17th edition RCD

[Pensdown]

Whats all the arguing about.
Wylex do a nice 17th edition board.
Buy one, chop your cables in ------ DO IT PROPERLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure that using a so called "17th board" is doing it properly?

314.1
314.2

 

[darty]

Go on then, tell us your opinion on the new boards
You know you want to

 

[Pensdown]

Sorry, I edited my last post before you posted

I'm not sure what my opinion has to do with it?

 

[darty]

Why do you think a "so called" 17th board is not doing it properly

 

[Pensdown]

Have you read Section 314 Division of Installation?

314.1
(i) New board will not comply
(ii) New board will not comply
(iii) New board will not comply
(iv) New board will not comply

314.2
new board will not comply

And sorry, that's not my opinion, it's written in black and white

 

[darty]

Youve got me interested
Please give me some more info
I havn't received my 17th regs book yet
why don't the new boards comply
Another 60 quid, only seems like yesterday that I done my 16th

 

[securespark]

Seems like the day before yesterday I learnt the 15th...

 

[darty]

15th???????????
Bloody hell you must be older than me!

 

[Pensdown]

314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:

(i) avoid hazards and minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault
(ii) facilitate safe inspections, testing, and maintenance (see also Section 537)
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit
(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal use
(v) bla
(vi) bla

314.2 Separate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be separately controlled in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.

Hurry up and get a red book, I hate copy typing.

 

[securespark]

That was in the red edition of the 16th?

314-01-01 --- 314-01-04


Even if you look in the 15th, 314-1 ---314-4 say pretty much the same.

"314-1 (i) avoid danger in the event of a fault"

could be interpreted as making sure circuits are segregated so as to avoid de-energisation of more circuits than necessary if an RCD trips.

Can't find any equivalent in the 14th Ed.

Contrary to what some believe, RCD's were around during (and indeed prior to) the 15th Ed...!!

 

[dingbat]

Fellas, the old split-load board did not comply with the 16th. It was a cobbled-together, not-entirely-successful attempt to provide an economic solution.

Dual RCD split load boards do not even come close to complying with Section 314.

Please, think for yourselves and don't accept the compromise that is being proposed.

 

[Pensdown]

I'm racking my brain trying to remember when I first installed an RCD I came out of my time in 79 (end of the 14th) and Chilton ELCB's were still the order of the day.

I can remember seeing one being demonstrated at an exhibition in brum which must have been while I was still at college.

 

[Cremeegg]

So taking the logical extension to 314.1 and 314.2 that dual RCD boards wont comply it has to be RCBO's everywhere.

Was anyone ever picked up by their assessors on use of split load boards not complying with 314 in 16th edition??.

I doubt anyone is going to be picked up on using dual RCD boards - its a compromise but a better one that a split load single RCD board.

 

[securespark]

I'm racking my brain trying to remember when I first installed an RCD

Wylex first brought RCD's out in 1974.

The first one I installed was 1983, an RCD incomer board.

 

[dingbat]

Cremeeg. The old split load boards were tolerated because it was a quick and easy way of complying with 471-16-01. In many installations the only circuit on the RCD is/was the ground floor sockets. And losing the sockets and shower, say, at the same time isn't so great an inconvenience. But losing, say, upstairs sockets, downstairs lights, kitchen sockets and central heating all at the same time, because of somebody plugging in an old, faulty appliance is a different matter.

In a modern installation you could easily have:

Ground floor sockets
Kitchen sockets
Upstairs sockets
Lights up
Lights down
Outside lights
Central heating boiler
Security alarm
Smoke alarms
Supply to garage

So, there's ten circuits, which because of 522.6.6/7 will probably need to have RCD protection. However you decide to group them between two RCDs (which is the bodge the manufacturers have come up with) you will have an increase in 'nuisance' tripping.

I think 314 is absolutely clear as day. If a fault on one circuit causes a different circuit to lose power then the installation design is at fault and non-compliant.

So, yes, RCBOs all the way, preferably dual-pole ones