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
  • Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 42 subscribers
  • Views 387 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Coding and regs in force at time of installation

Newfutile

While we code to the current regulations we seem to make allowances usually a C3 for earlier installations.

for example Arc Fault Detection Device in a high risk residential building, if the building is 20 years old this makes sense, otherwise we would have to upgrade many properties.

how should we code if the building was wired recently when Arc Fault Detection Device is required .

Arc Fault Detection Devices were just picked as an example but could apply to any changed requirements where the installer has not met the regs at the time.

Parents
  • 0

    As far as I am aware, initial verification is to the edition (with any amendements) which was current when the installation was designed. So, it could be a little out of date on completion.

    If that were not the case, it could cause real problems with large developments, which may take a few years from start to finish.

    Periodic I&T is different: it is to the edition which is current at the time of the inspection.

  • 0 in reply to Chris Pearson

    Its not even that clear , if it is a contract for something really big - think Heathrow airport or the Olympic 'village' that is likely to take long enough to  span several issues of many building standards. In that case the contracts will be to standards as they stood on some pre-agreed date named in the contract, which may even predate the job starting by months or years, - so BS12345 2020  or whatever. And that is the installers justification for the design choice in that case - the contracted set of rules include a date freeze.
    It does of course mean that if it is inspected the day after hand-over it is ' not to current standards'  but that is the agreement, the alternative would be ambulatory requirements and nothing would ever finish. And of course changes between successive standards tend to be modest as the biggest matters of life and death were sorted in the early versions of standards.

    Mike.

  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    Sounds like a contract review is needed.

    EG in 2020 type AC RCD were seen as OK but now only 5 years later we know that a Type A is the recommended and Type AC in most cases is depricated.  Thus the Contract for Mega projects which can span 5 to 10 years should include a review by an engineer at the 3/4 stage mark to review such things using their engineering judgement.  

Reply
  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    Sounds like a contract review is needed.

    EG in 2020 type AC RCD were seen as OK but now only 5 years later we know that a Type A is the recommended and Type AC in most cases is depricated.  Thus the Contract for Mega projects which can span 5 to 10 years should include a review by an engineer at the 3/4 stage mark to review such things using their engineering judgement.  

Children
  • 0 in reply to Sergio Fernandez

    In practice, it gets built to contract, as if it does not, payment is withheld, and if it is, payment can be demanded.

    It is however no more dangerous than if it had been completed sooner (i.e. at the contract date)

    The fact the regs have changed is only relevant if the customer fancies  paying for a mid-programme contract up-lift. 

    The decision has to be risk based, and for something like an AFDD, may well include inputs from other design authorities,  being things the electrician is not doing, like the fire risk assessment.

    Mike.

Community Rules & Guidelines