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 22 replies
  • Subscribers 35 subscribers
  • Views 7097 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

The application of BS 7288 RCDs

Chris Pearson

The application of BS 7288 SRCDs has cropped up from time to time, so what is their application since BS 7671:2018?

531.3.6 specifies that RCDs for additional protection shall comply with BS 61008, BS 61009, or BS 62423 (type F and type B devices). BS 7288 SRCDs appear to have been acceptable up to and including BS 7671:2008+3 because there is no corresponding paragraph. This is not entirely surprising because BS 7671:2008+3 was published in 2015 whereas the current version of BS 7288 was published during the following year and in essence, it is BS 7288 which rules out SRCDs for additional protection.

Section 1 of BS 7288, Scope, says: SRCDs are only intended to provide supplementary protection downstream of the SRCD. SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD.

That begs the question, supplementary to what? It can only be additional protection (provided by a BS 61008, etc. device). So why fit one?

It seems to me that there are two reasons. First, where it is desired to have protection with a sensitivity of 10 mA, perhaps at a workstation where the risk of direct contact is increased; and second, where a second level of protection is required to guard against failure of an upstream RCD.

If anybody can think of another reason for fitting a BS 7288 SRCD, do please speak up.

Parents
  • 0

    Regards the three metre rule, I worked on a job where the customer has a walk in bath in a bedroom and there’s an existing double socket on the far side of the double bed which is now fully compliant rather than being on the wrong side of the limit.

    It was detailed on the certificate at the time, the lady said moving it 200 mm was ridiculous and I did agree, I had already removed the socket on the other side of the bed, between the bed and the bath as well as adding RCD protection to both the lighting and socket circuits.

Reply
  • 0

    Regards the three metre rule, I worked on a job where the customer has a walk in bath in a bedroom and there’s an existing double socket on the far side of the double bed which is now fully compliant rather than being on the wrong side of the limit.

    It was detailed on the certificate at the time, the lady said moving it 200 mm was ridiculous and I did agree, I had already removed the socket on the other side of the bed, between the bed and the bath as well as adding RCD protection to both the lighting and socket circuits.

Children
  • 0 in reply to Sparkingchip

    Whatever next ? No need to put a warning label on adjacent points on two separate phases or allowing flex for fixed wiring perhaps?

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