EL - 3333 - V1 - Maximum Safe Pulling Lengths For Solid Dielectric Insulated Cables

Maximum Safe Pulling Lengths for Solid
Dielectric Insulated Cables

Volume 1: Research Data and Cable-Pulling
Parameters
EL-3333, Volume 1
Research Project 1519-1
Final Report, February 1984
Prepared by
PIRELLI CABLE CORPORATION

800 Rahway Avenue
Union, New Jersey 07083
Principal Investigators
D. A. Silver
G. W. Seman
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

270 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Principal Investigators
R. A. Bush
G. H. Matthews
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute

3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project Manager

T. Kendrew
Distribution Program
Electrical Systems Division
11096704
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to Research Reports Center
(RRC), Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (415) 965-4081. There is no charge for reports
requested by EPRI member utilities and affiliates, U.S. utility associations, U.S. government
agencies (federal, state, and local), media, and foreign organizations with which EPRI has an
information exchange agreement. On request, RRC will send a catalog of EPRI reports.
Research Categories: T&D: Underground lines

Design of systems
Copyright© 1984 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
NOTICE
This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI). Neither EPRI. members of EPRI, the organization(s) named below, nor any
person acting on behalf of any of them: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any
information, apparatus. method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe privately
owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of,
any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.
Prepared by
Pirelli Cable Corporation
Union, New Jersey
and
Georgia Power Company
Atlanta, Georgia
11096704
ABSTRACT
This two-volume report presents the results of a recent program to investigate and
update the parameters that affect the maximum safe pulling length for solid
dielectric cables.
In this program, 23 types of solid dielectric cables rated 600 V through 138 kV were
studied. The cables had copper and aluminum conductors in sizes from 1/0 AWG
(54 rmn2 ) to 2500 kcmil (1266 rmn2 ) and insulations of cross-linked polyethylene and
ethylene propylene rubber.
The areas of investigation included the following:
• Compatibility of pulling lubricants with cable and duct materials
• Determination of the coefficients of friction in lubricated and non-

lubricated ducts
• Evaluation of the tension limits for cable pulled with pulling eyes
and pulling grips
• Response of various cable constructions to shearing forces
• Dynamic sidewall bearing pressure limits for various cable designs
The results of the laboratory test program at Pirelli Cable Corporation were
verified and augmented by testing performed at a field test site at Georgia Power
Company.
This program resulted in the recormnendation of updated levels of maximum pulling

tension, friction coefficients, and maximum sidewall-bearing pressure.
A cable user's guide has also been prepared and is presented in a companion document
(Volume 2).
iii
11096704
11096704
EPRI PERSPECTIVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Determining the maximum safe pulling lengths for power and control cables is essen-
tial for designing the most cost-effective and reliable cable system by reducing the
number of cable splices and splice enclosures. Since cable splices are considered
to be less reliable than the factory-produced cable, reducing the number of cable
splices results in a more reliable cable system.
Theoretical methods for calculating the pulling tensions and sidewall pressures to
be expected in pulling cable through a duct were established more than 30 years
ago. At that time, many of the variable factors that influence these calculations
were not well known due to the lack of adequate test data. Consequently, safety
factors were incorporated in the equations to produce values known to be overly
conservative. Cable construction, types of materials used, and installation prac-
tices for underground construction have changed during the last 30 years. It is not
known how the various cable components of newer cables interact when subjected to
the forces produced during a cable pull. The maximum allowable pulling tensions and
sidewall pressures to which modern cables may be subjected without damage is also
unknown. The development of complete and reliable data to formulate cable-pulling
guidelines would provide the cable engineer with a needed tool to design the best
system.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this research project (RP1519-l) were (1) to determine and
~uantify the factors that influence the lengths of cables, rated 600 V and 15 kV
through 138 kV, that can be pulled through duct structures without damaging the
cable and (2) to develop comprehensive guidelines to calculate safe pulling lengths
for the various cable designs and conditions that are likely to be encountered in
practice.
11096704
PROJECT RESULTS
The findings of this project are both numerous and important; only the most signifi-
cant can be listed here. Of particular interest is the conclusion that compression-
type pulling eyes customarily employed with aluminum conductor cables significantly
limit maximum pulling tensions and, hence, limit cable lengths. Increases in pull-
ing tensions on the order of 40 to 50% can be achieved through the use of epoxy-
filled pulling eyes.
Literature searches made during the course of this project indicated that calcula-
tion values in current use are too conservative when used with cables of modern
construction and materials. One of the most significant limiting values that affect
a cable pull is sidewall-bearing pressure. Literature searches produced values from
as low as 150 lbs/ft to as high as 400 lbs/ft. Laboratory and field tests proved
these values to be conservative by factors of 6 to 10.
Volume 2 of this final report is an engineer's handbook for pulling cable. A compu-
ter program (CABLPUL) is also included as part of Volume 2 to aid the engineer in
lengthy cable-pulling calculations.
T. J. Kendrew, Project Manager

Electrical Systems Division
vi
11096704
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Messrs. R. Schwerdt, S. Rubin-

stein, M. D. Bucl-weitz and F. L. Kuchta of Pirelli Cable Corporation. Mr. Schwerdt
conducted the majority of the numerous tests performed under this program in a very
thorough and efficient manner. Mr. Rubinstein designed many of the pieces of exper-
imental apparatus employed in the tests. Messrs. Buckweitz and Kuchta prepared the
Cable Pulling Guide (Volume 2).
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance received from the following Georgia Power
Company personnel for their indispensible participation in the field test program:
Mr. T. Champion (Research Laboratory) for his preliminary site designs as

well as the design and installation of the monitoring system.
Mr. T. Conners (Civil Engineering) for the final detailed design of the
duct system and pull boxes.
Mr. D. Peters (Atlanta Division Underground) for his assistance and advice
during initial pulls and the generous loan of pulling crews and equipment
when requested.
A special note of thanks to Mr. W. Koch (Baltimore Gas & Electric) for his timely
advice and assistance.
Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. N. Hogg (Hogg & Davis, Inc.) for his generous
loan of the HC-135 puller tensioner for the duration of the field testing program.
vii
11096704
11096704
CONTENTS
Section
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART 2-1

Literature Search 2-1
Synopsis of Reference Papers 2-2
Industry Survey 2-6
Results of Survey 2-7
Summary 2-8
3 TEST PROGRAM 3-1

Cables Studied in the Test Program 3-3
Determination of Original Electrical Characteristics 3-4
of Cables
4 COMPATIBILITY OF PULLING LUBRICANTS WITH CABLE AND DUCT MATERIALS 4-1

Test Results 4-1
Room Temperature and 100% Relative Humidity Aging 4-1
60°C (140°F) Air Oven Aging 4-13
5 DETERMINATION OF COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION 5-1

General 5-1
Tests at Low Normal Force 5-2
Test Set-Up and Procedure 5-2
Speed Trials 5-2
Coefficients of Friction (Ducts Without Lubricant) 5-4
Coefficients of Friction (Ducts With Lubricant) 5-4
Determination of Coefficient of Friction vs. Normal Force 5-10
Test Results 5-15
6 TENSILE TESTS 6-1

Tests With Pulling Eyes 6-4
Tests With Pulling Grips 6-9
ix
11096704
Section
7 TENSION/SHEAR TEST 7-1

General 7-1
Test Program and Results 7-4
8 SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TESTS 8-1

General 8-1
Single Bend Test 8-1
Test Apparatus & Procedure 8-1
Test Results 8-9
Field Test Program 8-14
Introduction 8-14
Site Construction 8-17
Test Equipment 8-22
Test Procedure 8-26
Site Preparation 8-26
Cable Installation 8-29
Cable Pull 8-30
Cable Removal 8-32
Post Test Examination & Evaluation 8-32
Calculations 8-33
Data Acquisition 8-33
Test Results 8-35
Observations 8-47
Lubricc>n ts 8-47
Pulling Speed 8-4 7
Pulling Grips and Eyes 8-48
Duct Wear 8-49
Temperature 8-51
Surging 8-53
Jamming 8-57
11096704
Section
9 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 9-1

Conclusions 9-1
Recommendations 9-2
Coefficients of Friction 9-2
Pulling Tension Limits 9-2
Sidewall Bearing Pressure Limits 9-7
General Recommendations 9-7
APPENDIX A REFERENCE DOCUMENTS A-1
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE ON PRESENT PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES B-1

IN INSTALLATION OF EXTRUDED DIELECTRIC CABLES
APPENDIX C TESTS PROCEDURES FOR DIELECTRIC STRENGTH TESTS ON C-1

FULL SIZE CABLES
xi
11096704
11096704
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
5-1 Cable Loading Carriage for High Loading Coefficient of Friction Tests 5-12
5-2 Test Apparatus for Measuring Coefficient of Friction versus Normal 5-13
Force
a) Overall View of Test Set-Up 5-13
b) Loading Carriage 5-14
c) Underside of Loading Carriage with Cable Sample 5-14
Temporarily Held in Place with Twine
5-3 Calibration Carriage for Friction Test 5-16
6-1 Baldwin Horizontal Tensile Testing Machine Maximum Tension 6-2

120,000 Pounds (54.4 x 10 3 kg) Test Sample Length 3 Feet (1 m)
to 65 Feet (20 m)
6-2 Location of Markers on Sample During Tension Tests 6-3
6-3 Preparation of Aluminum Conductors for Use of Aluminum Epoxy in 6-6

Pulling Eyes
6-4 Typical Tensile Failure for Aluminum Conductors Using Epoxy 6-7
Filled Pulling Eyes
a) 1750 kcmil (886 mm 2 ) Conductor 6-7
b) 4/0 AWC (107 mm 2 ) Conductor 6-7
c) 1/0 AWG (54 mm 2 ) Solid Conductor 6-8
6-5 Comparison of Condition of Lead Sheath After Single and Three 6-14
Conductor Cable Pulls Using Steel Hire Grip
7-1 Schematic of Proposed Method for Gripping Sample During Tension/ 7-2
Shear Tests
7-2 Restraining Device Used in Tension/Shear Tests 7-3
8-1 Plan View of Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test Facility 8-2
8-2 Concrete Pylon Used to Mount Duct Elbows for Sidewall Bearing 8-3
Pr es sure Test
a) 6 Inch (1.5 cm) Diameter, 6 Foot (1.83 o) Radius 8-3
PVC Elbow
b) 3.5 Inch (8.9 cm) Diameter, 1.83 Foot (0.56 m) Radius 8-3
Galvanized Steel Elbow
xiii
11096704
Figure
8-2 Concrete Pylon Used to Mount Duct Elbow for Sidewall Bearing 8-4
Pressure Test
c) Overall View of Pylon 8-4
8-3 Main Components of Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test Set-Up 8-6

a) Tensioning Cart 8-6
b) Pulling Winch 8-6
c) Concrete Pylon Holding Sheave 8-7
d) Load Cell Mounted on Hydraulic Cylinder of Tensioning Cart 8-7
e) Tensioning Cart Mounted on Steel Tracks Prior to Start of 8-8
Test
8-4 Line Diagram of Field Test Site 8-15
8-5 Cross Section of Duct Runs 8-18
8-6 Duct Banks Under Construction 8-19
8-7 Cable Removal Detail 8-20
8-8 Pull Box and Trench Construction 8-21
8-9 Pull Box Detail 8-24
8-10 Block Dia5ram of Electrical System 8-25
8-11 Flow Chart of Test Procedure 8-27
8-12 Cable Being Lubricated 8-31
8-13 Operator Applying Back Tension 8-31
8-14 Typical Pulling and Back Tensions as a Function of Time 8-34
8-15 Indentations Into Insulation Shield of Cable Item 9 8-42
8-16 Cable Item 6 Exiting High Tension Bend 8-42
8-17 Cross Section of Cable Item 9 Showing Indentations 8-42
8-18 Typical Steel Duct Wear 8-50
8-19 Heavy PVC Duct Wear 8-50
8-20 Severe PVC Duct Wear to Underlying Concrete 8-50
8-21 High Side Duct Bend Temperature Rise During Cable Pull 8-52
xiv
11096704
Figure
8-22 Surging as a Function of Pulling Speed 8-55
8-23 Resonant Surging Phenomenon 8-56
8-24 Typical Rope-Jumps 8-57
8-25 Wedging of Cable Into Rope Groove 8-58
8-26 Damage to Jacket Resulting From Wedging of Cable Item 7 Into 8-61
Rope Groove
xv
11096704
11096704
TABLES
Table
3-1 List of Cables Studied in the Program 3-5
3-2 Dimensions of Cables Studied in the Program 3-6
3-3 Conductor DC Resistance of Full Size Cables 3-8
3-4 AC Dielectric Strength of Full Size Cables 3-9
3-5 Power Factor and Partial Discharge of Full Size Cables 3-10
4-1 Listing of Materials and Lubricants Included in Compatibility Study 4-2
4-2 Compatibility of Pulling Lubricants with Cable Materials 4-4

(Physical Properties of Cable Materials After 2 Months Aging
@ Room Temperature & 100% Relative Humidity)



(Volume Resistivity of Semiconducting Shield Materials in
Ohm-cm at R.T. After Aging at Room Temperature & 100% Relative
Humidity)

(Electrical Properties of Cable Materials After 2 Months Aging
at Room Temperature & 100% Relative Humidity)


4-9 Compatibility of Pulling Lubricants with Cable r1aterials 4-11

(Environmental Stress Cracking at Room Temperature & 100%
Relative Humidity After 12 Months)
xvii
11096704
Table
4-10 Compatibility of Metals and Ducts with Pulling Lubricants After 4-12
12 Months@ Room Temperature & 100% Relative Humidity
4-11 Compatibility of Pulling Lubricants with Cable Material.s 4-14

(Physical Properties of Cable Materials After 1 Month Aging
@ 60°C (140°F) in an Air Oven)


@ 60°C (140°F) in•an Air Oven)


(Volume Resistivity of Semiconducting Cable Materials in Ohm-cm
at R.T. After Aging@ 60°C (140°F) in an Air Oven)

(Electrical Properties of Cable Materials After 1 Month Aging


5-1 Coefficients of Dynamic Friction vs. Pulling Speed 5-3

(room temperature, no lubricant)
5-2 Static and Dynamic Coefficients of Friction in Various Ducts 5-5

Without Lubricants@ 25°C (77°F)
5-3 Static and Dynamic Coefficients of Friction in Various Ducts 5-6

Without Lubricants@ -7°C (20°F)
5-4 Static and Dynamic Coefficients of Friction for Single Cable 5-7
Pulls in Ducts with Lubricant at 25°C (77°F)
5-5 Static and Dynamic Coefficients of Friction for Single Cable 5-8
Pulls in Ducts with Lubricant at -7°C (20°F)
5-6 Static and Dynamic Coefficients of Friction for Three Cable Pulls 5-11
in Ducts with Lubricant at 25°C (77°F)
5-7 Measured Dynamic Coefficients of Friction as a Function of Normal 5-17

Force (Lubricant Soap & Water Base)
xviii
11096704
Table
6-1 Summary of Tension Test Results (Pulling Grip Only) 6-5
6-2 Summary of Original and Post-Test Electrical Measurements on 6-10

Samples from Pulling Eye Tension Tests
6-3 Summary of Straight Tension Test Results Pulling Grip Only 6-12
6-4 Summary of Original and Post-Test Electrical Measurements on 6-13

Samples from Pulling Grip Tension Tests
7-1 Code for Loading Configurations for Tension/Shear Tests 7-5
7-2 Tabulation of Tension/Shear Tests - Load Applied to Sample 7-6

Through Pulling Devices
7-3 Summary of Results of Shear Tests 7-7
7-4 Stress at Failure Under Shear Test 7-9
8-1 Summarized Results of Dynamic Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test 8-10
8-2 Results of Dielectric Strength Tests on Cable Samples from 8-11

Dynamic Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test
8-3 Results of Electrical Measurements on Cable Samples from 8-12

Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test
8-4 Summary of Physical Examination of Cables From Sidewall Bearing 8-13

Pressure Test After Dielectric Strength Test
3-5 Field Test Program 8-16
8-6 Field Test Program - Test Results

Two Bend - Configuration 1 8-36
Four Bend - Configuration 2 8-37
8-7 Field Test Program Dimensional Check of Cables 8-38
8-8 Field Test Program Results of DC Conductor Resistance Measurements 8-41
8-9 Percent Average Reduction of Shield Thickness Caused by Indenting 3-43

of Wires
8-10 Field Test Program - Results of Electrical Tests

Two Bend - Configuration 1 8-45
Four Bend - Configuration 2 8-46
9-1 Recommended Dynamic Coefficients of Friction (Straight Fulls & 9-3

Bends with Bearing Pressures Less than 150 lbs/ft. Soap and
Water Base Lubricants)
xix
11096704
Table
9-2 Recommended Dynamic Coefficients of Friction (Single and Three 9-4

Cable Pulls Bends with Sidewall Pressures of 150 lbs/ft or
Greater (All Lubricants))
9-3 Recommended Maximum Pulling Tensions (Copper and Aluminum Conductor 9-5
Cables (Pulling Eyes))
9-4 Recommended Maximum Pulling Tensions (Copper and Aluminum Conductor 9-6
Single and Three Cables per Pull (Pulling Grips))
9-5 Recommended Maximum Sidewall Bearing Pressures 9-8
xx
11096704
SUMMARY
The objective of this project was to investigate the factors which affect the max~
imum safe pulling length for solid dielectric insulated cables. Present methods
and guidelines for determining the pulling tensions and sidewall bearing pressures
to be expected in pulling cable(s) through duct were established over 30 years ago.
Cable constructions, materials and installation practices have changed during the
intervening years. The determination of the maximum allowable pulling tensions
and sidewall bearing pressures for modern design cable permits the cable user to
design systems which are more reliable and economical in that the number of joints
and joint enclosures will be minimized.
In this program, twenty-three cables of current design were studied. The voltage
ratings of the cables were 600V, 15, 25, 35, 69 and 138kV. Cables had copper and
aluminum conductors in sizes from 1/0 AWG (54mrn 2 ) through 2500 kcmil (1266mm 2 ). The
insulation materials were crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) and ethylene propylene
rubber (EPR). The jacket materials included neoprene (N), polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
low density high molecular weight polyethylene (LDPE), medium density polyethylene
(MDPE) and lead sheath. Cables with concentric wire neutral conductors without
further covering and with LDPE and semiconducting polyethylene (SCPE) encapsulating
jackets were included in the program.
The compatibility of seven commercially available pulling compounds with various

cable outer coverings and duct materials was evaluated. The lubricants were either
soap, bentonite clay or talc mixtures with water. The duct materials included gal-
vanized steel, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, transite, concrete and bitumenized
fibre. The aging tests were performed at room temperature and 100% relative humid-
ity and at 60°C (140°F) in an air oven.
The physical, electrical and environmental stress cracking properties of the cable
coverings in contact with the lubricating compounds were investigated over a one
year period. No significant degradation was observed.
S-1
11096704
The static and dynamic coefficients of friction between various cable coverings and
ducts were measured at room temperature and -7°C (20°F) with and without pulling
lubricants. During the course of the program, it was determined that the dynamic
coefficient of friction for lubricated cables in ducts varies as a function of the
normal force between the cable and duct. The coefficients of friction at low nor-
mal force, which is the case for straight pulls and low tension bends, vary over a
large range (from 0.14 to >l) depending on the cable and duct material. At high nor-
mal force the magnitude and range of coefficients of friction is lower having values
in the order of 0.08 to 0.30.
The tensile limits for pulling cables with eyes and grips were determined. With
pulling eyes the maximum tension was limited by the eye itself. This was espec-
ially evident with compression eyes on aluminum conductors. The use of an aluminum
epoxy filled pulling cup was found to considerably increase the tensile limits for
pulling of aluminum conductors. The use of solder type eyes with copper conductors
will also increase the pulling tension limit. The test results permit an increase
in the pulling tension limits on copper and aluminum conductors by 60 and 75%, re-
spectively, over present recommended practice.
The results of tensile tests using steel wire basket type pulling grips indicate
that pulling tension limits in excess of the currently employed value of 1000 lbs.
(454 kg) can be safely employed without damage to the cable being pulled. The max-
imum safe pulling tension limits for pulling cables with grips are dependent on the
cable construction. The cable constructions can be grouped into three categories
with respect to their response to tensile loading with a pulling grip, namely:
• Cable constructions where the compressive force of the grips is ef-

fectively transmitted to the conductor, such as 600V EPR and PE in-
sulated cables, and XLPE insulated cables with concentric neutral
wires and encapsulating jackets.
• Cable constructions where the force is not effectively transmitted

to the conductor such as concentric wire shielded cables with sleeved
jackets, cables having longitudinally corrugated (LC) shields and EPR
insulated lead sheathed cables.
• Cables with MDPE/HDPE jackets where the pulling grip tends to slide
off the jacket rather than dig into it.
S-2
11096704
It was also determined that the maximum tension limits for pulling grips are the
same or lower when one grip is used to pull three cables as compared to using one
grip to pull one cable due to the inability of the grip to seat properly around
the three cables.
In order to evaluate the behavior of various cable constructions to shearing forces,

such as those that might exist in a duct elbow under conditions of high friction
coefficients, selected cable constructions were subjected to a Tension/Shear Test
in which the outer component of the cable was restrained without a compressive force
being applied to the cable core. This test condition was more severe than would be
experienced in the field since there is always a compressive component on at least
a small proportion of the cable circumference. However, when the cables were loaded
under tension until some component either failed or elongated substantially, it was
found that the tensile load was being effectively transmitted to the cable core
since the applied stresses were much higher than the tensile limits of the outer
cable member alone.
The twenty-three cable constructions were subjected to a Sidewall Bearing Pressure

(SWBP) Test to determine the maximum sidewall bearing pressure limits of each con-
struction. These tests were performed at Pirelli Cable Corporation in a single bend
test facility. Cables were subjected to increasing sidewall bearing pressures until
some physical distress was observed. New samples were subjected to SWBP approximate-
ly 10% below the damage threshold level and then tested electrically to verify that
there was no deterioration in their operating characteristics.
Selected cable constructions were then tested at a Field Test Site at Georgia Power
Company. This test site had cable duct configurations having two and four 90° bends.
The cables were pulled in single and three conductor configurations with back ten-
sions applied so that the maximum sidewall bearing pressures were equal to those used
in the tests at Pirelli Cable. The results from the Field Test Site substantiated
the data obtained in the laboratory and also contributed valuable insight into other
factors that should be considered during long high tension cable pulls. These fac-
tors included duct wear due to abrasion of the pulling line and/or pulling grip, ef-
fect of pulling line friction coefficient, surging, temperature rise in ducts, duct
bank construction and cable wedging in grooves in the duct elbows. The recommended
sidewall bearing pressure limits range from 1000 to 2500 lb/ft. (1490 - 3720 kg/m)
as compared to the currently accepted limit of 150 - 400 lb/ft. (220 - 595 kg/m).
S-3
11096704
The data and experience obtained during this program have been used to develop up-
dated recommended values of friction coefficient, maximum tension levels for cables
pulled with pulling eyes and grips and maximum sidewall bearing pressures for vari-
ous cables and cable constructions.
The recommended levels have been incorporated into a cable users guide for the de-
termination of maximum safe pulling lengths for solid dielectric cable rated 600V
through 138kV. This guide constitutes Volume 2 of this report and includes samples
of calculations of pulling tension for a typical pull. Techniques are given for
hand calculation and a computer program are also furnished.
S-4
11096704
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
Determination of maximum safe pulling lengths for electrical cable is essential for
designing the most cost effective, reliable cable system. Installation of the long-
est possible length that can be pulled reduces the number of joints and joint enclo-
sures. Since joints are considered to be less reliable than the factory produced
cable, reducing the number of joints increases the overall reliability of the cable
system.
Theoretical methods for calculating pulling tensions and sidewall bearing pressures
to be expected in pulling cable through a duct were established over 30 years ago.
At that time, many of the variable factors that influence these calculations were
not well known due to the lack of adequate test data. Consequently, safety factors
were incorporated in the equations to produce values known to be overly conservative.
Cable constructions, materials and installation practices for underground construc-

tion have changed during the last 30 years. It was not known how the various cable
components of newer cables interact when subjected to the forces produced during a
cable pull. Neither were the maximum allowable pulling tensions and sidewall bear-
ing pressures known to which modern cables may be subjected without damage.
The objective of this research program was therefore to determine and quantify the
factors that influence the maximum pulling lengths of solid dielectric cables rated
600 volts and lSkV through 138kV that could be installed through duct structures
without damage.
In this regard, data pertaining to the physical characteristics of extruded cable

structures, coefficients of friction between cables and ducts, maximum allowable
pulling tensions on aluminum and copper conductors with pulling eyes or pulling
grips and maximum sidewall bearing pressures were determined during the course of
the program.
1-1
11096704
Utilizing the parameters obtained in this project, a pulling guide was prepared
for determination of maximum safe pulling lengths of extruded dielectric power
cables rated 600 volts through 138kV.
1-2
11096704
Section 2
ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART
LITERATURE SEARCH
Manual and computer literature searches were conducted for information relating to
maximum safe pulling lengths for solid dielectric insulated cables. Relevant terms
used in these searches included, "cable pulling", "pulling tensions", "installation
methods", "coefficient of friction", "sidewall bearing pressure", "power cable",
"solid dielectric insulation", "cable ducts", and combinations thereof.
A computer search was conducted in several data bases, including, NTIS (National
Technical Information Service), 1964 - 1979; COMPENDEX (Engineering Index), 1970 -
present; INSPEC (Electrical and Electronics Abstracts and Physics Abstracts), File
12, 1969 - 1977 and File 13, 1978 - present; ISMEC (Information Service in Mechan-
ical Engineering), 1973 - present; and GPO MONTHLY CATALOG (Monthly Catalog of
United States Government Publications), July 1976 - present. Approximately seven
published articles were retrieved which pertain to this project.
The manual search focused on the Minutes of the Spring and Fall Meetings of the
Insulated Conductors Committee of the AIEE/IEEE (Nov. 1951 - May 1979). Relevant
data on pulling tensions were retrieved. Also examined were Applied Science and
Technology Index (1965 - 1979), Lead Industries Association Lead Abstracts (1969 -
1979), Copper Development Association CDA Extracts (1965 - 1977), AICC ICC Classi-
fied Bibliography on Insulated Conductors (1930 - 1971), AIEE Transactions Indexes
(1922 - 1959), IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems Index (1960 - 1974).
Several monographs were examined for contents on cable installation and pulling
tensions. These included Underground Systems Reference Book published by Edison
Electric Institute (1959); Edison Electric Institute Transmission and Distribution
Committee, Meeting Minutes (1960 - 1968); the Insulated Power Cable Engineers Asso-
ciation IPCEA Handbook (1966); Siemens A. G. Power Cables and their Applications
(1970); Aluminum Association Publications and IEEE Standards Publications.
2-1
11096704
References listed in the pertinent publications were examined resulting in addition-
al publications which were of interest in determining the state-of-the-art in cable
pulling.
A total of thirty-four publications concerned with cable pulling tensions and those
factors having a bearing thereon, were collected from the literature search. These
publications are listed in Appendix A.
The thirty-four publications listed in Appendix A span a time period from 1925 to
1977. Their content provides background information which is relevant to the de--
velopment of pulling tension determination procedures employed in current cable
installation design procedures and practices.
SYNOPSIS OF REFERENCE PAPERS
The synopsis which follows covers selected Reference Papers whose content empha-
sizes those factors which are viewed as having significant influence on the pulling
length limitations for successful cable installation.
1. Cable Installation, Serial Report of the Underground Systems Committee;

National Electric Light Association, February 1926.
This report advises that the Committee activities were directed to

determination of maximum pulling stress that could be applied to
cable without impairing its electrical characteristics. Reference
is given to a new practice of securing the copper conductor/sand
lead sheath to transfer pulling stresses to the copper. A solder
wiped pulling eye design is shown. In summary, based upon reports
from manufacturers and operating companies, the Committee concluded
that "it would appear that in the ordinary installations of cable,
no serious electrical harm can be done to the cable unless there is
visible mechanical injury."

National Electric Light Association, May 1927.
The report emphasizes the procedures for application of lubricant to

the cable or duct. The relative effectiveness of soapstone and grease
are discussed. Soapstone was generally considered to be the better
lubricant for use in monolithic concrete ducts and grease for fiber
ducts.
2-2
11096704
3. Cable Installation, A Report of the Underground Systems Committee;
National Electric Light Association, November 1929.
Comments are presented that (1) no limit to the pulling stress had
been set by manufacturers or users of power cables and (2) the max-
imum stress to which cable is subject during installation is the
only basis for determining a) if the cable has been injured and b)
the safe maximum stress to which cable may be subjected. It is
further stated that lubrication selection should be left to the in-
stalling company.
Tests were conducted in a given duct configuration to establish that

maximum pulling tension may be considered proportional to weight of
cable per duct foot. It is stated that conclusions regarding tabu-
lated coefficients of friction derived from over 2000 pulls are not
considered possible since allowance for effects of duct curvature,
bends, and duct conditions could not be made.
4. Underground Systems Reference Book; National Electric Light Assoc-

iation, 1931.
Recommendations and comments are provided regarding coefficient of

friction, examination of cable sheath for damage, limitation of
strain on copper, lubrication, clearance between duct and cable,
effect of duct radius of curvature on pulling tension and speed of
pulling.
It is stated that, based upon tests and experience, satisfactory

operation of installed cable is assured provided that it has suf-
fered no mechanical injury.
5. Pulling Loads on Single and Multiple Conductor Impregnated-Paper Lead

Encased Cable, Solid Type, by A.P.S. Bellis; AIEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 62, March 1943.
Recognition is given to the information provided by the four preced-

ing reference documents discussed above.
The relationship of maximum permitted sheath "gouging" and pulling

strain is discussed for cable having a pulling eye attached. A test
program, employing a woven wire grip over the lead sheath, resulted
in development of a maximum pulling stress formula based on the area
2-3
11096704
of the sheath and permissible stress on the sheath material. It
is premised that excessive stretching of the sheath, not apparent
from visual inspection, with resultant disturbance of the underly-
ing cable insulation structure could account for cable heating and
joint failures.
6. Pulling Tension During Cable Installation in Ducts or Pipes, by

F. H. Buller; General Electric Review, August 1949.
The additional force of friction when cables under tension are

pulled around a bend, due to increased pressure between the cable
and duct wall, is discussed relative to horizontal and vertical
plane bends. Formulae are derived for calculation of the pulling
tension developed when pulling cable through bends of different
radius and angle.
7. Minutes of Meeting of Insulated Conductor Committee (Power Group)

Cable Supply Systems Subcommittee #7, Project 7-17; Progress Report
No. 1, November 1951, and No. 2, April 1952.
The purpose of Project 7-17 was to collect field data on pulling

characteristics for lead sheathed cable in underground ducts.
Questionnaires were submitted to major utilities and ten replies
received covering 1014 cable pulls. Details of information re-
received are reported in tabular form. Corrected "frictional co-
efficients" were developed (calculated) for each pull by elimina-
ting the effect of bends. Normal variations in these coefficients,
for which reasons are conjectured, prohibited positive conclusions
regarding the relative effect of the various factors that may affect
tensions during cable pulling. A Weibull distribution plot, exclud-
ing data obtained from Chicago and Rochester, indicated the correc-
ted "average frictional coefficient" to be 0.4 or less for 90% of
the pulls performed.
8. Pipe Line Design for Pipe Type Feeders, By R.C. Rifenberg; AIEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, December 1953.
A more exact engineering method for solution of design problems

relative to installation in pipe is the objective of this paper.
Formulae are developed for calculation of pulling tensions under
various defined conditions:
2-4
11096704
Pipe occupancy versus friction: The effective coefficient of fric-
tion is indicated to vary with relative occupancy of cables in the
pipe. The wedging action during pulling and the resultant incre-
ment of pressure against the pipe is allowed for by use of a calcu-
lated weight correction factor, i.e. We. Formulae for calculations
of We for both cradled and triangular configuration are given.
Pipe clearance: A minimum clearance to insure that the top conduc-

tor (triangular configuration) does not press against the pipe is
stated to be 0.25 inch.
Straight pull: An allowance for the unbalance in pulling tensions

of three conductors is recommended by a reduction of permissible
maximum copper stress (8500 psi).
Sidewall pressure: Weight correction factors are developed for the

effect of the center conductor (cradled) and two bottom conductors
(triangular) at bends.
Jam ratios: The ratio of pipe inner diameter plus allowance, where
applicable, for ovality of the pipe at bends and actual outer diam-
eter of cables, as related to the probability of jamming during a
pull, is discussed and limits stated.
Cable pulling in bends: Formulae are developed for horizontal bends,

large angle vertical bends, convex curve pulling upward and downward,
concave curve pulling downward, and combined uphill and downhill
pulling.
Equations for pulling tensions are stated to result in calculated

values close to actual pulling tensions experienced. Weight cor-
rection factors were verified by laboratory tests where D/d ~ 2.51.
Measured pulling tensions and inspection disclosed that the conduc-
tors were in a triangular configuration.
9. Underground Systems Reference Book; Edison Electric Institute,

Chapter 3, Section Band Chapter 8, Section C Published 1957.
The content of Chapter 3, Section B, is based on material appearing

in the reference document (8) above. Division of tension among
2-5
11096704
conductors when pulled around bends is discussed. A design basis,
assuming two of three conductors to take the total pulling tension,
is suggested as an alternate to a reduction in allowable maximum
copper stress.
Chapter 8, Section C, coII1I11ents on relative size of cable and duct

from the aspect of clearance and jaIIIIlling, maximum permissible pul-
ling force, and computation of pulling forces. The content is
based on information contained in the reference documents previous-
ly outlined h~rein.
10. Cable Pulling Design for Practical Applications in Modern Refineries,

by Sookie Vartanian and Arthur N. Sandler; IEEE Transactions on In-
dustry Applications, Vol. lA-10 No. 3 May/June 1974.
This paper reiterates prior practice with regard to calculation of

pulling tensions.
Recommendations are given on cable pulling speeds, 40 to 50 feet

per minute (20-25 cm/sec) normal and 15 feet per minute (7.6 cm/sec)
minimum. Tabulations are included relative to:
1. Maximum allowable pulling stress on conductors.
2. Maximum allowable pulling stress on cable sheath or jacket

material.
3. Typical basic friction factors with adequate cable lubrication

at time of pull.
4. Maximum sidewall pressures.
It is emphasized that more realistic sidewall pressure restraints

should be developed by cable manufacturers by test and evaluation
of cable construction performance capabilities under sidewall pres-
sure conditions.
INDUSTRY SURVEY
A survey was conducted to obtain information regarding present practices and exper-
ience in the installation of extruded dielectric cables. The survey was implement-
ed by circulating a questionnaire to fifty utilities and contractors.
The questionnaire appears in Appendix B.
2-6
11096704
Results of Survey
Fifteen of the fifty utilities and contractors surveyed responded. Three completed
the questionnaire for one or more cable pulls, while seven sent connnents of obser-
vations on the subject. Three of the seven sent their company's cable pulling
guide. Answers provided to the question "Performance of cable after installation
especially as may be related to pulling stresses and strains, "did not elicit in-
formation which could lead to the development of a possible relationship between
specific cable life or observed cable damage, mechanical or electrical, during an
actual pulling operation.
Where published pulling tension design standards, practices or guides were submitted
in response to the questionnaire, the basis of calculations and proc·edures outlined
therein were generally those appearing in current technical literature. The allow-
able maximum component stress level, sidewall pressures and design coefficients of
friction employed in the calculation procedures of pulling tensions were also found
to generally reflect values extracted from published sources.
Allowance for reel drag was indicated in two utility calculation procedures. How-
ever, there was no information provided in tabulated form on reel drag allowance
related to cable design, size and weight of reel, whether manually turned, type of
axle or reel support, etc.
The concept of weight correction factor (occupancy factor) was not consistently ap-
plied to straight run section design calculations.
Limits for upper and lower levels of pulling speeds were not addressed in the re-
plies. In one instance, it was advised that the speeds were not measured and fre-
quently the pull was made in a series of stop and go movements,
The utility presented in graph format measured and calculated pulling tensions for
various locations along specific duct runs. Measured tensions varied widely from
calculated tensions at various points of the runs, The measured tensions to which
the cable was subjected in some instances exceeded the calculated values by signi-
ficant amounts. It was noted in some instances that "final" measured pulling ten-
sion values observed at the end of a cable pull were reported on the questionnaire
form. Back calculation of coefficient of friction and sidewall pressures from
these tensions did not result in realistic values for these parameters.
2-7
11096704
The same utility presented tabular data of extremely consistent measured tension
values made at 25 foot (7.6m) intervals during six pulls of identical single con-
ductor cables into two 6-inch (15cm) fiber duct systems, one cable in each duct,
using lubricant. It is of interest that the measured tensions did not reflect the
tension increments that would be expected from calculation. Back calculation of
the effective coefficients of friction showed values of 0.18 to 0.29 against a de-
sign value of 0.3. When pulling similar cable through a 5-inch (12.7cm) PVC duct
system, one cable per duct, four pulls, back calculation of coefficient of friction
showed values of 0.11 to 0.14 against 0.25 design value.
No indication was given of periodic calibration or estimates of accuracy of the

tension indicator devices used in the measurement of pulling tensions that were
reported.
Another set of data sheets received was quite complete, giving information on al-
most all of the characteristics covered in the questionnaire. The information pro-
vided, however, indicated that the stresses and strains imposed on the cables dur-
ing installation were well within presently accepted and presumably conservative
limits so there was no "testing" of the cable's ability to withstand higher pulling
stresses. All cables were judged to be in good condition at the completion of the
pulls and no operating history is available since the cables have not yet been put
in service. Information is given on "actual coefficient of friction" values but it
is not indicated how the values were developed. Cables were pulled in ducts, with
and without lubricant, apparently four different lubricants were utilized.
SUMMARY
In general the values of the major parameters employed for the determination of max-
imum pulling lengths in the sources cited are as follows:
Coefficient of Friction 0.5

Maximum Pulling Tension
Copper Conductor w/pulling eye 10,000 psi (.008 A)*
[703 x 10 4 kg/m 2 ]
Aluminum Conductor w/pulling eye 8,000 psi (,006 A)*
[562 x 10 4 kg/m 2 ]
Pulling Grips 1,000 pounds [454 kg]
Maximum Sidewall Bearing Pressure 150 - 400 lb/ft. [223-595 kg/m]
'~Where: A conductor area in Circular mils
2-8
11096704
Section 3
TEST PROGRAM
The following tests were performed to establish the factors that influence the
maximum length of solid dielectric power cable that can be pulled into a duct.
1. Compatibility of Materials
Lubricants are generally employed in pulling of cables into ducts

and conduits to reduce the friction factor and reduce pulling ten-
sions.
A series of tests were performed to determine the compatibility of

commonly used pulling compounds with cable and duct materials. The
tests were performed under two environmental conditions over a period
of one year:
1) Room temperature and 100% relative humidity
2) 60°C (140°F) in an air oven
2. Determination of Coefficients of Static and Dynamic Friction
The coefficient of friction is a basic parameter in determining the

pulling tension of a cable in a duct or conduit. It directly re-
lates the normal force between the cable and duct to the pulling
tension.
A series of measurements were performed to determine the coeffic-

ients of friction between cable with various outer coverings and
various duct materials. Measurements were made in ducts with and
without lubricant, at room temperature and minus 7°C (19°F).
Measurements were made as a function of pulling speed and normal
force between the cable and duct.
3-1
11096704
3. Tensile Tests
Cables are pulled into conduits and ducts utilizing pulling eyes or
steel wire grips. The pulling device employed may limit the maxi-
mum pulling tension and hence the maximum pulling length. Pulling
eyes perform differently on copper and aluminum conductors. Pulling
grips perform differently depending on the cable construction.
Tension tests were performed in a 120,000 pound (54.4 .x 10 3 kg)

horizontal tensile testing machine. Copper and aluminum conductor
cables of various constructions were tested with pulling eyes and
grips. Conductor resistance and other electrical tests were per-
formed to determine the condition of the cable after the tension
test.
4. Tension/Shear Tests
A major factor in determining the maximum pulling length of cables

pulled into ducts or conduits is the tension required to pull the
cable through bends and elbows. When a cable is being pulled around
a bend the pulling tension generates a normal force component between
the cable and duct. As a result a restraining force proportional to
the tension and coefficient of friction acts to restrain the outer
member of the cable. It is i1nportant to know how various cable con-
structions respond to the shearing type loading.
Therefore, a series of tests were performed on representative cable

constructions to determine the axial shearing force that is required
to cause damage. The tests were performed with an arrangement that
permitted the outer members of the cable to be restrained without
exerting a compressive force on the cable core. The conditions of
this test can be considered to be more severe than those that are
present in pulling cable around a bend since in a bend configuration
a compressive force does exist where the cable is bearing against
the inside of the duct bend. The test results, however, provide a
valuable benchmark regarding the structural integrity of various
cable constructions to axial shearing Jorce.
3-2
11096704
5. Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test
Another factor which can limit the maximum tension that a cable can
withstand is the sidewall bearing pressure exerted on a cable in
duct bends and elbows. The sidewall bearing pressure formula is
expressed as:
SWBP Jw 2 + (T/R) 2
where: W weight of cable per unit length

T cable tension
R radius of the elbow
The sidewall bearing pressure in most practical cases, is equal to

the ratio of the tension in the cable to the radius of the bend and
is expressed as a force per unit length.
Tests were performed at Pirelli Cable Corporation in a single bend

test apparatus and at Georgia Power Company at a Field Test Site
which had duct banks containing two and four bends. The maximum
sidewall bearing pressure levels for each cable construction were
first determined at the Pirelli facility and then selected construc-
tions were tested at the Georgia Power Field Test Site to verify the
results.
CABLES STUDIED IN THE TEST PROGRAM
Twenty-three types of cables were studied in the test program. The cables had copper
and aluminum conductors ranging in size from 1/0 AWG (54 mm 2 ) through 2500 kcmil
(1266mm 2 ) . The voltage ratings were 600 volts, 15, 25, 35, 69 and 138kV with insu-·
lation materials of crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) and ethylene propylene rubber
(EPR). The jacket materials included neoprene (N), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), low
density, high molecular weight polyethylene (LDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE)
and lead sheath (Pb). Unipass XLPE 600 volt cables and cables with concentric wire
neutral conductors without further covering and with LDPE and semiconducting polyeth-
ylene (SCPE) encapsulating jackets were included in the program. The cables are
listed in Table 3-1. This table indicates the assigned cable item number, cable con-
struction code and detailed cable description. The dimensions of each cable are
shown in Table 3-2.
3-3
11096704
Hany of the cable samples were provided for this project by participating elec-
tric utilities. In the case where a specific construction was of interest and no
samples were available, the cables were specially manufactured or ordered from
wharehouse stockes.
DETERMINATION OF ORIGINAL ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CABLES
Samples of each cable were subjected to electrical tests to establish a set of

original properties for comparison with test data obtained subsequent to the
various mechanical tests outlined in this program. The electrical tests included
(1) de conductor resistance, (2) power factor, (3) dielectric strength, and for
cables rated 15kV and higher, (4) partial discharge. The original electrical
properties are given in Tables 3-3 through 3-5.
The dielectric strength test was conducted according to the schedule outlined in
Appendix C.
3-4
11096704
Table 3-1
LIST OF CABLES STUDIED IN THE PROGRAM
Cable Voltage
Item Cable Construction Code
Rating Cable Description
No.
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 600 V 1/C 2/0 Aluminum 80 mils XI.PE insulation.

2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 600 V 1/C 2/0 AWG Copper 55 mils EPR insulation 45 mils
Neoprene Jacket.
3 0. 6/ 4-0A/XL 600 V 1/C 4/0 AWG Aluminum 80 mils XLPE insulation.
4 0. 6/ 500C/XL 600 V 1/C 500 kcmil Copper 95 mils XLPE insulation.
5 0.6/500C/EP/N 600 V 1/C 500 kcmil Copper 95 mils EPR insulation 65 mils
Neoprene Jacket.
6 15/l~0A/XL/TP /CN 15kV 1/C 1/0 AWG Aluminum 175 mils XL.PE insulation, SCPE
insulation shield, concentric neutral wires.
7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 15kV 1/C 500 kcmil Copper 175 mils EPR insulation, SCEPR
insulation shield, wire shield (WS), tape, PVC Jacket.
8 15/ 7 50/XL/TP /CNE/PE 15kV 3-1/C 750 kcmil Aluminum 175 mils XLPE insulation, SCPE
insulation shield, concentric neutral wires LDPE jacketed-
triplexed.
9 15/7 50A/XL/TP /CN 15kV 3-1/C 750 kcmil Aluminum 175 mils XI.PE insulation, SCPE
insulation shield, concentric neutr;tl wi_res - triplexcd.
10 15/ l000A/XL/XL/CW/PV 15kV 1/C 1000 kcmil Aluminum 175 mils XLPE insulation, SCXLPE
insulation shield, wire shield, tape, PVC Jacket.
11 25/1-0A/XL/TP /CNE/SCPE 25kV 1/C 1/0 AWG Aluminum 260 mils XLPE insulation, SCPE
insulation shield, concentric neutral wires SCPE
encapsulating jacket.
12 25/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB 25kV 1/C 500 kcmil Copper 275 mils XLPE insulation, SC - paint
and tape, lead sheath.
13 25/750A/XL/XL/CN 25kV 1/C 750 kcmil Aluminum 260 mils XLPE insulation, SCXLPE
insulation shield, concentric neutral wires.
14 2 5 / l000A/XL/'£!../LC/PE 25kV 1/C 1000 kcmil Aluminum 260 mils XLPE insulation, SCXLPE
insulation shield, corrugated longi tu<linally folcle<l coo-
per tape shield LDPE Jacket.
15 25/1-0A/ XL/XL/CN 25kV 1/C 1/0 AWG solid Aluminum 260 mils XLPE insulation,
SCXLPE insulation shield, concentric neutral wires.
16 25/ 4-0A/XL/TP /CT /PV 25kV 1/C 4/0 AWG Aluminum 260 mils XLPE insulation, SCPE
insulation shield, copper tape, PVC Jacket.
17 35/ 500C/EP /EP /PB 35kV 1/5 500 kcmil Copper 345 mils EPR insulation, SCEPR
insulation shield, lead sheath.
19 69 / 17 50A/XL/XL/CW /PV 69kV 1/C 1750 kcmil Aluminum 650 mils XL.PE insulation, SCXLPE
insulation shield, concentric wires, tape, PVC Jacket.
20 69 / 17 50A/EP /EP /CW /PV 69kV 1/C 1580 kcmil (800mm2) Aluminum 650 mils EPR insulation,
SCEPR insulation shield, concentric wires, tape, PVC
Jacket.
21 138/ 500C/EP /EP /PB/PE 138kV 1/C 790 kcmil (400mm2) Copper 1000 mils EPR insulation,
SCEPR insulation shield, lead sheath, LDPE Jacket.
22 138/ l 250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 138kV 1/C 1250 kcmil 800 mils XLPE insulation, SCXLPE insula-
tion shield, corrugated longitudinally folded shield,
LDPE Jacket.
23 138/17 50A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 138kV 1/C 1750 kcmil Aluminum 800 mils XLPE insulation, SCXLPE
insulation shield, copper ribbons, tape, MDPE Jacket.
24 138/ 2500A/ XL/ XL/ CR/MDPE 138kV 1/C 2500 kcmil Aluminum 800 mils XLPE insulation, SCXLPE
insulation shield, copper ribbons, tape, MDPE Jacket.
3-5
11096704
Table 3-2
DIMENSIONS OF CABLES STUDIED IN THE PROGRAM
Cnhle Conductor InsuJ.1tion ln!rnl. ShiPld .Jacket

Conductor l!easured •
Item Const rue t ion Mrasurrrl Me.1s ured
No. of o.n., Shield Metallic
No. Code Thickness o.o .. Th lckncss O.D., Th lckness 0.D., NOTES
Wires Inch O.D., Inch Shield Mils Inch
Mi ls Inch Mi Is Inch
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 19 o. 410 - 84 0. 57? - - - - -
2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 19 0.409 - 62 0. 532 - - - 63 0.658
3 0. 6/4-0A/XL 19 0. 510 - 81, 0.679 - - - - -
4 0. 6/500C/XL 37 0. 799 - 103 1.005 - - - - -
5 0. 6/500C/EP/N 37 0.116 - 72 0. 935 - - - 75 1.085
6 15/ 1-0A/ XL/TP /CN 19 o. 360 0.404 183 0,770 33 . 835 16 1114 AWG - - 0. D. over concentric wires
copper wires 0. 965 inch,
w 7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 37 o. 750 0. 798 184 1.165 38 1.240 36 1/16 AWG 90 1.530
1 copper wires
(J'\
8 15/7 50A/ XL/T? /CNE/PE 61 0.973 1.037 177 1. 390 63 1. 515 16 II 12 AWG 138 I. 800
copper wires
9 15/ 750A/XL/TP /CN 61 0. 973 1.031 177 1. 385 53 1.490 19 lll4 AWG
copper wires
- - O.D. over concentric wires
1. 620 inch.
10 15/ lOOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV 6] 1.125 1.185 175 I. 535 60 1. 655 26 //16 AWG 88 1.935
copper wires
11 25/ 1-0A/XL/TP /CNE/SCPE 19 0. 366 0. 405 263 0. 930 45 1. 020 8 1114 AWG 88 1. 300
copper wires
12 25/500C/XL/P&T /PB 37 0. 740 o. 819 283 1. 385 10 mi ls 1. 425 108 mils lead - - O.D. over lead sheath
S/C tnpe sheath 1. 640 inch.
lJ 25/7 50A/XL/XL/CN 61 0.973 1.020 277 1. 5 74 50 1. 6 74 24 1112 AWG - -
copper wires
-
11096704
Table 3-2
DIMENSIONS OF CABLES STUDIED IN THE PROGRAM

(continued)
In~ul. :>'1it·Jd J.,ck<'t

('0n<l11ctor lnsul,1tton
(.it, IC Ct1nductor l!<'asurcd
~lr>,,~ur<'<l ~fc.:isurcd tlct al I le NOTES
Construct lon Sldcld Thi ckncss O.D.,
ltt.'ITl llo. of /J.D.' rli I ckncs:. 0. D.. Th lckness O.D .. Shield tills Inch
:-.:u. C0Jc \41 res Inch O. D., I 11cl1 Ml Is Tnrh I-ti 1 :;__ _li1.dL
274 I. 790 75 I, 940 8 ml 15 corru- 143 2. 295

2 5/ !OOOA/XL/ XL/LC/PE 61 !.120 1. 242
I4 r.,itcd lonr,ltud·
Ina lly folded
copper tnpc
15 15/ 1-0A/ KL/XL/CN solid o. 323 0. 371 277 o. 925 30 0. 985 16 n12 AtlG - - O.D. over concentric wires
1. 110- inch.
coppt•r w l res
1.195 3.5 mlls 78 1.360
16 2 5/ 4-0A/ XL/TP /CT /PV I9 o. 515 0.557 262 1.080 58
copper tape
17 J5/ 500C./EP /EP /PB )7 0. 750 0. 80Q 350 I. 500 40 1. 580 I 20 ml ls - - O.D. over lead sheath
1.820 inch.
le.id sheath
w ),020 25 ll!2 At/G 150 3. 510
I 69/1750A/Xt./XL/Cll/PV 127 1.490 1. 628 634 2. 895 6)
-...J I9 copper \.Ji res
2. 850 45 2. 940 )6 1116 AIIG 150 3. 370 Sec note (D

69 / l 750A/EP /EP /Ct! /PV 61 !. 400 1. 480 685
20 copper wires
1.000 1025 3. 050 45 3,140 150 mlls 130 3. 700 O. 0. over lead shc,Hh
21 !38/ 500C/EP /EP /PB/PE 61 0. 920
le.id slie:ith 3.440 inch, See Note(?)
835 3. 100 55 3.210 8 mils corru- 185 3.630

22 138/ !250A/KL/XL/LC/PE 91 !.280 1. 430
f.Jtcd lons~itu-
dlnal Iv folded
copper t:ipe
886 3. 410 60 ), 530 24 b;1re 150 3. 900

2) I 38/ l 7SOA/ XL/XL/CR/HDPE 127 1.500 1.638
2) x 260 mils
copper riLbons
844 3. 635 7) 3. 780 24 bare 118 4.075

24 I )8/ 2SOOA/XL/ XL/ CR/IIDPE 127 1. 780 1. 948
21 x 205 mils
coriper ribbons
Notes: (D Conductor is Comr,:ict Round, Stranding corre?sponds closely to ASTM class AA,
os per Stondord B ,2_31-74.
@ Conductor is Compact Round.
11096704
Table 3-3
CONDUCTOR DC RESISTANCE OF FULL SIZE CABLES
Measured ICEA
Cable Conductor Resistance Resistance
Item No. Size, Stranding Sample Ohms/1000 Ft. Ohms/1000 Ft.
and Material No. @ 20°c @ 20°c
1 2/0 AWG 19/W 1 0.131 0.130

Aluminum 2 0.131
2 2/0 AWG 19/W 1 0.0800 0.827
Coated 1 Copper 2 0.0798
3 4/0 AWG 19/W 1 0.0828 0.082
Aluminum 2 0.0829
4 500 kcmil 37 /W 1 0.0211 0.0212
Bare Copper 2 0.0211
5 500 kcmil 37 /W 1 0.0213 0.02180
Coated Bare 2 0.0214
Copper 2
6 1/0 AWG 19/W 1 0.163 0.164
Aluminum 2 0.163
7 500 kcmil 37/W 1 0.0212 0.0212
Bare Copper 2 0.0211
8 750 kcmil 37/W 1 0.0241 0.0231
Aluminum 2 0.0239
9 750 kcmil 37/W 1 0.0233 0.0231
Aluminum 2 0.0232
10 1000 kcmil 61/W 1 0.0173 0.0173
Alumil)um 2 0.0172
11 1/0 AWG 19/W 1 0.163 0.164
Aluminum 2 0.163
12 500 kcmil 37 /W 1 0.0219 0.0218®
Coated Bare 2 0.0218
Copper 2
13 750 kcmil 61/W 1 0.0233 0.0231
Aluminum 2 o. 0236
14 1000 kcmil 61/W 1 0.0175 0.0173
Aluminum
15 1/0 AWG Solid 1 0.158 0.161
Aluminum 2 0.158
16 4/0 AWG 19/W 1 0.0803 0.082
Aluminum 2 0.0800
3 0.0799
17 500 kcmil 37/W 1 0.0215 0.0212
Copper 2 0.0214
19 1750 kcmil 1 0.0099 0.00991
127/W Aluminum 2 0.0098
20 1579 kcmil 1 0.0112 O.OllO
58/W Aluminum 2 0. 0114
21 789 kcmil 1 0.0140 0.0138
59/W Copper 2 0.0140
22 1250 kcmil 1 0.0140 0.0139
91/W Aluminum 2 0. 0141
23 1750 kcmil 1 0.0101 0.00991
127/W Aluminum 2 0.0101
24 2500 kcmil 1 0.00699 0.00701
127/W Aluminum 2 0.00700
Notes: (D Individual wires tin or lead-tin alloy coated

before stranding.
Outer layer (18 wires coated), all inner wires bare.
ICEA value for strand with all wires coated.
3-8
11096704
Table 3-4
AC DIELECTRIC STRENGTH OF FULL SIZE CABLES
Average
Breakdown Breakdown
Cable Cable Construction Code Sample Voltage Stress
Item No. No. kV Volts/mil(j)
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 1 25.6 316

2 25.6 320
2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 1 24.2 432
2 28.6 502
3 0.6/4-0A/XL 1 28.8 335
2 25.6 316
4 0.6/SOOC/XL 1 26.6 246
2 34.5 355
5 0.6/500C/EP/N 1 38.0 528
2 53.2 647
6 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CN 1 >200. cFJ >1143
2 161.0 825
7 15/500C/EP/EP/CW/PV 1 98.0 560 T
2 154.0 906
8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 1 77.0 433
2 90.0 503
9 15/750A/XL/TP/CN 1 126.0 692
2 133.0 796
10 15/lOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 105.0 607
2 161.0 947
11 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 1 >197.0~ >760
2 >197. 0 >760
12 25/500C/XL/P&T/PB 1 >200.~ >727
2 >200. >727
13 25/750A/XL/XL/CN 1 >200.~ >780
2 >200. >780
14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 >197 _di) >760
2 >191.dV >760
15 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN 1 >200.0€) >780
2 187.2 681 T
16 25/4-0A/XL/TP/CT/PV 1 >200. cfV >780
2 > 200. <fl) >780
17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 1 193.2 558
2 234.6 685
19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CN/PV 1 286.0 440 T
2 156.0 240
3 286.0 440
20 69/1750A/EP/EP/CW/PV 1 390.0 600
2 442.0 680
21 138/500C/EP/EP/PB/PE 1 >480. cfi) >480
2 560.0 560
22 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 288.0 365 T
2 512.0 636
3 544.0 >680
23 138/1750A/XL/XL/CR/MDP~ 1 416.0 520 T
2 >576.r:fl) >720
24 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 1 416.0 520 T
2 >480.0© >600
Notes: (D Based on actual insulation thickness at point of failure

or nominal thickness when cable did not fail.
(z) No breakdown after 30 minutes at maximum test voltage.
Cl) Test terminated due to overheating of water terminals
T - Failure in terminal
3-9
11096704
Table 3-5
POWER FACTOR AND PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF FULL SIZE CABLES
Sample Ill Sample 112

Cable Test Power Partial Power Partial
Item Cable Construction Code Voltage Factor Discharge Factor Discharge
No. kV % pC % pC
6 15/1-0A/"KL/TP/CN 3.5 0.013 < 5 0.022 < 5

7.0 0.014 < 5 0.022 < 5
10.5 0.014 < 5 0.022 < 5
14.9 0.016 < 5 0.022 < 5
35.0 --- < 5 --- < 5
7 15/500C/EP/EP/CW/PV 3.5 0. 793 < 5 0.819 < 5
7.0 o. 774 < 5 0.847 < 5
10.5 0.762 < 5 0.859 < 5
14.9 0.741 < 5 0.864 < 5
35.0 --- < 5 --- < 5
8 15/750A/"KL/TP/CNE/PE 3.5 0.027 <5 0.045 <5
7.0 0.029 <5 0.045 <5
10.5 0.030 <5 0.045 <5
14.9 0.032 <5 0.045 <5
35.0 --- <5 --- <5
9 15/750A/XL/TP/CN 3.5 0.012 <5 0.012 <5
7 .0 0.013 <5 0.013 <5
10.5 0.013 <5 0.013 <5
14.9 0.013 <5 0.014 <5
35.0 --- <5 --- <5
10 15/lOOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV 3.5 0.011 <5 0.025 <5
7.0 0.011 <5 0.026 <5
10.5 0.011 <5 0.028 <5
14.9 0.011 <5 0.028 <5
35.0 --- 11 --- <5
11 25/1-0A/'Kl./TP/CNE/SCPE 5.2 0.041 <5 0.010 <5
10.4 0.046 <5 0.010 <5
15.6 0.048 <5 0.010 <5
22.1 0.054 <5 0.010 <5
57.6 --- <5 --- <5
12 25/500C/'Kl./P&T/PB 5.5 0.037 <5 0.035 <5
11.0 0.037 <5 0.035 <5
16.5 0.039 <5 0.037 <5
23.3 0.040 <5 0.037 <5
52.0 --- <5 --- <5
13 25/750A/XL/'Kl./CN 5.2 0.015 <5 0.020 <5
10.4 0.015 <5 0.020 <5
15. 6 0.015 <5 0.020 <5
22.1 0.015 <5 0.020 <5
57 .6 --- <5 --- 60
14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 5.2 0.011 <5 0.010 <5
10.4 0.011 <5 0.010 <5
15.6 0.012 <5 0.010 <5
22.1 0.012 <5 0.010 <5
57.6 --- <5 --- <5
15 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN 5.2 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
10.4 0.010 <5 0.011 <5
15.6 0.010 <5 0.011 <5
22.1 0.010 <5 0.011 <5
57 .6 --- <5 --- <5
3-10
11096704
Table 3-5
POWER FACTOR AND PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF FULL SIZE CABLES

(continued)
Sample Ill Sample 112

Cable Test
Item Voltage Power Partial Power Partial
Cable Construction Code
No. kV Factor Discharge Factor Discharge
% pC % pC
16 25/4-0A/XL/TP/CT/PV 5.2 0.010 <5 0.014 <5
10.4 0.010 <5 0.014 <5
15.6 0.010 <5 0.015 <5
22.1 0.010 <5 0.015 <5
57.6 --- <5 --- <5
17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 6.9 0.189 <5 0.206 <5
13.8 0.189 <5 0.206 <5
20.7 0.196 <5 0. 206 <5
27.6 0.197 <5 0.207 <5
70.0 --- <5 --- <5
19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CN/PV 13.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
26.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
39.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
55.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
20 69/1750A/EP/EP/CW/PV 13.0 0.184 <5 0.177 <5
26.0 0.184 <5 0.177 <5
39.0 0.184 <5 0.177 <5
55.0 0.184 <5 0.177 <5
21 138/500C/EP/EP/PB/PE 16.0 Not <5 0.255 <5
32.0 imeasured <5 0.255 <5
48.0 <5 0.256 <5
68.0 <5 0.259 <5
100.0 <5 --- <5
22 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 16.0 0.017' <5 Not <5
32.0 0.023! <5 measured <5
48.0 0.0271 <5 <5
68.0 0.032! <5 <5
160.0 --- <5 <5
23 138/1750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 16.0 0.007 <5 0.010 <5
32.0 0.007 <5 0.010 <5
48.0 0.007 <5 0.010 <5
68.0 0.007 <5 0.010 <5
24 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 16.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
32.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
48.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
68.0 0.010 <5 0.010 <5
120.0 --- < 5@ --- <5
160.0 --- -- --- < 5Q)
Notes: (D Cable sample corona-free up to 120kV.

At 120kC, there were discharges in the air.
(V Cable sample corona-free up to 160kV.
At 160kV, there were discharges in the air.
3-11
11096704
11096704
Section 4
COMPATIBILITY OF PULLING LUBRICANTS WITH

CABLE AND DUCT MATERIALS
A series of tests were performed to determine the compatibility of commonly used

pulling compounds with cable and duct materials. The tests were performed under
two environmental conditions:
1) Room temperature and 100% relative humidity, and
2) 6O°C (14O°F) in an air oven.
During the aging period, samples were removed and examined at selected intervals
to determine the effect of the lubricant on the cable/duct materials. The test
was continued for one year with tests and measurements being conducted at 1, 3, 6
and 12 months.
The following determinations were made:
a) visual inspection for corrosion/chemical attack on metals, concrete,

''transite".
b) change in physical properties of PVC, polyethylene, neoprene and

bitumenized fibre duct.
c) environmental stress cracking of polyethylene jacket and semiconducting

insulation shield compounds.
d) change in electrical properties of insulating and semiconducting insu-

lation shield compounds.
TEST RESULTS
Room Temperature and 100% Relative Humidity Aging
All seven pulling compounds were studied in conjunction with eleven cable outer
coverings and six duct materials. Table 4-1 contains a listing of the materials
included in the series of tests and the combinations that were tested,
4-1
11096704
Table 4-1
LISTING OF MATERIALS AND LUBRICANTS

INCLUDED IN COMPATIBILITY STUDY
Cable Coverin£S ~ Pullin£ ComEound No.

LOPE Jacket A 1, 2, 4, 7
MDPE Jacket B 1, 2, 4, 7
PVC-1 Jacket D 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
PVC-2 Jacket E 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Copper Wires F 1, 2, 4, 7
Thermoplastic Polyethylene
Semiconducting (SCPE) Insulation Shield G 1, 2, 4, 7
Deformation Resistant Thermo-
plastic Polyethylene
Semiconducting (SCDRTP) Insulation Shield H 1, 2, 4, 7
Crosslinked Polyethylene
Semiconducting (SCXLPE) Insulation Shield I 1, 2, 4, 7
Lead Sheath J 1, 3, 5, 6
Neoprene Ja_cket K 1, 3, 5, 6, 7
Fi-lled Low Voltage XLPE
Insulation L 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Duct Materials
Galvanized Steel 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Concrete 1, 4, 5, 7
Polyethylene 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Asbestos - Cement (Transite) 1, 2, 6
Fibre 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Pulling Compound
Number Primary Constituents
1 soap, water
2 bentonite clay, water
3 soap, water
5 talc, stearyl alcohol, stearate,
water
6 soap, water
4-2
11096704
For the materials that were checked or tested 1) visually for change in physical
properties and 2) for change in electrical properties, three sets of test and
"control" samples were prepared with each set being subjected to a different per-
iod of aging exposure. Except for the control sample, each sample was liberally
coated on one side with the selected lubricant and all samples were then suspended
in sealed containers in which a 100% relative humidity 25°C air atmosphere was
maintained.
When the first set of samples was visually checked after one month of aging and no
change was noted, it was decided to continue aging that set of samples to two months
before performing any physical or electrical tests. At the end of the second month,
the visual check was again negative but physical and electrical property tests were
performed on the appropriate samples.
The physical properties after the two, six and twelve month aging periods are shown
in Tables 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4, respectively. The results of volume resistivity meas-
urements on semiconducting cable materials are given in Table 4-5, for the 1, 6,
and 12 month test periods. The electrical properties of cable materials measured
during the test program are given in Table 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8.
The results indicate that, during the one year test period at the specified condi-
tions, the pulling lubricants were generally compatible with the cable materials.
There was little or no effect on physical properties. Where there were changes in
the volume resistivities of semiconducting materials or volume resistivities or
power factors of jacket materials and low voltage XLP insulation, the changes were
such that they would not adversely affect the performance capability of the cable.
For the Environmental Stress Cracking Test, one set of samples was prepared accor-
ding to ASTM Standard D1693-70. After the test specimens were bent and inserted in
the holders, each test set was liberally coated with one of the pulling lubricants
as per Table 4-1. The holders were then placed in a sealed container in which a
100% relative humidity 25°C air atmos?here was maintained. The test results are
given in Table 4-9. These results show no deterioration of the test specimens
throughout the 12 month aging period.
The visually observed changes on metal and duct materials aged with pulling lubri-
cants are given in Table 4-10. The visual observations showed no harmful changes
during the one year aging period.
4-3
11096704
Table 4-2
COMPATIBILITY OF PULLING LUBRICANTS WITH CABLE MATERIALS

Physical Properties of Cable Materials After 2 Months Aging@ Room Temperature & 100% Relative Humidity CD
Aged
Coated with Pulling Lubricant No.
Cable Unaged
?L.'lterial Uncoated
Uncoated l 2 3 4 5 6 • 7
(Key Letter) Property & Unit (Original) (Control)
LDl'E Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 1,962 2,016 1,988 1,927 2,048
Elongation, % 506 542 507 542 518 527
Jacket Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,243 1,250 1,177 1,207 1,177 1,207
(A)
}IDPE Cl) Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 3,153 3,076 2,953 3,013 3,160
Elongation, % 788 787 630 616 676 663
(B)
PVC-1 Tensile Strength, psi 2,614 2,300 2,417 2,297 2,220 2,317 2,390 2,443 2,277
Jacket Elongation, % 271 210 262 21,7 215 230 253 268 225
(D) l~dulus@ 100% El., psi 2,008 1,963 1,873 1,893 1,823 1,877 1,867 1,877 1,857
~ PVC-2 Tensile Strength, psi 2,548 2,167 2,257 2,217 2,200 2,237 2,200 2,227 2,257
I Jacket Elongation, % 300 247 280 243 257 247 247 283 263
~
(E) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,736 1,570 1,553 1,623 1,563 1,613 1,570 1,517 1,617
SCPE Tensile Strength, psi 1,327 1,158 1,150 1,123 1,170 1,160
Shield or Elongation, % 217 235 232 237 250 242
Jacket Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,217 1,140 1,130 1,150 1,143 1, 13)
(G)
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1,558 1,523 1,527 1,587 1,527
Elongation, % 262 212 217 208 233 207
Shield or Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,696 1,513 1,473 1,483 1,540 1,480
Jacket
(H)
SCXLPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,945 2,727 2,500 2,495 2,700 2,753
Shield Elongation, % 141 123 178 163 130 127
(I) Madu lus @ 100% El. , psi 2,634 2,450 1,993 2,070 2,370 2,457
Neoprene Tcn:-,ilc Strcnr,th, p!;i 2,235 2,073 2,023 1,970 2,010 2,003 2,066
Jacket Elongation, % 484 480 483 483 480 498 496
(!<) :lodulus @ 200% El., psi 045 720 fl6 683 706 656 680
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2,396 2,340 2,093 2,126 2,176 2,130 2,li3 2,233
XLPE Elongation, % 345 306 325 365
Insulation 340 323 350 330 335
Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,707 1,296 1,230 1,143
(L) 1,163 1,196 1,140 1,173 1,210
(!) ···-----
ot ICEA Specification S-66-524 (ASH! Standard D412-75)
0 Tested as above, except with 2 11
per minu~e jaw separation rate.
11096704
Table 4-3

Physical Properties of Cable Materials After 6 Months Aging@ Room Temperature & 100% Relative Humidity CD
Aged
Cable Un aged
Material Uncoated Uncoated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LOPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 2,030 2,013 2,016 1,940 1,763
Elongation, % 506 518 476 503 478 488
Jacket
Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,243 1,183 1,163 1,150 1,143 1,150
(A)
MDPE Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 3,973 3,630 3,786 3,776 3,826
Jacket 0 Elongation, % 788 816 711 736 806 766
Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,936 1,850 1,583 1,616 1,746 1,770
(B)
PVC-1 Tensile Srength, psi 2,614 2,340 2,123 2,333 2,180 2,123 2,380 2,260 2,337
Jacket Elongation, % 271 268 305 273 303 306 276 270 26 7
(D) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,008 1,860 1,470 1,840 1,523 1,450 1,800 1,566 1,850
_p- PVC-2 Tensile Strength, psi 2,548 2,300 2,276 2,236 2,343 2,326 2,316 2,326 2,310
l Jacket Elongation, % 300 311 280 270 290 303 306 296 300
\Jl
(E) Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,736 1,583 1,626 1,633 1,666 1,623 1,570 1,616 1,583
(G)
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1,563 1,550 1,540 1,580 1,563
(H)
(I) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,634 1,963 1,983 1,966 1,936 2,016
Neoprene Tensile Strength, psi 2,235 2,203 2,276 1,890 2,180 1,930 2,067
Jacket Elongation, % 484 523 l 543 483 532 510 510
(K) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 845 653 646 616 640 563 660
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2,393 2,153 2,233 2,340 2,207 2,133 2,250 2,190
XLPE Elongation 1 % 345 283 320 313 270 288 333 277 273
Insulation Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,707 1,300 1,163 1,207 1,340 1,203 1,160 1,237 1,260
Notes: 0 Tested as per Para, 614 of ICEA Specification S-66-524 (refers to ASTM Standard D412-75)
G) Tested as above, except with 2" per minute jaw separation rate.
11096704
Table 4-4

Physical Properties of Cable Materials After 12 Months Aging@ Room Temperature & 100% Relative Humidity@
Aged
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated
Uncoated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LOPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 2,250 2,143 2,150 2,180 2,212
Elongation, % 506 637 634 589 617 632
(A)
fIDPE Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 4,155 4,250 4,317 4,462 4 ,t+OJ
(i)
Elongation, % 788 1,006 950 1,011 1,020 1,010
(B)
PVC-1 Tensile Strength, psi 2,614 2,230 2,190 2,263 2,433 2,250 2,508 2,240 2,472
Jacket Elongation, % 27r 305 300 295 289 297 275 310 269
(D) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,008 1,637 1,632 1,667 1,975 1,670 1,940 1,642 2,000
-l'-- PVC-2 Tensile Strength, psi 2,548
1 2,492 2,382 2,375 2,478 2,333 2,363 2,520 2,363
°' (E) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,736 1, 725 1,658 1,655 1,715 1. 683 1,682
311
1. 730
300
1, 700
(G)
----
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1,762 1,773 1,762 1,773 1, 755
Elongation, % 262 229 222 237 227 214
Shield or Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,696 1,737 1,767 1, 7J5 1,743 )_, 7 35
Jacket
(H)
Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,634 2,167 2,115 1,943 2,130 2,140
(I)
Neoprene Tensile Strength, psi 2,235 2,372 2,430 2,115 2,253 1, 8/1 7 2,269
(K) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 845 727 703 682 701 700 715
---------- -- . --- - ------
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2,362 2,250 2,295 2,367 2,240 2,277 2,359 2,492
XLPE Elongation, % 345 364 327 378 333 343 364 335 290
Insulation Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,707 1,235 1,233 1,207 1,263 1,208 1,250 1,280 1,408
(L)
Notes: (j) Tested as per Para. 6.11 of ICEA Spec'n S-66-524 (refers to ASnl Std'd D412-75)
(i) Tested as above, except w/2 11
per minute jaw separation rate.
11096704
Table 4-5

Volume Resistivity of Semiconducting Shield Materials in Ohm-cm at R.T.
After Aging at Room Temperature and 100% Relative Humidity
Aged
Cable Unaged Aging Coated Hith Pulling Lubricant No.
Material Uncoated Period Uncoated
(Key Letter) (Original) (months) (Control)
1 2 4 7
2 46. 7 47.2 38.4 46.3 42.5

SCPE
Shield or 6 17.5 31. 7 34.0 18.7 20.9
+' 31. 3
I Jacket
'-l
(G) 12 38.0 44.4 41. 4 33.0 34.3
SCDRTP 2 12.5 9.5 8. 7 7.2 10.0

Shield or 7.8
6 7.8 8.0 7.8 7.8 8.4
Jacket
(H) 12 7.6 8.5 9.1 7.9 9.2
SCXLPE 2 16.9 66. 7 80.6 15.9 17.8

Shield 28. 9
6 29.3 83.6 31.2 50.5 56.1
co
12 64.1 29.0 20.5 23.8 28.1
11096704
Table 4~6

Electrical Properties of Cable Materials After 2 Months Aging at Room Temperature and 100% Relative Humidity
Aged
Cable Unaged
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LDPE Volume Resistivity, ohm-cm 3 X 10 17 6 X 10 16 6 X 10 14 6 X 10 15 1 X 10 13 1 X 10 14

60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.06 0.07 0.29 0.35 2.5 2.5
Jacket
(A)
MDPE Volume Resistivity, ohm-cm 2 X 10 17 6 X 10 14 6 X 10 13 4 X 10 13 3 X 10 14 4.7 X 10 14

60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.04 0.61 2.4 0.93 1, 3 0.74
-l'- Jacket
1
(X) (B)
PVC-1 Volume Resistivity, ohm-cm 3 X 10 14 2 X 10 I 3 6 X 10 12 4,5 X 10 11 4,7 X 10 11 9 X 10 11 8 X 10 12 8 X 10 11 2 X 10 12

Jacket 60 Hz Power Factor, % 3.9 4.8 6.1 7.1 7.3 6,3 5.3 8.4 8.3
(D)
PVC-2 4 X 10 14 4 X 10 13 1 X 10 12 2 X 10 12 2 X 10 11 2 X 10 12 5 X 10 12 6 X 10 12 5 X 10 11
Volume Resistivity, ohm-cm 5.8 ..
Jacket 4.8 6.0 7.1 6.0 5.2 8,8 5.8 10,3
{E) 60 Hz Power Factor,%
Neoprene Volume Resistivity, ohm-cm 1 X 10 12 8 X 10 11 7 X 10 11 2 X 10 12 8 X 10 11 9 X 10 11 1 X 10 12

}acket 60 Hz Power Factor,% 9,5 14.9 15.5 10,1 15,4· 12,0 11.1
(K)
Filled LV Volume Resistivity, ohn-cm 4 X 10 16 3,3 X 10 14 5 X 10 14 1 X 10 13 2 X 10 14 7 X 10 11 2 X 10 14 2 X 10 13 6 X 10 12

XLPE 60 Hz Power Factor, % 0.49 0.59 0.54 1,7 0.77 9,6 0,71 2,0 1.3
Insulation
(L)
11096704
Table 4-7

Aged
Coated with Lubricant //
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated
Uncoated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LDPE Volume Resistivity, 3xl01 7 3xl016 2xl016 7xl0 12 3xl01 5 2xl0l l

ohm-cm
Jacket 60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.06 0.01 0.06 1.65 0.20 9.6
(A)
MDPE Volume Resistivity, 2x10 17 3xl01 s 2x10 1 6 2xl01 I 4.2xl0 11 4xl0 12
+:-
Jacket
(B)
ohm-cm
60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.04 0.49 0.11 8.52 8.03 . 1. 33
I
\,0
PVC-1 Volume Resistivity, 3xl014 lxl0 14 2xl0 13 3xl01 3 7xl0 1 3 5xl0 13 5xl0 13 9xl0 1 I 7xl0 12
Jacket ohm-cm
(D) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 3.90 4.03 5.16 4.83 3.97 4.10 3.55 7.48 4.52
PVC-2 Volume Resistivity, 4xl0 1• 1x101• 3x101• 9x101• 3xl0 14 lxl0 14 4xl0 14 9xlO14 lxl0 14
Jacket ohm-cm
(E) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 4.80 5.02 5.02 5. 31 4.80 5.24 4.87 5. 38 5.07
Neoprene Volume Resistivity, lxl0 12 2xl0 12 2x10 12 3xl0 12 2xl012 6xl0 1I 2xl0 12
Jacket ohm-cm
(K) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 9.50 12.95 12.18 9. 36 12.96 10.14 9.21
Filled LV Volume Resistivity, 4xl0 16 lxl0 16 5xl0 16 lxl0 15 lxl0 16 lxl0 16 lxl0 16 lxl0 16 4x10 14
XLPE ohm-cm
Insulation 60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.65 0.51 0.54 0.48 0.44 0.89
(L)
11096704
Table 4-8
COMPATIBILITY OF PULLING LUBRICA.~TS WITH CABLE MATERIALS

Aged
Coated with Lubricant No.
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated
Uncoated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LDPE Volume Resistivity, 3x10 1 7 4xl0 15 5x10 13 3x10 1 5 2x10 1 • 6x10 1 '
ohm-cm
Jacket 60 Hz Power Factor, % 0.06 0.10 0.43 0.14 0.39 0.18
(A)
.i,- NDPE Volume Resistivity, 2x10 1 7 3x10 16 2x10 1 ' 8x10 13 3x10 1 3 5x10 1 '
1 ohm-cm
t-'
0 Jacket 60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.04 0.04 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.16
(B)
PVC-1 Volume Resistivity, 3x10 1 ' 3xl01' 6x10 1 3 12x10 1 3 6x10 l 3 8x10 13 6x10 13 3x10 12 7x10 1 3
Jacket ohm-cm
(D) 60 Hz Power Factor, % 3.90 10.25 5.47 4.87 5.26 5.02 5.00 7.08 5.00
PVC-2 Volume Resistivity, 4xl0 1 ' 9x10 1 ' 3xl0 1 ' 3x10 1 • llxlOl 3 12x10 13 3xl0 1 ' 7xl0 13 3x10 1 •
Jacket ohm-cm
(E) 60 Hz Power Factor, % 4.80 4.75 5.55 5.67 5.25 5.50 5.52 4.99 5.55
Neoprene Volume Resistivity, lxl0 1 2 3x10 12 4x10 12 4x10 12 3x10 1 2 4x10 12 3x10 12
Jacket ohm-cm
(K) 60 Hz Power Factor, % 9.50 16. 35 12.33 14.20 15.57 12.24 16.44
Filled LV Volume Resistivity, 4x10 1 6 5x10 15 6xl0 13 lxlO 1 • 6x10 13 2x10 1 • lxl0 1 • 9.5x10 13 3xl0 1 '
XLPE ohm-cm
Insulation 60 Hz Power Factor, % 0.49 0.67 0.80 0.69 0.80 0.93 1.15 o. 72 0.74
(L)
11096704
Table 4-9

Environmental Stress Cracking 0 at Room Temperature &
100% Relative Humidity after 12 Months
-
Cable Test Period
I Results © !
Material Time, Lubricants
(Key Letter)
Months None
(Control)
Ill i 112 113 114 1/5 116 tn I
! !
LDPE 1 0/10 0/10 ! 0/10 0/10 0/10
i
Jacket 2 0/10 0/10 ' 0/10 0/10 0/10 !

6 0/10 0/10 ! 0/10 0/10 0/10
(A) 9 0/10 0/10 ' 0/10 0/10 0/10 '
12 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 )
i i
'
MDPE 1 0/10 0/10 0/10 ' 0/10 0/10
Jacket 2 0/10 0/10 0/10 : 0/10 0/10
(B)
6
9
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
i 0/10
j 0/10
0/10
0/10
I!
, 0/10 i
12 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
SCPE i 1 0/10 0/10 0/10 : 0/10 0/10

Shield 2 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
or Jacket 6 0/10 0/10 0/10 I 0/10 0/10
9 0/10 0/10
' 0/10 0/10 0/10
(G) I
12 0/10 0/10
'
0/10
i 0/10 0/10
SCDRTP 1 0/10 0/10 0/10 I 0/10 0/10

Shield 2 0/10 0/10
i 0/10 ) 0/10 0/10 I
or Jacket 6 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 I
(H)
9 0/10 0/10 0/10 ' 0/10 0/10
12 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
' '
SCXLPE 1 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
Shi~ld 2 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
6 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
(I) 9 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10
12 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 I
Filled LV-
XLPE
1
2
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
I 0/10
0/10
I 0/10
0/10
I
Insulation 6
9
I
I
0/10
0/1,J
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/l.0
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
I 0/10
0/1~
iI
(L)
12
I 011a Q/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 0/10 ! 0/10 I
I
0/10 !I
Notes: (D - Specimens prepared as per ASTM Standard D-169 3- 70

@ - Expressed as 11 Failures/lO Specimens"
4-11
11096704
Table 4-10
COMPATIBILITY OF METALS AND DUCTS WITH PULLING LUBRICANTS

AFTER 12 MONTHS @ ROOM TEMPERATURE & 100% RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Pulling
Material Lubricant No. Visually Observed Changes of Material
Metals
Lead Sheath None, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 Very slightly tarnished. Intermittent white powdery deposit
on all samples. Lubricant No. 3 resulted in sporadic
orange colored discoloration.
Coated Copper None, 1, 2, 4, 7 All samples were coated with a light green deposit.
Samples with lubricants No. 2 and No. 7 were tarnished
more than samples with lubricants No. 1 and No. 4.
-
Bare Copper Wire None, 1, 2, 4, 7 Green tarnish on all samples. A slight intermittent
silvery deposit on all samples. Samples with lubricants
No. 4 and No. 7 had a heavier surface oxidation.
Ducts
Biturnenized Fibre None, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 None on all ducts.
Galvanized Steel None, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 None on all ducts.
Polyethylene None, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 None on all ducts.
PVC None, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 None on all ducts.
Asbestos - Cement None, 1, 2, 6 None on all ducts.

(Transite)
4-12
11096704
60°C (140°F) AIR OVEN AGING
Before preparing any samples for this series of tests, a small quantity of each of
the seven pulling lubricants were placed in aluminum pans and exposed to a 60°C
air oven environment. Three of the seven (Nos. 2, 4, 7) were completely dried out
in less than 24 hours. From this it was concluded that under this test condition
they would not e~hibit any chemical or physical activity and would not have any
effect on any of the cable and duct materials. Therefore, these pulling compounds
were eliminated from this phase of the test program. The other lubricants (Nos. 1,
3, 5, 6), while becoming drier or harder, retained enough "soapiness" or "waxiness"
to make some chemical or physical activity possible and the aging program proceeded
using these four materials.
The physical properties measured after the 1, 3, 6 and 12 month aging periods are
given in Tables 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, and 4-14, respectively. Similarly, the results
of volume resistivity measurements on semiconducting cable materials are given in
Table 4-15. The results of these tests indicate that there was no significant
change in any of the physical properties or the volume resistivity of any of the
materials tested as a result of their exposure to the pulling lubricants.
The electrical properties of the materials were measured after 1, 3 and 6 months of
aging and are given in Tables 4-16, 4-17, and 4-18, respectively. Since the values
appeared to have stabilized between the 3 and 6 month aging periods the 12 month
readings were omitted. While there are some rather large changes in the measured
properties after the 1 and 3 month aging periods, it should be noted that all of
the materials under test are cable jacket or low voltage insulation compounds, As
such, it was considered that the test results did not reflect adversely on the
performance capability of cables on which these materials would normally be employed.
4-13
11096704
Table 4-11

Physical Properties of Cable Materials
After 1 Month Aging @ 6O°C (14O°F) in an Air Oven CD
AooS
Co ...... ..,,.1 w·r-h p,,11-; y,,1--,,...·,... /la.__
Unaged
1 3 5 6
Material Uncoated
Uncoated
LDPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 2093 1783 - - -

Elongation, % 506 537 380
Jacket Modulus @100% El. ,psi 1,243 1247 1670
(A)
MDPE
@
Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 3585 3533 - - -
Jacket Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,936 1850 1810
(B)
PVC-1 Tensile Strength, psi 2,614 2223 2187 2140 2150 2137
Jacket Elongation, % 271 257 287 297 268 290
(D) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,008 1750 1637 1753 1710 1700
(E) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,736 1740 1720 171) 1677 1740
SCTP Tensile Strength, psi 1. 327 1360 1337 - - -

Shield or Elongation, % 217 233 233
Jacket Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,217 1300 1280
(G)
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1580 1620 - - -

Shield or Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,696 1570 1613
Jacket
(H)
SCXLPE
Shield
Tensile Strength, psi
Elongation, %
2,945
141
2483
170
2547
16 7
- - -
Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,634 2110 2130
(I)
Neoprene Tensile Strength, psi 2,235 2420 225 7 2307 2437 2513
(K) Modulus @ 200% El., psi
I
845 790 837
I
I
823
I 753 783
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2297 I 2190 2220 2257 2307
XLPE
Insulation
Elongation, %
Modulus @ 100% El., psi I 345
1, 707
310
1253
I
!
323
1233
I
337
1207 I
347
1253 l 343
1243
Notes: Q) Tested as per Para. 6. 4 of ICEA Specification S-66-524 (ASTM Standard D412-75)
Cl) Tested as above~ except with 2" per minute jaw separation rate.
4-14
11096704
Table 4-12

After 3 Months Aging@ 60°C (140°F) in an Air Oven@
Aged
roated with Pullin2 Lubricant· No.
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated l 3 5 6
Uncoated
(Kev Letter) Prooertv & Unit (Ori2inal) (Control)
LDPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 1805 1819
Jacket Elongation, %
Modulus @ 100% El. ,psi
506 547 567 - - -
1,243 1693 1290
(A)
MDPE @ Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 4257 3779

Elongation, %
Modulus @ 100% El. , psi
788 877 850 - - -
Jacket 1,936 1735 1714
(B)
(D) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,008 1582 1866 1577 1786 1857
(E) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,736 1621 1607 1624 1581 1536
SCTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,327 1440 1418

Shield or
Jacket
Elongation, %
Modulus @ 100% El. , psi
217 203 207 - - -
1,217 1332 1333
(G)
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1568 1525

Elongation, % 262 223 197 - - -
Shield or
Jacket
Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,696 - -
(H)
SCXLPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,945 26 79 2584

Shield Elongation, % 141 173 180 - - -
Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 2,634 2296 2085
(I)
Neoprene Tensile Strength, psi 2,235 2188 2194 2164 2243 2169
(K) Modulus @ 200% El. , psi 848 743 716 761 757 746
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2221 2301 2327 2234 2260
XLPE Elongation, % 345 440 400 313 283 407
Insulation Modulus @ 100% El., psi 1,707 1194 1229 1377 1505 1311
(L)
Notes: (D Tested as per Para. 6.4 of ICEA Specification S-66-534 (ASTM Standard D412-75)
® Tested as above, except with 2 11 per minute jaw separation rate.
4-15
11096704
Table 4-13

After 6 Uonths Aging @ 6O°C (14O°F) in an Air Oven G)
Aged
Cable Unaged
Material
Uncoated Uncoated
(Key Letter) Property & Unit (Original) (Original) 1 3 5 6
LDPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 1,973 2,170 - - -

Jacket Modulus @ 100% EL. , psi 1,243 1,263 1,246
(A)
MDPE
@
Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 3,947 3,306 - - -
Jacket Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,936 1,920 1,883
(B)
PVC-1 Tensile Strength, psi 2,614 2,200 2,463 2,250 2,190 2,246
to) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,008 1,650 1,960 1,776 1,658 1,656
,_, Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,736 1,683 1,903 1,776 1,776 1,756
SCTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,327 1,513
180
1,500 - - -
Shield or Elongation, % 217 180
Jacket Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,217 1,430 1,446
(Gl
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1,670 1,636 - - -
Shield or Modulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,696 1,643 1,626
Jacket
(H)
SCXLPE
Shield
Tensile Strength, psi
Elongation, %
2,945
141
2,436
151
2,530 - - -
151
(I) Modulus @ 100% El., psi 2,634 2,056 2,133
Neoprene Tensile Strength, psi 2,235 2,283 2,116 2,216 2,250 2,206
(K) Modulus @ 200% El. , psi 845 986 946 1,000 996 993
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2,260 2,353 2,353 2,506 2,200
lCLPE Elongation % 345
9 366 336 343 331 348
Insulation Hodulus @ 100% El. , psi 1,707 1,296 1,296 1,300 1,383 1,253
(L)
Note: (j) Tested as per Para. 6.4 of ICEA Specification S-66-524 (ASTM Standard D412-75)
(V Tested as above, except with 2" per minute iaw se~aration rate.
4-16
11096704
Table 4-14

After 12 Months Aging@ 6O°C (14O°F) in Air Oven@
A•ed
Cable Unaged
Material
Uncoated Uncoated
(Key Letter) Property & Unit (Original) (Original) 1 3 5 6
LDPE Tensile Strength, psi 2,094 2,250 2,323 - - -

Jacket Modulus @ 1007. EL., psi 1,243 1,348 1,353
(A)
MDPE @ Tensile Strength, psi 4,164 3,980 3,872 - - -

Jacket Modulus @ 1007. El., psi 1,936 1,942 1,950
(Bl
ID) Modulus @ 1007. El. , psi 2,008 2,153 2,158 2,213 2,202 2,193
PVC-2 Tensile Strength, psi 2,548 2,525 2.588 2,583 2,483 2,537
lo\ Modulus @ 1007. El., psi 1,736 1,962 2,000 1.993 1,925 1,963
SCTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,327 1,613 1,528 - - -

Shield or Elongation, % 217 193 258
Jacket Modulus @ 1007. El. , psi 1,217 1,515 1,416
IC.)
SCDRTP Tensile Strength, psi 1,778 1,887 1,800 - - -
Shield or Modulus @ 1007. El. , psi 1,696 1,862 1,800
Jacket
(H)
SCXLPE
Shield
Tensile Strength, psi 2,945 2,767 3,100 - - -
(I) Modulus @ 1007. El. , psi 2,634 2,342 2,700
---
Neoprene Tensile Strength, psi 2,235 1,975 2,095 2,175 2,173 2,297
(K) Modulus @ 200% El. , psi 845 1,025 1,025 1,008 1,000 1,100
Filled LV Tensile Strength, psi 2,225 2,495 2,437 2,282 2,288 2,287
XLPE Elongation, % 345 471 450 421 446 4nl
Insulation Modulus @ 1007. El., psi 1,707 1,358 1,395 1,347 1,367 1,361
(L)
Note: (D Tested as per Para. 6.4 of ICEA Specification 5-66-524 (ASTM Standard D412-75)
@ Tested :is above, except with 2" per minute jaw sc-paration rate.
4-17
11096704
Table 4-15

Volume Resistivity of Semiconducting Cable Materials
in Ohm-cm at R.T. After Aging@ 60°C (140°F) in an Air Oven
Aged
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated Coated with Pulling Lubricant No. 1
Uncoated
(Key Letter) (Original) After 1 After 3 After 6 After 12
(Control)
Month Months Months Months
SCTP
Shield or
31.3 24. 3 31.5 14.9 13.9 42.8
Jacket
(G)
SCDRTP
Shield or 7.8 4.9 5.1 6.3 6.0 7.7
Jacket
(H)
SCXLPE
Shield 28.9 25.2 46.4 39. 2 20.5 28.8
(I)
Lf-18
11096704
Table 4-16

Electrical Properties of Cable Materials
After 1 Month Aging@ 6O°C (14O°F) in an Air Oven
Aged
Coated with Pullin~ LubTicant No.
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated
Uncoated ·l 3 5 6
LOPE Volume Resistivity, 3xl0l 7 8.5xl0 16 l.lxl0 1 •

Jacket
Ohm-Cm
60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.06 0.13
- - -
0.06
(A)
Volume Resistivity, 2xl0 17 9.9xl0 16 1. 7xl0 16

MOPE Ohm-Cm - - -
Jacket 60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.04 0.04 0.13
(B)
PVC-1 Volume Resistivity, 3xl0 14 2.4x10 1• 8. 9xl0 13 l.3xl0 13 8.55xl0 13 2.6xl0 12

Jacket Ohm-Cm
(D) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 3.9 3.61 3.89 3.90 3.56 4.86
PVC-2 Volume Resistivity, 4xlO" 6 .6xl0 14 10.0xl0 13 3.2x10 1• l.5xl014 9.0xl0 12

Jacket Ohm-Cm
(E) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 4.8 4.51 4.92 4.78 4.67 4.94
Neoprene Volume Resistivity, lxlO 12 l.lxl012 3.5xl0 12 5.2x10 12 3.6xl0 12 6.2xl0 11

Jacket Ohm-Cm
(K) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 9.5 8.10 8.96 6.75 10.05 13.40
Filled LV Volume Resistivity, 4xl0 16 7. 7xl0 16 l.8xl0n l.5x101• 1.9xl0 16 5. 2xl0 13

XLPE Ohm-Cm
Insulation 60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.49 0.48 1.12 0.55 0.74 1.48
(L)
4-19
11096704
Table 4-17

After 3 Months Aging@ 60°C (140°F) in an Air Oven
Aoed
Cable Coated with Pullin• Lubrica • Nn
Unaged
1 3 5 6
(Kev Letter) Property & Unit (Original) (Control)
Volume Resistivity, 3xl01 7 1. 7x10 1 7 3.2xl0 16
LDPE Ohm-Cm - - -
(A)
Volume Resitivity, 2xl01 7 2.0xl0 1 7 2.2x10 17

MDPE Ohm-Cm - - -
(B)
PVC-1 Volume Resistivity, 3x10 14 3.6xl0 14 1.6x10 14 2.0x10 14 1.0x10 14 3. 6x10 12

Jacket Ohm-Cm
(D) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 5.3
PVC-2 Volume Resistivity, 4xl014 6.7x10 14 7.4x10 14 7.lx10 14 3.9x10 14 1.lx10 13
Jacket Ohm-Cm
{E) 60 Hz Power Factor,% 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.4
Neoprene Volume Resisitivity 1x1012 3.4xl0 11 3. 2x10 12 12x10 12 2.3x10 12 3.4x10 11
Jacket Ohm-Cm
(K) 60 Hz Power Factor,% ~-5 20.2 10.8 15.9 11.1 14.6
Filled LV Volume Resi~tivity 4xl0 16 1.lx10 17 1.0x10 15 2. 5x10 16 2.lxl0 16 2.6xl0 15

XLPE Ohm-Cm
Insulation 60 Hz Power Factor,% 0.49 0.51 0.64 0.59 0.54 0.55
(L)
4-20
11096704
Table 4-18

After 6 Months Aging@ 6O°C (14O°F) in an Air Oven
Aged
Coated with Pullin<> r ..,..~·~,-~ Nn
Cable Unaged
Material Uncoated
Uncoated 1 3 5 6
Volume Resistivity, 3xl0 17 lxl0 17 lxl0 16

LDPE ohm-cm
Jacket 60 Hz Power Factor, % 0.06 0.07 0.08
(A)
Volume Resistivity, 2x10 17 lxl0 17 5xl0 16

MDPE
Jacket
ohm-cm
60 Hz Power Factor, % 0.04 0.05 0.05 I
(B)
PVC-1 Volume Resistivity, 3xl0 14 8xl0 14 3xl0 14 9xl0 14 lxl0 14 3xl0 12

Jacket ohm-cm
(D) 60 Hz Power Factor, % 3.90 3.4 3.8 3.7 3.6 4.9
PVC-2 Volume Resistivity, 4xl0 14 lxl0 15 8x10 14 6xl014 8xl0 12 lx10 15

Jacket ohm-cm
(E) 60 Hz Power Factor, % 4.80 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
Neoprene Volume Resistivity, lxl0 12 2xl0 11 3xl0 12 8xl012 2x1012 10xl0 11

Jacket ohm-cm
(K) 60 Hz Power Factor, % 9.50 22.7 8.6 10.2 18.4 10.2
Filled LV Volume Resistivity, 4xl0 16 lxl0 17 5xl016 5xl016 .lxlOl 7 6xl01 s

XLPE ohm-cm
Insulation 60 Hz Power Factor, % 0.49 0.52 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.53
(L)
4-21
11096704
11096704
Section 5
DETERMINATION OF COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION
GENERAL
A series of measurements were performed to determine the static and dynamic coef-
ficients of friction between cables with different outer coverings and various type
ducts. The coefficients of friction were measured in lubricated and unlubricated
ducts at room temperature and -7°C (19°F). Variation of the coefficient of friction
with pulling speed was also determined. The initial work was performed by pulling
cable samples through a length of duct and measuring the pulling force. In this
case the normal force between the cable and duct was the weight of the particular
cable sample. During this series of tests, nine cable types, six duct materials
and seven lubricants were employed.
As work in the other phases of the project progressed, it became apparent that some
cables could be safely pulled around bends at sidewall bearing pressures up to 4,000
lbs/ft. (5950 kg/m). Data obtained at the Field Test Site at Georgia Power Company
indicated that the coefficient of friction under high sidewall bearing pressure
could be different than those originally determined under conditions of low normal
force. Therefore, a second series of laboratory tests were performed in a specially
designed apparatus in which it was possible to determine coefficient of friction as
a function of normal force.
The coefficients of friction measured under conditions of low normal force are ap-
plicable for cables that are pulled through straight sections of duct and around
bends under low tension whereas those measured under high bearing pressure are ap-
licable for calculating pulling tensions for cables that are being pulled around
bends at higher tensions.
5-1
11096704
TESTS AT LOW NORMAL FORCE
Test Set-Up and Procedure
The tests were performed on cable samples 18 inches (46cm) in length. The samples
were carefully straightened so that they would bear as uniformly as possible on
the inner surface of the duct. Each cable sample was fitted with a screw eye for
attaching the pulling line. A load cell in the pulling line was used to measure
the pulling force and the output of the load cell was reccrded on a strip chart
recorder. In order to determine both the static (µs) and dynamic (µk) coefficients
of friction, the initial line opeed was set at about 1.5 ft/min. (0.76 cm/sec) to
obtain the "break away" force. As soon as the sample began to move("' 1 to 2 sec-
onds), the line speed was increased to 35 ft/min. (18 cm/sec) for the remainder
of the run, The ducts were approximately 10 - 12 feet (3 - 3.6m) long. Care was
taken to position each sample so that one side did not become worn during the tests.
When lubricants were used, separate cable samples and ducts were employe.d for each
lubricant to avoid mixing of the different materials. Each sample was uniformly
coated with lubricant applied with a plastic bristled scrub brush. The average
film thickness was approximately 5 mils (0.127mm). Multiple runs were conducted
until the surfaces of the ducts became coated to the extent that they represent
"pre-lubricated" ducts.
To investigate possible differences in coefficients of friction when three single

conductor cables are pulled simultaneously, a series of trials were conducted with
three cables bundled in close triangular configuration. The cables used for these
trials were selected as being typical of those that would be used in multiple con-
ductor pulls.
Speed Trials
While it had been decided that the dynamic coefficients of friction would be deter-
mined at a pulling speed of 35 ft/min. (18 cm/sec), which was considered to be a
reasonable field pulling speed, it was also of interest to know the values at other
speeds. Therefore, a series of tests were performed at different pulling speeds.
The tests were performed at 25°C in ducts with no lubricant. Four duct materials
were employed, namely; PVC, transite, bitumenized fibre and concrete. The cable
samples had outer coverings of XLPE, PE, PVC, neoprene and concentric neutral wires.
The values of friction coefficient obtained at eight different pulling speeds are
given in Table 5-1.
5-2
11096704
Table 5-1
COEFFICIENTS OF DYNAMIC FRICTION VS. PULLING SPEED

(room temperature, no lubricant)
Cable Item No. 5 8 9 4 5 14 16 5 8 4 5 8 16
Outer Component N PE CN XLP N PE PVC N PE XLP N PE PVC
Duct Material PVC TRANSITE FIBRE CONCRETE
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION µk
Pulling Speed
ft/min. (cm/sec)
10 (5.1) 0.44 0.35 0.34 0.52 0.88 0.50 o. 74 0.67 0.54 0.51 1.10 0.49 0.64
20 (10.2) 0.45 0.35 0.37 0.52 0.87 0.50 0. 74 0.63 0.54 0.54 0.96 0.50 0.63
30 (15.2) 0.47 0.37 0.34 0.52 0. 86 0.52 0.76 0.65 0.54 0.56 0.98 0.50 0.62
40 (20.3) 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.52 1.03 0.49 0.72 0.61 0.55 0.52 0.96 0.49 0.66
50 (25.4) 0.50 0.37 0.34 0.57 0.92 0.50 0. 74 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.99 0.50 0.62
60 (30.5) a.so 0.37 0.36 0.61 0.93 0.52 0. 70 0.61 0.56 0.48 0.92 a.so 0.57
70 (35.6) 0,51 0.37 0.30 0.61 0.95 0.52 0.78 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.96 0.52 0.56
80 (40.6) o. 51 0.35 .32 0.60 0.95 0.55 0.74 0.58 0.48 0.52 0.97 0.52 0.56
5-3
11096704
For all combinations, the coefficient of friction at each of the eight pulling
speeds was within± 10% of the average of the eight readings. This variation is
considered to be within the accuracy of the measurements. Therefore, it was con-
cluded that the coefficients of friction were essentially independent of the pul-
ling speed.
Coefficients of Friction (Ducts Without Lubricant)
The measured static (µs) and dynamic (µk) coefficients of friction for cables in
ducts without lubricant at 25°C (77°F) and -7°C (20°F) are summarized in Tables
5-2 and 5-3, respectively. Data is presented for one and three cable pulls at
25°C (77°F). The ranges of measured values under each condition are also listed
in the tables in order to show the degree of variation in friction factor that
occurred in the tests.
A large variation in friction coefficients was found in the case of PVC ducts and
in the case of PVC jacketed cables. The variation of the results obtained with
PVC ducts was due to the fact that five different PVC ducts were employed in the
tests and it was found that for a given cable the friction coefficients varied
from one PVC duct to another. The test results also show that the friction coef-
ficients obtained with PVC jacketed cables varied from one cable type to another.
In general, the steel, transite, fibre and concrete ducts had the highest coeffic-
ients of friction and the PVC and PE ducts the lowest. The neoprene and PVC covered
cables exhibited the highest friction coefficients. The values of friction coef-
ficients at -7°C (20°F) were lower in most instances than those measured at 25°C
(77°F). In practically all cases, the static coefficient of friction was higher
than the dynamic as would be expected. The most notable exception was found with
XI.PE cables in three cable pulls which showed higher dynamic coefficients in all
but the transite ducts.
Coefficients of Friction (Ducts With Lubricant)
The measured static (µs) and dynamic (µk) coefficients of friction for single
cables pulled in ducts with lubricant at 25°C (77°F) and -7°C (20°F) are presented
in Tables 5-4 and 5-5, respectively. In the tables two values of dynamic friction
coefficient are listed. The dynamic coefficient of friction measured on the first
run represents the case when a lubricated cable is pulled into a clean, dry duct
while the data obtained for the balance of the runs represents the conditions when
a cable is pulled into a pre-lubricated duct.
5-4
11096704
Table 5-2
STATIC AND DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION IN

VARIOUS DUCTS UITHOUT LUTIRICANTS@ 25°C (77°F)
,-~
Coefficients of Friction 0
Outer Cable Duct
Component Material Avg. Range . [~;g·. ~~ng·~- \Avg.f .....
Ran~~ ;Avg. Range
µs ! \µkl lµs 3 ! J ~k 3
'
XI.PE PVC 0.50 0.26-0.68 !o.49 0.42-0.58 lo. 34; i
0.32-0.38!0.56 0.53-0.58
PE 0.56 0.52-0.58 ,0.53
i 0.51-0.56 i0.27 0.26-0.29j0.43 0.39-0.48
TRANSITE 0.57 10.51 0.50-0.51 l 0.44 0.42-0.54!0.56 0.55-0.56
STEEL Jo. 10
I
0.61-0.83 ,o.59
i '
0.59-0.60 1o. 48
i
0.42-0.56:0.46 0.44-0.48
FIBRE i0.67 0.61-0. 74 10.671 0.66-0.68 lo. 53 0.49-0.5510.74 0.72-0.77
I
CONCRETE IQ.59 0.52-0.70 10.55 I 0.53-0.56 I -
PE PVC !o.52 o. 33-0. 80 0.461 0.36-0.57 ' ;o. 31 o.31-0.31 fo.32 o.31-0.33
PE i
10-40 0.33-0.52 0.42
I
0.30-0.49 i0.40 0.36-0.46 i0.47 0.45-0.50
TRANSITE Jo. 75 I 0.61-0.96 0.53 0.46-0.68 !' - ! -
STEEL io. 74 o.57-0.84 :o. 60 0.59-0.63 :I - i
i -
FIBRE lo. 79
;
o.45-1.40 j0.64
I
0.42-0.92 !0.63 0.60-0. 70 io.60 o.57-0.67
! CONCRETE i 0.44-0.47 l
j0.54 0.46-0.58 io.45
i -'
!
Ii0.69 l o.36-0.62
! ;>VC PVC !o.9o 0.37-1.79 0.31-1.26 !o.581 o.48-o. n :o.54
I ' I
PE j0.61 0.53-0.64 lo.36 0.34-0.37 -0. 36 I 0.27-0.46 i0.31 0.28-0.34
i I
TRANSITE il.15 1.02-1.25 10. 73
I
0.72-0.74 !o. 84 ! 0.74-0.92 !0.68
!
0.63-0.74
STEEL il.55 1.43-1.66 ;o.86 0.86-0.86 [I - i: - iI - -
i
! FIBRE
I
!1.15 0.96-1.58 ~-83
I
0.83-0.83 :o. 74 i o.54-1.18 'o.78 o.47-0.98
CONCRETE i1 .16 1.05-1.21 ~.61 0.61-0.61 ! - - i
N I PVC ;o.97 o.57-1.48 !o. 54

,
i o.45-o. 78
I
:i.01; o. 71-1.43 !o. 73 ! o.65-0.81
i PE '
[0.62 0.57-0.65 j0.49 j 0.49-0.49 - I '
!
1 TRANSITE :1.17 0. 99-1. 32 i0.91 j 0.83-0.97 '.0. 75 j 0. 72-0. 77 :o. 72 I 0.69-0. 75
l I
STEEL !1. 35 1. 14-1. 36 11.12 1.01-1. 21 1
I
1.07
I
1.04-1.0911.15 I 1.11-1.21
i
FIBRE
I
11.07
I
0. 86-1. 28 :o. 67
I
0.66-0.70 10.84
I
o.69-0.94 !o.47 i o.40-0.51

CONCRETE j0.91 0.91-0.91 !1.04
I
1.00-1.07 i - i
CN i PVC j0.38 0.24-0.52 ~-38
'
0.27-0.48 -i i -
I
PE 10. 27 0.26-0.29 ~-22 0.22-0.22
STEEL !o.44 o.41-0.47 io.29 0.29-0.29
I
FIBRE ;0.81 o. 78-o.88 lo.39 o.39-0.39
I I
CONCRETE i0.54 0.46-0.58 r-51 0.49-0.52 - I
;
Pb I PVC jO. 37 0.32-0.41 i0.34 0.31-0.36 - I I -
I PE jo.22 0.19-0.21 ':0.26 0.25-0.27 - !

i !
I -
0 µ5 1 - Static friction one cable in pull
pk 1 - Dynamic friction one cable in pull
µ8 3 - Static friction three cables in pull
µk 3 - Dynamic [riction three cables in pull
5-5
11096704
Table 5-3
STATIC AND DYNA.~IC COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION

IN VARIOUS DUCTS WITHOUT LUBRICANTS@ -7°C (20°F)
Coefficients of Friction <D

Outer
Cable Du<;t Avg. Avg.
Range Range
Component Material µs µk
XI.PE PVC 0.46 0.36-0.48 0.40 0. 33-0.47

PE 0.26 o. 22-0. 30 0.27 0.24-0. 35
TRANSITE 0.48 0.43-0.52 0.39 0.35-0.42
STEEL 0.50 0.39-0.60 0.46 0.45-0.47
FIBRE 0.42 0.34-0.52 0.32 o. 32-0. 32
CONCRETE 0.66 0.61-0.70 0.41 0.41-0.42
PE PVC 0.45 0.33-0.57 0.38 0.28-0.44

PE 0.32 0.25-0.41 0. 32 0.27-0.36
TRANSITE 0.53 0.44-0.60 0.45 0.40-0.54
STEEL 0.44 0.40-0.48 0.42 0.40-0.45
FIBRE 0.57 0.44-0.84 0.45 0.34-0.68
CONCRETE 0.58 0.45-0.70 0. 39 0.38-0.41
PVC PVC 0.52 0.43-0. 70 0.43 0.37-0.49

PE 0.25 0.25-0.25 0.27 0. 27-0. 27
TRANSITE 0.49 0.30-0.74 0. 30 0.20-0.43
STEEL 0.64 0.60-0.69 0.40 0.37-0.43
FIBRE 0.63 0.43-0. 71 0.49 0.35-0.66
CONCRETE 0.85 0.74-0.90 0.42 0.40-0.44
N PVC 0.80 o. 72-0.96 0.59 0.51-0. 71

PE 0.59 0.54-0.68 0. 36 0.34-0.41
TRANSITE 0.99 0.88-1.12 0.74 0.66-0.79
STEEL 0.91 0.68-1.22 0.67 0. 34-0. 95
FIBRE 0.76 o. 64-0. 88 0. 71 0.67-0.74
CONCRETE 1.57 1.40-1.65 1.03 0.98-1.09
CN PVC 0.32 0. 25-0. 44 0.28 0 .18-0. 39

PE 0.21 0.20-0.24 0.21 0.20-0.21,
STEEL o. 31 0.24-0. 34 0.30 0.30-0.31
FIBRE 0.46 0.39-0.49 0.41 0.37-0.44
CONCRETE 0. 52 0.49-0.55 0.50 0.49-0.52
Pb PVC 0.33 0.27-0.36 0.34 0.34-0.34

PE 0.23 0.19-0.25 0.21 0.19-0.22
Q) All single cable pulls.
5-6
11096704
Table 5-4
STATIC AND DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION FOR

SINGLE CABLE PULLS IN DUCTS WITH LUBRICANT AT 25°C (77°F)
Outer Coefficient of Friction

Cable Duct Lubricant Avg. Range Avg(] Avg@ Range@
Component Material Type@ µs µkl µk 2
XLPE PVC 1,3,5,6 0.28 0.16-0.48 0.38 0.30 0.19-0.50

PE 1 0.18 0.18-0.18 0.22 0.20 0.19-0.20
PE 6 0.52 0.39-0.65 0.32 0.34 0.31-0.36
TRANSITE 1 0.63 0.51-0.70 0.51 0.53 0.52-0.54
STEEL 1,3,5,6 0.47 0.34-0.57 0.49 0.46 0.36-0.54
FIBRE 1,6 0.30 0.22-0.42 0.22 0.22 0.18-0.24
CONCRETE 1 0.34 0.29-0.39 0.21 0.24 0.21-0.26
CONCRETE 4,7 0.74 0.60-0.82 0.52 0.50 0.43-0.56
PE PVC 1,6 0.28 0.18-0.52 0.34 0.28 0.13-0.46

PVC 2 0.38 0. 36-0. 39 0. 28 0.28 0.24-0.35
PVC 4,7 0.47 0.32-0.61 0.35 0.35 0.22-0.48
PE 1 0.22 0.18-0.25 0.28 0.18 0.17-0.20
PE 2,4, 7 0.44 0.29-0.63 0.40 0.41 0.34-0.54
TRANSITE 2 0.52 0.31-0.88 0.56 0.52 0.48-0.61
STEEL 2 0.53 0.46-0.59 0.39 0.40 0.39-0.40
STEEL 4 0.75 0.65-0.85 0.66 0.54 0.48-0.60
FIBRE 1 0.25 0.18-0.46 0.26 0.20 0.18-0.22
FIBRE 2 a.so 0.44-0.58 0.40 0. 36 0. 31-0.41
CONCRETE 1 0.46 0.38-0.64 0.49 0.28 0.27-0.29
CONCRETE 7 0.95 0.79-1.13 0.51 0.51 0.49-0.53
PVC PVC 1,3,5,6 0.37 0.19-0.58 0.50 0.38 0.26-0.61

PVC 2,4 0.70 0.55-0.87 0.43 0.45 0.38-0.70
PE 1 0.24 0. 20-0. 25 0.32 0.23 0.18-0.30
PE 2,4, 7 0.57 0. 39-0. 71 0.38 0.43 0.39-0.45
TRANSITE 1,6 0.76 0.34-1.10 0.60 0.44 0.34-0.61
STEEL 3 0.62 0.51-0.73 0.58 0.49 0.47-0.51
FIBRE 1,5 0.46 0.25-0.68 0. 36 0.29 0.21-0.39
CONCRETE 5 0.66 0.52-0.73 0.38 0.42 0.40-0.44
N PVC 1,3,6 0.32 0.16-0.81 1.11 0.70 0. 35-1. 34

PE 1,7 0.40 0.18-0.49 0.60 0.49 0.38-0.65
TRANSITE 1 0.57 0.45-0.66 0.86 0. 77 o. 72-0.85
STEEL 1,3,6 0.66 0.32-1.22 0.88 0.80 0.34-1.08
FIBRE 1,6 0.30 0.16-0.58 0.69 0.30 0.25-0.35
CONCRETE 1 0.36 0. 33-0.50 0.55 0.38 0.31-0.45
CONCRETE 4,7 0.84 0.66-1.11 0.70 0.66 0.60-0. 72
CN PVC 1,4,6,7 0.43 0.22-0.61 0.32 0.32 0. 20-0. 39

PE 1 0.19 0.16-0.22 0.19 0.16 0.16-0.16
PE 2 0. 36 0.36-0.36 0.17 0.20 0 .19-0. 21
STEEL 2 0.45 0.41-0.47 0.35 0. 36 0.33-0.38
FIBRE 2 0.52 0.52-0.52 0.31 0. 31 0. 31-0. 31
Pb PVC 1,3,5 0.21 0.18-0.30 0.23 0.19 0.15-0.22

PVC 2 0.59 0.45-0.78 0.43 0.45 0.39-0.50
PE 1,3 0.20 0.18-0.24 0.22 0.16 0.12-0.21
PE 2 0.56 0.45-0.61 0.41 0.41 0.39-0.42
CONCRETE 5 0.76 0.66-0.82 0.56 0.42 0.42-0.43
Ci) Average Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - First Run

a) Average Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - Balance of Runs
Q)Range of Dynamic Coefficients of Friction - Balance of Runs
@ See Table 4-1
5-7
11096704
Table 5-5

SINGLE CABLE PULLS IN DUCTS WITH LUBRICANT AT -7°C (20°F)
Outer Coefficient of Friction

Cable Duct Lubricant Avg. Range Avg. Avg. Range©
Component Materials TypJii) lJs µ18) µifv
XLPE PVC 1 _. 3, 6 0.31 0.05-0.61 0.25 0.31 0.07-0.34
PE 1,7 0.47 0. 39-0. 60 0.26 0.26 0.16-0.37
STEEL 1 1.02 0.91-1.13 o. 39 0.33 0.29-0.36
STEEL 3,6 0.58 0.35-0.88 0.44 0.33 0.31-0.40
FIBRE 1 0.76 0.74-0.78 0.25 0.16 0.16-0.17
FIBRE 6 0. 21 0.16-0.24 0.20 0.13 0.10-0.15
PE PVC 1,2,4,7 0.42 0.27-0.58 0.25 0.25 0.15-0.34

PE 1 0.32 0.15-0.42 0.20 0.16 0.15-0.21
PE 2,4,7 0.55 0.34-0.80 0.31 0.35 0.27-0.41
TRANSITE 1 0.23 0.15-0.31 0.32 0.27 0.25-0.29
TRANSITE 2 0.44 0.28-0.66 0.34 0.32 0.25-0.36
STEEL 2,4 0.54 0.24-0.76 0.42 0.38 0.32-0.44
FIBRE 1,2 0.62 0.29-1.19 0.38 0.26 0.23-0.31
PVC PVC 1,3,6 o. 31 0.11-0. 68 0.23 0.19 0.09-0.31

PVC 2,4 0.52 0. 30-0. 73 0.38 0.32 0.26-0.36
PE 1 0.34 0.23-0.43 0.15 0.16 0.11-0.18
PE 2,4,7 0.53 0.24-0.89 0.26 0.32 0.24-0.37
TRANSITE 1 0.19 0.17-0.20 0. 39 0.27 0.22-0.31
TRANSITE 6 0.56 0. 30-0.95 0.38 0.23 0.17-0.29
STEEL 2 o. 70 0.62-0.76 0. 34 0.30 0.29-0.30
FIBRE 1,3 0.29 0. 20-0. 39 0.16 0.12 0.12-0.13
N PVC 1,3 0.39 0.20-0.58 0.36 0.41 0.17-0.70

PVC 6 o. 34 0.16-0.65 0.11 0.15 0.08-0.23
PE 1,7 0.49 0.16-0.81 0.36 0.34 0.28-0.44
TRANSITE 1 0.40 0.25-0.53 0. 77 0.73 0. 65-0. 81
STEEL 1,3,6 0.85 0.45-1.49 0.65 0.52 0.34-0.79
FIBRE 1,6 0.61 0.29-0.81 0. 36 0.22 0.20-0.24
CN PVC 4,7 0.37 0.30-0.50 0.25 0. 30 0.28-0.33

PE 1,2 0.24 0.16-0.31 0.17 0 .14 0.10-0.18
STEEL 2 1.16 1. 04-1. 40 0.36 0.38 0.37-0.38
FIBRE 2 0.40 0.37-0.44 0.30 0.26 0.26-0.27
Pb PVC 1,2,3 0. 34 0.18-0.78 0.19 0.19 0.09-0.37

PE 1,2 0.34 0.18-0.47 0.17 0.17 0.09-0.25
Q) Average Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - First Run
(£) Average Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - Balance of Runs
Q)Range of Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - Balance of Runs
® See Table 4-1
5-8
11096704
In analyzing the data from these measurements, the values of coefficient of friction
for every cable outer component and duct combination were examined for every differ-
ent lubricating compound that was used. When data obtained with certain lubricating
compounds produced similar results, the average value of the coefficients of friction
was computed and the ranges of values combined. These values are presented in the
tables. It should be noted that the data generally shows that the friction coeffic-
ients obtained with the soap base lubricants (No. 1, 3, 6) and the talc base lubri-
cant (No. 5) yielded lower values of static and dynamic coefficients of friction than
the bentonite clay based lubricants (No. 2, 4, 7). At the lower temperature, the
soap base compounds occasionally yielded significantly different values of dynamic
friction. In a few instances the static coefficients were similar and the dynamic
coefficients were different for a given type of lubricant. This is apparently due
to the fact that while six of the lubricants remained workable at -7°C (20°F) their
consistency was more variable. The talc base compound was completely frozen solid
at the low temperature and therefore was not included in the low temperature tests.
It should be noted that in some instances the dynamic friction coefficients in lub-
ricated ducts were higher than those in dry ducts. This anomaly appears to be prev-
alent with the bentonite clay based lubricants in conjunction with the polyethylene
ducts. This was probably due to the fact that the coefficient of friction with un-
luricated polyethylene ducts was normally low. With the bentonite clay based lubri-
cants the cable weight alone was not sufficient to squeeze the lubricant into a thin
lubricating film and therefore the cable sample was effectively forced to "plow" the
mass of lubricant resulting in an apparent increase in the coefficient of friction.
The lubricants produced the greatest decrease in dynamic friction coefficient for all
cables in fibre ducts. This was due to the nature of the fibre duct which when not
lubricated exhibited a tacky surface. Therefore, the effect of the lubricant was
pronounced. The effect of lubricants was variable in the case of concentric neutral
non-jacketed cables. For these cables in all ducts, except fibre, the coefficients
of friction tended to be lower without lubricant. The use of the bentonite clay
based lubricant, because of its heavier consistency resulted in approximately a 25%
increase in the coefficient of friction compared to other lubricants.
In the case of lead sheathed cables, the coefficients of friction in PVC and PE ducts
without lubricant were quite low. No significant reduction in coefficients of fric-
tion resulted from the use of lubricants. However, in the case of bentonite clay
based compound, the. coefficient of friction increased when lubricant was employed.
5-9
11096704
The data obtained with three cable pulls are given in Table 5-6. The values shown
were measured at room temperature using the soap base lubricant (No. 1). In gen-
eral, the static coefficients of friction are similar to those obtained in the
single cable tests whereas the dynamic coefficients are higher.
DETERMINATION OF COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION VS. NORMAL FORCE
In this phase of the program a limited number of tests were performed to measure
the coefficients of friction between cable outer coverings and duct materials at
different normal forces. The cable materials included low density polyethylene
(LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), neoprene (N), and lead (Pb). The ducts used were
galvanized steel and PVC. The majority of the tests were conducted using a soap
and water based pulling lubricant and a small number of duplicate runs were conduc-
ted using a bentonite clay/water based lubricant for comparison purposes.
The test set-up consisted of a 25-foot (7.6m) long by 8 inch (20cm) wide aluminum
channel which held the duct that was being tested. Two 3-inch (7.5cm) wide chan-
nels were attached to the side legs of the 8-inch (20cm) channel. These smaller
channels served as a set of tracks for the carriage that was employed to exert the
normal force on the cable sample under test. The set-up is shown schematically in
Figure 5-1. The loading carriage consisted of an aluminum frame approximately
11-inches (28cm) wide by 14.5-inches (37cm) long by 18.25-inches (46cm) high. Four
earn follower rollers were attached near the bottom of the carriage and these rol-
lers fitted into the 3-inch (7.5cm) channels. Th0 normal force was applied to the
cable sample by means of a bolt and spring assembly. Two 5,000 lb (2270 kg) strain
gage load cells were used in the test. One load cell was used to record the nor-
mal force and the other one was attached between the carriage and the pulline cable
to measure the force required to pull the carriage and cable sample along the duct.
Several PVC and steel ducts were cut in half longitudinally for the tests. The
carriage was pulled by a 2hp variable speed gear motor with a 12-inch (30cm) ,:apstan
by means of a Kevlar coated steel cable. During each test the normal force was ap-
plied by tightening the bolt until the desired load was attained. Then the gear
motor was started and the carriage pulled the length of the channel. During the
test the normal and pulling forces were measured on a two-channel strip chart re-
corder. The ducts were lubricated before each test and the cable samples were ro-
tated frequently to prevent any smoothing of the outer covering. The various com-
ponents of the test apparatus are shown in Figure 5-2.
5-10
11096704
Table 5-6

THREE CABLE PULLS IN DUCTS WITH LUBRICANT AT 25°C (77°F) (D
Outer Coefficients of Friction

Cable Duct
Component Material Avg. Avg'@ Avgu) Range©
Range µk 2 µk 3
lJs
XLPE PVC 0.22 0.18 - 0.26 0.46 0.44 0.42 - 0.45
PE 0.25 0.24 - 0.26 0.51 0.42 0.40 - 0.43
TRANSITE 0.42 0.40 - 0.47 0.60 0.55 0.53 - 0.57
STEEL 0.45 0.42 - 0.48 0.53 0.51 0.49 - 0.52
FIBRE 0.32 0.27 - 0.36 0.54 0.51 0.49 - 0.53
PE PVC 0.26 0.22 - 0.30 0. 33 0.33 0.33 - 0.33
PE 0.28 0.25 - 0. 30 0.64 0.65 0.65 - 0.65
FIBRE 0.36 0.32 - 0.40 0.52 0.44 0.43 - 0.45
PVC PVC 0.38 0.25 - 0.54 0.44 0.44 0.39 - 0.49

PE 0.33 0.25 - 0.41 0. 36 0.36 0.30 - 0.40
TRANSITE 0.77 0.54 - 0.92 0. 72 0.53 0.47 - 0.57
FIBRE 0.39 0. 30 - 0.44 0.52 o. 35 0.33 - 0.37
N PVC 0.26 0.24 - 0.28 1. 33 1.28 1.23 - 1.34

TRANSITE 0.60 0.41 - 0. 72 1.22 1. 39 1. 35 - 1.42
STEEL 0. 71 0.57 - 0.81 1.21 1.32 1.31 - 1.33
FIBRE 0.42 0.34 - 0.47 0.58 0.42 0.42 - 0.43
CD Lubricant No. 1 (soap and water base)
@ Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - First Run
@Average Dynamic Coefficient of Friction - Balance of Runs
G) Range of Dyna~ic Coefficient of Friction - Balance of Runs
5-11
11096704
'
h
"-
i '"-.,-,-r----r---r---r---r---r---r-~-
1', !
ll""-.-:-·
"-.i' _/
_ ___,___,___,___,____
f-__i
~
~J
t'<
!',,;
, ✓ ~ ~ I: Lebow Assembly
Load Cell
!"'-i _ Li_ I No. 3124
~r - ,----- I 5, 000 . pounds 17\ 11
\~ .t;""~--=r Capacity
t(j
l''·.l '~~
~'-=-~ \
:,.; 1. \ r,1
~i
:,~v / , / / . / 1/· ,~><t j \\Jr.1 ----
""!../ /_ . _/ _,/ I ~t<·\·\'
,
I .-·'. ··, --, -'\\·-:v_v / _-,-- - - -
. . ,. - .· v., ' --. \ \ ' \,._tVl / / .
. ' ~
... i '\ \\ ·\ \, "\.
r / ,
l'--'/'---~~·_
.
_,___"---'---'-.!....I
\] [~:---->
:\i ff~'<.-'.
N
~-~--- ' \j "...L.::..L_/_, I
~ !.
T_Jfr '~-
I· t \
(.__j
I
;I\.
•
,:·
')-._ -
~
J.-{i~,~ .;
~ . ,.-.1;__ --~:
:.j~<. -'•
I " ,\,,,I, --, ,·,"
i/J"., ---:---- .
~·-✓_ _ _,!;1 - --
;~~;...'. --L...1'\---.-..,--....--,,---,.,._;;:....-.,.--,-.~:.,..........,~-~
J
Cam Follower (4)
/ Aluminum Channel 8 11 X 3 11
Aluminum Channel (2)

I
-- .. 11-3 / 4 II - · - - -------- ·· · - ·· ··-----
Figure 5-1. Cable Loading Carriage for High

Loading Coefficient of Friction Tests.
5-12
11096704
a) Overall View of Test Set-up
Figure 5-2. Test Apparatus for Measuring Coefficient

of Friction versus Normal Force
5-13
11096704
b) Loading Carriage
c) Underside of Loading Carriage with Cable Sample

Temporarily Held in Place with Twine
Figure 5-2. Test Apparatus for Measuring Coefficient
of Friction versus Normal Force
5-14
11096704
A series of tests were made using a calibration carriage (Figure 5-3) which con-
sisted of a steel frame which held two rollers identical to the ones on the loading
carriage. This calibration carriage replaced the cable sample and made it possible
to determine the value of the pulling force necessary to pull the carriage alone as
a function of the normal load. This value was subtracted from the measured pulling
force with a cable sample before calculating the coefficient of friction.
Test Results
The measured coefficients of friction as a function of normal force are given in

Table 5-7. Also listed in the table for comparison purposes are the values of co-
efficient of friction derived from the pull data obtained at the Gergia Power Field
Test Site at high bearing pressures and the values of coefficient of friction mea-
sured at low normal force.
It is quite evident from the data presented in Table 5-7 that the lower coefficients
of friction obtained in the Field Test Program were due to the fact that the coef-
ficient of friction for lubricated cables varies with the applied normal force.
There is no consistent pattern between normal force and friction coefficient for
the various duct and cable covering combinations. It appears that this change in
coefficient of friction occurs at relatively low values of normal force. However,
it should be noted that the lowest values at which measurements were made were many
times greater than the cable weights. It can be assumed that under these relatively
low normal forces, the lubricant is squeezed into a thin layer having low resistance
to shear as opposed to a thick mass which the cable must "plow" through at very low
normal forces corresponding to a small multiple of the cable weight. In all cases,
except for the polyethylene covered cable in PVC duct, the coefficients of friction
obtained with the bentonite clay based lubricant were the same as those obtained with
the soap and water based lubricant.
Another interesting observation was made while measuring the coefficients of fric-
tion of lead sheathed PVC jacketed cables in the PVC ducts. Initi~lly, the cable
that was being employed was an EPR insulated, lead sheathed PVC jacketed cable. It
was found that the cable became deformed after a very few test runs and had to be
replaced frequently. As a result, a number of samples were prepared by placing
lengths of the same PVC jacket over a polyethylene insulated cable having a similar
diameter. The coefficients of friction obtained using the polyethylene cable sample
were consistently lower than those measured with the EPR/Pb sample although the jac-
ket material was the same. This indicates that the coefficients of friction at high
5-15
11096704
Figure 5-3. Calibration Carriage for Friction Test
5-16
11096704
Table 5-7
MEASURED DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION

AS A FUNCTION OF NORMAL FORCE
Lubricant Soap & Water Base
Cable Georgia Power Test Low

Outer Duct :formal 0 Results at High ~Jormal Force 0
Covering Material Force. lb/ft. µk SWBP's. uk. © µk
MDPE STEEL 0.46

762 o. 18
939 o. IS
1252 0.17
1545 0. 24
1596 0. 27 0.15 - 0.22
1742 0. 22
1986 0 .23
2072 0.15
2892 0. 15
PVC@ STEEL 0.49

272 0. 18
737 0. 26
980 0 .27
1236 0. 29
1497 o. 29
1742 0.40 0.14
1986 0. 36
N STEEL 0.80
711 0.07
980 0.25 0. 18
Pb STEEL 735 0.23

980 0.13
1197 0.16
1497 0.16
MDPE PVC 0.30

141 0.15
163 0. 13
174 0.12
196 0.11
250 0.10
771 0.07
977 0.08
977 (0.20)
1497 0.08 0.06
1986 0.07
2454 0.07
PVC (D PVC 0.38

44 0. 59
163 0. 27
245 0. 31
517 0 .17
735 0.22
970 0.20
1192 0.24
14 75 0 .24 0.08
PVC€) PVC 0.38

691 0.13
988 0.16
988 (0.19)
1211 0.17
1466 0. 14
1466 (0. 19)
1670 0.19 0.08 - 0.12
s PVC o. 70
158 0.15
250 0.06
263 0.08
448 o. 15
755 0 .04
983 0.08
933 (0. 05)
1282 0 .05 0.12
·-
(D Calculate-cl values from tension data at Georgia Power Fi.t.•ld Test Site
Q) Data obt.1incd at low normal force (Table 5-4)
(j) PVC jac-ket on EPR insulated lead sheathed cable (see t~xt)
© PVC jnckct on PE insulated cable (see text)
CS) Values in ( ) ,1re with hcntonite clay h,1.scd luhric.:mt
5-17
11096704
normal forces is not only dependent on the jacket, duct and lubricant materials but
also on the response of the overall cable structure to high normal bearing forces.
The values of coefficient of friction derived from the data obtained at the Georgia
Power Field Test Site were calculated from values of the pulling tension and back
tension using the assumption that all of the tension build up was due to the cable
moving in the bends since the straight sections were quite short. Therefore, these
friction coefficients listed in Table 5-7 represent the values present in bends
under conditions of high normal force. The Field Test Site and testing procedures
are described in detail in Section 8 of this report.
5-18
11096704
Section 6
TENSILE TESTS
TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE
Selected cables were subjected to tensile tests in a 120,000 lb. (54.4 x 10 3 kg)
horizontal tensile testing machine. See Figure 6-1. This machine is capable of
testing samples from 3 feet (0.91m) to 65 feet (19.8m) in length. The sample
length used in these tests was typically 65 feet (19.8m). Copper and aluminum
conductor cables were tested with compression pulling eyes and with steel wire
basket type grips as the pulling devices.
In the planning of the test program it was decided that the application of load to
the specimens should be typical of the tension build up in the cable just behind
the pulling device during an actual cable pull. Accordingly, each specimen was
taken up to the maximum scheduled tension in a series of steps roughly correspond-
ing to tensile stresses of 6500, 7500, 8500, 10,000, 12,500 and 15,000 pounds per
square inch of conductor cross-section. The timing of the steps was: (a) four min-
utes to increase the tensile load from one level to the next, (b) one minute holding
period at each imtermediate load and (c) 5 minute holding period at the final load.
On a typical full range test this meant that the specimen was under load for a per-
iod of approximately 30 minutes, which corresponds roughly to a 1000 foot (305m)
cable pull at a pulling speed of 35 feet per minute (17.8 cm/sec). As the test
program progressed, samples of all the selected cables were pulled until failure
occurred. After the tensile test, the conductor de resistance was measured and
compared with the data given in Table 3-3 to determine if any changes had occurred.
The test specimen had either a pulling eye or grip attached to one end (test end)
and both a pulling eye and grip attached to the other end (stationary end). Markers
were attached along the sample and elongation measurements were made during the
load holding periods. The set-up is shown schematically in Figure 6-2.
6-1
11096704
Figure 6-1. Baldwin Horizontal Tensile Testing Machine
Maximum Tension 120,000 Pounds (54.4 x 103 kg)
Test Sample Length 3 Feet (1 m) to 65 Feet (20 m)
6-2
11096704
INDEX MADE
CHANGES LET DATE OY
Stationary End Loaded

(Eye+ Grip) End
~ P1 I
°'wI
1 2 3 4 5
2 Behind grip
4 Behind grip for grip only tests
5 On eye or grip socket
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SCALE DRAWN BY

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
AND TOLERANCES None GWS
FRAC. DIM. I DEC. DIM. l ANO. DIM. DATE APPRD BY
:t .015 I ±.005 ±30' 1/19/81 GWS
B/M
ORAWlNQ HO.
Task 4 :2/2 + 3
1810119
Figure 6-2. Location of Markers on Sample During Tension Tests
11096704
TESTS WITH PULLING EYES
The condensed test results are given in Table 6-1 which lists the maximum loading
levels and the observed results of the test to failure on each of the selected
cable constructions. In all instances, failure occurred at the pulling eye. In
the case of copper conductors, the conductors eased out of the eye and with alum-
inum conductors the strands began breaking behind the last crimp and the remaining
strands pulled out of the eye. In one instance, a mechanical connecting device
was employed in an attempt to obtain a higher ultimate value but the mechanical
connector was generally not superior to the crimped connector.
While the pulling eyes on the copper conductor cables failed at stresses corres-
ponding to 26,000 to 33,000 psi (183 x 10 5 - 232 x 10 5 kg/cm 2 ) based on the
conductor cross-sectional area, the eyes on the aluminum conductor cables failed
at stresses corresponding to 10,000 to 14,000 psi (703 x 10 4 - 984 x 10 4 kg/cm 2 ).
The poor performance of the connectors on the aluminum conductor cables was due to
the "notch" sensitivity of the metal in that discontinuities introduced in the
strands by the crimping process tended to become locations where failure initiated
after the conductor was placed under a tensile load. In an effort to increase the
tensile capability of pulling devices affixed to aluminum conductor cables, an ad-
ditional series of tests were performed later in the program using pulling lugs
that were filled with an aluminum based epoxy. The epoxy adhered very well to the
aluminum strands of the conductor. The preparation of the connector is shown in
Figure 6-3. The lug itself is either a reverse tapered type device or a standard
crimp type lug. With the crimp type lug, a small crimp was made near the end to
simulate a lug having a reverse taper. The conductor strands were fanned out, or
in the case of the solid conductor, a "S" bend was made. The epoxy was very fluid
and flowed easily into the lug and around the conductor strands.
The tensile capabilities of the epoxy filled lug were significantly improved over
those of the crimp type connector. The results of tests on three conductor sizes
are included in Table 6-1. The conductors failed in or near the pulling device
and the strands or conductors exhibited classical neckdown at failure. See Figure
6-4. Stresses at failure were 15,600 psi (1.1 x 10 7 kg/cm~) for the solid conduc-
tors and ranged from 20,000 to 24,700 psi (1.4 1. 7 x 10 7 kg/ cm 2) for the stranded
aluminum conductors.
Selected samples of the cables that had been taken to the maximum tensile load
were subjected to electrical evaluation which included measurement of de conductor
resistance, power factor, ionization levels and dielectric strength. The results
6-4
11096704
Table 6-1
SUMMARY OF TENSION TEST RESULTS

PULLING EYE ONLY
Cable Max, Load T max Cl) Pulling@ R CD R (j)

0 f
Item No. Cable Construction Code (lbs) (psi) Device Remarks
(µ,l/ ft) (µ,l/ ft)
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 1,438 13, 758 C 131 134 Cdr. broke behind pulliqg eye.
2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 3,436 32,886 C 80 86.1 No failure,
3 0.6/4-0A/XL 4,100 24,675 A/E 83 83 Strands necked down at eye.
8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 8,400 14,257 M 24 23.8 Cdr, pulled. out.
11 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 1,053 12,702 C 163 164 Cdr. broke in pulling eye.
15 2 5 / 1-0A/ XL/',,,'L/ CN° 1,293 15,570 A/E 158 158 Cdr. necked down at eye.
15 25/ 1-0A/XL/XL/CN' 903 10,887 G) C 158 158 Cdr. broke in pulling eye.
17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 10,180 25,925 C 21.4 21.3 Cdr. pulled out of eye.
19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PE 19,650 14,300 r; 9.9 10.2 Cdr. broke in pulling eye.
°'
I
Vl 20 69/1750A/EP/EP/CW/PV 17,725 12,900 C 11. 3 11.0 Cdr. broke in pulling eye.
23 138/ l 750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 27,700 20,136 A/E 10.1 10.1 Strands necked down at eye.
24 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 23,995 12,224 C 7 .o 7 .0 Cdr. broke in pulling eye,
• Solid Conductor
CD R0 - initial resistance
Rf - resistance after tension test
Tmax - minimum tension during test
@ C - compression type pulling eye, A/E - Aluminum epoxy in pulling eye, H - mechanical connector,
G) The compression produced a severe reduction in conductor cross-sectional area for this conductor
11096704
Figure 6-3. Preparation of Aluminum Conductors for Use
of Aluminum Epoxy in Pulling Eyes
6-6
11096704
a) 1750 kcmil (886 mm 2)conductor
b) 4/0 AWG (107 mm2) Conductor
Figure 6-4. Typical Tensile Failure for Aluminum

Conductors Using Epoxy Filled Pulling Eyes
6-7
11096704
c) 1/0 AWG (54 rnm 2 ) Solid Conductor
Figure 6-4. Typical Tensile Failure for Aluminum

Conductors Using Epoxy Filled. Pulling Eyes
6-8
11096704
of these tests are summarized in Table 6-2 where they are compared with the orig-
inal values. There was no significant change in the electrical properties of the
cables as a result of these tests. The adhesion of the insulation and conductor
shields to the insulation was also measured on the post-test samples and found to
be normal.
The general analysis of the test results leads to the conclusions that for situa-
tions in which cables are pulled with pulling eyes the limitation determining the
maximum safe pulling tension is the failure of the conductor in or immediately be-
hind the pulling eye rather than stretching of the conductor or damage to the cable.
Secondly, conventional compression type pulling eyes limit the maximum tension and
hence the maximum pulling lengths attainable with aluminum conductor cables.
TESTS WITH PULLING GRIPS
For these tests, the test end of the cable was held with a basket type steel wire
grip. Before the grip was slipped onto the cable, the outer covering was carefully
cleaned and two half-lapped layers of cloth friction tape were applied over the
four inches of cable jacket immediately under the location of the back of the grip.
After the grip was firmly applied over the cable, a steel wire serving was applied
and tightened over the back end of the grip to hold the grip in place until it be-
gan to tighten under the applied tension. The cables were pulled employing a sched-
ule similar to the one used for the pulling eye tests until some component failed
or until a noticeable elongation was observed in some component of the cable.
All stretching or damage occurred underneath or very near (several inches) to the
back of the grip. In the case of Cable #24 which had an MDPE jacket the grip tended
to slip on the jacket and the wires serves were replaced with punch-lock straps to
increase the level at which slippage began to occur.
The summarized results of these tests are given in Table 6-3 and the results of the
electrical tests are given in Table 6-4. In general, three modes of failures were
observed, namely; 1) the cable conductors broke, 2) the outer members of the cable
adjacent to the grip stretched or failed or 3) the grip slipped off the cable.
The test results indicate that single conductor cable can be pulled with grips to
levels considerably higher than those used in present practice without adversely
affecting the electrical properties of the cable.
6-9
11096704
Table 6-2
SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL A.~D POST-TEST ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS

ON SAMPLES FROM PULLING EYE TENSION TESTS
T Dielectric Ionization Power

Cable max
Strength Level Factor (D
Item Cable Construction Code (V /mil) (nc) (%)
No.
(psi) Before After Before After Before After
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 13,758 318 533 -- -- -- --

2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 32,886 467 360 -- -- -- --
8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 14,257 468 933 < 5 < 5 0.038 0.039
°'I
I-' 17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 25,925 620 640 <5 < 5 0.202 0.208
0
19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PE 14,300 440 600 < 5 < 5 0.010 0.010
24 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 12,224 >600 560 < 5 < 5 0.010 0.010
(!)@ 85 V/mil (nominal)
11096704
A limited number of tests were conducted with a pulling grip applied over three
identical cables to simulate a three cable pull. Four typical cable constructions
were tested, namely; XLPE insulated cables with lead sheaths, XLPE insulated cables
with wire shields and sleeved jackets, EPR insulated cables with lead sheaths and
EPR insulated cables with wire shields and sleeved jackets.
The test results indicate that when three cables are pulled with a single pulling
grip the tension levels at which cable component or grip failure occurs are essen-
tially the same or lower than for a single cable. However, the mode of failure, is
different. When three cables are pulled with a single grip the grip does not tighten
up over the cables as effectively as with a single cable. Therefore, the back end
of the grip must be secured with punch-lock straps as the steel wire serving is not
satisfactory in holding the grip. Secondly, as the grip tightens it does not trans-
mit a compressive force into the core of the cable as effectively in a three cable
pull as it does in a single cable pull. In the case of the more deformation resist-
ant XLPE insulated cables the failure occurs due to the grip slipping off the cables.
The differences between one conductor and three conductor pulls can be seen quite
clearly in Figure 6-5 which shows the ends of lead sheath cables after being pulled
by a grip at the same tension. In the single conductor pull the grip has effectively
"l0cked" onto the cable core as evidenced by the deep grooves seen in the lead sheath
whereas for the three cable pull there is practically no indentation of the lead
sheath. With EPR insulated cables the insulation is stretched much more in the three
cable pulls since the grip does not transfer a compressive force onto the cable con-
ductor as effectively as for a single cable pull.
6-11
11096704
Table 6-3
SUMMARY OF STRAIGHT TENSION TEST RESULTS

Pulling Grip Only
Cable Max. R (D R (D
0 f
Item Cable Construction Code Load Tensiont
µ[l/ ft. ;;rl/ ft. Remarks
No. (lbs) (psi)
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 2,760 26,406 ; 131 131 Conductor broke under i;:;rip. No

l other visual damage.
2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 2,750 26,310 80 82 Jacket broke under grip. Jacket

elongated 13". End of conductor
was necked down. No other visual
damage.
8 15/7 50A/XL/TP / CNE/PE 15,900 26,993 24 24.4 Jacket elongated 0 .593". No other
visible changes.
11 25 /1-0A/XL/TP /CNE/SCPE 3,200 38,598 163 165 Conductor broke 20" in from
pulling eye and under the grip.
Jacket elongated 1/4" on grip
only end.
12 25/500C/XL/P&T/Ph 12,000 !
I
30,560 218 -- Lead sheath broke behind grip.
14 25/l000A/XL/XL/LC/PE 13,030 I 16,590 17. 5 -- Corrugations began pulling out of

shield and jacket elongated.
I
15 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN° 2,150 25,933 153 166 Conductor broke 16" from back of
i
II l grip at grip only end. Insulation
pulled back 3-1/4 and 6-1/ 4 inch
!
! ! on either side of break.
I
17 35/500C/EP/EP /PB 7,380. 18,793 i 21.4 21. 4 I Lead sheath broke 6-1/2" from back
! i i end of grip under the grip.
I 10. 3 ! After test, jacket was stretched
19 69 / 17 50AL/XL/XL/ CW /PE 17,500' 12, 732 9.9
) 3-1/2", semiconducting tape 2",
insulation and outer strand layer
1/4". Sections of jacket near
center of sample did not elongate.
After test, jacket pulled back
2-1/2". Conductor and insulation
remained elongated.
20 69/l 750AL/EP /EP /CW/PVC 14,760 11,900 11.3 11.0 i Jacket 61 - 2 11 • Insulation and
outer strand layer liL - 1/4".
;
I Outer layer of strand elongated
3/8" during test.
22 138/ 1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 6,630 6,755 14.0 -- Corrugations began pulling out of

shield.
24 138/ 2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 24,000 12,223 7 .0 7 .0 Grip held with Punch -lock strap.
Grip started slipping after hold-
ing at maximum level for :::: 4
minutes. No visible damage.
• Solid conductor
-~ based on conductor cross-sectional area
<D R
0
- initial resistance
Rf - resistance after test
6-12
11096704
Table 6-4
SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL AND POST-TEST ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS

ON SAMPLES FROM PULLING GRIP TENSION TESTS
Cable Tmax (D Dielectric Ionization Power

Strength Level Factor@
Item Cable Construction Co<le
(V /mil) (pc) (%)
No.
(psi) Before After Before After Before After
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 26,406 318 431 -- -- -- --

2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 26.310 467 244 -- -- -- --
8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 26,993 468 506 <5 <5 0.038 0.050
a-, 11 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 38,598 >760 724 <5 <5 0.032 0.012
I
I-'
w 15 25/l-OA/XL/XL/CN° 25,933 >780 640 <5 <5 0.010 0.008
17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 18,793 620 480 <5 <5 0.202 0.190
19 69/1750A /XL/XL/CW/PE 12,732 440 360 <5 <5 0.010 0.010
20 69/1750A /EP/EP/CW/PVC 11,900 640 600 <5 <5 0.180 0.164
24 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 12,223 >600 >600 <5 <5 0.010 0.010
<D Based on conductor cross-section

@ @ 85 V/mil (nominal)
11096704
Figure 6-5. Comparison of Condition of Lead Sheath
After Single and Three Conductor Cable Pulls Using
Steel Wire Grip
Upper: Single Cable Pull
Lower: Three Cable Pulls
6-14
11096704
Section 7
TENSION/SHEAR TEST
GEHEF.AL
For the performance of this phase of the test program it was necessary to devise a
means of applying a tensile loading force to the outer member of the cable without
subjecting the entire structure to a compressive load (as in the case of restrain-
ing the cable with a basket type grip). In this way, it was possible to obtain in-
formation regarding the behavior of various cable constructions to an axial shear-
ing type loading force such as is incurrP.d when pulling a cable in a duct bend.
It should be recognized that this type of test is more severe since in a bend there
will be a large compressive component on the cable in the area where it is contac-
ting the duct.
The method employed for accomplishing these tests is shown schematically in Figure
7-1. The preparation of the cable sample for the tension/shear test comprised
cleaning of approximately 2 - 3 feet (0.6 - 0.9m) of the end of the cable sample.
The surface was treated to improve its adhesion characteristics. The 1nethod of
treatment included roughening the surface with a file or sandpaper being careful
not to introduce any sharp indentations in the cable outer covering. In the case
of polyethylene jackets, the surface was also oxidized with a torch using a soft
flame. A heat sensitive adhesive was wrapped around the cable at several locations
and heat shrinkable sleeves were applied to the cable over the adhesive. An iron
pipe with an end cap having a hole slightly larger than the cable diamter was slip-
ped up over the cable end and temporarily sealed around the cap to make a liquid
tight container. Then a hard cast epoxy resin was poured into the pipe. This epoxy
was very fluid when mixed and became very hard after it cured. The end of the cable
was carefully sealed to prevent the resin from entering the conductor strands or
the shielding assembly. A pipe cap containing a pulling eye was affixed to the
open end of the pipe to form one end of the test specimen. The pulling eye was
allowed to swivel so that if the specimen began to rotate during the test the epoxy
grip would not be subjected to torsional forces. Figure 7-2 shows cables with the
restraining device applied.
7-1
11096704
Pipe Pipe
Cap Iron Pipe Cast Epoxy Cap
Resin
\
~ i
To
Pulling Cable
Eye Under
Test
-...J
I
N
Sleeves
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SCALE DRAWN BY

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
AND TOLERANCES None GWS
F'RAC:.DIM. D~ ANG. DIM. DATE IAPPRD BY
;!-.01S ±.005 ±30' 1/19/81 GWS
...-------------------~
Task 4:2/4
B/M
ORAWINO NO.
1810120
Figure 7-1. Schematic of Proposed Method for Gripping Sample During Tension/Shear Tests
11096704
Figure 7-2. Restraining Device Used in Tension/Shear
Tests
7-3
11096704
The rationale for this approach is based on the fact that the heat shrinkable
sleeves adhere tenaciously to the cable outer covering. The resin also adheres
to most outer coverings but in varying degrees. When the cable is under tension,
the tangential forces required to move the cable outer covering with respect to
the gripping device are quite large and the outer member is effectively restrained
without introducing any compressive forces on the cable structure. Tension was
applied to the opposite end of the specimen by a variety of methods shown in Table
7-1.
Test Program and Results
The Tension/Shear Test Program is shown in Table 7-2. In this table, the cable
constructions tested are shown along with the pulling devices used on the opposite
end of the sample.
For each test the cable was placed in the horizontal tensile testing machine with
the restraining device located at the stationary crosshead. Markers were placed
along the cable and length readings were taken during the test in a manner similar
to those made during the Tension Tests reported previously. In addition, a marker
was placed very close to the point at which the cable entered the pipe cap since it
was observeci that in all cases practically all of the elongation occurred inside or
immediately outside the restraining device.
When the elongation data was analyzed it was found that in all cases no measurable
elongation occurred in the main portion of the sample. All changes in length occur-
red within several inches of the restraining device (Figure 7-1). The measured
elongation at the restraining device was usually a combination of stretching immed-
iately outside the restraint and also inside the restraint. Hence, it was not pos-
sible to convert these data to a percent strain since the elongation of the outer
cable component inside the restraint could not be determined.
The results of the Tension/Shear tests are presented in Table 7-3. For the maximum
loads indicated in Table 7-3 the strain in the outer component of each specimen was
computed. This data is shown in Table 7-4. In all cases the stress at failure
computed on the assumption that the outer cable component was subjected to the en-
tire tensile load yielded higher values than the tensile strength of the material
constituting the outer component. This indicates that in essentially all cases,
the stress imposed on the outer cable component was transferred to the underlying
cable core. In the case of Items 6 and 13, the stress was transferred to the inner
conductor causing the conductor to break. The transfer of stress is less pronounced
7-4
11096704
in the case of lead sheathed cables (Items 12 and 17) and copper tape shielded PVC
jacketed cable (Item 16).
Table 7-1
CODE FOR LOADING CONFIGURATIONS FOR TENSION/SHEAR TESTS
Configuration Configuration
No.
1 Pulling Eye on Conductor Only
2 Pulling Eye on Conductor with

Shield Inserted
3 Pulling Eye on Conductor with

Shield & Jacket Secured to Eye
4 Pulling Grip Applied over Outside

of Cable
5 Pulling Grip Applied on Cable Surface

and on Insulation Shielded Core
6 Mechanical Pulling Device on Conductor
7-5
11096704
Table 7-2
TABULATION OF TENSION/SHEAR TESTS - LOAD APPLIED TO SAMPLE THROUGH PULLING DEVICESQ)
1 2 3 4 5 [6--
Cable Pulling Eye Pulling Eye Pulling Eye on Pulling Grip Pulling r.rip Mechanical
Item Cable Construction Code on Cdr. on Cdr. Cdr, w/Shield Applied Over Applied on Cable Pulling
No. only with Shield & Jacket Outside of Surface & on Insul- Device
Inserted Secured to Eye Cable ation Shielded Core
4
s
0.6/SOOC/XL
0. 6/500C/EP /:l
><
::::::>-<:::
~
~
6 15/1 OA/XL/TP/CN ~ - -
7 15/SOOC/EP/EP/CW/PV
------- - ~
',J
I
8
10
12
13
15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE
15/lOOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV
25/SOOC/XL/P&T/PB
25/750A/XL/XL/CN
--- ------ ----------
~
-:::::>-<
::::><:::
~
-
---
-
-
-
~
--------
--::::><:
OS
:::::::>-<
14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE
- --
16
17
19
25/4 OA/XL/TP/CT/PV
35/SOOC/EP/EP/PB
69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PV -::::::><_
--------- -
- ------ ~
:::::,.<:::
~
~
22 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE ~
>-< --===-=-====-
-
23 138/1750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE
- ~
Q;)S-ample restrained with cable grip applied so as to result in longitudinal force

on outer component with no compressive force on cable structure,
c;gJ - Test Completed
11096704
Table 7-3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SHEAR TESTS
Cable Loading Max.

Item Cable Construction Code Configuration Load Remarks
No. (Table 7-1) lbs.
4 0.6/500C/XL 4 2,525 Insulation broke. Elong-

ation began~ 1500 lbs.
4 6 2,960 Insulation broke.
5 0.6/500C/EP/N 4 2,770 Cable pulled out of re-

straint. Insulation &
jacket apparently necked
down. Jacket & insulation
elongated 13 inches.
5 6 3,360 Jacket ruptured. Insula-
tion elongated 17 inches.
6 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CN 4 2,550 Conductor broke.

6 5 2,470 Conductor broke.
7 15/SOOC/EP/EP/CW/PV 4 1,560 Jacket started stretching

at 1,150 lbs. Jacket
necked down.
7 5 1,300 Jacket started stretching
at 750 lbs. Jacket necked
down.
7 6 1,100 Jacket started stretching
at 700 lbs. Jacket necked I
down.
8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 4 7,320 Jacket ruptured. !

!
10 15/lOOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 3,635 Jacket ruptured.
10 2 3,260 Jacket ruptured.
10 4 2,725 Jacket ruptured,
10 5 2,480 Jacket ruptured,
10 6 2,275 Jacket ruptured, '
12 25/500C/XL/P&T/PB 3 1,520 Lead sheath ruptured,
12 4 2,300 L~ad sheath ruptured, I
13 25/750A/XL/XL/CN 4 11,840 Conductor broke. Slippage !
started@ ~ 7300 lbs,
13 5 11,000 Conductor broke, Slippage
started@ 7440 lbs.
13 6 7,380 Conductor broke@ eye.
i
7-7
11096704
Table 7-3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SHEAR TESTS

(continued)
Cable Loading :Max.

Item Cable Construction Code Confizuration Load Remarks
No. (Table 7-1) lbs.
14 25/l000A/XL/XL/LC/PE 4 7,880 Jacket ruptured. Corruga-

tions began pulling out
@ 5,140 lbs.
14 5 5,900 Jacket ruptured. Corruga-

@ 5,500 lbs.
16 25/4-0A/XL/TP/CT/PV 4 1,060 Jacket began stretching

at~ 500 lbs. Excessive
jacket neck down caused
cable to come out of re-
straint.
16 5 2,240 Jacket began stretching
at~ 750 lbs. Excessive
jacket neck down caused
cable to come out of re-
straint.
17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 3 1,620 Sheath began to yield at

restraint when test sus-
pended.
17 4 1,620 Sheath began to yield at
restraint when test sus-
pended.
19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 9,100 Jacket ruptured inside re 1

straint. Failure appeared!
to start at~ 4,000 lbs. .
1
19 2 9,060 Slippage started at
~ 5,550 lbs. when cable j
pulled out of restraint.
19 3 8,400 Slippage started at
~ 5,550 lbs. when cable
pulled out of restraint.
19 4. 9,840 Cable pulled out of re-
straint. Slippage started
at~ 4,000 lbs.
22 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 3 4,120 Conductor broke inside

pulling eye.
at 5,550 lbs.
at 5,550 lbs.
23 138/1750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 3 16,580 Jacket ruptured.

23 5 10,460 Cable started to slip
out of restraint.
7-8
11096704
Table 7-4
STRESS AT FAILURE UNDER SHEAR TEST
Cable Outer Tension Area Strese(!)

Item Cable (lbs.) (in0) (psi)
No. Comoonent
4 XL 1,500 0.2919 5,139
5 N 2,770 0.2380 11,640
6 cu 2,550 0.0829 30. 760 0
7 PVC 1,150 0.4072 2,824
8 HMWPE 7,320 0. 7420 9.865
10 PVC 3,670 0.5106 7,187
12 PB 2,300 0.5176 4,444
13 cu 11,840 0.5890 20,100 0
14 HMWPE 5,500 0.9668 5,690
16 PVC 750 0. 3142 2,387
17 PB 1,620 0.6409 2,528
19 PVC 5,550 1.5834 3,505
22 HMWPE 5,550 2.0022 2,772
23 MDPE 20,720 1. 7670 11,726
Tensile Stren~th Materials
XL 2,400 psi
Hl1WPE 1,800 psi
MDPE 3,000 psi
PB 2,000 psi
PVC 2,200 psi
N 2,000 psi
AL 17,000/22,000 psi
Q)Computed on basis of cross-sectional area of outer cable

component.
@Calculated for the inner conductor.
7-9
11096704
11096704
Section 8
SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TESTS
GENERAL
A dynamic Sidewall Bearing Pressure (SWBP) Test was performed on samples of the
twenty-three cable constructions included for study under this project. This test
was intended to determine the limiting tension to which each cable could be pulled
around a 90° bend. This phase of the project was conducted in two parts, namely;
1) extensive tests on all cable constructions in a single bend facility at the
Pirelli Cable Corporation EHV Laboratory in Bayonne, New Jersey and 2) additional
tests on selected constructions in a two and four bend Field Test Facility at
Georgia Power Company Research Laboratory in Forest Park, Georgia. The Field Test
Program also included two and three cable pulls in addition to pulling of single
cables.
SINGLE BEND TEST
Test Apparatus & Procedure
The test facility for performing the dynamic Sidewall Bearing Pressure (SWBP) Test
is shown schematically in Figure 8-1. The main components consist of; 1) two 30-
inch (76cm) diameter heavy duty roller bearing sheaves mounted into concrete py-
lons, 2) a concrete structure for mounting the 90° duct elbow, 3) a mobile tension-
ing unit and 4) a heavy duty winch. The facility was originally planned for per-
forming SWBP tests on pipe type cables and as shown in Figure 8-2 provisions were
made for mounting various radius elbows. The mobile tensioning unit consisted of
a hydraulic pumping unit on wheels, a 5 inch (13cm) diameter x 36 inch (91cm)
stroke double acting hydraulic cylinder with appropriate pressure controls and a
load cell for measuring tension.
8-1
11096704
HYDRAULIC CYLINDER
(5" DIA. X 30" STROKE)
28"
WINCH
CABLE
CABLE
/ SAMPLE
TENSIO~JING
CART
\/,/
/
/
,//
/
/ TENSIONING
CABLE
SHEAVE
I
70'
Figure 8-1. Plan view of sidewall bearing
pressure test facility.
8-2
11096704
a) 6 Inch (15 cm) Diameter, 6 Foot (1.83 m) Radius
PVC Elbow
b) 3.5 Inch (8.9 cm) Diameter, 1.83 Foot (0.56 m)

Radius Galvanized Steel Elbow
Figure 8-2. Concrete Pylon Used to Mount Duct Elbows

for Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test
8-3
11096704
c) Overall View of Pylon
Figure 8-2. Concrete Pylon Used to Mount Duct Elbow

for Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test
8-4
11096704
In the performance of the SWBP Test, the cable sample was first loaded to the
prescribed tension using the cart mounted hydraulic cylinder. The winch was used
to pull the cart along a pair of tracks thus causing the pre-tensioned cable to
be pulled through the duct elbow. The cable tension was measured with a load cell
whose output was recorded during the entire test on a strip chart recorder. The
tensioning cable employed was a non-rotational steel wire rope. It was found that
ordinary steel cable untwisted to a significant degree while being pulled around
the sheaves causing a drop in tension as the test progressed.
Due to the design of the elbow support pylon, steel mounting structures had to be
custom designed and fabricated for the three duct elbows used in these tests. The
elbows employed in these tests were as follows:
Inside
Material Diameter, in(cm) Bend Radius, ft(m)
Galvanized Steel 3.5 (8.9) 1.83(0.56)
Galvanized Steel 5 (13) 4 (1.22)
PVC 6 (15) 6 (1. 83)
Figure 8-3 presents a series of photographs showing the various components of the
test set-up and some of the procedures employed in the tests.
Based on the results of the Tension Test, all aluminum conductor cables were pulled
with grips applied to both ends. The copper conductor cables had compression lugs
on the conductor since the highest tensions were obtained by this means. Lubricants
were used on all cables. The test specimens were approximately 70 feet (21m) in
length. The pulling speed was approximately 35 feet per minute (17.8 cm/sec).
The maximum tension, dictated by equipment limitations, was 12,000 pounds (5.44
10 3 kg) which yielded a minimum sidewall bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per foot
(2980 kg Im).
The test procedure for each cable· consisted of pulling samples at increasing ten-
sions until visible damage was observed. In most cases this was done by pulling
the sample 10 or 15 feet (3 - 4.6m) through the elbow, checking the cable, in-
creasing the tension and pulling another 10 or 15 feet (3 - 4.6m). This procedure
was continued until a physical damage threshold was determined. Then a new sample
was pulled through the duct elbow at a tension approximately 10 percent below the
predetermined threshold level. The sample was carefully examined and if no phys-
ical damage was evident the sample was sent to the appropriate laboratory for elec-
trical testing. After the electrical tests, a one to two foot section of cable
was removed from the sample for complete physical inspection. If the sample was
8-5
11096704
a) Tensioning Cart
b) Pulling Winch
Figure 8-3. Main Components of Sidewall Bearing

Pressure Test Set-up
8-6
11096704
c) Concrete Pylon Holding Sheave
d) Load Cell Mounted on Hydraulic Cylinder of

Tensioning Cart

8-7
11096704
e) Tensioning Cart Mounted on Steel Tracks Prior
to Start of Test

8-8
11096704
taken to electrical breakdown, this section included the breakdown. Finally, a
second sample of each item was pulled at the same tension and tested to demon-
strate the repeatibility of the test results.
Test Results
As mentioned heretofore at least two samples of each of the twenty-three cables

were pulled in the Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test Facility. In determining the
threshold levels, all samples were carefully examined for evidence of physical
damage. Then the samples were electrically tested to determine the values of
power factor, partial discharge level and dielectric strength. The sidewall bear-
ing pressure test results are summarized in Table 8-1. The results of dielectric
strength tests are given in Table 8-2 and are compared with the data obtained on
original cable samples reported earlier in the project. The results of power fac-
tor and partial discharge measurements are given in Table 8-3. The physical exam-
ination consisted of an overall close inspection of the specimen for roundness and
flat spots, cracks in the conductor and insulation shields, indentations of neutral
wires, delamination of extruded shields from the insulation and nature of breakdown
path. This information is given in Table 8-4.
As shown in Tables 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4 there were no significant changes in the power
factor, partial discharge or physical integrity of any of the cables that were sub-
jected to the maximum sidewall bearing pressure test values. Reference to Table 8-2
indicates that Items 2, 5 and 12 exhibited significant reductions in dielectric
strength after the sidewall bearing pressure test compared to the original values.
The reduced dielectric strength of Items 2 and 5 (EPR insulated Neoprene jacketed
600 volt cables) is attributed to separation of the neoprene jacket from the insu-
lation under the extreme stress induced in the SWBP test. In this regard, it should
be recognized that ionization in the space of the separation at the elevated test
voltages precipitated the reduced breakdown voltages. However, the dielectric
strengths evidenced in these tests are at least 25 times the operating voltage of
the cable. The dielectric strength values of 428 and 563 volts per mil (17 - 22
kV/mm) for Item 12, although significantly lower than the withstand value of 727
volts per mil (29 kV/mm) for the original cable, are considered indicative of rea-
sonably good quality and in excess of the high voltage time test requirement in
AEIC CS-5.
8-9
11096704
Table 8-1
SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF DYNAMIC SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TEST
! Cable Maximum Duct

Item Cable Construction Code Tension Radius SWBP Remarks/Limiting Conditions
No. (lbs) 2 (ft) (lb/ft)
1 0.6/2-0A/XL 2,250 1.83 1,230 Conductor broke at 2500 lbs.

2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 2,750 1.83 1,500 Conductor broke at 3900 lbs. - Insulation
began accumulating at 2750 lbs.
3 0. 6 / 4-0A/XL 2,500 1.83 1,370 Conductor broke at 2750 lbs.
4 0.6/500C/XL 7,000 1.83 3,825 Lug pulling limit O 9000 ·lbs.
5 0. 6/ 500C/EP /N 4,500 1.83 2,460 Insulation accumulated at 4 750 lbs.
6 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CN 2,000 1.83 1,090 Conductor broke at 2250 lbs.
7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 4,000 1.83 2,190 Neutral wires displaced at 4400 lbs.
Mylar tapes broke at 4800 lbs.
8(i) 15/750A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 12,000 4.0 1,666 Maximum limit of equipment.
9 Ci) 15/750A/XL/TP /CN 7,000 4.0 968 Neutral wires began to dig into insula-
tion shield. Extensive abrasion & dis-
tertian of neutral wires.
10 15/ lOOOA/XL/XL/ CW /PV 7,500 1.83 4,100 Deformation of neutral wires and lay
pattern at 9000 lbs. Tension varied
widely due to frictional forces.
11 25/1-0A/XL/TP /CNE/SCPE 2,250 1.83 1,230 Conductor broke at 2400 lbs.
12 25/ 500C/XL/P&T/PB ; 7,800 1.83 4,260 :' Lug pulled off at 8800 lbs.
13 25/750A/XL/XJ.JC;l 5,000 1.83 2,730 Neutral wire lay badly distorted at i
6000 lbs. Neutral wire crossed over and
14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 4,000 1.83 2,185

abraded at 7000 lbs.
Corrugations in LC became irregular and
I
started collapsing at 4250 lbs.
15 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN 2,250 1.83 1,230 Conductor began to yield at 2500 lbs.
16 25/ 4-0A/YJ../TP /CT/PV 3,250 1.83 1,775 Conductor broke at 3500 lbs.
17 35/ 500C/EP /EP /PB 7,500 1.83 4,100 Lug failed 8600 lbs.
19 69 /1750A/XL/YJ../CW/PV 12,000 6.0 2,000 Maximum limit of equipment.
20 69/1750A/EP /EP /CW/PV 12,000 6.0 2,000 Maximum limit of equipment.
21 138/ 500C/EP /EP /PB/PE 8,000 6.0 1,333 Limit of pulling eye.
22 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 10,000 6.0 1,667 LC shield began to elongate extensively
near ends due to pulling grip. No damage
to shield in test section.
23 138/l 750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 12,000 6.0 2,000 Maximum limit of equipment.
24 138/ 2500A/XL/ 'fl./ CRhIDPE 12,000 6.0 2,000 Maximum limit of equipment.
(j) Triplexed Cable - SWBP calculated according to Rifenberg. Ref (8).

® Maximum tension at which there was no apparent visual dama~e.
8-10
11096704
Table 8-2
RESULTS OF DIELECTRIC STRENGTH TESTS ON CABLE SAMPLES

FROM DYNAMIC SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TEST
Dielectric Strength (V/mil)

Cable
Item Sample Cabie Construction SWBP Original After SWBP
No. No. Code (lb/ft) Test
1 1 0.6/2-0A/XL 1,230 320
2 316-320
960 316
2 1,2 0.6/2-0C/EP/N 1,500 236-332
1,370 432-502
3 200
3 1,2 0.6/4-0A/XL 1,370 316-335 274-305
4 1,2 0.6/500C/XL 3,825 246-355 269-342
5 1,2 0.6/500C/EP/N 2,460 330-526
528-647
3 2,186 518
6 1,2 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CN 1,090 825->1143* >840*-1053
7 1,2 15/500C/EP/EP/CW/PV 2,190 560-906 700-734
s0 1 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 1,666 433-503 580-840
9(D 1 15/750A/XL/TP/CN 968 354-440
2 830 380-527 332-580
3 692 570
10 1,2 15/lOOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV 4,100 607-947 580-808
11 1,2 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 1,230 >760* 608->777*
12 1 25/500C/XL/P&T/PB 4,260 563
>727*
2 4,100 428
13 1,2 25/750A/XL/XL/CN 2,730 >780'' 703->770*
14 1,2 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 2,185 >760* 707-720
15 1,2 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN 1,230 681->780* 610-735
16 1,2 25/4-0A/XL/TP/CT/PV 1,775 >780* 574-617
17 1,2 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 4,100 558-685 511->580*
19 1,2 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PV 2,000 440 400
20 1,2 69/17 50A/EP /EP /CW/PV 2,000 600-680 520-600
21 1 138/500C/EP/EP/PB/PE 1,333
2 1,167 >480*-560 560-560
3 1,000
22 1,2 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 1,667
636->680* 640->720*
3 1,333
23 1,2 138/1750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 2,000 520->720•• 560-640
24 1,2 138 / 2500A/XL/XL/ CR/11.DPE 2,000 520->720* 440-560
* Based on nominal insulation wall.

CDTriplexed 3/C Cable - SWBP calculated accorcliPg to r,ifenberi;. ll.ef (8).
8-11
11096704
Table 8-3
RESULTS OF ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS ON CABLE SAMPLES

FROM SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TEST
Cable
Item Cable Construcrion Code Sample SWBP After After
No. No. (lb/ft) Original S\·/BP Test Original SWBP Test
6 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CN 1 1,090 0.018 0.010 <5 <5

2 1,090 0.007 <5
7 _15/500C/EP/EP/CW/PV 1 2,190 o. 202 0.230 <5 <5
2 2,190 0.187 <5
8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 1 1,666 0.038 0.030 <5 <5
9 15/750A/XL/TP/CN 1 968 0.014 0.014 <5 <5
2 830 0.015 <5
10 15/lOOOA/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 4,100 0.020 0.010 <5 <5
2 4,100 0.011 <5
11 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 1 1,230 0.032 0.010 <5 <5
2 1,230 0.022 <5
12 25/500C/XL/P&T/PB 1 4,260 0.038 0.027 <5 <5
2 4,100 0.020 <5
13 25/750A/XL/XL/CN 1 2,730 0.018 0.010 <5 <5
- 2 2,730 0.016 <5
14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE J. 2,185 0.011 0.010 <5 <5
2 2,185 0.014 <5
15 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN 1 1,230 0.010 0.020 <5 < 5
2 1,230 0.021 <5
16 25/4-0A/XL/TP/CT/PV 1 l, 775 0.012 0.010 <5 < 5
2 1,775 0.001 < 5
17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 1 4,100 0.202 0.230 <5 <5
2 4,100 0.294 < 5
19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 2,000 0.010 0.024 <5 < 5
2 2,000 <5
20 69/1750A/EP/EP/CW/PV 1 2,000 0.180 0.166 <5 <5
2 2,000 0. 271
21 138/500C/EP/EP/PB/PE 1 1,333 0.259 0.253 <5 <5
2 1,167 0.280 <5
22 138/1250A/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 1,667 0.033 0.010 <5 <5
2 1,667 0.010 < 5
23 138/1750A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 1 2,000 0.008 0.010 <5 < 5
2 2,000 0.010 < 5
24 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MDPE 1 2,000 0.010 0.010 <5 < 5
2 2,000 0.010 < 5
8-12
11096704
Table 8-4
SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF CABLES FROM

SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TEST AFTER DIELECTRIC STRENGTH TEST
Cable Sample Cable O.D. Inches Failure (j) Indentation

No. Construction Code Direction of Metallic Remarks
Item Minimum Maximum
No. Shield
1 1 0.6/2-0A/XL 0.564 0.571 --- No observable damage.
2 1 0. 6/2-0C/EP/N ·o.641 0.655 1-0 Failure occurred in moderate axial flat
surface of insulation. Check of untested
piece showed same flat spot to be present.
Bond between jacket & insulation broken.
3 1 0. 6/4-0A/XL 0.665 0.689 --- No observable damage.
4 1 0. 6/ 500C/XL 0.990 1.005 --- No observable damage.
5 1 0.6/500C/EP/N 1.062 1.079 1-0 Bond between jacket & insulation broken.
6 1 15/1-0A/XL/TP /CN 0.832 0. 839 0-1 none No observable damage.
7 1 15/500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 1. 221 1. 246 --- very light No observable damage.
2 1. 228 1. 236 --- light No observable damage.
8 1 15/ 750A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.504 1.515 1-0 light-moderate No observable damage.
()0
9 1 15/750A/XL/TP /CN 1.485 1. 503 --- light-moderate No observable damage.
I 2 1.474 1. 500 --- light No observable damage.
I-'
w 10 1 15 / lOOOA/XL/XL/CW /PV 1.639 1.658 I-0 light No observable damage.
2 1.640 1.660 0-I light No observable damage.
11 1 25/1-0A/XL/TP /CNE/SCPE 1.001 l.Oll --- moderate No observable damage.
2 0.999 1.015 0-I moderate No observable damage.
12 2 25/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB 1.379 1. 397 0-I none No observable damage.
13 1 25/750A/XL/XL/CN 1.663 1. 678 --- moderate No observable damage.
2 1.557 1.570 none No observable damage.
14 1 25/ lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1.949 1.975 I-0 moderate No observable damage.
2 1.995 1. 970 --- light No observable damage. Failed in terminal
at edge of shield.
15 1 25/1-0A/XL/XL/CN 0.981 0.985 0-1 light No observable damage.
2 0.906 0.913 0-I light No observable damage.
16 1 25/ 4-0A/XL/TP /CT /PV 1.174 1.196 I-0 very light No observable damage.
2 1.174 1.196 --- light No observable damage.
17 2 35/ 500C/EP/EP /PB 1.550 1.569 --- none No observable damage.
(j)
I-0 Fault path from inside towards outside.
0-I Fault path from outside towards inside.
11096704
FIELD TEST PROGRAM
Introduction
The performance of cable pulls under simulated field conditions was deemed advis-
able in order to substantiate test data obtained in the Pirelli Cable Corporation
(PCC) Research Laboratory under conditions closer to those likely to be experienced
in the field. Duct banks were constructed at a field site adjacent to the Georgia
Power Research Facility in Forest Park. Equipment used to perform the cable pulling
tests was identical to that utilized for typical cable installations in the field.
Pulls were performed in steel and PVC ducts in two and four bend configurations.
See Figure 8-4. Cables were pulled using different lubricants at two pulling speeds.
Both steel and polyester pulling ropes were used. Phenomena studied included duct
wear in the bends and surging of the cable.
Damage to a cable occurs during a pull when the cable is subjected to either exces-
sive tension or sidewall bearing pressure (SWBP). Thirteen different cable designs
were tested at the field site. A total of 11 single cable pulls, 3-two cable pulls,
and 15-three cable pulls were performed. Three cable pulls were performed in both
triangular and cradled configurations. A summary of the field test program is shown
in Table 8-5. The SWBP tests performed at PCC under controlled laboratory condi-
tions gave good first estimates of the maximum allowable SWBP that a cable could
withstand. The laboratory SWBP tests were performed on single cables and triplexed
cables only. It was deemed necessary that pulls utilizing parallel cables be in-
cluded in the field test program so that correlations could be made between single
and multiple cable pulls.
Initial field pulls were performed at the maximum SWBP limits determined at PCC.
After the desired duct was selected, the cable sample was pulled through the duct
with a constant speed puller. Back tension was supplied to the cable at the en-
trance to the duct bank so that the desired sidewall bearing pressure could be ob-
tained. If the subsequent examination of the pulled cables indicated excessive
cable damage, another pull was performed at a reduced SWBP. After each pull was
completed, the cables were retrieved for evaluation in the laboratory. The elec-
trical integrity of each cable was determined from corona extinction and ac break-
down tests. The degree of physical degradation was determined from dissection and
visual examination, dimensional measurements, and conductor resistance checks.
8-14
11096704
BURIED CUL VERT
\
J 1 : W: : ::: ·: \
LOW-SIDE TRENCH-A
PULL BOX
CONFIGURATION 2
CONFIGURATION 1
BURIED CUL VERT

\
co
I
'I~ : I,..r:•··:.,. ··-·-·• - :.1-.:- - ::a
r. .• O
\
.
PO.
..
O • O
.
•O . 11 r
1--'
u, TRENCH-B
HIGH-SIDE PULL BOX
HIGH-SIDE BEND
CONFIGURATION 1
HIGH-SIDE BEND"\
BURIED CULVERT\
I TRENCH C
HIGH-SIDE PULL BOX
CONFIGURATION 2 I \ II I
I
Figure 8-4. Line Diagram of Field Test Site
11096704
Table 8-5
FIELD TEST PROGRAM
Cable Cable No. of Cables DUCT CONFIGURATION & MATERIALS G)

No. Construction Code 0 In Pull Configuration 1 Confipuration 2
4" PVC 4" STEEL 6" PVC 4" PVC 6" PVC
5 O.6/5OOC/EP/N 3 X X
6 15/1-OA/XL/TP/CN 3 X X
7 15/SOOC/EP/EP/CW/PV 1 X
3 X X
8 15/75OA/XL/TP/CNE/PE 3 X X
9 15/75OA/XL/TP/CN 3 X
11 25/1-OA/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 2 X
12 25/5OOC/XL/P&T/PB 1 X
3 X X
14 25/lODOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 X X
3 X X
16 35/4-OA/XL/TP/CT/PV 2 X X
17 35/SOOC/EP/EP/PB 1 X
3 X X
19 69/175OA/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 X X
21 133/5OOC/EP/EP/PB/PE 1 X X
24 138/25OOA/XL/XL/CR/HDPE 1 X X
Q) See Table 3-1 for Cable Construction Code.
~ See Figure 8-5.
8-16
11096704
Site Construction
The field test site was located on a one acre tract adjacent to the Research
Laboratory Facility. Site excavation began in June of 1982 and construction was
completed in mid-September. A line drawing of the test site is shown in Figure
8-4. Two duct banks were constructed at the test site. Configuration 1 consisted
of two 90° bends separated by a straight run of 50 feet (15m). Configuration 2
contained a total of four 90° bends, each separated by a 50 foot (15m) straight
run. Fifteen ducts were installed in Configuration 1 and ten ducts installed in
Configuration 2 as shown in the cutaway diagram of Figure 8-5. PVC and steel con-
duits were installed in the duct bank. Four and six inch (10 - 15cm) diameter
conduits of various bend radii were assembled in duct formers and thermocouples
were installed on the outerwall of the inside of each bend. The duct runs termin-
ated in preformed, flared, plastic bulkheads. Rebar was incorporated throughout
the conduit assembly and concrete was poured around the ducts. Provision was made
at the high-side bends of both configurations to allow for direct observation of
the conduit interior. Hood forms were constructed with contoured wood-blocks fit-
ted to the outside of the bends prior to the concrete pour. Once the concrete had
cured, holes were bored through the wood blocks and into the outerwall of the con-
duit bends. This permitted direct visual access to assess the damage to the conduit
assembly incurred during a cable pull. A photo of the duct bank under construction
is shown in Figure 8-6. Trenches A, Band C were dug leading from the duct bank
bulkheads as shown in Figure 8-4. A thirty-inch (76cm) culvert was installed and
buried in the trenches near the pull-boxes as shown in Figure 8-7 to provide a
safety restraint should a cable grip slip or pull rope break. This also allowed
vehicles to travel over the buried culvert as required. Transmission line stringing-
blocks were hung in the remaining open sections of the trenches at twenty-foot (6.1
cm) intervals to suspend the cable being pulled above the trench floor.
Pull-boxes were formed, anchored, reinforced with steel rebars and poured on loca-
tion at the end of each trench. I-beams were mounted in the walls across each pull-
box to hanf two cantilever load cells. A thirty-inch (76cm) shaft-mounted sheave
was bracketed to the load cell assembly. A photograph of a pull-box and its trench
under construction is shown in Figure 8-8.
A utility trailer was placed at the field site to house the data recorders and serve
as a field office.
8-17
11096704
SECTION A-A
CD 0 ® CD ®
CD 0 ® G) ®
G)
00 0 ®
CD 00 0 0
® 0 0 0
CONFIGURATION 1 CONFIGURATION 2
KEY: NUMBER DUCT TYPE MATERIAL

1 4-in. w/ 16-in. RADIUS BENDS PVC
2 4-in. w / 16-in. RADIUS BENDS STEEL
3 4-in. w/36-in. RADIUS BENDS PVC
4 4-in. w/36-in. RADIUS BENDS STEEL
NOTE: INDICATED BEND RADII ARE CENTERLINE DIMENSIONS

Figure 8-5. Cross section of Duct Runs
8-18
11096704
8-19
11096704
CABLE PULLER
i s
LOW-SIDE PULL BOX BURIED CULVERT DUCT BANK
Figure 8-7(a). Trench-A: General Detail
00
I
N
0
LOW-SIDE PULL ROPE CABLE -J DUCT BANK REEL ST AND

WITH CABLE STOCK REEL
Figure 8-7(b). Cable Installation Detail
LOW-SIDE PULL ROPE MID-SPAN REEL STAND

WITH EMPTY REEL
Figure 8- 7 (c). Cable. Removal Detail
11096704
Figure 8-8. Pull Box and Trench Construction
8-21
11096704
Test Equipment
The major pieces of equipment employed in the performance of these tests and the
acquisition of test data are as follows:
Equipment Function
H-135: Hogg/Davis Puller Tensioning

HC-135: Hogg/Davis Combination
Sheaves: (2) Sauerman Bros., 30" (76cm)
Diameter: 1-3/8" (3.5cm) Groove
Tension: 1.25" (3.2cm) Samson Stable Braid Pull Ropes

Tension: 0.50" (1.3cm) Steel Cable
Back Tension: 1.00" (2. 5cm) Samson Stable Braid
Pulling Grips: Pulling Hardware:
Kellem's Dua-Pull, 1 Pair, (Pull-Ropes)

Kellem's K-Type, 10 Pair, Incremental Sizes;
(cables)
Pulling Eyes: 3 each, incremental sizes
Swivels: 3 Pair, Pengo-Miller; incremental

sizes.
Data Acquisition: Tension Measurement:
2 Pair Hottinger/Baldwin (H/B)

20,000 lbf (9.10 3 kg) Load Cells
2 H/B Load Cell Amplifiers
1 Roller, Lever Arm Actuated Micro-Switch
1 Gould, Dual-Trace, Strip Chart Recorder
3 Simpson V-0-M and Resistor Scaling Bridges
140 Type "T" Thermocouples (T.C.) Temperature Measurement:

6 Type "T" T.C. Patch-Panels
1 Kaye Data Logger (16 Channel)
NOTE
The reference to brand names for equipment and supplies used in the
performance of the field test program are included here merely for
the purpose of enabling the reader to more clearly visualize the
scale of work performed under this phase of the project. All appar-
atus and test equipment mentioned were available to Georgia Power
personnel for the performance of the work. EPRI, PCC and GPC do
not specifically approve or disapprove any brand of products em-
ployed and recognize that alternate pieces of equipment could have
been satisfactorily employed in the field test program.
8-22
11096704
The two Hogg/Davis (H/D) pullers were the heart of the testing system. The stan-
dard H-135 puller stationed at the high-side pull-box (B or C) provided up to
13,000 lbf (5.9 x 10 3 kg) of pulling tension. An HC-135 was utilized at the low-
side pull-box (A) to back-tension the cable sample. This unit differed from the
standard H-135 by the addition of disc brake assemblies mounted on each of the
four drive rollers controlled by two master cylinders configured in a dual-diag-
onal braking system.
Samson stable-braid polyester pull rope was specified for the majority of the
tests due to its high~strength, low-stretch modulus (under load), as well as re-
sistance to abrasion, incident solar radiation and moisture induced degradation.
The 1.25 inch diameter (3.2cm) rope was utilized between the cable and the high-
side puller, while the 1.00 inch diameter (2.5cm) rope was sufficient for back
tension. The steel cable was employed to provide a correlation factor for inter-
pretation of data derived from Samson rope pulls and application of derived data
to situations using steel rope.
Kellem Dua-Pull grips were used over the back-spliced ends of the Samson pull
ropes to provide a means of attachment between the pull ropes and the cable sam-
ples. Appropriately sized Kellem's K-Type grips were used to suspend the cable
sample between the high and low side pull ropes for low - and medium - tension
tests. Solder type pulling eyes were applied directly to the copper cable con-
ductor(s) for the high-tension tests.
Pengo-Miller swivels were used between the rope pulling grip and the cable termin-
ation (grip or eye) to relieve any torsional stresses developed in the cable sample
induced by sample rotation or twisting during the test.
Single cable reel stands at the mid-point and over the conduit assembly of Trench A
(Figure 8-7) were utilized to facilitate the installation and removal of cable sam-·
ples with respect to the test site.
Two Hottinger/Baldwin (H/B) 20,000 lbf (9.1 x 10 3 kg) cantilever load-cells were
mounted to the underside of the I-beam spanning each pull-box. A sectional view
of a pull-box is shown in Figure 8-9. The output of the load-cells was wired in
parallel to a Hottinger/Baldwin (H/B) amplifier, also mounted at the pull-box. A
block-diagram of the tension and temperature monitoring schemes is shown in Figure
8-10. The amplifier ouput from each pull-box was relayed to a discrete channel of
a Gould, dual trace, strip-chart recorder and also displayed locally by an analog
8-23
11096704
TENSION (PULLER)
~
l
I I I I I I
~ I-BEAM ASSEMBLY - - ,_
---.
(X) 7>,t-c"s: / 1 LOAD CELL
I
N
-I>-
~ TENSION (CABLE) LJ
30-in. SHEAVE
Figure 8-9. Pull Box Detail
11096704
PULUIG PIT BACK TENSIONING PIT
,------, r---------, r--------=-,

I I
I DUCT I LOAD CELLS LOAD CELLS
I RUN I
I I
L __ - _J
~,
AMPLIFIER
- - AMPLIFIER
en
w ANALOG READOUT ANALOG READOUT
a: OF PULLING OF BACK
i TENSION TENSION
z ________ J
0 L
0
z
w
I-
x
w ANALOG READOUT
----. ~ OF PULLING
TENSION
EVENT MARKER
L ____
---
TRAILER AT REMOTE FIELD SITE

r--- -- - - - - - --- ------- - ---7
~, ~, ~, I
1
I I
KAYE GOULD STRIP CHART I
I
TEM PERATURE RECORDER AND EVENT
I DAT A LOGGER RECORDER I
I I
I I
L----------------------~
Figure 8-10. Block Diagram of Electrical System
8-25
11096704
voltmeter. In-line scaling resistance bridges were utilized between the H/B amp-
lifier output and the analog voltmeters to provide a direct one to one correlation
between the mV input of the voltmeter and the actual test tension in lbf· In ad-
dition, a remote voltmeter readout of the high-tension was provided at the back-
tensioning box.
Thirty-inch, (76cm) Sauerman Bros. sheaves were bracketed to the free arms of the
H/B cantilever load-cells. The sheaves served to redirect the pull-ropes 90° be-
tween the H-135 pullers and the conduit run. This provided positive contact be-
tween the rope and sheave. The mounting geometry of the load-cell between the rope
sheave and the pull-box I-beam, as shown in Figure 8-9, provided excellent tension
sensitivity for tension readout from the load-cell sheave assembly.
Mounted to the sheave-support bracket of the low-side pull-box was a 110 vac,
weatherproof roller-lever arm micro-switch. Nomentarily actuated by the passage
of each of the six spokes of the sheave, its output was input to the counter-port
of the strip-chart recorder. The micro-switch marked the progression of the cable
through the conduit during the pull.
Test Procedure
A flow chart of the comprehensive test procedure is shown in Figure 8-11. Reference
to this figure will aid in following the sequence of events and the concurrence of
simultaneous activities. The test procedures are presented as five categories;
site preparation, cable installation, the actual pulling of the cable, cable re-
moval, and the subsequent cable examination and evaluation.
Site Preparation. Selection of the duct run configuration to be used during a

cable pull depended on the variables to be studied.
The conduit run was selected on the basis of the configuration (2 or 4 bend), mat-
erial (steel or PVC), conduit diameter (6 or 4 inch) and the bend radii (16, 30,
36, 48 inches). Once the cable sample and the corresponding duct run were chosen,
the load cells and amplifier as well as the sheave assembly and puller were moved
to the appropriate high-side pull box, B or C. Pull-box A was always used as the
low-side station. The entrance to both duct Configuration 1 and 2 was located at
the end of Trench A (See Figure 8-4).
The high-side pull-rope was unspooled from its reel and fished through the selec-
ted duct run until it emerged into the low-side trench. It was then coupled to the
8-26
11096704
SITE PREPARATION
CONNECT DESIRED THERMOCOUPLES

FROM DUCT BANK TO DATA LOGGER
CALIBRATE STRIP CHART RECORDER
CONNECT EVENT MARKER TO

STRIP CHART RECORDER
INSTALL ANALOG READOUTS AT

PULLER AND TENSIONER
ENERGIZE LOAD CELLS

AND AMPLIFIER OUTPUTS
OUTPUT OF AMPLIFIERS TO ANALOG

READOUTS AND STRIP CHART RECORDER
ARE LOAD CELLS CALIBRATED ----No
YES
..,_ _ _ _ _ _~CALIBRATE LOAD CELLS
WITH STANDARD CELL
CABLE INSTALLATION
PLACE CABLE REEL

ON STANDS
PULL CABLE· INTO BACK

TENSIONING TRENCH
Figure 8-11. Flow Chart of Test Procedure
8-27
11096704
ATTACH CABLE ENDS
TO PULLING ROPES
POSITION CABLE TEN FEET FROM

ENTRANCE TO DUCT BANK
WOULD REQUIRED PULLING TENSIONS

ENDANGER PERSON ASSIGNED TO LUBE CABLE?--- YES
CABLE PULL
ENGAGE PULLER
CONTROL BACK TENSION OBSERVE CABLE OBSERVE MAGNrruDE

LUBE CABLE IF OF SURGING IN
NOT PRE-LUBED TO OBTAIN DESIRED ENTERING AND
MAXIMUM PULLING TENSION EXITING DUCT PULLING ROPE
HAS CABLE TRAVELED 75 FEET OUT

OF DUCT FROM HIGH TENSION BEND'l' _ _ _ _ _ NO ---------1
DISENGAGE PULLER
CABLE REMOVAL
RE-REEL CABLE ONTO EMPTY REEL
TRANSPORT CABLE TO LABORATORY

FOR EXAMINATION AND EVALUATION
END
Figure 8-11. Continued
8-28
11096704
low-side pull-rope and rags tied through the eyes of the rope grips. The rag as-
sembly was passed back and forth through the conduit until the duct was clean and
dry. The ropes were returned to the low-side Trench A and disconnected.
Monitoring equipment was set up before each test and inter-connected as shown by
Figure 8-10. Each pull-box station was equipped with.110 vac to power the load-
cell amplifiers. The output of each amplifier was routed to a local readout at
the pull-box and to a discrete channel of the dual-trace strip-chart recorder. In
addition, the output from the high-side amplifier(@ Bor C) was routed to a re-
mote readout at the low-side pull-box (A). Analog voltmeters were used as the
readout devices at both pull-box locations to display the tension and/or back ten-
sion. In-line, scaling resistor bridges were used to scale the load-cell amplifier
output to mV per lbf.
A micro-switch was mounted to the sheave support bracket at the low-side pull-box
(A). The switch was momentarily actuated by the passage of the spokes of the
sheave and the switch output was fed to the strip-chart recorders counter input
to serve as an event marker. This enabled determination of how far the cable sam-
ple had traveled through the conduit run at any given time during a cable pull.
Thermocouple (T.C.) extension harnesses were run from the Kaye data-logger to the
T.C. patch-panels located on top of the duct bank and connected to the appropriate
T.C. 's attached to the ducts so that the bend temperatures in the conduit could be
monitored during the pull.
Cable Installation. The reel of cable to be tested was installed on a reel stand
on top of the conduit assembly at Trench A as illustrated by Figure 8-7. A suit-
ably-sized K-Type Kellem's grip was fitted to the free, taped end of the cable.
Steel bands were applied to the sample and the H/D-135C pulled the desired cable
length off the reel and into the trench where it was cut. The desired sample length
was equal to the actual length of the conduit run plus seventy-five feet (23m). A
minimum cable length of seventy-five feet (23m) was required for the ac dielectric
breakdown tests to be performed on the pulled sample. Adding this length to the
length of the conduit run assures that the first seventy-five feet (23m) of the
cable had been subjected to the maximum test tension before the back-tensioning
rope entered the duct run. This first seventy-five feet (23m) of the cable was
the sample section used for post-test evaluation and examination.
For single cable pulls the second grip was installed and the high-side pull-rope
was coupled to the cable. For multiple cable pulls, each individual cable was
8-29
11096704
pulled into the low-side Trench A as detailed above. The individual cable lengths
were friction-taped together at each end and a K-type Kellem's grip was fitted over
the ends of the combined cable sample. The high- and low-side pull ropes were
coupled to the cables which were then pulled into the selected conduit until approx-
imately ten feet of cable protruded from the high-side end of the conduit run. The
high-side puller was locked in position and tension not exceeding 30% of rated test
tension, was applied to the low side end of the cable. By evaluating the relative
'sag' of each cable of the sample, it became apparent which cable(s) required ad-
justment to spread the load equally between the individual cables. Adjustment en-
tails a slackening of tension and repositioning of the individual cables relative
to each other under the grip. Repeated iterations of the above procedure finally
balanced the sample tension.
Cable Pull. The sample was positioned ten-feet (3m) in front of the conduit en-
trance. The entire length of the cable sample was thoroughly cleaned to avoid the
introduction of contaminants into the conduit run. Contaminants could damage the
sample and seriously jeopardize the validity of friction factor calculations based
on the test data.
A decision had to be made as to whether the sample should be prelubricated in its

entirety or lubricated as it approached the conduit entrance while the test was in
progress. The decision was based on the ulimate expected cable tension and the
corresponding safety hazard to personnel working in close proximity to the sample
under tension. A photograph of a cable being lubricated as it enters the duct run
is shown in Figure 8-12. All cables pulled at 6000 lbf (2.7 x 10 3 kg) of tension
or greater were prelubricated.
The strip-chart recorder was calibrated for accurate readout of tensions in the
required tension range using a calibrated millivolt signal input to the recorder.
Data recording was initiated and the high-side puller engaged and powered-up to
mid-throttle. The high-side puller was essentially a constant speed device. Once
engaged, control of the cable tension reverted to the low-side puller operator. A
photograph of the operator applying back-tension at the HC-135 is shown in Figure
8-13. Initially, the low-side tension brakes were applied sufficiently to yield a
high-side tension of 50% (or less) of test tension. This value was maintained for
the first twenty feet (6m) of cable progression and served to heat the brake rotors.
The brakes operated more smoothly after the rotors were hot and uniform brake fad-
ing had initiated. This aided t~e operator in maintaining a consistent tension in
8-30
11096704
i~
~t:;i '. .,,.,
Figure 8-12. Cable Being Lubricated
Figure, 8-13. Operator Applying Back Tension
8-31
11096704
the cable. The back-tension was gradually increased at a rate such that rated test
tension was attained before the cable had progressed 50 or 100 feet (15 - 30m)
(Configuration 1 or Configuration 2, respectively). The pull continued until 75-
feet (23m) of cable had traveled through the last bend and passed into the high-
side trench. The high-side puller was disengaged and the test data was collected
and logged.
Cable Removal. With the high-side puller set to 'free wheel', the cable was pulled
back towards the low-side pull-box until it had almost reached the take-out reel
stand. The low-side pull-rope was disconnected from the cable, fed back through
the culvert and run over the trench to an empty reel mounted on the reel stand.
An amount of rope, equal in length to the cable length was paid out from the puller
and wound onto one side of the reel. The end of the cable was then anchored to the
other side of the reel. The low-side puller was then engaged and as the pull-rope
was unwound from the reel, the sample was wound onto the reel. The sample was then
removed from the field site to the laboratory for corona measurements, dielectric
breakdo,m tests and physical evaluation.
Post Test Examination & Evaluation. After each SWBP field test was performed, the
cable was removed to the laboratory where corona extinction and ac breakdown tests
were performed applying the same procedures followed by PCC when testing the sam-
ples immediately after manufacture.
The jacket, neutral, insulation shield, and insulation were inspected to determine
the occurrence and magnitude of physical damage to the cable. The jacket and insu-
lation shield thicknesses of each cable were r.:ieasured and compared to original val-
ues to determine if deformation had occurred as a result of being subjected to high
sidewall bearing pressure.
It was necessary to visually examine the high-side duct elbow following a test to
determine the degree of wear or damage done to the conduit. For conduit runs lo-
cated on the outside of the duct bank, direct access was provided by the formed
'windows' described under Site Construction. Viewing the remaining high-side bends
was more difficult as the bends were recessed an avera3e of eight feet from the
high-side bulkhead. This difficulty was overcome by affixing a mirror and 12 vac
light assembly to the end of a ten-foot furring st!·ip. This assembly was inserted
into the conduit run from the bulkhead to the bend. A variable a.c. power supply
provided for adjustable illumination of the conduit interior. Once the mirror/
light assembly was positioned, a 35mm camera equipped with a micro-telephoto lens
was employed to view the bend wear and make a photographic record via the reflected
image in the mirror. 8-32
11096704
Calculations
The maxilllum sidewall bearing pressure (SWBP) limits ascertained from the Pirelli
Laboratory tests were determined from single cable and triplexed cable pulls. A
major objective of the Georgia Power Field Test program was to obtain the same
maximum SWBP's for multiple cable pulls and for pulls with multiple bends. The
max Lrn.:1, SWBP for three cable pulls is a direct function of the pulling tension as
well as the geometry of the cables in the conduit. The cables travel in the con-
duit run in either a cradled or triangular geometry depending on the ratio of the
conduit inside diameter to the outside diameter of the cables.
Equations formulated by R. C. Rifenburg (8) take these factors into account in ob-
taining a relationship between tensions and SWBP for thr e cable pulls.
0
The tensions generated in the field tests were generally held within ten percent
of the required tension to achieve the desired SWBP.
If the tensions obtained were slightly different than those desired, the actual
SWBP values that the cables were· exposed to were calculated using the same Rifen-
burg equations.
In some instances, two cable pulls were conducted. For this case, the required
tension was calculated on the basis of a three cable pull in a triangular geometry.
For this particular geometry, the total SWBP is borne by the two cables actually
in contact with the conduit which is analagous to a three cable pull in a triang-
ular configuration.
Data Acquisition
A typical chart recording of tension and back tension versus tillle for a two bend
pull is shown in Figure 8-14. The indicated dots 2-t the base margin of the figure
were produced by the low-side sheave mounted event marker. Each dot represents
1.176 feet (36cm) of cable travel. Knowledge of the lengths of each section of
conduit used in conjunction with the event marker (counts) provides a means of
determining the position and speed of the cable with respect to the conduit run.
The tension plotted in the fizure during time period A is actually the tension in
the high-side pull rope. During this time period, the leading end of the cable was
traveling from the low-side bend of the duct run to the high-side bend. Due to
the tension drops around the conduit bends, the cable will not experience maximum
tension until it has passed the high-side bend. Seventy-five feet (23m) of cable
was pulled past this bend and was therefore subjected to the maximum tension. This
8-33
11096704
--~~A--~-----B ~
0
0 PULLING TENSION
0
U>
---
:a 0
z 0
0
'It
0
ci5
z
w
cc
w
I I-
-I'-
g
0
CII
Ir~ ,. . ~ - '\\fYV '\_:__ BACK TENSION
..,~•VA.LS BETWEEN EVENT MARKS. •~UAL.': 176. FT: OF CA.BLE .TRAVEL•............... C. ~E~~ M~RKS ....... .
o-1--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,------
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ELAPSED TIME (MINUTES)
Figure 8--14. Typical Pulling and Back Tensions as a Function of Time
11096704
portion of the pull occurred during time period B of Figure 8-14. Data produced
during this time period Bis used to calculate the average maximum tensions and
back tensions, the maximum SWBP, and an estimate of the friction factor. As the
figure illustrates, the tensions vary cyclically due primarily to surging effects.
The average maximum tensions are calculated as the mean of the instantaneous ten-
sion values. The degree of surging is defined as the deviation of the instantan-
eous tensions from the calculated mean values. As an example, the average, maximum
and minimum tensions for Figure 8-14 were found to be 5200, 5550, and 4850 pounds,
respectively. The degree of surging was defined as 6.3% by the relation:
THAX - T!1IN
X (100) = ± 6.3%
TAVG
The average back tensions were determined in a similar manner. The magnitude of
surging at the entrance to duct was much reduced and therefore not considered as
significant. Only the average tension at the duct exit was calculated.
Test Results
The field tests were performed over a period of seven months. The first series of
pulls were performed in the two bend duct runs where tensions of 6000 pounds (2720
kg) or less were required. The low tension pulls were attempted first so that the
duct system, the tension monitoring system, the pull boxes and the pulling/tension-
ing equipment could be evaluated without a high degree of risk to material or per-
sonnel. All four bend pulls were then perfonned starting at the lower required
tensions and progressing to 14,000 pounds (6350 kg). The high tension pulls re-
quired in the two bend duct runs were performed last. The pulling tests performed
are listed in Table 8-6 according to the cable type and the duct configuration;
not in the order that they occurred. The pulling tensions obtained as well as the
maximum SWBP and pulling stresses per conductor are shown in Table 8-6. Each cable
was examined after being pulled through the duct and a description of the effects
of the pull on the physical integrity of each cable type is shown in the same table.
Dimensional checks were performed on sections of each cable that had been pulled
through the highest tension bends. The jacket and insulation shield diameter val-
ues measured are compared to values determined by Pirelli on original samples. The
results are shown in Table 8-7. No severe reductions in cable dimensions were found.
In order to obtain the high sidewall bearing pressure required in the field testing
program. some conductors were exposed to high pulling stresses. The pulling stress
per conductor that occurred in each cable pull is shown in Table 8-6. This is the
stress that would have been borne by th.e conductor if all the tension was carried
8-35
11096704
Table 8-6
FIELD TEST PROGRAM - TEST RESULTS

Two Bend - Configuration 1
Test Cable No. of Pulling Pull Stress Duct* Duct Radius Max.
No. Item Cable Construction Code Cables Tension Per Conductor Radius -;- Outside SWBP Physical Observations
No. lh lh/ ·n 2 in. Cable Diam. lb/ft.
1 5 0.6/500C/EP/N 3 6,300 5,343 16/S 14. 7 2,783 Moderate localized indenta-

tion of insulation.
2 6 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CJ., 3 3,150 12,664 16/P lo.6 1,148 Moderate indentations of neu-

tral wires into insulation
shield and significant dis-
tertian of wire serve.
3 7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 1 2,950 7,512 16/P 10.5 2,531 Minor scuffing of jacket; no
noticeable shifting of netural
wires.
4 7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 3 9,900 8,403 30/P 19.6 2,137 Minor scuffing of jacket;
slight shifting of neutral
wires.
5 8 15. 750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 3 7,300 4,131 30/P 16. 7 1,792 Minor scuffing of jacket; no
noticeable shifting of neutraJ
"1ires.
6 11 25/1-0A/XL/TP / CJ.IE/SCPE 2 2,900 17,489 16/P 12.3 1,415 Slight scuffing of jacket.
7 12 25/ 500C/XL/P&T/PB 1 5,600 14,260 16/P 9.8 4,804 Minor scuffing of lead.
8 12 25/ 500C/XL/P&T/PB 3 11,600 9,846 30/P 18. 3 2,666 Hiner scuffing of lead, tape
shield and insulation.
9 14 25/ lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 2,860 3,641 16/P 7.0 2,453 Cracks developed along corru-
gations in shield.
10 14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 3,210 4,087 16/S 7. 0 2,754 Cracks developed along corru-
gations in shield.
11 14 25/ lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 3 8,400 3,565 30/P 13.1 2,356 Minor scuffing of jacket; no
deformation of L.C. shield.
12 16 35/ 4-0A/XL/TP /CT/PV 2 4,000 12,034 16/P 11.8 1,995 Jacket and tape shield in
200d condition.
13 17 35/ 500C/EP /EP /PB 1 5,550 14,133 16/P S.G 4,671 Uinor scuffing of lead; good
contact between lead and in-
sula tion shield.
14 17 35/ 500C/EP /EP /PB 3 9,700 8,234 30/P 16.5 2,497 Minor scuffing of lead; good
contact between lead an<l in-
sulation shield.
15 19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 8,000 5,821 46/P 13. 7 2,142 Slight scuffing on inside &
outside of jacket, slight
shifting of neutral wires.
16 21 138/ 500C/EP /EP /PB/PE 1 5,200 8,391 48/P 13.0 1,392 Moderate scuffing of outer
iacket.
17 24 138/ 2500A/XL/XL/ CR/MOPE 1 8 100 4 125 48/P 11. 8 2,162 Minor scuffing of iacket.
*P - PVC duct, S - Steel duct
8-36
11096704
Table 8-6
FIELD TEST PROGRAM - TEST RESULTS

Four Bend - Configuration 2
(Continued)
Test C:i.ble No. of Pulling Full Stress Duct* Duct Radius Max.
ltcm Cable Construction Code Per Conductor Radius Outside SWBP Physical Observations
No.
No. . Cables Tension
lb. lbiin 2 in. C.:11hlc Di.:11m. ',,.
18 5 0. 6/ 500C/EP /N 3 5,950 5,051 16/P 14. 7 2,629 Minor to moderate localized
indentation of iacket.
19 6 15/ 1-0A/XL/TP /CN 3 3,100 12,463 16/P 16. 6 1,130 Moderate indentations of neu-
tral wires in to insulation
shield and significant dis-
tortion of wire serves.
20 7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PV 3 14,000 12,732 30/P 19.6 -- 1. 53 inch diameter cable
jammed in 1. 25 inch rope
2roove riooinS? iacket.
21 8 15/ 7 50A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 3 6,800 3,848 30/P 16. 7 1,669 Minor scuffing of jacket; no
noticeable shifting of neu-
tral wires.
22 9 15/7 50A/XL/TP /C!i 3 4,150 2,349 36/P 22.2 906 Moderate to severe indenta-
tions of neutral wires into
insulation shield and severe
distortion of wire serves.
23 12 25/ 500C/XL/P&T/PB 3 13,000 11,035 30/P 18.3 2,988 Minor scuffing of lead, tape
shield and insulation.
24 14 25/ lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 3 7,350 3,119 30/P 13.1 2,061 Minor scuffing of jacket;
no deformation of L.C. shield.
25 16 35/ 4-0A/XL/TP /CT /PV 2 3,900 11,733 16/P 11.8 1,945 Minor scuffing of jacket;
no dama2e to taoe shields.
26 17 35/ 500C/EP /EP /PB 3 13,000 11,035 30/P 16.5 3,346 Rippling of lead sheath at
isolated locations, minor
scuffing of lead.
27 19 69/ 17 50A/XL/XL/CW/PV 1 11,200 8,149 48/P 13. 7 2,989 Slight scuffing on inside &
outside of jacket.; slight
scuffin2 of neutral wires.
28 21 138/ 500C/EP /EP /PB/PE 1 11,600 18,719 46/P 13.0 3,096 Moderate scuffing on jacket;
minor scuffing on outside
surface lead.
29 24 138 / 2500A/XL/ XL/ CR/MDPE 1 12,200 6,213 48/P 11.8 3,255 Moderate scuffing of jacket;
breakding of copper ribbons at
irreRularities as manufactured
* P - PVC duct, S - Steel duct
8-37
11096704
Table 8-7
FIELD TEST PROGRAM DIMENSIONAL CHECK OF CABLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Pu] l Dnta P,,st-Pul l Data
T<.!St Cable Cable -"Jnc:ket lns.~ Avg. Max. Avg. Mi.n. Av~i:-age AV?, ___ f1:i":~--- -- Avg. }Un. .\v,·l':1)" 1 "
Item Construction Cod0 O:D. O.D. J·1( ket .Tacket Jacket Ins. Shd. Ins. Slid. Ins. Shd.
-·- No. __ - - - - - - - - - - - - -----~-------- o.o. ____ o.n. ______ o.D. __ ______o.o. _______ o.n. ___ _ O.D.
-- ---- --- - ---·
0.6/500C/EP/N 1.085 1.077 1.067 1.072

0.6/500C/EP/N 1.085 1.077 1.070 1.074
0.6/500C/EP/N 1.085 ].073 1.069 1.071
18 0. 6/ 500C/EP /N 1.085 1.078 1.069 1.074
18 0.6/500C/EP/N 1.085 1.080 1.070 1.075
13 0.6/500C/EP/N l.085 1.079 1.070 1.075
15/ 1-0A/XL/TP /CN 0. 835 0. 829 0.823 o.sz;,
2 15/1-0A/XL/TP /CN o. 835 0. 830 0. 82 3 0. 827
2 6 15 /1-0A/XL/TP /CN 0.835 0. 825 0.820 0.823
19 6 15/ 1-0A/XL/TP /CN 0.835 0. 837 0. 831 o.av~
19 6 15/ 1-0A/XL/TP /CN 0.835 o.e1,o 0.831 0. 83>
19 6 15/ 1-0A/XL/TP /CN 0.835 0. 841 0. 830 0. 830
3 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PVC l.530 1.240 1.520 1. 483 l. 502 1.228 1.220 1. 214
4 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PVC 1.530 1.240 1.518 1. 499 1. 509 1.235 1. 22 3 I. 229
15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PVC 1.530 l.240 1.511 1.492 1. 502 l. 226 1. 215 1. 221
7 15/ 500C/EP /EP /CW/PVC 1.530 1.240 1. 514 1.494 1. 504 1. 226 1.216 1. 221
8 15/7 50A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.800 1.515 1. 785 1.775 1. 780 1.510 1. 498 1. sw~
8 15/ 750A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.800 1.515 1. 792 1. 775 1. 783 1.509 1. 498 l.503
5 8 15/ 750A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.800 1.515 1. 787 1. 762 1. 775 1. 507
21 8 15/750A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.800 1.515 1. 784 1. 775 l. 780 l.500 1.494 l. 497
21 8 15/7 50A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.800 1.515 1.804 1. 788 1. 796 1.519 1.500 l.510
21 8 15/7 50A/XL/TP /CNE/PE 1.800 1.515 1.803 1. 788 1. 795 1.516 1.506 l. 51 l
22 9 15/ 750A/XL/TP /CN 1.490 1.496 1.485 l. 1,90
22 9 15/750A/XL/TP /CN 1.490 1.495 1.484 1.490
22 9 15/750A/XL/TP /CN 1.490 1.505 1.494 1.500
6 11 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 1.300 1.020 1. 277 1. 265 1.271 1.009 1.005 1.007

6 11 25/1-0A/XL/TP /CNE/SCPE 1.300 1.020 1. 262 1.257 1. 259 1.009 1.004 ] . 006
8-38
11096704
Table 8-7
FIELD TEST PROGRAM DIMENSIONAL CHECK OF CABLES

(Continued)
----- ---··---- ·---·---· -·---·-··- --·------

l'r1•-P1111 Dal:1
----· ---···- ---·--·----·--·- -·-·
fl,1:; t-Pu 11 ]);i I :i
---·------··-·-·------------ ----·----··· -- ·-·--···--··-------
·;t C:1h I,, C::ih 1 c
I tvr:1
i'l11.
r:ons l rue t i <.ln Coc!C' J.-1c:kC't
o.n.
1ns. Shel.
O.ll.
Avg. M,1x.
.l;1rk<·l
(),]),
Avr,. ~1i n.
.T:1c.k<•t
0.1).
1~~kgfe
O.Jl.
J\vr,. Max.
Tns. Shd .
o.n.
Avr,. ~!in.
Ins. Shd.
l).D.
I~~:r~mJ
0,D.
.
---- _ _ _ _ ____!,_,_
·-
1.1 25/ 50DC/XL/l'H/l'il 1. l1L10 1 .l12'J 1. 67() 1. 628 l.nl,9 l.1,3J 1.408 1.420
c'l 12 2 :;/ SOOC/XJ./P&T/l'B l. 6t,O 1.4~5 1. 6 74 l. 623 1. 651 1.435 J. 399 1.!d 7
.'l !~ 25/ 'iOOC/XL/PtT/PB l. 6/10 . 1, /125 1. 671, l .607 l .61,l 1. 432 1 .1,00 1.416
21 12 '!.5/ }OOC/XL/P&T /Pr, 1. 6/1[) 1 .1~2s 1. 678 l. 627 1. 652 1.443 1. 401 1.4 23
25/ 500C/XL/P&T /PD 1.61,0 1.425 1.666 1.627 1. 64 7 1.433 1.417 1 .4 ] j

12
l2 25/500C/XI./PH/P8 l. 640 1.425 l. .'669 1. 612 1. 640 J.438 1.408 1. 422
12 25/ 500C/XL/l'&T /PB J.61,0 1.425 1. 671 1. n26 1. 648 1. 434 1. 398 1.416
14 2 5/ .I OOOA/XL/XL/1,C/PF. 2. 295 1.91,Q 2. 259 2.216 2.238 1. 930 1.908 1. 919
10 .14 25/ l0001\/XL/XL/LC/PE 2. 295 1. 940 2.253 2. 217 2. 235 1. 932 1.9]1 1. 9:!2
11 l4 2 5 / l 00011/XL/XJ./T.C/l'f. 2. 295 ].91,Q 2. 261 2.225 2. 243 1. 928 1. 913 1. 921
11 V, 25/ l OOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 2. 295 1. 940 2. 248 2. 218 2.233 1.928 1.915 1.922
14 2 ,/ 1.00011/XL/XL/LC/PF. 2. 295 1. 940 2.258 2.215 2. 237 1. 938 1.904 1. 921

11
14 2 5/l OOOA/XL/XL/1.C/PE 2.295 1. 940 2. 288 2. 254 2. 271 1. 954 1. 927 1. 940
14 25/ l OOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 2.295 1.9/;0 2. 285 2. 245 2. 265 1. 936 1.915 1. 926
2!.. 25/ l OOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 2. 295 1. 940 2. 27 5 2. 244 2.260 1. 935 1. 923 ] . 929
14
2 5/ 4-011/XL/TP /CT /PV 1. 360 1.195 1. 372 1. 357 1. 365 1.195 1 .174 1.184
11 16
12 16 2 5/ t,-OA/XL/TP /CT /PV 1.360 1.195 1. 377 1.361 1.369 1.191 1.172 1. lSl
16 25/ 4-0A/XL/TP /CT /PV 1.360 1. 195 1. 374 1. 352 1.362 1.193 l. 176 I. 185
2) 16 25/ 4-0A/XL/TP /CT /PV 1.. 360 1.195 1.377 1.359 l.368 1.194 1.175 1.184'
35/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB 1. 820 1.158 1.S34 1. 797 1. 817 1.568 1. 550 1. 559
1.3 17
3 5/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB 1. 820 1.158 1. 827 1.809 1. 318 1.589 1. 568 l. 578
26 17
1. 820 1.158 1.826 1. 792 1.808 1. 563 1. 562 1. 563
26 17 35/ 500C/XL/PcT /PB
l. 820 1.158 1. 769 1. 755 1. 761 1.517 1. 508 1.513
17 35/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB
JI, 35/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB 1. 820 1.158 1.810 1. 780 1. 795 1. 564 1. 551 1. 5i7
17
1.820 1. l 58 1.824 1. 794 1.809 1.569 1.556 1. Sf,2
l7 35/ 500C/XL/l'&T /PB
1.820 1.158 1. 823 l. 795 1.808 1. 567 1.512 1. 560
14 l7 35/ 500C/XL/P&T /PB
3.510 3.020 3. 532 3.458 3. 495 3.062 3. 053 3. 034
l5 19 69/ l 7 50A/XL/XL/Cl·!/P[
27 19 69/1750A/XL/XL/Cl-!/P:'. 3. ,10 3.020 1. 543 3.502 ,. 522 ,. 038 3.01 a 3. C).'.!!i
3. 700 1.140 1. 616 3 . .514 3. 575 3.076 3. 045 3.061

16 21 l 38/ 500C/EP /EP /PH/Pl:
3. 700 3 .140 3. 038 3.530 3.584 3.078 3. 024 3. 051
21 138/ 500C/EP /EP /PB/PE
4. 075 3. 780 4.052 3. 983 4.017 3. 764 3. 710 3. 737
17 24 138/ 2500A/XL/XL/CP /tlDPE
r,. 07 5 3. 780 4.051 3. 955 4.003 3. 760 3. 702 3. 711
29 24 138/250011/XL/XL/CP /tllJPE
-·----- --------- -- -
8-39
11096704
by the conductor alone. In actuality, some tension was carried by the cable insu-
lation and neutrals during the pulls.
Seven cables which had been subjected to the highest stresses were selected for
testing to determine if the conductors had elongated. It was thought that the high
tensions in conjunction with the surging effects might have caused some elongation.
DC resistance measurements were performed and the results were compared to those ob-
tained on original samples. Where multiple cable pulls were performed, the resist-
ance was measured on each of the cables. The data is shown in Table 8-8. No elong-
ation effects occurred to any of the cables at these stress levels.
Problems were encountered with the pulling of cables with bare concentric neutral
wires. Cable Item Nos. 6 and 9 with bare concentric neutrals were suscepti,ble to
deformation and dislocation of the neutrals at relatively low sidewall bearing
pressures. Cable Item No. 9 is triplexed cable pulled in a triangular formation.
Sufficient footage of Cable Item No. 9 was supplied for only one test. It was de-
cided to pull this cable through the four bend duct run (Test No. 22). The cable
sample was pulled at an average SWBP of 906 lb/ft (1348 kg/m). As the cable en-
tered the bend, the neutral wires were displaced circumferentially away from the
contact point of the cable and the conduit surface with the cable riding on the
insulation shield. The displacement of the neutrals resulted in the wire twisting
about the cable. This process continued as the cable progressed through the bend
until sufficient tension developed in the neutral wires to resist the displacement.
The spiraled geometry of the neutral wire with respect to the cable resulted in the
neutrals at this point lying nearly perpendicular to the direction of cable travel.
Once the cable tension exceeded the value necessary to overcome the obstruction in-
duced by the neutral tension and geometry, the cable surged forward and the process
was repeated. The cables were examined after the pull was completed. The lay of
the neutral wires was so severely disturbed that some wires had crossed over the
other wires. Also the tinning on the wires had been scraped off. ~foderate to
severe gouging of the neutral wires into the insulation shield had occurred (Figure
8-15). Three cable pulls were performed in cradled formation on cable Item No. 6
in both two bend and four bend duct runs. The two bend pull was performed (Test
No. 2) at a SHEP of 1148 lb/ft (1708 kg/m). The neutral wires were displaced in
a fashion similar to that described earlier for cable Item No. 9. A photo of the
cables exiting the high tension bend is shown in Figure 8-16. The neutral wires
shifted and kinked, and moderate indents were left in the insulation shield by the
neutral wires. The deformation was not as severe as that recorded for the triplex
cab.le pu11.
8-40
11096704
Table 8-8
FIELD TEST PROGRAM

RESULTS OF DC CONDUCTOR RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
: I
Cable Pull Stress TCEA RESISTANCE
II ~est
No.
I Item
No.
No. of
Cables
Conductor
Type
Per Conductor
lb/in 2
Ohms/1000' @ 20°C
Orig. i Cable li Cable 2 I Cable 3i
I
:
2 I 6 3 1/0 Al. 12,664 0.164 i 0.166
i
0.166 0.165
6 6 2 1/0 Al. 17,489 0.164 ! 0.166 0.165 --
' 12 16 2 4/0 Al. 12,034 0.082 iI 0.081 0.082 --
13 17 1 500 Cu. 14,133 0. 212 j O. 0218 -- --
I
19 6 3 1/0 Al. 12,463 0.164 j 0.165 0.164 0.164
I
21 21 1 789 Cu. 18,719 0.0134! 0.01!+1 -- --
_
?C_) I --
16 2 4/0 Al. 11, 733 0.082; 0.081 0.082
I
' I
i i
!
i
I '
8-41
11096704
Figure 8-15. Indentations
into Insulation Shield of
Cable Item 9
Figure 8-16. Cable Item 6

Exiting High Tension Bend
Figure 8-17. Cross Section of Cable

Item 9 Showing Indentations
8-42
11096704
Another three cable pull of the same cable Item No. 6 was performed in a four bend
duct run (Test No. 19) at SWBP of 1130 lb/ft (1681 kg/m). The cables were exam-
ined and the neutrals again showed moderate shifting and digging into the insula-
tion shield. The magnitude of wire displacement and insulation shield defonnation
was very similar to that noted in Test No. 2.
To determine quantitatively the degree of deformation of the insulation shield,

wafers were cut from samples taken from cable Item No~. 6 and 9. The insulation
shield thickness was measured for each wafer as well as the thickness of the shield
at the locations where the wires had indented into the shield. A photo of a wafer
to be measured is shown in Figure 8-17. Table 8-9 shows the percent average re-
duction of shield thickness caused by the indenting of the wires.
Table 8-9
PERCENT AVERAGE REDUCTION OF SHIELD THICKNESS

CAUSED BY INDENTING OF WIRES
TEST CABLE AVERAGE SHIELD AVERAGE SHIELD THICKNESS % REDUCTION OF

NO. TYPE T:iiICKNESS, MILS AT INDENTS-MILS SHIELD THICKNESS
22 9 62.5 52.1 29.6
2 6 37.0 28. 0 24
19 6 37.0 29.6 20
Short lengths of cable Item No. 6 were pulled to determine the threshold SWBP at
which this indenting or digging in orcurs. A three cable pull was performed at a
SWBP value of 883 pounds/ft (1314 kg/m). There was some spreading but no bunching
up of neutral wires at this SWBP. Some indentations of the neutral wires did occur
at isolated locations along the cables. The overall defonnation to the cables was
minimal at this SWBP.
The friction factor estimated from fielJ test data for the cables with bare concen-
tric wire neutrals was approximately twice as high in the four bend pull. This trend
was not seen with any other cable types. One possible reason for this increase in
the coefficient of friction could be that in the four bend pull, the neutral wires
are being separated in the first two bends so that by the time the cable reaches
the final two bends the wires have an increased propensity to bind in the bends,
increasing friction between the cables and the duct.
Electrical tests were pe1formed on the cable sections pulled through the duct runs.
The corona extinction level of each cable was measured. All cables passed corona
8-43
11096704
extinction at twice rated voltage. The discharge, measured in picocoulombs, re-
mained below 5 pc for all samples. The dielectric breakdown strength of each cable
was determined by following the test procedure outlined in Appendix C. Tl:ie st:3rt.-
ing voltage stress was 200 volts/mil (7.9 kV/mm) and the voltage was raised at five
minute intervals in 40 volt/mil (1.16 kV/mm) steps. The breakdown strength of each
cable is shown in Table 8-10 along with the original breakdown strength measured by
Pirelli.
Cables were gathered for this testing program from various utilities and manufac-
turers. The cables used for these tests were of widely varying quality as is in-
dicated by the wide range of original dielectric strengths shown in Table 8-10.
The number of field tests performed were insufficient to statistically determine
the average reduction of dielectric strengths.
Reduction in breakdown strengths of pulled cables indicate varying degrees of de-

gradation of the cable insulation. After Test No. 1 was performed, the voltage
could not be raised on Cable No. 2 of the three cable pull. During this early pull,
the basket grip had not been wrapped with duct tape. Strands of the grip had broken
off and filings of steel were carved from the duct bends. The point of electrical
failure was located but no foreign object or distortion of the cable was found. It
is still possible that one of these slivers from the grip or duct could have punc-
tured the insulation. The grips were wrapped on subsequent tests to reduce the po-
tential of generating steel slivers during pulls. Triplexed cables, both jacketed
(Item ~Jo. 8) and with bare neutrals (Item No. 9) were subject to wear during pulls
in Configuration 1 and 2 immediately following the grip. Wear of cable 8 was man-
ifest in a hole worn through the jacket and some wear of the underlying neutral
wires. The bare neutral wires of cable 9 were badly worn to the point of one neu-
tral wire breaking. This resulted due to the tendency of the triplexed cables to
remain curved as they had been on their reels. Great effort was unsuccessfully
expended to straighten the cables. In both cases, it would be necessary to discard
an additional two or three feet of cable following the grip once the pull was com-
pleted before the cable(s) could be terminated. An additional concern for jacketed
triplexed cables is that water could enter the cable through the hole while pull
was underway. This problem was encountered while the cable was in straight sections
of the conduit run. The field test site was designed primarily to study the effects
of conduit bends on the pulling of cables and therefore had minimal straight con-
duit sections. In an actual cable pull, the actual damage could be far more severe
due to the greater lengths of straight conduit sections.
Observations affecting other dielectric breakdown tests are listed in Table 8-10.
8-44
11096704
Table 8-10
FIELD TEST PROGRAM - RESULTS OF ELECTRICAL TESTS

Two Bend - Configuration 1
Test Cable Cable No. of SWBP Partial DIELECTRIC STRENGTH - V/mil

No. I tl'[ll Construction Code Cables lb/ft Discharge Post - SWBP Test Observations
No. oC Ori~inal 1 2 3
1 5 0.6/500C/EP/tJ 3 2,783 N/A 528 - 647 240 * 400 l!etal filings from steel grip in duct.
2 6 15/1-0A/XL/TP/CN 3 1,148 < 5 825->1143 560 680 680
3 7 15/500C/EP/EP/CW/PV 1 2,531 < 5 560 - 906 680 - -
4 7 15/SOOC/EP/EP/CW/PVC 3 2,137 < 5 560 - 906 520 640 640
5 8 15/750A/XL/TP/CNE/PE 3 1, 792 < 5 433 - 503 480 440 520
6 11 25/1-0A/XL/TP/CNE/SCPE 2 1,415 < 5 >760 720 680 -
Cl)
7 12 25/500C/XL/P&T/PB 1 4,804 < 5 >727 400 - -
I
.i:--- 8 12 25/500C/XL/P&T/PB 3 2,666 < 5 >727 600 1,40 400
Vl
9 14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 2,453 < 5 >760 640 - -
10 14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 1 2,754 < 5 >760 560 - -
11 14 25/lOOOA/XL/XL/LC/PE 3 2,356 < 5 >760 360 440 440
12 16 35/4-0A/XL/TP/CT/PVC 2 l, 995 < 5 >730 646 281 -
13 17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 1 4,671 < 5 558 - 685 520 - -
14 17 35/500C/EP/EP/PB 3 2,497 < 5 558 - 685 480 560 600
15 19 69/1750A/XL/XL/CW/PVC 1 2,142 < 5 440 360 - -
16 21 138/500C/EP/EP/PB/PE 1 1,392 < 5 480 - 560 490 - -

17 24 138/ 2 SODA/ XL/ XL/ CR/MDPE 1 2,162 < 5 520 _>720 400 - -
* Could not raise voltage - metal filings from steel grip in duct.
11096704
Table 8-10
FIELD TEST PROGRAM - RESULTS OF ELECTRICAL TESTS

Four Bend - Configuration 2
(Continued)
----·--·---~--~---
Tesl I<' r:,1hlr> No. of Sl~'BP Parf.: i-;-i DIELECTRIC STRENGl~Jl - V/mil
- -Post - SWUP Test
N(). ft< 11 ConstruL·ti.~-in Code Cables lb/fl Discharge - ~
Observations
nC Orig_ina ~- - - 1 -~- 2 - - - J- -
~(
--- ~--
18 0. ii/ 500C/l'P /N 3 2,629 N/A 528 - 61,7 350 260 42()
19 6 15/1-01\/XL/TP /Cf! 3 1,130 < 5 825->lllrl 600 640 560
20 J5/500C/EP/EP/CW/PVC 3 -- -- -- - - - Cahle jammed in rope groove during pull.

< 5 413 - 503 570 610 52()
n 8 15/750,\/XL/TP/ctlE/PE 3 1,669
:'2 9 15/7501\/XL/TP/CN 3 9lJ(, < 5 380 - 527 320 41,0 480
3 2,988 < 5 >727 280 480 t Terminal failure on cable sam11le no. 3.
23 )
25/500C/XL/P&T/PB
00 25/10001\/XL/XL/LC/PE 3 2,061 < 5 >760 52 5 520 510
I
+'
2/i
' >780 640 360 -
°' I 25
26 I
5/ l1-0i\/XL/TP /CT /PVC
35/500C/EP/EP/PH
2
3
1, 91,5
3,J/,6
< 5
< 5 558 - 685 1,40 480 200 Rippling of lead observed.
1 < 5 440 280 - -

27 ) 69/175011/XL/XL/CW/PVC 2,989
28 l 138/500C/EP/EP/PH/PE 1 3,096 < 5 480 - 560 >500 - - Maximum limit of equipment.
29 138/2500A/XL/XL/CR/MnPE 1 3,255 < 5 52() ->720 1,80 - -
11096704
Observations
Cable pulls were performed at the outdoor test site to determine the effects of
high tension and SWBP under a wide range of operating conditions. The effects of
lubricating compounds, the type and size of pull ropes, and pulling speeds were
observed. The performance of conduit materials and the relative merits of pulling
eyes and basket grips were evaluated.
Some problem areas came to light during field testing that had not been observed in
laboratory tests. Phenomena observed included cable sur8ing, conduit bend temper-
ature rise and jamming in conduit bends. Since the test program was not specific-
ally designed to evaluate these areas of concern, a strict scientific analysis was
not conducted. Nonetheless, observations pertaining to these factors is included
and lend insight into the dynamics of a cable pull.
Lubricants. Two lubricants of different composition were procured from different,

selected manufacturers. Both lubricants performed well under field conditions with
conduit temperatures ranging from 10°C to 75°C. Friction factors for each test
were back-calculated based on the experimentally determined average tension and
bacl;: tension values. As a simplifying assumption, any tension increments al,:,ng the
straight sections of the conduit run were neglected. This is a reasonable assump-
tion based on the comparatively high cable tensions necessary to generate the high
sidewall bearing pressures required at the bends. Any tension increments along the
straight sections of conduit run were minor in comparison to the tension increments
around the bends. Calculated friction factors remained between 0.10 and 0.25 for
lubricated cables regardless of conduit configuration or material. as opposed to
0.40 - 0.50 for unlubricated cables. Both compounds performed equally well in all
tests with regard to their lubricating ability. The friction factor did not seem
to be affected by the pulling speed. It did tend to drop as the tension of the
pull was increased.
Pulling Speed. The puller used to provide the high-side tension was equipped with
a two speed transmission. This afforded an opportunity to subject cables to the
necessary pulling tensions at two speeds namely 13 ft/min. (6.6 cm/sec) and 44 ft/
min. (22.4 cm/sec). A series of preliminary field tests were performed in which
pulling speed was the only independent variable. The results of these preli~inary
tests showed that the tension generated and friction factors developed within the
conduit system were largely independent of pulling speed. The only noticeable
difference was that a slight increase in surging was noticed during higher speed
pulls which made the back tensioning more difficult to stabilize. The cable puller
8-47
11096704
in low gear provided greater torque. Due to the extremely high tensions required
for some pulls, an early decision was made to conduct all subsequent field tests at
the low speed to allow for a more direct correlation of data.
Pulling Grips and Eyes. Current industry practice is to perform high tension pulls
using pulling eyes, thus relegatin8 basket grips to less strenuous pulls. For some
cable geometries, the imposed tensions can be distributed over the cable jacket,
neutral, and the conductor using the basket grips allowing the cable to be pulled
at higher tensions than present limits indicate.
Basket grips are available that will accommodate up to seven inch (18cm) diameter
cables and sustain a tensioning load of 48,000 pounds (22,000 kg). A suitably
sized single basket grip can also be used to pull multiple cables. For high ten-
sion pulls, it is advisable to first wrap the cable jacket with a friction tape
before insertion into the grip. For non-deforming jackets, such as medium and
high density polyethylene, friction tape is essential. At extremely high tensions
slipping of the cable might occur even if friction tape is used as the grip cannot
deform into the jacket.
Banding the grip onto the cable was found to greatly diminish the possibility of
the grip slipping. The banding allowed the grip to gain initial hold on the cable
jacket as test tension was developed. The banded grip was taped over with a non-
friction tape such as duct tape to minimize damage to the grip or the conduit by
the steel bands. In a PVC conduit run, the steel banding as well as the woven
steel grip will cause severe gouging of the conduit walls at the bends. For pulls
within steel conduit, excessive SWBP can cause exposed steel strands in the grip
to break. thereby reducing the ultimate strength of the grip. Steel slivers may
be filed from the steel duct by the passage of the basket grip. The broken strands
or steel slivers can become embedded within the jacket or penetrate the cable in-
sulation. This would suhstantially lessen the life expectancy of the cable. Eence,
suitable covering of the pulling grip as well as banding straps is recommended par-
ticularly for high tension pulls.
The geometry and specified materials of a cable design are important factors in de-
termining the maximum tension that can ·t·P applied to a basket grip. For example,
longitudinally corrugated (LC) shields tend to crush and tear under high tension.
Other neutral designs such as wire and tape shields are more effective in trans-
mitting tension from the grip to the cable insulation. Although the lead sheath
is malleable, it distributes tension readily to the cable core. No problems were
8-48
11096704
encountered with regard to lead-sheathed cables being pulled under sustained high
tensions using basket grips.
Polyethylene cable insulation can sustain some shear loading and aid in transmit-
ting the cable tension from the grip to the conductor. Unlike the fairly rigid
polyethylene, EPR insulations are more pliable and susceptable to deformation. EPR
tends to stretch under stress and therefore not distribute tension to the conductor.
This generally results in the grip pulling the insulation off the conductor and
separating from the cable at high tensions.
In all cases, it is recommended that the first few feet of cable following the grip
be discarded to eliminate any distortion induced by the pull.
Pulling eyes were used with copper conductors as an alternative to the basket grips
when it was suspected that the grip might slip due to an inability to properly seat
itself on the jacket or that the insulation would be unable to distribute the ten-
sion to the conductor. In all cases, the poured lead pulling eyes performed satis-
factorily. No compression type pulling eyes for aluminum conductors were tested.
Duct Wear. During the course of field testing, numerous examinations were made to
determine the condition of the duct runs. Wear was noticed only in the bends. The
maximum duct wear was seen in the highest tension bends as this was where the high-
est SWBP was generated. In cases where cable was pulled through steel duct, no
significant duct wear was evident although the steel developed a polished look where
the pull rope and cable contacted the duct during a pull (Figure 8-18). PVC duct
was much more susceptible to duct wear than steel.
The first series of cable pulls were performed in the two bend duct runs using an
unlubricated 1.25 inch (3.2cm) polyester pull rope. The unlubricated rope had a
friction factor that is typically twice as high as that of the cable. Also, the
rope is braided and does not have as smooth a surface as the cable. Consequently,
the rope wears through the PVC duct bends at a much faster rate than the cable. As
the rope is pulled through the bends, frictional heating occurs raising the temp-
erature of the PVC duct. The PVC duct becomes softer and thus more susceptible to
duct wear. The woven irregular surface of the pull rope acts abrasively to remove
chips and splinters of PVC from the bends. PVC was found imbedded in and melted
onto the pull ropes when they emerged from the high tension bulkhead during actual
pulls. Significant duct wear of the PVC occurred during all two bend pulls. At
SWBP values greater than 1,000 lb/ft (1488 kg/m), it can be expected that duct wear
8-49
11096704
co
I
\Jl
0
Figure 8-18. Typical Steel Figure 8-19. Heavy PVC Duct Figure 8-20. Severe PVC Duct
Duct Wear Wear Wear to Underlying Concrete
11096704
in the bends will occur. Insufficient pulls were performed below these SWBP values
to determine the SWBP at which only minor wear would occur.
Photographs taken in the duct bends indicate the type of wear that should be expec-
ted in PVC due to a woven pull rope. In Figure 8-19 heavy wear has occurred. In
Figure 8-20 the pull rope has worn all the way through the PVC and surrounding con-
crete is exposed. A total of 4 duct runs had wear so severe that concrete was ex-
posed. No problems were encountered, however, when the cables were pulled across
the exposed concrete in the bends, damage to the cables dict not occur except for a
mild scuffing of the jackets. A 0.5 inch (1.27cm) steel rope was used for some
pulls. It was found that the steel rope would wear through the PVC duct at an even
faster rate than the polyester rope due to the fact that the diameter of the steel
rope was smaller and thus the normal force was spread over a smaller surface area.
When the first four bend tests were attempted, the friction factor of the unlub-
ricated polyester pull rope was so high that the pull rope could not be pulled
through the duct runs at the desired tensions. It was necessary to lubricate the
pull rope for all four bend pulls. The wear in the high side bends was signifi-
cantly reduced. Only minor to moderate wear was seen even though the duct run was
three times longer than for the two bend pulls. Only PVC ducts were installed in
the four bend duct runs.
Temperature. The temperature of the ducts in the bends were recorded as a function
of time elapsed during a pull. The maximum temperatures were obtained in the high
tension bends. This is where the highest frictional force is generated due to
higher SWBP. A typical plot of duct temperature as a function of the location of
the cable in a two bend duct run is shown in Figure 8-21. The pull rope generates
more frictional heating in a bend than the cable following it. This is because the
friction factor of an unlubricated pull rope is typically twice as high as that of
the cable and thus generates more heat as it travels through the bend. The duct
temperature drops sharply when the cable enters the bend due to reduced frictional
heating (Figure 8-21).
aeat generated due to friction between the pull rope and steel duct was quickly
dissipated to the surrounding concrete. In PVC ducts, however, high temperature
rises were reached in the bends. A temperature rise of 53°C (127°F) was reached
during cable pull No. 6 and rountinely temperature rises of 40°C (104°F) were
measured.
8-51
11096704
era
CABLE ENTERING HIGH-SIDE BEND

?'ra
-
0
::::,
0
..J
era
w
(.) sra HIGH TENSION BEND TEMPERATURE
0
w
w
a:
CJ
00
I
\.Jl
N
-
~ ,4ra
w
a:
::::,
~ sra .... . ...........
a: . . . . . ..... . . . .
w
a.
.... LOW TENSION BEND TEMPERATURE
::!?
w 2ra
I-
1121
" --t--+--t--+---t-~--~--t-~--t-~~----------------------t--t-----t--t-----t--t----t---i-------1
1 2 3 4 S e 7 B
" TIME (MINUTES)
Figure 8-21. High-Side Duct Bend Temperature Rise During Cable Pull
11096704
The four bend duct runs were 150 feet (46m) in length, 100 feet (30m} longer than
the two bend runs. Still, the maximum temperature rises in the high tension bend
averaged 10°C (50°F) while in the two bend pulls, the maximum temperature rise
averaged 40°C (104°F). This is because the lubricated pull rope reduced the fric-
tional heating significantly.
Surging. Surging is a complex phenomena potentially affected by many variables.

The elasticity of the pull rope, the static and dynamic coefficients of friction
and the condition of the ducts all affect the magnitude of the cable surging.
The polyester pull rope has much more stretch than the steel rope. At tensions
above 6,000 pounds (2720kg) most of the elastic elongation has occurred, and the
rope acts similar to a steel rope. At tensions below 6,000 pounds (2720kg), the
polyeste.r pull rope remains elastic. 'I'his results in the pull rope repeatedly
loading and unloading like a spring. Rope was used in field tests both to pull
and back tension thus accentuating the rope surge effects.
Back tensioning was performed manually with a hand operated disk brake system
mounted on the low-side reel. Difficulty in maintaining a constant back tension
contributed to surging effects.
When two surfaces contact, there exists both static and dynamic modes of friction.
rhe static friction coefficient is most often higher than the dynamic value. This
means that it takes more force to overcome friction when an object is at rest than
when it is moving. During a cable pull, the cable initially at rest will move only
when the pulling tension exceeds the static frictional forces. Once the cable
starts to move, the dynamic friction factor becomes operative. Since this value is
generally less than the static friction coefficient, the cable is accelerated to a
velocity higher than the actual pulling speed governed by the high side puller un-
til a sufficient tension drop has occurred and the cable once again comes to rest.
The cables generally move in 3 to 8 inch (8 - 20cm) increments. This interplay of
static and dynamic friction between the cable and the conduit wall and possible
small variations of coefficient of friction with pulling speed can strongly affect
cable surging. Where the difference between the static and dynamic friction fac-
tors is small the surging effects tend to be reduced. As the two values diverge,
the surging effects tend to increase significantly. The friction coefficients are
affected by the cable jacket type, the duct material, and the lubricant used.
8-53
11096704
The condition of the duct runs, especially in the bends, affected the surge magni-
tudes. PVC bends are formed by bending pre-heated straight sections around a man-
drel to a specified radius. The bends were examined before installation to assure
that the bend sections used had a fairly constant radius throughout the bend. Minor
duct distortions were observed along the length of the bend sections. As the duct
is bent, it typically distorts from circular to slightly elliptical shape reducing
slightly the minimum ID of the duct. Some pulls performed in selected ducts were
repeated in other runs having the same radius bends. Minor differences in surging
effects were noticed with only the duct run selected as the independent variable.
Pulls were performed at two pulling speeds, l.J ft/min. (6.6 cm/sec) and 44 ft/min.
(22.4 cm/sec). The surge frequency for all tests was observed to remain between
15 and 20 cycles per minute. The surge frequency is largely independent of the
pulling speed. At higher speeds, since the surge frequency remained essentially
the same, the length of cable moving through the duct during a surge cycle in-
creased. Fi3ure 8-22 illustrates the relation between cable surge and pulling
speed for two pulls conducted at different speeds.
During three isolated pulls, the cable pull would proceed with an expected amount
of surging effects up to a time where a resonant type surge condition would com-
mence. During this time period, large variation in tension surges would be main-
tained for many feet of cable pull. Often the resonant condition would then dim-
inish and the pull would continue in a normal fashion. A good example of this
type of phenomenon is shown in Figure 8-23 which is a segment of the plot of the
tension developed durin3 cable pull No. 15. No obvious cause of this type behavior
could be ascertained.
A review of the tension recordings made during cable pulls reveals occasional rope
slips (jumps) occurring on the pulling and tensioning reels. On the chart record-
ings, (Figure 8-24) this appears as a sharp, singular, non-periodic drop in tension.
The phenomena occurs when the coil of rope on the reel inunediately adjacent to the
coil being payed off or wrapped on is located higher with respect to the reel core.
The rope tension causes this higher coil to drop down to the lower adjacent posi-
tion, causing a momentary loss of tension. Incidents are minimized by level-wind-
ing the back tensioning and pulling ropes on their respective reels to provide for
a smoother pay out and take up of the ropes.
The surging effects of the various pulls were reviewed to see if any common factors
could be identified that would strongly affect the surge magnitudes. The surgg mag-
8-54
11096704
HIGH SPEED PULL 44ft/min (22.4 cm/sec)
0
0
0
~
---
,g
zo
PULLING TENSION ~
08
ci5 (\I
z
w
I-
BACK TENSION J _,,,- EVENT MARKS
o,
•••••••• ••••••••••••• ................ • •••••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
0 1 2 3
(X)
I
V,
V, g
0
~
LOW SPEED PULL 13ft/min. (6.6cm/sec.)
---
,g
Zo
Qo
PULLING TENSION
-o
(/) (\I
z
w
I-
0 ........... . .. .. . .... . . .~ EVENT MARKS .

. ...........
0 1 2 3
NOTE: INTERVALS BETWEEN EVENT MARKS EQUAL 1.176 FT. OF CABLE TRAVEL.
Figure 8-22. Surging as a Function of Pulling Speed
11096704
PULLING TENSION
I
~8
B co
z
CXl
Q
Cl)
I
u, zw 0
°' I- 8
""'
o
6
· · · · · · . . . . .. _ . . . . . . . . .
..... - .. . . . . . . ./ '~
. . . EVENT
. . . .MARKS
. . .. . .. . . - - -
6 7 8 9 10
Figure 8-23. Resonant Surging Phenomenon
11096704
nitudes seemed to increase slightly if lubricating compounds were not used. Exafl-
ination of data from both single and multiple cable pulls showed no significant
differences in surging as a function of the number of cables pulled. In almost all
instances the magnitude of surging decreased for lead sheathed cables. This is
due to the fact that the lead itself acts as a lubricant and is easily smeared off
in the duct. Generally, the lead sheathed cables pulled very smoothly.
The number of bends did influence the magnitude of surging significantly. A stat-
istical d!?termination of surge magnitudes was compiled for pulls performed both in
the two bend and four bend configurations. The average surge magnitude for the two
bend pulls was± 12.1%. For the four bend pulls the ave~age surge magnitude was
± 16.7% which is a 38% increase.
Jarmning. The potential for jamming of a three cable pull is assessed by Rifenburg
(8) and the potential for jamming is related to a term called the jam ratio. The
jam ratio (D/d) is defined as the ratio of the inside diameter of the conduit to
the effective diameter of the cable. According to the relations developed by
Rifenburg, jamming cannot occur if the D/d ratio is less than 2.5 for three cables
pulled in a triangular configuration. For D/d values approaching 3, the center
0
0 / PULLING TENSION
..,.0
~
-
,Q
z
0 8
ciS
0
C\I
zw
I-
0
0 1 2 3
Figure 8-24. Typical Rope-Jumps
8-57
11096704
I • A ... I• B ... I• C •I
0
0
..
0
(\I
~~ C
-
z
0 0 / . PULLING TENSION ~ ~
w
C,
<C
C,
~.M
0 z
"'zw 0
Cl) w
~
I- . . d. n .An C
00
I
\Jl
00
8~ v·v V 'I''" 'II V T ' vyw' iV! I
I 'f
I
I
I I
I
I il
I
I
I
I I I / I/
a:
w
...J
...J
::>
a.
~ BACK TENSION
~ ~VE~T ~AR~~
0 I NOTE: INTERVALS BETWEEN EVENT MARKS EQUAL 1.176 FT. OF CABLE TRAVEL.
I I I
7 8 9
Figure 8-25. Wedging of Cable into Rope Groove
11096704
_able riding on top of and between the other two cables, can be pulled down be-
tween the bottom cables and result in the cable being damaged due to the occur-
rence of jamming. If the potential for jamming was found to be significant while
planning a three cable pull, only two cables were pulled. The two cables would
be subjected to stresses very much like those that would be encountered by the
bottom of two cables of a three cable triangular pull. The tension required to
generate the necessary SWBP was then recalculated on the basis of a two cable pull.
By determining the jam ratio prior to each test, cable jamming was avoided through-
out the test program.
One incident of interest, not conventionally considered as jamming, did occur dur-
ing cable pull No. 20, Three 1.52 inch (3.9cm) O.D. cables were pulled using 1.25
inch (3.2cm) polyester pull rope. The pull rope cut grooves in the PVC duct bends
as it preceded the cables. When the cables had reached the third bend of the four
bend duct run, sufficient tension had developed to wedge one of the three cables
into the rope groove. The tensions recorded in the high and low side pull ropes
are shown in Figure 8-25 as the process was taking place. The pulling tension in-
itially controlled to 6,000 pounds (2720 kg) had increased to over 14,000 pounds
(6350 kg) before the high side puller could be disengaged. At the same time the
back tensioning operator had reduced the back tension from 2,000 pounds (907 kg)
to essentially no b?ck tension. During tioa period A no significant wedging of

the cable into the rope groove had occurred. During period B minor wedging was
evident. The cable would be pulled into the rope groove and held until the ten-
sion had built up high enough to jerk the cable out of the groove. The tension
dropped as a result of this cable movement. As the tension then increased, the
cable would again be pulled into the rope groove and greater tensions were re-
quired to move the cable forward again.
During time period Can unstable situation existed where the magnitude of wedging
increased with each cable movement. During this tiwe, the length of cable travel-
ing through the bend after the cable had been pulled free increased from 1 foot
(.3m) increments to in excess of 8 foot (2.4m) increments. The cables were re-
moved from the duct run and examined. A shear stress failure of the jacket had
occurred which resulted in the underlying neutral wires being exposed for 18 inches
(46cm) of cable where the wedging took place as shown in the photograph of Figure
8-26. Cable Ho. 7 has a tubed on PVC jacket and this loose jacket could be more
easily distorted into the rope groove than an extruded jacket.
8-59
11096704
Another three cable pull was performed in a previously unused duct run but the 0.5
inch (1.27cm) steel pull rope was used instead of the polyester rope. IF cable
wedging into the rope groove was the cause, it was thought that the cable could
not be wedged into the much smaller rope groove. No wedging occurred under these
circumstances.
It is common field practice to change out cables when upgrading or replacing a

failed cable. It is possible that grooves worn in ducts from previous pulls could
be of a diameter such that cable wedging in the grooves could result. It is im-
portant that the relative diameters of pull ropes and cables be considered when
pulling cables into duct runs at high sidewall bearing pressures.
8-60
11096704
00
I
CJ'
I-'
Figure 8-26. Damage to Jacket Resulting from Wedging of Cable Item 7 into Rope Groove
11096704
11096704
Section 9
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
1. Based on the results obtained in this investigation, presently ac-

cepted cable pulling parameters are considered highly conservative
and may adversely impact the cost of cable installations. New cable
pulling parameters for present day cable designs and duct materials
are included in the Recommendations section of the report.
2. Measurements of coefficients of friction under laboratory and field

simulated conditions indicate that dynamic coefficients of friction
are a function of normal force between the cable and duct surface.
Hence two dynamic coefficients of friction are recommended; a higher
value for straight runs and low tension bends and a lower value for
high tension bends.
3. Dynamic coefficients of friction do not vary significantly with cable

pulling speed.
4. Dynamic coefficients of friction may differ significantly with type

of pulling lubricant in straight runs and low tension bends. The
differences are significantly reduced for high tension bends.
5. Compression type pulling eyes, customarily employed with aluminum

conductor cables, significantly limit maximum pulling tensions and
hence cable lengths. Increases in pulling tensions in the order of
40 to 50% can be achi.eved through the use of epoxy filled pulling
eyes.
6. Pulling tests performed at the Georgia Power Company Field Test Site
confirmed results obtained in the Pirelli Cable Corporation Research
Center and, in addition. provided data for multiple cable pulls and
multiple bends.
9-1
11096704
7. A Cable Pulling Guide, incorporating manual and computerized methods
of calculation, has been developed based on the results of this Re-
search and Development project. This guide constitutes Volume 2 of
this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations for cable pulling parameters and practices are offered
in the interest of achieving maximum pulling lengths while ensuring performance re-
liability. These recommendations are based on the results of this investigation
incorporated in this report. Test results obtained in the PCC Research Center and
the Georgia Power Field Test Site were considered.
Recommended cable pulling parameters incorporate factors of safety applied to test

results which are based on experience gained during the test program and the vari-
ations in test results which were encountered. Specific applications may dictate
the use of cable pulling parameters different from those included herein. The data
included in this report may be useful in making such determinations.
Coefficients of Friction
Recommended dynamic coefficients of friction for various cable and duct materials
for a commonly used type of lubricant and for single and multiple cable pulls are
presented in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Table 9-1 is applicable to straight pulls and
curved sections where the bearing pressure is less than 150 lbs/ft. Table 9-2 is
applicable to curved sections where the bearing pressure is 150 lbs/ft. or greater.
These values are applicable as the basic coefficients of friction and the appropri-
ate weight correction factors should be used for three cable pulls.
At low sidewall pressure the dynamic coefficient of friction with the bentonite
clay based lubricant ranged from 20 to 250% higher than with the soap or talc based
lubricants. However, under high sidewall pressure,all types of lubricants exhibited
essentially the same coefficients of friction. The coefficients of friction can be
considered to be essentially independent of pulling speed.
Pulling Tension Limits
The maximum recommended pulling tensions for cable pulled with pulling eyes and pul-
ling grips are given in Tables 9-3 and 9-4. respectively. It should be noted that
in some cases t.he maximum allowable tension when using a pulling grip may be limited
by the stress on the cable conductor. In three cable pulls (non-triplexed cable)
the stress shoultl ½•• ~orncuted using the assumption that only two conductors will
share the full applie,; tension.
9-2
11096704
Table 9-1
RECOMMENDED DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION

Straight Pulls & Bends With Bearing Pressures Less than 150 lbs/ft.
(Soap & Water Base Lubricants)
Duct ! Cable Outer One Cable Three Cables

Covering Per Duct Per rJuct
Material
Installation Temo 75°F 20°F 75°F
PVC XLPE 0.4() 0.40 0.60
PE 0.40 0.35 0.45
PVC 0.5() 0.25 0.60
N 0.90 0.55 1.50
CN 0.40 0.40 --
Pb 0.25 0.25 --
PE XLPE 0.45 0.35 0.55
PE 0.25 ().20 0.85
PVC ().30 0. 20 0.45
r! 0.65 0.45 --
CN 0.20 0.20 --
Pb 0.20 0.25 --
FIBRE XLPE 0.30 0.20 0.65
PE 0.25 0.35 0.60
PVC 0.40 0.20 0.45
N 0.1,0 o. 30 rJ.55
CN 0.4() 0.35 --
Pb -- -- --
CONCRETE XLPE 0.30 --· ---
PE 0.35 -- --
PVC ().55 -- --
N 0.50 -- --
CN -- -- --
Pb o. 55 -- --
TRANSITE XLPE (). 70 -- 0.70

PE o. 70 0.35 --
PVC 0.7() 0.35 0.70
N l.f)O 0.95 1.80
c:1 -- -- --
Pb -- -- --
STEEL XLPE 0.60 0.45 0.65

PE 0. 50 0. 50 --
PVC 0.65 0.40 --
N 1.05 0.70 1. 75
C,1 0.50 0.50 --
Pb -- -- --
Note: Since coefficients of friction with clay base lubricJnts,

based on limited test data, ranRed from 20 to 250i higher
than for soap and water base lubricants, tables in the
report should be consulted for specific cases.
9-3
11096704
Table 9-2
RECOMMENDED DYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION

Single and Three Cable Pulls
Bends With Sidewall Pressures of 150 lbs/ft or Greater
(All Lubricants)
Cable Outer Duct Material µk

Coverin2:
XLPE, PE PVC, PE, CONCRETE 0,15
PVC PVC, PE, CONCRETE 0.30
N PVC, PE, CONCRETE 0.15
XLPE, PE STEEL 0.25
PVC STEEL 0.30
N STEEL 0.25
Pb STEEL 0.20
9-4
11096704
Table 9-3
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM PULLING TENSIONS

Copper and Aluminum Conductor Cables
Pulling Eyes
Maximum Tension - osi ;

Conductor - Metal & Type Compression l Epoxy Filled j
Eve i Eve :
I
Copper (annealed) lL1,00O CD I
I
Aluminum
I
Solid (1/2 thru Full Hard) 8,000 10,000
Stranded (3/4 & Full Hard) 10,000 14,000
(D When the strength of the compression eye is limiting

the length of the pull, the use of a solder type copper
pulling eye will permit pulling tensions up to 16,000 psi.
For three single conductor cables in parallel configura-

tion, the allowable conductor stress should be based on
two cables sharing the load.
9-5
11096704
Table 9-4
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM PULLING TENSIONS

Copper and Aluminum Conductor Single and Three Cables per Pull
Pulling Grips
CABLE CONST~UCTION TYPE I :iaximurn Tension. lbs (j)

one cable three cables
XLPE Insulation/Jacket - 600V Cable 2,000 2,000
EPR - Neoprene - 600V Cable 2,000 2,000
I
PE & XLPE 1..i.sulation, concentric wire shield, with & i 10,000 5,000
without encapsulating jacket
!
PE & XLPE insulation, LC shield, LDPE jacket
15, 25 & 35kV Cable 8,000 4,000
69 & 138kV Cable 4,000 2,500
PE & XLPE insulation, concentric wire or tape shield, 10,000 5,000

LOPE & PVC sleeved jackets
EPR insulation, concentric wire or tape shield, LDPE 10,000 10,000

& PVC sleeved jackets
Lead sheathed cable, with & without jacket

XLPE insulation 16,000 © 16,000©
EPR insulation 8,000 3,000
XLPE insulation, copper wire or ribbon shield, !IDPE 18,000 9,000

sleeved jacket
Q) i,Ihen considering use of the above pulling grip tensions the stress
on the cable conductor should not exceed the following values:
16,000 psi for copper conductors (annealed)
14,000 psi for strnnded aluminum conductors (1/2 thru Full Hard)
10,000 psi for solid aluminum conductors (3/4 & Full Hard)
For three single conductor cables in parallel confipuration. the
.:illowable conductor stress should be based on two cables sharin~
the load.
(6) The values are the ~aximurn stress i n ~ computed on the total
cross-sectional area of the le3d sheath.
9-6
11096704
Consideration has been given in Table 9-4 to the maximum. recommended tensions when
three cables are pulled with a single pulling srip. If higher tensions are ex-
pected each cable should be inserted into an individual grip.
Sidewall Bearing Pressure Limits
The maximum recommended sidewall bearing pressures for various cable constructions
when pulled around curved sections are given in Table 9-5. These recommended max-
imum SWBP values must be applied in conjunction with maximum allowable pulling
stress limitations in the cable conductor due to the applied pulling tension.
General Recommendations
The following recommendations apply to installations of long cable lengths and

where high tensions and/or sidewall bearing pressures are expected.
• The use of lubricated pulling lines and the pre-lubricating of ducts

is recoIIlI!lended to reduce pulling tension and duct wear. It is recos-
nized that the use of lubricated pulling lines precludes the use of
a capstan type pulling unit since the slippage would severely impair
its operaticn.
When pulling grips are employed, the application of a layer of fric-

tion tape over the cable jacket underneath the back of the grip and
the use of punch-lock type bands over the back of the grip are re-
commended to insure that the grip sets properly.
• Pulling grips should be covered with a suitable tape or a heat

shrinkable polyethylene sleeve to prevent damage to the grip and/or
the duct.
• After a pull, the cable directly under the grip and approximately
t>ree feet (lm) of cable behind it should be discarded.
• Duct wear should be expected in all but steel and concrete ducts
due to abrasion and frictional heating caused by the pull line. Wear
is minimized if the line is pre-lubricated.
• Plastic, fibre and transite duct bends must be encased in reinforced

concrete to prevent the possibility of the cable or pull line wearing
through the elbow or breaking it.
9-7
11096704
Table 9-5
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE
Maximum SHBP
Cable Construction Type
(lbs/ft) Q)
XLPE Insulation/Jacket - 600 V Cable 1,200
EPR, Neoprene - 600V Cable 1,000
PE & XLPE insulation, concentric

wire shield:
without jacket 1,200@
with encapsulating jacket 2,000
PE & XLPE insulation, LC shield 1,500

LDPE jacket
PE, XLPE, EPR insulation, concentric 2,000 G)

wire or tape shield, LDPE & PVC
sleeved jackets.
Lead sheathed cable, with & without

jackets:
XLPE insulation 2,000
EPR insulation 2,000
XLPE insulation, copper ribbon 2,000

shield, MDPE sleeved jacket.
Q) When considering the use of the above SWBP's the

stress on the cable conductor should not exceed
the following values:
16,000 psi for copper conductor (annealed)
14,000 psi for stranded aluminum conductors (1/2 thru Full Hard)
10,000 psi for solid aluminum conductors (3/4 & Full Hard)
For three single conductor cables in parallel

configuration, the allowable conductor stress
should be based on two cables sharing the load.
@ For a three cable pull, a maximum SWBP limit of

750 lb/ft is recommended.
Q) The recommended SWBP limit should be reduced to

1500 lb/ft when the jacket is not applied tightly
to the cable core.
9-8
11096704
• Consideration should be given to the relative diameters of the
pull line and cable with regard to the possibility of the cable
"wedging" in the groove created by the pull line.
• When reconductoring, duct wear from the previous pull should be

assessed with respect to the occurrence of wedging.
• The magnitude of tension surges should be considered. Careful

inspection of the inside of the duct elbows should be made prior
to installation of the ducts.
• Efforts should be made to insure that the pulling rope is evenly

wound around the take up reel in order to prevent rope slips
(jumps) which can aggravate surging problems.
• Long, high tension pulls with bare concentric neutral cables should
be avoided since distortion and wear to the neutral wires can be
quite extensive. This wear and distortion is cumulative and, there-
fore, will be more severe as the pulling length and number of bends
is increased.
9-9
11096704
11096704
Appendix A
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

National Electric Light Association, February 1926.

National Electric Light Association, May 1927.
3. Cable Installation, A Report of the Underground Systems Committee;

National Electric Light Association, :November 1929.
4. Underground Systems Reference Book; National Electric Light Association,

1931.
5. "Pulling Loads on Single and Multiple Conductor Impregnated-Paper Lead

Encased Cable, Solid Type, "by A. P. S. Bellis; AIEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume 62, March 1943.
6. "Pulling Tension During Cable Installation in Ducts or Pipes," by F. H.

Buller; General Electric Review, August 1949.
7. Minutes of Meeting of Insulated Conductor Connnittee (Power Group), Cable

Supply Systems Subconnnittee #7, Project 7-17; Progress Reports No. 1,
November 1951 and No. 2, April 1952.
8. "Pipe Line Design for Pipe Type Feeders," by R. C. Rifenburg; AIEE

Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, December 1953.
9. Underground Systems Reference Book, Edison Electric Institute, Chapter

3, Section Band Chapter 8, Section C; Published 1957.
10. "Cable Pulling Design for Practical Applications in Modern Refineries"

by Sookie Vartanian and Arthur N. Sandler; IEEE Transactions on Industry
Application, Volume IA-10 No. 3 May/June 1974.
A-1
11096704
11. "Cable Pulling," by C. E. Muhleman; IEEE Conference Record of 1976
Pulp and Paper Industry Technical Conference, May 1976.
12. "Cable Pulling," Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, General Catalog No.
C-79, Page 33, January 1951.
13. "Maximum Pulling Tensions for Installing Electrical Wires and Cables";
The 0konite Company, Bulletin 1085, 1954.
14. "Cable - Installation Pulling Tensions for Installing Cables"; Genera1

Electric Company, Catalog CM 654 Pages 3, 4, and 7, June 1964.
15. "Recommended Pulling Tensions on Lead Sheathed and Aluminum Sheathed

Cables"; IPCEA Pub. P-41-412, June 1958.
16. "Installation Problems and Testing of Cable - 5 to 35kV" by Ralph A.

Lee; IEEE Tr~nsactions on Industry Applications, Volume IA-13, No. 6
November/December 1975.
17. "A Guide to Installation of Medium Voltage Cable", by William A. Beasley;

IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Volume IA-13 No. 6 November/
December 1977.
18. "IEEE Guide for the Design and Installation of Cable Systems in Power
Generating Stations''; IEEE Standard 422-1977.
19. "Cable Systems", IEEE Standard 141-1976.
20. "Covered and Insulated Aluminum Wire and Cable"; Aluminum Electrical
Conductor Handbook; Aluminum Association 9/71, pages 11-12 thru 11-14.
21. "An Accurate Graphical Method Based on "Equivalent Straight Conduit

Length" Calculations Provides Data on the Forces Involved When Cable
is Pulled Through Raceway", by Franz X. Forstmaier; Electrical Construc-
tion and Maintenance, December 1973.
A-2
11096704
22. "Coefficients of Friction for Underground Cable", The Hydro r..lectric
Power Commission of Ontario, Research Division Report, No. 58-295,
August 25, 1958.
23. "The Heating and Mechanical Effects of Installation of Insulated Con-

ductors in Steel Raceways" by M. M. Brandon, K. S. Geiges, L. M. Kline
and F. V. Paradise; AIEE Transactions, Paper No. 56-592, October 1956.
24. "Inferring Duct Run Geometry From Cable Tension Data": A Cable History
by A. L. Hale and M. R. Santana; Proceedings of 25th International Wire
and Cable Symposium, Cherry Hill, N. J., November 1976.
25. "Friction Coefficients in Cable Pulling" by Archie Benjamin; Electrical

World, November 11, 1944.
26. "Pulling Eyes"; IPCEA Publication A-1-0 July 1931.
27. "Device Records Cable-Pulling Tensions" by E. A. Behrens and W. L. Hammer;

Transmission and Distribution Magazine, Volume 21, pages 93 - 96, May 1969.
28. "Cable Tension Dynamometer" by A. W. Ewing; Ontario Hydro Research

Quarterly Volume 22, No. 4, 1970.
29. "Underground Conduit for Electric Power Systems - Fundamentals and Basic
Design Considerations'\ by E.G. Watkins; AIEE Insulated Conductor Com-
mittee, Tran~actions Volum 69, 1950.
30. Minutes of the Insulated Conductor Committee of AIEE/IEEE, ca. 1965 to 1979.
31. "Swedish Cable Installed in Annapolis"; Transmission and Distribution

Magazine, Volume 31, No. 9, September 1979, pages 36 and 37.
32. Power Cables and Their Application: by Lothar Reinhold, published by

Siemens A.G., 1970, pages 438 and 439.
33. Underground Cable Engineering Handbook; published by Power Conductor

Division of Essex International, 1970 pages 52 - 54.
A-3
11096704
34. "Engineering for Cable Installation"; by V. W. Pherson, presented at
1975 International Wire and Cable Symposium.
A-4
11096704
Appendix B
QUESTIONNAIRE ON PRESENT PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES IN INSTALLATION OF EXTRUDED

DIELECTRIC CABLES
B-1
11096704
11096704
CABLE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Name of Company - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date of Cable Pull--~/_ _~/_ __ Location
-------------------
Temperature at Time of Pull _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Cable Details
Conductor: Size _ _ __ cu AL
---- Solid
--- Str.
Insulation Type: HMPE _ _ _ _ EPR _ _ _ _ XLPE _ _ _ _ Thickness _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Type of Conductor Shield: Extruded Tape _ _ _ Both _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Type of Insulation Shield: Extruded _ _ _ Tape Both _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Type of Metallic Shield: Tape _ _ _ _ _ LC _ _ _ _ _ Wires: No. /Size _ __
Tape Plus Hires: No.
- - - -/Size Lead Sheath
----
Jacket: PVC HMWPE Semicon-PE Thickness Embedded Wires
---
Installation Details
Pull Length _ _ _ _ __ No of Cables in Pull
--------------·------
Duct Conduit: Size _ _ _ _ _ Type _ _ _ __ Configuration* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Lubricant Used How Applied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
-------------
Pulling Line Type _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Size _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Method of Connection to Cable: Pulling Eye _ _ _ _ Basket Grip _ _ _ _ Both _ __
Pulling Speed: Maximum Average _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Pulling Tensions: Measured Calculated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sidewall Bearing Pressure: Design _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actual _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Coefficient of Friction: Design _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actual _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Condition of Cable at End of Pull:
Performance of Cable After Installation especially as may be related to Pulling

Stresses & Strains:
'~Kindly sketch configuration on attached sheet identifying (1) Lengths

of Straight Sections and (2) Location, Position & radius of Bends.
REM ARK S:
B-3
11096704
11096704
Appendix C
TEST PROCEDURES FOR DIELECTRIC STRENGTH TESTS

ON FULL SIZE CABLES
Cables rated 600 volt (items 1 throush 5) are tested in a water tank. The length
of cable immersed in water is 15 feet. Cables rated 15kV and higher are terminated
in water terminals with a test length of 15 feet between the terminals. Three types
of water terminals are employed:
Tube Length, ft. Rated Voltage, kV ~faximum Voltage, kV
4 120 200
9 270 400
13 400 650
An ac test voltage is applied and increased to breakdown in 40 V/mil steps with a

duration of 5 minutes for each step.
The starting voltage corresponding to an average stress of 200 V/mil is sho,,m for
each cable rating in the table below:
Cable Voltage Nominal

Rating Insulation Thickness, Starting Voltage
kV mils kV
0.6 55 11
0.6 80 16
0.6 95 19
15 175 35
25 275 55
35 345 69
69 650 130
138 800 160
C-1
11096704
C-2
11096704
C-3
11096704
11096704

EL - 3333 - V1 - Maximum Safe Pulling Lengths For Solid Dielectric Insulated Cables

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EL - 3333 - V1 - Maximum Safe Pulling Lengths For Solid Dielectric Insulated Cables

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Maximum Safe Pulling Lengths for Solid

Dielectric Insulated Cables

Final Report, February 1984

PIRELLI CABLE CORPORATION

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Electric Power Research Institute

EPRI Project Manager

Research Categories: T&D: Underground lines

The areas of investigation included the following:

• Compatibility of pulling lubricants with cable and duct materials

• Determination of the coefficients of friction in lubricated and non-

• Response of various cable constructions to shearing forces

• Dynamic sidewall bearing pressure limits for various cable designs

This program resulted in the recormnendation of updated levels of maximum pulling

T. J. Kendrew, Project Manager

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Messrs. R. Schwerdt, S. Rubin-

Mr. T. Champion (Research Laboratory) for his preliminary site designs as

2 ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART 2-1

3 TEST PROGRAM 3-1

4 COMPATIBILITY OF PULLING LUBRICANTS WITH CABLE AND DUCT MATERIALS 4-1

5 DETERMINATION OF COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION 5-1

6 TENSILE TESTS 6-1

7 TENSION/SHEAR TEST 7-1

8 SIDEWALL BEARING PRESSURE TESTS 8-1

9 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 9-1

APPENDIX A REFERENCE DOCUMENTS A-1

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE ON PRESENT PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES B-1

APPENDIX C TESTS PROCEDURES FOR DIELECTRIC STRENGTH TESTS ON C-1

5-3 Calibration Carriage for Friction Test 5-16

6-1 Baldwin Horizontal Tensile Testing Machine Maximum Tension 6-2

6-2 Location of Markers on Sample During Tension Tests 6-3

6-3 Preparation of Aluminum Conductors for Use of Aluminum Epoxy in 6-6

7-2 Restraining Device Used in Tension/Shear Tests 7-3

8-1 Plan View of Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test Facility 8-2

8-3 Main Components of Sidewall Bearing Pressure Test Set-Up 8-6

8-4 Line Diagram of Field Test Site 8-15

8-5 Cross Section of Duct Runs 8-18

8-6 Duct Banks Under Construction 8-19

8-7 Cable Removal Detail 8-20

8-8 Pull Box and Trench Construction 8-21

8-9 Pull Box Detail 8-24

8-10 Block Dia5ram of Electrical System 8-25

8-11 Flow Chart of Test Procedure 8-27

8-12 Cable Being Lubricated 8-31

8-13 Operator Applying Back Tension 8-31

8-14 Typical Pulling and Back Tensions as a Function of Time 8-34

8-15 Indentations Into Insulation Shield of Cable Item 9 8-42

8-16 Cable Item 6 Exiting High Tension Bend 8-42

8-17 Cross Section of Cable Item 9 Showing Indentations 8-42

8-18 Typical Steel Duct Wear 8-50

8-19 Heavy PVC Duct Wear 8-50

8-20 Severe PVC Duct Wear to Underlying Concrete 8-50

8-22 Surging as a Function of Pulling Speed 8-55

8-23 Resonant Surging Phenomenon 8-56

8-24 Typical Rope-Jumps 8-57

8-25 Wedging of Cable Into Rope Groove 8-58

3-1 List of Cables Studied in the Program 3-5

3-2 Dimensions of Cables Studied in the Program 3-6

3-3 Conductor DC Resistance of Full Size Cables 3-8

3-4 AC Dielectric Strength of Full Size Cables 3-9

4-1 Listing of Materials and Lubricants Included in Compatibility Study 4-2

4-2 Compatibility of Pulling Lubricants with Cable Materials 4-4

4-3 Compatibility of Pulling Lubricants with Cable Materials 4-5