How Things Are Funny
- Thread starter Badger
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
- Reaction score
- 1,071
It is, at the moment, the only material that any CU manufacturer is prepared to put their name to as being non combustible.
Essex,
Put the flags out, I agree with two of your posts on this thread.
The term is non-combustible, and it is described in building regulations and the test is from BS 476-4.
The issue is that the requirement is to remove the fire load so that the body of the cu does not catch fire and act as a ready source of fuel to propagate the situation.
There is no requirement for intumescent sealing, the IP rating merely needs to be as per existing IP4x for the top & IP2x for the other accessible faces.
There is no need for intumescent glands.
There is need for good installation practices.
The regulation only applies to domestic dwellings, their attached outbuildings and detached outbuildings where there is a risk of a fire spreading to the main dwelling.
The regulation does apply to all switchgear that comes "under" EN 61439, so that is a LOT of kit.
Put the flags out, I agree with two of your posts on this thread.
The term is non-combustible, and it is described in building regulations and the test is from BS 476-4.
The issue is that the requirement is to remove the fire load so that the body of the cu does not catch fire and act as a ready source of fuel to propagate the situation.
There is no requirement for intumescent sealing, the IP rating merely needs to be as per existing IP4x for the top & IP2x for the other accessible faces.
There is no need for intumescent glands.
There is need for good installation practices.
The regulation only applies to domestic dwellings, their attached outbuildings and detached outbuildings where there is a risk of a fire spreading to the main dwelling.
The regulation does apply to all switchgear that comes "under" EN 61439, so that is a LOT of kit.
Dairyspark
Member
Fireproof/non combustible are the same thing
Non Combustible: made of material that does not burn if exposed to fire
See also: incombustible
Fireproof: able to withstand fire or great heat
See also: Incombustible
Same thing.
Not necessarily sparkybob.
Non-combustible is defined in building regulations as a specific term.
The others are not.
The issue is the terminology, which was specifically required by LFB.
There is a reason for this, in that as Essex has said, there is a defined test for construction materials to prove that they are non-combustible, that is if they don't already appear on one of the standard lists of non-combustible construction materials.
This has all come about due to incompetent installation, and cheap manufacturing providing the fuel for the fire.
Back in 1989, there was an EU wide requirement for the following in ALL aspects of construction.
They are commonly known as essential requirements of the directive:
"2. Safety in case of fire
The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that in the event of an outbreak of fire:[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
- the load-bearing capacity of the construction can be assumed for a specific period of time,[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
- the generation and spread of fire and smoke within the works are limited,[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
- the spread of the fire to neighbouring construction works is limited,[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]- the safety of rescue teams is taken into consideration."[/SIZE]
Now, since then two of these have been ignored, not just by the electrical installation trades either.
However, that ignoring has now come to an end, and it has been forced upon is.
Any guesses as to which two?...
[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
Non-combustible is defined in building regulations as a specific term.
The others are not.
The issue is the terminology, which was specifically required by LFB.
There is a reason for this, in that as Essex has said, there is a defined test for construction materials to prove that they are non-combustible, that is if they don't already appear on one of the standard lists of non-combustible construction materials.
This has all come about due to incompetent installation, and cheap manufacturing providing the fuel for the fire.
Back in 1989, there was an EU wide requirement for the following in ALL aspects of construction.
They are commonly known as essential requirements of the directive:
"2. Safety in case of fire
The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that in the event of an outbreak of fire:[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
- the load-bearing capacity of the construction can be assumed for a specific period of time,[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
- the generation and spread of fire and smoke within the works are limited,[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
- the spread of the fire to neighbouring construction works is limited,[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]- the safety of rescue teams is taken into consideration."[/SIZE]
Now, since then two of these have been ignored, not just by the electrical installation trades either.
However, that ignoring has now come to an end, and it has been forced upon is.
Any guesses as to which two?...
[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
Dairyspark
Member
I'm going to guess the middle 2 lol
And I understand that the term is defined as non combustible which conforms to the standard, however I was only stating that in the terms of the use of the word they are the same so no need to get annoyed at people for saying one or the other.
Yes in months to come a version of plastic which is classed as Non combustible will be available for purchase by us fine lot of smart arsed argumentative electrical people's (after a quick Google search such a plastic does exist)
Until then the only on the shelf available to buy now from your local house of supply is made out of metal as, as quick get out manufacturers know that metal is non combustible so without any research and testing and approving can keep the IET/LFB/YMCA/OMG people's happy
Feeling brave and confident writing all that ........no doubt I'll still get told I'm doing it wrong haha
Also as a thought, what about CUs made of fibreglass?
And I understand that the term is defined as non combustible which conforms to the standard, however I was only stating that in the terms of the use of the word they are the same so no need to get annoyed at people for saying one or the other.
Yes in months to come a version of plastic which is classed as Non combustible will be available for purchase by us fine lot of smart arsed argumentative electrical people's (after a quick Google search such a plastic does exist)
Until then the only on the shelf available to buy now from your local house of supply is made out of metal as, as quick get out manufacturers know that metal is non combustible so without any research and testing and approving can keep the IET/LFB/YMCA/OMG people's happy
Feeling brave and confident writing all that ........no doubt I'll still get told I'm doing it wrong haha
Also as a thought, what about CUs made of fibreglass?
Last edited by a moderator:
IMHO it was the 2nd & 4th, but I'll give you the 3rd too.
2nd, the flammable plastic CU body.
4th cables inadequately supported in access routes for FRS.
Both of these had to be pressed upon us in the regs before they have been considered.
As I say, I'll give you the 3rd too, as TBH, that follows from the 2nd.
Fibreglass will burn, it can be made not to burn, as can other polymer materials as you suggest.
The issue we are up against is a trade association that has gone non-combustible = steel.
Who's annoyed, I tend to simply make statements on fact or on how things are written in the post I am answering.
If I was annoyed you'd know!
Oh BTW, almost everything is combustible under the right conditions, and some metals are even combustible under the test conditions for BS 476-4, it's just that steel isn't one of them!
2nd, the flammable plastic CU body.
4th cables inadequately supported in access routes for FRS.
Both of these had to be pressed upon us in the regs before they have been considered.
As I say, I'll give you the 3rd too, as TBH, that follows from the 2nd.
Fibreglass will burn, it can be made not to burn, as can other polymer materials as you suggest.
The issue we are up against is a trade association that has gone non-combustible = steel.
Who's annoyed, I tend to simply make statements on fact or on how things are written in the post I am answering.
If I was annoyed you'd know!
Oh BTW, almost everything is combustible under the right conditions, and some metals are even combustible under the test conditions for BS 476-4, it's just that steel isn't one of them!
Dairyspark
Member
Oh I've seen you annoyed on here before And I was only stating that in the terms of the English language it's the same, I was getting at anyone lol......well sort of
And yeah I'll agree that escape routes have been neglected.
The lifeboats we work on are made of fibreglass (glass matting with layers of Kevlar matting I between for strength) good strength and being bored at work I found out it's pretty decent against a gas torch So it was just a thought
And I agree everything at some point is combustible under the right conditions haha
And yeah I'll agree that escape routes have been neglected.
The lifeboats we work on are made of fibreglass (glass matting with layers of Kevlar matting I between for strength) good strength and being bored at work I found out it's pretty decent against a gas torch So it was just a thought
And I agree everything at some point is combustible under the right conditions haha
Carbon fibre,
Do you know how hot brakes get on an F1 car or motoGP bike.???
Do you know how hot brakes get on an F1 car or motoGP bike.???
F1 disks don't weigh much either when I had hold of one IIRC it weighed about the same as my Nokia 6310!
And, tbh,
The grade of carbon fibre required for a non combustible CU wouldn't actually cost very much at all.
The grade of carbon fibre required for a non combustible CU wouldn't actually cost very much at all.
Dairyspark
Member
I may be wrong as I often am on here haha but aren't carbon fibre and Kevlar different materials?
Yes they are Sparkybob, but they both can be non-combustible, however, carbon fibre, can also be combustible.
Kevlar however, as far as I know, and TBH, when it comes to kevlar, it really is not very far, because I've not had much to do with the material is non-combustible.
If anyone can point me in a direction that would be good.
Kevlar however, as far as I know, and TBH, when it comes to kevlar, it really is not very far, because I've not had much to do with the material is non-combustible.
If anyone can point me in a direction that would be good.
Dairyspark
Member
I will corner the market with Kevlar CUs for the affordable home! A millionaire I tell ye!......until amendment 4 outlaws them
At the end of the day a fully compliant plastic non combustible cu will melt & make a fair bit of smoke, the problem arises when you fill the cupboard & surrounding area where the cu is with combustible material add that to loose terminations in the melting cu & you have all the elements for a fire................................
stuffing the terminations (loose or otherwise) in a metal box will & does cut the advance of fire/heat propagation to surrounding materials.
to a degree the public need to learn fire spreads so don't cover the cu in coats,boxes & any other amount of household dross that gets slung under the stairs.
As a side note I went to a"no power fault" 8pm last night, get to the property out in the sticks (working by head torch again):
stuffing the terminations (loose or otherwise) in a metal box will & does cut the advance of fire/heat propagation to surrounding materials.
to a degree the public need to learn fire spreads so don't cover the cu in coats,boxes & any other amount of household dross that gets slung under the stairs.
As a side note I went to a"no power fault" 8pm last night, get to the property out in the sticks (working by head torch again):
- (pir tag gave it a 3 year old) cu dual RCD board both RCD's set fine
- TT supply with 16mm T/E sub to cu (cpc cut off as it happens but 10mm MEC from rod to cu)
- 63A switch fuse at meter cabinet with 100mA s type rcd not tripped.
- isolated RCD.
- undone screws to open enclosure to test
- pulled front cover found it was slightly stuck (mastic around top cable entry so thought that's stuck housings together)so pulled a little harder
- house lights flickered on & phone beep'd(let go of enclosure pfdq)
- Pulled suppliers cutout
- Opened mem enclosure to find neutral link from RCD to neutral bar had arced to near nothing at the bar & terminal bar had melted front & rear enclosure together, no earth at the switch fuse because that went from rod direct to cu in kitchen.
But it wasn't so your point is?
If I had stuck my tongue in the live side of the cutout.... See, makes no sense.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
- Reaction score
- 1,071
The FAULT would still have been the same, the neutral bar would still have spark eroded itself to oblivion. But with no earth to the box, there's a chance it could have become live and given you a shock.
Why did the N link overheat? Had is missed the cage clamp completely?, just not tight enough? or a carp design of clamp?
It annoys me the LFB think the "solution" is put it all in a metal box, rather than take a long hard look at the standards of the equipment on the market and strive to improve the termination methods.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
