Consumer unit reasoning

[GEOFF S]

Hi all


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

Cheers

 

[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

 

[UNG]

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 why limit it to just the consumer unit when this is quite often co located with other electrical equipment contained in plastic housings that can affect escape routes

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...

While the CU's may be poorly manufactured not all of them will end up bursting into flames so as you suggest those that do have other factors involved. There must be many thousands of CU's installed every year so the number installed that result in fires is only a small percentage the problem is the stats give no indication as to the age of the installation or any other factors that may contribute to a failure that results in 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?

With advice can come litigation and the fire brigade don't want to be in the firing line if the advice given is found to be incorrect

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.

There are any number of measures that could have been used to contain a fire why are under stairs cupboards not constructed with a double skin of plaster board to give it a 1 hour fire rating cupboards containing electrical equipment in escape routes could have a similar construction with a 1 hour fire rated door couple this with an earlier suggestion of putting a smoke / heat detector within the cupboard and you have a much better life saving solution

Containing and slowing the fire down has the potential for it taking longer to be detected and therefore giving no overall benefit to the occupants where escape routes are involved

If anything it was the building regs that needed to be reviewed and amended to accommodate better fire containment and detection for escape routes within domestic properties

 

[Engineer54]

Nowhere does it state metal only DBs.

Maybe, but you don't have to be a Phd to understand that is the overall intension of the CU amendment!!

 

[Essex_]

Maybe, but you don't have to be a Phd to understand that is the overall intension of the CU amendment!!

I disagree. I think there will be loads of non-metallic CUs coming out before Jan.

 

[Engineer54]

I disagree. I think there will be loads of non-metallic CUs coming out before Jan.

Of course you disagree, but then you change your mind with the wind!! At the beginning of this thread you couldn't agree more with the change to metal CU/DB's!!!

 

[UNG]

Of course you disagree, but then you change your mind with the wind!! At the beginning of this thread you couldn't agree more with the change to metal CU/DB's!!!

Been thinking the same with every thread he has posted in he swings both ways as he's frightened of missing something

 

[Octopus]

If the mandate for change included improved main switches and more robust internals then I would not have an issue!

 

[Essex_]

Of course you disagree, but then you change your mind with the wind!! At the beginning of this thread you couldn't agree more with the change to metal CU/DB's!!!

Again you are mistaken. I have never mentioned metal CUs. I said non-combustible. Why are you obsessed with metal? There are other materials that can still meet this new amendment. So I have not changed my mind at all. I fully support the change and always have and it will make zero difference to my day to day activities as an electrician.

 

[Geordie Spark]

Again you are mistaken. I have never mentioned metal CUs. I said non-combustible. Why are you obsessed with metal? There are other materials that can still meet this new amendment. So I have not changed my mind at all. I fully support the change and always have and it will make zero difference to my day to day activities as an electrician.

Asbestos should be able to meet this new amendment. After all it was used for flash guards inside CUs for years.

 

[Engineer54]

Again you are mistaken. I have never mentioned metal CUs. I said non-combustible. Why are you obsessed with metal? There are other materials that can still meet this new amendment. So I have not changed my mind at all. I fully support the change and always have and it will make zero difference to my day to day activities as an electrician.

I'm not mistaken at all!! We already have non-combustible plastic CU's, it's just they won't now tell you the manufactures, Tell me, why would they be testing non fire retardant CU's in the first place FFS for added effect for the promotion of metal CU's maybe? The article that so impressed you,was promoting the use of metal based CU's, NOT fire retardant Plastic CU's!!!

 

[Essex_]

I'm not mistaken at all!! We already have non-combustible plastic CU's, it's just they won't now tell you the manufactures, Tell me, why would they be testing non fire retardant CU's in the first place FFS for added effect for the promotion of metal CU's maybe? The article that so impressed you,was promoting the use of metal based CU's, NOT fire retardant Plastic CU's!!!

Exactly. We already have them. So use them. This reg is taking the choice away to use combustible CUs. It does not have to be only metal.