Sitemap | Contact |

Home Company Profile Services Offered Products Offered 3P Qualified Products

News & Ressources

Introduction EMC
New Qualifications
News EMC performance is a critical parameter that has previously been understated
Publications
The terms "De-Embedded" EMC performance of cabling is a major source of confusion for everyone involved, i.e. both component manufacturers,
suppliers, installers and LAN owners. The panic when the European EMC Directive became mandatory has now died
and "Pyramide Testing" down. Not because the major problem of understanding its consequences for cabling has in any way been solved, but
Class D Link testing only because generally no problems arose when the EMC Directive became effective.
Standards
Safety of Cables This could lead people to believe that EMC and cabling is not critical, a problem of the past and well taken care of by
"others". This could not be more wrong. The EMC issue is getting more and more significant for safe transmission as the
FAQ EMC bit rate continues to rise. Today also application committees have to start to identify the min. EMC performance for high
EMC speed cabling like they do for all other traditional and new transmission parameters.
Market Forecast
3P Newsletter To understand the cabling EMC performance issue one has to know the background of the problem and especially realize
the fundamental difference in significance of electromagnetic emission and susceptibility of cabling. These issues are
3P MEMO discussed below.
Sitemap
Background of the problem
Cabling and cabling components are passive and consequently no reference to EMC legislation, EMC Directive or
traditional EMC Testing can therefore be made. This is easy to understand. To perform an EMC testing on an equipment
one powers the instrument(s) and measures both how much it radiates and if it can function safely when exposed to a
"normal" level of electromagnetic disturbances. Basically this cannot be done on cables and connecting hardware, and
consequently traditional EMC testing of cabling is impossible, and for instance directly excluded from the requirements of
the EMC Directive.
As always mother nature is a bitch, in this case because the EMC performance of cabling does become significant and
part of EMC legislation the second the installation starts running. Now electromagnetic disturbances are generated by the
transmission on the channels and likewise electromagnetic disturbances from external sources (PCs, mobile phones,
other cabling, etc.) may be absorbed by the cabling.
The consequences of the above conflict have been:
1. Cable and Connecting hardware producers could not supply general (generic) EMC warranties or even EMC
performance data for their components. Some producers have during time circulated EMC certificates from EMC testing
using specific PCs and claiming compliance with for instance CISPR 55022, but such testing has limited value as it only
covers testing of a specific equipment in the applied test set-up. These EMC certificates have therefore been a source of
much confusion and many disputes.
2. Authorities (EU, national EMC legislation) have denied inclusion of cabling in test and performance regulations.
Installations are of course included in the way that PCs, active equipment and cabling are considered one full "unit".
3. System suppliers can perform EMC testing on their total system, but such testing has no or only very little value when
new active equipment or PC's are installed by the end user.
4. The application committees had no way to specify the minimum EMC performance of the cabling intended to run the
application in question. They might specify the balance, but this would only solve the problem for unscreened cabling and
even only if the total effect of balance of cables and connecting hardware was evaluated.
5. The PC and active equipment producers must certify their equipment for EMC performance when connected to relevant
cabling. But they are fairly free to define what "relevant" means, giving them a possibility to generate too optimistic EMC
test certificates.
6. The poor end user gets all the problems. He knows (or should know) that EMC performance of his cabling could be
crucial for safe running of future applications and that he is legally responsible for complying with national and European
EMC regulations. For new installations he also has to decide between unscreened and screened cabling based on
estimated and incorrectly claimed EMC benefits. Still he has so far not been able to get any lasting assurance of EMC
performance for his cabling.
The best way out of this dilemma is to know the fundamental EMC behaviour of cabling with respect to emission
(disturbances from cabling) and susceptibility (disturbances against cabling).
Emission
Emission from cabling primarily depends on the PCs applied. Emission levels from active equipment are often close to the
limit, and could well be so close that test conditions with respect to mouse and keybord need to be considered. In reality
modern Cat. 5 UTP cables give only little further degradation of emission of the system. Hence: It is difficult to argue
strongly against UTP with reference to emission. UTP cabling will have lower EMC performance than correctly terminated
screened cabling, but this is not very important as the PCs and active equipment most likely will be worse.
It should be noted that channel length (cable length) does not have a direct impact on emission. This is contrary to what is
later concluded for susceptibility.
Susceptibility
Susceptibility and emission are directly related in the way that they are reciprocals. This would immediately lead to the
thought that when emission is uncritical (see above) then susceptibility could also be ignored. Unfortunately this is
completely incorrect. No comparison can be made.
When cabling is exposed to a normal electromagnetic disturbance a voltage is generated over each pair depending on
the EMC performance of the pair in question. This will depend on the frequency but could typically be from 1-50 mV for
Cat. 5 UTP cabling and from 0-0,5 mV for well screened Cat. 5 cabling. In both cases values are generally independent of
cable length.
When a signal is transmitted from one PC to another the signal is attenuated through the cabling. For short channels with
low frequency transmission the received signal will be of Volt level and disturbances of even 50 mV would then hardly
present any problem for the receiver. For long channels with high frequency transmission the received signal could well
be of 50 mV level, and then a superimposed 1-50 mV disturbance would probably form a potential problem causing slow
or interrupted communication.
The overall conclusion is that EMC Performance will become increasingly important with higher transmission rates due to
the associated higher attenuation of the cabling and/or complexity of encoding. One can be sure that the US based
application committees will try hard to allow the future protocols to run on cabling with EMC performance corresponding to
well balanced Cat. 5 cabling. However, when performance of cabling is squeezed to the limit it is essential to know and
specify the EMC performance to avoid bottlenecks in transmission speed due to electromagnetic disturbances.
Coupling Attenuation: A New Method to Identify EMC Performance
Awareness about the EMC problems of cabling has forced standardisation committees to develop a method of identifying
 EMC Performance of cabling and cabling components in spite of their passive nature. The answer is Coupling
Attenuation, which is the measurement of EMC Performance in dB.
Coupling Attenuation is a measurement of the electromagnetic noise emitted from cables and connecting hardware. It
behaves equal to the near end crosstalk, except that here it is not between two pairs, but between a pair and the
surroundings. The measurement is easily performed by a surface current sensor provided that the experience in testing is
present.
Standardisation of Coupling Attenuation is in progress, but significant experience is already now gained concerning
coupling attenuation (EMC Performance) values of different constructions of cables and connecting hardware with values
as specified below. It should be noted that the below referenced EMC performance ratings are specified by 3P and
presently not subject for standardisation.
Coupling Attenuation of permanent links and channels is determined by the Coupling Attenuation of the lowest performing
component.
EMC Performance values for most cables and connecting hardware, and some permanent links and channels are
specified in the respective tables in the 3P Survey of Qualified Components.
Characteristic Ranges of EMC Performance (Coupling Attenuation).
RATING EMC PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC CABLING
Cables Conn.Hardw
1 1-10 dB 1-4 dB Unlikely that any cabling will have this inferior EMC Performance
2 11-20 dB 5-14 dB Seldom that any cabling will have this low EMC Performance
3 21-30 dB 15-24 dB Very badly connected screens. Very poor balance of UTP cabling
4 31-40 dB 25-34 dB Badly connected screens. Poor balanced UTP cabling
5 41-50 dB 35-44 dB Badly connected screens. Well balanced UTP cabling. Specified CENELEC min. requirements for
100 MHz UTP cables.
6 51-60 dB 45-54 dB Low quality FTP screens. Specified CENELEC min. requirements for 100 MHz screened cables is
55 dB
7 61-70 dB 55-64 dB Medium quality FTP screens. Specified CENELEC min. requirements for 200 MHz screened cables.
8 71-80 dB 65-74 dB Fine quality FTP screens. Low quality S-FTP screens
9 81-90 dB 75-84 dB Very fine FTP or S-FTP screened cabling. Specified CENELEC min. requirements for 600 MHz
screened cables.
10 Min. 91 dB Min. 85 dB Especially screened cabling

3P Third Party Testing Agern Allé 3 DK-2970 Hoersholm Denmark (+45) 45 57 22 00