18th edition final changes released by IET

[ruston]

So if Mrs Miggins wants an additional light she will need an RCD, she won't like it, you know!

They don't Captain Mainwaring.

 

[sparkdog]

Don't panic Sir!

 

[Midwest]

January 2019 is when we all need to comply, there’s still a window

I might feel so inclined to implement this crazy stuff straight away.

That's after spending £400 on a course of course. Being taught how to read a book, just to keep my scheme happy; who incidentally are raising my subs £15 this year. But that's ok,'cos they have an agreement with Tradepoint, for contractors to receive preferential rates. Example, at BQ architrave switch/back box £6.29, with Trade card £6.29.

 

[Wonderwall]

Sorry to repeat myself here , but I'm just interested in other people's take on a couple of things in the report.
Will it be deemed unacceptable to clip a cable on a joist , above a bedroom ceiling using twin and earth clips?
And are they saying a copper gas pipe which has a plastic covering , but then connects to a copper pipe internal in the house no longer requires bonding?
Maybe ( probably !!) I'm being thick and not grasping what they are saying .
I have a meeting with my scheme provider in a couple of weeks to tell us the in outs of it all, but I'm really interested to hear other people's take on it all beforehand.
Many peoples interpretation differ from many other, as I'm sure you are all aware .
It's almost as if if meant to confuse ( the whole regs book)
Why it isn't written in plain everyday English has always been of great annoyance to me.
We are sparks, not lawyers.

 

[Spoon]

I have a meeting with my scheme provider in a couple of weeks to tell us the in outs of it all, but I'm really interested to hear other people's take on it all beforehand.

When you meet them please can you ask them my question in post #18... I'd be interested to hear what they say.

 

[Spoon]

And are they saying a copper gas pipe which has a plastic covering , but then connects to a copper pipe internal in the house no longer requires bonding?

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).

I see this not as a plastic covering but as were the pipe has a metal section replaced with plastic (or other insulating material). Like where the water pipe coming into your house is replaced with plastic piping and later on it converts back to copper.

 

[Spoon]

Will it be deemed unacceptable to clip a cable on a joist , above a bedroom ceiling using twin and earth clips?

Regulation 521.10.202 requires cables to be adequately supported against their premature collapse in the event of a fire. This applies throughout the installation and not just in escape routes.

Sounds like you will need to use non-plastic clips in every room, for every few clips, so the cable doesn't sag down in a fire.

 

[Ian1981]

Sorry to repeat myself here , but I'm just interested in other people's take on a couple of things in the report.
Will it be deemed unacceptable to clip a cable on a joist , above a bedroom ceiling using twin and earth clips?
And are they saying a copper gas pipe which has a plastic covering , but then connects to a copper pipe internal in the house no longer requires bonding?
Maybe ( probably !!) I'm being thick and not grasping what they are saying .
I have a meeting with my scheme provider in a couple of weeks to tell us the in outs of it all, but I'm really interested to hear other people's take on it all beforehand.
Many peoples interpretation differ from many other, as I'm sure you are all aware .
It's almost as if if meant to confuse ( the whole regs book)
Why it isn't written in plain everyday English has always been of great annoyance to me.
We are sparks, not lawyers.

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.

 

[Ian1981]

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).

I see this not as a plastic covering but as were the pipe has a metal section replaced with plastic (or other insulating material). Like where the water pipe coming into your house is replaced with plastic piping and later on it converts back to copper.

So do you think it means if the pipework being plastic rising from the ground and say connecting to an external gas meter , but then enters the property in copper pipe still requires bonding?
The way I see it it’s unlikely to be an extraneous conductive part anyhow but if it enters the property in copper then bond it?

 

[Richard Burns]

"A new Regulation 421.1.7 has been introduced recommending the installation of arc fault detection devices (AFDDs) to mitigate the risk of fire in AC final circuits of a fixed installation due to the effects of arc fault currents."

When you meet them please can you ask them my question in post #18... I'd be interested to hear what they say.

I would say that this would depend on the wording of the regulation.
Are there specific circumstances or particular risks of fire that need to be covered , similar to the other regs under that section. I will be ignoring it.

So, do people read that as , cables clipped on a joist , above a bedroom ceiling are no longer permitted to be held up with t&e clips?
The sheathed metallic pipe is a strange one as well.
Surely it still brings in a potential to the building? I'm not convinced all these engineers totally understand the science of it all. You just need to read the difference of opinions on the matter of earthing and bonding on here to realise there are many different takes on the matter.

I agree with Ian1981 a plasterboard ceiling provides support in the case of a fire. It would only be high level cables surface clipped / plastic conduit / trunking within a room that would need the additional support.
The bonding is if the metallic pipe has an insulating insert, i.e. it is a non continuous conductor into the installation, then it does not require bonding.
If the pipe coming in is plastic then it is already non continuous and does not require bonding.
This does not avoid the need to check for additional points at which an earth potential maybe introduced to via metallic pipework in an installation.

am I reading that right that SPD's might be more likely needed too?

I would say that the AQ conditions at their worst case for the UK always came out as SPD not needed therefore you would apply the later RA conditions of risks to life, property, etc. if you were considering it, so no real change.

 

[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.