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 18 replies
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 3872 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

MCCB Max ZS & Correction factor for temperature rise under fault.

Bees2699

Hello All,

I have recently completed an EICR which has MCCB's fitted most are Merlin Gerin NS with TM D or STR blocks all feeding large final or submains, allowing for a 5s dis connection time although the data tables the zs is the same for 0.4 or 5s. I have calculated the max Zs values for these taking into account the tolerance permitted by Schneider and the C min value. I have used these as the Max Zs recorded on the test sheet. However when coding I have taken 80% of this value in lieu of the possible temperature rise under fault conditions. The client has since queried this as it has caused some circuits to fail. When I spoke to Schneider they said as I have there maximum Zs values from there tables these can be used (which are the same as what I calculated on site) but there calculation are done at ambient of 30 degrees. Therefore I believe a derating factor would still need to be applied to allow for the possible temperature rise in the conductors under fault condition. And that where the measured Zs does not meet this corrected max Zs a C2 would be the correct coding.  

Look forward to hearing your opinions. 

Thank you

Parents
  • 0

    This depends on the trip characteristic and for an MCCB this might not be so simple. However it will do here but the actual data for the exact device into AMTEC may not give the same result. I am concerned that this inspection is finding fault here, and this is basically a design point, the data from which is not available. The conductor heating is also of no concern, provided the circuit conductor is correctly sized the adiabatic will always give a "safe" value, the correct size suiting the protective device rating. Reverse engineering is very difficult to make work!

Reply
  • 0

    This depends on the trip characteristic and for an MCCB this might not be so simple. However it will do here but the actual data for the exact device into AMTEC may not give the same result. I am concerned that this inspection is finding fault here, and this is basically a design point, the data from which is not available. The conductor heating is also of no concern, provided the circuit conductor is correctly sized the adiabatic will always give a "safe" value, the correct size suiting the protective device rating. Reverse engineering is very difficult to make work!

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