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

5 second disconnection times

Hi all


Something that I have always wondered about since I started doing electrical work.


The 0.4 and 5 second disconnection times. 0.4 makes sense as it is quick.

However 5 seconds still seems a long time for exposed conductive parts to remain live. When I first started, lighting circuits had a 5s time.

Now it's 0.4 for all circuits feeding socket outlets up to 63A but only for fixed equipment up to 32A. So any equipment over 32A can be 5s.

The reason given in collage was that it was portable equipment that can be picked up and gripped but fixed equipment can be pulled away from.

Previously, in 16th ed regs, the 0.4 was for socket outlets and circuits supplying equipment that can be hand held.

However, 5 seconds still seems a long time for exposed metalwork to be live. I know with a low impedance earth the voltage will be lower, but still.


The other thing is that even a distribution circuit that can have 5s dis time, on an earth fault, say in an armoured cable, all earthed metalwork can be live for the full 5 seconds, even hand held equipment on circuits with a 0.4s dis time. I realise that if the fault was on the actual item of equipment itself the voltage would be higher.


Any equipment, though, above 32A can still have a 5s dis time. I come across fixed equipment all the time that is above 32A. This equipment quite often has parts of it that can actually be gripped. When the body has electricity passing though it the muscles contract so it may be hard to pull away.

I've seen a video of three men pushing a tower hitting an overhead HV line. all three dropped down but their hands still gripped the scaffold poles.

I know were dealing with LV but the muscles still react the same.

Even showers could once have a 5s dis time and the only thing that has changed that is the regs for RCDs in rooms containing a bath or shower. It's still on a circuit that, without the RCD, allows 5s.


The fact that the regs have tightened up of what circuits can have 5s dis times shows that there is still a danger on 5s. Otherwise, why change them to 0.4s.


Any thoughts?



Parents
  • The 'technical report'  IEC 1200-413 (1996) gives some explanation and rationale for, as hinted by the second part of its number, the shock-protection principles in IEC 60364. This includes a few diagrams about the assumptions about transferred potential, bonding etc.  This report appears never to have been updated, but to have been withdrawn. Perhaps it was felt that giving details of reasons isn't a good idea? I'd love to share it, but sadly it's yet another document that's locked away unless one pays a ludicrous amount of 'CHF' to the IEC, even if it's not considered current.


    I gather this list has had a habit of occasional quizzes.

    Glancing through the above report, I see a couple of candidate questions, in case anyone wants to take the bait.  I've tried to avoid opportunities for pedantic humour (with interpretation) ... I almost neglected to specify the voltage in Q1, since it "should be obvious", but perhaps there's still a loop-hole: a challenge!


    Q1) Consider a 32 A single-phase (230 V) socket, with its own 20 m run of flat twin-and-earth (FTE) cable from a board where the prospective earth-fault current is 2 kA, with the nearest bonding being at that board or upstream.

    The required disconnection time nowadays would be 0.4 s.  However, an assumption on which this time was chosen for the standards is not well fulfilled in the above situation ... what's that assumption?

    Hint: FTE.


    Q2) Why is the letter 'I' the usual symbol for electric current?

    Hint: I was reminded of this when glancing at a French page from the report.


Reply
  • The 'technical report'  IEC 1200-413 (1996) gives some explanation and rationale for, as hinted by the second part of its number, the shock-protection principles in IEC 60364. This includes a few diagrams about the assumptions about transferred potential, bonding etc.  This report appears never to have been updated, but to have been withdrawn. Perhaps it was felt that giving details of reasons isn't a good idea? I'd love to share it, but sadly it's yet another document that's locked away unless one pays a ludicrous amount of 'CHF' to the IEC, even if it's not considered current.


    I gather this list has had a habit of occasional quizzes.

    Glancing through the above report, I see a couple of candidate questions, in case anyone wants to take the bait.  I've tried to avoid opportunities for pedantic humour (with interpretation) ... I almost neglected to specify the voltage in Q1, since it "should be obvious", but perhaps there's still a loop-hole: a challenge!


    Q1) Consider a 32 A single-phase (230 V) socket, with its own 20 m run of flat twin-and-earth (FTE) cable from a board where the prospective earth-fault current is 2 kA, with the nearest bonding being at that board or upstream.

    The required disconnection time nowadays would be 0.4 s.  However, an assumption on which this time was chosen for the standards is not well fulfilled in the above situation ... what's that assumption?

    Hint: FTE.


    Q2) Why is the letter 'I' the usual symbol for electric current?

    Hint: I was reminded of this when glancing at a French page from the report.


Children
No Data