EICR What would you do?

[willy fixit]

 

[Doomed]

So a DIN rail mounted MCB with its entry for the busbar in the same place is now a hazard? Reality check time.
Yes you would never do it on a new install, yes you would never do it if the correct spares are available, but if it fits exactly the same what is the problem?
(Although I would not willingly touch proteus)

Oh, and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tWsBw3lB64

 

[R G]

Going back to earlier times , testing for site built assemblies was seen at that time as an issue for anything that was cobbled together with different make parts , this was something I remember from the 80s , still should apply I suppose ..

Although at the time it was seen to apply to larger equipment etc , it was seen that the principle could be applied to this situation also ,

 

[netblindpaul]

IF you modify a type tested assembly then you are placing a new product onto the market, end of story.
Thus you are legally responsible for ensuring that the product meets the requirement for placing on the market.

Your shout.

 

[Doomed]

If it was a crabtree or one of those old federal beasts I would agree, but a DIN mounted assembly?
Also if we are going down your road how many extract fans without a 3A fuse protecting it do you see? How many times have you seen a cut off premoulded plug to wired straight into a fused spur?

 

[Guest77]

Perdone??

 

[D Skelton]

C3 at the very worst. I could however be easily swayed by a good argument for no code at all.

C2 is a ridiculous suggestion.

 

[netblindpaul]

No Damien,
Think about the fault scenarios.
Look at the DRA that needs to be done for the change.
Then look at the requirements for the change, and the testing that needs to be done.

I will agree that it is borderline C2/C3, however, without doing the full analysis it is not possible to tell.

You will have placed an new product into the market place, without having done any testing, or design analysis, how can you say it is safe.

I would trust that you are by now aware that 60898 does not cover performance in failure scenarios, only performance under circuit fault conditions.
I don't "like" it either, but, this is what we have to live with.

 

[willy fixit]

Thanks Tony, Living up to the Grumpy git moniker!
As I implied, I'm not after advice. I was merely being devils advocate and interested in what others might think - I will never ask for advice on this forum because, I agree with what you say, and I would not have changed my mind on the opinion of "random guys on the internet".
In saying that I do read a lot of posts here and find it interesting that a worrying number of "Electricians" do seem to ask questions on fundamental issues that they really ought to know about.
As far as personal preferences are concerned I'm really sorry about my taste in music. I'm also not keen on the Beatles! (Does that make me a really bad person?)

 

[D Skelton]

No Damien,
Think about the fault scenarios.
Look at the DRA that needs to be done for the change.
Then look at the requirements for the change, and the testing that needs to be done.

I will agree that it is borderline C2/C3, however, without doing the full analysis it is not possible to tell.

You will have placed an new product into the market place, without having done any testing, or design analysis, how can you say it is safe.

I would trust that you are by now aware that 60898 does not cover performance in failure scenarios, only performance under circuit fault conditions.
I don't "like" it either, but, this is what we have to live with.

Yes Paul,
Think about the fact that we have argued the ---- over this one issue literally hundreds of times now and we are yet to agree.

No matter how many acronyms, statutory documents or EU directives you throw at me, you would never catch me in a month of Sundays C2'ing a different brand of breaker unless actual alterations had taken place to get it to fit.

 

[Marvo]

Please keep the off topic discussions and chit chat in the Chit Chat forum.

 

[telectrix]

spoilsport.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Thanks BD. EICR = Electrical Installation Condition Report. Five bedroom bungalow, test out out of time, mixed MCBs and they're Proteus! - C2 or C3?

As long as the only thing wrong with them is that they are mixed, then why do you need to code anything? What is dangerous? They are all BS60898 as far as i can see, so they are compliant, good practice and personal opinion has sod all to do with. I would code the non RCD circuits C3, because as it does not comply with BS7671, but again this is IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED, it is not mandatory. Remember, you are there to give a professional opinion on the installation to assess if it is safe for continued use, and this must be factual, not personal opinion or other peoples ideas and preferences.

Cheers..............Howard

 

[willy fixit]

Yes Paul,
Think about the fact that we have argued the ---- over this one issue literally hundreds of times now and we are yet to agree.

No matter how many acronyms, statutory documents or EU directives you throw at me, you would never catch me in a month of Sundays C2'ing a different brand of breaker unless actual alterations had taken place to get it to fit.

Another one that I had also considered - I haven't taken the cover off yet and if the bus bar is bent or stressed in any way I think I will be well justified in my "unifying the MCBs argument" (not that there will be any argument).

 

[Doomed]

Also:
Sorry Mr customer, the cost of the two double sockets on a spur you wanted by the front door will cost you a consumer unit change as well because the £3 MCB for your board is no longer made and this identical one by another manufacturer would not comply.........
I think not.

 

[willy fixit]

As long as the only thing wrong with them is that they are mixed, then why do you need to code anything? What is dangerous? They are all BS60898 as far as i can see, so they are compliant, good practice and personal opinion has sod all to do with. I would code the non RCD circuits C3, because as it does not comply with BS7671, but again this is IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED, it is not mandatory. Remember, you are there to give a professional opinion on the installation to assess if it is safe for continued use, and this must be factual, not personal opinion or other peoples ideas and preferences.

Cheers..............Howard

Safe - Safer - Safest ? Thanks SB it's in the title "What would you do"

 

[netblindpaul]

Guys, you are missing the point.

You are NOT simply fitting a different compliant part.

60898 does not cover the fault performance of the device with respect to failure.
It only covers the performance of the device in protecting the outgoing circuit.

You are modifying a CE marked, TTA, or PTTA, thus, you are placing a new product into the market place without any verification that it complies with the statute law requirements for the product, of the standards that govern its design and manufacture.

You have no idea of how the replacement MCB will react under catastrophic failure and how this will interact with the remainder of the board, so that it meets the requirements of required safety.

I don't "like" it either, however, it is what it is, and we cannot change it.

Unless you can provide the required DRA, and type testing then you are not in compliance with the statute law for the product that you are producing, and like it or not you are producing a product.

One last comment to with regard to the Schneider post earlier with the mixing and matching of their breakers due to the branding changes, they have issued a "press release" saying that they are happy with this as long as the devices are compatible in their literature, so they will take the liability, so that one is a non-starter.

Look guys, like it or not, this is what we are lumped with, if you are not able to meet the requirements of the product standard for placing a new product into the market then don'd do it.

On an EICR, unless you can verify that the assembly meets the requirements, then it is a C2, as in the event of the device actually being required to function in anger, you have no control, or idea how the assembly will perform.
It could cause adjacent devices to also fail, this is the issue that you have, the unknown, and you have two potential failure modes required, hence the C2.

Rubbish situation, but that is the scenario that we are placed in, like it or not.


Damien, You can't tell me that you have not gone through the standards and found this out for yourself by now?

 

[sparksburnout]

Nobody will ever let you know
when you ask the reasons why
they'l just tell you that your on your own
fill your head all full of lies!

sorry, just thought it was a bit apt. Mixed MCB's Skelton bang on as usual, what a load of will young.

 

[Octopus]

Theres always the option of fitting the correct MCB in the first place! lol

 

[willy fixit]

Guys, you are missing the point.

You are NOT simply fitting a different compliant part.

60898 does not cover the fault performance of the device with respect to failure.
It only covers the performance of the device in protecting the outgoing circuit.

You are modifying a CE marked, TTA, or PTTA, thus, you are placing a new product into the market place without any verification that it complies with the statute law requirements for the product, of the standards that govern its design and manufacture.

You have no idea of how the replacement MCB will react under catastrophic failure and how this will interact with the remainder of the board, so that it meets the requirements of required safety.

I don't "like" it either, however, it is what it is, and we cannot change it.

Unless you can provide the required DRA, and type testing then you are not in compliance with the statute law for the product that you are producing, and like it or not you are producing a product.

One last comment to with regard to the Schneider post earlier with the mixing and matching of their breakers due to the branding changes, they have issued a "press release" saying that they are happy with this as long as the devices are compatible in their literature, so they will take the liability, so that one is a non-starter.

Look guys, like it or not, this is what we are lumped with, if you are not able to meet the requirements of the product standard for placing a new product into the market then don'd do it.

On an EICR, unless you can verify that the assembly meets the requirements, then it is a C2, as in the event of the device actually being required to function in anger, you have no control, or idea how the assembly will perform.
It could cause adjacent devices to also fail, this is the issue that you have, the unknown, and you have two potential failure modes required, hence the C2.

Rubbish situation, but that is the scenario that we are placed in, like it or not.


Damien, You can't tell me that you have not gone through the standards and found this out for yourself by now?

Thanks NBP - enough now I think. Merry Christmas and Happy new Year to all - Remember, there are no recorded incidents (as far as I know) of fatalities due to bad plumbing. (Yep! I do a bit of plumbing too as I like a challenge!)

 

[willy fixit]

Incomiiiing...!

 

[ImpededLoop]

So what could the consequences actually be of fitting an mcb manufactured by a different company?

I appreciate the fact it's untested, but wondered what the real life issue could be.

 

[netblindpaul]

Nobody will ever let you know
when you ask the reasons why
they'l just tell you that your on your own
fill your head all full of lies!

sorry, just thought it was a bit apt. Mixed MCB's Skelton bang on as usual, what a load of will young.

Unfortunately in this case Mr Skelton, is well off kilter, and totally incorrect.

He actually knows this in his heart, I'm sure, if he has done the research that he asked me to help him with several months ago, hence the tone of my comments.
If he has not done his research, then I urge him to, and the peripheral related topics that will unfortunately bring him to the same conclusion that I have had to come to, like it or not, after doing my research, I tried to argue the point with Schneider, and lost, because they pointed out a few points in the standards that I had missed.

Like it or not, & TBH I don't but, you can't do it without the appropriate testing, see BS6432 if you want to know what is required, that covers the requirements for mixing and matching MCB's, so like your scams require you to have 7671, if you are going to modify switchgear then you need 6423.
£168 from BSI, and you lot think 7671 is expensive.

 

[D Skelton]

Damien, You can't tell me that you have not gone through the standards and found this out for yourself by now?

Yes, I have. As for the argument of 'going against' manufacturers requirements, it's irrelevant to this debate. Here we are talking about causing a real and inherent potential danger to life of users of the installation. Just because the new product might not have gone through all 'type testing' procedures doesn't automatically render it unsafe. Ok you could loosely define it as potentially dangerous, but only in the same way you could define sitting on the toilet drunk as potentially dangerous.

Has every light bulb been type tested with every pendant they could potentially sit in?
Has every light switch been type tested with every knock out box they could potentially be mounted to?
Has every cable been type tested with every piece of containment they could potentially be layed upon?

No one here is missing a point at all. If you're going to start C2'ing every different brand of breaker in a DB then you better start C2'ing lack of RCDs for socket outlets and C1'ing pendants/batten holders that have no light bulb in them.

There is an enormous gulf between the real world and an ideal one. There are certain parts of that gulf that I'm quite happy to see staying exactly where they are and not getting closer together in any way shape or form.

Unfortunately in this case Mr Skelton, is well off kilter, and totally incorrect.

In your opinion.

 

[D Skelton]

So what could the consequences actually be of fitting an mcb manufactured by a different company?

I appreciate the fact it's untested, but wondered what the real life issue could be.

In reality - None

 

[Doomed]

There are certain parts of that gulf that I'm quite happy to see staying exactly where they are

Woo Hoo! Another gulf war!

 

[netblindpaul]

Damien,
Come on, you are totally missing the point.

The DB is a TTA.

You have no idea of the performance with another manufacturers breaker.

It is not an issue for a pendant lamp holder as they are not required to be TTA in accordance with Annexe ZA of 60439-3.

One of the potential failure modes is that the device fails catastrophically due to fault current in excess of it's rating, the arc chute on the breaker allows the fault arc discharge to ignite other parts of the CU, that the "correct" manufacturers equipment would not have.

The issue is that IMHO 60898 is not fit for purpose as it does not cover interchangeability, which again IMHO it should, however, it does not, this you cannot consider 60898 devices interchangeable.

 

[baldsparkies]

This really is getting very very silly.
I wonder if the boys landing on the beaches on D day had to cover a site induction before proceeding.
If you spend all this time hiding behind the technicalities your gonna grind to a halt.
Use common sense, and grow a pair please, for sanities sake.
Has anyone fitted a chint breaker to a merlin board ??
Ring the tech guys at schnieder by all means you will be surprised at the answer.

 

[ImpededLoop]

One of the potential failure modes is that the device fails catastrophically due to fault current in excess of it's rating, the arc chute on the breaker allows the fault arc discharge to ignite other parts of the CU, that the "correct" manufacturers equipment would not have.

Whilst I can understand your point, it is surely the case that the consumer unit will contain cables that could be routed in any number of ways. There can therefore not be a "one size fits all" answer as the installed units will all differ to some extent.

 

[netblindpaul]

This really is getting very very silly.
I wonder if the boys landing on the beaches on D day had to cover a site induction before proceeding.
If you spend all this time hiding behind the technicalities your gonna grind to a halt.
Use common sense, and grow a pair please, for sanities sake.
Has anyone fitted a chint breaker to a merlin board ??
Ring the tech guys at schnieder by all means you will be surprised at the answer.

Oh I have spoken to & debated with Schneider at length, and the answer I had at the time was NO to a Chint breaker, now they may have changed their tune, that is their prerogative.
However without that information, we cannot make that decision.
I have several contacts at Schneider, and not just through the technical support line.

This is all to do with type testing and partial type testing, to ensure safety of the final assemblies no more.
The only "person" who can ensure the safety is the person that manufactures it and type tests it, now if it is modified from the original type testing, then it is down to the "person" doing the modifications to ensure it still meets the type testing requirements.

 

[netblindpaul]

Whilst I can understand your point, it is surely the case that the consumer unit will contain cables that could be routed in any number of ways. There can therefore not be a "one size fits all" answer as the installed units will all differ to some extent.

It's not down to the cables, it is ONLY to do with the protective devices, end of.