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

iColdFusion · 27-11-2020 10:13am

Bought a copy of this myself to have when working from home a few months ago, have ye seen its already been superseded and there is a massive list of errors they have sent out for you to correct yourself?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

17larsson · 27-11-2020 10:15am

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?

27-11-2020 11:46am

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.

17larsson · 27-11-2020 12:36pm

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.

Tuco88 · 27-11-2020 5:29pm

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.

27-11-2020 6:32pm

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).

01-12-2020 11:56am

Another video from safe electric

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

Chuck Noland · 01-12-2020 1:41pm

BrownFinger wrote: »

Another video from safe electric

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

They are doing a great job with these videos

Tuco88 · 01-12-2020 1:59pm

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

01-12-2020 2:37pm

Yes, the videos are a very good idea.

tweek84 · 09-02-2021 4:18pm

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

09-02-2021 4:53pm

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.

dbas · 09-02-2021 5:29pm

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

tweek84 · 09-02-2021 5:43pm

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.

Hmob · 09-02-2021 6:03pm

What's changed

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

tweek84 · 09-02-2021 7:52pm

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

09-02-2021 9:11pm

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".

Hmob · 09-02-2021 9:13pm

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

tweek84 · 10-02-2021 11:55am

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.

10-02-2021 1:05pm

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.

tweek84 · 10-02-2021 1:35pm

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.

Hmob · 10-02-2021 1:41pm

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

10-02-2021 1:53pm

tweek84 wrote: »

Thanks for that informative piece of information my life is now whole

Don't mention it

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.

tweek84 · 10-02-2021 2:01pm

2011 wrote: »

Don't mention it

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

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.

Hmob · 10-02-2021 2:09pm

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

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

Hmob · 10-02-2021 2:13pm

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

Hmob · 10-02-2021 2:41pm

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

flintash · 14-02-2021 12:29pm

Calahonda52 wrote: »

.
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

meercat · 14-02-2021 2:54pm

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.

flintash · 14-02-2021 3:36pm

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 ðŸ˜€ They all jumping to rewire the house, i was afraid this coming change means "retrospective" .So hard to find honest trade.Thanks meercat.

alan4cult · 15-02-2021 2:16pm

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?

tweek84 · 15-02-2021 4:05pm

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.

Gestureapo · 16-02-2021 3:48pm

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

alan4cult · 16-02-2021 6:52pm

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.

Gestureapo · 16-02-2021 7:33pm

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

Risteard81 · 16-02-2021 7:43pm

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.

16-02-2021 8:49pm

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.

Risteard81 · 16-02-2021 8:56pm

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.)

17-02-2021 10:54am

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.

Gestureapo · 17-02-2021 11:00am

Hager are good with the info

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

Gestureapo · 17-02-2021 11:10am

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?

Risteard81 · 18-02-2021 9:13am

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.

iColdFusion · 19-02-2021 5:17pm

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!

Dred. · 19-02-2021 5:50pm

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

heffo500 · 19-02-2021 5:55pm

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

19-02-2021 5:56pm

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.

Dred. · 19-02-2021 5:59pm

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

19-02-2021 7:06pm

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.

Dred. · 19-02-2021 7:34pm

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

19-02-2021 8:22pm

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.

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

Comments