Spd & 18th..............,,,,,,

[Ian1981]

SO........YES OR NO.....DOMESTIC

Yes........... maybe.......

 

[Nigel]

It reads as a Type 1 will not comply at all for switching surges. Type 1 is only suitable for lightning protection.

However just because a property does not have LPZ protection does not mean it does not need protection against lightning strikes - hence the risk assessment calculation in 443.5.

So if the result of the risk assessment directs to install SPDs then a combined Type 1/2 would be what is required in small installations.

Larger installs I would install a Type 1 at the mains and then Type 2 at DBs.

 

[Nigel]

SO........YES OR NO.....DOMESTIC

In the vast majority of domestic it would be a yes.

 

[Ian1981]

The risk assessment according to 443.5 is required if protection against transient over voltage is even required for electrical installations except single dwelling units.
If not performed then the installation shall be provided with transient over voltage protection.
Regulation 443.1.1 states that this section does not specify requirements for protection against transient overvoltages due to direct lighting strokes on a structure.
Again I do not see where a type 1 is required if no LPZ is present as figure 534.1 indicates the LPZ concept

It’s definitely one for debate/guidance/clarity?
I’m sure I’ll get there in the end

 

[markc123]

What Edition of the Regs will we be on before there’s absolutley no difference in opinion & it’s completely black and white?

30th edition? In the year 2140 ?

 

[Chris Gardner]

Id say you have to, I’ve priced up a Hagar type 2 kit that comes with the 32a MCB and cables etc needed to fit in their CU’s and the best price I’ve got is £198 + VAT from CEF

 

[buzzlightyear]

Id say you have to,

what ? make tea ,bake a cake .

 

[Nigel]

The risk assessment according to 443.5 is required if protection against transient over voltage is even required for electrical installations except single dwelling units.
If not performed then the installation shall be provided with transient over voltage protection.
Regulation 443.1.1 states that this section does not specify requirements for protection against transient overvoltages due to direct lighting strokes on a structure.
Again I do not see where a type 1 is required if no LPZ is present as figure 534.1 indicates the LPZ concept

It’s definitely one for debate/guidance/clarity?
I’m sure I’ll get there in the end

Having just read it all I agree with you. No lightning protection installed then no Type 1 required.

 

[Nigel]

What Edition of the Regs will we be on before there’s absolutley no difference in opinion & it’s completely black and white?

30th edition? In the year 2140 ?

Manufacturers guides really do not help.

To be fair once you spend a bit of time reading the section on SPDs it is quite clear.

 

[Ian1981]

Having just read it all I agree with you. No lightning protection installed then no Type 1 required.

Sorry just keeled over there just need a minute to come back round

 

[Nigel]

Sorry just keeled over there just need a minute to come back round

Always happy to be corrected and never embarressed to admit when I am wrong.

Learning opportunities.

 

[buzzlightyear]

http://www-public.tnb.com/eel/docs/furse/bs7671.pdf

 

[Ian1981]

How do you decide if lightning protection is even required?
I know a risk assessment is required and is under a different British standard, but how do you evaluate if an LPZ system should be considered?

 

[buzzlightyear]

we are been round that above ,about spd ,fit or no fit that is the question .

 

[Nigel]

How do you decide if lightning protection is even required?
I know a risk assessment is required and is under a different British standard, but how do you evaluate if an LPZ system should be considered?

That would be the responsibility of the building owner to sort. We are working with a lightning company at the moment and I asked a similar question a few weeks back and they use a software package that does the RA for them. He said it is almost always required and it would literally need to be an emtpy shell for the RA to state no protection required.

 

[markc123]

Manufacturers guides really do not help.

To be fair once you spend a bit of time reading the section on SPDs it is quite clear.

I should probably pay more attention / show more interest to the 18th.

My 18th isn’t booked until mid December & As changes don’t take effect untill Jan 1st I really have no interest at the moment.

 

[Baddegg]

Listening to the manufacturers is a bit like asking mcvities if you should eat more biscuits

 

[Midwest]

In the vast majority of domestic it would be a yes.

I not read the regs your quoting, but I would suggest the opposite from the interpretations of the regs. Could someone post that reg again?

 

[Dave OCD]

Can't individual pieces of kit in a domestic setting such as an expensive IT setup be individually protected ? That would be a lot more economical and simpler ?

 

[Nigel]

Can't individual pieces of kit in a domestic setting such as an expensive IT setup be individually protected ? That would be a lot more economical and simpler ?

Yes. They would be Type 3 SPDs.