This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR C3 mixed manufacturer breakers

I know this will have been discussed in the past but we are on Amd 1 of the 18th now so I thought I would renew it.

The Best practice guides list mixed manufacturer breakers in a consumer unit or distribution board as a C3.

As far as I am aware Bs7671 does not have a Reg on it beyond manufacturers instructions and given EICR's are based on this standard perhaps it is justified on that basis.

Most on here will be familiar with the 16kA 'rule' in BSEN61439 Annex ZB or its predecessor BSEN60439 Annex ZA

I avoid C3's like the plague because they give all the wrong signals to a client and clearly by definition are for things which are a breach of the regs, I'm not too keen on the insurance risk of a C3 either.

My question here would be what fault rating can one apply to an enclosure where there are mixed breakers given a manufacturer will only have certified their equipment with their devices?

Enjoy!

Martyn

Parents

0 Martyn over 5 years ago

AJJewsbury:

I avoid C3's like the plague

Personally this always gets a C1 from me for the simple reason that PFC will always be greater than zero kA and the only rating I can apply to the enclosures and devices is zero kA

I'm a little puzzled... for me:

C1 = actual danger present now (with no additional faults) - e.g. bare line conductors, easily touched.

C2 = danger would be present if a single fault occurred in the future - e.g. broken c.p.c. or Zs too high.

C3 = danger would be present if two faults occurred (and the current regulations provide some protection under those circumstances) - e.g. lack of additional protection.

no code (old code 4) for things that although don't comply with the current regulations pose no additional hazard to users of the installation - e.g. old (or incorrect) core colour codes.

and then following the same weightings as it were for hazards other than shock. So say for example, lack of overload protection but no evidence that anything actually has ever been overloaded might be a C2, evidence that insulation had been melting a C1.

So for me a CU with an inadequate fault breaking capacity would be perfectly safe under the current conditions - any problems would only arise on the future occurrence of a future fault - so that couldn't be higher than a C2 for me.

Likewise C3 seem ideal to me for things like lack of 30mA RCD protection to internal sockets etc.

- Andy.

I would argue that a fault has already occured by dint of the assembly having insufficient fault rating for the installation.

This question was primarily raised on the basis of commercial buildings and 3 phase supplied boards, I cant say that I have come across a domestic at anything like 10kA that said, as soon as you mix and match you have left the relative comfort of the manufacturers certificate and liability.

On your last point, How long has 30mA RCD protection been an absolute requirement (In new installations) for internal sockets?

Given it is an absolute requirement for new installations, why would a report on a an existing installation when compared to the current regulations result in the lowest of all codes?

I see RCD's being removed from spec on new purely for this reason, 'it is only a C3 so I will save a few quid and wont bother specifying them' is the mantra I hear.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Martyn over 5 years ago

AJJewsbury:

I avoid C3's like the plague

Personally this always gets a C1 from me for the simple reason that PFC will always be greater than zero kA and the only rating I can apply to the enclosures and devices is zero kA

I'm a little puzzled... for me:

C1 = actual danger present now (with no additional faults) - e.g. bare line conductors, easily touched.

C2 = danger would be present if a single fault occurred in the future - e.g. broken c.p.c. or Zs too high.

C3 = danger would be present if two faults occurred (and the current regulations provide some protection under those circumstances) - e.g. lack of additional protection.

no code (old code 4) for things that although don't comply with the current regulations pose no additional hazard to users of the installation - e.g. old (or incorrect) core colour codes.

and then following the same weightings as it were for hazards other than shock. So say for example, lack of overload protection but no evidence that anything actually has ever been overloaded might be a C2, evidence that insulation had been melting a C1.

So for me a CU with an inadequate fault breaking capacity would be perfectly safe under the current conditions - any problems would only arise on the future occurrence of a future fault - so that couldn't be higher than a C2 for me.

Likewise C3 seem ideal to me for things like lack of 30mA RCD protection to internal sockets etc.

- Andy.

I would argue that a fault has already occured by dint of the assembly having insufficient fault rating for the installation.

This question was primarily raised on the basis of commercial buildings and 3 phase supplied boards, I cant say that I have come across a domestic at anything like 10kA that said, as soon as you mix and match you have left the relative comfort of the manufacturers certificate and liability.

On your last point, How long has 30mA RCD protection been an absolute requirement (In new installations) for internal sockets?

Given it is an absolute requirement for new installations, why would a report on a an existing installation when compared to the current regulations result in the lowest of all codes?

I see RCD's being removed from spec on new purely for this reason, 'it is only a C3 so I will save a few quid and wont bother specifying them' is the mantra I hear.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

EICR C3 mixed manufacturer breakers

Community Rules & Guidelines