Version 1.

The need for Encircled Flux,

real or imaginary?
Adrian Young
Fluke Networks
December 13th, 2012

Fiber Optics LAN Section

Overview:
Part of the Telecommunications Industry
Association (www.tiaonline.org)
Formed 198 years ago
Mission: to educate users about the benefits of
deploying fiber in customer-owned networks
FOLS provides vendor-neutral information
2

Fiber Optics LAN Section

Current Members
3M
AFL/Noyes Fiber
Systems
Berk-Tek, a Nexans
Company
Corning
CommScope
Draka Communications
Fluke Networks
General Cable

Leviton
OFS
Ortronics/legrand
Sumitomo Electric
Lightwave
Superior Essex
TE Connectivity

Fiber Optics LAN Section

Recent Webinars Available on Demand
Preventing Network Failures by thoroughly Cleaning &
Testing FO Connectors
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Testing: Trouble Shooting &
Documentation

Visit www.fols.org or our channel on BrightTalk

Webinars are eligible for CEC credit for up to two
years after they are first broadcast.
4

In this webinar
Whats the issue
Mandrels are they needed?
Review of standards
Coupled Power Ratio
Test methods
Mode controllers

Reducing multimode uncertainty

Encircled Flux (EF) is the final piece in the puzzle to
reducing measurement uncertainty in the field

The issue Launch control

Even today folks are not using mandrels to control the launch
No mandrel, reading may be pessimistic

Power Meter 1

Multimode Source 1

Power Meter 1

Multimode Source 1

The issue Launch control

Mandrels
Mode is from the Latin for path/way
So Multimode is Multiple Paths/Ways
Higher and lower order modes found in sources
Higher modes are less stable
Lower modes are more stable
Need to remove those higher order modes
And that is what the mandrel does
Helps reduce measurement differences between different
sources

The issue Launch control

Make an optical loss measurement
Using reference grade connectors
Better than 0.10 dB on the test reference cords
With a mandrel at the source

Do not use Bend

Insensitive Fiber Test
Reference Cords

Power Meter 1

Multimode
Source 1

The issue Launch control

Make another optical loss measurement
Using the same reference grade connectors
Better than 0.10 dB on the test reference cords
With the same mandrel at the source
Do not use Bend
But using a different source
Insensitive Fiber Test
Reference Cords

Power Meter 1

10

Multimode
Source 2

Launch at source is different

Diagrams shown to visualize the issue as best as possible

Source 1
Over filled

11

Source 2
Under filled

Traceable calibration
Only the power meter is calibrated to traceable standards
The optical source has no traceable calibration

Traceable
calibration

No traceable
calibration

Thats why there is a standard to specify the source

output, Encircled Flux
12

ANSI/TIA-526-14-A (2003)
Attempted to limit variation
Specified something called
Coupled Power Ratio

For Multimode measurements, a Category 1 light source

was required (850 nm example here)

Lets look at how that was determined

13

Coupled Power Ratio

1. If testing a 50/125 m fiber optical link, you would connect
the source and meter together using a 50/125 m cord

Power Meter

Multimode Source

2. After allowing the source to stabilize, record the received

power in dBm
14

Coupled Power Ratio

3. Insert a singlemode cord and record the received power
again
30 mm loop acts
as a mode filter

4. The difference in power received defines the category of

light source (850 nm example below)

TIA requirement for multimode

15

CPR assessment shortfall

CPR compares power in center to total power.

It cant provide assessment of mode power distribution in the outer radii

which is critical to obtain good agreement with different test instruments.
Source 1
Over filled

16

Source 2
Under filled

EF assessment improvement
EF specifies power throughout core using multiple control radii.

EF provides tight tolerance on mode power distribution in the outer radii

enabling improved agreement between EF-compliant test instruments.
Source 1
Over filled

17

Source 2
Under filled

VCSEL alert
Some believe the source should be a VCSEL
Reasoning
Use the same source type as the active equipment

Problem
The optical loss limits in IEEE 802.3 are based on test equipment
using LEDs, same for ANSI/TIA and ISO/IEC
VCSELs are under filled results in optimistic readings
Launch condition varies greatly from source to source

What Category is a VCSEL source?

18

VCSEL alert
Using the CPR method shown previously as found in ANSI/
TIA-526-14-A

A VCSEL is somewhere between Category 3 & 4

Dont use a VCSEL unless you are specifically told to do so
Some vendors will not warrant a cabling system if a VCSEL
source is used to test
19

ANSI/TIA-526-14-A
Replaced with ANSI/TIA-526-14-B (Oct 2010)
Also known as IEC 61280-4-1 edition 2,
Replaces Coupled Power Ratio with Encircled Flux
ANSI/TIA-526-14-B titled:
Optical Power Loss Measurements of Installed Multimode Fiber
Cable Plant

IEC 61280-4-1 edition 2, titled:

Fibre-Optic Communications Subsystem Test Procedure
Part 4-1: Installed cable plant- Multimode attenuation measurement

20

ANSI/TIA-526-14-A
Was considered adequate for the time (2003)
Test limits getting tighter

1000BASE-SX (2.6 dB over OM1)

10GBASE-SR (2.6 dB over OM3)
Consultants tightening loss budgets
Manufacturers tightening loss budgets

ISO/IEC 14763-3 (2006) changed to MPD

Modal Power Distribution
Tighter than CPR
Now also adopting Encircled Flux to replace MPD
21

ANSI/TIA-568-C.0-2
Titled:
Generic Telecommunications Cabling for Customer Premises
Addendum 2, General Updates
Published August 2012

New application limits

40GBASE-SR4 (100 m, 1.9 dB over OM3)

40GBASE-SR4 (150 m, 1.5 dB over OM4)
100GBASE-SR10 (100 m, 1.9 dB over OM3)
100GBASE-SR10 (150 m, 1.5 dB over OM4)

Limits are getting tighter, CPR and MPD no longer good

enough
22

What is done today

Sadly, most folks are setting a reference this way
? dB

Issues
You have no idea what the loss is in the adapter
Whatever it is, its subtracted from your measurement
The uncertainty is horrendous negative loss
23

What is done today

So you end up with this
x dB

y dB

z dB

Measurement = x + y + z - ?

Issues
You have no idea what the loss is in the adapter
Whatever it is, its subtracted from your measurement
The uncertainty is horrendous negative loss
24

What is done today

Lets take an example
0.75 dB

Issues
You have no idea what the loss is in the adapter
Whatever it is, its subtracted from your measurement
The uncertainty is horrendous negative loss
25

What is done today

Lets take an example

0.1 dB

0.3 dB

0.3 dB

Measurement = 0.3 + 0.1 + 0.3 0.75

= -0.05 dB

Issues
You have no idea what the loss is in the adapter
Whatever it is, its subtracted from your measurement
The uncertainty is horrendous negative loss
26

What is done today

ANSI/TIA describes this as Method A
? dB

Not for enterprise cabling systems

Used in long haul measurements
Uncertainty of one connector not considered critical?

27

What is done today

For testing an installed fiber optical link, should always use
the 1 Jumper Reference Method

Does require the test equipment to have interchangeable

adapters on the INPUT ports
28

Removed from INPUT port only

Its ok to remove the fiber from the input ports

You cannot remove the fiber from the output port, doing
so will invalidate the reference you just made
29

Connect known good cord

To the INPUT ports

30

Connect known good cord

To the INPUT ports

31

Connect known good cord

How do I know if those cords are good?

32

Verifying the cords

Connect them together using a singlemode adapter and
measure the loss
*

ISO/IEC 14763-3
0.1 dB for Multimode
0.2 dB for Singlemode
ANSI/TIA-568-C.0
0.75 dB?
Cabling Vendors
0.50 dB?

* This can be up to 0.15 dB for LC

Why not save this as proof of good test reference cords?

33

Test Reference Cord Values

ISO/IEC 14763-3
1 Jumper method (0.1 dB for Multimode and 0.2 dB for Singlemode)

ANSI/TIA-568-C.0
Does not call out test reference cord values ( 0.75 dB?)
You are expected to specify this

Require documentation of TRCs

34

Disconnect

35

Connect to the fiber optic link

ANSI/TIA-568-C.0

0.75 dB

0.75 dB

First and last connections 0.75 dB

All other connections 0.75 dB
36

Connect to the fiber optic link

ISO/IEC 11801:2010 & ISO/IEC 14763-3

0.30 dB

0.30 dB

First and last connections 0.30 dB

All other connections 0.75 dB
37

Impact of test reference cords

In ISO/IEC 14763-3 (2006), cords were recognized as a
source of great uncertainty
This standard reduced uncertainty by defining the
performance of the test cord connector
Reference grade connectors were required
Multimode 0.10 dB
Singlemode 0.20 dB

0.10 dB

0.75 dB

0.30 dB
38

0.20 dB

0.75 dB

0.50 dB

Measurement uncertainty
ISO/IEC 14763-3 group working on this

The figure of 0.09 dB assumes 1 Jumper Reference

method with a test reference cord using a reference grade
connector of 0.10 dB
Excludes Encircled Flux uncertainty
39

LC to SC fiber links
Myth: cannot use 1 Jumper Reference

40

LC to SC fiber links
Myth: cannot use 1 Jumper Reference

41

LC to SC fiber links
Myth: cannot use 1 Jumper Reference

42

LC to SC fiber links
Myth: cannot use 1 Jumper Reference

43

LC to SC fiber links
Myth: cannot use 1 Jumper Reference

44

Look out for TIA-TSB-4979

Titled:
Practical Considerations for Implementation of Multimode Launch
Conditions in the Field

Currently in draft
TSB = Telecommunications System Bulletin
Not an official standard
An advisory document
Chances are will end up in ANSI/TIA-568-D.3

Helps users understand Encircled Flux and the options for

implementing it
45

Practical implementation of EF
Option 1
Ignore it

46

Practical implementation of EF
Option 2
Use an external mode controller
Replaces the mandrels

47

Practical Considerations
of Encircled Flux Compliance
Todays solution

When that LC connector breaks or

wears out, it cannot be re-terminated
in the field
Re-terminations need to be
verified for EF compliance

48

Practical Considerations
of Encircled Flux Compliance
So why not just make the source EF compliant?
EF compliance is at the end of the test cord

EF Compliance is met at the end of the Test Reference Cord

A Test Reference Cord will alter the EF template

49

Practical Considerations
of Encircled Flux Compliance
Can I add a sacrificial cord to protect that LC?

Sacrificial cord

Adapter concentricity may not be good enough

Fiber core would have to be 0.5 m
diameter for the sacrificial cord
No practical way to verify in the field

50

Verifying EF compliance in the field

Similar to the CPR method, ANSI/TIA-526-14-B describes
a field artifact, with multiple concatenated offset splices
The idea is to characterize the loss through the artifact
with an EF compliant launch and compare this loss with a
field light source
While this artifact has been qualified in test labs, none
exist commercially
At this time, the only way to measure for EF compliance is
in a lab with bench top equipment designed to measure
near field radiation
51

Biggest myth on EF
It is claimed that different labs show different results when
verifying EF compliance
TIA initiated a round robin test
19 months and 14 vendors later, the results were
presented to TR 42.11
There was good agreement amongst all vendors except
for one (defect in camera)

52

Summary
At a minimum, use a mandrel
This does not yield the controlled launch condition the industry
desires that is Encircled Flux

Dont use a VCSEL source

Too much variability

Consider investing in fiber optic test equipment that allows

a 1 Jumper Reference reduced uncertainty
Verify your Test Reference Cords
Save the results and make it part of your documentation

If Encircled Flux is a contractual requirement, use mode

controllers for now
53

Q&A
Submit your questions using the tab at the top
of your screen
Please send your request for a CEC to
liz@goldsmithpr.com