak testing in SSW
vs. FW seem negligible according to the following argument:
Typical NSW and proper SSW conductivity is about 50 mS/cm.
SSW measured and calculated resistance can be about 0.8 ohms
between the tank/vessel walls and a “typical ohmmeter probe.”
(This practice is not recommended.) Similarly NW (natural water)
TW (tap water) or FW resistance can be about 80 ohms. Hence, the
difference between 0.8 ohms and 80 ohms relative to 20 Mohms
(megohms) or 100 Mohms limits is negligible.
This argument, however, does not take into account the dynamic
and reactive behavior of SSW vs. FW on test surfaces during
hydropressure and/or soak testing when using ohmmeters and
meggers. Such meters impose a voltage gradient across the
electrolyte that produces dynamic changes in the electrolyte, cable
interfaces, vessel, or electrodes. Polarization effects are complicated
by the fact that several processes act in concert in the electrolyte and
interfaces. The polarization effects for SSW are much different than
those of FW, due to the incredible difference in number,
composition, type of ions and neutral/uncharged particles in these
electrolytes. Further, the metal and even nonmetal interfaces can
change by corrosion and/or charging reactions (tend to be dynamic)
depending on which electrolyte is used. Simply stated, SSW
behaves like a very reactive and corrosive electrolyte in a resistor
and pseudo electrolytic capacitor circuit and at times like the
electrolyte in a galvanic cell in a cable with huge surface areas. [2–5,
14, 15]
SSW can create galvanic cells. As the classic SW galvanic series
 clearly shows, the galvanic cells between conductors (engineering
metals) and pressure vessel metals can develop voltages of up to
about 1.5 volt (1,500 mV). As a FW “galvanic” series would show,
FW cells could exhibit nil to maybe a small fraction of what is
developed in SW cells.
SW is very reactive and corrosive compared to FW especially if
there is dissolved oxygen and more so under applied voltages. SW
corrosion cells, at microscopic leaks with any thin layer of SW, act
like batteries that can be charged and discharged. SW, as a dielectric
solution between two plates (metals such as conductors, armor, or
conductive/contaminated plastic insulation layers), is capable of
developing substantial charges compared to FW, by reactions and
ion concentrations across leaks or leaky capacitors, when a voltage
field exists or is applied.
Composition and conductivity of waters vary. Detection of these
two fault models depends primarily on the types and degrees of
cable system perfection or faults from manufacturing, material,
prior exercising, test pressure, times and instruments, cable jacket
IR magnitude, electrolyte leakage, and electrolyte conductivity and
composition. Typical SW is 30 to at least 550 more conductive
than most NW, FW, or TW and tends to be more reactive with any
metallic electrodes. Water such as TW or FW from different sources
differs greatly in conductivity and is neither predictable nor easily
reproducible. Pure water is practically nonconductive. Standard
SSW can be made with consistent, reproducible, and known
conductivity and composition; hence, a more reliable test solution.
SSW ion composition and movement are important. Because real
cable jackets, insulating layers, joints splices, materials, mold lines,
O-rings, seals, and repairs are not perfect, ionic diffusion, especially
by applied voltage, into and even through such dielectrics or
features, is possible. Further, no matter how perfect a real cable
outer jacket and surface, there is always a finite leakage current
through the jacket under these applied voltages. These cable surface
and “bulk” effects are expected to be more dynamic and reactive in
SSW than in FW. Hence, the magnitude of the differences in
megger readings between SSW and FW in cable tests is not
expected by these authors to be equal to the measured differences
between resistivities. However, if the cable has an IR on the order of
gigaohms to infinite by megger reading (ideal cable condition), then
a difference in IR between tests in SSW and FW at low applied
voltages is not expected to differ much, if at all. Hence, if the cable
is real, testing in SSW is critical; but, if the cable is perfect, results
in SSW vs. FW are equal.
VOM and megger readings tend to be dynamic in SSW.
Electrolytes do not conduct electricity in the same fashion as metal
conductors. Metals conduct electricity by motion of “free” electrons
due to a voltage difference. Electrolytes such as SSW and
contaminated FW conduct electricity by motion of ions. Ions can
exist in an electrolyte by its ionization constants at given
temperatures, pH and concentrations, or by reactions at metal or
conductor interfaces. Positive ions are generated (go into solution)
at anodes and positive ions such as H+ can be neutralized at
cathodes by given applied voltages as long as appropriate currents
can flow and charges can be developed and balanced. Negative ions
such as OH– can be generated at cathodes. Typical and classic
corrosion or electro-chemical reactions are also possible at these
electrodes [3–11].
Interestingly, measured resistance at relatively low current flow
under applied voltage across metals such as typical resistors can be
thought of as a relatively static or single-valued quantity when
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
measured with typical ohmmeters where all other conditions such as
temperature, area, humidity and composition are constant. However,
conductivity (inverse of resistivity) in electrolytes between reactive
electrodes can be thought of as dynamic conditions (multiple valued,
drifting and somewhat unrepeatable/irreversible) since they can
change due to chemical, electrochemical, and physical factors as a
result of the typical charging and reactions. Because
electrochemistry is at work when voltage is applied across SSW or
some FW or interfaces, the measured resistances, voltages, charges,
and currents tend to be dynamic, much more so in SSW. Hence
standard meters such as YSI Model 63 must be used to measure
conductivity of SW.
Further, because most VOMs ohmmeters apply a voltage (on
order of 1 to 3 volts DC or a fixed current) across the probes, any
corrosion cell, or leaked SW in that test circuit is bound to react and
show a dynamic or erroneous reading for pure resistance. On
reversing the polarity of the ohmmeter, the reading will often differ
by a factor of ½ to 2 or go off scale, read overload, etc. When SSW
is in the test circuit, the ohmmeter reading will often be unsteady
and drift up or down depending on the polarity and conditions.
If any corrosion cells exist in the circuit a typical volt meter will
read a few to hundreds of millivolts. Readings will often be
unsteady depending on fault metals, size, dissolved gases, and
composition as well as the polarity, time, and internal resistance of
the voltmeter. Charge can exist from previous ohmmeter
measurements or other causes. Discharging can take time (seconds,
minutes to hours). Corrosion (change in chemistry at the interface,
polarization, and passivation) can occur and prevent reproducible
results.
Meggers can be used to detect the dynamics of SW charging and
reactions. The charging times, discharging times during readings
(time constants), drift directions and times and magnitudes can be
informative. Such charging and reactions differ for NSW or SSW vs.
for FW.
Faults can disappear or become undetectable. After removing
cable components from immersion, some microscopic leaks and
layers of SW or SSW can evaporate naturally or be boiled off by
heat or reactions due to current flow. The latter can occur even
during immersion if the volume of electrolyte is microscopic. Once
dry by evaporation and perhaps temporarily sealed by salt deposits,
and then testing as high/good IR, it may become difficult to
reestablish the leak and detect the fault. Re-immersion, pressure,
and time may help. If such faults must be preserved for failure
analysis by autopsy and testing, then prevent evaporation by wet
bagging, avoiding prolonged current flow, and by limiting current
flow through the fault while testing post immersion.
V. FAILURE ANALYSES EXPERIENCE AND SSW IR TESTS
Fault locations tend to be repetitive. Historical service
experience and failure analyses have clearly shown that repairs and
reworks are the most likely locations for defects or faults. In service
faults occur from tension, compression, impacts, fish, abrasion,
cutting, fishing gear, plows, anchors, etc. In production, new or
changed processes, materials, and personnel/operators are likely
causes of imperfect or defective cable systems and hence faults.
Problems tend to be more prevalent at connectors, terminations,
penetrations, splices, joints, stress concentrations, section changes,
and material changes. Hence, best practices require that while cable
systems are in the acceptance and manufacturing stages, repair
 procedures and quality control measures at these locations be
tracked and carefully documented. These measurement records have
proven invaluable even when manufactures and operators are top
quality and diligent, as is most often the case.
Experience has provided the following “lessons learned”
concerning manufacturing conditions. Rushed, stressed, behind
schedule or less trained/skilled personnel/operators tend to be more
likely to make mistakes or create cable quality problems. Best
environments are those where operators are highly trained,
re-trained often, recognized, and rewarded for good quality products
as well as reporting evidence of defects or needs for review,
redesign, or repair. Close cooperation and continuous inspections by
quality control or assurance personnel makes the most reliable
product. Written, reviewed, approved, up-to-date, and followed
manufacturing procedures, processes, material control, and
inspections are critical to producing the most reliable product. Open,
cooperative, competent, and active work/communications between
material control, quality control, and engineering are critical
ingredients for consistent quality product output and absence of
undetected, unreported, or unrepaired defects.
Experience has also provided the following “lessons learned”
regarding raw material control, electronic component control,
manufacturing environmental control, and vendor issues. Careful
and continuous testing, tracking, handling, and storage of raw
materials and components are critical. All parts and rooms need to
be monitored continuously and kept clean, at low humidity (< 50%
RH), and at temperatures well above (e.g., 10ºF >) the dew point.
Specifications for vendors, vendor performance, and consistency
need constant attention, reviews, and periodic updates. Unknown
changes in any ingredients or out-of-specification conditions can
lead to serious cable system problems.
Importantly, the most revealing time to detect and observe
quality or the lack thereof, in the form of accidental conditions or
imperfections, is during manufacture before the final jackets are
closed up.
Simplified SSW IR Test Steps:
1) Prepare SSW to meet the recommended composition and
conductivity standards [12, 13]. Check conductivity with the
YSI model 63 conductivity meter, or equivalent, before, during,
and after cable system test.
2) Perform and record baseline measurements for all IR variables
before immersion. Prior to or during testing, exercise cable.
3) Immerse as much cable system as possible into SSW vessel.
Most stringent tests use pressure cycling or at least stepping
during hydropressure or SSW soaking for 24 hours, overnight,
or several hours. Measure and record initial, during, and end
immersion mV and IR test readings. Periodic system operation
during hydropressure testing is recommended.
4) Measure voltage (mV) between all combinations of conductors to
each other, SSW, and vessel or alternate immersed electrode.
Read and record voltage polarity (voltmeter terminal to which
conductor), sign, and actual value (not pass/fail) at first/initial
instantaneous reading and that after 15 seconds to the nearest
mV (sensitivity), drift direction, rate or magnitude, and time to
stabilize. Make and record the same voltage measurements in
reverse meter polarity. If results show any significant reversal on
voltage sign or unacceptable magnitude (often a few to several
mVs), then track and determine cause. Remedy cause as
required. Repeat measurements. Use the same measurement,
reading, reversal, recording, report, and documentation
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
procedures for ohmmeter and megger measurements.
5) Measure resistance with ohmmeter between all safe (to system
and meter) combinations of conductors to each other, SSW, and
vessel.
6) Measure IR with megger at appropriate voltage between all safe
combinations of conductors to each other, SSW, and vessel.
Always follow proper and safe (to personnel) megger
procedures, including discharging procedures.
7) Repeat voltmeter mV measurements and procedures.
8) Always wash all residual SSW off of tested cables, arrays or
systems immediately after testing—before any evaporation can
occur. Flushing with FW by hose, immersion in FW tank, and a
repeat FW flushing achieves most cleaning objectives. Once salt
is deposited by evaporation, removal of deposits becomes
difficult. Deposits can contaminate other surfaces and increase
abrasiveness of cable surfaces.
9) Ensure that before and during any measurement connections are
made that all terminals, clips, surfaces, and contacts are clean
and dry. Avoid wet or humid conditions. Lowest relative
humidity is best.
Detection of model 1 faults. These faults are easiest to detect and
can be detected by typical VOM ohmmeter or volt meters during
immersion or hydropressure tests. Obvious or blatant leak model 1
faults may be detected in FW, though all but the most obvious are
easier to detect in SSW. Some faults may not be detected in FW
with ohmmeters or voltmeters.
The typical ohmmeter cannot correctly read the resistance
directly if there is a galvanic cell in the circuit, because existing
galvanic cells will bias the ohmmeter reading to give a higher or
lower than actual resistance depending on the polarity of the cell
and the ohmmeter applied voltage or set current. By measuring such
faults in both polarities, the existence of such a fault through a
seawater path can be detected or proven. The locations of such
faults can be determined by slowly removing, immersing, or wetting
the cable while making the readings.
Detection of Model 2 faults. These faults may only be detected
when the electrolyte is SSW. Even when testing in SSW, a megger
may be required to detect such faults. In any case such faults are
more easily detected when tested at maximum allowed voltages
(such as 50, 100, 500 or higher VDC) and when the cable is
immersed in a SSW electrolyte as opposed to FW.
Higher test pressures in SSW typically increase the likelihood of
detecting such faults unless, as in some cases, the crack or leak path
becomes closed or sealed by higher pressures. Faults may not
develop or be detected until the pressure reaches a certain value or
is cycled or causes displacement or creep, which makes contacts or
closes a conductive circuit within the cable or system. In one case, a
stiff copper center conductor, which was terminated by cutting with
dikes at each overmold breakout in a cable array, did not cut into the
insulation and make contact with other conductors until higher
pressures (near service pressures) were applied. When the pressure
was reduced relaxation occurred, the contact was opened and the
fault was not detected, until the pressure was again increased. Again
exercising/flexing helps reveal weak imperfections.
Impedance (EIS = electrochemical impedance spectroscopy) as
well as IR testing of jackets on small-diameter cables has proved
valuable in a previous cable and jacket development program. As
expected, the impedance of the tested thin cable jackets in these
short test cables dramatically decreases with higher test frequencies
and to a lesser degree with time of immersion [2]. EIS evaluation of
 coatings is under development at ASTM and ISO [16]. Tests for
effectiveness, condition, and aging of cable jackets may be applied
or compared with methods to test coatings or paints. The impedance
or capacitance of coatings is used to evaluate their behavior and
aging when exposed to various stressful service environments.

VI. TEST INSTRUMENTS

1) GR-1864 Megohmmeter serial #1864-9700-00; Instruction

Manual Form 1863-0100-00; General Radio 1978, Concord,
Massachusetts, USA
2) High impedance Volt Ohmmeter (modern: typically measure
voltage drop across unknown IR for a set current flow – about 1
microampere); Example: Fluke 87 Series V; Industrial Fig. 2. Autopsied cable with pencil pointing toward the electrical fault and
True-RMS; Instruction Manual PN 2101973, May 2004 galvanic cell at the defective repair.
3) Simpson VOM (older: typically measures IR by leakage current
through unknown IR at known applied voltage)
4) Handheld pH, Conductivity, Salinity and Temperature System;
YSI Model 63
Always refer to and follow instruction manuals to be sure safe
and proper operating techniques are used with all meters.

VII. NOVEL, SIMPLE, AND LEAST DESTRUCTIVE METHOD

TO LOCATE AN INTERNAL SW LEAK

A cable more than several kilometers long (Fig. 1) [17] had a

suspected seawater leak across the internal insulation between a
copper conductor (designed to carry 3 KV) and the outer steel shield
(bronze counter-laid strip design at test time). After some time of
deployment in the ocean, diminishing IR between the center
conductor and the ocean/Earth indicated an electrical problem. At
that time the “suspected” SW leak and “short” was claimed by some
to be caused either by service exposure/handling or fish bite, and it
was claimed that the problems, leaks, shorts, or damage “could not Fig. 3. Closeup of defective and leaking electrical insulation repair
be detected” without extreme (unacceptable) cost and extensive under the shield.
destructive testing.
The SW connection (leaking defect) between the copper
conductor and the outer shield showed clear symptoms of being a
galvanic corrosion cell. It was detected by measuring a few hundred
millivolts in one direction and a negative few hundred millivolts in
the opposite polarity, and by showing about 15 K ohms in one
polarity and 7.5 K ohms with a Simpson VOM in the opposite
polarity between the conductor and shield. The voltage and IR were
both unstable and drifted over the time of measuring by at least
+/– 10%. The ohmmeter reading charged the cell and caused the
typical dynamic mV and IR readings.
First defects or penetrations in the outer jacket were located and
marked along the very long cable by using a special “paint holiday
detector.” The holiday detector was connected, via a commutator on
the take-up reel, between the center copper conductor and a wet
sponge in contact with the outer jacket of the cable during recovery
from the ocean. Several locations where the cable outer jacket had
penetrations through the outer insulating jacket to the outer shield
were detected. The cable was cut in half and the half containing the
SW leak to the copper was determined by voltmeter and ohmmeter
readings.
The SW leak to the center conductor was neither under nor near
any of the detected penetrations in the outer jacket. That
determination was reached by quickly opening and drying the outer
jacket and shield at the few penetrations into the outer jacket over
Fig. 1. Longitudinal cut-away section of submarine cable.
the half cable length that contained the SW galvanic cell and low IR

Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 (“short”). It was surmised that SW had leaked through the outer
jacket and under the bronze tape shield, to the insulation, and then
hosed long distances to some defect in the thick internal insulation.
The challenge was to find that defective insulation without
removing the outer jacket over the entire length in the least
destructive fashion possible. We successfully tried our novel
technique of locating the defect by locally freezing its electrolyte
and observing the changes in readings. The defect was located
exactly (within 3/8 inches) in the most suspect 100 foot length by
the novel method of freezing the cable over successive 6 inch
lengths until the SW in the leak was frozen and hence reduced the
corrosion cell voltage to near zero!
Once located and carefully autopsied, the defective and leaking
insulation repair was obvious (Figs. 2 and 3). It was about 1 inch
long, contained SW and corrosion products. A hair, probably human,
could be seen sticking out from the repair (arrow, Fig. 3). The
manufacturer used records to trace the time of that repair to a period
when management personnel were working the cable production
line and doing the repair due to an operator absence by vacation or
strike.
VIII. FUTURE WORK
1) Statistics are needed to determine the tradeoff involved in IR
SSW soak testing in concert with SSW and/or FW
hydropressure testing to reduce costs and corrosion risks.
2) Define effects on tested surfaces and interfaces by concentration,
activation, and resistance over voltages [2, 8].
3) Define effects of double layer capacitance, time of charging
megger, rate of voltage drop by meter read switch and
voltage/charge relaxation time [2, 8].
4) Use AC as well as DC instruments and tests to provide more
informative IR, impedance, and EIS diagnostics. Tests for
condition and aging of cable jackets may be compared with test
methods for coatings or paints. The difficulties of transmitting
high-frequency AC signal down a long cable must be considered.
Perform circuit analyses on probable fault scenarios to
determine best and expected test results, time constants, and
other symptoms [10, 15].
IX. CONCLUSIONS
1) Not only is the SSW test more sensitive to defects, faults or
marine service performance but it is the ONLY test that can give
the highest assurance that the system will work in the expected
service environment, with the required IR behavior. As with
checking each light bulb, a SSW hydropressure IR and function
test is the best protection against infant and later mortality.
There is no substitute or alternative to minimize risk. An
extended SSW soak IR testing following hydrostatic function
testing is the next best step to reduce risk.
2) SSW or NSW as solutions for hydropressure and/or soak tests
provide a more realistic and demanding test of electrical IR,
sealing, and leaking defects in electro-optical or mechanical
cables than does FW.
3) IR testing in FW can give false passing readings for both model
1 and 2 faults.
4) If a cable system were to exhibit an IR on the order of gigaohms
to infinite by megger readings, then a difference in IR between
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SSW and FW at low applied voltages is not expected to differ
much if at all.
5) Freezing the NSW or other electrolyte in a corrosion cell
reduces or stops corrosion current flow, decreases conductivity
and reduces or suppresses galvanic voltage; hence, freezing
selected lengths of a cable, while monitoring IR and/or mV,
containing a galvanic cell due to leaking can help locate the leak
site. Alternatively, when the electrolyte in a corrosion cell
freezes, no typical corrosion reactions can occur; hence, the cell
voltage approaches zero and the IR becomes that of frozen SW.
6) Because water such as TW or FW from different sources varies
greatly in conductivity they are neither predictable nor easily
reproducible. Pure water is practically nonconductive. Standard
SSW can be made with consistent, reproducible, and known
conductivity and composition; hence SSW is more reliable as a
test solution.
Acknowledgments
Technical comments and reviews from Dr. Robert Ruedisueli (U.S.
Navy, NAVSEA, Carderock Division), Dr. Thomas Sanford, Russell
Light, and Jim Carlson (all APL-UW) are greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] Sandwith, C.J., E.R. Dunston, and A.A. Sieger, Analysis of an
underwater hydrophone recovered from the Barking Sands
Tactical Underwater Range after 21 years of service,”
Proceedings, Oceans ‘90, Washington, D.C., 1990.
[2] Sandwith, C.J. and R.L. Ruedisueli, Corrosion and aging
tests—via measurements of insulation resistance, impedance,
and electrochemical noise—on jackets of small-diameter,
armored, fiber-optic cables with and without simulated
biofouling damage, Proceedings, Ocean Community
Conference ’98, November 16–18, Baltimore, Maryland
[CD-ROM], Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C.
[3] Sandwith, C.J., and R.K. Kent, Velocity-affected corrosion, in
Failure Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 11 of the ASM
Handbook series, edited by W.T. Becker and R.J. Shipley,
788–795, Materials Park, OH, ASM International, 2002.
[4] Shreir, L.L. Corrosion, Newnes-Butterworths, London and
Boston, 1979.
[5] ASM Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 13: Corrosion, ASM
International, 1987.
[6] Sandwith, C.J., and R.L. Ruedisueli, An experiment to reduce
corrosivitiy in submarine sonar domes by nitrogen injections,”
Proceedings, Oceans’95 MTS/IEEE Conference, 1134–1138,
1995.
[7] Sandwith, C.J., R.L. Ruedisueli, J.P. Papageorge, and B.A. Eng,
Initial results of monitoring corrosivity in submarine sonar
domes: The Dome Water Monitoring Instrumentation System
(DWMIS) Experiment, January - August 1993, Proceedings,
Oceans’96, MTS/IEEE Conference, Brest, France, 1994.
[8] Sandwith, C.J., R.L. Ruedisueli, K.G. Booth, J.P. Papageorge,
and B.A. Eng, Monitoring corrosion in submarine sonar domes,
Proceedings, OCEANS ’93 MTS/IEEE Conference, Washington,
D.C., 1993.
[9] Sandwith, C.J., R.L. Ruedisueli, and K.G. Booth, Seawater
monitoring instrumentation system,” Proceedings, MTS ‘92,
Washington, D.C., 1992.
 [10] Fontana, M.G., Corrosion Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1986.
[11] Boyd, W.K., and F.W. Fink, Corrosion of Metals in Marine
Environments, Metals and Ceramics Information Center,
Columbus, OH, 1978.
[12] Standard Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Ocean
Water, Document Number: ASTM D1141-98e1, ASTM
International, 2003.
[13] See the Cargill, Inc., website at:
http://www.cargill.com/index.htm
[14] Sandwith, C.J., and R.L. Ruedisueli, Corrosion resistance of
certain strength wires used in small fiber-optic cables exposed
to seawater,” Proceedings, Oceans ’97 MTS/IEEE Conference,
Vol. 2, 957–963, 1997.
Authorized licensed use limited to: M S RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on April 24,2010 at 07:12:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[15] Sandwith, C.J., R.L. Ruedisueli, A.L. James, and G.E.
Gotthardt, Resistance of steel strength wires used in small
fiber-optic cables to seawater corrosion, Proceedings,
Oceans'96 MTS/IEEE Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
Vol. 1, 511–516, 1996.
[16] Loveday, D., P. Peterson, and B. Rodgers, Evaluation of
organic coatings with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy,
Part 2: Application of EIS to coatings, JCT Coatings Tech,
October, 2004
[17] Sandwith, C.J., W.D. McCormick, J.A. Thornton, D.R. Wise,
and R.I. Odom, Demonstration of fiber-strain measurement
using a Brillouin optical-fiber time-domain analysis system,
Proceedings, Ocean Community Conference ’98 [CD-ROM],
MTS, Washington, D.C., 1998.