|
| DSH 437
! [1 b% V$ d# [
+ g6 P p7 s# t7 ~% b6 D1 s: s | Verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity ID m
' g5 X9 U) f- d | 9.12.13
5 V: ~% n0 i* g1 c! K* W | 61009-1(ed.2)
0 \1 @( h- F# ]: N: ] | # U/ d/ s3 N3 l! f/ \
Standard:
9 G- v, S' y, ]2 C( M1 \IEC 61009-1 (1996-12), Q. e" N8 y2 M2 H) b% E, K
Sub clause:' Z; y( B2 _" V* N
9.12.13
! D* e1 t+ V7 Z( E9 T! X% cSheet No. 4371 {$ I& U4 s9 v$ o+ K
Subject @6 l& m$ g6 K0 Y
Verification of the rated residual$ y3 y8 m7 w2 A- O8 S" K e
making and breaking capacity IDm2 X( f3 k$ A% c2 a
Key words: Confirmed at CTL z# K) M; r7 q; |! f9 O/ H4 n$ ?9 Q( K
39th Meeting
8 K5 x% W* ?+ t0 V+ n) y* pQuestion:9 G/ w& E m U6 Z/ _9 ]( b$ i) j
9.12.13.1 refers to the test conditions prescribed in 9.12.1 and states that the impedance Z1 shall2 P% m& g: A# Z3 \
not be used.
6 p+ G. Q' Y- B( _/ Q2 ^2 P9.12.1 refers to the conditions in 9.12.1 to 9.12.12.( R$ z9 o" u- ?* P3 E( M/ v
9.12.2 and 9.12.7.4 require the test circuits according to figures 5 to 9 together with impedance/ v! Q: h6 H+ ~. B' z0 v
Z2 to be used.
: Z F) s; |% i9 ]2 BAccording to these figures the following inconsistency appears:* j. d$ p/ P! m5 E& ?! h! `2 q N' z
For a single pole switch (with two current paths) normally rated for 230 V, the rated residual
3 O: p5 `9 I2 y) F) zmaking and breaking capacity has to be tested at 230 V.- }" |* c2 l$ ]5 W# b, Z6 F" u
For a two pole switch normally rated for 400 V, the rated residual making and breaking
% X$ N3 r! C, i9 Kcapacity has to be tested at 400 V.3 E9 f. H* n/ u
For a three pole switch normally rated for 400 V, the rated residual making and breaking
4 }! r1 @ C1 K) a' vcapacity has to be tested at 400 V.% G" ?) w7 H0 q) [
For a three pole switch with four current paths and for a four pole switch normally rated for' I* l3 A$ @0 I! R( y. \ ~
400 V, the rated residual making and breaking capacity has to be tested at 230 V.# o. [. [/ ]1 {6 o
Due to the fact that the purpose of this test is not to cover the special fault conditions in IT-systems,8 T- j- d& j9 s
the test voltage for this verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity should be
, i5 H+ y/ a( ^, C4 c230 V, independent of the number of poles, and the relevant figures should be corrected.' H+ O; r0 v4 v$ G. C
Decision taken at the SC23E WG2 meeting in Nice, October 2001:
3 E: C; B( s/ F _. y$ I# UExtract from the minutes IEC SC23E_WG2_006:
3 L2 W: i' p2 A3 t- W2 Z/ N* FSC23E_WG2_010 request from Austria to update 61008 clause 9.11.2.3
1 W; t# T) t5 |) aThe proposal made by Mr Bachl was considered justified and accepted. During the meeting
% h% N- m& s6 w" g, }& ] y! V7 PWG2 decided that laboratories and certification bodies should be informed about this
, A+ P( O p' a Y3 K! e0 simportant decision.* G, B7 J. H, R$ o& T7 K0 E, t. _
Therefore the following statement was drafted:" J; T1 D$ ^5 `
2$ R" X; H4 D' I# b+ Z
Decision to be forwarded to CTL:+ A6 K" y P; ]# e0 l
IEC SC23E WG2 decided to correct the inconsistent test requirement in IEC 61008-1 (1996-12), subclause
2 W8 X |9 I' {9.11.2.3 and in IEC 61009-1 (1996-12), subclause 9.12.13 - Verification of the rated residual' a9 F0 a1 P/ L
making and breaking capacity IDm.! S. x- Z+ y/ \; {. Q( `1 o/ ^
The test voltage for this verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity should be the) |6 y2 J- i6 ~
line to neutral voltage, independent of the number of poles of the RCCB or RCBO. This correction will3 K( \7 r7 z/ Y: ^4 g) k
be included in the next amendment or revision of IEC 61008-1 and IEC 61009-1.0 V, P' [/ S3 w( u) t9 K
The revised test circuit (fig. 7) proposed for the standard is attached.
; ? U6 \6 E8 w3 E3 p, Y& d6 O/ @, } I4 r
7 w5 ]8 ^3 @, B: B3 q8 Z
|
本帖子中包含更多资源
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册安规
x
|