eicr

[SJD]

If the installation is being inspected to BS7671:2015 then you'd be entirely correct, as it stands at this moment in time though there is nothing in current regulations (as far as I'm aware of) that calls for cables of circuits for general use to be secured in this way.

I just took a look at the proposed BS7671:2015, in particular 521.200, which requires the use of fire-proof supports for wiring in escape routes, so you can't use plastic clips or plastic conduit.

For a public buildings, which often have defined escape routes, I can see this making sense. But does this apply in domestic houses, for example cables in the hallway or stairs, where it will no longer be acceptable to use plastic trunking?

 

[iamelectric]

i agree with you but even with trunking , tray or basket theres alway flexes to lights on the suspended ceiling , the one in question was just cables going everywhere , some where dead from old circuits that had not been ripped out and half of them where cctv cat 5 and alarm cables , thats y i was thinking C3 just a recommendation to tidy it up

 

[D Skelton]

Damien what would you do in the op's situation I would probably not code it but put an advisory on a separate sheet although a c3 is really an advisory/recommendation. the part that always winds me up is it's not hard to do the job right in the 1st place. I know it can be hard to convince a customer to pay for basket tray etc, but surely some form of basic containment / support.

I agree totally, it's shoddy workmanship at best and if I was installing from scratch all the cabling would be in or on containment. I have to admit though, I'm guilty of doing exactly the same thing on a couple of occasions! lol. When I've been asked to add an extra couple of network points for example and it's already a jungle above the suspended ceiling, what's the point in trying to make it look neat when it already looks like a dog's dinner?

That said, there's nothing in the regs that prohibits the running of cable directly on to a suspended ceiling, therefore I wouldn't code it. I'd mention it more than likely, but writing it down would just be a waste of perfectly good ink as it'll only get ignored anyway.

 

[GMES]

i agree with you but even with trunking , tray or basket theres alway flexes to lights on the suspended ceiling , the one in question was just cables going everywhere , some where dead from old circuits that had not been ripped out and half of them where cctv cat 5 and alarm cables , thats y i was thinking C3 just a recommendation to tidy it up

I get exactly where you are coming from it is just that as Damien said can you justify a C3 also even though it is only a recommendation the customer may perceive it as a blemish on a report that could otherwise be totally satisfactory.

 

[stevethesparks]

A local hotel has asked for the lighting to be re-wired in one of its function rooms, to allow alternate switching arrangements for a client that frequently uses this room.
It is a false ceiling, but not accessable, its plastered board on a metal grid type ceiling.
The hotel want minimal disruption to the decoration.
I think most sparks would fish between lights as this is the only option - or not get the job.
In effect, it will be the same, cabling supported by the ceiling.
Maybe they best get this done before 2015

 

[Des 56]

I agree totally, it's shoddy workmanship at best and if I was installing from scratch all the cabling would be in or on containment. I have to admit though, I'm guilty of doing exactly the same thing on a couple of occasions! lol. When I've been asked to add an extra couple of network points for example and it's already a jungle above the suspended ceiling, what's the point in trying to make it look neat when it already looks like a dog's dinner?

That said, there's nothing in the regs that prohibits the running of cable directly on to a suspended ceiling, therefore I wouldn't code it. I'd mention it more than likely, but writing it down would just be a waste of perfectly good ink as it'll only get ignored anyway.

I wasn't comfortable with your statement Damien though I have to agree,off hand I couldn't think of any reg
Anyway I have had a gander through the good book and would like to comment on the only one that seems to address mechanical strain

522.8.4 is a little vague
The cables shall be supported so that they don't suffer damage by their own weight
Its fairly self evident what they mean by this but maybe it could be used to justify conjuring a code (which I think is deserving of these common practices)

The possibility is that the ceiling grid could collapse because of the cable weight
Now when the ceiling collapses the cable terminations could then become strained. that gives a code for the quoted reg
If we are to avoid that happening then the wiring system shall be erected in such a way that it is supported

It is clutching at straws,but "hey oh" interpretation is the name of this game

In conclusion it seems the good book says nothing directly against the ceiling dump practice,but a regulation could be broken if the practice causes the ceiling to collapse,very strange why Bs7871 does not be more specific about lack support causing secondary damage to things other than electrics

The best negative for not chucking cables on the grid must be the load bearing calculations done for the grid,it would be compromised by the added weight of cables

 

[iamelectric]

this defo wont comply with that reg , i seen it the other day in a store when out with the missus

 

[stevethesparks]

"I just took a look at the proposed BS7671:2015, in particular 521.200, which requires the use of fire-proof supports for wiring in escape routes, so you can't use plastic clips or plastic conduit."


I see no reason not to continue using plastic conduit in escape routes, as metal saddles could also be installed in strategic places to give support of cabling in the event of a fire.
No doubt, or hopefully, mini trunking manufacturers will bring out a suitable rectangular metal saddle of which will do the same job.

 

[jamie-spark]

The quote below is taken from gn8. Don't know if this helps , but hey

10.7 Suspended ceilings

The conductive parts of a suspended ceiling will not introduce a potential that does not already exist in the space in which the ceiling is installed. In normal circumstances therefore, there is no need to arrange for the conductive parts of the ceiling to be equipotentially bonded, which would be unnecessary as well as difficult and costly to achieve.

The exposed-conductive-parts of Class I equipment are required to be connected to the MET of the installation by a protective conductor designed to conduct any earth fault current. Class II equipment is designed such that any basic insulation fault in the equipment cannot result in a fault current flowing into any conductive parts with which it may be in contact. The conductive parts of a suspended ceiling incorporating Class I and/or Class II equipment are not therefore intended to conduct an earth fault current, and so such parts need not be intentionally earthed. Some conductive parts of a suspended ceiling may be earthed, however, by virtue of fortuitous contact with the exposed-conductive-parts of Class I equipment.

**************
The installation of all electrical equipment, including wiring systems above and incorporated in a suspended ceiling, should fully comply with the requirements of BS 7671 if the risk of electric shock from the ceiling is to be avoided. In particular, cables for fixed wiring should be supported continuously or at appropriate intervals, independently of the ceiling. The method of support is required to be such that no damage or undue strain occurs to the conductors, their insulation or terminations. Figure 10.8 shows a typical arrangement of supporting cables above a suspended ceiling***********