Consumer unit reasoning

[GEOFF S]

Hi all


Protection against fire: the fire officer?s view - IET Electrical

Cheers

 

[Essex_]

This is a fantastic article. I for one am sold. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with installing non-combustible CUs after reading that.

 

[Essex_]

What I would say however is why have they not named those CU that failed so badly?

 

[Jonspark]

This is a fantastic article. I for one am sold. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with installing non-combustible CUs after reading that.

I have to agree,this is a sensible approach from a professional investigation team.

It's another positive step forward for domestic installers who should welcome the change.

 

[Bobster]

So no more clarification to what we already had when the amendment came out!

 

[Essex_]

So no more clarification to what we already had when the amendment came out!

Really? I think this is spot on. It details why they want to do it. What tests they done. And their results. I have not seen it presented like this before and only heard hearsay and my uncles brother's cousin was a fire fighter in his previous life stories.

 

[Bobster]

It surely was obvious that they wanted it so they could contain a fire.

The test they have shown there were clearly with plastics that do not meat BS60695 (Hot wire testing). Again they haven't defined what non combustible is.

 

[Andy78]

This is a fantastic article. I for one am sold. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with installing non-combustible CUs after reading that.

The general opinion against these changes is not that electricians are against fitting metal consumer units, it's the ridiculous fashion in which they are being used to cover up the core reasons for these fires. Every report I have seen so far cites poor terminations, poor quality and design of terminals, and defective components as the cause of fires, whilst absolutely nothing is being done to address these issues.

It's nothing more than a badly implemented knee jerk reaction that will not increase safety or standards across the board as intended, just like part P failed. They both started with good intentions but failed completely in the way they were delivered.

 

[Engineer54]

The general opinion against these changes is not that electricians are against fitting metal consumer units, it's the ridiculous fashion in which they are being used to cover up the core reasons for these fires. Every report I have seen so far cites poor terminations, poor quality and design of terminals, and defective components as the cause of fires, whilst absolutely nothing is being done to address these issues.

It's nothing more than a badly implemented knee jerk reaction that will not increase safety or standards across the board as intended, just like part P failed. They both started with good intentions but failed completely in the way they were delivered.

In a nutshell Andy!! lol!!

 

[Jonspark]

whats also needed is to teach people how to tighten terminals up, but steel cu's can only help.

 

[Andy78]

whats also needed is to teach people how to tighten terminals up, but steel cu's can only help.

Can they ?
We have seen plenty of tests that show how a plastic CU can melt when you start a fire inside it... big surprise there. Where are the tests that prove beyond all doubt that a metal CU is capable of containing a fire and the associated heat ?

Will an installer that is not competent to correctly tighten a terminal, correctly install and fire seal a metal CU ?
Is a badly installed metal CU any safer than a badly installed plastic one ?

I could put a 960 degree wire inside a lot of electrical appliances and cause them to catch fire, but does that mean they need to be made from metal or mandatory PAT should be brought in for domestic appliances ?

 

[Spoon]

I don't think that anyone disagrees that metal CU will help reduce fires, but what has already been stated, they haven't solved the problem.
Just imagine that there is a car manufacturer than produces cars with defective breaks and then there are people who are not competent to fit the brakes properly, so the cars crash.
The logical thing would be to get rid of the incompetent people and get the car manufacturers to produce cars to the proper standard. Not brush it all aside and say that now cars have to have more and bigger air bags, that will solve the problem....

 

[Jonspark]

Are some really concerned with the safety of steel consumer units? Or are they after a way to prevent Electrical Trainee from pricing them out of work?

 

[davesparks]

This is a fantastic article. I for one am sold. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with installing non-combustible CUs after reading that.

The issue is that they have not defined 'non-combustible'

 

[Essex_]

The general opinion against these changes is not that electricians are against fitting metal consumer units, it's the ridiculous fashion in which they are being used to cover up the core reasons for these fires. Every report I have seen so far cites poor terminations, poor quality and design of terminals, and defective components as the cause of fires, whilst absolutely nothing is being done to address these issues.

It's nothing more than a badly implemented knee jerk reaction that will not increase safety or standards across the board as intended, just like part P failed. They both started with good intentions but failed completely in the way they were delivered.

I understand what you are saying but every industry has safety measures in place that accounts for human error. I am not excusing whatsoever.

 

[Engineer54]

This is a fantastic article. I for one am sold. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with installing non-combustible CUs after reading that.

God you're easily impressed, i don't suppose it entered your mind that the article has been presented in a manner that supports the IET and gives little to no information on the material being tested apart from it being plastic!!

The same photo's are the basically the same as we have seen in other LFB articles, where manufacturers have not been identified or if the CU'S were still being marketed as BS 60695 or under other fire retardant BS numbers. There are plenty of phenolic plastics out there that will meet BS 60695 and will contain a fire, haven't seen a single mention of these plastics being used as a suitable alternative material in any of these biased reports yet!!

If the current fire retardant'ness of plastics used in CU/DB's is so bad or made out to be, why isn't the rest of Europe making any moves to go all metal??

 

[Andy78]

Right I'm away to a job, enjoy the (recurring and almost certainly circular) debate guys.

 

[Essex_]

whats also needed is to teach people how to tighten terminals up, but steel cu's can only help.

It is not only incompetent people. Boards are generally in areas with lots of activity (under stairs etc). Is it completely unrealistic that the tails, for instance work loose over years? With bags, coats etc bouncing off of them. Meters being replaced. How many times have you tightened up the tails. The meter has gone in. You go back and can get a good two turns on the main switch again?

 

[Jonspark]

Can't see the problem TBH, fit steel and wait to see if it helps

 

[Paul.M]

One of the main points that really does need to be addressed is the poor quality of the manufactured terminals within the DB's. Over the past ten years we have all seen the domestic 6/8/10/12 way CU's becoming flimsy and cheap. Companies cutting back on costs and using cheaper materials for Isolation switches, MCB's and Neutral bars even before the recession hit.

How many people on here has seen an old Wylex 3036 CU with the same problems we have today? Not many of us, why is that? Some may have a point and say that they were better trained tradesman back then, but I'm sure we still had the odd cowboy and "have a go Joe" from down the pub. Next time you rip out a 3036 board, have a look at the quality of the terminations in compression to todays CU's. Double screws on the tails should be brought back or with a modern day approach to this problem, a Wago style push in and clamp that can react with the heat of the flowing current.

The CU "box" is not the cause of the fire. The terminations are. That should be tested first. In fact I'll be bold to say this:-

Just like we have to check bonding before carrying out any work, it should be a reg that we also check the tightness of CU terminations and ensure they are adequate for continual use. It only takes a minuet to tighten them all up and look what it could prevent?