Every cable gland datasheet you receive will name a standard. Most say IEC 62444. Some still say EN 50262. The two lines look interchangeable, and they are not: one of them describes a document that was withdrawn over a decade ago. Knowing which is which, and what the codes that follow the standard number actually mean, is the difference between a specification that survives a project audit and one that quietly fails it. This guide walks through IEC 62444 clause by clause, explains what replaced EN 50262 and when, and gives you a datasheet checklist you can run against any cable glands offer before you commit to an order.

IEC 62444 in One Paragraph

IEC 62444:2010, Cable glands for electrical installations, was published in August 2010 by IEC technical committee TC 23/SC 23A (Cable management systems). It sets out requirements and test methods for the construction and performance of cable glands: sealing, cable retention, earthing and bonding, impact resistance, corrosion, ingress protection and fire behaviour.

Four scope limits matter more than the rest of the text combined:

• It applies to complete cable glands as supplied by the manufacturer or the supplier placing them on the market, not to individual parts.
• It does not cover cable glands for mineral insulated cables.
• It is built around IEC 60423 metric entry threads . Other thread forms are covered by an informative “may be used as a guide” statement, with one exception: NPT entry threads get a normative annex.
• Everything in it is a type test . The standard qualifies a design, not a production batch.

What EN 50262 Was, and What Replaced It

EN 50262:1998 was the CENELEC standard for cable glands, titled in most national adoptions as Metric cable glands for electrical installations. It was amended twice, in 2001 and 2004, with a corrigendum in between. Its scope was deliberately narrow: complete metric glands as supplied, not parts; and it explicitly excluded glands for fibre optic cables, glands for mineral insulated cables specified in HD 586, and any gland with a non-metric entry thread.

It also carried a line that tells you how much the discipline has moved. Multi-orifice seals, the standard noted, were “under consideration”.

When IEC 62444 was written, multi-orifice sealing systems were no longer an open question. They are a classification category in their own right, sitting alongside material, mechanical performance, electrical properties and external influences.

The replacement timeline

The practical consequence is simple. EN 50262 no longer exists as a route to a presumption of conformity under the Low Voltage Directive. EN 62444:2013 does.

If your supplier still cites EN 50262

An EN 50262 reference on a 2026 datasheet usually means one of three things, and they are not equally serious:

1. A stale document, current product. The gland was tested to IEC 62444 and the marketing sheet was never updated. Fixable with a documentation request.
2. A test report that predates 2013. The product may well be sound, but the report will not carry the classification codes introduced by IEC 62444, because those codes did not exist when the report was written.
3. Catalogue copy-paste. The reference was inherited from an older product line and never verified.

None of these means the gland is unsafe. It means the evidence trail no longer matches the current harmonised reference, which is precisely what a project QA team, a notified body or an insurer will look at. The fix is the same in every case: ask for a test report that names IEC 62444:2010 or EN 62444:2013 explicitly, together with the testing laboratory, the report date and the sample sizes covered.

If you are building a document pack for a European project, the same request should cover the IP claims. Our guide to IP68 test reports sets out what a defensible immersion report contains and how to spot a self-declared rating.

How IEC 62444 Classifies Cable Glands (Clause 6)

This is the section most buyers skip, and it is the one that decides whether your specification means anything. The standard is a performance standard: it defines several compliance levels rather than a single pass mark. A datasheet that says only “complies with IEC 62444” has told you almost nothing. What you need is the classification string.

By material (6.1)

Metallic, non-metallic, or composite. Sealing systems are excluded from the definition, so a brass body with an elastomer seal is still a metallic gland. This matters because several later requirements — corrosion resistance, UV resistance, the electrical current test — attach to specific material classes rather than to all glands.

By mechanical properties (6.2): the Type A to Type D codes

This is where the standard earns its keep. The two terms it uses are not synonyms:

• Cable retention is the ability to limit displacement of an installed cable under static load.
• Cable anchorage is the ability to limit displacement under dynamic and torque loads.

A gland can be classified for retention only, with no anchorage claimed. The anchorage codes then split by cable construction:

In selection terms: a retention-only gland is adequate for a fixed, undisturbed entry inside a cabinet. Anything where the cable will be pulled, flexed, vibrated or torqued — a trailing cable on moving equipment, a pendant drop, a machine tool lead — needs an anchorage classification. For armoured cable the choice between Type C and Type D comes down to how much mechanical abuse the installation will see, and it is worth understanding how armoured cable gland types differ before you write the line item.

By electrical properties (6.3)

The standard separates three electrical functions that are routinely blurred together on datasheets:

• Equipotential bonding to the electrical equipment
• Equipotential bonding to the metallic layer or layers of the cable
• Protective connection to earth

Electrical current classifications are commonly quoted as class A, B or C. Clause 10.3.2 then verifies the protective earth path with an electrical current test against the values in Table 5. If your installation relies on the gland as part of the earth fault path, this is the clause that decides whether that reliance is justified.

By resistance to external influences (6.4)

Degree of protection to IEC 60529, and UV resistance. IP54 is the floor set by the standard, not a target. Any figure above IP54 must be declared by the manufacturer and verified under Clause 12.1. When you check a declared rating, check it against the cable diameter range and cut-out dimensions you are actually working with, because the two have to agree — a cable gland size chart is the quickest way to confirm both.

By sealing system (6.5)

Single-orifice seals, which pass one cable, and multi-orifice seals, which pass several cables through one gland body. The standard treats each alternative sealing arrangement offered for a given gland as a separate sample for testing purposes.

The Type Tests a Cable Gland Must Pass

The standard is organised as a test standard. Each clause answers a specific question about the product, and each one produces a number you can put in a specification. Annex B of the standard sets out the order in which the tests are performed.

Before the tests: conditioning and sampling

The standard fixes the conditions so that results from different laboratories are comparable. Tests run at an ambient temperature of 20 °C ± 5 °C. Sealing systems are pre-conditioned in an oven at 70 °C ± 2 °C for 168 hours ± 4 hours — and if the manufacturer declares a maximum temperature above 65 °C, the oven is set to that declared temperature plus 5 °C. Samples are then conditioned for at least 24 hours at 20 °C ± 5 °C and 40–60% relative humidity before testing.

Sampling is not one-off. Three samples are tested, and for a gland series the three largest and three smallest sizes are tested along with one sample of every other size in the series. That is the mechanism that stops a supplier from submitting a single favourable size.

9.2 Cable retention test

A test mandrel matching the minimum value of the declared sealing range is fitted to the gland, and the load from Table 2 is applied. This is the test behind every “pull-out” figure on a datasheet. The result tells you what happens when a cable is tugged statically, for example during a panel build or when a cable bundle is dressed after installation.

9.3 and 9.4 Cable anchorage tests

Non-armoured glands classified for anchorage are tested under both pull and twist. The pull test applies the Table 2 load to a marked mandrel repeatedly, in the direction of the axis, without jerks, and the displacement is measured against the mark. The twist test applies the torque value from Table 3. Armoured glands are tested separately because the armour layer, not the outer sheath, is the load-bearing element.

This is the distinction that explains why two glands with identical thread sizes and identical sealing ranges can have wildly different service lives on the same machine.

9.5 Impact resistance: categories 1 to 8

Samples are conditioned at low temperature before the impact is applied at the weakest point of the gland. After the test there must be no disintegration and no visible cracks. The energy applied depends on the category the gland is declared for, and the categories map onto service duty in a way that is directly useful at specification stage.

The logical step most datasheets omit: the gland should carry at least the same impact protection as the enclosure it is fitted to. An IP66 enclosure with an IK08 rating protected by a category 4 gland is only as strong as the gland. The IK code system is defined separately in IEC 62262, but the impact energies in IEC 62444 Table 4 cover the same ground and then some.

9.6 Seal performance, and Clause 12.1 for IP

Seal performance is tested after the mechanical tests, on the same samples, because a gland that leaks after being pulled and struck is not a sealed gland. The IP verification itself is performed to IEC 60529, split into protection against solid foreign objects and protection against water ingress. This is the clause that turns an IP68 claim into a tested statement rather than a badge.

Clause 10: earthing and bonding

Equipotential bonding to the equipment, equipotential bonding to the cable’s metallic layer, and the protective earth connection are each verified. The electrical current test in 10.3.2 applies the current values from Table 5 through the protective earth path. For glands on armoured or screened cable, this is the test that proves the armour or screen actually forms a continuous earth path through the gland body.

Clause 11: electromagnetic compatibility

EMC behaviour is addressed as part of the standard rather than left to the market. Where a gland is declared for EMC performance, this is the clause that governs it.

Clause 12: corrosion and UV

Metallic parts must be resistant to, or protected against, corrosion under Clause 8.6, and this is verified under 12.2. UV resistance is verified under 12.3 for glands declared against 6.4.3.2. Corrosion test methods commonly reference ISO 9227 salt spray. For coastal, marine and outdoor installations this is the clause to look at, and it is one reason material selection matters more than IP rating alone.

Clause 13: fire hazard

Reaction to fire is assessed with a glow-wire test, typically at 650 °C, with acceptance based on the absence of flame or glowing, or extinction within a defined period. Resistance to fire is addressed separately. For glands on cable penetrating a fire-rated compartment, this is the clause that supports the claim.

The Datasheet Checklist: 11 Items Clause 7.3 Requires

Clause 7.3 is the most immediately useful part of the standard for a buyer, because it lists the information the manufacturer or supplier must publish. If any of these eleven items is missing from the datasheet you were sent, the documentation is incomplete — regardless of how the product performs.

Two adjacent requirements reinforce the list. Clause 7.1 covers marking, and Clause 7.2 covers its durability: the marking is rubbed by hand for 15 seconds with a cloth soaked in water, then for 15 seconds with a cloth soaked in petroleum spirit, and must remain legible afterwards. A gland whose size and thread marking rubs off during installation is not a compliant gland.

In practice, the installation torque figure in item 2 is where specifications most often go wrong. If you want the reasoning behind torque values and where the sealing interface actually sits, our guide to installation torque covers it in detail.

What “IEC 62444 Compliant” Does Not Cover

Being clear about the edges of the standard is as useful as knowing what is inside it. The standard does not:

• Cover hazardous areas. A gland for an explosive atmosphere must first meet the relevant installation standard, including IEC 62444, and then meet the requirements of the IEC 60079 series — IEC 60079-0 for general requirements, plus the protection concept that applies, such as IEC 60079-7 for Ex e or IEC 60079-31 for Ex t. If you need that path, start with our overview of hazardous area cable glands .
• Cover mineral insulated cable glands or glands for fibre optic cables.
• Guarantee enclosure-level protection. The enclosure rating is only as good as its weakest penetration. A gland that meets the standard can still leave an assembly below its declared IP if the cut-out, the gasket or the mating thread is wrong.
• Require routine production testing. Everything is a type test. Certification tells you the design passed; it does not tell you every unit off the line is identical.
• Address chemical compatibility. IP is a water-ingress figure. Elastomer and body material selection against a specific chemical is a separate exercise.
• Replace application-specific testing. EMC performance, vibration, salt water spray, dynamic flexion and enhanced pull-out testing are all available over and above the standard, and for some projects they are the real requirement.

The same logic applies on the other side of the Atlantic. North American projects work to a different framework, and a gland that satisfies IEC 62444 is not automatically acceptable there — the differences are set out in our guide to UL 514B for North America.

How to Write an IEC 62444 Specification Line

A specification that says “cable gland to IEC 62444” transfers all the risk to you. A specification that states the classification does the opposite. A workable line reads like this:

Cable gland, metallic, nickel-plated brass, M20 × 1.5 metric entry thread to IEC 60423. IEC 62444:2010 classification: anchorage Type A for non-armoured cable, impact category 5, degree of protection IP68, temperature range −40 °C to +100 °C, protective earth connection verified to Clause 10.3.2. Sealing range to be stated and to bracket the measured cable outside diameter.

Four elements in that sentence are doing real work. The thread standard fixes the mechanical interface. The anchorage type fixes the mechanical duty. The impact category fixes the abuse the gland must survive. The sealing range forces the supplier to commit to a number you can check against your cable. Everything else on the datasheet is supporting evidence.

Two more fields are worth adding for outdoor or process installations: the declared UV resistance if the gland will be exposed, and the corrosion protection method for the metallic parts.

Common Misunderstandings

Conclusion

The standard does two things at once. It replaced a narrower European standard with a global one that covers metric and NPT threads, adds multi-orifice seals and standardises the test methods. And it converted “is this gland compliant?” into a set of numbers you can specify: material class, anchorage type, impact category, IP level, temperature range and electrical classification.

The three habits worth taking away are these. Ask for a test report that names IEC 62444:2010 or EN 62444:2013 explicitly, and treat a lingering EN 50262 reference as a documentation question to resolve rather than a reason to reject. Write the classification string into the specification instead of the standard number alone. And run the eleven Clause 7.3 items against every datasheet you receive, because a datasheet that omits the sealing range or the clearance hole diameter has not told you what you are buying.

If you are working through a specification and want a second opinion on the classification you need, contact us with your cable outside diameter, enclosure thread and the environment the entry sits in, and we will map it to the right gland.

FAQ

Is EN 50262 still valid?

No. EN 50262:1998 and its amendments were superseded by EN 62444:2013, which is the CENELEC adoption of IEC 62444:2010. EN 62444:2013 is the standard currently referenced in the EU Official Journal as harmonised under the Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU. If a datasheet still cites EN 50262, ask for the current test report.

What is the difference between cable retention and cable anchorage?

Retention limits displacement of the installed cable under static load. Anchorage limits displacement under dynamic and torque loads. IEC 62444 classifies anchorage as Type A or B for non-armoured cable and Type C or D for armoured cable, and permits a gland to be classified for retention alone.

What is the minimum IP rating for an IEC 62444 cable gland?

IP54. Clause 8.4 requires a minimum degree of protection of IP54 to IEC 60529, and Clause 7.3 requires the manufacturer to declare the IP rating whenever it is higher than IP54.

Does IEC 62444 cover explosion-proof cable glands?

Not on its own. The standard covers construction and performance for general electrical installations. Glands used in explosive atmospheres must also meet the IEC 60079 series, including IEC 60079-0 for general requirements and the relevant protection concept such as IEC 60079-7 for Ex e or IEC 60079-31 for Ex t.

What temperature range must a cable gland be rated for under IEC 62444?

Clause 8.5 requires suitability for at least −20 °C to at least +65 °C. A wider range can be declared by the manufacturer, and when the declared maximum exceeds 65 °C the pre-conditioning oven is set to the declared temperature plus 5 °C.

How many samples are tested under IEC 62444?

Three samples are tested. For a gland series, the three largest and three smallest sizes are tested, along with one sample of every other size in the same series. Where a gland offers alternative sealing arrangements, each arrangement counts as a separate sample.

What information must an IEC 62444 datasheet include?

Clause 7.3 requires the sealing range, installation torque if any, entry thread length and size and type, maximum clearance hole diameter, cable anchorage type and range, impact category, correct assembly for protective earth use, the IP rating if above IP54, the temperature range if different from the standard, and details of any multi-orifice seals.