Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1613 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

BS 7671 interpretation of clause 560.7.7

MS01
Within BS7671 there is the following clause:-

560.7.7 Safety circuit cables, other than metallic screened, fire-resistant cables, shall be adequately and reliably separated by distance or by barriers from other circuit cables, including other safety circuit cables.

Now I read this in two ways, the first is this is specifically talking about fire rated cables only… or

This is insinuating that unless I use a metallic screened fire-resistant cable I must provide separation by distance or by barriers including from other safety circuit cables. Does this mean a common dedicated medical IT final circuit trunking is not acceptable as each IT circuit in its own right is a safety circuit, therefore if I was to move away from fire rated cable I would need to ensure each IT circuit is installed in its own individual piece of containment (conduit) to give the correct level of separation or would a common galvanised trunking dedicated to the IT cabling be sufficient.

I appreciate no one will give me an answer to the question above, but can people let me know how they interpret this clause to see if I’m on the right lines.  

Can I ask how do you interpret this clause?

Parents
  • 0
    No, there's a point where people have to think for themselves.


    In some circumstances, your last "scenario" plays out, in others, it does not. And in this particular case, the adverse circumstances may not be fire ...


    BS 7671 is not intended to replace a "designer", and in fact the standard requires one.


    And in answer to the last question "it depends" is the only answer available without more detail. Fire may not be the only risk, and the particular procedures involved may (in a Group 1 location) be of a very different nature to a Group 2 location, for example.




    This isn't a game of chess, but the consideration of a Standard (BS 7671) and an Industry Code of Practice (HTM 06-01) - both of which can only be cited as a whole, and which have different weight when considering what was actually done (not what could have been done).


    The outcome, when adapted to reality, is not always a binary response.
Reply
  • 0
    No, there's a point where people have to think for themselves.


    In some circumstances, your last "scenario" plays out, in others, it does not. And in this particular case, the adverse circumstances may not be fire ...


    BS 7671 is not intended to replace a "designer", and in fact the standard requires one.


    And in answer to the last question "it depends" is the only answer available without more detail. Fire may not be the only risk, and the particular procedures involved may (in a Group 1 location) be of a very different nature to a Group 2 location, for example.




    This isn't a game of chess, but the consideration of a Standard (BS 7671) and an Industry Code of Practice (HTM 06-01) - both of which can only be cited as a whole, and which have different weight when considering what was actually done (not what could have been done).


    The outcome, when adapted to reality, is not always a binary response.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines