IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: AMD 3 CABLE SUPPORTS
Topic Summary: The reason why.
Created On: 31 December 2014 10:25 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 11 12 13 14 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 17 January 2015 10:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mantutu

Posts: 123
Joined: 16 June 2013

phantom9,
I do not know you or your background so could never prejudge you based on your input on this forum.
What I do have a problem with is, what point are you trying to force forward?
I understand that designers have a responsibility, they always have. The problem the electrical industry has had in recent years, is that electricians have been the designers, installers and testers.
Regulation and indeed guidance is regularly discussed and improved as and when new data is available.
One of your recent posts I found offensive, not in the literary sense, but rather implying that you envy people who have by learning more intelligence, therefore you place them on a less than level playing field.
The offence I take is that you think that because someone has achieved some academic level, they are different from yourself.
I am sure you are intelligent enough to debate in a healthy manner, discuss your reservations and articulate your point.
Quote
"Here's one to consider. Council house rewires. Done on the cheap. Surface mounted cheapest T&E in cheapest plastic mini-trunking festooning the place. Because of this insistence on including the new Reg the council, being all anti-law suit an all, will no doubt agree with majority and stop surface mounting wires. See the trouble its caused. The corollary will be improved appearance of council house rewires anyhow. Thats all its gonna do." end quote.

Could you elaborate on what ' trouble' this new regulation as caused, as I am confused.
In my view it is done right, or it is done wrong.
I do however admire your use of the word corollary, however I would say that logic is another word used to study interference.
 18 January 2015 11:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Hi mantutu. That is a very fair post and I will try to explain my manner on this forum and my train of thought and hopefully allow you to understand.

Firstly you are correct that I comment in, shall we say, an aggressive manner. My style provokes equally aggressive response. Some will take offence, others won't. I accept that. This does not make me a nasty little *****. I have a style of writing, just the same as everyone else.

Ok, the point I am trying to push forward on this particular matter, mantutu, is that of JPs post about firefighters entangled in wiring hanging from a burning building did not IMHO need an electrical Reg to sort it out. The scale of the problem in real terms is actually very small. However, it does need addressing. But not with this Reg.

I don't envy people, mantutu, that are clearly highly educated and very intelligent. I believe I fit that description anyway ( ). Where I differ is that I don't feel the need to demonstrate the fact like others do, giving it what I call "the big I am". So you have got that wrong. I am more than capable of facing up to this sort of 'look how much I know' type of post but the real test of true intelligence is knowing how to apply it in the most effective and simple way. That is the angle I come in at. Knowing the problem, but getting at the solution in the most direct way.

Now, taking issue of this bloody new Reg. What it has done in essence is make a certain group of the construction industry ultimately responsible for addressing it and removing situations that allow wires to fall down and entangle firefighters in a burning building. My point is what has it got to do with electricians, electrical installers, electrical designers and electrical inspectors? These specialists should focus entirely on the electrical safety and electrical performance of installations not on issues related to buildings that are on fire. This is the main point I am trying to put across. Yes, before you state what is obvious to me, but prevention of fire is a part of this process, of COURSE it is, but not to the extent that is implied by the debate. The electrical requirement to prevent fire is integral within the wiring regs that installations are carried out in such a way as to prevent or minimise the risk of fire. It is hardly fair to expect this group of specialists to consider what happens by external influence TO the electrical installation, ie a fire in a building causing damage to the wiring such that it falls down and entangles firefighters. Wrong logic entirely. Prevention of fire damage is a separate specialism and belongs in other arenas, such as the fire service, building regulations, building services specialists and similar disciplines. The fact that cables fall down in fires is not because they are being wrongly supported the fire itself is the destructive element doing it. I accept that use of more fire resistant supports can HELP but it is not in itself going to SOLVE it.

The counter arguments I am seeing are to me illustrating an unwillingness to accept this. Trust me that I CAN see the reason that the Reg has been invoked but is not FOR the right reason. It is in the wrong set of rules.

And my comment "look at the trouble it has caused". This is the result of placing a requirement in the wrong set of rules. The issue is that firefighters are being trapped in burning buildings by getting entangled in falling wires. The "trouble" is that so many spurious needs to act on this initial need to do something has escalated and traversed in to other areas that don't need any action to be taken. If you like, the result of the Reg has not been to address this particular issue, but instead invite definitions as to how many possible scenarios it could cover. It has invited discussion of what implications it may have on all sorts of similar situations. Houses. To my knowledge, there never has been a problem with falling cables trapping firefighters in houses. But there is a problem now because of the new Reg. This is what happens when so called experts get involved in addressing a problem that they do not understand sufficiently how to tackle (the writers of the Reg), the only factor of which appears to be wiring=electricians. A certain member of this forum has supported this ridiculous point and made exactly the same inference, using the derogatory term "wiring monkeys". Wiring monkeys are putting the wires there so it is they who are causing it to happen. No, sadly, the fire itself is causing it to happen. And whilst I am about it do you not think that this is an example of learning undermining intelligence and is offensive at the same time? I can see he has a lot of support on this forum and he has a lot of knowledge. So what? I do too. I am humble enough to learn, but it would appear he is too arrogant not to. After all he already knows it all. Not. Envy is not the adjective I would use, mantutu.

Don't just jump on the OMS bandwagon, mantutu, the P9 bandwagon has a voice too.

Edited: 18 January 2015 at 11:16 AM by phantom9
 18 January 2015 12:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SandyBoiler

Posts: 261
Joined: 02 October 2008

Originally posted by: phantom9

The fact that cables fall down in fires is not because they are being wrongly supported the fire itself is the destructive element doing it. I accept that use of more fire resistant supports can HELP but it is not in itself going to SOLVE it.


The point has been made that the idea is not to hold up the cables indefinitely, just for long enough for evacuation and firefighting. For me it makes sense that this principle should apply to all buildings. For me, new regulations like this are more about improving design and installation practice moving forward and not so much about some desire to have existing installations that don't comply condemned and re-wired. But obviously there is a duty for inspectors to comment on this danger wherever they encounter it. And the point has been made that it will often be very simple to provide fire-resistant supports to existing work that doesn't comply...
Just repeating what others have said now but often with new installation work, no one else is involved other than the electrician(s). So in that case it must be the electrician who is solely responsible for the manner in which cables are installed...that alone should be enough to conclude that BS7671 is the right place for this regulation...
Sometimes it is purely the manner that cables have been installed by electricians that is causing the danger and no other parties could have had an influence...

-------------------------
Andy B
 18 January 2015 12:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Manxie

Posts: 246
Joined: 08 January 2015

Only electricians are involved. That's why it should be in BS7671.
That is totally incorrect..
Who is designing the containment?? Not always an electrician
Who is carrying out the installation? Not always an electrician
Who is installing the cabling??? Not always an electrician
On many big jobs the 'electrician' doesn't get involved till later on..
Are all installed cables part of the electrical installation??
No, in a building there is also bunches of coax, data, alarm and other similar types of cable,
electricians have no responsibilty for this cabling..
From first hand observation I would say that these types of cables are the biggest offenders..
Infact looking at the photograph originally posted by JP it looks as though the cables hanging down are data cable and the likes..
So whilst the electrical trade get blamed for poor wiring and have to improve standards the biggest offenders and the real "wiring monkeys" get away with it, allowed to carry on lashing cables around willy nilly
 18 January 2015 12:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mantutu

Posts: 123
Joined: 16 June 2013

Thank you for your reply phantom9, I now understand your thinking and was I admit confused until I read your above post.
I am very objective in my reasoning and thoughts, I do not wish to jump on anyone's bandwagon, though I can see that is how it appears sometimes.
To be honest I cannot disagree with anything you have said in the above post.
However the new regulation is here, perhaps placing the problem firmly at the feet of people it should not have done so.
Thank you again for your very fair and well written post.
 18 January 2015 01:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SandyBoiler

Posts: 261
Joined: 02 October 2008

Originally posted by: Manxie

Only electricians are involved. That's why it should be in BS7671.

That is totally incorrect..

I said sometimes only electricians are involved, think additions and alterations to an existing installation...

Who is designing the containment?? Not always an electrician

Of course

Who is carrying out the installation? Not always an electrician

Who is installing the cabling??? Not always an electrician

If you mean sometimes it's an electrician's mate then agree. Otherwise, who are these guys installing cables if they aren't electricians? Ok, some may call themselves data or telecomms engineers, but essentially they're still electricians, just a different voltage...


Are all installed cables part of the electrical installation??

Fixed wiring, yep...

No, in a building there is also bunches of coax, data, alarm and other similar types of cable,

electricians have no responsibilty for this cabling..

News to me

From first hand observation I would say that these types of cables are the biggest offenders..

Infact looking at the photograph originally posted by JP it looks as though the cables hanging down are data cable and the likes..

So whilst the electrical trade get blamed for poor wiring and have to improve standards the biggest offenders and the real "wiring monkeys" get away with it, allowed to carry on lashing cables around willy nilly


Why do you think BS7671 doesn't able to "coax, data, alarm and other similar types of cable"?... It most certainly does....

From the scope of BS7671.

110.1.2
The regulations include requirements for...
v) fixed wiring for information and communication technology, signalling, control and the like (excluding internal wiring of equipment)

and 110.1.3
The regulations are intended to be applied to electrical installations generally but, in certain cases, they may need to be supplemented by the requirements or recommendations of other British or Harmonized Standards or by the requirements of the person ordering the work.


-------------------------
Andy B

Edited: 18 January 2015 at 01:32 PM by SandyBoiler
 18 January 2015 01:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Manxie

Posts: 246
Joined: 08 January 2015

Based on your naive comments I take it you have very little experience in large buildings only small domestic and the likes..
Otherwise you would be able to grasp what I am trying to say..
The only time data cables, etc are installed in accordance with BS7671 is when electricians have installed them..
You clearly stated that electricians are soley to blame and no other parties are involved.. It's there in black and white!!

I suggest that you visit a large building site and witness first hand what actually goes on and who is doing what job
You might see then that not only electricians are installing containment and cabling..
Perhaps speak to the burglar alarm boys or the comms and data boys and ask them about BS7671, they wouldn't have a clue
Electricians are predominantly doing sound jobs and I believe the standard has been getting better and better every year..
I can remember years ago lifting ceiling tiles and it used to be a right mess, nowadays the only cable thrown around and left hanging is usually data cables and the like
I think it is wholly unfair for the limelight to be on electricians as we are by no way the biggest offenders..
 18 January 2015 02:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



weirdbeard

Posts: 3116
Joined: 26 September 2011

Originally posted by: Manxie

Based on your naive comments I take it you have very little experience in large buildings only small domestic and the likes..

Otherwise you would be able to grasp what I am trying to say..

The only time data cables, etc are installed in accordance with BS7671 is when electricians have installed them..



Hi manxie, i agree with sandys comments, the subject of the OP is what to code for an EICR to the current regs, whoever installed the cable isn't relevant be they an electrician or data/alarm monkey, or whatever.
BTW, welcome to the forum, it's been active since the last millenium, what took you so long to find it?

-------------------------
:beer)
 18 January 2015 02:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SandyBoiler

Posts: 261
Joined: 02 October 2008

Manxie...

First of all I still consider the data, comms, etc guys to be electricians although they may call themselves something else - that's just semantics.
I've installed loads of data, alarm, and control cabling and I still considered myself an electrician whilst doing that work - it's just that the cable doesn't operate at mains voltage, so many of the requirements of BS7671 won't apply to it. But section 521.11 "Wiring systems in escape routes" will still apply to it....


May be I didn't explain myself very clearly but if you read my post again you will see that I said "often" (meaning there are countless examples of) the only guy involved in the design and installation of electrical work (and I include data, comms, etc in that) is an electrician (or data engineer, etc, etc.) - which is obvious when you think about it. I did not say that this is always the case - that's ridiculous.

My point is that BS7671 does apply to the data, comms and alarm guys. It's there in black and white in BS7671 that extra-low voltage cabling is not excluded from the regulations.

As it happens, these days I work almost exclusively on commercial sites both large and small. The extra-low voltage guys may have additional standards that their work must meet. But that doesn't mean they can ignore the requirements of BS7671 as that still applies to their work.

I do take your point that the extra-low voltage stuff might be one of the biggest offenders. But as I've said putting the reg in BS7671 insures that all cables will have to comply...

The last job I was on, which was a new school, we installed all cables except the data (and still ended up pulling some of that in as well). Fire guys only came to second-fix and commission the fire and security alarm installations - we put in the cables.

-------------------------
Andy B
 18 January 2015 03:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Manxie

Posts: 246
Joined: 08 January 2015

Hi weirdbeard, thanks for the welcome! I didn't know the forum existed until just recently when I discovered it whilst researching the new amendment..
I appreciate what you are saying about data cables, etc and their respective coding as part of an EICR. Nevertheless, more often than not this element of the wiring is overlooked, possibly because they are the responsibilty of other service providers and part of their ppm.

Andy, I think we are sort of on the same track here apart from I have a differeng view on some elements..
The majority of data, alarms, sound and vision installers I have come across are by no means electricians, they have no concept of BS7671..
There are some good ones but these are usually the ones that have made the transition from electrician to fire alarm engineer or which ever disciplne it may be...
I have seen many a good looking job ruined by the data brigade
If ever you want to see a bemused face then simply ask one of them about the wiring regs
I feel this aspect of the industry requires more scrutiny especially with the growing trend of KNX systems,etc... There is more and more data cables being installed within the building fabric
 18 January 2015 03:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



weirdbeard

Posts: 3116
Joined: 26 September 2011

Originally posted by: Manxie

Hi weirdbeard, thanks for the welcome! I didn't know the forum existed until just recently when I discovered it whilst researching the new amendment..



It's a pleasure.......use it whilst you can......I believe the IET are looking to shut down the wiring and regs forum, hence it's the only section they have not included it in the new Mycommunity discussions:...

http://mycommunity.theiet.org/discussions/categories

-------------------------
:beer)
 18 January 2015 05:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4329
Joined: 21 November 2008

Well I would think that if a requirement was in Approved Document B stating that ALL services are to be secured with fire resistant fixing then that would be a good thing. However, it is now in BS7671, so whether it should or shouldn't be is no longer really relevant, although its an interesting debate. And even if data cable installers are fitting the the cables, not electricians, they are still required to comply with BS7671 regarding proximity to LV cables,etc, so now I presume they will also be required to install fire resistant fixings in compliance with AM3.

Edited: 18 January 2015 at 09:21 PM by leckie
 18 January 2015 09:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4329
Joined: 21 November 2008

[


It's a pleasure.......use it whilst you can......I believe the IET are looking to shut down the wiring and regs forum, hence it's the only section they have not included it in the new Mycommunity discussions:...



http://mycommunity.theiet.org/discussions/categories

First I've heard of that. Are the IET really planning to close the forum?
 19 January 2015 11:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



James Broughton

Posts: 40
Joined: 25 May 2006

Originally posted by: Manxie

Based on your naive comments I take it you have very little experience in large buildings only small domestic and the likes..

Not every job undertaken is a new build though. You can still have large installations that won't include any building design input.

Otherwise you would be able to grasp what I am trying to say..

The only time data cables, etc are installed in accordance with BS7671 is when electricians have installed them..

I'm not sure I agree with you there. A bit of a sweeping statement?

You clearly stated that electricians are soley to blame and no other parties are involved.. It's there in black and white!!

But if it's a job that hasn't involved any other trade...

Why bring blame into it though? Don't we have enough finger pointing?


I suggest that you visit a large building site and witness first hand what actually goes on and who is doing what job

You might see then that not only electricians are installing containment and cabling..

Well, using that broad approach, I could say that if you went to one of my sites, you'd see that only electricians are installing cabling and containment.

However, from a previous life, I'd agree that there is a general lack of co-ordination on new build construction sites.


Perhaps speak to the burglar alarm boys or the comms and data boys and ask them about BS7671, they wouldn't have a clue

Again, that's a pretty broad brush you're waving about there.

Electricians are predominantly doing sound jobs and I believe the standard has been getting better and better every year..

Well, yes and no, I think it depends on where you happen to be looking

I can remember years ago lifting ceiling tiles and it used to be a right mess, nowadays the only cable thrown around and left hanging is usually data cables and the like

I'll bet they weren't installed at the time of build.

I think it is wholly unfair for the limelight to be on electricians as we are by no way the biggest offenders..

I think it's entirely fair for the electricians to be highlighted as the people with the right skills and experience to point out to the customer an area where they could make an improvement in the building safety.


-------------------------
'This place would be a paradise tomorrow, if every department had a supervisor with a sub-machine gun'
 19 January 2015 11:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



malcolmbroomfield

Posts: 4
Joined: 22 August 2013

I am a director of ELSIE Fixings ltd and we have the first clips and fixings to comply with this amendment correctly, I notice a number of posts as stating rawlplugs could be suitable. As they deform well below 200 degrees centigrade this is not the case.
Although the temperature at 2.4 mtrs could be way above this where the fire brigade and escapees are on their knees at ground level the temperature could be hugely different. for this reason we use clips that will still be in place long after the copper cables have melted and by using concrete type screws the system is good to above 800 degrees C.
we are adding a lable near the consumer unit to show protected areas and we are expanding this, I don't want this to be seen as a sales pitch but we also have clips for conduit and cable tray etc.
Malcolm Broomfield CMIOSH and former electrician.
 19 January 2015 12:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



James Broughton

Posts: 40
Joined: 25 May 2006

Originally posted by: Manxie

Hi weirdbeard, thanks for the welcome! I didn't know the forum existed until just recently when I discovered it whilst researching the new amendment..

I appreciate what you are saying about data cables, etc and their respective coding as part of an EICR. Nevertheless, more often than not this element of the wiring is overlooked, possibly because they are the responsibilty of other service providers and part of their ppm.

Ok, I could take an antagonistic approach, based on what you have said below: "they have no concept of BS7671.."

But, however it may look, I'm not trying to be a clever monkey.

I agree that it is an area that can be overlooked, in a similar way to the ELV installers overlooking the requirements of BS 7671, they have a bucketload of standards which relate to their field and 7671 isn't referred to in much detail in them.



Andy, I think we are sort of on the same track here apart from I have a differeng view on some elements..

The majority of data, alarms, sound and vision installers I have come across are by no means electricians, they have no concept of BS7671..

Do they claim to be? Surely that's a failing of the company, not the staff? What's your knowledge of BS EN 60065 like?

There are some good ones but these are usually the ones that have made the transition from electrician to fire alarm engineer or which ever disciplne it may be...

In your experience of course.

I have seen many a good looking job ruined by the data brigade

I've seen some data jobs that are like a work of art.

If ever you want to see a bemused face then simply ask one of them about the wiring regs

You do seem to have a poor opinion of these installers. You have every right to I suppose, but I would advise caution, because you may come unstuck one day.

I feel this aspect of the industry requires more scrutiny especially with the growing trend of KNX systems,etc... There is more and more data cables being installed within the building fabric

When the COP for LV and ELV DC power comes into play, this may change the way some of the companies look at things. There has been a bit of a hole in the regs in relation to ancillary wiring systems. I don't think the new COP covers all of it, but it's a step in the right direction at least.


-------------------------
'This place would be a paradise tomorrow, if every department had a supervisor with a sub-machine gun'
 19 January 2015 06:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SandyBoiler

Posts: 261
Joined: 02 October 2008

I suppose it comes back to the old argument about whether fixed wiring downstream of a spur, transformer, control panel or the like is part of the "electrical installation" or not. For me, any fixed wiring, including all ELV cables, is part of the electrical installation and therefore should be installed to BS7671 (as well as any other relevant standards)....
So I'd argue that would include things like alarm and BMS control cabling and, at push, even include fixed audio/visual, telephone and data cabling - which all still needs a voltage to operate after all....

So with the EICR, I'd argue that strictly speaking, the extent and limitations section should detail whether or not ELV wiring is included in the inspection or not, although I guess if no comment is made on that, it is taken as read that data cables, etc, etc. won't be inspected...

-------------------------
Andy B
 19 January 2015 08:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 1757
Joined: 16 December 2002

Surely, there must be something elsie we can use? I wonder what elsie there is in the market place?
IET » Wiring and the regulations » AMD 3 CABLE SUPPORTS

<< 11 12 13 14 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..