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

1234689

Comments



  • Bought a copy of this myself to have when working from home a few months ago, have ye seen its already been superseded and there is a massive list of errors they have sent out for you to correct yourself? Ridiculous.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Fair enough. Maybe this is more widely known than I thought.

    I went to a number of presentations on IS10101 and this was not raised.

    Ok, I've been at a recent talk and it was mentioned.

    I only work in the industrial sector and mainly on the control side of things so I wouldn’t be up to speed on domestic requirements but this did surprise me as I never heard anyone mention it until very recently.

    Not all. This came up in discussion yesterday as major manufacturer raised the fact that they had missed it.

    Either way it is a change that most domestic installations do not have in place at present including very new installations.

    Why would domestic installations have it at present?




  • 17larsson wrote: »
    Why would domestic installations have it at present?

    People purchasing a new home have an expectation that the wiring is compliant with the latest standards. This is the case even when those standards are not yet mandatory.

    Older homes are of course a different story.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    People purchasing a new home have an expectation that the wiring is compliant with the latest standards. This is the case even when those standards are not yet mandatory.

    Older homes are of course a different story.

    Specs, drawings etc. of any new builds built this year would be designed to ET101 standard and priced to match. I can't imagine there are many homeowners of live builds that would expect the wiring to be to the new standard.




  • So from the ESB 80Amp cut, you then have a 63Amp MCB
    to a 80/100amp D/P Isolator in the consumer unit?

    I think its a 100Amp D/P used in the 18th edition DBs.


  • Advertisement


  • 17larsson wrote: »
    Specs, drawings etc. of any new builds built this year would be designed to ET101 standard and priced to match.

    Yes, maybe that is true for much of the domestic sector (but not all of it).
    In the industrial sector we tend to do things quite differently.
    I can't imagine there are many homeowners of live builds that would expect the wiring to be to the new standard.

    If they knew that the enforcement of a new standard was imminent they may have a different view especially if they are paying north of €500k (as many now are). :)




  • Another video from safe electric

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3nhxrIaR28

    They are doing a great job with these videos




  • They are good. Good practice to start at 250v I always did Just dont forget to test at 500v after.




  • Yes, the videos are a very good idea.


  • Advertisement


  • Anyone used the regs book to calculate cable volt drop using the new method.......Great fun




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    Anyone used the regs book to calculate cable volt drop using the new method.......Great fun

    No, we just use Amtec.
    What’s the “new method” ?
    I haven’t really used the new rules to be honest.




  • Free webinar this week through engineers ireland on this. Link on the website I think for anyone wanting to join




  • 2011 wrote: »
    No, we just use Amtec.
    What’s the “new method” ?
    I haven’t really used the new rules to be honest.

    I'll send on the page number there shortly when I have the book with me, new method in the sense that is different to the mV/A/m.

    I am normally an amtec baby myself I suppose we are spoiled

    @dbas perfect I didn't see that.




  • What's changed

    Hard to see what the change could be if you're working off a table




  • Hmob wrote: »
    What's changed

    Hard to see what the change could be if you're working off a table

    Volt drop calculation pg 423




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    Volt drop calculation pg 423

    Yes, I see that now. In my opinion it is just offering an alternative rather than insisting that it is calculated in that manner. I say this because it says "Volt drops may be calculated using the following formula".




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    Volt drop calculation pg 423

    Not sure what that's about

    What's wrong with the standard formula anyway

    Or is it just an alternative that's offered as 2011 says




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Yes, I see that now. In my opinion it is just offering an alternative rather than insisting that it is calculated in that manner. I say this because it says "Volt drops may be calculated using the following formula".

    The have not provided an alternative formula, so you "may" have to use that formula depending on the inspector.




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    The have not provided an alternative formula, so you "may" have to use that formula depending on the inspector.

    The rules are not a design document, they are not obliged to provide a formula.

    However you have a few options here:

    1) You could use a formula or software of your own choosing once you can justify it. That should not be too hard.
    2) You could use the cable manufacture's data to calculate the volt drop.
    3) You could measure the volt drop with a suitable instrument and present this to the inspector to illustrate that the cable is adequately sized.


    Understanding the use of 'shall', 'should', 'may' and 'can' in Standards is very important.
    Have a look at this from this link:
    Standards generally use words, like 'shall', 'should', 'may' and 'can', in mentioning their requirements or guidelines. What these words mean?

    Whenever 'shall' is used in a standard, it indicates a requirement that is necessary to follow.

    Whenever 'should' is used in a standard, it indicates a recommendation that is recommended to follow the guideline.

    Whenever 'may' is used in a standard, it indicates a permission to follow the guideline.

    Whenever 'can' is used in the standard, it indicates a possibility or a capability.


  • Advertisement


  • 2011 wrote: »
    Understanding the use of 'shall', 'should', 'may' and 'can' in Standards is very important.
    Have a look at this from this link:

    Thanks for that informative piece of information my life is now whole,
    It will be interesting to see what method the IOTs decided to use for the calculation of the volt drop in term 3, will they apply a method that is mentioned in the I.S standard or apply another method, this method factors in the total resistance of the cable run and the inductive reactance.

    I see that the there is no longer a table specifically referencing SWA.




  • There'd be more miscalculations on the design current from the supply point to the end of a final circuit (4%max) than there would using different methods to calculate VD




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    Thanks for that informative piece of information my life is now whole

    Don't mention it :D:D

    I write scopes of work as part of my job and am a member of a technical committee (not TC2) so I am reminded of the difference between use “may” as opposed to “shall” on a daily basis. It may seem trivial, but its not!

    Personally if I opted to use the formula provided I would use Excel to work out the volt drop. That way you simply enter the parameters and it spits out the corresponding volt drop.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Don't mention it :D:D

    I write scopes of work as part of my job and am a member of a technical committee (not TC2) so I am reminded of the difference between use “may” as opposed to “shall” on a daily basis. It may seem trivial, but its not!

    Personally if I opted to use the formula provided I would use Excel to work out the volt drop. That way you simply enter the parameters and it spits out the corresponding volt drop.

    Do you not just copy and paste.....:D I am involved in tendering also.
    With the I.S standard we will have to look at it as the general specification and wait for the particular spec :D:D
    Hmob wrote: »
    There'd be more miscalculations on the design current from the supply point to the end of a final circuit (4%max) than there would using different methods to calculate VD

    The percentage max volt drop has now changed aswell 3% for lighting and 5% for all other uses.




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    Do you not just copy and paste.....:D I am involved in tendering also.
    With the I.S standard we will have to look at it as the general specification and wait for the particular spec :D:D



    The percentage max volt drop has now changed aswell 3% for lighting and 5% for all other uses.

    Ah ok

    Same as UK I believe

    We seem to be harmonising somewhat with BS7671 in a few areas , rcd protection and distribution boards etc




  • I had a quick look at the video re: domestic RCD protection for lighting

    If that's correct , shared RCD allowed for domestic lighting "but don't create a nuisance elsewhere"

    Well, they've opened a new can of worms unnecessarily




  • 3%/5% is an easing of VD allowance really as it mainly affects power circuits

    Lighting VD is less of an issue now than in the days of fluorescent and halogen lighting




  • .
    3: After 28 months (from 1 August 2022), all electrical installations must be certified to the new standard.

    Im moving my ESB connection from overhead lines to underground and will require certificate. Does this requirement above will apply to me as well, the house is 20 years . which would mean rewiring practically everything.Please advice




  • flintash wrote: »
    Im moving my ESB connection from overhead lines to underground and will require certificate. Does this requirement above will apply to me as well, the house is 20 years . which would mean rewiring practically everything.Please advice

    No. It’s not retrospective. It may require upgrade main tails and equipotential bonding. It will require testing and certification and if any issues are discovered they may have to be addressed or a notice of potential hazard issued.


  • Advertisement


  • meercat wrote: »
    No. It’s not retrospective. It may require upgrade main tails and equipotential bonding. It will require testing and certification and if any issues are discovered they may have to be addressed or a notice of potential hazard issued.

    its not what lads tells me 😀 They all jumping to rewire the house, i was afraid this coming change means "retrospective" .So hard to find honest trade.Thanks meercat.


Advertisement