The holy grail of BS7671 amendment 3 plastic vs metal c/u's

[baldsparkies]

Consumer units compliant with amendment 3 have to pass some kind of glow test to BSEN61439-3

I like many have seen and read information suggesting that all domestic consumer units will shortly need to be installed constructed of steel rather than plastic as a result of this new wonder ruling.

It would appear that this is not the case.
And looks like another red herring that comes to light every time those bored people sitting around a table want to create some extra cash.

Once again its down to us sparks to try and pick the wood from the trees, so I thought this link might help clear some of the only metal clad rumours.

http://www.doepke.co.uk/catalogue/Cat-pdf/conunits.pdf

 

[D Skelton]

I haven't actually got a copy of the newly printed BYB in my hand so cannot actually comment on what it has to say, but the requirements regarding metal and/or non-combustible DBs have changed back and forth a million times!

'IF' the BYB says that DBs in a domestic need to comply with 61439-3 and it's requirement for non-combustible units to be 960 degree glow wire tested, then all is well, we will still be able to use plastic DBs as by January 2016, no reputable wholesaler will be selling plastic DBs that aren't 960 degree glow wire tested.

'IF' it doesn't, using one anyway is a very easily justified departure from the regulations. Just record it as such with a documented risk assessment and Robert's yer fathers brother. "I didn't use a metal DB because A. My customer asked me not to, and B. Because my risk assessment shows that having used the correct tools to ensure my connections are sound and tightened to the correct torque, there is just as much risk of this DB going up in flames as there is of a metal one FILLED with plastic components going up in flames"...

Simples.

Edit: Remember people, if the requirement is that we 'have' to use metal DBs in domestic installations, this will be the FIRST set of/amendment to UK electrical regulations that makes a distinction between requirements for domestic and non-domestic premises. Who do we have to thank for this? Yep, you guessed it, the scams! Their involvement with the IET has now ensured that their agenda is being enshrined in regulation! Unless we stick two fingers up to this nonsense it will only continue to get worse!

 

[Fin170]

"Sorry love but he's not a metal fuse box, gunna have to change it cos its againt law"

Money...money...money....

 

[TJ Anderson]

"Sorry love but he's not a metal fuse box, gunna have to change it cos its againt law"

Money...money...money....

Yep, That will definitely happen. It's a shambles. I can see it now, insulated Dual RCD boards being replaced.

 

[baldsparkies]

Its a cash cow all around, no matter how you look at it.
The comments regarding connections and proper workmanship are very valid.
If these are not provided throughout any domestic install then risk of fire can be generated any where within the property regardless of what bloody consumer unit you fit plastic of metal.

 

[Ib≤In≤Iz]

Just spent £170 on BS7671, OSG, GN1 & 3
:cry_smile:

 

[123]

Just spent £170 on BS7671, OSG, GN1 & 3
:cry_smile:

Best get used to doing that on a pretty regular basis

 

[daniel hill]

i had the electrium rep (wylex) in Friday and he has given me this catalogue
( http://www.electrium.co.uk/downloads/Wylex_NM_Metal_CU_catalogue.pdf )

its worth a look but expensive. the fire rated stuffing gland for the tails was £14 + vat !!

And they haven't even thought about how to fire seal the cables coming back entry from the large knock-out.

 

[ruston]

Just spent £170 on BS7671, OSG, GN1 & 3
:cry_smile:

Lol you could help us get our own back. If you have the last GN3 you could tell us if we need to change ours if the changes are significant. No breaches there I wouldn't think. Thanking you in advance , Another milked........................:smile5:

 

[Fin170]

i had the electrium rep (wylex) in Friday and he has given me this catalogue
( http://www.electrium.co.uk/downloads/Wylex_NM_Metal_CU_catalogue.pdf )

its worth a look but expensive. the fire rated stuffing gland for the tails was £14 + vat !!

At least wylex have finally made a board that does not look pants

As for £14+Vat for a special stuffing gland? Na, I'll use two normal ones and cut a slot in between*



*Not that I believe the people come up with this BS know much about eddy, herd of wallet inspectors not picking up on them before as well

 

[netblindpaul]

I'm no expert, however, I was NOT impressed by the proposed reg in the dpc.
So, I went off on a one, to find out as much as I could about this and the why's and wherefores.
This proposed reg has changed btw.
The dpc suggested 960 deg glow wire tested mtl would be OK.
This has been removed from the reg in the byb.

The requirement is that the material for the enclosure of the cu is not or not readily, combustible.
The 960 deg mtl is not considered suitable by the byb it seems as it is not mentioned, however the product standard requiring this is stated.
This enclosure can be the cu itself, or a surrounding enclosure, as long as this does not impair access to the cu itself must be of this material.

BEAMA and it's members in their infinite wisdom, and their representation on JPEL/64 have decided that in their opinion the only material to meet the intent of the reg is steel.
This does not preclude any other materials, it is just that BEAMA have announced that all their members will be going steel to meet the reg.

How this lines up with BS EN 61439-3 is yet to be seen.

The issue of cable entries has not, as yet, been mentioned officially as far as I can find.

This is an example of a workmanship standard influencing a product standard, now IMHO, that is wrong.

However JPEL/64 have been scared by LFB, rightly so.
The crux is though,incompetent installation of said cu's etc. however, no one is prepared to sort this out, so, they resort to damage limitation, thus, no flammable enclosures to contain the fire when the muppets muck it up.

As I have said in the past, I don't like it, however there is nothing I can do about it.
I would like to, and will try, but, I doubt it will be of any use.

This is very similar to the mix & match breakers issue.
IMHO.

Get used to it, it is here.

BEAMA member CU's will be metal, until they can find a material that they deem an alternative.

Now I am unhappy with the evidence of the testing done on 61439 compliant CU's I don't believe there was any, only on 60439 compliant CU's, and there is a heck of a difference in the material standards require.

Learn to live with it, as it is here to stay, at least for the time being.
Any manufacturer pedalling a 61439 CU in plastic which co,plies with the 960 deg glow wire test that states their CU meets the intent of the reg, is at the moment sailing very close to the wind, ad the byb states that this material is not compliant with the reg.

Personally I am unhappy that an installation standard is trying to influence a product standard, and insist on requirements over and above that of the product standard.

 

[D Skelton]

You let me right down Paul!!!

I was sitting on a bet and now I've lost!

'How long will it take NBP to jump all over this thread?' lol

I said no longer than five minutes, and it's been two days?!? WTF man?!? You're losing your edge! Old age must suck

 

[Gavin A]

The requirement is that the material for the enclosure of the cu is not or not readily, combustible.
The 960 deg mtl is not considered suitable by the byb it seems as it is not mentioned, however the product standard requiring this is stated.

I just asked an expert (professor of combustion engineering, course leader of a fire safety course for that taught have the countries fire safety officers for 3 decades / my dad), and in his opinion anything that was fire resistant to 960 degrees would meet the requirement of not being readily combustible.

Any manufacturers reading this who need to obtain an expert opinion on that feel free to get in touch.

That would presumably be why the regulations state 'or not readily combustible' as opposed to simply 'not combustible' which would have implied steel only.

The regulations quite rightly shouldn't specify any specific method or technique, as that would preclude any others that would have been equally viable but weren't specifically mentioned in the regulations.

 

[Flanders]

This was in a metel db so the mcbs still melt if not teminated correctly

 

[HandySparks]

Any manufacturer pedalling a 61439 CU in plastic which co,plies with the 960 deg glow wire test that states their CU meets the intent of the reg, is at the moment sailing very close to the wind, ad the byb states that this material is not compliant with the reg.

I don't have the byb yet.

Does it state that 960deg glow wire plastic is not compliant, or does it just fail to list it as compliant? (I understand that it lists steel as compliant?)

 

[davesparks]

I doubt it lists any materials, that would be far too definate. They normally prefer 'an example of could be' or similar ambiguous wording