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
  • Thanks, Lyle - I saw lots of grey FTE-looking stuff snaking around the walls of a friend's new (self-)build in Ireland a few years ago, and assumed it was just the same stuff as I was used to. It sounds as if it would have been then, but wouldn't be in a new build now. Thanks to Screwfix's different sites, I see it's still FTE (in contrast to common continental round-section cables).
    f4cdcd6b7914fe3dcbcc6e6aeb2c6db2-huge-ae.jpg


    Distribution circuits may justify undersizing by the assumption of bonding, but I suspect the history of FTE undersizing in final circuits in the UK is a historic remnant from when earthing was expected to prevent something remaining live but not necessarily to make it 'safe' if touched during the short time before the fault was cleared. Presumably the probabilities involved (fault together with good contact with different conductive parts), together with the margins in the assumptions, have avoided any, or conspicuously many, fatal results.

Reply
  • Thanks, Lyle - I saw lots of grey FTE-looking stuff snaking around the walls of a friend's new (self-)build in Ireland a few years ago, and assumed it was just the same stuff as I was used to. It sounds as if it would have been then, but wouldn't be in a new build now. Thanks to Screwfix's different sites, I see it's still FTE (in contrast to common continental round-section cables).
    f4cdcd6b7914fe3dcbcc6e6aeb2c6db2-huge-ae.jpg


    Distribution circuits may justify undersizing by the assumption of bonding, but I suspect the history of FTE undersizing in final circuits in the UK is a historic remnant from when earthing was expected to prevent something remaining live but not necessarily to make it 'safe' if touched during the short time before the fault was cleared. Presumably the probabilities involved (fault together with good contact with different conductive parts), together with the margins in the assumptions, have avoided any, or conspicuously many, fatal results.

Children
No Data