Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in
IET SPD course
MikeB69 11001214529
Joined 21/02/2020 - 6 Posts
Question
Has anyone done the IET SPD course ? I have completed it now but confused by one answer
When doing the final assessment test I am baffled by question 10 relating to Critical Risk Level, I don't understand how the answer is worked out from the figures they have given and why the answer is (B).
Has anyone done it or can they explain please?

Many thanks 
11 Replies
MikeB69 11001214529
Joined 21/02/2020 - 6 Posts
Thanks Andy, very poorly worded question in my opinion too. 
I might try and contact them for some clarification.

Kind regards Mike
AJJewsbury 77361768
Joined 13/08/2003 - 1433 Posts
lyledunn:
Are you sure this doesn’t relate to the value of Lp being unlikely to exceed 0.6 in outer London? Perhaps something in the course notes? So in the Borders and Cornwall Lp could be greater than 1 in Manchester Lp is likely to be greater than o.425 and in London Lp will be less than 0.6

Interesting theory - that would mean for instance, that no LV customer in Outer London is more than 500m from their substation and all cables (HV and LV)  underground? I don't know the SE well enough to guess whether that's plausible.
   - Andy.

lyledunn 83218531
Joined 14/08/2003 - 244 Posts
Are you sure this doesn’t relate to the value of Lp being unlikely to exceed 0.6 in outer London? Perhaps something in the course notes? So in the Borders and Cornwall Lp could be greater than 1 in Manchester Lp is likely to be greater than o.425 and in London Lp will be less than 0.6
whjohnson 11001209847
Joined 21/02/2019 - 285 Posts
It looks like a Fool's errand to me - SPDs are of dubious value at best.
AJJewsbury 77361768
Joined 13/08/2003 - 1433 Posts
Some questions on these kinds of courses do seem rather bizarre at times - and seem to try and test how good you are at triple negatives and spotting irrelevant details rather than actually understanding the fundamentals.

Lp being greater than or less than a figure is rather odd - as we need an actual value to plug into the calculation. Since we only take account of the first 1km Lp > 1.0 can be taken as the same as Lp=1.0 so we can put that into the calculation. Likewise if Lp is less than 0.425 we could take it as being equal to 0.425 as worst case and put that into the calculation. Lp >0.6 is tricky though - it's only telling us it's longer than 0.6km but not how much longer - and as longer is worse we can't really use the 0.6 figure directly but would probably have to use the full 1km instead.

So if they're asking us to spot the Lp value we can't use in the calculation, then I'd say it was the > 0.6km one - hence answer B.

"Carry out the following calculation:" does seem a little misleading though.

I'm sure they could have found a less misleading and less tortuous way of asking the question if they put their mind to it (presuming that is what they were trying to ask...)

   - Andy.

 
MikeB69 11001214529
Joined 21/02/2020 - 6 Posts
Hi chris

Thanks for reply but I can't see that to be correct as it says at the top they are all Rural so use the fenv of 85 ?
Terrible wording for a question.
Using the values in the question and applying it to the equation CRL=fenv/NgxLp I made every answer to be less than 1000, so they would all require an SPD
Chris Pearson 11001208764
Joined 05/12/2018 - 1365 Posts
I assume that (a) is meant to be rural; (b) is suburban; and (c) is urban. Clearly, the equation in 443.5 is to be applied, but beyond that, I too am baffled.
MikeB69 11001214529
Joined 21/02/2020 - 6 Posts
There you go hopefully that helps
MikeB69 11001214529
Joined 21/02/2020 - 6 Posts
MikeB69 11001214529
Joined 21/02/2020 - 6 Posts
lyledunn 83218531
Joined 14/08/2003 - 244 Posts
It would help if you set out the question.

Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in