nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

electrical

elec eng

electrical + domestic

Quick Links

Comments

2011

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?

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

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: »

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

Sleamhain

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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: »

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.

Sleamhain

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?

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.

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

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

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

^^^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.

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.

Sleamhain

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.

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".

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

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.

Sleamhain

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?

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).

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?

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.