![]() |
IET | ![]() |
|
search :
help :
home
|
||
|
Latest News:
|
|
|


|
Topic Title: compliance with fault protection Topic Summary: Created On: 14 November 2012 09:41 PM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
Search Topic |
Topic Tools
|
|
|
|
|
could anyone confirm, fault protection of the following,
40a bs88-2 supplying fixed load via 1.5mm mineral 4 core 3phase. lowest measured pfc is 605a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the Ze/Zs at the feed end of the cable and how long is the cable? Is that 4L1.5 or 4H1.5?
------------------------- John Peckham http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
605A - presumably that's at the load end of the cable. Thinking of worst case (cables cold when measured) and potentially warm before a fault, then we need to adjust - in the lack of any more information I'll use the 80% rule (probably not entirely right as the pyro could be running hotter than 70-degrees, but will do to be going on with) - so let's say 484A. That's still off the appendix 3 charts - so <<0.1s disconnection time. Really we should look up the manufacturer's energy let-through, but if the adiabatic works for 0.1s, then we're safe anyway. Presuming (again looking for the worst case) that the pyro is PVC sheathed or exposed to touch, k=115 So energy let-though is (less than) I²t = 484² x 0.1 = 23,426 A²s and cable withstand: k²S² = 115² x 1.5² = 29,756.25. So it looks OK to me. Being that it's a fuse (rather than an MCB), my presumption of a lower fault current (equating to a higher Zs) should be safe as for fuses, energy let-though doesn't increase with fault current. Do check both my assumptions and maths though! - Andy. |
|
|
|
|
|
IET
» Wiring and the regulations
»
compliance with fault protection
|
Topic Tools |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.





Search Topic


