electricalforum.nz

AlecK

Your interpretation is correct in that it is non-compliant to install bare PECs [5.3.2.4]. Also that 3.8.1 forbids use of green-only to identify PECs by colour - although 5.3.5.3 permits it. And that these rules have an effect on re-routing parts of existing circuits WRT sleeving; 3.8.2 does not pro...

AlecK

Yes; ESR 4(2 ) says any definition in Act or ESRs over-rides a definition of same term on a Standard. It can work the other way also, as per ESR 4(3); with terms used in ESRs, but not defined in act or ESRs, carrying definitions from "3000" (for installations) or IEC 60050. Therefore "electrical ins...

AlecK

I think a good general rule is that if you are significantly altering the electrical characteristics of a circuit you are making an alteration rather than maintaining. But like most general rules-of-thumb; it can't be applied strictly. Eg replacing a broken / degraded SERF with another SERF is clear...

AlecK

I agree thus amounts to an alteration of the circuit; and is not maintenance. Also agree that "like-for-like" is not a term that appears anywhere in ESRs, and never has. As a concept it isn't actually very helpful; as it's open to being applied both too strictly and too loosely. When ESRs first came...

AlecK

Ignore my reference to earth monitoring requirement; it's for monitoring the earthing connection to the vehicle.
But I still see no good reason for either the guidelines' requirement for supply from MEN swbd or the '3000" requirement for not-from-outbuilding MEN swbd.

AlecK

It's easy enough to work through and so comply with both; at least in theory. the Guideline quoted requires supply from an MEN swbd. There's no definition for this term any more; but can only mean one with an MEN link. In 1993 & 1997 Regs was defined as having both an MEN link and an MEC to an elect...

AlecK

Earthing conductors are sized according to the fault current they have to carry; for the short time they have to carry it. That's broadly in proportion to the size of the actives. Clause 5.3.3.1 sets the requirements; and provides 2 methods of determining required size (from Table, or by calculation...

AlecK

Fair point. Even with those words, they don't say "where it has been shown" or "where it is shown", or "if it is shown". It just says "where it can be shown". And since there's no suggestion that any other time applies instead; the correct interpretation of these words is as an explanation of why th...

AlecK

Title of "4777.2" is Grid connection of energy systems via inverters; Part 2 inverter requirements". so hardly surprising that it's focussed on the aspects that relate to connection to grid. 2015 edition does include some info on multi-mode inverters (clause 6); but the first statement is: "unless o...

AlecK

the labelling of main switches is absolutely crucial. "3000"; 7.3.3 requires that any generation system must have an isolating switch at the swbd it is connected to. It also requires no back-feeding; with Exception if network agrees - as for a grid-connected inverter 7.3.4 then adds a number of requ...

AlecK

Perfectly acceptable; as long as they are properly & correctly labelled. For an inverter that only runs as supplementary supply (co-generation; could argue that linking is sensible. But with modern multi-mode inverters that can also act as alternative supply, the last thing you want is linked switches

AlecK

You don't need a cure; because there is no problem. What you've got is a case that the Tables don't cover neatly. If you did have a problem; then yes adding a bonding conductor that's essentially in parallel with the PEC is an acceptable method of bringing an excessive EFLI value down to an acceptab...

AlecK

Agree the citation of later editions would be an improvement.
But until that happens, installations must comply with cited edition.
So the 'let-out" in 2014 edition cannot be used.
It's electrically OK, but legally non-compliant.
And inspection is about certifying both "safe" and 'compliant"

AlecK

Maybe. Not sure what the applicable rules for works are, and that option may be restricted. However that's what we'll end up doing if / when TT is introduced; because the installation's earthing system will be separated from the incoming PEN, and the only way to provide fault protection up to & incl...

AlecK

Good question. First would need to establish that it is actually a collection of individual installations; and not a multiple installation. And that means being certain WRT location of the POS(s). Bearing in mind that neither metering nor ICP system for identifying consumers has any direct bearing o...

AlecK

Time was when it could be reasonably assumed that, with a 63A supply fuse, 16 mm2 conductors would be more than adequate for both external & internal sections; and even allow for reasonable future increase in MD But times have changed; and there are a number of factors already in place that mean we ...

AlecK

Agree MD isn't only relevant to cable selection; not to providing the cable with overcurrent protection

AlecK

Correct that only the installation, which starts at the PoS, is required (by ESR59) to comply with "3000". Also consider that while NZ's ESRs require linesco to provide both short circuit and fault protection for mains; they don't have to proved overload protection. And in some States of Oz; they ha...

AlecK

ESR 71 refers only to the work that is being inspected; which is the high-risk PEW.
So even if there's only one CoC for the lot, someone who has done only general PEW can inspect the high risk PEW.

AlecK

Nearly but not quite. Yes we have to assume BTI; but we don't have to assume "fully surrounded". Adding batt / blanket types of BTI, cables will only end up partially surrounded . So if using Table C5, the CCC will be 63 A. But why use that table, which is based on "worst case", and with fewer optio...

AlecK

yes, I've never found any "metallic high density PVC" either. And while inserting "or" would have given a choice, i still can't work out how to earth the HDPVC option. So agree it's probably a cock-up; and we have to interpret the intent and hope to not be prosecuted. Actually a compounded cock-up; ...

AlecK

Cascading is not something I've ever had to deal with directly. Agree it's a mess, compounded by the way ESRs & Standards inter-relate. The possible cross-over between ACS (App K of 3012) and connectable installations is another set of issues. And we also have some 'grey" between whether something i...

AlecK

Yes this isn't widely understood, so construction sites generally don't comply with 3001 WRT supplies for TSs (both here & in Oz). Agree it's a bit weird to apply full "caravan park" rules, including depth of burial, etc; and may not have been the intent. And will be more so when new requirements fo...

AlecK

Not just un-tradesman-like; it's non-compliant.

AlecK

I think not so much that everyone complies;
most give it almost no thought.
But nobody gets caught

AlecK

Agree Very complex with 2 different standards, plus ESRs. Part of the complexity is that as soon as there are 2 or more sockets on the building site that are intended to supply connectable installations, they become a 'caravan park" (both under Standards, and again under ESRs). Clearly intent of 301...

AlecK

I am not aware of any easy way to determine the available margin of VD with any sort of accuracy. We can assume % for mains, & for submains, etc, but it can't be anywhere near accurate. And VD is a "must never exceed" limit. I believe it should be a requirement to record, at every switchboard, the s...

AlecK

Both CoC & RoI effectively say "this PEW is OK to be connected to a supply". CoC doesn't say who dod it, just that an identified person is certifying it. RoI also doesn't say who did it, just who certified it and who inspected it. Final connection can then be done by anyone, including by either the ...

AlecK

Discussion with NZ working group for "3001" suggests that while IP X2 is protection against water ingress from any direction, it's about ingress to the inside of the fitting. In this case the pins will have seals, probably O-rings Water on exposed pins not a safety issue because exposed pins can't b...

AlecK

Have raised this with NZ working group for revising "3001".
Initial discussion suggests combination of '3012", "3001" & ESRs means that a straight pass-through set-up is non-compliant
and can't be issued with WoEF.

AlecK

The Act does allow for connection for purposes of testing Eg you can't test installation of an RCD without connecting some sort of supply. And all required testing must be completed before CoC is issued, else the work hasn't been done 'lawfully & safely". So I am forced to conclude that connecting-f...

AlecK

yes you could fail for excessive earth resistance readings. Not happy losing my rule-of-thumb; it certainly works for all '3112' sockets that i've found, and wondering how they can claim the IP rating without a cover. maybe the "60309-2" Standard allows for a mated-only rating. And unfortunately App...

AlecK

Q If I connect and lock out a circuit at switchboard until work has been finished on the circuit have I technically committed an offense? Only compliant method would be to leave the live conductors disconnected until work on circuit is finished A Yes that would be an offence Q What about when you lo...

AlecK

Interesting
maybe they have seals around each pin, and other measures to prevent ingress; in order to achieve the rating.

In which case my rule-of-thumb isn't entirely valid
And - as you've found - that leaves the possibility of corrosion

AlecK

first part of 2.9 says must comply with '3001 "and' the following which means that all the following are additional to, not instead of ,the provisions of "3001". Exception (B) allows ACS type systems (with pass-through submains) which appears to be there just in case someone decides that an ACS unit...

AlecK

IP24 is a requirement for new inlets as per 3.2.2 If you check the what IP24 means (see App of "3000"); you'll find that IPx4 means protected against water splashed from all directions. That protection can only be attained if there's a cover (applies to both plugs and sockets). Product data sheets w...

AlecK

Directly connected units may appear to be within the definition of 'connectable installation" (Act, modified by ESR 7). However they are clearly NOT within scope of "3001". Nothing requires any connectable installation to ever be issued with a WoEF. Instead, there's a requirement for people intendin...

AlecK

Most of it is in the words used. Both Regs & Standards are formal documents, that use words in formal ways. So if we take time to read carefully, and leave our pre-conceptions behind, we'll generally be able to arrive at the correct meaning. We need to consider why particular words have been used; c...

AlecK

Simply avoiding doing the connection won't fully absolve you. We all carry responsibility for safety & compliance of the PEW we do. Issuing a CoC is the formal declaration & acceptance of this. On many jobs there will have been more than one person doing PEW, but often only one issues a single CoC t...

AlecK

ESRs make connection to a supply of electricity the key issue for responsibility / liability. It's the person (about to connect who is required to ensure that CoC(s) & RoI(s) have been issued, and for pre-connection checks in addition. And then, after connection, they issue the ESC. which is why ESR...

AlecK

Exactly. The key thing in this clarification is that "connection" is PEW. Operating a switch isn't PEW, so can't be 'connection. Same for inserting a fuse carrier. If you make carry out PEW such that someone else can energise without any further PEW, you've connected. That includes connecting a neut...

AlecK

The use of travel adaptors is not generally a good idea, as some of them are electrically unsafe. However there is NO requirement to change sockets for issue of a WoEF for use of a boat's connectable installation in NZ. GPOs on boats that have been imported, and in which NZ appliances are intended t...

AlecK

Yes, there's a difference between sockets intended for supply to connectable installations, and general purpose sockets. Covered by 2 different clauses, C5.3 for the CI sockets, and C5.4 for GPOs GPOs will typically be "3112" type, rated 10 A - but could be any type and any rating. And yes the bench...

AlecK

Yes, PA must be i.a.w the relevant Standard; which sets the benchmarks against which the installation is assessed. For a caravan park; the benchmarks are in App C of '3001. Yes, any aspect that falls short of the applicable benchmark should be noted in the RoA which must be issued regardless of whet...

AlecK

Periodic Assessment is not like certification & inspection of PEW. With certification / inspection, there's a set of criteria that the (new) PEW mist comply with. That makes it a "pass vs fail" exercise. Issuing a WoEF is similar. In order for a valid WoEF to be issued, the caravan (or whatever) mus...

AlecK

Like the rest of 3.4; 3.4.3 is about CCC, and this applies for load-carrying conductors. So 3.4 refers to CCCs as per 3008.1 series for load-carrying The CCC ratings are maximum constant currents under a variety of installation conditions It doesn't apply directly to PECs, because they don't carry l...

AlecK

Unsure as to any particular advantage in context of normal distribution. Just something that happens in some multi-occupancy properties. And for subdivisions, the developer may have installed the distribution, but maybe the local electricity distributor declines to accept ownership (and ongoing resp...

AlecK

I'm sure that if the structure is fixed to the ground, ESR 60 does not require compliance with "3001". Also that as a non-caravan park, the socket is also not required to comply with "3001"; but it does of course have to comply with '3000" Next question is whether supply via detachable connection ( ...

AlecK

Agree that any "main earthing system" that is installed within an installation is high risk PEW and must be inspected. Same for installation of "mains". It's important that: - only PEW on an "installation" needs to be certified; - only PEW on an "installation" has a risk classification under ESR 6A;...

AlecK

We can also look to what "3001" says about scope; eg that it excludes "Transportable structures, such as homes, huts, construction sheds and tents that are fixed in position." But that's putting the cart before the horse; because a Standard only gets its authority from the way it's cited (or not) in...

Search found 914 matches