View Latest Blog Entries
Close
Categories
Testing & Assessment Certification Aging Wires & Systems Management Standard & Regulation Conference & Report Maintenance & Sustainment Research Protection & Prevention Arcing Miscellaneous
Popular Tags
Visual Inspection MIL-HDBK MIL-HDBK-525 FAR AS50881 FAR 25.1707 High Voltage Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Wire System Maintenance Arcing Damage FAR 25.1709
All Tags in Alphabetical Order
25.1701 25.1703 Accelerated Aging ADMT Aging Systems Aircraft Power System Aircraft Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) arc damage Arc Fault (AF) Arc Fault Circuit Breaker (AFCB) Arc Track Resistance Arcing Arcing Damage AS22759 AS22759/87 AS4373 AS4373 Method 704 AS50881 AS5692 AS6019 AS85485 AS85485 Wire Standard ASTM F2799 ATSRAC Attenuation Automated Wire Testing System (AWTS) Bent Pin Analysis Best of Lectromec Best Practice Cable cable testing Carbon Nanotube (CNT) Certification Chafing Chemical Testing Circuit Breaker circuit design Circuit Protection Coaxial cable cold bend comparative analysis Compliance Component Selection Condition Based Maintenance Conductor conduit Connector connectors contacts Corona Corrosion Corrosion Preventing Compound (CPC) Cracking D-sub data analysis data cables degradat Degradation Delamination Derating diagnostic dielectric constant Distributed Power System DO-160 Electrical Aircraft Electrical Component Electrical Testing Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Electromagnetic Vulnerability (EMV) EMC EMF EN3197 EN3475 EN6059 End of Service Life End of Year Energy Storage engines Environmental Environmental Cycling ethernet EWIS Component EWIS Design EWIS Failure EWIS Thermal Management EZAP FAA AC 25.27 FAA AC 25.981-1C Failure Database Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) FAQs FAR FAR 25.1703 FAR 25.1707 FAR 25.1709 fault tree Fixturing Flammability fleet reliability Flex Testing fluid exposure Forced Hydrolysis fuel system fuel tank ignition functional testing Fundamental Articles Future Tech Green Taxiing Grounding Harness Design Hazard Analysis health monitoring heat shrink tubing high current high Frequency high speed data cable High Voltage History Hot Stamping Humidity Variation ICAs IEC60172 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Insulation insulation resistance IPC-D-620 ISO 17025 Certified Lab Kapton Laser Marking life limited parts life projection Maintenance Maintenance costs Mandrel Mechanical Testing MECSIP MIL-C-38999 MIL-C-85485 MIL-DTL-17 MIL-DTL-3885G MIL-DTL-38999 MIL-E-25499 MIL-HDBK MIL-HDBK-1646 MIL-HDBK-217 MIL-HDBK-454 MIL-HDBK-516 MIL-HDBK-522 MIL-HDBK-525 MIL-HDBK-683 MIL-STD-1560 MIL-STD-1798 MIL-STD-464 MIL-T-7928 MIL-T-81490 MIL-W-22759/87 MIL-W-5088 Military 5088 modeling MS3320 NASA NEMA27500 No Fault Found off gassing Outgassing Overheating of Wire Harness Parallel Arcing part selection Performance physical hazard assessment Physical Testing polyimdie Polyimide-PTFE Power over Ethernet Power systems predictive maintenance Presentation Probability of Failure Product Quality Radiation Red Plague Corrosion Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) regulations relays Reliability Research Rewiring Project Risk Assessment SAE Secondary Harness Protection Separation Requirements Series Arcing Service Life Extension Severe Wind and Moisture-Prone (SWAMP) Severity of Failure Shield Shielding signal cable silver plated wire smoke Solid State Circuit Breaker Space Certified Wires stored energy supportability Sustainment Temperature Rating Temperature Variation Test methods Test Pricing Testing Thermal Circuit Breaker Thermal Endurance Thermal Index Thermal Shock Thermal Testing Tin plated conductors Troubleshooting TWA800 UAVs verification Visual Inspection voltage white paper whitelisting Wire Ampacity Wire Certification Wire Comparison wire damage wire failure wire properties Wire System wire testing Wire Verification work unit code

Checking a Coaxial Cable for Damage with a Multimeter

Maintenance & Sustainment

Key Takeaways
  • Multimeters are not great for identifying coax cable damage.
  • Even with significant damage to the jacket and shield, multimeters will fail to detect any appreciable change.
  • Non-multimeter techniques are needed to detect coax cable damage.

The electronic multimeter is a great tool; invented in the 1920s, the multimeter has been used by millions of technicians and engineers seeking to measure circuits and troubleshoot electrical issues. So common are these tools now that it is almost impossible to consider a toolbox complete without one. 

While these are great tools and can be employed in a million situations, they are not the magic tool that can diagnose every circuit. If only one thing is remembered from this article: multimeters are not the tool to use for coaxial cables.

To help those unfamiliar with coaxial cable tests, we will run through what coaxial cables are, some of the theory in their use, and how to troubleshoot their performance.

Basics

So, what is a coaxial cable? The basic construction of a coaxial cable is a single core conductor in the middle of an insulating layer of material (typically identified in coaxial cables as the ‘dielectric’), a conductive layer (identified as the shield), all protected with an external jacket. The description of coaxial cables is very generic because they are used for a wide variety of applications from “cable” tv to signal transmission on aircraft and there is a wealth of variations to achieve the requirements of each application.

For each cable element (conductor, dielectric, shield, and jacket), there are unique design and performance requirements. Many of these are discussed in a previous Lectromec article.

Why are they used

The main benefit of coaxial cables is that the shield acts as a two-way barrier for electromagnetic interference (EMI). The high frequency signals transmitted on these cables is limited to an electric and magnetic field between the conductor and the cable shield. The external interference is again limited to mainly interact with the shield, leaving the internal transmitted signal unaffected. 

Of course, the type of shielding has a large impact. Braided shielding offers good performance but will typically provide 85 – 95% optical coverage (gaps between the braided strand). Spiral wrapped shield offers higher optical coverage, but also reduces the cable’s flexibility.

Testing Coaxial cables

How does one evaluate the performance of coaxial cables? For this, we will use the example cables shown in the accompanying photo. Two cables, both 12 inches long terminated at both ends with TNC connectors.  In the middle of cable one (henceforth referred to as the “Damaged Cable”), a fault has been introduced. This fault was created with a razor blade removing 270o of jacket and shielding at the center of the cable.  The damage length is 5mm. 

Damaged Coax Cable
With 5mm of shield and jacket damaged at the center of a coaxial cable, it should be pretty easy to detect the damage? Testing suggests otherwise.

What would be expected from an in-application result? The attached system is experiencing lost/corrupted data packets, but on-ground functional checks find no issue.  The system may experience performance degradation while other aircraft systems are activated. 

So, lets run through some checks of these cables and see if this damage is detectable with a multimeter.

Resistance Check

The cable and shield resistance are measured with a standard multimeter. Subtracting the resistance of the test leads finds the conductor resistance is about 0.0 Ohms (limited accuracy of multimeters) and 0.0 Ohms for the shield. Testing the “New Cable” finds the same results.

Why is this the case?  Even though the shield conductor is damaged, there is still more than enough shield to carry the multimeter’s test voltage. Unless a high current is placed on the shield, there will not be an appreciable change in measured resistance.

Capacitance Check

The next diagnostic check with the two cables is capacitance check. In this, the cable is disconnected at both ends and the multimeter probes are attached to the shell and the conductor. The measurement performed on these two cables found the following:

  • Damaged Cable capacitance: 33.6 pF
  • New Cable capacitance: 34.4 pF

No appreciable difference between the two and well within the expected performance variances of cables. Doing this measurement again would not suggest any damage has occurred to our Damaged Cable.

Inductance Check

The inductance check is performed next with the two cables. Here, the cable is disconnected at both ends, at the far end the shield is jumpered to the center conductor with a short lead, and at the near end, the cable is connected to the inductance measurement. The measurement performed on these two cables found the following:

  • Damaged Cable inductance: 94nH
  • New Cable inductance: 95nH

Again, no appreciable difference. Using the information for both the capacitance and inductance tests, we can calculate the characteristic impedance of both cables. 

  • Damaged Cable characteristic impedance: 53 Ohms
  • New Cable characteristic impedance: 53 Ohms

With three difference measurements of the damaged cable (resistance, capacitance, and inductance), there is no evidence pointing to cable damage. On the positive side, this does show the robust nature of aerospace cables. To have so much physical damage to the cable and still maintain much of its electrical properties is certainly impressive.

However, a technician in this position equipped with only a multimeter and an LCR meter would look at the data and say that the cable is fine, and any issue is probably in the LRUs. This would be the beginning of a very costly no-fault-found (NFF) cycle that would eventually result in physical examination of the cable.

What to do?

Thankfully there are other tools and techniques for identifying signal cable damage. In Lectromec’s next article, we will discuss these technologies and what they find when applied to the test cables.

Michael Traskos

Michael Traskos

President, Lectromec

Michael has been involved in wire degradation and failure assessments for more than a decade. He has worked on dozens of projects assessing the reliability and qualification of EWIS components. Michael is an FAA DER with a delegated authority covering EWIS certification and the chairman of the SAE AE-8A EWIS installation committee.