Had this question asked and at first thought no as the supply lead would have to have a minimum of 15A but apon further investigation I can't see any reason why not, aside from seemingly being a bad idea
If it was still supplied with a compliant 15A cord set and such cord set fitted the 10A inlet (like how a 10A plug still fits in a 15A socket etc) and an appropriate protective device for the 10A inlet would this be compliant?
I personally would match the inlet and lead to each other and wouldn't want to do what's described above due to giving people the opportunity to use any old extension lead but just curious around the compliance side? Can't find anything to make it non-compliant
Can a transportable structure have a 10A appliance inlet?
Re: Can a transportable structure have a 10A appliance inlet?
I presume you're asking only WRT land-based CIs; complying with "3001".
clause 3.2.2 specifies the permitted types of appliance inlet, but does not set a minimum rating for this fitting.
However 5.1.2 specifies the permitted types of fittings that can make up the supply lead, including the connector;
and here there is a minimum rating of either 15 A, 16 A, or 20 A depending on type.
Since the connector and inlet must couple tigether; this effectively sets a minimum rating for the connector.
Similarly there's a minimum rating for the plug of the lead.
For the 3 types of fitting allowed \
"60309": the 10 A versions of inlets do not couple with the specified 16 A cord connectors of the lead
"3123": the 10 A inlet does not couple with a 20 A connector.
the 16 A inlet does couple with a 20 A connector
"3112": yes the pins of a 10 A inlet plug will couple with a 15, 20 and even 32 A connectors;
However for all types the higher-rated connectors have larger bodies that won't? allow coupling.
Remember that the inlet must be IP24 or better; so not really like a normal socket outlet with a flat front face;
there's a flange and (usually) a cover around the pins.
And while there's currently no min IP rating for the lead, this appears to have been an oversight.
Next edition includes it.
Non-compatibility applies generally across the ranges, not only for using a 15 A "3112" connector into an 10 A inlet; but also for pretty much all the larger-rated connectors, of all types, with any lower-rated plug.
The exception is the "3123" type, where 16 A & 20 A plugs & sockets are - deliberately - made with same size & spacing of plug pins.
(My understanding is that the 16 A pins / receptacles are actually rated for 20 A).
Also clause 3.3.1.1 requires current limitation such that the current drawn through the lead cannot exceed the rating of any fitting associated with the lead.
So I suppose it would be possible to manufacture / install a CI with a 20 A inlet, and then supply it via a 16 A lead;
however it would need to be current-limited at 16 A in order to comply.
The question is probably more relevant to Oz, where most caravan parks use "3112" sockets ;
and therefore caravans etc use a "3112" supply lead (both ends) , and "3112" inlets.
The lead is therefore a standard 15 A ext cord .
However, as here, 15 A sockets are not common outside of caravan parks, so the 15A 3112 ext cord not only won't fit the proposed 10 A inlet of the
caravan; it also won't plug into a normal domestic socket.
In NZ; the lead is part of the CI; even when it's detachable;
caravan parks all have "60309" sockets rather than "3112", so a standard ext cord can't be used without an adapter.
And we have the WoEF system that checks safety aspects every 4 years.
----------------------
Basically this question highlights how hard it is to write an idiot-proof Standard.
Sometimes you just have to accept that something is so unlikely ,
and at same time not so unsafe,
that trying to write a rule to forbid it simply isn't justified.
And sometimes some of the more obscure possibilities simply aren't thought of in time
so if a problem emerges it has to be addressed by means of an amendment.
A prime example was the roll-out of mobile dental clinics for schools.
There was only one type pf plug / connector (60309) permitted by "6115".
This was so that any clinic (or other mobile medical CI) could be used anywhere in the country; provided the supply was adequately rated.
However a large number of installers used "3123" instead, both for sockets at schools and for plugs on the clinic leads.
Even worse, many Inspectors issued WoEFs for these non-compliant - but perfectly safe - CIs.
When this large-scale non-compliance came to light, the powers-that-be decided that correcting the error would be a considerable cost (all paid by government agencies; for no real safety gain.
Not to mention considerable embarrassment that these same govt agencies had specified the incorrect type of socket / plug;
the installers had simply (and blindly) followed the specification.
clause 3.2.2 specifies the permitted types of appliance inlet, but does not set a minimum rating for this fitting.
However 5.1.2 specifies the permitted types of fittings that can make up the supply lead, including the connector;
and here there is a minimum rating of either 15 A, 16 A, or 20 A depending on type.
Since the connector and inlet must couple tigether; this effectively sets a minimum rating for the connector.
Similarly there's a minimum rating for the plug of the lead.
For the 3 types of fitting allowed \
"60309": the 10 A versions of inlets do not couple with the specified 16 A cord connectors of the lead
"3123": the 10 A inlet does not couple with a 20 A connector.
the 16 A inlet does couple with a 20 A connector
"3112": yes the pins of a 10 A inlet plug will couple with a 15, 20 and even 32 A connectors;
However for all types the higher-rated connectors have larger bodies that won't? allow coupling.
Remember that the inlet must be IP24 or better; so not really like a normal socket outlet with a flat front face;
there's a flange and (usually) a cover around the pins.
And while there's currently no min IP rating for the lead, this appears to have been an oversight.
Next edition includes it.
Non-compatibility applies generally across the ranges, not only for using a 15 A "3112" connector into an 10 A inlet; but also for pretty much all the larger-rated connectors, of all types, with any lower-rated plug.
The exception is the "3123" type, where 16 A & 20 A plugs & sockets are - deliberately - made with same size & spacing of plug pins.
(My understanding is that the 16 A pins / receptacles are actually rated for 20 A).
Also clause 3.3.1.1 requires current limitation such that the current drawn through the lead cannot exceed the rating of any fitting associated with the lead.
So I suppose it would be possible to manufacture / install a CI with a 20 A inlet, and then supply it via a 16 A lead;
however it would need to be current-limited at 16 A in order to comply.
The question is probably more relevant to Oz, where most caravan parks use "3112" sockets ;
and therefore caravans etc use a "3112" supply lead (both ends) , and "3112" inlets.
The lead is therefore a standard 15 A ext cord .
However, as here, 15 A sockets are not common outside of caravan parks, so the 15A 3112 ext cord not only won't fit the proposed 10 A inlet of the
caravan; it also won't plug into a normal domestic socket.
In NZ; the lead is part of the CI; even when it's detachable;
caravan parks all have "60309" sockets rather than "3112", so a standard ext cord can't be used without an adapter.
And we have the WoEF system that checks safety aspects every 4 years.
----------------------
Basically this question highlights how hard it is to write an idiot-proof Standard.
Sometimes you just have to accept that something is so unlikely ,
and at same time not so unsafe,
that trying to write a rule to forbid it simply isn't justified.
And sometimes some of the more obscure possibilities simply aren't thought of in time
so if a problem emerges it has to be addressed by means of an amendment.
A prime example was the roll-out of mobile dental clinics for schools.
There was only one type pf plug / connector (60309) permitted by "6115".
This was so that any clinic (or other mobile medical CI) could be used anywhere in the country; provided the supply was adequately rated.
However a large number of installers used "3123" instead, both for sockets at schools and for plugs on the clinic leads.
Even worse, many Inspectors issued WoEFs for these non-compliant - but perfectly safe - CIs.
When this large-scale non-compliance came to light, the powers-that-be decided that correcting the error would be a considerable cost (all paid by government agencies; for no real safety gain.
Not to mention considerable embarrassment that these same govt agencies had specified the incorrect type of socket / plug;
the installers had simply (and blindly) followed the specification.