The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

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 31 subscribers
  • Views 3745 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
    @zoom - I think the question/consideration was about such being "potentially dangerous" (with nothing else out of place with everything else) or just an improvement, as opposed to whether it is a non-compliance or not or how easy to remedy etc.   :-)


    One could argue that most things could be "potentially dangerous" at some degree - but in this case...is it ! 


    As mentioned, some documents/texts most will likely have seen (e.g. electrical safety first), describe a cable where the sheath does not enter the enclosure leaving the insulated conductors visible is a C3, unless accessible and/or into a metal enclosure or something like that, when it would be a C2. How is that different to the visible but not totally enclosed in this topic, taking another angle.


    It is all about 'safety' issues really, though I've seen some texts that advocate a C2 for a missing 'safety electrical connection' tag - which some might say is stretching it a bit...as its not immediately dangerous but some later fault or action may render it so !


    In any case, generally one may decide to apply the worst case assessment, as then there is some perceived cover if no one does anything about it and something happens :-)  Perhaps that what these texts/documents base on.


    The general default answer is to apply ones experienced judgement, but I still reckon on some things there will be some variety and anyone can construct an angle to argue something is or isn't potentially dangerous... so one might say its the concensus amongst experience that one might accept. So what it is.... for a lid missing as described...taking into account IP requirements, lack of mechanical protection, not fully enclosed etc.   (no answer required  lol).

Reply
  • 0
    @zoom - I think the question/consideration was about such being "potentially dangerous" (with nothing else out of place with everything else) or just an improvement, as opposed to whether it is a non-compliance or not or how easy to remedy etc.   :-)


    One could argue that most things could be "potentially dangerous" at some degree - but in this case...is it ! 


    As mentioned, some documents/texts most will likely have seen (e.g. electrical safety first), describe a cable where the sheath does not enter the enclosure leaving the insulated conductors visible is a C3, unless accessible and/or into a metal enclosure or something like that, when it would be a C2. How is that different to the visible but not totally enclosed in this topic, taking another angle.


    It is all about 'safety' issues really, though I've seen some texts that advocate a C2 for a missing 'safety electrical connection' tag - which some might say is stretching it a bit...as its not immediately dangerous but some later fault or action may render it so !


    In any case, generally one may decide to apply the worst case assessment, as then there is some perceived cover if no one does anything about it and something happens :-)  Perhaps that what these texts/documents base on.


    The general default answer is to apply ones experienced judgement, but I still reckon on some things there will be some variety and anyone can construct an angle to argue something is or isn't potentially dangerous... so one might say its the concensus amongst experience that one might accept. So what it is.... for a lid missing as described...taking into account IP requirements, lack of mechanical protection, not fully enclosed etc.   (no answer required  lol).

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