TT Concerns | on ElectriciansForums
  • Thread starter NickD
  • Start date
  • Replies 13
  • Views 2K

Discuss TT Concerns in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

N

NickD

Wouldn't mind the views on some wiser heads than mine on the following - my experience with TT is limited. It's some testing I did for a friend that I doubt I would have taken on for actual income.


1. Leakage breaker: Installation is TT (but see below). It has an old-school Bakelite-looking Crabtree earth leakage breaker between the meter and the CU, black with yellow test button at bottom (can't remember how exactly it was labelled but there were no identifying details, model number, trip current, delay time etc., nothing - I am aware it probably only trips on actual earth conductor leakage current rather than on residual L-N imbalance). CU is old-school BS3036 job. I could not persuade the breaker to trip with any actual RCD test (S range or G range) up to and including 1000mA, though at the higher currents you could hear the breaker thrumming away as if on the point of tripping out. However, when I subsequently did a Zs test at a socket, not on the RCD-safe setting, the breaker tripped anyway. Test button works. What do you make of this?


2. Earthing: I cannot confirm the presence of an acceptable 'by-design' means of earthing. I cannot find any earth rod. There is no MET outside the CU; at the CU earth bar there were two possible candidates (solid green, 6mm) for the earth conductor. The first however appears to be the MPBC for the oil supply (Zs measurement on it is 400ohm, and it shows <0.1ohm continuity between conductor and oil pipe on R2 test). The other shows Zs of about 40ohm, and goes into the earth terminal on the leakage breaker then disappears into the wall, so *could* be the earth conductor, however I cannot find where it goes and it could perhaps instead be bonded (inaccessibly) to the water supply somewhere (though having said that, R2 continuity between it and the pipes at the stop cock, where there is no visible earth bond, is about 300ohm). Water is from public supply network. Near the meter there are the remnants through the wall of older tails plus what was probably once a nasty old multistrand earthing conductor. Outside and below it is empty metal conduit and in the ground what could conceivably have been an earth rod, it seems to have no other obvious reason to be there...although (even when cleaned back to bare metal - looks to be steel, it's pretty old) it gives a Zs of 350 ohm. Again, what do you make of this? I'm aware the 40ohm Zs is potentially a perfectly acceptable value but I am troubled, possibly needlessly, that I can't point to it being provided by a trustworthy means of earthing. I know it could be to structural steel or similar and this would be OK, but I would feel happier about it if I'd seen a rod and could rule out the 40ohm being provided by a diguppable water pipe or similar.

Cheers for your help.
 
You have an earth leakage circuit breaker that is no longer suitable for providing safe disconnection.
Doing Zs test on a socket could generate >50V to earth since this is "TT" and therefore trip the ELCB.
The output from the ELCB should go to an earth rod as it is used as an earth reference for the breaker and it would be necessary to attempt to trace this cable to find out if it is a rod.

If you took the cable from the ELCB directly to the MET then (if you installed RCDs) would have a modern TT, however that would be dependent on the cable going to a suitable earth rod.
Alternatively you could just install new rod and RCDs and go from there.
 
Thanks for that. Complete CU replacement is on the cards sometime in the not too distant future but not right now, so it's tempting to drop in an RCD instead of the existing ancient leakage breaker (plus suitable OCPD if not already adequately protected by the DNO fuse, the rating of which I do not yet know). There are no other RCDs downstream (board is old BS3036 affair) apart from one 30mA RCD FCU protecting an external socket, which I can't get that excited about. Zs is about 40ohm (forget exact figure) so to limit to 50V anything up to a 1000mA would appear to fit the bill (Space Corps Directive BS7671 seems to have very little to say about RCD requirements for TT - where does this supposed conventional wisdom about 100mA S type RCDs arise from?). However the temptation is to put a 30mA one in for additional protection. Obviously this increases the risk of spurious trips, which of course de-energise the whole installation, which brings its own risks....interested to hear thoughts on this.

(The installation has quite a bit of what appears to be DIY Dan dodgy bodgery around the place, including some outdoors-but-kinda-under-cover stuff where I would have fitted outdoor IP rated fitments but standard white indoor gear has been used, cables that have suffered abrasion, that kind of thing, which draws me towards a preference for a lower RCD Idelta-n.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have just responded on another thread about TT!

All circuits for a TT system must be protected by an RCD that rating of which is not specified.
If you do not have an RCD then the circuits will not disconnect on an earth fault and so earthed parts will remain live.
If there are items that require additional protection then this can only be provided by a 30mA RCD.

100mA RCDs are the cheapest alternative above 30mA and generally will not trip unless there is a more significant fault so would be used as a general catch all device.
100mA was considered the norm for total board RCD protection when they first came out.

To discriminate from any 30mA RCDs you need a time delayed device and so to prevent a fault on your 30mA RCD FCU taking out the whole board a time delayed RCD would be needed (if it is necessary to prevent inconvenience and danger).
 
There are (of course) items present in the installation that require additional protection under the current Space Corps Directives BS7671 (general purpose domestic sockets to name but one). I am not proposing to alter the OCPD arrangements for any final circuit or otherwise modify or add to. So I don't consider that in replacing the leakage breaker with an RCD I am under any *obligation* to provide additional protection (please correct me if I'm wrong). However it is tempting to do so anyway by making the RCD a 30mA, especially given the condition of some aspects of the installation. But then there's the spurious trip risk and the de-energising of the *whole* installation which results. So what I guess I'm asking for is what other people's engineering judgement would be on this one. Cheers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are (of course) items present in the installation that require additional protection under the current Space Corps Directives BS7671 (general purpose domestic sockets to name but one). I am not proposing to alter the OCPD arrangements for any final circuit or otherwise modify or add to. So I don't consider that in replacing the leakage breaker with an RCD I am under any *obligation* to provide additional protection (please correct me if I'm wrong). However it is tempting to do so anyway by making the RCD a 30mA, especially given the condition of some aspects of the installation. But then there's the spurious trip risk and the de-energising of the *whole* installation which results. So what I guess I'm asking for is what other people's engineering judgement would be on this one. Cheers.


The old unit you are referring to is what is known as a Voltage Operated Earth leakage Circuit Breaker (VOELCB). The test equipment has been obsolete for around 30 odd years or more!!

To comply with BS7671 the RCD replacement would need to be 30mA!! Replacing with a 100 or 300mA will not provide additional protection, albeit that on a typical UK TT system a 30mA RCD will generally be the Only earth fault protection. And yes at that sort of trip level nuisance tripping is going to be a very real problem on an old installation.


The use of up-front S type RCD devices is is so that you are NOT depending on a single RCD, as RCD's are not exactly the most reliable bits of kit on the market!!
 
From what you describe at the moment there is no "reliable" earth fault protection at all for the installation as the ELCB is probably being bypassed effectively by the bonding (though it did trip when you were testing the Zs).
To comply with current regulations then you should apply 30mA RCD protection to the appropriate final circuits and time delayed RCD protection at the origin.

As an emergency measure for safety you could apply a 100mA time delay RCD at origin, this would not provide additional protection but at least the circuits would disconnect in time for ADS.

You have to make your own judgement on this but at a push I would apply the 100mA type S as an interim measure before the board change.
 
To comply with BS7671 the RCD replacement would need to be 30mA!! Replacing with a 100 or 300mA will not provide additional protection

Yes, for the installation to comply that's true. But is it incumbent on me to be providing additional protection in this situation? I am replacing the ELCB with an RCD in order to meet ADS times (and bearing in mind I cannot feasibly swap the ELCB like-for-like). Are you saying that in doing so I am under an obligation to provide additional protection where currently required and thus bring the installation to 17th Ed compliance in that respect? If I change a final circuit OCPD (not like-for-like),yes I am under that obligation. If I extend a socket circuit, yes I am under that obligation, in respect of my addition. If I modify a circuit and bury a cable with no 'special measures', yes I am under that obligation. If I replace a knackered, out-of-the-Ark ELCB with an RCD in order for the installation to reliably meet ADS times under TT...am I under that obligation?

[Edit: possibly knackered. It might be operating to specification even if a 1000mA earth fault doesn't trip it. Guess you could argue into a 40ohm earth that's only 40V so it's within its rights. Wouldn't want to slur it when it's doing its job and has been since Adam was in the militia, as my old grandfather used to say]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, for the installation to comply that's true. But is it incumbent on me to be providing additional protection in this situation? I am replacing the ELCB with an RCD in order to meet ADS times (and bearing in mind I cannot feasibly swap the ELCB like-for-like). Are you saying that in doing so I am under an obligation to provide additional protection where currently required and thus bring the installation to 17th Ed compliance in that respect? If I change a final circuit OCPD (not like-for-like),yes I am under that obligation. If I extend a socket circuit, yes I am under that obligation, in respect of my addition. If I modify a circuit and bury a cable with no 'special measures', yes I am under that obligation. If I replace a knackered, out-of-the-Ark ELCB with an RCD in order for the installation to reliably meet ADS times under TT...am I under that obligation?

[Edit: possibly knackered. It might be operating to specification even if a 1000mA earth fault doesn't trip it. Guess you could argue into a 40ohm earth that's only 40V so it's within its rights. Wouldn't want to slur it when it's doing its job and has been since Adam was in the militia, as my old grandfather used to say]

Yes you are still under that obligation...

No, you can't argue that a 40 ohms TT system is safe without the obligatory 30mA RCD protection!!
 
Yes you are still under that obligation...

No, you can't argue that a 40 ohms TT system is safe without the obligatory 30mA RCD protection!!

So if the client will only pay for replacement of the ELCB, not CU upgrade, you're suggesting I have no choice but to expose the client to the risk of whole-installation nuisance tripping in contravention of BS7671 by installing a 30mA RCD? That seems like an irrational outcome.

I'm arguing that 40ohms can be compliant with ADS time requirements with a much larger Idelta-n than 30mA, is all.
 
So if the client will only pay for replacement of the ELCB, not CU upgrade, you're suggesting I have no choice but to expose the client to the risk of whole-installation nuisance tripping in contravention of BS7671 by installing a 30mA RCD? That seems like an irrational outcome.

I'm arguing that 40ohms can be compliant with ADS time requirements with a much larger Idelta-n than 30mA, is all.


I'm saying that it will not comply with the required 30mA additional safety requirement. As you are changing the means of protection on this installation, whatever you install must comply with BS 7671. To be honest even a single up front 30mA RCD will not comply with present requirements.


So you have a choice, bring the CU up to current standards now, or leave well alone until the client is in a position change/upgrade the CU in the not too distant future (as you put it). Or a third option, make your own assessment and act accordingly....
 
Afternoon

With the installation being a 'DIY Dan dodgy bodgery around the place', you would be in a far better position if you can persuade your customer, to carry out an EICR on the installation, which you would have to do anyway if you changed the CU, fix the faults found, which could improve your Zs, then you could make a better informed decision on some of the
suggestions in this thread.

failing that - walk away from it.
 

Reply to TT Concerns in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

News and Offers from Sponsors

  • Article
As the holiday season approaches, PCBWay is thrilled to announce their Christmas & New Year Promotions! Whether you’re an engineer or an...
Replies
0
Views
534
  • Article
Bloody Hell! Wishing you a speedy recovery and hope (if) anyone else involved is ok. Ivan
    • Friendly
    • Like
Replies
13
Views
982
  • Article
Join us at electronica 2024 in Munich! Since 1964, electronica has been the premier event for technology enthusiasts and industry professionals...
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
916

Similar threads

Indeed it would be. But that would mean having 2 things to disconnect instead of one. More margin for error. Of course, any diligent spark would...
Replies
6
Views
779
loz2754
L
Did a fuseboard change yesterday from an old wylex board to dual rcd on a TT system with 14ohms ZE and finished pretty late. Went back this...
Replies
0
Views
607

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

YOUR Unread Posts

This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top