Surge Arrester Connection Options: Phase Current Rail vs Aesthetics in Switchgear Setup

I have a dilemma regarding the connection of the protector, the connection methods are rather correct, I would like to connect it with a phase current rail, but in such a system it must be upside down in the switchgear, is it a matter of aesthetics?







[/ code]

Hello.

Wrong connection in both cases.

Then what is the error?

I was based on this scheme

Hello!

Why did you use the four-line FR switch disconnector?
Is a C20 miniature circuit breaker really necessary?

Hello.

kkas12 wrote:

Why did you use the four-line FR switch disconnector?
Is a C20 circuit breaker really necessary?

It's not him, I mean colleague soprano1085 , it's a castorama

So do you think that this diagram from "Castorama" was developed by someone not competent ??
I was just following him and I was convinced that just anyone did this scheme

So what do you think? The four-track FR is redundant and the C20 is also redundant ?? and if so, why ??
Please correct your spelling. [kkas12]

Go here and there are two brochures on overvoltages and read up on the installation of arresters. http://moeller.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=800

soprano1085 wrote:

so do you think that this scheme from "castorama" was developed by someone not competent ??
I was just following him and I was convinced that no one was doing this scheme

So what do you think? that the four-track FR is redundant and the C20 is also redundant ?? and if so, why ??
Please correct your spelling. [kkas12]

The schema is correct. Your connection is incorrect, because you connected the protectors before the FR and they are to be placed behind it.
The way of connecting FRs, miniature circuit breakers and arresters from above or below does not matter.
It is important only for some cameras, including RCDs, but you probably won't find such ones in Castorama.

As far as the C20 is concerned, it is not superfluous, on the contrary, it is very much needed. This is called backing up protectors. It works in such a way that when an overvoltage occurs in the arrester, a short-circuit occurs and the excess charge is brought to the ground through the PE protective circuit (i.e. the PE strip, the PE conductor connecting to the GSW, the ground conductor and the earth electrode).
The protectors can absorb a certain amount of energy and give it back to the environment in the form of heat. Part of the overvoltage energy is also released as heat in PE conductors.
However, at the time of discharge, an ionized channel is formed in the arrester through which, apart from the surge current, the short-circuit current of the network also begins to flow. If there was no such protection of the arresters, this short-circuit current could cause complete damage to the arrester in which the discharge occurred before the circuit breaker in the terminal disconnects the entire supply circuit. The additional protection disconnects the circuit of the arresters, limiting the amount of energy released in the arrestor as a result of the short-circuit current flow, and thus protects quite expensive arresters against their complete damage.
Moreover, if there were no additional protection of the arresters, in the event of damage to the arrester insert, you would not be able to turn on the protection in the junction box, because this protection would be disconnected all the time due to a short circuit in the protector.

So do as you have in this diagram and it will be OK, as long as the security values in this diagram match the values given in your installation design. These in turn depend on the agreed power allocation with the energy sector and the cross-sections of the cables in the installation. Back-up protection is selected according to the type of arrester and its characteristics.

Hello!

The four-track FR is not only redundant, but also introduces the risk of damaging the receivers. Apart from the groundlessness of interrupting the N track in simple installations that do not require it, the four-line FR is completely unsuitable as the main switch of the switchboard from which single-phase circuits are derived.
The reason is that the N line is not marked. So this switch will not disconnect a specific (marked) contact as the last one and will not close it as the first one. And what happens in the event of a break in this path (N) needs no explanation.

It is the manufacturer, not the seller, that decides whether the surge arrester is backed up.
Each manufacturer specifies the upper value of the protection preceding the switch disconnector, above which back-up is required.
This is also the case with LEGRAND.
http://serwis-klienta-legrand.pl/download/a95e029c/ochronniki_paniemprzepieciowe.pdf

PS
I propose to empirically check how the FR contacts close.
All you need is any voltage source (preferably Ul), four controls and the appropriate connection system.

kkas12 wrote:

Hello!

The four-track FR is not only redundant, but also introduces the risk of damaging the receivers. Apart from the groundlessness of interrupting the N track in simple installations that do not require it, the four-line FR is completely unsuitable as the main switch of the switchboard from which single-phase circuits are derived.
The reason is that the N line is not marked. So this switch will not disconnect a specific (marked) contact as the last one and will not close it as the first one. And what happens in the event of a break in this path (N) needs no explanation.

It is the manufacturer, not the seller, that decides whether the surge arrester is backed up.
Each manufacturer specifies the upper value of the protection preceding the switch disconnector, above which back-up is required.
This is also the case with LEGRAND.
http://serwis-klienta-legrand.pl/download/a95e029c/ochronniki_paniemprzepieciowe.pdf

PS
I suggest experimentally how the FR contacts close.
All you need is any voltage source (preferably Ul), four controls and the appropriate connection system.

Link broken ;)

@Edit

So the link posted by a colleague in the post below is as efficient as possible

Hello!

Actually a mistake. So maybe it will be ok here?
http://legrand.home.pl/pdf/Poradnik_ochronniki.pdf

kkas12 wrote:

I propose to empirically check how the FR contacts close.
All you need is any voltage source (preferably Ul), four controls and the appropriate connection system. [/ I]

This is a very good idea, especially since a lot depends on a given switch (or maybe more on its manufacturer). I have already written some time ago what overvoltages are generated by some 4-line disconnectors when switching on / off.

My guess is that we are considering a home switchboard. The back-up of the SPD is most likely unnecessary. The harmfulness aspect of back-up protection on circuit breakers (MCB) - I mentioned once (I don't have time to look for a link). It is not only about reliability (accidentally turned off, or turned off too quickly - not protecting receivers and installations), but also about breaking SPD characteristics for fast-rising overvoltages. I suggest choosing such SPDs, for which the manufacturer recommends a gL / gG back-up, not MCB, and at the same time with such a current that there is no need to use a back-up.

An SPD backed up with an MCB pretends to protect the installation more than it actually protects it.

Recently I was in Castorama in Lodz and I was surprised that some RCDs are described as "residual current device", others as "electric shock circuit breaker". I tried to determine the difference between them, but probably only that it was written by another "specialist". No wonder the forums later discuss various strange creatures. ;-)

kisses
- GIFT-

Buddy Bronek - first reading , then a statement.

Hello
And everyone is satisfied. SPD producer that he managed to sell a wick (with poor follow current breaking capacity and mostly also with poor surge suppression capacity). Castorama that she additionally pressed the installation switch to secure this wick (it also worsened the damping ability). The customer says he has a well-secured installation (at least that's what he thinks).
And in serious studies (Sowa, Musiał ...), there is no need to look for circuit breakers in the back-up protection of the SPD (in the branch in series with the SPD). Such flowers can be found in producer's guides - such as this one from Moeller:

zdzisiek1979 wrote:

Go here and there are two brochures on overvoltages and read up on the installation of arresters. http://moeller.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=800

in which - when you look at them - is full of errors (sometimes deliberately placed - because only sales counts).


Of course, there will be colleagues who will say that a mistake is not a mistake ....

Plumpi wrote:

As for the C20, it is not superfluous, on the contrary it is very much needed. This is called backing up protectors. (...)

and only thanks to reading high-quality technical literature (e.g. Dr. Musiala):

elpapiotr wrote:

reading

you can find out more about SPD coverage.


kisses
- GIFT-