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

Reply to
TheScullster
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
ARWadsworth

Isn't lighting protected by out-of-reach?

JGH

Reply to
jgharston

And your lightswitches?

Reply to
ARWadsworth

Yes, thought that just as I pressed 'Send' ;)

JGH

Reply to
jgharston

The string breaks before you pull the switch down.

Reply to
dennis

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

Reply to
jgharston

Have you got high ceilings or are you a short arse?

Reply to
ARWadsworth

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).

Reply to
ARWadsworth

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..

Reply to
ARWadsworth

Out-of-reach not permitted in domestic situations IIRC

Owain

Reply to
Owain

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.

Reply to
Andy Wade

"ARWadsworth" wrote

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 all circuits are modifications.

Ring main and lighting will have separate certs

Reply to
TheScullster

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).

Reply to
cynic

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 to
TheScullster

Yes, it was the 16th edition version of ADS. The fact that you have not actually installed any equiptential bonding is irrelevant.

-- Adam

Reply to
ARWadsworth

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.