Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

New Consumer Unit recommendations

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Lenar3556
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Lenar3556


    JimToken wrote: »
    Each new arrangement would have to be tested and certified , would it not

    Each component in a board has its own set of ratings and capacities

    It would, but the type testing is a higher level compatibility test if you like, which would be undertaken in a laboratory or specialised test centre. It is to confirm that if installed in the manner specified by the manufacturer the assembly is safe and meets the relevant standards.

    Quite different to the set of tests that would be undertaken by the panel builder or installing electrical contractor.


  • #33
    Lenar3556
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Lenar3556


    Tuco88 wrote: »
    Yes it does. Each panel or boad would be fully tested before a FAT. It was usually large multinational companies would actully spec spefic brands to use for such purpose for there own site standards.

    I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with mixing equipment within a panel. Once tested etc...

    And the ‘once tested’ becomes the key point. The level of testing is extensive, specialised and needs to be validated by the panel manufacturer - anything short of this creates a vulnerability in terms of identifying a clear throat to choke in the event of something going wrong.

    The case I referred to earlier was an eye opener for me.


  • #34
    JimToken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭JimToken


    Lenar3556 wrote: »
    It would, but the type testing is a higher level compatibility test if you like, which would be undertaken in a laboratory or specialised test centre. It is to confirm that if installed in the manner specified by the manufacturer the assembly is safe and meets the relevant standards.

    Quite different to the set of tests that would be undertaken by the panel builder or installing electrical contractor.

    Obviously the panel builder can mix components because he will be working to an approved specification in each case

    The panel builder will be doing basic tests similar to an installer as in each case the design is already approved


  • #35
    JimToken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭JimToken


    Out of interest what tests is an assembler required to do before shipping?

    IR testing

    Phase Rotation

    Polarity


    Anything else


  • #36
    Lenar3556
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Lenar3556


    JimToken wrote: »
    Obviously the panel builder can mix components because he will be working to an approved specification in each case

    The panel builder will be doing basic tests similar to an installer as in each case the design is already approved

    Yes, if that is the case - but it often isn’t and that is where somebody, be it a panel builder or electrical contractor can unwittingly take on additional responsibility for assuring compliance. For example if you decided to fit ABB RCBO’s in a Schneider manufactured LV panel.

    I would be the first to say that the electrical risk arising may be negligible, but if it goes wrong due to equipment failure the question of who is liable becomes less clear than if you used a manufacturer approved solution in the first instance.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    JimToken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭JimToken


    Lenar3556 wrote: »
    Yes, if that is the case - but it often isn’t and that is where somebody, be it a panel builder or electrical contractor can unwittingly take on additional responsibility for assuring compliance. For example if you decided to fit ABB RCBO’s in a Schneider manufactured LV panel.

    I would be the first to say that the electrical risk arising may be negligible, but if it goes wrong due to equipment failure the question of who is liable becomes less clear than if you used a manufacturer approved solution in the first instance.

    That's the whole point , they can't do it


  • #38
    Tuco88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Tuco88


    JimToken wrote: »
    Out of interest what tests is an assembler required to do before shipping?

    IR testing

    Phase Rotation

    Polarity


    Anything else

    We used to do current injection testing, then check for hot spots with thermal camera/I.R gun on power DBs. And hot and cold tests on overloads.Torque testing, its a joke how thats not pushed more here (RECI) so on. All the usual rcd tests/point to point/Insulation resistance etc... The phase rotation would have to be done on site also by the installer, supply might be incorrect.Thats what it was like 8 years ago for me anyway. The FAT test was the nervious day, fine tooth and comb job. You would be pulled on core makers or some factories had specific colour of bootlace ferrule to use. Light blue for I.S 0.75mm^2 not white, I'll never forget that one.


  • #39
    JimToken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭JimToken


    Tuco88 wrote: »
    We used to do current injection testing, then check for hot spots with thermal camera/I.R gun on power DBs. And hot and cold tests on overloads.Torque testing, its a joke how thats not pushed more here (RECI) so on. All the usual rcd tests/point to point/Insulation resistance etc... The phase rotation would have to be done on site also by the installer, supply might be incorrect.Thats what it was like 8 years ago for me anyway. The FAT test was the nervious day, fine tooth and comb job. You would be pulled on core makers or some factories had specific colour of bootlace ferrule to use. Light blue for I.S 0.75mm^2 not white, I'll never forget that one.
    Good one on the current injecting and hotspot testing and the torque testing

    I figured there would be a couple of additional tests specific to assembly

    Was there any voltage withstand tests or am I confused on the terminology?


  • #40
    Tuco88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Tuco88


    Are we getting confused on made to order type panels ie a panel builders design or a manufactures made panel?

    I wouldn't be trying to install a Hager MCB in a ABB smissline board for example. I don't think you can actually do that but definitely a no no.

    But I certainly wouldn't see an issue with a din rail mounted row of lets say Schneider MCBs suppling ABB contractors installed in a rital enclosure. Once installed correctly and tested/signed off.


  • #41
    Tuco88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Tuco88


    JimToken wrote: »
    Good one on the current injecting and hotspot testing and the torque testing

    I figured there would be a couple of additional tests specific to assembly

    Was there any voltage withstand tests or am I confused on the terminology?

    Not that I can think of. If we installed under voltage devices they could be tested possibly if required I never was asked to carry it out anyway. I can't remember anything else, alot was verification too. Making sure you had the right spec component. That was one of the most important one, also the settings of protection devices overloads/timers you could casue mayhem if you didn't follow that correctly. Becasue the installer will just "turn it on" and kindly blame you for any damage caused.

    We'll you would be provided with very specific design drawings from large companies anyway. And following standards to wire type/terminal type and size. Everything is checked at the FAT, you had to have your homework done before they arrived. Pull test on all connections, torque settings etc... One large design engineering company used to fly this chap from India to do the point to point checks alone. A hard job, say 10 remote I/O panels each a carbon copy of the other. To check each individual wire goes from A to B its a long week.

    There would be a SAT test then too. Not to say it could pass the FAT and Fail the SAT.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Tuco88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Tuco88


    Just another note, some companies would have specific colour codes for various voltages that was really annoying at times. 12/24v AC/DC, 110v etc...
    And maybe Red wire for interlock circuit's or going to a Pilz relay/SIL devices.

    Anyway thats my rant over.


  • #43
    garo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭garo


    Tuco88 wrote: »
    If memory is right for the tripping curve its, 1.13 to 1.45 for mcbs. It should most definitely be operating at around 29Amps and beyond I would expect.

    So you are right on the threshold. At least you know as the home owner, so you can work around it.

    Risteard81 wrote: »
    Essentially what this means is that an MCB must not operate at 1.13 times its nominal rating, but must operate within the conventional time (1 hour) at 1.45 times its nominal rating.

    I assume the not is a typo?

    Just read up the hager technical data sheet. Yes it is 1.13 and 1.45 for an hour. The theoretical max of 33A on that MCB is 1.65 times the rating so should trip in 200 seconds (eyeballing). I expect not to encounter that situation but I have asked the installer anyway. Ideally he'd move the cooker circuit to another MCB.

    440Hertz wrote: »
    Hager seems to be the gold standard in Ireland for those boards. I wouldn't go near using cheap equipment for a device that is absolutely fundamental to home safety from the point of view of fire risk mitigation and electric shock protection.

    Your electrician should buy it, but there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have a preferred brand.

    Working on the distribution board is also registered electrical contractor only territory.


    Of course the work was carried out by a RECI and he is the one who bought the equipment. He had a preference for Hager like the denizens of this board do though he wasn't as dismissive of Garo as some others here are. He also performed a polarity test and an earth fault loop impedance test on each circuit as well as the checking the times on the RCDs tripping.


  • #44
    Tuco88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Tuco88


    No he is correct, a 20 Amp MCB will draw 22.6Amps indefinitely. If you ave a ruler place it on 1.13 on the graph you can see it hits nothing on the curve above.

    Anything between 1.13 and 1.45 is sorta no mans land.


  • #45
    garo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭garo


    Right. I agree with you which is why I was confused by the not. A 20A MCB should operate indefinitely at 22.6.
    Spoke to the sparks. He said it is not a safety issue as they are on separate circuits and the MCB is to protect the wires. He is willing to split itge cooker out to a separate MCB but not sure if that’s required.


  • #46
    JimToken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭JimToken


    Lenar3556 wrote: »
    It would, but the type testing is a higher level compatibility test if you like, which would be undertaken in a laboratory or specialised test centre. It is to confirm that if installed in the manner specified by the manufacturer the assembly is safe and meets the relevant standards.

    Quite different to the set of tests that would be undertaken by the panel builder or installing electrical contractor.

    Yes the type testing is a different ball game to the assembler/installer testing

    Have you any info on current injecting or torque testing


Advertisement