Cpc size on unfused spur

For situations where it is required, such as high fault levels, you do not want any graph for <0.1s - you get the actual I²t values from the MCB manufacturer and put those into the equation.

Faults in final circuits are seldom of any relevance for those, unless the fault occurs near the origin, as the circuit impedance will be large compared to the supply impedance.

Upstream fuses do have a significant impact on the fault levels, as fuses heat up when current flows through them, which increases their resistance and reduces the current.
Even over a fraction of a second, the heating effect of the fuse element (whether it actually fails or not) can reduce the actual fault current significantly - far below what you might expect from calculations just based on the impedance and theoretical disconnection time.
That is one reason why 6kA circuit breakers are permitted on smaller installations regardless of what the fault current actually is (or might be in theory).

Basically my concern was if the pefc is high enough, eg 10kA, due to a low Ze,
Won't ever happen on a domestic installation.
10 metres of 2 core 16mm² supply cable is 0.023 ohms, and that is already down to the 10kA level before anything else is considered.

When measuring Ze, any result of <0.1 ohms should probably be disregarded - equipment simply isn't that good for values lower than that, despite plenty of devices showing 2 decimal places and tiny values.
For those places which have high fault levels (e.g. large transformer in the basement), Ze must be determined by calculation, primarily from such things as the transformer specification, cable type / length etc.

I would also add that, for what it's worth, I have never experienced, or heard of anyone experiencing, a cutout fuse blowing as a result of a fault on a final circuit in a domestic installation.
I have seen one - a L-N short on a ring final only a couple of meters from the origin, circuit fuse 30A 3036 rewireable. Both the 30A fuse and the 60A supplier fuse had failed.
Whether that was due to the 60A fuse being old and possibly overloaded in the past wasn't clear, but it was an old installation (40+ years).
The supplier fuse had already been replaced before I got there.
 
Sponsored Links
Very informative post. Regarding low ze
Won't ever happen on a domestic installation.
10 metres of 2 core 16mm² supply cable is 0.023 ohms, and that is already down to the 10kA level before anything else is considered.
Well, i didn't calculate the exact current needed to cause the condition i was worried about once i realised i was wrong, it would be a lot lower than 10kA but still high. Maybe as low as 3kA.
Also I'm not sure why people are assuming domestic, is this because t&e or ring final circuits are not used elsewhere?
 
Also I'm not sure why people are assuming domestic, is this because t&e or ring final circuits are not used elsewhere?
I can't answer for anyone else but, speaking personally .... I suppose it's simply that this is a DIY site and that (as I've pointed out more than once in this discussion), I personally have almost zero experience of anything other than domestic electrical installations.

I think one of the main things this discussion is the problem in undertaking the adiabatic calculation - because, as I said, there is so much 'uncertainty' as to what value of 't' to use. As EFLI has said, it is 'usually taken' to be 0.1s (probably because that's where the BS7671 curves stop) - although both he and I have said that, in reality, it could well be 0.01s, maybe even lower. For a given PEFC, the difference between t=0.1 and t=0.01 translates to about a 3-fold difference (√10) in the required CSA of the CPC.

I don't think I've ever seen a 'full' t/I curve for an MCB. However, I can but presume that having initially been essentially 'vertical' (at I=5In) from 10s downwards, it must at some point almost 'turn a right angle' and become essentially 'horizontal' when one gets down to the operation time which is essentially the shortest possible (as imposed by mechanical considerations of the mechanism), regardless of how much higher the current may be. I presume the same is not true of a fuse, since I see no reason why there should be any theoretical minimum to how quickly a fuse could blow.

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
I don't think I've ever seen a 'full' t/I curve for an MCB. However, I can but presume that having initially been essentially 'vertical' (at I=5In) from 10s downwards, it must at some point almost 'turn a right angle' and become essentially 'horizontal' when one gets down to the operation time which is essentially the shortest possible (as imposed by mechanical considerations of the mechanism), regardless of how much higher the current may be.
I've found the following in my archives. It is far from anything domestic (a breaker with an In of 800A, with magnetic tripping seemingly happening around 8In), but I think that (even though hard to read at this resolution) it partially illustrates what I was suggesting. When currents rise above about 10In (corresponding to around t=0.04s), the curve starts flattening out, and even at 100In (i.e. 80kA for this device) operation time is still (fractionally) above 0.01s. It therefore looks as if around 0.01s would be 'the minimum' for that device, regardless of how much higher the current became. [note that the x-axis is labelled is terms of multiples of In, not amps]

upload_2018-6-26_13-46-41.png


If anyone would like to see a readable version of that page and is prepared to PM me an e-mail address, I can provide it as a pdf.

Kind Regards, John
 
As well as other reasons given, I would say because the thread title is "CPC size on unfused spur" and the recent varying views on another thread regarding a "spur"
Ah ie, so spur is domestic.
and presumably this circuit design (2.5mm t&e on a 32A mcb) wouldn't otherwise be possible within the regs?
 
Ah ie, so spur is domestic.
Not necessarily - it is also called 'branch' on a radial. I don't know why.

The Ring Final (as specifically allowed) is virtually obsolete since MCBs.
I don't know why anyone would bother with it in a commercial installation.

and presumably this circuit design (2.5mm t&e on a 32A mcb) wouldn't otherwise be possible within the regs?
It would. It is up to correct design where it is protected by the fuses or does not need overload protection. See 433.
 
john you can just look up the i2t, you needn't calculate it.
It can't be 'calculated'. Since it's a characteristic of the device, it has to be 'ascertained' (from someone who has actually measured it)!
According to Hager it's a requirement of the standard. This document explains it all quite clearly, look on "page 194"
http://www.voltimum.co.uk/files/gb/attachments/hau/l/attachments/prot- tech.pdf
Thanks. Yes, we knew that details of the I²t characteristic can be obtained from the manufacturer, but I'm surprised that curves such as those on p197 are not more widely available, since they are essential for adiabatic calculations. The usual advice that one needs to 'ask the manufacturer' seems a bit odd - since I'm sure that they don't want every electrician wanting to undertake adiabatic calculations to be phoning them up!

Have you any idea of what are the units of the x-axis ('short circuit current') in Figs 7 and 8 on p197 - maybe multiples of In (as in Fig 6), or maybe kA?

Kind Regards, John
 
It would. It is up to correct design where it is protected by the fuses or does not need overload protection. See 433.
Fair enough, and presumably that correct design would also include sizing the cpc by table or by using the adiabatic equation, which would close up the small gap I'm seeing.
 
Fair enough, and presumably that correct design would also include sizing the cpc by table or by using the adiabatic equation, which would close up the small gap I'm seeing.
What value of I²t for a B32 (and what value for "I" - i.e. PEFC) did you use when you determined that there was this 'small gap'?

Kind Regards, John
 
An example of how the I²t values relate to actual cable sizes (complete document here: http://xo4.uk/x/abb_MCB_types.pdf )

sc_prot.png

Values on the right side are the max I²t, which for a given conductor is also k²s²
The point being that k²s² is greater than I²t.
(examples above use 70C pvc insulated copper, k is 115 )

Note the lines for fuses, particularly the 80A and 100A types which are below the levels of the MCB values at higher fault currents.
This is not only desirable, but necessary, as stated in 536.1

536.1.png
 
What value of I²t for a B32 (and what value for "I" - i.e. PEFC) did you use when you determined that there was this 'small gap'?
Judging by flameports diagram anything above 4kA. I think i used 6kA but also the wrong i2t.
Anyway as i say now i know the upstream fuse limits it (as a requirement for compliance) there's no problem after all.
 
Judging by flameports diagram anything above 4kA. I think i used 6kA but also the wrong i2t. Anyway as i say now i know the upstream fuse limits it (as a requirement for compliance) there's no problem after all.
I'm not totally sure what it is you are saying is 'limited' by the upstream fuse - is that a reference to flameport's point that heating of the upstream fuse will reduce the fault current to below the calculated PEFC based on a 'cold fuse' figure for Zs? If so, do you (or he) have any idea how one can estimate the magnitude of that effect?

I'm also a bit confused by your reference to "a requirement for compliance". Are you talking about compliance with 536.1 (as quoted by flameport)? If so, that is surely about breaking capacity of the devices (and is seemingly the basis underlying the dispensation for 'type tested CUs' in domestic installations to have 6kA, rather than 16kA, devices), not anything to do with the adequacy of ('adiabatic') protection of conductors, isn't it?

If my reasoning is correct, the graph posted by flameport seems to illustrate why 'assuming' an operation time of 0.1s, or even 0.01s for adiabatic calculations will usually result in wildly misleading answers ...

... reading It figures as best as I can from the graph, it would seem that the operation time of a B32 is just under 1ms at 6kA, about 3ms at 1kA and about 5.2ms at 500A (note milliseconds). It would therefore seem that even 0.01s is pretty conservative, and that an 'assumption' of 0.1s could lead to one thinking that much larger conductors are needed than is actually the case.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top