Switch and sockets heights in slated shed

Electricman

2011 wrote: »

So they are not infallible.....
Great news!

Glad it all worked out for you in the end.

Where is it claimed that RECI are infallible?
Sounds like you have an axe to grind!


Mod note: Please read the forum charter and post accordingly to avoid mods having to take action. Thank you.

2011

Electricman wrote: »

Where is it claimed that RECI are infallible?
Sound like you have an axe to grind!

This post suggests to me that you feel that RECI are infallible:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103545363&postcount=13

...I wouldn't describe myself as having "an axe to grind" but anyone that suggests that rules should be blindly followed regardless of any safety implications needs to think about the implications of this type of behavior especially when dealing with mains voltage electricity in a dangerous environment.

RECI seem to agree that the OP raised legitimate concerns, they then dealt with the situation in a sensible manner.

2011

Electricman wrote: »

Rule 530.5.3 is clear and states

"A wall mounted distribution board shall be mounted at a height not greater than 2.25m measured from the floor to the top surface of the board"

554.1.1 is a far more important rule in my opinion as ignoring it is far more likely to have serious safety consequences. Wouldn't you agree that this rule can't simply be ignored?

I can see no circumstances where RECI could allow this rule to be ignored.

Sometimes it is not a simple black and white issue. In industry a proper risk assessment can be one way of dealing with issues such as this.

If the poster confirms that he has been allowed leave his Distribution Board in an non compliant location I intend contracting the chief inspector in RECI and asking why some contractors are being allowed break the rules

With respect, I think that you are trying to apply what has happened in a rather unusual situation to all installations. Situations such as this need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Electricman

2011 wrote: »

554.1.1 is a far more important rule in my opinion as ignoring it is far more likely to have serious safety consequences. Wouldn't you agree that this rule can't simply be .

I fail to see what Rule 554.1.1 has to do with the height of the distribution board. Can you explain.

Sparks365

Electricman wrote: »

Can the poster confirm that he has been asked to make no modifications to the installation.

Having operated in the electrical contracting sector for many years I cannot accept that the above is true. Does the poster expect me to accept that RECI has allowed clear breaches of the wiring rules. If this is allowed why am I carrying out my installations in accordance with ET 101?. The OP confirmed in post 5 of this thread that the distribution board was installed at a height not conforming with ET 101.

Rule 530.5.3 is clear and states

"A wall mounted distribution board shall be mounted at a height not greater than 2.25m measured from the floor to the top surface of the board"

I can see no circumstances where RECI could allow this rule to be ignored. I myself in the past have been asked to move equipment which does not comply with the rules. If the correct location allowed livestock to access equipment, the equipment should be installed in enclosures or barriers installed to protect the equipment.

If the poster confirms that he has been allowed leave his Distribution Board in an non compliant location I intend contracting the chief inspector in RECI and asking why some contractors are being allowed break the rules.

I would totally agree with this. I find it very unrealistic that RECI would allow this! especially a Distribution board mounted at the wrong height or wrong location.

Can the OP please clarify that this is definitely the case. ?

If RECI allowed this (unless I hear otherwise, its stated here that they did) This case needs to be brought to the attention of RECI management and the CER, as the ETCI wrote the rules not RECI.
RECI do not have the authority to pick and choose when they apply.

This could have serious implications for a lot of contractors and customers who have had to move distribution boards in the past.

2011

Electricman wrote: »

I fail to see what Rule 554.1.1 has to do with the height of the distribution board. Can you explain.

I will try
554.1.1 has nothing to do with the hight of a distribution board, but....

554.1.1 is about not installing socket outlets in a way that they may be subjected to "undue mechanical stress".
In this case it would seem (from what we have been told) that it conflicts with the requirement to mount a socket between 400 and 1200mm.

530.5.3 restricts the hight of a wall mounted distribution board to 2.25m.
In this case it would seem (from what we have been told) that it conflicts with 530.5.1 which basically states (amongst other things) that a distribution board can not be installed in a way that is likely to result in damage.

Sparks365

2011 wrote: »

530.5.3 restricts the hight of a wall mounted distribution board to 2.25m.
In this case it would seem (from what we have been told) that it conflicts with 530.5.1 which basically states (amongst other things) that a distribution board can not be installed in a way that is likely to result in damage.

Are you stating that in order to comply with 530.5.1 ie. protected against environmental conditions, excessive temperatures, Vibration or mechanical stress
you can ignore a different rule?
530.5.3 To be readily accessible and below 2.25 (among other things)

Do both rules not need to be complied with.?

I am raising this as this case may have very serious implications on another installation where distribution boards had to be relocated to comply with 530.5.3. The cost in this case was extremely significant as they couldn't be lowered in their present locations, as to do so would have restricted access in a corridor.

2011

Sparks365 wrote: »

I find it very unrealistic that RECI would allow this! especially a Distribution board mounted at the wrong height or wrong location.

I can see how this rule is easy to comply with in domestic installations, particularly new installations. I have worked in the industrial sector for a very long time and have seen many distribution boards where the top is higher than 2.25m. In my opinion this is primarily for the following reasons:

● Existing installation. The board was installed at a date that predates this rule.

● Existing installation. Multiple field cables that run for many hundreds of meters throughout the plant would not long enough to reach the new replacement board if it was installed at a lower level.

● Existing installation, 100% new board. There is very limited space available in the switchroom. It such cases as these boards can be designed so that the uppermost parts of the board contain components that rarely require maintenance /access (such as terminals). So the parts that require regular access / maintenance are at an acceptable height. I worked on a large project where we had to "book" wall and floor space on a drawing. We then had to get the drawing formally approved before we could get our panel installed. I moved ductwork and freed up an entire wall in a switchroom that was built in the 1970s for an 8m free standing panel that I was installing. The top of the panel was definitely over 2.25m. Apart from the fact that the budget did not allow for it the switchroom was in the middle of a live tank farm for solvents so extending the switchroom was not an option.

● Existing installation, existing board is gradually upgraded. In time the only part not replaced it the enclosure. In reality it is a new board and the rule has been bypassed. It is not right, but it is not uncommon either.

● New installation and the switch room has been massively undersized. This happens more often than it should. There is a constant battle between architects and engineers with the sizing of switchrooms and plant rooms. This may mean that some boards get installed at a slightly higher level that is ideal. Budget may not allow for anything else. Poor planning and unacceptable, this really annoys me but I have seen it happen many times.

● New or existing installation. Board is part of a specialised vendor package and the physical size of the board means that the top of it will be more than 2.25m from finished floor level. Sometimes these panels are made abroad. Changing the panel is not only very expensive but will invalidate warranty.

Sparks365 wrote: »

Are you stating that in order to comply with 530.5.1 ie. protected against environmental conditions, excessive temperatures, Vibration or mechanical stress
you can ignore a different rule?

I am stating that sometimes the choice is no distribution board or install the board in a way that it does not comply with both rules. Every situation has to be looked at on a case by case basis. I am not advocating ignoring rules just because you don't like them or they are a tad awkward to comply with.

Do both rules not need to be complied with.?

They should be and in most cases this is not to difficult to achieve. However in the real world there are power stations, production plants and data centres all over Ireland that do not comply with this. Will they be closed down and remain shut until this is rectified? I think not.
Does this mean that these rules should be ignored in every case? No.

Sparks365

2011 wrote: »

● Existing installation. The board was installed at a date that predates this rule.

● Existing installation. Multiple field cables that run for many hundreds of meters throughout the plant would not long enough to reach the new replacement board if it was installed at a lower level.

● Existing installation, 100% new board. There is very limited space available in the switchroom. It such cases as these boards can be designed so that the uppermost parts of the board contain components that rarely require maintenance /access (such as terminals). So the parts that require regular access / maintenance are at an acceptable height. I worked on a large project where we had to "book" wall and floor space on a drawing. We then had to get the drawing formally approved before we could get our panel installed. I moved ductwork and freed up an entire wall in a switchroom that was built in the 1970s for an 8m free standing panel that I was installing. The top of the panel was definitely over 2.25m. Apart from the fact that the budget did not allow for it the switchroom was in the middle of a live tank farm for solvents so extending the switchroom was not an option.

● Existing installation, existing board is gradually upgraded. In time the only part not replaced it the enclosure. In reality it is a new board and the rule has been bypassed. It is not right, but it is not uncommon either.

All of these cases are for existing installations and note 2 under rule 530.5.3 covers these and are all permissible. the exception has been made


In the case of new work where a new distribution board has been installed or the installation has been rewired (alteration to the wiring terminated here) the rule 530.5.3 applies and no exceptions are made or references to the type of installation whether it be domestic commercial industrial or agri.
Annex 63b states that all new work must comply with the current rules.
No exceptions are made to this regardless of cost/ mistakes by engineers etc.
If RECI have allowed this distribution board to remain above 2.25 meters or in an inaccessible location as stated by the OP this will lead to a serious case to be answered.

2011

Sparks365 wrote: »

All of these cases are for existing installations and note 2 under rule 530.5.3 covers these and are all permissible.

Not necessarily IMHO.
In these examples the installation is existing but this is new work (new boards installed) so the new rules should apply. See relevant parts of previous post in bold.

Theoretically the second example could be a new board for new circuits, but still be part of a far larger existing installation. So whatever about the other two examples the new rules should apply in this case. As you said "Annex 63b states that all new work must comply with the current rules."

● Existing installation. Multiple field cables that run for many hundreds of meters throughout the plant would not long enough to reach the new replacement board if it was installed at a lower level.

● Existing installation, 100% new board. There is very limited space available in the switchroom. It such cases as these boards can be designed so that the uppermost parts of the board contain components that rarely require maintenance /access (such as terminals). So the parts that require regular access / maintenance are at an acceptable height. I worked on a large project where we had to "book" wall and floor space on a drawing. We then had to get the drawing formally approved before we could get our panel installed. I moved ductwork and freed up an entire wall in a switchroom that was built in the 1970s for an 8m free standing panel that I was installing. The top of the panel was definitely over 2.25m. Apart from the fact that the budget did not allow for it the switchroom was in the middle of a live tank farm for solvents so extending the switchroom was not an option.

● Existing installation, existing board is gradually upgraded. In time the only part not replaced it the enclosure. In reality it is a new board and the rule has been bypassed. It is not right, but it is not uncommon either.

If RECI have allowed this distribution board to remain above 2.25 meters or in an inaccessible location as stated by the OP this will lead to a serious case to be answered.

When all is said and done, what is the OP really trying to achieve? I would argue a practical and safe installation. Installing electrics in an enclosure that is within reach of cows (as has been suggested) simply will not work and is potentially dangerous. Why? Because cows can weigh as much as a metric ton. These heavy, strong beasts will deliberately and continuously rub off anything that sticks out.

Anyway I don't want to argue around in circles with you. If you have reasonable experience working on industrial projects you will have seen this many times. That is the reality.

Sparks365

2011 wrote: »

Not necessarily IMHO.
In these examples the installation is existing but this is new work (new boards installed) so the new rules should apply. See relevant parts of previous post in bold.

New boards installed without alteration to the existing circuits terminated there do not need to comply with the height restriction in 530.5.3 see note 2

2011 wrote: »

Theoretically the second example could be a new board for new circuits, but still be part of a far larger existing installation. So whatever about the other two examples the new rules should apply in this case. As you said "Annex 63b states that all new work must comply with the current rules."

Regardless how big the installation is or how many sub-boards there are in that installation. If a distribution board and the associated wiring terminated there is replaced it must comply with 530.5.3 and cannot be mounted above 2.25M from the floor to the top surface of the board.. No exceptions, regardless of the size type or how much money is spent or costs.

2011 wrote: »

When all is said and done, what is the OP really trying to achieve? I would argue a practical and safe installation. Installing electrics in an enclosure that is within reach of cows (as has been suggested) simply will not work and is potentially dangerous. Why? Because cows can weigh as much as a metric ton. These heavy, strongbeasts will deliberately and continuously rub off anything that sticks out.

I would like to see evidence that anyone suggested that a fuse board or any other electrical equipment (socket or switch) was mounted within reach of cattle before you slate them for it!

2011 wrote: »

Anyway I don't want to argue around in circles with you. If you have reasonable experience working on industrial projects you will have seen this many times. That is the reality.

I understand that you are a Mod on this forum as well as being part of this debate. Please don't use your powers as a mod to silence reasonable debate on the matter.

A note to the OP 086lavey
I seen that you were online last night and didn't contribute to the debate. Ca
n you categorically state that RECI allowed you to leave the installation as it was as you stated and allowed the distribution board to remain above 2.25M or in an inaccessible location.
When I bring this and the contents of this thread to their attention i'm certain they will be familiar with the case

2011

Sparks365 wrote: »

I understand that you are a Mod on this forum as well as being part of this debate. Please don't use your powers as a mod to silence reasonable debate on the matter.

Please read the forum charter and post accordingly.

Once posts are civil and particularly if they are of a technical nature they will not be edited or deleted allowing the debate can continue. I find that accusing me of "slating" people as being aggressive and inaccurate, so if you want me to respond please treat me with the same respect that I treat you with.

Secondly posters including the OP are not obliged to respond to you, please remember that.

This is not a p!ssing contest, I am just giving my opinion just like you are giving yours. I know I am not always correct and have admitted to being wrong on this forum before and I am sure I will have to again.

I do not disagree with your points entirely. If you read my previous post carefully you will see that I describe some instances of boards being installed too high as "Poor planning and unacceptable, this really annoys me but I have seen it happen many times."

I would be interested to know your response to this statement that I put to you in my last post:

If you have reasonable experience working on industrial projects you will have seen this many times.

So, have you worked on industrial projects for 10 years + ?
If so have you seen this many times, or ever?

Sparks365

2011 wrote: »

I would argue a practical and safe installation. Installing electrics in an enclosure that is within reach of cows (as has been suggested) simply will not work and is potentially dangerous. Why? Because cows can weigh as much as a metric ton. These heavy, strong beasts will deliberately and continuously rub off anything that sticks out.

My sincerest apologies if I am incorrect, but from reading this thread the accusation is that the RECI inspector has been accused of making this statement without any evidence. I'm not a betting man but I would put most of my life savings on it that this would not be the case.
Again my apologies if I was incorrect. Can you clarify who you were referring to suggested that electrical equipment should be installed within reach of livestock?

Regarding the OP responding to me, Of coarse he doesn't have to and I understand that. But I was giving him the opportunely to clarify the situation before I make contact with the RECI and the CER. If what he said is factual then precedent has been set and I will use this case.

Regarding my qualifications credentials or time in the industry, I don't feel that this has any relevance to this case, but i'm very confident that I can stand over my points.

Tuco88

I work in a very large pharma plant in Cork in the E&I field, I can agree with 2011. Due to various different factors the rules can't be implemented and can be even hazardous due to ATEX, process so on. All panels and DBs are usually on a plynth of some form, but I'd see pharmaceutical industry has its own rules with respect.

But if I was a self employed contractor I would also not be impressed. House rules for all and rightly so.

P.S We don't know what really has been done, the OP may have just said that to wrap this up, seeing he was being asked and wanted to be polite for all the input ?

2011

Sparks365 wrote: »

Can you clarify who you were referring to suggested that electrical equipment should be installed within reach of livestock?

This post states "If the correct location allowed livestock to access equipment, the equipment should be installed in enclosures or barriers installed to protect the equipment."
Based on my (limited) experience with cattle and wiring milking parlours I know that this is highly impractical.

Regarding my qualifications credentials or time in the industry, I don't feel that this has any relevance to this case, but i'm very confident that I can stand over my points.

I am not questioning your credentials or qualifications. I am sure you are very capable. The point I am making is that it is my belief that anyone with reasonable industrial experience will have seen this occur many times. So without providing me with any details as to your background, or stating that this is good practice, do you agree that is not that unusual?

Sparks365

2011 wrote: »

So without providing me with any details as to your background, or stating that this is good practice, do you agree that is not that unusual?

In industrial situations this has never really been an issue, most switch rooms would have their panels and distribution boards mounted close to the ground with the top surface of the boards complying with the rules long before 530.3.5 was introduced to ET101 in the forth edition.

Farms on the other hand are high risk for many reasons.(those already stated as well as many others)
Placing the distribution board out of reach or in an inaccessible area could be the difference between life and death.
Can it be accessed easily in an emergency?
Will the RCD's be tested regularly if the farmer needs a ladder to access the board?
There is always a place to mount the board in an accessible location at the correct height.
If the DSO's cabinet was mounted in an inaccessible location or above 2.25M they would simply would not connect.
A good REC will always comply with ET101 even if that requires extra effort.

2011

Sparks365 wrote: »

In industrial situations this has never really been an issue

I strongly disagree and I am basing this on many years of experience on many plants throughout the country.
I notice that you have not answered my question so I don't know if you have formed this opinion based on any direct experience or not.

most switch rooms would have their panels and distribution boards mounted close to the ground with the top surface of the boards complying with the rules long before 530.3.5 was introduced to ET101 in the forth edition.

I agree that most would have started their life like that, but many plants are decades old.

Farms on the other hand are high risk for many reasons.(those already stated as well as many others)

Agreed as are may pharmaceutical plants, power stations, factories etc....

Placing the distribution board out of reach or in an inaccessible area could be the difference between life and death.

That statement is misleading.
Inaccessible to cattle. Nobody said inaccessible to electricians.
Having devices supplied my mains volatge in an area that is accessible to cattle is far more likely to be the difference between life and death and it would appear that RECI agree

Can it be accessed easily in an emergency?

From the information provided we don't know. I would argue that if this is a requirement then a SELV emergency stop is likely to be a far safer solution. Would you not agree? For all we know this was insisted on following a proper risk assessment. I would be interested to know what emergency you think could occur that would require quick access to the board that could not be dealt with in a far safer and quicker manner.

Will the RCD's be tested regularly if the farmer needs a ladder to access the board?

They should be regardless of the location. As I am sure you know RCDs can be tested and reset remotely if really required.

There is always a place to mount the board in an accessible location at the correct height.

In a safe manner? That is an extrodinary statement.
Can you provide anything to support this? A link perhaps? Do you not accept that sometimes an area is simply full? You know that there are regulations about minimum spaces around boards?

If the DSO's cabinet was mounted in an inaccessible location or above 2.25M...

I agree, but it is nothing to do with this thread.