Mix and match of MCB's

[nickblake]

I know alot of you guys will do this but realy it should not be done .especially as the recent Electrium recall showed heres an example a recent CDU fire caused by a faulty breaker and installed by a spark the board had a mix of sector and deopoke mcb's in it when it was inspected the suppliers refused to take responcability for it due to the mix and match of MCB's ,and advised that any testing carried out would be voide , the suppliers are refusing to replace the damaged board due to this , and trading standards are now involved , consumer unit are tested to BS60439-3 with the MCB's from the same manufacturer , with the Regulations stating that the manufacturers instructions should be taken into account , if you use a mixture of MCB's from other manufacturers then it will invalidate any testing certification and warrenties and also you are then personally liable if anything goes wrong and you could end up prosecuted ,regulation 510.3 requires that the installer takes into account the manufacturer's instructions so realy if you are in any doubt ask your self what will i tell the judge

 

[timo1]

Thanks for the update. I wonder how that will work with boards that are now obsolete? I recently had to replace an old crabtree MCB (the type with the exposed terminals) and was given a proteus MCB by wholesaler as a replacement. There is no way that I could have walked away or expect the customer to cop for a new C/U. Just seems to me that manufacturers can use it as a get out clause, its like when Wylex had a recall, the C/U had the little sticker that said "Passed" Passed what exactly? TBH the ratio of faulty RCD'S to ones that test ok is appalling anyway rant over got a whole week to go yet !!!

 

[Engineer54]

I know alot of you guys will do this but realy it should not be done .especially as the recent Electrium recall showed heres an example a recent CDU fire caused by a faulty breaker and installed by a spark the board had a mix of sector and deopoke mcb's in it when it was inspected the suppliers refused to take responcability for it due to the mix and match of MCB's ,and advised that any testing carried out would be voide , the suppliers are refusing to replace the damaged board due to this , and trading standards are now involved , consumer unit are tested to BS60439-3 with the MCB's from the same manufacturer , with the Regulations stating that the manufacturers instructions should be taken into account , if you use a mixture of MCB's from other manufacturers then it will invalidate any testing certification and warrenties and also you are then personally liable if anything goes wrong and you could end up prosecuted ,regulation 510.3 requires that the installer takes into account the manufacturer's instructions so realy if you are in any doubt ask your self what will i tell the judge

To my mind, this makes a bit of a mockery of having standard B,C,D types MCBs/RCBOs. If these protection devices all conform to the same British Standard, then why are these manufacturers claiming differences, they all go through the same stringent test schedule. Someone, please tell me the difference between two makes of CU of the same overall size based on circuit ways??

All this crap basically smacks of manufacturers manipulating things to and for there own benifit ...no-one else's. To add insult to injury, many of these MCBs and RCBOs are just renamed products of one actual manufacturer. Now tell me how ridiculous does that make these manufacturers claims?? Total nonsense to my mind!! The only MCB/RCBOs that i would never use in any CU/DB is any breaker of American origin.

 

[telectrix]

The only MCB/RCBOs that i would never use in any CU/DB is any breaker of American origin.

that's logical. we have a disconnection time of 0.4 secs. the american breakers would probably trip in 2 years and 0.4 secs. just like 1917 and 1941.

 

[ackbarthestar]

There is a practical argument, so the manufacturers would say, that their CCU's are tested with their compatible MCBs/RCBOs/RCDs and to test with other manufacturer's devices would end up far too expensive gaining UKAS warranties for other manufacturer's kit.

It used to be that the older BS3871 Wylex and Crabtree mcbs differed by the offset of the terminal screw onto the bus bar.

Perhaps manufacturer's should design different sized din rails...that would make sense wouldn't it?

The manufacturer's get out charter:

Tested to the same BS IEC standards
Supplied with interchangeable fittings
but
legally not interchangeable with anything
so
You little squirmy electrician will have your balls skinned and roasted in Claret by our overpaid bloated legal department.......
bitter, not I :banghead:

 

[Engineer54]

There is a practical argument, so the manufacturers would say, that their CCU's are tested with their compatible MCBs/RCBOs/RCDs and to test with other manufacturer's devices would end up far too expensive gaining UKAS warranties for other manufacturer's kit.

And if those other manufactures were using renamed, but exactly the same MCBs /RCBOs that were manufactured by a single manufacturer, ...What then?? And that just about shows, how ridiculous this can end up getting!! Make all these manufacturers responsible for the products they produce or re-sell under their own name. Stop trying to pass the buck where there's no buck to pass...

 

[johnboy6083]

how doesthis apply to small control panels, using gear from different manufacturers. Would they refuse to apy out then, even if you could prove that it was their MCB ect that had burnt out?

 

[netblindpaul]

johnboy6083,
This is why CE+CE does not equal CE!

 

[nickblake]

And if those other manufactures were using renamed, but exactly the same MCBs /RCBOs that were manufactured by a single manufacturer, ...What then?? And that just about shows, how ridiculous this can end up getting!! Make all these manufacturers responsible for the products they produce or re-sell under their own name. Stop trying to pass the buck where there's no buck to pass...

totally agree with what you are saying same manufacturer differant MCB's good example is wylex crabtree volex etc all the same mcb just badged up differantly , i must admit i have seen a few boards that the MCB's just dont fit

 

[johnboy6083]

johnboy6083,
This is why CE+CE does not equal CE!

could you elaborate please paul?

 

[netblindpaul]

You cannot build anything from a mix of CE marked parts and then issue a CE mark for the assembly based on the fact that all the parts you used are CE marked.
It does not work that way.

 

[Rockingit]

Taking on board completely what others have said, does this actually make sense? As in, the applicable laws are HSE, which are statute but in the case of electricity rely on the non-statute BS7671 as evidence of following protocol. Now then, nowhere have I ever read in BS7671 that different makes of BS-EN protective devices should not be used together, nor have I ever read in a CU installation 'manual' to not use different manufacturers components on the standard din rail.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Engineer54]

Sooo, ....if everything is tested, and passed all the relevant safety and other conforming criteria to meet CE status, a mixed assembly of these CE marked parts don't add up to Jack S**t!! If it doesn't work like that, then somethings wrong with the approval mechanism somewhere along the line....

And i suppose that applies to the senerio that i earlier pointed out, about the parts being manufactured by a single manufacturer but have been re-named. All just a total nonsense,

I wouldn't blink an eyelid at replacing an MBC/RCBO with one that was exactly the same, but just a re-named model. Come to that i wouldn't be losing any sleep over using a unit that wasn't a direct copy, but conformed to all the relevant criteria and fitted the CU without any modification...

 

[netblindpaul]

Rockingit,
There are several pieces of statute law that can be used.
HSE, the Health and Safety Executive, are simply the "Policing" body in the UK, that is unless you mean Health, Safety & Environment, in which case that is a completely different ball game!

One of the major pieces of legislation is EAWR89.
In BS7671:2008, HSE have written a forward that suggests that installations complying with BS7671 would probably comply with EAWR89.
My words, not verbatim from the HSE or BS7671, and probably an approximation.
There are other pieces of relevant law and other relevant standards and guidance, some of which will take precedence over 7671 some will not.
However, 7671 does guide us to Manuf' Instructions, so, if the Manuf' says no then no it is, we can't argue, unfortunately.
The issue is that they are free to do as they like with their equipment as long as their end product is proven safe as per standards, now the issue could be that the standards are not tight enough, or that they are too prescriptive.
Also you must remember that the manufacturers have been hit in the pocket by the global recession same as we have so they are trying to protect their revenue streams.
IF they can do this by reinforcing their instructions and their design requirements, then they will.
If you were them would you not do this too?
That is they was businesses are run, for profit, else they have no future.

 

[netblindpaul]

E54,
Yep it is tosh, but it is the makers protecting their income, they can so they will.
Trouble is over here the "regs" say we must abide by Manuf' instructions, so there is an impasse there.
I don't agree with it, but as yet I have not managed to find a suitable argument that will IMHO stand up in court.
I would personally have no issues with replacing superseded equipment either, but, this was said to illustrate the flaw in the argument.

As I have recently posted, and you should know well, building an assembly from CE marked kit does not automatically result in the assembly being CE marked.

So, yes I agree and IMHO also it is a flaw in the system.
I discussed this with several MCB & DB makers at Elexx recently however, they were keen to protect their revenue streams!

 

[Rockingit]

Rockingit,
However, 7671 does guide us to Manuf' Instructions, so, if the Manuf' says no then no it is, we can't argue

Agreed. But at what point is this information conveyed? When I install a CU I am required to read the instructions, fair enough. But at what point does E&OE come into it? If it doesn't say at the time........

 

[Engineer54]

E54,
Yep it is tosh, but it is the makers protecting their income, they can so they will.
Trouble is over here the "regs" say we must abide by Manuf' instructions, so there is an impasse there.
I don't agree with it, but as yet I have not managed to find a suitable argument that will IMHO stand up in court.
I would personally have no issues with replacing superseded equipment either, but, this was said to illustrate the flaw in the argument.

As I have recently posted, and you should know well, building an assembly from CE marked kit does not automatically result in the assembly being CE marked.

So, yes I agree and IMHO also it is a flaw in the system.
I discussed this with several MCB & DB makers at Elexx recently however, they were keen to protect their revenue streams!

Standards surely, are to ensure conformity, ....not serve as manufacturers protecting their business!! There are more than a few manufactures instructions that i would be more than happy to stand up in a court and tear them apart. ...haha!!!

 

[netblindpaul]

Rockingit,
IT must be in the instructions, or their published literature as I understand it.

E54,
Yes, however, there are many ways of meeting standards, a small aside, however, if you look at the current batch of F1 cars, there are significant differences between the cars, however, they all meet the same prescriptive rule book that is Formula 1, because the rules are the sport if you get my drift.
Just look at the side pods on the McLaren & the Red Bull as a typical example.
Take the arc chute on a breaker, which way does it face, if one manufacturer, say maker 1, faces down and thus they allow more space at the bottom of their enclosure to allow for the ejected plasma and another's, say maker 2 faces up thus they allow more headroom in their enclosure.
In a polymer enclosure would both MCB's perform adequately in each others enclosures, possibly not.
So the standards are either not prescriptive enough, or they are too prescriptive...

 

[ackbarthestar]

johnboy6083,
This is why CE+CE does not equal CE!

That would be:
Chinese Equivalent + Chinese Export =Not Conformité Européenne or Compatibility Electromagnetique

 

[ackbarthestar]

I can't find anything here: CE mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that states for any given CE product category that components cannot be mixed.
Our book of guidance, BS7671 133,134,511 tells us nothing,except for 134 which states that equipment should be installed according to manufacturer's instructions.
Now look at the manufacturer's instructions and see what they say about installing mcbs in CCUs.
as an example:
One RCBO manufacturer states for the return of faulty RCBOs
"The waranty is withdrawn if:
after inspection by 'acompany' quality control department the device is found to be installed in a manner which is contrary to the IEE wiring regulations and accepted practice within the industry at the time of installation
and
the procedure for the return of goods has not been followed. The explanation of defect must be included when returning goods"

So we may have a circular argument.

 

[Rockingit]

Surely, if you follow the logic of N-B-P's argument to the fullest extent, at what point does MK say that you can't fit a Crabtree 13A plug into a Logic socket? (for example).

I think the issue is more one of politics than actual engineering danger. And that's just stupid.

 

[netblindpaul]

Rockingit,
BS1363 is designed to allow such interchanges though.
The point the manufacturers seem to have is that 60898 etc. is not designed to allow such interchanges for whatever reason.

 

[ackbarthestar]

FYI and out of indignant curiosity
BEAMA published a guide to low voltage circuit breakers to BS60898-1 ,-2 and 60947-1, where the quoted contributors are as follows:

Eaton,
Electrum
Hager
Legrand
MK
Moeller
Schneider
Siemens
Timeguard
Western Automation

I don't suppose these companies are under the same manufacturing umbrella? Of course they are not, but they are all singing from the same song sheet. Therefore its logical to suppose that they are all trying to conform to the same standard, as is the publication. The only differences are likely to be the mechanical connections.
If the din rails, the terminal holes, the bus bars are common to all the manufactured MCBs/RCBOs then all manufacturer's MCBs/RCBOs will be interchangeable.

 

[ackbarthestar]

Since I can't inspire any of you to grapple the carrot. I thought I'd argue the case against myself - play Devil's advocate, I think they call it

Here's a response I found lately

IET Forums - BEAMA Bulletin - Installing New MCBs Into Existing Distribution Boards

This appears definitive?

 

[netblindpaul]

The link to the BEAMA papers is here:
Technical BulletinsUnfortunately we will find it difficult to argue against this, however much we disagree.
I think it is just protectionism, however, we are a bit stuffed!

Just another cost to pass on to clients which the cowboys won't have or care about, so more work for them, less work for us again!

 

[Guest112]

Where did this information originate from about the testing being void if there are mixed breakers. Ive been doing testing recently and I have never heard of a mix of mcbs failing the tests, Is there referance to this in any regs or gn3 books,

I read above that there is a reg that says manufacturers instructions must be followed is that the only one it seems to me that manufacturers want to play the blame game and basically want to blame the spark who installed the mcbs or the last spark that tested the board????

 

[netblindpaul]

Where did this information originate from about the testing being void if there are mixed breakers. Ive been doing testing recently and I have never heard of a mix of mcbs failing the tests, Is there referance to this in any regs or gn3 books,

I read above that there is a reg that says manufacturers instructions must be followed is that the only one it seems to me that manufacturers want to play the blame game and basically want to blame the spark who installed the mcbs or the last spark that tested the board????

peter,
You have misinterpreted the "testing", this is NOT "OUR" testing but the manufacturers type testing to achieve approval of their breakers for sale.

 

[vernam616]

Interesting article on this very subject in the October 2011 issue of "Professional Electrician" magazine (the free one you find on the wholesalers counters)

Also states shouldnt be done, in my eyes its logic, lets face it you wouldnt have one size tyre on one side of your van and another of the other side would you?

Same as brakes you wouldnt fit brakes from a vauxhall chevette when you drive a ford escort

 

[IQ Electrical]

Interesting article on this very subject in the October 2011 issue of "Professional Electrician" magazine (the free one you find on the wholesalers counters)

Also states shouldnt be done, in my eyes its logic, lets face it you wouldnt have one size tyre on one side of your van and another of the other side would you?

Same as brakes you wouldnt fit brakes from a vauxhall chevette when you drive a ford escort

I must agree with vernam616, all this talk of 'standards' is irrelevant, if you take BS EN 60898 as an example, it doesn't specify sizes and shapes of devices, only operating characteristics of the devices so how can you just assume that the stringent tests applied in UK Annex ZA of BS 60947-3 will work across a broad range of manufacturers components, all of different physical sizes etc.?

Here's the Annex, the test is described within:

 

[netblindpaul]

IQ,

I agree, however, it would not take much to have the standard, standardised, I don't have a copy of 60898 to hand at the moment, but I will check to see what is says.
I am aware of the Annexe ZA stuff.
I do believe that if the breaker complies it should be OK to fit, but, it looks like this is dying of death!
I would like to have a chat over a beer or 2 with a couple of the manuf' staff to see what the gripes are.
I will try shortly if I can.

 

[ackbarthestar]

Also states shouldnt be done, in my eyes its logic, lets face it you wouldnt have one size tyre on one side of your van and another of the other side would you?

Nor would the manufacturers.:dozey:
This is a much tighter brief in that the BS60898 standard methods of implementation have been agreed by the major MCB manufacturers. If the mechanical components are compatible then I still can't see why different MCBs shouldn't be fitted into third party distribution boards. I suspect there are a lot of control panels out there!

 

[vernam616]

This thread made me thing back a little to when i was training, watching the spark butchering a MCB - Litrally hacking chunks out here and there to make it fit into a board of a different make

Quite alarming thinking about it now, knowing what you know

 

[netblindpaul]

This is the thin end of the wedge guys, I did think this was coming.
Those of us who do machine repairs etc. on CE marked machines.
Modifications invalidate the CE mark.
So is replacing say an ABB E-Stop for a Schneider E-Stop to the same standard a mod...
Take this on from there etc.

 

[Engineer54]

I must agree with vernam616, all this talk of 'standards' is irrelevant, if you take BS EN 60898 as an example, it doesn't specify sizes and shapes of devices, only operating characteristics of the devices so how can you just assume that the stringent tests applied in UK Annex ZA of BS 60947-3 will work across a broad range of manufacturers components, all of different physical sizes etc.?

Here's the Annex, the test is described within:

That little statement yet again, doesn't consider the numerous examples of a single manufacturer making exactly the same MCB/RCBO for other manufacturers apart from it's self. ...Still Irrelevant ?? Of course it's not!! This is all about passing the buck from the different supply companies and trying to keep up the market shares. Nothing to do with any safety aspect, because there isn't any, unless there is something wrong with one of the components themselves!! (ie the Eaton/Wylex recall)

As for the Brake analogy, do they actually make brake linings, (be they drum or disc) that can physically fit between different makes of cars?? Obviously if they do, then i'm sure the retro fit/ after market will know of this, and lawfully supply a product to suite.

 

[netblindpaul]

E54,
As far as the car brakes thing goes, yes there are brake parts that interchange across models.

I agree with your sentiments, look at Havells for example.

Thing is, in the face of the mounting protectionism, what else can you do?

It will not be long before the machine builders cotton on...

 

[nickblake]

Although i started the thread i do agree with 54 on this , but for those that remember i posted a thread a while ago when i refused to fit a customer light fitting , if i followed the manufacturers instruction by pushing 2 single insulated wires into the roof space and connect with terminal block and wrap with tape is the correct way to install a light fitting then the whole regs thing is a farce , CE mark means absolutly nothing ,with poor terminal blocks lack of space undersized cables etc , as for CDU's and MCB's i do like the correct type breakers look more professional but when needs must ie obsolete mcb's then in my eye there shouldnt be a problem as long as the mcbs fit correctly

 

[TomandLesley]

Ihave done some inspection work recently for landlords. CUs with mixed manufacturer MCBsare more common than I realised. Leaving aside any problems with themanufacturer guarantees, many makesof MCBs are din rail/BS and will fit in an older CU where the original MCBs areno longer easily available. I have found Wylex and Steeple MCBs fitted (not byme) in non Electrium CUs as well as Electrium CUs in Buy-to-Let properties. Some MCBs were from the Dud list!!!