Discuss PIR coding in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Sb8389

-
Reaction score
25
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
 
It's one of the first places you may put your fingers to steady yourself to remove the bracket etc. If my mental image is correct.
 
Last edited:
The top surface of an enclosure needs to meet IP4x regardless of how high it is above FFL


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

416.2.2 - horizontal top surface of an enclosure which is readily accessible shall provide at least IP4X (I've not typed word for word)

2.25m above the floor is not readily accessible to my way of thinking!
 
If the connections are properly done within the 'cap' then it should still meet IP2X and not pose a hazard with regard to a finger touching a live terminal , who would be stupid enough to poke fingers in there anyway ?
 
416.2.2 - horizontal top surface of an enclosure which is readily accessible shall provide at least IP4X (I've not typed word for word)

2.25m above the floor is not readily accessible to my way of thinking!

2.25m is within arms reach when standing on the floor, hardly inaccessible is it?

Plus of course the fact that someone has to gain access to the light fitting to change the lamps means that it must be readily accessible.
 
2.25m is within arms reach when standing on the floor, hardly inaccessible is it?

Plus of course the fact that someone has to gain access to the light fitting to change the lamps means that it must be readily accessible.

Its not as if someone could accidently poke their fingers into something that high! This is similar to ensuring any cable connections are enclosed in an enclosure that requires a tool to gain access. If somebody wants to get a stepladder and don't know what they are doing then they deserve all they get!

The other reference I've seen with respect to 'readily accessible' is the top surface of a consumer unit that is situated immediately below the ceiling, does that need to be IP4X? Especially now when using metal enclosures that in some cases have larger cable knock-outs.
 
What's all this "above 2.25m" and "readily accessible" chat about ? As far as I am aware the regs make no allowance for these factors and just state that all enclosures shall be IP4X on their horizontal top surface.

I stand to be corrected though


EDIT: Just read the wording of the reg and corrected myself :D
 
Last edited:
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 "
 
What's all this "above 2.25m" and "readily accessible" chat about ? As far as I am aware the regs make no allowance for these factors and just state that all enclosures shall be IP4X on their horizontal top surface.

I stand to be corrected though


EDIT: Just read the wording of the reg and corrected myself :D
Yellow van man has the correct reg number to cover this but i would agree with others that it is readily accesable
 
Yellow van man has the correct reg number to cover this but i would agree with others that it is readily accesable

I was kind of meaning that I have always maintained IP4X on any enclosure regardless of accessibility. Glad to be corrected by me reading the reg properly though. Though without a definition of readily accessible.......... nah that's another debate.
 
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)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Reply to PIR coding in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock