EuroWire November 2015

Technical article

This need is taken into account in the European Constructive Products Regulation [6] . We have seen there are two aspects of fire protection: fire avoidance and reduction of fire impacts. How do these aspects correlate to the regional differences in fire protection strategies? 4.1 Fire Avoidance The common fire protection philosophy in America is to prevent fire at any cost. There are high amounts invested into research and investigation and the results are very challenging regulations regarding the fire performance of indoor cabling in terms of self ignition, flame propagation and fire resistance. To meet these requirements there is no other way than to use halogens as flame retardants in cable compounds, as well as in building materials. This approach risks the threat of personal injury by acid fumes and of emergency exits being hidden by dense smoke. 4.2 Reduction of Fire Impacts It seems to be complete nonsense to reduce potential fire impact but to do nothing to avoid fire. And it really is, because there are so many and various impacts of fire. There may be very specific situations where such a scenario makes sense, but such an exotic application shall not be discussed in this paper. Nevertheless we do not know any regulations which just support this approach. Reduction of fire impact cannot be a fire protection strategy itself but it should be an important part of a combined strategy, as it is European standard. 4.3 Diverse Redundancy It is said that Europeans and especially Germans have a preference for multiple safety. We are happy to know there is a second protection instrument if the first protection instrument should fail. Combined safety strategy is well-known in many technologies relevant to safety. So in safety discussions regarding nuclear power plants the idea of diverse redundancy is a basic approach. This means there must be an additional safety procedure which works completely independently from the first one in case the basic safety procedure does not work. So in Europe it is the consensus to avoid fire as much as possible but at the same time to keep low the consequences on health or goods if a fire happens. Due to physical reasons a better reduction of the effects is achieved by reduced fire avoidance.

Material

Flame retardant

Low smoke

Halogen free

PVC

X

– X X X X

No Yes

Polyolefin

– – – –

Polyurethane

? ?

TPE

– +

FRNC

Yes No!

Fluorpolymer

+ +

▲ ▲ Table 2 : Typical fire performance properties of cable compounds

But in total the risk according to Equation (1) is significantly lower. This is also shown in Figure 2 . To protect people’s health in case of fire it is widely required to use halogen free, low smoke materials for buildings including indoor cabling. This is mandatory in public premises but also recommended in residential areas. 5 Conclusions Due to cultural differences the focus of fire protection in America is to reduce the probability of fire, but in Europe mainly the dimensions of possible health injuries and material damages are to be controlled. Due to these differences in fire protection strategies there are wide differences in technical standards, requirements, and specifications for cables as well as for other construction components regarding fire performance. The European approach follows the theory of diverse redundancy. Even if the requirements to each single parameter for cable fire performance are lower, there is a much better protection with less effort in total. Different fire protection strategies are related to intercultural differences. To sell a product in a region it is not only necessary to meet all specifications but to understand the needs and fears of humans living there. Just by addressing these aspects it is possible to convince potential customers of the advantages a product offers. Thus cultural relativity has to be taken into account in worldwide business. Cross-cultural awareness is an important skill in global product management. 6 Acknowledgments Special thanks to Prof Dr Armin Wittmann from Trier University of Applied Sciences for providing information regarding risk management. Nicolai Bör from GIZ (German Association for International Cooperation) for

giving an increased understanding of intercultural differences and their effects on the B2B business.

ICYE

(International

Christian national

Youth

Exchange)

and

its

sub-organisations activities intensified the experience of cross-cultural awareness. n whose

7 References

[1] Are Human” University of Limburg, The Netherlands Management Science, Vol 40, No 1, (Jan 1994) [2] C Chapman, S Ward, “Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques, and Insights”, 2 nd Ed, John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2003) [3] Robin E McDermott, Raymond J Mikulak, Michael R Beauregard,“The Basics of FMEA”, 2 nd Ed, Taylor & Francis Group LLC (2009) [4] Society for Risk Analysis (SRA); www.sra.org [5] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; http:// en.wikipedia.org [6] European Commission: “Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 th March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC”; OJ L 88 of 4 th April 2011 Paper courtesy of the 63 rd IWCS Technical Symposium, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, November 2014. G Hofstede, “Management Scientists

Jörg Bör CABX Cable Expert Dipl-Ing Aachen Germany Tel : +49 163 439 1964 Email : info@cabx.de

52

www.read-eurowire.com

November 2015