Plastic versas Metal CU's - your chance to vote

Octopus · Feb 16, 2015

Pretty much as the title says - lots of us have opinions but seeing as BEAMA seem to have ruled out plastic CU's lets have a poll - so please add your vote:

frontier219 · Feb 20, 2015

davesparks said:
I meant what is EWR?

Electricity at Work Regulations?

baldsparkies · Feb 20, 2015

Have looked at your link and what they say is set to provide even more confusion.
If you look further in the thread you will see references to plenty of ABS boards complying with 61349-3.
But that's only half the story for AMD 3.
They should also be constructed of non combustible material.
So the board manufacturers need to step up to the mark and not simply state the BSEN number.
If they intend for ABS to be a compliant material they need to state constructed from non combustible ABS to BSEN 61349-3.
And that's something they simply are not doing !!

Have to say reading it it's very misleading, and I am sure we will see more of that.
They do cover themselves on page 25 of that document IP2X metal enclosures complying with non combustible materials written in red, have a look.

Link refferred to in post 136 by jay spark

Jay Sparks · Feb 20, 2015

baldsparkies said:
Have looked at your link and what they say is set to provide even more confusion.
If you look further in the thread you will see references to plenty of ABS boards complying with 61349-3.
But that's only half the story for AMD 3.
They should also be constructed of non combustible material.
So the board manufacturers need to step up to the mark and not simply state the BSEN number.
If they intend for ABS to be a compliant material they need to state constructed from non combustible ABS to BSEN 61349-3.
And that's something they simply are not doing !!

Have to say reading it it's very misleading, and I am sure we will see more of that.
They do cover themselves on page 25 of that document IP2X metal enclosures complying with non combustible materials written in red, have a look.

Link refferred to in post 136 by jay spark

Confusing is what the BS7671 is all about.lol That's why in "non statutory"!lol they can't enforce something that we as electricians argue and debate about constantly.lol But I know what you mean!

The reason they won't say owt is because of all the dollar they are going to make from selling their metal CU's that have been sat in their warehouse, gathering dust.lol If they told us their plastic CU's meet the requirements of AMD 3, then we wouldn't be having these threads.lol

Jay

baldsparkies · Feb 20, 2015

I have read as much on this subject as I can.
And have come to a simple conclusion.
Unless the manufacturers and the IET get together and tell us that they have produced an ABS consumer unit that is classified as non combustible, with the appropriate BSEN number, and making it FULLY COMPLIANT with AMD 3
Then we are going to be left with our heads on the chopping block if we attempt to interpret any other material, other than ferrous steel as non combustible when referring to domestic CUs.
Its very wrong that we are being left with this total mess up.
Its even worse that the powers to be aren't addressing the CAUSE of these fires, or how they compare to other city's around the UK.
Or that the quality of the internal components aren't being improved upon.
But then its like a manufacturer not to admit to faulty materials, and poor connection points, for fear of recompense.
Or scheme providers not admitting to fast track courses that put inexperienced people out there, to fit boards all over peoples homes.
And giving them there trusted logo's with there blessing.
Or what kind of back lash this is going to produce when dealing with existing ABS consumer units.
There are going to be a lot of questions being asked and definitive answers required before any of us go over the trenches into a volley of bullets.
So its keep your heads down.
And lets just see how there going to worm, and explain, there way out of this one.

And as a footnote this surely can leave no doubt, that there IS doubt.

There is no published definition for the term ‘non combustible’ that aligns with the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. However, as stated in Note 1 to the regulation, ferrous metal, such as steel, is deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material.
Steel will no doubt be the material usually employed in the manufacture of the enclosure or cabinet. Nevertheless, it will be open to manufacturers to offer enclosures or cabinets made from other types of material that they claim to be non combustible within the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. In this case, however, the manufacturer would have to provide suitable evidence to support the claim of non combustibility, and it is not presently clear what criteria would be used to judge the non combustibility of a material other than non-ferrous metal.

So there it is.
Unless the manufacturer specifically states the material has been deemed non combustible, it's not.
And more to the point, to date, there not even clear on what criteria they should adopt for anything other than ferrous metal !!

Charlie_ · Feb 20, 2015

baldsparkies said:
I have read as much on this subject as I can.
And have come to a simple conclusion.
Unless the manufacturers and the IET get together and tell us that they have produced an ABS consumer unit that is classified as non combustible, with the appropriate BSEN number, and making it FULLY COMPLIANT with AMD 3
Then we are going to be left with our heads on the chopping block if we attempt to interpret any other material, other than ferrous steel as non combustible when referring to domestic CUs.
Its very wrong that we are being left with this total mess up.
Its even worse that the powers to be aren't addressing the CAUSE of these fires, or how they compare to other city's around the UK.
Or that the quality of the internal components aren't being improved upon.
But then its like a manufacturer not to admit to faulty materials, and poor connection points, for fear of recompense.
Or scheme providers not admitting to fast track courses that put inexperienced people out there, to fit boards all over peoples homes.
And giving them there trusted logo's with there blessing.
Or what kind of back lash this is going to produce when dealing with existing ABS consumer units.
There are going to be a lot of questions being asked and definitive answers required before any of us go over the trenches into a volley of bullets.
So its keep your heads down.
And lets just see how there going to worm, and explain, there way out of this one.

And as a footnote this surely can leave no doubt, that there IS doubt.

There is no published definition for the term ‘non combustible’ that aligns with the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. However, as stated in Note 1 to the regulation, ferrous metal, such as steel, is deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material.
Steel will no doubt be the material usually employed in the manufacture of the enclosure or cabinet. Nevertheless, it will be open to manufacturers to offer enclosures or cabinets made from other types of material that they claim to be non combustible within the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. In this case, however, the manufacturer would have to provide suitable evidence to support the claim of non combustibility, and it is not presently clear what criteria would be used to judge the non combustibility of a material other than non-ferrous metal.

And why why do they need to state 'Ferrous' why not non ferrous?
Does this now mean that we are not to use any sort of aluminium enclosure to house MCBs, etc?

TJ Anderson · Feb 20, 2015

Yeah Lee

. Give me some constructive solutions to these problems... NOW!!! lol

Leesparkykent · Feb 20, 2015

yes we should start fitting mantel units again haha

joking before any 1 starts

TJ Anderson · Feb 20, 2015

Leesparkykent said:
yes we should start fitting mantel units again haha

Cool. That DB must be in a home in an affluent area. They have RCBO's!!

Leesparkykent · Feb 20, 2015

TJ Anderson said:
Cool. That DB must be in a home in an affluent area. They have RCBO's!!

I hate mantel units with a passion lol.

Marvo · Feb 20, 2015

Okay guys, enough with the bickering. I've cleaned up the childish comments so no more please.

GB.Kayak · Feb 21, 2015

frontier219 said:
All manufacturers' CUs meet this BS. However, Amd 3 calls for all CUs installed in domestic premises to meet BS61349-3 AND be made of non-combustible material.

Thanks ... correct, but you missed the important corollary ... I strongly suspect that the vast majority of CUs, if not all, achieve compliance with BS61349-3 by being self-extinguishing within 30 secs of removal of the 960 deg C glow wire. They cannot therefore claim to be incombustible!

frontier219 · Feb 21, 2015

GB.Kayak said:
Thanks ... correct, but you missed the important corollary ... I strongly suspect that the vast majority of CUs, if not all, achieve compliance with BS61349-3 by being self-extinguishing within 30 secs of removal of the 960 deg C glow wire. They cannot therefore claim to be incombustible!

Whilst I totally understand this point, self-extinguishing and non-combustible have subtly different meanings. More pertinently, this is all semantics. In real terms the only option we have at the moment is a metal CU, or a metal/masonry enclosure around said CU.

The terms used and the way this has been done is wrong, I know - in fact, we all know. However, realistically the intention of this reg has been clear from day one, and I think it's about time we just accepted that it's happening and make the best of it.

richy3333 · Feb 21, 2015

It was mentioned to me that the next version of the Regs will give guidance on where these non combustible super metal boards should be stuck in a house. It was said that they will have to be sited by exit doors so homeowners can watch them smoldering and catching fire.

I do do wonder sometimes if these electrical organisations deliberately suggest a woolly and vague Reg amendment so it can then be thrashed out on various forums and then they can then make future Reg changes.

As 'official' comment has been made about connections not being tightened and thus the cause of these CU fires it would be nuts if the industry doesn't go back to twin screw terminals.

Octopus · Feb 21, 2015

richy3333 said:
As 'official' comment has been made about connections not being tightened and thus the cause of these CU fires it would be nuts if the industry doesn't go back to twin screw terminals.

110% agree

ipf · Feb 21, 2015

This 2 screw terminal business....agree. Problems occurred because of change over to mcb's, which only have the one terminal screw, a different type altogether.

'Oh, well we might as well make N and E a row of single screw terms on a sliver of brass ' save a chunk on production cost.....and who even mentioned it at the time?