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 33 subscribers
  • Views 14244 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

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
  • 0
    Looking at the lack of distortion or cracking to the outer plastic shell, and the fact the exposed tops of the brass rivets look like they have been cut or drilled, while the inside has failed, I think the plastic case contained the worst of it, and it has been opened after the fact as part of a forensic operation as to why it is not working and smells of burnt.

    The de-soldered bridge that is on the wonk , and the burnt out track in the middle of the figure indicate a failure of the electronics, not a gross overload of the breaking mechanism - as Alan alludes overloaded breakers look poorly at the arc traps - weld lines and the metal bent like warm toffee are the overload clues missing here.

    If you have a photo of the other side of the PCB it my be possible to work out the make.

    I think the factory date is july 2012
  • 0
    I would suggest not, as none of the arc products have gone down the arc chute - it looks as good as new! 


    Regards,


    Alan.
  • 0
    Are you suggesting that this is an otherwise compliant device John, just subjected to 25 kA. I rather doubt that.
  • 0

    John Peckham:

    Thanks Martyyn


    This is what a cheap Chinese RCBO look e72e73722bca993e02afc5302c479609-huge-20180102_094530-002.jpg

    like when subjected to a short circuit.


     




    Explosion? Call that an explosion?


    Now this is an explosion.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN7qtQVJXXM


    Z.

  • 0
    Ebee


    Domestic consumer unit around 2kA. Note the products of the arc did not vent down the arc flash shute!
  • 0
    That`s not what is usually meant by an exploded view of something is it?


    Truly shocking John, most worrying. Any estimate of the energy level it succumbed to?
  • 0
    Thanks Martyyn


    This is what a cheap Chinese RCBO look e72e73722bca993e02afc5302c479609-huge-20180102_094530-002.jpg

    like when subjected to a short circuit.


  • 0
    d13298faee170e5046858c7b003531b3-huge-image.png
    John Peckham‍ use the highlighted icon...
  • 0
    I have an image of an RCBO blown to pieces by a short circuit. How do you paste it in to a post. I tried copy and paste which said try ctr +v but that did not work.
  • 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.

Community Rules & Guidelines