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!