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

Syncpolice · 13-03-2020 7:55pm

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.

13-03-2020 10:40pm

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.

Risteard81 · 13-03-2020 11:36pm

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.

14-03-2020 11:10am

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.

Risteard81 · 14-03-2020 11:14am

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.

alta stare · 14-03-2020 12:02pm

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?

14-03-2020 1:50pm

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).

Risteard81 · 14-03-2020 3:28pm

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.)

14-03-2020 4:51pm

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.

Risteard81 · 14-03-2020 5:23pm

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.

kramer1 · 15-03-2020 12:20pm

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

Syncpolice · 15-03-2020 12:23pm

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

Hoagy · 25-04-2020 4:29pm

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.

25-04-2020 5:06pm

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.

Tuco88 · 25-04-2020 10:55pm

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

26-04-2020 9:51am

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:

05-05-2020 4:34pm

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:

14-05-2020 11:37am

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

Chuck Noland · 14-05-2020 9:03pm

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?

Tuco88 · 14-05-2020 10:09pm

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?

15-05-2020 10:14am

Chuck Noland wrote: »

Thanks for this but is the second link dead?

Now fixed.

15-05-2020 11:45am

Tuco88 wrote: »

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?

I was talking to CompEx today about this. Silflex is "not recommended" under BS 7671. They have promised to forward me further details.

autumnalcore · 15-05-2020 12:34pm

2011 wrote: »

I was talking to CompEx today about this. Silflex is "not recommended" under BS 7671. They have promised to forward me further details.

The word they used previously was 'discouraged'.

Theres an old article on voltium (largley rehashed by prysmian in links below) about SY, YY and CY cables that suggests that cable manufacturers claims of conforming to various standards are nonsense.

Voltium article:
https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/should-sy-yy-and-cy-cables-be-used

Prysmian:
https://www.whyprysmian.co.uk/sy-yy-cy-cable.html

15-05-2020 12:51pm

autumnalcore wrote: »

The word they used previously was 'discouraged'.

Theres an old article on voltium (largley rehashed by prysmian in links below) about SY, YY and CY cables that suggests that cable manufacturers claims of conforming to various standards are nonsense.

Voltium article:
https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/should-sy-yy-and-cy-cables-be-used

Prysmian:
https://www.whyprysmian.co.uk/sy-yy-cy-cable.html

Good links, just looking at the second one. This is interesting:

"Prysmian often get enquiries about the use of SY, CY and YY cable. Prysmian do not manufacture such cable types as they do not comply with any manufacturing standard."

Tuco88 · 15-05-2020 6:26pm

Interesting to see the results on this. I agree with the issue with outdoor use, probably easily sorted with a UV rated outer sheath. It's still being used on the site I am on, and still on the cable spec for projects. Lapp cable will be upset if it gets the road. We can't use FP400 too on our site. Another one for the ages...

A side rant...
Is flex not a better current carring conductor vs sold of the same size? Due to the construction of flex and the characteristics of current flow?

Tuco88 · 15-05-2020 6:28pm

Will you keep us updated on the Silflex saga 2011... Thanks

15-05-2020 8:29pm

Tuco88 wrote: »

Will you keep us updated on the Silflex saga 2011... Thanks

Will do as soon as I get something. I do a lot of Atex stuff myself so I always do my best to keep up to speed with it. As I am sure you know ET105 has been officially withdrawn for a while now so we have to work to EN 60079. These are currently being revised with a lot of emphasis on competency.

Tuco88 · 15-05-2020 9:43pm

Much appreciated. Yes, its 60079-14&17 iirc. Have they any plan for any sort of of an Irish standard to explosive atmospheres? It's all a bit messy now at the moment with all the standards if you ask me. Even the ATEX name plates are a wall of information, due care is well needed when reading compared to the stuff pre 2008 ish.

I find the Ex stuff ruthless if you come away from it for a while.

15-05-2020 10:45pm

Tuco88 wrote: »

Much appreciated. Yes, its 60079-14&17 iirc. Have they any plan for any sort of of an Irish standard to explosive atmospheres?

No, that won’t happen.

It's all a bit messy now at the moment with all the standards if you ask me. Even the ATEX name plates are a wall of information, due care is well needed when reading compared to the stuff pre 2008 ish.

Yes.
There is a lot to know and it keeps changing. Especially when it comes to things like VSDs.

I find the Ex stuff ruthless if you come away from it for a while.

Yes. IS (Intrinsically Safe) in particular can get quite complex in terms of calculations.

Jeditraining1 · 02-06-2020 3:18pm

With the publication of the new regulations I was looking to put together a clean form on the published version. I'm looking to start off the discussion with implementation time to when it will take over from ET101:2008. Do you think its workable?

Tuco88 · 07-06-2020 10:13pm

Any news on the Silflex?

Calahonda52 · 15-06-2020 1:22pm

from the CRU website on 3rd April
https://www.cru.ie/update-to-transition-period-for-new-electrical-wiring-rules-for-electrical-contractors/

The CRU had decided on a transition period of 24 months to enforce compliance with the new standard. However, transition deadline dates have been delayed by 4 months due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the total transition timeline will be extended to 28 months. The following applies to all restricted and controlled electrical works in either commercial or domestic properties:

1: The transition period will begin from 1 April 2020. Electrical installations may be designed to the new standard from this date.
.
2: After ten months (from 1 February 2021), all new electrical installations must be designed and certified to the new standard.
.
3: After 28 months (from 1 August 2022), all electrical installations must be certified to the new standard.

Installations may be designed to the old standard until 31 January 2021, provided they are certified to at least a pre-connection stage by 31 July 2022.

For Number 3, what does that mean for certs for domestic dwellings that say have HP or EVSP etc fitted?
Doe it mean that the entire house need to comply with the new regs.

Jim.s · 20-06-2020 5:00am

Calahonda52 wrote: »

from the CRU website on 3rd April

The CRU had decided on a transition period of 24 months to enforce compliance with the new standard. However, transition deadline dates have been delayed by 4 months due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the total transition timeline will be extended to 28 months. The following applies to all restricted and controlled electrical works in either commercial or domestic properties:

1: The transition period will begin from 1 April 2020. Electrical installations may be designed to the new standard from this date.
.
2: After ten months (from 1 February 2021), all new electrical installations must be designed and certified to the new standard.
.
3: After 28 months (from 1 August 2022), all electrical installations must be certified to the new standard.

Installations may be designed to the old standard until 31 January 2021, provided they are certified to at least a pre-connection stage by 31 July 2022.

For Number 3, what does that mean for certs for domestic dwellings that say have HP or EVSP etc fitted?
Doe it mean that the entire house need to comply with the new regs.

Bit hard to follow but I wouldn't think so

Think they just left out the "new"

17larsson · 21-08-2020 7:21pm

Did anyone else get the practical guidebook to this? Not sure if I can link to it as I think it's a private venture but it's a great simplified version with a lot of good diagrams and highlights the main rules and the changes from the current version

JL spark · 21-08-2020 9:47pm

17larsson wrote: »

Did anyone else get the practical guidebook to this? Not sure if I can link to it as I think it's a private venture but it's a great simplified version with a lot of good diagrams and highlights the main rules and the changes from the current version

I’m looking myself for this , where did you get it

17larsson · 21-08-2020 10:12pm

JL spark wrote: »

I’m looking myself for this , where did you get it

I'll PM you. If someone says it's ok to post the name or link here I'll do that later

22-08-2020 7:25am

17larsson wrote: »

I'll PM you. If someone says it's ok to post the name or link here I'll do that later

There is no issue with a putting a legal link to the book up.

dbas · 22-08-2020 10:01am

https://johnclaretraining.ie/products/practical-guide-to-the-national-rules-for-electrical-installations

Tuco88 · 22-08-2020 11:36am

Looks handy, I'll get one myself.

29-09-2020 3:00pm

Some new info from safe electric on 10101.

09-11-2020 8:33pm

dbas wrote: »

https://johnclaretraining.ie/products/practical-guide-to-the-national-rules-for-electrical-installations

Personally I would rate this publication much more highly.

Westernworld. · 12-11-2020 11:28pm

Interesting , didn't realize there were guides

liveandnetural · 13-11-2020 2:07am

more books and training as well
https://besttraining.ie/?product=the-wiring-rules-in-ireland
https://besttraining.ie/?page_id=45

27-11-2020 12:03am

Rule 462.5 is going to have a significant impact on domestic distribution boards but nobody seems to be discussing it yet!

Has anyone else spotted this?

I will post the details on this thread within the next couple of days but for now I am just interested to see who else is aware of this new requirement

17larsson · 27-11-2020 12:43am

Are you referring to the isolating of live and neutral?

27-11-2020 8:01am

17larsson wrote: »

Are you referring to the isolating of live and neutral?

I’m referring to the fact that all domestic distribution boards will require a 2 pole main isolator. Almost none have this at the moment

17larsson · 27-11-2020 9:19am

2011 wrote: »

I’m referring to the fact that all domestic distribution boards will require a 2 pole main isolator. Almost none have this at the moment

It's common knowledge at this stage with any contractors in my circle anyway. Garo have an ad in one of the electrical magazines showing a new board layout that has double pole isolation as well so the board manufacturers are aware of it.

It's common in the UK I think

Chuck Noland · 27-11-2020 9:37am

17larsson wrote: »

It's common knowledge at this stage with any contractors in my circle anyway. Garo have an ad in one of the electrical magazines showing a new board layout that has double pole isolation as well so the board manufacturers are aware of it.

It's common in the UK I think

Any photo of the add?

27-11-2020 9:55am

17larsson wrote: »

It's common knowledge at this stage with any contractors in my circle anyway.

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.

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.

Garo have an ad in one of the electrical magazines showing a new board layout that has double pole isolation as well so the board manufacturers are aware of it.

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.

17larsson · 27-11-2020 10:11am

Chuck Noland wrote: »

Any photo of the add?

Garo Pic.png

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

Comments