 |
IET |
 |
 |  |
|
search :
help :
home
|
||
|
Latest News:
|
|
|
|
Topic Title: Old C50 fuseboards Compliance Topic Summary: Old C50 Fuseboards, Created On: 17 September 2012 10:30 AM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
 Search Topic |
Topic Tools
|
 17 September 2012 10:30 AM
|
|
|
Hi
Have come across a load of old C50 Db's in a School, can anyone think of reasons to fail them in a EICR ? Other than, Exposed busbar inside. Can't get spares Unable to fit RCBO's for Socket outlet circuits. Unable to lock them. Cheers Billy |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 11:36 AM
|
|
|
Those are not competent reasons Billy.
Which regulations are not met? ------------------------- David CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question! |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 11:36 AM
|
|
|
Hi Have come across a load of old C50 Db's in a School, can anyone think of reasons to fail them in a EICR ? Why would you be looking to fail them - isn't an EICR a report on the installations condition for continued service ? Other than, Exposed busbar inside. warning label ? Can't get spares Not really an issue for a EICR - what regulation does it breach ? Unable to fit RCBO's for Socket outlet circuits. RCD's in seperate enclosures adjacent or at the point of room entry or RCD sockets - do you need them at all? Unable to lock them. Lock the board isolator or lock the source end supply ? Cheers Billy You could mention the issue of obsolescence in a report accompanying the EICR - but that's an issue for resilience not the EICR regards OMS ------------------------- Failure is always an option |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 12:15 PM
|
|
|
If we are going to fail things for being obsolete, thats a hell of a lot of boards out there that need changing....
C50's can be locked if you have the kits. Are you testing as part of a company, or as your own company? |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 12:28 PM
|
|
|
Is there a requirement to fit RCBOs on socket circuits?
When did that happen? |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 02:40 PM
|
|
|
Last time I looked, C50 mcbs were still available from Crabtree.
------------------------- Norman |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 03:31 PM
|
|
|
I have not seen a Crabtree board where you can access the bus bars inside without the use of a key or tool.
I will get me coat! ------------------------- John Peckham http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 06:04 PM
|
|
|
I really don't think its you that needs the coat John!
It seems to be the rest of the industry, (not those posters on this thread BTW). ------------------------- David CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question! |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 06:10 PM
|
|
|
I have not seen a Crabtree board where you can access the bus bars inside without the use of a key or tool. I will get me coat! Maybe not John - but I believe you testing chaps like to work live with the DB cover off for certain tests - I'd comment on the lack of busbar protection personally - but again an observation rather than a "non com" It's what we call in some sectors "characterisation" - as in " I'm away to undertake characterisation of the switchgear in facility XYZ " Regards OMS ------------------------- Failure is always an option |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 08:20 PM
|
|
|
Which regulation OMS? Yes we work live sometimes because the tests demand it, but there are no live bits available without the use of a tool. This is simply life, and to say that live testing is not permitted (whatever HSE / CDM etc. thing you like) is simply impossible. Can I only test a substation dead, no injection testing of protection etc.? Is this some idea of utopia? What follows is "when I connect the grid to the load will it go bang"? Good question!
------------------------- David CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question! |
|
|
|
|
|
17 September 2012 09:07 PM
|
|
|
What follows is "when I connect the grid to the load will it go bang"? Good question! Generally... "It's your turn to do the switching, I'm off" 
Stu |
|
|
|
|
|
18 September 2012 08:48 AM
|
|
|
Which regulation OMS? As I said David - an observation by a competent engineer Yes we work live sometimes because the tests demand it, but there are no live bits available without the use of a tool. Indeed - so the non competent are protected, they can't open the box - that doesn't mean there is no duty of care owed though - I'll bet you can't give me a regulation relating to manual dependant switchgear - but as a competent person you'd expect me to comment on it ? This is simply life, and to say that live testing is not permitted (whatever HSE / CDM etc. thing you like) is simply impossible. Really - I guess you haven't followed EAWR then - is it reasonable in all circumstances for it to be live - is it unreasonable in all circumstances for it to be dead and what mitigation has been put in place. A live busbar is clearly a risk that can be mitigated Can I only test a substation dead, no injection testing of protection etc.? Is this some idea of utopia? Well you know what tests are required and where/when - is it unreasonable of me to specify thermal imaging screens for example - it's an acceptable test method and reduces thequantity and duraton of live access/live testing. What follows is "when I connect the grid to the load will it go bang"? Good question! Not really David - there are many ways to achieve confidence that an installation is safe to put ino service and for continued service - the world of electrical installation does not begin and end at BS 7671 does it ? Regards OMS ------------------------- Failure is always an option |
|
|
|
|
|
18 September 2012 12:28 PM
|
|
|
I'm not going to rise to that OMS, but using your comments as a basis I could probably condemn half the installations in the country. However such large scale rewiring would probably finish us off completely economically, as almost everything is imported!
------------------------- David CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question! |
|
|
|
|
|
18 September 2012 02:39 PM
|
|
|
I'm sure we could condemn half the installations in the country - that doesn't really mean that issues of safety are not worthy of comment though does it. I'm not suggsting we rip out every C50 board - just that the relevant comment is made to the duty holder under EAWR - to do less is failing in a duty of care owed by a competent person to his client ?
Regards OMS ------------------------- Failure is always an option |
|
|
|
|
|
IET
» Wiring and the regulations
»
Old C50 fuseboards Compliance
|
Topic Tools |
See Also:
|
|
| Technical discussion forums |
|
| · | Wiring and the regulations |
| · | Built environment |
| · | Design and production engineering |
| · | Control and automation |
| · | Communications engineering |
| · | Information technology |
| · | Energy |
| · | Transport engineering |
| · | Airfield engineering |
| · | Electronic engineering |
| · | Management in engineering |
| · | Consumer technology |
| · | Other and general engineering discussions |
| Professional and career discussion forums |
|
| · | Feedback and questions |
| · | CEng, IEng, EngTech and other professional registration matters |
| · | Savoy Place Virtual Club |
| · | Student and apprentice discussion forum |
| · | Young Professionals Community |
| Archived categories |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
