FEATURE CABLING
Category 5 and CCA Rapid Reaction Force By Mike Gilmore, Technical Director, Fibreoptic Industry Association
It may seem unusual for the FIA to be putting pen to paper to discuss copper cabling – but it is the nature of the telecommunications infrastructure ‘beast’ that technology boundaries are sometimes blurred and it is undeniable that installers of optical fi bre cabling are frequently also installers of its metallic counterpart – and if there are risks to our members from any quarter we are honour-bound to highlight them. In June 2011, one of our members
In the face of concerns over the use of copper coated aluminium conductors in cables marked as Category 5, Mike Gilmore goes beyond the call of duty to discuss copper cabling.
drew the attention of the FIA Council to the fact that cables constructed using copper coated aluminium (CCA) conductors were being marketed as Category 5 cables. This lone voice was soon joined by others and the necessary evidence was obtained. This initiated a response which by October 2011 resulted in a completed white paper, freely available from the FIA website, which has gone viral and is being used to educate customers, their supply chains and even standards bodies in how to handle and react to cables containing copper coated aluminium (CCA) or steel (CCS) conductors which are masquerading as Category-based products. This article does not intend to copy the contents of the White Paper. Instead it describes the background to the problems associated with copper coated aluminium and similar products. IAN002 opens by explaining that CCA/CCS conductors cannot conform to any Category-based specifi cations whether they are European, international or North American. It is our view that only the most creative reader could argue any other position but to avert any possibility of misunderstanding in this area, the UK is proposing a change to the defi nition of the conductors used in all Categories of cable to specifi cally exclude copper coated aluminium or steel products, at least in European and therefore British standards. The more suspicious reader might imagine that there is some form of protectionism being practiced, since many of the current crop of CCA products originate in the Far East. However, in truth the only intention is to protect both installers and their customers from problems that only rear their ugly heads once cables are installed and attempts are made to terminate and then test them.
10 NETCOMMS europe Volume II Issue 3 2012
Cost and Effect We have to recognise that CCA/CCS cables are cheaper than the ‘proper’ stuff and there is a great temptation to use the products particularly if someone sticks a Category 5, 5e or even 6 label on the side of the box. So why are the FIA and BCA spoiling the party? One answer to this is that we are attempting to protect installers from their worst enemy - themselves. IAN002 explains the technical
impacts associated with the CCA/ CCS conductor based cables in a contractual, and therefore potentially fi nancial, sense – particularly when used within generic, structured, cabling systems in accordance with the premises-specifi c versions of ANSI/ TIA-568-C, ISO/IEC 11801 or BS EN 50173 standards. To summarise, CCA/CCS conductor based products may: • Fail basic transmission performance tests during commissioning acceptance tests.
• Exhibit poor fl exibility leading to failed connections during both installation and operation;
• Exhibit oxidation of exposed aluminium at points of connection which may reduce the lifetime of those connections, particularly when they are subject to vibration or other movement.
This combination of issues can
result in serious problems during installation and operation - which can have signifi cant cost implications for the unwary installer and customer alike. However, there is also a further, hidden, challenge. The high DC resistance levels exhibited by CCA and CCS cables creates a potentially more serious problem founded on the higher temperature rises occurring when these cables are used to provide power via applications such as Power over Ethernet (PoE and PoEplus). It is not just a matter of the higher
temperatures that are reached, but their impact on the other parameters of the transmission link, resulting in reduced usable lengths. Moreover, we have not yet properly analysed the increases in temperature for Category based products in situations where ventilation is poor or when the
www.netcommseurope.com
cables are routed through insulating materials - and any temptation to use products that may increase these temperatures should be avoided.
They Should Know Better Amazingly, we found that it was not just installers that are responsible for encouraging the use of CCA or CCS cables. There have been instances of customers requesting the use of the lowest cost products and specifi cally pointing installers in the direction of the CCA-based cables. The FIA is fairly confi dent that such demands were generated from total ignorance of the risks to the completed installation - both at the initial functional level and in relation to the operational reliability of the infrastructure. As mentioned at the start of
this article, IAN002 has gone viral and is referenced from other trade association websites including the US Communications Cable and Connectivity Association. It has also been used to raise the issue to standards bodies at the European and international level, which it is hoped will now enable greater clarifi cation to be issued. This rapid reaction to a highlighted
problem - taking only fi ve months from outset to completion – can only be achieved by organisations which have substantial investment in, and infl uence over, the relevant standards bodies. The FIA take this opportunity to thank Netcomms Europe for including this issue in this edition - since CCA has been fl agged elsewhere in the cabling “press” without any reference to, or realisation of, the existence of IAN002.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56