Subject:

A Tutorial on Cable Fire Safety (Updated)

From:

Dr. T. C. Tan, DMTS, SYSTIMAX Labs

B.Sc (Eng), DIC, PhD, CEng, FIEE

Date:
Modified:

9th March 2005

12th August 2005

1.

Introduction

The proliferation of local area networks (LANs) and the increasing use of structured cabling
systems in many commercial office buildings have resulted in heavy concentration of
communication cables in ceiling and/or under-floor voids. Some of these cables have low or
unknown fire performance since there are no requirements in Europe and Asia currently for
marking these cables according to their fire performance. This is in contrast to the situation in North
America and Mexico where all communication cables must meet one of four levels of fireresistance requirement and bear the necessary markings. This hierarchy of cable fire requirement is
mapped to the different installation practices. These cable markings are useful for the fire or health
and safety inspectors and insurance surveyors because they facilitate the identification of the cable
safety performance level and are valuable from a building inspection and risk assessment
standpoint.
Also, fire codes or regulations vary widely across the world. In North America, fire codes exist for
communication cables and a large emphasis is placed on the reduction in flame spread, fire
propagation and smoke generation. In Europe and Asia, fire codes/regulations do not exist for
communication cables (Regulations do exist for other construction products such as wall panels,
ceiling tiles and floor coverings). However, in some European countries, some customers do place
more emphasis on the reduction of smoke and acid gases generation due to the existence of low
smoke, zero halogen (LSZH) European cable standards. These standards have now been revised to
be more generic to allow other materials to be used. This paper compares the current requirements
in North America and internationally, and discusses new developments in Europe which could lead
to the setting up of a hierarchy of communication cable fire performance levels that will be based
on installation practices and risk assessment. A list of the abbreviations used is given in Annex A.
2.

Standards

When considering the fire performance of communication cables, several criteria must be taken into
account. These are:
Fire Resistance (sometimes referred to as Circuit Integrity Test)
Flame Spread and Fire Retardance
Heat Release Rate and Total Heat Release
Smoke Generation
Toxicity
Smoke Corrosivity
1

Annex B provides photographs of some of the fire test methods.

2.1

Fire Resistance

The fire resistance or circuit integrity requirement is a special one and is required for connection to
certain fire-life-safety control systems such as sounders/bells/sirens, combined speaker-strobe
devices, fire-fighter phones, control and indicating equipment. The test requires cables to maintain
circuit integrity under specific fire conditions (for example, flame test at 1000 C for 3 hours and
still maintaining circuit integrity). The main related standards are:
IEC 60331
EN 50200
This requirement needs the use of cables with special construction. Typical communication cables
cannot be used.
2.2

Flame Spread and Fire Retardance

The aim of choosing a communication cable with low flame spread and high fire retardance is to
prevent the burning cables from propagating the fire to other parts of the building too quickly. This
will allow more time for the people involved to make their escape from the fire. The main related
standards are:
UL VW-1 Bunsen Burner
UL 1581 Vertical Tray or IEEE-383 Vertical Tray
CSA FT-4/IEEE-1202
UL 1666
UL 910 or NFPA 262 or CSA FT-6
EN 50289-4-11
IEC 60332-1 series or EN 50265 series
IEC 60332-3 series or EN 50266 series
FIPEC Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
These standards require the whole finished cable(s) to be tested. Figure 1 and Table 1 provide the
requirements in the United States (US). These requirements are set in the National Electrical Code
(NEC) Articles 770 and 800 which are issued by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
NEC Article 800 has four levels of fire-resistance requirement. All communication cables must
meet one of the four levels and bear the necessary markings. As an example, a cable that is rated
CM/MP cannot be installed in the riser environment unless the cables are enclosed in metallic/noncombustible trunking. This will ensure that the fire does not propagate too quickly to the other
floors even when the fire-stopping mechanism has been compromised. The NEC is revised every
three years.
The UL VW-1 is a small-scale test whereas the UL 1581, UL 1666 and UL 910 are all intermediatescale tests. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) FT-4 test is slightly more stringent than the
UL 1581 due to the fact that the ignition source is angled at 20. The UL/CSA designation for
meeting this test is CMG/MPG.

2
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Fire Tests

Cable rating identification

High

Fire Performance

UL 910
Steiner Tunnel
(NFPA 262)

CMP/OFNP/OFCP

UL 1666
Riser Test

CMR/OFNR/OFCR

UL 1581
Vertical Tray

CM/OFN/OFC

VW-1
Bunsen Burner

Low

CMX

Figure 1: US cable fire tests, hierarchy and identifications

DESIGNATION
CMX
CM/MP/OFC/OFN
CMR/MPR/OFCR/OFNR
CMP/MPP/OFCP/OFNP

TEST REQUIRED
UL VW-1
UL 1581 Vertical Tray
IEEE-383 Vertical Tray
UL 1666
UL 910/NFPA 262

USE
Residential
General Purpose Except
for Riser and Plenum
General Purpose and Riser
General Purpose, Riser
and Plenum

Note: Prefix C or M is for copper media and prefix OF is for optical fiber media.
Table 1: US NEC Article 800 for communication cables
EN 50289-4-11 is based on the UL 910 test method but with heat release and time-to-ignition
measurements as mandatory requirements rather than optional and an additional test for flaming
droplets. It is an intermediate-scale test. Note that both UL 910 and EN 50289-4-11 are test methods
and do not have pass/fail requirements.

3
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Currently, IEC 60332-1 and 60332-3 series of standards1 are widely used internationally as cable
fire test methods. These tests were originally developed for power/energy cables and have since
being revised to cater for communication cables. The IEC 60332-1 is a small-scale test using a 1
kW burner as the ignition source and a single cable or wire as test sample. It is similar to the UL
VW-1 test.
The IEC 60332-3 is an intermediate-scale test where bundles of cables are used (IEC 60332-3-10
provides description for the test apparatus). This series of standards have five categories, namely:
Category A F/R
NMV 7 litres per meter
IEC 60332-3-21
Category A
NMV 7 litres per meter
IEC 60332-3-22
Category B
NMV 3.5 litres per meter
IEC 60332-3-23
Category C
NMV 1.5 litres per meter
IEC 60332-3-24
Category D
NMV 0.5 litres per meter
IEC 60332-3-25
NMV stands for non-metallic volume. The number of cable samples required is calculated from the
NMV for the different categories. Annex C provides comparison between IEC 60332-3, UL 1581
Vertical Tray and UL 1666 test methods.
EN 50265 and EN 50266 series of European Norms (standards) are basically the European version
of IEC 60332-1 and IEC 60332-3 series of standards.
FIPEC (Fire Performance of Electric Cables) was a European Commission and industry funded
project set up to develop methods for measuring the fire performance of cables. The test apparatus
consisted of modifying the existing IEC 60332-3 test to include heat release and smoke
measurement. The FIPEC project found that the most significant variable in the current IEC 603323 test was in cable mounting, and concluded that consideration of NMV does not necessarily
provide a risk hierarchy. Changes to sample mounting, the option of a backboard with a more
powerful ignition source and an increased airflow provide a better discrimination between cable fire
performances for FIPEC test methods when compared with current IEC 60332-3 tests.
FIPEC has two test methods, namely test method Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Cable mounting
procedure is determined by cable diameter. Cables having a diameter greater than 5 mm were
mounted in a single spaced row, and smaller cables were mounted in non-twisted spaced bundles.
Test method Scenario 1 is considered to be slightly more severe than IEC 60332-3. The ignition
source is 20 kW and the airflow is increased to 8000 litre per minute. In test method Scenario 2,
considered to be more severe than IEC 60332-3, the ignition source is 30 kW, the airflow is 8000
litre per minute and a non-combustible backboard is added. The FIPEC test methods have been
adopted for the Reaction-to-Fire Euroclassification of cables under the Construction Product
Directive, 89/106/EEC (see Section 3.1).

A few years ago, IEC revamped their fire standard documents by splitting them up into a series of documents. For
example, the former IEC 60332-3 document consists of test apparatus description and all the test procedures and
requirements for different categories. This is now split into a series of IEC 60332-3-x documents, consisting of a
document for test apparatus description and various documents for the different categories of fire test procedure and
requirements. This process will permit amendments and new requirements to be introduced easily.

4
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

The UL 910, EN 50289-4-11 and FIPEC Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are sometimes referred to as
integrated fire tests since they measured essential fire hazard properties such as flame spread,
smoke generation and heat release, all in the same respective tests. This is far more useful and
realistic. The other test methods just measure only one variable, flame spread.
Table 2 provides a comparison between IEC 60332-1, IEC 60332-3, FIPEC Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2, UL 910 and EN 50289-4-11 test methods.
2.3

Heat Release Rate (HRR) and Total Heat Release (THR)

Heat is the energy output of a fire. When the aftermath of a disastrous fire is being investigated, one
of the most common questions is: Why did the fire get so large? HRR and THR (THR is calculated
by working out the area under the HRR curve) are useful variables for quantifying a fire size and
are important variables in describing fire hazard (except for explosions). This is because:
HRR and THR are driving forces for fire, that is, heat makes more heat, which in turn
increases the temperature of the fire. This does not occur, for instance, with carbon
monoxide. Carbon monoxide does not make more carbon monoxide.
The generation of most other undesirable fire by-products such as smoke, toxic gases and
temperatures, generally tends to increase with increasing HRR and THR.
High HRR/THR indicates high threat to life and are intrinsically dangerous. This is because
high HRR/THR cause high temperatures and high heat flux conditions, which may prove
lethal to occupants.
The main related standards are:
EN 50289-4-11
FIPEC Scenarios 1 & 2
HRR and THR are optional requirements in UL 910.
Small-scale test methods do exist for measuring HRR and THR (e.g Cone calorimeter, ASTM
E1354) but these tests are only useful for initial material assessment work.
Recent EU-funded British Steel fire tests at the UK Building Research Establishment/Fire Research
Station (BRE/FRS) indicated that temperatures exceeding 800C can cause structural steel beams to
severely deform2 which will render the building unsafe after the fire.
2.4

Smoke Generation

Some fire fatalities are caused by the failure of people involved to make their escape from the fire in
the time available. There are many reasons for this, but one that has attracted increasing attention is
the effect of smoke. Dense smoke reduces visibility and causes suffocation. The aim of choosing a
cable with low smoke generation is to allow people to escape a building fire with minimum
suffocation and not having their visibility impaired. The main related standards are:

B. R. Kirby, British Steel Technical European Fire Test Programme, Fire, Static and Dynamic Tests of Building
Structures; G. Armer & T. ODell (1997), pgs 111-126, Conference Proceedings.

5
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

IEC 60332-1
(EN 50265 series)

IEC 60332-3
(EN 50266 series)

FIPEC
Scenarios 1 & 2

UL 910

EN 50289-4-11

Cable orientation
Test requirements

Vertical
Flame spread

Vertical
Flame spread,
Oxygen index (optional)

Vertical
Flame spread,
Heat release,
Smoke opacity,
Time-to-ignition

Horizontal
Flame spread,
Smoke opacity,
Heat release (optional),
Time-to-ignition (optional)

Ignition source

1 kW Burner

20.5 kW Burner
(73.8 MJ/hr)
(70,000 BTU/hr)

Scenario 1: 20 kW Burner

87.8 kW Burner
(316.5 MJ/hr)
(300,000 BTU/hr)

Horizontal
Flame spread,
Smoke opacity,
Heat release,
Time-to-ignition,
Flaming droplets
87.8 kW Burner
(316.5 MJ/hr)
(300,000 BTU/hr)

1200 s

1200 s

3.5 m (11.5 ft)

7.6 m (25 ft)

7.3 m (24 ft)

Scenario 2: 30 kW Burner plus

non-combustible backboard
(108 MJ/hr)
(102, 364 BTU/hr)
1200 s

Flame application
time
Length of test
sample
Cable layers
and spacing

60 s
for cable diameter 25 mm
0.6 m (2 ft)

2400 s for Categories A & B

1200 s for Categories C & D
3.5 m (11.5 ft)

Not applicable.
Single cable

Single layer spaced

Single layer touching

Single layer
touching

Air velocity

None

Number of layers depends on

NMV.
Touching for cable diameter
6.7 mm
5000 litre/min

8000 litre/min

Pass/Fail Criteria

Distance between onset of

charring and lower edge of
top support > 50 mm and
burning < 540 mm from lower
edge of top support
International and CENELEC

Charred portion < 2.5 m

(8.2 ft) above bottom edge of
burner (Flame extinguish
after 1 hr).

Depends on
CPD Euroclassification

1.22 m/s
(240 ft/min)
Refer to relevant
product standard

International and CENELEC

EU CPD
and CENELEC

1.22 m/s
(240 ft/min)
Refer to CMP/MPP/OFNP
/OFCP requirements.
Flame front < 1.52 m (5 ft)
Peak Optical Density 0.5
Average Optical Density 0.15
UL, CSA and Mexico

Standardisation

Table 2: Comparison between various fire test methods

6
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

CENELEC

UL 1685
UL 910
EN 50289-4-11
EN 13823 (SBI)
IEC 61034 or EN 50268

All these standards require the whole finished cable(s) to be tested.

UL 1685 uses the UL 1581 test method but with peak smoke release rate and total smoke
requirements added. The UL designation for meeting this test is LS (Limited Smoke), i.e. CM-LS.
In the US, it is a mandatory requirement in the plenum environment to install low smoke and very
fire retardant cables. These cables must meet the CMP/MPP/OFNP/OFCP requirements with the
UL 910 test. There is also another test method in the US known as the NBS smoke chamber and
this is referenced in the ASTM E662 standard. The only drawback with this standard is that the test
is carried out on the polymeric material used (i.e. cable sheath and conductor insulation materials
are tested separately) rather than the whole finished cable(s).
IEC 61034 or EN 50268 is sometimes referred to as the 3-meter cube test due to the size of the test
chamber used. Part 1 provides details of the test apparatus and Part 2 defines the test procedure and
pass/fail requirements. This test was originally developed for power/energy cables and was intended
to simulate a cable fire in an underground train tunnel. One problem with this test method when
applied to communication cables relates to the calculation of the number of test samples required.
This (sample) number is dependent on the overall diameter of the cable. For a cable with an overall
diameter of 4.8 mm (typical diameter of plenum-rated communication cables), the number of test
samples required is 21 whereas for a cable with an overall diameter of 5.1 mm (typical diameter of
IEC 60332-1 rated LSZH communication cables), the number of test samples required is 8. This
massive difference in cable test samples provides massively different test results. In practice, this
difference does not exist since the number of communication cables installed in a 9 m2 work area is
the same irrespective of the cable diameter.
The UL 910, EN 50289-4-11 and FIPEC Scenarios 1 & 2 tests are more useful and realistic since
they are integrated fire tests. IEC 61034 or EN 50268 only measures smoke emission.
2.5

Toxicity

Toxicity is also a complex subject. The toxicity issue has typically being perceived to be related to
all halogenated cables. However, it is a known fact that all burning cables (both halogenated and
non-halogenated) produce toxic gases. According to fire fighters and fire experts, the most common
cause of fire fatality is due to the inhalation of carbon monoxide (CO) gas which is toxic and
odourless. Cable fire research work3 at the UK BRE/FRS showed that some commonly used LSZH
data cables produce more CO gas than the CMP-rated cables when burned (see Figure 2). This work
is co-funded by the UK Government. This is likely due to the tendency that LSZH data cables burn
more rapidly and quickly reduce the oxygen available in the concealed space.

A study of Cable Insulation Fires in Hidden Voids - A Partners in Technology (PIT) programme for the UK
Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions (DETR) contract reference CI 38/19/131 (cc985), March 1996.

7
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

The US National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has also developed toxicity data
using the NEMA/NYS (New York State) protocol4 (see Figure 3). The data indicates that there is no
significant difference in toxicity (LC50 values) between fluoropolymer, PVC and polyolefin (i.e.
polyethylene and polypropylene) materials.
Traditional material-based toxicity test methods such as the Naval Engineering Standard (NES) 713
have been found to be unsuitable. These test methods are not realistic and are only useful for initial
material assessment work. Toxic hazards must be assessed over a range of fire scenarios and not on
material-based test methods only. Toxicity information should be used as part of a relevant total fire
hazard assessment where parameters such as ignitability, fuel load, heat release, flame spread and
smoke emission are also considered.
C arbon Monoxide (C O) Generation
0.350

0.300

Conce ntra tion (%)

0.250

0.200

LS ZH

0.150

CM P

0.100

0.050

0.000
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

-0.050
Tim e (se c)

Figure 2: CO emission from CMP-rated and IEC 60332-1 rated LSZH cables

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1987, Registration Categories of the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association for Compliance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, R.
Anderson, P. Kopf, pub Arthur D. Little Inc.

8
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Figure 3: NEMA toxicity data

2.6

Acidity and Smoke Corrosivity

In addition to smoke, gases are also evolved from materials involved in a fire. Depending on the
compounds used for manufacturing the cables, some of these gases may be acidic in nature. For
example, cables insulated and/or sheathed with PVC can generate hydrochloric acid gas when
affected by fire. In addition, most LSZH compounds are made from ethylene-vinyl-acetate (EVA this compound is a polyethylene copolymer) which generate acetic acid when affected by fire.
There are concerns that these acidic gases may cause damage to modern electronic equipment and
building structure. This has led to the perception that acidic gas is related to corrosivity.
The two commonly quoted standards for testing acidic gas generation are:
IEC 60754-1 (EN 50267-2-1): HCL gas generation
IEC 60754-2 (EN 50267-2-2 & EN 50267-2-3): pH and Conductivity
Both test methods call for polymeric material testing rather than testing on the whole finished
cable(s). This means that both the cable outer sheath and the conductor insulation need to be tested.
In the IEC 60754-2 standard, the pass/fail limit for pH is set at > 4.3 even though the pH for pure
water (neutral) is 7. The limit of 4.3 basically ensures that most halogenated compounds will not
meet this standard. Hence, this has resulted in the perception that corrositivity is related to
halogenated cables only.
9
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Other test methods exist for measuring corrositivity in terms of metal loss. Two of these methods
are ASTM D5485 (Cone corrosimeter) and ISO DIS 11907 but these are not commonly used.
The perception that corrositivity is related to halogenated cables only is now being challenged.
Several decades of research work carried out by Lucent Technologies Bell Laboratories have shown
that modern digital equipment are particularly vulnerable to airborne particles, most of which are
potentially corrosive ionic compounds. This work has recently been extended to include the
possible causes of equipment failure from smoke exposure in cable fires. This is because in a fire,
ionic contaminants associated with fillers, flame retardants, colorants or by-products of the
polymerisation reactions may be released and deposited on circuit boards. The research showed that
the most common cause of equipment failures following exposure to smoke from cable combustion
is not loss in thickness of structural metals or metal circuitry from direct deposition of acidic gases
but rather electrical shorts and arcing that cause excessive crosstalk and malfunctioning
components. This phenomenon is known as the Leakage Current Effect. The research also showed
that smoke contaminants from some burning LSZH data cables are as damaging as those from some
halogenated ones5,6. This work on digital electronic equipment reliability (DEER) indicated that
there are damage mechanisms to electronic equipment associated with fires that cannot be
adequately assessed by determining the pH or conductivity or by metal loss. Hence, current
international test methods such as IEC 60754 are not adequate for assessing DEER.
In addition, some plenum communication cables do not have problem with DEER. This is due to
the fact that there is virtually no propagation of fire along the length of the cable. Hence, the amount
of compound burnt will be limited and this will result in less ionic contaminants being generated.
In summary, acidity is not relatable to corrosivity. Further, there is no mention of corrosivity in IEC
60754-2. Phenomenon such as leakage current and metal loss are more accurate measures of
corrosion damage effects of fire effluents. The test methods for measuring leakage current and
metal loss are given in IEC 60695-5-37. In the US, the test method for leakage current is UL Subject
1985.
3.

New Developments on Communication Cable Fire Hazard

New developments are occurring in the industry and in the regulatory environment with regard to
cable fire hazard and risk assessment/management. These developments include the publication of a
Design Guide8 by BRE-Loss Prevention Council (LPC), the publication of a Technical Briefing
Report9 by the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the inclusion of cables in the European
Construction Product Directive (CPD) and the identification of a new cable fire performance level
known as limited combustible by the National Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPRF) and
UL in the US.
5

IWCS, Leakage Current Smoke Corrosivity Testing - Comparison of Cable and Material Data,
J. T. Chapin, et al, 1996.
6
NFPRF Fire Risk and Hazard Research Assessment Research Application Symposium, Comparison of
Communications LAN Cable Smoke Corrosivity by US and IEC Test Methods, J. T. Chapin, et al, June 1997.
7
IEC 60695-5-3: Fire Hazard Testing Part 5-3: Corrosion damage effects of fire effluent Leakage current and metal
loss test method
8
The LPC Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings, Loss Prevention Council, June 1997 & Sept 1998.
ISBN 0 902167 97-9
9
Fire Hazard of Communication Cables in Ceiling, Floor and Vertical Voids, Association of British Insurers, Nov
2000. ISBN 1 903193 11 7

10
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

3.1

European Construction Product Directive (CPD), 89/106/EEC

The CPD was enacted in 1989 and applies to all construction products. One of the essential
requirements of the CPD (Essential Requirement No. 2) relates to safety in the case of a fire. A new
testing and classification scheme was agreed by the EC Fire Regulators Group (FRG) for the
implementation of the CPD and in particular, relating to the harmonisation of Reaction-to-Fire
testing of construction products. The FRG is a group of national fire regulators and their technical
advisers/experts.
The classification scheme comprises a table of Euroclasses from Class A1 (highest performance)
to Class F (no performance determined) and a range of tests and performance criteria for
determining a Reaction-to-Fire classification for construction products, excluding flooring. To
cover all but the highest and lowest classifications, EN 13823 SBI (Single Burning Item) test was
developed.
In December 1998, communication cables were accepted as construction products within the EC,
and are, therefore subjected to the requirements for Reaction-to-Fire testing and Euroclassification.
The FIPEC test methods have been adopted and Annex D provides the proposed EuroClasses for
cables in the CPD. There are seven EuroClasses and enhanced fire performance (i.e. plenum rated)
cables are in EuroClass B1ca. The parameters listed under main classifications are mandatory
requirements whereas those listed under additional classifications are optional. Many member states
are unlikely to adopt the optional acidity requirement since it is not in the CPD for all the other
construction products. Once approved, mandatory cable fire performance marking will be required
by the Directive, and for the first time in Europe, a hierarchy of cable fire requirements exist.
These cable markings are useful for the fire or health and safety inspectors and insurance surveyors
because they facilitate the identification of the cable safety performance level and enhanced fire risk
assessment.
3.2

The LPC Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings

This BRE/LPC publication allows architects and building designers to take into account insurers
recommendations for the fire protection of buildings. These relate mainly to the protection of
business by minimising fire and smoke damage and business interruption. The overall objective of
the Design Guide is to assist in reducing financial loss by providing guidelines to contain the fire to
one compartment of the building, and ensuring that when combustible materials such as cables are
used in the construction of a building, they do not make significant contribution to the growth and
propagation of the fire. Building regulations are concerned primarily with the escape of the building
occupants, that is, they only address life safety issues and will not necessarily result in the provision
of adequate property protection. The BRE/LPC Design Guide aims to complement the statutory
building regulations and provides additional requirements set by the insurers. The increased
standards required by the insurers are designed not only to provide safety for the people involved in
the fire, but also to protect the asset of the business and to minimise the cost of fire damage to
buildings and their contents.
Section 4.7.2 of the Design Guide deals with cables installed in ceiling and under-floor voids and
recommends that the cables should be tested and approved to IEC 60332-3 or other specification
acceptable to LPC. Section 4.7.3 deals with cables installed in communication rooms and
recommends that where cables are installed in a cavity of 300 mm or greater, then the cables used
should be tested and approved to UL 910 or other specification acceptable to LPC and the platform
11
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

floor should have fire resistance of 15 min integrity and insulation when exposed to the heating
conditions of BS 476, Part 20 (1987). Cables not meeting these requirements must either be sealed
in fire retardant trunking/ducting, or the cavity where the cables are installed is protected by an
automatic gaseous system (connected to a fire detector and alarm system) or a sprinkler system.
The LPC Design Guide has taken a major step in setting the minimum cable fire performance
requirements for the cabling industry. It presents the insurers standards for fire protection of
buildings and is intended to assist architects and other building professional advisers in reconciling
the provisions of national legislation standards with the recommendations of the insurance industry.
3.3

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) Technical Briefing Report on Fire Hazard
of Communication Cables in Ceiling, Floor and Vertical Voids

Recently, the ABI published a Technical Briefing Report for insurers that provided further guidance
to the insurance industry in establishing their strategy. This technical report complements the LPC
Design Guide and is based on the cable fire safety research work carried out by SYSTIMAX
Solutions, other cable manufacturers and polymer suppliers, and in collaboration with BRE/LPC,
UL and the UK DETR. This report concludes with the following recommendations:
For new buildings or during major refurbishments, the recommendations given in part 4.7
of the LPC Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings should be followed.
As construction products, communication cables are included in the new developments in
the EC Fire Regulators group for the harmonisation of Reaction to Fire Testing within
Europe as required by the CPD, this will result in new requirements for testing and
classification of cables for life safety. It is important for insurers to promote higher
requirements than regulators, to reduce the potential business interruption exposure.
3.4

NFPA 90A Limited Combustible Requirements

Last year, the NFPRF and UL in the US identified a new cable fire performance level known as
limited combustible. According to NFPA Article 90A, for a product exposed to airflow in plenum
to be classified as limited combustible, the fuel load of the product must be 8.14 MJ/kg (3500
BTU/lb), have a flame spread index (FSI) of 25 and a maximum smoke developed index (SDI) of
50. These numbers must be generated in accordance with procedures set forth in NFPA 259 (for
fuel load) and NFPA 255 (for FSI and SDI). The requirements for limited combustible cables
exceed those of CMP/MPP/OFNP/OFCP (using UL 910/NFPA 262 test). Table 3 provides a
comparison between NFPA 255 and NFPA 262, and Table 4 provides a comparison between
limited combustible and CMP/MPP/OFNP/OFCP rated cables.

Apparatus
Test duration
Position of steel rack
Width of steel rack

NFPA 255
Steiner Tunnel
10 mins
0.298 m (11.75 in) above
chamber floor
0.514 m (20.25 in)
(80% more cable
specimen)

NFPA 262
Steiner Tunnel
20 mins
0.203 m (8 in) above
chamber floor
0.286 m (11.250 in)

Table 3: Comparison between NFPA 255 and NFPA 262

12
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Test
Flame spread
Smoke generation

Limited
Combustible
Rating
NFPA 255
Flame spread index of 25
50 smoke developed
index

CMP/MPP/OFNP/OFCP
Rating
UL 910/NFPA 262
1.524 m (5 ft)
Up to 10 times less severe
than Limited Combustible
Rating

Temperature rating
Heat aging
Humidity aging
Slitting
Fuel load limit

Required
Required
Required
Required
8.14 MJ/kg per NFPA
259 test

Not required
Not required
Not required
Not required
Not required

Table 4: Comparison between Limited Combustible and CMP/MPP/OFNP/OFCP rating

4.

Conclusion

All these developments are major steps in setting the minimum or enhancing the cable fire
performance requirement for the structured cabling industry. A hierarchy of fire performance levels
mapped to the installation practices plus mandatory cable fire performance markings will definitely
enhance risk assessment and provide an additional tool to effective risk management. The key
message is that the right cable should be installed in the right environment so as to reduce risk to
fire hazard.
SYSTIMAX SCS has a range of communication cables that are suitable for premise cabling.
Tables 5 to 8 provide a summary of the fire performance properties and rating of copper cables.

13
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Properties
Jacket
Insulation
Fire Resistance
IEC 60331
Flame Spread/
Fire Retardance
CM
CMR
CMP
Limited Comb.
IEC 60332-1
a
IEC 60332-3
Heat Release
Rate/Total Heat
Release
Smoke
CMP
IEC 61034
Toxicity
Acid Gas
IEC 60754-2
Smoke
Corrosivity
IEC 60695-5-3:
Leakage current
Notes:
N
NT
a

1061C-004
PVC
HDPE

SYSTIMAX PowerSum Cable Types

1061C-025
2061B-004
3051A-004
3061A-004
PVC
LSPVC
LSZH
LSZH
HDPE
FEP
HDPE
HDPE

N
N
N
N
+
++

4061A-004
FEP
FEP

N
+++

Y
N
(Y: 1061B)
N
N
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

NT
N

NT
N

Y
Y

N
N
Y
NT

Y
N
Y
Y

N
N
Y
N

N
N
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

++

N
N

N
N

+
Y
NT

+
N
Y

+
Y

+
N
Y

+
Y

++
Y
NT

++

Non-compliance
Not Tested
Cables that are tested to meet IEC 60332-3 are tested to meet Category A.

Table 5: Summary of SYSTIMAX PowerSum cable fire performance properties and rating

14
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Properties

Jacket
Insulation
Fire Resistance
IEC 60331
Flame Spread/
Fire Retardance
CM
CMR
CMP
Limited Comb.
IEC 60332-1
a
IEC 60332-3
Heat Release
Rate/Total Heat
Release
Smoke
CMP
IEC 61034
Toxicity
Acid Gas
IEC 60754-2
Smoke
Corrosivity
IEC 60695-5-3:
Leakage current
Note:
N
NT
a

SYSTIMAX GigaSPEED XL Cable Types

3071E3071E31081A2081A004
004
004
004
LSZH
LSZH
PVC
LSPVC
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
FEP

N
N
N
N

++

1071E004
PVC
HDPE

2071E004
LSPVC
FEP

N
++

3081A004
LSZH
HDPE

Y
Y
N
N
Y
NT

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

NT
N
N
N
Y
N

NT
N
N
N
Y
Y

Y
Y
N
N
Y
NT

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

NT
N
N
N
Y
Y

N
N

+
Y
NT

+
N
Y

+
Y

+
N
Y

+
Y

N
N

+
Y
NT

+
N
Y

+
Y

Non-compliance
Not Tested
Cables that are tested to meet IEC 60332-3 are tested to meet Category A.

Table 6: Summary of SYSTIMAX GigaSPEED XL cable fire performance properties and

rating

15
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Properties
Jacket
Insulation
Fire Resistance
IEC 60331
Flame Spread/
Fire Retardance
CM
CMR
CMP
Limited Comb.
IEC 60332-1
a
IEC 60332-3
Heat Release
Rate/Total Heat
Release
Smoke
CMP
IEC 61034
Toxicity
Acid Gas
IEC 60754-2
Smoke Corrosivity
IEC 60695-5-3:
Leakage current
Note:
N
NT
a

SYSTIMAX GigaSPEED X10D Cable Types

1091A-004
2091A-004
3091A-004
PVC
LSPVC
LSZH
HDPE
FEP
HDPE

N
N
N

Y
Y
N
N
Y
NT

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

NT
N
N
N
Y
Y

N
N

+
Y
NT

+
N
Y

+
Y

Non-compliance
Not Tested
Cables that are tested to meet IEC 60332-3 are tested to meet Category A.

Table 7: Summary of SYSTIMAX GigaSPEED X10D cable fire performance properties and
rating

16
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Properties
Jacket
Insulation
Fire Resistance
IEC 60331
Flame Spread/
Fire Retardance
CM
CMR
CMP
Limited Comb.
IEC 60332-1
a
IEC 60332-3
Heat Release
Rate/Total Heat
Release
Smoke
CMP
IEC 61034
Toxicity
Acid Gas
IEC 60754-2
Smoke Corrosivity
IEC 60695-5-3:
Leakage current
Note:
N
NT
a

1010A-xxx
PVC
PVC

SYSTIMAX Category 3 Cable Types

2010B-xxx
LSPVC
PVC

N
+

3010-xxx
LSZH
HDPE

Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

NT
N
N
N
Y
N

N
N

+
Y
NT

+
N
Y

+
Y

Non-compliance
Not Tested
Cables that are tested to meet IEC 60332-3 are tested to meet Category A.

Table 8: Summary of SYSTIMAX Category 3 cable fire performance properties and rating

17
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Annex A

ABBREVIATIONS
ABI:
ASTM:
BRE/FRS:
CEN:
CENELEC:
CPD:
CSA:
DEER:
DETR (UK):
EVA:
FSI:
FRG:
HCL:
IEC:
IWCS:
LPC:
LSZH:
NBS:
NEC:
NEMA:
NES:
NFPA:
NFPRF:
NMV:
PVC:
SBI:
SDI:
UL:

Association of British Insurers

American Society for Testing and Materials
Building Research Establishment/Fire Research Station
European Committee for Standardization
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
Construction Product Directive
Canadian Standards Association
Digital Electronic Equipment Reliability
Department of Transport and the Regions (UK)
Ethylene-Vinyl-Acetate
Flame Spread Index
Fire Regulators Group
HydroChLoric
International Electrotechnical Committee
International Wire and Cable Symposium
Loss Prevention Council
Low Smoke Zero Halogen
National Board of Standards
National Electrical Code
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Naval Engineering Standard (UK)
National Fire Protection Association
National Fire Protection Research Foundation
Non-Metallic Volume
PolyVinyl Chloride
Single Burning Item
Smoke Developed Index
Underwriters Laboratories

18
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Annex B

Figure B.1:

IEC 60331 Test

19
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Figure B.2:

IEC 60332-3 Test

20
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Figure B.3:

EN 13823 (SBI) Test

21
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Figure B.4:

UL 910/EN 50289-4-11 Test

22
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Figure B.5: IEC 61034 (EN 50268) Test

{Often referred to as the 3 metre cube smoke test}

23
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Figure B.6:

IEC 60754-2 Test

24
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Annex C

Length of test sample

Cable orientation
Cable layers and
spacing
Ignition source
Flame application time
Air velocity
Low smoke requirement
Pass/Fail criteria

IEC 60332-3 Category A, B

3.5 m (11.5 ft)
Vertical
Number of layers depends on NMV.
Touching for cable diameter 6.7 mm
73.8 MJ/hr
(20.5 kW or 70,000 BTU/hr)
40 mins
5000 litre/min
(0.083 m3/s)
None
Charred portion < 2.5 m (8.2 ft) above
bottom edge of burner (Flame extinguish
after 1 hr).

UL 1666
3.7 m (12 ft)
Vertical
Single layer touching
556 MJ/hr
(154.4 kW or 527,000 BTU/hr)
30 mins
3.5 m/s
None
Cables cannot propagate flame
to 3.7 m (12 ft) and maximum
temperature is not to exceed
454.4 C.

Table C.1: Comparison between IEC 60332-3 Category A, B and UL 1666 (CMR/OFNR
rating)

Length of test
sample
Cable orientation
Cable layers and
spacing

IEC 60332-3 Category C, D

3.5 m (11.5 ft)

UL 1581 Vertical Tray

2.4 m (8 ft)

Vertical
Number of layers depends on NMV.
Touching for cable diameter 6.7 mm

Vertical
Single layer.
1
2

Ignition source
Flame application
time
Air velocity
Low smoke
requirement
Pass/Fail criteria

cable diameter spacing

73.8 MJ/hr
(20.5 kW or 70,000 BTU/hr)
20 mins

73.8 MJ/hr
(20.5 kW or 70,000 BTU/hr)
20 mins

5000 litre/min
(0.083 m3/s)
None

5 m/s
(0.65 m3/s)
None

Charred portion < 2.5 m (8.2 ft) above

bottom edge of burner (Flame
extinguish after 1 hr).

Cables damage height is to be less than

8 ft.

Table C.2: Comparison between IEC 60332-3 Category C, D and UL 1581 Vertical Tray
(CM/OFN rating)
Note: UL 1685 uses the UL 1581 test method but with peak smoke release rate and total smoke
requirements added.

25
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions

Annex D
Class

Test method(s)

Classification criteria

Aca

EN ISO 1716

PCS 2,0 MJ/kg (1) and

PCS 2,0 MJ/kg (2) and

B1ca

FIPEC20 Scen 2 (6)

FS 1.75 m and
THR1200s 10 MJ and
Peak HRR 20 kW and
FIGRA 120 Ws-1
H 425 mm

Smoke production (3, 7) and

Flaming droplets/particles
(4) and Acidity (5)

FS 1.5 m; and
THR1200s 15 MJ; and
Peak HRR 30 kW; and
FIGRA 150 Ws-1
H 425 mm

Smoke production (3, 8) and

Flaming droplets/particles
(4) and Acidity (5)

FS 2.0 m; and
THR1200s 30 MJ; and
Peak HRR 60 kW; and
FIGRA 300 Ws-1
H 425 mm

Smoke production (3, 8) and

Flaming droplets/particles
(4) and Acidity (5)

Smoke production (3, 8) and

Flaming droplets/particles
(4) and Acidity (5)

EN 50265-2-1

THR1200s 70 MJ; and

Peak HRR 400 kW; and
FIGRA 1300 Ws-1
H 425 mm

Eca

EN 50265-2-1

H 425 mm

Fca

No performance determined

And
EN 50265-2-1

B2ca

FIPEC20 Scen 1 (6)

And
EN 50265-2-1

Cca

FIPEC20 Scen 1 (6)

And
EN 50265-2-1

Dca

FIPEC20 Scen 1 (6)

And

Additional
classification

(1) For the product as a whole, excluding metallic materials.

(2) For any external component (i.e. sheath) of the product.
(3) s1 = TSP1200 50 m2 and Peak SPR 0.25 m2/s
s1a = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 50268-2 80%
s1b = s1 and transmittance in accordance with EN 50268-2 60% < 80%
s2 = TSP1200 300 m2 and Peak SPR 1.5 m2/s
s3 = not s1 or s2
(4) 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.
(5) EN 50267-2-3 : a1 = conductivity < 2.5 S/mm and pH > 4.3 ; a2 = conductivity < 10 S/mm and pH > 4.3;
a3 = not a1 or a2. No declaration = No Performance Determined.
(6) Air flow into chamber shall be set to 8000 800 l/min.
FIPEC20 Scenario 1 = prEN 50399-2-1 with mounting and fixing according to Annex 2
FIPEC20 Scenario 2 = prEN 50399-2-2 with mounting and fixing according to Annex 2
(7) The smoke class declared for class B1ca cables must originate from the FIPEC20 Scen 2 test.
(8) The smoke class declared for class B2ca, Cca, Dca cables must originate from the FIPEC20 Scen 1 test.
Symbols used: PCS gross calorific potential; FS flame spread (damaged length); THR total heat release; HRR heat
release rate; FIGRA fire growth rate; TSP total smoke production; SPR smoke production rate; H flame spread.

Table D.1: Proposed EuroClasses of reaction to fire performance for cables (as in EC
CONSTRUCT 04/652, April 2004)
26
CommScope Solutions Proprietary
Use pursuant to Company instructions