18th Edition - Plastic cable clips?

Status
Not open for further replies.
eveares

eveares

Joined
28 Jul 2012
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
55
Location
Surrey
Country
United Kingdom
With the 18th edition (don't have a copy yet), what applications can you still use conventional plastic cable clips?

Do you have to use metallic cable clips holding cables on to joists in the void between ceilings and the floor above, and how about attic spaces?

Regards: Elliott.
 
521.10.202   Wiring systems shall be supported such that they will not be liable to premature collapse in the event of a fire.
NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes may hinder evacuation and firefighting activities.
NOTE 2: Cables installed in or on steel cable containment systems are deemed to meet the requirements of this regulation.
NOTE 3: This regulation precludes, for example, the use of non-metallic cable clips or cable ties as the sole means of
support where cables are clipped direct to exposed surfaces or suspended under cable tray, and the
use of non-metallic cable trunking as the sole means of support of the cables therein.
NOTE 4: Suitably spaced steel or copper clips, saddles or ties are examples that will meet the requirements of this regulation.
 
I would personally say that this is probably another example of a badly worded reg. Whilst the one sentence of the reg proper, and also Note 3, imply that the reg applies to any surface-mounted/attached cable (which appears to be the intention), Note 1 might be taken to suggest that the reg only applied to escape routes (as in 17th).
 
Regulation 521.10.202, which gives requirements for the methods of support of wiring systems, has replaced
Regulation 521.11.201. This is a significant change. Regulation 521.10.202 requires cables to be adequately
supported against their premature collapse in the event of a fire and applies throughout the installation, not
just in escape routes as previously.
 
Exactly. For once, the "intent" of a regulation (i.e. how it is intended to be interpreted) is made clear in the Introduction to BS7671:2018 [which is why I wrote "(which appears to be the intention)"]. However, it would, in my opinion, be desirable that the regulation (well, actually the associated Notes) should be clearer since, except perhaps when someone first sees a new version of the regs, very few people will even look at the Introduction.
As far as I can see, the Note (to the reg) about egress/access routes is totally unnecessarily (since the reg applies to any location), but could lead to confusions and misuderstandings.
 
JohnW2 said:
..since, except perhaps when someone first sees a new version of the regs, very few people will even look at the Introduction.
Click to expand...
I suggest that in that case the responsibility for not understanding a regulation lies entirely with them.

The regulations are not an instruction manual, or a teaching textbook.
 
Back to brass buckle clips then?

or builders band for tight wads....
 
if you used plastic conduit, but supported it with metal saddles, it seems to me that even after the plastic melted away, the wire would still be supported by the saddles. This would not take much effort.
 
What is it about "Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes may hinder evacuation and firefighting activities" that you question?
 
IHNI what you mean.

It surely cannot be what you wrote, i.e. it's allowed to have wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes....
 
I think that was EFL's point. The wording is not correct for regulations. I agree with him.
 
I was unaware that words used according to correct English meaning and usage could not be used in regulations.

Do either of you have an authoritative source which agrees with that idea?

I ask because according to my dictionaries 'may' means expressing possibility.
 
Is your dictionary correct or, as in frequent discussion where you have abhored such things, pandering to the usage of those who are ignorant or mistaken?

You do seem recently to be arguing against things you used to argue for.

The sentence in question could have used 'can' instead of 'may'. You frequently tell people they may do things but do not know if they can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top