WAGO or CRIMPS - which need to be accessible to 17th Edition Regs?

[jim beam]

Can anyone tell me if connections made using wago terminal blocks need to be ACCESSIBLE for inspection and testing (and maintenance) in line with cause 526.3 of 17th edition? I presume they DO - even though they can be classed as a permanent joint - simply because they DO NOTmeet any of the exception criteria given in point i to v of 526.3. However, I guess that 'butted insulated crimps' DO meet the criteria of 526.3 because they have been 'crimped' using a 'compression tool' - and in which case DO NOT need to be accessible. EG. therefore, when extending a 6mm cable cooker circuit, the joint could be plastered over if using crimps (and heatshrink) but not if using WAGO's, they would need to be accessible. Appreciate peoples comments on this - big thanks!!

PS. can anybody see a reason why NOT to use 6mm yellow insulated butt crimps & heatshrink to extend a 6mm cable cooker circuit, enclosed within plaster and be mechanically protected by a metal covering (where less than 50 mm in plaster) ?

 

[IQ Electrical]

Leaving opinion to one side, at the moment, WAGO type connectors will need to be accessible for the reasons that you've already stated.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Well I've stated a couple of times on here that I feel the same as IQ that the Regulations as of yet, with amendment still to come out, have not recognised these as a non accessible joint. I understand that quite a few Electricians quote regulation 120.4 regarding these and I can understand that. For me personally there are 2 main concerns.

1. As above, they do not meet the criteria of regulation 526.3 and until the regulations include these type of connections I will treat them as having to be accessible.

2. I'm not sure how long they have been availalbe in the UK, but they certainly have been available in Europe for a number of years, but as of yet, as far as I know, they have not been issued with either a BS or EN number, which I think they should be.

I'm not saying that they are not a good joint, I just want confirmation that they are considered to be a non accessible joint. If that comes about within this new amendment then yes I would consider them for a non accessible junction box.

 

[nickblake]

just my opinion here the ashly 17th junction boxes with the push fit which are classed as maintainance free so no accesability required ,the push terminals used in these are infact manufactured by Wago , and have Been tested by BAE systems so they are good enought for me , going to the point and maybe im old school i like to be able to access any joint i put in just like it that way

 

[malcolmsanford]

What always worried me about the manufacterers claim for instance is the part where they claim "Maintenance Free", which I have no doubt they are.

I was at an exhibition where they were promoting their boxes, and the "maintenance free" part and how it complies with the regulations for not having to be accessible, where a guy near me asked,

"Ok that is one part of the regulation 526.3, but what about the inspection and testing part, and if it is not as in the 5 ways highlighted in the reg, how do you get over the inspection and testing part concerning accessibility.................."

I have to say it got me thinking, and the manufacterer was not to forthcoming about that, nor to impressed with the question.

 

[nickblake]

Exactly my thoughts i know there are no screw to come loose but what about a poor connection when first installed i d loike accessability

 

[chiplard]

Exactly my thoughts i know there are no screw to come loose but what about a poor connection when first installed i d loike accessability

The same initial poor connection could occur with a crimp as well though. The WAGO's do at least have the facility to see if the core is fully inserted whereas a crimp doesn't.

I do agree though that until the book amends then they need to be accessible to comply.

 

[nickblake]

Dont get me wrong chaps ive not used a crimp well the small ones except for ring crimps that is since i started using wago's the are a fantastic time saving item , it was the elecsa assesor that recomended them to me , such a good product especially the din mount ones
im sure now the usage has increased they will mentioned in the brb very soon

 

[jim beam]

Thanks for all that guys. So, I guess we have established that 'at the moment' WAGO style crimps DO NOT meet the criteria of 526.3. So, in my case where I need to extend a cable and the customer is insisting that ideally he does not want a surface removable plate then I have to use crimps. For 6mm then, I can use the yellow fully insulated double-butt crimps and seal after with adhesive-lined heatshrink and then bury in plaster, covered with metalic protective strip (if less than 50mm in wall). I do not have to solder. Correct?

 

[malcolmsanford]

I personally don't like extending cables like that, I have though repaired cables that had been damaged, and pulling in a new cable was really not viable for financial reasons, ie decoration, taking up wooden flooring.

If by extending the cables you are moving an accessory, and say it is 6" to the left of it's existing position, then you will have the problem of running the extended cables within a safe zone, as when that join is re-plastered and the accessory is in place the cable will be hidden and most likely not in a safe zone.

If it is just moving an accessory down 6" and therefore the cable is still within a zone, then yes crimping and then heat shrinking is accepted. you will though have to make sure that the join is totally sealed to avoid dampness ingress.

 

[jim beam]

Yes, I agree, neither do I. NB. I don't believe that 'safe zone' applies anymore with 17th edition (see 522.6.6 (v). as 522.6.7 says that it must still have RCD protection, or be mechanically protected by a metal covering.

Thanks, it is going to be covered by a suitable metal plate for the additional 3 foot length, so I believe it will conform, and I'll use adhesive lined heatshrink to prevent water ingress then. Many thanks

 

[malcolmsanford]

No regulation 522.6.7 say that if you install a cable in a safe zone and it does not have protection under sections (i) (ii) (iii) or (iv) of regulation 522.6.6 and is not under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person you have to apply RCD protection to that cable as of 415.1.1

 

[jim beam]

OK... so, as long as it HAS protection to section (iv) ie. its mechanically protected ie. with a seperate metal covering - it should be fine, and not need RCD. I think I got that right. Big Thanks Malcolm

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If the manufactures are claiming that these meet the requirements for inaccessible connections.
They could be used, and noted as a departure.

 

[IQ Electrical]

If the manufactures are claiming that these meet the requirements for inaccessible connections.
They could be used, and noted as a departure.

The manufacturer makes no claims in respect of 526.3 (at least on the 'wagobox' anyway)

http://www.wagobox.com/docs/files/Wagobox_BS7671_Regs.pdf

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The manufacturer makes no claims in respect of 526.3 (at least on the 'wagobox' anyway)

http://www.wagobox.com/docs/files/Wagobox_BS7671_Regs.pdf

Would it be necessary for them to do so?
Does the use of a 'Wagobox' detract from the protection of electrical equipment?
The Regulation appears to be refering to the protection of equipment supplied by cables and conductors, not at the actual cables and conductors.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Would it be necessary for them to do so?
Does the use of a 'Wagobox' detract from the protection of electrical equipment?
The Regulation appears to be refering to the protection of equipment supplied by cables and conductors, not at the actual cables and conductors.

As the designer/installer/inspector, it would be rather difficult to show compliance with 526.3

The opening phrase of "every connection shall be accessible for inspection, testing and maintenance, except for the following:

The only item in the list that needs scrutiny is number (v) 'a joint forming part of the equipment complying with the appropriate product standard.'

I take that to mean a manufacturers joint within an item of pre-assembled equipment which is then type tested as an item to whatever product standard is applicable to the particular item.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think I was a little confused there IQ, I thought you were refering to 522.6.3, for some unknown reason.
I'm aware of the exact wording of the claims made by the manufacturer's.
My understanding is that they are claiming that the use of their product would fall under part "(iv) A joint made by welding, soldering brazing or appropriate compression tool".
I'm assuming that their claim is that their product provides the same degree of permanancy as any of the above methods, and as such dose not require to be accessible for inspection.
This claim is probably due to the fact, that there are no screw terminals that can loosen, and that constant pressure is applied to the joint by use of a spring.
As such, I belive that the use of these connectors would fall under Regulations 120.3 and 120.4.

 

[malcolmsanford]

As the designer/installer/inspector, it would be rather difficult to show compliance with 526.3

The opening phrase of "every connection shall be accessible for inspection, testing and maintenance, except for the following:

The only item in the list that needs scrutiny is number (v) 'a joint forming part of the equipment complying with the appropriate product standard.'

I take that to mean a manufacturers joint within an item of pre-assembled equipment which is then type tested as an item to whatever product standard is applicable to the particular item.

Didn't the new amendment plan to introduce a change to part (v) of Reg 526.3 , which a while ago when it was still available for public scrutiny I posted here, that perhaps this is the IET way of making these terminations classed as non accessible, I wish the IET would hurry up and issue the new BGB, so we know one way or other.

 

[IQ Electrical]

The only change I saw was to the wording of item (v) that I posted on above, explaining the term 'equipment' and also a new item (vi) was added:

"Equipment complying with a product standard with specific requirements to confirm that access for inspection,​

testing and maintenance is not required, including for connections to the equipment made by the installer."