SY cable on EICR again ....

[Fazz711]

Does Wikipedia say where in BS7671 it states that.

N P MHL ust

Does Wikipedia say where in BS7671 it states that.

N o

Does Wikipedia say where in BS7671 it states that.

No just that it Dosnt meet BS7671 for current carrying capacity in fault conditions.

 

[Fazz711]

Control cables aren't limited to ELV.

No but the vast majority of modern control is ELV.
Certainly in factory's

 

[nicebutdim]

No just that it Dosnt meet BS7671 for current carrying capacity in fault conditions.

Would you be comfortable citing Wikipedia as a source for coding on an EICR?

I certainly wouldn't.

No but the vast majority of modern control is ELV.
Certainly in factory's

This is true, but of no relevance.

You cited a dubious source in claiming that control cables are "only to be used for V less than 50" and that is patently untrue. Control cables, as with all cables, are to be used for voltages falling within the cable's specification.

Regardless of whether 95% or 99.99% of control cables are used to carry ELV, they are capable of carrying any voltage within manufacturer's specifcations and for many control cables the maximum voltage rating will fall somewhere within the low voltage band.

 

[Fazz711]

Would you be comfortable citing Wikipedia as a source for coding on an EICR?

I certainly wouldn't.



This is true, but of no relevance.

You cited a dubious source in claiming that control cables are "only to be used for V less than 50" and that is patently untrue. Control cables, as with all cables, are to be used for voltages falling within the cable's specification.

Regardless of whether 95% or 99.99% of control cables are used to carry ELV, they are capable of carrying any voltage within manufacturer's specifcations and for many control cables the maximum voltage rating will fall somewhere within the low voltage band.

Sorry I didn't claim control cables can only be ELV.
Only that SY which was designed as control should only be used for ELV

 

[Lister1987]

Chapter 13 should be all you need no?

132.5 (& 132.7) - External influences, UV exposure (granted indoors may be a stretch)

134.1.1 - Given the plethora of suitable cables, can we really make a case to suggest *Y family of cables is "good workmanship"? HO5/HO7 (or suitably certified BS EN cable ought to be the go to no?

You could no doubt pull some regs from Part 5 in addition but giving fundamental evidence should give you a start point, it's not for that clients to 'like', 'agree' or 'disagree, after all if they had the same engineering judgement as you then why waste money hiring you? My point is they want YOUR findings

Your signature on the paperwork, your balls (or -----...ladies) in the vice when the curly wig comes a knockin' with the gavel.

 

[davesparks]

Problem is that if you Code it finding a Regulation to reference it to. Saying it is not recognised by BS7671 isn't strictly accurate, just because it isn't reference in BS7671 does not mean it is forbidden by them.

I would be looking at 521.9.1 for a start with this one.

Also, as I understand it, a lot of SY cables dont have a BASEC approval or a stated compliance with a British standard.

 

[loz2754]

1.5mm is the minimum permitted size of cable for a power circuit so there is nothing specifically wrong with that being used for a 16A socket radial.

Agreed. In fact, in amendment 2, 1mm² is now permitted for power circuits.

Edit: just realised I'm repeating what's already been stated.

 

[nicebutdim]

Sorry I didn't claim control cables can only be ELV.
Only that SY which was designed as control should only be used for ELV

I don't want this to spiral into an argument, but feel compelled to point out the words to which I was referring. Please accept my apologies if there was some context that I'd missed.

Some of the specs on RS Web site say only to be used as control cable. Which is what it was made for due to the screening.
I have this argument all the time and did find a good back up on Wikipedia which states dose not comply with 7671 and only to be used for V less than 50.
Still find some of the te h guys and sparks use it.
I point blank refuse to touch it.

 

[nicebutdim]

134.1.1 - Given the plethora of suitable cables, can we really make a case to suggest *Y family of cables is "good workmanship"? HO5/HO7 (or suitably certified BS EN cable ought to be the go to no?

There are cables within the "*Y family" that conform to British standards. Is there a reason why you'd dismiss them in favour of HO5/HO7, when in many circumstances they'd be more suited to particular installations?

Edit:

The reg quoted by @davesparks in post #36 makes this very point.

 

[Fazz711]

There are cables within the "*Y family" that conform to British standards. Is there a reason why you'd dismiss them in favour of HO5/HO7, when in many circumstances they'd be more suited to particular installations?

Edit:

The reg quoted by @davesparks in post #36 makes this very point.

What reason would you use them other than shielded control cable when in the proximity of high frequency power cables?

 

[James]

A really informative document here.

https://docs.rs-online.com/e8b1/A700000007359373.pdf

 

[Vortigern]

Does the OSG quote a Regulation for that.

No, only obliquely by referring to the requirement to use BS/harmonised standards cabling.

 

[nicebutdim]

What reason would you use them other than shielded control cable when in the proximity of high frequency power cables?

The most obvious, and probably most widely used member of the *Y family of cables would be NYY-J, which has a plethora of uses.

The post I was responding to did not reference shielded control cables, but the *Y family of cables and went on to suggest HO5/HO7 as more suitable alternatives - neither of which are shielded.

Edit: In answer to your question; I don't design installations and simply work to the provided spec and often a BMS or EMS panel will have a small number of shielded control cables carrying 240V. Getting back to SY cable, while it could be argued that its 300V/500V rating allows for installation alongside cables carrying mains voltage, I'd contend that 16mm SY is unlikely to be intended solely for use with ELV.

 

[NMc]

This is an interesting topic which has digressed from the original point to whether the "Y" cable family should be used or not. In an attempt to add to the debate here is my contribution, ( a little long but as brief as I can).

Part One of the Regs is a good place to start

Regulation 133.1.1 states:- "Every item of equipment shall comply with the appropriate British or Harmonized Standard. In the absence of such a standard, reference shall be made to the appropriate International (IEC) standard or the appropriate standard of another country"

Regulation 133.1.3 states: - "Where equipment to be used is not in accordance with Regulation 133.1.1 or is used outside the scope of its standard, the designer or other person responsible for specifying shall confirm that the equipment provides at least the same degree of safety as that afforded by compliance with the Regulations".

Regulation 133.5 (New materials and inventions) states that "Where the use of a new material or invention leads to departures from the Regulations, the resulting degree of safety of the installation shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations. Such use is to be noted on the Electrical Installation Certificate specified in Part 6.

As Eland Cables state compliance with British and European performance test standards, these regulations basically allow its use and the designer (which could be the installer) needs to confirm on the certification documentation.

However as this type of cable has been manufactured for flexible control cables, designed for measurement and control in equipment careful consideration should be given before use as fixed installation power cables.

There has also been comments made about the braiding on this type of cable. Unlike SWA cables the braiding is for screening purposes only and should not be used as a CPC. Using the correct glands will ensure that this braiding is connected to earth. The cpc of this type of cable should be a core conductor coloured green and yellow.

Now going back to the original question by Lozarus regarding coding. Coding can be another big debate but I always ask myself two questions. Is there an immediate risk of electric shock (open live parts) if not it can not be code C1. Is there a risk of shock if a fault/failure occurs again if not it can be code C2 . That now leaves us with a code C3 to use.

Therefore I feel that use use of this type of cable can only be C3

 

[LeeH]

A really informative document here.

https://docs.rs-online.com/e8b1/A700000007359373.pdf

I cannot take a document seriously that describes SY as armoured.

 

[Jason Townley]

The use of SY cable is "discouraged" within BS7671:2018+A2 2022 On Site Guide Section 7.9, as generally it is not manufactured to a British or Harmonized standard.
It is not rated for external use or for use in ducts. It's normally classed as a control cable rather than a power cable.
On an EICR it should be recorded as a non-compliance.

 

[bill01803]

NICEIC recommend C3 on an EICR just for use of SY

 

[plugsandsparks]

I dont understand why it is so popular, i have even seen it used on a 350KVA generator for power.
Its horrible, whenever you touch the screen, which i would only earth one end anyway, its expensive for what it is and there are better cables for all the uses we come across. I think its toughness is an illusion and its outdoor performance is shocking. However, unless it has damage, i would C3 it as there are better products out there, that will last and perform better under most circumstance

 

[KungFuTurkeyLeg]

Depending on the size of the company, ie, has a H&S department or H&S. I'd just use the phrase that's it's not compliant with BS standards and insurance would likely not cover any incident arising from its failure. Whether that 2nd part of the statement is true or not I wouldn't know. But it may start the conversations along the lines if "what if he's correct and we have a fire or death".

My last company with 30,000+ employees would have started a switch out programme on a phrase like that. Quite proactive to be fair to them. One guy cut himself badly stripping a cable with an electricians knife, next week they were banned and a bunch of new bespoke tools appeared that couldn't get you.

Depends on the company you work for I guess. I'd emphasise the poor workmanship items over the construction of the cable in conversation. Like the glanding, poor terminations, etc. and back it up with a mention of the outdoor cable being close to failing being non BS approved.