What code-PIR

[SSE]

Would you put down for a 13A double socket that is spurred off a cooker switch? The cooker switch is wired in 6mm[SUP]2[/SUP].

 

[telectrix]

if there's no sign of overloading and no apparent danger, code 4, IMHO.

 

[Ponty Massive]

I'd use code 4

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What size cable is the spur, and how long is it?

 

[johnelectrical]

code 2 as over-current protection will not be achieved by the assumed compliance with Regulation 435.1, you would have to ensure that overcurrent protection for the 2.5mm cables has been achieved by the application of 433.3.1 (ii) and 434.5.2. which it doesn't.

 

[telectrix]

who mentioned 2.5mm. if it's spurred off in 6mm, then no additional OCP is required.

 

[yellowvanman]

code 2 as over-current protection will not be achieved by the assumed compliance with Regulation 435.1, you would have to ensure that overcurrent protection for the 2.5mm cables has been achieved by the application of 433.3.1 (ii) and 434.5.2. which it doesn't.

If the cooker circuit is protected by a 32A MCB how does this differ from taking a spur of a ring in 2.5mm?

 

[johnelectrical]

Appendix 15 gives details of how spurs can be provided and I fully understand that the 13A 1363 accessory SHOULD be ok providing the plug fuse prevents more than 13A being drawn but I still don't like it. Would you add a double socket spur to a shower isolation switch ? If not, why not ? And what's the difference between that and a cooker circuit ? Slippery slope...
Or , to put it another way, would you design and install a new domestic kitchen with a spur coming off of the cooker switch ?
the cooker supply is a radial circuit providing a dedicated appliance, going back to appendix 15 item 1, (iii) cookers etc having a rated power exceeding 2KW should be on thier own dedicated circuit.
If you are going to add a spur to a cooker switch would you consider contacting the manufacturer of the connected appliance to ensure you are complying with 134.1.1 the original protective device may well have been selected after considering diversity, the extra load is unlikely to have been included in any calculations.
314.2 highlights the need for dedicated circuits to be seperately controlled.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Do they not make CCUs with socket-outlets on them any more?

 

[yellowvanman]

Appendix 15 gives details of how spurs can be provided and I fully understand that the 13A 1363 accessory SHOULD be ok providing the plug fuse prevents more than 13A being drawn but I still don't like it. Would you add a double socket spur to a shower isolation switch ? If not, why not ? And what's the difference between that and a cooker circuit ? Slippery slope...
Or , to put it another way, would you design and install a new domestic kitchen with a spur coming off of the cooker switch ?
the cooker supply is a radial circuit providing a dedicated appliance, going back to appendix 15 item 1, (iii) cookers etc having a rated power exceeding 2KW should be on thier own dedicated circuit.
If you are going to add a spur to a cooker switch would you consider contacting the manufacturer of the connected appliance to ensure you are complying with 134.1.1 the original protective device may well have been selected after considering diversity, the extra load is unlikely to have been included in any calculations.
314.2 highlights the need for dedicated circuits to be seperately controlled.

The orginal poster was talking about an existing install and whether to code it for a PIR. Obviously if I was doing a new install I would use a cooker outlet with a socket included.

On another point, Appendices except Appendix 1 are informative and are provided for guidance, so you don't have to follow exactly what they say!

 

[SSE]

What size cable is the spur, and how long is it?

It's spurred of in 2.5mm, probably a length of about 3-4 metres!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well, the current carrying-capacity of the cable is most likely sufficient, however the length is an issue.
Regulations 433.2.2 and 434.2.1, both indicate that protection should be provided at the point where the current carrying-capacity is reduced, or within 3m along the run of that conductor. Unless the CPD at the origin of the circuit provides the required protection, or the likelyhood of a fault is very low.
The fact that you indicate that the length is between 3-4m, suggests that you should measure the R1+R2 of the cable to determine the exact length.
If it is greater than 3m and the CPD does not provide protection, then I would apply a code 2.
If it is greater than 3m, and the CPD does provide protection then I would apply a code 4. (Purely in case a change in the CPD occurs in the future.)
If the length is less than 3m, then I would not apply any code at all.
Whilst it is recommended that items of high current using equipment are supplied by dedicated circuits, there is no actual requirement to do so.

 

[SSE]

Well, the current carrying-capacity of the cable is most likely sufficient, however the length is an issue.
Regulations 433.2.2 and 434.2.1, both indicate that protection should be provided at the point where the current carrying-capacity is reduced, or within 3m along the run of that conductor. Unless the CPD at the origin of the circuit provides the required protection, or the likelyhood of a fault is very low.
The fact that you indicate that the length is between 3-4m, suggests that you should measure the R1+R2 of the cable to determine the exact length.
If it is greater than 3m and the CPD does not provide protection, then I would apply a code 2.
If it is greater than 3m, and the CPD does provide protection then I would apply a code 4. (Purely in case a change in the CPD occurs in the future.)
If the length is less than 3m, then I would not apply any code at all.
Whilst it is recommended that items of high current using equipment are supplied by dedicated circuits, there is no actual requirement to do so.

Thanks for your advice. Another quick question regarding this...if it had to be marked down as a code 2 requires improvement does this make the overall assessment unsatisfactory?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Thanks for your advice. Another quick question regarding this...if it had to be marked down as a code 2 requires improvement does this make the overall assessment unsatisfactory?

In short yes.
In long, it is your decision, opinions are divided.
The new EICRs, indicate that either a C1 or C2, would result in an Unsatisfactory condition, whereas the old PIR forms, never gave any guidance.

 

[johnelectrical]

while i accept every thing previously said and the reasons for allowing one unfused 2.5 spur off a 32A ring, a cooker circuit is still a dedicated load, even if you have a built in single socket outlet which is obviously supplied by that circuit,
I would assume this socket has been provided as a cheep option to reduce disruption caused by cables run from another socket. what code would you give a double socket, fed by a cable 3M long in a bathroom located more than 3M from the bath which was spured from the shower supply again perhaps during a bathroom refit, to prevent disruption to decoration out side the bathroom