Please advise.
Below is an extract from the Heva cable data base for 4-C XLPE/SWA (LSF) cable.
And below extract from Prysmian data sheet for the same cable.
As can been seen the Heva data utilises a larger CSA of armour, which would give rise to move favourable conditions due to the higher quantity of earth conductor.
Can you please clarify the data used for the SWA armour used in multi core SWA cables for CPC, and advise the implications of the larger CSA of armour.
Hi Stuart,We understand that these values for the XPLE cables were taken directly from 17th edition regulation cable data. However there is manufacturer specific data if you instead select the Draka FT or FTP cables. These contain data which should be more in line with that specified.
(Please note that we are aware that Draka have added additional sizes to this range since - this is being reviewed at present by our Content team to see if they can be added to Hevacomp).
Shane Regan | Principle Building Performance Support EngineerHevacomp to OpenBuildings - A complete guide for every user | Bentley Communities
Shane,
This error occurs in both the PVC and XLPE versions of the Heva armoured cable data.
Can you advise what the Draka equivalents are for SWA LSF and SWA PVC. I believe the FPT120 is the LSF but I've no idea what the PVC one is.
I've just run a calculation based on the Draka (FPT120) data from a previous project and I'm getting a number of disconnection errors based on the generic data as this has an oversized armour. Coupled with the fact I'm unable to select the PVC version for 70 degree operating temps.
Worth noting BS7671 17th edition does specify the CPC of the armour only the CCC of the cable which has not changed in the 18th edition.
I'm sure I'm not the only user of the software which assumes the generic cable data to contain the correct armour size, I would be interested to see what other users think.
Please confirm the correct cable types to use for PVC and LSF SWA multi core cables cables.
Stuart,This is being investigated with product management.
To the best of our knowledge the Firetuf FTP120 cable is the equivalent to the LSF SWA however there does not appear to an equivalent to the PVC cable upon first review.
Your patience would be appreciated.
Stuart,
Just a courtesy message to let you know the status of this. We are looking into this for you at the moment, but as consulting the manufacturers data and selecting the cable deemed most applicable in the software is usually a matter for the design engineer responsible for the project rather than for us, this will take some time. I will however let you know as soon as I have any further information.
With respect, I have highlighted to you a substantial error within your software.
it's not an unreasonable assumption to expect the default cable data for SWA PVC and LSF cable to be correct.
And considering the Draka cable for LSF SWA cable is Saffire BS6724 Armoued Cable, and the PVC is BS5467, neither of which is available in the cable selection menu, its not unreasonable for me to ask the software provider which cable I should be using.
I have a number of projects on site with cables sized on the default cable data which are now not suitable, and projects in design which I cant complete because the correct data is not available.
Yes I can appreciate your concern hence we are looking into this in depth for you.
I have reworked the standard XLPE and PVC SWA cable types and created new cables files with the correct armour size, resistance and capacitance in order to move this forward internally. We would expect to see this picked up formally as an update in due course.
Can I have a response please as it appears to have gone quiet with the hope that this can be brushed under the carpet.
Hi Stuart,
We are reviewing this data for accuracy but have some conflicting information to check which is taking some time. Rest assured that once we have fully investigated we will make the appropriate actions. In the meantime it is good to know you have updated your cable data to satisfy your requirements.
Do you not think Bentley should be notifying all of their users that the standard cables are not as per the manufactures data and the system upon they rely on to size cables is in fact not accurate?