EICR What would you do?

[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.

 

[DPG]

Gonna be a lot of annoyed customers if you start ripping out every DB that's got different make MCBs in it! Daz

 

[D Skelton]

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

No, I'm not, I'm hitting it square on the head!

The DB is a TTA.

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

Exactly! No idea whatsoever, so who gives any of us the authority to say "well, because I don't know what might happen in the one in a million chance that there is a catastrophic faliure of the device, I have to say that the users of this installation are potentially at risk"

If this were true, and indeed a C2 was warranted, then every single part of an electrical installation should be given a C2!

You are correct in that there are certain parts of 61439-3 that potentially, will not be adhered to if a different brand breaker is fitted. I know this as I have read the document fully. This is not in dispute.

What is in dispute however is your definition of a real life 'potential danger'.

This therefore makes the argument completely subjective. It is my opinion vs yours and nothing you have said, at any point thus far, would sway my mind.

I am steadfast in my conviction that although I would not do it myself, if no alteration has been made to get a foreign brand breker to fit a board, then the users of the installation are still safe enough not to warrant giving the issue a C2.

 

[ImpededLoop]

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

But surely one concern is the arc resulting from a fault and whether it causes any damage.

 

[sparksburnout]

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 requirements7.

well let's just all stay in bed all day then, it's clearly not safe to venture out. What the hells the point of BS standards then? What a load of none sense. There is no way a different manufacturers MCB in a domestic CU is a C2, it's jus ya blinking MCB for gods sake. No wonder the country's going down the pan.......

 

[netblindpaul]

OK, now it seems that you will all attack people who wantonly ignore the requirements of BS7671.
However, because you don't know or understand the requirements of BS6423, you choose to ignore them, even though both standards have equal standing in law, with the possibility that 6423 as it is a CoP could score higher in a court of law than 7671.

Damien,
I can see where you are coming from, I REALLY can, but, I think you are still missing the TTA/PTTA argument, and the requirements that this puts upon the manufacturer of the unit.
Once the installer fits another make of 60898 breaker, they become the manufacturer, thus responsible for ensuring that the complete assembly meets the requirements of Annexe ZA.

Now I agree that IF the device is to 60898 it should comply, however, the fact is that there is no requirement under 60898 to ensure cross compatibility.

As I have said several times, just in this thread, I don't like it, however, I don't see how you can stand up and state that your modified assembly can withstand a 30kA (or whatever Annexe ZA requires, I can't recall now TBH), fault current safely if you have not verified that by testing and calculation, which is what is required when you place a new product on the market.
Thus, in the event of a fault occurring there could be a real and present secondary danger, which IMHO is a C2, it is the same as a C2 requiring 2 things to be dangerous.

 

[netblindpaul]

well let's just all stay in bed all day then, it's clearly not safe to venture out. What the hells the point of BS standards then? What a load of none sense. There is no way a different manufacturers MCB in a domestic CU is a C2, it's jus ya blinking MCB for gods sake. No wonder the country's going down the pan.......

You really need to understand the product standards before making statements like that.
Seriously, the standards are inadequate IMHO, this is the issue.
However, that is the way they are.
The point of the standards is that they devices meet them, which they do, however, the mixing "issue" is not covered in 60898 for TTA & PTTA assemblies, like it or not.
The requirement is for disconnection performance in the event of faults in the outgoing circuit connected to the device and that is all 60898 is concerned with basically.

 

[baldsparkies]

Its the device itself that carries the type approval not the bus bar it connects to. Thats the point of contact and that's where you have to use common sense. The let through and prospective fault are of course important considerations.
On a domestic install I will maintain this is a judgement call using common sense.
The C/U is not going to go nuclear on you, C3 for that reason.
This really is going down the lets build a fantasy scenario based on a few technicalities when in the real world it just aint gonna happen.

That said if the boards been butchered in any way or the mcb is ill fitting I would not be so liberal.

 

[netblindpaul]

Baldsparkies, it seems your quoting has gone a bit awry tonight, it's normally mine.

The MCB does not on it's own have Type Approval, to comply with Annexe ZA of BS EN 60439-3 the whole board MUST be type approved, so that includes the bus bar, the main switch, the enclosure, the internal wiring supplied by the manufacturer etc.
Like it or not that is the situation.
It is the board that is a Type Tested Assembly, or Partially Type Tested Assembly, hence the term assembly.

This is the issue, you are invalidating the type testing of the assembly, and of story, no matter what anyone says, if you modify the board, then you are invalidating the manufactures type testing, like it or not you are.
Thus you are taking on the role of manufacturer, thus you must ensure that the modified unit meets the requirements for placing on the market.
Thus, you must undertake the full suite of tests to verify that this is so, to ensure that your new product complies with the product standard which you are manufacturing to.

As I have just said there is an alternative and that is to meet the requirements of BS 6423.
It's up to you, you can comply with the statute law by either method, however unless you undertake one or the other you will not comply with the statute law, end of.

 

[sparksburnout]

This is all beyond me. If I get a shout to some poor bugger sitting in the dark or unable to cook his/her tea cos a BS60898 breaker has failed then I'm going to stick whatever BS60898 equivalent in his CU to get him going again. If I said to him "ohhhh sorry mate I don't have the exact make available but I've got one that would fit but it's more than my jobs worth to actually fit it so you carry on in the dark" he would say to me " are you ok in the head mate???" Get in the real world.

 

[netblindpaul]

Oh I am in the real world.
Temporarily perhaps, but, you would find that in the event of an issue, any and all liability would fall directly on you as the designer, and installer of the product.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Almost all of you on here hold 7671 as a standard that should be adhered to, why do you find it so hard to comply with other relevant standards?
Do you ignore 5266 or 5839?
Yes or no?
IF no, then why do you ignore other comparable standards?
Is it because you know nothing about them, or is it because you just choose to ignore them because it suits you?

 

[sparksburnout]

Oh I am in the real world.
Temporarily perhaps, but, you would find that in the event of an issue, any and all liability would fall directly on you as the designer, and installer of the product.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Almost all of you on here hold 7671 as a standard that should be adhered to, why do you find it so hard to comply with other relevant standards?
Do you ignore 5266 or 5839?
Yes or no?
IF no, then why do you ignore other comparable standards?
Is it because you know nothing about them, or is it because you just choose to ignore them because it suits you?

What sodding issue is there going to be with a fooking MCB for Christi's sake?????? Is the CU going to explode???? What EXACTLY is going to go wrong??????

 

[baldsparkies]

Baldsparkies, it seems your quoting has gone a bit awry tonight, it's normally mine.

The MCB does not on it's own have Type Approval, to comply with Annexe ZA of BS EN 60439-3 the whole board MUST be type approved, so that includes the bus bar, the main switch, the enclosure, the internal wiring supplied by the manufacturer etc.
Like it or not that is the situation.
It is the board that is a Type Tested Assembly, or Partially Type Tested Assembly, hence the term assembly.

This is the issue, you are invalidating the type testing of the assembly, and of story, no matter what anyone says, if you modify the board, then you are invalidating the manufactures type testing, like it or not you are.
Thus you are taking on the role of manufacturer, thus you must ensure that the modified unit meets the requirements for placing on the market.
Thus, you must undertake the full suite of tests to verify that this is so, to ensure that your new product complies with the product standard which you are manufacturing to.

As I have just said there is an alternative and that is to meet the requirements of BS 6423.
It's up to you, you can comply with the statute law by either method, however unless you undertake one or the other you will not comply with the statute law, end of.

Your right I have gone a bit off track and of course the entire board has to comply throughout.
Sorry for not making that clear I didn't mean to say otherwise although my last post would imply so.
I do know exactly where your coming from but I will stand by the use of plain old common sense in these situations.
If the MCB is from a reputable supplier suitably type tested and fits the existing connection points in the same way as the original then I would deem it safe for use, with a C3 on a EICR.
If your car needed a new set of brake pads would you always fit OEM parts or have you ever fitted good quality after market at half the price.
Of course you have and not lost sleep over it either.
And thats the brakes on a vehicle that could be carrying your family, let alone an mcb from a different manufacturer.

 

[netblindpaul]

What sodding issue is there going to be with a fooking MCB for Christi's sake?????? Is the CU going to explode???? What EXACTLY is going to go wrong??????

Have you looked into the potential failure modes of the devices?
Do you understand fully the potential failure modes of the devices and how they interact with the assembly into which they are fitted?
60898 does not take this into account, it is not required to.

However, it is somewhat irrelevant.

I will ask again why are you willing to say defend the requirements of 7671 yet ignore equivalent requirements in other standards?

This is not a pick 'n' mix in Woolworths for Christmas sweets.

A mixed device could allow a catastrophic failure within the board.
The detail of the interaction between the "foreign" device and the rest of the assembly can only be ascertained by testing, so if this testing is not done, how would you know what the issues could be?

The point is it is a totally unknown scenario, and it totally untested to check whether it is safe or not.

Have you EVER seen an MCB fail catastrophically due to excessive SSC or FC?

 

[netblindpaul]

Your right I have gone a bit off track and of course the entire board has to comply throughout.
Sorry for not making that clear I didn't mean to say otherwise although my last post would imply so.
I do know exactly where your coming from but I will stand by the use of plain old common sense in these situations.
If the MCB is from a reputable supplier suitably type tested and fits the existing connection points in the same way as the original then I would deem it safe for use, with a C3 on a EICR.
If your car needed a new set of brake pads would you always fit OEM parts or have you ever fitted good quality after market at half the price.
Of course you have and not lost sleep over it either.
And thats the brakes on a vehicle that could be carrying your family, let alone an mcb from a different manufacturer.

Ahh, now there in is an issue, brake parts for cars now must by law be manufactured to OEM specs, where as MCB's don't have to meet the requirements for the assembly into which you fit them!

 

[sparksburnout]

Have you looked into the potential failure modes of the devices?
Do you understand fully the potential failure modes of the devices and how they interact with the assembly into which they are fitted?
60898 does not take this into account, it is not required to.

However, it is somewhat irrelevant.

I will ask again why are you willing to say defend the requirements of 7671 yet ignore equivalent requirements in other standards?

This is not a pick 'n' mix in Woolworths for Christmas sweets.

A mixed device could allow a catastrophic failure within the board.
The detail of the interaction between the "foreign" device and the rest of the assembly can only be ascertained by testing, so if this testing is not done, how would you know what the issues could be?

The point is it is a totally unknown scenario, and it totally untested to check whether it is safe or not.

Have you EVER seen an MCB fail catastrophically due to excessive SSC or FC?

it's an MCB. It sits in a DIN rail (another standard?) with a bit of cable fixed into the top/bottom and a connection to a bus bar in the bottom/top, all with screws that any old driver will turn. They all have defined ratings, how complicated can it be? What would you do then, in the scenario I mentioned??? You wouldn't last 2 mins in the workday of domestic sparking.

 

[baldsparkies]

Ahh, now there in is an issue, brake parts for cars now must by law be manufactured to OEM specs, where as MCB's don't have to meet the requirements for the assembly into which you fit them!

The MCB's dont have to meet the requirements for the assembly they fit into, ????????????????
Like I said this is really getting sillier and sillier.

BS/EN 60898 type B 6amp with a 6k rating replaced with a BS/EN 60898 type B 6amp with a 6k rating.

Thats it really, let common sense prevail here pleeeeese.
Im off to bed and hope no body gets nuked by a bloody chint breaker in a merlin board.

Interesting thread though, be boring if we all agreed lads, and sparkies are buggers for disagreeing lol x

 

[shanky887614]

The MCB's dont have to meet the requirements for the assembly they fit into, ????????????????
Like I said this is really getting sillier and sillier.

BS/EN 60898 type B 6amp with a 6k rating replaced with a BS/EN 60898 type B 6amp with a 6k rating.

Thats it really, let common sense prevail here pleeeeese.
Im off to bed and hope no body gets nuked by a bloody chint breaker in a merlin board.

Interesting thread though, be boring if we all agreed lads, and sparkies are buggers for disagreeing lol x

hey if you worried less you might still have a full head of hair, loosen up mate

 

[davesparks]

With the vast majority of commonly available domestic MCBs there seems to only be one or two factories producing them with the only difference between brands being the screen printing on the front of them.

You can easily put together a CU from different brands but the exact same manufacturer, what code would you give that?


I would like to know how 'putting it in the marketplace' is defined, as to common sense that suggests it is going to be something along the lines of 'being offered for sale'
But in this thread it is being used with reference to equipment being installed in private properties?

 

[plugsandsparks]

Two things I would add: How do we know type testing was not done with this board and the mix of wylex and proteus, ? what would we expect ? we are all assuming, possibly wrongly, that the person who fitted the foreign breakers has not re-typed it.... Next has anyone managed to get a decent measured PFC in a domestic setting to even loose 30msec of sleep over this ? - Sorry but this is just a theoretical exercise in total *ollocks, Just a Xmas thought from Planet Earth.

 

[newtothis]

Two seemingly valid interpretations of the legislation from experienced electricians.
As a learner I find this very useful; it prompts me to read the regs and carry out more research on this topic Genuine thanks to all the contributors. :smile5:

 

[Guest55]

no code at all.

this is the only accurate statement in the whole thread.

C2 is a ridiculous suggestion.

closely followed by this.


FFS even completely missing bonding is only a C2 just to get things into perspective.

And all that claptrap about type testing falls flat on its face when we remember the epic Wylex product recall of a few years ago when even their own brand of mcbs would go up in smoke in their own CU's.

looks to me like folk have forgotten how to think for themselves when faced with something they "dont like"

 

[willy fixit]

Two seemingly valid interpretations of the legislation from experienced electricians.
As a learner I find this very useful; it prompts me to read the regs and carry out more research on this topic Genuine thanks to all the contributors. :smile5:

Job done - night all!

 

[trev]

Here's a little bit of my two pennorth.
All MCBs are produced to a certain BS. All other bits and bobs that go into a CU are also produced to a standard.
This is a bare minimum, some are better than it, some are worse. However, if all the components of a site built assembly comply to the relevant standards how can a manufacturer cry foul because some bits of the thing you made (using your skills and experience) are not made by the same maker.

 

[UNG]

But surely one concern is the arc resulting from a fault and whether it causes any damage.

Should we have 1 fault no reset circuit breakers as we have no method of testing them or their integrity once they have tripped on fault

Your right I have gone a bit off track and of course the entire board has to comply throughout.
Sorry for not making that clear I didn't mean to say otherwise although my last post would imply so.
I do know exactly where your coming from but I will stand by the use of plain old common sense in these situations.
If the MCB is from a reputable supplier suitably type tested and fits the existing connection points in the same way as the original then I would deem it safe for use, with a C3 on a EICR.
If your car needed a new set of brake pads would you always fit OEM parts or have you ever fitted good quality after market at half the price.
Of course you have and not lost sleep over it either.
And thats the brakes on a vehicle that could be carrying your family, let alone an mcb from a different manufacturer.

Most OEM car parts are manufactured by the so called aftermarket companies

With the vast majority of commonly available domestic MCBs there seems to only be one or two factories producing them with the only difference between brands being the screen printing on the front of them.

You can easily put together a CU from different brands but the exact same manufacturer, what code would you give that?


I would like to know how 'putting it in the marketplace' is defined, as to common sense that suggests it is going to be something along the lines of 'being offered for sale'
But in this thread it is being used with reference to equipment being installed in private properties?

My thinking as well

I would be more worried if the Wylex breakers were part of those that were recalled and damaged the Proteus breakers

If this is such a big issue why do manufacturers use a design that allows the interchangeability of MCB's or is it that the reality is we are buying mass produced
badge engineered MCB's and boards and are being sold a pup that they must all have the same badge

As for the type testing how do you test for every possible MCB combination to prove beyond reasonable doubt a catastrophic failure will not occur

IMO probably the biggest cause of failure is not having regular checks to check that the terminals are tight

 

[NDG Elecs]

Blimey this has rumbled on and on! I am only fitting all RCBO boards from now on haha!!

 

[UNG]

Blimey this has rumbled on and on! I am only fitting all RCBO boards from now on haha!!

Will you be mixing your RCBO's though !!!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I do find it rather odd, that a device rated at for instance 3kA can when assembled with other devices be rated at 16kA, but if installed on it's own in a panel is still only rated at 3kA.
However as for the OP's question, it will all depend on the measured value of PFC.
If that is greater than the individual rating of the MCBs, then it's a code C2, if it is less then no code.
Yes we have to take account of manufacturer's instructions, not quite the same as having to comply with the instructions.