**Show Us Your Installs!!!**

[Spudnik]

Right chaps,

Due to a few unavoidable issues, we have lost the original thread and pics etc.

Sorry about that!!!

So, if you want to re-upload your pics then great, if not, give us something new!


Cheers!!

 

[Billythekid]

I would be asking, why you have pulled CPC's into a galvanised conduit system in the first place?? All your achieving there, is filling up the conduit with needless copper!! lol!

Not this again!

Unfortunately it's true, this is common practice now. You don't need to tell me why it's un-neccessary/stupid/borderlining criminal (cost wise), as I already know - this is merely what clients/designers/specs ask for. I've questioned their reasoning/sanity many a time, nearly always told "just incase", or "that's how they want it". Colleges/Training centres are obviously employing the same tactics now.

The mind boggles.

Regards

Billy

 

[Engineer54]

Then they are all bloody idiots!! ''Just in Case'' has no relevance in electrical design concepts!!

 

[pennywise]

Then they are all bloody idiots!! ''Just in Case'' has no relevance in electrical design concepts!!

So why would redundancy be built into some installations, other than for "just in case" situations

 

[STONEZZZ]

Started new job today....lots of trunking, tray, conduit, basket, skirting trunking,dado, ect ect ect .
and I have to fit all this in a 100mm space above a suspend ceiling!

 

[STONEZZZ]

Here are some more pics..... Finished at the end of August ...

 

[Knobhead]

What is it?

Is there a prize for the first correct answer?

 

[Billythekid]

Then they are all bloody idiots!! ''Just in Case'' has no relevance in electrical design concepts!!

Couldn't agree more!

I see your point, but would argue (forgetting relevant Laws/Guidance) that a very high percentage of design is for "just in case" scenarios. Fire Alarms, Intruder Alarms, Controls, Cut-outs, E-stops, UPS, back up Generators, less abled alarms, could all be placed in the "just in case" bracket.

I like this "nanny" state of affairs as little as the next man. . .

If you can't work out that it's raining or dark, should you be driving?
Yet vehicles are coming equipped with rain/light sensors.

If you are unable to recognise if you remove a smoke alarms supply that it will no longer operate, do you deserve to live?
Yet we go to great lengths to ensure the supply will remain on, and install back up batteries.

If we carry on supporting this then our already sullied gene pool is going to become a whole lot worse!

When does it stop being a "life safety system", and become a "they are clearly imbeciles, lets protect them from their own stupidity", or indeed "just incase"?

Was it you or Tony that wrote "never underestimate the ingenuity of a stupid person"? Unfortunately this could not apply more to design - "just incase".

Regards

Billy

 

[Engineer54]

but would argue (forgetting relevant Laws/Guidance) that a very high percentage of design is for "just in case" scenarios. Fire Alarms, Intruder Alarms, Controls, Cut-outs, E-stops, UPS, back up Generators, less abled alarms, could all be placed in the "just in case" bracket.

You'd be wrong, each of these systems quoted, have their own laid down design criteria's, And again the ''Just in Case'' aspect, has no relevance within those laid down design and risk assessment concepts...

 

[Engineer54]

Started new job today....lots of trunking, tray, conduit, basket, skirting trunking,dado, ect ect ect .
and I have to fit all this in a 100mm space above a suspend ceiling!

I can't see a single item of the above in these photo's!! lol!!

 

[Outspoken]

Then they are all bloody idiots!! ''Just in Case'' has no relevance in electrical design concepts!!

It's designed into the spec of an installation, "Just in case" some numpty who thinks he knows it all and more than the Regs comes along and replaces a section of steel conduit with plastic because it's easier or gets around the problem of threading a section that may be installed through a floor etc..

Don't say it doesn't happen, seen it way too many times.

Further, Reg 543.2.7 states

"Where the protective conductor is formed by metal conduit, trunking or ducting or the metal sheath and/or armour of a cable, the earthing terminal of each accessory shall be connected by a separate protective conductor to an earthing terminal incorporated in the associated box or other enclosure"

Therefore a fly lead would need to be added to all accessory boxes within the conduit system, but what happens when you then introduce connections via flexible conduit, do you rely on a connection to the rear of a BESA box to provide your circuit earth? Great in theory, but many installation get abused, especially flexible conduit connections, and this could get damaged.

Further, Reg 543.2.9 states

Except where the circuit protective conductor is formed by a metal covering or enclosure containing all of the conductors of the ring, the circuit protective conductor of every ring final circuit shall also be run in the form of a ring having both ends connected to the earthing terminal at the point of origin of the circuit.

Now I can envisage plenty of scenarios whereby the conduit may not be continuous, such as when you use the conduit system to feed several rings and one or more actually terminate in Dado trunking, which being plastic is not good as a CPC. This creates a discontinuous metal cpc and thus to comply with the regs you would have to run a separate CPC into the circuit in this situation. You also need to be aware that perhaps the metal is not continuous in all instances and it is possible that in the future the metal conduit system could be broken into and thus become discontinuous.

Lastly, is it really that much of an issue to pull in a separate earth when your pulling cables in anyway? At least you know for sure you have a compliant cpc.

 

[pennywise]

I can't wait for what's going to come

 

[Billythekid]

It's designed into the spec of an installation, "Just in case" some numpty who thinks he knows it all and more than the Regs comes along and replaces a section of steel conduit with plastic because it's easier or gets around the problem of threading a section that may be installed through a floor etc..

Damn, that would have been a better explanation than my drawn out, convoluted one.

Regards

Billy

 

[Engineer54]

I really can't believe what i'm reading here, the what if this, what if that, scenario's is totally irrelevant, you install any system installation as to the project drawings, what happens after, is not your problem or responsibility!! Your making up these scenarios to suit your argument, but frankly in the real world there is no argument to provide pointless CPC provisions where none is required or needed, ...end of!!

Fly leads are fly leads, of course they are required at accessories and fittings. Even if flexible conduits were completely plastic, what would be the trouble using the threaded earth connection of a BESA or any other box/enclosure for your CPC connection to equipment via short lengths of flexible conduit?? Been used successfully for this purpose, for connecting say motors and other required equipment for bloody years, so what's suddenly changed now then??

If sections are removed and replaced with PVC containment, then it is the responsibility of the electrician making those changes, to provide CPC provision. Same goes for any other alteration to an existing metal containment system. None warrant running in separate CPC's to the system in the first instance...

Were running in miles of metal containment systems, and when i say miles i mean miles!! Do you really think it makes any economic sense to run separate CPC's?? Bloody hell, the size of the conduits would need upgrading to the next size in most cases, just to keep within the fill restrictions. Needless to say, there will be no separate CPC's in our metal containment systems (trunking and conduits). You and others, that are foolish enough to do so, can get on and do whatever you like, ...all i can say, something has gone very wrong somewhere along the line on metal containment systems in the UK!! You've all gone stark raving Mad!! lol!!

 

[johnboy6083]

I really can't believe what i'm reading here, the what if this, what if that, scenario's is totally irrelevant, you install any system installation as to the project drawings, what happens after, is not your problem or responsibility!! Your making up these scenarios to suit your argument, but frankly in the real world there is no argument to provide pointless CPC provisions where none is required or needed, ...end of!!

Fly leads are fly leads, of course they are required at accessories and fittings. Even if flexible conduits were completely plastic, what would be the trouble using the threaded earth connection of a BESA or any other box/enclosure for your CPC connection to equipment via short lengths of flexible conduit?? Been used successfully for this purpose, for connecting say motors and other required equipment for bloody years, so what's suddenly changed now then??

If sections are removed and replaced with PVC containment, then it is the responsibility of the electrician making those changes, to provide CPC provision. Same goes for any other alteration to an existing metal containment system. None warrant running in separate CPC's to the system in the first instance...

Were running in miles of metal containment systems, and when i say miles i mean miles!! Do you really think it makes any economic sense to run separate CPC's?? Bloody hell, the size of the conduits would need upgrading to the next size in most cases, just to keep within the fill restrictions. Needless to say, there will be no separate CPC's in our metal containment systems (trunking and conduits). You and others, that are foolish enough to do so, can get on and do whatever you like, ...all i can say, something has gone very wrong somewhere along the line on metal containment systems in the UK!! You've all gone stark raving Mad!! lol!!

I agree with the above. Conduit, trunking, chassis of switchgear ect are all suitable for use as CPC, and I don't see a problem with continuing that. I do however see a problem with bad workmanship, but the same goes for systems where a CPC has been pulled in, any numpty could break the continuity with a bad termination. Testing should weed this out, but we cant guarantee we have seen everything.

 

[Billythekid]

...all i can say, something has gone very wrong somewhere along the line on metal containment systems in the UK!! You've all gone stark raving Mad!! lol!!

Come on, I'm sure we've always been stark raving Mad?

As said, in a contractual stance you're absolutely right (you can only be held responsible for your actions, etc.). However more and more pressure is being applied to designers to cover all eventualities, even if this means designing in costs!

I see both sides of the argument (I'm going to get a splinter from sitting on this fence). I personally feel that this "dumbing down" is to the detriment of every professional within this industry, but it's happening, and I can't see it stopping. Look at it this way:- If you're the client and have your own facilities management team, would you over spec to compensate for lack of knowledge and understanding within your team, or would you spec minimum, and pay professionals to carry out alterations?

I'm not saying it's right, only that it happens.

Regards

Billy