|
9 o0 S8 {: { @' jStandard:: y( S; A* Q9 E4 O" O% J3 U1 \, q
IEC 61009-1 (1996-12)
9 O4 }, r; X3 e. zSub clause:
/ P: M, F- Y' ?) L0 T) a9.12.13" N+ K1 M s6 b& r8 q
Sheet No. 437, f# e9 h. ^0 M6 w; ]
Subject
8 D+ f: ]1 J- Z, ^6 g3 H* d& ?Verification of the rated residual1 ~% g0 x' W$ h" q! f( p
making and breaking capacity IDm3 r1 A/ M6 ]3 k& J! v
Key words: Confirmed at CTL
2 O0 q' r/ R& r) z7 f4 \, b+ @39th Meeting
( K2 C/ r7 L& s" I! e0 S( xQuestion:9 D( x# u+ r3 ^7 ~7 r% V
9.12.13.1 refers to the test conditions prescribed in 9.12.1 and states that the impedance Z1 shall* J( Q' s& Z: V7 E M
not be used.- N/ B" X3 N; w
9.12.1 refers to the conditions in 9.12.1 to 9.12.12.
8 N. V- h) s2 [9 N! `2 Z; v9.12.2 and 9.12.7.4 require the test circuits according to figures 5 to 9 together with impedance
' s; S8 L1 m& ^: y5 Z/ _) UZ2 to be used.
: e8 B1 D; S% O, ]9 }+ nAccording to these figures the following inconsistency appears:
) k( U* l/ i( |. p: _For a single pole switch (with two current paths) normally rated for 230 V, the rated residual
( I5 j2 M) a2 W& o9 q- k6 O6 Pmaking and breaking capacity has to be tested at 230 V.& k# ~7 \9 @' L
For a two pole switch normally rated for 400 V, the rated residual making and breaking
2 h, b! F7 B' z3 ?9 `capacity has to be tested at 400 V.
3 D4 {9 W$ l3 M5 B7 Y0 k$ H- n9 d. LFor a three pole switch normally rated for 400 V, the rated residual making and breaking' C# a. ?4 O/ L
capacity has to be tested at 400 V.
& {( S& e/ K6 L2 Q' B, zFor a three pole switch with four current paths and for a four pole switch normally rated for) c# {0 a( z% M8 b2 j
400 V, the rated residual making and breaking capacity has to be tested at 230 V.
* l1 T. q7 j @2 a5 q6 T( ^' MDue to the fact that the purpose of this test is not to cover the special fault conditions in IT-systems,' Y7 u: I" U, c! U: I! _
the test voltage for this verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity should be
8 t1 p+ A; f2 u8 q( A" G/ y230 V, independent of the number of poles, and the relevant figures should be corrected.
3 I4 f9 l4 G- w. ^Decision taken at the SC23E WG2 meeting in Nice, October 2001:
; t, `- e8 Q8 u+ y! vExtract from the minutes IEC SC23E_WG2_006:) W' {/ o3 D+ T, Q7 \
SC23E_WG2_010 request from Austria to update 61008 clause 9.11.2.33 r0 ~& q2 }; w0 }: d$ h$ U
The proposal made by Mr Bachl was considered justified and accepted. During the meeting2 z; l/ E4 S) s' Z3 Y# `
WG2 decided that laboratories and certification bodies should be informed about this0 a) F! x! { b! H7 [2 j
important decision.) f* N2 Q' k u
Therefore the following statement was drafted:
- l& b* t- s3 r+ \3 e26 q; u& h( k' \: ^
Decision to be forwarded to CTL:8 k- _6 B6 ]. U5 M, U3 Q9 r
IEC SC23E WG2 decided to correct the inconsistent test requirement in IEC 61008-1 (1996-12), subclause/ O" c2 z* W# |3 R1 ]6 q
9.11.2.3 and in IEC 61009-1 (1996-12), subclause 9.12.13 - Verification of the rated residual
9 X5 x; k* Q8 A0 w: f5 dmaking and breaking capacity IDm.
1 l2 W- c- u3 s+ l8 y- F& \The test voltage for this verification of the rated residual making and breaking capacity should be the9 H# d- M: A; p7 J- A/ k" T; I9 J) F- M0 y
line to neutral voltage, independent of the number of poles of the RCCB or RCBO. This correction will& }, a# B; g4 {, B, H D
be included in the next amendment or revision of IEC 61008-1 and IEC 61009-1.( L# z0 c# d+ O& m
The revised test circuit (fig. 7) proposed for the standard is attached.5 M4 r& _% e0 D3 _$ i/ T) {
" M2 q0 L+ L4 T
) e/ M: B& c+ {0 m: m: @0 H) x |
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
|