Discuss log tables for actual disconnect time in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Hi,
could someone tell me how to calculate the actual disconnect time from a log table and where I can find this table for a 6A RCBO made by British General. I need this to get a meaningful CPC CSA using the adiabatic equation.
Many thanks,
g
hi yes i do have both and if you are saying i should use fig 3A4 that's ok but i have a fault current of 301A and if I take 0.4 seconds as t then I end up with a cross sectional area of >1.66mm. can I use the lower trip time of 0.1 seconds?Do you have a copy of the 18th edition Regs book or onsite guides?
thanks telectrix but can you tell me how to justify its use? thanks,use 0.1 sec. it's well in @ 301A.
It applies to all protective conductors, except bonding conductorsI think the adiabatic applies to the main earth not cpc.
Take a look at the fault curves in appendix 3 of BS7671. For type B and C breakers/RCBOs, if it meets any permitted disconnection time, even 5s for distribution circuits, then it disconnects at 0.1 seconds (or faster). There is no middle ground, as above a certain current the magnetic trip will operate and will disconnect instantaneously. For example, you can't make it disconnect in exactly 1 second.thanks telectrix but can you tell me how to justify its use? thanks,
g
Strictly speaking it applies to all conductors, it is just the CPC is often smaller than the live to save money as it has little to do normally. Of course if you meet the adiabatic for the CPC then the live conductors will be OK.It applies to all protective conductors, except bonding conductors
Technically yes but practically I have never done an adiabatic for circuits issuing from the MCB as the fault current is automatically held to the level of the MCB. However, the main earth from the CU to the Neutral terminal where there is no protection, yes I can see the use of the adiabatic there as if the main earth goes meltdown there is a problem. But for 2.5 cable do you really do an adiabatic? What can you do if 1.5mm² is not enough? Thread a thicker cpc up the cable. Sorry If I am being a bit thick here but ready to learn something new.It applies to all protective conductors,
You are quite right.Technically yes but practically I have never done an adiabatic for circuits issuing from the MCB as the fault current is automatically held to the level of the MCB. However, the main earth from the CU to the Neutral terminal where there is no protection, yes I can see the use of the adiabatic there as if the main earth goes meltdown there is a problem. But for 2.5 cable do you really do an adiabatic? What can you do if 1.5mm² is not enough? Thread a thicker cpc up the cable. Sorry If I am being a bit thick here but ready to learn something new.
Technically yes but practically I have never done an adiabatic for circuits issuing from the MCB as the fault current is automatically held to the level of the MCB. However, the main earth from the CU to the Neutral terminal where there is no protection, yes I can see the use of the adiabatic there as if the main earth goes meltdown there is a problem. But for 2.5 cable do you really do an adiabatic? What can you do if 1.5mm² is not enough? Thread a thicker cpc up the cable. Sorry If I am being a bit thick here but ready to learn something new.
Is this correct? The reason I query it is table B7 on p132 of the OSG. It shows minimum CPCs for class 3 B and C type MCBs, for different fault current levels.You are quite right.
For any of the "standard circuits" you don't need to bother with the adiabatic as the cable size versus OCPD is already fine. That really is why using the usual suspects (standard cases, such as Table 7.1(i) from OSG) makes so much sense as it is one of many less things to worry about design-wise!
I think it is down to the ideal case of DB PFC and max let-through of the MCB standard, and the real-world case of MCB generally being better, and the actual PFC being less.Is this correct? The reason I query it is table B7 on p132 of the OSG. It shows minimum CPCs for class 3 B and C type MCBs, for different fault current levels.
For example, a B32 at a fault current of up to 3kA has a minimum CPC of 1.5mm. Above that and up to 6kA, it would be 2.5mm - thicker than the usual 1.5mm CPC that you'd typically find on a ring wired in 2.5mm T+E.
Is there something else at play here?
Ah, I see, that puts it in perspective!I think it is down to the ideal case of DB PFC and max let-through of the MCB standard, and the real-world case of MCB generally being better, and the actual PFC being less.
For example, if you have a DB with 6kA PFC (assuming for now 230V) then your Ze is around 0.038 ohm. To bring that down to 3kA you need to double that, and with the R1+R2 of 2.5mm T&E being around 19.5mOhm/m that is 2m of cable.
So for most faults on any real-world installation using typical circuits you won't reach cable-damaging I2t, and if you do it will only be the first metre or so before a very close (and very hard) fault that needs replacing.
Thanks pretty mouth.Take a look at the fault curves in appendix 3 of BS7671. For type B and C breakers/RCBOs, if it meets any permitted disconnection time, even 5s for distribution circuits, then it disconnects at 0.1 seconds (or faster). There is no middle ground, as above a certain current the magnetic trip will operate and will disconnect instantaneously. For example, you can't make it disconnect in exactly 1 second.
As you are presumably using a B or C type breaker/RCBO, use the fault current at the origin of the circuit for the calculation. For these devices, let through energy tends to increase with fault current, and fault current is greatest at the origin. This is the most onerous point in the circuit.
Reply to log tables for actual disconnect time in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.