Would you not also consider main protective bonding?
EICR code question
- Thread starter mostlyharmlessdave
- Start date
Would you not also consider main protective bonding?
Sponsored Links
Agreed.
However, C2 was recommended solely because there was no RCD.
I was trying to determine if this was thought correct assuming that the circuit was correctly designed (which it isn't).
Now it has been pointed out that MIs may have required an RCD although we don't know how old it is.
Would a C2 be entered because MIs were ignored (if everything else was satisfactory) for an estimated age of installation?
Sponsored Links
When carrying out an EICR you're checking for complance with the current regulations. No prior knowledge of previous editions is required. Don't base odings on what could have been acceptable 20 or 30 years ago.
So -
C3 for lack of RCD.
C1 for overloading mcb. (assuming cable installation method satisfactory)
C3 for lack of RCD.
C1 for overloading mcb. (assuming cable installation method satisfactory)
Codings can be influenced by previous editions of BS7671, as something that was compliment in an earlier edition cannot be deemed as dangerous. Only non compliant with the current edition of BS7671.
I disagree. If the cable is adequately sized for the MCB protecting it, there is no immediate danger. With a shower circuit loss of supply would be inconvenient only.
Do you disagree because the shower is not on for very long and unlikely to permanently damage the mcb?
Would you think the same for a 3kW immersion on a 10A?
It's code 3.
Worst case scenario is the MCB trips and won't reset. No great problem and certainly doesn't pose a threat to persons, livestock or property.
Worst case scenario is the MCB trips and won't reset. No great problem and certainly doesn't pose a threat to persons, livestock or property.
Yes I would, though the owners would soon get tired of reseting it.
C1 should only be used where immediate danger is present. Otherwise, the importance of C1 can easily be diluted.
Ok - but merely classified as 'improvement recommended' seems a bit inadequate for something which is non-compliant and as such can be deemed unsafe which by definition must mean, at least, 'unacceptable condition' and 'potentially dangerous'.
What danger could arise from an undersized circuit breaker?
As a general question I'd say heat if the MCB is carrying a load above its rating for extended periods of time. It will also depend on how often this happens over time. It'll also go against the intentions of the manufacturer.
Obviously if the load it's carrying is high enough then the MCB will trip and potential danger would be removed.
Well, they are not meant to be 'run hot' (half way to tripping)all the time.
40A on a 32A breaker is 1.25 x In.
1.13 x In = no trip
1.45 x In = one hour trip.
Not sure about 1.25 x In but according to the graphs it doesn't look like it would trip (>3 hours anyway).
Wouldn't it lead to a breakdown of the internal parts until eventually it melts or catches fire?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
