panel query regarding protection

[Darkwood]

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]

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]

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

 

[wozz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[LeeH]

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]

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]

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]

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.