PIR codes

[tc50]

tc50 guidance note 3 also have a look at the little book by the esc best practice guides : Electrical safety council the one you want is the best practice guide 4 which gives you the new coding for pir's

many thanks dude i,ll get it as i,m just starting on testing.

 

[nickblake]

Nickblake there is no such thing as a 17th edition consumer unit, its how you configure the board that will determine whether or not your installation complies. i will agree with you that not every circuit needs RCD protection.

If you look at the list supplied earlier you will see where RCBO's are indicated. any other circuit must be individually assessed. the garage shed that you mentioned, being outside the equipotential zone is a case in point and needs RCD protection

For cascaded RCD's the upstream RCD could be a time delayed or Type S with an ordinary RCD after that. in the case of your shed the TDR could supply the cable to the shed (to protect the cable) and an RCBO to protect the tub circuit etc. this will provide discrimination between the two RCD devices and give the best protection.

Very aware of what you have said here, and its terminology for a 17th edition board as every manufacturer advertises boards 17th edition compliant hence the reason we use 17th edition board its the same with testers they all say 17th edition comliant before that it was 16th edition the meters didnt change the poit i was making is as you said the 61008 cant be used for more than one circuit and thats wrong it can

 

[darking]

The fault in one circuit will cause the RCD to trip and cause the failure of any other circuit connected to it.

Read 314.2 then go argue with the IEE, you CAN connect anything any way you want to, you just won't comply!

 

[nickblake]

seperate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation that need to be controlled seperatlyin such a way that those circuits are not effected by failure of others , and due account shall be taken of the consiquences of any single device , does not nesseserily mean all the circuits , for instance if you have a freezer plugged into the kitchen ring then there is a possability that the freezer will defrost in this case you will then install an unprotected circuit for the freezer , another instance is smoke detection and one reason they should be on there own circuit ,another is a shed garage hot tub i name a few , if you want to comply with regulation 314.2 100 % then every single point in a house would have to be protected by its own protective device even with RCBO protection say a kitchen ring for instance you could end up with the same scenario its all about designe

 

[darking]

Hi Nick, much as I am enjoying this discussion i think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

See " i agree with you that not every circuit needs RCD protection. If you look at the list supplied earlier you will see where RCBO's are indicated. any other circuit must be individually assessed."

Regards

Darking

 

[g-davies]

Thanks for this little pdf,I studied the 1 st ammendment upgrade but still puzzled over my first EICR .

 

[Cazmac1]

Any one got a good up to date list of fault/ defects and codes?

 

[IQ Electrical]

This is about the best you'll find:
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

 

[Cazmac1]

Thanks I have a little read tomorrow.

I have a question for you guys.
I'm doing a PIR on a job at the moment and would say that it falls under the 16th edition and have found that in the kitchen the bonding on the metal sinks and cross bonds to the the metal food prep tables has either been removed come loose or broke off. This is due to the fact that when they pull the tables out for cleaning they are breaking and moving the bonds. There is no RCD protection in the kitchen so what code would I place on this? Code 1 or 2

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'd be amazed if any of those sinks or tables meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part, there is no requirement for supplementary bonding in a kitchen either.

If you're doing this PIR then you need to be familiar with these requirements.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I'd be amazed if any of those sinks or tables meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part, there is no requirement for supplementary bonding in a kitchen either.

If you're doing this PIR then you need to be familiar with these requirements.

...and learn how to test for extraneous cond parts.

 

[Cazmac1]

...and learn how to test for extraneous cond parts.

All I can say is that who ever done the install thought that they needed to be bonded otherwise they wouldn't have wasted there time putting the bonds on in the first place. If I choose to ignore this fact then I won't be doing my job. One of the sinks has a socket about 450 away from he bowl which used to have a potato pealing machine plugged into it. This is no longer there now but could be used in the future. I'd be happy to listen to your full explanation as to why you think these sinks and metal tables never required bonding and why they shouldn't have there bonds and cross bonds reinstated. I myself am of the opinion that they do require bonding and cross bonding. I was only asking whether I should code it as a c1 or c2. I in the end will make up my own mind base on my own experience and reference material that I have at my disposal. I am happy that I have the skills and knowledge to carry out a periodic and no mater what advice I received on a forum I would make up my own mind.
Thanks for the advice if you and call it that, for all I know you are doing your part 1 lol

 

[IQ Electrical]

All I can say is that who ever done the install thought that they needed to be bonded otherwise they wouldn't have wasted there time putting the bonds on in the first place. If I choose to ignore this fact then I won't be doing my job. One of the sinks has a socket about 450 away from he bowl which used to have a potato pealing machine plugged into it. This is no longer there now but could be used in the future. I'd be happy to listen to your full explanation as to why you think these sinks and metal tables never required bonding and why they shouldn't have there bonds and cross bonds reinstated. I myself am of the opinion that they do require bonding and cross bonding. I was only asking whether I should code it as a c1 or c2. I in the end will make up my own mind base on my own experience and reference material that I have at my disposal. I am happy that I have the skills and knowledge to carry out a periodic and no mater what advice I received on a forum I would make up my own mind.
Thanks for the advice if you and call it that, for all I know you are doing your part 1 lol

I think you'll cover bonding requirements within your 'part 1'
Having the skill to carry out a periodic inspection requires 'an above-average knowledge of BS7671 and to suggest that 'cross bonding' is neccessary in a kitchen (is it a special location listed in Part 7?) does not convey this.

You'll get some excellent advice on this forum but whether you agree with it or not is your decision. Your client/employer though is paying you for your expertise and assessments.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Have a read of this from the IET: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...sg=AFQjCNEND6OOSax6NXs2AZbbTwubzXANIA&cad=rja

Specifically this piece:

"Much of
the confusion can be
attributed to the note of
Regulation 413-7 which
required the bonding of all
metallic items, essentially,
those within the designated
equipotential zone. This led
to the installation of
supplementary
equipotential bonding of
general metallic items such
as baths, ceiling grids, hand
rails, kitchen sinks,
radiators, pipework at
boilers, etc. Thankfully, we
have moved on from this
general concept.

Right, must get back to that Part 1 study now.......

 

[Guest123]

The current OSG has info on this, section 4.7, page 42-43.

Remember you are assessing against current regs, they do not become retrospective.

 

[AllertonEPS]

With respect "IQ Electrical" - I think you have missed the point of the question - I am not familiar with the 16th Edition regulations ( before my time ) - but I imagine bonding of sinks etc in kitchens to be necessary.... I think this is more a question of whether you should still be testing to the 16th edition at all. I would strongly advocate putting in an RCD ( whether that be a new consumer board - or how-ever ) - and then testing to the 17th edition.

The customer would reasonably expect a SATISFACTORY on a report to mean that he could extend the circuits - and testing it to the 16th edition would mean that a SATISFACTORY wouldn't indicate that extension of the circuits were possible.

So to answer the question - MY ANSWER would be a FAIL with the recommendation to get the consumer board up to the 17th Edition - before doing anything else....

 

[trev]

With respect "IQ Electrical" - I think you have missed the point of the question - I am not familiar with the 16th Edition regulations ( before my time ) - but I imagine bonding of sinks etc in kitchens to be necessary.... I think this is more a question of whether you should still be testing to the 16th edition at all. I would strongly advocate putting in an RCD ( whether that be a new consumer board - or how-ever ) - and then testing to the 17th edition.

The customer would reasonably expect a SATISFACTORY on a report to mean that he could extend the circuits - and testing it to the 16th edition would mean that a SATISFACTORY wouldn't indicate that extension of the circuits were possible.

So to answer the question - MY ANSWER would be a FAIL with the recommendation to get the consumer board up to the 17th Edition - before doing anything else....

Interesting post, what code would you give to a 16th split load board then?

 

[IQ Electrical]

With respect "IQ Electrical" - I think you have missed the point of the question - I am not familiar with the 16th Edition regulations ( before my time ) - but I imagine bonding of sinks etc in kitchens to be necessary.... I think this is more a question of whether you should still be testing to the 16th edition at all. I would strongly advocate putting in an RCD ( whether that be a new consumer board - or how-ever ) - and then testing to the 17th edition.

The customer would reasonably expect a SATISFACTORY on a report to mean that he could extend the circuits - and testing it to the 16th edition would mean that a SATISFACTORY wouldn't indicate that extension of the circuits were possible.

So to answer the question - MY ANSWER would be a FAIL with the recommendation to get the consumer board up to the 17th Edition - before doing anything else....

Missing the point?
You only test against the requirements of the current edition of BS7671 so how can you 'fail' an installation with missing 'cross bonding' when that requirement was withdrawn years ago?

I'm certainly not missing the point, it's crystal clear to me as is Guidance Note 3!

 

[AllertonEPS]

To IQ Electrical > We are both saying the same thing ... Just re-read my message as 'UNSATISFACTORY' instead of 'FAIL' and you'll feel a good deal better. Instead you ( correctly ) challenge the questioner's 'Competency' without clearing up his confusion - it seems to be standard fair for replies to posts. People have questions and the response here is to question their competency - instead of just delivering the keys words which clear up the confusion. Their competency for carrying out inspections is down to their chosen registration body to either assign or decline - the purpose of these threads is to help people.

 

[IQ Electrical]

To IQ Electrical > We are both saying the same thing ... Just re-read my message as 'UNSATISFACTORY' instead of 'FAIL' and you'll feel a good deal better. Instead you ( correctly ) challenge the questioner's 'Competency' without clearing up his confusion - it seems to be standard fair for replies to posts. People have questions and the response here is to question their competency - instead of just delivering the keys words which clear up the confusion. Their competency for carrying out inspections is down to their chosen registration body to either assign or decline - the purpose of these threads is to help people.

Did you miss the link that I posted in post 104?
Also, there is no requirement to be registered with a scheme provider to undertake periodic inspections.

 

[AllertonEPS]

That's right - the trouble is that you don't need qualifications to be on this forum - so responders are constantly challenging people's qualifications - rather than just answering questions. :rockon:

 

[trev]

That's right - the trouble is that you don't need qualifications to be on this forum - so responders are constantly challenging people's qualifications - rather than just answering questions. :rockon:

You're right you don't need quals to be on here however if you come on spouting wrong info and claiming to be something you;re not you're going to be found out fairly soon

 

[IQ Electrical]

That's right - the trouble is that you don't need qualifications to be on this forum - so responders are constantly challenging people's qualifications - rather than just answering questions. :rockon:

I take your point and always try to offer help/advice but there's a tipping point where you have to be honest with people regarding competence.
The PIRs I see day after day are completed to an appalling standard as I'm sure many here have also found.

We are being paid for our expertise/experience and have a duty to at least be familiar with the regulations that we are being asked to compare installations to before we accept such work.

 

[huntos33]

1mm Cables on a 16amp 60898 code C2 or C1 thinking a C2 myself What do you guys think

 

[HandySparks]

What's the cable type, installation method and load?

 

[huntos33]

What's the cable type, installation method and load?

6242Y Ref 100 , 2 cables in 16amp pulling around 7 amps in total, Running some lights in a hall , thing is the boards full so they cant be split on to 2 6amps.

 

[HandySparks]

So the cable's good for 13A, currently loaded to less than 7A on each leg and, I guess, unlikely to be overloaded unless the circuit is extended. I'd be inclined to give it a C2 and recommend changing the MCB to a 10A.

 

[IQ Electrical]

So the cable's good for 13A, currently loaded to less than 7A on each leg and, I guess, unlikely to be overloaded unless the circuit is extended. I'd be inclined to give it a C2 and recommend changing the MCB to a 10A.

Agreed

 

[huntos33]

One more ! 2 No 6 way wylex old style wooden backed boards with 60898 plug in mcbs covered by a main 30ma trip upfront on a tt system , but i feel as this is in a village hall this is not ideal ie total power loss if the main rcd trips. So i think a code 3 with an explaination in the eicr explaining this sound fair to you guys ?

 

[IQ Electrical]

One more ! 2 No 6 way wylex old style wooden backed boards with 60898 plug in mcbs covered by a main 30ma trip upfront on a tt system , but i feel as this is in a village hall this is not ideal ie total power loss if the main rcd trips. So i think a code 3 with an explaination in the eicr explaining this sound fair to you guys ?

Is there any emergency lighting? If so, I'd be happy to leave the RCD uncoded.
You can make mention of the wooden-backed Wylex in a covering letter but in the (literally) hundreds that I've encountered, I've never seen a problem yet!