17 th edition

[citybluesmith]

hi looking for some help.a periodic report was bought into work the other day and on the report it said " all lights on 1 circuit which does not allow for segregation . this does not comply with 17 th edition " it also said the same for the sockets being on 1 ring main.do they need to be on 2 circuits ? when fitting an installation i always put the the kitchen on its own ring but put the lights on 1 circuit.cheers

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well the PIR was obviously written by someone who hasn't got a clue to be honest.
Segregation refers to segregating LV from ELV circuits.
The term should be division of circuits.
It is required that we divide the circuits so as to:
(i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in the case of a fault
(ii) facilitate safe inspection, testing and maintenance (see also Section 537)
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit
(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation
(v) mitigate the effects of electromagnetic intrferances (EMI)
(vi) prevent the indirect energizing of a circuit intended to be isolated.
It could be argued that having the lights on one circuit could lead to danger if there was a fault in the dark, someone might fall down some stairs or trip over something or could burn themselves if the were removing something from an oven.
Having all the sockets on one circuit can mean that if there are enough appliances on the circuit with high earth leakage then the RCD will keep tripping.
Either could be said to be inconvenient.
It does also depend on the installation.
With a one bedroom bungalow it wouldn't be as much as a problem as with a three story house.

 

[manda]

I'm glad you responded to that. I thought it was to do with dividing the circuits for such reasons, but have just been banging my head trying to navigate round the BRB looking for it under "segregation" and getting nowhere! Lol.

 

[IQ Electrical]

hi looking for some help.a periodic report was bought into work the other day and on the report it said " all lights on 1 circuit which does not allow for segregation . this does not comply with 17 th edition " it also said the same for the sockets being on 1 ring main.do they need to be on 2 circuits ? when fitting an installation i always put the the kitchen on its own ring but put the lights on 1 circuit.cheers

At the end of the day, if it was my PIR I'd probably be looking at a code 4 but saying that, there have been thousands of deaths as a result of rcd main switches tripping and the obligatory stampede of old ladies falling down flights of stairs.....

 

[ezzzekiel]

Well the PIR was obviously written by someone who hasn't got a clue to be honest.

seems a tad harsh simply for mixing the terms Segregation/ division

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Perhaps, but not only did the inspector muddle up the terminology, he obviously failled to quote any Regulations that he/she considered were not being complied with.
Myself whenever I make an observation, I quote the relevant Regulation, so as to allow whoever is going to rectify the defect the oportunity to assess what is required to comply.

 

[jaresquire]

Precise terminology sets the professional apart from the wannabe, a bit like calling football 'soccer'..

 

[telectrix]

Precise terminology sets the professional apart from the wannabe, a bit like calling football 'soccer'..

calling it soccer differentiates it ( or is it segregates) from proper football, rugby union

 

[SirKit Breaker]

I was under the illusion that when you do a PIR you are assessing its condition to current standards. And just because it was installed to an earlier edition of the wiring regs doesn't deem it unsafe. So in my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with the installation if it only has 1 lighting circuit, and 1 socket circuit, and the required test results are acceptable, if that was how it was done in years gone by. Code 4, does not meet current regulations, and probably code 4 again no RCD protection.

Cheers........Howard

 

[telectrix]

I was under the illusion that when you do a PIR you are assessing its condition to current standards. And just because it was installed to an earlier edition of the wiring regs doesn't deem it unsafe. So in my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with the installation if it only has 1 lighting circuit, and 1 socket circuit, and the required test results are acceptable, if that was how it was done in years gone by. Code 4, does not meet current regulations, and probably code 4 again no RCD protection.

Cheers........Howard

back to sanity there, and so on to the next thread............. the saga continues.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You are assessing the condition of the installation to current standards, and yes if the installation did comply with an earlier edition, it should only warrent a code 4.
However how many earlier editions do you go back before you decide that no, that's not safe?
As I recall, division of circuits was required in the 15th edition.

 

[jaresquire]

calling it soccer differentiates it ( or is it segregates) from proper football, rugby union

Got to agree there, was a bit of a flanker at school, some say I still am!

 

[citybluesmith]

the house is a 3 bedroom semi detached.the code they both got was a code 4.thanks