I.S. 10101 - The replacement for ET101:2008

2011

Below is a summary of many of the proposed changes the National Rules for Electrical Installations I.S. 10101:

● All cables must be CPR compliant with a minimum rating of Class Dca s1b,d2,a2 in accordance with EN50575.

● Domestic distribution boards must be made from a non-combustible material (such as steel).

● AC type RCDs shall not be recommended.

● There shall be a new section on surge protection including wiring diagrams.

● RCDs will be required on all lighting circuits in domestic premises.

● Arc Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs) shall be recommended for circuits installed in locations identified as having particular risk.

● Sign off required that the installation complies with the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Directive 2014/30/EU.

● Inspection and testing has been completely revamped to align with the CENELEC Standard.

● Charging points for EVs is also included.

salmocab

How long before these are likely to be in?

2011

salmocab wrote: »

How long before these are likely to be in?

I was told that it might be April.

Unlike previous revisions a PDF will be available. Just got a copy of the draft that has been circulated for comment. Public enquiry closes on 28th February 2019.

ted1

EI are hosting a talk on it.

http://www.engineersireland.ie/groups/divisions/electrical-electronic-engineering/events/introducing-irelands-new-national-rules-for-electr.aspx

2011

ted1 wrote: »

EI are hosting a talk on it.

http://www.engineersireland.ie/groups/divisions/electrical-electronic-engineering/events/introducing-irelands-new-national-rules-for-electr.aspx

Yes, well worth going to and membership isn't required.

Tuco88

I like the idea of AFDD, but if you have seen the price of the things currently. I dont think to many will be installed in domestic case's yet.

All rcd protection good idea. But 2 rcds (Probably the case) covering multiple circuits its kinda poor imo. All RCBOs for me. Obviously industral/commercial cases will be governed by design for no rcds.

Whats the EV part covering anyone hazard a guess? Location of charge points and so on?

2011

Tuco88 wrote: »

Whats the EV part covering anyone hazard a guess? Location of charge points and so on?

I don't need to guess, I have it in front of me. There is stuff like this:

722.314.101 A dedicated circuit shall be provided for the connection to electric vehicles

...and this:

For circuits in IT systems that are intended to supply energy for electric vehicles, for example by an isolating transformer or a battery system, an insulation monitoring device (IMD) according to I.S. EN 61557-8 shall be provided.


There are a lot of new diagrams and a lot more detailed information.

Tuco88

Will be interesting to see the new changes.

It wouldn't mind if I.S 10101 will have a type of "on site guide" like the one the neighbours have, its very handy quick reference.

2011

For those of us in the industrial sector doing real electrical work I think that there will be very little impact as we are effectively complying with these requirements already.
Perhaps my assessment of this will change when I get up to speed with the new requirements, it is early days.

2011

ted1 wrote: »

EI are hosting a talk on it.

http://www.engineersireland.ie/groups/divisions/electrical-electronic-engineering/events/introducing-irelands-new-national-rules-for-electr.aspx

Note:
Due to the large numbers attending the venue has been changed.
It is now in the Davenport hotel, D2.

JohnTravers

Tuco88 wrote: »

All rcd protection good idea. But 2 rcds (Probably the case) covering multiple circuits its kinda poor imo. All RCBOs for me. Obviously industral/commercial cases will be governed by design for no rcds.

Whats the EV part covering anyone hazard a guess? Location of charge points and so on?

You would hope they're calling for separate Rcbo's for the lighting,you could describe the Uk dual-boards as a bodge combining domestic sockets and lighting

Tuco88

You would hope they're calling for separate Rcbo's for the lighting,you could describe the Uk dual-boards as a bodge combining domestic sockets and lighting[/quote]

Its crazy really trying to fault find in this day and age and no need for it. But with an RCD installed it makes the board look more complex for the so called "handyman".

Irish Steve

Looking at this as an outsider, I would have to express concern about using RCBO's for lighting, unless they are mandated as having to be put on a separate unit from power circuits, the thought that an entire property could be put into darkness as a result of the failure of (say) a christmas tree light string is not something that should be taken lightly.

I have very rarely seen a MCB tripped out as a result of a bulb failure, and that is on a board where the lights are not under the RCBO. I can understand wanting to have "human" protection on lighting, but the other side of that coin is that things happen that cause the tripping of RCBO's, which is how it should be, but if that results in the house being put in the dark as well as taking out other protected circuits, that's a very different risk analysis, and whatever about the ideal configuration, if it's not mandated in regulations, I will put money on it that there will be specifiers that will put the absolute minimum panel in, and if the rules don't make it clear, that will put people at risk.

Bruthal

It will have to be rcbos. And as such, they will be independent of other circuits.

A Christmas tree string failure will be L-N faults so the RCD part is not really relevant as such.

Same with a bulb failure. They are usually L-N overcurrent trips, and won't trip the RCD.

There is always more of a risk of nuisance tripping though. But reduced with rcbo for each circuit.

Irish Steve

Bruthal wrote: »

It will have to be rcbos. And as such, they will be independent of other circuits.

Indeed, that was the bit that wasn't clear from way I read the overview above. I've seen panels that only have 1 RCBO on them, so a failure of any sort on a power circuit could also take out the lights, which I see as being a significant risk factor

A Christmas tree string failure will be L-N faults so the RCD part is not really relevant as such.

Same with a bulb failure. They are usually L-N overcurrent trips, and won't trip the RCD.

There is always more of a risk of nuisance tripping though. But reduced with rcbo for each circuit.

The light string was possibly a bad example. A more likely trip of the RCB device would be a kettle power lead getting wet, my main concern was that if the new regulations don't mandate that the lighting circuit/s have to be on separate RCBO device, there will be cheapskates out there that will put in the cheapest and nastiest panel they can get, and that could put people at risk if the regulations are not cast iron on having lighting separately protected.

Bruthal

Yes no doubt there would be persons who will do the cheapest possible.

But I can't see anything other than rcbo per lighting circuit being the requirement. Anything else would be a complete mess.

It is still slightly possible for a heavy power load to trip an rcbo on a circuit independent of the power circuit if the rcbo circuit has a N-E fault. But the rcbo circuit itself would be tripping from it's own load anyway.

Something like the kettle earth fault should only trip the sockets rcd or rcbo though, leaving the lighting one on it's own rcbo unaffected.

EdgeCase

It all sounds good to me.

I can't see the logic of not having RCBOs on lighting circuits. There aren't going to be that many of them and they are the only circuits that terminate in exposed live components - bulb holders.

I find there are too many excuses for not using them around nuisance tripping. They've been using split boards with multiple RCDs in France for many years without any issue. I've RCBOs on my cooker circuits in Ireland without any issue at all. One for the ovens and one for the hob. I asked for them because the manufacturer (Miele) recommended them and also because it's the one appliance that has shocked me in the past.

It also opens up the possibility of much more flexibility with lighting sockets for lamps and so on.

The arc fault detection is a good step forward too, especially in wooden frame buildings.

Non combustible materials for circuit boards also makes absolute sense. I have never understood why plastic was allowed in the first place. They are genuinely one area where there's a fire hazard.

EV charging points are also going to become very wide spread so great to see them being included.

Tuco88

Well a lot can be said for that GE consumer unit now (Metal one) Guilty of using the hager stuff mostly tho.

Suppose cable entry's will be a thing also into the DB.

I always assumed (Wrongly so) the the hager DBs had some sort of fire resistant in it?

I think the AFD devices will only be recommended too expensive atm.

Kelvinwhalley

Tuco88 wrote: »

Well a lot can be said for that GE consumer unit now (Metal one) Guilty of using the hager stuff mostly tho.

Suppose cable entry's will be a thing also into the DB.

I always assumed (Wrongly so) the the hager DBs had some sort of fire resistant in it?

I think the AFD devices will only be recommended too expensive atm.

I think the plastic boards would be flame -retardant or whatever the term is

The new standard would be non-combustible

There doesn't seem to be any issues with the 30mA protection on all circuits in the UK,not the best idea over there the dual-rcd board if they're still using it.

2011

I think it would be better to focus on the enforcement of the rules that we have, when they are followed properly everything works just fine. The issues I see including those raised here are due to a minority of RECs not following the rules or best practice that are already in place such as this example. Anyway, that is just my opinion whatever the rules are they will have to be complied with. I'm with Bruthal on using an RCBO per circuit rather than having a single RCD supplying multiple circuits to comply with the new draft requirements. I don't like the idea of a single point of failure for all the lights within a house especially when some lights are external.

I think that additional training on how RCDs actually would be a good idea as this always seems to cause confusion, we see it on this forum time and time again.

EdgeCase

There's no harm in doing both : proper enforcement and development of the code.

2011

EdgeCase wrote: »

There's no harm in doing both : proper enforcement and development of the code.

There is a significant cost impact to these changes not long after twin & earth (with reduced earth) has been banned.

2011

I attended the IET presentation on IS10101:20XX this evening. It was very informative with presentations from the chairman of the TC2 committee, the NSAI and Safe Electric. There were some interesting points raised and discussions. The electrical industry was well represented, from what I could see most in attendance were electrical design engineers.

Below is a summary of the notes I took. I have written this as though IS10101were in force which of course they are not. At present the document is a draft and feedback is invited. I was made aware of a number of possible changes to the draft after the presentation.

What was known as "parts" in ET101:2008 is now "chapters". These are as follows:

• Chapter 1: Scope
  
• Chapter 2: Definitions - This has been expanded and modified to align with international electrotechnical vocabulary.
  
• Chapter 3: Assessment of general characteristics.
  
• Chapter 4: Protection for Safety - This includes recommendations for AFDDs on circuits of particular risk such as premises with sleeping accommodation, in locations with higher fire risks due to materials stored etc.
  
• Chapter 5: Selection & erection of equipment - This includes clause 512.1.5 which will require sign off by the appropriate person that the installation complies with the EMC directive. This also covers all cables be rated to a minimum class Dca s1b, d2, a2. It was explained that there is a lot of focus on this since the Grenfell fire. SPDs and RCD types fall in to his chapter too with AC type RCDs being banned.
  
• Chapter 6: Inspection & testing - This has been completely revisited to align with the CENELEC Standard. The CRU shall now oversee the inspection and verification process. We were also shown a copy of proposed new completion certificates although model certificates have been removed from the new rules.
  
• Chapter 7: Special locations - Part 710 if for medical locations which has a number of clauses. "Other electrical equipment" will have to be risk assessed before being used int eh patient environment. Supplementary protective bonding conductors in group 1 and group 2 in mdeical locations must not exceed 0.2Ω
  
• Chapter 8: Energy Efficiency - This covers a number of topics such as:Assessing key electrical loads, calculating copper losses and limit these by increasing conductor sizes or moving load centres. There is also a section on "prosumers" (those that import and export electricity) in terms of changing load profiles to improve efficiency and reduce carbon footprint.

---

Implementation Dates

• Projects designed under ET101before 31/12/2019:
  - designer must attach certificate of design showing date.
  - must complete and certify by 31/12/2021
  
• New projects designed after 01/01/2020:
  - must comply with IS:10101
  
• Refurbishment projects designed after 01/01/2020:
  - must comply with IS:10101

Possibly where refurbishment is >75% of the entire installation then the entire installation must comply with IS:10101

It is expected that IS:10101 will be formally introduced in May or June 2019.

---

We were shown a new draft "electrical installation report". There are a number of pages in this. Aspects can be graded as follows:
C1 = Danger present. Risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required.
C2 = Potentially dangerous. Urgent remedial action required.
C3 = Improvement recommended.

Feedback on this form was invited.

---

There was also an odd requirement for switchrooms to have at least one external wall. In discussion afterwards I told them that this was ludicrous, if it was to be enforced they would have to shut down a well known semiconductor plant in Co. Kildare because at least 100 switchrooms within this would never conform.

---

The most controversial was that lighting circuits in a domestic installation must be fed from an RCD. The reasons given for this were interesting:

1) Due to the unreliability of RCDs in the past from nuisance tripping they were considered to present a net increase in risk, however due to technological advances they are now considered to be sufficiently reliable.

2) This was to protect untrained persons that do not have proper tools while working on lighting circuits, so essentially making it safer for DIYers to do electrical work on a domestic installation. In my opinion this was a recognition that a significant amount domestic electrics will always be installed by untrained persons.

Tuco88

An external wall for an M.C.C is an odd one alright. I wounder is it for fire regulations, it being one less wall for flames to travel through the building.

Im sure they will be more odd ones. Surprised cable entries in DBs didn't make a mark. Risteard81 might know, I think its a thing in the 18th in the UK?

Risteard81

Tuco88 wrote: »

Surprised cable entries in DBs didn't make a mark. Risteard81 might know, I think its a thing in the 18th in the UK?

What particularly were you considering RE: cable entries? Generally meeting the IP ratings is the major consideration (as well as obviously protecting against abrasion where the cables enter the DB e.g. by glands, bushes and lockrings/locknuts or grommets).

rob w

2011 wrote: »

Implementation Dates

• Projects designed under ET101before 31/12/2019:
  - designer must attach certificate of design showing date.
  - must complete and certify by 31/12/2021
  
• New projects designed after 01/01/2020:
  - must comply with IS:10101
  
• Refurbishment projects designed after 01/01/2020:
  - must comply with IS:10101

Possibly where refurbishment is >75% of the entire installation then the entire installation must comply with IS:10101

It is expected that IS:10101 will be formally introduced in May or June 2019.

On the reference to designers:

• Who is a classed as a designer?
• Can a REC be the designer or is any other formal qualification required?
• Are these certificates of design required for all projects under IS10101 going forward or is this just required during the changeover period to allow installations to be certified under the old regs up to 31/12/2021?

2011

rob w wrote: »

On the reference to designers:

• Who is a classed as a designer?
• Can a REC be the designer or is any other formal qualification required?
• Are these certificates of design required for all projects under IS10101 going forward or is this just required during the changeover period to allow installations to be certified under the old regs up to 31/12/2021?

My understanding:

Yes, a REC can be the designer. BTW, I did not select the word “designer”, I am just quoting the terminology that was used by the presenters. I do not believe that a specific qualification is required to be the “designer” but needless to say the person filling this role could be held accountable in the event of an issue.

Design certification is nothing new and would not apply to your average domestic installation.

EdgeCase

I'd definitely agree with the logic on the RCDs for lighting. You'll always have DIY work on things like swapping out light fittings and so on.

I'd prefer if they'd look at making DIY for swapping out of light fittings easier though by perhaps looking at supporting one of the established plug/socket systems for luminaries as used in Sweden or France, although I would guess they won't move on that unless there's an harmonised standard, which as far as I am aware does not exist yet.

What is the logic behind the switch room gable wall requirement?

It seems quite limiting as you'd have a major issue achieving that without completely redesigning some buildings. Must there be external access to the switch room for fire safety or something like that? It would make some logical sense if there had to be a fire door.

2011

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'd definitely agree with the logic on the RCDs for lighting.

When asked why this only applied to domestic installations the reason given was that commercial and industrial installations tend to use qualified people that have access to proper tools. So the rationale is that this is to protect people that are not necessarily electrically trained. I would worry that this will just encourage people that should not be near mains electricity to "have a go" in the belief that it is now "safe".

One person asked if this would apply to emergency lighting. This raised a few eyebrows! Obviously if emergency lighting if installed by its very nature has been deemed necessary, so installing a device on it that could impact reliability would seem irrational. However it would not be normal to install emergency lighting in a domestic installation, although not unheard of.

I'd prefer if they'd look at making DIY for swapping out of light fittings easier though by perhaps looking at supporting one of the established plug/socket systems for luminaries as used in Sweden or France

This may be problematic and ugly with many modern luminaries such as downlighters.

What is the logic behind the switch room gable wall requirement?

Not really sure, it is like someone that has little understanding of the implications came up with this in the "interest of safety".

rob w

2011 wrote: »

My understanding:

Yes, a REC can be the designer. BTW, I did not select the word “designer”, I am just quoting the terminology that was used by the presenters. I do not believe that a specific qualification is required to be the “designer” but needless to say the person filling this role could be held accountable in the event of an issue.

Design certification is nothing new and would not apply to your average domestic installation.

Thanks,

Apologies, I wasn't questioning your use of the word 'designer'. I am aware of the requirements around design certification - I was just wondering did this apply to a REC wiring or making mods to an existing domestic installation mainly. But as you say, it doesn't apply in that case.

I was just thinking that would make things more difficult if 'designer' and REC had to be separate entities or if design certification was required for all work.

EdgeCase

The "DCL" socket in France isn't ugly. It's just a small, flat plate with an attachable standardised hook that sits in place of a ceiling rose. You either plug in a ceiling rose, which looks exactly the same, or remove the ceiling rose and use the hook and socket to connect up and hang any kind of light you like.

The plug inserts flush to the ceiling - The mechanism is a bit like an oversized RJ11 plug with pins rather than sliding contacts. It goes in to the socket and sits pretty much flush. I've never seen any issue with fitting any hanging light fitting or any set of spots etc. You just fit the plug to a small flex on the light and hang it on the hook if it's a pendant / chandelier type fitting or install screws and mount to rawlplugs as per usual.

It's much flatter and neater than the Klik sockets that you sometimes encounter in commercial stuff here and certainly avoids that mess that you get where someone's replaced a rose with a fancy light and does not understand how the rose works or has attempted to jam fixed wiring into tiny little terminals that were designed for flex.

They fit completely invisibly behind most surface mounted lights.

If you're going to install downlighters / recessed lighting, obviously they're not much use, but they do solve the problem for many people who are just fitting some kind of centre light or who want to swap out side lights. It basically makes installing a light as easy as wiring a 13amp plug.

2011

^^^I worked in France quite a bit and never saw this. Even though my work was on trubines and not lighting I am surprised that I never noticed. Maybe it’s because the solution you described is better than I imagined it to be.

From what you say it sounds good.

2011

rob w wrote: »

I was just thinking that would make things more difficult if 'designer' and REC had to be separate entities or if design certification was required for all work.

No, I don’t believe that designer and installer had to be separate entities. From a responsibility point of view it would be more straightforward if they were, but generally on any sizeable installations they are not.

EdgeCase

2011 wrote: »

^^^I worked in France quite a bit and never saw this. Even though my work was on trubines and not lighting I am surprised that I never noticed. Maybe it’s because the solution you described is better than I imagined it to be.

From what you say it sounds good.

It's only been around since 2001 (mandatory) and for the most part you won't see it as it'll be directly behind a luminary and hidden. It's designed to be completely invisible behind any ceiling light with a base that fits to the ceiling.

Perhaps not the most ideal example, but you get the idea : https://youtu.be/mHQ4wtoJutM?t=124

Ceiling light : https://youtu.be/GDjUXuZFIdo?t=271

I'd be a bit worried about the way he's just drilling deeply and blindly into the ceiling with possibilities of wiring / ducts / plumbing, but that's DIY ...

In general though, I just prefer the idea of people being able to plug things in without having to deal with the potential complexities of what could be going on behind a rose in household wiring.

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

rob w wrote: »

On the reference to designers:

• Who is a classed as a designer?
• Can a REC be the designer or is any other formal qualification required?
• Are these certificates of design required for all projects under IS10101 going forward or is this just required during the changeover period to allow installations to be certified under the old regs up to 31/12/2021?

My understanding:

Yes, a REC can be the designer. BTW, I did not select the word “designer”, I am just quoting the terminology that was used by the presenters. I do not believe that a specific qualification is required to be the “designer” but needless to say the person filling this role could be held accountable in the event of an issue.

Design certification is nothing new and would not apply to your average domestic installation.

I will have to disagree here. Even a domestic installation will require the design to be certified. If we look at BS7671 as an example, signatures are required for "Design", " Construction" and "Inspection and Testing", and regardless of the type or complexity of the electrical installation. I would presume that the proposal here is along similar lines.

EdgeCase

I would suspect what they're trying to drive is the idea that even small installations are formally designed and aren't just installed ad hoc. This means that there is an actual wiring diagram that someone can refer and that a formal design process has been gone through, where all of the practicalities have been worked out before someone picks up a screwdriver at all.

rob w

Risteard81 wrote: »

I will have to disagree here. Even a domestic installation will require the design to be certified. If we look at BS7671 as an example, signatures are required for "Design", " Construction" and "Inspection and Testing", and regardless of the type or complexity of the electrical installation. I would presume that the proposal here is along similar lines.

So for example, say if a REC adds a socket and lighting circuit to a house extension and the REC is the designer as well as installer.

Is the REC required to provide documents in the way of a design as a designated 'designer' or 'design certifier'?

e.g.

• Diversity calcs?
• Load calcs?
• Cable sizing calcs?
• Protection device coordination studies?

Normally a REC would have the knowledge (and by using the regs) to install the correct size cables depending on the connected load and to ensure the MCB is sufficiently sized and allows for coordination with upstream devices, without the need for a formal design as such. The REC could then provide certification for the installation, but would additional docs be required for the design now?

Maybe I am overthinking this?

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

I will have to disagree here. Even a domestic installation will require the design to be certified.

You may be correct, this was just my interpretation. This was not discussed in depth.

My view is that there is pretty much a standard design for most domestic installations. Generally one distribution board, similar circuits from house to house will use similar or identical cable types and sizes unless cable runs are very long. There will be no switcrooms, MCCs, MV or HV transformers etc. so not much to “design”. Therefore if there is a design cert requirement then generating these will be very simple process and quite pointless.

If we look at BS7671 as an example, signatures are required for "Design", " Construction" and "Inspection and Testing", and regardless of the type or complexity of the electrical installation.

If you look at ETCI sub system certificate for Atex installations they have fields for “design engineer”, “design manager” and “PSDP” in addition to other fields.

Risteard81

rob w wrote: »

Risteard81 wrote: »

I will have to disagree here. Even a domestic installation will require the design to be certified. If we look at BS7671 as an example, signatures are required for "Design", " Construction" and "Inspection and Testing", and regardless of the type or complexity of the electrical installation. I would presume that the proposal here is along similar lines.

So for example, say if a REC adds a socket and lighting circuit to a house extension and the REC is the designer as well as installer.

Is the REC required to provide documents in the way of a design as a designated 'designer' or 'design certifier'?

e.g.

• Diversity calcs?
• Load calcs?
• Cable sizing calcs?
• Protection device coordination studies?

Normally a REC would have the knowledge (and by using the regs) to install the correct size cables depending on the connected load and to ensure the MCB is sufficiently sized and allows for coordination with upstream devices, without the need for a formal design as such. The REC could then provide certification for the installation, but would additional docs be required for the design now?

Maybe I am overthinking this?

OK. Think of it this way. The design process may be informal for a simple installation or utilise standard circuit arrangements. However we need to acknowledge that this still amounts to design and therefore someone should be able to stand over why the installation has been arranged in this fashion. More complex installations may have a formalised design also accounting for energy losses etc. However energy efficiency is being implemented in national standards across the board now to varying degrees so will require consideration for all types of installation.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

The design process may be informal for a simple installation or utilise standard circuit arrangements.

Exactly.
So for a simple domestic installation it will be a box ticking exercise.
The REC at the coal face will do nothing different.

2011

rob w wrote: »

Is the REC required to provide documents in the way of a design as a designated 'designer' or 'design certifier'?

e.g.

• Diversity calcs?
• Load calcs?
• Cable sizing calcs?
• Protection device coordination studies?

Not in my opinion.
Who would this documentation even be issued to?

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

Risteard81 wrote: »

The design process may be informal for a simple installation or utilise standard circuit arrangements.

Exactly.
So for a simple domestic installation it will be a box ticking exercise.
The REC at the coal face will do nothing different.

Again that somewhat misses the point. They are making a formal legal declaration that the design is their responsibility. If it were to go legal then they couldn't claim that design wasn't applicable or was someone else's responsibility.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

Again that somewhat misses the point. They are making a formal legal declaration that the design is their responsibility. If it were to go legal then they couldn't claim that design wasn't applicable or was someone else's responsibility.

I know, I’m just saying that in a domestic installation there is no real additional work.
There isn’t a long list of deliverables like there would be on something more substantial.

rob w

2011 wrote: »

Not in my opinion.
Who would this documentation even be issued to?

That's kind of what I am wondering myself!

So for the example, as you said it is really just 'box ticking' to say that the design was standard and compliant with IS10101, that being the basis for the design.

salmocab

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's only been around since 2001 (mandatory) and for the most part you won't see it as it'll be directly behind a luminary and hidden. It's designed to be completely invisible behind any ceiling light with a base that fits to the ceiling.

Perhaps not the most ideal example, but you get the idea : https://youtu.be/mHQ4wtoJutM?t=124

Ceiling light : https://youtu.be/GDjUXuZFIdo?t=271

I'd be a bit worried about the way he's just drilling deeply and blindly into the ceiling with possibilities of wiring / ducts / plumbing, but that's DIY ...

In general though, I just prefer the idea of people being able to plug things in without having to deal with the potential complexities of what could be going on behind a rose in household wiring.

That’s actually a nice tidy system. Your right about the drilling, in the wall mounted one I was thinking what’s the chances the wall that close to the box isn’t just going to fall apart.

Tuco88

Risteard81 wrote: »

Tuco88 wrote: »

Surprised cable entries in DBs didn't make a mark. Risteard81 might know, I think its a thing in the 18th in the UK?

What particularly were you considering RE: cable entries? Generally meeting the IP ratings is the major consideration (as well as obviously protecting against abrasion where the cables enter the DB e.g. by glands, bushes and lockrings/locknuts or grommets).

Yes exactly, I dont think cutting out a big slot in the DB to bring cables in is permitted? I noticed the use of Pg glands for flat type cables used alot.

Risteard81

Tuco88 wrote: »

Yes exactly, I dont think cutting out a big slot in the DB to bring cables in is permitted? I noticed the use of Pg glands for flat type cables used alot.

You could in the rear (obviously using grommet strip), however the top surface of a DB must be to IP4X/IPXXD, with other surfaces IP2X/IPXXB.

2011

In view of the fact that RCDs for all lighting circuits are being proposed for domestic insatlaltions many are of the view that installing RCBOs is the best way to achieve this. The problem is that RCBOs are typically twice the width of a standard single pole MCB. Today I was shown an RCBO that is only 1 mod wide. As this is a Schnieder Electric device we can reasonably expect it to be high quality, see photo:

kevh1987

2011 wrote: »

In view of the fact that RCDs for all lighting circuits are being proposed for domestic insatlaltions many are of the view that installing RCBOs is the best way to achieve this. The problem is that RCBOs are typically twice the width of a standard single pole MCB. Today I was shown an RCBO that is only 1 mod wide. As this is a Schnieder Electric device we can reasonably expect it to be high quality, see photo:

We have been using a GE version of this for the past 6 months. They are very good quality but there is a big problem with the terminals in my opinion.
They are quite small and just about fit a 10sq flex, we have to use reducing pins in many installations when using 16sq panel flex.

2011

kevh1987 wrote: »

We have been using a GE version of this for the past 6 months. They are very good quality but there is a big problem with the terminals in my opinion.
They are quite small and just about fit a 10sq flex, we have to use reducing pins in many installations when using 16sq panel flex.

Why don’t you use 2 pole busbar?

kevh1987

2011 wrote: »

Why don’t you use 2 pole busbar?

We do use 2 pole busbar to link the rcbos but the terminals are too small for 16s when feeding this busbar. The pins on said busbar are also very close together