O
Octopus
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:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Discuss Plastic versas Metal CU's - your chance to vote in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
I meant what is EWR?
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
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.
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!!
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!
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.
Reply to Plastic versas Metal CU's - your chance to vote in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net