208 three phase, 200amp

Hi,
can someone help in this one plzzz
Our compnay is purchasing some equipment from USA which runs on 208 three phase, 200amp service. Our standard in this country is 240V 50Hz,
1p/3p.... what can be done or any solution in which conversion cn be provided to run the equipment here.....
Regards John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is possible a speed drive or motor/generator set or UPS could generate the power you need from the power you have available, you would have to talk to a supplier or use a local consultant. A diesel genset would work if you wanted to run one all the time. Or heck you could build a wind or solar farm and use an inverter to make the power you need, nice and green.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You will likely need a voltage and/or frequency convertor. Both mechanical and electronic versions are available.
Here is one such company. (no affiliation)
http://www.elect-spec.com/index.htm
Your likely to find others if you search around.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15 Nov 2006 22:29:51 -0800 snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:
| Our compnay is purchasing some equipment from USA which runs on 208 | three phase, 200amp service. Our standard in this country is 240V 50Hz, | 1p/3p.... what can be done or any solution in which conversion cn be | provided to run the equipment here.....
This depends on what the equipment is. Some things can deal with the 240 volts and some things can't. Some things might not like the 240 volts not being split phase. Most things probably don't care. Some things don't care about 50 Hz and some do.
So tell us what this equipment is.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a lot of power, you would have been better to specify it correctly before you bought it.
We really need a lot more info about it to give you any realistic advice about what to do, but a proper Elec engineer with a license might be your best bet. Rules and practices differ from country to country, even state to state.
Where is HERE?
John G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Make a list of the loads in the machine in 2 colums; Motors and Non-motors.
Motors will need an inverter (VFD), A motor designed to work on 208V 60Hz requires 3.47V/Hz. At 240V 50Hz you system provides 4.8V/Hz. The higher ratio will cause the motors to go into saturation and overheat. They will also run 17% slower which may affect the machine process. A VFD, even if left at a fixed speed, can be programmed to provide LESS than line voltage and higher than line frequency, which will be the case with your machinery. If they all start and run at the same time and the same speed, one VFD sized for the entire aggregagte motor FLAs will work, as long as all the motors start and stop together. If not, you need sepratate VFDs. If any of them already have VFDs, don't count them, just program them so that they know to limit the output voltage to 208V 60Hz.
Non motor loads need to be individually evaluated. If they are heating elements, they may be fine, they wiill just heat up faster at the higher voltage. If they are power supplies, many are rated for a wide input voltage and frequency, so they may not need anything.
A big problem for you might be in 1 phase loads inside the machine. 208V 3 phase here in the US is always Y configuration, so it is 208Y120, with 120V from line to neutral. Your system is likely 400Y240 and if you want 240V 3 phase they give you a Y-Delta transformer so your 3 phase 240V is delta, not Y.
On 15 Nov 2006 22:29:51 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Motors will need an inverter (VFD), A motor designed to work on 208V | 60Hz requires 3.47V/Hz. At 240V 50Hz you system provides 4.8V/Hz. The | higher ratio will cause the motors to go into saturation and overheat. | They will also run 17% slower which may affect the machine process. A
I wonder if this is why these two power systems happen to have that convenient 6:5 voltage ratio:
480Y/277 60 Hz 400Y/230 50 Hz
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16 Nov 2006 18:10:24 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Yes it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| On 16 Nov 2006 18:10:24 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |
|> |>| Motors will need an inverter (VFD), A motor designed to work on 208V |>| 60Hz requires 3.47V/Hz. At 240V 50Hz you system provides 4.8V/Hz. The |>| higher ratio will cause the motors to go into saturation and overheat. |>| They will also run 17% slower which may affect the machine process. A |> |>I wonder if this is why these two power systems happen to have that |>convenient 6:5 voltage ratio: |> |>480Y/277 60 Hz |>400Y/230 50 Hz | | Yes it is.
So that means the decisions on these voltages must go way back to when one or the other of them was originally decided. An clearly there must be some recognized advantage at that time of sharing the same transformer and/or motor winding cores. To manufacturers there would be such an advantage. So the manufacturers must have had influence on this whenever this took place.
Ironically, a number of countries have a higher or lower voltage standard at 220 or 240 volts. The EC decided on 230 as the new standard in Europe, but with the idea that it was just a middle of the range compromise of the lower and higher voltages. Yet it lines up at 6:5 with the American 277 volt level.
Other historical voltages in both regions don't seem to have this 6:5 ratio between each other although they are somewhat close. For example for 220 volts in 50 Hz countries, that would call for 264 volts in 60 Hz countries, with the line to line voltages at 381 volts and 457 volts. But I have never heard of a 457/264 volt standard for anything. That is close to 460/266.
At one time (100 or more years back) the common voltages were 110 and 220. Where did the ideas for 115, 120, 230, 240 come from? Were they just an increase to get a little more juice through the wires, or was there some reason? For example 115.47 is what you would get with a star/wye three phase system targeting 200 volts line to line. Double that for what EC actually specifies today. But how long has that idea been around? Was it coincident with the emergence of 480/277 in America?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes:

I'd say it was coincidence.
Consider this:
In the beginning, the US was 110 volts, and Europe was 220 or 240 volts. I do not know whether the 1:2 ratio with the 220 volt European system itself was coincidence or not.
In the US, due to the Edison system, double 110 or 220 volts was also available.
For 3 phase, 220V delta was created. This could be tapped for 110 volt circuits if the center tap of one leg was the neutral.
For bigger 3 phase, they doubled it to 440 delta. (there was also 550V delta)
Over time, they increased the voltage from 110 to 115 to 120 volts, so 440V became 480V.
They decided to start making 480V three-phase from a wye connection. That required 480V/sqrt(3) = 277V.
Meanwhile, in Europe, they standardized the 220V/240V to 230V as a compromise. For three phase they kept the standard voltage in a wye connection. The phase-phase voltage went from 381/416 to 400 (actually 398)
So in the US the 480V is the original 110 volts times (4 * (120/110)), while in Europe the 400V is the original 220V times (sqrt(3) * (230/220)). The actual ratio is (4*(120/110))/(sqrt(3)*(220/110)*(230/220)) which is 1.2049049, or very close to 6:5.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes: | |>|>| Motors will need an inverter (VFD), A motor designed to work on 208V |>|>| 60Hz requires 3.47V/Hz. At 240V 50Hz you system provides 4.8V/Hz. The |>|>| higher ratio will cause the motors to go into saturation and overheat. |>|>| They will also run 17% slower which may affect the machine process. A |>|> |>|>I wonder if this is why these two power systems happen to have that |>|>convenient 6:5 voltage ratio: |>|> |>|>480Y/277 60 Hz |>|>400Y/230 50 Hz |>| |>| Yes it is. | |>So that means the decisions on these voltages must go way back to when one |>or the other of them was originally decided. An clearly there must be some |>recognized advantage at that time of sharing the same transformer and/or |>motor winding cores. To manufacturers there would be such an advantage. |>So the manufacturers must have had influence on this whenever this took |>place. | | I'd say it was coincidence. | | Consider this: | | In the beginning, the US was 110 volts, and Europe was 220 or 240 volts. | I do not know whether the 1:2 ratio with the 220 volt European system | itself was coincidence or not. | | In the US, due to the Edison system, double 110 or 220 volts was also | available. | | For 3 phase, 220V delta was created. This could be tapped for 110 volt | circuits if the center tap of one leg was the neutral. | | For bigger 3 phase, they doubled it to 440 delta. (there was also 550V | delta) | | Over time, they increased the voltage from 110 to 115 to 120 volts, so | 440V became 480V. | | They decided to start making 480V three-phase from a wye connection. That | required | 480V/sqrt(3) = 277V. | | Meanwhile, in Europe, they standardized the 220V/240V to 230V as a | compromise. For three phase they kept the standard voltage in a wye | connection. The phase-phase voltage went from 381/416 to 400 (actually | 398) | | So in the US the 480V is the original 110 volts times (4 * (120/110)), | while in Europe the 400V is the original 220V times (sqrt(3) * (230/220)). | The actual ratio is (4*(120/110))/(sqrt(3)*(220/110)*(230/220)) which is | 1.2049049, or very close to 6:5.
I'd like to find some time frames (years) in which some of these steps were done. I understand the US went 110->115 during WW2. And I have read that some countries in Europe went to 230 before the EC came along, though not all of them did that, obviously. Maybe some did that to be double the US 115 volt system at the time?
I'd like to know when the US went to 120. Did the 440->460 and 460->480 steps happen at the same time as 110->115 and 115->120?
I do know that before Edison, there were several suppliers of electricity around the US (had been for many years) and the systems were configured in all kinds of ways, different voltages and frequencies. I'm sure the same must have been in Europe.
I'm also curious how the transition happened after Edison in terms of getting the country on the same voltage. Edison sure didn't get it on DC, so I doubt he played a significant role in having 110 volts AC. But maybe it was his idea of the 110/220 split combined with 220 being in use in Europe (was it that _common_ at that time frame?) that make it a popular choice as more electrical supply systems were being put online in America.
And how did Canada come to be using the 600 and 600/346 volt system, which I presume to be originally 550 (and 550/318 if wye came before the voltage change). It's not an unknown voltage in the US, but very rare. Canada does have a lot more 480/277 than the US has 600/346 though.
Keywords to find this post/thread: 1.732050807568877293527446341505872366942805253810380628055806979451933 173Y/100 190Y/110 200Y/115 208Y/120 220Y/127 230Y/133 240Y/139 380Y/220 381Y/220 398Y/230 400Y/230 400Y/231 416Y/240 433Y/250 440Y/254 460Y/266 480Y/277 550Y/318 575Y/332 577Y/333 600Y/346 600Y/347 660Y/380 660Y/381 690Y/398 690Y/400 693Y/400 762Y/440 797Y/460 800Y/460 831Y/480 832Y/480 1000Y/577 100/200 110/220 115/230 120/240
BTW, reasons for picking 144/288 288Y/166 and 499Y/288 systems in that thread about "what if you could go back in time" was in part to choose something that was not already picked. And besides, every voltage has the last 2 digits the same so it's a bit easier to say :-)
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes:

I remember the voltage being listed as 117V at one time. So maybe there was a 115->117V transition, or was it 110->117V at once?
I'd guess 440->460->468->480 happened as the same time as the corresponding 110->120V transitions, as I'd assume they made the conversion one substation at a time (possibly by simply changing taps), rather than replacing zillions of perfectly fine pole pigs. Also, I remember they had 'brownouts' (voltage decreases) during the energy crises of the '70s (rather than rolling blackouts like they'd do now if they had to), and I'd assume that was also done by simply changing taps.

I thought Edison with his 110/220V DC system was first (other than possibly some small systems of no consequence) and when DC proved impractical due to inability to send it long distances, they kept the 110/220V configuration for compatibility but went AC for the most part, though there were many incompatible systems in the mean time.

I know this: I once worked in an old mill complex that used electricity in the late 1800s. An old generator was on display. If I remember, the date on the nameplate was 1897. It ran at 40 cycles per second. I also know they used 550 volts (delta probably, knob-and-tube wiring with 3 conductors was used) for several vintage elevators. A single circuit fed by a backwards 480-120 transformer with taps fed several elevators. An electrician neighbor once mentioned 550V to me. It may have been common in the early 20th century "mills".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:05:16 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes:
|>I'd like to know when the US went to 120. Did the 440->460 and 460->480 |>steps happen at the same time as 110->115 and 115->120? | | I remember the voltage being listed as 117V at one time. So maybe there | was a 115->117V transition, or was it 110->117V at once?
I've seen that, too. I've also seen things listed with 125V and 127V and even 130V and 140V. In some cases I think it's "max volts". Some light bulbs do come in 130V rating, probably to extend life.
| I'd guess 440->460->468->480 happened as the same time as the | corresponding 110->120V transitions, as I'd assume they made the | conversion one substation at a time (possibly by simply changing taps), | rather than replacing zillions of perfectly fine pole pigs. Also, I | remember they had 'brownouts' (voltage decreases) during the energy crises | of the '70s (rather than rolling blackouts like they'd do now if they had | to), and I'd assume that was also done by simply changing taps.
But are brownouts really effective? Motors in particular, and most things with switching power supplies, just compensate with more current. With more current downstream, line losses increase. So unless there are enough things like light bulbs that go down in current to account for the current losses in what goes up, a brownout could these days have the opposite effect of what is desired. Maybe that is why they are doing blackouts. Soon more people will be installing energy reserve systems to deal with that, which means more current when the power is on.
|>I do know that before Edison, there were several suppliers of electricity |>around the US (had been for many years) and the systems were configured |>in all kinds of ways, different voltages and frequencies. I'm sure the |>same must have been in Europe. | |>I'm also curious how the transition happened after Edison in terms of |>getting the country on the same voltage. Edison sure didn't get it on |>DC, so I doubt he played a significant role in having 110 volts AC. But |>maybe it was his idea of the 110/220 split combined with 220 being in |>use in Europe (was it that _common_ at that time frame?) that make it |>a popular choice as more electrical supply systems were being put online |>in America. | | I thought Edison with his 110/220V DC system was first (other than | possibly some small systems of no consequence) and when DC proved | impractical due to inability to send it long distances, they kept the | 110/220V configuration for compatibility but went AC for the most part, | though there were many incompatible systems in the mean time.
I recall seeing some documention of 220 volts being in use before Edison set up his system. Remember, he did not invent the light bulb; he just improved on it to make it practical enough for common use (e.g. don't need to change the bulb every day). Electric lights were in use before this time, as were motors running on both DC and AC. The really great invention, though misused for a while, was the transformer. That's what killed DC.
As for the 110/220 split, I am more inclined to believe it was part of his light bulb "improvements". At a lower voltage, you can have a thicker filament. I suspect he split the voltage because it gave him even more of an edge on light bulb service life. He surely understood that lower voltage was better for the bulbs, but harder to deliver, and split the power to gain the advantage of lower voltage for the bulbs while keeping the deliverability of the higher voltage. Unfortunately with DC at the time, 2:1 was the best he could do. AC plus the transformer ultimately won, but by then the light bulb had gotten good enough that there was not a major need to go even lower in voltage. Had things shifted a bit, such as AC taking over sooner and light bulbs getting better later (such as going to the tungsten filament), we might well have seen a further reduced voltage delivered into the building based on an outside transformer to step the "street voltage" down. Perhaps it might have ended up with 50 volts for lights and 500 volts on the street. If Edison had accepted AC and gone with that (and paid off some patent royalties for Westinghouse, Siemens and others, which I think is the real reason he stayed with DC) he might well have managed to light up all of New York City and more on his own.
I don't know if Edison was the choice of "220" or not. I'm inclined to think not. I suspect the number came from one of Siemens, Tesla, or Westinghouse. And I suspect Tesla would have chosen it because of its easier three phase calculations (e.g. you could use whole numbers and get fairly accurate results). It's not the only such number, and not even the best in terms of whole number closeness, but it would be an attractive number in the desired voltage range. If this was the motive for the choice, some of the other better choices could have been: 97Y/56 168Y/97 265Y/153 362Y/209 627Y/362 989Y/571
It could simply have been the arbitrary choice of one of the first electricity producers and it just happened to catch on.
But I don't think Edison had any influence on the choice Europe made. If he had, wouldn't they have gone with his split system?
|>And how did Canada come to be using the 600 and 600/346 volt system, which |>I presume to be originally 550 (and 550/318 if wye came before the voltage |>change). It's not an unknown voltage in the US, but very rare. Canada |>does have a lot more 480/277 than the US has 600/346 though. | | I know this: I once worked in an old mill complex that used electricity | in the late 1800s. An old generator was on display. If I remember, the | date on the nameplate was 1897. It ran at 40 cycles per second. I also | know they used 550 volts (delta probably, knob-and-tube wiring with 3 | conductors was used) for several vintage elevators. A single circuit fed | by a backwards 480-120 transformer with taps fed several elevators. An | electrician neighbor once mentioned 550V to me. It may have been common | in the early 20th century "mills".
Back when things were not interconnected, and there was little vision of that kind of thing (a grid) ever happening, and there was little if any mass market in electrical appliances for the "common man", the frequency could be freely chosen based on whatever motor speed was needed. So there were a lot of choices made. And if you're designing the electrical system around the utilization, then voltage becomes as easy to choose as frequency.
I do suspect that the choice of 100 volts in Japan was influenced by so much of the country being on 50 Hz and either wanting to use US transformers or use the US transformer designs to get started. But this is really just speculation on my part. It could also have been a war time thing that stuck.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes:

I suspect the 127V is Mexico or some other place that uses 127Y/220 service, at least in some places.

Back in those days there weren't many switching power supplies. Motors draw more current and I suspect induction motors slip more and use less power, but not proportional to V^2 less like a resistor.
I'd be curious to how much of the load is incandescent lights, other resistive heating, motors, switching power supplies and other. How do fluorescent lights (non electronic ballasts) appear as a load?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes: | |>I've seen that, too. I've also seen things listed with 125V and 127V |>and even 130V and 140V. In some cases I think it's "max volts". Some |>light bulbs do come in 130V rating, probably to extend life. | | I suspect the 127V is Mexico or some other place that uses 127Y/220 | service, at least in some places. | |>| I'd guess 440->460->468->480 happened as the same time as the |>| corresponding 110->120V transitions, as I'd assume they made the |>| conversion one substation at a time (possibly by simply changing taps), |>| rather than replacing zillions of perfectly fine pole pigs. Also, I |>| remember they had 'brownouts' (voltage decreases) during the energy crises |>| of the '70s (rather than rolling blackouts like they'd do now if they had |>| to), and I'd assume that was also done by simply changing taps. | |>But are brownouts really effective? Motors in particular, and most |>things with switching power supplies, just compensate with more current. |>With more current downstream, line losses increase. So unless there |>are enough things like light bulbs that go down in current to account |>for the current losses in what goes up, a brownout could these days |>have the opposite effect of what is desired. Maybe that is why they |>are doing blackouts. Soon more people will be installing energy |>reserve systems to deal with that, which means more current when the |>power is on. | | Back in those days there weren't many switching power supplies. Motors | draw more current and I suspect induction motors slip more and use less | power, but not proportional to V^2 less like a resistor. | | I'd be curious to how much of the load is incandescent lights, other | resistive heating, motors, switching power supplies and other. How | do fluorescent lights (non electronic ballasts) appear as a load?
For inductive ballast, I suspect the current will be a function of the voltage across the inductor and its inductance. That will depend on the voltage drop across the bulb once it gets started by whatever means. So the voltage reduction could possibly have more of an effect since the drop in the bulb is relatively constant. That would then result in even less current. That's just my guess. There are things about such lights I still don't understand.
Electronic ballasts will be different and depend on the behaviour of the ballast design, which could vary. They could have a constant pulse width or a constant current or even be adjusting for a change in voltage.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

(230/220)).
is
which
voltage
I think the electrical equipment manufacturers in Canada wanted something that was not very common in North America so they would have the majority of the Canadian market.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|> >And how did Canada come to be using the 600 and 600/346 volt system, | which |> >I presume to be originally 550 (and 550/318 if wye came before the | voltage |> >change). It's not an unknown voltage in the US, but very rare. Canada |> >does have a lot more 480/277 than the US has 600/346 though. | | | | I think the electrical equipment manufacturers in Canada wanted something | that was not very common in North America so they would have the majority | of the Canadian market.
Thing is, there's plenty of 480Y/277 in Canada, about as much as 600Y/346. Canadian business that are buying equipment probably have an easy choice. I've heard of a few cases where businesses in teh US buy something from Canada and it's 600Y/346 and they need to figure out how to get that kind of voltage. One place I used to work (running a small ISP) actually had 600Y/346 and it was in Texas. I have also seen 600Y/346 listed in the service guides of a couple power companies in the USA.
Anyway, I would dispute the theory on the grounds that having such a voltage, if exclusive, doesn't really give them an advantage in terms of an exclusive market. It may give them an advantage in terms of more efficient use of power.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi John
If the equipment is coming from the USA you also need to make sure it complies with European requirements, if it is a machine it need to meet the requirements of the Machinery Directive, electrical standard EN 60204-1. If it is not a machine you need to consider the requirements of the Low Voltage Directive. In both cases the unit will also need to meet the requirements of the EMC Directive.
If you need help with the above e-mail Glenn Moffat at safety_no snipped-for-privacy@uk.tuv.com and he will be able to help (remove the _no_spam part from the address)
BillB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@abc.net wrote:

Just as a matter of interest, what exactly constitutes a 'machine', in this context?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi
Listed below is the definition of what a machine is according to the Machinery Directive, with the guidance notes following after the definition.
For the purposes of this Directive, machinery means an assembly of linked parts or components, at least one of which moves, with the appropriate actuators, control and power circuits, etc., joined together for a specific application, in particular for the processing, treatment, moving or packaging of a material. The term machinery also covers an assembly of machines which, in order to achieve the same end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as an integral whole. Machinery also means interchangeable equipment modifying the function of a machine, which is placed on the market for the purpose of being assembled with a machine or a series of different machines or with a tractor by the operator himself in so far as this equipment is not a spare part or a tool.
- an assembly of parts: this logically excludes basic components. However, as we will see in the last subparagraph, certain basic components such as items of lifting gear (hooks, rings, rings with stud connections) are covered (although not actually safety components or machines, these products are implicitly covered by the Directive). This confirms that other components are excluded. We will also see that some parts forming sub-assemblies or quasi machinery are also excluded.
- the parts must be linked. This does not exclude machinery which is sold dismantled for ease of transport or in kit form, as the manufacturer is obliged to design his machinery in accordance with the Directive. In these special cases the manufacturer gives the necessary assembly instructions to the customer. CE marking obviously relates only to the actual design of the product and the assembly instructions. Assembly is the users responsibility. The manufacturer is not responsible for any failure to follow the assembly instructions he has provided. Confirmation of this can be found in essential requirements 1.1.2(a), 1.5.4, 1.7.4(a) and 3.6.3(b) of Annex I.
- one of the parts must move. This movement must result from external energy (electricity, battery, fuel, etc.) or stored energy (spring, weight). Thus, by way of exception from this rule, the machinery Directive also covers certain lifting equipment moved directly by manual effort. Other machinery moved by manual effort directly is excluded. Static assemblies (shelving, scaffolding, pallets, hand tools, hand-pushed trolleys, etc.) are therefore excluded.
- for a specific application. This implies that machinery which is unfinished, to the extent that it cannot function, is not covered by the Directive. This is confirmed by Article 4(2). The list of applications given here is not exhaustive: the phrase in particular means that these are merely examples. However, the concept of application implies that machinery is marketed for actual use by an operator. Machinery intended to be scrapped or reconditioned clearly does not have to comply with the machinery Directive 89/392/EEC, as amended.
Interpretation of the scope of the machinery Directive must not be taken to absurd lengths. The important thing is to understand the benefits sought through it. The Directives sole aim is to facilitate the movement of products and improve the safety of hazardous ones.
Best regards
BillB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.