CEMAC - CE-marking of Cables

CEMAC - CE-marking of cables
Terence Journeaux Europacable

Björn Sundström SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Patrik Johansson SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Michael Försth SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Stephen J Grayson Interscience Communications, UK
Sean Gregory Interscience Communications, UK
Suresh Kumar Interscience Communications, UK
Hervé Breulet ISSEP, Belgium
Silvio Messa LSF, Italy
Reiner Lehrer VDE, Germany
Marc Kobilsek Europacable
Hans-Detlef Leppert Europacable
Neil Mabbott Europacable
Fire Technology
SP Report 2010:27
2
Abstract
CEMAC, CE MArking of Cables, is a project with the objective of supporting a smooth transfer from
national reaction to fire requirements in Europe to harmonised CE-marking requirements. The starting
point is the European Commission decision on classification criteria from 2006 and the test
procedures referenced by the decision. The CEMAC project has improved the testing standards,
developed procedures for Extended Application of Test Results, EXAP, and contributed with a large
test data base. CEMAC is a co-operation between a group of research institutes, testing laboratories
and industry, Europacable. It is believed that the results will be used in the European system shortly.
Key words: Burning behaviour of cables, Fire Growth Rate of cables, fire testing, CE-marking,
reaction to fire of cables, extended application of test results on cables, FIPEC, prEN 50399, EN
61034-2, EN 60332-1-2, EN 50267-2-3.
SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
SP Report 2010:27
ISBN 978-91-86319-65-6
ISSN 0284-5172
Borås 2010
2010:27
3
Contents
Abstract 2
Contents 3
1 Background to the CEMAC project 6
2 Executive summary and conclusions 9
3 Cable selection and procurement 11
4 Experimental program and laboratory qualification through

round robin 17
4.1 Qualifying programme of work 18
4.2 Data base cable tests 18
5 Data management 19
5.1 Introduction 19
5.2 Data bank 19
5.2.1 Contents of the data bank 19
5.2.2 Organisation and handling of data base 20
5.2.3 Availability of the data 20
5.3 Data formats, storing and exchanging 20
5.3.1 Internal laboratory formats 20
5.3.2 Data stored in the data bank 20
5.3.3 Data stored at the laboratories 21
5.3.4 Analysis 21
5.4 Exchanging data 21
5.4.1 Codes for identification of CEMAC tests in the data bank 21
6 Large scale tests results 22

6.1 Test method 22
6.2 Measurements and derived parameters 23
6.3 Number of tests 24
6.4 Test results 25
6.4.1 Group 1 25
6.4.2 Group 3st 26
6.4.3 Group 3lt 26
6.4.4 Group 3ct 27
6.4.5 Group 3tb 27
6.4.6 Group 5 28
6.4.7 Group 6 28
6.4.8 Group 7 29
6.4.9 Group 8a 29
6.4.10 Group 8b 30
6.4.11 Group 9 31
6.4.12 Group 10 31
6.4.13 Group 11 32
6.4.14 Group 12 32
6.4.15 Group 13 33
6.4.16 Spread of results – all groups 34
6.4.17 Selection of typical results 36
2010:27
4
7 Extended application, EXAP 40

7.1 Safety margin 40
7.2 Cables with singular behaviour. 45
7.3 Cables larger than the tested range 51
7.4 Generic rules for cables not included in CEMAC 52
7.5 Flaming droplets/particles 55
7.6 EXAP for Data cables 56
7.6.1 General discussion 56
7.6.2 “Extrapolation” rule 57
7.7 EXAP for Optical cables 61
7.8 EXAP for EN 60332-1-2 62
7.9 EXAP for EN 61034-2 62
7.10 EXAP flow chart 63
8 Test results EN 60332-1-2 and EN 61034-2 64

8.1 Analysis of EN 60332-1-2 results from Europacable laboratories 64
8.1.1 Spread of results by Group 64
8.1.2 Spread of results by Class 64
8.1.3 Conclusions 64
8.2 Analysis of prEN 50399 smoke results versus EN 61034-2 tests results
obtained by Europacable laboratories 65
8.2.1 Smoke classification analysis 65
8.2.2 Discriminant parameter for s classification according to prEN 50399. 65
8.2.3 Correlation between prEN 50399 and EN 61034-2 66
8.2.4 EXAP cable parameter and EN 61034-2 measurement 68
8.2.5 Conclusions 68
References 69
9 Annex A, Cable details and photographs 70
10 Annex B, Test results EN 60332-1-2 and EN 61034-2 87
11 Annex C, Analysis of results 91

11.1 Peak HRR 95
11.2 THR 98
11.3 FIGRA 101
11.4 Flame spread 104
11.5 Peak SPR 107
11.6 TSP 110
12 Annex D, Proposal for EXAP rules for power cables 113

12.1 Definition of a product family for EXAP for power cables 113
12.2 EXAP with safety margin 114
12.3 Cables larger than the tested range 117
12.4 Generic rules 117
12.5 Flaming droplets/particles 121
13 Annex E, Summary graphs of cable group test results and table of

main scalar values, RTD 122
14 Annex F, prEN 50399 raw data format 161
2010:27
5
Abbreviations
d [m] Outer diameter.
N [] Number of cables on the ladder, or, when applicable, number of
bundles on the ladder.
Vcombust [m2] Non-metallic volume per meter ladder.
vcombust [m2] Non-metallic volume per meter cable.
νclass different Value for classification in EXAP.
νmax different Maximum measured value in EXAP.
νsm different Safety margin to be used in EXAP.
c [] Number of conductors in one cable.
Acknowledgements
CEMAC, CE MArking of Cables, is a project financed by Europacable. CEMAC was performed in
close co-operation between a group of research laboratories, the RTD-group, and a group of
Europacable companies. The RTD group consisted of SP, Interscience, ISSEP, LSF and VDE. The
project was lead by Europacable and the RTD contributions were led by SP. The project was financed
by Europacable and the expertise and testing work of the Europacable laboratories were invaluable for
the project results. The involved Europacable laboratories were Acome, Draka DE, General Cable,
Prysmian UK, Draka NL, Nexans DE, Nexans FR and NKT. Finally the joint competence and work
of the researchers and the testing teams of the RTD laboratories was the necessary prerequisite for the
project to be successful.
2010:27
6
1 Background to the CEMAC project

CE-marking according to the Construction Products Directive (CPD) requires that harmonised test
standards and corresponding classification criteria are available. In the case of fire properties it is also
necessary that harmonised procedures of so called extended application of test results, EXAP, are
available. EXAP allows a family of products to be classified to a certain fire property without testing
all of the individual members of the family. Availability of EXAP is an essential requirement for
cables as the individual variation of the products is so large that the number of tests required for
classification would become impossible to handle. The European Commission can take a decision on
classification without further testing, CWFT (Classification Without Further Testing), provided that
the appropriate technical basis is given. Smooth introduction of CE-marking for cables in the fire area
requires that the technical testing standards are tried out, validated and reproducible. The EXAP
procedures must be developed and available and further CWFT decisions from the Commission may
be required. The CEMAC project provides the technical data and EXAP procedures that would
simplify CE-marking of the reaction to fire properties of cables in Europe.
The standard prEN 50399 is the major test procedure for reaction to fire of cables, see section 6.1.
This test specification derives from work done in a large project funded by the EU called FIPEC, Fire
Performance of Electric Cables [1]. The FIPEC project was performed by a research group consisting
of SP, Interscience, ISSEP and CESI.
The FIPEC project included a study of cable installations and relevant reference scenarios as well as a
comprehensive test program of different kinds of cables. This together with some additional test data
was used in the development of the proposal for the European testing and classification system.
The proposal of reaction to fire classes was developed in co-operation with European regulators and
the cable industry in Europe and presented in 2003 [2], [3]. The European Commission decided on a
testing and classification system on cables during 2006 [4], see Table 1. The system is built in the
same way as that used for linings and pipe insulation. However, it also included the possibility to
declare acidity of the smoke gases, the sub-classes a1, a2 and a3.
2010:27
7
Table 1. Classes of reaction to fire performance for cables [4].

Class Test method(s) Classification criteria Additional classification
Aca EN ISO 1716 PCS ≤ 2,0 MJ/kg (1)
B1ca FIPEC20 Scen 2 (5) FS ≤ 1.75 m and Smoke production (2, 6) and Flaming
THR1200s ≤ 10 MJ and droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 8)
And Peak HRR ≤ 20 kW and
FIGRA ≤ 120 Ws-1
EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm
B2ca FIPEC20 Scen 1 (5) FS ≤ 1.5 m; and Smoke production (2, 7) and Flaming
THR1200s ≤ 15 MJ; and droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 8)
and Peak HRR ≤ 30 kW; and
FIGRA ≤ 150 Ws-1
EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm
Cca FIPEC20 Scen 1 (5) FS ≤ 2.0 m; and Smoke production (2, 7) and Flaming
THR1200s ≤ 30 MJ; and droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 8)
And Peak HRR ≤ 60 kW; and
FIGRA ≤ 300 Ws-1
EN 60332-1-2 H ≤ 425 mm
Dca FIPEC20 Scen 1 (5) THR1200s ≤ 70 MJ; and Smoke production (2, 7) and Flaming
Peak HRR ≤ 400 kW; and droplets/particles (3) and Acidity (4, 8)
And FIGRA ≤ 1300 Ws-1
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) For FIPEC20 Scenarios 1 and 2: 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) Air flow into chamber shall be set to 8000 ± 800 l/min.
FIPEC20 Scenario 1 = prEN 50399-2-1 with mounting and fixing as below
FIPEC20 Scenario 2 = prEN 50399-2-2 with mounting and fixing as below
(6) The smoke class declared for class B1ca cables must originate from the FIPEC20 Scen 2 test.
(7) The smoke class declared for class B2ca, Cca, Dca cables must originate from the FIPEC20 Scen 1 test.
(8) 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.
2010:27
8
Further work was done on the test procedure in CENELEC which has resulted in improvement of a
number of technical details to prEN 50399 which now is ready for final vote (December 2009). Two
round robin exercises have been carried out on the test [5], [6]. The first round robin was performed
on behalf of Europacable with industry laboratories together with the developers of the system, the
FIPEC laboratories. The second round robin was performed through CENELEC and included many
test sites. The results were good and comparable to the results of the SBI test used for linings. Thus
the test procedure used is quite robust and well developed. These test results were validated in the
FIPEC project for real fires by using reference scenarios and through further analysis and
comparisons to other building products under the CPD, see [1], [7].
With this background the CEMAC project was created to add EXAP procedures and further test data
on different cables. Additional testing laboratories, LSF and VDE, and a large group of Europacable
laboratories formed together with the FIPEC partners a group to undertake the CEMAC project. The
project test data base includes approximately 200 large scale test results on which the EXAP analysis
were performed. The work in the project was divided into the following tasks.
Table 2. Responsible partner for each activity.

Activity Responsible partner
Project management ECBL
Project management RTD group SP
Cable selection ECBL
Basic calibration exercise of test Interscience
equipment and qualification to run
tests in the project
Collection of raw data and analysis of Interscience
HRR, Smoke etc
Tests according to prEN 50399 with SP 43 tests
FIPEC scen 1 ISSEP 41 tests
LSF 21 tests
VDE 10 tests
Tests according to prEN 50399 with Europacable industry laboratories.
FIPEC scen 1, EN 60332-1-2 and EN prEN 50399: 83 tests
61034-2 EN 60332-1-2: 88 tests
EN 61034-2: 88 tests
Analysis and development of EXAP SP
procedure
Final report and Web-based data base SP
The authors of the various sections are as follows: Sections 3, 7.6.2, 7.8, 7.9, 8 and 10 were written by
ECBL. Sections 1, 2, 7.1 - 7.5, 7.10, 9, 11 and 12 were written by SP. Sections 4, 5, 13, 14 and 15
were written by Interscience. Sections 6, 7.6, 7.6.1 and 7.7 were written by ISSeP.
The EXAP rules presented in this study are applicable for the test method presented in standard prEN
50399 FIPEC scen 1, i.e. European Class B2CA- Class DCA. In addition analysis is performed
concerning the EN 60332-1-2 and EN 61034-2 for small flame ignition and smoke production (3 m
cube) respectively. The EXAP rules are developed to enable classification according to the
Commission decision. The calculation procedures are not developed to predict scalar or vector data
for the different fire parameters. According to prEN 50399 FIPEC scen 1 standard the flame should be
applied for 20 minutes. The EXAP rules presented are only applicable to results from prEN 50399
FIPEC scen 1 test procedure.
2010:27
9
2 Executive summary and conclusions

The CEMAC project is based on the findings of many years of research in the area of testing,
modelling and classifying the burning behaviour of cables. CEMAC work has now added additional
test data and analysis for predicting fire classification of cables. The underpinning technology that can
be used to support CE-marking can be summarised as follows:
The selection of cables for the CEMAC project was based on the cables being representative of the
European market and was selected to have a wide range of burning behaviour. This means that
conclusions drawn from the project are representative of real European market situations.
The test procedure according to prEN 50399 FIPEC scen 1 originates from the FIPEC project [1] and
was further improved through the work of CENELEC TC 20 WG 10.
The Round Robin which used the improved procedure showed good results comparable to the
European SBI test round robin [6]. This was confirmed during the course of the CEMAC test
programme.
The classification criteria according to the Commission decision [4] were considered during the
course of the EXAP analysis and they were found to be consistent and posed no problems in
developing the EXAP-system.
The calculation procedures required for the EXAP rules for cables are not obvious as the fire
performance of a cable is quite complex. Thus simple rules based on simple single parameters such as
the amount of combustible materials, and testing worst and best case are not possible. There will be
outliers due to influences of the number of conductors, type of shield etc. A new parameter “ χ ”
was developed to facilitate EXAP development. This is defined by the equation:
c
χ= Vcombust
d2
where

This parameter was used to calculate which cables to select for test and a specific EXAP procedure
was developed. In addition cable families that fall outside of the ranges of the database can also, under
certain conditions, be subjected to EXAP using a statistical analysis developed in this project.
The precision of the specific EXAP was calculated using the database. The result was that the risk for
drawing the wrong conclusion based on the EXAP procedure is virtually zero, see Table 3 below.
2010:27
10
Table 3. Error rate for the different classification parameters.

Total number of Number of incorrect Percentage of
combinations classifications incorrect
classifications
Peak HRR [kW] 166 0 0
THR [MJ] 166 0 0
FIGRA [Ws-1] 166 1 0.6%
Flame spread [m] 161 1 0.6%
Peak SPR [m2s-1] 166 3 1.8%
TSP [m2] 166 4 2.4%
The error rates reported in the table are given for each individual classification parameter. As can be
seen the number of incorrect classifications is very low for all parameters. It is highly unlikely that a
cable would be wrongly classified in this system. In order that a cable should be erroneously
classified as for example B2ca while in reality it is Cca it would need to have been classified as B2ca for
all classification parameters: peak HRR, THR, FIGRA and Flame spread. The confidence of the
EXAP procedure is therefore high.
The developed EXAP procedures are not applicable to data cables and optical cables as they were
outside the scope of the study. However, tests were performed on these cables and the data, although
limited, was analysed. The analysis showed some promising trends for EXAP rules, but more work
for a conclusion is needed.
The small flame test EN 60332-1-2 was found to be not significant in this project. The entire cable
population tested passed this test. EXAP can therefore be similar to the main procedure as it seems
not be important how this is done.
Smoke production measured according to EN 61034-2, the 3 m cube, is fundamentally different from
how SPR is measured in prEN 50399. In EN 61034-2 a certain length of a cable is burning and the
smoke is accumulated in a box having a volume of 27 m3. In the prEN 50399 test a cable ladder is
burning and the instantaneous smoke production is measured, a so called flow through system. No
correlation between the tests was expected, which was confirmed. The best agreement was found
when comparing total smoke production, TSP, according to prEN 50399 with EN 61034-2. This
would be expected as two integral values are compared; smoke accumulation in the 3 m cube box
with integrated smoke production rate in the flow through system. It was also found that TSP was the
determining parameter for classification in almost all cases. However, all of the products passing the
s1 level in prEN 50399 were either s1a or s1 b according to the 3 m cube. In other words, you must
meet the s1 criteria to be sure that the product will meet either s1a or s1b. This is consistent with the
classification criteria, see Table 1, which are:
s1a = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 61034-2 ≥ 80%

s1b = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 61034-2 ≥ 60% < 80%
However, since the s1 rating at least means that s1b is fulfilled, the deletion of the s1b class could be
considered as it is not adding any further information.
At present, no EXAP rule is proposed for smoke classification according to EN 61034-2. The
development of such a rule is being further considered based upon the data generated in the project.
2010:27
11
In short, the conclusions from the CEMAC study are:
• The testing procedures are well developed, repeatable and reproducible.

• The error rates from the proposed EXAP procedure appears to be virtually zero considering
the available data and therefore an EXAP according to this procedure should be quite stable.
• The classification criteria from the commission decision seem to work well together with
testing and EXAP procedures.
• The developed EXAP procedures are not applicable to data cables and optical cables.
• The small flame test may be subject to CWFT.
• Smoke production classification is consistent between the two tests involved in the sense that
cables classified as s1a or s1b in the EN 61034-2 test are also classified as s1 according to
prEN 50399. It can be considered whether the s1b class should be deleted.
3 Cable selection and procurement

Cable selection for the test program was made on the basis of achieving a selection of those generic
power, data and optical fibre cable constructions (generic families) that are widely available on the
European market.
The cables selected to represent each generic family of power cables include a range of conductor
sizes from approximately the smallest to approximately the largest commonly available.
Within each generic family, specific sub families of cables containing PVC and halogen free materials
were procured as both types are widely available on the market. Additionally, both copper and
aluminium conductor were procured.
Because of the very wide market applicability of the unarmoured multicore power cable types and the
varying national standard designs for such types, specific families from more than one country were
procured.
The specific families of cables were also chosen to represent a wide range of burning behaviour as
judged by pre-existing tests. This ranged from designs with no special reduced flame propagation
performance which were expected to fall in Class Dca /Eca to those with good reduced flame
propagation performance which were expected to fall in Class B2ca/Cca. The test results achieved
have demonstrated that such a range of burning behaviour was achieved. Overall, some 115 samples
from 9 countries were procured from within the Europacable membership.
2010:27
12
Within this report, the families of cables are identified by a Group number:
- Generic family - single core unsheathed power cables with copper conductor
Sub family - PVC – Group 11
Sub family - halogen free – Group 12
- Generic family - single core sheathed power cables

Sub family - PVC with copper conductor – Group 9
Sub family - halogen free with copper conductor – Group 10
Sub family - halogen free with aluminium conductor – Group 10
- Generic family - unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors

Sub family - PVC - Group 7
Sub family - halogen free – Group 8a
Group 8b – Different manufacturer
Group 13 – Different manufacturers
- Generic family - armoured multicore power cables with copper conductors

Sub family - PVC – Group 5
Sub family - halogen free – Group 6
- Generic family - screened and unscreened data cables – Group 1
- Generic family - optical fibre cables

Sub family - single tube – Group 3
Sub family - loose tube – Group 3
Sub family - corrugated tube – Group 3
Sub family - tight buffer – Group 3
- Generic family - telecommunication cables with copper conductors – Group 2

(No cables were supplied in this Group)
- Generic family - co-axial cables – Group 4

(No cables were supplied in this Group)
2010:27
13
Table 4 Selected cables with additional data regarding mounting and EXAP-parameters. The
EXAP-parameter is explained in section 7.
Group number and Cable Conductors Outer Cables or EXAP-
description ref diameter bundles parameter
(mm) per ladder
c/(d2∙Vcombust)
1 C/1/1 4pU/UTP 5.8 25 0.049

screened and C/1/2 4pU/UTP 6 25 Not available
unscreened data C/1/3 4pF/UTPC5 6 25 0.040
cables C/1/4 4pF/UTPC5 6.2 25 Not available
C/1/5 4pF/UTPC6 6.8 21 0.038
C/1/6 4pF/UTPC6 7.1 21 0.036
C/1/7 4pF/UTPC6 Not used
C/1/8 4pF/UTPC6 6.1 25 0.042
C/1/9 4pSF/UTP 6.1 25 Not available
C/1/10 4pSF/UTP Not used
C/1/11 4pS/FTP 7.7 19 0.038
C/1/12 4pS/FTPC7 7.6 19 0.027
C/1/13 4pS/FTPC7 7.5 19 0.034
C/1/14 4pS/FTPC7 7.3 21 0.029
C/1/15 4pS/FTPC7 7.4 21 0.033
C/1/16 32pF/UTPC5 16 9 0.094
2 No cables were supplied in this Group.
copper
telecommunication
PVC and halogen
free
3st C/3/1 Central tube 2 10 15 –
optical fibre cables fibre
C/3/2 Central tube 12 6.2 25 –
fibre
C/3/3 Central tube 24 10.8 14 –
fibre
fibre
fibre
2010:27
14

(mm) per ladder
c/(d2∙Vcombust)
3lt C/3/6 Loose tube x Not used

C/3/7 Loose tube y Not used
fibre
C/3/8 Loose tube 21.5 7 –
12/24 fibre
C/3/9 Loose tube 24 12.5 12 –
fibre
C/3/10 Loose tube 60 12.4 13 –
fibre
3ct C/3/11 Corrugated 14.1 11 –
optical fibre cables loose buffer
tube 6/72
C/3/12 Corrugated 14.4 11 –
loose buffer
tube 6/72
C/3/13 Corrugated 18 8 –
loose buffer
tube 12/144
3tb C/3/14 Tight buffer 6 5.1 30 –
C/3/15 Tight buffer 6.2 24 –
12 fibre
C/3/16 Tight buffer 8 19 –
24 fibre
C/3/17 Tight buffer 6.7 21 –
12 fibre
4 No cables were supplied in this Group.
co-axial cables
5 C/5/1 2 x 1.5 10 15 21.3
armoured multicore C/5/2 4 x 4.0 15 10 22.1
power cables with C/5/3 4 x 10 19 8 16.8
copper conductors C/5/4 4 x 25 28 6 11.2
PVC C/5/5 4 x 50 34 5 9.1
C/5/6 4 x 240 62 3 4.0
C/5/7 27 x 1.5 26 6 81.9
6 C/6/1 2 x 1.5 11 14 17.2
armoured multicore C/6/2 4 x 4.0 16 9 19.4
copper conductors C/6/4 4 x 25 27 6 9.8
halogen free C/6/5 4 x 50 31 6 9.5
C/6/6 4 x 240 62 3 4.2
C/6/7 19 x 1.5 21 7 69.7
2010:27
15

(mm) per ladder
c/(d2∙Vcombust)
7 C/7/1 2 x 1.5 9 17 23.6

unarmoured C/7/2 7 x 1.5 12.5 13 73.5
multicore power C/7/3 3 x 2.5 10 15 32.1
cables with copper C/7/4 4 x 4.0 12.5 13 33.0
conductors C/7/5 5 x 16 22 7 21.8
PVC C/7/6 4 x 35 27 6 12.0
C/7/7 4 x50 28 6 11.8
C/7/8 4 x 185 48 4 6.1
8a C/8a/1 2 x 1.5 9.7 15 21.2
unarmoured C/8a/2 7 x 1.5 12.5 12 55.9
multicore power C/8a/3 3 x 2.5 10.6 14 29.4
cables with copper C/8a/4 4 x 4.0 12.6 12 32.2
conductors C/8a/5 5 x 16 21.3 7 18.2
halogen free C/8a/6 4 x 35 28 6 15.0
C/8a/7 4 x 50 28.3 6 13.4
C/8a/8 5 x 150 49.1 4 8.8
8b C/8b/1 2 x 1.5 9.6 15 23.0
unarmoured C/8b/2 7 x 1.5 11.9 13 56.9
multicore power C/8b/3 3 x 2.5 11.5 13 29.1
cables with copper C/8b/4 4 x 4.0 12 13 35.7
conductors C/8b/5 5 x 16 21.8 7 20.9
halogen free C/8b/6 4 x 35 27.5 6 13.3
C/8b/7 4 x 50 31.4 6 12.9
C/8b/8 4 x 150 51.9 4 7.8
9 C/9/1 1 x 1.5 6 25 20.0
single core sheathed C/9/2 1x4 7 21 17.3
copper conductor C/9/4 1 x 25 12 13 8.3
PVC C/9/5 1 x 50 15 10 5.3
C/9/6 1 x 95 19 8 3.7
C/9/7 1 x 150 22 7 3.0
C/9/8 1 x 240 27 6 2.3
10 C/10/1 1 x 2.5 6.3 25 18.0
single core sheathed C/10/2 1x6 9 17 11.1
power cables with C/10/3 1 x 10 11.8 13 9.3
copper conductor C/10/4 1 x 25 14.2 11 6.8
halogen free C/10/5 1 x 70 18.8 8 4.2
C/10/7 1 x 95 21.4 7 3.8
C/10/9 1 x 150 22.9 7 3.3
C/10/11 1 x 240 28.7 6 2.4
2010:27
16

(mm) per ladder
c/(d2∙Vcombust)
10 C/10/6 1 x 70 Al 18.6 8 4.3

single core sheathed C/10/8 1 x 95 Al 20.6 7 3.4
power cables with C/10/10 1 x 150 Al 22.3 7 2.9
aluminium C/10/12 1 x 240 Al 27.4 6 2.4
conductor
halogen free
11 C/11/1 1 x 1.5 2.92 15 98.6
single core C/11/2 1x4 4.08 15 47.4
unsheathed power C/11/3 1 x 10 6.04 25 11.9
cables with copper C/11/4 1 x 25 9.05 17 6.9
conductor C/11/5 1 x 50 12.2 12 4.4
PVC C/11/6 1 x 95 15.9 9 3.0
C/11/7 1 x 150 19.3 8 2.7
C/11/8 1 x 240 25.1 7 2.2
12 C/12/1 1 x 1.5 2.8 15 114.5
single core C/12/2 1x4 4 15 49.8
unsheathed power C/12/3 1 x 10 6.1 25 12.1
cables with copper C/12/4 1 x 25 8.9 17 7.1
conductor C/12/5 1 x 50 11.2 14 5.2
halogen free C/12/6 1 x 95 15 10 3.1
C/12/7 1 x 150 19.5 8 2.7
C/12/8 1 x 240 25 7 2.0
13 C/13/1 2 x 1.5 10.1 15 22.4
unarmoured C/13/2 3 x 10 16.2 9 17.3
multicore power C/13/3 4 x 25 24.3 7 15.6
cables with copper C/13/4 2 x 1.5 9.9 15 22.1
conductors halogen C/13/5 3 x 10 16.6 9 17.7
free C/13/6 4 x 25 23.3 7 15.6
C/13/7 2 x 1.5 12 13 15.8
C/13/8 3 x 10 18.2 8 15.7
C/13/9 4 x 25 26.8 6 13.2
C/13/10 5 x 1.5 9.9 15 45.9
C/13/11 4 x 10 15.3 10 18.3
C/13/12 5 x 16 20.5 7 19.4
2010:27
17
4 Experimental program and laboratory qualification

through round robin
The main experimental programme consisted of testing 12 groups of cables in accordance with the
procedures outlined in prEN 50399. Work was carried out in parallel in 4 laboratories that were
nationally accredited to undertake cable testing. These were defined as the “research laboratories”.
Tests were carried out in parallel by a group of industry laboratories. In all 115 different cables were
tested and each cable was tested both in one research laboratory and in one industry laboratory.
The CEMAC study was initiated shortly after the CENELEC TC20 WG10 prEN 50399 round robin.
The latter was intended to investigate the compliance of a number of laboratories equipment with
prEN 50399, to identify any anomalies in the test method prEN 50399 that CLC TC20 WG10 may
wish to consider for improvement and to investigate the repeatability and reproducibility of the test
method using 4 cable types and a standard particle board. These same tests and procedures were used
to qualify the Research Laboratories for equipment and operational compliance with the specification
prEN 50399.
In the CENELEC TC20 WG 10 round robin 18 laboratories participated in this work programme. All
18 laboratories had submitted questionnaires and had completed calibration studies. Although there
were some marginally non compliant equipment matters in that group, all 18 laboratories were asked
to progress to test particle board. Particle board was used as reference material due to its stable and
repeatable performance. 12 laboratories had submitted cable test data and others were improving their
systems for testing when the round robin closed.
The particle board and 4 cables were tested in duplicate to ascertain the data on repeatability and
reproducibility amongst the laboratories that participated in this work.
In comparison with other standard fire test methods, the heat release data examined using ISO 5725
demonstrated good repeatability and reproducibility with the poorest results coming from bunched
cable tests. For the samples tested the results were equal or better than those seen in the recent SBI
round robin which benefited from having a larger product test set and a wider range of product
performances.
Smoke production results were also acceptable and similar to the SBI round robin results. Some
laboratories had considerable equipment problems which only became apparent after calibration
checking when they tested products that generated smoke. This indicated that some form of smoke
calibration check should be introduced into the standard.
As a result of this finding, a calibration procedure based on burning 1250 g of heptane was introduced
as a smoke calibration check.
2010:27
18
4.1 Qualifying programme of work

Each laboratory participating in the CEMAC project was required to fulfil a number of qualification
criteria before being qualified to test the CEMAC database cables. These were the compliance
requirements that had been implemented in the CENELEC round robin and the same cables were used
for this work. Commissioning calibration and daily calibration procedures listed in Paragraph 5 and
Appendix E of prEN 50399 were undertaken and checked by the coordinator Interscience
Communications. Data was supplied to the assessor Interscience Communications who adjudicated
compliance. The qualification procedure included:
1. Each laboratory submitting a questionnaire to the coordinator detailing the instrumentation

used and the equipment set up at their laboratory, in order to investigate any non compliances
issues.
2. Each laboratory performed a set of commissioning flow profile and calibration tests in
accordance with the protocols described in prEN 50399RR and the coordinator examined
these measurements
3. Each laboratory tested specimens of particle board (with dimensions of 2500 mm x 300 mm x
12 mm) in accordance with the coordinator test protocol and submitted the results for
analysis.
4. Each laboratory tested 4 different cables in accordance with the procedures given in prEN
50399RR.
4.2 Data base cable tests

The cable described in Section 3 were selected and supplied by Europacable companies and tested as
groups in the Research Laboratories using the test protocols described in prEN 50399.
The results were supplied along with daily calibrations to the coordinator who checked the
calibrations and analyzed the data and entered the data into a central data base. The results were
transposed into excel files for easy viewing by project partners. One excel sheet was provided for each
of the 12 cable groups
The results of each cable test are given in Annex E.
2010:27
19
5 Data management
5.1 Introduction
The CEMAC programme uses the new generation of fire tests, based on the oxygen consumption
technique and the output from theses tests is vector data. Such test results make available the complete
time histories of variables which include the heat release rate and smoke production rate. So much
data creates a problem in the management of test data generated by more than one source and hence
an efficient test data management needed implementing in this project. Within the CEMAC
programme a large number of tests were performed which produced a large amount of data. In total
approximately 200 tests were conducted and the results had to be made available to the participants of
the CEMAC programme. Data had to be transferred between the laboratories in a convenient and
reliable way.
The laboratories that produced the data used various systems for data acquisition and data reduction,
which meant that data was initially collected and stored in different formats. There was a potential for
problems when data was to be transferred to other participating laboratories. Also the users of the data
worked with different data-evaluation systems requiring specific input formats. The problem was
solved by creating a common data format and the data base managers working closely with the
participating laboratories to enable data to be transferred to the common raw format. Laboratories
were each supplied with proven data analysis software. One result of this exercise was that this raw
format has now been integrated into the final draft of EN 50399
5.2 Data bank

All data produced in the CEMAC project is available from a central data bank held by the data
coordinator Interscience Communications Ltd,. Though the actual storage volume of data is not
extremely large, it is best to view the results via 12 composite Excel workbooks containing the
reformatted experimental data on each test within each Group.
5.2.1 Contents of the data bank

The test data, stored in the data bank, contain a large amount of information about each test. The most
important information stored is the vector data, such as the time histories of heat release rate and
smoke release rates. In addition to the vector data, relevant scalar data are stored. Different categories
of data can be distinguished in the information kept in the data bank:
Organisation
Data on the testing organisation have been stored for each test.
Material and product information

The information in this block contains specifications on the tested cable product.
Scalar test data

For every test performed, a number of scalar values were stored. These give a summary of a test, with
such parameters as peak heat release rate, peak smoke production, average heat release rate, etc.
2010:27
20
Vector data
For every test performed, a number of vectors of data were stored. These are a time history of various
raw data readings and fire parameters measured for a test, with such parameters as oxygen
concentration, heat release rate, smoke production rate etc.
5.2.2 Organisation and handling of data base

All calibration and cable test raw data was sent to the coordinator after each days testing. This was
sent in an agreed raw data format (See Section 14) that can be generated by several commercial
software data acquisition packages. The coordinator worked with participating laboratories whose
software could not provide this format to facilitate conversion.
5.2.3 Availability of the data

The database contents were available to all participating RTD laboratories in the CEMAC project.
This was constantly updated and distributed as each test became available in the project. After each
test was analysed by the coordinator and the calibrations checked, the results were added to the
appropriate Excel workbook for the cable group which was then emailed to appropriate laboratories.
The Excel workbooks contain all vector information on the key parameters of heat and smoke release
and the integral summary sheet also contains information on flame spread, flaming droplets and any
smoke overspills.
To give all the participants in the project an opportunity to follow the actions in the project, all
information was published at the CEMAC-website. This was accessible by password which was sent
to the participant after registration. All documentation from meetings together with a summary in an
Excel workbook of all the test results were published and updated throughout the project. The
summary includes, besides the test results, important cable parameters, e.g. combustible volume per
meter ladder, which were used in the EXAP-analysis.
5.3 Data formats, storing and exchanging

One of the objectives of the data management programme within CEMAC was to enable all
participating laboratories to use their own systems for data acquisition, reduction and evaluation. The
individual laboratories did not have to develop new software in order to access the data they generated
in the programme.
5.3.1 Internal laboratory formats

The individual laboratories were able to store data in any format. The only restriction was that test
results should be converted to the standard CEMAC format.
5.3.2 Data stored in the data bank

The database consisted of three folders sets for each Group of cables examined in the project. Folder
Set 1 is the raw data supplied to the Data coordinator in the agreed Data format. Folder Set 2 is the
reduced data after the data has been analysed and converted into engineering parameters. Folder Set 3
is the Excel workbook which contains all the analysed data from each test in that cable group and
presents it as individual time based plots and group summary graphs showing heat release and smoke
release parameters. The test information in the database is given in engineering (derived) units i.e.
heat release rate, smoke production rate etc. The integral summary sheet in the Excel workbook also
contains information on flame spread flaming droplets and any smoke overspills.
2010:27
21
5.3.3 Data stored at the laboratories

Each participating laboratory was required to store the raw data from all of the tests, at least as long as
the CEMAC programme was running. It was also required to send the raw data to IC for secondary
backup storage and data conversion.
5.3.4 Analysis
All Raw data sent to the co-ordinator was analysed by Fire Testing Technology Ltd CableSOFT
software. This software had been checked for accuracy against SPs independently written analysis
software at the early phases of the project. Each participating RTD laboratory was also given a set of
this software to check daily calibration and to analyse the converted data.
5.4 Exchanging data

The structure of the CEMAC programme means that at a certain time, data had to be retrieved from
the database and also exchanged between the individual laboratories.
The method of communicating information was to transfer data as e-mail attachments to IC. A
CEMAC–only mailbox was used for transferring data, text and information to the CEMAC
programme.
5.4.1 Codes for identification of CEMAC tests in the data bank

In order to minimise the information that had to be transferred and to create unique sample
identification for the CEMAC programme, a common coding and test numbering protocol was used
identifying tests and files throughout the project.
It was essential that the coding was always used in the reporting to the central data bank. The coding
involved identifying each test by a unique code that identified the laboratory, the test type (i.e.
calibration or cable test) and the incremental test number. These unique codes were used to label each
file for each specific test.
2010:27
22
6 Large scale tests results
6.1 Test method

The test method is based upon the full scale test developed in the European project FIPEC (previously
referred as FIPEC Sc. 1) and further amended for its use for main Euroclasses for cables (Euroclasses
B2ca to Dca).
The test method is described in prEN 50399, which specifies the test apparatus and test procedures for
the assessment of the reaction to fire performance of cables to enable classification under the
Construction Products Directive to be achieved.
With regard to the former FIPEC full-scale test (for description see [1]), the main modification
included in prEN 50399 concerns a better defined air input system, with a standard design and
recommendations for the air flow measuring system. prEN 50399 has also included a heptane
calibration in order to further check the smoke measuring system.
All the tests were performed according to prEN 50399 for Class B2ca, Cca and Dca (i.e. a burner output
= 20.5 kW and no backing board on the ladder).
HRR calculations were done as described in Annex A of prEN 50399 and smoke production
calculations were done according to Annex B of prEN 50399.
Figure 1 Equipment layout
2010:27
23
6.2 Measurements and derived parameters

Measurements of HRR (kW) and SPR (m²/s):
For HRR, the raw data were processed by first subtracting the burner output (20.5 kW) and then a
sliding 30-s average was calculated in order to obtain the HRR30 for the cable only. For SPR, a sliding
60-s average was calculated in order to obtain the SPR60.
During the test, occurrence of flaming droplets and/or particles was noted and their duration
measured.
Table 5 to Table 7 summarize the parameters obtained and analysed. Parameters required to determine
the Euroclassification are in bold.
Table 5 HRR Parameters

Parameter Unit
1. Vector
HRR30 kW
2. Scalar
Peak HRR30 kW
t Peak HRR30 s Time to reach the peak HRR
THR1200 MJ
FIGRA kW/s
Table 6 SPR Parameters

Parameter Unit
1. Vector
SPR60 m²/s
2. Scalar
Peak SPR60 m²/s
t Peak SPR60 s Time to reach the peak SPR
TSP1200 m²
SMOGRA cm²/s²
Table 7 Others
Parameter Unit
Flame spread m
Flaming Y/N
Droplets/Particles (≤10s, > 10s) *
* Every test was video recorded in part to enable the measurement of the duration of flaming droplets
/ particles when they occurred.
In addition, peculiar phenomena such as falling of specimen parts or smoke not completely captured
by the hood were recorded.
2010:27
24
6.3 Number of tests

All cables (see Section 3) were tested by one RTD laboratory (SP, ISSeP, VDE and LSF).
Most cables were tested in duplicate, i.e. both in a RTD laboratory and in an Europacable laboratory.
Unacceptable differences between the results of 2 laboratories were investigated and where
considered necessary the concerned test was repeated.
The tested cables are distributed as follows:

• Group 1: 14
• Group 3st: 5
• Group 3lt: 3
• Group 3ct: 3
• Group 3tb: 4
• Group 5: 7
• Group 6: 7
• Group 7: 8
• Group 8a: 8
• Group 8b: 8
• Group 9: 8
• Group 10: 12
• Group 11: 8
• Group 12: 8
• Group 13: 12
Thus a total of 115 cables and 198 large scale tests
2010:27
25
6.4 Test results

Results from RTD laboratories were used to determine the classification and as input for EXAP.
Detailed results are presented in Annex E (RTD laboratories).
A short review of the main results, Group per Group, is included in this section. Classifications were
determined according to decision 2006/751/EC [4]and the draft of the amendment of prEN 13501-1.
6.4.1 Group 1
(Screened and unscreened data cables)
All but one cable are 4p, screened or unscreened cables. PVC and halogen free sheathed types are
included. Their diameter is in the range 6 – 8 mm (except 26 mm for 32 p). No cable was tested in
bundles.
The following tables give the extreme results obtained for the considered Group, for every parameter
used for Euroclasses.
Table 8 HRR & FS

Peak HRR30 THR1200 FIGRA FS
Min 10.9 1.6 89.3 0.3
Max 408 57.9 2075 3.3
In terms of classification, this gives from B2ca to Eca, thus the whole range of Euroclasses is covered.
All cables with screened twisted pairs but one achieve B2ca classification. One amongst those cable
fails for class B2ca only by a short margin and for a single parameter (Peak HRR). All cables with
unscreened pairs but one are ranked Dca at best.
Table 9 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.02 3.4
Max 3.8 393
Smoke classification ranges from s1 to s3 (s3 corresponding to the cable with Euroclass Eca, i.e. a
ranking for which smoke classification is normally not established).
Flaming droplets / particles: from d0 to d2.
2010:27
26
6.4.2 Group 3st

(Optical fibre cables – central tube)
Their diameter is in the range 6 - 11 mm. No cable was tested in bundles.
Table 10 HRR & FS

Min 41.0 22.0 117 2.2
Max 229 51.3 758 3.3
Classification: All cables are ranked in one class, Dca. The performance does not seem to depend on
the number of fibres.
Table 11 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.09 55.0
Max 0.46 104
Smoke classification: s2
Flaming droplets / particles: d0 or d1.
6.4.3 Group 3lt

(Optical fibre cables – loose tube)
Their diameter is in the range 12 - 22 mm, buffer count 6 - 24 and fibre count 24 - 288. No cable was
tested in bundles.
used for the Euroclasses.
Table 12 HRR & FS

Min 49.7 53.5 57.0 1.3
Max 177 75.7 268 3.3
Classification: Cca to Eca. The performance does not seem to depend on the number of fibres but more
on the actual design from different suppliers (one has to remain cautious considering the limited
number of tested cables). The high buffer and fibre count cable with double sheath design obtained
Cca.
Table 13 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.15 67.0
Max 0.31 140
Flaming droplets / particles: d0 or d2
2010:27
27
6.4.4 Group 3ct

(Optical fibre cables – corrugated tube)
Their diameter is in the range 14 - 18 mm, buffer count 6 - 12 and fibre count 72 - 144. No cable was
tested in bundles.
Table 14 HRR & FS

Min 18.8 9.6 34.8 0.5
Max 303 132 352 3.3
Classification: B2ca (2 cables from one supplier) or Eca (1 cable from a second supplier of different
design). The performance does not seem to depend on the number of fibres but more on the actual
design from different suppliers (one has to remain cautious considering the limited number of tested
cables).
Table 15 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.07 30.4
Max 0.90 249
Smoke classification: s1 or s3
Flaming droplets / particles: d0.
6.4.5 Group 3tb

(Optical fibre cables – tight buffer)
Their diameter is in the range 5 - 8 mm, fibre count 6 - 24. No cable was tested in bundles.
Table 16 HRR & FS

Min 25.1 11.6 148 1.0
Max 156 49.6 242 3.3
Classification: B2ca to Dca. The performance does not seem to depend on the number of fibres (one has
to remain cautious considering the limited number of tested cables).
Table 17 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.03 11.1
Max 0.41 134
Smoke classification: s1 or s2.
2010:27
28
6.4.6 Group 5
(Armoured multicore power cables with copper conductors, PVC)
used for Euroclasses
Table 18 HRR & FS

Min 27.5 12.7 101.2 1.0
Max 344 112 1485 3.3
Classification: from B2ca to Eca, thus the whole range of Euroclasses is covered. Most cables belong to
Euroclass Eca due to their high THR. There is some trend that the fire performance increases with the
cable size, although this is not always true.
Table 19 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.27 113
Max 4.6 681
Flaming droplets / particles: d0 except one cable (d2).
6.4.7 Group 6
(Armoured multicore power cables with copper conductors, halogen free)
Table 20 HRR & FS

Min 14.4 9.8 30.0 0.9
Max 51.2 25.1 105 1.7
Classification: from B2ca and Cca, thus cables exhibiting high fire performance. There is some trend
that the fire performance increases with the cable size.
Table 21 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.04 17.4
Max 0.10 51.8
Smoke classification: s1 except one cable – smallest size (s2)
2010:27
29
6.4.8 Group 7
(Unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors, PVC)
The following tables gives the extreme results obtained for the considered Group, for every parameter
Table 22 HRR & FS

Min 5.4 1.1 24.2 0.5
Max 190.2 85.4 177.5 3.3
Max without “outlier” 41.3 24.8 123.7 2.0
Classification: B2ca, with one cable Cca, and one cable Eca. This last cable (C/7/2, 7x1.5 mm²) behaves
as an “outlier”, i.e. its fire spread is in another order of magnitude. Due to this unexpected result, the
concerned cable was retested in another RTD laboratory. This new test confirmed the “outlier”
behaviour. There is some trend that the fire performance increases with the conductor size.
Group 7: unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors PVC
HRR30
195
145
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 4 (1)
95 5 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
4 x 185 (1)
7x1.5(1)
45
-5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
time (s)
Figure 2 HRR for all cables of Group 7, showing the « outlier »
Table 23 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.37 102
Max 2.9 1462
6.4.9 Group 8a
(Unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors, halogen free)
Their diameter is in the range from 10 to 49 mm. No cable was tested in bundles.
2010:27
30
Table 24 HRR & FS

Min 10.7 7.6 39.7 0.6
Max 70.3 49.2 130 3.3
Classification: from B2ca and Dca. No cable with Cca performance.

Amongst the tested cables, those with conductor size 5x16 and higher are ranked B2ca
Table 25 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.03 5.1
Max 0.15 60.3
6.4.10 Group 8b
Table 26 HRR & FS

Min 20.7 13.2 48.0 0.7
Max 326 101 451 3.3
Classification: from B2ca and Eca. No cable is ranked Dca. There is an obvious trend that the fire
performance increases with the conductor / cable size. All cables in class Eca (4 cables) are relegated
due to high THR1200.
Table 27 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.03 13.7
Max 0.87 197
Smoke classification: s1 (except for cables Eca)
Flaming droplets / particles: d0 to d2.
2010:27
31
6.4.11 Group 9
(Single core sheathed power cables, PVC with copper conductor)
Table 28 HRR & FS

Min 199 46.3 334 3.3
Max 434 101 3409 3.3
All cables burnt completely (maximum damage length)

Classification: Eca..
Table 29 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 1.5 630
Max 5.0 1013
Flaming droplets / particles: d0 to d2.
6.4.12 Group 10
(Single core sheathed power cables, halogen free with copper or aluminium conductor)
Table 30 HRR & FS

Min 23.4 12.7 25.8 0.9
Max 209 63.9 343 3.3
Classification: from B2ca to Dca.. There is an obvious trend that the fire performance increases with the
conductor / cable size.
Table 31 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.02 5.0
Max 0.30 90.1
2010:27
32
6.4.13 Group 11
(Single core unsheathed power cables with copper conductor, PVC)
Their diameter is in the range from 2.9 to 25 mm. 2 cables were tested in bundles.
Table 32 HRR & FS

Min 11.0 3.4 54.8 0.6
Max 28.8 8.5 297 1.0
Classification: from B2ca to Cca. thus cables exhibiting high fire performance. FIGRA is the parameter
causing the cables to be ranked Cca. The smallest cables belong to Euroclass Cca (including the 2
cables tested in bundles). There is an obvious trend that the fire performance increases with the
conductor / cable size.
Table 33 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.35 110
Max 3.5 582
6.4.14 Group 12
(Single core unsheathed power cables with copper conductor, halogen free)
Their diameter is in the range from 2.8 to 25 mm. Two cables were tested in bundles.
Table 34 HRR & FS

Min 7.3 4.4 43.8 0.4
Max 247 69.4 656 3.3
Classification: from B2ca to Dca. The two cables tested in bundles get the Euroclass Dca. There is an
obvious trend that the fire performance increases with the conductor / cable size.
Table 35 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.35 110
Max 3.5 582
Smoke classification: s1 except for the smallest cable (s2)
2010:27
33
6.4.15 Group 13
This Group does not correspond to a homogeneous group of cables but a sampling of similar design
multicore cables form four manufacturers. This group was included to check that the rules found for
groups 8a and 8b (unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors) are valid for other
cable manufacturers.
Table 36 HRR & FS

Min 11.1 5.8 27.7 0.7
Max 125 68.4 207 3.3
Classification: from B2ca to Dca..
Table 37 SPR
Peak SPR60 TSP1200
Min 0.004 1.8
Max 0.52 252
Smoke classification: s1 or s2.
2010:27
34
6.4.16 Spread of results – all groups
The range of fire performance for all the cables groups is illustrated in the following figures (for the
parameters required for the determination of the Euroclassification).
500
Peak HRR30
450
400 Dca
350
min
300 max
kW
250
200
150
100
C ca
50 B2 ca
0
1 3st 3lt 3ct 3tb 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12 13
Group
Figure 3 Peak HRR for all groups
140
THR1200
min
120
max
100
MJ 80 Dca
60
40
Cca
20 B2ca
0
1 3st 3lt 3ct 3tb 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12 13
Group
Figure 4 THR for all groups
2010:27
35
FIGRA
1400
Dca
1200
1000 min
kW/s max
800
600
400
Cca
200 B2ca
0
1 3st 3lt 3ct 3tb 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12 13
Group
Figure 5 FIGRA for all groups
Peak SPR
4 min
max
m²/s3
2
s2
1
s1
0
1 3st 3lt 3ct 3tb 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12 13
Group
Figure 6 Peak SPR for all groups
2010:27
36
TSP
1400
1200 min
1000 max
m² 800
600
400 s2
200
s1
0
1 3st 3lt 3ct 3tb 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12 13
Group
Figure 7 Peak TSP for all groups
6.4.17 Selection of typical results

Group 5: armoured multicore power cables with copper conductors PVC
HRR30
400
350
2 x 1.5 (R)
300
4 x 4.0 (R)
250 4 x 10 (R)
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 25 (R)
200
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
150
27 x 1.5 (R)
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
Example 1: Group exhibiting the whole range of fire performance (HRR)
2010:27
37
Group 9: single core sheathed power cables with copper conductor PVC
HRR30
500
450
1 x 1.5 (R)
400
1 x 4 (R)
350
1 x 10 (R)
300
HRR30 (kW)
1 x 25 (R)
250
1 x 50 (R)
200
1 x 95 (R)
150
1 x 150 (R)
100
1 x 240 (R)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
Example 2: Group with “low level” of fire performance (HRR)
Group 11 single core unsheathed power cables with copper conductor PVC
HRR30
45
40
35
30 1 x 1.5 (1)
1 x 4 (1)
25
1 x 10 (1)
HRR30 (kW)
1 x 25 (1)
20
1 x 50 (1)
15 1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
10 1 x 240 (1)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
Example 3: Group with “high level” of fire performance (HRR)
2010:27
38
Group 8a: unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors halogen free
SPR60
0.16
0.14
0.12
2 x 1.5 (1)
0.1 7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4 x 4 (1)
0.08 4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
0.06
3 x 185 (1)
3x2.5(1R)
4x50(1R)
0.04
0.02
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
Example 4: “Low smoke” Group
SPR60
4
3.5
1 x 1.5 (1)
2.5
1 x 4 (1)
1 x 10 (1)
2
SPR60 (m²/s)
1 x 25 (1)
1 x 50 (1)
1.5 1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
1 x 240 (1)
1
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
Example 5: “Smoky” Group
2010:27
39

HRR30
400
350
300 2 x 1.5 (R)
2 x 1.5 (E)
4 x 4.0 (R)
250
4 x 4.0 (E)
4 x 10 (R)
200
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 10 (E)
4 x 25 (R)
150 4 x 25 (E)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 50 (E)
100
4 x 240 (R)
27 x 1.5 (R)
50 27 x 1.5 (E)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
-50
time (s)
Example 6: Reproducibility (RTD lab and Europacable Lab)
The reproducibility between the two laboratories is fairly good for all the cables of the selected group,
as show by the figure for HRR vector results. Similar comparison is made for SPR results.
2010:27
40
7 Extended application, EXAP

EXAP, extended application, is in this work approached as a way to predict classification based on a
limited number of tests. Thus a substantial reduction of the number of tests for a certain product
family is achieved. The EXAP procedure is based on the population of tests in the project. Each of the
classification criteria, peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, peak SPR, and TSP needs to be considered in an
EXAP. As will be seen below the same approach can be used for all classification criteria for a
particular cable type.
In Section 7.1 the concept of classification rules and the concept of safety margin are introduced.
Section 7.2 contains a discussion about cables with singular behaviour in the test program (in which
one cable within the range seems to show a different fire behavior from the other cables in this range)
and how these are handled within the EXAP procedure. Section 7.3 briefly discusses how test results
can be extrapolated with sufficient confidence for cables that are larger than the maximum size tested
within the CEMAC project. Section 7.4 describes how an EXAP can be used also for other cable
types than those that were included in the CEMAC project. Sections 7.5 and 7.7 contain discussions
about EXAP for data and optical cables. Sections 7.8 and 7.9 contain discussions about EXAP for
EN60332-1-2 and EN61034-2. Section 0 summarizes the EXAP procedure by a flow chart. In Section
11 of this report the detailed analysis of the test results is presented. A formal proposal for the EXAP
rules is given in Section 12.
7.1 Safety margin

EXAP for simple materials, such as mineral wool [8], is often limited to testing of one or more, by the
product parameters, chosen products from a product group and classifying all included products in the
group according to the worst result. Cables, on the other hand, have more complex fire behaviour and
it is not certain that the worst result in the included range is obtained for one of the tested products
when the tested products are chosen by fundamental product parameters. This is illustrated in the
theoretical example in Figure 8 where the general trend is that THR decreases with increasing
diameter, d, but where the fourth cable makes a sudden jump and breaks the monotonically 1
decreasing trend. It is clear that if 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. It is a
general feature of cables that although their fire performance can be qualitatively well described by a
parameter, for example the diameter, the dependence is not necessarily monotonic, in contrast to less
complex materials such as mineral wool. The selection of an appropriate parameter for describing the
fire performance of cables is far from trivial. In Figure 8 the diameter has been chosen rather
arbitrarily. The selection of cable parameter, that is the x-axis in the figures, depends not only on the
intrinsic fire performance of one cable but also on the mounting procedures as described in prEN
50399. This topic is covered in Section 7.2.
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.
2010:27
41
35
30
25
THR [MJ]
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
outer diameter [mm]
Figure 8 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
ν class = ν max + ν sm Equation 1
where
νclass is the value used for classification according to respective classification parameter
(peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, FS, peak SPR, and TSP),
νmax is the maximum, that is worst, test result of the tests that forms the basis of the EXAP,
and
νsm is the safety margin required for the particular classification parameter.
Taking Figure 8 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, νsm, 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. It has then been assumed that the data in Figure 8 include all cables. It should
be noted that this safety margin is a result of the varying fire performance of different cables within
one cable family. It is not a measure of the experimental uncertainty.
If, for example, a manufacturer wants to include the whole product range in Figure 8 in the EXAP, the
first and the last (the eight) cable must be tested. νmax is obtained for the first cable and the result is:
ν class = ν max + ν sm = 29 + 3 = 32 MJ Equation 2
2010:27
42
This is above the class limit 30 MJ for class Cca for THR. Therefore classification, for THR, would be
into class Dca, where the class limit is 70 MJ, and the manufacturer would probably do more tests on a
cable diameter big enough that νmax ≤ 27 MJ. See Figure 9 for an illustration.
Figure 9 An attempt to include the entire product range in the EXAP results in a classification
value, νclass = νmax+νSM, that is higher than the THR class limit 30 MJ for class Cca.
If the manufacturers uses the fifth and the eighth cable for the EXAP the worst result, 20 MJ, would
be obtained for the fifth cable and consequently:
ν class = ν max + ν sm = 20 + 3 = 23 MJ Equation 3
This is below the class limit 30 MJ for class Cca for THR. This means that all cables with diameters
between 25 and 80 mm will be classified as Cca for THR, for the particular tested cable type. See
Figure 10 for an illustration.
2010:27
43
Figure 10 The fifth (d=25 mm) and the eighth (d=80 mm) cable are tested and used as basis for the
EXAP. This results in a classification value νclass = νmax+νSM, that is lower than the THR
class limit 30 MJ for class Cca.
If the dependence of the classification parameter, e g THR, on the cable parameter, e g d, were
always monotonic no safety margins would be required, see Figure 11. The reason for this is that if
two cables are tested the intermediate cables will always have values of the classification that are
lower than the maximum of the two tested cables.
35
30
25
THR [MJ]
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
outer diameter [mm]
Figure 11 THR as a monotonically decreasing function of outer diameter. Theoretical example.
2010:27
44
Furthermore the graph can be allowed to be partly non monotonic as long as the non monotonic part is
convex in the sense that there is one particular value of the classification parameters that is lower than
its neighbours. An example of this is found in Figure 12.
35
30
25
THR [MJ]
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
outer diameter [mm]
Figure 12 THR as a function of outer diameter. The non monotonicity of the sixth cable is not a
problem since it is lower than its neighbours. Theoretical example.
In summary, it is results such as the fourth cable in Figure 8 that are the sources for the safety
margins. The safety margins are determined based on the results from the tests in the CEMAC
projects. Determination of safety margins is presented in Section 11 and the results are presented in
Table 38.
2010:27
45
7.2 Cables with singular behaviour.

Some cables exhibit a behaviour that would require very large safety margin, see Figure 13 for
example.
90
80
70
60
THR [MJ]
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
outer diameter [mm]
Figure 13 THR as a function of outer diameter for cable group seven in CEMAC.
The non monotonic behaviour shows that the fire behaviour can not be described fully with the cable
diameter, but that it is related to a more complex cable parameter, reflecting both the influence of
cable construction and the test method (mounting of the cable on the ladder)
This non monotonic behaviour remains also with other fundamental cable parameters as x-axis.
Figure 14 shows the case using the non metallic volume on the x-axis. The shape of the graph is not
identical but quite similar to the shape of the graph in Figure 13.
The cable C/7/2 (7x1.5 mm2) which in Figure 13 is an extreme outlier was tested in duplicate in order
to confirm that its behaviour was really singular. The tests confirmed the singular behaviour of the
cable.
2010:27
46
90
80
70
60
THR [MJ]
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8
non-metallic volume per meter ladder [l/m ladder]
Figure 14 THR as a function of non-metallic volume per meter ladder for cable group seven in
CEMAC.
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:
c
χ= Vcombust Equation 4
d2
with

Using χ on the x-axis the graph transforms into Figure 15. 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 included it will be one of the tested boundary cables
upon which the EXAP is based. The high THR will therefore be reflected in νmax in Equation 1.
2010:27
47
90
80
70
60
THR [MJ]
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
Figure 15 THR as a function of χ for cable group seven.
A phenomenological explanation to why χ can describe THR for the unarmoured multicore cables in
group seven can be as follows. 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 ventilation, 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 χ is that, for a
given diameter, the ratio of insulation material to sheathing material increases with increased number
of conductors, that is with increased χ. 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.
Using χ as x-axis also gives a reasonably monotonic behaviour for most other classification
parameters and cable types, see examples in Figure 16 and Figure 17 below.
2010:27
48
200
180
160
140
peak HRR [kW]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
Figure 16 Peak HRR as a function of χ for cable group seven.
400
350
300
250
FIGRA [W/s]
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
Figure 17 FIGRA as a function of χ for cable group 10Cu.
The success in describing the results for FS and THR as a function of χ was explained above. Below
is explained why χ also works well in sorting the results for other classification parameters and for
other cable types in reasonable monotonic orders.
From the FIPEC project, reference [2] 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 magnitude of their
2010:27
49
diameter. The mounting procedure suggested by the FIPEC project has been implemented in standard
prEN 50399 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 typically ≈ d the following relation applies:
Nd + ( N − 1)d ≈ 300 Equation 5
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:
150
N≈ Equation 6
d
The combustible volume per meter cable, vcombust, is proportional to its cross section, that is to d2:
vcombust ~ d 2 Equation 7
This statement is not obvious since cables also contain metal of varying amounts. However,
Figure 18 supports relationship (4).
1,6
1,4
7
1,2 5
6
1
8a
vcombust
0,8 8b
9
0,6
10Cu
0,4 11
12
0,2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
d2 [mm2]
Figure 18 Combustible volume per meter cable, vcombust, as a function of d2. The graph shows the
results for all cable types that were analyzed in the CEMAC project.
The amount of combustible volume per meter ladder is therefore:
Vcombust = Nv combust ~ Nd 2 Equation 8
2010:27
50
and, from relationship (3),
150 2
Vcombust ~ Nd 2 ≈ d ~d Equation 9
d
Inserting Equation 9 in Equation 4 gives the approximation:
c c c
χ= Vcombust ~ 2 d = Equation 10
d 2
d d
The approximate Equation 10 in essence explains why χ describes fire performance of different cable
types in general. It is well known that combustion is more intense for cables with small diameter than
for cables with large diameter. In other words combustion is more intense for large χ than for small χ.
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 project. In this case the relation is the opposite but χ 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.
The discussion above also explains why χ gives a better description for non-armoured cables than for
armoured cables, which is an observation from the experiments. The armour protects the conductors,
firstly from catching fire and secondly from separating. Fire performance of armoured cables is
therefore less sensitive to the number of conductors than what is the case for non-armoured cables.
However, using χ as cable parameter for armoured cables is equally good as using any other
parameter such as outer diameter d or non-metallic volume per meter ladder for example. As a result
χ is used as independent cable parameter for all cable types in the EXAP procedure. Based on χ as
cable parameter the safety margins in Table 38 are suggested. These values are derived in Section 11.
Table 38 Summary of vsm to be used in EXAP.

B2 C D S1 S2
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
2010:27
51
The safety margins are based on all the results from the CEMAC project. Therefore the results cannot
be applied for cables outside the range of the cables tested in the CEMAC project. An exception is
very large cables, see Section 7.3. The allowed ranges of cables for the different cable constructions
are given in Table 39. Further work is planned on cables with cable parameter outside the specified
range in Table 39. This will enable an extension of the applicability of the EXAP rules.
Table 39 Allowed range of cable parameters for using safety margins as specified in Table 38.
dmin [mm] dmax [mm] χmin [ ] χmax [ ]
Armoured 10 (5) 62 4 82
Unarmoured 9 (5) 52 6 73
multicore
Single core 6 (5) 29 2 20
sheathed
Single core 5 25 2 115
unsheathed
The value 5 mm given in the parentheses in the dmin column is only applicably if the flame spread for
the tested cables with diameters less than those tested in the CEMAC project is less than 3.3 m, that is
if the cables are not fully combusted. If the cables are not fully combusted it is likely that the trend for
a given classification parameter is not broken if the lower limit is extended down to 5 mm. If the
cables are fully combusted, a classification based on a cable with for example d=5.1 mm could attain
a very low value due to lack of combustible material. This could result in very low THR for cables
with, for example, d=5.1 mm and d=50 mm. Intermediate diameters could have much higher THR
and this non-monotonicity has not been part of the safety margin analysis. Therefore cables with
diameters less than the range tested in the CEMAC project are not allowed to be included in an EXAP
if they are fully combusted.
Cables with a diameter of exactly 5 mm, or less, must be bundled according to prEN 50399. Bundled
cables are not included in the specific EXAP rules because the fire performance changes dramatically
with the change of mounting. Therefore these cables need to be tested case by case.
7.3 Cables larger than the tested range

In the CEMAC project, not all possible diameters have been tested for each cable family. Very large
cables would therefore not fit into the EXAP framework presented thus far since the safety margins
can only be estimated based on actually tested cables within the project. At the same time it is well
known that, as long as not all cables within a group are completely combusted, fire performance
according to the prEN 50399 test is better for larger cables than for smaller cables. It is therefore
useful to have a rule that takes cables of very large diameter into account. The condition that this
works is of course that fire performance actually improves with increasing diameter. This condition is
in general fulfilled if the classification for a large diameter cable is B2ca or Cca. A cable is considered
to have a large diameter if its diameter is close to the maximum diameter tested within the project.
The following were the maximum diameters, dmax, for tested cables in the CEMAC project:
2010:27
52
Table 40 Maximum diameters for cables tested in the CEMAC project

Armoured cables: dmax = 62 mm
Unarmoured multicore cables dmax = 52 mm
Single core sheathed cables dmax = 29 mm
Single core unsheathed cables dmax = 25 mm
Cables with the exact diameter specified in Table 40 are not always available in the product range for
a particular cable type. Therefore the dmax is allowed to be within a certain interval for each cable
construction. These intervals are given in Table 41.
Table 41 Allowed ranges of dmax for EXAP applied for very large cables.
Armoured cables: dmax = 56 - 62 mm
Unarmoured multicore cables dmax = 47 - 52 mm
Single core sheathed cables dmax = 26 - 29 mm
Single core unsheathed cables dmax = 22 - 25 mm
If a cable with outer diameter in the range given in Table 41 is tested and classified B2ca or Cca then
cables with d>dmax can be classified according to the result for the tested cable with diameter dmax.
7.4 Generic rules for cables not included in CEMAC

For cable types not listed in Table 40 no safety margins have been determined and therefore EXAP
can not be performed in the way described in 7.1. Instead a generic procedure has been worked out.
This procedure takes into account the results from tests of cables from the cable family that are to be
submitted to the EXAP.
The generic EXAP is based on the cable parameter χ defined in Equation 4. Therefore the cables in
the cable family need a well defined diameter. This means that the cable cross section must be
circular. Furthermore the cables need a well defined non-zero number of metallic conductors. As a
result the generic EXAP rules can only be applied for cable families with circular cables having at
least one metallic conductor. For any other type of cable family, the generic EXAP rule cannot be
applied.
Neither the specific EXAP procedures described above or the generic EXAP procedures described in
this section are applicable to data cables and optical cables. Tests were performed on these types of
cables and it was found that more work needs to be done on how to group these cables and how the
EXAP rules should be formulated.
The safety margin νsm is a function that:
• increases with increased dispersion of the measured values,

• increases with increased range of the cable parameter χ,
• decreases with increased number of tests, and
• decreases with increased monotonicity of the measured values.
2010:27
53
Such a function is shown in Equation 11 below:
σ (χ max − χ min )
vsm = Equation 11
(n − 1)χ min (1 + m )
where
σ is the standard variation of the measured values,

χmin and χmax are the limiting cable parameters in the tested range,
n is the number of tested cables, n≥3, and
m is a measure of the monotonicity of the measured values.
1 n
σ= ∑ (vi − v )2
n i =1
n −1
∑v i +1 − vi − vn − v1
m = 1− i =1
n −1
∑v
i =1
i +1 − vi
(If all values are identical m=1.)
Selection of cable parameter, n=3 cables

The cable parameter of the tested cables with a value of the cable parameter between
χmin and χmax can not be chosen arbitrarily. If three cables are tested
the cable parameter of the third cable must fall in the following range:
1
χ min = (χ max + χ min ) − 0.1(χ max − χ min )
2
1
χ max = (χ max + χ min ) + 0.1(χ max − χ min )
2
Selection of cable parameters, n>3 cables

If four or more cables are tested the cable parameter must fall in the following range:
i −1  n − 3  χ max − χ min  0.8  1  χ − χ min  0.8 

χ ni , min =  χ max + (n − 2) ⋅ χ min −  1 − ( n −3)  + χ min (2 − i ) ) +  max 1 − ( n −3) (i − 3)
n −1  2  n − 2  2  2 n − 2  2 
i −1  n − 3  χ max − χ min  0.8  1  χ − χ min  0.8 

χ ni ,max =  χ max + (n − 2) ⋅ χ min −  1 − ( n −3)  + χ min (2 − i) ) +  max 1 − ( n −3) (i − 1)
n −1  2  n − 2  2  2  n − 2  2 
Where
n is the total number of cables tested, including the cables with the extreme
cable parameters χmin and χmax.
i is a counter for the cables tested, where i=2, 3,…, n-1. i=1 and
i=n are reserved for the extreme cable parameters, that is, χn1=χmin and χnn=χmax.
2010:27
54
χni, min is the minimum cable parameter for the i-th cable.
χni, max is the maximum cable parameter for the i-th cable.
Except for the determination of safety margin the classification is performed in the same way as is
described in Section 7.1. The EXAP is only valid for cables within the range χmin≤χ ≤ χmax.
Example 1
Three cables are tested. The cable parameters χ of the cables are χ1=6.1, χ2=21.8, and χ3=33. FIGRA
for these cables are measured to ν1=38.5 W/s, ν2=40.5 W/s, and ν3=103.4 W/s, respectively. This
gives:
σ = 30.1 W/s,
m = 1,
νsm = 33.2 W/s and finally
νclass=136.6 W/s
This shows that the value for classification that shall be used for FIGRA is 136.6 W/s. This is lower
than the classification criterion 150 W/s for class B2ca. Therefore, for FIGRA, all cables in the group
with 6.1 ≤ χ ≤ 33 can be considered to fulfil the requirement for class B2ca. In order to classify the
cables as B2ca they also need to fulfil the requirements for B2ca for flame spread, peak HRR, FIGRA
and for EN 60332-1-2.
The example is taken from actual tests on cable group 7. The experimental results are shown in Figure
19 where the red circles indicate the cables used in the example.
Figure 19 FIGRA for cable group 7. The full range of experimental results is indicated with
diamonds whereas the red circles indicate the cables used for the generic EXAP procedure
in the example.
2010:27
55
Example 2
Three cables are tested. The cable parameters χ of the cables are χ1=8.8, χ2=18.2, and χ3=33.2. TSP
for these cables are measured to ν1=16.3 m2, ν2=16.3 m2, and ν3=45.4 m2, respectively. This gives:
σ = 13.7 m2,
m = 1,
νsm = 9.1 m² and finally
νclass=54.5 m2
This shows that the value for classification that shall be used for TSP is 54.5 m2. This is higher than
the classification criterion 50 m2 for class s1. Therefore, cables in the group with 8.8≤ χ ≤ 33.2 can
not be considered to fulfil the requirement for class s1.
The example is taken from actual tests on cable group 8a. The experimental results are shown in
Figure 20 where the red circles indicate the cables used in the example.
70.00
60.00
50.00
TSP [m 2]
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
Figure 20 TSP for cable group 8a. The full range of experimental results is indicated with diamonds
whereas the red circles indicate the cables used for the generic EXAP procedure in the
example.
7.5 Flaming droplets/particles

For flaming droplets/particles the cables within the cable parameter range for the EXAP should be
classified according to the worst result for the tested cables within this range.
2010:27
56
7.6 EXAP for Data cables

For data cables, EXAP rules of the type developed for power and control cables are meaningless since
such cables are usually not available in a range of sizes and/or number of conductors as wide as for
other cable types. Most data cables present on the market are 4 pairs (4p). The selection of data cables
in the CEMAC project is thus representative of the present European market.
In addition, contrary to the groups for which EXAP rules have been proposed, the cables provided for
group 1 were supplied by different manufacturers, which also prevents the development of strict
EXAP rules for this group.
From a construction point of view, data cables include the following types:
• U/UTP (Unscreened Overall/ Unscreened Twisted Pair)
• F/UTP (Screened Overall/ Unscreened Twisted Pair)
• SF/UTP (Metallic Braid & Screened Overall/ Unscreened Twisted Pair)
• U/FTP (Unscreened Overall/ Screened Twisted Pair)
• F/FTP (Screened Overall/ Screened Twisted Pair)
• S/FTP (Metallic Braid Overall/ Screened Twisted Pair)
• SF/FTP (Metallic Braid & Screened Overall/ Screened Twisted Pair)
(In bold, data cables types included in CEMAC)
Nonetheless, CEMAC results have been analyzed and have shown some trends that could be used as a
basis for a proposal to decrease the number of tests required eventually to classify these data cables
under the CPD.
7.6.1 General discussion

A first analysis of the prEN 50399 results obtained for the Goup 1 cables definitely highlights a quite
clear split in the levels of fire performance: low HRR and high HRR. That almost binary splitting is
translated in the classification as well: B2ca versus Dca/Eca
The main obvious construction parameter difference between the two sets of results is the presence or
non presence of a screen (metallic foil) around each twisted pair combined with the metallic braid
under the outer sheath (S/FTP data cables) 2. Amongst 5 S/FTP cables, all but one achieved the B2ca
classification. The last S/FTP cable failed only for one classification parameters (Peak HRR) by a
small margin (about 4 %), while the 3 other classification parameters (THR1200, FIGRA and FS) meet
the requirements of B2ca. None of the considered cable data (d, mass of combustible material, ratio
combustible/ non combustible, combustible sheath volume,….) highlights that this last cable is
significantly different form the other screened cables, in terms of construction. Further investigation
would be needed to find out why it does not better fit with the other screened cables (in terms of fire
performance).
On the other hand, most (7 out of 9) data cables without screened pairs are ranked Dca at best. One
cable performs significantly better, achieving a B2ca / Cca class (FIGRA = 149.6, thus between B2ca
and Cca), and another cable is definitely ranked B2ca, but this specific cable includes both a metallic
braid and a metallic foil under its outer sheath. This is the single SF/UTP cable included in CEMAC
and therefore it is not possible to draw any conclusion. It could be worth to further investigate
whether the presence of both the braid and the foil under the outer sheath usually enable to achieve
B2ca classification.
2
Since no U/FTP cable was tested in CEMAC, it is not known whether the screen of the twisted pairs alone is
sufficient to grant this high level of fire performance.
2010:27
57
Within the second set of results, there is no clear indication that the single presence of a screen under
the jacket plays a significant role for the fire performance of the cable: F/UTP and U/UTP cables can
not be obviously discriminated. This requires further investigation.
While the protective role of the screen seems undisputable, the exact mechanism of protection is not
obvious since the outer sheath represents by far the major combustible part (usually about 80 %).
The Table 42 gives classification results for the screened data cables. Again, except for one cable, all
tested cables are well within the limit of B2ca class, for the 4 parameters (Peak HRR, THR, FS and
FIGRA).
Table 42 Classification of screened pairs data cables.

Peak HRR30 Margin to THR1200 Margin to FIGRA Margin to FS Margin to
kW class limit * MJ class limit * W/s class limit * m class limit * Class.
C/1/11 10.9 64% 1.6 90% 89 40% 0.28 81% B2ca
C/1/12 21.2 29% 3.4 77% 139 7% 0.67 55% B2ca
C/1/13 12.8 57% 1.7 89% 114 24% 0.3 80% B2ca
C/1/14 14.3 52% 2.8 82% 112 25% 0.54 64% B2ca
C/1/15 31.1 -4% 7.1 53% 131 13% 1.34 11% Cca
30.0 15.0 150 1.5 B2ca requirement
* For B2ca classification
These results clearly point out that all (but one) screened cables easily achieve the B2ca classification,
with a wide safety margin for all classification parameters (margin is smaller for FIGRA). However,
further investigation would be required into these and unscreened cable designs.
7.6.2 “Extrapolation” rule
A possible approach for an EXAP consists in splitting the cable group 1 in the different levels of fire
performance, i.e. Dca, Cca and B2ca and to try to identify a cable construction parameter for which a
variation within a given range would not affect the fire classification, whatever the type of data cable
it is.
From the results obtained in CEMAC, such a simple cable parameter is proposed:
M NonC omb ,tot

δ= (%)
M C omb ,tot
Where δ: Combustible to non combustible ratio

MNonComb, tot is the total mass of non combustible material for the cable (kg/m)
MComb, tot is the total mass of combustible material for the cable (kg/m)
Thus, for each Euroclass, the classification would be maintained for a given cable type, when δ varies
within a determined range.
This single cable parameter (δ) is conveniently proposed for all data cables types (at least, the ones
included in CEMAC (U/UTP, F/UTP, SF/UTP and S/FTP)).
The principle of its use is illustrated in the following figures, for classes Dca, Cca and B2ca.
2010:27
58
Increase in non-
Variation combustible will
allowed only improve
before results
testing
requested
Upper limit
Lower limit
85% not required
70%
Non -
combustible to
combustible
ratio (δ)
Figure 21 Allowed range for δ – Euroclass Dca
2010:27
59
Increase in non-
before results
testing
requested
Upper limit
Lower limit
100% not required
90 %
Non -
combustible to
combustible
ratio (δ)
Figure 22 Allowed range for δ – Euroclass Cca
2010:27
60
Increase in non-
before results
testing
requested
Upper limit
Lower limit
115% not required
90 %
Non -
combustible to
combustible
ratio (δ)
Figure 23 Allowed range for δ – Euroclass B2ca
Example 1:
A cable F/UTP with a δ = 98 % has been tested and is ranked Cca. All F/UTP cables of the same group
can be ranked Cca as long as their δ ≥ 90 %.
Example 2:
A cable S/FTP with a δ = 120 % has been tested and is ranked B2ca. All S/FTP cables of the same
group can be ranked Bca as long as their δ ≥ 90 %.
2010:27
61
This proposal is working for the data cables tested in CEMAC. One must remain cautious, due to the
very limited number of tested cables for each class level:
- For class B2ca, 5 cables
- For class Cca, 2 cables
- For class Dca, 5 cables
Further testing is required, on the one hand to check the robustness of the proposal on a larger sample
of cables (especially for Euroclass Cca) and on the other hand to consider the types of data cables not
tested in CEMAC (U/FTP, F/FTP and SF/FTP).
7.7 EXAP for Optical cables

Cable selection for optical cables (Group 3) was made on the basis of achieving a selection of those
different generic constructions (sub families) that are widely available on the European market.
Implicit in the selection, is an assumption that classification of optical cables could be carried out on
these sub families representing the main basic designs, having in mind that different manufacturers
will have different detailed designs as optical cable product standards are family based rather than
detailed constructional standards. . In total., 15 OF cables (Group 3) have been tested. These cables
are distributed in 4 sub groups as follows:
• Group 3st (OF cables, central tube): 5
• Group 3lt (OF cables, loose tube): 3
• Group 3ct (OF cables, corrugated steel armour): 3
• Group 3tb (OF cables, tight buffer): 4
Within each sub family, a range of fibre and buffer tube counts from approximately the smallest to the
largest commonly available was supplied from a number of different suppliers.
Since each sub group has to be analysed independently, i.e. as a group of its own, the number of
cables included in each of them is far too limited to attempt to issue possible EXAP rules. OF cables
can probably not be treated the same way as electric cables since they do not include metallic
conductors, which play a major role in heat transfer mechanisms. The cable parameter and ratio
combustible / non combustible are not useful in this case.
For sub group 3st, there appears to be a lack of dependence of fibre count on performance, but this
may be a result of all cables burning completely. No extensive analysis has been carried out and,
again, the limited number of cables does not permit to draw any conclusion. Sub groups 3lt and 3ct
are too limited in number to make any analysis attempt meaningful.
As expected, the presence of a corrugated steel armour for group 3ct brings some benefit (protecting
metallic layer), and 2 cables achieve the rank B2ca. However, the 3rd cable in this group which was of
a different detail design burnt dramatically and further tests are needed to check whether this last
cable correspond to an outlier or not and the performance of other detail designs.
For sub group 3tb, not enough cable construction data has been made available to enable any analysis.
2010:27
62
In conclusion, the number of O.F. cables included in CEMAC II is far too restricted, especially when
the Group is split in 4 sub groups and includes different manufacturers to enable to find out any robust
possible rule and further work is required. However, some good indications of the main constructional
features influencing the reaction to fire performance have been obtained. Buffer count and
sheath/armour design appear more critical than fibre count. This information will assist in the
definition of further work.
7.8 EXAP for EN 60332-1-2

As concluded in 8.1.3, the small flame test EN 60332-1-2 was found to be not significant in cable
classification. The entire cable population tested passed the test with a considerable margin of safety.
The test procedure is designed such that the results are not specifically influenced by cable size.
Therefore, the EXAP can be similar to that defined for prEN 50399 and the same samples selected for
test.
The test would be a strong candidate for CWFT, should this be considered at a future date.
7.9 EXAP for EN 61034-2

As concluded in 8.2.5, no correlation between the static smoke test of EN 61034-2 and the dynamic
measurement in prEN 50399 was found. However, it was found that all cables meeting the s1 criteria
also met the s1a or s1b criteria. This validates the way in which the two tests are used in the
classification. The test procedure is designed such that the results are not specifically influenced by
cable size. The major influence was shown to be the type of material used for the sheath.
Since the s1 rating at least means that s1b is fulfilled, the deletion of the s1b class could be considered
as it is not adding any further information. At present, no EXAP rule is proposed for smoke
classification according to EN 61034-2. The development of such a rule is being further considered
based upon the data generated in the project.
2010:27
63
7.10 EXAP flow chart

A flow chart of the EXAP-procedure is found in Figure 24.
Figure 24 Flow chart of EXAP-procedure.
2010:27
64
8 Test results EN 60332-1-2 and EN 61034-2
8.1 Analysis of EN 60332-1-2 results from Europacable

laboratories
All results are given in Section 10. Where more than one result has been submitted on a cable, an
average of the results has been taken. No detailed analysis has been carried out on Groups 1, 3 and 13
due to incomplete result sets. The parameter H as defined in the draft classification standard has been
used in the analysis.
8.1.1 Spread of results by Group
Table 43 Spread of results by Group.

Group Range of results (H) in mm Range of Classes
5 59 – 79 E – B2
6 70 – 125 C – B2
7 122 – 138 E – B2
8a 90 – 140 D – B2
8b 70 – 130 E – B2
9 110 – 146 E
10 105 – 142 D – B2
11 60 – 93 C – B2
12 71 – 137 D – B2
The highest recorded value of H (Cable C/1/11) was associated with a cable in Class B2.
The lowest recorded value of H (Cable C/5/3) was associated with a cable in Class E.
The damage length criteria, H, to meet Class E – B2 is ≤ 425 mm.
8.1.2 Spread of results by Class

Table 44 Spread of results by Class.
Class Range of results (H) in mm
B2 60 -142
C 66 – 134
D 70 -137
E 59 – 146
8.1.3 Conclusions
There is no relationship between the value of H achieved in the EN 60332-1-2 test and the Class
achieved in the prEN 50399 test for the cable Groups tested.
The values of H measured are in all cases well inside the limit criteria of 425 mm.
The values of H measured within each Group are always within a limited range.
2010:27
65
8.2 Analysis of prEN 50399 smoke results versus EN 61034-2

tests results obtained by Europacable laboratories
All results are given in Section 10.No detailed analysis has been carried out on Groups 1, 3 and 13
due to incomplete result sets.Only RTD prEN 50399 measurements have been taken into account.
8.2.1 Smoke classification analysis

88 cable samples have been included in this analysis. Euroclass E cables are included although the
Euroclass table does not describe additional criteria for this specific class.
Table 45 Smoke class related to Euroclass.

s1a s1b s2 s3
Euroclass B2 14 4 12 -
Euroclass C 13 3 2 3
Euroclass D 3 1 15 -
Euroclass E - - (5) (13)
8.2.2 Discriminant parameter for s classification according to

prEN 50399.
Smoke measurements according to prEN 50399 are based on TSP1200 and peak SPR. These 2
parameters are used for s classification (Table 46).
Table 46 Summary of s classification criteria according to Euroclass table based on pr EN50399 and
Commission Decision 2006/751/EC.
peakSPR ≤0.25m²/s peakSPR ≤ 1.5m²/s peakSPR >1.5m²/s
TSP1200 ≤ 50m² s1 s2 s3
TSP1200 ≤ 400m² s2 s2 s3
TSP1200 > 400m² s3 s3 s3
By analyzing the s classification of each of the 88 cables according to the 2 mandatory criteria it has
been observed that the peak SPR is determinant for the classification of only 2 cables (Table 47).
Table 47 Spread of cable samples in each s classification based on the 2 mandatory criteria versus
the classifications only based on THP1200 values.
Nbr of cable s1 based on s2 based on s3 based on
samples in S TSP + pSPR TSP + pSPR TSP + pSPR
class
s1 based on 38 - -
TSP only
s2 based on - 34 2
TSP only
s3 based on - - 14
TSP only
This shows that the analysis of the prEN 50399 vs EN 61034-2 smoke can be focussed on the TSP1200
measurement in prEN 50399 vs transmittance % in EN 61034-2 to identify any classification
correspondence between the 2 methods.
2010:27
66
8.2.3 Correlation between prEN 50399 and EN 61034-2

The fire scenario and the type of smoke measurement of the 2 tests are too different for any
theoretical correlation to be evident. This analysis is based on empirical correlations based on the
values of TSP1200 and % transmittance obtained.
Figure 25 TSP1200 measured by prEN 50399 versus Transmittance measured by EN 61034-2 for all
cable families, including Euroclass E cables.
Table 48 Correspondence of classifications – s1 to s3 obtained from prEN 50399 and Transmittance

obtained from EN 61034-2, including Euroclass E cables.
Transmittance ≥ 80% Transmittance ≥ 60% Transmittance <60%
<80%
s1 30 8 -
s2 17 3 14
s3 - - 16
It can be observed (Figure 25 and Table 48) that no cable classified s1 according to prEN 50399
showed a transmittance≤60%. All s1 cables can be classified according to s1a and s1b classes.
Classifications s1a and s1b are relevant to cables in the s1 class.
Moreover, all cables classified s3 according to prEN 50399 showed a transmittance much lower than
60% (all cables <34%). Nevertheless 13 of the 16 cables classified in s3 are cables from Euroclass Eca.
For this Euroclass, no smoke criteria can be applied (see Figure 26 and Table 49). Only 3 cable
samples allowing a smoke classification are identified in s3 class (PVC based cables in Euroclass Cca)
2010:27
67
Figure 26 TSP1200 measured by prEN 50399 versus Transmittance measured by EN 61034-2 for each
cable families, EXCLUDING Euroclass Eca cables.
Table 49 Correspondence of classifications – s1 to s3 obtained from prEN 50399 and Transmittance

obtained from EN 61034-2 EXCLUDING Euroclass Eca cables.
Transmittance ≥ 80% Transmittance ≥ 60% Transmittance <60%
<80%
s1 30 8 -
s2 13 2 14
s3 - - 3
The cables classified in s2 class showed a large spread of transmittance in EN 61034-2, from 93% to
18%.
Cables families showing a transmittance ≥ 60% are all halogen free.
Except 2 cables (C/3/4 and C/6/1 at the s2 border), all halogen free cables in s2 class have a flame
spread > 3 m (Euroclass Dca)
Except 1 cable(C/5/4), all PVC cables in s2 class have a flame spread < 1m
2010:27
68
8.2.4 EXAP cable parameter and EN 61034-2 measurement
Figure 27 Transmittance measured by EN 61034-2 for each cable families in function of the EXAP
cable parameter (including the Euroclass Eca cables).
No trend correlation between the EXAP cable parameter and the transmittance measurement can be
highlighted.
8.2.5 Conclusions
In prEN 50399, TSP1200 is more relevant than peak SPR to determine the classification.
The transmittance measurement in EN 61034-2 is relevant to discriminate cables within s1 and the
criteria s1a and s1b are sensitive enough to differentiate different smoke production behaviours.
Low smoke Halogen free cables can be in s2 class if the ladder in prEN 50399 is fully burning. On the
other hand, PVC cables can be in s2 if they are not propagating more than 1 m. This highlights the
influence of the propagation behaviour in the smoke classification based on prEN 50399.
For the cables tested, only halogen free cables reach a transmittance ≥ 60% in the EN61034-2 test.
No discrete correlation has been found between the values of TSP/pSPR from the prEN50399 test and
Transmittance from the EN61034-2 test..
2010:27
69
References
1
Grayson, S., Van Hees, P., Vercelotti, U., Breulet, H., Green, A., FIPEC Final Report to the European
Commission, SMT Programme SMT4-CT96-2059, 410pp, ISBN 0 9532312 5 9, London 2000.
2
Sundström, B., Axelsson, J., and Van Hees, P., ”A proposal for fire testing and classification of cables for use
in Europe.” Report to the European commission and the fire regulators group. SP, 2003-06-19
3
Sundström, B., Axelsson, J., and Van Hees, P., “A new European system for fire testing and classification of
cables”. Tenth International Interflam Conference Edinburgh July 2004, Volume 1, p5-15, Interscience
communications Ltd, ISBN 0 9541216-3-5.
4
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)
5
New cable tests for the CPD. Europacable Sponsored Round Robin, Report for FRG, September 2001.
6
CLC TC20/Sec1576/INF June 2008 Title: prEN 50399 - Round-Robin evaluation
7
Sundström, B., ”The FIGRA-index: European classification of ordinary building products, cables and pipe
insulation. The technical background and the relation to product burning behaviour”, Proceedings of the 11th
International Fire Science & Engineering Conference (Interflam 2007), London, England, 2007.
8
Fire testing and classification protocol for mineral wool products, Fire sector group of notified bodies for the
CPD, 2003.
2010:27
70
9 Annex A, Cable details and photographs
Cable number C/1/1 C/1/2 C/1/3
Cable group Screened and unscreened data cables Screened and unscreened data cables Screened and unscreened data cables
Conductors 4pU/UTP 4pU/UTP 4pF/UTPC5
χ – – –
Conductors 4pF/UTPC5 4pU/UTP6 4pF/UTPC6
χ – – –
Conductors 4pF/UTPC6 4pSF/UTP 4pS/FTP
χ – – –
71
Screened and unscreened data Screened and unscreened data Screened and unscreened data
Cable group
cables cables cables
Conductors 4pS/FTPC7 4pS/FTPC7 4pS/FTPC7
χ – – –
Cable group Screened and unscreened data cables Screened and unscreened data cables Optical fibre cables
Conductors 4pS/FTPC7 32pF/UTPC5 Central tube 2 fibre
χ – – –
Cable group Optical fibre cables Optical fibre cables Optical fibre cables
Conductors Central tube 12 fibre Central tube 24 fibre Central tube 12 fibre
χ – – –
72
Conductors Central tube 12 fibre Loose tube 12/24 fibre Loose tube 24 fibre
χ – – –
Conductors Loose tube 60 fibre Corrugated tube 6/72 fibre Corrugated tube 6/72 fibre
χ – – –
Conductors Corrugated tube 12/144 fibre Tight buffer 6 fibre Tight buffer 12 fibre
χ – – –
73
Armoured multicore power cables

Cable group Optical fibre cables Optical fibre cables
with copper conductors - PVC
Conductors Tight buffer 24 fibre Tight buffer 12 fibre 2 x 1.5
χ – – 21.3
Armoured multicore power cables Armoured multicore power cables Armoured multicore power cables
Cable group
with copper conductors - PVC with copper conductors - PVC with copper conductors - PVC
Conductors 4 x 4.0 4 x 10 4 x 25
χ 22.1 16.8 11.2
Cable group
Conductors 4 x 50 4 x 240 27 x 1.5
χ 9.1 4.0 81.9

74
Cable group with copper conductors - Halogen with copper conductors - Halogen with copper conductors - Halogen
free free free
Conductors 2 x 1.5 4 x 4.0 4 x 10
χ 17.2 19.4 10.9
Cable group with copper conductors - Halogen with copper conductors - Halogen with copper conductors - Halogen
free free free
Conductors 4 x 25 4 x 50 4 x 240
χ 9.8 9.5 4.2

75
Armoured multicore power cables

Unarmoured multicore power cables Unarmoured multicore power cables
Cable group with copper conductors - Halogen
with copper conductors - PVC with copper conductors - PVC
free
Conductors 19 x 1.5 2 x 1.5 7 x 1.5
χ 69.7 23.6 73.5
Unarmoured multicore power cables Unarmoured multicore power cables Unarmoured multicore power cables
Cable group
Conductors 3 x 2.5 4 x 4.0 5 x 16
χ 32.1 33.0 21.8

76
Cable group
χ 12.0 11.8 6.1
Cable number C/8a/1 C/8a/2 C/8a/3
Cable group with copper conductors - halogen with copper conductors - halogen with copper conductors - halogen
free free free
Conductors 2 x 1.5 7 x 1.5 3 x 2.5
χ 21.2 55.9 29.4

77
Cable number C/8a/4 C/8a/5 C/8a/6
free free free
χ 32.2 18.2 15.0
Cable number C/8a/7 C/8a/8 C/8b/1
free free free
Conductors 4 x 50 5 x 150 2 x 1.5
χ 13.4 8.8 23.0

78
Cable number C/8b/2 C/8b/3 C/8b/4
free free free
Conductors 7 x 1.5 3 x 2.5 4 x 4.0
χ 56.9 29.1 35.7
Cable number C/8b/5 C/8b/6 C/8b/7
free free free
χ 20.9 13.3 12.9

79
Cable number C/8b/8 C/9/1 C/9/2
Unarmoured multicore power cables

Single core sheathed power cables - Single core sheathed power cables -
Cable group with copper conductors - halogen
PVC with copper conductor PVC with copper conductor
free
Conductors 4 x 150 1 x 1.5 1x4
χ 7.8 20.0 17.3
Single core sheathed power cables - Single core sheathed power cables - Single core sheathed power cables -
Cable group
PVC with copper conductor PVC with copper conductor PVC with copper conductor
χ 9.5 8.3 5.3

80
Cable group
PVC with copper conductor PVC with copper conductor PVC with copper conductor
Conductors 1 x 95 1 x 150 1 x 240
χ 3.7 3.0 2.3
Cable group
halogen free with copper conductor halogen free with copper conductor halogen free with copper conductor
Conductors 1 x 2.5 1x6 1 x 10
χ 18.0 11.1 9.3

81
Single core sheathed power cables -

Cable group halogen free with aluminium
halogen free with copper conductor halogen free with copper conductor
conductor
χ 6.8 4.2 4.3

Cable group halogen free with aluminium
halogen free with copper conductor halogen free with copper conductor
conductor
χ 3.8 3.4 3.3

82
Cable number C/10/10 C/10/11 C/10/12
Cable group halogen free with aluminium halogen free with aluminium
halogen free with copper conductor
conductor conductor
Conductors 1 x 150 1 x 240 1 x 240
χ 2.9 2.4 2.4
Single core unsheathed power cables Single core unsheathed power cables Single core unsheathed power cables
Cable group
with copper conductor - PVC with copper conductor - PVC with copper conductor - PVC
Conductors 1 x 1.5 1x4 1 x 10
χ 98.6 47.4 11.9

83
Cable group Single core unsheathed power cables Single core unsheathed power cables Single core unsheathed power cables
with copper conductor - PVC with copper conductor - PVC with copper conductor - PVC
χ 6.9 4.4 3.0
Cable
C/11/7 C/11/8 C/12/1
number
Cable group
with copper conductor - PVC with copper conductor - PVC with copper conductor - halogen free
Conductors 1 x 150 1 x 240 1 x 1.5
χ 2.7 2.2 114.5

84
Cable group
with copper conductor - halogen free with copper conductor - halogen free with copper conductor - halogen free
Conductors 1x4 1 x 10 1 x 25
χ 49.8 12.1 7.1
Cable group
with copper conductor - halogen free with copper conductor - halogen free with copper conductor - halogen free
χ 5.2 3.1 2.7

85
free free free
χ 22.4 17.3 15.6
free free free
χ 22.1 17.7 15.6

86
free free free
χ 15.8 15.7 13.2
Cable number C/13/10 C/13/11 C/13/12
free free free
χ 45.9 18.3 19.4

87
10 Annex B, Test results EN 60332-1-2 and

EN 61034-2
Group number and Cable ref Cable parameters Test results
description
Conductors Outer EN 60332-1-2 EN
dia. (H in mm) 61034-2
(mm) (T in %)
1 C/1/1 4pU/UTP 5.8 110 75

screened and C/1/2 4pU/UTP 6 – –
unscreened data cables C/1/3 4pF/UTPC5 6 73 82
C/1/4 4pF/UTPC5 6.2 122 95
C/1/5 4pF/UTPC6 6.8 98 81
C/1/6 4pF/UTPC6 7.1 98 43
C/1/7 4pF/UTPC6 Not used
C/1/8 4pF/UTPC6 6.1 – –
C/1/9 4pSF/UTP 6.1 – –
C/1/10 4pSF/UTP Not used
C/1/11 4pS/FTP 7.7 199 91
C/1/12 4pS/FTPC7 7.6 120 85
C/1/13 4pS/FTPC7 7.5 175 93
C/1/14 4pS/FTPC7 7.3 124 92
C/1/15 4pS/FTPC7 7.4 107 91
C/1/16 32pF/UTPC5 16 80 84
2 copper No cables were supplied in this Group.
telecommunication
PVC and halogen free
3st C/3/1 Central tube 2 10 95 92
C/3/2 Central tube 12 6.2 100 78
fibre
C/3/3 Central tube 24 10.8 90 82
fibre
C/3/4 Central tube 12 9.5 74 86
fibre
C/3/5 Central tube 12 6.5 – –
fibre
3lt C/3/6 Loose tube x Not used
C/3/7 Loose tube y Not used
fibre
C/3/8 Loose tube 21.5 – –
12/24 fibre
C/3/9 Loose tube 24 12.5 55 85
fibre
C/3/10 Loose tube 60 12.4 89 76
fibre
88

description
dia. (H in mm) 61034-2
(mm) (T in %)
3ct C/3/11 Corrugated 14.1 – –

optical fibre cables loose buffer
tube 6/72
C/3/12 Corrugated 14.4 – –
loose buffer
tube 6/72
C/3/13 Corrugated 18 – –
loose buffer
tube 12/144
3tb C/3/14 Tight buffer 6 5.1 – –
C/3/15 Tight buffer 12 6.2 – –
fibre
C/3/16 Tight buffer 24 8 – –
fibre
C/3/17 Tight buffer 12 6.7 84 76
fibre
4 co-axial cables No cables were supplied in this Group.
5 C/5/1 2 x 1.5 10 – 28
armoured multicore C/5/2 4 x 4.0 15 79 27
power cables with C/5/3 4 x 10 19 59 26
copper conductors C/5/4 4 x 25 28 75 32
PVC C/5/5 4 x 50 34 65 22
C/5/6 4 x 240 62 – –
C/5/7 27 x 1.5 26 – –
6 C/6/1 2 x 1.5 11 95 89
armoured multicore C/6/2 4 x 4.0 16 70 93
copper conductors C/6/4 4 x 25 27 120 87
halogen free C/6/5 4 x 50 31 125 76
C/6/6 4 x 240 62 125 –
C/6/7 19 x 1.5 21 80 84
7 unarmoured multicore C/7/1 2 x 1.5 9 138 27
power cables with C/7/2 7 x 1.5 12.5 134 29
copper conductors C/7/3 3 x 2.5 10 132 36
PVC C/7/4 4 x 4.0 12.5 134 30
C/7/5 5 x 16 22 128 32
C/7/6 4 x 35 27 122 34
C/7/7 4 x50 28 122 35
C/7/8 4 x 185 48 129 35
89

description
dia. (H in mm) 61034-2
(mm) (T in %)
8a unarmoured C/8a/1 2 x 1.5 9.7 102 93

multicore power cables C/8a/2 7 x 1.5 12.5 100 84
with copper conductors C/8a/3 3 x 2.5 10.6 100 92
halogen free C/8a/4 4 x 4.0 12.6 90 83
C/8a/5 5 x 16 21.3 95 96
C/8a/6 4 x 35 28 113 90
C/8a/7 4 x 50 28.3 101 90
C/8a/8 5 x 150 49.1 140 86
8b unarmoured C/8b/1 2 x 1.5 9.6 73 87
multicore power cables C/8b/2 7 x 1.5 11.9 78 85
with copper conductors C/8b/3 3 x 2.5 11.5 70 88
halogen free C/8b/4 4 x 4.0 12 80 92
C/8b/5 5 x 16 21.8 100 86
C/8b/6 4 x 35 27.5 113 77
C/8b/7 4 x 50 31.4 108 65
C/8b/8 4 x 150 51.9 130 86
9 C/9/1 1 x 1.5 6 143 7
single core sheathed C/9/2 1x4 7 146 8
copper conductor C/9/4 1 x 25 12 133 24
PVC C/9/5 1 x 50 15 121 22
C/9/6 1 x 95 19 130 13
C/9/7 1 x 150 22 110 34
C/9/8 1 x 240 27 110 18
10 C/10/1 1 x 2.5 6.3 121 89
single core sheathed C/10/2 1x6 9 105 92
power cables with C/10/3 1 x 10 11.8 105 90
copper conductor C/10/4 1 x 25 14.2 113 92
halogen free C/10/5 1 x 70 18.8 113 78
C/10/7 1 x 95 21.4 121 73
C/10/9 1 x 150 22.9 113 93
C/10/11 1 x 240 28.7 122 88
10 C/10/6 1 x 70 Al 18.6 124 85
single core sheathed C/10/8 1 x 95 Al 20.6 125 62
power cables with C/10/10 1 x 150 Al 22.3 142 74
aluminium conductor C/10/12 1 x 240 Al 27.4 130 65
halogen free
11 C/11/1 1 x 1.5 2.92 72 28
single core unsheathed C/11/2 1x4 4.08 93 56
PVC C/11/5 1 x 50 12.2 74 43
C/11/6 1 x 95 15.9 60 32
C/11/7 1 x 150 19.3 69 22
C/11/8 1 x 240 25.1 72 18
90

description
dia. (H in mm) 61034-2
(mm) (T in %)
12 C/12/1 1 x 1.5 2.8 94 92

single core unsheathed C/12/2 1x4 4 137 95
halogen free C/12/5 1 x 50 11.2 80 93
C/12/6 1 x 95 15 80 96
C/12/7 1 x 150 19.5 88 92
C/12/8 1 x 240 25 117 93
13 C/13/1 2 x 1.5 10.1 – –
unarmoured multicore C/13/2 3 x 10 16.2 – –
power cables with C/13/3 4 x 25 24.3 – –
copper conductors C/13/4 2 x 1.5 9.9 – –
halogen free C/13/5 3 x 10 16.6 – –
C/13/6 4 x 25 23.3 – –
C/13/7 2 x 1.5 12 – –
C/13/8 3 x 10 18.2 – –
C/13/9 4 x 25 26.8 – –
C/13/10 5 x 1.5 9.9 – –
C/13/11 4 x 10 15.3 – –
C/13/12 5 x 16 20.5 – –
91
11 Annex C, Analysis of results

In Sections 11.1-11.6, the results from the tests performed within the CEMAC project are presented.
Each section contains the analysis of the required safety margins for peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, Flame
spread, peak SPR, and TSP. In each section all tested cable families are analyzed. The straight lines in
the graphs show the worst case for that particular classification parameter and each particular cable
group. By worst case is meant the biggest error that can be made by assuming that all cables with
cable parameter χ between the tested cables are classified according to the worst result of the two
tested cables. The projection on the vertical axis of the red line defines the particular safety margin.
Safety margins are different in the different classes B2ca, Cca, Dca, s1, and s2. The reason for this is the
variation is typically larger when the test results have higher values. Therefore in general the safety
margins are lower for the better classes. Cables with class worse than Dca (Cca for flame spread) or s2
are not considered.
Table 52 to Table 56 shows the required safety margins for the different classification parameters and
for all tested cable families within CEMAC. If 0 is reported this means that no safety margin is
required based on the tested cables or no cables fall in the particular class. In Table 57 to Table 61 the
data have been reduced to only specify the safety margin for each generic family, not for each tested
cable group. It is clear that safety margins are relatively low, with a few exceptions. Based on these
results a conservative way of determining the safety margin is to define it as 10 % of the class limit
for flame and heat release classification parameters, that is peak HRR, THR, FIGRA and Flame
spread, and 20 % of the class limits for smoke classification parameters, that is peak SPR and TSP.
This gives the following definitions of νsm:
Table 50 Summary of vsm to be used in EXAP.

B2ca Cca Dca S1 S2
THR [MJ] 1.5 3 7
FIGRA [Ws-1] 15 30 130
Peak SPR [m2s-1] 0.05 0.3
TSP [m2] 10 80
Although some of the experimentally determined safety margins in Table 57 to Table 60 are much
higher than those chosen in Table 50 very few incorrect classifications occur for the tested cables. The
explanation to this is that the actually measured results are well below the class limits. A quantitative
measure of how reliable the EXAP rules become with the safety margins in Table 50 is given below.
It should be remembered that this measure is solely based on the actual tests performed within the
CEMAC project. No validation to other tests has been performed.
92
Table 51 Error rate for the different classification parameters.

Total number of Number of incorrect Percentage of
combinations classifications incorrect
classifications
THR [MJ] 166 0 0
FIGRA [Ws-1] 166 1 0.6%
Flame spread [m] 161 1 0.6%
Peak SPR [m2s-1] 166 3 1.8%
TSP [m2] 166 4 2.4%
The error rates reported in Table 51 are given for each individual classification parameter. As can be
seen the number of incorrectly classifications is very low for all parameter. Furthermore if a cable
should be erroneously classified as for example B2ca while in reality it is Cca it must be classified as
B2ca for all classification parameters peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, and Flame spread. The confidence of
the EXAP procedure is therefore high.
Table 52 νsm for class B2ca based on the test results in the CEMAC project for each individual cable
group.
Armoured Unarmoured Single core Single core
multicore sheathed unsheathed
Group 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12
Peak HRR 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3
THR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
FIGRA 1 55 27 55 4 0 4 0 2
Flame 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.2 0.2
Spread
Table 53 νsm for class Cca based on the test results in the CEMAC project for each individual cable
group.
5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12
Peak HRR 0 19 0 9 0 0 3 0 0
THR 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
FIGRA 803 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0
Flame Spread 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 54 νsm for class Dca based on the test results in the CEMAC project for each individual cable
group.
5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12
Peak HRR 101 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0
THR 0 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 0
FIGRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flame NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Spread
93
Table 55 νsm for class s1 based on the test results in the CEMAC project for each individual cable
group.
5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12
Peak SPR 0 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02 0 0.02 0.01 0
TSP 0 16 0 15 0 0 16 13 3
Table 56 νsm for class s2 based on the test results in the CEMAC project for each individual cable
group.
Armoured Unarmoured multicore Single core sheathed Single core
unsheathed
5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 12
Peak SPR 4 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0 0
TSP 287 0 0 3 67 0 28 0 0
Table 57 Maximum νsm for class B2ca based on the test results in the CEMAC for the different
construction types.
Class limit Armoured Unarmoured Single core Single core
Peak HRR 30 0 2 0 3
THR 15 0 0 0 3
FIGRA 150 55 55 4 2
Flame Spread 1.5 0 0.1 0.3 0.2
Table 58 Maximum νsm for class Cca based on the test results in the CEMAC for the different
construction types.
Peak HRR 60 19 9 3 0
THR 30 4 0 7 0
FIGRA 300 803 71 0 0
Flame Spread 2 0.1 0 0 0
Table 59 Maximum νsm for class Dca based on the test results in the CEMAC for the different
construction types.
Peak HRR 400 101 65 0 0
THR 70 0 1 5 0
FIGRA 1300 0 0 0 0
94
Table 60 Maximum νsm for class s1 based on the test results in the CEMAC for the different
construction types.
Peak SPR 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.01
TSP 50 16 15 16 13
Table 61 Maximum νsm for class s2 based on the test results in the CEMAC for the different
construction types.
Peak SPR 1.5 4 0.3 0 0
TSP 400 287 67 28 0
95
11.1 Peak HRR

Table 62 The straight lines in the graphs shows the worst case for each particular cable group. By
worst case is meant the biggest error that can be made by assuming that all cables with
cable parameter χ between the tested cables are classified according to the worst result of
the two tested cables. The projection of the red line on the vertical axis defines the
particular safety margin.
400
D
Group 5 – peak HRR [kW] 350
300
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400
peak HRR [kW]

250
kW
200
0 0 101
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
χ
60
C
50
peak HRR [kW]
40
Group 6 peak HRR [kW] 30
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400 20
kW
0 18.5 0 10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
200
180
160
140
peak HRR [kW]
120
Group 7 – peak HRR [kW]
100
80
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400
kW 60
0 0 0 40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
96
80
70
C
60
peak HRR [kW]

50
Group 8a – peak HRR [kW] 40
30
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400 B2
20
kW
1.6 9.4 0 10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
350
300
250
peak HRR [kW]
D
Group 8b – peak HRR [kW] 200
150
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400
kW 100
0 0 65.4 50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
500
450
400
350
peak HRR [kW]
300
200
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400 150
kW 100
0 0 0 50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
χ
97
250
200
Group 10Cu – peak HRR [kW]
peak HRR [kW]

150
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400
kW
100
0 3.0 0
C
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
35
30
25
peak HRR [kW]
B2
20
Group 11 – peak HRR [kW]
15
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400 10
kW
5
1.5 0 0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
χ
30

peak HRR [kW]
20
B2 ≤ 30 kW C ≤ 60 kW D ≤ 400 B2
kW 15
3.4 0 0
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
χ
98
11.2 THR
120
100
80
Group 5 – THR [MJ]
THR [MJ]
60
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ 40

0 0 0
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
χ
30
C
25
20
THR [MJ]
15
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ
10
0 3.6 0
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
90
80
70
60
THR [MJ]
50
40
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ
30
0 0 0
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
99
60
50
D
Group 8a – THR [MJ] 40
THR [MJ]
30
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ
0 0 7.7 20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
120
100
80
Group 8b – THR [MJ]
THR [MJ]
60
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ

40
0 0 0
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
120
100
Group 9 – THR [MJ] THR 80

[MJ]
60
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ
0 0 0 40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
χ
100
70
D
60
Group 10Cu – THR [MJ] 50
THR [MJ]
40
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ
0 6.8 4.8 30
C
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
9
8
7
B2
6
THR [MJ]
5
4
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ 3
1.6 0 0 2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
χ
12
B2
10
8
THR [MJ]
Group 12 – THR [MJ] 6
4
B2:≤15MJ C:≤30MJ D:≤70MJ
2.7 0 0 2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
χ
101
11.3 FIGRA
particular safety margin..
1600
1400
1200
Group 5 – FIGRA [W/s] C
FIGRA [W/s]
1000
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300 800
1.1 802.8 0 600

400
200 B2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
χ
120
B2
100
Group 6 – FIGRA [W/s] 80

FIGRA [W/s]
60
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300
55 0 0 40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
200
180
160
140
B2
Group 7 – FIGRA [W/s]
FIGRA [W/s]
120
100
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300
80
26.7 0 0
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
102
140
B2
120
100
Group 8a – FIGRA [W/s]
FIGRA [W/s]
80
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300 60

55.2 0 0
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
500
450
400
350
Group 8b – FIGRA [W/s]
FIGRA [W/s]
300
250
C
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300 200
3.8 70.5 0 150
100
B2
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
4000
3500
3000
FIGRA [W/s]
2500
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300 2000

0 0 0 1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
χ
103
400
350
300
Group 10Cu – FIGRA [W/s]
FIGRA [W/s]
250
200
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300
150
4.2 0 0
100
B2
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
350
300
250
FIGRA [W/s]
200
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300 150
0 0 0 100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
χ
140
120
Group 12 – FIGRA [W/s] 100

FIGRA [W/s]
80
B2≤150 C≤300 D≤1300
2.1 0 0 60 B2
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
χ
104
11.4 Flame spread

3.50
3.00
Damaged length [m]

2.50
2.00
Group 5 – Damaged Length [m]
1.50
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m 1.00
0 0 0.50
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
χ
1.8
C
1.6
1.4
Damaged length [m]
1.2
Group 6 - Damaged Length [m] 1
0.8
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m 0.6
0 0.05 0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
3.50
3.00
2.50
Damaged length [m]
2.00
1.50
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m
0 0 1.00
0.50
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
χ
105
3.5
Damaged length [m]

2.5
Group 8a – Damaged Length [m] 2
1.5
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m
0 0 1
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
3.5
3
Damaged length [m]
2.5
Group 8b – Damaged Length [m]
2
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m 1.5
0.08 0 1 B2
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
3.5
3
Damaged length [m]
2.5
2
1.5
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m 1
0 0 0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
χ
106
3.5
Damaged length [m]

2.5
Group 10Cu- Damaged Length [m]
2
B2
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m 1.5
0.3 0
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
1.2
B2
1
Damaged length [m]
0.8
Group 11 – Damaged Length [m] 0.6
0.4
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m
0.15 0 0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
χ
2
1.8
1.6
Damaged length [m]
1.4
1.2
B2 ≤ 1.5m C ≤ 2m 1
0.15 0 0.8 B2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
χ
107
11.5 Peak SPR

5
4.5
S2
4
3.5
Peak SPR [m /s]

2
Group 5 – peak SPR [m2/s] 3
2.5
2
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5
1.5
0 3.66
1
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
χ
0.12
0.1
S1
Peak SPR [m 2/s]
0.08
Group 6 - peak SPR [m2/s] 0.06
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 0.04

0.025 0
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
2.5
2
Peak SPR [m 2/s]
Group 7 – peak SPR [m2/s] 1.5
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 1
S1
0 0.05
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
χ
108
0.16
0.14
0.12
Peak SPR [m 2/s]

2 0.1
Group 8a – peak SPR [m /s] S1
0.08
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 0.06

0.009 0 0.04
0.02
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 S2
Peak SPR [m 2/s]
2
Group 8b – peak SPR [m /s] 0.6
0.5
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 0.4
0.022 0.292 0.3
0.2
0.1 S1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
5
Peak SPR [m 2/s]
2
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5
0 0 1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
χ
109
0.35
0.3
0.25
Group 10Cu- peak SPR [m2/s]
Peak SPR [m 2/s]

0.2
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 0.15

0.023 0
0.1
S1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
3.5
3
Peak SPR [m 2/s]
2.5
1.5
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 1 S2
0.014 0.014
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
χ
0.06
0.05
Group 12 – peak SPR [m2/s]

Peak SPR [m 2/s]
0.04
s1 ≤ 0,25 s2 ≤ 1,5 0.03

0 0
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
χ
110
11.6 TSP
cable parameter (d or χ) between the tested cables are classified according to the worst
result of the two tested cables. The projection of the red line on the vertical axis defines the
800
700
S2
600
500
Group 5 – TSP [m2]
TSP [m2]
400
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400 300
0 286.7 200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
χ
60
50
S1
40
Group 6 - TSP [m2]

TSP [m 2]
30
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400 20
16.4 0
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
TSP [m 2]
2
Group 7 – TSP [m ] 800.00
600.00
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400
0 0 400.00
200.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
χ
111
70
S2
60
S1
50
2
Group 8a – TSP [m ]
TSP [m 2]
40
30
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400
14.9 3.0 20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
250
S2
200
Group 8b – TSP [m2] 150

TSP [m 2]
100
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400
0 66.55
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
χ
1200
1000
800
TSP [m 2]
Group 9 – TSP [m2] 600
400
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400
0 0 200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
χ
112
100
90 S2
80
70
Group 10Cu- TSP [m2] 60
TSP [m 2]
50
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400 40
16.2 28.12 30
S1
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
χ
700
600
500
TSP [m 2]
400
Group 11 – TSP [m2] 300
200
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400 S2
13.11 0 100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
χ
30
25
2
Group 12 – TSP [m ] 20
TSP [m 2]
s1 ≤ 50 s2 ≤ 400 15
2.6 0 S1
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
χ
113
12 Annex D, Proposal for EXAP rules for power

cables
The EXAP procedure is described in the flow chart in

Figure 28.
The EXAP is applicable to FIPEC Scenario 1, i.e. for Class B2ca, Cca and Dca cables.
Figure 28 Flow chart of the EXAP procedure.
12.1 Definition of a product family for EXAP for power cables

For the purposes of applying the EXAP rules and procedure, 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
conductor size and number of cores.
The specific family shall be produced by the same manufacturer using the same materials and the
same design rules (International standard, National standard, Company standard based on National or
International standard).
114
If the cable family falls under one of the generic families:

• - single core unsheathed
• - single core sheathed
• - unarmoured multicore
• - armoured multicore
the specific EXAP with safety margin as a function of classification parameter and class may be
applied.
The full constructional and material details for the family shall be submitted to the certification body
prior to the EXAP being applied.
12.2 EXAP with safety margin

An EXAP is based on two or more tests. The parameter χ is used as independent cable parameter. χ is
defined as:
c
χ= Vcombust
d2
where

An EXAP is based on two or more tests. 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:
ν class = ν max + ν sm
where
νclass is the value used for classification according to respective classification parameter
(peak HRR, THR, FIGRA, FS, peak SPR, and TSP),
νmax is the maximum, that is the worst, test results of the tests that forms the basis of the
EXAP, and
νsm is the safety margin required for the particular classification parameter.
115
The safety margins for the different classes and classification parameters are given in Table Table 68.
Table 68 Safety margins vsm.

B2 C D S1 S2
THR [MJ] 1.5 3 7
FIGRA [Ws-1] 15 30 130
Peak SPR [m2s-1] 0.05 0.3
TSP [m2] 10 80
These safety margins can be applied to cables with cable parameter within the ranges indicated in
Table 69. An exception is very large cables, see Section 12.2.
Table 69 Allowed range of cable parameters for using safety margins as specified in Table 68.
dmin [mm] dmax [mm] χmin [ ] χmax [ ]
Armoured 10 (5) 62 4 82
Unarmoured 9 (5) 52 6 73
multicore
Single core 6 (5) 29 2 20
sheathed
Single core 5 25 2 115
unsheathed
The value 5 mm given in the parentheses in the dmin column are only applicably if the flame spread for
the tested cables with diameters less than those tested in the CEMAC project is less than 3.3 m, that is
if the cables are not fully combusted.
Cables with a diameter of exactly 5 mm, or less, must be bundled according to prEN 50399. Bundled
cables are not included in the specific EXAP rules as the fire performance changes dramatically with
the change of mounting. Therefore these cables need to be tested case by case.
116
Figure 29 shows a theoretical example for how νclass for the classification parameter TSP is assessed
for a cable group. Tests are performed for cables with χ = 10 and with χ = 50. The maximum result is
TSP = 300 m2 which is obtained for χ = 50. Therefore νmax = 300 m2. νsm for TSP class s2 is 80 m2
according to Table 68. Assuming that the cables are unarmoured multicore the value for classification
would be νclass = 300 + 80 = 380 m2. This is below the limit 400 m2 for smoke class s2. Therefore, for
TSP, all cables in the group with 10 ≤ χ ≤50 can be considered to fulfil the requirement for class s2.
In order to classify the cables as s2 they also need to fulfil the requirements for s2 for peak SPR.
Figure 29 Assessment of νclass for the classification parameter TSP. The first (χ=10) and the fifth (χ
=50) cables are tested and used as basis for the EXAP. This results in a classification
value, νclass = νmax+νsm,= 380 m2, for 10 ≤ χ ≤50, that is lower than the TSP class limit 400
m2 for class s2. Theoretical example.
117
12.3 Cables larger than the tested range

Cables larger than the tested range are not included in the applicable range for safety margins in Table
69. At the same time it is well known that, as long as not all cables within a group are completely
combusted, fire performance is better for larger cables than for smaller cables. There is therefore a
possibility for EXAP based on extrapolation to larger diameters for cable families listed in Table 41.
The condition for this is that fire performance actually improves with increasing diameter. This
condition is in general fulfilled if the classification for a large diameter cable is B2ca or Cca. A cable is
considered to have a large diameter if its diameter dmax is within the range given in Table 70.
Table 70 Allowed ranges of dmax for EXAP applied for very large cables.
Armoured cables: dmax = 56 - 62 mm
Unarmoured multicore cables dmax = 47 - 52 mm
Single core sheathed cables dmax = 26 - 29 mm
Single core unsheathed cables dmax = 22 - 25 mm
If a cable with outer diameter dmax in the range given in Table 70 is tested and classified B2ca or Cca
then cables with d>dmax can be classified according to the result for the tested cable with diameter
dmax.
12.4 Generic rules

For cable types not belonging to any of the cable families defined in in Table 41 no safety margins
have been determined. For such cables safety margins can be generated from the test results of the
tested cables. In this case at least three cables must be tested.
The generic EXAP is based on the cable parameter χ. Therefore the cables in the cable family need a
well defined diameter. This means that the cable cross section must be circular. Furthermore the
cables need a well defined non-zero number of metallic conductors. As a result the generic EXAP
rules can only be applied for cable families with circular cables having at least one metallic conductor.
For other type of cable families it is not possible with EXAP.
The generic EXAP is not applicable to data or optical cables.

118
The safety margin νsm is a function that:
• increases with increased dispersion of the measured values,

• increases with increased range of the cable parameter χ,
• decreases with increased number of tests, and
• decreases with increased monotonicity of the measured values.
Such a function is shown in Equation 10 below:
σ (χ max − χ min1 )
vsm = (10)
(n − 1)χ min (1 + m )
where
σ is the standard variation of the measured values,

χmin and χmax are the limiting cable parameters in the tested range,
n is the number of tested cables, n≥3, and
m is a measure of the monotonicity of the measured values.
1 n
σ= ∑ (vi − v )2
n i =1
n −1
∑v i +1 − vi − vn − v1
m = 1− i =1
n −1
∑v
i =1
i +1 − vi
(If all values are identical m=1.)

119
Selection of cable parameter, n=3 cables

The cable parameter of the tested cables with a value of the cable parameter between
χmin and χmax can not be chosen arbitrarily. If three cables are tested
the cable parameter of the third cable must fall in the following range:
1
χ min = (χ max + χ min ) − 0.1(χ max − χ min )
2
1
χ max = (χ max + χ min ) + 0.1(χ max − χ min )
2
Selection of cable parameters, n>3 cables

If four or more cables are tested the cable parameter must fall in the following range:
i −1  n − 3  χ max − χ min  0.8  1  χ max − χ min  0.8 

χ ni , min =  χ max + (n − 2) ⋅ χ min −  1 − ( n −3)  + χ min (2 − i ) ) +  1 − ( n −3) (i − 3)
n −1  2  n−2  2  2 n−2  2 
i −1  n − 3  χ max − χ min  0.8  1  χ − χ  0.8 

χ ni ,max =  χ max + (n − 2) ⋅ χ min −  1 − ( n−3)  + χ min (2 − i) ) +  max min 1 − ( n−3) (i − 1)
n −1  2  n − 2  2  2  n − 2  2 
Where
n is the total number of cables tested, including the cables with the extreme
cable parameters χmin and χmax.
i is a counter for the cables tested, where i=2, 3,…, n-1. i=1 and
i=n are reserved for the extreme cable parameters, that is, χn1=χmin and χnn=χmax.
χni, min is the minimum cable parameter for the i-th cable.
χni, max is the maximum cable parameter for the i-th cable.
Except for the determination of safety margin the classification is performed in the same way as is
described in Section 7.1. The EXAP is only valid for cables within the range χmin≤χ ≤ χmax.
120
Example 1
Three cables are tested. The cable parameter χ of the cables are χ1=6.1, χ2=21.8, and χ3=33. FIGRA
for these cables are measured to ν1=38.5 W/s, ν2=40.5 W/s, and ν3=103.4 W/s, respectively. This
gives:
σ = 30.1 W/s,
m=1
νsm = 33.2 W/s and finally
νclass=136.6 W/s
This shows that the value for classification that shall be used for FIGRA is 136.6 W/s. This is lower
than the classification criterion 150 W/s for class B2ca. Therefore, for FIGRA, all cables in the group
with 6.1 ≤ χ ≤ 33 can be considered to fulfil the requirement for class B2ca. In order to classify the
cables as B2ca they also need to fulfil the requirements for B2ca for flame spread, peak HRR, FIGRA
and for EN 60332-1-2.
The example is taken from actual tests on cable group 7. The experimental results are shown in Figure
30 where the red circles indicate the cables used in the example.
Figure 30 FIGRA for cable group 7. The full range of experimental results is indicated with
diamonds whereas the red circles indicate the cables used for the generic EXAP procedure
in the example.
121
Example 2
Three cables are tested. The cable parameter χ of the cables are χ1=8.8, χ2=18.2, and χ3=33.2. TSP for
these cables are measured to ν1=16.3 m2, ν2=16.3 m2, and ν3=45.4 m2, respectively. This gives:
σ = 13.7 m2,
m=1
νsm = 9.1 m² and finally
νclass=54.5 m2
This shows that the value for classification that shall be used for TSP is 54.5 m2. This is higher than
the classification criterion 50 m2 for class s1. Therefore, cables in the group with 8.8≤ χ ≤ 33.2 can
not be considered to fulfil the requirement for class s1.
The example is taken from actual tests on cable group 8a. The experimental results are shown in
Figure 31 where the red circles indicate the cables used in the example.
Figure 31 TSP for cable group 8a. The full range of experimental results is indicated with diamonds
whereas the red circles indicate the cables used for the generic EXAP procedure in the
example.
12.5 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.
122
13 Annex E, Summary graphs of cable group test

results and table of main scalar values, RTD
Group 1
Group 1: Screened & Unscreened data cables
HRR30
450
400
4pU/UTP (1)
350 4pU/UTP (1)
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
300 4pF/UTPC5 (1)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
250
HRR30 (kW)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
200 4pSF/UTP (1)
4pS/STP (1)
150 4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
100 4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
32pF/UTPC5 (1)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

THR
70
60
4pU/UTP (1)
4pU/UTP (1)
50 4pF/UTPC5 (1)
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
40 4pF/UTPC6 (1)
THR (MJ)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
4pSF/UTP (1)
30
4pS/STP (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
20
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
10 32pF/UTPC5 (1)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
123

FIGRA
2500
4pU/UTP (1)
2000
4pU/UTP (1)
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
1500 4pF/UTPC6 (1)

FIGRA (W/s)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
4pSF/UTP (1)
1000 4pS/STP (1)

4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
500 4pS/FTPC7 (1)
32pF/UTPC5 (1)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

SPR60
4.5
4pU/UTP (1)
4
4pU/UTP (1)
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
3.5
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
3
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
2.5
4pSF/UTP (1)
4pS/STP (1)
2
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
1.5
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
1
32pF/UTPC5 (1)
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
124

TSP
500
450
4pU/UTP (1)
400
4pU/UTP (1)
350 4pF/UTPC5 (1)
4pF/UTPC5 (1)
300 4pF/UTPC6 (1)
4pF/UTPC6 (1)
TSP (m²)
250 4pF/UTPC6 (1)
4pSF/UTP (1)
200 4pS/STP (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
150
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
100
4pS/FTPC7 (1)
32pF/UTPC5 (1)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
125
Group 3
Group 3: Optical fibre cables
HRR30
350
Central tube 2 fibre (1)

300

250
200 Loose tube 24 fibre (1)

HRR30 (kW)
Loose tube 60 fibre (1)
150 Corrugated loose buffer

tube 6/72 (1)
Corrugated loose buffer

tube 12/144 (1)
100
Tight buffer 6 fibre (1)

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

THR
90
80

70

60

THR (MJ)

40
Corrugated loose buffer tube 6/72 (1)
30
20 Tight buffer 6 fibre (1)

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
126
Group 3 : Optical fibre cables

FIGRA
800
700 Central tube 12 fibre (1)

600

FIGRA (W/s)
400

300

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

SPR60
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
SPR60 (m²/s)

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
127

TSP
180

140
120

TSP (m²)

80
60 Corrugated loose buffer tube 12/144 (1)

40

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
128
Group 5
HRR30
400
350
2 x 1.5 (R)
300
4 x 4.0 (R)
250 4 x 10 (R)
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 25 (R)
200
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
150
27 x 1.5 (R)
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

THR
140
120
100
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4.0 (R)
80
THR (MJ)
4 x 10 (R)
4 x 25 (R)
60
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
40 27 x 1.5 (R)
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
129

FIGRA
1800
1600
1400
1200
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4.0 (R)
FIGRA (W/s)
1000
4 x 10 (R)
4 x 25 (R)
800 4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
600 27 x 1.5 (R)
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

SPR60
4.5
3.5
2 x 1.5 (R)
3 4 x 4.0 (R)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4 x 10 (R)
2.5
4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
2
4 x 240 (R)
27 x 1.5 (R)
1.5
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
130

TSP
800
700
600
2 x 1.5 (R)
500
4 x 4.0 (R)
4 x 10 (R)
TSP (m²)
400 4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
300
27 x 1.5 (R)
200
100
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
131
Group 6
Group 6: armoured multicore power cables with copper conductors halogen free
HRR30
60
50
40
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4 (R)
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 10 (R)
30 4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
20 19 x 1.5 (R)
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
30
25
20
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4 (R)
4 x 10 (R)
THR (MJ)
15 4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
19 x 1.5 (R)
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
132
FIGRA
120
100
80
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4 (R)
FIGRA (W/s)
4 x 10 (R)
60 4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
19 x 1.5 (R)
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
0.12
0.1
0.08
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4 (R)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4 x 10 (R)
0.06
4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
0.04
19 x 1.5 (R)
0.02
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
133
TSP
60
50
40
2 x 1.5 (R)
4 x 4 (R)
4 x 10 (R)
TSP (m²)
30 4 x 25 (R)
4 x 50 (R)
4 x 240 (R)
19 x 1.5 (R)
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
134
Group 7
HRR30
195
145
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 4 (1)
95 5 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
4 x 185 (1)
7x1.5(1)
45
-5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
time (s)

THR
90
80
70
60 2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
50 4 x 4 (1)
THR (MJ)
5 x 16 (1)
40 4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
4 x 185 (1)
30 7X1.5(1)
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
time (s)
135

FIGRA
200
180
160
140
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
120 3 x 2.5 (1)
FIGRA (W/s)
4 x 4 (1)
100 5 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
80 4 x 50 (1)
4 x 185 (1)
7X1.5(1)
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)

SPR60
2.5
2 2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4 x 4 (1)
1.5 5 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
4 x 185 (1)
1 7X1.5(1)
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
136

TSP
1600
1400
1200
2 x 1.5 (1)
1000 7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
4 x 4 (1)
TSP (m²)
800 5 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
600 4 x 185 (1)
7X1.5(1)
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
137
Group 8a
HRR30
80
70
60
2 x 1.5 (1)
50 7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
HRR30 (kW)
4 x 4 (1)
40 4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
30 3 x 185 (1)
3x2.5(1R)
4x50(1R)
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
60
50
40 2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
THR (MJ)
4 x 4 (1)
30 4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
20
3x2.5(1R)
4x50(1R)
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
138
FIGRA
140
120
100
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
80
FIGRA (W/s)
4 x 4 (1)
4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
60
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
3x2.5(1R)
40 4x50(1R)
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
0.16
0.14
0.12
2 x 1.5 (1)
0.1 7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4 x 4 (1)
0.08 4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
0.06
3 x 185 (1)
3x2.5(1R)
4x50(1R)
0.04
0.02
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
139
TSP
90
80
70
60 2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
50
TSP (m²)
4 x 4 (1)
4 x 16 (1)
40 4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
30
3x2.5(1R)
4x50(1R)
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
140
Group 8b
Group : 8 B unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors halogen free
HRR30
350
300
250
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
200 3 x 2.5 (1)

HRR30 (kW)
4 x 4 (1)
4 x 16 (1)
150 4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
120
100
80 2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
3 x 2.5 (1)
THR (MJ)
4 x 4 (1)
60
4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
4 x 50 (1)
40 3 x 185 (1)
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
141
FIGRA
500
450
400
350
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
300
3 x 2.5 (1)
FIGRA (W/s)
4 x 4 (1)
250
4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
200
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
150
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
0.9
0.8
0.7
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
0.6
3 x 2.5 (1)
SPR60 (m²/s)
4 x 4 (1)
0.5
4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
0.4
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
142
TSP
250
200
2 x 1.5 (1)
7 x 1.5 (1)
150
3 x 2.5 (1)
TSP (m²)
4 x 4 (1)
4 x 16 (1)
4 x 35 (1)
100
4 x 50 (1)
3 x 185 (1)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
143
Group 9
HRR30
500
450
1 x 1.5 (R)
400
1 x 4 (R)
350
1 x 10 (R)
300
HRR30 (kW)
1 x 25 (R)
250
1 x 50 (R)
200
1 x 95 (R)
150
1 x 150 (R)
100
1 x 240 (R)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
120
1 x 1.5 (R)
100
1 x 4 (R)
80
1 x 10 (R)
1 x 25 (R)
THR (MJ)
60
1 x 50 (R)
1 x 95 (R)
40
1 x 150 (R)
20
1 x 240 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
144
FIGRA
4000
3500
1 x 1.5 (R)
3000 1 x 4 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
2500
FIGRA (W/s)
1 x 25 (R)
2000
1 x 50 (R)
1500
1 x 95 (R)
1000 1 x 150 (R)
1 x 240 (R)
500
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
6
1 x 1.5 (R)
1 x 4 (R)
5
1 x 10 (R)
4
SPR60 (m²/s)
1 x 25 (R)
1 x 50 (R)
3
1 x 95 (R)
2
1 x 150 (R)
1 x 240 (R)
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
145
TSP
1200
1 x 1.5 (R)
1000
1 x 4 (R)
800
1 x 10 (R)
1 x 25 (R)
TSP (m²)
600
1 x 50 (R)
1 x 95 (R)
400
1 x 150 (R)
200
1 x 240 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
146
Group 10
Group 10: single core sheathed power cables with either copper or aluminium conductor halogen free
HRR30
250
200
1 x 2.5 (R)
1 x 6 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
150 1 x 25 (R)
1 x 70 (R)
HRR30 (kW)
1 x 70 Al (R)
1 x 95 (R)
100 1 x 95 Al (R)
1 x 150 (R)
1X150Al(R)
1 x 240 (R)
50
1 x 240 Al (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
70
60
50
1 x 2.5 (R)
1 x 6 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
40
1 x 25 (R)
THR (MJ)
1 x 70 (R)
1 x 70 Al (R)
30
1 x 95 (R)
1 x 95 Al (R)
1X150Al(R)
20
1 x 150 (R)
1 x 240 (R)
1 x 240 Al (R)
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
147
FIGRA
400
350
1 x 2.5 (R)
300 1 x 6 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
250 1 x 25 (R)
FIGRA (W/s)
1 x 70 (R)
200 1 x 70 Al (R)
1 x 95 (R)
1 x 95 Al (R)
150
1 x 150 (R)
1X150Al(R)
100
1 x 240 (R)
1 x 240 Al (R)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
0.35
0.3
1 x 2.5 (R)
1 x 6 (R)
0.25 1 x 10 (R)
1 x 25 (R)
1 x 70 (R)
0.2 1 x 70 Al (R)
SPR60 (m²/s)
1 x 95 (R)
1 x 95 Al (R)
0.15
1 x 150 (R)
1X150Al(R)
0.1 1 x 240 (R)
1 x 240 Al (R)
0.05
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
148
TSP
100
90
1 x 2.5 (R)
80
1 x 6 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
70
1 x 25 (R)
60 1 x 70 (R)
1 x 70 Al (R)
TSP (m²)
50 1 x 95 (R)
1 x 95 Al (R)
40
1 x 150 (R)
1 x 240 (R)
30
1 x 240 Al (R)
20 1X150Al(R)
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
149
Group 11
HRR30
45
40
35
30 1 x 1.5 (1)
1 x 4 (1)
25
1 x 10 (1)
HRR30 (kW)
1 x 25 (1)
20
1 x 50 (1)
15 1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
10 1 x 240 (1)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
8
1 x 1.5 (1)
7 1 x 4 (1)
1 x 10 (1)
6
1 x 25 (1)
5
1 x 50 (1)
THR (MJ)
4 1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
3
1 x 150 (2)
2 1 x 240 (1)
1 x 240 (2)
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
150
FIGRA
350
300
250
1 x 1.5 (1)
1 x 4 (1)
200 1 x 10 (1)
FIGRA (W/s)
1 x 25 (1)
150 1 x 50 (1)
1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
100
1 x 240 (1)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
4
3.5
1 x 1.5 (1)
2.5
1 x 4 (1)
1 x 10 (1)
2
SPR60 (m²/s)
1 x 25 (1)
1 x 50 (1)
1.5 1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
1 x 240 (1)
1
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
151
TSP
700
600
500
1 x 1.5 (1)
1 x 4 (1)
400 1 x 10 (1)
TSP (m²)
1 x 25 (1)
1 x 50 (1)
300
1 x 95 (1)
1 x 150 (1)
200 1 x 240 (1)
100
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
152
Group 12
Group 12: single core unsheathed power cables with copper conductor halogen free
HRR30
300
250
1 x 1.5 (R)
200 1 x 4 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
150
HRR30 (kW)
1 x 25 (R)
1 x 50 (R)
100
1 x 95 (R)
50 1 x 150 (R)
1 x 240 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
80
70
1 x 1.5 (R)
60
1 x 4 (R)
50
1 x 10 (R)
40 1 x 25 (R)
THR (MJ)
1 x 50 (R)
30
1 x 95 (R)
20
1 x 150 (R)
10
1 x 240 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
153
FIGRA
700
600
1 x 1.5 (R)
500 1 x 4 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
400
FIGRA (W/s)
1 x 25 (R)
300
1 x 50 (R)
1 x 95 (R)
200
1 x 150 (R)
100
1 x 240 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
0.2
1 x 1.5 (R)
0.15
1 x 4 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
0.1
SPR60 (m²/s)
1 x 25 (R)
1 x 50 (R)
0.05
1 x 95 (R)
1 x 150 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1 x 240 (R)
-0.05
time (s)
154
TSP
70
60
1 x 1.5 (R)
50 1 x 4 (R)
1 x 10 (R)
40
1 x 25 (R)
TSP (m²)
30 1 x 50 (R)
1 x 95 (R)
20
1 x 150 (R)
10
1 x 240 (R)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
155
Group 13
Group 13: Unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors halogen free
HRR30
140
120
100
Cable 1
Cable 2
80 cable 3
HRR30 (kW)
Cable 4
Cable 5
60 Cable 6
Cable 10
cable 11
40 Cable 12
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
THR
80
70
60
Cable 1
Cable 2
50
Cable 3
Cable 4
THR (MJ)
40 Cable 5
Cable 6
Cable 10
30
Cable 11
Cable 12
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
156
FIGRA
250
200
Cable 1
Cable 2
150 Cable 3
FIGRA (W/s)
Cable 4
Cable 5
Cable 6
100 Cable 10
Cable 11
Cable 12
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
SPR60
0.6
0.5
Cable 1
0.4
Cable 2
Cable 3
SPR60 (m²/s)
Cable 4
0.3 Cable 5
Cable 6
Cable 10
Cable 11
0.2
Cable 12
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
157
TSP
300
250
Cable 1
200
Cable 2
Cable 3
Cable 4
TSP (m²)
150 Cable 5
Cable 6
Cable 10
Cable 11
100
Cable 12
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
time (s)
158
Group 1
FDP Falling of Smoke not
t Peak Damage t Peak
Group 1 Peak HRR30 THR (1200) FIGRA t FIGRA Peak SPR60 TSP (1200) SMOGRA t SMOGRA Flaming <= FDP Flaming specimen entering the
HRR30 Length SPR60
10Sec >10 Sec parts hood
kW s MJ kW/s s m m2/s s m2 cm2/s2 s Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N
C/1/1 265.7 639 33.5 790.1 636 3.3 0.495 645 89.89 14.572 630 Y Y N N
C/1/2 309.33 810.00 39.77 608.51 807.00 3.30 0.48 810.00 91.39 9.35 810.00 Y Y N N
C/1/3 22.80 579.00 7.06 149.61 405.00 1.77 0.03 456.00 4.59 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/1/4 196.07 699.00 33.56 499.16 687.00 3.30 0.35 699.00 63.11 8.71 696.00 Y N N N
C/1/5 211.14 855.00 36.51 380.43 855.00 3.30 0.46 864.00 100.34 8.20 861.00 Y Y N N
C/1/6 408.41 501.00 40.61 2074.98 477.00 3.30 3.78 462.00 392.77 238.99 453.00 Y N N N
C/1/8 162.59 672.00 27.48 440.37 666.00 3.30 0.25 672.00 51.46 6.66 669.00 Y N N N
C/1/9 13.05 411.00 1.24 131.50 393.00 0.30 0.03 402.00 2.71 TNR N/A N N N N
C/1/11 10.86 429.00 1.56 89.25 417.00 0.28 0.02 408.00 4.28 TNR N/A N N N N
C/1/12 21.23 468.00 3.44 139.34 420.00 0.67 0.05 432.00 8.29 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/1/13 12.76 426.00 1.67 114.13 405.00 0.30 0.04 420.00 3.36 TNR N/A N N N N
C/1/14 14.29 444.00 2.77 111.97 417.00 0.54 0.03 1479.00 13.25 TNR N/A N N N N
C/1/15 31.05 564.00 7.11 130.57 513.00 1.34 0.06 543.00 12.42 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/1/16 183.47 1083.00 57.91 234.32 1083.00 3.30 0.62 1080.00 136.36 7.98 1080.00 Y Y N N
Group 3
Smoke
FDD FDD Falling of not
Peak t Peak THR Damage Peak t Peak TSP t Flaming Flaming specimen entering
Group 3 HRR30 HRR30 (1200) FIGRA t FIGRA Length SPR60 SPR60 (1200) SMOGRA SMOGRA <= 10Sec >10 Sec parts the hood
C/3/1 46.62 627.00 26.90 174.53 543 3.5 0.09 537.00 60.39 TNR N/A Y N N N
C/3/2 229.02 603.00 36.05 757.74 600 3.5 0.46 612.00 102.40 14.92 606.00 Y N N N
C/3/3 107.38 981.00 51.25 162.63 894 3.5 0.21 1053.00 104.37 2.89 930.00 Y N N N
C/3/4 41.05 747.00 22.05 116.57 645 2.16 0.09 636.00 55.00 TNR N/A N N N N
C/3/5 133.93 756.00 47.81 303.31 699 3.3 0.20 750.00 80.19 5.03 522.00 N N N N
C/3/8 49.7 1218 FAT<1200 57.0 1128 1.33 0.205 1137 81.42 2.489 1116 Y N N N
C/3/9 80.21 1497.00 53.50 90.15 1083 3.3 0.15 1497.00 67.01 1.23 1491.00 N N N N
C/3/10 177.03 969.00 75.69 267.87 960 3.5 0.31 1047.00 140.27 5.12 564.00 N N N N
C/3/11 19.95 777.00 9.64 42.91 762 0.62 0.07 834.00 30.42 TNR N/A N N N N
C/3/12 303.25 1209.00 132.27 352.05 1065 3.3 0.90 1227.00 248.62 9.75 1215.00 N Y N N
C/3/13 18.76 1011.00 12.60 34.80 579 0.45 0.08 1047.00 39.22 TNR N/A N N N N
C/3/14 56.39 573.00 20.78 215.20 552 2.38 0.09 747.00 28.69 TNR N/A N N N N
C/3/15 25.12 606.00 11.63 153.50 423 1.28 0.04 687.00 14.14 TNR N/A N N N N
C/3/16 25.32 693.00 14.64 147.68 462 0.97 0.03 888.00 11.13 TNR N/A N N N N
C/3/17 155.54 942.00 49.56 242.37 939 3.3 0.41 966.00 134.32 6.24 960.00 N N N N
Group 5
Smoke
C/5/1 343.67 537 70.67 1,484.56 519 3.3 4.60 543 680.83 194.41 534 N N N N
C/5/2 296.70 900 99.72 683.76 675 3.3 2.59 702 575.84 64.80 699 N N N N
C/5/3 228.25 855 112.26 431.18 798 3.3 1.96 870 586.16 34.74 861 N N N N
C/5/4 51.19 1491 14.11 101.19 501 3.3 0.38 1500 145.10 40.15 378 N N N N
C/5/5 27.47 645 12.75 105.52 402 1 0.27 381 112.73 40.16 360 N N N N
C/5/6 33.71 681 13.96 104.45 486 1.07 0.29 612 133.67 22.37 378 N N N N
C/5/7 242.91 1422 93.81 274.63 1086 3.3 0.94 1062 394.12 51.61 363 Y Y N N
Group 6
Smoke
C/6/1 42.57 711 24.79 104.95 693 1.65 0.09 1218 51.83 TNR N/A N N N N
C/6/2 32.68 1032 21.46 49.96 939 -1 0.06 939 39.03 TNR N/A N N N N
C/6/3 51.21 1269 25.10 52.96 1266 1.55 0.08 1389 36.56 TNR N/A N N N N
C/6/4 30.03 1491 13.12 41.83 504 1.1 0.04 1500 19.26 TNR N/A N N N N
C/6/5 17.13 777 11.87 45.44 576 0.95 0.05 1023 25.51 TNR N/A N N N N
C/6/6 14.43 891 9.81 30.00 594 0.87 0.04 1500 17.43 TNR N/A N N N N
C/6/7 49.66 1317 21.42 49.15 1305 1.6 0.10 1500 35.45 TNR N/A N N N N
159
Group 7
Smoke
C/7/1 26.15 534 8.36 123.68 495 0.86 0.70 387 175.85 99.95 348 N N N N
C/7/2 190.17 1374 85.40 177.46 1371 3.3 2.85 1221 1462.12 80.70 360 N N N N
C/7/2 121.00 1194 70.66 159.42 720 3.5 1.40 1095 786.14 59.63 354 N N N N
C/7/3 27.76 603 11.61 96.96 576 0.95 0.65 402 186.27 80.31 345 N N N N
C/7/4 41.29 753 24.81 103.39 678 2 0.89 753 554.18 63.20 378 N N N N
C/7/5 13.28 1500 7.72 40.53 498 0.64 0.41 432 121.72 37.58 393 N N N N
C/7/6 7.62 732 5.33 31.27 510 0.56 0.38 450 114.68 32.47 384 N N N N
C/7/7 5.43 525 1.06 24.16 522 0.49 0.37 405 102.07 38.18 384 N N N N
C/7/8 11.69 1494 8.60 38.46 405 0.61 0.76 423 297.49 76.91 375 N N N N
Group 8a
Smoke
Group 8a HRR30 HRR30 (1200) FIGRA t FIGRA Length SPR60 SPR60 (1200) SMOGRA SMOGRA <= 10Sec >10 Sec parts the hood
C/8a/1 49.09 930 39.20 101.66 684 3.3 0.06 681 45.95 TNR N/A N Y Y N
C/8A/2 70.34 1287 49.22 87.88 984 3.3 0.15 1500 57.28 0.89 1422 N Y Y N
C/8A/3 58.16 750 40.55 130.16 738 3.3 0.09 732 60.30 TNR N/A N Y Y N
C/8a/3R 46.64 855 29.48 98.61 696 3.3 0.15 1125 81.91 1.85 1122 N N N N
C/8A/4 50.84 966 32.85 77.83 921 2.3 0.10 1500 45.43 TNR N/A N Y Y N
C/8A/5 16.96 1497 10.19 70.87 423 0.7 0.07 1500 16.33 TNR N/A N N N N
C/8A/6 18.58 1500 9.98 47.86 471 0.7 0.03 1500 9.46 TNR N/A N Y N N
C/8A/7 10.67 690 7.65 39.68 471 0.6 0.03 1500 5.09 TNR N/A N N N N
C/8a/7R 8.27 639 5.25 27.99 513 0.03 975 14.72 TNR N/A N N N N
C/8A/8 16.64 849 12.35 41.38 519 0.7 0.08 1500 16.33 TNR N/A N N N N
Group 8b
Smoke
Group 8b HRR30 HRR30 (1200) FIGRA t FIGRA Length SPR60 SPR60 (1200) SMOGRA SMOGRA <= 10Sec >10 Sec parts the hood
C/8b/1 162.58 1176 76.29 203.14 1080 3.5 0.21 1176 84.62 2.45 1176 Y N N N
C/8b/2 326.30 1038 101.22 451.28 954 3.5 0.87 1059 178.13 11.51 1059 N Y N N
C/8b/3 197.06 1209 96.95 216.79 1209 3.5 0.66 1323 196.69 6.48 1305 N Y N N
C/8b/4 131.57 1221 73.63 146.35 957 3.5 0.36 1500 130.14 3.16 1431 N Y N N
C/8b/5 43.26 1302 21.62 59.20 522 1.1 0.03 1278 13.74 TNR N/A N Y N N
C/8b/6 20.65 666 13.23 63.02 588 0.7 0.04 1500 19.49 TNR N/A N N N N
C/8b/7 21.16 756 13.46 56.64 567 0.8 0.06 1011 25.63 TNR N/A N N N N
C/8b/8 25.38 864 18.40 48.00 747 0.72 0.04 1500 26.28 1.01 1500 N Y N N
Group 9
Smoke
C/9/1 434.16 432 46.33 3408.72 423 3.3 5.01 432 630.61 411.03 411 N N N N
C/9/2 420.11 438 51.93 3171.89 426 3.3 4.84 441 696.68 364.28 423 N N N N
C/9/3 335.19 474 53.34 2004.33 465 3.3 3.42 468 629.92 210.18 456 N N N N
C/9/4 319.51 519 71.55 1495.74 504 3.3 2.80 510 794.85 142.12 486 Y N N N
C/9/5 271.21 591 72.05 967.91 576 3.3 2.01 561 747.24 79.63 543 Y Y Y N
C/9/6 249.07 645 80.35 736.76 630 3.3 1.73 792 732.36 51.22 582 Y Y Y N
C/9/7 214.12 717 86.10 516.53 711 3.3 1.50 918 781.81 56.10 369 Y Y Y N
C/9/8 199.42 936 101.02 334.04 867 3.3 1.85 1176 1012.87 43.65 372 Y Y Y N
160
Group 10
Smoke
C/10/1 209.19 912 59.05 342.81 909 3.3 0.30 951 61.96 4.55 948 Y Y Y N
C/10/2 121.81 1014 63.88 170.76 936 3.3 0.22 1179 90.08 2.76 1008 Y Y Y N
C/10/3 31.85 867 16.62 63.92 759 1.32 0.03 891 16.62 TNR N/A Y Y Y N
C/10/4 34.92 1089 23.44 44.41 1086 1.61 0.06 1035 32.90 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/5 30.47 1311 18.18 31.01 1263 1.27 0.02 1215 8.81 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/6 28.15 1077 16.79 36.36 966 0.92 0.04 1074 13.27 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/7 25.53 1290 12.73 25.81 1287 0.94 0.03 1203 9.90 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/8 28.43 1338 18.49 34.63 561 1.22 0.06 1500 26.96 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/9 23.38 1059 16.02 30.88 1056 1.19 0.04 1017 20.87 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/10 33.98 1419 17.30 31.12 942 1.12 0.29 1500 27.59 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/11 24.12 1443 14.84 26.65 564 0.94 0.02 1431 4.97 TNR N/A Y Y N N
C/10/12 38.71 1209 24.25 42.73 1116 1.3 0.06 1500 32.60 TNR N/A Y Y N N
Group 11
Smoke
C/11/1 28.76 405 8.47 297.48 384 0.9 3.52 417 582.31 435.80 348 N N N N
C/11/2 19.93 417 5.83 205.47 375 0.85 1.82 399 258.67 212.60 375 N N N N
C/11/3 19.96 423 3.38 175.44 387 1 0.77 393 110.44 105.32 348 N N N N
C/11/4 21.43 450 4.15 147.17 432 0.73 0.78 414 128.94 75.55 369 N N N N
C/11/5 15.43 489 4.58 90.86 402 0.7 0.52 492 115.83 38.35 360 N N N N
C/11/6 12.44 492 6.27 65.57 438 0.68 0.51 510 127.39 25.67 483 N N N N
C/11/7 12.41 567 4.67 54.81 399 0.6 0.37 609 115.95 15.19 384 N N N N
C/11/8 11.00 558 6.24 60.73 402 0.7 0.35 543 161.96 27.76 375 N N N N
Group 12
Smoke
C/12/1 246.77 690 69.41 656.46 648 3.3 0.17 798 62.56 3.73 711 y N N N
C/12/2 190.72 708 57.19 486.38 681 3.3 0.13 783 47.92 2.63 762 Y N N N
C/12/3 24.98 501 9.25 127.73 489 1.9 0.05 495 26.44 TNR N/A N N N N
C/12/4 13.85 600 4.36 56.61 420 0.65 0.02 765 6.53 TNR N/A N N N N
C/12/5 7.35 474 4.67 48.99 420 0.4 0.01 1281 9.15 TNR N/A N N N N
C/12/6 8.96 696 5.77 43.76 456 0.5 0.01 972 3.94 TNR N/A N N N N
C/12/7 15.66 705 9.84 46.41 552 0.7 0.02 1158 10.51 TNR N/A N N N N
C/12/8 12.28 600 7.08 44.32 558 55 0.02 1425 12.70 TNR N/A N N N N
Group 13
Smoke
C/13/1 35.91 1101 29.64 83.65 621 2.26 0.04 1500 45.44 TNR N/A Y Y Y N
C/13/2 37.92 1500 17.81 33.46 498 1.47 0.03 1500 9.16 TNR N/A Y Y Y N
C/13/3 11.15 1500 5.81 28.34 495 0.66 0.00 1500 1.82 TNR N/A Y Y Y N
C/13/4 124.91 1152 66.04 151.81 1110 3.3 0.18 1245 79.13 1.87 1245 Y Y Y N
C/13/5 70.31 1494 38.59 62.36 483 2.51 0.05 1500 9.27 TNR N/A Y Y Y N
C/13/6 38.05 1413 17.61 49.36 468 1.51 0.02 1500 10.63 TNR N/A Y Y Y N
C/13/10 110.43 1131 68.43 207.42 636 3.3 0.52 1185 252.27 5.98 624 Y N N N
C/13/11 26.93 909 16.88 59.09 663 1.1 0.07 1254 37.59 TNR N/A Y N N N
C/13/12 16.59 867 14.02 42.22 567 1 0.04 1341 22.94 TNR N/A N Y N N
161
14 Annex F, prEN 50399 raw data format

(Informative)
Guidance on the file format for data from the test
For easy exchange of test results, test data should be stored in a standard format. The principle
objective is that the file should contain all the required information including both visually
observed/recorded and automatically recorded data. It should be possible to perform all requested
calculations.
The data of a test should be stored in an ASCII-file with 17 tab-separated columns of data. More
columns (with non-compulsory data) are allowed when they are placed after the compulsory columns,
not in between.
The file should contain a two-line header and additional lines with general information and
automatically recorded (raw) data per time step.
The first header line contains the column header texts:
a) General information
b) [empty];
c) time (s);
d) Gas mass flow meter (mg/s);
e) DPT (Pa);
f) Transmission (%);
g) mole percentage of oxygen (%);
h) mole percentage of CO2 (%);
i) T0 (K) [Ambient temperature];
j) T1 (K) [Duct thermocouple 1];
k) T2 (K) [Duct thermocouple 2];
l) T3 (K) [Duct thermocouple 3];
m) mole percentage of CO (%);
n) Ambient pressure (kPa);
o) Air mass flow meter (mg/s);
p) Main photodiode output (-) [if using laser smoke system];
q) Compensating photodiode output (-) [if using laser smoke system]
The second line is not specified (empty by default).
Subsequent lines contain general information in the first two columns and automatically recorded
(raw) data in the following 15 columns. Only the first 76 lines in columns one and two are used. In
columns 3 to 17 the vector data from each transducer is given at a time interval of 3 s.
The general information (regarding the test, product, laboratory, apparatus, pre-test and end of test
conditions, and visual observations) is given in column two, with a description of what is presented in
column one. The row order of the different items is given in the example below.
162
Column 1 Column 2
Row 1 General Information
2
3 Test
4 Standard used prEN 50399
5
6 Date of test 16/03/2008
7
8 Product
9 Product Identification Demo Cable
10 Specimen number
11 E' (MJ/m³) 17.2
12 Sponsor Sponsor of test
13 Date of arrival 14/04/2002
14 Manufacturer Manufacture of cable
15 Cable diameter (mm) 2.4
16 NMV (l/m) 0.76
17 Largest conductor size (mm²) 1
18 Total number of cables 55
19 Number of layers 1
20 Number of burners 1
21 Mounting touching
22 Backing board on ladder? {Y/N} Yes
23 Backing board Supalux
24 Flame application time (s) 1200
25
26 Specifications: apparatus
27 Flow profile kt (-) 0.86
28 Probe constant kp (-) 1.08
29 Duct diameter (m) 0.4
30 O2 calibration delay time (s) 9
31 CO2 calibration delay time (s) 9
32 CO calibration delay time (s) 9
33
34 Laboratory
35 Laboratory name Lab
36 Operator Operator name
37 Filename C:\CAB_SOFT\DATA\CS_Demo.csv
38 Report identification Report name
39
40
41 Pre-test conditions
42 Barometric pressure (Pa) 101325
43 Relative humidity (%) 50
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Conditioning
163
53 Conditioned? {Y/N} No
54 Conditioning temperature (°C) 23
55 Conditioining RH (%) 50
56 {Constant mass/fixed period} Fixed period
57 Time interval (hours)
58 Mass 1 (g)
59 Mass 2 (g)
60
61 Comments
62 Pre-test comments Comments entered before test
63 After-test comments After-test comments will be printed
here
64 FDP flaming <= 10s {Y/N} No
65 FDP flaming > 10s {Y/N} No
66 Falling of specimen parts {Y/N} Yes
67 Smoke not entering hood {Y/N} No
68 Damage length (m) 0.4
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76 HRR level (kW) 20.5
The 15 columns with automatically recorded data are in accordance with, and in the same order as
below:
1) Time (t), in s (with 3 s time interval); at the start of recording of data, t = 0 by definition.
2) Mass flow rate of propane gas to the burner (mgas) in mg/s.
3) Pressure difference between the two chambers of the bi-directional probe (∆p), at the
general measuring section in the exhaust duct, in Pa.
4) Transmission recorded by the smoke system at the general measuring
section in the exhaust duct, in %.
5) O2 concentration in exhaust flow (xO2), sampled at the gas sampling probe in the
general measuring section in the exhaust duct, in %.
NOTE The oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations are measured only in the exhaust duct; both concentrations are assumed to be
constant in the air that enters the test room. It should be noted that the air supplied from a space where oxygen is consumed (e.g.
by fire tests) can not fulfil this assumption.
164
6) CO2 concentration in exhaust flow (xCO2), sampled at the gas sampling probe in the
7) Ambient temperature (T0) in the test room in K.
8) Temperature measured by thermocouple 1 (T1) in the general measuring section in the
exhaust duct, in K.
exhaust duct, in K.
exhaust duct, in K.
11) CO concentration in exhaust flow (xCO), sampled at the gas sampling probe in the
12) Ambient pressure in the test room in kPa.
13) Mass flow rate of air to the burner (mair) in mg/s.
14) Signal from the main photodiode of a laser smoke system at the general measuring section in the
exhaust duct [dimensionless].
15) Signal from the compensating photodiode of a laser smoke system at the general measuring
section in the exhaust duct [dimensionless].
For columns 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, if the transducer is not fitted then the value reported
must be -1 for the whole length of the data vector.
The data file format presented here only concerns the raw data (before performing the calculations).
No file format is given for processed data files. However, it is advisable to build the processed data
file from the raw data file by adding columns and rows at the ends (and not in between). In this way a
processed data file can easily be used as a raw data input file.
SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden develops and transfers technology for improving
competitiveness and quality in industry, and for safety, conservation of resources and good
environment in society as a whole. With Sweden’s widest and most sophisticated range of
equipment and expertise for technical investigation, measurement, testing and certification, we
perform research and development in close liaison with universities, institutes of technology
and international partners.
SP is a EU-notified body and accredited test laboratory. Our headquarters are in Borås, in the
west part of Sweden.
SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden Fire Technology

Box 857, SE-501 15 BORÅS, SWEDEN SP Report 2010:27
Telephone: +46 10 516 50 00, Telefax: +46 33 13 55 02 ISBN 91-7848-978-
E-mail: info@sp.se, Internet: www.sp.se 91-86319-65-6
www.sp.se ISSN 0284-5172

CEMAC - CE-marking of Cables

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEMAC - CE-marking of Cables

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEMAC - CE-marking of cables

Terence Journeaux Europacable

SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

1 Background to the CEMAC project 6

2 Executive summary and conclusions 9

3 Cable selection and procurement 11

4 Experimental program and laboratory qualification through

6 Large scale tests results 22

7 Extended application, EXAP 40

8 Test results EN 60332-1-2 and EN 61034-2 64

9 Annex A, Cable details and photographs 70

10 Annex B, Test results EN 60332-1-2 and EN 61034-2 87

11 Annex C, Analysis of results 91

12 Annex D, Proposal for EXAP rules for power cables 113

13 Annex E, Summary graphs of cable group test results and table of

14 Annex F, prEN 50399 raw data format 161

1 Background to the CEMAC project

Table 1. Classes of reaction to fire performance for cables [4].

Aca EN ISO 1716 PCS ≤ 2,0 MJ/kg (1)

Table 2. Responsible partner for each activity.

2 Executive summary and conclusions

d [m] Outer diameter.

Table 3. Error rate for the different classification parameters.

s1a = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 61034-2 ≥ 80%

In short, the conclusions from the CEMAC study are:

• The testing procedures are well developed, repeatable and reproducible.

3 Cable selection and procurement

- Generic family - single core sheathed power cables

- Generic family - unarmoured multicore power cables with copper conductors

- Generic family - armoured multicore power cables with copper conductors

- Generic family - screened and unscreened data cables – Group 1

- Generic family - optical fibre cables

- Generic family - telecommunication cables with copper conductors – Group 2

- Generic family - co-axial cables – Group 4

1 C/1/1 4pU/UTP 5.8 25 0.049

Group number and Cable Conductors Outer Cables or EXAP-

3lt C/3/6 Loose tube x Not used

Group number and Cable Conductors Outer Cables or EXAP-

7 C/7/1 2 x 1.5 9 17 23.6

Group number and Cable Conductors Outer Cables or EXAP-

10 C/10/6 1 x 70 Al 18.6 8 4.3

4 Experimental program and laboratory qualification

4.1 Qualifying programme of work

1. Each laboratory submitting a questionnaire to the coordinator detailing the instrumentation

4.2 Data base cable tests

The results of each cable test are given in Annex E.

5.2 Data bank

5.2.1 Contents of the data bank

Material and product information

Scalar test data

5.2.2 Organisation and handling of data base

5.2.3 Availability of the data

5.3 Data formats, storing and exchanging

5.3.1 Internal laboratory formats

5.3.2 Data stored in the data bank

5.3.3 Data stored at the laboratories

5.4 Exchanging data

5.4.1 Codes for identification of CEMAC tests in the data bank

6 Large scale tests results

6.1 Test method

Figure 1 Equipment layout

6.2 Measurements and derived parameters

Table 5 HRR Parameters

Table 6 SPR Parameters