Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 34 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4365 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

BS7671;2018 Minor works certificates.

Sparkingchip
Are you all organised and have a supply of the new certificates to hand?


What do you actually think of them?


Andy B.
  • 0
    Or, alternatively, have we selected the correct type of RCD for a particular installation or application, is possibly another answer to this question.
  • 0
    John,


    In general, I don't really disagree with you, but ...

    If an RCD does not trip at 1 x Idelta n then it is defective. This softer test is a better indicator of RCD health than the 5 x test and consumer safety.






    This does not unfortunately take account of a small number of cases where the RCD passes a 1x test, but then goes on to fail a 5x test, although I agree this is not simply a case of "sticky RCD".


    In fact, I am undecided in some cases whether this phenomenon is a combination of other external influence and/or a property of how a particular test set operates under given conditions.


    Having said that I have seen this behavior on devices with different test sets at the same time doesn't help, as an influence on the supply might well have caused the problem, and of course we know of cases where RCDs returned to manufacturers having "failed" on-site have been tested in isolation and found to be operating perfectly well.


    But that in itself causes another question regarding RCDs used for Additional Protection, or fault protection where 0.2 s disconnection time is required ... i.e. will they actually operated as expected?


  • 0
    I think the references to RCD testing in Part 6 of the 18th are a dogs breakfast.


    In 643.8 the a shining example of ambiguity in the Note to the regulation. It needs to be understood that Notes do not create a regulation in themselves but are only guidance so not a "shall" or "shall not". You may have an RCD that is stickier than sticky the stick insect and it will operate at 5x Idelta n or higher or give it a jolt with 2A, 5A or more and it will operate and give you a very fast disconnection time. What does this prove? 


    As Graham K has pointed out that in Appendix 3  Table 3A you will find the the test currents and times for RCD product standards (BS EN 61008 and 61009). My view is that RCDs should meet this standard and that means they should trip in the stated  times set out in the standard. If an RCD does not trip at 1 x Idelta n then it is defective. This softer test is a better indicator of RCD health than the 5 x test and consumer safety.


    643.7 compounds the ambiguity as it applies to RCDs used for fire protection and fault protection. It seems to suggest that if you have carried out an earth continuity test which is satisfactory on installations that rely on an RCD for fault protection, and the RCD gives you a disconnection time that meets the appropriate time for the type of circuit and earthing system, you do not then need to carry out earth loop impedance testing so would put N/A in the column on the form. It does not indicate a test current but refers you Table 3A of Appendix 3. 


    All of the references to RCD testing require the test to be carrier out using an instrument that complies with BS EN 61557-6. Those instruments have functions that will test at both X1 and  X5 tripping currents at both halves of a full cycle. Most modern instruments  have an auto function that runs through the tests and stores the test results for examination post test.


    My view is, for both fire and fault protection, the RCD should be tested a X1 tripping current on both half cycles and the highest test result recorded. As you were probably taught on the C&G I&T courses you don't do a X 5 test for fault protection and you carefully avoided the trap exam question when asked what is the maximum test current for a 100mA RCD.


    The new Appendix 6 test forms only have one column for the RCD test result. My view is that you should enter the highest time out of the applied tests.


    The new Stroma software forms that will soon be launched will have have both X1 and X 5 columns on the test sheets.
  • 0

    Andrew Jewsbury:




    I've definitely seen RCDs with longer trip times at 5IΔn than at IΔn, so IΔn is not always the "worst case" either!



    In which case, can we have any confidence that a 1x (or 5x) test will give realistic assurance that the RCD will open in the required time when subject to a real earth fault - which could be many amps in magnitude?


    Well, that's a question for the manufacturers, I guess. All that we do know, is that testing at a current of greater than 5IΔn for 40 ms may be hazardous, therefore not practicable.

     


    Most RCD testers do not test at 2IΔn, and therefore the only option is 5IΔn.



    Cue for a new range of "18th Ed" RCD testers with a 2x option? wink


    Perhaps more practically we should only be thinking in terms of 'sampling' the RCDs performance at a few points and if they're within spec then say it's reasonable to assume that the RCD is functioning as designed and so will operate within specification throughout its entire range. Perhaps single test (1x perhaps) would be sufficient. I gather that some manufacturers suggested that operating the T button and observing an 'immediate' trip could be sufficient.


    Perhaps ... there are a number of problems related to RCD testing, and it perhaps could be said that it's obvious that trying to do an "in-situ" test based on the parameters of what is effectively Table 3A in BS 7671 doesn't always lead to expected results. See below on the L-N test for the "test button".

     


    These require RCDs for Additional Protection - in this case this would invoke the 5IΔn test. To add all these requirements together, we have a maximum loop impedance for a 30 mA RCD of 230*.95/0.15 Ω (where additional protection is needed), i.e. 1457 Ω and not 1667 Ω



    Humm - not sure of the logic there - additional protection is usually aimed at situations of direct contact (nails through cables, flexes cut by lawnmowers, touching the contacts of lampholders) - where the c.p.c. and hence Zs aren't usually of relevance (likewise any calculations involving Uo or Cmin). In a functioning installation we're only really worried about 150mA going through the victim's body, where it goes after that isn't a concern. Certainly for a successful test we'd need a lowish loop impedance, but that requirement doesn't seem to be obviously written into BS 7671.

     

    Given the fact that another recognised means of additional protection is supplementary local equipotential bonding, I don't quite follow your argument (although I'm not dismissing it entirely). I'm not sure anyone would say that someone touching just a line conductor of a circuit protected by a 30 mA RCD would be 100 % safe ... however, I do follow where you are coming from here.

    Would you think it acceptable to perform a 5x test by placing the tester's earth probe on the supply N rather than PE? That would avoid problems due to a high Zs but still test the RCD's fundamental operation?

    Perhaps not, as the RCD test is designed to be conducted downstream of the RCD, using the associated protective conductor. The RCD is not guaranteed to work with an earth return path by another means (although I'm happy to accept for additional protection, it's a possibility).


    Basically, as things stand (with BS 7671 Part 6 and the guidance in GN3 and OSG for testing), the designer should ensure Zs is low enough to accommodate the RCD at 5x for additional protection, and not simply Table 41.5 alone. When we are talking about automatic disconnection in times less than 0.3 s, this does present another issue, and definitely one for further discussion.


    We should certainly be looking at the performance of the installaition as part of the Verification, and not a particular protective device.
  • 0
    Agreed, there can be a marked difference between x1 and x5 test results from a 30 mA RCD, but both of those tests can be completed with a standard RCD tester.


    Standard RCD testers don’t have the option to test at x2 which I have been told by RCD manufacturers and tester manufacturers does not matter, as you don’t need to do it anyway if you confirm a higher rated RCD is within spec at x1.


    We can only do what we can do regards testing RCDs, but we can write all the test results on a certificate, which may be five entries rather than one.


     Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    Sadly, this general assumption that if it's OK when tested at 1x, it will work OK at 5x is something that I've not witnessed myself.


    However, a time-delay RCD would usually be for "distribution" circuits, and perhaps other circuits not covered by 411.3.2.2, and therefore 1 s disconnection time applies for TT systems, so the 1x test is what you want - i.e. usually you don't want to use 5x test for those in any case?


    I do think that there will be a few rounds of discussion on RCD testing to come. Certainly, it's no good checking an RCD works "to spec" ... that's not the objective of the test.


    The objective of the test is to check that either disconnection times to Table 41.1 are met, or, for RCDs providing Additional Protection, the RCD (typically 30 mA) disconnects within 40 ms at 5x - and the test should utilise the protective conductors.
  • 0
    We have had the discussion about RCD testing that is out of range on our testers on the old forum, I have also spoken to RCD manufacturers and test equipment manufacturers, in particular about testing 100 mA S-type time delayed RCDs installed in TT installations.


    The general consensus is that if such an RCD is within specification when tested at its rated current it will be okay when whacked with a bigger current.


    Testing a 100 mA RCD at five times its rated current is generally considered to be potentially dangerous in a domestic or similar installation as you are shoving a half an ampere of current through the earthing system with the meter set to deliver 500 milliamperes, a potentially lethal current.


     Andy Betteridge
  • 0

    I've definitely seen RCDs with longer trip times at 5IΔn than at IΔn, so IΔn is not always the "worst case" either!



    In which case, can we have any confidence that a 1x (or 5x) test will give realistic assurance that the RCD will open in the required time when subject to a real earth fault - which could be many amps in magnitude?


    Most RCD testers do not test at 2IΔn, and therefore the only option is 5IΔn.



    Cue for a new range of "18th Ed" RCD testers with a 2x option? wink


    Perhaps more practically we should only be thinking in terms of 'sampling' the RCDs performance at a few points and if they're within spec then say it's reasonable to assume that the RCD is functioning as designed and so will operate within specification throughout its entire range. Perhaps single test (1x perhaps) would be sufficient. I gather that some manufacturers suggested that operating the T button and observing an 'immediate' trip could be sufficient.

    These require RCDs for Additional Protection - in this case this would invoke the 5IΔn test. To add all these requirements together, we have a maximum loop impedance for a 30 mA RCD of 230*.95/0.15 Ω (where additional protection is needed), i.e. 1457 Ω and not 1667 Ω



    Humm - not sure of the logic there - additional protection is usually aimed at situations of direct contact (nails through cables, flexes cut by lawnmowers, touching the contacts of lampholders) - where the c.p.c. and hence Zs aren't usually of relevance (likewise any calculations involving Uo or Cmin). In a functioning installation we're only really worried about 150mA going through the victim's body, where it goes after that isn't a concern. Certainly for a successful test we'd need a lowish loop impedance, but that requirement doesn't seem to be obviously written into BS 7671.


    Would you think it acceptable to perform a 5x test by placing the tester's earth probe on the supply N rather than PE? That would avoid problems due to a high Zs but still test the RCD's fundamental operation?


        - Andy.
  • 0

    Andrew Jewsbury:




    • TT system, the disconnection time of 0.2 s might not be achieved at IΔn and therefore the disconnection time should to relate to 5IΔn (if, as per the Note to 643.7.1 states, we take into account the operating characteristics of the device per Table 3A in Appendix 3) - that is unless your tester has a 2IΔn setting


    On the other hand it would be rather odd to specify a test that couldn't necessarily physically be performed in a compliant installation. For a 30mA RCD, BS 7671 specifies a max Zs of 1667 Ohms (table 41.5) (or thereabouts - actually is is permitted to be higher provided RA doesn't exceed that figure (but I'll ignore that for the moment), the 200Ω figure is only a suggestion) - thus the maximum earth fault current we can really rely on is 230V/1667Ω = 138mA - i.e. below the 150mA needed for a 5x test. (Or if the tester has some means of generating the extra current, the touch voltage would exceed 50V which would likely abort the test anyway).


    I guess this is all a results of the discussion about removing RCD testing from the 18th - it does seem peculiar though to record the result of a test if you're not recording an indication of which test was performed.


      - Andy.

     




    Andy,


    Whilst on the surface it seems you're correct, in reality, there are two back-to-back requirements in 411.5.3:

    (i) to meet the disconnection time of Table 41.1

    (ii) to meet Table 41.5


    If you meet (ii) but not (i), doesn't meet BS 7671 requirements for ADS. This is why Table 3A is included. Now, whilst the trip-time for 2IΔn will be easily met by a loop impedance meeting the requirement for Table 41.1 for TT systems, Most RCD testers do not test at 2IΔn, and therefore the only option is 5IΔn. I've definitely seen RCDs with longer trip times at 5IΔn than at IΔn, so IΔn is not always the "worst case" either!


    AND


    To complicate things even more, Regulations 411.3.3 and 411.3.4 may well apply to the circuit. These require RCDs for Additional Protection - in this case this would invoke the 5IΔn test. To add all these requirements together, we have a maximum loop impedance for a 30 mA RCD of 230*.95/0.15 Ω (where additional protection is needed), i.e. 1457 Ω and not 1667 Ω (although, consider the fact that the earth electrode resistance shouldn't exceed 200 Ω, you should be far less than the required maximum).


    What's more concerning is where a larger RCD is used up-front, e.g. 300 mA RCD for main switch. To make this testable (with an RCD tester that only tests at 1x and 5x) requires a loop impedance of 145.7 Ω, and therefore your earth electrode resistance has to be significantly less than 200 Ω. And similarly, for a 500 mA up-front RCD, you'd get a maximum loop impedance of 87.4 Ω before this became "untestable" with many standard testers.



    I wholly accept that some could argue, if I meet the 0.2 s disconnection time with the 1x test, surely that's OK? Well, as I've said above, perhaps not as I've seen higher trip times with the 5x test than the 1x test (although the tester stops testing at 40 ms on the 5x test), so there's no guaranteeing the performance at 2x, and also there's the requirement for additional protection to consider in some cases (which as you've pointed out moves the 5x requirement from Chapter 41 to Part 6).




    It's a minefield ... but then, there's perhaps nothing different here than the situation in the 17th Edition. The requirements remain the same for TT disconnection and additional protection, and standard RCD testers still perform the way they did before 1 January 2019.

  • 0

    • TT system, the disconnection time of 0.2 s might not be achieved at IΔn and therefore the disconnection time should to relate to 5IΔn (if, as per the Note to 643.7.1 states, we take into account the operating characteristics of the device per Table 3A in Appendix 3) - that is unless your tester has a 2IΔn setting


    On the other hand it would be rather odd to specify a test that couldn't necessarily physically be performed in a compliant installation. For a 30mA RCD, BS 7671 specifies a max Zs of 1667 Ohms (table 41.5) (or thereabouts - actually is is permitted to be higher provided RA doesn't exceed that figure (but I'll ignore that for the moment), the 200Ω figure is only a suggestion) - thus the maximum earth fault current we can really rely on is 230V/1667Ω = 138mA - i.e. below the 150mA needed for a 5x test. (Or if the tester has some means of generating the extra current, the touch voltage would exceed 50V which would likely abort the test anyway).


    I guess this is all a results of the discussion about removing RCD testing from the 18th - it does seem peculiar though to record the result of a test if you're not recording an indication of which test was performed.


      - Andy.

Community Rules & Guidelines