Discuss The daftest change or addition in the 18th edition in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

O

Octopus

pretty much as the title says ....

For me it’s a txss up between the regulation about no mixing makes or mcbs or rcbos - but what if they are identical except for the name or logo

Eg lewden and control gear

AND

the design limit of 30% earth leakage on circuits with rcbo or rcds - how can this be tested / checked and what happens when people move in a new build and plug in all sorts or carp accessories

Next!
 
Can this thread be about changes which seem insignificant and not people droning on about changes for manufacturers to make money.
1. Change from ac and dc to AC and DC to harmonise with Europe.
2. Change of the rcd notice from quarterly to six monthly.
3. The insistence of two colour notices whilst not a change should have been removed.
4. Font size changes to some of the notices.
 
For me it’s a txss up between the regulation about no mixing makes or mcbs or rcbos
I think it's eminently sensible. People were always adopting the duties of the designer of the assembly by doing this (although many appeared to be oblivious to this) so I think an unambiguous statement about this is welcome.
 
Can this thread be about changes which seem insignificant and not people droning on about changes for manufacturers to make money.
1. Change from ac and dc to AC and DC to harmonise with Europe.
2. Change of the rcd notice from quarterly to six monthly.
3. The insistence of two colour notices whilst not a change should have been removed.
4. Font size changes to some of the notices.
The a.c. to AC etc was not to harmonise with Europe it was to harmonise with the IEC.
 
the one i think customers will not like is the requirement for notices for all rcd's even ones not at the board, as i understand it a rcd spur will now need a sticker telling them to test etc... either the writing will be so small it cant be read or you put a picture frame on the wall next to it? as soon as you are out the door they will remove it in any case.
I would be surprised if more than 2% of people ever actually test the rcds as per the notices.
 
What gets me is when they change the number of a reg but don’t actually change the reg itself can’t think of one off hand but I think there’s about 3or4 from the 17th to 18th il have a look tomorrow when I’m less sleepy :oops:
 
@Murdoch mixing similar brands that fit has never been much of an issue. Just get written verification from the manufacturer. I have done this before with Ashley/Hager, Schneider/SquareD etc.
 
I think it's eminently sensible. People were always adopting the duties of the designer of the assembly by doing this (although many appeared to be oblivious to this) so I think an unambiguous statement about this is welcome.
Hi - I haven't seen the wording of this - can anyone give the reference please? :)
 
Have we ever supposed to have done this?
Oh yes, there has never been a prohibition against this practice until AMD3.
The two conditions preventing this practice has always been compatibility and breaking capacity.
The breaking capacity of the individual components of a CU has frequently been lower than the PFC of many installations.
To circumvent this, they introduced ‘Type testing’ which increased the overall breaking capacity of CUs to 16kA.
Mixing different manufacturer’s components negates the type testing. As such unless the breaking capacity of the individual components was greater than the PFC, mixing manufacturers’ components was prohibited.
However in non-domestic installations where breaking capacities of individual components are generally much higher, this has never been much of a problem.

Amendment 3 of the 17th edition however changed things.
It introduced the requirement for BS EN 61439-3 CUs to be used in domestic installations.
BS EN 61439-3 CUs are type tested and as such the requirement effectively prohibits the mixing of manufacturers’ components.
Again in non-domestic installations, not so much of a problem.

If this new requirement prohibits the mixing of manufacurers’ components altogether, it may well have far reaching consequences. Not a only affecting standard DBS and CUs, but also custom built switch panels and control gear.
Will we still be able to build a control panel containing Telemecanique relays with ABB VSDs and Shneider MCBs?
 
There is Reg 421.1.201 which is unchanged from 17:A3 (domestic boards must be BS614393-3 and the non combustible bit). Is there a new reg?
 
Thanks - just had a read of it ... Just thinking of a hypothetical job to add lights. Existing board has no RCD for light circuits, like to add RCD but can't because no OE available, so now need a CU change ... "but I just want to change my kitchen pendant to 4 downlights" says owner.
 
Oh yes, there has never been a prohibition against this practice until AMD3.
The two conditions preventing this practice has always been compatibility and breaking capacity.
The breaking capacity of the individual components of a CU has frequently been lower than the PFC of many installations.
To circumvent this, they introduced ‘Type testing’ which increased the overall breaking capacity of CUs to 16kA.
Mixing different manufacturer’s components negates the type testing. As such unless the breaking capacity of the individual components was greater than the PFC, mixing manufacturers’ components was prohibited.
However in non-domestic installations where breaking capacities of individual components are generally much higher, this has never been much of a problem.

Amendment 3 of the 17th edition however changed things.
It introduced the requirement for BS EN 61439-3 CUs to be used in domestic installations.
BS EN 61439-3 CUs are type tested and as such the requirement effectively prohibits the mixing of manufacturers’ components.
Again in non-domestic installations, not so much of a problem.

If this new requirement prohibits the mixing of manufacurers’ components altogether, it may well have far reaching consequences. Not a only affecting standard DBS and CUs, but also custom built switch panels and control gear.
Will we still be able to build a control panel containing Telemecanique relays with ABB VSDs and Shneider MCBs?
Same for domestic boards for aftermarket doorbell DIN rail power supplies, time switches etc.

Do all manufacturers supply SPDs for their boards or will they have to be standalone if there's room?
 
Again in non-domestic installations, not so much of a problem.

If this new requirement prohibits the mixing of manufacurers’ components altogether, it may well have far reaching consequences. Not a only affecting standard DBS and CUs, but also custom built switch panels and control gear.
Will we still be able to build a control panel containing Telemecanique relays with ABB VSDs and Shneider MCBs?


Telemecanique have been bought over by Schneider so that won't be a problem.

Also control panels aren't governed by BS7671 instead it's BS-EN 61439-2
 
From what I understand, the new prohibition applies to all DBs and similar switch gear within the BS EN 61439 series.
Installing a component which was not included in with the type testing would make the installer the manufacturer and thus responsible for ensuring conformity with the standard.
 
Thanks - just had a read of it ... Just thinking of a hypothetical job to add lights. Existing board has no RCD for light circuits, like to add RCD but can't because no OE available, so now need a CU change ... "but I just want to change my kitchen pendant to 4 downlights" says owner.
With lights though you could surely run the whole light circuit - being it would normally be a 6 amp mcb through a fuse rcd spur with a 5 amp fuse in it? unlikely to exceed 5 amp on most modern light circuits. Could mount it on wall next to consumer unit. just dont forget your nice new 18th edition testing sticker that has to some how fit on the said rcd spur.
 
536.4.203 Integration of devices and components
The relevant part of the BS EN 61439 series shall be applied to the integration of mechanical and electrical devices and components, e.g. circuit-breakers, control devices, busbars into an empty enclosure or existing low voltage assembly.
In low voltage assemblies to the BS EN 61439 series, e.g. consumer units, distribution boards, incorporated devices and components shall only be those declared suitable according to the assembly manufacturer’s instructions or literature.
NOTE 1: The use of individual components complying with their respective product standard(s) does not indicate their compatibility when installed with other components in a low voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly.
NOTE 2: Incorporated components inside the assembly can be from different manufacturers. It is essential that all incorporated components should have had their compatibility for the final enclosed arrangements verified by the original manufacturer of the assembly and be assembled in accordance with their instructions e.g. the consumer unit, distribution board manufacturer. The original manufacturer is the organization that carried out the original design and the associated verification of the low voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly to the relevant part of the BS EN 61439 series.
If an assembly deviates from its original manufacturer’s instructions, or includes components not included in the original verification, the person introducing the deviation becomes the original manufacturer with the corresponding obligations.
 
agree spin, but does note 2 mean that you can fit a different make of device as long as the OM has OK'd it's use in their CU/DB?
FWIW that's how I read it too. I just think it might be unlikely, as I take it the OM would be responsible and the new company makes the sale.
 
From what I understand, the new prohibition applies to all DBs and similar switch gear within the BS EN 61439 series.
Installing a component which was not included in with the type testing would make the installer the manufacturer and thus responsible for ensuring conformity with the standard.
This is correct and has been in the LAW of the land for many years, but electricians seem to believe that they are above compliance with the law of the land in which they live and work.
 
Going to have to consider this quite carefully, may change my opinion from time to time.

Since AMD3, BS7671 has required us to install BS EN 61439-3 compliant CUs in domestic installations.
Altering such a CU in any way other than as per the manufacturer’s instructions would mean the CU no longer complies with BS EN 61439-3.

We have always been able to depart from the requirements of BS7671, as long as the departure provides the same degree of safety as would be afforded by compliance.

There is also a requirement that whatever equipment we do install should meet whichever British Standards are applicable, though we can install equipment which complies with another applicable standard and we are also allowed to install equipment which doesn’t comply with any applicable standard, again as long as the same degree of safety is provided as would be afforded by compliance.

It has been a requirement for some time now, that the designer attest any departure provides the same degree of safety as would be afforded by compliance.

The problem with this new requirement is it appears to be going a little further.
It no longer requires us to simply attest on the certification that the departure provides the same degree of safety as would be afforded by compliance.
It appears to now require us to attest that any altered CU/DB still complies with the applicable BS EN 61439 series standard.
 
the one i think customers will not like is the requirement for notices for all rcd's even ones not at the board, as i understand it a rcd spur will now need a sticker telling them to test etc... either the writing will be so small it cant be read or you put a picture frame on the wall next to it? as soon as you are out the door they will remove it in any case.
I would be surprised if more than 2% of people ever actually test the rcds as per the notices.
2% you reckon it's that high? For me this stupid change just shows how out of touch the people who dream up these things are, that they actually think that ANYONE tests their RCD's. Come on lets be honest, how many of you lot test yours regularly??
 
From what I understand, the new prohibition applies to all DBs and similar switch gear within the BS EN 61439 series.
Installing a component which was not included in with the type testing would make the installer the manufacturer and thus responsible for ensuring conformity with the standard.
But a control panel with a variable speed drive, contactors etc is not a distribution board. It is not covered by BS7671.

BS7671 only applies to the power supply up to the control panel.
 
I've never met anyone who uses the RCD test button as per the sticker. I have a little safety chat with folks before leaving and I'm pretty sure no one I've spoken to has ever pressed the test button.
You would get more people pushing it if you changed the label to read "Under no circumstances attempt to push the Test button on the RCD"
 
1) Pick and mix protective devices - So I have no OEM instructions, they don't make this particular device anymore....power outage, work has stopped...mmmm...try one of these...Ah...it fits perfect...test...power on...I certify & sign that I take full responsibility for my actions....nothings changed really.
2) IR Test voltage column on SOTR - if its not at 500v I put it in remarks or note it anyway.

I like the sky blue colour - when you hold it up to the sky in this nice weather ....it just blends in....disappears...wow.. thats magical.
 
pretty much as the title says ....

For me it’s a txss up between the regulation about no mixing makes or mcbs or rcbos - but what if they are identical except for the name or logo

Eg lewden and control gear

AND

the design limit of 30% earth leakage on circuits with rcbo or rcds - how can this be tested / checked and what happens when people move in a new build and plug in all sorts or carp accessories

Next!
There is one or two jobs worth at the IEE. I suspect many brands of MCBs and RCDs come of the same production line, it's known as badge engineering.
 
pretty much as the title says ....

For me it’s a txss up between the regulation about no mixing makes or mcbs or rcbos - but what if they are identical except for the name or logo

Eg lewden and control gear

AND

the design limit of 30% earth leakage on circuits with rcbo or rcds - how can this be tested / checked and what happens when people move in a new build and plug in all sorts or carp accessories

Next!
Yes. Respectively, it is impossible to create a set of standards that everyone is happy with and have no errors. On the same principal, we have courts and Judges to decide on points of law. Often, with hindsight, they can get decisions wrong.

Please let me respond to 2 of your points.

Mixed protective devices in consumer units.

A BS60898 will provide a given level of protection for a given set of electrical parameters. That said, there is no requirement for them to be of a particular size of even how they are connected into the circuit.

Universally we use din rails mainly to mount our mcbs in consumer units and distribution boards. The height or distance from the base of the din rail to the terminals on the db are different on different boards. Mixing different connecting heights on a bus bar will put mechanical strain on the bar, terminals and can eventually cause bad connections due to the expansion and contraction of the bar due to changes in temperature. Result - Fire.

A competent electrician will be able to identify where the only difference in mcb is the lable or badge. This will be noted and is fully in line with the regulations.

This regulation will hopefully stop bodgers from sticking/forcing any random breaker into consumer units.

Limiting of earth leakage to 30% downstream of a RCD (531.3.2).

I am assuming that you are referring to the above regulation. Please note that though it is a regulation, it is a consideration.

In a computer suite which has 30 2 gang switch socket outlets across 3 ring final circuits. the leakage to earth on a 10 point rfc will be around 15mA. Maybe, as much as 20mA. Without advertising manufacturers instruments, there are many instruments that can measure the leakage without breaking into the circuit. Computers, monitors and fluorescent lights can leak as much as 1mA to earth by nature.

A competent electrician/designer will take this into account when designing the circuit and will require the installer or inspector to carry out some sort of tests to confirm that the design has been followed and is correct.

As humans, we tent to look for faults before looking for the good. As my grandma used to say, "bad news travels faster than good news".

Did you know that the IET are a "not for profit charity"? If you visit a law library you will note that the cost of books of a similar size and complexity are significantly much more.

That aside, there are lots of formatting errors. There are lots of errors that have been in the regs for many years too. Personally, it is a bit unprofessional to produce a document that has so many simple formatting errors and spelling mistakes.

Finally, the CG2382 has been an easy exam to teach. I have taught 1000s of persons, many were not even electricians. I think I had 5 people who failed in total. As the questions are now random, it will be harder to pass.

I am going back to the drawing board to produce an new teaching tool for the future.
 
Does it really need a competent electrician to be able to tell if a particular MCB will physically fit onto a DIN rail populated with --- other type(s)?? As for stipulating that they all have to be of the same make/brand/manufacturer, I am sorry that is just b$$locks.
 
Does it really need a competent electrician to be able to tell if a particular MCB will physically fit onto a DIN rail populated with --- other type(s)?? As for stipulating that they all have to be of the same make/brand/manufacturer, I am sorry that is just b$$locks.
It’s not that a competent Electrician can or cannot make that call, it’s that the competent Electrician will now have to state the CU/DB complies with the BS EN 61439 series standard.
 
Mixed protective devices in consumer units.
A BS60898 will provide a given level of protection for a given set of electrical parameters. That said, there is no requirement for them to be of a particular size of even how they are connected into the circuit. So we need a more precise standard to include maybe 2 standard Protective device dimensions where busbars are at equal depth and fit type A or type B boards.....(oh dear Wylex have brought out new double pole RCBOs not backwards compatible "end of life" cycles are more frequent now ££££)

Mixing different connecting heights on a bus bar will put mechanical strain on the bar, terminals and can eventually cause bad connections ......Result - Fire. Agree ... we need a better standard.(see above)

A competent electrician will be able to identify where the only difference in mcb is the lable or badge. ...
This regulation will hopefully stop bodgers from sticking/forcing any random breaker into consumer units. A little common sense will bring a decision whether, by physical comparison, the size/shape of the MCB, is/isn't satisfactory (even if the moulding is different). He/she can make a competent decision if it is safe to use or not. A blanket ban on mixing MCBs does not make complete practical sense in the real world.

Limiting of earth leakage to 30% downstream of a RCD (531.3.2).
Like what you say here...+ informative

Did you know that the IET are a "not for profit charity"? If you visit a law library you will note that the cost of books of a similar size and complexity are significantly much more.
But why is it still a non-statutory regulation? I am all for not for profit charities so long as there is some decent ethics involved.
I only wanted to look at a labelling section today (18th ed)... labels (p541) see also marking: "warning notices" (p555) "see notices - warning" (p544) go to section 514.12.1 -periodic inspection ...(p132)under chapter "Common rules" ....phew got there in the end .......all while trying to be a competent person.
 

Reply to The daftest change or addition in the 18th edition in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Similar Threads

I know how I was taught to test a RCD, 6 tests in all two no go, two under 300 mS and 2 under 40 mS with no load. But thinking about it not so...
Replies
7
Views
3K
E
I think I've Posted this before, but I've just updated it. Some of the sparks where I work still get a little confused of what the different areas...
Replies
58
Views
78K

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

YOUR Unread Posts

This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top