IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Manufacturers' instructions
Topic Summary:
Created On: 08 January 2013 11:24 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.
 08 January 2013 11:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4439
Joined: 10 December 2004

Now that consunsus has been reached in regards to the box ticking, I thought I'd ask for opinions on these two Regulations:
Section 134 ERECTION AND INITIAL VERIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS
134.1 Erection
Regulation 134.1.1Good workmanship by competent persons or persons under their supervision and proper materials shall be used in the erection of the electrical installation, Electrical equipment shall be installed in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the equipment.

PART 5 SELECTION AND ERECTION OF EQUIPMENT
CHAPTER 51 COMMON RULES
510.3 Every item of equipment shall shall be selected and erected so as to allow compliance with the regulations stated in this chapter and the relevant regulations in other parts of BS7671 and shall take account of manufacturers' instructions.

Spefically in regards to the two underlined parts.
 09 January 2013 06:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



normcall

Posts: 8129
Joined: 15 January 2005

As usual, these people do not live in the real world.
How many times do you find instructions that actually apply to the item in front of you? or even in untranslated English? or even for a piece of equipment that has been superseded.
Buck passing to the 'n' degree. That's Europe for you!

Now, if they actually said that manufacturers should provide accurate instructions (without the usual ' we reserve the right to ............' small print, then the system would work.

-------------------------
Norman
 09 January 2013 09:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19659
Joined: 23 March 2004

I don't think I see a problem with any of that Spin

take as an example MCB distribution boards - manufactureres will have instructions on torques settings of terminals, they will probably have published data on derating of In for higher ambient temperatures, they may well have instuction on say the seperation of integral contactors for heating effects.

Other examples may be IP ratings, mounting height, altitude limits etc etc etc

going to a ridiculous extreme, you wouldn't expect anyone to be trying to mount a 3000A Form 4 type 6 switchboard on a wall with a few rawlbolts would you ? - it's intended for floor mounting and the manufacturer will have provided weights, possibly COG,s and clearances. The cable manufactureres will have provided minimum bending radii - so a 2.4m high panel in a 2.6 m high room probably isn't going to work - the panel will be OK - the cables won't

Part of initial verification will (should) cover such aspects (although I accept that in many cases these are also a function of designers selection - I guess the old concept of responsibility for BS 7671 compliance doesn't pass totally to the contractor at let of contract - the designer still has a part to play in conjunction with manufacturers/suppliers).

Personally, I don't see a problem with the regulation itself - compliance with it is the difficult part

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 09 January 2013 09:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11442
Joined: 13 August 2003

On the face of it, it sounds like part 5 is less onerous than 134 - " take account of" rather than "shall be installed in accordance with", but section 5 is dealing with Selection and erection, whereas 134 is just deals with erection (and verification).

When selecting equipment the designer should take account of manufacturer's instructions (i.e. is this equipment suitable for the purpose (s)he has in mind), but wouldn't at that stage be able to install according to the instructions. The installer would be bound by 134 anyway. So overall the wording probably makes sense (if a little repetitious).

- Andy.
 09 January 2013 10:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogersmith7671

Posts: 886
Joined: 04 November 2004

Installed to manufacturer's instructions and account taken to specification/instruction would i dare say be a given, and previously would have peen presumed as a fundamental requirement for safety in previous editions of the relevant regulations under good workmanship.
The current Ed has been extended to make it more explicit. I don't think that slavishly following instructions given by manufactures is a particularly good idea, the "Hungarian phrase book" approach to installation work might prove to be embarrassing.
It's the "competent persons or persons under their supervision" bit that worries me as this looks like a JIB jobsworth charter to me.

Regards.
 09 January 2013 11:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11442
Joined: 13 August 2003

It's the "competent persons or persons under their supervision" bit that worries me as this looks like a JIB jobsworth charter to me.

As long as it says competent, rather than qualified, I'm happy.
- Andy.
 09 January 2013 12:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1866
Joined: 01 April 2006

Shall = Mandatory

Should = Not Mandatory but recommended

Interesting your post the use of the word Shall, a legal term mandatory to them. They have you by the curlews if you don't comply.

BS7671 uses shall a lot as well as "may".

It's a pity we now have to use tick boxes to say we have complied rather than a report in words, in sentences, and in paragraphs either in the active or passive voice and you could always add lacquer or garnish to make the report more attractive to your reader.
The manufactures are taking a cowardly way out by words ensuring that no one can pin the blame on them.
 09 January 2013 03:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4439
Joined: 10 December 2004

Often the manufacturers' instructions instruct that the wiring should be done in accordance to BS7671, which kind of makes things confusing if they are also instructing something that BS7671 doesn't require
 09 January 2013 04:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19659
Joined: 23 March 2004

BS 7671 has "minimum requirements" for compliance - there's no problem if manufacturers instructions require "betterment" - BS 7671 allows for this

regards

OMS

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

See Also:



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