The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

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 150 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 12706 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

IEC 60364 Table 48A

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Does anyone know where I can find table 48A? I am reading of its existence, but don't know where to find it.
Parents
  • 0
    TN-C-S, Ze = 0.35 Ohm TN-S Ze = 0.8 Ohm Both supplies have the same line conductor and same transformer, so the difference, > 50 %, must be the distributor's protective conductor.

    I wonder if there might be an historical factor in there too. Back in the days when TN-S was the norm the wirings regs didn't demand specific disconnection times - but simply that an fault of negligible impedance should produce an earth fault current of at least 3x the protective device's rating - which 0.8Ω does very nicely for a 240V nominal supply and a 100A fuse.


    Later on we started demanding 5s disconnection times - which for a typical 100A fuse would need around 0.36Ω together with a v.d. limit implying no more than 0.368Ω L-N for a 100A supply, so (rounding off slightly) 0.35Ω seems sensible.


    So I wonder if it's less to do with the physical differences between TN-S and TN-C-S systems, but more to do with what was acceptable at the time - having existing TN-S supplies that might still comply with the older numbers, the current guidance can't simply be revised.


       - Andy.
Reply
  • 0
    TN-C-S, Ze = 0.35 Ohm TN-S Ze = 0.8 Ohm Both supplies have the same line conductor and same transformer, so the difference, > 50 %, must be the distributor's protective conductor.

    I wonder if there might be an historical factor in there too. Back in the days when TN-S was the norm the wirings regs didn't demand specific disconnection times - but simply that an fault of negligible impedance should produce an earth fault current of at least 3x the protective device's rating - which 0.8Ω does very nicely for a 240V nominal supply and a 100A fuse.


    Later on we started demanding 5s disconnection times - which for a typical 100A fuse would need around 0.36Ω together with a v.d. limit implying no more than 0.368Ω L-N for a 100A supply, so (rounding off slightly) 0.35Ω seems sensible.


    So I wonder if it's less to do with the physical differences between TN-S and TN-C-S systems, but more to do with what was acceptable at the time - having existing TN-S supplies that might still comply with the older numbers, the current guidance can't simply be revised.


       - 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