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?

 

[Engineer54]

The other thing being as i understand it anyway, is that this new amendment is only for domestic installations, so why if the current plastic BS 60695 CU/DB's are so bad, why only to confine to domestic and not say commercial installations?? Does not the same fire risks apply??

 

[Essex_]

The other thing being as i understand it anyway, is that this new amendment is only for domestic installations, so why if the current plastic BS 60695 CU/DB's are so bad, why only to confine to domestic and not say commercial installations?? Does not the same fire risks apply??

I personally would say that a plastic DB would not be satisfactory in a commercial setting due to possible damage anyway. Generally speaking of course.

 

[Engineer54]

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?

I for one can see other problems arising from using metal CU's in domestic sector, and you're right it would have a lot to do with the inexperienced and low skill level of Electrical Trainee's and the like... I can just/only imagine some of the abortions that are coming your way very soon!! lol!!

 

[Paul.M]

The other thing being as i understand it anyway, is that this new amendment is only for domestic installations, so why if the current plastic BS 60695 CU/DB's are so bad, why only to confine to domestic and not say commercial installations?? Does not the same fire risks apply??

Spot on E54. No mention in the london FB report about commercial fires???

I personally would say that a plastic DB would not be satisfactory in a commercial setting due to possible damage anyway. Generally speaking of course.

Yeah but plastic/domestic CU's are used in commercial buildings, eg DB4 supplying the kitchen, situated in a cupboard etc. Have none of these caught fire in the past 10 years whilst this report was ongoing?

 

[Paul.M]

I for one can see other problems arising from using metal CU's in domestic sector, and you're right it would have a lot to do with the inexperienced and low skill level of Electrical Trainee's and the like... I can just/only imagine some of the abortions that are coming your way very soon!! lol!!

I'm buying shares in the "hole saw" & "glanding" companies lol. Also maybe worth a punt at metal cable ties for exit routes

 

[Essex_]

Spot on E54. No mention in the london FB report about commercial fires???



Yeah but plastic/domestic CU's are used in commercial buildings, eg DB4 supplying the kitchen, situated in a cupboard etc. Have none of these caught fire in the past 10 years whilst this report was ongoing?

I hear you but reading the report I think the concern is also that in a domestic setting CUs are usually found under stairs and near front doors so generally a fire there would impede escape.

 

[Jonspark]

I for one can see other problems arising from using metal CU's in domestic sector, and you're right it would have a lot to do with the inexperienced and low skill level of Electrical Trainee's and the like... I can just/only imagine some of the abortions that are coming your way very soon!! lol!!

well they won't be coming my way matey lol!! i do industrial, so i fit steel as standard haha

 

[Jonspark]

I hear you but reading the report I think the concern is also that in a domestic setting CUs are usually found under stairs and near front doors so generally a fire there would impede escape.

There trying to contain fires with the steel consumer units, if some electricians don't tighten up terminals now they never will.

 

[Octopus]

So lets us put a metal cover over flimsy, crappy, far eastern products!

Thats NOT the way to fix the problem

 

[DPG]

Who's going to be the first company that comes up with a suitable non-combustible CU which is NOT made of steel. It doesn't say it has to be steel. And I don't mean asbestos before anyone suggests that Daz

 

[Octopus]

I hear you but reading the report I think the concern is also that in a domestic setting CUs are usually found under stairs and near front doors so generally a fire there would impede escape.

So mains powered, interlinked smokes in houses, 1 near the CU and more elese where would be a better, policy IMHO.

Its not just CU's that catch fire in homes.

 

[davesparks]

There trying to contain fires with the steel consumer units, if some electricians don't tighten up terminals now they never will.

No they aren't, the regulation makes no mention of containing a fire it only requires that the box itself does not catch fire.
There is a big difference between being non combustible and being able to contain a fire!

 

[Engineer54]

You've got to now accept that any reports/statistics coming from any of the interested parties that support the metal only stand, are going to be totally biased towards that end, you'll not be getting any real facts about the alternatives or those materials that conform to current fire retardant BS/EN Standards....

Well not until they start having to backtrack or do the about turns because they haven't originally thought everything through. Knee Jerk reactions generally throw up all sorts of unforeseen problems, that cause other knee Jerk reactions, and so it goes on!! It used to be called ''Management By Crisis'' and it tends to get to be a very expensive exercise when left to it's own devices....

 

[Paul.M]

So mains powered, interlinked smokes in houses, 1 near the CU and more elese where would be a better, policy IMHO.

Its not just CU's that catch fire in homes.

I really like that idea. Make it a reg on all new builds/rewires and CU changes to have a smoke detector within 3m of the CU. Easy and cheap.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Schneider Electric welcomes a new consumer unit regulation, while asserting choice of manufacturer is key - Electrical Contracting News (ECN)

Reading that, it appears the manufacturers are largely responsible!
Bakelite gets a positive mention

 

[Spoon]

I really like that idea. Make it a reg on all new builds/rewires and CU changes to have a smoke detector within 3m of the CU. Easy and cheap.

Its still not solving the problem of poorly manufactured CU's and idiots installing them.
You might as well invent a small capsule that you fit inside the CU's that breaks under heat. The capsule fills the CU with foam... Problem solved...

 

[Octopus]

Its still not solving the problem of poorly manufactured CU's and idiots installing them.
You might as well invent a small capsule that you fit inside the CU's that breaks under heat. The capsule fills the CU with foam... Problem solved...

you are right its not BUT mandatory introduction of smoke alarms will also detect fires started by smokes, candles, open fires........

 

[Paul.M]

Its still not solving the problem of poorly manufactured CU's and idiots installing them.

Already been mentioned mate, better materials or design for the terminations.

You might as well invent a small capsule that you fit inside the CU's that breaks under heat. The capsule fills the CU with foam... Problem solved...

Fike have designed a smoke bomb capsule for just this type of fire. Sadly it can not be installed in domestic properties. A domestic CU in the cupboard under the stairs full with coats and other combustible items, a smoke detector could save lifes and property.

 

[Jonspark]

No they aren't, the regulation makes no mention of containing a fire it only requires that the box itself does not catch fire.
There is a big difference between being non combustible and being able to contain a fire!

it's all about containment, thats why your allowed to enclose the cu in a non combustible unit.

 

[HandySparks]

it's all about containment, thats why your allowed to enclose the cu in a non combustible unit.

Although, as I understand it, a CU is still allowed to have IP2X holes in the sides and bottom. Bit of a poor fire barrier!

 

[Geordie Spark]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZdPCCKPDBY

 

[Geordie Spark]

Already been mentioned mate, better materials or design for the terminations.



Fike have designed a smoke bomb capsule for just this type of fire. Sadly it can not be installed in domestic properties. A domestic CU in the cupboard under the stairs full with coats and other combustible items, a smoke detector could save lifes and property.

The quality of the terminals - screws and tapped holes in busbars - are a biggie for me and I'm surprised there aren't more overheating/fire issues than there are.

Having "tradesmen" who can't tell when a screw is tight without the screwdriver making a clicking noise doesn't help much either!! :leaving:

 

[Silly Sausage]

I blame the ever decreasing number of smokers for all this.
It's who they (the Fire Brigade) usually blame fires on.

 

[Essex_]

So mains powered, interlinked smokes in houses, 1 near the CU and more elese where would be a better, policy IMHO.

Its not just CU's that catch fire in homes.

You know what. I would be happy with both as standard. Plus an emergency light near the cu.

 

[Essex_]

No they aren't, the regulation makes no mention of containing a fire it only requires that the box itself does not catch fire.
There is a big difference between being non combustible and being able to contain a fire!

The report specifically mentions the difference in CU that even with standard MCBs and no grommets still contain a fire quite well.

People trust us as electricians to give sound advice. Why can't we trust the fire brigade to give equally good advice?

 

[Essex_]

You've got to now accept that any reports/statistics coming from any of the interested parties that support the metal only stand, are going to be totally biased towards that end, you'll not be getting any real facts about the alternatives or those materials that conform to current fire retardant BS/EN Standards....

Well not until they start having to backtrack or do the about turns because they haven't originally thought everything through. Knee Jerk reactions generally throw up all sorts of unforeseen problems, that cause other knee Jerk reactions, and so it goes on!! It used to be called ''Management By Crisis'' and it tends to get to be a very expensive exercise when left to it's own devices....

Nowhere does it state metal only DBs.

 

[Essex_]

I really like that idea. Make it a reg on all new builds/rewires and CU changes to have a smoke detector within 3m of the CU. Easy and cheap.

Fantastic idea. I just have this feeling that certain people will be saying 'the regs are not retrospective, don't have to install them'.

 

[Essex_]

Its still not solving the problem of poorly manufactured CU's and idiots installing them.
You might as well invent a small capsule that you fit inside the CU's that breaks under heat. The capsule fills the CU with foam... Problem solved...

I don't think anyone is saying it will solve anything. It is a step in the right direction.

 

[Essex_]

Although, as I understand it, a CU is still allowed to have IP2X holes in the sides and bottom. Bit of a poor fire barrier!

This reg is not for stopping fires spreading completely but just to slow them down. Once the occupants are out - job done.

This is a life saving measure.

 

[Fin170]

A few years from now we'll have similar articles about metal consumer units from the ambulance service about a sky rocket in electric shocks from people attempting to reset the many faults on their 'Part p qualified' metal cu

calling it now