Consumer unit ip4x

[Zahid Nawab]

Hello all, came across this while doing a eicr, looks like the cu was recently changed, just wanted to know whether this constitutes a c2 or c3, thank you in advance

 

[Taylortwocities]

Photos of the CU please will help. But it’s worse than you expect.
NAPIT codebreakers say

If the IP rating on the top surface of the controls enclosure is not at least IPXXD or IP4X, there is a likelihood of access to live parts, which would give a C1 Code.

If you haven’t a copy there is a discussion exactly on this query here

NAPIT Codebreakers #1

Need help with cracking those EICR codes? The technical team at NAPIT, with the help of the brand new 18th Edition Codebreakers publication, answers your coding queries. DAN TRIMBELL: The panel said '

professional-electrician.com

 

[Dustydazzler]

If you reach live parts with a bare finger then C1 , anything else then C3 imo

 

[Taylortwocities]

If you reach live parts with a bare finger then C1 , anything else then C3 imo

Agreed. But without seeing a photo then both NAPIT and me err on the side of caution.

 

[Pete999]

Hello all, came across this while doing a eicr, looks like the cu was recently changed, just wanted to know whether this constitutes a c2 or c3, thank you in advance

Got a photo Mate?

 

[pc1966]

If the IP rating on the top surface of the controls enclosure is not at least IPXXD or IP4X, there is a likelihood of access to live parts, which would give a C1 Code.

The wording on the NAPIT link is "Top of enclosure has openings exceeding IP4X/IPxxD, access to live parts" for C1. I think the emphasis is on the access to live parts aspect.

After all an IP3X hole with any live parts down by 5-10cm as in many CUs is hardly accessible unless someone pokes a long narrow conductive object down there. In reality there is a bigger risk of liquids being stored on top of the CU and spilling in, and IP4X would not stop that either.

So judgement on the not-IP4X size is required, as in most things.

For any CU top (or sides/bottom even) I think we all agree that the likes of the Whiska glands are by far the best solution, even if not striclty mandated by the requlations.

 

[westward10]

It is ridiculous to Code 1 it. I wouldn't even Code 2 it unless they were gaping great holes.

 

[Pete999]

The wording on the NAPIT link is "Top of enclosure has openings exceeding IP4X/IPxxD, access to live parts" for C1. I think the emphasis is on the access to live parts aspect.

After all an IP3X hole with any live parts down by 5-10cm as in many CUs is hardly accessible unless someone pokes a long narrow conductive object down there. In reality there is a bigger risk of liquids being stored on top of the CU and spilling in, and IP4X would not stop that either.

So judgement on the not-IP4X size is required, as in most things.

For any CU top (or sides/bottom even) I think we all agree that the likes of the Whiska glands are by far the best solution, even if not striclty mandated by the requlations.

BS7671 is not a Mandatory Document, so it can't be mandated by the regulations can it?

 

[pc1966]

BS7671 is not a Mandatory Document, so it can't be mandated by the regulations can it?

True, but only in a slippery-lawyer sense!

Nothing in the BS standard is mandatory, but generally it is taken as if it was since it is the best guidance recognised in the UK.