J

johnnycash126

Dear all,

I have to protect a 13 amp ring main which is currently protected by a type b rcbo.The circuit is going to be used by step down transformers from the US.Notorious for tripping on start up.I thought a change to a type D rcbo would cure this,however neither MEM or Crabtree make a type D RCBO.This makes me think that perhaps im not allowed to do this.

Anyone any experience of this?
 
Do you have to have an RCBO, I would avoid one of those at all costs and try to design the circuit so it does not require one, they are fine in their own right but for a Transformer? hmm how about no chance unless the earthing requirement or enviroment means one has to be used.
 
Will changing the type of rcbo from a b to a d inter fear with the disconnection times? I would have thought that the best bet would be to feed these transformers from a dedicated circuit specifically designed for this type of use, sounds like someone wants you to do a cheap fix which probably isn't safe
 
Dear all,

I have to protect a 13 amp ring main which is currently protected by a type b rcbo.The circuit is going to be used by step down transformers from the US.Notorious for tripping on start up.I thought a change to a type D rcbo would cure this,however neither MEM or Crabtree make a type D RCBO.This makes me think that perhaps im not allowed to do this.

Anyone any experience of this? Can I then replace the type B rcbos with type d MCBs?
you have been a member for 3 and a half years so I assume you are a competant spark yes? that said we are now going down the inexperienced route, what a silly question your last post was, think about what you said and then you will see what I mean.
 
The americans are coming.And they bring step down transformers for their equipment.ie hairdryers,tongs etc.Historically,they will trip our type B MCBs.Now we have anew installation with type B rcbos. Again,I expect the breakers to trip under starting current.
 
you have been a member for 4 and a half years so I assume you are a competant spark yes? that said we are now going down the inexperienced route, what a silly question your last post was, think about what you said and then you will see what I mean.
Dont assume.You know what that makes.I was an electrician im now in a different role.
 
Even so mate an rcbo provides overload and earth leakage protection so if its just inrush thats tripping your rcbo changing it to a cb of the same type (b,c,d) wont make the slightest difference
 
To put this on a circuit that your suggesting is not good , best on its own circuit especially if its tripping out an rcd . Design it and you won't need the RCBO,,
 
DIY alert team
 

Attachments

  • bth_POLICE-SIREN-ANIMATED.gif
    bth_POLICE-SIREN-ANIMATED.gif
    13 KB · Views: 128
Still doesn't deter from circuit design changing from b to d will probably (dont have my BGB with me) make the disconnection time invalid
 
Ah the gorilla again.Are you parents aware your a keyboard terrorist? You remind me of a poem.

What kind of creature bore you
Was it some kind of bat
No-one has a good word for you
But i have
****.
 
Ok I understand that,but could i then change the rcbo to an MCB type d and then provide earth leakage protection by fitting RCD sockets?

Your asking a question that makes you look incompetent to do the job... how can we know this?

You know the circuit layout existing, you need to know the Zs to even contemplate doing this.
Does the circuit require RCD cover as it is if so then no you can't swap it for an mcb.

This really should be on its own circuit protected with HRC fusing or similar if Zs is limited or if installation methods permit an mcb that suits the size of the Tx.

You haven't given us any info at all from Tx size to existing install methods yet ask questions that require this knowledge ... this implies you don't understand what you are doing ... i would be inclined to have your installation looked over by a competent Electrician - you can't just upgrade / swap circuit protective devices willy nilly you have to calculate everything again to ensure it complies to BS7671
 
Ah the gorilla again.Are you parents aware your a keyboard terrorist? You remind me of a poem.

What kind of creature bore you
Was it some kind of bat
No-one has a good word for you
But i have
****.
Your questions has now got just plain daft, your replies even dafter, you are bringing it on yourself, whats the difference between a RCD and a MCB mr "I used to be an electrician"

- - - Updated - - -

Your asking a question that makes you look incompetent to do the job... how can we know this?

You know the circuit layout existing, you need to know the Zs to even contemplate doing this.
Does the circuit require RCD cover as it is if so then no you can't swap it for an mcb.

This really should be on its own circuit protected with HRC fusing or similar if Zs is limited or if installation methods permit an mcb that suits the size of the Tx.
Thank God the voice of competance, hopefully he will listen to you fella.
 
To put this on a circuit that your suggesting is not good , best on its own circuit especially if its tripping out an rcd . Design it and you won't need the RCBO,,

such a load of tosh, Ray.I don't know why you are so hard on the guy,he's only asking for advise.design design design.I recon the guy is refering to a 32amp circuit when he talks about 13amp ring main. Its not the rcd bit thats tripping on his rcbo...the type D is to allow for the increased inrush current.Am I missing something here??Whats wrong with using a stand alone rcd at the origin as opposed to rcbo.And type Ds are available in other makes. Yes if using an mcb the design Zs is probably(cant be arsed getting bgb out)around .30 but with the inclusion of the rcd surely that becomes the overiding device when acceptable tripping time is the concern.But having said all that you will probably find that a type c rcbo will cure your problem.I would be more concerned with the different design frequency of your american equipment
 
^^...what he said.
Nothing wrong with a Type D MCB and standalone RCD at the origin of the circuit.It's likely the measured Zs will (slightly) exceed the maximum for the OCPD but the RCD will take care of disconnection times.Chances are as stated though a type C will suffice.
 
Are these Yanks just visiting, or staying for a good length of time?? If the latter, tell them it'll be cheaper and safer for them to buy those sort of appliances in the UK, than to have step down TX's all over the bloody house/apartment.
 
such a load of tosh, Ray.I don't know why you are so hard on the guy,he's only asking for advise.design design design.I recon the guy is refering to a 32amp circuit when he talks about 13amp ring main. Its not the rcd bit thats tripping on his rcbo...the type D is to allow for the increased inrush current.Am I missing something here??Whats wrong with using a stand alone rcd at the origin as opposed to rcbo.And type Ds are available in other makes. Yes if using an mcb the design Zs is probably(cant be arsed getting bgb out)around .30 but with the inclusion of the rcd surely that becomes the overiding device when acceptable tripping time is the concern.But having said all that you will probably find that a type c rcbo will cure your problem.I would be more concerned with the different design frequency of your american equipment

Purposely altering a circuit in anyway and finding its Zs thus doesn't comply because of what you have done is a big NO NO! regardless of the fact that a RCD covers the circuit and would seemingly mean it meets BS7671. Following BS7671 when you alter the circuit means your Zs will already meet requirements the clause of using a RCD protection where Zs value cannot be achieved is to achieve a solution with an existing circuit installed possibly under a older version of the reg's for example.
To tell someone to that Zs aint an issue because the RCD will be the overriding device (because this what you imply!) is IMHO very poor advice.
If the OP was testing the install and Zs wasn't met on a circuit he could after ensuring all other aspects of the circuit like volts drop to its use suggest a cheap solution to comply would be to give RCD protection. As the OP is considering altering the circuit he must ensure Zs is met as he becomes responsible for the existing design and his alterations.

The only time you may not be able to achieve Zs through no fault of your own is when the incoming supply is already too high like with a TT and rod..otherwise you must meet it within your design.

I would suggest the OP is getting a little bit of a rough ride because asking such a question as 'can't i just swap a RCBO with a mcb (D)' means he has little or no idea about Earth leakage protection requirements of the circuit cabling or Zs theory and compliance and coupled with this altering a circuit he would be subject to testing it afterwards .... as he seems to have large holes in his knowledge (not small ones where we are always happy to guide) ... i put it that IMO the OP is not competent to do the task with the knowledge he has and gives the impression he won't be routinely testing his work as this would give him the insight as to the concept of Zs requirements and would have been part of his question as oppose to the manor of which he asked his question.

Regardless of the origin of the TX they all can be associated with inrush tripping,what we need to know from the OP:-
-KVA rating of the TX? (this will establish whether suggesting swapping to a type D would even be an option for a ring)
-Whether the existing circuit has compliant test results ?.... (poor insulation value could cause a leakage spike on the inrush of a Tx thus tripping RCD)
-What other equipment shares the same circuit (would nuisance tripping be a big inconvenience 'computers etc')?

A lot of advice is been thrown at the OP without establishing any background details and giving of the cuff advice without the questioning may not cure/resolve his issue.
The suggestion of a separate circuit may be the best option as at present we have so little to go on its as it stands and the OP isn't exactly forthcoming with replies to these questions of which some i have already asked once so until we get a response a separate circuit is the safe advice anyone can give assuming he can design a compliant install.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there are RCBOs fitted I take it that there isn't any RCD if there is where is the discrimination between them?

Fitting a MCB and there is no RCD protecting the cable I take it that the cables are either deeper than 50mm or are mechanically protected?

Fitting a D type RCBO/MCB would reduce the Zs of the circuit.

Just a few points.
 
Purposely altering a circuit in anyway and finding its Zs thus doesn't comply because of what you have done is a big NO NO! regardless of the fact that a RCD covers the circuit and would seemingly mean it meets BS7671. Following BS7671 when you alter the circuit means your Zs will already meet requirements the clause of using a RCD protection where Zs value cannot be achieved is to achieve a solution with an existing circuit installed possibly under a older version of the reg's for example.
To tell someone to that Zs aint an issue because the RCD will be the overriding device (because this what you imply!) is IMHO very poor advice.
If the OP was testing the install and Zs wasn't met on a circuit he could after ensuring all other aspects of the circuit like volts drop to its use suggest a cheap solution to comply would be to give RCD protection. As the OP is considering altering the circuit he must ensure Zs is met as he becomes responsible for the existing design and his alterations.

The only time you may not be able to achieve Zs through no fault of your own is when the incoming supply is already too high like with a TT and rod..otherwise you must meet it within your design.

I would suggest the OP is getting a little bit of a rough ride because asking such a question as 'can't i just swap a RCBO with a mcb (D)' means he has little or no idea about Earth leakage protection requirements of the circuit cabling or Zs theory and compliance and coupled with this altering a circuit he would be subject to testing it afterwards .... as he seems to have large holes in his knowledge (not small ones where we are always happy to guide) ... i put it that IMO the OP is not competent to do the task with the knowledge he has and gives the impression he won't be routinely testing his work as this would give him the insight as to the concept of Zs requirements and would have been part of his question as oppose to the manor of which he asked his question.

Regardless of the origin of the TX they all can be associated with inrush tripping,what we need to know from the OP:-
-KVA rating of the TX? (this will establish whether suggesting swapping to a type D would even be an option for a ring)
-Whether the existing circuit has compliant test results ?.... (poor insulation value could cause a leakage spike on the inrush of a Tx thus tripping RCD)
-What other equipment shares the same circuit (would nuisance tripping be a big inconvenience 'computers etc')?

A lot of advice is been thrown at the OP without establishing any background details and giving of the cuff advice without the questioning may not cure/resolve his issue.
The suggestion of a separate circuit may be the best option as at present we have so little to go on its as it stands and the OP isn't exactly forthcoming with replies to these questions of which some i have already asked once so until we get a response a separate circuit is the safe advice anyone can give assuming he can design a compliant install.

But Darkwood...the OP is NOT altering the circuit if I am reading post #1 correctly .The suggestion is only that disconnection times for this circuit can be met by other means than the OCPD,that is still fully compliant with Bs 7671. 411.4.9

What for example would you do if a TNS system had a Ze of 0.8 ohms (still within acceptable limits) and needed to install a circuit requiring a 32a type C OCPD. A maximum Zs of 0.72 would somewhat restrict your 'design' options without resorting to a different means of meeting disconnection times.Or are you going to tell the client it cant be done?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But Darkwood...the OP is NOT altering the circuit if I am reading post #1 correctly .The suggestion is only that disconnection times for this circuit can be met by other means than the OCPD,that is still fully compliant with Bs 7671. 411.4.9

What for example would you do if a TNS system had a Ze of 0.8 ohms (still within acceptable limits) and needed to install a circuit requiring a 32a type C OCPD. A maximum Zs of 0.72 would somewhat restrict your 'design' options without resorting to a different means of meeting disconnection times.Or are you going to tell the client it cant be done?

I noted limitations due to incoming services to be such a case where you would use a RCD to meet disconnection times - like in a TT system ...
What im trying to get across is when designing a circuit where Ze is good then their should be no reason you would need to use an RCD to meet Zs requirements as you should have designed the circuit correctly in the first place ...its should not be a fall back option when you mess your calculations up...

Now Wirepuller i want you to answer me a question which may get you thinking ... look at table 41.3 and ask yourself why as well as mcb's are RCBO's included to comply to these tables if RCD protection would seemingly omit the need to meet these values as long as you were covered by 411.4.9
 
I noted limitations due to incoming services to be such a case where you would use a RCD to meet disconnection times - like in a TT system ...
What im trying to get across is when designing a circuit where Ze is good then their should be no reason you would need to use an RCD to meet Zs requirements as you should have designed the circuit correctly in the first place ...its should not be a fall back option when you mess your calculations up...
Agreed if the circuit was being extended or altered or re-designed...but as I have already stated,the Op is simply looking for a different means of meeting disconnection times to prevent inrush current tripping the OCPD on an existing circuit.


Now Wirepuller i want you to answer me a question which may get you thinking ... look at table 41.3 and ask yourself why as well as mcb's are RCBO's included to comply to these tables if RCD protection would seemingly omit the need to meet these values as long as you were covered by 411.4.9 Table 41.3 lists maximum EFLI values for Bs 60898 mcb's and 'the overcurrent characteristics of RCBO's to Bs 61009'. Table 41.3 is not stating that the overcuurrent part of the device takes precident,it is simply giving the values for the overcurrent part of the device.

....................
 
Yes i see that but if the RCBO is used surely according to 411.4.9. the rcd functionality on the device would mean you don't need to comply to table 41.3 as you have afforded rcd protection and only need to meet table 41.1... like you would with a TT system so why is it put there it seems the regs kind of contradict themselves...

PS .. i have the answer which will also address the point of why im saying the Zs will still have to be met if changed for a D type... don't get me wrong here this isn't an easy regulation to work out and does go a lot deeper and its strange even now that many assessors and lecturers are unaware of the reason hence the confusion surrounding our debate.
 
Yes i see that but if the RCBO is used surely according to 411.4.9. the rcd functionality on the device would mean you don't need to comply to table 41.3 as you have afforded rcd protection and only need to meet table 41.1... like you would with a TT system so why is it put there it seems the regs kind of contradict themselves...

PS .. i have the answer which will also address the point of why im saying the Zs will still have to be met if changed for a D type... don't get me wrong here this isn't an easy regulation to work out and does go a lot deeper and its strange even now that many assessors and lecturers are unaware of the reason hence the confusion surrounding our debate.

Yes...I realise this is a contentious issue,and not everyone is able to accept that an RCD can be used as a means of meeting disconnection times on TN systems.
By the same token as table 41.3 giving max Zs for the OCPD characteristics of a 61009-1 device its also worth noting that table 41.5 give max Zs values for the RCD part of a 61009-1 device!
 
In a TT system due to the high values you can expect when you have a fault current to earth it is thus limited in ampage and will have low effect to the voltage drop during the fault.. this will be sufficient to operate the device within specified times.

In TNS and TNCS due to the much lower resistance values by simple ohms law you can expect earth fault current in many orders of 1000amps and at these current levels for the duration of the fault it can be the case that voltage drop below 50v and can impair/delay the operation of a earth leakage device in effect so it wouldn't comply ... this is why you find rcbo's listed in table 41.3 because the Overload nature of the device will still ensure it functions within time even with the voltage drop.
This brings me back to fitting rcd's to back up a design flaw in a tns or tncs set-up they may not still meet requirements during an actual fault although it is noted their implementation is more beneficial than not to hence it seems the depth of this is not often explained.

So as i said changing the Rcbo to either a mcb with separate rcd or a type D rcbo should still comply with table 41.3 ...fitting RCD protection to comply with disconnection times where Zs is not met must be a last resort either because it exists already and your affording extra protection off the back of a EICR or you have a TT set-up in which case the RCD won't see the voltage issues of a tns or tncs.

Hope you see why i said the OP shouldn't be introducing a failed zs where it complied before and hence with the limited info we have a separate circuit is the only advice that is safe to offer until we get more info.
 
Hmmmm!.....while all that may be the case mate 411.4.4 is good enough for my purposes. For those without access to the BGB 411.4.4 lists devices which may be used for fault protection on a TN system as (i) An overcurrent protective device....and (ii) An RCD
 
In a TT system due to the high values you can expect when you have a fault current to earth it is thus limited in ampage and will have low effect to the voltage drop during the fault.. this will be sufficient to operate the device within specified times.

In TNS and TNCS due to the much lower resistance values by simple ohms law you can expect earth fault current in many orders of 1000amps and at these current levels for the duration of the fault it can be the case that voltage drop below 50v and can impair/delay the operation of a earth leakage device in effect so it wouldn't comply ... this is why you find rcbo's listed in table 41.3 because the Overload nature of the device will still ensure it functions within time even with the voltage drop.
This brings me back to fitting rcd's to back up a design flaw in a tns or tncs set-up they may not still meet requirements during an actual fault although it is noted their implementation is more beneficial than not to hence it seems the depth of this is not often explained.

So as i said changing the Rcbo to either a mcb with separate rcd or a type D rcbo should still comply with table 41.3 ...fitting RCD protection to comply with disconnection times where Zs is not met must be a last resort either because it exists already and your affording extra protection off the back of a EICR or you have a TT set-up in which case the RCD won't see the voltage issues of a tns or tncs.

Hope you see why i said the OP shouldn't be introducing a failed zs where it complied before and hence with the limited info we have a separate circuit is the only advice that is safe to offer until we get more info.


Thanks for that and definiatelly needed more info...
 
I can get away from domestic too long and kind of get industrialised so i can be quite ---- (not in a gay way :biker:) about design and upgrades ... it may be the case the regs are a little more relaxed domestically surrounded this issue but until im shown good evidence to back up i will assume the above as i have explained is correct ... i am used to installations many orders larger than domestic as you can guess but at the root of it all the maths and theory are the same.... Just ive always been taught that in a TNCS there should be little reason Zs isn't met and most of the time in TNS systems, usually supply earth issues are to blame here though.
 
Hmmmm!.....while all that may be the case mate 411.4.4 is good enough for my purposes. For those without access to the BGB 411.4.4 lists devices which may be used for fault protection on a TN system as (i) An overcurrent protective device....and (ii) An RCD

Your taking this regulation out of context its only stating the options available whether they comply is down to the other regulation within the BGB ..... its akin to saying you can stop you wheels turning on your car with either the foot brake or the hand brake... using each option at the correct time is crucial to safety..you wouldn't pull your handbrake at 70mph :O/ .. this is the biggest issue with the BGB a lot of regs are down to interpretation i put it in the same context as the Quran - in the wrong hands its a very dangerous book in deed...
 
One of the biggest scourges in the electrical industry today!! Since RCD devices have become common place. (...Eg use of the things as an all purpose cover all device) why even bother to attain or maintain suitable installation/circuit Zs values when you can just bung an RCD in!! No-one gives even a glancing thought, as to what happens if and when the RCD fails to operate!! ..After all they are such reliable bits of of kit aren't they, ...NOT!!
 
One of the biggest scourges in the electrical industry today!! Since RCD devices have become common place. (...Eg use of the things as an all purpose cover all device) why even bother to attain or maintain suitable installation/circuit Zs values when you can just bung an RCD in!! No-one gives even a glancing thought, as to what happens if and when the RCD fails to operate!! ..After all they are such reliable bits of of kit aren't they, ...NOT!!

I understand what you are saying here I really do,but I think it is not entirely relevant to the OP's scenario.
It appears an existing circuit is being used to supply equipment with a high inrush current which was not envisaged when that circuit was originally installed. All that is required is to change the characteristics of the OCPD in order to prevent nuisance tripping. As the required disconnection time is no longer met by the OCPD an RCD can be used to achieve this. Lets assume said RCD fails. Assume the required Zs of 0.36 for a type D mcb is exceeded to a value of say 0.6 ohms,which would be a typical value for an average TN fed ring final.That would give a fault current of 383a...and a disconnection time of around 4s. So the OCPD will still operate in the unlikely event of the RCD not operating.
It seems ridiculous to me to consider new circuits/rewiring when a simple solution is available.Nobody is suggesting the use of RCD's to bypass good design and maximum Zs on new or altered circuits....just a way of making an existing circuit suitable for a change in use.
 
I understand what you are saying here I really do,but I think it is not entirely relevant to the OP's scenario.
It appears an existing circuit is being used to supply equipment with a high inrush current which was not envisaged when that circuit was originally installed. All that is required is to change the characteristics of the OCPD in order to prevent nuisance tripping. As the required disconnection time is no longer met by the OCPD an RCD can be used to achieve this. Lets assume said RCD fails. Assume the required Zs of 0.36 for a type D mcb is exceeded to a value of say 0.6 ohms,which would be a typical value for an average TN fed ring final.That would give a fault current of 383a...and a disconnection time of around 4s. So the OCPD will still operate in the unlikely event of the RCD not operating.
It seems ridiculous to me to consider new circuits/rewiring when a simple solution is available.Nobody is suggesting the use of RCD's to bypass good design and maximum Zs on new or altered circuits....just a way of making an existing circuit suitable for a change in use.

Sorry i wasn't specifically referring to the OP's scenario, basically just making a blanket statement on what seems to be going on out there with regards as to using RCD devices as the cure all solution to every Zs problem....
 
One of the biggest scourges in the electrical industry today!! Since RCD devices have become common place. (...Eg use of the things as an all purpose cover all device) why even bother to attain or maintain suitable installation/circuit Zs values when you can just bung an RCD in!! No-one gives even a glancing thought, as to what happens if and when the RCD fails to operate!! ..After all they are such reliable bits of of kit aren't they, ...NOT!!
its poor design...short n sweet.

this is where i take issue with BS7671 for advocating it as well.....
 
its poor design...short n sweet.

this is where i take issue with BS7671 for advocating it as well.....


So why in a recent thread were you accepting Zs values in the region of 20 ohms? Why is it acceptable to move the goalposts and rely on means other than an OCPD on a TT system?
 
So why in a recent thread were you accepting Zs values in the region of 20 ohms? Why is it acceptable to move the goalposts and rely on means other than an OCPD on a TT system?
yes...i agree with you on this...

however i have been back to that property several times (like i also said i would)...and have watched it come down

last measurement was in the region of 11 ohms...

the point as well is that i said i was looking for a low stable value...didn`t I...
 

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go
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

Advert

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Thread Information

Title
Type D RCBOs
Prefix
Forum
UK Electrical Forum
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
70
Unsolved
--

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
johnnycash126,
Last reply from
Engineer54,
Replies
70
Views
14,118

Advert

Back
Top