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

This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Multiple circuits in a single MCB/RCBO

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Having undertaken some inspections recently I'm finding a lot of older installations with multiple circuits within a single RCBO. Example being 2 light circuits (Upstairs/downstairs) being added to a single B6 RCBO.

The circuit design covers single pendants in each room and some downlights in the kitchen. The majority of bulbs are LED so from a risk point of view would this be unlikely to exceed 6amps. From the EICR however would this be considered C3 in peoples opinions due to risk level with a potential of splitting to separate RCBO's, or should this be C2 as there are technically 2 circuits fed from a single MCB?


Likewise the same installation has a 32amp MCB (RCD protected) supplying a ring final circuit downstairs. When work has been undertaken in the past, an additional radial circuit has been added to the same MCB in 2.5mm T&E. My view on this is that this instantly requires a C2 coding, as the radial circuit feeds multiple sockets (and there is no Fused spur within the radial line) it is not rated for the potential draw and the 32amp breaker will not trip with the overload of the radial line.


There are no spare ways in the board, so am I correct in claiming this would require a new replacement board to accommodate and separate the circuits? Would this be different if the radial only served a single double socket for ease of the wiring?


There appears to be a lot of confusion on when/if its acceptable to add radials to an existing breaker and I wondered if there was any clarity, given that these circuit amendments are historic and retrospective changing to meet current regulations is not essential providing it met previous regulations.


Many thanks

David
Parents
  • sort of my point really

    'I would not do it' or

    'feels a bit iffy'


    Are not the correct threshold for condemning the design work of others even if the design appears to be a doodle on a fag packet after a pub lunch by someone with the IQ of a pork pie.


    The correct questions after

    "are there any exposed live bits?", and

    "is anything looking charred and heat damaged ?"

    (in reality a lot of things may well fail one or other of these )


    are 'is any cable able to be overloaded to the point of fire hazard ? '(and a 20% overload is more like an operating life of 20 years instead of 50 years, so not really  an  immediate danger)


    And "does ADS provide the correct safety of life response in the event of a live to earth fault ?" (quite often the RCD means that is OK even if the ring is a bit long or whatever)


    Things like 'the VD is a bit high but only to the point where the lights flicker if the shower is used' are only really C3.


    Mike.

Reply
  • sort of my point really

    'I would not do it' or

    'feels a bit iffy'


    Are not the correct threshold for condemning the design work of others even if the design appears to be a doodle on a fag packet after a pub lunch by someone with the IQ of a pork pie.


    The correct questions after

    "are there any exposed live bits?", and

    "is anything looking charred and heat damaged ?"

    (in reality a lot of things may well fail one or other of these )


    are 'is any cable able to be overloaded to the point of fire hazard ? '(and a 20% overload is more like an operating life of 20 years instead of 50 years, so not really  an  immediate danger)


    And "does ADS provide the correct safety of life response in the event of a live to earth fault ?" (quite often the RCD means that is OK even if the ring is a bit long or whatever)


    Things like 'the VD is a bit high but only to the point where the lights flicker if the shower is used' are only really C3.


    Mike.

Children
No Data