The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 27 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 2420 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Older boards and availability/compatibility of devices

psychicwarrior
I know, I know, its been a subject of many threads over the years...but I am bringing it up again.  More a moan I think over the inflexibility (perhaps with good reason I accept sometimes) at times.


Old Volex board - not even split load...all MCB.   In good order, all aspects look lovely.   Ideally, time for a board change....well if you think so ;-)


Now then,  some minor works (circuit extension) would dictate  the requirement for RCD protection.   Solutions, shift the circuit to small outboard BS61008 enclosure; new board...or source and fit RCBO, which seems perfect and is the most cost-effective and simplest...other than...it seems that using another manufacturer RCBO is seriously frowned on... by Volex at least (and I am sure others).   Well I've known this for a while, but never faced a situation where doing so would be the most feasible option.


Is it really that bad to fit another brand device into an old board...what really are the *real* safety risks if the thing is secure and fits.  I cant really think of any other than fluff - assuming its same rating etc and sits nice.


I've heard the phrase type tested and I take it that means that everything in a consumer unit was tested to perform to standards etc when it was made up.  Then putting in a different RCBO means that is now 'broken' as such.


My question and I am just trying to understand the technical and regulatory issues here:  is it not possible at all, to issue a MEIWC to current Regs as a result of putting in a different branded RCBO (I cannot re-do the type testing etc of course!) and where might/is that prohibition backed up in the 'frustrating' Regs Book please ?




  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    Im presuming though that its about ensuring compliance with the standard in force at the time it was made up, not the latest (when altering things)



    That sounds sensible, but if my reading of 536.4.203 is correct, I think the actual wording of the requirement is to meet the current BS EN 61439 series ... so my implication including those to earlier (possibly incompatible) standards. Doesn't sound too practical does it?

       - Andy.

     




    No it does not sound practical; It sounds...[insert assessment here] :-)    I will look up that Reg soonest, because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs.   Perhaps an ideal, but not always the most feasible or sensible especially in terms of, if the work does not detriment the safety of the installation from what it was before the alterations, then there really is no issue.   Of course, if substancial work is taking place it may make sense to do a board change etc (then must comply with the standars in force etc) and I suppose catering for all grey areas is not what BS7671 is trying to do.  


    If one could show the work done was *electrically* safe, perhaps to previous Regs even, (not focusing on using different brand devices which may never have been an approved approach it seems) and create a  non-compliant-with today certificate, then what's the issue.  Only kidding of course.


    [edited again - when i press delete, words I'm not deleting disappear sometimes and cursor jumps around a bit oddly]

  • 0

    Zoomup:




    mapj1:

    About 5 years ago I wanted a C type RCBO for a Volex board, and they did not seem to make them.

    However, I rang them up to check and was told that, no they didn't but all their MCBs and so forth used the same internals and metalwork as the Wylex ones, only using a  cheaper printed plastic process, and that it would be fine to fit the Wylex one.

    And indeed it fitted perfectly, and as far as I know it is still in service. If I'd known it would be useful, I'd have asked for it in writing.

     




    ...They are all interchangeable.


    Z.


     




    physically/technically I believe you. Regulatory it would seem not from what is being suggested.

  • 0
    But if the 'additional/replacement' mcbs meet the latest standards and are equal in physical measurements so they are to all intents and purposes equal (if a different manufactureer) then if we are not careful we will be replacing whole boards for no reason other than paperwork (and my recent experience of qualified sparks is anything to go by - whats paperwork or certificates?)
  • 0
    536.4.203.


    Note 2. Allows components inside the assembly to be from a different manufacturer than the original. This refers to BS EN 61439 series, e.g. consumer units, dis. boards etc.


    BUT we need a note form the original manufacturer stating that the new components are acceptable and are compatible with the original equipment. If we assemble or add our own equipment and mix and match, the person introducing the deviation becomes the original manufacturer with the corresponding obligations, as has already been stated here.


    Z.
  • 0

    psychicwarrior:

    My question and I am just trying to understand the technical and regulatory issues here:  is it not possible at all, to issue a MEIWC to current Regs as a result of putting in a different branded RCBO (I cannot re-do the type testing etc of course!) and where might/is that prohibition backed up in the 'frustrating' Regs Book please ?




    I don't think that 536.4.203 gives you any wriggle room. So either it's a whole new CU,;or a separate enclosure for an RCD which has been declared to be compatible with it.

  • 0
    @Zoom - I agree.  Note 2.   Though getting an  OEM to specify I think very difficult.



    [edited ... words again]
  • 0

    psychicwarrior:

    @Zoom - I agree.  Note 2.   Though getting an  OEM to specify I think very difficult.



    [edited ... words again]




    Of course Bright Sparks Manufacturing makes no profit if we fit A.N. Others equipment in its boards. It's all down to profits.


    Z.

  • 0
    Actually it is not even clear if it is always deemed to comply when all the bits are bought from the same source.
    an example of more restrictive conditions.

    Although we do supply all our components as separate items on our invoice, we can and do ship the the components already assembled, if you wish us to, at no extra cost. Where the resulting Distribution Board, as designed by you, is not certified to BSEN61439-3, it should comply with BS7671:2008, AMD3, 421.1.201 and/or 133.1.3.

     




    Which I read as ' you decided what to put in it, so it is your responsibility'.

    And of course it will be fine in practice, and even if it wasn't it is not non compliance with some EU standard that matters, but the fact it has burnt the wall paper or whatever.

     


  • 0

    because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs



    I don't think it's quite as bad as that - by my reading at least it's only when you're adding devices not specified by the original assembly manufacturer - if you could find an MCB that was officially compatible then you're fine (and the assembly only needs to remain compliant with its original standard). As I read it it's just saying that if you add in "wrong" devices today, you need to ensure that the overall result complies with today's standards.


      - Andy.
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    because from what you say it seems to imply that if any work is done then everything must be brought up to current Regs



    I don't think it's quite as bad as that - by my reading at least it's only when you're adding devices not specified by the original assembly manufacturer - if you could find an MCB that was officially compatible then you're fine (and the assembly only needs to remain compliant with its original standard). As I read it it's just saying that if you add in "wrong" devices today, you need to ensure that the overall result complies with today's standards.


      - Andy.

     




    I think so too.  What I was meaning is that I could see someone trying to argue that making any changes in the board means that what ever is done meets todays Regs (inc. assembly, selection standards and so forth).  At the least, I am happy that changing a device or adding a new device in an old board is fine so long as the original manufacturer supports/approves/confirms/whatever , 'it'. 

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines