uHeat Banner - Forum Discount Available
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members

Discuss Putting a spur on an old ring in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

P

pushrod

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:  American Electrical Advice Forum

If you want to put a spur on a socket that is part of a ring that is connected to an old CU with no rcd protection would it be ok to surface mount inside some mini trunking?
If you are putting just one double socket on the spur does it need to be fused? and if it was two double sockets you would need it to be fused? There's only about 5 double sockets on the whole ring and it has a 32A mcb. cheers.
 
Aico 3000 Range
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
one double socket doesnt need fusing down but two would
if you surface mount as you say then it is ok as only the new part of the circuit has to be to 17th ed
 
if you physically alter the circuit by adding an additional socket you are responsible for ensuring that circuit complies with regs.
you need to put it on an rcd or rcbo
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Your new socket still needs to be RCD protected even thou the cable is run in trunking.

All socket outlets less than 20A must be protected with 30mA

Mark
 
A

acat

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Agree with the above the second you touch a circuit you assume full responsibility for it and it must comply with 17th edition.

Chris
 
Agree with the above the second you touch a circuit you assume full responsibility for it and it must comply with 17th edition.

Chris
chris can you clarify
ie replace broken socket
swap a light fitting
fit a dimmer
would these also mean whole circ to comply with 17th
thanks
 
P

pushrod

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Just out of interest really as i know it would be better to protect the whole circuit rather than just a spur ... but if it was an old board with rewireable fuses that couldn't take an rcbo would it be ok to put an rcd fused unit for the spur.Or is it a case that you would have to say to a potential customer no it can't be done without a CU change - you have to stick with your unsafe trailing flex.

Edit :i thought surface mounted (or below 50mm of the surface) didn't need rcd protection
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

AMST09

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Only the extended part of the circuit has to be RCD protected
And pushrod you could just pull it out of the fuseboard and put an enclosure with RCD in next to the fuseboard
 
Only the extended part of the circuit has to be RCD protected
And pushrod you could just pull it out of the fuseboard and put an enclosure with RCD in next to the fuseboard

this is what i said at the start but am unsure now because it has been questioned
 
P

pushrod

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Only the extended part of the circuit has to be RCD protected
And pushrod you could just pull it out of the fuseboard and put an enclosure with RCD in next to the fuseboard
Seems to be some disagreement on here as to what is right :confused:

Thanks for the suggestion about an rcd in enclosure next to fuseboard, hadn't thought of that - would you run it from the same fuse way?
 
A

acat

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
I may be wrong but as I understand it if you alter a circuit you are responsible for the entire circuit as the last one to touch it.

If this is the case then 411.3.3 would apply "socket outlets with a rated current not exceeding 20A that are for use by ordinary persons and are intended for general use" this is in relation to additional protection of an RCD.

It can also be argued that providing the property is in the same or better conditon than when we went in but I think thats the building regs?

Can anyone resolve this one for all of us.

Chris
 
G

Guest123

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
http://www.electriciansforums.net/e...ctrical-regulations/5071-couple-quickies.html

^^^^^Check out this previous thread.

Also the link to the IET article does work so check that out too.;)
 
S

Spudnik

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
chris can you clarify
ie replace broken socket
swap a light fitting
fit a dimmer
would these also mean whole circ to comply with 17th
thanks
No, as this is classed as maintenance.
 
B

baldsparkies

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Page 4 of the big red book under introduction to BS7671 2008 imply's that an existing circuit installed to an earlier version of BS7671 may not comply with current regs,but does not imply that said circuit is neccasarily unsafe. Its open to interpritation but I would take it that the original circuit remains and thats ok, with rcd protection being applied to the additional circuit. I guess your back to not leaving the installation any less safe than before you started. The trouble with these new regs is it takes a while before the grey areas are wheened out and given clarity,hence amendmants. In the meantime we are left guessing just exactly what means what.:confused:
 
S

Steve D

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
The latest edition of IET Wiring Matters has quite an in-depth article on alterations on circuits. They conclude the article to say that if you're altering a circuit then you take responsibility for the entire circuit, hence you need rcd or rcbo protection.

Cheers
Steve
 

sparks1234

-
Arms
Ah..OK as most commercial installations (0ffices etc) you wouldn't need RCD
 
B

baldsparkies

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
The latest edition of IET Wiring Matters has quite an in-depth article on alterations on circuits. They conclude the article to say that if you're altering a circuit then you take responsibility for the entire circuit, hence you need rcd or rcbo protection.

Cheers
Steve
Ok so ground floor sockets are wired to an older version of BS7671. We alter the circuit with an addition and are duty bound to fit rcd protection so that the entire circuit is deemed safe ie to current regs. Trouble is our actions by admission has only corrected 1 circuit what about the 1st floor ring and the bathroom shower unit and lighting circuit ect ect. Once we start down the road where do we stop. If we are saying the circuit we are working on is unsafe how can we walk away from all other circuits. As I say, the big red book needs clarification.
 

sparks1234

-
Arms
Its not your responsibility, Why not refer it to the client and let them make the decision as to whether they want to upgrade it to 17th, the 16th edition ran for long enough with little problem
 
B

baldsparkies

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
I agree with you sparks if something was deemed safe in the 16th does it suddenly become unsafe with the introduction of the 17th. They need a section to cover all these points, a bit like the giudance notes on what is part P notifiable and what is not. ie what you are duty bound to change and what not.

Thats it,going to bed now the wifes waiting;)
 
P

pushrod

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
Its not your responsibility, Why not refer it to the client and let them make the decision as to whether they want to upgrade it to 17th, the 16th edition ran for long enough with little problem
That would be sensible, but quite a few people are saying that it is "your" responsibility and that if the client does not want to pay for everything to be upgraded in one go you should walk away from the job.

Maybe as someone who is not even an electrician (yet) i shouldn't have an opinion on this but from what i have learnt the bs 7671:2008 are guidelines not statutory regs and so if you do work that improves safety, ie stops the need for trailing leads everywhere, and the new work meets the present regs that must be a sensible and good thing, even if it doesn't do everything at once. It means a client can undertake improvements in small affordable steps. To quote someone "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools".

Anyone had advice from the part P schemes (elecsa, napit, niceic etc) on this sort of thing?
 
B

baldsparkies

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
I like your quote pushrod "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obediance of fools" At least we are discussing these points on the forum which can only be a good thing.
 
D

dkent5

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
The surface mounted trunking and socket outlet comply with the new regs and don't require RCD protection because they beat the 50mm rule. What you must do however, is on your Minor Works certificate write the circuit down as a departure from the current regs. This does not mean that the circuit is unsafe, it is highly likely that the original circuit was correctly installed under the regs of the time. Anyway the Zs measurement would indicate if the circuit met the new requirements and if RCD protection was required to meet disconnection times.
 
S

Steve D

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
The IET have clarified it in their wiring matters magazine because it was such a grey area. If we 'alter a circuit' then we have to ensure the circuit complies with current regs.

My boss is sending me to an IET seminar next week and 'alterations' are a part of the agenda so I will keep you updated with any info from the horses mouth.

Cheers
Steve
 
D

dkent5

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
Steve,
For a long time the regs have been called "ambigous" in areas, but again a quote on this forum says that the rules are for "the obedience of fools and the guidance of wisemen". Unfortunately that doesn't apply in law and a publication from the IET is just that, a publication. If they amend the regs then that is an entirely different matter and we should comply. But as they are not, my answer fulfills all the requirements of the current regs including the mention of certification which was omitted on most replies. There really should be a publication giving examples such as these for the relatively new spark, as a lot of sparks get embroiled in the regs and do far more than is necessary because they can be difficult to interpret.

As for the IET publication, don't hold your breath. My colleague who is a lecturer, wrote to the IET and NICEIC for clarification when I queried how and what should the cores of a three core cable, (Brown, Black and Grey) be identified when using this cable in single phase application. No answer to date.

I had to inspect a new installation and found the electrical supervisor had snipped the blue core out of a four cable (thats all they could find apparently) and sleeved the grey as neutral and black as cpc. His mate however had used the blue core as neutral at the other end. The supervisors' answer being that, that was the company policy for thee phase cable used in a single phase application.:confused:
 
I

ian

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
chris can you clarify
ie replace broken socket
swap a light fitting
fit a dimmer
would these also mean whole circ to comply with 17th
thanks

If you are replacing a broken or dangerous accessory you don’t have to adopt the circuit because you are making it safe. This is maintenance. However if you are simply replacing an accessory then you do.

Ian
 
S

Spudnik

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
If you are replacing a broken or dangerous accessory you don’t have to adopt the circuit because you are making it safe. This is maintenance. However if you are simply replacing an accessory then you do.

Ian


Light fittings and switches/sockets can be changed WITHOUT notification or certification.
 
P

pushrod

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #29
The IET have clarified it in their wiring matters magazine because it was such a grey area. If we 'alter a circuit' then we have to ensure the circuit complies with current regs.

My boss is sending me to an IET seminar next week and 'alterations' are a part of the agenda so I will keep you updated with any info from the horses mouth.

Cheers
Steve
I would be really interested to hear what they have to say about the consumer who wants to improve their installation in stages. eg put a modern safer CU in but not upgrade the lighting circuit even though it does not have an earth a la 14th or 15 th regs; or improve a ring circuit to prevent trailing leads but not rcd protect it because their CU is is old and in a restricted space. I think commonsense would say that if you are extending a circuit you would check the safety of the whole circuit and not just the correctness of the bit you are adding, but to say the whole circuit now has to comply with 17th ed regs is a nonsense! (if for example it was rcd protected but just in the old colours!). Just because an installation does not match bs 7671:2008 it does not mean it is unsafe.
The other thing is that it is the EWA 1989? and the HaSaW act that are statutory, the wiring regs are only guidelines to help installers meet those acts. If the "law" is going to say you should walk away from a job that could make an improvement to an installation because the client can not afford to improve the whole installation then the "law" is an ass (as they say) and should be changed.
 
Apart from how you interperet the regs, if I saw a ring final with only one point protected by an RCD I would consider it an unprofessional installation. If you have gone to the expense of buying an RCD and enclosure why not mount it next to the cu & protect all points on the cct, you have to fully test the ring anyway in order to certify it. You could protect the spur on its own by installing a socket plate with built in RCD but these are generally more expensive than an enclosure type so what would be the point?
 
Instyle LED Lighting Specialists UK
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members

Reply to Putting a spur on an old ring in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Bulk Workwear - Clothing Suppliers for the Whole Forum Network
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Top Bottom