Discuss Critical feedback request - Consumer unit. in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Good on you for asking :) .
Re the bottom row - out of habit I put the isolator on the end. As you've shortened the RCBO N lead, these can't easily be moved now. And yes, if you are going to shorten that N lead it needs to be ferruled. If there's room (seems plenty here) I would use the RCBO as they're supplied.
 
Nice looking job, good to see when someone takes pride in the end result. Agree with all the other comments and will add; don't forget to fill those gaping cable entry holes (the top one's going to be a bitch) with intumescent seal or equivalent fire stop especially as the unit is mounted on a wooden backboard.
 
Can't be arsed with arguing, but where does that **** come from? :)

17th Edition Amendment 3, 421.1.201 (ii)
states that consumer units shall be enclosed ...etc.

You can hardly call the CU enclosed if there's a gapping big hole in the back, especially as it's pointing at an easily combustable material such as wood.

The intent of that reg is to ensure the fire containment of the enclosure is maintained, which it isn't with a big hole in the back facing wood. It would be fine if it was mounted on a non-combustable wall, but it's not.

Think about it, what's the point of having metal enclosures, metal self closing doors over the mcbs, having to fit non combustable blanks, all designed to keep a fire within the CU, then a big hole that a fire can escape out the back of?

A couple of intumescent pillows stuffed in the holes will suffice.
 
17th Edition Amendment 3, 421.1.201 (ii)
states that consumer units shall be enclosed ...etc.

You can hardly call the CU enclosed if there's a gapping big hole in the back, especially as it's pointing at an easily combustable material such as wood.

The intent of that reg is to ensure the fire containment of the enclosure is maintained, which it isn't with a big hole in the back facing wood. It would be fine if it was mounted on a non-combustable wall, but it's not.

Think about it, what's the point of having metal enclosures, metal self closing doors over the mcbs, having to fit non combustable blanks, all designed to keep a fire within the CU, then a big hole that a fire can escape out the back of?

A couple of intumescent pillows stuffed in the holes will suffice.

I'm freshly back. :)

Reg 421.1.201, item (ii) refers to using a enclosure made from combustible material to be installed in a cabinet or enclosure made from non combustible material, i.e. comply with (i) or (ii).

MythBreakers videos - https://www.hager.co.uk/news-exhibitions-case-studies/news/amendment-3-to-bs-7671-2008/mythbreakers/56067.htm?mainvideoid=6dnZNI0bzRk

Unless they have changed the reg again in the 18th (I only have the BYB), there is no requirement to use intumescent seals in a CU made from non combustible material, only to maintain the IP ratings as per reg 416.2.1 (BYB). I don't believe the back of a CU requires this rating, although if someone could access the back, it would make common sense to maintain a similar IP rating.
 
Not a great fan of Proteus boards but if that's what you have been given to work with!
What is the max demand as looks like only 10sq supply on my old screen but a lot of final circuits.
Probably is 16sq just looks a bit small but I'm sure you or the designer have done the calcs.
But yes nice neat job.
 
I'm freshly back. :)

Reg 421.1.201, item (ii) refers to using a enclosure made from combustible material to be installed in a cabinet or enclosure made from non combustible material, i.e. comply with (i) or (ii).

MythBreakers videos - https://www.hager.co.uk/news-exhibitions-case-studies/news/amendment-3-to-bs-7671-2008/mythbreakers/56067.htm?mainvideoid=6dnZNI0bzRk

Unless they have changed the reg again in the 18th (I only have the BYB), there is no requirement to use intumescent seals in a CU made from non combustible material, only to maintain the IP ratings as per reg 416.2.1 (BYB). I don't believe the back of a CU requires this rating, although if someone could access the back, it would make common sense to maintain a similar IP rating.

Reg 421 etc actually says it shall "be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure", I don't view having a large hole at the back as being 'enclosed'.

That video only stats that Hager, have done the tests, it doesn't cover all CU manufacturers, and he actually ends by saying "you may need to use some of these to maintain IP standards" (Intumescent seals etc.)

Normally I would totally agree with you but it's the fact that the material behind the hole is highly combustible i.e. wood and you have to consider External Influences i.e. BE2 - Fire Risks, characteristics required for 'erection' are equipment made of material retarding the spread of flame. Air, comprising that opening doesn't comply with that.

and CB2 - Propagation of Fire; erection characteristics required are Fire barriers, again air and wood aren't a fire barrier.

There's quite a large stand off gap between the CU and the wooden back board; if there was a fire in any of these CU's they're installing, air will get sucked in from around the CU and they'll be a blow torch effect out of the back of this hole, onto the wood, but if you still think that it complies and is no risk because the rest of the case is made of metal, then so be it.
 
Reg 421 etc actually says it shall "be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure", I don't view having a large hole at the back as being 'enclosed'.

That video only stats that Hager, have done the tests, it doesn't cover all CU manufacturers, and he actually ends by saying "you may need to use some of these to maintain IP standards" (Intumescent seals etc.)

Normally I would totally agree with you but it's the fact that the material behind the hole is highly combustible i.e. wood and you have to consider External Influences i.e. BE2 - Fire Risks, characteristics required for 'erection' are equipment made of material retarding the spread of flame. Air, comprising that opening doesn't comply with that.

and CB2 - Propagation of Fire; erection characteristics required are Fire barriers, again air and wood aren't a fire barrier.

There's quite a large stand off gap between the CU and the wooden back board; if there was a fire in any of these CU's they're installing, air will get sucked in from around the CU and they'll be a blow torch effect out of the back of this hole, onto the wood, but if you still think that it complies and is no risk because the rest of the case is made of metal, then so be it.

I've read 421.1.201 many times; there's an OR between indent (i) & (ii), which means you can do either. Or do you place all your metal CU's inside a non combustible enclosure? There's no mention of using intumescent seals.
I must be reading your replies incorrectly.

In the Hager vid, Steve York only refers to seals/glands to maintain the IP standard; intumescent seals are not normally used to achieve a particular IP rating.

Electrical Safety First; https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1503/consumer-unit-mythbuster.pdf

If you chose to fill holes & entries with intumescent strip, thats up to you, but there is no requirement to do so, at the moment.

Metal CU's of the current design, are not fire proof, and if a fire did start inside one, would not fully contain it

When all these concepts about non combustible enclosures & reg 421.1.201 came into being the, the talk by some was to remove a source of fuel from a fire, not to try & contain it. IET have since changed this philosophy. If the design was to contain a fire in a domestic CU, it would need a complete design change.

I note that Wylex offer some intumescent pads for their CU's. They have produced a vid comparing CU's side by side under fire test. Quite frankly, I can't see an improved performance;
How to improve on Amendment 3 | Voltimum - https://news.voltilink.co.uk/articles/how-improve-amendment-3
 
Tellingly (if that’s a real word) they’ve had to put 700W of heating inside the CU to get some “action” in this test. And as you say, both CU went ok - neither had flames licking out. But then we weren’t told if they’d left the back cutouts in place or open etc.
Looking at the Wylex site they’ve an intumescent pad they put in the front flap. If that’s what they’ve used in the test I’m not really surprised at the result, as IMHO the metal flap does the necessary.
 

Reply to Critical feedback request - Consumer unit. in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock