Discuss Is there any way of getting the PEFC if you only have the Ze? in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

Status
Not open for further replies.

D Skelton

Fidei Defensor
Mentor
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
4,199
Location
Canada
(Post edited after reading OP's past posts)

Ohms law.

The Ze is the external earth fault loop impedance (resistance for simplicities sake)

Divide the voltage (230V) by the Ze and you will get the potential current flow (prospective earth fault current)

I=V/R

Someone may correct me here but I believe that the PFC should always be measured, not calculated.
 
Last edited:
OP
A

Ashley2

I would have thought that the PFC is always measured (Taking the higher of the PEFC/PSCC), & then a calculation to ensure that the protective device is able to handle the PFC.

Some of the information given was as follows:
The Ze given was 0.8Ω
The voltage given was 230 V a.c.
The protective device was 100A.

I am trying to remember the above. I am positive about the voltage & protective device, & about 90% positive about the Ze figure.

I initially thought it was Ohms law, but the figures did not tally with that, i.e. PEFC should be less than the 100A. This is why I asked whether there was a way of calculating the PEFC with the Ze given.
 

telectrix

Disrespected Scouser
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
63,535
Location
cheshire/staffordshire
it is ohm's law I = V/R, so in the case you mention. I = 230/0.8 = 287.5A. what makes you think it should be <100A. the rating of the fuse has nothing to do with it.
 

scotsparky

Band Member
Electrician's Arms
Messages
2,146
Location
Glasgow
It all depends on the earthing system

In a TN-C-S the PEFC and FSCC current will be the same
In a TN-S and TT system they will be different ats the Neutral and Main earth are taking different routes

Always just measure and I put down the lowest result taken as thats the worst case
 

D Skelton

Fidei Defensor
Mentor
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
4,199
Location
Canada
I would have thought that the PFC is always measured (Taking the higher of the PEFC/PSCC), & then a calculation to ensure that the protective device is able to handle the PFC. This is correct

Some of the information given was as follows: Information to what?
The Ze given was 0.8Ω
The voltage given was 230 V a.c.
The protective device was 100A.
PEFC should be less than the 100A. This is why I asked whether there was a way of calculating the PEFC with the Ze given.
On a TN system, PEFC will never be lower than 100A. The lowest possible PEFC on a TN system is on a TN-S with a value of 287.5A

On a TT system PEFC will more than likely be lower than about 2A and between 2 and 10A if it's a really good TT system (domestic)

I must admit, I am slightly confused. Are we on the same wavelength? :)




Edit:
it is ohm's law I = V/R, so in the case you mention. I = 230/0.8 = 287.5A. what makes you think it should be <100A. the rating of the fuse has nothing to do with it.
Beat me to it :D
 
OP
A

Ashley2

The 100A information was already given, for the protective device, as was the Ze for the supply. And the question asked what the PEFC was. Bear in mind that this was a part B scenario for 2391, & the 100A for the protective device was already given, therefore, in the first instance, the PEFC must be less than the protective device. This is why it became questionable, in relation to calculating, using ohms law.
 

D Skelton

Fidei Defensor
Mentor
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
4,199
Location
Canada
The 100A information was already given, for the protective device, as was the Ze for the supply. And the question asked what the PEFC was. Bear in mind that this was a part B scenario for 2391, & the 100A for the protective device was already given, therefore, in the first instance, the PEFC must be less than the protective device.
If the PEFC was lower than a protective device, it would never operate during an earth fault. Hence the reason why (rightly or wrongly so) RCD's are relied upon to provide earth fault protection in TT systems.

PEFC is calculated using voltage and Ze only, forget the info about the 100A protective device because it seems to be confusing you and throwing you off.



If what you're worried about is thousands of amps flowing through a OPD rated at only 100A, you're concerned about the wrong rating. Assuming the protective device is a 60898, it will be rated at 6kA or above for fault conditions.
 
OP
A

Ashley2

I am looking at 435.5.1: which states that the breaking capacity rating of each protective device shall be not less than the prospective fault current at its point of installation". I strongly suspect that it is ohms law, but the 100A protective device was the mind boggler, taking into account 435.5.1.
 

D Skelton

Fidei Defensor
Mentor
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
4,199
Location
Canada
I am looking at 435.5.1: which states that the breaking capacity rating of each protective device shall be not less than the prospective fault current at its point of installation". I strongly suspect that it is ohms law, but the 100A protective device was the mind boggler, taking into account 435.5.1.
The breaking capacity of a breaker is not the same as its rating. It is rated at 100A but its breaking capacity will more than likely be 6000A or higher if it's a BS60898 or around 2000A if it's a BS3036
 
OP
A

Ashley2

Yes, its not the 100A protective device, its the Icn value, "& for the majority of applications the prospective fault current at the terminals should not exceed this value". It is ohms law, KISS should be the motto in 2391.
 

IQ Electrical

Regular EF Member
Messages
4,544
Yes, as D Skelton points out, you're confusing the overcurrent rating with the short circuit capacity of the device.
 
OP
1

1shortcircuit

the PEFC must be less than the protective device
Correct, look at the side of a 60898 and on the side it will say 6000. Meaning that device will take UP TO 6000amps of fault current before being blown into pieces which would obviously create a lethally dangerous situation.
 

telectrix

Disrespected Scouser
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
63,535
Location
cheshire/staffordshire
if the OCPD is a fuse to BS1361 or BS88, or whatever they change the BS number to tomorrow lunch time, the breaking capacity is in the region of 16KA or 33KA.
 

jaresquire

Electrician's Arms
Messages
439
Location
Bucks
PEFC should be measured as it includes the multiple earth paths via the main bonding etc in addition to the main earth. Thus the PEFC will likely be higher than that calculated using Ze
 

Risteard

Respected Member
Electrician's Arms
Solar Guru
Messages
4,003
Location
Derry, Ireland
Strictly speaking the PEFC at the origin will be Uo/Zs rather than Uo/Ze as parallel paths are likely to increase the prospective earth fault current.
 
OP
R

reefagrim

just to add the answers given above are correct , the main reason for you to calculate the pfc ( v=ir) is to then show you within what range your measured test should read . in a ideal world you perform the pfc just after the ze test. I believe that you might have misunderstood what the pfc /pefc/ pscc means but its more to do with the time /current characteristics of the protective device . it doesnt matter how many amps your allowing ( decided by the supplier) in to the installation as long as they are higher than the load and the protective device has a breaking capacity that will perform in time ! thus the pfc you calculating is showing you its under the 16k etc breaking capacity needed to blow the protective device.
page 71 in the on site guide will give you the capacity of the device if the device doesnt have the pfc/pscc/pefc or whatever they call it now written on it
 
OP
A

Ashley2

I disagree, 2391 is supposed to be tough, it's supposed to make you think. If it was easy it wouldn't be worth having
I don't mean that, KISS, is basically to ensure that you focus on the issue, & in this instance the issue was Ohms law. But in an examination environment your are always looking for that one issue that 'they' might be trying to trip you on. In relation to KISS, I believe that it is relevant in all areas, & not just within this context. KISS focuses on that which is directly relevant, & in this case, Ohms law was directly relevant.
 
OP
M

MarkieSparkie

measurement is better than calculation lol
Not always!
Consider the situation where supply transformer is close to the domestic installation intake and Ze is likely very low. The best BS EN 61557 EFLI testers are typically +-5% accurate +-3 least significant digits (lsd), so when Ze (or Zs) is less than say 0.1Ω the least significant digits become the increasingly significant error term as Z reduces.
Few, if any, EFLI testers actually measure the fault current, they in fact use the ‘measured impedance' as the divisor in a fault current calculation in which the measured voltage (or 230V nominal voltage, depending on the design of the tester) is the dividend and then it just displays the result in A or kA as appropriate. So it is easy to see that if the divisor is a very small number with a significant error, this can result in a very large current with a significant error.
To illustrate the point:
So if the actual Ze =0.05Ω,TN-C-S, then the PFC =230V/0.05Ω =4.6kA
However, our ELFI tester with a resolution of 0.01Ω, may be indicating a wildly different reading…
At increasing low ‘impedance’ values the +-5% tolerance becomes less important to the point where it becomes a second order term and we can effectively ignore it, however the +-3 lsd becomes increasingly dominant.
So, if the EFLI tester reads -3 lsd, Ze becomes approximately 0.05 – 0.03 Ω =0.02Ω, therefore PFC would read 230V/0.02Ω =11.5kA
So, if the EFLI tester reads +3 lsd, Ze becomes approximately 0.05 + 0.03 Ω =0.08Ω, therefore PFC would read 230V/0.08Ω =2.88kA
… do you still have blind faith in your beguiling digital EFFI tester, I hope not.
This is before we further complicate the issue with large CSA line conductors and their significant reactive components and the very low impedances we might expect in some commercial and most industrial installations, where the testing methods often have to be significantly different and more complex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guitarist

Regular EF Member
Messages
5,250
Location
Norfolk
Ashley, do you not believe what my learned friends are telling you? I am shocked that so many people have had to say the same thing....
 

rich.250

Electrician's Arms
Messages
944
Location
Cornwall
I actually think it's good that they put in information that is irrelevant to the question. It means you have to read and think "What is it they're wanting here, what information is important and what is not" Just like you would in the real world.
Agree ^^
 
OP
A

Ashley2

do you not believe what my learned friends are telling you? I am shocked that so many people have had to say the same thing....
With all due respects, I have found the responses highly interesting, however, the one you posted, as per above does not do anything for me. In terms of interesting, take for instance the one copied below, from:

MarkieSparkie

"Not always!
Consider the situation where supply transformer is close to the domestic installation intake and Ze is likely very low. The best BS EN 61557 EFLI testers are typically +-5% accurate +-3 least significant digits (lsd), so when Ze (or Zs) is less than say 0.1Ω the least significant digits become the increasingly significant error term as Z reduces.
Few, if any, EFLI testers actually measure the fault current, they in fact use the ‘measured impedance' as the divisor in a fault current calculation in which the measured voltage (or 230V nominal voltage, depending on the design of the tester) is the dividend and then it just displays the result in A or kA as appropriate. So it is easy to see that if the divisor is a very small number with a significant error, this can result in a very large current with a significant error.
To illustrate the point:
So if the actual Ze =0.05Ω,TN-C-S, then the PFC =230V/0.05Ω =4.6kA
However, our ELFI tester with a resolution of 0.01Ω, may be indicating a wildly different reading…
At increasing low ‘impedance’ values the +-5% tolerance becomes less important to the point where it becomes a second order term and we can effectively ignore it, however the +-3 lsd becomes increasingly dominant.
So, if the EFLI tester reads -3 lsd, Ze becomes approximately 0.05 – 0.03 Ω =0.02Ω, therefore PFC would read 230V/0.02Ω =11.5kA
So, if the EFLI tester reads +3 lsd, Ze becomes approximately 0.05 + 0.03 Ω =0.08Ω, therefore PFC would read 230V/0.08Ω =2.88kA
… do you still have blind faith in your beguiling digital EFFI tester, I hope not.
This is before we further complicate the issue with large CSA line conductors and their significant reactive components and the very low impedances we might expect in some commercial and most industrial installations, where the testing methods often have to be significantly different and more complex".

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guitarist

Regular EF Member
Messages
5,250
Location
Norfolk
With all due respects, I have found the responses highly interesting, however, the one you posted, as per above does not do anything for me.

With all due respect to you, I wasn't intending to "do anything for you".
I just think that after all the excellent advice you have been given, a few "thanks" may have been in order to my learned friends rather than disagreement.
I hope that you have now got the hang of the difference between what a fuse can safely carry, and what it will "blow" at.
 
OP
1

1shortcircuit

Ashley, AGAIN, with all due respect. Looking at previous threads you have created and posts proving that you are getting the basic things like Ze and Zs mixed up I don't think posts like MarkieSparkie's would do you any good.

You need to learn to walk before you can run. Master the understanding of the basics and then perhaps move on to more informative posts such as MarkieSparkie's:thumbsup

Good Luck :)
 
OP
A

Ashley2

Suffice to say that Guitarist has 1 Friend mentioned in his Profile, & I do not have to go a million miles to see why 1shortcircuit came in straight away to criticise me after Guitarist. The concept of cyber bullying is not a new phenomenon.

This is a forum, the purpose of which is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving & knowledge construction, take your cyber bullying elsewhere. I will decide what will do me good, it is not for anyone to make that decision for me.

I have found the responses from other members highly interesting & I found the one posted by Guitarist, did not do anything for me. That response correlated with some of the others that Guitarist has posted in other threads, in that they tend to have a low interest value, & tend to rant, the others did not. There was a world of difference between what MarkieSparkie wrote & the rant that came from Guitarist.
 
OP
J

Jurasic Spark

"This is a forum, the purpose of which is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving & knowledge construction,"

2391 is not supposed to be a give away qualification, but it is not rocket science. Most of it revolves around Ohm's Law and knowing how and when to apply it.

I think you are getting confused with:

In, Icn and Ics.

Maybe a browse through Part 2 of BS7671 and the chapter on PFC in GN3 might clear things up.


 

trev

Regular EF Member
Suffice to say that Guitarist has 1 Friend mentioned in his Profile, & I do not have to go a million miles to see why 1shortcircuit came in straight away to criticise me after Guitarist. The concept of cyber bullying is not a new phenomenon.

This is a forum, the purpose of which is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving & knowledge construction, take your cyber bullying elsewhere. I will decide what will do me good, it is not for anyone to make that decision for me.

I have found the responses from other members highly interesting & I found the one posted by Guitarist, did not do anything for me. That response correlated with some of the others that Guitarist has posted in other threads, in that they tend to have a low interest value, & tend to rant, the others did not. There was a world of difference between what MarkieSparkie wrote & the rant that came from Guitarist.
Ashley, Guitarist is among the nicest, well mannered and clued up posters on here. If you think he's bullying you then you have very thin skin, wait till you annoy some of the guys here. Then you'll know mate
 
OP
G

Guest55

Suffice to say that Guitarist has 1 Friend mentioned in his Profile, & I do not have to go a million miles to see why 1shortcircuit came in straight away to criticise me after Guitarist. The concept of cyber bullying is not a new phenomenon.

This is a forum, the purpose of which is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving & knowledge construction, take your cyber bullying elsewhere. I will decide what will do me good, it is not for anyone to make that decision for me.

I have found the responses from other members highly interesting & I found the one posted by Guitarist, did not do anything for me. That response correlated with some of the others that Guitarist has posted in other threads, in that they tend to have a low interest value, & tend to rant, the others did not. There was a world of difference between what MarkieSparkie wrote & the rant that came from Guitarist.
Youre coming across as a real jerk pal.
You started a thread and asked a question.
It was answered in the second post and everyone should have gone home happy.
You like to use long-winded lingo in otherwise empty tedious posts.
As internet trolls go youre small change so go jog on.
 
OP
M

mtfpuk2011

This.was in.the.2391 on.the 9th this.month.why warry should have reaulta.by the 12th.October if worse come worse.re sit.ir

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
 
OP
M

mtfpuk2011

Yh well.I.have dixscler so.I sat 2391 and just wate see what happens

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
 
OP
1

1shortcircuit

Suffice to say that Guitarist has 1 Friend mentioned in his Profile, & I do not have to go a million miles to see why 1shortcircuit came in straight away to criticise me after Guitarist. The concept of cyber bullying is not a new phenomenon.

This is a forum, the purpose of which is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving & knowledge construction, take your cyber bullying elsewhere. I will decide what will do me good, it is not for anyone to make that decision for me.

I have found the responses from other members highly interesting & I found the one posted by Guitarist, did not do anything for me. That response correlated with some of the others that Guitarist has posted in other threads, in that they tend to have a low interest value, & tend to rant, the others did not. There was a world of difference between what MarkieSparkie wrote & the rant that came from Guitarist.
I think you have suffered another confusion here Ashley.

The use of emoticons and symbols such as :thumbsup or Good Luck should not be taken in a negative way. I have based my post on posts that you have made in not only this thread but I went to the effort of browsing previous posts in other threads to confirm my suspicion.

If you feel that my post is irrelevant and the post such as MarkieSparkie's is useful and you understand then that is superb, perhaps I judged you wrong? Perhaps I didn't? Who cares? I was actually trying to offer some critique and remind you that learning to walk before you run is a wise move. If you choose to disregard this that too is completely cool. I am most certainly not going to lose any sleep over it my friend.

I wish you luck with your understanding of the basics of the trade and sincerely wish you all the best on understanding the more difficult areas too. I hope you do well and pass your course:thumbsup

PS I am a big boy and do not need the assistance of/feel the need to attack/defend any member whether they be on my friends list in my profile or not.

F***ing Dime Bar!!!!

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Permanent unswitched live colour?

  • Brown

    Votes: 99 72.3%
  • Black

    Votes: 38 27.7%

Electrician Talk

Top