Using earth wire in 3-core cable (for Nest install)

One can clearly see the problem, with a single it would need over sleeving for the whole of it's length, but with a multi-core it only needs over sleeving for the whole of the exposed area so no bi-colour combination green-and-yellow can be seen.
 
Sponsored Links
One can clearly see the problem, with a single it would need over sleeving for the whole of it's length, but with a multi-core it only needs over sleeving for the whole of the exposed area so no bi-colour combination green-and-yellow can be seen.
That obviously makes some sense. However, although it's not something that anyone would normally need to do (unless they ran out of brown cable!), the regs do not seem to forbid, for example, the 'identification' of a blue single as line/live by just over-sleeving with brown at the ends - even though that raises exactly the same issue for anyone who was crazy enough to blindly break into the single somewhere along the length, assuming that blue meant neutral! It is only over-sleeving of a G/Y single (for use as something other than a protective conductor) that appears to be specifically forbidden.

In any event, I'm not sure that your argument holds that much water, since if the aforementioned crazy person were to blindly cut into the middle of length of multi-core cable (s)he would still be faced with just a G/Y-insulated core, without knowing if it had been over-sleeved (say with brown, for use as an L conductor), at the (original) ends of the cable.

Kind Regards, John
 
...a multi-core ... only needs over sleeving for the whole of the exposed area so no bi-colour combination green-and-yellow can be seen.
I don't think that's the intention of the regulations. Granted I don't think I'd be happy with only a partial sleeving of G/Y cores (ie I'd want to cover all the way to the sheath as you'd suggested) but I believe the regulation may be more about ensuring clarification in the rest of the installation.

So for green/yellow you can't break the 70/30 (or whatever the ratio is) rule for identification of earth and have a yellow cable with a thin green line at 90/10 and call it a specially ID'd L2 conductor (in pre-2004 parlance). Likewise you should have numbered and coloured cable ID tags with that combination in case that again causes confusion.
 
I believe you are missing a crucial point regarding that first sentence. If you look earlier in that section (it's my turn not be be close to my copy!) you will find that, as I've been saying in this thread, an acceptable form of 'identification' is over-sleeving at the ends (regardless of the insulation under that over-sleeving).
I agree - but, as above, I don't believe you have read (or, at least, fully assimilated) all the "words that are there" in the section.
I have no idea which text you're referring to. I cannot find any text in 514 that would support your argument.
 
Sponsored Links
I have no idea which text you're referring to. I cannot find any text in 514 that would support your argument.
514.3.1 Except where idenification is not required by regulation 514.6, cores of cables shall be identified by:- (i) colour as required by Regulation 514.4 ...
514.3.2 Every core of a cable shall be identified at its terminations and preferably throughout its length. Binding and sleeves should comply with with BS 3858 where appropriate.
Also ... Appendix 3 ... 1 .... BS7671 has been modified to align with these cables, but also allows other methods of marking connections by colour (tapes, sleeves, or discs) ....

I (and I know from past discussions that I'm not alone) take that to mean that a conductor with any native colour of insulation can be "identified" to the satisfaction of BS 7671 by, inter alia, over-sleeving at the terminations (albeit 'preferably', but not compulsorily, along its whole length) - and there is nothing I can see in 514 (apart from the specific case of G/Y singles in 514.4.2) to say that does not apply in all situations.

Hence, I take it to mean that any conductor (other than a G/Y single) can be acceptably 'identified' as a line conductor by over-sleeving with brown (or black) at it's terminations - and that includes, inter alia, a core of a multi-core cable whose native insulation colour is G/Y.

You presumably disagree - but all I've done is read the words in BS 7671!

Kind Regards, John
 
As well as reading the words, you've added 2 + 2... and made 327.468.

Those provisions do not affect the clear and straightforward requirement of 514.4.2.

"The bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor and this combination shall not be used for any other purpose."
 
Those provisions do not affect the clear and straightforward requirement of 514.4.2. ... "The bi-colour combination green-and-yellow shall be used exclusively for identification of a protective conductor and this combination shall not be used for any other purpose."
I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's all a question of what BS 7671 regards as "used for identification". My interpretation is that, as far as 'identification' is concerned, over-sleeving over-rides native insulation colour. Hence, when the terminations of a blue-insulated conductor is over-sleeved with brown, then that satisfactorily identifies it as a live conductor - in other words, it is the brown sleeving, not the underlying blue insulation which is being "used for identification".

If you accept that (which maybe you don't) then, by analogy, if one overs-sleeves a G/Y-insulated conductor with brown sleeving, it is the brown sleeving, not the underlying G/Y insulation, which is being "used for identification" - so G/Y is not being "used for identification" of something which is not a protective conductor (which, if it were, would be in violation of 514.4.2).

As above, we're probably not going to agree about this - but, FWIW, I know that I am not the only person to interpret the regs in this way. None of this alters the fact that, as I've said, I would personally not over-sleeve a G/Y, and would not regard that as 'good practice'.

Kind Regards, John
 
What a contrived argument! I do hope that nobody is mislead by your posting.

The requirement is stated a little differently in the basic standard, which I'll try to post an extract from when I can boot up the work laptop.
 
Logically, I don't think you can argue with John but -

411.3.1.1 & 412.2.3.2 take precedence.

I know two cables to the same place have been mentioned so it may be technically possible but I can't see the need.
 
What a contrived argument! I do hope that nobody is mislead by your posting.
Needless to say, I see nothing contrived - it seems to me to be a straightforward interpretation of the words. BTW, it was not originally 'my argument' - I 'learnt' it from someone here (can't remember who), and then decided that I agreed with it. Also, there is also the oft-quoted fact that at least one 'official body' (was it ESC? or NIC?) has given it's blessing to over-sleeving of G/Y cores in flex - so it's certainly not just me who might be 'misleading' people.
The requirement is stated a little differently in the basic standard, which I'll try to post an extract from when I can boot up the work laptop.
That would be interesting - although that will not, of course, alter the wording of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John
 
Logically, I don't think you can argue with John but -
Thank you, but I don't think that will stop him :)
411.3.1.1 & 412.2.3.2 take precedence.
I agree - and that's why, even for those comfortable to do it, the scope for over-sleeving G/Y's is pretty limited.
I know two cables to the same place have been mentioned so it may be technically possible but I can't see the need.
That's the point. These discussions commonly arise in relation to CH 'control centres' etc.. With multiple cables going to those places, the absence of a CPC in one of the cables presumably does not result in violation of 4113.1.1 or 412.2.3.2.

Kind Regards, John
 
That would be interesting - although that will not, of course, alter the wording of BS7671.
It doesn't need to, BS7671 is perfectly clear on this subject, unless you choose to contrive an argument that the colour of the conductor's insulation does not constitute the identification.

Having checked the basic standard (60445) on a local backup, I don't think it would lead to a change in your misconception, so I will not prolong the argument as that risks exposing readers to further attempts to justify the dangerous practice of using conductors that are intended to be used as protective conductors.
 
With multiple cables going to those places, the absence of a CPC in one of the cables presumably does not result in violation of 4113.1.1 or 412.2.3.2.
The cables in question (including the wiring centre itself) would be protected by double or reinforced insulation, so are fine.
 
With multiple cables going to those places, the absence of a CPC in one of the cables presumably does not result in violation of 4113.1.1 or 412.2.3.2.
The cables in question (including the wiring centre itself) would be protected by double or reinforced insulation, so are fine.
That's not the point. 412.2.3.2 says "... a circuit supplying one or more items of Class II equipment shall have a CPC run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory" - so your double/reinforced insulation wiring centre therefore does require a CPC to be run to (and terminated within) it. However, if that requirement is satisfied by at least one cable entering it, that theoretically removes the need for CPCs in other cables going to the same place.

Kind Regards, John
 
BS7671 is perfectly clear on this subject, unless you choose to contrive an argument that the colour of the conductor's insulation does not constitute the identification.
OK - so, to be sure I understand you ... do I therefore take it that your belief is that when the ends of a blue-insulated conductor are over-sleeved with brown sleeving that it is the blue insulation that is "the identification" of that conductor (identifying it as a line conductor)??

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top