Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Why do RCDs say "Test Monthly" instead of "Use in Pairs"?

  • 26-01-2020 07:04AM
    #1
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭


    The odds of two devices in series with a 7% fail rate (over what timeframe?) are...

    I'm a bit foggy on the sums but I reckon it's right lower than 3.5%?


Comments

  • #2
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Liamalot wrote: »
    The odds of two devices in series with a 7% fail rate (over what timeframe?) are...

    I'm a bit foggy on the sums but I reckon it's right lower than 3.5%?

    Over a timeframe which gives a 7% failure rate, a failure of 2 in series at 7% each would be 0.49% failure rate for both within that timeframe.

    But if 2 in series, we would never know one or both have become faulty without using the test buttons.

    On the balance of practicality, 2 in series wouldnt be great.


  • #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In practicality two may not be better than one.
    In reality people don't test them.


  • #4
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,790 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    While the theory would be a 0.49% failure rate, the reality may be different, in particular if they are of the same design and manufacturing batch, as they would likely have the same issues.


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Over a timeframe which gives a 7% failure rate, a failure of 2 in series at 7% each would be 0.49% failure rate for both within that timeframe.


    Complicated stuff...


    501092.png


  • #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you use in pairs and test monthly the system failure rate reduces to;

    Probability of A and B both occuring: P(A∩B) 0.001225 .....0.1%

    I suddenly like RCBO distribution much more.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Liamalot wrote: »
    If you use in pairs and test monthly the system failure rate reduces to;

    Probability of A and B both occuring: P(A∩B) 0.001225 .....0.1%

    I suddenly like RCBO distribution much more.

    What's that based on?


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    3.5% fail rate if the test button is used monthly as advised to mitigate stiction.


  • #9
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Sir Liamalot wrote: »
    3.5% fail rate if the test button is used monthly as advised to mitigate stiction.
    Presumably if the time period was 1000 years, 100 percent of rcds would fail.


  • #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Agree. From what I've read between the lines I reckon the timeframe is since introduction and currently acting as a throughput.

    75% of the dinosaurs could be discolouring the reliability of stuff last decade.

    I heart RCBO cascades..

    45mA -> 30mA: Consumer to Garage (not a reg)
    45mA -> 30mA: Genset local -> point of use.
    45mA -> 30mA: Backup -> Consumer Unit
    60mA -> 45mA -> 30mA: Genset -> Master Distro -> Local Distro


Advertisement