Protecting cables carrying high earth leakage currents located in walls and partitions against impact

I am investigating options for getting solar PV installed at home, thinking about how I would like the system installing ready for when I get installers round to quote.

The house was built with a service void (plasterboard boxing-in) which runs vertically from above the consumer unit in the garage, up through the first floor into the attic and this void already carries a number of other cables, within a safe zone created by the void running up the corner of the 1st floor room and with an electric shower mounted onto the void. Using this void to run the AC cables from the CU to the inverter in the attic, protecting the cables from the weather/elements seems a neater long term option than running conduit or cable externally, given the 25+ year life of the solar installation.

The cable route from the attic to CU is a vertical drop, but its not a perfect straight drop down the back wall due to a joist and some pipework obstructions around garage ceiling level, requiring some change in depth as it passes through the floor. There's plenty of space to pull in a flexible conduit, following the route of the existing T&E cables. The void is quite deep, over 100mm, so fixing a flexible conduit to the wall in the attic should keep it comfortably more than 50mm from the surface from the attic through to the 1st-floor floor/garage ceiling. But where it passes around the joist and pipes, where distance from the surface is difficult to confirm, though at this stage it is passing through the floor/ceiling.

If it was a regular household circuit with additional protection from a 30mA RCD then singles in flexible insulated conduit, running in the safe zone created by the room corner and shower, appears to be acceptable, but with most solar inverters having high earth leakage currents which require 100mA or 300mA RCDs to prevent nuisance tripping, then this would not provide the additional protection from a 30mA RCD as required under 522.6.202 / 415.1.1.

Therefore the protection against impact would depend on the >50mm distance from surface, which while this is fine for most of the drop, is less clear where it passes through the floor. Using the options from 522.6.204; a rigid conduit (BSEN 61386-21), trunking, armoured cables or mechanical protection appears impossible because they are all very rigid and the nature of the route requires a cable system with greater flexibility.

So the permitted options if I want to get the cables run through the void, appear to be:
a) Satisfy the installer the distance from the surface will be >50mm so the additional protection from a 30mA RCD is not required and 522.6.204 does not apply, so allowing any inverter and all conduit/cable options.
b) Specify an inverter that can operate with a 30mA RCD for additional protection, the cable will be in a safe zone so fulfilling requirements of 522.6.202/415.1.1, though this appears to substantially limit the choice of inverter (I've only found one so far). Again all flexible conduit/cable choices become acceptable.

Are there any other solutions using a flexible conduit or flexible cable that I have missed?

One potential solution that is not stated as a permitted option in the Regs and I'm unsure why not, would be to use a flexible metallic conduit earthed at each end via a fixed gland, with a separate CPC, protected by a 100mA or 300mA RCD. And as per (a), clipped to keep it >50mm as far as possible.

This would be at no more risk of mechanical damage than the T&E cables next to it. In the event of a nail strike or impact, any penetration is earthed by the continuous metal conduit so ensuring tripping of the RCD without relying on a current to flow through the nail/screw/person causing the strike. The RCD reduces the required trip current to only 100mA/300mA so even though the flexible conduit does not satisfy the requirements of a protective conductor, it only needs to carry a very low current to trip the RCD. But that doesn't appear to be an permitted option, any suggestions why this combination would not be permitted? 

Parents
  • Could be worth looking at PV Ultra cable by docaster cables.

    Personally I would not recommend the invertor or a battery system in the loft space for several reason

    Fire hazard

    Weight

    Heat in summer and cold in winter

    Regular maintenance

  • I understand your point of view, but I think the reason why it ends up in the loft is because it’s more convenient and cost-effective for the installers/clients. Also, the DC cables don’t have to run through the property, which might be safer.

  • I understand your point of view, but I think the reason why it ends up in the loft is because it’s more convenient and cost-effective for the installers/clients

    Definitely not the most sensible place, and as stated, because of temperature in the loft, there are certainly recorded inverter fires (without batteries).

    Storage batteries are also heavy, and there are a number of issues locating in the loft, including the problems it causes for fire service response in that location.

    I would strongly recommend against the loft for both, but certainly more strongly the battery. Best place for storage batteries in dwellings is outdoors, or in a detached outbuilding.

    A standard, PAS 63100, is currently in development for fire safety for the installation of batteries in dwellings to address the issues: https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2022-00181. I believe, at the moment, it's simply not clear enough for installers to know how dangerous some of the current installation practices can be given the wrong circumstances, and hopefully this standard will help address that.

  • I concur with your opinion. I think that the wiring regulations should be revised to prohibit this installation practice. However, I also think that installation work will continue to be done in a cheap and quick manner if there is no enforcement or oversight. I think that the industry needs to adopt higher standards and quality control measures to ensure safety and reliability.

  • If the code of practise and BS7671 state

    SHALL NOT install in loft due to (Thus resolving any ambiguity)

    Fire hazard

    Weight

    Heat in summer and cold in winter

    Regular maintenance

    Installers will follow what the designers of systems and manufacturers tell them to do. 

Reply
  • If the code of practise and BS7671 state

    SHALL NOT install in loft due to (Thus resolving any ambiguity)

    Fire hazard

    Weight

    Heat in summer and cold in winter

    Regular maintenance

    Installers will follow what the designers of systems and manufacturers tell them to do. 

Children
No Data