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
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 37 subscribers
  • Views 234 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Arc Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs) & BS EN 61534 Powertrack Systems

Philip Hunter

Following the recommendation that AFDDs are “…recommended for single-phase AC final circuits…” and that, for “…Powertrack systems to BS EN 61534, the AFDD may be placed at a location other than the origin of the circuit…”, I am interested to understand how the industry is practically incorporating Arc Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs) within BS EN 61534 Powertrack installations.

From my perspective, the most logical arrangement would appear to be incorporation of the AFDD within the protection module downstream of the tap-off, whether serving a floor box assembly or desk-mounted socket module. However, when this has been raised with several of the larger manufacturers, the response has often been either uncertainty regarding the application, or confirmation that only RCBO- or RCD-protected modules are currently offered.

Given that AFDD provisions, and the associated wording within Amendment 1, are no longer particularly new, I am somewhat perplexed as to why manufacturers do not appear to be facilitating a compliant or standardised solution for this application.

I would be interested to hear how others within the industry are approaching this, and whether there are manufacturers or system designs currently addressing the requirement in a more integrated manner.

Parents
  • 0

    Rather than blindly following a recommendation, I think it would be better to fully consider the consequences of omitting AFDDs in the individual circumstances. It would seem to me that the key purpose of AFDDs being "required" is to mitigate the risk of ignition from arcing where there is a particular risk from fire. From the list in 421.1.7, it looks like the concern is focused on circumstances where there is abnormal difficulty in evacuation or where an alarm may not be responded to in a timely way. 

    It is noteworthy that whilst 7671 adopts a mandatory attitude to such circumstances, the Irish Regs merely proffers a recommendation for all final circuits (no current limit and not just socket outlets) where external influences BE2, CA2 and CB2 apply and where irreplaceable goods might be endangered.

    So whilst the two jurisdictions might be all over the place with respect to the requirements on AFDDs, I think we should have a well-thought through, common sense, approach in making a determination on a recommendation, rather than being a slave to it. 

Reply
  • 0

    Rather than blindly following a recommendation, I think it would be better to fully consider the consequences of omitting AFDDs in the individual circumstances. It would seem to me that the key purpose of AFDDs being "required" is to mitigate the risk of ignition from arcing where there is a particular risk from fire. From the list in 421.1.7, it looks like the concern is focused on circumstances where there is abnormal difficulty in evacuation or where an alarm may not be responded to in a timely way. 

    It is noteworthy that whilst 7671 adopts a mandatory attitude to such circumstances, the Irish Regs merely proffers a recommendation for all final circuits (no current limit and not just socket outlets) where external influences BE2, CA2 and CB2 apply and where irreplaceable goods might be endangered.

    So whilst the two jurisdictions might be all over the place with respect to the requirements on AFDDs, I think we should have a well-thought through, common sense, approach in making a determination on a recommendation, rather than being a slave to it. 

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines