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 2 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 222 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

still on the subject of surge protective devices (SPD)

psychicwarrior
Does any one else think this SPD Regulation is a bit rushed in, for want of a better phrase ?


I've a few things that this subject has affected my already furrowed brow. I reckon insursance companies might start using (if not already) this sort of thing in there premium calculations at some point and yes, they are in use elsewhere on the planet and the intention is honourable etc...but..


On one matter (yes I know this is a bit simple and there are a raft of scenario question possible): assuming that there is no existing co-ordinated SPD setup on an installation and a job is to replace on of the sub-boards somewhere down the installation, can the job be certificated to 18th compliance without concern to a wholistic SPD co-ordinated system being in place e.g. at other boards and the origin  ?


Is not fitting it in such circumstances (assume any risk calculation or other suggests one should be fitted), a non-compliance, or does changing the sub-board in such circumstances imply that consideration must be given to the whole installation ..even in this 'changing a sub-board' ficticious scenario !


Or is fitting one going to be better than nothing on such a sub-board and regardless of effectiveness of the SPD, therefore just get it in and all certified and be happy, or "I regret to inform you that your whole installation will need a co-ordinated SPD system fitting to allow the sub-board to be changed"  :-)


Or perhaps I'm just not quite appreciative of it all just yet - most likely.


Regards

Habs


  • 0
    I think I'd approach it like any other alteration - the existing installation only needs to be updated where it would otherwise undermine the compliance of your new work.


    You fit your new DB with type 2 SPDs to protect your new work. The question is then does the lack of SPDs in the rest of the installation undermine the SPD protection of your new work in any way?


    So say you were in a building that needed Type 1 SPDs at the origin by the current rules (e.g. because the building is fitted with an LPS) - without those upstream type 1s your new type 2s are vulnerable to being destroyed by larger surges - so I'd say you'd need also to fit a set of type 1s at the origin to allow your new work to comply (but not necessarily type 2s at all the other DBs unless you felt that their absence somehow undermined the protection to your new work).


    If however you were in a conventional building with no requirement for type 1s at the origin (type 2s would do) then typically your new SPDs would probably protect your new work quite adequately (even though they wouldn't offer much protection to any of the existing installation) - so probably no other work need be undertaken.


    All having discussed the matter with the customer and pointed out the advantages (and costs) of bringing the entire installation up to date, of course.


      - Andy.
  • 0
    As always @AJJ thank you for your thoughts.   Seems reasonable to me.

Community Rules & Guidelines