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 67 replies
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 3697 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

AFDDs AMD 2

John Peckham
In response to the suggestion of separate threads for individual changes to the 18th I thought I would start this one for AFDDs.


So what are the forum members views on the new requirement for AFDDs?


What is the safety case for the change? E.g impact on public safety, fires etc.Evidence?


What is the impact on the installation industry? How easy to fit, cost advantages disadvantages etc?


Will you feedback to the BSI on the changes and what will you say?


  • 0
    Sparkingchip:

    Just how can An AFDD like this be installed in an UK tin can consumer unit?


    See four posts up the page for details. What seems rather odd is that when you look up these devices, it says nothing about the type of CU which is required. It took quite a bit of searching to find the answer.


  • 0
    A visit to the Hager German website reveals a range of screw-less Hager AFDD which clip onto a two pole busbar and have push fit cable connections on top of them.


    We are do even vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest of Europe and definitely not on the same pitch playing the same game, we have been left way behind.


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    Chris Pearson:
    Sparkingchip:

    Just how can An AFDD like this be installed in an UK tin can consumer unit?


    See four posts up the page for details. What seems rather odd is that when you look up these devices, it says nothing about the type of CU which is required. It took quite a bit of searching to find the answer.






    The fourteen mod consumer unit in the illustration supplies three circuits.

    main switch = 2

    SPD = 2

    3 x AFDD = 9

    1 x unusable = 1

    Total = 14


    The double stacked CU could supply around eleven circuits bearing in mind AFDD are not required on lighting circuits, I am not sure if you can transition from the dual pole to single pole busbar to fit one mod MCBs or RCBOs next to AFDD.


    They seem to think that three AFDD would be sufficient in an installation with the majority of circuits not being protected by them.


    That rules out retrofitting them as replacements in the majority of homes.


    Andy B.


  • 0
    Sparkingchip:

    A visit to the Hager German website reveals a range of screw-less Hager AFDD which clip onto a two pole busbar and have push fit cable connections on top of them.


    We are do even vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest of Europe and definitely not on the same pitch playing the same game, we have been left way behind.


    Andy Betteridge 




    And the range only goes up to 25 amps, so you can forget UK 32 amp socket ring circuits.


  • 0
    The double stacked CU could supply around eleven circuits bearing in mind AFDD are not required on lighting circuits, I am not sure if you can transition from the dual pole to single pole busbar to fit one mod MCBs or RCBOs next to AFDD


    And to add water to troubled oil (in the manner of the post on chip pan fires) while  a double stacked CU is apealing if we really think we must have a wall of breakers RCDS and AFDDS in the space of the wall in a cupboard, it would leave a very narrow band to meet the part M height guidance for new consumer units of the actuators being between 1350 and 1450 mm above finished floor level.
    e797ab13a47df3e4b6b958ca09281f4b-original-eatonstackcu.jpg


    That cannot comply with part M.....


    The continent, like the past, is another country, low current 3 phase, mix and match DIN rail parts from many makers, as well as relays and bell transformers in what we would call the CU, direct comparison is not always valid. There is a reason for all the country specific annexes in the euro standards.

  • 0
    The double stacked CU could supply around eleven circuits bearing in mind AFDD are not required on lighting circuits. That rules out retrofitting them as replacements in the majority of homes.

    Double stacked (two row) CUs probably aren't acceptable on new builds either if you need to meet AD-M's requirements of the toggles being within a 100m band between 1350mm and 1450mm above floor level - if one row is within that range the other one isn't likely to be...


      - Andy.
  • 0
    Nip over to the Hager Irish website and they are promoting Vega distribution boards with plastic enclosures and up to four rows of devices with 72 mods available, their AFDD are two mod, so that leaves more than enough space.


    Are we going to see a major shift next April with manufacturers promoting European style distribution boards made in steel for the UK market with updated capacity of some devices to suit 100 amp installations with 32 amp socket circuits?


    Or will we get more cobbled together consumer units?


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    mapj1:

    e797ab13a47df3e4b6b958ca09281f4b-original-eatonstackcu.jpg


     




    It only has three AFDD in it.


    All the MCBs need to be for lighting circuits or rated in excess of 32 amps.


    Andy B.


  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    Double stacked (two row) CUs probably aren't acceptable on new builds either if you need to meet AD-M's requirements of the toggles being within a 100m band between 1350mm and 1450mm above floor level - if one row is within that range the other one isn't likely to be...


    It isn't a requirement in an ordinary visitable dwelling; it is merely a recommendation in the Approved Document.


  • 0
    Chris Pearson:
    AJJewsbury:

    Double stacked (two row) CUs probably aren't acceptable on new builds either if you need to meet AD-M's requirements of the toggles being within a 100m band between 1350mm and 1450mm above floor level - if one row is within that range the other one isn't likely to be...


    It isn't a requirement in an ordinary visitable dwelling; it is merely a recommendation in the Approved Document.




    As I understand it there is a requirement for accessibility - and AD-M gives examples that satisfy the requirement - while we are of course free to meet the requirements in other ways if we choose, how could we hope to demonstrate compliance if we put things outside of that range? How could we make something that was outside of that range just as accessible?

       - Andy.


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