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 11 replies
  • Subscribers 40 subscribers
  • Views 2922 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

RCD's and vibration

Paul Brewerton

Where RCDs are installed in areas such as mobile welfare units, caravans, towable catering units, etc)

After being transported from A to B, are they likely to have suffered any detrimental effects (particularly due to vibration) caused during transit?

Case in question is self powered mobile welfare units we have on site, which are tested prior to delivery and found to be functioning correctly. 

Cabin manufacturers have stated that there is no need to test again, after every time the unit is moved, and indeed would be impractical and overkill in many instances, yet I have someone claiming that RCDs fail due to vibration. 

My gut feeling is this is nonsense, if an RCD is tested at any time and found to not function, how would it be determined that the root cause was transit vibration anyway? 

Parents
  • 0

    Isn't this covered by suitable lower recommended inspection periods, for example GN3 recommends the maximum period between inspections and tests for caravans is 3 years.

    There are other factors than just road vibration. My experience tells me the environment in which a mobile installation is used can be a greater factor than the transportation between locations. For example, welfare cabins used in construction sites, the switchgear suffers with the dust on those sites, which, especially with dampness in use and storage causes all sorts of problems including corrosion that can cause mechanical problems, or increase the resistance of breaker or RCD contacts (to the point the device overheats) etc. - so perhaps in that environment we might be edging periodic verification down to the 3 months recommended in GN3 for construction sites (if that is where the unit is used every day) ... but whilst this might be valid for a unit that's dumped on some construction sites, it might not be for all construction environment welfare units, so for example a highway maintenance team's unit might not be subject to the same dust, especially if the maintenance team is only looking at lighting or signals/communications as a stand-alone activity.

    Duty Holder's Risk Assessment I guess is the answer.

Reply
  • 0

    Isn't this covered by suitable lower recommended inspection periods, for example GN3 recommends the maximum period between inspections and tests for caravans is 3 years.

    There are other factors than just road vibration. My experience tells me the environment in which a mobile installation is used can be a greater factor than the transportation between locations. For example, welfare cabins used in construction sites, the switchgear suffers with the dust on those sites, which, especially with dampness in use and storage causes all sorts of problems including corrosion that can cause mechanical problems, or increase the resistance of breaker or RCD contacts (to the point the device overheats) etc. - so perhaps in that environment we might be edging periodic verification down to the 3 months recommended in GN3 for construction sites (if that is where the unit is used every day) ... but whilst this might be valid for a unit that's dumped on some construction sites, it might not be for all construction environment welfare units, so for example a highway maintenance team's unit might not be subject to the same dust, especially if the maintenance team is only looking at lighting or signals/communications as a stand-alone activity.

    Duty Holder's Risk Assessment I guess is the answer.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines