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 Max Zs and Maximum Measure Zs

BS7671 Max Zs and Maximum Measure Zs

I’ve asked 3 of my lectures, but have yet to get an answer to this question. I have my own theory, but would like to ask if I’m on the right track or not.

 The question is why is the maximum permitted measured Zs = BS7671 Max Zs x 0.8 (appendix 3 page 363). I know it is to do with colder conductors, its the 0.8 factor used, as the table in the On Site Guide do not seem to match is they are at 10⁰C

Guidance note 3 gives the 0.8 as the temperature correction. With the values of Zs in the On Site Guide and Guidance note 3 given for Zs at 10⁰C

The equation in the On Site Guide for temperature correction is given as
(1+0.004(New Temp-20)) as 0.004 is the coefficient correction when starting at 20⁰. As we are not converting from 20⁰C to 10⁰C, we do not need the lower part of the equation.

This would give us a (1+0.004(70-20))=1.2 therefore this would equate to 80% or the 0.8. The quoted 0.8 multiplier.

As the table in the On Site Guide are given at 10⁰C, the equation would look like this (1+0.004(70-20))/(1+0.004(10-20))= 1.25. therefore this would equate to a 75% or 0.75. This correction factor is given as 1.25 in the Note on page 126 of the On Site Guide.

However the figures in the On Site Guide are given as Zs(BS7671) x 0.8 = Zs(On Site Guide).

The true calculation from appendix 3 of BS7671 includes a correction for U0 taking into account Cmin. With Cmin at 0.95, perhaps this would account for the missing 5%?

My theory is that the On Site Guide figures have been corrected for 20⁰C and not 10⁰C, which would bring them in line with Table I1 of the On Site Guide.

Although this is academic, as in design if our calculated Zs figures were equal to or approaching the Max Zs figures, we are likely if the circuit will allow, used additional protection with and RCD. It just my OCD nagging at me.

Thank you for your help.

Parents

  • What Ian needs to know is what to do if he does a loop test on a socket circuit protected by a B32 MCB and the test result of say 1.2 ohms, which is more than the OSG Table B6 figure of 1.1 ohms, but less than the 1.37 ohms given in BS7671 Tabs 41.3.



    That's tricky as the 18th doesn't tell us any more - so it's up to individual engineering judgement now.


    Under the 17th, if (Zs-Ze)/0.8+Ze came in at or below the BS 7671 tabulated value you could say it was acceptable. I guess you can still do the same - but it's now on your own head. Others methods aren't precluded. (Strictly speaking Ze in this case being Zs at the origin measured under the same conditions as normal Zs measurements - e.g. with bonds in place - rather than a true Ze - maybe we need another symbol - ZORIGIN or somesuch.)

     

    Spot on Andy. I'd like to know the thought process behind its apparent exclusion.



    Me too. Maybe there's a worry that your individual service cable might be cooler than normal if your installation is off-load, or maybe it's just been copy&paste'd from an IEC document. I'd also like to understand the thinking of stating one single factor (0.8) is deemed acceptable for all situations regardless of conductor operating temperature - 80% for a 90 degree cable doesn't make a lot of sense to me if your room temperature could be below around 30 degrees.


      - Andy.
Reply

  • What Ian needs to know is what to do if he does a loop test on a socket circuit protected by a B32 MCB and the test result of say 1.2 ohms, which is more than the OSG Table B6 figure of 1.1 ohms, but less than the 1.37 ohms given in BS7671 Tabs 41.3.



    That's tricky as the 18th doesn't tell us any more - so it's up to individual engineering judgement now.


    Under the 17th, if (Zs-Ze)/0.8+Ze came in at or below the BS 7671 tabulated value you could say it was acceptable. I guess you can still do the same - but it's now on your own head. Others methods aren't precluded. (Strictly speaking Ze in this case being Zs at the origin measured under the same conditions as normal Zs measurements - e.g. with bonds in place - rather than a true Ze - maybe we need another symbol - ZORIGIN or somesuch.)

     

    Spot on Andy. I'd like to know the thought process behind its apparent exclusion.



    Me too. Maybe there's a worry that your individual service cable might be cooler than normal if your installation is off-load, or maybe it's just been copy&paste'd from an IEC document. I'd also like to understand the thinking of stating one single factor (0.8) is deemed acceptable for all situations regardless of conductor operating temperature - 80% for a 90 degree cable doesn't make a lot of sense to me if your room temperature could be below around 30 degrees.


      - Andy.
Children
No Data