AMD 3 - Hopefully busting the myth of metal DBs

[D Skelton]

So, I've been trawling through every bit of info available on AMD 3, specifically info regarding non-combustible DBs in domestic premises. Others may have further information regarding the decision made by JPEL/64 as to what was included in AMD 3 following the final draft and I welcome any comments or 'picking apart of' what follows, but it seems quite clear to me that the intent of the regulation is not quite followed through with what is now in print. The last we hear is that within the final draft, 960[SUP]o[/SUP]C glow-wire tested plastic will not meet the requirements of Regulation 421.1.201 and will not be considered non-combustible.

Below is Regulation 421.1.201 in its entirety:

421.1.201 Within domestic (household) premises, consumer units and similar switchgear assemblies shall comply with BS EN 61439-3 and shall:

(i) have their enclosure manufactured from non-combustible material, or

(ii) be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of non-combustible material and complying with Regulation 132.12

NOTE 1: Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, is deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material.

NOTE 2: The implementation date for this regulation is the 1st January 2016, but does not preclude compliance with the regulation prior to that date.

Ok, so lets have a look at BS EN 61439-3, the product standard for distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons:

BS EN 61439-3 (Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies. Distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons) Regulation 10 essentially says that the clause of Part 1 applies (except from a few issues irrelevant to this subject), thus we refer to BS EN 61439-1 (General rules), which says:

10.2.3.2 Verification of resistance of insulating materials to abnormal heat and fire due to internal electric effects

The glow-wire test principles of IEC 60695-2-10 and the details given in IEC 60695-2-11 shall be used to verify the suitability of materials used:

a) on parts of ASSEMBLIES, or
b) on parts taken from these parts

...

The temperature of the tip of the glow-wire shall be as follows:

- 960[SUP]o[/SUP]C for parts necessary to retain current-carrying parts in position;

...

Got that, so let's have a look at BS EN 60695-2-12. This deals with the interpretation of glow-wire test results carried out in accordance with 60695-2-10 and 60695-2-11. It says:

10.1 Test criteria

The test specimin is considered to have withstood this test if there is no ignition, or if all of the following situations apply:

a) the longest sustained flames or glowing of the test specimin after the removal of the glow-wire, t[SUB]R[/SUB], extinguish within 30s;
b) the specimin is not totally consumed; and
c) there is no ignition of the wrapping tissue.

So this essentially tells us that if there is no ignition of the test specimin then the material is fit to be covered by the BS EN 61439-3 product standard. However, it still doesn't quite address whether or not that makes the material non-combustible.

For this reason, we turn to BS EN 13943 (Fire safety vocabulary). Lets look at some definitions:

4.46 combustion
exothermic reaction of a substance with an oxidizing agent

4.186 ignited
caused to be in a state of undergoing combustion (4.46)

4.43 combustible, adj.
capable of being ignited (4.186) and burned

4.239 non-combustible
not capable of undergoing combustion (4.46) under specified conditions

The crux of this matter I think comes down to those aforementioned 'specified conditions'. The fact is, almost any material is combustible if heated hot enough, therefore why does Regulation 421.1.201 not specify these specified conditions?

We can however look at BS EN 61439 which clearly stipulates these specified conditions (the glow-wire test as described in BS EN 60695-2) and it's requirement for plastic domestic distribution boards to pass these tests.

If as per BS EN 60695-2 a material passes the 960[SUP]o[/SUP] glow-wire test through non-ignition, it cannot by definition be called a combustible material, ergo sum - it is non-combustible.

This is of course my interpretation of all these standards and the definitions contained within, I do believe however that this is surely the only way it can be interpreted.

To summarise; if you install a plastic consumer unit within in a domestic property after 1st January 2016, as long as it conforms to the BS EN 61439-3 product standard, by definition, it will be non-combustible. Note 2 within Regulation 421.1.201 giving steel as an example of a non-combustible material is in my opinion nothing more than a red herring.

Hopefully, we might now be able to put this nonsense to bed once and for all!

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Oh dang it! Ive just invested heavily in a super secret ceramic DB manufacturing facility.

 

[baldsparkies]

I know this sounds like a crude test, and yes I guess it is.
But I had a spare BASEC 8 way board from Denmans.
Myself and a couple of guys used a blow torch on the poor thing (just for devilment).
It melted and distorted, but it did not combust or catch fire.
And boy did we try.
Ponged a bit though.

 

[GEOFF S]

So, I've been trawling through every bit of info available on AMD 3, specifically info regarding non-combustible DBs in domestic premises. Others may have further information regarding the decision made by JPEL/64 as to what was included in AMD 3 following the final draft and I welcome any comments or 'picking apart of' what follows, but it seems quite clear to me that the intent of the regulation is not quite followed through with what is now in print. The last we hear is that within the final draft, 960[SUP]o[/SUP]C glow-wire tested plastic will not meet the requirements of Regulation 421.1.201 and will not be considered non-combustible.

Below is Regulation 421.1.201 in its entirety:



Ok, so lets have a look at BS EN 61439-3, the product standard for distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons:

BS EN 61439-3 (Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies. Distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons) Regulation 10 essentially says that the clause of Part 1 applies (except from a few issues irrelevant to this subject), thus we refer to BS EN 61439-1 (General rules), which says:



Got that, so let's have a look at BS EN 60695-2-12. This deals with the interpretation of glow-wire test results carried out in accordance with 60695-2-10 and 60695-2-11. It says:



So this essentially tells us that if there is no ignition of the test specimin then the material is fit to be covered by the BS EN 61439-3 product standard. However, it still doesn't quite address whether or not that makes the material non-combustible.

For this reason, we turn to BS EN 13943 (Fire safety vocabulary). Lets look at some definitions:






The crux of this matter I think comes down to those aforementioned 'specified conditions'. The fact is, almost any material is combustible if heated hot enough, therefore why does Regulation 421.1.201 not specify these specified conditions?

We can however look at BS EN 61439 which clearly stipulates these specified conditions (the glow-wire test as described in BS EN 60695-2) and it's requirement for plastic domestic distribution boards to pass these tests.

If as per BS EN 60695-2 a material passes the 960[SUP]o[/SUP] glow-wire test through non-ignition, it cannot by definition be called a combustible material, ergo sum - it is non-combustible.

According to BEAMA, this will still not pass.

This is of course my interpretation of all these standards and the definitions contained within, I do believe however that this is surely the only way it can be interpreted.

To summarise; if you install a plastic consumer unit within in a domestic property after 1st January 2016, as long as it conforms to the BS EN 61439-3 product standard, by definition, it will be non-combustible. Note 2 within Regulation 421.1.201 giving steel as an example of a non-combustible material is in my opinion nothing more than a red herring.

Hopefully, we might now be able to put this nonsense to bed once and for all!

Cheers

 

[D Skelton]

Cheers

BEAMA don't write the rules, and even if they did, it isn't in the rules. It's one thing making your intent clear when working on legislation, but unless you illustrate that intent in the actual regulation it refers to, then the intent becomes irrelevant.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Purely for your enjoyment on this Thursday night, I read the latest issueing from the IET Wiring Matters earlier, ....

I quote, "There is no published definition for the term ‘non combustible’ that aligns with the intent of Regulation 421.1.201."

So, if the material is undefined, one can use anything one likes?!?!? :smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

[netblindpaul]

Damien,

This is the crux of my comments over the last few months.

The "metal" bit comes from BEAMA & their members deciding that ferrous metal is the only material that meets the intent of the regulation.

This I have always disagreed with.

Why is an installation standard interfering with a product standard?...

 

[stevey1983]

Wiring matters direct from the IET, should clear it up for everyone

http://electrical.------.org/wiring...consumer-units/index.cfm&utm_contact=94284970

 

[stevey1983]

Metal consumer unit for TT,

this podcast from the IET tells you of requirements of if you need to protect your tails, db, etc with rcd here.

Wiring Matters podcast series - IET Electrical

 

[shanky887614]

just got to wait till jan and see what the big manufacturer's decide

 

[netblindpaul]

Ended up duplicated. Don't know why so deleted.

 

[telectrix]

with the way the IET write some of their regulations, i'm surprised they've not got this guy as a proof reader.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40-oo1S2WEw

 

[Ib≤In≤Iz]

just got to wait till jan and see what the big manufacturer's decide

Exactly, I'm not all that worried until then.

 

[GB.Kayak]

So, I've been trawling through every bit of info available on AMD 3, specifically info regarding non-combustible DBs in domestic premises. Others may have further information regarding the decision made by JPEL/64 as to what was included in AMD 3 following the final draft and I welcome any comments or 'picking apart of' what follows, but it seems quite clear to me that the intent of the regulation is not quite followed through with what is now in print. The last we hear is that within the final draft, 960[SUP]o[/SUP]C glow-wire tested plastic will not meet the requirements of Regulation 421.1.201 and will not be considered non-combustible.

Below is Regulation 421.1.201 in its entirety:



Ok, so lets have a look at BS EN 61439-3, the product standard for distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons:

BS EN 61439-3 (Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies. Distribution boards intended to be operated by ordinary persons) Regulation 10 essentially says that the clause of Part 1 applies (except from a few issues irrelevant to this subject), thus we refer to BS EN 61439-1 (General rules), which says:



Got that, so let's have a look at BS EN 60695-2-12. This deals with the interpretation of glow-wire test results carried out in accordance with 60695-2-10 and 60695-2-11. It says:



So this essentially tells us that if there is no ignition of the test specimin then the material is fit to be covered by the BS EN 61439-3 product standard. However, it still doesn't quite address whether or not that makes the material non-combustible.

For this reason, we turn to BS EN 13943 (Fire safety vocabulary). Lets look at some definitions:






The crux of this matter I think comes down to those aforementioned 'specified conditions'. The fact is, almost any material is combustible if heated hot enough, therefore why does Regulation 421.1.201 not specify these specified conditions?

We can however look at BS EN 61439 which clearly stipulates these specified conditions (the glow-wire test as described in BS EN 60695-2) and it's requirement for plastic domestic distribution boards to pass these tests.

If as per BS EN 60695-2 a material passes the 960[SUP]o[/SUP] glow-wire test through non-ignition, it cannot by definition be called a combustible material, ergo sum - it is non-combustible.

This is of course my interpretation of all these standards and the definitions contained within, I do believe however that this is surely the only way it can be interpreted.

To summarise; if you install a plastic consumer unit within in a domestic property after 1st January 2016, as long as it conforms to the BS EN 61439-3 product standard, by definition, it will be non-combustible. Note 2 within Regulation 421.1.201 giving steel as an example of a non-combustible material is in my opinion nothing more than a red herring.

Hopefully, we might now be able to put this nonsense to bed once and for all!

D, thank you very much for bringing together the relevant standards in one place for analysis. Not withstanding the view that the changes to BS 7671 regarding electrical enclosures for the domestic market are an exercise in both treating the 'symptom rather than the cause' and 'shutting the stable door after a bolting horse', I comment only on the conclusions that you draw.

According to your text BS EN 60695-2-12 states:


10.1 Test criteria


The test specimin is considered to have withstood this test if there is no ignition, or if all of the following situations apply:


a) the longest sustained flames or glowing of the test specimin after the removal of the glow-wire, tR, extinguish within 30s;
b) the specimin is not totally consumed; and
c) there is no ignition of the wrapping tissue.


10.1 a) indicates that the test specimen may ignite but must be self-extinguishing within 30s.


Clearly this is not 'non-combustible'. You also rightly state:


'If as per BS EN 60695-2 a material passes the 960o glow-wire test through non-ignition, it cannot by definition be called a combustible material, ergo sum - it is non-combustible.'


This is true; however, a plastic enclosure could also pass the standard through the less strict route of 10.1 a), b) and c).


Therefore, without manufacturers' publishing the results of their testing regime to demonstrate compliance with BS EN 60695-2, the installer will not know whether an enclosure compliant with the standard achieved compliance by being truly non-combustible or by being self-extinguishing. Thus the changes to BS 7671 apply a more restrictive requirement than BS EN 61439-3.

 

[Andy78]

with the way the IET write some of their regulations, i'm surprised they've not got this guy as a proof reader.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40-oo1S2WEw

Just listened to the whole thing Tel..... great backdrop for a paperwork morning. Cheers

 

[baldsparkies]

As a follow up to post 3,
Thought it worth a mention that the board I referred to is rated as;

Self-extinguishing ABS
IP2XC
BSEN 61439-3

And this is the spec most plastic CU's follow.
Now if they are compliant with the new AMD 3 then the metal clad board scenario is nothing more than a red herring.

If not !!
Then there are a lot of boards out there that, not only are no longer compliant.
But also constitutes a fire hazard ??
Surely this will open up a completely new can of worms when conducting EICR's

This isn't simply a case of non compliance, as per installed to an older version of BS7671 which may or may not receive a code 3

But a case of all plastic consumer units constituting a fire hazard, and therefore legitimately receiving an automatic code 2 (unsatisfactory result)

I just cant see that being allowed to happen ????

 

[telectrix]

the whole issue is a storm in a teacup. will it affect the price of beer.... NO.... therefore it can be ignored.

 

[telectrix]

manufacturers will soon have plastic CUs that conform to 421.1.201, and cef will have a nice little sideline in yet another shiny sticker to add to the ones alreasdy adorning the CU.

 

[D Skelton]

As a follow up to post 3,
Thought it worth a mention that the board I referred to is rated as;

Self-extinguishing ABS
IP2XC
BSEN 61439-3

And this is the spec most plastic CU's follow.
Now if they are compliant with the new AMD 3 then the metal clad board scenario is nothing more than a red herring.

If not !!
Then there are a lot of boards out there that, not only are no longer compliant.
But also constitutes a fire hazard ??
Surely this will open up a completely new can of worms when conducting EICR's

This isn't simply a case of non compliance, as per installed to an older version of BS7671 which may or may not receive a code 3

But a case of all plastic consumer units constituting a fire hazard, and therefore legitimately receiving an automatic code 2 (unsatisfactory result)

I just cant see that being allowed to happen ????

The point is, if a plastic board is combustible, then it doesn't conform to the product standard and therefore shouldn't have been installed in the first place. Believe you me, there are an awful lot of boards out there that fall way short of the product standard! Some even made by BEAMA member companies. This needs addressing.

The product standard is fine, the installation standard was fine before it tried to meddle. Sort out the products that don't meet the product standard and sort out the installers that don't meet the installation standard and whoopty doo, what do we get as a result? Zero fusebox fires!

 

[NDG Elecs]

Good work Damian, this amendment really is a load of BS....!

At a slightly different angle, what if a plastic CU that is deemed combustible is installed after 2016 upon the proviso it will be being housed in a fire rated/non combustible enclosure. Do we need to have the enclosure installed first... Bit of the old chicken and egg going on. Are we expected to be buying steel shells to house them.

I read on Contactums website last night, in the FAQs I think, that existing plastic CUs are not unsafe and do not need to be replaced with metal. Well that's stating the jeffing obvious....so no amendment needed then after all.

All that is needed is a moral and diligent work ethic and less limp-wristedness. Market forces are partly to blame in the rise of the cowboy installation. I say the schemes should enforce extra supervision and training for any body found responsible for a fire. Not so easy though me thinks.

I do prefer plastic CUs over metal any day of the week.... Or is that 47 weeks and counting!

I wonder if the manufacturers prefer to sell metal CUs as it may be more profitable. They don't seem to be fighting the wording/semantics/interpretation of the reg at all.

 

[D Skelton]

Good work Damian, this amendment really is a load of BS....!

At a slightly different angle, what if a plastic CU that is deemed combustible is installed after 2016 upon the proviso it will be being housed in a fire rated/non combustible enclosure. Do we need to have the enclosure installed first... Bit of the old chicken and egg going on. Are we expected to be buying steel shells to house them.

Thank you.

To answer your question, if a plastic board is classed as combustible then it won't have passed the 960°C glow - wire test in accordance with BS EN 60695-2-10&11 as is required by BS EN 61439-3, therefore it won't meet the requirements of the product standard and should not be sold on the European market.

By definition, any plastic board that truly meets the current requirements of BS EN 61439-3 will be non-combustible.

 

[baldsparkies]

Remember those stories of the 1st world war.
When the powers to be sat around a table smoking fat cigars and deciding on their strategy for the next attack.
Then they send thousands of lads, over the trenches to be mowed down by german machine guns.

Keep yer heads down lads, cus they sure don't give a ---- about the implications to us.

 

[NDG Elecs]

Sorry Damian, I skim read parts of this thread. But get exactly your point re 61439 DBs. This will rumble and rumble I feel!

 

[D Skelton]

Remember those stories of the 1st world war.
When the powers to be sat around a table smoking fat cigars and deciding on their strategy for the next attack.
Then they send thousands of lads, over the trenches to be mowed down by german machine guns.

Keep yer heads down lads, cus they sure don't give a ---- about the implications to us.

Very true, however in this scenario there is no implication to us. We can carry on fitting plastic boards as long as we want. BS 7671, in particular Regulation 421.1.201 only goes to bolster this point by referring us back to the product standard that defines non-combustible in the first place lol!

We've all been caught, hook, line and sinker by nothing but a red herring.

To those of you reading this who don't have a clue what we're all on about;

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT AFTER 1ST JANUARY 2016 TO ONLY FIT METAL BOARDS IN DWELLINGS

 

[baldsparkies]

Thank you.

To answer your question, if a plastic board is classed as combustible then it won't have passed the 960°C glow - wire test in accordance with BS EN 60695-2-10&11 as is required by BS EN 61439-3, therefore it won't meet the requirements of the product standard and should not be sold on the European market.

By definition, any plastic board that truly meets the current requirements of BS EN 61439-3 will be non-combustible.

But they do play with words Skelt, as said the board I referred to is deemed Self-extinguishing.
Where does that stand with reference to Self-extinguishing vs Non-combustible.
Is there any official clarification on any difference or does it mean the same thing.
Or are they just going to sit back and leave the man on the tools to take the responsibility, and decision. ????

 

[NDG Elecs]

Maybe a product recall is in order. That could be a profitable little number.. In my dreams that is!

 

[D Skelton]

But they do play with words Skelt, as said the board I referred to is deemed Self-extinguishing.
Where does that stand with reference to Self-extinguishing vs Non-combustible.
Is there any official clarification on any difference or does it mean the same thing.
Or are they just going to sit back and leave the man on the tools to take the responsibility, and decision. ????

If something self extinguishes, by definition it cannot ignite. Ignition is the state of undergoing combustion. If it cannot ignite, then it is not combustible.

The company that produces the board can call it what they like. They can say that it is "rated at fifteen bananas on the Keanu Reeves scale", and so long as it passes the 960° glow-wire test, then it cannot be combustible.

 

[Jonspark]

If something self extinguishes, by definition it cannot ignite. Ignition is the state of undergoing combustion. If it cannot ignite, then it is not combustible.

The company that produces the board can call it what they like. They can say that it is "rated at fifteen bananas on the Keanu Reeves scale", and so long as it passes the 960° glow-wire test, then it cannot be combustible.

Don't you just love semantics

 

[baldsparkies]

So,
Quote 1,
Consumer units and similar switchgear assemblies will have to comply with the BS EN 61439-3 standard.
And most of them already do !!
Quote 2,
An example of non-combustible material is steel.
But they DON'T mention plastic in that statement,even though its capable of being non combustible, and therefore starting the mythology !!

:icon12:

 

[Jay Sparks]

Excellent post Mr Skelton. I am glad someone (you) has been ar3ed enough to actually look at the regs regarding this farse!!!

This is one of the best post in a LONG time on this forum. I have copied your post and gave a copy to a few of my colleagues.

The BS7671 makes reference to conforming to the "manufacturers instructions" for any accesssory/equipment, therefore if the manufacturers state that their board conforms to BS 61439-3, then it is perfectly acceptable.


Jay

 

[baldsparkies]

Excellent post Mr Skelton. I am glad someone (you) has been ar3ed enough to actually look at the regs regarding this farse!!!

This is one of the best post in a LONG time on this forum. I have copied your post and gave a copy to a few of my colleagues.

The BS7671 makes reference to conforming to the "manufacturers instructions" for any accesssory/equipment, therefore if the manufacturers state that their board conforms to BS 61439-3, then it is perfectly acceptable.


Jay

What that man said,
Nice one Mr Skelts. :icon12:

 

[Anthony S]

Phone up the manufacturer and ask the question and see what answer you get ?

 

[Jay Sparks]

Phone up the manufacturer and ask the question and see what answer you get ?

I can't believe the big manufacturers haven't come out already and said summet!!
But then again, they will be rubbing their hands thinking about the extra dollars they will make when the ill informed and unskilled start buying there nice new, shiny, expensive metal ones.lol

Jay

 

[Anthony S]

I can't believe the big manufacturers haven't come out already and said summet!!
But then again, they will be rubbing their hands thinking about the extra dollars they will make when the ill informed and unskilled start buying there nice new, shiny, expensive metal ones.lol

Jay

I phoned one mate and asked the question are the consumer units I've already fitted prior to your new release models that comply with amd 3 non - combustible and they won't get into a conversation and won't answer the question. So to me if a manufacturer can not answer a simple question, then what can you say.

 

[netblindpaul]

So,
Quote 1,
Consumer units and similar switchgear assemblies will have to comply with the BS EN 61439-3 standard.
And most of them already do !!

No they don't most of them comply with BS EN 60439-3.
They don't have to comply with BS EN 61439-3 until 22 March 2015, as until then BS EN 60439-3 is still valid.
The manufacturers (well most) will wait until the last second, as it is cheaper.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Thanks for this post Mr DS, it's very interesting.

I'd like to have a read of BS EN 61439-3 myself but trawling through the internet it seems to cost about £150!!

Would anyone know how we can view this BS number?.. as otherwise it's a bit of a catch 22.. i.e you must adhere to this standard... but you cant read it!

 

[Silly Sausage]

If something self extinguishes, by definition it cannot ignite. Ignition is the state of undergoing combustion. If it cannot ignite, then it is not combustible.

The company that produces the board can call it what they like. They can say that it is "rated at fifteen bananas on the Keanu Reeves scale", and so long as it passes the 960° glow-wire test, then it cannot be combustible.

I've posted this before ...
I've no idea how much sway that BEAMA have in all this, but I'll just bring it your attention again...

Clearing the fog around the new Consumer Unit Regulation - BEAMA | News

Quote from below the picture of the geezer,
“A further point for clarification is that plastic enclosures manufactured from 960 degree glow-wire rated material would not be classified as ‘non-combustible’ in the context of this regulation.

 

[GB.Kayak]

If something self extinguishes, by definition it cannot ignite. Ignition is the state of undergoing combustion. If it cannot ignite, then it is not combustible.

The company that produces the board can call it what they like. They can say that it is "rated at fifteen bananas on the Keanu Reeves scale", and so long as it passes the 960° glow-wire test, then it cannot be combustible.

D,


A consumer unit can undergo ignition and be certified compliant with BS EN 61439-3 by satisfying BS EN 60695-2-12, 10.1 Test criteria, sub clauses a), b) and c). Sub clause a) states: 'the longest sustained flames or glowing of the test specimin after the removal of the glow-wire, tR, extinguish within 30s'. It may therefore ignite and burn, 'combust', for up to 30 s! Some consumer units made of plastic materials may, however, be truly 'incombustible'. Unfortunately the wholesaler and installer of such boards are unlikely to be informed by the manufacturer whether their plastic board only passed the test regime by relying on these sub-clauses or not. The certification allows either product response under test. This would appear to be why BS 7671 has imposed a higher standard of 'incombustible' for domestic installation.


I have not carried out this testing but I suspect that from first principles, most plastics are derived from hydrocarbons and this class of chemicals are fuels; they burn when heat and oxygen are in abundance! Modify the environment by removing the heat, removing the glow-wire, or cutting off the oxygen and mostly combustion stops. However, if that heat input is continuous then the consumer unit is highly unlikely to self-extinguish!

 

[baldsparkies]

For a long long time boards from Denmans Basec range have complied with BSEN 61439-3

Product code is QFS-RRM14FLEXI

And they are referred to as Self Extinguishing ABS
IP2XC.

Its the Main Switch that is BSEN 60947-3 rated on these boards, not the enclosure.

 

[rompling]

A pandering to a fire brigade request not thought through ( surprising ) with a loopy long time scale to make it compliant as others have said loose connections / poor work man ship / ****e mcb connections prob more to blame than what they are enclosed in
But after all we are the blokes/ ladies that install and work with then day after day - what do we know ..,,,

 

[ipf]

Stuff it............back to the wylex rewireables with bakelite backs for me. I've certainly seen more burning damage to cb enclosures.

 

[baldsparkies]

I've posted this before ...
I've no idea how much sway that BEAMA have in all this, but I'll just bring it your attention again...

Clearing the fog around the new Consumer Unit Regulation - BEAMA | News

Quote from below the picture of the geezer,
“A further point for clarification is that plastic enclosures manufactured from 960 degree glow-wire rated material would not be classified as ‘non-combustible’ in the context of this regulation.

Have read it, very useful. (Not) Chocolate tea pot comes to mind.
love there definition of non combustible material ie There is no published definition of combustible material that aligns with intent of regulation 421'1'201. ?????
Yep chocolate tea pot !!!!!!!

 

[rustynails]

I'm of the opinion that I'm not against this Amendment. I appreciate that plastic is easier to fit than metal and is cheaper. I also take on board what the OP is saying about product standards and more to the point installer standards. If I knew nothing, I would hope that the person who said to me that my consumer unit needed up dating, as is usually the case, not often do you have the home owner phone you up and say, hey I think my consumer unit needs changing, would be installing products that are safe. As the guy from Beama says "this new regulation is intended to provide a level of enhanced fire risk protection". Metal is stronger than plastic. Metal would be deemed by most people on the street as being a non-combustible material. If you stopped and asked people in the street which material they would prefer on safety grounds, without them knowing all the facts, then I would be fairly sure most people would choose metal.

I wonder if the manufacturers prefer to sell metal CUs as it may be more profitable. They don't seem to be fighting the wording/semantics/interpretation of the reg at all.

Of course they do, don't we all want to be more profitable and they aren't going to be semantic about it.

I find that consumer unit changes in domestic households do not hold the same amount of weight as a boiler change, for example. The plumber gives you a new shiny Worcester Bosch 24cdi for 3k, brilliant I hear you say, along comes the noble sparky and says you need a new consumer unit. The safest and best solution is to have an 8 way rcbo consumer unit which complies with amendment 3, most larger manufacturers are making them in metal (Hager, Wylex, Schneider so far...) it will cost you £500, HOW MUCH! know way am I paying that for something that I don't really understand and doesn't make me warm or make my hot water nice and toasty, forget it. I would like to see domestic house holders being more educated on the products that are available to them and what they should have to be safe, but as with most electronic items in this world, all want the cheapest. This is not the correct attitude with regards to electrical safety. Fitting metal consumer units in domestic premises, screams safety, perhaps over the top but that’s what it’s all about today. I would also advocate the necessity for legalisation of electrical work which falls under part p, as written in this months Professional Electrician to help protect against the people who don’t give a sh*t.

 

[Mike Blair]

everyone takes electricity for granted. No one cares until someone is injured or killed. All people think is...if it works..great

 

[Engineer54]

Fitting metal consumer units in domestic premises, screams safety,

No it doesn't, ....it screams ''knee jerk reaction'' based on flawed data provided by LFB

I've seen cases of metal DB fires that if were located in typical domestic settings could have taken the the house with it. Now these were American DB's but they were metal construction and the wiring to these DB's were similar to that used in the UK, eg solid conductor T&E. The wiring was virtually completely destroyed for around half a metre beyond the metal DB enclosure.

If metal CU/DB's screams safety, why do you never see a metal consumer unit or DB in any German, French, Dutch, Belgium, etc, etc, etc domestic installation?? Why do they not have the same amount of consumer unit/DB fires, it maybe because there electricians are required to have a damn sight more training than 17 days/5 Weeks?? In fact you'll be lucky to come across a metal DB even in commercial and small industrial situations within Europe, ....Are they somehow using different plastic's to those used in the UK. Strange because the same manufacturers that supply the UK, supply our friends in Europe as well.

The same overall cause of the present problem(s) in the UK, will be transferred to the metal CU's, in fact it could well introduce more problems.....

 

[Marvo]

I still don't understand this farce, I've never seen anything quite like it. I've always held the UK standards in high regard until recently a couple of things have made me wonder. One was the knee-jerk earthing requirements for electric vehicle chargers which I understand they back peddled on for the mostpart and now this.... It's the fact they're attempting to electrically regulate an issue that is clearly not a electrical issue which means they're treating the symptoms and not the root cause which I suspect is a combination of falling materials quality standards and falling installer standards. Add to this the fact that there's a lack of clarity. I can understand the wholesalers ignorance, I wouldn't expect them to worry about anything other than their bottom line but even industry associations and groups can't agree on the implications and the precise standards of consumer units that should be installed.

 

[richy3333]

No it doesn't, ....it screams ''knee jerk reaction'' based on flawed data provided by LFB

I've seen cases of metal DB fires that if were located in typical domestic settings could have taken the the house with it. Now these were American DB's but they were metal construction and the wiring to these DB's were similar to that used in the UK, eg solid conductor T&E. The wiring was virtually completely destroyed for around half a metre beyond the metal DB enclosure.

If metal CU/DB's screams safety, why do you never see a metal consumer unit or DB in any German, French, Dutch, Belgium, etc, etc, etc domestic installation?? Why do they not have the same amount of consumer unit/DB fires, it maybe because there electricians are required to have a damn sight more training than 17 days/5 Weeks?? In fact you'll be lucky to come across a metal DB even in commercial and small industrial situations within Europe, ....Are they somehow using different plastic's to those used in the UK. Strange because the same manufacturers that supply the UK, supply our friends in Europe as well.

The same overall cause of the present problem(s) in the UK, will be transferred to the metal CU's, in fact it could well introduce more problems.....

Couldn't agree more. I wonder if this farce will be changed/altered at the next Regs amendment.

 

[Midwest]

Until you lot start writing the regs. change the record, it's metal CU's in the UK, until some other idiot who writes the regs says otherwise. I think the rule about drinking & driving is ridiculous and should be changed, it impacts on my human rights.....:angel_smile:

 

[Octopus]

Until you lot start writing the regs. change the record, it's metal CU's in the UK, until some other idiot who writes the regs says otherwise. I think the rule about drinking & driving is ridiculous and should be changed, it impacts on my human rights.....:angel_smile:

Only in domestic set ups from 1st Jan 2016

Nice plastic ones in commercial/industrial - go figure

 

[trev]

Until you lot start writing the regs. change the record, it's metal CU's in the UK, until some other idiot who writes the regs says otherwise. I think the rule about drinking & driving is ridiculous and should be changed, it impacts on my human rights.....:angel_smile:

However, a plastic CU is going to be perfectly acceptable in a commercial setting thus implying that the CU and the terminations it encloses are less dangerous than those employed in a domestic setting. Just like the introduction of Part P implied that electricity used domestically is more dangerous than a commercial or industrial setting.
Bolox. It's a sticking plaster over a gaping wound