Zs values?

[nick611]

rcd get stuck if you dont test them regular. i,ve been bit by one myself.but the fact remains 1667 ze 0.2 disconnection.who are we to judge

 

[Jimmy Boy]

Well I am just waiting for the first test case for a fatality due to an RCD not operating and saving a life, I fitted a Power breaker RCD/FCU the other day, guess what >400ms over range about as much use as a fridge to an Eskimo, if a domestic inspect is 10 Years on a new install with the lower lethal level of 50ma what's the chances of it operating in <30ma 9 years time ?..None.
I retested mine at home today all come in at under <19ms @ x5

 

[Des 56]

Energy let through limitation
The supply is 50Hz, i.e., 1 cycle every 20ms, even if the RCD can disconnect at 40ms, you'll get 2 cycles of the full fault current
A typical fault can be in hundreds of amps

This from another source

The surge current refers to the peak current an RCD is designed to withstand using a test impulse of specified characteristics ( an 8/20 µs impulse, named after the time constants of the rise and fall of current).
The IEC 61008 and IEC 61009 standards impose the use of a 0.5 µs/ 100 kHz damped oscillator wave (ring wave) to test the ability of residual current protection devices to withstand operational discharges with a peak current equal to 200 A.


These are others quotes and I just take note of them, bright ideas are rare coming out of my head unfortunately
I read those as saying to me.an Rcd faulting on a Tn system is liable to damage


Des could you please explain why it would be more dangerous on a TN?

low Zs of the TN would have virtually just the persons resistance as the limiting factor,kallowing a massive current flow
High resistance TT rod would limit the current flow
Both could kill,but the Tn would do a better job of it

 

[Geoffsd]

To be pedantic, if that's the right word, the actual value is 1666.66 recurring. Therefore, to be on the 'safe' side we should be using 1666? 1667 gives a voltage of 50.01 - far too high!

Seriously though, I can see the logic on both sides of the argument. However, the maximum Zs is to protect the cpc. So, if we accept that the RCD may fail, should we still not use the maximum Zs for the MCB (or OC part of an RCBO) on a TN system just in case?

 

[malcolmsanford]

1667 is for TT systems.
On a TNS system the mcb or rcbo is your method of complying with 411.3.2.2 & you use table 41.3
The rcd is for additional protection so 1667 does not come into it.

Table 41.5 is for TT systems.

It is alo for TN system Reg 411.4.9 comes under TN. Under this reg table 41.5 can be used in a TN

 

[Guest123]

It is alo for TN system Reg 411.4.9 comes under TN. Under this reg table 41.5 can be used in a TN

At least someone acknowledges that.

I posted it twice earlier in the thread to stimulate responses but got no takers.

 

[malcolmsanford]

A lot of people don't even realise this reg is under the TN section. When the 7671-2008 came up as DPC I wrote to the IET with several questions and this was one. Why start the TN section back on page 47 under 411.4 and end it on a TT page 411.4.9. pg 50

Told in short shrift that 411.4.9 is obviously still under TN as TT starts the 411.5 section!!! hush my mouth

 

[telectrix]

Well I am just waiting for the first test case for a fatality due to an RCD not operating and saving a life, I fitted a Power breaker RCD/FCU the other day, guess what >400ms over range about as much use as a fridge to an Eskimo, if a domestic inspect is 10 Years on a new install with the lower lethal level of 50ma what's the chances of it operating in <30ma 9 years time ?..None.
I retested mine at home today all come in at under <19ms @ x5

RCD failing to trip? that's as unlikely to happen as the "unsinkable " Titanic sinking, or the Hindenberg catching fire! Personally , i consider RCDs to be secondary protection , albeit 95% reliable

 

[Smnspark]

does any one have Max ZS for bs88 315 amp fuse

 

[malcolmsanford]

Something that size you will have to go to the manufacturer and get their data on it. Is it a Bussman?