IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: 314. 1 - EICR
Topic Summary:
Created On: 26 February 2014 03:10 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.
 26 February 2014 03:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 2017
Joined: 21 November 2008

Afternoon all.

Looking at an old commercial building with lots of boards, sub-boards, etc. some areas with a few offices grouped together are supplied from single phase DB's with front end 30mA RCD's.

Obviously the RCD could take out the lighting, power, etc.

So this would I presume fall foul of 314.1.

Looking through the inspections schedule, I cant actually see a box that refers to this, i.e. circuit arrangements, etc.

So, no box to put an X in.

I think I should make an observation and give a C3 but I'm not sure it should be a code at all.

Any thoughts?

Edited: 26 February 2014 at 05:01 PM by leckie
 26 February 2014 04:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11768
Joined: 13 August 2003

Don't worry about the model inspection schedule - it's there to support a minimum standard, not constrain competence. There's plenty of room in section K of the main report.

That said, I'd consider carefully what the dangers of an RCD trip would be - is there no borrowed light, or emergency lighting? Are people unfamiliar with the layout likely to be there? We happily put all lighting on adjacent rooms not only on the same RCD but often on the same MCB in many situations - or open plan offices with several lighting circuits all controlled by a single contactor - without too much worry. If someone drove a fork-lift into the submain cable (or just overloaded it) the entire area would black out regardless of RCDs - would that be unacceptable?

- Andy.
 26 February 2014 05:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 2017
Joined: 21 November 2008

Yes Andy, that is what I tend to think as well, its not a actually dangerous in this case. The occupants are familiar with the building and its not a dangerous environment as such.

I don't think it is worth mentioning in this case, in a different environment then it might well be different. Thanks
 26 February 2014 06:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



aligarjon

Posts: 2918
Joined: 09 September 2005

i would just mention it in the report at the end. not ideal but - - - .


Gary

-------------------------
Specialised Subject. The Bleedin Obvious. John Cleese
 26 February 2014 06:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



anastasis

Posts: 588
Joined: 01 September 2009

This is a tricky one, because there are zillions of installs like this, and no guidance (as far as I know) on what 314.1 (and 314.2) actually mean in practice. I think you're right to take a risk-based approach.
Statistics

See Also:



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