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 21 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1780 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

OSG 7.3.2 cables in walls and partitions

hertzal123
In the above,item d states the cables can be protected by earthed steel conduit or,

Item e then states :mechanical protection sufficient to prevent penetration of nails,etc,

but no mention of earthing..

I have a situation with a short 200mm horizontal run outside the zones.

I could slide a lenght of earthed conduit over,but then the earth connection would be plastered

over and could not be inspected.

If I treat the conduit as mechanical protection,it would not need earthing?

Wondered what others would do.

                                                        Regards,Hz

Parents
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I raised the protective device Andy because I had a distant memory of this cable foil only being required by the BS to pass 160 A, hence limiting it to B32 or C16 circuit-breakers.


    From searching the old forum produces this:

     
    24 April 2015 08:50 AM
    User is offline View Users Profile Send Private Message Print this message




    AJJewsbury


    Posts: 17795

    Joined: 13 August 2003

     

    If the cable was being used for its screening purposes rather than its ADS foil screen nail penetration charateristics, could it be used with type C devices, as the nail test is irrelevant in this case?

    It would be no worse than FP200 type cables that can be used with 'C's, and whose screen is inferior to the 8436 standard??

    Makes sense to me.


    BS8436 is limited to type B devices

    That always felt like a bit of an oversimplification to me - if a B32 is OK, then why not a C16 for instance? - the maximum permitted energy let-through is the same. Or even a fuse if the conditions are right.

    - Andy.




    Who now doubts the necessity of retaining this archive of information?


    Regards


    BOD
Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I raised the protective device Andy because I had a distant memory of this cable foil only being required by the BS to pass 160 A, hence limiting it to B32 or C16 circuit-breakers.


    From searching the old forum produces this:

     
    24 April 2015 08:50 AM
    User is offline View Users Profile Send Private Message Print this message




    AJJewsbury


    Posts: 17795

    Joined: 13 August 2003

     

    If the cable was being used for its screening purposes rather than its ADS foil screen nail penetration charateristics, could it be used with type C devices, as the nail test is irrelevant in this case?

    It would be no worse than FP200 type cables that can be used with 'C's, and whose screen is inferior to the 8436 standard??

    Makes sense to me.


    BS8436 is limited to type B devices

    That always felt like a bit of an oversimplification to me - if a B32 is OK, then why not a C16 for instance? - the maximum permitted energy let-through is the same. Or even a fuse if the conditions are right.

    - Andy.




    Who now doubts the necessity of retaining this archive of information?


    Regards


    BOD
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