socket

[Hawkmoon]

You need to be careful there or that 6A breaker you put in might keep tripping every time they put the shower on .......

Lol :lol:

 

[NickD]

IF overload and thermal constraint limitations are met, it complies with BS7671 so no code, no comment

I think there's a danger of confusing "Is this an absolute top-notch covered-all-the-bases, cable-cannot-be-rogered-by-incompetent-additions-or-rogue-equipment design?" with "Does it actually require improvement and if so on what grounds, preferably supported by the regs?"

 

[Plonker 3]

In regards to the OP, had anyone apart from HHD read reg 434.2.1? If no do so that will tell you where you may place a OCPD?.

 

[7029 dave]

Dave, you cannot load the CIRCUIT any higher than 13A, unless you are abusing the plug and socket system

Exactly, so therefor you have to create a circuit to prevent this, IMO it's down to good workmanship and pride in your work.!!

 

[Badged01]

You know what i was getting at badged

I do but I like some banter and fun between all the technical crap!

 

[dazza1981]

I do but I like some banter and fun between all the technical crap!

You have to mate.... to many regs book eaters !!

 

[NickD]

I think there's a danger of confusing "Is this an absolute top-notch covered-all-the-bases, cable-cannot-be-rogered-by-incompetent-additions-or-rogue-equipment design?" with "Does it actually require improvement and if so on what grounds, preferably supported by the regs?"

Then again we are told to flag up "Some circuits which require RCD protection under the current regs have none" as a C3...does that require​ improvement?...my brain hurts.

 

[Badged01]

In regards to the OP, had anyone apart from HHD read reg 434.2.1? If no do so that will tell you where you may place a OCPD?.

Or 433.3.1 for why you might not even need one .....

 

[Hawkmoon]

In regards to the OP, had anyone apart from HHD read reg 434.2.1? If no do so that will tell you where you may place a OCPD?.

434.2.1 discusses fault current - that is met by the 1.5 cpc in this instance

 

[Hawkmoon]

deleted, Badged already said it!

 

[gazj82]

Exactly, so therefor you have to create a circuit to prevent this, IMO it's down to good workmanship and pride in your work.!!

No, you don't, where do you want to stop babysitting the stupid who abuse an electrical system? Let's pull the main fuse in case somebody abuses the tails to the board and decides to splice a light for his shed into it.

I take huge pride in my work, like I said before I would not go out of my way to do something like this. But! If I saw a busbar chamber and 2.5mm straight from the busbar to a double socket below I would not code it on a EICR. The 2.5mm CANNOT be overloaded!

 

[jamie-spark]

The cable would be protected against overload - IF

It only served one piece of equipment at the end of it's run and nothing on the way, so you can't have a radial with 3 double sockets on it obviously.

Obviously you can't have a 16A socket at the end because these have no fuse system, but you could have one 13A socket or one switch fuse (fused appropriately for the cable)


I am not saying I go out of my way to install like this, I use an appropriate sized MCB at the origin like anyone else, but technically you don't have to.

Do you think you can't have a 16 a socket outlet on a 32a mcb ?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Having reminded myself that a C3 means improvement required, I now agree, no code is appropriate. I would say maybe a comment but I don't think the EICR form lends itself well to comments that aren't tied to codes (observations section requires a code for any observation made). Amazing what you can learn from civilised discussion. Cheers.

does it now...


hopeless....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Nick......:

you`v no business carrying out condition reports at this present time.

so please dont.

 

[NickD]

does it now...

It does according to GN3 but the consensus and logic is it should say recommended as per the model forms.

 

[D Skelton]

I certainly wouldn't advocate the scenario, and have always worked on the basis of MCB egual or less than CCC of cable. I have always replaced 'offending' MCB's in the past with something more 'suitable' but maybe I've been over cautious? I don't get involved with EICR's so don't have the dilemma of which code is 'appropriate'

Haha, you're gonna have fun trying to bend those 95mm conductors off a 200A busbar into a 32A switch fuse one day

As for the rest of the thread, anyone who would consider coding something that is perfectly compliant with current regulations has no business conducting EICRs IMHO. Note it by all means but you cannot code it.

Just today I was stood at my trade counter, I was being served whilst listening to two chumps on the other side talking about EICRs, one of them I know for a fact is a five week whizz kid. One of them (the other one) noticed my apprentice sniggering right about the point when a C1 for no bonding was mentioned, he looks over at my guy and just before the melt opens his mouth I cut in with "So you'd C1 lack of main bonding would you?" He doesn't seem too happy with the challenge but promptly and sneerily answers with "Of course I would, wouldn't you?!" There's about 10 or so guys standing near the trade counter and all is silent at this point. I say to him that anyone C1ing lack of bonding has no business carrying out EICRs. Out the corner of my eye I can see a few others raising their eyebrows whilst a couple more are grinning. Perfect timing as my stuff gets dumped on the counter and as I'm picking it up and heading on out of the door I turn to the fella and suggest that he invest some of his time in completing an electrical qualification. He doesn't even reply, he just looks down at the floor. Priceless!

Back to the topic in hand though, there are some codes that are subjective, but for the vast majority of them there is no argument. A compliant install is a compliant install.

 

[Pete999]

The original OP was about an EICR code for a twins socket installed with 2.4mm backed up by a 32a cb, correct? Appendix 15 page 425 Figures 15A and 15B lays out the parameters to abide by when installing BS 1363 switched socket outlets, in 3 differing scenarios.
1/ Ring Final Circuit wired in 2.5mm
2/ 20amp radial wired in 2.5mm
3/ 32amp radial wired in 4.0mm

Someone mentioned, I can't remember who it was that if we read the Regs then there are different ways of installing these circuits, I'm not saying that there isn't but if whoever said this can point me in the right direction (within the Regs) then I may change my mind, but until that happens, Appendix 15 is my guide.

 

[telectrix]

the OP's scenario is notthing to do with app. 15. it's a 2.5mm radial on it's own 32a RCBO. while theoretically, the cable can't be overloaded as it feeds a single point of use ( twin S/O , max. load 26A ), we have a situation where In>Iz. ( 433.1.1 (ii)). that's why i'd recommend reducing the OCPD value.

 

[Adam W]

What's the socket being used for?
Is there any reason for it to be on a 32A RCBO other than the argument that it's not technically against the regs, or alternatively any reason why it can't be on a 20A RCBO in accordance with the OSG other than the cost of changing it?

 

[Hawkmoon]

The original OP was about an EICR code for a twins socket installed with 2.4mm backed up by a 32a cb, correct? Appendix 15 page 425 Figures 15A and 15B lays out the parameters to abide by when installing BS 1363 switched socket outlets, in 3 differing scenarios.
1/ Ring Final Circuit wired in 2.5mm
2/ 20amp radial wired in 2.5mm
3/ 32amp radial wired in 4.0mm

Someone mentioned, I can't remember who it was that if we read the Regs then there are different ways of installing these circuits, I'm not saying that there isn't but if whoever said this can point me in the right direction (within the Regs) then I may change my mind, but until that happens, Appendix 15 is my guide.

This refers to numerous socket outlets on a radial so of course the 20A OCPD is appropriate (overload protection)