60335.1
7.12.2
I'll post the whole clause, first.
----------------
7.12.2 If a stationary appliance is not fitted with a supply cord and a plug, or with other
means for disconnection from the supply mains having a contact separation in all poles that
provide full disconnection under overvoltage category III conditions, the instructions shall
state that means for disconnection must be incorporated in the fixed wiring in accordance with
the wiring rules.
Compliance is checked by inspection.
----------------
By my reasoning, this part "... means for disconnection must be incorporated in the fixed wiring in accordance with the wiring rules."
Means that only standard "all active" disconnection is required, as per 3000 .
Some manufacturers instructions are including in their wording that "all pole" disconnection is required, "..in accordance with the wiring rules."
I don't see that as being the correct interpretation.
Thoughts?
TIA
60335.1 requirements
Re: 60335.1 requirements
The clause sets a requirement for something to be included in MIs; if the trigger condition for that requirement is met.
The "something" is a 2-part instruction ;
a) that means for disconnection must be provided in the fixed wiring, and
b) that this means must be in accordance with the wiring rules.
As long as the MIs cover these 2 points; they comply with the clause.
In fact the 2nd part, about i.a.w Wiring Rules, isn't necessary; because all fixed wiring must be i.a.w Wiring rules.
Nothing in this clause stipulates that the means of disconnection called for must operate in all poles.
However it is logical that it should; because the 'trigger' condition is the lack of all-pole disconnection within the appliance.
So including a requirement for all-pile disconnection may well have been the intent; just imperfectly implemented.
If a manufacturer provides MIs that go further; eg stipulating all-pole disconnection; then
- the means of disconnection must be provided,
- that means must operate in all poles, and
- it must be installed i.a.w Wiring rules.
The MIs are compliant with the clause.
It's not that the manufacturer has misinterpreted the clause; just that they've gone a step further than the minimum required by the clause.
One reason manufacturers would call for all-pole disconnection is that they are selling into the world market, not only into NZ.
Around the world there are a number of different earthing systems in use, and for some of them all-pole disconnection is a safety issue.
And all-pole disconnection doesn't reduce safety for TN earthing systems like ours, where one of the live poles is tied to earth.
Whereas switching only the active(s) could be dangerous on other systems (eg IT).
Having an appliance, including MIs, that meets the requirements for multiple markets makes sense.
In most cases, the only change for different zones will be the type of plug fitted to the flex.
As similar issue is MIs that call for a particular size of cable to be used in the circuit supplying the appliance.
Typically this is equipment originally aimed at the North American market;
where single-phase 110 V is normal, and circuit wiring therefore has to be much bigger to handle the higher currents.
The un-asked question is whether we have to comply with such MIs.
ESR 14A requires MIs that will result in an outcome that's electrically safe and complies with ESRs
As installers we can rely on MIs that comply with this ESR - though only to the extent that we follow them.
Over-specification doesn't lead to unsafe or non-compliant outcome; so doesn't breach the ESR.
Currently following MIs is a Part 1 matter; so if working to Part 2 we can ignore any detail in MIs,
as long as that doesn't breach any ESR (including an ESR that calls for compliance with a Standard.
So we can use single-pole switching, and normal-sized cable.
But under 2018 edition; compliance with MIs is a requirement in most, if not all, Sections of "3000".
Which makes it a Part 2 matter; so when the citations are (eventually) updated we may well be forced to follow MIs that seem like over-kill.
However it would be very unlikely we would be disciplined / prosecuted just for failing to follow MIs that over-specify.
The "something" is a 2-part instruction ;
a) that means for disconnection must be provided in the fixed wiring, and
b) that this means must be in accordance with the wiring rules.
As long as the MIs cover these 2 points; they comply with the clause.
In fact the 2nd part, about i.a.w Wiring Rules, isn't necessary; because all fixed wiring must be i.a.w Wiring rules.
Nothing in this clause stipulates that the means of disconnection called for must operate in all poles.
However it is logical that it should; because the 'trigger' condition is the lack of all-pole disconnection within the appliance.
So including a requirement for all-pile disconnection may well have been the intent; just imperfectly implemented.
If a manufacturer provides MIs that go further; eg stipulating all-pole disconnection; then
- the means of disconnection must be provided,
- that means must operate in all poles, and
- it must be installed i.a.w Wiring rules.
The MIs are compliant with the clause.
It's not that the manufacturer has misinterpreted the clause; just that they've gone a step further than the minimum required by the clause.
One reason manufacturers would call for all-pole disconnection is that they are selling into the world market, not only into NZ.
Around the world there are a number of different earthing systems in use, and for some of them all-pole disconnection is a safety issue.
And all-pole disconnection doesn't reduce safety for TN earthing systems like ours, where one of the live poles is tied to earth.
Whereas switching only the active(s) could be dangerous on other systems (eg IT).
Having an appliance, including MIs, that meets the requirements for multiple markets makes sense.
In most cases, the only change for different zones will be the type of plug fitted to the flex.
As similar issue is MIs that call for a particular size of cable to be used in the circuit supplying the appliance.
Typically this is equipment originally aimed at the North American market;
where single-phase 110 V is normal, and circuit wiring therefore has to be much bigger to handle the higher currents.
The un-asked question is whether we have to comply with such MIs.
ESR 14A requires MIs that will result in an outcome that's electrically safe and complies with ESRs
As installers we can rely on MIs that comply with this ESR - though only to the extent that we follow them.
Over-specification doesn't lead to unsafe or non-compliant outcome; so doesn't breach the ESR.
Currently following MIs is a Part 1 matter; so if working to Part 2 we can ignore any detail in MIs,
as long as that doesn't breach any ESR (including an ESR that calls for compliance with a Standard.
So we can use single-pole switching, and normal-sized cable.
But under 2018 edition; compliance with MIs is a requirement in most, if not all, Sections of "3000".
Which makes it a Part 2 matter; so when the citations are (eventually) updated we may well be forced to follow MIs that seem like over-kill.
However it would be very unlikely we would be disciplined / prosecuted just for failing to follow MIs that over-specify.
- Rating: 16.67%
Re: 60335.1 requirements
Sorry Alec. I have to disagree.
Only a) and b) are required.
There's nothing in 3000 that requires all live isolation other than gas equipment in Australia. (off the top of my head).
MIs should be country or at least region specific. This may be required in some countries, but not NZ/Aust.
Only a) and b) are required.
There's nothing in 3000 that requires all live isolation other than gas equipment in Australia. (off the top of my head).
MIs should be country or at least region specific. This may be required in some countries, but not NZ/Aust.
- Attachments
-
Re: 60335.1 requirements
"a contact separation in all poles that provide full disconnection under overvoltage category "
If your isolation device only has one pole then that is all poles of the isolation device.
If it has three poles and all poles have the required spacing between contacts then that also meets "a contact separation in all poles that
provide full disconnection".
Even if you are only using one of the poles to connect your single active conductor.
Also what do they mean by "overvoltage"?
Do they supply definitions of the terms they use or are we to use our own interpretations?
If your isolation device only has one pole then that is all poles of the isolation device.
If it has three poles and all poles have the required spacing between contacts then that also meets "a contact separation in all poles that
provide full disconnection".
Even if you are only using one of the poles to connect your single active conductor.
Also what do they mean by "overvoltage"?
Do they supply definitions of the terms they use or are we to use our own interpretations?
Re: 60335.1 requirements
Part of the problem is that the IEC requirements also cover non MEN countries where two pole isolation is required (Active and neutral) . The new Zealand requirements for isolation are covered in 2.3.2.2.Satobsat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:16 pm"a contact separation in all poles that provide full disconnection under overvoltage category "
If your isolation device only has one pole then that is all poles of the isolation device.
If it has three poles and all poles have the required spacing between contacts then that also meets "a contact separation in all poles that
provide full disconnection".
Even if you are only using one of the poles to connect your single active conductor.
Also what do they mean by "overvoltage"?
Do they supply definitions of the terms they use or are we to use our own interpretations?
2.3.2.2.1 (a) has a basic description of the impulse voltage requirements.
Overvoltage category III is basically building wiring, socket outlets, distribution boards. Category IV is main switchboard level or further towards the network side.
My point is that the instructions only need to state that "the means of disconnection must be incorporated in the fixed wiring in accordance with the wiring rules."
Re: 60335.1 requirements
I agree that's all they need to say (in order to comply with the requirement you quoted).
However sometimes they say more.
My point is that saying more than they need to doesn't make them non-compliant.
However sometimes they say more.
My point is that saying more than they need to doesn't make them non-compliant.