Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
Hi all
Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact". My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic disconnection of supply. Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting circuits? Thanks Phil |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
TheScullster wrote:
Hi all Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact". My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic disconnection of supply. Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting circuits? Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th. Are any of your circuits new installations or are they all modifications to existing circuits? And you need to fill in a minor works certificate for every circuit that you have worked on. -- Adam |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
"ARWadsworth" wrote TheScullster wrote: Hi all Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact". My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic disconnection of supply. Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting circuits? Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th. Thanks Adam Can I still claim EEBADS, when Mr B has stated that no additional bonding is required in the kitchen? Was this a general term to cover all domestic work whether equipotential bonding is provided in that particular area or not? Are any of your circuits new installations or are they all modifications to existing circuits? Yes all circuits are modifications. And you need to fill in a minor works certificate for every circuit that you have worked on. Ring main and lighting will have separate certs -- Adam |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
TheScullster wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote TheScullster wrote: Hi all Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact". My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic disconnection of supply. Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting circuits? Well the easy answer is EEBADS as the work is designed and installed to the 16th and there was no such thing as ADS in the 16th. Thanks Adam Can I still claim EEBADS, when Mr B has stated that no additional bonding is required in the kitchen? Was this a general term to cover all domestic work whether equipotential bonding is provided in that particular area or not? Yes, it was the 16th edition version of ADS. The fact that you have not actually installed any equiptential bonding is irrelevant. -- Adam |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
TheScullster wrote:
For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. *Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? JGH |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
jgharston wrote:
TheScullster wrote: For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? -- Adam |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
ARWadsworth wrote:
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send' JGH |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
jgharston wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote: Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send' The main bit is that EEBADS was replaced by ADS as equipotential bonding is no longer needed in a bathroom under some 17th edition rules (but equipotential bonding is still is required in some cases). -- Adam |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
jgharston wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote: Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send' Go on then. I'll make a confession. The 3 phase compressor would not fire up at my brothers garage. I diagnosed the problem as a failed DOL starter later that evening. It was an old MEM metal clad DOL starter that had failed. My brother needed the compressor for work the next day but I was working in Kent for the next couple of days. I devised a plan that worked until I could sort out a replacement. The solution was called a wooden stick. My brother was able to hold the contacts of the "now open to stick your fingers in 3 phase DOL starter" with the wooden stick until his compressor was at 160PSI. He lived to see a new DOL starter.. -- Adam |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message ... jgharston wrote: TheScullster wrote: For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? The string breaks before you pull the switch down. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
dennis wrote:
Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? The string breaks before you pull the switch down. Just had a quick look at my (20-year-old) lecture notes, and protection by out-of-reach can only be applied to outlets/appliances, not to circuits, such as a light fitting on a high ceiling, protected by virtue of requiring a ladder to reach and twenty-foot arms to be able to touch another conducting part. JGH |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
On 18/05/2011 22:21, jgharston wrote:
Just had a quick look at my (20-year-old) lecture notes, Two changes of regs since then; time to ditch the old notes I reckon. Obstacles and placing out of reach are shock protective measures against direct contact (now known as basic protection) only. They're not relevant to indirect contact (now called fault protection), so are something of a red herring in this thread. And yes, as Owain has said, they're now applicable only to supervised installations (skilled or instructed persons), which rules them out for normal domestic installations. [See section 417 in the 17th ed.] To answer The Scullster's original question: shock by indirect contact means contact with parts which are live as the result of a fault. Automatic Disconnection of Supply was traditionally provided by the blowing of a fuse (or fuses), later by MCBs or alternatively by ELCBs and RCDs where Zs is too high to assure operation of an OPD. -- Andy |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message ... jgharston wrote: TheScullster wrote: For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach? And your lightswitches? The string breaks before you pull the switch down. Have you got high ceilings or are you a short arse? -- Adam |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
On May 18, 4:51*pm, "TheScullster" wrote:
Hi all Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact". My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic disconnection of supply. Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. *Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting circuits? Thanks Phil Must be one of his own recipe my BS7671 17th edition sample says method of FAULT protection. Is this the same guy who doesn't think diversity applies in his universe - or was that another poster? Im ny opinion ADS would be a perfectly acceptable entry for the IEE form, regardless of whether this was achieved by an RCD or by the operation of a circuit fuse or circuit breaker due to the fault current flowing to earth (as long as your EFLI complies with the requirements of BS7671). |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Minor Works Certificate Details
"cynic" wrote in message ... On May 18, 4:51 pm, "TheScullster" wrote: Hi all Looking at the Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate left by the now infamous Building Control Inspector, there is a field labelled "Method of protection against indirect contact". My B-I-L thought that the letters ADS should be included here - automatic disconnection of supply. Now for the ring main I could see this being appropriate - having an RCD on that would give protection against contacting something that had indirectly become live - is this what is meant by protection against indirect contact? For the lighting, there is no RCD, just the mcb. Is this device considered to give protection against indirect contact? In brief, what should I be writing in this field for ring main and lighting circuits? Thanks Phil Must be one of his own recipe my BS7671 17th edition sample says method of FAULT protection. Is this the same guy who doesn't think diversity applies in his universe - or was that another poster? Im ny opinion ADS would be a perfectly acceptable entry for the IEE form, regardless of whether this was achieved by an RCD or by the operation of a circuit fuse or circuit breaker due to the fault current flowing to earth (as long as your EFLI complies with the requirements of BS7671). Hi Cynic Yes you are right, this is Mr "No Diversity"! But, as the project was started (as far as the council are concerned) back in 2005, he is happy for me to complete the wiring to the 16th Edition. Presumably his Part P certificates are based on the 16th rather than 17th edition regs/terminology. From Adam's post it appears that EEBADS is the appropriate entry for 16th edition compliance. Yes EFLIs have been tested and are compliant. Phil |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
matal details | Metalworking | |||
Retention for minor works? | UK diy | |||
NICEIC and minor electrical works question | UK diy | |||
PRC certificate | UK diy | |||
Joinery Details | Woodworking |