Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Suggested Helpful Answer
  • Replies 39 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 36 subscribers
  • Views 1200 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Using BS3871 MCB to protect ne submain

Alan B

Is it ok to connect a new submain to an existing spare 3 phase BS3871 MCB in a light industrial installation. The alternative is to change the entire main DB.

Submain will be clipped direct to wall and steel roof beam. It will feed a new 3 phase DB, probably equipped with two 3 phase 16A MCB's.

My understanding is that BS 60898 replaced BS3871 and the standards are similar, I am sure there are some differences, but do they make a significant impact on safety? In my mind providing they disconnect in the required time everything should be acceptable? Main risks will be after the sub board using modern devices.

Thanks

Parents
  • 0

    Having a look an an example of this type of plug in MCB which are available brand new from electrical wholesalers as well as preused through EBay and other websites, it’s very debatable how they should be isolated and locked off, as someone could quite easily unplug a MCB with the toggle locked off and swap it for another device in the same board.

    So I am not convinced the Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide Two actually shows the best practice.

    I’m only throwing in a comment, not stating what I think is best practice, but I think these particular devices need treating as fuses and should be pulled from the board, but what then?

    I can’t see a readily available lock offs for what is a BS3036 15 amp fuse holder on any websites.


    www.ebay.co.uk/.../133743674126

  • 0 in reply to Sparkingchip

    Agreed, when the BS 3036-type boards were designed, the EAWR wasn't in place, and there was a different view of "safe working" in LV installations.

    Under CDM Regulations (which also weren't in place back then) the designer now has a duty to ensure safety for those working on the electrical installation in future (this duty applying to all electrical installations, including domestic).

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Sparkingchip

    Agreed, when the BS 3036-type boards were designed, the EAWR wasn't in place, and there was a different view of "safe working" in LV installations.

    Under CDM Regulations (which also weren't in place back then) the designer now has a duty to ensure safety for those working on the electrical installation in future (this duty applying to all electrical installations, including domestic).

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