Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory

[Industspark]

Hi fella's ,
Following a recent report I have had sent to me t was deemed that multi-core SWA doubled up to
supply a single phase piece of equipment, was unsatisfactory for following reasons.
'Poor onsite installation practice may result in increased risk of failure,electric shock or fire'.
See photo.

To me I understand that it is bad practice to not correct size cable on the original install, however what regulation does it no comply with and is it really a C2?

I mean we do it for larger install supplies.

 

[Pete999]

I know I have had a drink, but sorry am I missing something?

 

[Industspark]

I can only imagine that this is the only cable they had at the time of installation and they've used 2 cores the Live, neutral & earth.
they marked it as C2 because they deem unsafe. It's bad practice but is it unsafe for continued use?

 

[telectrix]

more detail needed. is it 2 cores for L and 2 cores for N? as in parallel conductors? the cpc may or may not be adequate if it's a single conductor, esp if there's extraneous parts that require bonding.

 

[Andy78]

Looks like there are 2 separate circuits within the same multicore cable. Second and fifth (from top) MCBs seem to be using cores within this same cable as line conductors.

 

[davesparks]

What a load of BS!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Looks like there are 2 separate circuits within the same multicore cable. Second and fifth (from top) MCBs seem to be using cores within this same cable as line conductors.

Indeed....two circuits,a radial and RFC? Only got the BRB to hand at home,the reg number may be different in the BYB....but 521.7 applies, two or more circuits are permitted in the same cable provided the usual requirements are met in section 528. No code needed as far as I can see.

 

[Andy78]

Only got the BRB to hand at home,the reg number may be different in the BYB....but 521.7 applies, two or more circuits are permitted in the same cable provided the usual requirements are met in section 528. No code needed as far as I can see.

Yep I'm aware of that reg. I didn't say anything was technically wrong with it, was just trying to determine what the report could have been alluding to. The report statement is so vague it's hard to tell. I couldn't see it was from the doubling of the conductors.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Yes...I spotted that it was two separate circuits and not one as stated in the OP....and never thought you were stating that there was anything wrong with the installation method. In fact it looks like a pretty neat job!

 

[Dave OCD]

Apart from bunching the cores so tightly with cable ties - even more significant with multiple circuits within the same cable.

 

[davesparks]

Apart from bunching the cores so tightly with cable ties - even more significant with multiple circuits within the same cable.

The cores are bunched just as tightly inside the cable

 

[spary]

not really bad practice, it's often done on large supplies rather than use just one SWA

 

[Industspark]

Thanks all. I didn't explain very well. I was struggling to see why he marked as unsatisfactory and thought was missing something.

 

[Dave OCD]

The cores are bunched just as tightly inside the cable

Of course they are but in an enclosure with all other final circuits I would want to negate the effects of temperature as much as possible.

 

[LeeH]

Only a problem (and obviously not in this case) if the circuits are for VFDs, the 3 cores must be symmetrical to comply with the EMC regulations. So no multi ores like that.

A bit off topic but a useful nugget of info.

 

[Adam W]

I was under the impression you were allowed to double up cables. I may be able to get you a reg number tomorrow if anyone needs one?