socket

[Buzz-light-bulb]

Little scenario for you all.

I've been doing an eicr today and come across a double socket wired as a radial on a 2.5mm t-e, which is protected by a 32 amp rcbo.
Technically this cannot overload as the cable can withstand 27 amp ref method c. Unless mr DIY comes along and starts adding new sockets which I am not responsible for so my question is would you leave it

 

[Hawkmoon]

Your reasons for coding it should also then apply to any spur off an rfc...If you won't code that, then why code this??

It's no different - you can't code depending on what some numpty may do in the future.

I wouldn't even comment on EICR

 

[GLENNSPARK]

It doesn't quite meet correct coordination as In > Iz which makes it vulnerable to a subsequent alteration overloading the cable. If it was risk-averse little me I think I'd put it down as a C3 just to cover my backside; there is after all scope for an improvement, i.e. fit a 25A RCBO. Obviously it's safe as it stands.

total crap.

 

[Pete999]

total crap.

Say it like it is Glenn

 

[NickD]

Your reasons for coding it should also then apply to any spur off an rfc...If you won't code that, then why code this??

It's no different - you can't code depending on what some numpty may do in the future.

The difference is there's nothing you can do with the spur on the RFC because the ring is inherently vulnerable to this no matter what you do. It is perfectly correct in all design aspects so no code or comment. The 27A cable on a 32A OCPD does not meet correct co-ordination in terms of the upstream OCPD, instead relying on downstream fusing of the 2x13A which is relatively unusual in domestic, where bodgery is rife, and I believe we are under some degree of responsibility to guard against it (if it's not domestic I'd be less worried). I'm risk averse. I'd C3 it. Others may not. I wouldn't particularly choose to decry their choice.

 

[7029 dave]

The difference is there's nothing you can do with the spur on the RFC because the ring is inherently vulnerable to this no matter what you do. It is perfectly correct in all design aspects so no code or comment. The 27A cable on a 32A OCPD does not meet correct co-ordination in terms of the upstream OCPD, instead relying on downstream fusing of the 2x13A which is relatively unusual in domestic, where bodgery is rife, and I believe we are under some degree of responsibility to guard against it (if it's not domestic I'd be less worried). I'm risk averse. I'd C3 it. Others may not. I wouldn't particularly choose to decry their choice.

Totally agree with your comment.

 

[Hawkmoon]

The difference is there's nothing you can do with the spur on the RFC because the ring is inherently vulnerable to this no matter what you do. It is perfectly correct in all design aspects so no code or comment. The 27A cable on a 32A OCPD does not meet correct co-ordination in terms of the upstream OCPD, instead relying on downstream fusing of the 2x13A which is relatively unusual in domestic, where bodgery is rife, and I believe we are under some degree of responsibility to guard against it (if it's not domestic I'd be less worried). I'm risk averse. I'd C3 it. Others may not. I wouldn't particularly choose to decry their choice.

It makes no difference what is usual/unusual in domestic - you look at/determine an install on its compliance re: BS7671 - if the cable (in this instance) has overload protection and satisfies thermal constraints then what reason would you have to comment/code it??? Seems you are being influenced by domestic installation convention.

You need to forget what is the apparent 'norm' for 'domestic installations' and apply regs as you would any install comm/ind/dom.

As I say...no code...no comment on EICR...All good!

 

[Pete999]

It makes no difference what is usual/unusual in domestic - you look at/determine an install on its compliance re: BS7671 - if the cable (in this instance) has overload protection and satisfies thermal constraints then what reason would you have to comment/code it??? Seems you are being influenced by domestic installation convention.

You need to forget what is the apparent 'norm' for 'domestic installations' and apply regs as you would any install comm/ind/dom.

As I say...no code...no comment on EICR...All good!

Well in this case it clearly doesn't comply. does it? if we don't comply then it's the slippery slope to butchery

 

[Colin33]

I've always thought that the sole purpose of the Fuse/MCB was to protect the cable ie the MCB needs to be equal to or less than the maximum current carrying capacity of the cable. So in this case, the 32A MCB is not suitable.....

 

[NickD]

As I say...no code...no comment on EICR...All good!

Having reminded myself that a C3 means improvement required, I now agree, no code is appropriate. I would say maybe a comment but I don't think the EICR form lends itself well to comments that aren't tied to codes (observations section requires a code for any observation made). Amazing what you can learn from civilised discussion. Cheers.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I've always thought that the sole purpose of the Fuse/MCB was to protect the cable ie the MCB needs to be equal to or less than the maximum current carrying capacity of the cable. So in this case, the 32A MCB is not suitable.....

The purpose of the MCB is to protect the cable and as long as the Zs is ok then it is protecting against fault current. Its not protecting against overcurrent though, however the fuse in the plug is. Saying that I agree with Nick and Dave, although I wouldn't code it as a C3 because it does meet the regs (its just the same as taking a spur from a ring which is protected by a 32A MCB) but I would suggest to the customer I fit a 20A RCBO, I'd explain why and let them make the choice, or at the very least tell them not to add any DIY spurs on to it.

 

[gazj82]

I've always thought that the sole purpose of the Fuse/MCB was to protect the cable ie the MCB needs to be equal to or less than the maximum current carrying capacity of the cable. So in this case, the 32A MCB is not suitable.....

The fuses in the plug tops will stop an overload on the cable. This is no different to tapping of a busbar chamber (industrial) in smaller tails and having a switch fuse inline after a meter or 2 of cable. Protection against over load does not always have to be at the source of the circuit.

 

[Buzz-light-bulb]

This is the problem with this electrical game there's never a definitive answer this is why so many electricians get confused, suppose at the end of the day ( is the beginning of the night) it boils down to basic common sense.

 

[gazj82]

Although I stand by what I said above, someone could possibly use an unfused double adaptor, how do they still get away with selling them!

 

[NickD]

Although I stand by what I said above, someone could possibly use an unfused double adaptor, how do they still get away with selling them!

This is why I think it's important to remember what you're assessing and the real-world factors, whether it's a plating plant, a pigfarm or a house. Hot dip baths, pig crap and DIY Dans each present their own challenge to be mitigated against.

 

[nickblake]

Where in the regs does it say you can wire a 2.5mm twin and earth and protect it with a 32 amp mcb you can with an additional fused spur as well as 1.5mm protective device for 2.5mm twin and earth is as stated in the little green book is 20 amp which is an A3 radial ,there is a risk of potential over load , how longs the cable length one bit of insulation will de rate the whole cable I would quite happily put it down as a C2 ,there are so many unfused 3 way adaptors out there i wouldn't risk it