Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you a
Computer / IT professional?
Join Tek-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Tek-Tips
*Tek-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
30 Nov 03 21:12
Is there a particular standard and or method to splicing Cat5e or Cat6 riser cable if it gets cut or damaged?

The only time I've ever done it was using a 5 pair 710 module, and it worked fairly well (the 710 module was cat5e rated) and passed with a pentascanner.

But are there premanufactured mini splice cases for that purpose?
skip555 (TechnicalUser)
30 Nov 03 21:41
I dont beleive you are allowed to splice , you should re-run the cable.

  that said If I had to splice I would probably cut the damaged cable  terminate each end with a jack and run a 1' premade patch cord between. making a note to pull a new cable next time we were pulling cable in that location.
Servamatic (IS/IT--Management)
1 Dec 03 0:06
Since this is Cat 5e or Cat 6, it is only 4 pair, you should pull new cable.  That being said.....

Splices are not allowed in the horizontal runs, but you said riser cable, do you mean backbone cables?

If you are talking backbone, the ONLY way you should ever splice is with a 110 block or 210 for cat 6.  The standard does not allow for a jack in the backbone, only blocks.
Using a jack method will introduce a bit more loss than a block with a C4 clip.  By the standard all splices are to be enclosed in a splice closure and are meant to be permanent.

Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
http://www.smartbuilthomes.com

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
1 Dec 03 0:47
Well, I would pull new cable... but in the case of it being inside a wall that's secured, that was installed by someone else, and I'm just being thrown into the mix, and the customer isn't exactly thrilled with the idea of tearing it open for a cable that's running to one office... I think a splice is the only way to go.

That being said... I guess my 710 module is the only way to go.  Cat5e compliant.  
TouchToneTommy (Vendor)
1 Dec 03 2:16
Since it's only one cable, and you want to make a self contained splice using a 110 block, here's what I would use:

http://www.levitonvoicedata.com/wallplateshousings/type...

Pull out the C4, and throw away the jack itself. Punch one end of the cable on the base of the jack assembly, which is basically a 4-pair 110 block, then put on the C4, and punch the other end to the C4. You can cut away the opening where the jack module used to be, so you can place the cover back on over the cables. Voila'

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
1 Dec 03 11:17
Those aren't Cat5e compliant, anyone make them as such?
mikeydidit (IS/IT--Management)
1 Dec 03 14:40
Avaya. It doesn't sound like it is going to compliant any way other than a new pull. From your description, that may not be an option. Something you might be able to try is placing both ends in a plastic receptacle box. Place a jack at both and run a patch cable between the two. Doesn't sound very pretty but I bet it will work?


 Mikey

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
1 Dec 03 16:09
I'm sure it would, but that just adds some unneccesary components.  I want to bond them together... and a Cat5e compliant 710 module seems like the best bet.  And I could swear that I read somewhere that it is compliant standards wise, but that may be old or something.  I just don't see the need to introduce cabling into the scheme like a patch cord when I could simply put them together in a 710 module.  I could use a tiny 110 block, but that wouldn't be as clean and use as few elements as a 710 module would, as 710 modules are designed for splices in the first place...

I thought there might be some trick to this, oh well.
skip555 (TechnicalUser)
1 Dec 03 18:21
im not familar with the 710 module

what is it ?
AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
1 Dec 03 18:50
Well, they come in 5 pair, 10 pair, and 25 pair modules.  I began using them for splicing OSP cable, and also for splicing from OSP to protectors when I was a splicer for the CSU system.

Anyways.  3M makes them now, and they look somewhat similar to a 25 pair long 110 block.  It's a four step process, you use what's called a unipress, or 710 press.  You lay all 25 pairs into the module itself, and then press them into the IDC teeth.  Then you engage the blade and cut the excess off. Then you do the next module, and from there crimp the two together using a third piece that's for a direct splice.  Hard to explain, I'll see if I can't find some photos.

They also make bridge tap modules.

Basically... this allows you to interface up to 25 pair at a time for large splice applications.

The reason I would use them for something like this, is that they're designed for splicing, and they make them cat5e compliant.  It's the only thing I could think of that's actually designed for splicing that's Cat5e rated.

Here's a photo of an older model:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2361...

The cap you see at the top is removable, and looks somewhat similar to an elco connector.  It's used to patch into a 25 pair test unit for testing 25 pair at a time as you complete the buildout for a particular cable or system.  They work great... and if you do anything with large pair count cables, you should definetely look into getting one.  They make a 5 pair model that can do the 25 pair modules, just takes a hell of a lot longer.
Servamatic (IS/IT--Management)
1 Dec 03 22:09
Unless I am mistaken, the 710 would be categorized as a legal splice, IF we are talking backbone, NOT horizontal.  I guess I needed to spell that out.  If you are splicing the backbone, it needs to be in a splice closure and be permanent.

Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
http://www.smartbuilthomes.com

skip555 (TechnicalUser)
1 Dec 03 22:13
you say its inside a secure wall

 how are you going to get that splice rig in there ? or are there smaller ones that connect with hand tools

 thanks for the picture Ive seen these before never used them we do little OSP and then its just to a outbuilding on the custmers premise.
AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
1 Dec 03 22:35
Yes, they make smaller ones that are hand driven (that would be the 5 pair model), and to be honest, I didn't really think that through, I'd probably end up having to splice twice all things considered.

Servamatic -- I heard you the first time.

I know it's probably not "legal" for a horizontal cable, but I'm trying to come up with something that would insert the least amount of loss and trouble.
Servamatic (IS/IT--Management)
2 Dec 03 0:30
Then if this is horizontal, why are you still asking if there is a standards compliant way to do it?

Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
http://www.smartbuilthomes.com

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
2 Dec 03 2:50
Hmmm, maybe I'm not being clear:

Obviously this wouldn't be standards compliant.

I'm trying to find the BEST solution, that insers the LEAST amount of loss, and yields the BEST performance considering the circumstances.  I'm coming up with a 710 module.  Has anyone else got a better idea that would be more performance oriented?

Maybe that will make it more clear.
JBeav (TechnicalUser)
2 Dec 03 12:03
Then it sounds like the BEST solution, that inserts the LEAST amount of loss, and yields the BEST performance is to replace the cable.  Now you're talking not one but two splices in the horizontal. We can talk about the use of a "consolidation point" as a way to "extend" the horizontal via 110,Krone or BIX, but if you talking about only one cable, you (or the customer)may be wasting alot of time and material to come up with a solution to avoid replacing the cable.  
daronwilson (Vendor)
2 Dec 03 12:52
I think your 710 is probably a sound solution.  In a perfect world and a good budget, we all know the best thing to do is replace the cable.  However in the real world, on a realistic budget, that is not always a solution.  And while you can stand there and preach to the customer that he should spend $300 to have you snake that cable out and put a new one in....someone will be standing around offering to get him going in 15 minutes for $50.

Sometimes we have to compromise a bit, realizing that it is a weak point and not compliant.

Good Luck!

It is only my opinion, based on my experience and education...I am always willing to learn, educate me!
Daron J. Wilson, RCDD
daron.wilson@lhmorris.com

RSKing (IS/IT--Management)
2 Dec 03 14:39
Have you considered 3M Scotch-locks? I've never tested them but they're an easy IDC based fix without special tools or space requirements.
Jtodd (IS/IT--Management)
2 Dec 03 15:35
Nick,
You know that I don't know to much about the 710s, but I think I would have to side with the previous post that suggested a 110 with patch cords.  This could be done fairly cheeply, and be almost complient to the standards.
I believe it is Siemon that has a 25pair, 110 block, and maybe even as 25pr 210 (which is their Cat6).  Panduit might also, but that needs a different punch tool.
Mount the 110 at the cut (I'm assume that the cut is out side the secured wall), terminate the two ends of the exposed cable at opposite ends of the 110 block.  Get the shortest 110-110 patch cord that is of the same manufacture as the 110 & C4's, and patch between the two.
Since you can go to 4 connections with Cat6, and still be 'legal', this would only be your third (1 patch panel, 2 jack).  I'm not sure it gets to the 'spirit of the law' but, I might go as far to say its good.  And spec wise, it should test out just fine, as long as you went with decent parts (do I hear an ICC comment coming?)

Justin

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
2 Dec 03 20:44
ICC, ah yes... how I love ICC.

Justin, head over to that building that's north of telecom, the one right next to Ron's building... the one that has the stuff painted on the outside, I can't remember which number.  I snaked a 25 pair protector from it one time.

Anyways...

There are a bunch of 710 splices in there.

Point is, splicing once would be the best idea... if it was a clean cut, and there was somehow enough slack to pull a few inches together so there isn't any strain.  710 wold work great for that.

If I had to splice twice, then yeah... maybe a jack with a patch cord or something like that.  But if I could get enough slack somehow, then 710 sounds like the way to go.

Daron -- good point, and that was my main theme.  I'm not dealing with something I prewired, because I sure as hell would have made it possible to replace the cable.  This stuff was ran by an electrician... he stapled it all along the way, and it was working fine with my terminations up until this point.  So... this is the best thing I can think of without spending at least 8 hours to get the whole thing re-ran... which would be nearly impossible considering the circumstances.

Thanks guys, good ideas...
TouchToneTommy (Vendor)
2 Dec 03 21:19
Hey Nick - the tip I posted earlier about using the 103 jack: Do you realize that it is a 4-pair 110 block that you don't need to use any patch cord with? Punch one end of the cable on the base, install the C4, and punch the other end onto the C4. Even if you were to get a regular 25-pair 110 block, there is no need to punch the ends down on two spots of the 110, use 2-C4's and a patch cable. Just punch one on the bottom and one on the top!
AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
2 Dec 03 21:23
Makes sense, but the one you posted was Cat-3, right?  I didn't see a Cat5e model.

Nick
TouchToneTommy (Vendor)
2 Dec 03 21:36
Dude, it's 110! You're not using the jack portion of it. You pull off the C4, yank out the jack and its wiring, punch one cable down where the jack wiring used to be, reinstall the C4, and punch the other cable onto the C4.
AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
2 Dec 03 22:14
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I suppose :)  I Thought that it needed to be rated at cat5e to perform for 100mbit.
TouchToneTommy (Vendor)
2 Dec 03 22:26
Perhaps one of our RCCD's can chime in, but I thought that 110 WAS Cat5/Cat5e compliant
ANFPS26 (TechnicalUser)
2 Dec 03 22:39
Why not cut the cable, put connectors on the cut ends and use a coupler:

http://www.la-cable.com/cat5_coupler.htm

Jim

skip555 (TechnicalUser)
2 Dec 03 22:55
you could have re-run the cable by now
AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
3 Dec 03 0:47
Skip -- it's a 260 foot drop, running inside wood studded walls, secured with staples, finished construction.  No sub floor.  No attic.  No other solution without a lot of time involved.
skip555 (TechnicalUser)
3 Dec 03 7:43
my statement was made in jest

thus the

actully I have found this thread informative

I enjoy it when the discussion goes beyond one or two responses
Servamatic (IS/IT--Management)
3 Dec 03 8:36
As the customer waits for a remedy.... sometimes you just need to make a decision and get on with it.

Yes 110 blocks are rated to Cat 5e. I have never heard of a 110 that isn't...doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I have just never heard of such a thing.

Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
http://www.smartbuilthomes.com

AvayaNovice (Vendor) (OP)
3 Dec 03 11:01
I have some 110 blocks laying around from 1993.  Considering that cat5e spec didn't exist then... I don't see how they could be compliant, maybe they were that robust then... don't know
Jtodd (IS/IT--Management)
3 Dec 03 11:26
Per one of the manufacture reps here recently (might have been the Avaya guy) the C4 and 110 block are not category rated (the block is just plastic anyway, how can you rate that?) but that it was the C4/patch cord combination that made the category compliance.  Take that for what it's worth.

As for the above statement of punching one cable on the bottom of the C4 and the other on the top of the C4 (elimiating the patch cord), while will work, but if striving to be compliant, this wouldn't be.  The patch cord is needed.  This is essentially become a 'consolidation point' (for one run?), and a compliant consolidation point is a cross connect (patch cord needed) not an interconnect (no patch cord).  At least that's how I understand what the standard says.  
Thats if you're going for the Category compliance.  If not, the non-patch cord method will work.  If you do it that way, send me the test results, I'd be interested in what it looks like.

Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay

franklin97355 (TechnicalUser)
3 Dec 03 15:04
Secured with staples?
Servamatic (IS/IT--Management)
3 Dec 03 15:23
UMMM...Justin If I understood what you wrote.....in a consolidation point you do not have an additional patch cord.  A MUTOA uses a patch cord without a WS jack.
A CP is a UTP punched down via a block directly to another UTP which extends the service to the workstation jack and then you have your patch cord.
So an additional patch cord in the "cicuit" would not be compliant.

Richard S. Anderson, RCDD
http://www.smartbuilthomes.com

JBeav (TechnicalUser)
3 Dec 03 15:34
Right. A CP is not a user interface, like a MUTOA.
daronwilson (Vendor)
5 Dec 03 15:33
Wow we beat this one to death.  110 blocks were out long before the Cat5e standard was, so I'm not sure that all 110's would be considered compliant.

Keep in mind, we're (what my engineer likes to call) "polishing a turd".  We're fixing a problem the best we can to make the customer happy.  Yeah....someone staped the wire in the wall, and we can't repull it cost effectively so we're going to splice it.  Almost any IDC type of connection (110 style) should do pretty well, I've scothlocked them (maintaining the twist as much as i could) and scanned them successfully before, I've cimped plugs on and put a coupler in and scanned it, I've put a modular IDC type jack on one end and a plug crimped on the other and tested it, etc.  Almost all of these things will work to get them by, none of them will be standards compliant, but at this point we really don't care about that because we want to make it work.

Pick your best solution, implement it, inform the customer and maybe even tag the wire back in the data closet, scan/certify it, and move on.


Good Luck

It is only my opinion, based on my experience and education...I am always willing to learn, educate me!
Daron J. Wilson, RCDD
daron.wilson@lhmorris.com

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Tek-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Tek-Tips and talk with other members!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Tek-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical computer professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Tek-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close