FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Rosjes on June 21, 2007, 09:16:02 AM

Title: Armoured cable
Post by: Rosjes on June 21, 2007, 09:16:02 AM

Can anyone advise on the suitability of using swa cable for critical path signalling on an analogue addressable detection loop? Thanks in anticipation.

Title: Armoured cable
Post by: Wiz on June 21, 2007, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: Rosjes

Can anyone advise on the suitability of using swa cable for critical path signalling on an analogue addressable detection loop? Thanks in anticipation.

There are lots of different types of SWA cable.

You will need to ask the fire panel manufacturer if the cable characteristics are suitable for the type of data transmission being used.

You will need to ask the cable manufacturer if the cable complies with standard (or enhanced, if necessary) fgrade fire resistance to BS5839 Part 1 2002.

Title: Armoured cable
Post by: Goodsparks on June 21, 2007, 05:41:03 PM

Pirelli (or Prysman as they`re now called) FP400 Is a SWA equiv. of standard grade FP200

Paul

Title: Armoured cable
Post by: Rosjes on June 25, 2007, 04:51:53 PM

Thanks for your help guys

Title: Armoured cable
Post by: Wiz on June 25, 2007, 05:22:01 PM

Quote from: Goodsparks

Pirelli (or Prysman as they`re now called) FP400 Is a SWA equiv. of standard grade FP200

Paul

Paul, I don't want to be 'picky', but the Prysmian web site describes FP400 as:

Tough armoured power cable for essential services. When you need continuous power supply for emergency services, FP400® makes all the difference. FP400® has been the cable choice for many projects and applications where previously only MICC has been approved for use.

The mechanical strength of MICC is surely nowhere close to SWA. If it is going to be direct buried or have vehicles driving over it, you would want it to be as strong as 'traditional' SWA cables and not MICC!

Also other cables in their range mention 'fire' applications and are described as:

BASEC and LPCB approved to the BS5839-1:2002 requirements for "standard" or "enhanced" cables

But not this one!

Also the description specifically describes it as a 'power cable'. Could this mean it is not so good for transmission of high frequency data?

Obviously, this cable may be perfectly suitable for Rosjes application, but, if I was him I would research it much more before using it.