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 8 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1536 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

Compliance with 411.3.3 RCDs on Socket Outlets

An_Cala

I have a scenario where we have a standard circuit arrangement. 32A Ring Circuit feeding a number of socket outlets.  An RCBO of 32A/30mA is specified at the DB.  However the outlets also have 10mA RCD's at each outlet.    Whilst there may be issues around nuisance tripping. ITs been suggested that we remove the RCBO and use a standard 32A Type B MCB at the DB.

 IMO this means the circuit would not have RCD protection,  and only the outlets ( or appliance plugged into an outlet would be protected).  So the question I have is would a 32A MCB Ring circuit when serving this arrangement be compliant with the regs?

One concern I have with this is that should an outlet ever be changed for a normal 13A SSO, then the circuit again would be non compliant.   And that in the event of an earth fault (depending on the ZS) it may not achieve the necessary disconnection times for a ring circuit. 

 

Thoughts? 

Parents
  • 0

    it said something like additional protection must be provided upstream of the device.

    I understand it does, but the original wording I think was in a paragraph that was discussing the situation where the circuit upstream of the socket itself required additional protection (e.g. T&E concealed in walls) but it seems the clarity was lost during a revision. Why on earth the committee behind BS 7288 hasn't issued a corrigendum to make it clear again baffles me - they surely have manufacturers on the committee and an official interpretation that makes their products akin to a chocolate fireguard can't be in their best interests.

      - Andy.

Reply
  • 0

    it said something like additional protection must be provided upstream of the device.

    I understand it does, but the original wording I think was in a paragraph that was discussing the situation where the circuit upstream of the socket itself required additional protection (e.g. T&E concealed in walls) but it seems the clarity was lost during a revision. Why on earth the committee behind BS 7288 hasn't issued a corrigendum to make it clear again baffles me - they surely have manufacturers on the committee and an official interpretation that makes their products akin to a chocolate fireguard can't be in their best interests.

      - Andy.

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