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 6 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1021 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

Item 5.7, Regulation 411.3 on EICR on Inspection schedule

M Gilmore
Hi,


Hope you are all well and thanks in advance for your replies.


I came across an issue with the Inspection schedule for an EICR last week. When a measured value of PFC is higher than the protective device KA value installed within the Distribution board, I would flag a C2 observation (I think the classification of the observation is a different post....). I would add this to the C2 to the inspection schedule on item 5.7. My issue is the regulation number highlighted after the text for item 5.7. It is 411.3 which is the section for "Requirements for fault protection" I don't feel this really covers the observation. I would use regulation 434.5.1 which gives clear detail on the requirements for the "characteristics of a fault current protective device". I have had a look in GN3 and section 3.9.1 (Checklist of items that require inspection), this uses regulation 434.5 against the fault protection item.


Now, my question is, would you add the C2 observation to the inspection schedule and use regulation number 411.3 or would you leave the item off the inspection schedule and just record the observation using regulation 434.5.1? Or the final option, which is the one I went for, add the C2 to the inspection schedule but use regulation 434.5.1 on the observation


Hope that makes sense! I just wanted to get a feel for what other Inspectors are doing out in the field.


Cheers

Matt
Parents
  • 0
    The second paragraph of 434.5.1 may well apply, and the co-ordinated arrangement of the two devices in series may well allow compliance, even if the downstream protective device is of a lower kA rating that would normally be allowed.  The operation of the upstream protective device may well limit the prospective fault current at the downstream device and protect it from destruction. It is unlikely that a bolted fault of negligible impedance will occur downstream of the protective device in many cases, so the energy is limited by the impedance at the actual fault position and the kA rating of the device may well not actually be exceeded in practice..


    Z.
Reply
  • 0
    The second paragraph of 434.5.1 may well apply, and the co-ordinated arrangement of the two devices in series may well allow compliance, even if the downstream protective device is of a lower kA rating that would normally be allowed.  The operation of the upstream protective device may well limit the prospective fault current at the downstream device and protect it from destruction. It is unlikely that a bolted fault of negligible impedance will occur downstream of the protective device in many cases, so the energy is limited by the impedance at the actual fault position and the kA rating of the device may well not actually be exceeded in practice..


    Z.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines