AFDD in 18th 2nd Amendment

[mainline]

is that for the 1926g

I looked a bit more and indeed you're right, not that i would use BG anyway as the last time i used one 3 of the mcbs were faulty.

 

[UNG]

Screwfix info says for the 1926g

Specification
Brand	British General
Cable Entry Points	Top, Bottom, Side & Rear
Construction Material (Electrical)	Aluminium
Consumer Unit Type	Garage
CSU Populated/Unpopulated	Populated
Current Rating	40 A
Fixings Supplied	Fixings Not Supplied
Integrity	Non High Integrity
IP Rating	IP65

�

You don't believe all that the Screwfix website says do you

 

[mainline]

You don't believe all that the Screwfix website says do you

I'll just quote Pete, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”

 

[davesparks]

I have fitted one of those BG units and I could have sworn it was a cast ally/lightweight alloy from the weight and the way it drilled.

 

[nicebutdim]

I have fitted one of those BG units and I could have sworn it was a cast ally/lightweight alloy from the weight and the way it drilled.

Just did a bit of digging as I know there have been changes to these boards over the years, but can not find anything which confirms if aluminium was ever used for the enclosure. I know they used to be (probably still are) cast, rather than pressed, which might account for the odd feel it had when drilling.

 

[mainline]

I have fitted one of those BG units and I could have sworn it was a cast ally/lightweight alloy from the weight and the way it drilled.

Same here, I remember taking a 20 mm hole saw to the side, and it was definitely an alloy cast type material.

 

[davesparks]

Same here, I remember taking a 20 mm hole saw to the side, and it was definitely an alloy cast type material.

It was definately a cast material, at the time I would have said a softer alloy, but since the spec sheet says steel I can only assume it was steel.

I don't have enough experience of die cast steel or any cast steel to really comment.

 

[GBDamo]

I checked the specs on them and it actually says its cast steel.

Unless they've changed them recently, I've drilled a few out and they ain't no steel I've ever seen, don't weigh that much either.

Could be wrong though, will have to check next time I see one.

 

[timhoward]

Prompted by a thought from @UNG on another thread.
Today I have been mostly eating thinking about cooker circuits...

If one of the AFDD-required building types has a 32A cooker circuit and an isolator with a socket on it.....do we interpret regs to say that an AFDD is required because of the socket on the cooker plate?
Or does the fact the regs says "final circuits supplying socket outlets" (plural) imply an exception ?!?!
It does seem clear that if you swap to an isolator without socket, or run a 40A rated circuit, you are back to no mandatory AFDD again.

Irrespective of the cooker plate, many ovens now have a plug on them and it's become quite common to find a double socket fed from the cooker circuit for hob ignition and plug-in-oven in certain new-builds.
So I guess cooker circuits are often going to need AFDD's anyway.

Hopefully this won't lead to plugs being chopped off things simply to cut costs.

 

[westward10]

AFDDs aren't suggested for your average dwelling.

 

[loz2754]

AFDDs aren't suggested for your average dwelling.

In fact they are suggested ("recommended") for all other premises than those specifically mentioned in 421.1.7

Perhaps you meant to use the word mandatory?

 

[westward10]

In fact they are suggested ("recommended") for all other premises than those specifically mentioned in 421.1.7

Perhaps you meant to use the word mandatory?

That's what happens when I only read a few lines

 

[UNG]

But are we back to looking at a hurriedly thought out amendment in order to justify an amendment and to meet an ongoing publication deadline

The more I look at amendment 2 and others highlighting bits I have missed or read in a different way it seems to cause more issues than it solves. There is a void in the knowledge and the desemination of information when it comes to AFDD's IMO, the introduction and mandatory use of some devices and enclosures has always been backed up with stats even if some were or are a bit dubious, AFDD's seem to have been parachuted into the market and will be mandated on some installations all in the space of 4 - 5 years with no actual information to back it up and calm the doubters, yes the US has been if it is to believed "installing" them for years but it also seems they have been uninstalling them just as quickly from comments across different forums

Playing devils advocate how did the introduction of e.g. metal consumer units apparently reduce the number of CU fires virtually overnight or was it just poor installation methods that have been corrected so where are all the stats for fires as a result of not having AFDD's or they have been rapidly foisted on the industry as a premptive measure to prevent a problem we don't necessarily have yet

So should there be more industry training and information put out with regard to AFDD's and the issues surrounding nuisance tripping and external testing and fault verification and the location of potential and actual arc faults so that those a sharp end have a better understanding of what they do and the benefits / risks of using them or not

 

[UNG]

In fact they are suggested ("recommended") for all other premises than those specifically mentioned in 421.1.7

Perhaps you meant to use the word mandatory?

But it begs the question how is one type residential installation at more risk than another

 

[loz2754]

But it begs the question how is one type residential installation at more risk than another

Indeed.

In fact the regulation goes on to say in Note 1:

"Higher risk residential buildings are ASSUMED to be....etc";

"It is ANTICIPATED that in many areas higher risk residential buildings will be defined in legislation which can be subject to change over time..."

About as clear as mud.