IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: 16th edition regulations and additions to existing installations
Topic Summary:
Created On: 22 April 2010 02:40 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 22 April 2010 02:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dtl1606

Posts: 8
Joined: 15 April 2010

Could anyone tell me what the 16th edition of BS7671 says in regards to equipotential bonding and rcd protection of sockets when making an addition to an installation which has neither.
 22 April 2010 02:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6205
Joined: 04 July 2007

Did you mean the 17th?
 22 April 2010 03:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dtl1606

Posts: 8
Joined: 15 April 2010

I did mean the 16th edition. To explain a little further, I had a porch build 3 years ago (so 16th edition applied) and I want to know if the regulations in force at the time REQUIRED the electrician to upgrade the pre-existing wiring in the house to have equipotential bonding and rcd protection of all sockets.
 22 April 2010 03:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11462
Joined: 13 August 2003

From memory bonding requirements for alterations in the 16th were pretty much the same as the 17th - if the addition required EEBADS (as it was know then), then main bonding needed to be in place. (Although there is slight scope to argue if there were no extraneous-conductive-parts within reach of the addition.)

RCDs for sockets were different though - only needed if socket was likely to be used for equipment outdoors, and even then no requirement to alter existing sockets. New sockets in the conservatory should have been RCD protected though.

- Andy.
 22 April 2010 07:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4439
Joined: 10 December 2004

The electrician was required to ascertain that the rating and condition of any existing equipment that would have to carry any additional load was adequate for the altered circumstances and that the earthing and bonding arrangements were also adequate.
If there was no equipotential bonding, then he may well have decided that the earthing and bonding arrangements were not adequate.
There was and there still is, no requirement to provide RCD protection for existing socket-outlets.
However, if the electrician installed a socket-outlet in your porch, he might have considered that spurring off the existing ground floor ring and providing RCD protection for the whole ring as the best option.
 22 April 2010 07:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19668
Joined: 23 March 2004

and I want to know if the regulations in force at the time REQUIRED the electrician to upgrade the pre-existing wiring in the house to have equipotential bonding and rcd protection of all sockets.


The regulations don't require anybody to upgrade a pre existing problem. However Regulation 130-07-01 in the 16th could be construed as requiring him to not put the socket in your porch in the absence of adequate earthing and bonding.

If he could have reasonablly predicted that the socket was to be used to supply equipment for use outdoors then Regulation 471-16-01 would indicate that an RCD should protect that socket outlet.

So essentially the spark is only "guilty" of undertaking the work of the additional socket - the pre existing lack of bonding is and always was your problem.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 23 April 2010 06:41 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



normcall

Posts: 8130
Joined: 15 January 2005

What does the certificate he provided say?

-------------------------
Norman
 23 April 2010 02:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



betnwah

Posts: 236
Joined: 16 September 2009

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury(Although there is slight scope to argue if there were no extraneous-conductive-parts within reach of the addition.)

130-07-01 didn't say that the adequacy of the earthing and bonding only applied to the new work/additions/modifications being done....
 23 April 2010 03:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11462
Joined: 13 August 2003

130-07-01 didn't say that the adequacy of the earthing and bonding only applied to the new work/additions/modifications being done....

True, but considering that the 17th Ed wording does, and presuming that the change was intended to clarify rather than downgrade the requirement - along with the general policy that the regulations are not retrospective (you don't have to upgrade existing installations), I think I can justify "slight scope to argue"

- Andy.
 23 April 2010 03:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Inrush.
Inrush

Posts: 705
Joined: 19 December 2007

130-07-01 didn't say that the adequacy of the earthing and bonding only applied to the new work/additions/modifications being done....


130-07-01 stated '........and the earthing and bonding arrangements are also adequate.'

As the regulation was titled 'Additions and alterations to an installation' would you not assume that the IEE were implying that the earthing and bonding must be suitable for the altered circumstances?

I agree with Andy on this one, it's nice to see this was clarified in the 17th edition though.
 23 April 2010 03:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



betnwah

Posts: 236
Joined: 16 September 2009

AJ - I see where you're coming from, but at the time the installer had no such scope because at the time 130-07-01 was what it was.

Inrush - maybe.

Or maybe they thought that would be a good way to ensure that all the old TT via the water pipes etc were done away with?

But I must admit I have an innate suspicion of people looking at something which is actually quite clearly written and then "interpreting" it in a way which means they don't do what it clearly says and in the process save themselves some work.

Edited: 23 April 2010 at 03:44 PM by betnwah
 23 April 2010 11:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4439
Joined: 10 December 2004

I think that 130-07-01 could be read either way.
It could be read that the earthing and bonding arrangements of the whole installation need to be adequate, or just those for the addition or alteration.
It does appear that the 17th has cleared up an ambiguity by refering to the earthing and bonding arrangements of the addition or alteration.
However, I would not criticise the OPs electrician, in interpreting the Regulation at the time to mean the earthing and bonding arrangements for the whole installation.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.