Forms of Separation - a time for change

Summary
Forms of separation and its predecessors as applicable to low-voltage assemblies have been with us since the mid
1960’s. Throughout this time the objectives of ‘separation’ within an assembly have never been clearly defined and
as a result the method of achieving separation has always been a matter for debate. Over the years the expectation
of assemblies has evolved, legal requirements have become stricter, new Standards have emerged. Whilst it is not
clearly spelt out in any Standard, Forms of Separation is now a means of facilitating limited internal access to an
assembly that is partially or fully energised and in service.

With the clarification in IEC and BS EN 61439-2 that a devices integral enclosure, for example the case of a moulded
case circuit breaker (MCCB), can be the means of separation, the debate continues with renewed vigour. Forms
of separation has taken on a life of its own with little or no consideration of the underlying needs of the low-voltage
assembly in its intended application.

Now is the time to return to first principles; ‘back to basics’. It is necessary to take a fundamental look at what
is expected of low-voltage assemblies, how they are intended to be used, particularly the requirements for
internal access when they are partially or fully energised. There is a need to define expectations on the basis of
performance rather than prescription. Any alternative method to Forms of Separation developed for defining internal
access must; (i) enable president to legal obligations, for example the UK Electricity and Work Regulations, (ii) allow
the attributes of devices to be fully exploited, (iii) permit full advantage to be taken of manufacturer’s creativity, and
(iv) ensure the needs of the particular application for the low-voltage assembly are fully satisfied.

schneider-electric.co.uk
Introduction
Forms of separation within low-voltage assemblies are a much debated subject with widely differing
and staunchly held views as to what constitutes separation. Seemingly, much of the debate on forms of
separation takes place with little or no regard for the objective of separation. Has forms of separation within
low-voltage assemblies lost is way? This paper attempts to identify the fundamental reasons for providing
separation within a low-voltage assembly and asks, is there an alternative and better way of defining the
separation requirements of an assembly, relative to its particular application.

Requirements of the Standard

IEC and BS EN 61439-2 stipulates;

‘The form of separation and higher degrees of protection shall be the subject of an agreement between ASSEMBLY
manufacturer and user.
Internal separation may be used to attain one or more of the following conditions between functional units, separate
compartments or enclosed protected spaces:
• protection against contact with hazardous parts. The degree of protection shall be at least IP XXB (see 8.4.2.3);
• protection against the passage of solid foreign bodies. The degree of protection shall be at least IP 2X.’

These are very weak requirements with no clue as to their intent or purpose.

Separation by barriers or partitions in accordance with IPXXB or IP2X of BS EN 60529 gives little or no assurance on
the robustness or mechanical properties of the separating means. The barriers or partitions need be little more than a
wire mesh. Alternatively, barrier and partitions can be perforated with 12mm wide slots of indefinite length. Very large
objects, including tools, can pass through a means of separation meeting the requirements of the standard.
Origins of separation
Fully separating individual circuits within low-voltage assemblies originated in the UK in BS 4070:
1966. This details three classes of assembly in which, using today’s terminology, Class 1 had no
internal separation, Class 2 had the main busbars separated from all functional units and their
associated cable terminals, and, Class 3 had the busbars separated from functional units and the
functional units separated from each other. In the case of Class 3 it was implied that the full separation
would enable one circuit to be maintained whilst other circuits were energised. In addition, with Class
3, an external fault on a load circuit should not result in damage to the circuit within the assembly
and, an internal arcing fault on an outgoing functional unit should be confined to that unit. Whist the
standard insisted on through faults to prove the external fault requirement, a blind eye was turned to
the effects of an internal arcing fault.

When BS 4070 migrated into BS 5486 the original issue did not include any categories of separation.
Very quickly it was realised something had been lost and an annex with three classes was added.
In due coarse separation was incorporated in IEC 60439-1, but in order to accommodate the widely
utilised American ‘panel board’ Classes were replaced by Forms and the present Form 3 added. With
the well established panel board arrangement the MCCB’s own enclosure is its means of separation
from adjacent circuits.

Once it is accepted that a devices integral enclosure provides separation the clear delineations
between the various Forms start to blur. For example, a Form 1 assembly equipped with devices
having integral enclosures becomes a Form 3 assembly. This in itself leads to unnecessary debate
and academic confusion!

Not included
Today Forms of separation do not in themselves offer any assurances in respect of arc fault
containment or protection against the emissions from one device entering the area or compartment
occupied by an adjacent device. Early versions of the low-voltage assembly standard (BS EN 60439-
1) included a third requirement for forms of separation, namely, to ‘limit the probability of initiating
arcing faults’. No requirements were stipulated in the event that an arcing fault did occur.

To ‘limit the probability’ without any further criterion is a nebulous requirement that is not readily
verified. Such requirements are inconsistent with good standards practise and as a result it was
removed from the Standards in 2002. Performance under internal arc fault conditions is dealt with
separately in IEC Technical Report (not a Standard but a report detailing of good practise) IEC/TR
61641. Even this assumes all covers and doors on the assembly are closed, as in normal service, and
in its basic requirements, it takes no account of arcs and/or their associated emissions traversing from
one compartment to another.

As Forms of Separation do not consider the passage of arc or emissions from one compartment
to another, use of a higher form of separation is not an alternative to carrying out other type tests.
Indeed, depending on the means of separation selected, it may be more difficult to achieve particular
current rating or short circuit capability with a more compartmentalised assembly. Through fault tests
determine if emissions from a device interrupting a short circuit current are going to have an adverse
effect on adjacent parts of the assembly, not the level of separation.
What are Forms of Separation About?
In general Standards define minimum performance criteria. They do not provide reasons for particular requirements
or tests; this is left to experts in the subject and any guides, papers or articles they may provide. Much is written
about the various means for providing separation in low-voltage assemblies, but, as ‘Health and Safety’ is involved,
invariably the reasons for providing separation within an assembly are omitted.

Essentially, ‘separation’ is included in a low-voltage assembly to facilitate limited internal access to parts of the
assembly when some or all of the assembly is energised and in service. Immediately this raises the stakes from
complying with a Standard to meeting legal obligations; hence the reluctance of most to make definitive statements.

Legal requirements
The Electricity at Work Regulations set out the legal obligation for work associated with electrical equipment. In
particular, Regulation 14 is pertinent when working on or in a partially or fully energised low-voltage assembly.
This states;

‘No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or so near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered
with insulating material so as to prevent danger) that danger may arise unless –

(a) it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for it to be dead; and

(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances for him to be at work on or near it while it is live; and

(c) suitable precautions (including where necessary the provision of suitable protective equipment) are taken to
prevent injury.’
Legal obligations must always be complied with and take precedent over any
standards or manufacturer’s instructions. Clearly, no work should be carried
out on or within an assembly that involves any exposure to hazardous live
parts if the parts or the assembly can reasonably be isolated and made dead.
If an assembly is always going to be isolated before a cover or door is opened
there is no advantage in including internal separation.

For continuous and secure supply applications where it is it is not practical

to isolate an assembly for routine changes, adjustments, maintenance, etc.,
some level of internal separation may assist in carrying out these functions.
However, such activities can only be carried out with suitable precautions to
ensure the work can be carried out safely: risk assessment, use of suitably
trained and skilled personnel, provision of temporary barriers, use of suitable
personal protective equipment, etc. It is the ‘Duty Holders’ responsibility to
ensure these safety precautions are fulfilled and that all work is
undertaken safely.

Associated evolution
Historically devices were very ‘open’ in their construction. For example, all
the flexible connections and contacts excluding the parts shielded by the arc
chutes were totally exposed in bar and shaft or clapper contactors. When
working on a circuit incorporating such devices the only way to prevent
accidental contact with hazardous live parts in the adjacent circuits is to build
a box around each circuit.

Over time designs of devices have evolved, they are now much more
enclosed. MCCBs and miniature circuit breakers are almost totally enclosed
in their own integral enclosures. Similarly, more recent designs of contactor
and fuse switch are enclosed in there own mouldings. Indeed complete motor
starters, for example the Schneider Electric Tsys U, are totally enclosed.

In addition the performance of devices continues to improve. Current

interruption is more efficient than previous. Ionised emissions are much
reduced; in some instances by the provision of mechanical filters.

With these newer designs, is there a need to duplicate the integral enclosure
with a second level of separation?

There are manufacturers who argue that the use an integral enclosure to
separate it from adjacent circuits cannot provide the same facilities and
integrity as is afforded by devices in individual compartments. Erroneous
arguments abound about the mechanical properties of integral enclosures,
concerns about emissions passing from one circuit another etc. Who knows
what their real reasons for this position are; is it a basic resistance to change
and progress, perhaps they are protecting inferior devices, maybe they
lack design inspiration, or are they simply trying to protect an established
business. The fact remains that integral enclosures have been successfully
used as the means of separation for many years.
An example of such a design is the Schneider Electric Megapact. With this design the MCCB are separated from
each other by their integral enclosures. Each pole of each MCCB is connected to its respective busbar via a
‘cassette’. The cassette is a robust moulding that fully insulates the connection between the MCCB and the busbars
and, it also ducts any emissions from the ‘top’ of the breaker that result from short circuit interruption into a large
voluminous space in a safe area. Terminal shields at the ‘bottom’ of the breaker fully protect the cable terminals and
steer any emissions again into a large space. Avoiding containing emissions in small compartments, as is often the
case with traditionally compartmentalised assemblies, greatly assists in avoiding problems with gas pressures and
shock waves with the assembly.

In addition, use of an insulated integral enclosure can reduce the amount of extraneous conductor within an assembly.
The arrangement moves closer to ‘protection by total insulation’ with the associated reduction in risk of earth faults that
this can bring.

Re-cap
In summary:

• Historically low-voltage assemblies have been compartmentalised to facilitate limited access when part or all of
the assembly is energised and in service.

• Separation within assemblies has taken on a life of its own, and in many instances without reference to the
objectives of separation.

• Devices have evolved and improved, emissions are much reduced, and many are in their own integral enclosure.

• With the increasing need for energy management the traditional differences between motor control and
distribution have almost disappeared.

• The limited emissions from modern devices can be managed into safe areas.
Possible way forward
Seemingly, many are pushing separation by means of compartmentalisation for its own sake, and
without any consideration of the opportunities modern devices may offer. Surely it must be time to step
‘back to basics’ and determine what the access needs are for assemblies in particular applications. It
may then be possible to define those access needs more accurately than is achieved by specifying a
Form of Separation. After all, the links between access and Forms of Separation are tenuous. Unless
a specifier has a good understanding of a particular manufacturer’s product, detailing a particular
Form of Separation may not result in an assembly that is suitable for a given application. Indeed, with
present system, an assembly of a particular Form may, taking into account legal obligations, difficulty
in isolating the assembly, skills and supplementary safety arrangement available, be adequate for one
application and totally unsuitable for another.

Essentially, a simple method by which a specifier can detail the needs of his application is required.
The manufacturer should then use his initiative to satisfy those needs utilising all the attributes of the
devices he has chosen to incorporate in the assembly to best advantage.

Reasons for access

The reasons for requiring access into an assembly, whilst some or all of it is energised, differ widely,
but all are driven by the application, and in particular, the difficulty and inconvenience in isolating the
assembly. Tasks to be carried out, whilst part of an assembly is energised often include:

i. Adjusting trip settings.

ii. Fault finding.

iii. Routine maintenance, when applicable.

iv. Re-configuring control circuits.

v. Replacing components.

vi. Terminating power and/or control cables.

vii. Installing additional circuits.

viii. Changing the configuration of outgoing circuits.

ix. Changing fuse links.

Clearly some grouping of the various tasks may lead to simpler specification. In addition, for this
type of system there has to be a recognition that the Duty Holder will ensure suitable precautions are
taken and that anyone working on or in an assembly is suitably trained and skilled for the job they are
undertaking.

When considering access to assemblies the use of plug-in or removable functional units may have a
part to play and, possibly it should be linked to the specifying of access needs. Also closely related,
and perhaps worthy of consideration in a modern world where security of supply is often paramount,
is the time taken to carryout changes and repairs.

Conclusion
Forms of separation have served the industry well since its inception in the 1960’s. However, products,
expectations and legal obligations evolve. It is now time to take a fundamental look at what is expected
of low-voltage assemblies, how we intend to use them; particularly the internal access requirements
when they are partially or fully energised. There is a need to define expectations on the basis of
performance rather than prescription. Any alternative method to Forms of Separation developed for
defining internal access must enable exisiting legal obligations, allow the attributes of devices to be
fully exploited and, permit full advantage taken of manufacturer’s creativity, whilst ensuring the needs
of the particular application for the low-voltage assembly are fully satisfied.
About Schneider Electric
Schneider Electric is the global specialist in energy management and automation.
With revenues of €27 billion in FY2015, our 160,000+ employees serve customers
in over 100 countries, helping them to manage their energy and process in ways
that are safe, reliable, efficient and sustainable. From the simplest of switches
to complex operational systems, our technology, software and services improve
the way our customers manage and automate their operations. Our connected
technologies reshape industries, transform cities and enrich lives.
At Schneider Electric, we call this Life Is On.

Schneider Electric

United Kingdom Ireland

Stafford Park 5, Head office, Block A
Telford Maynooth Business Campus
Shropshire Maynooth, Co. Kildare
TF3 3BL W23 Y7X0
Tel: 0870 608 8 608 Tel: 1 800 805 800
Fax: 0870 608 8 606 Fax: (01) 601 2201

www.schneider-electric.co.uk www.schneider-electric.com/ie

January 2017
SE9740
©2017 Schneider Electric. All Rights Reserved.
All trademarks are owned by Schneider Electric Industries SAS or its affiliated companies.