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

1234579

Comments



  • If lighting circuits are now to be RCBO protected, what is the difference between a socket circuit and a lightning circuit now other than cable 2.5 v 1.5 or 1 say?

    I assume you can't run a 2.5 lighting circuit and add sockets? Does the RCBO type come into play?




  • alan4cult wrote: »
    If lighting circuits are now to be RCBO protected, what is the difference between a socket circuit and a lightning circuit now other than cable 2.5 v 1.5 or 1 say?

    I assume you can't run a 2.5 lighting circuit and add sockets? Does the RCBO type come into play?

    Lighting circuits are to be protected by a RCD not necessarily a RCBO, you can purchase RCBOs with a 6amp rating.




  • tweek84 wrote: »
    Lighting circuits are to be protected by a RCD not necessarily a RCBO, you can purchase RCBOs with a 6amp rating.

    Which is crazy tbh allowing the shared RCD

    They were better left on the mcb than leaving this loophole, was surprised to see it




  • Yes that is a bit of a loophole if one lighting circuit can take out the others.
    I was under the impression it was RCBO and not RCD but have to read the standard.

    Edit: the standard seems to imply other circuits can't be left hazardous. I wonder does this suggest an RCBO is best practice.




  • alan4cult wrote: »
    Yes that is a bit of a loophole if one lighting circuit can take out the others.
    I was under the impression it was RCBO and not RCD but have to read the standard.

    Edit: the standard seems to imply other circuits can't be left hazardous. I wonder does this suggest an RCBO is best practice.

    Yes I only watched the video

    Don't create a hazard elsewhere , RCD is best practice

    If they have left the loophole it's a bad idea , they always seem to mess up here, same last time with bathrooms


  • Advertisement


  • It's common in the north to have an RCCB serving numerous circuits. The usual way to mitigate risk is to put say the upstairs sockets with the downstairs lights on an RCCB, and vice-versa, so that tripping an RCCB doesn't cause loss of power completely to a room. Then a table lamp or something might give some light.

    Obviously the best course of action is RCBOs on each of the circuits, but certainly there are cost implications with this approach. Personally I've moved towards the individual RCBOs approach as the price of the devices has come down over the years.




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    It's common in the north to have an RCCB serving numerous circuits.

    It is also very common in the ROI.
    Obviously the best course of action is RCBOs on each of the circuits, but certainly there are cost implications with this approach.

    This is what I would do in order to comply with the new requirements.
    Yes, there are cost implications (in addition to the requirement in most cases to add surge protection) but in the overall scheme of things it is not a lot extra. Engineers Ireland had a great Zoom presentation on IS10101 on Friday during which the presenter Brendan Dervan went a few steps further by suggesting that every circuit should be fed from AFDD's.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    It is also very common in the ROI.

    Yes, of course, but I should have stated to have lighting on an RCCB with other circuits which was the point I was attempting to make.

    AFDDs are largely an unproven technology if we look at the experience around AFCIs (as they are called in the US). They are also inordinately expensive. That said they have come down a lot as I had a quote recently for Hager devices at under €90 +VAT purchase price. (Obviously they would be marked up for resale.)




  • I was sent this yesterday.

    As it is a Hager publication all solutions offered are from the Hager range which I think is fair enough becasue it is more than just advertising. It also provides some very useful information in a very readable manner that can be applied to components from other manufacturers.




  • Hager are good with the info

    Are new boards supplied with Type A RCD if Type AC is no longer recommended ?


  • Advertisement


  • 2.15m is to the top of the highest Protective Device, would catch a few out

    Not to sure about that requirement for DP isolation at the cabinet only if the enclosure contains N+E terminals?

    They'll have to be changed later to include DP isolation and terminals for car charging?




  • Gestureapo wrote: »
    Hager are good with the info

    Are new boards supplied with Type A RCD if Type AC is no longer recommended ?

    Hager have been supplying with Type A devices for years. I don't think they even manufacture Type AC devices anymore. But be careful with other manufacturers.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    It is also very common in the ROI.



    This is what I would do in order to comply with the new requirements.
    Yes, there are cost implications (in addition to the requirement in most cases to add surge protection) but in the overall scheme of things it is not a lot extra. Engineers Ireland had a great Zoom presentation on IS10101 on Friday during which the presenter Brendan Dervan went a few steps further by suggesting that every circuit should be fed from AFDD's.

    This was my reading of the new regs also, originally I assumed AFDD's were only for socket circuits where trailing leads could get damaged but that doesn't seem to be the case.
    So as far as I can see its required for every circuit in every apartment (sleeping accommodation) consumer unit with potentially a €70 uplift for each protective device, that's a massive cost uplift for a new apt block together with the other new requirements.
    Madness when developers are already saying they cant make apt blocks cost effective and we have such a massive demand for housing!




  • Haven't looked that closely at AFDs . Do these just pick up on arcing on the live circuit conductors?


    Seems to me if thats all they do they are merely supplementary to what should already be a safe installation.
    The same way that when RCDs came in they were mainly supplementary to a safe installation

    The basics would be fusing, containment and enclosures

    Protection against direct contact and earthing and fault disconnection

    RLV and SELV etc.

    The RCD and the AFD are merely supplementary to what should already be a safe installation




  • Dred. wrote: »
    Haven't looked that closely at AFDs . Do these just pick up on arcing on the live circuit conductors?


    Seems to me if thats all they do they are merely supplementary to what should already be a safe installation.
    The same way that when RCDs came in they were mainly supplementary to a safe installation

    The basics would be fusing, containment and enclosures

    Protection against direct contact and earthing and fault disconnection

    RLV and SELV etc.

    The RCD and the AFD are merely supplementary to what should already be a safe installation

    A lot of youtube videos out about AFDDs from the uk:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHrNMFESd6Y
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDGeyJnoqZQ




  • Dred. wrote: »
    Do these just pick up on arcing on the live circuit conducters?

    Yes, they can identify arcing by looking at the waveform.
    Seems to me if thats all they do they are merely supplementary to what should already be a safe installation.

    An installation could be wired perfectly but an appliance could go on fire due to an electrical fault. I saw this a few years ago. MCB’s and RCD’s may not operate under these conditions.

    These devices have been around for a while and have proven to work.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Yes, they can identify arcing by looking at the waveform.



    An installation could be wired perfectly but an appliance could go on fire due to an electrical fault. I saw this a few years ago. MCB’s and RCD’s may not operate under these conditions.

    These devices have been around for a while and have proven to work.

    Of course but thinking on my feet the argument is that the appliance should be supervised in use

    And isolated or switched off at the appliance control switch when unsupervised thereby reducing the risk of unsupervised arcing at the appliance

    Arcing at outlets, distribution boards and joins on the fixed wiring I guess is another part of the equation

    All part of the argument that these are supplementary items




  • Dred. wrote: »
    Of course but thinking on my feet the argument is that the appliance should be supervised in use

    That’s not the way things happen in the real world.

    It’s not reasonable to expect that people will supervise all appliances while they are in use. A washing machine in a utility room could be on a 4 hours program. Do you really think that someone will routinely supervise this?

    I’m not saying thy AFDD’s should be used in domestic wiring. I’m just describing what was discussed in the presentation.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    That’s not the way things happen in the real world.

    It’s not reasonable to expect that people will supervise all appliances while they are in use. A washing machine in a utility room could be on a 4 hours program. Do you really think that someone will routinely supervise this?

    I’m not saying thy AFDD’s should be used in domestic wiring. I’m just describing what was discussed in the presentation.


    My point is that the AFD is not a fundamental part of electrical installation safety

    Supervision , control and isolation of electrical appliances is fundamental stuff

    Seems to me that selection and use of AFDs is quite a complex subject

    Unless you take the popular approach of just stick it in ,what harm can it do




  • Dred. wrote: »
    My point is that the AFD is not a fundamental part of electrical installation safety

    Agreed, but this may change.
    Supervision , control and isolation of electrical appliances is fundamental stuff

    I think we can both agree that many appliances are frequently used unsupervised such as freezers, washing machines etc....
    Seems to me that selection and use of AFDs is quite a complex subject

    Unless you take the popular approach of just stick it in ,what harm can it do

    My personal view is that insisting on AFDD's for every circuit in a domestic installation is OTT. However, in other high risk installations such as ATEX it may make sense.


  • Advertisement


  • Good points

    Of course there's been high profile issues with large appliances namely fridges and tumble dryers

    An auto dry powder fire extinguisher over the appliance would prob be more benefit than an AFD in those cases

    It's a complex picture




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Yes, they can identify arcing by looking at the waveform.



    An installation could be wired perfectly but an appliance could go on fire due to an electrical fault. I saw this a few years ago. MCB’s and RCD’s may not operate under these conditions.

    These devices have been around for a while and have proven to work.

    I'd have to respectfully disagree that AFDDs have been proven to work. They are a highly controversial device.




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    I'd have to respectfully disagree that AFDDs have been proven to work. They are a highly controversial device.

    Really? Any links ?




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    I'd have to respectfully disagree that AFDDs have been proven to work. They are a highly controversial device.

    Are.you saying they're not proven to be 100% effective at arc-fault interruption ?

    That wouldn't be surprising

    There's a myriad of issues with RCDs and their effectiveness.
    You could argue they are a controversial device if you use that metric.




  • 2011 wrote: »
    Really? Any links ?
    John Ward and David Savery have both set up a number of tests with them on YouTube. Also in the US where AFCIs have been used for a number of years there is significant debate as to whether they are effective. I'll try to find some links for you later.

    Probably the main issue at present, however, is the sheer cost of the devices.

    Personally I'm open-minded as to how effective they are. A test may not simulate real world conditions effectively. I would offer the devices and leave it to the client to decide whether they are prepared to accept the cost of them.

    Type 2 SPDs, however, are a no-brainer in my opinion. They really aren't that dear now and may give protection to sensitive equipment against switching surges etc. and I fit these as standard.




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    John Ward and David Savery have both set up a number of tests with them on YouTube. Also in the US where AFCIs have been used for a number of years there is significant debate as to whether they are effective. I'll try to find some links for you later.

    Probably the main issue at present, however, is the sheer cost of the devices.

    Personally I'm open-minded as to how effective they are. A test may not simulate real world conditions effectively. I would offer the devices and leave it to the client to decide whether they are prepared to accept the cost of them.

    Type 2 SPDs, however, are a no-brainer in my opinion. They really aren't that dear now and may give protection to sensitive equipment against switching surges etc. and I fit these as standard.

    Type 3 SPD is for sensitive equipment

    Type 2 is for sub-boards and mainboards(where no lightning protection fitted)




  • Dred. wrote: »
    Type 3 SPD is for sensitive equipment

    Type 2 is for sub-boards and mainboards(where no lightning protection fitted)
    Type 3 is typically fitted local to the load (e.g. surge protected leads). Type 2 should still be fitted at DBs.

    Type 1 is for lighting protection with an LPS etc., but generally that's not something which needs to be considered as we don't really have enough lightning incidents in this country. However large commercial and industrial sites (i.e. those with LPS) should obviously allow for these.




  • Risteard81 wrote: »
    Type 3 is typically fitted local to the load (e.g. surge protected leads). Type 2 should still be fitted at DBs.

    Type 1 is for lighting protection with an LPS etc., but generally that's not something which needs to be considered as we don't really have enough lightning incidents in this country. However large commercial and industrial sites (i.e. those with LPS) should obviously allow for these.

    Yes, you have to do the main board then sub-boards and equipment




  • So what would a rec be checking if called out to an AFDD trip

    L-N loop impedances on the fixed wiring?

    IR testing of fixed wiring

    Appliance testing?

    How many circuits can an AFDD protect?


  • Advertisement


  • Dred. wrote: »
    So what would a rec be checking if called out to an AFDD trip

    L-N loop impedances on the fixed wiring?

    IR testing of fixed wiring

    Appliance testing?

    How many circuits can an AFDD protect?
    An AFDD is individual to each protected circuit.

    Some of the combined devices might be an RCBO and AFDD, so you could be looking for an overcurrent, an Earth fault or series or parallel arcing. Often there is an indicator to show the reason for the device operating.


Advertisement