18th edition final changes released by IET

[Midwest]

Generally cables installed above a plaster board ceiling with a minimum 30 minutes fire protection will not require metallic fixings.
If it where the case we would need to be doing now on our works such as new builds where cables are installed above a ceiling to landing areas and halls just above your front doorway.

I recall watching one of those IET videos from an Elex show, where that Darren Staniforth (NIC/Elecsa) was ridiculing a colleague from Napit, as Napit interpretation of the above, is that plasterboard ceiling would not meet the proposed new reg change.

Interesting how people interpret things differently, isn't it!

My Mrs Miggins, is not going to be happy me taking her ceiling down or most of her floor, to clip a cable with suitable fixings.

 

[Midwest]

What's also interesting, is members seem to know how the new reg changes will be construed, even before the 18th is published.

 

[Midwest]

Metallic pipes entering the building having an insulating section at their point of entry need not be connected to the protective equipotential bonding (Regulation 411.3.1.2).

Has anyone actually seen such an install?

PS not having a dig at you Spoon!

 

[Spoon]

Has anyone actually seen such an install?

PS not having a dig at you Spoon!

My water pipe is like this.

 

[Simonslimline]

In regards to the bonding, if it tests out as an extraneous conductive part then bond it, if not then no need!

Why do the iet need to write some new stupid fandangled regulation to decide if Bonding is required. Just test as normal and apply protective binding if required.

 

[Midwest]

My water pipe is like this.

What metal, piece of plastic threw wall, then metal? Surely plumbers don't do that to save us from the effort of bonding?

Mines plastic then all metal, seen all metal and all plastic, but none with a teeny piece of plastic?

 

[Midwest]

In regards to the bonding, if it tests out as an extraneous conductive part then bond it, if not then no need!

Why do the iet need to write some new stupid fandangled regulation to decide if Bonding is required. Just test as normal and apply protective binding if required.

What do you do, if you test it on a new build and find its extraneous, and you haven't dragged in a cable?

 

[Spoon]

What metal, piece of plastic threw wall, then metal? Surely plumbers don't do that to save us from the effort of bonding?

Mines plastic then all metal, seen all metal and all plastic, but none with a teeny piece of plastic?

My pipe comes up through a concrete section in the kitchen, (about 2 foot square section) and that is plastic. All kitchen appliances are plastic pipes. Change to copper pipe when the pipe goes boiler.

 

[Simonslimline]

What do you do, if you test it on a new build and find its extraneous, and you haven't dragged in a cable?

Pull one in I guess. At the end of the day the installation won’t comply with regards to fault protection if it is missing where required.

 

[Midwest]

My pipe comes up through a concrete section in the kitchen, (about 2 foot square section) and that is plastic. All kitchen appliances are plastic pipes. Change to copper pipe when the pipe goes boiler.

Arrrgh, I had visions of a metal service going up an outside wall, changing into plastic through the wall, and then back into metal on the inside of the house

 

[Midwest]

Pull one in I guess. At the end of the day the installation won’t comply with regards to fault protection if it is missing where required.

That's probably a bit uneconomic on a large new estate, after the fact? Not having done any house bashing recently, guess its all plastic.

 

[Richard Burns]

I recall watching one of those IET videos from an Elex show, where that Darren Staniforth (NIC/Elecsa) was ridiculing a colleague from Napit, as Napit interpretation of the above, is that plasterboard ceiling would not meet the proposed new reg change.

Interesting how people interpret things differently, isn't it!

My Mrs Miggins, is not going to be happy me taking her ceiling down or most of her floor, to clip a cable with suitable fixings.

Well if the NICEIC think it is wrong, then that proves I am right; because they always interpret things in their own way that rarely coincides with the regulations!

 

[Midwest]

Well if the NICEIC think it is wrong, then that proves I am right; because they always interpret things in their own way that rarely coincides with the regulations!

Think they were agreeing with you

 

[Richard Burns]

Think they were agreeing with you

Damn, err, what I meant was...Umm

 

[Ian1981]

In regards to the bonding, if it tests out as an extraneous conductive part then bond it, if not then no need!

Why do the iet need to write some new stupid fandangled regulation to decide if Bonding is required. Just test as normal and apply protective binding if required.

In a domestic setting that’s easy, in a more commercial and industrial setting it’s not always possible to do this.
Testing the piece of metal I mean.

 

[Deleted member 93172]

Whoopee! could be going back to buckle clips on joists then, thought I had seen the last of those little suckers.

 

[ipf]

Whoopee! could be going back to buckle clips on joists then, thought I had seen the last of those little suckers.

...glad you saved all those you've ripped out over the years, are you?

 

[Deleted member 105166]

I guess all the main manufacturers will be launching combined AFDD CPDs over the next few months. Currently the UK availability of such devices is sparse, with Eaton & Siemens premium offerings being some THREE modules wide, being combined RCBO+AFDD, and Schneider with their combined AFDD+MCB device two modules wide. There will certainly be an increasing demand for two and three bank boards going forward, with an even bigger difference in cost between the minimum standard twin RCD + MCB board and the maximum all singing, all dancing installation (combined AFDD/RCBO with switched neutral CPDs) not forgetting SPD protection.
There desperately needs to be some IET budget for TV advertising to make the public aware of these recommendations, their benefits and awareness of the costs.

 

[Spoon]

There desperately needs to be some IET budget for TV advertising to make the public aware of these recommendations, their benefits and awareness of the costs.

There is more change of my dangly doubling in size, to 2 foot long, and dragging along the floor......

 

[ipf]

There is more change of my dangly doubling in size, to 2 foot long, and dragging along the floor......

Glad your legs are so short.....

 

[Spoon]

Glad your legs are so short.....

I go around on my knees....

Yes, I'm sad and had to go and measure the distance......

 

[Deleted member 93172]

...glad you saved all those you've ripped out over the years, are you?

I have still got every size made, plus pins all in labeled tobacco tins, oh and my little tack hammer all waiting for the big day to come

 

[Leyland30]

In reference to the arc fault protection - my understanding to the phrase ‘recommended’ is that unless you can come up with a dam good reason not to, you put it in. The whole of BS7671 is a recommendation - how offen do you deviate from that? I though they where going to change the wording to ‘could be considered’.

 

[Leyland30]

In reference to the arc fault protection - my understanding to the phrase ‘recommended’ is that unless you can come up with a dam good reason not to, you put it in. The whole of BS7671 is a recommendation - how offen do you deviate from that? I though they where going to change the wording to ‘could be considered’.

 

[Nigel]

In reference to the arc fault protection - my understanding to the phrase ‘recommended’ is that unless you can come up with a dam good reason not to, you put it in. The whole of BS7671 is a recommendation - how offen do you deviate from that? I though they where going to change the wording to ‘could be considered’.

And here lies the problem. Regs these days are not written in plain English. Either it is required or it is not required.

The complete extreme of this is Grendfell Tower which was built on the back of interpretations of poorly written Regulations.

 

[Midwest]

Beama have produced a guide for AFDD's (Nov 2017), for those not seen it.

It says 'It is recommended that special measures be taken to protect against the effects of arc faults in final circuits:
• in premises with sleeping accommodation;
• in locations with risks of fire due to the nature of processed or
stored materials, i.e. BE2 locations, (e.g. barns, woodworking shops, stores of combustible materials);
• in locations with combustible constructional materials,
.e. CA2 locations (e.g. wooden buildings);
• in fire propagating structures, i.e. CB2 locations;
• in locations with endangering of irreplaceable goods.

And 'In order to implement the technical intent of the HD, Bs 7671 18th Edition will include requirements covering the use of AFDDs however the actual requirements and final wording will not be available until publication of the 18th Edition in July 2018.

So lets wait and see; but looks like you chaps doing EICR's will coding away on those recently installed A3 CU's, 'cos they won't be big enough to add AFDD's

 

[Nigel]

Beama have produced a guide for AFDD's (Nov 2017), for those not seen it.

It says 'It is recommended that special measures be taken to protect against the effects of arc faults in final circuits:
• in premises with sleeping accommodation;
• in locations with risks of fire due to the nature of processed or
stored materials, i.e. BE2 locations, (e.g. barns, woodworking shops, stores of combustible materials);
• in locations with combustible constructional materials,
.e. CA2 locations (e.g. wooden buildings);
• in fire propagating structures, i.e. CB2 locations;
• in locations with endangering of irreplaceable goods.

And 'In order to implement the technical intent of the HD, Bs 7671 18th Edition will include requirements covering the use of AFDDs however the actual requirements and final wording will not be available until publication of the 18th Edition in July 2018.

So lets wait and see; but looks like you chaps doing EICR's will coding away on those recently installed A3 CU's, 'cos they won't be big enough to add AFDD's

Very helpful. Thanks.

Looks like not really required in domestic building yet then.

 

[Midwest]

Very helpful. Thanks.

Looks like not really required in domestic building yet then.

Who knows; but sleeping accommodation would be construed as domestic to me?

Edit; guess 'sleeping accommodation' is more in line with hotels, student halls etc?

 

[happysteve]

Concerning, "Two new regulations (542.2.3 and 542.2.8) have been introduced concerning earth electrodes..."

If they have kept the same numbers and words as in the draft for public consultation (DPC):

542.2.3 Where foundation earth electrodes are installed the materials and dimensions of the earth electrodes shall be selected to withstand corrosion and to have adequate mechanical strength.

NOTE: If a lightning protection system (LPS) is present, BS EN 62305-1 applies

542.2.4 The type and embedded depth of an earth electrode shall be such that soil drying and freezing will bot increase its resistance above the required value.​

There was a proposed regulation, 542.1.201, that stated, "... Additionally, there shall be an earth electrode, supplementing any earthing facility provided by the distributor, in accordance with (blah), to prevent the appearance of a dangerous touch voltage in the event of the loss of the main connection to Earth."

This was the one that received the most negative comments (and general mirth) in the entire DPC. There is no mention of it at all on the IET's list of changes (linked to in post #1)

So those who invested in shares in lump hammers, SDS Max drills, or CAT scanners might not get as much return on their investment as they thought (although the changes to Section 722 about electrical vehicle charging might mean there is still some uplift in earth rod sales).

This is all I can see ....

Chapter 54 Earthing arrangements and protective conductors

• Two new regulations (542.2.3 and 542.2.8) have been introduced concerning earth electrodes.

Two new regulations (542.2.3 and 542.2.8) have been introduced concerning earth electrodes.

Jokes!!

They have explained some of the changes and then just put a stupid statement against others like electrodes. Like others have eluded to, I think they have yet to really make up their minds or they know that what they have decided is going to annoy folk.

 

[the pict]

I see the arc fault detection is only a reccomendation, when it becomes mandatory our boards our going to increase in size considerably. Changing an old MEM board with minimal space is going to become very difficult

I read that contractors should consult trusted partners as the specifying the correct rated device taking into account the level of deterioration with regards to the age of cables installed, what utter bollox I can see the being new builds/ renovation jobs only so if Joe blogs want a board moved in his 1950,s semi do we rip up the floors looking for VIR or cotton wound lead sheathed cable yeah as if

 

[MFS Electrical]

Did a job today, where customer previously asked for new socket, he had no rcd. So i was going to install rcd socket. Decides today he doesn't want to bother with that. But lets continue with the under cabinet lights; in July We won't be able to do that

You’ll get away with it until they come into force in January

 

[Midwest]

You’ll get away with it until they come into force in January

Whatever, I was being flippant

 

[MFS Electrical]

Whatever, I was being flippant

I know I know, I like to start installing to the regs when they come out for practice etc like when I heard about metal CUs I started installing them long before AMD 3 was published