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 38 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 8208 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

Martyn
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

    'I'm not sufficiently technically competent to override two standards aimed soley at the protection of people



    I know, I'm going off on another tangent, but BS 7671 isn't solely aimed at the protection of people - as 131.1 says property is also on the list - which makes sense for things like SPDs that effectively only protect (sensitive) equipment from being damaged. Never mind the 'energy efficiency' bits in Appendix 17 or the regulations that just demand ease of access for maintenance. Besides BS 7671 itself clearly talks about differing degrees of danger represented by C1, C2 and C3 - so there's nothing in BS 7671 to suggest that every non-compliance must be regarded as a serious danger to users.


       - Andy.

Reply
  • 0

    'I'm not sufficiently technically competent to override two standards aimed soley at the protection of people



    I know, I'm going off on another tangent, but BS 7671 isn't solely aimed at the protection of people - as 131.1 says property is also on the list - which makes sense for things like SPDs that effectively only protect (sensitive) equipment from being damaged. Never mind the 'energy efficiency' bits in Appendix 17 or the regulations that just demand ease of access for maintenance. Besides BS 7671 itself clearly talks about differing degrees of danger represented by C1, C2 and C3 - so there's nothing in BS 7671 to suggest that every non-compliance must be regarded as a serious danger to users.


       - Andy.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines