Discuss Zs reading does not meet current regs in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Just though, could it be argued that the Zs you're interested in is that relating to the fuse in the FCU, which for a 13A BS1362 is 1.8ohms for a 0.4 second disconnection time..

Well I go to the bottom of our stairs. I got disagrees before, on saying the exact opposite of what GBDamo is saying and getting dumb for here.
 
Reading is 0.79 at the furthest point, like I said it’s the only socket on the circuit, and is about 10-15mtr run from its DB

Hi,

You say it's a radial & that it is the only socket on the circuit & that Zs is 0.79

Yes a 30mA RCBO max is 1667 ohms


Just out of interest what csa is used on the radial? because if it's in 2.5mm on a 32A RCBO then the OCPD is to high for the cable ie. highest is 27A on clipped direct for t&e.

ie. an A2 radial is 4mm on a 30/32 amp OCPD, Zs stated in BBB for type C is 0.68 ohms (4mm is what I'm assuming is used on your radial)

An A3 radial is in 2.5mm on a 20 amp OCPD, Zs stated in BBB for type C is 1.09 ohms
So a 20A type C RCBO Zs at 80% is 0.872 ohms
 
Last edited:
Well I go to the bottom of our stairs. I got disagrees before, on saying the exact opposite of what GBDamo is saying and getting dumb for here.
That's why I like this game, and this forum.

You have to think as often there are many answers that will work, some unnecessary solutions and sometimes it's fine as it is.
 
What about fault protection up to the spur.

Fair point, I had it in my head that spur origin was back to back, or side by side with the FCU in the same CSA cable as the original circuit. Then the new run to a DP isolator for the stair lift. In this I wouldn't be losing a great deal of sleep.

However it could equally be spurred, 10m cable run with FCU at the end, in which case you're right.

Any case it's on an RCBO so who cares, apparently.
 
In this case then due to bad design/change in Regs the high Zs is through no fault of yours.

In this case I would utilise the RCBO for fault protection although. This is not permitted in Bs7671 so will need to be recorded on the MWC as a deviation.
 
Changing it to a B Type may import nuisance tripping when the stairlift is starting.

Only a possibility but personally based on the info we have got I would leave it as a C Type and utilise the RCD for fault protection and note the deviation on the cert.
 
Using 1667 as a get out for poor design doesn’t sit right with me.

As asked before what rating is the RCBO, nearest C type is 32 amp at 0.68. What CSA is the cable and what is Ze and earthing arrangement?

I agree as a get out for poor design, but when assessing an existing installation it has to be considered.
I may have read the OP wrong but I thi k this is an existing circuit which is slightly over the Zs requirement.
 
Manufacturer's data should also be taken into consideration with existing installations as their maximum Zs values are slightly higher than the tabulated values in BS7671.

If you comply with the manufacturer's values then in a way you are still complying with BS7671.

For example a Schneider Acti9 B6 MCB has a maximum Zs of 7.99 ohms. Where as BS7671 states that a B6 is only 7.28ohms.



Something to consider.
 
In this case then due to bad design/change in Regs the high Zs is through no fault of yours.

In this case I would utilise the RCBO for fault protection although. This is not permitted in Bs7671 so will need to be recorded on the MWC as a deviation.

Changing it to a B Type may import nuisance tripping when the stairlift is starting.

Only a possibility but personally based on the info we have got I would leave it as a C Type and utilise the RCD for fault protection and note the deviation on the cert.
An RCD is a permitted means of fault protection, there is no deviation.
 
Whilst i put the point forward about the max Zs been 1667, i agree with the other that on a newly designed circuit it should meet the disconnection times for the particular protective devive.

On adding to a circuitn and going 0.10 or whatever over whikst its RCD protected then using the 1667 to get away with it isnt to bad IMO, its not like hes getting a reading over 10 Ohms or even close where therenmight be an obvious issue with the circuit even though it complies with the 1167.

Hope this makes sense
 
An RCD is a permitted means of fault protection, there is no deviation.

Yes only when a suitable Zs is not obtainable. For example a high Ze. It is not permissible to cover up poor design which is the only reason for high Zs when the Ze is low.

This is the reason it should be recorded as a deviation because it was not the design intention to rely on the 30mA RCD max Zs of 1667 ohms.

Also if 30mA RCD was not a requirement for the circuit for any other reason then a 30mA RCD would not be the correct OCPD for fault protection in this instance. You would install a 500mA RCD.
 
It complies with Bs7671 therefore it is not a deviation. Design intention or otherwise it complies. The type C RCBO will trip within the specified disconnection time under earth fault conditions, if it's changed for a type B it will still trip within the disconnection time. Nothing has changed. Utterly pointless.
 
Yes only when a suitable Zs is not obtainable. For example a high Ze. It is not permissible to cover up poor design which is the only reason for high Zs when the Ze is low.

This is the reason it should be recorded as a deviation because it was not the design intention to rely on the 30mA RCD max Zs of 1667 ohms.

Also if 30mA RCD was not a requirement for the circuit for any other reason then a 30mA RCD would not be the correct OCPD for fault protection in this instance. You would install a 500mA RCD.
However if it’s protecting socket outlets then you would install 30mA rcd protection anyway so both fault protection and additional protection is covered.
The regulations allow the use of an rcd to be used for fault protection regardless of the Idelta N of the device provided that the maximum resistance is not exceeded to keep the touch voltage under 50 volts under fault conditions.
Also as long as the 0.4 or 5 second disconnection time is met then the requirements for fault protection is satisfied be it earth fault or short circuit conditions.
It maybe poor design on TN earthing arrangements however it is acceptable by the regulations so it can’t possibly be a departure if the regulations allow it.
Sometimes on existing installations it’s just how it is but If completing alterations I do not note it as a departure.
But yes it should not be designed like that if possible
Also it should be confirmed that short circuit protection is still afforded by the ocpd so I always do a live to neutral loop test If using the rcd for earth fault protection
 
Last edited:
Installing a circuit that does not meet max Zs does not comply with BS7671.
There is no requirement to install a circuit to a maximum Zs for a fuse or MCB, as long as the device used for fault protection meets the required disconnection time with the measured Zs. Other factors such as length of the circuit/R1+R2 may be a deviation. But as long as other design factors of the circuit comply and the disconnection time is met by a permitted device there is no deviation
 

Reply to Zs reading does not meet current regs in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

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.

I've Disabled AdBlock