Jump to content

DONT STAY LURKING AS A GUEST,

JOIN TEF AND BENEFIT FROM MEMBERSHIP:

CLICK HERE TO JOIN.

Recommended Posts

Murdoch

I rarely do EICRs so just want opinions on this

 

Garage cu, different make of mcbs to actual box. 

 

My feeling is C3

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder

IMHO, FI, as you do not know how the assembly will behave in the event of a fault.

Also, because the person who did the mix & match is now the manufacturer in law of the assembly, which means they are liable for any failures in that product, and may not be insured for product liability, most install electrician policies do not cover product liability.

I am pretty sure that if there is no damage, butchering of the housing or bus bar to make the breaker fit, and no signs of any thermal change, that we ended up with a C3 in CodeBreakers, which I disagreed with, but the majority won out because most of these mixed boards do not exhibit issues.

Also, IMHO, the higher the fault current, the more hazardous this would be from a fault current/arc venting issue.

Any butchering, bending, or thermal issues was a C2 in CodeBreakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch

No signs of thermal damage, so I'll go with a C3

 

I think an FI is a can of worms I don't want to disturb

 

As for code breakers ..... There's certainly some dubious guidance in there ...

 

Other suggestions welcome

Edited by Murdoch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProDave

For me if they fit, they are okay.  There are plenty of cases where the "correct" mcb is a much worse fit that a different make, e.g an old MK mcb in a new KM board. ditto for Wylex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder
4 hours ago, Murdoch said:

 

As for code breakers ..... There's certainly some dubious guidance in there ...

 

 

Really?

 

I am intrigued as to what you believe is dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™
15 minutes ago, Sidewinder said:

 

Really?

 

I am intrigued as to what you believe is dubious.

 

dont have the latest, but in an older version i had, i too though some were wrong. cant remember what they were now though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder
Just now, Andy™ said:

 

dont have the latest, but in an older version i had, i too though some were wrong. cant remember what they were now though

 

I don't see how they can be wrong Andy, they all correlate to the ESF BPG, and after that there is little that is right or wrong.

C1 could kill you now, single action and things could be over, such as exposed live parts.

C2 there is a latent defect in the installation which requires a second fault to become dangerous, e.g. no earth.

C3 requires improvement, could be better, but shouldn't kill you apart from in the event of unusual circumstances. or multiple other faults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
2 hours ago, Sidewinder said:

 

Really?

 

I am intrigued as to what you believe is dubious.

 

I was involved in a conversation with a number of sparks when the first edition came out .... 1 chap had the book and we were all contributing to things we disagreed with

 

problem is, the regs are too open to interpretation .... so the schemes stat with their own interpretations, but not in a united fashion 

 

normal money making scum earlier this week, telling a customer her plastic Cu was “illegal” and must be changed - I told the customer to ignore the bad advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder
49 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

 

I was involved in a conversation with a number of sparks when the first edition came out .... 1 chap had the book and we were all contributing to things we disagreed with

 

problem is, the regs are too open to interpretation .... so the schemes stat with their own interpretations, but not in a united fashion 

 

normal money making scum earlier this week, telling a customer her plastic Cu was “illegal” and must be changed - I told the customer to ignore the bad advice

Just because you disagree with it does not make it dubious or wrong.

The book was not written by a single person, nor were the final coding decisions made by one person, if you look at the list of those who have collaborated, then this will become clear.

 

Without doubt, we will agree over the scum stating that plastic CU is illegal though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
28 minutes ago, Sidewinder said:

Just because you disagree with it does not make it dubious or wrong.

The book was not written by a single person, nor were the final coding decisions made by one person, if you look at the list of those who have collaborated, then this will become clear.

 

Without doubt, we will agree over the scum stating that plastic CU is illegal though!

 

Metal fuseboards were an unnecessary change 

spds are an unnecessary change

afdds seem to have been quietly forgotten about 

 

bs 7671 is like the bible, different peoples thoughts about a similar subject. Code breakers is precisely the same.

 

its all about change for change sake to keep people spending money ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix

I'd go along with the C3 unless butchered guidence its against the manufaturers guidence, but we must keep things in perspective, the MCBs will be compliant to 60898 in themselves, what is missing is confirmation of compatability of the assembly as a whole, in reality the breakers are not going to be adversly affected by being next to another of a different make, maybe at very high ka ratings one make of breaker might have its casing damaged, but have the parts contained by an enclosure, and fitting that make in another enclosure thats weaker might then lead to both breaking, but thats an extreme example.

 

Even when not mixing and matching there could be problems, I note that many makes of swithgear have vents on the back, and the scew fixings are raised, so there is a small gap behind, with the purpose of if a big fault occurs inside, the pressure is realised, but goes backwards, away from anyone in front of the board, what happens if you mount it on a unistrut frame in the middle of an open aea in a factory, so the back is no longer against the wall. There is nothing in the instrutions saying you should not do this.

 

I've got an issue on a EICR at the moment, where there is a sectional panel board is back to back with a transformer, there is a local switchroom DB built into this panel, this was fed from a BS88 32A switchfuse unit in the panel, unortunatly some muppet has decided to replace the fuse holder with a B40 MCB rated at 6ka, the pfc is in excess of 20ka at this point. This is definatly a C2, but you have got to look sensibly a these things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder
12 hours ago, Murdoch said:

 

Metal fuseboards were an unnecessary change 

spds are an unnecessary change

afdds seem to have been quietly forgotten about 

 

bs 7671 is like the bible, different peoples thoughts about a similar subject. Code breakers is precisely the same.

 

its all about change for change sake to keep people spending money ...

 

Metal fuse boards, SPD’s & AFDD’s are nothing to do with CodeBreakers though.

 

Also, as far as these 3 things go.

The facts behind the. history of the requirement for metal fuseboards.

London Fire Brigade sit on JPEL/64, they are the representatives for the Fire & Rescue Services across the UK.

The number of intake related fires has been increasing, and the boards were found to be fuelling these fires.

Tests were done and many of the boards were extremely flammable.

 

Issue 1. board manufacturers cutting costs in exchange for profit, meant that strictly speaking the boards were not compliant and thus illegal for sale.

Issue 2. nobody has the balls or funds to take these manufacturers on to recall/remedy the boards in the field.

Issue 3. bad workmanship, the “industry” won’t tackle this because it will be an admission that they have allowed incompetent workers onto their approved schemes, however, the industry doesn’t care because they have made more profit out of this.

 

So LFB demand something is done, the only option is to remove the fuel, thus make the board out of non-combustible material.

 

Issue 4. LFB threaten JPEL/64 with the national FRS going to government and putting emergency legislation in place to force a change.  EL/64 fouls its breeks and pushes through the .202 reg.

Issue 5. Because steel is given as an example of a non-combustible material, BEAMA members get together and decide that they will all go steel.  There was no investment in alternative materials.  Noting however, that magnesium is illegal for use within buildings, and many aluminium alloys contain magnesium.  It may be metallurgically bound, but it is present.

Issue 6. Like sheep the whole industry follows BEAMA, members or no, because there is profit to be made.

Issue 7. over specifying & misunderstanding of the requirements, the ONLY thing that changed in BS 7671 was the material of the consumer unit, the IP ratings remained identical, and there is NO requirement to “fireproof” the consumer unit, so intumescent sealers/pillows etc. are NOT required by BS 7671.

Issue 8.  One of the bad things about reg 134.1.1 “take into account manufacturers instructions”, which allows the CU manufacturers to require fire sealing, pillows etc. over & above the requirements of BS 7671, which OK, yes, will make the installation safer, if, there is an issue in the CU, but if it is installed correctly then there will never be an issue, unless, the product, i.e. CU assembly is faulty, or incorrectly assembled.  My opinion on this is that those manufacturers requiring things over and above that which BS 7671 requires are either profiteering, or they are scared their product will not comply, and thus are passing the cost of mitigating the hazards posed by their poor quality product onto the end user.

 

No thought was given to TT installations because they are so few and far between (yeah right) LFB have probably never come across one!  Mitigating the hazards posed by conductive CU housings in TT was an after thought, and is still not understood by many sparks at the coal face.

 

 

There are a similar number of reasons for SPD’s & AFDD’s, and a similar number and reasons how and why they have been included, but, I’ve run out of time, I am way behind on reports & I have a solicitor breathing down my neck for an expert witness statement, so got to go for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Risteard
On 14/02/2020 at 11:44, Sidewinder said:

IMHO, FI, as you do not know how the assembly will behave in the event of a fault.

 

Agreed, and I genuinely don't believe that any other conclusion is tenable or credible - particularly where the conditional rating of 16kA is relied upon. And if NAPIT decided that C3 was appropriate without knowledge of the components etc. involved then they have been very foolish in my opinion.

Edited by Risteard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.