Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1913 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

"potentially dangerous" or improvement required re: missing covers on conduit inspection fittings

psychicwarrior
Taking in to account the guided definition of "potentially dangerous" and any IP rating compromise (and loss of mechanical protection):


If I proffered that missing covers/lids from a steel conduit inspection fittings was not worthy of being described as potentially dangerous, would you agree, or argue it was ?


Would you be persuaded one way or the other depending on the 'accessibility' factor ?


My take: if its out of the way from fingers etc, then i'd say not potentially dangerous. If it was readily accessible for touch/impact, then I would be thinking otherwise.


Reading back on some [I think] well known guidance regarding periodic inspections, there is a bit regarding where cable sheathing is not taken into an enclosure leaving the basic protected conductors exposed to touch; in some conditions it is considered as not "potentially dangerous" but only requiring "improvement" and from past threads this has provoked some interesting debate and opinions; is there a difference from these situations to the above missing lids question (or even indeed trunking lid missing or unused cable access holes in trunking) ?


Hope you are all keeping well and enjoying the 'new' forum ! :-)

Cheers

Habs
Parents
  • 0
    It's a tricky one. From a common sense point of view all our methods of protecting against electric shock ensure that a fatal shock can't occur should basic insulation fail for whatever reason - so it seems obvious that there would be a shock risk if someone could directly touch basic insulation when that insulation had failed.


    Yet the current regulations require enclosures, trunking, conduit etc to be either IP2X or IPXXB. IP2X makes sense as it stops fingers entering the enclosure - so preventing the basic insulation being touched, but IPXXB allows the test finger to enter the enclosure just as long as it can't touch hazardous parts - so the test passes where the conductor is covered by basic insulation. To me that approach doesn't make much sense when you're trying to protect people from basic insulation failure.


    Ditto for IP4X and IPXXD for accessible upper surfaces of such enclosures - the IPXXD test actually allows holes in the enclosure up to 35mm wide (and a long as you like).


    You could of course call upon placing out of reach instead - but that doesn't really have general application. (Other trades using ladders etc)


       - Andy.
Reply
  • 0
    It's a tricky one. From a common sense point of view all our methods of protecting against electric shock ensure that a fatal shock can't occur should basic insulation fail for whatever reason - so it seems obvious that there would be a shock risk if someone could directly touch basic insulation when that insulation had failed.


    Yet the current regulations require enclosures, trunking, conduit etc to be either IP2X or IPXXB. IP2X makes sense as it stops fingers entering the enclosure - so preventing the basic insulation being touched, but IPXXB allows the test finger to enter the enclosure just as long as it can't touch hazardous parts - so the test passes where the conductor is covered by basic insulation. To me that approach doesn't make much sense when you're trying to protect people from basic insulation failure.


    Ditto for IP4X and IPXXD for accessible upper surfaces of such enclosures - the IPXXD test actually allows holes in the enclosure up to 35mm wide (and a long as you like).


    You could of course call upon placing out of reach instead - but that doesn't really have general application. (Other trades using ladders etc)


       - Andy.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines