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 4 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 4181 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

IP2X

lyledunn
I don’t want to hijack an earlier thread on the IP Code hence this fresh one. Is there a difference between IP2X and IPXXB?
Parents
  • 0

    I have, for example an EICR in front of me where a C2 has been given for trucking lid that has gaps of 25mm. I am sure that it is a tad unsightly but if the BEAMA document is correct then it would not be in breach of the requirements in 521.10.1 albeit not meeting IP4X.



    That's why my reading seems to suggest - as far as I can tell you could run singles in trunking and for the smaller sizes (e.g. <50mm) leave the lid off completely - allowing easy access to the basic insulation - and it complies with IPXXD. How that's meant to square with protection against electric shock in the case of failure of the basic insulation I still don't understand.

     

    Similarly, there seems to be a general stance taken that top surfaces of enclosures, like distribution boards, isolators etc, with apertures exceeding 1mm in diameter should be reported as a code but that is not necessarily the case if the probe cannot make contact with live parts within the 100mm length specified. 



    Indeed and how that meets the supposed intention to keep dust out, I've again no idea.


      - Andy.
Reply
  • 0

    I have, for example an EICR in front of me where a C2 has been given for trucking lid that has gaps of 25mm. I am sure that it is a tad unsightly but if the BEAMA document is correct then it would not be in breach of the requirements in 521.10.1 albeit not meeting IP4X.



    That's why my reading seems to suggest - as far as I can tell you could run singles in trunking and for the smaller sizes (e.g. <50mm) leave the lid off completely - allowing easy access to the basic insulation - and it complies with IPXXD. How that's meant to square with protection against electric shock in the case of failure of the basic insulation I still don't understand.

     

    Similarly, there seems to be a general stance taken that top surfaces of enclosures, like distribution boards, isolators etc, with apertures exceeding 1mm in diameter should be reported as a code but that is not necessarily the case if the probe cannot make contact with live parts within the 100mm length specified. 



    Indeed and how that meets the supposed intention to keep dust out, I've again no idea.


      - 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