- Reaction score
- 6,959
Surely two ring finals connected in series would no longer constitute two circuits and, as such, would only be once circuit connected to the MCB?
To be clear; I'm asking a question, rather than telling you that you're wrong
Search the forum,
Surely two ring finals connected in series would no longer constitute two circuits and, as such, would only be once circuit connected to the MCB?
To be clear; I'm asking a question, rather than telling you that you're wrong
[automerge]1597960211[/automerge]
Absolutely no chance should there be 2 RFC in a 32A MCB. Neither should there be a 2.5mm2 radial let alone 2,3 or 4. It is covered in the regs and is further legislated against in test and inspection.
Firstly assuming it is 2 RFC then it is in-fact an interconnected ring main which is the whole purpose of the ring final test to avoid. The reason for avoiding is simple should either of the two rings of an interconnection become open circuit then the circuit becomes two or even four radials.
Which also answers all other scenarios the 2.5mm2 Cables of a radial circuit on 32amp supply will become over loaded and be a potential fire hazard.
Also it becomes problematic when conducting test or fault finding.
Great contribution....I have been thinking for a while now that 325 posts in what this thread really needs is someone to re-say what has already been said several dozen times. Genius.
Legislated against? Please do expand on this and tell us which piece of legislation you are referring to?
You can find and view all current UK legislation documents for free here: Legislation.gov.uk - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
And there are two #331 posts.
i can see why it’s been done, looks original on a 1970’s 3 bed semi, only other 30A way was feeding the cooker.
it’s been coded C3, but the board was C2, so will get properly sorted when I put a new fully RCBO CU in along with other remedial works over the coming weeks.
you could take one leg from each rfc and joint them in the board, leaving you one big rfc.
Incorrect colour coding of conductors is one example of a C3
Discuss Ring main. in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Surely two ring finals connected in series would no longer constitute two circuits and, as such, would only be once circuit connected to the MCB?
To be clear; I'm asking a question, rather than telling you that you're wrong
- Reaction score
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 6,971
Aye, 3 through crimps and you're away, no probs......and if Zs a touch high you could leave the cpc's as they are.
[automerge]1597960211[/automerge]
Think we know what ackbar means though, don't we?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 23
Absolutely no chance should there be 2 RFC in a 32A MCB. Neither should there be a 2.5mm2 radial let alone 2,3 or 4. It is covered in the regs and is further legislated against in test and inspection.
Firstly assuming it is 2 RFC then it is in-fact an interconnected ring main which is the whole purpose of the ring final test to avoid. The reason for avoiding is simple should either of the two rings of an interconnection become open circuit then the circuit becomes two or even four radials.
Which also answers all other scenarios the 2.5mm2 Cables of a radial circuit on 32amp supply will become over loaded and be a potential fire hazard.
Also it becomes problematic when conducting test or fault finding.
- Reaction score
- 17,090
You're right, 2 RFCs in 1 OCPD = 1 circuitSurely two ring finals connected in series would no longer constitute two circuits and, as such, would only be once circuit connected to the MCB?
To be clear; I'm asking a question, rather than telling you that you're wrong
- Reaction score
- 6,530
Hi - apologies if I’m just restating something already said as I’m late to the thread.
Early on @SparkyChick asked for the “Reg That Says No” to putting 2 RFC into one OCPD. My thought is Chapter 43, protection against overload. RFCs are a bit of a load management exercise and now we have possibly offended Reg 433.1.1(i) where the rated current of the protective device ( In ) is less than the design current ( Ib ).
Early on @SparkyChick asked for the “Reg That Says No” to putting 2 RFC into one OCPD. My thought is Chapter 43, protection against overload. RFCs are a bit of a load management exercise and now we have possibly offended Reg 433.1.1(i) where the rated current of the protective device ( In ) is less than the design current ( Ib ).
R
radiohead
Great contribution....I have been thinking for a while now that 325 posts in what this thread really needs is someone to re-say what has already been said several dozen times. Genius.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Reaction score
- 17,194
Legislated against? Please do expand on this and tell us which piece of legislation you are referring to?
You can find and view all current UK legislation documents for free here: Legislation.gov.uk - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
- Reaction score
- 8,216
All I can say is... subjectively it's wrong. Objectively it complies with the regulations, if you disagree and would like to convince me otherwise, please explain (a) how it violates the figure 8 test (the purpose of which is to look for interconnections between the legs of the ring at a point other than the origin, interconnections that could if ill-informed alterations were made result in a situation with the potential to overload a cable) and (b) which regulations it violates and why.
It's wrong, we all know it's wrong... explaining why with actual regulations is a little trickier. Please don't cite Appendix 15 (Informative)... it is not a regulation. Without wanting to offend, it's the regulations equivalent of 'The dummies guide to the ring final circuit as defined by regulation 433.1.204'. It provides a lot of compliant examples, but listing all possibilities would be an impossibility which is why it's informative, it's a quick start guide if you will. As best as I can tell the only actual regulation specifically about 32A ring circuits is 433.1.204, it's entirely possible I've missed some but I've looked hard whilst writing some of my replies to this thread because I wanted to be certain I was objectively correct, but I'm all ears if I've missed some.
Maybe we should look at this another way... how would you code this arrangement if you came across it on an EICR? Which regulations would you cite as those it breaks and why?
Remember... I'm really just playing devil's advocate but I am getting a little tired of late of the blind following of rules. The regulations are the bare minimum, we need to be able to think for ourselves, so if you feel like telling me which code Codebreakers applies to this situation, go right ahead and explain what justifies such a code, backing your explanation up with actual regulations and how the arrangement breaks them.
And for another fun exercise in analysing the twisted mind of this old bint... lets suppose I have a ring circuit and I ran out of 2.5mm on the job, only got an off cut left that's about 18 inches long, only had two more double sockets to sort out... kitchen job, all the cables clipped direct or in the void of a dot and dab wall, so I run a length of 6mm from a convenient place (before anyone asks how I managed to squeeze 2 x 2.5mm and 1 x 6mm in accessory terminals.. I love the new 3 way slimline Wago connectors that take 0.5mm to 6mm cable.. awesome for this kind of thinking... nice maintenance free Wagobox tucked out the way, great it was) to the first of the doubles and as they are next to each other, I use the off cut of 2.5mm to supply the other. Does that comply with the design criteria for a ring circuit supplied by a 32A OCPD? If not, why not? And if this complies... how does the situation described in the OP not?
It's wrong, we all know it's wrong... explaining why with actual regulations is a little trickier. Please don't cite Appendix 15 (Informative)... it is not a regulation. Without wanting to offend, it's the regulations equivalent of 'The dummies guide to the ring final circuit as defined by regulation 433.1.204'. It provides a lot of compliant examples, but listing all possibilities would be an impossibility which is why it's informative, it's a quick start guide if you will. As best as I can tell the only actual regulation specifically about 32A ring circuits is 433.1.204, it's entirely possible I've missed some but I've looked hard whilst writing some of my replies to this thread because I wanted to be certain I was objectively correct, but I'm all ears if I've missed some.
Maybe we should look at this another way... how would you code this arrangement if you came across it on an EICR? Which regulations would you cite as those it breaks and why?
Remember... I'm really just playing devil's advocate but I am getting a little tired of late of the blind following of rules. The regulations are the bare minimum, we need to be able to think for ourselves, so if you feel like telling me which code Codebreakers applies to this situation, go right ahead and explain what justifies such a code, backing your explanation up with actual regulations and how the arrangement breaks them.
And for another fun exercise in analysing the twisted mind of this old bint... lets suppose I have a ring circuit and I ran out of 2.5mm on the job, only got an off cut left that's about 18 inches long, only had two more double sockets to sort out... kitchen job, all the cables clipped direct or in the void of a dot and dab wall, so I run a length of 6mm from a convenient place (before anyone asks how I managed to squeeze 2 x 2.5mm and 1 x 6mm in accessory terminals.. I love the new 3 way slimline Wago connectors that take 0.5mm to 6mm cable.. awesome for this kind of thinking... nice maintenance free Wagobox tucked out the way, great it was) to the first of the doubles and as they are next to each other, I use the off cut of 2.5mm to supply the other. Does that comply with the design criteria for a ring circuit supplied by a 32A OCPD? If not, why not? And if this complies... how does the situation described in the OP not?
Well if you could join the 2.5 ring to a 6.0 (or 4.0) radial, so long as it`s substantially half way around the ring then all the usual ring type considerations should pan out adequately. Again not elegant but hey ho. I feel the double triple or quadrouple ring is easier and just as valid as a single ring. Indeed, on one foru, I hasd a remasrk by someone saying theyd take one end of each ring asnd join them in the consumer unit thereby producing one ring. If it does not end up oversize (abnormal length) it would be OK but not an improvement though because you`ve then increased R1 +R2 from what it was (and therefore increased Zs) and you`ve increased volt drop too. If I found a two, three or 4 ringed circuit I would glance asgain but so long as all the sums add up and the connections are mechanically and electrically sound then hey ho not a defect. Not a standard circuit you`d find in regs informative appx 15 or in the OSG but nothing "wrong" with it.
Same as ""trees" branches yada yada on radials etc
Circuits can be unusual "strange" but still compliant and safe.
You could actually have a ring final with just one point on it. Again unusual and probably pointless but still compliant and safe
Same as ""trees" branches yada yada on radials etc
Circuits can be unusual "strange" but still compliant and safe.
You could actually have a ring final with just one point on it. Again unusual and probably pointless but still compliant and safe
Oddly enough @JBW175 post #330 from today is shown as older than @SparkyChick post #331 from 25 Aug!
Is it wrong or dangerous? Not really.
Is it worth coding? Probably C3 as it was most likely a separate circuit added to an existing OCPD due to some other factor, so it could be improved by separating it and having another OCPD (ideally RCBOs, but that is another discussion point).
Is it wrong or dangerous? Not really.
Is it worth coding? Probably C3 as it was most likely a separate circuit added to an existing OCPD due to some other factor, so it could be improved by separating it and having another OCPD (ideally RCBOs, but that is another discussion point).
- Reaction score
- 16,766
And there are two #331 posts.
- Reaction score
- 618
I'm getting postings via my email regarding 'connecting two rings into one protective device' which appear to be linked to another thread posted back in the Jurassic period.
My final answer is that there is nothing wrong as they are still separate circuits but is it safe? and that depends on the way each circuitis loaded.
If the loading is small on both rings then it will pass unnoticed. The heavier the loading the greater the electrical stress.
My final answer is that there is nothing wrong as they are still separate circuits but is it safe? and that depends on the way each circuitis loaded.
If the loading is small on both rings then it will pass unnoticed. The heavier the loading the greater the electrical stress.
- Reaction score
- 1,232
i can see why it’s been done, looks original on a 1970’s 3 bed semi, only other 30A way was feeding the cooker.
it’s been coded C3, but the board was C2, so will get properly sorted when I put a new fully RCBO CU in along with other remedial works over the coming weeks.
- Reaction score
- 17,229
Yep. C3 just mean improvement recommended.
you could take one leg from each rfc and joint them in the board, leaving you one big rfc.
C3 means a reg defect. If it`s not a C1 or a C2 then its a C3, but if not a defect it must NOT be coded at all.
Incorrect colour coding of conductors is one example of a C3
Reply to Ring main. in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Similar Threads
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.