Correct EICR coding for a socket supplying a Server.

Depends if there's a documented risk assessment...

   - Andy.

In the absence of a documented RA..

C3 ?

If you like the feeling you are not alone,   in this example for something else, Napit codebreakers say  C3 if only used to supply equipment indoors and C2 if it might be used to plug in something outdoors. 

your customer  can make the C3 vanish by

1) adding an RCD or

2) suitable paperwork (RA and some instructions) and labeling or

3) by changing the plug and socket for a 63A one.

Mike

Presuming the cabinet has a protective conductor current of > 9mA (531.3.2 (c)) - which is pretty likely except for the smallest or mostly unpopulated racks - then a 30mA RCD wouldn't be appropriate - so C3 for lack of a risk assessment to omit one (or alternatively hard-wire it, but that often brings in more safety problems where IT gurus need to move things about).

  - Andy.

I'm not sure if you initially had  typo in the polarity of the logic of the greater than sign , and the mostly empty rack, but in any case I agree with the sentiment. 

If there is a lot of CPC current due to many things with filters and so on, then you really cannot have an RCD, so one has to try to provide an equivalent level of safety another way.

Commonly this is by additional bonding so recover the normal condition that a single 'off earth' fault does not make anything immediately dangerous, or the equivalent of placing out of reach by controlling the access, or by monitoring the earth continuity electronically and sounding an alarm if it fails . The choice of what is best in any given situation rather depends on the technical knowledge of users and who exactly has access and how often - some server racks are more or less locked in a cage for years and never moved, others are handled every day.

Mike. 

mapj1 said:

I'm not sure if you have typo in the polarity of the logic of the greater than sign , and the mostly empty rack

Opps - well spotted - corrected now 

mapj1 said:

I'm not sure if you have typo in the polarity of the logic of the greater than sign , and the mostly empty rack

Opps - well spotted - corrected now