Max Zs Permitted by BS7671 value

[Loges1504]

Hi All,
Thank you for welcoming to this forums

I just want to clarify that the Value I need to enter 100% or 80% in the last column "Maximum Zs Permitted by BS7671"
is it 80% from the table 41.3 from 18th Edition Regs - Page 62 or the value from Pocket Guide 18

Thank you
Loges

 

[telectrix]

80% = a 20% increase in IET pension fund.
Cmin. = 5% increase in IET pension fund.
18th Edition = 150% increase in IET pension fund

 

[Deleted account]

I wish the winner button was still there. You’d have just got one.

 

[UNG]

BUT 80% is not max. it's corrected assuming cable will be fully loaded and at 70 deg.C. this will never happen. cables will be at least 30% overloaded and breaker will trip long before that temp. is reached (assuming circuit has been designed in compliance with 7671). tin hat on.

The maximum ALLOWED value of Zs is the 100% value
The maximum PERMITTED value of Zs is the 80% value

Pretty clear cut IMO and provides a reasonable margin of error for any changes in the environmental or installation conditions

I would rather work to the 80% value than be trying to talk my way out of a stay at one of Her Majesties hotels because I used the 100% value and it all went wrong

 

[Deleted account]

I think we all know we work to the 80%. It’s just what value is put on the sheet.

As I said previously. What is on the sheets doesn’t matter as long as the comparison is with the 80%.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I would rather work to the 80% value than be trying to talk my way out of a stay at one of Her Majesties hotels because I used the 100% value and it all went wrong

It wouldnt go wrong with the 100% value, the difference in disconnection time would be marginal or non-existant in real, not calcualted situations. Nobody will ever be prosecuted for using the maximum value of Zs clearly written in the regulations.

 

[UNG]

It wouldnt go wrong with the 100% value, the difference in disconnection time would be marginal or non-existant in real, not calcualted situations. Nobody will ever be prosecuted for using the maximum value of Zs clearly written in the regulations.

You really missed the point
If the installation following an incident was found to exceed the maximum allowed value then you would probably end up explaining to a person wearing a funny wig why

 

[UNG]

I think we all know we work to the 80%. It’s just what value is put on the sheet.

As I said previously. What is on the sheets doesn’t matter as long as the comparison is with the 80%.

The test sheet asks for the maximum permitted value of Zs which is clearly the 80% value

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The EIC has a note for permitted values.
Where the maximum permitted earth fault loop impedance value stated in column 8 is taken from a source other than the tabulated values given in Chapter 41 of this Standard, state the source of the data in the appropriate cell for the circuit in the ‘Remarks’ column (column 25) of the schedule.

That note indicates you are expected to use the values from the various tables in Chapter 41.

 

[Toneyz]

The EIC has a note for permitted values.
Where the maximum permitted earth fault loop impedance value stated in column 8 is taken from a source other than the tabulated values given in Chapter 41 of this Standard, state the source of the data in the appropriate cell for the circuit in the ‘Remarks’ column (column 25) of the schedule.

That note indicates you are expected to use the values from the various tables in Chapter 41.

I think the OP is referring to standard protective devices in BS7671.

 

[Ian1981]

The test sheet asks for the maximum permitted value of Zs which is clearly the 80% value

No it’s not as the conductors are not at full load current or indeed at any current for initial verification and do bare in mind that we have to adjust the temperature again if called for.

 

[Ian1981]

The EIC has a note for permitted values.
Where the maximum permitted earth fault loop impedance value stated in column 8 is taken from a source other than the tabulated values given in Chapter 41 of this Standard, state the source of the data in the appropriate cell for the circuit in the ‘Remarks’ column (column 25) of the schedule.

That note indicates you are expected to use the values from the various tables in Chapter 41.

Is that not for using the manufacturers data/Zs values for their ocpd rather than the generic values of bs7671?

 

[UNG]

No it’s not as the conductors are not at full load current or indeed at any current for initial verification and do bare in mind that we have to adjust the temperature again if called for.

So what is it then

 

[Toneyz]

Is that not for using the manufacturers data/Zs values for their ocpd rather than the generic values of bs7671?

That is my interpretation of it.

 

[remedial]

The EIC has a note for permitted values.
Where the maximum permitted earth fault loop impedance value stated in column 8 is taken from a source other than the tabulated values given in Chapter 41 of this Standard, state the source of the data in the appropriate cell for the circuit in the ‘Remarks’ column (column 25) of the schedule.

That note indicates you are expected to use the values from the various tables in Chapter 41.

this is what i was told on my 2391 course.

but it makes no sense to me as GN3 makes a big deal about correcting for temperature and then the IET forms appear to indicate that the cold measured value should be compared directly to the hot values from BS7671.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

You really missed the point
If the installation following an incident was found to exceed the maximum allowed value then you would probably end up explaining to a person wearing a funny wig why

I don't miss the point at all, it is extremely unlikely that a value at or below the 100% mark but above the 80% would have any bearing whatsoever on an 'incident' sufficiently serious to go to court.
And given the almost universal use of RCD protection for final circuits now in many installations it's really a moot point as the permitted max Zs is likely to be 1667 ohms. Suddenly getting silly over a fraction of an ohm seems a bit superfluous.