PIR coding

[Sb8389]

Hi guys,
Doing a periodic on a cabin which is to be used for buisness use.
Its a new install and the one thing i have seen which im not sure weather it warrants a code or
not is they have a chandelair type fitting where the bracket is screwed to the beam,
Meaning due to the size of the fitting its possible for someone to put there hand above the
fitting and go into the connection behind it.
The height from floor to the fitting is 2.25m
would you guys snag this.
thanks

 

[davesparks]

That is your perogative in interpretating the regs!

More important is how it would interpreted in a court, how would readily accessible be defined?

In this case the item in question is within reach of a person standing on normal floor level, the regulations make no distinction about assessing the likelihood of someone touching it or the probability of them making contact with live part.

If the regulations were only concerned with fingers then they would specify IP2X (standard finger) rather than IP4X (1mm dia metal probe)

 

[yellowvanman]

More important is how it would interpreted in a court, how would readily accessible be defined?

In this case the item in question is within reach of a person standing on normal floor level, the regulations make no distinction about assessing the likelihood of someone touching it or the probability of them making contact with live part.

If the regulations were only concerned with fingers then they would specify IP2X (standard finger) rather than IP4X (1mm dia metal probe)

You interpretate the regulations how you want and I'll do likewise, that doesn't make either of us right or wrong!

With any decision I make I'll be quite happy to stand up in a court and argue my decision(s).

Were you party to the regs discussions? your only assuming its re: IP2x/4X and fingers! Why not IP3X?

 

[davesparks]

You interpretate the regulations how you want and I'll do likewise, that doesn't make either of us right or wrong!

With any decision I make I'll be quite happy to stand up in a court and argue my decision(s).

Were you party to the regs discussions? your only assuming its re: IP2x/4X and fingers! Why not IP3X?

It's not a case of what you will be happy to stand up and argue about, 2.25m height is within arms reach of a person standing on the floor so can only possibly be described as readily accessible, especially when considered alongside the fact that a light fitting must be accessible in order for the lamps to be replaced.

I am not assuming it is regarding IP ratings and fingers, that is written in black and white in the regulations and the IP standard. An IP2X rating is defined by use of a standard finger (a mechanical replica of a finger or specific dimensions) and IP4X rating is defined by a 1mm dia cylindrical probe of a specified length.

 

[yellowvanman]

It's not a case of what you will be happy to stand up and argue about, 2.25m height is within arms reach of a person standing on the floor so can only possibly be described as readily accessible, especially when considered alongside the fact that a light fitting must be accessible in order for the lamps to be replaced.

You are now telling me I'm wrong and you're right! As I have said before you interpretate readily accessible how you want and I'll do the same!

As regards the OPs question, its up to him how he assesses it as he is the only one who's seen the situation!

From my interpretation of the OP, is that there is a connection enclosure connected to the beam 2.25m above floor level and hanging from that is some sort of light fitting, so the light fitting is also impeding direct access to the connections. As the connections are probably made in a connector block (which is probably IP2X anyway) then live connections are still not readily accessible.

I am making assumptions and as I have previously said the OP is the only one who can make the decision in the case described.

An IP2X rating is defined by use of a standard finger (a mechanical replica of a finger or specific dimensions) and IP4X rating is defined by a 1mm dia cylindrical probe of a specified length.

I did know that!

Why can't you respect other peoples interpretations?

 

[Richard Burns]

Remember the first number in an IP code has two definitions, one applicable to ingress of solid foreign objects and one applicable to access to hazardous parts. The test methods are different with different probes / test objects and the item has to comply with both definitions for the first numeral to be applicable.
If only the access to hazardous parts is met then the subsidiary letter is used with an X in the first numeral position.

Because of the regulations wording I expect this is primarily applicable to access to hazardous parts and even though there is no definition of readily accessible the arms reach idea (even though it is applied in a different scenario) is an accessibility criteria.

I would tend to go for the idea that these connections are readily accessible and should be enclosed suitably, whether by covering them individually or by sealing the outer enclosure is debatable, though the second options is probably easiest.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Different ways of interpreting the term 'readily accessible', how odd.
To my mind, something is 'readily accessible', if it can be accessed without the use of a key, tool or access equipment.
Access equipment being ladders, MEWPs, helicopters, etc.

 

[Dave OCD]

To be on the safe side just remove the fitting and re-mount it on a piece of timber bigger than the base of the fitting with a hole drilled through it only just big enough for the supply cable.

 

[ruston]

To be on the safe side just remove the fitting and re-mount it on a piece of timber bigger than the base of the fitting with a hole drilled through it only just big enough for the supply cable.

You are right , it needs sorting as.

Quote the OP---

"Meaning due to the size of the fitting its possible for someone to put there hand above the
fitting and go into the connection behind..

 

[davesparks]

If it's the kind of fitting im thinking it is then an oversize conduit box lid between the bracket and the beam can work to cover the gaps

 

[andyb]

Interesting thread.

How would you code a pendant in a room then?

 

[Dave OCD]

Yeah something like that would do fine as well.

Edit - reply to Davesparks' post.

 

[davesparks]

Interesting thread.

How would you code a pendant in a room then?

I don't follow, what is the problem?

 

[Dave OCD]

Interesting thread.

How would you code a pendant in a room then?

You can't put your hand into the top of a fitting that's fixed tight to a ceiling.

 

[andyb]

I don't follow, what is the problem?

No problem Dave, it's puzzled me for a while now how normal lamp holders are still allowed.
Often accessible without steps, live parts accessible without the use of a tool. Just take the lamp out.
Same with table lamps.

The code question was rhetorical.

 

[ruston]

With the lamp missing? but that could apply to any fitting.