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

  • Replies 55 replies
  • Subscribers 38 subscribers
  • Views 2922 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Dual RCD boards are unlikely to be suitable for EV charging installations even with type A or B RCDs, discuss

IronFreely

I’ll paraphrase Regulation 722.531.3.101, “each charging point shall be protected individually by an RCD”. With that in mind a dual RCD board where both RCDs protect multiple circuits will not be suitable as the requirement is for the charge point to be individually protected. The reason I open this up to discussion is because so many installers seem completely unaware of the wording of 722.531.3.101 as about 50% of the installations I see the charger is protected by an RCD protecting multiple circuits, in particular new builds were the provision for electric vehicle charging has been made during development. I also often give quotations to prospective clients where they’ve already had at least one quotation where the previous installer has said “great you’ve got a spare way in your dual RCD board, so we can use that” and I’m thinking “erm no you can’t”

Parents

  • Personally I feel that its better to draw a line in the sand and ban dual RCD boards for domestic installations. Even with high integrity there are still issues with combined leakage currents and loosing half the house circuits due to single faults.

    Also it's practically /  commercially very hard to use the high integrity ways when invariably the slots next to the main switch have been used and all the circuit breakers and connections need to be moved, then requiring re-test of the circuits.

    It doesn't cost that much more for all RCBO boards, especially as the suppliers would all need to be competitive with this solution. 

    IF progress continues with requiring AFDD's they need to be in a board slot architected for RCBO's. Why keep on installing equipment that's going to need replacing again in a few years.


  • in reply to Alan B
    Alan B said:
    Why keep on installing equipment that's going to need replacing again in a few years.

    Sometimes, this is due to the fact that designs were done years ago, and building delayed, or carried out over extended periods.

    For very logical reasons, standards adopted with new build can't be those in force on the day of completion or hand-over.

    There's also probably a factor of "rinse and repeat" - but the argument for that is why not re-use something that's "proven" already (which, incidentally, is often used as an argument against changes/improvements to standards).

  • in reply to Alan B
    Alan B said:
    Why keep on installing equipment that's going to need replacing again in a few years.

    To maintain an income stream (until retirement).

    OK, that's the selfish answer, but I think that it is perfectly reasonable to give a customer a range of options.

    Built-in obsolescence is hardly unique to the electrical industry.

Reply
  • in reply to Alan B
    Alan B said:
    Why keep on installing equipment that's going to need replacing again in a few years.

    To maintain an income stream (until retirement).

    OK, that's the selfish answer, but I think that it is perfectly reasonable to give a customer a range of options.

    Built-in obsolescence is hardly unique to the electrical industry.

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