TT eicr code?

[D Skelton]

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.

Is it scaremongering to say that something is unsafe by today's standards? I don't really think so. If I were to carry out an installation on a TT system today and relied on a lone s-type to protect the entire installation my work would be unsafe. Surely the same standard applies to existing installations.

 

[Des 56]

Is it scaremongering to say that something is unsafe by today's standards? I don't really think so. If I were to carry out an installation on a TT system today and relied on a lone s-type to protect the entire installation my work would be unsafe. Surely the same standard applies to existing installations.

Danien
Can you please clarify what you mean by this statement that has been made by yourself a few times
I can play with the words to get it to mean different things


Oops gotta go to watch the match

 

[spark 68]

See edit above, even now S/Os without RCDs may be a C3 (16th ed) if not used for equipment outdoors (16th ed).

As I said it is basically a technical RA, your own personal preference has nothing to do with it, the situation as a whole needs to be taken into account.

 

[D Skelton]

See edit above, even now S/Os without RCDs may be a C3 (15th ed) if not used for equipment outdoors (16th ed).

As I said it is basically a technical RA, your own personal preference has nothing to do with it, the situation as a whole needs to be taken into account.

Ok, personal preference aside. If the OP has come across a TT installation with a 30mA for sockets and a 100mA s-type protecting the rest then if I were him I'd C2 the 100mA s-type. I view this as potentially dangerous because the circuits protected by the s-type would not disconnect in the required time.

I stand by how I would code this situation.

 

[spark 68]

Hi D,

what I was saying 16th ed TT wise, is that you can use 100mA upfront where No outdoor S/O are used, or a 100mA s-type upfront feeding a 30mA half of the board (S/Os) for discrimination purposes, or a 100mA (not TD) and 30mA split, if you look at the drawings I posted it shows this clearly.
In the 16th generally only S/Os and the shower were on the 30mA side.

I also think there is a mistake in the attached text where it says "shock protection" I think it should say Fault protection.
The 100mA providing fault protection, not additional protection as defined in the 17th, hence C3.

 

[D Skelton]

Hi D,

what I was saying 16th ed TT wise, is that you can use 100mA upfront where No outdoor S/O are used, or a 100mA s-type upfront feeding a 30mA half of the board (S/Os) for discrimination purposes, or a 100mA (not TD) and 30mA split, if you look at the drawings I posted it shows this clearly.
In the 16th generally only S/Os and the shower were on the 30mA side.

I also think there is a mistake in the attached text where it says "shock protection" I think it should say Fault protection.
The 100mA providing fault protection, not additional protection as defined in the 17th, hence C3.

Yes, and the s-type would have provided fault protection as under the 16th Edition the maximum permitted disconnection time for general circuits on a TT system was 0.4s. Now it is 0.2s and an s-type wouldn't provide fault protection on a general circuit only on a distribution circuit. C2.

 

[telectrix]

but if that s-type was compliant when installed, i 'd lean towards a C3. can't see it being OK pre 17th and now potentially dangerous.

 

[spark 68]

Sorry, the 0.4 seconds in the 16th (table 41A TN disconnection times in that edition) only applied to S/Os supplying outdoor equipment, it did not apply to other fixed final circuits where a 5 seconds disconnection time was allowed.

 

[D Skelton]

but if that s-type was compliant when installed, i 'd lean towards a C3. can't see it being OK pre 17th and now potentially dangerous.

Working down an asbestos mine without a mask wasn't dangerous pre 17th.

 

[D Skelton]

Sorry, the 0.4 seconds in the 16th (table 41A TN disconnection times in that edition) only applied to S/Os supplying outdoor equipment, it did not apply to other fixed final circuits where a 5 seconds disconnection time was allowed.

Either way, under the 16th an s-type would have provided fault protection for any circuit on a TT. Now it won't. That is my reasoning.

 

[spark 68]

Either way, under the 16th an s-type would have provided fault protection for any circuit on a TT. Now it won't. That is my reasoning.

I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.

 

[D Skelton]

I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.

I know what you and Des are saying and I'm disagreeing with you lol. If a circuit (any circuit whether that be lights, sockets, heating, cooker etc...) has a maximum permitted disconnection time of 0.2s and its sole means of fault protection is by a 100mA s-type then I would C2 it.

 

[telectrix]

but that's calling it potentially dangerous just because the disconnection time limits have been changed in the regs. from 0.4 to 0.2.

 

[D Skelton]

but that's calling it potentially dangerous just because the disconnection time limits have been changed in the regs. from 0.4 to 0.2.

Yep

 

[spark 68]

Okay, lol that is fine.

I would say I don't see how you can fail a fully compliant immediately previous edition install that was current until very recently (2008) ?, by all means recommend an improvement to todays standard (C3) but to fail it just does not make sense.

I worked mainly to the 16th until 2008, I am too young for the 15th (wink).