O
Outspoken
No, just had some food and several cups of coffee to mitigate the impact of the wine.. :8:
- Thread starter Darkwood
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fixed loads overload protection
No, just had some food and several cups of coffee to mitigate the impact of the wine.. :8:
O
Outspoken
Thank you DW, that clarifies your position far better than your earlier posts did, but then I do have to question the motive for the OP and your statement at the end ofit because the two positions you have seem at counterpoint to each other.
- Feb 25, 2011
- 9,547
- 6,486
- 10,256,798
- If you're a qualified, trainee, or retired electrician - Which country is it that your work will be / is / was aimed at?
- United Kingdom
- What type of forum member are you?
- Practising Electrician (Qualified - Domestic or Commercial etc)
- Business Name
- Richard Burns
I felt the original post was a well reasoned statement that indicated the difference between:
applying the regulations to all situations no matter the circumstances
and
considering the design of your installation and applying the regulations with consideration for safety.
Since BS7671 is the minimum standard to apply, ensuring that you install overcurrent protection to a cable would be a good thing in the main, even if there is a regulation that potentially allows a "get out clause".
applying the regulations to all situations no matter the circumstances
and
considering the design of your installation and applying the regulations with consideration for safety.
Since BS7671 is the minimum standard to apply, ensuring that you install overcurrent protection to a cable would be a good thing in the main, even if there is a regulation that potentially allows a "get out clause".
S
somersetsparks
'get out clause' Sums it up nicely for me
It suggests that "it's not right but it's okay" if it's already like it.
which I think is certainly the case with an existing 6mm shower circuit supplying an 8.5 shower
E
Engineer54
Well i've just read through the whole of this thread, and basically we are now down to just splitting hairs. For me, and for all practical reasons i'll stick to the long standing view that a circuit supplying a fixed load can't produce an overload condition of any consequence!! Now whether you want to include DIY Dave, or anyone else into the equation by adding spurs, tap offs or whatever in to that circuit, that's a whole new ball game... lol!!
S
spark 68
DW is correct,
GN6 gives three examples of where OL protection may be omitted,
i) For a conductor situated on the load side of the point where a reduction occurs in the value of CCC, where the conductor is effectively protected against OL by a protective device placed on supply side of that point.
ii) for a conductor which because of the characteristics of the load or supply, is not likely to carry overload current, provided that the conductor is protected against fault current according to section 434. For example a domestic shower or immersion heater.
iii) At the origin of an installation where the distributor provides an OL device, and agrees that it affords protection to part of the installation between the origin and the main distribution point of the installation where further OL protection is provided. For example meter tails. (this also applies to the 3m rule).
Nowhere in this set of regs or GN6 suggests the Iz of the cable is less than the In of the OCPD, or less than the Ib of the circuit it is intended to serve.
GN6 gives three examples of where OL protection may be omitted,
i) For a conductor situated on the load side of the point where a reduction occurs in the value of CCC, where the conductor is effectively protected against OL by a protective device placed on supply side of that point.
ii) for a conductor which because of the characteristics of the load or supply, is not likely to carry overload current, provided that the conductor is protected against fault current according to section 434. For example a domestic shower or immersion heater.
iii) At the origin of an installation where the distributor provides an OL device, and agrees that it affords protection to part of the installation between the origin and the main distribution point of the installation where further OL protection is provided. For example meter tails. (this also applies to the 3m rule).
Nowhere in this set of regs or GN6 suggests the Iz of the cable is less than the In of the OCPD, or less than the Ib of the circuit it is intended to serve.
Last edited by a moderator:
O
Outspoken
Spark, that is Reg 433.3.1 that I quoted in the post DW was referring too, that is simply a repeat of the Reg and it does not state that it is related to showers, and it seems to me that people are arguing over nothing here as everyone seems to be of the firm conclusion that although the Regs are saying there may be situations where O/L protection may be omitted, no-one actually would omit it.
If this last point I have made is a correct reading of everyone's post I have to ask what was the point of the thread?
If this last point I have made is a correct reading of everyone's post I have to ask what was the point of the thread?
S
spark 68
The point DW was making at the beginning of this thread was that the OCPD may be higher than the CCC of the cable provided that the Ib of the load is within the CCC, and is unlikely to overload the cable.
This is a very good point to bring up IMO, and is no doubt very useful reg to bear in mind when faced with an otherwise sticky problem.
This is a very good point to bring up IMO, and is no doubt very useful reg to bear in mind when faced with an otherwise sticky problem.
E
Engineer54
I think DW was just pointing out, that at the design stage of any new installation, all the usual criteria should be applied to those circuits being installed. As in most circumstances on these threads, this situation normally relates to existing circuits, such as cookers, ovens and hob installations, water heaters etc.
D
Darkwood
Most certainly so, regardless of the piddly several watt output each driver has a inrush spike of which on it own isnt an issue but stacked together creates rather a large initial spike .... you will have to discuss with tech regarding LED and Electronic start batten fittings as they have yet to update their tables as the market is changing quite fast.
D
Darkwood
The point of the thread is ive noted on several occasions that this regulation is been brought out like a joker card and thus sets up a firing squad debate where anyone that suggests say a shower without overload protection is presumed stupid and incompetent... i am merely expressing that according to the regs it is in fact permitted all be it compliance to protection against short circuit must be met.
You mention you find no reference of showers in your books so i assume you haven't got The IEE Electrical Installation Guide which is the same style and size as the OSG but is in a grey binder.... within this guide this regulation and the conditions of its application are mentions numerous times ....
Page 36 (4.2.2) Overloads currents
Overload currents do not arise as a result of a fault in the cable or equipment. They arise because the current has been increased by the addition of a further load.
Overload protection is only required if overloading is possible. It would not be required for a circuit supplying a fixed load, but fault protection is required except for exceptional circumstances (434.3).
The load on a circuit supplying a (say) 7.2kw shower will not increase unless the shower is replaced where the adequacy of the circuit must be checked.........
This is just a short snippet of the paragraph that does clearly suggest this situation can be put into practice in domestic but even in the light of this i express that i feel it shouldn't unless as i already mentioned you find yourself doing an upgrade and been a few amps short for overload protection and the newly fitted bathroom suite will be destroyed in pulling in a 10mm then it is possible to utilise the reg' and as others have mentioned when testing existing installs and you find this set up you shouldn't condemn it as long as fault protection complies.
The fact this thread has shown differing strong opinions is good point to its existence im trying to point out that whenever a shower thread arises this regulation is often misquoted as a Ace in the hand but i feel it shouldn't be used in shower threads as it throws more confusion to the OP about his original concern than it helps him.
PS next Friday i decided im going out
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Darkwood
IEE Electrical Installation Design Guide.
I quote (this is a highlighted paragraph on p11)
Note: Overload protection is provided in practically all circuit designs in order to protect the cable should the load be increased, e.g. by adding further lights to a lighting circuit or changing a shower for one higher rated without proper checks been made.
However, for a fixed load e.g. a shower circuit, this is not an actual requirement of BS7671
The exact point ive been trying to make ...if you upgrade a shower and do all the necessary calc and checks and deem it impractical to try upgrade the cable due to restrictions then you are still in full compliance with BS7671 and shouldn't be called a numpty in doing so.
But ill stress even i would only implement as a last resort as it leaves the circuit prone to a real numpty upgrading without doing the necessary calcs, I would never use in design as such for a shower circuit or similar.
I quote (this is a highlighted paragraph on p11)
Note: Overload protection is provided in practically all circuit designs in order to protect the cable should the load be increased, e.g. by adding further lights to a lighting circuit or changing a shower for one higher rated without proper checks been made.
However, for a fixed load e.g. a shower circuit, this is not an actual requirement of BS7671
The exact point ive been trying to make ...if you upgrade a shower and do all the necessary calc and checks and deem it impractical to try upgrade the cable due to restrictions then you are still in full compliance with BS7671 and shouldn't be called a numpty in doing so.
But ill stress even i would only implement as a last resort as it leaves the circuit prone to a real numpty upgrading without doing the necessary calcs, I would never use in design as such for a shower circuit or similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
O
Outspoken
DW, I understand what your saying, and now you have stated where you actually got the reference to a shower I can understand the comments you have made, Yes I do own a copy of the IET EIDG and have it sat here, I would also take to task the statement they make in their opening statement...
"Overload currents do not arise as a result of a fault in the cable or equipment"
Whilst I would accept that under normal operating conditions this statement hold true, but then overload currents occur because of operating conditions outside of normal. Electrically we all know that environmental conditions can impact the cable supplying a circuit, I have encountered a shower feed that almost caused a fire because some numpty had cable tied the 6mm² T&E to a central heating pipe to make it "neat". This section of the cable was overheating and this changed the electrical resistance of the cable. In this instance the owner of the property smelt the cable breaking down and called me out.
Now I accept the chances of environmental impact are not common, but we all have to understand that environmental impacts outside of our control on the capacity of the cable can alter it's electrical properties and thus an overload current can be caused by the cable as well as the load attached to it, even if 999 times out of 1000 it will be the load causing the problem.
I am pleased to see that you have stated you would not rely solely on an RCD for protection of a shower. In the last 15 years when I have been involved in a shower install, albeit at home or in a commercial setting, I have always installed on an RCBO so that both types of protection are afforded the circuit.
I would agree that this debate has highlighted a difference of opinion on this issue, and in the cold light of day without the "affluence of incahol" on the thought process I can see why some have made the statements they have.
The problem I have is that if it becomes common practice for showers to be uprated and the cable to remain, without being uprated when perhaps it should be, with perhaps just an RCD protecting it, this has the potential to create a dangerous precedent that could become misinterpreted by the inexperienced and the bodgers to simply install showers without doing proper calculations and without proper due diligence on the circuit construction and create situations where it is then dangerous.
We are supposed to be increasing electrical safety and not leaving open the door to lowering it, which this has the possibility of doing.
"Overload currents do not arise as a result of a fault in the cable or equipment"
Whilst I would accept that under normal operating conditions this statement hold true, but then overload currents occur because of operating conditions outside of normal. Electrically we all know that environmental conditions can impact the cable supplying a circuit, I have encountered a shower feed that almost caused a fire because some numpty had cable tied the 6mm² T&E to a central heating pipe to make it "neat". This section of the cable was overheating and this changed the electrical resistance of the cable. In this instance the owner of the property smelt the cable breaking down and called me out.
Now I accept the chances of environmental impact are not common, but we all have to understand that environmental impacts outside of our control on the capacity of the cable can alter it's electrical properties and thus an overload current can be caused by the cable as well as the load attached to it, even if 999 times out of 1000 it will be the load causing the problem.
I am pleased to see that you have stated you would not rely solely on an RCD for protection of a shower. In the last 15 years when I have been involved in a shower install, albeit at home or in a commercial setting, I have always installed on an RCBO so that both types of protection are afforded the circuit.
I would agree that this debate has highlighted a difference of opinion on this issue, and in the cold light of day without the "affluence of incahol" on the thought process I can see why some have made the statements they have.
The problem I have is that if it becomes common practice for showers to be uprated and the cable to remain, without being uprated when perhaps it should be, with perhaps just an RCD protecting it, this has the potential to create a dangerous precedent that could become misinterpreted by the inexperienced and the bodgers to simply install showers without doing proper calculations and without proper due diligence on the circuit construction and create situations where it is then dangerous.
We are supposed to be increasing electrical safety and not leaving open the door to lowering it, which this has the possibility of doing.
D
Darkwood
I understand the angle you were taking outspoken and can agree to the the majority of the points you make but the truth is that if the environment changed it is likely that any negative effects of this would be a small overload for a long duration and as you must agree your protective device would not protect you from this anyway even if your circuit was provided with the correct overload hence we have a regulation making sure any designed circuit should ensure a small overload cannot occur for a long period of time. Your example of a cable strapped to the heating pipe would not in my mind operate the overload protective device as the increased load would be below the mcb threshold to trip in a given time i.e. <1.45 rating of device. I see your point but it still wouldn't make a difference if the mcb was design with overload protection of the cable or not, many forget that cable insulation is rated at 70 degrees and IMHO you need a really poor design and set of circumstances for a fire to occur and this will be unlikely to be because in our particular example that the shower had no overload protection.
Dont get me wrong im ot trying to create an open field day here for arguing for the omitting overload protection only having the debate to highlight that it is a last resort option on a upgrade if all fault current calculations are met and due to the installation methods it is highly unlikely to have its environment changed like lagging a loft etc.
Dont get me wrong im ot trying to create an open field day here for arguing for the omitting overload protection only having the debate to highlight that it is a last resort option on a upgrade if all fault current calculations are met and due to the installation methods it is highly unlikely to have its environment changed like lagging a loft etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
O
Outspoken
Gents, there is an aspect of this that we have all, so far omitted, namely Regulation 433.1.1 that states that the operating characteristics of a device protecting a conductor against overload shall satisfy the following conditions;
I[SUB]b[/SUB] ≤ I[SUB]n[/SUB] ≤ I[SUB]z[/SUB]
Now we all now that;
I[SUB]b[/SUB] is the design current of the circuit
I[SUB]n[/SUB] is the nominal current or current setting of the protective device
I[SUB]z[/SUB] is the current-carrying capacity of the conductor in the installation (taking into account environmental conditions)
These conditions have to be met regardless of any other factors. I think people are getting slightly confused because some have used motors as an example where BS88-3 fusible links are used to give fault protection and not overload protection because motor starters already have O/L protection installed, and thus this aspect of protection is already accounted for. For the most part the O/L, if set correctly, will protect the supply circuit by disconnecting the motor from the supply before it becomes over loaded. However it is possible for the O/L to either be set incorrectly and/or be faulty/bypassed and thus the fusible links will provide both fault and overload protection so long as they are selected correctly, and the same is true for circuits with fixed resistive loads, such as showers.
The shower in the example that originally started all this debate is a fixed load of lets say 5.3Ω, which at 230V gives a power rating of 9.98kW, but how the shower is constructed is vitally important and something that has been lost in this debate.
I have an electric shower in an extension where visitors stay, it is a Mira 10kW unit and very nice too. Before posting this I went back to my college/apprentice days and took the thing apart, completely and with some manufacturers literature discovered something very interesting.
The unit has THREE fixed resistance coils;
The switching is completed by a simple 3 position switch.....
Now investigations into the switch can see that is is possible to break down (although I accept they are tested fully and this is likely rare) and connect two or more of the heater elements together...I think straight away anyone looking at this can see the problem.
I was curious as to whether the manufacturers had used a single coil that was broken into three sections that were ultimately connected together to form the maximum rating or whether these where in fact three separate coils...They are 100% separate coils.
Obviously if the coils were connected in series we don't have much to worry about as the rating at 230V would be R[SUB]1[/SUB] + R[SUB]2[/SUB] +R[SUB]3[/SUB] which is thus 9.8+6.75+5.25 = 21.8Ω and a power rating of a mere 2426w (2.4kW), however if the switch breaks apart it is highly likely that the coils can be connected in parallel and and thus we have a potential overload issue.
In parallel the combined coils have a resistance of;
Low and Medium. 0.25Ω @ 230V = 211,600w (211.6kW) = 920A
Medium and High 0.338Ω @ 230V = 156,508w (156.5kW) = 680V
Low and High 0.292Ω @ 230V = 181,164w (181.1kW) = 787A
Low, Medium and High. 0.44Ω 230V = 120,227w (120.2kW) = 522A
The above is wrong, forgot to divide 1 by the final resistance and missed my mistake. Thanks Spark 68 for the nudge!!
Should be this...
Low and Medium. 1/0.25Ω @ 230V = 57.5A
Medium and High 1/0.338Ω @ 230V = 77.96A
Low and High 1/0.292Ω @ 230V = 67.17AA
Low, Medium and High. 1/0.44Ω 230V = 101.23A
Now I do not know how typical a construction/control this is in showers, I cannot say I have taken too many apart over the years and really looked at them, but what this demonstrates is that even with fixed loads it is possible to cause a circuit overload when there are clearly separate coils with different resistances are providing different power levels.
I appreciate that many of you here have more experience with showers than I do, but do you know exactly how the manufacturers switch the loads for the different power settings in each and every shower manufactured?
I[SUB]b[/SUB] ≤ I[SUB]n[/SUB] ≤ I[SUB]z[/SUB]
Now we all now that;
I[SUB]b[/SUB] is the design current of the circuit
I[SUB]n[/SUB] is the nominal current or current setting of the protective device
I[SUB]z[/SUB] is the current-carrying capacity of the conductor in the installation (taking into account environmental conditions)
These conditions have to be met regardless of any other factors. I think people are getting slightly confused because some have used motors as an example where BS88-3 fusible links are used to give fault protection and not overload protection because motor starters already have O/L protection installed, and thus this aspect of protection is already accounted for. For the most part the O/L, if set correctly, will protect the supply circuit by disconnecting the motor from the supply before it becomes over loaded. However it is possible for the O/L to either be set incorrectly and/or be faulty/bypassed and thus the fusible links will provide both fault and overload protection so long as they are selected correctly, and the same is true for circuits with fixed resistive loads, such as showers.
The shower in the example that originally started all this debate is a fixed load of lets say 5.3Ω, which at 230V gives a power rating of 9.98kW, but how the shower is constructed is vitally important and something that has been lost in this debate.
I have an electric shower in an extension where visitors stay, it is a Mira 10kW unit and very nice too. Before posting this I went back to my college/apprentice days and took the thing apart, completely and with some manufacturers literature discovered something very interesting.
The unit has THREE fixed resistance coils;
- Low 9.8Ω, @230V = 5340w (5.4kW).
- Medium 6.75Ω @230V = 7837w (7.8kW)
- High 5.25Ω @230V = 10076.19w (10kW)
The switching is completed by a simple 3 position switch.....
Now investigations into the switch can see that is is possible to break down (although I accept they are tested fully and this is likely rare) and connect two or more of the heater elements together...I think straight away anyone looking at this can see the problem.
I was curious as to whether the manufacturers had used a single coil that was broken into three sections that were ultimately connected together to form the maximum rating or whether these where in fact three separate coils...They are 100% separate coils.
Obviously if the coils were connected in series we don't have much to worry about as the rating at 230V would be R[SUB]1[/SUB] + R[SUB]2[/SUB] +R[SUB]3[/SUB] which is thus 9.8+6.75+5.25 = 21.8Ω and a power rating of a mere 2426w (2.4kW), however if the switch breaks apart it is highly likely that the coils can be connected in parallel and and thus we have a potential overload issue.
In parallel the combined coils have a resistance of;
Low and Medium. 0.25Ω @ 230V = 211,600w (211.6kW) = 920A
Medium and High 0.338Ω @ 230V = 156,508w (156.5kW) = 680V
Low and High 0.292Ω @ 230V = 181,164w (181.1kW) = 787A
Low, Medium and High. 0.44Ω 230V = 120,227w (120.2kW) = 522A
The above is wrong, forgot to divide 1 by the final resistance and missed my mistake. Thanks Spark 68 for the nudge!!
Should be this...
Low and Medium. 1/0.25Ω @ 230V = 57.5A
Medium and High 1/0.338Ω @ 230V = 77.96A
Low and High 1/0.292Ω @ 230V = 67.17AA
Low, Medium and High. 1/0.44Ω 230V = 101.23A
Now I do not know how typical a construction/control this is in showers, I cannot say I have taken too many apart over the years and really looked at them, but what this demonstrates is that even with fixed loads it is possible to cause a circuit overload when there are clearly separate coils with different resistances are providing different power levels.
I appreciate that many of you here have more experience with showers than I do, but do you know exactly how the manufacturers switch the loads for the different power settings in each and every shower manufactured?
Last edited by a moderator:
S
spark 68
You may want to re-check your calcs here:
In parallel the combined coils have a resistance of;
I think you have forgotten to reciprocate the sum of your addition
In parallel the combined coils have a resistance of;
I think you have forgotten to reciprocate the sum of your addition
Last edited by a moderator:
O
Outspoken
Spark..
E²/R = Power so therefore;
230² = 52900 divided by the resistance of a coil gives the power output = 52900 /0.25 = 211600w
Current drawn on the circuit as a result is P/E = 211600/230= 920A
This can all be verified by turning the equations around...
Thus:
Power = 211600
E = 230
I = 920
Thus resistance
E² / w = 52600/211600= 0.25
or E/I = 230 / 920 = 0.25
Confirm E by √wR = √211600 * 0.25 = 230
Which ever way you want to work it out it calculates correctly...
In case your talking about adding resistances in parallel..
1/(1/R[SUB]1[/SUB])+(1/R[SUB]2[/SUB])+(1/R[SUB]3[/SUB])
1/9.8 = 0.102Ω
1/6.75 = 0.148Ω
1/5.25 = 0.190Ω
Add the resultants together in the combination required and you get the combined parallel resistance...
Or do you know a different way that has escaped us?
E²/R = Power so therefore;
230² = 52900 divided by the resistance of a coil gives the power output = 52900 /0.25 = 211600w
Current drawn on the circuit as a result is P/E = 211600/230= 920A
This can all be verified by turning the equations around...
Thus:
Power = 211600
E = 230
I = 920
Thus resistance
E² / w = 52600/211600= 0.25
or E/I = 230 / 920 = 0.25
Confirm E by √wR = √211600 * 0.25 = 230
Which ever way you want to work it out it calculates correctly...
In case your talking about adding resistances in parallel..
1/(1/R[SUB]1[/SUB])+(1/R[SUB]2[/SUB])+(1/R[SUB]3[/SUB])
1/9.8 = 0.102Ω
1/6.75 = 0.148Ω
1/5.25 = 0.190Ω
Add the resultants together in the combination required and you get the combined parallel resistance...
Or do you know a different way that has escaped us?
Last edited by a moderator:
S
spark 68
ok using your figures:
low and medium in parallel, 1/9.8 + 1/6.75 = 1/total, = 0.1 + 0.15 = 0.25, 1/0.25 = 4 ohms total.
230/4 = 57.5A , = circa 13kW
low and medium in parallel, 1/9.8 + 1/6.75 = 1/total, = 0.1 + 0.15 = 0.25, 1/0.25 = 4 ohms total.
230/4 = 57.5A , = circa 13kW
O
Outspoken
I think you should re read my post and I will edit mine as I forgot to divide 1 by the total....
S
spark 68
O
Outspoken
Thanks, I have corrected it now if you look...I didn't spot my mistake as I was trying to put the post together, deal with English grammar issues for the 13 year old and stop the 3 and 4 year old fighting over toys and driving me mad...Mum is out and Dad got the baby sitting job, which I am not great at...tolerance is low for squabbles and unnecessarily shouting!! I did not recheck before posting...
Things like that I usually do in word first and double check it before posting....:90:
O
Outspoken
They do, but if the Thermal gives way that could be the catalyst for the switch to fail due to overheating...
S
spark 68
The last shower I did was of the two element variety, and I was almost certain that on the higher power setting it just brought in the second element in parallel, as a boost so to speak, I could be wrong here, and I am not saying all showers are wired this way, I will have a look next time I install one.
O
Outspoken
To be honest I think this is how most showers work because it does remove the possibility of a fault inside the unit causing a serious overload, or it could be easier from a manufacturing point of view, but without physically taking each and every shower apart and checking the manufacturers technical information then the majority of sparks simply won't know and I believe it is incumbent upon us to assume that in the event of a switch failing for whatever reason it is possible to cause an overload by multiple coils being connected in parallel...unless we have clear evidence to the contrary from the manufacturers.
D
Darkwood
I think your trying to over think this whole situe', the design of showers will have to comply to there own BS regulations and if multi-element then they will have a fail safe system to ensure overloading cannot happen, i find it strange that your set up has 3 stand alone setting each running on its own for a given KW rating, id be more incline to believe that the elements work together so full power is achieved by all element running. Ie. 7.5kw for element 1 and element 2 and 3 are 1.5kw each as an example. Your example outspoken would be inherently dangerous if it was possible for all elements to come on together... the least of your worries is a hot cable if your user is in intensive care having skin grafts done.... i see you are trying hard to see issues with my theme of the thread but all this has been debated time and time again especially by the IET and yet the regulation still exists, we shouldn't be stripping down the working of a shower here as thats for the manufacturers to ensure for safe fail safe operation and/or when things do go wrong it wont present a danger to the user other than a sudden cold shower.
O
Outspoken
The regulation exists because there are uncommon situation when such an arrangement would apply, but I firmly do not believe a domestic shower is one of them.
You may think I am over thinking this, but if you do not think through every possible scenario then you will miss something that causes a problem. You can think that my shower is dangerous all you like, but it has a BS EN number attached to it thus is clearly is compliant. It has an overload attached (thermocouple type) and I understand and appreciate the chances of the worst case scenario happening are ultra slim so I do not see the danger your now saying exists, but the fact that the shower, in extreme situations, is capable of causing an overload is clear evidence that we cannot blindly apply regulations that suit our purposes because we feel our interpretation is correct. I know you have said you would not do it and feel that the reg was not written with domestic in mind, but then your thread and argument is justifying others doing it, and if they do not understand the dangers properly then you have the potential for disaster.
Gavin A
~
- Jan 20, 2012
- 4,122
- 1,135
- 2,688
- If you're a qualified, trainee, or retired electrician - Which country is it that your work will be / is / was aimed at?
- United Kingdom
- What type of forum member are you?
- Other
- If other, please explain
- Solar installer for 15 years
- Business Name
- Leeds Solar
for that to happen both the pressure sensor and thermal cut out would have to fail at the same time.
can't say that I can see how overload protection for the circuit would help in that situation either tbh.
J
jamie-spark
Is it just me , or is reg 433.3.1
(ii)For a conductor which, because of the characteristics of the load or the supply, is not likely to carry overload current, provided that the conductor is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements of Section 434
Is this not utilised in domestic situations all over the country , an unfused spur off a ring final circuit Iz only needs to be equal to or greater than 20a
(ii)For a conductor which, because of the characteristics of the load or the supply, is not likely to carry overload current, provided that the conductor is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements of Section 434
Is this not utilised in domestic situations all over the country , an unfused spur off a ring final circuit Iz only needs to be equal to or greater than 20a
O
Outspoken
You are assuming every shower has a pressure sensor for a start, and secondly this will depend on how they are all connected up, many showers have electronic controls these days, if they go ---- up then it could be a case of none of the safety devices work...
O
Outspoken
Thats why I have NEVER installed an unfused spur from a ring. I was taught as an apprentice that was the fastest way to an arse kicking and all spurs have always been fused. If you do not want to fuse it, you make it part of the ring.
Gavin A
~
- Jan 20, 2012
- 4,122
- 1,135
- 2,688
- If you're a qualified, trainee, or retired electrician - Which country is it that your work will be / is / was aimed at?
- United Kingdom
- What type of forum member are you?
- Other
- If other, please explain
- Solar installer for 15 years
- Business Name
- Leeds Solar
I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
standard shower protective devices are pressure sensor / flow sensor, over heat cut out, and pressure relief valve, or equivalent (eg an electronic control would presumably cut out if the electronic control failed) any shower without these (or at least 2 of the 3) would be a trading standards job IMO.
and shower elements will be nichrome, which have a temperature coefficient of resistance of 0.00017, so even if it's at 100degrees above it's starting temperature it will only increase the resistance by 0.17%. heating elements wouldn't be a lot of use if they were made of a material who's resistance increased that significantly as their temperature increased.
So a shower is very unlikely to operate for long while seriously over heating, and an overheating shower element won't draw any significant additional current anyway, so it's irrelevant to whether overload protection on the circuit would be required IMO.
O
Outspoken
I am not sure that is accurate. Seems I will be investigating my shower again before I put it back together...
Gavin A
~
- Jan 20, 2012
- 4,122
- 1,135
- 2,688
- If you're a qualified, trainee, or retired electrician - Which country is it that your work will be / is / was aimed at?
- United Kingdom
- What type of forum member are you?
- Other
- If other, please explain
- Solar installer for 15 years
- Business Name
- Leeds Solar
circuit diagrams are your friend here.
there are many of them available via google, and I've just checked several to be sure. Regardless of that though, the point you were making is wrong as even an overheating element won't add more than 0.2% or so to the load of the circuit.
- Sep 5, 2010
- 71,498
- 72,015
- 18,688
- 78
- If you're a qualified, trainee, or retired electrician - Which country is it that your work will be / is / was aimed at?
- United Kingdom
- What type of forum member are you?
- Electrical Engineer (Qualified)
- Business Name
- Telectrix
slightly off topic. but this might be of interest. came across a downflow heater 2kW. the L termination in the FCU had burnt out, taking about 1" of the L of the flex with it. now the flex on the heater ( came with it attached by manufacturer ) is 0.75mm and manufacturers instructions specify a 13A fuse. are they using 433.3 to get away with such a small csa? and who is liable if the 0.75 melts before the fuse blows?
D
Darkwood
The heater manufacturers will have to comply to their own BS standards, the flex will be compatible for the load of the heater so they won't be responsible, clearly the issue here is a connection problem or a failed FCU by matter of interest i bet the multi-stranded cable termination into the fcu wasn't appropriately crimped for termination so if so then the installers fault, if it was down to failure of the FCU then the FCU manufacturers fault, proving it and laying blame isn't usually worth the hassle on a simple repair. For your query regarding using 433.3 they are not subject to the BS7671 but thats not to say they dont have this regulation in their own BS standards as clearly they have omitted overload protection of the flex itself. Having said this this wasn't caused by overload but thermal conductivity from a poor contact or connection in the FCU which regardless of any overload protection this would have created the same effect even with a fuse rated spot on for the load.
D
diabalo
Great thread, been following this on the IET forum too. Even as a diyer I follow the technical arguments and have given a couple of examples on there (where I am known as rovermaestro) of circuits in my current house where the ccc is less than the copd, 8.5kW shower on 6mm in trunking on a wall with 40A rcbo and a 4mm radial 2 seperate sockets (washer and tumble drier) 22A load, ccc 30A (trunking on a wall) copd 32A. I had the CU changed last year after an EICR and although noted these circuits were reconnected after discussion. (I didn't install them). I think this was eminently sensible and I am absolutely happy with this arrangement in practice. Seems to me that designers have quite a lot of scope within the regulations to make these judgements within the standard. As a householder I am conscious of the risk of future additions or replacements but whoever does that is responsible for checking the circuit characteristics before taking action. I think decent paperwork is vital. As others have stated elsewhere every installation should have a proper descriptive document. I would regard it as an essential user manual.
K
KAS1
I think that has always been a flaw when it comes to domestic works, the lack of a design document to accompany each installation should of been compulsory many years ago, not just a record of test results but a full spec as in commercial / industrial installations. After all it wouldn't of taken much design work for the average domestic IMO
Similar threads
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Thread Information
Thread Tags
- Tags
- fixed loads overload protection