panel query regarding protection

Monty2010 · Apr 29, 2014

I have received a panel built by someone else as part of a build I am carrying out. Unfortunately the customer has been involved in the selection of devices and wiring requirements however i feel there are a few things a miss.

The mains incomer comes in on a 63A 16mm 5 core SY, through an unfused isolator and into a 63A C rated breaker in 16mm singles, this then goes straight in to a 63A 300mA RCD on 16mm singles. out of the bottom of the RCD is 2 off 4mm singles per phase, 1 of the 4mm is the bus main for a row of breakers which are 2 off 6a, 2 off 16A, 1 off 20 and a 40A the three phases are split over these breakers, the other 4mm from the RCD makes its way to feed a number of contactors and daisy chains from each contactor, becoming the bus wiring.

My issue, surely each circuit should be protected sufficiently to the cable sizing used, so the bus wiring should really all be capable of with standing 63A as that is what it is rated at, or does the RCD change these requirements?

my other issue is the motors only have Overloads, which in my mind only provide overload protection to the motor and therefore the only circuit protection is the MCB 63A and the RCD 63A 300mA. however some motors are fairly small and 1.0mm2 cable has been used from the overload to the terminals in the bottom for me to wire the plant to.
this means that that 1.0mm cable has a 63A breaker protecting it? and a 63A rcd, surely this is not sufficient to rely on an RCD?

In my opinion the motor circuit cables will have to melt, touch earth and then allow the RCD to trip thus being insufficient protection.

I have spent sometime in my regs book but cannot find an actual requirement for overcurrent protection on motor circuits. i have found the statement in 552.1.1 which states every circuit should be capable of carrying FLA, is this enough in my defence to get this panel returned and fixed properly.

Monty

Clive P · Apr 29, 2014

Hi,

To be honest I would be questioning this set up, but wait a while and see if Darkwood turns up; as he is your man when it comes to panels and controls.

Regards.

Darkwood · Apr 29, 2014

This panel doesn't fall within the BS7671 it falls under BS60204-1 (General requirements for machinery control). Also other sub-sections of the BS60204 may be regulatory depending on what the panel controls.

BS7671 does have a few limited clauses regarding motor protection etc which mimic what is already in the BS60204.

Your Query about cable sizing is noted and what you have to take into account is this is not like a house rewire etc, many other protective measures can be used up or down stream of the main device. You will find that the majority of the time control panel loads have a fixed demand ... example the Incoming short circuit protection been covered by the MCB then the OL device on the contactor for a motor gives a fixed max limit of current that the cable could ever demand, this means the conventional fusing down isn't needed as such.

At the snippet of a pic you have posted my only comments are minor - lack of numbering on power cables, Power cables should all be black within the panel wiring and not in phase colours although BS60204 -1 (13.2.4) for colour coding is a recommendation where colour is used to identify the conductors use. As their is no other form of marking on his power cables he should have used all black.

BTW what is the panel doing?
Is their a safety relay - E-stop system (May not be required).
Blue conductors should all be clearly marked N and numbered as blue otherwise denotes DC control.
Are the socket outlets given 30mA rcd protection or are they covered by the 300mA you mentioned.. if 300mA what is the use ofthe sockets?

Your other queries ... the 1mm to the motors is adequate as the motor OL device protects them regardless of a RCD been in the set-up or not, depending on the make of wire the tri-rated 4mm will be rated approx 40-45amps so seems sufficient for the set-up ....again just a glimpsing observation as lack the info.

Judging by the lack on marking I can only guess no wiring plans and other relevant info has been supplied?

Lastly be careful of any critisism you do of the panel without knowledge of the relative regulations you will likely be shot down in flames ... I've been slated twice for similar reasons as your query and I arranged to meet the company boss with the Electrical contractor slating my work and tore him a new rectum hole .. he walked out with his tail between his legs and a caution that if i hear he has slated anymore of my work I will be sending my legal team to have a chat regarding defamation towords myself and business.... he kept well away from me the rest of the job.

netblindpaul · Apr 29, 2014

The panel is CE marked so don't worry, if it's not then send it back as it is not fit for purpose.
END OF as it is a Statutory Requirement.
BTW, DW is not far off, but it falls more correctly under the LVD, of which 60204 is one of the standards that you can use for compliance.

Darkwood · Apr 29, 2014

netblindpaul said:
The panel is CE marked so don't worry, if it's not then send it back as it is not fit for purpose.
END OF as it is a Statutory Requirement.
BTW, DW is not far off, but it falls more correctly under the LVD, of which 60204 is one of the standards that you can use for compliance.

Good point and on that note the new harmonisation of the LVT with EU member states is out now which will be applicable from 2016 ... need to catch up with it at some point :uhoh2:

Monty2010 · Apr 30, 2014

Panel function - Main electrical control and distribution for a mobile grain dresser.
fitted to rigid 17.5Ton truck, 60KVA Generator feeds the panel with a SY 5C16mm.

Im still not really happy with the panel, I have read some information relating to B EN 60204 and the way I understand it, each motor circuit should be protected for overcurrent of the contactor rating. for instance one of the biggest contactors is 32A rated, therefore I see it that it isn't protected for that particular contactor as it is only protected by the 63A MCB and RCD. I have knocked a quick drawing up of the panel as it is wired could you glance over it and give me your feedback.

this is just an additional issue I have with the panel, the panel was delivered with the isolator exposed incoming terminals 1/2 inch clear of the bottom of the enclosure, isolator operating handle an inch too short, no shrouds for exposed isolator parts, outgoing connection terminals only rated at 24A, ok on most but not all, and only crimping the boot lace crimps on the very tip due to how narrow they were. due to all these reasons I have picked further and this is what leads me to believe the wiring may be at fault also.

netblindpaul · Apr 30, 2014

That panel does not comply with 60204.

Monty2010 · Apr 30, 2014

net blind paul, can you give me a little more on that please, I have been asked to evaluate its suitability, which at the moment I have stated, its not fit for purpose in my opinion, I could just do with a bit of meat why.

netblindpaul · Apr 30, 2014

Look at 60204-1 & see what the standard says about control voltages & colour coding as a start.
I can see no control transformer with primary and secondary protection as a start.

Darkwood · Apr 30, 2014

Have to agree with you on the interlock switch its too close to the base, no room for your incoming lugs and is exposed and dangerous to anyone opening the panel without upstream isolation.

Im scratching my head at the sheer number of relays here although I don't have the wiring plans I think the guy who did this is old school and is many years behind technology this is crying out for a PLC to get rid of the bulk of those relays.

The box is over crowded too no allowance for maintenance, repair or additions where the new parts may require more room in some cases.

Here's my last weeks project ...it was in-house and i had to re-use existing star/delta contactors and to the keen eyed ive made a few excursions from the BS60204 but nothing of safety issue.

netblindpaul · Apr 30, 2014

I can't see any circuit protection on the RS dc power supply, if that is what it is as you are using blue singles.
For the price of 2 off 2 pole MCB's why not, when it is stipulated?
Also the red power cores in the top RH corner.
Else, I can't see anything that I would be overly concerned about in a 30 second look at the pic.

Monty2010 · Apr 30, 2014

The relays are due to the guy wanting to run the plant manually? he talked the company in to it for some reason. that's also an issue that I have to pull up with him tomorrow as his relays switch out safety functions and allow the plant to choke.is it not permissible to use a 240V control circuit? or I it ok when used with a 30mA RCD?Where's the cheapest place to buy the 60204 in pdf tonight, mine are at work and could do with a read up now at home.

Darkwood · Apr 30, 2014

netblindpaul said:
I can't see any circuit protection on the RS dc power supply, if that is what it is as you are using blue singles.
For the price of 2 off 2 pole MCB's why not, when it is stipulated?
Also the red power cores in the top RH corner.
Else, I can't see anything that I would be overly concerned about in a 30 second look at the pic.

You not seen the MCB's at the top L/H corner? these cover primary of the dc power supply 1p+n and the 3pole is the protection for the star/delta set-up its 400v coils tapped of the incoming to the contactors.

The dc side of the power supply unit is internally O/L protected and S/C protected, no need for external fusing on the dc controls.

netblindpaul · Apr 30, 2014

This panel must meet the LVD.
One of the applicable A, B & C standards is 60204.
To be honest if you are putting together a professional engineering report on this then you need to have copies of the LVD & all of the relevant standards.
If this goes to civil or criminal court, without these you will be made into mincemeat.
You really need to consider your role in this carefully.
Also, it seems that it is a case of the blind leading the partially sighted.
The specifier was blind and the builder was partially sighted!
Look in 60204 & you will see the requirement for control circuit supplies.

Monty2010 · Apr 30, 2014

pulling back round to the original question, should there be over current protection, at least a fuse preferably an MCB in line with each motor circuit t protect the cable and contactor from overcurrent an short circuit fault. 63A rated cable from the bottom of the rcd, preferably feeing a rated bus bar connector in the top of the contactors and breakers.

Darkwood · Apr 30, 2014

Monty2010 said:
The relays are due to the guy wanting to run the plant manually? he talked the company in to it for some reason. that's also an issue that I have to pull up with him tomorrow as his relays switch out safety functions and allow the plant to choke.is it not permissible to use a 240V control circuit? or I it ok when used with a 30mA RCD?Where's the cheapest place to buy the 60204 in pdf tonight, mine are at work and could do with a read up now at home.

Where are all the controls on the front door or any remote of the panel?
If the control is 230v where is the isolating transformer? ....

you original question is no the OL of the motors protects the cables from overload its just done downstream rather than upstream ... like netblind says if it aint EC marked and supplied with the relevant documents don't accept it, the more i look at it the more i see and the more i believe its a old hat probably mature sparks / engineer that has not keep up with times.

Regarding my plc comment his reason for so many relays is a fob off it has no bearing on manual control and you already highlight control issues anyway.

Is there a risk element to the user of this machine ... would their be a need for a E stop in your mind?

netblindpaul · Apr 30, 2014

darkwood said:
You not seen the MCB's at the top L/H corner? these cover primary of the dc power supply 1p+n and the 3pole is the protection for the star/delta set-up its 400v coils tapped of the incoming to the contactors.

The dc side of the power supply unit is internally O/L protected and S/C protected, no need for external fusing on the dc controls.

Yes I saw MCB's top LH corner, but these are power MCB's black in black out.
Once the wiring leaves the MCB to supply a control circuit, it becomes a control circuit, thus, is is no longer a power circuit?...
Personally I don't believe that the dc side complies without fusing/mcb protection as I can't see what the details of the power supply, so until I do, I have to say it requires protection don't I!

Darkwood · Apr 30, 2014

netblindpaul said:
Yes I saw MCB's top LH corner, but these are power MCB's black in black out.
Once the wiring leaves the MCB to supply a control circuit, it becomes a control circuit, thus, is is no longer a power circuit?...
Personally I don't believe that the dc side complies without fusing/mcb protection as I can't see what the details of the power supply, so until I do, I have to say it requires protection don't I!

http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/0add/0900766b80addf4e.pdf

Monty2010 · Apr 30, 2014

darkwood said:
Where are all the controls on the front door or any remote of the panel?
If the control is 230v where is the isolating transformer? ....

you original question is no the OL of the motors protects the cables from overload its just done downstream rather than upstream ... like netblind says if it aint EC marked and supplied with the relevant documents don't accept it, the more i look at it the more i see and the more i believe its a old hat probably mature sparks / engineer that has not keep up with times.

Regarding my plc comment his reason for so many relays is a fob off it has no bearing on manual control and you already highlight control issues anyway.

Is there a risk element to the user of this machine ... would their be a need for a E stop in your mind?

Controls all on front door, except a remote switch for forward/reverse of an auger
There is no isolating TX
E stop circuit feeds first relay, which then feeds control circuit from there.
The spark is about 35, he strikes me as domestic turned panel builder.

Monty2010 · Apr 30, 2014

darkwood said:
Where are all the controls on the front door or any remote of the panel?If the control is 230v where is the isolating transformer? .... you original question is no the OL of the motors protects the cables from overload its just done downstream rather than upstream ... like netblind says if it aint EC marked and supplied with the relevant documents don't accept it, the more i look at it the more i see and the more i believe its a old hat probably mature sparks / engineer that has not keep up with times.Regarding my plc comment his reason for so many relays is a fob off it has no bearing on manual control and you already highlight control issues anyway.Is there a risk element to the user of this machine ... would their be a need for a E stop in your mind?

Controls all on front door, except a remote switch for forward/reverse of an augerThere is no isolating TXE stop circuit feeds first relay, which then feeds control circuit from there.The spark is about 35, he strikes me as domestic turned panel builder.

Darkwood · Apr 30, 2014

As this is a discussion in an open forum i would remove the schematics and at least blank the company name out at the top... you could find yourself in a legal tangle if this thread is brought to his attention as he could seek defamation.

Ps my Bedtime CYL

Monty2010 · May 1, 2014

darkwood said:
As this is a discussion in an open forum i would remove the schematics and at least blank the company name out at the top... you could find yourself in a legal tangle if this thread is brought to his attention as he could seek defamation.

Ps my Bedtime CYL

Yep same here, cheers for your input, drawings removed, I looked passed the name on them and missed it.

Lagentium · May 1, 2014

Those inverters are so user friendly it's unreal darkwood, that panels a right state too (tongue in cheek!)

wozz · May 1, 2014

darkwood said:
As this is a discussion in an open forum i would remove the schematics and at least blank the company name out at the top... you could find yourself in a legal tangle if this thread is brought to his attention as he could seek defamation.

Ps my Bedtime CYL

Whilst I agree it's not a good idea to put a company name to it and I'm by no means a legal expert but I was told if you stick to fact and opinion you are ok, the fact is that is how the panel is, the op is asking for clarification on some points which in his opinion may not ok. There are far worse things that people say on here that are accepted , I really can't see a company spending time and effort going after someone for questioning a product. If they did it would make interesting reading as you would be free to tell people they are perusing you.

Darkwood · May 1, 2014

wozz said:
Whilst I agree it's not a good idea to put a company name to it and I'm by no means a legal expert but I was told if you stick to fact and opinion you are ok, the fact is that is how the panel is, the op is asking for clarification on some points which in his opinion may not ok. There are far worse things that people say on here that are accepted , I really can't see a company spending time and effort going after someone for questioning a product. If they did it would make interesting reading as you would be free to tell people they are perusing you.

Its more a forum policy too and when discrediting someone's work in the public eye if you name them or their company then those been discredited have the right to defend their actions and as they are not part of the conversation it can easily get to a stage where defamation is used.

Although we are discussing the BS60204-1 in particular here its wording in many area is 'preferably' - 'recommended' and many clauses have sub clauses which allow agreed deviations from the regs ...eg - colour coding of indicator lights may conflict with existing plant controls and thus an agreement is reached you will deviate from regulation and bring the panel in line with existing plant control colour codes.

From our observing point of view we have been given limited info so can only comment on what we see which could be misleading as we don't know the exact spec of the control system or any agreed excursions from regulations although we can point out where we feel the panel doesn't seem to be in line the LVD and more specifically 60204 - 1 as our discussion goes.

Like the BS7671 the Bs 60204 is a guide and there is as far as I know no legal requirement to follow it in the uk at least but there is a legal requirement to meet the health and safety issues in the directive thus following the relevant BS standards forms the best and easiest route to achieving this.

Monty2010 · May 1, 2014

Update, panel builder drove 4.5hrs up to me today to ask what my concerns were.
after reading through 60204 and finding the c,artifices tigon I required on over-current protection I began explaining all his other faults. The panel has gone home with him, I believe he is rectifying it.

Biggest problem is he was ready on the counter attack and I think still doesn't see what's the problem with his panel. It's coming back up on the twelfth so will see if it's improved. Also major alterations to the control circuit.

and one to net Paul, you can use phase voltage for control circuit without an isolating TX, see method 3.

Monty2010 · May 1, 2014

darkwood said:
Its more a forum policy too and when discrediting someone's work in the public eye if you name them or their company then those been discredited have the right to defend their actions and as they are not part of the conversation it can easily get to a stage where defamation is used.

Although we are discussing the BS60204-1 in particular here its wording in many area is 'preferably' - 'recommended' and many clauses have sub clauses which allow agreed deviations from the regs ...eg - colour coding of indicator lights may conflict with existing plant controls and thus an agreement is reached you will deviate from regulation and bring the panel in line with existing plant control colour codes.

From our observing point of view we have been given limited info so can only comment on what we see which could be misleading as we don't know the exact spec of the control system or any agreed excursions from regulations although we can point out where we feel the panel doesn't seem to be in line the LVD and more specifically 60204 - 1 as our discussion goes.

Like the BS7671 the Bs 60204 is a guide and there is as far as I know no legal requirement to follow it in the uk at least but there is a legal requirement to meet the health and safety issues in the directive thus following the relevant BS standards forms the best and easiest route to achieving this.

Darkwood, i with you and thus is why I removed it, you can soon get yourself in a little trouble by shaming people and them taking offence if it's true in your opinion or not. This is why I took your advice and removed the details. Thanks fella for the rest of the info

netblindpaul · May 2, 2014

Monty2010 said:
Update, panel builder drove 4.5hrs up to me today to ask what my concerns were.
after reading through 60204 and finding the c,artifices tigon I required on over-current protection I began explaining all his other faults. The panel has gone home with him, I believe he is rectifying it.

Biggest problem is he was ready on the counter attack and I think still doesn't see what's the problem with his panel. It's coming back up on the twelfth so will see if it's improved. Also major alterations to the control circuit.

and one to net Paul, you can use phase voltage for control circuit without an isolating TX, see method 3.

Well in that case your copy of BS EN 60204-1:2006+A1:2009 is different to mine.
There is no "method 3" anywhere in my copy.
I have just checked again with a fresh copy from BSI in case mine is corrupt, and nope not there.
I suggest that you refer to clause 9.1.1 in this standard for clarity of the requirement.

I have put an excerpt below, it would be illegal to provide too much of the standard.
Excerpt from BS EN 60204-1:2006+A1:2009.
>>>>>>>>>>>
9.1 Control circuits
9.1.1 Control circuit supply
Where control circuits are supplied from an a.c. source, control transformers shall be used for
supplying the control circuits. Such transformers shall have separate windings. Where
several transformers are used, it is recommended that the windings of those transformers be
connected in such a manner that the secondary voltages are in phase.
Where d.c. control circuits derived from an a.c. supply are connected to the protective
bonding circuit (see 8.2.1), they shall be supplied from a separate winding of the a.c. control
circuit transformer or by another control circuit transformer.
NOTE Switch-mode units fitted with transformers having separate windings in accordance with IEC 61558-2-17
meet this requirement.
Transformers are not mandatory for machines with a single motor starter and/or a maximum
of two control devices (for example interlock device, start/stop control station).
<<<<<<<

There is NO way this panel would comply with the last paragraph stating that "transformers are not mandatory"

Don't bother trying to argue, because I won't argue with you.
You can read the facts above.
You won't win by the way, even if you start an argument.

I am not liked on here, because I HAVE to keep up with current legislation and current practice, and, I have to provide evidence of such material breaches that you are seeing here, regularly, as it is part of my business, and I am not afraid of stating very directly when things are wrong.
IF things are just my opinion then I will state this, however, the fact here is that that panel requires a transformer, you cannot use a control supply direct from the mains and comply with "60204".
Have you asked the panel builder for his RA's & safety assessments for the control system?
Have you asked him for his DOI for the panel?

Darkwood · May 2, 2014

I think he's referring to 9.4.3.1 (method c) but this is in respect to protection against maloperation due to earth faults, voltage interuption and loss of circuit continuity.

Where it brings up method C it mentions where the control circuit is not fed from a control TX so i think this is where the panel builder is confused as he thinks its a non restricted option and not guided by the conditions in 9.1.1.

PS Netblind... I have no issues with you I know you know your stuff and respect your comment whether or not I may agree fully or not, BTW regarding the fusing of my DC supply did you take a look at the link?.. Would the DC side in your opinion need external fusing as I have omitted it? The supply will be cut on OL or SC and won't re-establish without both re-power and no fault/OL conditions.

@Monty .. regardless of the panel builders excuses the fact that he taken it away to bring it more in line with regulations must be screaming out to you his competence... I still can believe the exposed incoming tabs so close to the cab case without room to lug up..that just says it all regardless of any other issues.

Im still unsure of the machine set-up but can't really believe this machine is hazard free and doesn't require some kind of E-stop circuit?

GMES · May 2, 2014

The 1st thing i would be complaining about is all the cheap chint crap in there! sorry guys but it is the cheapest control gear on the market.
For me in an industrial enviroment where stuff gets a lot of work i would really want better quality parts in my panel.

netblindpaul · May 2, 2014

darkwood said:
I think he's referring to 9.4.3.1 (method c) but this is in respect to protection against maloperation due to earth faults, voltage interuption and loss of circuit continuity.

Where it brings up method C it mentions where the control circuit is not fed from a control TX so i think this is where the panel builder is confused as he thinks its a non restricted option and not guided by the conditions in 9.1.1.

PS Netblind... I have no issues with you I know you know your stuff and respect your comment whether or not I may agree fully or not, BTW regarding the fusing of my DC supply did you take a look at the link?.. Would the DC side in your opinion need external fusing as I have omitted it? The supply will be cut on OL or SC and won't re-establish without both re-power and no fault/OL conditions.

@Monty .. regardless of the panel builders excuses the fact that he taken it away to bring it more in line with regulations must be screaming out to you his competence... I still can believe the exposed incoming tabs so close to the cab case without room to lug up..that just says it all regardless of any other issues.

Im still unsure of the machine set-up but can't really believe this machine is hazard free and doesn't require some kind of E-stop circuit?

DW as far as the power supply goes.
I realise that you are not asking how to integrate the unit, and that your query is a compliance issue, and that I respect.
TBH, I don't know from the info given.
That sales blurb you linked to (not your fault) is just that IMHO.
I would be looking for some more detailed info before I accepted integration of that unit without secondary protection.
I did not see a mention of the standards it complied with, I would want to see the DOI for the unit, and see what directives & standards it complies with, to see what secondary protection it needed if any.

BTW, I only skimmed the link, so may have missed something.
Sorry if I have.

There may be a case of the blind leading the partially sighted here.
(Not you DW.)

Darkwood · May 21, 2014

Any progress with this panel Monty ..just wandering how things have progressed.

LeeH · May 22, 2014

darkwood said:
This panel doesn't fall within the BS7671 it falls under BS60204-1 (General requirements for machinery control). Also other sub-sections of the BS60204 may be regulatory depending on what the panel controls.

BS7671 does have a few limited clauses regarding motor protection etc which mimic what is already in the BS60204.

Your Query about cable sizing is noted and what you have to take into account is this is not like a house rewire etc, many other protective measures can be used up or down stream of the main device. You will find that the majority of the time control panel loads have a fixed demand ... example the Incoming short circuit protection been covered by the MCB then the OL device on the contactor for a motor gives a fixed max limit of current that the cable could ever demand, this means the conventional fusing down isn't needed as such.

At the snippet of a pic you have posted my only comments are minor - lack of numbering on power cables, Power cables should all be black within the panel wiring and not in phase colours although BS60204 -1 (13.2.4) for colour coding is a recommendation where colour is used to identify the conductors use. As their is no other form of marking on his power cables he should have used all black.

BTW what is the panel doing?
Is their a safety relay - E-stop system (May not be required).
Blue conductors should all be clearly marked N and numbered as blue otherwise denotes DC control.
Are the socket outlets given 30mA rcd protection or are they covered by the 300mA you mentioned.. if 300mA what is the use ofthe sockets?

Your other queries ... the 1mm to the motors is adequate as the motor OL device protects them regardless of a RCD been in the set-up or not, depending on the make of wire the tri-rated 4mm will be rated approx 40-45amps so seems sufficient for the set-up ....again just a glimpsing observation as lack the info.

Judging by the lack on marking I can only guess no wiring plans and other relevant info has been supplied?

Lastly be careful of any critisism you do of the panel without knowledge of the relative regulations you will likely be shot down in flames ... I've been slated twice for similar reasons as your query and I arranged to meet the company boss with the Electrical contractor slating my work and tore him a new rectum hole .. he walked out with his tail between his legs and a caution that if i hear he has slated anymore of my work I will be sending my legal team to have a chat regarding defamation towords myself and business.... he kept well away from me the rest of the job.

Great post Darkwood you obviously know your onions. I just want to point out N should be Light blue, as 'normal' Blue denotes DC control as you have stated.

Gets the wholesalers ever time asking for a roll of 6mm light Blue Tri!

I never mark neutral as N as the colour denotes what it is. Does it actually state it should be? I've not come across that.

LeeH · May 22, 2014

GMES said:
The 1st thing i would be complaining about is all the cheap chint crap in there! sorry guys but it is the cheapest control gear on the market.
For me in an industrial enviroment where stuff gets a lot of work i would really want better quality parts in my panel.

I don't understand you issues with Chint, we use it if the customer has no preference.

I've never had a faulty component yet, the MCB's are Merlin, the push buttons and indicators are old style TM, the MMS's are old sprecher and schu etc.

Darkwood · May 22, 2014

LeeH said:
Great post Darkwood you obviously know your onions. I just want to point out N should be Light blue, as 'normal' Blue denotes DC control as you have stated.

Gets the wholesalers ever time asking for a roll of 6mm light Blue Tri!

I never mark neutral as N as the colour denotes what it is. Does it actually state it should be? I've not come across that.

Yes I Stand correctly realised that the next day at work but clear indication of its use as a N can allow alternate colour code .. its preferable to do as you said though if your going to the T of the regs although anyone in a panel should be competent anyway regardless and understand the set up.

If my panel is inhouse im a little more relaxed on these things but if im selling it Im a stickler for the rules.

D Skelton · May 23, 2014

LeeH said:
I never mark neutral as N as the colour denotes what it is. Does it actually state it should be? I've not come across that.

Reg 5.1 Lee. On the incoming supply conductor terminations, where a neutral conductor is used it shall be clearly indicated in the technical documentation of the machine, such as in the installation diagram and in the circuit diagram, and a separate insulated terminal, labelled N shall be provided for the neutral conductor.

BTW, it's threads like this that make forums what they are!

DW certainly does know his stuff, I will never grow tired of listening to what he has to say!

Great thread guys, certainly makes you look that little bit closer at the detail.

-

Attachments

-

Darkwood

-

Darkwood

-

Attachments

-

-

-

Darkwood

-

-

Darkwood

-

-

Darkwood

-

Darkwood

-

-

Attachments

Darkwood

-

-

wozz

Darkwood

-

-

-

Darkwood

GMES

-

Darkwood

-

-

Darkwood

-

Similar threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Advert

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Thread starter

Thread Information

Thread Tags

Advert

Thread statistics

Advert