single RCD consumer unit

[Robj63]

Does a single rcd c/u comply with 17th ed ? I have looked thru brb but cant find any where where it actually states dual rcd required, any pointers would be appreciated

thanks in advance

ps, existing fuse box only has four circuits, cooker, sockets, lights separate up/down

cheers, Rob

 

[Sidewinder]

Minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault, can't remember reg no!

 

[Zeespark]

It can comply if your switch/socket drops are protected by a 3mm thick plate of steel, or you terminate the cables into the non RCD side of the board in RCBO's.

AndyGuinness

 

[batty]

not sure of reg number but danger/ nuisance comes to mind an RCBO consumer unit would be best choice,

531.2.4

314.1

 

[Robj63]

CHEERS

 

[tom1]

think your right there batty with the reg, i would say 1 rcd for the whole install does not comply

dule boards are quite cheap i would not think a single rcd board be that much cheaper or is space an issue mate if so rcbo route as already said

 

[sinclaircs]

You can use a single rcd board as long as everything goes on the rcd to comply.

 

[Catalin Neagu]

IMO if is only one floor (eg :bungalow) only one rcd will be k. IMO

 

[Sidewinder]

You can use a single rcd board as long as everything goes on the rcd to comply.

sinclaircs,

That depends on your interpretation of the regs, many including myself would disagree.

 

[Zeespark]

I would only use a single RCD board for one outgoing way, any more, then onto RCBO.

AndyGuinness

 

[Andy™]

You can use a single rcd board as long as everything goes on the rcd to comply.

BS. i can use a split load with only half the circuits RCD protected if i wanted to. i could even use one without any RCD's at all and still comply.

 

[kerching]

I try to use all RCBOs.......as surely this has to minimise inconvenience; In my opinion [for what it's worth and that is not very much] Dual RCD boards only 'reduce inconvenience' and not 'minimise it'. Isn't there a Reg somewhere along the lines of 'a fault on one circuit shall not influence another'?? or am I thinking back to the 14th........................... :coat

 

[batty]

I can't believe any self respecting electrician woulds be happy putting one installation on one RCD main switch.

 

[sinclaircs]

as long as the division of final circuits between the RCDs is carefully considered so as to minimize the consequences of unwanted tripping. Separate RCD protection is not necessarily required for each circuit of an installation but, in order to minimize the likelihood and consequences of tripping, a single (‘front end’) RCD should not be used to protect all the circuits.

 

[Andy™]

I try to use all RCBOs.......as surely this has to minimise inconvenience; In my opinion [for what it's worth and that is not very much] Dual RCD boards only 'reduce inconvenience' and not 'minimise it'. Isn't there a Reg somewhere along the lines of 'a fault on one circuit shall not influence another'?? or am I thinking back to the 14th........................... :coat

but how far do you go with this though.... afterall, you only have 1 service fuse. fault on sockets could easily take out 60A fuse along with 32A MCB if conditions are right

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 22:39 ---------- Previous post was made at 22:38 ----------

as long as the division of final circuits between the RCDs is carefully considered so as to minimize the consequences of unwanted tripping. Separate RCD protection is not necessarily required for each circuit of an installation but, in order to minimize the likelihood and consequences of tripping, a single (

 

[batty]

as long as the division of final circuits between the RCDs is carefully considered so as to minimize the consequences of unwanted tripping. Separate RCD protection is not necessarily required for each circuit of an installation but, in order to minimize the likelihood and consequences of tripping, a single (

 

[kme]

totd

Sinclair: Pardon? Two lots of conflicting info provided in two successive posts. Make your mind up - but remember there isn`t a definitive "typical" installation. There are also different people`s interpretation of the regs.

Wow. 3 posts, and two of em contradict each other - that has to be some kind of record.

 

[workloads007]

personally i would use rcbo,s and a main switch, under test and inspection it would be ok as long as all circuits are protected by the rcd and would therefore only be a code 4 on the report. ( this also depends of course on the method used, buried at less than 50mm etc.)

but it also could be marked as a code 4 due to causing an inconvenience to the consumer, due to nusense tripping.

well thats my thoughts on the subject anyhow.

 

[batty]

I think the question is about replacing a four way fuse box on a domestic so really unless you do not want to comply with regs you will either be putting a dual RCD board in or a main switch with RCBO's. I cannot see how a code 4 has anything to do with this after all its not a PIR you are doing.

 

[Sidewinder]

batty,

Thing is I believe that I can rewire a domestic premises without any RCD's in the CU and I can justify it.

It is possible IIRC I have posted the solution.

As far as replacing the CU goes, the this would depend on the existing cable routes.

I have recently had a householder where a customer of mine has requested works have their CU replaced and they have no RCD protection on the lighting circuits even though the circuit cables are buried <50mm without mechanical protection, the client and the installer are both happy with this situation!