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 23 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4830 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

Non-Conducting Location.

Zoomup
To reduce costs I am considering creating a non-conducting location in a wooden holiday chalet.


The maintenance of the wooden building will be by skilled and instructed persons only.


The chalet is wooden framed and has wooden external ship lap with a water proof membrane in between the outside ship lap and inner plasterboard. . The roof is glass fibre. The wooden floor is supported on wooden joists on a concrete base. The flooring will be vinyl coverings. All window frames are plastic.


The main water supply pipe is plastic. There is no gas supply at all either mains or bottled gas. 


There are no extraneous-conductive -parts.


No outside equipment will be used.


All wiring accessories will be all insulated.


Appliances can be separated by at least 2.5m distance.


Can I safely apply 418.1.3?


Thanks,


Z.








  • 0

    mapj1:

    If it is a holiday chalet, and still being used as such by the general public, then, no. Your idea of 'closely controlled' access is not the same as will be expected. Warning signs, door interlocks, permits and tokens, training of all persons using the facility before entry is granted.


    If it is an ex holiday chalet being repurposed to become a chamber for housing specialist high voltage  kit, then maybe.


    The principle is that the voltage reached by any exposed metalwork is not a hazard because it is not possible to touch two pieces of metalwork with differing voltage levels at the same time. Care must be taken, however, to make sure that a dangerous  potential cannot be transmitted outside the location by the subsequent installation of a conductor such as a cable, a pipe or structural metalwork, indeed anything that penetrates the insulating enclosure.


    Consider, if two faults to near exposed conductive parts occur from conductors at different potentials (such as a phase and a neutral or two phases ) dangerous potential differences could occur between exposed conductive parts, nothing will trip.


    Double pole fuses or double pole breaking circuit breakers are used for ADS protection in non-conducting locations as the idea of neutral being safer than live is lost, the user is as likely to be at live potential as any other.


    I would not expect to see any kind of 3 pin sockets or any kind of metal light fitting requiring a CPC, if out of reach or not.


    A notice must be erected to state that the non-conducting location exists, and giving details of the person in charge (supervising) who alone has authority to authorize access to the facility and any experiment or testing  to be undertaken within, and to be responsible for what equipment may be used in the location.

    I'd expect records of training to be signed by the users and kept by the supervisor, along with results of inspections and a list of authorized equipment. All such records to be maintained in a condition available for inspection by the authorities as an audit trail in case of incident.


    Non-conducting locations are rarely the best solution to the safety problem and so are most unusual, and their use must be limited to situations where there is continuous and proper supervision to ensure that the safety requirements are fully met and are properly maintained, and in my personal view they should be restricted to situations where no more reliable system of ensuring safety is possible.




    Thanks Mike,  the chalet is not for use by the general public only the on-site maintenance manager. I am looking at new ways to reduce material costs and environmental impact. There are absolutely no metallic parts in the wooden chalet. No extraneous-conductive-parts at all. No metal pipes or structure. We are just looking at wood and plastic. If nobody likes socket outlets in such an environment then perhaps we could use fused connection units. No leads will be taken outside.


    Z.

  • 0

    ebee:

    Zomm you are getting exceedingly close to becomming a very naughty boy




     

    Moi?


    Z.
  • 0

    What do you mean by introducing protective conductors into the location? The whole chalet IS the location.



    Imagine a plug connected to a 3-core flex - the G/Y core is a protective conductor and would thus be within the location.

     

    the chalet is not for use by the general public only the on-site maintenance manager



    Ah, so not so much a holiday chalet in the sense that anyone will go there for a holiday - more of a tied cottage - just accommodation for an employee?


      - Andy.
  • 0

    Zoomup:

    To reduce costs I am considering creating a non-conducting location in a wooden holiday chalet.


    Thanks,


    Z.








     




    How would it reduce the cost  of installing the installation?


    Andy Betteridge 

  • 0
    Zoom


    I assume this is some sort of joke?


    You cannot comply with all the requirements of 418.1 in a wooden holiday chalet. I have to ask why you are even thinking of this?
  • 0

    John Peckham:

    Zoom


    I assume this is some sort of joke?


    You cannot comply with all the requirements of 418.1 in a wooden holiday chalet. I have to ask why you are even thinking of this?




    I took it as a tongue in cheek post, but either way I cannot see any cost savings.


    Andy Betteridge 

  • 0

    John Peckham:

    Zoom


    I assume this is some sort of joke?


    You cannot comply with all the requirements of 418.1 in a wooden holiday chalet. I have to ask why you are even thinking of this?




    I agree with ebee above - he is certainly not the Messiah!


    In Zoomy's favour, it has at least provoked us to think "why not?"

  • 0

    either way I cannot see any cost savings.



    If he only got a TT DNO supply it might save the cost of an RCD and a rod....


      - Andy.
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    either way I cannot see any cost savings.



    If he only got a TT DNO supply it might save the cost of an RCD and a rod....


      - Andy.

     




    However there’s the cost of the double pole MCBs.


    Andy B.

  • 0
    It seems a reasonable question for the panel to get their teeth into. I once had to explain to a builder why it was not feasable to rely soley for safety by placing not sheathed singles out of reach.


    Legh

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