Can this IP24 rated Wall Cabinet be installed in Zone 2?

[stillp]

However the Scope of 60529 refers to protection against contact with hazardous parts, and it then goes on to define protection against hazardous mechanical parts but without any test criteria for such protection. That would be expected to be in the product standard for fans - if there is one. I'll check when back in the office on Thursday.

I'm a little confused here. A standard for fans (if it exists) would presumably define what degree of protection fans require in order to comply with that standard, but I don't quite see why that should affect what IP rating BS EN / IEC 60529 would give to a fan of a particular design (whether it was compliant with the 'fan standard' or not).

Kind Regards, John

60529 doesn't give any IP rating to a fan, or a luminaire, or anything else. It just defines the tests and criteria for the various ratings. It is a basic standard and it is intended that product standards specify the IP ratings to be achieved by a product, and what parts of the product shall meet which IP rating, with additional criteria where necessary.
A bit like the international standard centimetre, which tells you how many wavelengths of light (or whatever) make a cm, but doesn't tell you that you use those units to measure the waistband of your trousers.

 

[bernardgreen]

As I understand it there is no requirement for a manufacturer to make a product comply with any IP rating. It is a free choice for the manufacturer.

Commercial and other informed people who buy equipment will set a standard of protection that the equipment must have before they will purchase it. Obviously these people will not consider anything that does not have their minimum IP rating.

Sales to the public who are not technically informed have to have some control on quality imposed and hence Trading Standards and similar bodies work to prevent ( reduce ) un-safe equipment reaching the market.

As to fans, those horizontal guillotines hung from ceilings would have an IP rating of..... ?

 

[stillp]

As I understand it there is no requirement for a manufacturer to make a product comply with any IP rating. It is a free choice for the manufacturer.

Commercial and other informed people who buy equipment will set a standard of protection that the equipment must have before they will purchase it. Obviously these people will not consider anything that does not have their minimum IP rating.

Sales to the public who are not technically informed have to have some control on quality imposed and hence Trading Standards and similar bodies work to prevent ( reduce ) un-safe equipment reaching the market.

As to fans, those horizontal guillotines hung from ceilings would have an IP rating of..... ?

Very few standards are legally mandatory, folding pushchairs being one notable exception.

I would hope that the "informed" people having purchasing criteria that go beyond IP ratings!

Conformity to a product standard can be used as evidence of compiance with various EC Directives. Basic standards don't give that presumption except in very specific aspects.

As for the horizontal guillotines they can have any IP rating, since rotating parts outside the enclosure are excluded from IEC/BS EN 60529. I've seen some with pretty powerful motors that arguable should be treated under the Machinery Directive and guarded.

 

[sparkticus]

I'm not completely sure how that comment relates to what I was talking about - not a fan, but simply a self-contained IP44 electrical module which was within an outer IP22 enclosure.

If nothing intrinsically hazardous exists within the space between the IP44 rated module and the outer IP22 rated enclosure then surely IP44 would triumph would it not? Let's say the IP22 enclosure really only exists to allow mounting of the IP44 sub-system to some sort of machine. The hypothetical reason this manufacturer may state IP44 is 1) the inner module does comply with IP44 2) The outer grills while being IP22 plays no part in protection. 3) It aides in the identification of the part since the machine specification in general calls for an IP44 rated component.

I'm again a bit confused IP2X prevents insertion of an (adult) finger, so is that not good enough? If the outer casing (grille) was tighter than IP2X, would it not seriously impede the air flow in a 'much more powerful' fan? - IP3X would limit openings to 2.5mm wide and IP4X would limit them to 1mm wide.

Absolutely which was my point which I did not state clearly. The fan electrics are rated to IP44 but the fan grills (for functional reasons) are rated to IP22. The fan is marketed as IP44 which to my thinking is acceptable because (and probably due to confusion amongst other things) if it were marketed at IP22 it might lose some market share. Some buyers would simply say I will not procure an IP22 rated appliance for an application which requires IP44 (Both sub-systems offer adequate IP protection but the buyers would be guilty of not understanding the details which seems to be real world)

Ultimately it appears that it is the manufacturer who chooses the IP rating based upon three things:

1) the yard stick they are provided with (what they use to judge the IP rating)
2) Their interpretation of the yard stick (not its length but how to use it)
3) Their market driven needs.

 

[JohnW2]

60529 doesn't give any IP rating to a fan, or a luminaire, or anything else. It just defines the tests and criteria for the various ratings. It is a basic standard and it is intended that product standards specify the IP ratings to be achieved by a product,....

Exactly. That was my understanding, and my understanding of what you were saying - and hence my question/confusion. A fan standard will not help one to decide the rating of a particular item (60529 should do that)- it merely tells one whether that rating is acceptable for the type of product concerned.

I think we're probably talking at cross purposes. What I was trying to ascertain is what (if anything) 60529 says about the IP rating of items which have sub-assemblies. You introduced the concept of a possible 'fan standard', but I really don't think it helps in that respect. To start with the simplest question,what (if anything) does 60529 say about the IP rating of 'an item' which consistes of an enclosure which satisfies the tests for IP22 which contains (only) a self-contained electrical module which, on its own, satisfies the tests for IP44?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

As I understand it there is no requirement for a manufacturer to make a product comply with any IP rating. It is a free choice for the manufacturer.

That is also my understanding. However, other standards/regulations (e.g.BS7671) then include requirements based on declared IP ratings - so buyers/users have to go by what the manufacturer has declared and 'stamped' on the product when deciding whether the producty satisfies the standard/regulation (e.g. BS7671).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If nothing intrinsically hazardous exists within the space between the IP44 rated module and the outer IP22 rated enclosure then surely IP44 would triumph would it not?

As you say,'surely', and that was my point - but is this actually what BS EN 60529 says, or does it say that one has to 'blindly' rate the entire product as it is constructed? That's what I'm try to get stillp to help us understand.

Let's say the IP22 enclosure really only exists to allow mounting of the IP44 sub-system to some sort of machine. The hypothetical reason this manufacturer may state IP44 is 1) the inner module does comply with IP44 2) The outer grills while being IP22 plays no part in protection. 3) It aides in the identification of the part since the machine specification in general calls for an IP44 rated component.

Exactly - but, again, is that 'how it is', per 60529?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I think we're probably talking at cross purposes. What I was trying to ascertain is what (if anything) 60529 says about the IP rating of items which have sub-assemblies. You introduced the concept of a possible 'fan standard', but I really don't think it helps in that respect. To start with the simplest question,what (if anything) does 60529 say about the IP rating of 'an item' which consistes of an enclosure which satisfies the tests for IP22 which contains (only) a self-contained electrical module which, on its own, satisfies the tests for IP44?

Kind Regards, John.

60529 doesn't say anything about items which have subassemblies. It just defines what each IP rating means and how to verify them. How the ratings are applied is not in the scope of 60529 but needs a product standard. If there is no product standard then it's up to the manufacturer of the item to specify which parts of the item meet which IP code. Manufacturers often just quote the 'best' IP rating for a part of the item, e.g. IP67 for pushbuttons that are clearly IP2X from the rear, on the basis that the seal made by the pushbutton to a panel achieves IP67.

 

[JohnW2]

60529 doesn't say anything about items which have subassemblies. It just defines what each IP rating means and how to verify them. How the ratings are applied is not in the scope of 60529 but needs a product standard. If there is no product standard then it's up to the manufacturer of the item to specify which parts of the item meet which IP code. Manufacturers often just quote the 'best' IP rating for a part of the item, e.g. IP67 for pushbuttons that are clearly IP2X from the rear, on the basis that the seal made by the pushbutton to a panel achieves IP67.

Fair enough. That seems to suggest that when one sees an IP rating marked on a product, that in itself does not necessarily tell one whether all of the product (or only part of it) achieves the stated rating (or what mode of installation is necessary to achieve that rating) - as per your pushbutton example. Not a very satisfactory situation, I would have said!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

Fair enough. That seems to suggest that when one sees an IP rating marked on a product, that in itself does not necessarily tell one whether all of the product (or only part of it) achieves the stated rating (or what mode of installation is necessary to achieve that rating) - as per your pushbutton example. Not a very satisfactory situation, I would have said!

Kind Regards, John.

Exactly right, in the absence of any further information in the manufacturer's instructions or in the relevant product standard.
Hence the need to base a decision on the use of a bathroom cabinet in/out of zones on the manufacturer's instructions (as was said a few pages ago) and not just on the IP rating.

 

[JohnW2]

Exactly right, in the absence of any further information in the manufacturer's instructions or in the relevant product standard. Hence the need to base a decision on the use of a bathroom cabinet in/out of zones on the manufacturer's instructions (as was said a few pages ago) and not just on the IP rating.

Agreed, but I would have thought that it's all a bit unsatisfactory. One would think/hope that 'ratings' marked on products would have a clear meaning 'in isolation', rather than there being a possibilty that qualifications to that rating might exist somewhere in the manufacturer's instructions. Indeed, if such qualifications exist, it would be better/safer (less potentially misleading) if the (unqualified) 'rating' was not marked on the product at all - but that's obviously just my opinion!

Kind Regards, John