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 59 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 8133 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

EICR code- Cooker switch with a socket outlet lacking RCD protection.

Sparkingchip
1980's end of terrace house, MEM Memera consumer unit with a RCBO to provide 30 mA RCD protection to the socket ring circuit, but no other circuits have RCD protection and there is not any outdoor sockets at all.


There is a cooker switch incorporating a 13-amp socket outlet, which is the closest socket to the kitchen window and with 1.5 metres of it, this socket does not have 30 mA RCD protection, what EICR code should be applied and why?


Andy Betteridge
Parents
  • 0

    John Peckham:

    Chris


    If the 50m extension lead is "reasonably foreseeable " then a C2 would be appropriate. How would you code the non-compliance?




    I shall stick with C3. We seem to be back to the debate about whether BS 7671 is retrospective. The installation has not at any stage suddenly become unsuitable for continued use. Nor was it any less "potentially dangerous" when it was compliant under an earlier version.


    I have been thinking about those 50 m extension leads.

    Table I1 of OSG tells me that the r1 + r2 of a 50 m x 1.5 mm2 lead is 1.21 Ω, which doesn't leave much slack for obtaining a Zs at the load end of 1.37 Ω (BS 7671 Table 41.3) presuming that a 32 A type B MCB is fitted. (Granted there will be a 13 A fuse in the plug, but that will that save your bacon?) Should these extension leads be fitted with RCD protection?

Reply
  • 0

    John Peckham:

    Chris


    If the 50m extension lead is "reasonably foreseeable " then a C2 would be appropriate. How would you code the non-compliance?




    I shall stick with C3. We seem to be back to the debate about whether BS 7671 is retrospective. The installation has not at any stage suddenly become unsuitable for continued use. Nor was it any less "potentially dangerous" when it was compliant under an earlier version.


    I have been thinking about those 50 m extension leads.

    Table I1 of OSG tells me that the r1 + r2 of a 50 m x 1.5 mm2 lead is 1.21 Ω, which doesn't leave much slack for obtaining a Zs at the load end of 1.37 Ω (BS 7671 Table 41.3) presuming that a 32 A type B MCB is fitted. (Granted there will be a 13 A fuse in the plug, but that will that save your bacon?) Should these extension leads be fitted with RCD protection?

Children
No Data

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