Disconnecting Means for Motor in (2) places?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kabbott

Member
Location
Fort Wayne, IN
A customer asked the following:

If an operator has to enter a silo, the lock out/tag out disconnect for the agitator is mounted on top of the silo and not readily accessible. Can a second disconnect be mounted in some convenient location in the alley?

I am not sure how to answer this one. Essentially the customer wants to be able to lock out a motors disconnect in either location (either the top of the silo, or in the silo alley)

Looking for some code direction on if this can be done or on what is legal....

Thanks!
 
On a lot of the conveyor systems I inspect, there will be one disconnect at the conveyor and one at the motor. The 1st simply feeds power to the second and can be locked out at either place.
 
A customer asked the following:

If an operator has to enter a silo, the lock out/tag out disconnect for the agitator is mounted on top of the silo and not readily accessible. Can a second disconnect be mounted in some convenient location in the alley?

I am not sure how to answer this one. Essentially the customer wants to be able to lock out a motors disconnect in either location (either the top of the silo, or in the silo alley)

Looking for some code direction on if this can be done or on what is legal....

Thanks!

One is required but you can choose to install as many as you want in any locations you want.
 
The only down side is someone who is unaware of the other(s), meaning they lock out one, someone else locks out the other, then the first person removed his lock and can't figure out why it doesn't work. Been there, done that...
 
The only down side is someone who is unaware of the other(s), meaning they lock out one, someone else locks out the other, then the first person removed his lock and can't figure out why it doesn't work. Been there, done that...

how could this ever happen if they were following their written lockout procedures?
 
The only down side is someone who is unaware of the other(s), meaning they lock out one, someone else locks out the other, then the first person removed his lock and can't figure out why it doesn't work. Been there, done that...

At my previous job (sawmill), there was a long waste conveyor (1100 feet) with many access points. In an effort to comply with lockout requirements "production" insisted on installing lockout disconnects at various access points. This was done in a piecemeal manner, rarely was a disconnect farther than 50 feet than the last installed disconnect. The original install was a 10 horsepower U frame motor with a 20 foot conduit run and 8 ga wire. Somehow a T frame 20 horsepower motor was substituted (only the shaft size changed, the mounting bolt pattern was the same). No one knows when the motor was changed or when the overloads and breaker were changed. The original blueprints (no revisions) showed the motor details. Shortly after I was hired on, I was asked to add another disconnect at yet another location. I did so in the same manner as those before me, and I thought no more about it. At some time later I became a "shift electrician" and was responsible for troubleshooting problems. This conveyor system had many problems (mechanical and electrical), one of the problems was that motor tripped the overloads. Many electricians including myself had suggested this was a mechanical overload, because we had tested the voltage at the disconnect next to the motor and observed the amperage was even on every phase. One night when things were slow (no breakdowns) I was investigating the problem motor and I realized that the disconnect physically next to the motor was not the disconnect "electrically" closest to the motor. Apparently at one point an electrician had "added" another disconnect electrically between the motor and the disconnect next to the motor.

We had been measuring the voltage drop 20 feet from the MCC bucket, not after an an approximate 2500 feet of wire! Doh! After checking the voltage at a different disconnect we found that the voltage was only 390 volts. I should add that I'm not sure this was the last disconnect before the motor!

The electrical chief made a decision to rewire the system with 1awg. The voltage drop went away and the mysterious overload trips went away.

Then the conveyor chain hung up mechanically and a 4 7/16" shaft twisted in two pieces. A post mortem autopsy showed that the original 10 horsepower motor was correct for the application!

how could this ever happen if they were following their written lockout procedures?

I'm presuming that Jraef was referring to the confusion about which disconnect was causing the non operation of the system.

We had the same issues after all we had more than 20 disconnects in the system. Axillary contacts and indicator lights were added to every disconnect so that it was easier to find the disconnect that was in the off position.
 
We had the same issues after all we had more than 20 disconnects in the system. Axillary contacts and indicator lights were added to every disconnect so that it was easier to find the disconnect that was in the off position.

I am a big fan of aux switches on remote estops and disconnect switches. can save a lot of time when you are trying to figure out why the thing won't restart.
 
how could this ever happen if they were following their written lockout procedures?
Well, it wouldn't, IF there is/was an established procedure and everyone followed it correctly. When I worked at Boeing, if there was more than one lockable device, you had to put your lock on each one, with a tag on it with your identifier, etc. etc. etc. Everyone was issued 6 locks by Maintenance, because that way they had a master key for any lock so that one forgotten lock could not halt the production of a 767. So it couldn't happen there. But I also did a lot of work at rock crushing plants, rules are often "fluid" when it comes to things like that, mostly because they often hire outside contractors for everything and don't necessarilly brief every one on their rules (if any). I know it's not SUPPOSED to be like that, it just is.

Aux contacts are a great idea, I agree. I wish more people did. I've done a lot of VFD work, I always insist that any disconnects down stream have aux contacts wired to the VFD Run command that shuts it down before the main contacts open. It saves the VFD. But a lot of people are cheap... Foolish, but cheap.
 
Aux contacts are a great idea, I agree. I wish more people did. I've done a lot of VFD work, I always insist that any disconnects down stream have aux contacts wired to the VFD Run command that shuts it down before the main contacts open. It saves the VFD. But a lot of people are cheap... Foolish, but cheap.

Yes, the early opening aux contacts are a must to protect your assets as well as safety. I would also like to add that a second set of aux contacts might be necessary if you are using 120V controls and the embedded temperature protection in some high end motors. Think about the maint tech that locks out the disconnect next to the motor and is not aware that the embedded klixon might still have 120V applied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top