Discuss Ring main. in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

I was going to edit that post, but figured you get that I was referring to the use of boards with significant capacity and not 3 phase installations.
[automerge]1596579736[/automerge]


I'm very much in favour of breaking with convention, when doing so fulfills a need or improves upon convention - whether that be a one off circumstance or in a more widespread manner.

What I struggle with here are the potential limitations placed upon homeowners as that house could have new occupants 2 or 3 years from now, with very different requirements to the current occupant. It may be that you have got this installation bang on the money for the style of property, but I can only consider the issue from my own perspective and limited experiences. Your ideas may not meet with universal approval, but I like that they challenge convention and give me something to think about.
The more you mull it over, the less unconventional it will seem. Believe me, by nature I, m very cautious and "doing things once and doing it right" is my natural way. In the electrical Industry we are taught to follow the regs rigidly. Correct. However, breaking with convention in order to improve matters is in my experience not really encouraged. It tends to be a case of "that's, how we have always done things". However, it's clear that someone somewhere is doing this, otherwise we would never have new regs and new improvements. I never challenge convention for the sake of it. There must be a very definate practical goal.
 
Just a point.
Two rings or not, in general, what are FIRST thoughts on four (or more) cables in a circuit breaker terminal, whilst carrying out an EICR?
How long is a piece of string, maybe?

Is that any worse than a multi stranded 6mm or 10mm cable?

Always seems strange to me sparks dont bootlace these.
 
Is that any worse than a multi stranded 6mm or 10mm cable?

Always seems strange to me sparks dont bootlace these.

Yes it is different to a coarse stranded cable. Coarse stranded cables have the strands compacted tigether at manufacture and they are further compacted together by the termination. Multiple seperate conductors terminated together can, if not done properly, result in one conductor not being clamped at all.

Ferrules are only required for fine stranded cables as screw terminals can cut through the strands or spread them out so that good contact is not made.
Coarse stranded conductors don't suffer from these same issues if correctly terminated.
 
Yes it is different to a coarse stranded cable. Coarse stranded cables have the strands compacted tigether at manufacture and they are further compacted together by the termination. Multiple seperate conductors terminated together can, if not done properly, result in one conductor not being clamped at all.

Ferrules are only required for fine stranded cables as screw terminals can cut through the strands or spread them out so that good contact is not made.
Coarse stranded conductors don't suffer from these same issues if correctly terminated.

Just looks strange to me where I’d almost always see some sort of crimp even on corse stranded cables.
 
Offshore oil and gas/petrochemical is where I work mainly.

Seems to be fairly standard practiceon the sites I’ve worked on.

OK, so that's a specialised industry with its own rules and regulations, not really something you can compare to general installation work.

What type of crimps are used on coarse stranded cables? Are you talking about ferrules or something else?
 
OK, so that's a specialised industry with its own rules and regulations, not really something you can compare to general installation work.

What type of crimps are used on coarse stranded cables? Are you talking about ferrules or something else?

We work to the same BS7671 rules as everyone else, I’m not aware it’s driven by any of the ATEX regulations etc. It’s just how I’ve always known it be done. Could be an American thing or a marine thing as there is a lot of crossover there.

Depends on the application but non insulated lugs and bootlace crimps are probably the most common.
 
Not seen it on gas production systems so not ATEX as far as I can see.

Also on all the lighting and power distribution panels for our BMS non of the SWA has ferrules on. The control cables obviously are.
 
It just seems weird to me that bootlace ferrules are being used on coarse stranded cables.
[automerge]1597007912[/automerge]


Any idea why?
Bootlace Ferrules on say 6 mm conductors seams to be the new YouTube electricians fad, one does it they all do it, spacing rcbo’s when the circuits are likely to be lightly loaded is another, monkey see monkey do.
 
I don’t think it makes it look any neater, a bit of coloured plastic showing on the conductor, they are a necessity on fine stranded conductors but make no impression on me when used on standard coarse conductors, I just think why when connected to a circuit breaker inside a CU?
 
If the circuit breaker has a cage connector I agree, but not when putting a multi strand cable into a standard screw connector, can't guarantee the whole of the cable is connected securely the strands that are not under the screw are a potential ark point. :eek:
 
If the circuit breaker has a cage connector I agree, but not when putting a multi strand cable into a standard screw connector, can't guarantee the whole of the cable is connected securely the strands that are not under the screw are a potential ark point. :eek:
Yeah true but like I say , I mostly see this at CB terminals
 
I'v been retired for over ten years so I don't see it at all, except for any work I do for myself, so if I see it it's my fault. :yum: I have just put in a set of Aico multi detectors and the 1.5mm cable I used was multi strand so both ends have bootlaces, and I thought it looked good even if I do say so myself. :innocent:
 
Last edited:
May I be the devil's advocate?
2 small ring final circuits could be connected in series to provide one rfc and thus could be connected to one OCPD. Quote Reply Report Edit
Source URL: Ring main. - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/ring-main.185730/

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 :D
 
Trying to get my head around how you wire 2 RFCs in series.

That's what made me ask the question.

The original installer would know that they were originally two circuits, as would the person who connected them together, but anyone making a subsequent inspection would only see one circuit.
 
May I be the devil's advocate?
2 small ring final circuits could be connected in series to provide one rfc and thus could be connected to one OCPD. Quote Reply Report Edit
Source URL: Ring main. - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/ring-main.185730/
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]
Trying to get my head around how you wire 2 RFCs in series.
Think we know what ackbar means though, don't we?
 
Last edited:
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?

Probably me being dense.
 
In all honesty I cannot see anything in Bs7671 that this would contravene other than good workmanship. If it originates from one MCB it is a single circuit. Despite what has been said about it overloading there is no reason to assume it would be. A single ring with 10 double sockets could have 20 3kw heaters plugged into it.
Very poor practice though and it needs altering on that basis.
edit. Post crossed with Sparkychick who has reached the same conclusion.

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.
 
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 :D
You're right, 2 RFCs in 1 OCPD = 1 circuit
 
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 ).
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

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/
 
As it’s Easter and this thread isn’t long enough already, I thought I’d resurrect it.

found this on an EICR today. Old Wylex board, with 2 RFC’s into one 30A BS3036 rewireable OCPD.

Trust me, there is a forth wire, just can’t see it on the phot.

D28C8C6D-E96E-4CD2-84F6-C47BA55E726A.png
 
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?
 
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?
 
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
 
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).
 
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).

And there are two #331 posts.
 
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.
 
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).

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.
 
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).
 
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
 
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
Well, if they're old colours, sleeve one 'ring' brown and blue.......there's your C3. ?
 
Absolutely no chance should there be 2 RFC in a 32A MCB.
If each one is safe if on 2 devices, what makes them become unsafe when put on 1?

Neither should there be a 2.5mm2 radial let alone 2,3 or 4.
There aren't.

It is covered in the regs and is further legislated against in test and inspection.
It isn't

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.
But why, other than testing aggro?


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.
By exactly the same logic we should not have any ring finals, because if the ring is broken then the circuit becomes 2 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.
A figure-of-8 actually decreases the chances of a break leading to an overload potential.
 
My dad had his tv and video recorder into same plug. I think it would be safer than one of those cube adaptors hanging out the wall.

I've done the same in the past I must admit. In my own home. Not ideal, but as long as it is 2 small flexes and the cord grip secures them properly then not too bad.
 
If each one is safe if on 2 devices, what makes them become unsafe when put on 1?


There aren't.


It isn't


But why, other than testing aggro?



By exactly the same logic we should not have any ring finals, because if the ring is broken then the circuit becomes 2 radials.


A figure-of-8 actually decreases the chances of a break leading to an overload potential.
Afigure of 8 (meaning a bridge somewhere in the ring) means we can not be sure to which extent the current will flow in every scenario of current draw at any particular times .
The other meaning for figure of 8 is the test we deliberately do on an unknown circuit to see if such bridges exist.

If a ring is designed properly then the loading during is its lifetime is meant to approximate that current draw will not be unduly imbalanced therefore both legs of the ring might be expected to draw very very approximately similar loads.
That is achieved by placing outlets around the ring and not bunched by load x time or by concentrating heaviest loads in the middle one third portion.

Nobody would go to great lengths to actually measure such and make calculations (except for research) but any half decent contractor would take a few mins to make a mental note and perhaps alter things slightly from first idea to make current draw more equal.

That`s the point of having a ring (along with volt drop and R1 + R2) considerations.
We try to avoid much beyond imbalance exceeding 20 to 12 amps on a 32A ring.

The point of this thread on this forum is one ring final circuit (not ring main that`s an incorrect term and applies to something else). One ring final circuit normally consiste of one ring connected at the fuseway.
My ramblings however show thay 2 rings (or more) connected as one ring final circuit are not unsafe and not non compliant but hey yes it is an unusual set up. Just because it is not shown in the OSG as a standard circuit does not make it become "wrong".

Take a spur (spur meaning a branch off the ring, not a S F C U or F C U - again wrong term).
We can spur anywhere off a ring with no more than one twin socket, at any point or at any JB or at the fuseway. That leaves us with a single bit of 2.5 T & E on a 30 or 32 amp fuse or breaker. it passes on short cct and earth fauly but not on overload, the overload protection is provided by the twin socket having a max rating of 13A and the plugtops each having a 13A fuse in making 26A possible (though unlikely) drawn.
Just a note that use of those little "Death Cubes" should be avoided as a rule of thumb ( Cheapo 13a adadaptors 2 way unfused as it means you could have a total of 4 x 13amp plugtops in a twin socket) they could be plugged in at any point on the ring or spur and are best avoided.

Actually, just to be a bit naughty - what is unsafe about a large number of radials, each one having not more than one twin socket and all connected by say one 32A MCB. Not actually unsafe proving the joints are reliable both electrically and mechanically and all volt drop and Zs are catered for.
I wouldn`t like to see it but it would not cause piles of dead bodies to litter the place.
 
If I start with this:

1617360076641.png


and add a loop like this:

1617360138941.png


or if I start with this:

1617360198264.png


and add a link across the middle to end up with the same figure of 8, which cable(s) become at risk of being overloaded that would not if I'd done this:

1617360486923.png


?


The more paths there are for current to flow to each point of loading the less flows in any given one, not more.

Ignoring the practical realities of actually wiring it, a "full mesh" topology of interconnections

1617360838697.png


would minimise the current flowing in every single cable (apart, obv, from the ones from the OPD to the "first" and "last" sockets, but those cables are never affected by any interconnection topology anyway).

And the more connections you have the harder it becomes to turn the circuit into radials, or to create multi-socket branches, by cutting connections.
 

Attachments

  • 1617359929031.png
    28.5 KB · Views: 2

Reply to Ring main. in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Similar Threads

Good evening. Currently sorting out my girlfriend’s flat for rent. I’ve found all sorts of bad electrical work. Can anyone advise if this is an...
Replies
18
Views
1K
Hi all I would like to put some sockets in the attic and keep them on the main house ring main. Am I right in saying I can pull one of the legs...
Replies
1
Views
242
This question has probably been asked several time but things change. The house I'm living in now was built in the 1960's and has a ring main...
Replies
15
Views
937
I would like to reuse a 10mm cable to provide a ring circuit in an area. The cable is currently used for an electric shower, still connected at...
Replies
10
Views
427
Hello, I need to run a mains spur off the existing ring main in a domestic property. To get the double socket to the correct place I have to drill...
Replies
3
Views
259

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
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

YOUR Unread Posts

This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock