IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: En-Suite .
Topic Summary: Care Home .
Created On: 14 May 2013 07:28 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 16 May 2013 10:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: dg66

Originally posted by: OMS

Well any direct or indirect contact resulting from the failure of basic protection or fault protection or occuring from the carelesness of users.

So we may apply any of the measures in sections 411 to 414, but the RCD is still required as a backstop - ie it's for Additional Protection

Regards

OMS


whilst i agree an RCD will protect against the scenarios you mention, IMO additional protection is not required for these reasons, if that were the case every circuit regardless of location would require RCD protection for the scenarios you mention,

But we are talking about situations of wet and naked - much greater suceptibility to electric shock basically.

i dont believe the regs cover carelessness by users,

They most certainly do - it's the whole rationale for "additional protection" - BS 7671 actually uses the phrase.

i've never seen this mentioned in the regs

try 415 et seq

and as for direct contact ,i cant see this occuring in the location unless someone takes the fitting to bits and pokes their fingers where they dont belong,

Someone knocks a nail in the wall and hangs an aluminium frame picture in Zone 1 or 2 - or indeed anywhere in practice. There are many potential fault scenarios that are credible that don't involve the Class 2 luminaire.


and indirect contact, well as its class 2 i dont see that as a problem (contact with a part thats become live due to a fault)

Metal conduit system, common in LA type buildings or healthcare premises - not always flushed in or with little or no knowledge of the conductivity of the tiles and base render if flushed. Standard specs that deploy metalcald accessories in "public sector" buildings - the hand dryer in ambulant disabled shower rooms



As I said, it's additional protection for all circuits of the loacation - it's not either or

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 16 May 2013 11:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19747
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

So we may apply any of the measures in sections 411 to 414, but the RCD is still required as a backstop - ie it's for Additional Protection


Odd that 701.411.3.3 isn't numbered 701.415.1.something then?

- Andy.


OK - but could we apply RCD protection for 701.413 or 701.414 (and intersting that there is no 701.412 regulation - do we then read that to mean DI is not permitted (or at least recognised) in a bathroom - we exclude placing out of reach and non conducting location - we include ADS, electrical seperation and SELV/PELV - but are silent on DI ?

I'd agree that we should really have the requirements for additional protection by RCD's in 701.415 - no real idea why JPEL 64 didn't put it there - perhaps a legacy of the uncommon haste with which the RCD requirements were written into BS 7671.2008

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 16 May 2013 12:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11553
Joined: 13 August 2003

do we then read that to mean DI is not permitted

Reg 700 says that silence indicates that the general regulations apply (unchanged), so the implication would be that the general requirements of DI systems would be acceptable within a bathroom without modification.

but could we apply RCD protection for 701.413 or 701.414

It would certainly be unusual - we've been using isolating shaver sockets without 30mA RCD protection not just within the location but within zones without anybody raising so much as an eyebrow - if not the letter, certainly the spirit of 413.

They did try to make us use RCDs on SELV circuits in 522.6.102 etc, but hopefully that wasn't intentional!

I'd agree that we should really have the requirements for additional protection by RCD's in 701.415

But presumably they'd still need something in 701.411/701.412 to "activate" 415 requirements for wiring in bathrooms - (like 411.3.3 does for sockets) as 415 itself only describes how to implement additional protection - not where/when it should be implemented.

- Andy.
 19 May 2013 09:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for dg66.
dg66

Posts: 1675
Joined: 11 January 2008

415 carelessness by users, cant believe i've never come across that before,but there you go. Now from the OP OMS has made several assumptions, surface conduits ,exposed boxes and conduit etc,well i also made assumptions,mine being that there are no exposed conduits,no cables associated with the lighting circuit buried in the walls within the bathroom and the light being operated via a pull switch as is very common.I also dont see wet naked people hanging pictures as a very likely scenario, so i stand by the original comments and say go with the class 2 fitting, and forget the RCD,afterall this is an alteration to an existing setup,will the installation be any less safe than it was before?
This is my opinion and it is up to the OP as to what he feels comfortable doing,as he has seen the job and has more information regards the alteration and existing installation than we do.

-------------------------
Regards

Dave(not Cockburn)
IET » Wiring and the regulations » En-Suite .

<< 1 2 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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