TT eicr code?

[D Skelton]

Thanks D Skelton, so basically if an upfront 100mA S type is the only rcd protection for the circuits, then your opinion is a C2 as disconnection times wont be met. But if it is a standard 100mA rcd then it is only a C3.
Not questioning you, but if you test the s type rcd and disconnection times are 20ms @ 1 time and 14ms @ 5 times, then surely disconnection times have been met. As BS7671 states a TT disconnection time of 0.2s for final circuits which equates to 200ms.

Anyone any input, i am always looking to learn?

If those are your test results then it isn't a type-s up front. Also, as JD has said, you don't 5x a 100mA, 5x is only for 30mA or less when used as additional protection.

 

[hoppy]

Those results were just for instance, I am just trying to get a point across and learn. I know you don't have to 5 x a 100mA rcd, which is not the point here, I am asking for advice and opinions on whether a C2 or C3 is applicable and in your opinions why?

Like I said if you test 100mA s type rcd @ 1 time and it is less than 200ms (0.2s) then surely disconnection times for a TT system have been met and circuits not protected to 30mA would thus warrant a C3?

Also if the 100mA rcd was not an s tpe would you C3 this, as needs Improving to an type?

Thanks for your replies!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Regardless of whatever regulations it was designed to if the overcurrent protective devices will not disconnect the circuit under fault conditions in the required time then it's a C2. An EICR is always carried out to current regulations.

Would you not code bare live cable not out of reach but in use that was designed to the first edition of the wiring regulations?

Oh dear.
To start with an EICR is a form, how you carry one is not something stipulated in the Regulations (current or otherwise).

A PIR conducted in accordance with BS7671 will identify (among other things) any departures from the requirements of the current Regulations which may give rise to danger.
Two codes are used for this purpose, Code C1 'Danger present' and C2 'Potentially dangerous'.
The code C3 is used to indicate that improvement is required in order for an installation to comply with the current Regulations, but that there is no danger.

Near the beginning of the current Regulations can be found this:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading".

To apply the code C2 (Potentially dangerous) in such circumstances would indicate that the earlier edition of the Regulations are unsafe.
I can assure you that the IET will never state that earlier editions of the Regulations are unsafe.

Use of the code C2 in such circumstances would not be in accordance with BS7671, and signing the declaration on the EICR would either constitute fraud or indicate a lack of knowledge.

I do not have my copy of the First edition to hand, but I doubt that uninsulated live conductors were allowed to be within reach.

 

[D Skelton]

Oh dear.
To start with an EICR is a form, how you carry one is not something stipulated in the Regulations (current or otherwise).

A PIR conducted in accordance with BS7671 will identify (among other things) any departures from the requirements of the current Regulations which may give rise to danger.
Two codes are used for this purpose, Code C1 'Danger present' and C2 'Potentially dangerous'.
The code C3 is used to indicate that improvement is required in order for an installation to comply with the current Regulations, but that there is no danger.

Near the beginning of the current Regulations can be found this:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading".

To apply the code C2 (Potentially dangerous) in such circumstances would indicate that the earlier edition of the Regulations are unsafe.
I can assure you that the IET will never state that earlier editions of the Regulations are unsafe.

Use of the code C2 in such circumstances would not be in accordance with BS7671, and signing the declaration on the EICR would either constitute fraud or indicate a lack of knowledge.

I do not have my copy of the First edition to hand, but I doubt that uninsulated live conductors were allowed to be within reach.

Well thank you Spin for that rather patronising lesson on how to conduct myself whilst inspecting and testing an electrical installation. It might help you to know that I'm well aware how to code something that is potentially dangerous!

I couldn't care less what previous regulations state, I am inspecting the installation to current regulations and a major part of that procedure means determining whether or not the installation complies with the requirements for ADS. An overcurrent protective device not disconnecting a circuit in the required time under fault conditions IS potentially dangerous, and saying so is not tantamount to fraud, nor does it indicate a lack of knowledge?!?!?!? What a load of twoddle!

To use the quote from the current regs; "This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading". There you have it fella. This means that it may not in all cases be unsafe, but in some cases it could be. That is what the use of the words 'does not necessarily' indicate. If the IET would never say that earlier editions of the regulations were 'unsafe', or at least 'less safe' than the current, there'd be no need for them to keep changing them would there?!

I do not have my copy of the First edition to hand, but I doubt that uninsulated live conductors were allowed to be within reach.

I have read it, and nowhere does it say that in all cases a bare live conductor must be insulated whether it is within reach or not.


Finally, I couldn't help but pick out this little gem! Talk about contradiction!

To start with an EICR is a form, how you carry one is not something stipulated in the Regulations (current or otherwise).

A PIR conducted in accordance with BS7671

 

[D Skelton]

Those results were just for instance, I am just trying to get a point across and learn. I know you don't have to 5 x a 100mA rcd, which is not the point here, I am asking for advice and opinions on whether a C2 or C3 is applicable and in your opinions why?

Ok, I didn't know that the results were hypothetical. Still, if they were hypothetical and you already knew that you don't need to 5x a 100mA RCD then why did you include a hypothetical result for a 5x test?

My advice for the codes that would apply depending on the circumstances is in post ten.

Like I said if you test 100mA s type rcd @ 1 time and it is less than 200ms (0.2s) then surely disconnection times for a TT system have been met and circuits not protected to 30mA would thus warrant a C3?

An s-type won't be less that 200ms as a non-adjustable type-s is built with this figure as a time delay. A type-s can never be used to provide fault protection on a circuit where 0.2s is the maximum permissable disconnection time.

Also if the 100mA rcd was not a type-s would you C3 this, as needs Improving to an type?

In this circumstance I'd C3 it only because there would be circuits protected by a 100mA RCD that have no additional protection by way of a 30mA RCD. With the Ra you stated in your OP the requirements for fault protection are met with the 100mA RCD therefore a C2 is not applicable.

 

[hoppy]

Thanks d Skelton, for your view point and constructive info, that's what I was after, just looking for a different view point from the more experienced guys like yourself!

thanks again!

 

[Des 56]

Regardless of whatever regulations it was designed to if the overcurrent protective devices will not disconnect the circuit under fault conditions in the required time then it's a C2. An EICR is always carried out to current regulations.

Would you not code bare live cable not out of reach but in use that was designed to the first edition of the wiring regulations?

Having just read the whole of this thread,I am going to take issue with Damien and support the veiw of Spinlondon

My own understanding is that an eicr is carried out to ascertain whether an installation is safe for continued use,it is not carried out to determine if it meets current regs, rather it is it is compared to current regs for the purpose of the report and any deviations can be coded with that in mind


In the example being discussed,a TT system with a time delay 100m/amp Rcd,it does not meet curent regs for the reasons that have been posted
If it does not meet the current regs,it is then determined if it meets the standards that were in force at the time of installation and in this case it does
Remembering why the eicr is carried out,to determine if it is safe for continued use

Now to take a view contrary to the above and code the installation as potentially dangerous C2
It means there are millions off UK households that have installations that were deemed perfectly safe at the time that are now being considered dangerous,the IET got it wrong,massive rectification is required throughout the land

That is not a situation that would be confined to this forum,it would make national headline news and the electrical institution that governs safety would be in all sorts of bother

I suspect that my own interpretation of why an eicr is carried out and what determines the compliance of the system and to what regs is the only correct conclusion

 

[D Skelton]

Having just read the whole of this thread,I am going to take issue with Damien and support the veiw of Spinlondon

My own understanding is that an eicr is carried out to ascertain whether an installation is safe for continued use,it is not carried out to determine if it meets current regs, rather it is it is compared to current regs for the purpose of the report and any deviations can be coded with that in mind

I never said it is to determine if it meets current regs, I just said that any observations that are made will be in compliance with current regs.

In the example being discussed,a TT system with a time delay 100m/amp Rcd,it does not meet curent regs for the reasons that have been posted
If it does not meet the current regs,it is then determined if it meets the standards that were in force at the time of installation and in this case it does
Remembering why the eicr is carried out,to determine if it is safe for continued use

Like I keep saying, regardless of past standards, if an OCPD will not disconnect in the required time then this is potentially dangerous, therefore the only reasonable code would be a C2.

Now to take a view contrary to the above and code the installation as potentially dangerous C2
It means there are millions off UK households that have installations that were deemed perfectly safe at the time that are now being considered dangerous,the IET got it wrong,massive rectification is required throughout the land

Are there millions of UK households on TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD??? I've never come across one. I've come across plenty protected by a lone 100mA RCD though, in which case the requirements for fault protection (in most cases) will still be met even by todays standards.

I suspect that my own interpretation of why an eicr is carried out and what determines the compliance of the system and to what regs is the only correct conclusion

My conculsion is that there has been a gross misunderstanding of what I've actually said. I have been very clear in my explanation of the difference between a TT system protected by a 100mA type-s and a TT system protected by a normal 100mA and this appears to have been missed.

Edit: Like I said earlier, what if an electrical installation in use today complied with the 1st Edition of the wiring regulations but was unsafe for use today as it was. Would you just C3 that? I wouldn't, and I'd be perfectly comfortable giving the appropriate code by todays standards.

 

[spark 68]

Like Des, I would take issue with applying a C2 to a correctly designed 16th Edition install.

Here are the pages from the relevant 16th amd1 OSG. Sorry I don't have a later version (amd2) of the 16th OSG to compare with.

Bear in mind this type of install could have been carried out up until 2008, possibly later if it was designed prior to the 17th.

Have a read of the text pertaining to the use of RCDs in the 16th.

It would have to be a C3 from me.

 

[Des 56]

Are there millions of UK households on ?? TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD?I've never come across one. I've come across plenty protected by a lone 100mA RCD though, in which case the requirements for fault protection (in most cases) will still be met even by todays standards.


TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD?
I am puzzled by your quote
There are many that are split load with an additional 30m/amp Rcd covered by the whole boards 100m/amp S type

The millions statement might just be a "slight" exaggeration

nevertheless,there are indeed many many many,TT systems both now and in the past that not only employ this set up but are indeed very numerous, even until today

I am very surprised that you have never come across one,your area of the country must be very different to my own,where there is a rich mixture of all sorts and these types were as numerous as any Tnc-s or Tns



Like I keep saying, regardless of past standards, if an OCPD will not disconnect in the required time then this is potentially dangerous, therefore the only reasonable code would be a C2.

That is because you are basing your results on the current requirements and values
If they were based on what was accepted at the time of installation,then there is no problem

Obviously due regard should be taken of what time period that has elapsed since the installation date,but that is the idea of informing the person requesting the report of C3s etc
The changes will be brought to their attention for consideration,but that is much different to making a statement that their recently compliant installation is now unsatisfactory due only to changes that they would not have been aware of at the time it was installed

 

[spark 68]

One exception to the 16th and prior I would C2, is the thermal cut-out on old immersion heaters, as that was a proven defect that could cause fatalities.

It was generally acknowledged (unwritten) that on an EICR you go back one or possibly two editions before other factors start creeping in which would out of necessity would start to require improvements due to the age and purpose of the install (rental etc.), or in other words the further back you go the case becomes more compelling to require to at least update parts of the install. (more C2 than C3)

This rules out the 1st edition of the regs in this context.

The 15th edition now starting to become borderline (VOELCBs etc.), and anything prior starting to become obsolete.

 

[D Skelton]

One exception to the 16th and prior I would C2, is the thermal cut-out on old immersion heaters, as that was a proven defect that could cause fatalities.

It was generally acknowledged (unwritten) that on an EICR you go back one or possibly two editions before other factors start creeping in which would out of necessity would start to require improvements due to the age and purpose of the install (rental etc.), or in other words the further back you go the case becomes more compelling to require to at least update parts of the install. (more C2 than C3)

This rules out the 1st edition of the regs in this context.

The 15th edition now starting to become borderline (VOELCBs etc.), and anything prior starting to become obsolete.

So you consider it to be more of a personal line that dictates how far back you go before you start C2ing things. I guess I'm prepared to cross that line sooner than others when it comes to diconnection times not being met. Does that make me a frauster? Hmmm

Clearly there's nothing written down that goes into this matter, however there is plenty out there that states that periodic inspection and testing should be carried out to current regulations and older versions play no part in whether to code something or not.
I'll say it again, if something is unsafe by todays standards I'll code it appropriately. Previous standards don't come in to it in my mind.

 

[spark 68]

Are there millions of UK households on TT systems protected by a lone type-s RCD??? I've never come across one. I've come across plenty protected by a lone 100mA RCD though, in which case the requirements for fault protection (in most cases) will still be met even by todays standards.


The millons statement might just be a "slight" exageration

nevertheless,there are indeed many many many,TT systems both now and in the past that not only employ this set up but are indeed very numerous, even until today

I am very surprised that you have never come across one,your area of the country must be very different to my own,where there is a rich mixture of all sorts and these types were as numerous as any Tnc-s or Tns

I was fitting this type of install in 2006 and 2007 for the local council where I was working at the time, It was the defacto standard set-up for about 16 years, 1992 up to 2008.

 

[D Skelton]

I was fitting this type of install in 2006 and 2007 for the local council where I was working at the time, It was the defacto standard set-up for about 16 years, 1992 up to 2008.

I've never come across one. I've seen plenty of TT systems fitted with a single 100mA RCD protecting a 3036 board but never one with a type-s all on its own.

There ain't that many TT systems round here though, majority of my work is inner city so maybe that plays a part. I only get to play around with rods when I'm out in the sticks, which isn't every day.

 

[spark 68]

Hi D, it boils down to many factors, ie. is it rental where the LA might want their own improvements, or is it private.


You cannot force people to upgrade, nor can you scaremonger, it is basically a technical RA, as I said it was 'tacitly' suggested but unwritten that maybe two editions back was far enough before other factors came into play.

Edit: Have look at the drawings I posted, it was never allowed to have a single 100mA s-type protecting the whole lot, you still needed 30mA for S/Os in the 16th.

The 15th I would have to look up.