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

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

Metal CU, TT earth and wiring for SPD

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

It appears from everything that I have read that for a TT system it's normal to use a metal consumer unit with normal 100A main incoming switch and RCBO's for circuit protection.

This is based on the unprotected live conductors, meter tails and busbar being well protected and supported reducing the risk of fault. Therefore the risk caused by high earth loop impedance and a live conductor contacting the metal consumer unit is very  low.

It also from catalogues etc to be normal practice to introduce SPD's into these CU's along with a circuit breaker to protect them. This means additional wiring which presumably is not double insulated and does not benefit from additional support.

I could avoid the above with an external SPD but that adds cost and just makes the installation more cluttered.

Am I correct that industry believes it's acceptable to use spd's internally on TT protected CU's along with the additional risk the wiring would cause?

Parents
  • I agree with Colin.

    However I do have some reservations about TT and about TT & metalclad consumer units.

    This is a personal thing and I am used to practically all systems I haved worked on being in TN land. I`m sure others will disagree with some of what I have to say.

    And yes TN sometimes has its problems too.

    Leaving aside the difference in types of RCD for a moment the two things that worry me about RCDs are the possible failure rate might be as high as 7%. It is accepted in some circles that life saving protection offered by correctly working 30mA RCDs might successfully save 95% of the population.

    Marry the two figure together and the result could be around 12% failure to adequately protect.

    Don`t get me wrong I think RCDs are marvelous things and worth their weight in gold.

    I just do not like total reliance if that can be avoided sometimes it can`t be.

    How do we mitigate the risk.

    Well plastic consumer units gave us an edge there in some respects to some degree.

    Cascading RCDs is another good way of reducing those percentages.

    Purely in arithmetic land two cascaded RCDs at 7% risk might give us 0.49% risk of both failing.

    In practice though "stiction" might occour to both for the same reasons so the risk might creep up from our 0.49% to nearer 7% .

    Having them in slightly different locations and of different makes might mitigate this figure a little bit too.

    We often do not cascade two 30mA RCDs for practical reasons, therefore we make one of them time delayed and decrease sensitivity by a facture of 3 or more. The usual combination being 100mA Delayed and 30mA non delayed (however we could use 30mA & 10mA or even 3mA & 10mA if our pockets are deep enough) . We tend to not view 100mA and above as not being good for shock risk purposes.

    Then you need to weigh the benefits of SPDs against the types and failure modes and again TT could have more dangers if you don`t get the best type for TT usage.

    I can see your concerns.

    I suspect others will have more to say on this one.

     

    Edit - two others beat me to it

Reply
  • I agree with Colin.

    However I do have some reservations about TT and about TT & metalclad consumer units.

    This is a personal thing and I am used to practically all systems I haved worked on being in TN land. I`m sure others will disagree with some of what I have to say.

    And yes TN sometimes has its problems too.

    Leaving aside the difference in types of RCD for a moment the two things that worry me about RCDs are the possible failure rate might be as high as 7%. It is accepted in some circles that life saving protection offered by correctly working 30mA RCDs might successfully save 95% of the population.

    Marry the two figure together and the result could be around 12% failure to adequately protect.

    Don`t get me wrong I think RCDs are marvelous things and worth their weight in gold.

    I just do not like total reliance if that can be avoided sometimes it can`t be.

    How do we mitigate the risk.

    Well plastic consumer units gave us an edge there in some respects to some degree.

    Cascading RCDs is another good way of reducing those percentages.

    Purely in arithmetic land two cascaded RCDs at 7% risk might give us 0.49% risk of both failing.

    In practice though "stiction" might occour to both for the same reasons so the risk might creep up from our 0.49% to nearer 7% .

    Having them in slightly different locations and of different makes might mitigate this figure a little bit too.

    We often do not cascade two 30mA RCDs for practical reasons, therefore we make one of them time delayed and decrease sensitivity by a facture of 3 or more. The usual combination being 100mA Delayed and 30mA non delayed (however we could use 30mA & 10mA or even 3mA & 10mA if our pockets are deep enough) . We tend to not view 100mA and above as not being good for shock risk purposes.

    Then you need to weigh the benefits of SPDs against the types and failure modes and again TT could have more dangers if you don`t get the best type for TT usage.

    I can see your concerns.

    I suspect others will have more to say on this one.

     

    Edit - two others beat me to it

Children
No Data