lkayelectrical
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2011
- Messages
- 348
- Reaction score
- 0
having no grommets in flush back boxs is this worthey of a PIR code?
L
L
grommets
- Thread starter lkayelectrical
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
may not even need a code dependning on circumstances
Doc Hudson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,619
- Reaction score
- 230
Which one would you be thinking of and what regulation are you suggesting it fails to meet?
Doc H.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,016
- Reaction score
- 43
A little bedtime reading for you
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/industry/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/industry/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf
I think its a Code of Practice , TBH, I always fit them , it just looks wrong without them. However, with picking it up on a PIR is , I think a code 4 . Its not the biggest deal in the world , if it hasn't shorted to earth after N years it probably never will.
Code 4 if the cable insulation is undamaged, Code 2 if it is damaged.
AndyGuinness
AndyGuinness
Theorysparky
Domestic Electrician
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,232
- Reaction score
- 0
mechanical protection ?????
Risteard
Senior Member
Grommets are to provide protection against abrasion, not mechanical protection.
Theorysparky
Domestic Electrician
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,232
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok i can see that
so it gets a code of 2/4 dependant on condition of cable
if its a 4 then whats the reference in the red book ?????
i would have thought mechanical protection
could be wrong but thats my take on it
if there is no reference then surely it cant be coded,,,,could be wrong
if it cant be coded then why is it in the 2391 practical exam
?:|
so it gets a code of 2/4 dependant on condition of cable
if its a 4 then whats the reference in the red book ?????
i would have thought mechanical protection
could be wrong but thats my take on it
if there is no reference then surely it cant be coded,,,,could be wrong
if it cant be coded then why is it in the 2391 practical exam
?:|
Last edited by a moderator:
Abrasion would be mechanical damage, thus the grommet provides mechanical protection.
I spent 3 hours chasing a fault today, 32A breaker for the downstairs ring circuit would not reset.
This fault was caused by the cable caught on the knockout stuby bit left over and no grommet. The installation looked about 10 years old, the cable was loose under the floor, behind the skirting and into the socket, so it took 10 years to wear through
This fault was caused by the cable caught on the knockout stuby bit left over and no grommet. The installation looked about 10 years old, the cable was loose under the floor, behind the skirting and into the socket, so it took 10 years to wear through
guess who owns a FLUKE,? 
Well spotted young man.guess who owns a FLUKE,?
martinxxxxxx
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 0
522.8
---------- Post Auto-Merged at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was made at 18:43 ----------
From p31 of GN3 Under insulated cables 3. Protected against mechanical Damage and Abrasion.
For me this is a Code 2 based on Select News - April 2010
Extract .
The Sheriff
---------- Post Auto-Merged at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was made at 18:43 ----------
From p31 of GN3 Under insulated cables 3. Protected against mechanical Damage and Abrasion.
For me this is a Code 2 based on Select News - April 2010
Extract .
The Sheriff
Martin,
Whilst you are not wrong, if I remember this incident correctly the sheath was not inside the enclosure and the install was not correctly designed, so several factors, in which case yes a 2.
If the grommets thing is the ONLY issue then perhaps a 4 would be a better code.
However, it is difficult to correctly PIR an install without seeing it.
Hence why drive by PIR's are so bad!
Whilst you are not wrong, if I remember this incident correctly the sheath was not inside the enclosure and the install was not correctly designed, so several factors, in which case yes a 2.
If the grommets thing is the ONLY issue then perhaps a 4 would be a better code.
However, it is difficult to correctly PIR an install without seeing it.
Hence why drive by PIR's are so bad!
martinxxxxxx
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 0
It is all there in the link I provide, talking a about drive by pirs I spoke to a chap in the toolstation the other day who claims he can do a pir in 2 hours. I said how is that poss it takes me 20 mins to make sure that everything is unplugged. His method was to miss out L-N x over and R1+R2 as he say it is the same as Zs and has no value to the test.
Personally I like to do more time on inspection than on test. I charge the money to cover this. I am not over zealous but IMO and abrasion could lead to a fire and could be considered a code 1 if there is a likelyhood that movement will occur at the point of the possible abrasion.
These are the only 3 findings he made
Personally I like to do more time on inspection than on test. I charge the money to cover this. I am not over zealous but IMO and abrasion could lead to a fire and could be considered a code 1 if there is a likelyhood that movement will occur at the point of the possible abrasion.
These are the only 3 findings he made
I agree Martin, more time on Inspection rather than test.
Mind R1+R2 is more time consuming and "difficult" on in use installs than Zs and it is Zs that will disconnect the breaker/RCD.
So doing Zs only is acceptable IMHO.
If you have RCD's then Insulation resistance "could" be skipped as if the RCD is holding then the insulation is "probably" OK.
Again for an "in use" install it may be difficult to isolate the board to take insulation resistances of the final circuits.
Remember you cannot work live in a board unless essential and a sharp expert witness would hang you out to dry if you were working live in a board to do an insulation resistance test on a final circuit (or a sub main) on a PIR unless the board were fully isolated.
OK on my "general recommendations" then I agree Code 2 on a PIR. I did not check your link as I had some recall of the case from elsewhere.
My reason, by the time the install caught fire these faults should have been picked up and with the number of them relevant to the circuit then defo a code 2.
The cumulation of faults and poorly implemented additions and modifications shows a real lack of competence by the people undertaking these works.
This seems to be endemic of the industry due to IMHO lack of training, and experience (i.e. competence) and cost pressures on those competent to take short cuts to compete for work to enable them to keep a roof over their heads and feed their kids because these days even on commercial work you have to compete with the incompetents who don't care, don't have the overheads and will do the work for the price of a pint in the local!
On another install with the correctly coordinated circuit protection, and the sheath taken inside the DB with no damage evident when doing the PIR I would go for a code 4.
Once a we (the incompetents that is) kill a few more people then perhaps things will change.
It is within all of our powers to change things, but the method is not a pleasant one.
Guess what we have to do...
On second thoughts DON'T!
You get my drift I'm sure.
Not a very palatable option is it?
So don't do it.
However unless people die or the cost to business is extortionate nothing will change.
Rant over, sorry all, :coat
Mind R1+R2 is more time consuming and "difficult" on in use installs than Zs and it is Zs that will disconnect the breaker/RCD.
So doing Zs only is acceptable IMHO.
If you have RCD's then Insulation resistance "could" be skipped as if the RCD is holding then the insulation is "probably" OK.
Again for an "in use" install it may be difficult to isolate the board to take insulation resistances of the final circuits.
Remember you cannot work live in a board unless essential and a sharp expert witness would hang you out to dry if you were working live in a board to do an insulation resistance test on a final circuit (or a sub main) on a PIR unless the board were fully isolated.
OK on my "general recommendations" then I agree Code 2 on a PIR. I did not check your link as I had some recall of the case from elsewhere.
My reason, by the time the install caught fire these faults should have been picked up and with the number of them relevant to the circuit then defo a code 2.
The cumulation of faults and poorly implemented additions and modifications shows a real lack of competence by the people undertaking these works.
This seems to be endemic of the industry due to IMHO lack of training, and experience (i.e. competence) and cost pressures on those competent to take short cuts to compete for work to enable them to keep a roof over their heads and feed their kids because these days even on commercial work you have to compete with the incompetents who don't care, don't have the overheads and will do the work for the price of a pint in the local!
On another install with the correctly coordinated circuit protection, and the sheath taken inside the DB with no damage evident when doing the PIR I would go for a code 4.
Once a we (the incompetents that is) kill a few more people then perhaps things will change.
It is within all of our powers to change things, but the method is not a pleasant one.
Guess what we have to do...
On second thoughts DON'T!
You get my drift I'm sure.
Not a very palatable option is it?
So don't do it.
However unless people die or the cost to business is extortionate nothing will change.
Rant over, sorry all, :coat
