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 84 replies
  • Subscribers 26 subscribers
  • Views 15248 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

IET announces new amendment to BS 7671 (IET Wiring Regulations)

Lisa Miles
Hi all


Just read about this in the latest edition of Wiring Matters Magazine and thought it may be of interest!
  • 0
    Chris


    Thanks for the reference I had not read that thread.


    Graham Kenyon was pointing out the changes to BS 7288 that now says that SRCDs cannot be used for addition protection and says that they can only be used if there is already upstream additional protection. I need to check but I think BS 7288 references disappeared from the 17TH and does not appear in the 18th. Hence I would be interested in other people's views?


    I will cut and paste the actual words from BS 7288 when next in front of my desk top.


    Andy


    Where did you find that reference to JPEL clarifying the use of devices to BS 7288?
  • 0
    I clicked the link Mike put above then kept going until I got to the BSI login for the drafts, my Ipad remembered my login details from when I viewed the draft 18th document and entered them for me and I was in. 


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    BS 7288: 2016 says.


    " SRCDS are only intended to supplementary protection downstream of the SRCD. SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream upstream of the SRCD".


    So these devices can no longer be used for additional protection. I assume this is why the do not appear in Appendix 1 of BS 7671 or in the body of the standard.


    I do not know if SRCDs made to the previous standard, BS 7288: 2009, are suitable for additional protection as they were of a different construction or it was discovered that all types are unsuitable? 


    So if you discovered an SRCD installed on an installation for additional protection or fault protection on a Periodic Inspection they would be a C2?


    I think this is the issue Graham Kenyon was referring to on the earlier thread.
  • 0
    In English then

    SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection an RCD are already assured upstream upstream of the SRCD .




    so, pointless, unless you require to play the chance of failure game, and cascade 2  devices with poor failure rates, to have a system over all with a reasonable one.

    So if say the change of wither the 1st RCD or the second failing to trip is perhaps 5%, the chance of both failing, so long as the failure mechanisms are independent is 0.25%.

    I suspect this is not the intention.


  • 0

    John Peckham:

    BS 7288: 2016 says.


    " SRCDS are only intended to supplementary protection downstream of the SRCD. SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream upstream of the SRCD".


    So these devices can no longer be used for additional protection. I assume this is why the do not appear in Appendix 1 of BS 7671 or in the body of the standard.


    I do not know if SRCDs made to the previous standard, BS 7288: 2009, are suitable for additional protection as they were of a different construction or it was discovered that all types are unsuitable? 


    So if you discovered an SRCD installed on an installation for additional protection or fault protection on a Periodic Inspection they would be a C2?


    I think this is the issue Graham Kenyon was referring to on the earlier thread.




    I am rather concerned that The author this industry guidance, John Peckham of Stroma cannot determine the use of the new RCD devices that are being made to meet the requirements of the new British Standard that doesn’t actually come into effect until later this year in November 2019.


    The 1990 edition of the SRCD and FCURCD is still actually the current edition and the new 2016 edition is still several weeks off being the current standard.


    I just said to someone in an email that once again I will be without a pet subject to bang on about on this forum, but it doesn’t look like we are there yet.


    My latest line of thought on this subject is that a decision was made to rewrite the British Standard for SRCD and FCURCD devices to say that they should be Type A RCDs, because of the types of appliances they are now being used to offer RCD protection to.


    Originally myself and others thought the apparent omission of these devices from BS7671 was just a clerical error copying the international standard into the UK regs and forgetting to include these UK only devices which are not in the international standard.


    Now it seems that when the British Standard for SRCD and FCURCD devices was rewritten changes were made that may not actually make the new versions just coming into production and being released for sale fit for their generally accepted uses, so an omission from BS7671 may be deliberate.


    i only have these devices that are made to the 1990 standard, type AC RCDs and although the new versions with type A RCDs are available I cannot see any point in putting any into stock on my van until there is some clarification as to what they can be used for.


    Andy Betteridge





     

  • 0

    In English then




    SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection an RCD are already assured upstream upstream of the SRCD .




    so, pointless, unless you require to play the chance of failure game, and cascade 2  devices with poor failure rates, to have a system over all with a reasonable one.

    So if say the change of wither the 1st RCD or the second failing to trip is perhaps 5%, the chance of both failing, so long as the failure mechanisms are independent is 0.25%.

    I suspect this is not the intention.






    As Mike has highlighted above, BS7288 has weird wording. BS7671 now refers to Additional Protection, though in the past editions these were supplementary protection [ against direct contact ]. The quote from BS7288 mentions supplementary -in general terms- while referring to Additional Protection in context  of BS7671. It is quite clear the use of Additional Protection in the quote from BS7288 is a mistake.


    Someone , somewhere was concerned that, by implication, some persons fitting RCD sockets or RCD fcu,s assumed they were providing Additional protection to the fixed wiring upstream of the accessory rcd socket/ rcd fcu. That is obviously in BS7288, but most electricians will never read that document. So BS7671, crucially in the "selection and erection" section, removed BS7288 as "accepted devices". Seems to me more like forcing " a deemed to comply" on installers. But that Chapter [52] is for new work only. As others have pointed out BS4293 [ old style RCDs ] are also not included, but of course you would not be installing BS4293s for new work.


    As for EICR, absolutely no coding for using an RCD socket or FCU for purposes of providing Additional Protection downstream of the Accessory . Exactly the same if you came across a BS4293 old style RCD. Under old PIR regime, the pendant could, say,  "code 4" [ not to current standards "but not necessarily unsafe" ] . However, if your inspection was for the more unusual purpose, such as regularisation or for a specific contractual reason, you would likely be more forceful to the deviation from the standard, but you could not deem it unsatisfactory for continued service and C2 it.


    NB composed this before Sparkings post so a bit of duplication.
  • 0
    Andy


    Yes I did write that article for Stroma so well spotted.


    I am unaware that BS 7288: 2016 has not come in to force as yet as the British Standard web site says it is the current standard. What information do you have to say it is not the current standard?


  • 0
    0d214efe2b4cb93c804b20e9c2c9c2c1-huge-20190907_172550.jpg


    This Greenbrook advert in the June 2019 Electrical Times clearly state twice that BS7288:2016 does not come into effect until November 2019 in several weeks time.


    It also states they are part of the BEAMA technical committee who helped to write the revised standard,  so hopefully they do have a full grasp of what's going on. 


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    We are in the overlap period where both revisions are valid.


    The BS website shows 2016 edition as "current" and 1990 edition as "current, revised".
    https://shop.bsigroup.com/SearchResults/?q=7288


    The foreword in 2016 edition states that the 1990 edition ceases to be current on November 30 2019 (page 7 of the preview).


    So the advert is misleading, but the date does have some basis in fact rather than being completely made up.
  • 0
    With the Screwfix returns policy I can have a discussion at Elex in Coventry in a couple of weeks time with the manufacturers and others, then if appropriate take my van stock back and get a refund on it, then restock or not according to what the outcome of the discussions at Elex are.


    Last year I was assured thst the devices to the old British Standard are completely suitable for the uses I have installed them for,  I wait to hear what is said this year. 


    Andy Betteridge

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