Is there a standard that requires fiber to be in inner duct in its own duct separate from copper cables? We have a contractor that pulled 148 strands dialectic fiber and 400 pair copper through same duct bank and want him to separate them. He pulled inner duct as part of the project but did not use it. He has created a maintenance issue and says show me the standard that has to have separate paths/ducts/inner ducts. I can not find it in the TIA, hopefully someone smarter than me already knows it and can reference it for me.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Standard for Fiber and Copper separation in outside plant ducts
- Thread starter PMPEglin
- Start date
OzzieGeorge
Programmer
Where in the world are you? Standards vary but I can't immediately think of a compelling reason to segregate them! What is the maintenance issue?
jimbopalmer
Programmer
If the fiber cable's strengthening member is conductive, I could see separating it from powered cable, if your fiber cable has a non conducting material throughout, I see no reason to separate it.
When possible, I placed my fiber runs below 5Kva electrical runs, just so I would KNOW who dug them up. <G>
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
When possible, I placed my fiber runs below 5Kva electrical runs, just so I would KNOW who dug them up. <G>
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
mikeydidit
IS-IT--Management
Well the only real problem I see, is the contractor did not use the inner duct he charged the customer for. And I would also go so far as to say, it was probably bought for the fiber to be installed in. I can't see taking a chance of pulling in a 400 pair on top of a 148 fiber to begin with. Little lone with it not being in an inner duct.
I remember that their was a standard (note not a code) that said something to the effect that fiber cables would be installed in a inner duct to protect the fiber cables. I looked in the ITSI manual and couldn't find it. But their is a "standard" for it I'm sure.
When is the last time you helped someone, just because you were able to?
For the best response to a question, read faq690-6594
I remember that their was a standard (note not a code) that said something to the effect that fiber cables would be installed in a inner duct to protect the fiber cables. I looked in the ITSI manual and couldn't find it. But their is a "standard" for it I'm sure.
When is the last time you helped someone, just because you were able to?
For the best response to a question, read faq690-6594
- Thread starter
- #6
Thanks all for the input.
Vendor was supposed to install a new MH and duct system with four 4" ducts. Two were supposed to be spare 4" ducts for future expansion, one 4" with fiber inside inner duct and one 4" duct with the copper.
End result, two completely full 4" ducts of inner duct, one 4" duct with fiber and copper (believed to be pulled at same time) and one spare 4" duct.
We have a lot of lightning and have lost fiber in the past due to consolidation of copper/fiber. Even the best grounds don't prevent direct hits or melted fiber...
I think were stuck with it as the design specs are not clear enough to warrant contract enforcement. Guess we should be happy to get all the extra inner duct not required...
Vendor was supposed to install a new MH and duct system with four 4" ducts. Two were supposed to be spare 4" ducts for future expansion, one 4" with fiber inside inner duct and one 4" duct with the copper.
End result, two completely full 4" ducts of inner duct, one 4" duct with fiber and copper (believed to be pulled at same time) and one spare 4" duct.
We have a lot of lightning and have lost fiber in the past due to consolidation of copper/fiber. Even the best grounds don't prevent direct hits or melted fiber...
I think were stuck with it as the design specs are not clear enough to warrant contract enforcement. Guess we should be happy to get all the extra inner duct not required...
Mugsiensedgwick
Technical User
Mikey's right on target.
That contractor won't be in business long if he's pulling copper and fiber in the same unprotected duct.
What a goombah!
That contractor won't be in business long if he's pulling copper and fiber in the same unprotected duct.
What a goombah!
OzzieGeorge
Programmer
I would be more inclined to sack whoever specified the job!
You can't criticise a contractor for doing the job in the most cost effective way that doesn't breach the specs. He is in business to make a profit and if there are no compelling reasons to do it the way you thought it would be done, you can't criticise him/them for doing it the way they did!
Do you pay extra for mind readers?
I know of companies who specifically quote on what is specified to win the job. Then make heaps by saying, now do you want us to do it the way it should be done! Variations = $$$$$
You can't criticise a contractor for doing the job in the most cost effective way that doesn't breach the specs. He is in business to make a profit and if there are no compelling reasons to do it the way you thought it would be done, you can't criticise him/them for doing it the way they did!
Do you pay extra for mind readers?
I know of companies who specifically quote on what is specified to win the job. Then make heaps by saying, now do you want us to do it the way it should be done! Variations = $$$$$
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question