This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Does BS7671:2018 521:10.202 apply to a bungalow floor void? (Securing cables against collapse in a fire)

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Good afternoon, I hope you are all well.



Firstly, I am not an electrician, but I am trying to save a lot of disruption all at once if I can.



Here’s the reason for the question. A couple of years ago I had a new Hager consumer unit installed by an electrician and had it fully populated with RCBO’s at my request. one RCBO for each circuit. It also has one main isolator switch. I have recently decided that I now want to re-organise the ring final throughout the bungalow. To achieve this I would like to do most of the installation myself one room at a time to avoid major disruption all at once. The bungalow is a small 2 bed with wooden floorboards covering 78sq/m approx. Under the floorboards there is an an 18inch deep (approx) void.



My initial thoughts are that I could run all the cables required for an entirely separate and new ring final, (not connected to anything) so an electrician can come in and connect all the new sockets and the new cables to the consumer unit when ready, and at the same time disconnect the old ring final. Thus, swapping old circuit to new.



As these cables will be run under the floor and cannot collapse on to anyone during a fire, are they still required to follow the new regulations and be secured to the underfloor joists with metal cable clips, or can they run free on the ground under the wooden floor as the existing cables do now.



My personal opinion is that a fireman would prefer to potentially step on resting cables, rather than step through clipped suspended cables if his or her foot were to go through the floor in this situation. Also from what I have read it is more desirable, thermally, to have cables in free air as opposed to being fixed or covered  However, I would be grateful for your expert guidance in these matters.



Other information which may be relevant:



Cable to be used will be 2.5mm twin and earth( 2x2,5 and 1x1.5cpc)



The new ring final will have 12 double sockets in total, inclusive of 2 spurs. 1 spur will be terminated at 1 socket in a bedroom, and one spur to be terminated at the RCBO in the consumer unit to ensure that there will be no junction boxes under the floor.



I know it’s not pretty, but the new cables will come up through the floorboards into short lengths of 38x25 plastic trunking (approx 8inches long) and then into surface mounted 25mm deep click mode pattresses and sockets. For fire considerations, the trunking will be fixed to the wall with screws into brick (no plastic rawlplugs). A neat cut-out will be made in the skirting board to ensure trunking meets the floorboards. Also for fire considerations, the cables in the trunking will be restrained by a safe-d metal cable clip.



The pattresses will be attached to the wall with 3 screws. Two with plastic rawlplugs and one directly into brick for fire considerations.



I hope I have given you all enough information to go on, and wish you all well.



As always, many thanks in advance.



Simon


  • I`d say if y0u can d0 s0 then drill behind skirtings in 0rder t0 get cables behind them f0r a neater j0b. If y0u want t0 av0id n0tificati0n then add y0ur new ring as an extensi0n 0f existing ring intially then rem0ve 0ld ring. Bit sneaky but fullfills the letter if n0t the sprit 0f the regs.


    Phew just put my o button back on laptop , sorry I had to use zero instead
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Good afternoon,

    Thank you all for your very kind replies, they have been so helpful. I have discovered that the void is actually only 13inches deep but fortunately has concrete oversite. So, given that the average british rat is now the size of a domestic cat, wherever I put the cables they will be in gnawing reach. Joking aside, it is a good idea to invest in rodent proof covers for the air bricks to secure the void. I will run the cable untwisted in straight lines and support with clips by the sockets for strain relief. Hopefully, when connected and tested, I will have a new and safe ring final for years to come.


    Kind regards

    Simon 
  • I'm intrigued as to what you are trying to achieve. You appear to be wanting to replace a two year old perfectly good ring final with another. Why?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hello George, thanks for the reply.

    When I had the CU put in it was connected to an existing ring that dated back to the 70's. And although the insulation testing came back with a 300meg reading, which I understand is well within limits, I thought that whilst I was re-organising socket positions, new cable throughout would be an upgrade as the old cable has stranded CPC. My apologies for not making that clear in my OP.


    Kind regards 

    Simon

  • simon201:
    Hello George, thanks for the reply.

    When I had the CU put in it was connected to an existing ring that dated back to the 70's. And although the insulation testing came back with a 300meg reading, which I understand is well within limits, I thought that whilst I was re-organising socket positions, new cable throughout would be an upgrade as the old cable has stranded CPC. My apologies for not making that clear in my OP.


    Kind regards

    Simon




    Nothing wrong with a stranded CPC. That cable sounds like old imperial 7/029. That has a higher cross sectional area than 2.5mm, thus a higher current carrying capacity and lower resistance. It does not normally degrade as shown by your insulation test. So not really an upgrade at all. If it was me I would leave it.


  • GeorgeCooke:



    Nothing wrong with a stranded CPC. That cable sounds like old imperial 7/029. That has a higher cross sectional area than 2.5mm, thus a higher current carrying capacity and lower resistance. It does not normally degrade as shown by your insulation test. So not really an upgrade at all. If it was me I would leave it.


     




    Yeah, but imperial also has an undersized cpc (1.28mm2), and in places one of the 3 cpc strands may well have corroded or snapped, reducing it to 0.85mm2.


  • Yeah, but imperial also has an undersized cpc (1.28mm2)



    Better than the early metric ones that had only a 1.0mm² c.p.c.


    Actually 1.28mm² would be OK for a B32 MCB with a fault level not exceeding 3kA. (BS EN 60898 I believe says 18,000 A²s - which equates to 1.167mm² for k=115)


       - Andy.