Klik Rose Arrangement

[lozarus]

Good afternoon - apologies if I'm overthinking this, but I was hoping I could put this out there for consideration.

Scenario is as thus. Picture a small corridor, suspended ceiling with 6x 600x600 T8 fittings in the grid. 1x fitting is a maintained EML.

All fittings are fed from Klik roses above the ceiling. The Kliks are mounted in BESA boxes in an existing 3/4" imperial steel conduit system, which has had new sinlges drawn through in the past. The Emergency is fed from a 4 pin Klik, with the 4th pin being permenant live. Klik flexes are 0.75mmsq, with a 4 core 0.75mmsq flex for the emergency. The Supply is from 10a B Type RCBO. - all in good order.

The 600x600's are to be replaced with 4x LED panels for a combination of reasons. Instead of using an emergency pack for a panel, the proposal would be to use a non-maintained self testing emergency bulkhead fitted adjacent. This matches the general setup elsewhere and makes it easier for the non-technical staff who oversee monthly testing.

It crossed my mind that as opposed to butchering the conduit system, an option here could be to fit a Wagobox to the 4 core 0.75mm flex from the 4 pin Klik rose, breaking out to a short 15cm run of 2 core 0.75mmsq to to the panel driver from the switch live in the wagobox, and another short run of 3 core 0.75mmsq to the emergency light (picking up the permenant live in the wagobox).

My thought here was about current carrying capacity of the 0.75 / the fact it's now feeding 2x fittings whilst backed up by that 10a RCBO. Whilst I appreciate table 4F3A tells us 0.75 is good for 6a, but is widely acknowledged as being acceptable for being a final connection to a light fitting, I just wonder if it would be seen as bad practice using it to technically supply 2 from one rose whilst backed up by that B10? The entire load will obviously be vastly reduced on the flex - but it still made me think.

Please tell me if this is overthought / boring.

 

[radiohead]

No issue with the loading on the flex, but I think I'd be inclined to fit a small adaptable box or terminal box on top of the existing conduit box, then a short section of plastic conduit into two linked conduit boxes, and install 2x Klik roses on them. That way each fitting can be disconnected independently.I realise the existing is steel but if it's above a false ceiling I'd extend in plastic for ease and cost.

 

[Timbo]

As you have said you are replacing 6 with 4, why don't you just replace the 4 core with a 3 core to the emergency fitting assuming it is non-maintained? you have 2 spare Kliks

 

[davesparks]

If you are replacing 6 fittings with 4 then you must have enough roses there to plug each light in seperately with need need to hack a joint box into one of the flexes.

Also have you confirmed that the change of the emergency lighting arrangement provides the correct illumination levels, coverage etc?

 

[lozarus]

If you are replacing 6 fittings with 4 then you must have enough roses there to plug each light in seperately with need need to hack a joint box into one of the flexes.

Also have you confirmed that the change of the emergency lighting arrangement provides the correct illumination levels, coverage etc?

Yes. There will indeed be 2 redundant roses. One of these can be converted to contain the permanent live. The question was more theoretical, as to whether that method would introduce any risks (as I've seen it done elsewhere - see below)

Indeed. The new emergency light more than satisfies the requirements of both BS5266 lux level for an escape route (which this indeed classes as) as well as the more generically worded RRFSO requirement for emergency lighting. It compliments an additional running man above the door too. Whilst I haven't installed it yet, I know it will as the arrangement matches a near identical corridor which I took measurements from before investigating this one. Said corridor was the one I saw the klik rose breaking out to a wagobox for the emergency light which got me thinking about my original question in the first place.

Regards the normal lighting, the 4x LED's far "outshines" the 6x t8's and ploughs over the CIBSE recommendations too.

 

[davesparks]

Yes. There will indeed be 2 redundant roses. One of these can be converted to contain the permanent live. The question was more theoretical, as to whether that method would introduce any risks (as I've seen it done elsewhere - see below)

Indeed. The new emergency light more than satisfies the requirements of both BS5266 lux level for an escape route (which this indeed classes as) as well as the more generically worded RRFSO requirement for emergency lighting.

But you already have one which has a permanent live in it for the emergency light, why would you need to change another one to 4 pin?

OK, it's unusual for a single emergency light in a corridor to satisfy the requirements, that's usually a single em in a compartment

 

[lozarus]

But you already have one which has a permanent live in it for the emergency light, why would you need to change another one to 4 pin?

OK, it's unusual for a single emergency light in a corridor to satisfy the requirements, that's usually a single em in a compartment

With all due respect, I haven't given a full description of the layout, square metereage, number of external doors, use or type of building or area, the fire risk assessment for the building etc etc - because the question I asked was specifically about stacking fittings up on a klik rose, not emergency lighting design. I appreciate the intellectual chat and debate opportunities this forum provides, but that side of the job wasn't in my original question. I like to think my detailed description of the question I had went some way to demonstrate that I was a professional and was competent in the rest of my task! Either way, I can't argue with the lux readings I took. And the original EML had failed - so either way at least a working one will be in situ now!

Although in answer to your question, I could just use the original 4 pin klik rose. I wasn't going to because in my mind i wanted to move the fittings around in the grid a bit to where the emergency would be in a slightly different location nearer to another besa box
Having slept on it, the logical solution would be to just leave it in the existing location, or simply replace the 4 core with a longer length to suit.

The funny thing here is that I've since discovered there were only 4 roses to start with anyway! Someone had already interconnected 2 fittings by piggybacking.

 

[Strima]

What about galvanised adaptable box on the conduit box, 20mm stuffing glands and flex to Klik Flow connecters?

 

[davesparks]

What about galvanised adaptable box on the conduit box, 20mm stuffing glands and flex to Klik Flow connecters?

They have Klik roses, not click flow connectors.

 

[Strima]

They have Klik roses, not click flow connectors.

I know but the flow connectors are an option.

 

[davesparks]

Either way, I can't argue with the lux readings I took. And the original EML had failed - so either way at least a working one will be in situ now!

Although in answer to your question, I could just use the original 4 pin klik rose. I wasn't going to because in my mind i wanted to move the fittings around in the grid a bit to where the emergency would be in a slightly different location nearer to another besa box
Having slept on it, the logical solution would be to just leave it in the existing location, or simply replace the 4 core with a longer length to suit.

The funny thing here is that I've since discovered there were only 4 roses to start with anyway! Someone had already interconnected 2 fittings by piggybacking.

If there aren't enough Klik roses then I would add another by fitting an extension terminal box over one of the existing boxes with another terminal box connected to it by a nipple and lockrings.
I prefer to avoid connecting multiple fittings to a single Klik rose wherever possible, though I have done it occasionally.

Lux readings aren't the be all and end all of emergency lighting design is my point, just because the readings appear correct it doesn't mean that you have the correct number of fittings per compartment, correct spacing etc etc.
[automerge]1588337867[/automerge]

I know but the flow connectors are an option.

A pretty poor option in my opinion, they already have the universally accepted method of connecting such fittings in place. Plus that would probably make these the only fittings in the installation which are connected by a different method.

 

[lozarus]

Lux readings aren't the be all and end all of emergency lighting design is my point, just because the readings appear correct it doesn't mean that you have the correct number of fittings per compartment, correct spacing etc etc.

Yeah, it's a complex area - which admittedly I wish to study in more detail. It makes me wonder though - if I had simply replaced it with a maintained LED fitting would that simply count as a "like for like" replacement and therefore just maintenance? Or does that not pass regards emergency lighting?

 

[davesparks]

Yeah, it's a complex area - which admittedly I wish to study in more detail. It makes me wonder though - if I had simply replaced it with a maintained LED fitting would that simply count as a "like for like" replacement and therefore just maintenance? Or does that not pass regards emergency lighting?

I'm not up on the fine details, but as far as I know there isn't any leeway for 'like for like replacement' as a get out clause.
If you work on the emergency lighting then, as far as I know, you need to make sure that the parts you make alterations to comply with current standards. At least that's what I generally work to.

If you are repairing a broken fitting then OK, but you aren't, you're replacing the lighting in the corridor.

 

[lozarus]

I'm not up on the fine details, but as far as I know there isn't any leeway for 'like for like replacement' as a get out clause.
If you work on the emergency lighting then, as far as I know, you need to make sure that the parts you make alterations to comply with current standards. At least that's what I generally work to.

If you are repairing a broken fitting then OK, but you aren't, you're replacing the lighting in the corridor.

Interesting and sensible stuff. To be honest, I don't really like to work to the "like for like" clause generally anyway. Even on a simple job like this I check for a zs as a minimum - even if I'm essentially just changing what's on the end of the flex. Makes me sleep better at night.