What will not require RCD protection next year?

[JohnW2]

In another thread .....

In the distant past, no circuits required RCDs. ... Then regulations changed so that some circuits did in some circumstances. ... After that some circuits always required RCDs and others did not. .... Then all concealed cables required RCDs unless installed in certain ways - this is the situation in 2018. ... From January 2019, all lighting circuits will require RCDs regardless of how the cables are installed.

Give or take any discussions about what constitutes a 'luminaire', that is all true, and it leads me to ponder the question of what will not require RCD protection come next year.

As far as I can make out, all that will be left will be circuits which involve no sockets, no light fittings and no buried T+E and are not in a bathroom.

The only things I can think of that could come into that category would be some cooker circuits (IF there no sockets on the circuit and no buried T+E) and dedicated circuits (IF no buried T+E) for hard-wired things like immersions and boilers. Am I missing much?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Well, there are things for which an RCD can be a definite issue.

Like sub-mains, or feeds from PV installations.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, there are things for which an RCD can be a definite issue. Like sub-mains, or feeds from PV installations.

Yes, they are further examples. Provided that they are not buried (and not armoured or with an earthed metal sheath), I don't see any requirement for those, per se, to be RCD-protected (provided that the final circuits they serve are, where required, RCD-protected).

My distribution circuits ('sub-mains') (which are mainly wired in Method C 16mm² insulated-and-sheathed singles) are RCD-protected (with time-delayed RCDs), but that's because it's a TT installation and that is the only way to achieve the required fault protection for the distribution circuits. However, that's specifically a TT thing, not related to a general requirement for RCD protection of such cables.

Kind Regards, John

 

[davelx]

Provided that they are not buried (and not armoured or with an earthed metal sheath),

Kind Regards, John

Are you saying that if they are armoured or do have an earthed metal sheath, they DO require an RCD even if they are not buried?
Wouldn't that logic mean that a surface mounted submain run in SWA would need to be RCD protected?

(I don't have a copy of 18th yet)

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think so. Word it this way:

RCD not required provided that they are not - buried - or armoured - or with an earthed metal sheath)

 

[JohnW2]

Are you saying that if they are armoured or do have an earthed metal sheath, they DO require an RCD even if they are not buried?

No, as EFLI said, I was saying the opposite of that - i.e. that, provided they are NOT buried (OR, IF BURIED, are armoured or have an earthed metal sheath), they are two more examples of the few things that presumably will not, per se, have to be RCD-protected even under 18th. (provided that anything relevant connected to the end of them {e.g. sockets or lighting fittings} is, if so required, suitably RCD-protected).

Kind Regards, John

 

[davelx]

No, as EFLI said, I was saying the opposite of that - i.e. that, provided they are NOT buried (OR, IF BURIED, are armoured or have an earthed metal sheath), they are two more examples of the few things that presumably will not, per se, have to be RCD-protected even under 18th. (provided that anything relevant connected to the end of them {e.g. sockets or lighting fittings} is, if so required, suitably RCD-protected).

Kind Regards, John

Yes, that's what I thought.

"Provided that they are not buried (and not armoured or with an earthed metal sheath), I don't see any requirement for those, per se, to be RCD-protected"

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, that's what I thought.

Indeed, and that's what I was attempting to write, albeit perhaps not as clearly as I could have done

"Provided that they are not buried (and not armoured or with an earthed metal sheath), I don't see any requirement for those, per se, to be RCD-protected"

I probably should have written something like:

"Provided that they are not buried (and or, if buried, not armoured or with an earthed metal sheath), I don't see any requirement for those, per se, to be RCD-protected"

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Mmm... I think you need to try that again.

 

[JohnW2]

Mmm... I think you need to try that again.

Damnit I meant to change (delete) that, too, but didn't. Third time lucky? ...

"Provided that they are not buried (and or, if buried, not armoured or with an earthed metal sheath), I don't see any requirement for those, per se, to be RCD-protected"

OK now?

Kind Regards, John