Menu
  • Home
  • Hydro Flask Limited Edition
  • NRL Rugby Shop
  • Football Kit
  • rio de janeiro loja futebol
SportsNewsForYou

Cable Testing 101: But the Standard Says 0.75 dB!

Posted on November 26, 2024

We’ve covered fiber insertion loss testing in depth in many blogs, so by now you should know that it is the loss of signal that happens in a channel due to the length of the cable and any connectors, splices or splitters.

And hopefully you also know that estimating your loss budget involves adding up the loss of all of these components to make sure you’re within the loss limits specified by IEEE standards for the application you plan to run.

There is however one aspect of insertion loss that has appeared to cause some confusion—the fact that TIA standards specify a maximum fiber connector loss of 0.75dB. If the design calls for multiple connection points and this value seems too high for your channel, it’s probably because it is. Let’s take a closer look.

A Limiting Worst-Case Scenario

TIA specifies a maximum value for fiber connectors of 0.75dB because it is considered worst-case scenario. It is therefore rather high and not exactly realistic since most fiber connectors typically have a range of 0.3 to 0.5dB for standard loss and 0.15 to 0.2 for low loss.

If you use the 0.75dB value when estimating the insertion loss for the application you plan to run, as well as any future applications that might run over the same cabling plant, you might think that you either can’t support the application or that you need to eliminate connection points.

For example, 40 Gb/s multimode (40GBASE-SR4) applications have a maximum channel insertion loss of 1.5dB over just 150 meters of OM4. Considering 3.0dB/km for the fiber, an OM4 150-meter length of fiber will be equal to about 0.45dB. That leaves just 1.05dB (1.5dB – 0.45dB) for your connectors. If you use the 0.75dB value for estimating the loss of the connectors into the channel, you would only be able to add one connector into the channel! This wouldn’t even allow for the use of connectors at both end of the channel, preventing the use of interconnects or cross-connects.

Why Add More Connection Points?

Deploying more connection points to accommodate interconnects or cross-connects at both ends of a channel provides convenient patching areas that can help maintain flexibility and manageability, ease deployments and upgrades, and limit access to critical switches. In an interconnect scenario, fiber panels that mirror switch ports connect via permanent, or fixed, links to fiber panels that mirror switch ports at the other end of the channel. These panels can be located in separate cabinets, which allows the switches to remain untouched and secure. However, including interconnects at both ends adds two additional connection points into the channel.

n a cross-connect scenario, two fiber panels located at one end of the channel are connected via fiber jumpers. This creates a patching area where changes can be made by simply repositioning the fiber jumpers between the two panels. And using cross-connects at both ends of the channel creates an “any to all” configuration, whereby any switch port at one end can be connected to any switch port at the other end using just the fiber jumpers at the cross-connects. Each cross-connect adds two connection point into the channel—that’s a total of four connection points if using them at both ends.

Actual Loss Can Get You There

While estimating loss using the TIA maximum value of 0.75dB prevents the use of interconnects or cross-connects at both ends of the channel, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t use these configurations. That’s why it’s better to use the actual loss of the connectors you plan to deploy when estimating your loss.

Using the aforementioned 150-meter 40 Gb/s application example that leaves just 1.05dB for your connectors, if your connectors have a low loss of 0.2dB, you would be able to accommodate 5 connections in a channel to support cross-connects at both ends. With a loss of 0.3 dB, you could accommodate 3 connections for a cross-connect at one end and an interconnect at the other. And even if your connectors have a loss of 0.5dB, you could still accommodate interconnects at both ends of the channel. This is one reason why insertion loss performance is a critical parameter when selecting your connectivity—especially if the design calls for multiple connection points.

Given these scenarios, it’s easy to see why you should base your loss estimates on the actual connector loss specified by your connector manufacturer versus the 0.75dB worst-case scenario value called out in the TIA standards.

Regardless of what value you use to estimate your total loss, the only way to really know if you’ve stayed within the insertion loss requirements for the application is to test the channel after installation via Tier 1 testing using an optical loss test set like Fluke Networks’ CertiFiber® Pro.

Download Fiber Poster

Keyword: fiber optic cable patch cord

Recent Posts

  • High-Speed QSFP-DD Cable Solutions for Next-Generation Data Centers
  • Optical Attenuator: Principles and Applications
  • How is Dew Point Calculated?
  • **How Is Dew Point Calculated**
  • Light Detector Sensor: A Comprehensive Guide

Recent Comments

    Archives

    • April 2025
    • March 2025
    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • December 2024
    • November 2024
    • October 2024
    • September 2024
    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • June 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • January 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • August 2023
    • July 2023
    • June 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • March 2019

    Categories

    • Football News
    • News
    • Read

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org
    ©2025 SportsNewsForYou | WordPress Theme by Superb WordPress Themes