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 17 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 2088 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

Single pole breakers 3 phase trunking and shared neutral

vantech

Hi, 

I have a question regarding the use of single pole MCBs on lighting trunking systems.

The idea is that the trunking system contains 8 conductors, used as follows:

L1, L2, L3, N, E (supply one - grid) 

L1, N, E (supply two - central battery for emergency lighting)

The central battery supplies lighting during an outage (AC during normal operation, DC during grid failure). This aspect is fine. 

What the customer wants is to avoid a single point of failure. Preciously, on the maintained or grid supply, L1, L2 and L3 were connected to and protected by a 3 pole MCB (across 3 phases) with a shared neutral. Moving forward, the customer has queried using single pole MCBs to protect each of the phases (split across 3 phases) and a shared neutral, thus meaning if a single MCB trips, the other 2 circuits will remain live. 

I don’t see anything wrong with this, in fact, the same result would be apparent if fuses were used. The reason I raise the question is for the purposes of isolation; when using a 3 pole MCB, a single switch can isolate an entire track however when using single pole MCBs, there are then in essence multiple points of isolation. 

Am I right in thinking that single pole MCBs can be used with a single/shared neutral, as long as the line conductors are split between 3 phases and there is appropriate labelling at all connection points for “isolation at multiple locations”? 

Thanks. 

Parents
  • 0

    therefore, 3 SP circuits.

    I'm not sure I follow the thinking there - when fuses are used we still consider a 3ph circuit to be one 3ph circuit, not three 1ph circuits - we don't even demand that all thee fuses are in a common carrier - so where's the definition different for MCBs?

       - Andy.

  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    Yes, but for a 3 ph circuit, a 3 ph MCB is an improvement on 3 fuses - don't we want them all to trip together to avoid phase imbalance?

    In this instance, there appears to be an express intention to have 3 SP circuits, so each should have its own neutral.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    Yes, but for a 3 ph circuit, a 3 ph MCB is an improvement on 3 fuses - don't we want them all to trip together to avoid phase imbalance?

    In this instance, there appears to be an express intention to have 3 SP circuits, so each should have its own neutral.

Children
  • 0 in reply to Chris Pearson

    If you have fuses feeding a lighting sub main, and a fuse blows, you still end up with a phase imbalance. 

    I think this is a grey area to be honest. 

    If we go down the separate neutral route, we’d have this configuration inside of the trunking system:

    L1 & N1 

    L2 & N2

    L3 & N3  

    CPC 

    EM L & EM N 

    DALI 1 & DALI 2 

    Thats a trunking system with 11 poles (and this trunking system has a built in busbar system).

    Utilising 3 SP MCBs, with a single neutral, would in essence then mean a reduction in poles by 2. The trunking system does have a maximum of 11 poles, therefore it would work with individual neutrals. The consultant just wants to reduce cost and complexity, and understandably. 

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