Poll: Compliance of Sockets Circuits

Is having just three sockets circuits (one kitchen), across 2 RCDs, 'non-compliant with BS7671' ?

  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
56,223
Reaction score
4,182
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
Question stimulated by comment in a current thread (being a repetition of what has been written in the past). I would have hoped that I knew what response the great majority would give - but maybe I'm going to be surprised :)

The character limit doesn't allow me to be more explicit in the question, but what I mean is:

"Do you believe that having just three sockets circuits (one being for the kitchen) in one house, with those circuits spread across two RCDs (i.e. two circuits protected by one RCD and one circuit by the other RCD) is 'non-compliant with BS7671' ? "

Thanks for your votes.

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
If it was non-compliant, dual RCD boards (ie the ones with two RCCBs) would be non-compliant too.
 
To me non compliance would be there if the expected and reasonable load in normal use exceeded the capacity of a circuit ( ie that supplied from one MCB )

In which case "compliance" could be achieved by dividing the expected load over one or more additional circuits.

Common sense about loading and the home owner's requirements should determine what is to be installed. The rules and guidelines of BS7671 should be used to ensure the design and workmanship of the installation provides a safe electrical installation for the people living in and visiting the home.
 
If it was non-compliant, dual RCD boards (ie the ones with two RCCBs) would be non-compliant too.
I believe that, strictly speaking, they are.

They were introduced by manufacturers as a cheap and nasty way to "comply", although I don't believe they do, and some senior figures at the IEE at the time didn't either.

Why they didn't knock it on the head, I don't know.
 
Sponsored Links
Going back to 1980

The electricity board meter installer would not connect the supply to our caravan on our building site because it had 2 RCDs One protecting the ring main in the caravan and the second one protecting the supply to the building area.

I had a word with his boss explaining that if there was an accident on site which tripped the single RCD then we would not have lights in the caravan to find the First Aid kit or worst case the phone to call 999.

We and the 2 RCDs were connected the next day.
 
Last edited:
It said back in 17th Edition
Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:
(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 operation.
the fact it says "RCD" clearly RCD's form a circuit as far as BS7671 goes, however back before the 30 mA we would have one 100 mA RCD feeding all the home without any problem with nuisance tripping, so would have complied with the above, caravans have two 30 mA RCD's in series and seem to have no problems, so again even a single RCD can be compliant.

We should test to see the leakage, I will hold up hands and say I have never tested, simply as I have never had a clamp on meter that will measure 0.001 amp. So knowing once it exceeds 9 mA we should split is all very good, but we don't know if it will exceed 9 mA.

Also we have no idea what will be plugged in, I remember doing an office in the days of desk top computers, one ring would have powered the 20 odd PC's, but at that time PC's were well known for leakage so we ran multi-circuits three I seem to remember each with own RCD as we knew with one circuit it was likely to trip.

My PAT tester did show the leakage current and I have had new equipment which has been returned as leakage over 3.5 mA. Actually scales and the filter was removed and sent back to us. Filters like this
shopping
are common in equipment and we should plan so the small current to earth will not trip a RCD in normal operation. I am sure a small flat can like a caravan work with a single RCD, maybe with an emergency light, remembering most caravans have a battery for lights, except for German Hobby.

But my home three floors, two kitchens, two electric showers, five bedrooms, and to reset a RCD if it trips one has to leave main house and go down outside steps to reset it, there is a very real danger if you trip a RCD with a socket fault and it puts out the lights, and sockets in main house wired side to side and lights wired up/down, so only way to have two RCD's so sockets do not trip lights is all lights on one RCD and all sockets on the other, which in turn means little water in outside light and no lights for whole house, which is clearly a danger. If lights fail due to general power cut, one does not need to do anything, if they fail due to local trip, does not matter how long you wait they will not come back on until you reset them. And general power cuts are rare.

But if the home is small then having two RCD's is possibly compliant, it is clearly compliant with a caravan with one. So the question is how big does the home need to be before we would say non compliant?

On this forum electricians have said how their house rarely trips a RCD, and two were plenty, but I have lived with two 30 mA RCD's feeding two Wylex fuse boxes (fuses swapped for MCB's) for around 25 years before moving here, and I would have bouts of tripping, maybe 4 times in a week, did all tests, no faults found, then 2 years trip free. I did note more likely in a thunder storm, so seems likely caused by spikes on the supply, the RCD's clearly old, so likely no electronics in them, they were 4 module wide each, so maybe the modern RCD is not affected with spikes in the same way, or the SPD removes the spikes?

Never tripped in mothers house 2 RCD's and 4 RCBO's so maybe in may case just age.

But the number of threads on here saying how RCD's have tripped is seems there is a problem, I think the leakage should be measured and entered on the installation certificate.
 
"Do you believe that having just three sockets circuits (one being for the kitchen) in one house, with those circuits spread across two RCDs (i.e. two circuits protected by one RCD and one circuit by the other RCD) is 'non-compliant with BS7671' ? "
Did you actually mean 'non-compliant' - as per the definitions?
 
This is from BS7671, and where the 30% limit for leakage current is from:
531.3.2.png


30% of a 30mA RCD being 9mA.

This is a sample of leakage currents for a selection of equipment.

leakage.png


which is taken from this document: https://www.se.com/uk/en/download/document/CA908066E/
the contents of which are from IEC 60335-2- series standards. There are more than 100 of those, one for each type of equipment, and they are all sold separately.
 
531.3.2 first appeared in the 18th edition in 2018.

Section 314 which is Division of Installation has been in there for decades, since the 15th edition.

The relatively recent prevalence of everything having electronics inside, and specifically switching power supplies, has significantly increased the leakage current for a very large number of items, including those which previously had little or none. Modern homes typically have vastly more items of equipment than those of only a decade ago.
 
If it was non-compliant, dual RCD boards (ie the ones with two RCCBs) would be non-compliant too.
Exactly - that was the point of my question - since the suggestion has been that dual-RCD boards are 'non-compliant' (despite their continuing widespread use).

Kind Regards, John
 
To me non compliance would be there if the expected and reasonable load in normal use exceeded the capacity of a circuit ( ie that supplied from one MCB ) ... In which case "compliance" could be achieved by dividing the expected load over one or more additional circuits.
Yes, that's obvious - any circuit has to be designed such that is is 'not likely' that the design current will be exceeded (even though that really requires a crystal ball) - which, in turn, determines how many sockets circuits one should have.

However, that's not the point, or the reason for the question. The suggestion was effectively that it is 'non-compliant' to have more than one circuit protected by the same residual current device (i.e. all circuits should be on RCBOs) since, otherwise, there is a greater risk of the 'limit' of 9mA total L-E leakage during normal operation of loads being exceeded.

Kind Regards, John
 
Exactly - that was the point of my question - since the suggestion has been that dual-RCD boards are 'non-compliant' (despite their continuing widespread use).

Kind Regards, John

And before that, was the split load consumer unit, with one RCCB usually controlling all the socket circuits (and shower), and the unprotected side usually controlling the lights.

Worth remembering though, when these things came out, people were generally required only to protect sockets that could be used for outdoor use, which typically meant all the downstairs sockets - load of nonsense of course as people could still use an extension lead from the upstairs window.
 
And a related question is what are the actual real-world values of earth leakage from appliances, both when in use and when not in use.

We don't design installations to support the theoretical maximum load of the equipment therein, so should we design them to support the theretical maximum earth leakage.

Also worth noting that the lot of smaller SMPSUs are class 2, so don't contribute to earth leakage unless something makes a connection between their output and ground.
 
If it was non-compliant, dual RCD boards (ie the ones with two RCCBs) would be non-compliant too.
I believe that, strictly speaking, they are.
Do you really believe that, given that, over the past decade or so, I would imagine that the vast majority of CUs installed have been dual-RCD ones?

Do you believe that all in-service dual-RCD CUs should be given at least a C3 on an EICR?
They were introduced by manufacturers as a cheap and nasty way to "comply", although I don't believe they do, and some senior figures at the IEE at the time didn't either. Why they didn't knock it on the head, I don't know.
Hmmm. All of the regs that are being cited incur words like "likely", which means that sensible judgement/discretion is not only allowed,but required.

If the authors of BS7671 had really intended to 'outlaw' dual-RCD CUs (i.e. insist that all circuits should have individual RCBOs), would they not have simply 'said so'? See the response I am about to write to flameport - in real-world terms, this does rather feel to me like 'a solution looking for a problem'!

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