|
| DSH 4377 [+ U. e6 m6 Y W. u- N" G
3 q% f' C$ G4 [. Z5 k1 p/ ~" {2 z | Verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity ID m+ w( x. e* w, E0 `% L1 f* v* D! |( O7 f. I
| 9.12.13$ D9 \. f* b% K' {# k
| 61009-1(ed.2)$ m0 F: C- ^$ D7 }
|
# o6 E, G2 _* `# y1 X( [ W( hStandard:) o; p- I: v$ f8 B# @' h( p
IEC 61009-1 (1996-12)& I B6 F) h/ h8 }
Sub clause:& A3 E* l( C( l' a; D! V9 L. k
9.12.13
' D9 c# g/ q9 ]$ {; h" gSheet No. 437
' L! |5 j4 V- ~2 O1 n: u: JSubject
, `) V4 N( M1 P: |: Y7 @) [Verification of the rated residual
7 t( z" t3 }3 I+ b) cmaking and breaking capacity IDm
) w* w8 l8 V4 c* h/ H! FKey words: Confirmed at CTL8 Z* s) A/ I4 e
39th Meeting
# M4 Y; Y5 h, P) l2 U& @/ CQuestion:) U+ J. s4 v# u, h9 s# n( k9 n+ L/ G
9.12.13.1 refers to the test conditions prescribed in 9.12.1 and states that the impedance Z1 shall! v5 R% [: L% u9 Q1 |: W( d
not be used.: ]) \5 i7 ^7 P+ U( B
9.12.1 refers to the conditions in 9.12.1 to 9.12.12.
% j+ A+ ~. i7 C$ J+ G) d9.12.2 and 9.12.7.4 require the test circuits according to figures 5 to 9 together with impedance
$ w1 y, W1 z& J2 _: Y$ |Z2 to be used.
8 w( l% p" L4 u: z b; BAccording to these figures the following inconsistency appears:
8 n6 E# D. C8 {; ^0 ~5 Q0 Q# T5 [+ RFor a single pole switch (with two current paths) normally rated for 230 V, the rated residual
$ ^& |9 c; p2 Ymaking and breaking capacity has to be tested at 230 V.
. P0 [$ p3 J' ~! }For a two pole switch normally rated for 400 V, the rated residual making and breaking
Y6 H+ X; ]6 u: ^% F" E( |capacity has to be tested at 400 V.) |$ r+ r Z: q9 P
For a three pole switch normally rated for 400 V, the rated residual making and breaking# p+ W! _8 X2 I4 l2 `! g
capacity has to be tested at 400 V.$ s7 a7 D9 W+ P$ p: T$ g
For a three pole switch with four current paths and for a four pole switch normally rated for
; H1 X- r: R+ o( v+ ?7 u+ n9 y( d400 V, the rated residual making and breaking capacity has to be tested at 230 V.
" w$ L+ T; ]4 P Z0 WDue to the fact that the purpose of this test is not to cover the special fault conditions in IT-systems,3 j. {4 X' o# o0 |! V- A
the test voltage for this verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity should be
5 G: L. @# e& ] m230 V, independent of the number of poles, and the relevant figures should be corrected.
) N7 I8 `: i' [+ m3 CDecision taken at the SC23E WG2 meeting in Nice, October 2001:
6 V; q& h# \. n) c$ U1 zExtract from the minutes IEC SC23E_WG2_006:, r/ A6 A% v' ? Q) W/ f3 ?
SC23E_WG2_010 request from Austria to update 61008 clause 9.11.2.3
" _* x5 \2 x' T2 J6 U4 {: YThe proposal made by Mr Bachl was considered justified and accepted. During the meeting# ]- y1 c6 d" D. n! S) [" N
WG2 decided that laboratories and certification bodies should be informed about this
) c; d) L* f bimportant decision.
& e6 ~# u1 T% p/ r1 mTherefore the following statement was drafted:2 T3 q8 M/ z& X. N7 T7 c" E
2
' A- E3 }7 n! X$ q' s$ JDecision to be forwarded to CTL:' K/ ?6 x2 X4 Q2 Q: v. I. A
IEC SC23E WG2 decided to correct the inconsistent test requirement in IEC 61008-1 (1996-12), subclause; v% R: {- f# _' x+ k$ d# U/ Y
9.11.2.3 and in IEC 61009-1 (1996-12), subclause 9.12.13 - Verification of the rated residual
' B V9 `" X, W5 l7 R% Qmaking and breaking capacity IDm.
0 R$ p$ q7 u& s( s6 b% o( ZThe test voltage for this verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity should be the- Y( k+ S8 O3 j
line to neutral voltage, independent of the number of poles of the RCCB or RCBO. This correction will
: `/ L+ h9 t# y1 n6 w* _: w) Q1 abe included in the next amendment or revision of IEC 61008-1 and IEC 61009-1.0 n) u4 r+ r0 F! v, s3 C
The revised test circuit (fig. 7) proposed for the standard is attached.
8 q2 Y; F! A: ]3 f+ i
& U* O) F# R& d( B# v# ]8 t8 C2 ]/ j: J* x$ G
|
本帖子中包含更多资源
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?注册安规
x
|