IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: The importance of labelling?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 24 July 2012 01:50 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 24 July 2012 01:50 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

Ive been part of a team doing ECR's and we have had various differing opinions on codes, etc.

When finding electrical equipment with multiple circuits inside but no warning labels I have given a code 3. Others have given a Code 2 and we need to issue the same code as the work is for the same client.

My point is that to work on the equipment you need to be a competent person and should follow safe isolation procedures, etc, regardless of whether the equipment is labelled or not.

Any comments appreciated
 24 July 2012 01:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for BigRed.
BigRed

Posts: 558
Joined: 10 November 2006

Might be worth putting EICR at the top of the report and using the new codes with a key for the unwary...
check out
http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...tid=205&threadid=45636
 24 July 2012 01:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19471
Joined: 23 March 2004

Start with a regulation number - what regulation do you think the arrangement doesn't comply with ?

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 24 July 2012 02:18 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

Hi Oms, 514.11.1
 24 July 2012 02:19 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

and 537.2.1.3
 24 July 2012 02:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11297
Joined: 13 August 2003

Hi Oms, 514.11.1

Can't both circuits be isolated by the installation's main switch?

and 537.2.1.3

Does the installation have more then one supply?

Many 2-gang light switches in halls are fed from two circuits - landing light on the upstairs lighting, hall on the downstairs (a safety feature to ensure that the stairs still had some light if either one circuit failed). I don't recall seeing many warning stickers...

- Andy.
 24 July 2012 02:31 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

The installation only has one supply, but three circuits.

So just 514.11.1 then.

You could just turn off the main switch, although might be awkward in this case as you would be in darkness. But the reg still requires a label I believe.
 24 July 2012 02:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11297
Joined: 13 August 2003

But the reg still requires a label I believe.

Would it be different for a TT installation under your theory? (given that single pole MCBs can't provide isolation in TT)
- Andy.
 24 July 2012 02:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19471
Joined: 23 March 2004

well, Andy has given you the answers to my question - so either no code or a code 3 or a recommendation under separate cover to the client - good engineering practice though, not a departure rom BS 7671 (assuming the installation has a main switch)

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 24 July 2012 02:50 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

Sorry, this is TNCS, there are 3 panels that all have the 3 circuits going to them. with remote isolators that are not lockable.

I think it should have been labelled and the 3 mcbs indicated to comply with the reg.

As I said in my initial question, I dont think its a code 2, I think it is a code 3.
 24 July 2012 02:55 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

Ah I see - the 514.11.1 says were there is not a single device to isolate all live parts, and the main switch is a single device.

So really in 99% of installations, those that have a main switch, this reg does not apply at all?
 24 July 2012 03:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19471
Joined: 23 March 2004

It is only really required where you have say changeover switchgear where there is say mains and a generator - to isolate parts of the syatem requires both mains and generator switchgear a
to be open before isolation of the changeover devices takes place.

Other examples might be big comms rooms where there are potentially multiple generator and UPS inputs to systems that, if you were to isolate the main switch, would still remain live - a wrap around bypass panel being an obvious one

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 24 July 2012 03:17 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for leckie.
leckie

Posts: 1710
Joined: 21 November 2008

Blimey, on another contract, Mitsubishi spent loads having there ASHP control panels fitted with these labels. Im going to tell them not to bother from now on, perhaps they will send me a reward!
 24 July 2012 03:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19471
Joined: 23 March 2004

I don't imagine Mitzi spent loads on a few labels - and typically they only deal with thier system - so theoretically have no knowledge of the installation main switch (location, type capability etc)

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.