Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Is it common to find too-thin wire in an installation?

  1. #21
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    22,648
    Thanks
    3,304
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
    Ah ha. Now you're talking my language with a ring main. This is a standard installation in the UK but the British Standard spec there is also 2.5 mm² cabling and the socket outlets are only rated at 13 Amps not 16 Amps as in SA. I think we can safely say the answer to your question is 'no'.....but nice try though
    That's belts and braces thinking for you - they're catering for breaking the ring, I expect. But humour me one more time with this one:

    What if you did a normal branch reticulation doubling up on 1.5mm all the way through?

    (I am actually heading somewhere with this).
    Last edited by Dave A; 02-Aug-10 at 09:52 PM.

  2. #22
    Diamond Member AndyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    4,923
    Thanks
    576
    Thanked 934 Times in 755 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave A View Post
    (I am actually heading somewhere with this).
    Lol, and I thought you were still just poking the fire for the sake of it.

    If you installed a standard skt cct in SA using 2 x 1.5mm² FT+E cables all the way through I think it would be okay as far as conductor sizing would be concerned. It's one I've never come across before but without diving into the regs it might however raise other issues such as the occupation percentage of the conduit for one. This is also indirectly a temperature issue.

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
    If you installed a standard skt cct in SA using 2 x 1.5mm² FT+E cables all the way through I think it would be okay as far as conductor sizing would be concerned. It's one I've never come across before but without diving into the regs it might however raise other issues such as the occupation percentage of the conduit for one. This is also indirectly a temperature issue.
    What happens if exactly one of the conductors fails open? Perhaps you got a bad batch of PVC glue, the conduit segments moved apart when the alarm technician installed his cobweb, and a rat fancied a nibble at the wire insulation. What has to happen in order for you to know that it has failed?

  4. #24
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    22,648
    Thanks
    3,304
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
    If you installed a standard skt cct in SA using 2 x 1.5mm² FT+E cables all the way through I think it would be okay as far as conductor sizing would be concerned. It's one I've never come across before
    At least not in plug circuits - realistically because of cost efficiency. But in situations with big current, having multiple cables in parallel is not uncommon at all.

    This now begs the question - doubling up in parallel is probably OK (from a regs point of view at least), so why isn't doing much the same thing but in a ring feed configuration a problem?
    Quote Originally Posted by berndj View Post
    What happens if exactly one of the conductors fails open?
    Precisely. In such a situation a ring feed reduces the risk of such a failure causing catastrophic results.

  5. #25
    Gold Member Sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Posts
    890
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 127 Times in 96 Posts
    My plug circuits are minimum 2.5 but depending on load and length I do go thicker. As for ring circuits, not allowed in domestic installations, exactly as has been stated too many idiots in the field let alone the DIY crowd. The only time I will accept a 1.5 cable with a socket outlet on it is in a mixed circuit, obviously then it will not have a 20A CB.

  6. #26
    Diamond Member AndyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    4,923
    Thanks
    576
    Thanked 934 Times in 755 Posts
    I have seen ring circuits before in SA but very few and a long time ago. I don't see them as illegal according to the regs and I don't see them as a hazard as Murdock suggested. They just have redundancy built-in and are obviously more capable of handling fault currents etc.

    Not being specified as standard would make them cost prohibitive to install as they require one extra cable and conduit back to the DB but in the context of this problem of a high temperature roof space it would be a reasonable alternative solution in my book. The cost difference between a 2.5mm ring circuit with 20mm conduit and a standard circuit on 4mm cable and 25mm conduit would probably be negligible.

  7. #27
    Gold Member Sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Posts
    890
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 127 Times in 96 Posts
    Spec yes, but in this country definately not "safe" therefor not meeting criteria for my COC.

  8. #28
    Diamond Member AndyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    4,923
    Thanks
    576
    Thanked 934 Times in 755 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparks View Post
    Spec yes, but in this country definately not "safe" therefor not meeting criteria for my COC.
    Please explain why it's 'definitely not safe'. Which part of the SA regs would make it unacceptable to install a ring main? Why would it be unsafe here in SA yet safe elsewhere?

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave A View Post
    This now begs the question - doubling up in parallel is probably OK (from a regs point of view at least), so why isn't doing much the same thing but in a ring feed configuration a problem?

    Precisely. In such a situation a ring feed reduces the risk of such a failure causing catastrophic results.
    My worry would be that if exactly one conductor failed, your circuit would still appear to be "working". But that single conductor is now grossly undersized for the current that it might be carrying, but you don't find that out until either you do a (routine) check (but realistically, how often does that happen?) or your building burns down - because your circuit breaker doesn't have a problem with the current.

    With single conductors, if one fails, the whole circuit fails - it makes the failure very obvious.

    As for why parallel is fine but ring isn't, I'd say it's because you're far more likely to get an equal distribution of current through the parallel conductors than in the case of a ring. Think of a ring that's 50m long in total, with an outlet at 10m from the CB: those 10m will carry nearly all of the current, so to have a safe installation, you need the whole ring to be of a thickness capable of running the max current on its own.

  10. #30
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    22,648
    Thanks
    3,304
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    So let's sum up. I think we can acknowledge that:
    • Bernd has a point.
    • There is science behind the numbers.
    • You can't rely on the current rating per the packaging.
    • The potential scale of the issue could be huge.

    Why it hasn't caused widespread problems so far is probably a combination of eating into the safety margin and the fact that it has to be really rare that a plug circuit runs continuously close to maximum protection rating, due in most part to the start-up current draw profile of nearly all plug-in appliances.

    Fortunately the numbers are not much on the wrong side of where they should be, but they are on the wrong side of where they should be under certain circumstances which runs contrary to regs and COC standards - and therefor the issue shouldn't just be ignored (particularly bearing in mind the changed potential for claims with the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act).

    Some exposure on the issue would deal with new installations. It's the existing installations that are troublesome - probably on a number of fronts.

    In terms of raw flack, there's probably enough fudge in the history of the widespread adoption of surfix to keep fingers pointing round in circles for decades.

    (And here's where I was heading in the 1.5 mm ring-feed questions)

    At a technical level, it's a case of either downrating the protection (much more nuisance tripping complaints), or upping the wire where it counts. Now given that the problem is really confined to roof spaces, I'd suggest a simple ring feed solution (could even be confined just to the roof loom) - adding a 2.5mm feed from the db to the furthest point on the circuit.

    I only raised ring circuits at the 1.5mm level to demonstrate how powerful this solution would be.

    Anyway - rough sketch of my thinking - I'm sure it needs ripping to shreds, refining and squaring away of the details/fine print etc.

    Two more things perhaps worth mentioning:

    1. If line resistance is primarily a function of surface area, round conductors are the most inefficient shape. You could up the rating of surfix simply by using flattened copper conductors.

    2. I asked my IE what the maximum circuit breaker rating can be on plug circuits with 2.5mm wire - he said 25A. Only when I said Aha! did he say "Are we talking GP wire?"
    Last edited by Dave A; 03-Aug-10 at 05:12 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Article] New electrical installation regulations
    By QUINN in forum Electrical Contracting Industry Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-Jun-14, 03:01 PM

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •