Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

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

1246789

Comments



  • Site says ET101 will be available as a free download tis well hidden anyone find it yet?

    505242.JPG




  • 2011 wrote: »
    A hard copy of IS 10101 will cost €120 (excl. p&p). As part of the hardcopy purchase you also get access to an online (read only) version. You will receive an email that gives instruction on how to access the online version.

    I purchased the hardcopy and there is no online access included.




  • Hoagy wrote: »
    I purchased the hardcopy and there is no online access included.

    You should get an email.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    The cost of the rules is a completely separate discussion. The simple fact is that the rules are available to everyone including the general public.

    The part dealing with electric cars is available for free on the internet if you Google it.

    Can you name any country that provides a copy of their national wiring rules for free?

    I know that the NSAI will be making a soft copy of ET101 available to the public for free soon. This has quite a lot in common with IS10101

    Can't see the point of a free soft-copy of outdated rules

    Definitely a bad idea and will cause confusion if you get the public quoting it




  • Syncpolice wrote: »
    Can't see the point of a free soft-copy of outdated rules

    Definitely a bad idea and will cause confusion if you get the public quoting it

    ET101 are not outdated yet and to a very large extent it aligns with IS10101. For those of us that work in the industrial sector the impact is minimal. Many of us have been surpassing the requirements for quite some time.


  • Advertisement


  • 2011 wrote: »
    ET101 are not outdated yet and to a very large extent it aligns with IS10101. For those of us that work in the industrial sector the impact is minimal. Many of us have been surpassing the requirements for quite some time.

    "to a very large extent"
    That is the problem, right there

    The domestic guys are a lot more knowledgable these days.

    Industrial standard is generally high,but without the same level of oversight faced by domestic




  • Syncpolice wrote: »
    "to a very large extent"
    That is the problem, right there

    Why is that an issue?
    The domestic guys are a lot more knowledgable these days.

    Than who and about what?
    Industrial standard is generally high,but without the same level of oversight faced by domestic

    That depends very much on the installation, the consultant design team, commissioning engineers etc.
    Domestic installations are generally very straight forward compared to large industrial installations which have far more complex systems.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Why is that an issue?



    Than who and about what?



    That depends very much on the installation, the consultant design team, commissioning engineers etc.
    Domestic installations are generally very straight forward compared to large industrial installations which have far more complex systems.

    Most of those questions you are posing are self-explanatory .

    Anyhow onwards and upwards with the new rules




  • Syncpolice wrote: »
    Most of those questions you are posing are self-explanatory .

    I’m assuming that your point is that there are a few differences between the new and the old rules. This ignores that fact that ET101 + a number of amendments is what we are obliged to work to at the moment, not IS10101.

    Also you need to consider that anyone that’s up to speed with ET101 will have have very little additional to learn to get fully up to speed with IS10101.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    You should get an email.

    Got the email today, thanks.


  • Advertisement


  • 2011 wrote: »
    I’m assuming that your point is that there are a few differences between the new and the old rules. This ignores that fact that ET101 + a number of amendments is what we are obliged to work to at the moment, not IS10101.

    Also you need to consider that anyone that’s up to speed with ET101 will have have very little additional to learn to get fully up to speed with IS10101.

    What you're saying is true but I still don't think it's a good idea

    The new rules are here, if you want to educate the public you supply the new rules free or paid

    Et101 will be there online in-perpertuity and will be a source of conflict between those with the new rules and those with the soft copy of et101-2008 which will be the majority of the public self building etc.




  • Syncpolice wrote: »
    What you're saying is true but I still don't think it's a good idea

    Fair enough, it’s not my idea anyway :)

    I must admit I was a bit surprised.
    The new rules are here, if you want to educate the public you supply the new rules free or paid

    As we know they did the latter. Even though the new rules are here we don’t have to comply with them yet.

    Anyone that has an objection to the current rules need not avail of the offer of the free copy. Most in the industry (like myself) will be provided with a free copy (from our employer). Most others won’t be particularly interested in getting a copy anyway.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Even though the new rules are here we don’t have to comply with them yet.

    In fact we're not permitted to comply with them yet.




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    In fact we're not permitted to comply with them yet.

    Not really sure about that.
    From what I have seen so far IS10101 for the most part has the same requirements as ET101. Anywhere that it differs a higher standard is required to meet IS10101. I can’t see how anyone would not be permitted to work to a higher standard.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Not really sure about that.
    From what I have seen so far IS10101 has the same requirements as ET101 for the most part. Anywhere that it differs a higher standard is required to meet IS10101. Therefore I can’t see how anyone would be reprimanded for working to a higher standard.

    It has been clearly stated that work must comply with the 4th Edition until the 1st April. Only then can work be designed to the 5th Edition. Complying fully with the 5th Edition won't necessarily comply with the 4th Edition (e.g. dedicated RCDs (e.g. RCBOs) for each bathroom circuit under the 4th Edition; supplementary bonding of kitchen & utility sinks and draining boards etc.




  • Lets be honest do much of these rules/standards be adhered to? Iv come across many a new install where things are just wired, installed, mounted anyway possible. Id even bet most sparks dont even refer to the rule book. Out of the 6 sparks in our company only 1 is up on the rules. The new amendment wont even register with most sparks. Surely the standards should be free. I am not a sparks but i got hold of the book when in FAS. Why would anyone want to pay near 100 euro for it?




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    It has been clearly stated that work must comply with the 4th Edition until the 1st April. Only then can work be designed to the 5th Edition. Complying fully with the 5th Edition won't necessarily comply with the 4th Edition (e.g. dedicated RCDs (e.g. RCBOs) for each bathroom circuit under the 4th Edition; supplementary bonding of kitchen & utility sinks and draining boards etc.


    To be honest I tend not to get into the nitty gritty of domestic wiring.

    I would imagine that most domestic electricians will simply install an RCBO per circuit or just for lighting and socket circuits anyway.
    That would mean that both the old and new would be complied with.

    I'm not aware of ET101 bonding requirements that don't apply to IS10101 as you seem to be suggesting.
    However I find that bonding is often ignored anyhow (certainly in my home).




  • 2011 wrote: »
    To be honest I tend not to get into the nitty gritty of domestic wiring.

    I would imagine that most domestic electricians will simply install an RCBO per circuit or just for lighting and socket circuits anyway.
    That would mean that both the old and new would be complied with.

    I'm not aware of ET101 bonding requirements that don't apply to IS10101 as you seem to be suggesting.
    However I find that bonding is often ignored anyhow (certainly in my home).

    Around Donegal you'd be hard pushed to win much work unnecessarily putting RCBOs on every circuit where an RCCB serving multiple MCBs was compliant. You're adding a good €30 per circuit to the cost. It mightn't seem like much in the grand scheme of things but you can lose a job over a few Euro.

    Local supplementary bonding in kitchen & utility rooms has changed. There are, obviously, numerous other changes as well. But if the standards were identical then there would have been no benefit to replacing ET101:2008 as amended.

    I can assure you that it is impermissible to design to I.S. 10101:2020 until the 1st April at the earliest. (I'm not so sure that April Fool's Day was the most sensible choice of date to begin the implementation period though.)




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    I can assure you that it is impermissible to design to I.S. 10101:2020 until the 1st April at the earliest.

    Only a hand full of working days between now and then so in reality nothing in it.

    I agree that more RCBOs will cost more but time is money too. This sort of penny pinching isn't something normally seen in the industrial sector. We would normally regard the rules as an absolute minimum as clients tend to insist on far higher standards.
    But if the standards were identical then there would have been no benefit to replacing ET101:2008 as amended.

    I never suggested they were identical, I listed the main changes in the first post.




  • They are of course a minimum (and not maximum) standard. That said, there are many areas of industrial installation whereby RCD protection is not required (or necessarily desirable) but where in a domestic installation there might be a requirement.

    For example AC final circuits supplying luminaires.


  • Advertisement


  • Haven't picked up a copy of the new rules yet, what are the changes to the supplementary bonding?




  • kramer1 wrote: »
    Haven't picked up a copy of the new rules yet, what are the changes to the supplementary bonding?

    Prob bring it more into line with the UK

    Rules on supp bonding required bonding where there no need




  • Something which hasn't caused much discussion yet is the new standard for cables, here is the final wording:


    For all buildings, cables shall as a minimum meet the requirements of Class
    Dca S2,d2,a2 or higher in accordance with I.S. EN 50575. In addition, cables
    shall be tested in accordance with I.S. EN 61034-2 and the smoke generated shall result in transmittance values of not less than 60%.


    As I understand it, this requires LSF cable as a minimum for all installations.

    Printed copies of the Rules are not being posted out due to the virus, I expect the implementation date will have to be put back.




  • Hoagy wrote: »
    Something which hasn't caused much discussion yet is the new standard for cables, here is the final wording:


    For all buildings, cables shall as a minimum meet the requirements of Class
    Dca S2,d2,a2 or higher in accordance with I.S. EN 50575. In addition, cables
    shall be tested in accordance with I.S. EN 61034-2 and the smoke generated shall result in transmittance values of not less than 60%.

    Actually using CPR compliant cables has been a requirement throughout the EU since 2017. IS10101 has clarified the minimum CPR compliance that is acceptable for ROI.
    As I understand it, this requires LSF cable as a minimum for all installations.

    There is a lot more to it than that. I was sent something recently. I will post the details later. Even cables that are certified LSZH may not be compliant.




  • It's always been BS6724 as the cable spec on the plant I am on for years, nothing has changed yet to my knowledge.




  • Tuco88 wrote: »
    It's always been BS6724 as the cable spec on the plant I am on for years, nothing has changed yet to my knowledge.

    There have been significant changes. Cables that are BS6724, LSF, LSZH etc. are not necessarily CPR complaint, may not be supplied with a DoP (Declaration of Performance) and may not be CE certified.

    We had CPD training on this at work and I took some notes as detailed below. There are probably a few errors so please feel free to correct me if you find one :) Feel free to PM me if you would like me to forward you some documentation on this.



    EN 50575 is a harmonised EU regulation that has been applicable since 01/07/2017. This regulation only specifies requirements for cables with regard to their reaction to fire. CE marking for CPR (Construction Product Regulation) cables is mandatory. That means that manufacturers that sell cables within the EU must issue a DoP (Declaration of Performance) for the cables they sell and must apply appropriate labelling to their cables including the CE mark. Designers, installers and building owners are obliged to ensure that they comply with CPR requirements.

    My advice would be to staple a copy of the DoP to the completion certificate as proof of compliance.

    As Hogay says IS10101 requires that "cables shall as a minimum meet the requirements of Class Dca s2,d2,a2 or higher".

    Definitions:

    Dca = This is defined as the "Euro Class" of the cable. It quantifies the flame spread and heat release of the insulation when on fire. This ranges from Aca (best performance) to Fca (I am told that this has similar combustive properties to wood)

    s2 = This quantifies the smoke production from the burning insulation. This ranges from s1 (best performance) to s3

    d2 = This quantifies the flaming droplets from the burning insulation. This was a massive issue for fire fighters during the recent Grenfell towers fire. This ranges from d0 (best performance) to d2.

    a2 = This quantifies the acidity of the burning insulation. It ranges from a1 (least acidic) to a3.

    This provides an overview:




  • Here is a helpful video sent to me by a standards officer in the NSAI that goes through the main differences between ET101 and IS10101:





  • I just received a very helpful PM from someone working at Hager about IS10101, with some excellent links.
    See below:

    I work for the manufacturer Hager and we have just launched our IS:10101 resource hub on our website.

    https://www.hager.ie/our-company/i.s.10101/100114.htm

    There is plenty of information available including our bite size guide that may help contractors understand the changes particularly around Hager products
    https://www.hager.ie/our-company/i.s...ide/100129.htm

    Our hub is aimed at supporting our end customers rather than pushing product




  • 2011 wrote: »
    I just received a very helpful PM from someone working at Hager about IS10101, with some excellent links.
    See below:

    Thanks for this but is the second link dead?


  • Advertisement


  • If anyone has completed the CompEx course recently you will be aware of the banning of the use of "SilFlex cable" in the UK (For use in ATEX areas anyway, I am not sure about general use). Personally I could never really see an issue with it used as indoor cable use only. If you are curious to why, it was due to the braid rusting. Anybody know if its after being banned here too?


Advertisement