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 61 replies
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 8666 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

RCD Protection For Old Installations

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Hey there, 

Would like to hear your thoughts on the case. 

If the installation from the 70s or 80s with old mem board has no rcd protection for neither sockets nor lights (with metal front plate switches, which are connected to CPC), taking into consideration that the installation was working cheerfully since the old days till today and all Zs values are within the range of the installed breakers and overall good condition. Would this require an upgrade to rcd protection as of the 18th edition or would class as C3 as of best practice guide 4 suggest on eicr? 

How would you approach the situation?

Regards, 

Karolis

Parents
  • 0

    I did not see any supplementary bonding there. Which makes it C2 in this case. 

    Not necessarily - to prove non-compliance you need to take measurements between exposed-conductive-parts/c.p.c.s and/or extreaneous-conductive-parts and compare the results with the calculation in reg 415.2.2. As I mentioned earlier, in a small flat with the MET comparitively close to the bathroom it may be entirely possible for the c.p.c.s and main bonding to provide the required performance without any additional supplementary bonding conductors as such.

    Just be careful with your consideration of which device's Ia you use.

       - Andy.

Reply
  • 0

    I did not see any supplementary bonding there. Which makes it C2 in this case. 

    Not necessarily - to prove non-compliance you need to take measurements between exposed-conductive-parts/c.p.c.s and/or extreaneous-conductive-parts and compare the results with the calculation in reg 415.2.2. As I mentioned earlier, in a small flat with the MET comparitively close to the bathroom it may be entirely possible for the c.p.c.s and main bonding to provide the required performance without any additional supplementary bonding conductors as such.

    Just be careful with your consideration of which device's Ia you use.

       - Andy.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines