Hello Fellas,
A bit of a question for all you P.I.R type of guys out there.

I never bother with writing reports, but just possible that i might do a few in the future.

Now I can tell you how things have to be installed in these regulations and the 16th.

What I would like to know is, if you get called to report on an installation, and its in perfect condition to 16th, but no RCDs, what happens?

Well, you examine the installation against the 17th edition - lack of RCD's in an otherwise OK install is usually a Code C3 - Improvement Recommended. It's up to you to take a view on sockets, buried cables and bathrooms/shower rooms

This would still allow you to give the installation a "satisfactory" for its continued use.

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Thanks OMS
Just refamiliarising myself with codes...seriously, its all changed..
but the new ESC leaflets are quite good.....

I t would depend on whether there was a requirement for RCD protection at the time of construction.
If not then as OMS says, code C3.
If there was, then code C2.

i disagree spin. I feel that the codes refer specifically top whether there there is danger present or not.

So a C2 is for a situation where a fault would cause an increased level if danger, if a particualr saftey measure that is in the regs is not present.

So i would code lack of RCD on sockets that supply mobile equipment for us outside ect as a code 2, whether the house was wired last year or in the 30's.

However i would code sockets upstairs in a bedroom with no RCD for protection from screws ect as a C3

Q]Now I can tell you how things have to be installed in these regulations and the 16th

Had to smile also. Height above ground? Means of suspension?

Regards

You start off disagreeing with me, then end up with the same result?

Not entirely. Under spin's scheme it would be a C3 if it was constructed in 2007, but a C2 if the installation was physically identical but constructed in 2009?

- Andy.

Conversly, you could have an installation which was constructed in 1970 which if tested in 2007 would have warrented a code 2, but if tested in 2009 no code at all.

Indeed. I re-wired my previous house in the to early days of the 16th (just before bathroom zones came in), so the bathroom had supplementary bonding between all extraneous-conductive-parts (and had there been any, exposed-conductive-parts), but not to c.p.c.s to circuits which supplied all-insulated accessories (as the lighting happened to be). I also happened to add 30mA RCD protection to all circuits. So it complied with the early 16th, didn't comply with the later 16th (as there was no bonding to c.p.c.s), but come the 17th (where supp bonding can be omitted) complies again.
- Andy.

I was atually thinking more along the lines of RCD protection for socket-outlets.
The 16th required any socket-outlet that could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors to be RCD protected, whereas the 17th only requires socket-outlets for use by ordinary persons and intended for general use to be RCD protected.

Are you missing 411.3.3 (ii) - by definition mobile equipment is likley to be used from a socket outlet up to 32A - if it's for use outdoors then we need the 30mA RCD.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

The requirement is to provide RCD protection for: "mobile equipment with a current rating not exceeding 32 A for use outdoors."
The requirement could be met by use of an RCD plug.
However, that is not my point.
The 16th requirement was directed at any socket which could reasonably be expected to be used for such a purpose.
The 17th is directed at only such sockets that are actually used for such a purpose.
Unless you have evidence that indicates a socket is actually being used to supply mobile equipment outdoors, there is no non-compliance.
Take for instance a couple of LU switch rooms that I recently worked on.
There are about nine DBs spread across the two rooms.
Each DB has had a single socket attached for the specific pupose of testing the Zs at each board.
As these are the only 230V sockets available, it would be reasonable to expect them to be used to supply portable equipment outdoors.
However as they are not used for such, and they are not intended to be used by ordinary persons for general use, there is under the 17th edition no requirement to provide RCD protection.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Of course really.
The sockets are not used to supply mobile equipment outdoors, so RCD protection is not required.
The sockets are not for use by ordinary persons, so RCD protection is not required.
The sockets are not intended for general use so RCD protection is not required.
The exception is not applicable, as no ordinary persons will use the sockets.

Doesn't matter what it's intended for (ie a specific labelled etc outlet) or who uses it - if its used for mobile equipment outdoors (which you believe is entirely possible) there is no exception to (ii) so you need the RCD unless you also demonstrate an alternative to a circuit or socket RCD - ie an RCD plug top. As the designer you have no control over that - and as most mobile equipment doesn't come with an RCD plugtop then it's up to the designer, under his duties for CDM and from there to BS 7671 to provide it ?

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

No doubt these sockets for Zs testing would be suitably labeled then to comply with 411.3.3 (i) (b) to deter ordinary persons using them for general use or an extension lead plugged in to supply a power tool outside such as a jet wash used to clean the building fabric?

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

No I said it would be reasonable to expect them to be used for such.
But as that is no longer the criteria for providing RCD protection in the 17th, RCD protection is not required.
There is no requirement for the sockets to be labled.
That particular exception only applies to sockets that are intended for general use by ordinary persons.
Which part of the Regulations state 'if you suspect'?
Unless a socket is used to supply mobile equipment outdoors, there is no requirement for that socket to have RCD protection.
The 'reasonably expected' condition has been dropped.

OMS I am quite aware that there are no exceptions for skilled or instructed persons to the requirement to provide RCD protection for mobile equipment used outdoors.
I have not at any time suggested that there is.
Why you keep banging on about it as if I have is a bit mystifying?
The requirement to provide RCD protection for mobile equipment used outdoors, does not specify socket-outlets, nor does it mention 'reasonably expected', 'suspicions', 'what might happen' or any other perhaps or maybe.
It is quite specific, mobile equipment used outdoors must be provided with RCD protection
If no mobile equipment is used outdoors, there is no requirement to provide RCD protection.

Spin

"If no mobile equipment is used outdoors, there is no requirement to provide RCD protection."

How do you know that then?

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/