463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure

463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure Technical Report Tests Based Upon Bell System Pub. 55004 Issue 1, Oct. 1981 TA-TSY-000361 Issue 1, Feb. 1986 And Others May 1996 Issue 1, 80-6109-3007-7 1

Table of Contents 1.0 Product Description...3 1.1 Closure Kit Contents...3 1.2 Closure Chart...4 2.0 Test Program Overview...5 3.0 Environmental Test Series...5 3.1 Accelerated Aging/Insulation Resistance and Corrosion Resistance...5 3.1.1 Temperature Cycling...6 3.1.2 Flood Testing (Water Immersion)...6 3.1.3 Freeze/Thaw Cycling in Water... 7 3.1.4 Water Head (Core Water)... 7 3.1.5 Corrosion Resistance...8 3.2 Sealant...8 3.2.1 Sealant Compatibility and Consistency... 8 3.2.2 Sealant Material...8 3.2.3 Odor...9 3.2.4 Corrosion of Copper 3.3 Fungus Growth... 9 3.4 UV Resistance...9 3.5 Shock Resistance...10 3.5.1 Impact Resistance... 10 3.5.2 Compression... 10 3.5.3 Drop...10 4.0 Performance Verification/Test Procedure...11 4.1 Design and Fabrication Testing...11 4.1.1 Non-Metallic Chemical Resistance of Closure Material and Assembled Closure... 11 4.1.2 Tools... 11 5.0 Conclusions...11 2

1.0 Product Description The 3M 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure is designed to be a protection device used in pedestal, hand hole, pole mount, wall mount to guard splice modules (e.g., 3M 4000D, AT&T 710 module) on filled or unfilled cables. A specially formulated encapsulant is not needed. The 3M MS 2 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure is easy to install since no encapsulant mixing and curing is required and there is no need to use heat or special tools. The Gel Wrap PST is designed to maintain the integrity of the closure body against any water or moisture entering the closure from external and to maintain the high insulation resistance (IR) between all wire pairs. The closure is resistant to saltwater (3.5% sodium chloride), acid (3% sulfuric acid), base (0.2N sodium hydroxide), and cable filling compounds. The closure's sealing performance of Gel Wrap PST is compatible with encapsulant currently applied in the field condition. The user can feel at ease when replacing old encapsulated closures with 3M 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure. The 3M 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure will accommodate up to 600 pairs of service wire (using 3M MS 2 module connector) with a maximum bundle diameter of 5.3 in. (135 mm) in butt splice configuration. A closure capacity chart is shown on page 4. 1.1 Closure Kit Contents The 3M 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure kit contents are as follows: (A) 4634GW and 4635GW Dome (A) Gel End Seal (B) Gel Wrap (C) PST (D) Sheath Scuff (E) (C) (F) (D) (E) (B) (A) 4636GW Dome (A) Gel End Seal Core (B) Gel Sealant Strip (C) Gel Wrap (D) PST (E) Sheath Scuff (F) (B) (D) (E) (C) (F) (B) Additional Materials Required: Vinyl Tape Shield Bond Connectors 3M E-Z Wrap or equivalent 3

1.2 Closure Chart The chart below shows closure dimensions, closure capacities and cable sizes for 3M 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure. Closure (W x D) Outside Dim. Closure (H) Height Approx. Bundle Diameter Minimum Reliable CAD Pedestal Main Cables Terminal Cables Branch Cables Drop Cables *Approx. Splice Range 4634GW 4635GW 4636GW 2.77" x 2.5" (70 x 64 mm) 22.5" (572 mm) 2.5" (64 mm) 0.4" - 0.6" (10-15 mm) - 0.35" max (9 mm) max 2 max 100 pr. - MS 2 50 pr. - UR 4.75" x 3.7" (121 x 94 mm) 22.5" (572 mm) 3.9" (99 mm) 0.4" - 0.6" (10-15 mm) 0.7" -1.0" (18-25 mm) 0.35" max (9 mm) max 2 max 300 pr. - MS 2 100 pr. - UR 6.25" x 5.2" (159 x 132 mm) 23.5" (597 mm) 5.3" (135 mm) 4 6 8 0.5" - 1.1" (13-28 mm) 0.9" - 1.6" (23-41mm) 1.4" - 2.5" (36-64 mm) 0.4" - 0.8" (10-20 mm) 0.9" - 1.3" (23-33 mm) 0.35" max (9 mm) max 2 max 600 pr. - MS 2 300 pr. - UR *Note: Based on two bank 3M MS 2 4000-DWP and 3M Scotchlok connectors installed per 3M practices. Examples: 100 pair means 100 pair IN and 100 pair OUT or 100 pair straight splice. W D H 4

2.0 Test Program Overview To assess the long term performance reliability of the 3M 463X PST/Gel Wrap Dome Closure, the closures were subjected to a number of tests which exposed them to conditions more severe than anticipated in actual field use. The following sections describe the specific tests that were performed on this product and report the results obtained. All tests, except the fungus test, were performed by 3M Telecom Systems Division s Network Apparatus Test Lab in Austin, TX. The fungus test was performed by an independent lab. The tests were mostly based upon the Bell System Technical Reference Pub 55004, Waterproof Splice Closures, Issue 1, October 1981, Technical Advisory TA-TSY-000361, Pedestal Wire Work Enclosures, Issue 1, Feb. 1986, and other appropriate specifications commonly used in the telecommunications industry as a guideline. The report also points out if a deviation in the testing condition from the Bellcore specification was used in the test. In some situations, the deviation means that a more severe environmental testing condition than the Bellcore specification was adopted in the test, (i.e., such as more rapid transition and higher number of thermal shocks between the two extreme temperatures, using aged samples instead of new samples for the test, etc.) 3.0 Environmental Test Series Ten samples were prepared at normal room temperature, their description is listed below. Test Sample Description Sample Wire Size # of Service Wire Number (AWG #) Wire Pairs Connector 1-6 22 100* Two 3M MS 2 4000Ds & Two AT&T 710s 7, 8 24 100 Four 3M MS 2 4000Ds 9, 10 24 200 Eight 3M MS 2 4000Ds *Note: All samples use AT&T Flexgel service wire cable 3.1 Accelerated Aging/Insulation Resistance and Corrosion Resistance To test the seal against water or moisture entry to prevent corrosion and degradation of insulation resistance, all samples went through three environmental tests in the following order: Temperature Cycling, Flood Testing, and Freeze/Thaw Cycling in Water. The above test procedure is different from the Bellcore specification. The aged samples instead of new raw samples were used in each subsequent test. This test is more severe than the Bellcore requirement. The insulation resistance of all samples was measured after each test and any reading under 1 x 10 9 ohms is considered a failure. The details of each test condition in the sequence and its test results are in the following sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.3. 5

3.1.1 Temperature Cycling The samples (samples #1-6) were temperature cycled between -40 F (-40 C) and 140 F (60 C) for 50 cycles. The cycle time was four hours. The dwell time at each extreme temperature and the transition time between the two extreme temperatures were one hour each. At the conclusion of the test, all samples were examined for any deterioration of the external closure material. No sign of deterioration was found. The insulation resistance measurement was performed immediately after the temperature cycling test. The overall minimum insulation resistance value was 1.0 x 10 10 ohms, one order of magnitude above the minimum requirement of 1 x 10 9 ohms. All samples passed the test. The Insulation Resistance Data After Temperature Cycling Test Sample Number Average (ohms)* Minimum (ohms) Pass/Fail 1 4.1 x 10 10 3.0 x 10 10 Pass 2 3.7 x 10 10 3.1 x 10 10 Pass 3 4.2 x 10 10 3.2 x 10 10 Pass 4 4.3 x 10 10 3.3 x 10 10 Pass 5 4.6 x 10 10 3.3 x 10 10 Pass 6 4.5 x 10 10 1.0 x 10 10 Pass *Note: The insulation resistance (IR) measurement includes IR between Tip to two adjacent Rings, IR between Ring to two adjacent Tips, and IR between wire to shield for each service wire pair. Average data is the overall average of all data measured for each sample. Minimum data is the lowest IR data obtained for each sample. 3.1.2 Flood Testing (Water Immersion) The temperature cycling tested samples (samples # 1-6) were submerged in tap water at a depth of 42 inches (107 cm) at a temperature of 76 F ± 2 F (24 C ± 1 C) for 30 days. During testing, 48 V DC of power from a current limited short tester was applied to all service wire pairs to simulate working pairs and to detect a possibility of an electrical short in each working pair. The IR was measured at 500 V DC after one day and every week thereafter. At the end of the test, the IR between any two wire pairs and all pairs to shield should be at least 1 x 10 9 ohms. All samples passed the test and the lowest IR was at least one order of magnitude above the requirement. The Insulation Resistance Data After Flood Testing Sample Number Average (ohms)* Minimum (ohms) Pass/Fail 1 3.4 x 10 10 2.6 x 10 10 Pass 2 3.4 x 10 10 1.6 x 10 10 Pass 3 3.3 x 10 10 2.8 x 10 10 Pass 4 3.5 x 10 10 2.2 x 10 10 Pass 5 3.7 x 10 10 2.7 x 10 10 Pass 6 4.2 x 10 10 2.4 x 10 10 Pass *Note: The insulation resistance (IR) measurement includes IR between Tip to two adjacent Rings, IR between Ring to two adjacent Tips, and IR between wire to shield for each service wire pair. Average data is the overall average of all data measured for each sample. Minimum data is the lowest IR data obtained for each sample 6

3.1.3 Freeze/Thaw Cycling in Water In this test, aged samples were used rather than preparing new samples. The test samples included all six samples (samples #1-6) that had gone through a series of accelerated aging tests as described in sections 3.1.1 & 3.1.2. The test was performed per US West PGF #N600M07, Issue 1, May 1992, section 4.5.1.2 (both Bell System Pub 55004 and Bellcore TA-TSY-000361 do not call for this test). Samples were immersed in water to a depth of ten inches (25.4 cm) of water. The samples were cycled between -40 F (-40 C) and 158 F (70 C) for 50 cycles (59 days). The cycle time was 28 hours, ten hours at each extreme temperature and four hour transition time between the hot and cold temperature extremes. During aging, 48 V DC of power from a current limited short tester was applied to all service wire pairs to stimulate a working pair and to detect a possibility of an electrical short in each working pair. The IR was measured at 500 V DC after three days and every week thereafter. Again, there was no sign of deterioration of the closure material at the end of test and all samples had insulation resistance values greater than the minimum requirement of 1 x 10 9 ohms. The Insulation Resistance Data After Freeze/Thaw Cycling in Water Test Sample Number Average (ohms)* Minimum (ohms) Pass/Fail 1 2.3 x 10 10 1.0 x 10 10 Pass 2 2.1 x 10 10 1.0 x 10 10 Pass 3 2.1 x 10 10 1.2 x 10 10 Pass 4 2.2 x 10 10 1.2 x 10 10 Pass 5 2.1 x 10 10 1.2 x 10 10 Pass 6 2.1 x 10 10 1.1 x 10 10 Pass *Note 1: The insulation resistance (IR) measurement includes IR between Tip to two adjacent Rings, IR between Ring to two adjacent Tips, and IR between wire to shield for each service wire pair. Average data is the overall average of all data measured for each sample. Minimum data is the lowest IR data obtained for each sample 3.1.4 Water Head (Core Water) Again, the sample (sample #1) that had gone through a series of accelerated aging tests as described in sections 3.1.1-3.1.3 instead of using new sample as specified by the Bellcore was used for this test. One end of the service cable was cut one foot (30.5 cm) from the closure sample and a three foot (91.4 cm) water head was connected to the cut end of the service cable. The test was conducted at room temperature, approximately 72 F (22 C), for 14 days. This test was done in a condition that was per US West PGF #N600M07, Issue 1, May 1992, section 4.5.1.3. After the test, the water head was removed from the sample and insulation resistance measured. It met the minimum requirement of 1 x 10 9 ohms. The sample was then dissected for examination with no rust or other degradation observed as described in section 3.1.5. The test was done and the result is valid only for filled cable. The Insulation Resistance Data After Water Head Test Sample Number Average (ohms)* Minimum (ohms) Pass/Fail 1 2.2 x 10 10 1.0 x 10 10 Pass *Note: The insulation resistance (IR) measurement includes IR between Tip to two adjacent Rings, IR between Ring to two adjacent Tips, and IR between wire to shield for each service wire pair. Average data is the overall average of all data measured for each sample. Minimum data is the lowest IR data obtained for each sample. 7

3.1.5 Corrosion Resistance Only two (samples # 5 & 6) of six samples which had gone through a series of different aging tests (see sections 3.1.1-3.1.3) were inspected for any possibility of corrosion inside the samples right after the aging test. The remaining four samples (samples # 1-4) were not inspected until after the conclusion of the water head test (see section 3.1.4) & chemical immersion test (see section 4.1.2). An analysis was made of the tested samples for the degree of rust in accordance with ASTM D610. A rust grade of nine or better is required. All samples passed the test. The Rust Grade Data After Various Aging Tests Sample Number Sample History Rust Grade Pass/Fail 1 Aging Series + 3 ft. Water Head Better Than 9 Pass 2 Aging Series + 3% Sulfuric Acid Better Than 9 Pass 3 Aging Series +.2N Sodium Hydroxide Better Than 9 Pass 4 Aging Series + Kerosene Better Than 9 Pass 5 Aging Series Only Better Than 9 Pass 6 Aging Series Only Better Than 9 Pass Note: "Aging series" denotes a series of environmental aging tests discussed in sections from 3.1.1 to 3.1.3. 3.2 Sealant Since encapsulant is not used in this product, the test results for the gel wrap material used are included. 3.2.1 Sealant Compatibility and Consistency The test of the sealant compatibility and its consistency was done on samples that went through the accelerated aging test (see sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.3), water head test (see section 3.1.4), and chemical immersion test (see section 4.1.2). All closure samples were opened. The gel wrap was found to be compatible with the wire and connector materials and retained its sealing properties over the installed connector module based on visual inspection and insulation resistance measurement. Therefore, the gel wrap should maintain its compatibility and sealing consistency over the expected product s service life. 3.2.2 Sealant Material The material contains no toluene diisocyanate (TDI). 3.2.3 Odor The PST material smells like rubber and gel wrap is odorless. 8

3.2.4 Corrosion of Copper This test was performed per Bellcore TA-TSY-000361, Issue 1, 2/86, section 4.2. Current flow greater than one microampere or any visual evidence of copper corrosion is considered a failure. The boards were washed initially with pumice soap and a nylon brush. Each board was suspended above potassium sulfate covered with a saturated solution of saltwater. Each board was connected individually to a 50.9 V instead of a 45 V power source. Current readings were taken for each board at the beginning and at the end of the 14 day test. All samples showed a current reading less than 100 nanoamperes (1 x 10-7 amperes), which is one order of magnitude less than the maximum allowed current of 1 x 10-6 amperes. No evidence of copper corrosion was found. The Current Reading of 14 Day Corrosion of Copper Test Sample Number Initial Current (na)* Final (Day 14) Current (na)* Pass/Fail 1 56.0 94.6 Pass 2 770 68.8 Pass 3 94.0 71.3 Pass 4 49.8 89.3 Pass 5 510 91.8 Pass 6 70.9 96.5 Pass * Note: one nanoampere (na) = 1 x 10-3 microampere ((A) = 1 x 10-9 ampere (A) 3.3 Fungus Growth The splice closure material samples were tested in accordance with ASTM G-21-70 for 28 days. A control sample, agar, was tested along with the subject test samples to verify the inoculation. A rating of zero, no visible fungus growth on the specimen, was required. Six samples of PST and two samples of the Gel Wrap were submitted to an independent outside lab. for testing. A rating of zero was obtained for all test samples except the control sample. The Rating of Fungus Growth Test Test Subject All Closure Material Samples Control Sample-Agar PST 0* 4* Gel 0 4 *Note: 0 = no visible fungus growth on the specimen, 4 = heavy growth (> 60%). 3.4 UV Resistance Ten test samples (including five control samples) of each material were exposed in a UV Weatherometer for 30 to 90 days. The source of UV is B type with a peak emission at 313 nm. The material should not have a reduction in tensile strength greater than 20% of their original value (measured with control samples), after being exposed to UV. The test results showed there was less than 2% variation from the control sample. Both materials meet the requirement. The Results of UV Resistance Test Test Subject Closure Material Samples Control Samples PST 114.7 lb. (510 N) 112.9 lb. (502 N) Polyethylene Dome 260.3 lb. (1,158 N) 263.0 lb. (1,170 N) *Notes: 1. The PST and polyethylene dome were exposed to UV for 90 & 30 days respectively. 2. The data shown is the average tensile strength of all five samples. 9

3.5 Shock Resistance Three physical tests were used to test the 3M 463X PST/Gel Wrap Dome Closure s ability to withstand physical handling and abuse anticipated with normal field application. The tests include impact resistance test, compression test, and drop test. 3.5.1 Impact Resistance Four samples (samples # 7-10) were preconditioned at 0 F (-17.8 C) at least two hours before test. The impact was positioned at the approximate mid-point & bottom of the dome body and the PST-dome interface. The impact consists of a 10 lb. (4.5 kg) weight with a 1 in. (2.54 cm) spherical radius head and a 20 lb. (9.1 kg) weight with a 2 in. (5.08 cm) spherical radius head, dropped from a height of 5 ft. (1.52 m) for 50 ft-lbs. & 100 ft-lbs. respectively. The test was repeated for all samples at 100 F (37.8 C). There should be no cracking or breaking of any of the samples. All samples passed with no visible damages on the closure body. In addition, no discontinuity in shield bond connection was observed for all samples tested. 3.5.2 Compression The sample preconditioning was done the same as for impact test (see section 3.5.1). The sample (samples # 7-10) was placed between a pair of flat, rigid surface of 2 ft. 2 (0.19 m 2 ). A 300 lb. (136 kg) compression load was applied on the platform for 15 min. The dimension of the closure was measured before applying the compression load, after applying the load for 15 min., and after the closure s temperature reached the normal room temperature with the load removed. The changes in the closure s dimension should be less than 10%. All samples met the requirement. 3.5.3 Drop Six closure kits were individually packaged as they will be received from the manufacturer. The sample packages were preconditioned at 15 F (- 9.4 C) overnight before being dropped from a height of six ft. (183 cm) onto a hard brick surface. Each package was dropped with a different part of the package making contact with a hard brick surface. There should be no cracking or breaking of any of the components or parts in the sample package. All samples passed with no visible damages on all components or parts in all sample packages. 10

4.0 Performance Verification/Test Procedures 4.1 Design and Fabrication Testing 4.1.1 Non-Metallic Chemical Resistance of Closure Material and Assembled Closure The requirements are that all materials should be spray and solvent resistant and should resist chemical pollutants and not develop any stress cracks, stripping, molting, texture or color change when exposed to the chemicals such as 3% sulfuric acid,.2n sodium hydroxide, Kerosene, and 10% Igepal CO-630. Test of closure materials was performed in the above mentioned four different chemicals. In addition, three assembled closure samples which went through accelerated aging test before (see sections 3.1.1-3.1.3 ) were immersed in base, acid and Kerosene (one in each chemical) for a period of one week. The PST showed no sign of degradation except it showed expansion and gained weight in Kerosene. The closure samples were then submerged in 5 ft. (152 cm) of water for one week to test the closure s sealing ability after chemical immersion. All three samples showed no insulation resistance below the minimum requirement of 1 x 10 9 ohms. The water did get into the dome closure sample which was immersed in Kerosene, but the gel wrap was able to block the water from contacting with the splice module. Therefore, the insulation resistance of all wire pairs was not affected. The Insulation Resistance Data After Chemical Immersion Plus 5 ft. Water Immersion Test Sample Number Average (ohms)* Minimum (ohms) Pass/Fail #2 (3% sulfuric acid) 1.2 x 10 10 8.9 x 10 9 Pass #3 (0.2N sodium hydroxide) 1.2 x 10 10 6.8 x 10 9 Pass #4 (Kerosene) 1.2 x 10 10 5.8 x 10 9 Pass 4.1.2 Tools The use of specialized tools or equipment not normally at the craftsperson's disposal should be avoided. This was confirmed by a review of installation instructions that this requirement was met, no special tools are required to install these closures. 5.0 Conclusions The 3M 463X PST/Gel Wrap Dome Closures were subjected to a variety of environmental, corrosion resistance, shock resistance, and chemical resistance tests. The tests are based upon Bell System Pub 55004, TA-TSY-000361, and other appropriate specifications commonly used in the telecommunications industry. In some tests, the tests were performed in a much harsher environmental testing condition than the Bellcore requirement to test the product to its limit. This was done by using the same samples that had gone through a series of the accelerated aging tests before, rather than preparing new samples and added additional aging tests. In all insulation resistance measurements carried out at different stages of the accelerated aging test, the test results indicate the minimum value is one order of magnitude higher than the minimum requirement of 1 x 10 9 ohms. The tests showed that the 3M 463XGW Gel Wrap PST Dome Closure provides an excellent seal against water or moisture entry to the closure protecting the splice module of the service wire cable. In addition, the closure was shown to be corrosion, shock, and chemical resistive. Based on these results, the long term durability of the splice protection is assured. The advantage of using the gel wrap to replace the encapsulant is to greatly speed up the closure installation time. The product is also easy to install since there is no need of using heat or any special tools for installation. These are important features need to be taken into account for the applications of emergency repair, the existing network rehab & reroute, etc. The test results documented in this report also assure that the performance of the closure is not compromised by replacing the encapsulant with the gel wrap. For further information regarding specific agency approvals please contact your 3M Telecom Systems Division representative. 11

Important Notice All statements, technical information and recommendations related to the Seller's products are based on information believed to be reliable, but the accuracy or completeness thereof is not guaranteed. Before utilizing the product, the user should determine the suitability of the product for its intended use. The user assumes all risks and liability whatsoever in connection with such use. Any statements or recommendations of the Seller which are not contained in the Seller's current publications shall have no force or effect unless contained in an agreement signed by an authorized officer of the Seller. The statements contained herein are made in lieu of all warranties, expressed or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose which warranties are hereby expressly disclaimed. SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE USER OR ANY OTHER PERSON UNDER ANY LEGAL THEORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEGLIGENCE OR STRICT LIABILITY, FOR ANY INJURY OR FOR ANY DIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SUSTAINED OR INCURRED BY REASON OF THE USE OF ANY OF THE SELLER'S PRODUCTS THAT WERE DEFECTIVE. Telecom Systems Division 6801 River Place Blvd. Austin, TX 78726-9000 800/426-8688 Recycled paper 40% pre-consumer 10% post-consumer 12 Litho in USA 3M 1996 80-6109-3007-7