Kitchen electrics question

A question for both of you ... you both seem to feel that most non-sockets circuits (with the possible exception of showers) 'are best kept off RCD', and I wonder why that is? Is it simply because you want to avoid 'inconvenience' due to tripping of multi-circuit RCDs (in which case you would presumably be happy with individual circuit RCBOs?)? ... OR is it because you are worried about 'nuisance trips' ... OR ... do you see some other specific downside of RCD (or RCBO) protection that I haven't thought of?

Any arrangement that uses an RCD to cover multiple circuits is at risk of causing a inconvenience issue, its a compromise which can be tolerated in most domestic environments, however in commercial situations, you generally have more of an inconvenience (however many folk left going for a brew/smoke while the PCs come back on line) and more equipment likely to have a standing earth leakage.

As to RCBOs, yes they reduce the problem (sometimes they can still cause a nuisence trip issue though - damp heating elements on cookers etc, ballasts in outside fittings etc, also seen multiple RCBOs drop out when a storm passed near by). But they are expensive (look up the price of a merlin gerin rcbo and muliply it by a 12way TPN board loaded with them!). They fill the board up and make it tight to work in, most makes have a flying earth lead which must be disconnected before a global insulation test is carried out. Earth loop readings take longer to obtain and more likely to be prone to error. Some makes only available in C type so you might have to swap your zs being in spec for an RCD, which is a poor deal.

In short, they are not neccessary, and add expense and time to the job without good reason. If I have a radial circuit feeding a panel heater in a mess room, what advantage will be gained from swapping the 16A MCB to an RCBO?

Its not unusual for specifications to require that no RCD is fitted to lighting circuits, since the 17th came out that has required that switch drops are in metallic conduit (the same specs would have already required them to be in plastic conduit under the 16th)
 
Sponsored Links
In short, they are not neccessary, and add expense and time to the job without good reason.
Thanks for your detailed reply, which seems to indicate that you were not thinking of any downsides of RCDs which I hadn't thought of. It seems that you are, as I suggested, simply in the 'not necessary' (aka 'RCD-sceptic') camp.

Do I take it that, if it were not for the regulations, you would not feel it necessary to RCD protect buried PVC cables (which did not have mechanical protection) - i.e. you would not feel it 'necessary' to protect against the sort of once-in-a-blue-moon incident which beset the unfortunate MP's daughter (the outcome of which an RCD may have changed)? That's not a trick question - 'my head' certainly finds it quite hard to justify a requirement for such protection.

What about shower circuits? (Regs aside) Do you share Adam's feelings that they probably should have RCD protection, even if the cable routing does not require it?

Kind Regards, John
 
Links in this post may contain affiliate links for which DIYnot may be compensated.
What about shower circuits?
That's interesting wording.

You say 'shower circuits' which, with reference to the MP's daughter, would be safer with RCD protection (as per the regulations) as would any circuit.

(Regs aside) Do you share Adam's feelings that they probably should have RCD protection,
However, I suspect that you were probably thinking more about the actual shower itself which really does not require RCD protection by the regulations and, with respect to the thread, nor does it offer any actual benefit to the user.

even if the cable routing does not require it?
That would never apply to new installations now, would it?


The problem is with the cable installation requirements which, if an RCD was not wanted for specific appliances, leads to a lot of work (other than clipped direct).
 
Sponsored Links
What about shower circuits?
That's interesting wording. ... You say 'shower circuits' which, with reference to the MP's daughter, would be safer with RCD protection (as per the regulations) as would any circuit.
OK. Since (as you go on to quote) I added "even if the cable routing does not require it" (i.e. if it is all, say, clipped direct), then, as you say, my question was essentially about the shower (since Adam had 'singled it out'), not the shower 'circuit'.
(Regs aside) Do you share Adam's feelings that they probably should have RCD protection,
However, I suspect that you were probably thinking more about the actual shower itself which really does not require RCD protection by the regulations and, with respect to the thread, nor does it offer any actual benefit to the user.
Exactly. That's why I was asking Andy if he had the same 'gut feeling' as Adam (whose guts seemed to want RCD protection for the shower, even though the regs don't really require it).

I have to say that there seems to be a major 'head vs heart' issue at work here, even for me. The coming together of electricity, water and wet naked bodies just 'feels' as if it is a situation crying out for RCD protection, even though it would be difficult to produce an argument that an RCD would actually offer any 'significant' benefit to the user ('blue moons' aside).
even if the cable routing does not require it?
That would never apply to new installations now, would it?
That's what makes most of this discussion rather moot (for normal domestic installations) even for those of us who are 'RCD-sceptic'. I would imagine that, in most 'normal' domestic installs, at least some of the cable for most/all circuits will be routed such as to require (per regulations) RCD protection - so the discussion as to whether the RCD is necessary/useful/desirable for other reasons becomes irrelevant. Although not written as such, the regs now effectively almost require that every circuit in a 'normal domestic installation' be RCD-protected - and maybe we'll even see the day when the regs actually say that?

I really do think that 'the jury is still very much out' as regards the degree of benefit (in terms of saving life and limb) offered by RCDs (in TN installations). Unless/until the jury is able to reach a verdict, I think we use them, increasingly, primarily because it became technologically possible to produce them, coupled with the fact that they 'sounded like a good idea'!

Kind Regards, John
 
even if the cable routing does not require it?
That would never apply to new installations now, would it?
That's what makes most of this discussion rather moot (for normal domestic installations) even for those of us who are 'RCD-sceptic'. I would imagine that, in most 'normal' domestic installs, at least some of the cable for most/all circuits will be routed such as to require (per regulations) RCD protection
Yes, but that's not what I meant but rather all circuits to the shower room must be RCD protected regardless of installation method.

I have to say that there seems to be a major 'head vs heart' issue at work here, even for me. The coming together of electricity, water and wet naked bodies just 'feels' as if it is a situation crying out for RCD protection, even though it would be difficult to produce an argument that an RCD would actually offer any 'significant' benefit to the user ('blue moons' aside).
Yes, whilst it may seem like the ideal scenario for an RCD, how is the safety aspect ever going to come into operation with an electric shower?
 
That's what makes most of this discussion rather moot (for normal domestic installations) even for those of us who are 'RCD-sceptic'. I would imagine that, in most 'normal' domestic installs, at least some of the cable for most/all circuits will be routed such as to require (per regulations) RCD protection
Yes, but that's not what I meant but rather all circuits to the shower room must be RCD protected regardless of installation method.
Yes, but that's 'the regulations' again - which, as below, appear (in this instance) to have been written by someone's 'heart', not head. As I said, my question about showers was "regs aside", in an attempt to discover what people really thought about the necessity/value of RCD protection.
I have to say that there seems to be a major 'head vs heart' issue at work here, even for me. The coming together of electricity, water and wet naked bodies just 'feels' as if it is a situation crying out for RCD protection, even though it would be difficult to produce an argument that an RCD would actually offer any 'significant' benefit to the user ('blue moons' aside).
Yes, whilst it may seem like the ideal scenario for an RCD, how is the safety aspect ever going to come into operation with an electric shower?
Exactly - as I said, the head cannot really justify the heart in this case (unless one invokes 'blue moons'!).

Kind Regards, John
 
The views on shower units and RCDs, while it is a bit once in a blue moon are as follows

It is possible for a leak on the heating element can to spray water out across the heater terminals which runs down the wall.. live(-ish) through a reasonably high resistance, while the shower head is spraying out water through the normal path thats relativly 'earthy'.

No amount of supplimenary bonding is going to reduce the effect of that unless you have metal tiles which can be bonded. However as the wall will be reasonably 'earthy' an RCD is likely to trip out pretty sharpish.

As to concealed cabling, I have seen fixings driven into cables many times, so I suppose in a domestic environment its a credible risk, however should we stop at concealed cables, An RCD tripping problem in a school was traced to a piece of paper drawing pinned into the mini trunking because the staff remember couldn't get the fixing into the wall!
 
The views on shower units and RCDs, while it is a bit once in a blue moon are as follows ... It is possible for a leak on the heating element can to spray water out across the heater terminals which runs down the wall.. live(-ish) through a reasonably high resistance, while the shower head is spraying out water through the normal path thats relativly 'earthy'.
Sure, but as you say, pretty 'blue moon' - particularly since even that only becomes an immediate problem if a 'victim' find some relatively low impedance to earth to touch at the same as touching this possibly-live water.
As to concealed cabling, I have seen fixings driven into cables many times, so I suppose in a domestic environment its a credible risk, ...
Yes, cable penetration is, in itself, far from unknown (and, I imagine, not only in domestic environments!). However, to end up in the position of the unfortunate MP's daughter, there have to be a number of other conditions simultaneously operative. The cable not only has to be penetrated, but penetrated in a way which leaves the fixing in contact with the live conductor without ever also having touched the CPC - I would imagine that this only occurs in a very small proportion of cable penetrations. Then there has to be something earthy nearby for a person to touch at the same time as the live fixing (or something in continuity with it); given that most penetrations are probably fairly high up walls, that 'co-incidence' is also probably relatively uncommon. Taking all those things together IMO gets us pretty close to a 'blue moon' scenario! As to how one reacts to 'blue moons', that obviously depends upon how risk-averse you (or society) want to be.

However, I'm not sure where this leaves you, 'camp'-wise. If, as seems to be the case, you are now 'defending'/'supporting' RCD protection of buried/concealed cables, that means that a high proportion of domestic circuits would (if reg compliant) have to be RCD protected because of the cable routing, regardless of any considerations of whether or not RCD protection was 'necessary' for other reasons.
... however should we stop at concealed cables, An RCD tripping problem in a school was traced to a piece of paper drawing pinned into the mini trunking because the staff remember couldn't get the fixing into the wall!
This is the age-old question of what degrees of idiocy the regs should attempt to anticipate. In this particular case, I suppose they might consider extending the requirement to any cable that was literally 'concealed' (i.e. not actually visible), rather than just to cables buried in walls - on the basis that it would take an even more idiotic idiot to put a drawing pin into a visible cable! However, 'there is a limit', and I think that might be beyond it. Having said that, whilst white ugly trunking is fairly obvious for what it is, there are types of trunking which are deliberately made to 'conceal' the fact that they actually contain cables (instead looking like 'decorative features'), so there might well be a reasonable argument for considering them in the same breath as cables buried in walls.

Kind Regards, John
 
It was in the DPC for amd. 3 which Simon linked to a couple of months ago.
Ah - you mean the new proposed 421.1.200? As you are aware, that doesn't specifically call for metal encloses - only 'non-combustible' (of which it gives ferrous metals as an example) OR 'not-readily combustible' materials - a note to which indicates:
For the purposes of this regulation insulating material e.g. plastic meeting a 960 ºC glow-wire flammability test as defined in BS EN 60695-2-11 is considered to be an example of a not readily combustible material.
I had assumed/suspected (I know!!) that many plastics (maybe even including some currently used for enclosures) would meet this requirement (or other acceptable specs - this is only given as 'an exampe'), and that we would therefore probably be seeing a change in the plastics used, rather than a widespread change to metal - but, as always, maybe I was/am wrong!


http://www.eponthenet.net/article/48882/Fired-up-over-consumer-units.aspx
 
An RCD tripping problem in a school was traced to a piece of paper drawing pinned into the mini trunking because the staff remember couldn't get the fixing into the wall!

School specs generally require steel conduit and steel trunking.
 
Ah - you mean the new proposed 421.1.200? As you are aware, that doesn't specifically call for metal encloses - only 'non-combustible' (of which it gives ferrous metals as an example) OR 'not-readily combustible' materials - a note to which indicates:
For the purposes of this regulation insulating material e.g. plastic meeting a 960 ºC glow-wire flammability test as defined in BS EN 60695-2-11 is considered to be an example of a not readily combustible material.
I had assumed/suspected (I know!!) that many plastics (maybe even including some currently used for enclosures) would meet this requirement (or other acceptable specs - this is only given as 'an exampe'), and that we would therefore probably be seeing a change in the plastics used, rather than a widespread change to metal - but, as always, maybe I was/am wrong!
http://www.eponthenet.net/article/48882/Fired-up-over-consumer-units.aspx]
Yes, I think that we all know that current CU enclosures can, an do, catch on fire. That article says that current ones are required to satisfy a 660° glow wire test per BS EN 61438. The proposed change in Amd3 of BS7671 would increase that requirement to satisfy a 960° glow wire test. As I said, I had 'assumed' that it will be possible to achieve that by appropriate choice of plastics (rather than a widespread change to metal CUs) - but I may, of course, be wrong.

Kind Regards, John
 
That article says that current ones are required to satisfy a 660° glow wire test per BS EN 61438.
It also says

The opinion of the author is that this test is not sufficient to ensure the safety of the occupiers in properties where plastic consumer units are installed. ... The plastics used in the construction of consumer unit enclosures should therefore be more resistant to ignition from an internal defective electrical connection.


The proposed change in Amd3 of BS7671 would increase that requirement to satisfy a 960° glow wire test.
Maybe the opinion of the author is widely shared.
 
That article says that current ones are required to satisfy a 660° glow wire test per BS EN 61438.
It also says ... The opinion of the author is that this test is not sufficient to ensure the safety of the occupiers in properties where plastic consumer units are installed. ... The plastics used in the construction of consumer unit enclosures should therefore be more resistant to ignition from an internal defective electrical connection.
The proposed change in Amd3 of BS7671 would increase that requirement to satisfy a 960° glow wire test.
Maybe the opinion of the author is widely shared.
I've never suggested otherwise, and probably share that view as well.

However, my point was that I imagined that the requirements proposed for Amd3 could probably be satisfied by choice of suitable plastics, rather than that it would have the effect of "banning plastic CUs", as originally suggested in this thread by RF.

I have to say that, even it is largely irrational, I am no lover of exposed-conductive-parts, and am more comfortable with insulated enclosures wherever they are practicable. Indeed, in the hands of 'less-than-competent' installers, metal CUs could possibly have a net negative effect on safety - they wouldn't burst into flames, but .....!!

Kind Regards, John
 

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
Back
Top