GripLoc Consumer Unit Gland Kits

[uksparks]

Hi,

Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on these:

Watch: GripLoc Consumer Unit Gland Kits

What would you do? Use these? Another product maybe?

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I might in certain circumstances. But I am of the opinion that avoiding the use of top or high level cable entries is sufficient fire containment.

 

[uksparks]

You mean take them through the bottom as flames go upwards?

 

[Midwest]

I might in certain circumstances. But I am of the opinion that avoiding the use of top or high level cable entries is sufficient fire containment.

That is your opinion, and of course all opinions are correct, I'm not being sarcastic. However, there is, as far as I can found out, no requirement to contain a fire within a A3 CU. The only requirement as far as cable entry, is maintain the required IP rating. If you've not already seen it, here's a video from Harrogate 2015; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJvLT7uwO58&feature=youtu.be
Cable entry is discussed at 13.20.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Not only my opinion....GN4's as well.

 

[Midwest]

That is guidance, but okay, lets except the intention of the reg 412.1.201 is to contain a fire, as opposed to stop catching fire. Even guidance does not say, you cannot use the top entry of a CU. It just says to 'seal' the cable entries. Have you watched the vid?

 

[HappyHippyDad]

That is your opinion, and of course all opinions are correct, I'm not being sarcastic. However, there is, as far as I can found out, no requirement to contain a fire within a A3 CU. The only requirement as far as cable entry, is maintain the required IP rating. If you've not already seen it, here's a video from Harrogate 2015; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJvLT7uwO58&feature=youtu.be
Cable entry is discussed at 13.20.

I watched a little of the clip Midwest and I would have liked to have been there.. I would have had many questions.

It seemed as though they were suggesting there are different IP requirements for the top (IP4X) and sides (IPXX?? - didn't understand why he said xx??). they seemed to suggest that normal grommets 'may' not comply, which means they 'might' comply, again a bit confusing.

He also mentioned that the fancy cable grommets (as in UK's link) are not compulsary as long as the IP rating is maintained. However with a TT supply and a metal consumer unit he suggested that a specialist cable grommet for the tails and main earth would be a good idea so that it keeps the tails firmly in place and limits the possibility of the tails working loose and making the metal board live.

 

[Midwest]

The bit about cable entry, makes it clear IMO; there are no additional measures required for cable entry under A3, than there was for the previous amendment, i.e. intumescent seals etc. The panel members consisted of IET, Elecsa, Napit, Hager manufacturer and another person (who I didn't who he was from because of the poor sound quality at the start). They were all in agreement, however.

This reg change is not helped by differing interpretations of 421.1.201, with G4 suggesting the interpretation is fire containment and bodies like Elecsa/NICEIC etc interpreting it as removing the fuel from any fire. IMO, I can't see any benefit, by taking extra measure to 'seal' a A3 CU, when there's a dirt great loose flap on the front covering the MCB's etc.

The talk about grommets, is depending how they are installed would not comply with reg 416.2, horizontal/top (if accessible) IPXXD/IP4X & sides/bottom IPXXB/IP2X, i.e. you made the hole in the grommet too big!

Trunking, rear entry and even good old plywood are still acceptable methods of entry.

The glands mention in this thread, like the Wiska Sprint, are a necessity in TT supplies, but I still wouldn't rule them out in TN supplies, if not using the methods above.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

The bit about cable entry, makes it clear IMO; there are no additional measures required for cable entry under A3, than there was for the previous amendment, i.e. intumescent seals etc. The panel members consisted of IET, Elecsa, Napit, Hager manufacturer and another person (who I didn't who he was from because of the poor sound quality at the start). They were all in agreement, however.

This reg change is not helped by differing interpretations of 421.1.201, with G4 suggesting the interpretation is fire containment and bodies like Elecsa/NICEIC etc interpreting it as removing the fuel from any fire. IMO, I can't see any benefit, by taking extra measure to 'seal' a A3 CU, when there's a dirt great loose flap on the front covering the MCB's etc.

The talk about grommets, is depending how they are installed would not comply with reg 416.2, horizontal/top (if accessible) IPXXD/IP4X & sides/bottom IPXXB/IP2X, i.e. you made the hole in the grommet too big!

Trunking, rear entry and even good old plywood are still acceptable methods of entry.

The glands mention in this thread, like the Wiska Sprint, are a necessity in TT supplies, but I still wouldn't rule them out in TN supplies, if not using the methods above.

Stroma! Whom we are all becoming more familiar with.