Extended field of application (EXAP) forreaction-to-fire Euro-classification of coppercommunication cables (CCC)

(1)

communication cables (CCC)

Richard Johansson, Johan Post, Michael Försth

SP T

ech

ni

ca

l Re

se

arch

I

nstitu

te of Sweden

(2)

Extended field of application (EXAP) for

reaction-to-fire Euro-classification of

copper communication cables (CCC)

Richard Johansson, Johan Post, Michael Försth

(3)

Abstract

Extended field of application (EXAP) for reaction-to-fire

Euro-classification of copper communication cables

(CCC)

The feasibility of an EXAP procedure for copper communication cables (CCC) has been investigated. The test set consisted of 47 different cables split into 9 families. An analysis method for quantifying the confidence of an EXAP procedure was defined.

A similar EXAP procedure as for power cables was investigated, but where the safety margin sm was varied between 0% and 40% of the class limits for the corresponding Euroclasses. For power cables, and also for optical cables (OF) this safety margin was fixed to 10% of the class limits for the main classification (B2ca, Cca, and Dca) and 20% fire the smoke classes S1 and S2. For the analysed CCC it was found that the safety margin must be higher in order to obtain a confidence on the same level as for the OF EXAP already published in a Position Paper. The error rate for the OF EXAP was 2% for the main class. This error rate was obtained with a safety margin of 30% of the class limits for CCC. Even higher safety margins result in a lower error rate but a trade-off must be made between confidence in the EXAP and a reasonable, not too conservative, classification of CCC.

Therefore a CCC EXAP is proposed with a safety margin sm = 30% of the class limits for the corresponding Euroclasses.

Key words: EXAP, CPR, reaction to fire, copper communication cables, CCC

SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden SP Report 2016:53

ISBN 978-91-88349-55-2 ISSN 0284-5172

(4)

Preface

This project was ordered by Europacable who also selected the cables and supplied all cable data and test data included in the analysis. All analyses were performed by SP.

(6)

1 Introduction

The Construction Products Directive, CPD (89/106/EEC - CPD) [1], came into force in 1988 and has basically been aiming at creating a common market for construction products by producing documents on a European level that can be used for a common declaration of the properties of the products, verified through the CE-mark. A CE-mark is valid in more than 30 countries [2]. The Construction Products Regulation, CPR, (305/2011/EU - CPR) [3] replaced the CPD in July 1, 2013. The CPR intends to further clarify the concepts and the use of CE marking. Some procedures are simplified in order to reduce costs, in particular for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The CPR is also increasing the credibility and reliability of the system by imposing stricter designation criteria to bodies involved in the assessment and the verification of construction products. A very important change is that CE-marking now becomes mandatory. This is expected to speed up the use of the CE-mark. Another implication may be that national voluntary marking systems become less important.

In order to perform CE-marking, a so called harmonized product standard is needed. There are more than 400 harmonized EN standards which are cited in the Official Journal, the European official newspaper. The product standard describing construction of cable families is termed EN 50575. This product standard was published in the Official Journal on 2016-06-10. This means that CE marking is now possible, and will become obligatory by 2017-07-01.

The number of cables to be tested described by the product standard is very large and testing of each cable would be excessively costly. Therefore, so called extended application of test results, EXAP, should be made available. An EXAP allows a family of products to be classified to a certain reaction to fire class without testing all of the individual members of the family. The CEMAC II project [4, 5] included extensive testing of cables on the market. Using these data as the technical basis EXAP procedures could be developed for power cables. These rules where published in September 2014 as a formal document termed CLC/TS 50576 [6]. However, no EXAP procedures for optical cables or copper communication cables (CCC) were developed as a result of the CEMAC II project. The feasibility of an EXAP for optical cables (OF) was analysed in SP-report 2015:32 [7]. In this report an annex was included with a proposal for text to be used for such an EXAP. WG 10 of SH02 adapted this annex into a Best Practice paper. This paper was subsequently proposed as a Position Paper by GNB-CPR-SH02 (Fire sector group) and was approved by the technical secretariat of GNB-CPR. It was thereafter available for comments by the advisory group of GNB and finally officially published on CIRCABC on 2016-02-09. As will be seen in the current report a large amount of experimental data strongly suggests that an EXAP for CCC is also feasible. The intent is that the current report can be used as a basis for a Position Paper for a CCC EXAP following the same procedure as for the OF EXAP.

This report aims to analyse new test data for CCC and to propose an EXAP procedure for such cables. The approach taken is to follow the procedures for power cables and OF to the largest extent possible in order to achieve consistency within the regulatory framework. The most important requirement is however to deliver a technically sound proposal.

The outline and partly also the content (Sections 1, 2 and parts of 4) of this report is very similar to the EXAP-report for OF [7]. The main differences are found in Section 3 and forward. The annex with a proposal for CCC EXAP is found in Section 8.

(7)

2 Background

In this section a short background is given on the reaction-to-fire classification of cables within the CPR. Section 2.1 outlines the classification system. A more complete

description can be found in reference [2]. Section 2.2 explain some specific features regarding the existing EXAP for power cables. These features, the safety margin sm and

the cable parameter , will be important in the analysis and argumentation in this report. More information can be found in the CEMAC II report [4], from where the content of Section 2.2 has been abridged.

2.1 Reaction-to-fire classification of cables

Interpretation of test results into Euroclasses is described in the latest revision of the classification standard EN 13501. Details are found in a European Commission Decision [8].This revision contain a new section, called EN 13501-6 [9], which describe

classification of cables, in addition to the already existing classification of linings, floorings, and pipe insulation. The classification is based on heat release and flame spread, smoke production, burning droplets, and acidity. EN 13501-6 describes seven heat release and flame spread classes of cables which are called Aca, B1ca, B2ca, Cca, Dca,

Eca and Fca. The performances of the different heat release and flame spread classes can

approximately be described as:

Class Aca. Level of highest performance corresponding to products that practically cannot burn, e.g. ceramic products.

Class B1ca. Products that are combustible but show no or very little burning when exposed to both the reference scenario experiments and the classification test procedure EN 50399 (30 kW flame source).

Class B2ca and Class Cca. Products that do not give a continuous flame spread when exposed to the 40-100 kW ignition source in the horizontal reference scenario, that do not give a continuous flame spread, show a limited fire growth rate and limited heat release rate when tested according to EN 50399 (20,5 kW flame source).

Class Dca. Products that show a fire performance approximately like that of wood when tested in the reference scenarios. When tested according to EN 50399 (20,5 kW flame source) the products show a continuous flame spread, a moderate fire growth rate, and a moderate heat release rate.

Class Eca. Products where a small flame attack is not causing large flame spread. Classes B1ca, B2ca, Cca, Dca, and Eca are based on tests according to EN 50399 [10] but

also require results from the small scale ignitability and flame spread test EN 60332-1-2 [11]. Class Aca requires testing according to EN ISO 1716 [12], however this is a rare

class.

Smoke production is classified in the smoke classes s1a, s1b, s1, s2, and s3. Testing according to standard EN 61034-2 [13] is required if compliance with the best smoke classes, s1a and s1b, is sought. The other smoke classes are based on results from the EN

(8)

Burning droplets are classified into classes d0, d1, and d2. These classes are based on results from the EN 50399 test.

Acidity is classified in the acidity classes a1, a2, and a3. Testing according to standard EN 50267-2-3 [14] is required for classification of acidity.

The classification system from EN 13501-6 is summarized in Table 1 below.

The EXAP document CLC/TS 50576 [6], which is only applicable to power cables, is only valid for classes B2ca, Cca, Dca, smoke classes s1, s2, and s3, and droplet classes d0,

d1, and d2. This is also the scope for the EXAP proposal for CCC to be drafted in this report.

(9)

Table 1. Classes of reaction to fire performance for electric cables [9].

Class Test method(s) Classification criteria Additional classification

Aca EN ISO 1716 PCS ≤ 2,0 MJ/kg ( 1 ) B1ca EN 50399 (30 kW flame source) and FS ≤ 1.75 m and THR1200s ≤ 10 MJ and Peak HRR ≤ 20 kW and FIGRA ≤ 120 Ws-1

Smoke production (2,5) and Flaming droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 7) EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm B2ca EN 50399 (20,5 kW flame source) and FS ≤ 1.5 m and THR1200s ≤ 15 MJ and Peak HRR ≤ 30 kW and FIGRA ≤ 150 Ws-1

Smoke production (2,5) and Flaming droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 7) EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm Cca EN 50399 (20,5 kW flame source) and FS ≤ 2.0 m and THR1200s ≤ 30 MJ and Peak HRR ≤ 60 kW; and FIGRA ≤ 300 Ws-1

Smoke production (2,6) and Flaming droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 7) EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm Dca EN 50399 (20,5 kW flame source) and THR1200s ≤ 70 MJ; and Peak HRR ≤ 400 kW; and FIGRA ≤ 1300 Ws-1

Smoke production (2,6) and Flaming droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 7)

EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm

Eca EN 60332-1-2 H≤ 425 mm

Fca No performance determined

(1) For the product as a whole, excluding metallic materials, and for any external component (i.e. sheath) of the product.

(2) s1 = TSP1200 ≤ 50 m2 and Peak SPR ≤ 0.25 m2/s

s1a = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 61034-2 ≥ 80% s1b = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 61034-2 ≥ 60% < 80% s2 = TSP1200 ≤ 400 m2 and Peak SPR ≤ 1.5 m2/s

s3 = not s1 or s2

(3) d0 = No flaming droplets/particles within 1200 s; d1 = No flaming droplets/ particles persisting longer than 10 s within 1200 s; d2 = not d0 or d1.

(4) EN 50267-2-3: a1 = conductivity < 2.5 µS/mm and pH > 4,3; a2 = conductivity < 10 µS/mm and pH > 4.3; a3 = not a1 or a2. No declaration = No Performance Determined.

(5) The smoke class declared for class B1ca cables must originate from the test according to EN 50399

(30 kW flame source)

(6) The smoke class declared for class B2ca, Cca, Dca cables must originate from the test according to EN

50399 (20,5 kW flame source)

(7) Measuring the hazardous properties of gases developed in the event of fire, which compromise the ability of the persons exposed to them to take effective action to accomplish escape, and not describing the toxicity of these gases.

(10)

2.2 EXAP for power cables: The concepts of safety

margin 

sm

and cable parameter 

In the CEMAC II project it was found that cables have a more complex fire behaviour than many other products that are more homogeneous, such as mineral wool for example [15]. This is illustrated in the theoretical example in Figure 1 where the general trend is that THR decreases with increasing diameter, d, but where the fourth cable makes a sudden jump and breaks the monotonically1 decreasing trend. It is clear that if e.g. the second and fifth cable would be tested and classification for all intermediate diameters would be based only on the worst tested result, i.e. the result for the second cable, classification would be too generous since the fourth cable, which belongs to class Dca

according to its THR value, would actually be classified as class Cca according the EXAP.

Figure 1 THR as a function of outer diameter. Theoretical example.

For this reason a safety margin needs to be added to the worst result for the two tested cables. The magnitude of the safety margin will depend on how large the deviations from monotonicity are. This is described by

sm

class



 _max  Equation 1

where

class is the value used for classification according to respective classification parameter (peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, FS, peak SPR, and TSP),

max is the maximum, that is worst, test result of the tests that forms the basis of

the EXAP, and

1_{A monotonic function is a function that is always increasing or always decreasing. Constant}

plateaus are also allowed. In other words the slope does not change sign. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 20 40 60 80 100 T HR [ M J] outer diameter [mm]

(11)

sm is the safety margin required for the particular classification parameter.

Taking Figure 1 as an example the deviation from monotonicity occurs between the third and the fourth cable. THR for the third cable is 28 MJ and THR for the fourth cable is 31 MJ. The required safety margin in this example, sm, would therefore be 3 MJ. With such a safety margin the EXAP would never, for this particular cable type, allow a too

generous classification of any non-tested cable included in the EXAP.

Still, some cables exhibit a behaviour that would require such large safety margins that every application of the EXAP rules would result in class Eca, see Figure 2 for example.

Figure 2 THR as a function of outer diameter for a cable group in the CEMAC II project.

The non-monotonic behaviour shows that the fire behaviour has little or no correlation with the outer diameter. This non monotonic behaviour remains also with other fundamental cable parameters as x-axis [4]. In order to obtain a smoother graph it is necessary to shift the outlier to one edge of the data set. It has been found that this can be successfully done by introducing the following parameter:

combust V d c 2 



Equation 2 with d [m] Outer diameter.

Vcombust [m2] Non-metallic volume per meter ladder.

c [ ] Number of conductors in one cable.

Using  on the x-axis the graph transforms into Figure 3. The outlier is no longer an outlier since it is found on the right edge of the data set. Therefore it will never be an intermediate and non-tested cable in an EXAP. For any EXAP where this cable is

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 outer diameter [mm] TH R [ M J ]

(12)

Using Equation 1 and Equation 2 it was found that safety margins according to Table 2 gave a very high confidence in the EXAP rules for power cables [4]. These correspond to 10% of the class limit for classes B2, C and D, and to 20% of the class limit for the smoke classes s1 and s2, see also Table 1.

Table 2 Safety margins vsm.

B2ca Cca Dca s1 s2

Peak HRR [kW] 3 6 40 THR [MJ] 1.5 3 7 FIGRA [Ws-1] 15 30 130 Flame spread [m] 0.15 0.2 Peak SPR [m2s-1] 0.05 0.3 TSP [m2] 10 80

Figure 3 THR as a function of  for the same cables as in Figure 2.

A phenomenological explanation to why  can describe THR is suggested below. The quotient c/d2 relates to the density of conductors in a cross section of the cable. When the flame hits a cable with a high conductor density the conductors can separate and air be entrained into the cable. This increases the oxygen supply, and thereby the intensity, of the combustion. Once the conductors have separated they can be viewed as separate cables with smaller diameter than the original cable. This speeds up the heating and therefore also the flame propagation along the cable. Multiplying the conductor density

c/d2 by the amount of combustible volume of the ladder gives an estimate of how much

material is combusted in total, which is an estimation of THR. Another contributing factor to increased flammability for cables with a high value of  is that, for a given diameter, the ratio of insulation material to sheathing material increases with increased number of conductors, that is with increased . The insulation typically consists of a rather flammable material such as polyethylene while the protective sheathing consists of a more flame retardant material. Therefore, when the relative amount of insulation material increases the flammability of the cable also increases.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80  TH R [ M J ]

(13)

Using  as x-axis also gives a reasonably monotonic behaviour for most other classification parameters and cable types [4]. A plausible explanation of this is given below.

From the FIPEC project, reference [16] p 150, it was concluded that for a majority of cables the most severe test is obtained by spacing the cables with a distance in the order of the magnitude of their diameter. The mounting procedure suggested by the FIPEC project has been implemented in standard EN 50399 [10] and these procedures were used in the large scale tests performed within the CEMAC project. Since, typically, the cables are distributed over a width of  300 mm on the ladder and since the spacing between cables is  d the following relation applies:

300 )

1 (







N

d

Nd

mm Equation 3

where Nd is the total width of the cables on the ladder and (N-1)d is the total width of the void spacing. Approximating N-1 by N gives:

d mm

N 150 Equation 4

The combustible volume per meter cable, vcombust, has been found to be approximately proportional to the cross section of the cable, that is to d2:

2

~ d

vcombust Equation 5

The amount of combustible volume per meter ladder is therefore:

2

~ Nd Nv

V_combust _combust Equation 6

and, from Equation 4:

d d d Nd

V_combust~ 2 150 2 ~ Equation 7

Inserting Equation 7 in Equation 2 gives the approximation:

d c d d c V d c combust   ₂ ~ ₂



Equation 8

(14)

The approximate Equation 8 in essence explains why  describes fire performance of different cable types in general. It is well known that combustion typically is more intense for cables with small diameter than for cables with large diameter. In other words combustion is more intense for large  than for small . This is easily understood by making an analogy to matches and timber logs where the former is much easier to ignite. The exception is cable types which are completely combusted, such as Group 9 in the CEMAC II project. In this case the relation is the opposite but  still describes the fire performance in a fairly monotonic way, although with a different sign of the derivative. Furthermore the flame spread is, in general, facilitated if the number of conductors, c, is increased for a given diameter. The explanation of this is manifold but in essence more conductors mean a more porous cable in which the conductors more easy separate and where chimney effects is facilitated. A cable in which the conductors separate can be seen as several cables with smaller diameter, and therefore with more intense combustion according to the discussion above. As already mentioned above another reason for the increased flammability for cables with many conductors is that, for a given diameter, the ratio of flammable insulation material, typically polyethylene, to sheathing material increases with increased number of conductors.

(15)

3 Cable test data available for this study

Cable selection was entirely performed by Europacable. Cable testing was performed by laboratories belonging to Europacable members or by research laboratories. The

laboratories performing the tests were accredited according to ISO17025, except one out of five laboratories. All laboratories participated in the CENELEC round robin which was undertaken in the initial phase of the CEMAC II project. SP takes no responsibility regarding the representativity of the selected cables, nor for the quality of the performed tests. A detailed description of all families are presented in the appendix in Section 9. A summary of the cable families are given in Table 3. No coaxial cables were included in the study.

Table 3 Summary of cables included in the analysis of this report.

Family Number of cables in family Diameter (min-max) [mm] Number of conductors1 F2a 8 5.4-30.5 2-224 F2b 4 8.3-16.8 16-112 F2c 3 6.28-24.5 8-100 F3 4 5.95-15.34 8-64 F4a 3 11.71-28 2-56 F4b 3 9.8-17.17 60-224 F5 6 6-12.3 2-60 F7a 7 6-31.17 4-182 F7b 9 4.4-36.2 2-254 1

Each isolated electrical conductor is considered a conductor, i.e. a twisted pair consists of two conductors.

(16)

4 Method

The cable parameter χ is defined according to Equation 9, where the number descriptor n is the number of isolated conductors in a cable. In other words a cable with four twisted pairs has n = 4×2 = 8 conductors.

combust V d n 2 



Equation 9 with d [m] Outer diameter.

Vcombust [m2] Combustible2 volume per meter ladder.

n [ ] Number of conductors in one cable.

This section describes the method used to quantify and compare the confidence of different potential EXAP rules. Section 5 shows the results using the outlined

quantification method. In this report different potential EXAP rules are investigated by varying the magnitude of the safety margin introduced in Equation 1. The reason why this parameter is varied, and not simply adapted from the EXAP rules for power cables as outlined in the CEMAC II report, see Table 2, is that there are fewer tests in the available data for the CCC as compared to the number of power cables in the CEMAC II project. Therefore the precautionary principle should be applied before simply adapting the same rules as for power cables. Furthermore it was observed already in the CEMAC II report that CCC exhibit a less predictable fire behaviour as compared to power cables.

Table 4 shows the analysis for a cable family without using a safety margins. This particular example is taken from the SP-report on OF EXAP [7] but the principle of analysis is exactly the same. The five cables in the family are arranged in increasing χ-order. The first column gives the name of the cable. The second contains the cable parameter χ. Column 3-8 contain the specific classification for the parameters flame spread, peak heat release rate, total heat release, fire growth rate, peak smoke production rate, and total smoke production, respectively. The classifications are made based on the classification criteria in Table 1. Column 9 shows the total class, which is the worst result from columns 3 (FS) to 6 (FIGRA). Column 10 shows the total smoke class, which is the worst result from columns 7 (pSPR) and 8 (TSP). Column 11 finally shows the reported droplet class.

As an example it can be seen in Table 4 that for THR there are three pairwise combinations that would give a non-conservative EXAP estimation for Product 4. In other words this EXAP approach would, for the THR parameter, estimate Product 4 as a cable with class Dca for 3 combinations. These 3 combinations are considered as EXAP errors and are indicated on the second last row. For 5 cables, such as in this example, there are in total 6 pairwise combinations with at least one intermediate cable. The error rate is the percentage of errors in relation to the total possible number of combinations, that is 3/6 = 50% in this example. If the THR class for Product 5 would have been Eca instead of Dca there would have been no EXAP errors for THR. The reason for this is that from the pairwise combinations it is the worst case that is used for the classification.

2_{In the CEMAC II project V}

(17)

If Product 5 would have been class Eca the EXAP applications involving Product 5 would not have allowed Product 4 to erroneously be EXAP classificed as Dca. Table 4. Example of confidence analysis without using sm

Table 5 shows a similar analysis as in Table 4, but with a safety margin included. The upper table is identical to Table 4. The lower table contain classifications based on the test results plus the safety margin. The tested pairwise combinations now contains classifications with an added safety margin, making the system more robust to misclassifications of intermediate cables. Notice that the investigation whether

intermediate cables become non-conservatively classified or not should be based on the original classification, from the upper table. This is the reason why red arrows have been drawing from the upper table to the corresponding intermediate positions in the lower table. In this example the result was that adding safety margins reduced FIGRA errors from 2 to 0 since Product 5 obtains class Dca instead of Cca using the safety margins. Therefore, for FIGRA, no pairwise combinations are possible that result in a non-conservative classification (e.g. Dca cable classified as Cca) of the intermediate cables. The number of total classifications did not change, for this particular case.

In previous works [4, 7] the safety margin has been set to 10% of the class limit for classes Bca, Cca, and Dca, and 20% of the class limit for classes s1 and s2. In this work it was however found that the fire behaviour of CCC was less predictable than for power cables. Therefore different levels of safety margins, defined in terms of percentages of the class limits, has been used as a variable in order estimate the confidence of an EXAP. The class limits are summarized in Table 6, and can also be found in Table 1.

The results from the analysis are summarized in Section 5 and all results are presented in the appendix in Section 10.

Combinations 6 χ FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class ( ) (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 53 Dca Dca Dca Cca s1 s1 Dca s1 d0

Product 3 173 Dca Dca Dca Dca s1 s1 Dca s1 d1

Product 4 277 Dca Dca Eca Dca s1 s1 Eca s1 d0

Errors (No) 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 2

(18)

Table 5. Example of confidence analysis using sm

Table 6 Class limits. The different levels of safety margin investigated in this reports are percentages of these class limits. See also Table 1.

B2ca Cca Dca s1 s2

Peak HRR [kW] 30 60 400 THR [MJ] 15 30 70 FIGRA [Ws-1] 150 300 1300 Flame spread [m] 1.5 2 Peak SPR [m2s-1] 0.25 1.5 TSP [m2] 50 400 Combinations 6 χ FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class ( ) (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Errors (No) 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 2 Error rate % 0 0 50 33 0 0 50 0 33 Combinations 6 χ FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class ( ) (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2_/s) _(m2₎

Product 1 53 Dca Dca Dca Dca s1 s1 Dca s1 d0 Product 2 142 Dca Dca Dca Cca s1 s1 Dca s1 d0 Product 3 173 Dca Dca Dca Dca s1 s1 Dca s1 d1 Product 4 277 Dca Dca Eca Dca s1 s1 Eca s1 d0 Product 5 320 Dca Dca Dca Dca s1 s1 Dca s1 d1

Errors (No) 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 2

(19)

5 Results

Table 7 to Table 11shows the number of classification errors for all families using a safety margin between 0 – 40% of the class limits in Table 6. The decrease in

classification errors when the safety margin is increased is highlighted in yellow. Table 12 summarizes the results from Table 7 to Table 11. The number of classification errors in Table 7 to Table 11 is replaced by the error rate in Table 12. The error rate is defined as the number of classification errors divided by the total number of possible

combinations for a family. Table 12 also contains the results from the previous work in the CEMAC II project and the recent work on OF EXAP. It is seen that the error rate for the main class (B2ca, Cca, and Dca), which is the main discriminator, decreases from 8% to 1% when the safety margin increases from 0% to 40% of the class limits in Table 6. The published Position Paper for OF EXAP results in an error rate of 2% for the

investigated OF cables, highlighted in yellow in Table 12. This is taken as a guideline for the trade-off between low error rate and conservatism for the CCC EXAP in this report. It should be stressed that a higher safety margin will statistically result in a higher number of cables being classified with a worse Euroclass than what they actually would obtain according to actual fire tests. 2% error rate for the CCC main class is obtained with a safety margin of 30% of the class limits in Table 6, highlighted in yellow in Table 12. The outcome of this work is therefore to propose a CCC EXAP with such a safety margin, see the annex in Section 8. The resulting safety margins are shown in Table 13.

Table 7. Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm ..

Fam. No. cables No. comb. Errors FS pH R R TH R FIGR A pSP R TSP Mai n cl as s Smoke clas s D ropl et cl as s F2a 8 21 11 4 12 5 7 7 2 7 0 F2b 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2c 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4a 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4b 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 F5 6 10 2 6 6 2 0 3 2 3 0 F7a 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 F7b 9 28 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 4

(20)

Table 8. Number of classification errors with safety margin sm =10% of class limits in Table 6..The numbers that differs as compared to Table 7 are marked in yellow.

Fam. No. cables No. comb. Errors FS pH R R TH R FIGR A pSP R TSP Mai n cl as s Smoke clas s D ropl et cl as s F2a 8 21 11 4 12 5 7 0 2 0 0 F2b 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2c 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4a 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4b 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 F5 6 10 1 4 6 2 0 2 1 2 0 F7a 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 F7b 9 28 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 4

Table 9. Number of classification errors with safety margin sm =20% of class limits in Table 6..The numbers that differs as compared to Table 8 are marked in yellow.

Fam. No. cables No. comb. Errors FS pH R R TH R FIGR A pSP R TSP Mai n cl as s Smok e cl as s D ropl et cl as s F2a 8 21 11 2 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 F2b 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2c 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4a 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4b 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 F5 6 10 1 1 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 F7a 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 F7b 9 28 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 4

(21)

Table 10. Number of classification errors with safety margin sm =30% of class limits in Table 6..The numbers that differs as compared to Table 9 are marked in yellow.

Fam. No. cables No. comb. Errors FS pH R R TH R FIGR A pSP R TSP Mai n cl as s Smok e cl as s D ropl et cl as s F2a 8 21 6 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 F2b 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2c 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4a 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4b 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 F5 6 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 F7a 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 F7b 9 28 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 4

Table 11. Number of classification errors with safety margin sm =40% of class limits in Table 6..The numbers that differs as compared to Table 10 are marked in yellow.

Fam. No. cables No. comb. Errors FS pH R R TH R FIGR A pSP R TSP Mai n cl as s Smo ke cl as s D ropl et cl as s F2a 8 21 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 F2b 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2c 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4a 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4b 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 F5 6 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 F7a 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 F7b 9 28 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4

(22)

Table 12. Summary of results from the CEMAC II report (power cables), from the OF-EXAP-report, and from this work on CCC. #comb means the total number of possible cable combinations for the specific cable type. n means the variable used in Equation 1. n = units is explained in reference [7]. Type # comb n  sm [%] Error rate [%] FS pH R R TH R FIGR A pSP R TSP Mai n cl as s Smoke clas s D ropl et cl as s power 166 cond 10/20a 1 0 0 1 2 2 b b b OF 103 OF 0 22 17 24 10 0 0 13 0 20 OF 103 OF 10/20a 15 9 27 8 0 0 6 0 18 OF 103 units 0 18 10 17 8 0 20 4 20c 16 OF 103 units 10/20a 14 10 16 8 0 20 2d 20c 16 CCC 83 cond 0 16 12 22 13 8 12 8 12 8 CCC 83 cond 10 14 10 22 13 8 2 7 2 8 CCC 83 cond 20 14 4 22 6 8 0 5 0 8 CCC 83 cond 30 7 2 17 6 0 0 2 0 8 CCC 83 cond 40 2 2 2 6 0 0 1 0 8

a _{10% for main classes B2ca, Cca, and Dca. 20% for smoke classes s1 and s2.} b _{not analyzed (very low)}

c _{all these errors are due to one single cable}

d _{this rows describes the EXAP prescribed in the Position Paper for OF EXAP.}

Table 13. Proposed safety margin sm =30% of class limits in Table 6..

B2ca Cca Dca S1 S2

(23)

6 Conclusions

The feasibility of an EXAP procedure for copper communication cables (CCC) has been investigated. The test set consisted of 47 different cables split into 9 families. An analysis method for quantifying the confidence of an EXAP procedure was defined.

A similar EXAP procedure as for power cables was investigated, but where the safety margin sm was varied between 0% and 40% of the class limits for the corresponding Euroclasses. For power cables, and also for optical cables (OF) this safety margin was fixed to 10% of the class limits for the main classification (B2ca, Cca, and Dca) and 20% fire the smoke classes S1 and S2. For the analysed CCC it was found that the safety margin must be higher in order to obtain a confidence on the same level as for the OF EXAP already published in a Position Paper. The error rate for the OF EXAP was 2% for the main class. This error rate was obtained with a safety margin of 30% of the class limits for CCC. Even higher safety margins result in a lower error rate but a trade-off must be made between confidence in the EXAP and a reasonable, not too conservative, classification of CCC.

Therefore a CCC EXAP is proposed with a safety margin sm = 30% of the class limits for the corresponding Euroclasses.

(24)

7 References

[1] Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products OJ No L 40 of 11 February 1989, European Union, 1988.

[2] Försth, M., J. Post, B. Sundström, P. Johansson, M. Strömgren, A. Steen-Hansen,

and K. Storesund. Status summary of cable reaction to fire reguations in Europs. in 62nd International Cable - Connectivity Symposium. 2013. Charlotte, NC, USA.

[3] Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonized conditions for the marketing of

construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, OJ L 88 of 4 April 2011, Europena Union, 2011.

[4] Journeaux, T., B. Sundström, P. Johansson, M. Försth, S.J. Grayson, S. Gregory,

S. Kumar, H. Breulet, S. Messa, R. Lehrer, M. Kobilsek, H.-D. Leppert, and N. Mabbot, CEMAC - CE-marking of cables, SP Report 2010:27. 2010, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden: Borås.

[5] Sundström, B., M. Försth, P. Johansson, S.J. Grayson, and T. Journeaux.

Prediction of fire classification of cables, extended application of test data. in Interflam. 2010.

[6] CENELEC, CLC/TS 50576 Electric cables - Extended application of test results.

2014.

[7] Johansson, R., J. Post, and M. Försth, Extended field of application (EXAP) for reaction-to-fire Euro-classification of optical fibre cables, SP report 2015:32. 2015, SP Technical Research Insitute of Sweden: Borås.

[8] COMMISSION DECISION of 27 October 2006 amending Decision 2000/147/EC

implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the reaction-to-fire performance of construction products (2006/751/EC), European Union, 2006.

[9] CENELEC, EN 13501-6:2014 Fire classification of construction products and

building elements – Part 6: Classification using data from reaction to fire tests on electric cables. 2014, CENELEC.

[10] CENELEC, EN 50399, Common test methods for cables under fire conditions -

Heat release and smoke production measurements on cables during flame spread test - Test apparatus, procedures, results. 2011, CENELEC.

[11] EN 60332-1-2Tests on electric and optical fibre cables under fire conditions - Part 1-2: Test for vertical flame propagation for a single insulated wire or cable - Procedure for 1 kW pre-mixed flame. 2004, CENELEC.

[12] EN ISO 1716 Reaction to fire tests for products - Determination of the gross heat of combustion (calorific value) (ISO 1716:2010). 2010, CENELEC.

[13] EN 61034-2 Measurement of smoke density of cables burning under defined

conditions - Part 2: Test procedure and requirements. 2005, CENELEC.

[14] EN 50267-2-3 Common test methods for cables under fire conditions - Tests on

gases evolved during combustion of materials from cables - Part 2-3: Procedures - Determination of degree of acidity of gases for cables by determination of the weighted average of pH and conductivity. 1998, CENELEC.

[15] Fire testing and classification protocol for mineral wool products, Fire sector group of notified bodies for the CPD, 2003.

[16] Grayson, S., P. Van Hees, U. Vercellotti, H. Breulet, and A. Green, FIPEC, Fire Performance of Electric Cables - new test methods and measurement techniques. 2000.

(25)

8 Appendix: Proposal for EXAP-rules for

copper communication cables (CCC)

The EXAP is applicable to classification of copper communication cables (CCC) into the classes B2ca, C ca and D ca, the smoke classes s1, s2 and s3, and the droplet classes d0, d1 and d2. The EXAP is not applicable to cables with a diameter < 5 mm.

8.1 Definition of a product family for EXAP

For the purposes of applying these EXAP rules, a cable family should be defined as follows:

A family of cables is a specific range of products of the same general construction and varying only in number of conductors. The specific family shall be produced by the same manufacturer using the same materials and the same design rules based on national or international standards, and/or company standards.

The following properties are considered to have a negligible influence on the fire behaviour and therefore differences in these properties only do not necessarily imply that cables belong to different families:

 Insulation colour

 Outer jacket colour

 Printing

The full constructional and material details for the family shall be submitted to the certification body prior to the EXAP being applied.

8.2 EXAP with safety margin

An EXAP is based on two tests. The parameter  is used as independent cable parameter.

 is defined as: combust V d n 2 



where d [m] Outer diameter.

Vcombust [m2] Combustible volume per meter ladder.

n [ ] Number of conductors in one cable. (One twisted-pair consists of

two conductors.)

All cables within the same family with a value of the cable parameter between the lowest and highest value of the cable parameters of the tested cables are included in the EXAP. Classification is based on the maximum measured value plus a safety margin:

sm

class



(26)

class is the value used for classification according to respective classification parameter (peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, FS, peak SPR, and TSP),

max is the maximum, that is the worst, test results of the tests that forms the

basis of the EXAP, and

sm is the safety margin required for the particular classification parameter.

The safety margins for the different classes and classification parameters are given in Table 14.

Table 14 Safety margins vsm.

B2ca Cca Dca S1 S2

8.3 Flaming droplets/particles

For flaming droplets/particles the cables within the cable parameter range for the EXAP are classified according to the worst result for the tested cables within this range.

(27)

9 Appendix: Cable data

The content of this section was supplied by Europacable.

The CCC product families selected for the test program was made ensuring that they are representative for the European market. The emphasis was put on the fact that it was also necessary to have a wide range of burning behaviors to avoid a bias on the final analysis. From a construction point of view, CCC include the following types and considering their design elements, a ranking in term of fire performance can be drawn.

Family (FOIL) Family Type description

U/UTP F1 Unscreened

F/UTP F2 Outer foil, core unscreened

U/FTP F3 Outer unscreened, twisted pairs foil screened

F/FTP F4 Outer foil, twisted pairs foil screened

SF/UTP F5 Outer braid and foil, core unscreened

SF/FTP F6 Outer braid and foil, twisted pairs foil screened

S/FTP F7 Outer braid, twisted pairs foil screened

 F1: U/UTP (Twisted Pairs / sheath)

 F2: F/UTP (Twisted Pairs/ Screened Overall/ Sheath)

 F3: U/FTP (Screened Twisted Pairs / Sheath)

 F4: F/FTP (Screened Twisted Pairs / Screened Overall/ Sheath)

 F5: SF/UTP (Unscreened Twisted Pair / Screened Overall / Metallic Braid / Sheath)  F7: S/FTP (Screened Twisted Pair / Metallic Braid Overall/ Sheath)

 F6: SF/FTP (Screened Twisted Pair/ Screened Overall / Metallic Braid / Sheath) U/UTP is not designed with fire barriers as aluminium tape or braid. Its insulation made of PE is highly combustible. This product type is considered as Euroclass Dca and its behaviour is close to F/UTP and U/FTP designs even though these latter is better protected. The copper braid is known to bring a benefit in fire tests when combined to aluminium tape(s). In this case, SF/UTP, S/FTP and SF/FTP designs are much better performing than U/UTP, F/UTP and U/FTP which have similar behaviours. Families F1 and F6 have not been tested in this investigation. Testing of family F1 was not included since most test rigs could not withstand these fires, at the time when the data was

Enhanced Performances

(28)

For the selection of the different product families the following logics has been applied. - Outer jacket and insulation colors and various printing can be neglected for fire

performance.

- Families have been designed in a way that the principal material types (or even compound) remain unchanged with the main difference being variation in geometry and conductor numbers.

(29)

9.1 Product family F2: F/UTP

9.1.1 Family title

Indoor distribution multi-element metallic cables used in analogue and digital communication and control with fire retardant outer jacket.

9.1.2 Definition

Circular cable with insulated PE/PP conductors, overall screen and outer jacket. This distribution cable can be used for many indoor applications. The cable features copper conductors; twisted together to make pairs or quads. Typical cable applications include: LAN and WAN backbones, central office interconnections, backbones in data centres among others. The cable features a Low Smoke Halogen Flame Retardant sheathing.

9.1.3 Material List

- Conductor: copper

- insulation consisting of PP/PE

- Sometimes a filler/x spline inserted between pairs - Overall Aluminium/PET screen

- Colored Halogen free thermoplastic

9.1.4 Design

-Insulated conductor -Twisted pairs

-Filler, when necessary

-Outer Overall screen (plus drain wire) -Outer jacket 288 SYT+DIGITAL

9.1.5 Cable range

Family Diameter (min-max) Diameter Copper Conductor [mm]

Screen Filler/splines Total no. of pairs F2a 5.4-30.5 0.5/0.8 alu/PET tape overall 1-112 F2b 8.3-16.8 0.51 alu/PET tape overall 8-56 F2c 6.28-24.5 0.5 alu/PET tape 0 or 1 4 - 50

(30)

9.2 Product family F3: U/FTP

9.2.1 Family title:

Indoor distribution multi-element metallic cables used in analogue and digital communication and control with fire resistant outer jacket.

9.2.2 Definition:

Circular cable with insulated PE/PP conductors, pair screen and outer jacket. This distribution cable can be used for many indoor applications. The cable features copper conductors; twisted together to make pairs or quads. Typical cable applications include: LAN and WAN backbones, central office interconnections, backbones in data centres among others. The cable features a Low Smoke Halogen Flame Retardant sheathing.

9.2.3 Material List:

- Conductor: copper

- Aluminum/PET screening

- Sometimes a filler/x spline inserted between pairs - Colored Halogen free thermoplastic

9.2.4 Design:

- Insulated conductor

- Twisted pairs

- Individual pair screen - Filler, when necessary - Outer jacket

9.2.5 Cable range

Screen Filler/splines Total

no. of pairs F3 5.95-15.34 0.42 alu/PET tape over pairs 1 4-32

(31)

9.3 Product family F4a armoured F/FTP

9.3.1 Family title

Halogen free cables for remote controls and teletransmissions used in underground networks (Type K23).

9.3.2 Definition

Circular cable with insulated PE conductors, individual pair and overall aluminium screen with inner and outer jackets including intermediate steel tapes.

This for remote controls and teletransmissions cable can be used in underground

networks. The cable features copper conductors; twisted together to make pairs or quads. The cable features Low Smoke Halogen Flame Retardant sheathings.

9.3.3 Material List

- Conductor: copper

- insulation consisting of PE - PET tapes

- Aluminium/PET screening - Overall Aluminium/PET screen - Steel tapes

- Halogen free thermoplastic as inner and outer sheath of the cable

9.3.4 Design

-Copper conductor wire of 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 mm -Solid polyethylene insulation

-Four insulated conductors are twisted together to form a quad -For 1 and 4 pair cables, conductors shall be twisted in pairs.

-Quads are stranded in helically laid concentric layers or units to form the cable core. -Core wrapping with plastic tape(s) with overlapping

-Moisture barrier with one aluminum polyethylene laminate tape, coated on the outer side with copolymer, longitudinally applied with an overlap, plus one continuity wire -Inner sheath with HFFRLS compound

-Armour with steel tape

(32)

9.3.5 Cable range

Screen Filler/splines Total no.

of pairs

F4a 11.71 - 28 1.2 alu/tape

pair/overall

(33)

9.4 Product families F4b: unarmoured F/FTP

9.4.1 Definition

LY6ST cable range is compliant for digital telephone network at 2 MHz. They can be used in inside & duct installation or in gutter. They are not designed for direct connection to the mains. Standard version with ALU/PET overall foil for ideal EMC protection.

9.4.2 Material List

- Conductor: copper - Insulation consisting of PE - PET tapes - Aluminium/PET screening - Overall Aluminium/PET screen

- Halogen free thermoplastic sheath of the cable

9.4.3 Design

-Conductor: Solid bare copper 24AWG

-Insulation: Polyethylene - Two insulated conductors twisted to a pair

-Stranding: Concentric from 2 to 30 pairs with bundle for 56 & 112 pairs with 1 spare pair (yellow-red)

-Screen: PET overall foil -Solid copper drain wire -Screen: ALU/PET overall foil -Outer sheath: LSZH (C2)

9.4.4 Cable range

of pairs

F4b 9.8-17-17 0.5 alu/PET

tape pair/overall

(34)

9.5 Product families F5: SF/UTP

9.5.1 Family title

Indoor distribution multi-element metallic cables used in analogue and digital communication and control with halogen free thermoplastic material.

9.5.2 Definition

Circular cable with insulated PE/PP conductors, overall screen then braided with copper wire and outer jacket. This distribution cable can be used for many indoor applications. The cable features copper conductors; twisted together to make pairs or quads. Typical cable applications include: LAN and WAN backbones, central office interconnections, backbones in data centres among others. The cable features a Low Smoke Halogen Flame Retardant sheathing.

9.5.3 Material List

- Conductor: copper

- Sometimes a filler/x spline inserted between pairs

- Overall Aluminium/PET screen

- Overall copper braid

9.5.4 Design

- insulated conductor

- twisted insulated conductors (pairs)

- Sometimes a filler/x spline inserted between pairs

- Overall Aluminium/PET screen where necessary

- Overall copper braid

9.5.5 Cable range

Family Diameter (min-max) Diameter Copper Conductor [mm] Screen Filler/splin es Total no. of pairs F5 6-12.3 0.5 -0.8 alu/PET tape overall copper braid overall 1 1-30

(35)

9.6 Product family F7: S/FTP

9.6.1 Family title

Indoor distribution multi-element metallic cables used in analogue and digital communication and control with flame retardant outer jacket.

9.6.2 Definition

Circular cable with insulated PE/PP conductors, pair screen and overall screen of braided copper wire and outer jacket. This distribution cable can be used for many indoor

applications. The cable features copper conductors; twisted together to make pairs or quads. Typical cable applications include: LAN and WAN backbones, central office interconnections, backbones in data centres among others. The cable features a flame retardant sheathing.

9.6.3 Material List

- Conductor: copper (solid or stranded) - Insulation consisting of PP/PE (foamed) - Aluminium/PET screening

- Optional filler/x spline inserted between pairs - Overall tinned copper braid screen

- Colored Halogen free and flame retardant thermoplastic sheath of the cable

(36)

9.6.5 Cable range

of pairs F7a 6-31.17 0.57 alu/PET tape pair copper braid overall 2-91 F7b 4.4-36.2 0.57 alu/PET tape pair copper braid overall 1-127

(37)

10 Appendix: Detailed analysis

10.1 No safety margin 

sm

Table 15 Family F2a: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm .

Table 16 Family F2b: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm .

Table 17 Family F2c: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm .

Table 18 Family F3: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm .

Combinations 21 X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 29 B2ca B2ca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d1

Product 2 49 B2ca B2ca B2ca B2ca s1 s1 B2ca s1 d1

Product 3 71 Cca Cca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Product 4 154 B2ca Cca Cca B2ca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Product 7 476 Cca Dca Dca B2ca s2 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 8 604 B2ca Dca Cca B2ca s1 s1 Dca s1 d2

Errors (No) 11 4 12 5 7 7 2 7 0 Error rate % 52 19 57 24 33 33 10 33 0 Combinations 3 X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 142 B2ca Cca B2ca B2ca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Product 3 242 Dca Eca Eca Dca s3 s3 Eca s3 d2

(38)

Table 20 Family F4b: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm .

Table 21 Family F5: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm .

Combinations 1 X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 15 Dca Dca Eca Cca s2 s2 Eca s2 d2

Product 2 28 Dca Dca Dca B2ca s2 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 3 158 B2ca Cca Cca B2ca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Product 2 46 Dca Cca Cca Cca s1 s1 Dca s1 d1

Product 5 251 Cca Cca Cca B2ca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Product 1 43 B2ca B2ca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 NA

Product 2 54 B2ca B2ca B2ca B2ca s1 s1 B2ca s1 NA

Product 6 348 Dca Dca Dca B2ca s1 s2 Dca s1 NA

Product 7 385 Dca Dca Dca Cca s1 s2 Dca s1 NA

Errors (No) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(39)

Table 23 Family F7b: Number of classification errors with no safety margin sm . Combinations 28 X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 Dca Cca Cca Cca s1 s1 Dca s1 d2

Product 2 B2ca B2ca B2ca B2ca s1 s1 B2ca s1 d0

Product 3 B2ca B2ca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d1

Product 7 Dca Dca Dca B2ca s1 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 8 Dca Dca Dca Cca s1 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 9 Dca Dca Eca Cca s2 s2 Eca s2 d2

Errors (No) 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 4

(40)

10.2 Safety margin 

sm

= 10%

of class limits

Table 24 Family F2a: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 .

Table 25 Family F2b: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 .

Table 26 Family F2c: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 .

Table 27 Family F3: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 . Combinations 21 X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 29 B2ca B2ca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d1

Product 3 71 Cca Cca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Product 7 476 Dca Dca Dca B2ca s2 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 1 142 B2ca Cca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d2

Errors (No) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Error rate % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Combinations 1 10 % Vsm X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Errors (No) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Error rate % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Combinations 3 10 % vsm X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Errors (No) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(41)

Table 28 Family F4a: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 .

Table 29 Family F4b: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 .

Table 30 Family F5: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 .

Table 31 Family F7a: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 . Combinations 1 10 % vsm X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 15 Dca Dca Eca Cca s2 s2 Eca s2 d2

Product 2 28 Dca Dca Eca B2ca s2 s2 Eca s2 d2

Product 2 552 Dca Dca B2ca Dca s2 s3 Eca s3 d2

Product 3 756 Dca Eca B2ca Dca s3 s3 Eca s3 d2

Errors (No) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Error rate % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Combinations 10 10 % Vsm X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 26 Cca B2ca B2ca B2ca s1 s1 Cca s1 d0

Product 3 140 Dca Dca Cca Cca s1 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 5 251 Dca Cca Cca B2ca s1 s1 Dca s1 d2

Product 1 43 B2ca B2ca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 NA

Product 6 348 Dca Dca Dca B2ca s1 s2 Dca s2 NA

(42)

Table 32 Family F7b: Number of classification errors with safety margin sm = 10% of class limits in Table 6 . Combinations 28 10 % vsm X FS pHRR THR FIGRA pSPR TSP Class Smoke class Droplet class (m) (kW) (MJ) (W/s) (m2/s) (m2)

Product 1 Dca Cca Cca Cca s1 s1 Dca s1 d2

Product 3 B2ca B2ca B2ca Cca s1 s1 Cca s1 d1

Product 7 Dca Dca Dca B2ca s1 s2 Dca s2 d2

Product 8 Dca Dca Eca Cca s1 s2 Eca s2 d2

Product 9 Dca Dca Eca Dca s2 s2 Eca s2 d2

Errors (No) 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 4

Extended field of application (EXAP) forreaction-to-fire Euro-classification of coppercommunication cables (CCC)

communication cables (CCC)

Richard Johansson, Johan Post, Michael Försth

SP T

ech

ni

ca

l Re

se

arch

I

nstitu

te of Sweden

Extended field of application (EXAP) for

reaction-to-fire Euro-classification of

copper communication cables (CCC)

Richard Johansson, Johan Post, Michael Försth

Abstract

Extended field of application (EXAP) for reaction-to-fire

Euro-classification of copper communication cables

(CCC)

Contents

Preface

1

Introduction

2

Background

2.1

Reaction-to-fire classification of cables

2.2

EXAP for power cables: The concepts of safety

margin 

and cable parameter 









300

)

1

(







N

d

Nd



3

Cable test data available for this study

4

Method



5

Results

6

Conclusions

7

References

8

Appendix: Proposal for EXAP-rules for

copper communication cables (CCC)

8.1

Definition of a product family for EXAP

8.2

EXAP with safety margin







8.3

Flaming droplets/particles

9

Appendix: Cable data

9.1

Product family F2: F/UTP

9.1.1

Family title

9.1.2

Definition

9.1.3