AFDD

I have no results to add I'm afraid, but I'd also be very interested in any information your investigation  turns up as well. AFDDs have been in use in the USA for a while  but even there, it seems there is very little published, and even if there was, their wiring practices are so different (110V, wire nuts, breakers at the socket rather than at the board, far less test and inspect) that it would be difficult to read across into the effect into our  230V land. 

As you might expect the makers literature tends to give the impression that we'll all be burnt to death without them but there is very little objective data, and to be fair they are not very common in the sort of installations that have the most fires, which tend to be domestic, and the few places they are mandated tend to already have some maintenance supervision anyway.

Mike

Hi Mike! 

Thank you very much for your interesting response and comment!

I think the AFDD can be a very good device for safety protection but the demand has been quite small because of the relatively high price.

When I discussed with some manufacturers, they advised that the price of AFDD could be around 5 % of the current level if the demand was 

large enough. This is a chicken and egg situation. As an engineer, we always put consumer safety as our first priority and I would sincerely 

invite suggestions on how to convince the relevant parties to work together to encourage the use of AFDD. 

Hi Mike! 

Thank you very much for your interesting response and comment!

I think the AFDD can be a very good device for safety protection but the demand has been quite small because of the relatively high price.

When I discussed with some manufacturers, they advised that the price of AFDD could be around 5 % of the current level if the demand was 

large enough. This is a chicken and egg situation. As an engineer, we always put consumer safety as our first priority and I would sincerely 

invite suggestions on how to convince the relevant parties to work together to encourage the use of AFDD. 

Albert Law said:

As an engineer, we always put consumer safety as our first priority and I would sincerely 

invite suggestions on how to convince the relevant parties to work together to encourage the use of AFDD. 

I agree on the importance of consumer safety and that requires safety improvement measures should be based on evidence, to allow an analysis of costs and benefits to determine which safety threats are the most significant and which measures / controls provide the most cost effective improvements in consumer safety.

For example, it could be that other causes/mechanisms of electrical faults/fires are a greater safety risk, that other engineering improvements / control measures could provide greater safety improvement, or at lower cost than AFDDs. 

Probably the single most effective safety measure for protecting consumers against electrical fires and fires in general, is having a working smoke alarm, preferably a hard-wired one to ensure it remains powered 24/7, but while these are encouraged they are not mandatory for existing, privately occupied homes. We cannot assume that encouraging AFDDs is the most effective measure to aid consumer safety, it might be that taking a stronger line on smoke alarms and bringing requirements for provision and testing of wired smoke alarms the scope of the Wiring regulations would provide greater overall benefits at lower cost.

I found this report looking at fire incidents in Merseyside,and what jumps out as I guess you might expect, electrical fire injuries are only a small proportion of total fire injuries, so as Electrical engineers we have to be careful not to operate and think in a silo, assuming our area is the most important, when it may be other safety threats require more attention.

researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/.../Electrical Home Fire Injuries Analysis.pdf