Electricity is a source of energy and benefits until it gets out of hand. Having escaped to freedom, it can create many troubles, the main one of which is fire.
The main cause of fire hazardous situations is, of course, faulty electrical wiring. It is necessary to monitor the condition of the insulation of wires and cables, to replace damaged ones in time. Also, the old wiring made "under Tsar Pea" is a great fire hazard. Over time, the insulation of such wires simply dries out, cracks and crumbles, which can lead to a short circuit and a fire in the premises.
The old wiring was carried out with wires, the insulation quality of which was much lower than that of modern ones. It is worth remembering at least the cords of old electrical appliances in thread insulation or external open wiring on ceramic rollers.
The reason for the increased fire hazard may be an insufficient cross-section of conductive conductors (TPZh). A wire with a cross-section of TPZH 0.75mm2 is quite sufficient to connect a light bulb or even a chandelier. But if you connect a modern washing machine, iron or kettle to such a wire, it will get very hot, which will lead to melting of the insulation, and then to a short circuit. Strictly speaking, the cross-section of the TPZ is selected from the expected load either according to calculations or using ready-made tables at the design stage of the wiring.
Electricity leak
Damage to the insulation of the wires can lead to malfunctions such as leakage. This is the probability that, under certain conditions, some of the energy may not go where it should. A simple example. The wires are laid under the plaster.
In a dry state, it is an excellent insulator, therefore, damage to the insulation of the TPG is not detected in any way. But if, under some conditions, the plaster is moistened, for example, heating or water supply has leaked, it immediately becomes conductive, not even a source of electricity. If a person comes into contact with such a wall, electric shock is quite possible.
Short circuit and its causes
It is known that faulty electrical wiring leads to a short circuit, from which a fire most often occurs. This is often mentioned in fire reports. What is a short circuit, how is it dangerous?
In normal operation, the current in the wiring between the phase and neutral conductors flows through the load, which limits this current to a level that is safe for wiring. When the insulation is destroyed, the current flows, bypassing the load, immediately between the wires. Such a contact is called short, since it occurs in addition to the electrical appliance.
Question: I am the owner of a garden country house. As a result of improper use of electrical wiring in the house of a neighbor on the land plot, a fire broke out, due to the wind the fire moved to my house. There are documents from the energy supplying organization that he unauthorizedly, without installing an electric meter, connected his house to electricity in violation of the rules. There is also a certificate from the fire department that it happened as a result of a short circuit in a neighbor's house. Can I file a claim against the owner of a land house for compensation for property damage caused to my house?
Answer: you can certainly apply to your neighbor with a claim for compensation for property damage as a result of a fire that occurred through his fault.
So, in accordance with clause 14. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 05.06.2002 N 14 (as amended on 18.10.2012) "On judicial practice in cases of violation of fire safety rules, destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling fire ”it was established that the damage caused by fires to the person and property of a citizen or legal entity is subject to compensation in accordance with the rules set out in article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in full by the person who caused the harm. In this case, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the cost of property destroyed by fire, the costs of restoring or correcting property damaged as a result of a fire or during its extinguishing, as well as other losses caused by fire are subject to compensation (paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
The court has the right to reduce the amount of compensation for harm caused by a citizen, taking into account his property status, except for cases when the harm was caused by actions committed intentionally (paragraph 3 of Article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Lawyer, Alexander Vatolin.
An example from judicial practice:
Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court of 08.04.2016 in case N 33-11634 / 2016
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow City Court composed of the presiding judge A.M. Pashkevich,
judges Malykhina N.V., Zenina L.S.,
with secretary Z.,
having heard in open court on the report of judge Zenina L.S. the case on the appeal of S.S. against the decision of the Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow dated October 12, 2015, which decreed:
K.E. to S.V. to partially satisfy on recovery of damage.
Collect from S.The. in favor of K.E. damage in the amount of * rub., expenses for payment of legal services * rub.,
established:
Plaintiff K.E. went to court with a claim against the defendant C.The. on compensation for damage caused by fire, motivating their claims by the fact that * years through the fault of the defendant C.The. there was a fire, as a result of which the garden house belonging to the parties on the right of shared ownership burned down, located at: *, according to the cadastral passport, the cadastral value of the house was * rubles. * cop. In the garden house there was property belonging to the plaintiff, which was completely destroyed by the fire. The plaintiff went to court with this claim, where, after clarification in the order of Art. 39 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation of claims asked to recover in their favor from the defendant C.The. the amount of damage caused by the fire in the amount of * rubles, compensation for moral damage * rubles, the cost of legal services * rubles.
At the hearing, the plaintiff supported the claim on the grounds set out in the claim.
At the hearing the representative of the defendant, the defendant did not appear, the case was considered in their absence.
The court ruled the above decision, the cancellation of which, as unlawful, asks the defendant C.The. on the arguments of the submitted appeal.
In accordance with Art. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, civil proceedings are carried out on the basis of adversariality and equality of the parties, which can be fully implemented only if each of the persons participating in the case is given the opportunity to be present at the hearing.
The parties must be notified of the date, time and place of the hearing by the court using the means and methods provided for in Part 1 of Art. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
According to Art. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the persons participating in the case are notified or summoned to court by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, a summons with acknowledgment of receipt.
To the persons participating in the case, court notices and summons must be served in such a way that these persons have sufficient time to prepare for the case and appear in court on time (part 3 of article 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
A subpoena addressed to a citizen is handed to him personally against a receipt on the subpoena to be returned to the court (part 1 of article 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Considering the case in the absence of the defendant S.V., the court concluded that he had been duly notified of the place and time of the trial.
The case materials do not contain information about S.The. on the hearing of the case, scheduled for October 12, 2015, the summons on the day of the consideration of the case was not served on the addressee.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, in case of failure to appear at the court session of any of the persons participating in the case, in respect of whom there is no information about their notification, the proceedings are postponed.
In such circumstances, the panel of judges considers that the defendant C.The. was not properly notified of the trial scheduled for October 12, 2015, and was deprived of the right to present objections and evidence in the claim, which is a violation of the adversarial principle and equality of arms (Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
In accordance with paragraph 2 of part 4 of Art. 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the basis for canceling the decision of the court of first instance in any case is the consideration of the case in the absence of any of the persons participating in the case and not properly notified of the time and place of the court session.
Considering the above, consideration of the case on the merits in violation of the requirements of Art. Art. 113 - 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, by virtue of paragraph 2 of part 4 of Art. 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, is an unconditional basis for canceling a court decision on appeal.
Since in the course of the appeal hearing established inappropriate notification by the court of first instance of the defendant C.The. on the time and place of consideration of the case by the court of first instance, the court of appeal on April 08, 2016, guided by paragraph 2 of part 4 and part 5 of Art. 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, decided to proceed to the consideration of the case according to the rules of production in the court of first instance.
At the session of the panel of judges, the representative of the plaintiff K.L. asked to recover from the defendant C.The. the amount of damage in the amount of * rub., expenses for payment of legal services * rub.
Representatives of the defendant R. and S.S. at the session of the judicial collegium the claim was not recognized.
The panel of judges, considering the case according to the rules of the court of first instance, evaluating in aggregate the evidence presented in the case according to the rules of Art. Art. 12, 56, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, after hearing the participants in the process, considers it necessary to decide on a new decision in the case, while proceeding from the following.
In accordance with Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a person whose right has been violated may demand full compensation for losses caused to him, if the law or contract does not provide for compensation for losses in a smaller amount.
Losses are understood as expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make in order to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (real damage).
According to Art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as damage caused to the property of a legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm. A person who has caused harm shall be exempted from compensation for harm if he proves that the harm was caused through no fault of his.
By virtue of Art. 34 FZ RF dated 21.12.1994 N 69-FZ "On fire safety", citizens are required to comply with fire safety requirements.
In accordance with Art. 38 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 21, 1994 N 69-ФЗ "On Fire Safety", the owners of the property are responsible for violation of fire safety requirements in accordance with the current legislation.
In accordance with Art. 210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner bears the burden of maintaining his property.
According to the explanations given in clause 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court N 14 of 05.06.2002 "On judicial practice in cases of violation of fire safety rules, destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling of fire" harm caused by personal fires and property of a citizen is subject to compensation according to the rules set out in article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in full by the person who caused the harm. In this case, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the cost of property destroyed by fire, the costs of restoring or correcting property damaged as a result of a fire or during its extinguishing, as well as other losses caused by fire are subject to compensation (paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
As it was established by the court of first instance and follows from the materials of the case, the plaintiff K.E. and the defendant C.The. the garden house, located at the address: *, which * burned down as a result of a fire, belongs to the right of shared ownership.
From the materials of the case it follows that on this fact 13.11.2014 year and.about. Investigator OND in the Noginsk district of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia in the Moscow region, a decision was made to refuse to initiate a criminal case due to the absence of a crime event.
According to the cadastral passport for the specified garden house, its cadastral value is * rubles.
In order to establish the cause of the fire that occurred * year, the court of first instance, at the request of the defendant, appointed a forensic fire-technical examination, which was entrusted to LLC TsNPE "*", according to the conclusion of which N * from * year, the only reason for the fire of the country house, on the site * located at: *, there could be ignition of bedding and clothing as a result of their hit, both on the heated enclosing surface of the electric heater, as well as as a result of their hitting the open spiral itself or the heating element of the electric heating device connected to the electrical network. The focal zone was located in the southeastern part of the house on plot N * at floor level. The market value of the refurbishment of 1/2 of the share of the said house belonging to the plaintiff is * RUB.
At the hearing, the expert of LLC TsNPE “*” N., who conducted the forensic examination, was questioned, who fully supported the above expert opinion.
Since the conclusion of the forensic examination of LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year contains exhaustive answers to the questions raised by the court, is definite and has no contradictions, the conclusions of the examination are scientifically reasoned, substantiated and reliable, the expert was warned about criminal liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for giving a deliberately false opinion, he was explained the rights and obligations under Art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, there is no reason to doubt the competence of the expert, then the judicial board, considering the case according to the rules of the court of first instance, comes to the conclusion that when determining the cause of the fire that occurred * year on the site of the plaintiff and the defendant, it is necessary to be guided by the expert's opinion LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year.
The panel of judges finds the opinion of the experts of LLC CNPE "* N * from * from * year to be objective, and the conclusions are reasonable and reliable, there is also no reason to doubt the competence of the experts from the panel of judges, * year on the site located at the address: *, by fire considers it possible to put the conclusions of the specified forensic examination conclusion.
The panel of judges, having evaluated in aggregate the evidence presented in the case according to the rules of Art. Art. 12, 56, 67, 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, including the conclusion of the forensic examination of LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year, applying the given rules of law, comes to the conclusion that liability for material damage caused to the plaintiff should be imposed on the owner 1/2 of the share of the defendant S.V.'s house, since the fire occurred in the house on the land plot N *, the focal zone was located in the southeastern part of the house, which was used by the defendant S.V., failure to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the spontaneous combustion process as a heat source ignition in a combustible environment is in a causal relationship with the technical cause of the fire * year.
The panel of judges, considering the case according to the rules of the court of first instance, recognizes the conclusions of the forensic examination of LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year justified, since the examination was carried out by experts of the competent organization in the manner prescribed by law in accordance with the requirements of Art. Art. 79, 80, 84, 85, 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, forensic examination was assessed by the court according to the rules of Art. 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the experts have the appropriate qualifications and education, the expert examined site N * at the address: * where the fire occurred, the expert was warned of criminal liability under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, at his disposal were materials of a civil case, materials of an investigative check by acting Investigator OND in the Noginsky district of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergencies of Russia in the Moscow region from * year, during the examination, the received data were recorded.
Thus, resolving the stated claims of K.E. in order h. 3 tbsp. 196 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, evaluating in aggregate all the evidence presented by the parties according to the rules of Art., Art. 12, 56, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, taking into account the circumstances of this case, guided by the expert opinion of LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year, the judicial board recognizes it as reliable evidence in the case, agrees with the conclusions of the expert, having established the fact of damage to the property of the plaintiff as a result of the perpetrators actions of the defendant C.The., comes to the conclusion that the obligation to compensate for damage caused by the fire from * year to the defendant C.The., recovering from him in favor of the plaintiff the amount of damage in the amount of * RUB. * cop., expenses for payment of legal services * rubles, as well as in the order of Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation court costs for the examination in favor of OOO TsNPE "*" in the amount of * rubles, to the budget of the city of Moscow the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of * rubles.
Satisfying the claims and collecting from the defendant C.The. the amount of damage in the order of Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court is guided by the provisions of the current legislation and proceeds from the presence of a causal relationship between the actions of the defendant C.The. for improper performance of duties, as the owner of the land plot and the living quarters where the fire was located, and inflicted on the plaintiff K.E. as a result of fire damage.
The defendant's argument that the court unreasonably based the decision on the conclusion of the forensic examination LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year, about the viciousness of the conclusions of the said expert opinion, the judicial board cannot take into account, since the said examination was assessed by the court according to the rules of Art. Art. 12, 56, 67, 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial board has no grounds for a different assessment.
The arguments of the appeal about disagreement with the conclusion of the forensic examination of LLC TsNPE "*" N * from * year cannot be grounds for refusing to satisfy the claim, since they amount to a reassessment of the evidence collected in the case.
Since the defendant C.The., As the owner of the property, by virtue of Art. 38 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 21, 1994 N 69-ФЗ "On Fire Safety", Art. 210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was obliged to keep the property belonging to him in a fire condition, the arguments that he was not responsible for the occurrence of a fire, and, as a result, causing damage to the plaintiff K.E., the judicial board finds untenable.
From the materials of the case it follows that the forensic examination appointed at the request of the defendant, conducted by OOO TsNPE "*" N * from * year, was paid by the defendant in part, in the amount of * rubles, while the cost of the said examination is * rubles, in connection with which with the defendant C.The. in favor of LLC TsNPE "*" the costs of paying for a forensic examination in the amount of * rubles are subject to recovery.
In accordance with part 1 of Art. 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, lack of proof of the circumstances established by the court of first instance that are relevant to the case; inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of first instance, set out in the court decision, with the circumstances of the case; violation or incorrect application of the norms of substantive law or norms of procedural law is the basis for canceling the court decision on appeal.
According to paragraph 2 of Art. 328 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, based on the results of the consideration of the appeal, the submission, the court of the appellate instance has the right to cancel or change the decision of the court of first instance in whole or in part and make a new decision on the case.
According to paragraph 5 of clause 41 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of June 19, 2012 N 13 "On the application by the courts of the norms of civil procedural legislation governing proceedings in the court of appeal", the operative part of the appeal ruling issued following the results of the consideration of the case according to the rules of production in the court of first instance without taking into account the features provided for by Chapter 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, by virtue of part 4 of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, it must contain an indication of the cancellation of the court decision of the court of first instance, the withdrawal of the court of appeal on the stated requirements (satisfaction or refusal to satisfy the stated requirements in whole or in part, termination proceedings on the case or leaving the application without consideration in whole or in part), as well as an indication of the distribution of court costs.
In connection with the above, the decision of the Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow dated October 12, 2015 is subject to cancellation with the adoption of a new decision in the case to satisfy K.E. to recover from the defendant C.The. damage caused by fire, in the amount of * rub. * cop., expenses for payment of legal services in the amount of * rubles, in the order of Art. 98, 103 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation of court costs for the examination in favor of LLC "PetroExpert" in the amount of * rubles, to the budget of the city of Moscow expenses for payment of the state duty in the amount of * rubles.
Based on the foregoing, guided by Art., Art. 328 - 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation Judicial Collegium
defined:
The decision of the Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow of October 12, 2015 to cancel, to issue a new decision in the case.
Collect from S.The. in favor of K.E. on account of compensation for damage caused by fire, * rub. * cop., expenses for payment of legal services in the amount of * rubles.
Collect from S.The. to the budget of the city of Moscow the state duty in the amount of * RUB. * cop.
Collect from S.The. in favor of LLC "*" the costs of a forensic examination in the amount of * rubles.
Legal assistance in civil cases:
E-MAIL FOR COMMUNICATION:
[email protected] site
Lawyer, Alexander Vatolin.
In a private workshop for the restoration of old cars, the owner of which is a very good man, I sincerely sympathize with him, a very unpleasant event happened: a fire. The owner built this workshop himself. The fire broke out after four years of operation of the workshop for its intended purpose: locksmith, welding, assembly and other work. All work was carried out only on the first floor of the building. Electricity consumers: two electric boilers for 3 and 5 kW, a welding machine, a grinder, a drilling machine, emery, a compressor, a borehole pump, lighting. On the second floor there were auxiliary and administrative premises, as well as an introductory electrical panel. Consumers are common household appliances: stereo, TV, kettle and lighting.
In the photo, the workshop building before the fire, outside,
and inside.
From the story of the workshop owner: - "Usually all consumers were turned on at the same time ..."
On that day, the usual works for a workshop were carried out with an electric tool: a grinder and a perforator. At some point, the tension disappeared. An examination of the circuit breakers in the ground floor panel showed that they were on, from which the staff concluded that the electricity had been cut off. Half an hour passed when the workers in the workshop smelled burning. The owner of the workshop went up to the second floor and only then realized that there was a fire. An attempt to extinguish the fire with fire extinguishers did not give any result: the fire extinguishers turned out to be faulty, with an expired date. One was lucky: the firefighters arrived on time, and the building did not burn down to the ground. This is how the building began to look after the fire.
The power supply of the building was carried out in one phase, by a branch from the overhead power line with a 2x16 SIP cable, which entered the building through a hole in the wall, and was connected to an input circuit breaker in the electrical panel. The self-supporting insulated wire cable is laid behind a combustible wall sheathing, without protection. Here it is, the first violation of the PUE.
In the photo - what used to be an electrical panel
and the protection devices installed in it. Click on the picture to enlarge.
The photo shows a clear discrepancy between the rated currents of the circuit breakers and the permissible currents for the protected cables. This is the main mistake of all electricians - amateurs, which can lead to such sad consequences. Circuit breakers of unknown manufacturers are used. There is no differential protection. In addition, we see that the input circuit breaker is three-pole, has a characteristic D, and not C, from which, it would seem, it is already possible to draw a conclusion about the qualifications of the electrician who assembled the electrical panel. But let's wait and see what happened next. The input circuit breaker in the photo is shown in the off position. No, it didn't work. It could not work: the rated current is 80 A. It was turned off by the workshop owner in the process of extinguishing the fire.
Internal wiring in the building was done as follows. Two outgoing lines were made from the input switchboard with a KG 2x6 cable to the floor panels and protected by automatic switches for 40 and 50 A, this is a lot. They could not protect anything, they worked like knife switches. From the floor panels, outgoing lines with PVA cables 3x1.5 and 3x2.5 to lighting and sockets, respectively, the wiring in the boxes was performed by simple twisting. Please note: PVA wire was used! The wiring was carried out hidden, in a metal hose, and was laid in the voids of combustible building structures, which contradicts several points of the PUE at once.
If you carefully examine the photo of the electrical panel, you can see another violation of the rules: the stranded conductors of the flexible cables connected to the protection devices and the bus are not crimped with ferrules.
What caused the fire after all? On close inspection of what was left of the wiring, here's what was found.
In the photo we see that there is no cable in the burnt metal hose. Burned out completely. It burned just when the workshop staff assumed that the electricity was cut off. People sat and rested, waited for the lights to be turned on, not suspecting that there was a fire overhead.
Further "debriefing" showed the following. The input voltage was always below 220 volts.
From the story of the owner of the workshop: - “Sometimes it drops to 160 V, and the norm is 190 - 200. Very rarely, in the summer it was getting close to 215 V. I installed stabilizers. One stub for the automation of each boiler. For lighting on a stub per floor. On the sockets on the ground floor there is 3 kW, one line, the second line without a stub. And one more stub for 8 kW is powered by a separate cable from the input - copper 10 sq. Mm. to a separate socket on the ground floor. When, after installing the wiring, it was tested for several days. The electrician walked around, measured something. He said that everything is normal. Then, when they began to operate the premises, it turned out that the voltage in the network was very low. The emery spins slowly, the compressor starts up with difficulty, the grinder works at low speeds, etc. I decided to install stabilizers. After the installation of the stabilizers, the automatic machines ceased to cope. They were constantly knocked out. I went to consult an electrician. What has to do with different. Different versions began. "Everything is bad, you need to redo it!" In the end, "Put a stub! Solves all the problems!" But no one said that when the stabilizer was turned on, the current in the network increased. And no one said that the load on the network would increase either. All the more so about slot machines. Moreover, many people still have to prove that when the voltage drops, the current increases. Electricians! On the fingers, with formulas. And still, many do not understand. In the end, without hearing any intelligible answer, I changed the machines for more powerful ones ... "
Actually, according to Ohm's law, as the voltage decreases, the current decreases. The owner of the workshop is not an electrician, forgive him for his delusion. Installing stabilizers was his mistake. In order to save power, the stabilizer increases the output voltage by increasing the current in the primary circuit. A stabilizer from nowhere to take and add voltage cannot. How many times the voltage has dropped, the current will increase by the same amount. The machines began to turn off. We changed the machines. And the cable remains the same. The current increased, the cable caught fire, the machines did not work.
That's the whole reason for the fire. The electrician, if it is to blame, is that he performed the electrical wiring with an unthinkable number of violations. Rather, the fault is the supplier of poor quality services - the power supply organization. Well, the owner of the workshop, of course.
P. S.
The owner of the workshop did not give up, he is restoring it. Hats off to his determination and optimism. Now he ordered a power supply project, made a three-phase input. True, in accordance with those. conditions, the accession is like this.
Some strange tech. conditions. But this is a completely different topic.
The internal wiring will be done by qualified electricians this time. The workshop has not yet been completely renovated, but the second floor has been reconstructed, and from the outside the building looks even better than before the fire. But at what cost!
The place of the event and the name of the owner of the workshop, at his request, I do not name. Let's wish him good luck!
25-04-2013, 18:24 |
In a private workshop for the restoration of old cars, the owner of which is a very good man, I sincerely sympathize with him, a very unpleasant event happened: a fire. The owner built this workshop himself. The fire broke out after four years of operation of the workshop for its intended purpose: locksmith, welding, assembly and other work. All work was carried out only on the first floor of the building. Electricity consumers: two electric boilers for 3 and 5 kW, a welding machine, a grinder, a drilling machine, emery, a compressor, a borehole pump, lighting. On the second floor there were auxiliary and administrative premises, as well as an introductory electrical panel. Consumers are common household appliances: stereo, TV, kettle and lighting.
The photo shows the workshop building before the fire.
From the story of the workshop owner: - "Usually all consumers were turned on at the same time ..."
On that day, the usual works for a workshop were carried out with an electric tool: a grinder and a perforator. At some point, the tension disappeared. An examination of the circuit breakers in the ground floor panel showed that they were on, from which the staff concluded that the electricity had been cut off. Half an hour passed when the workers in the workshop smelled burning. The owner of the workshop went up to the second floor and only then realized that there was a fire. An attempt to extinguish the fire with fire extinguishers did not give any result: the fire extinguishers turned out to be faulty, with an expired date. One was lucky: the firefighters arrived on time, and the building did not burn down to the ground. This is how the building began to look after the fire.
The power supply of the building was carried out in one phase, by a branch from the overhead power line with a 2x16 SIP cable, which entered the building through a hole in the wall, and was connected to an input circuit breaker in the electrical panel. Here it is, the first violation.
In the photo - what used to be an electrical panel
and the protection devices installed in it. Click on the picture to enlarge.
The photo shows a clear discrepancy between the rated currents of the circuit breakers and the permissible currents for the protected cables. This is the main mistake of all electricians - amateurs, which can lead to such sad consequences. Circuit breakers of unknown manufacturers are used. There is no differential protection. In addition, we see that the input circuit breaker is three-pole, has a characteristic D, and not C, from which, it would seem, it is already possible to draw a conclusion about the qualifications of the electrician who assembled the electrical panel. But let's wait and see what happened next. The input circuit breaker in the photo is shown in the off position. No, it didn't work. It could not work: the rated current is 80 A. It was turned off by the workshop owner in the process of extinguishing the fire.
Internal wiring in the building was done as follows. Two outgoing lines were made from the input electrical panel with a KG 2x6 cable to the floor panels and protected by automatic switches for 40 and 50 A, this is a lot. They could not protect anything, they worked like knife switches. From the floor panels, outgoing lines with cables 3x1.5 and 3x2.5 to lighting and sockets, respectively, the wiring in the boxes was performed by simple twisting. Please note: a wire was used! The wiring was carried out hidden, in a metal hose, and was laid in the voids of combustible building structures, which contradicts several points at once.
If you carefully examine the photo of the electrical panel, you can see another violation of the rules: the stranded conductors of the flexible cables connected to the protection devices and the bus are not crimped with ferrules.
What caused the fire after all? On close inspection of what was left of the wiring, here's what was found.
In the photo we see that there is no cable in the burnt metal hose. Burned out completely. It burned just when the workshop staff assumed that the electricity was cut off. People sat and rested, waited for the lights to be turned on, not suspecting that there was a fire overhead.
Further "debriefing" showed the following. The input voltage was always below 220 volts.
From the story of the owner of the workshop: - “Sometimes it drops to 160 V, and the norm is 190 - 200. Very rarely, in the summer it was getting close to 215 V. I installed stabilizers. One stub for the automation of each boiler. For lighting on a stub per floor. On the sockets on the ground floor there is 3 kW, one line, the second line without a stub. And one more stub for 8 kW is powered by a separate cable from the input - copper 10 sq. Mm. to a separate socket on the ground floor. When, after installing the wiring, it was tested for several days. The electrician walked around, measured something. He said that everything is normal. Then, when they began to operate the premises, it turned out that the voltage in the network was very low. The emery spins slowly, the compressor starts up with difficulty, the grinder works at low speeds, etc. I decided to install stabilizers. After the installation of the stabilizers, the automatic machines ceased to cope. They were constantly knocked out. I went to consult an electrician. What has to do with different. Different versions began. "Everything is bad, you need to redo it!" In the end, "Put a stub! Solves all the problems!" But no one said that when the stabilizer was turned on, the current in the network increased. And no one said that the load on the network would increase either. All the more so about slot machines. Moreover, many people still have to prove that when the voltage drops, the current increases. Electricians! On the fingers, with formulas. And still, many do not understand. In the end, without hearing any intelligible answer, I changed the machines for more powerful ones ... "
Actually, according to Ohm's law, as the voltage decreases, the current decreases. The owner of the workshop is not an electrician, forgive him for his delusion. Installing stabilizers was his mistake. In order to save power, the stabilizer increases the output voltage by increasing the current in the primary circuit. A stabilizer from nowhere to take and add voltage cannot. How many times the voltage has dropped, the current will increase by the same amount. The machines began to turn off. We changed the machines. And the cable remains the same. The current increased, the cable caught fire, the machines did not work.
That's the whole reason for the fire. The electrician, if it is to blame, is that he performed the electrical wiring with an unthinkable number of violations. Rather, it is the supplier of poor quality services - the electricity supply organization - that is to blame. Well, the owner of the workshop, of course.
P. S.
The owner of the workshop did not give up, he is restoring it. Hats off to his determination and optimism. Now he ordered a power supply project, made a three-phase input. True, in accordance with those. conditions, the accession is like this.
Some strange tech. conditions. But this is a completely different topic.
The internal wiring will be done by qualified electricians this time. The workshop has not yet been completely renovated, but the second floor has been reconstructed, and from the outside the building looks even better than before the fire. But at what cost!
The place of the event and the name of the owner of the workshop, at his request, do not name. Let's wish him good luck!