Back in the 2391 days

[Guest 004]

This is the answer I came up with (back in the day) - unfortunately not correct

Respect

 

[spark 68]

I would have went with 800, and came up with 0.29

On my 2391 we were told to double the highest SP PSSC to derive the TP PSSC
As this is a TNC-S supply the SP PFC will be the same as the PEFC (without the bonding)

But the question is not clear, the PSSC measurement issues aside (technically root 3), the PEFC would be taken with all bonding connected too.

 

[Guest 004]

With respect your teacher was a c u next Tuesday.

I have many arguments on site today about root 3, and doubling.

All current books will use root 3.

 

[spark 68]

With respect your teacher was a c u next Tuesday.

I have many arguments on site today about root 3, and doubling.

All current books will use root 3.

The 'rule of thumb' given in GN3 uses the double SP PSSC rule, as this errs on the side of caution Pg 55 GN3

 

[Guest 004]

^ rule of thumb is a quick answer and not correct. Not going to say anything more on the matter. Unless you want to start another thread.

 

[Hawkmoon]

I would have went with 800, and came up with 0.29

On my 2391 we were told to double the highest SP PSSC to derive the TP PSSC
As this is a TNC-S supply the SP PFC will be the same as the PEFC (without the bonding)

But the question is not clear, the PSSC measurement issues aside (technically root 3), the PEFC would be taken with all bonding connected too.

This is the area to consider!

 

[spark 68]

Technically you are correct re: root 3, but as the 2391 and 2394/5 use GN3 as their reference this is what is taught on these courses.

 

[Guest 004]

Really? ? I was taught root 3.
I give up. ..

 

[spark 68]

Not really sure why we are splitting hairs whether to double or root 3, as this reading is not very accurate anyway, so much so that on SP installs you are supposed to take three readings and pick the highest, a slight change of loop impedance measurement has a massive effect on the PFC reading, most 'common' instruments that we use do not have the accuracy, hence the double errs on the side of caution rule.

Incidentally I have a 400V capable meter and it gives a lower reading than the calculated.

 

[spark 68]

Here is a past 2391 paper Q & A, sorry about the formatting of the equation in the answer, but you get the gist.

Q20: For a TNC-S system, supplied at 230V, 50 Ha, state
a) why PSCC and PEFC are the same (1 mark)
b) the value of PFC if Ze was 0.01 (1 mark)
c) the approximate value of PFC between phases if the single-phase value
was 10 000A.
(1 mark)

A20: PSCC and PEFC
a. PSCC and PEFC are the same because the neutral and earth conductors are
combined up to the service head where the measurement is taken.
b. If Ze = 0.01, then using the formula
a
oc
s I
U
Z = where Uoc is taken as 240V for a
nominal 230V supply voltage (Uo), then PFC 24kA
0.01
= 240 =
c. If single-phase PFC is 10kA, an approximate value for PFC between phases is
found by doubling this value to 20kA.

 

[Hawkmoon]

For those who have tried this question the answer I was given (by the lecturer) was along the lines of:

You cannot determine Ze from the information given - as the PFC measurement is carried out with bonding connected.


Although most (in the class) agreed they should have thought of this, there was agreement that the question was misleading as it implied that you could.

 

[spark 68]

Bloody Typical obtuse C&G trick questions, lol

 

[Hawkmoon]

Bloody Typical obtuse C&G trick questions, lol

Interesting though that the question you put up has the same issue Qb

 

[MDJ]

Hawkmoon you tease LOL, great Thread though Fella, although I was wrong I still enjoyed it. Well done for a decent thread worth reading for once.

 

[Guest 004]

Must admit did not appreciate the answer.

Concur good thread