In this exclusive op-ed for The Manufacturer, Eland Cables’ Mark Froggatt argues that cable specification is an often-overlooked engineering decision that can have a significant impact on manufacturing reliability, energy efficiency and downtime, making early consideration essential to long-term system performance.
On most manufacturing sites, when performance issues surface, attention turns quickly to the most complex parts of the system. The PLC logic is reviewed, drives are checked, sensors recalibrated and networks interrogated, which makes sense given how visible those elements are in day-to-day operation.
In my experience, persistent issues are not always rooted in the most obvious parts of a system, but often sit somewhere deeper in the infrastructure that connects everything together. Cable specification is one of the areas that tends to come into focus as engineers work back through the causes of those problems.
That matters more than it might seem. Unplanned downtime is now routinely measured in hundreds of thousands per hour, with some studies putting the average cost at around $260,000 for every hour a production line is stopped. In that context, the smaller decisions made at design stage start to carry far more weight.
It tends not to be a major focus during design. Once installed, it fades into the background, yet it plays a part in almost every aspect of system behaviour. When the specification does not fully reflect the operating conditions, the effects rarely present themselves immediately. They develop gradually, often appearing as inconsistencies rather than clear faults, which is why they can be difficult to diagnose.
Where gaps begin to emerge
The operating environment inside modern facilities has shifted quite significantly over recent years. Switching frequencies are higher, data volumes from sensors and encoders continue to increase, and physical space is becoming more constrained, which pushes cables into closer proximity and more demanding routing paths.
That combination creates a more challenging electrical and mechanical environment than many designs were originally intended for, and it narrows the margin for error when it comes to specification.
One area where this shows up regularly is flex performance. It is easy to assume that a cable which handles well during installation will also perform reliably in continuous movement, but that is not necessarily the case. In applications involving robotics, for example, repeated bending and torsion place very specific demands on the conductor construction. Where those demands are not fully accounted for, fatigue begins to develop over time, and the early signs are usually intermittent. A signal drops out occasionally, a communication fault appears and disappears, and the issue only becomes obvious once it reaches a point where it can no longer be ignored.
Electromagnetic compatibility is another factor that has become more prominent. Power and control cables are often routed alongside one another, and the surrounding noise
environment is far more active than it once was. Without appropriate screening, and just as importantly, the correct termination of that screening, interference can find its way into sensitive signals. What engineers then see is not a straightforward failure but inconsistent behaviour, with measurements drifting or control performance becoming less stable. It is not uncommon for those symptoms to be attributed elsewhere before the cable is considered.
Efficiency losses that go unnoticed
The influence of cable specification on energy performance is easier to overlook, but it is no less real. Many industrial loads are now inherently variable, drawing current in a way that fluctuates rather than remaining steady, and that has implications for how heat builds up along the cable.
Where conductor sizing or thermal characteristics have not been matched to those conditions, operating temperatures creep up over time. As resistance increases, so do the associated energy losses, and while each individual loss may be small, they accumulate across systems that run continuously. Over a production line, that becomes material, both in terms of energy use and how consistently power is delivered.
There is also an interaction with neighbouring circuits to consider. Thermal variation, combined with tighter routing, can influence the stability of nearby control and signal cables, so what begins as a marginal efficiency issue can begin to affect wider system performance.
Thermal and environmental realities
Temperature itself is rarely driven by a single factor. It is shaped by enclosure design, ambient conditions, load cycles and proximity to other heat-generating components, all of which combine to influence how a cable behaves throughout its working life.
Even when operating within nominal limits, sustained temperature increases will accelerate insulation ageing, and that shortens the effective service life of the cable. The change is gradual, and in many cases invisible, until performance begins to deteriorate.
Environmental exposure adds another layer of complexity. Oils, cleaning regimes, vibration and mechanical wear all interact differently with cable materials, and variations from one area of a facility to another can be more significant than expected. A sheath that performs reliably in one location may degrade far more quickly elsewhere, particularly where conditions are harsher or less consistent.
Making specification decisions earlier
Part of the challenge lies in where cable specification sits within the design process. It spans electrical, mechanical and environmental considerations, but responsibility for it
is not always clearly defined, and decisions are often finalised once layouts and routing have already been fixed.
By that point, there is limited flexibility to adapt to the realities of the application, which increases the likelihood that compromises are built in from the outset.
Taking a more deliberate approach earlier on tends to change that dynamic. When cable selection is considered alongside system design, with a clear understanding of movement, exposure and interaction with surrounding components, the resulting specification is much more closely aligned with how the installation will actually operate.
In practical terms, that usually translates into fewer issues during commissioning and more predictable behaviour over the longer term.
A component that shapes the whole system
One of the reasons cable-related issues can be so time-consuming to resolve is that they rarely present as a single point of failure. More often, they appear as small inconsistencies that evolve over time, whether that is electrical noise, thermal drift or material degradation working in the background.
Individually, those effects might not raise immediate concern, but taken together they influence how stable and reliable the system is in operation.
With increasing pressure on manufacturers to maintain uptime, improve energy performance and deliver consistent output, these underlying factors are carrying more weight than they did in the past. From what I see working with engineering teams, giving cable specification proper consideration early on remains one of the more straightforward ways to avoid problems that are otherwise difficult to trace once a system is live.
Cables may not be the most prominent element of an automated system, but they have a direct influence on how well it performs. Treating specification as an engineering decision, informed by real operating conditions, helps create systems that are more stable, more efficient and easier to manage over time.
About the author
Mark Froggatt, Head of Training, Learning and Development at Eland Cables.
Before joining Eland Cables, Mark spent over four years as Technical Director at BASEC, following 22 years with manufacturers including Draka Prysmian, Nexans, and British Cables Company. His background spans testing, sales, marketing, product management, and accreditation, giving him a broad view of global cable manufacturing and international markets.
For more articles like this, visit our Leadership channel
