ring main 2 spurs joined up

[sammoseley]

hi,
just found out that 2 spurs off the ring main are joined together so effectively there is another mini-ring off the main ring main, hope this is explained OK, is this something I need to get re-done or is it OK leaving as it is?
sorry if not explained well
any advice appreciated
cheers
sam

 

[ricicle]

It is not immediately dangerous but needs sorting whenever possible

 

[JohnnyG]

Is this what's known as a ring within a ring?

 

[sammoseley]

cheers, I will look to get it sorted then which should hopefully not be a major job....thanks sam

 

[1john]

Is this what's known as a ring within a ring?

yes

 

[riveralt]

It is not immediately dangerous but needs sorting whenever possible

Interconnections should be sorted as soon as possible.

Depending on the layout of the ring final circuit and the position of the interconnection, a fault in the wrong place can put a potentially significant overload on one side of the ring.

 

[plugwash]

Fault currents aren't really the issue, any ring has better and worse places for creating fault currents and interconnects or not the worst place is right next to the CU.

The real issue with interconnects are

1: their impact on ring balance. How bad an interconnect is depends hugely on where on the ring it is. Indeed in some cases it may actually make things better electrically. In other cases it can mean most of the rings load going down one leg.
2: they make it very difficult to effectively do ring continuity testing.

 

[ricicle]

It is not immediately dangerous but needs sorting whenever possible

Interconnections should be sorted as soon as possible.

Depending on the layout of the ring final circuit and the position of the interconnection, a fault in the wrong place can put a potentially significant overload on one side of the ring.

But it is not immediately dangerous - you wouldn't code 1 it on a PIR !

 

[riveralt]

But it is not immediately dangerous - you wouldn't code 1 it on a PIR !

I would say it was code 1 ='Requires urgent attention' because the alternatives such as code 2 = 'Requires improvement' just doesn't meet the criteria for this type of bad practice.

The distinction between the codes for PIR's is often subjective - my own view is whether I would want this configuration in my house and the answer would be no - so I would sort it asap.

 

[ricicle]

But it is not immediately dangerous - you wouldn't code 1 it on a PIR !

I would say it was code 1 ='Requires urgent attention' because the alternatives such as code 2 = 'Requires improvement' just doesn't meet the criteria for this type of bad practice.

The distinction between the codes for PIR's is often subjective - my own view is whether I would want this configuration in my house and the answer would be no - so I would sort it asap.

As always codes are down to the individual but if you go with general guidance then Code 2 is the way to go in this case (it is not posing immediate danger !

 

[riveralt]

As always codes are down to the individual but if you go with general guidance then Code 2 is the way to go in this case (it is not posing immediate danger !

Having read the ESC interpretation I agree that this is a Code 2....

However, the advice you gave to the OP

It is not immediately dangerous but needs sorting whenever possible

is misleading, in so much as, if you are following the ESC interpretation then the correct term, as I said, would be ' remedial action should be taken as soon as possible to improve the safety of the installation'.

What do you say - 1 - 1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The distinction between the codes for PIR's is often subjective.

And relative?

If it was one of only one or two things you found you might make it a 1.

If you also found no main earth, undersized conductors with signs of melting and burning, exposed live parts etc would you still make it a 1?