Sealing a consumer unit entry points??

[leebut]

Hello Guys


I'm going to put my Tin hat on and close the curtains so the Regs police can't arrest me for asking this question again, I can only find old threads pre 18th edition so please advise me if I'm missing something


I've just been watching a guy on Youtube doing a board change who's said that to comply with the 18th edition of the Wiring Regulations you must seal ALL entry holes into a consumer unit regardless of them coming through the bottom, top, sides or rear entry with a suitable intumescent mastic to stop the spread of fire into the fabrication of the building!!!


I personally am NOT aware that anything changed in the 18th Edition to say all entry points have to be fire sealed I've been looking online tonight and can only find write ups from "Wiring Matters"

Stating


Sealing of wiring entries
It is important for the installer to seal all openings into the enclosure or cabinet for cables, conduits, trunking or ducting that remain after the installation of cables - see Figure 6. The intent of the sealing is to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable, any fire is contained within the enclosure or cabinet and the escape of flames to the surroundings of the cabinet or enclosure or into conduits trunking or ducting is minimised, as intended by Regulation 421.1.201.
Good workmanship and proper materials must be used, and account must be taken of the manufacturer’s relevant instructions, if any.


Regulation 421.1.201 Does not mention sealing any apertures in a consumer unit with, grommets, glands or sealant and does not mention that the Metal clad board cannot be fitted to a timber backboard. So why is the IET saying we are to be sealing the holes , personally I've been installing all my boards with cables entering from behind and mounting my boards on the existing wooden backboards using a length of stick on trunking as a framework around the consumer unit.


Am I wrong???

 

[Dustydazzler]

All this fuss over pretty much nothing...

If you want to caulk your fuse board then knock yourself out

If you don’t want to caulk it then fine just leave it caulk free

 

[Reevio]

All this fuss over pretty much nothing...

If you want to caulk your fuse board then knock yourself out

If you don’t want to caulk it then fine just leave it caulk free

spot-on best comment in this thread so far .

 

[ferg]

spot-on best comment in this thread so far .

I'd be pretty Pee'd off if I went to a job to add a circuit and someone had filled the rear entry with sealant for absolutely no reason.

By publishing your point of view as best practice or regulation you are encouraging others to think the same way. Inexperienced sparks and potential customers.

Spreading misinformation by accident is one thing but continuing to do it once you know better is something else.

 

[Reevio]

I'd be pretty Pee'd off if I went to a job to add a circuit and someone had filled the rear entry with sealant for absolutely no reason.

By publishing your point of view as best practice or regulation you are encouraging others to think the same way. Inexperienced sparks and potential customers.

Spreading misinformation by accident is one thing but continuing to do it once you know better is something else.

Please don’t exaggerate. Let’s be honest all I’m doing is filling the gap next to the cables that didn’t get filled.
You’d be a better man than me if you could add an extra circuit in a consumer unit mounted to the wall. Without 1 having to cut a patch in the ceiling or wall. 2 having to remove the consumer unit to gain entry.
Let’s be honest there are 2 other available knockouts on the rear of the consumer unit and around 10-12 available knockouts on the top? Appreciate your comment.

 

[Devonchris]

I use the sticky trunking to stand my metal clad consumer unit off the wall or wooden back board so my cables all enter the board through the rear entry holes so that flames from this non existent fire can’t escape the CU, I very rarely knock a knock out of either the sides or top

The fact you have created a void behind the CU with access for any heat and gases through the rear entry and into the void is, in effect, a chimney, with the possibility of, if gets hot enough, melting or setting fire to the top bit of trunking and therefore improving the chimney effect.

As others have said, I think there is a tendency, because of all the urban myths, to over think what should be a simple install. Just fix it to the wall, or a board, or whatever, that's what it was designed for without any revenue generating add ons from various manufacturers.

It's not supposed to be fire proof. It's designed to contain a fire within if one should occur. If a fire should occur there is not much in there that's going to burn anyway, which was the point in getting rid of the plastic.

Don't over think it and risk making it worst.

 

[Toneyz]

spot-on best comment in this thread so far .

There is nothing wrong to go above and beyond what BS7671 requires.

 

[leebut]

There is nothing wrong to go above and beyond what BS7671 requires.

Chris was told we are supposed to be sealing all entry points to the CU according The the wiring regulations by the guy running the course but that’s not what’s in the Regulations hence the post

 

[westward10]

Chris was told we are supposed to be sealing all entry points to the CU according The the wiring regulations by the guy running the course but that’s not what’s in the Regulations hence the post

You are spot on with your opening post. Problem here is the people who tutor the courses and scheme assessors feel the need to gild the lily and hence the blind follow the path.

 

[leebut]

You are spot on with your opening post. Problem here is the people who tutor the courses and scheme assessors feel the need to gild the lily and hence the blind follow the path.

So true, they should stick to the Regs book and not spread THEIR thoughts on it

 

[davesparks]

Maintaining the fire integrity of a metal consumer unit surely is common sense no?
My jtl guy that did our 18th is also an NICEIC inspector he was very passionate about fire safety to the point we should also be fitting intumescent pads in the back of plastic boxes in stud partitions. A little added protection never hurts anyone and for the sake of £2.89 I will continue to do so.

A metal consumer unit doesn't have 'fire integrity' to start with, so it's pretty hard to maintain something which doesn't exist! Metal CU's are manufactured from a non combustible material, this is very different from being fire rated.
If something does have a fire rating then it will have been tested and certified as such, and will have the details of this in the manufacturers instructions. If it is fire proof it will have a specific duration which it will remain fireproof for, usually 30,60 or 90 minutes. Nothing remains fireproof forever, nor will it remain fire proof if exposed to a high enough temperature.

Intumescent pads are required only when the back boxes are fitted in a wall which forms a fire barrier. You can generally tell the difference because it will be specified on the architects drawings or usually because it's a double thickness of 15mm plasterboard.

 

[Intoelectrics]

A larger distribution board in a commercial or industrial setting, might need different considerations; a simple domestic CU does not need all these fire retardant measures.

I never once said domestic Cu's do require it, I said I chose to do so. It maybe completely unnecessary, useless, pointless or what ever else people's opinions might be, I don't particularly care. I do what I feel is right and what helps me sleep at night. I lost a relative in a house fire many years back so I'm a little more sensitive to fire risk than maybe most.

The regs are there as a guide for at the very least the minimum requirements to make an install safe. If an installer chooses to do something that they feel improves the safety/integrity of an install and it does not violate the standards set, then that's their prerogative.

Some folk might change their view if they got their fingers burnt (excuse the pun)

 

[Midwest]

I never once said domestic Cu's do require it, I said I chose to do so. It maybe completely unnecessary, useless, pointless or what ever else people's opinions might be, I don't particularly care. I do what I feel is right and what helps me sleep at night. I lost a relative in a house fire many years back so I'm a little more sensitive to fire risk than maybe most.

The regs are there as a guide for at the very least the minimum requirements to make an install safe. If an installer chooses to do something that they feel improves the safety/integrity of an install and it does not violate the standards set, then that's their prerogative.

Some folk might change their view if they got their fingers burnt (excuse the pun)

I'm sorry you've lost a loved one due to a fire, condolences.

But as has been already said, some are interpreting this now old'ish regulation, with their own take on it. They are not the only ones, some manufacturers are doing it as well.

A CU is not a fire hazard, when installed properly, it will not spontaneously combust. All this reg has done, is remove a source of fuel from a potential fire. That was what was conceived when this reg was made, but now it has be conceived by some to be a containment of a potential fire. Ridiculous really, with an open aperture for devices & insecure lid.

 

[davesparks]

I lost a relative in a house fire many years back so I'm a little more sensitive to fire risk than maybe most.

The regs are there as a guide for at the very least the minimum requirements to make an install safe. If an installer chooses to do something that they feel improves the safety/integrity of an install and it does not violate the standards set, then that's their prerogative.

Some folk might change their view if they got their fingers burnt (excuse the pun)

Was this fire started by an electrical fault?

The point is that while the installer may feel like they are going above and beyond the requirements and making it safer than the minimum standards they are likely achieving absolutely nothing other than wasting time and materials. Also they often make the issue worse by misrepresenting their efforts as a requirement or a safety improvement they are neither.

This leads to problems down the line as people have an annoying habit of believing hearsay and gossip over things written in black and white in the regulations. Just look at the number rof things which get picked up on EICRs which are non-issues.

 

[richy3333]

Give me a call tomorrow we can have a chat

Body swerve and cop out eh?! I see no reason that you can’t put your response on here for the forum members to read?

I did try calling but after 437 guesses at your number I had to give up However I’m not really that keen on talking to sassanachs

 

[richy3333]

Was this fire started by an electrical fault?

The point is that while the installer may feel like they are going above and beyond the requirements and making it safer than the minimum standards they are likely achieving absolutely nothing other than wasting time and materials. Also they often make the issue worse by misrepresenting their efforts as a requirement or a safety improvement they are neither.

This leads to problems down the line as people have an annoying habit of believing hearsay and gossip over things written in black and white in the regulations. Just look at the number rof things which get picked up on EICRs which are non-issues.

Agreed. And who pays for all this extra unnecessary work - the customer I guess.