The daftest change or addition in the 18th edition

[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!

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

the whole damn exercise of the 18th... they brought it out far too soon after the 3rd amendment of the 17th... lots of pots to fill with cash it seems. lots of picky little things have changed and once again a lack of common sense about real world application.

 

[westward10]

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.

 

[Risteard]

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.

 

[netblindpaul]

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.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

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.

 

[PEG]

...not much harmonising with AC/DC...

Let's not let the thread get all Brexit,on us...

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Are we seriously not allowed to use other Manufacturer’s equipment in CUs and DBS now?

 

[Rosco]

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

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

Think that happened more with the 16th to 17th change.

 

[Ian1981]

Are we seriously not allowed to use other Manufacturer’s equipment in CUs and DBS now?

Have we ever supposed to have done this?

 

[Andy78]

@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.

 

[Wilko]

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?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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?

 

[Wilko]

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?

 

[westward10]

Hi - I haven't seen the wording of this - can anyone give the reference please?

536.4.203

 

[Wilko]

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.

 

[Strima]

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?

 

[rapparee]

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

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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.

 

[Risteard]

within the BS EN 61439 series.

I believe BS EN 61439-3 is specifically mentioned.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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.

 

[telectrix]

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?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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?

Yes.

 

[westward10]

Corresponding obligations is what in reference to the original manufacturer.

 

[Wilko]

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.

 

[netblindpaul]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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.

 

[sparksburnout]

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??