Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

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

2456789

Comments



  • ^^^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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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?




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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?


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Not in my opinion.
    Who would this documentation even be issued to?

    That's kind of what I am wondering myself! :confused:

    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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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:

    47096522852_9b8aa9ef1a.jpg




  • 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:

    47096522852_9b8aa9ef1a.jpg


    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.




  • 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?




  • 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


  • Advertisement


  • kevh1987 wrote: »
    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

    I see.
    As you have a multiple RCBOs you could use 2 x 10mm sq. panel flex in parallel. Would that work?




  • I used a few of those a while back, similar to the schnider iso bar panel ones "old square d type". Just to note they dont break the neutral like the double module one.

    Still good stuff all the same.




  • Tuco88 wrote: »
    Just to note they dont break the neutral like the double module one.

    They break both poles according to the catalog, see you age 49:
    https://download.schneider-electric.com/files?p_enDocType=Catalog&p_File_Name=SE9319+Acti+9+RTI+IE+2016+-WEB.pdf&p_Doc_Ref=SE9319




  • It was the one on page 53/54 I worked with, it replaced the old square D model and it didn't break the neutral.

    Thats handy to know that other model is available.




  • Are the new wiring regulations out yet, if so where can I pick up a copy?

    Cheers

    Also, best place to pick up hand tools




  • Not out yet.
    However the draft has been available for sometime now so we have a fair idea what to expect. Most changes will impact domestic installations only.




  • Update: The NSAI aim to release IS10101 in Q4. Interestingly the NSAI are bringing out a smartphone app and IS10101 will be the first document on it. I was shown the app today, it looks very well. I think this is a great idea.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Update: The NSAI aim to release IS10101 in Q4. Interestingly the NSAI are bringing out a smartphone app and IS10101 will be the first document on it. I was shown the app today, it looks very well. I think this is a great idea.

    Do you know if there will be a subscription / charge for it?

    Is there, as in the past, a free to view EN10101 equivalent?




  • Steve wrote: »
    Do you know if there will be a subscription / charge for it?

    I think the app is free and it will give users access to whatever standard they have paid for. IS10101 will be the “pilot”.

    The app looks simple but good. I think it is a great idea.
    Is there, as in the past, a free to view EN10101 equivalent?

    No.


  • Advertisement


  • I hope they're still intending to release a hard copy print version.


Advertisement