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

This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Class 1 appliance with no exposed metal work to connect test lead too

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Coffee machineOK 3rd problem class one appliance with no exposed metal work to connect test lead too how can I carry out the earth bond test given it is a class 1 appliance and not a class 2 appliance like this Coffee machine
  • So, what's the answer ... well, again I said this earlier - this type of appliance has a plastic shroud over its exposed-conductive-parts, and someone who is competent to service and check that appliance will remove the cover and perform the test the way the manufacturer intended.


    In some kit there may not be screws - it may be glued shut, and then it is likely the manufacturer intends it not to need testing ever again once shipped, as even if the earth continuity fails, it cannot fail in a dangerous way that exposes live parts - in which case the required action is an inspection of the outer containment integrity.

    What constitutes a "safe" design in the commercial world need not be quite the 'safe' some folk like to imagine - for example the fuse inside a sealed case may be a  kind that explodes firing shards of glass everywhere under certain fault conditions, but so long as the power is disconnected, and so long as  the case can contain those sharp bits and the force of the explosion, then that is perfectly OK, although the use of that same fuse in a case that may be open to the user is utterly unacceptable.

    This is part of the (in my view rather thin) argument for not allowing DIN rail parts from some makers inside enclosures from another.

    A device that passed the singed cloth test  in one box, may not pass in another. (I kid you not, a special test cloth is put over the MCB or whatever in it's box and subjected to the worst case fault - if  burning bits of plastic and jets of vaporised metal do not emerge and burn the cloth before the thing goes open circuit, then that's a pass..) I suspect this is used as a bit of an excuse, as in reality the containment can be made more than adequate.

    As a comparison, for 'really big' gear containment, then a lot of effort goes into directing any blast in the right direction, so cabinets have flaps that allow the metal to bulge, buildings may be designed with one wall that blows out (with "tear here" weakness features built in ) or a substation roof that lifts, to reduce the risk of an uncontrolled structural failure. That 'keep clear' that looks like a parking space you always wondered about maybe for a reason...

    regards Mike.

  • I agree Mike regarding some cheaper appliances that are "bin not service" - but in this case, I'm pretty sure the cover unclips ... if you know how.


    It's just a little frustrating, that perfectly safe and usable products - perhaps all coffee makers - may well end up being binned in this instance ... and I've seen similar things happening with so-called "PAT Testing" over the past 35 years or more.
  • In addition, the latest 5th Edition of the IET CoP for In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment makes it quite clear:


    "10.5 The protective conductor continuity test

    This test is required to verify the integrity of the protective conductor, especially the connection between the protective conductor and the accessible earthed metal parts of the equipment. This test should be carried out on equipment that relies on a connection with earth for its safety (protective earthing)."


    That is, it is accepted that it's not possible to test to exposed-conductive-parts that are inaccessible without dismantling the appliance. From the perspective of recording the test, recording"Not Possible" (or electrician's "LIM" and a limitation note) would be advised I guess.


    Whether a particular organisation, or their insurer, is happy with that approach is of course another question.
  • It is good to know the code of practice is sensibly worded in this regard - the next thing is to make sure folk doing testing  actually understand and follow it.

    It cannot be right that a process supposed to improve the quality of life for of everyone can lead to perfectly good equipment potentially going to landfill, either with the loss of use of a facility , or the  waste of resources on buying a replacement that could have been directed elsewhere, due to what is in effect an administrative error. I fully agree that dangerous kit needs to be removed from service, but only when it is dangerous.


    At the other end of the spectrum it is hard to catch some very cavalier manufactures who seem happy to stick "CE" on a total death trap, having seen plastic bodied chargers that warm up, and come unglued and then leave the pins in the socket when removed, and things where the clearances to, and enclosure of, live parts is far from adequate. How Joe public, or indeed a PA tester,  is supposed to know if the standards are really met in all cases is unclear.


    Amusingly I have personally suffered at the hands of the odd over-enthusiastic PAT 'er.  Just because something does not fit one of the pre-agreed settings for testing, does not mean I did not intend to build the thing  that way, nor does it mean that it is unsafe... 

    A case I recall well was a mains powered box  (3 core lead) with a metal antenna on it - the antenna, for very good reasons in that case, could not be solidly earthed, nor could it be 500VDC tested to the earth of the supply cable without breaking the receiver inside. But the design of the innards was such that a failure of the internal PSU  from primary to secondary would have created a short from live to the CPC, and the CPC was isolated from the antenna anyway.

    Cue a need to write a supporting document, and to fit it with a non-standard plug. Which spends all it's time plugged into a 13A adaptor.. At least as the deign authority I was around to explain stuff, but that will be rare.


    Mike
  • Hello Alex13.

    You have my sympathy!  The length of this thread demonstrates the unexpected complexity that lies behind a straight forward question.

    As you will already know, most portable appliance defects are be found by the visual inspection.  Condition of the casing, condition of the flex, condition of the plug top, security of the flex clamps, correct size fuse etc.  The conditions of use and the age of the appliance may also need to be considered.  This covers perhaps 95% of the inspection issues.

    Then come the electrical tests.  For Class I in a plastic case, my approach would certainly be to remove the terminal cover to gain access to the earth terminal, and then carry out a Class I test.  I would make it my business to include all types of tamperproof tool drivers in my kit to deal with this issue.  Should the terminal cover be glued on or otherwise not removable, one hits the buffers.  At this point, if the equipment is otherwise in good order, I would not automatically go down the "Fail" route.  Earthed metalwork is not accessible to the user.  Therefore, with the enclosure integrity already assured by the visual inspection, it cannot present an electric shock hazard to the user. "From what I have seen on my inspection, I would consider this item is safe to use".  This would include testing for a charity shop.  We have too much stuff in landfill around the globe without needlessly adding to it.  If your test sheet means a box can't be ticked, perhaps there's a "Comments" column to allow some explanation of the empty box alongside a "Pass"?  I would look to take that route.  I hope this helps.

    Regards,

                Colin Jenkins.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Colin Jenkins:

    Hello Alex13.

    You have my sympathy!  The length of this thread demonstrates the unexpected complexity that lies behind a straight forward question.

    As you will already know, most portable appliance defects are be found by the visual inspection.  Condition of the casing, condition of the flex, condition of the plug top, security of the flex clamps, correct size fuse etc.  The conditions of use and the age of the appliance may also need to be considered.  This covers perhaps 95% of the inspection issues.

    Then come the electrical tests.  For Class I in a plastic case, my approach would certainly be to remove the terminal cover to gain access to the earth terminal, and then carry out a Class I test.  I would make it my business to include all types of tamperproof tool drivers in my kit to deal with this issue.  Should the terminal cover be glued on or otherwise not removable, one hits the buffers.  At this point, if the equipment is otherwise in good order, I would not automatically go down the "Fail" route.  Earthed metalwork is not accessible to the user.  Therefore, with the enclosure integrity already assured by the visual inspection, it cannot present an electric shock hazard to the user. "From what I have seen on my inspection, I would consider this item is safe to use".  This would include testing for a charity shop.  We have too much stuff in landfill around the globe without needlessly adding to it.  If your test sheet means a box can't be ticked, perhaps there's a "Comments" column to allow some explanation of the empty box alongside a "Pass"?  I would look to take that route.  I hope this helps.

    Regards,

                Colin Jenkins.

     


    That's, a fantastic help atm these are marked as visual inspection fail due to lack of an earth bond point and are currently left on a shelf waiting testing as atm I don't want to bin them but also technically can't pass them (have a personal full raft of security screw bits Inc triangle bits, most often for irons needing a new flex) until I can find a way to proceed I think this maybe covered by the new code of practice with the class 2 fe being brought in but again since not currently labelled as such again fall through the cracks, so far I have two boxes for items failing one for dumping/ tear down for spare parts, and another for those in need of parts for repair 


  • Sparkingchip: More interestingly I have identical downlights in my ceiling, some are Class I with an earth and some are class II, when I enquired why the manufacturer told me that they make them up to customers specifications, so the Class depends on what the customer asked for; they could all be Class II, but some customers prefer to see them earthed, so they add an earth fly lead and terminal if requested and I had ended up with a mixed batch.

    There is an unofficial class 1.5. This is technically a class 2 but the earth conductor of the mains cable is connected to a metal stud attached to a plastic casing. The sole purpose of the metal stud is to convert a class 2 appliance into a class 1 appliance for electrical safety testing.


    A certain medical device manufacturer sells class 1.5 equipment in the UK and class 2 equipment in Continental Europe. If customers request, then they can buy the opposite type.
  • Arran Cameron:
    Sparkingchip: More interestingly I have identical downlights in my ceiling, some are Class I with an earth and some are class II, when I enquired why the manufacturer told me that they make them up to customers specifications, so the Class depends on what the customer asked for; they could all be Class II, but some customers prefer to see them earthed, so they add an earth fly lead and terminal if requested and I had ended up with a mixed batch.

    There is an unofficial class 1.5. This is technically a class 2 but the earth conductor of the mains cable is connected to a metal stud attached to a plastic casing. The sole purpose of the metal stud is to convert a class 2 appliance into a class 1 appliance for electrical safety testing.


    A certain medical device manufacturer sells class 1.5 equipment in the UK and class 2 equipment in Continental Europe. If customers request, then they can buy the opposite type.


    Oh wow. Now we know we in the UK like making problems for ourselves - a hardware workaround to a purely administrative problem so we can perform an earth continuity test for an earth it does not need.


  • Same mentality as the tops and bottoms of missiles Map lad ???
  • Plastic class 1 devices where the earth conductor of the mains cable is connected to a metal chassis inside, or is used for screening EMI, has to be tested as class 1 rather than class 2 because of the potential for earth leakage current that could trip a RCD.


    There was a (at least one) case of a plastic class 1 device in a hospital that would trip a RCD because of a fault resulting in excessive earth leakage current, but it successfully passed the class 2 EST that was being used at the time.