Last edit: 16/05/2023
Tha Standard provides the following procedure to avoid the defeat of interlock:
- Implement the basic measure provided in paragraph 5;
- Check whether the motivation to defeat the interlocking devices in reasonably foreseeable manner exists;
- Check whether the motivation can be eliminated;
- If foreseeable motivation for defeat continues to exsist, additional measures are required and therefore the use of the prescriptions detailed in Table3 become mandatory.
It is important to notice that paragraph 7.3 detais additional measures to minimise defeat possibilities. One of the biggest misinterpretation of the standard is about the use of non-detachable fixing. Some interlock manufacturer states that the use of normal screws covered with a cup can be considered a non-detachable fixing. That is not correct. It is important to distinguis between two different actions: Tampering and Defeating. The standard is looking for measures to avoid Interlock defeating and not Interlock Tampering. The cups are a way to detect tampering but do not hinder the defeating. That means the caps should not be considerd equivalent to non-detachable fixing.
That has been made clear in the new edition of the standard. This is the language present in the new edition:
Not considered as non‑detachable in this context are:
1) screws and bolts with hexalobular socket or similar and a pin in the opening (sometimes called security screws), because tools for these screws are readily available, except when the pin has been bent after installation.
2) use of easily detachable blocking substances, e.g. caps, wax, tamper proof labels.
For example, for a type 2 or 4 interlocking device, with high level coded, with or without electromagnetic guard locking, a non-detechable fixing of actuator is mandatory.
The figure shows a high level coded interlocking device.