EICR What would you do?

[willy fixit]

 

[DPG]

Gonna be a lot of annoyed customers if you start ripping out every DB that's got different make MCBs in it! Daz

 

[D Skelton]

Damien,
Come on, you are totally missing the point.

No, I'm not, I'm hitting it square on the head!

The DB is a TTA.

You have no idea of the performance with another manufacturers breaker.

Exactly! No idea whatsoever, so who gives any of us the authority to say "well, because I don't know what might happen in the one in a million chance that there is a catastrophic faliure of the device, I have to say that the users of this installation are potentially at risk"

If this were true, and indeed a C2 was warranted, then every single part of an electrical installation should be given a C2!

You are correct in that there are certain parts of 61439-3 that potentially, will not be adhered to if a different brand breaker is fitted. I know this as I have read the document fully. This is not in dispute.

What is in dispute however is your definition of a real life 'potential danger'.

This therefore makes the argument completely subjective. It is my opinion vs yours and nothing you have said, at any point thus far, would sway my mind.

I am steadfast in my conviction that although I would not do it myself, if no alteration has been made to get a foreign brand breker to fit a board, then the users of the installation are still safe enough not to warrant giving the issue a C2.

 

[ImpededLoop]

It's not down to the cables, it is ONLY to do with the protective devices, end of.

But surely one concern is the arc resulting from a fault and whether it causes any damage.

 

[sparksburnout]

Oh I have spoken to & debated with Schneider at length, and the answer I had at the time was NO to a Chint breaker, now they may have changed their tune, that is their prerogative.
However without that information, we cannot make that decision.
I have several contacts at Schneider, and not just through the technical support line.

This is all to do with type testing and partial type testing, to ensure safety of the final assemblies no more.
The only "person" who can ensure the safety is the person that manufactures it and type tests it, now if it is modified from the original type testing, then it is down to the "person" doing the modifications to ensure it still meets the type testing requirements7.

well let's just all stay in bed all day then, it's clearly not safe to venture out. What the hells the point of BS standards then? What a load of none sense. There is no way a different manufacturers MCB in a domestic CU is a C2, it's jus ya blinking MCB for gods sake. No wonder the country's going down the pan.......

 

[netblindpaul]

OK, now it seems that you will all attack people who wantonly ignore the requirements of BS7671.
However, because you don't know or understand the requirements of BS6423, you choose to ignore them, even though both standards have equal standing in law, with the possibility that 6423 as it is a CoP could score higher in a court of law than 7671.

Damien,
I can see where you are coming from, I REALLY can, but, I think you are still missing the TTA/PTTA argument, and the requirements that this puts upon the manufacturer of the unit.
Once the installer fits another make of 60898 breaker, they become the manufacturer, thus responsible for ensuring that the complete assembly meets the requirements of Annexe ZA.

Now I agree that IF the device is to 60898 it should comply, however, the fact is that there is no requirement under 60898 to ensure cross compatibility.

As I have said several times, just in this thread, I don't like it, however, I don't see how you can stand up and state that your modified assembly can withstand a 30kA (or whatever Annexe ZA requires, I can't recall now TBH), fault current safely if you have not verified that by testing and calculation, which is what is required when you place a new product on the market.
Thus, in the event of a fault occurring there could be a real and present secondary danger, which IMHO is a C2, it is the same as a C2 requiring 2 things to be dangerous.

 

[netblindpaul]

well let's just all stay in bed all day then, it's clearly not safe to venture out. What the hells the point of BS standards then? What a load of none sense. There is no way a different manufacturers MCB in a domestic CU is a C2, it's jus ya blinking MCB for gods sake. No wonder the country's going down the pan.......

You really need to understand the product standards before making statements like that.
Seriously, the standards are inadequate IMHO, this is the issue.
However, that is the way they are.
The point of the standards is that they devices meet them, which they do, however, the mixing "issue" is not covered in 60898 for TTA & PTTA assemblies, like it or not.
The requirement is for disconnection performance in the event of faults in the outgoing circuit connected to the device and that is all 60898 is concerned with basically.

 

[baldsparkies]

Its the device itself that carries the type approval not the bus bar it connects to. Thats the point of contact and that's where you have to use common sense. The let through and prospective fault are of course important considerations.
On a domestic install I will maintain this is a judgement call using common sense.
The C/U is not going to go nuclear on you, C3 for that reason.
This really is going down the lets build a fantasy scenario based on a few technicalities when in the real world it just aint gonna happen.

That said if the boards been butchered in any way or the mcb is ill fitting I would not be so liberal.

 

[netblindpaul]

Baldsparkies, it seems your quoting has gone a bit awry tonight, it's normally mine.

The MCB does not on it's own have Type Approval, to comply with Annexe ZA of BS EN 60439-3 the whole board MUST be type approved, so that includes the bus bar, the main switch, the enclosure, the internal wiring supplied by the manufacturer etc.
Like it or not that is the situation.
It is the board that is a Type Tested Assembly, or Partially Type Tested Assembly, hence the term assembly.

This is the issue, you are invalidating the type testing of the assembly, and of story, no matter what anyone says, if you modify the board, then you are invalidating the manufactures type testing, like it or not you are.
Thus you are taking on the role of manufacturer, thus you must ensure that the modified unit meets the requirements for placing on the market.
Thus, you must undertake the full suite of tests to verify that this is so, to ensure that your new product complies with the product standard which you are manufacturing to.

As I have just said there is an alternative and that is to meet the requirements of BS 6423.
It's up to you, you can comply with the statute law by either method, however unless you undertake one or the other you will not comply with the statute law, end of.

 

[sparksburnout]

This is all beyond me. If I get a shout to some poor bugger sitting in the dark or unable to cook his/her tea cos a BS60898 breaker has failed then I'm going to stick whatever BS60898 equivalent in his CU to get him going again. If I said to him "ohhhh sorry mate I don't have the exact make available but I've got one that would fit but it's more than my jobs worth to actually fit it so you carry on in the dark" he would say to me " are you ok in the head mate???" Get in the real world.

 

[netblindpaul]

Oh I am in the real world.
Temporarily perhaps, but, you would find that in the event of an issue, any and all liability would fall directly on you as the designer, and installer of the product.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Almost all of you on here hold 7671 as a standard that should be adhered to, why do you find it so hard to comply with other relevant standards?
Do you ignore 5266 or 5839?
Yes or no?
IF no, then why do you ignore other comparable standards?
Is it because you know nothing about them, or is it because you just choose to ignore them because it suits you?

 

[sparksburnout]

Oh I am in the real world.
Temporarily perhaps, but, you would find that in the event of an issue, any and all liability would fall directly on you as the designer, and installer of the product.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Almost all of you on here hold 7671 as a standard that should be adhered to, why do you find it so hard to comply with other relevant standards?
Do you ignore 5266 or 5839?
Yes or no?
IF no, then why do you ignore other comparable standards?
Is it because you know nothing about them, or is it because you just choose to ignore them because it suits you?

What sodding issue is there going to be with a fooking MCB for Christi's sake?????? Is the CU going to explode???? What EXACTLY is going to go wrong??????

 

[baldsparkies]

Baldsparkies, it seems your quoting has gone a bit awry tonight, it's normally mine.

The MCB does not on it's own have Type Approval, to comply with Annexe ZA of BS EN 60439-3 the whole board MUST be type approved, so that includes the bus bar, the main switch, the enclosure, the internal wiring supplied by the manufacturer etc.
Like it or not that is the situation.
It is the board that is a Type Tested Assembly, or Partially Type Tested Assembly, hence the term assembly.

This is the issue, you are invalidating the type testing of the assembly, and of story, no matter what anyone says, if you modify the board, then you are invalidating the manufactures type testing, like it or not you are.
Thus you are taking on the role of manufacturer, thus you must ensure that the modified unit meets the requirements for placing on the market.
Thus, you must undertake the full suite of tests to verify that this is so, to ensure that your new product complies with the product standard which you are manufacturing to.

As I have just said there is an alternative and that is to meet the requirements of BS 6423.
It's up to you, you can comply with the statute law by either method, however unless you undertake one or the other you will not comply with the statute law, end of.

Your right I have gone a bit off track and of course the entire board has to comply throughout.
Sorry for not making that clear I didn't mean to say otherwise although my last post would imply so.
I do know exactly where your coming from but I will stand by the use of plain old common sense in these situations.
If the MCB is from a reputable supplier suitably type tested and fits the existing connection points in the same way as the original then I would deem it safe for use, with a C3 on a EICR.
If your car needed a new set of brake pads would you always fit OEM parts or have you ever fitted good quality after market at half the price.
Of course you have and not lost sleep over it either.
And thats the brakes on a vehicle that could be carrying your family, let alone an mcb from a different manufacturer.

 

[netblindpaul]

What sodding issue is there going to be with a fooking MCB for Christi's sake?????? Is the CU going to explode???? What EXACTLY is going to go wrong??????

Have you looked into the potential failure modes of the devices?
Do you understand fully the potential failure modes of the devices and how they interact with the assembly into which they are fitted?
60898 does not take this into account, it is not required to.

However, it is somewhat irrelevant.

I will ask again why are you willing to say defend the requirements of 7671 yet ignore equivalent requirements in other standards?

This is not a pick 'n' mix in Woolworths for Christmas sweets.

A mixed device could allow a catastrophic failure within the board.
The detail of the interaction between the "foreign" device and the rest of the assembly can only be ascertained by testing, so if this testing is not done, how would you know what the issues could be?

The point is it is a totally unknown scenario, and it totally untested to check whether it is safe or not.

Have you EVER seen an MCB fail catastrophically due to excessive SSC or FC?

 

[netblindpaul]

Your right I have gone a bit off track and of course the entire board has to comply throughout.
Sorry for not making that clear I didn't mean to say otherwise although my last post would imply so.
I do know exactly where your coming from but I will stand by the use of plain old common sense in these situations.
If the MCB is from a reputable supplier suitably type tested and fits the existing connection points in the same way as the original then I would deem it safe for use, with a C3 on a EICR.
If your car needed a new set of brake pads would you always fit OEM parts or have you ever fitted good quality after market at half the price.
Of course you have and not lost sleep over it either.
And thats the brakes on a vehicle that could be carrying your family, let alone an mcb from a different manufacturer.

Ahh, now there in is an issue, brake parts for cars now must by law be manufactured to OEM specs, where as MCB's don't have to meet the requirements for the assembly into which you fit them!

 

[sparksburnout]

Have you looked into the potential failure modes of the devices?
Do you understand fully the potential failure modes of the devices and how they interact with the assembly into which they are fitted?
60898 does not take this into account, it is not required to.

However, it is somewhat irrelevant.

I will ask again why are you willing to say defend the requirements of 7671 yet ignore equivalent requirements in other standards?

This is not a pick 'n' mix in Woolworths for Christmas sweets.

A mixed device could allow a catastrophic failure within the board.
The detail of the interaction between the "foreign" device and the rest of the assembly can only be ascertained by testing, so if this testing is not done, how would you know what the issues could be?

The point is it is a totally unknown scenario, and it totally untested to check whether it is safe or not.

Have you EVER seen an MCB fail catastrophically due to excessive SSC or FC?

it's an MCB. It sits in a DIN rail (another standard?) with a bit of cable fixed into the top/bottom and a connection to a bus bar in the bottom/top, all with screws that any old driver will turn. They all have defined ratings, how complicated can it be? What would you do then, in the scenario I mentioned??? You wouldn't last 2 mins in the workday of domestic sparking.