Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 41 subscribers
  • Views 12959 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 NEW REGULATION IN AMD 2

John Peckham

As you may be aware amendment 2 to the 18th Edition was published in the early hours of this morning. If you have the access to the IET Digital package you may have already seen this change.

The new regulation is.

Arc fault detection devices (AFDD) conforming to BS EN 6206 shall be provided for single phase AC circuits supplying socket outlets with a rated current not exceeding 32A in.

High Rise Residential Buildings (HRRB)

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs.

Purpose built student accommodation.

Care homes.

For all other premises, the use of AFDDs is recommended for circuits supplying sockets not exceeding 32A.

So we will not be seeing consumer units full of AFDDs if at all in ordinary domestic premises.

Lights blue touch paper and retires.

JP

Parents

  • At least there is a level playing field where “mandatory” application of AFDDs is concerned but it would be foolish for any designer to ignore a “recommendation” made for their deployment.  Some courage will be needed by bodies like NICEIC to offer advice to contractors operating in the domestic sector as to an appropriate approach. 
    Given the mandatory requirements, it seems clear that the purpose is one of life safety rather than property protection and that some scrutiny of fire statistics has been used to prioritise the risk. However, there will be many instances where private dwellings will display a similar risk profile and thus AFDDs should be at least run through a risk analysis. 
    I am sceptical about the benefit of the devices generally and I imagine if there really was sound evidence to demonstrate significant reduction in risk, the mandatory net would have extended to all areas with sleeping risk. I guess cost was the biggest impediment to the decision to only recommend them in the general domestic sector so the next best thing is to shift the burden on to the designer. 

Reply

  • At least there is a level playing field where “mandatory” application of AFDDs is concerned but it would be foolish for any designer to ignore a “recommendation” made for their deployment.  Some courage will be needed by bodies like NICEIC to offer advice to contractors operating in the domestic sector as to an appropriate approach. 
    Given the mandatory requirements, it seems clear that the purpose is one of life safety rather than property protection and that some scrutiny of fire statistics has been used to prioritise the risk. However, there will be many instances where private dwellings will display a similar risk profile and thus AFDDs should be at least run through a risk analysis. 
    I am sceptical about the benefit of the devices generally and I imagine if there really was sound evidence to demonstrate significant reduction in risk, the mandatory net would have extended to all areas with sleeping risk. I guess cost was the biggest impediment to the decision to only recommend them in the general domestic sector so the next best thing is to shift the burden on to the designer. 

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