For those who reckon to know the reg's.....

[Darkwood]

Just discussing MICC on another thread which reminded me of a job i did not too long ago and want your responses ...

I was asked to wire a lift in a building nothing special 3floor jobby now the lift and controls were by others but i had to wire the supply and it was requested i run 2 no' Micc's 10mm to the lift controls, now the Micc's were commoned at both ends but i wired them through alternative paths and to note each Micc was capable of doing the full electrical requirements of the lift on their own, also to note both Micc 's ran up the lift shaft too.

Any thoughts on what ive done here and was it in conformity to regulation?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

523.8 (i) you may have fallen foul of if the conductors were not of equal length.

 

[Darkwood]

523.8 (i) you may have fallen foul of if the conductors were not of equal length.

That would only apply to parallel runs where load was been shared in my case each cable is fully capable of handling the full load.

 

[Guest111]

Seem to remember something about cables in lift shafts but cannot remember what it was at the moment was the feed from 2 seperate isolators,and if so was this marked up?

 

[Marvo]

If they were both capable of carrying the load ndividually that would be classed as redundancy in our regs which would negate them having to be the same length or the same CSA for that matter. The UK regs view this differently I'm guessing

Edit
Beaten to the post. Sounds like my comment is redundant

That would only apply to parallel runs where load was been shared in my case each cable is fully capable of handling the full load.

 

[Darkwood]

Seem to remember something about cables in lift shafts but cannot remember what it was at the moment was the feed from 2 seperate isolators,and if so was this marked up?

Getting warm ... each cable was through its own isolator at origin and through a changeover unit at lift controls ( might have mislead u with the commoned up bit ) also what are the regs on lift shafts ?? 5 - 10 for effort Phil

 

[Deleted member 9648]

528.3.5...cables in lift shafts!........No cable shall be run in a lift shaft unless it forms part of the lift installation as defined in BS EN81-1....(whatever that is)

 

[Darkwood]

Marvo .... correct with the redundency which should give a big clue as to why this set-up exists and why i may have contrevened a big reg' here ???

 

[Bobster]

Off the top of my head the only cables allowed in lift shafts have to be part of the lift installation.

 

[Darkwood]

528.3.5...cables in lift shafts!

Spot on now the question is why can i get away with it, i signed it off and the clark of works passed it in the knowledge that i hadn't complied with reg' 528.3.5

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Spot on now the question is why can i get away with it, i signed it off and the clark of works passed it in the knowledge that i hadn't complied with reg' 528.3.5

Does BS EN 81-1 make an exception for Pyro?.....(wild guess)

 

[Guest111]

Just going to have a wild stab at this as I cant remember the reg(retired) but I think its something to do with only a fireproof cable being allowed in a shaft,with the exception of the car control cables which have to be flexible.Hence pyro being the only suitable one due to its excellent mechanical strength.

 

[Darkwood]

Off the top of my head the only cables allowed in lift shafts have to be part of the lift installation.

This dosn't include supply cables there is strict regs stopping me from running the Micc's up the shaft only usually lighting for shaft and lift control loom all off secondary side of lift controls.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Spot on now the question is why can i get away with it, i signed it off and the clark of works passed it in the knowledge that i hadn't complied with reg' 528.3.5

Did you slip him a backhander?

 

[Darkwood]

The next clue is although this is a normal lift the rules in a certain event can be ignored and its this very fact that over-rules the regulation in the 17th ....which i assume is covered in BS EN 81-1 as i was under instruction for the design by Clark of works been out of the scope of the 17th.


The lift is you bog standard lift but was added to the end of the building externally but fully enclosed in an extension like it was part of the building.

 

[snowhead]

Nursing Home, or some other special location?

 

[Darkwood]

Getting red hot now!!! (big clue there )

Yes was a converted town hall and was used for people with learning and physical disabilities, it was over 3 floors and the lift gave access to floor 2 and 3 for those who were not able to use the stairwell.

 

[tazz]

Could this lift be used as a firemans control lift and micc cabled being class as enhanced cabled, allows it to be controlled as such.......just a stab in the dark.???

 

[snowhead]

Emergency use only, floor 1 lift exit is to the outside of the building only

 

[Darkwood]

Getting red hot was my biggest clue....

You all hovered around it in your own posts but il let you in on it.

The building had the lift built into an extension as which also included fully built in fire stairwell, the extension was totally independant although attached to the building and the only links were fire doors on each level, the lift was in normal use throughout the day but didnt give direct access to the building only to each floor of the extension. This allowed it to be classed as a isolated lift and could be used in the event of a fire to get the disabled off the floors direct to street level, the supplies were run on two seperate routes and combined in the lift shaft up to the changover lift controls.
In the event of a fire taking out one Micc supply the changeover unit will swap to alternative supply, the fact the lift was so designed in an isolated extension means the supplies were safer and less chance of fire damage in the lift shaft so 17th could be ignored.

At time of commision only one supply entered the building but future plans on a dedicated back up genny or independant sub'd incomming supply was on the cards.
This when set up would give the lowest chance the lift would lose both supplies and time to evacuate those who couldn't get out by the stairwells.

thought id throw this in cos i was getting bored of the debates out there a lately ... cheers for the responses.

 

[tazz]

Was an interesting post....really stretch the brain...good one Darkwood

 

[Engineer54]

This dosn't include supply cables there is strict regs stopping me from running the Micc's up the shaft only usually lighting for shaft and lift control loom all off secondary side of lift controls.

What is the big no-no about runing the lift supply cable(s) in the lift shaft then?? Can't be anything to do with fire regulations...

 

[MarkieSparkie]

What is the big no-no about runing the lift supply cable(s) in the lift shaft then?? Can't be anything to do with fire regulations...

Lift shafts are generally classified as CB2 fire propagating structures due to the chimney effect and therefore any cabling requires special protective measures eg. MICC to BS EN 60702 and/or fireproof shutters, ducts, troughs, trunking, barriers, fire detectors, etc. BS 7671:2008+A1:2011 422.5, 528.3.5 and Appendix 5C; BS 5655 and BS EN 81-1 apply.

 

[Engineer54]

Lift shafts are generally classified as CB2 fire propagating structures due to the chimney effect and therefore any cabling requires special protective measures eg. MICC to BS EN 60702 and/or fireproof shutters, ducts, troughs, trunking, barriers, fire detectors, etc. BS 7671:2008+A1:2011 422.5, 528.3.5 and Appendix 5C; BS 5655 and BS EN 81-1 apply.

I'm playing the Devils advocate here!! lol!

So why if darkwood is using MICC in the lift shaft, for the supply cable to the lift installation is that a no-no??

 

[Darkwood]

To be honest id on this occasion didn't go too deep as this job was designed by others but Clark of Electrical works expressed that only cables relating to the control side are allowed in the lift which generally is lift lighting and possible power points for maintenance as well as control loom to cab, i was informed supplies to lifts are not permitted to be run through the shaft in normal circumstances but due to the build and design of the segregated lift shaft and stairwell it is permitted.
I can only assume in normal circumstances the supply cables could become a fire hazard in themselves that in a shaft linking every floor is a safety concern or the very fact that the supply cables may generally require inspection and been part of the 17th would require a Electrician to gain access to the shaft which of course he is not permitted to do under any circustance without a trained qualified lift engineer.

Its not often im left to speculation but its not an area im often working in and thus means im not going to shell out the large amount of pennies needed to purchase BS EN 81-1 to give definitive answers so would gladly stand corrected if ive misquoted a requirement.

To note the whole extension was built to high fire safety standards even if the whole building attached went up in flames the contruction of the fire escape stairwell and lift shaft should see no propergation of the fire as its all concrete stairs and steel rail structure in a stone self supporting segregated build, only deliberate arson with a dumped fuel source could render the escape void.

 

[Robert Turnbull]

Just hope the fire doesn't start in the mains room, or people could get stuck in the lift

(Assuming both supplies originate here and and back supply would be switched from here)

 

[Darkwood]

Just hope the fire doesn't start in the mains room, or people could get stuck in the lift

(Assuming both supplies originate here and and back supply would be switched from here)

An automatic fire extinguish system (inert gas)is fitted in the mains room and the isolators are at opposite ends so any fire when its all up and running of independant supplies shouldn't take out both supplies also its under caretaker control and no storage or anything flamable is allowed in the room and its a concrete ceiling so all been considered ...even in the worse case their should be ample time to evac' the building even with slower timing thats expected when mental health patients and disabled are present, none of this existed prior to the new build fire escape so anything is an improvement.

 

[Robert Turnbull]

Just hope the fire doesn't start in the mains room, or people could get stuck in the lift

(Assuming both supplies originate here and and back supply would be switched from here)

An automatic fire extinguish system is fitted in the mains room and the isolators are at opposite ends so any fire when its all up and running of independant supplies shouldn't take out both supplies also its under caretaker control and no storage or anything flamable is allowed in the room and its a concrete ceiling so all been considered ...even in the worse case their should be ample time to evac' the building even with slower timing thats expected when mental health patients and disabled are present, none of this existed prior to the new build fire escape so anything is an improvement.

Sounds like they have it covered then lol

 

[tazz]

Using micc cable has classed the supply and control as enhanced fire proof cable...imo this micc would outlast any pf enhanced cable on the market by hours...old methods still holding strong

 

[Big n Daft]

Best cable ever produced is Micc.
An MI install is the measure of a proper installation sparks:wink5:

 

[Engineer54]

To be honest id on this occasion didn't go too deep as this job was designed by others but Clark of Electrical works expressed that only cables relating to the control side are allowed in the lift which generally is lift lighting and possible power points for maintenance as well as control loom to cab, i was informed supplies to lifts are not permitted to be run through the shaft in normal circumstances but due to the build and design of the segregated lift shaft and stairwell it is permitted.
I can only assume in normal circumstances the supply cables could become a fire hazard in themselves that in a shaft linking every floor is a safety concern or the very fact that the supply cables may generally require inspection and been part of the 17th would require a Electrician to gain access to the shaft which of course he is not permitted to do under any circustance without a trained qualified lift engineer.

Its not often im left to speculation but its not an area im often working in and thus means im not going to shell out the large amount of pennies needed to purchase BS EN 81-1 to give definitive answers so would gladly stand corrected if ive misquoted a requirement.

To note the whole extension was built to high fire safety standards even if the whole building attached went up in flames the contruction of the fire escape stairwell and lift shaft should see no propergation of the fire as its all concrete stairs and steel rail structure in a stone self supporting segregated build, only deliberate arson with a dumped fuel source could render the escape void.

I will be looking through our Spec on lift's installations later on today and come back to this thread. I will say now though, is that i have run lift supply cables in the lift shaft, the only stipulations as i can remember off hand, was that they were to be continuous with no joints or connections, and be provided with additional mechanical protected. Every passenger and patient lift on my projects have had redundant power supplies...

 

[Darkwood]

Il be interested exactly what BS EN 81-1 says but it could be the case this was a kirklees regional requirement as the Clark of Electrical Works had input on the design and as i said on related thread regarding MICC it was a one off because the Electrical Company doing the rest of the install couldn't do MICC so i happily obliged.... so as its a one off on my account im a tad vague as to the true requirements and was just relating what Clark of Jerks told me.

 

[Engineer54]

Ok, haven't had that much time to go through everything today, only managed a quick read!! ...First off, redundant supplies must be derived from 2 separate sources, both sourced from the emergency supply arrangements. One such supply being allowed within the lift shaft, the other following an alternative route. No joints or connections of any kind permitted within the lift shaft. Nothing about additional mechanical protection, but where run in conduit/Trunking, internal cable supports required at each floor. I'm assuming here they would be talking about singles in a metal containment system. But it does state insulation to be 105c rated and MICC cable of choice whether installed within or outside of the lift shaft. which figures as all our fire alarm systems are MICC cabled on tray...


Lot more information on lift shaft requirements, but not exactly to do with electrical supplies. Such as, mode of operation in event of a fire alarm, where passenger cars will be over ridden and taken to the ground floor where doors will open and after 60 seconds close and remain closed until re-set by the fire officer. Also seems the patient lift shafts as well as designated evacuation stairwells (which is normal) will be pressurised until such times as smoke/heat detectors have operated, in which case lift will perform similar to the passenger lifts. However, patient lifts can be overridden by trained senior medical staff/fire officers etc, for evacuation purposes... This is just the gist of things so far, i'll be getting more involved closer to the submittal time, which is a some time off for now!!