CU change - ring on end of radial

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The kitchen is about 12 feet square. There are 7 double sockets, 5 above the worktops, 2 low down on an empty wall. There's also a FCU to feed the boiler.

Just the usual kitchen appliances, microwave, toaster, kettle and dishwasher (washing machine and td in utility room on a separate circuit)

So nothing unusual.

The kitchen at it's closest point is about 25 feet from the CU, so assuming the 6mm goes all the way to the kitchen that gives a rough indication of it's length.

Ring continuity in the kitchen tests okay (and importantly the same) measured at every socket. Every socket was tested to confirm it really was a ring, not a radial branch circuit in 2.5 I've not tested r1+r2 at the cu end yet, but that will give an indication of the length of 6mm involved.

The dual fuel cooker is on it's own circuit, and this "lolipop" circuit feeds only the kitchen sockets.

At least now the gas and water are bonded, so as soon as I've completed the other modifications (utility and new shower room) I'll complete the CU change.

Customer has not asked me to do anything other than CU change and these few modifications, I merely posed the original question as I had not encountered such a circuit before.

So I have convinced myself that it's fine to proceed with the CU change, even if I never find the junction from the 6mm to the ring final, which more than likely is under a downstairs floorboard, or behind a wall. I doubt it's plastered in as most of this house is dry lined with plasterboard.

 
I think this thread (and others) show two different approaches to the regs.

1) If its not explicitly allowed in them then its wrong.

2) If it's not explicitly denied in them its ok.

At the end of the day it's up to the person on the spot to make the call, is the circuit safe ?, thats all that really counts, as has been pointed out the regs are a guidline as to ONE way that the statutory legislation can be achieved.

Thats just my thoughts as a would be sparky :)

 
Trailer boy:

I think the discussion is not centred around whether or not this particular circuit complies; but if a "lollipop" type circuit, in general CAN comply....

That, at least, was the basis I was replying on.....................

KME

 
I think this thread (and others) show two different approaches to the regs.1) If its not explicitly allowed in them then its wrong.

2) If it's not explicitly denied in them its ok.

At the end of the day it's up to the person on the spot to make the call, is the circuit safe ?, thats all that really counts, as has been pointed out the regs are a guidline as to ONE way that the statutory legislation can be achieved.

Thats just my thoughts as a would be sparky :)
Regs do not and cannot cover every eventuality in detail. What it does specify is cable sizes, MCBs, Disconnection times, max circuit loading etc. etc.. From this you then need to calculate your own numbers to show compliance or not with the above. That's why so much of the BRB is tables and fomulae, and as skilled trained sparks we have to know how to work these things out.

The circuit in discussion would be fine fed in 4mm never mind 6mm and 32A MCB. Couldn't give a monkeys' whether its a funny shape or not - work it out, it complies. :)

 
Here we go again.

How do you know it complies with 433.1.1? 32A is not suitable for protecting 2.5mm. Can we agree on that at least?

 
How do you know it complies with 433.1.1? 32A is not suitable for protecting 2.5mm. Can we agree on that at least?
No

32 Type b 60898, fusing factor 1.45 = Must trip within 1 hour at 46.4 amps

If i place a 46.4 load between the two legs at the mid point of a ring the load will be split between the two legs.

So we know it will trip within 1 hour at that load and the split load will equal 23.2 amps per leg, now 2.5 is 27 amps.

Is the cable protected yes.

The key is even distribution of load.

Now common sense tells us that if i place some 6mm in front of this ring it not going to have a major impact on the current distribution of the circuit, in fact you could use the radial to ensure even current distribution.

Now lets not forget a standard ring is 2.5 and protected by a 32 mcb so where the problem?

 
And what if the load wasn't at the midpoint? Assuming its at the midpoint is not only bad design, it shows you have not got a grasp on reality.

If you are going to run a 6mm then why not just run a proper ring in. As most of you know anyway, I do not like rings.

If its an existing 6mm feed with a 32A MCB then why not just run a 4mm (or greater depending on derating) radial from it which would be a recognised circuit rather than this quasi ring/radial 'lollipop' that seems to be 'floating your boats'?

As for calculation, I would put (someone elses) money on that the circuit in the OP was not calculated but just stuffed in by a kitchen fitter/handyman/diy(/plumber :p ).

 
Indeed it could but you can stand behind the BRB still complying with 433.1.1 using 433.1.5 but not in the lollipop case.
because the difference is what?

a 6mm can alone carry 32A,

a 2.5 on a ring can carry 32A

so please explain where the non compliance exists.

now, I DONT like RF circuits, I prefer radials, but if you have a method of installing a cable that the regs state are acceptable for a 32A load then surely you cannot condemn it just because you dont know how to interpet the regs from a different perspective as to the standard.

 
Thread now closed. Everything has been said and things are starting to get personal.

Don't let me catch any of you starting a new thread with the aim of carrying on the discussion.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top